Annihilationism and The Gospel
Sep 28
I know this post may get me in a little trouble, but I like trouble if it is fruitful for the edification of the saints. I was first introduced to the doctrine of Annihilationism in 2004 during my senior year in college. It happened quite weirdly actually. The first encounter of it was with a Jehovah Witness the next one was about a week later with a guy who runs Amazing Bible Questions or something like that, he has a t.v program on which he answers questions from the audience (or at least it is scripted that way).
I was intrigued as I read the literature on it. And the ideas seemed to jive with scripture. But I rejected their position because I rejected other points of their doctrine. Back in 05 I was an all or nothing guy. Anyway I purchased a small book a couple of years ago called “The Myth of a Christian Nation” by Greg Boyd. I went to find out more about the guy because I was so impressed with his work. That led me to googling his name and man, I find out that this wasn’t some obscure fellow, but someone who has been wrestling with all of the giants that I read. Anyway the topic of Hell was on his site (see above) and I began to read more about it. Here are some articles he has writtten on the subject. I disagree with Boyd in some areas, but there are some areas that I also agree with. He also help me move from total predestination to partial predestination, which says that just because God is in control doesn’t mean He “control” everything that happens; however, this also doesn’t make me an “open theist” in the fact that I think there are some things God does predestine (salvation being one of many) and we see the back and forth in human history.
So let me cut to the chase. I believe that Annihilationism is compatible with Christan thought. I finally came to the conclusion that this is what I believe about the judgment of God about 6 months ago alot of this had to do with wrestling with Jon Paden who is a Christian Universalist (meaning he has a hyper view of the atonement, one I disagree with). He caused me to study the doctrine of hell and through it my heart and mind resonated with this doctrine.
Annihilationism teaches that God’s judgment has a duration. Quantifying that duration is impossible, just in case someone asks how long. I do believe that everyone who is not covered with the blood of the lamb will be judged by God based on their works. As believers we are not judged (at least not from a hell perspective) on our works. We will hear “well done” though some of our works may be burned up at the judgment seat of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-15) but we will be saved. But it does seem that some will be judged more harshly than others (Luke 12:35-47). Thus the duration of some seems to be longer while others may be shorter; however, I have come to the conclusion that this duration will end eventually.
The Gospel is good news my friend. It is the good news that we have reconciled to God, have crossed over from judgment to life, that we will not be judged from an end times perspective and what makes the Gospel even more good news is that we will be given the gift of immortality (the gift that Adam rejected) to enjoy the pleasures of God for eternity. For me the bad news is just the opposite. There is still a break in fellowship, their is a current condemnation, and because of that “death reigns in their mortal body”. We are promised life and life immortal, those who reject are promised death and a separation from God for eternity. What makes condemnation so fearful isn’t a lake of fire, but it is death, darkness, destruction and this will happen consciously so the last minutes of your existence you have seen God and He has declared you unrighteous and He casts you from His presence forever.
Finally because of my soteriology, annihilationism seems more compatible with the nature of God which is love. Since one aspect of God’s nature is justice. He would be unjust to send His Son to die and then not judge mankind. Given Paul’s doctrine of the atonement and justification God can’t let mankind off the hook. Christ’s work on the cross was to propitiate God’s wrath as the substitutionary lamb, thus the only way one can receive such a propitiation is by Christ’s blood (Ephesians 1:1-10). Now since I believe that man’s heart must be ransomed before one can place true saving faith in Christ and that God chooses who’s heart will be ransomed, I believe that annihilationism seems to be more compatible with God’s wrath for those He chooses not to ransom.
To make one point clear, immortality is a gift. This gift is given by God through Christ. Most people believe that just because salvation grants immortality that it is necessary for those who reject the gift to also be immortal. I don’t believe that. I believe the only people to get immortality is those who have place saving trust in Christ. I can go on, but I know there are some tough scriptures to deal with, but I believe Paul’s writing to the different churches is more compatible. I believe Jesus is speaking hyperbolically (or symbolically) in many of His statements on the “Gehenna” and I also believe that the Revelation is speaking apocalyptically and isn’t necessarily literal either. Some from the clear writings of Paul and a couple of places from Peter, that being consumed and eternally separated from God, is the wrath that the nonbeliever will endure. Thoughts?
Hey Bro-
Finally we disagree on something! Grin.
We agree on so much. I have looked at all the positions on hell and judgement and have come to the conclusion, that etrenal conscious torment is Christ’s doctrine.
I believe that all the other new covenant scriptures must be interpreted in light of the very words of Christ, not vice-versus. In other words I need to be convinced that the majority of translations are mistranslating the word that precedes the word fire in Matthew 25:41 and the word punishment in 25:46.
Also is that word different from the word that precedes life in 25:46?
I would have to be convinced that we are mistranslating this portion of scripture to embrace any brand of annihilationism.
Otherwise it would be wrong to tell someone that their torment will end one day when it will not.
What is the Greek word that preceeds those two words below and how are we to best understand its meaning?
41″Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44″Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45″Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46″These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Mike,
I believe Matthew 25 has more to do with the consequences than have to do with duration. For example, once you have children, that child is your son forever, nothing can change that relationship. And this is what I believe Christ is saying. When we become sons of God through faith in Christ, we “never come under judement” in that case our salvation is eternal, but that doesn’t mean that we will continually be brought into eternal life, we have been brought into eternal life and it is everlasting. The same for those who reject the Gospel. Their punishment is everlasting the decision Jesus makes, that classify them as goats is eternal. So I really believe this verse is to be used against universalist who teach that the punishment is a purification. No, the judgment if final and eternal.
Lionel-
I know eternal modifies life and it expresses a quality of life as well as a duration of life, I also still think eternal modifies fire and punishment expressing both quality and duration of that fire-like agony and punishment.
Thanks for your further clarification on your views Brother.
Still chewing.
Hutch,
Let me preface I am not trying to aruge, but I was reading Jude how do you handle verse 7. I am asking for your perspective because it uses eternal also and I have never read a commentary on it. Thanks.
Lionel-
You, Jeff and I talked about this briefly a couple of weeks ago. So I want to throw the same idea on the blog table that I threw to you then. You said Paul’s writings don’t give us a clear indication of an eternal punishment, and I said, “I don’t think that was Paul’s ministry focus. He was all about preaching the doctrines of Christ. Suppose God just didn’t reveal those things to Paul (for reasons unknown to us) and chose to do it through John in a vision?” Of course, we will never know for sure how much Paul knew about eternal punishment. Thoughts anyone?
Furthermore, I want to comment on this:
“I believe Jesus is speaking hyperbolically (or symbolically) in many of His statements on the “Gehenna” and I also believe that the Revelation is speaking apocalyptically and isn’t necessarily literal either.”
I believe the opposite. Instead Jesus’ and John’s statements being hyperbolic (meaning a symbol that is NOT to be taken literally), I believe they are metaphorical or allegorical (symbols that ARE to be taken literally). They use something very real and visible to help people undertand what they cannot yet see or comprehend. And I also believe Jude 7 intends the same. He uses S & G to describe an “example” of what the eternal damnation will be.
Vetta,
So how I am to deal with the “destruction” comments that Jesus also used. For example Jesus talks about “the outter darkness”. What if said there isn’t an eternal lake of fire, but an outter darkness so there is no flames involved it is just darkness. Jesus uses that term just as often as He uses “eternal fire”. Even more I think. Not to mention how do you handle Paul’s writing of destruction (1 Corinthians 15:26, 1 Thessalonians 5:3, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Romans 9:22, Philippians 3:9) Hebrews talks about destruction, Peter in 2 Peter 2:12 and 2 Peter 3:7 and 3:10 talks about destruction. Even Jude uses the word destruction twice.
So which way am I to interpret it? Should I use allegory or should I use what I believe (I am saying I belive it personally) is straightforward from the writers of the epistles.?
What happened to the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah is said to be an example of future judgment. If one recalls, however, S & G were not tortured forever, but they were utterly destroyed, consumed, burned up by fire.
Jesus referred to “Gehenna,” which was a garbage dump near Jerusalem. The fire in this place never stopped, but the objects tossed into it obviously did not burn forever. but were consumed by the fire and vanished.
Lionel,
I believe “destruction” is just another a adjective to describe the place called Hell. It also lines up with the allegory of Gehenna (as used by Christ) and S & G.
You asked, “What if said there isn’t an eternal lake of fire, but an outter darkness so there is no flames involved it is just darkness?”
My response:
1. We CANNOT ignore the “lake of fire.” To say “what if there is no lake of fire?” would be to say, “John made that up,” which would make John an incredulous witness, which would cause a major problem for all of us Christians.
2. John 3:19 says, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men LOVED DARKNESS instead of light because their deeds were evil.” If men who rejected Christ are simply destined to darkness, wouldn’t that be giving them what they love anyway? How is that a punishment of sorts? Just askin’….
2.
Javetta,
1. We can ignore the lake of fire if it is apocolyptic. For example do you believe there will be a three headed dragon also? If not why? Do you believe in the horses and giant scorpians and the emerald street and literal trumpets and a man on a red horse? Do you believe those things to be literal? So it doesn’t cause any problems at all. John is speaking in apocolyptic language in an apocolyptic book. For example read Revelation 6, 8,-9. Do you think those things are literal? If not how do you make the “lake of fire” literal?
2. Loved Darkness has to do with sin, not a place. Jesus uses it as a place where people are sent. So you can’t ignore it because Jesus says “I will cast them into the outter darkness” so you have the burden of dealing with the text on this one. Now you may believe that the lake of fire takes precedent. But the lake of fire has only one reference in all of the bible and no supporting documentation, by any other witnesses of scripture in an apocolyptic book. But again Jesus says that is where they are going.
Finally why do you believe that destruction is syonymous with the “lake of fire” when the word destroyed means totally consumed, not in a lake of fire for eternity? How do you come to that conclusion from the scripture?
Lionel,
1. I do take all of that literally
2. I wasn’t saying that to be FACT, I was just asking a question. I know that he was referring to darkness as sin. But is the word “darkness” in John and the word “darkness” in the phrase “outer darkness” the same? If so, then on some level could they be the same?
Also, I believe that we see darkness as Christ sees it because we have come to the light and Christ is the light. People who are in darkness won’t get that it’s a bad thing until they are confronted with the true meaning of it in eternity. I guess I kind of look at it along the same lines of dramatic irony. We (light dwellers) understand something that they (darkness dwellers) don’t yet. But at the end of the story, they will.
3. I didn’t say destruction was synonymous, I said it was an adjective. By that I mean this: the word destroy has more than one meaning. One of those meanings is “to defeat completely, to devestate, to take away powers or function and render restoration impossible” and that’s what I think about when I think of that word in reference to Hell. Furthermore, “DESTRUCTION” is a noun (a person, place, or thing), so with that said, I believe destruction is a place as it relates to Hell.
Javetta,
1. So you do believe that there will be giant scorpions and the moon will turn to literal blood and there will be a literal three headed dragon?
2. I don’t think so, one is a place of judgment the other is a metaphor light=righteousness and sin=darkness. The “outter darkness” is contrasted to being with God so I don’t believe they are the same though the words are the same the context that drive them are different.
3. I don’t agree with the last statement, because Destroy is a verb. Destruction in the context means to utterly destroy (or to be in a state of utter destruction). Finally as Jon pointed out, the fire burns eternally but even in gehenna and other references the item being burned ceases. So just like I can keep the fire burning that doesn’t necessitate the thing (person) being burned is burning for ever and ever. But also I believe the lake of fire to be apocolyptic while destruction is very literal in all the scriptures I provided.
Hi Jon-
Although Sodom was literally consumed and burnt up by fire in the historical account, Christ indicates that the actual day of judgement for Sodom and all those who die outside of Christ is still yet to occur MTT. 11-20-24
Lionel-
Jude 7? I would say that the fire is eternal quality an quantity. They are an example of the punishment of eternal fire, the literal fire that consumed them was not an eternal fire, but the punishment that they are yet to experience MTT. 11 is an agonizing punishment that is like being thrown into a lake of fire that lasts for eternity. Sodom & Gomorrah are a type teaching of the fullness that is to come, Just like all the Old Covenant type teaching have a fuller reality under Christ’s New Covenant.
Well, Lionel Woods……….let’s agree to disagree for now
Hutch,
I agree in one part but disagree in the other. Here is what I mean, the picture was a full consumption of Sodom and Gomorrah and I believe the fulfillment will be just as that day, they suffered a temporary punishment but until the day of resurrection they are still waiting for a full display of that judgment. So I believe the picture will be fufilled in its likeness.
Lionel-
Still chewing, but we will always be tight.
You helped me to come to the point that I do not lump anihilationists into the same camp as universalists! HA!
Good thing too cause you and Jon do not belong there and you both have taught me so much!
Hutch,
Whew I thought you were going to excommunicate with me. By the way, man we got to get some good coffee!
Interesting.
I’m not arguing either side at this point but I do have a question. So if the punishment is not eternal, then what should those who experience it actually fear? The “unknown” length of time that it will last? Not being in the presence of God? (which I find it hard to see God-haters feeling to be a punishment) Is it the fact that eventually they will no longer exist? (which doesn’t even scare me because I didn’t exist before 9/20/75 and when people don’t exist, they don’t know or aren’t conscious of their non-existence, are they? Don’t you have to exist to know that you don’t exist?)
Just questions.
Thats what I’m sayin…since the words are the same, if eternal punishment is not forever and ever as Christ says, how do we know eternal life is conscious existence with God forever and forever?
I’m pretty sure the word speaks to quality and quantity.
You can destroy an object so that it no longer expresses its intended function and it still be in existance.
Sodom was destroyed at a true historical point in time, but Christ says they still exist and await an eternal punishment.
I destroyed a car once, but you could still see it and touch it.
BLD,
All of the above. For example, Those who felt God’s wrath during the flood were fearful when the rain began to fall, those who experienced God wrath in Sodom and Gomorrah were afraid and fearful, those who experienced God’s wrath in the Desert for 40 years, those who were attacked by the serpents, those who were punished at Mt. Sinai were fearful, and many other Old Testament references. I think your question shows the common thought very clearly. We portray God (as Dontae’s inferno produced through Catholicism) as an angry God who wants to show how big and bad He is versus a loving God who will punish, but takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. When I hear preaching on hell, I hear people talking about how the screams from hell will cause God to rejoice.
Not only that I also think that as God’s wrath was satisfied in Christ on the cross for those who believe, that God’s wrat will at some point be satisfied when the wicked are consumed (a word used often in scripture) by His wrath. Let me ask (and I am asking not debating) we were not immortal (eternal) before we were born, both life and immortality seems to be gifts. If they are gifts from God, why would God give this gift to those who have not done what it takes (place saving faith in Christ) to gain this immortality.
God tells Adam “from the dust you came to the dust will you return”. I believe God’s wrath will be satisfied; however, that satisfaction will not happen until the enemies of God are fully destroyed and the new heavens and the new earth are restored. Let me ask, if these non-believers are going to have resurrected, immortal bodies, where exactly will hell be if the earth is going to be restored after God’s wrath rains down like fire (2 Thessalonians 1:1-10 and 2 Peter 3:8-10)?
Thanks for the kind dialogue also brother, I look forward to working through this with you, though we may never have concensus
Big L,
Specifically on the “immortality” question:
It is interesting that I was thinking on this subject in reference to Romans 5: 18, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted in justification of life to all men.”
Now some say that verse 19 clarifies this verse. (With it’s usage of “the many” as a group category and so on.) I actually wonder if it is a seperate statement (perhaps in the form of Hebrew parallelism) meant to further explain or introduce a point not made in the previous verse. I also wonder if the phrase “justification of life” doesn’t mean what we otherwise define theologically as justification. But just that Christ’ death (which is a reverse of the curse that brings death) brings immortality to all just as Adam brought death to all.
So how can God give a sinner eternal death (which they have to be alive to experience)? Perhaps verse 18 is telling us. One man (Adam) brought death to all men. One man (Christ) brought, not life as in eternal life, but justification of life. Think about it, even to experience the second death, one must be raised to life again (if one has died), in a sense. So the concept isn’t that farfetched that even those who reject Christ will experience a resurrection of sorts. It is what happens next that we are currently tossing around. Whatever it is, for those who have died without Christ, it is being raised to life again (or a conscious state, which may be continuous) in order to experience it.
However, this is as far as I have gotten in my reflection upon it so it isn’t as solid as it could be. And your question does raise a good issue. I wanted to at least be faithful to attempt to answer it.
Keep digging Brother!
BLD,
I beleieve that “death” is the curse of mortality, though it does contain a punishment for their sin. However, I still belive the immortality issue and the words “destruction” are critical.
As I was wrestling through many of Vetta and Hutch’s comments, I have seen something that we are all guilty of doing. We have an idea, then we take that idea and we find scriptures to prove it. When then filter all other points of contention through it. So for example, the “lake of fire” or “hell” are the starting points for Vetta and Hutch. My starting point is “destruction” or the “outter darkness”. Now Jesus and Paul both mention destruction. Jesus mentions “hell” which is “ghenna” and John mentions “lake of fire”. Which one should be the point I start at and filter the scriptures through?
My position is to deal with the issues of immortality (a gift) versus (mortality) the curse that came with Adam. Thus I do believe that the wicked will be ressurected (the dead ones) while the others will be alive when Jesus returns. Just like Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 5. He talks about the dead in Christ will rise, those who are alive will be changed “in a twinkling of an eye” at this point we will be with Christ forever (not for 7 years during the tribulation and then for a Millineum) while the wicked will be consumed by His coming (2 Thessalonians 1) and will be eternally damned, not damned for all of eternally. The bible says Jesus will wreak vengence on all who disobeyed. Thus the picture of Sodom and Gomorrah is Lot be “raptured” (snatched) from judgment Abraham being the intercessory (or type of Christ) while the rest were consumed by God’s wrath.
Anyway thats my position for this week
Cool. Let’s keep searching. There’s also one thing to consider, something I never got from Jon Paden, what is the significance of this teaching in regards to the Gospel.
Lionel-
Enjoying the discussion.
I would say that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 does not exactly say that the wicked will be consumed at Christ’s coming. It says they will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from God’s presence. This can also be translated to say: pay the penalty and suffer the punishment of everlasting ruin and eternal exclusion and banishment from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power. The ruin and destruction they will experience will be eternal or everlasting, they still exist but they are eternally ruined individuals.
The New Century Version translates it: Those people will be punished with a destruction that continues forever. They will be kept away from the Lord and from his great power.
BLD,
The significance is that it is not incompatiable with the Gospel. The next significance would be on the focus that immortality is a gift which is the promise of the Gospel in the New Covenant. So as we begin to teach the Gospel and the ressurection, the ressurection is our TREASURE, a resurrection that will be enjoyed forever. The curse or bad news is God’s wrath and mortality. Thats all. I think we underemphasize the resurrection and the promise.
Hutch, I think the transators are bias
All of them?
Everlasting ruin is a mistranslation of the Greek?
How should I understand 2 Thessalonians 1:9 to be best translated from the Greek?
No not that translation the NCV’s interpretation of the Greek. So I do believe the destruction to be everlasting (which refutes Jon Paden’s claim of a destruction that restores) I just don’t believe the person is being everlastingly destroyed (perpetually destroyed over and over again).
I also believe this is what this means for “everlasting life”. We have a life that never ends and they have a destruction that never ends, much like once saved always saved this is once destroyed always destroyed
Hutch,
I raise the same question to you that I do to LD. For the wicked to be in a perpetual punishment that never ends that means that God gives them an immortal body. That immortal body is a physical body much like Jesus’ and our’s because that body can never be destroyed. Where exactly will this “Lake of Fire” be. This will not be a spiritual punishment but a real physical punishment with “flesh and bones” much like Jesus had for it to have any real punishing effects. My question is where and how will this take place. Not to mention that all of humanity became mortal at the fall, that mortality was part of the curse. The reverse of the curse is immortality, this is the gift that Paul talks about in 2 Corinthans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Why do you believe God will give nonbelievers the gift of eternal life for the point of forever punishing them. So they receive the same promised resurrection that we get, their’s just end up in a lake of fire (which I believe to be metaphorical) in a place we have no clue about. The bible is very clear on where are the New Heavens and New Earth will dwell, but none of the writers ever talk about this place called hell, they only seem to talk about a destruction that will come from the Lord much like Sodom and Gomorrah.
Lionel-
Oh, okay…so you mean most people bring a presupposition to the text and make an application of the translation something that it is not?
I really have tried to throw out all traditional presuppositions regarding everythiong I used to believe in order to examine the scriptures in light of the New Covenant: Ecclesiology, Women teaching, Leadership, Eschatology as well as eternal conscious torment etc.
I guess we will still have to agree to disagree as I think the best understanding is that just like eternal life is a quality of life In Gods presence that endures forever, eternal ruin is a destruction that endures away from God’s presence without end.
Hutch,
I am saying I am doing that also (in this post). We are both working from opposite ends, and you ask questions that I must draw into my presuppositions. I will continue to work through the questions you and LD and Vetta asked and I have enjoyed it the dialouge, I am thinking of some other conterversial stuff I believe to get the fire started. Can you think of any
Lawrence-
I used to think anihilationism did impact the gospel, but although I do not embrace anihilationism, I no longer think that way.
The only negative implication I can see is that if you teach this doctrine (anihilationism) and some of your hearers die and suffer a never ending agony and punishment, then they might curse you…but on the other hand they might just think it will be ending soon…maybe it will end tomorrow…how long have a been here anyway? Grin.
I want to say for clarification, that my questions and thoughts on the matter are not, as for as I can assess my own mind, the result of:
“I think your question shows the common thought very clearly. We portray God (as Dontae’s inferno produced through Catholicism) as an angry God who wants to show how big and bad He is versus a loving God who will punish, but takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.”
It is derived simply by reflecting on the position itself. I don’t have a dog in the hunt. People can believe whatever they want and I can’t change that. If I influence it at all, it’s not really me but the Spirit of God. My questions were genuine and not presuppositional. Those are the questions I would ask if this were the ONLY position.
So far as God being a loving God is concerned. An act of God is automatically loving because it is done by Him. That means that eternal conscious torment is not incompatible with God being a loving God. Does that mean that I can explain that? No. But I’ll just add it to the innumerable other things about God that I can’t explain. I can’t explain how it was loving of God for the nation of Israel to destroy entire nations of men, women (even in the cases where they were instead forced into marriages and slavery) and children. But it doesn’t change my mind about God being a loving God. God’s love or being loving does not have to fit our definition or understanding. That’s the privilage of being God.
LD,
I hope I didn’t covey that the God who sends people to hell is “unloving” or the act itself is unloving. That is because I believe God has a special love for His elect and a general love (the love He calls us to for our wives is different than the love He calls us to for our neighbor and enemy, or at least that is what I gather from Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter) for all of creation/humanity.
So you are correct to say that “whatever God does is loving” in some ways but in other ways I believe God’s love for Satan is on a whole different level. I don’t the two are synonymous. Thoughts?
Big L,
No sir. I was just contrasting the presuppositions. I too, hold that God is loving and will punish the wicked. What we are tossing around is the nature of that punishment.
I think God’s love toward Satan is……..man I have no idea. LOL!!! But it definitely is not synonymous with His love for His Son and His Son’s Bride.
Lionel,
Great discussion!
You stated:
“We will hear “well done” though some of our works may be burned up at the judgment seat of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-15) but we will be saved”
My response:
This scripture provides so much support to what I have been declaring. God uses “fire” figuratively throughout scriptures. This same fire that we are described as being “baptized in”, “refined by”, “tried by” is the same fire that judges the unrighteous. Notice in the this passage of scripture that we are saved as through the fire. It’s God’s Spirit that burns all carnality/flesh/sin/rebellion so that His creation can be refined/restored/redeemed through Christ. This is how Christ draws ALL to Him in this age and in the coming age of judgment.
I would agree with you that God has chosen some in this age for His purposes but scriptures speak of His everlasting love and mercy to all of His creation. Keep studying on this subject.
Again PLEASE GIVE SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE STUDY OF COMMONLY MISTRANSLATED WORDS EION/AION and eionian/aionios. I’M SURE THIS WILL HELP CLEAR UP SOME OF THE CONFUSION WITH MY CURRENT UNDERSTANDING.
BTW:
As I first begin to revisit this subject I moved to the view of annihialation. But as I continued to study and compare different concordances and bible dictionaries and revisited seemingly contradicting passages of scripture, I eventually came to my current belief which you seem to label as Christian Universalism. However, I am still seeking for more understanding and truth with this and all subject matters.
To All,
For all of you who are still stuck on scriptures that speak of aionios life and aionios punishment, try reading and studying from a literal transalation that is not so biased by popular theological slants. Young’s Literal Translation may be of great help for you in your studies on this subject. Hopefully, you will see that these words have been mistranslated in many common Bible translations because of a dominant theology brought forth in part through Roman Catholisicm.
Jon,
I am glad that you are still seeking.
Lionel,
What are your thoughts on Isaiah 4:4?
This seems to be another example where scripture connects God’s judgment through burning (not literal) for restoration.
Hi Jon-
Excellent question.
The prophecy in Isaiah 4 has awesome gospel implications! As we have discussed previously, we cannot take a term a word or even one verse and try to use it to proof-text a teaching that is outside the context of the whole section of scripture. I like what Alan Knox teaches when he says scripture is understood on the paragraph level. We also must remember that the chapter and verse numbering system is a rather recent invention and when we look at Isaiah chapter 4 it is clear to see that verse 1 of chapter 4 finishes the thought of the preceding chapter with Chapter 4:2-6 giving a remarkable prophecy of what the Branch of Yahweh, the Lord Jesus Christ will accomplish “in that day”.
Isaiah points forward to the time of restoration which will follow His judgments. For Yahweh’s whole purpose is to produce for Himself a people holy to Him. Its fulfilment lay in ‘the Israel of God’ which would one day spring from the old Israel (Galatians 6.15-16).
Here is the text:
Isaiah 4.2
‘In that day will the branch (shoot, sprouting) of Yahweh be beautiful and glorious,
And the fruit of the land will be excellent and comely,
For those who have escaped of Israel.’
‘In that day.’ This is a vague connecting time reference meaning a time when God is going to act. It indicates that what is to happen will spring out of what has been described, it will spring from God’s activity some time in the future. In other words following Israel’s low point God will act to improve the situation. Chapter 3 had continual reference to Israel from that time onwards, and ‘in that day’ is simply bringing out that God will not finally leave things like that. He will not for ever leave His people helpless.
Many interpret this ‘branch or shoot of Yahweh’ as referring to the flourishing of the vegetation and the fruit of the land once the judgment in chapter 3 has taken place and those who remain are left in the land, and thus a parallel to the second part of the verse. They see this as what is intended by ‘the sprouting of Yahweh’ (compare its use in 61.11). Compare the desert blossoming like a rose in 35.1 and see 32.15-18 where the pouring out of the Spirit like rain is similarly referred to the fruitfulness of the land, where ‘the fruitful field’ will ‘become a forest’. Thus, they say, God will reveal through the luxurious growth in the land His great favour and graciousness to His own. This it is suggested is especially so in the light of the fact that there has as yet been no reference to the coming king. Had there been we might well have seen it as referring to Him as in Jeremiah 23.5; 33.15; Zechariah 3.8; 6.12.
The whole verse certainly does have the revival of nature in mind, but along with it we should undoubtedly see the reviving of men’s hearts. Compare 32.15-18 with 44.1-5; 61.11. Thus we may see in this description of ‘the sprouting of Yahweh’ the seeds of the idea of the new birth, the regeneration of His people. Compare 55.10, ‘making it bring to birth and bud’ (the particular mood of the verb ‘bring to birth’ almost always means literal birth). The result being that not only the land but also the people are transformed, for they are ‘called holy’ (verse 3). This would certainly tie in with the teaching of John the Baptiser about the coming Great Harvest (Matthew 3.7-12).
However, it may well be that the terminology of ‘the Branch’ as referring to the coming king was already in use (compare 11.1-2) and was already current in the hopes of the people as referring to the hoped for future king, as they looked forward into their future, in which case we may also include that here. For they looked to a king like David who would rule over them wisely and make them triumphant over their enemies and set them high above the nations of the world (Psalm 2), and such a king would elsewhere be likened to the effects of the falling down of rain (Psalm 72.6). Thus we may well see ‘the Branch of Yahweh’ here as representing such a king, as part of God’s overall pouring out of blessing, especially so in the light of the fact that one of Isaiah’s later themes is the failure of the house of David and the raising of a new and glorious king under Yahweh Who will rule triumphantly for ever.
This would then explain how the Davidic king is later seen as the Branch (Shoot), (Jeremiah 23.5; 33.15; compare ‘the true Vine’ of which His people are the branches – John 15.1-6) once the revelation about Him has been made clear. See 11.1, although the word used for ‘Shoot’ there is not the same. The root used here is also found in 61.11; Genesis 19.25; Psalm 65.10; Ezekiel 16.7; 17.9, 10; Hosea 8.7. Thus the ‘sprouting of Yahweh’, which is referring to His renewed people, later certainly becomes especially identified with the One Who sums up His people in Himself, the coming great Davidic king (Jeremiah 23.5; 33.15; Zechariah 3.8; 6.12), Who is Himself the representative of His people. And we may therefore see this ‘Shoot of Yahweh’ as being both the coming king and the regenerated people over whom He will reign. We can compare how the true Israel as the great servant of Yahweh (42.1-4; 49.1-6) is finally seen as summed up in the One Who is the Suffering Servant (50.4-9; 52.13-53.12) Who Himself bears their sin. It thus has in mind the fruitful reign of Christ over His people in this age, and the eternal blessing in the age to come.
For the fact is that the ‘shoot’ here was regarded as a messianic reference as early as the Targums, the Aramaic interpretive translation of the Old Testament that grew up after the Babylonian exile and possibly began during it. The Targums arose as a result of the fact that Aramaic became the language of the people so that the reading of the Hebrew text needed to be supplemented with Aramaic explanatory material, which gradually became formalised and was later committed to writing. The earliest extant written Targumic material is from 2nd century BC (from Qumran). So messianic ideas were early seen as included here when the Targums were written.
Back to the text in question: Isaiah 4. 3-4
‘And it will come about that he who is left in Zion,
And he who remains in Jerusalem,
Each will be called holy, even everyone who is written,
Among the living in Jerusalem-or-everyone who is recorded for life in Jerusalem.,
When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion,
And shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from its midst,
By the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning.’
It is noteworthy that there is at this stage no mention of returning from exile. That is not yet in view. The idea is rather of the remnant remaining after a massively destructive invasion. Once God has judged and refined His people through judgment and fire, those remaining will be called ‘holy’ to Yahweh. The language is apocalyptic. The thought is that they will not only be called ‘holy’ (set apart to God) but will be accepted by God as holy (made so that they are seen as worthy of that separation to God). So the basic pattern is simple. There will be refining judgment, resulting in a holy remnant remaining, who are purified and cleansed from sin and made acceptable to God through His Spirit.
The vision ties in with 2.2-4. The people of God, refined and purified through God’s judgments, will be sheltered by God’s heavenly tabernacle (see verses 5-6). God will have a pure people for Himself. The aim is therefore to describe God’s method of redeeming for Himself a true people for eternity. What will be left when God’s judgmental and refining work is over will be that true people.
Isaiah, who like all the prophets was limited by his understanding that the future must lie in this world, even though new and recreated (66.22), is depicting the final result in terms that his hearers can appreciate. But the New Testament reveals its deeper significance. The sovereign Lord will separate for Himself a new Israel (Romans 11; Galatians 3.7, 29; 6.16; Ephesians 2.19-20 with 12; James 1.1; 1 Peter 1.1; Revelation 7.4-8; 14.1) who will have their part in the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4.26; Hebrews 12.22) once those who are unworthy have been rejected (Romans 11.17, 20). And the names of those who are His true people will be written in heaven (Luke 10.20). This will follow God’s judgments on the rejected part of the old Israel through judgment and burning, which will root out and wash away the filthiness (dung, vomit, that which disgusts) and purge the bloodguiltiness (1.15, 21), resulting in the new Israel made up of those still part of (the faithful in Israel), or grafted into (the saved nations), the olive tree (Romans 11.16-17).
‘He who is left in Zion, and he who remains in Jerusalem, each will be called holy.’ The idea is that what God had aimed at in Exodus 19.6 will be achieved. This could only literally happen in the everlasting kingdom unless we are to adulterate the meaning of ‘holy’. They are not so in any so-called millennial kingdom, for even to those who believe in such a kingdom that fails in the end. Nor will earthly Israel ever be so. They were called to be a ‘holy nation’ (Exodus 19.6), but they failed. So God will now raise up His own holy nation, consisting of holy individuals, each separated to God and endued with His holiness. They will be truly holy. This is the ultimate, not an intermediate stage.
‘Even everyone who is written among the living in Jerusalem.’ In those days cities had their lists of citizens which contained the names of all alive in the city. When they died their names would be expunged. That God has such a list of His own comes out regularly (Psalm 69.28; Daniel 12.1; Malachi 3.16; Luke 10.20; Philippians 4.3; Revelation 3.5; 13.8; 17.8; 20.15). Those whose names God has recorded are the ones who will be made holy. They will be the ones who will be in the new Jerusalem.
‘When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from its midst.’
A thorough washing and purging is necessary. As it is wrought by the Spirit of judgment and burning it clearly includes the destruction of the wicked as well as the purifying of the righteous. It is not the same as 1.16, although we need not doubt the Spirit’s work of cleansing on all those who respond to God.
The filth of the daughters of Zion referred to here has been described in 3.16-24 (note especially the rottenness instead of sweetness in verse 24) demonstrating that God does not treat such behaviour lightly. But it is the arrogance and total selfishness and superficiality that is being rebuked rather than the specific details referred to, although the latter were symbolic of the former. The men are seen as blood guilty (1.15, 21). Their sins are hatred, violence and a determination to get what they can at any cost.
‘By the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning.’ This could refer to a ‘wind’ of judgment from God seen as blowing over Jerusalem, bringing judgment and wafting the flames. Or it could refer to the Spirit of God so active. In view of the purifying nature of the activity, and its purpose, it is probably better to see a reference to the Spirit of God, depicting God’s personal activity in the events. It is the action of the sovereign Lord. The difference between ‘spirit’ and ‘Spirit’ in such contexts is marginal. Both are depicting the direct activity of God.
Back to Isaiah 4.5-6
‘And Yahweh will create over the whole dwelling place of Mount Zion,
And over her assemblies,
A cloud and smoke by day,
And the shining of a flaming fire by night.
For over all the glory a canopy.
And there will be a pavilion for a shadow in the daytime from the heat,
And for a refuge and for a covert from storm and from rain.’
The word used here for ‘dwellingplace’ regularly refers to God’s heavenly dwellingplace or the ‘foundation’ of His throne (Psalm 33.14; 89.14; 97.2; Isaiah 18.4; 1 Kings 8.39, 43, 49; 2 Chronicles 6.30, 33, 39) and only rarely to the earthly temple as God’s dwellingplace (1 Kings 8.13; 2 Chronicles 6.2; Daniel 8.11). Thus there is a heavenly air about it. ‘Her assemblies’ are those who gather there, His purified people (compare 4.2-4; Revelation 14.1-5).
He ‘creates’ over it. The word is only used of God creating, and the verb never takes an object. Thus it appears to signify creation out of nothing. It is used of God’s activity in producing something new that only He can produce (compare Genesis 1.1, 21, 27).
The cloud by day and fire by night are reminiscent of God’s presence as revealed with His people in the wilderness journey where He acted in this way as guide and protector (Exodus 13.21-22 and often). Thus Yahweh will be personally present with His people in His heavenly dwellingplace as He was with His people of old when He redeemed them from Egypt and made His covenant with them.
‘Over all the glory a canopy.’ Over His revealed glory will be a ‘canopy’, a chuppa. This is the name used for the wedding canopy under which the bride and groom sat during the wedding feast. This would instantly spring to the mind of the hearer when he heard the word. Yahweh is here seen as ‘married’ to His people through the covenant (compare 54.5; 62.5). They do not have to go desperately seeking a husband like the women in 4.1, for Yahweh is their husband and lord.
There will also be a pavilion to provide protection from heat, There will also be a pavilion to provide protection from heat, rain and storm, that is from trials and troubles and the vicissitudes of life. Thus will God watch over His people in the everlasting kingdom.
The word for ‘pavilion’ when connected with Yahweh is used of a place of divine mystery and protection, a place where He and His own are secreted in mystery and safety, away from where men can interfere (Psalm 18.11; 31.20). It is regularly used of temporary booths in which men found shelter (1.8), especially at the Feast of Booths (or Tabernacles). Its whole idea is that of protection.
The picture behind this chapter is glorious. It describes those who are the sprouting of Yahweh, His true people, made beautiful and glorious; gives a guarantee to them of full provision for all their needs; describes their being accepted by God as made holy; declares that all sin will have been washed away; and guarantees the continual presence of God with them in cloud and fire; and declares that over all the glory will be a ‘chuppa’, a wedding canopy, signifying the closest possible relationship with God. And this accompanied by full protection from all that could harm them. And all possibly under the tender rule of ‘the Shoot of Yahweh’.
While it is in the end a picture of the final state the principle is continuous. We need not doubt that it includes the present state, for those who have come under the Kingly Rule of God have thereby already become citizens of Heaven (Philippians 3.20; Ephesians 2.6) and are under His special protection. They are already in the Kingdom of His Beloved Son (Colossians 1.13). He is the Vine and we are the branches.
So we see that everyone who is recorded for life in Jerusalem will be cleansed and sanctified by God and those who are not recorded for life in Jerusalem will be “purged” (a ridding of persons considered treacherous or disloyal, to forcefully eliminate) away from God’s presence.-Isaiah 4:3-4
This section of scripture does not teach that everyone will be cleansed by God’s refining fire/sanctifying presence, but only those who are a part of the true Israel of God, those numbered or recorded for life in Jerusalem.
Jon,
The earth will be “restored” by burning through judgment (Jerusalem being a picture of the sons of God) some things/people will be lost in that restoration process. Much like a car, when you restore a car, often times there are things that most be destroyed in the process.
Hutch, be bringing the exegesis
I took my time and spell checked that one! How ya like me now?
Hutch,
Thank you for your sincere commentary.
Lionel,
You stated:
“The earth will be “restored” by burning through judgment (Jerusalem being a picture of the sons of God) some things/people will be lost in that restoration process. Much like a car, when you restore a car, often times there are things that most be destroyed in the process.”
My response:
I believe that is true as it relates to all sin/carnality/flesh/disobedience. All of these things that are against God will be consumed by Him, but not His creation itself. God’s creation is not to be destroyed but merely refined from all of the waste (gehanna).
How can you get around the many scriptures that speak of God restoring all of His creation by stating that some of His creation will not be retored but completely annihialated? How does God get glory through creating a being just to be later tormented and then destroyed? Afterall, they, just like us, cannot resist God’s will.