Objection:
The Bible speaks of “everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:46) for the wicked, of “everlasting fire” (verse 41) in which they will burn, and of their being “tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev. 20:10). That proves the immortality of the soul.
Answer:
[We will use Hebrew and Greek to address this objection and satisfy laypeople and scholars since we frequently engage with both.]
The words translated “everlasting” and “for ever” do not necessarily mean never ending. In the New Testament, these terms come from the Greek noun aiōn or the adjective aiōnios derived from this noun. When we examine various Scripture texts containing aiōn, we discover how impossible it would be to attempt to make this Greek root always mean an endless period. We read in Matthew 13:39 and elsewhere of “the end of the world [aiōn].” How could there be an “end” to something if it were endless? (Here is an illustration of where aiōn might be translated as “age,” the “world” being viewed in its aspect of time. In Colossians 1:26, aiōn is thus translated.) We read of Christ that He has been exalted above “every name that is named, not only in this world [aiōn], but also in that which is to come.” Eph. 1:21. We read of “this present world [aiōn].” 2 Tim. 4:10. Thus again we see that an aiōn can have an end, for this present aiōn is to be followed by another and a different one. The Bible speaks of what “God ordained before the world [aiōn]. 1 Cor. 2:7.
Of Christ, we read also, “Thou art a priest for ever [aiōn].” Heb. 5:6. Here, “for ever,” or aiōn, clearly means this present period, for all theologians agree that Christ’s work as a priest ends when sin has been blotted out. (The job of a priest is to deal with sin. See Heb. 2:17 and 5:1).
Paul, writing to Philemon regarding the return of his servant Onesimus, said, “Thou shouldest receive him for ever [aiōnios]. . . . both in the flesh, and in the Lord?” Philemon 15, 16. (Here, we have the adjective that is derived from aiōn.)
H. C. G. Moule, in that scholarly commentary, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, remarks on this text:
“The adjective tends to mark duration as long as the nature of the subject allows. And by usage it has a close connexion with things spiritual. “For ever” here thus imports both natural and spiritual permanence of restoration; “for ever” on earth, and then hereafter; a final return to Philemon’s home, with a prospect of heaven in Philemon’s company.”
We need not raise the question of whether Moule has altogether correctly measured Paul’s words. We inquire: How could Philemon have Onesimus “for ever” on earth, and then “hereafter,” unless the earthly “for ever” had an end to it?
We read of “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them . . . suffering the vengeance of eternal [aiōnios] fire.” Jude 7. Are those cities, set ablaze long ago as a divine judgment, still burning? No, their ruins are entirely submerged by the Dead Sea. The Bible itself explicitly states that God turned “the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes.” 2 Peter 2:6. Now the fate of these cities is declared to be a warning to all wicked men of the fate that impends for them. Therefore, if the “aiōnios fire” of that long-ago judgment turned into ashes those upon whom it preyed and then died down itself, we may properly conclude that the “aiōnios fire” of the last day will do likewise.
When we turn to the Old Testament, we discover that “everlasting” and “for ever” sometimes signify a minimal time. We shall quote texts in which these two terms are translated from the Hebrew word ‘ôlâm, because ‘ôlâm is the equivalent of the Greek aiōn.
The Passover was to be kept “for ever [‘ôlâm].” Ex. 12:24. But it ended with the cross. (See Heb. 9:24–26). Aaron and his sons were to offer incense “for ever [‘ôlâm]” (1 Chron. 23:13) and to have an “everlasting [‘ôlâm] priesthood.” Ex. 40:15. But this priesthood, with its incense offerings, ended at the cross. (See Heb. 7:11–14). A servant who desired to stay with his master was to serve him “for ever [‘ôlâm].” (See Ex. 21:1–6). How could a servant serve a master for endless time? Will there be masters and servants in the world to come? In describing his watery experience, Jonah said, “The earth with her bars was about me for ever [‘ôlâm].” Jonah 2:6. Yet this “for ever” was only “three days and three nights” long. Jonah 1:17. Rather a short “for ever.” Because Gehazi practiced deceit, Elisha declared, “The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee [Gehazi], and unto thy seed for ever [‘ôlâm].” 2 Kings 5:27. Should we conclude, therefore, that Gehazi’s family would never end, and that thus leprosy would be perpetuated for all time to come?
Thus, by the acid test of actual usage, we discover that in many cases, aiōn, aiōnios, and ‘ôlâm have a very limited time value.
Greek scholars confirm what Bible usage thus reveals. For example, Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, a standard work, gives the following as the principal meanings of aiōn:
“A space or period of time, especially a lifetime, life. . . . Also one’s time of life, age: the age of man. . . . 2. A long space of time, eternity. . . . 3. Later, a space of time clearly defined and marked out, an era, age, . . . this present life, this world.”
Alexander Cruden, in his concordance, which for many years was the one great concordance in the English language, remarks under the word “eternal”:
“The words eternal, everlasting, forever, are sometimes taken for a long time, and are not always to be understood strictly.”
The learned Archbishop Trench, in his authoritative work, Synonyms of the New Testament, remarks concerning the primary sense of aiōn:
“In its primary, it signifies time, short or long, in its unbroken duration; oftentimes in classical Greek the duration of human life.” (pp. 208, 209).
In recent years, many discoveries have been made in Greek writings from the first century AD. These writings, called papyri, enable us to know just how Greek was written and what meanings belonged to words at the time when the New Testament authors wrote. The Greek scholars J. H. Moulton and George Milligan, in their monumental work entitled The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, cite various instances in the papyri where aiōn is equivalent simply to the “period of life” of a person. Under “aiōnios,” they make the following statement in summing up the evidence as to its usage by the first-century Greek-speaking people of the Roman Empire:
“In general, the word depicts that of which the horizon is not in view, whether the horizon be at an infinite distance. . . . or whether it lies no farther than the span of Caesar’s life.” (Italics ours).
Now, having proved from the Bible and Greek scholars that aiōn and ‘ôlâm are elastic terms, and oftentimes mean only a very limited period, we have removed the very basis on which the objection rests before us. But our case is even stronger when we note the rule that commentators give for measuring the time involved in aiōn or ‘ôlâm in any text.
Adam Clarke, in commenting on Gehazi’s leprosy (2 Kings 5:27), remarks:
“The for ever implies as long as any of his posterity should remain. This is the import of the word לעולם leolam. It takes in the whole extent or duration of the thing to which it is applied. The for ever of Gehazi was till his posterity became extinct.”
That agrees with the statement found in the quotation given earlier from Moule on Philemon 1:15:
“The adjective [aiōnios] tends to mark duration as long as the nature of the subject allows.”
Therefore, we should first decide whether a “subject” is so constituted that he can live endlessly before we decide that hellfire will continue endlessly. Now note the statement made in the well-known commentary by J. P. Lange:
“The bodies and souls of the wicked will suffer as long as they are capable of suffering, which, since they are immortal, will . . . be forever.” – Comment on Jude 7. (Italics ours).
The scholarly theologians do not attempt, as does the objector, to prove that souls are immortal because the judgment fires burn for an aiōn. On the contrary, knowing that the time value of aiōn, aiōnios, and ‘ôlâm must be determined by the “nature of the subject” involved, these scholars conclude that the fire will burn endlessly because they believe that the souls of the wicked “are immortal.” But the claim that the soul is immortal is the very point to be proved.
The Bible nowhere declares that the soul is immortal. (See answer to objection HUMAN BEINGS ARE IMMORTAL.) On the contrary, the Bible uses words that convey the thought that in the case of the wicked, the “nature of the subject” demands the conclusion that complete and swift annihilation will take place. The wicked are described as “chaff,” “stubble,” “wax,” “fat,” etc. (See Matt. 3:12; Mal. 4:1; Ps. 68:2; 37:20). We are told explicitly that the fire “shall burn them up” and “shall leave them neither root nor branch,” so that “they shall be ashes under the soles” of the feet of the righteous. Mal. 4:1–3.
Now, while we can thus correctly conclude that the “everlasting” torment of the wicked is but a limited period, we can at the same time logically conclude that the “everlasting” reward of the righteous is an unending one, for we are explicitly told that the righteous “put on immortality” at the Advent of Christ. (See 1 Cor. 15:51–55). Thus, the “nature of the subject” being immortal, the “everlasting” is correctly understood as meaning endless.
