"That you may not grieve": an exegesis of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

    In my last exegetical series, we covered 1 Corinthians 15, one of a handful of passages from Paul’s epistles that discuss the future resurrection of the dead. Now we’ll take a look at another passage that covers the same topic: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. This is much shorter, because unlike 1 Cor. 15, it wasn’t written to believers who explicitly denied the resurrection of the dead; it also reflects an earlier stage in Paul’s ministry, as it was written around AD 50, whereas 1 Corinthians was written around AD 55. Does it support the same conclusion we found in 1 Cor. 15 — that when Christ returns, all people will be raised and subjected to him, so that even God’s enemies who were punished to death will be restored?

    “That you may not grieve”

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.

    Paul has just exhorted the Thessalonian believers to have more and more love, as they have been taught by God, “for all the brethren,” so that no one is needy and they act as an example for “the outsiders” (1 Thess. 4:9-12). However (Gk: de), even though he wants them to love one another, he doesn’t want them to grieve for “those who have fallen asleep” (Gk: tōn koimōmenōn; an idiom for death). They shouldn’t be ignorant like “those who don’t have hope” (Gk: hoi mē echontes elpida); instead, he’ll tell them the details of the resurrection of the dead, so they have no need to grieve.

    Who are the Thessalonian believers worried about? Is it only the dead believers, or is it everyone who has died (“fallen asleep”)? In the immediately preceding context, the subject is limited to believers — even just the believers “in all Macedonia” (4:10)! On the other hand, in an earlier section of this letter, Paul prays that they would abound in love not just “for one another,” but “for all people” (3:12). Later in the letter, he exhorts them to pursue the good of both “one another” and “all people” (5:15). Based on this, it seems unlikely that Paul would expect them only to grieve for believers and not also unbelievers. Hoi koimōmenoi, “the fallen-asleep-ones,” refers to everyone who has died, not just believers.

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died.

    Jesus’ resurrection acted as a precursor and confirmation of the future resurrection of the dead, which is something Paul repeats in his later letters (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:12-22; 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3:20-21; cf. Rom. 6:4-11; Col. 2:12-13). “If we believe” (Gk: ei pisteuomen) that Jesus died and rose, then “in the same way” (Gk: houtōs) the dead will be raised; God will “bring [them] together with” Jesus, raising them like he did Jesus.

    Some translate tous koimēthentas dia tou iēsou as “those who have fallen asleep in Jesus,” interpreting it as referring to dead believers specifically. However, in Paul’s view, it wasn’t because of Jesus that they died, but because of Adam! Jesus is the one who reverses death, not the one who brings it about (cf. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Thus, “through Jesus” (Gk: dia tou iēsou) must modify the verb axei (“bring”), not the participle koimēthentas (“having fallen asleep”); it’s through Jesus that God raises the dead. If he’d intended to refer specifically to dead believers, he would have written tous koimēthentas (tous) en christō (cf. 1 Cor. 15:18).

    “The dead will rise in Christ first”

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.

    Paul declares this next fact “in the word of the Lord” (Gk: en logō kyriou); this has been revealed to him directly by the Lord, not merely his own speculation (cf. 1 Cor. 7:25). Not only will “the fallen-asleep-ones” (Gk: tous koimēthentas) be raised, but “the living-ones” (Gk: hoi zōntes) who survive until Christ’s parousia won’t even precede them! There’s even less reason to grieve for the dead, then, because they’ll actually see the Lord before those who are still alive!

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.

    The Lord’s parousia, his descent from heaven to earth, will be accompanied by three types of fanfare: “a shouted command” (Gk: keleusmati), “the voice of a chief angel” (Gk: phōnē archangelou), and “God’s trumpet” (Gk: salpingi theou). At that time, the dead will be raised “first” (Gk: prōton). Paul’s emphasis here is on the priority of the dead-ones, in line with what he said earlier about the living-ones not preceding the dead-ones. The dead are actually blessed, given priority over the living, so there’s no need to grieve for them.

    Most commentators take hoi nekroi en christō anastēsontai to refer specifically to believers, interpreting en christō (“in Christ”) to modify hoi nekroi (“the dead-ones”). However, this is grammatically implausible, based on how en (tō) christō is used elsewhere in the New Testament. When en (tō) christō modifies a preceding substantive (such as “dead-ones”), the article is always repeated before it, unless the verb “to be” is implicit in the text, which isn’t the case at 1 Thess. 4:16 (Ramelli and Konstan 2007, pp. 581-4). In most cases, en (tō) christō modifies a verb or participle; this is true in the two cases that clearly refer specifically to dead believers (1 Cor. 15:18; Rev. 14:13). It’s best to read en christō in 1 Thess. 4:16 as modifying the verb anastēsontai: “the dead will rise in Christ” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22).

    This is supported by evidence from the early church. John Chrysostom takes en christō as modifying anastēsontai, which is clear from the way he quotes the verse; at that time all who have died since Adam will rise again, some to fearful judgment (Homily 8 on 1 Thess. [PG 62:440-1]). Cyril of Alexandria inverts the word order to make clear that en christō modifies anastēsontai (Comm. on Luke [PG 72:824A]), and holds that it refers to the resurrection of all (Cat. Lect. 15.21). Gregory of Nyssa, an early universalist, takes 1 Thess. 4:16 to refer to the resurrection and salvation of all people (De opif. hom. 25.11-13). Many other early church fathers simply quote 1 Thess. 4:16 without even including the phrase en christō (Ramelli and Konstan 2007, fn. 24). The few early writers who do limit the scope of “the dead in Christ” have to alter the word order to make it fit their view (Porphyry, frag. 35; Origen, Contra Celsum 5.17).

    “We’ll always be with the Lord”

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.

    After the dead are raised in Christ, “the living-ones, the remaining-ones” (Gk: hoi zōntes hoi perileipomenoi) will be caught up “together with them,” that is, the dead. We will all be taken “into the air for the meeting of the Lord” (Gk: eis apantēsin tou kyriou eis aera). Many Christians take this to refer to ‘the Rapture,’ when it’s thought that believers will be taken to live in heaven. However, Paul says that we’ll be taken to the “air” (Gk: aera), that is, the place in between the earth and the heavens. Where will we go from there — away into heaven or back to earth?

    To make sense of this, we have to look at the meaning of the phrase eis apantēsin (“to meet”). This word, especially when combined with the parousia (“coming”) of a royal dignitary, typically refers to people coming out to meet someone, in order to bring them back to their place. This is how eis apantēsin is used elsewhere in the New Testament itself (Matt. 25:6ff; Acts 28:15). Although eis apantēsin isn’t a technical term, as it was once thought to be (Cosby 1994, pp. 20-22), it’s still best understood in the context of a dignitary’s coming, and was explicitly interpreted that way by John Chrysostom (Homily on the Ascension; Homily 8 on 1 Thess.). Therefore, when we meet Jesus, we most likely return with him to earth — though we can’t totally discount the possibility that we’ll go to heaven from this passage alone.

    After we meet the Lord, Paul says, “we will be together with the Lord [Gk: syn kyriō] at all times.” Later in this letter, he writes that Jesus died so that whether we’re alert or drowsing now (Gk: eite grēgorōmen eite katheudōmen) “we will live together with him” (Gk: hama syn autō zēsōmen; 1 Thess. 5:10). The alert-ones are believers, who are “sons of light” and “sons of day”; the drowsing-ones are “the others” (Gk: hoi loipoi; cf. 1 Thess. 4:13), unbelievers who won’t escape destruction in the day of the Lord (5:1-8). Yet, though they be destroyed, Jesus died for them too, and they’ll be resurrected and live together with him always!

Therefore encourage one another with these words.

    For Paul, knowing the resurrection of the dead is more than a merely intellectual exercise; it’s the great hope of believers that keeps us from grieving! He exhorts the Thessalonians to “console one another” (Gk: parakaleite allēlous) with this knowledge. After this, he begins to introduce a new topic (using the Greek phrase peri de), the soon-coming day of the Lord which will destroy the drowsing unbelievers (5:1-4). Yet he later returns to the topic of the resurrection, in which both alert believers and now-drowsing unbelievers will live together with the Lord Jesus Christ (5:9-10).

    Conclusion

    1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is a brief summary of our great hope, the resurrection of the dead, which Paul later discusses in more depth in his letter to the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 15). The scope of the resurrection isn’t explicitly stated in 1 Thess. 4:13-18, although the phrases that Paul uses — “the fallen-asleep-ones,” “the dead-ones,” “the living-ones” — don’t imply any limitation. (“The dead in Christ” is a mistranslation, and actually refers to the fact that the dead-ones will rise “in Christ;” cf. 1 Cor. 15:22.) The wider context of the letter suggests that all people, not just believers, are in view here, even the unbelievers who are destroyed in the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 3:12; 5:10, 15). Thus, just as in 1 Cor. 15, the resurrection is associated with the ultimate restoration of all people, even those punished by God unto death!

"How are the dead raised?": an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:29-58

Part 1: 1 Corinthians 15:1-28

    “Let’s eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”

Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

    Now that Paul has described the eschatological resurrection, he returns to his argument for the truth of that event. First, he showed that the resurrection of the dead-ones follows from the Corinthians’ belief in Christ’s resurrection out of the dead-ones; now he argues for it based on their actions. Apparently, some of the Corinthians were being baptized on behalf of “the dead-ones” (Gk: tōn nekrōn), which implies a belief in post-mortem salvation in the Corinthian church. (Paul doesn’t explicitly endorse or reject this belief.) But how is this baptism useful at all if the dead-ones will never be raised?

And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you—a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought with wild animals at Ephesus with a merely human perspective, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

    The second argument from the Corinthians’ actions is in regard to the danger that they (and he) put themselves in for Christ. If there’s no resurrection, then there’s no point for them to put themselves in danger. They should maximize their pleasure in this life, because there’s nothing to look forward to after it! Paul quotes Isaiah 22:13 (LXX), which describes the attitude of rebellious Israel in rejoicing when they should be mourning; he’s implicitly indicting his readers, showing them that if they carry their denial of the resurrection to its logical conclusion, they would be just like rebellious Israel.

Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Sober up, as you rightly ought to, and sin no more, for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

    After accusing the Corinthians of acting like rebellious Israel (as he did earlier in the same letter; see 1 Cor. 10:1-13), Paul quotes a proverb from the Greek poet Menander’s Thais. Most likely, this is to accuse them of getting their false beliefs about the resurrection from the pagans that they associated with (1 Cor. 8:7-10; 10:14-30; cf. Acts 17:31-32). They’re expected to stop associating with these people, who “have no knowledge of God” and are corrupting the Corinthians’ own beliefs about God.

    “With what kind of body do they come?”

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.

    Paul anticipates that some of the Corinthians will reject the resurrection because they can’t fathom what kind of body a resurrected person would have. In response, he continues his agricultural metaphor from earlier (vv. 20, 23). If the resurrection of the dead is like a harvest, then the bodies we die in are like seeds that are sown, which will return to life (according to the ancient understanding of plant growth: cf. John 12:34). However, as with seeds, the body that’s raised from the dead isn’t the same as the body that died; it will be much greater.

But God gives it a body as he has chosen and to each kind of seed its own body. Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory. So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

    Continuing his argument, Paul points to the different kinds of bodies that humans and animals have, as well as the differing glory of things on earth and in the heavens, to prove to the Corinthians that it’s plausible that we’ll be resurrected with a different (and more glorious) body. Whereas the human body that is “sown” (continuing the agricultural metaphor) is perishable, dishonorable, weak, and “soulish” (Gk: psychikon), the body that’s raised from the dead will be imperishable, glorious, powerful, and “spiritual” (Gk: pneumatikon). The distinction between “soulish” and “spiritual” doesn’t mean that our resurrection bodies will be incorporeal, but that they won’t have the same sinful desires that they now do, as shown by the contrast between these two terms elsewhere (1 Cor. 2:13-15; Jude 19; cf. Jas. 3:15).

Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. As one of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the one of dust, we will also bear the image of the one of heaven.

    Like earlier (v. 22), Paul contrasts Adam, who “became a living soul” (Gk: egeneto... eis psychēn zōsan; Gen. 2:7 LXX), with Christ, who “became a life-giving spirit” (Gk: eis pneuma zōopoioun), in order to illustrate the contrast between our current “soulish” bodies and our future “spiritual” bodies. Some translations (such as the NRSVUE above) unfortunately translate psychikon as “physical,” which makes it seem like our resurrection bodies will be incorporeal. The context refutes this, as it makes clear that these future bodies will be like Christ’s, which is physical with flesh and bones (Lk. 24:39).

    The contrast between “those who are earthy” (Gk: hoi choikoi) and “those who are heavenly” (Gk: hoi epouranioi) makes it seem as though Paul has two groups in mind, perhaps those who believe in this life and those who don’t. Once again, the context contradicts this misreading. The same “all” who now “are dying in Adam” “will be made alive in Christ” (v. 22), and Paul and his audience themselves are “earthy” and will one day be “heavenly” (v. 49). The contrast here isn’t between two groups of people that now exist, but between our current state and our resurrection state, which is the main point of this section of Paul’s argument.

What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

    “Flesh and blood” (Gk: sarx kai haima) is an idiom referring to mortal humans (Matt. 16:17; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14-15; cf. Lev. 17:11, 14 LXX), which is made clear by the parallelism with “perishable” (Gk: phthora). Elsewhere, however, Paul refers to God’s kingdom as a present reality to which God has brought us (Col. 1:13), which is characterized not by physical blessings but by “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:16). Thus, when he states that mortal humans can’t enter God’s kingdom, he isn’t referring to the kingdom as it exists now, but to God’s kingdom in its eschatological, fully realized form, when Christ gives up the kingdom to the Father (vv. 24, 28).

    “Thanks be to God!”

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 this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

    Paul says that he’ll reveal a “secret” (Gk: mystērion) to the Corinthians. Not all people will die, but some people will still be alive when the resurrection takes place at the “last trumpet” (cf. 1 Thess. 4:16), and their (living) mortal and perishable bodies will be changed to become immortal and imperishable! As far as I can tell, this fact wasn’t revealed to any writer before Paul. Pre-tribulationists argue that the “secret” is that this resurrection will take place before the tribulation. However, there’s no indication that the timing of the resurrection is in question here; on the contrary, the secret is that “we will not all die.”

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.”

    This is a paraphrase of Isaiah 25:8 (LXX), which actually states, “Death prevailed and swallowed them up” (Gk: katepien ho thanatos ischusas)! In context, Isaiah says that the wicked nations and their rulers and cities will be destroyed and swallowed up by death (25:2, 8), but with the effect that “strong peoples will glorify you, cities of ruthless nations will glorify you” (25:3). God will then bring gladness to all nations and wipe away every tear (25:6-9). Paul applies this quotation to the resurrection; in context, it refers not to the resurrection of believers, but to the restoration of those who were punished even to death by God for their sins!

“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.

    The meaning of the original quotation in context has been reversed again, as it states, “Shall I ransom them from the power of Hades? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Hades, where is your destruction? Compassion is hidden from my eyes” (Hos. 13:14). This refers to the utter destruction that God was about to bring upon rebellious Israel (13:7-16); yet God will have compassion on them and heal them (14:1-7). Once again, Paul is looking at the context and seeing that God plans to restore the rebels that he has punished, even those he has punished unto death! Therefore, he applies this prophecy to the resurrection of the dead.

    It’s not a coincidence that both of the Old Testament quotations in vv. 54-55 were originally about the punishment of sinners unto death. As seen earlier in this chapter, the resurrection of the dead, for Paul, is inseparable from the subjection and restoration of God’s enemies so that God becomes all in all (vv. 24-28). This necessarily includes the restoration even of those who have been justly destroyed by God! Once death and its “sting,” sin, have been completely removed, there will be no more room for rebellion. This will be the total victory of God, through Jesus Christ, over all his enemies.

Therefore, my beloved brothers and sisters, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

    Now that Paul has finished his argument in support of the resurrection, and shown that this resurrection will accomplish the final victory of God over all rebels, he returns to the topic at the beginning of the chapter: for the Corinthians to remain steadfast (vv. 1-2). Whereas he originally exhorted them to remain steadfast in believing the good news, he now exhorts them to remain steadfast in their good works, supporting this exhortation with a paraphrase of Isaiah 65:23 (LXX), “they will not toil in vain.” Paul connects this to his discussion of the resurrection of the dead with the preposition hōste; they should be steadfast in their toil because they have hope in the resurrection.

    Conclusion

    1 Corinthians 15 remains one of the most important, and interesting, chapters of the Bible. It begins with a concise statement of the good news of Christ's death for our sins and resurrection (vv. 1-11), and launches into a defense of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 12-18). The resurrection is defended on pragmatic, ethical, and logical grounds (vv. 29-50). Paul emphasizes that the resurrection of the dead will involve absolutely all people, even God's enemies (who have been punished by him unto death!), who will be subjected to him and no longer continue in rebellion (vv. 20-28, 51-57). Together with him, we can say: Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!

"How are the dead raised?": an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-28

    1 Corinthians 15 is one of the most pivotal chapters in the entire Bible. It’s the most detailed discussion of our great hope, the resurrection of the dead, as well as the place in the New Testament where the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection is laid out in its simplest form. If there were only one chapter of the Bible that I could give to someone interested in Christianity, it would be this one. But what does it mean? In this post, I’ll give a detailed exegesis of 1 Cor. 15, with a focus on vv. 3-4 (the good news), vv. 24-28 (the eschaton), and vv. 54-57 (the victory of the resurrection!).

    Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15 appears to be a chiasm, centered around his discussion of the final resurrection at the eschaton:

A. Hold fast in the good news that was proclaimed (vv. 1-11)

B. The truth of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 12-17)

C. If there is no resurrection, there is no hope (vv. 18-19)

D. The resurrection at the eschaton (vv. 20-28)

C’. If there is no resurrection, there is no point in living rightly (vv. 29-34)

B’. The details of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 35-57)

A’. Remain steadfast in the work of the Lord (v. 58)

This chiastic pattern puts the emphasis of Paul’s argument on vv. 20-28, which deal with the eschaton and the resurrection of the dead. Whatever point he was trying to get across about the resurrection, vv. 20-28 are an absolutely integral, central part of that message. This should be kept in mind as we go through the chapter.

    “The good news that I proclaimed to you”

Now I want you to understand, brothers and sisters, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.

    Paul states four things about the good news and the Corinthian believers: (1) he proclaimed it to them, (2) they received it, (3) they stand in it, and (4) they are being saved through it, if they hold onto it. To “receive” (Gk: parelabete) the good news is an active and aorist verb, which refers to the Corinthians’ active acceptance of the gospel message when it was proclaimed to them. They are presently and passively “being saved” (Gk: sōzesthe) through the good news [the implied ‘doer’ of salvation is God], but only if they presently and actively “hold fast” (Gk: katechete), that is, continue to believe it. Otherwise, their initial act of belief in the good news (Gk: episteusate) was for nothing (Gk: eikē).

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

    The good news that was proclaimed by Paul has two parts: that the Messiah, Jesus, “died for our sins,” and that “he was raised on the third day.” For each part, he presents two pieces of evidence: first, that it is “in accordance with the Scriptures,” as well as tangible evidence — for Christ’s death, that “he was buried,” and for his resurrection, that he was seen by people (Peter, the twelve disciples, five hundred brethren, James, and the apostles) after his death.

    The first part of the good news, that the Messiah “died for our sins,” has implications for the scope of the atonement. If Paul was able to tell the Corinthians, when they hadn’t yet believed, that the death of Jesus was “for our sins,” this implies that the effects of his death extend to non-believers (contrary to the Calvinist ‘limited atonement’). This agrees with his statements elsewhere in his letters to the effect that Christ died for those who are now rebellious (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:3-5; cf. John 12:47; 1 Tim. 1:12-15; 1 Pet. 3:18).

    However, Paul’s focus isn’t on the first part of the gospel, but the second part, that “he was raised on the third day,” which has apparently come into question within the Corinthian church (as we’ll see later)! Because of this, he spends much more time on the tangible evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, citing his appearances to Peter, the twelve disciples, five hundred brethren (!), his brother James, and all of the apostles.

Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you believed.

    After bringing up Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to others, Paul talks about his own experience, which was “like an untimely birth” (Gk: ektrōmati), using a word that refers to a miscarriage (cf. Num. 12:12; Job 3:16; Ecc. 6:3 LXX). Paul’s emphasis here is on the abnormality of his conversion; he’s the least of the apostles, because he used to persecute God’s church before Christ appeared to him. He puts God’s grace at the forefront of his salvation, so that even his abundant toiling in his ministry is “not I but the grace of God together with me.” Because of this (Gk: oun), Paul’s proclamation of the good news is just as authoritative as that of the other apostles.

    “If Christ has not been raised!”

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain and your faith is in vain.

    Some of those in the Corinthian church were denying that there is “a resurrection of the dead-ones” (Gk: anastasis nekrōn), and Paul shows them the logical consequence of their view, that Christ himself has not “been raised out of the dead-ones” (Gk: ek nekrōn egēgertai)! This could be understood in one (or both) of two ways. First, the Corinthians may have been denying that resurrection of dead-ones is possible in principle, and therefore denying that Christ could have been raised. On the other hand, Paul may be saying that Christ’s resurrection secured the resurrection of the dead-ones, so that if the dead-ones won’t be raised, nor was Christ raised! In light of what Paul says later (vv. 20-22), the second option is more likely, though it’s also possible that both are true.

We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.

    Paul’s first argument for the resurrection of the dead-ones was that the apostles’ preaching, and the faith of the Corinthians, would be for nothing (Gk: kenon/kenē) if the Messiah wasn’t raised. This is because a crucial component of the good news is that Christ “was raised on the third day” (v. 4). Now, he brings in a second argument: they themselves have testified that God raised up the Messiah, but if the dead-ones will not be raised, the Messiah hasn’t been raised, and they’ve given false testimony about God himself! This is a very serious charge, so Paul urges them to consider the implications of what they’re claiming.

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

    Paul’s third argument is an emotive appeal: if the Messiah wasn’t raised out of the dead-ones, then not only is their faith utterly useless (Gk: mataia), but their loved ones who died in Christ have been utterly destroyed (Gk: apōlonto). In another letter, Paul used the resurrection to comfort believers about those who had died (1 Thess. 4:13-18), but the Corinthians who deny the resurrection of the dead-ones have no such hope. They are, therefore, “more pitiful than all other people.” This paints a remarkably bleak picture, in contrast to the great hope that Paul goes on to describe.

    “Then comes the end”

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.

    Having argued sufficiently that Christ was raised, Paul says that his resurrection was as “the firstfruit [Gk: aparchē] of those who have died.” His resurrection out of the dead-ones secured the future raising of the dead-ones! The scope of this resurrection is described as “those who have died” (Gk: tōn kekoimēmenōn; figuratively referring to death as sleep) and “the dead-ones” (Gk: nekrōn), neither one of which suggests any limitation.

    Paul makes a comparison between Adam, “in [whom] all people are dying” (Gk: en... pantes apothnēskousin), and Christ, “in [whom] all people will be made alive” (Gk: en... pantes zōopoiēthēsontai). This strongly indicates that the same number who are dying in Adam will be made alive in Christ; if Paul had intended to limit the number who will be made alive, he would have spoken of “all [of you] in Christ” (Gk: pantes en christō; cf. 1 Cor. 16:24; Gal. 3:26, 28), rather than saying “in Christ, all” (Gk: en christō pantes). To paraphrase a statement from a similar passage in one of Paul’s other letters: if more people are dying in Adam than will be made alive in Christ, then where grace increases, sin super-exceeds, so that sin will ultimately reign in death forever (Rom. 5:18-21).

But each in its own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end...

    Paul mentions two different categories of the resurrection: “Christ, the firstfruit” (Gk: aparchē christos) and “those of Christ” (Gk: hoi tou christou). Some see three categories here, including “the end” as a group of people to be resurrected, but this ignores the agricultural metaphor. In the harvest, after the firstfruit was presented to God, the entire crop would be harvested, and all the people (even foreigners) would celebrate (Lev. 23:9-22; Deut. 26:1-15). Jesus is the firstfruit of “those who have died” and “all [who] are dying in Adam” (vv. 20-22), which implies that the second stage of the ‘harvest’ includes every person who has died. They are referred to as “those of Christ” because, as Paul says elsewhere, Jesus is “Lording both dead-ones and living-ones,” that is, every person (Rom. 14:9); if he intended to refer to believers alone, he would have said “those in Christ” (Gk: hoi en christō; cf. v. 18).

    If the resurrection of all people is in view here, why does Paul speak of “the end” (Gk: to telos) as a third event? When referring to the succession between resurrections, he uses a different word (Gk: epeita) than when he says “then [Gk: eita] the end.” Epeita indicates temporal succession (cf. Gal. 1:18, 21; 2:1), whereas eita can also refer to merely logical succession without a jump in time. Earlier in the same chapter, Paul used eita and epeita in exactly this sense (1 Cor. 15:5-7), because Jesus appeared to Peter and the other disciples at the same time (cf. Matt. 28:16ff; Lk. 24:33ff; John 20:19ff).

...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.

    Paul alludes to Psalm 109:1 (LXX), which states that the Messiah will sit at God’s right hand “until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” Jesus will “abolish” (Gk: katargēsē) every human dominion, authority, and power, and “hand over” (Gk: paradidō) his kingdom to God, thus re-establishing the original hierarchy of God → humanity → creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5-9). The Hebraist also pointed to this as the ultimate reason for which Jesus died and was exalted (Heb. 2:5-10).

    Death itself, called the “last enemy,” will also be “abolished” (Gk: katargeitai), using a verb that means to render absolutely powerless. This counts against the view that God’s enemies will be annihilated for eternity. If no one dies any more, but some people (even the majority of humanity) remain dead forever, death has no more been abolished than slavery would be abolished if no one new was enslaved while most people remained in slavery forever! On its own, this verse isn’t conclusive against annihilationism, because it could simply be a reiteration of the idea that “Death” will give up those in it and be destroyed before the wicked are judged, found in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature (Rev. 20:13-14; cf. 1 Enoch 51.1-2; 4 Ezra 7.31-35; 2 Baruch 21.23; LAB 3.10). The surrounding context, however, repudiates an annihilationist interpretation (see below).

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.

    This begins with a paraphrase of Psalm 8:7 (LXX), which speaks of the subjection of all things to humanity, and Paul applies it specifically to Jesus. In another of his letters, he says that Jesus will conform us to the body of his glory “by the working that enables him to subject all things to himself” (Phil. 3:21). In the context of 1 Cor. 15:20-28, this doesn’t refer to impersonal things (even though “all,” panta, is neuter following Ps. 8:7 LXX), but to Christ’s enemies that will be subjected to him (v. 25)! Their subjection won’t be in continuing rebellion, lest the Son’s own subjection to the Father be rebellious. Furthermore, if God’s enemies continued in rebellion to him, then he would never be “in all.”

    Thus, for Paul, the telos of history will involve the resurrection of all people, and the subjection of all of Christ’s enemies to himself — not by being tortured or destroyed, but by being conformed to his glory! — so that they are no longer rebellious, but God is all in all. God’s enemies will be reconciled and restored, with the exceptions of (impersonal) human hierarchies and death, which are slated for abolition. Paul isn’t merely speaking loosely here, or accidentally implying the salvation of all; based on the chiastic pattern of the chapter, this is central to his carefully-argued case for the resurrection. For him, the resurrection at the telos of history is inseparable from the subjection in glory of God’s enemies to God himself.

Part 2: 1 Corinthians 15:29-58

So Trump won. Again.

What does this mean about America?

I think it’s a huge mistake to write off all Trump voters as racist and misogynistic. This is the ‘lesson’ that many liberals are taking from the election. MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough suggested that Trump won because of racist Hispanics (against themselves??) and sexist Black men. This is absurd; support for Trump increased or stayed the same from 2020 to 2024 in nearly every demographic.

To be sure, racism and misogyny played a large role in getting Trump elected. Since 2016 his political campaign has been surrounded and propped up by the alt-right. But that doesn’t explain the motivation of everyone who voted for him or the apparent shift to the right across America. It’s a serious error to think that fascism* is simply when a nation goes collectively insane. That downplays its danger and makes regular people more susceptible to its rhetoric.

*Yes, Trumpism is fascism. Actual scholars of fascism have been saying so for years, well before any Democrat politician was willing to come out and say it.

What this election reveals is a deep dissatisfaction with the way society is – whether that’s the rising cost of living, a feeling of alienation from power, or any number of other factors. The Democrats and establishment Republicans represent the status quo of useless neoliberalism, which is precisely what many Americans are trying to get away from. So when Trump bursts on the scene, telling them that he will solve their problems – by implementing nationalist economics, getting rid of immigrants, and taking vengeance on the establishment – they naturally flock to him. Sure, he has personal flaws, and there’s a chance his policies will only make things worse; but who else has recognized their problems and given them any solution at all?

Bernie Sanders was right when he recently stated, “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black voters as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change.” I would only add that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have ever really been for the working class.

Trump’s victory is disheartening, but it also shows an opportunity. Half the nation is so angry at the status quo that they are willing to vote for someone as noxious as Donald Trump. If the left can present them with a real solution to their problems, at least some of them will come over. Indeed, some of Trump’s supporters seem to be leftists who just don’t know it. This should be our attitude toward Trump voters:

When Trump era policies destroy your access to healthcare, education and clean water I will not be there to gloat, I will be there to help you organize.

When Trump era policies deport your friends or legally deny you healthcare I’m not going to stand over you and say “[see]”, I’m going to help you organize.

When Trump era policies defund public schools in your district and their vouchers aren’t enough for private school, we will not be there to gloat and point fingers, we will be there to help you organize. 

– Walter Masterson

Trump’s policies will inevitably fail to solve people’s problems, and will likely make them worse. When they do, we have to be there to help them pick up the pieces and build something new. And not in a paternalistic way, like authoritarians want to do through the state. We have to help organize them to solve their problems as a community.

As Christians, this is especially true of us. Despite how Christianity has been co-opted by some evil people to serve their own ends, we must rebuild the Christian legacy of serving the downtrodden and opposing unjust systems of power. Peter Thiel, the billionaire behind J. D. Vance’s rise to power, blamed Christianity for the rise of “wokeness” because it “always takes the side of the victim.” Let’s prove him right.

Yes. It will be harder to do this under another Trump administration. He’s repeatedly said that he wants to use violent force against the “enemy from within,” which for him includes even milquetoast liberals like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi. But that only means we have to work harder. If we give up, nothing will ever get done.

So what lesson should we take away from this election? We need to fight like hell to build a better future. That’s our best chance of winning over the right.

Edit: Looks like Adam Conover came to pretty much the same conclusions as me: https://youtu.be/MAJafY-4at0

More on this topic:

https://jacobin.com/2024/11/trump-election-lessons-democrats-labor

https://crimethinc.com/2024/11/06/history-repeats-itself-first-as-farce-then-as-tragedy-why-the-democrats-are-responsible-for-donald-trumps-return-to-power

Contra annihilation

    Will God ever cause sinners to permanently cease to exist, with no hope of restoration? This is what is believed by many Christians who reject the traditional view of ‘hell’ as hopeless eternal torture. This is much more ethical and, I believe, closer to the truth than the view on which God eternally keeps unsaved people in existence for the sole purpose of torturing them. However, it still doesn’t quite cohere with what we know about God’s character and the nature of his punishment of sinners. In this post, I’ll briefly present the positive case for annihilationism (both metaphysical and Scriptural) and then explain my reasons for disagreeing with it.

    The case for annihilation

    I already partially presented the metaphysical case for annihilation in my recent post, “The justice of God.” To recap, the God of monotheism is essentially the foundation of all existence, and if he were ever to stop maintaining the existence of any person, they would cease to exist. But God is also the foundation of morality, the ultimate standard of goodness and love against which all other things are measured. Any time that I act contrary to goodness and love, I am removing myself from God, the ground of my own existence, and by rights I should cease to exist. This is why the righteous decree of God is that sin results in death, to paraphrase Paul’s letter to the Romans (1:29-32; 6:21-23).

    It makes no sense to say that the result of removing myself from the foundation of my own existence is for that Foundation to eternally keep me in existence, even if my continued existence is characterized by torture. Thus, the metaphysical case for the annihilation of sinners is very strong, and much stronger than the metaphysical case for eternal torture (which is virtually non-existent).

    The Scriptural case for annihilation is also quite strong. Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament emphasize that the just punishment for sin is death, by which the cessation of existence is meant (see esp. Psalm 37:9-10, 20). [1] In the New Testament, the punishment of the wicked is called “destruction” (Gk: apōleia / apōllumi / olethros), “death” (Gk: apothnēskō / thanatos), and “perishing” (Gk: phthora). It’s compared to the burning up of chaff and other plants (Matt. 3:12; 7:19; 13:40-42; John 15:6). In contrast, “torture” (Gk: basanizō / basanismos) is only used to describe the punishment of the wicked twice (Rev. 14:10-11; 20:10), and both in the most symbolic book of the Bible, where it could easily be figurative of annihilation (cf. Rev. 19:3). The clearer, more numerous passages should be used to interpret the fewer, more enigmatic passages, not the other way around.

    Furthermore, immortality is said to be a positive gift that results from Jesus’ sacrifice (Lk. 20:34-36; Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:20-26, 51-57; 1 Tim. 1:10). This is difficult, even impossible, to square with the view that the unsaved will be given immortality and remain unsaved while being tortured forever. “Eternal life” (Gk: zōē aiōnia), which is often interpreted by annihilationists as a synonym for immortality, is a gift belonging only to believers in Christ, and is contrasted with the “death” and “perishing” of unbelievers (Matt. 19:29-30; 25:46; Mk. 10:29-31; Lk. 18:29-30; John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24; 6:40, 47; Acts 13:46-48; Rom. 2:7; 6:22-23; Gal. 6:8; 1 Tim. 1:16; 6:12, 19; Tit. 3:7). This suggests that unbelievers won’t have immortality, and will eventually cease to exist.

    With regard to the characterization of punishment as aiōnios in the New Testament (Matt. 18:8; 25:41, 46; Mk. 3:29; 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 7), annihilationists typically accept that it means “everlasting,” but argue that it refers to the consequences of the punishment. In a similar way, the Hebraist can speak of “aiōnios judgment” and “aiōnios redemption” (Heb. 6:2; 9:12); the judgment and redemption are not ongoing forever, but their result is everlasting. The “aiōnios punishment” of the wicked is contrasted with “aiōnios life” (Matt. 25:46), implying that the wicked are not made immortal. The telos of certain enemies is destruction, which supports the finality of their annihilation (Phil. 3:19).

    For more historically-minded annihilationists, the patristic evidence is also important. The testimony of early church writers, as I covered in a recent series of posts, shows that most in the early church believed immortality to be a gift given by God to the saved. What they disagreed about was whether this would ultimately be given to all people (universalism) or just to those who believed in this life (annihilationism). This strongly supports either of these views against the eternal torture of unbelievers.

    The metaphysical case against annihilation

    At first, the metaphysical case for annihilation seems very strong. The just punishment for sins is death — for God to stop maintaining the existence of sinners. But the fact is, we don’t die every time we sin. This is because, as Paul said, God “passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25). Every time we sin and don’t die, this is a demonstration of God’s mercy; if he didn’t pass over our sins, we would die (cf. 2 Sam. 12:13). God is able to do this and still be righteous thanks to Christ’s sacrifice (Rom. 3:23-26). If he continues to maintain the existence of sinners in this life, in the hope that they will return to him, why would he eventually stop? The only reason would be if there were a point after which a sinner could no longer repent, in which case God would be both merciful and just to annihilate them.

    We see that God can allow the existence of (what appears, from a human perspective, to be) evil for a time in order to bring about ultimate good. It would only be consistent with God’s mercy to annihilate a person if that person were wholly evil, with no good in them to preserve at all. But the existence of such a person is impossible! The existence of a wholly evil person would mean that evil does have real, ontological existence; thus, the God who is the foundation of all existence would be partially evil (contra 1 John 1:5). Therefore, the existence of a person whom God could mercifully annihilate is impossible (incompatible with Christian theism) in the first place! [2] To the contrary, God always acts to preserve and ultimately restore whatever good remains in each person.

    The Scriptural case against annihilation

    The metaphysical case for annihilationism turns out to be supportive of universalism, when the mercy of God is taken into account. Furthermore, there are many Scriptural reasons to believe that God wouldn’t annihilate sinners. Jesus tells us that God loves all people, and that this love is integral to his very perfection (Matt. 5:43-48). God’s salvific love extends even to those who don’t now believe in him (John 3:16 [cf. 12:47]; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:4-5; 1 John 4:16, 19). Therefore, he “wills all people to be saved” and sent Jesus as a ransom for all people (1 Tim. 2:4-6). Love is that which does no harm to another person (Rom. 13:10; cf. 1 Cor. 13:4-8). It follows that God only punishes people with the intent to restore them.

    This inference is stated explicitly throughout the Scriptures. For example, when David was deciding what to do about his banished son Absalom, he was told,

“We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up. But God will not take away a life; he will devise plans so as not to keep an outcast banished from his presence.” (2 Sam. 14:14)

Here, we see that God will not annihilate any person, specifically because he desires to restore them to his presence. This revelation admittedly comes from a “wise woman of Tekoa” and not from God himself (2 Sam. 14:2-3), so it could be false, even though the narrative strongly implies that her words are true.

    Nevertheless, the same thing is said elsewhere, for example, “I will not continually accuse, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirits would grow faint before me, even the souls that I have made” (Isa. 57:16). Once again, we’re told that God doesn’t hopelessly punish, for the specific reason that he will not allow any soul that he created to “faint before me.” In context, this deals with the restoration of Israel from the Babylonian exile (57:17-21). However, the same thing is stated as a general principle in the Psalms (30:3-5; 78:38-39; 85:4-7; 103:8-9; cf. Mic. 7:18). Jeremiah prays that God would discipline him, “but in justice, not in anger, or you will bring me to nothing” (10:24).

    Lamentations, though still in the context of return from the Babylonian exile, extends this logic to all humanity:

For the Lord will not reject forever. Although he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone. When all the prisoners of the land are crushed under foot, when justice is perverted in the presence of the Most High, when one’s case is subverted — does the Lord not see it? (Lam. 3:31-36)

God’s unwillingness to hopelessly punish is here applied to all “the sons of men” (3:33). God can’t ignore the pointless oppression of others (3:34-36), nor can he himself pointlessly oppress others. To the contrary, he “causes grief” in order to later “have compassion.”

    The theme of punishment-and-restoration resonates throughout all the OT prophets. An example is the judgment of Edom according to Isaiah. This judgment is described in hopeless terms: “its smoke shall go up forever; from generation to generation it shall lie waste; no one shall pass through it forever and ever” (34:10). It is to become the haunt of unclean desert animals (34:11-15). Yet, eventually, “the wilderness and the dry land shall be glad; the desert shall rejoice and blossom” (35:1), and “where jackals once rested, there will be grass with reeds and rushes” (35:5-7). This land will even become a highway, called “the Holy Way,” where the redeemed will walk on the way to Zion (35:8-10). [3]

    The same concept of restorative punishment is found in the New Testament. Jesus says that the purpose of judgment is “so that all people will honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (John 5:22-23). Paul speaks of a fire that will burn up a person’s evil deeds while saving the person (1 Cor. 3:11-15), and sends someone to “destruction of the flesh” for the salvation of their spirit (1 Cor. 5:5). The Hebraist tells us that “the Lord disciplines those whom he loves... for our good, in order that we may share his holiness” (12:5-11); and the Lord loves all people (see above). Even in Revelation, after the “second death,” the “rulers of the land” who were previously destroyed are seen entering New Jerusalem (19:19-21; 21:24-26; cf. Isa. 60:8-16).

    Thus, the testimony of the Scriptures is wholly against hopeless punishment, whether this is torture or annihilation. In fact, the idea of hopeless annihilation is specifically rejected (2 Sam. 14:14; Isa. 57:16; Jer. 10:24). Furthermore, according to Paul, every person who was condemned in Adam will be resurrected to immortality in Christ (1 Cor. 15:20-22). This will involve the abolition of death and sin (15:26, 51-57). It would be utterly strange for the abolition of death to mean no more people dying, but the majority of people remaining dead forever — if no more people are enslaved, but most people continue in slavery forever, could this really be called the “abolition of slavery”? Every person will eventually confess Jesus, and every person will be subject to his salvific subjugation (Phil. 2:10-11; 3:21).

    Why, then, is punishment called aiōnios or “everlasting”? I don’t believe that this word actually refers to an infinite period of time, because it’s used many times in the Septuagint and other texts to refer to things that aren’t without end. [4] But even if it did mean that, it wouldn’t be incompatible with eventual restoration. God has the ability to reverse an aiōnios punishment which he himself has inflicted (Isa. 32:14-15; Jer. 25:9-12; Jon. 2:6, 10 LXX); we saw above an example of a judgment where ‘hopeless’ language was used (“forever... forever and ever”), but a dramatic restoration was still predicted (Isa. 34-35). Thus, aiōnios punishment isn’t incompatible with universal restoration.

    Conclusion

    Annihilationism, the view that unbelievers will be permanently annihilated, has grown in popularity as a non-universalist alternative to the traditional view that unbelievers will be hopelessly, eternally tortured. This view is certainly morally superior to the traditional view, and a strong Scriptural case can be made in its favor. However, on further examination, it fails as a best explanation of the Scriptural data. The idea of hopeless punishment, including annihilation, is rejected by the biblical authors; even when ‘hopeless’ language (e.g., aiōnios) is used, restoration often goes hand-in-hand with punishment. Paul explicitly says that all people will be ultimately saved. [5] Therefore, the permanent annihilation of unbelievers must be rejected in favor of a much greater hope — their eventual restoration and salvation!

______________________________

[1] Gen. 2:17; 3:3; Deut. 24:16; 2 Sam. 12:13; 2 Kgs. 14:6; 2 Chron. 25:4; Prov. 5:3-5; 12:7; 14:12; 15:24; 16:25; 23:13-14; Ps. 9:17; 31:17; 37:9-10, 20; 73:27; Isa. 1:28; 51:7-8; Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 3:18-21; 18:4-28; 33:8-19; Matt. 7:13-14; John 8:21, 24; Rom. 1:32; 6:16, 21, 23; Phil. 3:18-19; cf. Rom. 5:12-14; 8:6, 12-13; 1 Cor. 15:55-56; Gal. 6:8; Heb. 2:14; 6:8; Jas. 1:15; 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:6, 12-13; 1 John 3:14.

[2] An annihilationist (or even infernalist) might want to respond that such a person, by becoming wholly evil, has become the foundation of their own existence. But that would mean that the ultimate lie — that by sinning, you can become God Most High — turns out to be true after all! The existence, then destruction, of such a wholly-evil person would be a Pyrrhic victory for God, if it could be considered a victory at all (it seems more like a defeat).

[3] Another example: in Isaiah 45, the nations that oppressed Israel are put in chains and confounded (45:14-16), but God swears that they will bow to him and be saved (45:22-25). A third example: in Isaiah 60, the nations that did not serve Jerusalem will “perish... be utterly laid waste,” yet their kings will eventually enter Jerusalem and bring in their wealth (60:8-16). This passage is specifically echoed in Revelation, where the rulers who were “killed” and underwent the “second death” (19:19-21; 20:11-15) are later seen entering New Jerusalem and bringing in their wealth (21:24-26). Yet another example: in Jeremiah 25, the land of Israel is to be “utterly destroyed” and become an “everlasting disgrace,” but only for seventy years, after which they will be restored (25:9-12). A fifth example: in Ezekiel 16, the cities of Jerusalem, Samaria, and Sodom are set forth as examples of abominable sinners who will be killed (16:35-40, 45-51); yet all of them will be restored “to their former state” and forgiven (16:53-55, 59-63). The last example: in Zephaniah 3, the nations are “consumed” by the fire of God’s anger, but their speech is changed to praise and serve God with one accord (3:8-9).

[4] Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts, (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013); see also my blog post series, “Just how long is ‘eternal’? A study on the meanings of Αιων and Αιωνιος.”

[5] Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-28, 51-57; 2 Cor. 5:14-20; Eph. 1:9-10; Phil. 2:10-11; 3:19-21; Col. 1:16-20; 1 Thess. 5:4-10; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 4:10-11; Tit. 2:11-15.