Redemptive judgment in hell? Pt 3
This post needs to be read in light of the previous two in this series: part 1 and part 2. In the following I offer a quick critique of how some Universalists use/read Paul in relation to the question of redemptive judgment in hell.
The simple point to make in relation to the claims of redemptive judgment in Paul based on such texts as 1 Cor 3:11-15; 5:1-5 and 11:29-32 is that in the latter (11:29-32) Paul makes a division between a) the sort of redemptive judgment experienced by believers, and b) the condemnation experienced by nonbelievers.
'But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world' (1 Cor 11:32)
Paul, here, arguably makes a distinction between two judgments (cf. Schnabel, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 668-69). On the one hand the judgment of believers (paideuo,meqa) is educative and redemptive. The final part of 11:32, on the other hand, speaks of the condemnation and judgment of the world (katakriqw/menÅ), a theme Paul touches upon in 1 Cor 6:2 and well as Rom 3:6. Although there is some debate concerning the nature of the clause following the i[na the point made here is essentially untouched.
1 Cor 11:29-32 cannot, therefore, be appealed to as Pauline support of a redemptive judgment of unbelievers in hell. It will be noticed that the material in both 1 Cor 3 and 5 is evidence of redemptive judgment on believers. What is most surprising is Paul's confidence that the sinner mentioned in 1 Cor 5 will be saved on the day of the Lord (5:5). Many commentators import a 'hope' element into this verse to make it comply with their theology (Perhaps it is now more obvious why I cited 1 Cor 5:5 in critical dialogue with Chris VanLandingham's thesis, here).
Indeed, one can suspect a common thread in the undisputed Pauline corpus in terms of judgment when 1 Cor 15:23-24 is added to the mix. There Paul speaks of an eschatological order: Christ, the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. After this comes the end (15:24 – Paul here also speaks of the destruction of 'every ruler and every authority and power' – annihilation[?]). In 1 Cor 3:6 Paul speaks of believers judging the world. It would appear that Paul envisages a judgment of the world after that of believers. And this final judgment is the condemnation mentioned in 11:32. If this is correct then the inheriting of the kingdom of God is to be related to 1 Cor 15:24. To be remembered is that Paul envisages that there will be those who do not inherit the kingdom of God. This is the post redemptive judgment world condemnation exclusion from the kingdom of God (cf. 'Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!' - 1 Cor 6:9; 'I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God' - Gal 5:21).
This division between the world, on the one hand, and believers, on the other is one Paul regularly employs, and does so with an eye on the eschaton. For example, 1 Cor 16:22 'Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord. Our Lord, come!' (I prefer not to exclude an eschatological overtone in this Maranatha cry). Also noteworthy is Paul's rhetoric in 1 Thess 4. Some in the community had died and this had thrown many into confusion. Paul starts his argument with the following words:
'But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope' (1Thess 4:13).
There are those who 'have no hope'. The previous eschatological material in Paul would imply that this is more than a statement concerning the subjective state of certain individuals, and an objective matter relating to their destination (as also implied by Paul's continued talk of the hope of believers in relation to their destination). Believers, on the other hand, as Paul will continue to argue, have the hope of forever being with the Lord. The dead in Christ rise first, followed by those still left alive. It would appear that Paul's language in this passage should be taken to mean that Christ returns to skies of the earth and the believers rise up to meet the Lord. Then, the Lord returns to the earth with the believers to judge it. Then the business of judgment on those who 'have no hope' starts.
I realize that many Universalist will want to suggest a theological reading or objection at this or that point (and they may well be correct to do so. My point in these posts is to clarify the claims of some Universalists in relation to Paul and what Paul believed). Some may also want to reference passages in 1 Cor 15 and Rom 5 in support of their objection. However, if we are going to the Pauline texts attempting to use Paul in support of universalism or a more traditional or annihilationist reading then it needs to first be realizes one is then making a historical claim, an exegetical claim about how Paul is best understood. (Of course, some may claim that Rom 5:18-19 can be understood as authoritative without recourse to Paul's authorial intent. However, and first, I am reluctant to sweep the notion of authorial intent away – cf. Max Turner's article in Between Two Horizon's – and second, if one takes this route, one wonders how Paul's letters, and not just passages, are functioning as Scripture in this scenario – I will return to this point at another time) At this point I would argue that the brief outline I have sketched above concerning judgment in Paul is a plausible historical claim. For example, the Jewish groups that produced the documents found at the Dead Sea speak of the 'salvation' of the elect of the elect. Those who are safe are those 'in their group'. Those outside will suffer judgment and destruction. This is a pretty consistent picture throughout the texts. Paul fits very well against this backdrop and thus the Universalist is forced to make a reading on theological grounds that transcend and even subvert Paul's intent.
What all of this also shows us is that 2 Thess 1:8-9 is hardly the only problem text in Paul for Universalists.
Labels: Universalism
posted by Chris Tilling @ 4:59 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Nice work - does it occur to anyone that you have read and who also is a 'believer' that Paul might have been wrong in respect to what he seems to say on some things - and that we are allowed to judge this chief of sinners on the basis of his more mature writing? Is it equally possible that some of his followers did not understand him and parrotted his words without knowledge - so if they are indeed writers of his pseudipigraphy, we need to judge them also? - don't take these questions as angry - though its not beyond my capacity :) - thanks for the work you do.
Hi Bob,
"Paul might have been wrong in respect to what he seems to say on some things - and that we are allowed to judge this chief of sinners on the basis of his more mature writing?"
A good question! My approach hasn't wanted to shut such questions out of the game entirely, but first we need to simply ascertain what Paul said. It is an exercise prior to (yet at the same time in cooperation to) the task of theologising thruogh matters. Dunn, as you know, likes the old theologising with Paul, bringing this Apostles views to the table. My task was simply exegetical, to find out what Paul is bringing to the table, If you understand me. As to the 'more mature' bit of your question, I guess the only way we can find out what is the more 'mature' is later on in this discussion. But I'm not yet sure what would count as the more mature, nor on what grounds we should determine it.
How do you think we can find out what are the more 'mature' parts?
Wow. If New Testament theology studies cannot trust the straightforward teachings of Paul without filtering his writings through Bob's redaction, we're going to be pretty short on source material. Sounds like anything goes, to me.
This is not to say that Bob is wrong. Rather, it is my fear that if he is right, we are left entirely to our own devices. All attempts at truth statements are futile.
~ Cliff Martin
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
Out of curiosity, if one accepts the Reformed, Evangelical understanding of justification yet accepts the above passage and the related Galatians passage as indicative of Paul's non-universalism, then how does said passages fit well with Reformation soteriology? It is my understanding that the Reformed (and even Lutheran) doctrine of Election inevitably results in a doctrine of universalism from the need to account for God's desire for the redemption of all (assuming that one recognizes the obvious inadequacies of Sproul/Piper/White/etc. apologetics on this issue). If our salvation is wholly gift and outside of our willing (i.e., Election), then why would God not redeem all? It seems the universalists are going the necessary step on Reformation assumptions. If a non-universalist Protestant wants to throw all these scripture passages in their face, it is disingenuous if they do not simultaneously deal with the root soteriology that forced the universalists in such an exegetical mess.
My comment is influenced by the statement of a 7-year old who suggested that if you don't behave in heaven you'll get kicked out. In discussing concepts of rewards and punishments, heaven and hell, we ought to think seriously about who is going to be experiencing those eternities. If they will be static versions of us, who no longer have free will, then this raises the question of what the point was of creating humans with free will in the first place: if God is happy to make us 'be good' for the rest of eternity, then why not do so from the outset? If free will is truly valued, then the notion that there will be a static permanent place we will each occupy permanently is hard to reconcile with this.
Chris,
[WARNING: LONG COMMENT REPLY APPROACHING! 8 pages worth. From someone you're not familiar with. If your eyes are glazing over already, take that as a sign and move along--it won’t get any better. {g}]
I’m having to do some pickups here from your previous two parts. I haven’t looked through all the comments, so there is every probability that I’m merely dittoing (or behind) in mentioning some things. If possible, consider the repetition to be independent witness or something. {g} (I say that because I’ve never read ‘Gregory’ MacD’s book, and only recently have read Talbott’s. I decided in favor of universalism without reference to either of them, or to Balthasar incidentally, whom I consider to be denying tenets of theological orthodoxy in the midst of his exposition of the position.)
Comments from Part 1:
{{3. [of a typical argument used by biblical universalists] Those who don't want to conclude that the bible is muddled will then argue that the universalism texts are less ambiguous and clearer than the separation texts, and ergo the 'final division' texts must be understood differently.}}
While I think there are fairly clear universalism texts in Paul (not to say elsewhere), I wouldn’t go so far as to say that these are necessarily and on the balance less ambiguous and more clear than the separation texts. My criteria for reading one set in light of another set, has nothing to do with that.
{{4.1 God's judgment is not retributive without also being restorative (sometimes retributive may be played against restorative understandings of judgment by Universalists).}}
I think I would say rather, both in terms of Pauline theology and OT theology of punishment, that the goal in mind is literally re-tribute-ive: a restoration of the rebel relationship to fidelity. When every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord--i.e. that God is the Lord--that’s a confession of fidelity, not simply of ontological status. The reconciliation with all things whether in the heavens or in the earth (per Col 1), has to involve the restoration of tribute to God; and not just a hypocritical or resentful tribute. ‘Confession’ is, I think, always a term of real loyalty elsewhere in scripture. (It may be misplaced loyalty, but it’s loyalty. In this case the loyalty being restored is to God.) I know Talbott makes a similar point.
This will be brought up again, very explicitly, in one of the verse selections you yourself bring up--ostensibly against universalism!
{{4.2 There is only one major 'final division' text in Paul in comparison to the many clear universalism texts (2 Thess 1:9).}}
My position doesn’t rely on this being the only major final division text; nor on calling 2 Thess into suspicion of authorship, btw, though that’s one option that perhaps shouldn’t be discounted. But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander--Colossians is under similar suspicion, neh? {g!} If pseudoepigraphists are parroting Paul badly, it could go either way; indeed, one way or another, we have to say that subsequent teachers _have_ been “parroting” Paul badly after all, don’t we? {ironic g} But my point is that I don’t want to appeal to this, because there’s no way outside of begging the question that it might not be turned against me just as easily.
In regard to part 2:
{{I will now list the verses cited in Paul used to imply a restorative judgment of God in hell on those not yet 'in Christ'}}
While the three verses (all from 1 Cor as it happens) are important for considering purgatorial purposes in hell, I certainly wouldn’t rest my case on those. However, since 1 Cor 11:29-32 is being marshalled, then I think it would be important to call the Hebraist (who is clearly an associate of Paul, if not Paul himself) to the account, since the excerpt you gave is like a small synopsis of several whole chapters therein (themselves borrowing principles from widespread prophetic testimony of OT scripture, using Israel as the example.)
One might thence conclude, as I believe Roman Catholics do, that there is a purgatory process for those whom God intends to save, i.e. for Christians; but only a hopeless hell for those whom God does not intend to save. (A position that could, in theory, be picked up and applied very similarly by Calvinists in regard to limited election, though I don’t recall any offhand who do so apply it.)
Now for part 3, bringing us up to date:
{{The simple point to make in relation to the claims of redemptive judgment in Paul based on such texts as 1 Cor 3:11-15; 5:1-5 and 11:29-32 is that in the latter (11:29-32) Paul makes a division between a) the sort of redemptive judgment experienced by believers, and b) the condemnation experienced by nonbelievers.}}
Since we’re doing exegetics here (and not theology?), I will point out that this verse is provided in context of a larger discussion, specifically involving the taking of the Lord’s Supper in a proper instead of an improper fashion: a topic not unrelated to the exposition of the Hebraist beginning in chp 6 of that epistle and more-or-less continuing (with some topical breaks) up through the arguable climax of his epistle at the end of chp 12. Once the Hebraist goes to the trouble to identify, in that climax, the purgatorial fire with God Himself (thus, one supposes, with the 3rd Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, following cues from elsewhere in scripture), we then are left with a highly problematic dilemma! Either our God is a consuming fire in hell as well--in which case we’ve been told in several places what His purposes are in doing so, not least in GosMark 9:49-50, which specifically has to do with the purpose of the everlasting unquenchable fire in Gehenna anyway--or else there is more than one everlasting fire, and we’re treading hard on cosmological dualism of some sort. (Opps. Can’t do exegetics apart from theology after all... {g})
One would suppose that a proponent of orthodoxy would affirm God’s omnipresence at this point; but I routinely see nominal proponents of orthodoxy (including a private respondent of mine just recently) flippy-flopping in all sorts of directions to keep that fire from being identified with God, up to and including effectively denying God’s omnipresence if that’s what it takes. Why?--in order to affirm the hopelessness of punishment in hell. Over against at least one (actually more than one) basic tenet of orthodox theology, no less.
Um. Me orthodox. {g} Go orthodoxy! Consequently, then, I affirm (which is supported by scripture anyway) that God is the consuming everlasting fire in Gehenna (and/or hades, to the extent He is operating to the same purpose in that state of a soul’s existence). No final division _from_ God, then. But what is God’s active goal as the consuming fire? This is told in several places, including Heb 12 and GosMark 9. That goal is the salvation of the person from sin--not incidentally, the reason why the Son Incarnate was named ‘Yehshua’, too!
And all this, without having really touched yet precisely how 1 Cor 11:32 fits into its larger context! Which I will leave as an exercise for the reader. {g} (Hint: how often do variants of krin show up in the surrounding contexts back through, say, v 27; and how are they topically applied; and what relevant contextual/grammatic distinctions are there, if any, from the katakritho_men of the cosmos? This has not yet been done in your exegetical rebuttal, though one might have supposed it would be highly important to do...)
{{It will be noticed that the material in both 1 Cor 3 and 5 is evidence of redemptive judgment on believers.}}
True enough; though in the parallel topic of Heb 6, people have a tendency to read it as though the people being judged there are _not_ in fact believers.
In point of fact, the distinction between believer-and-non-believer breaks down when it comes to punishment; the question is one of being a loyal servant or a rebel servant of God. Rebel servants get punished. Loyal servants don’t. Why do rebel servants get punished? _That’s_ the question in need of answering; and Paul answers it well enough in 1 Cor 11:32. The principle applies, though, just as well to other rebel servants, not merely to ‘Christian’ rebel servants! (For, in the long run, all rebels are rebel servants of God!) Paul’s use of krin- cognates, from vv 27-32, looks consistent with that notion, to me. If opinions differ, I would want to know _why_ they differ on that point.
One thing worth considering here, is that a division of purpose in God’s punishment upon these-rebel-servants over here (say, Christians or Jews), versus those-rebel-servants over there (say, devils, who are rebel angels), will need to be proposed while still maintaining the coherency of God’s multi-personal psychology (so to speak). This is obviously going to be far more of a challenge for a non-universalist, than for us; but it’s a challenge that will have to be faced, sooner or later, if any kind of coherent theology on the topic is to be proffered.
{{Indeed, one can suspect a common thread in the undisputed Pauline corpus in terms of judgment when 1 Cor 15:23-24 is added to the mix. There Paul speaks of an eschatological order: Christ, the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. After this comes the end (15:24 – Paul here also speaks of the destruction of 'every ruler and every authority and power' – annihilation[?]).}}
Indeed!--and more indeedy do, if verse 22 is added to that mix as well! {lol!} Not to say vv 25-29; though those would seem to be ridiculously important verses _not_ to be saying something about, in that context!
The whole paragraph is an explanation, by Paul, for why the Corinthians should be hoping for their own resurrection as following from the Res of Christ, and moreover just how exceedingly far that hope is to be carried.
The nullification (katarge_se(i)_, is a very unusual word, and can be translated various ways: undoing, for instance. (Literally it’s down-un-act, with grammatic suffix alteration.) We may then say that Christ will be undoing (at the very least) each sovereignty and authority and power other than the Father’s, which in context means rebel attempts at these, which in turn fits Paul’s “warring principalities” theology elsewhere. So far so good. But just how far does the undoing go?
It could be, theoretically, as far as annihilation, admittedly. But the wider context of Paul’s parenthetical explanation of the importance of the _resurrection_, not only of Christ and those who have died in Christ but of all those who have died in Adam, doesn’t allow this interpretation, I think.
(Incidentally, when Paul speaks of believers judging the world in 1 Cor 3:6, and you locate that as involving a judgment of the world after that of believers, then that could synch up pretty well with the final two chapters of RevJohn, where the members of the Bride of Christ are, along with the Spirit, encouraging those who still love and practice their sinning to drink and wash freely of the river of life coming out of the never-closed gates of the New Jersalem, so that they may obtain permission to enter the city and be healed by the leaves of the tree inside the city. That’s certainly a judging of the world in the restorative sense, and it’s certainly happening after not only the judgment of the Church but after the lake of fire judgment, too! I say ‘could synch up’, because I have no idea what verse you’re really talking about: it can’t be 1 Cor 3:6, which has nothing to do with judgment at all. {g} But I do recall the concept being Pauline, so I know it’s around somewhere...)
What then does it say, in that paragraph of 1 Cor 15:20-28?
The pickups are from vv 12-19:
.......[begin excerpt here, translation largely follows A. E. Noch]
Now, if Christ is being heralded, that He has been roused from among the dead, why is it that some of those among you are saying that there is _no_ resurrection of the dead? But if there is _no_ resurrection from the dead, then neither has Christ been roused! And if Christ has not be roused, then consequently our heralding is for nothing, and your faith is for nothing!--and we are also being found to be false witnesses of God, seeing that we are testifying, by God [on oath], that He rouses Christ--Whom, consequently, He rouses not if it happens to be that the dead are not being roused! For if the dead are not being roused, neither has Christ been roused; and if Christ has not been roused, your faith is worthless: you are still in your sins! Consequently, those who are also put to repose in Christ, perished. If we are having an expectation in Christ for _this_ life only, we are more forlorn than all humanity!
But!--Christ has now been roused from the among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing. For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man comes also the resurrection from the dead. For even as all are dying in Adam, therefore _all_ in Christ shall be also filled with life!
But each [will be filled with life] in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; after which, those who are Christ’s in His presence; after which, the completion [or consummation], when He will be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father--when He will be undoing every sovereignty and every authority and power. For He must continue reigning [Himself] until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The final enemy is being abolished: death!--for He subjects _all_ under His feet.
Now, whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that this is aside from the One Who Himself is subjecting all to Him. [i.e. this doesn’t mean the Father will be subject to Christ, but the Father is subjecting all to Christ]
Now, whenever ‘the all’ may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself shall also be subjected to Him Who is subjecting the all to Him--that God may be All in all.
.......[end excerpt]
It seems as clear as it can be possibly stated (though admittedly the particular translator I was largely borrowing from there doesn’t seem to have believed this himself!), that the goal is for God to be altogether in everyone, and that Christ is going to keep the trampling going (so to speak), until this goal has been accomplished. But the subjection being aimed at, isn’t the hopeless destruction of His enemies (whether by annihilation or by never-ending hopeless torment); otherwise it would be worse than useless for the unity of this subjection to be completed _including_ the Son to the Father! Is the Son hopelessly damning _Himself_ in one of the traditional fashions!? By no means! But all (as in Colossians) are to be brought together in Christ, and in Christ all are to be brought together with God, so that God may be altogether in everyone. Very obviously, this includes those rebel rulers/authorities/powers.
Consequently, then, I’m more than a little glad you brought up 1 Cor 15! {lol!} Thanks!
{{(cf. 'Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!' - 1 Cor 6:9; 'I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God' - Gal 5:21)}}
Of course not. Duh. How could they inherit, so long as they continue to love and practice their sinning?
But that is quite a different thing from claiming that God will make sure they either cease to exist or else that they will continue to love and practice their sinning forever!
{{There are those who 'have no hope'. [per 1 Thess 4:13]}}
The previous eschatological material in Paul (ironically) would imply that this _is_ no more than a statement concerning the subjective state of certain individuals. {g}
Or is God, then, to be an enactor of hopelessness!? Very God forbid!--for it is certainly clear enough (including in that eschatological material), that God is actively responsible for the punishment of sinners. But these three things shall be remaining (1 Cor 13): hope and faith and love. (And the greatest of these is love.)
{{Paul fits very well against this backdrop and thus the Universalist is forced to make a reading on theological grounds that transcend and even subvert Paul's intent.}}
If the objection here is that a prophet speaking under inspiration would of course understand the whole scope of what he was talking about, making no mistakes on it, I can show historical examples from the scriptures that this is not necessarily the case. I don’t have trouble believing that a prophet may be inspired to speak truth beyond what he himself is capable of seeing at the time--I have no problem with this theologically, and I have no problem with this as a matter of actual occasional story-context in the scriptures.
That being said, there is more than one way to make a reading on theological grounds that transcend and even subvert Paul’s intent. And I think Paul’s intent can be discerned well enough--with fuller reading. {s} (Whereas, on the other hand, I am not sure that James understood that people are not really supposed to be saved _from the fire_ per se. If it comes to a choice between them, I go with the words of Christ on this, rather than with James: for everyone will be salted with fire, and salt is good. Have salt in yourselves, therefore, and be at peace with one another.)
JRP
Woa, now that is a long comment! Great stuff! Thanks for engaging with me. I'll give it a read and respond to other comments tomorrow.
Post a Comment
<< Home