> "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46)

Some object to the use of this verse, saying that it gives no indication that the eternal destiny involves conscious suffering; therefore, they argue, we have the "freedom" to interpret this verse as not indicating such a thing. This appears to be an attempt to insert a concept into the text that is not implied, nor indicated by the social background data. The "eternal life" being conscious must indicate a parallel to the "eternal punishment" being conscious.

Others argue that the length of the aionios (eternal) must be determined by context, allowing that fellowship with God means a "duration of aeon of God Himself" (that is, forever), but that "the character of the existence out of or apart from fellowship with God" determines a non-eternal punishment. This assumes an equation of "God everlasting = life everlasting", but offers no initial corollary for the counter-equation.

A second argument used to deflect the force of aionios as meaning "forever" is that the word may be read in a qualitative sense as well as a quantitative sense -- i.e., refer to both duration and character of what the word modifies. Thus, verses speak of "eternal judgment"; but the "judgment" itself is a one-time event, whereas the results of it are what is eternal; "eternal redemption" took place in one event, but its results continue forever.

The problem with this verse is that some of these words, including "punishment," do not indicate in and of themselves something with a single and solitary point of action with only results (rather than actions) that persist. Our only real clue for this verse is the parallel phrase for eternal life -- and attempts to dis-establish the parallel do not work. At best it can be argued that the word for "punishment" here (kolasis) has a sense of "pruning" or "stopping short one's development" and that this may or may not indicate conscious pain; for our part, it fits in perfectly with the idea of hell as a place of shame. The only other use of the word in 1 John 4:18 carries the strong implication of retribution.

Let's take a closer look at the story of the "sheep and the goats" and address some interpretations offered by various scholars and critics.

The first comes of the part which says, "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (25:40) Modern ideas have demanded that the "brethren" in question consist of any poor or oppressed person, and given the interpretation that helping such as these is the ultra-qualifier which makes the heavenly grade.

The second is broader and related: If people are being judged by what they do for the brethren, isn't this salvation by works -- and what happens to salvation by faith? Does this mean our religious beliefs make no difference?

Under the Semitic Totality paradigm, thoughts that result in no action are vain. When Paul encourages believers to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," (Phil. 2:12) he is calling us to synergistically cooperate with God's grace. We participate in His righteousness; what is needed is for us to cultivate this and live consistently with it.

Note the qualification of Romans 3:20: "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight." Romans 2:5-10 does mean that a person who persists in good deeds will be granted eternal life, but as Romans 3 goes on to show, no one can live a life in accordance with the commandments of God apart from His grace; faithful obedience is only possible through communion with Christ.

The passages in Matthew, then, show no more than that those who had faith actually lived it out, as we would expect. As Orthodox theology emphasizes:
> It is a continual seeking after God, accompanied by a persistent doing of what is good, that reflects a heart transformed by grace.

It is obvious, then, that a living and real faith—one that works through love—is what saves, as is made clear by Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Who are the "brethren"? The poor, the sick?
No --
> Matthew 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

The poor, the sick, and so on is not a group in a one to one identity with those who do God's will. Who are those who do God's will? In the above, it is clearly the disciples of Jesus. Matthew 25:31-46 is all about judgment based on how one treated the disciples of Christ.

The passage needs to be read in light of these earlier ones:
> Matthew 10:14-15 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
> Matthew 10:40-42 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

A disciple traveling to and fro with the word in the ancient world is very likely to be in the condition of those described in 25:31-46 -- sick, poorly clothed, and as Jesus predicts, in prison.

What about the atheist who treats Christians nicely? Does he get to heaven, according to this?
If this passage were taken in strict isolation, and meant to be taken that way, and written in the context of an individualist society like ours, one might have a case for that odd individual getting a golden ticket, but it's not so simple.

The parable of the sheep and the goats draws upon a certain paradigm found within Judaism of Jesus' day, which held that the nations (cf. 25:32) would be judged based upon how they treated Israel (4 Ezra 7:37), and the related concept encouraging repressed minorities that God will judge the world based on their treatment of them. In holding this it was never assumed that this was the sole and exclusive basis for judgment. The specific matter of treatment of Israel was isolated to make a point of its importance in context (and here, the context is the end of the age of the law and the beginning of the age of the Messiah -- when the Gospel message would be brought to the Gentile world as a whole).

Moreover, the identification of Jesus with the disciples draws us even closer to the "faith" position. One's response to the disciple is the same as one's response to Jesus, and in a collectivist society, one would not assist a member of a divergent party in the way described unless one accepted and agreed with their message. As Malina and Rohrbaugh note, this parable draws the classic ancient distinction between "ingroup" and "outgroup". There would be no such thing as a "friendly pagan or atheist" who would have sympathy for the Christian.

In short, it would be illegitimate to take this passage in isolation and suppose that it gives hope for salvation outside of the atoning death of Christ.