When I started this blog, my first few posts were about the development of beliefs about the ultimate fate of unbelievers in the first few centuries of Christianity. I concluded that the earliest views were annihilationism and universalism, that the latter was most popular, and that infernalism (eternal hopeless torture) was a later development. Back then, I hadn’t read many of the church fathers and was relying mostly on Ilaria Ramelli’s The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis. Although my conclusions are mostly the same as they were back then, I’ve read a lot more patristic literature, so I’d like to overhaul that series of blog posts with an updated version. In this post, we’ll start with the New Testament to see what the earliest Christians believed about the ultimate fate of unbelievers.
Defining our terms
Before we get into our discussion of universalism in early Christianity, let’s define our terms. In this series, we will be categorizing the beliefs of early Christian writers between four schools of thought on the punishment of unbelievers:
- Universalism — the belief that all people will ultimately be saved
- Conditionalism — the belief that only believers will be resurrected
- Annihilationism — the belief that unbelievers will be annihilated forever
- Infernalism — the belief that unbelievers will be tortured forever
Another important distinction is between the Greek words aiōnios and aidios. While the latter word is used to refer to things that are truly eternal (without end), the former does not, even though it’s often translated as “eternal” or “everlasting.” According to Ramelli and Konstan, within the writings of the New Testament and early church, aiōnios means properly “belonging to the [Messianic] Age,” in line with its etymology (from the word aiōn, meaning “age”). [1] As I have shown elsewhere, aiōnios and its cognates are frequently used in the LXX to describe things which, even from the perspective of the original author, were known to be non-everlasting; there, it would be best translated as “perpetual.” [2] Thus, whether an author uses aiōnios to describe the punishment of unbelievers should have little effect on how we interpret their eschatology.
The New Testament
The New Testament, defined as the twenty-seven canonical books from Matthew to Revelation, is the primary set of texts that was used by early Christians to define their doctrinal beliefs. Therefore, any study of the beliefs of the early church must begin with the NT itself, which shows us what the apostles and the very earliest believers (within one or two generations of Jesus’ death) understood about the punishment of unbelievers. For the dates of the NT texts, we’ll be provisionally using the dates determined by Jonathan Bernier in his recent monograph. [3]
The Synoptic Gospels
In the debate over the ultimate fate of unbelievers, the passages about Gehenna from the synoptic gospels are often appealed to (Matt. 5.22, 29f; 10.28; 18.8f; 23.33; Mk. 9.43-48; Lk. 12.5), along with several passages from Matthew’s gospel about a fiery, aiōnios punishment at “the end of the age” (13.36-43, 47-50; 24.3; 25.31-46). However, as I have argued elsewhere, these passages are actually using imagery from the Hebrew Bible to depict the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, which was associated (at least by Matthew’s gospel) with the end of the then-present age and beginning of the Messianic Age (Matt. 24.1-3; cf. Mk. 13.1-4; Lk. 21.5-7). [4] The passages which speak of a limited salvation during the Messianic Age (Matt. 7.13-14; Lk. 13.23-30) most likely shouldn’t be taken to refer to the ultimate eschaton, either.
The only passage in the synoptic gospels which talks about the scope of salvation at the eschaton is Jesus’ defense of the resurrection against the Sadducees in Luke’s gospel. There, he talks about “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age, and the resurrection from the dead... children of God” (20.35f), in contrast to “the children of this age” (20.34). This seems to express a belief in conditionalism, that only some will be resurrected. However, Luke-Acts also represents Paul as speaking of “a hope... a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous” (Ac. 24.15). It’s quite possible that Luke-Acts considered every human being “worthy to attain to... the resurrection” by virtue of the fact that “we are [God’s] offspring” (Ac. 17.28f; cf. Lk. 20.35f).
Finally, the last passage from the synoptics to consider is Matthew 17.11, which in connection with the eschaton states, “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things.” Ramelli argues that the original reading of this verse was passive (i.e., “all things will be restored [by God]”) and refers to the salvation of all beings. [5] However, this reading is very tenuous, as panta (“all”) more likely refers to impersonal things than rational beings. [6] Furthermore, this is most likely a reference to Malachi 3:23 (LXX), which also uses the verb apokatastēsei (“will restore”) in connection with Elijah’s eschatological ministry.
In summary, there are few passages from the synoptic gospels which could be taken to refer to the ultimate fate of unbelievers. Mark’s belief about this topic is uncertain; Matthew’s gospel is also unclear, but there is a very slight chance it could be universalist (17.11); and the Luke-Acts corpus appears in one place to be conditionalist (Lk. 20.34-36), but could also be universalist (Ac. 17.28f; 24.15).
Peter
Peter was considered one of the pillars of the Jewish Christian church (Matt. 16.17-19; Gal. 2.7-9), and while it’s possible that we have no authentic writings from him, we at least have writings that claim to be from him or his tradition (several speeches in Acts, 1 and 2 Peter). In one of the speeches of the Lukan Peter, he associates Jesus’ return from heaven with “the times of restoration of all things” (Acts 3.19-21). Ramelli argues that this refers to the salvation of all beings, showing that it was interpreted in this way by many early church fathers. [7] Once again, however, “all” (pantōn) is neuter, implying that it refers to impersonal things rather than rational beings.
If Peter was a universalist, it isn’t strongly expressed in the two letters that claim to be from him. This is most likely for pastoral reasons, as the author(s) of both letters anticipated a soon judgment and coming of the Lord (1 Pet. 4.5-7, 12-18; 2 Pet. 2; 3.3-13). Leithart argues convincingly that the event in view is the judgment-coming of the Son of Man against Jerusalem (AD 70), which in the synoptic gospels was associated with both the Transfiguration and the death of the first generation of apostles (Matt. 16.27-17.8; Lk. 9.26-36; cf. 2 Pet. 1.16-19; 3.3f). [8] If true, this would support a pre-70 date for 2 Peter, and perhaps even authentic Petrine authorship. Although the focus in 1 and 2 Peter is on judgment, Peter emphasizes that God desires every person to repent (2 Pet. 3.9).
In summary, Peter’s views on the ultimate fate of unbelievers are uncertain. If Acts 3.21 does refer to the salvation of all beings, and it’s an authentically Petrine statement, then Peter was a universalist. On the other hand, given the emphasis on the destruction of the wicked in 1 and 2 Peter, if they are authentically Petrine, then Peter may have been a conditionalist or annihilationist. The ambiguity here precludes a strong judgment one way or the other.
John
Apart from Paul, the most writings in the New Testament are associated with one or more people named “John” (the Gospel of John [GJohn], 1, 2, and 3 John, Revelation). For our purposes, I’ll be treating these texts as written by a single author or community. John the disciple was considered a pillar of the Jewish Christian church alongside Peter (Gal. 2.7-9), if these texts were written by him.
John displays a more clearly universalist sentiment than the synoptics or Peter. The Johannine Christ states, “If I am lifted up from the earth [i.e., crucified], I will drag all people to myself” (GJohn 12.32; cf. 6.44). He came not to judge the world, but to save it, and “the world” (ho kosmos) includes those who currently reject his message (GJohn 3.17; 4.42; 12.47-49; 1 John 4.14; but cf. GJohn 5.30; 9.39). Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ours, but for the whole world” (1 John 2.2). The resurrection on “the last day” is for those whom God has given to Jesus (GJohn 6.39f, 44), and “all flesh” has been given to him, so that he may give them all aiōnios life (17.2).
John does speak of the judgment of unbelievers, and says that they shall not receive aiōnios life, but he represents this as a presently occurring judgment (GJohn 3.18-21, 36; 5.24; 1 John 2.8-11; 3.14). This judgment is “darkness” and “death” because they have not come to the Light and Life who is Jesus Christ (GJohn 1.4-14; 8.12; 11.25f; 1 John 1.1f, 5-7; 5.11-13). In the Johannine corpus, aiōnios life is always had in the present tense (GJohn 3.15f, 36; 5.24, 39; 6.40, 47, 54; 1 John 3.15; 5.13; cf. gJohn 10.28; 1 John 5.11). Even though judgment is presently occurring, repentance is possible for anyone who wishes to pass from darkness to light and death to life (GJohn 5.24; 8.12; 1 John 3.14). In Revelation, repentance remains possible after the judgment symbolized by the “lake of fire” (Rev. 21.24-26; 22.2, 14), and the “rulers of the land” who were previously destroyed are later seen entering New Jerusalem (19.19-21; 21.24).
On the other hand, future judgment is referenced in the Johannine corpus. John distinguishes between a “resurrection of life” and a “resurrection of condemnation,” which indicates that some are destroyed after being resurrected (GJohn 5.28f). In Revelation, regarding the Beast-worshipers, “the smoke of their torture goes up for ages of ages, and they have no rest day and night” (Rev. 14.9-11). This language may appear to describe eternal hopeless torture, but the same language is used at Rev. 19.3 to describe the total destruction of Babylon (cf. Rev. 18.10, 17, 19-24). John also speaks of a “second death” which is symbolized by a “lake of fire” (Rev. 20.11-15; 21.8) [9] If these passages refer literally to a still-future punishment, they indicate that John was an annihilationist. However, I’ve argued elsewhere that these passages refer to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. [4]
In summary, John’s views are more clearly universalist than the other authors surveyed above. Across the Johannine corpus, the scope of Jesus’ atonement is said to include “all people” (GJohn 12.32) and “the whole world” (1 John 2.2), including those who now reject him. The judgment of unbelievers is presently occurring, but repentance is available to anyone, even after the “lake of fire” (Rev. 21-22). However, none of these passages explicitly anticipate the salvation of all people; this remains, at most, implicit in the text. Furthermore, if GJohn 5.28f; Rev. 14.9-11; 20.11-15 are taken to literally describe a future judgment, then John may have been an annihilationist.
Paul
Unlike other NT authors, Paul clearly believed in the ultimate salvation of all people. This belief shines through in his letter to the Romans. He writes that Jesus’ act of obedience “leads to justification of life for all people” (Rom. 5.18), where “all people” (pantas anthrōpous) refers to absolutely everyone, the same number who were condemned by Adam’s sin (5.12-21). At Jesus’ return, both “the totality [plērōma] of the gentiles” and “all Israel” will be saved, thus God will “show mercy to everyone” who was previously disobedient (11.25-32). The ultimate salvation of everyone doesn’t preclude the judgment of unbelievers (14.10-12). “For the wages of sin is death,” and “death” is the opposite of aiōnios life, which is “glory and honor and peace” (1.18ff; 2.5-12; 3.5-8; 6.21-23; 8.6, 12f)
Paul’s view of universal salvation is further explained in 1 Corinthians. He presents the resurrection “in Christ” of all people as the consequence of Jesus’ own resurrection (1 Cor. 15.20-22). At the telos, every enemy will be subjected to Christ, death itself will be destroyed, and the Son will be subjected to God, “so that God may be all in all” (15.24-28). That this subjugation is salvific is confirmed by Phil. 3.21, where Paul says that the power by which the Lord resurrects us is “the power by which he also subjects all things to himself.” The end of death and sin will coincide with our resurrection (1 Cor. 15.51-57).
The other undisputed Pauline epistles display the same belief. Christ “died for all,” and in him God has reconciled the kosmos to himself, thus giving us (who are in Christ) the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5.14-20). Every person “in heaven and on earth and under the earth” will bow and confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil. 2.9-11; cf. Isa. 45.22f), a confession which can only be made in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12.3) and saves the confessor (Rom. 10.8-10). The telos of some enemies is destruction, but they are still subject to Christ’s salvific subjugation (Phil. 3.19-21). Because of Jesus’ death, “whether we are alert or drowsing [katheudōmen] we will live together with him” (1 Thess. 5.4-10). This ultimate fate doesn’t preclude the temporal judgment and punishment of unbelievers, which is mentioned throughout the undisputed epistles.
The (possibly deutero-Pauline) letters to Ephesus and Colossae are likewise universalist. In the former, we’re told that the mystery of God’s will is “to gather up all things in Christ, both in heaven and on earth” (Eph. 1.9f). God “reconciled all things to himself... whether on earth or in heaven” by Jesus’ blood that was shed on the cross (Col. 1.16-20). 2 Thess. 1.9 anticipates the aiōnios destruction of the Thessalonians’ persecutors, but aiōnios doesn’t necessarily indicate a hopeless punishment without end (see above).
Finally, let’s consider the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), which claim to be from Paul or at least his tradition. 1 Timothy emphasizes that God “wills all people to be saved,” and Christ Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all,” so that God is therefore “the savior of all people, especially those who believe” (2.4-6; 4.10f). [10] “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people,” but especially us, the “unique people,” who are being trained in the present time to live righteously (Tit. 2.11-14).
In summary, a belief in the ultimate salvation of all people pervades the entire Pauline corpus, both the undisputed and disputed letters as well as the Pastoral Epistles. In Paul’s view, this doesn’t preclude the judgment and punishment of unbelievers. Instead, Paul, even moreso than John, focuses on the temporal consequences of sin in the present time (Rom. 1.18ff; 3.5-8; 5.12-14; 6.16, 21-23; 7.5, 13; 8.6, 12f; 1 Cor. 6.9f; Gal. 5.16-21; Eph. 5.5f; Col. 3.5f; 1 Thess. 2.16; 5.3). This punishment is by no means hopeless, because we ourselves were once subject to it! (Rom. 6.13; 7.5; 1 Cor. 6.11; Eph. 2.1-5; 5.8; Col. 3.7) Punishment is ultimately intended to be restorative (1 Cor. 3.11-15; 5.5).
Conclusion
The views of the New Testament writers about the ultimate fate of unbelievers are not all clear. Some writers don’t really grapple with this issue at all (Mark, Matthew); others may be either conditionalist or universalist (Luke, Peter); John may be a universalist, but never explicitly says that all people will be saved, or an annihilationist; and Paul is clearly a universalist. Insofar as the NT presents a coherent picture of the ultimate fate of unbelievers, it’s that they will eventually be saved. On the other hand, it might be more accurate to say that there is no ultimate fate for unbelievers, because on Paul’s view, everyone will ultimately be a believer (Phil. 2.9-11; cf. 1 Cor. 12.3). As a proxy for the views of the earliest Jesus-followers, the NT indicates that early Christians were either undecided on the ultimate fate of unbelievers, had no clear belief about it, or were universalists.
Part 2: The Post-Apostolic Fathers
______________________________
[1] Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts, (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013).
[2] See my series of blog posts on this topic, “Just how long is ‘eternal’? A study on the meanings of Αιων and Αιωνιος.”
[3] Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022).
[4] See my blog post, “Punishment and Salvation: The Fall of Jerusalem”; see also N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK), 182-185, 320-368.
[5] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 11-13.
[6] Niels Arne Pedersen, “Ilaria Ramelli’s History of the ‘Apokatastasis Doctrine’: A Critical Assessment of Evidence from before Origen,” JTS 20 (2024): 3.
[7] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 13-20.
[8] Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004).
[9] The “second death” was a term used in the Palestinian Targums to refer to the ultimate destruction of the wicked, from which there would be no return; see Harry Sysling, Tehiyyat ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 210-228.
[10] Note that “especially” (malista) carries a sense of specialness, but not exclusivity. See how this term is used elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 5.8, 17; 2 Tim. 4.13; Tit. 1.10) and the undisputed Pauline corpus (Gal. 6.10; Phil. 4.22; Philem. 16), notably in Galatians 6:10, which is extremely similar to 1 Timothy 4:10 in construction and meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment