Chapter IX.

“The word ‘hell’ the sacred writers never use in the sense which is generally given to it.”—Dr. Ernest Petavel.—The Struggle for Eternal Life.

“Nous sommes peutêtre engagés dans quelque erreur enorme, dont le Christianisme un jour nous fera rougir, comme il nous a fait rougir de la torture, de l’esclavage, de la contrainte en matiere de religion.”—Vinet.

WE are often met with the objection, “You look only at one side of the Bible.” I am determined that, in these pages, no room shall be given for the objection. Most true then it is, that there runs through Holy Scripture a current seeming (to an English reader) to teach the final destruction of the impenitent, and in some few passages their endless punishment. Most fully do I admit all this. I say, seeming to teach, advisedly. For the Bible was not written, as vast numbers appear to think, in English, by some Englishman in the 19th century, for his fellow Englishmen. It comes to us from very distant ages; in very many parts; the work of very many minds, but one and all writing from an oriental standpoint, saturated with oriental habits of thought, and in oriental phrase and style. Therefore all depends on the sense in which the terms in question are used. Let us go to the Bible itself to decide. Those who turn to the paragraph which follows the note on S. Matt. 3:12 (in this chapter), will see how far from indicating hopeless ruin are the very strongest phrases employed. In the usage of Scripture itself “death” and “destruction” are indeed very often the path to life,—see pp. 9-11, 149, 184-90, &c.

Admitting then these two currents, we at once feel that they are not equal in quality; we feel instinctively the divineness of the one; it is deeper, diviner, broader, stronger. We feel its kindred with all that is noblest in our nature—I do not mean with what we like best, but with what we recognise as best and most divine, alike in God and in man.

“But the current of terror is louder.” No, I do not think so. It may seem so from habit, or because sinners do not readily rise to what is broad and divine. To them vengeance is more credible than love. Yet even were it the louder current, I may point out that God is ever found “in the still small voice.” Nor is that which lies on the surface always, or even often, the true meaning of Scripture. Thus, in the predictions of the Messiah, the surface current, which wholly misled the Jews, spoke of a Conqueror, and of splendid earthly triumph. But the true meaning lay underneath the surface, in those fewer, less prominent, but diviner predictions of a suffering Saviour, of His life of toil,—see Salv. Mund.

Feeling this, I would face in all frankness all the facts, and entreat an honest and thorough examination. I hope to shew, that while undoubtedly the penalties threatened against sinners are terrible, still they are not endless. I believe that not one passage can be found anywhere in the Bible that so teaches, when fairly translated and understood. I must ask you, before examining these passages, carefully to bear in mind the following considerations:—

(I.) When the horrors of endless sin and pain are so stoutly defended on the (supposed) authority of the Bible, it is well to remember, that slavery was unanimously defended for more than fifteen hundred years on exactly similar grounds; so was the infliction of most cruel tortures; so was religious persecution with its indescribable horrors; so was the existence of witches, and the duty of burning them alive. Nay, every theologian in Europe was for centuries persuaded of the truth of actual sexual intercourse between evil spirits and men and women. “Holy men,” you say, “everywhere defend endless pain and evil on the authority of Scripture.” Holy men, I reply, have with absolute unanimity defended, on the authority of Scripture, tenets and practices so abominable that one shudders in attempting to recall them.

(II.) A fact of the deepest significance is this: that although certain phrases existed, by which the idea of unendingness might have been conveyed, yet none of these is applied by our Lord and His Apostles to the future punishment of the impenitent. Those interested are invited carefully to weigh this very striking fact. (III.) Thus aiidios or ateleutetos are never used of future punishment in the New Testament. Nor is it anywhere said to be aneu telous “without end,” nor do we read that it shall go on pantote, or eis to dienekes “for ever.” (IV.) Is it, I ask, conceivable that a sentence so awful as to be absolutely beyond all human thought, should be pronounced against myriads upon myriads of hapless creatures, in language ambiguous, and admittedly capable of a very different meaning, and habitually so used in the New Testament, and in the Greek version of the Old Testament, from which Our Lord and the Apostles quote? (V.) It is certainly a strong confirmation of the view which asserts that no unlimited penalty is taught in the New Testament to find so great a body of primitive opinion (and that specially of the Greek speaking Fathers), teaching universalism on the authority of the New Testament.—See pp. 84, 148, 170. All such teaching obviously contains an implied assertion that the texts, usually relied on, do not teach endless penalty.

(VI.) Again, while the texts quoted in favour of the salvation of all men use language clear and explicit, and are a fair rendering of the original in all cases, it is not so in the case of the passages usually alleged to prove endless torment. In those cases where they seem to the English reader so to teach, they are either mistranslated or misinterpreted, or both. Hence we see how inaccurate is the assumption all but universally made, that these terms that seem to teach endless pain and evil are in the Bible. They are merely in a certain human and fallible translation of the Bible, a totally different thing. (VI.) It is also to be noted that not a few of the passages usually quoted in support of the traditional creed do not, even if the accuracy of the translation be admitted, contain any assertion of endless pain, though they may seem to teach final destruction (to an ordinary reader.) (VII.) Finally, in addition to all the above, a great difficulty remains in the way of the advocates of the traditional creed. They dare not carry out their own principles. Their principle of interpreting the Bible would compel them to believe what they do not believe, and to teach what no reasonable person could presume to teach. (a.) First, it would compel them to believe in the endless torment of the vast majority, at least of all adults (see pp. 4-5). (b.) Next it would compel them to believe that this torment goes on for ever and ever in the sight of the lamb and the holy angels (for their satisfaction?)—Rev. 14:10—and indeed probably in the sight of all the Blessed.—Isa. 66:24, and S. Luke 16:23. But these two things they disbelieve. Nor do they believe the statement that God creates evil.—Isa. 45. Nor have they any ground, so far as I know, for their disbelief, except that these statements, taken literally, are unworthy of God, i.e., are immoral. Thus, in fact, they stand self-condemned. Nor do they really believe that Israel is to fall and rise no more.—Amos, v. 2; nor do, or can they, take literally the many threats of the same kind which Scripture contains.—See paragraph after note on S. Matt. 3:12, in this chapter.

(VIII.) As instances of wholly incorrect rendering, take the words translated “hell,” “damnation,” “everlasting,” “eternal,” “for ever and ever.” “Hell” is, in the New Testament, the rendering of three widely differing Greek words, viz., “Gehenna,” “Hades,” and “Tartarus,” such is the accuracy of our translation! “Gehenna” occurs eleven times in the New Testament as used by our Lord, and once by S. James. In the original Greek it is taken almost unchanged from the Hebrew (Ge-hinnom, i.e., valley of Hinnom), an example which our translators ought to have followed, and rendered Gehenna, as it is, by Gehenna. By retaining the term hell with its inevitable associations, they in fact are prejudging the question, and are assuming the part not of translators but of commentators. This valley lay outside Jerusalem: once a pleasant vale, and later a scene of Moloch worship, it had sunk into a common cesspit at last. Into it were flung offal, the carcases of animals, and it would seem, of criminals, and in it were kept fires ever burning (for purification be it remembered), while the worms were for ever preying on the decaying matter. The so-called undying worm and flame, of which so much has been made (a) were—at least in their literal and primary use—temporal and finite, (b) preyed only on the dead body (c) and were for purification; three particulars essential to the due understanding of the passages on which the dogma of endless torments has been so unfairly based.

Hades is a term, denoting the state or place of spirits, good and bad alike, after death. Our Revisers have, by a tardy justice, struck “hell,” as its translation, out of their version. It occurs in the Gospels and Epistles five times, twice in the Acts, and four times in the Revelations. It denotes that intermediate state or place which succeeds death; a state which in our recoil from Romish error we have almost ceased to recognise at all. Tartarus occurs once only (in the verbal form) in the New Testament, in 2 Peter 2:4. It also is a classical term, used there most often, although not always, for the place of future punishment of the wicked. Here S. Peter applies it not to human beings, but to the lost angels; and in their case it denotes no final place of torment, but a prison in which they are kept awaiting their final judgment; hence, to render it by the term “hell” is simply preposterous. “Damnation,” “damned,”—both of these terms represent merely two Greek words (and their derivatives), kríno [κρίνω] and katakríno [κατακρίνω], i.e., to judge and to condemn. Our Revisers have felt how unwarrantable the former translation was, for which there is indeed this excuse, that probably, when the authorised version was made, the meaning of the word “damn” was far milder than it has since become (as was certainly the case with the term “hell.”) To import into these words the idea of endless torment is to err against all fairness, for they simply mean^[1] to “judge,” and at most, to “condemn.”

Most significant is it that in the original of the New Testament, the horrors of unending agony, which these terms conjure up for so many, vanish when we come to know that by “damnation” is simply meant “judgment,” or at most “condemnation,” as our Revisers now fully admit in their version; and by “hell” is only meant, either the place of disembodied souls, hades, (as our Revisers now render it) or the Jewish Gehenna (see Revised Version), a place of temporary punishment in its literal sense, where the worms fed continually, it is true, and the fire for ever burned; but in both cases purifying. and causing no pain (for the bodies were those of the dead); and where both “undying” worm, and “unquenchable” fire, have long since, in their literal sense, passed away. True it is that Gehenna was by the Jews used, symbolically, of the place of future punishment—a fact to be fully admitted. But the evidence adduced by Farrar (Mercy and Judgment, p. 180-215), by Cox, Salv. Mund., p. 70-5, and by an Article in the XIX. Century, August, 1890, (see, too, Pfaff, quoted p. 80,) seems to make it clear that, normally, at least, Gehenna was not believed to involve endless punishment. It was certainly a place from which deliverance was possible, and probably one from which deliverance was the rule. Jewish opinion was by no means fixed, but fluctuated much as to the details and the duration of future punishment. Some Rabbis seem to have held (as did certain of the Fathers) the final annihilation of the wicked.

True it is, most true, that while no unending torment is threatened by our Lord, yet His words do convey most solemn warning to the sinner—warning that gains in real weight when its true import is discerned, because the conscience recognises its justice. I accept, then, heartily—in their true natural sense, every warning, however terrible, and every penalty threatened against sinners in Scripture; but that true natural sense is not, as I hope to shew, in any case that of endless evil and torment. My quarrel with the advocates of the popular view (as far as the Scripture is concerned) is that, while assigning to one class of texts a meaning, which they cannot fairly bear, they at the same time wholly put out of view, blot out from the Bible in fact, a very large and weighty class of passages, furnished by the New Testament, in favour of universal salvation. Thus, as so often happens, when men persist in seeing only one side, they fail to apprehend the true meaning, even of that one side, which they present to us as though it were the whole.

Let us next consider the true meaning of the words eón and eónios.^[2] These are the originals of the terms rendered by our translators “everlasting,” “for ever and ever:” and on this translation, so misleading, a vast portion of the popular dogma of endless torment is built up. I say, without hesitation, misleading and incorrect: for eón means “an age,” a limited period, whether long or short, though often of indefinite length; and the adjective eónios means “of the age,” “age-long,” “æonian,” and never “everlasting” (of its own proper force), it is true that it may be applied as an epithet to things that are endless, but the idea of endlessness in all such cases come not from the epithet, but only because it is inherent in the object to which the epithet is applied, as in the case of God.

Much has been written on the import of the æonian (eternal) life. Altogether to exclude, (with Maurice) the notion of time seems impracticable, and opposed to the general usage of the New Testament (and of the Septuagint). But while this is so, we may fully recognise that the phrase “eternal life” (æonian life) does at times pass into a region above time, a region wholly moral and spiritual. Thus, in S. John, the æonian life (eternal life), of which he speaks, is a life not measured by duration, but a life in the unseen, life in God. Thus, e.g., God’s commandment is life eternal.—S. John 12:50. To know Him is life eternal,—ib. 17:3, and Christ is the eternal life.—1 S. John 1:2; v. 20. Admitting, then, the usual reference of eónios to time, we note in the word a tendency to rise above this idea, to denote quality, rather than quantity, to indicate the true, the spiritual, in opposition to the unreal, or the earthly. In this sense the eternal is now and here. Thus “eternal” punishment is one thing, and “everlasting” punishment a very different thing, and so it is that our Revisers have substituted for “everlasting” the word “eternal” in every passage in the New Testament, where eónios is the original word. Further, if we take the term strictly, eternal punishment is impossible, for the “eternal” in strictness has no beginning.

Again, a point of great importance is this, that it would have been impossible for the Jews, as it is impossible for us, to accept Christ, except by assigning a limited—nay, a very limited duration—to those Mosaic ordinances which were said in the Old Testament to be “for ever,” to be “everlasting” (æonian). Every line of the New Testament, nay, the very existence of Christianity is thus in fact a proof of the limited sense of eónios in Scripture. Our Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, our Holy Communion, every prayer uttered in a Christian Church, or in our homes, in the name of the Lord Jesus: our hopes of being “for ever with the Lord”—these contain one and all an affirmation most real, though tacit, of the temporary sense of eónios.

As a further illustration of the meaning of eón and eónios, let me point out that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint)—in common use among the Jews in Our Lord’s time, from which He and the Apostles usually quoted, and whose authority, therefore, should be decisive on this point—these terms are repeatedly applied to things that have long ceased to exist. Thus the Aaronic priesthood is said to be “everlasting,” Num. 25:13. The land of Canaan is given as an “everlasting” possession. and “for ever,” Gen. 17:8, and 13:15. In Deut. 23:3, “for ever” is distinctly made an equivalent to “even to the tenth generation.” In Lam. 5:19, “for ever and ever” is the equivalent of from “generation to generation.” The inhabitants of Palestine are to be bondsmen “for ever,” Lev. 25:46. In Num. 18:19, the heave offerings of the holy things are a covenant “for ever.” Caleb obtains his inheritance “for ever,” Josh. 14:9. And David’s seed is to endure “for ever,” his throne “for ever,” his house “for ever;” nay, the passover is to endure “for ever;” and in Isaiah 32:14, the forts and towers shall be “dens for ever, until the spirit be poured upon us.” So in Jude 7., Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal (æonian) fire, i.e., their temporal overthrow by fire, for they have a definite promise of final restoration.—Ezek.16:55.

And Christ’s kingdom is to last “for ever,” yet we are distinctly told that this very kingdom is to end.—1 Cor. 15:24.

Indeed, quotation might be added to quotation, both from the Bible and from early^[3] authors, to prove this limited meaning of eón and its derivatives; but enough has probably been said to prove that it is wholly impossible, and indeed absurd, to contend that any idea of endless duration is necessarily or commonly implied by either eón or eónios.

Further, if this translation of eónios as “eternal,” in the sense of endless, be correct, eón must mean eternity, i.e., endless duration. But so to render it would reduce Scripture to an absurdity. In the first place, you would have over and over again to talk of the “eternities.” We can comprehend what “eternity” is, but what are the “eternities?” You cannot have more than one eternity. The doxology would run thus: “Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, ‘unto the eternities.’” In the case of the sin against the Holy Ghost, the translation would then be, “it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this eternity nor in that to come.” Our Lord’s words, S. Matt. 13:39, would then run, “the harvest is the end of (the) eternity,” i.e., the end of the endless, which is to make our Lord talk nonsense. Again, in S. Mark 4:19, the translation should be, “the cares,” not of “this world,” but “the cares of this eternity choke the word.” In S. Luke 16:8, “The children of this world,” should be “the children of this eternity.” Rom. 12:2, should run thus: “Be not conformed to this eternity.” In 1 Cor. 10:11, the words, “upon whom the ends of the world are come,” should be: “the ends of the eternities.”

Take next, Gal. 1:4: “That He might deliver us from this present evil world,” should run thus: “from this present evil eternity.” In 2 Tim. 4:10, the translation should be: “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present eternity.” And “Now once at the end of the ages hath He been manifested,” should read, on the popular view, “at the end of the eternities.” Let me state the dilemma clearly. Aion either means endless duration as its necessary, or at least its ordinary significance, or it does not. If it does, the following difficulties at once arise; 1—How, if it mean an endless period, can eón have a plural? 2—How came such phrases to be used as those repeatedly occurring in Scripture, where eón is added to eón, if eón is of itself infinite? 3—How come such phrases as for the “eón” or “eóns” and BEYOND?—tón eóna ké ep eóna ké éti · is tús eónas ké éti.—See (Sept.) Exod. 15:18; Dan. 12:3; Micah 4:5. 4—How is it that we repeatedly read of the end of the eón?—S. Matt. 13:39-40-49; 24:3; 28:20; 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26. 5—Finally, if eón be infinite, why is it applied over and over to what is strictly finite? e.g., S. Mark 4:19; Acts 3:21; Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 1:20, 2:6, 3:18, 10:11, &c., &c. But if an eón be not infinite, what right have we to render the adjective eónios (which depends for its meaning on eón) by the terms “eternal” (when used as the equivalent of “endless”) and “everlasting?”

Indeed our translators have really done further hurt to those who can only read their English Bible. They have wholly obscured a very important doctrine, that of “the ages.” This when fully understood throws a flood of light on the plan of redemption, and the method of the divine working. Take a few instances which show the force and clearness gained, by restoring the true rendering of the words eón and eónios. Turn to S. Matt. 24:3. There our version represents the disciples as asking “what should be the sign of the end of the world.” It should be the end of the “age;” the close of the Jewish age marked by the fall of Jerusalem. In S. Matt. 13:39-40-49, the true rendering is not the end of the “world,” but of the “age,” an important change. So S. John 17:3, “this is life eternal,” should be “the life of the ages,” i.e., peculiar to those ages, in which the scheme of salvation is being worked out. Or take Heb. 5:9; 9:12; 13:20, “eternal salvation” should be “æonian” or of the ages; “eternal redemption” is the redemption “of the ages;” the eternal covenant is the “covenant of the ages,” the covenant peculiar to the ages of redemption.

In Eph. 3:11, “the eternal purpose” is really the purpose of “the ages,” i.e., worked out in “the ages.” In ch. 3:21, there occurs a suggestive phrase altogether obscured (as usual, where this word is in question,) by our version, “until all the generations of the age of the ages.” Thus it runs in the original, and it is altogether unfair to conceal this elaborate statement by merely rendering “throughout all ages.” In 1 Cor. 10:11, “the ends of the world” are the “ends of the ages.” In ch. 2:6-7-8, the word eón is four times translated “world,” it should be “age” or “ages” in all cases And here it is impossible to avoid asking how—assuming that eón does mean “world” in these cases—how it can yield, as an adjective, such a term as “everlasting?” If it mean “world,” then the adjective should be “worldly,” “of the world.” And great force and freshness would be gained in our version by always adhering to the one rendering “age.”

Again, in Heb. 11:3, “the worlds were framed,” should be “the ages.” In Heb. 9:26, “now once in the end of the world” should be, “in the end of the ages.” Take, again, the closing words of S Jude, which run literally, “To the only God, be glory, &c., before every age, and now and unto all the ages,” i.e., before the ages began, and now, and throughout all the ages yet to come. So Rev. 1:6, “glory” is ascribed unto Christ, “unto the ages of the ages,” in the original. In 1 Tim. 1:17, “the King eternal” should be “the King of ages;” in 6:17, “charge them that are rich in this world” should be “in this age.” 2 Pet. 2:17, “the mist of darkness is reserved for ever” should be “for the age,” for a period finite but indefinite. A striking phrase closes this Epistle, ch. 3:18, obscured in our translation—which renders “to Him be glory both now and for ever,” instead of, as the original requires, “unto the day of (the) age,” see v. 8, which explains the reference. I might easily go on, but enough has been said to shew that Scripture designs teach us the “doctrine of the ages.” In these repeated instances there must be some definite purpose in the use of these peculiar terms; and we must deeply regret the unfairness and inconsistency which in the case of eón mars and renders unfair our versions. Thus it would be interesting to ask on what principle our Revisers have in one brief epistle employed five different words (or phrases) to translate this one word, eón, e.g., Eph. 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:11, 21, e.g., “world,” “course,” “age,” “eternal,” “for ever.” Such are the devious ways of our teachers, and our translators.

Let me state briefly the doctrine of “the ages.” “It will, I think, be found, that the adjective—æonian—whether applied to ‘life,’ ‘punishment,’ ‘covenant,’ ‘times,’ or even God Himself, is always connected with remedial labour, and with the idea of ages or periods, in which God is working to meet and correct some awful fall.”—Jukes. There is present in the word in fact a certain spiritual force, and a reference to “the ages” in which a redeeming process is going on. It is the more needful to insist on this, because in our recoil from the Roman Catholic teaching about Purgatory, etc., we have gone too far; we have been trained to limit all God’s possible dealings with us, to the narrow span of our earthly existence. But this is to shut our eyes to the truer and higher teaching of the Gospel. What does God mean by the repeated reference to these “ages,” when He speaks in the New Testament of His redeeming plan?

On the popular view these passages go for nothing. Is this fair or reasonable? But by accepting what they plainly teach. we are enabled to harmonize God’s threatenings with His clearly expressed purpose to save all men finally. Indeed, in these “ages” is indicated the true scope of redemption, as a vast plan, extending over many periods or ages, of which our present life forms but one, and it may be, a very brief part. Through these “ages” it is clearly taught that Christ’s work is to go on, for “Christ is the same to-day, and yesterday, and unto ‘the ages,’” Heb. 13:8; and He assures us that He is alive “unto the ages,” and has the “keys of death and of hades,” Rev. 1:18, words significant in this connection. This then, we, taught by Scripture, believe to be the “purpose of the ages,” Eph. 3:11. Nay, we are permitted in Holy Scripture a momentary glance beyond that limit—in these glorious words:— “Then,” at the expiry it would seem of these ages, “cometh the End,” when every enemy vanquished and every wanderer found, “Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom unto God, and God shall be All in All.”—1 Cor. 15:28.

“He shall burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” S. Matt. 3:12, Luke 3:17.

(a) Any good lexicon will shew us how little the term translated “unquenchable” really conveys that idea. Homer often applies it to “glory,” “laughter,” “shouting,” to the brief fire that consumed the Grecian fleet. Eusebius twice says that martyrs were consumed in “unquenchable” fire.—Church Hist. vi. 41. Cyril calls the fire, that consumed the burnt offering, unquenchable.—De ador. lib. x. It is terrible to think of the agony caused to loving hearts by misleading translations; perhaps most of all by that disgraceful rendering that “never shall be quenched.”—S. Mark 9:43-45 (now removed after it has worked such evil.) (b) Further, if the context be examined, it points to a present, and impending judgment, and not a future punishment. (c) The whole figure implies not the endless torture of the wicked in a future life, but the destruction by Christ’s fiery baptism, already working, of that chaff which surrounds every grain. Nor can any figure express more completely than does burning chaff, the idea of evanescence.

And here I earnestly beg my readers to pause and seriously consider, not traditional prejudices, but plain facts. The usage of Scripture shews decisively, that to press words like “unquenchable,” &c., to a narrow literal meaning makes perfect nonsense. Take some typical instances. A fire is kindled against Israel which is to burn for ever—Jer. 17:4, and yet all Israel is to be saved—Rom. 11:26, so is “the whole house of Israel.”—Ezek. 39:25. And again, Israel’s hurt is “incurable;” her pain is “incurable”—Jer. 30:12, 15, but in a moment it is added, “I will heal thee” of the (incurable) wound. v. 17. So, too, Hosea more than once declares the rejection of Israel by God, and that no mercy remains for her: and yet in the same breath asserts her final pardon and reconciliation—Hos. 1:6-9-10; 2:4, 10, 14, 15, 19, 23; 9:15; 13:14; 14:4; passages well worth our pondering over. In Amos the same striking teaching occurs. Israel, it is said, shall no more rise, ch. 5:2.

Yet God will raise her up.—ch. 9:11. All fair readers can see the extreme significance of all this; and how very far the principle of interpretation, so plainly involved, really goes. Again, though, as we have seen, an express promise of the restoration of all Israel is given, and repeated in the New Testament—Rom. 11:26, yet an “unquenchable” fire is to burn them up—Jer. 7:20; “everlasting” reproach and “perpetual” shame is to come on them—Jer. 23:40; “perpetual” hissing—Jer. 18:16; and “perpetual” desolations—Jer. 25:9; “perpetual” backsliding—Jer. 8:5. Surely some righteous indignation is called for against those who construct a sentence of endless damnation against countless millions of God’s children (very largely) on the strength of phrases like the above, whose meaning is so completely misapprehended Let us examine further. Not alone is the sin of Israel “incurable,” but so is the wound of Samaria—Mic. 1:9. And yet this “incurable” wound is to be cured, for the captivity of Samaria is to be turned again.—Ezek. 16:53. Nor is this all. Sodom and Gomorrha suffer the vengeance of “eternal fire”—Jude, and are to be a “perpetual” desolation—Zeph. 2:9, and yet the “perpetual” desolation is to end in restoration—Ezek. 16:53; and this temporary meaning is constantly that of “perpetual” in Scripture: e.g., Lev. 3:17, 24:9, 25:34; Jer. 33:40. So, too, Ammon is to be a “perpetual” desolation—Zeph. 2:9; is to fall and rise no more—Jer. 25:21, 27; and yet it is to be restored—Jer. 49:6. And so Elam is to fall and rise no more—Jer. 25:27, yet in the latter days it is to be restored, ch. 49:39. The same is true of Egypt: compare Jer. 25:19, 27, with Ezek. 29:13, &c. And Moab is destroyed, and yet restored.—Jer. 48:4, 47.

Now why is all this? Why in the Prophets do threats most awful, and hopes most radiant, jostle one against another? Why do Mercy and Terror, Despair and Joy, alternate, as the portion of the same persons? Why this seeming chaos? Not because God has conflicting purposes, but precisely because He has no conflicting purposes: threats and hopes are blended because threats and hopes serve the same end. Nay, were the threats of Scripture still more awful than any recorded, were they as clear as they are so often figurative and obscure; and were we stripped of most (or all) of the direct promises of universal salvation, still we might have hope, knowing that “God is Love,” and that with God “all things are possible.”

“Whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.” S. Matt. 5:22.

The popular interpretation reduces these words to an absurdity. “It is incredible to call a man a fool should be so much a worse crime than to call him Raca, that, whereas for the one offence men are to be brought before a court of justice, for the other they are to be damned to an everlasting torment.”—Salv. Mund. The hell-fire of this passage is the fire of “Gehenna.”

“Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” S. Matt. 10:28.

These words point to God’s power rather than to His intention. They say God is able to destroy soul and body; they do not say that God will do so. And if they do point to intention, those who read what has been said above on “death,” “destruction,” (ch. vi.) will readily perceive how accordant with the usage of Scripture it is to make destruction and death a path to life; see pp. 9-10, 149, 184-90.

“For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (LIFE). S. Matt. 16:26.

This certainly shews that a man by persisting in sin may lose his soul, a loss greater than that of the whole world. But (I.) how does this loss teach endless torment, or endless sin? (To be shut out of God’s presence for an age would far overbalance the enjoyment of the whole world for a lifetime.) Or how (II.) does it prove anything against a final restitution, against Christ’s seeking and finding the lost soul?

“The damnation of hell.” S. Matt. 23:33.

No comment is needed here, but to re-instate the true rendering—“the judgment of Gehenna.”

“That thy whole body should be cast into hell.” S. Matt. 5:29-30, and 18:8-9.

These passages are so similar that they may be considered together, and may be compared with S. Mark 9:43-50, where the “hell” of the text is “Gehenna,” and in ch. 18:8, 9, “hell-fire” is the fire of Gehenna, and everlasting fire is æonian fire.

“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” S. Matt. 25:46.

This text, if fairly translated, seems to require an interpretation quite distinct from that of the popular theology, and opposed to it. (a) “Everlasting” and “eternal” represent eónios and mean “of or belonging to an age”—æonian. (b) If a punishment absolutely endless were intended it seems unaccountable that a word should be used which habitually does not mean endless, but the opposite. (c) The word translated punishment means pruning, i.e., corrective punishment, and should be so rendered. (d) So that which is threatened seems the opposite of our popular hell; it is a corrective process, “proper to the age”—or “ages.” (e) And of this beneficent purpose there is a hint, often unnoticed, in the term applied to those on the left hand, it is properly “kids” or “kidlings,” a diminutive, implying a certain affection. And so for the paschal offering a kid was eligible (Exod. 11:5) equally with a lamb; and in the Catacombs the Good Shepherd is at times depicted as bearing home on His shoulders A Kid, not a lamb, i.e., a goat, not a sheep. (f) Nor must we forget that, in Rev. 20:11, the throne of judgment is white—the sign of peace and amity. But it is said that the same word is applied to the happiness of the saved and to the punishment of the lost; and that, if it does not mean endless in the latter case, the bliss of the redeemed is rendered uncertain.

I reply (I.) even were it so, we are not at liberty to mistranslate, but (II.) in fact it is certainly not so. True, the text does assign an æonian penalty and an æonian reward, but this leaves perfectly open the whole question of the precise duration of either.^[4] For the term æonian is quite indefinite, it does not touch the question of the limit of time; it simply teaches that both reward and penalty go on to a future age or ages. The question what will happen after this age or ages is not raised in this passage. (g) I have in these comments made two assumptions both very doubtful, and both favourable to the traditional creed. (I.) I have assumed the reference of eónios to time, which is not capable of proof; for with perfect fairness it may have here that spiritual, ethical meaning it unquestionably at times has in the New Testament; and the meaning then would be, that just and unjust pass into æonian, i.e., spiritual states of punishment and bliss respectively. (II.) I have assumed the primary reference of this passage to the final Judgment, but that is most improbable; for these words close a continuous discourse extending over chapters 24-25. (which our division into chapters obscures.)

There is no break throughout. And the question of the disciples, in ch. 24, is not about the end of the “world,” but of the “age.” Thus, if we divest ourselves of traditional impressions, and take Scripture itself as our guide, we see that it is not fair to refer to a distant future, that judgment of which Christ Himself says distinctly, (ch. 24:34,) that all the things He is speaking of should be fulfilled before the passing away of the then generation; and which finds a perfectly natural fulfilment in the terrible calamities, consequent on the fall of Jerusalem, and the end of the (Jewish) age (as these events would be described in Eastern metaphor). And indeed our Lord’s words, “all the nations” v. 32, seem to refer to national judgments, and to indicate, in dramatic form, the principle on which judgment falls on nations; certainly increasing reflection makes this reference seem increasingly probable.

“To go into hell, into the unquenchable fire * * where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire.”—Rev. Vers. S. Mark 9:43-50.

(a) Note, first, that the revised text omits vv. 44 and 46, which lend so much weight to the threats here uttered (b) The whole passage depends on the statement of v. 49—a fact generally overlooked—“For every one shall be salted ‘with fire.’” These words assign the reason for the preceding clauses, and seem to shew that the true reference in this passage is to some sacrificial or purifying process, which every one must undergo; as in 1 Cor. 3:13, “The fire shall try every man’s work.” If the sacrifice be not made voluntarily, if the eye or the foot be not sacrificed, a sharper sacrifice and a severer penalty will be demanded. (c) The word translated hell is Gehenna. (d) The phrase, “the fire is not quenched,” is quoted from the Old Testament, where it, or a similar phrase, occurs in the Septuagint twelve times, Lev. 6:13; 2 Kings 22:17; 2 Chron. 34:25; Isa. 1:31, 34:10; Jer. 7:20, 17:27; Ezek. 20:47, 48; Amos 5:6; Jer. 21:12. But in all these passages the flame is temporary. Isa. 66:24, is the text specially quoted here; and the natural and primary reference is to the worm and to the fire that preyed on the dead bodies of malefactors, cast out into Gehenna. In Eastern metaphor these worms, and this fire, are said not to die, and not to be quenched; because the fires were kept always burning to drive away pollution, and the worm was always preying on the corpses and offal. (e) In nature both fire and worm purify. (f) The (indefensible) translation, “the fire that never shall be quenched,” disappears in the Revised Version. The original word is the same as occurring in S. Matt. 3:12, and in the note on that text, proved to have been frequently applied to fire, (and to many things,) even of the briefest duration.

“He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” S. Mark 3:29, S. Matt. 12:32.

On a question involving the interpretation of a phrase, drawn from a language still living in their day, it is most important to note the attitude of most Fathers towards this sin. “The notion,” says Bingham, “that most of the ancients had of the sin against the Holy Ghost, was not that it was absolutely unpardonable, but that men were to be punished for it both in this world and in the next, unless they truly repented of it.”—vol. ii. 921. So Athanasius says of this sin, “If they repent they may obtain pardon, for there is no sin unpardonable with God to them who truly repent.”—De comm. essent. So S. Chrysostom, “We know that this sin was forgiven to some that repented of it.” * * What is then the meaning of it? That it is a sin less capable of forgiveness than all others,—Hom. xlii. in S. Matt. xii. So Victor of Antioch —Comm. in S. Marc. iii., S. Ambrose—De penit. ii. 4, &c. And so Dionysius (Syrus), as late as the tenth century, says: “Many, who did blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, afterwards repented, and obtained pardon,”—translated from a Syriac MSS. (Dubl. 1762.) Two points are very noteworthy; (I.) that these Fathers did not believe any sin to be in itself unpardonable, (II.) that they did not believe the phrases is tón eóna or eónios, to mean in strictness “never,” or “everlasting,” as our version renders them. And so nobody will press the similar phrase as to the iniquity of Eli’s house not being purged for ever —1 Sam. 3:14, to mean that it was literally unpardonable.

I may add that if we retain the authorised text in S. Mark, the word rendered “damnation” is merely “judgment.” But the true reading is probably kamartímatos = sin, i.e., is guilty of a sin, whose results last into a future age or ages. The phrase translated “never,” is so far from meaning this literally, that it is elsewhere in Scripture followed by “and beyond” i.e., and after, e.g., Exod. 15:18, Dan. 12:3, &c. In S. Matt. the parallel passage is differently worded. “It shall not be forgiven in this world (i.e., age) nor in that which is to come.” These words imply that there is forgiveness for sin after this life in very many cases—(an awkward fact for the traditional creed) and therefore repentance after death is quite possible. Next, there is no assertion whatever that, after this age, to come, there may not be forgiveness even for the sin v. the Holy Ghost. A few words may be added. This terrible sin is the sin of the Scribes and Pharisees, i.e., of the hard, narrow religionist, and not of the ungodly. The sin itself is very clearly defined, “because they said, He hath an unclean spirit,” v. 30. Its essence lies in confounding the works of the Good and Evil Spirits, as, e.g., assigning to God any kind of evil act, p. 37-8. Must it not be a near approximation to this awful sin to assign to God deeds which, like endless torture, our conscience tells us are evil and cruel?

“Good were it for that man (Judas) if he had not been born.” S. Mark 14:21; S. Matt. 26:24.

Note carefully that our Revisers admit that the original requires a different rendering, viz., “Good were it for Him, if that man had not been born.” This obviously alters the meaning completely: it gives an intelligible sense to say that, if there were no Judas, it would have been better for the Master, Whom he betrayed. The common rendering certainly violates the ordinary rules of Greek syntax. Our opponents must be reminded of this, and also that even if taken in their extremist sense, the words of Judas’ doom wholly fail to prove that he was condemned to endless suffering; for they would be satisfied to the utmost, if Judas were annihilated at the Last Day: nay, had he at the moment of betrayal died, “and never suffered one pang more, they would be to the fullest extent true.”

But the difficulty, even taking the ordinary rendering, is very great of pressing these words literally. For Judas did in some sort repent—S. Matt. 27:3. “Four signs of true repentance are present; (I.) his rejection of the wages of iniquity; (II.) his open confession of his guilt; (III.) his public testimony to the innocence of the Man Whom he had betrayed, and (IV.) his profound consciousness that the just wage of such a sin was death.”—Cox, Expos. i. p. 356. Judas, as one of the Twelve, had a special promise of sitting to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. But this was, you will say, conditional. Yes, I reply, just so. And may not a threat be as conditional as a promise? And if not, then will any one explain, why not? The rich are expressly shut out of the kingdom of heaven. Do our opponents take that literally?

“the parable of dives.” S. Luke 16:26.

(a) Dives, like Judas, is a son of Abraham, who so addresses him, “and all Israel shall be saved.” (b) Dives was not in hell, but in hades (see Revised Version), i.e., in the intermediate state before the Day of Judgment, for his brethren are alive. (c) Dives is distinctly improved by his chastisement: he has learned to think for others. Can God by His fiery discipline produce this amendment merely to crush it out in a future state of hopeless pain? Is this credible? (d) It is not said that the gulf shall continue impassible; what is said is, that it is so (was then so). The case is as if a man were imprisoned for a fixed time, and his friends are sternly told “between him and you is a barrier placed which cannot be passed.” This would be exactly true, though the barrier were to be removed, when the fixed period of punishment ceased. (e) And in any case why may not this gulf be passed by Christ, by Him Who hath the “keys of death and hell?” (f) Those inclined to doubt what I have just said may be well referred to S. Ambrose, who, commenting on Ps. cxix., says thus: “So then that Dives in the Gospel, although a sinner, is pressed with penal agonies that he may escape the sooner,” thus asserting clearly his belief in Dives’ final salvation. And S. Jerome expressly asserts twice over that Christ liberated those souls who were in this very place, —In Zech. ix. 11; in Isa. xiv. 7; thus asserting his belief that the great gulf may be crossed. (g) Those taking this parable as a literal description of hell and heaven must be reminded of a very serious difficulty which they ignore. The blessed look on at the torments of the lost. Is, then, this vision of a ghastly hell and its lost and suffering ones to be really for ever before the eyes of the blessed?—Rev. 14:10, 11 (to enhance their joy?)

“He that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” S. John 3:36.

The meaning is clear—the unbeliever, continuing such, shall not see life, but if he repent he may obtain peace. If it were not so, all would be lost.

“The resurrection of damnation.” S. John 5:29.

Here it is enough to point to the revised translation, “the resurrection of judgment,” not even condemnation.

Of the Parables of judgment, let me say that to build awful doctrines on these sacred stories. and their metaphors, is quite unfair. Take perhaps the most stern of all—those in S. Matt. 13., and even in these there is no question of the end of “the world” which is a total mistranslation—it should be “the age” merely; and no hint is given that the “fire” spoken of should go on for ever. Admitting to the fullest the warning they convey, and the stern side of Christ’s teaching, yet their true meaning is obscured by adjourning to some remote future the facts asserted; forgetting that the judgment throne is now standing, and that we are now standing before it; and that Christ’s “unquenched” fire is now burning; unquenchable, thank God, till (as the whole usage of the word in the original imports) it has fully done its work.

And here I add a few notes on certain passages, which escaped notice in former editions. It is said that Esau “found no place of repentance.”—Heb. 12:17. But Esau, though he lost irrevocably the birthright, was blest. “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau”—Heb. 11:20. S. Paul speaks of æonian destruction as awaiting sinners—2 Thess. 1:9; and of destruction as their end—Phil. 3:19. I must refer my readers to what has been sufficiently said already on the word “æonian,” and on the scriptural use of such terms as “destruction” and “death,” pp. 184-90, 258-64.

Some argue from the words, “Behold now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2), that salvation is confined to this life only. I might reply in the words of an old Father, “with God it is always Now;” and might ask whether the more reasonable adherents of the traditional creed are prepared in all cases to limit salvation to this present life? But a reference to the original shews here, too, mistranslation and misinterpretation. S. Paul is quoting Isa. 49:8, which speaks of Christ “In a day (not the day) of salvation have I helped thee.” It is Christ (not the sinner) who is helped, i.e., made strong for the task of saving. In fact S. Paul is warning the Corinthians not to receive in vain the Gospel, and he supports this plea by a quotation, which reminds them of the grace given to Christ to save in this dispensation. Don’t reject, he would urge, an offer accompanied by so much grace. As to a limit of time set, beyond which Christ cannot finally save those who now reject the Gospel, that is not in S. Paul’s mind here or in Isaiah’s. I take next Heb. 6:4-6. (a) Almost all the Ancients explained this of Baptism, i.e., the writer, in their view, simply forbids a repetition of Baptism. Certainly (b) few, if any, teachers of to-day would understand this text to deny the power of repentance to any sinner in this life; but why, if so, so far as this text is concerned, should the power of repentance be denied after this life? (c) The impossibility here spoken of is not quâ God, i.e., these words do not bar His grace. (d) Thus Christ saves those whose salvation He seems to pronounce impossible, e.g., the rich. Zaccheus. Heb. 10:26-31 presents us with a passage parallel to the above, which asserts that for wilful sin fearful judgment is reserved, and that there is no more sacrifice available. Many Fathers understand this passage merely to teach the impossibility of a second Baptism. The true meaning seems to be that for those continuing in wilful and aggravated sin, only the certain prospect of terrible judgment remains: they need cleansing by fire.—ch. vi. on fire and judgment. The writer is here quoting Deut. 32., where the divine judgment is viewed rather on its hopeful side, “I kill and I make alive, I have wounded and I heal, v. 39. I am perfectly aware that this cleansing by fire and judgment will seem strange to some Why? Because a narrow tradition shuts out from their creed a vital doctrine of Scripture. A few words I may add on that saying of our Lord’s, “If the salt have lost his savour wherewith shall it be salted?” S. Luke 14:34; (stated more strongly in S. Matt. 5:13; cf. S. Mark 9:50.) It is enough to say though to human power the salt be wholly lost, yet He, who makes the camel to pass through the needle’s eye, can assuredly restore the salt; (scientifically speaking, I believe salt never does lose its savour).

We have now considered all the passages of any weight in the New Testament, and supposed to teach the popular creed, except those of the book of Revelation. To this let us turn, first protesting against the unfairness of building a definite theory of hell on the imagery of a book of mysterious visions, and full of highly-toned metaphors. Its visions speak the language not of prose but of poetry, the poetry of an Eastern race, far more imaginative and highly wrought than that of the West. To judge these metaphors, as though they spoke the language of scientific theology is worse than unfair, it is even absurd.

Take, then, the passages most often quoted to support endless evil and pain, e.g., ch. xiv. 9-11. Terrible as it seems at first sight, it is, I believe, really concerned with the times of Nero—who is the Beast. The worshippers of the Beast who are to be tormented, are his followers; and the reference in the torment is to the terrible earthly calamities actually happening to Rome at that epoch. Who, of whatever school of thought, is there who does not feel a weight rolled away, when he perceives that the true meaning of the worshippers of the Beast being tormented night and day for ever and ever, in the presence of the Lamb and the holy Angels—may be fully found in the terrible earthly sufferings which befell Rome, “while the Lamb and the holy Angels are, in human language, represented as cognisant of this punishment?” Even Mr. Elliott, in his Horæ Apocalypticæ, explains this passage of merely temporary judgment.

I should like our opponents to be frank and to say whether they really believe that the smoke of the torment of the lost goes up for ever and ever in the sight of the Lamb and of the Holy Angels! If they do not—as I believe to be the case—will they with equal fairness explain why on their own principle they require us elsewhere to take literally similar sayings and similar figures? But—to resume—whether Nero be or be not the Beast, it remains certain that language equally strong is used elsewhere of merely transient and temporal judgments. In proof of this, turn to Isaiah 34:9-10, and read the deeply impassioned language in which it describes the temporal calamities of the land of Idumea—its streams are “to be turned into pitch—its dust into brimstone—its land into burning pitch—it shall not be quenched night nor day—its smoke is to go up for ever.” Now when we know that these metaphors—sounding so awfully, do yet refer to judgments of a momentary duration, so to speak, we shall be the better able to assign its true meaning to all the figurative and poetical language of this book. Nor do I speak of this book only. The whole Bible is Oriental. Every line breathes the spirit of the East, with its hyperboles and metaphors, and what to us seem utter exaggerations. If such language be taken literally, its whole meaning is lost. When the sacred writers want to describe the dusky redness of a lunar eclipse, they say the moon is “turned into blood.” He who perverts Scripture is not the man who reduces this sacred poetry to its true meaning. Nay, that man perverts the Bible who hardens into dogmas the glowing metaphors of Eastern poetry—such conduct Lange, in his preface to the Apocalypse calls “a moral scandal.”

So with Our Lord’s words—if I take them literally—I very often pervert their sense. Am I in very deed to hate my father and mother because Christ says it is necessary so to do; or to pluck out any right eye literally? Or take a case—well put by Canon Farrar—Egypt is more than once said, in the Bible, to have been an iron furnace to the Jews; and yet their condition there was so far removed from being one of torment that they actually said, “it was well with us there,” and positively sighed for its enjoyments. Therefore I maintain that no doctrine of endless pain and evil can be based on Eastern imagery, on metaphors mistranslated very often, and always misinterpreted. Having, then, considered the well-known passage in ch. xiv., I close this chapter by discussing another often quoted passage.

“But the fearful and unbelieving . . shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8.

(a) It will be necessary to consider the entire context of this verse, if we desire to understand its purport. It opens with the vision of the great white throne, ch. 20:14, and we find that after the judgment of that Great Day, so far from death and hell (Hades) continuing, they are “cast into the lake of fire”—very unlike, nay, contradicting the popular view.

(b) Then comes a declaration that God is to dwell with men—not with the saints—but with men as such, and that as a consequence, they shall be His people, and God shall be with them and be their God.

(c) It is distinctly said, there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain. Is this not a denial of an endless hell rather than an affirmation of it—nay, an emphatic denial of such a doctrine?

(d) Then comes a voice from the throne with a glorious promise, “Behold I make all things new,” not some things. Note, too, this promise is remarkably emphasised, it opens with the word “Behold,” to draw attention to it: it closes with the command to write it, “for these words are true and faithful.” Was there no reason for this? Is there not thus attention drawn to this as the central point of the whole vision, i.e., all things made new? But this again is a denial of the popular creed.

(e) In close connection with such promises come the highly figurative threats of the lake of fire. It is perhaps possible to argue that this may imply (although I do not think so) the destruction of those cast into it; but it is wholly impossible to understand it as teaching endless torment in the face of what has just been promised—(no more crying nor pain, v. 4.) Therefore, I conclude, looking at the repeated promises (see “c” and “d”) of this very passage, which contrast in their perfect clearness with the highly figurative language of its threats,^[5] looking at the true meaning of God’s judgments and at the whole spirit of Holy Scripture—nay, its express declaration of universal restoration—that what is here taught, is a fire that purifies while it punishes, a fire that is, in God’s mysterious way, an agent in making all things new.—On the second death, see ch. vi., p. 188.

We thus see that the Apocalyptic visions lend no support to the dogma of endless torment. That doctrine is not, I believe, to be found in a single passage of Scripture if translated accurately and fairly interpreted. And here I would ask those who honestly believe that with this dogma of hell-fire is bound up the sole force able to deter men from sin, to remember that to assert this is to contradict the weight of human experience. For in every age experience has shewn decisively, that it is not the magnitude of the penalty that deters men from sin or crime, it is its reasonableness and the certainty of its infliction, p. 26. On the contrary, few doctrines have done so much to shake the belief in any real punishment of sin hereafter as has that of an endless hell. For, see p. 57, nobody can be found who, by his acts, shews that he in fact believes it. Hence, so long as it is taught, the whole subject of future punishment becomes, for the mass of mankind, doubtful and unreal. Thus a tone of secret incredulity is fostered, an incredulity which, beginning at this particular dogma, assuredly does not end there, but affects the whole of revealed religion. It is not merely that those who still teach the popular creed thus furnish the sceptic with the choicest of his weapons, by enlisting the moral forces of our nature on the side of unbelief. They do more than this. They thus, unconsciously I admit, but most effectively, teach men to profess a creed with the lips, to which the spirit and the life render no vital allegiance. By this means the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ is lowered and discredited, for if men see a doctrine of this kind maintained, in words, but in fact denied (because in practice found to be wholly incredible) they will assuredly apply the lesson, so learned, of professed belief and real scepticism, to the whole system of Christian truth.

I have, I trust, not shrunk from the appeal to Scripture; that appeal, I repeat, we court in the interests of the larger hope. But should some doubt still linger, some objections seem to be not wholly answered, then I would remind the wavering that, to ask for mathematical certainty on these points, is to ask for that which they never can obtain. No reasonable person expects mathematical proof of the existence of God. No great theological question exists that is not open to some questionings, more or less plausible, on scriptural grounds. To ask for a demonstration of the larger hope that shall leave no room for any plausible objection is to ask for that, which no reasonable man asks in any similar case.

Before closing, I would dwell on a significant fact which often escapes notice. Even assuming, for argument sake, the accuracy of the interpretation placed by the traditional creed on the passages just discussed, even that wholly fails to prove endless punishment: that might be a reasonable ground for saying, “there are in Scripture two seemingly contradictory sets of passages. I must wait and pray till all becomes clear; and meantime I can formulate no conclusion.” But it would furnish no fair ground for saying, “I must expunge from the Bible those passages that teach universal restoration.” This is often forgotten, but it is not to be denied. And even this way of putting the case strains many points in favour of the traditional creed. (I.) Because, since all admit God to be Love, and nobody admits that God is cruel, the presumption is wholly in favour of the milder view, turning out the true one. (II.) Because this view is in harmony with the declared will of God to save all men. (III.) Because it is a maxim with theologians, uncontested and uncontestible, that passages of Scripture which things unworthy of God are not to be understood literally: on this ground they refuse to believe literally the assertions of Scripture that God hardens the heart, and creates evil. But, if so, why are we bound to accept literally passages which, on the common interpretation, assign to God acts of terrible cruelty? (IV.) Because the popular view is not only cruel, but is dualistic: while the opposing view rests on this great principle that, good is always, finally, stronger than evil. (V.) Because a promise binds in a sense that a threat does not, for nobody is aggrieved, though a threat remains unfulfilled: take, e.g., the case of Nineveh, where the threat was most precise and distinct. And so I am unable to see, even on the ground taken by advocates of the traditional creed, that their conclusions are warranted. And how much less are they warranted, when the interpretations of Scripture on which they rest, are shown to be untenable?

1. In one passage, 2 Peter 2:3, the word “damnation” represents a different Greek word, “apólia [ἀπώλεια],” and is rightly rendered by our Revisers as “destruction” in that place. (↩)
2. “The word by itself whether adjective or substantive, never means endless.”—Canon Farrar. “The conception of eternity, in the Semitic languages, is that of a long duration and series of ages.”—Rev. J. S. Blunt.—Dict. of Theology. “‘Tis notoriously known,” says Bishop Rust, “that the Jews, whether writing in Hebrew or Greek, do by olam (the Hebrew word corresponding to eón), and eón mean any remarkable period and duration, whether it be of life, or dispensation, or polity.” “The word eón is never used in Scripture, or anywhere else, in the sense of endlessness (vulgarly called eternity, it always meant, both in Scripture and out, a period of time; else how could it have a plural—how could you talk of the æons and æons of æons as the Scripture does?”—C. Kingsley. So the secular games, celebrated every century were called “eternal” by the Greeks.—See Huet, Orig. ii. p. 162. (↩)
3. Thus Josephus calls “æonian,” the temple of Herod, which was actually destroyed when he wrote. Philo never uses eónios of endless duration. (↩)
4. It must be noted that the endlessness of the happiness of the Redeemed depends, not on any meaning we assign to eónios, but on its own intrinsic nature, as resulting from union with Him, Who is endless life; and on texts easily to be found elsewhere, e.g., he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever, 1 John 2:17; Because I live ye shall live also, S. John 14:19; If a man keep My saying he shall never taste of death.—S. John 8:51, cf. v. 35. Compare Ps. 102:28. (↩)
5. “How little can we build dogmas on such metaphors as the devil being cast with the Beasts (Nero and the Roman world-powers) and the false Prophet—ch. 20:10-14—into the lake of fire and brimstone * * into which also are to be cast two such abstract entities as ‘Death’ and ‘Hades.’ At any rate this lake of fire is on the earth; and immediately afterwards we read of that earth being destroyed, and of a new heaven and a new earth, in which there is to be no more death or curse.”—Canon Farrar. (↩)