The Restoration of All: Universalism in Early Christianity (part 3)

Part 2: Post-Apostolic Fathers

The Second-Century Apologists

    After the ‘Apostolic Fathers,’ most of the surviving Christian writings of the second century come from a group of apologists, including Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, and others. These apologists used Scripture and philosophy to refute ‘pagan,’ Jewish, and ‘gnostic’ (e.g., Valentinian, Marcionite) views, along with other Christian views that they considered heretical (e.g., modalism). They strongly influenced the development of proto-orthodox Christianity as it defined itself in contrast to these other positions.

‘Mathetes’

    The anonymous author of the Epistle to Diognetus, known as ‘Mathetes’ due to his self-designation as a “student [mathētēs] of the apostles” (Ep Diog 11.1), has been variously dated between ca. AD 130 and the end of the second century. Mathetes believed that the soul is inherently immortal, in line with the Greek philosophical speculations of his day (Ep Diog 6.8). However, he also believed that the wicked would be punished by “the real death,” namely, “the aeonian fire that will punish to the end [mechri telous]” (10.7). If mechri telous is an idiom referring to something unending, which is possible, then Mathetes may have been an infernalist. If, like later universalists and arguably Paul, he believed that the telos would involve the universal restoration – or the annihilation of unbelievers – he may have been a universalist or an annihilationist.

Justin Martyr

    Justin Martyr was a Middle Platonist philosopher who converted to Christianity in the mid-2nd century, and was martyred for his beliefs in ca. AD 165. After his conversion, Justin rejected the Platonist view that the soul is immortal, but held that if a soul is pious, it will “never die” (Dialogue with Trypho 5–6). A person will only receive immortality if they petition God and are found worthy of him (1 Apology 10; 13; 21; 39; 42). Upon death, the soul of a person does not go directly to heaven (Dial 80), but it does go to an intermediate state where it’s either blessed or punished (1 Apol 18; 20; Dial 5). The devil and his angels, along with sinners, will “be destroyed... and be no more” (Dial 45). Yet before this destruction, the wicked will retain sensation and suffer aeonian punishment for more than a thousand years (1 Apol 8; 18; 28; 52; Dial 45). Justin’s idea of the ultimate fate of unbelievers is not entirely developed, but his view appears to be that the wicked will be tormented for long aeon(s) and then annihilated.

Tatian of Adiabene

    Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr and an apologist, who formed his own church in Assyria after the death of Justin. According to Irenaeus, he was expelled from the ‘proto-orthodox’ church and converted to a type of ‘gnosticism’ influenced by Valentinus and Marcion (AH 1.28.1). In Tatian’s sole surviving writing, the Oration to the Greeks, he says that the soul “is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal,” and that it “is dissolved with the body” (Or ad Graec 13). He continues that if a soul does not know the truth, after being resurrected it will receive “death by punishment in immortality,” but if it knows the truth “it dies not” (13). Thus, after we die, humans will “receive [either] the immortal with enjoyment or the painful with immortality” (14). This appears to be a nascent infernalism, although it’s hard to see how this squares with Tatian’s criticism of the soul’s immortality.

Theophilus of Antioch

    Theophilus was the bishop of Antioch in the late 2nd century. His sole surviving work, the Apology to Autolycus, is written as an appeal to a pagan friend about Christianity. Theophilus says that whether or not Autolycus believes now, he will see God in the resurrection and then believe (Apol ad Autol I.7–8). He warns about the aeonian punishment of the wicked “in proportion to their deeds” that was taught about even by the Greek poets and philosophers (I.14; II.34–38).

    With regard to the curse of physical death and expulsion from paradise, Theophilus says that this was actually a “great kindness to humanity.” The human was “not allowed to remain in sin forever, but... cast out of paradise, so that having atoned for the sin by punishment within an appointed time, and having been disciplined, he should afterward be restored” (II.26). Humanity will therefore be restored to paradise “after the resurrection and judgment”; like a vessel that is broken and remade, the human is broken up in death “so that he may rise in the resurrection whole, I mean, spotless and righteous and immortal” (II.26). Theophilus claims that humanity was created by nature neither mortal nor immortal, but so that the human can attain immortality as a reward and “become God” or else “be the cause of death to himself” (II.27).

    In Theophilus’ comments on the sixth day of creation, he says that the beasts that were created on that day are an allegory for wicked men, and “when man will make his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, these too will be restored to their original gentleness” (II.17). Although he may not have been a universalist, and he certainly doesn’t present a mature doctrine of the universal restoration, Theophilus develops several ideas – including the view that physical death is a restorative punishment, and the concept of a restoration of humanity to its original condition – that would be adopted and expanded upon by later Christian universalists.

Melito of Sardis

    Melito was bishop of Sardis in the late second century. In his apology to Marcus Aurelius, he writes that immortality is a gift given by God to those who serve him and seek after goodness (Apol 7.4; 12.5). “At the last time,” everything including humanity will be burnt up by fire, “and the righteous will be preserved from wrath” (18.13–14). Once again, this is not a fully developed view, but Melito’s statements point toward conditionalism or annihilationism rather than universalism or infernalism.

Irenaeus of Lyon

    Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyon in France toward the end of the second century. Unfortunately, most of his book Against Heresies is preserved mostly in Latin, and only portions of the original Greek text have survived. The Latin version may not perfectly reflect Irenaeus’ actual views, especially on the duration of punishment, as it translates aiōnios as aeternus (e.g., AH 1.10.1).

    Irenaeus frequently speaks about the punishment of aeonian fire, or aeternus ignis in the Latin (e.g., AH I.10.1; II.27.7; III.4.2; 23.3; IV.27.4; 33.11; 40.1–41.3; V.26.2–28.4; 35.2). This self-inflicted punishment is “death,” which is the loss of all that is good; since good things are “aeonian and unending [ateleutēta],” the loss of them is also “aeonian and unending [ateleutētos]” (V.27.2). The soul continues to exist after death, but those who fail to recognize the God who bestows the gift of immortality deprive themselves of “continuance forever and ever” (II.34.3–4). Immortality and incorruptibility are a gift for those who are adopted as sons of God, and are not received by those who despise the Son of God (III.19.1). There will be a general resurrection (V.35.2), but the “resurrection of the just” to immortality is for believers alone (II.29.2; IV.18.5; V.35.1). This points toward annihilationism.

    On the other hand, some of Irenaeus’ statements point toward universalism. [1] In fragment 39, he says that Christ, at the telos, will “do away with all evil and reconcile all beings, so that there may be an end to all impurities.” Irenaeus says that no creature can “go far astray,” since God wills that they exist and they maintain “existence and continuance” so long as he wills it (II.34.3). God allowed humanity to be swallowed by death, like Jonah was swallowed by the whale, but will reconcile humanity to himself through moral discipline (AH III.20). Irenaeus rebukes Tatian for denying that Adam, in whom all humanity is represented, must be saved, and quotes Romans 5:12–21 (III.23.2–8). Those who incline toward evil, and all who die in Adam as “soulish,” will “live in Christ as spiritual” when their fleshly desires are destroyed (V.1.3).

    Just as Christ is the recapitulation of all humanity (III.18.7; V.20.2; 21.1), the Antichrist will be the recapitulation of all evil and ignorance (V.29.2; 30.1). He is given no name, only a number, “as one who has no existence... for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed” (V.30.4). The resurrection of the just will first take place, but after this will take place the general resurrection of people (V.35.2). In the restoration of creation, no created substance will be destroyed, only “that in which transgression has occurred”; humanity will not be such as to “vanish with non-existent things, but [will] progress with those things that have existence” (V.36.1). All will see God according to their worthiness (with gradations), and will continually ascend through the Spirit and the Son to the Father, in support of which Irenaeus cites 1 Corinthians 15:25–28 (V.36.1–2). This is why the Son became incarnate, that “the one human race” and “the creature” would ascend past the angels to be made in the image and likeness of God (V.36.3).

    As with Theophilus of Antioch, the views of Irenaeus on the ultimate fate of unbelievers are not entirely clear. Notably, in his description of the final state, he refers to the “worthy” and “righteous” but makes no mention of the unworthy or unrighteous, which fits with either annihilationism or universalism. Whatever his own views were, Irenaeus develops several points in his polemics against the ‘gnostics’ that would be adopted and further developed by later Christian universalist – especially the ontological non-subsistence of evil, that God does not allow any of his created substances to pass out of existence, and that Christ assumed the whole of humanity in his incarnation.

Athenagoras of Athens

    Athenagoras the Athenian was a philosopher-apologist of the late second century. In his apologetic Plea for the Christians, he refers to punishment from God, but says nothing about its duration (Legat 31, 36). In his treatise on the resurrection, his views are fleshed out more clearly. Athenagoras believed that the soul exists after death of body, but its situation during death is like sleep, with no sensation or awareness of existence (De Resurrectione 16–17, 20). The resurrection is a change for the better, for everyone who is in existence at that time (12). The natural end of humanity is to be reconciled to God, and this proves the necessity of a future resurrection (14–15). 

    Athenagoras held that both soul and body must be judged together for their deeds, so there will be punishments after the resurrection (20–23). Yet the ultimate telos of every human is the same, to “delight unceasingly in the contemplation of” God — “the great multitude of those who resist this appropriate end does not make void the common lot,” because rewards and punishments are proportioned to the deeds done by each individual (25). Neither of Athenagoras’ writings provide a clear view of the ultimate fate of unbelievers. His argument in On the Resurrection could be read in a way that points to either infernalism or universalism, depending on how we read his concluding statements – whether he’s saying that the majority of people do not reach their natural end in this life, or that they never reach their natural end.

Clement of Alexandria

    Clement was a teacher at the catechetical school of Alexandria, which according to the later historian Philip of Side was founded by Athenagoras, at the end of the second century. Clement is the first early church father who is widely (almost universally) agreed to have been a universalist, as this view is found explicitly across his writings. [2] This is especially the case for his Stromata, which is an intellectual work of systematic theology, as opposed to his apologetic Protrepticus and pastoral Paedagogus. Clement warns unbelievers about the aeonian punishment that awaits them in his apologetic work (Prot 9; cf. Quis Div Salv 33).

    However, in Clement’s works written to other Christians, he says that this punishment is intended to restore; indeed, “punishment, by virtue of its being so, is the correction of the soul” (Strom I.26; cf. IV.24; VI.6.45–47; VII.16.102; Paed I.8). The fire of hell purifies those who pass through it, so that God, “by the perfect judgment, compel[s] egregious sinners to repent” (Strom VI. 34; VII.2.12). The conclusion (telos) of each person’s journey is their “restoration” (II.22.134). Therefore, the Son is truly “the Lord and Savior of all,” because those who don’t now believe in him will eventually confess him (VII.2). The restoration will be truly “eternal” (aidios) since then we will have been made perfect in love (VII.10). In this restoration, we will be gathered from “the concord of many” into “one church, one human being, one nature” (III.10). Once again, these ideas (punishment as restorative, and restoration as unification) would be further developed by later universalists.

Bardaisan of Edessa

    Bardaisan was a prominent Christian theologian in the Middle East at the end of the second century and beginning of the third. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, he was a Valentinian ‘gnostic’ at first, but converted to orthodox Christianity and wrote polemics against the ‘gnostics,’ most notably his dialogue On Fate (EH 4.30.1-3). At the end of this dialogue, Bardaisan concludes that God’s providence will ultimately succeed in his plans to help creatures, but he has allowed each nature to remain in error “for a short time” according to their wills, while preventing them from completely harming each other.

The time will come when the harm that endures in them [i.e., each nature] will be dissipated because of the teaching that will be in another mixture. In the constitution of this new world all rebellions will cease and all strife come to an end. The foolish will be persuaded and defects will be repaired and there will be peace and quiet from the bounty of the Lord of all natures. (Liber 58)

Based on this passage, Ramelli concludes that Bardaisan is an example of universalism prior to Origen. [3] Since Liber Legum Regionem is the only surviving writing by Bardaisan, the most likely conclusion based on the existing data is that he was indeed a universalist, and his ideas of the importance of human freedom of choice (over against ‘fate’) and the restoration as the repairing of all imperfections would be further developed by later Christian universalists.

Tertullian of Carthage

    Tertullian was an apologist based in Carthage at the beginning of the third century. He was the first to present a developed view of infernalism in which unbelievers will be tormented without end. In his view, God doesn’t punish in order to restore, but out of anger and vengeance toward sinners (Contra Marcion I.26-27). According to him, every human will be resurrected, and those who did evil will be tortured in fire “without ending and without break,” for “the immeasurable ages of eternity” (Apologeticus 18; 45; 48). Tertullian argued against the annihilationist interpretation of Matthew 10.28 and other passages, claiming that “destruction” is compatible with continual existence in torture (De Res Carn 35). Oddly, he says that the greatest and most joyful spectacle, over against the “spectacles” of contemporary Roman society, will be watching one’s enemies tortured in flames forever (De Spec 29–30).

    Tertullian never indicates that his view is an innovation, which suggests that he inherited this view from his (yet unknown) predecessors. He knows about annihilationist beliefs and arguments, and refutes them in his treatise On the Resurrection of the Flesh (35). It’s possible that he was influenced by the translation of aiōnios into Latin as aeternus (the latter means “eternal,” while the former is polysemic and doesn’t necessarily refer to eternity). This seems less likely given that he was well-learned in Koine Greek and wrote several books in that language. Tertullian helped popularize infernalism in the Western, Latin-speaking church, and this view was also adopted by Minucius Felix and Cyprian of Carthage, two other third-century Christian writers from North Africa.

Conclusion

    Among the second-century church fathers, there was for the most part still no clearly developed view of the ultimate fate of unbelievers. The ideas of some writers point toward annihilationism (Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus of Lyons) while other writers held views that point toward universalism, or at least developed concepts that would be adopted and further developed by later Christian universalists (Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Bardaisan of Edessa). Other writers merely speak of future punishment for the wicked, but don’t provide a clear description of this punishment (‘Mathetes’, Athenagoras of Athens). The most developed views of the ultimate fate of unbelievers are found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, a universalist, and Tertullian of Carthage, an infernalist.

Part 4: Origen’s Universalism

______________________________

[1] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 89-107.

[2] See for example John R. Sachs, “Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 618-620.

[3] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Origen, Bardaiṣan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation,” Harvard Theological Review 102, no. 2 (2009): 150-166.

The Restoration of All: Universalism in Early Christianity (part 2)

Part 1: The New Testament

The Apostolic Fathers

    Closest in time to the New Testament texts themselves are the writings of the ‘Apostolic Fathers,’ from the late 1st and early 2nd centuries AD. These include Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch, along with individual writings such as the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas. Since these writings were the first after the NT (perhaps, in the case of Clement and the Didache, even contemporary with the NT), they’re the best indicator of what the earliest post-apostolic Christians believed about the ultimate fate of unbelievers.

Didache

    The Didache (“Teaching”) was a manual of faith for early Christians, alleged to have been written by the twelve apostles, which was written most likely some time in the first century. [1] This text has little to say about the ultimate fate of unbelievers. Its distinction between the “way of life” and “way of death” (1.1f; 5.1) may indicate a belief in conditionalism or annihilationism, but on the other hand, there’s nothing to indicate that the “way of death” is final. A better indicator is the description of the resurrection: “...the resurrection of the dead, yet not of all, as it is said: ‘The Lord will come, and all his saints with him’” (16.14–16). This suggests that the author believed only believers (“his saints”) would be resurrected. Thus, although there is no clearly developed view of the ultimate fate of unbelievers in the Didache, it points in a conditionalist direction.

Clement of Rome

    Clement of Rome’s beliefs on this topic are difficult to determine, because his only surviving writing is a letter of exhortation to the Corinthian church, recently plagued by the persecution and turmoil of AD 66-70 (1 Clem. 1.1; 5.1–7.1). [1] Clement writes of the continuing sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple (41.2), but anticipates a quickly coming judgment on the temple (23.3–5; cf. Matt. 24:32), which he wrongly associates with the resurrection of the dead (24.1–3).

    Within this context, Clement often speaks of the judgment of the wicked, to exhort believers not to join them in their coming destruction (14.1–15.6; 22.1–8; 57.1–59.1). However, he also emphasizes that repentance will deliver anyone from God’s judgment (7.4–8.6). Importantly, he states that God is “free from anger... toward all his creatures... doing good to all, but especially we who have taken refuge in his mercies” (19.3–20.11). This indicates that, in his view, God’s punishments are for the ultimate good of all his creatures. Indeed, Clement says later, there is “great protection for those who are chastened by the Master... he chastens us in order to have mercy on us through his holy chastisement” (56.16), which he says specifically about the unbelievers in transgression (56.1–57.2).

    A hint of Clement’s universalism may be found in the doxology at the middle of his letter, where he speaks of “the faith by which Almighty God has justified all men from the ages” (32.4). This may be limited by his statements elsewhere about the number of the elect who have been saved through Jesus Christ (58.2; 59.2). However, we must also consider that Clement is speaking on behalf of the church of Rome, the recipient of Paul’s most universalistic letter, in which he spoke of “justification... for all men” (Rom. 5:18), where “all men” refers to absolutely all people, the same number who were condemned by Adam’s sin (5:12-21).

    Finally, we must take into account the testimony of the later church about Clement’s beliefs. In the 5th-century debate between Rufinus and Jerome, on the topic of universal salvation, Clement “the disciple of the apostle” (i.e., of Rome) was cited as one of the fathers whom both of them agreed was a proponent of universal salvation (Rufinus, Apology Against Jerome 1.43). This testimony, along with the above points, strongly indicates that Clement of Rome was a believer in the ultimate salvation of all. However, he de-emphasized this point in his letter for pastoral reasons, due to his anticipation of the quickly coming judgment.

Epistle of Barnabas

    The Epistle of Barnabas was an early post-New Testament text, written shortly after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (Barn. 16.1–5). [2] This text distinguishes between “the way of light” and “the way of death” (19.1f, 12). The latter is “a way of aeonian death with punishment” (20.1). The truly eschatological nature of these remarks is confirmed later:

For he who does these things [i.e., righteousness] will be glorified in the kingdom of God, but he who chooses their opposites will perish together with his works. This is why there is resurrection and reward. (21.1)

Therefore, the author of this text believed that the resurrection of the righteous would be accompanied by the final death of the wicked. Like the Didache, there is no clearly developed view of the ultimate fate of unbelievers in the Epistle of Barnabas, but it points in an annihilationist or conditionalist direction.

Odes of Solomon

    The Odes of Solomon are a collection of hymns, dating most likely to the late first century. [3] Although the exact relationship is debated, the Odes are very closely related (directly or indirectly) to the gospel and letters of John, and may have been written in or by the same community as those texts. [4] The Odes of Solomon present a very universalistic depiction of salvation. Regarding the Water of Life (cf. John 4:14; Rev. 7:17; 21:6; 22:1, 17), one of the Odes says that nobody could restrain it, and “it went over the face of the whole earth and filled everything. All the thirsty upon earth drank, and their thirst was relieved and quenched, for from the Most High it was given” (Odes 6.9–12). God, through the Son, will take hold of absolutely everything in his salvation; everything that breathes will be given knowledge of the Lord, to sing his praises, at his coming (Odes 7.17–27).

    The scope of the atonement in the Odes of Solomon is universal, just as in John’s gospel and letters (see my previous post). According to the Odes, the Messiah descended to Death and Sheol in order to set everyone free. He says, “I went on to all my prisoners, to liberate them, in order to leave no one bound or binding others... They were gathered to me and were saved, because they became my limbs and I was their head” (17.8–14). Because Death and Sheol could not hold him, they cast him out along with “those who had died,” who were thereby redeemed by him (42.14–26). [5] Throughout the Odes, death is only mentioned in order to describe its defeat via the Messiah’s crucifixion (e.g., 6.14ff; 15.9–11).

    In summary, the Odes of Solomon strongly point in a universalist direction. They represent the scope of the atonement from Jesus’ crucifixion as universal, involving everyone who has died, and say that all people will be given knowledge of the Lord at his coming. However, we must also keep in mind that because it is a hymnal, the Odes may be using hyperbolic language.

Shepherd of Hermas

    The Shepherd of Hermas was an early Christian text, written in the late first or early second century, which was held in very high esteem by the 2nd-century church. [2] Shep Herm takes an extreme view of repentance, claiming that believers have only one chance to repent after baptism and won’t be saved if they continue to sin. This book frequently mentions the destruction of the wicked. However, it holds that unbelievers will be allowed to repent “on the last day” when they see God (vis 2.2.5). Some may be punished for a time, but if they repent, they will be saved; the rest will be utterly destroyed (vis 3.5.5–7.6; simil 6.2.1–4). Thus, this work takes a middle position between annihilationism and universalism, as it holds that there will be a second chance at repentance for unbelievers.

Polycarp of Smyrna

    Polycarp was a bishop of Smyrna in the second century AD until his death in 155. His single surviving letter, written to the Philippian church, points in a conditionalist direction regarding the ultimate fate of unbelievers. According to him, we will only be resurrected by God “if we do his will, and walk in his commandments, and love what he loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness” (Ep Phil 2.2f). The Martyrdom of Polycarp, written after his death, says about the martyrs,

...they despised worldly tortures, purchasing aeonian life by a single hour. The fire of their torturers was cold to them, for they set before their eyes an escape from the [fire] which is aeonian and not quenched. (Mart Pol 2.3)

This could be an indication of infernalism (the view that unbelievers will be tortured forever). More likely, it is simply echoing Matthew’s language about Gehenna, and not presenting any developed view of the fate of unbelievers of its own. Furthermore, Mart Pol may not reflect Polycarp’s actual views about this issue, since its author is unknown and it may be a late composition (ca. 200).

Ignatius of Antioch

    Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch who was martyred some time in the early-to-mid 2nd century. It’s debated whether these letters were actually written by Ignatius in the early-to-mid 2nd century, or if they were written pseudonymously in the mid-to-late 2nd century. [6] This doesn’t particularly matter for our purposes, because whether or not they are authentically Ignatian, they still reflect the beliefs of one strand of 2nd-century Christianity.

    The Ignatian corpus doesn’t present a single, clearly developed view of the ultimate fate of unbelievers. In his letter to the Magnesian church, he distinguishes between the teloi of life for believers and death for unbelievers (Ep Magn 5). He says elsewhere that the prize of believers is immortality and aeonian life (Ep Polycarp 2). Believers “escape from death by believing in [Christ’s] death” (Ep Tral 2). This points in a conditionalist or annihilationist direction, but other statements point in a universalist direction. Ignatius says that God’s incarnation results in the disappearance of all wickedness and removal of all ignorance, the result of which is that “all things have been set in tumult for the realization of the abolition of death” (Ep Eph 19). [7] If death will be abolished, this suggests that the state of death for unbelievers is not final. He also alludes to John 12:32 in his letter to the Smyrnaean church, saying that when the Logos’ flesh was lifted up, “he attracted all people to himself for their eternal salvation” (Ep Smyr 2).

Additional apocryphal writings

    Finally, there are several apocryphal Christian writings from the second century which demonstrate an early belief in universalism. The Apocalypse of Peter was a writing which, according to the Muratorian Canon, was believed to be canonical by some 2nd-century Christians. This text graphically describes the punishments of the damned, and says that repentance is no longer available to them (chap. 13). However, according to the most ancient fragment of Apoc Pet (the Rainer Fragment), this punishment isn’t hopeless because the elect will intercede for them and stop their suffering. The same idea is found in contemporary apocryphal texts like the Sibylline Oracles (2.330–338) and the Epistle of the Apostles. [8]

    Peter wishes mercy on the damned, and although Jesus doesn’t grant this request, he replies that God has even more compassion than him (chap. 3). The Ethiopic version of Apoc Pet concludes that God will have mercy on all sinners, but this truth must not be revealed to unbelievers, lest they sin more. [9] This concern was shared by later universalists like Origen (Contra Celsum VI.26). Although it’s contrary to the earlier universalism of the Pauline corpus, which exhorts to “instruct and teach” that God is the savior of all (1 Tim. 4:10f), this attitude is significant for our purposes, as it shows that later writers may not teach (or even contradict) universalism in their pastoral writings, while still privately believing it.

    The view of Apoc Pet is echoed in other apocryphal writings. For example, the Acts of Paul (Thecla 28–29) assume that intercession for the damned is possible, and Jesus “saved all flesh” (3 Cor 16–18). The Apocalypse of Paul 22–24 declares that the wicked may repent, be baptized, and enter New Jerusalem if the righteous intercede for them. Ramelli argues that universal salvation is at least hinted in the Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs, and is taught explicitly in the Acts of Thomas and Acts of Philip. [10] Finally, the Gospel of Nicodemus from the 4th century proclaims that absolutely everyone who died and was held captive by Satan via Adam’s sin was freed by Jesus’ crucifixion (chaps. 20–24). It appears that universalism was popular in the early Christian circles that produced apocryphal literature.

Conclusion

    The writings of the ‘Apostolic Fathers’ do not present a clearly developed view of the ultimate fate of unbelievers. Some texts points toward conditionalism (Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Polycarp of Smyrna), others in a more universalist direction (Clement of Rome, Odes of Solomon, some apocryphal writings), while the Ignatian corpus has passages that support either view, and the Shepherd of Hermas takes a middle view between annihilationism and universalism. This inconsistency among the Apostolic Fathers reflects the ambiguity within the New Testament itself, where some writings seem to point in a conditionalist direction and others (especially Paul’s letters) toward universalism. Infernalism, the view that unbelievers will be tormented without end, isn’t clearly represented in any of the Apostolic Fathers.

Part 3: Second-Century Apologists

______________________________

[1] Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022), 239-260.

[2] Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament, 261-276.

[3] Michael Lattke, “Dating the Odes of Solomon,” Antichthon 27 (1993), 45-59.

[4] J. H. Charlesworth and R. A. Culpepper, “The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35, no. 3 (1973), 298-322; J. H. Charlesworth, Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 232-259; Jacob J. Prahlow, “Odes and John: Perspectives on Relationship,” Pursuing Veritas (blog), 17 December 2019, https://pursuingveritas.com/2019/12/17/odes-and-john-perspectives-on-relationship/.

[5] Ramelli uses these texts to argue that early Christians believed in the salvation of the damned via Christ’s descensus ad inferos (“descent into hell”): Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 74-75.

[6] Jonathan Lookadoo, “The Date and Authenticity of the Ignatian Letters: An Outline of Recent Discussions,” Currents in Biblical Research 19, no. 1 (2020): 88-114.

[7] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 62-63.

[8] Richard Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish & Christian Apocalypses (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 144-148, 232-235.

[9] M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 520.

[10] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 77-87.

The Restoration of All: Universalism in Early Christianity (part 1)

    When I started this blog, my first few posts were about the development of beliefs about the ultimate fate of unbelievers in the first few centuries of Christianity. I concluded that the earliest views were annihilationism and universalism, that the latter was most popular, and that infernalism (eternal hopeless torture) was a later development. Back then, I hadn’t read many of the church fathers and was relying mostly on Ilaria Ramelli’s The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis. Although my conclusions are mostly the same as they were back then, I’ve read a lot more patristic literature, so I’d like to overhaul that series of blog posts with an updated version. In this post, we’ll start with the New Testament to see what the earliest Christians believed about the ultimate fate of unbelievers.

Defining our terms

    Before we get into our discussion of universalism in early Christianity, let’s define our terms. In this series, we will be categorizing the beliefs of early Christian writers between four schools of thought on the punishment of unbelievers:

• Universalism — the belief that all people will ultimately be saved
• Conditionalism — the belief that only believers will be resurrected
• Annihilationism — the belief that unbelievers will be annihilated forever
• Infernalism — the belief that unbelievers will be tortured forever

There is a fine distinction between conditionalism and annihilationism. The former holds that unbelievers will not even be resurrected; the latter holds that unbelievers will be resurrected, and perhaps tortured for a time, but ultimately annihilated forever. While these terms are used synonymously by many modern annihilationists, some in the early church held that only believers would be resurrected at all (as we will see), so we will use “conditionalism” to refer to this belief.

    Another important distinction is between the Greek words aiōnios and aidios. While the latter word is used to refer to things that are truly eternal (without end), the former does not, even though it’s often translated as “eternal” or “everlasting.” According to Ramelli and Konstan, within the writings of the New Testament and early church, aiōnios means properly “belonging to the [Messianic] Age,” in line with its etymology (from the word aiōn, meaning “age” or “aeon”). [1] As I have shown elsewhere, aiōnios and its cognates are frequently used in the LXX to describe things which, even from the perspective of the original author, were known to be non-everlasting; there, it would be best translated as “perpetual.” [2] Thus, whether an author uses aiōnios (“aeonian”) to describe the punishment of unbelievers should have little effect on how we interpret their eschatology.

The New Testament

    The New Testament, defined as the twenty-seven canonical books from Matthew to Revelation, is the primary set of texts that was used by early Christians to define their doctrinal beliefs. Therefore, any study of the beliefs of the early church must begin with the NT itself, which shows us what the apostles and the very earliest believers (within one or two generations of Jesus’ death) understood about the punishment of unbelievers. For the dates of the NT texts, we’ll be provisionally using the dates determined by Jonathan Bernier in his recent monograph. [3]

The Synoptic Gospels

    In the debate over the ultimate fate of unbelievers, the passages about Gehenna from the synoptic gospels are often appealed to (Matt. 5:22, 29f; 10:28; 18:8f; 23:33; Mk. 9:43–48; Lk. 12:5), along with several passages from Matthew’s gospel about a fiery, aeonian punishment at “the end of the aeon” (13:36–43, 47–50; 24:3; 25:31–46). However, as I have argued elsewhere, these passages are actually using imagery from the Hebrew Bible to depict the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, which was associated (at least by Matthew’s gospel) with the end of the then-present age and beginning of the Messianic Age (Matt. 24:1–3; cf. Mk. 13:1–4; Lk. 21:5–7). [4] The passages which speak of a limited salvation during the Messianic Age (Matt. 7:13–14; Lk. 13:23–30) most likely shouldn’t be taken to refer to the ultimate eschaton, either.

    The only passage in the synoptic gospels which talks about the scope of salvation at the eschaton is Jesus’ defense of the resurrection against the Sadducees in Luke’s gospel. There, he talks about “those who are considered worthy to attain to that aeon, and the resurrection from the dead... children of God” (20:35f), in contrast to “the children of this aeon” (20:34). This seems to express a belief in conditionalism, that only some will be resurrected. However, Luke-Acts also represents Paul as speaking of “a hope... a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous” (Ac. 24:15). It’s quite possible that Luke-Acts considered every human being “worthy to attain to... the resurrection” by virtue of the fact that “we are [God’s] offspring” (Ac. 17:28f; cf. Lk. 20:35f).

    Finally, the last passage from the synoptics to consider is Matthew 17:11, which in connection with the eschaton states, “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things.” Ramelli argues that the original reading of this verse was passive (i.e., “all things will be restored [by God]”) and refers to the salvation of all beings. [5] However, this reading is very tenuous, as panta (“all”) more likely refers to impersonal things than rational beings. [6] Furthermore, this is most likely a reference to Malachi 3:23 (LXX), which also uses the verb apokatastēsei (“will restore”) in connection with Elijah’s eschatological ministry.

    In summary, there are few passages from the synoptic gospels which could be taken to refer to the ultimate fate of unbelievers. Mark’s belief about this topic is uncertain; Matthew’s gospel is also unclear, but there is a very slight chance it could be universalist (17:11); and the Luke-Acts corpus appears in one place to be conditionalist (Lk. 20:34–36), but could also be universalist (Ac. 17:28f; 24:15).

Peter

    Peter was considered one of the pillars of the Jewish Christian church (Matt. 16:17–19; Gal. 2:7–9), and while it’s possible that we have no authentic writings from him, we at least have writings that claim to be from him or his tradition (several speeches in Acts, 1 and 2 Peter). In one of the speeches of the Lukan Peter, he associates Jesus’ return from heaven with “the times of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:19–21). Ramelli argues that this refers to the salvation of all beings, showing that it was interpreted in this way by many early church fathers. [7] Once again, however, “all” (pantōn) is neuter, implying that it refers to impersonal things rather than rational beings.

    If Peter was a universalist, it isn’t strongly expressed in the two letters that claim to be from him. This is most likely for pastoral reasons, as the author(s) of both letters anticipated a soon judgment and coming of the Lord (1 Pet. 4:5–7, 12–18; 2 Pet. 2; 3:3–13). Leithart argues convincingly that the event in view is the judgment-coming of the Son of Man against Jerusalem (AD 70), which in the synoptic gospels was associated with both the Transfiguration and the death of the first generation of apostles (Matt. 16:27–17:8; Lk. 9:26–36; cf. 2 Pet. 1:16–19; 3:3f). [8] If true, this would support a pre-70 date for 2 Peter, and perhaps even authentic Petrine authorship. Although the focus in 1 and 2 Peter is on judgment, Peter emphasizes that God desires every person to repent (2 Pet. 3:9).

    In summary, Peter’s views on the ultimate fate of unbelievers are uncertain. If Acts 3:21 does refer to the salvation of all beings, and it’s an authentically Petrine statement, then Peter was a universalist. On the other hand, given the emphasis on the destruction of the wicked in 1 and 2 Peter, if they are authentically Petrine, then Peter may have been a conditionalist or annihilationist. The ambiguity here precludes a strong judgment one way or the other.

John

    Apart from Paul, the most writings in the New Testament are associated with one or more people named “John” (the Gospel of John, 1, 2, and 3 John, Revelation). For our purposes, I’ll be treating these texts as written by a single author or community. John the disciple was considered a pillar of the Jewish Christian church alongside Peter (Gal. 2:7–9), if these texts were written by him.

    John displays a more clearly universalist sentiment than the synoptics or Peter. The Johannine Christ states, “If I am lifted up from the earth [i.e., crucified], I will drag all people to myself” (John 12:32; cf. 6:44). He came not to judge the world, but to save it, and “the world” (ho kosmos) includes those who currently reject his message (John 3:17; 4:42; 12:47–49; 1 John 4:14; but cf. John 5:30; 9:39). Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ours, but for the whole world” (1 John 2:2). The resurrection on “the last day” is for those whom God has given to Jesus (John 6:39f, 44), and “all flesh” has been given to him, so that he may give them all aeonian life (17:2).

    John does speak of the judgment of unbelievers, and says that they shall not receive aiōnios life, but he represents this as a presently occurring judgment (John 3:18–21, 36; 5:24; 1 John 2:8–11; 3:14). This judgment is “darkness” and “death” because they have not come to the Light and Life who is Jesus Christ (John 1:4–14; 8:12; 11:25f; 1 John 1:1f, 5–7; 5:11–13). In the Johannine corpus, aiōnios life is always had in the present tense (John 3:15f, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:40, 47, 54; 1 John 3:15; 5:13; cf. John 10:28; 1 John 5:11). Even though judgment is presently occurring, repentance is possible for anyone who wishes to pass from darkness to light and death to life (John 5:24; 8:12; 1 John 3:14). In Revelation, repentance remains possible after the judgment symbolized by the “lake of fire” (Rev. 21:24–26; 22:2, 14), and the “rulers of the land” who were previously destroyed are later seen entering New Jerusalem (19:19–21; 21:24).

    On the other hand, future judgment is referenced in the Johannine corpus. John distinguishes between a “resurrection of life” and a “resurrection of condemnation,” which indicates that some are destroyed after being resurrected (John 5:28f). In Revelation, regarding the Beast-worshipers, “the smoke of their torture goes up for ages of ages, and they have no rest day and night” (Rev. 14:9–11). This language may appear to describe eternal hopeless torture, but the same language is used at Rev. 19:3 to describe the total destruction of Babylon (cf. Rev. 18:10, 17, 19–24). John also speaks of a “second death” which is symbolized by a “lake of fire” (Rev. 20:11-15; 21:8) [9] If these passages refer literally to a still-future punishment, they indicate that John was an annihilationist. However, I’ve argued elsewhere that these passages refer to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. [4]

    In summary, John’s views are more clearly universalist than the other authors surveyed above. Across the Johannine corpus, the scope of Jesus’ atonement is said to include “all people” (John 12:32) and “the whole world” (1 John 2:2), including those who now reject him. The judgment of unbelievers is presently occurring, but repentance is available to anyone, even after the “lake of fire” (Rev. 21–22). However, none of these passages explicitly anticipate the salvation of all people; this remains, at most, implicit in the text. Furthermore, if John 5:28f; Rev. 14:9–11; 20:11–15 are taken to literally describe a future judgment, then John may have been an annihilationist.

Paul

    Unlike other NT authors, Paul clearly believed in the ultimate salvation of all people. This belief shines through in his letter to the Romans. He writes that Jesus’ act of obedience “leads to justification of life for all people” (Rom. 5:18), where “all people” (pantas anthrōpous) refers to absolutely everyone, the same number who were condemned by Adam’s sin (5:12–21). At Jesus’ return, both “the totality [plērōma] of the gentiles” and “all Israel” will be saved, thus God will “show mercy to everyone” who was previously disobedient (11:25–32). The ultimate salvation of everyone doesn’t preclude the judgment of unbelievers (14:10–12). “For the wages of sin is death,” and “death” is the opposite of aeonian life, which is “glory and honor and peace” (1:18ff; 2.5–12; 3:5–8; 6:21–23; 8:6, 12f)

    Paul’s view of universal salvation is further explained in 1 Corinthians. He presents the resurrection “in Christ” of all people as the consequence of Jesus’ own resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20–22). At the telos, every enemy will be subjected to Christ, death itself will be destroyed, and the Son will be subjected to God, “so that God may be all in all” (15:24–28). That this subjugation is salvific is confirmed by Phil. 3:21, where Paul says that the power by which the Lord resurrects us is “the power by which he also subjects all things to himself.” The end of death and sin will coincide with our resurrection (1 Cor. 15:51–57).

    The other undisputed Pauline epistles display the same belief. Christ “died for all,” and in him God has reconciled the kosmos to himself, thus giving us (who are in Christ) the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:14–20). Every person “in heaven and on earth and under the earth” will bow and confess that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil. 2:9–11; cf. Isa. 45:22f), a confession which can only be made in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3) and saves the confessor (Rom. 10:8–10). The telos of some enemies is destruction, but they are still subject to Christ’s salvific subjugation (Phil. 3:19–21). Because of Jesus’ death, “whether we are alert or drowsing [katheudōmen] we will live together with him” (1 Thess. 5:4–10). This ultimate fate doesn’t preclude the temporal judgment and punishment of unbelievers, which is mentioned throughout the undisputed epistles.

    The (possibly deutero-Pauline) letters to Ephesus and Colossae are likewise universalist. In the former, we’re told that the mystery of God’s will is “to gather up all things in Christ, both in heaven and on earth” (Eph. 1:9f). God “reconciled all things to himself... whether on earth or in heaven” by Jesus’ blood that was shed on the cross (Col. 1:16–20). 2 Thess. 1:9 anticipates the aeonian destruction of the Thessalonians’ persecutors, but aiōnios doesn’t necessarily indicate a punishment without end (see above).

    Finally, let’s consider the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), which claim to be from Paul or at least his tradition. 1 Timothy emphasizes that God “wills all people to be saved,” and Christ Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all,” so that God is therefore “the savior of all people, especially those who believe” (2:4–6; 4:10f). [10] “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people,” but especially us, the “unique people,” who are being trained in the present time to live righteously (Tit. 2:11–14).

    In summary, a belief in the ultimate salvation of all people pervades the entire Pauline corpus, both the undisputed and disputed letters as well as the Pastoral Epistles. In Paul’s view, this doesn’t preclude the judgment and punishment of unbelievers. Instead, Paul, even moreso than John, focuses on the temporal consequences of sin in the present time (Rom. 1:18ff; 3:5–8; 5:12–14; 6:16, 21–23; 7:5, 13; 8:6, 12f; 1 Cor. 6:9f; Gal. 5:16–21; Eph. 5:5f; Col. 3:5f; 1 Thess. 2:16; 5:3). This punishment is by no means hopeless, because we ourselves were once subject to it! (Rom. 6:13; 7:5; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 2:1–5; 5:8; Col. 3:7) Punishment is ultimately intended to be restorative (1 Cor. 3:11-15; 5:5).

Other NT texts

    The letter to the Hebrews refers to “aeonian judgment” as one of the foundational teachings of the faith (Heb. 6:1–2), and tangentially mentions that humans must die once and then be judged (9:27), in a passage about the once-for-all effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice (9:23–28). The punishment of “the adversaries” is to be consumed in a “fury of fire” (10:26–31). This is likely related to the “shaking” that the author of this letter anticipates, which will “remove what is shaken... so that what is unshaken may remain” (12:25–29). This would seem to point to conditionalism or annihilationism. The author also says that God punishes those he loves – which certainly includes believers, and a larger scope is possible – in order to restore them (12:5–11). Overall, this letter is much more concerned with the fate of believers, which is conceived as the fulfillment of the eschatological sabbath (4:1–11) and other Old Testament types (e.g., 12:18–24).

    The letter of Jude is more focused on the future punishment of the wicked, but it also doesn’t provide a clear picture of what this will look like. The future punishment of the wicked is seen as the fulfillment of several Old Testament types – the destruction of the unfaithful Israelites (v. 5), the “eternal chains” (desmois aidiois) which bind the fallen Watchers until the judgment (v. 6), and the “aeonian fire” which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7). “The deepest darkness has been reserved into the aeon” for certain false teachers (v. 13). But the author doesn’t clearly say whether this judgment is to be seen as historical or eschatological, whether this is a final state, and/or whether it consists in annihilation and/or torment.

    The letter of James says very little about future punishment of the wicked, much less their ultimate fate. The author does anticipate “miseries” to come upon the rich who exploit their laborers (5:1–6), but it’s unclear if this is to be seen as a historical or eschatological judgment, much less whether it is a final state. He encourages his readers to help bring their brethren back if they go astray, because "whoever brings back a sinner from his error will save his soul from death" (5:19–20); there's no indication that "death" will be the final, irreversible state of any individual.

Conclusion

    The views of the New Testament writers about the ultimate fate of unbelievers are not all clear. Some writers don’t really grapple with this issue at all (Mark, Matthew); others may be either conditionalist or universalist (Luke, Peter); John may be a universalist, but never explicitly says that all people will be saved, or an annihilationist; and Paul is clearly a universalist. Insofar as the NT presents a coherent picture of the ultimate fate of unbelievers, it’s that they will eventually be saved. On the other hand, it might be more accurate to say that there is no ultimate fate for unbelievers, because on Paul’s view, everyone will ultimately be a believer (Phil. 2:9–11; cf. 1 Cor. 12:3). Overall, the NT displays a mostly undeveloped view of the ultimate fate of unbelievers, as it’s primarily concerned with the fate of believers, with the exception of certain universalist passages in John and Paul.

Part 2: The Post-Apostolic Fathers

______________________________

[1] Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts, (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013).

[2] See my series of blog posts on this topic, “Just how long is ‘eternal’? A study on the meanings of Αιων and Αιωνιος.”

[3] Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022).

[4] See my blog post, “Punishment and Salvation: The Fall of Jerusalem”; see also N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK), 182-185, 320-368.

[5] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 11-13.

[6] Niels Arne Pedersen, “Ilaria Ramelli’s History of the ‘Apokatastasis Doctrine’: A Critical Assessment of Evidence from before Origen,” JTS 20 (2024): 3.

[7] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 13-20.

[8] Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004).

[9] The “second death” was a term used in the Palestinian Targums to refer to the ultimate destruction of the wicked, from which there would be no return; see Harry Sysling, Tehiyyat ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 210-228.

[10] Note that “especially” (malista) carries a sense of specialness, but not exclusivity. See how this term is used elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 5.8, 17; 2 Tim. 4.13; Tit. 1.10) and the undisputed Pauline corpus (Gal. 6.10; Phil. 4.22; Philem. 16), notably in Galatians 6:10, which is extremely similar to 1 Timothy 4:10 in construction and meaning.

Are Demons Persons or Personifications?

    For a long time, I’ve held the belief that the entities referred to as “Satan” (or “the Adversary”), the “Devil” (or “the Slanderer”), and “demons” in the New Testament are personal beings, a view which is common to most Christians. However, after reading and interacting with the opposing view that these entities are personifications of evil and/or references to human adversaries, I’ve found many of their arguments convincing. The arguments that “Satan,” the “Devil,” and “demons” don’t refer to personal beings hold more weight than I initially believed, especially when the New Testament texts are considered in their overall context, including both the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism. In this post, we’ll look at how these entities (under the broader umbrella of “supernatural evil”) were viewed throughout the development of ancient Jewish and Christian theology.

Disclaimer: I don’t reject the belief that “satan,” “devil,” and “demons” refer to personal, supernaturally evil beings. This post is simply an attempt to fairly present the case that they aren’t. For the case in favor of the traditional view, see for example this post by Aaron Welch. I also presented my own case for a personal satan and demons in another post.

    Supernatural Evil in the Hebrew Bible

The word translated as “demon” (Heb: sheyd) is found only twice in the Hebrew Bible (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37). In both cases, it refers to the gods of the surrounding nations, and to the fact that the surrounding peoples sacrificed to these shedim rather than Yahweh. The shedim are equated by parallelism to “idols” at Ps. 106:36-38. Yet according to the Hebrew prophets, the idols were merely the work of human hands, despite what the nations believed. They didn’t correspond to any really-existing gods, having no “breath” in them, and the ‘gods’ of the nations (i.e., physical idols) would pass away like all other material objects (Deut. 32:21; Ps. 115:4; 135:15; Isa. 2:8, 20; 40:18-20; 41:21-24; 44:9-20; 57:12f; Jer. 10:2-15; 51:17f; Ezek. 30:13; Dan. 11:8; Hos. 8:4-6; 13:2f; Hab. 2:18f; Zech. 13:2). [1] The LXX for Isa. 65:3 even says explicitly that “demons… do not exist.”

    Thus, the shedim (LXX: daimōnia) of the Old Testament were not personal beings, although they were believed by the nations to be such. But what about the “evil spirit” sent by God to torment Saul (1 Sam. 16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9), which is sometimes seen as a precursor to the demon possession found in the New Testament? The word “spirit” (Heb: ruach) is often used in the Hebrew Bible to describe a mental disposition, not a personal being, which seems to be its meaning here. [2] In the book of Judges, we’re told that God sent an “evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem,” which meant that they had animosity for each other (Judg. 9:23-25). Likewise, Saul’s “evil spirit” was a troubled state of mind, which David alleviated by his music (1 Sam. 16:23).

    No demonology as such can therefore be derived from the Hebrew Bible. But what about the being referred to as “the Adversary” (Heb: satan)? In fact, this title (not a proper name) is used to describe many individuals in the Hebrew Bible. Typically, it’s humans who are referred to as satans (i.e., adversaries), but angels of Yahweh can also be satans (Num. 22:22, 32; 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kgs. 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Ps. 109:6). In one instance, it’s possible that Yahweh himself, or at least an angel of Yahweh, is spoken of as a satan to king David, although some scholars see it as a reference to a human adversary instead (1 Chron. 21:1; cf. 2 Sam. 24:1). [3]

    The most interesting satan in the Hebrew Bible is the satan found in Job 1-2, who is clearly a personal being among “the sons of God” that accuses Job of being unfaithful (or imperfectly faithful) and afflicts him with various evils. Scholars disagree on whether this satan acts as a ‘prosecutor’ or ‘executioner’ of sorts in God’s heavenly court, but there is a general consensus that he isn’t related to the later concept of the satan as a personal being of supernatural evil. The same is true of the satan in Zechariah 3, who also seems to act as a ‘prosecutor’ or ‘executioner.’ [4] The satan(s) of Job 1-2 and Zechariah 3 are certainly celestial, personal beings, but they’re part of the heavenly council of “sons of God” (cf. 1 Kgs. 22:19; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 89:7; Isa. 6:1-3; Jer. 23:18-22) and not evil being(s) implacably opposed to God’s will.

    Supernatural Evil in Second Temple Judaism

We’ve seen that the idea of a personal satan and personal demons can’t be justified from the Hebrew Bible alone. But was this perhaps a later development associated with Second Temple Judaism? In fact, the idea of supernaturally evil beings did creep into Judaism at this time, probably as a result of influence from the Zoroastrian religion with its cosmological dualism. Some Second Temple Jews believed in “evil spirits” that could possess people; these “spirits” were not fallen angels as in later Christian mythology, but the spirits of dead, evil men who roamed the earth searching for bodies to possess. [5] The concept of “demons,” i.e., fallen angels, possessing people would have been an anachronism in the 1st century CE.

    Jews were divided on the concept of supernatural evil as a source of sin in the Second Temple period. Some apocalyptic texts do emphasize ontologically evil angels as a source of people’s temptations, but other texts (e.g., 1 Maccabees; 2 Maccabees; Wisdom of Sirach; 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch) explicitly reject the idea of supernatural evil, and instead find the source of evil in Adam and human temptations. The idea of supernatural evil seems to disappear for the most part from Jewish apocalypticism by the end of the 1st century CE. [6] By the time of rabbinic Judaism, most rabbis rejected supernatural evil and interpreted the “devil” as the human inclination to sin. [7]

    The use of the title “satan” in Second Temple Judaism is interesting. In the Wisdom of Sirach, this title is used of a man’s own evil inclinations, as it’s said that the one who “curses the satan curses himself” (21.27). “The satan” is also used to describe the evil inclination in the Qumran text 11Q5 (19.13-16). [8] Another text (4QBarkhi Nafshi) interprets “the satan” of Zechariah 3 as yetser ra (evil inclination), showing that some in the Qumran community saw the satan of the Hebrew Bible as the human tendency to sin. Apart from these instances, “the satan” is used as a common noun and title to denote any adversary, whether a human, an evil angel, or a good angel (Jubilees 23.29; 40.9; 46.2; 50.5; 1 Enoch 41.9; 53.3; 54.6; 1QH 4.6; 45.3; 1QSb 1.8; 4Q504 1-2 iv 12; T12Dan 3.6; 5.6; 6.1; T12Gad 4.7; T12Ash 6.4). “The satan” does not seem to be used as a proper name for a singular being at this point in time.

    The same is true of the title “the devil” (Gk: ho diabolos). In the Septuagint, this title is used to translate the Hebrew satan, and has the same range of meaning in referring to human or angelic adversaries (LXX 1 Chron. 21:1; Esth. 7:4; 8:4; Ps. 108:6; Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-2; 1 Macc. 1.36). The only other place where this title is used in pre-Christian Jewish texts is in Wisdom of Solomon 2.24, which states that “through the envy of the devil death entered into the world.” This could be seen as a reference to a singular being of supernatural evil, but it was interpreted by both Clement of Rome and many modern scholars to refer instead to Cain, the ‘adversary’ who in his envy killed Abel and caused the first human death. [9] The same book elsewhere attributes the origin of death to Cain rather than Adam (Wisdom 10.1-4).

    Other titles used in the New Testament, such as “the evil one,” aren’t found in Second Temple literature. This title is, however, used in the Talmud to refer to the yetser ra, the human tendency to sin (b. Ned. 1:1g, II.2.H, b. Naz. 1:2d, I.4.D; y. Ned. 1:1, V.2.D, y. Naz. 1:5, II.1.P). This “evil one,” i.e., the yetser ra, is even personified and argued with. The Talmud also speaks of some people as “sons of the evil one,” in contrast to Jews who are “sons of the righteous one” (b. Sanh. 4:5, IV.1.H; y. Sanh. 4:9, I.1.I, y. Sanh. 4:10, I.1.), but this doesn’t seem to refer to a supernaturally evil figure.

    Overall, evidence for a well-known supernaturally evil figure called “the satan” or “the devil” in Second Temple Judaism is extremely scanty. Although many Jews believed in such figures, they were given names like Mastema (Jubilees), Shemihazah, and Azazel (1 Enoch). “The satan” and “the devil” were generic titles, which could be given to these evil angels, but could also be used of humans, good angels, and even the human tendency to sin. Many Second Temple era texts rejected the concept of supernatural evil in favor of a more humanistic view.

    Supernatural Evil in the New Testament

First, let’s note that according to Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles, the main source of sin is “from within,” i.e., natural human desires (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21-23; Luke 6:15; Rom. 1:24; chap. 7; 8:5, 9; Gal. 5:17; Jas. 1:14f; etc.), and the way to prevent sin is self-discipline, relying on God’s spirit, and prayer (Matt. 5:28-30; 6:13; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 11:4; Rom. 6:6, 12-14; 8:4, 13; 12:2; 13:14; Gal. 5:16-18, 24; 1 Thess. 4:3-5; 5:22; etc.). This automatically places these texts closer to the ‘humanistic evil’ view of the Second Temple period, rather than the ‘supernatural evil’ view, which attributed temptation to external beings and presented exorcism and apotropaic prayer as solutions.

    Paul consistently presents Adam as the original source of sin and death (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21f), not supernatural beings. Jesus presents “your father the devil,” who was “a murderer from the beginning,” as the original source of evil (John 8:39-44). There is a grammatical ambiguity in this verse, as it could say that “the devil” is “a liar and the father of it [lies],” or that he is “a liar and so is his father”! But how could the devil have a father? The early church theologian Cyril of Jerusalem interpreted “the devil” as Cain based on this ambiguity. This seems correct, based on the parallel from the Wisdom of Solomon (2.24), which attributes the origin of death to Cain and associates all evildoers with him, [9] and the fact that 1 John 3:8, 12 appears to equate “the devil” who has “been sinning from the beginning” with Cain. Thus, both Paul and Jesus attribute the origin of death and sin to a human being (Adam or Cain), rather than a supernaturally evil figure.

    Elsewhere in the NT, “the satan” and “the devil” are used to refer to human adversaries (Matt. 16:23; Mark 8:33; John 6:70; 1 Thess. 2:18; 1 Tim. 3:11; 2 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 2:3; Rev. 2:10, 13; possibly 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 1 Tim. 1:20; 3:6f; 5:15; 1 John 3:8-10; Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Peter says to Ananias that “the satan filled your heart to lie” and also that “you contrived this deed in your heart” (Acts 5:3, 5), which shows that, as in other Second Temple and rabbinic texts, “the satan” could refer to the yetser ra, the human inclination to sin. This seems to be the case in several other places in the NT (Mark 4:15; Luke 22:3; John 13:27; Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 12:7; cf. John 13:2; Acts 13:10; Eph. 4:27; 2 Tim. 2:26; Jas. 4:7; 1 John 2:13f; 5:18f). The fact that “the satan” and “the devil” are articular is not a good reason to interpret them as a single being across the NT, because the generic title is also articular in many other places in Second Temple literature (see above).

    What about Jesus’ temptation by “the devil” and “the satan” (Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12f; Luke 4:1-13)? This account is interpreted by most scholars, including conservative scholars, as a visionary sequence, symbolic narrative, or haggadic midrash. [10] For example, it’s obviously impossible to literally see the entire world from atop a mountain (Matt. 4:8-10)! That doesn’t prove that the “satan” in view here is not a supernaturally evil being, but it does caution against deriving an entire satanology from this passage. If this was a visionary or symbolic experience, “the satan” could simply refer to Jesus’ yetser ra. In later rabbinic literature, the yetser ra was personified and even argued with (see above). Jesus was tempted in the same way that we are (Heb. 2:18; 4:15), and our temptations are internal (Jas. 1:14). On the other hand, certain features of the narrative suggest that “the satan” could refer to an angel subservient to and sent by God for this purpose (Luke 4:13; cf. Job 1-2). This view of “the satan” is plausibly found elsewhere in Luke-Acts (e.g., Luke 22:31). [11]

    Finally, the last satanological text to consider is Revelation 12:9, which says that a seven-headed, ten-horned red dragon represents “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and the satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” This seems to refer back to Genesis 3, where Eve is deceived by a serpent, a “beast of the field” (Gen. 2:19; 3:1), into eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In some Second Temple texts, this was seen as a literal serpent, which could talk because all animals could speak at that time (Jubilees 3.17-19, 28; Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.4); others interpreted it as an evil angel, Gadreel (1 Enoch 69.6); and still others interpreted it as symbolic of the yetser ra (Philo, Opif. 163ff; Leg. All. 2.71ff). In light of the overall teaching of the NT that the source of sin is internal (see above), the dragon of Rev 12 likely represents the yetser ra, now manifest in the persecuting power of the “beast” and “false prophet” (chap. 13).

    What about “demons” in the NT? As in the Hebrew Bible, demons (Gk: daimōnia) refer to the idols and false gods of the nations (1 Cor. 10:20f; cf. Acts 17:18, 22; 25:19). Yet Paul also says, “we know that ‘no idol in the world really exists’ and ‘there is no god but one’” (1 Cor. 8:4); therefore, it’s okay for Christians to eat food sacrificed to idols, unless it causes less mature brethren, who believe that these gods really do exist, to stumble (1 Cor. 8:7ff). Thus, it seems that at least Paul didn’t believe in the real existence of demons. James says that demons “shudder” at the knowledge of God (Jas. 2:19), which seems to be no different than the depiction of the (non-existent) idols of the nations trembling and bowing before Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps. 97:7; Isa. 19:1; 46:1; Jer. 50:2).

    Demon possession is found frequently in the synoptic gospels and Acts, but interestingly, in no other book of the NT. Furthermore, as noted earlier, such possessing demons were believed by the Jews of the time to be the spirits of dead humans. [5] Unless Jesus and his disciples were condoning this extra-biblical belief, this should be understood as accommodation to the Jewish beliefs of the time, used to demonstrate Jesus’ power. Such “demons” are no more real than the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), where Jesus also accommodated his speech to existing Jewish beliefs to prove a point, or the Delphic “Python spirit” which Paul is said to have cast out (Acts 16:16-18). Jesus “rebuked” possessing demons, but he also “rebuked” a fever and a storm (Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 4:38f; 8:24).

    Therefore, such ‘demoniacs’ were most likely mentally ill people that Jesus miraculously cured, rather than people who were possessed by the spirits of dead, wicked men. The references to “demons” are only found in the synoptic gospels because they were an accommodation to the beliefs of new, Jewish converts, whereas they’re not found in later epistles written to mature believers, because those believers knew that ‘demons’ were merely false gods. Paul makes the same distinction between mature believers, who “know that no idol in the world really exists,” and immature believers, whose false concepts about idols should be accommodated (1 Cor. 8:4-13; cf. 10:20f). [12]

    Supernatural Evil in Post-Apostolic Christianity

If the New Testament clearly taught the existence of demons and a supernaturally evil being called the satan and the devil, we would expect this to be reflected in post-apostolic Christian writings. However, there is a surprising lack of demonology and satanology in these texts. The Didache, a mid-1st century Christian writing, explains sin without any recourse to supernatural evil or exorcism (1.2; 3.2; 6.1). In fact, where it references contemporary Jewish and Christian texts, it actively removes any reference to evil angels (Didache 1.1; cf. 1QS 3.17-21; Barnabas 18.1). Clement of Rome never once refers to “the devil” or “the satan” in his epistle, and presents a humanistic explanation of sin, interpreting the devil of Wisdom 2.24 as Cain (1 Clement 3.4ff). The later Christian writers Papias and Polycarp, along with the Shepherd of Hermas, also present an internal explanation of sin without recourse to demons or the Devil. [13]

    On the other hand, the Epistle of Barnabas (late 1st century CE) and the letters of Ignatius (early 2nd century) present a strongly mythological worldview, with satan and demons as the primary cause of sin. [13] From this point onward, “the satan” and “the devil” became widely used in Christian texts, not just as titles, but as a proper name for a supernaturally evil figure. This range of demonologies and satanologies in early Christianity is difficult to explain on the view that the New Testament consistently and clearly teaches the existence of supernaturally evil beings, but is easy to explain if, as I have argued, the authors of the NT both accommodated the ideas of immature believers about these beings and taught mature believers about their non-existence (cf. 1 Cor. 8:4ff).

    Conclusion

Although a belief in supernaturally evil personal beings (demons and the satan/the devil) is common to most Christians, this idea can’t be found in the Hebrew Bible. It originated in Second Temple Judaism, where some Jews believed in supernatural evil and others held a more human-centered view of evil, in line with the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament appears to take the latter approach to evil, agreeing with the Hebrew Bible that demons/idols have no real existence (while also accommodating immature believers who held these ideas), and using “satan” and “devil” as titles and personifications of the yetser ra. Unfortunately, in the interest of time, I was forced to pass over such interesting texts as Deut. 32:8-9, [14] 2 Cor. 6:15, [15] Eph. 2:2, [16] 6:12, [17] 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude 6. [18] (See the footnotes for a brief discussion of each.) Overall, however, the Bible consistently teaches that evil is the result of the human inclination to sin, and that all supernatural beings are obedient and subservient to God (cf. Ps. 103:19-21; 115:16; Matt. 6:10; Heb. 1:14).

    Finally, I invite the reader to consider the “fruit” of the belief in supernatural evil (including a personal satan and demons). During the period of witch hunts in Europe from the 15th to 18th centuries, about a hundred thousand women were tried for being ‘witches,’ and an estimated 50,000 were murdered. [19] ‘Exorcisms’ result in an estimated ~1,500 child abuse cases every year in the UK alone. [20] Many people who require medical intervention for their mental health are instead forced to go through the traumatic process of so-called ‘exorcism.’ Belief in supernatural evil and ‘exorcisms’ result in no demonstrably better health outcomes, and indeed progress has only been made in the field of mental health since this belief has been discarded. This is quite the opposite of what Jesus did, which was actually heal the people who were believed to be ‘demoniacs’ in 1st-century Judaism. What does this “fruit” tell us about the validity of the belief in supernatural evil? (Matt. 7:15-20)

______________________________

[1] Although some Christians today believe that the pagan gods were actually ‘demons’ (i.e., evil personal beings) that ruled the nations, this was a much later development in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.

[2] Gen. 41:8; Ex. 28:3; 35:21; Num 5:14, 30; Deut. 2:30; 34:9; Josh. 2:11; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Ezra 1:1, 5; Job 7:11; Psalm 51:17; Prov. 15:13; 16:2; 18-19; 29:11; Eccl. 7:8-9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 26:9; 54:6; 57:15; 61:3; 66:2; Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26; Dan. 2:3; 7:15; Hos. 5:4; Hag. 1:14; Mal. 2:16; see also the similar use of the Greek equivalent pneuma in the NT: Matt. 5:3; 26:41; Mark 2:8; Luke 1:47; John 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; Rom 11:8; 1 Cor. 4:21; 5:5; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 4:23; Phil. 1:27; 4:23; Col. 2:5; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4.

[3] For a range of views on this passage, see John W. Wright, “The Innocence of David in 1 Chronicles 21,” JSOT 18 (1993): 87-105; Noel Bailey, “David’s Innocence: a Response to J. Wright,” JSOT 19 (1994): 83-90; Paul Evans, “Divine Intermediaries in 1 Chronicles 21,” Biblica 85, no. 4 (2004): 545-558; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Satan, God, and the Angel(s) in 1 Chronicles 21,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings, ed. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Karin Schöpflin, and Tobias Nicklas (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008): 139-154; Ryan E. Stokes, “The Devil Made David Do It... or Did He?”, Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 1 (2009): 91-106; see also NET Bible commentary on 1 Chronicles 21:1.

[4] For a summary of the scholarly consensus and presentation of the ‘executioner’ view, see Ryan E. Stokes, “Satan, Yhwh’s Executioner,” Journal of Biblical Literature 133, no. 2 (2014): 251-270.

[5] 1 Enoch 15.8-11; Josephus, Wars 7.6.3.

[6] Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (JSNT supplement no. 231, 2002), 173; Bernard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan’s Realm (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), 42-43.

[7] Jeffrey B. Russell, The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), 51.

[8] E.J.C. Tigchelaar, “The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Re-Edition of 4Q468i (4QSectarian Text?),” in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magda Misset-Van de Weg (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 347-358.

[9] 1 Clement 3-4; Philip R. Davies, “Sons of Cain,” in A Word in Season: Essays in Honor of William McKane, ed. Philip Davies and James Martin (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 1987), 56; John Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 220-223; Richard J. Clifford, Wisdom (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013), 21.

[10] For a summary of scholarly views on this passage, see Jonathan Burke, “Satanological terminology in the wilderness temptation accounts,” 1-3.

[11] Tom de Bruin, “In Defence of New Testament Satanologies: A Response to Farrar and Williams,” JSNT 44, no. 3 (2021): 445-448.

[12] For a counter-argument against this view, see Thomas Farrar, “’When an unclean spirit goes out of a person’: An Assessment of the Accommodation Theory of Demon Possession and Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels.”

[13] Jonathan Burke, “Satan and Demons in the Apostolic Fathers: A Minority Report,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 81 (2016): 127-168; for a counter-argument, see Thomas Farrar, “Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke,” Swedish Exegetical Annual 83 (2018): 156-191.

[14] The author here incorporated an earlier text fragment (Deut. 32:8-9) into a larger poem that explicitly denies the existence of other gods (32:17, 21, 39). Although the author of the earlier fragment certainly believed in other gods, and that Yahweh was part of a divine council under the higher god ’El, the final author of this poem didn’t believe that “demons” or “idols” had any real existence.

[15] Paul uses the name of the evil angel from Jewish mythology, Beliar, to denote the non-existent idols (2 Cor. 6:15f; cf. 1 Cor. 8:4).

[16] Paul equates the “prince of the power of the air” with the “spirit at work among the disobedient,” and in the next verse seems to equate this with the “desires of our flesh” (Eph 2:2f). Therefore, the “spirit” here most likely refers to a mental disposition (cf. [2]; Ps. 78:5-8), and the “prince of the power of the air” is a personification of the yetser ra.

[17] Paul wished to prepare the Ephesians for the “evil day” (Eph 6:13), i.e., a coming period of great persecution (Nero’s persecution?). The “rulers” and “authorities” therefore most likely refer to the human rulers who would persecute the Christians. The “world-rulers of this darkness” also refer to human rulers; cf. when Jesus said that the Jewish leaders had the “power of darkness” (Luke 22:52f). “...in the heavenly places” most probably refers to a place of prestige, which believers already had in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:6), not that these rulers literally lived in heaven. The adjective “heavenly” (Gk: epouranios) was used of the Roman emperor in many 1st century texts: see Nijay Gupta and Frederick Long, “The Politics of Ephesians and the Empire,” JGRChJ 7 (2010), 118-120. The struggle of the Ephesians was “not with flesh and blood,” but was “spiritual” because they would not literally fight with their persecutors, but would use their faith to struggle in the midst of persecution (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3-5). The imperial powers are collectively referred to as “the devil” or “the slanderer” of the believers (Eph. 6:11).

[18] Peter and Jude here refer to legends about fallen angels from Jewish mythology (1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses) to illustrate a point about God’s judgment. Unless one is willing to say that the stories in 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses were also inspired by God, this doesn’t indicate the truth of those stories, any more than (for example) a modern writer using a story from Star Wars to illustrate a point would indicate that he believed Star Wars is a true story.

[19] Brian P. Levack, “Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America, ed. Brian P. Levack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 5-6; Alison Rowlands, “Witchcraft and Gender in Early Modern Europe,” in The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft, 452.

[20] Olivia Rudgard, “Belief in witchcraft and demonic possession linked to 1,500 child abuse cases,” The Telegraph, 24 November 2017, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/24/belief-witchcraft-demonic-possession-linked-1500-child-abuse/.