Punishing Fallacies: Part 1: Pruning universalism of a lexical myth

William Barclay (1907-1978) was a former Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University who had become well known for his commentary series aimed at helping the average believer to better understand the Bible. He was also known for defending the doctrine of universalism. In 1975 he published his autobiography in which he argued the Greek word behind punishment in Matthew 25:46, κόλασις (kolasis),

was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better.¹William Barclay, A Spiritual Biography, (Eerdmans:1977), 66.

If this claim is true, then it would lend some credence to universalists’ claims that κόλασις came to be used for remedial discipline and not retributive punishment. What evidence is there for this claim?

The short answer is there is none.

The long answer will require some commentary on the lexical material universalists cite when supporting Barclay’s claim. Brett from Salvation for All cites the following entry from LSJ.²Brett (no last name given), ‘Kolasin’s Meaning’, https://salvationforall.org/10_Strongholds/7-kolasin-meaning.html, accessed 4th April, 2025. LSJ is short for Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, who were editors of A Greek–English Lexicon. LSJ is a lexicon of classical Greek and not the Koine Greek used in the NT. Its last edition was published in 1940-1941. You can find a free online edition of the lexicon here.

κόλ-α^σις , εως , ἡ , A. checking the growth of trees, esp. almond-trees, Thphr.CP3.18.2 (pl.).

Notice that ‘pruning’ is not given as a gloss for κόλασις. The reason for this is Brett quoted a late edition of LSJ. Sometimes universalists will quote an older edition of LSJ that includes ‘pruning’; meanwhile, modern lexicons like BDAG and Louw-Nida omit this sense entirely.

What has changed?

Huggins answers this question in a 2011 article sarcastically titled, Cutting-Edge Obsolescence: Rob Bell’s Reliance on a Long-Discredited Universalist Rendering of Matthew 25:46 in Love Wins. Huggins discusses how in the 1800s Greek lexicons like LSJ had listed the meaning of ‘a pruning or checking the growth of trees’ for κόλασις.³Ronald V. Huggins, ‘Cutting-Edge Obsolescence: Rob Bell’s Reliance on a Long-Discredited Universalist Rendering of Matthew 25:46 in Love Wins’, in Midwestern Journal of Theology, 10.1 (2011): 124-29. However, as more research was conducted on the usage of the word the idea of pruning was dropped so that by the 1940’s the 9th edition of Liddel & Scott defined κόλασις as having to do with ‘check the growth of trees’ (esp. almond trees). Huggins surmises that the reason for this was,

part of the difficulty lay in the fact that the only examples offered where there was any sort of clear horticultural connection with kolazo/kolasis derived from a single author, namely Theophrastus of Eresos (3rd/4th cent. BC), and in particular to a passage in a work where he used kolazo in a sense in which the concept of punishment appears already to be there.

In the entire body of ancient Greek literature only one author can be found using κόλασις in a horticultural context! This is probably why the premier authority on the original meaning of Greek words, Robert Beekes’ Etymological Dictionary of Greek, lists κόλασις with the gloss ‘chastisement’ and not ‘pruning’.⁴Robert Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, ed. Alexander Lubotsky, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010), 739.

Those who might be inclined to accept Barclay’s claim that κόλασις was originally a gardening term might accept all this and still argue that Theophrastus did use the word in just such a context. Brett from Salvation for All makes the following argument.

You may have noticed that “checking the growth of trees” is the first definition given, followed by a reference: Thphr.CP3.18.2 (pl.)… It refers to On the Causes of Plants (De Causis Plantarum), a botany book about plant physiology by Theophrastus (371-286 BC), who is considered to be the founding father of botany as well as a scientific colleague and close friend of Aristotle (Thanos 1994). The numbers are the volume, chapter, and section of this work.

Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain On the Causes of Plants very easily …. Nevertheless, Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon makes clear reference to checking the growth of trees in order to make them more fruitful as an intended meaning in Theophrastus’ botany book. Pruning, therefore, is definitely part of its semantic range (range of meaning) and indicates that kolasin is beneficial to the one experiencing it.

There are problems with Brett’s argument. First, he is defending Barclay’s claim that κόλασις “originally” referred to pruning of trees. On the contrary, the first attestation of κόλασις is found in Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War,⁵This is stated in the following entry on ‘κολάζω G3134 (kolazō), to punish; κόλασις G3136 (kolasis), punishment; κολαφίζω G3139 (kolaphizō), to strike (with the fist), fig. Torment’, in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, 2nd ed., Olive Tree ed., publication details not given, page not given. which is an account of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC).⁶Arnold Wycombe Gomme, ‘Thucydides: Greek historian’, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thucydides-Greek-historian , accessed on 04/04/2025. Thucydides (circa. 460 BC—404 BC) died before Theophrastus (371-286 BC) was born. His use of κόλασις has nothing to do with gardening but with the treatment of former allies who had defected during wartime.⁷The Greek text from The Peloponnesian War can be found here.

Second, Brett assumes “checking the growth of trees” is a way of referring to pruning. LSJ gives a single reference for this gloss of κόλασις. It is from Theophrastus’ book called De Causis Plantarum.⁸The title is usually translated as, On the Causes of Plants. I will quote the relevant section and then make a few comments.

So when the almond tree starts to bear it is neither watered, nor manured, nor pruned (except only for removing deadwood) nor subjected to any other procedure;⁹In the text that I have access to there is a footnote at this point that has ‘such as spading or pulling out weeds’. for all such tendance is withdrawn so that the tree may not get too strong and drop its fruit in the blossom (this moreover is why the land sought for it is not the best). If after this it refuses to produce fruit they lay the roots bare for the winter to have its way with them and administer the other ‘castigations’ that we have mentioned.

I am guessing that as you read that paragraph from Theophrastus you assumed that κόλασις or its cognate verb κολάζω, is behind ‘pruned’. No, this is not the case; the word is διακαθαίρω. LSJ has ‘to prune’ as one of the meanings for διακαθαίρω, which is accompanied by a citation of a paragraph from Theophrastus’, Historia Plantarum (Enquiry into Plants). LSJ glosses διακαθαίρω as ‘prune’ (the sense used in Historia Plantarum), and Philo Judeaus in the 1st century A.D.. LSJ also lists ‘purge thoroughly’ as a meaning of διακαθαίρω in literature written in the 5th-4th centuries. This is the verb used when John the Baptist is reported to have said that Jesus ‘will clear his threshing floor’ (Matt 3:12; Luke 3:17). You can get a sense of how Theophrastus used διακαθαίρω through the following example in Historia Plantarum 2.7.2: Διακαθαίρεσθαι δὲ πάντα ζητῖ (‘All trees require pruning’). Needless to say, διακαθαίρω would have been the perfect word to use in Matthew 25:46 if the idea was to convey an age-long cleansing of the wicked.

In the quote from De Causis Plantarum above, κόλασις is used in the plural form, κολάσεις, and is rendered as ‘catigations’. This is used with reference to the withholding of the usual methods of cultivation like watering, fertilizing and pruning the tree. In this case, κόλασις refers to deliberate neglect of the almond trees, not pruning per se. Brett laments that he could not find an online copy of De Causis Plantarum. However, his inability to double check the primary source failed to prevent him from assuming ‘checking the growth of trees’ means, ‘Pruning … is definitely part of its semantic range … and indicates that kolasin is beneficial to the one experiencing it.’ Brett assumed LSJ supports his thesis when it does no such thing.

Third, even if Theophrastus did use κόλασις in De Causis Plantarum with the sense of ‘pruning’, in the 4th century B.C., there is nothing to say that the noun retained this meaning in the 1st century A.D.. What universalists need to do is find unambiguous examples of the use of κόλασις in literature contemporaneous to the NT and/or literature with which the NT authors interacted. I have asked them on several occasions for these examples but thus far none have been provided.

Brett goes on to support his argument in the following way,

For a bit more analysis on this meaning and on the rationale Theophrastus gave for why pruning increases fruit production, you can see The Palgrave Handbook of Infertility in History. In this book, Theophrastus’ logic of pruning almond trees to increase fruitfulness is summarized as follows:

“Cultivation, however, was not without risks to the fertility of plants. It too could lead to barrenness… Plants grown in rich soil could grow excessive leafage and fail to produce fruit. Thus, according to Theophrastus, almond trees planted in too rich a soil ‘grow over-luxuriant (exhubrisasai) on account of the rich feeding, and fail to bear fruit’…The solution was to prune such plants.” (Davis and Loughran 2017).¹⁰Brett references editors of the book and not the author of the essay in that book. The author is Laurence M.V. Totelin, ‘Whose Fault Is It Anyway? Plant Infertility in Antiquity’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Infertility in History, edited by Gayle Davis & Tracey Loughran, (Palgrave Macmillan: 2017), available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3483534 (Accessed: 30 March 2025), no page given.

At this point, Brett has switched from discussing the noun κόλασις to its cognate verb κολάζω (kolazó). In doing so, he opens up the debate to the question of whether the verb κολάζω is used with the sense of ‘to prune’. But even the expert he cites does not identify κόλασις or κολάζω as the words used to express the notion of pruning. Furthermore, Brett also omits the rest of Totelin’s quote from De Causis Plantarum 3.15.4,¹¹Totelin, ‘Whose Fault Is It Anyway?’, no page given.

Τὰς δ’ ἐν τοῖς ἐφύδροις ἢ ὅσα τῶν γενῶν ὑβριστικὰ τοῦ ἦρος ὅπως διεσκεδασμένου τοῦ ὑγροῦ καὶ τμηθείσης ἐν ὥρᾳ τοῦτ’ ἀπορρυῇ. Διὰ γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος οὐ πεττούσας τοῦθ’ ὑβρίζειν ἄλλως καὶ ἐκκληματοῦσθαι.

[They recommend pruning vines] in wet regions, or the types that tend to luxuriance (hubristika) in spring, so that the fluid may be dispersed and flow away at the time of the pruning. For it is on account of this abundance of fluid that the vines are unable to concoct it and grow over-luxuriant (hubrizein) in various ways, in particular running to branch.

Though the subject of pruning is indeed in view in this passage, neither the noun κόλασις, nor its cognate verb κολάζω are used to express this notion. The casual reader may have not detected this and assumed this is evidence for Barclay’s claim. In fact, just recently, one gentleman on social media cited this very portion of Brett’s article in order to refute my contention that Barclay had made a false claim. It must be stated in as clear terms as possible: Brett’s argument at this point has nothing to commend it.

In his discussion of the subject, Totelin cites Michelini’s observation that κολάζω is etymologically related to the usual word for pruning, κολούω (koloúō) ¹²Ann Michelini, ‘Hybris and Plants’, in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 82 (1978), 43. This is not in and of itself wrong, since both verbs were derived from the polyvalent adjective κόλος (kólos)¹³This adjective could take on several nuances like ‘docked’, ‘hornless or stump-horned’, ‘(of a spear) without point’, or (of battle) ‘broken off’. Robert Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, ed. by Alexander Lubotsky, (Brill, 2010), 739. However, though the two verbs were derived from κόλος independently, they are not synonyms. All that this shows is that Theophrastus had at his disposal a perfectly serviceable word for pruning so would not need to resort to κολάζω. Moreover, when Totelin does get around to commenting on κολάζω, he emphasizes the translation ‘punished’:

Like a judge who punished crimes of hubris, the farmer punished his trees for over-luxuriance.¹⁴Totelin, ‘Whose Fault Is It Anyway?’, no page given.

Michelini gives more context for this:

In a more striking example yet, κολάζω itself in Theophrastus – or more often κόλασις – is used for a drastic process that reduces exuberant growth in almond trees, a species particularly prone to ἐξυβρίζειν.¹⁵The verb ἐξυβρίζειν meant ‘to break out, go crazy’ and was used to describe plants that were over-luxuriant in their foliage. A hole cut in the tree permits the insertion of an iron peg to produce a continual flow of sap, reducing the tree’s vigor. Theophrastus also seems to use the term κόλασις for other drastic treatments, such as exposure and pruning of vine roots. The almond tree, after its mutilation, bears better nuts, just as the human ὑβρίζων is presumed to become a better citizen after punishment. Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. 2.7.6), struck by the picturesque language,

Michelini describes how Theophrastus used κολάζω to describe the mutilation of the roots of almond trees. The exact way this was achieved was not by cutting the root, though. This can be seen by the very quote from Theophrastus (Historia Plantarum 2.7.6) that Michelini discusses.

Into the almond tree they drive an iron peg, and, having thus made a hole, insert in its place a peg of oak-wood and bury it in the earth, and some call this ‘punishing’ (κολάζω) the tree, since its luxuriance is thus chastened.¹⁶The English translation of Theophrastus can be found here; The Greek can be found here.

The hole is created by driving an iron peg into it. Theophrastis is just saying that this mutilation of the tree caused some to say that it had been punished — certainly it did not cause them to say it had been pruned. Michelini gives other examples from De Causis Plantarum 1.17-9-10 and 2.14.4.¹⁷It is very difficult to find an accessible online copy of De Causis Plantarum but one can be found here. In the first example, Theophrastus gives more detail on the treatment of almond trees.

Too much food not only causes late fruiting but in some trees even causes failure to bear, as we said of vines and of almonds and in general of all trees that have holes driven in them and that are chastened (κολάζω) by blows. For when this is done to them, all of them, with the fluid drained off, either bear when they had failed to bear before or bear finer and more succulent fruit. In the almond, if one knocks out the peg and purges the influx of fluid over a period of two or three years the tree is even said to change from bitter to sweet.

In the second example, he harks back to the first, saying

as we said of the almond trees that are chastised (κολάζω) and get their roots cut off and of the fig trees that are slashed, since with the removal of the excess food the native heat has greater strength for acting on the remainder.

The verbs for ‘cut’ and ‘slash’ are not κολάζω. Theophrastus still has in mind the harsh treatment of driving iron spikes into the roots of the tree and it is this to which κολάζω refers. None of the available evidence shows that κολάζω was used with the sense of ‘to prune’, let alone Barclay’s claim that κόλασις meant ‘the pruning of trees to make them grow better’.

A final word needs to be said on the assumption behind most claims by universalists who cite Barclay on the meaning of κόλασις. The reason his claim about κόλασις originally being a gardening term is attractive is because universalists think it shows that κόλασις was used to express the belief that plants could be cultivated for their own good. This is why claims about κόλασις and κολάζω are often juxtaposed with the quote from Aristotle where he draws a distinction between κολάζω/κόλασις and τιμωρία/τιμωρέω. This is not accurate. If Theophrastus’ descriptions of botany tell us anything, it is that cultivated trees often had the propensity of pouring all their energy into producing lush foliage. This is the tree doing well. This is what is good for the tree.

But this is not what people need from trees. People cannot eat the foliage of these trees. They needed fruit to sustain them. So, they invented all sorts of procedures, many of them quite harmful to the trees, to force the tree to bear more fruit for human consumption. Theophrastus mentions this in Historia Plantarum 2.7.2.

All trees require pruning; for they are improved by removal of the dead wood, which is, as it were, a foreign body, and prevents growth and nourishment. Wherefore when the (tree) — becomes old, they cut off all its boughs: for then the tree breaks afresh. Androtion says that the myrtle and olive need more pruning than any other trees; for the smaller you leave them, the better they will grow, and they will bear better fruit.¹⁸This quote can be found here.

As Michelini observes,

The cure for the vegetable ὑβρίζων is as straightforward as the cause: by cutting off some of the superfluous growth, the farmer can return the plant to its proper function as producer of fruit.

The mutilation of the tree served the needs of humans, not the tree. This is perhaps best summarized by Totelin.

The ancients observed that the cultivation status of a plant had an impact on its fertility. They argued that a plant that grew wild was less able to bear fruit than its domesticated counterpart. Or to be more precise, a wild plant was able to bear fruit, but it could not bring that fruit to full concoction (maturation): its fruit would be inedible to humans. To the modern perception, these wild fruit trees are not at all infertile; but to the ancients, failure to produce useful fruit for humans equalled barrenness.¹⁹Totelin, ‘Whose Fault Is It Anyway?’, no page given.

Even if universalists like Brett were correct that κολάζω and κόλασις can refer to pruning, they would still completely misunderstand how ancient Greeks viewed the significance of the practice. They have things backwards. As it stands, universalists’ appeal to Barclay is an appeal to a lexical myth coupled with a false assumption about why pruning was employed at all.

This myth should be utterly abandoned by all universalists.

In part two of this series, I will discuss universalists reliance on Aristotle’s distinction between κολάζω/κόλασις and τιμωρία/τιμωρέω.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rethinking Hell on Patreon!