Yes, seeing Matt. 12:32 & Luke 20:35 as referring to different “ages” preserves your conclusion. As often, I accept that “it may be that” such a distinction is meant. Most texts can be interpreted in multiple ways. But it’s also plausible to me that your interpretation is guided by a desire to maintain a conclusion already held about resurrection, and that “in the age to come” should be heard as a similar reference in both texts.
On. Rom. 2:6, of course, “day” isn’t always 24 hours, and “Day of the Lord” in the O.T. can be perceived as referring to ‘historical’ events. But seeing 16’s “This will take place on the day…” as sharing in contemporary expectations of a (still for us) future day of judgment seems plausible to me, as well as capable of paralleling 6’s future “day of wrath.”
If 6 = AD 70, do you see those seeking 7’s immortality “repaid” for their deeds in the sense that they all escape the siege’s “distress” (9)? And is 10’s positive application of blessing for Gentiles who do good also limited to Gentiles who escape the trouble in Jerusalem?
I’m uneasy about your way of clarifying such passages by equating them to OT texts which indeed sound limited to history. It’s fair to see the OT as background, but I see a reality of death which tends to make the OT vision incomplete, and a pattern of reinterpreting such unrealized predictions (moving from a historical materialist religion to more emphasis on spiritual reality. Extending the trajectory of reinterpretation inclines me to admit the need for a greater emphasis on this worldy divine dealings and goals, without assuming that we have a clear road map that excludes more in the existence beyond this familar one, even though it’s not much detailed (similar to the OT’s scanty detail on anything about resurrection life).
Does observing seemingly unprovidential events sometimes make you question your perception that in this life those who do good works are blessed, and those who do evil works are fully punished? I resonate with Bible writers who perceive that often the good are struck down (albeit capable of joy in spite of it), and the wicked experience a long, happy life that they would perceive as lacking judgment. What am I missing?
Jesus seemed to assume that his faithful followers would have heeded his warnings and escaped the coming day of wrath by fleeing to the mountains of Judea before it was too late. And as I’m not aware of any evidence which suggests that any Christians perished at this time, why should we assume that any did?
I think that Jesus assumed that, among his Jewish followers, those who remained faithful to him would have fled to the mountains when the opportune time came. If they didn’t, it wasn’t because they weren’t given the opportunity. Josephus records that the Roman commander Cestius Gailus (Nero’s predecessor) began enclosing Jerusalem in AD 67. Then, “without any reason in the world” he withdrew his troops from around the city (Josephus, Wars 2.19.7). Those who took Jesus seriously (i.e., his “peaceful disciples”) would’ve recognized this as the prophesied signal for which they’d waited, and would have used this time to flee the city. It seems that God, in his mercy, also provided one final opportunity for Jewish believers to escape the approaching desolation of their city. A year later, in AD 68, generals Vespasian and Titus “had fortified all the places round about Jerusalem…encompassing the city round about on all sides” (Wars 4.9.1). But when Vespasian and Titus were “informed that Nero was dead” (4.9.2), they “did not go on with their expedition against the Jews” (4.9.2; cf. 4.10.2) until after Vespasian became emperor in 69. Then “Vespasian turned his thoughts to what remained unsubdued in Judea” (4.10.5). If Josephus’ account can be trusted, it means that God provided adequate opportunity for believers and their families to make their escape before Jerusalem was overthrown.
You say the OT “often characterizes fire’s judgments as refinement” (emphasis mine). The primary passages that come to my mind are Zech 13:9 and Mal 3:1-4; did you have any others in mind? In Zech 13:9 it seems clear that those who are “refined by fire” are to be viewed as the exception rather than the rule.They would be those who, in the words of Peter, “suffer as a Christian” rather than as “a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler” (1 Pet 4:12-19). To read these verses from 1 Peter in light of Mark 9:43-49: those who are “put into the fire” and refined “as one refines silver” would (according to my view) be those who, although tested by the “fiery trial” that came upon the believers of that generation (i.e., the trying circumstances leading up to and ultimately culminating in the overthrow of Jerusalem), weren’t ultimately “thrown into Gehenna” to become fuel for the “unquenchable fire” and food for the “undying worm.” Or to use the words of Ezekiel, they weren’t “melted” in the fiery furnace of God’s wrath (Ez 22:17-22). Rather, they would be those who remained faithful amidst the persecutions and tribulation of that day, and, having been refined by these fiery trials, were able to rejoice when the “chief shepherd” appeared (1 Pet 5:4). And we know that the “appearing” of Christ of which Peter spoke was probably understood by Peter as being relatively near in his day, for in 4:7 we read, “the end of all things is at hand.” On this verse, Adam Clarke (who, although a preterist, believed in a future judgment) noted,
I believe the author of Hebrews had this judgment in view when he spoke of the “fury of fire” that was going to “consume [not “refine”] the adversaries” (Heb 10:26-31), and exhorted his readers to remain faithful and thereby “preserve their souls” rather than shrinking back and being “destroyed” (vv. 32-39).
As one who affirms that God’s wisdom and benevolent character requires the resurrection of all, but denies that any will be raised sinful, I may well ask in response: “The OT often characterizes fire’s judgments as leaving Jews dead and unreformed. May it be that seeing OT judgments as leaving its recipients dead and unreformed is justified by future readers (whether Jew or Gentile) who learn from those who indeed experienced temporal ruin? And that seeing it as not redemptive for most, requires a future resurrection so that they might be redeemed by different means (e.g., the instantaneous change which will be undergone by all people at the resurrection of the dead)?”
To answer your question: No, not necessarily. Is not Jesus’ statement in v. 50 (i.e., “Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again”) true even in light of the verses I provided in which salt is associated with destruction, desolation and barrenness (i.e., Gen 19:26; Deut 29:23; Judge 9:45; 2 Sam 8:13; 1 Chron 18:12; Job 39:6; Psalm 107:34; Jer 17:6; Eze 47:11; Zeph 2:9)? If it is, then I’m not sure why it’s at all unreasonable to believe that Jesus, in his closing remarks to his disciples in v. 50, was simply building off of the “salt” imagery introduced in v. 49 to reiterate what he’d told them previously about how their attitude should be characterized by humility rather than selfish ambition (vv. 33-37). Moreover, those whom Jesus said would be thrown into Gehenna weren’t going to be “salted with salt” (although even this could be construed as destructive imagery); they were to be “salted with fire.” And “fire” is overwhelmingly used as a symbol for temporal judgment that frequently terminates with death (rather than reformation) by the Hebrew writers (Deut 29:23; Job 18:15; Psalm 11:6; 83:14-15; 97:3; Isaiah 9:19; 30:33; 34:9-10; Jer 4:4; 21:12; 48:45; Lam 2:3-4; Ezekiel 21:31; 22:18-22; 38:22). And in light of the rather ominous and “destructive” imagery expressed in vv 42-48 (i.e., being thrown into Jerusalem’s garbage dump as fuel for the “unquenchable fire” and food for the “undying worm”), I believe the “salt” imagery of v. 49 is meant to be seen as destructive and ruinous rather than refining and sanctifying. This interpretation seems even more likely if (as I’ve argued elsewhere on this forum) Jesus and the inspired Hebrew writers didn’t believe in an intermediate state of vital, conscious activity after death but would have instead viewed death as an interruption that put an end to both good and evil works rather than as a transition to further character development. In short, I see no good reason to believe that the “fire” with which those “thrown into Gehenna” would be “salted” would be a means by which they would become “peaceful disciples.” It is v. 50 - not v. 49 - which seems to me to be transitional in Jesus’ remarks in Mark 9.
But Jesus gives no indication that the resurrection of the dead was to take place in “the age to come” of Matt 12:32, nor does he use this expression in Luke 20:35. So I don’t see why we should assume that he has in mind the same age referred to in Matt 12:32 - especially in light of the fact that the “age to come” seems to refer to the opening age under the Messiah’s reign, and Paul seemed to believe that the period of time during which Christ reigns will end (not begin) when the dead are raised and death, the last enemy, is destroyed.
Unless the expectations were based on what is revealed in the OT, I’m not sure why 1st century Jewish expectations should in any way guide our interpretation of anything Paul or Jesus said; if anything, their teachings seemed to reverse and challenge the common expectations of their Jewish contemporaries.
I see vv. 6-11 as a general principle (applying to both Jew and Gentile), the outworking of which was played out on a national scale for the Jews in AD 70 on their “day of wrath.” Even today I believe that “those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality” “everyone who does good”] will receive “life aionion…glory and honor and peace,” while “those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness” “everyone who does evil”] will experience “wrath and fury…tribulation and distress.” The “immortality” of v. 7 may be understood as a pure, genuine and sincere character (as argued previously), or as enduring fame and remembrance among those with shared values - i.e., a “good name” (Prov 22:1; cf. 10:7) - which, from what I’ve read, seemed to be of great importance to many in antiquity.
When you speak of “a reality of death which tends to make the OT vision incomplete” and of “more emphasis on spiritual reality,” do you mean a post-mortem death and a post-mortem reality? Or do you mean that which may - or may not - include the post-mortem realm?
I agree that the detail about the resurrection life in the OT is “scanty.” And I think the scantier the detail revealed about any given subject in the Bible, the less certain and detailed our views should be about it. This brings us back to an earlier topic of discussion on this thread: if Scripture is silent on something, I believe it is wise not to draw conclusions based on speculation about it and analogical reasoning. In regards to mankind’s post-mortem existence, I believe that neither a sinful nor a sinless state need be understood as more consistent with God’s benevolent character and sacrificial love, so we can’t simply assume that one is more likely than the other. I believe it is revelation alone that can decide whether sin will continue beyond this existence or not. And as stated previously, it would seem that, based on 99% of the Biblical story, God places just as much value on our being mortal in this life - as well as on human beings “marrying and being given in marriage” - as he does on the present process by which some mortals begin to be conformed to the image of Christ. So the fact that our becoming Christ-like in character in this mortal existence is dependent on a process does not mean we should expect this same process to continue after we have ceased to be mortal.
The key phrase in the above paragraph (which I believe is somewhat problematic to your position) is, “albeit capable of joy in spite of it.” I believe Scripture warrants the view that those who are “good” or “just” are rewarded with happiness and peace even in spite of being “struck down” (as you say), while the wicked (who may seem to “experience a long, happy life”) are, in actuality, deprived of this spiritual reward, and by their wickedness forfeit those spiritual blessings that constitute the “abundant life” that Christ came to give. Even in a Roman prison, the apostle Paul was (I believe) happier, more content and more at peace than the wealthiest and most powerful wicked man alive in his day or ours. While those who are wicked may not perceive the psychological/emotional/physical pain that results from sin (a pain which may be sharp and acute or dull and chronic) as divine “judgment,” this does not in the least alter the fact that they are under divine condemnation and are “reaping what they sow.” So what I think you may be missing (indeed, what we all miss when our focus is primarily on appearances), is, I think, God’s perspective of the state of the wicked and the righteous in this life. As you would certainly agree, things are not always as they appear. Moreover, what we think is a just punishment for a person’s sin, or a just reward for person’s righteousness, may not at all be what God, in his perfect justice, deems appropriate.
*On Mark 9:49 *: Thanks for the convincing notes on how believers could escape 70 AD. If Jesus’ promise was to those who believed his warning of cataclysm, it’d be simple. Does his emphasis that it’s those who radically curb sin who will enter God’s kingdom instead of the fire seem a curious way to delineate who is bound not to die in the slaughter?
Are you adding that salt’s ‘goodness’ could be producing humility by “destroying” pride? Purification works for me. But why follow being “salted” with “Have salt in yourselves,” if one intends being salted to connote an undesireable result?
On “fire” as purification: I agree that fire (and salt) often desribe painful and bleak effects, and that “fire” often reveals who is “faithful.” But you seem to argue that historic O.T. catyclysms (and its’ metaphors of fire & salt) bring judgment which only destroys sinners with the punishment they have sown and deserved. I imagine ECT agrees: “fire” means destruction, and only its’ antithesis, resurrection has positive effects. Thus our goal is evading all fire. This dominant tradition sees constant warning of judgment in the Biblical storyline, and that it ends in a final unredemptive conclusion. You appear to believe that they miss that judgment’s antithesis is a resurrection that simply cancels the storylines’ pursuit of purification as our choices and character are modified.
But a foundational difference for ancient & modern universalists is seeing that ECT has twisted the storyline and the purpose of judgment (including its’ fire). This is based on indications that the prophets increasingly see that God’s threats of Israel’s total destruction and being cut off from the covenant’s promises “forever,” is followed by assurances that he won’t do that, but will bring their restoration. Whether its’ Israel, Sodom, Egypt, or Edom, we see clues that in the midst of judgment, God is still intent on their ultimate redemption.
E.g. “Moab will be destroyed… Then she will be ashamed… I will restore her” (Jer. 48,49). “You are destroyed Israel… but I will heal your waywardness” (Hos. 13:9; 14:4). “I turned my face from you, but I will bring you back” (Isa. 54:7). The very texts of Jeremiah on Gehenna do this: “I will make them an everlasting ruin… until I fully accomplish my purposes” (25:9; 30:24; 31:24). “I will surely gather them… I will restore their fortunes” (32:37-44).
Judgment, like love, purposes restoring correction that can lead to choices that reflect God’s ways. "When your judgments come upon earth, the people learn righteousness… I will guide them and restore (Isa. 26:9; 57:16-18). “I will cure you of backsliding” (Jer. 3:22).
Continued: You suggest that fire’s bottomline “terminates with death, rather than reformation,” and thus Jesus probably means that too. I agree that fire and salt are often pictured as bringing what is painful and bleak. And yes, Zech. 13 "may" mean (as in 70 Ad) those “refined” were not “melted” or “destroyed.” Yet how these only ones in the “fire” were “refined” seems unspecified. I suspect refining can include purification.
In Malachi 2, as typical, the Lord’s “day” is envisioned as deliverance for the righteous, and fearful for others (“strike the land with total destruction”-4:6). But the “refining fire” is equated to cleansing soap and purfication that produces those who actually live righteously (3:2-4). Isaiah also has this motif. “The Lord will wash away the filth, he will cleanse the bloodstains by a spirit of purification and fire” (4:4). "I will purge away your dross (1:25; cf. 48:10). “It must be put through the fire, and then it is clean” (Num. 31:23). In light of O.T. pursuit of purification by “fire,” 1 Cor. 3:12-15’s burning up the strawy works may imply purging our dross. Even Luke 3:16’s burning up the chaff may mean a purging process, not just the end of bad people.
You seem to see God’s pursuit of repentance in a purifying process as irreleveant for those killed in O.T. judgments. And indeed one would not expect success in God’s pursuit of purification or in the hints of his total restoration, given the O.T.'s small sense of meaningful existence beyond our present life. But, as Parry suggests, the resurrections’s assurance of a future gives grounds to embrace the positive indications as accomplishable.
Sorry to break this up so much! You affirm this by seeing resurrection completely changing God’s approach into an instantaneous purification regardless of previous choices under his pedagogy. But classical universalists see a greater continuity in God’s interest in a school of experience that involves ‘time.’ Of course, this difference is also enmeshed in our discussion of whether some N.T. warnings of judgment has rightly been seen as transcending this life, or whether they all point to realities realized before anyone expires.
On the “appearances,” you seem to agree that while the devout, like Paul, can know the joy that transcends events, most Christians and pagans do not seem to “reap” plainly contrasting rewards or judgments. My sense is that the Psalmist (e.g. 73:17ff) was not atypical in resolving this in terms of what still lies ahead. Paul also calls believers who seem to suffer more this worldly pain than the judgment others face, to expect the future will bring compensations.
With a bit clearer vision that the future holds more than this life, that tradition seems reasonable that hears the N.T. writers as continuing this trajectory that God’s compensation and purifying dealings are not finished even in this world (though you offer marvelous interpretation for how resurrection may be annulling this trajectory). I realize that you agree with many elements of this sketch, at least in terms of what God seeks in our present experience, but I suspect that such a sketch forms a basic paradigm for how many of us read the developing particulars in individual texts.
Hi Bob! Hope you had a merry Christmas. We almost had a “white Christmas” (which would’ve been only the 2nd one since I’ve been alive) but the snow came 24 hours too late! But I can’t complain; snow is pretty rare here in SC, so getting any at all during the year (especially 6 inches like we did yesterday) is pretty neat. If I hadn’t had to work yesterday my wife and I would’ve built a snowman for sure.
I don’t think so, because those who were seeking to be obedient to Jesus (which requires inward and not merely outward faithfulness) were those who were most likely to heed his warnings when the time came, and take whatever radical measures were necessary to be among those who (whether living or dead) received glory and honor when Christ came in his kingdom (1 Pet 5:4; cf. 1 Cor 9:25; 2 Tim 4:7-8; James 1:12; Rev 2:10; 3:11). I think that, for Jesus, remaining faithful to him by keeping oneself pure, and escaping the coming wrath upon Israel, were inseparable. As noted previously, when Jesus talks about something causing a believer to stumble, I believe he had in mind any sin which, if persisted in, might have led to a hardening of one’s heart and a subsequent apostasy from the Christian faith. As Israel’s overthrow drew near, it was those Hebrew Christians who became “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb 3:12-13) who consequently exposed themselves to the fate of perishing in the judgment that was coming upon their nation. For those who went on “sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth” and “fell away” after tasting “the heavenly gift” and “sharing in the Holy Spirit,” there only remained “a fearful expectation of judgment” that consumed the “adversaries” (Heb 6:4-8; 10:23-31).
I’ve actually never thought of salt as symbolizing that which “destroys pride” in a person, but I suppose one could see it that way! Just as “fire” imagery can be used to convey the idea of refinement/testing as well as that of destruction and loss, so can salt have both negative and positive connotations. And both salt and fire are intrinsically “good” in the sense that they are used to improve man’s quality of life. But the same fire that warms a home can burn it down and destroy its inhabitants, and the same salt that preserves food and makes it more flavourful can make water undrinkable and life unsustainable (think the Dead Sea). Again, Jesus’ statement that “salt is good” is true even though salt can be (and frequently is) associated with desolation and destruction in the OT (e.g., Deut 29:23). In Judges 9:45 we read, “And Abimelech fought against the city all that day. He captured the city and killed the people who were in it, and he razed the city and sowed it with salt.” The act of “salting” a city after its destruction seems to have been intended to symbolize perpetual desolation. On this verse Adam Clarke notes,
When Jesus spoke of everyone who would be thrown into Gehenna as being “salted with fire,” I believe he may have simply been intensifying the kind of symbolism expressed in the ancient custom of sowing a city with salt. Jesus then reminds his disciples of the inherent goodness of salt, and follows with the exhortation to “have salt in yourselves” as a way of contrast with v. 49: those Jewish disciples who “had salt in themselves” (i.e., those who, by their faith in Christ, cultivated a humble and peaceable character) were less likely to suffer the destruction and loss represented by the expression “salted with fire.” As a universalist, I don’t believe that perishing in this 1st century judgment and being thrown into Gehenna in any way compromised anyone’s future, post-mortem well-being (in fact, I believe all suffering experienced in this world will ultimately contribute to our future happiness), but I just don’t think Jesus intended to convey any kind of positive imagery with the words “salted with fire.”
I agree that God can and often does bring healing and restoration after judgment (after all, this is precisely what I believe Christ is going to do for all people at the end of his reign), but it’s doubtful to me that the healing and restoration described in the above verses refers to a post-mortem reality. I also don’t see anything in the above references which suggests that any wicked individual Jews or Gentiles who perished in the judgments would become less wicked as a result of experiencing them. Rather, I see the fulfillment of the above verses (both the judgment and the restoration) as taking place in this state of existence. For example, when we read that Moab would be destroyed and then “restored,” I see this prophecy as most likely having its fulfillment in the conversion of the descendents of this Gentile nation to the Christian faith when the gospel began to be proclaimed to all people. Similarly, I don’t see anything in Jeremiah that suggests that those who perished in the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians would be reformed by this judgment, nor do I see Jer 32:37-44 as having its fulfillment in a post-mortem state of existence. That the restoration/healing described in this passage was to take place in this mortal state of existence seems especially evident from v. 39, where we read, “I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.”
Yes, I agree that “refining can include purification.” I believe those who don’t perish in whatever judgment is in view, but are instead made more humble and obedient by the hardships undergone, could be said to have been “refined” or “purified” by the judgment. But neither “fire” nor “salt” imagery has to express the idea of spiritual purification/reformation at all. Moreover, in Mark 9, those being thrown into Gehenna and “salted with fire” are, I believe, corpses rather than living people (Isa 66:24). And of course, to speak of corpses being humbled or reformed by means of a judgment would be absurd.
It’s true that the Messiah is represented as purifying “the sons of Levi” in Malachi 3, but immediately after this we are told (v. 5), “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says YHWH of hosts.” It is this category of people - the “arrogant and evildoers” - who, in chapter 4, we’re told will be “set ablaze” and become “stubble” and “ashes” under the feet of the righteous, being left “neither root nor branch.” This is, of course, very different imagery from that found in 3:2-4! While I agree that this language is not at all inconsistent with the post-mortem salvation of those judged, it doesn’t seem to mesh very well at all with the idea that the judgment would lead to their becoming any less wicked. Rather, if these “evildoers” are to be made righteous like the purified “sons of Levi” (which, as universalists, we both believe) then I think the kind of imagery used to describe their temporal fate gives us good reason to expect their post-mortem reformation to be brought about by (perhaps radically) different means (e.g., by a sudden and compelling manifestation of God’s grace and love).
I think most Christians would agree that the majority of humans (both past and present) do not even begin the process by which Christ-likeness is attained or approximated in this life. Assuming God was even trying to bring about the reformation of all people in this lifetime (although I think this is very doubtful), why would God, in the next state of existence, continue to pursue a means of accomplishing the purification of all people that was evidently so unsuccessful for so many people in this state of existence? If suffering as a mortal doesn’t necessarily lead to a change of heart and a more Christ-like character, why would suffering as an immortal lead to this? Does the suffering just need to be longer and more intense in order for the desired results to be achieved? If we were reasoning from the principle of analogy, then we might conclude that most people will remain hardened sinners while experiencing God’s judgment in the next state of existence just like they remained (and died as) hardened sinners while experiencing God’s judgment in this state of existence.
Moreover, I would suggest that the only reason judgments even lead to people being reformed and “learning righteousness” is because there is, intermixed with the judgment, a manifestation of God’s kindness and grace, and the sinner is given a reason to hope for something better beyond the hardship being endured. As I’ve argued elsewhere, it is the embracing (by faith) of hope (i.e., the expectation of some future good for oneself and one’s loved ones) that I believe produces the greatest positive moral change in people - not the mere enduring of suffering in itself.
I don’t think it should be assumed that the expectation of any inspired author concerning future rewards and punishments extended beyond this mortal state of existence. As for Psalm 73, I believe the Psalmist may have received the assurance that the wicked would ultimately “get what they deserved” when, after reflecting on this subject in the sanctuary of God, he realized that God’s justice would’ve been just as active in his day as it was in days past. Perhaps he was reflecting on God’s just dealings with the wicked as recorded in the Torah. Or perhaps the Psalmist remembered instances in his own past when the wicked were brought to ruin, and it was this that enabled him to see things from a different perspective. But regardless of what led to this change of perspective, I don’t see anything in his words to suggest that he believed that the wicked would “fall to ruin” beyond this mortal state of existence. He probably speaks of their “ruin” as being in the future because he had his wicked contemporaries in view, and not those who had already departed from this mortal existence. And I think it’s probable that the Psalmist also realized that the wicked could not be truly happy in this lifetime because, unlike the righteous, they were going through life without a personal relationship with God (vv. 23-28), and were thus estranged from the very Source of their happiness (cf. Eph 4:18).
As for Paul, I’m not sure what specific verses you had in mind, but I think it would have to be shown that the “future compensations” he had in mind would be experienced in a post-mortem state of existence rather than in this lifetime.
Hi Aaron, just thought I’d let you know that my dad, Bob Wilson, and mom are in Julian, CA for a getaway. Will be back soon to resume this discussion. Your snow sounds lovely! Wish we got some snow here, but at least our mountains aren’t too far away.
Hi Aaron! Glad you got snow. So. Calif. got tons of rain, but we had a great Christmas. I’ve posted my article on “Jesus’ View of Hell.” See if it doesn’t reflect a lot of your view also. Thus, I especially appreciate the chance to test my remaining non-preterist sympathies with you.
No wonder Mark 9:49f is seen as cryptic and puzzling. Your revised view is very consistent with Jesus following Jeremiah’s preterist take on “thrown into Gehenna.” But I think your earlier interpretation may be more coherent with 49f’s language, and the wider Bible theme of suffering’s role in our required righteousness. Your contention that “everyone” = those remaining in Jerusalem = those hardened against radical measures against sin, is exactly how I would have defended your more recent view. It is plausible that those obedient to Jesus’ instructions on sin were “most likely to heed his warnings” about AD 70.
Still, I find it strained to assume that “keeping oneself pure, and escaping the coming wrath were inseparable.” E.g. if life is anything like my experience, I can’t avoid imagining some careless in the Christian movement who did not radically avoid eyes that stumble, etc, but who still joined the departure from Jerusalem. With the violent cues you described, it wouldn’t take much virtue for an unbeliever to see reasons to get out of town.
I’m confused. When you speak of "being among even the dead who received honor when Christ came in his kingdom, what event and what blessing do you mean? In your view, what happens to the dead who don’t receive that honor? I thought you saw the next event for anyone dead as the resurrection, which will confer equal blessing on all. Are you thinking of extra rewards, that are not the crown of (eternal) life?
I take you references to Hebrews to mean that “sinning” which jeopardizes “the things of salvation” such as having “no sacrifice for sins left” also means the “fire” of 70 AD is evitable. But can you assume that every unfaithful convert reading Hebrews was caught in Jerusalem? Such a limited interpretation appears implausible to me.
We agree salt (& fire) “can have negative and positive connotations!” But examples of the negative can’t argue which Mark 9:49 is. I’ve argued that in Scripture what was perceived as sheer severe destruction (i.e negative) is increasingly recognized as aimmed at purifying restoration (positive). In your view, as “contributing to our future happiness.” Your sense that “salted” here is only sheer loss" is possible. But your contention that 9:50 “reminds them of the inherent goodness of being those with salt” is in order to “constrast” with 49’s “salted” as totally negative seems counter-intuitive. It seems to read more straightforward as a reason to be “salted” in the best sense of welcoming the divine (refiner’s) “fire” to have its’ purifying place in our members, thus making the more severe fire (AD 70) unnecessary.
I agreed the O.T.'s surviviors (not the dead) are presented as “purified by the judgment,” and that it does not “refer to a post-mortem reality.” But combining this verifiable purpose in God’s judgment with a growing N.T. recognition that God maintains a purpose with the dead, leaves me assuming that even biting the dust can be useful in the hand of the Master pursuer of reformation. What seems “absurd” to me is seeing God’s judgment upon many as in God’s hands simply negative and beyond efficacious toward his long running goal.
You seeem to think, if O.T. revelation just saw the wicked’s fate as death, and God’s efforts at reformation “so unsuccessful,” we should assume that God would learn from this inefficiency and use a “radically diferent” approach for his goal of change. As you imply, such assumptions concern “analogy” where our discussion began. You find revelation requires resisting analogical thinking in our expectations. But in my eyes, it is foundational in our grasp of ‘God’ and God’s ways (though I do agree that this suggests a mix of judgment and kindness is what is effective).
Your sense that this world yields all the appropriate consequences for our choices seems counter not only to Biblical authors but reasonable folk everywhere. Interpreting all N.T. warnings of appropriate judgment for churchmen as fully defined by death in AD 70 is counter-intuitive when many readers already lived outside Jerusalem. As typical of events in this world, Ad 70 didn’t hit everyone who stumbles with the same gravity. This seems untrue to the reality of life and calamities we see. Whether it’s natural disasters, warfare, or drunk drivers, (though only light and momentary affliction to be outweighed by the future picture) who perceives that any appropriate proportion is assured in this world?
We’ve touched, although on my part too superficially, on other warning texts, where your interpretations have sounded convoluted to me (albeit possible), making distinctions between ages in similar phrases, etc. So, can you clarify what you see beyond death? What does Heb. 9:27 imply by “judgment” following it? Will this result in felt differnces among people that is worthy of concern? Similarly, what is 2 Cor. 5:10 referring to, and is it future?
What does Dan. 12:2’'s pivotal, “those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake to everlasting contempt” imply for the resurrection of the wicked? Do you see Matt. 13:40-43, 49f’s warnings of “fire” upon the evil at the end of the age as completely fulfilled in AD 70? When Matt. 25:41 describes judgment’s separation as the fire prepared for the devil, is this just AD 70, and why is it defined as the end of evil angels? Thanks for your thoughtful reaction to so many traditional queries that I’m sure you have heard many times.
Thanks for referring me to your paper on Jesus and the meaning of Gehenna. Like your paper on penal substitution, I found it both concise and persuasive, and I hope it’ll be read and thoughtfully considered by every member of this forum. I’m still thrilled by your change of opinion regarding this subject, and I think it would be awesome if, in the coming years, this view became the dominant one among EU’s, and more widely accepted among “partialists!”
Perhaps I overstated my position when I said that, “for Jesus, remaining faithful to him by keeping oneself pure, and escaping the coming wrath upon Israel, were inseparable.” While I do think all faithful believers escaped the judgment in 70, I don’t think one has to understand Jesus as teaching that all “stumblers” would’ve necessarily ended up being “thrown into Gehenna” (and although we don’t know for sure, perhaps some unbelievers did flee to the mountains of Judea for safety along with the believers, as you suggested). Rather, I believe that Jesus simply understood there to be a definite correlation between committing and persisting in certain sins, and ultimately apostatizing - and I don’t think it can be denied that, among those 1st century Jews who, at some point, professed faith in Christ, it was those believers who apostatized from the faith who were the most likely to perish in Israel’s overthrow. So for Jesus, the best way to protect his Jewish followers from perishing in this judgment was to exhort them to keep themselves “unstained from the world,” lest they be (in the words of the author of Hebrews) “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” and, with an “evil and unbelieving heart,” subsequently “fall away from the living God” (Heb 3:12-14).
I believe Christ came in his kingdom and inaugurated the New Covenant age in 70 AD, so that’s the event I had in mind. I don’t think a person had to be alive (and by “alive” I mean those not in Sheol/Hades, where there is “no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom”) to receive glory and honor when Christ appeared at this time. All believers who persevered and remained faithful to the “end of the age” were vindicated and honoured/glorified, whether they were alive or dead. The glory and honor bestowed upon the faithful members of Christ’s body at his coming (whether living or dead), is, I believe, expressed in the “crown” imagery found in the NT. Among the Hebrew people, “crowns” are spoken of as a figurative way to convey the idea of glory, honor, dignity, exaltation, etc. (e.g., Job 19:9; Ps 6:11; 89:39; 103:4; 132:18; Prov 4:9; 12:4; 14: 8, 24; 27:24; 16:31; 17:6; Isa 28:1, 3; 62:3; Jer 13:18; Ez 16:12; 21:26; Lam 5:16). Paul even tells us that his “crown” at Christ’s coming was the believing brethren to whom he wrote (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19-20) - i.e., those persons in whom he had “great pride” (2Cor 7:4). And in 1 Thess 5:23-24 he spoke as if those to whom he wrote would still be alive at Christ’s coming (i.e., when the Lord would award him his “crown of righteousness,” 2 Tim 4:8). Just as “grandchildren are the crown of the aged” (Prov 17:6), so those who were made (and remained) converts to the Christian faith as a result of Paul’s influence were to be Paul’s “crown” at Christ’s coming in his kingdom. Since it was on their behalf that he laboured as an apostle of Christ, his name was honoured by those who remained faithful to Christ. But this was not Paul’s only crown; I believe Paul received glory and honor for his own efforts at remaining “faithful unto death” as well. This, I believe, is what Paul had in mind when he spoke of the “imperishable wreath” for which he laboured as an apostle (2 Cor 9:24-27). Paul didn’t want to do anything that would “disqualify” himself and bring shame and dishonour upon himself and those to whom he’d preached the gospel, but rather “ran” so as to obtain the glory, honor and dignity that would be awarded all who remained faithful to Christ. This, I believe, is the “crown of life” or “crown of righteousness” that was awarded to all believers at Christ’s coming who were “faithful unto death.” At this time in redemptive history, all faithful Christians - especially those who, like Paul, had “turned many to righteousness” - shone “like the brightness of the sky above…like the stars forever and ever” (Dan 12:3). That is, they were elevated to positions of glory and honor in the minds of those still living, and received enduring fame and remembrance among them. They didn’t have to be alive to have such a “crown” bestowed upon them at Christ’s coming; it would be somewhat akin to people receiving posthumous recognition, or a posthumous award, in our day.
No, as I argued above, I don’t think one has to believe that every unfaithful convert who was alive at the “end of the age” necessarily perished in this judgment. But I think it’s plausible that many (perhaps even a majority) of them did, in fact, perish. Such apostates from the Christian faith would have arguably been more hardened in their unbelief after apostatizing than they were before originally coming to faith in Christ. As Peter says (who I believe spoke of the temporal fate of such apostates), “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first” (2 Pet 2:20). If those who were trying to be faithful were in danger of “falling asleep” while waiting for Christ to come (Matt 25:5), or were at any time inclined to doubt that his prophetic words concerning the destruction of the temple would be fulfilled, how much more those who abandoned the Christian faith altogether and, in unbelief, returned to Judaism? And I don’t think we should underestimate the tremendous pressure that would have undoubtedly been on the Jewish people to be present in Jerusalem in April, 70 AD to observe Passover at this time. As you may know, Jews from “every nation under heaven” travelled to Jerusalem to attend this sacred feast.
I’m not sure how it’s counter-intuitive to understand Christ’s words, “Have salt in yourselves” as conveying very different imagery than the words “all must be salted with fire,” and to understand what Christ says in v. 50 (which alludes back to what he said during his Sermon on the Mount) as being set in contrast with what he says in v. 49 (which I see as being part of the 70 AD judgment imagery of vv. 43-48, which involves corpses being thrown into Gehenna and burned with “unquenchable fire”). It seems reasonable to me to understand what Jesus says at the beginning of v. 50 as transitional - i.e., Jesus is shifting the focus away from the temporal fate of those slain Israelites thrown into Gehenna (which he sums up in the closing declaration, “for everyone must be salted with fire”) with the reminder that, although salt can have negative connotations (of which v. 49 is an example), it is still inherently “good.” So while he continues using “salt” imagery, his emphasis simply turns to the positive connotations that salt has rather than the more negative connotations suggested in v. 49. But this shift in emphasis doesn’t make the previous imagery (which I hold suggests destruction and loss rather than restoration and gain) less negative than it really seems to be in connection with vv. 43-48. In other words, what Christ says in v. 50 does not soften or negate the negative imagery that I believe v. 49 necessarily conveys in connection with the preceding 6 verses (but then, it doesn’t have to be viewed as less negative in order for it to still be understood as consistent with God’s redemptive love for those Jews who perished in the judgment).
It just seems less clear to me that Jesus had in view a purifying moral process when he spoke of people being “salted with fire,” since there is no indication that the Jews who perished during Jerusalem’s overthrow were purified by this judgment. If Josephus’ description of the siege is reliable then it would seem that more were driven to despair rather than to hope during this time of distress and carnage. And we have even less reason to believe that any Jews were reformed by this judgment after they died, because “the dead know nothing,” and “their love and their hate and their envy have perished” (Eccl 9:5-6). As there is no consciousness in Sheol, it follows that there can be no moral reformation taking place there. While it’s certainly possible that some unbelieving Jews who survived this national judgment (perhaps among those who were “led captive among all nations”) were humbled by the experience and became less self-righteous, less hypocritical, or less greedy (etc.), I think we’d both agree that there were no slain Israelites being reformed and refined in Gehenna, the “valley of slaughter!” So if my views concerning the intermediate state of the dead are correct, then any post-mortem purification will have to wait until the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, it will need to be shown that those who die in need of further purification (which is most, if not all, people) will be raised in need of further purification. But I deny that Scripture teaches this.
Now, in one sense I believe that all temporal judgments can be understood as “purifying,” insofar as they curb or check human sinfulness. And if this was all for which you were arguing, I would agree fully. For whether they lead to repentance or not, all judgments tend to curb sin and “restrain” the sinner. As I noted in another thread, in Young’s Analytical Concordance the definition given for the word kolasis is “pruning, restraining, restraint.” And in the Emphatic Diaglott, after translating kolasin in Matt 25:46 by the words “cutting off,” the author says in a footnote:
And in Liddel & Scott’s Greek-English lexicon we read:
From the above definitions we see that kolasin need not convey so much the idea of directly bringing about a “positive change” in a person but rather of “checking” their sinful actions, or of “restraining” them (or “cutting them off”) in some sense. The punishment could be remedial, but it’s not necessary that it be understood in this way. According to the wider range of meaning we find for kolasis, it could be used to describe the kind of punishment that we find (for example) in our US justice system, which is neither vindictive nor necessarily remedial. So if by “salted with fire” one simply understood a judgment intended to curb or check the sin of a nation of individual, I’d agree that every judgment from God does this to some extent, including the judgment of 70 AD. For those who die in hardened unbelief, death itself may be viewed as a judgment from God, since (according to my view of death) it prevented them from sinning further (cf. Rom 1:32).
But for the sake of argument, let’s say that to be “salted with fire” is to undergo suffering that can lead to a positive change in one’s character, rather than curbing sin only. Do you think that every person who is “salted with fire” in this life is invariably reformed by the experience before they die? Or do you think it’s possible for some mortals to be “salted with fire” and yet remain unbelieving and hard of heart, putting them in need of additional “salting” in the future?
Again, how many unbelieving Jews do you think were reformed by God during the siege of Jerusalem before their lifeless bodies were cast into Gehenna as fuel for the “unquenchable fire” and food for the “undying worms?” Not very many, I would suppose. So do you think those who weren’t reformed by this “remedial punishment” while they were alive will be subjected to further distress and suffering in the immortal state until they finally decide that they would rather not be in pain? Will God’s final victory over sin be won by punishing rebels into heaven? As I see it, the redemptive purpose that we both agree God “maintains with the dead” need not be understood as involving more sin and suffering. While I do believe that sin and suffering has its place in God’s redemptive purpose for humanity, I don’t think Scripture teaches that it will extend beyond the sounding of the “last trumpet” when death, the last enemy, is destroyed. As “useful” as death may be in God’s redemptive purpose, I believe the instantaneous change that will be wrought by Christ when he returns from heaven to raise the dead and transform the living will prove to be even more “useful!”
Not every divine judgment has to be understood as a means by which a person becomes more Christ-like in character in order for it to be seen as “efficacious toward God’s long running goals.” Even if one denies that a given judgment was intended by God to produce a positive moral change in all who experienced it, one can still understand every judgment in this world as being a means by which God prepares sinful people for the future enjoyment of his kindness and grace (i.e., as manifested at the resurrection of the dead). Understood in this way, the judgment would not be entirely “negative” - it just wouldn’t be “remedial,” either. It would simply be another opportunity for God to display his redemptive works on behalf of his lost and sinful children by saving them from seemingly hopeless and tragic situations. It would still prove to be for the ultimate benefit of those who experienced it - just not in the sense that you’re arguing.
We both agree that there is consistency in God’s character, and that everything God does - both in the present and the future state of existence - is with our best interests at heart. But surely you don’t think that God’s benevolent character requires that those who die in unbelief undergo further suffering in the immortal state, without which they could not be set free from sin’s bondage. Do you at least see it as possible that God’s plan for the world’s salvation beyond this mortal existence might not simply be “more of the same” - especially in light of the fact that most people live and die without experiencing the kind of salvation from sin that believers alone can be said to enjoy (or begin to enjoy) in this life?
I have yet to see any compelling Scriptural objections to my position that people are sufficiently rewarded and punished in this lifetime. Just because “reasonable folk everywhere” may feel that some people deserve more punishment than they got in this life doesn’t mean God feels the same way. And as a believer in UR you’d probably agree that no sinner deserves to be punished forever or annihilated, but this is exactly what many “reasonable religious folk” think God’s justice requires, and it’s what they’re expecting.
What’s funny is that the interpretations of the “Gehenna” passages that we now agree on (more or less) probably sound somewhat “convoluted” to many who are entrenched in partialist and/or futurist views, and who are inclined to interpret such passages very differently!
Regarding my view of what happens after death, I believe the dead will simply remain dead (which, according to my understanding of death, entails an unconscious state) until Christ returns bodily from heaven and, in “the twinkling of an eye,” bestows a sinless immortality upon all people, thereby destroying death, the “last enemy.” After the dead are raised and the living changed, I believe all people will then be caught up to join Christ in the air. And Jesus’ words to his disciples in John 14:1-3 suggest that we will then be taken to heaven, or “paradise.”
As for Hebrews 9:27, one view is that the “judgment” after death is that inevitable process which happens to all who are dead, but which was prophesied that the Messiah would not have to undergo (i.e., bodily decomposition - Acts 2:31; 13:35-37). Support for this interpretation may be found in Gen 3:14-19, where we find a series of judgments pronounced by God after Adam and Eve’s transgression. Last in the series of judgments is that man would return to the dust from which he was made. For more on this view, see Heb 9:27.
Another view (which was first advanced by Hosea Ballou, I believe, and was the most common view among 19th century American Universalists) is that the author of Hebrews does not have in view all men in v. 27 but rather a specific category of men - i.e., the high priests, with whom the author has been comparing and contrasting Christ in the context in which this verse is found. While the expression tois anthropois can be used to refer to the entire human race as a collective class or species as distinguished from other classes or species (e.g., John 1:4; Luke 6:26; Matt 6:16; Titus 3:8; etc), the definite article tois can also be understood as a demonstrative pronoun (in which case it would denote either one or more individuals as distinguished from others of the same class or species), as it’s used in v. 28 (“those who are eagerly waiting for him”). It is the context that must determine how the article tois is to be understood. Since the author has had the high priests in view in chapter 9 (see v. 7, 25) as well as in the previous chapters (even referring to them as “men” and “mortal men” elsewhere - 7:8, 28), it would be natural for the author to refer to them again in 9:27 using the expression tois anthropois (which can be translated, “these men” or “those men” - i.e., the men he was referring to just two verses earlier).
Moreover, it is evident from the context that the writer is comparing and contrasting the Old Testament type and the New Testament reality. So with this in mind, we may understand the “death” that the high priests “died once” (i.e., once every year - see v. 7) as being not a literal death, but rather a figurative or typical death. When the high priest entered the holy of holies once a year on the Day of Atonement (wearing the “breastpiece of judgment” over his heart - Exodus 28:29-30), he did this on behalf of the entire nation of Israel, using not his own blood but the blood of a sacrificed goat. When he slew the animal and entered the most holy place with its blood, he typified or prefigured the actual sacrifice of Jesus for all people. So as typifying the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ we may say that the high priest under the Mosaic Law figuratively “died” by proxy, once annually. And it was not until the high priest emerged from the tabernacle to bless the people (pronouncing the benediction expressed in the words Moses instructed him to use) that the children of Israel knew whether his sacrificial offering met God’s acceptance (Ex 28:38) or whether he had been struck down (v. 35, 43). So according to this view, the “judgment” was God’s decision in regards to whether the sacrifice would be accepted and the people would receive forgiveness for the “unintentional sins” they’d committed that year - a decision which was not made known until the high priest emerged from the holy of holies alive before all the people (who would have been anxiously awaiting his return; cf. Heb 9:28). Thus, according to this interpretation, the author is drawing a parallel, with v. 27 giving us the type, and v. 28 giving us the reality.
What is your understanding of Heb 9:27? Do you see the “judgment” as taking place for each person after they die, or do you understand the author to be referring to a “general” judgment that is yet future?
Regarding 2 Cor 5:10, I believe this refers to Christ’s coming in his kingdom in 70 AD (Matt 16:27-28; cf. Luke 21:36). The reward that the faithful received at this time was glory and honor, and (for those who were alive) an enlarged enjoyment of the approbation of Christ and his Father (cf. Matt 10:32-33) while those who had been unfaithful were put to shame at Christ’s coming (see 1 John 2:28; cf. Dan 12:2) or worse.
I don’t think it implies anything for the literal resurrection of the dead (i.e., the resurrection that Paul has in view in 1 Cor 15 and elsewhere). I understand Daniel 12:2 as referring to events taking place during the generation in which the apostles lived: Daniel 12:2
When Daniel writes of “some” awakening to “shame and everlasting contempt,” I believe he probably had in mind the last verse of Isaiah: “…and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (the italicised words are the same word in Hebrew).
Not entirely; the effects of this national judgment have continued throughout the Messianic age, leaving the Jewish people “destroyed from the presence of the Lord” for nearly 2,000 years (2 Thess 1:5-10). As long as their “house” remains left to them “desolate” (Matt 23:38) one could say that, as a people, they are still suffering “the punishment of the age.”
I thought you’d appreciate my case on Gehenna! Our pastor asked if I could modify my views if Scripture warranted, and I cited this change as one which conflicted with my paradigm. But that’s a bonus for retired pastors. You can affirm whatever strikes you as correct. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose!”
Seeing a “correlation” between sin and death in AD 70 is plausible. But you imply that even less than a majorityn of apostates might have perished in that fire. Yet “all will be salted…” doesn’t sound like possible correlation, but more like an invitable consequence (i.e. inseparable).
Thanks, you see ‘acclaim’ as dead believers’ crown of honor at his ‘coming.’ But wouldn’t they enjoy this more if this “day” involved the resurrection, rather than being limited to AD 70? Why would Ad 70 especially bring them fame, and are crowns then not relevant to believers now?
I agree Mk. 9:42-49’s salt emphasizes negative, and 50 the positive. I just doubt the ‘destructive’ section disallows any positive. As I said, I see a growing sense that even fire and loss becomes purifying and redemptive in God’s hands (e.g. 1 Cor. 5’s ‘destruction’-of the flesh; Rom. 9-11’s ‘hatred.’ hardening, and cuttting off of Israel, etc). So instead of either/or, 49 may indicate various loss that will prove redemptive.
You seem to counter that such judgment appears to actually just alienate people (tho some survivors may get humbled). You believe that beyond death, God doesn’t use our history in our choices. But we’re full circle, since clarity and analogy about interim and resurrection states was our original point of contention. I realize that you see God as uninterested in any further remedial repentance.
As we debate what is suitable for God’s goals, yes, I suspect “additional salting” will be needed by many of us. You suggest “punishing rebels into heaven” sounds perverse. But seeing learning from pain as bad would also be problematical for God’s dealings in this world. And I’d be happy to trust God if reflection on past loss, such as 70 AD, is sufficient to bring remedial repentance (which I do see as a valued goal).
Since you ask, sure, it’s “possible” that there will be no analogy in any process beyond this life (and I assume you might be wrong too, right). But my impression is that for the apostles in the whole (tho less clear in the Gospels), “facing judgment after death” contemplates (not universal deterioration, but) a time of individual evaluation of our life and deeds, after we are no longer “at home in the body” (i.e. “yet future”).
As I see it, the correlation is between not remaining faithful and being thrown into Gehenna. But perhaps the persons Christ had in view who were to be “salted with fire” are simply everyone who would be thrown into Gehenna (or everyone who would not escape the judgment of 70 AD). Understood in this way, those “thrown into Gehenna” and those “salted with fire” are identical. This seems possible; after all, Jesus had just spoken of Gehenna as a place where “the fire is not quenched,” and elsewhere he speaks of it as the “Gehenna of fire” (Matt 5:22) and as a place where “soul and body” are “destroyed” (Matt 10:28). Compare with James 3:6, where Gehenna is also associated with “fire.” So if in v. 49 Jesus has in view all of the unbelieving Jews who would be thrown into Gehenna, then it would further support my position that the expression “salted with fire” is meant to convey the idea of utter destruction and loss in this world rather than remedial suffering in this life or the next.
As great a reward as the glory and honor with which the faithful were “crowned” at Christ’s coming in his kingdom in 70 AD, I think the greatest reward that could be enjoyed in this lifetime - as well as the greatest punishment! - will pale in comparison to the glory and happiness of the resurrection state. In other words, when the dead are raised immortal and caught up to meet Christ in the air, I don’t think there will be any people from the 1st century wishing they’d been alive at Christ’s coming in his kingdom so that they could have enjoyed their crown at the time it was bestowed upon them. As important as that reward was then, the context in which it was appropriate will have been replaced by something far greater.
As far as crowns being relevant to people today, I think they’re just as relevant after the 1st century as they were before the 1st century. I certainly don’t want to do anything that will bring shame and dishonor upon myself or my family; rather, I want to live in such a way that, when I die, my name will be esteemed among my children (if I have any!) and those with whom I was in community. Like most Christians, I want to leave a positive and God-glorifying legacy that will be a blessing to others. And besides the spiritual and temporal rewards that I believe all who are righteous enjoy now (but which are forfeited by the wicked), I’m not expecting - nor do I think I deserve - any further reward. I believe all rewards and punishments will cease when the dead are raised.
While I don’t see it being taught in Scripture, you’re right that “punishing rebels into heaven” would not be inconsistent with God’s present dealings - so point taken. But it’s also true that people don’t have to be raised sinful (i.e., with perverse hearts or selfish inclinations) to reflect on their past mortal existence and realize that they were mistaken, or to resolve to make amends for any pain that they may have caused others. I don’t think a person has to be sinful - or even without joy and peace - in order to have a repentant attitude or disposition regarding past sins.
You say the idea of a post-mortem life review is “less clear in the Gospels,” but where in the apostolic writings is this made “more clear?” It can’t be in Hebrews 9:27, for the apostle does not explain what he means by “after death, judgment” - and I don’t see the two interpretations I provided as being any less probable than what you believe the writer meant. And at least the second interpretation I offered is very much consistent with, and takes into account, the immediate context of the letter, whereas understanding the apostle to be speaking of a “life review” for all people in a disembodied state of existence seems not only disjointed from the immediate and larger context of the letter but foreign to every inspired book of the Hebrew Scriptures.
You refer to Paul’s expression, “at home in the body,” which in 2 Cor 5:6-9 he contrasts with being “at home with the Lord.” But I submit that we can’t be “away from the body” and “at home with the Lord” until we’re clothed with our “heavenly dwelling” (i.e., our immortal body), and this won’t take place until mortality is “swallowed up by life.” Being “at home with the Lord” certainly sounds like something Paul would have desired (cf. John 14:2-3, where Christ promises his disciples that he will one day return to take them to where he was about to go), but in 2Cor 5:2-4 it would seem that Paul was not looking with anticipation to the intermediate state between the destruction of his earthly home and the putting on of his heavenly dwelling. Moreover, if it’s true that those in Sheol are unconscious (as I argue elsewhere), and if Paul expected to be in a conscious state of existence when he was “made manifest” before the “judgment seat of Christ” then it would have to be either in this state of existence, or after the resurrection of the dead. But keep in mind that Christ must reign until death, the last enemy, is destroyed (after which time it is implied that Christ will cease to reign over the kingdom of God). And as it seems reasonable to believe that the “judgment seat of Christ” would be set up at the beginning of Christ’s reign and be contemporaneous with it (rather than being set up after it has ended), it seems likely to me that in 2Cor 5:10 Paul is describing a judgment taking place in this world, prior to the resurrection of the dead.
Aaron! On Mk. 9 we agree ‘sin’ and being thrown in the fire are at least ‘correlated.’ You add, it “perhaps seems possible” that 49’s “all” will be put in the fire could “simply” mean that all of those put into the fire will be put into the fire. I still think it “sounds like” sin & fire are “inseparable” (not just correlated). So to say 42-48 means those with a certain sin will be “thrown into” fire, so that 49 adds, all those put into this fire will be ones put into fire" sounds redundant, loose, and tautalogical.
A more plausible reading seems that “everyone” indeed will be salted with fire" (since-50, salt is vital, and all sinners need some of such salting. For even some “unbelieving Jews” who violated 42-48’s terms were not in Jerusalem or thrown into AD 70’s fire. If 49 contributes any meaning, it at least affirms such sinners “will” get “fire.” And the description, “everyone” (rather than sinners, or those who stumble) appears to communicate even more broadly that some salt remain’s vital for everyone (i.e. all types of sinners).
I get your definition of “crowns,” but motivating people with positive ‘acclaim’ in AD 70, when many could be dead and oblivious sounds ineffective and thus implausible. Yet you then interpret it as being esteemed by survivors after our own death. If crowns are promised at “Christ’s coming,” are you seeing him coming equally at our death as at AD 70?
I like your thought that resurrected wicked may reflectfully experience repentance for past sins. I hope this is sufficient. I do not assume God has to pursue an approach then with similarity to one we observe now. In the overall picture, it just makes more sense to me. And if God should consider a further remedial process is best for us, I, like you, trust Him.
My point on 2 Cor 5 about whether we’re “in the body,” was only that it suggests facing this judgment that apparently is evaluatively proportionate to our individual deeds, suggests that it could be beyond our death (not simply in this world). I’m not seeing any clarity that Paul is referring to AD 70. So I suggested this and Heb. 9:27 may mean an evaluation (& consequences) after we die. You say that meaning is not clear, and suggest it’s equally possible that “men” refers to the figurative death of only the priests (of 27; but which is not in fact plural, but a mention of the high priest, and I’m not following how Hebrews develops their figurative death).
Instead, I perceive that the whole section is broadly applicable to the readers (anthropoi) who are considered liable to divine judgment (that is those encouraged to be eagerly waiting for him-28). So your interpretation is conceivable, but appears to me like one that would only be recognized by one who already was bent upon denying there is any judgment to be faced after death. Would first century devout have had to ‘conjure up’ the dominant perception that we’ll be judged by God after death that you say is too obscure? Or would such a judgment beyond death have been more intelligible than priests’ death?
The “redundancy” you’re seeing in my interpretation of vv. 43-49 is, I believe, imagined rather than real. As you know, the word “Gehenna” is not in itself equivalent to the word “fire.” If it was then Jesus himself would be speaking redundantly when he spoke of the “Gehenna of fire.” James would be speaking redundantly as well when he spoke of the tongue being “set on fire by Gehenna.” Were Jesus and James being “redundant, loose and tautological” here? Of course not. Gehenna is not literally an unquenchable fire; rather (according to the imagery expressed by Jesus) Gehenna is the place “where…the fire is not quenched” (vv. 47-48). Gehenna is also the place where “their worm does not die.” Where whose “worm does not die?” Obviously, the worm of everyone “thrown into Gehenna!” And because Gehenna was conceived of by Jesus as being a place where not only the “worm does not die” but where also “the fire is not quenched,” it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate to understand v. 49 to mean, “for everyone thrown into Gehenna will be salted with fire.” Salted with what fire? Obviously, salted with the “unquenchable fire” of which Jesus was just speaking in the previous verse! Thus, Jesus has the same category of people in view in v. 49 as he does in vv. 47-48. And to call this interpretation of v. 49 “redundant, loose and tautological” is, I believe, to virtually accuse Jesus of the exact same thing.
So again, the correlation of which I spoke earlier is between those who were unfaithful and those who were “thrown into Gehenna.” So while it’s true that not all “stumblers” were necessarily thrown into Gehenna, we may with greater certainty say that all who were thrown into Gehenna were, in fact, “salted with fire,” because Gehenna was understood and represented by Christ as being a place of unquenchable fire and destruction. So no redundancy here; Jesus was simply stating a fact that would have further emphasized the destruction that would overtake everyone “thrown into Gehenna.” And then, to end on a more positive and encouraging note, Jesus shifts the emphasis to the more positive connotations that salt can have (v. 50), alluding to what he’d said earlier during his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:13).
Your reading seems to demand that the “fire” of verse 49 be understood as a different fire than the “fire” of verses 43 and 48 (because surely you’re not suggesting that every person who has ever lived or ever will live is going to be “thrown into Gehenna”)! But it seems much more natural to understand the “fire” of v. 49 as being the same “fire” previously mentioned in vv. 43 and 48. At least, if I were one of Jesus’ disciples, I would’ve assumed that Jesus was still talking about the same fire that he’d just referred to previously (and I suspect you would’ve done the same). But it’s evident that Jesus is not speaking of “salt” in the same way in v. 50 as he is in v. 49. For in v. 49 it is fire - and not salt - with which people are being figuratively “salted,” while in v. 50 the imagery is very different. In v. 49 people are being figuratively “salted” from without by fire, while in v. 49 the “salt” in pictured as being within the disciples. The former imagery is suggestive of a visible, external judgment (e.g., one that would result in those being judged becoming “an abhorrence to all flesh!”) while the latter imagery is suggestive of a positive, unseen influence at work in a person’s heart.
Evidently, motivating people with the prospect of “positive acclaim” wasn’t as ineffective as you think, as many Christians were faithful unto death - and were so without, I think, any expectation of receiving some kind of post-mortem reward that would be enjoyed in a future state of existence. Although it’s true that many in our culture are not nearly as concerned about “glory and honor” (nor is family or community considered as important), I don’t think it can be denied that, throughout human history, people have been motivated by the prospect of enduring fame and remembrance among those who live after them, so I’m not sure why you find it so “implausible” that 1st century Christians would have found such a “crown” desirable.
Not sure I’m following you here. While not necessarily thought of as a “crown,” I do believe that many people today are motivated by the prospect of being recognized and honoured as having lived (and died) for a worthy and noble cause, and for having been faithful in their relationships and endeavours. Most people want to have a “good name” while they’re alive, and want to be remembered well after they die and leave a positive legacy, and are (to some degree at least) motivated by the hope of obtaining this. And I believe God still rewards people with such “crowns,” both while they’re alive and after they’ve died. But the glory, honor and vindication with which the faithful, 1st century Christians were “crowned” in 70 AD (whether they were alive when Christ came or had “fallen asleep” prior to this time) was, I believe, unique to those highly exceptional circumstances, and can never be bestowed upon others. While people living before and after this time in redemptive history have and continue to receive various “crowns” (i.e., in the Hebrew sense of the word), no Christians living in subsequent generations can receive the same glory, honor and vindication that was bestowed upon the faithful Christians of that generation which saw the establishment of the Messianic kingdom in the world, and who were a part of the first and greatest Christian movement in history. The crowns that were bestowed upon those 1st century believers when Christ came in his kingdom can never be given to any other Christians, since the crowns that were awarded at this time were unique to the special circumstances of that remarkable time in redemptive history.
If the “judgment seat of Christ” was to commence when Christ came in his kingdom (as seems to be taught in Matt 16:27-28 and 25:31ff), and if Christ’s coming in his kingdom took place before that generation passed away (as seems to be taught in Matt 10:23; 16:27-28; 24:34, etc.), then Paul was almost certainly referring to AD 70. (For more on my thoughts regarding Matt 16:27-28 - a passage which I see as being relevant to this discussion - see Matt 16:27-28)
It’s true that “high priest” is singular in v. 25, but the author was likely referring to the then-living high priest as representative of that class of men to whom he had previously referred in the plural (see 7:27-28). So I think it would have been natural for him to refer to this particular class of men as tois anthropoi in v. 27 after referring to the living representative of this class. As for the figurative/typical “death” of the high priests, I’m not sure it would have even been necessary for the author to develop the idea if it was already understood that these men typified Christ and prefigured his atoning work on our behalf. Even if the Jewish believers to whom the author wrote had never before thought of the high priests as figuratively “dying” on the Day of Atonement, it would not have been difficult, or required much imagination, for them to reinterpret the ritual duties that the high priests performed on this day on behalf of the nation of Israel in light of what Christ had done on behalf of all people. Previously the author had referred to the earthly holy places as mere “copies” of the “true” and “heavenly things” (e.g., 8:3-5; 9:23-24), which suggests that the high priests, when entering the Most Holy Place with the blood of a sacrificed animal, were unknowingly enacting (i.e., acting out) in type what Christ did through his actual death on the cross. The author also describes Christ’s sacrificial death in the following words: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an age-abiding redemption” (9:11-12). Here we have the fulfillment of what was considered by the author of Hebrews a “copy” and a “shadow.” Reinterpreting the work of the high priests from this perspective, they could easily be understood by the reader as figuratively “dying” once a year when they slew the animals and entered the Most Holy Place with sacrificial blood, typifying the work of Christ.
I believe this interpretation would’ve been much more likely to be recognized by those Jewish readers who were expecting the author to speak of things that were grounded in, and consistent with, the OT, and which were appropriate in the immediate and larger context of the letter. In light of the overwhelming silence of the OT regarding any kind of “post-mortem life review” for individuals in a disembodied state of existence, and given the fact that outside of this verse the “dominant perception” of which you speak seems to have been passed over in silence by Christ and the apostles (with the exception of what is obviously a parable in Luke’s Gospel) and was arguably most dominant among those Jews who were least likely to be right about anything that was not clearly taught in the OT or sanctioned by Christ, I don’t think the idea of a conscious, post-mortem judgment for disembodied souls in a future state of existence would have been “more intelligible” or less obscure than that interpretation which recognizes the annual work of the high priests in slaying an animal sacrifice and entering the Holy of Holies with its blood as typifying and prefiguring the sacrificial death of Christ for all people.
I’m confused on Mk. 9 and will try to clarify my view for your evaluation. I see 42-48 implying that those who are unfaithful can expect to be “thrown into Gehenna where the fire never goes out” (which I take as emphasizing AD 70’s danger). But 49 is more unclear, suggesting “everyone” will experience “fire.”
You say it means, “all who were thrown into Gehenna” in fact would experience being salted with fire, “because Gehenna was understood as a place of fire,” and then 50 shifts to encourage them about salt’s positive connotations (all of which I agree is ‘possible’). So you see 49 as explaining how Hinnom, though not literally meaning fire, is in fact the place where they will experience “unquenchable fire.”
But, since Gehennna has already been twice defined as the place where the unquenchable fire never goes out, I’d already assume that being thrown there would bring an experience of fire. Thus, 49 would seem repetitive, not adding anything (and maybe it just wants to restress what is already obvious).
The alternative is that 49 is stating a broader reality behind 42-48’s more particular instance. It may be combining the common Biblical metaphors of salt to that of fire as a widely used instrument of God’s judgment and cleansing, to now explain that AD 70 is an emphatic representative of the broader tradition wherein God deals with unfaithfulness in the pursuit of bringing us to faithful holiness. Then, “fire” would be broadened here to reflect perhaps exposure to God as a delivering purifying fire, as well as a sequence of his dealings through horrific disasters like AD 70.
This reading may offer several advantages: 1. It avoids Jesus being repetitive about what he’s already emphasized.
2. It makes sense of the reality that “not all stumblers were in fact thrown into Gehenna,” by making Jesus’ warning about judgment to be as inescapeable as it sounds; for they all will still experience ‘fire.’ 3. It explains why 49 doesn’t specify “everyone” as those who were unfaithful stumbers, and thus sounds to many as a general statement about fire and salt being essential.
It avoids seeing a puzzling shift from salt as negative to being encouragingly positive in 50, which would seem to water down the pungence of a sober section. 5. Rather than taking salt & fire as simply only positive or else negative in a given instance, it embraces the evolution I’ve cited wherein they can be recognized as both. As with the cross itself, both (negative) destruction is involved, while bringing (positive) purifying redemption. Thus, you are correct that 49’s ‘fire’ would not be limited to AD 70, and thus be “different” than 46’s emphasis. I.e. seeing the shift as coming at 49 seems to me to make the the most sense of the whole (while seeing the shift at 50 makes more sense to you).
While plausible, it seems circular to argue that your definition of “crowns” is correct, because Christians turned out to be faithful. A perception of crowns as future concious recognition could also account for their effectiveness. Defining motivating crowns as being esteemed when we’re dead just seemed unlikely to me, since we’re told that they are given at Christ’s “coming,” which I assumed doesn’t happen at our death.
On 2 Cor. 5, etc., like Wright (are we partialists?), I sense that AD 70 represented Jesus’ conception of his coming and dealing out judgment. But (I think like Wright) I don’t see that this disallowed the apostles from later seeing further judgment and coming. It appears to me that they concluded that in this pitiful world, there must remain unfinished business in which Jesus would surely be present.
You speak of the Biblical metaphor of fire as being a “widely used instrument of God’s judgment and cleansing,” but I submit that Jesus would’ve been drawing most of his metaphorical imagery from the OT, and there “fire” is seldom spoken of in such a way that spiritual purification is obviously meant. Whenever divine judgment is in view in the OT, the image of fire is primarily used to convey the idea of destruction and loss rather than purification and refinement. The only passages that come to mind in which “fire” is used in reference to people being “refined” are Isaiah 48:10, Zech 13:9 and Mal 3:1-4, and these are surely exceptions to the rule. And as pointed out earlier in this discussion, in the context of Zech 13 it seems clear that those being “refined” by the fire of affliction are to be seen as exceptions as well; those not refined by the fire would be destroyed (v. 8; cf. Mal 4), and thus placed in need of some other means of purification.
Actually, I believe your reading fails to take into account the fact that Jesus is employing repetition throughout verses 43-48. It is apparent even from a cursory glance at this passage that Jesus is basically making the same point three times with only slight modification in the wording. According to your argument, perhaps one of Jesus’ disciples should have interrupted Jesus when, after having already spoken of chopping off one body part, he proceeded to speak of ridding oneself of additional body parts as well! And if that weren’t enough, Jesus goes and makes yet another reference to being thrown into Gehenna! “But Lord, didn’t you already make your point a second ago? I know you don’t want us to apostatize and all, but wasn’t one reference to Gehenna as place of ‘unquenchable fire’ sufficient?” Well, apparently not, because after referring to it in v. 43, Jesus refers to the unquenchable fire of Gehenna again in v. 48. (And if we’re going by the Textus Receptus, Jesus actually speaks of the fire of Gehenna a total of six times before we even get to v. 49!) So what you may see as a weakness in my interpretation, I see as a strength, for my reading recognizes and takes into account Jesus’ use of repetition and reiteration in this particular context; given the previous repetition found in vv. 43-48, it would not at all be surprising or “puzzling” for Jesus to give one final description of the fate of those thrown into Gehenna in v. 49 before shifting the focus back to those whom Jesus was exhorting to do whatever necessary to avoid perishing in this judgment.
You’re suggesting that interpretting v. 49 to embrace all who were thrown into Gehenna wouldn’t “make sense of the reality” that not “all stumblers” were necessarily thrown into Gehenna. But I don’t see how this follows. If Jesus had previously said that all stumblers were destined for Gehenna, your reading would make sense of this fact, but since Jesus doesn’t state this in vv. 43-38, your argument seems somewhat circular. According to my interpretation, being salted with fire was an inescapable reality for everyone who was thrown into Gehenna. Jesus doesn’t have to explain what happens to those hypothetical stumblers who may or may not be thrown into Gehenna in order for his warnings to be taken seriously; the fact that Jesus saw a definite correlation between stumbling and being thrown into Gehenna would’ve been sufficient for the effectiveness of his exhortation.
But Jesus didn’t have to specify “everyone” in v. 49 as embracing all unfaithful stumblers, because it can be reasonably inferred from the previous verse that he had in view that category of people who were “thrown into Gehenna.”
No matter how one interprets v. 49, it must be acknowledged that Jesus, at some point, makes a transition from employing imagery and language that is undeniably more negative and sober than his closing exhortation to “have salt in yourselves and be at peace with one another.” Does this statement “water down the pungence of a sober section” in which Gehenna is described as a place where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched? Does this shift in focus from the “fire of Gehenna” to his disciples being “at peace with one another” weaken or undermine the warning previously given? I don’t see how this should be the case at all, and I’m not sure I understand how seeing v. 49 as transitional rather than v. 50a solves the “problem” of Jesus “watering down” verses 43-48.
Where in Scripture are salt and fire recognized and spoken of as being both positive and negative for allpeople in an equal sense? And where in Scripture is salt and fire recognized as cleansing anyone from sin in a post-mortem state of existence?
To clarify, I don’t understand a “crown” as being that which is “esteemed when we’re dead.” I believe a person could receive a crown while alive or dead - it simply depends on what the person is being honored for. If a person is receiving honor because they lived a good life or died for a good cause, then their crown would necessarily be bestowed after death. But a person could receive a crown of honor while they’re alive as well. Receiving a crown does not equate to receiving “post-mortem honor,” so if I’ve confused you by placing an emphasis on people receiving crowns after death, then I hope this clarifies my position. When you asked if “crowns” were relevant to people today, I should have put an equal emphasis on the living being crowned as well. It is the circumstance which determines when the “crown” is given and what the “crown” is being awarded for. The “crowns” promised the first Christians were for being faithful unto death or until Christ came in his kingdom, and the reason for these crowns being awarded them was inseparable from their efforts at remaining faithful disciples/apostles during the years leading up to Christ’s coming at the end of the age. The glory and honor of which these promised crowns were symbolic was awarded to all faithful believers at Christ’s coming, whether they had died prior to Christ’s coming, or whether they were still alive at the time. Whether a believer lived or died before this anticipated event took place would’ve been irrelevant to them insofar as they’re motivation for being awarded a crown was concerned, for if they were faithful they received glory and honor irrespective of whether they were alive and conscious at the time it was bestowed upon them. For those believers who died faithful before the Day of Christ’s coming, part of their reward was undoubtedly in the ante-mortem assurance and peace of mind that they’d “fought the good fight” and would be awarded the crown at Christ’s coming, even if they weren’t sure they would be alive at the time it was awarded them. Moreover, the reason the crowns were awarded at Christ’s coming in 70 AD is because it was the fulfillment of this event that vindicated Christians as the true heirs and inheritors of the Messianic kingdom (the “New Jerusalem”), which I believe “came with power” when the earthly Jerusalem was destroyed (this establishing of the Messianic kingdom in the world in 70 AD is, I believe, symbolically represented by John in Rev 21).
By “partialist” I simply meant “one who believes that only a part of mankind will ultimately be reconciled to God.” Originally, I think the word applied more specifically to those who believed that Jesus died for only a part of mankind rather than for all, but I like to use it as a label for non-universalists in general, whether Calvinist or Arminian. So while Wright would be considered a “partialist” (assuming he still believes some will be finally lost) you and I are not!
By “unfinished business” I doubt you meant another opportunity for Christians in Judea to “flee to the mountains” for safety (Matt 24:15ff). But this event of which Jesus spoke during his Olivet Discourse seemed to be pretty inseparable from his end-of-the-age “coming in his kingdom.” Or do you believe Jesus is “coming in his kingdom” at the end of two or more different ages, to commence two or more Messianic reigns? Do you think the “end” of which Christ spoke in this discourse will come twice? Do you think there are additional generations that aren’t going to “pass away” until everthing Jesus prophesied in Matt 24 comes to pass? Or do you think there are “some” 1st century disciples who won’t taste death before they see Jesus coming in his kingdom again? Or do you believe that the “Day” of judgment that those to whom the author of Hebrews wrote could “see drawing near” (Heb 10:25) is going to be drawing near again for yet another generation of believers? Or is the “coming of the Lord” going to be “at hand” again at some future time, with the Judge once again “standing at the door” (James 5:7-9)? If so, how often do you see this as taking place? And when, in the Revelation, John writes of Christ’s coming as being “near,” and quotes Christ as saying he’d be “coming soon” (and it’s evident that he’s referring to the coming described in Rev 1:7) do you think he meant that both a 1st century coming and a future (to us) coming were both “near,” and that Christ would be “coming soon” and then “coming soon again” later? I could go on, but I’m sure you get my point. I simply don’t believe the position that Christ’s coming in judgment in 70 AD was merely a “type” or “shadow” of some greater, universal coming in judgment is tenable. It is, to me, a feeble attempt to smuggle in a presupposed belief in a future eschatological judgment involving every member of the human race which, although a widely-held doctrine (and not just among Christians), Scripture says nothing about. The fact that there is “unfinished business” (e.g., the salvation of all people from sin and death!) doesn’t mean there must be a virtual repeat or second fulfillment of Matt 24-25, Mark 9:43-49, 2 Thess 1:5-10, or any other prophectic passage that speaks of a judgment that can be understood as having had its fulfillment in the past. While I do believe in a future, personal coming of Christ (i.e., Christ’s coming at the end of his reign to subject all people to himself) I don’t see it as being a coming that has in any way been fulfilled already, or will in any sense be fulfilled again. I don’t, for example, see any multiple fulfillments of the coming of Christ referred to in John 14:3, Acts 1:11, 1 Cor 15:23, Phil 3:20-21, or 1 Thess 4:13-18. This coming of Christ did not in any sense take place in 70 AD, nor will it happen again in some “greater” sense after it has been fulfilled in the future. There will not be another “last trumpet.”
Aaron! Thanks for clarifying “partialist.” I’d thot you meant partially preterist I think Wright doesn’t see apostolic visions of the future as defined by Jesus’ discourse, but built on their later sense of God’s revelation to them. So AD 70 is a pivotal judgment in line with many previous ones, but doesn’t exclude further dealings, whose nature appears to him (and me) as less than obvious. So. e.g. when you ask, what kind of ‘coming’ does Revelation indicate (and does it parallel Jesus’ first century events), I can see no consensus on that, and think there’s good reason for that.
Thanks for the Mk. 9 critique! I think we’ve achieved good clarity about which texts guide our two conclusions about God’s dealings with us. You see ‘judgment’ most commonly bringing only disaster, and so references to fire, destruction, loss, or salt as cleansing or redemptive must be anomalies. I see these as a growing trajectory of understanding what looked like sheer disaster as not wasted, but strategic in achieving God’s redemptive goals. So texts you call “exceptions” are significant to me.
In 42-48, I do see Jesus creatively repeats different facets of what invites painful judgment. Yet 49 strikes me as not the same (tho I agree that’s possible), but intending to record an additional facet of judgment. The unstated limitation on “everyone” that you infer seems unlike each previous warning which specifies recipients. You correctly say, Jesus hadn’t literally said “all” stumblers will experience judgment, but I do see Jesus’ general teaching as implying a direct correlation between sin and judgment, and his earlier use of “anyone” sounds like that. I see 50’s call for salt (in my interpretation, along with other texts where it is positive or negative) need not be a big shift, because 49 implies salt’s imagry is multifacted, being able to represent universal judgment, and still also be constructive.
You seem to imply that if a competing view is not clearly taught, that interpretion should be rejected, often asking, where is this whole view delineated in one text (e.g. you ask what verse speaks of salt AND fire as BOTH positive and negative for ALL people in an EQUAL sense, purifying them in a post-mortem context?). But, ironically, you contend for interpretations which seem to most readers subtle and not spelled out (tho some are convincing to me). If the Bible is a book where interpretations are unmistakeably outlined, you seem reduced to holding that those who don’t see your view are simply much blinder than you. But isn’t an explanatory reality that the Bible often does not present the kind of plain and comprehensive or systematic explanations that you call me to provide?
Your snow sounds lovely! Wish we got some snow here, but at least our mountains aren’t too far away.
I think Wright doesn’t see apostolic visions of the future as defined by Jesus’ discourse, but built on their later sense of God’s revelation to them. So AD 70 is a pivotal judgment in line with many previous ones, but doesn’t exclude further dealings, whose nature appears to him (and me) as less than obvious. So. e.g. when you ask, what kind of ‘coming’ does Revelation indicate (and does it parallel Jesus’ first century events), I can see no consensus on that, and think there’s good reason for that.