The Evangelical Universalist Forum

John Piper's new post on "Reconciliation of All Things"

Last week I reviewed a book on Amazon by neo-Calvinist Matt Chandler, “The Explicit Gospel.” (Matt is a friend of Driscoll and Piper) I challenged the fact that he states “explicitly” all throughout the book the restoration of all things but then supports an eternal hell as well. It has stirred up a lot of discussion since it is not the kind of negative review they would expect toward a Calvinist’s book.

In the comments someone directed me to this post by Piper on Colossians 1:27: (posted just yesterday)

Of course, this explanation ignores other significant portions of scripture that would argue against this interpretation. Not to mention the “eternal” translation.

It also ignores the context of Col 1 nearby those verses.

(I’m too pooped to do much with this today. Maybe tomorrow.)

Can we get a link to John Piper’s recent post meanwhile?

Hey, I hear ya…I answered the person who posted this in my comments but will look forward to what you have to add.

desiringgod.org/blog/posts/w … all-things

isn’t it pointless to say that "all things that are reconciled to God (by virtue of being in the New Creation) are reconciled to God?

that is like saying long cat is long?

my goodness but it takes some tapdancing to get around the clearly Universalist nature of the Word of God.

Yes, CL, the person who gave me this link said, “You will probably respond by just saying, ‘ALL things means ALL things’” …as if Piper’s, “He will reconcile all things that He will reconcile” is somehow clarifying.

Huh? Surely someone like Piper, of all people, knows this is a bad translation. There is no “away,” and no credible way of justifying its inclusion (except that you want to use it to support never-ending hell).

Heh, nice ping, Cindy.

It doesn’t fit the context of Paul’s OT references either. Because even if the reference to Isaiah 2 is denied (although I don’t think it should be), no one so far as I know denies Paul was referencing a place in Jeremiah immediately before then. (Trinitarian apologists like JP certainly ought to be aware of them, as they’re part of our case for NT authors identifying Christ personally with YHWH in the OT!)

The problem for sinners in either case is that the presence of YHWH is destroying them, and they’re trying to flee but can’t get away!

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/Takecover.gif

Basically the same thing is happening a few verses later at 2:8. YHWH will slay even the ultimate rebel who is coming (rather later than Paul expected) with the breath of His mouth, and bring him to an end by the appearance of His presence.

However, to be fair, I do recall that the preposition there {apo} can mean “away from”, too. {ek} would mean out from, and would have more clearly indicated by grammar that the destruction was proceeding out from Christ’s presence.

That brings up the topic of the connection of the relevant prepositions to nouns, which unfortunately is not altogether grammatically clear. What is proceeding from (or away from) Christ’s presence? Working from the closest to the furthest relevant possibilities:

Is it the eonian whole-runination? Maybe, but that would mean the {apo} doesn’t mean “away from”.

Is it the “justice” that the sinners shall come to “value/pay”? (JP certainly didn’t pick that up. :wink: ) Maybe, but that would mean the {apo} doesn’t mean “away from”.

Is it “who” (i.e. those who do not obey the gospel of the Lord of us Jesus Christ)? Well, they certainly aren’t proceeding forth from Christ’s presence, unlike the justice and the eonian whole-ruination, except in the sense that they may be running away from Christ’s presence! That would mean the {apo} does mean “away from”. (Or if the preposition had been {ek} it would mean they’re going out away from Christ’s presence, like Christ was the firstborn out from among the dead ones.)

So it depends on referential context, and on which noun set (closer or further away–but it could be any of them) is intended.

Woa, Jason…I might need a translation. Are you saying that we should render this verse as destruction “from” or “away from” the face of the Lord?

In answering the person who brought up this article I asserted confidently that in the Greek 1 Thess 1:9 says “from” and not “away from” the face of the Lord. I had read that it has the same grammatical pattern as “Grace and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ…” Yes/No?

I also mentioned that it is given the rendering “from” in the ESV in the footnotes.

Philip,

I’m sure Jason will have more to add, but let me just confirm that what you said was correct. However “apo” is similar to our “from” in that it has different meanings depending on the context. The translators inserted the word “away” in order to clarify the sense they thought the word should have in that instance (or I assume that was why.)

A good resource for further investigation is: perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor … ek#lexicon

I also like to pull up a list of the usages of a word and read them all to get a better feel for it’s meaning, like this: blueletterbible.org/lang/lex … KJV&page=1

Personally, I think “destruction coming from” makes better sense than “destruction away from,” but I’m not sure if there’s any way to conclusively prove that.

Sonia

Thanks Sonia for that clarification.

And Cindy, thanks for your comments above and also at Amazon! Great point, we ought to be just as cautious of Bible study materials as we are of Bible translations, as they both are susceptible to men’s biases.

Talbott discusses this in “Inescapable.” I can’t go look for it at the moment, but maybe someone else will post what he had to say. Meanwhile, I did quote him in one of my blog posts here: wp.me/p1bhiA-rN

Thanks, Phillip! :slight_smile:

Here’s a couple threads on 2 Thes 1:9


evangelicaluniversalist.com/foru … f=50&t=213

Sonia

]Revelations speaks of the “Lake of Fire” being just outside the open gates, not in some other dimension./]
]Having a dimension full of rebellion seems like pseudo-victory to me, denying God the 100% mind/body/soul loving worship He deserves & failing to ever fully stop sin./]
]Love ones will remain separated./]
]Denies justice as many victims will never receive apologies from the perpetrators who are stuck unrepentant in another dimension./]

Right on, Alex. Regarding your last point; yes, I think it’s true that the reconciliation of all things doesn’t just mean reconciled to God, but to each other as well!

Hi Cindy,

I read thru Inescapable and made a few notes before returning to bro Andrew Tweedy who lent it to me. I will try to be clear but I can hardly read my own writing!! The key pages eternal punishment are from 93-97 accding to my notes.

I understood that talbot was equating eternal punishment with eternal love. Punishment exists a a fatherly act as does love as does mercy. He clarifies that the act of punishment is a means in itself as an end to the sin/evil that has been judged as such with its accompany sentence, punishment, and therefore redemption and eternal life, universal reconciliation with God.

Carrying on with the notes which may well be quotes but I failed to put quotation mark:

All ideas associated with divine punishment should be interpreted as redemptive ideas, the punishment not an eternal end in itself for the offender/sinner, but the means to redemption and eternal reconciliation,.

Thus for example he draws on the parallel with a parents responsibilty with their children. For example (mine here) in a happy normal family Mum and/or Dad punish not out of vengeance, wrath (we are not perfect so that can happen!) etc but to give the child a lesson, and once the punishment has been given, it’s all back to being a happy and loving family, until baby pulls the table cloth with its contents on to the floor!! God is our loving, caring, forgiving Father.

Talbot, and I hope I am getting this right, interprets punishment as an act of love, God being our creator and Our Father as taught by Christ, punishment existing eternally as a Fatherly act, as a means for the individual to receive redemption and finally reconcilaition with God.

Brief note same section in Talbot’s book: The sheep and the goats - the believers, and unbelievers. The unbelievers whose lives are blemished by sin and who have not repented need to be punished to be purified …

I am sure there will be somone more qualified to make a fuller comment on Talbot’s wonderful book, but I guess my notes get the main gist of how he deals with the word eternal.

Blessings all round!!

Michael in Barcelona

I’m sorry things got unclear there. But it’s kind of an unclear situation.

The short answer is: it depends on which of the previous nouns {apo} (or rather the whole prepositional phrase starting with {apo}) is supposed to be referencing.

If a translator thinks it’s supposed to reference “eonian whole-ruination” or “justice”, they’ll translate {apo} “from”, because “away from” would make no sense. Those are also the two closest options in the sentence.

If a translator thinks it’s supposed to reference those who shall value-pay the justice (or however they prefer to ignore the positive valuation inherent in the term there instead :wink: ), they’ll translate {apo} “away from” because “from” would make no sense.

Regarding that sentence by itself, it’s less probable that the preposition refers to “those who”, because there are two closer possibilities that the preposition might be intended to refer to, but it isn’t impossible or even implausible.

Consequently, the proper translation has to be determined by the contexts (whether immediate, local or extended.)

This is why when I’m analyzing that verse I never stress “from” instead of “away from” (although I do translate it that way), and always tally up the contexts instead. (Or for the past few years anyway. :mrgreen: I used to think there was some kind of inherent tendency for the term to mean “from” instead of “away from”, too. But I haven’t argued the verse on that ground for a while.)

To pull a semi-random example out of my hat: Knoch in his Concordant Literal Translation translates the term “from” at that verse. But in his Concordance, he indicates that the same term can mean “away from”, too. He designates where he thinks the context indicates “away from” by translating it “faway” (or more often as “away from”. :slight_smile: )

It’s the exact same term either way. The most we can argue from the term itself is that it doesn’t inherently mean “away from”.

That’s the best I currently know about the grammatic situation there regarding {apo} and its translation.

For what it’s worth, I have no particular preference for it meaning “from” or “away from”. While I think the local and referential contexts clearly and very decisively indicate “from” is intended (i.e. the sinners are being wholly ruined by justice coming from the presence of YHWH), there are long-scale contexts indicating some kind of privation, too (sinners being sent away and/or fleeing from the presence of YHWH. Including in Isaiah 2!–although that isn’t the main thrust of what’s happening in the descriptions of what YHWH’s revealed presence means for them.)

So then we come to the third possibility: Paul was a rabbi and was making a double-meaning play on words here! The whole-ruination comes from the presence of YHWH, and the sinners are fleeing (and/or being sent away in some fashion) from the presence of YHWH.

One thing it can’t really mean is that the sinners are being continually destroyed by YHWH away from YHWH’s omnipresence. That’s merely self-contradictory nonsense, and it doesn’t fit the referential context at all. Which involves sinners trying to flee (with some humorous imagery) from His burning presence, completely failing to do so, eventually repenting of their sins, and seeking and receiving reconciliation with God and with the people they oppressed, so that everyone lives together happily ever after.

(Which also, not incidentally, synchs up with the peculiar Greek expression there about the sinners willingly paying/valuing the justice of their own whole-ruination. Which, also not incidentally, is practically never translated that way. :wink: )

Thanks to everyone for your comments and the links for further investigation. I got to some of them and will check out the rest soon. I feel I am getting a better grip on this and can speak a little more intelligently! The cool thing about it is that this is not just an intellectual exercise but I am blessed “devotionally” as I read through all your comments because they are just fresh proclamations of the gospel…!

Thanks ‘Michael from Barcelona’ for sharing from your notes!

…thanks Jason I appreciate you laying it all out for me.

Those are great points I hadn’t really thought of…thanks Alex and Melchizedek.

Thanks Sonia for the links to the threads here on 2 Thess 1:9

grace and peace!