- Published on
00:00
00:00
0How Literal is the Concordant Literal Version?
by George Sidney Hurd
Just how true is the Concordant Literal Version to the original languages? Does it demonstrate consistent scholarly integrity, or was it translated in such a manner so as to accommodate unorthodox doctrines, such as we see with the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses?
Many who believe that God’s punishments are temporal and corrective, resulting in the final restoration of all, have enthusiastically recommended it, seeing that it correctly translates olam, aión and aionios as eon and eonian, rather than, everlasting and eternal, as most other translations do. I demonstrate that these words express temporal duration, rather than perpetuity, in my blog, The Duration of Punishment. Other widely accepted literal translations, besides the Concordant Literal Version, also correctly render these time-words, such as Young’s Literal Translation and Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible. While there is no indication that either Young or Rotherham ever believed in the final restoration of all, they were nevertheless faithful to the actual meaning of the text.
Since I prefer using the NKJV hand-in-hand with the Greek and Hebrew text, I never gave close attention to the literal versions. However, knowing that many are unfamiliar with the original languages, I have recommended them to others and often cited from them, including the Concordant Literal Version. However, as time passed, I began to come across more and more renderings in the CLV which were incongruous with the original text. That in turn led me to investigate the background and beliefs of A. E. Knoch and his Concordant Publishing Concern which compiled and published the CLV. As I read his writings to see his justifications for his unique renderings, it became evident to me that his primary motive in making his own translation was in order to have a Bible which would substantiate his own particular doctrinal beliefs, just as the Jehovah Witnesses did with their New World Translation.
Among other things, He denied the Trinity and taught that the Son of God was a created being rather than being co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Being a contemporary of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses, and sharing many beliefs in common with him, they corresponded, but couldn’t agree on the subject of ultimate reconciliation. The Watchtower Society did not yet have their own translation of the Bible and were going to distribute copies of the CLV but later announced in 1921 that they had decided against it, primarily because of the issue of Universal Salvation. [i]
Another major unorthodox belief held by Knoch was that, according to him, God created evil in the beginning, even creating Satan as the Adversary and evil, rather than him having been created perfect and subsequently becoming evil, independently of God. He also taught the hyperdispensational two-gospel doctrine, also known as Bullingerism, since it first originated with E. W. Bullinger (1837 to 1913). I consider the fallacies of the two-gospel doctrine in a series of four blogs, Are there Two Different Gospels in the New Testament?
For a time, Knoch was a leading member of a Plymouth Brethren congregation in Los Angeles California. However, he began to teach his new doctrines which were contrary to those of the Brethren of that congregation. In his zeal, and with his characteristically uncharitable spirit towards those who differ with him evident throughout his writings, he persisted in promoting his contrary doctrines, even after having been removed from his teaching position in the church. This resulted in him eventually being disfellowshipped. [ii]
In this blog, I will briefly point out a few clear examples of the many instances where he intentionally altered the proper rendering of the original text in order to accommodate his own doctrinal bias.
The Alteration of Passages related to the Origin of Evil
Isaiah 45:7
(NKJV) “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace (shalom) and create calamity (ra’) I, the LORD, do (present) all these things.”
(CLV) “Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things.”
In spite of the fact that shalom never means “good” in all of its 235 occurrences in the Old Testament, Knoch renders shalom as “good” and ra’ as “evil” in order to make it refer to the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil” in Eden. However, there are two primary factors which militate against this rendering.
In the first place, in Genesis the word rendered “good” is towb which always means “good” and is elsewhere even distinguished from shalom (Deut 23:6). While I didn’t take the time to look at all 235 instances of shalom, I looked at his rendering of numerous verses and didn’t find any other place where he translated shalom as “good” instead of “peace.” [iii]
Furthermore, it is significant that the translators of the Greek Septuagint, or LXX, (which were the Scriptures Paul and others would have been using among the Greek speaking world of that time), rendered towb in Isaiah 45:7 as εἰρήνη (eirene) which means “peace,” and not καλός (kalos) which means “good.” In similar manner, they rendered the phrase “good and evil” in Genesis 2:9 as του καλού και του κακού, using καλός (good), rather than eirene (peace), as it appears in Isaiah 45:7. These are the same two words used in the New Testament in Hebrews 5:14 for good and evil when the author said that we need to have our senses trained to discern both “good and evil.” Even here, Knoch, in his typical nonconformist manner, translates kalos and kakos as “the ideal and the evil,” adding the definite articles which are absent in the original.
While it is true that God created good – indeed, all that He created was very good, it is not true that He created evil, as Knoch insists. It is a logical impossibility for Him to have created everything very good if indeed evil in any form was a part of His original creation.
However, according to Knoch’s reasoning, creating evil is good as long as the end result is good. In response to those who say that it would have been morally wrong for God to have directly created evil and created Satan as a sinner and the Adversary, he begins by limiting the definition of sin to simply missing the mark. From there he reasons that God would have only been sinning if He had created Satan, sin and evil and missed the mark, failing His objective in creating Satan and evil. Reading his logic, I couldn’t help but think of what the Lord said through Isaiah when He said:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isa 5:20-21)
Using this type of logic, a bank robber could argue that he didn’t sin because he obtained his objective, successfully robbing the bank. Hitler would have been justified in all his atrocities if only he had achieved his original goal of a global Third Reich. Sin in Scripture is not merely missing the mark, but a moral missing the mark or lawlessness (1Jn 3:4). It is a failure to live according to God’s government.
God did not create evil in any form, be it moral evil or natural evil. In the first place, considering the fact that the contrast in Isaiah 45:7 is between peace (shalom) and ra’, which can mean either moral or natural evil, it is obvious that it is natural evil which is being referred to, or more specifically wartime calamity, since the contrast is not between that which is good or evil, as Knoch tries to argue, but between peace and the absence thereof. In our fallen condition, God brings calamity and hardship in judgment for correction, but God does not create moral evil.
If it were not sufficient that he replaced the word peace for good in order to make God out to be the one who originated evil, he also changes the tense of the verbs in Isaiah 45:7 from present tense to past tense in order to make it refer to the original creation. [iv] Here again, in the Septuagint, over seventy Greek and Hebrew scholars rendered it in the present tense ο ποιών ειρήνην και κτίζων κακόν “I make peace and create evil or bad.” I consider the nature of evil and the sense in which God creates evil in my blog, The What of Evil.
Ezekiel 28:15
(NKJV) “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.”
(CLV) “Perfect are (aorist in LXX “were perfect”) you in your ways, From the day of your being produced (Heb. bara, κτίζω LXX same as Gen 1:1), Till perversity has been found (past perfect) in you.”
In his determination to make Ezekiel out to be exclusively addressing the king of Tyre who was alive at the time of writing, he supplied “are” instead of “were.” The main problem with that is that God continues, saying “from the day you were created till iniquity was found in you.” The personage that God is here addressing was perfect from the moment of his creation, until iniquity was found in him. The Septuagint uses aorist verbs throughout this verse, as does every other translation I consulted. This is a deliberate manipulation of the text, albeit inconsistent. [v]
Knoch also changes “from the day you were created,” to “from the day of your being produced” in an attempt to make it refer to the king of Tyre rather than to Lucifer who was created. However, bara never refers to procreation, but rather to God’s original creation. Again, he is inconsistent, since nowhere else does he translate bara as “produced,” being that it so obviously means “to create.” [vi]
Isaiah 14:12
(NKJV) “How you are fallen from heaven, o Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!”
(CLV) “How you have fallen from the heavens! Howl, son of the dawn! You are hacked down to the earth, defeater of all nations!”
Since the Hebrew word helel, rendered Lucifer, only occurs here in Scripture, there is some debate as to its etymology. A very few, in their attempt to deny that Isaiah 14 has any reference to the fall of Satan, argue that the root word for helel is yalal, which means “the howler.” Even if that meaning were the correct one, Knoch is incorrect in converting a substantive into an imperative verb, making it read “howl” instead of “the howler.” However, since it wouldn’t make sense to say, “the howler, son of the dawn,” he takes the liberty to change the noun into a verb.
Nearly all scholars believe that the root word for helel is halal, which can have either a positive or a negative meaning, depending upon the context in which it appears. If it is used in the negative sense, it would read, “how you are fallen from heaven, o arrogant bragger, son of the morning.” However, if it is to be understood in a positive sense, it would read, “how are you fallen from heaven, o shining one, son of the morning.” Lucifer in Latin means “shining one,” and for that reason, many translations retain that name.
That it is used in the positive sense in this passage is evident, considering that it is a dirge or song of lamentation in which God is lamenting Lucifer’s fall. These are not words of reproach or condemnation but rather an expression of sorrow for one who was once His shining one, the son of the morning, only to afterwards fall because of pride and selfish ambition. I haven’t been able to find even one translation of the Bible which understands helel negatively as “arrogant bragger,” much less seeing it as related to yalal, and going even farther, taking the liberty to change the noun, “the howler,” into an imperative verb!
It is significant that the Greek Septuagint rendered helel as phosphoros, (ὁ ἑωσφόρος), which means “the shining one,” or in Latin, Lucifer. To me, it is much more likely that the 72 Greek speaking Hebrew scholars who reverently compiled the Septuagint in the 3rd century B.C., had a better idea of what helel meant than a single individual in the 20th century determined to demonstrate that God created evil.
The Alteration of Passages Affirming the Deity of Christ
John 1:1-10
(NKJV) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.”
NKJV
(CLV) “In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. 2 This (autos, ‘He’) was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it (αυτου, ‘Him’), and apart from it (αυτου, ‘Him’) not even one thing came into being which has come into being. 4 In it (αυτω ‘Him’) was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light is appearing in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not. 6 There came to be a man, commissioned by God. His name was John. 7 This one came for a testimony, that he should be testifying concerning the light, that all should be believing through it (αυτου, ‘Him’). 8 Not he was the light, but he came that he should be testifying concerning the light. 9 It was the true light (ην το φως το αληθινον, ‘He was the true light’) - which is enlightening every man - coming into the world. 10 In the world He was (εν τω κοσμω ην, ‘in the world He was’), and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew Him (αυτον, ‘Him’) not.”
Any sect denying the deity of Christ must somehow alter the wording of John 1. The Jehovah Witnesses have verse 1 say that the Word was “a god,” and instead of saying, “in Him was life” in verse 4, they make it read, “by means of him was life.” I won’t take the time to point out the fallacies of these renderings, but any first-year Greek student could easily point them out.
Knoch uses a different and more radical approach, turning the alteration of the text up a notch. First, he renders the masculine personal pronouns referring to the Word as “it” instead of “He” or “Him,” until he gets to verse 10, where he then correctly renders the masculine pronoun as “Him.” I have noticed that he often is not even consistent in his mistranslations. [vii]
He then translates the connective preposition pros in verse 1 as “toward” instead of “with.” He argues that the idea expressed by pros here is not the nearness of the Word to God, but rather the function of directing others towards God. However, in verse 2, it says that in the beginning, before anything had been created, He was with (pros) God. In what sense could the Word be said to have directed others towards God in eternity before there was anyone for the Word to direct towards Him?
Whenever pros is used to speak of nearness or association between persons, it always means “with.” Knoch himself follows this rule in every other instance, except when it would imply Christ’s deity. The following are examples from the CLV, showing his inconsistency in rendering pros here in John 1:1 as toward instead of with: “And I came to be with (pros) you in weakness” (1 Cor 2:3); “I am expecting to stay some time with (pros) you” (1 Cor 16:7); he should be with (pros) you fearlessly” (1 Cor 16:10); “And, being present with (pros) you and in want” (2 Cor 11:9); “I stay (aorist, ‘stayed’) with (pros) him fifteen days” (Gal 1:18); “not only in my presence with (pros) you” (Gal 4:18); “Yet I wanted to be present with (pros) you just now” (Gal 4:20) and, “Do you not remember that, still being with (pros) you” (2 Thess 2:5).
The only other place where he switches back to rendering pros as “toward” instead of “with” in the context of relationships is 1 John 1:2, which again speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father. He makes it read, “the life eonian which was toward the Father.” Even the Jehovah Witnesses translate it correctly as “with the Father.”
Knoch also inverts the word order in the third and final clause of John 1:1, making it read “and God was the word,” instead of “the Word was God.” It is understandable how someone without any real knowledge of Greek syntax could commit this error, since that is the actual word order in the phrase (και θεος ην ο λογος). However, Greek syntax is not according to word order, but according to the form of each word. In this instance, θεος (God) is the predicate nominative and ο λογος is the subject.
In my Greek studies in the 1970s one of the courses I found very helpful was a course in sentence diagramming based upon John chapter 1. Sentence diagramming enables the student to properly arrange the Greek words in grammatical order for English readers. The third phrase in John 1:1 is diagrammed in the following manner:
Just how true is the Concordant Literal Version to the original languages? Does it demonstrate consistent scholarly integrity, or was it translated in such a manner so as to accommodate unorthodox doctrines, such as we see with the New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses?
Many who believe that God’s punishments are temporal and corrective, resulting in the final restoration of all, have enthusiastically recommended it, seeing that it correctly translates olam, aión and aionios as eon and eonian, rather than, everlasting and eternal, as most other translations do. I demonstrate that these words express temporal duration, rather than perpetuity, in my blog, The Duration of Punishment. Other widely accepted literal translations, besides the Concordant Literal Version, also correctly render these time-words, such as Young’s Literal Translation and Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible. While there is no indication that either Young or Rotherham ever believed in the final restoration of all, they were nevertheless faithful to the actual meaning of the text.
Since I prefer using the NKJV hand-in-hand with the Greek and Hebrew text, I never gave close attention to the literal versions. However, knowing that many are unfamiliar with the original languages, I have recommended them to others and often cited from them, including the Concordant Literal Version. However, as time passed, I began to come across more and more renderings in the CLV which were incongruous with the original text. That in turn led me to investigate the background and beliefs of A. E. Knoch and his Concordant Publishing Concern which compiled and published the CLV. As I read his writings to see his justifications for his unique renderings, it became evident to me that his primary motive in making his own translation was in order to have a Bible which would substantiate his own particular doctrinal beliefs, just as the Jehovah Witnesses did with their New World Translation.
Among other things, He denied the Trinity and taught that the Son of God was a created being rather than being co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Being a contemporary of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses, and sharing many beliefs in common with him, they corresponded, but couldn’t agree on the subject of ultimate reconciliation. The Watchtower Society did not yet have their own translation of the Bible and were going to distribute copies of the CLV but later announced in 1921 that they had decided against it, primarily because of the issue of Universal Salvation. [i]
Another major unorthodox belief held by Knoch was that, according to him, God created evil in the beginning, even creating Satan as the Adversary and evil, rather than him having been created perfect and subsequently becoming evil, independently of God. He also taught the hyperdispensational two-gospel doctrine, also known as Bullingerism, since it first originated with E. W. Bullinger (1837 to 1913). I consider the fallacies of the two-gospel doctrine in a series of four blogs, Are there Two Different Gospels in the New Testament?
For a time, Knoch was a leading member of a Plymouth Brethren congregation in Los Angeles California. However, he began to teach his new doctrines which were contrary to those of the Brethren of that congregation. In his zeal, and with his characteristically uncharitable spirit towards those who differ with him evident throughout his writings, he persisted in promoting his contrary doctrines, even after having been removed from his teaching position in the church. This resulted in him eventually being disfellowshipped. [ii]
In this blog, I will briefly point out a few clear examples of the many instances where he intentionally altered the proper rendering of the original text in order to accommodate his own doctrinal bias.
The Alteration of Passages related to the Origin of Evil
Isaiah 45:7
(NKJV) “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace (shalom) and create calamity (ra’) I, the LORD, do (present) all these things.”
(CLV) “Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things.”
In spite of the fact that shalom never means “good” in all of its 235 occurrences in the Old Testament, Knoch renders shalom as “good” and ra’ as “evil” in order to make it refer to the tree of the knowledge of “good and evil” in Eden. However, there are two primary factors which militate against this rendering.
In the first place, in Genesis the word rendered “good” is towb which always means “good” and is elsewhere even distinguished from shalom (Deut 23:6). While I didn’t take the time to look at all 235 instances of shalom, I looked at his rendering of numerous verses and didn’t find any other place where he translated shalom as “good” instead of “peace.” [iii]
Furthermore, it is significant that the translators of the Greek Septuagint, or LXX, (which were the Scriptures Paul and others would have been using among the Greek speaking world of that time), rendered towb in Isaiah 45:7 as εἰρήνη (eirene) which means “peace,” and not καλός (kalos) which means “good.” In similar manner, they rendered the phrase “good and evil” in Genesis 2:9 as του καλού και του κακού, using καλός (good), rather than eirene (peace), as it appears in Isaiah 45:7. These are the same two words used in the New Testament in Hebrews 5:14 for good and evil when the author said that we need to have our senses trained to discern both “good and evil.” Even here, Knoch, in his typical nonconformist manner, translates kalos and kakos as “the ideal and the evil,” adding the definite articles which are absent in the original.
While it is true that God created good – indeed, all that He created was very good, it is not true that He created evil, as Knoch insists. It is a logical impossibility for Him to have created everything very good if indeed evil in any form was a part of His original creation.
However, according to Knoch’s reasoning, creating evil is good as long as the end result is good. In response to those who say that it would have been morally wrong for God to have directly created evil and created Satan as a sinner and the Adversary, he begins by limiting the definition of sin to simply missing the mark. From there he reasons that God would have only been sinning if He had created Satan, sin and evil and missed the mark, failing His objective in creating Satan and evil. Reading his logic, I couldn’t help but think of what the Lord said through Isaiah when He said:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isa 5:20-21)
Using this type of logic, a bank robber could argue that he didn’t sin because he obtained his objective, successfully robbing the bank. Hitler would have been justified in all his atrocities if only he had achieved his original goal of a global Third Reich. Sin in Scripture is not merely missing the mark, but a moral missing the mark or lawlessness (1Jn 3:4). It is a failure to live according to God’s government.
God did not create evil in any form, be it moral evil or natural evil. In the first place, considering the fact that the contrast in Isaiah 45:7 is between peace (shalom) and ra’, which can mean either moral or natural evil, it is obvious that it is natural evil which is being referred to, or more specifically wartime calamity, since the contrast is not between that which is good or evil, as Knoch tries to argue, but between peace and the absence thereof. In our fallen condition, God brings calamity and hardship in judgment for correction, but God does not create moral evil.
If it were not sufficient that he replaced the word peace for good in order to make God out to be the one who originated evil, he also changes the tense of the verbs in Isaiah 45:7 from present tense to past tense in order to make it refer to the original creation. [iv] Here again, in the Septuagint, over seventy Greek and Hebrew scholars rendered it in the present tense ο ποιών ειρήνην και κτίζων κακόν “I make peace and create evil or bad.” I consider the nature of evil and the sense in which God creates evil in my blog, The What of Evil.
Ezekiel 28:15
(NKJV) “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.”
(CLV) “Perfect are (aorist in LXX “were perfect”) you in your ways, From the day of your being produced (Heb. bara, κτίζω LXX same as Gen 1:1), Till perversity has been found (past perfect) in you.”
In his determination to make Ezekiel out to be exclusively addressing the king of Tyre who was alive at the time of writing, he supplied “are” instead of “were.” The main problem with that is that God continues, saying “from the day you were created till iniquity was found in you.” The personage that God is here addressing was perfect from the moment of his creation, until iniquity was found in him. The Septuagint uses aorist verbs throughout this verse, as does every other translation I consulted. This is a deliberate manipulation of the text, albeit inconsistent. [v]
Knoch also changes “from the day you were created,” to “from the day of your being produced” in an attempt to make it refer to the king of Tyre rather than to Lucifer who was created. However, bara never refers to procreation, but rather to God’s original creation. Again, he is inconsistent, since nowhere else does he translate bara as “produced,” being that it so obviously means “to create.” [vi]
Isaiah 14:12
(NKJV) “How you are fallen from heaven, o Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!”
(CLV) “How you have fallen from the heavens! Howl, son of the dawn! You are hacked down to the earth, defeater of all nations!”
Since the Hebrew word helel, rendered Lucifer, only occurs here in Scripture, there is some debate as to its etymology. A very few, in their attempt to deny that Isaiah 14 has any reference to the fall of Satan, argue that the root word for helel is yalal, which means “the howler.” Even if that meaning were the correct one, Knoch is incorrect in converting a substantive into an imperative verb, making it read “howl” instead of “the howler.” However, since it wouldn’t make sense to say, “the howler, son of the dawn,” he takes the liberty to change the noun into a verb.
Nearly all scholars believe that the root word for helel is halal, which can have either a positive or a negative meaning, depending upon the context in which it appears. If it is used in the negative sense, it would read, “how you are fallen from heaven, o arrogant bragger, son of the morning.” However, if it is to be understood in a positive sense, it would read, “how are you fallen from heaven, o shining one, son of the morning.” Lucifer in Latin means “shining one,” and for that reason, many translations retain that name.
That it is used in the positive sense in this passage is evident, considering that it is a dirge or song of lamentation in which God is lamenting Lucifer’s fall. These are not words of reproach or condemnation but rather an expression of sorrow for one who was once His shining one, the son of the morning, only to afterwards fall because of pride and selfish ambition. I haven’t been able to find even one translation of the Bible which understands helel negatively as “arrogant bragger,” much less seeing it as related to yalal, and going even farther, taking the liberty to change the noun, “the howler,” into an imperative verb!
It is significant that the Greek Septuagint rendered helel as phosphoros, (ὁ ἑωσφόρος), which means “the shining one,” or in Latin, Lucifer. To me, it is much more likely that the 72 Greek speaking Hebrew scholars who reverently compiled the Septuagint in the 3rd century B.C., had a better idea of what helel meant than a single individual in the 20th century determined to demonstrate that God created evil.
The Alteration of Passages Affirming the Deity of Christ
John 1:1-10
(NKJV) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.”
NKJV
(CLV) “In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. 2 This (autos, ‘He’) was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it (αυτου, ‘Him’), and apart from it (αυτου, ‘Him’) not even one thing came into being which has come into being. 4 In it (αυτω ‘Him’) was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light is appearing in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not. 6 There came to be a man, commissioned by God. His name was John. 7 This one came for a testimony, that he should be testifying concerning the light, that all should be believing through it (αυτου, ‘Him’). 8 Not he was the light, but he came that he should be testifying concerning the light. 9 It was the true light (ην το φως το αληθινον, ‘He was the true light’) - which is enlightening every man - coming into the world. 10 In the world He was (εν τω κοσμω ην, ‘in the world He was’), and the world came into being through Him, and the world knew Him (αυτον, ‘Him’) not.”
Any sect denying the deity of Christ must somehow alter the wording of John 1. The Jehovah Witnesses have verse 1 say that the Word was “a god,” and instead of saying, “in Him was life” in verse 4, they make it read, “by means of him was life.” I won’t take the time to point out the fallacies of these renderings, but any first-year Greek student could easily point them out.
Knoch uses a different and more radical approach, turning the alteration of the text up a notch. First, he renders the masculine personal pronouns referring to the Word as “it” instead of “He” or “Him,” until he gets to verse 10, where he then correctly renders the masculine pronoun as “Him.” I have noticed that he often is not even consistent in his mistranslations. [vii]
He then translates the connective preposition pros in verse 1 as “toward” instead of “with.” He argues that the idea expressed by pros here is not the nearness of the Word to God, but rather the function of directing others towards God. However, in verse 2, it says that in the beginning, before anything had been created, He was with (pros) God. In what sense could the Word be said to have directed others towards God in eternity before there was anyone for the Word to direct towards Him?
Whenever pros is used to speak of nearness or association between persons, it always means “with.” Knoch himself follows this rule in every other instance, except when it would imply Christ’s deity. The following are examples from the CLV, showing his inconsistency in rendering pros here in John 1:1 as toward instead of with: “And I came to be with (pros) you in weakness” (1 Cor 2:3); “I am expecting to stay some time with (pros) you” (1 Cor 16:7); he should be with (pros) you fearlessly” (1 Cor 16:10); “And, being present with (pros) you and in want” (2 Cor 11:9); “I stay (aorist, ‘stayed’) with (pros) him fifteen days” (Gal 1:18); “not only in my presence with (pros) you” (Gal 4:18); “Yet I wanted to be present with (pros) you just now” (Gal 4:20) and, “Do you not remember that, still being with (pros) you” (2 Thess 2:5).
The only other place where he switches back to rendering pros as “toward” instead of “with” in the context of relationships is 1 John 1:2, which again speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father. He makes it read, “the life eonian which was toward the Father.” Even the Jehovah Witnesses translate it correctly as “with the Father.”
Knoch also inverts the word order in the third and final clause of John 1:1, making it read “and God was the word,” instead of “the Word was God.” It is understandable how someone without any real knowledge of Greek syntax could commit this error, since that is the actual word order in the phrase (και θεος ην ο λογος). However, Greek syntax is not according to word order, but according to the form of each word. In this instance, θεος (God) is the predicate nominative and ο λογος is the subject.
In my Greek studies in the 1970s one of the courses I found very helpful was a course in sentence diagramming based upon John chapter 1. Sentence diagramming enables the student to properly arrange the Greek words in grammatical order for English readers. The third phrase in John 1:1 is diagrammed in the following manner:
This is only logical, since all three phrases are telling us who the Word is, not who God is. John is saying 1) “the Word was in the beginning,” 2) “the Word was with God,” and 3) the Word was God.” Also, if John had said, “God was the Word,” he would have contradicted his previous statement which made a hypostatic distinction, saying that the Word was “with” God. If God were the subject rather than the predicate, Theos would have needed the article (ὁ θεός) in order to avoid making θεός (God), ambiguous.
This passage clearly teaches the eternality of the Word, since in the beginning of creation the Word already was (ην). If “was” had been in the aorist form, it would have meant “came to be.” However, it is in the imperfect which means “was continually existing.” Those who deny the eternality of the Word would say that he was created prior to this creation. However, it is said of the Son of God that Melchizedek was a type of Him in that he had “neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb 7:1-3). The Son of God is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, verses 2 and 3 continue saying, “He was (ην) in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” That makes the Word the eternal uncreated Creator of all things.
Additionally, εν αρχη (in beginning) is anarthrous. In Greek there is no indefinite article. In the absence of an article, it doesn’t necessarily make it indefinite but rather emphasizes quality or characteristics. Taken together, εν αρχη ην ο λογος (In beginning was the Word) is saying, “In anything having the quality of a beginning the Word was existing.” I demonstrate the eternality of the Son in more detail from Scripture in my blog, Jesus Christ – the Eternal I AM. Also, I demonstrate that Jesus was Yahweh of the Old Testament in my blogs, Jesus is the Yahweh Elohim of the Old Testament, and The Christophanies of the Old Testament.
I can find no scholarly justification for Knoch’s apparently deliberate alteration of the text of John 1 in his attempt to diminish and depersonalize the eternal Son of God. There are numerous passages affirming the full deity of Christ which he likewise alters, but space here won’t allow for more examples.
The Alteration of Passages affirming the Trinity
John 16:13-15
(NKJV) “However, when He (ἐκεῖνος masc.), the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.”
(CLV) “Yet whenever that (ἐκεῖνος masc. ‘He’) may be coming - the spirit of truth -it (ἐκεῖνος masc.‘He’) will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself (ἑαυτού, masc. ‘Himself’) but whatsoever it (He) should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it (He) be informing you. 14 That (He) will be glorifying Me, seeing that of Mine will it (He) be getting, and informing you."
15 All, whatever the Father has, is Mine. Therefore I said to you that of Mine is it (He) getting, and will be informing you.”
In his attempt to depersonalize the Holy Spirit, Knoch renders all of the masculine personal pronouns in this passage, translating them all as if they were neuter. Not even the Jehovah Witness’ New World Translation takes such liberties. Even they must have realized that all the activities which are here attributed to the Holy Spirit are only applicable to a person. Apart from computers that are programmed by a person, an “it” cannot guide, and it cannot speak. These are not the only attributes the Holy Spirit possesses which only apply to a person. The Holy Spirit has emotions and therefore can be grieved (Eph 4:30). We can enjoy communion with Him (2Cor 13:14). He jealously yearns for us (James 4:5). Because He has intellect, He can teach, speak, convince us and remind us. We can lie to Him, something one can only do to another person (Acts 5:3-4).
Once we see that the Son of God, the eternal Word, is a distinct person who is eternally with God and yet also God; and once we acknowledge that the Holy Spirit (also called God in Acts 5:3-4) is also a person whom the Father sent to glorify the Son, the many passages alluding to God as Triune make the doctrine of the Trinity an undeniable conclusion. That is why the Early Fathers affirmed the Triune nature of God well before the Nicene creed.
There are many more passages which Knoch altered in order to deny the Trinity, but space here will not allow me to give more examples. All considered, I can no longer in good conscience recommend the CLV, in spite of some of its good points. If one decides to use it anyway it should be used along-side of other more scholarly translations, or better yet, comparing it with the texts in their original languages. For a more extensive defense of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, I recommend reading my blogs, The Triunity of God, and The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Trinity.
[i] https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-watchtower-and-universalism-almont.html
[ii] https://agatheringinchrist.com/articles/ae-knoch-errors-in-doctrine.html
[iii] A representative of the Concordant Publishing Concern informed me that there is a footnote in the CLV indicating that “good” was selected because that was how it reads in the 1QIsaa, which is the most complete of the 20 copies of Isaiah found in the Qumran caves. I do not possess a version of the CLV with footnotes, so I was unaware of their justification for this rendering. However, it is highly unlikely that the original text would have read “good” instead of “peace” since the LXX, which was translated by Greek speaking Hebrew scholars during the same time period as the 1QIsaa, rendered it as “peace,” just as we find in the Masoretic text.
[iv] I was encouraged when their representative informed me that the updated CLV corrected this error, translating it in the present tense, “make,” instead of “made.” Unfortunately, my copy of the CLV, as well as all those I found on the internet, still read “made,” giving the impression that God created evil in the beginning.
[v] According to the representative of the Concordant Publishing Concern, the updated CVOT corrected this as well, changing it from the present, “Perfect are you,” to a past tense paraphrase, “You walked flawless.”
[vi] I was informed that the updated CLV has been corrected to read, “day of your creation,” instead of “day of your being produced.”
[vii] The representative of the CLV here correctly pointed out that feminine and masculine nouns often refer to something inanimate, and in such cases should be rendered “it.” Conversely, we even see that neuter nouns, when clearly referring to a person, should be rendered as “he,” such as “the Lamb of God,” or “the Holy Spirit,” both of which are masculine, even though they are neuter nouns. However, here in John 1, the context clearly indicates that the Word is a person who was with God in the beginning. Furthermore, Knoch is inconsistent when he changes the masculine pronoun for “Word” from “it,” correctly rendering it as “Him,” beginning in verse 10
This passage clearly teaches the eternality of the Word, since in the beginning of creation the Word already was (ην). If “was” had been in the aorist form, it would have meant “came to be.” However, it is in the imperfect which means “was continually existing.” Those who deny the eternality of the Word would say that he was created prior to this creation. However, it is said of the Son of God that Melchizedek was a type of Him in that he had “neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb 7:1-3). The Son of God is co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, verses 2 and 3 continue saying, “He was (ην) in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” That makes the Word the eternal uncreated Creator of all things.
Additionally, εν αρχη (in beginning) is anarthrous. In Greek there is no indefinite article. In the absence of an article, it doesn’t necessarily make it indefinite but rather emphasizes quality or characteristics. Taken together, εν αρχη ην ο λογος (In beginning was the Word) is saying, “In anything having the quality of a beginning the Word was existing.” I demonstrate the eternality of the Son in more detail from Scripture in my blog, Jesus Christ – the Eternal I AM. Also, I demonstrate that Jesus was Yahweh of the Old Testament in my blogs, Jesus is the Yahweh Elohim of the Old Testament, and The Christophanies of the Old Testament.
I can find no scholarly justification for Knoch’s apparently deliberate alteration of the text of John 1 in his attempt to diminish and depersonalize the eternal Son of God. There are numerous passages affirming the full deity of Christ which he likewise alters, but space here won’t allow for more examples.
The Alteration of Passages affirming the Trinity
John 16:13-15
(NKJV) “However, when He (ἐκεῖνος masc.), the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.”
(CLV) “Yet whenever that (ἐκεῖνος masc. ‘He’) may be coming - the spirit of truth -it (ἐκεῖνος masc.‘He’) will be guiding you into all the truth, for it will not be speaking from itself (ἑαυτού, masc. ‘Himself’) but whatsoever it (He) should be hearing will it be speaking, and of what is coming will it (He) be informing you. 14 That (He) will be glorifying Me, seeing that of Mine will it (He) be getting, and informing you."
15 All, whatever the Father has, is Mine. Therefore I said to you that of Mine is it (He) getting, and will be informing you.”
In his attempt to depersonalize the Holy Spirit, Knoch renders all of the masculine personal pronouns in this passage, translating them all as if they were neuter. Not even the Jehovah Witness’ New World Translation takes such liberties. Even they must have realized that all the activities which are here attributed to the Holy Spirit are only applicable to a person. Apart from computers that are programmed by a person, an “it” cannot guide, and it cannot speak. These are not the only attributes the Holy Spirit possesses which only apply to a person. The Holy Spirit has emotions and therefore can be grieved (Eph 4:30). We can enjoy communion with Him (2Cor 13:14). He jealously yearns for us (James 4:5). Because He has intellect, He can teach, speak, convince us and remind us. We can lie to Him, something one can only do to another person (Acts 5:3-4).
Once we see that the Son of God, the eternal Word, is a distinct person who is eternally with God and yet also God; and once we acknowledge that the Holy Spirit (also called God in Acts 5:3-4) is also a person whom the Father sent to glorify the Son, the many passages alluding to God as Triune make the doctrine of the Trinity an undeniable conclusion. That is why the Early Fathers affirmed the Triune nature of God well before the Nicene creed.
There are many more passages which Knoch altered in order to deny the Trinity, but space here will not allow me to give more examples. All considered, I can no longer in good conscience recommend the CLV, in spite of some of its good points. If one decides to use it anyway it should be used along-side of other more scholarly translations, or better yet, comparing it with the texts in their original languages. For a more extensive defense of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, I recommend reading my blogs, The Triunity of God, and The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Trinity.
[i] https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-watchtower-and-universalism-almont.html
[ii] https://agatheringinchrist.com/articles/ae-knoch-errors-in-doctrine.html
[iii] A representative of the Concordant Publishing Concern informed me that there is a footnote in the CLV indicating that “good” was selected because that was how it reads in the 1QIsaa, which is the most complete of the 20 copies of Isaiah found in the Qumran caves. I do not possess a version of the CLV with footnotes, so I was unaware of their justification for this rendering. However, it is highly unlikely that the original text would have read “good” instead of “peace” since the LXX, which was translated by Greek speaking Hebrew scholars during the same time period as the 1QIsaa, rendered it as “peace,” just as we find in the Masoretic text.
[iv] I was encouraged when their representative informed me that the updated CLV corrected this error, translating it in the present tense, “make,” instead of “made.” Unfortunately, my copy of the CLV, as well as all those I found on the internet, still read “made,” giving the impression that God created evil in the beginning.
[v] According to the representative of the Concordant Publishing Concern, the updated CVOT corrected this as well, changing it from the present, “Perfect are you,” to a past tense paraphrase, “You walked flawless.”
[vi] I was informed that the updated CLV has been corrected to read, “day of your creation,” instead of “day of your being produced.”
[vii] The representative of the CLV here correctly pointed out that feminine and masculine nouns often refer to something inanimate, and in such cases should be rendered “it.” Conversely, we even see that neuter nouns, when clearly referring to a person, should be rendered as “he,” such as “the Lamb of God,” or “the Holy Spirit,” both of which are masculine, even though they are neuter nouns. However, here in John 1, the context clearly indicates that the Word is a person who was with God in the beginning. Furthermore, Knoch is inconsistent when he changes the masculine pronoun for “Word” from “it,” correctly rendering it as “Him,” beginning in verse 10
- Published on
The Why of Evil
--
by George Sidney Hurd
Having determined in the previous blogs what evil is, and when it first entered into creation, we can now consider the most important question: Why did God allow evil to enter His creation? What good purpose does it serve?
The Scriptures reveal to us that God’s essential nature is love and that He is at the same time omniscient, omnipotent and infinite in wisdom (1Jn 4:8,16; Isa 46:10; Job 37:23; Rev 1:8). They also declare that all His works are known to Him from eternity and that He works all things according to the determinate counsel of His will (Acts 15:18; Eph 1:11).
All these things considered, it logically follows that He would not have created, knowing that evil would enter His good creation, resulting in so much suffering, unless the end result would be exceedingly and abundantly good, above and beyond what we can think or imagine, and that, when all is said and done, it will magnify His infinite wisdom and goodness in having permitted its existence (Eph 3:20-21). The end result will be such that all creation will be eternally grateful, spontaneously praising Him for His marvelous works (Psa 145:10; Rev 15:3-4; 5:13). The final outcome of God’s creation must be better than its commencement – otherwise He, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, would have never commenced creation. What God begins He perfects.
In this blog I want to consider three primary reasons why it was necessary for God to allow for the entrance of evil in His good creation: 1) Freedom to choose is necessary for a meaningful relationship. 2) Evil is necessary in order to reveal God’s glory, and 3) Evil is necessary for our formation.
1. Freedom to choose is necessary for a meaningful relationship
We have already seen that there is no evil in God, but rather, evil was first conceived in the hearts and minds of God’s creatures whom He created as free moral beings, capable of choosing to either willfully subject themselves to Him, or act independently of Him.
Relational love is an impossibility without free-will. Since God created us in His own image and likeness in order that we might truly know Him and have a loving relationship with Him, our ability to choose whether or not we are going to correspond to His love is a logical necessity. True love in any relationship must be freely chosen by both parties.
The only way God could have eliminated the possibility of evil would have been to create amoral robotic beings, incapable of making independent decisions contrary to His will. Such beings would indeed do whatever He programmed them to do, and they would be incapable of sinning against Him. However, any loving relationship with them would have been impossible. Relational love, by its very nature, must be freely chosen by moral and relational beings possessing free-will.
While it is another subject in itself, God's sovereignty is not limited nor hampered by the free-will decisions of His creatures. Although all things are known to God from eternity, not all things are dictated by Him. In His infinite wisdom, He is able to work all things according to His eternal purpose without the need to manipulate our every move like a puppet or a pre-programmed robot.
There are a few hyper-Calvinists who still hold to a rigid determinism, claiming that all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by God and that there is no such thing as human free-will. While it is true that God is sovereign and, as any loving father, He may restrain the free exercise of our will as He deems necessary, the total denial of our ability to independently choose would defeat His good purpose in creating us, which is to be loved by Him and for us to reciprocate in a loving, intimate relationship with the triune Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. Evil is necessary in order to reveal God’s glory
Although Adam and Eve were created flawless and innocent, they lacked an experiential knowledge of God, much as newborn infants lack any real knowledge of their parents who brought them into the world. Adam and Eve were the recipients of God’s love and goodness, but without ever having experienced hatred and evil, their understanding and appreciation of His love and goodness was very rudimentary.
Only through the fall and God’s redemption and salvation was it possible for us to have any real comprehension of His multidimensional love. Only those who have become acutely aware of their own depravity and unworthiness come to know the depth of God’s love in the form of longsuffering, grace and mercy. Had Adam and Eve continued in their state of innocence, neither men nor angels would have ever had the opportunity to know the width and length and depth and height of the love of God which surpasses knowledge.
Suffering and evil are only for a brief moment in comparison to eternity, but the experiential knowledge of God’s love which we acquire in this brief lifetime will be a priceless and eternal treasure. It produces an intimacy with God that Adam and Eve could have never even imagined in their primitive state of innocence.
3. Evil is necessary for our formation
It is a true saying that our character is formed in the school of adversity. And adversity, or natural evil, is a consequence of moral evil. Without the entrance of moral evil, mankind would have never known adversity. Without adversity we would have never matured. Adam and Eve were perfect and innocent before the fall in a way similar to that of a newborn baby. However, there is a great difference between infantile innocence and positive righteousness.
Before the fall, Adam and Eve were innocent and naïve. They had no concept of sin and its consequences. It is only through the fall and the resultant suffering under the heavy yoke of sin that we all eventually come to hate evil and seek God and His righteousness. Once mankind has been delivered from sin’s dominion and restored to full communion with God, we will not be innocent and naïve as Adam and Eve were in the beginning. Instead, we will forever possess a positive righteousness in union with God, abhorring evil and loving that which is good.
Contrary to the doctrine of eternal torment which perpetuates evil (albeit quarantined in hell), once all creation has been restored and God becomes all in all, evil will forever cease to exist, no longer having any host willing to nurture it. Moral evil only exists in the minds and hearts of individuals. When God becomes all in all, the last enemy, death, will have been destroyed, and evil in all its forms will forever cease to exist (1Cor 15:26-28; Isa 25:6-8 cf., Rev 21:3-5).
The belief in the final extinction of evil and the end of death (whether it be the first or the second death) through the restoration of all, was the dominant belief of the most prominent Ante Nicene Fathers prior to the fifth century, and was eloquently expressed by Gregory of Nyssa (330 to 394 AD) when he said:
“Wherefore that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan, to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness . . . either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire.” [1]
“For it is needful that evil should someday be wholly and absolutely removed out of the circle of being. For inasmuch as it is not in the nature of evil to exist without the will, when every will comes to be in God, will not evil go on to absolute extinction by reason of there being no receptacle of it left?” [2]
“When every created being is at harmony with itself…and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord … Everything shall be subdued to Christ, and they shall be subdued by a full knowledge of Him, and by a remodeling… Now God will be all in all at the time of restitution.” [3] (emphasis mine)
In this brief window of time on earth, God is preparing us to reign with Him. The only way we can be perfected or matured is in the school of suffering and affliction. There are no shortcuts to maturity. We must all die two deaths. We must not only die physically, but we must also die the second death to the flesh and the soul/life, either in this life, or later in the purifying lake of fire (Rev 2:11). Paul exhorts us to continue in the faith, saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).
What is Paul saying here? Elsewhere he said that we have already been delivered from the kingdom of darkness and translated into the kingdom of Christ (Col 1:13). All who have been born again are now children of the kingdom (Jn 1:12; 3:5). However, we are only perfected in suffering, and in that sense, whenever we submit ourselves under the mighty hand of God in the midst of suffering, we are entering into a greater level of maturity and kingdom authority in preparation to reign with Him when He comes to reign and to be glorified in His saints (2 Tim 2:12; Rom 8:17; 2Thess 1:10).
Understanding that we are perfected in suffering, for us to ask God to remove us from all suffering in this world would be asking Him to love us less. Rather than removing us from life’s trials, He gives us the grace to bear up under them (1Cor 10:13). The Psalmist said: “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all.” (Ps 34:19). Paul said that in all these things we are more than conquerors (Rom 8:35-37). After saying that the world would hate us, Jesus prayed to the Father that He would not remove us from the world, but rather keep us in the midst of it (Jn 17:14-15). Rather than denying Satan’s request to sift Peter, He prayed that his faith would not fail in the midst of his trial (Luke 22:31-32). Peter says that the suffering we must undergo is only for a little while in comparison to eternity, and the God of all grace is faithful to keep us and perfect us through it. He said:
“But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you. 11 To Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (1 Peter 5:10-11)
Peter saw trials and afflictions as being needful or necessary for our own purification:
“In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 1:6-7)
Paul, likewise, saw the present brief lifetime of affliction as nothing in comparison to the eternal benefits we receive through that which we suffer in this fallen world:
“For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor 4:17-18)
That is why a long life is considered to be a great blessing in Scripture. Being now in my 70s and still alive ten years after receiving a liver transplant, I am grateful to God for each new day that He grants me, in spite of the increased aches and pains and the trials which will doubtlessly come my way, since I have come to appreciate the eternal value of each day lived in this fallen world, submitted under the mighty hand of God. It saddens me to see some advocating for euthanasia rather than encouraging the elderly to endure until the Lord takes them home.
I have heard some who defend abortion say that nothing is lost, since they go to heaven anyway. While it is true that we will see them in heaven, whenever a baby is aborted, that soul is deprived of an eternal weight of glory which can only be obtained by living out one’s lifetime in this fallen world in submission to God.
While it would defeat God’s purpose to fully reveal all of His reasons for permitting evil in this present world, He has revealed enough in order for us to trust that He is working all things together for our good. What He has revealed is sufficient so that we should willingly submit ourselves to His plan for our lives, knowing that, when evil has served its purpose, it will be no more, and God will have restored all creation to a level of glory much greater than it was in the beginning. God makes all things beautiful in His time.
[1] Gregorio de Niza, Orat. pro Mortuis, ad. fin. p. 634, Ed. Paris. 1638.
[2] Gregorio de Niza, Dial. de Anima et Resurrect. tom.iii. p. 227, Ed. Paris. 1638
[3] Gregorio de Niza, Catechetical Oraciones, (36)
--
by George Sidney Hurd
Having determined in the previous blogs what evil is, and when it first entered into creation, we can now consider the most important question: Why did God allow evil to enter His creation? What good purpose does it serve?
The Scriptures reveal to us that God’s essential nature is love and that He is at the same time omniscient, omnipotent and infinite in wisdom (1Jn 4:8,16; Isa 46:10; Job 37:23; Rev 1:8). They also declare that all His works are known to Him from eternity and that He works all things according to the determinate counsel of His will (Acts 15:18; Eph 1:11).
All these things considered, it logically follows that He would not have created, knowing that evil would enter His good creation, resulting in so much suffering, unless the end result would be exceedingly and abundantly good, above and beyond what we can think or imagine, and that, when all is said and done, it will magnify His infinite wisdom and goodness in having permitted its existence (Eph 3:20-21). The end result will be such that all creation will be eternally grateful, spontaneously praising Him for His marvelous works (Psa 145:10; Rev 15:3-4; 5:13). The final outcome of God’s creation must be better than its commencement – otherwise He, in His infinite wisdom and foreknowledge, would have never commenced creation. What God begins He perfects.
In this blog I want to consider three primary reasons why it was necessary for God to allow for the entrance of evil in His good creation: 1) Freedom to choose is necessary for a meaningful relationship. 2) Evil is necessary in order to reveal God’s glory, and 3) Evil is necessary for our formation.
1. Freedom to choose is necessary for a meaningful relationship
We have already seen that there is no evil in God, but rather, evil was first conceived in the hearts and minds of God’s creatures whom He created as free moral beings, capable of choosing to either willfully subject themselves to Him, or act independently of Him.
Relational love is an impossibility without free-will. Since God created us in His own image and likeness in order that we might truly know Him and have a loving relationship with Him, our ability to choose whether or not we are going to correspond to His love is a logical necessity. True love in any relationship must be freely chosen by both parties.
The only way God could have eliminated the possibility of evil would have been to create amoral robotic beings, incapable of making independent decisions contrary to His will. Such beings would indeed do whatever He programmed them to do, and they would be incapable of sinning against Him. However, any loving relationship with them would have been impossible. Relational love, by its very nature, must be freely chosen by moral and relational beings possessing free-will.
While it is another subject in itself, God's sovereignty is not limited nor hampered by the free-will decisions of His creatures. Although all things are known to God from eternity, not all things are dictated by Him. In His infinite wisdom, He is able to work all things according to His eternal purpose without the need to manipulate our every move like a puppet or a pre-programmed robot.
There are a few hyper-Calvinists who still hold to a rigid determinism, claiming that all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by God and that there is no such thing as human free-will. While it is true that God is sovereign and, as any loving father, He may restrain the free exercise of our will as He deems necessary, the total denial of our ability to independently choose would defeat His good purpose in creating us, which is to be loved by Him and for us to reciprocate in a loving, intimate relationship with the triune Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. Evil is necessary in order to reveal God’s glory
Although Adam and Eve were created flawless and innocent, they lacked an experiential knowledge of God, much as newborn infants lack any real knowledge of their parents who brought them into the world. Adam and Eve were the recipients of God’s love and goodness, but without ever having experienced hatred and evil, their understanding and appreciation of His love and goodness was very rudimentary.
Only through the fall and God’s redemption and salvation was it possible for us to have any real comprehension of His multidimensional love. Only those who have become acutely aware of their own depravity and unworthiness come to know the depth of God’s love in the form of longsuffering, grace and mercy. Had Adam and Eve continued in their state of innocence, neither men nor angels would have ever had the opportunity to know the width and length and depth and height of the love of God which surpasses knowledge.
Suffering and evil are only for a brief moment in comparison to eternity, but the experiential knowledge of God’s love which we acquire in this brief lifetime will be a priceless and eternal treasure. It produces an intimacy with God that Adam and Eve could have never even imagined in their primitive state of innocence.
3. Evil is necessary for our formation
It is a true saying that our character is formed in the school of adversity. And adversity, or natural evil, is a consequence of moral evil. Without the entrance of moral evil, mankind would have never known adversity. Without adversity we would have never matured. Adam and Eve were perfect and innocent before the fall in a way similar to that of a newborn baby. However, there is a great difference between infantile innocence and positive righteousness.
Before the fall, Adam and Eve were innocent and naïve. They had no concept of sin and its consequences. It is only through the fall and the resultant suffering under the heavy yoke of sin that we all eventually come to hate evil and seek God and His righteousness. Once mankind has been delivered from sin’s dominion and restored to full communion with God, we will not be innocent and naïve as Adam and Eve were in the beginning. Instead, we will forever possess a positive righteousness in union with God, abhorring evil and loving that which is good.
Contrary to the doctrine of eternal torment which perpetuates evil (albeit quarantined in hell), once all creation has been restored and God becomes all in all, evil will forever cease to exist, no longer having any host willing to nurture it. Moral evil only exists in the minds and hearts of individuals. When God becomes all in all, the last enemy, death, will have been destroyed, and evil in all its forms will forever cease to exist (1Cor 15:26-28; Isa 25:6-8 cf., Rev 21:3-5).
The belief in the final extinction of evil and the end of death (whether it be the first or the second death) through the restoration of all, was the dominant belief of the most prominent Ante Nicene Fathers prior to the fifth century, and was eloquently expressed by Gregory of Nyssa (330 to 394 AD) when he said:
“Wherefore that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan, to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness . . . either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire.” [1]
“For it is needful that evil should someday be wholly and absolutely removed out of the circle of being. For inasmuch as it is not in the nature of evil to exist without the will, when every will comes to be in God, will not evil go on to absolute extinction by reason of there being no receptacle of it left?” [2]
“When every created being is at harmony with itself…and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord … Everything shall be subdued to Christ, and they shall be subdued by a full knowledge of Him, and by a remodeling… Now God will be all in all at the time of restitution.” [3] (emphasis mine)
In this brief window of time on earth, God is preparing us to reign with Him. The only way we can be perfected or matured is in the school of suffering and affliction. There are no shortcuts to maturity. We must all die two deaths. We must not only die physically, but we must also die the second death to the flesh and the soul/life, either in this life, or later in the purifying lake of fire (Rev 2:11). Paul exhorts us to continue in the faith, saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).
What is Paul saying here? Elsewhere he said that we have already been delivered from the kingdom of darkness and translated into the kingdom of Christ (Col 1:13). All who have been born again are now children of the kingdom (Jn 1:12; 3:5). However, we are only perfected in suffering, and in that sense, whenever we submit ourselves under the mighty hand of God in the midst of suffering, we are entering into a greater level of maturity and kingdom authority in preparation to reign with Him when He comes to reign and to be glorified in His saints (2 Tim 2:12; Rom 8:17; 2Thess 1:10).
Understanding that we are perfected in suffering, for us to ask God to remove us from all suffering in this world would be asking Him to love us less. Rather than removing us from life’s trials, He gives us the grace to bear up under them (1Cor 10:13). The Psalmist said: “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all.” (Ps 34:19). Paul said that in all these things we are more than conquerors (Rom 8:35-37). After saying that the world would hate us, Jesus prayed to the Father that He would not remove us from the world, but rather keep us in the midst of it (Jn 17:14-15). Rather than denying Satan’s request to sift Peter, He prayed that his faith would not fail in the midst of his trial (Luke 22:31-32). Peter says that the suffering we must undergo is only for a little while in comparison to eternity, and the God of all grace is faithful to keep us and perfect us through it. He said:
“But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you. 11 To Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (1 Peter 5:10-11)
Peter saw trials and afflictions as being needful or necessary for our own purification:
“In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 1:6-7)
Paul, likewise, saw the present brief lifetime of affliction as nothing in comparison to the eternal benefits we receive through that which we suffer in this fallen world:
“For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor 4:17-18)
That is why a long life is considered to be a great blessing in Scripture. Being now in my 70s and still alive ten years after receiving a liver transplant, I am grateful to God for each new day that He grants me, in spite of the increased aches and pains and the trials which will doubtlessly come my way, since I have come to appreciate the eternal value of each day lived in this fallen world, submitted under the mighty hand of God. It saddens me to see some advocating for euthanasia rather than encouraging the elderly to endure until the Lord takes them home.
I have heard some who defend abortion say that nothing is lost, since they go to heaven anyway. While it is true that we will see them in heaven, whenever a baby is aborted, that soul is deprived of an eternal weight of glory which can only be obtained by living out one’s lifetime in this fallen world in submission to God.
While it would defeat God’s purpose to fully reveal all of His reasons for permitting evil in this present world, He has revealed enough in order for us to trust that He is working all things together for our good. What He has revealed is sufficient so that we should willingly submit ourselves to His plan for our lives, knowing that, when evil has served its purpose, it will be no more, and God will have restored all creation to a level of glory much greater than it was in the beginning. God makes all things beautiful in His time.
[1] Gregorio de Niza, Orat. pro Mortuis, ad. fin. p. 634, Ed. Paris. 1638.
[2] Gregorio de Niza, Dial. de Anima et Resurrect. tom.iii. p. 227, Ed. Paris. 1638
[3] Gregorio de Niza, Catechetical Oraciones, (36)
- Published on
The Where of Evil
by George Sidney Hurd
Having considered the what of evil in the previous blog, we will now be looking at the where of evil. Where and when did evil first originate?
We have already seen that evil did not exist in the beginning. God is perfect and just, and therefore all that He originally created was good (Gen 1:31; Deut 32:4). For that reason, evil had to have entered into the world by an independent agent other than God, subsequent to creation. And as I hope to demonstrate from Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, that free agent was the anointed cherub prior to his fall, originally called Helel, or in Latin, Lucifer, which means “morning star.”
In Ezekiel 28 verses 1 through 10, God begins by speaking directly to the earthly king of Tyre who had become lifted up with pride, proclaiming himself to be a god. God said to Ezekiel: “Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre…” Everything said in these ten verses is applicable to the human leader himself.
However, beginning in verse 11 thru to verse 19, Ezekiel is not told to speak directly to the king, but rather to sing a lamentation or song of mourning over him. In this dirge, which is sung over the king of Tyre while yet still alive, it immediately becomes evident that the Lord is no longer addressing him alone, but rather the prince of darkness who was actually the one who incited the king of Tyre to pride and self-exaltation, bringing him under the same judgment which had previously befell him.
What many are unaware of is that national leaders have spiritual principalities assigned to them. That is partly what Paul meant when he said: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12). When Daniel sought the Lord with prayer and fasting for his people Israel, it was the spiritual prince of Persia who opposed the angel sent to answer Daniel’s prayer, requiring the assistance of Michael the archangel who was the prince of Daniel’s people Israel (Dan 12:12-13, 20-21). With this in mind, upon reading this dirge, it becomes evident that God is speaking primarily to Satan himself, who is the god of this age and the principality exercising influence over the king of Tyre:
“Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord God:
"You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: the sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. 14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. 16 "By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned; therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God; and I destroyed you, o covering cherub, from the midst of the fiery stones. 17 "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, that they might gaze at you.” (Ezek 28:11-17)
There are numerous things said of this ruler which could not be said of a mere human ruler: 1) He was created, rather than procreated. 2) He was a cherub. Cherubim are created spiritual beings, not men. 3) He was perfect and without iniquity, something that God would never say of any sinful human king. 4) He was originally in the heavenly Eden on the holy mountain of God.
Therefore, we see that even Satan, who originally was called Helel or Lucifer, was perfect and free from iniquity, just as God had created him, until his heart was lifted up with pride because of his exceptional beauty and wisdom. Once pride was fully conceived in his heart, he committed the first sin of self-determination in the form of his five “I wills,” which led to active rebellion against God, as we see described in Isaiah 14. Just as in Ezekiel 28, the chapter begins by speaking to a mortal king and then addresses Lucifer who is the principality behind him. Beginning in verse 12 God says:
“How you are fallen from heaven, o Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! 13 For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' 15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit.” (Isa 14:12-15)
As a result of his rebellion, he was cast out of the holy mountain of God. While Satan will not be totally deprived of access to God’s heavenly throne until he is finally confined to the earth along with a third of the angels three and a half years before Christ’s Second Coming (Rev 12:6-9), he is no longer the glorious cherub that covered God’s throne. Now he is the prince of the power of the air and the god of this age. And he only has that position because Adam relinquished his God given authority over the earth to Satan when he obeyed the serpent, rather than God.
That these passages are primarily making reference to Lucifer’s fall is confirmed by Paul’s allusion to it when he instructed Timothy to not appoint a recent convert as a bishop or pastor “lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil” (1 Tim 3:6). The only passages in Scripture revealing that the devil’s fall was due to pride are here in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14.
Numerous quotes from the Early Church Fathers also indicate that they likewise understood these two passages to be referring to the fall of Lucifer. For brevity, I will just include one quote from Origen. He said:
“But the angels also wonder at the peace which is to be brought about on account of Jesus on the earth, that seat of war, on which Lucifer, star of the morning, fell from heaven, to be warred against and destroyed by Jesus.” [1]
The Liberal Higher Critics of the sacred text, in their attempts to discredit the Scriptures, point out similar beliefs of cultures which predate the writing of the Old Testament Scriptures. For example, the Canaanites spoke of a mighty warrior called Helal, who sought to ascend higher than the other gods, but was defeated and cast down to the depths.
However, to me, the fact that these similarities exist in other ancient post diluvian cultures further confirms the truth of the biblical account, since after the flood all would have shared a common oral tradition. As time went on and Noah’s descendants were dispersed at Babel, these oral traditions lost their purity compared to the divinely inspired biblical account, but their similarity only serves to demonstrate that they shared a common prior source.
I have heard some argue that Satan was originally created evil, based upon the words of Jesus when He said that the devil was a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies (John 8:44). However, we have already seen that Lucifer was created perfect and remained perfect until iniquity was found in him. So, clearly the “beginning” Jesus was referring to was not the moment of Lucifer’s creation. One cannot be a murderer before a physical being even exists to kill. Clearly, the beginning Jesus was referring to was the moment of the first acts of Satan which were recorded in Genesis when he lied to Eve and brought physical death to mankind. That was the beginning of his career as a murderer and the father of all lies.
So, in answer to the “where” of evil, clearly evil was first conceived in Lucifer’s own heart. Some have trouble seeing how a perfect being in a perfect environment could be capable of conceiving evil. However, I personally don’t see that as a problem, considering that God created men and angels as free rational beings, capable of thinking and acting independently from Him. As I understand it, the angels were enamored by his majestic beauty and wisdom in a way that he couldn’t help but notice. Apparently, at some point, due to all the admiration he continually received, he began to look away from God to himself and became inflated with pride, which in turn led to independent self-determination and finally rebellion.
The primary question still remains: why would God create free rational beings, knowing all along that they would introduce evil into His good creation? That is the question I hope to answer in the next blog.
[1] Origen, Commentary on John, book 1, chapter 13
by George Sidney Hurd
Having considered the what of evil in the previous blog, we will now be looking at the where of evil. Where and when did evil first originate?
We have already seen that evil did not exist in the beginning. God is perfect and just, and therefore all that He originally created was good (Gen 1:31; Deut 32:4). For that reason, evil had to have entered into the world by an independent agent other than God, subsequent to creation. And as I hope to demonstrate from Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, that free agent was the anointed cherub prior to his fall, originally called Helel, or in Latin, Lucifer, which means “morning star.”
In Ezekiel 28 verses 1 through 10, God begins by speaking directly to the earthly king of Tyre who had become lifted up with pride, proclaiming himself to be a god. God said to Ezekiel: “Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre…” Everything said in these ten verses is applicable to the human leader himself.
However, beginning in verse 11 thru to verse 19, Ezekiel is not told to speak directly to the king, but rather to sing a lamentation or song of mourning over him. In this dirge, which is sung over the king of Tyre while yet still alive, it immediately becomes evident that the Lord is no longer addressing him alone, but rather the prince of darkness who was actually the one who incited the king of Tyre to pride and self-exaltation, bringing him under the same judgment which had previously befell him.
What many are unaware of is that national leaders have spiritual principalities assigned to them. That is partly what Paul meant when he said: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12). When Daniel sought the Lord with prayer and fasting for his people Israel, it was the spiritual prince of Persia who opposed the angel sent to answer Daniel’s prayer, requiring the assistance of Michael the archangel who was the prince of Daniel’s people Israel (Dan 12:12-13, 20-21). With this in mind, upon reading this dirge, it becomes evident that God is speaking primarily to Satan himself, who is the god of this age and the principality exercising influence over the king of Tyre:
“Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord God:
"You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: the sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. 14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. 16 "By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned; therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God; and I destroyed you, o covering cherub, from the midst of the fiery stones. 17 "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, that they might gaze at you.” (Ezek 28:11-17)
There are numerous things said of this ruler which could not be said of a mere human ruler: 1) He was created, rather than procreated. 2) He was a cherub. Cherubim are created spiritual beings, not men. 3) He was perfect and without iniquity, something that God would never say of any sinful human king. 4) He was originally in the heavenly Eden on the holy mountain of God.
Therefore, we see that even Satan, who originally was called Helel or Lucifer, was perfect and free from iniquity, just as God had created him, until his heart was lifted up with pride because of his exceptional beauty and wisdom. Once pride was fully conceived in his heart, he committed the first sin of self-determination in the form of his five “I wills,” which led to active rebellion against God, as we see described in Isaiah 14. Just as in Ezekiel 28, the chapter begins by speaking to a mortal king and then addresses Lucifer who is the principality behind him. Beginning in verse 12 God says:
“How you are fallen from heaven, o Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! 13 For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' 15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit.” (Isa 14:12-15)
As a result of his rebellion, he was cast out of the holy mountain of God. While Satan will not be totally deprived of access to God’s heavenly throne until he is finally confined to the earth along with a third of the angels three and a half years before Christ’s Second Coming (Rev 12:6-9), he is no longer the glorious cherub that covered God’s throne. Now he is the prince of the power of the air and the god of this age. And he only has that position because Adam relinquished his God given authority over the earth to Satan when he obeyed the serpent, rather than God.
That these passages are primarily making reference to Lucifer’s fall is confirmed by Paul’s allusion to it when he instructed Timothy to not appoint a recent convert as a bishop or pastor “lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil” (1 Tim 3:6). The only passages in Scripture revealing that the devil’s fall was due to pride are here in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14.
Numerous quotes from the Early Church Fathers also indicate that they likewise understood these two passages to be referring to the fall of Lucifer. For brevity, I will just include one quote from Origen. He said:
“But the angels also wonder at the peace which is to be brought about on account of Jesus on the earth, that seat of war, on which Lucifer, star of the morning, fell from heaven, to be warred against and destroyed by Jesus.” [1]
The Liberal Higher Critics of the sacred text, in their attempts to discredit the Scriptures, point out similar beliefs of cultures which predate the writing of the Old Testament Scriptures. For example, the Canaanites spoke of a mighty warrior called Helal, who sought to ascend higher than the other gods, but was defeated and cast down to the depths.
However, to me, the fact that these similarities exist in other ancient post diluvian cultures further confirms the truth of the biblical account, since after the flood all would have shared a common oral tradition. As time went on and Noah’s descendants were dispersed at Babel, these oral traditions lost their purity compared to the divinely inspired biblical account, but their similarity only serves to demonstrate that they shared a common prior source.
I have heard some argue that Satan was originally created evil, based upon the words of Jesus when He said that the devil was a murderer from the beginning and the father of lies (John 8:44). However, we have already seen that Lucifer was created perfect and remained perfect until iniquity was found in him. So, clearly the “beginning” Jesus was referring to was not the moment of Lucifer’s creation. One cannot be a murderer before a physical being even exists to kill. Clearly, the beginning Jesus was referring to was the moment of the first acts of Satan which were recorded in Genesis when he lied to Eve and brought physical death to mankind. That was the beginning of his career as a murderer and the father of all lies.
So, in answer to the “where” of evil, clearly evil was first conceived in Lucifer’s own heart. Some have trouble seeing how a perfect being in a perfect environment could be capable of conceiving evil. However, I personally don’t see that as a problem, considering that God created men and angels as free rational beings, capable of thinking and acting independently from Him. As I understand it, the angels were enamored by his majestic beauty and wisdom in a way that he couldn’t help but notice. Apparently, at some point, due to all the admiration he continually received, he began to look away from God to himself and became inflated with pride, which in turn led to independent self-determination and finally rebellion.
The primary question still remains: why would God create free rational beings, knowing all along that they would introduce evil into His good creation? That is the question I hope to answer in the next blog.
[1] Origen, Commentary on John, book 1, chapter 13
- Published on
The What of Evil
by George Sidney Hurd
What is evil and how did it come to be so prevalent in our daily lives? Where did evil come from originally? If God is omniscient, all-powerful and all loving, why would He even allow it to enter His good creation, much less permit it to continue throughout entire ages? What higher purpose could the presence of evil serve so as to justify its continuance?
These are some of the questions I hope to present answers to for your own personal consideration in the following three blogs. Many of these questions are answered for us in Scripture, while others must remain a mystery to us until we can see the big picture, much as was the case with Joseph and Job. Those of us who have tasted that the Lord is good can rest assured that He is somehow working all things together for good in our lives and that His creation story ends with a much greater glory than it began (Ps 34:8). He makes all things beautiful in His time (Eccl 3:11).
The answers are much easier to discover for those of us who believe that God’s plan for the ages culminates in the final restoration of all, believing that all evil will have been finally removed when God becomes all in all after the ages have run their course. However, the Eternal Infernalists, who believe that God Himself perpetuates evil, inflicting unending torments upon the vast majority of mankind along with two thirds of the angels, have more than mere questions to resolve: they face real moral and logical dilemmas which defy all reasonable explanation. For them, it is not simply the question of evil, but the problem of evil.
Only Biblical Universalists can reasonably explain the presence of evil in God’s creation without diminishing God’s essential nature, which is love, nor His immutable attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. Calvinists maintain God’s omnipotence but at the expense of His love and mercy, saying that God decrees and punishes evil for His own self-glorification. According to the Westminster Confession, Calvinists say: “He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice (emphasis mine).” [1]
Arminians, on the other hand, seek to preserve God’s love and goodness at the expense of His omnipotence, saying that God loves all, but He must allow evil to enter His good creation, and eternally exist within it, out of respect for the free-will decisions of fallen men and angels. God who wills that all be saved, and has sworn that all will bow the knee to Him, must Himself bow to the free-will of lost sinners. Arminians ultimately sacrifice God’s sovereignty in order to preserve man’s sovereign free-will, only to turn around and deny man’s free-will forever the moment one’s heart stops beating.
Open Theists go a step further, seeking to justify God by not only sacrificing His sovereignty, but also His omniscience, saying that God could not have foreseen the entrance and perpetuation of evil since, either He cannot foresee the future, or else He chose not to see it out of respect for our sovereign free-will. I discuss this and other difficulties with Open Theism in a series of two blogs entitled Does God know my Tomorrow?
In contrast to the Eternal Infernalist’s model which presents God as creating an everlasting dualism, once we understand that God’s eternal plan for the ages culminates in the final restoration of all to a much more glorious state than that enjoyed by Adam and Eve before the fall, it becomes much easier to understand the question of evil. In this first of three blogs, we will begin by seeking to better understand what evil is.
Evil is not some “thing” which God originally created
To those who ask whether God Himself originally created evil, the unequivocable answer is no. In the Genesis creation account, it says: “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good” (Gen 1:31). Contrary to Eastern thought, in the beginning everything was very good. Good and evil have not eternally coexisted, nor will evil continue forever, as traditionally taught. It entered into God’s time/space creation at a specific point in time and will cease to exist when God becomes all in all, at which time we will enter into God’s eternity where evil cannot exist (1Cor 15:28; Rev 21:4).
Some have mistakenly thought that evil predated creation and that God included evil in creation when He made the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, the evil was not contained within the fruit of the tree itself, as if evil were some tangible created substance which could be ingested. Rather, evil was first conceived in the heart and mind of Adam and Eve and was then actuated by their transgression against God’s command to not eat of the forbidden tree.
Evil is not a created thing such as a fruit tree. Rather evil consists of the subsequent actions of God’s creatures who choose to act in disobedience, independently of His will. Evil is not a thing, but rather an action. Evil is first conceived in the heart as a desire, which in turn gives birth to the sin or the evil act. God was neither the source of evil, nor was He the source of the temptation. As James, the half-brother of our Lord said:
“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” (James 1:13-16)
The deception James warns us about is the lie that God is somehow the tempter or the originator of evil. God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all (1Jn 1:5). While it is true that God inhabits eternity and there has therefore never been a time when He didn’t possess the knowledge of the evil that His creatures would commit, evil is not in Him, nor did evil come from Him as to source. Evil is not a creation of God, but exclusively a creaturely act.
Two kinds of evil
We have seen that God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all. He is the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning (James 1:17). Moses, to whom God is said to have shown His ways as none other, said of Him:
“His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.” (Deut 32:4)
Considering the fact that God’s creative work is perfect and that He is just in all His ways, any theodicy which presents God as being the primary source of evil of any kind is a misrepresentation of God’s character as revealed in Scripture. There are two distinct forms of evil described in the Bible, 1) moral evil and 2) natural evil. However, neither were originally a part of God’s good creation, but entered through the fall.
Moral Evil
As we have already seen, moral evil is not some “thing” which God created, but rather sinful and unjust actions which originated in the minds and hearts of free moral beings. As Jesus said:
“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” (Matt 15:19)
We already saw how James warned against being deceived into thinking that God is in any way the source of moral evil. (James 1:13-16). If God were in some way responsible for our moral evil, then He would be unjust in punishing evildoers. Paul emphatically denies that God is in any way acting unjustly when He judges evildoers, saying: “Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? (Rom 3:5-6). If God were in any way liable for our sin, then our redemption would have been His moral obligation, rather than an act of His free unmerited grace and mercy, as it is revealed to be in Scripture.
Natural Evil
Natural evil is a term used to refer to things like cancer, birth defects, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other phenomena. Contrary to modern secular theory, God created all things good, and natural evil did not exist in creation until the fall when death entered the world and creation was subjected to vanity as a consequence of man’s sin (Rom 5:12; 8:20-22).
Man was originally given dominion over the earth, but when Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan’s temptation through the serpent, they forfeited that dominion to Satan. He is presently the god of this age and the whole present world system is under his control rather than man having dominion over the earth (2Cor 4:4; 1Jn 5:19). The earth was cursed as a result of man’s disobedience when he forfeited his dominion to Satan. That is when the earth began to produce thorns and thistles, and rather than the animal kingdom being submissive to man, they became hostile to man, making it necessary for God to put the fear of man within them. The first mention of natural disaster is when the fountains of the great deep were broken up, bringing the flood because of man’s unbridled moral evil (Gen 7:11).
Therefore, God is neither the author of moral evil, nor natural evil, since neither were part of His original creation. Many have misconstrued Isaiah 45:7 as translated in the KJV as meaning that God created evil. There God says:
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace (shalom), and create evil (ra‘): I the LORD do all these things.” (Isa 45:7 KJV)
Having already seen that God originally created all things good and perfect and that all His ways are just, it is clear that God is not saying here that He directly created evil in the beginning, whether it be moral evil or natural evil. I had previously understood this verse as meaning that God was saying that He accepted responsibility for indirectly creating evil by creating free moral beings capable of conceiving evil in their hearts, which would be true, since He created them knowing that they would introduce evil into His creation. However, upon a more careful consideration of what is actually being said in the context of this verse, it became obvious that the original creation is not even in view here.
In Isaiah 45 God is addressing the Persian king Cyrus, whom He here calls by name, years before he was even born. When He said that He is the one who makes peace and creates evil (present tense), He is not referring to the original creation, but rather what He brings about in the present. He is contrasting Himself with the Persian pantheon of gods. The Persians worshipped Ahura Mazda, who was the king of the gods. However, he wasn’t considered to be all-powerful. They also gave tribute to Angra Mainyu, who was the prince of ra‘ or evil, chaos and discord. They also had Mithra, the God of light, or the rising sun.
The Lord is here telling Cyrus that He is the one and only true God, the source of all things, including both light and darkness, peace and evil (ra‘). The Hebrew word ra most commonly means “moral evil or bad” in Scripture. Even when referring to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ra‘ is the word used.
However, there are many instances where ra is used to refer to bad things in general, such as Job’s “painful” (ra‘) boils (Job 2:7), a “calamity” (ra‘), such as a plague, (2Sam 24:16), or a “disaster” (ra‘) brought about by an invading enemy (Jer 4:6), as opposed to peace (shalom), just as we see here in Isaiah 45:17. What God is saying to Cyrus is, “I am the God to seek for an abundant harvest, not Mithra. If you want peace rather than wartime disaster, look to Me, instead of offering sacrifices to Angra Mainyu, the demon god of ra‘ evil, chaos and discord, to persuade him to leave you in peace.”
Throughout Scripture we see that God, for His own good purposes, does create natural evil, either directly or indirectly. For reasons we will be considering in the third blog of this series, God often allows His children to suffer affliction, but, as with Job and Joseph, He delivers them out of them all more than conquerors. As the psalmist says: “Many are the afflictions (ra‘) of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all” (Ps 34:19).
God also brings evil (ra‘) upon obstinate and unrepentant sinners so that they will repent and be restored. As Amos 3:6 says, “If there is calamity (ra‘) in a city, will not the Lord have done it?” We even see that God speaks forth judgments of ra‘ as punishment for unrepentant sin. Lamentations 3:38-39 says: “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities (ra‘) and good things come? Why should any living man complain when punished for his sins?”
Does this make God evil or unjust? Certainly not! From the moment moral evil entered into the world, often the only effective form of correction for the obstinately wicked is to repay moral ra‘ with natural ra‘. Our own innate sense of justice tells us that the Judge of all the earth would be unjust if He were to let an unrepentant Hitler or a Putin off the hook without measuring out a just retribution which would be natural ra‘ for moral ra‘.
Indeed, this is what we see throughout Scripture. To those who would accuse God of being unjust for punishing moral ra‘ with natural ra‘, Paul responded: “Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?” (Rom 3:5-6). He also said to those believers under persecution: “it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you” (2 Thess 1:6).
Those who believe that God’s love is exclusively cruciform must reject such passages which present God as a righteous judge executing justice against the unrepentant. Sadly, many today overreact against the diabolical dogma which teaches that God inflicts infinite punishment for finite sins without any restorative purpose, by rejecting any portrayal of God as Judge in Scripture.
Rightly understood, God’s judgments in which He inflicts natural ra‘ upon those who do moral ra‘ are good, since the execution of His justice always has correction as its purpose and restoration as its end, just as a loving father’s corrective ra‘ is applied in order to correct the moral ra‘ in his disobedient child. The Psalmist understood this and could say:
“Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep Your word… It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I may learn Your statutes… I know, O Lord, that Your judgments are right, and that in faithfulness You have afflicted me.” (Ps 119:67,71,75)
In summary, we have seen that moral evil is not some “thing” that God created, but rather evil refers to the evil thoughts and actions of free moral beings who were originally created good. Neither was natural evil originally present in God’s good creation, but rather came later as a consequence of man’s sin.
In the next blog we will be considering the second question of evil – where did evil originate? Then in the final blog we will consider what to me is the most important question of evil – the why of evil. What purpose did God have in determining to allow it, and how do all things work together for the greater good of all?
[1] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 3 — Articles 6 and 7.
by George Sidney Hurd
What is evil and how did it come to be so prevalent in our daily lives? Where did evil come from originally? If God is omniscient, all-powerful and all loving, why would He even allow it to enter His good creation, much less permit it to continue throughout entire ages? What higher purpose could the presence of evil serve so as to justify its continuance?
These are some of the questions I hope to present answers to for your own personal consideration in the following three blogs. Many of these questions are answered for us in Scripture, while others must remain a mystery to us until we can see the big picture, much as was the case with Joseph and Job. Those of us who have tasted that the Lord is good can rest assured that He is somehow working all things together for good in our lives and that His creation story ends with a much greater glory than it began (Ps 34:8). He makes all things beautiful in His time (Eccl 3:11).
The answers are much easier to discover for those of us who believe that God’s plan for the ages culminates in the final restoration of all, believing that all evil will have been finally removed when God becomes all in all after the ages have run their course. However, the Eternal Infernalists, who believe that God Himself perpetuates evil, inflicting unending torments upon the vast majority of mankind along with two thirds of the angels, have more than mere questions to resolve: they face real moral and logical dilemmas which defy all reasonable explanation. For them, it is not simply the question of evil, but the problem of evil.
Only Biblical Universalists can reasonably explain the presence of evil in God’s creation without diminishing God’s essential nature, which is love, nor His immutable attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. Calvinists maintain God’s omnipotence but at the expense of His love and mercy, saying that God decrees and punishes evil for His own self-glorification. According to the Westminster Confession, Calvinists say: “He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice (emphasis mine).” [1]
Arminians, on the other hand, seek to preserve God’s love and goodness at the expense of His omnipotence, saying that God loves all, but He must allow evil to enter His good creation, and eternally exist within it, out of respect for the free-will decisions of fallen men and angels. God who wills that all be saved, and has sworn that all will bow the knee to Him, must Himself bow to the free-will of lost sinners. Arminians ultimately sacrifice God’s sovereignty in order to preserve man’s sovereign free-will, only to turn around and deny man’s free-will forever the moment one’s heart stops beating.
Open Theists go a step further, seeking to justify God by not only sacrificing His sovereignty, but also His omniscience, saying that God could not have foreseen the entrance and perpetuation of evil since, either He cannot foresee the future, or else He chose not to see it out of respect for our sovereign free-will. I discuss this and other difficulties with Open Theism in a series of two blogs entitled Does God know my Tomorrow?
In contrast to the Eternal Infernalist’s model which presents God as creating an everlasting dualism, once we understand that God’s eternal plan for the ages culminates in the final restoration of all to a much more glorious state than that enjoyed by Adam and Eve before the fall, it becomes much easier to understand the question of evil. In this first of three blogs, we will begin by seeking to better understand what evil is.
Evil is not some “thing” which God originally created
To those who ask whether God Himself originally created evil, the unequivocable answer is no. In the Genesis creation account, it says: “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good” (Gen 1:31). Contrary to Eastern thought, in the beginning everything was very good. Good and evil have not eternally coexisted, nor will evil continue forever, as traditionally taught. It entered into God’s time/space creation at a specific point in time and will cease to exist when God becomes all in all, at which time we will enter into God’s eternity where evil cannot exist (1Cor 15:28; Rev 21:4).
Some have mistakenly thought that evil predated creation and that God included evil in creation when He made the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, the evil was not contained within the fruit of the tree itself, as if evil were some tangible created substance which could be ingested. Rather, evil was first conceived in the heart and mind of Adam and Eve and was then actuated by their transgression against God’s command to not eat of the forbidden tree.
Evil is not a created thing such as a fruit tree. Rather evil consists of the subsequent actions of God’s creatures who choose to act in disobedience, independently of His will. Evil is not a thing, but rather an action. Evil is first conceived in the heart as a desire, which in turn gives birth to the sin or the evil act. God was neither the source of evil, nor was He the source of the temptation. As James, the half-brother of our Lord said:
“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” (James 1:13-16)
The deception James warns us about is the lie that God is somehow the tempter or the originator of evil. God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all (1Jn 1:5). While it is true that God inhabits eternity and there has therefore never been a time when He didn’t possess the knowledge of the evil that His creatures would commit, evil is not in Him, nor did evil come from Him as to source. Evil is not a creation of God, but exclusively a creaturely act.
Two kinds of evil
We have seen that God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all. He is the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning (James 1:17). Moses, to whom God is said to have shown His ways as none other, said of Him:
“His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.” (Deut 32:4)
Considering the fact that God’s creative work is perfect and that He is just in all His ways, any theodicy which presents God as being the primary source of evil of any kind is a misrepresentation of God’s character as revealed in Scripture. There are two distinct forms of evil described in the Bible, 1) moral evil and 2) natural evil. However, neither were originally a part of God’s good creation, but entered through the fall.
Moral Evil
As we have already seen, moral evil is not some “thing” which God created, but rather sinful and unjust actions which originated in the minds and hearts of free moral beings. As Jesus said:
“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” (Matt 15:19)
We already saw how James warned against being deceived into thinking that God is in any way the source of moral evil. (James 1:13-16). If God were in some way responsible for our moral evil, then He would be unjust in punishing evildoers. Paul emphatically denies that God is in any way acting unjustly when He judges evildoers, saying: “Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? (Rom 3:5-6). If God were in any way liable for our sin, then our redemption would have been His moral obligation, rather than an act of His free unmerited grace and mercy, as it is revealed to be in Scripture.
Natural Evil
Natural evil is a term used to refer to things like cancer, birth defects, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and other phenomena. Contrary to modern secular theory, God created all things good, and natural evil did not exist in creation until the fall when death entered the world and creation was subjected to vanity as a consequence of man’s sin (Rom 5:12; 8:20-22).
Man was originally given dominion over the earth, but when Adam and Eve succumbed to Satan’s temptation through the serpent, they forfeited that dominion to Satan. He is presently the god of this age and the whole present world system is under his control rather than man having dominion over the earth (2Cor 4:4; 1Jn 5:19). The earth was cursed as a result of man’s disobedience when he forfeited his dominion to Satan. That is when the earth began to produce thorns and thistles, and rather than the animal kingdom being submissive to man, they became hostile to man, making it necessary for God to put the fear of man within them. The first mention of natural disaster is when the fountains of the great deep were broken up, bringing the flood because of man’s unbridled moral evil (Gen 7:11).
Therefore, God is neither the author of moral evil, nor natural evil, since neither were part of His original creation. Many have misconstrued Isaiah 45:7 as translated in the KJV as meaning that God created evil. There God says:
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace (shalom), and create evil (ra‘): I the LORD do all these things.” (Isa 45:7 KJV)
Having already seen that God originally created all things good and perfect and that all His ways are just, it is clear that God is not saying here that He directly created evil in the beginning, whether it be moral evil or natural evil. I had previously understood this verse as meaning that God was saying that He accepted responsibility for indirectly creating evil by creating free moral beings capable of conceiving evil in their hearts, which would be true, since He created them knowing that they would introduce evil into His creation. However, upon a more careful consideration of what is actually being said in the context of this verse, it became obvious that the original creation is not even in view here.
In Isaiah 45 God is addressing the Persian king Cyrus, whom He here calls by name, years before he was even born. When He said that He is the one who makes peace and creates evil (present tense), He is not referring to the original creation, but rather what He brings about in the present. He is contrasting Himself with the Persian pantheon of gods. The Persians worshipped Ahura Mazda, who was the king of the gods. However, he wasn’t considered to be all-powerful. They also gave tribute to Angra Mainyu, who was the prince of ra‘ or evil, chaos and discord. They also had Mithra, the God of light, or the rising sun.
The Lord is here telling Cyrus that He is the one and only true God, the source of all things, including both light and darkness, peace and evil (ra‘). The Hebrew word ra most commonly means “moral evil or bad” in Scripture. Even when referring to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ra‘ is the word used.
However, there are many instances where ra is used to refer to bad things in general, such as Job’s “painful” (ra‘) boils (Job 2:7), a “calamity” (ra‘), such as a plague, (2Sam 24:16), or a “disaster” (ra‘) brought about by an invading enemy (Jer 4:6), as opposed to peace (shalom), just as we see here in Isaiah 45:17. What God is saying to Cyrus is, “I am the God to seek for an abundant harvest, not Mithra. If you want peace rather than wartime disaster, look to Me, instead of offering sacrifices to Angra Mainyu, the demon god of ra‘ evil, chaos and discord, to persuade him to leave you in peace.”
Throughout Scripture we see that God, for His own good purposes, does create natural evil, either directly or indirectly. For reasons we will be considering in the third blog of this series, God often allows His children to suffer affliction, but, as with Job and Joseph, He delivers them out of them all more than conquerors. As the psalmist says: “Many are the afflictions (ra‘) of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all” (Ps 34:19).
God also brings evil (ra‘) upon obstinate and unrepentant sinners so that they will repent and be restored. As Amos 3:6 says, “If there is calamity (ra‘) in a city, will not the Lord have done it?” We even see that God speaks forth judgments of ra‘ as punishment for unrepentant sin. Lamentations 3:38-39 says: “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities (ra‘) and good things come? Why should any living man complain when punished for his sins?”
Does this make God evil or unjust? Certainly not! From the moment moral evil entered into the world, often the only effective form of correction for the obstinately wicked is to repay moral ra‘ with natural ra‘. Our own innate sense of justice tells us that the Judge of all the earth would be unjust if He were to let an unrepentant Hitler or a Putin off the hook without measuring out a just retribution which would be natural ra‘ for moral ra‘.
Indeed, this is what we see throughout Scripture. To those who would accuse God of being unjust for punishing moral ra‘ with natural ra‘, Paul responded: “Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?” (Rom 3:5-6). He also said to those believers under persecution: “it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you” (2 Thess 1:6).
Those who believe that God’s love is exclusively cruciform must reject such passages which present God as a righteous judge executing justice against the unrepentant. Sadly, many today overreact against the diabolical dogma which teaches that God inflicts infinite punishment for finite sins without any restorative purpose, by rejecting any portrayal of God as Judge in Scripture.
Rightly understood, God’s judgments in which He inflicts natural ra‘ upon those who do moral ra‘ are good, since the execution of His justice always has correction as its purpose and restoration as its end, just as a loving father’s corrective ra‘ is applied in order to correct the moral ra‘ in his disobedient child. The Psalmist understood this and could say:
“Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I keep Your word… It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I may learn Your statutes… I know, O Lord, that Your judgments are right, and that in faithfulness You have afflicted me.” (Ps 119:67,71,75)
In summary, we have seen that moral evil is not some “thing” that God created, but rather evil refers to the evil thoughts and actions of free moral beings who were originally created good. Neither was natural evil originally present in God’s good creation, but rather came later as a consequence of man’s sin.
In the next blog we will be considering the second question of evil – where did evil originate? Then in the final blog we will consider what to me is the most important question of evil – the why of evil. What purpose did God have in determining to allow it, and how do all things work together for the greater good of all?
[1] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 3 — Articles 6 and 7.
- Published on
Understanding the Atonement
by George Sidney Hurd
This question was presented to me a few days ago and I felt that it was a vital question which deserves a thoughtful response from the Scriptures.
Obviously, if the question is whether or not His love for us changes, the answer is that God’s love never ceases, and His mercies never come to an end. The Father didn’t begin to love us at the cross – He demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet ungodly sinners and at enmity with Him, He sent His Son to die in our place that we might live unto Him (Rom 5:6-11).
If the question is whether or not His disposition and determination to save and restore all mankind changed at the cross, the answer again is, no. His eternal plan of redemption through the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world has never changed. He has sworn by Himself that to Him every knee shall bow in heaven, on earth and even under the earth, and every tongue shall confess Jesus Christ as Lord, taking an oath of loyalty to Him (Isa 45:22-24; Phil 2:10). To Paul the mystery was revealed that in the dispensation of the fulness of the times all creation would be reunited in Christ (Eph 1:10). The restoration of all which was prophesied since the beginning of time shall be fulfilled as promised (Acts 3:21).
God’s plan for the ages is summed up by Paul in Romans 11:36, “For of (ek) Him and through (dia) Him and to (eis, ‘into’) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” All that which came out of God as to source (which includes all of creation, both visible and invisible), is sustained by Him and will ultimately be reunited into Him (eis) in the consummation, when God shall be all in all in eternity (1Cor 15:28). The end result of God’s creation story does not end in unspeakable tragedy for all but the elect of this age, but rather culminates in the final restoration of all to a far greater glory than that of Adam and Eve before the fall. What God commences He perfects!
What happened at the Fall?
In order to answer the question as to whether or not the cross changed God’s attitude towards us, we must go back to the fall in Eden. In what sense did our relationship with God change after the fall?
Sin and Death entered by the Fall
God told Adam that if they were to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would die that very day. He said: “In the day you eat of it you shall surely die (or ‘dying you shall die’).” Nevertheless, we see that they continued living for nearly a millennium. Why didn’t Adam and Eve physically die on the very same day they ate the forbidden fruit? In what sense was this fulfilled?
In the first place, we need to understand that there is more than one death. When Paul said that the wages of sin is death, many have mistakenly thought that he was saying that if you commit just one sin in your lifetime you are condemned to die. But “sin” appears with the definite article and should read, “the sin.” In the context, we see that Paul was saying that the wages of the one sin – Adam’s sin, was death for him and all his descendants. He demonstrates this by saying that even in the time between Adam and Moses when sin wasn’t imputed as a transgression, everyone nevertheless died (Rom 5:12-14).
There is physical death and there is spiritual death. While space doesn’t allow me to elaborate here, death is not the cessation of existence, as the materialists perceive it, but rather a separation: When we die physically our soul is separated from our body; when we die to sin we are separated from sin; when we die to the Law we are separated from the Law in order to live unto Christ, etc. In the same manner, when we die spiritually, our spirit is separated from God who is Spirit. As I demonstrate in my book “Extermination or Restoration,” none of these deaths refer to a cessation of existence, but rather speak of a separation.
A separation occurred the very moment that Adam and Eve acted independently from God in disobedience. They died spiritually in the sense of being separated from spirit-to-Spirit communion with God who is Spirit. Self-consciousness replaced God-consciousness, and for the first time they became aware of their nakedness. Their reaction was to hide from God, and this death or separation continues in all of Adam’s race until one becomes reconciled to God in their hearts through Christ, the Last Adam, who is the life-giving Spirit (1Cor 15:45).
I believe that Satan the accuser was right there, reminding God of His word when He said that they would surely die. Satan is a legalist in the sense that he knows that God cannot lie and therefore he laid claim to the power of death – he now had the legal right to take their lives. And I believe that he would have taken their lives right then and there, but God in His mercy intervened, shedding the blood of innocent animals to cover them.
What was God’s response to this separation? Wrath? No. While spiritual death was the immediate result, God still sought after them even though they, through their disobedience, had broken communion with Him. So, while the relationship between them and God changed due to spiritual death, God still acted towards them with love and compassion. He even promised Eve that very same evening (in seed form) that her seed would eventually bring redemption and restoration. Instead of wrath, God gave the promise of restoration. So far there is no wrath.
Nevertheless, apart from the promised Seed that would come and restore life through His death and resurrection, their spiritual death would have been eternal and irreversible. Having been born under the sentence of Adam’s original sin, we all came into this world spiritually stillborn and alienated from the life of God (Eph 2:5; 4:18). There was nothing anyone from Adam’s seed could have done to reverse the death sentence resulting from Adam’s original sin.
However, when Christ became flesh, He was not of Adam’s seed, but of the woman’s seed and was conceived of the Holy Spirit, thereby making Him exempt from Adam’s original sin and resulting death sentence. Contrary to the first Adam, Christ as the woman’s seed lived a perfect life of total obedience to the Father and was illegally executed by Satan, the ruler of this age, thereby destroying Satan’s legal power over death which he had acquired by man’s default in the Garden (Heb 2:14). By Christ’s death and resurrection, He, as the Last Adam, will make alive all who died in the first Adam when he sinned (1Cor 15:22,55-56).
Our Sins are a result of Adam’s Original Sin and subsequent spiritual Death
The consequence of Adam’s sin and resulting death is that we are all conceived in sin in a state of death or separation from God (Ps 51:5). Man was originally created in God’s image and likeness in order to enjoy communion with Him. God is Spirit, and in the beginning man was also predominately spirit. However, when he died spiritually, he became separated from God and predominately “flesh” (Gen 6:3). Jesus said that separate from Him we can do nothing (Jn 15:5). He said that, apart from the life which comes from the Spirit, the flesh profits nothing (Jn 6:63).
Some mistakenly think that we are born innocent and only subsequently acquire sinful tendencies. However, in the Scriptures we see that we were born sinners due to Adam’s original sin. Through one man’s offense, death reigned over all his race and we became sinners (Rom 5:17-19). We are not sinners because we sin – we sin because we are sinners.
It is our Sins which provoke God’s Wrath
The first time we see mention of God’s wrath it is directed – not against original sin, but against the obstinate sins of Pharaoh and his army, and His wrath is seen to result in their temporal destruction (Ex 15:7). And we see the wrath of God consistently revealed in this manner throughout both the Old and New Testaments (Ex 22:24; Nu 31:33; Dt 9:8; 29:23,28; 2Chron 29:8; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; Rev 6:16-17; 11:18; 14:10,19; 16:19, etc.). Even Jesus Himself, whom the Postmodern Progressives seek to confine to a passive cruciform mold, [1] speaks of the vengeance of God and His wrath which was going to be poured out upon Israel for rejecting their Messiah King:
“For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:22-24)
Christ didn’t come to personally destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD., as Preterists would have us believe. But in His wrath, God gave them over to their enemies, just as He previously did when they were invaded by the Assyrians and the Babylonians. As the writer of Hebrews says: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:30-31).
Postmodern Progressives often try to reduce God to the point of becoming a permissive and consenting father who never becomes angry with our sin and rebellion. They say that Jesus on the cross is the only true revelation of the Father, and therefore, according to them, God has always manifested cruciform love. Denying the inerrancy of the Scriptures, they use their limited model of Jesus to filter out all Scriptures which do not fit within their cruciform mold. In this manner they invalidate all those Scriptures which do not fit within their manmade mold.
However, a fuller understanding of the Jesus of the Bible demolishes this mold. They fail to give due consideration to the numerous non-cruciform warnings and woes which He pronounced against the unrepentant (Matt 11:21-24; 13:27-28; 18:7; 25:41; Lu 12:46-48, etc.). And this is not even taking into account how Jesus portrays Himself in the book of Revelation.
Jesus doesn’t present the Father as cruciform in His judgments. For example, speaking to those who do not forgive as they were forgiven, He gave the parable of the servant who was forgiven a great debt by his master and then turned around and demanded immediate payment of a small debt owed him by a fellow servant. Jesus said the following:
“Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?' 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 "So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses." (Matt 18:32-35)
Clearly, Jesus here is not presenting the Father in a cruciform manner. God is love, but what many fail to understand is that His love is multiform and not always cruciform. A father who simply says to his defiant child “peace be unto you,” even when his child curses him and defies his authority, could be called a passive father but hardly a loving father. A loving father is not negligent nor indifferent. He corrects and disciplines as necessary for the long-term benefit of the child whom he loves. Some try to reduce Father God to a passive father who simply smiles upon us no matter how defiant of him his children may be or how much damage they are inflicting upon others. However, that is not the Father presented to us in the Scriptures. Whom He loves He disciplines and even scourges when necessary in order that we may partake of His righteousness (Heb 12:5-11).
Additionally, many only refer to God as Father, without giving Him due tribute as King of kings and Lord of lords to whom all reverence and godly fear is due. He is also a consuming fire and the Judge of the living and the dead (1Pet 4:5). In light of this Paul said:
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Knowing, therefore, the terror (phobos) of the Lord, we persuade men.” (2 Cor 5:10-11)
While God is our Father, that in no way diminishes the fact that He is also our Judge and that we need to acknowledge and respect Him as such. Even Abraham, being called “a friend of God,” referred to Him as the Judge of all the earth. In contrast to this, the modern tendency is to form God in our own image. Many today cut and paste the Scriptures in order to present God in a manner which accommodates our own cultural norms, personal tastes and even sinful lifestyles. Indeed, some of today’s brightest minds have devoted their energies and their amazing ingenuity to deconstructing the Scriptures and reformulating cleverly devised myths, half-truths and misrepresentations of the God of the Bible in such a way as to deceive all but the most wary and vigilant students of the Word.
Contrary to popular belief in some circles, throughout the New Testament we see the wrath of God being manifest wherever there is persistent unrepentant sin and rebellion. Paul in Romans begins by demonstrating that the whole world stands guilty and condemned under the wrath of God. He says:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom 1:18)
Here we see that men intuitively know when they are sinning against God but rather than repenting of their sins, they suppress the truth in order to continue in a life of sin. Paul says that even the Gentiles, who do not have the Law, have the Law written on their hearts, leaving them without excuse (Rom 2:15-16). This refusal to acknowledge sin provokes God to anger. The Psalmist says: “God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day” (Ps 7:11). However, God’s anger or wrath should never be mistaken for a lack of love. To the contrary, the absence of anger in the face of sin and rebellion would be an indication of indifference and apathy rather than love.
Paul further makes it clear that, even when man isn’t immediately judged and punished for his sin and rebellion, God nevertheless has a settled attitude of anger against all willful sin, and a time of reckoning awaits the unrepentant. The wicked often mistake God’s patience for passivity and tolerance of sin. But Paul states that God’s anger against all the ungodliness of the impenitent is being reserved for the day of judgment:
“But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each one according to his deeds.” (Rom 2:5-6)
So here we see that, although God doesn’t always act in wrath, swiftly judging sin during one’s lifetime, as He is seen to have done when He as the Judge of the Earth deems it to be necessary, such as when Pharaoh’s army was drowned in the sea, or when Ananias and Saphira were struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit, setting them forth as an example, etc., His wrath against all unrepentant sin is accumulating or being treasured up for the final Judgment or the day of wrath.
We also see that even when God in His wrath intervenes with judgment, as He did with Sodom and the surrounding cities, those who persist in their sins must still stand before God as Judge in the day of His wrath. Jesus said of those who saw His works and still did not repent, that it would be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of Judgment than it would be for them (Matt 11:24).
Some Inclusivists would say that there is no them and us; the saved and the unsaved; the justified and the condemned; those who are still dead in sin and those who are alive; children of wrath and children of God, etc. They argue that, since Christ died for all, and all died with Christ at the cross, where He destroyed the power of death, then all are already alive unto God; they are already saved, justified and made alive but they just don’t know it yet.
While it is not possible to give full consideration to this error here, I would just like to point out that when Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel to all nations He said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). This is why, when the Philippian jailor asked Paul what he had to do in order to be saved, he didn’t respond saying: “You’re already saved, you just don’t know it yet.” No. He said: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30-31). Salvation is not personally experienced until we believe on Jesus Christ and confess Him as Lord (Rom 10:9-10). Before being regenerated we were dead in our sins and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others (Eph 2:3). We do not become a part of the new creation in Christ until we are regenerated or born again (Jn 3:3-7; Eph 2:1-5).
Indeed, all will eventually be effectually drawn to Christ and saved (Jn 12:32). In the end all will have believed, bowing the knee to Him and confessing Him as Lord (Phil 2:10). All will finally be included in the new creation (2Cor 5:17, cf. Rev 21:5; Eph 1:10). However, according to Jesus Himself, until the moment of one’s visitation comes and they believe, they stand condemned before God (Jn 3:18).
Even in this present age of grace, Paul warns believers against being deceived into thinking that we can continue in unrepentant sin without provoking God to anger. Paul says:
“But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.” (Eph 5:3-7)
So, we have seen that while God has always loved all unconditionally - even after the fall, His settled attitude toward all unrepentant sin has always been that of wrath. Anyone who is a parent understands that anger is an essential part of parental love in the face of sin and rebellion.
However, God is more than our Father – He is also a just Judge. And, as we shall see, His immutable justice does not allow Him to simply pass over sins. He can only forgive sins based upon the fact that His perfect justice was satisfied upon the cross in Christ our substitute. The unrepentant are storing up wrath for themselves in the day of wrath and the righteous judgment of God, the Judge of all, when the unrepentant will receive a just recompense according to their deeds recorded in the books (Rev 20:12). According to Jesus, the books contain a thorough record containing every detail of our lives - even including the very words we have spoken (Matt 12:36-37).
An essential element of the gospel is that Christ became sin for us in order that we may become the righteousness of God through faith in Him. Through our union with Him in the new birth we are no longer subjects of God’s wrath and the resulting condemnation. Jesus becomes our righteousness, thereby delivering us from the coming wrath (1Thess 1:10). While Postmodern theologians chafe at this, Christ’s expiation of our sins, theologically referred to as “the atonement,” is clearly a penal atonement made on our behalf by Christ, enabling God to be just, while at the same time justifying the ungodly who repent and put their faith in Christ as the propitiatory sacrifice for their sins.
The Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Perhaps no biblical doctrine is under greater attack in our day than that of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ. It is grossly misrepresented and ridiculed by both the Modern and the Postmodern theologians of our time. They argue that the theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is nothing more than the invention of Calvin’s legal mind which led him to see Christ’s substitutionary death as satisfying God’s justice. It is true that Calvin first studied to be a lawyer during a time when government was based upon a legal system rather than feudalism, and his legal mind enabled him to recognize and expound upon the legal aspects of the atonement with more precision than former theologians.
Anselm in the tenth century, during the time of the feudal system in which nobility ruled, put forth the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement, which saw Christ’s substitutionary death as the satisfaction of God’s offended nobility. Calvin correctly pointed out that the language of Scripture speaks of judgment against offenses of God’s justice, rather than God punishing mankind for having offended His honor. Anselm was the first to argue that, since sin was committed against God’s infinite nobility, just one sin against His honor was deserving of eternal punishment. Clearly this is not a satisfactory explanation of the atonement! God’s law prescribes just punishment commensurate to the offenses committed against justice. Nowhere in Scripture is God said to mete out infinite punishment simply because His honor was offended.
The Language of Scripture is clearly Penal
Surely it won’t do to argue that, since Calvin lived in a law-oriented society, it influenced his view of the atonement. The entire legal system that the West is modeled after today was developed by the Romans of Paul’s time, so the same could be argued concerning him. Indeed, the language which Paul uses to describe what Christ accomplished upon the cross involves clearly forensic or legal terms, used in the Roman legal system at that time.
However, the atonement is not based upon Roman law and justice, but rather upon the very Law of God and upon His justice. Both Old and New Testaments present God using terms which are clearly forensic. He is depicted as the Judge of all (Gen 18:25; Heb 12:23). He has a throne for judgment before which all must stand (Ps 9:7-8; Rev 20:11). The foundation of His throne is righteousness and justice (Ps 89:14; 97:2). Apart from grace, all would be judged according to the Law, found guilty and condemned (Rom 2:13,16; James 2:10). All men are demonstrated to be guilty before God (Rom 3:19).
So far, we see juridical terms consistently employed, showing all mankind to be guilty and condemned before a holy God who is also the Judge of all. That brings us up to the atonement. Are the passages which reveal Christ’s atoning sacrifice also expressed in forensic terms? Yes. He was born under the Law in order to redeem us from the Law (Gal 4:4-5). He lived a perfect life under the Law without sin (1Jn 3:4-5; 1Peter 2:22; Heb 4:15). He became a curse under the Law by hanging upon a tree, being numbered with the transgressors (Gal 3:13; Luke 22:37; Mark 15:28). He was delivered over because of our transgressions and was raised because of our justification (Rom 4:25; 5:16; Isa 53:5). Taking on the likeness of sinful flesh, He condemned sin in the flesh in order that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us (Rom 8:3-4). These are all legal terms which were in common use within every legal system of that time. Even the biblical terms “expiation” and “propitiation,” although not part of secular legal terminology, nevertheless are essential to God’s justice. Expiation and propitiation are foundational elements in God’s justice, making it possible for Him to be just and justify the ungodly (Rom 3:25-26).
Christ our Passover was Sacrificed for Us (1Cor 5:7)
While human laws are based largely upon principles contained in God’s Law, it is an error to try to confine God’s Law to man’s laws. For example, under God’s Law, there is a provision which allows for the forgiveness or remission of sins by the shedding of innocent blood (Heb 9:22; Matt 26:28). This is an integral part of God’s Law which is a stumbling block to those who do not have a revelation of the wisdom of the cross and seek to bind God to a strictly human justice system.
From the beginning God said that death would be the consequence of sin, and since God cannot lie, He couldn’t simply go back on His word. However, in His mercy He shed the innocent blood of animals to cover Adam and Eve. Under the Law, death was the penalty of disobedience, but God made provision, allowing for an innocent victim’s blood to be offered to make propitiation for the sins of the people: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement (expiation) for the soul” (Lev 17:11). Many try to undermine God’s sacrificial system by associating it with pagan blood sacrifices. However, God’s provision for forgiveness by blood sacrifice preceded these pagan perversions. Blood sacrifices demanded by the demon-gods were designed to distort and malign God’s merciful means of reconciliation through the Lamb of God, and sadly many Progressives today have played into their hands.
The English word “atonement” is an unfortunate rendering of the Hebrew “kippur,” since atonement speaks more to the result of the “kippur,” which means “expiation,” or “the removal of sin by sacrifice.” The word “atonement” is a 16th century term meaning “at-one-ment.” The word atonement doesn’t even have an equivalent in other languages. The Spanish language correctly renders it “expiación” which means the same as our English word expiation. The expiation is what made at-one-ment or reconciliation with God possible by taking away our sins, but the term in and of itself only has reference to the expiatory sacrifice. Since life is in the blood, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, since it is the blood which makes expiation (kippur) for the soul (Lev 17:11).
This mistranslation of the word “kippur” has given place to the modern notion that forgiveness and reconciliation with God are possible without the shedding of Christ’s blood in expiation for our sins, and that God didn’t need to be reconciled to us, but rather it was only we who needed to be reconciled unto Him. This, in spite of the fact that Jesus was declared to be “the Lamb of God who takes away (or expiates) the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). The Postmodern version is more akin to the Moral Influence Theory which would make the blood of Christ devoid of any redemptive value, saying that Christ merely demonstrated “cruciform” love as an example to us by absorbing our sins into Himself without retaliation. But the Apostle John clearly states the reason for Christ’s life and death. He says: “And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins” (1John 3:5). Jesus Himself, on the night of His passion said: “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28). Likewise, the writer of Hebrews says that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb 9:22, cf. 10:18). Clearly, the remission or forgiveness of sins refers to God’s forgiveness and remission of our sins, thereby enabling Him to justly justify us.
Accepted in the Beloved
“to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.” (Eph 1:6-7)
Returning to the question, "did Christ’s sacrifice on the cross change God’s attitude towards us?", the answer is yes and no. Did God still love us, even in our sin? Yes. But could He, being a just and holy God, simply overlook our sin? No. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). By the shed blood of Christ, the Lamb of God without blemish or spot, our sins have been propitiated before the Most Holy God who has always loved us. Through His blood there is forgiveness and acceptance for all who receive Him.
Some argue that God can simply overlook sin since Jesus was equally God and He nevertheless befriended sinners. However, we must understand that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit equally inhabit eternity and therefore from their eternal perspective the Lamb of God slain for the forgiveness and justification of those same sinners has always been a present reality to them (Rev 13:8). From the beginning, when God spoke with Adam and Eve after the fall, to the present in which the Holy Spirit continues indwelling us even when we sin (cf. 1Cor 6:15-19), God has always been able to remain just and holy while at the same time interacting with sinners. As Paul says:
“being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:24-26)
So, we see that, due to the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ which satisfied God’s justice for our offenses, God can be seen as just while at the same time rubbing shoulders with sinners. That is not to say that He isn’t grieved and angered by our sin, or that He will not intervene to judge sin if we fail to judge ourselves (Ps 7:11; Eph 4:30; 1Cor 11:31-32; James 4:4-6). Neither does it mean that our communion with Him isn’t broken by unrepentant sin (Ps 66:18; 1Jn 1:6-7). Nor does it mean that God will not finally judge all unrepentant sin. It simply means that God can be gracious and merciful to mankind because the Lamb of God has made propitiation for our sins by His shed blood on our behalf.
Progressives argue that the blood of Christ doesn’t change how God relates to us, but rather it simply cleanses our conscience, affecting how we relate to God. This is based upon a misapplication of the reference to our conscience in Hebrews. I here quote the whole passage to see its meaning in the context:
“But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot TO GOD, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” (Heb 9:11-15)
In the context, how is the blood of Christ seen to cleanse our conscience? We have already seen that the shedding of blood was for the remission of our sins in the sight of God. Here in the context, we see that Christ entered the Most Holy Place not made with hands, of which the earthly tabernacle was only a pattern. He presented His own blood upon the heavenly propitiatory, thereby making propitiation before God for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2). When it says that Christ was our “propitiation,” it is the word hilasterion, which refers to the expiatory sacrifice, or the sacrifice which satisfies God’s justice concerning our sins, enabling God to remove them as far as the east is from the west. It is God who says He will remember our sins no more because of the removal of them from Himself (Heb 10:18). Our consciences are cleansed only by the knowledge that God has removed our sins from us and remembers them no more because of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice on our behalf.
From the very beginning, God was pointing us to the once and for all sacrifice, by which He, in the person of the Son, would make expiation for our sins through His shed blood upon the cross. The Passover was given as a clear shadow of Christ our Passover who would be sacrificed for us (1Cor 5:7). The Passover lamb had to be without spot or blemish. It was to be slain for the sins of the people and placed upon the doorposts of their homes so that the judgment which fell upon the land would pass over them. The Lord said:
“And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.” (Ex 12:13)
In the same manner, “having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Rom 5:8-10). We have been redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1Peter 1:19). To deny the efficacy of the blood of Christ is to count the blood of Christ by which we have received the remission of sins as a common thing (Heb 10:29).
Redemption
Redemption is integrally related to the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, since His sacrifice of Himself obtained our redemption. We were redeemed by His blood (Col 1:14). Redemption refers to a price having been paid in order to obtain something. What was obtained for us through Christ’s redeeming blood? Who was the blood that redeemed us presented to? Did Christ’s redemption change the way God relates to us? These are important questions which are often ignored or glossed over.
Paul says that we were bought with a price (1Cor 6:20). Peter says that the redemptive price paid was the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot (1Peter 1:18-20). Jesus said that He came to give His life a ransom for many. The word “ransom” is lutron, which means “the redemptive price.” Paul clarifies that the many referred to are all mankind. He said:
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom (antilutron, “a substitutionary redemptive price”) for all, to be testified in due time.” (1Tim 2:5,6)
Here we see Christ’s redemptive death on the cross to be a ransom paid “in the place of” (anti) all mankind. And in due time (in the time of their visitation), it will have been testified to all. Here we also see that Jesus Christ in His humanity offered His blood as a Mediator between God and man. So, to whom did the Man Jesus Christ give Himself as a ransom? To God.
God said that the penalty for Adam’s original sin would be death. Since God is not a man that He should lie, sin entered by the one man, Adam, and death passed upon all men, because when Adam sinned all sinned in him. Likewise, we were all born sinners and therefore commit sins. and God has declared that the soul that sins shall die (Ezek 18:4). The life of man is in the blood (Deut 12:23). Therefore, one’s lifeblood is required by God in consequence of sin. However, God in His mercy, foreseeing the cross, provided blood sacrifices of innocent animals in order to cover man’s sins until the spotless Lamb of God came to take away the sins of the world once and for all (Jn 1:29). However, without the shedding of blood, God cannot be just and at the same time remit sins (Heb 9:22).
The blood wasn’t presented as payment to the devil as some Church Fathers believed. While Satan’s legal rights against us were cancelled at the cross, the redemptive blood had to be presented to God on the propitiatory (KJV “mercy seat”) in the heavenly Holy of Holies. The writer of Hebrews says of Jesus Christ our High Priest: “with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12).
In the earthly tabernacle, which is a pattern of the heavenly, the high priest entered the Most Holy Place once a year presenting the blood of the sacrificial animal before the Lord upon the mercy seat or propitiatory for the sins of the people. This offering propitiated God or satisfied Him until the following year. This was merely a type or shadow of the once and for all sacrifice of Christ our Redeemer. After describing the expiatory sacrifice which was offered once a year on the day of atonement, the author of Hebrews applies it to Christ saying:
“how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” (Heb 9:14,15)
This was also typified in the application of the blood of the Passover lamb. It was when God saw the blood that His judgment passed over them and the angel of death was not permitted to take their lives (Ex 12:13). Also, all sacrifices for sins were presented before the Lord (Lev 4:4-7). Actually, the entire Old Testament Scriptures were pregnant with types and shadows of the Lamb of God who would come and shed His blood, redeeming us unto Himself by grace. This is why Jesus said to the Pharisees: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). In spite of all their knowledge of Scripture, they thought that eternal life was to be obtained by obedience to the Law. However, the Law was given in order to put all under disobedience that God might afterwards have mercy on all (Rom 11:32). It was given to bring us to Christ, the Lamb of God, who would once and for all take away our sins and begin a new creation through His resurrection life.
Paul said that, in spite of the fact that he didn’t handle the Word of God deceitfully as some, the gospel was veiled to those who are perishing. He said that the god of this age has blinded them to the glorious gospel (2Cor 4:1-4). That was the case with the Pharisees, and it is also the case with many in our Postmodern society. Religious Progressives typically deny and even mock the truth that the expiatory sacrifice of Christ our Kinsman Redeemer was necessary in order to redeem us from our sins so that God could justly forgive and justify us. Brian Zahnd is representative of this school of thought when he says:
“Penal substitutionary atonement insists that God cannot just forgive. What do you mean He can’t just forgive? Of course He can, because God is not subordinate to justice.” [2]
However, we see in Scripture that the justice of God requires a blood ransom in substitution for sin in order for God to be able to justly forgive us for our sins. Jesus, before going to the cross said: “this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28). “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph 1:7). How are we forgiven before God? Through the shed blood of Christ, the substitutionary Lamb who redeemed us by His blood, enabling God to justly forgive us our sins.
I personally fear for those who reduce Christ’s expiatory death upon the cross, presenting it as nothing more than an example of cruciform love for us to emulate. The Holy Spirit prophesied concerning this through Peter when he said:
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who BOUGHT them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” (2Peter 2:1)
As the hour drew near when Jesus was to be offered up (Heb 7:27), He cried out to the Father saying: “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour” (John 12:27). Why was He troubled? Was it because He knew He would be beaten and scourged? No. The sinless Son of God knew that the Father was about to lay upon Him all the sins of the world so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2Cor 5:21). He had come in the form of man in order to give His lifeblood a ransom for all (Matt 20:28; 1Tim 2:6).
For us to say that God simply permitted wicked men to kill Him so we can know His cruciform love is tantamount to denying the Lord “who bought us” and gave His life “a ransom for all.” While it is true that the cross is by far the greatest demonstration of the Love of God, it is such, not simply because He absorbed “the collective sin of humanity” into Himself, saying “Father forgive them,” but rather because He gave His life a ransom for sin, since without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin.
A Denial of the Validity of the Old Testament Sacrificial System is a Denial of our Lord who bought us
The entirety of the Old Testament sacrificial system was divinely instituted for the sole purpose of pointing to Jesus Christ our Passover; the Lamb without blemish and without spot having been slain from the foundation of the world; the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Old and New Testaments are so intertwined with this redemptive theme that to deny the validity of the Old Testament sacrificial system is to also deny the validity of the New Testament testimony concerning Christ our Redeemer.
Postmodern Progressives, in order to deny Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement, must first discredit the validity of the sacrificial system. They say that the sacrificial system was the invention of the primitive Near Eastern mindset of Moses. In order to do this, they must first deny the inerrancy of the Scriptures, since the Scriptures present God as being the one who instituted blood sacrifices.
However, they are subtle and clandestine rather than forthright in their denial of the authority of the Scriptures, and in this manner, they have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of many unwary sheep. They often emphasize that they hold a very high view of Scripture, even referring to it as the inspired word of God, while at the same time maintaining that it contains many errors and myths. This is what was meant by Peter when he said that they will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who BOUGHT them (2Peter 2:1). Their philosophical arguments are so ingeniously devised that they sow seeds of doubt without outright saying that they deny what they very obviously do deny when one takes the time to read in detail their often voluminous argumentations. Their writings are often so complex, evasive and elusive that most who write reviews concerning their works must speculate concerning what these authors were actually saying. These are those of whom Paul warned when he said:
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col 2:8)
The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who perish, but to us who believe it is the wisdom of God and the power of God (1Cor 1:18-21). The truth as it is in Jesus is so simple that the unlettered indigenous tribes here in the Colombian jungle understand it and are impacted by it. Yet it is so profound that we can never fathom its depths.
An all-too-common error of many who come to see that God’s plan culminates in the final restoration of all is failing to discern that not all who believe in universal salvation are biblically sound in their doctrines. Since the Bible so clearly teaches that Christ will succeed in His mission to seek and save the lost until the last lost sheep is safe in the fold, even the most Liberal teachers use many of the same passages of Scripture and biblical argumentation as the Conservative scholars do, demonstrating that God’s plan is to save all. However, since they deny the inerrancy of Scripture, Progressives ignore many portions of Scripture and twist the meaning of others in order to accommodate them to today’s culture or their own personal sensibilities. Only a truly high view of Scripture can save us from becoming lost in a sea of subjectivity.
In like manner, many who received a revelation of the grace of God fell into this same pitfall. The grace movement started upon a rediscovery of grace from the Scriptures and rediscovering the reality of Christ as our life. But many, failing to use discernment, have been led into doctrines which go too far and do not abide in the doctrine of Christ (2John 9). Jude warned of false grace teachers who depart from the Scriptures and subtly convert the grace of God into sinful excess. He said:
“I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 3-4)
Much of that which today passes for grace teaching has gone too far and bears little resemblance to the Bible based grace teaching of men like Andrew Wommack, Joseph Prince and even that which Steve McVey at first presented in his book “Grace-Walk.” In my book “The True Grace of God” I defend the doctrine of grace against its naysayers, but at the same time I make a call for those in the Grace Movement to abide in the doctrine of Christ – to remain in the truth as it is in Jesus (Eph 4:20-23).
In like manner, in my book “The Ways of God” I seek to sound a warning against what I see as a prevalent but serious deviation from the biblical metanarrative among Universalists which, if not corrected, could derail the present restoration of Universalism, resulting in a repeat of the demise of Universalism during the last century through the incursion of Unitarian Liberalism. In “The Ways of God” I present an apologetic of the ways of God as revealed in the biblical record, showing that God’s ways can be seen to be just and loving, culminating in the final restoration of all, without compromising the authority of the Scriptures. I believe that if we want to see the grace movement and the restoration of Universal Restorationism stay on course, we must have a renewed commitment to stand firmly upon the Scriptures. I am convinced that God can be seen to be good all the time, even in His most severe judgments.
[1] When they speak of the love of God as “cruciform” they mean to say that His love is always like Christ on the cross, passively absorbing our sins into Himself, without acting in judgment against them. Nevertheless, many who use this term believe that Christ personally came to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. for rejecting Him.
[2] Monster God Atonement Debate, Michael Brown vs. Brian Zahn, 28:30 min.
by George Sidney Hurd
This question was presented to me a few days ago and I felt that it was a vital question which deserves a thoughtful response from the Scriptures.
Obviously, if the question is whether or not His love for us changes, the answer is that God’s love never ceases, and His mercies never come to an end. The Father didn’t begin to love us at the cross – He demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet ungodly sinners and at enmity with Him, He sent His Son to die in our place that we might live unto Him (Rom 5:6-11).
If the question is whether or not His disposition and determination to save and restore all mankind changed at the cross, the answer again is, no. His eternal plan of redemption through the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world has never changed. He has sworn by Himself that to Him every knee shall bow in heaven, on earth and even under the earth, and every tongue shall confess Jesus Christ as Lord, taking an oath of loyalty to Him (Isa 45:22-24; Phil 2:10). To Paul the mystery was revealed that in the dispensation of the fulness of the times all creation would be reunited in Christ (Eph 1:10). The restoration of all which was prophesied since the beginning of time shall be fulfilled as promised (Acts 3:21).
God’s plan for the ages is summed up by Paul in Romans 11:36, “For of (ek) Him and through (dia) Him and to (eis, ‘into’) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” All that which came out of God as to source (which includes all of creation, both visible and invisible), is sustained by Him and will ultimately be reunited into Him (eis) in the consummation, when God shall be all in all in eternity (1Cor 15:28). The end result of God’s creation story does not end in unspeakable tragedy for all but the elect of this age, but rather culminates in the final restoration of all to a far greater glory than that of Adam and Eve before the fall. What God commences He perfects!
What happened at the Fall?
In order to answer the question as to whether or not the cross changed God’s attitude towards us, we must go back to the fall in Eden. In what sense did our relationship with God change after the fall?
Sin and Death entered by the Fall
God told Adam that if they were to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would die that very day. He said: “In the day you eat of it you shall surely die (or ‘dying you shall die’).” Nevertheless, we see that they continued living for nearly a millennium. Why didn’t Adam and Eve physically die on the very same day they ate the forbidden fruit? In what sense was this fulfilled?
In the first place, we need to understand that there is more than one death. When Paul said that the wages of sin is death, many have mistakenly thought that he was saying that if you commit just one sin in your lifetime you are condemned to die. But “sin” appears with the definite article and should read, “the sin.” In the context, we see that Paul was saying that the wages of the one sin – Adam’s sin, was death for him and all his descendants. He demonstrates this by saying that even in the time between Adam and Moses when sin wasn’t imputed as a transgression, everyone nevertheless died (Rom 5:12-14).
There is physical death and there is spiritual death. While space doesn’t allow me to elaborate here, death is not the cessation of existence, as the materialists perceive it, but rather a separation: When we die physically our soul is separated from our body; when we die to sin we are separated from sin; when we die to the Law we are separated from the Law in order to live unto Christ, etc. In the same manner, when we die spiritually, our spirit is separated from God who is Spirit. As I demonstrate in my book “Extermination or Restoration,” none of these deaths refer to a cessation of existence, but rather speak of a separation.
A separation occurred the very moment that Adam and Eve acted independently from God in disobedience. They died spiritually in the sense of being separated from spirit-to-Spirit communion with God who is Spirit. Self-consciousness replaced God-consciousness, and for the first time they became aware of their nakedness. Their reaction was to hide from God, and this death or separation continues in all of Adam’s race until one becomes reconciled to God in their hearts through Christ, the Last Adam, who is the life-giving Spirit (1Cor 15:45).
I believe that Satan the accuser was right there, reminding God of His word when He said that they would surely die. Satan is a legalist in the sense that he knows that God cannot lie and therefore he laid claim to the power of death – he now had the legal right to take their lives. And I believe that he would have taken their lives right then and there, but God in His mercy intervened, shedding the blood of innocent animals to cover them.
What was God’s response to this separation? Wrath? No. While spiritual death was the immediate result, God still sought after them even though they, through their disobedience, had broken communion with Him. So, while the relationship between them and God changed due to spiritual death, God still acted towards them with love and compassion. He even promised Eve that very same evening (in seed form) that her seed would eventually bring redemption and restoration. Instead of wrath, God gave the promise of restoration. So far there is no wrath.
Nevertheless, apart from the promised Seed that would come and restore life through His death and resurrection, their spiritual death would have been eternal and irreversible. Having been born under the sentence of Adam’s original sin, we all came into this world spiritually stillborn and alienated from the life of God (Eph 2:5; 4:18). There was nothing anyone from Adam’s seed could have done to reverse the death sentence resulting from Adam’s original sin.
However, when Christ became flesh, He was not of Adam’s seed, but of the woman’s seed and was conceived of the Holy Spirit, thereby making Him exempt from Adam’s original sin and resulting death sentence. Contrary to the first Adam, Christ as the woman’s seed lived a perfect life of total obedience to the Father and was illegally executed by Satan, the ruler of this age, thereby destroying Satan’s legal power over death which he had acquired by man’s default in the Garden (Heb 2:14). By Christ’s death and resurrection, He, as the Last Adam, will make alive all who died in the first Adam when he sinned (1Cor 15:22,55-56).
Our Sins are a result of Adam’s Original Sin and subsequent spiritual Death
The consequence of Adam’s sin and resulting death is that we are all conceived in sin in a state of death or separation from God (Ps 51:5). Man was originally created in God’s image and likeness in order to enjoy communion with Him. God is Spirit, and in the beginning man was also predominately spirit. However, when he died spiritually, he became separated from God and predominately “flesh” (Gen 6:3). Jesus said that separate from Him we can do nothing (Jn 15:5). He said that, apart from the life which comes from the Spirit, the flesh profits nothing (Jn 6:63).
Some mistakenly think that we are born innocent and only subsequently acquire sinful tendencies. However, in the Scriptures we see that we were born sinners due to Adam’s original sin. Through one man’s offense, death reigned over all his race and we became sinners (Rom 5:17-19). We are not sinners because we sin – we sin because we are sinners.
It is our Sins which provoke God’s Wrath
The first time we see mention of God’s wrath it is directed – not against original sin, but against the obstinate sins of Pharaoh and his army, and His wrath is seen to result in their temporal destruction (Ex 15:7). And we see the wrath of God consistently revealed in this manner throughout both the Old and New Testaments (Ex 22:24; Nu 31:33; Dt 9:8; 29:23,28; 2Chron 29:8; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; Rev 6:16-17; 11:18; 14:10,19; 16:19, etc.). Even Jesus Himself, whom the Postmodern Progressives seek to confine to a passive cruciform mold, [1] speaks of the vengeance of God and His wrath which was going to be poured out upon Israel for rejecting their Messiah King:
“For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:22-24)
Christ didn’t come to personally destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD., as Preterists would have us believe. But in His wrath, God gave them over to their enemies, just as He previously did when they were invaded by the Assyrians and the Babylonians. As the writer of Hebrews says: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:30-31).
Postmodern Progressives often try to reduce God to the point of becoming a permissive and consenting father who never becomes angry with our sin and rebellion. They say that Jesus on the cross is the only true revelation of the Father, and therefore, according to them, God has always manifested cruciform love. Denying the inerrancy of the Scriptures, they use their limited model of Jesus to filter out all Scriptures which do not fit within their cruciform mold. In this manner they invalidate all those Scriptures which do not fit within their manmade mold.
However, a fuller understanding of the Jesus of the Bible demolishes this mold. They fail to give due consideration to the numerous non-cruciform warnings and woes which He pronounced against the unrepentant (Matt 11:21-24; 13:27-28; 18:7; 25:41; Lu 12:46-48, etc.). And this is not even taking into account how Jesus portrays Himself in the book of Revelation.
Jesus doesn’t present the Father as cruciform in His judgments. For example, speaking to those who do not forgive as they were forgiven, He gave the parable of the servant who was forgiven a great debt by his master and then turned around and demanded immediate payment of a small debt owed him by a fellow servant. Jesus said the following:
“Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?' 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 "So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses." (Matt 18:32-35)
Clearly, Jesus here is not presenting the Father in a cruciform manner. God is love, but what many fail to understand is that His love is multiform and not always cruciform. A father who simply says to his defiant child “peace be unto you,” even when his child curses him and defies his authority, could be called a passive father but hardly a loving father. A loving father is not negligent nor indifferent. He corrects and disciplines as necessary for the long-term benefit of the child whom he loves. Some try to reduce Father God to a passive father who simply smiles upon us no matter how defiant of him his children may be or how much damage they are inflicting upon others. However, that is not the Father presented to us in the Scriptures. Whom He loves He disciplines and even scourges when necessary in order that we may partake of His righteousness (Heb 12:5-11).
Additionally, many only refer to God as Father, without giving Him due tribute as King of kings and Lord of lords to whom all reverence and godly fear is due. He is also a consuming fire and the Judge of the living and the dead (1Pet 4:5). In light of this Paul said:
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Knowing, therefore, the terror (phobos) of the Lord, we persuade men.” (2 Cor 5:10-11)
While God is our Father, that in no way diminishes the fact that He is also our Judge and that we need to acknowledge and respect Him as such. Even Abraham, being called “a friend of God,” referred to Him as the Judge of all the earth. In contrast to this, the modern tendency is to form God in our own image. Many today cut and paste the Scriptures in order to present God in a manner which accommodates our own cultural norms, personal tastes and even sinful lifestyles. Indeed, some of today’s brightest minds have devoted their energies and their amazing ingenuity to deconstructing the Scriptures and reformulating cleverly devised myths, half-truths and misrepresentations of the God of the Bible in such a way as to deceive all but the most wary and vigilant students of the Word.
Contrary to popular belief in some circles, throughout the New Testament we see the wrath of God being manifest wherever there is persistent unrepentant sin and rebellion. Paul in Romans begins by demonstrating that the whole world stands guilty and condemned under the wrath of God. He says:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom 1:18)
Here we see that men intuitively know when they are sinning against God but rather than repenting of their sins, they suppress the truth in order to continue in a life of sin. Paul says that even the Gentiles, who do not have the Law, have the Law written on their hearts, leaving them without excuse (Rom 2:15-16). This refusal to acknowledge sin provokes God to anger. The Psalmist says: “God is a just judge, and God is angry with the wicked every day” (Ps 7:11). However, God’s anger or wrath should never be mistaken for a lack of love. To the contrary, the absence of anger in the face of sin and rebellion would be an indication of indifference and apathy rather than love.
Paul further makes it clear that, even when man isn’t immediately judged and punished for his sin and rebellion, God nevertheless has a settled attitude of anger against all willful sin, and a time of reckoning awaits the unrepentant. The wicked often mistake God’s patience for passivity and tolerance of sin. But Paul states that God’s anger against all the ungodliness of the impenitent is being reserved for the day of judgment:
“But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each one according to his deeds.” (Rom 2:5-6)
So here we see that, although God doesn’t always act in wrath, swiftly judging sin during one’s lifetime, as He is seen to have done when He as the Judge of the Earth deems it to be necessary, such as when Pharaoh’s army was drowned in the sea, or when Ananias and Saphira were struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit, setting them forth as an example, etc., His wrath against all unrepentant sin is accumulating or being treasured up for the final Judgment or the day of wrath.
We also see that even when God in His wrath intervenes with judgment, as He did with Sodom and the surrounding cities, those who persist in their sins must still stand before God as Judge in the day of His wrath. Jesus said of those who saw His works and still did not repent, that it would be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of Judgment than it would be for them (Matt 11:24).
Some Inclusivists would say that there is no them and us; the saved and the unsaved; the justified and the condemned; those who are still dead in sin and those who are alive; children of wrath and children of God, etc. They argue that, since Christ died for all, and all died with Christ at the cross, where He destroyed the power of death, then all are already alive unto God; they are already saved, justified and made alive but they just don’t know it yet.
While it is not possible to give full consideration to this error here, I would just like to point out that when Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel to all nations He said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). This is why, when the Philippian jailor asked Paul what he had to do in order to be saved, he didn’t respond saying: “You’re already saved, you just don’t know it yet.” No. He said: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30-31). Salvation is not personally experienced until we believe on Jesus Christ and confess Him as Lord (Rom 10:9-10). Before being regenerated we were dead in our sins and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others (Eph 2:3). We do not become a part of the new creation in Christ until we are regenerated or born again (Jn 3:3-7; Eph 2:1-5).
Indeed, all will eventually be effectually drawn to Christ and saved (Jn 12:32). In the end all will have believed, bowing the knee to Him and confessing Him as Lord (Phil 2:10). All will finally be included in the new creation (2Cor 5:17, cf. Rev 21:5; Eph 1:10). However, according to Jesus Himself, until the moment of one’s visitation comes and they believe, they stand condemned before God (Jn 3:18).
Even in this present age of grace, Paul warns believers against being deceived into thinking that we can continue in unrepentant sin without provoking God to anger. Paul says:
“But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.” (Eph 5:3-7)
So, we have seen that while God has always loved all unconditionally - even after the fall, His settled attitude toward all unrepentant sin has always been that of wrath. Anyone who is a parent understands that anger is an essential part of parental love in the face of sin and rebellion.
However, God is more than our Father – He is also a just Judge. And, as we shall see, His immutable justice does not allow Him to simply pass over sins. He can only forgive sins based upon the fact that His perfect justice was satisfied upon the cross in Christ our substitute. The unrepentant are storing up wrath for themselves in the day of wrath and the righteous judgment of God, the Judge of all, when the unrepentant will receive a just recompense according to their deeds recorded in the books (Rev 20:12). According to Jesus, the books contain a thorough record containing every detail of our lives - even including the very words we have spoken (Matt 12:36-37).
An essential element of the gospel is that Christ became sin for us in order that we may become the righteousness of God through faith in Him. Through our union with Him in the new birth we are no longer subjects of God’s wrath and the resulting condemnation. Jesus becomes our righteousness, thereby delivering us from the coming wrath (1Thess 1:10). While Postmodern theologians chafe at this, Christ’s expiation of our sins, theologically referred to as “the atonement,” is clearly a penal atonement made on our behalf by Christ, enabling God to be just, while at the same time justifying the ungodly who repent and put their faith in Christ as the propitiatory sacrifice for their sins.
The Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Perhaps no biblical doctrine is under greater attack in our day than that of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of Christ. It is grossly misrepresented and ridiculed by both the Modern and the Postmodern theologians of our time. They argue that the theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is nothing more than the invention of Calvin’s legal mind which led him to see Christ’s substitutionary death as satisfying God’s justice. It is true that Calvin first studied to be a lawyer during a time when government was based upon a legal system rather than feudalism, and his legal mind enabled him to recognize and expound upon the legal aspects of the atonement with more precision than former theologians.
Anselm in the tenth century, during the time of the feudal system in which nobility ruled, put forth the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement, which saw Christ’s substitutionary death as the satisfaction of God’s offended nobility. Calvin correctly pointed out that the language of Scripture speaks of judgment against offenses of God’s justice, rather than God punishing mankind for having offended His honor. Anselm was the first to argue that, since sin was committed against God’s infinite nobility, just one sin against His honor was deserving of eternal punishment. Clearly this is not a satisfactory explanation of the atonement! God’s law prescribes just punishment commensurate to the offenses committed against justice. Nowhere in Scripture is God said to mete out infinite punishment simply because His honor was offended.
The Language of Scripture is clearly Penal
Surely it won’t do to argue that, since Calvin lived in a law-oriented society, it influenced his view of the atonement. The entire legal system that the West is modeled after today was developed by the Romans of Paul’s time, so the same could be argued concerning him. Indeed, the language which Paul uses to describe what Christ accomplished upon the cross involves clearly forensic or legal terms, used in the Roman legal system at that time.
However, the atonement is not based upon Roman law and justice, but rather upon the very Law of God and upon His justice. Both Old and New Testaments present God using terms which are clearly forensic. He is depicted as the Judge of all (Gen 18:25; Heb 12:23). He has a throne for judgment before which all must stand (Ps 9:7-8; Rev 20:11). The foundation of His throne is righteousness and justice (Ps 89:14; 97:2). Apart from grace, all would be judged according to the Law, found guilty and condemned (Rom 2:13,16; James 2:10). All men are demonstrated to be guilty before God (Rom 3:19).
So far, we see juridical terms consistently employed, showing all mankind to be guilty and condemned before a holy God who is also the Judge of all. That brings us up to the atonement. Are the passages which reveal Christ’s atoning sacrifice also expressed in forensic terms? Yes. He was born under the Law in order to redeem us from the Law (Gal 4:4-5). He lived a perfect life under the Law without sin (1Jn 3:4-5; 1Peter 2:22; Heb 4:15). He became a curse under the Law by hanging upon a tree, being numbered with the transgressors (Gal 3:13; Luke 22:37; Mark 15:28). He was delivered over because of our transgressions and was raised because of our justification (Rom 4:25; 5:16; Isa 53:5). Taking on the likeness of sinful flesh, He condemned sin in the flesh in order that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us (Rom 8:3-4). These are all legal terms which were in common use within every legal system of that time. Even the biblical terms “expiation” and “propitiation,” although not part of secular legal terminology, nevertheless are essential to God’s justice. Expiation and propitiation are foundational elements in God’s justice, making it possible for Him to be just and justify the ungodly (Rom 3:25-26).
Christ our Passover was Sacrificed for Us (1Cor 5:7)
While human laws are based largely upon principles contained in God’s Law, it is an error to try to confine God’s Law to man’s laws. For example, under God’s Law, there is a provision which allows for the forgiveness or remission of sins by the shedding of innocent blood (Heb 9:22; Matt 26:28). This is an integral part of God’s Law which is a stumbling block to those who do not have a revelation of the wisdom of the cross and seek to bind God to a strictly human justice system.
From the beginning God said that death would be the consequence of sin, and since God cannot lie, He couldn’t simply go back on His word. However, in His mercy He shed the innocent blood of animals to cover Adam and Eve. Under the Law, death was the penalty of disobedience, but God made provision, allowing for an innocent victim’s blood to be offered to make propitiation for the sins of the people: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement (expiation) for the soul” (Lev 17:11). Many try to undermine God’s sacrificial system by associating it with pagan blood sacrifices. However, God’s provision for forgiveness by blood sacrifice preceded these pagan perversions. Blood sacrifices demanded by the demon-gods were designed to distort and malign God’s merciful means of reconciliation through the Lamb of God, and sadly many Progressives today have played into their hands.
The English word “atonement” is an unfortunate rendering of the Hebrew “kippur,” since atonement speaks more to the result of the “kippur,” which means “expiation,” or “the removal of sin by sacrifice.” The word “atonement” is a 16th century term meaning “at-one-ment.” The word atonement doesn’t even have an equivalent in other languages. The Spanish language correctly renders it “expiación” which means the same as our English word expiation. The expiation is what made at-one-ment or reconciliation with God possible by taking away our sins, but the term in and of itself only has reference to the expiatory sacrifice. Since life is in the blood, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, since it is the blood which makes expiation (kippur) for the soul (Lev 17:11).
This mistranslation of the word “kippur” has given place to the modern notion that forgiveness and reconciliation with God are possible without the shedding of Christ’s blood in expiation for our sins, and that God didn’t need to be reconciled to us, but rather it was only we who needed to be reconciled unto Him. This, in spite of the fact that Jesus was declared to be “the Lamb of God who takes away (or expiates) the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). The Postmodern version is more akin to the Moral Influence Theory which would make the blood of Christ devoid of any redemptive value, saying that Christ merely demonstrated “cruciform” love as an example to us by absorbing our sins into Himself without retaliation. But the Apostle John clearly states the reason for Christ’s life and death. He says: “And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins” (1John 3:5). Jesus Himself, on the night of His passion said: “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28). Likewise, the writer of Hebrews says that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb 9:22, cf. 10:18). Clearly, the remission or forgiveness of sins refers to God’s forgiveness and remission of our sins, thereby enabling Him to justly justify us.
Accepted in the Beloved
“to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.” (Eph 1:6-7)
Returning to the question, "did Christ’s sacrifice on the cross change God’s attitude towards us?", the answer is yes and no. Did God still love us, even in our sin? Yes. But could He, being a just and holy God, simply overlook our sin? No. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). By the shed blood of Christ, the Lamb of God without blemish or spot, our sins have been propitiated before the Most Holy God who has always loved us. Through His blood there is forgiveness and acceptance for all who receive Him.
Some argue that God can simply overlook sin since Jesus was equally God and He nevertheless befriended sinners. However, we must understand that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit equally inhabit eternity and therefore from their eternal perspective the Lamb of God slain for the forgiveness and justification of those same sinners has always been a present reality to them (Rev 13:8). From the beginning, when God spoke with Adam and Eve after the fall, to the present in which the Holy Spirit continues indwelling us even when we sin (cf. 1Cor 6:15-19), God has always been able to remain just and holy while at the same time interacting with sinners. As Paul says:
“being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:24-26)
So, we see that, due to the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ which satisfied God’s justice for our offenses, God can be seen as just while at the same time rubbing shoulders with sinners. That is not to say that He isn’t grieved and angered by our sin, or that He will not intervene to judge sin if we fail to judge ourselves (Ps 7:11; Eph 4:30; 1Cor 11:31-32; James 4:4-6). Neither does it mean that our communion with Him isn’t broken by unrepentant sin (Ps 66:18; 1Jn 1:6-7). Nor does it mean that God will not finally judge all unrepentant sin. It simply means that God can be gracious and merciful to mankind because the Lamb of God has made propitiation for our sins by His shed blood on our behalf.
Progressives argue that the blood of Christ doesn’t change how God relates to us, but rather it simply cleanses our conscience, affecting how we relate to God. This is based upon a misapplication of the reference to our conscience in Hebrews. I here quote the whole passage to see its meaning in the context:
“But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot TO GOD, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” (Heb 9:11-15)
In the context, how is the blood of Christ seen to cleanse our conscience? We have already seen that the shedding of blood was for the remission of our sins in the sight of God. Here in the context, we see that Christ entered the Most Holy Place not made with hands, of which the earthly tabernacle was only a pattern. He presented His own blood upon the heavenly propitiatory, thereby making propitiation before God for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2). When it says that Christ was our “propitiation,” it is the word hilasterion, which refers to the expiatory sacrifice, or the sacrifice which satisfies God’s justice concerning our sins, enabling God to remove them as far as the east is from the west. It is God who says He will remember our sins no more because of the removal of them from Himself (Heb 10:18). Our consciences are cleansed only by the knowledge that God has removed our sins from us and remembers them no more because of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice on our behalf.
From the very beginning, God was pointing us to the once and for all sacrifice, by which He, in the person of the Son, would make expiation for our sins through His shed blood upon the cross. The Passover was given as a clear shadow of Christ our Passover who would be sacrificed for us (1Cor 5:7). The Passover lamb had to be without spot or blemish. It was to be slain for the sins of the people and placed upon the doorposts of their homes so that the judgment which fell upon the land would pass over them. The Lord said:
“And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.” (Ex 12:13)
In the same manner, “having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Rom 5:8-10). We have been redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1Peter 1:19). To deny the efficacy of the blood of Christ is to count the blood of Christ by which we have received the remission of sins as a common thing (Heb 10:29).
Redemption
Redemption is integrally related to the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, since His sacrifice of Himself obtained our redemption. We were redeemed by His blood (Col 1:14). Redemption refers to a price having been paid in order to obtain something. What was obtained for us through Christ’s redeeming blood? Who was the blood that redeemed us presented to? Did Christ’s redemption change the way God relates to us? These are important questions which are often ignored or glossed over.
Paul says that we were bought with a price (1Cor 6:20). Peter says that the redemptive price paid was the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot (1Peter 1:18-20). Jesus said that He came to give His life a ransom for many. The word “ransom” is lutron, which means “the redemptive price.” Paul clarifies that the many referred to are all mankind. He said:
“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom (antilutron, “a substitutionary redemptive price”) for all, to be testified in due time.” (1Tim 2:5,6)
Here we see Christ’s redemptive death on the cross to be a ransom paid “in the place of” (anti) all mankind. And in due time (in the time of their visitation), it will have been testified to all. Here we also see that Jesus Christ in His humanity offered His blood as a Mediator between God and man. So, to whom did the Man Jesus Christ give Himself as a ransom? To God.
God said that the penalty for Adam’s original sin would be death. Since God is not a man that He should lie, sin entered by the one man, Adam, and death passed upon all men, because when Adam sinned all sinned in him. Likewise, we were all born sinners and therefore commit sins. and God has declared that the soul that sins shall die (Ezek 18:4). The life of man is in the blood (Deut 12:23). Therefore, one’s lifeblood is required by God in consequence of sin. However, God in His mercy, foreseeing the cross, provided blood sacrifices of innocent animals in order to cover man’s sins until the spotless Lamb of God came to take away the sins of the world once and for all (Jn 1:29). However, without the shedding of blood, God cannot be just and at the same time remit sins (Heb 9:22).
The blood wasn’t presented as payment to the devil as some Church Fathers believed. While Satan’s legal rights against us were cancelled at the cross, the redemptive blood had to be presented to God on the propitiatory (KJV “mercy seat”) in the heavenly Holy of Holies. The writer of Hebrews says of Jesus Christ our High Priest: “with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12).
In the earthly tabernacle, which is a pattern of the heavenly, the high priest entered the Most Holy Place once a year presenting the blood of the sacrificial animal before the Lord upon the mercy seat or propitiatory for the sins of the people. This offering propitiated God or satisfied Him until the following year. This was merely a type or shadow of the once and for all sacrifice of Christ our Redeemer. After describing the expiatory sacrifice which was offered once a year on the day of atonement, the author of Hebrews applies it to Christ saying:
“how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” (Heb 9:14,15)
This was also typified in the application of the blood of the Passover lamb. It was when God saw the blood that His judgment passed over them and the angel of death was not permitted to take their lives (Ex 12:13). Also, all sacrifices for sins were presented before the Lord (Lev 4:4-7). Actually, the entire Old Testament Scriptures were pregnant with types and shadows of the Lamb of God who would come and shed His blood, redeeming us unto Himself by grace. This is why Jesus said to the Pharisees: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). In spite of all their knowledge of Scripture, they thought that eternal life was to be obtained by obedience to the Law. However, the Law was given in order to put all under disobedience that God might afterwards have mercy on all (Rom 11:32). It was given to bring us to Christ, the Lamb of God, who would once and for all take away our sins and begin a new creation through His resurrection life.
Paul said that, in spite of the fact that he didn’t handle the Word of God deceitfully as some, the gospel was veiled to those who are perishing. He said that the god of this age has blinded them to the glorious gospel (2Cor 4:1-4). That was the case with the Pharisees, and it is also the case with many in our Postmodern society. Religious Progressives typically deny and even mock the truth that the expiatory sacrifice of Christ our Kinsman Redeemer was necessary in order to redeem us from our sins so that God could justly forgive and justify us. Brian Zahnd is representative of this school of thought when he says:
“Penal substitutionary atonement insists that God cannot just forgive. What do you mean He can’t just forgive? Of course He can, because God is not subordinate to justice.” [2]
However, we see in Scripture that the justice of God requires a blood ransom in substitution for sin in order for God to be able to justly forgive us for our sins. Jesus, before going to the cross said: “this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28). “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph 1:7). How are we forgiven before God? Through the shed blood of Christ, the substitutionary Lamb who redeemed us by His blood, enabling God to justly forgive us our sins.
I personally fear for those who reduce Christ’s expiatory death upon the cross, presenting it as nothing more than an example of cruciform love for us to emulate. The Holy Spirit prophesied concerning this through Peter when he said:
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who BOUGHT them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.” (2Peter 2:1)
As the hour drew near when Jesus was to be offered up (Heb 7:27), He cried out to the Father saying: “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour” (John 12:27). Why was He troubled? Was it because He knew He would be beaten and scourged? No. The sinless Son of God knew that the Father was about to lay upon Him all the sins of the world so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2Cor 5:21). He had come in the form of man in order to give His lifeblood a ransom for all (Matt 20:28; 1Tim 2:6).
For us to say that God simply permitted wicked men to kill Him so we can know His cruciform love is tantamount to denying the Lord “who bought us” and gave His life “a ransom for all.” While it is true that the cross is by far the greatest demonstration of the Love of God, it is such, not simply because He absorbed “the collective sin of humanity” into Himself, saying “Father forgive them,” but rather because He gave His life a ransom for sin, since without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin.
A Denial of the Validity of the Old Testament Sacrificial System is a Denial of our Lord who bought us
The entirety of the Old Testament sacrificial system was divinely instituted for the sole purpose of pointing to Jesus Christ our Passover; the Lamb without blemish and without spot having been slain from the foundation of the world; the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Old and New Testaments are so intertwined with this redemptive theme that to deny the validity of the Old Testament sacrificial system is to also deny the validity of the New Testament testimony concerning Christ our Redeemer.
Postmodern Progressives, in order to deny Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement, must first discredit the validity of the sacrificial system. They say that the sacrificial system was the invention of the primitive Near Eastern mindset of Moses. In order to do this, they must first deny the inerrancy of the Scriptures, since the Scriptures present God as being the one who instituted blood sacrifices.
However, they are subtle and clandestine rather than forthright in their denial of the authority of the Scriptures, and in this manner, they have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of many unwary sheep. They often emphasize that they hold a very high view of Scripture, even referring to it as the inspired word of God, while at the same time maintaining that it contains many errors and myths. This is what was meant by Peter when he said that they will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who BOUGHT them (2Peter 2:1). Their philosophical arguments are so ingeniously devised that they sow seeds of doubt without outright saying that they deny what they very obviously do deny when one takes the time to read in detail their often voluminous argumentations. Their writings are often so complex, evasive and elusive that most who write reviews concerning their works must speculate concerning what these authors were actually saying. These are those of whom Paul warned when he said:
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col 2:8)
The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who perish, but to us who believe it is the wisdom of God and the power of God (1Cor 1:18-21). The truth as it is in Jesus is so simple that the unlettered indigenous tribes here in the Colombian jungle understand it and are impacted by it. Yet it is so profound that we can never fathom its depths.
An all-too-common error of many who come to see that God’s plan culminates in the final restoration of all is failing to discern that not all who believe in universal salvation are biblically sound in their doctrines. Since the Bible so clearly teaches that Christ will succeed in His mission to seek and save the lost until the last lost sheep is safe in the fold, even the most Liberal teachers use many of the same passages of Scripture and biblical argumentation as the Conservative scholars do, demonstrating that God’s plan is to save all. However, since they deny the inerrancy of Scripture, Progressives ignore many portions of Scripture and twist the meaning of others in order to accommodate them to today’s culture or their own personal sensibilities. Only a truly high view of Scripture can save us from becoming lost in a sea of subjectivity.
In like manner, many who received a revelation of the grace of God fell into this same pitfall. The grace movement started upon a rediscovery of grace from the Scriptures and rediscovering the reality of Christ as our life. But many, failing to use discernment, have been led into doctrines which go too far and do not abide in the doctrine of Christ (2John 9). Jude warned of false grace teachers who depart from the Scriptures and subtly convert the grace of God into sinful excess. He said:
“I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 3-4)
Much of that which today passes for grace teaching has gone too far and bears little resemblance to the Bible based grace teaching of men like Andrew Wommack, Joseph Prince and even that which Steve McVey at first presented in his book “Grace-Walk.” In my book “The True Grace of God” I defend the doctrine of grace against its naysayers, but at the same time I make a call for those in the Grace Movement to abide in the doctrine of Christ – to remain in the truth as it is in Jesus (Eph 4:20-23).
In like manner, in my book “The Ways of God” I seek to sound a warning against what I see as a prevalent but serious deviation from the biblical metanarrative among Universalists which, if not corrected, could derail the present restoration of Universalism, resulting in a repeat of the demise of Universalism during the last century through the incursion of Unitarian Liberalism. In “The Ways of God” I present an apologetic of the ways of God as revealed in the biblical record, showing that God’s ways can be seen to be just and loving, culminating in the final restoration of all, without compromising the authority of the Scriptures. I believe that if we want to see the grace movement and the restoration of Universal Restorationism stay on course, we must have a renewed commitment to stand firmly upon the Scriptures. I am convinced that God can be seen to be good all the time, even in His most severe judgments.
[1] When they speak of the love of God as “cruciform” they mean to say that His love is always like Christ on the cross, passively absorbing our sins into Himself, without acting in judgment against them. Nevertheless, many who use this term believe that Christ personally came to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. for rejecting Him.
[2] Monster God Atonement Debate, Michael Brown vs. Brian Zahn, 28:30 min.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
+Are the Gates of Hell Locked from Within?
by George Sidney Hurd
“I willingly believe that the damned are in one sense successful rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside . . . they enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.” C. S. Lewis. [1]
Is it true, as C. S. Lewis willingly believed, that all who are in hell are there only because they choose to remain there, and that, rather than being there against their will, its inhabitants have actually locked the door from the inside? Is it true, as he taught, that man’s libertarian free-will is so absolute that even God Himself must ultimately submit to it, abandoning lost sinners to an eternity of misery, in the end saying to them, “thy will be done”? [2] Whose will prevails when all is said and done? God’s will that all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, or the fallen sin-bent will of lost sinners who came into this world spiritually stillborn and blinded by the god of this age? These are some of the questions that I hope to answer from Scripture in this blog.
First off, I would like to point out that C. S. Lewis seems to have tentatively been a hopeful Universalist. In his novel, The Great Divorce, he depicted himself as having died and gone to hell. In hell he took a bus to heaven with several others, most of whom did not want to remain there and promptly reboarded the bus back to hell. When he arrived at the edge of heaven he was greeted by George Macdonald, his mentor in life who was a Universalist. In his conversation, C. S. Lewis acknowledged the fact that both Macdonald and the Apostle Paul had spoken as though they believed that all would be saved, but he then proceeds to present MacDonald as being uncertain in the afterlife concerning the final salvation of all because of man’s inviolable free-will. Here I quote part of the interchange between Lewis and MacDonald in heaven:
C. S. Lewis: “In your own books, Sir,’ said I, ‘you were a Universalist. You talked as if all men would be saved. And St. Paul too.’
George Macdonald: “Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said…that all will be well…and all manner of thing will be well. But it’s ill talking of such questions… Witness the doctrine of Predestination which shows (truly enough) that eternal reality is not waiting for a future in which to be real; but at the price of removing Freedom which is the deeper truth of the two. And wouldn’t Universalism do the same?” [3]
Reading this, I wondered what Macdonald thought of C. S. Lewis presenting him as though he were merely a hopeful Universalist in the afterlife, considering that he was such a strong advocate for Universalism during his lifetime. C. S. Lewis here actually presents George Macdonald as uncertain concerning the final salvation of all, reasoning that both Predestination and God’s determined will that all be saved must somehow be subordinate to man’s sovereign libertarian Freedom which not even God can overcome, thus rendering the final outcome unknowable.
From what I have been able to gather from the writings of C. S. Lewis, his free-will theodicy, by which he justified the presence of evil and suffering, was so extremely libertarian that God could neither consign unrepentant sinners to hell against their will, nor could He be certain that His determined will that all should be saved would ever be successfully accomplished.
C. S. Lewis actually believed that God did not know what the final outcome would be when He created man with a free-will, but reasoned, “apparently He thought it was worth the risk.” [4] C. S. Lewis was the most influential forerunner to what later came to be known as Open Theism. I present the scriptural arguments against Open Theism in a series of two blogs: Open Theism – Does God know my Tomorrow.
Are the only People in Hell those who choose to remain there?
Some would argue that the word hell shouldn’t even appear in the Bible. While it is true that the actual meaning of our English word hell has been greatly distorted by Greek mythology and the creative imagination of men like Dante, etymologically speaking, the word Hell is totally consistent with the meaning of Hades which in Scripture is simply the unseen or hidden realm of the dead. The Greek word Hades is a composite word, made up of the negative particle a, meaning “no” and eido which means “to see.” Even outside of Scripture it simply referred to the invisible realm of the dead. When Hades was originally translated as “Hell” in the Old English, it meant essentially the same thing as Hades. The old word hel or Helle simply meant “that which is covered or concealed,” i.e. the invisible realm of the dead. [5]
The word itself simply speaks of the unseen realm of the souls of the dead. Not everyone in hades is seen to be suffering, since both the souls of the righteous and the wicked alike are seen to be in Sheol or Hades, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies (Gen 37:35, hades LXX). Even the soul of Jesus went to Hades, while His body was preserved from corruption in the tomb until His resurrection (Acts 2:31).
Obviously, if, as some affirm, the soul does not have an existence apart from the body, and Sheol or Hades is nothing more than the grave, then this whole discussion would be irrelevant. I demonstrate from Scripture that the soul has a conscious existence apart from the body in my blog, Is Sheol the Grave, and also in my book, Extermination or Restoration?
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus we see that both men died, and their souls went to Hades or the unseen realm of the dead. Lazarus was carried by the angels to Paradise, which was called Abraham’s bosom prior to Christ’s resurrection and ascension, at which time He took Paradise with Him to the third heaven (Eph 4:8-10, cf., 2Cor 12:2-4).
When the rich man died, he found himself in torments. Was it possible for him to simply get up and leave for Paradise at will, as Libertarians like C. S. Lewis affirm? Arguing from silence, they say that the rich man gave no indication that he wanted to leave the place of torments and enter Paradise. However, if he was only there because he wanted to remain there, why would he beg Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers so they could avoid ending up where he was, if indeed one could simply leave for Paradise whenever they chose to?
The obvious reason why he wanted his brothers to repent before dying was because he understood that upon dying one must receive just retribution for what they have done in life. Lazarus’ retribution was Paradise, while the rich man’s retribution was the just penalty for his evil deeds. When the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue, Abraham made it clear that it was not possible for one to simply leave the place of torments for Paradise at will, when he said: “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” (Luke 16:26).
That does not mean that the retribution that the unrepentant receive in Gehenna for the sins committed in life is eternal and that they can never pass from torments to Paradise, but simply that they cannot leave without first receiving the just retribution for the deeds done in the flesh and/or repenting and being purified in the eonian fire. Jesus compared hell (Gehenna) to a prison, saying that one may not leave there until they have paid their penalty in full (Matt 5:22-26). “Until” logically requires an “afterwards,” and therefore rules out eternal retribution.
That it is possible for one to pass from undergoing correction and just retribution to Paradise once their correction has been achieved, can be seen both in Ephesians 4 and 1Peter where Christ is seen to have descended into Hades, preached the gospel to the captives held there and ascending with them to the third heaven:
“He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water… For this reason the gospel was preached (ευηγγελισθη, lit. ‘evangelized’) also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1 Peter 3:19-21; 4:6)
“As the scripture says, ‘When he went up to the very heights, he took many captives with him; he gave gifts to mankind.’ Now, what does ‘he went up’ mean? It means that first he came down to the lowest depths of the earth. So the one who came down is the same one who went up, above and beyond the heavens, to fill the whole universe with his presence.” (Eph 4:8-10 TEV)
Here we see that Christ descended into the lowest parts of Hades, even to where the spirits of the men who were disobedient in the days of Noah were imprisoned, in order that, although they were judged in the flesh they might live according to God in the spirit. Their spirits were regenerated, and they were received into Paradise in the third heaven, awaiting the first resurrection at Christ’s Second Coming.
Also, we see that the unjust who do not have part in the first resurrection unto life will be judged “according to their works” at the White Throne Judgment, receiving “their part” in the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:13; 21:8). Jesus said that some will receive “few lashes” while others will receive “many” (Luke 12:47-48). These expressions all speak of a just and measured judgment, and rule out the possibility of infinite punishment for finite sins. Also, understanding that the eonian fire/correction is for the purpose of purification, it logically follows that, as soon as one has been fully purified, coming forth as pure gold, they will be taken out of the fire and restored. I consider the nature, purpose and duration of the fire in my blog, Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.
However, the fact that retribution in Gehenna is not eternal, as traditionally taught, does not mean that the unrepentant sinner can simply choose to avert Gehenna and go directly to Paradise upon dying, foregoing God’s just retribution and the eonian fire, since, without holiness no one can see the Lord (Heb 12:14). Those tormented in Hades don’t have the keys, Christ does (Rev 1:18). He is the only one who can deliver us from death unto eonian life in His presence. In numerous passages we see that Jesus actually sends the unjust into outer darkness and eonian fire against their will. Here are some examples:
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matt 7:21-23)
“Then one said to Him, ‘Lord, are there few who are saved?’ And He said to them, 24 ‘Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able… 27 He will say… ‘Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.' 28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.” (Luke 13:23-28)
“And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 "So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.” (Matt 18:34-35)
There is a separation which takes place upon dying, or when Christ returns in the twinkling of an eye, gathering the elect from the four corners of the earth. Those who die in Christ go immediately into the presence of Christ, waiting to receive their glorified bodies in the first resurrection at His coming (2Cor 5:8; Php 1:23; Rev 20:5-6; Jn 5:29). The unrepentant are sent into outer darkness and eonian fire and remain in Hades until the second resurrection after Christ’s 1,000 year reign has ended. At that time, death (the grave) and Hades (the habitation of disembodied souls) give up the dead which are in them so that each individual may appear soul and body before the White Throne Judgment (Rev 20:13-15). Those whose names are still not found written in the book of life at that time are judged according to their works, receiving their part in the purifying Lake of Fire, being hurt by the second death.
The fact that the book of life is consulted at the White Throne Judgment indicates that some of the souls who missed the first resurrection will subsequently have fulfilled their part (μέρος), or just recompense, and been purified (washed their robes Rev 22:14 ASV), having their names written in the book of life and being received into Paradise. Then at the second resurrection they also will be made alive with a glorified resurrection body.
Those whose names are not found written in the book of life at that time will not willingly go into the Lake of Fire of their own free-will, but rather must be forced to undergo the second death:
“Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:13-15, c.f. Matt 5:29)
As I argue in my blog, Fear Him who can Destroy both Body and Soul, the second death is the destruction of soul and body in Gehenna. If we do not destroy the dominance of the flesh and the soul-life now, we will have to undergo it in the afterlife, since, without holiness no one will see the Lord. Certainly no one would ever willingly choose to be hurt by the second death in the Lake of fire if they were free to avert it and enter directly into the kingdom of heaven. God created us with a “free-will”, but our will is subordinate to God’s sovereign determined will. Man’s will is not free to circumvent God’s determined judgments apart from repentance, as history demonstrates.
What we see repeatedly emphasized is that those excluded from the kingdom will want to enter but will not be able to (Luke 13:24-28; Matt 7:21-23; 25:11-12,41,44). In fact, Jesus repeatedly said that they will weep and gnash their teeth when He tells the unjust to depart from Him into the eonian punishment which is figuratively described as a furnace of fire and outer darkness (Matt 13:42; 22:13).
God will not eternally abandon anyone to their own “Free-will”
While it is true that God, just as any loving father, does not grant our every wish and some must undergo eonian correction against their will, neither will He abandon man to his own depraved “free-will”.
The term “free-will” in reality is a misnomer, since the will of each individual is restricted and impaired by numerous factors. None of us were able to choose the environment in which we were born. We didn’t choose to be born with a bent to sin. We didn’t choose our parents. We couldn’t choose whether to be born in a Christian home or an atheist or Muslim home. The list could go on. All of these things, and many more, limit or influence our “free-will” decisions. In fact, most of mankind never even heard the Gospel in their lifetime in order to be able to decide whether or not to receive Christ of their own “free-will”.
All these limitations considered, how could our heavenly Father eternally abandon any of His offspring to their own free-will, saying to some, “thy will be done”, as C. S. Lewis affirms, especially considering that fallen humanity is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins and blinded by the prince of the power of the air? (Eph 2:1-2; 2Cor 4:4). Jesus said: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws (ἑλκύω, ‘effectually draw’) him” (Jn 6:44). While the invitation is open to all, man is so lost that no one can come without divine assistance. It is not simply a case of unwillingness, but inability.
However, rather than God effectually drawing only the elect to Himself while consigning most of humanity to eternal torment, as the Calvinists believe, or forever abandoning the lost to their own free-will, as the Libertarians claim, the Scriptures throughout declare that God will draw all men unto Himself, albeit each one in his own order (1Cor 15:22-23). The elect of this age are merely the firstfruits of God’s new creation in Christ, in which all will finally be reunited in Christ and made new in the final Dispensation of the Fullness of the Times (Eph 1:10; Rev 21:5). I consider this in more detail in my blog, Who are the Elect of God?
While Jesus said that no one can come to Him without being effectually drawn, He also said that He would draw all unto Himself. He said:
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw (ἑλκύω, ‘effectually draw’) all to Myself.” (Jn 12:32 LITV)
So, we see that God’s elect firstfruits are those who are drawn unto Christ in this age. But in the coming ages He will draw all unto Himself. God has sworn by Himself that all the ends of the earth will look to Him and be saved, bowing the knee and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Isa 45:22-24; Php 2:10-11). Christ will continue reigning until all have subjected themselves unto Him, at which time He will also subject Himself unto the Father that God may be all in all entering into eternity (1Cor 15:28).
Libertarians like C. S. Lewis argue that God cannot save all mankind, since He must respect man’s autonomous free-will. To me, that is like saying that a father, out of respect for his son’s free-will, should not exercise restraint to keep his son from throwing himself off of a high building to his death. Any loving father would restrain his son against his will, if necessary, even confining him in a clinic for whatever time is necessary for the restoration of his mental and emotional health.
How much less would our heavenly Father allow any one of his wayward children to inflict upon themselves irreversible ruin. Rather, he confines them in eonian correction until they come to themselves and are fully restored. Whatever time it takes, no matter how many ages it may take for some (like the self-righteous Pharisees), to recognize their condition and their need of the Physician, God has sworn by Himself that all will someday look to Him and be saved. God has all the time in the world at His disposal, and He is more than able to bring circumstances to bear upon even the most obstinately self-willed sinners like Jonah fleeing for Tarsus or Paul on his high horse, working in each one of us to both will and to do of His good pleasure (Php 2:13). Furthermore, He has sworn that he will do it. Our heavenly Father will never abandon forever even one of the children of men:
“For the Lord will not cast off forever. Though He causes grief, yet He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. For He does not afflict willingly,
nor grieve the children of men.” (Lam 3:31-33)
[1] C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, p. 130.
[2] C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce p. 75: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.’”
[3] The Great Divorce p. 120
[4] Mere Christianity, p. 48
[5] https://www.etymonline.com/word/Hell
“I willingly believe that the damned are in one sense successful rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside . . . they enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.” C. S. Lewis. [1]
Is it true, as C. S. Lewis willingly believed, that all who are in hell are there only because they choose to remain there, and that, rather than being there against their will, its inhabitants have actually locked the door from the inside? Is it true, as he taught, that man’s libertarian free-will is so absolute that even God Himself must ultimately submit to it, abandoning lost sinners to an eternity of misery, in the end saying to them, “thy will be done”? [2] Whose will prevails when all is said and done? God’s will that all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, or the fallen sin-bent will of lost sinners who came into this world spiritually stillborn and blinded by the god of this age? These are some of the questions that I hope to answer from Scripture in this blog.
First off, I would like to point out that C. S. Lewis seems to have tentatively been a hopeful Universalist. In his novel, The Great Divorce, he depicted himself as having died and gone to hell. In hell he took a bus to heaven with several others, most of whom did not want to remain there and promptly reboarded the bus back to hell. When he arrived at the edge of heaven he was greeted by George Macdonald, his mentor in life who was a Universalist. In his conversation, C. S. Lewis acknowledged the fact that both Macdonald and the Apostle Paul had spoken as though they believed that all would be saved, but he then proceeds to present MacDonald as being uncertain in the afterlife concerning the final salvation of all because of man’s inviolable free-will. Here I quote part of the interchange between Lewis and MacDonald in heaven:
C. S. Lewis: “In your own books, Sir,’ said I, ‘you were a Universalist. You talked as if all men would be saved. And St. Paul too.’
George Macdonald: “Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. It may be, as the Lord said…that all will be well…and all manner of thing will be well. But it’s ill talking of such questions… Witness the doctrine of Predestination which shows (truly enough) that eternal reality is not waiting for a future in which to be real; but at the price of removing Freedom which is the deeper truth of the two. And wouldn’t Universalism do the same?” [3]
Reading this, I wondered what Macdonald thought of C. S. Lewis presenting him as though he were merely a hopeful Universalist in the afterlife, considering that he was such a strong advocate for Universalism during his lifetime. C. S. Lewis here actually presents George Macdonald as uncertain concerning the final salvation of all, reasoning that both Predestination and God’s determined will that all be saved must somehow be subordinate to man’s sovereign libertarian Freedom which not even God can overcome, thus rendering the final outcome unknowable.
From what I have been able to gather from the writings of C. S. Lewis, his free-will theodicy, by which he justified the presence of evil and suffering, was so extremely libertarian that God could neither consign unrepentant sinners to hell against their will, nor could He be certain that His determined will that all should be saved would ever be successfully accomplished.
C. S. Lewis actually believed that God did not know what the final outcome would be when He created man with a free-will, but reasoned, “apparently He thought it was worth the risk.” [4] C. S. Lewis was the most influential forerunner to what later came to be known as Open Theism. I present the scriptural arguments against Open Theism in a series of two blogs: Open Theism – Does God know my Tomorrow.
Are the only People in Hell those who choose to remain there?
Some would argue that the word hell shouldn’t even appear in the Bible. While it is true that the actual meaning of our English word hell has been greatly distorted by Greek mythology and the creative imagination of men like Dante, etymologically speaking, the word Hell is totally consistent with the meaning of Hades which in Scripture is simply the unseen or hidden realm of the dead. The Greek word Hades is a composite word, made up of the negative particle a, meaning “no” and eido which means “to see.” Even outside of Scripture it simply referred to the invisible realm of the dead. When Hades was originally translated as “Hell” in the Old English, it meant essentially the same thing as Hades. The old word hel or Helle simply meant “that which is covered or concealed,” i.e. the invisible realm of the dead. [5]
The word itself simply speaks of the unseen realm of the souls of the dead. Not everyone in hades is seen to be suffering, since both the souls of the righteous and the wicked alike are seen to be in Sheol or Hades, awaiting the resurrection of their bodies (Gen 37:35, hades LXX). Even the soul of Jesus went to Hades, while His body was preserved from corruption in the tomb until His resurrection (Acts 2:31).
Obviously, if, as some affirm, the soul does not have an existence apart from the body, and Sheol or Hades is nothing more than the grave, then this whole discussion would be irrelevant. I demonstrate from Scripture that the soul has a conscious existence apart from the body in my blog, Is Sheol the Grave, and also in my book, Extermination or Restoration?
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus we see that both men died, and their souls went to Hades or the unseen realm of the dead. Lazarus was carried by the angels to Paradise, which was called Abraham’s bosom prior to Christ’s resurrection and ascension, at which time He took Paradise with Him to the third heaven (Eph 4:8-10, cf., 2Cor 12:2-4).
When the rich man died, he found himself in torments. Was it possible for him to simply get up and leave for Paradise at will, as Libertarians like C. S. Lewis affirm? Arguing from silence, they say that the rich man gave no indication that he wanted to leave the place of torments and enter Paradise. However, if he was only there because he wanted to remain there, why would he beg Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers so they could avoid ending up where he was, if indeed one could simply leave for Paradise whenever they chose to?
The obvious reason why he wanted his brothers to repent before dying was because he understood that upon dying one must receive just retribution for what they have done in life. Lazarus’ retribution was Paradise, while the rich man’s retribution was the just penalty for his evil deeds. When the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue, Abraham made it clear that it was not possible for one to simply leave the place of torments for Paradise at will, when he said: “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” (Luke 16:26).
That does not mean that the retribution that the unrepentant receive in Gehenna for the sins committed in life is eternal and that they can never pass from torments to Paradise, but simply that they cannot leave without first receiving the just retribution for the deeds done in the flesh and/or repenting and being purified in the eonian fire. Jesus compared hell (Gehenna) to a prison, saying that one may not leave there until they have paid their penalty in full (Matt 5:22-26). “Until” logically requires an “afterwards,” and therefore rules out eternal retribution.
That it is possible for one to pass from undergoing correction and just retribution to Paradise once their correction has been achieved, can be seen both in Ephesians 4 and 1Peter where Christ is seen to have descended into Hades, preached the gospel to the captives held there and ascending with them to the third heaven:
“He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water… For this reason the gospel was preached (ευηγγελισθη, lit. ‘evangelized’) also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1 Peter 3:19-21; 4:6)
“As the scripture says, ‘When he went up to the very heights, he took many captives with him; he gave gifts to mankind.’ Now, what does ‘he went up’ mean? It means that first he came down to the lowest depths of the earth. So the one who came down is the same one who went up, above and beyond the heavens, to fill the whole universe with his presence.” (Eph 4:8-10 TEV)
Here we see that Christ descended into the lowest parts of Hades, even to where the spirits of the men who were disobedient in the days of Noah were imprisoned, in order that, although they were judged in the flesh they might live according to God in the spirit. Their spirits were regenerated, and they were received into Paradise in the third heaven, awaiting the first resurrection at Christ’s Second Coming.
Also, we see that the unjust who do not have part in the first resurrection unto life will be judged “according to their works” at the White Throne Judgment, receiving “their part” in the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:13; 21:8). Jesus said that some will receive “few lashes” while others will receive “many” (Luke 12:47-48). These expressions all speak of a just and measured judgment, and rule out the possibility of infinite punishment for finite sins. Also, understanding that the eonian fire/correction is for the purpose of purification, it logically follows that, as soon as one has been fully purified, coming forth as pure gold, they will be taken out of the fire and restored. I consider the nature, purpose and duration of the fire in my blog, Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.
However, the fact that retribution in Gehenna is not eternal, as traditionally taught, does not mean that the unrepentant sinner can simply choose to avert Gehenna and go directly to Paradise upon dying, foregoing God’s just retribution and the eonian fire, since, without holiness no one can see the Lord (Heb 12:14). Those tormented in Hades don’t have the keys, Christ does (Rev 1:18). He is the only one who can deliver us from death unto eonian life in His presence. In numerous passages we see that Jesus actually sends the unjust into outer darkness and eonian fire against their will. Here are some examples:
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matt 7:21-23)
“Then one said to Him, ‘Lord, are there few who are saved?’ And He said to them, 24 ‘Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able… 27 He will say… ‘Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.' 28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.” (Luke 13:23-28)
“And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 "So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.” (Matt 18:34-35)
There is a separation which takes place upon dying, or when Christ returns in the twinkling of an eye, gathering the elect from the four corners of the earth. Those who die in Christ go immediately into the presence of Christ, waiting to receive their glorified bodies in the first resurrection at His coming (2Cor 5:8; Php 1:23; Rev 20:5-6; Jn 5:29). The unrepentant are sent into outer darkness and eonian fire and remain in Hades until the second resurrection after Christ’s 1,000 year reign has ended. At that time, death (the grave) and Hades (the habitation of disembodied souls) give up the dead which are in them so that each individual may appear soul and body before the White Throne Judgment (Rev 20:13-15). Those whose names are still not found written in the book of life at that time are judged according to their works, receiving their part in the purifying Lake of Fire, being hurt by the second death.
The fact that the book of life is consulted at the White Throne Judgment indicates that some of the souls who missed the first resurrection will subsequently have fulfilled their part (μέρος), or just recompense, and been purified (washed their robes Rev 22:14 ASV), having their names written in the book of life and being received into Paradise. Then at the second resurrection they also will be made alive with a glorified resurrection body.
Those whose names are not found written in the book of life at that time will not willingly go into the Lake of Fire of their own free-will, but rather must be forced to undergo the second death:
“Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:13-15, c.f. Matt 5:29)
As I argue in my blog, Fear Him who can Destroy both Body and Soul, the second death is the destruction of soul and body in Gehenna. If we do not destroy the dominance of the flesh and the soul-life now, we will have to undergo it in the afterlife, since, without holiness no one will see the Lord. Certainly no one would ever willingly choose to be hurt by the second death in the Lake of fire if they were free to avert it and enter directly into the kingdom of heaven. God created us with a “free-will”, but our will is subordinate to God’s sovereign determined will. Man’s will is not free to circumvent God’s determined judgments apart from repentance, as history demonstrates.
What we see repeatedly emphasized is that those excluded from the kingdom will want to enter but will not be able to (Luke 13:24-28; Matt 7:21-23; 25:11-12,41,44). In fact, Jesus repeatedly said that they will weep and gnash their teeth when He tells the unjust to depart from Him into the eonian punishment which is figuratively described as a furnace of fire and outer darkness (Matt 13:42; 22:13).
God will not eternally abandon anyone to their own “Free-will”
While it is true that God, just as any loving father, does not grant our every wish and some must undergo eonian correction against their will, neither will He abandon man to his own depraved “free-will”.
The term “free-will” in reality is a misnomer, since the will of each individual is restricted and impaired by numerous factors. None of us were able to choose the environment in which we were born. We didn’t choose to be born with a bent to sin. We didn’t choose our parents. We couldn’t choose whether to be born in a Christian home or an atheist or Muslim home. The list could go on. All of these things, and many more, limit or influence our “free-will” decisions. In fact, most of mankind never even heard the Gospel in their lifetime in order to be able to decide whether or not to receive Christ of their own “free-will”.
All these limitations considered, how could our heavenly Father eternally abandon any of His offspring to their own free-will, saying to some, “thy will be done”, as C. S. Lewis affirms, especially considering that fallen humanity is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins and blinded by the prince of the power of the air? (Eph 2:1-2; 2Cor 4:4). Jesus said: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws (ἑλκύω, ‘effectually draw’) him” (Jn 6:44). While the invitation is open to all, man is so lost that no one can come without divine assistance. It is not simply a case of unwillingness, but inability.
However, rather than God effectually drawing only the elect to Himself while consigning most of humanity to eternal torment, as the Calvinists believe, or forever abandoning the lost to their own free-will, as the Libertarians claim, the Scriptures throughout declare that God will draw all men unto Himself, albeit each one in his own order (1Cor 15:22-23). The elect of this age are merely the firstfruits of God’s new creation in Christ, in which all will finally be reunited in Christ and made new in the final Dispensation of the Fullness of the Times (Eph 1:10; Rev 21:5). I consider this in more detail in my blog, Who are the Elect of God?
While Jesus said that no one can come to Him without being effectually drawn, He also said that He would draw all unto Himself. He said:
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw (ἑλκύω, ‘effectually draw’) all to Myself.” (Jn 12:32 LITV)
So, we see that God’s elect firstfruits are those who are drawn unto Christ in this age. But in the coming ages He will draw all unto Himself. God has sworn by Himself that all the ends of the earth will look to Him and be saved, bowing the knee and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Isa 45:22-24; Php 2:10-11). Christ will continue reigning until all have subjected themselves unto Him, at which time He will also subject Himself unto the Father that God may be all in all entering into eternity (1Cor 15:28).
Libertarians like C. S. Lewis argue that God cannot save all mankind, since He must respect man’s autonomous free-will. To me, that is like saying that a father, out of respect for his son’s free-will, should not exercise restraint to keep his son from throwing himself off of a high building to his death. Any loving father would restrain his son against his will, if necessary, even confining him in a clinic for whatever time is necessary for the restoration of his mental and emotional health.
How much less would our heavenly Father allow any one of his wayward children to inflict upon themselves irreversible ruin. Rather, he confines them in eonian correction until they come to themselves and are fully restored. Whatever time it takes, no matter how many ages it may take for some (like the self-righteous Pharisees), to recognize their condition and their need of the Physician, God has sworn by Himself that all will someday look to Him and be saved. God has all the time in the world at His disposal, and He is more than able to bring circumstances to bear upon even the most obstinately self-willed sinners like Jonah fleeing for Tarsus or Paul on his high horse, working in each one of us to both will and to do of His good pleasure (Php 2:13). Furthermore, He has sworn that he will do it. Our heavenly Father will never abandon forever even one of the children of men:
“For the Lord will not cast off forever. Though He causes grief, yet He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. For He does not afflict willingly,
nor grieve the children of men.” (Lam 3:31-33)
[1] C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, p. 130.
[2] C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce p. 75: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.’”
[3] The Great Divorce p. 120
[4] Mere Christianity, p. 48
[5] https://www.etymonline.com/word/Hell
- Published on
An examination of what Jesus meant when He said: “Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna”
by George Sidney Hurd
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill (apokateino) the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy (apollumai) both soul (psuque) and body in hell (Gehenna).” (Matt 10:28)
What did Jesus mean when He said we are to fear Him, the One who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna? The same word, “fear” (φοβέω, phobeo), is used to refer both to those whom we are told not to fear, and the One that we are to fear, so reducing “fear” to merely “a sense of reverence or awe” wouldn’t seem to do justice to the parallel contrast.
As I pointed out in the previous blog, Understanding the Fear of the Lord, while we are not to be afraid of God, His fear should nevertheless always be before us so that we do not simply surrender to our fallen desires and instincts and buckle every time we are confronted with a test or temptation.
In the context of Matthew 10, Jesus is speaking to His twelve disciples before sending them out two by two to preach the gospel of the kingdom. He said that He was sending them out as sheep in the midst of wolves and told them that they would be persecuted for His name’s sake. He then goes beyond the twelve to include all who would suffer and die as martyrs for their testimony until He comes to reign.
It is in this context that He says that our fear of God should be greater than our fear of the men who might persecute and kill us for our testimony. Throughout the centuries, thousands of Christ-followers have been tortured and killed, choosing death rather than denying their Lord.
Does that mean that they were afraid of God? Not at all! If you read the testimonies of the martyrs, they often joyfully gave their lives, singing praises as they were being sawed in two or burned at the stake, because their first love was the Lord, and their greatest fear was denying the one they loved the most when tested. They were not afraid of the Lord, rather His fear was before them, making such a sin against the Lord unthinkable. Jesus said: “he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God” (Luke 12:9). When facing persecution or martyrdom, only those who love Him more than life itself will be faithful until death, receiving the crown of life (Rev 2:10). The rest will give in to the fear of men, denying Him in order to save their own skin.
So, according to Jesus, what are we to fear? Extermination? Eternal torment? How are we to understand “destroy both body and soul in Gehenna?” If He was referring to eternal torment, as believed by many, it would have been a shocking new revelation for the disciples, since nowhere throughout the Old Testament do we see mention of postmortem torments beyond eonian shame, much less unending torment.
Some have posited that Jesus didn’t mean for us to understand that God would actually destroy the soul and body of anyone in Gehenna, but simply that God is “able to.” However, that, to me, is untenable. It is very unlikely that Jesus would warn of something which He knew God in reality would never do. Clearly, Jesus meant for us to understand that some will indeed undergo this eschatological destruction of soul and body in Gehenna or the Lake of Fire.
This passage, taken as commonly translated and out of context, could seem to confirm what the Annihilationists say - that the resurrected bodies of the unjust, together with their souls, will be destroyed or exterminated in Gehenna fire. However, in verse 39 of the same chapter, we can see that destroying the soul is not speaking of the cessation of its existence, but rather the subjugation of the life of the soul to the life in the spirit:
“He who finds his life (“soul”- psuque) will lose it, and he who loses (apollumi) his life (“soul”- psuque) for My sake will find it.” (Matt 10:39)
Here Jesus uses the same words in the original as in verse 28. What Jesus was actually saying was hidden by the translators who, instead of translating apollumi and psuque the same way in both verses, translated it “destroy the soul” in 28 and “lose his life” in 39. It is obvious that Jesus meant to express the same thing in both instances, and while most Church Fathers simply quoted verse 28 without giving detail as to its meaning, at least one Church Father, Cyprian (200 – 258 AD), equates the two as being the same thing. [1] However, the translators leave us with the impression that He was speaking of two distinct and unrelated things. What is it that Jesus meant to say in the expression “lose or destroy the soul”?
The Bible makes it clear that man is a being made up of body, soul and spirit:
“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Thess 5:23)
The complete man, according to Paul is 1) spirit, 2) soul and 3) body. The immaterial part of man is made up of soul and spirit. Even though the natural man cannot distinguish between the spirit and the soul, in Hebrews we are told that the word of God distinguishes between that which is of the soul from that which is of the spirit:
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb 4:12)
Man, apart from the revelation of the Word of God, is incapable of distinguishing between that which is of the spirit and that which is of the soul, but the word of God is as a two-edged sword and is able to reveal when we are soulish, acting in the soul and when we are spiritual, acting in the spirit.
Our spirit is that which connects us with God who is Spirit. By our spirit we are able to hear God’s voice and have communion with Him. God created man to live with his spirit in communion with Himself, with the soul and body submitted to one’s spirit.
When man fell, He lost communion with God. Since the spirit no longer heard the voice of God, the soul of man no longer lived aligned with, and subjected under the spirit, but rather began to live according to the will of the body or flesh with its five senses. In this fallen condition, the soul no longer lived according to the spirit, led by God, but rather according to the desires of his flesh. Man no longer had spiritual perception, he only perceived with his five carnal senses. Man went from being spiritual, to becoming merely “flesh” (Gen 6:3). Those who live in this way, according to the soul and not according to the spirit, are called “carnal” or “soulish.” The Greek word for “soulish” is psuquikos, which is the adjective of psuque or “soul.”
“But the natural (psuquikos “soulish”) man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual (pneumáticos) judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one…. And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual (pneumáticos) people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.” (1Cor 2:14,15; 3:1)
“These are sensual (psuquikos ‘soulish’) persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.” (Jude 19)
“This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual (psuquikos “soulish), demonic.” (James 3:15-16)
The soulish man is carnal, since he does not hear God’s voice, and therefore lives a sensual life in his soul, according to the five senses of the flesh. He fulfills the desires of the flesh and not those of the Spirit.
When one is born again, it is the spirit which is born from above. Once born of the Spirit, we now have the capacity to perceive the things of God and do His will, living according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. We are now capable of being spiritual and not “soulish;” living the “soul life” (Jn 3:3,6).
Nevertheless, the life of the soul must be destroyed (apollumi) and replaced with the life of the spirit. In Adam, our soul was no longer subject to the Spirit. Now with our spirit reborn, it is necessary to put our soul in subjection to our spirit. When Jesus said that it was necessary to lose or destroy (apollumi) our soul, I believe He was saying that it is necessary to die to the dominion of the soul, subjecting it to our reborn spirit. The word apollumi in the New Testament sometimes means “to destroy or render null or inoperative” and sometimes “to lose.” I believe that the idea expressed here is to render inoperative the dominion of the soul in our lives. We should no longer live according to our own emotions and reason, but according to the rhema word of God. We should no longer live according to our will, but according to the will of God. The soul must be subjected once again to the spirit, in communion with God, no longer following after the flesh in order to fulfill its desires.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 He who loves his (soul) life will lose it, and he who hates his (soul) life in this world will keep it for eternal life (zoe aionios).” (John 12:24-25)
If we as believers take up our cross, following in the steps of Jesus, laying down our (soul) life for others, we will be spiritual, serving the Lord in spirit. But if we are soulish psuquikos, then God must intervene so that we are not condemned with the world.
“For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” (1Cor 11:31-32)
Here we see that the disciplinary judgments of the Lord have a correctional purpose - in order that we should not receive our portion with the unbelievers, being condemned with the world. The purpose of this discipline can be seen in 1Corinthians 5:5 where Paul says:
“deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1Cor 5:5)
The destruction of the flesh is not speaking of the physical body, but rather the soul life following after the desires of the flesh rather than the desires of the Spirit. In discipline, God permits us to receive the consequences of acting in the flesh now, in order that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord, and in this way save us from the Great White Throne Judgment and the second death.
If we submit to God, subjecting our soul to our spirit in this life, God will not have to destroy the dominance of the soul later. If we do not submit in this life, we face the possibility of suffering the destruction of the soul in a physically resurrected body, experiencing the second death in the purifying lake of fire, because without holiness no one shall see the Lord.
Death, Destruction and Annihilation
Those who believe that the destiny of the unjust is to be annihilated, understand death and destruction as the cessation of all existence. On the other hand, the Traditionalists who teach eternal punishment in hell, insist that neither the first death nor the second death are the end of existence. The Biblical Universalists, just as the Traditionalists, believe that the soul of man does not cease to exist. They differ from the Traditionalists in that they believe that the second death is a restorative and correctional process that will culminate in God being all in all. For them, neither death nor destruction mean the annihilation of our being, but rather a transformation and purification. Those who put their faith in Christ in this life and die to the flesh and soul life now, will not be hurt by the second death afterwards. But those who do not believe, or do not submit to the destruction of their soul life in this lifetime, risk having to be purified later in the lake of fire, being hurt by the second death or the eonian destruction which follows judgment.
In the Bible, neither death nor destruction express the concept of annihilation. I demonstrate this in detail in my book, Extermination or Restoration? Nothing in all God’s creation will ever cease to exist; it will simply undergo a change of state. The same word apollumi appears in 2Peter 3:6 where it says, “the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” It is evident that the world did not cease to exist since we still inhabit it today. We still breathe the same air, drink its water and till its soil. What is expressed by the word apollumi is that it underwent a change in state. In the majority of instances in which it appears in the New Testament, apollumi simply means that something was lost, only to be found later:
“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses (apollumi) one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost (apollumi) until he finds it?” (Luke 15:4)
“Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses (apollumi) one coin, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she has found it, she calls her friends and neighbors together, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I lost (apollumi)! Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:8-10)
“…let us eat and be merry; 24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost (apollumi) and is found.' And they began to be merry.” (Luke 15:23-24)
Often, we see apollumi used in reference to death, but death in the Bible does not mean “ceasing to exist” as some believe, but rather “a change in existence.” This is evident in several texts:
“I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.” (2Peter 1:13-15 NAS)
“For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. 24 Nevertheless, to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.” (Phil 1:21-24)
“I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago — whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows — such a one was caught up to the third heaven.” (2Cor 12:2)
The fact that Paul wasn’t sure whether he was in the body or out of the body, makes it clear that the soul has a conscious existence separate from the body. Also, he speaks of dying or living as departing from, or remaining in the fleshly body – expressions which would not make sense if there were no conscious existence apart from the body or flesh. Peter speaks of himself as living in the tent which is his body and then putting it aside. One can only speak of living in something, departing from something or putting it aside, understanding that one’s essential being exists independently of the body.
So, we see that the destruction of the body and soul does not have reference to annihilation, but rather to the change of state (apollumi) of the soul and body, making us subject to Christ through fire, whether it should be fiery trials now, or Gehenna fire later. The future destruction of soul and body is said by Jesus to be worse than physical death, but it is not annihilation, nor is it without end, as understood by those who hold to the doctrine of eternal torment.
In conclusion, it is clear that Jesus was not referring to the annihilation of our essential being, nor was He speaking of being consigned to an eternal state of conscious torment, but rather to being sent into eonian correction in the purifying Lake of Fire, rather than being granted entrance into the eonian life of the kingdom when Christ returns and separates the sheep from the goats.
I consider the subject of the purifying nature of Gehenna or the Lake of Fire in my blog, Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire. To me, it is clear that in Matthew 10:28 Jesus is referring to the second death, the death to the independent flesh and the soul-life. It certainly is to be feared, even moreso than the Father’s correction in this life is to be feared.
If Gehenna were not truly something to be feared, Jesus wouldn’t have said that it would be better to pluck out one’s eye, or cut off one’s hand, than to be excluded from the kingdom and cast into the eonian fire of Gehenna (Matt 18:8-9). Only the sheep are granted entrance into the kingdom at Christ’s return. The rest of the living are sent into eonian correction in Gehenna, or the Lake of Fire, prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt 25:41-46).
That being said, Jesus was not saying that we are to live in a constant state of fear. Rather, Jesus would say to us, in a manner similar to what Moses said to the Children of Israel at Sanai: “Do not be afraid. Rather, let His fear ever be before you. May your delight be in the fear of the Lord so that, when tested, your allegiance will be with Him, rather than giving in to the fear of man and denying Me.”
This blog is an excerpt from my book: The Triumph of Mercy.
[1] Cyprian said: “To all of whom the Lord also in Himself has appointed an example, teaching that none shall attain to His kingdom but those who have followed Him in His own way, saying, ‘He that loveth his life (soul) in this world shall lose (or destroy) it; and he that hateth his life (soul) in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.’ And again: ‘Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Cyprian, Epistle 80, Confessors in Prison, par. 2
by George Sidney Hurd
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill (apokateino) the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy (apollumai) both soul (psuque) and body in hell (Gehenna).” (Matt 10:28)
What did Jesus mean when He said we are to fear Him, the One who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna? The same word, “fear” (φοβέω, phobeo), is used to refer both to those whom we are told not to fear, and the One that we are to fear, so reducing “fear” to merely “a sense of reverence or awe” wouldn’t seem to do justice to the parallel contrast.
As I pointed out in the previous blog, Understanding the Fear of the Lord, while we are not to be afraid of God, His fear should nevertheless always be before us so that we do not simply surrender to our fallen desires and instincts and buckle every time we are confronted with a test or temptation.
In the context of Matthew 10, Jesus is speaking to His twelve disciples before sending them out two by two to preach the gospel of the kingdom. He said that He was sending them out as sheep in the midst of wolves and told them that they would be persecuted for His name’s sake. He then goes beyond the twelve to include all who would suffer and die as martyrs for their testimony until He comes to reign.
It is in this context that He says that our fear of God should be greater than our fear of the men who might persecute and kill us for our testimony. Throughout the centuries, thousands of Christ-followers have been tortured and killed, choosing death rather than denying their Lord.
Does that mean that they were afraid of God? Not at all! If you read the testimonies of the martyrs, they often joyfully gave their lives, singing praises as they were being sawed in two or burned at the stake, because their first love was the Lord, and their greatest fear was denying the one they loved the most when tested. They were not afraid of the Lord, rather His fear was before them, making such a sin against the Lord unthinkable. Jesus said: “he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God” (Luke 12:9). When facing persecution or martyrdom, only those who love Him more than life itself will be faithful until death, receiving the crown of life (Rev 2:10). The rest will give in to the fear of men, denying Him in order to save their own skin.
So, according to Jesus, what are we to fear? Extermination? Eternal torment? How are we to understand “destroy both body and soul in Gehenna?” If He was referring to eternal torment, as believed by many, it would have been a shocking new revelation for the disciples, since nowhere throughout the Old Testament do we see mention of postmortem torments beyond eonian shame, much less unending torment.
Some have posited that Jesus didn’t mean for us to understand that God would actually destroy the soul and body of anyone in Gehenna, but simply that God is “able to.” However, that, to me, is untenable. It is very unlikely that Jesus would warn of something which He knew God in reality would never do. Clearly, Jesus meant for us to understand that some will indeed undergo this eschatological destruction of soul and body in Gehenna or the Lake of Fire.
This passage, taken as commonly translated and out of context, could seem to confirm what the Annihilationists say - that the resurrected bodies of the unjust, together with their souls, will be destroyed or exterminated in Gehenna fire. However, in verse 39 of the same chapter, we can see that destroying the soul is not speaking of the cessation of its existence, but rather the subjugation of the life of the soul to the life in the spirit:
“He who finds his life (“soul”- psuque) will lose it, and he who loses (apollumi) his life (“soul”- psuque) for My sake will find it.” (Matt 10:39)
Here Jesus uses the same words in the original as in verse 28. What Jesus was actually saying was hidden by the translators who, instead of translating apollumi and psuque the same way in both verses, translated it “destroy the soul” in 28 and “lose his life” in 39. It is obvious that Jesus meant to express the same thing in both instances, and while most Church Fathers simply quoted verse 28 without giving detail as to its meaning, at least one Church Father, Cyprian (200 – 258 AD), equates the two as being the same thing. [1] However, the translators leave us with the impression that He was speaking of two distinct and unrelated things. What is it that Jesus meant to say in the expression “lose or destroy the soul”?
The Bible makes it clear that man is a being made up of body, soul and spirit:
“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1Thess 5:23)
The complete man, according to Paul is 1) spirit, 2) soul and 3) body. The immaterial part of man is made up of soul and spirit. Even though the natural man cannot distinguish between the spirit and the soul, in Hebrews we are told that the word of God distinguishes between that which is of the soul from that which is of the spirit:
“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb 4:12)
Man, apart from the revelation of the Word of God, is incapable of distinguishing between that which is of the spirit and that which is of the soul, but the word of God is as a two-edged sword and is able to reveal when we are soulish, acting in the soul and when we are spiritual, acting in the spirit.
Our spirit is that which connects us with God who is Spirit. By our spirit we are able to hear God’s voice and have communion with Him. God created man to live with his spirit in communion with Himself, with the soul and body submitted to one’s spirit.
When man fell, He lost communion with God. Since the spirit no longer heard the voice of God, the soul of man no longer lived aligned with, and subjected under the spirit, but rather began to live according to the will of the body or flesh with its five senses. In this fallen condition, the soul no longer lived according to the spirit, led by God, but rather according to the desires of his flesh. Man no longer had spiritual perception, he only perceived with his five carnal senses. Man went from being spiritual, to becoming merely “flesh” (Gen 6:3). Those who live in this way, according to the soul and not according to the spirit, are called “carnal” or “soulish.” The Greek word for “soulish” is psuquikos, which is the adjective of psuque or “soul.”
“But the natural (psuquikos “soulish”) man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual (pneumáticos) judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one…. And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual (pneumáticos) people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.” (1Cor 2:14,15; 3:1)
“These are sensual (psuquikos ‘soulish’) persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.” (Jude 19)
“This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual (psuquikos “soulish), demonic.” (James 3:15-16)
The soulish man is carnal, since he does not hear God’s voice, and therefore lives a sensual life in his soul, according to the five senses of the flesh. He fulfills the desires of the flesh and not those of the Spirit.
When one is born again, it is the spirit which is born from above. Once born of the Spirit, we now have the capacity to perceive the things of God and do His will, living according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. We are now capable of being spiritual and not “soulish;” living the “soul life” (Jn 3:3,6).
Nevertheless, the life of the soul must be destroyed (apollumi) and replaced with the life of the spirit. In Adam, our soul was no longer subject to the Spirit. Now with our spirit reborn, it is necessary to put our soul in subjection to our spirit. When Jesus said that it was necessary to lose or destroy (apollumi) our soul, I believe He was saying that it is necessary to die to the dominion of the soul, subjecting it to our reborn spirit. The word apollumi in the New Testament sometimes means “to destroy or render null or inoperative” and sometimes “to lose.” I believe that the idea expressed here is to render inoperative the dominion of the soul in our lives. We should no longer live according to our own emotions and reason, but according to the rhema word of God. We should no longer live according to our will, but according to the will of God. The soul must be subjected once again to the spirit, in communion with God, no longer following after the flesh in order to fulfill its desires.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 He who loves his (soul) life will lose it, and he who hates his (soul) life in this world will keep it for eternal life (zoe aionios).” (John 12:24-25)
If we as believers take up our cross, following in the steps of Jesus, laying down our (soul) life for others, we will be spiritual, serving the Lord in spirit. But if we are soulish psuquikos, then God must intervene so that we are not condemned with the world.
“For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” (1Cor 11:31-32)
Here we see that the disciplinary judgments of the Lord have a correctional purpose - in order that we should not receive our portion with the unbelievers, being condemned with the world. The purpose of this discipline can be seen in 1Corinthians 5:5 where Paul says:
“deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1Cor 5:5)
The destruction of the flesh is not speaking of the physical body, but rather the soul life following after the desires of the flesh rather than the desires of the Spirit. In discipline, God permits us to receive the consequences of acting in the flesh now, in order that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord, and in this way save us from the Great White Throne Judgment and the second death.
If we submit to God, subjecting our soul to our spirit in this life, God will not have to destroy the dominance of the soul later. If we do not submit in this life, we face the possibility of suffering the destruction of the soul in a physically resurrected body, experiencing the second death in the purifying lake of fire, because without holiness no one shall see the Lord.
Death, Destruction and Annihilation
Those who believe that the destiny of the unjust is to be annihilated, understand death and destruction as the cessation of all existence. On the other hand, the Traditionalists who teach eternal punishment in hell, insist that neither the first death nor the second death are the end of existence. The Biblical Universalists, just as the Traditionalists, believe that the soul of man does not cease to exist. They differ from the Traditionalists in that they believe that the second death is a restorative and correctional process that will culminate in God being all in all. For them, neither death nor destruction mean the annihilation of our being, but rather a transformation and purification. Those who put their faith in Christ in this life and die to the flesh and soul life now, will not be hurt by the second death afterwards. But those who do not believe, or do not submit to the destruction of their soul life in this lifetime, risk having to be purified later in the lake of fire, being hurt by the second death or the eonian destruction which follows judgment.
In the Bible, neither death nor destruction express the concept of annihilation. I demonstrate this in detail in my book, Extermination or Restoration? Nothing in all God’s creation will ever cease to exist; it will simply undergo a change of state. The same word apollumi appears in 2Peter 3:6 where it says, “the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” It is evident that the world did not cease to exist since we still inhabit it today. We still breathe the same air, drink its water and till its soil. What is expressed by the word apollumi is that it underwent a change in state. In the majority of instances in which it appears in the New Testament, apollumi simply means that something was lost, only to be found later:
“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses (apollumi) one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost (apollumi) until he finds it?” (Luke 15:4)
“Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses (apollumi) one coin, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she has found it, she calls her friends and neighbors together, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I lost (apollumi)! Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:8-10)
“…let us eat and be merry; 24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost (apollumi) and is found.' And they began to be merry.” (Luke 15:23-24)
Often, we see apollumi used in reference to death, but death in the Bible does not mean “ceasing to exist” as some believe, but rather “a change in existence.” This is evident in several texts:
“I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.” (2Peter 1:13-15 NAS)
“For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. 24 Nevertheless, to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.” (Phil 1:21-24)
“I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago — whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows — such a one was caught up to the third heaven.” (2Cor 12:2)
The fact that Paul wasn’t sure whether he was in the body or out of the body, makes it clear that the soul has a conscious existence separate from the body. Also, he speaks of dying or living as departing from, or remaining in the fleshly body – expressions which would not make sense if there were no conscious existence apart from the body or flesh. Peter speaks of himself as living in the tent which is his body and then putting it aside. One can only speak of living in something, departing from something or putting it aside, understanding that one’s essential being exists independently of the body.
So, we see that the destruction of the body and soul does not have reference to annihilation, but rather to the change of state (apollumi) of the soul and body, making us subject to Christ through fire, whether it should be fiery trials now, or Gehenna fire later. The future destruction of soul and body is said by Jesus to be worse than physical death, but it is not annihilation, nor is it without end, as understood by those who hold to the doctrine of eternal torment.
In conclusion, it is clear that Jesus was not referring to the annihilation of our essential being, nor was He speaking of being consigned to an eternal state of conscious torment, but rather to being sent into eonian correction in the purifying Lake of Fire, rather than being granted entrance into the eonian life of the kingdom when Christ returns and separates the sheep from the goats.
I consider the subject of the purifying nature of Gehenna or the Lake of Fire in my blog, Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire. To me, it is clear that in Matthew 10:28 Jesus is referring to the second death, the death to the independent flesh and the soul-life. It certainly is to be feared, even moreso than the Father’s correction in this life is to be feared.
If Gehenna were not truly something to be feared, Jesus wouldn’t have said that it would be better to pluck out one’s eye, or cut off one’s hand, than to be excluded from the kingdom and cast into the eonian fire of Gehenna (Matt 18:8-9). Only the sheep are granted entrance into the kingdom at Christ’s return. The rest of the living are sent into eonian correction in Gehenna, or the Lake of Fire, prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt 25:41-46).
That being said, Jesus was not saying that we are to live in a constant state of fear. Rather, Jesus would say to us, in a manner similar to what Moses said to the Children of Israel at Sanai: “Do not be afraid. Rather, let His fear ever be before you. May your delight be in the fear of the Lord so that, when tested, your allegiance will be with Him, rather than giving in to the fear of man and denying Me.”
This blog is an excerpt from my book: The Triumph of Mercy.
[1] Cyprian said: “To all of whom the Lord also in Himself has appointed an example, teaching that none shall attain to His kingdom but those who have followed Him in His own way, saying, ‘He that loveth his life (soul) in this world shall lose (or destroy) it; and he that hateth his life (soul) in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.’ And again: ‘Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Cyprian, Epistle 80, Confessors in Prison, par. 2
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
“Wisdom and knowledge will be the constant source of your stability,
And the strength of salvation;
The fear of the Lord is His treasure.”
(Isa 33:6)
Perhaps more misunderstood than the love of God in our generation is the fear of the Lord. Fearing God is all too often presented as being incompatible with loving Him, and instead of cherishing the fear of the Lord as His treasure, we are told that we must cast it aside. This in spite of the fact that it is said of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, that His delight was in the fear of the Lord (Isa 11:2-3).
We see throughout Scripture that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Job 28:28; Pro 1:7); that rather than crippling one emotionally, it leads to strong confidence (Pro 14:26); that it is a fountain of life, leading to honor and prosperity (Pro 14:27; 19:23; 22:4). It enables us to escape the snares of death and prolong our lives (Pro 14:27; 10:27). The Lord promises that, if we fear Him, He will direct our path and reveal His secrets, just as He did with His friend Abraham (Ps 25:12,14). Walking in the fear of the Lord is even seen to create an environment where the Holy Spirit can operate, producing true repentance and positive church growth (Acts 9:31; 5:11-16).
Therefore, rather than seeking to cast off the fear of the Lord, we should ask Him to give us the grace to walk in the knowledge of the fear of the Lord, just as our Savior did (Isa 11:2-3). Rightly understood, the fear of the Lord actually delivers us from all fear. He who fears the Lord fears nothing. As David the psalmist said:
“I sought the Lord, and He heard me, and delivered me from all my fears… 7 The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him, and delivers them (thereby delivering them from all fear)” (Ps 34:4,7 parenthesis mine)
Rather than the fear of the Lord being the cause of anxiety, it actually brings stability, delivering us from all anxiety as we walk in it. It is what gave David the boldness to face Goliath without displaying even an ounce of fear. David continues saying in Psalm 34: “Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (Ps 34:11). Do you long to be as fearless as David the giant slayer? Ask the Lord to teach you to walk in His fear, just as David did.
To walk in the fear of the Lord does not mean to live in constant fear of Him
Many of us, before receiving a revelation of the Father-heart of God, believing, as Tradition had taught us, that God’s punishments for most of mankind were unending and purely vindictive, without any redemptive purpose, lived in a constant state of debilitating fear, keeping us at a distance from Him, just as the children of Israel who fled from God when He manifested Himself to them at Sinai. However, at Sinai God made it clear that He didn’t want them to be afraid of Him, but rather to have His fear before them as a restraint from sinning against Him.
“And Moses said to the people, ‘Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.’ 21 So the people stood afar off, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God was.” (Ex 20:20-21)
What does it mean to have the fear of the Lord “before you”? The people were afraid and reacted by drawing back in fear because their sins and idolatries against God were exposed in the light of His presence. Moses, on the other hand, was not afraid because He walked in the fear of the Lord and His fear was ever before him, keeping him from following the dictates of his sinful flesh. In contrast to the children of Israel, Moses drew near to God boldly without fear. The only time Moses showed fear in the presence of God was when he was afraid for the lives of the Children of Israel after they had sinned against God, worshipping the golden calf (Heb 12:21; Deut 9:16-19).
Although the comparison falls short, the same distinction between positive fear and negative fear can be seen in other relationships between subjects to their superiors. In my youth I was a drug addict and a delinquent. I can’t remember how many times I was arrested, but by the time I turned 18 I had already spent more than three years of accumulated time in state and county correctional institutions throughout California.
Needless to say, just the sight of a law enforcement officer struck terror in me. We called them pigs back then. However, in November of 1969, I had a radical life-changing encounter with the Lord, changing me from a delinquent and drug addict to a law-abiding citizen. From that time forward, I have even felt reassured by their presence, except when I drive past one while exceeding the speed limit. While the comparison falls short, Paul presents both the fear of God and the fear of authorities as being related, saying that the earthly authorities are God’s ministers, appointed to execute justice against wrongdoers. He said:
“Do you want to be unafraid (μή φοβέω) of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid (φοβέω); for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” (Rom 13:3-4)
As long as we respect the authorities and the laws of the land, we have no reason to fear, but if we are willfully breaking the law, we have good reason to fear. The same principal applies in our relationship with God, our Father and Judge, who is altogether righteous and just and sees all.
Sadly, many of us have more fear of being detected in the police radar than we are of sinning before God. Some are more afraid that their wife will see them looking lustfully at another woman than they are concerned with the fact that God Himself knows what they are entertaining in their heart.
In an effort to appease their conscience without the need of repentance, some even go so far as to say that it is not possible to sin against God, but only against oneself, thereby seeking to remove the fear of God from their lives altogether. In contrast, when Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce Joseph, he demonstrated that he feared God, saying to her: “How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Gen 39:9). David committed some grave sins, but when confronted with them, he didn’t justify himself, saying they were only against himself. On the contrary, he cried out to God saying: “Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight” (Ps 51:4).
Perfect Love casts out Fear
“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment (κόλασις kolasis, “corrective punishment”). But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.” (1John 4:18)
Without due consideration of the context, some have misconstrued John’s declaration, “perfect love casts out all fear,” as meaning, “If you fear sinning in God’s presence, you have not been perfected in love, because perfect love casts out all fear of God.” Quite the contrary, we are told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God Himself who is working in us to will and do His good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13). We are told to perfect holiness in the fear of God (2Cor 7:1; 1Peter 2:17). Please note that these are New Covenant injunctions. We also see that the Early Church greatly multiplied, walking in the fear of the Lord (Acts 9:31; 5:11-16).
The key to understanding what it means to be perfected, or made perfect in love, is found within the greater context of the epistle of 1John. It is not simply referring to a knowledge of God’s perfect love for us, although that is essential to being perfected in His love, since we can only truly love, knowing that He first loved us (1Jn 4:19).
In the context, John takes us beyond simply knowing how much God loves us, to us being perfected or brought to maturity in that same love. In 2:5, John says: “whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him, (perfect tense, ‘has been perfected in him’).” In other words, a mature son of God is one who keeps His word because obedience has become a part of his character. It is hypocrisy for one to say that they love their earthly father when they continually disobey him. How much more so with our heavenly Father.
The mature sons of God are also characterized by love for others because God’s perfect love has been perfected in them. In 4:12, John literally says: “if we are loving one another…His love has been perfected in us.” A believer who continually walks in love is a mature adult son of God who has been perfected in love.
In contrast, the carnal believer is still as a babe in Christ. In his immaturity he often only loves those who love him in return, and he continually disobeys God, requiring His corrective intervention. Since he walks disorderly, the Father’s love often must take the form of corrective discipline (κόλασις) (cf. Heb 12:6).
Knowing that your heavenly Father is going to discipline us naturally produces fear in our paternal relationship with God. If we have not yet matured or been perfected in love, we rightly experience the fear of discipline, precisely because we know our Father loves us too much to leave us without the necessary correction. That is why John told the newer, less mature believers that they needed to continually abide in communion with Him, saying:
“And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.” (1 John 2:28)
Peter Hiett once said something that rang true with me, and I repeat it often. He said: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but perfect love casts out all fear.” When we were children, we knew our parents loved us, but what we often experienced was the fear of their love in the form of correction. As the author of Hebrews says, our loving Father’s discipline is often painful (and therefore to be feared), but those who learn from it mature to the point where they have the peaceable fruit of righteousness – they become mature sons of God (Heb 12:10-11). Having become matured adult sons, our relationship with our Father no longer involves the fear of correction, but rather the reverential fear – the fear of bringing dishonor to Him or displeasing Him in any way because we love and worship Him. That is the fear of the Lord that was Jesus´ delight.
We do a great disservice to those who are living in willful sin by telling them that they should not fear God in their unrepentant state, telling them that, since perfect love casts out fear, they have no need to fear God’s judgments. When necessary, God even judges His own people. As the author of Hebrews said:
“For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance (ἐκδίκησις, “the carrying out of justice”) is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ 31 It is a fearful thing (φοβερός) to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb 10:30-31 cf. 1Cor 11:31-32)
Here we see that, even if we, being God’s very own elect people, persistently continue in willful disobedience, God will intervene in judgment. Just as it was a fearful thing to have to face our earthly father after having disobeyed him, it is a fearful thing when the Lord takes a hand to us in correction.
Imagine if, when you were a child, you and your buddy started throwing rocks in the front yard and he said to you: “Let’s try throwing rocks through your parent’s living-room window.” Although you felt the same childhood urge to do it, you said to him: “I’m afraid of what my father will do to me when he gets home,” to which your buddy replies, “There is no reason to be afraid. Don’t you know that your father loves you?”
Even a little child can see through such faulty logic. However, today in our Postmodern society, all too many equate love with permissiveness. The love of God our Father is not permissive, but rather corrects us so that we will grow up to become holy and righteous adult sons, righteous in character like Him. Contrary to contemporary beliefs, parental permissiveness is not love – it is negligence. I will conclude with Peter’s admonition to us as God’s children to walk in the fear of the Lord:
“As obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, ‘Be holy, for I am holy.’ And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” (1 Peter 1:14-19)
Obviously, believing as I do that the Scriptures clearly teach the final restoration of all, I don’t believe we should fear the unthinkable horror of unending torments. When Jesus said that we are to fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna (Matt 10:28), He was not saying that we should fear being exterminated, much less tormented throughout eternity. But clearly, Jesus taught that Gehenna was to be avoided at all costs (Matt 5:29-20). I consider in detail what Jesus meant in this, as well as other passages which have been misconstrued by many as teaching eternal vindictive torment in my book, The Triumph of Mercy.
In the next blog I will consider what Jesus meant when He said that we are to fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. As I hope to demonstrate, Jesus was clearly not saying that we are to fear that God would even consider tormenting us or any of our loved ones forever without mercy.
“Wisdom and knowledge will be the constant source of your stability,
And the strength of salvation;
The fear of the Lord is His treasure.”
(Isa 33:6)
Perhaps more misunderstood than the love of God in our generation is the fear of the Lord. Fearing God is all too often presented as being incompatible with loving Him, and instead of cherishing the fear of the Lord as His treasure, we are told that we must cast it aside. This in spite of the fact that it is said of Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, that His delight was in the fear of the Lord (Isa 11:2-3).
We see throughout Scripture that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Job 28:28; Pro 1:7); that rather than crippling one emotionally, it leads to strong confidence (Pro 14:26); that it is a fountain of life, leading to honor and prosperity (Pro 14:27; 19:23; 22:4). It enables us to escape the snares of death and prolong our lives (Pro 14:27; 10:27). The Lord promises that, if we fear Him, He will direct our path and reveal His secrets, just as He did with His friend Abraham (Ps 25:12,14). Walking in the fear of the Lord is even seen to create an environment where the Holy Spirit can operate, producing true repentance and positive church growth (Acts 9:31; 5:11-16).
Therefore, rather than seeking to cast off the fear of the Lord, we should ask Him to give us the grace to walk in the knowledge of the fear of the Lord, just as our Savior did (Isa 11:2-3). Rightly understood, the fear of the Lord actually delivers us from all fear. He who fears the Lord fears nothing. As David the psalmist said:
“I sought the Lord, and He heard me, and delivered me from all my fears… 7 The angel of the Lord encamps all around those who fear Him, and delivers them (thereby delivering them from all fear)” (Ps 34:4,7 parenthesis mine)
Rather than the fear of the Lord being the cause of anxiety, it actually brings stability, delivering us from all anxiety as we walk in it. It is what gave David the boldness to face Goliath without displaying even an ounce of fear. David continues saying in Psalm 34: “Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (Ps 34:11). Do you long to be as fearless as David the giant slayer? Ask the Lord to teach you to walk in His fear, just as David did.
To walk in the fear of the Lord does not mean to live in constant fear of Him
Many of us, before receiving a revelation of the Father-heart of God, believing, as Tradition had taught us, that God’s punishments for most of mankind were unending and purely vindictive, without any redemptive purpose, lived in a constant state of debilitating fear, keeping us at a distance from Him, just as the children of Israel who fled from God when He manifested Himself to them at Sinai. However, at Sinai God made it clear that He didn’t want them to be afraid of Him, but rather to have His fear before them as a restraint from sinning against Him.
“And Moses said to the people, ‘Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.’ 21 So the people stood afar off, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God was.” (Ex 20:20-21)
What does it mean to have the fear of the Lord “before you”? The people were afraid and reacted by drawing back in fear because their sins and idolatries against God were exposed in the light of His presence. Moses, on the other hand, was not afraid because He walked in the fear of the Lord and His fear was ever before him, keeping him from following the dictates of his sinful flesh. In contrast to the children of Israel, Moses drew near to God boldly without fear. The only time Moses showed fear in the presence of God was when he was afraid for the lives of the Children of Israel after they had sinned against God, worshipping the golden calf (Heb 12:21; Deut 9:16-19).
Although the comparison falls short, the same distinction between positive fear and negative fear can be seen in other relationships between subjects to their superiors. In my youth I was a drug addict and a delinquent. I can’t remember how many times I was arrested, but by the time I turned 18 I had already spent more than three years of accumulated time in state and county correctional institutions throughout California.
Needless to say, just the sight of a law enforcement officer struck terror in me. We called them pigs back then. However, in November of 1969, I had a radical life-changing encounter with the Lord, changing me from a delinquent and drug addict to a law-abiding citizen. From that time forward, I have even felt reassured by their presence, except when I drive past one while exceeding the speed limit. While the comparison falls short, Paul presents both the fear of God and the fear of authorities as being related, saying that the earthly authorities are God’s ministers, appointed to execute justice against wrongdoers. He said:
“Do you want to be unafraid (μή φοβέω) of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid (φοβέω); for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” (Rom 13:3-4)
As long as we respect the authorities and the laws of the land, we have no reason to fear, but if we are willfully breaking the law, we have good reason to fear. The same principal applies in our relationship with God, our Father and Judge, who is altogether righteous and just and sees all.
Sadly, many of us have more fear of being detected in the police radar than we are of sinning before God. Some are more afraid that their wife will see them looking lustfully at another woman than they are concerned with the fact that God Himself knows what they are entertaining in their heart.
In an effort to appease their conscience without the need of repentance, some even go so far as to say that it is not possible to sin against God, but only against oneself, thereby seeking to remove the fear of God from their lives altogether. In contrast, when Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce Joseph, he demonstrated that he feared God, saying to her: “How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (Gen 39:9). David committed some grave sins, but when confronted with them, he didn’t justify himself, saying they were only against himself. On the contrary, he cried out to God saying: “Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight” (Ps 51:4).
Perfect Love casts out Fear
“There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment (κόλασις kolasis, “corrective punishment”). But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.” (1John 4:18)
Without due consideration of the context, some have misconstrued John’s declaration, “perfect love casts out all fear,” as meaning, “If you fear sinning in God’s presence, you have not been perfected in love, because perfect love casts out all fear of God.” Quite the contrary, we are told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God Himself who is working in us to will and do His good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13). We are told to perfect holiness in the fear of God (2Cor 7:1; 1Peter 2:17). Please note that these are New Covenant injunctions. We also see that the Early Church greatly multiplied, walking in the fear of the Lord (Acts 9:31; 5:11-16).
The key to understanding what it means to be perfected, or made perfect in love, is found within the greater context of the epistle of 1John. It is not simply referring to a knowledge of God’s perfect love for us, although that is essential to being perfected in His love, since we can only truly love, knowing that He first loved us (1Jn 4:19).
In the context, John takes us beyond simply knowing how much God loves us, to us being perfected or brought to maturity in that same love. In 2:5, John says: “whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him, (perfect tense, ‘has been perfected in him’).” In other words, a mature son of God is one who keeps His word because obedience has become a part of his character. It is hypocrisy for one to say that they love their earthly father when they continually disobey him. How much more so with our heavenly Father.
The mature sons of God are also characterized by love for others because God’s perfect love has been perfected in them. In 4:12, John literally says: “if we are loving one another…His love has been perfected in us.” A believer who continually walks in love is a mature adult son of God who has been perfected in love.
In contrast, the carnal believer is still as a babe in Christ. In his immaturity he often only loves those who love him in return, and he continually disobeys God, requiring His corrective intervention. Since he walks disorderly, the Father’s love often must take the form of corrective discipline (κόλασις) (cf. Heb 12:6).
Knowing that your heavenly Father is going to discipline us naturally produces fear in our paternal relationship with God. If we have not yet matured or been perfected in love, we rightly experience the fear of discipline, precisely because we know our Father loves us too much to leave us without the necessary correction. That is why John told the newer, less mature believers that they needed to continually abide in communion with Him, saying:
“And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.” (1 John 2:28)
Peter Hiett once said something that rang true with me, and I repeat it often. He said: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but perfect love casts out all fear.” When we were children, we knew our parents loved us, but what we often experienced was the fear of their love in the form of correction. As the author of Hebrews says, our loving Father’s discipline is often painful (and therefore to be feared), but those who learn from it mature to the point where they have the peaceable fruit of righteousness – they become mature sons of God (Heb 12:10-11). Having become matured adult sons, our relationship with our Father no longer involves the fear of correction, but rather the reverential fear – the fear of bringing dishonor to Him or displeasing Him in any way because we love and worship Him. That is the fear of the Lord that was Jesus´ delight.
We do a great disservice to those who are living in willful sin by telling them that they should not fear God in their unrepentant state, telling them that, since perfect love casts out fear, they have no need to fear God’s judgments. When necessary, God even judges His own people. As the author of Hebrews said:
“For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance (ἐκδίκησις, “the carrying out of justice”) is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ 31 It is a fearful thing (φοβερός) to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb 10:30-31 cf. 1Cor 11:31-32)
Here we see that, even if we, being God’s very own elect people, persistently continue in willful disobedience, God will intervene in judgment. Just as it was a fearful thing to have to face our earthly father after having disobeyed him, it is a fearful thing when the Lord takes a hand to us in correction.
Imagine if, when you were a child, you and your buddy started throwing rocks in the front yard and he said to you: “Let’s try throwing rocks through your parent’s living-room window.” Although you felt the same childhood urge to do it, you said to him: “I’m afraid of what my father will do to me when he gets home,” to which your buddy replies, “There is no reason to be afraid. Don’t you know that your father loves you?”
Even a little child can see through such faulty logic. However, today in our Postmodern society, all too many equate love with permissiveness. The love of God our Father is not permissive, but rather corrects us so that we will grow up to become holy and righteous adult sons, righteous in character like Him. Contrary to contemporary beliefs, parental permissiveness is not love – it is negligence. I will conclude with Peter’s admonition to us as God’s children to walk in the fear of the Lord:
“As obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, ‘Be holy, for I am holy.’ And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear; knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” (1 Peter 1:14-19)
Obviously, believing as I do that the Scriptures clearly teach the final restoration of all, I don’t believe we should fear the unthinkable horror of unending torments. When Jesus said that we are to fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna (Matt 10:28), He was not saying that we should fear being exterminated, much less tormented throughout eternity. But clearly, Jesus taught that Gehenna was to be avoided at all costs (Matt 5:29-20). I consider in detail what Jesus meant in this, as well as other passages which have been misconstrued by many as teaching eternal vindictive torment in my book, The Triumph of Mercy.
In the next blog I will consider what Jesus meant when He said that we are to fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. As I hope to demonstrate, Jesus was clearly not saying that we are to fear that God would even consider tormenting us or any of our loved ones forever without mercy.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
When the Scriptures speak of the final restoration of all, does it actually mean that every individual will ultimately be saved and brought back into the fold, or can the word “all” somehow be limited so as to only include those few privileged to hear and positively respond to the gospel before they either draw their last breath, or Christ returns? When Jesus said that He would effectually draw (ἑλκύω) all unto Himself (Jn 12:32), can that somehow be construed as meaning less than every individual? When Paul said that Christ is the Savior of all, especially of believers (1Tim 4:10), can we reasonably argue that in reality He is only the Savior of those who believe in this brief lifetime? Considering that Paul said, “as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life” (Rom 5:18), how can it be possible that most will nevertheless be eternally condemned when all is said and done?
Those who believe in the eternal exclusion of most of Adam’s race, must somehow limit “all” so as to only include the few who have been saved during their brief lifetime. Their attempts to limit “all” to “some” are varied. Some argue that the references to all being saved and restored are simply hyperbole and therefore shouldn’t be understood literally. Others say that it only means “some from all people groups,” while some Calvinists even attempt to argue that “all” only means “all the elect.”
I have sought to show the fallacies of these attempts to limit the all-inclusiveness of “all” in my books The Triumph of Mercy and The Universal Solution, as well as in several of my blogs, so I won’t be considering them in detail here. Here I simply want to respond to N.T. Wright’s claim that these references to “all” should be understood as simply meaning “both Jews and Gentiles alike.” Speaking of Paul’s use of “all” throughout Romans he says: “The point Paul has been making all along…is that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, stand on a level before God… Within this context, the correct gloss to put on ‘all men’…is not ‘all men individually, but ‘Jews and Gentiles alike.’” [1] This is a nuanced version of the argument that “all” in these contexts means “all without distinction,” rather than “all without exception.”
While it is true that Paul emphasizes that both Jews and Gentiles stand on the same level before God throughout his epistle to the Romans , one cannot be consistent with the development of Paul’s logic and still deny that he meant “all without exception,” rather than simply “all people groups, whether Jew or Gentile.” In the first three chapters Paul establishes that all without exception have sinned and come short of the glory of God and not merely some within each people group. In Romans 3:12 he emphatically says, “There is none righteous, no, not one (individual).” Then, in verses 22-23 he says that free justification is extended to that same “all,” saying:
“For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned (without exception) and fall short of the glory of God, being justified (present passive) freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 3:22-23, parenthesis mine)
Here Paul declares that the same “all” who have sinned are presently being justified freely by God’s grace through Christ’s universal redemption. While justification is a once-and-for-all event occurring the very moment one believes, “being justified” here appears in the present continuous passive, since sinners are being justified one-by-one as each individual believes. There is no way for a sinner to be justified apart from faith in Christ, but in Christ, our Last Adam, justification came to all men without exception, just as Paul says in Romans 5:18:
“Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men (without exception), resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men (without exception), resulting in justification of life (for all men).” (Rom 5:18, parenthesis mine)
One cannot reasonably argue that the “all” justified is less in number than the “all” condemned. The parallel comparison “as…even so” requires that the “all men” in both instances be the same and not less or different. Just as the judgment resulting in condemnation came to every individual without exception, even so, the free gift also came to every individual, resulting in their justification the very moment they receive it by faith. Throughout Romans 5, Paul contrasts that which was lost to all mankind in Adam with that which was restored to the same all in Christ, the Last Adam. The same all who die in Adam are seen to be made alive in Christ; all those who were condemned in Adam receive justification and are made righteous in Christ, the Last Adam. I consider further the scope of Romans 5 in my blog, The Universal Reversal.
However, in spite of the clear universal implications of Romans 5, based upon his understanding of verse 17, N.T. Wright limits the “all” who benefit from the Last Adam to only those few who personally and actively receive Christ in this life. Admittedly, taken out of context, the verse could be misconstrued as negating what Paul affirms throughout the chapter. It reads:
“For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.” (Rom 5:17)
N.T. Wright, as with many other Partialists, understands receiving as referring to when we actively receive Christ. However, as we see throughout this entire passage, the contrast is between that which all men without exception receive in Adam and that which all men without exception receive in Christ, the Last Adam. The word “receive” is the Greek word lambano, which has two distinct usages: 1) to actively take or receive, or 2) to receive as a passive recipient. The context must determine whether the receiving is passive or active. For example, in several New Testament passages we see that the recipient must receive something he did not even desire to receive, such as a just reward for his disobedience (Heb 2:2), or a greater judgment (Luke 20:47). In other instances, the recipient receives that which he was not even anticipating. For example, everyone in Cornelius’ house was surprised when the Gentiles suddenly received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In these examples it is obvious that the recipient is passive.
The Greek scholar Marvin Vincent correctly applies the passive meaning to Romans 5:17 when He says: “They which receive (hoi lambanontes). Not ‘believingly accept,’ but simply ‘the recipients.” [2] Although he does not go into further detail, his rendering of lambano in the passive sense is necessitated by the context. The contrast throughout is between that which all men receive in Adam, as opposed to what all men receive in Christ, the Last Adam. As all men passively receive death, condemnation, and bondage to sin through the one man’s disobedience, even so all receive life, justification, and dominion restored, through the one man, Jesus Christ.
However, that being said, even as not every man experientially entered into Adam’s death, condemnation and bondage to sin at the moment Adam sinned, even so not everyone experientially received life, justification or dominion at the moment when Christ, the Last Adam, died and rose from the dead. Even as man must be born into Adam to experience the death, condemnation and bondage to sin he brought upon us all, so also must every man be made alive or born again before experientially entering into that justification and dominion which every man received when Christ, the Last Adam, died and rose again. Of the Last Adam’s death and resurrection it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1Cor 15:45). And again, “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1Cor 15:22).
While it is true that no one personally and experientially receives the benefits of justification, sanctification or dominion restored in Christ until they have believed on Him for salvation, what we see is that all, in due time, will come to faith in Christ and will submit to Him. Every tongue will eventually confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. In Christ, all will eventually be made alive. At present only those who receive Him are born again and justified and are being sanctified to be received unto Him at His coming. But in due time all will be in Christ – justified, sanctified and subjected to Him as Lord.
N.T. Wright further argues that when Paul said, “For God has committed all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all” in Romans 11:32, that that “all” should not be understood to be referring to all individually, but rather the “all” must be glossed so as to simply mean Jew and Gentile alike. However, it is the same “all” who have been committed to disobedience who will receive His mercy once they recognize their condition and look to Him for mercy.
Romans 11:32 summarizes what Paul established in the previous chapters. In the first three chapters he demonstrated that every individual is guilty before God. Then, beginning in 3:21, he introduces God’s mercy, saying in verse 23: “for all have sinned…being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The same all who were disobedient and under sin, are those who afterwards receive God’s mercy, being justified by His grace.
The problem is that Wright sees God’s mercy as only enduring for a lifetime, when Scripture repeatedly declares that His love never ceases, and His mercies never come to an end. I respond to the arguments against postmortem salvation in my blog: Hope for the Dead. Paul himself says in Philippians 2:10-11 that all will bow the knee, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord, not only those in heaven and on earth, but even those under the earth. That is “all without exception.” And looking at the passage which Paul here cites from Isaiah, it is evident that all without exception are saved upon bowing the knee in submission, confessing Jesus as Lord:
“Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath. He shall say, saying (λέγων LXX) ‘Surely in the Lord I have righteousness and strength.’” (Isa 45:22-24)
Here God says that He has actually sworn by Himself that all without exception will look to Him and be saved. Every knee will bow, and every tongue will take an oath saying, “surely in the Lord I have my righteousness.” The words, “He shall say” were added by the translators, obscuring the fact that it is every tongue that will confess unto salvation. The LXX, which was the Greek version of the Old Testament Paul cited from, simply says that every tongue will take an oath of allegiance, saying that the Lord is their righteousness. The expressions, “every knee” and “every tongue” cannot be glossed to simply mean “Jew and Gentile alike,” as N.T. Wright would have us believe.
There are other instances where Paul clearly and emphatically means “all without exception” and not simply “all without distinction” or “Jew and Gentile alike.” Here I will cite just one example which could not possibly say more clearly “all without exception.” In Colossians Paul says:
“For by Him all things (without exception) were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things (without exception) were created through Him and for Him… 20 and by Him to reconcile all things (without exception) to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col 1:16,20)
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 clearly referring primarily to persons rather than inanimate objects as we see here in Colossians, I take the liberty to cross it out in order to keep the focus where it belongs. “Reconciliation” is not applicable to inanimate objects since it is a relational term meaning, “to be restored into a relationship which had previously been broken.”
I don’t believe that anyone could express “all without exception” more emphatically than Paul does here. He says that all whom Christ created, whether in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible – absolutely all, were reconciled unto God by the blood of His cross!
Both terms, “reconciliation” and “restoration,” are relational and inseparable from each other. When the offended party in a relationship opens the way to reconciliation, the relationship is restored as soon as the offender corresponds, resulting in the restoration of the relationship. Peter spoke of the coming times of the restoration of all, or what Early Greek speaking Fathers referred to as the apokatastasis, or the restoration of all rational beings unto God:
“and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration (ἀποκατάστασις, apokatastasis) “of all things (without exception), which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:20-21 parenthesis mine)
Here again, while all of creation, whether animate or inanimate, will be restored, the restoration or apokatastasis is primarily speaking of the restoration of all relational beings to God, just as the Greek Fathers understood it, rather than the refurbishing of inanimate things. This restoration even includes Sodom and Samaria, as we see in Ezekiel:
“And I will bring back and restore them by bringing back Sodom, with her daughters, and by bringing back Samaria, and her daughters: and I will bring those that return of thee in the midst of them. 54 That thou mayest bear thy shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, comforting them. 55 And thy sister Sodom and her daughters shall return to their ancient state: and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their ancient state: and thou and thy daughters shall return to your ancient state.” (Ezek 16:53-55 Douay-Rheims)
That God is here promising the final restoration of the ancient inhabitants of Sodom and not merely some future generation, is evident, since the entire population was utterly removed from the land of the living when He destroyed Sodom with all its inhabitants. There are no descendants of Sodom presently on earth to be restored. If God will restore even wicked Sodom and Samaria, how can we continue insisting that “all” doesn’t mean “all without exception” when speaking of ultimate salvation, reconciliation and restoration?
Finally, if “all” didn’t mean “all without exception” to Paul, then what did he mean when he said that in the end God will be all in all, after all have become subject to Christ and made alive? (1 Cor 15:22-28). If the “all” is only some, a small representative group from among the Jews and Gentiles alike, wouldn’t that also imply that Christ only manages to subject some from among both Jews and Gentiles unto Himself? How then can God be said to become all in all? Are we to understand from this that Paul meant to say that God will only become all in some Jews and Gentiles alike? Certainly not!
To me, it is not possible to reasonably deny that at least some passages of Scripture clearly teach the final restoration of all without exception. That being so, it is futile to go through all these various mental gymnastics in an attempt to limit “all” to include “some” in Romans. In the consummation of the final Age of the ages, all without exception will have bowed the knee in voluntary submission to Christ, resulting in God being all in all in eternity.
God’s glorious plan for the ages consummates with all having become reunited in Christ (Eph 1:10), rather than there existing an eternal dualism with God and a remnant of mankind from Jews and Gentiles, and Satan with a third of God’s angels, along with most of humanity, quarantined in eternal opposition to God. In eternity there will not even be one tear shed in all God’s creation, because He will have removed the veil that is over all people and abolish death forever. Glory to His name!
“Say to God, ‘how awesome are Your works! Through the greatness of Your power your enemies shall submit themselves to You. 4 All the earth shall worship You and sing praises to You; they shall sing praises to Your name.” (Ps 66:3-4)
“And He will destroy on this mountain, the surface of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces…” (Isa 25:7-8)
[1] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/towards-a-biblical-view-of-universalism/
[2] Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Romans 5:17
--
When the Scriptures speak of the final restoration of all, does it actually mean that every individual will ultimately be saved and brought back into the fold, or can the word “all” somehow be limited so as to only include those few privileged to hear and positively respond to the gospel before they either draw their last breath, or Christ returns? When Jesus said that He would effectually draw (ἑλκύω) all unto Himself (Jn 12:32), can that somehow be construed as meaning less than every individual? When Paul said that Christ is the Savior of all, especially of believers (1Tim 4:10), can we reasonably argue that in reality He is only the Savior of those who believe in this brief lifetime? Considering that Paul said, “as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life” (Rom 5:18), how can it be possible that most will nevertheless be eternally condemned when all is said and done?
Those who believe in the eternal exclusion of most of Adam’s race, must somehow limit “all” so as to only include the few who have been saved during their brief lifetime. Their attempts to limit “all” to “some” are varied. Some argue that the references to all being saved and restored are simply hyperbole and therefore shouldn’t be understood literally. Others say that it only means “some from all people groups,” while some Calvinists even attempt to argue that “all” only means “all the elect.”
I have sought to show the fallacies of these attempts to limit the all-inclusiveness of “all” in my books The Triumph of Mercy and The Universal Solution, as well as in several of my blogs, so I won’t be considering them in detail here. Here I simply want to respond to N.T. Wright’s claim that these references to “all” should be understood as simply meaning “both Jews and Gentiles alike.” Speaking of Paul’s use of “all” throughout Romans he says: “The point Paul has been making all along…is that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, stand on a level before God… Within this context, the correct gloss to put on ‘all men’…is not ‘all men individually, but ‘Jews and Gentiles alike.’” [1] This is a nuanced version of the argument that “all” in these contexts means “all without distinction,” rather than “all without exception.”
While it is true that Paul emphasizes that both Jews and Gentiles stand on the same level before God throughout his epistle to the Romans , one cannot be consistent with the development of Paul’s logic and still deny that he meant “all without exception,” rather than simply “all people groups, whether Jew or Gentile.” In the first three chapters Paul establishes that all without exception have sinned and come short of the glory of God and not merely some within each people group. In Romans 3:12 he emphatically says, “There is none righteous, no, not one (individual).” Then, in verses 22-23 he says that free justification is extended to that same “all,” saying:
“For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned (without exception) and fall short of the glory of God, being justified (present passive) freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom 3:22-23, parenthesis mine)
Here Paul declares that the same “all” who have sinned are presently being justified freely by God’s grace through Christ’s universal redemption. While justification is a once-and-for-all event occurring the very moment one believes, “being justified” here appears in the present continuous passive, since sinners are being justified one-by-one as each individual believes. There is no way for a sinner to be justified apart from faith in Christ, but in Christ, our Last Adam, justification came to all men without exception, just as Paul says in Romans 5:18:
“Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men (without exception), resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men (without exception), resulting in justification of life (for all men).” (Rom 5:18, parenthesis mine)
One cannot reasonably argue that the “all” justified is less in number than the “all” condemned. The parallel comparison “as…even so” requires that the “all men” in both instances be the same and not less or different. Just as the judgment resulting in condemnation came to every individual without exception, even so, the free gift also came to every individual, resulting in their justification the very moment they receive it by faith. Throughout Romans 5, Paul contrasts that which was lost to all mankind in Adam with that which was restored to the same all in Christ, the Last Adam. The same all who die in Adam are seen to be made alive in Christ; all those who were condemned in Adam receive justification and are made righteous in Christ, the Last Adam. I consider further the scope of Romans 5 in my blog, The Universal Reversal.
However, in spite of the clear universal implications of Romans 5, based upon his understanding of verse 17, N.T. Wright limits the “all” who benefit from the Last Adam to only those few who personally and actively receive Christ in this life. Admittedly, taken out of context, the verse could be misconstrued as negating what Paul affirms throughout the chapter. It reads:
“For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.” (Rom 5:17)
N.T. Wright, as with many other Partialists, understands receiving as referring to when we actively receive Christ. However, as we see throughout this entire passage, the contrast is between that which all men without exception receive in Adam and that which all men without exception receive in Christ, the Last Adam. The word “receive” is the Greek word lambano, which has two distinct usages: 1) to actively take or receive, or 2) to receive as a passive recipient. The context must determine whether the receiving is passive or active. For example, in several New Testament passages we see that the recipient must receive something he did not even desire to receive, such as a just reward for his disobedience (Heb 2:2), or a greater judgment (Luke 20:47). In other instances, the recipient receives that which he was not even anticipating. For example, everyone in Cornelius’ house was surprised when the Gentiles suddenly received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In these examples it is obvious that the recipient is passive.
The Greek scholar Marvin Vincent correctly applies the passive meaning to Romans 5:17 when He says: “They which receive (hoi lambanontes). Not ‘believingly accept,’ but simply ‘the recipients.” [2] Although he does not go into further detail, his rendering of lambano in the passive sense is necessitated by the context. The contrast throughout is between that which all men receive in Adam, as opposed to what all men receive in Christ, the Last Adam. As all men passively receive death, condemnation, and bondage to sin through the one man’s disobedience, even so all receive life, justification, and dominion restored, through the one man, Jesus Christ.
However, that being said, even as not every man experientially entered into Adam’s death, condemnation and bondage to sin at the moment Adam sinned, even so not everyone experientially received life, justification or dominion at the moment when Christ, the Last Adam, died and rose from the dead. Even as man must be born into Adam to experience the death, condemnation and bondage to sin he brought upon us all, so also must every man be made alive or born again before experientially entering into that justification and dominion which every man received when Christ, the Last Adam, died and rose again. Of the Last Adam’s death and resurrection it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1Cor 15:45). And again, “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1Cor 15:22).
While it is true that no one personally and experientially receives the benefits of justification, sanctification or dominion restored in Christ until they have believed on Him for salvation, what we see is that all, in due time, will come to faith in Christ and will submit to Him. Every tongue will eventually confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. In Christ, all will eventually be made alive. At present only those who receive Him are born again and justified and are being sanctified to be received unto Him at His coming. But in due time all will be in Christ – justified, sanctified and subjected to Him as Lord.
N.T. Wright further argues that when Paul said, “For God has committed all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all” in Romans 11:32, that that “all” should not be understood to be referring to all individually, but rather the “all” must be glossed so as to simply mean Jew and Gentile alike. However, it is the same “all” who have been committed to disobedience who will receive His mercy once they recognize their condition and look to Him for mercy.
Romans 11:32 summarizes what Paul established in the previous chapters. In the first three chapters he demonstrated that every individual is guilty before God. Then, beginning in 3:21, he introduces God’s mercy, saying in verse 23: “for all have sinned…being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The same all who were disobedient and under sin, are those who afterwards receive God’s mercy, being justified by His grace.
The problem is that Wright sees God’s mercy as only enduring for a lifetime, when Scripture repeatedly declares that His love never ceases, and His mercies never come to an end. I respond to the arguments against postmortem salvation in my blog: Hope for the Dead. Paul himself says in Philippians 2:10-11 that all will bow the knee, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord, not only those in heaven and on earth, but even those under the earth. That is “all without exception.” And looking at the passage which Paul here cites from Isaiah, it is evident that all without exception are saved upon bowing the knee in submission, confessing Jesus as Lord:
“Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath. He shall say, saying (λέγων LXX) ‘Surely in the Lord I have righteousness and strength.’” (Isa 45:22-24)
Here God says that He has actually sworn by Himself that all without exception will look to Him and be saved. Every knee will bow, and every tongue will take an oath saying, “surely in the Lord I have my righteousness.” The words, “He shall say” were added by the translators, obscuring the fact that it is every tongue that will confess unto salvation. The LXX, which was the Greek version of the Old Testament Paul cited from, simply says that every tongue will take an oath of allegiance, saying that the Lord is their righteousness. The expressions, “every knee” and “every tongue” cannot be glossed to simply mean “Jew and Gentile alike,” as N.T. Wright would have us believe.
There are other instances where Paul clearly and emphatically means “all without exception” and not simply “all without distinction” or “Jew and Gentile alike.” Here I will cite just one example which could not possibly say more clearly “all without exception.” In Colossians Paul says:
“For by Him all things (without exception) were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things (without exception) were created through Him and for Him… 20 and by Him to reconcile all things (without exception) to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col 1:16,20)
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 clearly referring primarily to persons rather than inanimate objects as we see here in Colossians, I take the liberty to cross it out in order to keep the focus where it belongs. “Reconciliation” is not applicable to inanimate objects since it is a relational term meaning, “to be restored into a relationship which had previously been broken.”
I don’t believe that anyone could express “all without exception” more emphatically than Paul does here. He says that all whom Christ created, whether in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible – absolutely all, were reconciled unto God by the blood of His cross!
Both terms, “reconciliation” and “restoration,” are relational and inseparable from each other. When the offended party in a relationship opens the way to reconciliation, the relationship is restored as soon as the offender corresponds, resulting in the restoration of the relationship. Peter spoke of the coming times of the restoration of all, or what Early Greek speaking Fathers referred to as the apokatastasis, or the restoration of all rational beings unto God:
“and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration (ἀποκατάστασις, apokatastasis) “of all things (without exception), which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:20-21 parenthesis mine)
Here again, while all of creation, whether animate or inanimate, will be restored, the restoration or apokatastasis is primarily speaking of the restoration of all relational beings to God, just as the Greek Fathers understood it, rather than the refurbishing of inanimate things. This restoration even includes Sodom and Samaria, as we see in Ezekiel:
“And I will bring back and restore them by bringing back Sodom, with her daughters, and by bringing back Samaria, and her daughters: and I will bring those that return of thee in the midst of them. 54 That thou mayest bear thy shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, comforting them. 55 And thy sister Sodom and her daughters shall return to their ancient state: and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their ancient state: and thou and thy daughters shall return to your ancient state.” (Ezek 16:53-55 Douay-Rheims)
That God is here promising the final restoration of the ancient inhabitants of Sodom and not merely some future generation, is evident, since the entire population was utterly removed from the land of the living when He destroyed Sodom with all its inhabitants. There are no descendants of Sodom presently on earth to be restored. If God will restore even wicked Sodom and Samaria, how can we continue insisting that “all” doesn’t mean “all without exception” when speaking of ultimate salvation, reconciliation and restoration?
Finally, if “all” didn’t mean “all without exception” to Paul, then what did he mean when he said that in the end God will be all in all, after all have become subject to Christ and made alive? (1 Cor 15:22-28). If the “all” is only some, a small representative group from among the Jews and Gentiles alike, wouldn’t that also imply that Christ only manages to subject some from among both Jews and Gentiles unto Himself? How then can God be said to become all in all? Are we to understand from this that Paul meant to say that God will only become all in some Jews and Gentiles alike? Certainly not!
To me, it is not possible to reasonably deny that at least some passages of Scripture clearly teach the final restoration of all without exception. That being so, it is futile to go through all these various mental gymnastics in an attempt to limit “all” to include “some” in Romans. In the consummation of the final Age of the ages, all without exception will have bowed the knee in voluntary submission to Christ, resulting in God being all in all in eternity.
God’s glorious plan for the ages consummates with all having become reunited in Christ (Eph 1:10), rather than there existing an eternal dualism with God and a remnant of mankind from Jews and Gentiles, and Satan with a third of God’s angels, along with most of humanity, quarantined in eternal opposition to God. In eternity there will not even be one tear shed in all God’s creation, because He will have removed the veil that is over all people and abolish death forever. Glory to His name!
“Say to God, ‘how awesome are Your works! Through the greatness of Your power your enemies shall submit themselves to You. 4 All the earth shall worship You and sing praises to You; they shall sing praises to Your name.” (Ps 66:3-4)
“And He will destroy on this mountain, the surface of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces…” (Isa 25:7-8)
[1] https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/towards-a-biblical-view-of-universalism/
[2] Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Romans 5:17
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
Who are God’s elect? Upon what basis does He choose them? What about those who are not among the elect? Is God’s election to the eternal exclusion of the rest? Isn’t God showing partiality when He chooses some while passing over others? While there are diverse answers to these questions, it is my conviction that the Scriptures offer us clear answers. In this post we will be comparing some prevalent views with what the Scriptures themselves actually have to say concerning the election of God.
Who are the Chosen Ones?
Who are God’s elect? The Universal Inclusivists respond, saying that everyone is included as God’s elect. However, while it is true that ultimately all will be saved and restored, this claim is logically and biblically fallacious. Even in our English language, one cannot by definition choose all. Our words choose or elect are defined as “to pick out someone or something as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives, to single out.” In Greek, the same idea is expressed with the word ἐκλέγομαι (eklegomai) and its cognates. It is composed of the preposition ἐκ, “out of” and λέγω, “to call or name.” Therefore, by definition, elect means, “to call or name an individual or subgroup out of a larger group.” It is closely related to the word εκκλησια (eklasia), which is commonly rendered “church,” but literally means, “the assembly of the elect or called out ones.” It is an oxymoron to say that everyone is God’s elect.
Apart from the fact that the very definition of election rules out the possibility of it being all inclusive, throughout the Scriptures we see that the elect are a subgroup, called-out from the rest of humanity. Since the nations did not desire to retain the knowledge of God, He gave them over to their desires (Rom 1:18-28). Of all the nations, He only chose the nation of Israel. Moses said to the children of Israel:
“The Lord delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day.” (Deut 10:15; 7:6)
“You only have I known of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” (Amos 3:2)
So clearly, not everyone was God’s elect in the Old Testament. Moving forward into the New Testament, we still see that the elect are a relatively small subgroup chosen by God from the world of humanity. Jesus said, “many are called, but few are chosen (eklectos)”
(Matt 22:14).
Jesus also makes it clear that the elect of this age are a subgroup when he says: “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect (eklectos)” (Matt 24:24).
He said that times would become so severe that time will have to be cut short “for the elect’s sake” (Matt 24:22). Jesus definitely did not teach, as the Universal Inclusivists do, that everyone is elect!
Paul also spoke of the elect of Israel in the present age as being a relatively small group or remnant of National Israel when he said: “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom 11:5). Also, Peter said that we are to make our calling and election sure (2Peter 1:10). Obviously, Peter didn’t believe that everyone was automatically included among the elect. While we will consider later why few are chosen in this age, the claim by Universal Inclusionists that all are chosen cannot be supported by Scripture or reason.
Upon what Basis does God Choose His Elect?
So, what does God foresee in us that resulted in Him choosing us? If it wasn’t based upon anything He saw in us, wouldn’t His election of some individuals over others be considered partiality? Before seeing what the Scriptures have to say on this subject, we need to consider some other erroneous beliefs concerning divine election.
Pelagian Conditional Election
Pelagians do not accept that man is born in sin. They deny that we inherit Adam’s sinful nature and therefore believe that man has the potential to live without sin. From that belief they argue that God’s election of us was based upon our own good works which He foresaw we would do.
However, the Scriptures are very clear in establishing that man’s works are tainted by sinful flesh to such a degree that even our best independent righteous deeds are as filthy rags before God (Isa 64:6). Jesus reproved the rich young ruler for thinking he could be accepted by God based upon his own good works by saying, “No one is good but One, that is, God” (Lu 18:19). Paul establishes that “There is none who does good, no, not one,” and that “by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight” (Rom 3:12,20). If that were not enough, Paul also clearly states that election is not based upon one’s own works:
“who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.” (2 Tim 1:9)
Here we can clearly see that election is not based upon our works but rather upon His own purpose and grace or unmerited favor. Paul also presents Jacob and Esau as an example to make his case that God’s election is not based upon our works:
“(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ 13 As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’” (Rom 9:11-13)
Some Arminians would argue that, although God does not choose us based upon good works which we have done prior to being saved, He nevertheless chooses us based upon the good works which He foresaw we would perform subsequent to receiving Christ. However, Paul emphasizes that God’s election took place before birth in order to make it clear that works are not even a factor in His election of us – whether they be works prior to or subsequent to receiving Christ. The election of God is according to His own purpose and grace, and grace excludes works. Subsequent good works are God’s workmanship within us. They are an outworking of God’s transforming grace, and therefore have no merit of which we may boast:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:8-10)
Therefore, we can see that God did not choose us based upon works of righteousness which we have done, as the Pelagians and even some of the more legalistic Arminians affirm. While it is true that good works will subsequently become evident in the lives of the elect as they are transformed into the image of Christ by grace, the election is by grace alone and not by works. God’s election is based upon grace, and divine grace and self-works are mutually exclusive:
“Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.” (Rom 11:5-6)
Here we see Paul taking great pains to emphasize that election is by grace alone. He explains that if election is by grace, it cannot be by works – otherwise grace ceases to be grace. Nevertheless, in spite of the many clear declarations of Scripture, our carnal minds often persist in the religious belief that acceptance before God is at least to some degree based upon partaking of the good branches of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We must be renewed in the spirit of our minds in order to fully comprehend that it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy that He has saved us (Titus 3:5).
Arminian Conditional Election
While most Arminians, at least theoretically, deny that our works factor into our salvation, they nevertheless insist that God’s election of us is conditioned upon man’s independent, personal decision of faith. According to many Arminians, God foresaw that we would believe the gospel, and based upon that foreknowledge He chose us unto salvation.
However, as we have already seen in the previous chapter, the fallen condition of man is such that he is dead, deaf, and blind – unable to even see, much less believe the gospel, apart from the new birth. If we have believed the gospel, it is only because it was given unto us to believe (Phil 1:29). The fact that every admonition to believe the gospel unto salvation does not explicitly state that we cannot believe apart from the divine assistance does not invalidate the specific declarations of the Scriptures indicating that saving faith originates in God rather than us:
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:44)
“But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.” (Jn 10:26-29)
“the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.” (Acts 16:14)
“Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48)
These clear declarations of Scripture are implicit in every passage where people are told to believe. We do not need the truth that faith is a grace-gift to be repeated every time sinners are exhorted to trust God. Those who are appointed to believe will be given faith to believe, while the rest remain incapable of perceiving and believing in a saving way until their appointed time comes.
Election: Individual or Collective?
Some Arminians, seeing the irrevocability of God’s election, attempt to argue that no individual is said to be elect unto salvation and that election is corporate and collective, rather than individual. They argue that the Church, just as national Israel, is elect, but individuals are not said to be elect. However, we see that even in the case of the elect nation of Israel, election is also individual and according to grace (Rom 11:5). Their argument is that, since election is always mentioned in reference to a people rather than individuals, election cannot be individual. However, the exhortations – although appearing in plural since they are written to churches – must be personally responded to; otherwise, they become meaningless. This can be clearly seen:
“Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering.” (Col 3:12)
We can readily see that only the individuals within the church can put on the virtues we see listed in this passage. The fact that the word elect is in plural actually argues against it referring to a corporate body, rather than individuals. If it were referring to the elect Church, it would appear in the singular – not in the plural. In plural it literally says: “as the elect ones.” Putting on the virtues listed by Paul is an individual matter. He is calling upon each of them to live their lives in agreement with who they individually are – the elect of God.
To say that the exhortations directed to the elect in the plural must not be applied individually but collectively as the chosen people of God, is like saying that we shouldn’t individually apply anything commanded in the epistles since they appear in the plural form and not singular. Peter’s exhortation to the elect is another clear example:
“Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2Peter 1:10-11)
It should be obvious to all that the elect Church already has its entrance into the kingdom assured. Making sure of ones call and election, however, is an individual matter. The Church of Jesus Christ is unquestionably the elect called out assembly. However, on an individual level, a person may be deceived into thinking they are saved and among the elect when in reality they are not. For that reason, Peter is exhorting each one of them individually to make sure they are called and elect.
This depersonalization of election in order to make a case for Arminianism robs believers of the assurance of the personal, intimate nature of God’s election of us as individuals. The only motive behind this interpretation is to negate the permanency of individual salvation, making it ultimately dependent upon man, rather than God’s election of each individual from before the foundation of the world.
Unmerited Election (Election according to Grace)
Based upon the overall testimony of the Scriptures concerning the total depravity of man, the Calvinists argue that God’s election must of necessity be unconditional. God’s election of us is declared in Scripture to be according to His purpose, according to His council, and according to the good pleasure of His will:
“just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will…11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.” (Eph 1:4,5,11; cf. 2Tim 1:9; Rom 9:11).
The passages establishing man’s total depravity, taken together with the criteria for God’s election presented in these texts, could lead one to conclude that election is unconditional – that God’s choice is not based upon any human condition whatsoever. Many would say that the motive of God’s election is entirely within Himself and has nothing to do with the character of the ones chosen. Some see it as comparable to a child closing his eyes and saying: “eenie, meenie, miney, mo.”
However, everything our Father does serves a specific, determined purpose and has a good and wise motive. Also, He is said to find pleasure in His choice of His elect, which implies something much more than a ho hum random selection. It is for this reason that I believe that a better term to describe God’s election is “unmerited election” or “election according to grace” rather than unconditional election.
The Basis of Unmerited Election
The question that presents itself is: if man is totally depraved, then upon what basis does He choose some over others? Also, we must ask how He can choose some over others without showing favoritism, since it is said of God that He does not show partiality. Amazingly, the basis of His election, at least for the majority, is clearly revealed to us through the Apostle Paul in First Corinthians, although most have altogether overlooked it. What is the Father’s stated criteria for election? Paul explains by saying:
“For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.” (1Cor 1:26-29) {1}
What is the basis of God’s election according to Paul? It is not on the basis of our foreseen decision of faith. It is not based upon works of righteousness which we have done or will eventually do. It is based, not upon human merit, but the lack of merit – not upon our wisdom, strength or social status, but the lack thereof. He has chosen those who are nothing in their own eyes – the poor in spirit – in order to magnify His grace and mercy through them. We are chosen to be to the praise of the glory of His grace in the coming ages (Eph 1:6; 2:7,10). This can be seen throughout all of Scripture. He resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6). Jesus said that His calling of individuals, which is integrally related to election, is based upon the need of the individual, and not his merit:
“When Jesus heard that, He said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.’ 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Matt 9:12-13)
God’s love goes out to those in need, and it is His good pleasure to elect individuals according to their need. Although Esau and Jacob were formed together in the womb, Esau was stronger and came out before his weaker brother, Jacob. Who did God choose? He chose the weaker, Jacob, over Esau, even though Esau was the firstborn. What was the basis of God’s choice? He chose the weak, even as Jesus and Paul declared. When the Lord chose a new king from the house of Jessie to rule over His people, which of Jessie’s eight sons did He choose? He chose the youngest and the weakest. David, God’s chosen, wasn’t even taken into account by his own father and brothers.
The same could be said of Joseph. He was the most despised among his brethren. Gideon was chosen, being in his own estimation the least in his family and his family the poorest in the region (Judges 6:15). And the list could go on. As Paul states, there are not many exceptions to this rule. God usually chooses the foolish, the weak, the despised, and those who are as though they didn’t even exist in man’s eyes, in order that no flesh should glory in His presence.
Perhaps the unmerited election of God can be illustrated by comparing it to a restorer of classic automobiles. There is a great difference between a collector of classics and a restorer of classics. A collector is looking for an automobile in pristine condition. The restorer, on the other hand, chooses the old, rusty, forgotten classic hidden away in someone’s garage or old barn. The restorer’s glory and pleasure is in choosing something that is considered worthless and converting it into a beautiful work of art. The restored classic is of much greater value than it was when it originally came off the assembly line.
The glory of the restorer is to bring something back to life and put it on display as his own workmanship. It becomes a demonstration of the restorer’s ability to choose something seemingly worthless and unattractive and convert it into a priceless work of art. In the same way, God has chosen the world’s most foolish, weak, despised, and forgotten individuals, making them into a new creation in Christ Jesus. Then, in the coming ages, He puts them on display for the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:6; 2:7,10).
The elect of this age, however, are not the only ones God is ultimately going to restore. We are only the first to have believed (Eph 1:12). We are just the firstfruits of His new creation, chosen for the praise of the glory of His grace. The rest of the harvest follows us. We are the Church of the firstborn (Heb 12:23). We are chosen, as the elect Church (eklektos eklesia) to be the prototokos or firstborn of God’s new creation. We were not chosen to the exclusion of the rest, but for the full inclusion of the rest of the world in the coming ages. Jesus, in His intercessory prayer, prayed not only for the elect, but for the rest of the world:
“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours… 20 I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” (Jn 17:9, 20-21)
Christ’s intercessory prayer, cited above, commences with Jesus first praying for the disciples in the upper room. Calvinists often cite the phrase, “I do not pray for the world,” to substantiate their doctrine of a limited atonement. However, if we follow Jesus’ prayer, He says, “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word.” This clearly refers to all in this age who will come to believe through the testimony of the twelve and make up the called-out elect – the Church of the firstborn ones.
However, His prayer does not end with them. He continues praying that they all might become one with the triune God and with each other to such a degree that it will ultimately result in the world (kosmos) believing through them. The elect of this age are chosen by grace to be the firstfruits of the new creation, which ultimately will include all:
“Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.” (James 1:18)
“In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.” (Eph 1:11-12)
“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (Rom 8:18-21)
All of creation is groaning and awaiting the time of the manifestation of the sons of God when all creation will be finally restored. Before the consummation of the ages, when God shall be all in all (1Cor 15:28; Rom 11:36), not only we who are the elect of this age, but all, will have been restored and made new:
“Then He who sat on the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’ And He said to me, ‘Write, for these words are true and faithful.’” (Rev 21:5)
“whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:21)
Therefore, we can see that election is not unconditional even though there is nothing in man to merit it. The gracious heart of God is drawn towards the weak, the poor in spirit, and the despised of this world. Rather than God’s election being unconditional, it is seen to be conditioned upon, or rather based upon, God’s heart-response to those most in need of His grace. It is unmerited election.
Election according to Foreknowledge
“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Rom 8:29)
Another basis for election which is integrally related to election by grace, although greatly misunderstood by many, is God’s foreknowledge. Pelagians and Arminians see foreknowledge as nothing more than an intellectual foreknowing of future events. According to them, He either foresaw our good works, or He foresaw our decision of faith and chose us based upon that knowledge. However, there are problems with this understanding.
In the first place, as we have already seen, man is totally depraved and therefore incapable of being saved by works or exercising saving faith apart from previous divine enablement. In the second place, it doesn’t say “what He foreknew” but “whom He foreknew.” There is a great difference between knowing what someone will do and knowing someone, even in our English language.
The Lord says of His elect people Israel: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). Also, Jesus will say to some, “I never knew you” (Matt 7:23). Obviously, God, being omniscient, cognitively knows every detail about all who have ever lived or will live in the future. In a cognitive sense, Jesus was said to have a full knowledge of all men:
“But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.” (Jn 2:24)
Therefore, in what sense could it be said of God that He foreknew some, or that He does not know others? To the Hebrew mind, there is a certain knowing which expresses a particular love and intimacy. Knowing is commonly used in the Scriptures, from the very beginning, in reference to sexual intimacy, as we see the term used regarding Mary:
“Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’” (Luke 1:34)
Obviously, Mary was not referring to knowledge in the normal sense of the word, since she was acquainted with other men and was even engaged to Joseph at that time. She was clearly referring to sexual intimacy. In Matthew’s gospel we see that Joseph was even married to Mary for a time before actually knowing her:
“Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.” (Matt 1:24,25)
In the same manner, we can see that God’s foreknowledge of His elect is a particular love and intimacy which is reserved for His elect bride whom He foreknew. “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom 8:29).
Relationship of God’s Particular Love to Unmerited Election
It should be evident by now that God’s election according to grace and His election according to His foreknowledge are integrally related. God is love (agape). Love is not an attribute peripheral to His essential nature, as some theologians claim. God’s agape love is foreign to fallen human nature. Agape love gives rather than receives – it is unconditional rather than conditional. We can only begin to love with agape love to the degree that God’s love has been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit in the new creation. We love because He first loved us.
God, in contrast to fallen man, is agape love. Love is His essence and not simply a contiguous attribute. Everything that He does must be seen as a manifestation of His love towards a fallen world. Grace is a manifestation of other-centered, unconditional agape love. Although God loves all, due to the nature of His agape love, He is drawn like a magnet towards those most in need of His grace (favor which is not deserved). That is why He chooses the foolish, weak, despised, and forgotten. His agape love is towards all, but just as antibodies are drawn to the aid of an open wound under attack by harmful bacteria, so His love, grace and mercy go out towards those most in need of them. He is the Savior of the whole world but chooses them in the order of their need. Those whom He has foreknown and therefore elected in this present age are generally those most in need – the foolish, weak, despised and overlooked.
It is not that God loves some in preference to others, but rather that His love goes out in response to felt need. That is why the prostitutes and tax collectors will enter the kingdom of God before the Scribes and Pharisees who trusted in their own righteousness (Matt 21:31). God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (1Peter 5:5).
“For thus says the high and exalted One who lives forever, whose name is Holy, ‘I dwell on a high and holy place, and also with the contrite and lowly of spirit in order to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite. ‘For I will not contend forever, neither will I always be angry; for the spirit would grow faint before Me, and the breath of those whom I have made.” (Isaiah 57:15-16 NASB)
This passage not only dispels the unbiblical myth of God’s eternal wrath, but it also reveals that He displays His anger solely in love, bringing down the lofty so that He may afterwards be merciful to them. “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all… For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen” (Rom 11:32,36 NIV).
Election without Partiality
We know that there is no partiality with God (Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25). How then can this truth be reconciled with the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election? It cannot. If all are in the same condition and God simply chooses a few to the exclusion of the rest, then that is showing partiality, no matter how one may try to explain it.
The passage they use to justify their belief in God’s unconditional partiality toward some to the eternal exclusion of the majority is found in Romans nine: “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion” (Rom 9:15). Because all people are equally unworthy and depraved, they argue that God is justified in showing partiality. He chooses some for eternal life and leaves the rest to their deserved destiny, which they believe is eternal torment. However, this is a superficial interpretation which fails to take into account the overall context of the book of Romans – especially chapters nine through eleven.
The Temporal Nature of God’s Election in Romans 9 - 11
First, we can see that God's gracious election of some over others in Romans 9 through 11 does not result in the eternal exclusion of the non-elect, as traditionalists so often assume, but rather addresses the temporal setting aside of Israel that God might bring salvation to the Gentiles. In order to illustrate his point, he draws from God’s election of Jacob over Esau:
“(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ 13 As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’ 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.’ 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” (Rom 9:11-16)
That God’s election of Jacob instead of Esau was not to Esau’s eternal exclusion, is evident. Although Esau despised his spiritual birthright, losing it to Jacob, the weaker of the two, he was nonetheless favored of God. Many have preached on eternal condemnation using the warning in Hebrews, where it says that Esau found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears (Heb 12:17). However, when read in context, the text refers to the birthright Isaac gave to Jacob, which Esau could not recover despite seeking it with tears-not his eternal salvation (Gen 27:30-40). Nothing is said about his eternal destiny. In fact, Isaac blessed Esau even though he could not retract the birthright he had already given to Jacob (Heb 11:20).
We can see God’s favor being shown towards Esau even many years after his death. When it came time for the descendants of Jacob, the Israelites, to enter into the land of Canaan, God gave special instructions concerning their treatment of their brethren, the descendants of Esau:
“And the Lord spoke to me, saying: 3 ‘You have skirted this mountain long enough; turn northward. 4 And command the people, saying, ‘You are about to pass through the territory of your brethren, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. Therefore watch yourselves carefully. 5 Do not meddle with them, for I will not give you any of their land, no, not so much as one footstep, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession.” (Deut 2:2-5)
If God’s hatred of Esau was absolute and eternal, why would He be warning the Israelites against mistreating Esau’s descendants? If Esau was in eternal torment, or if that were to be his ultimate destiny, why would God be concerned about his descendants, or about protecting the territories which He had given to him while still alive?
The hatred of God should not be understood in the absolute sense, which would be antonymous to love and sinful, but rather should be understood as subordinate love, just as Jesus refers to it (Luke 14:26; cf. Matt 10:37). It is not a hatred which excludes love, but rather a love which appears to be hatred when held in comparison to an even greater love relationship. All other loving relationships should take a back seat to our love towards God. In much the same manner, God’s love for Esau took a back seat to His love for Jacob. For a more in-depth treatment of God’s “hatred” see my book “The Triumph of Mercy.”
The temporal nature of God’s election of some, and the temporary setting aside of others in the outworking of His purposes for the ages, can also be seen in His election of Israel in this present time. Although election is something settled in the heart of God from before the foundation of the world, the individual outworking of that election takes place in distinct points in history. Rather than eternally excluding most, it only speaks of the election of some at given points in time for the outworking of His purposes which eventually include the final salvation of all.
In response to anticipated resistance from self-righteous Jews, Paul explains in Romans 9 why God is not choosing many individuals from His elect nation, Israel, in the present age. That this change in focus in God’s election to only a few among the Jews is only temporary becomes evident in chapter eleven, where He says:
“Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” (Rom 11:5)
Here Paul, speaking of God’s predetermined election of Israelites at this present time, states that it only includes a small remnant of the people of Israel. He further states that this present election is according to His grace and foreknowledge, as has always been the case. This temporal sequence in God’s election of individuals is in harmony with what we saw concerning the sequential timing of the salvation of God’s elect Gentiles: “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). Each individual has his own appointed time. When the time comes, the Lord opens our heart to receive and believe unto salvation.
However, as with God’s election of Jacob over Esau, His “present time” election is not the end of the story for God’s elect nation, Israel. Following the logic of Paul from the beginning of Romans nine through to the close of eleven, we see that ultimately not only a remnant of Israel, but all Israel, will be saved (Rom 11:26). And not only will all Israel be saved, but all who have come out of God will ultimately be reconciled, returning to Him. Notice how clearly Paul sets this forth in chapter eleven:
“So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (Rom 11:11-12 NRSV)
Paul clearly states that Israel’s setting aside is temporary and that they will all finally be restored. He also makes reference to the ultimate salvation—not only of the elect Gentiles of this present age, but also of Israel’s full inclusion, which will subsequently result in much greater riches to the rest of the world, far beyond what we witness now.
Paul reveals the mystery that God in this present age has temporarily set Israel aside and is calling unto himself a chosen people, primarily made up of Gentiles. However, after the full number of Gentiles are brought into the Church-fold, all Israel will be saved:
“For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved.” (Rom 11:25-26)
Contrary to what many have said within the Church throughout the centuries, God has not rejected His elect nation of Israel. Paul makes this clear in verses 28 and 29 where he says: “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
The final verses of Romans eleven reach a crescendo in which Paul is overwhelmed as he sums up God’s glorious plan for the ages:
“For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! 34 ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?’ 35 ‘Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him?’ 36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:32-36)
Paul summarizes all he has presented from the beginning of the epistle of Romans by saying, “For God has committed all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.” The translators of the King James Version added the word “them” which is misleading. It is a deliberate interpretive insertion meant to give the impression that “all” here is only referring to Israel. However, it is best to take it as a summary of everything Paul has presented thus far. In the first three chapters, he establishes that all – both Jews and Gentiles – have sinned and are under disobedience (Rom 3:9,22-23). Then, in Romans 5:12-21, Paul shows that all who came under condemnation in Adam receive justification in Christ, the Last Adam.
Paul then erupts in praise to God for His unsearchable wisdom, closing with the all-inclusive statement: For of (ek) Him and through (día) Him and to (eis) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom 11:33-36). All who are of Him (ek), referring to origin, also exist through (día) Him, and will ultimately be restored or reconciled to (eis ‘into’) Him, referring to the ultimate destiny of all. This verse summarizes what he also states in Colossians 1:16-20. All that was created by Him will ultimately be reconciled unto Him by the blood of His cross.
Election is by grace and according to God’s love or foreknowledge. It is according to His eternal purpose that we should be to the praise of the glory of His grace in the coming ages when we are manifested to the rest of creation in the times of the restoration of all. We are chosen for the benefit of the rest – not to the exclusion of the rest.
[1] 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.