My review of "Paul on Hell" by Douglas J. Moo

[Alex_Smith]

Unfortunately, it’s too hard to include the 49 footnotes here, but apart from that, I want to look at the entire chapter, bit-by-bit. I just bought the ebook, however, it’s free to download from his website djmoo.com/articles/paulonhell.pdf

On the basis of a concordance, one might expect an article on Paul’s teaching about hell to be very short. In most English versions, the word “hell” never appears in the letters of Paul. And for good reason: Paul never uses the Greek words usually translated “hell” (geenna and had’s). But this book is not about the word “hell” but about the doctrine of hell. If that doctrine is defined as teaching about the ultimate destiny of the wicked, then Paul says much about it.

Off to a good start

In this chapter, we first will survey what Paul says about hell. Our conclusion is that Paul teaches that God will visit eternal punishment on people who do not respond to God’s grace revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ironically with the qualitative understanding of “eternal” that we find in the NT, I would actually agree with this sentence.

Then we will tackle a major contemporary challenge to this conclusion—that Paul teaches that all people will eventually be saved and that hell eventually will have no human occupants (universalism). After dismissing this challenge, we will investigate further the nature of hell in Paul’s teaching, dealing especially with the question of annihilationism or conditional immortality. Put simply, we will probe Paul to discover his teaching about the reality of hell, the eternality of hell, and the nature of hell.

It’s disappointing he’s so dismissive of universalism He’s slightly more respectful when talking about annihilationism or conditional immortality.

Since Paul never uses the Greek words normally translated “hell,” we will have to depend on the various ways in which Paul depicts the fate of the wicked to determine what he teaches on this matter. The words he uses to speak of hell make a useful starting point. They are (from most common to least common):

]“Death,” “die” (usually apothn’skō, thanatos; Rom. 1:32; 5:12, 14, 15, 17, 21; 6:16, 21, 23; 7:5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 24; 8:2, 6, 13; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22; 2 Cor. 2:16; 3:6, 7; 7:10; Eph. 2:1). Typical is the well-known Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”/]

]“Perish,” “destroy,” “destruction” (usually apollymi, apōleia, three times olethros, once phthora; Rom. 2:12; 9:22; 14:15?], 20?]; 1 Cor. 1:18; 15:18; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3; Gal. 6:8; Phil. 1:28; 3:19; 1 Thess. 5:3; 2 Thess. 1:9; 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:9). Typical is Galatians 6:8: “Those who sow to please their sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; those who sow to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”/]

]“Wrath” (usually org’;, once thymos; Rom. 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 5:9; 9:22; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; Col. 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:16; 5:9). Typical is Ephesians 5:6: “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.”/]

]“Condemn,” “condemnation,” “judge,” “judgment” (all words built on the Gk. root krin-; Rom. 2:1, 2, 3, 5, 12; 3:7, 8; 5:16, 18; 8:1; 1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 3:9; 2 Thess. 2:12; 1 Tim. 5:24). Typical is Romans 5:18: “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all.”/]

]“Curse,” “cursed,” “eternally condemned” (anathema, katara; Rom. 9:3; Gal. 1:8, 9; 3:10, 13; cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; 16:22). Typical is Galatians 3:10: “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’”/]

]“Punish” (ekdikos, ekdik’sis, dik’; 1 Thess. 4:6; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9). Typical is 2 Thessalonians 1:8: “He [God] will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”/]

]“Trouble and distress” (thlipsis kai stenochōria). See Romans 2:9: “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”/]

I don’t think every occurrence of these words is definitely talking about post-judgment Hell, but even if they do, they don’t seem to support ECT/P any more than EU’s understanding of Hell.

Several comments on this list are in order. First, some may object that many of the instances we have cited do not clearly refer to the fate of human beings after death (e.g., Rom. 5:18 and 6:23, quoted, respectively, under 1 and 4). And the same is true for the concepts of God’s wrath (Rom. 1:18; 9:22; Eph. 2:3), the experience of the curse, and the language of “perishing,” which Paul sometimes describes as a present condition (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15). Nevertheless, we have included them as evidence for Paul’s view of hell because Paul implies, either in the context or by his use of the same words elsewhere, that the state they describe will continue after death if it is not reversed through faith in Christ.

Even assuming he’s correct about the first part of the sentence, I object to the last part of the sentence. i.e. just because something continues postmortem, doesn’t imply it will never end.

“Death,” “condemnation,” “wrath,” and the “curse” all descended on human beings as a result of Adam’s sin. Human beings are, therefore, already in a state of “perishing.” This condition is fixed forever for those who do not respond to God’s grace in Christ and the work of his Spirit.

Again, I have no trouble with the first two sentences, but the third is an assertion with no backing, at least none is offered here.

But it is also clear that the condition that follows final judgment is an intensified form of what unbelievers now experience.

No problems with this, so long as “final” is in the sense that it happens at the end of this world and only happens once, but I suspect he means irreversible judgment.

Therefore, as we find in Paul an inaugurated eschatology of life—believers enjoy life now as the first stage of life eternal—so we find an inaugurated eschatology of death—human beings suffer condemnation and wrath now as the first stage of eternal death.

I partially agree, in the sense that Rob Bell believes heaven & hell have already begun here and now, but he’s overly simplistic, in that non believers also enjoy life now and believers at least appear to be under the general curse/suffering of this world.

This is almost certainly the way we are to explain the sequence in Romans 1:18-2:11. Paul begins by proclaiming that the “wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (1:18).

See I was under the distinct impression that we all did/do this, and that Paul actually says that?

But he concludes by threatening people who are stubborn and unrepentant with “wrath” on “the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed” (2:5; cf. vv. 8-9). The latter is typical of Paul, who usually associates God’s wrath with the Day of Judgment. Some scholars argue that 1:18 might have a similar focus; they take the present tense “is being revealed” as futuristic. But the parallelism between verses 17 and 18 makes clear that the present tense must be taken seriously: the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel is needed precisely because God’s wrath is also being revealed from heaven.

I agree with the “now & not yet”-ness of wrath, but again it seems to me that Paul had everyone in mind. As people repent and believe it changes things, e.g. they can see that God’s wrath ultimately achieves reconciliation, rehabilitation & restoration.

This “inaugurated eschatology” of judgment is an important consideration in appreciating Paul’s teaching about hell. The judgment of hell is not, for Paul, the imposition of a new state of affairs but the continuation and intensification of a situation that already exists. People do not come to the Day of Judgment in a neutral state. They come as people already condemned to death because of their relationship to Adam (Rom. 5:12-21). The verdict of “guilty” and the fearsome reality of punishment for that verdict is the backdrop against which Paul proclaims the good news of Jesus Christ. Only those who have identified themselves with Jesus Christ will be saved from the wrath of final judgment (Rom. 5:9, 10).

Honest question, but are there actual examples of Paul using the threat of Hell as a backdrop to the Gospel?

[Gem]

Amuses me how he speaks of the various ways Paul depicts the fate of the wicked and quotes verses about those who sin and do evil without seeming to realize that he is a member of that group and those verses apply to him.

as you observed

See I was under the distinct impression that we all did/do this, and that Paul actually says that?

[JasonPratt]

I don’t see yet that Moo is necessarily denying that Paul, between the early half of chp 1 and the shift into what we call chp 2, extends the wrath to come on the impenitent to include those who are impenitent of little sins in Paul’s audience, too. Although I can see why Moo’s emphasis on “the unregenerate” might make it seem that way.

From a Calv perspective Paul would be speaking of those in the congregation who, despite appearing to be Christians even to themselves are in fact unregenerates who never had even an opportunity from God to repent and be saved. Not that this would be very comforting to consider, as it leads to just the sort of perfectionistic salvation that Calvs often critique Arms about, except the other way around: instead of needing to be perfectly sinless in order to be saved (cause and effect) one must be perfectly sinless in order to be assured one is of God’s chosen elect-to-be-saved (inferential ground and consequent).

Calvs have often (not always) gotten around this by affirming God leads the elect to perfection through a process and/or that God basically just pretends the elect are righteous regardless of whether they ever improve or not; but neither of those positions (the former of which I actually agree with) comports with an interpretation of Romans 1 & 2 to be speaking of a prophetic (not effectual) warning about (not really to) the unregenerate in Paul’s congregation. No such distinction is made by Paul there: only a general warning that his readers had better not despise God’s longsuffering patience and mercy when it comes to those hugely obvious nasty pagan sinners because God will also just as surely and thoroughly punish ‘small’ impenitent sinning of the sort his readers are (generally speaking) likely to be indulging in.

to be fair, though, Moo may be skipping over the nuances here only because he wants to make the point of continuity between those being punished now (the pagans who, in this example, are being punished by becoming male and female homosexuals!) and those being punished in the Day of the Lord to come. It isn’t only now, it’s also later. (Although as Alex notes, Moo seems to be jumping assertively or at least tacitly far ahead to considering that punishment-to-come as being hopelessly unending. That’s something to be establishing as he goes, if he can, not assertively reading-in at this point. On the other hand, I suppose it’s possible Alex has, conveniently or inadvertently, skipping over text portions where Moo has done this. {shrug} )

[Alex_Smith]

On the other hand, I suppose it’s possible Alex has, conveniently or inadvertently, skipping over text portions where Moo has done this. {shrug} )

no, I’m not skipping anything (except the footnote numbers), however, I’m only a little way through the chapter, so I’m hoping Moo justifies some of his assertions later on…

[Alex_Smith]

Second, the various word groups that Paul uses to depict the fate of unbelievers are interrelated. In the same context, for instance, Paul can shift from “perish” to “condemn” (2 Thess. 2:9-10); from “condemnation” to “death” (Rom. 5:12, 18; 2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 9); from “condemnation” to “wrath” (Rom. 2:1-5); from “punish” to “wrath” to “destroy” (2 Thess. 1:8-10); and from “perish” to “judge” (Rom. 2:12). Clearly Paul uses these different word groups to describe the same reality.

Sure.

Third, turning to individual words and concepts, we cannot always pin down the exact meaning of the “death” that Paul highlights especially often in Romans 5-8. The background for his use of the language in these chapters is the Genesis 3 account of the Fall (Rom. 5:12-21). In this account, as in Paul’s appropriation of it, physical death and “spiritual” death are intertwined in ways that make it difficult neatly to separate.

I agree.

In Romans 5:14, for instance, the “death” that reigns over human beings between the time of Adam and Moses includes at least physical death. But the parallel between “death” and “condemnation” (cf. Rom. 5:12, 18) reveals clearly enough that “death” also has a spiritual side. Some scholars therefore speak of Paul’s concept here in terms of a “physical-spiritual entity—total death.” Since believers undergo physical death and yet enjoy eternal life, it is clear that death does not signify extinction but the “unnatural separation of the person from bodily life.” Paul, with other New Testament authors, teaches that all people, including believers, must still experience physical death (e.g., 8:10), the “last enemy” (1 Cor. 15:26). But believers have been rescued from spiritual death through their union with Christ (note the past tense in Eph. 2:1: “You were dead in your transgressions and sins”); and, while having to pass through death, they are assured that they will escape the “eternal death” that unbelievers will suffer.

It’s interesting that non-believers are also made eternally alive. My impression was that the Incarnation was the beginning of the union with Christ? And that’s why when He rose from the dead, that enabled humans to rise from the dead. Also isn’t Christ said to be the Second Adam and to represent humanity. Which is why we get passages like “And when I [Christ] am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself” (NLT)

“Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation of all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” (Rom 5:18)

“And on the basis of the whole human nature with which the divinity was mixed, which is a certain sort of first-fruits of the common dough, humanity exists according to Christ, through whom all humanity is joined to the divinity.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Homily on 1 Corinthians 15:28)

“And now, Christ hath risen out of the dead - the first-fruits of those sleeping he became, for since through man [is] the death, also through man [is] a rising again of the dead, for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive, and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ’s, in his presence, then the end [the remainder]” (YLT 1 Cor 15:20-24a)

It’s a “now & not yet” e.g. is the Kingdom of God here? Yes, it is now, but no it’s not yet fully actualized/realized on earth, until the New Creation. So through the Cross, Christ has reconciled all Creation to Himself. “and through Him to reconcile the all things to Himself - having made peace through the blood of His cross - through Him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens.” YLT Col 1:20) However, it won’t be fully actualized/realized until the New Creation is complete (i.e. after the Resurrection, the Judgement Day & the Lake of Fire for most people).

In regards to Eph 2:1, only 2 verses later Paul says, “we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved”

[Alex_Smith]

Fourth, the Greek krin- root occupies a broad spectrum of usage in Paul, and it is not always easy to determine which occurrences are applicable to our study. Paul often uses the root, for instance, to refer to the “judgment” that all human beings must face, a judgment whose outcome may be either positive or negative (e.g., Rom. 2:16; 2 Cor. 5:10). We have included above only those occurrences that seem clearly to denote the negative verdict of judgment or the state resulting from that negative verdict.

Cool, only the other day I was looking for the passages which speak of God judging everyone. It means that when the Bible talks about someone going to face judgment, that doesn’t imply God’s sealing their eternal fate, because we all agree that, at very least, for some (in this case believers), this isn’t the end of the road.

[NealF]

Thanks for doing this, Alex! I’ve just skimmed so far, but from what I’ve seen, this NT scholar is merely question-begging! This shows me the best that the ECT crowd has is assumptions and faulty logic. Very disappointing. I’m sure he’ll support his case better as I read more in-depth of what you report and respond to, but so far, I’m not impressed at all.

[Alex_Smith]

Despite initial impressions, therefore, Paul’s teaching about hell is widespread and clear. People who do not respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ will experience the unambiguously distressing fate that we have outlined above.

I agree that it will be “unambiguously distressing” for those how reject Christ and that this is mentioned across the NT.

Nevertheless, rarely, if ever, does Paul devote himself to explicit teaching about hell as a central purpose within his letters. How are we to evaluate this circumstance? Some might cite Paul’s failure to provide extended treatment about hell as evidence that the doctrine was of minimal importance to him. Some might go so far as to view the references we have cited above as holdovers from the tradition Paul inherited, concluding that Paul himself was not fully persuaded of the doctrine. But another conclusion is equally tenable: Paul and his readers assumed the doctrine of hell as so basic that he did not need to provide extensive evidence for it. There are good reasons to think that this is the more likely conclusion to be drawn.

That’s a fair question, and I agree by the time we get to Paul’s teaching, Jesus’ warnings of coming judgment (assuming they weren’t about 70AD which I suspect at least some were) should’ve sunken in! Another plausible reason is that Paul might have thought it more important to focus on the Good News, rather than just scare people “in” with the Bad News. I’m not saying there isn’t a right place to warn people, particularly the proud, rich & unrepentant (like we were).

While Paul was in some respects a theological innovator, in many other respects he simply built on the theological tradition he inherited. A fairly extensive theological tradition about the fate of the wicked had developed by Paul’s day.

Sure.

While the Old Testament does not have a lot to say about the afterlife—and what it does say is disputed—many passages emphasize the reality of God’s judgment for sin.

Sure, I appreciate his honesty here. However, I’d also say there are more that emphasize God’s persistence and mercy on the repentant

[Alex_Smith]

At least two (Isa. 66:24 and Dan. 12:2) present that judgment in terms of eternal punishment.

aionion (in the Septuagint) doesn’t always (maybe ever) mean “everlasting” in Koine Greek. See perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ai)w%2Fnion&la=greek&prior=ou)kw%2Fnion&la=greek&prior=ou)k)

Considerable development in the notion of life after death took place in the intertestamental period. To be sure, some Jews focused exclusively on this life as the context for both God’s reward and punishment. But more typical was an increasing emphasis on resurrection as the point of entry into a far more extensive system of reward and punishment. Even Jewish theologians who taught a resurrection of the body differed on who would experience that resurrection. Most taught that only the righteous would be raised; some extended the privilege to all Israel, and some to both the particularly righteous and the most notorious sinners. But several Jewish works attest the idea of a general resurrection as a prelude to reward and punishment (e.g., T. Ben. 10:8; 4 Ezra 7:32, 37; 2 Bar. 30:2-5; 42:8; 49:1-51:10). The Pharisees held this last view. Paul, of course, was a Pharisee (e.g., Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil. 3:5), who expresses his agreement with the notion of a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous (Acts 24:15). We would expect, then, unless we find evidence to the contrary, that this is the position Paul assumed on eschatology, with its teaching about resurrection as the portal to eternal reward and eternal punishment.

Although this is quite interesting, personally I haven’t looked into this yet, but I’ve heard from others that there was quite a range of ideas on the afterlife at the time of Jesus. I might be being picky here but he doesn’t say the Jewish works attest to eternal punishment, that’s something he adds in the following sentence. Even if they did, we know Christian teaching clarified & corrected a lot of Jewish teaching, so this could easily have been one of them. I assume here that Paul was always completely inspired, although I know some people object to that. i.e. they would say his Phariseeism tainted his teaching and that we have to try to take that into account.

Moreover, as the previous chapter has made clear, the notion of punishment after death was a staple in the teaching of Jesus; and from him, it made its way into early Christianity. It is this tradition that Paul assumes as common knowledge.

Again it depends on how many of Jesus’ warnings were about 70AD.

But evidence equally important in appreciating the reality of hell in Paul comes from what he assumes in his repeated emphasis on the need for the preaching of the gospel. Paul makes clear that “salvation” and “life” come only through response to the good news of Jesus Christ (e.g., Rom. 1:16; 10:9-10). He goes to great lengths to proclaim this message (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:22-29) and bemoans the fate of those who do not respond to his message (e.g., Rom. 9:3; 10:1). One cannot adequately explain this passion for preaching the gospel without assuming that Paul believed human beings who did not respond to the gospel face a bleak and extremely distressing fate.

Amen!

[dirtboy]

Considerable development in the notion of life after death took place in the intertestamental period. To be sure, some Jews focused exclusively on this life as the context for both God’s reward and punishment. But more typical was an increasing emphasis on resurrection as the point of entry into a far more extensive system of reward and punishment. Even Jewish theologians who taught a resurrection of the body differed on who would experience that resurrection. Most taught that only the righteous would be raised; some extended the privilege to all Israel, and some to both the particularly righteous and the most notorious sinners. But several Jewish works attest the idea of a general resurrection as a prelude to reward and punishment (e.g., T. Ben. 10:8; 4 Ezra 7:32, 37; 2 Bar. 30:2-5; 42:8; 49:1-51:10). The Pharisees held this last view. Paul, of course, was a Pharisee (e.g., Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil. 3:5), who expresses his agreement with the notion of a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous (Acts 24:15). We would expect, then, unless we find evidence to the contrary, that this is the position Paul assumed on eschatology, with its teaching about resurrection as the portal to eternal reward and eternal punishment.

This continues to astound me. I grew up in a tradition of sola scriptura. Where the bible speaks loudly, I speak loudly. Where it speaks quietly, I speak quietly. Where it doesn’t speak, I am silent. That’s what I was taught when it came to making claims on the scriptures. Well, the pharisees only had the old testament and I can confidently say that the scriptures spoke quietly about ECT and afterlife in general. Yet here, scholar after scholar, who hold to sola scriptura keep saying that the first century Jews had a very developed concept of afterlife. HOW? From where? It wasnt’ from the bible and so they had to be getting it from extra biblical literature. You can’t develop theology from extrabiblical literature in the conservative tradition. Whatever they believed they weren’t getting it from the revealed word of God. So how can they give authority to this extra biblical learning that took place? What do you think about that? It really blows me away! Chan also said in his book that it was widely believed and he thought that added authority to ECT. Well, reincarnation was widely believed so should we believe in it as well? There was a lot of really weird beliefs. Should we believe in those as well. Also, don’t forget that these same pharisees that we are giving so much spiritual credit to–THEY MURDERED JESUS! It seems that they weren’t to keen on their spiritual insight.

[Alex_Smith]

Yet here, scholar after scholar, who hold to sola scriptura keep saying that the first century Jews had a very developed concept of afterlife. HOW? From where?

Maybe the footnotes shed some light…

(e.g., T. Ben. 10:8; 4 Ezra 7:32, 37; 2 Bar. 30:2-5; 42:8; 49:1-51:10)

, Moo"]See the survey in Murray J. Harris, From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zonder- van, 1990), 69-79.

The Pharisees held this last view

, Moo"]See esp. Josephus, War 2.164. Josephus certainly accommodates the Jewish views of his day to standard Greek conceptions; but his reliability on this point is confirmed by other sources. See also the conclusion of E. P. Sanders: Most Jews in Paul’s day probably believed in an afterlife of reward and punishment (Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE [Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992], 303).
It is of some help to have a partial understanding of the views of the audience. However, I do agree with you that extrabiblical views (especially those of the Pharisees which Jesus strongly critiqued!) aren’t as authoritative as the bible, particularly in conservative circles.

[Alex_Smith]

[size=150]The Eternality of Hell[/size]
Few interpreters deny that Paul in some passages teaches the reality of a punishment for the wicked in the afterlife. But a significant number of contemporary scholars minimize this evidence, arguing either that the punishment will be only temporary, followed by restoration to fellowship with God, or that warnings about final punishment serve a rhetorical purpose and do not represent the true heart of Paul’s theology. In one way or another, then, these interpreters deny the reality of hell in the sense of irreversible judgment. Put positively, they argue for universalism: the doctrine that all human beings will in the end be saved.

Yes, “irreversible” is the issue, but I wouldn’t say I’m trying to “minimize” the evidence

Universalism is on the rise in our day. The global village has brought people of different religious persuasions together to an unprecedented degree. Other religions are no longer strange teachings held by people far away in another country; they are the beliefs of people right next door. And as people get to know one another at this level, the claim that Christianity is the only way to salvation begins to sound arrogant.

I’m not a pluralist, however, I think he’s at least partially right about the reason for the rise of Universalism. The Internet is a similar reason. I’d add that scholarship & understanding of Koine Greek has improved, partly because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Added to the cultural mix is the postmodern tendency to question absolute truth. Multiculturalism combines with postmodernism to elevate tolerance to the chief of virtues—and hell is the ultimately intolerant doctrine.

I guess that could be the reason for some people, however not me. If anything, I think I’m elevating intertrinitarian love, as the does the Bible, not just “tolerance”.

If universalism were simply a modern cultural phenomenon with no basis in the biblical text, it would be easy to dismiss. But, in fact, several key texts in Scripture appear to provide initial support for the idea, and most of the texts are in Paul’s letters.

Well I’m glad he at least admits this, some don’t!

We must deal with these texts to defend the doctrine of hell that we presented in the first part of this essay. For if Paul’s theological position is universalistic, hell has no ultimate place in his eschatological landscape. Universalism finds ostensible support in five key Pauline texts.

The alternative is to accept that the traditional doctrine of hell is flawed…

[revdrew61]

It is tragic when influential biblical scholars value their tradition more highly than the true meaning of scripture. Isn’t there a biblical warning against doing that?

[Melchizedek]

It is tragic when influential biblical scholars value their tradition more highly than the true meaning of scripture. Isn’t there a biblical warning against doing that?

At least one…

[Alex_Smith]

[size=150]1 Corinthians 15:20-28[/size]
In his spirited defense of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, Paul appeals first of all to the reality and fundamental importance of the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:12-19): “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (v. 17). In verses 20-28, Paul goes on to argue positively that the resurrection of Christ is the “firstfruits,” the inaugural stage in the program of eschatological resurrection. In other words, God’s raising Christ from the dead guarantees the resurrection of all who belong to him and is the first stage in the ultimate conquering of death, “the last enemy.” Paul, therefore, affirms that “in Christ all will be made alive” (v. 22) and that everything will ultimately be subjected to God, so that he might be “all in all” (v. 28).

Amen. v22 is one of the verses that I think supports what I was saying about there now being a union between Christ & all humanity. As I said to my friend Luke, it seems odd that the union with Christ is strong enough to make all of us alive again, but not strong enough to save all of us??

Here, according to some interpreters, Paul expresses his characteristic optimism about the ultimate fate of the world. Borrowing from Jewish apocalyptic, Paul teaches a future universal extent of God’s life-giving power. For God to reclaim his sovereignty over creation, he must bestow on all human beings a new resurrection life, a life that conquers death itself. But this conclusion is not warranted by the text. Paul’s claim in 1 Corinthians 15:22 that “in Christ all will be made alive” is occasionally taken to refer to the general resurrection of the dead.

I don’t think there’s anything “general” about resurrection. Even for ECT/P to work it requires God to raise everyone to “a life that conquers death itself”!

But even if this is Paul’s reference, universalism does not follow, for a universal resurrection does not entail universal salvation.

That depends on what you think God’s motivation is for universal resurrection. Life now is described as a blessing, therefore I assume resurrected permanent life is a much greater blessing. Add to that God’s patience and “common” grace now, and you have a lot of blessing/love to people who theoretically God hates. I think it would be uncharacteristic for Him to suddenly turn around and curse those He had loved. I think it was my friend TotalVictory who pointed out that ECT/P seems a lot like spiritual/physical death, which was meant to have been conquered…

The New Testament clearly affirms that all people will be raised, but some will be raised not to eternal life but to eternal condemnation (see John 5:29).

I think that initially some will be raised to life from God and some to condemnation from God, however, to fully actualise/realise the victory over physical/spiritual death, the condemnation will come to an end, when God is “all in all”. Seriously, how can God be “all in all” to the people in ECT/P? i.e. if God fills something, it becomes holy, righteous, overflowing with love!

More importantly, however, it is unlikely that verse 22 refers to a universal resurrection. “In Christ all will be made alive” is interpreted in verse 23: “But in this order: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.” Paul is thinking in this verse of the resurrection of Christians. Just as all those who belong to Adam die, so all those who belong to Christ will be raised from the dead.

Ah, now I remember why people argue over the meaning of “to telos” in verse 24a. i.e. Moo couldn’t use his argument if it read, “But in this order: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him, then the end [remainder] will come.” (“remainder” is footnoted as an option in the NRSV). Talbott & Parry discuss this in greater depth in their books.

However, regardless of the translation of “to telos”, I think it’s as simple as asking “Who die because of Adam?” All. “Who will me made alive because of Christ?” All. This seems especially strong and the more natural reading, as we both already believe the NT affirms all will be made alive again. I put “because of”, as I think that makes it clearer.

Nor is it necessary, for God to be “all in all,” for every creature to enter finally into a saving relationship with him. Paul affirms that God’s nature and purposes demand that all creatures be finally subject to his authority, but the nature of that submission is not spelled out.

I’ve already mentioned above why I disagree with Moo on this point, but I would add that there is an example of “the nature of that submission”, the Son!

[Melchizedek]

More importantly, however, it is unlikely that verse 22 refers to a universal resurrection. “In Christ all will be made alive” is interpreted in verse 23: “But in this order: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.” Paul is thinking in this verse of the resurrection of Christians. Just as all those who belong to Adam die, so all those who belong to Christ will be raised from the dead.

Ah, now I remember why people argue over the meaning of “to telos” in verse 24a. i.e. Moo couldn’t use his argument if it read, “But in this order: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him, then the end [remainder] will come.” (“remainder” is footnoted as an option in the NRSV). Talbott & Parry discuss this in greater depth in their books.

However, regardless of the translation of “to telos”, I think it’s as simple as asking “Who die because of Adam?” All. “Who will me made alive because of Christ?” All. This seems especially strong and the more natural reading, as we both already believe the NT affirms all will be made alive again. I put “because of”, as I think that makes it clearer.

Not only that, but something else gives Moo’s statement about v. 22 here the lie. Notice the word order there: It is not “all in Christ will be made alive” (which is what Moo is asserting), but “in Christ all will be made alive”.

And seriousness aside, I have trouble taking anyone named “Moo” seriously.

[Alex_Smith]

Notice the word order there: It is not “all in Christ will be made alive” (which is what Moo is asserting), but “in Christ all will be made alive”.

Thanks, the Greek seems to confirm your point.

And seriousness aside, I have trouble taking anyone named “Moo” seriously.

It’s certainly more memorable than “Smith”

[Alex_Smith]

[size=150]Romans 5:18[/size]
Somewhat similar to 1 Corinthians 15:22 is Romans 5:18: “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all.” Paul again portrays Adam and Christ as the two key figures in salvation history, through whom, respectively, came condemnation (or death; see 5:12) and life. Again, Paul paints on a broad canvas, affirming the universal reach of both Adam’s trespass and of Christ’s “righteous act.” But one key difference between these texts is that “life” in Romans 5:18 does not refer to resurrection but to spiritual or eternal life (cf. 5:17, 21). Even more clearly than 1 Corinthians 15:22, then, Romans 5:18 seems to affirm universalism: The extent of eternal life will match the extent of death and condemnation.

Strange he felt comfortable just “dismissing” universalism at the start of the chapter

In response, we must reiterate at the outset that such a view requires that Paul contradict himself on a rather fundamental point within the same letter, for he affirms unequivocally that the reign of sin and death can be escaped only through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Sadly, we discover here Moo has not come across Christian Universalism, let alone Evangelical Universalism, as neither denies Jesus being the only way to escape sin & death!

Universalists do not always deny this, but they suggest that some people may be embraced by the power of the gospel only after death. But Paul makes equally clear that the gospel has the power to save only those who believe (e.g., Rom. 1:16-17; 3:21-22)

I agree, it’s only those who believe, but that doesn’t imply only believers pre-death.

and that judgment will be based on the decisions made in this life (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:10).

2 Cor. 5:10 doesn’t rule out postmortem salvation! It simply says we will all be judged, which I acknowledge.

Indeed, Paul suggests just such a limitation on the scope of the “all” in Romans 5:18b in verse 17: “Death reigns” through the “trespass of the one man” (Adam), but it is only those who “receive” God’s gift of grace who will reign in life. Human response is required to experience the benefits of God’s work in Christ.

Again this is only a limitation of the means not the overall quantity. i.e. it’s only when people receive grace from God. This rules out people earning it or thinking they can just continue rejecting God’s grace.

So I think we should definitely pray that someone (ok, I’ve just emailed him) explains to Moo that his objections here aren’t a problem for EU, and therefore by his own logic here, he should become a universalist

What then does Paul mean by claiming that through Christ there is justification and “life for all”? One possibility is that he is affirming that Christ’s work on the cross is of potential benefit to all people. Christ has won for all people “the sentence of justification” and this justification is offered freely to all. But Paul usually uses “justification” language to refer to the actual transfer from the realm of sin and death to the realm of righteousness and life. Probably, therefore, as in 1 Corinthians 15:22, the “all” in the second half of verse 18 refers to “all who are in Christ.” This interpretation meshes perfectly with Paul’s overall purpose in Romans 5:12-21. He seeks to assure believers of their ultimate salvation (see 5:9-10) by reminding them that Christ has more than cancelled the damaging effects of Adam’s sin. All who belong to Adam are condemned. But all who belong to Christ can be absolutely certain of eternal life. Paul is not claiming that all people will be saved but, rather, that all believers will be saved.

Another problem I have with this line of argument is that the damage done by Adam if far greater than the restoration done by Christ.

Also it’s inconsistent that belonging to Christ requires something (belief) whereas we have no choice about belonging to Adam. Don’t misunderstand me, I think we do need repentance & believe in order to enjoy life with God, however Christ has already bought everyone who was in Adam, even before they believed.

[Melchizedek]

What then does Paul mean by claiming that through Christ there is justification and “life for all”? One possibility is that he is affirming that Christ’s work on the cross is of potential benefit to all people. Christ has won for all people “the sentence of justification” and this justification is offered freely to all. But Paul usually uses “justification” language to refer to the actual transfer from the realm of sin and death to the realm of righteousness and life. Probably, therefore, as in 1 Corinthians 15:22, the “all” in the second half of verse 18 refers to “all who are in Christ.” This interpretation meshes perfectly with Paul’s overall purpose in Romans 5:12-21. He seeks to assure believers of their ultimate salvation (see 5:9-10) by reminding them that Christ has more than cancelled the damaging effects of Adam’s sin. All who belong to Adam are condemned. But all who belong to Christ can be absolutely certain of eternal life. Paul is not claiming that all people will be saved but, rather, that all believers will be saved.

Another problem I have with this line of argument is that the damage done by Adam if far greater than the restoration done by Christ.

Also it’s inconsistent that belonging to Christ requires something (belief) whereas we have no choice about belonging to Adam. Don’t misunderstand me, I think we do need repentance & believe in order to enjoy life with God, however Christ has already bought everyone who was in Adam, even before they believed.

And again, we have the same problem as before; Moo is trying to make it say “all in Christ” when the Greek and English grammar both say “in Christ, all”.

It is even clearer to me here that Moo is trying to make the text say what it clearly does not say, to justify his position. He is importing his own idea into what the text actually says both contextually and grammatically, rather than letting it speak for itself.

[Alex_Smith]

[size=150]Romans 11:26, 32[/size]
Paul’s defense of God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel in chapters 9-11 climaxes with two sweeping promises: “All Israel will be saved” (11:26a), and “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all” (11:32). The latter verse obviously constitutes a problem for the view of hell that we outlined above: If all people will receive mercy in the end, no one will be left in hell. The former verse does not technically suggest universalism, since the promise in it appears to be confined to Israel. But we need at least to glance at it as well, because it is often taken as an indicator that Paul’s theology is ultimately universalistic: If all Jews will be saved, will not all people as well?

I’m glad he can acknowledge what it seems to be saying at face value.

Careful attention to context and background is indispensable if we are to arrive at an accurate interpretation of these verses. Beginning in 11:12, Paul seeks to stifle the arrogance of certain Gentile Christians (see 11:18, 25) by showing how God is using the unbelief of so many Jews and the salvation of Gentiles to bring salvation again to Israel. As Jews reject the message of salvation in Christ, that message goes out to Gentiles. But their acceptance of the message and inclusion within the people of God are designed to stimulate the Jews to jealousy (11:11, 14, referring to Deut. 32:21, quoted in Rom. 10:19).

I agree.

Some interpreters think that the promise of verse 26, “All Israel will be saved,” summarizes this entire process. “All Israel,” then, would be a way of referring to all the people of God, Jew or Gentile.

I think that would be odd, given up until now I thought the point Paul was making was that Israel was cut off for a time, in order to bring all the Gentiles in.

But most interpreters, rightly in my estimation, insist that the context requires that “Israel” have a national rather than a spiritual meaning here. Paul may then be referring to a cumulative effect (it is as Jews come to Christ throughout the church age that “all Israel” is saved) or to a climactic act (in the last days “all Israel” will be saved). The latter is the more likely view, since 11:26b probably refers to the Parousia.

I disagree! I don’t think Paul was thinking just about future Jews around when Christ returns, see my comments on Rom 9.

Whatever the exact scenario, what is especially important for our purposes is the background of the phrase “all Israel.” As a survey of the Old Testament and Jewish literature quickly reveals, this phrase does not usually refer to all Jews, or even to all Jews alive at a given time. It has a representative significance, as in, for instance, Joshua 7:25, where “all Israel” is said to have stoned Achan. Romans 11:26 gives no support for even a qualified universalism.

Wow, is it really that simple to dismiss “all Israel” meaning all Israel without exception? In Joshua 7:25 “all Israel” is inclusive because there wasn’t anyone in Israel who opposed Joshua and said don’t stone him. Furthermore, if you look at the previous verse it wasn’t just Achan, it was “his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his all that he had”. I’m no expert on stoning but it may well have required at least all the able men of Israel, to stone that many people & animals!

I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if we could find another “all Israel” in the OT which also means all Israel, so if this is really what’s required to define “all” here, I think that would completely sink this argument.

Context is also critical to the correct interpretation of Romans 11:32. Paul’s focus throughout this section, as we have seen, is on the relationship of Jews and Gentiles. The “all” consigned to disobedience on the one hand (for which, see 1:18-32), and the “all” who receive mercy on the other, are “all nations.” The universalism of this verse—as much of the universalism of Romans—is a universalism of people groups, not of individuals.

In Rom 1:18-32 there’s no mention of “all nations” (if this is even a subset, which I’m skeptical about), so why should we think the "all"s in this passage refers to that? I thought Paul was explaining that we “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), so that we can’t boast or redeem ourselves by our own efforts, and must rely on Jesus.

Moo even said Paul was talking about the nation of Israel not just a spiritual Israel (which would be only some of the Jews). i.e. I would say the context is that Paul has been talking about all the Jews and Gentiles.

For someone of Moo’s calibre this seems like an extremely inadequate reason to diminish the scope of “all”. What his argument do to Romans 9:2-5

I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised!Amen.

Was Paul only upset for a subset of Israel?? Which Jews are excluded above? Obviously not the current believing ones, nor just the elect ones (if he was a Calvinist), so it must be for the perishing ones.