Friday Fears

 

JulietheWhiteWitch

Author and orphan advocate (and a friend I met through Facebook), Julie Ferwerda, recently received some negative feedback about her book, Raising Hell, including comments like this, “the Lord revealed to me you are truely a heretic \”white witch\” and I rebuked you in the name of Jesus Christ for planting words of deceit in the minds of new Christians,” and this, “Why would God allow Jesus to come down and endure such great suffering, according to you it was all for nothing because the reward is all the same in the end…why follow Jesus!”  This got me thinking about the words of Christ, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves,” and how Julie most definitely does not wear sheep’s clothing.  Jesus didn’t just say “Beware of false prophets,” He said beware of a particular kind of false prophet, that is, one who wears sheep’s clothing, which is a metaphor for a disguise one wears in order to blend in among the others unlike themselves, a disguise for the express purpose of misimpression.  If Julie wanted to wear “sheep’s clothing” and blend in among those unlike herself, the last thing in the world she would want to do is write a book (with a pitchfork on the cover) that openly denounces and argues point by point against the orthodox doctrine of eternal torment.  The kind of false prophets that Jesus warns people about are the ones that have a “covering” (a word often used to indicate that a pastor or leader is under the thumb of orthodoxy or “safe” for the impressionable sheep), and who certainly doesn’t draw the kind of attention Julie gets.

Abundant Life

(Part One) Book Review: Raising Hell

(Part Two) Book Review: Raising Hell

Test everything, hold on to what is good.

Is Death the Cut-Off for Salvation?

Book Review: Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell

But the foolish children of men do miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in their confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow. The bigger part of those that heretofore have lived under the same means of grace, and are now dead, are undoubtedly gone to hell: and it was not because they were not as wise as those that are now alive; it was not because they did not lay out matters as well for themselves to secure their own escape. – Jonathan Edwards

When I read Francis Chan’s book, Erasing Hell, I experienced grief over how many people would read the title and the back cover and think that there might actually be some good news in the book.  Instead, what they get is a repackaged and modernized version of Jonathan Edward’s infamous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”  Chan is very careful with his word choices, and he does a good job of being at least minimally respectful toward those who may disagree with him, but his message boils down to the same fundamental fear as that of Edwards.  Chan writes,

The thought of hell is paralyzing for most people, which is why we often ignore its existence – at least in practice.  After all, how can we possibly carry on with life if we are constantly mindful of a fiery place of torment?  Yet that’s the whole point – we shouldn’t just go on with life as usual.  A sense of urgency over the reality of hell should recharge our passion for the gospel [...] We should not just try to cope with hell, but be compelled – as with all doctrine – to live differently in light of it.

Many Christians mistakenly believe that Jesus talks about hell more than any other subject in scripture, because they heard this from a trusted friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another you’ve been messin’ around… no, wait, that’s an REO Speedwagon song.  My point is that if one has studied the etymology of the word “hell”, then one ought to be embarrassed to make such a claim, since the word “hell” did not even exist in the first century.  But that’s another blog for another day.  Today I would like to take a look at one particular claim Chan makes at the beginning of chapter two of Erasing Hell:

The only way we’re going to understand what Jesus said about hell is to soak ourselves in the Bible’s own culture.  Breathe its air.  Feel its dirt.  [...]  So to this world we turn.  What we find in this context is that hell was seen as a place of punishment for those who don’t follow God.  In fact, so ingrained was the belief in hell among first century Jews that Jesus would have had to go out of His way to distance Himself from these beliefs if He didn’t hold them.

The obvious question is, did Jesus “go out of His way to distance Himself” from the beliefs of the Jewish religious leaders in the first century?  Instead of offering peripherals and conjectures, I’ll let Jesus speak for Himself.

When Jesus healed a paralytic, He prefaced the healing with the words, “Child, thy sins have been forgiven.”  This did not rest well with the scribes, who asked, “Who is able to forgive sins except one – God?”  Jesus replied, not to them, but to the paralytic, “[...]the Son of Man hath authority on the earth to forgive sins.”  His reassurance was not given to the religious leaders, but to the common sinner.  To me, Jesus is saying that the scribes have totally underestimated Him.

When the Pharisees saw Jesus having a friendly sit-down dinner with sinners, they asked the disciples, “Why – that with the tax-gatherers and sinners he doth eat and drink?”  Jesus overheard and replied, “[...] I came not to call righteous men, but sinners to reformation.”  To me, Jesus is saying that the Pharisees have no idea who “qualifies” to sit at His table.

As Jesus and His disciples were traveling through some cornfields on Sabbath Day, the disciples were picking and nibbling along the way.  The Pharisees took note and accused, “Lo, why do they on the sabbaths that which is not lawful?”  Jesus came to their defense by reminding them of a story from their own scriptures, about David.  The modern-day equivalent of this story would be that David and his buddies have the munchies and decide to raid the church-room where the bread (or those little wafer things) and wine (or grape juice) is stored for communion or mass!  Jesus’s concluding remarks shut them right up, “The Sabbath for man was made, not man for the Sabbath, so that the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.”  To me, Jesus is saying that the Pharisees have misinterpreted/mistranslated the scriptures.

Jesus went to the synagog, where there was a man with a deformed hand, and Jesus knew that the religious leaders were watching to see if He would heal the man on the Sabbath Day (break the rules).  Notice that Jesus is the one to pick the fight, so-to-speak, by saying to the man with the hand, “Rise up in the midst.”  He didn’t say, “Come over here, where we can meet privately.”  He didn’t do His dealings behind closed doors with the good ole’ boys, smoking and joking in the safety of anonymity – He made a point to distinguish Himself and His Truth from the teachings of the Pharisees.  He said, while everyone was watching and listening, “Is it lawful on the sabbaths to do good, or to do evil? life to save, or to kill?”  I am totally pumped about what happens next:

And having looked round upon them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their heart, He saith to the man, “Stretch forth thy hand;” and he stretched forth, and his hand was restored whole as the other; and the Pharisees having gone forth, immediately, with the Herodians, were taking counsel against him how they might destroy him.

Jesus clearly threw down the gauntlet, and the Pharisees reacted accordingly.  To me, Jesus is demonstrating that the Pharisees see the true power of God as a threat to their current understanding and practice.

Some scribes and Pharisees found fault with the disciples because they didn’t do the regular ceremonious hand-washing.  The modern-day equivalent might be that someone goes to church and asks the pastor a question in the middle of the sermon instead of calling the church office to make an appointment with the pastor.  Basically, the disciples didn’t bother with religious protocol, and it really annoyed the religious elite, who asked, “Wherefore do thy disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but with unwashed hands do eat the bread?”  Jesus called them hypocrites and gave them a painfully honest answer, saying among other things, “[You are] setting aside the word of God for your tradition that ye delivered [...]”  To me, Jesus is teaching the onlookers (and us) that through religious protocol and practice, hypocrites deliver a different message than the one that comes from God.

When the Pharisees picked a fight with Jesus, demanding He perform a miraculous sign for them, Jesus, “having sighed deeply in His spirit” turned them down, flat.  He then warned His disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.”  To me, Jesus was warning that many of the decision-makers in religion and politics use their positions of prestige and authority to spread corruption.

I could go on and give many other examples of Jesus butting heads with the first century Jewish religious leaders, beliefs, and practices, but instead I will offer some anticipated opposition to this blog, that is, Jesus never explicitly addresses “eternal torment” or “hell” in any of these examples.  If I may speak for the person who holds this perspective, it is likely that he or she might say, “Show me, in a very specific way, how Jesus distances Himself from the first-century Jewish view of hell.”  And to this I respond, all in good time.  Chan delves into this in chapter three, and since I’m on chapter two right now, I’ll conclude this blog with this final observation:

What are the reasons for Churchians’ rejection of the Glorious Truth of the Amazing Hope we have in the Victorious Savior of the all mankind? How do they justify their mistreatment of those who have Amazing Hope?  By totally underestimating Jesus Christ, by selfishly and judgmentally deciding who “qualifies” to sit at His table, by misinterpreting/mistranslating scripture, and by seeing the true power of God as a threat to their current understanding and practice.  Through religious protocol and practice (all the while breaking their own moral boundaries), they deliver a different message than the one that comes from God concerning His intentions toward mankind, namely, eternal torment in Hell.

Next blog subject matter is NOT: What did the first-century Jews believe? since Chan covers this in his book, but the next blog asks: What is the source of and the result (fruits) of first-century Jewish beliefs?

*Scripture references are from the gospel of Mark.

Next blog in this series: Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Abomination

Exposition on the Reign of God: Narrow vs Wide

Posted: 1st January 2012 by admin in Bible Commentary, Books, Demolishing Arguments, Observations
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Taking the bunny trail” is a euphemism associated with getting off subject, wasting time and energy, or pursuing something that will likely be an exercise in futility.  But in studying scripture and/or being open to the Spirit of God, it is sometimes best to explore.  Since my last blog post, I have been traveling down the rabbit trail in the “Kingdom (or reign) of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” sayings of Jesus.  It started with the “narrow” gate or door in Luke 13, as well as the “many” versus the “few” referenced in Francis Chan’s book, Erasing Hell.  As I read the context, I see much in common with what is known as the Sermon on the Mount, a well-known message Jesus gave to a crowd of people including the Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, and other messages Jesus taught.  I realize that it is beneficial for me to formulate a “big picture” understanding of how the “narrow” way relates to Jesus’s other teachings.

Many theologians believe that Jesus taught the same or similar messages over and over again, wherever He went.  For example, in Luke 6 we read:

And it came to pass in those days, he went forth to the mountain to pray, and was passing the night in the prayer of God, and when it became day, he called near his disciples [...] and having come down with them, he stood upon a level spot, and a crowd of his disciples, and a great multitude of the people [...] who came to hear him [...]  And he, having lifted up his eyes to his disciples, said: “Happy the poor – because yours is the reign of God [etc...]“

But in Matthew 5, we read:

And having seen the multitudes, he went up to the mount, and he having sat down, his disciples came to him, and having opened his mouth, he was teaching them, saying: “Happy the poor in spirit – because theirs is the reign of the heavens [etc...]“

So did Jesus give His sermon on the way up the mountain or on the way back down?  Do Matthew and Luke have their times and places confused?  Why does Matthew quote Jesus saying “the poor in spirit” while Luke records Jesus saying simply “the poor”?  What is the difference between the “reign of God” and the “reign of the heavens”?  Perhaps Jesus gave the same message, although not word-for-word, twice, once on the way up and once on the way down.  What is important here is the message itself, and how the hearers received it.  One regular blog reader, Mary Vanderplas, sums up the situation nicely in her comments on the previous blog, “Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Croissants Falling from the Sky“:

I like what you say about Jesus’ frequent use of metaphorical speech and about the need to interpret such speech rightly. I think you’re right, too, in asserting a connection between the preceding parables in Luke 13 and this text in verses 22 and following, though I doubt that the person’s question was prompted by the parables. It is far more likely that Luke arranged the materials thus as part of his “Travel Narrative,” which begins in 9:51. (Matthew has them in separate places – Matthew 13:31-33; 7:13-14, 22-23; 19:30.) At any rate, I think you’re right to see here a connection between Jesus’ teaching in these parables – which call into question conventional ways of thinking about God’s kingdom – and Jesus’ response to this questioner. Specifically, the images in these parables shatter commonly-held views of how God works, much as the final salvation of God will overturn the expectations of those who assume that they are guaranteed a place in the kingdom.

(*Readers can access most of the texts, in context, that I will examine in this blog by clicking this link.)

The audience consists of a large number of people, whether this is two similar sermons or only one.  Some people might argue against this point, which is fine, but I’m not spending too much time defending the idea in this blog.  (For further information, study internal evidence for a single event with two accounts and reference Matthew 5:1, 7:28 and Luke 6:13 & 17-18 for descriptions of the audience.)  Jesus’s audience can be divided into three groups – the twelve disciples chosen from among Jesus’s many other disciples, the disciples who are not included among the twelve, and the “multitudes” of Abraham’s descendants (possibly including a few curious Gentile onlookers).

Jesus describes what kind of people enter into the reign of God – the poor in spirit, the meek, the hungering, the peacemakers, those persecuted for righteousness sake, etc.  This is not a list of qualifications or rules for admittance into the reign of God.  Jesus is simply creating a picture of the attributes one might expect to find among those who possess the life He gives.  By human standards, this is a sad, sorry group of unimportant, unsuccessful people.  By God’s standards, these people have discovered their salvation, they are not preoccupied with important positions in life, and they measure their success in the perfect life of Jesus Christ.  This called-out group of people have a function in the world – to be salt and light to the others.  In Jesus’s time, these two words packed more of a punch than they do now, because back then, there was no electricity, hence, no instantaneous flick-of-the-light-switch and no refrigeration to preserve meat (they used salt).  Check out any long-term survival guide, and you will find salt and lighting supplies on the list of must-haves.  There’s a bit of humor in the salt metaphor for the in-your-face-super-religious types of people, that is, salt is essential to animal life, but in excess, it is harmful.

Jesus describes the difference between what people have been taught by religious leaders regarding the law and the actual law itself.  Elsewhere in scripture, Jesus says “It is written,” but here, he says, “You have heard it said…”  For example, Jesus said:

Ye heard that it was said: “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth;” but I – I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other; and whoever is willing to take thee to law, and thy coat to take – suffer to him also the cloak. And whoever shall impress thee one mile, go with him two, to him who is asking of thee be giving, and him who is willing to borrow from thee thou mayest not turn away.

The law to which Jesus refers, “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth,” was established for these and other good reasons: to maintain through fear of punishment the general peace and order in society, to ensure that the punishment was neither too lenient nor harsh- that it fit the crime, to ensure that wealth or race or social status did not result in legal bias, and to prevent the violent chaos of disproportionate personal revenge.  The Scribes and Pharisees perverted this law through sophisticated arguments, taking the civil laws into their personal lives, applying the “Eye for an eye” concept to exact emotional, physical, and financial retaliation outside of the court system.  It was used as a means of justifying not only racial inequality, but the outright abuse or even death of non-Jews (Gentiles).  Heathens were not considered “neighbors”, therefore the law did not apply to them, and punishment for crimes against them were more lenient than punishment for crimes against fellow Jews. (*See note 1 at end of blog.)

I did not randomly choose “Eye for an eye” as an example of Jesus’s teaching, I chose it because it is a smooth segue into the next portion of the blog regarding the political climate during Jesus’s ministry.  Martin Luther King Jr. was asked in an interview to explain passive resistance, and he replied:

It was the Sermon on the Mount, rather than a doctrine of passive resistance, that initially inspired the Negroes of Montgomery to dignified social action.  It was Jesus of Nazareth that stirred the Negroes to protest with the creative weapon of love. [...] The method is passive physically but strongly active spiritually. It is not passive non-resistance to evil, it is active nonviolent resistance to evil.  It does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding.  The attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who happen to be doing evil. [It] is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliation, to accept blows from the opponent without striking back. [...]  The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent, but he also refuses to hate him. [...] the use of violence in our struggle would be both impractical and immoral. To meet hate with retaliatory hate would do nothing but intensify the existence of evil in the universe. Hate begets hate [...] We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love [...]

(*See Note 2 at the end of the blog.)

It is too bad that Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t around to influence the Jewish religious zealots of early first century.  But if they didn’t listen to Jesus, they surely would not have listened to King Jr.  The political situation between certain sects of Jews in Jerusalem and the Roman law enforcement was volatile.  Had these people taken Jesus’s dire warnings seriously, they might have avoided the bloody, violent end Jesus described:

[Jesus said,] “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that is killing the prophets, and stoning those sent unto her, how often did I will to gather together thy children, as a hen her brood under the wings, and ye did not will.  Lo, your house is being left to you desolate [...]”  And when he came nigh, having seen the city, he wept over it, saying – “If thou didst know, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things for thy peace; but now they were hid from thine eyes.  Because days shall come upon thee, and thine enemies shall cast around thee a rampart, and compass thee round, and press thee on every side, and lay thee low, and thy children within thee, and they shall not leave in thee a stone upon a stone, because thou didst not know the time of thy inspection.”

When Jesus spoke to the Jewish multitudes, His audience was God’s covenant people, people who God had promised to cleanse of sin.  Their blindness and stubborn rebellion came as no surprise to God.  Yes, Jesus wept, because He knew what was about to happen to them, how they would suffer the consequences of their decision to take up arms against the Roman soldiers.  But Jesus also knew that God’s glorious Plan of the Ages would result in not only the salvation of Israel, but the salvation of the whole world.  Paul explained this concept in Romans 11:

For I do not wish you [the church in Rome, mostly Gentile Christians] to be ignorant, brethren, of this secret – that ye may not be wise in your own conceits – that hardness in part to Israel hath happened till the fulness of the nations may come in; and so all Israel shall be saved, according as it hath been written, “There shall come forth out of Sion he who is delivering, and he shall turn away impiety from Jacob, and this to them [is] the covenant from Me, when I may take away their sins.”  As regards, indeed, the good tidings, [the Jews who persecute Christians are] enemies on your account; and as regards the choice – beloved on account of the fathers; for unrepented of [are] the gifts and the calling of God; for as ye also once did not believe in God, and now did find kindness by the unbelief of these: so also these now did not believe, that in your kindness they also may find kindness; for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness.

If we closely examine Jesus’s words, we can see the beginning of the revelation brought to light by the apostle Paul regarding the future of those Jewish zealots who died between 66 and 70 AD.  For example, Jesus said, “If thou didst know, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things for thy peace [...]” Notice how He clarifies that at this time they did not know the things for their peace.  It may be a stretch for the evangelical mind to see the implications – that Jesus longed for them to know now instead of later.  I realize that this portion of the text, alone, does not fully support the point I am making, but if we keep reading, it will become more obvious.  Jesus said, “Lo, your house is being left to you desolate, and verily I say to you – ye may not see me, till it may come, when ye may say, “Blessed [is] he who is coming in the name of the Lord.”  There will come a day when these people, who persecuted the “few” and rejected the “narrow” gate in favor of the “wide” path leading to destruction, will see their Messiah.  Jesus even prophecies the words they will speak, words which indicate a change of heart.

Some readers may be questioning whether those who died in 70 AD can be rightly identified as the “many” to whom Jesus referred in the Sermon on the Mount, so let’s take a look.  There are three points we should examine.  First, the admonition to enter the narrow gate is immediately followed by a warning against false prophets.  Second, there is an urgency to enter the reign of God while there is still time, before the door is closed, because the reign of God was “about presently to be made manifest”.  Third, the two groups (“few” and “many”) are clearly described: those who enter in before the door is closed and those who are shut out.

The warning against the false prophets is a theme repeated throughout the gospels and scripture in general.  Jesus said that the few would know who the false prophets were based on their “fruits” or results of their actions, and He uses similar language to describe hypocrites and Jewish opponents – it may be that the “many” include all these people groups, who exhibit the same “fruits”.  For example, Jesus says,

Take heed your kindness not to do before men, to be seen by them, and if not — reward ye have not from your Father who [is] in the heavens; whenever, therefore, thou mayest do kindness, thou mayest not sound a trumpet before thee as the hypocrites do, in the synagogues, and in the streets, that they may have glory from men; verily I say to you – they have their reward!  But thou, doing kindness, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth, that thy kindness may be in secret, and thy Father who is seeing in secret Himself shall reward thee manifestly. And when thou mayest pray, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites, because they love in the synagogues, and in the corners of the broad places – standing – to pray, that they may be seen of men; verily I say to you, that they have their reward.

It is obvious, based on the way Jesus describes them, that the “many” are more concerned with appearing righteous than they are with actually being righteous.  Matthew records Jesus’s scathing, open rebuke of the “many”, highlighting their bad fruits for His audience:

On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees

Jesus identifies the many directly – they are those religious leaders who do the following:

they say, and do not; for they bind together burdens heavy and grievous to be borne, and lay upon the shoulders of men, but with their finger they will not move them. And all their works they do to be seen by men, and they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the fringes of their garments, they love also the chief couches in the supper, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the salutations in the market-places, and to be called by men, Rabbi, Rabbi. Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut up the reign of the heavens before men, for ye do not go in, nor those going in do ye suffer to enter.

When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the many were more concerned about the political ramifications than they were with whether Jesus actually was Who He claimed to be.  Instead of using their powerful and influential positions to champion Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah, they worried about what they might stand to lose because of this miracle.  They held a meeting, as follows:

[...] the chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees, gathered together a sanhedrim, and said, “What may we do? because this man doth many signs? If we may let him alone thus, all will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and will take away both our place and nation.” And a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being chief priest of that year, said to them, “Ye have not known anything, nor reason that it is good for us that one man may die for the people, and not the whole nation perish. [...] From that day, therefore, they took counsel together that they may kill him.

What seemingly better way to “shut up the reign of the heavens before men” than to do away with the One Who is ushering in the reign?

Jesus continues to describe the many to His audience:

Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye eat up the houses of the widows, and for a pretence make long prayers, because of this ye shall receive more abundant judgment. Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye go round the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and whenever it may happen – ye make him a son of gehenna twofold more than yourselves.

Remember in the Sermon on the Mount, how Jesus said:

I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.

Jesus knew that the judgment of Israel was quickly approaching.  God would very soon remove His hand of protection from them, creating a vacuous space for their enemies to destroy them.  Not only would those who follow the false prophets be subject to judgment by religious leaders (sanhedrim), but they would also be subject to the gehenna of fire (Jerusalem, 70 AD), a spiritual garbage dump.  In this way, the Scribes and Pharisees make the proselyte “a son of gehenna twofold more than” themselves.

Jesus continues to rebuke the religious leaders in the presence of His audience, the masses of Jewish listeners:

Wo to you, blind guides, who are saying, “Whoever may swear by the sanctuary, it is nothing, but whoever may swear by the gold of the sanctuary – is debtor!” Fools and blind! for which [is] greater, the gold, or the sanctuary that is sanctifying the gold? And, whoever may swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever may swear by the gift that is upon it – is debtor! Fools and blind! for which [is] greater, the gift, or the altar that is sanctifying the gift? He therefore who did swear by the altar, doth swear by it, and by all things on it; and he who did swear by the sanctuary, doth swear by it, and by Him who is dwelling in it; and he who did swear by the heaven, doth swear by the throne of God, and by Him who is sitting upon it. Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye give tithe of the mint, and the dill, and the cumin, and did neglect the weightier things of the Law – the judgment, and the kindness, and the faith; these it behoved [you] to do, and those not to neglect.

Let me demonstrate how the concepts Jesus taught, if they had been practically applied, could have saved the many from destruction.  Caligula (the cruel and likely insane Roman Caesar) decided that a statue of himself should be set up in the Holy of Holies in the Temple.  Petronius, the man Caligula put in charge of doing the deed, was impressed by the fact that the Jewish religious leaders would rather die, and in fact, let the whole nation die, before they would allow Caligula’s statue to be set up in the temple.  Although their angry tenacity seems to be commendable, we must remember that Jesus is “God with us”, and that the Spirit of God claimed the vessels (bodies, hearts, minds) of believers as the new “temple” of God.  The religious system and all its trappings were no longer the dwelling place of God among men.  They had become mere buildings, used by people who imagined for themselves elaborate lists of rules and regulations.  The Jewish religious leaders were unable to recognize that the reign of God was not in the Holy of Holies of their Temple building, the reign of God should have been within them!  How could Caligula possibly set up a statue there?  Caligula’s demands should have been disappointing to them, but it should never have been considered an act worth resisting to the point of the bloodshed and enslavement of millions of lives.  Clearly, they did, as Jesus said, neglect “judgment, and the kindness, and the faith” to let God be the One to judge Caligula’s stupidity.  Consequently, God did just that, because it was not yet the appointed time for the “abomination of desolation” to take place.  (I’ll explain this further shortly.)  Petronius decided to disobey orders.  Caligula found out about it and wrote an order for Petronius to be put to death.  But while the written order was en route, Caligula died at sea because of bad weather.  The letter arrived after the news of Caligula’s death, so Petronius was never executed.  Nevertheless, a rift between the Jews and Romans was created, and it would continue to grow…

Jesus said of the Scribes and Pharisees:

Blind guides! who are straining out the gnat, and the camel are swallowing. Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye make clean the outside of the cup and the plate, and within they are full of rapine and incontinence. Blind Pharisee! cleanse first the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside of them also may become clean. Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye are like to whitewashed sepulchres, which outwardly indeed do appear beautiful, and within are full of bones of dead men, and of all uncleanness; so also ye outwardly indeed do appear to men righteous, and within ye are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the tombs of the righteous, and say, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” So that ye testify to yourselves, that ye are sons of them who did murder the prophets; and ye – ye fill up the measure of your fathers. Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna? Because of this, lo, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and of them ye will kill and crucify, and of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and will pursue from city to city; that on you may come all the righteous blood being poured out on the earth from the blood of Abel the righteous, unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar: verily I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.

 

Jewish zealots violently raided Jerusalem, revolting against Roman rule, and for a while, they succeeded.  They raided the homes of local Jews and stole their food.  The Roman soldiers then destroyed the food supply, and people were dying of starvation.  The Jewish sects were vicious to one another in the fight for survival within the city, and the Roman army reorganized and gathered around the city, just as Jesus said.  The Romans gave the people an opportunity to surrender, but they would not – they were more concerned about the appearance of righteousness (having a temple and an orderly system of religious ceremonies) than righteousness itself (love your enemies… do good to those who hate you, etc).  By the time the Roman soldiers were able to enter the city, they were so enraged that they did not wait for orders; they immediately destroyed the temple and slaughtered many Jews.  All of this took place about within the Biblical generation (40 years) of when Christ made His prophetic pronouncement.  The bad/evil fruits of the false prophets, indeed, led to the destruction of the many who followed them along the wide path.

Jesus’s warning against entering the wide gate, accompanied by His description of the many as “false prophets, who come unto you in sheep’s clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves”, say “Lord, Lord” but do not do the will of the Father, hear but don’t do Jesus’s words, are not known by the “master of the house”, believe that their association with the master (eating and drinking with the master, the master taught in their “broad places”) will be enough to secure their entrance into life, and are “workers of unrighteousness”.  By now, we should be getting a clearer picture of the many.

In contrast, Jesus’s admonition to enter the narrow gate is accompanied by His list of the attributes of the few, that is, they have a righteousness that “abound[s] above that of the scribes and Pharisees”, “seek first” the reign of God over physical needs, do the will of the Father, are known by the “master of the house”, and the progressive triplet – they come to Jesus, hear Him, and do His words.  We also have a clearer picture of the “few”.

Notice that both the few and the many do works.  The few hear the will of the Father from Jesus Christ and put what they hear into practice.  The many suppose or pretend they are doing the will of the Father, but their works are unrighteous.  The reason for this is not because the few are better or smarter or put forth a greater effort.  If this were the case, then we would have to assume that righteousness is a human effort, achievable apart from Christ.  The possibility of a fallible, spiritually dead human being possessing the inclination or ability to do the will of the Father comes only through Jesus Christ, because it is only through Jesus Christ that the Father reveals His will and establishes His reign in and among individuals.  His kingdom is not about average people trying to attain spiritual perfection.  His reign is a “life” relationship between Himself and His people, and it is also a “life” relationship between His people and others.  It is what Jesus calls “My Father’s will” – a new way to relate to one another and to God because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Robert Guelich, in his book, A Foundation for Understanding The Sermon on The Mount, writes:

Inherent to “my Father’s will” was the christological basis of Jesus Messiah, the fulfillment of the Old Testament promise for the day of salvation, that brought about a different orientation to the Mosaic Law.  Therefore, any “prophecy” that attempted to apply rigorously the Mosaic Law failed at precisely the same point where the Pharisees broke with Jesus’ ministry, namely, at the implications of his coming for the old order, the Law in Judaism.  Put another way, those seeking to live and to influence others to live under the “Sinai Torah,” the Law of Moses legalistically understood, had not accepted Jesus Messiah and the accompanying “Zion Torah” whose basis was the presence in history of the new age with its message of salvation and reconciliation between God and his own.  They had ultimately failed to hear the “gospel of the Kingdom,” which offered a new basis and power for conduct, “righteousness” as seen in [Matthew 5-7].

Let’s suppose that the early first century Jewish zealots experienced the same, life-changing spiritual birth as the disciples or the apostle Paul.  How might things have gone differently?  Perhaps they would have recognized the events foretold by Jesus as recorded in the gospels and by John in Revelation unfolding before their very eyes.

Jesus said, “Do ye not see all these [temple buildings]? verily I say to you, There may not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.”

The disciples asked, “Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?”

Jesus answered,

Take heed that no one may lead you astray, for many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and they shall lead many astray,[...] Whenever, therefore, ye may see the abomination of the desolation, that was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever is reading let him observe) then those in Judea – let them flee to the mounts [...] for there shall be then great tribulation.

(The “abomination of desolation” in Daniel is a prophecy about a ruler causing sacrifices to cease for about three and a half years and the profaning of the temple – if it is to be interpreted literally.)

John, likely comparing the Roman Empire to a beast, writes, that a “beast with seven heads” that “was given to it a mouth speaking great things, and evil-speakings, and there was given to it authority to make war forty-two months, and it did open its mouth for evil-speaking toward God, to speak evil of His name [...]”

According to historical records, Nero Caesar (whose Hebrew numeric name-value is 666 and who was called a “beast” in his time), one of the most ruthless rulers ever, claimed to be the sun-god Apollo and demanded the honor of divinity.  He was the first ruler to institute the persecution of Christians, which lasted from 64 AD until he died in 68 – about three and a half years later.  The zealots rebelled and encouraged the general Jewish population to rebel against Roman rule, to rid Jerusalem of the Roman Empire by force. Eventually the temple was profaned, as described by Jesus in the book of Luke:

And when ye may see Jerusalem surrounded by encampments, then know that come nigh did her desolation; then those in Judea, let them flee to the mountains; and those in her midst, let them depart out; and those in the countries, let them not come in to her; because these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all things that have been written. And wo to those with child, and to those giving suck, in those days; for there shall be great distress on the land, and wrath on this people; and they shall fall by the mouth of the sword, and shall be led captive to all the nations, and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by nations, till the times of nations be fulfilled.

What if the zealots and warring Jewish factions had done the works they heard from Jesus Christ?

Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you, that ye may be sons of your Father in the heavens, because His sun He doth cause to rise on evil and good, and He doth send rain on righteous and unrighteous. For, if ye may love those loving you, what reward have ye? do not also the tax-gatherers the same? and if ye may salute your brethren only, what do ye abundant? do not also the tax-gatherers so? ye shall therefore be perfect, as your Father who [is] in the heavens is perfect.

What if they had heeded the clear warning to “flee to the mountains” and “depart out” and “not come in to [Jerusalem]” when they saw that it was surrounded by armies?  Normally, when an area is under attack, the safest place to take refuge is within the city walls, but this is not true of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  Jesus knew it, and He warned His listeners to enter His reign while there was still time, before the door would be shut to them.  Few people understood this.  Many did not.  This sheds new light on the meaning of what Jesus said to His disciples when they asked Him why He always taught in parables (here translated similes):

To you it hath been given to know the secrets of the reign of the heavens, and to these it hath not been given, for whoever hath, it shall be given to him, and he shall have overabundance, and whoever hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken from him. Because of this, in similes do I speak to them, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor understand, and fulfilled on them is the prophecy of Isaiah, that saith, With hearing ye shall hear, and ye shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see, and ye shall not perceive, for made gross was the heart of this people, and with the ears they heard heavily, and their eyes they did close, lest they might see with the eyes, and with the ears might hear, and with the heart understand, and turn back, and I might heal them. And happy are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear, for verily I say to you, that many prophets and righteous men did desire to see that which ye look on, and they did not see, and to hear that which ye hear, and they did not hear.

Before I close, I must admit that I do not yet have a complete understanding of some portions of the scriptural texts to which I refer.  Undoubtedly, blog readers will comment or email me concerning apocalyptic language and parables and the like, which is fine, but I’d like to preemptively offer that many prophetic passages in scripture are fulfilled in a progressive, layered manner.  The more I learn and understand, the less tightly I hold to my former futuristic view of many scriptures.  I do not condemn those who hold to the rapture-seven-years-antichrist-one-world-government type of teachings, and although I have increasing doubts regarding such things, I do recognize my own ignorance.  For all I know, they could be right.  Regardless, I feel very confident that the things I have written in this blog are also accurate.

I also want to add that just because there was a first century fulfillment of the few and many and narrow gate and wide path, this does not mean that these scriptures are no longer applicable. Just to give one example, the many – do works “in the name” of Jesus Christ, yet those who rejected Christ and suffered destruction in Jerusalem probably did not claim the name of Christ for their actions.  This is definitely food for thought.

Matthew and Luke retell Jesus’s stories and teachings from different angles.  When I say different, I don’t mean that one is right and other is wrong.  They compliment each other, and lend support to the idea that the warnings Jesus gave to His immediate audience should also be taken seriously by modern-day hearers of His words, especially those who claim to be disciples of the Good Shepherd.  The larger context of His words should not be dismissed just because the immediate context of His words have already played out in history.

Matthew presents Jesus’s words in such a way that should make the religious leaders of today’s institutional church shudder.  Perhaps they were actually included among Jesus’s intended audience.  After all, Jesus knew His words would be recorded and read in future generations, didn’t He?  Jesus knew that people would seek to validate and legitimize their actions by doing them “in His name”.  Jesus knew that His name would be abused by those who want positions of honor and power as wolves among sheep.  Not everyone comes to Jesus in this age.  Not everyone who comes to Him hears Him.  And not everyone who hears Him enters into the life He gives, a perfect, righteous life that results in the hearer actually being willing and able to do the will of God.  The “leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees” is still working its way through the dough of humanity.  However, the kingdom of God or reign of God is “like leaven, which a woman, having taken, did hide in three measures of meal, till that all was leavened.”  The three measures (who I suspect are the believers who are overcomers, the believers who are not overcomers, and the unbelievers) will all be leavened, that is, subjected to His will, which is the only will that results in life – abundant life.

*Note 1: It is interesting that the concept of eternal torment in Hell as “just” punishment makes the practices of the Scribes and Pharisees look absolutely righteous.  In fact, if a Pharisee were to beat a Gentile to death for telling a lie, then he would be more merciful than the god-of-eternal-torment, because at least he brings the punishment to an end.  What does this say about the eternal torment doctrine?  If this were true, then don’t you think that God takes “eye for an eye” to a new and utterly brutal level?

*Note 2: It is interesting that if Martin Luther King Jr. were to have taught his followers to behave like the god-of-eternal-torment, then American history would be much bloodier than it already is.  Is Martin Luther King Jr. better at following the will of God than God Himself?  Why is Martin Luther King Jr. praised for responding to hate with love?  Because it is the right thing to do – what Jesus taught.  If Jesus said, “My message is not my own; it comes from God who sent me,” then doesn’t this mean that God has a loving way to deal with hate?  What does this tell you about the doctrine of eternal torment?

Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions – and the people who do them – from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people?  Keeping the gates, in essence, open?  Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will there be those who cling to their version of their story, insisting on their right to be their own little god ruling their own little miserable kingdom? – Rob Bell, Love Wins p.115, regarding Revelation 21:25

It is important to remember the nature of the book of Revelation, categorized as “apocalyptic literature” by theologians, writings that are easily misinterpreted because of the heavy symbolic content.  I highly recommend that one not allow a concept that is firmly established elsewhere in scripture to be refuted depending solely on Revelation, just as an idea refuted throughout scripture should not be established based only on Revelation.  It is interesting, though, to pull nuggets of universal truth from the book, that is, truth that has a wider application than a single, specific time or geographical location, and to speculate about the meaning of some of the symbolism.  But we should remember, it is easy for one to see what he or she wants to see in the book (and I’m no exception) instead of seeing what the angel would have John and the church in seven cities to see, and it is also important to be aware of variation (and corruption) that took place in manuscript transmission.  I’ve written a few blogs on Revelation, and guest blogger Mary Vanderplas wrote a blog on chapter 8, if you would like to read more about Revelation: Revelation 1-2, Revelation 3, Audio/Visual Revelation, Like a Stone, Despite My Amazing Ignorance, He’s Called “God with Us” for a Reason, and Revelation 8 (Guest Blogger: Mary Vanderplas).

One regular blog reader and in-depth commenter, a fundamental and very zealous believer name Lanny, reminds me (continually), “Revelation ends with a populated Lake of Fire and not an empty dissolved one”, implying that those who have been relegated to that place or condition will eternally continue in that position, regardless of open gates.  Obviously, both Lanny and Bell can’t both be correct.  So who is right, and who is wrong?  Perhaps the better questions are, “Who is God, and what does God do?”  I hope to answer the open gate question by appealing to the character and sovereign intentions of God.

What is the lake of fire?  What is the purpose of the lake of fire?  Who is cast into the lake of fire?  Is there any hope for those who go to the lake of fire?

In Francis Chan’s book, Erasing Hell, in response to Bell’s commentary about the “open gates” in Revelation, Chan says that he would “love to believe” the open-gate theory, but can’t for three reasons.  Chan writes,

First, Revelation 20 and 21 have already described the “lake of fire” as the final destiny of those who don’t follow Jesus in this life.  There’s nothing in Revelation that suggests there’s hope on the other side of the lake. Second, there’s nothing in the text that says the lake of fire is intended to purify the wicked.  [...]  And third, even after the open-gates passage of 21:24-26, John goes on to depict two different destinies for believers and unbelievers.

Let’s have a look at the open-gate passage apart from the context:

The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it.

I would like to address in depth each of Chan’s three points.  Today, I’ll begin with his first point:

First, Revelation 20 and 21 have already described the “lake of fire” as the final destiny of those who don’t follow Jesus in this life.  There’s nothing in Revelation that suggests there’s hope on the other side of the lake.

Notice that Chan’s description of the lake of fire is based on Revelation 20 and 21.  In order to see where he is getting his information, let’s read any scriptures pertaining to the lake of fire or “final destiny” of those who don’t follow Jesus in this life in those chapters (or you can click the link to read them in their entirety):

Happy and holy [is] he who is having part in the first rising again; over these the second death hath not authority, but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years [...] and the Devil, who is leading [the nations] astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night – to the ages of the ages.  And I saw a great white throne, and Him who is sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven did flee away, and place was not found for them; and I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is that of the life, and the dead were judged out of the things written in the scrolls – according to their works; and the sea did give up those dead in it, and the death and the hades did give up the dead in them, and they were judged, each one according to their works; and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire – this [is] the second death; and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire.

[...] And He who is sitting upon the throne said, “Lo, new I make all things”; and He saith to me, “Write, because these words are true and stedfast”; and He said to me, “It hath been done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End; I, to him who is thirsting, will give of the fountain of the water of the life freely; he who is overcoming shall inherit all things, and I will be to him – a God, and he shall be to me – the son, and to fearful, and unstedfast, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all the liars, their part [is] in the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death.” And there came unto me one of the seven messengers [...] and did shew to me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, [...] and the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they may shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp of it [is] the Lamb; and the nations of the saved in its light shall walk, and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it, and its gates shall not at all be shut by day, for night shall not be there; and they shall bring the glory and the honour of the nations into it; and there may not at all enter into it any thing defiling and doing abomination, and a lie, but – those written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb.

So, is Chan accurately describing the lake of fire when he writes that it is “the final destiny of those who don’t follow Jesus in this life”?  In seeking to answer this question, the first item of interest is to examine the text for anything that indicates the “final” part of “final destiny”.  I’m assuming that the reason Chan sees “final” in the text, is because he reads the typical English translation and uses the concordances and lexicons specially designed to agree with said translations.  There he finds the description of the duration of the lake of fire, “for ever and ever”.

It is really a very simple matter, to discover whether the words should be translated as they literally appeared in the oldest manuscripts of the Greek language, “to the ages of the ages”, or whether they should be translated according to what today’s experts have decided regarding the 2000 year old language, “for ever and ever”.  We don’t need to consult so-called experts.  We don’t even need to compare it to other scriptures where the same words are used.  Normal people without theological degrees can see and understand what I am about to explain.  The Greek words to which Chan and I refer are “tous aiõnas ton aiõnon“, and no one will argue that the contested words are plural.  If you look at the English translation, you can see for yourself that “ever” is not translated as plural in either instance. I can’t say I blame the translators for leaving it singular in English even though it is plural in the Greek; after all, how ridiculous does it sound to say “for evers and evers” or “for eternities and eternities”?  Furthermore, the word “and” doesn’t even appear in the Greek phrase.  As if all of this finagling were not questionable enough, notice that the English translation does not take into account the Greek prepositions, our English “to” and “of”.  If we include those prepositions in the English translation (as we ought to) then it sounds even more ridiculous – “to evers of evers” or “to eternities of eternities”.  I can see the translator now, looking over his Latin Vulgate  and the long history of the doctrine of eternal torment, scratching his head and thinking, something isn’t quite right.  I think I’ll leave it singular, drop the words “to” and “of” and add an “and”.  There!  That’s much better.  He pats himself on the back for faithfully rendering John’s writings, even though he’s inadvertently participated in that group warned later in Revelation,

For I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecy of this scroll, if any one may add unto these, God shall add to him the plagues that have been written in this scroll, and if any one may take away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the scroll of the life, and out of the holy city, and the things that have been written in this scroll.

If we use common sense and consider the chronological nature of time, we know that one age (a period of time with a beginning and an end) ends and another begins.  This is not absurd at all.  But what kind of sense can we make of one eternity ending and another beginning?  Wouldn’t that negate the idea of eternity if it ends (or if it begins)?  What kind of sense can we make of there being more than one eternity?  If John intends to communicate the concept of “forever” in Revelation 20, he weakens his case by using the word more than once and using it in plural form.  Why would he weaken the point he is trying to make?  It seems like a pretty important point to me.  Was he a lousy writer, who didn’t know how to employ his own language?  *An interesting side note – the words ”tous aiõnas ton aiõnon” are not applied to unbelievers or anyone other than “the Devil”, “the beast and the false prophet”.

I suppose that some readers have the words “infallible Word of God” ringing in their brains at this point.  I remember thinking the same thing, myself, for many years, as if my heart were made of clay tablets, as if God could be contained in a book.  I’m reminded of a time when a friend spoke with my husband, Tim, and me about the infallibility thing, in response to our claim that certain key words in scripture have been consistently mistranslated since the days of the Latin translation and the influence of Emperor Justinian.  He told us that we were wrong, that the scriptures had been miraculously and perfectly preserved.  He then proceeded to preach a message to the church congregation in which he explained how a certain word could have been translated more accurately.  As Tim and I looked at one another in disbelief, we could not help but wonder if he was noticing how his own words were coming back to bite him, how he was contradicting himself and his firmly held beliefs just minutes after our conversation.

The truth is, the Word of God is infallible, so long as we have correctly defined the “Word of God” as Jesus Christ, the Logos.  Jesus said, regarding scripture,

And the Father who sent me Himself hath testified concerning me; ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor His appearance have ye seen; and His word ye have not remaining in you, because whom He sent, him ye do not believe.  Ye search the writings, because ye think in them to have life age-during, and these are they that are testifying concerning me; and ye do not will to come unto me, that ye may have life; glory from man I do not receive but I have known you, that the love of God ye have not in yourselves. I have come in the name of my Father, and ye do not receive me; if another may come in his own name, him ye will receive; how are ye able – ye – to believe, glory from one another receiving, and the glory that [is] from God alone ye seek not?  Do not think that I will accuse you unto the Father; there is who is accusing you, Moses – in whom ye have hoped; for if ye were believing Moses, ye would have been believing me, for he wrote concerning me; but if his writings ye believe not, how shall ye believe my sayings?

Remember, Jesus was talking to a group of people who knew the writings forward and backward.  They had whole books memorized.  They were the well-respected religious people who did everything “right” according to the law of Moses, the ancient equivalent to modern day church elders, deacons, pastors, and theologians who are approved of and accepted as “orthodox” Christians.  But we hear Jesus saying that the words and pages are no guarantee that people will “get it”.  We could fuss with each other all day long about translation and totally miss the point.  Who is God?  What does God do?  How has He revealed Himself to humanity in the person of Jesus Christ? – as One Who throws in the towel once the death-buzzer rings? as One Whose mercy fails? – as One Who fails in His Mission to seek and save the lost? – as One Who created billions of people, knowing ahead of time that they were doomed to torment in Hell forever?  Do we receive the life that Jesus gives because we read a book, or because by the grace of God the book is reading us?  Is there any chance that the manner in which we want to interpret the book is, in itself, an indication of the desires, intentions, and depravity of our hearts?  Who God is and what God does – these ideas are as important as the actual words on the page.  These are the concepts that should guide our understanding of the ink and paper.

So, is Chan accurate when he writes that “there’s nothing in Revelation that suggests there’s hope on the other side of the lake”?  Let’s return to the same long quote from Revelation that I used earlier and see if there is any hope there:

Happy and holy [is] he who is having part in the first rising again; over these the second death hath not authority, but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years [...] and the Devil, who is leading [the nations] astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night - to the ages of the ages.  And I saw a great white throne, and Him who is sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven did flee away, and place was not found for them; and I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is that of the life, and the dead were judged out of the things written in the scrolls – according to their works; and the sea did give up those dead in it, and the death and the hades did give up the dead in them, and they were judged, each one according to their works; and the death and the hades were cast to the lake of the fire – this [is] the second death; and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, he was cast to the lake of the fire.

[...] And He who is sitting upon the throne said, “Lo, new I make all things“; and He saith to me, “Write, because these words are true and stedfast”; and He said to me, “It hath been done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End; I, to him who is thirsting, will give of the fountain of the water of the life freely; he who is overcoming shall inherit all things, and I will be to him – a God, and he shall be to me – the son, and to fearful, and unstedfast, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all the liars, their part [is] in the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death.” And there came unto me one of the seven messengers [...] and did shew to me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, [...] and the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they may shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp of it [is] the Lamb; and the nations of the saved in its light shall walk, and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it, and its gates shall not at all be shut by day, for night shall not be there; and they shall bring the glory and the honour of the nations into it; and there may not at all enter into it any thing defiling and doing abomination, and a lie, but – those written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb.

First, notice the phrase “to the ages of the ages” indicates that the time in the lake of fire is measured or limited.  This is not overtly hopeful, but it is inherently hopeful.  If I said to you, “You will go to jail forever”, then there is not any hope of getting out of jail, since your time there is not measured or limited in any way.  But, if I said to you, “You will go to jail for a very long time”, then there would be hope of getting out of jail, even if you were in jail for a billion years.  Your time there is measured or limited in duration.  The first idea is hopeless; the second idea inherently implies hope.

Second, what does He who is sitting upon the throne (in other words, in control of everything) mean when He says, “Lo, new I make all things”?  Does He mean, “new I make all things except those things in the lake of fire”?  Well, that’s not what it says.  The word “all” is not limited in that way.  The skeptic may object that this couldn’t possibly include those things in the lake of fire, because the lake of fire is called the “second death”.  This is a reasonable objection, and I will address it in the next blog in which I address Chan’s second point regarding the nature of the lake of fire.  For now, let’s look at the wonderful description given to us of what “new I make all things” entails.

In the group named “all things”, there are several sub-groups and consequences:

1. If you are in the group called “him who is thirsting” you freely get “the fountain of the water of life”.

2. If you are in the group called “he who is overcoming” you inherit “all things”.

3. If you are in the group called “fearful” you get “the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death”.

4. If you are the group called “unsteadfast” you get “the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death”.

5. If you are in the group called “abominable” you get “the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death”.

6. If you are in the group called “murderers” you get “the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death”.

7. If you are in the group called “whoremongers” you get “the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death”.

8. If you are in the group called “sorcerers” you get “the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death”.

9. If you are in the group called “idolaters” you get “the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death”.

10. If you are in the group called “liars” you get “the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death”.

I apologize if it seems that I am being unnecessarily repetitive, but there is good reason for it.  I want for readers to recognize the pattern.  First, they are grouped according to behaviors and attitudes, then there is the response to those behaviors and attitudes from “He who is sitting upon the throne”.  If you do this, you get that.

At this point, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the basis for the great white throne judgment is “according to their works”.  We know that salvation is not earned by works, so this judgment cannot be about whether people are “saved” or “not saved”.  This is about behavior.  I also would like to highlight the fact that there are people, either AFTER or DURING the great white throne judgment, depending on whether you think the judgment ends at “new I make all things” or if it continues as part of “new I make all things”, who are being given the water of life, who are overcoming, and who are inheriting.  Most of orthodox Christianity believes that the first resurrection is for believers, and the second resurrection is for unbelievers.  If this is true, then the judgment of the dead does not include believers.  So how is it, if people who do not believe before they die have no hope, that some of these “dead” (see groups one and two) are treated differently than others?  Don’t they all just go to eternal torment in Hell forever?  Well, that is what I was taught, anyway.

AFTER groups 8 through 10 are cast into the lake of fire, the messenger brings John to the new Jerusalem where the “the gates shall not at all be shut”.  I have been told that the reason the gates are not shut is that all of the unbelievers are trapped in the lake of fire forever, and that this is why the text says, “there may not at all enter into it any thing defiling and doing abomination, and a lie.”  The reason they may not enter, some claim, is that they are stuck in the lake of fire.  Even if they were permitted to enter, they would not be able to enter because there is no escape from the lake of fire.  This is an interesting and seemingly valid explanation, but it does carry with it a HUGE problem.  The problem is that if this is the accurate way to understand this passage, then we are also forced to concede that sin continues forever.  Why is this?  Because the sin-behavior that causes the consequence “may not at all enter” continues, supposedly forever!  Can this be true?  Does sin continue to reign outside the new Jerusalem?  Does the devil’s work continue as if God is unable or unwilling to put an end to it?

This is an important question: If sin continues eternally, is God sovereign?

After all, “[Jesus] appeared so that he might take away our sins. [...] The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work” (1 Jn 3:5,8).  If there are those who eternally exist in a state of active sin, can we say that Jesus was successful in His mission to “take away” sin?

If the reason Jesus came was to “destroy the devil’s work”, yet the devil’s work continues forever, can we say that Jesus was successful in His mission to destroy the devil’s work?

“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death – that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14).  But if the people outside the gates in the lake of fire continuing in sin forever are under the power of the second death, wouldn’t it be more accurate according to the orthodox interpretation of Revelation to say that the Jesus was unable or unwilling to destroy him who holds the power of death?

Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed” (Lk 4:18).  How might we describe these people outside the gates?  As poor (lacking in the riches of His glory and the benefits of the new Jerusalem, without an inheritance, etc)?  As prisoners (of the lake of fire)?  As blind and oppressed (slaves to sin and darkness)?

Here’s the way I see it.  Since God is sovereign, and Jesus accomplished His mission through His death and resurrection, there is no way that sin continues forever.  So if there is a contradiction here, it isn’t because John has given us misinformation, it is because the traditions of men have blinded us from understanding what is really happening, blinded us by way of careless translation and interpretation.  What the text actually says is that He makes all things new.  If we see this as a process instead of an instant “white throne judgment”-case-closed-end-of-story, then the contradiction disappears.  If we believe that He actually makes ALL things new, then we can interpret this passage accordingly.  In other words, the gates remain open because at some point, people STOP engaging in the behavior that prevents them from entering in.  This concept is in complete agreement with the final chapter of Revelation as well, a chapter that I will blog about if I ever get through all these Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell blogs and the other Revelation chapter blogs!

Next blog in this series: Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: English vs Greek

I have a confession to make.  When it comes to profile pics, I don’t just randomly pick a photo, I look through all my recent photos and choose the best one, or better yet, I take twenty-five pictures knowing that one of them is bound to look better than the others.  The process is called “cherry picking” – selectively choosing the best from what is available.  It is a common practice that may or may not be morally sound, depending on the situation.  And it has a lot to do with inductive versus deductive logic.  What is the difference between inductive logic and deductive logic?  Glad you asked.

Induction:

A process of reasoning that moves from specific instances to predict general principles.

Deduction:

A process of reasoning that moves from the general to the specific.

Suppose you are given a basket of cherries, and they all look perfect.  You might assume that most of the cherries in the orchard look like the ones in the basket.  Or it could go the other way around.  You could be given a basket of small, misshapen, discolored cherries and you might assume they came from a diseased or neglected orchard.  The truth is that the person who picks the cherries can create an image of the orchard based on selection.  And what does all of this have to do with induction or deduction?  It is the way your mind works as you hold the basket of cherries and consider the orchard.  Maybe your opinion of the orchard is based on inductive logic.  If this is the case, then you will go through a process of reasoning in which you base your opinion of the entire orchard (general principles) on one hand picked basket (specific instances).  This is NOT an intelligent way to make sense of the world.  In contrast, you may base your opinion of the orchard on deductive logic.  If this is the case, then your process of reasoning about the orchard will not begin when you are handed a basket, because you won’t be willing to form an opinion about the orchard until you have examined, individually, most or all of the cherry trees for yourself.

In the orchard of theology, it is best to examine every tree.  In Francis Chan’s book, Erasing Hell, he advises readers regarding 1 Corinthians 15:22 and similar scriptures,

You’ve got to figure out from the context what “all” means.

I agree with Chan’s statement, that the context of “all” determines just how far “all” extends.  For example, in the previous blog, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: The Anathema of Scrutiny, I wrote,

My Spanish 1 instructor, Professor Farcau, assigned each student in her class a number and informed the students, “In la clase de Spanish 1, all will give an oral presentation.”  Then, she said, “All who have been assigned numbers one through twenty will present on Monday.”  The students assigned numbers twenty-one and up did not assume that they were exempt from giving an oral presentation, because they had already been told that everyone would give a presentation.  They knew that they would give their oral presentations in a class period other than Monday.

How ridiculous would it be if I thought that when my instructor said “all”, she meant that every human being, from Adam to present day, would be required to give an oral presentation in my UCF Spanish 1 class?  Obviously, the context of her statement tells me to what extent “all” goes, that is, it applies only to the students in Spanish 1.

The problem with Chan’s advice, is that he does not apply it, at least, not in the section of the book to which it refers.  Chan lists four passages of scripture regarding Christian Universalism that he calls “The Big Ones” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Colossians 1:19-20, 1 Timothy 2:4). Rather than examining each of these scriptures (reasoning from deduction), Chan cherry picks some misleading information on only two of them, and then ignores the other two, instead referencing a basket full of cherries from an entirely different orchard, cherries that are similar to my Spanish 1 class example, where the extent of “all” is limited by the context.  He concludes,

So “all” doesn’t always mean everything or everyone.  And the same goes for 1 Corinthians 15:22, as is clear from the context.  The “all” who will be made alive in Christ refers to believers of all types, not every single person.

While it is true that “all” does not always mean everything or everyone, it is also true that “all” is not always limited to “all types” or some other subset.  Chan draws attention to the truth that suits his argument, while he draws attention away from the other truth that is just as valid.  Proving that “all” is sometimes limited to all types in no way negates the fact that “all” is in fact used many times throughout scripture to mean everything or everyone.  For example,

[...] for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God [...] Romans 3:23

And we are as unclean - all of us, and as a garment passing away, all our righteous acts; and we fade as a leaf - all of us. Isaiah 64:5-6

Thou [art] He, O Jehovah, Thyself — Thou hast made the heavens, the heavens of the heavens, and all their host, the earth andall that [are] on it, the seas and all that [are] in them, and Thou art keeping all of them alive [...] Nehemiah 9:5-6

All of us like sheep have wandered, each to his own way we have turned, and Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, the punishment of us all.  Isaiah 53:6

Righteous [is] Jehovah in all His ways, And kind in all His works. Psalm 145:17

Let’s have a look at Chan’s “The Big Ones”:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.  1 Corinthians 15:22

[...] that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.  2 Corinthians 5:19

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:19-20

[God, our Savior] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:4

The context of “all” 1 Corinthians 15:22, is specifically stated, that is, the people group in Adam.  It is a compound sentence which begins with the word “as”, indicating that the first thought cannot stand alone.  The Greek word for “as” is,

5618 hṓsper (an emphatic adverb, derived from 4007 /per, “indeed” intensifying 5613 /hōs, “as”) – “indeed just as,” “just exactly like.”

If all that Paul wrote was “As in Adam all die”, readers would look for what comes next, and if the “next” were not there, readers would wonder why Paul began a thought and didn’t conclude it.  They would ask, “Just exactly like what?”  The context demands that we continue reading in order to understand the point.  It is very similar to the “if/then” sentence structure in logic.  If this happens, then that happens.   The first part of the compound sentence is connected to the second part with the word “so”.  In Greek, the word “so” is,

3779 hoútō (an adverb, derived from the demonstrative pronoun, 3778 /hoútos, “this”) – like this . . .; in this manner, in this way (fashion), in accordance with this description (i.e. corresponding to what follows); in keeping withalong this linein the manner spoken.

If we use common sense to put it all together, we see this:

Indeed, just as, just exactly like “In Adam all die”, like this, in this manner, in this way, in accordance with this description, in keeping with, along this line, in the manner spoken, “In Christ all will be made alive.”

Let’s pretend that Paul wants to write about “all”, but he sees that there is an exception.  Do you think he will take the time to specify the exception?  Yes, he will.  In fact, he does, so we don’t need to pretend at all.  Paul writes,

[...] for all things he did put under his feet, and, when one may say that all things have been subjected, [it is] evident that he is excepted who did subject the all things to him, and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.  1 Corinthians 15:27-28

Here, Paul first states “for all things [Jesus] did put under his feet”.  Some people may point out that if Jesus is included in the category of “all things”, then does this mean that Jesus is subjecting himself to himself?  That’s very strange.  So Paul clarifies that there is an exception to the group named “all things” and writes, “when one may say that all things have been subjected, [it is] evident that he is excepted who did subject the all things to him”.  Why would Paul take the time to be so specific and clear about this, a case in which there is a single exception to “all”, but not also take the time to be specific and clear about a case in which there are literally millions of exceptions?

If eternal torment in Hell is true, and the majority of mankind is headed there, why would Paul be so careless as to make the misleading statement, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” without being specific and clear about the billions of exceptions?  Think about it.  Shouldn’t Paul, in order to be consistent, have written, For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive, and when one may say that all will be made alive, [it is] evident that all who do not have faith before death are excepted who will be made alive?

The reasonable response is not to write Paul off as some kind of irresponsible fruitcake but to conclude that Paul says exactly what he means to say, even if orthodox churchianity pitches a fit about it.

This isn’t the only time that Paul communicates the idea that all people will be made alive.  Many of Paul’s writings contain a universalist perspective.  Here’s another example of the Adam/Jesus parallel,

[...] just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.  The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more [...] Romans 5:18-20

Moving right along, now, the context of 2 Corinthians 5:19 in which God is reconciling “the world” to himself,  demonstrates the broad implications of “the world”:

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.  So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

The skeptic might object, “Aha!  It says ‘anyone in Christ’!  That means the ‘all’ doesn’t apply to unbelievers!”

To this I would reply, “Not so fast.”

Notice first that “one died for all”.  Most believers would take this to mean that Jesus died for the world, for everyone.  Then Paul (and possibly Timothy) writes about a subgroup of the “all”, that is, “those who live”.  What does this mean?  It can’t mean “live” in the physical sense, as in respiration and pulse, because the not-yet-believers during this time also have a respiration and pulse.  So, “live” must be about the life that transcends physical existence, the life to which Jesus refers in His intercessory prayer, “[...] and this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send [...]“, the life which begins in the faith of Jesus Christ.  Paul reminds the believers that it hasn’t always been this way, that there was a time when they were not yet “a new creation” because they “once regarded Christ [...] from a worldly point of view”.  He states plainly that this subgroup has been “reconciled” through Christ for a purpose.  What is that purpose?  Paul calls it the “ministry of reconciliation”, and they have been given a message to communicate with the world, those who are not in the subgroup, the rest of the “all” for whom Jesus died.  What is the message?  Reconciliation!  Not counting people’s sins against them!

So, Christ did, in fact, die for all – for the whole world, not just a select few, and this is the same “world” that is being reconciled to God through Christ.

This begs the question, was the death of Christ effective?  Did Jesus accomplish His mission?  That’s another blog for another day.  The point here is that Chan would have us to believe that when Paul writes “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” that Paul really means a small percentage of ”the world”.  The non-cherry-picking context indicates otherwise.

I really won’t need to spend much time on Colossians 1:19-20, for obvious reasons.  When Chan suggests looking at the context, I have to wonder how he could have missed this.  ”For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”  Here, we see “all things” qualified for us, that is, “whether things on earth or things in heaven”.  This is such a loaded verse!  I will return to this in another blog.  For now, unbiased readers can see that the extent of this “all” is as broad and inclusive as the Greek language will allow it to be.

Finally, 1 Timothy 2:4 states, “[God, our Savior] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”  Chan formulates an argument based on what it means to say that God “wants” something.  I will address this concept in another blog and, for now, concentrate on the “all” argument Chan makes.  The context of 1 Timothy 2:4, does, as Chan asserts, refer to all types of people.  But the context is specific that the PRAYER should be offered up for all types of people.  We should pray for all people, not just the ones we happen to like.  However, we must ask, does God want all types of people to be saved, or just some types of people?  Does this passage exclude people or does it include people?  Does our PRAYING for specific people groups negate the idea that God wants all people to be saved?  Chan admits,

It’s probably the case that Paul wants Timothy to pray for all types of people because God is on a mission to save all types of people.

If God is on a mission to save all types of people, does this mean that some types of people will NOT be saved?  Again, does naming a few particular subsets of the whole, such as the subset called “people in authority”, exclude the remainder of the “all”?  Let’s look at the reason Paul gives for praying for “all” men:

I exhort, then, first of all, there be made supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, for all men: for kings, and all who are in authority, that a quiet and peaceable life we may lead in all piety and gravity, for this [is] right and acceptable before God our Saviour, who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth; for one [is] God, one also [is] mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, who did give himself a ransom for all – the testimony in its own times.

Notice it does not say that God wants all “types” of people to be saved, nor does it say Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all “types” of people.  This is Chan’s idea.  One simple way to settle the dispute between Chan’s orthodox view and my unorthodox view is to ask one simple question.

Did Jesus give Himself as a ransom for all people or just all types of people?  More specifically, did Jesus give Himself as a ransom ONLY for those who believe before they die, or did He give Himself as a ransom for everyone?  If we are to take Chan’s argument seriously, we will have to say that Jesus died ONLY for those who believe.  The implications are huge.  We’ve all heard evangelists preach, “Jesus died for you.”  If Chan is right, then evangelists need to stop giving people false hope.  They should preach, “Jesus died for SOME of you.”  Do you think Chan would be willing to adjust his evangelistic message in this way?  If he really believes what he writes, then he ought to do so.  And if he is unwilling to do so, then we ought to wonder why.  Perhaps when he looks people in the eye, the fear of God gets ahold of him, and the Spirit of God enables him to preach the truth, “Jesus died for everyone”, despite his beliefs.

 

Next blog in this series: Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Now or Never