On the duration of Gehenna: the 'controverted judgment passages' in the New Testament
On the duration
of Gehenna: 'controverted judgment passages' in the New Testament
It is goes
without saying that there are many passages in the New Testament of the
Christian Bible that, at face value, do support the notion that
eschatological punishment are definitive and that the separation between the
‘righteous’ and the ‘wicked’ will be irrevocable. Some of these passages
include (the list is not meant to be exhaustive):
- Gospel of Matthew: Mt 5:21-2, Mt 5:29-30, Mt 13:40-2, Mt 13:47-50, Mt 24:36-9, Mt 24:45-51, Mt 25:10-11, Mt 25:31-46, Mt 26:24
- Gospel of Mark: Mk 9:43-8, Mk 14:21 (parallel to Mt 26:24)
- Gospel of Luke: Lk 12:5, Lk 16:19-31, Lk 17:26-31, Lk 19:11-27
- Gospel of John: Jn 3:5 (which has a parallel in the longer ending of the Gospel of Mark, in Mk 16:16), Jn 5:28-9, Jn 15:5-6
- Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians: 1 Cor 6:9-10
- Second Epistle to the Thessalonians: 2 Thess 1:8-9
- Second Epistle of Peter 2:6 and Jude 7
I could go
on but I think the above list is quite persuasive of what I said above. There
are so many passages in the New Testament, many of which are presented as words
uttered by Jesus (who, according to Christians, is God Incarnate). Assuming
that they do mean an irrevocable condition, we might ask ourselves in what
sense we should understand that: is it some form of endless torment? Or is it
annihilation?[1]
However, there
are a few New Testament passages that, interestingly enough, seem to point to a
limited duration of eschatological punishments which we might be called 'controverted judgment passages'. They are the following:
- Mt 5:25-6 and its parallel Lk 12:58-9
- Mt 18:23-35
- Lk 12:47-48 (which is quite interesting as it appears just after verses Lk 12:42-6 which is a close parallel of Mt 24:45-51, one of the passages listed above)
- 1 Cor 13:10-5
As it
happens, the exact interpretation of the above passages has been a cause of
great controversy among Christians since Antiquity[2],
as I shall below.
Readings
of Mt 5:25-6/Lk 12:58-9, Mt 18:23-35 and Lk 12:47-48 consistent with a view of
temporary punishments:
According
to a quote provided by the Church of the East theologian Mar Isaac of Nineveh
(fl. 7th century) in his ‘Second Part’ (Homily 39, paragraph 8),
Theodore of Mopsuestia (the ‘Interpreter’, fl. 4-5th centuries)
wrote that:
“In the world to come, those who have chosen
here what is good, will receive the felicity of good things along with praise;
whereas the wicked, who all their life have turned aside to evil deeds, once
they have been set in order in their minds by punishments and the fear of them,
choose the good, having come to learn how much they have sinned, and that they
have persevered in doing evil things and not good; by means of all this they
receive a knowledge of religion’s excellent teaching, and are educated so as to
hold on to it with a good will, and so eventually they are held worthy of the
felicity of divine munificence. For Christ would never have said “Until
you pay the last farthing” unless it had been possible for us to be
freed from our sins once we had recompensed for them through punishments. Nor
would He have said “He will be beaten with many stripes” and “He
will be beaten with few stripes” if it were not the case that the
punishments measured out in correspondence to the sins, were finally going to
have an end. ” (source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/st-isaac-the-syrian-the-triumph-of-the-kingdom-over-gehenna/ ; another version of this
quote can be found in the English translation of the 13th century
Church of the East bishop Solomon of Basra’s ‘book of the Bee’: https://sacred-texts.com/book/the-book-of-the-bee/shell/chapter-lx-whether-mercy-will-be-shewn-to-sinners-and-the-devils-in-gehenna-after-they-have-been-tormented-and-suffered-and-been-punished-or-not-and-if-mercy-is-to-be-shewn-to-them-when-will-it-be )
Also, in
the dialogue ‘On Soul and Resurrection’, Gregory of Nyssa has his ‘Teacher’,
his sister Macrina the Younger (both fl. 4th centuries), saying:
“For the Gospel in its teaching distinguishes
between a debtor of ten thousand talents and a debtor of five hundred pence,
and of fifty pence and of a farthing , which is the uttermost of coins; it
proclaims that God's just judgment reaches to all, and enhances the payment
necessary as the weight of the debt increases, and on the other hand does not
overlook the very smallest debts. But the Gospel tells us that this payment of
debts was not effected by the refunding of money, but that the indebted man was
delivered to the tormentors until he should pay the whole debt; and that means
nothing else than paying in the coin of torment the inevitable recompense, the
recompense, I mean, that consists in taking the share of pain incurred during
his lifetime, when he inconsiderately chose mere pleasure, undiluted with its
opposite; so that having put off from him all that foreign growth which sin is,
and discarded the shame of any debts, he might stand in liberty and
fearlessness.” (source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm )
Readings
of Mt 5:25-6/Lk 12:58-9, Mt 18:23-35 and Lk 12:47-48 consistent with a view of
unending punishments:
There is a
paper by A. Pirtea in Academia ("Origenism and the Memory of Evagrius
Ponticus during the Syriac Renaissance: Dionysius bar Ṣalībī’s Commentary on
the Chapters on Knowledge", link: https://www.academia.edu/129664834/Origenism_and_the_Memory_of_Evagrius_Ponticus_during_the_Syriac_Renaissance_Dionysius_bar_%E1%B9%A2al%C4%ABb%C4%AB_s_Commentary_on_the_Chapters_on_Knowledge ) in which three eastern
writers – Barsanuphius of Gaza (fl. 6th century), Babai the Great (fl.
6-7th century) and Dionysius bar Salibi (fl. 12th century)
– argue against a ‘temporary punishment’ interpretation of Mt 5:26/Lk 12:59 and
try to read Evagrius Ponticus as a supporter of the view that punishments are
endless. Here are the quotes:
"For although it is promised that a person
may eventually come out of prison, nevertheless it is ordained that no one can
come out from there unless each one pays back even the last penny. But if not
even one penny, which is the penalty of the smallest sin (quod est minimi
peccati poena), is remitted until it is atoned for in prison by means of
punishments, how is it possible for someone to be set free by the hope of being
exempted from punishment, or how will he regard the gift of grace as a license
to sin?" (Barsanuphius of Gaza, Letter 607)
"His [Evagrius’] statement is [directed]
against the evil Origenist thought hat is fully assured by the empty hope that
there is no judgment and no punishment, but that all human beings will cast
their bodies off on the last day and will be united with God in one nature. For
he rebukes them from the Scriptures, [showing] that all evil-doers will inherit
punishment forever, together with Satan, their father, and that they will
receive retribution for every small fault [resulting from] transgressing the
Law" (Babai the Great, commenting on a passage of Evagrius Ponticus* which
quotes Mt 5:26)
"He [Evagrius] demonstrates here that
there is no end to judgment. The ‘last penny’ is the extended retribution of
the sin that has not been corrected in this world by way of repentance"
(Dionysius bar Salibi, commenting the same passage)
*For
reference here is the passage from Evagrius:
"In the world to come, no one will escape
from the prison in which he will fall. For it is said, “You will not get out of
there until you give the last penny” (Matthew 5:26), which is the retribution
for a small fault" (Evagrius Ponticus, Chapter of Knowledge, 1.40)
John
Chrysostom (fl. 4-5th century) in his 61th homily on the Gospel of
Matthew, comments on Mt 18:23-35. He takes the parable as containing an
indication that the sins against God are far worse than sin against human being:
“Wherefore also He went on to say, “The Kingdom
of Heaven is likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his
servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed
him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, he commanded him
to be sold, and his wife, and his children, and all that he had.”
Then after this man had enjoyed the benefit of
mercy, he went out, and “took by the throat his fellow-servant, which owed him
an hundred pence” and having by these doings moved his lord, he caused him to
cast him again into prison, until he should pay off the whole.
Do you see how great the difference between
sins against man and against God? As great as between ten thousand talents, and
a hundred pence, or rather even much more. And this arises both from the
difference of the persons, and the constant succession of our sins. For when a
man looks at us, we stand off and shrink from sinning: but when God sees us
every day, we do not forbear, but do and speak all things without fear.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 61 on the
Gospel of St. Matthew, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200161.htm
)
And later
in the same homily, Chrysostom says:
“For He delivered him over till he should pay that which was due,” that is, for ever; for he will never repay. For since thou art not become better by the kindness shown thee, it remains that by vengeance thou be corrected.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 61 on the Gospel of St. Matthew, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200161.htm )
Notably Chrysostom seems to say that 'ten thousand talents' is a way to indicate an infinite quantity (in a similar way in which we might use the word 'myriad' to indicate an infinite quantity). So, Chrysostom seems to say (at least some) sins against God deserve unending punishments because God has an infinitely higher dignity than human beings (an argument that is more famously associated to Anselm of Aosta).
Basil of
Caesarea (fl. 4th century) on Lk 12:47-48:
“Question: If one will be punished with many
beatings and one with few, how can some say that there will not be an end to
punishment?
Answer: Things that seem ambiguous and
expressed in a veiled way in some passages of the Scripture inspired by God are
clarified on the basis of the more explicit words found in other passages. Now,
in a passage the Lord says that these will go to αἰώνιος punishment, in another passage
he sends some to αἰώνιον fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, and yet another time
he mentions the Gehenna of fire and adds: “where their worm does not die and
their fire is not extinguished”; again, the prophet has foretold, concerning
some, that “their worm will not die and their fire will not be extinguished.”
In divinely inspired Scripture there are these and similar passages in many
places. But, for a deception of the devil, many people, as though they forgot
these and similar statements of the Lord, adhere to the conception of the end
of punishment, out of an audacity that is even superior to their sin. For, if
at a certain moment there is an end to αἰώνιος punishment, αἰώνιος life will certainly have an
end as well. And if we do not admit of thinking this concerning life, what
reason should there be for assigning an end to αἰώνιος punishment? In fact, the
characterisation of αἰώνιος is equally ascribed to both. For Jesus states: “These will go to αἰώνιος punishment, and the righteous
to life αἰώνιος.”
If one accepts this, one must understand that
the expressions “One will be punished with many sufferings,” or “with few,” do
not indicate an end, but a difference in punishment. For, if the Lord is a
righteous judge, he is so not only with the virtuous, but also with the wicked,
and renders to each one according to one’s deeds. One may deserve the eternal
fire, and this, milder or stronger; one may deserve the worm that does not die,
and his such a to cause more or less suffering, in accord with each one’s desert;
and another may deserve the Gehenna, which is similarly differentiated in its
kinds of punishments, and another person may deserve the outer darkness, where
one may be found only in weeping, another also in the gnashing of teeth, according
to the duration of these punishments. And it seems indeed to be the case that
there are an outer and an inner darkness. And the Proverbs’ expression, “down
to the bottom of hell,” indicates that there are some who are in hell, to be
sure, but not on its bottom; these undergo a less severe punishment. Now, too,
it is possible to notice something of the sort in bodily illnesses: one has
fever along with other symptoms and suffering; another has only fever; the
latter is not found in the same situation as the former; and yet another one
has no fever, but is afflicted by some suffering in his limbs, and this one
too, in turn, has more or less pain than another one. Now, also what the Lord
said, “with many or few pains,” was said according to the established custom
[…] Likewise, the expression “to be tortured by many or few punishments” should
not be understood—I repeat—in the sense of an extension in time or a fulfilment
in time, but in the sense of a differentiation in punishments.” (Reg. brev. 267 PG
31.1264C-1265D; trans. Ramelli, source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/02/07/committing-theological-fraud-st-basil-the-great-and-david-bentley-hart/ )
1
Corinthians 3:10-5
See my
previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/07/anti-universalist-interpretations-of-1.html (by ‘anti-universalist’ I mean
readings of supporters of unending punishments in Gehenna; for interpretations
compatible with a ‘Gehenna limited in time’ see the Section ‘The Early Church
Fathers and 1 Corinthians 3’ in this blog post by Mark Chenoweth: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/02/02/the-deep-patristic-roots-of-harts-universalism-a-response-to-fr-lawrence-farley/)
[1] I shared my thoughts on what an
irreversible fallen condition of rational beings, if it will occur, under an
assumption of the existence of an omnibenevolent God, here: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/09/possible-problems-of-theistic.html
. In this post, I didn’t discuss explicitly what such a condition might be if
Christianity is true but given that Christians characterize God as being an omnibenevolent
God, perhaps these thoughts might apply. As I say in that post, I think that my position can be described as 'philosophical theist' and I'm sympathetic to Christianity.
[2] Among some contemporary
Christian theologians, there is also the idea that ‘universal salvation’, at
least of human beings, might eventually happen and is something to hope for but,
at the same time, it must also be affirmed that a state of irreversible
perdition is possible for human beings. According to this reading of the New
Testament scriptures, textual evidence is ambiguous with some passages in the
Scriptures that suggest a final and irreversible separation between the ‘saved’
and the ‘lost’ whereas other passages seem to leave room for hoping that all
shall be saved. An example of an influential theologian who argued for a
version of this position is the Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/06/quotes-from-hans-von-balthasars-dare-we.html
. As I explained in a previous post (link: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/09/possible-problems-of-theistic.html
), I think that it is not clear to me that an omnibenevolent God who would
arguably want to give all a state of unending happiness manage to ‘save all’
even when omnipotence is accepted. In fact, to conclude that ‘all will be saved’,
it seems to me that one need to assume that it is possible for God to create
rational beings that cannot be irreversibly lost and I’m not sure that
this is the case. At the same time, given that an omnibenevolent God would
arguably want that no one should be irreversibly lost, such an outcome seems to
be possible.
Comments
Post a Comment