Pauline Universalist Prooftexts in Context

     As the saying goes, “a text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext”. Taking a biblical passage out of its original context does a great disservice to both the original writer and the reader. Unfortunately, many universalists are accused of doing exactly this when it comes to universalist prooftexts like Romans 5:18 and 1 Timothy 4:10. Because of this, I would like to show why that claim is absolutely false, and that the vast majority of universalist texts are strengthened, not weakened, by their context.

    Romans 5:18 in its context

because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; for till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law; but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a type of him who is coming. But, not as the offence so also [is] the free gift; for if by the offence of the one the many did die, much more did the grace of God, and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ, abound to the many; and not as through one who did sin [is] the free gift, for the judgment indeed [is] of one to condemnation, but the gift [is] of many offences to a declaration of ‘Righteous,’ for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one — Jesus Christ. So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of “Righteous” [it is] to all men to justification of life; for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous. (Rom. 5:12-19)

Paul’s main point in Romans 5, and especially in this passage, is how much greater in power and extent Christ’s righteous act was than Adam’s sin. For, as he goes on to say, “where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound” (Rom. 5:20). As should be obvious, rather than limiting the “all men” who receive justification of life, the surrounding parallelisms actually strengthen the conclusion that, indeed, all of humanity has received justification. The same amount who, by Adam’s sin, died (vv. 15), were condemned (vv. 16, 18), and were made sinners (v. 19), by Christ’s righteous act have received abundant grace (vv. 15), been declared righteous (vv. 16, 19), and been justified (v. 18). Because the first category includes all people, the second category does as well, through parallelism.

    This interpretation is sometimes contested on the grounds that verse 17 contradicts it by limiting the number of those justified to “those who... are receiving the free gift of righteousness”. However, there is nothing in this verse to suggest that the number of those who are receiving righteousness is any less than all people; to suggest this is to read one’s own preconceptions into the text. Nothing in the context limits “the many” and “all men” who are justified to anything less than “the many” and “all men” who are affected by Adam’s sin, which is all of humanity without exception. To suggest that not all people will be justified is to say that not all people are sinners and affected by mortality, which goes against both scripture and common sense (and comes dangerously close to the ancient heresy of Pelagianism).

    1 Corinthians 15:20-28 in its context

This passage has already been dealt with in detail, in a previous extensive exegesis of mine which demonstrates that the salvation of all is clearly in view within this passage. In fact, this is likely the strongest evidence for Pauline universalism, as it emphatically refutes both infernalism and annihilationism, while upholding universalism.

    2 Corinthians 5:14 in its context

for the love of the Christ doth constrain us, having judged thus: that if one for all died, then the whole died, and for all he died, that those living, no more to themselves may live, but to him who died for them, and was raised again. So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more; so that if any one [is] in Christ — [he is] a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things. And the all things [are] of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and did give to us the ministration of the reconciliation, how that God was in Christ — a world reconciling to Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses; and having put in us the word of the reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:14-19)

A superficial reading of v. 14, bolded above, seems to demonstrate that all people have died [to sin] in Christ, and so are already justified (Rom. 6:5-7). This also makes sense of Rom. 6:11, in which Paul does not say that we ourselves must die to sin, but that we merely need to recognize that we are already dead to sin. However, many non-universalists (especially Calvinists) argue that v. 15 limits the scope of the “all” in v. 14 only to those who are living for Christ, that is, believers.

    However, this is not actually what Paul says in this verse. In v. 15, the verb “to live” is in the subjunctive mood, which describes an ideal situation rather than an actual situation. Paul’s point here is that because Christ died for all people, all people should live for Christ; however, he recognizes that this is unfortunately not the case. Indeed, the fact that this verb is in the subjunctive mood demonstrates that there must be at least some of those for whom Christ died that are not living for Christ, which increases the scope of the “all” in v. 14 (those for whom Christ died) beyond just believers.

    In a similar manner, the contrast between v. 19 and v. 20 also demonstrates an ideal vs. an actual situation. Verse 19 states that Christ has conciliated the cosmos to Himself (albeit proleptically, as this has not been fully realized yet; Rom. 8:21 cf. Col. 1:20), whereas verse 20 exhorts believers to beseech others to be conciliated to God, in anticipation of that ideal state when all things will indeed be reconciled. Furthermore, we are told that Christ is “not reckoning to them their trespasses”, and yet he has “put in us the word of the conciliation” - the first group is clearly distinguished from the second group (believers), which means that God is not reckoning unbelievers’ trespasses either. Therefore, these universalist prooftexts from this passage (both vv. 14 and 19) are absolutely unqualified by their contexts.

    Philippians 2:10-11 in context

For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death — death even of a cross, wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that [is] above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow — of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth — and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php. 2:5-11)

The scope of this passage is not limited by the context, and the majority of non-universalists recognize that this indeed refers to all people. It is sometimes argued that Php. 1:28 and 3:19, which describe the destruction of those who are opposed to the truth, limit the scope of those who will voluntarily worship Christ; however, no scriptural universalist argues that God will not judge and condemn, instead, it is believed that everyone will again turn to Him after their condemnation. Because whoever confesses the Lord Jesus and believes that He has been raised from the dead will be saved (Rom. 10:9-10), if all people meet these conditions, then all will be saved.

    There are two primary non-universalist objections to this reading of the passage. First, some object that the verbs “to bow” and “to confess” are in the subjunctive mood (see above), and so represent an ideal situation rather than an actual situation. This is true, but it ignores that this passage is actually a quotation of an Old Testament passage (Isa. 45:23), where these verbs are in the indicative mood in the LXX. In fact, in the original context, the statement “every knee will bow to me and every tongue will confess to God” is a decree of YHWH himself; God Himself will make sure that this event comes to pass. Why, then, did Paul purposely misquote and reapply this Old Testament passage? His point was most likely that, because Christ has been exalted so highly, all people should bow to and worship Him, and so God will cause this to come to pass (per Isa. 45:23).

    The second objection is that the ‘subjection of all things to Christ’ which is in view here is not voluntary, but a forced recognition of Jesus’ lordship over all. However, this goes against Isa. 29:13-14, which states that YHWH hates those who worship Him with their lips, though their hearts are far removed from Him; God would not allow all unbelievers to falsely worship Him in this way. Similarly, the immediate context of the Old Testament passage which Paul quotes in Php. 2:10-11 states that the people will say, “Only in YHWH do I have righteousness and strength” (Isa. 45:24). Does this sound like the cry of someone who is being condemned and trodden down upon by God, or someone who is being uplifted and saved?

    Similarly, elsewhere in the Pauline epistles, the theme of Christ’s subjection of all things is connected to reconciliation, not judgment. 1 Cor. 15:27 describes the subjection of all in the context of the final resurrection and universal salvation, while Eph. 1:22 connects the subjection of all under Christ’s feet to the same subjection by which He is head of the Church, namely, reconciliation. Therefore, all three of the non-universalist counter-readings of Php. 2:10-11 fail upon further examination of the context, leaving only the universalist interpretation.

    Colossians 1:20 in its context

Giving thanks to the Father who did make us meet for the participation of the inheritance of the saints in the light, who did rescue us out of the authority of the darkness, and did translate [us] into the reign of the Son of His love, in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of the sins, who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted. And himself is the head of the body — the assembly — who is a beginning, a first-born out of the dead, that he might become in all [things] — himself — first, because in him it did please all the fulness to tabernacle, and through him to reconcile the all things to himself — having made peace through the blood of his cross — through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens. (Col. 1:12-20)

Non-universalists usually take two routes to argue that this passage does not teach universalism: first, they often argue that the “all” in v. 20 is not all-encompassing and does not include unbelievers, and second, they often argue that “reconcile” in v. 20 can also mean to merely ‘subjugate’. This first argument, that the “all things” does not include unbelievers, is shown to be false by the context where this “all” is clearly defined. It is defined as all of those things which have been created through and for Christ, and over which He is preeminent; all things both in the heavens and upon the earth. To argue that the “all things” which will be reconciled to Christ does not include unbelievers is to say that He is not truly Lord over unbelievers. This is clearly not a sustainable position, as Jesus says, “Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth“ (Matt. 28:18).

    The other option for non-universalists, to argue that the word “reconcile” can include the meaning ‘to subjugate’, is absolutely false. Paul uses this word (καταλασσω or αποκαταλασσω in Greek) to mean the common definition of ‘reconcile’, to be transferred from a state of enmity to a state of friendship, every time that he uses it.

for if, being enemies, we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. (Rom. 5:10)

 

but and if she may separate, let her remain unmarried, or to the husband let her be reconciled, and let not a husband send away a wife. (1 Cor. 7:11)

and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it (Eph. 2:16)

See also 2 Cor. 5:18-20, quoted above. Clearly, Paul did not consider this word to mean mere subjugation, but instead to come to a state of friendship. Furthermore, the immediate context of Col. 1:20 glosses ‘reconcile’ as “to make peace through the blood of His cross” - this cannot be understood as mere subjugation, by any means. As Paul goes on to say, we ourselves (as the Church) have been reconciled to “present [ourselves] holy and unblemished and blameless”, just as all things will eventually be reconciled; are we merely subjugated to Christ? Obviously not. Therefore, both non-universalist counter-readings of this verse are clearly refuted by the context.

    As an analogy, imagine that someone is telling you about what they and four friends did today. They say, “We all went to the supermarket, and then we all went out to lunch, and then we all came home.” No reasonable person could conclude from that statement that only one of them actually came home, or that ‘to come home’ actually means ‘to stay away from home’. In the same way, when Paul says that “Christ is the firstborn [most preeminent] of all things, and all things were made through Him and for Him, and He will reconcile all things”, no one can reasonably conclude that the final “all things” is actually only one-tenth or less of the first “all things”, or that ‘to reconcile’ means ‘to not reconcile’.

    1 Thessalonians 5:10 in context

so, then, we may not sleep as also the others, but watch and be sober, for those sleeping, by night do sleep, and those making themselves drunk, by night are drunken, and we, being of the day — let us be sober, putting on a breastplate of faith and love, and an helmet — a hope of salvation, because God did not appoint us to anger, but to the acquiring of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who did die for us, that whether we wake — whether we sleep — together with him we may live; wherefore, comfort ye one another, and build ye up, one the one, as also ye do. (1 Thess. 5:6-11)

This is one of the few passages that explicitly recognizes that unbelievers will both be judged and, eventually, be reconciled and saved as well. At the start of this chapter in vv. 1 - 5, Paul begins by describing the Day of the Lord in which unbelievers (sons of the night and darkness) will be destroyed and shall not escape, contrasted with believers (sons of light and the day). He then goes on to further contrast unbelievers, who are ‘sleeping’ and thereby unaware of Christ’s advent, and believers, who are ‘awake’ in the day and thereby aware of and preparing for Christ’s coming. And yet, Paul says, “whether we wake [or] whether we sleep, together with Him we may live” (1 Thess. 5:10), a clear statement that both believers and unbelievers will be reconciled to Christ.

    A common non-universalist objection to this reading is that it could be referring to “those who have fallen asleep”, that is, dead believers (1 Thess. 4:13), which would mean that Paul did not have the reconciliation of unbelievers in mind here. However, a different Greek word is used to describe dead believers (κοιμαομαι) versus unbelievers (καθευδω), and the word used to describe unbelievers is the one that appears here. Therefore, it is absolutely clear that Paul is saying that those who are of night and sleep, upon whom destruction will come (unbelievers), will also be reconciled to live together with Christ.

    1 Timothy 2:4-6 in context

I exhort, then, first of all, there be made supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, for all men: for kings, and all who are in authority, that a quiet and peaceable life we may lead in all piety and gravity, for this [is] right and acceptable before God our Saviour, who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth; for one [is] God, one also [is] mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, who did give himself a ransom for all — the testimony in its own times — in regard to which I was set a preacher and apostle — truth I say in Christ, I do not lie — a teacher of nations, in faith and truth. (1 Tim. 2:1-7)

These verses are interpreted differently by Calvinists, Arminians, and universalists. The Calvinist interpretation argues that the “all” here, whom God wills to be saved and for whom Christ died as a ransom, only includes believers and no others. However, the context clearly refutes this view, as Paul states in v. 2 that those for whom we should pray includes “kings and all who are in authority” - this epistle was written when Nero, a pagan and infamous persecutor of Christians, was emperor of Rome. If Paul was including even Nero in those whom God wills to be saved and for whom Christ died a ransom, then clearly it does not only include believers.

    The Arminian view of this passage argues that, yes, God does will all to be saved and Christ died as a ransom for all people, but this ransom does not truly affect you unless you make the correct choice to believe in this life only. However, this goes against the clear teaching of scripture that Christ’s sacrifice was both sufficient and efficacious for every person whom He died for. We are told in Col. 2:13-14 that those for whom Christ died have been fully forgiven all their trespasses, and every single ordinance against us has been taken away; in 2 Cor. 5:21 and Gal. 3:13, that Christ became sin and a curse in order to free us from sin and the curse of the Law; and furthermore, the very word ‘ransom’ in 1 Tim. 2:6, αντιλυτρον, literally means ‘in-place-of [αντι] ransom-price [λυτρον]’, which implies that the debt of sin has already been paid through Christ for all.

    The final interpretation is the universalist reading, which argues that both all people (regardless of current belief or unbelief) are in view in this passage and that God’s will and Christ’s sacrifice are fully efficacious. This is the only reading which stands up to scrutiny when these verses are examined in context.

    1 Timothy 4:10 in context

These things placing before the brethren, thou shalt be a good ministrant of Jesus Christ, being nourished by the words of the faith, and of the good teaching, which thou didst follow after, and the profane and old women’s fables reject thou, and exercise thyself unto piety, for the bodily exercise is unto little profit, and the piety is to all things profitable, a promise having of the life that now is, and of that which is coming; stedfast [is] the word, and of all acceptation worthy: for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men — especially of those believing. Charge these things, and teach (1 Tim. 4:6-11)

This is one of the few universalist passages where it cannot be argued that the “all men” refers to only believers (although in the other passages, it is usually ruled out by the context; see above), as “those believing” are explicitly a subset (“especially”) of those for whom God is Savior. There are only two possible arguments for non-universalists to make: first, that “Savior” may merely mean ‘helper’ and not literally ‘savior’, and second, that “especially” really means ‘exclusively’. The first objection can be easily refuted, because every single time that the word ‘savior’ (σωτηρ) is used in the New Testament (out of 24 times), it is used in the literal sense of the word, that is, someone who brings about salvation.

    The second objection is also just as easily refuted, as the word ‘especially’ (μαλιστα) is never used in Paul’s epistles to mean ‘exclusively’, but always in the usual sense of the word ‘especially’. In Galatians 6:10, he says that we should work good towards all people, but especially towards believers; in Philippians 4:22, “greet all the saints, especially those in Caesar’s household”; in 1 Timothy 5:17, the elders are to be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who strive in the scriptures; and in 2 Timothy 4:13, Paul wants Timothy to bring him his cloak along with the books, especially the parchments; in Titus 1:10, there are many empty talkers, especially those of the circumcision.

    Universalists agree that believers will obtain a special salvation above that of unbelievers, called ‘age-during life’ in the New Testament (which essentially amounts to an early salvation and the privilege of living in the kingdom of God); but this does not change the fact that God is still Savior of all men, especially (not exclusively) of believers. Therefore, this verse is not weakened by the context, but proves that God truly will save all people, regardless of their current belief in Him.

    Titus 2:11 in context

For the saving grace of God was manifested to all men, teaching us, that denying the impiety and the worldly desires, soberly and righteously and piously we may live in the present age, waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who did give himself for us, that he might ransom us from all lawlessness, and might purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works; these things be speaking, and exhorting, and convicting, with all charge; let no one despise thee! (Titus 2:11-15)

Like the other passages considered above, the main non-universalist counter-reading of this passage is an argument that “all men” does not actually refer to every single human without exception, but rather only to believers. This is primarily based on the statement in v. 12 that those for whom the grace of God was manifested live piously in the present age and deny worldly desires. However, like in 2 Cor. 5:14-19, the verb “to live” is in the subjunctive mood, which describes an ideal situation; because the grace of God appeared to all men, all people should live piously and anticipate the appearance of Jesus Christ, but unfortunately this is not the case.

    In fact, the very fact that some people for whom the grace of God appeared are not denying impiety and living righteously (because it is an ideal, not an actual situation) demonstrates that the “all men” in v. 11 cannot refer to merely believers, but includes at least some unbelievers as well. Therefore, the universalist reading is not weakened but strengthened by the immediate context.

    Conclusion

There are a large number of passages in Paul’s epistles which suggest that he believed in universalism. Taken together, these demonstrate that all people without exception have been justified, conciliated, and (in God’s eyes) made righteous, and that all people will eventually be resurrected to immortality and reconciled to God. The context of each of these passages demonstrates that they cannot be simply referring to believers, but truly to all of humanity; all non-universalist counter-readings of these passages fail to stand up to scrutiny. We can be absolutely certain that Paul was a full universalist and preached universal salvation.

A Defense of Futurism

     Throughout my last few posts, I have taken as an assumption that futurism (the belief that prophecies relating to the tribulation, Christ’s second coming, and beyond are all yet future) is correct. I have also assumed that amillennialism (the belief that the kingdom of God and millennium of Rev. 20:4-6 relates to the current age of the Church) is false, and that chiliasm or premillennialism (the belief that the kingdom of God and millennium will be established on earth at Christ’s future second coming) is true.

    Unfortunately, what I’ve found is that many of my fellow universalists disagree with me on this topic, despite the fact that placing the judgment passages of the New Testament in this framework allows us to make sense of them without denying the scriptural truth of universal salvation. Instead, many universalists prefer a highly allegorical hermeneutic that places Christ’s second coming in the past and interprets the millennium as referring to the modern age (an extreme version of full preterism). Therefore, in this article I would like to explain why this idealist hermeneutic goes against scripture, and why Christ’s second coming and the Messianic kingdom (as well as, I believe, the tribulation) are yet future.

    Idealism: is prophecy meant to be allegory?

There is a small number of people, including many universalists, who believe that prophecy is meant to be interpreted in a highly allegorical fashion, and that there is nothing in prophecy that can be taken literally. This approach is known as idealism, and sees all prophecies in Revelation (and the corresponding Old Testament passages) as simply describing the constantly ongoing battle between good and evil. The idealist hermeneutic allows some to suggest that even the New Heaven and Earth and the (purifying) Lake of Fire are presently existing locations that a person’s soul enters after death!

    I have seen this allegorical, idealist hermeneutic justified with reference to 2 Corinthians 3:6, which says that “[we are] ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills but the spirit makes alive”. At least superficially, this does seem to support an allegorical hermeneutic. However, looking at the context, it is clear that Paul is not referring to all of scripture in general (and certainly not to prophecy), but specifically to the law. As he says in the next verse, this “letter” of which he speaks was brought by Moses on tablets of stone, and in Romans 7:6,

we have ceased from the law, that being dead in which we were held, so that we may serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter.

Clearly, the “letter” in Paul’s writings refers to the Mosaic law, not to prophecy; he is saying that we must follow the spirit of the law (which is to love one another; Rom. 13:8; Gal. 5:14) rather than the law itself. And if you would say that, yes, he’s referring to the law here, but maybe he only meant the law allegorically to refer to all of scripture - congratulations! You’ve entered the realm of unfalsifiability, where no amount of proof can convince you, because it can all be allegorized away.

    If you are at this point where you can simply allegorize away any passage of scripture that doesn’t fit with your views, I strongly suggest that you follow Peter’s advice in his second epistle:

And we have more firm the prophetic word, to which we do well giving heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, till day may dawn, and a morning star may arise — in your hearts; this first knowing, that no prophecy of the scripture doth come of private exposition, for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake. (2 Pet. 1:20-21)

In light of this, we must be careful never to spiritualize scripture beyond what the context allows. For example, no one believes that the ‘beast’ of Revelation 13 is a literal monster with seven heads and ten horns, but based on the Old Testament context in Daniel 7 it can be seen that this ‘beast’ refers to an evil kingdom that will arise before Christ’s second coming. Likewise, the “furnace of fire” that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 13:42 and 50 is not a literal furnace, nor actual fire by which people will be burned, but is a nonlethal judgment by which unbelievers will be cast out of the Messianic kingdom, as Jesus says elsewhere (Matt. 8:11-12; Lk. 13:28-29).

    Furthermore, we must recognize that the Old Testament prophecies that have already been fulfilled were fulfilled in as literal a manner as possible. There was a physical, human Messiah who was born in literal Bethlehem, performed actual miracles, rode on a literal donkey into literal Jerusalem, literally suffered and died in exactly the time frame prophesied by Daniel, and was physically resurrected. If the idealist hermeneutic had been around prior to Christ, would His first coming have been missed? Would anyone have expected Him to have fulfilled these prophecies in such a literal manner?

    Rejecting the idealist hermeneutic does not mean that we should take all prophecy as literally as possible, by any means. We still must recognize symbolism in prophecy based on its context. That does not give us license to spiritualize away prophecy as simply describing the battle between good and evil, though, especially when we are given so much detailed information about the future in both the Old and New Testaments that simply cannot be allegorized away to such a great degree.

    Preterism: did Christ already come back?

There are a larger number of people who, although recognizing that prophecy should not be allegorized away as describing the battle between good and evil, believe that the events described in Revelation and Matthew 24-25 (and parallel passages) occurred in the first century, during the First Jewish War of 66 - 70 AD. This view is known as preterism, and its adherents are divided between ‘partial’ preterism - which argues that the tribulation and the coming of Christ described in Matt. 24 and Rev. 19 already happened, but Christ’s physical second coming is yet to come - and ‘full’ preterism, which argues that Christ’s only second coming occurred in 70 AD and that we are now living in the New Heaven and Earth, which simply describes the current heavens and earth under the New Covenant.

    Full preterism can be easily refuted by looking at just a few passages. Acts 1:11 says that “’This Jesus who was received up from you into the heaven, shall so come in what manner ye saw him going on to the heaven.’” If Jesus entered the heavens in a physical, bodily manner (which He did), then it is inconceivable to think that His final second coming would occur in a ‘spiritual’ and imperceptible manner. Likewise, we are told in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 that

the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be; so, then, comfort ye another with these words.

Clearly, since the resurrection of “the dead in Christ” has not occurred yet (and this is a bodily resurrection, where we will become incorruptible and immortal; 1 Cor. 15:51-55), then the final second coming of Christ has not occurred yet either.

    However, these passages do not refute the more common partial-preterist view, which argues that there are two ‘second’ comings of Christ, one of which will be physical (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:16-17) and one of which was spiritual and occurred at the end of the tribulation in 70 AD (Matt. 24:30-31; Rev. 19:11-18). The greatest problem with this view is that it requires the book of Revelation to have been written prior to 70 AD, whereas the unanimous testimony of the church from the first three centuries AD is that it was written in the 90s, along with internal evidence that suggests it was written after the fall of Jerusalem [1]. The vast majority of scholars agree that it was written around 95 - 96 AD.

    Even setting this issue aside, however, the case for partial preterism is rather weak. The argument of partial preterists rests primarily on Matthew 16:28 and a few other verses that seem to say the apostles would see Jesus’ second coming (Matt. 10:23; 24:34; Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27):

“Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

First of all, even under futurism, one of the apostles did see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom: John, when he wrote his Revelation, saw the second coming of Christ (Rev. 19:11-18). But there is an even more likely interpretation of this passage, which also does not require any 70 AD coming of Christ. In each of these verses, the verbs ‘to taste [of death]’ and ‘to see’ are in the subjunctive mood, which indicates an ideal (but not necessarily actual) situation. That is, the apostles “should not taste of death till they should see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”. As Jesus said later on,

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets, and stoning those sent unto thee, how often did I will to gather thy children together, as a hen doth gather her own chickens under the wings, and ye did not will. Lo, left desolate to you is your house; for I say to you, ye may not see me henceforth, till ye may say, Blessed [is] he who is coming in the name of the Lord.” (Matt. 23:37-39)

Based on what Jesus says here, He will not return until Israel blesses His name. Therefore, if they had accepted Him (as they should have), His kingdom would have come to earth at that time, which explains why the Son of Man should have come in His kingdom before the apostles tasted death. His statements in Matt. 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; Mk. 9:1; and Lk. 9:27 were meant to be conditioned on His acceptance by Israel.

    In fact, this statement - that Jerusalem will see Christ again when they bless His name - harkens back to the prophecy in Zech. 13:9-14:4, which states that when Israel blesses the name of YHWH, the Messiah will come to the Mount of Olives (which will split in half). The fact that the biblical authors were inspired to place this reference to Zechariah just prior to the Olivet discourse indicates that the coming which will be initiated by Israel’s blessing of Christ’s name (His future, physical second coming to the Mount of Olives) is the coming being spoken of in Matt. 24-25, not any spiritual second coming ‘in judgment’. And the fact that this physical second coming is said to occur “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (Matt. 24:29) indicates that the tribulation of the Olivet discourse is also yet future.

    Furthermore, we are told by Jesus in the Olivet discourse that

If therefore they may say to you, Lo, in the wilderness he is, ye may not go forth; lo, in the inner chambers, ye may not believe; for as the lightning doth come forth from the east, and doth appear unto the west, so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:26-27)

The second coming spoken of in the Olivet discourse will be of such a nature that it cannot be missed by anyone, nobody will be able to say “here He is” or “there He is”. Rather, His coming will be as visible as lightning flashing from the east to the west. But the message of partial preterism is that the coming spoken of here already occurred in 70 AD, and was so imperceptible that nobody made the connection until the seventeenth century, when the first preterist exposition of prophecy was published [2]!

    Once this pillar of partial preterism is realized to be false, the remaining evidence is extremely weak. The trampling of Jerusalem for 42 months (Rev. 11:2-3) is supposed to match the fifty-one months from the beginning of the rebellion in May 66 AD to the fall of Jerusalem in Sept. 70 AD, and yet Jerusalem itself was only besieged for four months (Apr. to Sept. 70 AD). The Roman emperor Nero’s numerical gematria only adds up to 666 (Rev. 13:18) when a specific, rare variant of his name (Neron Caesar) is transliterated to Hebrew, and his persecution of Christians (Rev. 13:7) was limited to the city of Rome [3], neither of which would have been significant to John’s Greek-speaking audience in Asia Minor.

    Similarly, the partial preterist position requires an over-spiritualization of much of the book of Revelation. Although there is certainly a large amount of symbolism in this book (based on Old Testament prophecies), many of the prophecies within must be allegorized beyond what is allowed by their context, or even simply ignored, to fit the events of 66 - 70 AD. None of the punishments of Rev. 16:1-11 came upon Rome during Nero’s reign, and Nero himself never went to Israel, nor was he killed there by Christ (Rev. 19:19-20), but committed suicide in Rome. No sign of the Son of Man appeared in the heavens (Matt. 24:30). Christ is said to come specifically to judge the nations (Rev. 19:15), not to judge Israel in 70 AD.

    The events of 66 - 70 AD may well have been a type of the things to come, and the destruction of the Second Temple was certainly prophesied by Jesus (Matt. 24:1-2) and Daniel (9:26b); however, it is impossible to make these events equivalent to the ones prophesied by Christ in Matt. 24-25 and by John in the book of Revelation. Instead, these events must find their fulfillment in the future, when there will be “great tribulation such as was not from the beginning of the world till now, no, nor may be” (Matt. 24:21), and Christ, the Son of Man Himself, will physically appear in the heavens and return to restore order and judge the nations.

    Amillennialism vs. chiliasm

Finally, I would like to explain why I believe that the testimony of scripture is clear that there will be a gap between the second coming of Christ (Rev. 19:11-18) and the final judgment of unbelievers (Rev. 20:11-15), and that during this period, the Messianic kingdom (called the “kingdom of God” or “kingdom of the heavens”) will exist on the earth. This view is known as chiliasm or premillennialism, whereas the opposing view is amillennialism, which argues that the kingdom is an allegory for the current age of the Church and that the second advent of Christ will mark the end of history.

    A strong case can be made for chiliasm based on a close comparison of 1 Thess. 4:16-18 and 1 Cor. 15:51-55 with Rev. 20:4-6:

the Lord himself, in a shout, in the voice of a chief-messenger, and in the trump of God, shall come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be; so, then, comfort ye another with these words. (1 Thess. 4:16-18)

lo, I tell you a secret; we indeed shall not all sleep, and we all shall be changed; in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in the last trumpet, for it shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we — we shall be changed: for it behoveth this corruptible to put on incorruption, and this mortal to put on immortality; and when this corruptible may have put on incorruption, and this mortal may have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, “The Death was swallowed up — to victory; where, O Death, thy sting? where, O Hades, thy victory?” (1 Cor. 15:51-55)

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years; and the rest of the dead did not live again till the thousand years may be finished; this [is] the first rising again. Happy and holy [is] he who is having part in the first rising again; over these the second death hath not authority, but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Rev. 20:4-6)

The first two passages quoted above demonstrate that the resurrection of believers will occur at the second coming of Christ, what Paul calls “the last trumpet” or “the trumpet of God”. However, the last two passages state that there will be a gap between the resurrection of believers, and of unbelievers at the final judgment. This demonstrates that there must be a period between Christ’s second coming and the final judgment, during which believers “shall reign upon the earth” (Rev. 5:10) and the twelve apostles will judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28).

    Furthermore, we are told in Ephesians 2:7 that there will be multiple oncoming ages in which we will experience ‘age-during life’, and yet there will also be an end of the ages at the consummation of history (1 Cor. 15:24; Heb. 9:26). This demonstrates that there must be more than one age to come before the consummation of history; these are the “ages of the ages” during which the devil will be tormented (Rev. 20:10) before even he is eventually reconciled (Col. 1:20). Since Christ will come at the end of this current age (Matt. 24:3), for there to be more than one age to come, there must be an age between Christ’s second coming and the age of the New Heaven and Earth. This is the age of Rev. 20:4-6, the Messianic age.

    Even apart from these passages which show that there must be a gap between Christ’s second coming and the final judgment of unbelievers, it can be shown from scripture that the “kingdom of the heavens” or “kingdom of God” will be a literal, earthly Messianic kingdom, not an allegory for the current Church age. Although I already discussed this in another article, I will reiterate some of my argument below.

Happy the poor in spirit — because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. Happy the mourning — because they shall be comforted. Happy the meek — because they shall inherit the land [of Israel]. Happy those hungering and thirsting for righteousness — because they shall be filled. Happy the kind — because they shall find kindness. Happy the clean in heart — because they shall see God. Happy the peacemakers — because they shall be called Sons of God. Happy those persecuted for righteousness’ sake — because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. (Matt. 5:3-10)

Notice, here, how “the kingdom of the heavens” is paralleled with “the land [of Israel]”.

And Jesus said to them, “Verily I say to you, that ye who did follow me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man may sit upon a throne of his glory, shall sit — ye also — upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and every one who left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, for my name’s sake, an hundredfold shall receive, and life age-during shall inherit; and many first shall be last, and last first.” (Matt. 19:28-30)

This passage demonstrates two things. First, the twelve apostles will at one point sit upon twelve thrones and judge Israel, and receive physical benefits in the age to come. This judging is paralleled in Rev. 20:4, which amillennialists apply to the Church age, and yet the apostles are not currently judging Israel or receiving physical benefits (as they are physically dead). Second, this will occur in the regeneration when the Son of Man may sit upon a throne of glory - this clearly refers to the “restoration of all things” that will occur when Christ is received again from heaven at His second coming (Acts 3:21). Therefore, this passage demonstrates that the thousand years of Rev. 20:4-6 occurs after the second coming and will be a physical kingdom in Israel.

to [the disciples] also [Jesus] did present himself alive after his suffering, in many certain proofs, through forty days being seen by them, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God. And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he,] “Ye did hear of me; because John, indeed, baptized with water, and ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit — after not many days.” They, therefore, indeed, having come together, were questioning him, saying, “Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” and he said unto them, “It is not yours to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in His own authority” (Acts 1:3-7)

The disciples, after having been taught about the “kingdom of God” for forty days, ask Jesus whether the kingdom will be restored to Israel at this time or in the future. Notice what He does not say in response: “You fools, I just spent forty days teaching you about the spiritual kingdom of God in Heaven, and now you’re asking if it will come to Israel?” Instead, He simply responds that they are not supposed to know the time.

And then they shall see the Son of Man, coming in a cloud, with power and much glory; and these things beginning to happen bend yourselves back, and lift up your heads, because your redemption doth draw nigh... so also ye, when ye may see these things happening, ye know that near is the kingdom of God (Lk. 21:27-28, 31)

This passage and its parallels in the other synoptic gospels confirms that the “kingdom of God” is not something that currently exists on earth, but will begin at the second coming of Jesus Christ.

“Worthy art thou to take the scroll, and to open the seals of it, because thou wast slain, and didst redeem us to God in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and didst make us to our God kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.” (Rev. 5:10)

And the seventh messenger did sound, and there came great voices in the heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of the world did become [those] of our Lord and of His Christ, and he shall reign to the ages of the ages!” (Rev. 11:15)

Again, this confirms that the kingdom of God will appear at Christ’s second coming, and will be a physical polity on earth rather than an ethereal realm of ‘Heaven’.

    Keep in mind, the passages quoted above are only those from the New Testament, whereas the idea of an earthly Messianic kingdom is an even clearer motif throughout Old Testament prophecy (Isa. 2:2-4; 11:6-9; 24:23; 27:2-13, 35; 65:8-16; 66:12-24; Jer. 23:5-8; 31; 33:14-26; Ezek. 40-48; Dan. 2:44-45; 7:13-14, 27; Hos. 14; Joel 3:17-21; Amos 9:11-15; Obad. 21; Mic. 4:1-8; 5:5-15; 7:11-20; Hab. 2:14; Zeph. 3:9-20; Zech. 8; 14:8-9, 16-21). There is no question that when Jesus spoke about the “kingdom of God”, this is what would have been at the forefront of His Jewish audience’s minds, not any spiritual ‘kingdom’ of the Church.

    Although these passages seem to clearly support the idea of an earthly Messianic kingdom which will begin at the second coming of Christ, there is one passage that could support the idea of a ‘spiritual’ kingdom in the Church. This passage is Luke 17:20-21:

And having been questioned by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God doth come, he answered them, and said, “The kingdom of God doth not come with observation; nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the kingdom of God is within you.”

This passage seems to say that the kingdom of God is something that is inside of us, not an outward physical kingdom. However, when you look at the context of Jesus’ statement, this interpretation becomes fraught with problems. Jesus is here speaking to the Pharisees, whom He later condemned to the “judgment of Gehenna” (Matt. 23:33) and said would not enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 21:31); if the kingdom is the Church, how could it be within the Pharisees? And actually, Jesus goes on to explain what He meant by this statement:

And he said unto his disciples, “Days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall not behold [it]; and they shall say to you, Lo, here; or lo, there; ye may not go away, nor follow; for as the lightning that is lightening out of the one [part] under heaven, to the other part under heaven doth shine, so shall be also the Son of Man in his day” (Lk. 17:22-24)

The reason why no one will be able to say “Lo, here; or lo, there” about the kingdom of God is not because it is a spiritual state, but because it will be immediately visible to everyone, just as lightning shines all across the heavens.

    Instead of seeing this statement as saying that the kingdom of God is spiritual and actually within us, we should recognize that the Greek preposition εντος can be translated as either ‘within’ or ‘among’. Rather than saying that the Pharisees had the kingdom of God inside of them, this passage is likely saying that the kingdom of God was among them at that time, in the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the clear testimony of scripture is not that the Messianic kingdom is fulfilled in the Church, but rather that it will be an earthly kingdom initiated by Christ’s second coming.

    The testimony of the early Church

Further strong evidence that the correct view of eschatology is chiliastic futurism are the views of early Christianity. The early patristic writers of the first and second centuries all believed that the tribulation, the second coming, and the thousand year Messianic kingdom were future events that had yet to be fulfilled in any way. These writers were very familiar with the scriptures, and some of them even knew the apostles personally, including John who wrote the Revelation.

    All five apostolic fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, Papias, and ‘Mathetes’), who wrote around the end of the first century (after the fall of Jerusalem), were futurists who believed that the second coming of Christ was yet to come. And although the views of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna on the Messianic kingdom are never elaborated upon, their contemporary Papias of Hieropolis, who was a disciple of John himself, was a fervent chiliast:

[Papias] says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. (Fragments 6)

Likewise, the contemporary document known as the Didache (written after the fall of Jerusalem) states that the Antichrist and the tribulation are yet to come, and that only believers will be resurrected at Christ’s second coming (chiliasm):

For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as the Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. (Didache 16)

By the middle of the second century, the views of Christian theologians had not changed at all. The apologist Justin Martyr argues strongly that the reign of Christ must occur on earth for one thousand years in his Dialogue with Trypho:

For I choose to follow not men or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians... But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (Dialogue 80)

Thus, although by this time some Christians had fallen in with amillennialism, these were highly heretical groups that also denied the bodily resurrection. Likewise, the contemporary apologist Irenaeus of Lyons (a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of John) argues that the tribulation and millennium are future events:

But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that “many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. (Against Heresies 5.30.4)

For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth... For it is in reference to them that the prophet says: “And those that are left shall multiply upon the earth.” And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem, and that [His] kingdom shall be in it (Against Heresies 5.35.1)

Although the purpose of this article is not a survey of eschatology in the early Church, the fact is that proto-orthodox Christianity was dominated by futurism and chiliasm for its first three centuries. To the patristic writers quoted above may be added Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian the Syrian, Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Hippolytus of Rome, Commodians, Cyprian of Carthage, and virtually every other writer from the early Church [4].

    The question must be asked, if Christ’s second coming in 70 AD was really as visible as lightning flashing from the east to the west, how is it that nobody in the early Church ever realized this? And if the Messianic kingdom is really an allegory for the Church, and this is such a clear truth of scripture as amillennialists believe, then how is it that only heretical, resurrection-denying groups believed this for the first three centuries of Christianity?

    Conclusion

Taking biblical prophecy as a whole, and interpreting it with a literal hermeneutic based on 2 Pet. 1:20-21, the only logical conclusion is that the events of Revelation have not yet occurred. The preterist prooftext of Matthew 16:28 uses the subjunctive mood, meaning that the coming of the kingdom in the generation of the apostles was ideal (not actual), conditioned on Israel’s acceptance of Him (Matt. 23:33). On the whole, the events of the Olivet discourse and the book of Revelation do not match those of the first Jewish war in 66 - 70 AD. Likewise, the clear testimony of scripture is that the Messianic kingdom will be a physical kingdom that exists on the earth, and will be established at Christ’s second coming [5]. All judgment passages, like Matthew 25:31-46, must be interpreted within this framework.

    For a much more detailed defense of the literal, grammatical-historical interpretive hermeneutic of prophecy, and why futurism and premillennialism are demanded by this hermeneutic, see this article by professor Abner Chou.

______________________________

[1] Hitchcock, Mark L. “A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation“. PhD diss. Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005.

[2] This work is the Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi, written by Jesuit priest Luis del Alcazar during the seventeenth century counter-reformation, and is widely agreed to be the first preterist exposition of Revelation.

[3] In fact, Nero’s persecution may not have even occurred, at least not on nearly as widespread a scale as is sometimes supposed. See this article for more info.

[4] Ice, Thomas. “A Brief History of Early Premillennialism.”

[5] Although I think that I have presented a good explanation of why the amillennialist view of the Messianic kingdom is unbiblical, there are other arguments for amillennialism as well. For an explanation and refutation of these arguments, see this article.

Gehenna and the Lake of Fire (part 2 of 2)

Part 1: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/gehenna-and-lake-of-fire-part-1.html

    In the previous post of this series, I dealt with the nature of punishment in Gehenna, where it was seen that the place which Jesus called “Gehenna” refers not to any ethereal realm of torment, but rather to the literal Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem where the bodies of dead unbelievers and those who transgress against YHWH will be cast and burned during the Messianic age. However, there is still another place of punishment spoken of in scripture, called the “Lake of Fire” - this is the ‘hell’ of infernalism where most Christians believe that all unbelievers will be tormented everlastingly. In this post, I will explain what I believe the Lake of Fire to be, and why I think that it cannot be either a place of torment (contra infernalism) or a place of purification (contra the beliefs of many universalists), but must be a place of age-during annihilation and destruction of those cast within.

     The Lake of Fire: a second death

Although much emphasis is placed on the Lake of Fire in infernalism, as the supposed place where all unbelievers are tormented for eternity, this place is actually only mentioned four times in scripture, and only ever in the book of Revelation. The passages describing Gehenna, “outer darkness”, and the “furnace of fire” (including Matt. 25:31-46) from the synoptic gospels are actually referring to punishments that will take place during the thousand-year Messianic age, which comes before the Great White Throne and the Lake of Fire. With this in mind, here are all of the scriptural mentions of the Lake of Fire:

and the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who did the signs before him, in which he led astray those who did receive the mark of the beast, and those who did bow before his image; living they were cast — the two — to the lake of the fire, that is burning with brimstone (Rev. 19:20)

and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night — to the ages of the ages. And I saw a great white throne, and Him who is sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven did flee away, and place was not found for them; and I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is that of the life, and the dead were judged out of the things written in the scrolls — according to their works; and the sea did give up those dead in it, and the death and the hades did give up the dead in them, and they were judged, each one according to their works; and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire — this [is] the second death; and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire. (Rev. 20:10-15)

“and to fearful, and unstedfast, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all the liars, their part [is] in the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death.” (Rev. 21:8)

Now, the Lake of Fire is twice called “the second death” or “a second death”, which should demonstrate conclusively that this punishment is marked by annihilation rather than torment. However, virtually all infernalists (and even most universalists) believe that this is neither a true lake of fire, nor truly death, arguing that it is meant to be understood as a metaphor for either eternal separation from God or purification. This completely ignores the purpose of metaphor, which requires that at least one of the things be true. The Lake of Fire must be either a real lake of real fire, or a literal second death marked by annihilation, or both. It simply cannot be neither of these things, and to suggest otherwise is to eisegete one’s own opinions into the text.

    Furthermore, some universalists suggest that the “fire and brimstone” of the Lake of Fire is figurative and allegorical, and represents the purification of those who are cast within. Although I agree that fire is often used figuratively in scripture, we must remember to always interpret scripture with scripture in its proper context, rather than applying our own interpretations to the text. As Peter says,

no prophecy of the scripture doth come of private exposition, for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake. (2 Pet. 1:20-21)

Therefore, our hermeneutic should be to always interpret scripture in its own context, and literally when possible. For example, I believe that when Jesus spoke of “age-during fire” (Matt. 25:41) and “the furnace of fire” (Matt. 13:42, 50), He was referring to the non-lethal punishment by which unbelievers will be cast alive out of the kingdom in the Messianic age. However, this is only because elsewhere, this same judgment is described as “outer darkness” and said to be the means by which unbelievers will be cast alive out of the kingdom, not because I simply choose to believe that the fire is figurative.

    In contrast, when John speaks of the “lake that is burning with fire and brimstone”, there is no evidence in the immediate context which shows him to be speaking of a figurative, purifying fire. In fact, as he immediately goes on to say, “[this] is a second death”, which seems to have been written specifically to show that the fire is not figurative, but is real and lethal and will annihilate those who enter it; since all those who enter it will have already died once (Heb. 9:27), it will quite literally be the second death.

    There are a few scriptural objections to this view of the Lake of Fire, and I will deal with each in turn. First, because the “beast” and the “false prophet” were thrown into the Lake of Fire at the beginning of the Messianic age (Rev. 19:20), and they are still there over a thousand years later (Rev. 20:10), it cannot be a literal second death (at least for these two individuals). This is true, but it ignores the fact that the “beast” and “false prophet” are likely spiritual beings (and thereby immortal), so the way in which they experience the Lake of Fire will necessarily be different from the way in which mortal humans experience it. The same goes for the devil: he will be tormented by the Lake of Fire, alongside these two, to the ages of the ages (that is, until the end of the ages when even he will be reconciled to God).

    Another objection is that because “death and Hades were cast to the Lake of Fire” (Rev. 20:14), it is impossible that anyone could die after this. This is not the case. We know from elsewhere in scripture that there will still be mortality and death on the New Earth, and that unbelievers will be resurrected as mortals at the Great White Throne judgment (they will not receive immortality until the final resurrection), which means that (at the very least) death is still possible after it is cast to the Lake of Fire. Instead of seeing this as the final abolition of death, we should understand it as saying that the Lake of Fire will be the only place where death and Hades still have influence, because death and Hades personified will be in the Lake of Fire.

    The final (and weakest) argument for a purifying rather than annihilating Lake of Fire is the mention of “brimstone” or sulfur (θειον) in this lake. Some universalists argue that, because sulfur was often used to purify metals (and in some pagan rituals, people as well), John meant to say that the Lake would be a place of purification of unbelievers. However, in scripture, “fire and brimstone” is always associated with destruction and death. Here are all of the places in the Bible where “fire and brimstone” are mentioned, in case anyone wants to see for themself: Gen. 19:24; Ps. 11:6; Ezek. 38:22; Lk. 17:29; Rev. 9:17-18; and Rev. 14:10.

    Destruction of the wicked throughout scripture

Having looked at specific passages regarding the punishment of the wicked in Gehenna and the Lake of Fire, we must now look at scripture as a whole and see whether it suggests unbelievers will be tormented or simply destroyed. In fact, we are told repeatedly throughout the Bible that the wicked will be destroyed, not punished with torment:

That the singing of the wicked [is] short, And the joy of the profane for a moment, Though his excellency go up to the heavens, And his head against a cloud he strike — As his own dung for the age he doth perish, His beholders say: “Where [is] he?” (Job 20:5-7) 

For evil doers are cut off, As to those waiting on Jehovah, they possess the land. And yet a little, and the wicked is not, And thou hast considered his place, and it is not... But the wicked perish, and the enemies of YHWH, As the preciousness of lambs, Have been consumed, In smoke they have been consumed. (Ps. 37:9-10, 20)

When the wicked flourish as a herb, And blossom do all workers of iniquity — For their being destroyed for the age of the age! (Ps. 92:7)

YHWH preserveth all those loving Him, And all the wicked He destroyeth. (Ps. 145:20)

Lo, all the souls are Mine, As the soul of the father, So also the soul of the son — they are Mine, The soul that is sinning — it doth die... The soul that doth sin — it doth die. A son doth not bear of the iniquity of the father, And a father doth not bear of the iniquity of the son, The righteousness of the righteous is on him, And the wickedness of the wicked is on him. (Ezek. 18:4, 20)

In My saying of the righteous: He surely liveth, And — he hath trusted on his righteousness, And he hath done perversity, All his righteous acts are not remembered, And for his perversity that he hath done, For it he doth die. And in My saying to the wicked: Thou surely diest, And — he hath turned back from his sin, And hath done judgment and righteousness, (The pledge the wicked restoreth, plunder he repayeth,) In the statutes of life he hath walked, So as not to do perversity, He surely liveth — he doth not die. (Ezek. 33:13-15)

Notice that the death spoken of by Ezekiel here cannot be referring to the first death, because the first death is common to all people, both righteous and wicked. Rather, he must be talking about a second death unique to the wicked.

“For, lo, the day hath come, burning as a furnace, And all the proud, and every wicked doer, have been stubble, And burnt them hath the day that came”, Said YHWH of Hosts, “That there is not left to them root or branch” (Mal. 4:1)

“Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide [is] the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it” (Matt. 7:13)

“For Moses, indeed, unto the fathers said — A prophet to you shall the Lord your God raise up out of your brethren, like to me; him shall ye hear in all things, as many as he may speak unto you; and it shall be, every soul that may not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed out of the people” (Acts 3:22-23)

for as many as without law did sin, without law also shall perish, and as many as did sin in law, through law shall be judged (Rom. 2:12) 

This verse comes directly after a description of the Great White Throne judgment (vv. 6 - 10), so it almost certainly refers to the Lake of Fire when saying that the wicked “shall perish”.

for the wages of the sin [is] death, and the gift of God [is] life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 6:23)

because he who is sowing to his own flesh, of the flesh shall reap corruption; and he who is sowing to the Spirit, of the Spirit shall reap life age-during (Gal. 6:8)

Notice that in Rom. 6:23 and Gal. 6:8, the death or corruption of the wicked is contrasted with age-during life, demonstrating that the death of the wicked lasts for the Ages of the Ages (the same period in which the righteous will experience age-during life). 

for many walk of whom many times I told you — and now also weeping tell — the enemies of the cross of the Christ! whose end [is] destruction, whose god [is] the belly, and whose glory [is] in their shame, who the things on earth are minding. (Php. 3:18-19)

since [it is] a righteous thing with God to give back to those troubling you — trouble, and to you who are troubled — rest with us in the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with messengers of his power, in flaming fire, giving vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall suffer justice — destruction age-during — from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength (2 Thess. 1:6-9)

and we are not of those drawing back to destruction, but of those believing to a preserving of soul. (Heb. 10:39)

whose voice the earth shook then, and now hath he promised, saying, “Yet once — I shake not only the earth, but also the heaven;” and this — “Yet once” — doth make evident the removal of the things shaken, as of things having been made, that the things not shaken may remain; wherefore, a kingdom that cannot be shaken receiving, may we have grace, through which we may serve God well-pleasingly, with reverence and religious fear; for also our God [is] a consuming fire. (Heb. 12:26-29)

and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah having turned to ashes, with an overthrow did condemn, an example to those about to be impious having set [them]... The Lord hath known to rescue pious ones out of temptation, and unrighteous ones to a day of judgment, being punished, to keep... and these, as irrational natural beasts, made to be caught and destroyed — in what things they are ignorant of, speaking evil — in their destruction shall be destroyed (2 Pet. 2:6, 12)

The “day of judgment” spoken of here is almost certainly the same “day of God’s wrath and righteous judgment” spoken of by Paul in Romans 2:5, that is, the Great White Throne judgment. Therefore, it is in the Lake of Fire that the wicked “in their destruction shall be destroyed”.

and the present heavens and the earth, by the same word are treasured, for fire being kept to a day of judgment and destruction of the impious men. (2 Pet. 3:7)

Again, this “day of judgment” is said to be when the present heavens and earth will pass away, which is the time of the Great White Throne judgment (Rev. 20:11). This is the same time when we will see the “destruction of the impious men”, which must be in the Lake of Fire.

    Thus, we see in many passages of scripture that the wicked will be destroyed, not tormented or purified, and this is repeatedly connected with the Great White Throne judgment (and so the Lake of Fire as well). This demonstrates conclusively that the Lake of Fire is not meant to be a place of torment (and certainly not a place of purification), but instead a literal second death in which all evildoers will be annihilated until the end of the ages.

    Torment of the wicked?

Despite the clear testimony of scripture that the wicked will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire, there are two passages that are used by infernalists to support the idea that this lake will instead be a place of torment. The first of these passages is Luke 16:19-31, the “parable of the rich man and Lazarus”:

“And — a certain man was rich, and was clothed in purple and fine linen, making merry sumptuously every day, and there was a certain poor man, by name Lazarus, who was laid at his porch, full of sores, and desiring to be filled from the crumbs that are falling from the table of the rich man; yea, also the dogs, coming, were licking his sores. And it came to pass, that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the messengers to the bosom of Abraham — and the rich man also died, and was buried; and in the hades having lifted up his eyes, being in torments, he doth see Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom, and having cried, he said, Father Abraham, deal kindly with me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and may cool my tongue, because I am distressed in this flame. And Abraham said, Child, remember that thou did receive — thou — thy good things in thy life, and Lazarus in like manner the evil things, and now he is comforted, and thou art distressed; and besides all these things, between us and you a great chasm is fixed, so that they who are willing to go over from hence unto you are not able, nor do they from thence to us pass through. And he said, I pray thee, then, father, that thou mayest send him to the house of my father, for I have five brothers, so that he may thoroughly testify to them, that they also may not come to this place of torment. Abraham saith to him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them; and he said, No, father Abraham, but if any one from the dead may go unto them, they will reform. And he said to him, If Moses and the prophets they do not hear, neither if one may rise out of the dead will they be persuaded.”

Infernalists interpret this parable extremely literally, and assume that it is an accurate description of Hades. However, we must remember that this is a parable, not an actual story involving real people; in fact, it is the last of five parables condemning the Pharisees and Jewish leaders (Lk. 15:4-16:31). Although I won’t get into what I think this parable is actually talking about, here are a list of things that we would have to believe if this parable is to be understood literally:

    1. That angels (“messengers”) physically carry the disembodied souls of dead people to paradise.

    2. That some people’s souls will enter Abraham’s chest cavity after death (“the bosom of Abraham”).

    3. That whether you go to torment or bliss after death is decided by whether you received good or bad things in life.

    4. That those who are in ‘heaven’ are able to see those in Hades being tormented.

The vast majority of infernalists would disagree with all four of these things, and so it is very telling that they choose to believe that the aspect of torment in Hades is literal while all other aspects of this parable are figurative. Instead, it should be recognized that all parts of this parable - including the conscious torment in Hades - are figurative, just as with Jesus’ many other parables.

    The second passage used to support the idea of conscious torment in the Lake of Fire is Revelation 14:9-11:

And a third messenger did follow them, saying in a great voice, “If any one the beast doth bow before, and his image, and doth receive a mark upon his forehead, or upon his hand, he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, that hath been mingled unmixed in the cup of His anger, and he shall be tormented in fire and brimstone before the holy messengers, and before the Lamb, and the smoke of their torment doth go up to ages of ages; and they have no rest day and night, who are bowing before the beast and his image, also if any doth receive the mark of his name.” (Rev. 14:9-11)

This passage seems to state that the Lake of Fire will consist of conscious torment for those who receive the mark of the beast, and that their torment in the lake of fire and brimstone will last for the entire Ages of the Ages, or until the end of the ages. The word translated here as “torment”, βασανιζω, only ever refers to conscious torment and never to death. Does this not refute the view that the Lake of Fire will consist of annihilation for all mortal human beings that enter it?

    As a matter of fact, it does not. It is important to note the distinction between actual torment lasting to the Ages of the Ages, and “the smoke of their torment” lasting to the Ages of the Ages. This same phrase, “smoke... goes up to the ages of the ages”, is used of the city of Babylon elsewhere in the book of Revelation:

And after these things I heard a great voice of a great multitude in the heaven, saying, “Alleluia! the salvation, and the glory, and the honour, and the power, [is] to the Lord our God; because true and righteous [are] His judgments, because He did judge the great whore [of Babylon] who did corrupt the earth in her whoredom, and He did avenge the blood of His servants at her hand;” and a second time they said, “Alleluia; and her smoke doth come up — to the ages of the ages!” (Rev. 19:1-3)

However, rather than the destruction of Babylon actually lasting for the entire Ages of the Ages, it is elsewhere said to only last for “a day” (Rev. 18:8) and even “an hour” (Rev. 18:10, 16, 19). This destruction will be an earthly and temporal punishment, and so there is no reason to interpret the exact same phrase in Rev. 14:11 any differently. The torment of those who take the mark of the beast “in fire and brimstone” must similarly be an earthly and temporal punishment.

    With this in mind, the correct interpretation of this torment is to be found in the immediate context in Rev. 16:1-11, where we are told that those who take the mark will be afflicted for the last 3.5 years of the tribulation with painful sores, burned with scorching heat and fire from the sun, and tormented by agonizing darkness. These punishments, like the torment described in Rev. 14:9-11, are said to only affect those who take the mark of the beast and will be earthly and temporal. Therefore, rather than referring to torment in the Lake of Fire, this passage almost certainly instead refers to the torment which those who take the mark of the beast will experience at the end of the tribulation.

    Conclusion

Rather than being a place of torment, or even a place of purification, the clear testimony of scripture is that the Lake of Fire will annihilate all those who enter it. Unbelievers will be resurrected as mortals at the Great White Throne, judged on their good and evil works, and the evildoers will be cast into the Lake and be annihilated until the end of the ages. This does not refute universal salvation, because all people will still be resurrected to immortality at the end of the ages and reconciled to God (1 Cor. 15:20-28).

    Contrary to what some infernalists might say, I don’t believe this simply out of a sense of pity for those who will enter the Lake of Fire. In fact, since only those who do evil in this life will enter the Lake, torment seems more just than annihilation to me. Rather, I believe this because it is the clear testimony of scripture, and God’s justice is far higher than my own limited, human sense of justice - so even if His judgments seem to me too lenient to the wicked, my feelings don’t change the clear scriptural truth that the Lake of Fire will be a second death for those who enter it.

    As for the Lake of Fire being a place of purification, as many universalists believe, it is also highly important to recognize that this is false, because no punishment can purify what Christ has already purified. We are told in Romans 5:18 and 2 Corinthians 5:14, 19 that all people are justified not by any correctional punishment that they undergo, but through Christ’s righteous act by which God no longer reckons our trespasses. All reconciliation to God will occur at the end of the ages, when all unbelievers are made alive in Christ and subjected to Him (1 Cor. 15:20-28), and so any necessary repentance will happen at this time, not before this in torments. Thus, the Lake of Fire cannot consist of torment and/or purification for the wicked, but must instead be a literal second death for those who are cast within.

Gehenna and the Lake of Fire (part 1 of 2)

     In another post, I already dealt with the nature of the punishment in Matt. 25:31-46 which Jesus also called the “outer darkness” or the “furnace of fire” (Matt. 8:11-12; 13:40-42, 49-50; 22:13; Lk. 13:28-29). These passages and their Old Testament contexts demonstrate that this judgment has nothing to do with whether or not someone goes to ‘hell’ and the Lake of Fire, but rather deals with where Gentile unbelievers are allowed to live during the Messianic age (whether within the kingdom in Israel, or outside the kingdom as a servant of Israel) based on how they treated the Israelites and other believers during the tribulation. However, I have not yet discussed the nature of the punishment in Gehenna, as described by Jesus in the synoptic gospels, and the Lake of Fire, as described by John in his Revelation. In this article, I would like to explain what I believe the nature of punishment in Gehenna and the Lake of Fire is, based on both the New and Old Testament descriptions of these places.

    Gehenna: the unquenchable fire and undying worm

Jesus repeatedly spoke of a place called “Gehenna” (γεεννα) in the synoptic gospels, a place which is to be avoided at all costs, and which some wicked people will inhabit as a contrast to those who live in the “kingdom of God” (i.e., the Messianic kingdom). He repeatedly says that obedience to the Law is paramount in avoiding this place, and in a bit of hyperbole, that it is even more desirable to cut off one’s limbs than to enter Gehenna:

“I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the Gehenna of the fire... But, if thy right eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee, for it is good to thee that one of thy members may perish, and not thy whole body be cast to Gehenna. And, if thy right hand doth cause thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast from thee, for it is good to thee that one of thy members may perish, and not thy whole body be cast to Gehenna.” (Matt. 5:22, 29-30)

“And if thy hand or thy foot doth cause thee to stumble, cut them off and cast from thee; it is good for thee to enter into the life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast to the fire the age-during. And if thine eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee; it is good for thee one-eyed to enter into the life, rather than having two eyes to be cast to the Gehenna of the fire.” (Matt. 18:8-9)

“So that ye testify to yourselves, that ye are sons of them who did murder the prophets; and ye — ye fill up the measure of your fathers. Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the Gehenna?” (Matt. 23:31-33)

Jesus rarely elaborated on the nature or location of “Gehenna”, so we can expect that it was something already familiar to His Jewish audience. In fact, γεεννα in Greek is merely the transliteration of Hebrew gei (ben-)hinnom, that is, the Valley of (the son of) Hinnom. This is a physical location, a valley next to Jerusalem, and it appears as such throughout the Old Testament:

And the border went up by the Valley of the Son of Hinnom to the southern slope of the Jebusite city (which is Jerusalem). The border went up to the top of the mountain that lies before the Valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the Valley of Rephaim northward. (Josh. 15:8 NKJV)

Then the border came down to the end of the mountain that lies before the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, which is in the Valley of the Rephaim on the north, descended to the Valley of Hinnom, to the side of the Jebusite city on the south, and descended to En Rogel. (Josh. 18:16 NKJV)

And as for the villages with their fields, some of the children of Judah dwelt in Kirjath Arba and its villages, Dibon and its villages, Jekabzeel and its villages; in Jeshua, Moladah, Beth Pelet, Hazar Shual, and Beersheba and its villages; in Ziklag and Meconah and its villages; in En Rimmon, Zorah, Jarmuth, Zanoah, Adullam, and their villages; in Lachish and its fields; in Azekah and its villages. They dwelt from Beersheba to the Valley of Hinnom. (Neh. 11:25-30)

This was understood then to be merely a geographical location, a valley next to Jerusalem. It was considered to be cursed because of the fact that several wicked Judean kings had caused their children to pass through fire in that valley, in a pagan ritual to the god Molech (2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 32:35).

    However, many modern dynamic-equivalence translations - including the King James Version - have translated this word as “hell” instead, causing many Christians to believe that Jesus spoke of an ethereal place of torment in the afterlife (a similar problem to what was seen with the biblical phrase “kingdom of the heavens”). Are dynamic-equivalence translators justified in interpreting “Gehenna” as a reference to an ethereal realm of hell, or should it be interpreted as a reference to the physical location of the Valley of Hinnom?

    The reason that most dynamic-equivalence versions translate γεεννα as “hell” is because of the Jewish tradition which calls the place of punishment of wicked souls “Gehenna”. They argue that, because this tradition was already well-known by the time of Jesus, this is what His listeners would have understood Him to be referring to. Unfortunately, this is simply a false assertion - the first appearance of Gehenna in Jewish thought as a place of punishment for the wicked is in the Assumption of Moses, written just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (after Jesus’ ministry), and the first hint that it was understood as anything less than the physical Valley of Hinnom is in Fourth Esdras, written in 100 AD [1].

    There is no evidence that the tradition of Gehenna being an ethereal realm of punishment dates further back than the fall of Jerusalem; and even if Jesus had meant “Gehenna” in this way, He certainly would have clarified His meaning, since the tradition (if it existed in His time) had not yet reached mainstream apocalyptic Jewish literature that His audience would have been familiar with. Therefore, we can be sure that when Jesus spoke of “Gehenna”, he was not trying to explain to His Jewish audience that some people would go to an ethereal realm called “hell”, but rather that the wicked would at some point enter the literal, physical Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem. It seems that most translators have simply interpreted His meaning incorrectly [2].

    Having determined that Gehenna should be understood as referring to the literal Valley of Hinnom, rather than an ethereal realm of “hell”, let’s take a look at what Jesus has to say about the nature of punishment in Gehenna. His most detailed explanation can be found in Mark 9:43-48:

“And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to go away to the Gehenna, to the fire — the unquenchable. And if thy foot may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into the life lame, than having the two feet to be cast to the Gehenna, to the fire — the unquenchable. And if thine eye may cause thee to stumble, cast it out; it is better for thee one-eyed to enter into the kingdom of God, than having two eyes, to be cast to the Gehenna of the fire — where ‘their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched’”

Here we are told three important things about Gehenna: (1) that it is an alternative to entering into the “kingdom of God”, the Messianic kingdom, (2) that it is a place of “unquenchable fire”, and (3) that it is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 66:24 (“their worm is not dying and the fire is not being quenched”).

    The significance of point (1) is that this gives us the timing of punishment in Gehenna, which is during the thousand-year Messianic age. As for point (2), we are told that this fire is “unquenchable” and “not being quenched”, but as explained in another post, this does not mean that the fire will never go out, but merely that it will not be put out by human means (as this description is used elsewhere in scripture of fires that have since gone out; Lev. 6:12-13; Isa. 34:10; Jer. 17:27; Ezek. 20:46-48). The fire of Gehenna may still go out once its fuel has been depleted, for which see point (3).

    Now, let us examine the prophecy in Isa. 66 which Jesus applies to Gehenna and its context:

“For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory... Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the Lord, “as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites,” says the Lord. “For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord, “So shall your descendants and your name remain. And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord. “And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.“ (Isa. 66:18, 20-24 NKJV)

First of all, in this passage we are told that all nations and people will come to Jerusalem to worship YHWH during the Messianic age. While they are in Jerusalem, they will be able to see those who are in Gehenna, which confirms that “Gehenna” cannot refer to ‘hell’ or the Lake of Fire, and must be the physical Valley of Hinnom that is adjacent to Jerusalem.

    Second, we are told that there will be corpses - not living humans, but corpses - of those who have transgressed against YHWH, and that it is their worm that does not die, and their fire that is not being quenched. This proves that Gehenna will not be a place of conscious torment, but simply a place where the dead bodies of the wicked and unbelievers will be cast and burned. The “worm” spoken of here (tola in Hebrew and σκοληξ in Greek) cannot be some sort of ‘spiritual worm’ that punishes those in ‘hell’, as these words simply refer to maggots which eat the flesh off of dead bodies [3]. This Hebrew word, tola, is used as a symbol of death and decay throughout the Old Testament (Exod. 16:20; Deut. 28:39; Isa. 14:11).

    “But,” cries the infernalist, “if the punishment for unbelieving Jews is merely to cast their dead bodies into the Valley of Hinnom to be burned, why was Jesus so insistent on keeping them out of Gehenna? Where is the urgency if there is no conscious torment?” In fact, this very question is answered by Jesus in the gospels of Matthew and Luke:

“And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in Gehenna.” (Matt. 10:28)

“And I say to you, my friends, be not afraid of those killing the body, and after these things are not having anything over to do; but I will show to you, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority to cast to the Gehenna; yes, I say to you, Fear ye Him.” (Lk. 12:4-5)

According to Jesus, we are to fear God because He can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. The meaning of this statement can only be fully appreciated when we realize the full range of meaning of the word ‘soul’ (ψυχη) in Greek. This word often simply describes one’s consciousness, but it is also used figuratively in scripture to mean blissful or pleasurable experiences [4]. Thus, the fearfulness of Gehenna is not in the punishment itself, but in the fact that those whose bodies are desecrated in Gehenna are unable to be resurrected to experience the bliss of the Messianic kingdom.

    In fact, even today, cremation is a forbidden practice in orthodox Jewish communities because it is believed that those who are cremated cannot be resurrected again to experience the Messianic kingdom, which they consider to be a terrible punishment. In the first century, the bones of dead loved ones were kept in ossuaries or ‘bone boxes’, as they thought that that was the best way to make sure they would be resurrected on the last day. So, to the first century Jews, the fact that those who disbelieved would be cast into Gehenna and their bodies burned and desecrated, never to experience the promised Messianic age, would have been an awful punishment to be avoided at absolutely all costs.

    Conclusion

The place of punishment which Jesus called “Gehenna” refers to the literal, physical Valley of Hinnom which is next to Jerusalem. In this valley, the corpses of dead unbelievers will be burned with an unquenchable fire and their flesh eaten by maggots, per Isaiah 66:24. To the ancient Jewish people, this punishment (which prevented one from entering the promised Messianic kingdom) would have been terrible and unthinkable, which explains Jesus’ constant exhortation to obedience in order to avoid Gehenna. There is no indication at all in scripture that this is a conscious torment or purification.

Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/03/gehenna-and-lake-of-fire-part-2.html

______________________________

[1] Andrew Harshman, “Gehenna in the Synoptic Gospels,” pp. 16 - 19.

[2] The question must be asked, how could so many translators have gotten this wrong? First of all, there is the issue of tradition: because “Gehenna” has been interpreted as referring to “hell” ever since this idea entered Judeo-Christian thought in the late first century AD, translators are naturally inclined to follow this traditional interpretation, regardless of whether it can be shown to be false.

Second, there is immense political pressure on translators to keep the word “hell” in the Bible. Already when translators corrected the awful translation of Sheol and Hades as “hell” in the twentieth century, there was a vast amount of pushback from conservatives who thought that these translators were pandering to religious pluralists by omitting all mention of punishment (which is patently false), so it’s natural that they would be reluctant to scrap the idea of “hell” altogether.

Third, there are many translations that keep “Gehenna” in the text rather than “hell”, especially formal-equivalence translations like the Concordant Literal and Young’s Literal Translation. The unfortunate truth, however, is that most Christians would rather use a dynamic-equivalence Bible that interprets the text for them, rather than take the time to find out for themselves what scripture says.

[3] This “worm” does not die, not because it is immortal, but to emphasize the completeness of the decay of these bodies; the maggots will not die until every bit of flesh is picked clean. See this article written from an annihilationist viewpoint.

[4] As an example, in Matthew 6:25, “soul” is glossed by “what you should eat and what you should drink”. Elsewhere, the adjective form ψυχικος is used to describe those who enjoy and place physical sensations over more important spiritual things (Jas. 3:15; Jude 19).