Jason
I received 3 board warnings: 1) For using “LOL” 2) I made a comment in regards of Rodger Tutt making an original thought from himself and not using Gary Armiraults thoughts. 3) the reason is no longer there.
Being warned numerous times about my attitude is a reach, Jason. These are my warnings of my so called attitude. I , too, apoligize for taking away discussion from this OP.
God bless,
Aaron
Jason,
Re: John 5:21-29
21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth–those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Jesus speaks here of two time periods as He says, “he hour is coming, and now is,…” (v25). As I see it, the time that “now is,” refers to the time of His earthly ministry as He taught of the Kingdom of God before the crucifixion. As He went about preaching, people would “hear his voice” as He spoke to them in a face-to-face mode. As a result, very few people heard his voice during that time period due to the limited amount of contact He had with people and nations. The term “the dead” (again in v25) refers to those who were dead in sin (spiritually dead). Those who heard and believed were raised to life from spiritual death. It is important to note that passing from death to life through hearing and believing was not only available to those in the time period of Christ’s earthly ministry, because Jesus also included the later time period by applying it to “the hour [that] is coming.” It was valid before His death (now is), and it is also valid later (hour is coming). So, here again is verse 25
John 5:25
Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.
In the later time period, “the hour [that] is coming,” is different from the former period in this respect. In the former time period the spiritually dead who heard His voice were of a limited number; however, in the later time period ALL of the spiritually dead would hear His voice. This is only possible through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, who speaks to all of mankind either to convict (or condemn) or to confirm and reward. This, I believe, is the resurrection to life or condemnation mentioned in v29. We are rewarded according to our works, and in this way the Spirit plays a big role in the exercise of Christ’s judgment. Jesus called it an “hour” as He was referring to the hour of the arrival of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost as the Spirit was poured out upon all flesh. John the Baptist warned of this hour when he said,
Matt 3:10-12
10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
So here we have a way to view these scriptures in a way that is fully consistent with Ultra-Universalism. I am interested to read what Aaron has to say about this passage.
Todd
Ok, it’s catch up time. Sorry for the delayed responses, guys! 
I’m all for recognizing patterns and continuities in regards to God’s dealings with man during the ages of redemptive history, insofar as this temporal existence is concerned (of which we have direct knowledge). We can know what to expect in regards to this life because of what has taken place in the past, of which we have both experiential and historical knowledge. But to me that is not reasoning on what I’ve referred to as the “principle of analogy.” What I object to is any attempt to determine what our future existence as persons will be like beyond this mortal life based on what our present existence is like. The reason I object to this is because our future existence beyond this life is, by necessity, something we can know nothing about apart from divine revelation. It’s not at all comparable to (for example) trying to figure out how our existence would stay the same if we were to move to another country on the opposite side of the world, for there is a great deal that would have to stay the same because of what we know to be true about this present existence. But when we’re considering an existence that takes place after this present existence ends (which is fully knowable apart from divine revelation), there is no “given” in regards to what we can reasonably expect (except for, I believe, the sole fact that “we” will exist). For something we can really know nothing about apart from divine revelation, it simply won’t do to speak of it as being “probably like this” or “most likely like that,” based on our present existence. If the only thing Scripture revealed in regards to our post-mortem existence was that we had one (and the OT comes close to this, with at least one notable exception in Isaiah), I think we’d have to be content with that minimal knowledge. Anything beyond that would be pure speculation, and nothing to build our hopes (or fears) on.
Notice that just to think or talk about “our future existence” is to presuppose that whatever is essential to our personal identity will continue. That is the only thing, I think, we can take for granted when discussing a topic like this. If this weren’t taken for granted we would not be arguing for what “our” existence will be like after “we” die, but whether “we” even have a post-mortem existence. So with that said, is Paul reasoning from analogy in 1Cor 15:35-38 to draw conclusions about the nature of man’s future immortal existence based on the nature of man’s present mortal existence? That is, is Paul arguing that, because man’s present existence is characterized by X, then man’s future existence will also be characterized by X (or something very much like X)? If he is, I certainly don’t see it. It seems to me he is simply defending what would already be taken for granted if it was revealed that we have a future existence beyond this life (i.e., that whatever is essential to our personal identity will continue in the resurrection).
But what about Christ? Is he reasoning on the “principle of analogy” when, in discussion with the Sadducees, he argues for the reasonable expectation that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will in fact be raised from the dead since God called himself their God even while they were dead? Again, I’m not seeing it. Jesus’ argument is simply that God would not have called himself their God if he had not intended to restore to them, at some future time, their personal existence by raising them from the dead. There is nothing in Jesus’ argument that gives us licence to entertain any expectation (no matter how reasonable it may seem to us!) regarding anything about the future state of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob other than the fundamental fact that they have one. If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are going to be raised from the dead, then it follows that whatever was essential to their personal identities before they died will continue when their existence is restored (such as the unchanging fact that YHWH is their God). But again, this “minimum continuity” between the present existence and the future existence is exactly what one would already be taking for granted if one believed they were going to be raised. But I deny that Scripture gives us license to go beyond this by reasoning from analogy. By employing such erroneous reasoning one could argue from Jesus’ words to the Sadducees that, because Abraham, Isaac and Jacob died with gray hair and wrinkles, it follows that they will be raised with gray hair and wrinkles (or with a body that will inevitably develop gray hair and wrinkles). That may sound foolish, but I don’t think the reasoning behind it is any less improper than the reasoning behind the assertion that, because Abraham Isaac and Jacob died with the same sinful inclinations that are common to all mortal men, they will be raised with the very same sinful inclinations. It simply doesn’t follow, and I think neither Paul nor Jesus sanction such analogous reasoning from our present existence as human beings.
The “Bible analogies” of which you speak are only confirming what would already be presupposed by anyone considering the question “what will our existence after death be like?” That is, if it has been revealed that “we” have a post-mortem existence, then it follows that there will be at least some bare minimum continuity between this existence and the next (i.e., that which is essential to our identity as persons). And I submit that this is the only fact that the “Bible analogies” you’ve referred to were employed to defend. Paul is not, for instance, arguing from analogy to teach that some people will be schizophrenics after the resurrection because they were schizophrenics when they died. Nor is Paul arguing that some people may struggle with drug addictions after the resurrection because they were drug addicts when they died, or that some people will have a desire to molest children after the resurrection because they did so before they died. But that is exactly what is being done when one assumes that, after the resurrection, people will still be sinners because they were sinners when they died.
Other than what has already been discussed, what else did you have in mind here?
I don’t think Jesus is just reminding the Sadducees “of the OT’s clear and consistent teaching” about the afterlife. But neither do I think Jesus is reasoning from our present existence to reveal to the Sadducees what the future existence will be like, or sanctioning the use of such analogous reasoning to form conclusions about the nature of our post-mortem existence.
I agree, but here’s where we seem to differ in opinion: whereas I think any lack of clarity on the afterlife should make one hesitant about doing any speculation on what it will or won’t be like by reasoning from what we know about this life, you seem to think that doing so is perfectly appropriate and legitimate. But in the end, the only thing that such reasoning can lead to is speculative belief. No matter how reasonable it may seem to us, for all we know we could be completely mistaken. All that we can know for sure about it is what has been revealed to us in Scripture, or by direct revelation.
Well if Paul is in fact being “quite revelatory” here, where did he get this particular information from? Did he receive it by direct revelation from Christ, or was it obtained by reasoning from what he knew about our present existence as human beings, and simply carrying it over into the next? If the latter, the only reason we could have for believing it was true and not merely empty speculation about the afterlife (as I believe would be the case if you or I were using such reasoning) is Paul’s apostolic authority. But as I think I’ve noted previously, Paul is not, in fact, arguing from what is known about our present existence as human persons to reveal what our future existence as human persons will be like. Even if he is revealing something about our future existence that the resurrection-believing Corinthians didn’t already take for granted, his “analogies” are not taken from human existence but from what we know about plants and the variety of “bodies” that exist in creation. In other words, if Paul is being revelatory, the plant analogy would still be nothing more than an illustration from the natural world to help his readers better understand the truth he is revealing about our future existence in the resurrection.
But where do you draw the line with such analogous reasoning? How does one determine what is and what isn’t an appropriate application of the principle of analogy when seeking to determine what the future existence will be like? If Scripture didn’t reveal that we will all be immortal in the resurrection, those who affirmed that “we’d have to keep experiencing physical death” based on the use of analogous reasoning might think their view is just as probable and likely as you think your own view is. It may be objected, “But they’d be mistaken, as Scripture is clear about our being immortal in the resurrection.” Precisely; but without this necessary revelation, both positions are just pure speculation, with neither being any more or less probable than the other. One simply cannot arrive at any sure conclusions regarding a future existence that we can know nothing about apart from divine revelation. The use of the principle of analogy when seeking to determine the nature of our future existence can just as easily lead us astray as it can lead us to the truth.
No; I don’t think the expression “eonian life” (I prefer “age-abiding life”) denotes our immortal existence post-resurrection. Rather, I believe it refers specifically to the blessing that is enjoyed by believers during the age of the Messianic reign. Understood in this way, “aionion life” does not denote endless duration of existence in the hereafter, but a blessing to be enjoyed in the here-and-now of this world. It is relational and qualitative, not spatial and quantitative. Jesus defines aionion life as follows: “And this is aionion life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). That is, knowing God and his Son is the “life” of the age of the Messianic reign.
Of course, “knowing” God and his Son is more than mere intellectual knowledge; it is personal and experiential. Such knowledge can only be possessed by those who have, to some degree, the same love abiding within them that governs the actions of the Father and the Son. It is only by becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) that we can enjoy true knowledge of God. Those who, by faith in the risen Christ, have been “born again unto a living hope” and consequently have become partakers of the divine nature, are those who have entered into and enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant as described in Hebrews 8:10-12. It is those who have this knowledge of God who are under the divine approbation (Hos 6:6). They have God’s law in their minds and written on their hearts. God is their God, and they are his people, and they have no need to teach anyone or be taught by anyone who is in covenant with God. The reason is that all who are in this New Covenant relationship with God – from the least to the greatest - “know” him (for by definition, no one can be in a New Covenant relationship with God without this experiential knowledge). Those who have this experiential knowledge of God and Jesus are those with whom God and Jesus have made their “home” (John 14:23), and in whom they “abide” (1 John 3:24; 4:12-13; cf. 2:24-25). To have “the life of the age” is to be one in whom the love of God is being “perfected” (1 John 2:5, 4:12; cf. 4:18), and who is consequently being “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29; cf. 2 Cor 3:18). This is the life into which we’re “born again” when we believe the gospel of Christ.
So, I believe aionion life refers to the experiential knowledge of God and his Son that is enjoyed by all true believers during the age of the Messianic reign (which I believe commenced when Jerusalem was overthrown). In contrast, I believe “eonian crisising” refers to the judgment that fell upon the Jewish people at the time of Jerusalem’s overthrow (the consequences of which have lasted for nearly 2,000 years).
If by “some people being raised to eonian life” you mean the restoring of their physical existence after its having previously been terminated by death, then I don’t think Scripture testifies to this. Again, I believe that whenever the expression “aionion life” appears in Scripture, the age of the Messianic reign is in view - and according to Paul, Christ’s reign ends (not begins) when the dead are raised (1 Cor 15:22-28). But I’m curious as to what verses, specifically, you had in mind from RevJohn!
I’m not sure what you mean by “immortal yet in any spiritual sense” (an expression which you repeat later). My understanding is that Paul speaks of immortality in contrast with mortality, and to speak of being either mortal or immortal “in any spiritual sense” doesn’t convey much meaning to me. Here’s one way that I differentiate between aionios life and immortality: immortality is something that could be bestowed upon my miniature dachshund Molly (not saying it will be, but, hypothetically, I think it could). Aionion life, however, is not something that could be enjoyed by her or any “lower” animal, but is instead a blessing that can only be possessed by rational beings. But to receive and possess the spiritual blessing signified by the expression “aionion life” has nothing inherently to do with whether one is mortal or immortal. At the same time (and as noted earlier), I would argue that whenever the expression “aionion life” appears in Scripture, it refers specifically to the enjoyment of this spiritual blessing prior to the resurrection, and not after. However one might wish to describe the blessing of mankind raised immortal at Christ’s return, I don’t see the expression “aionion life” as being an appropriate name for it, since I view this expression as having sole reference to the age of the Messianic reign.
There are degrees of life. Everyone who is considered alive right now has a body that is alive. Some are more degenerative than others, some full of life and some with barely any life in them at all, and some with only parts alive. In the same way, some souls are more alive than others, and the spirits of some have been made alive while others haven’t.
Is it so far-fetched to say that he who raised Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter and the widow’s son will again raise some who can yet die again, not to mention sin? It will be for their revelation and testing, to be sure. No doubt their eyes will be opened just a little wider at the glorious appearing of the resurrected children of God transforming even creation itself. Even some of those we know now who have come back from the great beyond seem to be a bit wiser for the wear.
Hi Todd,
As you’ve probably come to expect, I view Jesus’ words in this chapter as having a more specific and historical application - i.e., his coming in judgment at the overthrow of the Jewish nation in 70 AD. The event to which Christ is referring in vv. 28-29 may thus be considered the same as that in passages such as Daniel 12:2 (May I have feedback on my CU drafts?). Of course, I believe people are still being awakened to the spiritual “life” of which Christ speaks, and that people who reject the Gospel are under condemnation and being judged; however, I think Christ’s words in this passage have direct reference to a period that is, in our day, long past.
I believe the “resurrections” of which Christ speaks should be interpreted in light of v. 25 of this chapter. There, we read, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” Christ links the then-present and ongoing spiritual resurrection of those who are said to be “dead” (v. 25) with a then-future event in which these very same people (whom he categorizes as “those who have done good” and “those who have done evil”) will come out of “the tombs” (v. 28). Of course, those of whom Christ spoke (i.e., those who were passing “from death to life” in response to hearing his voice at that time – see v. 24) were not literally dead. As is your understanding, the “death” in view in vv. 24-25 is a figurative death (i.e., death “in transgressions and sins”). In verses 28-29, Christ is simply building off of his already-established metaphor of death and resurrection, and referring to the consummation of what had already begun to take place due to the proclamation of the gospel.
In verse 27, Christ is referring to that which was yet future when he says “the hour is coming,” and to that which was still present when he says “and is now here…” He says “and is now here” because this figurative “resurrection” of the people of Israel had already begun taking place, and was to continue and culminate at a yet-future time. Throughout John’s gospel Christ uses the phrase “an hour is coming” in reference to a time that was in the relatively near future (i.e., within that generation in which he lived), and never to a time 2,000+ years into the future. In John 4:21-23 we read,
“Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor inJerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not now; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.”
Similarly, we read later in chapter 16 (vv. 2-4, 25, 32):
“They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God…But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you…I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father… Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.”
As used in the above passages, the expression “the hour is coming” evidently refers to the period of tribulation and persecution leading up to, and climaxing in, the overthrow of the Jewish nation in 70 AD. Jesus adds “the hour is now here” because what he was referring to had already begun, and would continue until, and culminate in, the hour that was still “coming” (which, by the time the apostle John wrote his first epistle, had already drawn near – see 1 John 2:18).
It is my understanding that those who were “passing from death to life” in v. 25 are the same persons who would later come out of their “tombs” at the future time in view, to receive either “life” or “judgment.” The image I would suggest that Jesus is painting for his listeners in these verses is that of “corpses” (i.e., the spiritually dead people of Israel) being reanimated and coming to life (receiving the spiritual life of the kingdom), but not yet leaving their “tombs” until a future time (when the Messianic kingdom “comes in power” and is inherited by all true believers). When the time comes for them to come out of their tombs, some (“those who have done good”) find themselves resurrected to even more blessing (“life” - i.e., an inheritance in the Messianic kingdom at the time of its establishment in the world) while others (“those who have done evil”) find themselves resurrected to what in Daniel 12:2 is called “shame and everlasting contempt” (“judgment” - i.e., being cast out of the kingdom into the “outer darkness,” when Jerusalem was overthrown).
The “dead” of whom Christ is speaking are not literally dead (no more so than the “dead” spoken of in Eph 2:1 and 5:14 or in 1 Pet 4:6), nor are the “tombs” literal tombs (no more so than the “graves” of which we read in Ezekiel chapter 37, when God declares, “Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people.”). The people of Israel are likely represented by Christ as being in “tombs” to signify their low and undesirable condition of sitting “in darkness and in the shadow of death” (Luke 1:79). But as the gospel was being proclaimed throughout Judea, multitudes were responding to it in faith, and were consequently being enlightened with the truth of the gospel and receiving “life.” I think it is significant that Paul combines the metaphors of “sleeping” and “awakening” (found in Daniel 12:2) with that of being “dead” and “arising” (found here in John 5:28-29), and applies it to circumstances taking place in his day.
This passing from death to life continued throughout the ministry of the apostles, even up until the time when the city of Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by the Romans (something that John reveals was greatly feared by the Jewish leaders at that time – see 11:48-50). Among those who believed the gospel, some (“many,” according to John 12:42-43) did not openly confess their belief for fear of what others would think, and because they didn’t want to be “put out of the synagogue.” Thus, while they were awakened to the new life of the gospel, they ultimately “fell away” from the truth of the gospel altogether and returned to their former way of life (see Heb 2:3, 6:4-8; 10:26-29; John 8:30-33, 37, 44; 2 Pet 2:20-22; etc.). If any among the people of Israel fell away from the truth of the Gospel at some point prior to Christ’s coming in his kingdom (and thus did not “endure to the end” as Christ exhorted his followers to do in order to be “saved”), they exposed themselves once again to the coming judgment upon their nation. Christ himself warned his disciples, “If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:6). Christ is here talking about those who had “passed from death to life” and were abiding in him (cf. John 6:54, 56), but subsequently fall away from the faith. It is these people who were “resurrected to judgment” when the “hour” came. Having “fallen from grace” (so to speak), they were consequently judged with the rest of the nation when Christ came to establish his kingdom in the world, and found themselves awakened not to “life” but to the “shame and everlasting contempt” of which was prophesied in Daniel 12.
To better understand Jesus’ words in this passage (as well as the passages that are parallel to it), I believe it is helpful to know that, in the New Testament, “life aionion” (“age-abiding life”) and the “kingdom of God” are basically synonymous expressions, and were used interchangeably by Christ (see Matt 19:16-17, 23-24; 25:34, 46; Mark 9:45-47). To have “age-abiding life” is to be in the “kingdom of God,” and to be in God’s kingdom is to be in possession of this life. To inherit the kingdom of God is the same as entering into “age-abiding life” (Matt 25:34, 46). In contrast to that condemned state of which “death” is often used as a figure in Scripture (see John 5:24; Rom 6:16, 21, 23; 7:5, 9, 11, 13; Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13; James 1:14-15; 1 Peter 4:6; Rev 3:1; 20:12), “age-abiding life” (i.e., being in the kingdom of God) is a condition of purity and devotion to God - or, as Paul says, “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). Because the Messianic kingdom is not a geo-political kingdom but a spiritual kingdom (John 18:36; Rom 14:17; Col 1:13-14), the blessing enjoyed by its citizens is a spiritual blessing, and is often spoken of as something that was, or could be, presently entered into and enjoyed by believers even before “Christ came in his kingdom” (John 3:3-5, 36; 4:14; 5:24; 6:40, 53-54; 10:10; 11:25-26; 17:1-3; 1 John 3:14-15; 5:11-12). But when the Messianic kingdom came with power at the overthrow of Jerusalem, all who had believed the Gospel of Christ were ushered into the full realization of the blessing they had already begun to enjoy. While they, in one sense, had already entered the kingdom (Col 1:13-14) and had already begun to enjoy its spiritual blessings, it was not until the kingdom came with power that believers (both Jewish and Gentile) were vindicated by Christ and given the honor and glory promised to those who endured faithful to the end of the age.
If Scripture doesn’t teach it, then yes, I believe it is far-fetched to say. If Scripture does teach it, then no, it’s not far-fetched. 
Could Christ “again raise some who can yet die again, not to mention sin?” Of course he could. But will he? I don’t think Scripture gives us any indication that he will. Instead, I believe Scripture teaches that when Christ returns from heaven, the dead will be raised to a glorious and incorruptible existence where sin, the “sting of death,” will be no more.
What do you have to say about the end of Revelation where the dead are raised and some thrown into the lake of fire?
I posted the following somewhere else on this forum a while back, but I’m not sure where it is at the top of my head so I’ll just post it again:
The judgment described in this passage is a more climactic and closing description of the judgment mentioned back in Revelation 6:12-17 (thus making this passage in chapter 20 a recapitulation). Notice that in both passages we find “the heavens” (the sky) and “the earth” (the land masses) being “removed.” Notice also that in both passages we have all different classes of people: in Rev 6:15 we read of “the kings of the earth, the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful,” which corresponds to “the great” in Rev 20:12. In chapter 6, “everyone, slave and free” corresponds to “the small” in chapter 20. Finally, we have the image of one “who is seated on the throne” in Rev 6:16, which corresponds to John’s later description of “a great white throne and him who sat on it” (20:11). Both chapters are simply different perspectives on the final overthrow of the Jewish nation in 70 A.D., when all the righteous blood shed on earth came upon the spiritually dead men and women of that “crooked generation” (Matt 23:29-36; Acts 2:40). Jesus even applies language similar to what John uses in Rev 6:15-16 to the severe calamites that were soon to come upon the doomed capital city of Israel:
There is no valid reason to understand the “dead” spoken of in Rev 20:12 as being literally dead. John is describing the spiritually dead people of Israel who were, at the time of this first century judgment, “dead in their trespasses and sins.” They are “dead” in the same figurative sense that many members of the church in Sardis at that time were said to be “dead” or “about to die” (Revelation 3:1).
It may be objected that the people described in this scene of judgment cannot merely be spiritually dead, since John says he saw “Death and Hades” give them up unto judgment. But there is no more reason to believe that John is talking about Death and Hades (i.e., the state of the dead) in a literal sense in Rev. 20 than there is to believe that they are literally two “horsemen” (as is described in Rev. 6:8). It should be obvious to anyone reading that John is employing figurative language in both instances. Moreover, if one wishes to understand this language in a non-figurative sense, then one must also believe that “the sea” (in addition to Death and Hades) is also the literal abode of the literal dead in the same sense that “Death and Hades” are, because John names it as a location from which they came as well. If Hades is a literal place to which some people literally go when they physically die, then, to be consistent, “Death” and “the sea” are literal places to which others literally go as well, because John says all three “gave up the dead” which were “in them.” To add to the absurdity of a literal interpretation, one must also believe that “Death” and “Hades” were literally cast into a “lake of fire” (v. 14). But “Death and Hades” are not things or persons that can literally be cast anywhere - whether it be into a “lake of fire,” or into outer space. Like most of Revelation, John’s language in this passage is highly figurative.
So unless one believes that “the sea,” “Death” and “Hades” are all different places where the physically dead literally dwell prior to the resurrection, and that both “Death” and “Hades” can be literally thrown into a literal lake of fire, then one will have to admit the absurdity of a strictly literal interpretation of this passage. Moreover, if this is a depiction of a general judgment following the resurrection of the dead, then those “standing before the throne” are not literally dead but physically alive. But if that’s the case, why then does John call them “the dead?” At the literal resurrection of the dead, death is said to be “destroyed,” and “swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor 15). At the time of the resurrection of which Paul speaks, the dead are “made alive in Christ,” and are thus no longer dead but alive. But John says he saw “the dead” standing before the throne. In light of these several considerations, the only reasonable interpretation is to see this as being a picture of neither the literal dead, nor of those who have been resurrected, but instead of those who, though still alive physically, were dead in their transgressions and sins (and consequently stood condemned before God).
So what does John mean when he says that “the sea gave up the dead,” and that “death and Hades delivered up the dead in them?” Answer: John is simply using figurative language that would have been very familiar to his first-century Jewish readers. The “sea,” “death” and “Hades” are images derived straight from Isaiah chap 28:15-18, and Amos chap 9:2-3 (cf. Obadiah 1:4). In describing these spiritually dead people as being delivered up by the sea, death and Hades, John is saying that nothing could screen the guilty people of the Jewish nation from the retributive judgment which God, in his sovereign counsel, had determined to bring upon them.
In Isaiah 28:15, we read of the wicked people of Israel saying,
Although they comforted themselves with their “refuge of lies” and “hiding places of falsehood,” it was ultimately a false sense of security they enjoyed; their “covenant partners,” Death and Hades, still delivered them up to national destruction. For in verse 18 we read: “Your covenant with Death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with Sheol (Hades) shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then shall you be trodden down by it.” In other words, there was nothing the ungodly people of Israel could do to protect or screen themselves from the impending national judgment God had purposed to bring upon them. “Death and Hades” (which are simply figures/metaphors representing their “refuge of lies” and “hiding places of falsehood”) would not aide or protect them, but would instead give them up to destruction (the casting of Death and Hades into the “lake of fire” referred to in Rev 21:14 represents the disannulling of Israel’s “covenant” with them). Israel was thus forced to learn that God cannot be mocked; as a nation, their doom was inevitable.
In Amos 9:3, we find similar language to that which is in Isaiah: “If they hide themselves on the top of Carmel, from there I will search them out and take them; and if they hide from my sight in the bottom of the sea, there I will command the serpent, and it shall bite them.” Of course, this language is not literal, but figurative. No one was literally hiding at the top of Mount Carmel, or hiding at the bottom of the sea. The language is used in reference to the living, who (as in Isaiah) are represented as hiding themselves under falsehood and lies - as taking refuge at “the bottom of the sea,” and as making “a covenant with death and Hades,” to protect them from the national ruin God promised to bring upon them because of their unfaithfulness to him. But it was all in vain, for, as John says, they were given up to judgment.
The “books” by which these people were judged according to what they had done (cf. Daniel 7:10, from which the imagery appears to have been taken) may figuratively represent a record of their evil works. Another possibility is that they represent the books of the Jewish law. Because the unbelieving people of that generation clung to the Mosaic law instead of embracing Jesus as their Messiah, they were judged by the law (Rom 2:12, etc.). In attempting (unsuccessfully) to live by the law and receive their righteousness through it instead of through faith in Christ, the curses of the law ultimately fell upon them. Deuteronomy 28:49-57 provides us with a horrifying description of the culmination of the judgment which God threatened to bring upon the nation of Israel for their unfaithfulness to the Old Covenant (see also Daniel 9:1-19). Thus, under the Old Covenant (which was still in the process of “vanishing away” during that first-century generation - see Heb 8:13), the penalty for national sin was a national judgment in which Israel’s capital city, Jerusalem, would be overthrown, and the temple destroyed. This national judgment that God threatened would fall upon Israel for their unfaithfulness to him is the “hell” (Gehenna) of which Christ spoke in the Gospels, and is the judgment of which John describes in the book of Revelation.
The “book of life” represents God’s record of those who, by faith, are in right-standing with him and thus come under his covenantal approbation (Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; cf. Exodus 32:32-33; Psalm 69:28; Mal 3:16-17). The Jews who were found in God’s book at this time were those who believed on Christ and embraced the gospel concerning him. Consequently, they were spared from the terrible judgment that came upon their unfaithful nation. They fled (according to the directions of Christ) to the mountains of Judea for safety, until the violent siege was over (Matt 24:15-21; Mark 13:14-19; Luke 21:20-24). And in this way their lives were spared, just as Christ promised them.
This national judgment against Israel is referred to by John as the “second death.” But why? In order for it to be a second death, there must be a first death that is like it, and which corresponds to it. The difference between the two deaths cannot be one of nature, but simply of chronology. If the first “death” is literal death, then the second “death” must be literal as well. And if the first “death” is a spiritual death (i.e., a death to righteousness, and to being in right-standing with God), then, to be consistent, the second “death” must be a death to sin, and to relational estrangement from God (i.e., dying to sin and becoming alive to God). But that is clearly not what John is describing here.
Although the people who were judged were spiritually dead, the “first death” and “second death” are not spiritual conditions. Nor are the deaths to be understood literally. They are instead national judgments. This fearful judgment described by John is called the “second death” because it was the second national “death” of the Jewish people. In Deuteronomy, God warned Israel of this judgment if they were unfaithful to God by breaking covenant with him (Deut 30:15-20; cf. 28:15-68; Daniel 9:12). This national “death” became a reality for the Jewish nation when God executed judgment upon Israel through the instrumentality of the Babylonians (circa 586 B.C.). We find God threatening this divine judgment in chapter 18 of Ezekiel’s prophecy, where we read:
Later, God refers to this first death of the Jewish nation (the Babylonian captivity) in the well-known vision of the dry bones:
Thus, we see that the Babylonian captivity was the “first death,” during which time the whole house of Israel was said to be (figuratively speaking) dead and in their graves for 70 years. The “second death” was God’s judgment of Israel through the instrumentality of the Romans, which culminated in the total destruction of the city of Jerusalem, the desolation of the Temple, and the exile of the people from their land (incidentally, the Jewish era of Jesus’ day is referred to by scholars as “Second Temple Judaism”). Thus having been raised from their first death and returned to their land, their nation was ultimately destroyed by another Gentile people a second time. A majority of the Jewish population was killed in this judgment, and the rest were scattered among the nations (Deut 28:64; cf. Luke 21:20-24).
This judgment is also described as a “lake of fire.” It is noteworthy that John doesn’t call this judgment a “sea” (or “ocean”) of fire. But if John were describing the judgment of the vast majority of mankind (numbering in the billions), would not the image of a sea or ocean be much more appropriate than that of a mere lake? The fact is that the imagery of a burning lake was intended to bring to mind those passages in the Old Testament in which national judgment against Israel is said to be with the fire of God’s wrath (recall Rev 17:16 and 18:8, where the harlot-city, Jerusalem, is said to be “burned with fire”). In Isaiah 31:9, God says his “fire is in Zion” and his “furnace is in Jerusalem.” Similarly, we read in Ezekiel the following:
The expression “lake of fire” is used four times in Revelation, and in each instance refers to God’s wrath or judgment in the world. To be “cast into the lake of fire” is to be consumed by the fire of God’s wrath as described in Ezekiel above. This judgment is not to take place in another state of existence, but is a historical judgment that took place in this world. In Rev 19:20 and 20:10 John refers to the judgment of first-century Roman opposition to the Christian church at the time of the overthrow of the Jewish nation in 70 A.D. In Rev 20:14-15, the judgment of the unbelieving, spiritually dead Jews who constituted apostate Israel is described in greater detail. At this time, the wicked Israelites of that first-century generation who rejected Christ and failed to heed his words to flee the land when God gave them the opportunity to do so were ultimately trapped within their beloved city (Luke 19:41-44) and perished in the great judgment of their nation.
Aaron, welcome back! Your thoughtful and appreciated responses to so many particulars is more than I seem to be able to keep up with. You uniquely don’t disappoint those who seek clarification. Yet we do seem to go in circles.
Aaron: “What I object to is any attempt to determine what our future existence as persons will be like beyond this mortal life based on what our present existence is like.”
Bob: I know!!! That notion is what prompted my initial interaction with you. I would substitute for “determine:” “be open to possible interpretations” that our future existence will have some analogies with our present experience of God’s dealings with us. But I perceive that you’ve already concluded that revelation reveals no such continuity, and so you are bound to reject my words that: “an openness to some coherent ‘analogies’ in God’s doings with us during all ages is reasonable,” and to maintain that Scripture rejects any analogies. But since I haven’t yet embraced preterism, and am sympathetic with widely held views that God’s future dealings with us will have some parallels with our present experience, it’s easier for me to remain “open” to perceiving Scriptural confirmations of that.
You seem to repeat that we should not look for future analogies, because we can not know about where we’ve never been. But for me, that very lack of future experience makes what we know of God’s ways in the present all the more precious as possible clues to the future, assuming that there is some coherent consistency in God’s character.
Your own contrary conclusions about what Scripture reveals seems to reinforce your sense that just pointing to revelation sufficiently provides certitude about such realities. Again, I’m baffled by such confidence, esp. when you reject so many dominant ‘Biblical’ interpretations, such that many others, like A37, who also think Scripture is patently clear, perceive you to be purposely heretical (though I certainly don’t). My own bias akin to Talbotts is that wider perceptions influence how people read it, and are worthy of evaluation, since the nature of the Bible itself does not yield a clarity of consensus.
You repeat that Paul’s use of analogy for our future bodily nature doesn’t count because our future “existence” already can “take for granted,” and “presuppose that whatever is essential to our personal identity will continue.” That seems incorrect to me. My readings this month for a Regent philosophy religion class with Yale’s John Hare presented many tradition’s diverse denials that our future existence can assume that. So I see Paul’s claims as very significant.
You repeat that Jesus’ conclusion about God’s future relationship with us is also irrelevant because it only reveals what the Sadducees already had to suppose. But the reality that these ‘experts’ on the written revelation did NOT recognize that, seems to validate my own impression that revelation was ambiguous, and Jesus is reasoning with them about something that they do NOT already suppose.
Still, if you indeed grant that aspects of “continuity” that are unmistakably argued for exist “at least at a bare minimum,” I would argue that this is sufficient for my original minimalist contention. We’re only left to quibble over its’ size and significance. You do go on to insist that it’d be inappropriate to be open to to supposed Scriptural intimations that additional analogies might exist (E.g. such as that God could continue to deal with perversity or human will beyond death). While, remaining to be argued, I take that as not unreasonable, based on what seems most clear about what we see that God’s Biblical nature pursues in our experience of it at present.
You ask if Paul’s revelation that our future ‘body’ “will be analogous to our present one” came “by direct revelation,” OR was obtained in thinking in terms of analogy (implying that the second cheapens its’ truth). But I don’t share your assumption that God’s ways of revealing truth must mean these two explanations are mutually exclusive.
You ask where analogy lets us “draw lines”? But I never suggested that it offers that, or disagreed that “assuming” analogy could lead us to some false conclusions. I’ve only argued that drawing lines doesn’t just come down to who accepts that Scripture is clear. I just see Christian conclusions coming about through an interpretation of Scripture, informed as it intersects with the input of our reasoning, experience, and traditions (i.e. the classic Quadrilateral). And I think that the nature of the four sources of understanding should make us humbly and generously unsurprised that people are persuaded of different conclusions about what the Biblical way of reading the Bible is.
Bob,
First of all, thank you for your continued thoughtful (and challenging) contribution to this thread! Now, you wrote:
I fully agree with you that there is “some coherent consistency in God’s character.” However, I think it is erroneous to assume that, because God’s character is unchanging, we may therefore reasonably expect the kind of continuity between man’s present and future state of existence that you seem to think there will be. While I think God’s unchanging character does necessitate that our future state of existence will be just as consistent with our best interest and greatest good as is the present state of existence, it doesn’t therefore follow that your view is rendered more probable or likely than mine. A future state of existence that is entirely free from all sin and suffering is, I believe, no less consistent with God’s benevolent character than is one in which sin and suffering continues indefinitely (in fact, aside from the Biblical testimony, I think I have good reason to believe that my view is more consistent with God’s wisdom and benevolent character; but more on that later). So for the sake of argument, let’s assume that both positions stand on equal ground as far as their consistency with God’s character goes (and I could be wrong, but in spite of your disagreement with my position, I don’t think you believe it is somehow inconsistent with God’s character). But if this is the case, then (according to what you say above) one could have just as much reason to expect that God will deliver mankind from sin and suffering immediately upon their entrance to the next state of existence, as one could have reason to expect that God will continue to keep mankind (either in part or in whole) embroiled in some degree of sin and suffering in the next state of existence (although not permanently). As long as it’s consistent with his character, how God will deal with sin in the next state of existence need not be the same as, or even similar to, how he deals with sin in this present state of existence. We simply have no reason to expect any such continuity, even “assuming there is some coherent consistency in God’s character.” What may seem reasonable and intuitive to us may simply not be a part of God’s sovereign purpose, even if it’s not inconsistent with his character.
Well I never said that Paul’s claims were not “very significant.” But consider the following: To whom were Paul’s claims in vv. 35ff specifically addressed? Answer: a certain “foolish one” (or perhaps foolish ones) who denied that there would even be a resurrection of the dead! (cf. v. 12ff) In other words, Paul is not arguing with people who believed in the resurrection who merely denied that there would be this or that degree of continuity between this state of existence and the next, but rather with a person (or persons) who rejected this essential doctrine of the Christian faith. So I think my previous arguments in regards to this passage still stand. In fact, I think there is good reason to believe that Paul was not revealing anything new to the believers in the resurrection until we come to v. 51. Prior to this verse, while it is true that Paul’s claims were still “very significant,” he’s not arguing for anything that those who already hoped in the resurrection would not have already believed (i.e., by virtue of their affirming the truth of the resurrection).
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but I agree with you that Jesus is reasoning with them about something that they did not already suppose. But the very fact that they did not already suppose it was (according to Jesus) due to their “not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt 22:29). It was for this reason that Jesus says they were “greatly mistaken” (Mark 12:27). The implication in Jesus’ rebuke is that they should have known “the Scriptures and the power of God.” Moreover, notice that in both contexts (i.e., Jesus’ discussion with the Sadducees and Paul’s words in 1 Cor 15:35ff.) the persons being addressed are those who denied the very fact of the resurrection. They weren’t, in other words, simply questioning how much or how little continuity there will be between this state of existence and the state of existence into which the resurrection will introduce us. It is the resurrection itself of which they were in denial.
In light of this fact, I believe it is to be expected that the arguments of both Christ and Paul would take the form of a defence of the “minimal continuity” of personal existence that I previously stated is something every believer in the resurrection would take for granted, irrespective of whatever else they believed about the future state. So aside from the question of whether or not such a method is legitimate or sanctioned in Scripture, in neither case was there even a need for Christ or Paul to do what you claim they were doing (i.e., reasoning on the principle of analogy to reveal how the state of existence into which the resurrection will introduce us will be like the present). Their opponents didn’t even believe there would be a resurrection. The “minimal continuity” that I submit is necessarily presupposed by those who already believe in the resurrection (i.e., that the same person who dies will exist again in an embodied form at a future time) had to first be established before any additional information regarding the future state of existence could even become a topic of discussion or debate for the resurrection-denying objectors.
I think it would perhaps have been more accurate for you to have said, “E.g. such as that God could continue to deal with perversity or human will beyond death in the same way as he deals with it prior to death.” Because I do, in fact, believe God will “continue to deal with perversity or human will beyond death” - I simply believe that he will deal with it in a way that it has not yet been dealt with before. In fact, I strongly suspect you believe this as well. For whereas we both believe that God “allows” (for lack of a better word) many people to go through this entire present state of existence relationally estranged from him (and some even in active rebellion against him), as a universalist I know you don’t believe God will “allow” anyone to go through their entire future state of existence relationally estranged from him. Understood in this way, God will not deal with such individuals in the future state of existence in the same way as he dealt with them in the present state of existence. Allowing them to remain in perpetual ignorance of his character and in rebellion against his law throughout the duration of their future existence is out of the question. So I think the main difference in positions is how radical one thinks this change in how God deals with “perversity or human will” will be. I believe that, upon our entrance into the future state existence that is to commence with our resurrection, our illusions will be sufficiently shattered, our ignorance sufficiently removed, our ambiguities sufficiently resolved, and a clear enough revelation of God will be imparted to us, so as to render sin and perversity in this state of existence an impossibility. Exactly why I believe this, is something I hope to unpack in greater detail as we continue to discuss this topic.
Aaron, thanks again!
On our disputed interpretations of two key texts, it seems that we agree that Paul and Jesus explain (to those indeed who deny the resurrection!) future realities that may already have been perceptible by those who would affirm a particular revealed view of resurrection. But you find both of their supposed appeals to analogical reasoning for those realities irrelevant (and not “even needed”), because belief in resurrection would have meant that it would not be new information. I quite agree, but remain struck that neither thinker insists that the solution is to just accept resurrection as revealed fact, but finds that an appeal to analogical reasoning about our present experience of reality can sometimes be a useful route to recognizing similar right understandings about the future age (which was my only contention)!
Moving on, your first reaction to my paper suggested that you agreed that in this world (the whole Biblical saga up to the present!) God deems it vital to seek our development in character and obedience, through a mix of grace and severe judgments that lead to learning and growth. In terms of theodicy, it graphically appears to me that this often painful process toward transformation must have high value to God.
You have agreed that we can expect God’s future approach will in some way be “consistent” with the known character that lies behind his present approach and priorities. You now agree that our question is only “how radical” will be the continuity in how God will deal with our need (and I certainly agree that God won’t let total “perpetual ignorance” continue forever and that the “mix” of measures that I cited above may be presented in a more radical measure). In your first paragraph you even affirm that “our present state of existence is consistent with our greatest good.”
If so, since you are convinced that God will next just “immediately” deliver all from sin, I’m curious if you see any reasons why God would suddenly cancel his previous pursuit of goals that require an undeterministic process of choices and growth? Why instantaneous (production of the character God wants) then, and not sooner? Or do you see such fundamental discontinutity in the way God seeks what He values as just a declared fact without any graspable reasons?
Ok, so I think we both agree that the point of Jesus’ argument to the Sadducees was that the doctrine of the resurrection was not foreign to the Torah, but should have been a “revealed fact” for those who knew both “the Scriptures and the power of God.” But what I’m still not seeing is how Jesus’ argument was based on an appeal to analogical reasoning about our present existence in order to reveal information about our post-resurrection existence that would not have otherwise been known to those who didn’t deny the resurrection. It seems to me that Jesus’ argument is itself based on, and derives its strength from, a revelatory declaration made by YHWH concerning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - i.e., that even though dead, YHWH was still their God.
I think an example of an appeal to analogical reasoning about man’s present state of existence to argue for the doctrine of the resurrection would have looked something more like this: Jesus directs the Sadducees to Exodus 3:9-10, where YHWH declares that he has heard the cries of the children of Israel whom he is sending Moses to deliver, and then argues from this verse that, because God cared enough about these Israelites to hear their cries for deliverance from slavery, it follows that they will be raised from the dead by him. While the soundness of this argument is, I think, questionable, I see it as being a far better example of (what would at least be an attempt at) analogical reasoning about our present existence to argue for the doctrine of the resurrection than is what we find in the accounts of Jesus’ argument with the Sadducees - which, again, I don’t see as such an example. For there, Jesus’ argument is based on a verse in which God declares himself to be the God of three men whose mortal existence in this world had ended generations ago. The force of Jesus’ argument is derived not from what God says about these men before they were dead, but after they were dead. From this consideration it seems that Jesus could not have been appealing to analogical reasoning to reveal a right understanding of the patriarch’s post-mortem existence based on God’s ante-mortem dealings with them.
Moreover (as I pointed out early on in this discussion) the force of Christ’s argument against the Sadducees is derived not from the fact that we should expect some degree of continuity between the present state of existence and the future state into which the resurrection will introduce us. It is instead derived from the radical discontinuity that there will be between the present and future states of existence. It is only after affirming the discontinuity (which, based on their contrived hypothetical scenario, was not something the Sadducees would have expected had they affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection) that Christ then goes on to demonstrate how the doctrine of the resurrection could be argued for even from the pages of the Torah. And Christ does this not by appealing to analogical reasoning but by working out the implications of a revelatory declaration made by YHWH concerning three long-dead patriarchs - which, at most, revealed just what any believer in the resurrection would have already affirmed, irrespective of whatever else they might have believed or disbelieved concerning man’s post-mortem existence.
Well, actually, I don’t see the “process of choices and growth” which is required in this present existence as being undeterministic. While this subject deserves a thread of its own, I believe all that happens in this world - no matter how big or small - is simply the unfolding of God’s sovereign purpose and will. To quote C. H. Spurgeon (a 19th century Reformed preacher):
As far as God “suddenly cancelling his previous pursuit of goals,” I believe that when the dead are raised, the goals that were pursued in this present state of existence will have been reached (as opposed to “cancelled”). That is, the purpose for which God designed this present state of existence will have been fulfilled, and sin and suffering will simply no longer be a necessary aspect of human existence (as I believe them to be at present). A helpful illustration might be to think of the end for which man was created as a “building” being erected by God, and sin and suffering as the “scaffolding” without which the building could not be completed. When, at Christ’s return, the dead are raised incorruptible and the living made immortal, the “building” will be completed and the “scaffolding” will no longer be necessary. It will have served its purpose. And although much of this remains a mystery to me, I believe that at least one purpose is that of contrast. I believe this present existence is meant to serve as the necessary backdrop against which our future existence may be contrasted, which in turn enables us to fully enjoy and appreciate it.
With that said, I want to emphasize that the view expressed above is simply my interpretation and understanding of our present and future existence in light of what I understand to have been revealed to us by inspiration. That is, it is simply my reasoned attempt at making sense of and explaining why God has seen fit to make our future existence so different from our present existence, given the fact that I believe this to be revealed in Scripture. It is what I understand Scripture to reveal concerning our future state of existence that informs my understanding of God’s dealings with mankind in this world. Since I don’t see it revealed that mankind will be in need of “a mix of grace and severe judgments that lead to learning and growth” after the resurrection, I conclude that the importance and value of this “often painful process toward transformation” must be confined to this present state of existence.
Hi Aaron!
Sorry I lacked clarity. I don’t actually see resurrection declared as “revealed fact” in Torah, nor that Jesus simply declared that to be so in Matt. 22. (Which texts declare the resurrection?) You seem to propose that Jesus just asserts to unbelievers in resurrection that it is so by “declaratory revelation.” Yet I see him cite familiar words embraced by Sadducees, that God is Abraham’s God, etc (Ex. 3:6). Then he appears to reason that if God so related personally to the living Abraham, they could properly infer (in some analogical continuity concerning the God whose character they know) that He will similarly relate to Abraham even though he’s dead. I.e. he argues for resurrection, not from it.
I sense you hear Exodus as declaring that God remains the God of folks resurrected after they’re dead. But I think the Sadducees only saw it as saying that Moses’ god was the same one who was Abraham’s god during his life. If this recognition is the common ground to which Jesus appeals, then he would be arguing from an ante to a post-mortem situation.
You’re right! Arguing no ‘choices’ are 'undetermined" is another thread! Fuller Seminary required all of Spurgeon, and my classmate, John Piper, has published every deterministic idea we were taught. I respectfully am unconvinced, but prefer Talbott’s synthesis, while not really grasping the nature of ‘choice.’
You say, the purpose of present struggles with sin must be complete at our death (and resurrection)! And Dr. Fuller also agreed that its’ goal was providing a “contrast” for eternity, such that (in his case) the few elect could appreciate how “enjoyable” it was to be so delivered from such angst. I find it hard to believe God could not enable us to dig him short of such misery. More, I sense Scripture emphasizes that this difficult process of learning choices and soul-making is at the center of the valued goal that would make such grief worthwhile (presumably even beyond this age). Since you see no Biblical “severe judgments” beyond the present, I suspect you need to “confine” how fundamental this way of transformation is to God. But, sensing that there may be Biblical clues to such future dealings and development, I remain open to a possibly less static future.
P.S. I’m leaving for 5 weeks in Argentina, and probably won’t be able to interact much. Blessings to you, Bob
Hi Aaron! I am back from travels, and if you would like, I would welcome more of your enlightening clarifications.
Hi Bob, I’m glad you made it back! 
You wrote:
I agree with you that Jesus is arguing “for resurrection, not from it.” When I said that the doctrine is a revealed fact in the Torah, I meant that it can be logically deduced from what God said in Ex 3:6 that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be raised from the dead. My understanding of Jesus’ argument to the Sadducees is that, given the Sadducees familiarity with and strict adherence to the Torah, they should have understood God’s words in Exodus 3:6 as revealing that there will be a resurrection (at least, a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!). I understand Jesus’ argument to be that God would not have called himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob if these three patriarchs were going to remain dead forever. The very fact that God called himself their God when they were dead demands that they be raised from the dead. It would not, in other words, have been an argument for the resurrection of Abraham if God had declared himself to be Abraham’s God while Abraham was still alive. God’s declaration of being Abraham’s God only becomes an argument for the resurrection because Abraham was not alive when God called himself such. So while it’s true that Jesus’ argument for the resurrection from this verse is an inferred argument, I don’t see it as being based on analogous reasoning from man’s present state of existence. Jesus’ argument is not: “Because God was Abraham’s God while Abraham was alive it therefore follows that Abraham will be raised.” Rather, I believe it is: “Because God declared himself to be Abraham’s God while Abraham was dead, it therefore follows that Abraham will not remain dead but will be raised.” That this is Jesus’ argument is evident from the statement with which he concludes: “For he is not God of the dead, but of the living.” It was essential to Jesus’ argument for the resurrection that God be declaring himself to be the God of three men who were dead at the time the statement was made, because if YHWH “is not the God of the dead but of the living” then what he said to Moses can only mean that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will live again.
No, I hear it as simply declaring (i.e., by implication) that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be resurrected. Since God is not the God of the dead but of the living, and God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when these three men were dead, then it follows by logical deduction that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be restored to life by a resurrection (for it is only by a resurrection that the dead can live again).
I don’t think this is the common ground to which Jesus was appealing. I believe the only common ground to which Jesus was appealing in his response to the Sadducees was their shared view of the inspired authority of the Torah. It was irrelevant to Jesus’ argument how the Sadducees understood the verse he quoted. What Jesus is doing is showing them how they ought to have understood it - i.e., what they should have understood the verse to imply (and thus to reveal by implication). Had they considered the implication of God’s declaration to Moses about his being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who, in Moses’ day, were three dead patriarchs), they would have understood this verse as teaching that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would live again. Moreover, Jesus equates the Sadducees’ failure to see the logical implication in God’s declaration to Moses as being an ignorance of Scripture itself! When Jesus asks rhetorically, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?” (Mark 12:24) the implication is that, had the Sadducees “known the Scriptures” (which for them was the Torah, from which Jesus quotes) then they wouldn’t have had a Scriptural excuse not to believe in the resurrection. But their ignorance of the Scriptures and the power of God resulted in their being “quite wrong” regarding the doctrine of the resurrection (v. 27).
Moreover, I’m not sure how the mere fact that “Moses’ god was the same one who was Abraham’s god during his life” would have provided Jesus with an argument for the resurrection. If that’s the “common ground” to which Jesus was appealing, then after Jesus declared, “For he is not God of the dead, but of the living,” the Sadducees could have replied, “Exactly, Jesus. God was Abraham’s God during his life - not after he died. And since we are in agreement with you that God ‘is not the God of the dead but of the living,’ and that God was only talking about Abraham ‘during his life,’ we see no reason to believe that Abraham will ever live again.”
Again, I believe Jesus’ argument against the Sadducees only “works” if in Ex. 3:6 God was declaring something to be true about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as dead individuals.
Well I think even you would have to admit that we could never “dig” God as a Savior unless there was something from which we needed to be saved! Moreover, I believe the joy of being saved from an experience of evil is greater than any happiness that one could have apart from such an experience. As rational beings I think we depend on contrast to truly appreciate and fully enjoy. And I don’t think God could achieve his benevolent purpose for mankind any other way except by first subjecting us all to futility and then mercifully freeing us from it. But I do find the idea that some human beings (the “reprobate”) must suffer forever in hell so that other human beings (the “elect”) can be happy in heaven (as argued by reformed theologians such as Piper and Edwards) utterly deplorable, and I’m ashamed that I ever believed it myself and attempted to convince others that it was true.
I’m curious as to what “Biblical clues” you had in mind (besides the passages we’ve been discussing, of course )!
Thanks Aaron, you’re narrowing our gap on Matt. 22! We agree Exodus was calling God Abraham’s God after he was dead, and yet also that it’s better not to say that the resurrection was a “declared fact” in Torah, but a reasonable implication that should be seen. I also agree that God only being in relationship with the living would mean that if He’s Abraham’s God, Abraham should be presumed alive.
Your perception of the text’s logic may be right. But as a Sadduccee sympathizer 
, your assurance that resurrection is logically required is not clear to me. My perception is that Jesus as a revelatory spokesman often wonderfully interprets the Torah in ways that transcend literal logic. For his opponents, not knowing the Scripture, is not so much ignorance of its’ content, but of the implications that Jesus asserts will be appropriately seen by those with right hearts.
You say that Jesus’ argument only works if Exodus must mean that God is the dead Abraham’s God. But isn’t that tautological for them, demanding that: “If they saw that a dead Abraham was in relationship with God, then they would know that he couldn’t remain dead”? Of course. But the premise is precisely what the Sadduccees did not grant, and thus cannot provide their common ground.
I assume that they heard Exodus as declaring (after Abraham’s death) that their God is same one who was in relationship with Abraham during his part of the story. But I don’t see Jesus pointing up any datum in the Torah text that they didn’t think that they already acknowledged. Where they part is on the appropriate inferences that should be drawn from the datum of the text that they both affirm. I believe this focuses on resisting the implications of the love and “power of God” that is featured in the whole Biblical story.
I.e. I suspect that the most likely common ground involves the clearest Scriptural affirmations that they share: God is the powerful Reality who has been in a personal relationship with Abraham. So taking that love and power as seriously as Jesus did, implies that you should not imagine that He will ever stop such pursuit of relationship with those He loves. This intuition only fails if Sadduccees insist all of God’s admittedly characteristic ways are suspended at death.
On the last two citations, we agree that God surely has reasons for his ways, and I too would assume that the contrast that we’re saved from can enhance our joy. Still, ‘logic’ about what is ‘necessary’ for God is over my head. Yet the constant Biblical themes of suffering and character development, growth through trials and error, disciplinary consequences, and learning by genuine choices are so pervasive that I am inclined to think that this process is more central to theodicy and that God deeply values what such a process yields.
You ask for the “clues” that this could extend beyond the life we know. Of course, first, are the many ‘eschtological’ passages traditionally seen as involving future painful judgments and dealings.
Perhaps most persuasive to me is the ongoing Biblical story which portrays God as One who relentlessly pursues such a process with judgments and mercies, always reinterpreting such prophetic pictures, but forever seeking the continuing choices of a genuinely faithful response. E.g. a major aspect of this process in the realm where things are plainest to us is the goal of ‘purification.’ Thus, when I see that Jesus and the apostles appear to continue to use analagous metaphors for purfication (like fire and salt) when they warn of future judgments and lightly defined events, I’m inclined to think that we are encouraged to imagine that God would continue to value a process in some degree analagous to what we have learned about so far. But I presume that you embrace a differing interpretation wherein such sobering dealings of God have been already completed in history. So this is probably the turf on which these differences deserves to be focused.
Hi Bob! Sorry for taking so long to respond; due to time constraints I had to take a break from this thread for a while so I could participate in other discussions (and by “other discussions” I’m referring primarily to the following thread: The Intermediate State of the Dead). So hopefully we can just pick up where we left off.
Now, you said:
While I’m not really sure what you mean by “literal logic” (as opposed to figurative logic?), did you have any other examples in mind where you see Jesus interpreting the Law and the Prophets in ways that “transcend” this?
I agree that when Jesus rebuked the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures he wasn’t accusing them of being ignorant of the words that appear in the Torah; their error was one of interpretation. And while it’s possible that having “right hearts” might have enabled them to better see the implication in God’s words to Moses (for the “mind set on the flesh” is oftentimes, if not always, an enemy of rational thinking), I’m not sure how this would make Jesus’ interpretation of this passage one that “transcends literal logic.”
I agree that this was not their common ground; I believe their common ground was their shared acceptance of the Torah as authoritative Scripture. Again, I think it’s irrelevant to Jesus’ argument how exactly the Sadducees were able to reconcile (or not) God’s words in Exodus 3:6 with their denial of the resurrection; the fact is that they were “quite mistaken” for not seeing the resurrection as being taught in this verse, as Christ evidently thought it a sufficient refutation of their error. They were clearly mistaken for believing that the Torah did not reveal the doctrine of the resurrection, and whether or not they needed “right hearts” to see what Christ believed was taught in this verse is, I think, a little beside the point.
But the Sadducees clearly did not believe that God’s character or his past personal relationship with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob while they were still alive was any grounds for believing that these patriarchs would be raised. And I fail to see anything in Jesus’ response to the Sadducees that was intended to challenge their intuitions about what was or wasn’t consistent with God’s character and past dealings with these patriarchs while they were still alive. If the Sadducees didn’t understand their denial of the resurrection as being inconsistent with what the Torah revealed about God’s personal relationship with these three patriarchs, how was Jesus’ argument calculated to correct their understanding or intuition? Even if the Sadducees didn’t take God’s love seriously enough (as you suggest), Jesus certainly doesn’t say they were mistaken because of this. It was an ignorance of the Scriptures and the power of God which led to their error, not a wrong intuition concerning the love of God. And since Jesus distinguishes their ignorance of God’s power from their ignorance of the Scriptures, I think he would have done the same if their error was also due to an ignorance regarding God’s character.
I think that if, in Exodus 3:6, God was declaring something to be true about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after these three patriarchs had died, then Jesus’ argument becomes very straightforward and logical: if it’s true that God is not the God of the dead but of the living (which, as I’ll show shortly, is likely a premise that the Sadducees would have been forced to accept as true), then the unavoidable implication is that these patriarchs either have been raised from the dead, or that they will be raised from the dead. The advantage of this straightforward argument is that it doesn’t require the Sadducees to have had a right understanding of what may or may not be consistent with God’s love in order for them to feel the force of it. Rather than referring to a verse where God speaks of himself in relation to those who were still alive at the time and then appealing to analogical reasoning (which the Sadducees may or may not have seen as valid), Jesus instead reminds them of a declaration made by YHWH concerning his relationship to three patriarchs who, at the time of the declaration, had been dead for generations. And then Jesus concludes his argument with a statement that the Sadducees could not dispute without holding to the absurd (and God-dishonouring) position that God is the God of corpses and dust (which, to the Sadducees, is all that was thought to remain of the dead). And since that’s obviously false, then it follows that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not going to remain in the state of death for all time, and that when God declared himself to be their God he had to have been speaking in view of their being restored to a living existence. So in light of the statement with which Jesus concludes his argument, it seems reasonable that Jesus purposefully chose a verse from the Torah that both he and the Sadducees understood to be a divine declaration concerning God’s relation to those who had died long before the declaration was made.
Now, if your interpretation of Jesus’ argument is valid, then wouldn’t Gen 12:2 (along with numerous other verses in which God’s relationship with living people is spoken of) have been just as suited to Jesus’ argument as Exodus 3:6? There, we read of God’s personal relationship with Abraham while he was alive; and if the certainty of Abraham’s resurrection follows from the fact that he was in a personal relationship with God while he was alive, then this verse is just as good as any as a resurrection proof-text to correct the mistaken view of the Sadducees. So if this is the case, did Jesus simply choose Exodus 3:6 at random among all the other verses in the Torah that he could have chosen to make the same point that you think he was making? I don’t think so; I believe Exodus 3:6 was chosen rather than a verse such as Genesis 6:9 (where we’re told that “Noah walked with God”) precisely because, in Exodus 3:6, God was declaring something to be true about his relationship to human beings who were dead. Moreover, if Jesus was arguing for the resurrection on the basis of God’s love for Abraham (although there’s no indication that this was the case), then why couldn’t the Sadducees simply have respond to Jesus by saying, “Of course God loved Abraham, and we take very seriously the love that God has for all who are in a personal relationship with him. But God’s love for Abraham - as great as it was - didn’t prevent Abraham from dying in the first place, so why would it require God to restore Abraham to life at some future time? God certainly doesn’t owe Abraham a future existence, and God would not be unjust if he chose not to resurrect him or anyone else. Moreover, you believe God cares for and values animals (he evidently loved them enough to bring them into existence), so does this mean they’re going to be resurrected too? But why should we believe that either man or beast is going to be resurrected by God when God has not revealed it to us in the Torah?” Of course, I believe Jesus’ argument is that the Torah does reveal that the dead (at least, the dead patriarchs referred to in Ex 3:6) will be raised, so any question about what is or isn’t consistent with God’s love or faithfulness or dealings with men (or animals) in this lifetime is rendered irrelevant in the face of the Scriptural testimony that, although dead, God called himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - something he would not have done if they were to remain dead forever, since (according to Jesus) “God is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
But you seem to think God’s loving and unchanging character necessitates that he never stop pursuing a relationship with those he loves, even after death. Or have I misunderstood you on this?
But I see no Scriptural evidence that the process of which you speak was intended by God to continue beyond death, or that it would be necessary to our future happiness for it to do so. So hopefully we can begin to examine some of the biblical data that you think supports this view.
Also, do you think being mortal and having a capacity for physical pain is essential to the process of character development and growth?
Which “future painful judgments and dealings” described in Scripture do you think have reference to a post-mortem state of existence? As I’m sure you’re aware, one of the most severe judgments referred to in Scripture (if not the most severe) is a premature death, so I’m not sure how this could extend beyond this life or have any reference to our post-mortem existence.
I think God values the process as long as the process (and the state in which the process exists) is necessary. But do we have reason to believe it will continue to be necessary after death? I just don’t see Scripture revealing this to be the case. But I am interested in what specific texts you think support your position that this process of character development and spiritual growth will be just as necessary after death as it is before death.
Now, I think a good example of the painful process of character development that some people undergo in this lifetime is found in Hebrews 12:3-11:
Here the goal of this disciplinary process is partaking of God’s holiness. But as I’m sure you’d agree, very few people throughout redemptive history have reached this goal of spiritual maturity in this lifetime; the vast majority of mankind cannot be said to have attained anything close to this before death. It would seem from this fact (which is consistent with both Scripture and experience) that this present state of existence is not at all conducive to yielding the “fruit” of which the author speaks. So I guess my question for you is this: Do you think the next state of existence will be more or less conducive to our becoming holy than this state? Or will the next state be basically the same as the present in this regard?
Also, do you think God values the process of becoming holy more than the goal of being holy? Or do you think he values the goal more than the process? Or do you think he values them both equally?
Hi Aaron! I appreciate your other discussion, and extensive reflections on our arcane differences!
You said: “While I’m not really sure what you mean by “literal logic” (as opposed to figurative logic?), did you have any other examples in mind where you see Jesus interpreting the Law and the Prophets in ways that “transcend” this?”
I meant Jesus “transcends literal” in going beyond the literal sense to interpret a deeper implication that is not literally spelled out. My attachment in Bibliology, “The Case Against Jesus” under “Is all Scripture equally valid,” cites Jesus quoting Torah and arguing that he authoritatively rejects Israel’s leaders’ logically sounding literal readings, and can favor counter-texts, broader Scriptural principles or human intuitions. E.g. he transcends Torah’s words on cleanliness, food, separation, oaths, Sabbath “work,” divorce, justice, capital punishment, violence, etc. to reverse their apparent literal meaning. On our topic also, he transcends literal logic, if the Sadduccess actually embraced my suggested literal interpretation, wherein Abraham would remain dead.
You assert, in mistakenly denying resurrection, they were rejecting “clearly” what’s “taught in this verse.” But I’m disputing precisely that it does say THAT. E. g. When they reject his Sabbath “work” as good, it’s not because Torah “clearly” taught Jesus’ interpretation, but as here, because they reject Jesus’ INFERENCES grounded in Scripture’s totality (and as I speculate here, including God’s love and power).
You answer, appealing to silence, “Jesus didn’t say it was because of this” (love). But I perceive that failing to see God as love is regularly at the core of rejecting his views on Torah (tho often not spelled out). So I’m inclined to favor it here. If ‘silence’ counted, I’d see no reason to assume that knowing “the Scriptures” simply even means “this verse,” instead of its’ totality (and ask why didn’t he say “this verse”?).
The crowd may be “astonished” at Jesus’ conclusion because they had not seen this verse as “teaching” resurrection. So why do you insist that just citing it would “obviously” make them “feel the force of it”? Doesn’t it cry out for assuming there is some unsaid reasoning? E.g. that describing God as Abraham’s God (meaning during his life) is actually inconsistent with assuming he’s now a goner, because of Jesus’ constant Biblical premise that God is the sort who wouldn’t let go of his beloved. You retort that quoting Ex. 3:6 is decisive when it’s instead of other texts which (I agree) would also be persuasive in my sense of Jesus’ argument. I I’d simply presume this choice may be explained by being the widely recognized identification which was at the center of their understanding of God.
You said: “You seem to think God’s loving and unchanging character necessitates that he never stop pursuing a relationship with those he loves, even after death. Or have I misunderstood you?”
“Necessitates” is a stronger word than I would use. I’d say the whole Biblical narrative makes it reasonable to recognize God as wone who pursues relationship. It’s just less clear to me that it’s equally clear that he requires suffering in order to have us appreciate him.
You said:" Also, do you think being mortal and having a capacity for physical pain is essential to the process of character development and growth?"
That’s a metaphysical question above my competence.
You said: “Which “future painful judgments and dealings” described in Scripture do you think have reference to a post-mortem state of existence?”
That topic has been of wider interest on this site, and our still different presuppositions would probably account for how we will interpret those disputed texts differently also. But my note on ongoing “fire and salt” was a not too veiled reference to Mk. 9:42-49.
You said: “Do you think the next state of existence will be more or less conducive to our becoming holy than this state? Or will the next state be basically the same as the present in this regard?”
It seems “more” so to me.
You said: “Also, do you think God values the process of becoming holy more than the goal of being holy? Or do you think he values the goal more than the process? Or do you think he values them both equally?”
It’s not apparent to me that Scripture disconnects these two like that. I see it as picturing being truly “holy” as a result of “the process of becoming” that way. I’m not even sure that I see sanctified maturity as a sort of value that God might choose to create without any preceding process.
Hi Bob! You wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. Now, let’s take the example of Jesus healing on the Sabbath. While it’s true that the Pharisees had interpreted God’s command to keep the Sabbath in such a way that Jesus’ act of compassion on an afflicted man was seen as a violation of this command, I don’t think Jesus’ interpretation of what was said in the Torah was at all inconsistent with the literal reading, or somehow transcended “literal logic.” There is nothing that Jesus did on the Sabbath which was in conflict with a single word found in the Torah or the rest of the OT. The only thing that Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath were inconsistent with was the rabbinic tradition - i.e., the Pharisees’ misguided human traditions regarding the Sabbath, which Jesus referred to as “commandments of men” (Matt 15:9).
Similarly, I’m not sure how a straight-forward literal reading of Exodus 3:6 is in any way inconsistent with Jesus’ use of this verse as a proof-text for the doctrine of the resurrection. What I see as clearly being taught in this verse is that YHWH is declaring himself to be the God of three patriarchs who were dead at the time the declaration was made. And that which can be logically inferred from this declaration is that God was speaking in view of their resurrection - for “God is not the God of the dead but of the living” (which, again, is likely a premise that the Sadducees would have been unable to dispute). Jesus appeals to this verse not to interpret it in a way that required the acceptance of a premises that the Sadducees might or might not have granted (e.g., that God’s love for people requires him to raise them from the dead), but rather to show how a simple, straight-forward reading of this text is in conflict with what the Sadducees already believed.
As you know, it was the Pharisees - and not the Sadducees - who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. And for all we know, the Sadducees may have disagreed with the Pharisees and sided with Jesus on this. Now, I believe that what made the Pharisee’s accusation of Jesus so reprehensible was that the Torah clearly didn’t teach that what Jesus was doing was wrong. A straight-forward reading of the text in which the command to keep the Sabbath is found is in no way inconsistent with what Jesus and his disciples were doing on the Sabbath when accused by the Pharisees of breaking it. It was clearly not the Torah that Jesus and his disciples were violating, but rather the rabbinic tradition which the Pharisees had added to the Torah (and may have viewed as even more authoritative). Jesus didn’t have to “transcend literal logic” in order to defend himself or his disciples against the accusation of the Pharisees, because their accusation was made not in light of what Scripture taught, but in spite of what Scripture taught.
As far as appealing to silence goes, the author of Hebrews evidently considered the silence of Scripture sufficient proof of a negative (Heb 7:13-14), so I don’t think my doing so here makes my objection to your interpretation any less valid. Because Jesus distinguishes knowing God’s power from knowing the Scriptures when responding to the Sadducees’ argument, it seems reasonable to believe that he would have similarly singled out God’s love or covenant faithfulness if he thought their error was due to an ignorance of this. Instead, Jesus follows his quote of Exodus 3:6 with a statement that one can accept as true without having to share Jesus’ understanding of what is and isn’t consistent with God’s love for those with whom he is (or was) in a personal relationship. While I agree that Jesus placed great importance on the benevolent character of God during his earthly ministry, the question of what is or isn’t consistent with God’s character and love is, I think, about as irrelevant to Jesus’ argument against the Sadducees as it is in his response to the Pharisees in Matt 19:1-9 (where Jesus is similarly “tested” and responds with Scripture) and Matt 22:41-46 (where Jesus confounds the Pharisees with Scripture, just like he did the Sadducees a few verses earlier in the passage under consideration).
Now, you say, “I perceive that failing to see God as love is regularly at the core of rejecting his views on Torah (tho often not spelled out). So I’m inclined to favor it here.” While I would agree that the understanding of the Pharisees and Sadducees in regards to God’s character was deficient, I don’t think it was an ignorance of God’s love that was directly responsible for the Sadducees’ error concerning the resurrection (besides, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, but their knowledge of God’s character was arguably even more deficient than that of the Sadducees!). This is neither explicitly stated nor implied by what Jesus says after quoting Exodus 3:6. And I don’t know of any verse in the Torah that reveals God’s love to be such that it would be inconceivable for him to not raise Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from the dead. I believe that to begin to view God as he is fully revealed in Christ (i.e., as a Being who doesn’t just love but actually IS love, and would sacrifice his own life on our behalf) requires a radical transformation of one’s heart and mind that only a “new birth” can bring about, and if Jesus’ argument required that the Sadducees understand God in this way it would have, I think, demanded more from them than was possible at that time. I don’t believe that even Jesus’ disciples had such a radical understanding of God’s love at this time. So rather than being silenced by such an argument, the Sadducees would have likely seen themselves as gaining a victory over Jesus. On the other hand, even those who have not yet been transformed by the power of the Gospel and received the fullest revelation of God’s love for the human race can feel the force of (and be silenced by) a sound logical argument.
The crowd - along with the Sadducees - had not considered the logical implications of what was being said by God in this verse. Jesus helped them see the logical implications by immediately following his quotation with the statement that “God is not the God of the dead but of the living.” It was because they felt the force of Jesus’ argument and could not dispute his logic that they were “astonished” at what he said. Jesus caused them to realize that this verse had always taught the resurrection, and that the only reason they’d missed it was because they - unlike Jesus - had failed to work out the logical implications of what God said to Moses. But had Jesus’ argument depended on their having a right understanding of God’s character and of what exactly was and wasn’t consistent with his love, I doubt the people would have been “astonished,” and it’s even less likely that the Sadducees would have been “silenced” by Jesus’ argument. Again, it’s evident that the Sadducees didn’t believe annihilation to be inconsistent with God’s love, and it’s unlikely that the people who overheard Jesus’ response to them would have had radically different ideas about what was or wasn’t consistent with God’s love than the Sadducees.
Of course - that’s what I thought I’ve been arguing. I simply deny that the “unsaid reasoning” has anything to do with what is or isn’t consistent with God’s love as it is revealed in the Torah.
But in Exodus 3:6, God isn’t describing himself as the God of a man who was still alive at the time, so your parenthetical explanation of what God meant falls flat, IMO. Moreover, there is nothing that Jesus says to the Sadducees in connection with the verse he quotes that was meant to draw their attention to what you call “Jesus’ constant Biblical premise that God is the sort who wouldn’t let go of his beloved.” It’s just not there. And even if Jesus did appeal to God’s love I find it unlikely that the Sadducees would have been “silenced” by such an argument, for they undoubtedly believed that God loved Abraham as well. But it’s evident that they didn’t see God’s love for Abraham during his lifetime as being an argument for the resurrection. So how was anything Jesus said to them calculated to challenge their view of God’s love?
I agree that “the whole Biblical narrative makes it reasonable to recognize God as one who pursues relationship.” But apparently the Sadducees didn’t think the Torah made it “reasonable to recognize God as one who pursues relationship” with those who have died, so how was Jesus’ response calculated to challenge their view of God?
Also, do you think God “requires suffering” at all?
Ok. Do you think it’s reasonable to recognize God’s purpose for mankind as including our having a mortal existence and the capacity for physical pain?
And if you would answer this question in the same way as the previous one, would you consider my questions to be unanswerable apart from a divine revelation?
What are your reasons for believing that Mark 9:42-49 has reference to a post-mortem state of existence?
Do you believe the next state of existence will be more conducive to our becoming holy because Scripture reveals this to be the case, or because of some other consideration(s)?
"
Scripture doesn’t picture Jesus’ sinlessness as the result of a process of becoming holy. There’s also no indication that the angels in heaven are sinless as a result of a process. And unless you believe that Scripture teaches that we can be sinlessly perfect in this life, I’d say there’s no indication that anyone who has ever begun the process of sanctification would ever become completely sinless as a result of the process. That is, I see no indication that the process of sanctification of which Scripture speaks was ever meant to yield a state of sinless perfection that I believe is presently enjoyed by Jesus, God and the angels.
Why do you think this to be the case?