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.
Hi Bob! Hope you had a merry Christmas. We almost had a “white Christmas” (which would’ve been only the 2nd one since I’ve been alive) but the snow came 24 hours too late! But I can’t complain; snow is pretty rare here in SC, so getting any at all during the year (especially 6 inches like we did yesterday) is pretty neat. If I hadn’t had to work yesterday my wife and I would’ve built a snowman for sure.
I don’t think so, because those who were seeking to be obedient to Jesus (which requires inward and not merely outward faithfulness) were those who were most likely to heed his warnings when the time came, and take whatever radical measures were necessary to be among those who (whether living or dead) received glory and honor when Christ came in his kingdom (1 Pet 5:4; cf. 1 Cor 9:25; 2 Tim 4:7-8; James 1:12; Rev 2:10; 3:11). I think that, for Jesus, remaining faithful to him by keeping oneself pure, and escaping the coming wrath upon Israel, were inseparable. As noted previously, when Jesus talks about something causing a believer to stumble, I believe he had in mind any sin which, if persisted in, might have led to a hardening of one’s heart and a subsequent apostasy from the Christian faith. As Israel’s overthrow drew near, it was those Hebrew Christians who became “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb 3:12-13) who consequently exposed themselves to the fate of perishing in the judgment that was coming upon their nation. For those who went on “sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth” and “fell away” after tasting “the heavenly gift” and “sharing in the Holy Spirit,” there only remained “a fearful expectation of judgment” that consumed the “adversaries” (Heb 6:4-8; 10:23-31).
I’ve actually never thought of salt as symbolizing that which “destroys pride” in a person, but I suppose one could see it that way! Just as “fire” imagery can be used to convey the idea of refinement/testing as well as that of destruction and loss, so can salt have both negative and positive connotations. And both salt and fire are intrinsically “good” in the sense that they are used to improve man’s quality of life. But the same fire that warms a home can burn it down and destroy its inhabitants, and the same salt that preserves food and makes it more flavourful can make water undrinkable and life unsustainable (think the Dead Sea). Again, Jesus’ statement that “salt is good” is true even though salt can be (and frequently is) associated with desolation and destruction in the OT (e.g., Deut 29:23). In Judges 9:45 we read, “And Abimelech fought against the city all that day. He captured the city and killed the people who were in it, and he razed the city and sowed it with salt.” The act of “salting” a city after its destruction seems to have been intended to symbolize perpetual desolation. On this verse Adam Clarke notes,
When Jesus spoke of everyone who would be thrown into Gehenna as being “salted with fire,” I believe he may have simply been intensifying the kind of symbolism expressed in the ancient custom of sowing a city with salt. Jesus then reminds his disciples of the inherent goodness of salt, and follows with the exhortation to “have salt in yourselves” as a way of contrast with v. 49: those Jewish disciples who “had salt in themselves” (i.e., those who, by their faith in Christ, cultivated a humble and peaceable character) were less likely to suffer the destruction and loss represented by the expression “salted with fire.” As a universalist, I don’t believe that perishing in this 1st century judgment and being thrown into Gehenna in any way compromised anyone’s future, post-mortem well-being (in fact, I believe all suffering experienced in this world will ultimately contribute to our future happiness), but I just don’t think Jesus intended to convey any kind of positive imagery with the words “salted with fire.”
I agree that God can and often does bring healing and restoration after judgment (after all, this is precisely what I believe Christ is going to do for all people at the end of his reign), but it’s doubtful to me that the healing and restoration described in the above verses refers to a post-mortem reality. I also don’t see anything in the above references which suggests that any wicked individual Jews or Gentiles who perished in the judgments would become less wicked as a result of experiencing them. Rather, I see the fulfillment of the above verses (both the judgment and the restoration) as taking place in this state of existence. For example, when we read that Moab would be destroyed and then “restored,” I see this prophecy as most likely having its fulfillment in the conversion of the descendents of this Gentile nation to the Christian faith when the gospel began to be proclaimed to all people. Similarly, I don’t see anything in Jeremiah that suggests that those who perished in the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians would be reformed by this judgment, nor do I see Jer 32:37-44 as having its fulfillment in a post-mortem state of existence. That the restoration/healing described in this passage was to take place in this mortal state of existence seems especially evident from v. 39, where we read, “I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.”
Yes, I agree that “refining can include purification.” I believe those who don’t perish in whatever judgment is in view, but are instead made more humble and obedient by the hardships undergone, could be said to have been “refined” or “purified” by the judgment. But neither “fire” nor “salt” imagery has to express the idea of spiritual purification/reformation at all. Moreover, in Mark 9, those being thrown into Gehenna and “salted with fire” are, I believe, corpses rather than living people (Isa 66:24). And of course, to speak of corpses being humbled or reformed by means of a judgment would be absurd.
It’s true that the Messiah is represented as purifying “the sons of Levi” in Malachi 3, but immediately after this we are told (v. 5), “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says YHWH of hosts.” It is this category of people - the “arrogant and evildoers” - who, in chapter 4, we’re told will be “set ablaze” and become “stubble” and “ashes” under the feet of the righteous, being left “neither root nor branch.” This is, of course, very different imagery from that found in 3:2-4! While I agree that this language is not at all inconsistent with the post-mortem salvation of those judged, it doesn’t seem to mesh very well at all with the idea that the judgment would lead to their becoming any less wicked. Rather, if these “evildoers” are to be made righteous like the purified “sons of Levi” (which, as universalists, we both believe) then I think the kind of imagery used to describe their temporal fate gives us good reason to expect their post-mortem reformation to be brought about by (perhaps radically) different means (e.g., by a sudden and compelling manifestation of God’s grace and love).
I think most Christians would agree that the majority of humans (both past and present) do not even begin the process by which Christ-likeness is attained or approximated in this life. Assuming God was even trying to bring about the reformation of all people in this lifetime (although I think this is very doubtful), why would God, in the next state of existence, continue to pursue a means of accomplishing the purification of all people that was evidently so unsuccessful for so many people in this state of existence? If suffering as a mortal doesn’t necessarily lead to a change of heart and a more Christ-like character, why would suffering as an immortal lead to this? Does the suffering just need to be longer and more intense in order for the desired results to be achieved? If we were reasoning from the principle of analogy, then we might conclude that most people will remain hardened sinners while experiencing God’s judgment in the next state of existence just like they remained (and died as) hardened sinners while experiencing God’s judgment in this state of existence.
Moreover, I would suggest that the only reason judgments even lead to people being reformed and “learning righteousness” is because there is, intermixed with the judgment, a manifestation of God’s kindness and grace, and the sinner is given a reason to hope for something better beyond the hardship being endured. As I’ve argued elsewhere, it is the embracing (by faith) of hope (i.e., the expectation of some future good for oneself and one’s loved ones) that I believe produces the greatest positive moral change in people - not the mere enduring of suffering in itself.
I don’t think it should be assumed that the expectation of any inspired author concerning future rewards and punishments extended beyond this mortal state of existence. As for Psalm 73, I believe the Psalmist may have received the assurance that the wicked would ultimately “get what they deserved” when, after reflecting on this subject in the sanctuary of God, he realized that God’s justice would’ve been just as active in his day as it was in days past. Perhaps he was reflecting on God’s just dealings with the wicked as recorded in the Torah. Or perhaps the Psalmist remembered instances in his own past when the wicked were brought to ruin, and it was this that enabled him to see things from a different perspective. But regardless of what led to this change of perspective, I don’t see anything in his words to suggest that he believed that the wicked would “fall to ruin” beyond this mortal state of existence. He probably speaks of their “ruin” as being in the future because he had his wicked contemporaries in view, and not those who had already departed from this mortal existence. And I think it’s probable that the Psalmist also realized that the wicked could not be truly happy in this lifetime because, unlike the righteous, they were going through life without a personal relationship with God (vv. 23-28), and were thus estranged from the very Source of their happiness (cf. Eph 4:18).
As for Paul, I’m not sure what specific verses you had in mind, but I think it would have to be shown that the “future compensations” he had in mind would be experienced in a post-mortem state of existence rather than in this lifetime.
Hi Aaron, just thought I’d let you know that my dad, Bob Wilson, and mom are in Julian, CA for a getaway. Will be back soon to resume this discussion. Your snow sounds lovely! Wish we got some snow here, but at least our mountains aren’t too far away.
Hi Aaron! Glad you got snow. So. Calif. got tons of rain, but we had a great Christmas. I’ve posted my article on “Jesus’ View of Hell.” See if it doesn’t reflect a lot of your view also. Thus, I especially appreciate the chance to test my remaining non-preterist sympathies with you.
No wonder Mark 9:49f is seen as cryptic and puzzling. Your revised view is very consistent with Jesus following Jeremiah’s preterist take on “thrown into Gehenna.” But I think your earlier interpretation may be more coherent with 49f’s language, and the wider Bible theme of suffering’s role in our required righteousness. Your contention that “everyone” = those remaining in Jerusalem = those hardened against radical measures against sin, is exactly how I would have defended your more recent view. It is plausible that those obedient to Jesus’ instructions on sin were “most likely to heed his warnings” about AD 70.
Still, I find it strained to assume that “keeping oneself pure, and escaping the coming wrath were inseparable.” E.g. if life is anything like my experience, I can’t avoid imagining some careless in the Christian movement who did not radically avoid eyes that stumble, etc, but who still joined the departure from Jerusalem. With the violent cues you described, it wouldn’t take much virtue for an unbeliever to see reasons to get out of town.
I’m confused. When you speak of "being among even the dead who received honor when Christ came in his kingdom, what event and what blessing do you mean? In your view, what happens to the dead who don’t receive that honor? I thought you saw the next event for anyone dead as the resurrection, which will confer equal blessing on all. Are you thinking of extra rewards, that are not the crown of (eternal) life?
I take you references to Hebrews to mean that “sinning” which jeopardizes “the things of salvation” such as having “no sacrifice for sins left” also means the “fire” of 70 AD is evitable. But can you assume that every unfaithful convert reading Hebrews was caught in Jerusalem? Such a limited interpretation appears implausible to me.
We agree salt (& fire) “can have negative and positive connotations!” But examples of the negative can’t argue which Mark 9:49 is. I’ve argued that in Scripture what was perceived as sheer severe destruction (i.e negative) is increasingly recognized as aimmed at purifying restoration (positive). In your view, as “contributing to our future happiness.” Your sense that “salted” here is only sheer loss" is possible. But your contention that 9:50 “reminds them of the inherent goodness of being those with salt” is in order to “constrast” with 49’s “salted” as totally negative seems counter-intuitive. It seems to read more straightforward as a reason to be “salted” in the best sense of welcoming the divine (refiner’s) “fire” to have its’ purifying place in our members, thus making the more severe fire (AD 70) unnecessary.
I agreed the O.T.'s surviviors (not the dead) are presented as “purified by the judgment,” and that it does not “refer to a post-mortem reality.” But combining this verifiable purpose in God’s judgment with a growing N.T. recognition that God maintains a purpose with the dead, leaves me assuming that even biting the dust can be useful in the hand of the Master pursuer of reformation. What seems “absurd” to me is seeing God’s judgment upon many as in God’s hands simply negative and beyond efficacious toward his long running goal.
You seeem to think, if O.T. revelation just saw the wicked’s fate as death, and God’s efforts at reformation “so unsuccessful,” we should assume that God would learn from this inefficiency and use a “radically diferent” approach for his goal of change. As you imply, such assumptions concern “analogy” where our discussion began. You find revelation requires resisting analogical thinking in our expectations. But in my eyes, it is foundational in our grasp of ‘God’ and God’s ways (though I do agree that this suggests a mix of judgment and kindness is what is effective).
Your sense that this world yields all the appropriate consequences for our choices seems counter not only to Biblical authors but reasonable folk everywhere. Interpreting all N.T. warnings of appropriate judgment for churchmen as fully defined by death in AD 70 is counter-intuitive when many readers already lived outside Jerusalem. As typical of events in this world, Ad 70 didn’t hit everyone who stumbles with the same gravity. This seems untrue to the reality of life and calamities we see. Whether it’s natural disasters, warfare, or drunk drivers, (though only light and momentary affliction to be outweighed by the future picture) who perceives that any appropriate proportion is assured in this world?
We’ve touched, although on my part too superficially, on other warning texts, where your interpretations have sounded convoluted to me (albeit possible), making distinctions between ages in similar phrases, etc. So, can you clarify what you see beyond death? What does Heb. 9:27 imply by “judgment” following it? Will this result in felt differnces among people that is worthy of concern? Similarly, what is 2 Cor. 5:10 referring to, and is it future?
What does Dan. 12:2’'s pivotal, “those who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake to everlasting contempt” imply for the resurrection of the wicked? Do you see Matt. 13:40-43, 49f’s warnings of “fire” upon the evil at the end of the age as completely fulfilled in AD 70? When Matt. 25:41 describes judgment’s separation as the fire prepared for the devil, is this just AD 70, and why is it defined as the end of evil angels? Thanks for your thoughtful reaction to so many traditional queries that I’m sure you have heard many times.
Thanks for referring me to your paper on Jesus and the meaning of Gehenna. Like your paper on penal substitution, I found it both concise and persuasive, and I hope it’ll be read and thoughtfully considered by every member of this forum. I’m still thrilled by your change of opinion regarding this subject, and I think it would be awesome if, in the coming years, this view became the dominant one among EU’s, and more widely accepted among “partialists!”
Perhaps I overstated my position when I said that, “for Jesus, remaining faithful to him by keeping oneself pure, and escaping the coming wrath upon Israel, were inseparable.” While I do think all faithful believers escaped the judgment in 70, I don’t think one has to understand Jesus as teaching that all “stumblers” would’ve necessarily ended up being “thrown into Gehenna” (and although we don’t know for sure, perhaps some unbelievers did flee to the mountains of Judea for safety along with the believers, as you suggested). Rather, I believe that Jesus simply understood there to be a definite correlation between committing and persisting in certain sins, and ultimately apostatizing - and I don’t think it can be denied that, among those 1st century Jews who, at some point, professed faith in Christ, it was those believers who apostatized from the faith who were the most likely to perish in Israel’s overthrow. So for Jesus, the best way to protect his Jewish followers from perishing in this judgment was to exhort them to keep themselves “unstained from the world,” lest they be (in the words of the author of Hebrews) “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” and, with an “evil and unbelieving heart,” subsequently “fall away from the living God” (Heb 3:12-14).
I believe Christ came in his kingdom and inaugurated the New Covenant age in 70 AD, so that’s the event I had in mind. I don’t think a person had to be alive (and by “alive” I mean those not in Sheol/Hades, where there is “no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom”) to receive glory and honor when Christ appeared at this time. All believers who persevered and remained faithful to the “end of the age” were vindicated and honoured/glorified, whether they were alive or dead. The glory and honor bestowed upon the faithful members of Christ’s body at his coming (whether living or dead), is, I believe, expressed in the “crown” imagery found in the NT. Among the Hebrew people, “crowns” are spoken of as a figurative way to convey the idea of glory, honor, dignity, exaltation, etc. (e.g., Job 19:9; Ps 6:11; 89:39; 103:4; 132:18; Prov 4:9; 12:4; 14: 8, 24; 27:24; 16:31; 17:6; Isa 28:1, 3; 62:3; Jer 13:18; Ez 16:12; 21:26; Lam 5:16). Paul even tells us that his “crown” at Christ’s coming was the believing brethren to whom he wrote (Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19-20) - i.e., those persons in whom he had “great pride” (2Cor 7:4). And in 1 Thess 5:23-24 he spoke as if those to whom he wrote would still be alive at Christ’s coming (i.e., when the Lord would award him his “crown of righteousness,” 2 Tim 4:8). Just as “grandchildren are the crown of the aged” (Prov 17:6), so those who were made (and remained) converts to the Christian faith as a result of Paul’s influence were to be Paul’s “crown” at Christ’s coming in his kingdom. Since it was on their behalf that he laboured as an apostle of Christ, his name was honoured by those who remained faithful to Christ. But this was not Paul’s only crown; I believe Paul received glory and honor for his own efforts at remaining “faithful unto death” as well. This, I believe, is what Paul had in mind when he spoke of the “imperishable wreath” for which he laboured as an apostle (2 Cor 9:24-27). Paul didn’t want to do anything that would “disqualify” himself and bring shame and dishonour upon himself and those to whom he’d preached the gospel, but rather “ran” so as to obtain the glory, honor and dignity that would be awarded all who remained faithful to Christ. This, I believe, is the “crown of life” or “crown of righteousness” that was awarded to all believers at Christ’s coming who were “faithful unto death.” At this time in redemptive history, all faithful Christians - especially those who, like Paul, had “turned many to righteousness” - shone “like the brightness of the sky above…like the stars forever and ever” (Dan 12:3). That is, they were elevated to positions of glory and honor in the minds of those still living, and received enduring fame and remembrance among them. They didn’t have to be alive to have such a “crown” bestowed upon them at Christ’s coming; it would be somewhat akin to people receiving posthumous recognition, or a posthumous award, in our day.
No, as I argued above, I don’t think one has to believe that every unfaithful convert who was alive at the “end of the age” necessarily perished in this judgment. But I think it’s plausible that many (perhaps even a majority) of them did, in fact, perish. Such apostates from the Christian faith would have arguably been more hardened in their unbelief after apostatizing than they were before originally coming to faith in Christ. As Peter says (who I believe spoke of the temporal fate of such apostates), “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first” (2 Pet 2:20). If those who were trying to be faithful were in danger of “falling asleep” while waiting for Christ to come (Matt 25:5), or were at any time inclined to doubt that his prophetic words concerning the destruction of the temple would be fulfilled, how much more those who abandoned the Christian faith altogether and, in unbelief, returned to Judaism? And I don’t think we should underestimate the tremendous pressure that would have undoubtedly been on the Jewish people to be present in Jerusalem in April, 70 AD to observe Passover at this time. As you may know, Jews from “every nation under heaven” travelled to Jerusalem to attend this sacred feast.
I’m not sure how it’s counter-intuitive to understand Christ’s words, “Have salt in yourselves” as conveying very different imagery than the words “all must be salted with fire,” and to understand what Christ says in v. 50 (which alludes back to what he said during his Sermon on the Mount) as being set in contrast with what he says in v. 49 (which I see as being part of the 70 AD judgment imagery of vv. 43-48, which involves corpses being thrown into Gehenna and burned with “unquenchable fire”). It seems reasonable to me to understand what Jesus says at the beginning of v. 50 as transitional - i.e., Jesus is shifting the focus away from the temporal fate of those slain Israelites thrown into Gehenna (which he sums up in the closing declaration, “for everyone must be salted with fire”) with the reminder that, although salt can have negative connotations (of which v. 49 is an example), it is still inherently “good.” So while he continues using “salt” imagery, his emphasis simply turns to the positive connotations that salt has rather than the more negative connotations suggested in v. 49. But this shift in emphasis doesn’t make the previous imagery (which I hold suggests destruction and loss rather than restoration and gain) less negative than it really seems to be in connection with vv. 43-48. In other words, what Christ says in v. 50 does not soften or negate the negative imagery that I believe v. 49 necessarily conveys in connection with the preceding 6 verses (but then, it doesn’t have to be viewed as less negative in order for it to still be understood as consistent with God’s redemptive love for those Jews who perished in the judgment).
It just seems less clear to me that Jesus had in view a purifying moral process when he spoke of people being “salted with fire,” since there is no indication that the Jews who perished during Jerusalem’s overthrow were purified by this judgment. If Josephus’ description of the siege is reliable then it would seem that more were driven to despair rather than to hope during this time of distress and carnage. And we have even less reason to believe that any Jews were reformed by this judgment after they died, because “the dead know nothing,” and “their love and their hate and their envy have perished” (Eccl 9:5-6). As there is no consciousness in Sheol, it follows that there can be no moral reformation taking place there. While it’s certainly possible that some unbelieving Jews who survived this national judgment (perhaps among those who were “led captive among all nations”) were humbled by the experience and became less self-righteous, less hypocritical, or less greedy (etc.), I think we’d both agree that there were no slain Israelites being reformed and refined in Gehenna, the “valley of slaughter!” So if my views concerning the intermediate state of the dead are correct, then any post-mortem purification will have to wait until the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, it will need to be shown that those who die in need of further purification (which is most, if not all, people) will be raised in need of further purification. But I deny that Scripture teaches this.
Now, in one sense I believe that all temporal judgments can be understood as “purifying,” insofar as they curb or check human sinfulness. And if this was all for which you were arguing, I would agree fully. For whether they lead to repentance or not, all judgments tend to curb sin and “restrain” the sinner. As I noted in another thread, in Young’s Analytical Concordance the definition given for the word kolasis is “pruning, restraining, restraint.” And in the Emphatic Diaglott, after translating kolasin in Matt 25:46 by the words “cutting off,” the author says in a footnote:
And in Liddel & Scott’s Greek-English lexicon we read:
From the above definitions we see that kolasin need not convey so much the idea of directly bringing about a “positive change” in a person but rather of “checking” their sinful actions, or of “restraining” them (or “cutting them off”) in some sense. The punishment could be remedial, but it’s not necessary that it be understood in this way. According to the wider range of meaning we find for kolasis, it could be used to describe the kind of punishment that we find (for example) in our US justice system, which is neither vindictive nor necessarily remedial. So if by “salted with fire” one simply understood a judgment intended to curb or check the sin of a nation of individual, I’d agree that every judgment from God does this to some extent, including the judgment of 70 AD. For those who die in hardened unbelief, death itself may be viewed as a judgment from God, since (according to my view of death) it prevented them from sinning further (cf. Rom 1:32).
But for the sake of argument, let’s say that to be “salted with fire” is to undergo suffering that can lead to a positive change in one’s character, rather than curbing sin only. Do you think that every person who is “salted with fire” in this life is invariably reformed by the experience before they die? Or do you think it’s possible for some mortals to be “salted with fire” and yet remain unbelieving and hard of heart, putting them in need of additional “salting” in the future?
Again, how many unbelieving Jews do you think were reformed by God during the siege of Jerusalem before their lifeless bodies were cast into Gehenna as fuel for the “unquenchable fire” and food for the “undying worms?” Not very many, I would suppose. So do you think those who weren’t reformed by this “remedial punishment” while they were alive will be subjected to further distress and suffering in the immortal state until they finally decide that they would rather not be in pain? Will God’s final victory over sin be won by punishing rebels into heaven? As I see it, the redemptive purpose that we both agree God “maintains with the dead” need not be understood as involving more sin and suffering. While I do believe that sin and suffering has its place in God’s redemptive purpose for humanity, I don’t think Scripture teaches that it will extend beyond the sounding of the “last trumpet” when death, the last enemy, is destroyed. As “useful” as death may be in God’s redemptive purpose, I believe the instantaneous change that will be wrought by Christ when he returns from heaven to raise the dead and transform the living will prove to be even more “useful!”
Not every divine judgment has to be understood as a means by which a person becomes more Christ-like in character in order for it to be seen as “efficacious toward God’s long running goals.” Even if one denies that a given judgment was intended by God to produce a positive moral change in all who experienced it, one can still understand every judgment in this world as being a means by which God prepares sinful people for the future enjoyment of his kindness and grace (i.e., as manifested at the resurrection of the dead). Understood in this way, the judgment would not be entirely “negative” - it just wouldn’t be “remedial,” either. It would simply be another opportunity for God to display his redemptive works on behalf of his lost and sinful children by saving them from seemingly hopeless and tragic situations. It would still prove to be for the ultimate benefit of those who experienced it - just not in the sense that you’re arguing.
We both agree that there is consistency in God’s character, and that everything God does - both in the present and the future state of existence - is with our best interests at heart. But surely you don’t think that God’s benevolent character requires that those who die in unbelief undergo further suffering in the immortal state, without which they could not be set free from sin’s bondage. Do you at least see it as possible that God’s plan for the world’s salvation beyond this mortal existence might not simply be “more of the same” - especially in light of the fact that most people live and die without experiencing the kind of salvation from sin that believers alone can be said to enjoy (or begin to enjoy) in this life?
I have yet to see any compelling Scriptural objections to my position that people are sufficiently rewarded and punished in this lifetime. Just because “reasonable folk everywhere” may feel that some people deserve more punishment than they got in this life doesn’t mean God feels the same way. And as a believer in UR you’d probably agree that no sinner deserves to be punished forever or annihilated, but this is exactly what many “reasonable religious folk” think God’s justice requires, and it’s what they’re expecting.
What’s funny is that the interpretations of the “Gehenna” passages that we now agree on (more or less) probably sound somewhat “convoluted” to many who are entrenched in partialist and/or futurist views, and who are inclined to interpret such passages very differently!
Regarding my view of what happens after death, I believe the dead will simply remain dead (which, according to my understanding of death, entails an unconscious state) until Christ returns bodily from heaven and, in “the twinkling of an eye,” bestows a sinless immortality upon all people, thereby destroying death, the “last enemy.” After the dead are raised and the living changed, I believe all people will then be caught up to join Christ in the air. And Jesus’ words to his disciples in John 14:1-3 suggest that we will then be taken to heaven, or “paradise.”
As for Hebrews 9:27, one view is that the “judgment” after death is that inevitable process which happens to all who are dead, but which was prophesied that the Messiah would not have to undergo (i.e., bodily decomposition - Acts 2:31; 13:35-37). Support for this interpretation may be found in Gen 3:14-19, where we find a series of judgments pronounced by God after Adam and Eve’s transgression. Last in the series of judgments is that man would return to the dust from which he was made. For more on this view, see Heb 9:27.
Another view (which was first advanced by Hosea Ballou, I believe, and was the most common view among 19th century American Universalists) is that the author of Hebrews does not have in view all men in v. 27 but rather a specific category of men - i.e., the high priests, with whom the author has been comparing and contrasting Christ in the context in which this verse is found. While the expression tois anthropois can be used to refer to the entire human race as a collective class or species as distinguished from other classes or species (e.g., John 1:4; Luke 6:26; Matt 6:16; Titus 3:8; etc), the definite article tois can also be understood as a demonstrative pronoun (in which case it would denote either one or more individuals as distinguished from others of the same class or species), as it’s used in v. 28 (“those who are eagerly waiting for him”). It is the context that must determine how the article tois is to be understood. Since the author has had the high priests in view in chapter 9 (see v. 7, 25) as well as in the previous chapters (even referring to them as “men” and “mortal men” elsewhere - 7:8, 28), it would be natural for the author to refer to them again in 9:27 using the expression tois anthropois (which can be translated, “these men” or “those men” - i.e., the men he was referring to just two verses earlier).
Moreover, it is evident from the context that the writer is comparing and contrasting the Old Testament type and the New Testament reality. So with this in mind, we may understand the “death” that the high priests “died once” (i.e., once every year - see v. 7) as being not a literal death, but rather a figurative or typical death. When the high priest entered the holy of holies once a year on the Day of Atonement (wearing the “breastpiece of judgment” over his heart - Exodus 28:29-30), he did this on behalf of the entire nation of Israel, using not his own blood but the blood of a sacrificed goat. When he slew the animal and entered the most holy place with its blood, he typified or prefigured the actual sacrifice of Jesus for all people. So as typifying the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ we may say that the high priest under the Mosaic Law figuratively “died” by proxy, once annually. And it was not until the high priest emerged from the tabernacle to bless the people (pronouncing the benediction expressed in the words Moses instructed him to use) that the children of Israel knew whether his sacrificial offering met God’s acceptance (Ex 28:38) or whether he had been struck down (v. 35, 43). So according to this view, the “judgment” was God’s decision in regards to whether the sacrifice would be accepted and the people would receive forgiveness for the “unintentional sins” they’d committed that year - a decision which was not made known until the high priest emerged from the holy of holies alive before all the people (who would have been anxiously awaiting his return; cf. Heb 9:28). Thus, according to this interpretation, the author is drawing a parallel, with v. 27 giving us the type, and v. 28 giving us the reality.
What is your understanding of Heb 9:27? Do you see the “judgment” as taking place for each person after they die, or do you understand the author to be referring to a “general” judgment that is yet future?
Regarding 2 Cor 5:10, I believe this refers to Christ’s coming in his kingdom in 70 AD (Matt 16:27-28; cf. Luke 21:36). The reward that the faithful received at this time was glory and honor, and (for those who were alive) an enlarged enjoyment of the approbation of Christ and his Father (cf. Matt 10:32-33) while those who had been unfaithful were put to shame at Christ’s coming (see 1 John 2:28; cf. Dan 12:2) or worse.
I don’t think it implies anything for the literal resurrection of the dead (i.e., the resurrection that Paul has in view in 1 Cor 15 and elsewhere). I understand Daniel 12:2 as referring to events taking place during the generation in which the apostles lived: Daniel 12:2
When Daniel writes of “some” awakening to “shame and everlasting contempt,” I believe he probably had in mind the last verse of Isaiah: “…and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (the italicised words are the same word in Hebrew).
Not entirely; the effects of this national judgment have continued throughout the Messianic age, leaving the Jewish people “destroyed from the presence of the Lord” for nearly 2,000 years (2 Thess 1:5-10). As long as their “house” remains left to them “desolate” (Matt 23:38) one could say that, as a people, they are still suffering “the punishment of the age.”
I thought you’d appreciate my case on Gehenna! Our pastor asked if I could modify my views if Scripture warranted, and I cited this change as one which conflicted with my paradigm. But that’s a bonus for retired pastors. You can affirm whatever strikes you as correct. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose!”
Seeing a “correlation” between sin and death in AD 70 is plausible. But you imply that even less than a majorityn of apostates might have perished in that fire. Yet “all will be salted…” doesn’t sound like possible correlation, but more like an invitable consequence (i.e. inseparable).
Thanks, you see ‘acclaim’ as dead believers’ crown of honor at his ‘coming.’ But wouldn’t they enjoy this more if this “day” involved the resurrection, rather than being limited to AD 70? Why would Ad 70 especially bring them fame, and are crowns then not relevant to believers now?
Your snow sounds lovely! Wish we got some snow here, but at least our mountains aren’t too far away.