The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Was Jesus an universalist?

Theology Philosophical
#21

Lotharson,

The key question about appealing to theological speculation from the Evangelist rather than accurate reportage of what Jesus said, is whether you’re willing to respect an ECT proponent or a Kath (universalist), or for that matter a Calvinistic proponent (either ECT or anni), making a similar appeal on a text that’s giving difficulty for their positions. :wink:

Having said that, I’m posting up a little early a cluster of planned Easter entries for the Exegetical Compilation which happen to feature the two “drag all to Me” sayings, plus a related saying on the goal of the Son’s judgment at the resurrection of the evil and the good – now added to the series list here under GosJohn’s tab. (And they should be visible as added to the general EU discussion category.)

The contexts definitely indicate (not even counting other testimony about what submission involves such as at 1 Cor 15, i.e. submitting to Christ as the Son submits to the Father) that all men will be submitted to Christ as their Savior as well as their Judge; that’s God’s goal and He’s going to see it gets done. There is no passive letting go of people (into non-existence or otherwise) who just refuse to accept eonian life: God’s active judgment itself is eonian life, though it’s better to receive eonian life without being punitively judged first of course.

#22

It seems to me the Paul understood Jesus to affirm that through being lifted up, all would be drawn to Him (Jn.12), reconciled to Him as Paul saw it (Col.1.20). Jesus came to save the world, the cosmos, not just some of it, but all of it. He did not come to condemn, but to save.

#23

Jason: I would not accept this from a Conservative Evangelical because **they **view this very text to be inerrant.

That’s not my case at all.

#24

But you would accept or at least respect such an argument from a moderate evangelical or someone with a fairly broad idea of inerrancy, if they used this kind of rebuttal on a text you use as evidence for annihilation (or for a final unrighteousness more generally), right?

#25

Yes!

But if Jesus Himself taught annihilation, this is rather different…

#26

Not at all, because you have to allow a parallel theory where anything that you think suggests Jesus teaching annihilation isn’t “Jesus Himself” but was rather a theological guess by the Gospel author or a misremembrance or a theological correction or preference or whatever.

The arguments which dissolve GosJohn’s historical accuracy tend to work (with variations where appropriate) on the Synoptics, too, after all. They even have a special weakness unique to them and not to GosJohn: they very demonstrably vary their wording on their reports, and selectively include or ignore material from the same incident, even when working from what is demonstrably one or two or three common sets of programmatic material (the Triple Tradition, Q, and the Passion bloc.) Unlike GosJohn, they also don’t make internal claims to be based on direct eyewitness testimony and recollection. (GosLuke comes closest by claiming to be based on eyewitness testimony at secondhand, in a proper historiographic fashion.)

In other words, source-critical sauce for GosJohn’s goose, tends to be source-critical sauce for the Synoptics’ gander.

By the same token, careful arguments in favor of the Synoptics’ general reliability tend to work for GosJohn, too. I am not appealing to GosJohn or the Synoptic data simply because it says so, but because I am convinced on the evidence (very meticulously and rather boringly detailed evidence :wink: ) that they are reliable enough at reportage to feasibly use for figuring out what Jesus taught.

I am willing to grant that anyone (sceptic or Christian) who hasn’t reached the same conclusions cannot be expected to accept the data to the same degree for applicable usage. But for fairness’ sake in the other direction, you ought to be willing to grant that I am within my rights to appeal to GosJohn for my religious beliefs on the topic, in just the same way I appeal to the Synoptics. (It is a whole other question whether I am doing so in a valid fashion with accuracy and sufficient inclusion to the data I accept, of course: am I leaving out important pieces, am I getting pieces significantly wrong, am I not putting them together validly, etc.?)

#27

Perhaps you’re right.

I consider it extremely unlikely that Christ spoke like in John’s Gospel because it is incredibly dissimilar to His sayings in the synoptics.

This is the mainstream critical view which can be overturned if reasonable arguments are offered.

#28

Huh, I never knew this. I think it’s pretty interesting though, that Jesus was betrayed by a man amongst his own disciples, with the same name as one of the tribes of Israel.

#29

Eh, Judah was one of the top five common male names of the period – probably for Messianic hope reasons. “Judah” shows up several times in the NT, but only in one example does it have anything to do with betrayal. One of the loyal apostles was also named Judah.

Anti-bishop John Shelby Spong tried (maybe still tries) to make some hay out of this, back when he wrote Sins of Scripture – he regarded Judas’ name as his fifth “easily identifiable, documentable fact” for concluding that Judas never existed. As I wrote during my analysis of his overall argument, “at least he gets some credit for having an actual easily identifiable, documentable fact this time as his ‘source of suspicion’.” :laughing:

It’s a pretty irresponsible argument overall, terrible at marshaling facts or even stringing them together validly. He mostly relies on arguments from suspicious innuendo. :unamused: Still, it provided me an excuse to write an epic 13-part discussion of the issues one summer, so, yay?

#30

Still, it is interesting given the nature of Jesus’ interactions with Israel. A final poke at Israel’s complete betrayal, if you will.

#31

To paraphrase Stalin, it isn’t only typology if they’re really out to get you. :mrgreen:

#32

:laughing:

#33

I interpret that passage in which Jesus says that it were better if Judas had never been born thus:

Our existence begins at conception, not at birth. Jesus was therefore not saying that it would have been better if Judas had never existed. Rather, Jesus was saying that it would have been better if Judas had died in his mother’s womb.

#34

This actually seems to be a rather new idea. The Hebrews did not seem to view life as beginning at conception.

#35

The word translated as “born” in the passage comes from “γενναω”, which seldom means “to give birth to”, but usually means “to beget” or “to generate”.

The word which is usually used to mean “to give birth to” is “τικτω”. This is the word which was used in Matthew 2:2, "“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?”

Indeed, if "“γενναω” were translated as “give birth to” in Matt 1:2, it would read as follows:

“Abraham gave birth to Isaac, Isaac gave birth to Jacob, and Jacob gave birth to Judah and his brothers.”

#36

Good point, although on the other hand, a failed birth tends to be the cultural reference, not a failed conception. (Though I do think I recall at least one example of that, “Would that my mother’s womb had been dead”, or something more like that than “Would that I had been born dead”.)

#37

Thank you for the clarification. I would then adopt George MacDonald’s explanation (contained in one of his written sermons, though I do not remember which one) that Jesus meant that Judas didn’t get any good out of being born into this world. Jesus wasn’t saying that Judas would never get any good out of existing, but rather that Judas completely wasted his earthly life. Further, I remember MacDonald averring in Lilith that most human beings completely waste their earthly life. Hence, what Jesus said about Judas could be said about most of us.

#38

Lotharson,

I can see how you’d find the Judas passage(s) as evidence for Jesus being a non-universalist. At least, univs ought to concede that certain verses, even if ultimately universalist, since they have to be deciphered from the Hb/Gk, are dubious since it is unclear on them, given that the on layperson’s lvl they seems to affirm non-univ., how God is guaranteeing inspiration of the Word through time.

Still, I think you’d admit that the Judas passage(s) alone is/are insufficient to disprove universalism. But I am guessing you have a slew of other verses that you find assert annihilationism? What are 3 other good evidences other than the Judas passage?

I would find it interesting as I find more debates b/w Cals/Arms and univs, then univs and annihilationists. Thank you.

#39

I personally think it’s a HUGE assumption to make that Jesus wasn’t a Universalist simply because He used a hyperbolic figure of speech…

#40

Doubtless, Corpse, but aren’t you interested in Lotharson’s cumulative case for annihilationism? Perhaps this isolated Judas text, even if not congenial to a universalist construal (tho I completely understand why you’d scoff at that), is evidentially worthless in itself, but in the context of Lotharson’s entire scriptural argument, it may be significant. We univ’s also tend (although perhaps you’re free of this tendency :smiley: ) to take one or two verses and then largely champion UR on their basis, when probably everybody else coming to table thinks them dubious evidence.