Are Demons Persons or Personifications?

    For a long time, I’ve held the belief that the entities referred to as “Satan” (or “the Adversary”), the “Devil” (or “the Slanderer”), and “demons” in the New Testament are personal beings, a view which is common to most Christians. However, after reading and interacting with the opposing view that these entities are personifications of evil and/or references to human adversaries, I’ve found many of their arguments convincing. The arguments that “Satan,” the “Devil,” and “demons” don’t refer to personal beings hold more weight than I initially believed, especially when the New Testament texts are considered in their overall context, including both the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism. In this post, we’ll look at how these entities (under the broader umbrella of “supernatural evil”) were viewed throughout the development of ancient Jewish and Christian theology.

Disclaimer: I don’t reject the belief that “satan,” “devil,” and “demons” refer to personal, supernaturally evil beings. This post is simply an attempt to fairly present the case that they aren’t. For the case in favor of the traditional view, see for example this post by Aaron Welch. I also presented my own case for a personal satan and demons in another post.

    Supernatural Evil in the Hebrew Bible

The word translated as “demon” (Heb: sheyd) is found only twice in the Hebrew Bible (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37). In both cases, it refers to the gods of the surrounding nations, and to the fact that the surrounding peoples sacrificed to these shedim rather than Yahweh. The shedim are equated by parallelism to “idols” at Ps. 106:36-38. Yet according to the Hebrew prophets, the idols were merely the work of human hands, despite what the nations believed. They didn’t correspond to any really-existing gods, having no “breath” in them, and the ‘gods’ of the nations (i.e., physical idols) would pass away like all other material objects (Deut. 32:21; Ps. 115:4; 135:15; Isa. 2:8, 20; 40:18-20; 41:21-24; 44:9-20; 57:12f; Jer. 10:2-15; 51:17f; Ezek. 30:13; Dan. 11:8; Hos. 8:4-6; 13:2f; Hab. 2:18f; Zech. 13:2). [1] The LXX for Isa. 65:3 even says explicitly that “demons… do not exist.”

    Thus, the shedim (LXX: daimōnia) of the Old Testament were not personal beings, although they were believed by the nations to be such. But what about the “evil spirit” sent by God to torment Saul (1 Sam. 16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9), which is sometimes seen as a precursor to the demon possession found in the New Testament? The word “spirit” (Heb: ruach) is often used in the Hebrew Bible to describe a mental disposition, not a personal being, which seems to be its meaning here. [2] In the book of Judges, we’re told that God sent an “evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem,” which meant that they had animosity for each other (Judg. 9:23-25). Likewise, Saul’s “evil spirit” was a troubled state of mind, which David alleviated by his music (1 Sam. 16:23).

    No demonology as such can therefore be derived from the Hebrew Bible. But what about the being referred to as “the Adversary” (Heb: satan)? In fact, this title (not a proper name) is used to describe many individuals in the Hebrew Bible. Typically, it’s humans who are referred to as satans (i.e., adversaries), but angels of Yahweh can also be satans (Num. 22:22, 32; 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kgs. 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Ps. 109:6). In one instance, it’s possible that Yahweh himself, or at least an angel of Yahweh, is spoken of as a satan to king David, although some scholars see it as a reference to a human adversary instead (1 Chron. 21:1; cf. 2 Sam. 24:1). [3]

    The most interesting satan in the Hebrew Bible is the satan found in Job 1-2, who is clearly a personal being among “the sons of God” that accuses Job of being unfaithful (or imperfectly faithful) and afflicts him with various evils. Scholars disagree on whether this satan acts as a ‘prosecutor’ or ‘executioner’ of sorts in God’s heavenly court, but there is a general consensus that he isn’t related to the later concept of the satan as a personal being of supernatural evil. The same is true of the satan in Zechariah 3, who also seems to act as a ‘prosecutor’ or ‘executioner.’ [4] The satan(s) of Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3 are certainly celestial, personal beings, but they’re part of the heavenly council of “sons of God” (cf. 1 Kgs. 22:19; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 89:7; Isa. 6:1-3; Jer. 23:18-22) and not evil being(s) implacably opposed to God’s will.

    Supernatural Evil in Second Temple Judaism

We’ve seen that the idea of a personal satan and personal demons can’t be justified from the Hebrew Bible alone. But was this perhaps a later development associated with Second Temple Judaism? In fact, the idea of supernaturally evil beings did creep into Judaism at this time, probably as a result of influence from the Zoroastrian religion with its cosmological dualism. Some Second Temple Jews believed in “evil spirits” that could possess people; these “spirits” were not fallen angels as in later Christian mythology, but the spirits of dead, evil men who roamed the earth searching for bodies to possess. [5] The concept of “demons,” i.e., fallen angels, possessing people would have been an anachronism in the 1st century CE.

    Jews were divided on the concept of supernatural evil as a source of sin in the Second Temple period. Some apocalyptic texts do emphasize ontologically evil angels as a source of people’s temptations, but other texts (e.g., 1 Maccabees; 2 Maccabees; Wisdom of Sirach; 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch) explicitly reject the idea of supernatural evil, and instead find the source of evil in Adam and human temptations. The idea of supernatural evil seems to disappear for the most part from Jewish apocalypticism by the end of the 1st century CE. [6] By the time of rabbinic Judaism, most rabbis rejected supernatural evil and interpreted the “devil” as the human inclination to sin. [7]

    The use of the title “satan” in Second Temple Judaism is interesting. In the Wisdom of Sirach, this title is used of a man’s own evil inclinations, as it’s said that the one who “curses the satan curses himself” (21.27). “The satan” is also used to describe the evil inclination in the Qumran text 11Q5 (19.13-16). [8] Another text (4QBarkhi Nafshi) interprets “the satan” of Zechariah 3 as yetser ra (evil inclination), showing that some in the Qumran community saw the satan of the Hebrew Bible as the human tendency to sin. Apart from these instances, “the satan” is used as a common noun and title to denote any adversary, whether a human, an evil angel, or a good angel (Jubilees 23.29; 40.9; 46.2; 50.5; 1 Enoch 41.9; 53.3; 54.6; 1QH 4.6; 45.3; 1QSb 1.8; 4Q504 1-2 iv 12; T12Dan 3.6; 5.6; 6.1; T12Gad 4.7; T12Ash 6.4). “The satan” does not seem to be used as a proper name for a singular being at this point in time.

    The same is true of the title “the devil” (Gk: ho diabolos). In the Septuagint, this title is used to translate the Hebrew satan, and has the same range of meaning in referring to human or angelic adversaries (LXX 1 Chron. 21:1; Esth. 7:4; 8:4; Ps. 108:6; Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2; 1 Macc. 1.36). The only other place where this title is used in pre-Christian Jewish texts is in Wisdom of Solomon 2.24, which states that “through the envy of the devil death entered into the world.” This could be seen as a reference to a singular being of supernatural evil, but it was interpreted by both Clement of Rome and many modern scholars to refer instead to Cain, the ‘adversary’ who in his envy killed Abel and caused the first human death. [9] The same book elsewhere attributes the origin of death to Cain rather than Adam (Wisdom 10.1-4).

    Other titles used in the New Testament, such as “the evil one,” aren’t found in Second Temple literature. This title is, however, used in the Talmud to refer to the yetser ra, the human tendency to sin (b. Ned. 1:1g, II.2.H, b. Naz. 1:2d, I.4.D; y. Ned. 1:1, V.2.D, y. Naz. 1:5, II.1.P). This “evil one,” i.e., the yetser ra, is even personified and argued with. The Talmud also speaks of some people as “sons of the evil one,” in contrast to Jews who are “sons of the righteous one” (b. Sanh. 4:5, IV.1.H; y. Sanh. 4:9, I.1.I, y. Sanh. 4:10, I.1.), but this doesn’t seem to refer to a supernaturally evil figure.

    Overall, evidence for a well-known supernaturally evil figure called “the satan” or “the devil” in Second Temple Judaism is extremely scanty. Although many Jews believed in such figures, they were given names like Mastema (Jubilees), Shemihazah, and Azazel (1 Enoch). “The satan” and “the devil” were generic titles, which could be given to these evil angels, but could also be used of humans, good angels, and even the human tendency to sin. Many Second Temple era texts rejected the concept of supernatural evil in favor of a more humanistic view.

    Supernatural Evil in the New Testament

First, let’s note that according to Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles, the main source of sin is “from within,” i.e., natural human desires (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21-23; Luke 6:15; Rom. 1:24; chap. 7; 8:5, 9; Gal. 5:17; Jas. 1:14f; etc.), and the way to prevent sin is self-discipline, relying on God’s spirit, and prayer (Matt. 5:28-30; 6:13; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 11:4; Rom. 6:6, 12-14; 8:4, 13; 12:2; 13:14; Gal. 5:16-18, 24; 1 Thess. 4:3-5; 5:22; etc.). This automatically places these texts closer to the ‘humanistic evil’ view of the Second Temple period, rather than the ‘supernatural evil’ view, which attributed temptation to external beings and presented exorcism and apotropaic prayer as solutions.

    Paul consistently presents Adam as the original source of sin and death (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21f), not supernatural beings. Jesus presents “your father the devil,” who was “a murderer from the beginning,” as the original source of evil (John 8:39-44). There is a grammatical ambiguity in this verse, as it could say that “the devil” is “a liar and the father of it [lies],” or that he is “a liar and so is his father”! But how could the devil have a father? The early church theologian Cyril of Jerusalem interpreted “the devil” as Cain based on this ambiguity. This seems correct, based on the parallel from the Wisdom of Solomon (2.24), which attributes the origin of death to Cain and associates all evildoers with him, [9] and the fact that 1 John 3:8, 12 appears to equate “the devil” who has “been sinning from the beginning” with Cain. Thus, both Paul and Jesus attribute the origin of death and sin to a human being (Adam or Cain), rather than a supernaturally evil figure.

    Elsewhere in the NT, “the satan” and “the devil” are used to refer to human adversaries (Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33; John 6:70; 1 Thess. 2:18; 1 Tim. 3:11; 2 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 2:3; Rev. 2:10, 13; possibly 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 1 Tim. 1:20; 3:6f; 5:15; 1 John 3:8-10; Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Peter says to Ananias that “the satan filled your heart to lie” and also that “you contrived this deed in your heart” (Acts 5:3, 5), which shows that, as in other Second Temple and rabbinic texts, “the satan” could refer to the yetser ra, the human inclination to sin. This seems to be the case in several other places in the NT (Mark 4:15; Luke 22:3; John 13:27; Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 12:7; cf. John 13:2; Acts 13:10; Eph. 4:27; 2 Tim. 2:26; Jas. 4:7; 1 John 2:13f; 5:18f). The fact that “the satan” and “the devil” are articular is not a good reason to interpret them as a single being across the NT, because the generic title is also articular in many other places in Second Temple literature (see above).

    What about Jesus’ temptation by “the devil” and “the satan” (Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12f; Luke 4:1-13)? This account is interpreted by most scholars, including conservative scholars, as a visionary sequence, symbolic narrative, or haggadic midrash. [10] For example, it’s obviously impossible to literally see the entire world from atop a mountain (Matt. 4:8-10)! That doesn’t prove that the “satan” in view here is not a supernaturally evil being, but it does caution against deriving an entire satanology from this passage. If this was a visionary or symbolic experience, “the satan” could simply refer to Jesus’ yetser ra. In later rabbinic literature, the yetser ra was personified and even argued with (see above). Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are (Heb. 2:18; 4:15), and our temptations are internal (Jas. 1:14). On the other hand, certain features of the narrative suggest that “the satan” could refer to an angel subservient to and sent by God for this purpose (Luke 4:13; cf. Job 1-2). This view of “the satan” is plausibly found elsewhere in Luke-Acts (e.g., Luke 22:31). [11]

    Finally, the last satanological text to consider is Revelation 12:9, which says that a seven-headed, ten-horned red dragon represents “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and the satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” This seems to refer back to Genesis 3, where Eve is deceived by a serpent, a “beast of the field” (Gen. 2:19; 3:1), into eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In some Second Temple texts, this was seen as a literal serpent, which could talk because all animals could speak at that time (Jubilees 3.17-19, 28; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.4); others interpreted it as an evil angel, Gadreel (1 Enoch 69.6); and still others interpreted it as symbolic of the yetser ra (Philo, Opif. 163ff; Leg. All. 2.71ff). In light of the overall teaching of the NT that the source of sin is internal (see above), the dragon of Rev 12 likely represents the yetser ra, now manifest in the persecuting power of the “beast” and “false prophet” (chap. 13).

    What about “demons” in the NT? As in the Hebrew Bible, demons (Gk: daimōnia) refer to the idols and false gods of the nations (1 Cor. 10:20f; cf. Acts 17:18, 22; 25:19). Yet Paul also says, “we know that ‘no idol in the world really exists’ and ‘there is no god but one’” (1 Cor. 8:4); therefore, it’s okay for Christians to eat food sacrificed to idols, unless it causes less mature brethren, who believe that these gods really do exist, to stumble (1 Cor. 8:7ff). Thus, it seems that at least Paul didn’t believe in the real existence of demons. James says that demons “shudder” at the knowledge of God (Jas. 2:19), which seems to be no different than the depiction of the (non-existent) idols of the nations trembling and bowing before Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps. 97:7; Isa. 19:1; 46:1; Jer. 50:2).

    Demon possession is found frequently in the synoptic gospels and Acts, but interestingly, in no other book of the NT. Furthermore, as noted earlier, such possessing demons were believed by the Jews of the time to be the spirits of dead humans. [5] Unless Jesus and his disciples were condoning this extra-biblical belief, this should be understood as accommodation to the Jewish beliefs of the time, used to demonstrate Jesus’ power. Such “demons” are no more real than the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), where Jesus also accommodated his speech to existing Jewish beliefs to prove a point, or the Delphic “Python spirit” which Paul is said to have cast out (Acts 16:16-18). Jesus “rebuked” possessing demons, but he also “rebuked” a fever and a storm (Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 4:38f; 8:24).

    Therefore, such ‘demoniacs’ were most likely mentally ill people that Jesus miraculously cured, rather than people who were possessed by the spirits of dead, wicked men. The references to “demons” are only found in the synoptic gospels because they were an accommodation to the beliefs of new, Jewish converts, whereas they’re not found in later epistles written to mature believers, because those believers knew that ‘demons’ were merely false gods. Paul makes the same distinction between mature believers, who “know that no idol in the world really exists,” and immature believers, whose false concepts about idols should be accommodated (1 Cor. 8:4-13; cf. 10:20f). [12]

    Supernatural Evil in Post-Apostolic Christianity

If the New Testament clearly taught the existence of demons and a supernaturally evil being called the satan and the devil, we would expect this to be reflected in post-apostolic Christian writings. However, there is a surprising lack of demonology and satanology in these texts. The Didache, a mid-1st century Christian writing, explains sin without any recourse to supernatural evil or exorcism (1.2; 3.2; 6.1). In fact, where it references contemporary Jewish and Christian texts, it actively removes any reference to evil angels (Didache 1.1; cf. 1QS 3.17-21; Barnabas 18.1). Clement of Rome never once refers to “the devil” or “the satan” in his epistle, and presents a humanistic explanation of sin, interpreting the devil of Wisdom 2.24 as Cain (1 Clement 3.4ff). The later Christian writers Papias and Polycarp, along with the Shepherd of Hermas, also present an internal explanation of sin without recourse to demons or the Devil. [13]

    On the other hand, the Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st century CE) and the letters of Ignatius (early 2nd century) present a strongly mythological worldview, with satan and demons as the primary cause of sin. [13] From this point onward, “the satan” and “the devil” became widely used in Christian texts, not just as titles, but as a proper name for a supernaturally evil figure. This range of demonologies and satanologies in early Christianity is difficult to explain on the view that the New Testament consistently and clearly teaches the existence of supernaturally evil beings, but is easy to explain if, as I have argued, the authors of the NT both accommodated the ideas of immature believers about these beings and taught mature believers about their non-existence (cf. 1 Cor. 8:4ff).

    Conclusion

Although a belief in supernaturally evil personal beings (demons and the satan/the devil) is common to most Christians, this idea can’t be found in the Hebrew Bible. It originated in Second Temple Judaism, where some Jews believed in supernatural evil and others held a more human-centered view of evil, in line with the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament appears to take the latter approach to evil, agreeing with the Hebrew Bible that demons/idols have no real existence (while also accommodating immature believers who held these ideas), and using “satan” and “devil” as titles and personifications of the yetser ra. Unfortunately, in the interest of time, I was forced to pass over such interesting texts as Deut. 32:8-9, [14] 2 Cor. 6:15, [15] Eph. 2:2, [16] 6:12, [17] 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude 6. [18] (See the footnotes for a brief discussion of each.) Overall, however, the Bible consistently teaches that evil is the result of the human inclination to sin, and that all supernatural beings are obedient and subservient to God (cf. Ps. 103:19-21; 115:16; Matt. 6:10; Heb. 1:14).

    Finally, I invite the reader to consider the “fruit” of the belief in supernatural evil (including a personal satan and demons). During the period of witch hunts in Europe from the 15th to 18th centuries, about a hundred thousand women were tried for being ‘witches,’ and an estimated 50,000 were murdered. [19] ‘Exorcisms’ result in an estimated ~1,500 child abuse cases every year in the UK alone. [20] Many people who require medical intervention for their mental health are instead forced to go through the traumatic process of so-called ‘exorcism.’ Belief in supernatural evil and ‘exorcisms’ result in no demonstrably better health outcomes, and indeed progress has only been made in the field of mental health since this belief has been discarded. This is quite the opposite of what Jesus did, which was actually heal the people who were believed to be ‘demoniacs’ in 1st-century Judaism. What does this “fruit” tell us about the validity of the belief in supernatural evil? (Matt. 7:15-20)

______________________________

[1] Although some Christians today believe that the pagan gods were actually ‘demons’ (i.e., evil personal beings) that ruled the nations, this was a much later development in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.

[2] Gen. 41:8; Ex. 28:3; 35:21; Num 5:14, 30; Deut. 2:30; 34:9; Josh. 2:11; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Ezra 1:1, 5; Job 7:11; Psalm 51:17; Prov. 15:13; 16:2; 18-19; 29:11; Eccl. 7:8-9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 26:9; 54:6; 57:15; 61:3; 66:2; Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26; Dan. 2:3; 7:15; Hos. 5:4; Hag. 1:14; Mal. 2:16; see also the similar use of the Greek equivalent pneuma in the NT: Matt. 5:3; 26:41; Mark 2:8; Luke 1:47; John 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; Rom 11:8; 1 Cor. 4:21; 5:5; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 4:23; Phil. 1:27; 4:23; Col. 2:5; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4.

[3] For a range of views on this passage, see John W. Wright, “The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21,” JSOT 18 (1993): 87-105; Noel Bailey, “David’s Innocence: a Response to J. Wright,” JSOT 19 (1994): 83-90; Paul Evans, “Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21,” Biblica 85, no. 4 (2004): 545-558; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Satan, God, and the Angel(s) in 1 Chronicles 21,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings, ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Karin Schöpflin, and Tobias Nicklas (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008): 139-154; Ryan E. Stokes, “The Devil Made David Do It... or Did He?”, Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 1 (2009): 91-106; see also NET Bible commentary on 1 Chronicles 21:1.

[4] For a summary of the scholarly consensus and presentation of the ‘executioner’ view, see Ryan E. Stokes, “Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner,” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014): 251-270.

[5] 1 Enoch 15.8-11; Josephus, Wars 7.6.3.

[6] Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (JSNT supplement no. 231, 2002), 173; Bernard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan’s Realm (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), 42-43.

[7] Jeffrey B. Russell, The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), 51.

[8] E.J.C. Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-Edition of 4Q468i (4QSectarian Text?),” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magda Misset-Van de Weg (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 347-358.

[9] 1 Clement 3-4; Philip R. Davies, “Sons of Cain,” in A Word in Season: Essays in Honor of William McKane, ed. Philip Davies and James Martin (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1987), 56; John Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 220-223; Richard J. Clifford, Wisdom (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013), 21.

[10] For a summary of scholarly views on this passage, see Jonathan Burke, “Satanological terminology in the wilderness temptation accounts,” 1-3.

[11] Tom de Bruin, “In Defence of New Testament Satanologies: A Response to Farrar and Williams,” JSNT 44, no. 3 (2021): 445-448.

[12] For a counter-argument against this view, see Thomas Farrar, “’When an unclean spirit goes out of a person’: An Assessment of the Accommodation Theory of Demon Possession and Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels.”

[13] Jonathan Burke, “Satan and Demons in the Apostolic Fathers: A Minority Report,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 81 (2016): 127-168; for a counter-argument, see Thomas Farrar, “Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 83 (2018): 156-191.

[14] The author here incorporated an earlier text fragment (Deut. 32:8-9) into a larger poem that explicitly denies the existence of other gods (32:17, 21, 39). Although the author of the earlier fragment certainly believed in other gods, and that Yahweh was part of a divine council under the higher god ’El, the final author of this poem didn’t believe that “demons” or “idols” had any real existence.

[15] Paul uses the name of the evil angel from Jewish mythology, Beliar, to denote the non-existent idols (2 Cor. 6:15f; cf. 1 Cor. 8:4).

[16] Paul equates the “prince of the power of the air” with the “spirit at work among the disobedient,” and in the next verse seems to equate this with the “desires of our flesh” (Eph 2:2f). Therefore, the “spirit” here most likely refers to a mental disposition (cf. [2]; Ps. 78:5-8), and the “prince of the power of the air” is a personification of the yetser ra.

[17] Paul wished to prepare the Ephesians for the “evil day” (Eph 6:13), i.e., a coming period of great persecution (Nero’s persecution?). The “rulers” and “authorities” therefore most likely refer to the human rulers who would persecute the Christians. The “world-rulers of this darkness” also refer to human rulers; cf. when Jesus said that the Jewish leaders had the “power of darkness” (Luke 22:52f). “...in the heavenly places” most probably refers to a place of prestige, which believers already had in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:6), not that these rulers literally lived in heaven. The adjective “heavenly” (Gk: epouranios) was used of the Roman emperor in many 1st century texts: see Nijay Gupta and Frederick Long, “The Politics of Ephesians and the Empire,” JGRChJ 7 (2010), 118-120. The struggle of the Ephesians was “not with flesh and blood,” but was “spiritual” because they would not literally fight with their persecutors, but would use their faith to struggle in the midst of persecution (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5). The imperial powers are collectively referred to as “the devil” or “the slanderer” of the believers (Eph. 6:11).

[18] Peter and Jude here refer to legends about fallen angels from Jewish mythology (1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses) to illustrate a point about God’s judgment. Unless one is willing to say that the stories in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses were also inspired by God, this doesn’t indicate the truth of those stories, any more than (for example) a modern writer using a story from Star Wars to illustrate a point would indicate that he believed Star Wars is a true story.

[19] Brian P. Levack, “Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 5-6; Alison Rowlands, “Witchcraft and Gender in Early Modern Europe,” in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, 452.

[20] Olivia Rudgard, “Belief in witchcraft and demonic possession linked to 1,500 child abuse cases,” The Telegraph, 24 November 2017, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/24/belief-witchcraft-demonic-possession-linked-1500-child-abuse/.

Challenges to Dispensationalism (part 2 of 2)

    In the last post, we saw a number of passages that seem to pose an issue for Pauline dispensationalism, the belief that Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus (while he was on earth) and the other apostles. The differences between Paul’s gospel and the gospel to Israel aren’t as large as some dispensationalists make them out to be — for example, although Paul never claimed that works are necessary for salvation (in fact he argued the opposite), he did claim that good works come from salvation. Furthermore, in many places throughout his epistles, Paul indicated that the body of Christ is included in true Israel (2 Cor. 3:6ff; 6:16; Gal. 3; Eph. 2:11-21; Phil. 3:3; Tit. 2:14), and only in one place did he possibly distinguish between the two (Gal. 6:16). [1] Yet there are differences between Paul’s gospel and the gospel to Israel. How can this be explained?

    Torah in the Israelite Writings

To understand this, we need to go on a little tangent. Jesus preached to Israel that in order to enter God’s kingdom, they needed to follow the entire Torah and Prophets (Matt. 5:17-20), and his disciples also taught that one must follow God’s commandments to be saved (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; Jas. 2:10-24; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4). But what did it mean for Israelite believers in Jesus to follow Torah? When asked by a Jewish lawyer which commandment is the greatest, Jesus responded,

“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ [Deut. 6:4-5] This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ [Lev. 19:18] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:37-40)

In the Markan account, the lawyer responds that following these two commandments “is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Jesus “saw that he answered wisely” and said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:33-34). In his sermon on the mount, Jesus told the people of Israel that anyone who taught others to break the least of Torah’s commandments would be “called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19). Even though the lawyer was denying the need for sacrifices and temple rituals, it seems that Jesus didn’t consider this to be disobeying Torah.

    As the Messiah who spoke the very words of God (John 3:34; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10), the ‘second Moses’ to whom Israel was commanded to listen (Deut. 18:15-19; cf. John 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:20-23), Jesus has the power to authoritatively re-interpret the Mosaic Law for Israel. If he says that those who love God and their neighbor fulfill Torah, and this is much more important than temple rituals (as indeed he did), then this is the interpretation Israel is expected to follow. This is supported by Jesus’ sermon to his disciples in the gospel of John, in which he said,

“If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you... I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.” (John 15:10-14, 17)

Jesus establishes here that for his Israelite disciples to abide in the love of him and his Father, they must follow his commandments; he also establishes that the commandment they must follow is to love one another.

    John says the same thing many times in his other writings: “Whoever loves a brother or sister abides in the light, and in such a person there is no cause for stumbling” (1 John 2:10); “We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brothers and sisters. Whoever does not love abides in death” (3:14); “this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he commanded us” (3:23); “Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” (4:7); “The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also” (4:21; cf. Matt. 22:35-40); as well as other examples.

    James, too, said to the dispersed tribes of Israel, “If you really fulfill the royal law according to scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well” (Jas. 1:1; 2:8). Therefore, Jesus’ disciples understood his teaching to mean that those who love others fulfill Torah, become part of the Israel of God, and God and Christ abide in them.

    But what about the temple rituals? The epistle to the Hebrews, which is regarded as an Israelite writing by Pauline dispensationalists, was written as a polemic against those who saw earthly temple rituals as still necessary. It’s bookended by statements about the purification of Israel’s sins through Christ’s blood (Heb. 1:3; 13:20-21). Jesus is the heavenly high priest (2:14-3:6; 4:14-5:10; 6:19-20), who has no need to offer sacrifices daily like the earthly priests, because his sacrifice was offered once for all (7:26-28; 8:1-7; 9:6-14, 25-28; 10:1-18). The temple rituals and purity regulations have been replaced by new types of ‘sacrifices,’ namely praises to God and doing good for others (13:9-16).

    There are, however, two texts that have been put forth as evidence that Jesus and his disciples did believe the temple rituals were necessary for Israel. The first is from Jesus’ polemic against the leaders of the Pharisees:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.” (Matt. 23:1-3)

This passage is used by some to argue that Jesus endorsed the Pharisees’ interpretation of Torah, and only disagreed with their hypocrisy. But this raises more questions than it answers. If this is true, how can it be squared with Jesus’ disciples’ belief that those who love God and others fulfill Torah, and Jesus’ own statements elsewhere to the same effect? Why does the epistle to the Hebrews so strongly deny the need for temple rituals if Jesus himself affirmed it? And what about the Israelites who lived after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, such as John the disciple — were they forced to disobey God because the temple had been destroyed?

    Based on these considerations, it’s very unlikely that Jesus was endorsing the Pharisaical interpretation of Torah as something that Israel would always have to follow. Instead, he was saying that because they were the Jews’ religious leaders, they should be respected and followed (“[they] sit on Moses’ seat, therefore [Gk: oun] do whatever they teach you”). Later on in the history of the church, there were “believers of the sect of the Pharisees” (Acts 15:5), but the apostles considered them to be misguided, and their ‘yoke’ unable to bear (15:10), in contrast to Jesus whose “yoke is easy and burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).

    Another text that has been interpreted to mean that Israel is still required to keep the temple rituals is from the book of Acts:

The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present... Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law.” (Acts 21:18-24)

In this passage, James and the elders tell Paul about the “many thousands of [Jewish] believers” who were all “zealous for Torah.” The crux of the issue is v. 21, where they say that the Jewish believers “have been told” that Paul teaches other Jews to forsake Moses and “the customs” (i.e., temple rituals), and so they urge Paul go through a purification rite.

    Does this mean that James thought the temple rituals and purity rites were necessary, despite what he said in his epistle (Jas. 2:8)? No, because James and the elders say that some of the Jewish believers “have been told” this about Paul, not that they told them this. Perhaps it was the unbelieving Jewish leaders who told them this, in an attempt to sow division between the body of Christ and the Jewish believers, or perhaps it was the misguided “believers of the sect of the Pharisees” mentioned in Acts 15:5.

    To summarize, the Israelite believers in Jesus are required to love God and love others, but not needed to complete temple rituals or rites of purification, which according to the letter to the Hebrews have been performed once for all by Jesus in the ‘heavenly temple.’ They also must believe that “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” in order to have eonian life (John 20:31; 1 John 5:1-5). Of course, this doesn’t only apply to ethnic Jews, but also to gentiles who “fear God and practice righteousness” (Acts 10:34-35). As the vast majority of those who follow Abrahamic religions — Christians, Messianic Jews, and Muslims (with the sole exception of non-Messianic Jews) — believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they are all potential members of the Israel of God, so long as they love God and others.

    The Body of Christ and Israel in Paul’s Writings

According to Paul, in order to be saved under his gospel and become part of the body of Christ, one must believe that “Christ died for our sins... and that he was raised on the third day” (1 Cor. 12:27; 15:1-4). This gospel isn’t difficult to believe, but certain teachings have obscured its message, such as the immortality of the soul and the deity of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 4:3-4). [2] Unlike Jesus’ message to Israel, according to which one must continue to follow God’s commandments in order to abide in him and see his kingdom (Matt. 5:17-20; John 14:21-24; 15:9-10; cf. 2 Pet. 1:10-11; 1 John 3:18-24; 4:12), according to Paul, one is not required to do good works to be in the body of Christ (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5; 11:5-6; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4-5).

    Yet Paul also said that good works were the result of a saving faith in his gospel, the effect of God and Christ’s work within us (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Eph. 2:10; Php. 1:6; 2:12-13; Tit. 2:11-14; 3:8). Those in the body of Christ, therefore, are led by God to love him and others, though this certainly isn’t a prerequisite of our salvation. Furthermore, those in the body of Christ necessarily believe that Jesus is the Messiah, as it’s part of Paul’s gospel that the Messiah died for our sins and was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:3).

    In fact, Paul explicitly says, “the ‘right’ declaration of Torah is fulfilled in us, who walk not according to flesh, but according to spirit,” because Jesus condemned Sin (Rom. 8:3-4; cf. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14). Torah is not annulled, but established by faith in Jesus the Messiah (Rom. 3:30-31), which also fulfills the Deuteronomic promises about Torah being written on the hearts of God’s people (Deut. 30:1-14; Rom. 2:25-29; 10:6-10). This new fulfillment frees God’s people from needing to follow all the commandments of Torah, thus circumventing the problem of “the ‘Torah’ of sin and death” that happens when we actively try to avoid sin (Rom. 7:13-8:2), and establishes instead a “righteousness according to faith” (Rom. 3:20-26; 9:30-10:13; Gal. 2:5-21; 3:10-14; Phil. 3:7-11).

    Based on this, it seems that everyone in the body of Christ would actually also qualify for membership in the true Israel! This explains why Paul identifies the members of the body of Christ as part of Israel, even though he also clearly distinguishes his gospel from the gospel to Israel. To be sure, the means by which we are saved is very different from the rest of the Israel of God, which is blinded to the truth of Paul’s gospel and relies on good works to continue abiding in God. The body of Christ acts as the vanguard of true Israel, with the added benefit of being “the first fruits of salvation through... belief in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13), and the extra task of being “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17-20).

    The existence of the rest of the Israel of God, who have eonian life despite not believing in Paul’s gospel, appears to be recognized by Paul in his letter to the Romans:

...in the day of wrath and revelation of God’s righteous judgment, who will render to each according to his works. To those who are seeking glory, honor, and immortality by endurance in good works, he gives eonian life. Yet to those who are self-seeking, disobey the truth, and have confidence in unrighteousness, he gives wrath and anger. Tribulation and distress on every man’s life who works evil, the Jew first and also the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. (Romans 2:5-10)

This passage establishes that those who endure in good works receive eonian life (defined as “glory, honor and peace” in v. 10), while those who selfishly pursue unrighteousness (Gk: adikia) and disobey the truth (Gk: alētheia) receive wrath and anger, tribulation and distress.

    Although I previously thought that this passage spoke of a future judgment (the same one described in Revelation 20:10-15), now I think this interpretation is unsustainable, in light of what Paul said previously: “the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness [Gk: adikia] of men, who suppress the truth [Gk: alētheia] in unrighteousness [Gk: adikia]” (Rom. 1:18). Paul refers back to this statement, which speaks of the present wrath of God against evil people, using many of the same Greek terms in Rom. 2:8. The “day of wrath” refers not to a literal day, but to the entire present age — consider that the entire period of the Messiah’s reign over the gentiles is also referred to as a “day” (Isa. 11:10-12; 42:1-4; Zech. 2:11; 14:9; 2 Cor. 6:2; cf. Acts 17:30, 31).

    The men who do good and receive eonian life in Rom. 2:7 are most likely the other members of true Israel, who believe in Jesus as Messiah and persist in loving God and others. These aren’t members of the body of Christ, because their salvation is based on works, but they nonetheless receive eonian life, meaning that they must be members of the Israel of God.

    Conclusion

The view of Pauline dispensationalists, that Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus (while on earth) and his disciples, is challenged by a number of facts from the New Testament. However, the basic content of the dispensationalist idea must be true due to the differences between Paul’s message and that of the other apostles.

    In these two posts, I presented an alternative view of dispensationalism which accounts for the facts that challenge Pauline dispensationalism while retaining its basic idea. According to this view, the body of Christ is a part of true Israel, representing the vanguard of God’s people, but (unlike the rest of the Israel of God) is saved simply by believing in Paul’s gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) rather than by good works and following Torah. I’m not 100% wedded to this idea, and I could certainly be convinced that it’s wrong, but I think it’s at least more biblical than the conventional hyper-dispensationalist view that the body of Christ and Israel are completely separate.

______________________________

[1] In Galatians 6:16, Paul blesses peace and mercy upon the body of Christ, “and upon [Gk: kai epi] the Israel of God.” The Greek conjunction kai can be either additive (1 and 2) or explicative (1, namely 2) — see BDAG lexicon for this word — thus Paul could either be distinguishing or identifying the body of Christ and the Israel of God in this verse. For an exegetical defense of the latter position, see Christopher W. Cowan, “Context Is Everything: ‘The Israel of God’ in Galatians 6:16,” SBJT 14, no. 3 (2010): 78-85.

[2] See my post about “Paul’s Gospel and Christianity.”

Challenges to Dispensationalism (part 1 of 2)

    Back when I started this blog, I was convinced of a view called “hyper-dispensationalism” or “Pauline dispensationalism.” This is the belief that there are two gospels taught in the New Testament, the gospel of Paul and the gospel to Israel, and that those who believe Paul’s gospel are in the body of Christ whereas those who believe and follow Israel’s gospel are in the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). I argued for this view in a series of six posts. Although I still believe that Paul preached a unique gospel about Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-5), there are difficult challenges to hyperdispensationalism that I think we haven’t done a good enough job of answering. In this post, I will outline the challenges, and in the next post I’ll provide a modified view of dispensationalism that I believe is able to overcome these issues.

    The Method of Salvation

According to Pauline dispensationalists, one of the main distinctions between Paul’s gospel and the gospel preached by Jesus and the Twelve to Israel is the method of salvation. Jesus and his disciples both strongly emphasized the importance of works to one’s salvation. Jesus preached that each person would be rewarded according to their works and that one must follow the law in its entirety (Matt. 5:17-20; 16:27; 23:1-3). His disciples Peter and John taught that one must remain steadfast and keep Christ’s commands in order to remain in his kingdom (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4). His brother James, when writing to the Israelite diaspora, said that faith is useless without works, that is, keeping the law (Jas. 2:10-24).

    In contrast, Paul was clear that works play no part in one’s salvation (Rom. 3:27f; 4:5; 11:5f; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8f; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4f). He was especially insistent that “works of law” weren’t necessary for salvation, despite what other Jewish believers had been claiming (Rom. 9:32; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:2, 5, 9-12). Pauline dispensationalists rightly view this as an apparent contradiction between the method of salvation described by Paul vs. the other apostles. After all, James said that “a man is declared righteous by works of law” (Jas. 2:24), while Paul said “a man is not declared righteous by works of law” (Gal. 2:16).

    However, because of their emphasis on the contradictions between Paul and the other apostles, Pauline dispensationalists tend to downplay the importance of works in Paul’s soteriology. Consider the following passages:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we may walk in them. (Eph. 2:8-10)

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit... I desire that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; these things are excellent and profitable to everyone. (Tit. 3:4-5, 8)

While Paul is careful to highlight that we were not saved from our works, in the very same passages, he tells us that we were saved for good works. The same point is made elsewhere throughout his letters, and in each instance, he’s clear that our salvation involves God working in us to produce good works (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Php. 1:6; 2:12f; Tit. 2:11-14). Again, not to belabor the point, but “it is God who is at work in [us], enabling [us]... to work for his good pleasure” (Php. 2:12f), not a result of our own works, but God at work in us.

    In light of this, the difference between Paul and the other apostles is not so great as it first seems. Both processes of salvation involve works. The difference isn’t whether works are involved at all, but whether works are a basis of salvation (Jesus and his disciples) or a result of salvation (Paul). From a certain perspective, they could even be the same thing, if Paul is emphasizing God’s sovereignty over our works while the other apostles are emphasizing the human point of view. Although I disagree with this, as I still think there’s an important distinction, this difference is far less than what some Pauline dispensationalists claim.

    Two ‘Expectations’?

Another distinction between Paul and the other apostles that’s often made by Pauline dispensationalists is the difference between the “expectation” or destiny of believers according to these authors. (For example, see this argument for dispensationalism by Aaron Welch.) In the parts of the New Testament not written by Paul, the destiny of believers is said to be “on the earth” (Matt. 5:5; 19:28; Rev. 2:26f; 5:9f). The “heavenly Jerusalem” described in the epistle to the Hebrews is also on the earth (Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:2, 10). In contrast, Paul says that our reward is “in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1f; Eph. 1:3), that we are seated “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6f; 3:10f; cf. Php. 3:19f), and that our struggle is with the demonic forces “in heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12).

    However, this distinction is also not as strong as it may first appear. Our reward being “in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1f; Eph. 1:3) is exactly the same thing that Jesus and Peter said, even though for them the destiny of believers is on earth (Matt. 5:12; 6:19-21; 16:19; 18:18; 19:21; 1 Pet. 1:4). In Jewish thought, anything promised by God could be said to exist “with God” or “in heaven” (Job 23:14; Isa. 49:4; Col. 1:5; 2 Baruch 4.2-6; Gen. Rabbah 1.13). [1] This doesn’t show that Jesus, Peter, or Paul believed that the destiny of believers is in heaven, it’s just an affirmation that our reward has been promised by God and will be delivered to us.

    Furthermore, when Paul says that we reign with Christ “in heavenly places” (Eph. 2:6f), he uses the present tense, suggesting that this is a spiritual truth, along with our other “spiritual blessing[s] in heaven” that he mentioned at the beginning of the same epistle (Eph. 1:3). Likewise, he says that the wisdom of God is being made known through us in heavenly places “now” (Eph. 3:10f). Although the present tense in Eph. 2:6 could be interpreted proleptically (i.e., describing a future time as though it already exists), the adverb “now” (Gk: nun) is never used proleptically. Paul most likely uses the word epouranios (“heavenly [places]”) because it was a title used by the Roman emperor; he’s saying that, rather than the emperor being epouranios (from the divine realm), it’s the body of Christ which is empowered by heaven. [2]

    Finally, the statement that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Php. 3:20) must be understood in the context of the original readers of this epistle. The people living in Philippi were citizens of Rome, the city from which their emperor reigned, regardless of whether they ever lived in the city of Rome. Citizenship wasn’t a matter of where you lived, but where your king ruled. Paul’s statement that “our citizenship is in heaven” was an affirmation that Jesus is our king who rules from heaven. [3] The immediate context confirms this by establishing heaven as the place “from which” we await Jesus, not to which we are going (Php. 3:20f).

    In summary, there’s very little evidence to suggest that Paul had a different destiny in mind for believers than Jesus and his disciples. In fact, both Paul and the other authors of the New Testament give us very little information about the location of our eventual destiny, though a couple of verses from non-Pauline writings say that it’s on earth (Matt. 5:5; Rev. 5:9f). Once again, this is not evidence against Pauline dispensationalism, but it does remove a major pillar of support from that doctrine.

    Body of Christ = True Israel?

The greatest challenge to hyperdispensationalism are the passages that suggest the body of Christ, i.e. those saved according to Paul’s gospel, are part of true Israel. Pauline dispensationalism makes a hard-and-fast distinction between the body of Christ and the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16) which, in my opinion, doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. [4] Let’s take a look at several passages from Paul’s epistles that pose a problem for this view.

    First, in his letter to the Romans, Paul tells us,

...a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans but from God. (Rom. 2:28-29)

This passage is used by some as evidence that Paul viewed his audience as “inward Jews” who were circumcised in the heart. I see this as a plausible interpretation, especially in light of other passages like Philippians 3:3 where Paul refers to his gentile audience as “the [true] circumcision” (see below). However, this passage has recently been addressed by Aaron Welch, a Pauline dispensationalist, whose interpretation is also plausible, so I won’t rest my case on these verses.

    Consider also Paul’s argument in Galatians 3. To show that the Galatians are justified by faith, Paul points out that Abraham was declared righteous for his faith, and so “those who believe are the descendants of Abraham” (3:5-9). Abraham was not justified by law, indeed “all who rely on works of law are under a curse,” but rather through Christ “the blessing of Abraham might come to the gentiles” (3:10-14). The promises were made to Abraham and his offspring (Christ) before the law, so “the inheritance” comes not from the law (3:15-18). Not that the law was useless, but it has been superseded by the promise through faith (3:19-26). Those who have faith are in Christ, who is the offspring of the promise; therefore, those who are in Christ are also “Abraham’s offspring, heirs of the promise” (3:27-29). Although there are dispensationalist interpretations of individual verses like Gal. 3:7 and 29, they do not take into account the full context of the argument. Paul is saying that we are recipients of the promise to Abraham’s heirs (Gen. 12:1-3), not because we are literal descendants of Abraham, but because we are in Christ who is the descendant of Abraham.

    Paul also twice relates the “new covenant,” which was made to the house of Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31), to the members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 11:25f; 2 Cor 3:6). The latter passage is especially clear, as it tells us that we are “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:5-11). The dispensationalist answer to this is that Paul was speaking metaphorically (see here). But where is any indication that this is a metaphor? On the contrary, Paul uses the exact same language (Gk: kainēs diathēkēs) used in Jeremiah 31:31 (LXX: diathēkēn kainēn) and Hebrews 8:8-13. And like Jeremiah, Paul contrasts the “new covenant” with the covenant given through Moses (2 Cor. 3:7-11; cf. Jer. 31:32). It’s eisegetical to read a third covenant into this passage and suppose that Paul is only metaphorically alluding to Jeremiah. Paul also applies the promise to Israel in Ezekiel 37:26f to the body of Christ (2 Cor. 6:16).

    Also in his letters to the Corinthian church, remarkably, Paul can speak of the time “when you [his audience] were gentiles” (Gk: hote ēte ethnē; 1 Cor. 12:2). Of course, if his audience used to be ethnē, gentiles, it follows that they no longer are counted as part of that group.

    The passage which most strongly seems to teach that the body of Christ to whom Paul wrote is included in true Israel is Ephesians 2:11-21. The key verses in this passage are vv. 12 and 19:

...remember that you were at that time without Christ, excluded from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world... So then you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but are fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God.

First of all, Paul says that the Gentiles to whom he is writing were formerly “excluded from the citizenship of Israel.” The word translated as “excluded” (Gk: apallotrioō) literally means “from-belonging-to-another,” while the word translated as “citizenship” (Gk: politeia) is derived from “citizen” (Gk: politēs) and refers to one’s status as a citizen of a nation (cp. Acts 22:28). In other words, the Gentiles in the body of Christ were formerly belonging to another country as non-citizens of Israel. However, Paul goes on to say that we are now “fellow-citizens” (Gk: sympolitēs), which in context can only mean that we are now citizens of Israel.

    The next passage which supports this view is Philippians 3:3, in which Paul says that “we are the [true] circumcision, who worship in the spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.” In the Old Testament, circumcision was a practice first meant to set apart the descendants of Abraham from all other people (Gen. 17:9-14), and later to set apart the people of Israel from all other people (Exod. 12:43-49; Lev. 12:3). In the New Testament, it was determined by Paul, Peter, and James that physical circumcision is no longer a requirement for gentiles to be included in God’s people (Acts 15:5-21; Gal. 5:6). Nonetheless, by saying that we are “the circumcision,” Paul is identifying us with the descendants of Abraham and people of Israel (cf. Gal. 3:7, 29).

    Finally, the last passage in Paul’s epistles which appears to identify us with Israel is Titus 2:14. In this verse, he refers to us as “a peculiar people” or “a people of his own” (Gk: laon periousion). This uses a very rare Greek adjective which is exclusively found in the Septuagint, and only used to refer to the people of Israel (Exod. 19:5; 23:22; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18 LXX). Peter uses a similar phrase in a series of Israel-related phrases to refer to his audience: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his possession [Gk: laos eis peripoiēsin]” (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. Exod. 19:5-6). By using a word exclusively associated with Israel to refer to his audience, both Paul and Peter seem to be identifying their audiences as true Israel.

    Legitimate Differences

Despite these challenges to Pauline dispensationalism, there are many legitimate differences between the gospel that Paul preached and the gospel preached by the other apostles. For one, Paul repeatedly refers to “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; Eph. 3:1-3; Col. 1:25f; 2 Tim. 2:8), which would be remarkably arrogant if he weren’t preaching a unique message. This gospel is said to have been a “mystery” that was not revealed until his time (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26), which was revealed to him directly by Jesus (Gal. 1:11f). According to Paul, one must believe that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected (1 Cor. 15:1-5), but according to John, one must simply believe that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, and follow his commands to love God and others (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 20:31; 1 John 2:3-11; 3:18-24; 4:7-5:5; cf. Matt. 22:35-40).

    How can these differences be accommodated within a framework that also takes into account the challenges outlined above? Especially if the body of Christ is included in true Israel, and is the recipient of the promises to Israel, how could Paul’s gospel be distinct from the gospel preached by the other apostles? In the next post, I’ll outline a modified view of dispensationalism which I think takes into account all of the relevant information from Paul’s epistles and the rest of the New Testament.

______________________________

[1] Incidentally, this fact also came up in my refutation of trinitarian proof-texts, as it refutes the trinitarian claim that Jesus’ glory existing “in heaven” before the creation of the world (John 17:24) means that Jesus must have existed before the creation of the world.

[2] Nijay Gupta and Frederick Long, “The Politics of Ephesians and the Empire,” JGRChJ 7 (2010), 118-120.

[3] See this post by Dustin Smith for a longer explanation.

[4] In Galatians 6:16, Paul blesses peace and mercy upon the believers in Galatia, “and upon [Gk: kai epi] the Israel of God.” The Greek conjunction kai can be either additive (1 and 2) or explicative (1, namely 2) — see BDAG lexicon for this word — thus Paul could either be distinguishing or identifying the body of Christ and the Israel of God in this verse. He's most likely identifying them, especially in light of the common second-Temple prayer — almost certainly at the front of Paul’s mind here — which says, “Grant peace... and mercy to us and to all Israel, your people” (from the Eighteen Benedictions).

Punishment and Salvation: The Eternal State (part 3 of 3)

Part 2: The Messianic Age

     In the last two sections of this paper, we have seen that many judgment passages in the New Testament actually relate to the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem, which coincided with the end of the Old Covenant, while other passages describe the ongoing judgment that takes place in this life (e.g., John 3:17-21). The rewards of believers, namely “eonian life” and “the kingdom of God,” are spiritual blessings that we enjoy in our present life (see esp. John 17:3; Rom. 14:17), while the ‘death’ that unbelievers undergo is the state of separation from God which we formerly existed in (Eph. 2:1-5, 12). All rewards and punishments for the righteous and the wicked take place in this life, as the author of Proverbs observed (Prov. 11:31).

    But what consequences does this have for the Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead? This is surely a future event, as Jesus has not bodily returned and the dead have not been bodily raised. So will there be a final judgment at this time, despite the fact that the Bible appears to teach that judgment takes place in this life? What will be the ultimate fate of believers and unbelievers?

    The Second Coming and Resurrection

    During his earthly ministry, Jesus did not speak of his return to earth. Although he spoke of a “coming” of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:27, 30; 26:64), this was the “coming” of the Messiah to God to receive power and glory and a kingdom, as prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14. The disciples of Jesus were not aware of the Second Coming; in fact, despite Jesus’ warnings to them, they did not even believe that he would die, rise again, and ascend to heaven (Matt. 16:21-22; Luke 24:18-27; John 16:16-18). Therefore, when he finally did ascend to heaven, the disciples were told by heavenly messengers:

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)

This is the first time that Jesus’ bodily return to earth is described in the New Testament. After this, the disciples began to preach the Second Coming, which Peter declared would take place at “the times of the restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21).

    Although Jesus did not preach about the Second Coming during his earthly ministry, he did teach about the resurrection of the dead. Contrary to the Sadducees’ claim that there would be no bodily resurrection, Jesus showed that the Torah implicitly claimed that the patriarchs would live again one day (Mark 12:18-27). According to his teaching, those who are resurrected will be unable to die again (Luke 20:34-36). In the gospel of John, we’re told that this resurrection will occur “on the last day” (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24), which elsewhere is said to coincide with Jesus’ return from heaven (1 Cor. 15:51-55; 1 Thess. 4:13-18). The resurrection of the dead will involve a transformation of our mortal, soulish bodies into immortal, spiritual bodies (1 Cor. 15:35-49; Phil 3:20-21).

    The Scope of the Resurrection

    As we have seen, the New Testament teaches that there will be a physical resurrection of the dead at the same time as Christ’s bodily return from heaven. But who will be resurrected at this time? The book of Acts tells us that “there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous” (24:15); but will both groups of people be resurrected at the same time, or will only a subset be resurrected at the Second Coming?

    According to John 6:39, those who will be raised “on the last day” are all those whom God has given to Jesus. This includes those who believe in Jesus in this life (John 6:40), but it also includes every other member of humanity, because God has given to Jesus “all things” and “all flesh” (John 3:35; 13:3; 17:2; cf. Matt. 11:27; Rom. 14:9). Prior to Jesus’ death, it was only his disciples who had been given to him (John 17:6-9), but it is clear that after his resurrection, he became the Lord of “all flesh” and “the dead and the living” (John 17:2; Rom. 14:9). Indeed, his inheritance includes the wicked and unbelievers, as prophesied by the psalmist (Ps. 2:7-9; cf. Acts 13:33). Because the people who have been given to Jesus will be raised “on the last day,” and all people have been given to Jesus, it follows that all people will be raised at the Second Coming.

    This is supported by Paul’s writings, especially 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, in which he states:

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end...

    Although some argue that this passage describes three different stages of resurrection, the evidence does not support this view. Paul refers to Jesus as the firstfruits, [1] which draws upon the typology of harvest in the Old Testament; this only had two stages, the “sheaf of the firstfruits” followed by the rest of the harvest (Lev. 23:9-22). Jesus is the firstfruits of “those who have died” and all who “die in Adam,” so the second stage of the ‘harvest’ of the resurrection includes everyone who has died. [2] Moreover, those who are resurrected “at his coming” are “those who belong to Christ,” which in Paul’s view includes “both the dead and the living” (Rom. 14:9). 

    The only other place in Paul’s epistles where he describes the resurrection at the Second Coming is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. This passage states:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died.

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

    The scope of this resurrection is described repeatedly as “those who have died” (or “those who are asleep”), which suggests that all who have died will be raised at that time. Yet in v. 16, most translations say that “the dead in Christ will rise first,” which implies that only dead Christians will be resurrected. Nonetheless, this can also be translated as “the dead will rise in Christ first,” which better fits the context and is grammatically more plausible. [3] Moreover, since this prophecy was meant to comfort the Thessalonians about “those who have died,” were they only concerned about other Christians and not their unbelieving relatives as well? This is quite unlikely, especially since Paul has just exhorted them to have love not only “for one another,” but indeed “for all” (1 Thess. 3:12; cf. 5:15).

    In summary, the resurrection at the Second Coming will encompass all members of humanity, not just believers. This is shown by the gospel of John, which states that all who have been given to Jesus will be “raised on the last day” (6:39), and that all people have been given to Jesus (17:2). It is also supported by Paul’s epistles, as he says that “those who belong to Christ” (which includes all people) will be resurrected “at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:20-23; cf. Rom. 14:9), and that “those who have died” will “rise in Christ” when he returns from heaven (1 Thess. 4:13-18).

    The Salvation of All

    As I have argued at length in many other places, the Bible clearly teaches that all people, not just those who believe in this life, will be saved through Christ’s sacrifice. This is most obviously seen in the writings of Paul, who establishes in his epistles to the Romans and Corinthians that as many people as were condemned by Adam’s sin will also be justified by Jesus’ selfless sacrifice:

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. And the gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:15-19)

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human, for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. (1 Cor. 15:20-22)

Some avoid this conclusion by arguing that “the many” and “all people” in these passages could refer to a subset of humanity. If Paul had said that “all people” were condemned in Adam while “the many” were justified in Christ, or even vice versa, this might be a plausible interpretation. Instead, he’s careful to establish a comparison between the two, referring to both groups as “the many” or “all people” in the same sentence, showing that it’s the same group (all humanity) in view in both cases.

    These aren’t the only passages establishing universal salvation by far. In the famous Carmen Christi, we’re told that one day “every knee will bow... and every tongue will confess, ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’” (Phil. 2:10-11), which is a confession that cannot be made except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). Paul says that “all things” that were created, “whether in heaven or on earth,” shall be reconciled to God by the blood of Jesus (Eph. 1:9-10; Col. 1:16-20). God “wills that all people be saved,” and therefore he sent Jesus as the “correspondent ransom on behalf of all” (1 Tim. 2:4-6). He “imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (Rom. 11:32). Paul tells us to “insist upon and teach” that God is “the savior of all people, especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10-11). [4]

    The salvation of all is also taught implicitly throughout the rest of the Scriptures. Many passages tell us that God has the power to control people’s thoughts and desires, including their faith and unbelief; no one comes to Jesus unless it’s willed by the Father. [5] Even if this biblical determinist view is rejected, it follows from God’s omniscience and omnipotence that he knows the circumstances under which each person would come to faith in him, and is able to bring this about. We’re also told that love for all people, even his enemies, is integral to God’s very being and perfection (Matt. 5:43-48; 1 John 4:8). Those whom God loves, he may justly chastise and punish, but he always shows compassion afterward, to the ultimate good of the object of love (Lam. 3:31-33; Heb. 12:6-11; cf. Rom. 13:8-10). Therefore, God wills for all people, even his enemies, to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4).

    It follows logically from God’s sovereignty over and love for all people — which are major themes found all across the Bible — that he will cause all people to be saved. [6,7] But when will all people come to faith in God and Christ and be saved? The answer is given by Paul in his discourse on the resurrection:

But each [will be resurrected] in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the One who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all...

Look, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When this perishable body puts on imperishability and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 15:23-28, 51-57)

Paul says that death will be destroyed at “the end” (Gk: to telos), after every ruler and authority has been abolished, when Jesus finally subjects all things under his feet and gives up the kingdom to the Father. [8] Elsewhere, in his epistle to the Philippians, Paul says, “He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself” (Phil. 3:21). Therefore, in making all things (including his enemies) subject to himself, Christ will transform their bodies to be immortal and incorruptible like his.

    This will all take place when we are resurrected “at the last trumpet,” at which time both death and its “sting,” which is sin, will be swallowed up in God’s victory through Christ (1 Cor. 15:54-57). Then God will be “all in all” (15:28). If all people will be immortal and incorruptible, with God dwelling in them, and no more ability to sin, what else can this be but the salvation of all people? [9] Indeed, if no one will sin any more after the resurrection, further punishment would be utterly pointless and cruel. God doesn’t punish out of a mere vengeance, but out of a desire for restoration and reconciliation (Lam. 3:31-33; Heb. 12:6-11).

    It might be objected to this universalist view that this makes Jesus’ sacrifice pointless. But that’s turning the entire situation on its head. All people will be saved and made immortal, not in spite of Christ, but because of him. The very reason that he died was to “abolish death and bring light and immortality to life” (2 Tim. 1:11). In every passage where he discusses the salvation of all, Paul is clear that it is because of Christ’s sacrifice that this wonderful outcome will take place. Jesus is the only way to the Father, so it would be impossible for all people to be saved except through him (John 14:6). This objection, therefore, makes as little sense as asking what the point of a firefighter’s sacrifice was if he died saving everyone from a burning building. Would Jesus’ sacrifice somehow be more meaningful if he saved only one-tenth of all people?

    Judgment on the Last Day

    Paul’s teachings about the resurrection of the dead and the salvation of all are clear, and his discourse in 1 Corinthians 15 makes these events simultaneous. Yet there is one passage which speaks of a judgment occurring at the same time as the resurrection:

I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge. (John 12:47-48)

Elsewhere in the gospel of John, “the last day” is when the resurrection of the dead takes place (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24). If there will be a judgment on “the last day,” this threatens our conclusion, based on Paul’s epistles, that all people will be saved at that time. How should we interpret this passage?

    First of all, note that even those who hear and do not keep Christ’s words are considered to be part of the “world” that he came to save. These people, along with the rest of those whom God has given Jesus, will be raised up on the last day, and ultimately none of them will be lost (John 6:39; cf. 3:35; 13:3; 17:2; Matt. 11:27; Rom. 14:9). We’re told that those who didn’t keep the words of Jesus in their lifetime will be judged on “the last day,” but we’re not told if this judgment will result in any punishment, whether eternal or limited. Notably, it isn’t Jesus who will judge them at that time, even though he’s the one to whom all judgment has been committed by the Father (John 5:22, 27). Instead, he says, “the word that I have spoken will serve as judge.”

    What is “the word” that Jesus spoke? Immediately before this, Jesus told the crowds that he was the one who had been sent by God, the light and savior of the world (John 12:44-47). It is this word that shall “judge” unbelievers on “the last day.” To judge (Gk: krinō) doesn’t always imply punishment, but can also simply mean to determine a course of action, or to deem someone right or wrong. [10] When, on the last day, those who rejected Jesus’ word are resurrected and “come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), that same word will deem them to have been wrong. At that time, “all Israel will be saved,” including those who were disobedient to Jesus’ message in this life (Rom. 11:26, 32). Therefore, this judgment isn’t incompatible with the salvation of all on “the last day”; to the contrary, it will occur only when unbelievers have been saved and realized that they were wrong!

    Conclusion

    Most Christians believe that, after death, those who didn’t believe in Jesus as Messiah in this life will be hopelessly tortured forever in ‘hell,’ or at the very least annihilated forever. However, the biblical hope is much greater than this dystopian picture in which God abandons most of his creation to destruction. Most of the passages which are interpreted as referring to ‘hell’ (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 13:37-43, 47-50; 18:8-9; 23:33; 25:31-46; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 12:5; John 5:28-29; 2 Thess. 1:5-10; Rev. 14:11; 20:11-15) actually refer to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, an event of great redemptive-historical significance to the early Christians, as it marked the end of the Old Covenant and the full arrival of the New Covenant, and vindicated the followers of Jesus over other Jewish sects (Matt. 22:1-14; 23:34-38; Heb. 8:13; 9:8-10; 10:8-9; Rev. 18:20-19:9).

    Other judgment passages, such as John 3:17-21 and Romans 2:5-10, refer to the present Messianic age, when Jesus reigns over and judges the gentiles (Ps. 2:6-9; Isa. 11:10-12; 42:1-4; Zech. 14:9; Matt. 28:18; Acts 13:33; 17:30-31; 2 Cor. 6:2). Those who follow Jesus have “eonian life,” which is defined as the state of knowing God and Christ (John 17:3); it is more than a mere intellectual knowledge, and involves God and his Son actually coming to dwell in communion with us (John 14:23; 1 John 1:3; 2:24; 3:23-24; 4:12-13; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 3:17). We belong to the “kingdom of God” with its spiritual blessings (Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13). In contrast, those who don’t follow Jesus continue in darkness and death, because they refuse to come to Jesus who is the Light and Life; they are “having no hope and without God in the world” (John 3:36; Rom. 6:16, 21-23; 8:6, 13; 2 Cor. 7:10; Eph. 2:12; etc.).

    However, this state will not last forever. At the “times of the restoration of all things,” Jesus will return from heaven (Acts 1:11; 3:21; cf. Rom. 8:20-23). Then all people, including God’s enemies, will be subjected to him by being resurrected into immortal, sinless bodies, and death and sin will be abolished (John 6:39-44; 1 Cor. 15:20-28, 51-57; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Phil. 3:21). Thus the salvation of all which was secured by Christ’s sacrifice will be effected (Rom. 5:12-19; 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 1:9-10; Phil. 2:10-11; Col. 1:16-20; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 4:10). About the eternal state, the Bible says very little, although it may be imperfectly foreshadowed in Revelation 21-22. But we can be sure that God has amazing things planned, not just for a small subset of people, for all of us!

______________________________

[1] Contrary to some idiosyncratic readings of this passage, “Christ the firstfruits” cannot refer to the body of Christ without doing violence to the text. The preceding section deals with the importance of Jesus’ bodily resurrection, concluding, “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have died” (1 Cor. 15:20), after which Paul segues into his discussion of the resurrection. Moreover, I’m aware of no place in Paul’s epistles where he uses “Christ” as a metonym for “the body of Christ.”

[2] It may be objected that after describing the resurrection of “those who are Christ’s,” Paul states, “Then comes the end,” which implies that the consummation comes some time after the resurrection. However, the word translated as “then” in v. 23 (Gk: epeita) differs from the word translated as “then” in v. 24 (Gk: eita). The former word indicates a necessary order in time, whereas the latter can be used to describe simultaneous events, as in fact proved by the immediate context (see the Greek of 1 Cor. 15:5-7; cf. Matt 28:16-18; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33-38; John 20:19-20).

[3] David Konstan and Ilaria Ramelli, “The Syntax of Εν Χριστω in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,” Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no. 3 (2007): 579–93.

[4] Note that “especially” (Gk: malista) carries a sense of specialness, but not exclusivity; see how Paul uses this word elsewhere (Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 5:8, 17; 2 Tim. 4:13; Tit. 1:10; Philem. 16), notably in Galatians 6:10, which is extremely similar to 1 Timothy 4:10 in construction and meaning. God is the savior “especially” of believers because he begins to save us from sin in this life.

[5] Exod. 10:1; Deut. 2:30; 30:6; Josh. 11:19-20; Ezra 1:1; 6:22; 7:27; Neh. 7:5; Ps. 33:13-15; 105:23-25; Prov. 16:1, 4, 9; 19:21; 20:24; 21:1; Jer. 10:23; 24:7; Ezek. 36:36-37; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 11:25; 13:10-11; John 1:12-13; 6:44, 64-65; 15:16; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28-30; 9:15-18; 11:32; 12:3; 1 Cor. 1:27-28; 3:5-9; Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Phil. 1:29; 2:13; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2:25-26; Heb. 6:1-3; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4.

[6] To put this argument in the form of a deductive syllogism: (1) God has the power to bring all people to faith in him; (2) God wills all people to come to faith in him; (3) thus, God will cause all people to come to faith in him.

[7] For more extensive argumentation in favor of Christian universalism, see Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012); Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014); David Bentley Hart, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019). For the long pedigree of this view throughout the history of Christianity, see Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Boston: Brill, 2013); Ilaria Ramelli, A Larger Hope? Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2019); Robin Parry and Ilaria Ramelli, A Larger Hope? Universal Salvation from the Reformation to the Nineteenth Century (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2019).

[8] Many object to the view that Christ will actually stop reigning and be subjected to God at the end, but Paul couldn’t be clearer on this point. He states that Christ will, at this time, “hand over the kingdom to the God and Father,” that “he will reign until” such a time, and that “the Son himself will be subjected to” God. The idea that the Messiah will stop reigning once all enemies have been subjected to God comes from Psalm 110:1-2, one of the most quoted Messianic prophecies in the New Testament: “Yahweh says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. Yahweh shall send the staff of your strength from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies!’” The very reason that Jesus now sits at the right hand of God is to subject all to him; to say that Jesus will never stop reigning is to say that he will ultimately fail in the purpose for which he was sent. And of course, Jesus can only “rule in the midst of [his] enemies” as long as there are enemies.

[9] It would be impossible for anyone to resist coming to God once they meet him face-to-face. Although I disagree with Thomas Aquinas on many things, he is correct when he states, “if the will be offered an object which is good universally and from every point of view, the will tends to it of necessity, if it wills anything at all; since it cannot will the opposite... consequently, that good alone which is perfect and lacking in nothing, is such a good that the will cannot not-will it: and this is Happiness“ (Summa Theologica II.I.10.2). Sin is merely the result of an impaired will that can't see what is truly good for itself, so knowing the truth sets us free from sin (cf. John 8:31-34). Thus, when all our mental defects are taken away at the resurrection, we'll have no more propensity to sin.

[10] Luke 7:43; 12:57; John 7:24; 8:15; Acts 3:13; 4:19; 13:46; 15:19; 16:4, 15; 20:16; 21:25; 25:25; 26:8; 27:1; Rom. 2:3; 14:5, 13; 1 Cor. 2:2; 7:37; 11:13; 2 Cor. 2:1; 5:14; Tit. 3:12.