Loading...The most difficult passage that I will need to deal with in my discussion of Jesus’ view of the afterlife is the famous teaching about the last judgment of the “Sheep and the Goats,” found only in the Gospel of Matthew, there are reasons for thinking it is something Jesus actually said. Doesn’t it teach eternal torment for the wicked, instead of annihilation? I’ve concluded that the answer is no. See if you find my reasoning persuasive.
The passage comes at the tail end of Jesus “apocalyptic discourse” (Matthew 24-25), two chapters of Jesus’ discussion of what will happen at the end of time and of how people need to prepare for it. To conclude the discourse, Jesus describes the coming Day of Judgment, when the great cosmic judge, the Son of Man, sits on his throne, judging all the nations of the world gathered before him (Matthew 25:31-46). This is not merely the judgment of the righteous and wicked in Israel, but of all the pagans as well. The Son of Man separates all the peoples into two groups, the sheep to his right and the goats to his left. He then addresses the sheep, welcoming them into the amazing kingdom God has prepared for them as a reward for all the good they did during their lives, because: “When I was hungry you gave me something to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me drink, when I was a stranger you welcomed me, when naked you clothed me, when sick you visited me, when in prison you came to me” (25:35-36). The sheep are completely confused and ask what he can possibly mean. They have never even seen him before. How could they have done any of these things for him? He replies, “Truly I say to you, as much as you did these things to the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you did it to me” (25:40).
He then turns to the goats, and …
To see what I have to say next, you need to belong to the blog. Don’t be an outsider: goats don’t have an easy time of it! Join the Blog! It won’t cost much and every penny will go to help those in need.
Dr. Ehrman, while I disagree with you that the Parable of the Sheep and Goats represents something the historical Jesus actually said, I do think it does somewhat represent an eschatological concept that the historical Jesus conveyed in his preaching. Namely, I do think the historical Jesus said the righteous would be saved to live in the Kingdom of God, and that the wicked would be tossed into the fire with Satan and his demons.
However, everything else in the parable — the “when I was hungry, you fed me…” parts (25:35-36, 45) — I think was created by a later Christian. One clue is 25:40 (“…to the least of these, my brothers…”) which does not sound like something the historical Jesus would have said, but rather sounds like something a later Christian would have put into Jesus’s mouth.
The passage also falls within what I call the Three Cs criteria: commission, community and catastrophe. That is, if the pericope is meant to put forth Jesus’s teachings on how Christians should “spread the word” throughout the world, or how Christians should live together (particularly, that they should live communally), or how Jesus was predicting his own death (and resurrection), then I set it aside as something that did not come from the historical Jesus, but rather came from later Christians.
In the case of the Sheep and Goats, it falls squarely in the “community” criterion, meaning that it was intended to encourage Christians to live communally and harmoniously, sharing all things with each other and caring for each other like a family. So I don’t think it goes back to the historical Jesus, but was instead created by later Christians, who sought to cohere and foster the inchoate Christian movement.
Other than that, I think your interpretation of the afterlife in this passage is accurate.
I should clarify that I think it’s possible the part about the sheep and goats being separated could possibly go back to the real Jesus, but the interpretative parts around it, such the “when I was hungry…” parts, that I think came later.
With these words likely being from Jesus, where did he hear these things originally?
He either came up with them himself or heard them from someone else, but we have no record of whom he heard (hundreds of people, one should think), other than John the Baptist.
Based on passages like this in the synoptics (and the rich young ruler, the good samaritan, and many others) I’m somewhat convinced that Jesus taught mostly a ‘works’ gospel–and he and his first followers thought eternal rewards are based more on good behavior, forgiving others, moral character, not on Jesus’ sacrifice…then Paul came along, ended up developing a ‘grace’ gospel, and Paul’s view eventually won out…possibly even influencing the gospels, so that they contain both ‘works’ and ‘grace’ messages. Is this view tenable? I’m guessing not…but what’s the biggest problem with this view?
Yup, that’s tenable. I don’t think Paul himself is the one who invented the other view, but he is certainly the one we know about who promoted it most.
Could it not be the case that Jesus was emphasising works and keeping the law because he was talking about the *current* path (at that time) to eternal life i.e. prior to his death and resurrection? I realise the gospel writers were writing many years after his death, but couldn’t they simply be reporting what Jesus taught at the time was the correct way to achieve eternal life?
Yes, the problem is that if Jesus were right the following the law could bring eternal life, there would be no reason for him to die.
That’s exactly what I believe. Jesus clearly preached a works Gospel and even told his disciples that their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. Matthew 5:20. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Not any Pauline type Grace in there.
There’s punishment and then there’s torture. To believe in an eternal punishment means you believe in a god whose justice is so stern (infinitely stern) that it can only be satisfied by infinite torture. Not just any old kind of torture, but everlasting torture. So Jesus’ parable is one that condones everlasting torture, instead of merely a swift execution for the goats. Jesus’ mercy is missing in this parable. Just as Jesus condones slavery in other parables, here he approves of eternal torture. Jesus meek and mild is nowhere to be seen in this parable. How can a weak, finite and miserable creature like a human being be so guilty as to merit eternal torture?
My argument is precisely that Jesus is not talking about everlasting torture.
Yes. Understood. My point is that you’ll need a very powerful argument to convince anyone that Jesus is NOT advocating eternal torture for the goats in this parable. If you can accomplish that, then you’re home free. But I think you still have a load of work ahead of you.
I find your argument compelling, and I agree with your conclusion that the “eternal punishment” meant to perish utterly and completely, eternally separated from “the Kingdom of God”.
“It’s possible, of course, that a later Christian invented the story – but we don’t know of any early Christian authors who thought that “being a good person” in itself was enough to earn God’s rewards at the resurrection.”
I understand that Matthew is the most Jewish of the gospels, and some argue (convincingly in my view) that it was written by the Jerusalem Church, possibly by the “men of James” that Paul contends with.
In the epistle of James (1:27, 2:14-26), perhaps penned by the same authors of Matthew, it seems to argue that good works (i.e. being a good person) were necessary to earn God’s rewards at the resurrection.
Could the author(s) of James also be responsible for this parable?
Nothing suggests it was the exact same person, but possibly someone with a similar view.
THE PIVOT: Actually, I have a big question which I cannot formulate as well as I would like. Here goes. I grew up in a world where every issue was addressed by quoting scripture and every sentence and, even every word. of the Bible was considered to be the Word of God. Then, with your considerable help, I have learned about contradictions and historical discrepancies in the Gospels. I also have learned that the Gospel authors were not eyewitnesses to the events they described and that the Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus. This resulted in my viewing the Gospels as being a mixture of legend and history and my no longer taking every sentence and word of scripture quite so seriously. Now, with our discussion of the Afterlife, we seem to be pivoting back to placing a lot of emphasis on sentences and words written in the Gospels in order to prove things. I understand the criteria (multiple sources, etc.) that historians use to separate history from legend and how they then use the separated history to prove things. But even doing this, the pivot toward emphasizing scripture as evidence is difficult for me now that I think a lot of scripture is unreliable and legendary. Do you have any suggestions about how to make this pivot? In other words, how do you learn that the Bible can be unreliable as a historical source and then pivot and use the Bible as evidence to prove something? Thanks! .
The historical approach to the Bible is very different from the fundamentalist one. The historian realizes that there are materials in the Gospels that are not historically accurate. But most think that *some* of the materials *are* historical. The question then is which is which. If something *is* probably historical, then it’s perfectly legitimate to use it to decide what Jesus really said (and thought). Make sense? (If you have three sources that all say Trump said something, but you have reason for thinking two of them are wrong about that, and only one is right, it’s perfectly legitimate to take that one to figure out what he meant)
I used to review papers for the American Journal of Psychiatry. My mentor for doing this was Dr. Keith Brodie who became president of Duke University. He was an usually kind, decent, and intelligent man. He taught me to review papers by spending 90% of my time looking at the little stuff in the papers, such as how did the authors make their diagnoses, etc. His contention was that if an author cannot get the little stuff correct (how to reliably diagnose schizophrenia), then how in the world can they get the big stuff (the effectiveness of a drug in treating schizophrenia) correct? So, to expand the analogy, if the authors of the Gospels cannot correctly identify which women came to the empty tomb, etc., then how in the world can we trust what they wrote about the bigger stuff?
Great analogy. The big stuff is made out of lots of small stuff. But if *some* of the small stuff is right, then it might still create a big-stuff picture. But it would be one that is different from what the authors think. That’s how I envision the Gospels. Wrong about a lot of small stuff and about their big picture. But enough snmall stuff that is right that we can reconstruct a different picture.
Agreed – on both points. However, I have to keep in mind an argument I read a while back… basically – if three of us were to give an account of the same eyewitness event… our details won’t necessarily match… etc. — However, if you start looking at how things were added/changed etc…(extremely obvious – esp. after Dr. Ehrman’s defense/examination) the whole thing blows apart… and I end up questioning the entire thing… Ultimately, my adventure led me to commentaries from Rocco A. Errico and George M. Lamsa… which paints an entirely different picture of the Bible as we know it.. in the West… and much more believable in my opinion… but then we get into the whole primacy thing… I’m leaning toward Greek Primacy as far as written.. but as far as spoken… totally Aramaic – still don’t know if I buy that Jesus spoke Greek.. but maybe?
Scientists have an expression: signal-to-noise ratio. That is, how much of what you’re receiving is actual information, and how much of it is just noise. In a way, what scholars like Bart do is try to separate the “signal” of fact and reality from the “noise” of legend, inconsistency and fraud. Even something as wildly inaccurate and inconsistent as the Bible has a bit of signal in it, and Bart’s job is to find that signal, separate it from the noise, and give it back to us.
It seems very difficult to determine (1) what Jesus actually said about the afterlife; (2) what he meant; and (3) how/if later Christian beliefs about the afterlife are connected to Jesus’s as opposed to other possible sources instead. Looking forward to getting some clarity from your book.
I like your reasoning, but the author of Matthew tends (throughout his gospel) to emphasize “works,” keeping the law, etc., more than the other guys, no? Something that goes against “what the other guys are saying” doesn’t, to me, make it less likely to be made up by the author to support his beliefs/agenda.
Yup, it’s a good point. But Matthew also thought htat faith in Jesus is what mattered for salvation — and that view runs contrary to this parable. That would be the argument in its favor as historical to Jesus.
Gotcha. Thanks!
I only wish that the teaching of this parable had persisted, rather than being replaced with the concept of salvation through right beliefs, which continues to divide rather than unite people to this day. One of the best known verses in the New Testament is John 3:16 and most believers can quote it from memory. If true believers will NOT perish but have ETERNAL LIFE, then what will happen to non-believers? They WILL perish and NOT have eternal life. It seems obvious but most believers I know insist on eternal torment.
Me too!
Convincing.
I don’t think there’s much reason to doubt that the sheep and the goats comes from Jesus–as you say, the Christians living when Matthew was written would have no reason to say “Anybody can join the Kingdom if he or she treats other people decently.” Talk about a membership disincentive!
But Matthew’s gospel is angry and vengeful, often disturbingly so. How do we know the vision of Gehenna and the utter destruction of all who fail to make the grade doesn’t come from Matthew, not Jesus? I’m not saying Jesus thought the fate of the goats would be pleasant. But how is there wailing and gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness if they’re just annihilated? I think a lot of this is less theological than emotional. Frustration at how long it’s taking for the change to come, and at all the people who are making their mission so difficult.
I agree Jesus wasn’t talking about eternal punishment in an otherworldly realm. He’s talking about a place in the material world that will be separate from the Kingdom, where life will be much harder. But I’ll say again that if the Son of Man did his job right, and it’s only goats in the outer darkness, what kind of world would that be?
As to eternal life, I’m not sure what I think Jesus meant by that. Frankly, the idea of perpetual consciousness doesn’t appeal to me. I might take my chances with the goats. As a (lapsed) Catholic, you understand, I have other options. Purgatory, Limbo. We’re not as pass/fail as your old cohorts. 😉
If the earliest followers of Jesus, after his death, were firmly convinced that it was faith in him that brought salvation, how could what you describe as Jesus’ original view on salvation survive into the eighties when Matthew put his sources together? How is the chain of transmission here ?
Sometimes people *do* pass along the words of a teacher as he actually said them!
Dr. Ehrman –
However one interprets this parable, as you describe it, it surely represents a major tenet of belief. After all, it lays out the foundation for salvation, i.e according to Jesus, this is how one attains eternal life. I am wondering why something so fundamental as this appears only in Matthew. What are your thoughts on that? Is it analagous to Jesus’ claims to be divine only appearing in John? And, if so, and despite your argument for its authenticity, I would suggest that its authenticity is suspect. Thanks in advance.
I”m not sure. There are lots of parables found in only one or two sources, instead of, say, all four. Lots of stories out there, I suppose, and authors have to choose what to include.
Okay- dumb questions – why the reference to fire or a funeral pyre? Wouldn’t the group Jesus belonged to and the groups he preached to have just been buried? If their bodies were cremated wouldn’t that prevent them from being resurrected? Or is that your point- to be consumed in the fire would rule out resurrection and the kingdom?
Being burned to death was a common form of hideous execution, and we have some record of Christians being subjected to it.
but was there any connection with the body being burned into ashes and not being able to be resurrected?
Early Christians who believed in teh resurrection discussed this and decided: absolutely not! (We all turn to dust and ashes anyway…)
Recall, too, that the Torah prescribes burning to death:
1) If a man married a woman and her mother, all were to be burned (Leviticus 20:14). (What’s interesting about this passage is that the preceding verse is one of the prohibitions against homosexuality, yet gay men were to be killed–presumably by stoning–but not burned to death.)
2) If the daughter of a priest became a harlot, she was to be burned (Leviticus 21:9; cf. Genesis 38:24, where Judah commands that his pregnant (by him!) daughter-in-law should be burned. So much for the rights of the unborn.)
I totally agree that Matthew 25:31-46 teaches ‘salvation by works’, a view which stands in stark contrast to ‘salvation by faith in the resurrection / vindication of Jesus as Lord’ as stressed by Paul.
I can’t help but notice the rather large unspoken-of elephant in the room throughout your post though: Matthew 25’s Jesus is quite explicit in saying the “eternal fire” for the unsaved is the same fire in which the Devil and his angels are cast. In Revelation 20, it is explicitly said that in this place the Devil and his angels experience “torment day and night forever”. At the very least, Revelation teaches ECT for the Devil and his angels. But if the unsaved are cast there as well, is it not the most natural reading to assume that the author of that passage assumes the same fate of eternal torment?
I don’t think Matthew had any knowledge of Revelation 20, but maybe I’ll post on that passage as well. On the other hand, maybe the fire is “eternal” because these deathless beings are also there (unlike mortals, they don’t die in fire).
Matthew 25:31-46 is contemporaneous with Revelation – i.e. post-Mark, “late 1st century”, and, like Matthew, with more of a Jewish edge than other NT texts. And recall the theme linking fire with eternal suffering already has precedence in Jewish literature such as Judith… I still think it’s not at all a closed case that Matthew 25 hasn’t an ETC view in mind.
My big argument is that he doesn’t mention “torment” as the punishment; the punishment is contrasted directly with “life” and so it appears that it is (rather than torture), “death.” (Just as today we could torture criminals or execute them; both are horrible punishments.)
As I understand this discussion, there is nothing directly corroborating the existence of “hell” as we know it in common modern terms — at least via Jesus’ words. Conversely, we neither have a clear understanding of an afterlife from Jesus? Is resurrection or salvation referring to the constructs of an afterlife or a transmigration of the soul/spirit? The opposite of “eternal life” doesn’t seem to me to be eternal punishment. The inability to live again, i.e., eternal happiness, joy, seems to be fitting enough. Despite its miseries; human life itself is often regarded as the embodiment of eternal joy, happiness; at least it supposed to be. Is true death simply a termination of the soul/spirit? I’m asking this question not to introduce Eastern or New-Age thought here, only curious if this interpretation jibes well within this particular context.
Bart said: “My big argument is that he doesn’t mention “torment” as the punishment; the punishment is contrasted directly with “life” and so it appears that it is (rather than torture), “death.” (Just as today we could torture criminals or execute them; both are horrible punishments.)”
Sure. But Matthew 25 contrasts “eternal life” not explicitly with “and the others will cease to exist”, but with language of “eternal punishment” and “eternal fire”. As Bob Price once put it, “if the wicked are just incinerated like Jews in Auschwitz (bad enough!), why does the fire need to burn eternally?”. Similarly, Revelation 14 refers to a “smoke that rises forever”, and again it cannot be forgotten that Matthew 25 says this fire is the same reserved for the Devil and his angels, whom in Revelation 20 are said to “suffer day and night forever”. Even if Matthew 25 doesn’t explicitly state it, I see no way to guarantee that he hasn’t some sort of ECT thing in mind given that Revelation 20 is contemporary with it, and motifs of fire and worms already having precedence for ECT symbolism in Judith 16, etc.
There may be two reasons for the first to be said to be eternal. It may just be metaphorical, the way Isaiah says that the smoke from Edom’s destruction will go up forever and ever (Isaiah 34), even though no one thinks the place is still burning and has been nonstop since the 8th c BCE; OR, maybe more likely?, it’s because that fire has been prepared for the Devil and the demons, and they, unlike humans, are immortal. So the flames need to be.
Hi Bart, This is the firt time I have sent a message on here. I studied this subject in exhaustive depth many years ago and I came to the same conclusion as you on the Mathew passage. I noted that the same writer had jesus say in Mathew 10:28 was that the soul and body would be be destroyed in Gehenna and so my thinking was that Jesus was thinking they would be “Destroyed forever” not tormented forever. Jesus believed in destruction not the preservation of body and soul in Gehenah.
If the Goats are annihilated never to be heard of again then they would have no knowledge of the blessedness they missed out on, thus they should have no regrets. So what’s so bad about that?
The realize ahead of time that they’ve serious blown it, and die in mental anguish. Just as capital punishment today is the “ultimate,” even if after dead, the person no longer realizes it.
Why did Jesus say that the prodigal son’s father said “this son of mine was dead and is alive again!” ?
Was this to prove the “resurrection of the dead”? ????
It’s just metaphorical. He had nothing to do with me and now he does.
Yeah, but if this is Jesus’ story, that word means more than just a father saying his son is dead to him.
To Jesus, living is more than just breathing. Many people are walking around breathing, and they’re still dead, because they lead empty shallow selfish lives.
It’s not like “I have no son!” It’s like “He was destroying himself, losing his chance at eternal life, and now he has come to his senses.”
Jesus didn’t care much about familial relations, in and of themselves. The inheritance is the Kingdom, of course. But the father isn’t God–“I have sinned against God and against you.” The father is someone else.
“When I die, everything I have shall be yours.” The father is Jesus. Who will leave the Kingdom as an inheritance to all his spiritual sons and daughters. But he won’t be there himself. Just a thought.
> To Jesus, living is more than just breathing.
good observation godspell
more interesting is Matt 19:16
did the Teacher (Jesus) and the one questioning the teacher mean
“Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may [continue breathing indefinitely]?”
Rather than metaphorically as in the story of prodigal son
I’m not sure anyone believed they’d just walk around in their own bodies forever in a world like the one they knew.
But neither did they think they’d be sitting on a cloud, strumming a harp.
I must be overlooking something. If Matthew holds that Jesus holds that “Living a good life by helping those in need will earn a person salvation”, does that mean Matthew doesn’t hold with those who maintain that faith in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus is necessary for salvation? Wasn’t Matthew writing later than Paul?
(I realize the words quoted above are yours and not Matthew’s but they are explication). Thank You.
Matthew himself thinks that Jesus is the one who brings salvation, and the ones who truly follow him will indeed lead highly moral lives.
Sorry this question is slightly off topic but close I guess.
In the hard core fundamentalist church I was raised in the so-called “parable of the talents” in vs14-30 was given a straightforward “capitalist” reading; Be Industrious! Given that it is Jesus’ apocalyptic teaching about the coming kingdom and what it will be like, it becomes not at all obvious to me what the point of the parable actually is. In fact the closer I read it the odder it seems. What do you think Jesus’ actual point was?
Thanks! Terrific thread.
Yup, that’s a common American view! On Jesus’ lips the parable was instead about using the gifts God had given to promote God’s purposes, to multiply the gifts by using them.
I think that is an accurate interpretation of the scripture. Scripture is full of references contrasting life against death and in these cases death is seen as a complete ending of life and eternal life is seen as a continuation of life. Otherwise we’re back into the modern, or more common, interpretation which believes death is a transitioning from a physical life to a spiritual life, rendering death meaningless, and therefore life hs always been eternal and what human beings are responsible for is choosing its location. Frankly I do not see scripture teaching that. Again, I think annihilation is a scriptural view.
This leads me to my question. As the Roman Empire progressed we see the rise of Hellenic culture and beliefs. In ancient Greece the continued existence of the dead depended on their constant remembrance by the living. In other words death in Greek culture was not final it was a transition to another form of existence. The afterlife was known as Hades and was a grey world ruled by the Lord of the Dead, also known as Hades.
Is there evidence that Hellenic culture had an influence on the developing theories of the Afterlife in Christianity, specifically that death was not final and that all souls move onto an afterlife existence in either a state or reward or punishment?
Yes, as it turns out, that will be one of the theses of my book.
What’s the purpose of having an *eternal* fire? If its purpose is to annhilate all of the sinners on Judgment Day, why bother keeping that bad boy forever stoked? The best reason I can think of for having an eternal fire is to burn sinners in eternal pain.
It’s either a metaphor, the way it says in Isaiah 34 that the smoke of burning Edom will go up forever and ever (though in reality, of course, it did not), or it’s eternal because it is reserved for the immortal enemies of God, the devil and his demons.
Yes, it’s clearly a metaphor. I doubt there is some literal eternal burning lake of fire. Instead, it’s representative of some terrifying and painful place where bad souls go to hang out with the devil and his minions — an eternal place of suffering.
Question (1). If it’s a metaphor, and there is no literal fire, there’s nothing to burn a soul to annihilation – right?
Question (2). What’s the biblical evidence that a soul/spirit can be annhilated?
Question (3). If Jesus had annihilation in mind — which should be poof…sayanara…oblivion — then why all of this horrible talk of eternal lakes of fire and weeping and gnashing of teeth? Don’t you agree the tone and tenor of his language strongly suggests that Jesus envisioned something far more then simple annihilation?
1. Right. “Burning” is just a metaphor for “horrible death” 2. Jesus speaks about how God can “destroy both body and soul” 3. The only eternal lake of fire is in Revelation; I’ll be posting on that soon Weeping and gnashing of teeth: when people are raised to see that they will not enter the kingdom, they are horribly distressed. Then destroyed. Awful way to go.
I have been thinking of this
“Weeping and gnashing of teeth”
and want to hear your take on it
a couple of thoughts for what they are worth
I think this weeping / gnashing of teeth signifies a internal pain of conscience rather than physical pain like being burnt with fire. wouldn’t a pang of conscience be more painful than a physical burning of the flesh, in Jesus view??
Consider Judas (according to the Gospel accounts), Actually annihilation (suicide) was preferable to the pain he felt after he realized the great crime he had committed. So if a soul were annihilated after few minutes of its body being burnt, that really isn’t such a great punishment as if the soul continued longer realizing his/her mistake. how that figures into your thesis i am not sure.
I agree that eternal torment is not necessarily nor explicitly implied by Jesus’ ministry, but that doesn’t necessitate jumping to the conclusion of annihilation.
All through out the old testament God apparently put the Jewish people in dire straits, not exactly as punishment but so that when they realized their mistakes and their consciences forced them to the extreme they would wind up repenting and turning back to God.
Similarly I think that its possible and reasonable that Jesus could have seen the weeping and gnashing of teeth leading to sinners repentance and so eventual reconciliation with God
So, Bart, are you saying that the lost/wicked (“the goats”) will die twice? Once physically and then once again at the judgment?
Do we have any interpretations that allow for three deaths?
They die and go to Hades; but at the end of time God raises everyone from the dead (from Hades): some go into his glorious kingdom, others realize the errors of their ways and receive teh ultimate punishment of destruction.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’m interested in reading the Bible in its entirety. Would you recommend doing so completely on my own or with a study guide? And if you do suggest a guide, do you have any historical, secular resources you can point me to?
Thank you for all of the work you do!
Best recommendation. Get the HarperCollins Study Bible and use that, with it’s introductions and notes. Good luck! Don’t worry if some parts are less scintillating than others. It’s a big book, and parts are flat out fantastic.
You clearly believe that Jesus spoke of an “eternal fire” into which the sinners would be cast. But why would he do this if eternal torment was not involved? Specifically, why would the fire be “eternal?” So, the fire consumes the sinners, and then it just goes on burning? Forever? For no reason? That doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s either a metaphor, the way it says in Isaiah 34 that the smoke of burning Edom will go up forever and ever (though in reality, of course, it did not), or it’s eternal because it is reserved for the immortal enemies of God, the devil and his demons.
Bart, thanks for this very interesting series of posts. I hope there are more. Is the meaning of Gehanna and the interpretation of the sheep and goats parable given here generally held by scholars? Is this a consensus view?
No, those are views I came to while thinking hard about these passages (after knowing them well for 40 years!)
Is it possible we are over thinking all this?
Maybe Jesus was using hyperbole his point being just
“[On Judgement Day] you will be extraordinarily blessed if now you feed the hungry, house the stranger, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit prisoners; you will definitely regret it, if you ignore them”
thats how it sounds to me and Isn’t that the point?
I am not sure we should make inferences of Jesus’ particular theological precepts regarding all these ideas such incineration, annihilation, judicial proceedings etc
Yup, that’s pretty much my view too.
I know I am asking a rhetorical question but during the Middle Ages, society was just fine with the idea of eternal torment. In our modern society, however, we now tend to view an eternal torment for finite sins as not justified or moral. Do you think more and more churches will shift into an annihilationist view? I’m thinking they will, though the RCC may be the last to let go! I think eternal torment has become so appalling to the young that a shift will have to take place for survival! Your opinion?
I think they are, absolutely, and will continue to do so.
As Abraham’s greater Son, Jesus sees Himself as the One who will “bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.” This is a judgment of the nations based on how they treated Christ’s “brethren.” Compare to Joel chapter three. Jesus told His disciples that they would be hated and persecuted by all nations especially at the end of the age. You see this same persecution of the brethren from the beasts in Daniel 7 and Revelation. This confederation of 10 kingdoms comprising the “beast” that makes war on the saints is the “Adversary and his messengers” or “Devil and his angels.” These are not Satan and the demons, even though the beast that persecutes the Saints is a mirror image of the Dragon that orchestrates the persecution. Those nations that do nothing to help his brethren in the time of their need-they are hungry, naked, thirsty, in prison–receive the same fiery judgments as those nations that took an active part in being an adversary to His brethren. This isn’t a judgment of individuals per se, but of nations. It determines their judgment at His coming and their status when He returns and sets up His kingdom. Egypt and Edom’s status is described in Joel 3:19-21. Daniel and Revelation figures the nations that are adversaries to the Saints as “beasts” and Jesus figures the nations that did nothing or helped as sheep and goats. So this is a picture of Jesus bringing judgment on the nations and breaking them like pottery and then ruling over them with an iron rod. That is the greater Biblical context. It might be “hell on earth” but it is not hell in an underworld as most Christians believe.
BTW, the Greek adjective AIONIOS which is commonly translated “forever” literally means “that which is of or pertaining to an age(s) or AION.” All noun/adjective pairs work this way. For instance, the American president is the president of or pertaining to America. Atmospheric pressure is the pressure of or pertaining to the atmosphere. The quarterly report is the report of or pertaining to the quarter. Therefore, the AIONIOS life or the AIONIOS fire/chastisement is the life or chastisement of or pertaining to the age or AION in view. Jesus said that “…in the AION to come AIONIOS life.”(Mark 10:30) The phrase usually translated “forever and ever” is literally “into the ages of the ages” which is a similar to “Lord of Lords” or “King of Kings” or “Holy of Holies.” Most of the phrases “ages of the ages” are connected to God’s glory. In other words, God’s glory will shine far brighter in the ages to come when Christ and His Saints are ruling than it does now. The ages to come are superior to the present age, just as the Lord of lords is superior to other lords. Scripture speaks of this age, ages to come, the end of the age, end of the ages, etc. How do you speak of something that is of or pertaining to these ages? You speak of it as AIONIOS. If AION meant “eternity,” then AIONIOS would mean that which is of or pertaining to eternity, but since AION means age/eon then AIONIOS must mean that which is of or pertaining to an age or ages. The scriptures speak hundreds of times about “ages”(olam/eon) but never about “eternity.” Therefore it is only logical to assume that scripture would need a phrase to speak of that which is of or pertaining to these ages, especially of the glorious ages to come. Scripture speaks of the ages coming to an end, therefore the life or chastisement pertaining to the ages will also end. At that point, death will have been abolished by making all alive in Christ and God will be all in all. (1Cor 15:20-28) Then the “real” everlasting life will have begun for everyone. I’m a “universalist” if you haven’t figured that out by now.
Do you think Jesus is here also saying that “the Devil & his angels” will be annihilated or does he think they will be tormented endlessly in the eternal fire? If the latter, then why should we think “the goats” will be treated differently?
My sense is that as angelic beings, the devil and his demons are immortals, unlike humans, who are not.
The Sheep and Goats post reminds me of two things:
If given the option, I would never have agreed to participate in a game (an existence) where I would possibly end up in eternal punishment. (if given the choice – of course)
And additionally… I don’t think anything done (however bad it may be) in a finite existence could be equally justified by an eternal punishment.. (or reward for that matter)… by an honest God.
I understand your argument that “eternal life” is being contrasted to “eternal torment” to show that the latter is a final death, presumably a horrible one. But I also think that, intentionally or not, the comparison is ambiguous enough to allow later interpreters to read it as being tormented eternally. Can you point to a place, either NT or 2nd century, where the shift in focus from reward in heaven to punishment in hell started? Justin Martyr, perhaps? Or had it already started before him?
(Side comment: Everybody reads Dante’s Inferno, but very few read the other two parts. Hell is much more fascinating than heaven!)
Yes, that’s why almost everyone today reads the opposite of life as torment — they are reading into it (meaning, by definition, it is ambivalent)
Is Matthew 25: 46 translated correctly?
Bart:
People will enter the glorious kingdom of God, or be excluded to be destroyed by fire, because of their ethical activities, and for nothing else. Living a good life by helping those in need will earn a person salvation.
The earliest followers of Jesus, after his death, were firmly convinced that it was faith in him – in particular, his death and resurrection– that could make a person right with God. This was the belief not only of the apostle Paul, whose writings we will consider in the next chapter, but of all the early Christians we know about, including, of course, the authors of the Gospels.
Steefen:
The first person Jesus saved was one of the bandits crucified with him. What he still believed was Jesus’ Son of Man – Kingdom of God mission, that Jesus was the Lord of that Kingdom that was earthly; the only person Jesus told it was not of this Earth was Pilate) which is not what Jn 3:16 and Paul believed. Mt, Mk, and Lk do not have an equivalent to Jn 3:16; so the authors of the Gospels did not agree with Paul and John.
Now, this relates to one of my other questions: Was the third person Son of Man immortal while Jesus in the first-person referring to himself as Son of Man was mortal? Given the healings and miracles was the kingdom of God on earth a place of immortality such that Jesus did not have to tell his disciples of his succession plans. Jesus did not even know he was going to be plucked away into mortality opening the door to a third-person (another) Son of Man. Once upon the cross, about to die, Jesus gives us another place, different from the Kingdom of God, he gives us a place called Paradise. To the “thief,” because in the hour of death you still believed in the Kingdom of God Son of Man movement, you will be with me in Paradise, the place mortal citizens of the Kingdom of God go after life.
= = =
Significant parts of Jesus’ ethical teachings are Stoic. How do you account for the amount of Stoicism in Jesus’ teaching?
Do you blame the author of Matthew or in Jesus’ missing years, he studied Stoicism?
A few questions I hope are discussed in the afterlife book:
What role did 1 Enoch play in Jesus’ belief system?
Did Jesus believe that heaven and earth would pass away (Matthew 24:35; Luke 21:33) and where did that come from?
Where did the idea that Elijah must come first come from? What was he supposed to do once he came? Matthew 17:11
The elect’s gathering is especially confusing to me if Jesus believed everyone would live forever on earth.
Isn’t there an ancient text that says everyone will be brought into the kingdom of God eventually?
I’ll be dealing a bit with Enoch and Jesus’ view of the Kingdom; Elijah coming first comes from the end of Malachi. And yes, I will be dealing at the end of my book with universal salvation.
Maybe you are right, but I can help thinking that just death would feel like a measly punishment for wrong-doers, living as they did in a culture that added pain and humiliation to their death penalties.
On a separate point, Jesus’ description of who will be rewarded has always struck me as beautiful, and a genuinely appealing moral vision, even if I don’t believe in an afterlife.
Isn’t the death sentence the most harsh penalty given out today? Especially if it’s a painful one (say, being burned at the stake)
” Like the worm that never dies, [the fire of eternal punishment] goes on, but the person who is punished has expired.”
Are you saying that the “worm” (maggot) actually somehow doesn’t die? If so, why couldn’t a human body be burned forever without dying? If you believe that the maggot will die, wouldn’t that be evidence that humans aren’t tormented forever, since we know that maggots don’t live forever, especially when exposed to fire?
I don’t think Jesus was literally talking about immortal worms, no.
Matthew 10:14-15
14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town.
Matthew 11:23-24
23And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24But I tell you that on the day of judgement it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.’
Don’t these verses teach that there will be graduated levels of punishment on judgment day? If so, how do these verses comport with Matthew 25’s binary punishment, wherein everyone is either a sheep or goat, given eternal life or destroyed?
Yes, it does seem to. On the other hand, it’s hard to figure out what is actaully being talked about. How will a village be punished on judgment day?
Is Tertullian the earliest person to explicitly say that the wicked will burn in hell forever, or is there an earlier witness to this view? Did Tertullian come to this view through an explication of the New Testament, or did outside sources bring to bear?
Luke 16 seems to presuppose eternal punishment (for the rich man)
Yes, the opposite of life is death. But this could mean that the opposite of eternal, continuous life is eternal, continually repeated deaths, ad infinitum.
Could Jesus have conceived of eternal punishment as involving a repeatedly renewed experience of death, going on forever? Imagine a fire which burns you to death…but as soon as you are dead you are miraculously brought back to life again, so you can taste the punishment again…now imagine this going on forever…..
I don’t see it that way. Eternal life means you’re alive forever. Eternal death means you’re dead forever.
Have you discussed the Rich Man and Lazarus from Luke 16 in this thread? I’m now wondering about that one – because it seems as though the rich man wasn’t annihilated in Hades – unless he just wasn’t *yet* annihilated – because he’s able to communicate with Abraham from Hades. But that story comes across, to me, like something Jesus probably taught as well, just like the Sheep and Goats – Lazarus seems to receive salvation more or less just because he wasn’t rich in life. And the story seems to indicate that Jesus plays no role in salvation at all (the rich man doesn’t even reach out to Jesus for help from Hades – he reaches out to Abraham instead). Do you think this story still supports a view of annihilation as opposed to eternal torment?
Also, semi-related, was there a difference between Hades and Gehenna?
I haven’t discussed it yet, but I’m thinking about it! I devote a section of one of my chapters to it.
I like your interpretation Dr. Ehrman. As one that’s agnostically inclined, at least I’ll be annihilated instead of tortured forever in case I’m wrong.
How would (or did) Luther deal with the sheep and goats, since his position is justification by faith – as I understand that (and please correct me if I’m wrong), that means that if you have faith, you will naturally do good works.
I don’t really know.
Bart, Do you really see the sheep and goats story as just another parable? It is not the same format as the others and does not relate a story of events happening to other characters. In fact, it is obvious from its opening words that it is a prophetic account of real future events involving real people. The future imperative “will” is employed no fewer than eleven times in this short passage. The sheep & goats simile is clearly a subordinate and parenthetic illustration.
Yes, I think that’s the point I was making. It appears to be a parable. Jesus doesn’t really think that the nations of earth are sheep and goats. It’s an image. Are you saying that a parable would not use the future tense? (It’s a parable about what *will* happen; but it’s not a literal description of what will happen. The parable indicates that the righteous will be vindicated and the unrighteous destroyed)
Here is Thayer’s entry for “punishment” as used in Matthew 25:46:
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2851: κόλασις
κόλασις, κολάσεως, ἡ (κολάζω), correction, punishment, penalty: Matthew 25:46; κόλασιν ἔχει,brings with it or has connected with it the thought of punishment, 1 John 4:18. (Ezekiel 14:3f, etc.; 2 Macc. 4:38; 4 Macc. 8:8; Wis. 11:14 Wis. 16:24, etc.; Plato, Aristotle, Diodorus 1, 77 (9); 4, 44 (3); Aelian v. h. 7, 15; others.) [SYNONYMS: κόλασις, τιμωρία: the noted definition of Aristotle, which distinguishes κόλασις from τιμωρία as that which (is disciplinary and) has reference to him who suffers, while the latter (is penal and) has reference to the satisfaction of him who inflicts, may be found in his rhet. 1, 10, 17; cf. Cope, Introduction to Aristotle, Rhet., p. 232. To much the same effect, Plato, Protag. 324 a. and following, also deff. 416. But, as in other cases, usage (especially the later) does not always recognize the distinction; see e. g. Philo de legat. ad Gaium § 1 at the end; fragment ex Eusebius prepos. evang. 8, 13 (Mang. 2:641); de vita Moys. 1:16 at the end; Plato de sera num. vind. §§ 9, 11, etc. Plutarch (ibid. § 25 under the end) uses κολάζομαι of those undergoing the penalties of the other world (cf. Justin Martyr, Apology 1, 8; Clement of Rome, 2 Cor. 6, 7 [ET]; Justin Martyr, Apology 1, 43; 2, 8; Test xii. Patr., test. Reub. 5; test. Levi 4, etc.; Martyr. Polycarp, 2, 3 [ET]; 11, 2 [ET]; Ignatius ad Rom. 5, 3 [ET]; Martyr Ignatius vat. 5 etc.). See Trench, Synonyms, § vii.; McClellan, New Testament, vol. i., margin references on Matt. as above; Bartlett, Life and Death Eternal. Note G.; C. F. Hudson, Debt and Grace, p. 188ff; Schmidt, chapter 167, 2f.]
Since “correction” is listed as a possible meaning, is there any hint of rehabilitation rather than total destruction, especially since κόλασις derives from a word that can mean “to lop, prune, as trees, wings”?
https://biblehub.com/greek/2851.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/2849.htm
Some have definitely argued that. But I haven’t felt comfortable enough with it to argue it in my book.
Just curious. You think, Mt 25:31-46 is so opposite to Paul’s theology that it must be original to Jesus. Isn’t James 2 quite similar to Mt 25 in this regard, not just the faith vs works part (vv 14-26), but the emphasis on mercy to the poor in James 2:1-13? “Judgement will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgement.” Thoughts?
It’s not that it’s contrary just to Paul, but that it seems contrary to the general Christian view. Even James thinks you have to have faith in Jesus. But for him, simple intellectual acknowledgement of Jesus (say, his death and resurrectoin) isn’t enough; you need also to reflect that faith in how you live.
I still do not understand why the author of Matthew included this parable, since it presents a clear message that reward and punishment (or annihilation) would be meted out entirely on what one DID; belief in Jesus was not a factor (eg, the sheep had never even heard of him). Can you think of any reason why the evangelist would have included it?
I think the assumption is that the truly righteous will be those who follow Jesus. Big assumption!
Dr. Ehrman –
The text says they never SEEN him. Most Christians heard of him but never seen him.
What is your reasoning behind the conclusion “Remember: the sheep not only did not believe in Jesus; they had never even HEARD of him”?
They didn’t know who he was.
Hi Bart,
I have only watched YouTube videos of a few of your talks and lectures. Reviewing your comments and bible texts has deepened my appreciation for the concepts that I (personally) hold about the importance of the created world that humans are born into and the contrast between our life experience in our corporal bodys vs the spiritual beings – both fallen / angelic hosts that may surround us.
The destruction of our corporal bodies that you refer to is only the 1st death. In my view, the worm and eternal torment does not require a ‘body’ per se. The second death (for me) is the eternal separation from life and the life giving creator and saviour.
These are statements of belief – and are not intended as a challenge to your own views on death and annihilation vs beliefs about an eternal punishment.
What I had missed before reviewing your lectures is the importance and relationship we have as both spiritual beings and created beings that possess material and corporal bodies; and that one day we will (all) be resurrected with our bodies as Christ Himself was raised on the third day. Thanks for openly sharing your beliefs.
I am thinking of the popular hymn inspired by this passage. One of the few hymns that any agnostic/atheist can happily sing along to. We all know it: https://www.worshipworkshop.org.uk/songs-and-hymns/hymns/when-i-needed-a-neighbour/
Whether the words of Jesus are compatible with modern Christian notions of salvation is an interesting question to ponder. Depends which Christians you’re talking about, of course, and pretty much all will *claim* it doesn’t. Liberal Christians might imagine Jesus saying, “Truly I say to you, as much as you had faith in the pursuit of the Good, you had faith in me.”
But where does it explicitely say that the sheep have never heard of Jesus? I am not seeing that.
That’s how I take vv. 37-39: they don’t recognize him.
I have heard you make the case that, at times, Jesus refers to another Son of Man besides himself, the coming heavenly judge of Daniel 7. Could this be another example of this? He speaks of this Son of Man in the third person performing this very role (Matt. 25:31). The language of not feeding and clothing him make him sound human, but in this parable, he is the king and the sheep cared for his subjects. He need not have been human at all. What do you think?
Yes, I do think he is referring to someone else here; for Matthew, of course, the words *do* apply directly to Jesus (since Matthew thinks Jesus is the Son of Man)
If we are discussing the idea of eternal death, it could have been stated plainly without mentioning torments. It seems like an attempt is being made to present wishful thinking as reality. Moreover, in the apocryphal book of Ezra, there is mention of postmortem torments of souls, and this book is believed to date back to the first century AD. What prevented Jesus from believing in these postmortem torments of souls as well? It seems to me that if the concept of annihilation was intended, it would have been explicitly stated.
Do you mean 1 Enoch? Nothing would have prevented Jesus to believe in the immortality of the soul, if he had been raised in a Greek context where that idea was widely spread.
I was referring to the apocryphal Book of Ezra that you write about in the book ‘Heaven and Hell’ Why couldn’t Jesus or the author of the Gospel of Matthew have had similar thoughts?
I’m afraid we don’t know why anyone has the thoughts they have or whether they could have unusual thoughts!
I’m Christian, and I’m trying to determine whether or not universalism makes sense Biblically. (I’d like to believe in universalism, but I’m not sure I do.)
Hypothetically, let’s say universalist Christians are correct about everything. To me, reincarnation would make sense for the “unrighteous” to have another shot until they get it right. Is there any evidence for reincarnation in early Christianity / in the Bible?
Do you believe that universalism contradicts any of the Bible’s teachings?
In your opinion, do any of these (or all of these) universalist explanations adequately cope with Jesus’s teaching that some will die eternally as a punishment?
1) Since Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross, the eternal punishment is no longer in effect.
2) Since the story is a parable, the eternal punishment is not literal.
3) The eternal death refers to death of the body, but the soul could still be cleansed in Purgatory / reincarnated for another shot.
I discuss the matter in my book Heaven and Hell, showing how universalism has long been an important feature of Christian theology and is increasingly so even among evangelicals, based in no small part on key biblical passages such as Romans 5:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:25; Phil. 2:9-10; etc…. And yes, thees explanations have been used, esp. 1 and 2.