The foregoing conclusion is well-nigh unassailable, in view of the fact
that the early Christians believed in an Intermediate State, which they,
like the Jews and Greeks, called "Hades."
Justin Martyr (A.D. 147) declares that "those who say that there is no
Resurrection, but that, immediately after death, their souls are taken
up to Heaven, these are not to be accounted either Christians or Jews."
Tertullian (A.D. 200) states that "the souls of all men go to Hades
until the Resurrection; the souls of the just being in that part of
Hades called the 'Bosom of Abraham,' or 'Paradise.'"
Origen (A.D. 230) expresses the same views. Lactantius (A.D. 306)
writes, "Let no one think that souls are judged immediately after death;
for they are all detained in the same common place of keeping, until the
time come when the Supreme Judge shall enquire into their good or
evil deeds."
Our English New Testament represents the rich man as being in Hell. But
the translation is a false one. In the original Greek it is, "In Hades
he lifted up his eyes."
So, then, the rich man, though in another sphere than that of Lazarus,
was also in Hades. I am aware that some teachers have viewed this
parable as depicting the future condition of man, in happiness or
misery, in Heaven or Hell. But besides the locality in which the two
persons are placed being actually named, the context is against such a
supposition. At the time that Lazarus and Dives are shown in their
after-death experiences, this world is still in existence, and the
brothers of the rich man are then living on the earth, and the Judgment
is still distant. But Heaven and Hell will follow, not precede, the
close of the present Dispensation and the Judgment. We conclude,
therefore, that this parable distinctly affirms the truth of an
Intermediate-life.
The terms "eternal judgment" and "eternal punishment," have been dinned
into their ears of many from infancy, and they are unaware of the fact
that "eternal" is not a correct translation of the original Greek word
[Greek: aionios]; and moreover, that this word, "eternal" denotes
without beginning as well as without end, and is misapplied to anything
that is not beginningless. Again, there are hosts of earnest seekers
after God and truth (as numbers of letters sent to me testify), whose
acceptance of the Gospel of Christ is barred by this doctrine of
everlasting punishment. They suppose it to be a part of the teaching of
the Saviour; and they cannot embrace a religion which requires assent to
something that shocks all their moral instincts. For the sake of such
persons, it seems only right that we should examine this doctrine; that
we should show them what it really is, and upon what foundation it has
been built. Thus, and only thus, will they be brought to see that this
ugly human conception is not of God.
THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT HAS
BEEN BUILT.
We must look for this in the mistranslation of a few words in the Greek
New Testament. These words are:--(aion); (aionios); (krima); (krisis);
(krinein); and (katakrinein).
We shall show that the translators have dealt most misleadingly and
inconsistently with these words. They have translated them, in a number
or passages of Scripture in which they appear, strictly in accordance
with their true meanings, while into the words as they occur in other
passages they have imported meanings not only exaggerated and awful, but
such as to make Scripture contradictory of itself.
For the substantiation of this serious charge, we refer the reader to
the following _facts_ concerning each of the words instanced.
(a) The word (aion), and the adjective derived from it, (aionios).
We place these words first, because they are the terms that have been
rendered by the translators--"world without end," "forever and ever,"
"everlasting," and "eternal;" and it is upon the basis of these false
renderings that the terrible doctrine of everlasting punishment has
been reared.
The word [Greek: aion], in the singular, denotes an age, a period of
indefinite, but limited, duration, which may be either long or short. In
the plural, the word denotes ages, or periods, that may be extended, and
even vast, but still of limited duration.
The word cannot denote unendingness, commonly, but erroneously, termed
"eternity" by those who forget that eternity is without beginning as
well as without end. Else, how could the plural of the word be used, and
how could Scripture speak of "the aions" and "the aions of the aions"
(i.e., "the ages," and "the ages of the ages")? There can be no plural
to "eternity," and it is surely an absurdity to talk about "the
eternities" and "the eternities of the eternities." And yet the
translators, in some instances have deliberately imported into the word
[Greek: aion] the meaning of everlastingness, while excluding it in
other instances.
Here is an example, out of many:
In Mark iii. 29, the passage, according to the Greek, is: "He that shall
blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness all through the
aion (age), but is in danger of aionial judgment (i.e., the judgment
of an age)."
The translators have rendered this: "He that shall blaspheme against the
Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness (i.e., not forgiveness forever), but
is in danger of eternal damnation."
In this case, it will be seen that they have imported the idea of
unendingness into the word [Greek: aion] and the idea of "eternal" into
its adjective, [Greek: aionios].
In Matthew xiii. 39, the passage, according to the Greek is: "The
harvest is the end of the aion (age);" and in 2 Tim. iv. 10: "Demas hath
forsaken me, having loved the present aion (age)."
The translators have rendered these passages: "The harvest is the end of
the world." "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world."
In these cases, it will be seen that they have rightly excluded the idea
of unendingness from the word [Greek: aion]. But why? we ask. If it was
right to include it in Mark iii. 29, it was wrong to exclude it in the
two last-named passages. Then why exclude it? The answer is, that it
would have been too utterly foolish to translate Matthew xiii. 39, as
"The harvest is the end of the forever," and 2 Tim. iv. 10, as "Demas
hath forsaken me, having loved the present eternity"--and so the
translators in these instances gave the word its true signification.
But can it, we ask, be right to treat language in this way--to make a
word mean one thing to serve the purposes of a doctrinal idea, and to
make it mean something essentially opposite, when that idea is not
involved? Does anyone imagine that the translators would have introduced
this contradiction, and have translated the Greek of Mark xiii. 29, as
they have done, unless they had gone to this text with the preconceived
idea that a certain sin can never be forgiven, and therefore that the
passage must be strained and contorted to endorse the idea? It is an
instance, not of founding theology upon Scripture, but of twisting
Scripture to suit theology. One thing is quite certain. It cannot be
right to translate a word in some passages in one sense, and to
translate it in other passages in an antagonistic sense. The word
[Greek: aion] cannot denote a period of limitation, and also
unendingness. If it denotes the one it does not denote the other. The
one definition excludes the other. No one, in his senses, dreams of
defining a day as a period of twelve hours under one set of
circumstances, and also as being the equivalent of all time under other
circumstances. We have to determine what is the true definition of
[Greek: aion]. If it can be shown that the essential meaning of the word
is that of limited duration, then the case is very clear; the
translators were not justified in foisting into it the idea of
unendingness; and this being so, a huge superstructure of doctrine,
reared upon the mistranslation, will totter and fall, and an awful
nightmare will be lifted from the Christian religion.
An adjective qualifies its noun, and we cannot import into the adjective
more than is contained in the noun. We may speak of the race of mankind
as "humanity," and describe the existence of the race as "human life,"
but we should not be so absurd as to define "human" in that phrase as
signifying "Divine."
And yet the translators have been guilty of committing a similar error
in translating the word [Greek: aion] in the passages instanced as
"world," which is equivalent to an age, and expresses limitation; while
translating [Greek: aionios] as "everlasting" and "eternal;" both of
which terms exclude limitation.
We ask, does this commend itself as being a fair way of dealing with a
book which contains a record of Divine truth?
We pass on to the brief consideration of a few other words that have
been dealt with unfairly, in order, if not to found, at all events to
buttress, this doctrine of everlasting punishment.
(b) The word (krima). The word denotes judgment; the sentence
pronounced. As such the translators of the Authorized Version rightly
rendered it in many passages of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles
(e.g., Matt. vii. 2; John ix. 39; Acts xxiv. 25; and Rom. ii. 2). But
here is the inconsistency. In Matt, xxiii. 14; Mark xii. 40; Luke xx.
47; Rom. in. 8; xiii. 2; I Cor. xi. 29; and I Tim. v. 12, they
substituted the word "damnation" for it. We will say nothing about this
word "damnation," except that it is an evil-sounding word, whose
original meaning has been exaggerated and perverted; and a word that
more than any other has been employed to support the awful doctrine we
are opposing.
But why did the translators alter the reading? Why render [Greek: krima]
as "judgment" in some places, and as "damnation" in others? The answer
is--These last named passages were viewed as pointing to future
punishment; the translators' idea of future punishment was that of
endless suffering and misery; and the word "damnation" was considered to
be better suited to the popular theological error than the proper and
milder word, "judgment." Our contention is, if the word "damnation" be
right in one passage, it is right in another. Why, for example, did they
not translate John ix. 39, so as to represent our Lord as saying--"For
damnation ([Greek: krimas]) I came into this world?" They gave the true
rendering in this and other passages, because it would have been too
absurd not to do so.
That these criticisms are not unjustified is seen in the fact that the
New Testament revisers have discarded the word "damnation" in the above
passages, and in Rom. xiii. 2 and I Cor. xi. 29, have correctly rendered
[Greek: krima] as "judgment."
We are thankful to them for this service in the interests of truth.