Unbreakable Parallels

Resolving an Age-Old Exegetical Dispute

In Biblical discussions of hell and universalism, the same argument seems to predictably arise time and time again; namely, the following line of reasoning popularized by Augustine regarding Matthew 25:46 (“these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life”):

If both destinies are “eternal,” then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative, on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity.¹

Even setting aside the fact that Augustine is misunderstanding this verse and especially the word he reads as “æternum” or “everlasting” (on which see the appendix below), it ought to be observed that one could quite easily apply the exact same argument to Romans 5:18 (“as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men”) to support universalism and thus to contradict ECT:

If both [outcomes] are [“unto all men”], then we must either understand both as [limited in scope], or both as [universal]. For they are correlative, on the one hand, [sin and condemnation unto all men], on the other hand, [justification and life unto all men]. And to say in one and the same sense, [condemnation unto all men] shall be [universal], [life unto all men] shall [include only a limited number], is the height of absurdity.

Absurdity indeed, arguably much more so.

Yet one may ask, if both texts have the same apparent ‘unbreakable parallel’ structure, how can we mediate between these conflicting arguments, or choose one over the other to reconcile the supposed tension?

As it turns out, there are quite a few relevant exegetical details and contextual elements that give reason to prefer a universalist interpretation of both passages:

• Aionios (customarily translated as “eternal”) does not necessarily indicate duration of time, whereas pas (“all”) always indisputably indicates scope/extent (even if some try to question the full universality thereof).

• Matthew 25:46 includes two different nouns described by the adjective aionios (“life” and “punishment”), which creates a potential disjunction since nouns modify their respective adjectives (for example, “the tall man stood in front of the tall building” can not be assumed to indicate that the man and the building are the same height); while on the other hand, Romans 5:18 has the same adjective-noun pair on both sides of the parallel (“all men” and “all men”), leaving no such ambiguity.

• There are many far clearer words that could have been used to communicate everlasting duration (such as aidios, ateleutos, aperantos, adialeptos, aphthartos, athantos) if that’s what was intended, whereas pas is the only/clearest term for “all.”

• Kolasis (usually translated as “punishment”) connotes corrective discipline (unlike timoria which has a primarily retributive connotation, and thus would be expected if ECT were in view), whereas there is no comparable detail in Romans 5.

• There are Scriptural examples which disprove the necessity of interpreting intrasyntactical uses of aionios as denoting equivalent duration (Habakkuk 3:6 [LXX] “eternal mountains” in parallel with “eternal ways of God”; Romans 16:25-26 “eternal [past] ages” in parallel with “eternal God” ); meanwhile there are no such disqualifying examples for the “all men” parallel.

• Nothing in the context of Matthew 25 supports or requires an ECT interpretation, whereas a non universalist reading of Romans 5 violates Paul’s “much more” emphasis in the context (such that a non universalist reading would subvert 5:20 into “much less”).

• There are many unbreakable parallels in favor of universalism beyond just Romans 5:18 (1 Corinthians 15:22, Colossians 1:16-20, Romans 11:32, etc.), all of which corroborate Paul’s emphasis here, whereas the ECT reading of Matthew 25:46 lacks any solid corroboration in the New Testament.

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves why many people emphatically cling to the ambiguous phrasing of an eschatological parable, while ignoring or minimizing a clear doctrinal proclamation of Christ’s glorious soteriological accomplishment.

[For more on Romans 5:18, see Exegetical Anchors: Romans 5:18.]

---

Appendix: Layers of evidence supporting a non-ECT reading of Matthew 25:46 (and Daniel 12:2):