Why Consider Universal Reconciliation?
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
- Isaiah 53:5 -
In today's evangelical Christianity there are two competing views of Christ's death on the cross for our sins. Each view is considered to be orthodox and neither view is considered to be heresy. The truth of the gospel cannot be expressed without taking a side on which view is true. They cannot both be true. One view must be a false gospel.
One view says that Christ's death on the cross accomplished salvation only for those whom Christ died. Christ only died for some. For many others Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient for their salvation. His death was not for them, His blood was not shed for them, and He did not provide salvation for them.
There is nothing in Isaiah 53 that limits the extent of Christ's death. Why should we seek to limit it?
The other view is that Christ's death on the cross accomplished salvation for no one. Christ died for everyone but His death was ineffective in itself. His death did not save. It made salvation possible for everyone, but it saved no one. If no one believed (whatever believed means and it's not as obvious as you might think) in His salvation then His death would save no one. It would have accomplished nothing.
Isaiah 53 presents a picture of a God who bears punishment instead of those who deserve it and a God who heals, not a God who makes healing available.
I think that the Scriptures teach both that Christ died for the sins of everyone and that His death made Him the actual Savior of everyone. There is no one for whom He did not die and He is not just the potential Savior. He is clearly called Savior in the Scriptures.
These two views of the death of Christ have been made up, in spite of what the Scriptures say, in order to deal with the problem of Hell. If the Scriptures didn't speak of Hell, I feel that everyone would agree that Christ died for all and that His death saves.
My question is why not consider the possiblity that the passages speaking of Christ's death are not the ones to be questioned, but rather that the passages on Hell are to be questioned.
Why do we fiddle with the passages on Christ's death and not instead fiddle with the passages on Hell?
My answer to that question is that we are afraid to listen to the Scriptures and instead would rather listen to a tradition of men that has been handed down through the years by a church corrupted by the need to scare people to get their $upport.
Why not be today like the Bereans of long ago?
Acts 17:10,11
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
posted by Bill @ 6:04 AM
68 comments
68 Comments:
Bill,
I have done a lot of thinking about the possibility of universalism, for I have so much trouble believing that the majority of humans will be forever in a state of suffering. It just zaps my energy (of course this doesn't prove it wrong, necessarily). What prevents me from fully embracing universalism is 1: the lack of certainty in the interpretation of various texts. 2: texts that seems to speak clearly against it. For instance, Hebrews 10:26--
26For if we go on (A)sinning willfully after receiving (B)the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27but a terrifying expectation of (C)judgment and (D)THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
What is your take on this :) Sounds pretty harsh.....
Robert
Hi Robert,
Thanks so much for your comment! There is a huge tension in the New Testament between the Universalist verses and the anti-Universalist verses. I think that most people take one side or the other and then have to explain away the opposing verses. I came to consider myself a Universalist when I realized that I felt more comfortable explaining away the anti-Universalist verses. The Universalist verses finally overwhelmed me. Let me show you what I do with your Hebrews passage and then I'd appreciate your feedback. I am very much open to being corrected.
Hebrews 10:26,27
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
First you must understand that I think that context is important for understanding the meaning of individual verses. We must look at the general context and then begin narrowing the context until we understand the passage.
I take the theme of the entire New Testament from John 1:17
For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.
I also think that this is the theme of the letter to the Hebrews.
Hebrews 1:1-3
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
The common theme is the contrast between the conditional favor and shadows of the Law of Moses and the grace and truth of Jesus Christ.
Deuteronomy 11:26-28
"See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse:
the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I am commanding you today;
and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, by following other gods which you have not known.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
I would love to go through the book of Hebrews, verse by verse, and develop this theme. It is also very clearly developed in the letter to the Galatians. But I don't have time right now so I'll just show how I understand your 2 verses fit into this theme and then I'll respond to any further questions you might have.
Hebrews 10:26,27
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
First some definitions.
sinning willfully = falling away from the grace and truth of Jesus Christ back into the Law of Moses.
knowledge of the truth = But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
no longer remains = remains in our expectation (our minds).
sacrifice for sins = the final, complete, once for all sacrifice of Christ.
judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES = the judgment required for breaking the Law of Moses for which the lamb was consumed by fire in the offender's place.
So, basically, I see the verse as saying that if we go back to trying to earn God's favor by keeping the Law of Moses instead of trusting in the sacrifice of Christ in our place, then we will also be returning to the expectation of the judgment associated with violating the Law of Moses instead of the peace associated with resting in the sacrifice of Christ.
In other words, it's more about our consciences before God than any actual judgment by God.
Here are some verses where I get this idea.
Hebrews 9:9-14
which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Okay, I'll leave it at that for now. I have to get some sleep.
This has been kind of sketchy so please let me know where I need to flesh it out some more and I'll do so tomorrow.
Thanks again for your question,
Standing firm,
Bill
Thanks Bill,
Writing here from Ohio, how 'bout you? (feel free to retain confidentiality-I just find it interesting!).
Just a brief prima facie response, first impressions: in the definitions:
"sinning willfully = falling away from the grace and truth of Jesus Christ back into the Law of Moses.
***This has always been less than satisfying to me in that the statement seems to lack such a qualification. It seems to say simply that if we continue in sin. This cross references nicely with Paul's statements about those that practice certain sins will not enter the kingdom. Also, John's statement that the child of God does not practice sin. That seems to be a more natural, for the Hebrews author doesn't really qualify the word sin as does your interpretation. Any response? As you are open to correction and new light: "let it shine"!
Take Care,
Robert
knowledge of the truth = But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
no longer remains = remains in our expectation (our minds).
sacrifice for sins = the final, complete, once for all sacrifice of Christ."
I meant to say: "As you are open to correction and new light, so am I: "let it shine"!
Robert,
Good response! Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify some things.
Before I start, I'm curious about one thing. You said, concerning my view of sinning willfully, "This has always been less than satisfying to me ..." Could you tell me where you've heard my view before? I would love to read someone (other than me)explain this view. I thought I came up with it on my own.
Now, you are quite right that verse 26 does, indeed, simply say "sinning willfully". And you are right to be unsatisfied. The burden is on me to show that the context explains the meaning of "sinning willfully". That having been said, let me say to you that cross referencing Paul (who I think wrote Hebrews) and John to help us understand Hebrews is less than satisfying to me. While I appreciate the help that other books can give us, I think it is important to first go to the entire letter of Hebrews before we go elsewhere for help. I fear that going outside of Hebrews gives us way too much latitude in our interpretations. It can give us hints of how to proceed but it is way too vague as a decisive method. Don't you agree?
The problem is that we either look at the immediate context and find no clues to the meaning of "sinning willfully" and interpret it as isolated from the context or (as I am prone to do) making the error of reading the context into the verse.
So, I'll try to show you from the context of Hebrews 10, alone, that I am justified in my interpretation and then you can judge my success.
Do you agree that verses 1-18 are contrasting the inadequacy of the Law of Moses with the perfection of Christ? If not let me know what you do think so I can know where I need to improve.
1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.
4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
"SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,
BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
6 IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
7 "THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME
(IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)
TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.'"
8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law),
9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16 "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"
He then says,
17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
And now, having shown that the New Covenant is superior to the Old, the author proceeds to show us how to apply that truth. Verses 19-25 are all referring to standing firm in Christ and not falling away back into slavery under the Law of Moses. Is this clear or do I still seem to be reaching?
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
To me, it is obvious that "sinning willfully" at the very least refers to "not forsaking our own assembling together". To me, this just means that when we forsake standing firm in what Christ has done for us and fall away back into the synagogues (which has a very similar meaning to assembling together), we have a terrifying expectation of judgment.
Now I have forsaken assembling at times and I have been covetous (Eph 5:5) and I have even practiced sin (1 John 3:4). Are all those who, like me, have done these things going to be tormented in hell for eternity? That's how the popular view appears to me. Am I missing something?
I guess the best way that you can help me see where I am wrong is to show me how I am misreading the context of Hebrews. Or maybe you'll come to see that there is at least some merit in what I am saying.
Oh, and I am from Louisville, Ky and I was at Truthvoice 2005.
Thanks again for your input,
Bill
Bill,
It seems to me that forsaking the body of Christ and returning to Judaism for the Jews at this time was an *example* of sinning willfully. It just seems to me that to limit "if we go on sinning willfully" to the sin of apostacy that the author is using language in a very odd way. Of course, it is odd to me, and I "wasn't there", so that doesn't prove a thing (yet I still have to deal with it!)! If he wanted to say what the usual evangelical view in my experience claims he says (that "sinning willfully" refers *only* to apostacy), then why didn't he say something like "if we sin willfully by apostacizing......."? The word sin is not so narrow as to be only referring to one type of sin.......at least to me. But I am just one guy out of the whole lump of humanity, highly conditioned and highly fallible....
Comments?
Now what you have said about the "practicing of sin", I admit the difficulties multiply. Paul rebukes the Church at Corinth for sins that elsewhere he states sthat those that practice such "shall not enter the kingdom of heaven". Yet he calls them true Christians, does he not? So what's that all about? Is there a deadline? Is it death??
Take Care, Robert
Wow! Thanks! Lots of questions.
If you really mean, "It seems to me that forsaking the body of Christ and returning to Judaism for the Jews at this time was an *example* of sinning willfully." then we are making progress. As far as I know not many people make the connection between forsaking the body of Christ and returning to Judaism. Especially as presented in
Hebrews 10:25
not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
The first section of Hebrews 10 is establishing the superiority of Christ to the Law of Moses. The second section (verses 19-25) are exhortation to apply this truth to our lives. Positively stated, this exhortation is to continue standing firm confidently in the assembling of ourselves together. Negatively stated, it is to no forsake this assembling.
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
Unless Paul has brought up a completely different subject in verse 26 "sinning willfully" clearly refers back to the preceding section and the only sin mentioned is that of going back to the Law. There is no need for Paul to further specify what "sinning willfully" means because it is obvious from the preceding verses. At least it is to me. Maybe it's because I read from the original Greek. I don't really think so but at least it's possible. Greek had no punctuation marks. The only way to tell how to separate sentences were words like "men", and "de", and "gar". The sentences were like links in a chain. They were not isolated. Also the connecting words tell us how the words are linked. "Gar" or "for" means that it is connected directly to what has been mentioned earlier. The Greek mind would see "gar" and immediately connect "sinning willfully" with the "forsaking" of the preceding verse. A sentence beginning with "gar" never introduces a new subject. Now I can't prove this. It is only my impression. If you think it sounds wrong then I respect that.
But if you do disagree with me then we have a huge problem because "sinning willfully" then has to mean any sin at all. The problem becomes why does Paul choose to bring up "sinning willfully" at this point. If "forsaking" is an example of "sinning willfully" then is it some kind of special class of sin? Does only this class of sin bring the terrifying expectation of judgment? What about other classes of sin?
I don't know how to answer these questions. My view is very satisfying to me and has become my settled understanding over many years of reading and rereading the passages.
Moving on, you asked about the kingdom of heaven. I don't know what you understand by this phrase and I'm not entirely confident that I understand it but at this point I look at it as a present reality which describes those who rest under the rule of Christ. I have many drafts started for this blog that will touch on my understanding of the kingdom of heaven but I have only so much time and I haven't gotten around to finishing any of them yet. Let me just say for now that my understanding is that we move in and out of the kingdom of heaven as we move in and out of standing firm in grace. I think that all of the behaviors that are mentioned as excluding someone from the kingdom are the results of not abiding in the grace of Christ. As we behold His grace toward us we become gracious toward others. As we return to the Law and try to earn God's favor we become legalistic toward others and expect them to earn our favor as well. These expectations result in broken relationships and their attendant frustrations. They also mar the image of God that we were created to reflect to the world.
Does this make any sense at all? It's late and I have to shut down now.
I really enjoy this exchange and I hope that I have stimulated more questions.
Goodnight,
Bill
Roger,
I was kind of tired when I wrote my last comment so I want to add a bit more explanation.
I meant to demonstrate that the forsaking assembling of verse 25 is the subject of the entire section from verse 19-25.
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,
21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
Verses 19-21 are telling us why we should not forsake assembling together. The Hebrew Christians were afraid to rest in Jesus' work and wanted to avoid the judgment of the Law By returning to the Law of Moses they avoided resting in Jesus and could actively avoid punishment by obeying (yeah right) the Law of Moses. Resting in Jesus can be a scary thing because we feel like we must do something ourselves to avoid judgment. They were to remain confident that Jesus would protect them from judgment.
22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Let us draw near ... is another way of saying "not forsaking".
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;
Let us hold fast ... is another way of saying "not forsaking".
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
Let us consider ... is another way of saying "not forsaking".
25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.
So "not forsaking" is not an isolated example of sinning willfully. "Sinning willfully" is a summation of verses 19-25. At least that's how I've come to see it.
Your turn,
Bill
PS If you're still not convinced I'll be happy to go back through each verse and try to demonstrate that "not forsaking" is the subject of entire letter to the Hebrews. We are the body of Christ and "forsaking assembling" is falling away from Christ. If I am right then this "sinning willfully" or "forsaking assembling" is what the entire letter is addressing.
What would constitute "forsaking assembling"? Missing church services? I'm gettin' nervous!
Robert,
Sorry I called you Roger. I had a very similar discussion to this with someone named Roger on a site called TheologyWorld. I was talking to him about Hebrews chapter 6 and I had already written many posts showing how Galatians and Hebrews were parallel letters and we had almost gotten to chapter 6 when the site went down and I lost everything I had written. Anyhow, Roger was a most gracious challenger so when I called you Roger you should consider it a high complement. I think he has posted on Planet Preterist but I don't know what name he uses there.
Hah, you're right we should be getting nervous. If Christ is not sufficient then judgment is a scary thing. I think "not forsaking" means more to us today than just not attending church. It would be more like having converted from Orthodox Judaism to Christianity and then converting back because resting in Christ was a little too difficult. For us today I think it would be just loosing confidence in all that we are in Christ and fearing that God's pleasure is based on our performance and not on His Son.
Bill
Bill,
Yes, we must remember context. Now, where were we? OK, so you are applying the "no longer a sacrifice" to those Hebrews returning to the Law. And when they go back to law, they feel it's condemnation. That makes some sense. Maybe we can move on though, to the universalist thing. No longer a sacrifice, rather an expectation of judgement. Now how does that fit the UR (for Universal Reconciliation from now on!) schem of things? Just that the judgement will correct them back to grace?
What about the verse that speaks of those whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world? Doesn't that speak of predestined damnation? Oops, gotta run!
Robert
Robert,
First, I want to clarify that I don't think there is any condmenation in Hebrews 10:27. It is just the expectation of judgment that comes when we take our eyes off of the one who bore our judgment on the cross.
There is actual judgment later on in chapter ten and I believe that this judgment is the same as the judgment of the lake of fire in the Revelation passages you have mentioned.
My view of the judgment in Hebrews 10:28-31 and throughout Revelation is that it came upon the unbelieving nation of Israel at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad. This judgment does not refer to the popular conception of Hell. My view of the book of Revelation is that it is a symbolic revelation of the spiritual truths that took place on the cross. I also view the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad as a visual representation of what took place on the cross. And, therefore, I consider that much of Revelation refers to the events of 70ad.
You might want to refer to some of the articles in this blog, as well as my commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4 in the archives.
I have started a commentary on Revelation 21 called Future Hope or Present Reality but it's not quite ready for publication yet. If you'd like I'll see if I can move it to the front of the queue so that you can read it. I'm currently working on a commentary on James 1.
Bill
Robert,
Sorry, I meant to say, "You might want to refer to some of the articles on Preterism in this blog, as well as my commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4 in the archives."
Bill
Your writings do sound interesting and I would like to read them. You seem to be very zealous in your studying. It is very exciting to be able to communicate like this, regardless of where we end up in our interpretations. I tend towards the doubting of total objectivity by any human being. My main interest is that of universalism, and whether it is biblical. Have you thought about "the verse that speaks of those whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world?" Doesn't that speak of predestined damnation?
Take Care,
Robert
Sorry, Robert, I left out part of what I meant to say about the book of life. Let me just start with some general statements and then you can respond and I'll respond to you.
The book of life is a metaphor for those who have been called out of the world to be witnesses of the light of Christ. The book of life is parallel to the kingdom of heaven. Those who have been chosen by God are to bring the life of heaven to the world. Those whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world are the ones who have not been called out. They are the ones we get to witness to.
Though I believe that all have been saved by Christ doesn't mean that I believe that all will come to realize they have been saved, at least not during this lifetime. Only those who have been chosen to be called out to be witnesses will understand that they have been saved.
Your turn,
Bill
I only ask, Bill, that we follow the King James version exclusively. After all, what was good enuf for Paul is good enuf fur me.
:)
Are you saying that those that are in the book are the ones saved *on earth*? What is the significance of the saying "from the foundation of the world"? This sounds like it was written at the beginning of the world, like predestined?
Oh, I agree completely that the significance of "from the foundation of the world" is that those who are in the book are predestined.
Many people actually think that the doctrine of predestination is an argument for Universalism. I think they argue something like that if our damnation is predestined then it's not fair of God to not give us a chance to escape. I don't buy into that line of thought and I'm not sure that I presented it correctly but there are those who believe something close to that.
I came to believe in Universalism solely because that's what many verses clearly teach.
You asked, " Are you saying that those that are in the book are the ones saved *on earth*?"
Yes, I guess I am. I'm not really sure what you mean by *on earth*. I don't know of any passages that talk about any other kind of salvation. Let me know if you have some verses and I'll be glad to comment on them.
Bill
But Bill,
If they are predestined to *not* be in the book of life, then there is no such truth as universalism!
Bill, by "on earth", I meant that they cme to Christ before death. My major concern at present is with the Revelations passage. I have never seen how this could be reconciled with universalism while maintaining the consistency of apostolic teaching.....
Robert,
By Universalism, all that I mean is that Christ's death on the cross reconciled God to the world, atoned for the sins of the world, and in these two senses saved the world.
I know this is kind of cheating but I'm just going to copy what I said earlier about the book of life.
"The book of life is a metaphor for those who have been called out of the world to be witnesses of the light of Christ. The book of life is parallel to the kingdom of heaven. Those who have been chosen by God are to bring the life of heaven to the world. Those whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world are the ones who have not been called out. They are the ones we get to witness to.
Though I believe that all have been saved by Christ doesn't mean that I believe that all will come to realize they have been saved, at least not during this lifetime. Only those who have been chosen to be called out to be witnesses will understand that they have been saved."
In order for the book of life to have anything to do with Universalism it would have to be referring to life after physical death. I don't think that it refers to anything that happens after our death. It refers to our spiritual life here and now in the kingdom of God.
I also think that the entire book of Revelation is a symbolic depiction of our life with Christ here and now and not an account of future events or life after death.
Am I missing something here?
Bill
Bill,
So, you are saying that the book of life contains the names of all of those who are saved before they die? Where is the evidence for thus?
RObert
Some say that the correct interpetation is basically: *since* the foundation of the world. That would basically say: "not yet written" from that interpretation.....what about that as a possibility?
I'm sorry Robert but I'm getting confused. Yes, I am saying that the book of life contains the names of all those who are saved before they die. What is the alternative view?
If the book of life contains the names of all those who will ever be saved or if names are added to the book of life as they are saved then what about this verse?
Revelation 3:5
He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
If the book of life speaks of eternal salvation such as escape from hell then these passages would be saying that we can lose our eternal salvation.
My view is that the book of life contains the names of those who are chosen to represent the kingdom of heaven on this earth. It is the book of those who accept the life of Christ as their life and reflect this life to those around them. The book of life is not those who are eternally saved. If it were then our names could not be erased. Eternal salvation is based on the death and resurrection of Christ and nothing else.
Bill
PS I do agree that "since" is a possible, if not probable, translation for "from". I'm not sure how that changes anything though.
Bill,
First of all, I want to make my intentions clear. I am not attempting here to "win" an argument, or push a certain interpretation. I have no illusions that I have *the* true interpretation of the scriptures. I am trying to refine my interpretations towards the end of seeing God for Who He is. Therefore, many of my proposed interpretations are to be looked at as "potential" interpretations, for I believe that there is not a single, proven interpretation of the scriptures. Much of what I do is to see what is potential, what is certainly true, what is certainly false. The true interpretation of the three "destiny viewpoints" (annihilationism, eternal punishment and universal reconciliation) must have the best "explanatory power". The three "destiny viewpoints" all have various prima facie interpretations that support their view. I think that for each of the three there are tough verses as well You are one of the best defenders of of "universalism that I have met thus far. You and Professor Talbott, Rev. Pridgeon, etc. It is a great opportunity to see how you interpret certain verses. It is rare to find someone who is willing to do so. So, to repeat, I am here to learn of your view and how you respond to various challenges to your viewpoint. Please don't take any critique as a personal attack. I do employ rigor, and it may be that I don't feel convinced by your views. But the point is that "winning" is not a concern here, just coming to the Truth will suffice.....having said that, I would like to continue with what I consider the "universalist anomaly verses". Are you game? (Don't let my rigor offend you, OK?) I make no judgement that it has offended you, but just to be kind....
Blessings,
Robert
Here is a statement from a forum that I find interesting (I keep the Forum's name secret):
"The *****Forum is not a place to engage in contentious arguments and
wranglings over every Scripture verse in the Bible. I have yet to see a
situation where hurling verses at each other has ever convinced anyone
of the other's position. It has only served to create animosity and
further division (consider the history of religion)."
I contrast my approach here by stating that "every Scripture verse in the Bible" should be examined like the Bereans were known to do, but in a kind, Christlike manner such rigor is not to be rejected.
Oftentimes when people differ, they take it personally. I think that I have seen folks use the rigor of the other as an excuse to quit a discussion. This man may or may not be doing so, but the lack of an alternative offered perks my antennae up! I think that we need not be frightened by rigor (though it can make us very uncomfortable). It is not against God's Will to employ rigor in my view......
Blessings!,
Robert
Hey Robert,
I enjoy your "rigor" and I look forward to studying your coming questions and hopefully coming up with answers that at the least provoke more thought.
I just want to know the Lord and walk in His steps and your questions help me to do both. I have changed my mind on "doctrines" so often as I have studied His word that I don't mind being shown to be wrong and having to change again.
Once again, I welcome your questions and I enjoy your spirit and I hope I can answer you in a like spirit.
Bill
Bill,
I too feel bound to the Lord and if you show me more of the Truth than I already know, I feel that the Lord will "corner" me! I think that we know down deep when we are cornered if we know the Lord!
I hope that universalism is true. My, what a difference in mood from the EP (eternal punishment) model- it is like two different religions, almost. But if it isn't true, I wanna know! Sometimes I don't wanna know, though.....
Robert
Robert,
Here's a post from the forum on Preterism/Confronting Universalism on Planetpreterist.com. It's the last post on the second page. I've copied it here in case you can't find it. It's written by Ed Burley and it goes into much more depth than I have here. I think he's on the right track.
Let me explain my views on the things that you mentioned:
Book of Life - this scriptural "book" mentioned in Revelation is referring to Psalm 68, where the "book of the living" is mentioned. It is clearly a "covenantal" object, where those who "keep covenant" are listed, while those that "break covenant" are "blotted out." The reference to this in Revelation refers not to some end of life judgment, but to the judging of the old covenant - those whose names were found in the book of life were the believing Israel, while those blotted out were unbelieving Israel.
Lake of Fire - I maintain that this LAKE of Fire references the destruction of Jerusalem based on Joel 2 (please read it). You will see that the destructive army of Joel 2 has a fire that goes before them. This is obviously the Roman army advancing on the old covenant city of Jerusalem, the Babylon of Revelation, the Mother of all Harlots (a harlot because she committed adultery with other gods).
Finally, even though you didn't mention it, the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God. As Jesus said that his kingdom was not OF this world (origin, not location), we know that this New Jerusalem was the new City of God (is opposition to the old city, Babylon/Jerusalem). In the same way that in the old covenant, the violators of the covenant were "thrown outside the city" we see the same description made in the New Jerusalem. Those outside the city were those of the unbelieving Israel. We see "dogs" (whom Paul warned "beware of the dogs"), "Liars" (the antiChrists who denied the Messiah coming "in the flesh"), "the sexually immoral" (adulterers, the pharisees who were guilty of the same sin as the adulteress they wanted to stone), etc. You see, these were the "unbelievers" of the old covenant, clinging to the "dead works" and the "ministration of death", i.e., righteousness through the Law.
Back to the Lake of Fire, we see DEATH and HADES thrown into it. What does that mean? Well, Hades is the "place of the dead" while death is the condition of sinful man. IOW, Death and Hades had to do with THE LAW, which was the ministration of death, it brought death (remember Paul speaking of this in Romans 7?). The lake of fire being the Roman army destroyed DEATH and HADES, the Law, and all its accoutrements (priesthood, temple, holy things, ark of the covenant, the unholy city, etc.). This meant that DEATH was DEAD. The Law, that was the power of sin, was no longer effective in bringing death to humanity. You see, the wages of sin was death. If Law was dealt with, then sin was dealt with, and death was destroyed ("The last enemy to be destroyed was death").
Now, you might say, "but the unbelieving Israel were thrown into this judgment as well". Yes, that is correct, but that was the judgment of Jerusalem, NOT post-mortem destruction. Destruction spoken of in scripture had to do with the "destruction of the flesh," the flesh being that which was subject to the Law. But, Jesus was a Life giving Spirit.
Finally, in Roman 11, we are told that they (unbelieving Israel) were hardened, so that God might have "mercy on ALL". In addition, in the same chapter, we are told that "if their rejection (by God) brought salvation to the gentiles, how much more will their acceptance (by God - after their judgment of fire in AD70) be but LIFE FROM THE DEAD (RESURRECTION).
I know this is quite long, but I am trying to show you the logical and SCRIPTURAL pathway that I journeyed to come to these conclusions. As you can see, not one ounce of EMOTION, just scripture and reason.
Let me end by saying that, if you do not "see" with your spiritual eye what I am explaining to you, that's okay!!! That doesn't mean that you are wrong, or that there is something wrong with you in my mind. I may be wrong. And if I am right, you may just not see it yet. And you may never see it. That's okay too. What matters is not your theology regarding post-mortem, what matters is your love for God, and for all others, including your enemies.
I have to go, time for my family. May God richly bless you Z, for your love for him, and the truth of Jesus Christ our Lord.
____________________
In His Infinite Grace,
ed
www.infinite-grace.com
Roger,
I didn't come to appreciate Universalism by "explaining away" all of the difficult passages. I came to appreciate Universalism by not being able to explain the universal passages. I'm going to post an article just listing the verses. Feel free to comment on any of them. I don't see how to get around them without being very loose with the language.
Bill
The universalist passages sound good, but the verses that don't seem to fit it throw some doubt into the picture. The verses on Judas, for example, the verses in Revelations that say: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." It will take awhile to dig into these.....
I'll be happy to comment on any passage you would like to bring up. Just let me know.
Is there a specific passage on Judas you'd like me to address?
How do you think that the Revelation verses throw doubt on Universalism?
Sometimes I'm a little dense. ;0)
Bill
Bill,
We can go "one small step at a time", as Professor Talbott used to say when he was active in the message boards at CARM 5 years ago or so. Those were exciting days over at CARM- did you ever see some of what when down there?
About Judas:
"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
"his own place"=?
I can't say exactly what "his own place" means. I am not familiar with any other passage that uses this term. The context shows that the disciples were gathered together to replace Judas. For whatever reason, they thought that they needed to have twelve apostles. Judas had left his place as one of the twelve Christ had chosen to represent Him to the world so that he might go to "his own place."
While I don't know what it means specifically, I do think it's general meaning is clear. He fell away from his place as one of the apostles and went to his own place.
Here are some verses that I think describe a similar idea.
Isaiah 53:6
All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.
Matthew 26:31
Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ' I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.'
Bill,
This verse seems the death knell to universalist presuppositions:
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Boy, that seems pretty conclusive.
Robert
Robert,
Paying close attention to the timing phrases in this passage has helped me to understand John's meaning. I feel like John is clearly speaking to an audience for whom the events he describes are soon to unfold. We make the mistake of thinking that John's words have direct application to us, 2000 years in the future from when John was speaking. I don't think that is consistent with the timing phrases. These seven verses are loaded with them.
soon take place ...
I am coming quickly ...
for the time is near ...
I am coming quickly ...
The verse you have mentioned is surrounded by timing phrases that indicate that whatever the verse is refering to happened about 2,000 years ago in the lifetimes of John's immediate audience. My conclusion is that the only event which meets these criteria is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad.
I understand verse eleven to be just another timing phrase. John is saying that the destruction of Jerusalem is about to happen so soon that there is no time to make changes in one's way of life. I don't see anything about heaven or hell or eternal destinies. I don't see anything about faith in Jesus Christ. I don't see any gospel message at all.
What do you see that I'm missing?
Bill
Revelation 22:6-12
6 And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place .
7 "And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book."
8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 But he said to me, "Do not do that I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God."
10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
11 "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."
12 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
11 "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."
So he is basically saying- "no matter what state you are in, ready or not here I come"?
Maybe...
Robert
Another verse that is tough to fit into the universalist scheme would seem to me to be Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
So he is saying "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and "for an age"? That doesn't fit the mood- it sounds anti-climactic!
Thanks for your time, BIll!
Robert
Hey Robert,
I've missed you. Thanks for your new questions.
"So he is basically saying- "no matter what state you are in, ready or not here I come"?"
Yep, that's what I think he's saying.
Hebrews 13:8 literally reads (from the Greek) Jesus Christ yesterday and today the same even unto the ages.
I think that is very climactic and pretty much covers the whole alpha and omega.
What do you think?
Bill
So He isn't the same yesterday, today and forever? Why limit it to "the age"? That seems illogical to me.....
Robert
No Robert, I do think the passage is saying that He is the same yesterday, today and forever. The phrase, "even unto the ages" is an idiom for forever. It's like saying that He will be the same throughout all of the coming ages; i.e. forever.
5 Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, "I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU,"
6 so that we confidently say,
"THE LORD IS MY HELPER, I WILL NOT BE AFRAID.
WHAT WILL MAN DO TO ME?"
7 Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Paul is saying that we should not rely on the riches of this world for protection because just as the Lord Jesus has protected people in the past and is protecting them in the present, He will go on protecting them in the future.
Do you see something different?
Bill
Bill,
I thought that the same word (or a derivative of such) refers to the duration of punishment after death?
Robert
Robert,
Here's a site where you can check out the Greek for yourself. All you need to do is type in the verse or passage that you want to check and it will give you the Greek text with the English text right below it. If you click on the Greek words it will tell you all the verses that use that word and the meanings and derivations of the word. I use it all the time.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/
Words have different meanings in different places. Often the context will help determine which meaning should be used.
Let me know if you have a specific verse about punishment after death and I'll be happy to comment on it.
Bill
I suppose you are gonna say that they are all "on earth-punishments",ie preteristic....do you believe that there is after death punishment?
Robert
Robert,
I don't know what I would say until you bring up a specific verse. I will say that my understanding of punishment is that Christ bore the punishment of the entire world when He suffered on the cross. His suffering satisfied God's demands for righteousness. Prior to the cross, God's righteousness demanded that we suffer punishment for our sins. After the cross, there is no punishment needed to satisfy God's demand for righteousness. That demand has been met in Christ.
If there is any "punishment" after the cross it is only a corrective discipline to purge those who have been chosen to represent the character of God on this earth.
I would suggest that you read the following article to see an example of corrective discipline designed to purify God's image on earth.
http://billsbloggins.blogspot.com/2005/07/1-corinthans-1117-34-being-worthy-of.html
Let me know what you think.
Bill
Another toughie when you have time.....
How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.
Matthew 7:13,14
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
This passage is from the sermon on the mount. I just read over the entire sermon and I couldn't find any reference to anything after death. As far as I can tell these two verses are referring to life on this earth, not life after death. I agree with Jesus that few find life and many lead lives that lead to destruction; not life or destruction after death, but life and destruction here and now while still living on earth. The sermon on the mount is a very practical teaching about how to live. It is not about how to gain a certain status in the afterlife. It doesn't even mention any afterlife.
Feel free to show me where I'm wrong. I'll be more than happy to respond to any criticism of what I've said. I, like you, am just trying to understand the passages so I can know and follow our Savior.
Resting in Him,
Bill
Hey Bill,
Thanks for the reply. What does Jesus mean by "life" in the manner in which you are interpreting it?
Robert
Great question Robert! I meant to explain that in my previous post but I forgot.
Here are some verses from John's gospel. I wish I could use some from Matthew but they don't really explain what Jesus means by life.
John 5:24
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
John 10:10
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may (now) have life, and have it abundantly.
John 11:25
Jesus said to her, " I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
John 17:3
"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
My understanding is that when Jesus says life He is referring to a way of living in an understanding of God's grace toward us as demonstrated in the death of Jesus. Knowing (understanding who He is) Jesus is life, eternal life.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
This life is in contrast to the spiritual death brought about by living under the law whereby we felt the need to earn God's approval through our works.
2 Corinthians 3:7,8
But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
When Jesus refers to this life as eternal life He is literally saying in the Greek "life of the age." I think that this age is the age of grace which Jesus brought about spiritually at the cross and also physically with the destruction of the law in 70ad. The age of the law was an age of death. We are presently living in the age of grace, an age of life. Those who understand God's gracious acceptance through Jesus now have the life of the age of grace or "eternal life."
Bill
Bill,
And how are you interpreting "destruction?
Blessings,
Robert
Another good question.
I believe that this destruction is the opposite of life. The penalty for disobedience for the nation of Israel was to be cut off from the people. This often included loss of life. See also my commentary on 1 Corinthians. The consequence of marring the true nature of the Lord's supper was that many were sick or died. The nation of Israel and now the church are the special carriers of God's image on the earth. In order to keep His image pure God sometimes removes those who distort this image.
What do you think?
Bill
Just an aside- I am dialoguing with someone on a blog and his big point is this: "How does said teaching affect the saved, and the unsaved?" I don't think that his is a good approach to judge the truth or falsity of a teaching based on its' pragmatic effect. What do you think?
Take Care, Bill
Robert
I'm with you, Robert. I try to listen to what the Word says. I think that when we use the pragmatic approach we tend to use our "fleshly" minds to impose our own ideas on the Scriptures. I would rather let the Scriptures speak and leave the pragmatism to the Lord. He knows what He's doing. His ways are not my ways. I'm afraid my pragmatism would only get in the way of the Lord's will.
With that said, I do definitely think that the truth does set us free. So the teaching of the freedom we have in Christ does affect the saved and the unsaved. It sets them free from slavery to the law of sin and death and frees them to walk in the joy of the Lord; to live the abundant life that God desires for each of us.
Thanks for bringing up this most excellent point.
Bill
Hey Bill, does scripture ever say that punishment is "to the age" as I believe you said that Hebrews 13 says about Jesus, the same yesterday, today and forever?
Robert, I've found three verses that use this sort of construction in relation to punishment. They are:
Jude 1:13
wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.
Here "forever" is a translation of "unto ages".
Revelation 14:11
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
Here "forever and ever" is a translation of "unto ages of ages".
Revelation 20:10
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Here "forever and ever" is a translation of "unto the ages of the ages".
I hope these verses are what you were looking for. They were all I could find.
Bill
So therefore, punishment is forever?
(?)
Robert
Come on, Robert, this is a trick question right? Obviously there are many different types of punishment mentioned in the Scriptures and obviously not all of them are forever. So the answer to your question is easy. It's no! Punishment is not forever. That is not to say that some kinds of punishment aren't forever. There may be. But punishment, as a general concept is not forever. Some specific punishment may be.
Now, just so you don't think I'm dodging your question, here are all of the verses in the NASB New Testament that mention punishment. Ask me a specific question and I'll be happy to try to come up with an answer that you'll like.
Peace,
Bill
Matthew 25:46
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
2 Corinthians 2:6
Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority,
Hebrews 10:29
How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
1 Peter 2:14
or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
2 Peter 2:9
then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment,
1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
Jude 1:7
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Bill,
No trick here, just straight forward honest stuff.
Earlier, you said that the verse in Hebrews says that Jesus is the same yesterday today and *forever*, right? The same language is used in the NT for the duration of punishment, no?
Whay is that so "tricky"?- same word both places, no?
Blessings, Robert
Actually, this is very tricky. Your question assumes that words always mean the same thing even in different contexts. I disagree with that assumption. If I were to tell you that it's raining cats and dogs would you have a mental picture that involved cats or dogs or would you picture a strong rain coming down? The context of the phrase cats and dogs tells us the meaning. Here the words cats and dogs mean a strong rain. Now if I say that I am going to the animal shelter to look at cats and dogs then you would not have a picture of any type of rain. You would just picture animals.
Because of this linguistic difficulty I gave you a number of verses which mentioned punishment and asked you to ask me a specific question. That way I can analyze the context to determine the meaning of the words.
I see no reason to make general statements that are not universally true. I'd rather deal with specific passages. I'd rather let the Scriptures speak for themselves.
Now it's your turn.
Bill
Bill,
It is true that language can be tricky. However, if one claims such a use of language, it is imperative for such a one to grasp that the burden of proof is in their court to demonstrate this.....
Let's start with:
Revelation 14:11
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
Robert
Robert,
I'm sorry that I can't understand what you've asked me to demonstrate, but I will be glad to offer some comments on Revelation 14:11. It would help me answer you better if in the future you would ask a specific question. Otherwise, I feel like I'm just rambling instead of addressing you directly.
Anyhow...
Revelation 14:11
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
Concerning smoke:
Revelation 19:1-3
After these things I heard something like a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God; BECAUSE HIS JUDGMENTS ARE TRUE AND RIGHTEOUS; for He has judged the great harlot who was corrupting the earth with her immorality, and HE HAS AVENGED THE BLOOD OF HIS BOND-SERVANTS ON HER." And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! HER SMOKE RISES UP FOREVER AND EVER ."
First of all, I think that the smoke that goes up forever refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad. In Revelation the great harlot and babylon both refer to apostate Jerusalem which had abandoned the image of God's grace and mercy and substituted an image of law and punishment. The smoke obviously doesn't still go up. The reason it says forever is that this is a figurative way of saying that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Old Covenant will be remembered forever.
Concerning image:
Genesis 1:26,27
Then God said, " Let Us make man in Our image , according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Concerning mark:
Exodus 13:9
"And it shall serve as a sign to you on your hand, and as a reminder on your forehead, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a powerful hand the LORD brought you out of Egypt.
I believe that the mark of the beast refers back to Exodus where the Israelites were to remember the Law as if it were written on their hands and foreheads and therefore constantly before their eyes. The mark of the beast is a symbolic way of saying that they were worshipping the Old Covenant which was being destroyed instead of embracing the New.
In the destruction of Jerusalem all who would not relinquish the Old Covenant were tormented as the city was destroyed.
How'd I do?
Bill
Bill,
It sounds pretty speculative to me, certainly not proven in any sense. I guess it all depends upon some "further back" interpretive commitments that we have both made, respectively. I do think that God does judge individuals in the "eternal (aionian) judgement". The meaning of that is mysterious to me... We all must appear before God to give an account, no?
Robert
Robert,
If anything I have said seems speculative let me know and I'll be glad to go into more detail about why I believe what I have said. I try to give you what I believe about the verses and a short explanation of why I believe it. If you aren't convinced I will be glad to offer more "proof". I don't know much about your background or your beliefs so I can't anticipate your objections. You have to make them explicit and then I will respond to them.
You said,"I do think that God does judge individuals in the 'eternal (aionian) judgement'". If you would give me a verse or two I would be happy to explain what I think they mean. Without a verse all I can say is that if there is "eternal (aionian) judgment" then that does not, in itself, imply punishment. In the Olympics, if one of the skaters is judged a ten and the other is judged a nine, there is judgment but no punishment.
Also giving an account may just mean that we are called to give a defense of our behaviour. This also doesn't imply punishment.
Once again, I trust that you have formed you ideas from passages in the Scriptures. Let's discuss the passages behind the ideas instead of the general principles. I think that will be much more fruitful. Don't you?
Bill
Bill,
Your interpretation:
"In the destruction of Jerusalem all who would not relinquish the Old Covenant were tormented as the city was destroyed."
That doesn't work for me- they certainly were not tormented "for the ages of the ages"!!! as th scripture says (correct me if I am wrong, but that is what is said!).
Blessings,
Robert
Robert,
The verse says
Revelation 14:11
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
You say
"That doesn't work for me- they certainly were not tormented "for the ages of the ages"!!! as th scripture says (correct me if I am wrong, but that is what is said!)."
The passage says that the smoke goes up forever and ever. It does not say that anyone was tormented forever and ever.
At this point it might be helpful to read Revelation chapters 18 and 19. They both refer to the smoke that goes up from the burning of Jerusalem. For example,
Revelation 18:9,10
"And the kings of the earth, who committed acts of immorality and lived sensuously with her, will weep and lament over her when they see the smoke of her burning, standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.'
I think that the passage is referring to the destruction of the city as being eternal. The smoke from the destruction of Jerusalem goes up forever and ever. The torment was temporary as those who did not flee from the city were killed by the Romans. The Old Covenant was forever replaced by the New Covenant. The destruction of the city of Jerusalem illustrated the final end of the Old Covenant. It also illustrated the beginning of the eternal New Covenant kingdom of heaven.
What part of this do you find "highly speculative"? I find the entire book of Revelation to be highly speculative. I also see the insertion of any notion of Hell into this passage to be highly speculative.
Let me offer another view of the torment mentioned here. After the destruction of Jerusalem, those who sought rest in the Old Covenant had no rest day and night. The covenant had been abolished forever. The torment of not being able to rest in the Old Covenant would never cease. Even today the nation of Israel has no temple where they can find rest for their sins. Only in Christ and the New Covenant is there hope for rest for Israel. As long as they continue to hope in the Old Covenant there will be no rest day or night.
Matthew 11:28-30
Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
Hebrews 4:10
For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
Heb. 6:4-9 reads:
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned. But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way (NASB).
Bill, "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance" sounds final on the face of it. What do you think?
I know I am jumping around. I am probably trying to do too much at once, but I would like your opinion on this....
Take Care,
Robert
Robert,
I would like to spend some time on this passage. I'm going to offer two brief suggestions as to how to understand this passage and then I would like you to respond so that I can add further clarification.
First, the passage is best understood in the light of the entire context of what has gone before in the book of Hebrews. The theme of Hebrews is the transition from the Old Covenant of Law to the New Covenant of grace.
Hebrews 1:1,2
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
Second, I would rather translate the crucial part as either "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, while they continue to again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame." or "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, as long as they continue to again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame."
The thrust of the passage is that it is not possible for the Hebrew Christians to again repent of their adherence to the Law and turn to grace as long as they are still committed to continuing in the Old Covenant sacrificial system. As soon as they relinquish the sacrifices and rely solely upon the eternal sacrifice of Christ they can be restored to reliance upon grace.
Any thoughts?
Bill
Bill, What happened to so many of our comments? Erased?
Best wishes,
Robert
Bill,
My bad, never mind.....
Post a Comment
<< Home