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

Part 2: Post-Apostolic Fathers

    The Second-Century Apologists

    After the so-called ‘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 came from mostly philosophical backgrounds, and were strongly influenced by the Platonist worldview of their day, especially in their concept of God. [1] These writers combated many views that they considered to be heresies (e.g., Gnosticism, Docetism, modalism) and in turn strongly influenced the developing ‘proto-orthodox’ Christianity.

    ‘Mathetes’

    The anonymous author of the Epistle to Diognetus, conventionally known as ‘Mathetes’ due to his self-designation as a “student [mathētēs] of the apostles” (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 (Diog. 6.8). However, he also believed that the wicked would be punished by “the real death,” namely, “the aiōnios fire that will punish... until the telos” (10.7). Based on this, Mathetes may have been either an annihilationist or a universalist, depending on whether he believed the telos would involve final destruction or salvation. If he was a universalist, it’s no surprise that he didn’t emphasize this belief, given the pastoral context of the letter.

    Justin Martyr

    Justin Martyr was a former Platonist who converted to Christianity in the mid-2nd century, and was martyred for his beliefs in ca. AD 165. Justin believed that the soul isn’t inherently immortal, but 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 aiōnios and be punished for more than a thousand years (1 Apol. 8; 18; 28; 52; Dial. 45).

    Therefore, Justin was an annihilationist who believed that unbelievers would be tortured for a time and then utterly destroyed. He appears to have been the first to hold this view, with the likely exception of 2 Clement (see the previous post); many before him believed that unbelievers would be annihilated, but that they wouldn’t even be resurrected first (i.e., conditionalism). Justin attributes this view, that the wicked would be tortured, to Plato as well as Christ, with the distinction that this torture would be aiōnios rather than one thousand years as Plato taught (1 Apol. 8).

    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). Tatian appears to have been either an annihilationist or an infernalist, based on his sole surviving writing, the Oration to the Greeks. He states that those who don’t know the truth will be resurrected and “receive death by punishment in immortality” (Or. 13), and that people either “receive immortality with either enjoyment or pain” (Or. 14). The idea of eternal hopeless torture may have first arisen in Gnostic circles, as it also appears in the Gnostic Apocryphon of John (23.40).

    On the other hand, Tatian also says that the soul is inherently mortal, and that it “is dissolved with the body,” but “it dies not” after being resurrected only if it knows the truth (Or. 13). Thus, it’s possible that Tatian was an annihilationist like his teacher Justin, believing that the wicked would be destroyed after painful torture. This is admittedly difficult to square with his statements that the ignorant would receive pain in immortality.

    Theophilus of Antioch

    Theophilus was the bishop of Antioch in the late 2nd century; his sole surviving work, the Apology to Autolycus, was written to convince a pagan friend about Christianity. Theophilus says that whether or not Autolycus believes now, he will see God in the resurrection and then believe (ad Autol. 1.7-8). He warns Autolycus about the aiōnios punishment “in proportion to [your] deeds” that was taught about even by the Greek philosophers (1.14; 2.34-38).

    Yet Theophilus also says that humanity, after discipline for sin, is intended to be restored “after the resurrection and judgment.” Just like a vessel which is broken up and remade, every human is broken up in death “that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal” (ad Autol. 2.26). Physical death was a restorative punishment inflicted after the fall to prevent humans from sinning forever (2.26). Immortality is a reward from God (2.27), yet as Theophilus said earlier, Autolycus will be raised immortal whether he believes now or not (1.7-8). He says that the beasts that were created on the sixth 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” (2.17).

    Therefore, Theophilus was most likely a universalist. However, this isn’t very explicit in his Apology to Autolycus, because his purpose there is to convince Autolycus to believe now, so that he avoids the aiōnios punishment.

    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 (7.4; 12.5). “At the last time,” everything including humanity will be burnt up by fire, “but the righteous will be preserved from wrath” (18.13-14). Based on these limited data, we can conclude that Melito was probably a conditionalist or annihilationist.

    Irenaeus of Lyon

    Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyon, France toward the end of the second century. Unfortunately, most of his book Against Heresies is preserved only in Latin, and fragments of the original Greek are sparse. 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 aiōnios fire, or aeternus ignis in the Latin (AH 1.10.1; 2.27.7; 3.4.2; 23.3; 4.27.4; 33.11; 40.1-41.3; 5.26.2-28.4; 35.2). This self-inflicted punishment is “death” and the destitution of all that is good, and it’s “eternal and never-ending” (5.27.2). The soul does continue 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” (2.34.3-4). Immortality and incorruptibility are a gift for those who are adopted as sons of God, and is not received by those who despise the Son of God (3.19.1). There will be a general resurrection (5.35.2), but the “resurrection of the just” to immortality is only for believers (2.29.2; 4.18.5; 5.35.1). Thus, it appears that Irenaeus was an annihilationist.

    On the other hand, Ramelli notes that some of the surviving Greek fragments of Against Heresies point toward universalism. [2] In frag. 4, Irenaeus states, “Christ will come at the telos of the times in order to annul everything evil, and to reconcile again all beings, that there may be an end of all impurities.” God allowed humanity to be swallowed by Satan, like Jonah was swallowed by the whale, but will reconcile humanity to himself via discipline (AH 3.20.1-2). Adam, in whom all of humanity is represented, must be saved; Irenaeus rebukes Tatian for denying this, and quotes Romans 5.12-21 (3.23.2-8). Frag. 12 of book 5 says that those who incline toward evil, and all who die in Adam as “soulish” (i.e., all people) will “live in Christ as spiritual” when their fleshly desires are destroyed. The resurrection of the just will first take place, but after this will take place the general resurrection of people who have been “disciplined beforehand for incorruption” (AH 5.35.2). Irenaeus cites 1 Cor. 15.25-28 to show that at this time, death will be destroyed, all will be subjected to Christ, and God will be “all in all”; there will, however, be gradations of salvation (5.36.1-2).

    In summary, there’s a tension in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies between annihilationism and universalism. It’s possible that some of this tension is due to the mistranslation of aiōnios as aeternus (i.e., “eternal”) in the Latin. If this is the case, Irenaeus was most likely a universalist.

    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 less pastoral treatise on the resurrection, his views are more clear. 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 (chap. 16-17, 20). The resurrection is a change for the better, for everyone who is in existence at that time (chap. 12). The natural telos of humanity is to be reconciled to God, and this proves the necessity of a future resurrection (chaps. 14-15). 

    Both soul and body must be judged together for their deeds, so there will be punishments after the resurrection (chaps. 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 finite and proportioned to the deeds done (chap. 25). Therefore, Athenagoras was a universalist, as he believed that the natural telos of humanity (to be reconciled to God) must ultimately be received by everyone who has that human nature.

    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. [3] 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 aiōnios punishment that awaits them (Prot. 9; Quis Div. Salv. 33). However, in his 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. 1.26; cf. 4.24; 6.6.45-47; 7.16.102; Paed. 1.8). The fire of hell purifies those who pass through it, so that God, “by the perfect judgment, compel[s] egregious sinners to repent” (Strom. 7.2.12; 6.34). The telos of each person’s journey is their apokatastasis, “restoration” (Strom. 2.22.134). Therefore, the Son is truly “the Lord and Savior of all,” because those who don’t now believe in him will eventually confess him (Strom. 7.2).

    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 ‘proto-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 will is unstoppable, but he has allowed each nature to remain in error “for a short time” 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. [4] 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.

    Tertullian of Carthage

    Tertullian was an apologist based in Carthage at the beginning of the third century. He was certainly an infernalist who thought that unbelievers would be tortured eternally. In his view, God doesn’t punish in order to restore, but out of anger and vengeance toward sinners (Contra Marcion 1.26-27). According to him, every human will be resurrected (contra conditionalism), 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). Most disturbingly, he says that the greatest and most joyful spectacle will be watching one’s enemies tortured in flames forever (De Spec. 29-30).

    The cause of Tertullian’s infernalism is unclear. He doesn’t seem to think that his view is an innovation, but he betrays a knowledge of annihilationist beliefs and arguments (De Res. Carn. 35). It’s possible that he was influenced by the translation of aiōnios into Latin as aeternus (the latter means “everlasting,” while the former is more ambiguous). However, this seems unlikely, given that he was well-learned in Koine Greek and wrote several books in that language.

    Whatever the reason for his infernalism, Tertullian popularized this view in the Western, Latin-speaking church. Cyprian, a bishop of Carthage in the third century, certainly held to eternal hopeless torture (see Treatises 5.24), as did the fourth-century Latin father Hilary of Poitiers (De Trin. 11.22-29). Annihilationism also remained popular in the Western church, as I will show in the next post.

    Conclusion

    Among the second-century fathers, both annihilationism and universalism were popular. The former view was held by Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, and possibly Tatian of Adiabene; the latter view was held by Theophilus of Antioch, probably Irenaeus of Lyon, Athenagoras the Athenian, Clement of Alexandria, and Bardaisan of Edessa. ‘Mathetes,’ the author of the mid-second century Epistle to Diognetus, may have been either an annihilationist or universalist, but either way, he believed that the torture of unbelievers would have an end at the telos. Infernalism, the belief that unbelievers will be tortured eternally and hopelessly, is first attested during this period, possibly in Tatian and certainly in Tertullian of Carthage.

______________________________

[1] Thomas E. Gaston, “The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists,” The Heythrop Journal 50, no. 4 (2009), 573-580.

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

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

[4] 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 Didache’s 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 was a conditionalist who thought that only believers (“his saints”) would be resurrected.

    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 aiōnios 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. The Epistle of Barnabas should be classified as either a conditionalist or annihilationist writing (it doesn’t state whether the wicked will be resurrected or not).

    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. GJohn 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 should be classified as a universalist writing. It represents the scope of the atonement from Jesus’ crucifixion as universal, involving everyone who has died, and says 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 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 early second century AD. His single surviving letter, written to the Philippian church, displays a conditionalist view of 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” (Phil. 2.2f). The Martyrdom of Polycarp, written after his death, says about the martyrs,

...they despised worldly tortures, purchasing aiōnios 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 aiōnios and not quenched. (Mart. Pol. 2.3)

This could be an indication of nascent infernalism (the view that unbelievers will be tortured forever). It may also simply be echoing Matthean language about Gehenna, which for Matthew would be a place of destruction, not everlasting torture (Matt. 3.12; 10.28; 18.8f). Furthermore, Mart. Pol. may not reflect Polycarp’s actual views about this issue. Therefore, Polycarp would best be categorized as a conditionalist.

    Ignatius of Antioch

    Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch who was martyred some time in the early-to-mid second century. I’ll be treating the middle recension of his seven-letter corpus as original, in line with the current consensus. 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.

    In some places, the Ignatian corpus seems to support universalism, as Ramelli notes. [7] For example, “when [Christ’s] flesh was lifted up... he attracted all human beings to himself, for their eternal salvation” (Smyrn. 2). [7] Furthermore, he speaks of the destruction of all wickedness and ignorance, so that “all things have been set in motion for the realization of the destruction of death” (Eph. 19). Ignatius urges all people, even rebellious angels, to be saved (Smyrn. 6.1; Polycarp 1.1), showing that he didn’t believe in a limited number of elect individuals (as in modern-day Calvinism).

    On the other hand, Ignatius distinguishes between the teloi of life and death (Magn. 5), and says that the prize of believers is immortality (Polycarp 2). Believers “escape from death by believing in [Christ’s] death” (Tral. 2). This may indicate that the author of the Ignatian corpus was a conditionalist. Therefore, due to the ambiguities in his letters, we can’t be sure whether Ignatius was a universalist or conditionalist.

    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 6.26). 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 elitist 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 very popular in the early Christian circles that produced apocryphal literature.

    Conclusion

    The writings of the ‘Apostolic Fathers’ exhibit an inconsistency in their belief about the ultimate fate of unbelievers. Some texts appear to be clearly universalist (Clement of Rome, Odes of Solomon, some apocryphal writings), while others are clearly conditionalist (Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Polycarp of Smyrna), and some waver between the two or take a middle position (Shepherd of Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch). This inconsistency among the Apostolic Fathers likely reflects the ambiguity within the New Testament itself, in which some authors seem to be conditionalists and others (especially Paul) are universalists. The two other schools of thought, annihilationism and infernalism, are not clearly represented in the writings of any of the ‘Apostolic Fathers’. [11]

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.

[11] However, annihilationism (destruction after torture) appears in the pseudonymous 2 Clement, which says that the damned will be tortured without possibility of repentance (6.7f; 7.4-8.3; 17.5-7) and they will not receive immortality (14.4f).

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”). [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 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, aiōnios punishment at “the end of the age” (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 age, and the resurrection from the dead... children of God” (20.35f), in contrast to “the children of this age” (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 [GJohn], 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” (GJohn 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 (GJohn 3.17; 4.42; 12.47-49; 1 John 4.14; but cf. GJohn 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 (GJohn 6.39f, 44), and “all flesh” has been given to him, so that he may give them all aiōnios 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 (GJohn 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 (GJohn 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 (GJohn 3.15f, 36; 5.24, 39; 6.40, 47, 54; 1 John 3.15; 5.13; cf. gJohn 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 (GJohn 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 (GJohn 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” (GJohn 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 GJohn 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 aiōnios 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 aiōnios destruction of the Thessalonians’ persecutors, but aiōnios doesn’t necessarily indicate a hopeless 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).

    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). As a proxy for the views of the earliest Jesus-followers, the NT indicates that early Christians were either undecided on the ultimate fate of unbelievers, had no clear belief about it, or were universalists.

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/.