Imago,
I agree that the word in Mark 8 should be more strongly translated “soul”, not simply “life” (which would be more like {bios} or something of that sort). I have no dissent at all, and strong agreement rather, that any sin, no matter how small, leads of itself, (literally) apart from God, to the pit of destruction, which I understand to be annihilation.
I would have to expound a while on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in Mark 3 (and pars); but for what it’s worth, I actually agree with many of the strongest non-universalists here that any sin that is insistently held to, no matter how small it may appear to be to us, is in effect a sin against the Holy Spirit. God can save us from it, but He cannot forgive us while we insist upon it, neither now nor in the age to come.
George MacDonald puts this beautifully, that God passes by thousands of sins, yea tens of thousands that are past; but He will not pass by the sin that we insist on not putting behind us, the sin we continue to do.
God loves the sinner, and God can forgive the penitent sinner, and God can lead the impenitent sinner to repentence, but God cannot forgive any sin per se: there is nothing for any sin but the wrath of God to final destruction.
In regard to Mark 9:49-50: Gabe rightly notes that stopping short of v.50 handicaps the understanding of the statement in v.49. But as to the grammatic elements of the verses:
1.) The post-positive {gar} of verse 49 absolutely connects this verse topically to verse 48, so there should be no question what fire is being referenced: it’s the everlasting fire of Gehenna.
1.1.) Incidentally, in Greek the purgatorial nature of the verse is even more striking, because the Greek word for fire there is {puri}. From which we directly derive the English word ‘pure’, ‘purify’, and other cognates. (Or rather, we derive this eventual meaning from how the Greek word is contextually used in Judeo-Christian scriptures.)
2.) The term {pas} (which is the first word of verse 49, before the post-positive {gar} which in English we would put first, “For”) means all, and its being fronted here is probably an emphasis to its meaning. Translations which go with “everyone” or even “everything” (which is typical even for nominally non-universalistic translations) are not out of bounds in doing so, especially when verse 50 is put into play for contextual purposes.
3.) {kalon} is fronted as the first word in verse 50 (or as the first word of the next sentence, keeping in mind that there was no versification scheme in the original text). This is a Greek word with connotations stronger than our English word ‘good’; ‘ideal’ or ‘best’ would be a better translation.
4.) There is no verb in the sentence {kalon to halas}, which tends to emphasize the absolute declaration of the statement.
5.) {to halas} connects back emphatically to the salting at the end of the previous sentence (where everyone or everything is being salted with fire), by use of the direct article: the salt, or this salt. (Though admittedly there could have been an even stronger way to say “this salt”.)
6.) A generic conjunction {de} topically connects the next sentence to the strong statement about this salt being ideal or the best. (Though admittedly stronger words could have been used there.)
7.) {ean}, which introduces the hypothetical English “if” structure, is fronted for emphasis even before the conjunctive {de}.
8.) If this salt ({to halas} again) becomes unsalty ({analon}), then with what will you season it? It is worthless, and fit only to be trampled underfoot. Poetically speaking, this doctrine about the fire being salt (or the salt being fire for that matter!) should not be deprived of its flavor (in any of several ways), or it becomes despicable (in any of several ways).
9.) “Have (this or the) salt in yourselves”: same salt.
10.) “And be at peace among each other”. Well, of course, if salt is ideal, the best, then this would be the result of having salt in ourselves. Which applies to {pas}, all. How? By the salting. What does the salting? The {puri}, the fire. Which fire is that? Grammatically, it can only be one fire: the same fire Jesus was talking about just a moment ago, the everlasting fire of Gehenna.
All of us have done that, I think. {g} But that’s partly because when we read or hear teachers on the topic, they have this peculiar habit of ignoring verse 49 (or verse 50 when they do bother to pay attention to verse 49).
I’ve talked about translating {aio_nios} elsewhere. Suffice to say that I do not translate it as having anything to do with time in itself, except as a comparative reference to the One Who is Everlasting. Consequently, this means I don’t have to shuffle between meanings when I get to things like life eonian. The life comes from God in His own essence; “Godly life” would be a slightly better translation in English than “eternal or everlasting” life, except that in modern times we’re likely to think of merely a good or pious life when we see or hear that phrase. There is a life, a secret, a fire, a brisk cleaning, a whole ruination, coming uniquely from God, from the heart of Who and What He essentially Is in Himself.
(Note that this is a translation which doesn’t seem to immediately threaten non-univeraslism, and which can be argued for and agreed upon and applied without prejudice to the salvation of the condemned one way or another.)
In regard to Mark 10:45: I have to admit, I wussed out and followed the lead of other translators on this verse, when I was doing the Gospel harmonization study. But in point of fact, the verse doesn’t say in Greek “a ransom for many”. It says “a ransom {anti} many”. A better translation would be “a ransom instead-of many”; the concept being that Jesus gives Himself as the only sacrifice rather than many others having to be sacrificed. (Mental note to myself, to fix the harmonization study at this point… {wry g})
In regard to Judas in Mark 14: the grammar doesn’t necessarily indicate that it would have been better for Judas, for Judas not to have been born. It could also be meant, that the overall situation would have been better somehow had Judas not been born.
That being said, there is a rhetorical history of the phrase usage which also involves (and this is important) pity on the object of the sentence: when someone cries out that it would have been better for himself, or for this other person, not to have been born in the OT, it typically is part of a lament that rhetorically hopes for salvation for the object of the lament. If God is not going to save me/us/them/him, then why were we/they even born!?
Gabe’s reference to Knoch (who certainly didn’t seem to be a universalist [hindsight note: actually, he was]) is that the “him” of whom it would be better for “that one” not to be born, is Christ. Thus the translation would run, “yet woe to that person through whom the Son of Man is being given up! Ideal were it for Him, if that person were not born!”
(Incidentally, the “wailing to him” phrase couldn’t feasily have been delivered deadpan, any more than the other “wailing to” uses in the NT. I don’t count that as evidence against non-UR or for UR, but the expectation and even the call for wailing to come to someone, has to be taken very seriously.)
It is neither puzzling nor troubling to me as a universalist, from either of those three perspectives. The Johannine statement that Jesus has lost none but Judas, is more difficult.
Actually, the scriptural references to hardening of the heart tend to indicate, first, that God participates in a hardening already freely chosen by the person in order to accomplish something else (typically mercy for someone); but second that God acts eventually against the hardening of the heart in order to bring contrition to the person. (Pharoah and Israel are the two archetypal examples of this in the OT, though Israel is reffed more often both in the OT and in the NT.)
and I wouldn’t mind at all seeing it done much earlier by someone else. But work as you think makes best sense to your for your organizational thinking.