Hi Aaron! I hope you had a good Thanksgiving also. Maybe I over-assumed too much consensus .
You asked, where else Jesus appealed to God’s love in handling his opponents’ challenges? I perceive its’ implications were the very foundation of his defense against their main objections to how he read the OT. They broadly saw it as teaching separation from sinners, resistance toward God’s enemies, and violence as the means of deliverance God blesses (as well as burdensome efforts at literally keeping Mosaic Law). In all of these, Jesus contends that God’s loving character implies a reversal of their interpretations.
E.g. Luke 15’s parables are supporting Jesus’ embrace of sinners, based on imitation of God’s gracious character. Indeed, I take the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7; Lk. 6) as epitomizing Jesus’ case, and his provocative reasons for doing good to enemies, continuing to love those who abuse us, not worrying about life, believing God won’t give stones, etc. The argument is that God is better than a loving Father, being “kind,” a giver of “good” gifts, regards us as “more valuable” than all creation, and one whose Law and design is intended to sustain our welfare.
You seem to say, Jesus’ premise here (God’s nature means: He won’t let his people be dead) doesn’t “need” any assumption for Sadduccees to find it logical. But I don’t see why, since I’ve argued that they otherwise heard it in a way that saw nothing in Scripture or reason to validate Jesus’ assertion.
I do agree that they probably would have said that God “loved,” but my bias is that they missed that the implication of such a love relationship was to believe that God would not let go of the loved one. You could be correct that Jesus only quoted Exodus to tell them that God was the patriach’s God after death. But I see even less how just quoting this text that they already affirmed, assures a basis for reconsidering their disbelief, or inferring resurrection. They may well have assumed that God could be the God of the dead, and only retained relationship to us in this life.
I quite agree: Seeing He is God of the living is the “premise,” not the inference. But your surmise that this truth rests on seeing that God can’t reign as being God over those not worhipping Him seems at least as speculative as my guess. I’d be willing to declare our two speculations a draw. But I do think yours is less grounded in what we know of Jesus’ usual approach. So to reverse the tables on asking me if Jesus ever appeals to God’s love, let me ask, where else does Jesus argue for resurrection (or anything else) based on whether God can be God of anything that doesn’t recognize Him?
Your contention that sinners can’t remain so after death, because (1 Cor. 15, 1 Thes 4, etc) salvific benefits of resurrection will belong to them then, requires seeing Paul’s chronology and views in a way very few have seen as clear. I too sometimes disagree with most But not yet here (though if universal resurrection simply means immediate universal salvation, I’d be glad if you’re right). I.e. I suspect Paul’s description of resurrection’s benefits is aimmed at believers, understood as those justified at the judgment, and that God reserves the perogative of postponing those blessings, and first dealing further with those who are not acquitted. (But I confess again that I’m probably less clear than you that the relevant passages are intended to provide an clearcut indisputable timeline of God’s dealings with the lost.)
I’ll bite on “specific eschatological knowledge” and Mark 9’s chronology as referring to this life. When Jesus warns stumblers of “going into Gehenna” where the fire won’t be quenched, what do you think he was assuring for all “stumblers”? (essentially that they would suffer in AD 70?)
I agree with your clarification that resurrection hope is an essential assured to believers, so it seems that we’re debating whether the process for “sinners” could differ from that. I take your point: we mustn’t just be assuming that Jesus agreed with Pharisees!! (And your observation that Wright’s interpretation of Jesus and Gehenna reinforces yours makes me doubt my more traditional view. Good point!) But if indeed “post-mortem judgment” and the concept of “eternal punishment” after death was “generally accepted,” is it far fetched for me to wish that Jesus supposed rejection of all this would have been more explicitly declared? I suspect good minds will differ on what to expect that he would specify. And frankly, if the popular view was Gehenna as endless, and “eternal” was understood to endorse that, that too would trouble me as in fact “conflicting with his understanding of God’s character.” So I’m biased to think that the masses tended to hear that differently than our ECT tradition does, and that views of 'hell as remedial were prevalent.
Yes, I agree with all of the above. God’s paternal nature and benevolent disposition toward mankind was a presuppositional truth for Jesus and was certainly foundational to his teaching. But what I had in mind, more specifically, were examples where Jesus responds to challenges posed by his opponents by directly appealing to this truth. That is, I was wondering how many examples there are of Jesus responding to the “tests” posed by his opponents (such as the test posed by the Sadducees) by appealing to the love of God that we, as Universalists, take for granted. In his Sermon on the Mount Jesus is not addressing his religious opponents but rather his disciples (5:1). And although it’s not unlikely that there were, among the crowds that day, some who would later become his adversaries, Jesus is not addressing them as such or directly responding to any specific argument or question posed by them. In general, those in the “crowds” that Jesus addressed during his earthly ministry seemed to have been open or sympathetic to what Jesus said and did rather than harbouring suspicion or resentment toward him.
What Jesus says in Luke 15, on the other hand, is I think a better example of what I was looking for. While Jesus isn’t responding to a direct challenge or “test” posed by his opponents in this chapter, Jesus is addressing those who were obviously antagonistic toward him and his message by telling parables that presuppose and emphasize God’s gracious and impartial character.
Some other examples of Jesus responding to direct challenges or criticisms voiced by his opponents are, I think, Matt 12:1-8 and 9-12. But in these examples Jesus is not directly appealing to God’s love as the premise on which his arguments depend. In the first example Jesus is appealing to their own Scriptures. He points out that there are conditions in which the ritual laws in question do not apply, and uses two cases that the Pharisees already conceded. It logically follows from the two examples provided by Jesus that one does not necessarily or automatically stand condemned before God for not complying with the dictates of the ceremonial law; if there is ever a conflict between the ritual law and some greater need that needs to be met (e.g., human hunger), meeting the greater need does not make one a law-breaker. Of course, the implications of Jesus’ argument say a great deal about God’s character (which I would agree is something Jesus evidently didn’t want his listeners to miss - v. 7), but the logic of the argument itself does not rely on the premise of God’s paternal love.
And in vv. 9-12, Jesus is appealing to the greater value that man has over livestock (which even the pagans of that day would likely have agreed with, as well as most atheists and secular humanists today). But as with the first example, the soundness of Jesus’ argument does not depend on a particularly robust view of God’s love. It may cause people to begin thinking in a way that is more consistent with God’s universal, paternal love, but, as far as I can tell, the argument doesn’t require the acceptance of this premise.
Another example of Jesus responding to his opponents is Matt 12:22ff (except here, as in the example from Luke 15, Jesus is not responding to anything said to him but rather to what was said of him). But as in the above examples, Jesus is not here appealing to some radical view of God’s love in his response to his opponents. His argument is logical, but it’s not the “logic of divine love” (as important as that is!). Additional examples of Jesus addressing his opponents without directly appealing to God’s love to make his point can be found in Matt 19:1-9; 21:23-27; 22:15-22; 41-46. And, of course, I believe what Jesus says in the passage under consideration (Matt 22:23-33) falls into this category of argumentation as well.
I’m not sure I completely understand you here.
That’s true, and in that case they probably wouldn’t have been silenced by Jesus’ argument. But the fact that they were suggests to me that they most likely accepted the premise that God is not the God of the dead - or at least, that God is not the God of those who don’t recognize and worship him as God (which would include those who are dead - at least, according to the Sadducee’s understanding of what it means to be dead). Perhaps Jesus knew that this was a premise they accepted, or would accept (it’s certainly more likely that the Sadducees would have accepted this premise rather than the one you’ve suggested - but of course this fact doesn’t make my view more likely). Whether they accepted this premise or not is ultimately irrelevant, however, for we both agree that Jesus’ argument was sound either way. Jesus clearly didn’t think God was the God of the dead, so for him God’s words in Exodus 3:6 meant Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be raised. But I think the premise that God is not the God of those who don’t recognize or worship him as God is a reasonable one, and can perhaps be inferred from other texts in Scripture.
Touché! But I think the examples I provided from Matthew’s Gospel call into question your claim that my speculation is “less grounded in what we know of Jesus’ usual approach.” What we know of Jesus’ usual approach is simply that he made use of Scripture and logic when he addressed his opponents, and that he rarely appealed directly to God’s paternal disposition toward mankind in the arguments he directed against them.
I concede that the position that all people will be instantaneously made fit for heaven at the resurrection is a radical one which has had very few proponents throughout church history. But as I’m sure you’d agree, the fact that few have seen Paul’s chronology and views in this way is hardly a reason to reject it. But I do understand and can appreciate your skepticism of my position.
Let’s start with 1Cor 15. What in the context suggests to you that Paul had in view believers only as the recipients of the benefits of resurrection, rather than all mankind universally?
Well first, is there anything Jesus says which indicates he had Gentiles in view, or people living before or after the generation in which he lived? And is it likely that Jesus’ disciples would have understood Jesus to be talking about every person who had ever lived or ever will live? I doubt it. I think the generation of people referred to in the “whoever” of v. 41 (i.e., those who were contemporaneous with the disciples) is the same generation of people that Jesus’ disciples would have understood to be denoted by the “whoever” of v. 42. Similarly, I think the hypothetical “stumblers” that Jesus has in view are Jews living in that generation. But what does it mean to “stumble” here? I believe Jesus has in mind any sin which, if persisted in, might lead to the hardening of one’s heart and a subsequent apostasy from the Christian faith. As Israel’s overthrow drew near, it was those Hebrew Christians who became “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb 3:12-13) that consequently exposed themselves to the fate of perishing in the judgment that was coming upon their nation. For those who went on “sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth” and “fell away” after tasting “the heavenly gift” and “sharing in the Holy Spirit,” there only remained “a fearful expectation of judgment” that consumed the “adversaries” (see Heb 6:4-8; 10:23-31). Just as the author of Hebrews wasn’t addressing Gentile believers or warning them against falling away and returning to Judaism, so I think Christ had only his Jewish followers in mind in Mark 9 when he warned of being cast into Gehenna. And when Jesus quoted Isaiah 66:24, I believe he was trying to convey to the minds of his disciples the horrifying image of dead bodies being cast into this desecrated valley, where those who rebelled against God would be an “abhorrence to all flesh.”
Again, assuming the idea of post-mortem punishment was prevalent, I don’t think we need assume that Jesus would have clarified his position or explicitly challenged this belief if the belief in itself did not have direct practical implications or directly conflict with what he taught and understood to be true regarding God’s character. I don’t think it was Jesus’ mission during his earthly ministry to make sure his followers knew exactly what his position was on post-mortem punishment; I think these details could wait. I think it could be said that Jesus planted seeds of truth in the minds of his disciples that he did not intend to reach maturity until sometime after his earthly ministry had ended. For Jesus to have explicitly made known his view that there is no post-mortem punishment or “hell” (as you think he would have done if he’d believed it) would not, I think, have been appropriate.
Responding to I. Howard Marshall, Thomas Talbott writes in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate (p. 258):
While the doctrine that there is no post-mortem punishment is, in itself, hardly “the most important truth of all,” I think it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been more explicit about this subject during his earthly ministry without also being completely explicit about the truth of UR. But I think this would have been too much for his disciples to bear at the time.
As far as your last comment, I’m not sure if I understand what you mean; is it your view that most 1st century Jews believed that post-mortem punishment was remedial?
You question that Jesus could be reasoning in Matthew 22 from a Father’s generous and loving character. Yet you agree that he defends his approach against opponents’ criticism by emphasizing God’s generous character in Luke 15. Also that Matt. 12:1-8 argues for precedence upon human need, and especially in 9-12 appeals to our “greater value” (which sounds like reasoning that God places a ‘valuing love’ on people, consistent with not just leaving them dead; tho you somehow characterize it as “not robust” love ). Besides his defense of “doing good” on the Sabbath, I sense similar reasoning correlates with his refusal to execute the adultereress (Jn. 8), his argument that God cares for non-Jews (Lk. 4:24-27), his opposition to destroying Samaritans (9:51-55) or to Pharsees’ “loading people down with burdens” of Law (11:46), and his urging Pharisees to focus on the poor, but rebuking them for neglecting this with a beggar (14:12f; 16:19-31).
Most important, you agree that this way of reasoning from “God’s paternal and benevolent nature toward mankind” is confirmed by being “foundational to his teaching” in his greater material addressing followers. But then you seem to assume that this can’t count, since he’s not addressing opponents there . But for me, it remains a huge clue to how Jesus reasons, since I perceive him as a coherent thinker who would reason with consistency toward friends and foes. Thus, I’m comfortable with seeing God’s loving character as a likely candidate to explain his reasoning.
You say, Sadduccees “accepted that God is not the God of the dead,” because they were “silenced.” But wouldn’t accepting both of Jesus’ premises have required them to accept his conclusion derived from them? I think their rejection of resurrection means that their silence doesn’t imply they accept it, but that avoiding the crowds’ scorn, they still rejected the premise which was not a Penteteuchal citation (thus creating an important need for a further rationale for it).
You say their acceptance is “irrelevant” anyway, since Jesus ’ premise “can perhaps be inferred from other texts.” Fair enough. But I have offered one way of reasoning from wider Scripture on God’s character, that you find unpersuasive. So doesn’t it seem that the burden is now in your court to offer a more convincing ‘inference’ that shows Jesus’ premise should be accepted by Sadduccees as “a reasonable one”?
You ask, what suggests Paul had believers in mind as the recipients of his account of resurrection’s benefits? 1 Cor. 15 addresses them as “brethren” (1,50), says this “is about what you believed” (11), says the question is what “your faith” insures will happen with you (13-19), and says this comes to “those who belong to Christ” (a possible reference to believers-23). 1 Thes. 4 similarly characterizes them as “brethren who have fallen asleep in Jesus,” and those “dead in Christ” (which may refer to those already in union with him).
Of course, this doesn’t require that Paul didn’t see such benefits as ultimately applicable to all, or even prove that he didn’t see all included at the first. But I don’t think the chronology of judgment and the lost is spelled out as clearly as some do. And Paul’s emphasis on the ‘order’ of all this seems to allow room for the traditional view that there is time for unique dealings with saved and lost.
On Mark 9, you seem to argue that Jesus’ words only apply to contemporary Jewish hearers. As I’ve said before,I can see that the historical setting could imply such a limited meaning, and it raises worthy questions. But, seeing the Gospels as crafted for a later generation, as a sort of ‘handbook’ for their discipleship, bias’s me toward assuming that this was not just reminding them of what happended in AD 70, but intended as a relevant warning for all readers who followed Christ.
And if you’re right that a post-mortem punishment was prevalently assumed among original hearers, your interpretation must contend that Jesus did not want to be correctly understood. You say, it’s o.k. that they belived eternal punishment is being endorsed, because that wouldn’t bear on “God’s character.” I tend to think they rightly expected remedial post-mortem realities, and I actually do think some views on damnation reflect a lot on “God’s character,” which indeed drives me toward universalism.
Again, I believe Jesus’ argument in Matt 12:3-6 is first and foremost a Scriptural one; Jesus is not directly appealing to God’s love as the basis for his argument, but rather he is appealing to two Scriptural facts that the Pharisees would have conceded. It is true that what is implied by the argument says a great deal about God’s character (i.e., that he favors compassion over ritual), but the logic of the argument itself does not depend on this premise. Only after Jesus has established that the views of the Pharisees concerning what is and isn’t lawful on the Sabbath were inconsistent with their own Scriptures does he then take it a step further and appeal to God’s merciful character.
As for vv. 9-12, I’ll concede that Jesus’ argument could be understood as an appeal to God’s character. It is, of course, true that our heavenly Father values human beings more than livestock, and the Pharisees should have believed this and lived in a way that was consistent with it. But Jesus could also be appealing to what is intuitive to every human being regardless of his or her views about God. You don’t have to be a theist to affirm that a man is of greater value than a sheep. Again, to reflect on why this is the case may very well give one an insight into God’s character (assuming one believes in God), but the mere fact that a man is more valuable than a sheep was likely something that would have been intuitively recognized by even the most secular and irreligious Roman citizen of that day.
I’m essentially in agreement with you here. But it remains the case that not every argument employed by Jesus against his opponents is an example of Jesus appealing to God’s love. Some of his arguments simply didn’t require him to do this. As shown previously, there is precedent for the kind of “neutral” (for lack of a better word) argumentation that I believe Jesus was using in his response to the Sadducees. As important as God’s loving character was to Jesus’ thinking and teaching, it wasn’t something to which he directly appealed every time he opened his mouth to address people; Jesus simply didn’t need to appeal to God’s loving character if his argument didn’t require it. One should not simply assume that Jesus was appealing to God’s loving character if there is nothing said which specifies this to be the case. I contend that Jesus’ argument makes good sense without understanding him to have been directly appealing to God’s love. If God is not the God of the dead but of the living only, and if God calls himself the God of three men who had died, then from this it may be inferred that these men will be, or have been, raised from the dead. As to why God is not God of the dead, we can only speculate, since Jesus doesn’t say. I’ve suggested that it may be because God is not the God of those who don’t worship or recognize him as God (as may be inferred from Gen 17:8-9; 28:21; Ex 6:7; 8:25; Lev 26:45; Deut 4:7; 6:14-15; 12:29-30; etc.) - which, according to the Sadducees’ understanding of death, would include the dead. But even if I’m mistaken on this point - even if the unsaid assumption of this premise has something to do with God’s loving character (and I’m open to this being the case) - I still contend that the logic of Jesus’ argument is just what I’ve been affirming throughout this discussion.
Now, perhaps I overlooked the reason you provided, but why exactly do you think God is not the God of the dead? We seem to be in agreement that, rather than being something that Jesus expected the Sadducees to infer from Ex 3:6, it is instead a premise which, if accepted and applied to Ex 3:6, leads to the conclusion that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be raised. But if one were to have asked Jesus why God is not the God of the dead, what do you think he would’ve said in response?
Perhaps they didn’t accept this premise. I really don’t think it affects my interpretation of Jesus’ argument either way.
I provided a few texts above from which I think it may be inferred that God is not the God of those who don’t worship or recognize him as God. And it seems reasonable to affirm that God is not the God of those who have no capacity “to sustain a relation of devotion and service to him” (to quote Willard again), so for this reason he would not be the God of the dead - at least, according to the Sadducee’s understanding of what it means to be dead. Or do you find this position unreasonable or unlikely? And if so, some clarity from you as to why, specifically, you think God is not the God of the dead, would be appreciated!
While it’s true that Paul is addressing believers in this chapter (as he does throughout this epistle and in all of his epistles), I’m not sure how this fact narrows his focus to believers as the exclusive recipients of resurrection’s benefits any more than it narrows it down to the 1st century believers of Corinth to whom he was writing. In this chapter are some of the most inclusive statements in all of the NT: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (v. 22). “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (v. 28). “For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish” (v. 39). From these statements it would seem that, in general, Paul had the entire human race in view. And keep in mind that the occasion for Paul’s writing this chapter was that “some” were saying that “there is no resurrection of the dead.” Were they denying the resurrection of the Christian dead only? That’s highly unlikely; the dead in general seem to be in view. So whenever Paul speaks of “the resurrection of the dead,” the “dead” should likely be understood as embracing all who die in Adam, and not believers only.
It is true that Paul refers to “those who have fallen asleep in Christ” in v. 18, but he probably has in view those 1st century men and women who died in the Christian faith (cf. v. 6), and not to all the believing dead throughout history. So if Paul has in view “those who have fallen asleep in Christ” whenever he speaks of “the dead” in this chapter, then I think it proves too much. Not only would it exclude all unbelievers throughout history, but it would exclude those men and women of faith who lived before the advent of Christ. But again, Paul believed and taught the resurrection of all who die in Adam, both just and unjust, and it was the resurrection of this inclusive category that was being denied by “some” in Corinth, and it is this denial to which Paul is responding. So I think it’s more reasonable to understand “those who have fallen asleep in Christ” as a subcategory of “the dead” referred to throughout the chapter, especially in light of the more inclusive statements made by Paul. Moreover, what do you think Paul should have said if he’d wanted to reveal to his readers what resurrection’s benefits were going to be for all who die in Adam? “Now I would remind you, brethren and non-brethren…I tell you this, brethren and non-brethren…”
I’m also not seeing anything in vv. 13-19 about the believer’s faith securing for them some post-mortem benefit, so some clarification here would be helpful.
As for “those who belong to Christ” at his coming, I understand this group to be the same group in view in vv. 20-22. I suppose if Paul had only believers in view when he spoke of Christ as being “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” then “those who belong to Christ” would be exclusively believers as well. But Paul doesn’t add the qualifying expression “in Christ” as he does in v. 18, so we need not understand Paul to have had a subcategory of the dead in view here. Moreover, when Paul speaks of Christ as the “firstfruits,” he’s alluding to the Jewish harvest, which had two orders: 1) the “firstfruits” of the barley harvest (in which a sheaf was brought into the temple and then shaken by the priest toward the four quarters of the world as a dedication to God, and as evidence of the consecration of the whole harvest throughout the nation) and 2) the rest of the harvest, which would follow afterwards. In accordance with this Hebrew imagery, Paul gives us two specific “orders”: 1) “Christ, the firstfruits” and 2) “those who are Christ’s at his coming.” Christ, the first to have been raised from the dead never to die again, is the pledge and consecration of the rest of the “harvest” to God. Those who make up this resurrection harvest (i.e., those who are said to belong to Christ at his coming) are simply those of whom he is the “firstfruits.” But of whom is Christ the “firstfruits?” Well since Paul immediately follows v. 20 with, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive,” it would seem that he had the dead in general in view (cf. Col 1:18b and Rev 1:5) - i.e., all who will be found “asleep” at Christ’s coming. So if Paul had all dead human beings in view in vv. 20-22, then I think it’s reasonable to understand Paul to have had the same category of people in view when he spoke of “those who belong to Christ” at his coming.
The ESV translates 1 Thess 4:14 as follows: “For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.” See also the NIV (2010) and NRSV. Similarly, v. 16 may be rendered: “And the dead, in Christ, will rise first.” Or if the traditional punctuation is correct, then Paul may simply be describing all who have died in Adam as being “in Christ” at his coming because they will, at this time, be the objects of his vivifying power. For more on why I understand Paul to have had all the dead in view, see the following post: 1 Thess 4:13-18.
As noted earlier, I believe there are only two orders given by Paul: Christ (who is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep”) and “those who are Christ’s at his coming” (i.e., those of whom Christ is the “firstfruits”). On this I am in agreement with Robin Parry (although, as you would expect, I disagree with his position that Paul “is only addressing the issue of Christians who have died and the future of Christians!”). By “the end” I understand Paul to mean the end of Christ’s reign (when he “delivers the kingdom to God”), which seems to be the subject that Paul has in view from v. 24 to 28.
But for the sake of argument let’s say that Paul doesn’t have unbelievers in view when he speaks of “the dead” in this chapter. Does this mean those who died in their sin are going to be raised as immortal sinners? Of course not. Paul clearly has all mankind in view in vv. 24-28, and as I argued previously, it’s evident that Paul understood death to be an enemy of man that needed to be “destroyed” by Christ in order for God to become “all in all.” And death will only be “destroyed” when people can no longer die, and mortality has been “swallowed up by life.” And since death is the “last enemy” it can be inferred that all other enemies will have previously been “destroyed.” But what other enemies need to be destroyed in order for God to become “all in all?” Well Paul elsewhere speaks of sin as deceiving and killing him in Romans 7:11, and refers to it as “the sting of death” in 1Cor 15:56. And the apostle John tells us that Christ appeared to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), and by this he clearly meant sin. So here we have another enemy which, like death, must be destroyed before God can be “all in all.” But if death is the last enemy to be destroyed, then it means sin will have previously been destroyed. And if death is destroyed when mortality is swallowed up by life, then there will be no sin in the immortal state.
I think everything Christ said is, in some sense, relevant to “all readers who follow Christ.” But surely you’re not suggesting that everything Christ said should be understood as if it were said to every follower of Christ. When, for example, Christ told his disciples during his Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:21-22):
While the principle being taught certainly applies to “all readers who followed Christ,” surely you don’t think that all believers in every generation throughout the world may be brought before the Sanhedrin! There may be serious consequences for our thoughts and actions, but for most believers, being judged by a Jewish council would certainly not be one of them.
Or what about what Christ says to his disciples in Matt 10:16-18, 23:
It is evident that this warning and prophesy is not equally applicable and relevant to every reader who follows Christ. We may glean certain principles from what Christ said to his 1st century followers here, but to apply these words to “all readers who follow Christ” and to understand them as equally relevant to all Christians is to seriously misunderstand Christ’s words.
Or what about what Christ says to his disciples in his Olivet Discourse? In Luke 21:20-22 we read:
.
Is this “a relevant warning for readers who followed Christ?” Again, we may glean certain principles from this that are applicable to all believers in all circumstances, but it would be absurd to understand it in the same sense as you would have us understand Mark 9:43-49.
If Christ didn’t think he was in danger of being understood in a way that would have undermined what he taught about God’s character, then no, I don’t think Christ would’ve bothered to correct them on certain specifics (such as whether or not there is post-mortem punishment). As far as what Christ said about punishment, I don’t think he said anything that was inconsistent with the position that all punishment is temporal and confined to this mortal existence. So I don’t think it mattered to Jesus whether his disciples understood him to be talking about this-world punishment or remedial post-mortem punishments. Both are consistent with God’s loving character, and so if the disciples mistakenly understood him to be talking about remedial post-mortem punishment I don’t think he would’ve felt the need to correct them on this point (at least, not immediately). But I’m doubtful as to whether the disciples had any strong convictions regarding what to expect after this life.
I agree with most of your points (e.g. Jesus doesn’t always appeal directly to God’s love, and often (first) refers to Scriptures which sometimes simply have implications about God’s character). Yet I don’t see that I am depending on it being otherwise. And I perceive that you affirm a lot of my argument’s substance (e.g God’s benevolent character and love, human worth, etc. are fundamental in Jesus’ thinking). I certainly see Jesus’ “appealing to what should be intuitive to every human being” as consistent with my argument for valuing analogy.
But I’ve speculated that Jesus thought that they should accept the premise that God isn’t God of people he lets go of, because that would conflict with His benevolent character and love that values sustaining their relationship and well-being. Is our central difference that you think it “didn’t requrire” such inferences? You seem to think that asserting that God can not be God of the dead already provides logically complelling and Scriptural closure. Whereas, it has seemed to me, that if Sadduccees already believed that assertion, they would have already believed that the patriarchs were alive.
My original paper began by (ultimately) agreeing with your new alternative that God won’t be God of those without “sustained devotion and service.” But I see that as a problematic premise here for urging man’s ultimate security and resurrection. For the O.T. pictures human devotion, e.g. Jacob’s, as often falling short. My sense is that in a fundamental way, God is God of the whole creation, and we will end up resurrected as people of devotion (in your sense of God being our God), because God’s character was already committed to us as our God, and thus will assuredly bring us to that end result. I.e. I still think God’s own character is a more solid reason for thinking God wouldn’t let go of us.
I see your logic in the resurrection texts that death’s end implies that sin has been destroyed. I will think on that. Now I can only repeat that you seem to press the logic of what Paul has in mind as a offers a supposed chronology that I’m not so clear can so be pressed. Similarly, I question pressing Jesus’ warnings (e.g. Mt. 5:21f) as for contemporaries, because they literally involve a first century setting. As you seem to suggest, coming before the “Sandhedrin” or Kings could apply to future judgments by other bodies. I agree that sometimes (Olivet DIscourse?) the warning might be comleted in past events, but it’s less clear to me that I can regularly discern which is which?
I appreciate your faithful effort to offer a well articulated alternative interpretation of such texts. It might help me if you could clarify what kind of resurrection you think Jesus means, when he says, “Those who have done what is evil will rise to condemnation” (Jn. 5:29), or “Those considered worthy of taking part in the resurrection are children of the resurrection” (Lk. 20:35f)? Or, to what does “the Day of Judgment” being worse for some than others refer (Matt. 11:24)? To what does Paul’s warning that God will repay everyone for what they have done refer (Rom. 2)? When Paul says he believes in the resurrection of the wicked in the context of discussing the "judgment to come, what was he warning of (Acts 24:15.25)?
I am continuing to evaluate Jerzak’s impressive interpretation of Gehenna, etc., which seems similar to yours.
Perhaps. But I think it’s also possible that the Sadducees may have accepted that God is not the God of those who don’t recognize or worship him as God, but had simply failed to work out the full implications of this (i.e., that this would include the dead, as they understood death). If that’s the case, then they were simply guilty of missing the obvious, as many people (myself included) sometimes are! Or perhaps the Sadducees accepted the premise that God is not God of the dead, but had failed to work out the logical implications of applying this premise to certain texts in Torah due to their commitment to the position that the resurrection was not a doctrine revealed in Torah. That is, being convinced that the resurrection was not explicitly taught in Torah, they assumed that the doctrine was not in any way revealed in the Torah, and so were unable to put two and two together. But again, it’s possible that this was not a premise they accepted at all, but rather one which Christ thought they should have accepted.
Again, I’m in essential agreement with you here. And while I think God’s benevolent character is the ultimate basis for our future resurrection (just as it was the basis for our being brought into existence in the first place), I just don’t think Jesus was appealing to it in his response to the Sadducees. And I agree that “man’s ultimate security and resurrection” does not follow from the premise that God is not the God of those who cannot sustain a relationship of devotion and service to God. Rather, it is the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that I believe Jesus understood Ex 3:6 to be teaching by implication (i.e., when the text is read in light of the premise that “God is not the God of the dead”).
Now, in the Torah God is revealed as being not so much the God of all people (although I would agree with you that, in some sense, he is), but rather the God of those with whom he is in a covenant relationship, and who consequently worship and recognize him as God (as imperfect as their devotion to him may be!). And if Jesus is in fact appealing to this teaching of Torah when he declares that “God is not the God of the dead” (i.e., by logically extending the category to include those who have no capacity to worship or recognize YHWH as God, or interact with him in a covenant relationship) I don’t think he’s doing so to prove that all people will be raised (although Jesus certainly believed this, and the Sadducees likely understood this to be his position). Rather, I believe Jesus was appealing to this premise to show the Sadducees how the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has always been implied in God’s words to Moses in Ex 3:6.
But I concede that this may not be the reason that Jesus would have given for why he believed that God is not the God of the dead. It could very well have something to do with God’s character. So again, I’m curious as to why, specifically, you think God is not the God of the dead. If Jesus were asked by the Sadducees to give the reason why he believed this to be true, what do you think he might have said in response?
While you may see this as begging the question, one important detail which, to me, suggests that the warning given in Mark 9 was completed in past events, is that Jesus explicitly refers to the judgment as being “thrown into Gehenna” and associates it with what is said in Isaiah 66:24 (a verse which conveys the unsettling image of corpses being eaten by worms and burned with fire). Now, we know that when Jerusalem was “given into the hand of the king of Babylon” as prophesied by Jeremiah (Jer 21:10), Gehenna/Topheth ultimately became the final resting place for countless Jews who perished in this judgment (Jer 7:30-34; 19). But was there a 1st century judgment which involved people’s corpses being thrown into Gehenna, as took place when Jerusalem was overthrown by the Babylonians? If Josephus can be trusted, then we can answer this question in the affirmative. Of those Jews who perished in the overthrow of Jerusalem by the Romans, many were literally cast into this valley. And in all probability, the corpses that were cast there would have become food for maggots (as well as birds and other scavengers) and burned with fire. And in this valley they would have been “an abhorrence to all flesh” (i.e., to both Jews and Gentiles).
I believe a figurative resurrection is meant in John 5:29. When Jesus speaks of “tombs” he does not mean literal tombs, but is building off of an already-established metaphor (see vv. 24-25). Besides, countless multitudes who have died have not been buried in literal tombs (and many have not been buried at all), so to speak of people being raised from “the tombs” would not be the most appropriate language to use if it was Jesus’ intent to convey the idea of a universal resurrection of all who die in Adam. And the fact that Jesus uses the expression “an hour is coming” suggests to me that the event Jesus had in view was relatively close at hand, since in the only other instances in John’s Gospel where Jesus uses the expression he seems to have in mind events that were within the natural lifetimes of those to whom he spoke.
In contrast to John 5:24f (where the context allows us to understand the “resurrections” as figurative), the literal resurrection of the dead is clearly the subject of Luke 20:27f. Moreover, in Luke’s account we are given additional information regarding the future existence: Christ adds that those who are to become “equal to angels” by being raised from the dead will also become “children of God, being children of the resurrection.” Thus we see that all who take part in the resurrection of the dead will become “children of God” by virtue of their having been thus raised; consequently, our becoming “children of God” by being raised from the dead excludes all conditions to be met in this lifetime. But who are those that Christ says will be “regarded as worthy” to share in the resurrection and become “equal to the angels?”
To answer this question, I think it’s important to realize that Luke is the only synoptic writer to include this expression in his account of Christ’s dialogue with the Sadducees; it is not found in either Matthew or Mark. However, it’s my view that the synoptic gospels do not contradict each other, but are harmonious accounts. Moreover, it’s unlikely that Luke is revealing anything in his account that isn’t being taught either explicitly or implicitly in Matthew or Mark’s accounts. But there is no indication in either Matthew or Mark that Christ understood the resurrection of the dead to be anything less than universal. And we know that the apostle Paul understood the resurrection to be universal: it embraces all who die in Adam, both “the just and the unjust” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22; Acts 24:15). How then are we to understand Christ’s words in Luke?
Notice that in Luke’s account, Christ has two categories of people in view: the “children of this age,” and “those who are regarded as worthy to share in that age and the resurrection from the dead.” But who are “the children of this age?” Answer: In this context, it is evident that the “children of this age” consist of those who “marry and are given into marriage” (like the hypothetical people in the question posed by the Sadducees). Christ is simply describing the living men and women of this present lifetime and existence (i.e., prior to the resurrection of the dead). It is this category of people whom Christ is contrasting with “those regarded as worthy to share in that age and the resurrection from the dead.” Therefore, it is this group (i.e., living men and women) who are not “regarded as worthy” to share in the resurrection of the dead. But why is this so? Answer: because they’re not dead yet, and one must be dead in order to take part in the resurrection. Dying is prerequisite to being raised from the dead. So in order for people to become “regarded as worthy to share in that age and the resurrection from the dead” they must cease to be “children of this age.”
Thus, we see that the only contrast Christ is making here is between those who are alive (the “children of this age”), and those who are dead. One’s spiritual/moral character before death has nothing to do with whether or not one is “regarded as worthy” to be raised from the dead (again, Paul said both the just and the unjust will be raised). Those who are “regarded as worthy” of the resurrection are simply those who have ceased to be “children of this age” - i.e., those who have died. Those who are still alive have no need of a resurrection; all who will be found alive at the time of the resurrection of the dead will not die but will simply be “changed” (1 Cor 15:51-52). But why does Christ describe the dead as being “worthy” of being raised? The expression “regarded as worthy” (kataxiwyentev) need not convey the idea of moral virtue but can simply mean that one measures up to or meets some requirement. And since the category of people that Christ is contrasting with those who are “regarded as worthy” are the living, then it can be inferred that the “requirement” which must be met in order for one to be “regarded as worthy” (or “deemed fit”) to share in the resurrection is simply that they must be dead. That is, one must first die in Adam before one can be “regarded as worthy” to be raised from the dead. Until this necessary requirement is met, one cannot share in the resurrection of the dead.
Regarding Romans 2:6, I believe Paul is giving a general principle that is equally applicable to all mortals under the reign of Christ. Those “who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (a spiritual blessing which Christ defines in John 17:3). Paul continues (vv. 8-11): “For those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.” Rather than saying that those who do good will be raised immortal, Paul simply says they will receive “glory and honor and peace.” This is true of all mortals who have been delivered from the “domain of darkness” and “transferred to the kingdom” of God’s Son (Col 1:13), which consists of “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). And as Paul tells us in Romans 1:18, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” - not after death, but in this life (see vv. 24-32). So I believe there is good reason to understand both the reward and the punishment of which Paul speaks as being experienced during this lifetime. It should also be noted that the word translated as “immortality” in v. 7 (aphtharsia) has the figurative meaning of “sincerity,” “genuineness” or “purity” (net.bible.org/strong.php?id=90).
Regarding Acts 24:24, I can only speculate as to what exactly the “coming judgment” of which Paul spoke consisted of. Paul may not have even been sure of the details. I’m confident, however, that this judgment took place in Felix’s lifetime and involved some kind of “tribulation and distress” for him. One possibility is that the judgment was his being succeeded by Porcius Festus only two years later (v. 27). We know that shortly after Paul spoke with Felix, Felix was recalled to Rome for his lawless conduct while in office. And since the primary complainants to Nero against Felix were his Jewish subjects, Felix hoped that, by leaving Paul in prison, he might obtain aid from them in regaining favor with Caesar. Apparently this little favor didn’t do Felix much good, for (according to Josephus) it was only by the intervention of his brother, Pallas, that Felix’s life was spared!
Might we sum up on Matt. 22?: We agree that we must speculate on Jesus’ unclarified rationale, and whether the Sadduccees believed his second premise. You have agreed that God’s benevolent character is fundamental in Jesus’ way of thinking, but you can’t see that he is reasoning that way here.
A central alternative from you is that such reasoning would be unnecessary since Sadduccees already agreed that God is only God of those alive, but just hadn’t realized that (combined with Ex. 3:6), this implies Abraham is alive ( a straight-forward conclusion from Jesus’ two premises). Yes, it’s possible that you are correct that “they just missed the obvious.” But if their intellect is to be respected, it seems more gracious to conclude that Sadduccees probably didn’t embrace this “obvious” conclusion about Abraham, because they didn’t share Jesus’ premise (and thus some rationale like mine, typical of Jesus’ thought, would be essential).
Another alternative of yours seems to be that Jesus means by those “alive,” those who “recognize God as God.” I can see that Torah considers God to be the God of those who worship him. But I am not following why that would fit the meaning of “alive” here, or even why it would help if it did (dead patriarchs would be unable to worhip anyway).
But you in turn say that you don’t grasp my reasoning either, for why God’s loving character would retain relationship to the dead, or how Jesus would articulate that argument to them. I can only repeat par. 1: His benevlence would value their well-being, and thus sustain His relationship with them. If Sadduccees argued that God’s love is committed to their best, but death cuts them off from relationship with God, I imagine that Jesus would argue that relationship with God is in fact our best, and the very purpose for which we were made. Thus, God’s character wouldn’t quit on that.
On Mark 9: Thanks, Jerzak (and Wright and you) are convincing me that “thrown into Gehenna” does follow Jermiah and generally points toward 70 AD! Do you take vs. 49’s “everyone” must be salted with fire, as only those who died then, or perhaps consistent with a wider implication for painful purification in other contexts as well?
On John 5: I’m not sure what you mean by a “figurative” resurrection. I see your reasoning from Paul’s universal resurrection, and connecting that with Luke 20, that the requirement to be “considered worthy of taking part in that age” must simply mean that everyone “dead” is “deemed fit” (though how do you read Matt. 12:32’s warning of those “not forgiven in that age”?). If other texts didn’t suggest anything else needed to be “deemed fit” for that age, your interpretation could work.
If Rom. 2:6’s “store up wrath for the day of God’s wrath” is a “general principle,” what does this “day” refer to within Romans’ contextual theme of the resurrection of the wicked? As so often, your alternative is logically possible, though we can easily see how it has sounded to many like it has in mind wrath on a future eschatological “Day.”
Originally, I understood this statement to be a general principle applicable to all people in every generation:
Upon further reflection I’ve become more inclined to view the “everyone” as embracing only those unbelieving Jews who perished in the overthrow of Jerusalem:
And if the “fire” of v. 49 is the same “fire” of vv. 43 and 48, I’m not sure how it can be understood as a purifying judgment (in the sense of its leading to a reformation of character). The expression “salted with fire” may instead convey the idea of the wicked being “laid waste” or being made utterly destitute by the judgment of God, as both salt and fire are frequently associated with utter destruction, desolation and barrenness in the OT (Gen 19:26; Deut 29:23; Judge 9:45; 2 Sam 8:13; 1 Chron 18:12; Job 39:6; Psalm 107:34; Jer 17:6; Eze 47:11; Zeph 2:9). Understood in this sense, the image would be that of the wicked being brought to temporal ruin, and would be equivalent in meaning to what we read in Malachi 4, where the prophet declares, “For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, and all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up and leave them neither root nor branch. But you who fear my name…shall trample the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet.”
Another possible interpretation of the expression “salted with fire” is that it alludes to the salt of the Mosaic Covenant, with which every sacrifice was to be offered (Lev. 2:13), and which was symbolic of the perpetuity and inviolability of this covenant relationship with YHWH (see Num 18:19; cf. 2 Chron 13:5). Inseparable from this covenant relation with the Jewish people were the blessings that were promised for keeping covenant with YHWH and the curses threatened for breaking covenant with him. Those cast into Gehenna during the siege of Jerusalem would have been understood as receiving the full proof of the inviolability of this covenant with YHWH, which, in their case, asserted itself as a covenant of wrath upon the generation of covenant-breakers who had their own Messiah crucified.
My understanding is that physical death is the only literal death; all other death and resurrection imagery is necessarily figurative. So when we’re told that Jesus was “raised from the dead” (e.g., 1 Cor 15:12), I understand the death in view to be literal death, and the resurrection to correspond to it. But when Jesus says, “Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me…has passed from death to life,” I understand the death in view to be a figurative rather than a literal death. That is, the state of which Christ speaks is like death in some meaningful way. And because the death is figurative, I understand the resurrection in a similar way. Or when Christ says, “Let the dead bury their dead,” I understand both literal and figurative death to be in view; the “dead” who are to bury their dead aren’t literally dead, but their state is in some sense like literal death.
Similarly, when Ezekiel writes “I will open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people” (Ez 37:12) I understand the imagery in a figurative rather than a literal sense. The graves in which the Israelites are represented by the prophet as residing aren’t literal graves. And if the graves aren’t literal, the “rising” or resurrection isn’t literal, either. It’s figurative imagery that represents the restoration of the Jews to their land and their postexilic reformation, and I believe the imagery Jesus is employing in John 5 is very similar.
I don’t see the “age to come” of Matt 12:32 as being the same “age” of Luke 20:35. The “age to come” is, I believe, the age that dawned when the Messianic reign commenced in 70 AD. Paul even speaks of more than one age as following the age in which he and those to whom he wrote were living (Eph 2:7), so if Christ is speaking of a literal duration of time in Luke 20:35, then I’d see it as being subsequent to the “age to come” of Matt 12:32. That is, the age that Christ associates with the resurrection would not necessarily be the age (or one of the ages) of the Messianic reign, but may be understood as the period of time that is to immediately follow this dispensation in redemptive history. And if the “age to come” of Matt 12:32 refers to the opening age under the Messiah’s reign, and the Messianic reign is to end when the last enemy, death, is destroyed (for Christ is to reign “until he has put all his enemies under his feet”), then the age of Luke 20:35 cannot be understood as equivalent to the “age to come.” But it may be that Christ isn’t talking about a literal age in Luke 20:35 at all. If kai in this verse is to be understood in an explicative rather than a conjunctive sense, then the phrase “resurrection from the dead” would be an explanation or clarification of what Christ means by “that age” (which would mean the verse would be better translated as, “that age, even the resurrection from the dead”). If this is the case, then “that age” is not to be understood in a literal sense, for the resurrection from the dead is an instantaneous event, not an actual “age.”
As you know, Scripture sometimes uses the word “day” in a figurative sense to denote something other than a 12 or 24 hour period. See, for example, Isaiah 19:16-25 and 23:15. In Heb 3:8-9 the “day of trial” refers to a period of 40 years. In Rom 13:12 we read, “The night is far spent, the day is at hand.” Paul also declared, “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2). In Eph 6:13 Paul speaks of the “evil day,” which may refer to a season of persecution for believers. In John 8:56 we read, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” Here the word “day” may embrace the entire Messianic era. Similarly, in John 16:23 Jesus declared to his disciples, “In that day you will ask me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.” This “day” seems to refer to the apostolic era following Jesus’ resurrection and ascension.
But what about the “day of wrath” of which Paul speaks in Romans 2:5? Whenever God’s wrath is visibly manifested in the judgment of individuals or nations (of which there are countless examples throughout redemptive history), I believe it may be called a “day” of divine judgment or wrath, or the “day of the Lord.” In Deut 32:35-36 we read, “Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly. For the LORD will judge his people…” From the larger context it seems evident that a temporal judgment upon Israel is in view. In Isaiah 10:3 we read, “What will you do on the day of punishment, in the ruin that will come from afar?” Here, too, a national judgment seems to be in view. In Ezekiel 7:19 and 22:24 we read of a “day of wrath” and a “day of indignation” respectively, which, in context, seems to refer to a national judgment. In Eze 30:3 we read of the “day of the LORD,” which also refers to a national judgment. Similarly, in Mal 4:5 we read of “the great and dreadful day of the Lord” that was to follow the coming of “Elijah” (i.e., John the Baptist), but this, too, refers to a national judgment (see Mal 3:1-5). In Romans 2:5 Paul probably has in mind this very judgment, since those whom he is directly addressing in this portion of his epistle (whether real or hypothetical) are evidently Jewish (see vv. 17-24; cf. v. 14). Thus, it would make sense that the judgment in view is one that immediately concerned the Jewish people (see also Rom 9:22-29, where Paul again seems to have a Jewish judgment in view).
In contrast to the “day of wrath” upon Israel in 70 AD, the “day” of which Paul speaks in Rom 2:16 and Acts 17:31 may denote the entire era or dispensation of the Messianic reign (an era which I believe commenced with Christ’s coming in judgment upon Israel). In Isaiah 11:10-11, the prophet speaks of the time period during which the Messiah would reign over the Gentiles in righteousness and justice (and during which time they would “seek him”) as being a “day” (cf. Isa 4:2; 10:20; Zech 2:11; 13:1-9; 14:6-9). It is during this period that all people, whether Jew or Gentile, would be judged, or governed, by Jesus Christ.
The following is from an older post I wrote, but I think it’s relevant to this discussion:
I appreciated links to your developing views on Mk. 9:49’s “fire” as being only Jerusalem’s dead Jews. I’m convinced AD 70 is prominent in Jesus’ warnings. But if Gehenna can convey this alone, I’m confused as to why Jesus seems to assure that righteous ones won’t be killed there. E.g. couldn’t a peaceful disciple who didn’t cause little ones to stumble still get caught in Rome’s siege? Does Jesus assume “those who believe in me” and whose who ‘flee to the mountains’ are always identical?
You suggest “fire” doesn’t imply purifying reformation because O.T. judgments often left recipients dead. But doesn’t the O.T. also often characterize fire’s judgments as refinement, even though most Jews did not actually display restoration? May it be that seeing it as reforming restoration is justified by future Jews who learn from those who indeed experienced “temporal ruin”? And that seeing it as redemptive for all, requires a future resurrection?
Doesn’t 9:50’s “salt is good” suggest that it is not here the O.T.'s “laid waste,” but “salty” as valuable. Jerzak, e.g. sees Gehenna as a literal destruction in AD 70, yet not ruling out a more eschatological purification (of which I guess 70 AD could be a type). But wider texts and themes would be essential in arguing such a view (of 9:50).
Yes, seeing Matt. 12:32 & Luke 20:35 as referring to different “ages” preserves your conclusion. As often, I accept that “it may be that” such a distinction is meant. Most texts can be interpreted in multiple ways. But it’s also plausible to me that your interpretation is guided by a desire to maintain a conclusion already held about resurrection, and that “in the age to come” should be heard as a similar reference in both texts.
On. Rom. 2:6, of course, “day” isn’t always 24 hours, and “Day of the Lord” in the O.T. can be perceived as referring to ‘historical’ events. But seeing 16’s “This will take place on the day…” as sharing in contemporary expectations of a (still for us) future day of judgment seems plausible to me, as well as capable of paralleling 6’s future “day of wrath.”
If 6 = AD 70, do you see those seeking 7’s immortality “repaid” for their deeds in the sense that they all escape the siege’s “distress” (9)? And is 10’s positive application of blessing for Gentiles who do good also limited to Gentiles who escape the trouble in Jerusalem?
I’m uneasy about your way of clarifying such passages by equating them to OT texts which indeed sound limited to history. It’s fair to see the OT as background, but I see a reality of death which tends to make the OT vision incomplete, and a pattern of reinterpreting such unrealized predictions (moving from a historical materialist religion to more emphasis on spiritual reality. Extending the trajectory of reinterpretation inclines me to admit the need for a greater emphasis on this worldy divine dealings and goals, without assuming that we have a clear road map that excludes more in the existence beyond this familar one, even though it’s not much detailed (similar to the OT’s scanty detail on anything about resurrection life).
Does observing seemingly unprovidential events sometimes make you question your perception that in this life those who do good works are blessed, and those who do evil works are fully punished? I resonate with Bible writers who perceive that often the good are struck down (albeit capable of joy in spite of it), and the wicked experience a long, happy life that they would perceive as lacking judgment. What am I missing?
Jesus seemed to assume that his faithful followers would have heeded his warnings and escaped the coming day of wrath by fleeing to the mountains of Judea before it was too late. And as I’m not aware of any evidence which suggests that any Christians perished at this time, why should we assume that any did?
I think that Jesus assumed that, among his Jewish followers, those who remained faithful to him would have fled to the mountains when the opportune time came. If they didn’t, it wasn’t because they weren’t given the opportunity. Josephus records that the Roman commander Cestius Gailus (Nero’s predecessor) began enclosing Jerusalem in AD 67. Then, “without any reason in the world” he withdrew his troops from around the city (Josephus, Wars 2.19.7). Those who took Jesus seriously (i.e., his “peaceful disciples”) would’ve recognized this as the prophesied signal for which they’d waited, and would have used this time to flee the city. It seems that God, in his mercy, also provided one final opportunity for Jewish believers to escape the approaching desolation of their city. A year later, in AD 68, generals Vespasian and Titus “had fortified all the places round about Jerusalem…encompassing the city round about on all sides” (Wars 4.9.1). But when Vespasian and Titus were “informed that Nero was dead” (4.9.2), they “did not go on with their expedition against the Jews” (4.9.2; cf. 4.10.2) until after Vespasian became emperor in 69. Then “Vespasian turned his thoughts to what remained unsubdued in Judea” (4.10.5). If Josephus’ account can be trusted, it means that God provided adequate opportunity for believers and their families to make their escape before Jerusalem was overthrown.
You say the OT “often characterizes fire’s judgments as refinement” (emphasis mine). The primary passages that come to my mind are Zech 13:9 and Mal 3:1-4; did you have any others in mind? In Zech 13:9 it seems clear that those who are “refined by fire” are to be viewed as the exception rather than the rule.They would be those who, in the words of Peter, “suffer as a Christian” rather than as “a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler” (1 Pet 4:12-19). To read these verses from 1 Peter in light of Mark 9:43-49: those who are “put into the fire” and refined “as one refines silver” would (according to my view) be those who, although tested by the “fiery trial” that came upon the believers of that generation (i.e., the trying circumstances leading up to and ultimately culminating in the overthrow of Jerusalem), weren’t ultimately “thrown into Gehenna” to become fuel for the “unquenchable fire” and food for the “undying worm.” Or to use the words of Ezekiel, they weren’t “melted” in the fiery furnace of God’s wrath (Ez 22:17-22). Rather, they would be those who remained faithful amidst the persecutions and tribulation of that day, and, having been refined by these fiery trials, were able to rejoice when the “chief shepherd” appeared (1 Pet 5:4). And we know that the “appearing” of Christ of which Peter spoke was probably understood by Peter as being relatively near in his day, for in 4:7 we read, “the end of all things is at hand.” On this verse, Adam Clarke (who, although a preterist, believed in a future judgment) noted,
I believe the author of Hebrews had this judgment in view when he spoke of the “fury of fire” that was going to “consume [not “refine”] the adversaries” (Heb 10:26-31), and exhorted his readers to remain faithful and thereby “preserve their souls” rather than shrinking back and being “destroyed” (vv. 32-39).
As one who affirms that God’s wisdom and benevolent character requires the resurrection of all, but denies that any will be raised sinful, I may well ask in response: “The OT often characterizes fire’s judgments as leaving Jews dead and unreformed. May it be that seeing OT judgments as leaving its recipients dead and unreformed is justified by future readers (whether Jew or Gentile) who learn from those who indeed experienced temporal ruin? And that seeing it as not redemptive for most, requires a future resurrection so that they might be redeemed by different means (e.g., the instantaneous change which will be undergone by all people at the resurrection of the dead)?”
To answer your question: No, not necessarily. Is not Jesus’ statement in v. 50 (i.e., “Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again”) true even in light of the verses I provided in which salt is associated with destruction, desolation and barrenness (i.e., Gen 19:26; Deut 29:23; Judge 9:45; 2 Sam 8:13; 1 Chron 18:12; Job 39:6; Psalm 107:34; Jer 17:6; Eze 47:11; Zeph 2:9)? If it is, then I’m not sure why it’s at all unreasonable to believe that Jesus, in his closing remarks to his disciples in v. 50, was simply building off of the “salt” imagery introduced in v. 49 to reiterate what he’d told them previously about how their attitude should be characterized by humility rather than selfish ambition (vv. 33-37). Moreover, those whom Jesus said would be thrown into Gehenna weren’t going to be “salted with salt” (although even this could be construed as destructive imagery); they were to be “salted with fire.” And “fire” is overwhelmingly used as a symbol for temporal judgment that frequently terminates with death (rather than reformation) by the Hebrew writers (Deut 29:23; Job 18:15; Psalm 11:6; 83:14-15; 97:3; Isaiah 9:19; 30:33; 34:9-10; Jer 4:4; 21:12; 48:45; Lam 2:3-4; Ezekiel 21:31; 22:18-22; 38:22). And in light of the rather ominous and “destructive” imagery expressed in vv 42-48 (i.e., being thrown into Jerusalem’s garbage dump as fuel for the “unquenchable fire” and food for the “undying worm”), I believe the “salt” imagery of v. 49 is meant to be seen as destructive and ruinous rather than refining and sanctifying. This interpretation seems even more likely if (as I’ve argued elsewhere on this forum) Jesus and the inspired Hebrew writers didn’t believe in an intermediate state of vital, conscious activity after death but would have instead viewed death as an interruption that put an end to both good and evil works rather than as a transition to further character development. In short, I see no good reason to believe that the “fire” with which those “thrown into Gehenna” would be “salted” would be a means by which they would become “peaceful disciples.” It is v. 50 - not v. 49 - which seems to me to be transitional in Jesus’ remarks in Mark 9.
But Jesus gives no indication that the resurrection of the dead was to take place in “the age to come” of Matt 12:32, nor does he use this expression in Luke 20:35. So I don’t see why we should assume that he has in mind the same age referred to in Matt 12:32 - especially in light of the fact that the “age to come” seems to refer to the opening age under the Messiah’s reign, and Paul seemed to believe that the period of time during which Christ reigns will end (not begin) when the dead are raised and death, the last enemy, is destroyed.
Unless the expectations were based on what is revealed in the OT, I’m not sure why 1st century Jewish expectations should in any way guide our interpretation of anything Paul or Jesus said; if anything, their teachings seemed to reverse and challenge the common expectations of their Jewish contemporaries.
I see vv. 6-11 as a general principle (applying to both Jew and Gentile), the outworking of which was played out on a national scale for the Jews in AD 70 on their “day of wrath.” Even today I believe that “those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality” “everyone who does good”] will receive “life aionion…glory and honor and peace,” while “those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness” “everyone who does evil”] will experience “wrath and fury…tribulation and distress.” The “immortality” of v. 7 may be understood as a pure, genuine and sincere character (as argued previously), or as enduring fame and remembrance among those with shared values - i.e., a “good name” (Prov 22:1; cf. 10:7) - which, from what I’ve read, seemed to be of great importance to many in antiquity.
When you speak of “a reality of death which tends to make the OT vision incomplete” and of “more emphasis on spiritual reality,” do you mean a post-mortem death and a post-mortem reality? Or do you mean that which may - or may not - include the post-mortem realm?
I agree that the detail about the resurrection life in the OT is “scanty.” And I think the scantier the detail revealed about any given subject in the Bible, the less certain and detailed our views should be about it. This brings us back to an earlier topic of discussion on this thread: if Scripture is silent on something, I believe it is wise not to draw conclusions based on speculation about it and analogical reasoning. In regards to mankind’s post-mortem existence, I believe that neither a sinful nor a sinless state need be understood as more consistent with God’s benevolent character and sacrificial love, so we can’t simply assume that one is more likely than the other. I believe it is revelation alone that can decide whether sin will continue beyond this existence or not. And as stated previously, it would seem that, based on 99% of the Biblical story, God places just as much value on our being mortal in this life - as well as on human beings “marrying and being given in marriage” - as he does on the present process by which some mortals begin to be conformed to the image of Christ. So the fact that our becoming Christ-like in character in this mortal existence is dependent on a process does not mean we should expect this same process to continue after we have ceased to be mortal.
The key phrase in the above paragraph (which I believe is somewhat problematic to your position) is, “albeit capable of joy in spite of it.” I believe Scripture warrants the view that those who are “good” or “just” are rewarded with happiness and peace even in spite of being “struck down” (as you say), while the wicked (who may seem to “experience a long, happy life”) are, in actuality, deprived of this spiritual reward, and by their wickedness forfeit those spiritual blessings that constitute the “abundant life” that Christ came to give. Even in a Roman prison, the apostle Paul was (I believe) happier, more content and more at peace than the wealthiest and most powerful wicked man alive in his day or ours. While those who are wicked may not perceive the psychological/emotional/physical pain that results from sin (a pain which may be sharp and acute or dull and chronic) as divine “judgment,” this does not in the least alter the fact that they are under divine condemnation and are “reaping what they sow.” So what I think you may be missing (indeed, what we all miss when our focus is primarily on appearances), is, I think, God’s perspective of the state of the wicked and the righteous in this life. As you would certainly agree, things are not always as they appear. Moreover, what we think is a just punishment for a person’s sin, or a just reward for person’s righteousness, may not at all be what God, in his perfect justice, deems appropriate.
*On Mark 9:49 *: Thanks for the convincing notes on how believers could escape 70 AD. If Jesus’ promise was to those who believed his warning of cataclysm, it’d be simple. Does his emphasis that it’s those who radically curb sin who will enter God’s kingdom instead of the fire seem a curious way to delineate who is bound not to die in the slaughter?
Are you adding that salt’s ‘goodness’ could be producing humility by “destroying” pride? Purification works for me. But why follow being “salted” with “Have salt in yourselves,” if one intends being salted to connote an undesireable result?
On “fire” as purification: I agree that fire (and salt) often desribe painful and bleak effects, and that “fire” often reveals who is “faithful.” But you seem to argue that historic O.T. catyclysms (and its’ metaphors of fire & salt) bring judgment which only destroys sinners with the punishment they have sown and deserved. I imagine ECT agrees: “fire” means destruction, and only its’ antithesis, resurrection has positive effects. Thus our goal is evading all fire. This dominant tradition sees constant warning of judgment in the Biblical storyline, and that it ends in a final unredemptive conclusion. You appear to believe that they miss that judgment’s antithesis is a resurrection that simply cancels the storylines’ pursuit of purification as our choices and character are modified.
But a foundational difference for ancient & modern universalists is seeing that ECT has twisted the storyline and the purpose of judgment (including its’ fire). This is based on indications that the prophets increasingly see that God’s threats of Israel’s total destruction and being cut off from the covenant’s promises “forever,” is followed by assurances that he won’t do that, but will bring their restoration. Whether its’ Israel, Sodom, Egypt, or Edom, we see clues that in the midst of judgment, God is still intent on their ultimate redemption.
E.g. “Moab will be destroyed… Then she will be ashamed… I will restore her” (Jer. 48,49). “You are destroyed Israel… but I will heal your waywardness” (Hos. 13:9; 14:4). “I turned my face from you, but I will bring you back” (Isa. 54:7). The very texts of Jeremiah on Gehenna do this: “I will make them an everlasting ruin… until I fully accomplish my purposes” (25:9; 30:24; 31:24). “I will surely gather them… I will restore their fortunes” (32:37-44).
Judgment, like love, purposes restoring correction that can lead to choices that reflect God’s ways. "When your judgments come upon earth, the people learn righteousness… I will guide them and restore (Isa. 26:9; 57:16-18). “I will cure you of backsliding” (Jer. 3:22).
Continued: You suggest that fire’s bottomline “terminates with death, rather than reformation,” and thus Jesus probably means that too. I agree that fire and salt are often pictured as bringing what is painful and bleak. And yes, Zech. 13 "may" mean (as in 70 Ad) those “refined” were not “melted” or “destroyed.” Yet how these only ones in the “fire” were “refined” seems unspecified. I suspect refining can include purification.
In Malachi 2, as typical, the Lord’s “day” is envisioned as deliverance for the righteous, and fearful for others (“strike the land with total destruction”-4:6). But the “refining fire” is equated to cleansing soap and purfication that produces those who actually live righteously (3:2-4). Isaiah also has this motif. “The Lord will wash away the filth, he will cleanse the bloodstains by a spirit of purification and fire” (4:4). "I will purge away your dross (1:25; cf. 48:10). “It must be put through the fire, and then it is clean” (Num. 31:23). In light of O.T. pursuit of purification by “fire,” 1 Cor. 3:12-15’s burning up the strawy works may imply purging our dross. Even Luke 3:16’s burning up the chaff may mean a purging process, not just the end of bad people.
You seem to see God’s pursuit of repentance in a purifying process as irreleveant for those killed in O.T. judgments. And indeed one would not expect success in God’s pursuit of purification or in the hints of his total restoration, given the O.T.'s small sense of meaningful existence beyond our present life. But, as Parry suggests, the resurrections’s assurance of a future gives grounds to embrace the positive indications as accomplishable.
Sorry to break this up so much! You affirm this by seeing resurrection completely changing God’s approach into an instantaneous purification regardless of previous choices under his pedagogy. But classical universalists see a greater continuity in God’s interest in a school of experience that involves ‘time.’ Of course, this difference is also enmeshed in our discussion of whether some N.T. warnings of judgment has rightly been seen as transcending this life, or whether they all point to realities realized before anyone expires.
On the “appearances,” you seem to agree that while the devout, like Paul, can know the joy that transcends events, most Christians and pagans do not seem to “reap” plainly contrasting rewards or judgments. My sense is that the Psalmist (e.g. 73:17ff) was not atypical in resolving this in terms of what still lies ahead. Paul also calls believers who seem to suffer more this worldly pain than the judgment others face, to expect the future will bring compensations.
With a bit clearer vision that the future holds more than this life, that tradition seems reasonable that hears the N.T. writers as continuing this trajectory that God’s compensation and purifying dealings are not finished even in this world (though you offer marvelous interpretation for how resurrection may be annulling this trajectory). I realize that you agree with many elements of this sketch, at least in terms of what God seeks in our present experience, but I suspect that such a sketch forms a basic paradigm for how many of us read the developing particulars in individual texts.
.
But not yet here (though if universal resurrection simply means immediate universal salvation, I’d be glad if you’re right). I.e. I suspect Paul’s description of resurrection’s benefits is aimmed at believers, understood as those justified at the judgment, and that God reserves the perogative of postponing those blessings, and first dealing further with those who are not acquitted. (But I confess again that I’m probably less clear than you that the relevant passages are intended to provide an clearcut indisputable timeline of God’s dealings with the lost.)
But I think the examples I provided from Matthew’s Gospel call into question your claim that my speculation is “less grounded in what we know of Jesus’ usual approach.” What we know of Jesus’ usual approach is simply that he made use of Scripture and logic when he addressed his opponents, and that he rarely appealed directly to God’s paternal disposition toward mankind in the arguments he directed against them.
). Besides his defense of “doing good” on the Sabbath, I sense similar reasoning correlates with his refusal to execute the adultereress (Jn. 8), his argument that God cares for non-Jews (Lk. 4:24-27), his opposition to destroying Samaritans (9:51-55) or to Pharsees’ “loading people down with burdens” of Law (11:46), and his urging Pharisees to focus on the poor, but rebuking them for neglecting this with a beggar (14:12f; 16:19-31).
. But for me, it remains a huge clue to how Jesus reasons, since I perceive him as a coherent thinker who would reason with consistency toward friends and foes. Thus, I’m comfortable with seeing God’s loving character as a likely candidate to explain his reasoning.