- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
“For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:36)
Did God create us out of nothing, or did He create us out of Himself? The answer to this question is important since it greatly affects our sense of worth and answers the question as to our ultimate destiny.
The following is an excerpt from the book, The Triumph of Mercy.
How did we come into existence? Were we created out of nothing, or out of God? Since Augustine, traditional Christianity has argued for a creation by God ex nihilo or “out of nothing.” For many years, that reasoning was acceptable to me, since I believe in a special six day creation as related in Genesis. And as opposed to evolution from the ex magnus crepitus (big bang), it seemed the most logical option of the two.
It is more logical to believe that the eternal God, “the Uncaused Cause,” created everything out of nothing than to believe that nothing caused everything, as the atheistic evolutionists do. Intelligent design and beauty are better explained by the existence of the Intelligent and Loving Designer than to argue that nothing somehow exploded in a “big bang,” producing the astronomically complex and precise order and the glorious creative beauty all around us.
However, upon discovering God’s marvelous plan for the ages from the creation to the consummation, I realized that God’s creation is much more personal and intimate than can be adequately expressed by the Latin term ex nihilo. If creation was from nothing, then that raises another question: Where does nothing come from if God is omnipresent and there is nowhere that God isn’t? Does nothing come out of nowhere? But if God is everywhere, then there is no nowhere for nothing to have come from. As creationists, we insist that there must be a Creator – a self-existent uncaused first cause, who is the source of all things. To the atheistic evolutionist we respond: ex nihilo nihil fit, “out of nothing, nothing comes.” They say we were formed out of a primitive mass. If that were so, then we would be back where we started: Where did the mass originate - from nothing or from God? If everything is the result of a “big bang,” what exploded?
Nevertheless, we as creationists should realize that the saying “out of nothing, nothing comes” also rules out the belief in creation ex nihilo. Since it is true that “out of nothing, nothing comes,” then we must have come out of God as to source, just as the Scriptures declare. Some Christians would argue that nothing refers to the invisible world and that out of nothing means to make something invisible appear, much like a rabbit out of a hat. In support of this idea, they cite Hebrews:
“By faith we understand that the worlds (αἰῶνας) were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” (Heb 11:3)
However, the word translated “worlds” here is αἰῶνας in the Greek which means eons. Eons are, by their very nature invisible; a measure of time, and ages or eons are only visible in the sense that time-markers, such as the stars, the sun and the moon used to measure them are visible. The invisible realities such as the eons, sound waves, spirits, etc., are just as much a part of creation as that which we can see. In reality, according to science, the objects that are visible and tangible to us are nothing more than different concentrations of invisible energy contained in atoms. The invisible world was created along with the visible tangible world which can be seen by us. However, the eons or ages, although invisible, are not nothing. It is incorrect to say that nothing refers to the invisible, because the invisible world is also a part of the creation of God, as we see in Colossians:
“For by (ἐν “in”) Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” (Col 1:16)
God Himself is Spirit and therefore is also invisible to us. Therefore, invisibility cannot be synonymous with nothingness.
While philosophers and theologians go in unending circles of reasoning concerning our origins, I believe that the Bible is simple, clear and at the same time profound in its revelation concerning our origins:
“Now all things are of God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ), who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation.” (2Cor 5:18) [i]
This text tells us that all are “ex Deo” or “out of God” (Gr. ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ). It further states that, as firstfruits of the New Creation (v.17), we who have already been reconciled to God have been given the ministry of reconciliation for the benefit of the rest of creation.
In all of God’s Book, the term ex nihilo or “out of nothing” never appears. What we do see clearly stated more than once is that all things are “ex Deo” or “out of God.” There is a world of difference between saying that we were created “by God out of nothing” and “by God and out of God Himself.” The first is impersonal and by nature independent of God. The second is very personal and implies a connectedness and dependence.
I remember a tale about a kind farmer who cared well for all of his farm animals, and they all loved him. When he fell on hard times the mother hen wanted to do something for him as an expression of love and gratitude. She got together with mister pig, who she knew was also very grateful to the kind farmer, to see what they could do for him. When mother hen suggested preparing a ham and egg breakfast for the farmer, mister pig replied: “That’s easy for you to say. For you it would just be a contribution but for me that would be a personal commitment.”
While the illustration falls short, it does demonstrate the difference in personal value placed upon something existing external to oneself as opposed to the value placed upon something which is actually a part of oneself. What would you be most likely to care for and maintain, your foot or the shoe you made for it? The answer should be obvious. We may throw away anything that we made out of nothing and for our own benefit like the shoe, for example. But we would do everything in our power, and even beyond, in order to save our foot because it is a part of us.
Traditionalists would have us think that we are something external to God, created out of nothing, only to serve His purposes. If He decides that we no longer serve His purposes well, it is no loss to Himself if He throws us into the fire, much as we would do with anything that is no longer useful to us.
That is why Annihilationists see no problem with God exterminating 90% of His creation. They would say ex nihilo ad nihilo, “from nothing to nothing.” Our word “annihilate” is from the same Latin words ad nihilo (to nothing). As we would say: “Easy come, easy go.” They would emphatically deny that the God of love is as detached from His creation as their belief in ex nihilo ad nihilo implies. However, in reality, according to their belief, human life as with the rest of creation, is just as disposable to God as an old shoe.
Having been raised under the annihilationist doctrine, I know first-hand the low sense of self-worth that that doctrine instills in an individual before God on a heart level. Though they present God as a God of love, I didn’t feel less hope or self-worth during my brief time as an atheist than I did as a child, believing in the annihilation of all but the strongest and the best.
When I had my saving encounter with God at 18 years of age, His love was shed abroad in my heart by the Holy Spirit. I didn’t know anything about theology; I just knew from the very depths of my being and without any room for doubt that God loved me and that I was valued by Him more than I could fathom. It wasn’t until I began studying theology that I began to have fears and doubts once again concerning His love for me and my worth in His eyes.
Within a few years’ time, without even realizing it, I went from the selective ex nihilo ad nihilo (from nothing to nothing) belief of the Annihilationists, to the absolute ex nihilo ad nihilo fatalism of the atheist, then finally entering into the infinite sea of God’s love, only to come out on the other side through the influence of the traditional fear-based doctrine of eternal punishment for the majority.
If it were not for my personal encounter with the love of God at 18 years of age which served as an anchor for my soul, I would have been worse off than when I still believed in the annihilation of the lost. At least at that time, when I felt low self-worth and feared rejection by God, I could console myself with the thought that I would be incinerated and eventually go out of existence. But once I was taught to believe that the unworthy “throw-aways” were burned in hell forever, the knowledge of the unconditional Love of God began to be challenged by a continuous tug-of-war conflict with the fear of an eternal hell.
All of us, if we are honest, experience failure and sin, and fall prey to the accuser of our souls. If we are not rooted and grounded in the love of God, we begin to struggle with low self-worth. That leads us to have fear and doubts concerning our standing with a god, whom we are told is unending love, but at the same time eternal hate and if we don’t die on good terms with him, he will hate us and burn us in the flames of hell forever and ever.
Little by little, I came out of the first-love encounter with the Lord where I felt safe in His love, into a dualistic traditional doctrine of God in which I went from saying: “He loves me!” to “He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He loves me not.” My sense of self-worth before God began to be based upon my performance rather than upon His unconditional love for me.
When I was in the Arminian church, I was told that God loved me unconditionally, but unless I persevered to the end, He would send me to an eternal hell. The Calvinists told me that if I was one of the elect, I didn’t need to worry. But if I didn’t persevere to the end, then that meant I was never elect in the first place. Both positions led to the same sense of insecurity. Calvinism is called “eternal security,” but in reality, neither position offers the hopeful sinner any real sense of security.
In my opinion, to say that we come out of nothing, ex nihilo, as do the traditionalists, tremendously devalues us as God’s creatures. It is an expression which inadvertently depersonalizes God’s creation, converting us into throw-away items like an old shoe. What we see presented in the Scriptures is that all things came out of God ex Deo, and since we came out of God, we also exist by Him, somewhat as our foot exists due to the fact that it is part of us. Even though man fell, and nature was subjected to vanity, all things still originated in Him, are sustained by Him and will eventually return to Him. What we discover in the Scriptures is not “ex nihilo et nihilo ad nihilo” (out of nothing, for nothing, into nothing) but rather the glorious truth: “ex Deo per Deo ad Deo” (out of God, through God and into God):
“For of (ἐκ) Him and through (διά) Him and to (εἰς) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:36)
In this passage alone, we can see God’s wonderful plan for all of His creation summed up. All that which had its beginning in Him is sustained by Him and will return to Him. There are no throw-aways in all of God’s creation. We are not objects ex nihilo to be thrown away as worthless trash, but rather, we have been created out of God Himself and are of infinite worth in His eyes. That is why He will ultimately restore all to Himself:
“Now all things are of God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ), who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation.” (2Cor 5:18)
Here we see that all creation originated in God, and although we fell, He has also reconciled us to Himself and given us, as His elect, the ministry of reconciliation for the rest of creation. In Colossians 1:15-19, we see that the reconciliation is of all creation, both visible and invisible. In Romans 8:18-23, we see that, in the time of the manifestation of the sons of God, all creation will be set free. There are no throw-aways, no eternal garbage dump. In eternity, all will have been reconciled and God will then be all in all.
The truth that we are created out of God rather than out of nothing, is not to be confused with pantheism which teaches that all is God. Although creation began in Christ (Gr. “ἐν αὐτῷ” Col 1:16), and came out of Him, it is nonetheless distinct from Him. The triune personal God eternally self-exists. In the beginning, before creation, God, being eternal, already was:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1)
“For by Him (lit. “in Him”) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” (Col 1:16,17)
God is eternal, without beginning. Creation, on the other hand, had a beginning. Yet it did not begin out of nothing ex nihilo, but rather out of God ex Deo. We are of God, much in the same way as Eve was out of Adam:
“For as woman came from (ἐκ) man, even so man also comes through (διὰ) woman; but all things are from (ἐκ) God.” (1Cor 11:12)
Having come out of Him, there is still distinction just as there is distinction between Adam and Eve, even though she came out of him. However, having come out of Adam they were one flesh. There is union in distinction, in the same way mankind came out of God, and while there will always be distinction of persons, all of us live and move and have our being in Him. Although many, as the men of Athens to whom Paul preached, are yet blinded to this reality because of sin, and alienated in their minds, we all live by Him. None of us are self-existent. We may be for a time spiritually separated from God, but it is impossible that there should be any ontological separation from Him because in Him all things consist:
“so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.” (Acts 17:27-29)
Paul is referring here to those who were at that time as yet unregenerate. Many of them even scoffed at him. Yet he included them in his declaration that each one of us; as His offspring, live and move and have our being in Him. While we are each individuals, we all came out of Him, exist by Him and shall also all return to Him. The end result is that He will be all in all.
[i] Our English word “things” does not have an equivalent in Greek. Neither does the neuter form in Greek always indicate objects as in English. When the translators insert “things” in contexts that are evidently referring primarily to persons and not inanimate objects I take the liberty to cross it out in order to keep the focus where it belongs.
“For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:36)
Did God create us out of nothing, or did He create us out of Himself? The answer to this question is important since it greatly affects our sense of worth and answers the question as to our ultimate destiny.
The following is an excerpt from the book, The Triumph of Mercy.
How did we come into existence? Were we created out of nothing, or out of God? Since Augustine, traditional Christianity has argued for a creation by God ex nihilo or “out of nothing.” For many years, that reasoning was acceptable to me, since I believe in a special six day creation as related in Genesis. And as opposed to evolution from the ex magnus crepitus (big bang), it seemed the most logical option of the two.
It is more logical to believe that the eternal God, “the Uncaused Cause,” created everything out of nothing than to believe that nothing caused everything, as the atheistic evolutionists do. Intelligent design and beauty are better explained by the existence of the Intelligent and Loving Designer than to argue that nothing somehow exploded in a “big bang,” producing the astronomically complex and precise order and the glorious creative beauty all around us.
However, upon discovering God’s marvelous plan for the ages from the creation to the consummation, I realized that God’s creation is much more personal and intimate than can be adequately expressed by the Latin term ex nihilo. If creation was from nothing, then that raises another question: Where does nothing come from if God is omnipresent and there is nowhere that God isn’t? Does nothing come out of nowhere? But if God is everywhere, then there is no nowhere for nothing to have come from. As creationists, we insist that there must be a Creator – a self-existent uncaused first cause, who is the source of all things. To the atheistic evolutionist we respond: ex nihilo nihil fit, “out of nothing, nothing comes.” They say we were formed out of a primitive mass. If that were so, then we would be back where we started: Where did the mass originate - from nothing or from God? If everything is the result of a “big bang,” what exploded?
Nevertheless, we as creationists should realize that the saying “out of nothing, nothing comes” also rules out the belief in creation ex nihilo. Since it is true that “out of nothing, nothing comes,” then we must have come out of God as to source, just as the Scriptures declare. Some Christians would argue that nothing refers to the invisible world and that out of nothing means to make something invisible appear, much like a rabbit out of a hat. In support of this idea, they cite Hebrews:
“By faith we understand that the worlds (αἰῶνας) were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” (Heb 11:3)
However, the word translated “worlds” here is αἰῶνας in the Greek which means eons. Eons are, by their very nature invisible; a measure of time, and ages or eons are only visible in the sense that time-markers, such as the stars, the sun and the moon used to measure them are visible. The invisible realities such as the eons, sound waves, spirits, etc., are just as much a part of creation as that which we can see. In reality, according to science, the objects that are visible and tangible to us are nothing more than different concentrations of invisible energy contained in atoms. The invisible world was created along with the visible tangible world which can be seen by us. However, the eons or ages, although invisible, are not nothing. It is incorrect to say that nothing refers to the invisible, because the invisible world is also a part of the creation of God, as we see in Colossians:
“For by (ἐν “in”) Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” (Col 1:16)
God Himself is Spirit and therefore is also invisible to us. Therefore, invisibility cannot be synonymous with nothingness.
While philosophers and theologians go in unending circles of reasoning concerning our origins, I believe that the Bible is simple, clear and at the same time profound in its revelation concerning our origins:
“Now all things are of God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ), who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation.” (2Cor 5:18) [i]
This text tells us that all are “ex Deo” or “out of God” (Gr. ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ). It further states that, as firstfruits of the New Creation (v.17), we who have already been reconciled to God have been given the ministry of reconciliation for the benefit of the rest of creation.
In all of God’s Book, the term ex nihilo or “out of nothing” never appears. What we do see clearly stated more than once is that all things are “ex Deo” or “out of God.” There is a world of difference between saying that we were created “by God out of nothing” and “by God and out of God Himself.” The first is impersonal and by nature independent of God. The second is very personal and implies a connectedness and dependence.
I remember a tale about a kind farmer who cared well for all of his farm animals, and they all loved him. When he fell on hard times the mother hen wanted to do something for him as an expression of love and gratitude. She got together with mister pig, who she knew was also very grateful to the kind farmer, to see what they could do for him. When mother hen suggested preparing a ham and egg breakfast for the farmer, mister pig replied: “That’s easy for you to say. For you it would just be a contribution but for me that would be a personal commitment.”
While the illustration falls short, it does demonstrate the difference in personal value placed upon something existing external to oneself as opposed to the value placed upon something which is actually a part of oneself. What would you be most likely to care for and maintain, your foot or the shoe you made for it? The answer should be obvious. We may throw away anything that we made out of nothing and for our own benefit like the shoe, for example. But we would do everything in our power, and even beyond, in order to save our foot because it is a part of us.
Traditionalists would have us think that we are something external to God, created out of nothing, only to serve His purposes. If He decides that we no longer serve His purposes well, it is no loss to Himself if He throws us into the fire, much as we would do with anything that is no longer useful to us.
That is why Annihilationists see no problem with God exterminating 90% of His creation. They would say ex nihilo ad nihilo, “from nothing to nothing.” Our word “annihilate” is from the same Latin words ad nihilo (to nothing). As we would say: “Easy come, easy go.” They would emphatically deny that the God of love is as detached from His creation as their belief in ex nihilo ad nihilo implies. However, in reality, according to their belief, human life as with the rest of creation, is just as disposable to God as an old shoe.
Having been raised under the annihilationist doctrine, I know first-hand the low sense of self-worth that that doctrine instills in an individual before God on a heart level. Though they present God as a God of love, I didn’t feel less hope or self-worth during my brief time as an atheist than I did as a child, believing in the annihilation of all but the strongest and the best.
When I had my saving encounter with God at 18 years of age, His love was shed abroad in my heart by the Holy Spirit. I didn’t know anything about theology; I just knew from the very depths of my being and without any room for doubt that God loved me and that I was valued by Him more than I could fathom. It wasn’t until I began studying theology that I began to have fears and doubts once again concerning His love for me and my worth in His eyes.
Within a few years’ time, without even realizing it, I went from the selective ex nihilo ad nihilo (from nothing to nothing) belief of the Annihilationists, to the absolute ex nihilo ad nihilo fatalism of the atheist, then finally entering into the infinite sea of God’s love, only to come out on the other side through the influence of the traditional fear-based doctrine of eternal punishment for the majority.
If it were not for my personal encounter with the love of God at 18 years of age which served as an anchor for my soul, I would have been worse off than when I still believed in the annihilation of the lost. At least at that time, when I felt low self-worth and feared rejection by God, I could console myself with the thought that I would be incinerated and eventually go out of existence. But once I was taught to believe that the unworthy “throw-aways” were burned in hell forever, the knowledge of the unconditional Love of God began to be challenged by a continuous tug-of-war conflict with the fear of an eternal hell.
All of us, if we are honest, experience failure and sin, and fall prey to the accuser of our souls. If we are not rooted and grounded in the love of God, we begin to struggle with low self-worth. That leads us to have fear and doubts concerning our standing with a god, whom we are told is unending love, but at the same time eternal hate and if we don’t die on good terms with him, he will hate us and burn us in the flames of hell forever and ever.
Little by little, I came out of the first-love encounter with the Lord where I felt safe in His love, into a dualistic traditional doctrine of God in which I went from saying: “He loves me!” to “He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He loves me not.” My sense of self-worth before God began to be based upon my performance rather than upon His unconditional love for me.
When I was in the Arminian church, I was told that God loved me unconditionally, but unless I persevered to the end, He would send me to an eternal hell. The Calvinists told me that if I was one of the elect, I didn’t need to worry. But if I didn’t persevere to the end, then that meant I was never elect in the first place. Both positions led to the same sense of insecurity. Calvinism is called “eternal security,” but in reality, neither position offers the hopeful sinner any real sense of security.
In my opinion, to say that we come out of nothing, ex nihilo, as do the traditionalists, tremendously devalues us as God’s creatures. It is an expression which inadvertently depersonalizes God’s creation, converting us into throw-away items like an old shoe. What we see presented in the Scriptures is that all things came out of God ex Deo, and since we came out of God, we also exist by Him, somewhat as our foot exists due to the fact that it is part of us. Even though man fell, and nature was subjected to vanity, all things still originated in Him, are sustained by Him and will eventually return to Him. What we discover in the Scriptures is not “ex nihilo et nihilo ad nihilo” (out of nothing, for nothing, into nothing) but rather the glorious truth: “ex Deo per Deo ad Deo” (out of God, through God and into God):
“For of (ἐκ) Him and through (διά) Him and to (εἰς) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:36)
In this passage alone, we can see God’s wonderful plan for all of His creation summed up. All that which had its beginning in Him is sustained by Him and will return to Him. There are no throw-aways in all of God’s creation. We are not objects ex nihilo to be thrown away as worthless trash, but rather, we have been created out of God Himself and are of infinite worth in His eyes. That is why He will ultimately restore all to Himself:
“Now all things are of God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ), who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation.” (2Cor 5:18)
Here we see that all creation originated in God, and although we fell, He has also reconciled us to Himself and given us, as His elect, the ministry of reconciliation for the rest of creation. In Colossians 1:15-19, we see that the reconciliation is of all creation, both visible and invisible. In Romans 8:18-23, we see that, in the time of the manifestation of the sons of God, all creation will be set free. There are no throw-aways, no eternal garbage dump. In eternity, all will have been reconciled and God will then be all in all.
The truth that we are created out of God rather than out of nothing, is not to be confused with pantheism which teaches that all is God. Although creation began in Christ (Gr. “ἐν αὐτῷ” Col 1:16), and came out of Him, it is nonetheless distinct from Him. The triune personal God eternally self-exists. In the beginning, before creation, God, being eternal, already was:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1)
“For by Him (lit. “in Him”) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” (Col 1:16,17)
God is eternal, without beginning. Creation, on the other hand, had a beginning. Yet it did not begin out of nothing ex nihilo, but rather out of God ex Deo. We are of God, much in the same way as Eve was out of Adam:
“For as woman came from (ἐκ) man, even so man also comes through (διὰ) woman; but all things are from (ἐκ) God.” (1Cor 11:12)
Having come out of Him, there is still distinction just as there is distinction between Adam and Eve, even though she came out of him. However, having come out of Adam they were one flesh. There is union in distinction, in the same way mankind came out of God, and while there will always be distinction of persons, all of us live and move and have our being in Him. Although many, as the men of Athens to whom Paul preached, are yet blinded to this reality because of sin, and alienated in their minds, we all live by Him. None of us are self-existent. We may be for a time spiritually separated from God, but it is impossible that there should be any ontological separation from Him because in Him all things consist:
“so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising.” (Acts 17:27-29)
Paul is referring here to those who were at that time as yet unregenerate. Many of them even scoffed at him. Yet he included them in his declaration that each one of us; as His offspring, live and move and have our being in Him. While we are each individuals, we all came out of Him, exist by Him and shall also all return to Him. The end result is that He will be all in all.
[i] Our English word “things” does not have an equivalent in Greek. Neither does the neuter form in Greek always indicate objects as in English. When the translators insert “things” in contexts that are evidently referring primarily to persons and not inanimate objects I take the liberty to cross it out in order to keep the focus where it belongs.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
3Eternal Destruction from the Presence of the Lord
by George Sidney Hurd
--
“…when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction (olethron aionion) from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2Thess 1:7-9)
What does the phrase commonly rendered as “eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord” mean? Some say it refers to one’s final annihilation, while others understand it as describing eternal torment away from God’s presence. In the following excerpt from the book The Triumph of Mercy I demonstrate that rightly understood, it speaks of a temporal destruction of the sinful independent flesh, resulting in restoration.
In chapter five of the Triumph of Mercy and also in my blog The Duration of Punishment, I demonstrate that aionios means “eonian” or “that which pertains to the age/s,” rather than “eternal.” That being so, it is clear that eonian destruction (olethros aionios) is not referring to something without end but rather to a process which endures for an indefinite period of time.
The word olethros appears four times in the New Testament and means: “destruction, ruin or corruption.” It does not mean annihilation, as the annihilationists affirm, since it is used to describe the condition or state of persons still physically alive, or things that still are in existence. 1Timothy 6:9 is an example: “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction (olethros) and perdition (apoleia).” Many who have sunken into the world of sin and vices, reach the point where their lives are in ruins. It is not that they have ceased to exist, but they have made shipwreck of their lives. Jesus said that the prodigal son lived wildly. He didn’t come to himself until his life was destroyed and in ruins.
I spent several months learning Spanish in the beautiful city of Antigua Guatemala where there are many ruins. The buildings were “destroyed” by earthquakes but nevertheless they didn’t cease to exist. Some are still in ruins while others have been restored. Destruction is not synonymous with annihilation.
Also, the noun olethros in 2Thessalonians 1:9 militates against it referring to an unending process in the sense of an “eternal destroying.” The morphology of the Greek word “destruction” (olethros) indicates that it is a noun which speaks of the result of an action rather than the action itself, just as our ending –ion does in English. [i] Even if the action should continue for ages, it must come to an end, because the suffix -ion emphasizes the end result and not the process. The word speaks of a process of destroying that must end once the process comes to completion. As the psalmist says: “You turn man to destruction, and say, ‘return, O children of men” (Ps 90:3). Any theodicy which involves unending torment fails to take into account the morphology of the word olethros, as well as the promised restoration of all. It fails to take into account the climax of the ages, prophesied since the beginning (Acts 3:21,25).
In what sense could one suffer temporal destruction resulting in his own benefit? We don’t have to look far in the New Testament to find the answer. Paul gave orders to the Corinthians, saying they were to deliver over to Satan the man who was in fornication with his father’s wife unto a destruction which had a positive result in view:
“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction (olethros) of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1Cor 5:4-5)
Here we see a restorative purpose in excluding this man from the community of the saints. He was delivered to Satan for destruction. However, not the destruction of himself as an individual, but rather that of his fleshly self – his sinful flesh. If one persists in sin, the destruction eonian is for their own good, and not just for the good of the community. In the same way, those who die physically without having died to the flesh, will undergo correctional punishment (kolasis) for as long as is necessary for the destruction of his flesh or soul life. It will be an eonian destruction but not eternal. It may last two or three days, or it may last for ages. What we do know is that it will continue until the fleshly appetites are destroyed, because without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14).
The destruction eonian, according to the King James Version in 2Thessalonians 1:9, is “from (apo) the presence of the Lord.” “Destruction From the presence” can either mean “destruction excluded from the presence” or “destruction proceeding from the presence of the Lord.” The New International Version says “shut out from,” which conveys the former idea. The English Standard Version also says, “destruction away from the presence” but gives the alternate reading “or destruction that comes from the presence.” Several Spanish versions render it “destruction by the presence” or “destruction proceeding from the presence” (“por la presencia” Reina Valera 1909, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, Peshitta Español “procedente de la presencia”).
Grammatically, the Greek preposition apo could be translated either way, and practically speaking I believe the eonian destruction will be both “destruction proceeding from the presence of the Lord” and also “destruction away from the presence of the Lord.” In Revelation 14:10 it says that “he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.” We will see this in more detail farther along. Suffice it to say for the moment that one’s torment will be occasioned by the gaze of Him whose eyes are penetrating as a flame of fire, exposing all for what it is. They will suffer eonian shame from (or by) the presence of the Lord; which presence is inescapable. But at the same time, they will be away from the presence of the Lord as long as they remain in their condition, because without holiness no one will see the Lord.
Their torment will be both being seen by Him and seeing from afar the kingdom in its glory and not being able to draw near because of their uncleanness which cannot be hidden in the light of His presence. As the apostle John exhorted us as believers: “And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before (apo) Him at His coming” (1John 2:28). Here again the Greek preposition apo appears which could express both the idea of shrinking from His presence or being ashamed by His presence. I believe that both meanings apply. If we don’t abide in Him, our shame will make us want to run and hide before the presence of the Lord, just as Adam did in his shame.
I believe that the second death is this eonian destruction both by the presence and from the presence of the Lord. We must all die two deaths. One is physical death, and the other is death to the independent ego and the flesh. Jesus says to us: “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses (apollumai “lose, destroy”) his life for My sake will find it” (Matt 16:25). Both deaths are inevitable. It is preferable to die to the flesh now in this life than to be hurt by the second death after physical death and judgment (Rev 2:11; 21:8). “And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder” (Matt 21:44). Those who believe in this life and submit to God’s discipline in order to be sanctified will be broken in this life. It is the painful process of death to the soul life and the flesh. But it is much to be preferred over that which awaits those who do not submit themselves under the mighty hand of God in this life. That’s why Paul said that He is “the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe” (1Tim 4:10-11). One day every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord (Phil 2:11), but more blessed are those who choose Him now in this life.
But who would be the beneficiary of a punishment consisting of an “eternal” destroying without an end? Our God and Father, Creator of all? Is it conceivable that the God of Love; infinite in wisdom, would predestine a cosmic garbage dump in which the majority of His rational creatures will pass eternity in a miserable state of conscious torment and ruin without any plan for restoration? Is it possible that it would give God satisfaction to contemplate the suffering of so many billions of his creatures for all of eternity? How can we reconcile such a concept of God with such passages as the following?
“The Lord is merciful and gracious; slow to anger, and abounding in mercy. 9 He will not always strive with us, nor will He keep His anger forever.” (Ps 103:8-9)
“For the Lord will not cast off forever. 32 Though He causes grief, yet He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. 33 For He does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men.” (Lam 3:31-33)
“For His anger is but for a moment, His favor is for life; Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.” (Ps 30:5)
“For I am merciful,' says the Lord; I will not remain angry forever. Only acknowledge your iniquity…” (Jer 3:12-13)
“He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in mercy.” (Mic 7:18)
Have you heard someone speak of God’s “eternal wrath”? Did you know that that expression does not appear in the Scriptures? On the contrary, what we do see is that His wrath is only for a moment in comparison with His favor which is forever. It says that He will not keep His anger forever. It is His love that never ceases – not His wrath! (1Cor 13:8). How is it possible for God, who doesn’t reject forever, to give the “eternal” sentence of destruction, excluded from His presence forever? On the other hand, if we can see that the destruction has reference to the soul life and the flesh, and if we can see that it is eonian instead of eternal; then we can begin to comprehend how the God of Love could permit it, understanding that it is only eonian, or until all should be perfected. When the second death has fulfilled its purpose, then the last enemy - death, will have finally been destroyed. The purpose of God for the ages is that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth — in Him, and it shall be done just as He has purposed (Eph 1:10). Hallelujah! “For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36).
There are occasions in which, according to the traditional translations, the wrath of God seems to be eternal. But in each case the context reveals that it is not “eternal” but for a time (olam). Reading in the King James Version what Jeremiah prophesied against Judah, leaves us with the impression that His punishment of them is eternal:
“And you, even yourself, shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; and I will cause you to serve your enemies in the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger which shall burn forever.” (Jer 17:4)
If we were to understand this prophecy against Judah as translated here, we would arrive at the conclusion that He is indeed referring to eternal wrath. Also, chapter 25 verse 9, understood as translated, gives us the impression of eternal destruction or annihilation:
“behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, ‘says the Lord,’ and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, against its inhabitants, and against these nations all around, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, a hissing, and perpetual (olam) desolations.” (Jer 25:9)
Nevertheless, “eternal wrath” and “perpetual destruction” in this instance are clearly only for a time (olam). In the case of Judah, He specifies that olam, which was translated “eternal” and “perpetual,” only lasts seventy years, as we see in the following verses:
“And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 'Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord; and I will make it a perpetual desolation.” (Jer 25:11-12)
“For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity; I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you to the place from which I cause you to be carried away captive.” (Jer 29:10-14)
In the case of Judah, as confirmed by history, the eonian wrath and destruction lasted for 70 years. Take note that, even in His wrath, His thoughts towards them were still thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give them a future and a hope (v.11). His wrath and destruction were corrective and ended when the 70-year sentence was fulfilled. It was not an eternal destruction but a long-lasting destruction (olam). How can we say that the wrath of the Lord that burns “forever” and the “perpetual” desolation in Judah’s case was only for a limited time, and then insist that the “eternal” destruction of 1Thessalonians 1:9 never comes to an end? Doesn’t Romans 2:11 say that there is no partiality with God? God does not keep His anger “forever” nor reject “forever” because God is Love. Love only shows anger for the purpose of correction. It only rejects until we seek Him - not forever.
[i] Robertson, A. T.. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Kindle Location 2847). Kindle Edition.
--
“…when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction (olethron aionion) from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2Thess 1:7-9)
What does the phrase commonly rendered as “eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord” mean? Some say it refers to one’s final annihilation, while others understand it as describing eternal torment away from God’s presence. In the following excerpt from the book The Triumph of Mercy I demonstrate that rightly understood, it speaks of a temporal destruction of the sinful independent flesh, resulting in restoration.
In chapter five of the Triumph of Mercy and also in my blog The Duration of Punishment, I demonstrate that aionios means “eonian” or “that which pertains to the age/s,” rather than “eternal.” That being so, it is clear that eonian destruction (olethros aionios) is not referring to something without end but rather to a process which endures for an indefinite period of time.
The word olethros appears four times in the New Testament and means: “destruction, ruin or corruption.” It does not mean annihilation, as the annihilationists affirm, since it is used to describe the condition or state of persons still physically alive, or things that still are in existence. 1Timothy 6:9 is an example: “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction (olethros) and perdition (apoleia).” Many who have sunken into the world of sin and vices, reach the point where their lives are in ruins. It is not that they have ceased to exist, but they have made shipwreck of their lives. Jesus said that the prodigal son lived wildly. He didn’t come to himself until his life was destroyed and in ruins.
I spent several months learning Spanish in the beautiful city of Antigua Guatemala where there are many ruins. The buildings were “destroyed” by earthquakes but nevertheless they didn’t cease to exist. Some are still in ruins while others have been restored. Destruction is not synonymous with annihilation.
Also, the noun olethros in 2Thessalonians 1:9 militates against it referring to an unending process in the sense of an “eternal destroying.” The morphology of the Greek word “destruction” (olethros) indicates that it is a noun which speaks of the result of an action rather than the action itself, just as our ending –ion does in English. [i] Even if the action should continue for ages, it must come to an end, because the suffix -ion emphasizes the end result and not the process. The word speaks of a process of destroying that must end once the process comes to completion. As the psalmist says: “You turn man to destruction, and say, ‘return, O children of men” (Ps 90:3). Any theodicy which involves unending torment fails to take into account the morphology of the word olethros, as well as the promised restoration of all. It fails to take into account the climax of the ages, prophesied since the beginning (Acts 3:21,25).
In what sense could one suffer temporal destruction resulting in his own benefit? We don’t have to look far in the New Testament to find the answer. Paul gave orders to the Corinthians, saying they were to deliver over to Satan the man who was in fornication with his father’s wife unto a destruction which had a positive result in view:
“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction (olethros) of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1Cor 5:4-5)
Here we see a restorative purpose in excluding this man from the community of the saints. He was delivered to Satan for destruction. However, not the destruction of himself as an individual, but rather that of his fleshly self – his sinful flesh. If one persists in sin, the destruction eonian is for their own good, and not just for the good of the community. In the same way, those who die physically without having died to the flesh, will undergo correctional punishment (kolasis) for as long as is necessary for the destruction of his flesh or soul life. It will be an eonian destruction but not eternal. It may last two or three days, or it may last for ages. What we do know is that it will continue until the fleshly appetites are destroyed, because without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14).
The destruction eonian, according to the King James Version in 2Thessalonians 1:9, is “from (apo) the presence of the Lord.” “Destruction From the presence” can either mean “destruction excluded from the presence” or “destruction proceeding from the presence of the Lord.” The New International Version says “shut out from,” which conveys the former idea. The English Standard Version also says, “destruction away from the presence” but gives the alternate reading “or destruction that comes from the presence.” Several Spanish versions render it “destruction by the presence” or “destruction proceeding from the presence” (“por la presencia” Reina Valera 1909, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, Peshitta Español “procedente de la presencia”).
Grammatically, the Greek preposition apo could be translated either way, and practically speaking I believe the eonian destruction will be both “destruction proceeding from the presence of the Lord” and also “destruction away from the presence of the Lord.” In Revelation 14:10 it says that “he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.” We will see this in more detail farther along. Suffice it to say for the moment that one’s torment will be occasioned by the gaze of Him whose eyes are penetrating as a flame of fire, exposing all for what it is. They will suffer eonian shame from (or by) the presence of the Lord; which presence is inescapable. But at the same time, they will be away from the presence of the Lord as long as they remain in their condition, because without holiness no one will see the Lord.
Their torment will be both being seen by Him and seeing from afar the kingdom in its glory and not being able to draw near because of their uncleanness which cannot be hidden in the light of His presence. As the apostle John exhorted us as believers: “And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before (apo) Him at His coming” (1John 2:28). Here again the Greek preposition apo appears which could express both the idea of shrinking from His presence or being ashamed by His presence. I believe that both meanings apply. If we don’t abide in Him, our shame will make us want to run and hide before the presence of the Lord, just as Adam did in his shame.
I believe that the second death is this eonian destruction both by the presence and from the presence of the Lord. We must all die two deaths. One is physical death, and the other is death to the independent ego and the flesh. Jesus says to us: “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses (apollumai “lose, destroy”) his life for My sake will find it” (Matt 16:25). Both deaths are inevitable. It is preferable to die to the flesh now in this life than to be hurt by the second death after physical death and judgment (Rev 2:11; 21:8). “And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder” (Matt 21:44). Those who believe in this life and submit to God’s discipline in order to be sanctified will be broken in this life. It is the painful process of death to the soul life and the flesh. But it is much to be preferred over that which awaits those who do not submit themselves under the mighty hand of God in this life. That’s why Paul said that He is “the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe” (1Tim 4:10-11). One day every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord (Phil 2:11), but more blessed are those who choose Him now in this life.
But who would be the beneficiary of a punishment consisting of an “eternal” destroying without an end? Our God and Father, Creator of all? Is it conceivable that the God of Love; infinite in wisdom, would predestine a cosmic garbage dump in which the majority of His rational creatures will pass eternity in a miserable state of conscious torment and ruin without any plan for restoration? Is it possible that it would give God satisfaction to contemplate the suffering of so many billions of his creatures for all of eternity? How can we reconcile such a concept of God with such passages as the following?
“The Lord is merciful and gracious; slow to anger, and abounding in mercy. 9 He will not always strive with us, nor will He keep His anger forever.” (Ps 103:8-9)
“For the Lord will not cast off forever. 32 Though He causes grief, yet He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. 33 For He does not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men.” (Lam 3:31-33)
“For His anger is but for a moment, His favor is for life; Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.” (Ps 30:5)
“For I am merciful,' says the Lord; I will not remain angry forever. Only acknowledge your iniquity…” (Jer 3:12-13)
“He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in mercy.” (Mic 7:18)
Have you heard someone speak of God’s “eternal wrath”? Did you know that that expression does not appear in the Scriptures? On the contrary, what we do see is that His wrath is only for a moment in comparison with His favor which is forever. It says that He will not keep His anger forever. It is His love that never ceases – not His wrath! (1Cor 13:8). How is it possible for God, who doesn’t reject forever, to give the “eternal” sentence of destruction, excluded from His presence forever? On the other hand, if we can see that the destruction has reference to the soul life and the flesh, and if we can see that it is eonian instead of eternal; then we can begin to comprehend how the God of Love could permit it, understanding that it is only eonian, or until all should be perfected. When the second death has fulfilled its purpose, then the last enemy - death, will have finally been destroyed. The purpose of God for the ages is that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth — in Him, and it shall be done just as He has purposed (Eph 1:10). Hallelujah! “For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:36).
There are occasions in which, according to the traditional translations, the wrath of God seems to be eternal. But in each case the context reveals that it is not “eternal” but for a time (olam). Reading in the King James Version what Jeremiah prophesied against Judah, leaves us with the impression that His punishment of them is eternal:
“And you, even yourself, shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; and I will cause you to serve your enemies in the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger which shall burn forever.” (Jer 17:4)
If we were to understand this prophecy against Judah as translated here, we would arrive at the conclusion that He is indeed referring to eternal wrath. Also, chapter 25 verse 9, understood as translated, gives us the impression of eternal destruction or annihilation:
“behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, ‘says the Lord,’ and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, against its inhabitants, and against these nations all around, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, a hissing, and perpetual (olam) desolations.” (Jer 25:9)
Nevertheless, “eternal wrath” and “perpetual destruction” in this instance are clearly only for a time (olam). In the case of Judah, He specifies that olam, which was translated “eternal” and “perpetual,” only lasts seventy years, as we see in the following verses:
“And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 'Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, says the Lord; and I will make it a perpetual desolation.” (Jer 25:11-12)
“For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity; I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you to the place from which I cause you to be carried away captive.” (Jer 29:10-14)
In the case of Judah, as confirmed by history, the eonian wrath and destruction lasted for 70 years. Take note that, even in His wrath, His thoughts towards them were still thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give them a future and a hope (v.11). His wrath and destruction were corrective and ended when the 70-year sentence was fulfilled. It was not an eternal destruction but a long-lasting destruction (olam). How can we say that the wrath of the Lord that burns “forever” and the “perpetual” desolation in Judah’s case was only for a limited time, and then insist that the “eternal” destruction of 1Thessalonians 1:9 never comes to an end? Doesn’t Romans 2:11 say that there is no partiality with God? God does not keep His anger “forever” nor reject “forever” because God is Love. Love only shows anger for the purpose of correction. It only rejects until we seek Him - not forever.
[i] Robertson, A. T.. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Kindle Location 2847). Kindle Edition.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
The Rich Man and Lazarus
by George Sidney Hurd
The following is an excerpt from the book, The Triumph of Mercy.
“There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ 27 Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” (Luke 16:19-31)
This parable of Jesus is consistent with biblical Universalism which affirms that the unjust will pass through purifying fires upon dying. What Jesus doesn’t say here is what traditionalists affirm - that the fire is eternal. Some cite verse 26 where Abraham says that there was a great gulf separating them which did not permit passage from where he was to where they were, and they couldn’t pass over to him. But the parable does not say that he would never be able to pass over. While one is serving a prison sentence it is very similar to what the rich man was experiencing. A prisoner may receive visits and converse with those on the outside, but as long as he is a prisoner, there is a great wall between them so that they cannot pass to where he is, and he cannot pass to where they are. They can only communicate through a bullet-proof window using a telephone. But once the prisoner has served his sentence, he is free to pass to where they are. It is like when Jesus said: “Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny” (Matt 5:26; Luke 12:59). There is a great difference between saying, “you will by no means ever get out of there” and “you will by no means get out of there until…” It is needful to combine all the teachings of Jesus concerning punishments in order to have a more complete understanding of the subject. We must see this parable in light of other occasions in which Jesus spoke of duration: “you will by no means get out of there until”; “they will have their part”; and “beaten with many stripes,” as opposed to “few stripes” (Luke 12:47).
Also, it is probable that the descriptions of the flame, the tip of Lazarus’ finger, and the rich man’s tongue, are all figurative and not literal. Lazarus wasn’t literally in Abraham’s bosom. They are figurative descriptions of two distinct spiritual realms in Hades (the invisible world of the dead). The Pharisees used the expression “Abraham’s bosom” in reference to paradise. Also, the parable presents those in paradise as if they were seeing and talking with those tormented in Hades, which probably wouldn’t be the case in a literal sense - otherwise paradise would not really be paradise.
This parable is the fifth in a series of five parables, the prior ones being: The Lost Sheep (Luke 15:3-7), The Lost Coin (15:8-10), The Prodigal Son (15:11-31), and The Unfaithful Steward (16:1-14). Some would argue that The Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable because it begins like a real story; “There was a certain rich man.” However, the parable of the Unjust Steward begins exactly the same way; “There was a certain rich man.” Also the parable of The Lost Son begins as though it were a real story saying: “A certain man had two sons.” The Parable of the Sower also begins as though it were a real story: “a sower went out to sow,” but we know it was a parable because Jesus said it was (Matt 13:3). If we were to take The Rich Man and Lazarus as a real story and not as a parable, what kind of paradise would it be? Could we be comforted in “Abraham’s bosom” while at the same time watching those we love burning in Gehenna and hearing their endless cries for mercy? To me such a paradise would be unthinkable. It would be a torment for those in paradise as much as for those in the flames, unless God were to remove all sense of love and compassion from their hearts.
This series of parables was a response to the criticism of the scribes and Pharisees against Jesus for receiving sinners:
“Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, ‘This Man receives sinners and eats with them.” (Luke 15:1-2)
All five of these parables are directed - not at the publicans and sinners who drew near to hear Him, but rather against the scribes and Pharisees who criticized Him for receiving them, since they considered themselves to be holy and despised the rest. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus was telling them in so many words what He said to them on a different occasion: “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt 21:31). He does not say in the parable that they will never enter, only that the people they despised, like the beggar Lazarus, the tax collectors and the harlots, would enter before them into the kingdom.
Jesus, in this parable, took a certain tale of Greek origin well known to them and changed the personages of the story. In the original story, a rich tax collector named Bar Ma´jan and a poor scribe died. The poor scribe went to paradise, but Bar Ma´jan was in torment beside a river desiring to drink of its waters but unable to reach them. [i] There were at least seven other similar folkloric stories circulated among the Jews of Jesus’ time. [ii]
The scribes and Pharisees must have especially liked this story because it presented them in a good light while presenting the tax collectors, whom they despised, as being the ones in torment. But Jesus changed the story, presenting them in their typical purple dress with fine linen as being the evil ones in this parable, and sinners and beggars as those being received into paradise. This parable was directed specifically at the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus did not intend for us to draw from this parable the conclusion that all beggars go to heaven and all rich people are tormented in flames. Neither did He intend for it to be taken as a description of paradise or hell. Its sole purpose was to expose the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees by utilizing one of their own tales.
[i] George W. Sarris article The Rich Man and Lazarus. http://www.georgewsarris.com
[ii] Edward William Fudge The Fire that Consumes, i Universe.com inc. 2001 p. 203
The following is an excerpt from the book, The Triumph of Mercy.
“There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ 27 Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” (Luke 16:19-31)
This parable of Jesus is consistent with biblical Universalism which affirms that the unjust will pass through purifying fires upon dying. What Jesus doesn’t say here is what traditionalists affirm - that the fire is eternal. Some cite verse 26 where Abraham says that there was a great gulf separating them which did not permit passage from where he was to where they were, and they couldn’t pass over to him. But the parable does not say that he would never be able to pass over. While one is serving a prison sentence it is very similar to what the rich man was experiencing. A prisoner may receive visits and converse with those on the outside, but as long as he is a prisoner, there is a great wall between them so that they cannot pass to where he is, and he cannot pass to where they are. They can only communicate through a bullet-proof window using a telephone. But once the prisoner has served his sentence, he is free to pass to where they are. It is like when Jesus said: “Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny” (Matt 5:26; Luke 12:59). There is a great difference between saying, “you will by no means ever get out of there” and “you will by no means get out of there until…” It is needful to combine all the teachings of Jesus concerning punishments in order to have a more complete understanding of the subject. We must see this parable in light of other occasions in which Jesus spoke of duration: “you will by no means get out of there until”; “they will have their part”; and “beaten with many stripes,” as opposed to “few stripes” (Luke 12:47).
Also, it is probable that the descriptions of the flame, the tip of Lazarus’ finger, and the rich man’s tongue, are all figurative and not literal. Lazarus wasn’t literally in Abraham’s bosom. They are figurative descriptions of two distinct spiritual realms in Hades (the invisible world of the dead). The Pharisees used the expression “Abraham’s bosom” in reference to paradise. Also, the parable presents those in paradise as if they were seeing and talking with those tormented in Hades, which probably wouldn’t be the case in a literal sense - otherwise paradise would not really be paradise.
This parable is the fifth in a series of five parables, the prior ones being: The Lost Sheep (Luke 15:3-7), The Lost Coin (15:8-10), The Prodigal Son (15:11-31), and The Unfaithful Steward (16:1-14). Some would argue that The Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable because it begins like a real story; “There was a certain rich man.” However, the parable of the Unjust Steward begins exactly the same way; “There was a certain rich man.” Also the parable of The Lost Son begins as though it were a real story saying: “A certain man had two sons.” The Parable of the Sower also begins as though it were a real story: “a sower went out to sow,” but we know it was a parable because Jesus said it was (Matt 13:3). If we were to take The Rich Man and Lazarus as a real story and not as a parable, what kind of paradise would it be? Could we be comforted in “Abraham’s bosom” while at the same time watching those we love burning in Gehenna and hearing their endless cries for mercy? To me such a paradise would be unthinkable. It would be a torment for those in paradise as much as for those in the flames, unless God were to remove all sense of love and compassion from their hearts.
This series of parables was a response to the criticism of the scribes and Pharisees against Jesus for receiving sinners:
“Then all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Him to hear Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes complained, saying, ‘This Man receives sinners and eats with them.” (Luke 15:1-2)
All five of these parables are directed - not at the publicans and sinners who drew near to hear Him, but rather against the scribes and Pharisees who criticized Him for receiving them, since they considered themselves to be holy and despised the rest. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus was telling them in so many words what He said to them on a different occasion: “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt 21:31). He does not say in the parable that they will never enter, only that the people they despised, like the beggar Lazarus, the tax collectors and the harlots, would enter before them into the kingdom.
Jesus, in this parable, took a certain tale of Greek origin well known to them and changed the personages of the story. In the original story, a rich tax collector named Bar Ma´jan and a poor scribe died. The poor scribe went to paradise, but Bar Ma´jan was in torment beside a river desiring to drink of its waters but unable to reach them. [i] There were at least seven other similar folkloric stories circulated among the Jews of Jesus’ time. [ii]
The scribes and Pharisees must have especially liked this story because it presented them in a good light while presenting the tax collectors, whom they despised, as being the ones in torment. But Jesus changed the story, presenting them in their typical purple dress with fine linen as being the evil ones in this parable, and sinners and beggars as those being received into paradise. This parable was directed specifically at the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus did not intend for us to draw from this parable the conclusion that all beggars go to heaven and all rich people are tormented in flames. Neither did He intend for it to be taken as a description of paradise or hell. Its sole purpose was to expose the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees by utilizing one of their own tales.
[i] George W. Sarris article The Rich Man and Lazarus. http://www.georgewsarris.com
[ii] Edward William Fudge The Fire that Consumes, i Universe.com inc. 2001 p. 203