In the final section of Matthew 25, our Lord famously speaks of the Last Judgment as consisting of the division between the “sheep” and the “goats.” The former receive their rightful inheritance as adopted sons of God, while the latter are cast away. The inheritance of the righteous is nothing less than the “kingdom prepared since the creation of the world”: the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is the communion of the Holy Spirit,1 and, specifically, Spirit-indwelt creation, the eschatological creation. Ultimately, the saints finally receive the dominion promised (and first lost in Adam) because they are in Christ–the New Adam–who makes the world His very body. The kingdom of God is true creation, and the righteous are true humans. The “outer darkness,” on the other hand, is a land of contradiction and falsehood (hence, it is, paradoxically, a darkness filled with fire), and those condemned to it are entirely deprived of the creative power of the Spirit. This deprivation is a blessing for the righteous, who are finally freed from the parasitic influence of the wicked, who have taken on a “mode of existence that does not in fact exist” and are therefore condemned to punishment for “infinite ages.”2 This mode of being is one of negativity or withdrawal, as opposed to the “positivity” communion, consisting of active giving-of-self to the other. When the wicked persecute the righteous, they enter into some relation with them. Still, it is a self-negating/false relation that ultimately ends in destroying all communal bonds. This self-negating activity is only possible because the world and the wicked remain in a state of “incompletion,” the former having not yet attained its final rest in God, the latter having yet to reach their final reprobation. When Christ returns in judgment, His fiery Spirit will fill the entire cosmos, and it will only be possible to do anything positive/creative through conscious and willful communion with Him. But, as we know, this is precisely what the damned refuse to do. Thus, while the righteous will receive “everlasting (aionion) life,” the reprobate will be condemned to “everlasting (aionian) punishment” (Matthew 25:46).
There has been much debate over the meaning of “aionian” in this context, especially concerning whether “all shall be saved.” To briefly comment on this issue, I think the lexical arguments are almost irrelevant because when the end of Matthew 25 is read in its full context, it is clearly speaking of the final, eschatological judgment (and not, as some have suggested, the millennium). In this context, we are told that the wicked will “go away” to everlasting punishment and the righteous to everlasting life—and it ends there. From my humble reading, there is simply zero hint of any hope for the wicked after this final judgment has taken place (conversely, it is clear that the saints attain their final, blessed and immovable rest in God). I spit on any philosophical argument—no matter how convincing it is to my fallen mind—that dares to contradict the words of our Lord. Still, I’m happy to hear any serious alternative interpretations of this passage.
But this passage is much more than an “infernalist proof-text”–far from it. Read properly, it contains the entire meaning and purpose of the created world, along with the specific reasons for why the wicked are banished from it into the outer darkness. First, let us begin by examining the meaning of the term “aionian” in this context, as it means more than simply “infinite duration.” We should note that, if this were meant to be a mere infernalist proof-text, our Lord would’ve used the term “aidios” instead of “aionian.” While the former simply means infinite duration, the latter possesses a more “thick” or “qualitative” meaning and is often used in contexts where it would be impossible for it to mean “infinite duration” (but in other cases–such as Matthew 25–it includes this meaning). The “aion” (age) to come consists of a qualitatively distinct sort of existence–eschatological being, the fullness of communion. The universalists rightly point this out:
Hart believes that “aionion punishment” need not signify duration of punishment but may intimate the kind of punishment the wicked will suffer (specifically, punishment proper to the final aeon). . . . Similarly, “aionion life” need not be speaking of duration but of the life that belongs to the Kingdom. Its intended meaning, in other words, is qualitative rather than quantitative: it points to the age to come.3
While rightly pointing out the qualitative dimensions of the term aionian, Fr. Kimel (and Hart) make a totally invalid move by positing an “either/or” between this “qualitative” thickness and “quantitative” length–this dichotomy is simply not suggested by either the context or the language itself. In fact, the context essentially excludes this dichotomization. Ironically, Fr. Lawrence Farley makes the exact same point–absent the “either/or”–in his book defending the traditional Christian view of eternal damnation:
Placing it in this context, we can see that aionion in Matthew 25:46 means “age” in the sense of “the age to come.” Existence in that age to come will be qualitatively different from existence in this present age. For one thing, at the start of the age to come, all the dead will be raised and restored to their bodies, so that life and death as we understand and experience them will be qualitatively different. Existence then will not be simply a prolonged version of existence as we experience it now. Like the aion or the age to come itself, existence in that age will indeed be unending, but for the righteous it will also partake of the immortality that will then fill that transfigured cosmos. Life then will be unlimited, overflowing with unshakeable joy and deathless power. The term “aionion life” therefore refers not simply to its endless duration, but primarily to its quality of communion with God. And the former is rooted in the latter.4
Father Lawrence, unlike David Bentley Hart, is actually a good reader of Scripture. Thus, he avoids the unjustified “either/or” between qualitative and quantitative eternity. As we’ve talked about at near aidios length, St. Dumitru Staniloae also understands true eternity to consist not only of infinite duration but of the fullness of communion. Eternity is “unending” because the communion between the three divine persons–which we are included in through deification/filial adoption in Christ–is an “inexhaustible source of continual newness”5 all while remaining perfectly complete in itself. Fr. Lawrence will point out that “aion” can also mean “world,” and therefore takes on a spatial connotation as well, such as in Hebrews 11:3: “By faith we understand that the worlds (aionas) were framed by the Word of God.” Again, St. Dumitru is helpful and relevant here, as he understands the “space” between persons/things to express the incompleteness of communion, just as time does. The fullness of the “aion,” however, is not a mere negation of space and time but their total consummation into the aion of communion, which they already are in an incomplete mode. So, in a sense, the eschaton is more temporal and more spatial than our present age because the true meaning of space and time is communion with God, and the world and history only “are” insofar as they are the “forms” or “measures” of our journey toward God, an unending journey (epektasis) that truly only begins when we are resurrected unto glory. Thus, the “age to come” consists of the world’s total union with God, that great Day when the whole creation is subject to the Father through being transformed into the body of His Son by the indwelling-power of the Holy Spirit.
But what of the reprobate in this time–how do they experience the eschatological union of the Creator and His creation? As discussed in this article, we interpret the “fiery torments” of the damned to be nothing other than the very presence of God within them. And yet, is not hell also described as the “outer darkness,” banishment from the divine presence? As hinted above, these two contradictory definitions point to the ontological absurdity of rebellion against God. Because hell is the utter abyss of a being’s rebellion against Being, its “mode of existence” is one of utter contradiction. Fr. Pavel Florensky describes this as the split between a person’s “in itself” and its “for itself” in The Pillar and Ground of the Truth. In the language of St. Maximus, this is the distinction between the “logos” of our being and the “tropos” of our being. Tropos can be translated as “mode of being,” and it refers to how creatures use the powers of their nature. According to Florensky and Maximus, our human nature–or what we objectively “are”–is totally redeemed, sanctified, and deified because it is now the human nature of the God-man. However, since the damned desire to preserve the self-(negating)autonomy they thought they had in this life (they never truly had it–insofar as they lived in sin, they lived in descent towards the inevitable end of utter perdition), this very deification is the cause of their torments. The resulting consequence is an internally “split subject,” to borrow a Lacanian term. This is how Fr. Pavel reads the parable of the sheep and the goats; in its spiritual meaning, it refers to the inner state of man, who, in this life, is torn between the sheep of virtue/communion and the goats of vice/self-assertion. Those who cling to their self-asserting passions, who create imaginary pseudo-realities that “do not in fact exist,” are not recognized by the Existent One. Instead, they depart into the place of eternal destruction, which, for Florensky, is the state of utter contradiction wherein self-assertion meets its very negation (the power of God). The very redemption of their “in itself”–what they objectively are–coincides with the condemnation of their “for itself,” the self-deceiving illusions they cling to. The damned say “I!”, but God says “We,” and God’s response is immediate and total. The “eternal destruction” of the damned is the eternal refutation of the lie they only began to utter in this life. But, since sin is self-negation, the “completion” of their utterance is precisely their fall into eternal silence, an eternality devoid of true life and creativity, a subjectively experienced “outer darkness” that has no place in the world as it really exists. This “total demonization” corresponds to the final split between one’s natural will (i.e. the power of human nature, which has been assumed and lived by Christ as God) and one’s personal will:
In this separation, neither the freedom nor the Divine image of man is annihilated. They are only disunited. But an evil character, who absolutely does not have the aspect of “Thou,” absolutely does not exist for God and for the righteous. No one is “Thou” for whom no one is “Thou.” Such a one is pure illusion, an illusion that exists only for him- self, and a snake biting its own tail can serve as his symbol. Madame Blavatskyc alled “spirits” by the expressive name “husks,” corresponding to the occultistic term “imagines.” Without considering the connection between man’s imago and his naked “for himself,” I will say that, in any case, the word “husk” is quite suitable for designating “for himself.” This is precisely the empty “skin” of the person, but without a body. It is a mask, an imago, without any substantiality. It goes without saying that I am considering the limiting case of total demonization.6
The naked “for itself” is not known by God because it is precisely that aspect of our personhood that refuses to reciprocate His love. Of course, Florensky is not claiming that God is ignorant of anything, nor did Christ in Matthew 7:23. Rather, since true “knowledge” consists of the mutual interiority of a self and an other, the damned neither truly know or are known, since their chosen mode of being is nothing other than the rejection of the other (and, therefore, negates the self).
Since prideful self-assertion–the failure to reciprocate the love of God–is the essence of damnable sin, the essence of salvific virtue is love of God and (or, rather, through) one’s neighbour. In loving the other, we extend beyond ourselves, and therefore “multiply the talents” of our being:
The one who received five talents earned five more, and the one who received two talents earned two more. But what do these words of the parable mean? If talents are an image of God, how can man, through his effort, through his creativity, add to the godlike being that he already has, double his image of God? Of course, it is in man’s power not to create this image but only to assimilate it, just as the living power of an organism does not create its nourishment but only assimilates it. Man does not add to his own person; he does not have the dunamis for this. But he assimilates it through the reception into himself of the Divine images of other people. Love is the dunamis through which everyone enriches and grows himself, absorbing others. But how does this happen? Through self-giving. Man receives as he gives. When he gives himself wholly in love, he receives himself, but grounded and deepened in another; that is, he doubles his being.7
To fail to love one’s neighbour is to fail to “double” one’s being in such a way and is, therefore, to condemn oneself to hellfire-in-isolation. Christ Himself says so Matthew 25:
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
The failure to love others is to participate in the destruction of creation that the reality of eternal hell resolves. This may seem “harsh” or “vulgar” to certain readers, but this is simply what Scripture teaches. The idea that the judgment of the wicked makes possible the blessings of the righteous is a persistent Scriptural pattern from Genesis to Revelation. The saints “under the altar” are not brought into heaven until Harlot Babylon is destroyed (Revelation 18-19), and the New Heavens and New Earth do not come about until Satan and the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars are cast into the lake of fire along with him (Revelation 21). In Revelation 20, the expressed reason Satan is “bound” during the millennium (the Church age, the period prior to the Second Coming) is “to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended” (Revelation 20:3). On account of Christ’s ascension into heaven as king, the devil’s ability to influence the creation (through the manipulation of man) is restricted.
Christ is humble–He forgives everything said and done against Him: "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32). Christ, unlike Adam, will not fail to protect His bride from the wicked who have rejected Him and, for this reason, attempt to persecute His Spirit-filled people. To attack the bride of God is to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which invokes the wrath of Christ. Thus, Christ sent the Romans to destroy apostate Jerusalem in 70 AD after they spent 40 years persecuting the Christians, and He Himself will return at the end of history to finally end the corrupting influence of evil on every created nature–even the very human nature of the damned! But, as discussed above, it’s precisely because the damned decry the deification of their “what-ness” that their “who-ness” becomes fragmented, absurd, and–according to that most “detestable doctrine”–eternally lost.8
Heavy stuff.
“By the Kingdom of God the Lord meant the grace of the Holy Spirit. This Kingdom of God is now within us, and the grace of the Holy Spirit shines upon us and warms us from without as well. It fills the surrounding air with many fragrant odours, sweetens our senses with heavenly delight and floods our hearts with unutterable joy. Our present state is that of which the Apostle says; The Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” St Seraphim Sarov, Acquisition of the Holy Spirit.
“If, however, it makes the wrong or mistaken use of these powers, delving into the world in a manner contrary to what is proper, it is obvious that it will succumb to dishonorable passions, and in the coming life will rightly be cast away from the presence of the divine glory, receiving the dreadful condemnation of being estranged from relation with God for infinite ages, a sentence so distressing that the soul will not be able to contest it, for it will have as a perpetually relentless accuser its own disposition, which created for it a mode of existence that in fact did not exist.” St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua to John (Ambiguum 21)
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/02/05/apprehending-apokatastasis-what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt/
Lawrence Farley, Unquenchable Fire.
Dumitru Staniloae, Eternity and Time.
Pavel Florensky, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth.
Ibid.
“We are told that [hell] is a detestable doctrine-and indeed, I too detest it from the bottom of my heart…I am not going to try to prove the doctrine tolerable. Let us make no mistake; it is not tolerable. But I think the doctrine can be shown to be moral….” C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain.
Hi Trey,
I appreciate your work, and this was a very well-written and interesting piece. That said, as one who thinks universalism and annihilationism are the only two exegetically feasible options, I disagree with much of what you say here. A couple brief observations:
1) You seem to suggest it's an argument against a universalist-consistent reading of the Sheep and the Goats passage that the passage simply ends with no suggestion of the redemption of the goats. But surely this is a non-sequitur. Christ's aim in this context was to threaten eschatological judgment in order to prompt repentance, not to explain how, when, or why there might be a further redemption beyond the aionion chastisement. Indeed, elaborating on the latter might have distracted from this repentance-prompting aim. Moreover, even in everyday contexts, we frequently make threats of certain consequences, knowing those consequences are finite, but omitting to mention that fact because it would distract from the point we're trying to make or the aim we have. When a parent threatens their children with some punishment, they typically don't say "And remember, after I send you to your room, you'll eventually come out, we'll reconcile, and you'll be perfectly happy again!" (even though they typically know this is what will subsequently occur). Why is that? Because in some contexts, for some audiences, we know that the behavior or remorse we're trying to prompt might not occur if we went on to elaborate about how everything would ultimately be alright in the end.
2) You wrongly accuse Hart and others of thinking 'aionion' can never have both a quantitative and a qualitative sense in a given passage. But to my knowledge, neither Hart nor any prominent universalist has ever suggested such a thing (or if they have, they need not). Instead, what they suggest is that this term can in some contexts have an exclusively quantitative meaning, in others an exclusively qualitative meaning, and in still others both. The suggestion, then, is just that, based on other passages in the NT implying universal salvation, we can reasonably take the sense in the Sheep and the Goats passage to be purely qualitative (though in other contexts we might interpret it both qualitatively and quantitatively).
At any rate, those are just a couple of my thoughts. Keep up the great work!
I come at this post from an angle which is not the hart and Kimmel position exactly as I have misgivings over certain premises of Hart’s which lead to a passive subject who’s incapable of veering from desiring the Good even as he pursues other goods which more or less lead his tropos into disjunction with his logoi and thus toward ill-being.
The major issues I take with your argument here is two pronged. The first prong is that many parables and sayings are pastoral and to encourage repentance. There is not in my mind any way to reconcile the New Testament’s clear annuity in my mind without keeping this in mind.
The second prong is that you picked the only quote of Maximus the Confessor I remember to potentially imply eternal annihilation or distance or whatever. Yet Maximus asks in another text essentially where will we be when God is all in all if we don’t participate in his energies through piety and virtue in this life? This may at first seem to confirm your impression but I think it is a) pastoral and b) who can go through this life and not participate to even an infinitesimal amount in God? The Holy Spirit is in all aspects of conscience law or adoption, and each to the degree possible should seek to abide in it. But even I’ll-being is not non-being, it’s a deficit of being. Thus in a sense this allows us if we follow Issac the Syrian and Gregory of Nyssa, to develop an idea of what occurs when we pass out of this world and open our eyes to eternal life. Those who have labored receive double wages and crowns, those who have been humbled and repented are purified by God’s love, and those who have been self loving and full of corruption take a long time for Gods love to become not an indictment but the means of turning them inside through that tiny bit of them that couldn’t help but remain in God.
The idea you presented that disturbed me was one which Aquinas held and I cannot sympathize with: “The idea that the judgment of the wicked makes possible the blessings of the righteous is a persistent Scriptural pattern from Genesis to Revelation.” What about Paul who kicks a sinner out of the church that he might be refined by fire. What about Christs descent into hades rendering him everywhere present and the gospel preached even there. When is death swallowed up in victory and hades despoiled?
If Christ abandons the flock for the one sheep and he speaks of the Father as running out to the prodigal son, in what way can we say he is no longer capable of the impossible.
Now with all this said I tend to hold universal salvation in tension with the necessary fear of Gehenna, but as I’ve grown older my motivation is not to escape hell but to become the person who God can work through to help raise people out of it. We pray for the dead and the liturgy is always offered by all and for all. Let us not give up on anyone and if necessary as st. Silouan did, think of ourselves as the one who will be the last in hell.