Matthew 25:46 - Ellicott's Commentary On The Whole Bible

Everlasting punishment... life eternal. — The two adjectives represent one and the same Greek word, αἰώνιος, and we ought therefore to have the same word in both clauses in the English. Of the two words, “eternal” is philologically preferable, as being traceably connected with the Greek, the Latin ætemus being derived from ætas, and that from ævum, which, in its turn, is but another form of the Greek ἀιὼν (æon). The bearing of the passage on the nature and duration of future punishment is too important to be passed over; and though the question is too wide to be determined by a single text, all that the text contributes to its solution should be fully and fairly weighed. On the one hand, then, it is urged that as we hold the “eternal life” to have no end, so we must hold also the endlessness of the “eternal fire.” On the other hand, it must be admitted (1) that the Greek word which is rendered “eternal,” does not in itself involve endlessness, but rather duration, whether through an age or a succession of ages; and that it is therefore applied in the New Testament to periods of time that have had both beginning and ending (Romans 16:25, where the Greek is “from æonian times,” our version giving “since the world began” — comp. 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2), and in the Greek version of the Old Testament to institutions and ordinances that were confessedly to wax old and vanish away (Genesis 17:8; Leviticus 3:17); and (2) that in the language of a Greek Father (Gregory of Nyssa, who held the doctrine of the restitution of all things) it is even connected with the word “interval,” as expressing the duration of the penal discipline which was, he believed, to come to an end after an æonian intervening period. Strictly speaking, therefore, the word, as such, and apart from its association with any qualifying substantive, implies a vast undefined duration, rather than one in the full sense of the word “infinite.” The solemnity of the words at the close of the great prophecy of judgment tends obviously to the conclusion that our Lord meant His disciples, and through them His people in all ages, to dwell upon the division which was involved in the very idea of judgment, as one which was not to be changed. Men must reap as they have sown, and the consequences of evil deeds, or of failure to perform good deeds, must, in the nature of the case, work out their retribution, so far as we can see, with no assignable limit. On the other hand, once again, (1) the symbolism of Scriptural language suggests the thought that “fire” is not necessarily the material element that inflicts unutterable torture on the body, and that the penalty of sin may possibly be an intense and terrible consciousness of the presence of God, who is as a “consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29) in the infinite majesty of His holiness, united with the sense of being at variance with it, and therefore under condemnation. And (2), assuming the perpetuity of the “punishment,” it does not involve necessarily an equality of suffering for the whole multitude of the condemned at any time, nor for any single soul throughout its whole duration. Without dwelling, as some have done, on the fact that the Greek word here used for “punishment” had acquired a definite significance as used by ethical writers for reformative rather than vindictive or purely retributive suffering (Aristot. Rhet. i. 10), it is yet conceivable that the acceptance of suffering as deserved may mitigate its severity; and we cannot, consistently with any true thoughts of God, conceive of Him as fixing, by an irresistible decree, the will of any created being in the attitude of resistance to His will. That such resistance is fatally possible we see by a wide and painful experience, and as the “hardening” in such cases is the result of a divine law, it may, from one point of view, be described as the act of God (Romans 9:18); but a like experience attests that, though suffering does not cease to be suffering, it may yet lose something of its bitterness by being accepted as deserved, and the law of continuity and analogy, which, to say the least, must be allowed some weight in our thoughts of the life to come, suggests that it may be so there also. (For other aspects of this momentous question, see Notes on Matthew 5:26; Matthew 18:34.) (3) As to the nature of the “eternal life” which is thus promised to those who follow the guidance of the Light that lighteth every man, we must remember, that within a few short hours of the utterance of these words, it was defined by our Lord in the hearing of those who listened to them: “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (John 17:3). That life in its very nature tends to perpetuity, and it is absolutely inconceivable that after having lasted through the ages which the word “eternal,” on any etymological explanation, implies, it should then fail and cease.