1. Do you not think it troubling that with all the debate over what the word “eónios/aionios [αἰώνιος]” means within this parable the actual point of the parable, caring for “the least of these”, has been neglected by the Church? With this doctrine in place we have done a miserable job of being Jesus to the least of these so maybe this word and its “proof” of an eternal hell is actually not the point. Have we stumbled over a word and failed to see the Living Word of God before us in Jesus here in this parable?
2. Also if Matthew 25 is a parable then we need to interpret it as a parable. What is Jesus’ point? Is it that hell is eternal? Or is it about the Kingdom of God and how that plays out through a truly converted life?
3. Was not Jesus often praying for the Church for the world, rebuking the Church for the world, and calling them out of exile for the world? Is not Jesus calling the Church to soberly consider their neglect of the “least of these”? All the while we argue over a word.
4. Or, is Matthew 25 about how we are saved by the works of caring for the poor, sick, imprisoned? If so, how much is enough to get “in”? Or is it about how to prove by “grace through faith” that you have evidence of “saving faith”? But how much is enough evidence? And does it teach that the disenfranchised etc., are inherently Christ’s brothers and therefore already in God’s kingdom somehow apart from faith? What do you think was Jesus’ main point in this parable?
5. If the word “eónios/aionios (αἰώνιος)” means eternal then why did another greek word that meant “never-ending” have to be placed before it when condemning the doctrine of universal salvation by Justinian in order to be understood to mean “eternal”?
It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does not merely say, “We believe in aionion kolasin [κόλασιν αἰώνιον],” for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say “the word aionion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration,” as he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: “The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked.” If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration.
(complete book found in “Study”)