How should Scripture be interpreted?

    Last month, Aaron Welch responded to some of my earlier blog posts about my preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. Since he was such a big part of my own journey and growth in faith (and my decision to start a blog), I’d like to take this opportunity to thank him for engaging with my views. His responses certainly highlighted quite a few weaknesses in my reading of various passages. After a back-and-forth dialogue online, Aaron challenged me to better explain my hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture. In this post, I’ll try to do just that. Unfortunately I suspect that Aaron will be disappointed, only because my hermeneutic has grown so different from the ‘Concordant’ hermeneutic that he and I used to share.

    In examining and refining my own hermeneutic in order to write this post, I’ve come to realize just how different my hermeneutic is today than in the past, even than just two years ago when I wrote the bulk of my articles about preterism. At that time, I would have described my hermeneutic as grammatical-historical, perhaps historical-critical. I subscribed to the principles that authorial intent determines the correct meaning of the text and that “Scripture interprets Scripture” (while recognizing the importance of extrabiblical literature for context). Now, I wouldn’t even say that I subscribe to the principle of sola Scriptura; if at all, only in an extremely qualified form.

    In this post, I will explain my hermeneutic via three categories – community, canon, and Christ – which I believe should govern a Christian reading of the Scriptures. The first two categories govern the interpretation of any text believed to be inspired (even ‘Concordant’ interpretation of the Bible), while the third is distinctively Christian. [Aaron: I apologize if the hermeneutic that I describe here seems different to what I said in our earlier discussion… I hadn’t fully fleshed out these ideas at that time, even though they were in the back of my mind, and your challenge led me to reexamine and refine my principles of interpretation.]

Community

    “The Bible” (derived from ta biblia, ‘the books’) is not a single text but a compilation of texts from diverse times, places, and authors. Apart from the collection of these texts by various communities of ancient Judeans, and later, early Christians, there would be little reason to see them as sharing a unifying message or being collectively authoritative. In fact, it should be uncontroversial that no text, or collection of texts, can be viewed as objectively inspired and authoritative apart from a community of faith. [1]

    Various communities of faith possess different scriptures, collections of texts that they consider to be divinely inspired and authoritative. The Islamic community has the Qur’an, while different sects consider different collections of hadiths (‘sayings’) to be secondarily authoritative; the Jewish community has the Tanakh, and considers the Talmud (rabbinic commentaries on the Torah) to be secondarily authoritative; the Hindu community has the Shruti texts along with the secondarily authoritative Smriti texts. The Christian community has the New Testament along with various lists of Old Testament texts, including the texts of the Tanakh with various other books (accepted by Catholics, Orthodox, and other sects). The ‘Concordant’ sect falls under the Protestant umbrella of considering only the New Testament and books of the Tanakh to be inspired and authoritative.

    Each of these communities has certain boundaries of belief that define them as communities of faith. The relationship between the community and its scriptures is a dialectical one: the boundaries of belief dictate which interpretations of scripture are considered acceptable, while the scriptures also inform those boundaries. For example, since the New Testament repeatedly and forcefully makes the claim that Jesus is the Christ, it would be nonsense to accept the New Testament while denying that claim. In turn, it would make very little sense to accept some scriptures while rejecting the community that produced and traditioned (or ‘canonized’) them.

    Note that I’m not saying that, in order to accept certain scriptures as infallible and/or inerrant, one must also accept that the community which traditioned them is infallible and/or inerrant (an argument made by some Catholic apologists). This would lead to an infinite regress: in order to know that the Scriptures are infallible, we would need an infallible source to tell us that, but we would also need an infallible source backing up that one, and so on… [2] Instead, I’m saying that anyone who accepts the particular scriptures of a community of faith should also abide by the boundaries set by that community, or else they are inconsistent. This argument is epistemological, not ontological: in order to believe that the Scriptures are inspired, we must believe that the Church which produced and traditioned them was also guided by God. Thus, the community must possess primacy of interpretation over their own scriptures.

    So far, nothing that I’ve said damages the ‘Concordant’ view. Members of the ‘Concordant’ community are perfectly consistent in accepting their list of Old and New Testament scriptures, while also abiding by their community’s boundaries of belief (which includes universal salvation, the non-deity of Christ, and dispensationalism).

    The community which produced and traditioned the New Testament wasn’t merely an intellectual community, but was sacramentally united through baptism and communion. The community which Paul called the “one body” of Christ was entered into by “one baptism” and remained united by “one bread” (1 Cor 10:16-17; 12:12-13; Eph 4:4-6; cf. Rom 12:4-5; Eph 2:16; 3:6; Col 3:15). Furthermore, the process of traditioning the Christian Scriptures into their present form continued into the fourth century.

• The first indication of compilations of early Christian literature comes from the early second century: Polycarp’s reference to a corpus of Ignatius’ letters (Pol Phil 13.2) and 2 Peter’s reference to a corpus of Paul’s letters (2 Pet 3:15-16). Justin Martyr (ca. AD 150) frequently refers to the “memoirs of the apostles,” which based on his quotations includes the synoptic gospels.

• The first authoritative corpora of New Testament texts come from the mid to late second century: “Marcion’s canon” of the Gospel of Marcion and ten Pauline letters, and the “Muratorian canon” which included four gospels (including Luke-Acts and John), all thirteen Pauline letters, 1 and 2 or 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, along with the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon.

• Irenaeus (ca. AD 180) refers to an authoritative corpus of four gospels (Adv Haer 3.11.8) and cites the Shepherd of Hermas as “scripture” (4.20.2), as well as citing every New Testament book except Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude. Tertullian (ca. AD 200) cites every New Testament book except James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John. Origen of Alexandria (ca. AD 230) cites every New Testament book except James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, along with some other early Christian texts (including the Shepherd of Hermas) that he considered divinely inspired. Eusebius (ca. AD 330) gives a list of New Testament writings that excludes James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation as disputed, and he rejects the Shepherd of Hermas.

• The now-accepted list of twenty-seven New Testament books is first attested in the mid to late fourth century: Athanasius refers to this list as “canonized” in his 39th festal letter (AD 367), and it was officially accepted in the West at the synods of Rome (383) and Hippo (393). However, disputes about the list of New and especially Old Testament texts continued beyond the fourth century.

This brief history makes it clear that the New Testament in its present form didn’t exist until the late fourth century. Therefore, it’s inconsistent to accept the New Testament as inspired without claiming continuity (and especially sacramental continuity) with the early Church up to at least the late fourth century.

    This doesn’t disqualify Orthodox, Catholic, or most Protestant groups, which do claim continuity with the Church of the fourth century. However, it disqualifies restorationist groups like Mormonism, Iglesia ni Cristo, and the ‘Concordant’ sect, which reject continuity with the early Church. The ‘Concordant’ sect is internally consistent in its claim that the true Christian community disappeared after the apostolic age and was reconstituted in the 19th century, or that there was a continuity of ‘Concordant’ doctrine that is entirely invisible to history – but this is no more plausible from the outside than the similar claims made by Mormonism or any other restorationist group.

    Objection: the early Church fell away after the death of the apostles, or even within their lifetime, as evidenced by e.g. 2 Tim 1:15 and contradiction between the New Testament and early Church. Aaron Welch argues cogently for this view in his article “They Will Not Tolerate Sound Teaching: Exposing Christianity’s Counterfeit Church”. There are many passages in the New Testament that warn against doctrinal apostasy, especially as Aaron points out “in the later writings (1 Tim 1:3-11; 4:1-3; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 1 John 2:18-20, 24; 4:1-3; 2 Pet 2:1-3, 20-21; Jude 1:3-4).”

    However, the only reason we have these passages (and consider them authoritative) is precisely because this same Church traditioned them as Scripture. This tension within the argument seems irreconcilable to me. In fact, these same texts to which Aaron appeals (1 and 2 Timothy, 1 John, 2 Peter and Jude) show every indication from the outside of having been composed pseudonymously in the second century, after the alleged apostasy took place! Apart from the early Church’s acceptance of these texts as authentic and inspired, there would be no basis to interpret them in the way that Aaron does. Extra ecclesiam nulla scriptura, [3] and without scripture there is no argument.

    A similar argument is that the true community of faith is expected to be in the minority, in both the Old and New Testaments. For example, see Elijah’s remnant in the time of Ahab (1 Kgs 19:9-18; Rom 11:2-4), and Jeremiah’s persecution by the other prophets, and Jesus’ statement that “there are few who find [life]” (Matt 7:14; Luke 13:23ff).

    However, the example of Elijah illustrates the opposite point, that the true community will not die but will always possess at least a remnant (Rom 11:2-5). Although there were few who found life in the time of Jesus’ ministry, he told parables about how the kingdom of God would grow large (Matt 13:31-33). There were also times in Church history in which the party that ultimately won out was in the minority and/or persecuted (e.g., the mid-fourth century and the Iconoclasms). Finally, this argument simply doesn’t get at the root of the issue, which is that without the true Church surviving into the fourth century, there could be no New Testament at all.

    Objection: doctrinal development in the early Church was enforced from the top down and is therefore false. The popular example is that Constantine I created the biblical canon and/or doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea (which is a myth), but there are certainly examples of this. The Roman emperor played a large role in the seven ecumenical councils and in certain cases (especially Constantinople I) forced a particular decision. [4]

    Although I once found this argument convincing, it’s actually fallacious. [5] An orthodox position may have been reached by coercion rather than dialogue, and it may have been enforced by unsavory methods, but this does not make it false. Merely describing the historical reality doesn’t negate the possibility of divine guidance; if it did, then the historical Jesus of Nazareth could never be reconciled with the Christ of faith. Christ’s death was also procured by unsavory men and means, while being God’s plan for salvation (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).

    Furthermore, by the principle described in Acts 5:34-39, [6] the true Church could never be wiped out by the authorities (cf. Matt 16:18). [7] It was morally wrong for the Roman emperors to persecute heretics, but the fact remains that if those heretics were the true Church – and the orthodox were not – then the emperor would have been “fighting against God” and not able to overthrow them. There were periods when the imperial authority was directed against the party that became orthodox (such as the mid-fourth century and the periods of iconoclasm), and the emperors even convened councils directed against them, but did not succeed. This means the empire couldn’t have been the only determining factor in the doctrinal development of the early Church.

Canon

    The Scriptures, like virtually any collection of texts, have tensions and contradictions within them. Apart from the presupposition of inspiration and univocality, this is very clear. [8] For example, there is a clear tension between Paul and James regarding the role of works in salvation. This can be resolved in a few different ways. Hyperdispensationalists presuppose based on this tension that Paul and James taught different (yet equally legitimate) gospels, and therefore emphasize points of distinction between the two and deemphasize similarity. [9] The traditional approach is to presuppose that Paul and James taught the same thing, and therefore to emphasize points of similarity and deemphasize disagreement. Another approach, taken by Marcion and to a much lesser extent Martin Luther, is to deemphasize James entirely as uninspired, or less inspired than Paul (or vice versa).

    Apart from certain presuppositions about which parts of Scripture are central and which are peripheral, there is no single objective way to resolve the tensions therein. Dan McClellan’s analogy of a Lego set is useful here: the Scriptures are like a box of Lego bricks, which can take a multitude of shapes depending on which pieces are taken to be central or peripheral, what order they’re placed in, and even which ones are left out. [10] McClellan says that there is no objective ‘picture on the box’ that can tell us what shape the pieces should take, since the Bible can’t tell us how to resolve the tension within itself.

    A very similar analogy is made by the second-century Christian apologist Irenaeus of Lyons in his book Against Heresies, when he argues against the Valentinians:

Such is their hypothesis which neither the prophets preached, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles handed down [lit. ‘traditioned’]… They disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures and, as much as in them lies, they disjoint the members of the truth. They transfer passages and rearrange them; and, making one thing out of another, they deceive many by the badly composed fantasy of the Lord’s words that they adapt. By way of illustration, suppose someone would take the beautiful image of a king, carefully made out of precious stones by a skillful artist, and would destroy the features of the man on it and change it around and rearrange the jewels, and make the form of a dog or of a fox out of them, and that rather a bad piece of work. Suppose he would then say with determination that this is the beautiful image of the king that the skillful artist had made, and at the same time pointing to the jewels which had been beautifully fitted together by the first artist into the image of the king, but which had been badly changed by the second into the form of a dog. And suppose he would through this fanciful arrangement of the jewels deceive the inexperienced who had no idea of what the king’s picture looked like, and would persuade them that this base picture of a fox is that beautiful image of the king. In the same way these people patch together old women’s fables, and then pluck words and sayings and parables from here and there and wish to adapt these words of God to their myths. (Adv Haer 1.8.4) [11]

    Irenaeus uses the analogy of the mosaic of jewels in the image of a king, which can be rearranged into different pictures (a dog or a fox). Unlike McClellan, however, he asserts that there is a ‘picture on the box’ which tells us how to put the pieces together. There is a correct hypothesis – a classical literary term which refers to the plot or argument which is “placed (thesis) under (hypo)” the text(s) for correct interpretation. [12] The gnostics have a hypothesis which is not what the Lord taught nor the apostles traditioned, making them like those who rearrange Homeric verses to create a new story (Adv Haer 1.9.4). The correct hypothesis is the “canon [kanōn, ‘rule’] of truth received through baptism” which allows readers to discern the “image of the king” from the jewels (1.9.4). This “canon of truth” is

…the faith in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was enfleshed for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets preached the economies of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his future manifestation from heaven… (Adv Haer 1.10.1)

    This formulation is clearly structured along the lines of the triadic baptism formula “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19; Didache 7.1; cf. Justin, 1 Apol 61; Hippolytus, Ap Trad 21). It also reflects the “one-God, one-Lord” formulae [13] (1 Cor 8:6; cf. Matt 23:8-11; Eph 4:5-6; 1 Tim 2:5; 1 Clem 46.6) and the Christ-creed material (1 Cor 15:3-4; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:18-19, 22; cf. Luke 24:7, 46; Ignatius, Eph 7.2; 18.2; Trall 9.1; Smyrn 1.1-2), which originated with Jesus himself and the apostles and were further developed by the apostolic fathers. The language of the canon of faith is eminently scriptural and based in the writings of the apostles. [14] The relationship between Scripture and canon, just as between Scripture and community, is dialectical: the canon of faith is drawn from the Scriptures and governs the interpretation of Scripture.

    Various formulations of the canon of faith are found across the Christian writers of the late second and third centuries (Irenaeus, Adv Haer 1.10.1; Epid 6; Tertullian, Praesc 13; Adv Prax 2; Virg Vel 1; Hippolytus, Noet 17-18; Novatian, De Trinitate; Origen, De Princ Pref.4). Although some of these formulae are more abbreviated, each author shares a common core: belief in one God the Father, [15] creator of everything; in the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Son and Word of God, through whom all things were made, who was proclaimed by the prophets, incarnated and born of a virgin, crucified, resurrected, and ascended; and in the Holy Spirit. [16] The fact that this core is shared by all of these authors, from various places, times, and relationships to the institutional Church, strongly supports the claim made by these authors that the canon of faith was handed down by the apostles (cf. Irenaeus, Adv Haer 1.10.1-3). [17]

    The canon of faith developed over time into regional baptismal creeds, and ultimately into the Nicene Creed, which was standardized as the baptismal creed of the entire Church in the fifth century. [18] However, it retained the same basic outline and core. This canon serves as a fundamental guideline, the scaffolding on which a sound interpretation of the Scriptures must rest, the ‘picture on the box’ of the biblical Lego set. Without it, the tensions within the Scriptures cannot be objectively resolved, and any number of different interpretations are equally possible. In the words of the second-century Church father Clement of Alexandria, “The canon of the Church is the concord and harmony of the law and the prophets in the covenant delivered at the coming of the Lord” (Strom 6.15.125).

    Objection: The Scriptures disagree with the canon of faith at various points, therefore it can’t be used as a guideline for interpretation. For example, the historical-critical reading of certain Old Testament prophecies calls into question the canonical claim that the prophets proclaimed the coming of Jesus Christ. The impersonal presentation of the spirit of God in the Old (and even New) Testament appears to contradict the canonical personality of the Holy Spirit.

    This would be a valid objection if authorial intent were the only, or most important, factor in interpreting Scripture. However, that wasn’t the early Church’s approach to reading the Scriptures. This will become more clear in the next section of this post. Rather, because they recognized the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, they saw the human author’s intentions as secondary to the divine author’s intent, which must be discerned spiritually with the help of the canon of faith.

    Origen of Alexandria especially developed this method of interpretation; although it’s found in earlier writers (e.g., Irenaeus, Adv Haer 4.26), he was the first to clearly systematize his hermeneutic. Origen distinguishes between three senses of Scripture: one of ‘body,’ which corresponds to the level of authorial intent; one of ‘soul,’ which involves taking a principle found in a passage and applying it elsewhere; and one of ‘spirit,’ which involves allegorizing a passage to apply it to a wholly new situation (De Princ 4.2.3-8). [19] All three senses are edifying, but certain heresies arise from only considering the ‘bodily’ sense, like Marcionism which perceives contradictions between the Old and New Testaments (4.2.1-2). Even certain “impossibilities” and contradictions are found in the ‘bodily,’ thus such passages don’t have a true ‘bodily’ sense, so that we don’t forget the divine inspiration and remember to seek out the ‘spiritual’ sense (4.2.9-3.15). We must learn to search the Scriptures and discern the “impossible,” with the guide of the “canon of piety” and of the Holy Spirit, in order to discover the ‘spiritual’ meaning (4.3.5, 14).

    Although not all aspects of his hermeneutic were taken up, Origen’s influence was widespread, and the idea of multiple senses of Scripture – of which the ‘literal’ sense was just one and not the most important – was shared by many later Christians. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus approvingly included his writing on this topic in their Philokalia (cf. Gregory of Nyssa, VM 2.89-101). John Cassian in the early fifth century exported Origenian hermeneutics to the West, and distinguished between historical, allegorical (typological), anagogical (eschatological), and tropological (moral) senses of Scripture (Conferences 14.8). Augustine also distinguishes four different senses and provides examples from the New Testament (De util cred 5-8).

Christ

    The Christian faith is unique in that it doesn’t merely rely on timeless truths revealed through history, but on a specific historical event: the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It’s important to remember that the earliest Christians had no written Scriptures, other than the Hebrew Bible which they shared with other Jewish sects. Their faith rested entirely upon the event of Christ, in whose light they were forced to reread their Scriptures before they could write about him themselves. According to Luke, the first thing that Jesus did after his resurrection was “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the Scriptures… he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (24:25-27, 44-48).

    The Scriptures are not innately understandable apart from the opening of the mind by Christ and the event of his death and resurrection. Indeed, we don’t read them simply because of the content they contain, but because of whom they reveal. “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, yet it is they that testify on my behalf… If you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me” (John 5:39-40, 45-47).

    Paul shared the same perspective: “Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, the same veil is still there; it is not unveiled since in Christ it is set aside. Indeed, to this very day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed” (2 Cor 3:14-16). The Scriptures can only be read in light of the revelation of God through the person of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 4:6), thus until his coming (and even “to this very day” among those who are without him), they were veiled. [20] This is how, for example, Paul can interpret the Exodus account as an account of Christ saving and judging his people (1 Cor 10:1-11), which is dubious as far as authorial intent is concerned.

    If we recall back to what Irenaeus says about the canon of faith, this is what keeps our reading of Scripture in line with the correct hypothesis – what allows us to arrange the “jewels” into the correct picture. But this is not just any picture: it is “the image of the king” (Adv Haer 1.8.4; 9.4).

If anyone, therefore, reads the Scriptures this way, he will find in them the word concerning Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ is the “treasure which was hidden in the field,” that is, in this world – for “the field is the world” – hidden in the Scriptures, for he was indicated by means of types and parables, which could not be understood by human beings prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of the Lord. And therefore it was said to Daniel the prophet, “Shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the consummation, until many learn and knowledge abounds. For, when the dispersion shall be accomplished, they shall know all these things.” And Jeremiah also says, “In the last days they shall understand these things.” For every prophecy, before its fulfillment, is nothing but an enigma and ambiguity to human beings; but when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then it has an exact exposition. And for this reason, when at this present time the Law is read by the Jews, it is like a myth, for they do not possess the explanation of all things which pertain to the human advent of the Son of God; but when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure, hid in a field, but brought to light by the Cross of Christ… In this manner, then, I have shown it to be, if anyone read the Scriptures. (Adv Haer 4.26.1) [21]

For Irenaeus, the correct interpretation of the Scriptures can’t be based on authorial intent, because they are only intelligible in light of their later fulfillment. The hypothesis of Scripture – the foundation upon which it stands, and to which it continually returns – is the crucified Christ, the Son of God. If our reading of Scripture does not lead us to Christ, then we have gotten something wrong. [22]

    By the time of Irenaeus, the apostles who had known Jesus on earth and witnessed his crucifixion and resurrection were long gone. “Therefore,” Irenaeus says,

it is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, whom I have shown have the succession from the apostles [Adv Haer 3.2-4]; who with the succession of the bishops have received the sure gift of truth, according to the will of the Father. But others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves in any place whatsoever, are to be held in suspicion… [I]t is necessary to learn the truth from those who have the succession of the Church that is from the apostles… For these preserve our faith in one God who created all things; and they increase that love for the Son of God, who accomplished marvelous economies for our sake; and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets. (Adv Haer 4.26.2-5)

This continuity with the apostles is necessary, but not sufficient, to guarantee continuity of doctrine. The presbyters and bishops must be “sound and blameless in conduct,” not prideful, if they are to maintain true doctrine (4.26.3-5). Nevertheless, it is this apostolic succession within the community of faith that preserves the hypothesis and canon of the truth, and allows us to find the true crucified and risen Christ when we come to Scripture. [23] Christ is encountered not just in text or in history but in his living Body, the Church.

Conclusion

    We’ve become too used to thinking of the Bible as a single, univocal book that reads as a narrative from Genesis to Revelation. This is an anachronistic perspective that didn’t become possible until the fourth century, or even more accurately, until the invention of the printing press. Before that point, for most believers, the Scriptures were a collection of texts that were primarily encountered in the liturgical life of the Church. The earliest Christians had no unique Scriptures of their own (“New Testament”), and had to reinterpret their existing Scriptures (“Old Testament”) in light of the event of the crucified and risen Christ, as their minds were opened by him (cf. Luke 24:27, 45-47).

    The idea that the Bible is sufficient on its own for determining truth, when read by an individual, is not possible. Inspired and authoritative scriptures cannot exist apart from a community of faith that produces and traditions them, which therefore has primacy in interpreting the texts. Furthermore, no scriptures can be properly interpreted apart from certain presuppositions – canon(s) of faith – that determine what is central and what is peripheral. In the case of Christianity, the canon of faith is passed down through baptism. The Scriptures are not univocal, but a collection of polyphonous voices which the canon of faith turns into a symphony (cf. Clement, Strom 6.15.125).

    The Christian faith has as its hypothesis the crucified and risen Christ, prior and fundamental to any interpretation of the Scriptures, belief in whom is passed down through apostolic succession. He is the true Word of God, because of whom the Scriptures are (secondarily) the word of God. Therefore, the Scriptures can only be correctly interpreted as revealed by the person of Jesus Christ in his Body, which is the Church.

______________________________

[1] Although someone might independently consider some text or texts authoritative for their own life, such a judgment would be subjective by definition.

[2] Even according to the Catholic view, the Catholic list of Scriptural books was not dogmatically defined until the Council of Trent in 1546 – previously only defined by regional councils, hence not infallible for Catholics – which means (according to the argument) that no Christian could have rationally believed in infallible Scripture until that time!

[3] “Apart from the Church, there is no Scripture.”

[4] For a good historical and theological overview of the seven ecumenical councils, see Sergey Trostyanskiy (ed.), Seven Icons of Christ: An Introduction to the Oikoumenical Councils (2016).

[5] This argument falls under the genetic fallacy, which is when a claim is dismissed (or accepted) on the basis of its origin rather than its content.

[6] “...if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them — in that case you may even be found fighting against God!” (Acts 5:38-39 NRSVUE)

[7] For a more developed argument, see Thomas Farrar, “Our Nicene common ancestor: an ecclesiological-historical argument for Trinitarian orthodoxy”.

[8] The benefit of the historical-critical method is that it allows us to examine Scripture from an external, purely historical and literary perspective, without presuppositions overriding authorial intent.

[9] For an example of this approach, see my old blog posts where I argued for hyperdispensationalism.

[10] See his video “The LEGO Bible” in which he quotes an excerpt from his book The Bible Says So: What We Get Right (and Wrong) About Scripture’s Most Controversial Issues (2025).

[11] Translation from John Behr, Formation of Christian Theology Vol 1: The Way to Nicaea (2001), 31.

[12] Karl Olav Sandnes, “The rule of faith: Getting the jigsaw puzzle right,” Studia Theologica 76, no. 1 (2021): 1-18.

[13] Note that in Irenaeus’ formulation of the canon, among others, the oneness of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ are emphasized, while the third item of faith is simply “the Holy Spirit,” which indicates the combination of the “one-God, one-Lord” and triadic baptism formulae.

[14] Tomas Bokedal, “The Rule of Faith: Tracing Its Origins,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7, no. 2 (2013): 233-255; Bryan M. Litfin, “Apostolic Tradition and the Rule of Faith in Light of the Bauer Thesis,” in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christian Contexts (2015), 145-165.

[15] God is specifically the Father of the Son Jesus Christ, a point which is emphasized in many of the formulations of the canon of faith.

[16] Some of the abbreviated formulae omit parts of this core, but all of these points are found in one or more of the formulations given by each of these authors.

[17] Bryan M. Litfin, “Apostolic Tradition and the Rule of Faith,” 161-165.

[18] The self-understanding of the early Church was that this development did not involve any innovation upon “the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), only further explication of that original deposit of faith. The extent to which this is correct is debatable. However, the development of the Christian Scriptures themselves took place during this same period, so it would be inconsistent to reject this doctrinal development while accepting the Scriptures.

[19] Origen interprets Prov 22:20-21 and the Shepherd of Hermas (Vis 2.4.3) to support this trifold hermeneutic. He allegorizes John 2:6 to state that some passages of Scripture only have a ‘psychical’ and ‘spiritual’ meaning, and lack a ‘bodily’ sense. As an example of the ‘psychical’ sense, Origen cites Paul’s quotation of Deut 25:4 in 1 Cor 9:9-10, and as examples of the ‘spiritual’ sense, he supplies Heb 10:1, 1 Cor 10:4, 11, Heb 8:5, Gal 4:21-24, and Rom 11:5.

[20] Compare this with Origen, CommJohn 1.33: “[B]efore the coming of Christ, the law and the prophets did not contain the proclamation which belongs to the definition of the gospel since he who explained the mysteries in them had not yet come. But since the Savior has come, and has caused the gospel to be embodied in the gospel, he has made all things gospel, as it were.”

[21] Translation from John Behr, The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death (2006).

[22] For an overview of how the early Church interpreted the Scriptures according to this Christ-centered approach, see John Behr, The Mystery of Christ.

[23] Note that this is different from the later doctrine of apostolic succession, which holds that bishops in the Church must have direct succession rom the apostles via laying on of hands. The second-century doctrine of apostolic succession, as found in Irenaeus, holds that presbyters and bishops maintain true belief via their unbroken line of continuity with the apostles. This doctrine, unlike the later one (which developed into the fourth century), doesn’t necessarily exclude Protestant churches from the apostolic succession, but it does exclude restorationist sects (such as the ‘Concordant’ sect) which lack continuity with the apostles.

The coming wrath: Son of Man's vindication (part 3 of 3)

Part 2: Jesus’ warnings

    In this series of posts, we’ve been looking at the coming judgment that Jesus warned about throughout his ministry. First, we looked at Jesus’ overall ministry in its historical context, and saw he was preaching that the climax of Israel’s story, the “kingdom of God,” was arriving in and through his actions, in a way different than most second-Temple Jews were expecting. Next, we looked at his warnings of judgment, and saw that he believed Israel would face death at the hands of her enemies, with the destruction of Jerusalem and any other city that failed to listen, if she didn’t change her ways — specifically, if she didn’t return to her vocation of being a light to the gentiles (Gen. 12:3; 22:18). In this post, we’ll see how Jesus was vindicated in his predictions when Jerusalem fell in AD 70.

    The coming of the son of man

    In his ministry, Jesus made several predictions about the ‘coming of the son of man’ (Matt. 10:23; Mk. 8:38/Matt. 16:27-28/Lk. 9:26-27; Lk. 12:40; 17:30; 18:8; Mk. 13:26/Matt. 24:30/Lk. 21:27; Matt. 24:37, 44; 25:31; Mk. 14:62/Matt. 26:64/Lk. 22:67-69). Specifically, he said that it would happen before some of his disciples died, before their generation passed away, and that the Sanhedrin would see it happen. But what exactly is the ‘coming of the son of man’?

    To understand this, we have to go back to Daniel’s vision of the four beasts and “one like a son of man” (Dan. 7:2-27). He sees four beasts rise out of the sea, the fourth of which is executed by the heavenly court, after which

[there was] one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was brought before him. To him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and languages were serving him. His dominion is perpetual and will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed. (7:13-14)

When the vision is interpreted for Daniel, he’s told that the four beasts represent “four kings,” while the one like a son of man is the “saints of the Most High” who will “receive the kingdom” forever (7:17-18). “Son of man” is an idiom that refers to a human being. [1] Thus, in this vision, God’s people are represented as a human, as opposed to the wicked kingdoms which are represented as beasts. Daniel asks about the fourth beast, and is told that this will be a “fourth kingdom” which will severely oppress God’s people. But after its dominion is taken away,

the kingdom, dominion, and greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High; their kingdom will be a perpetual kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey them. (7:27) [2]

    Thus, in Daniel, the ‘coming of the son of man’ doesn’t refer to a human being actually descending from heaven to earth. The “one like a son of man” is no more an actual human being than the “four beasts” are actually animals; moreover, the direction of his “coming” is to God in heaven, rather than from heaven to earth. This is symbolic language for the vindication of God’s people over their enemy, and the arrival of God’s kingdom.

    Some scholars propose that in the second-Temple period, the “son of man” began to be seen as an actual heavenly being who would come to earth. This is based on a single text that refers to the Messiah as “that son of man” (1 Enoch 46:1). However, the same text uses “son of man” simply to mean ‘human being,’ not as a specific title (1 En. 39:1, 5; 42:2). After an extensive study of “son of man” in second-Temple literature, Bauckham concludes, “no Messianic figure, even those whose portrayal relied most heavily on Daniel 7:13-14, was ever called ‘the Son of Man’ [as a title]”. [3]

    Jesus used the phrase “son of man” to refer to himself in the synoptic gospels, but most likely as a self-referential term rather than an actual title (such as in Ezekiel). We should only see an allusion to Daniel when he speaks of the ‘coming of the son of man,’ such as in his declaration to the Sanhedrin:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?” Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mk. 14:61-62)

This is a clear allusion to both Dan. 7:13 and Ps. 110:1 (“YHWH said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand’”). Jesus is identifying himself, the true representative of God’s people, with the “son of man.” Implicitly, he’s also identifying the high priest and Sanhedrin, who are prosecuting him, with the “fourth beast,” the eschatological enemy of God’s people. [4] With this implication in mind, the Sanhedrin’s extreme reaction and immediate decision to execute him is unsurprising (Mk. 14:63-64/Matt. 26:65-66). He’s saying that they must be destroyed for God’s kingdom to arrive.

    The Olivet discourse

    Jesus’ longest judgment warning is the Olivet discourse (Mk. 13/Matt. 24-25/Lk. 21), which comes after his proclamation of destruction over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37-39/Lk. 13:34-35). He tells his disciples that the entire second Temple complex will be destroyed, and not one stone will be left on another (Mk. 13:1-2/Matt. 24:1-2/Lk. 21:5-6). This prompts his disciples to ask, “When will these things happen, and what is the sign when they are about to happen? [Matt: ‘the sign of your coming and the end of the age?’]” (Mk. 13:3-4/Matt. 24:3/Lk. 21:7)

    Because in Matthew’s account, the disciples ask about “your coming and the end of the age,” it’s often taken as a question about the (yet unfulfilled) end of the world and Jesus’ return to earth. However, in the other synoptic accounts, the disciples only ask about the destruction of the Temple. This means that, for Matthew, “your coming and the end of the age” must be the same as the Temple’s destruction. Indeed, the disciples didn’t understand that Jesus would die, be raised, and ascend to heaven until it happened (Matt. 16:21-22; Lk. 24:18-27). What they meant by “your coming,” therefore, must not be Jesus’ return from heaven (which they didn’t yet know about), but the same as the ‘coming of the son of man.’

    Likewise, the “end of the age” refers to Israel’s judgment in Matthew’s gospel. [5] The “end of the age” is when a judgment will take place, when those who appear to be God’s children (but are not) will be taken out of his kingdom (13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50). This can only refer to the judgment on false Israel, when the kingdom would be taken away from them (8:11-12; 21:43). The “furnace of fire” (13:42, 50) is a symbol in the Hebrew prophets for Israel’s judgment and exile (Deut. 4:20; 1 Kgs. 8:51; Isa. 48:10; Jer. 11:4; Ezek. 22:19-22).

    Jesus starts by answering the disciples’ second question about the sign that would precede the Temple’s destruction. There will be false messiahs, wars and insurrections, famines, earthquakes, and various signs, but none of these are the sign of the end (Mk. 13:5-8/Matt. 24:4-8/Lk. 21:8-11). At the same time, the disciples will themselves be persecuted, but may endure, and will spread the good news of God’s kingdom through the whole world (Mk. 13:9-13/Matt. 24:9-14/Lk. 21:12-19). But the sign that will precede the end is the “desolating sacrilege,” when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies; then those in Judea must flee, and Jerusalem will be destroyed (Mk. 13:14-23/Matt. 24:15-28/Lk. 21:20-24). [6]

     When this happens, there will be great signs in the heavens (Mk. 13:24-25/Matt. 24:29/Lk. 21:25-26), which in the Hebrew prophets always symbolize the fall of a nation, especially apostate Israel. [7] Then the ‘coming of the son of man,’ the vindication of God’s true people, will take place, and their exile will be over (Mk. 13:26-27/Matt. 24:30-31/Lk. 21:27-28).

    These events are often equated with Jesus’ future return to earth, but there’s no indication that the topic has changed away from Jerusalem’s fall and the Temple’s destruction. His response to the disciples’ first question, about when these things will take place, removes all doubt: these things will happen before their generation passes away (Mk. 13:28-31/Matt. 24:32-35/Lk. 21:29-33). But the exact day and hour can’t be known, not even by Jesus himself, so they must be ready lest they be caught unaware (Mk. 13:32-37/Matt. 24:36-44/Lk. 21:34-36).

    Matthew’s account continues with several parables about remaining alert. Those who don’t stay alert will be punished with “the hypocrites” (24:45-51), who are Israel’s false religious leaders (6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). The door will be shut to them (25:1-13), and they’ll be thrown into “outer darkness” (25:14-30). The same will happen to those Israelites who seek to lord over the gentiles and don’t recognize that many gentiles will enter God’s kingdom (Matt. 8:10-12; cf. Lk. 13:23-30). This still deals with the judgment about to come upon apostate Israel for her failure to be the light of the world.

    Matthew ends his version of the Olivet discourse with a narrative (not a ‘parable’) about judgment. The subject hasn’t changed; it’s still about the ‘coming of the son of man’ (25:31). Jesus uses the analogy of a shepherd separating his flock in order to cull the male baby goats (25:32-33); a similar analogy was used in the Hebrew prophets to describe the judgment of Israel and its apostate leaders (Ezek. 34:11-22; Zech. 10:2-3). Those who treated his family well, that is, God’s true people (Matt. 12:46-50), will enter God’s kingdom and the “life of the age” (25:34-40, 46); those who mistreated his family will enter the “fire of the age” and “punishment of the age” (25:41-46).

    The judgment in view at the end of the Olivet discourse, in Matt. 25:31-46, is still a concrete, historical one. The word aiōnios here doesn’t mean “eternal,” as it’s so often mistranslated, but refers to the coming aiōn, the messianic age. [8] When that age came, God’s true people would find life in it, but those who mistreated them would find only punishment.

    The vindication of Jesus the Messiah

    As we’ve seen, all of Jesus’ warnings about judgment, including his teachings about the ‘coming of the son of man,’ had a very concrete meaning. He was warning about what would happen to Israel if she failed to recognize that God’s kingdom had come and to finally fulfill her vocation as the light of the world. He also saw himself as being especially this ‘son of man,’ as the true representative of God’s true people; when the time came for his “fourth beast,” Israel’s apostate leaders, to be destroyed, he would be glorified and receive his kingdom.

    In fact, within forty years of his death, all this happened just as he’d predicted. Because most in Israel continued to see the gentiles as enemies, failing to fulfill their vocation as the light to the gentiles, they remained on a collision course with Rome. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the late first century AD, tells us that false prophets leading Israel into insurrection multiplied over the next few decades (Antiquities 18.4.1; 20.5.1; 8.5-6). They became especially a problem during the war of AD 66-70 itself (Wars 4.9.3ff; 6.5.2) — just as Jesus had warned (Mk. 13:5-7, 21-23/Matt. 24:4-6, 23-28/Lk. 21:8-9).

    When the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem in November AD 66, and left just as suddenly and unexpectedly (Josephus, Wars 2.19.4-6), this gave the believers living there a short window to escape (Wars 2.20.1; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.5.3; Epiphanius, Pan. 29.7.8) in accordance with Jesus’ command (Mk. 13:14-18/Matt. 24:15-20/Lk. 20:20-21). The war that followed was certainly deserving of Jesus’ hyperbolic language (Mk. 13:19-20/Matt. 24:21-22/Lk. 21:22-24). Indeed, Josephus used similar language (Wars 5.10.5; 13.6).

    Most importantly, though, the destruction of Jerusalem showed that Jesus’ message was indeed true. The war and defeat of Jerusalem proved that their view of God’s kingdom was the wrong one, which led to destruction — it put them on an inevitable collision course with Rome, which they would just as inevitably lose. Jesus’ view of God’s kingdom was the correct one, and his way would have led to life for Israel, and did for those in Israel who believed in him and escaped destruction. This effectively reversed the Sanhedrin’s verdict of Jesus, showing him to be a true prophet and the Messiah.

    The early Christians saw Jerusalem’s fall as significant in a second way. They viewed the earthly Jerusalem and the Temple as symbols of the old covenant, and believed that while the new covenant had already been inaugurated, it would not come in full until those earthly shadows (which had already been rendered obsolete) were destroyed (Gal. 4:21-31; Heb. 8:13; 9:8-10; 10:8-9). Once they had been set aside, then the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, could come in full (Heb. 12:18-24; Rev. 18:20-19:8; 21-22). After Jerusalem’s fall, early Christians saw this climactic event as proof of their correctness over ‘Judaism’ (Ep. Barn. 16:1-10; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 53).

    In summary, the siege and fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 was a very significant event for early Christianity in light of Jesus’ ministry. This event proved that God’s kingdom had indeed come as Jesus had said, and not as Israel had been expecting; it also proved that the old covenant had been rendered obsolete, and the new covenant had come in full. The significance of AD 70 still resounds today, vindicating Jesus over the many other false messiahs and prophets who have claimed to bring God’s kingdom.

______________________________

[1] Num. 23:19; Job 16:21; 25:6; 35:8; Ps. 8:4; 80:17; 144:3; 146:3; Isa. 51:12; 56:2; Jer. 49:18, 33; 50:40; 51:43; Ezek., too many refs to cite; Dan. 8:17.

[2] The pronoun at the end of 7:27 is masculine singular (leh), and is often taken to refer to the Most High himself (“all dominions will serve and obey him”). However, in light of the interpretation found in 7:18, the pronoun is most naturally taken to refer back to “the people” (am), which is also masculine singular. See John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 1994), 322.

[3] Richard Bauckham, “Son of Man” vol. 1: Early Jewish Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: 2023), 375.

[4] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 261.

[5] Other New Testament writers appear to have held the same view of the “end of the age.” Paul said that it was “the rulers of this age” who crucified Jesus, and they were already passing away (1 Cor. 2:6-8); in fact, he was living already at “the ends of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11). The Hebraist also said that Jesus was sacrificed once-for-all at “the end of the ages” (Heb. 9:26).

[6] Many scholars argue that this ‘prediction’ must be dependent on historical accounts of Jerusalem’s fall, and must not have actually been spoken by Jesus. However, there are at least two specific textual allusions to Antiochus IV and the Maccabean revolt — the “desolating sacrilege” and the command to “flee to the hills” and leave everything behind (Mk. 13:14/Matt. 24:15-16/Lk. 21:21; cf. 1 Macc. 1:54; 2:27-28) — which don’t precisely match the historical events of AD 70. This indicates that Jesus’ predictions are being deliberately modeled on Israel’s past, rather than being force-fit by the evangelists to fit the historical reality of AD 70. See N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 176-179.

[7] Isa. 13:9-19; 24:4-21; 34:1-5; Jer. 4:16-26; Ezek. 32:2-8; Joel 2:10, 30-32; cf. 2 Sam. 22:8-18/Ps. 18:7-17; 4 Ezra 5:1-10.

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

The coming wrath: Jesus' warnings (part 2 of 3)

Part 1: God’s kingdom at hand

    In the last post, we looked at Jesus’ ministry in its historical context. Other second-Temple Jews were expecting God’s kingdom to be accompanied by the destruction of the gentiles, and perhaps purification of the Temple cult. Instead, Jesus preached that Israel had failed her vocation as a light to the gentiles, and must learn to make peace with her enemies. This was the only way that led to life, and the path that many in Israel were following would lead to “destruction” (Matt. 7:13-14). But what was the “destruction” that Jesus said would come on them if they failed to change their ways?

    “Unless you repent, you all will likewise perish”

    The nature of this destruction is hinted at in one of Jesus’ sayings recorded in the gospel of Luke (13:1-5). Here, he speaks to some people who bring news of a monstrous act at the hands of the Roman governor:

At that time, some people there were telling him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. He answered them, “Do you think these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered these things? No, I tell you! Unless you repent, you all will likewise perish. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you! Unless you repent, you all will likewise perish.”

Jesus says that the people of Israel, unless they repent, will face the same destruction as those who were recently killed in Galilee and Jerusalem — killed by Roman leaders, crushed by falling buildings. The “repentance” and “destruction” that he speaks of here aren’t individual acts, as the verbs (metanoēte and apoleisthe) are both plural; unless Israel collectively changes her ways, she will face this destruction.

    In the Hebrew prophets, the collective “repentance” or “returning” of Israel was associated with her return from exile. [1] The same is true of the “forgiveness of sins,” which was a collective act associated with the end of exile. [2] When Peter said that Jesus was exalted “to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Ac. 5:31), this is precisely what the people listening would have been thinking of. When Jesus said that people would “perish” if they failed to “repent,” he was saying that it was time for Israel to change her ways to receive her promised restoration; those who failed to do so wouldn’t be restored with God’s people.

    This saying comes toward the end of a long discourse about judgment. [3] Jesus says “this generation” will be condemned “at the judgment” by the queen of the South and the people of Nineveh (11:29-32). He condemns the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, and says that “this generation” will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets (11:37-52). They should fear the one who can cast them into Gehenna, if they deny him or blaspheme the holy spirit (12:4-10). They shouldn’t worry about land or any other earthly possessions — even though the Land was a central part of first-century belief about God’s kingdom! — but should trust that God will take care of everything (12:13-34).

    They should stay ready for the ‘coming of the son of man’ (12:35-48). Hypocrites fail to recognize the signs of the time; they must reconcile with their accusers, lest they be thrown into prison (12:54-59). If they don’t change their ways, they will be destroyed by Roman governors and falling buildings (13:1-5). If their fig tree fails to bear fruit this year, it will be cut down (13:6-9). If they desire to be “first,” and fail to recognize that many gentiles will enter God’s kingdom, they will be “last” (13:22-30). Finally, Jesus tells them outright: if Jerusalem fails to recognize that he is “the one who comes in the name of the Lord,” the city and its Temple will be destroyed (13:33-35).

    Another Lukan passage (19:41-44) also gives details about this destruction:

Now as he drew near and saw the city [of Jerusalem], he wept over it, saying, “If only you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come on you when your enemies cast up ramparts around you, and surround you and close you in on every side. They will demolish you, and your children within you, and will not leave within you one stone on top of another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

Once again, we see that Jesus believed Jerusalem would be destroyed by its enemies because they failed to know “the things that make for peace.” Because many of the people of Israel didn’t listen to him — they focused on earthly things (Lk. 12:13-34), failed to reconcile with their gentile accusers (12:57-59), failed to realize that many gentiles would enter God’s kingdom (13:6-9, 22-30), and failed to recognize him as the Messiah (13:34-35) — their beloved city would fall.

    But this judgment wouldn’t only affect Jerusalem. Jesus told his disciples that any city which rejected them, and failed to listen to his message, would be worse off even than the land of Sodom “on the day of judgment” (Matt. 10:14-15/Lk. 10:10-12). This was true of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, which “because they did not repent” would be worse off than Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom (Matt. 11:20-24). [4] We shouldn’t imagine that Jesus is talking about a post-mortem ‘day of judgment’ to decide which people go to ‘heaven’ or ‘hell.’ He has in mind a very concrete, historical danger, which will come upon cities rather than individuals — Jerusalem and any other city that fails to heed his message of peace.

    The end of the Temple cult

    The synoptic gospels record several sayings of Jesus about the destruction of the Temple (Mk. 13:1-2/Matt. 24:1-2/Lk. 21:5-6; Mk. 14:58/Matt. 26:61). These sayings are often rejected as ahistorical by scholars, thought to have been retroactively placed in Jesus’ mouth after the actual destruction of the Temple in AD 70. However, as we saw earlier, it wasn’t unusual for second-Temple Jews to believe that the Temple cult had to be overthrown and cleansed (CD 5.6-7; 7.9-21; 19.33-20.13; 1 Enoch 89:65-77). Jesus just took this one step further, since he believed that forgiveness of sins and righteousness were available outside of the Temple cult altogether (Mk. 2:3-12/Matt. 9:2-8/Lk. 5:18-26; Mk. 12:28-34).

    One of Jesus’ actions which is widely accepted by scholars as historical is the cleansing of the Temple when he entered Jerusalem (Mk. 11:15-18/Matt. 21:12-15/Lk. 19:45-47). Let’s look at this event:

When they entered Jerusalem, he came into the Temple and began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the Temple. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple. He began teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations?’ But you have made it ‘a den of robbers’!” (Mk. 11:15-17)

    There are a few details here that may be lost on modern readers. First, by not allowing anyone to carry anything unclean through the Temple, Jesus was fulfilling a prophetic condition for the coming of God’s kingdom (according to Zech. 14:9, 21). [5] Second, the term “robbers” (lestai), in first-century Judaism, referred not to swindlers but to nationalistic revolutionaries like the Zealots (as can be seen throughout the writings of Josephus). These nationalists exclude the gentiles from worshipping in the Temple, thus preventing it from becoming “a house of prayer for all nations” as God desires (Isa. 56:6-7). Third, when Jeremiah referred to the Temple as “a den of robbers,” he wasn’t saying that it merely needed to be cleansed, but that it had to be destroyed (Jer. 7:11-14).

    Thus, Jesus’ critique of the Temple is similar to his critique of the rest of Israel — they’ve excluded the gentiles from the promises, thus failing their vocation to be the light of the world. For this reason, the whole Temple cult is fit to be destroyed again, just as it was in Jeremiah’s day. There’s no reason why the historical Jesus couldn’t have predicted the destruction of the Temple, since it fits very well with the rest of his ministry and his other judgment warnings.

    Cast into the Valley of Hinnom

    Several times in his ministry, Jesus is said to have warned his audience about being “cast into Gehenna” (Matt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28/Lk. 12:4-5; Mk. 9:43-48/Matt. 18:8-9; 23:33). “Gehenna” is typically translated as “hell,” as though Jesus were warning about something that might happen to someone after death. This ignores the contextual implications of his warnings.

    “Gehenna” technically refers to a physical location, the Valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, where child sacrifices took place in ancient times (Josh. 15:8; 18:16; 2 Kgs. 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Neh. 11:30; Jer. 32:35). Jeremiah associated this valley with the siege of Jerusalem, saying that Jerusalem would become as defiled as the valley (Jer. 7:30-34; 19:2-15). Jesus made the same association, when he said that “the judgment of Gehenna” would come upon “this generation,” and Jerusalem and its Temple would be desolated (Matt. 23:33-38).

    Gehenna was associated with post-mortem punishment in later texts (4 Ezra 7.26-36; Sybilline Oracles 4.176-191), and perhaps some pre-70 texts as well (1 Enoch 27:1-2; 53:1-6). However, prior to AD 70, the name “Gehenna” wasn’t used to denote the valley of judgment, and it’s unclear how widespread this tradition was. It’s much more likely that Jesus intended to refer to the more deeply-rooted tradition, from Jeremiah, in which Gehenna was associated with the siege and fall of Jerusalem — especially since he appears to have made this connection himself (Matt. 23:33-38).

    Jesus also used an Isaianic text about undying worms and unquenched fire (Isa. 66:24) to talk about the judgment of Gehenna (Mk. 9:43-48; cf. Matt. 3:12; 18:8-9; 25:41). Elsewhere in the Hebrew prophets, unquenched fire was used not to denote individual post-mortem punishment, but the corporate judgment of nations (Jer. 4:4; 7:20; 17:27; 21:10-12; Ezek. 20:47-48; Amos 5:5-6); this association continued into the second-Temple period (Jud. 16:17; but cf. Sir. 7:17 Gk). Therefore, Jesus wasn’t referring to a punishment of ‘hell’ for individuals, but the corporate punishment of Israel if she failed to heed his warnings. Israel would be destroyed “body and soul” in Gehenna, as Isaiah had predicted long ago for Assyria (Matt. 10:28/Lk. 12:4-5; cf. Isa. 10:18; 30:31-33).

    In summary, Jesus’ judgment warnings in the synoptic gospels aren’t about what happens to people after they die (whether they go to ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’), nor are they about a far-off future judgment (at the Second Coming or afterward). His warnings had a concrete, historical importance for first-century Israel. Jesus was bringing the true kingdom of God, and if Israel failed to change her ways and fulfill her vocation as the light of the world, she would die at the hands of her enemies. In the next post, we’ll see how Jesus was vindicated in his predictions.

Part 3: son of man’s vindication

____________________________________

[1] Deut. 30:2, 8; Isa. 44:22; 45:22; 46:8; 55:7; Jer. 3:10, 12, 14, 22; 4:1; 15:19; 24:7; Ezek. 14:6; 18:30, 32; Hos. 3:5; 14:1-2; Joel 2:12-13; cf. Bar. 2:32-34; Tob. 13:5-6; Ps. Sol. 18:4-7; Jub. 1:14-22; 23:26; Philo, Praem. 162-172.

[2] Isa. 40:1-2; 43:25-44:2; 53:11-54:10; Jer. 31:31-34; 33:4-11; Lam. 4:22; Ezek. 36:24-26, 33; 37:21-23; Dan. 9:16-19; Ez. 9:6-15; Neh. 9:6-37; cf. Bar. 1:15-3:8; 1QS 11.11-14.

[3] Luke draws together several disparate ‘judgment’ sayings of Jesus here into a single discourse (cf. Matt. 5:25-26; 6:19-23, 25-34; 7:13-14, 21-23; 8:11-12; 10:28-36; 12:22-45; 13:31-33; 16:1-6; 23:13-39; 24:42-51). His purpose isn’t to give a historically precise account of how and when Jesus said these things, but to thematically bring together most of his warnings to his contemporary generation.

[4] From a critical perspective, these sayings are almost certainly true to the historical Jesus, because these three cities weren’t especially destroyed by the Romans. In fact, we only have a record of Bethsaida being destroyed (Josephus, Wars 4.7.6). There would be no reason for the early church to ‘invent’ an apparently unfulfilled judgment saying.

[5] Cecil Roth, “The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah XIV 21,” Novum Testamentum 4, no. 3 (Oct 1960): 174-181.

The coming wrath: God's kingdom at hand (part 1 of 3)

Now when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, [John the baptist] said, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?” (Matt. 3:7/Lk. 3:7)

    When Jesus began his ministry, his cousin John had already started preaching about a coming judgment, saying that it would be brought about by the one coming after him (Matt. 3:7-12/Lk. 3:7-17). The theme of judgment continued to resonate throughout Jesus’ teachings, as recorded in the synoptic gospels, well after John’s death. But what exactly is the “day of judgment” that Jesus spoke of (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36)? Does it, as many Christians assume, refer to what happens when people die and go either to ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’? Does it refer to a historical event? Is it something that will happen when Jesus returns to earth? In this series of posts, we’ll look at Jesus’ ministry in its historical context to see what he and his listeners, as second-Temple Jews, would have understood by this.

    The hope of Israel

    What did second-Temple Jews in Jesus’ day expect to happen? Their hope could be summed up in a single phrase: “the kingdom of God.” From the earliest period of Israel’s history, the Jewish prophets looked forward to a future when Jerusalem would become the foremost city, a light to the many nations who would come there to follow God (Isa. 2:2-4; Joel 3:16-21; Mic. 4:1-4; Zeph. 3:12-20; cf. Hab. 2:14).

    When the Israelites were exiled from their land, they maintained this expectation (Isa. 42:1-4; 49:5-6; 60:8-16; 62:1-7; 65:18-25; 66:10-23; Jer. 3:14-18; Ezek. 17:22-24; Zech. 8:11-23; 14:8-21), and added to it a new one. God’s covenant with David wouldn’t be forsaken; he would set as king over Israel a descendant of David to rule forever (Ps. 89:19-51; Isa. 42:6; 49:8; 55:3-5; Jer. 23:5-6; 30:8-9; 33:14-16; Ezek. 21:25-27; 34:20-31; 37:24-28; Amos 9:11-15; cf. Hos. 3:4-5). This would, in other words, be a restoration of “the kingdom of YHWH in the hands of the descendants of David” (2 Chron. 13:4-8; cf. Exod. 19:5; Ps. 114:2; 1 Chron. 17:7-14; 28:5; 29:23).

    This expectation, in the passages cited above, is usually associated with the coming of the gentiles to worship God. It’s also frequently couched in ‘kingdom of God’ language. “In that day,” says Zechariah, “YHWH will become king over the whole earth” (14:9). YHWH is his people’s king, therefore he will reign and save them (Isa. 33:22; 43:14-15; 44:2-6; 52:7; Ezek. 20:33-44; Obad. 21; Mic. 2:12-13; Zeph. 3:14-15).

    But even after Israel returned from exile, the problem remained — many of God’s people continued to be rebellious, the gentiles failed to recognize YHWH’s supremacy, and Israel was ruled by pagans rather than her Davidic king! For these reasons, most Israelites continued to see the exile as ongoing and the ‘kingdom of God’ as still future. [1] Daniel demonstrates this re-framing of the issue: Israel would be ruled by a succession of pagan empires before she would be vindicated in her God’s kingdom (Dan. 2:37-45; 7:17-27), and her exile would be extended from seventy years to seventy times seven! (9:24-27) God’s people would also go through a period of severe tribulation before vindication (11:29-12:4).

    Later Jewish writings take various positions on the issue of ‘God’s kingdom.’ The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach took the position that God’s kingdom had come, exemplified in the wise reign of his high priest Simon ben Onias (50:1-24). This was quickly disproven when the succession of high priests was ended by Antiochus IV’s oppression of the Jews in 167-4 BC. 1 Maccabees claimed that it came with the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty of priest-kings (14:4-14), which was also disproven when Rome conquered them in 63 BC and the Herodians took their place.

    The view that God’s kingdom had already come was mostly confined to the priestly elite which later became the Sadducees; the common people of Israel knew the situation was much worse than it may have seemed to their rulers. The Essenes, whose writings are preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls, undertook a serious critique of Jerusalem’s present rulers which presented them as Israel’s true enemy. They looked forward to the future establishment of God’s kingdom and the restoration of the Davidic monarchy (e.g., 4Q174 1.10-19). They, with other second-Temple Jews, thought that the current priestly-Temple system was utterly corrupt and would be overthrown (CD 5.6-7; 7.9-21; 19.33-20.13; 1 Enoch 89:65-77).

    Among those Jews who believed in a future kingdom (the Pharisees, Essenes, and ‘people of the land’ or commoners), the biblical hope of salvation for the gentiles was replaced by the expectation that God would utterly destroy the gentiles (e.g., Ps. Sol. 17:21-32; 1QSb 5.23-293; Wis. 3:7-8; 5:17-6:5; 4 Ezra 13:3-11, 25-38). This was unfortunate, but understandable in light of their persecution by several pagan empires. According to Josephus, it was this expectation that led them to revolt against Rome in AD 66 (Wars 6.5.4).

    First-century Jews, therefore, looked forward to the establishment of the ‘kingdom of God,’ the restoration of God’s people, which would be marked by: (1) the defeat of Israel’s enemies (seen as the gentiles); (2) the purification of the Temple cult (if it was corrupt); (3) the restoration of the Davidic monarchy; and (4) the establishment of Jerusalem as the foremost city in the world.

    The focus of Jesus’ ministry

    Onto this scene of fervent Jewish expectation bursts Jesus, proclaiming from the very beginning of his ministry, “The time has been fulfilled! God’s kingdom is at hand!” (Mk. 1:15/Matt. 4:17) The message that he preached was said to be “the good news of God’s kingdom” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 10:7; 24:14; Mk. 1:15; Lk. 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; cf. Ac. 8:12). God’s kingdom would come soon, even before some of Jesus’ disciples died (Mk. 9:1/Matt. 16:28/Lk. 9:27). Indeed, it was already coming through his work in healing people and defeating demons (Matt. 12:28/Lk. 11:20).

    Any second-Temple Jew would have known what this meant, whether or not they agreed: God was about to bring about the promised restoration of his people. To the common people of Israel, it was a message of hope; to the Pharisees, who expected a very different kind of kingdom, a challenge; to the complacent priestly elite, a dangerous threat.

    But the kingdom that Jesus preached was different from what most second-Temple Jews, especially the Pharisees, were expecting. They thought that Israel’s true enemy was the gentiles, thus rejecting their role, which went all the way back to Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 22:18), to act as a light to the gentiles — the very reason that Israel was chosen was to restore the whole world to God! Jesus returned to this vocation; he said that “many” gentiles would enter God’s kingdom, and those Jews who rejected this would themselves be thrown out! (Matt. 8:11-12/Lk. 13:23-30) They sought to be first in God’s kingdom, so they would instead become last (Mk. 9:33-35; 10:30/Matt. 19:30; 20:1-16; Lk. 13:23-30).

    Jesus himself healed several gentiles during his ministry, even helping a Roman centurion (Matt. 8:5-13/Lk. 7:2-10; Mk. 7:24-30/Matt. 15:21-28; cf. 15:29-31). This would have been strange and threatening to many first-century Jews, especially the hard-line Shammaite Pharisees who taught that gentiles must be resisted at all costs. But Jesus diagnosed the problem differently from them: Israel’s enemy was “the evil one” and his forces, who had already infiltrated Israel and sowed bad seeds, including the Pharisees themselves! (Mk. 3:22-30/Matt. 12:24-45/Lk. 11:15-26; Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; cf. Lk. 13:16) The true enemies, therefore, were the dark forces (the satan and demons) behind Israel’s corrupt leaders, who (rather than the pagans) had become the “fourth beast” to Jesus’ “son of man” (Matt. 21:42-45/Lk. 20:17-19; 26:62-66/Mk. 14:60-64/Lk. 22:66-71; cf. Dan. 2:44-45; 7:7-18, 23-27).

    How would this enemy, “the evil one,” be defeated? Not by military revolution, but paradoxically by Jesus’ own death (Mk. 10:38-40, 45/Matt. 20:28; Mk. 12:1-12/Matt. 21:33-45/Lk. 20:9-19). There was a strand in second-Temple Judaism which held that the suffering and death of righteous martyrs could take on Israel’s own eschatological suffering, thereby acting as “a ransom for the sin of our nation” (4 Macc. 17:20-22; cf. 6:27-29; 9:23-24; 18:3-4; 2 Macc. 7:36-38; 1QS 8.1-4). It could be argued that Jesus saw his own death in these terms. [2] Taking on Israel’s suffering and death at the hands of her enemies, he died for her sin, and by extension, the sins of the whole world to which Israel was supposed to be a light (cf. John 11:51-52; 1 John 2:2).

    What about the Temple? Whereas the Pharisees tolerated the Temple cult, and the Essenes believed that it needed to be cleansed, Jesus thought it had to be destroyed completely and rebuilt (Mk. 13:1-2/Matt. 24:1-2/Lk. 21:5-6; Mk. 14:58/Matt. 26:61). He symbolically acted out the destruction of the Temple, while quoting a prophecy of Jeremiah about its destruction (Mk. 11:15-18/Matt. 21:12-15/Lk. 19:45-47; cf. Jer. 7:11-14). According to a saying in John’s gospel, the Temple to be rebuilt would be Jesus’ own body (John 2:18-21). Forgiveness of sins was now available outside of the Temple cult, through Jesus himself, which was blasphemy to the priestly elite and Pharisees (Mk. 2:3-12/Matt. 9:2-8/Lk. 5:18-26). For Jesus, loving God and neighbor is far more important than the Temple cult (Mk. 12:28-34).

    Did Jesus succeed in bringing about his paradoxical kingdom of God? According to the early church, he did, and they re-defined God’s kingdom around him. Jesus, the Davidic king, had been enthroned not in Jerusalem but in heaven (Ac. 2:29-36; 5:30-31; 7:55-56; 13:32-33; 15:14-18; 17:7; Eph. 1:20-23; Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1-2; 10:12-13; Rev. 2:26-28; 3:21). Jerusalem had indeed become the foremost city, not the earthly Jerusalem, but the heavenly city (Gal. 4:21-31; Heb. 12:18-24; Rev. 21-22). The Temple was also re-defined around the community of believers in Jesus (Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:4-6).

    Paul also cited many Scriptures to show that the climax of Israel’s story had come through Jesus, most clearly in his second letter to the Corinthians. The covenant of Moses had been replaced by the promised “new covenant,” which was to be given at the end of exile (2 Cor. 3:4-11; cf. Jer. 31:31-40). The “day of salvation” when Israel would be restored from exile was “now” (2 Cor. 6:2; cf. Isa. 49:8-12). Many prophecies about the restoration of Israel after exile are applied to present believers in Jesus (2 Cor. 6:16-18; cf. Lev. 26:11-13; Isa. 43:5-6; 52:4-11; Jer. 32:37-40; Ezek. 20:40-42; 37:24-28).

    The sermon on the mount

    When we place Jesus’ ministry in its historical context, we see that he believed the eschatological restoration of Israel, “the kingdom of God,” was coming in and through his ministry. Let’s try to interpret a specific passage, the sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-7), using this framework. [3] Jesus begins his sermon by reiterating that God’s kingdom is present; but it belongs to the poor in spirit and the persecuted (5:3, 10). The restoration of Israel will belong to the meek, merciful, and peacemakers (5:5-9), not those who vengefully seek to fight the gentiles.

    The people of Israel were meant to be “the salt of the earth,” “the light of the world,” but if they refuse this vocation, they’ll be cast out and trampled (5:13-14). They must let their light shine, rather than keeping it hidden as they’ve been doing (5:15-16). This isn’t an abandonment of Israel’s promises, of the law and the prophets, but their fulfillment (5:17-20).

    The law says not to murder, but they must not even be angry; Israel must reconcile with her accuser lest she be cast into Gehenna, into prison! (5:21-26) Not only must they not commit adultery, but they must not even desire someone’s wife, even their divorced wife, lest they be thrown into Gehenna (5:27-32). They must not take any oaths at all (5:33-37). They must not resist evil; if a Roman soldier forces them to carry his armor for one mile, they should go another mile! (5:38-42) They must love their enemy and pray for their persecutors, as their heavenly father does (5:43-48). This whole section is a re-interpretation of the law, which challenges the then-prevailing view that Israel has to fight her gentile enemies to bring in the kingdom of God.

    Unlike “the hypocrites” (the Pharisees and priestly elite, per Matt. 23), they should treat God as their father. They shouldn’t give alms, pray, and fast in public, but should do so in private where only their father, God, can see them (6:1-18). Moreover, they should forgive those who harm them, instead of taking vengeance, lest God not forgive them (6:12, 14-15). They shouldn’t focus on earthly treasures (6:19-24), nor should they worry about physical possessions (6:25-34). Once again, this is an implicit critique of the then-current view of God’s kingdom, which was centered around taking vengeance on the gentiles to gain the earthly treasures of land and wealth.

    Jesus continues that those who judge others will themselves be judged (7:1-6). Instead, they need only to ask their father and it will be given to them; why would their heavenly father be less gracious than a human father? (7:7-11) The law and prophets can be summed up in a single commandment: to do to others what you would want them to do to you (7:12). Few will follow this narrow path to life, and many will instead take a broader path to destruction (7:13-14). False prophets who lead Israel astray will be known by the result of their movement (7:15-20). Even some who call Jesus “lord, lord” won’t enter God’s kingdom if they fail to do his will (7:21-23). Those who listen to Jesus’ words will be secure, but if they fail to listen, they will fall greatly (7:24-27).

    The entire sermon on the mount fits very well into Jesus’ message of paradoxical kingdom. It can be boiled down into a single statement: Israel has failed her vocation to be the light of the world, and they must learn to desire peace, love their gentile enemies, and treat God as their father if they want to live; every other way leads to destruction. But what exactly is the “destruction” that Jesus believed was about to come upon Israel if she failed to repent? We’ll examine this in the next post.

Part 2: Jesus’ warnings

______________________________

[1] For a more detailed analysis of this view, from various perspectives, see Exile: A Conversation With N. T. Wright, ed. James M. Scott (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017).

[2] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996), 284-302; for Paul, see Jarvis L. Williams, Maccabean Martyr Traditions in Paul's Theology of Atonement (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2010).

[3] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 147-149.

Punishment and Salvation: The Eternal State (part 3 of 3)

Part 2: The Messianic Age

     In the last two sections of this paper, we have seen that many judgment passages in the New Testament actually relate to the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem, which coincided with the end of the Old Covenant, while other passages describe the ongoing judgment that takes place in this life (e.g., John 3:17-21). The rewards of believers, namely “eonian life” and “the kingdom of God,” are spiritual blessings that we enjoy in our present life (see esp. John 17:3; Rom. 14:17), while the ‘death’ that unbelievers undergo is the state of separation from God which we formerly existed in (Eph. 2:1-5, 12). All rewards and punishments for the righteous and the wicked take place in this life, as the author of Proverbs observed (Prov. 11:31).

    But what consequences does this have for the Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead? This is surely a future event, as Jesus has not bodily returned and the dead have not been bodily raised. So will there be a final judgment at this time, despite the fact that the Bible appears to teach that judgment takes place in this life? What will be the ultimate fate of believers and unbelievers?

    The Second Coming and Resurrection

    During his earthly ministry, Jesus did not speak of his return to earth. Although he spoke of a “coming” of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:27, 30; 26:64), this was the “coming” of the Messiah to God to receive power and glory and a kingdom, as prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14. The disciples of Jesus were not aware of the Second Coming; in fact, despite Jesus’ warnings to them, they did not even believe that he would die, rise again, and ascend to heaven (Matt. 16:21-22; Luke 24:18-27; John 16:16-18). Therefore, when he finally did ascend to heaven, the disciples were told by heavenly messengers:

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)

This is the first time that Jesus’ bodily return to earth is described in the New Testament. After this, the disciples began to preach the Second Coming, which Peter declared would take place at “the times of the restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21).

    Although Jesus did not preach about the Second Coming during his earthly ministry, he did teach about the resurrection of the dead. Contrary to the Sadducees’ claim that there would be no bodily resurrection, Jesus showed that the Torah implicitly claimed that the patriarchs would live again one day (Mark 12:18-27). According to his teaching, those who are resurrected will be unable to die again (Luke 20:34-36). In the gospel of John, we’re told that this resurrection will occur “on the last day” (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24), which elsewhere is said to coincide with Jesus’ return from heaven (1 Cor. 15:51-55; 1 Thess. 4:13-18). The resurrection of the dead will involve a transformation of our mortal, soulish bodies into immortal, spiritual bodies (1 Cor. 15:35-49; Phil 3:20-21).

    The Scope of the Resurrection

    As we have seen, the New Testament teaches that there will be a physical resurrection of the dead at the same time as Christ’s bodily return from heaven. But who will be resurrected at this time? The book of Acts tells us that “there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous” (24:15); but will both groups of people be resurrected at the same time, or will only a subset be resurrected at the Second Coming?

    According to John 6:39, those who will be raised “on the last day” are all those whom God has given to Jesus. This includes those who believe in Jesus in this life (John 6:40), but it also includes every other member of humanity, because God has given to Jesus “all things” and “all flesh” (John 3:35; 13:3; 17:2; cf. Matt. 11:27; Rom. 14:9). Prior to Jesus’ death, it was only his disciples who had been given to him (John 17:6-9), but it is clear that after his resurrection, he became the Lord of “all flesh” and “the dead and the living” (John 17:2; Rom. 14:9). Indeed, his inheritance includes the wicked and unbelievers, as prophesied by the psalmist (Ps. 2:7-9; cf. Acts 13:33). Because the people who have been given to Jesus will be raised “on the last day,” and all people have been given to Jesus, it follows that all people will be raised at the Second Coming.

    This is supported by Paul’s writings, especially 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, in which he states:

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end...

    Although some argue that this passage describes three different stages of resurrection, the evidence does not support this view. Paul refers to Jesus as the firstfruits, [1] which draws upon the typology of harvest in the Old Testament; this only had two stages, the “sheaf of the firstfruits” followed by the rest of the harvest (Lev. 23:9-22). Jesus is the firstfruits of “those who have died” and all who “die in Adam,” so the second stage of the ‘harvest’ of the resurrection includes everyone who has died. [2] Moreover, those who are resurrected “at his coming” are “those who belong to Christ,” which in Paul’s view includes “both the dead and the living” (Rom. 14:9). 

    The only other place in Paul’s epistles where he describes the resurrection at the Second Coming is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. This passage states:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died.

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

    The scope of this resurrection is described repeatedly as “those who have died” (or “those who are asleep”), which suggests that all who have died will be raised at that time. Yet in v. 16, most translations say that “the dead in Christ will rise first,” which implies that only dead Christians will be resurrected. Nonetheless, this can also be translated as “the dead will rise in Christ first,” which better fits the context and is grammatically more plausible. [3] Moreover, since this prophecy was meant to comfort the Thessalonians about “those who have died,” were they only concerned about other Christians and not their unbelieving relatives as well? This is quite unlikely, especially since Paul has just exhorted them to have love not only “for one another,” but indeed “for all” (1 Thess. 3:12; cf. 5:15).

    In summary, the resurrection at the Second Coming will encompass all members of humanity, not just believers. This is shown by the gospel of John, which states that all who have been given to Jesus will be “raised on the last day” (6:39), and that all people have been given to Jesus (17:2). It is also supported by Paul’s epistles, as he says that “those who belong to Christ” (which includes all people) will be resurrected “at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:20-23; cf. Rom. 14:9), and that “those who have died” will “rise in Christ” when he returns from heaven (1 Thess. 4:13-18).

    The Salvation of All

    As I have argued at length in many other places, the Bible clearly teaches that all people, not just those who believe in this life, will be saved through Christ’s sacrifice. This is most obviously seen in the writings of Paul, who establishes in his epistles to the Romans and Corinthians that as many people as were condemned by Adam’s sin will also be justified by Jesus’ selfless sacrifice:

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. And the gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:15-19)

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human, for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. (1 Cor. 15:20-22)

Some avoid this conclusion by arguing that “the many” and “all people” in these passages could refer to a subset of humanity. If Paul had said that “all people” were condemned in Adam while “the many” were justified in Christ, or even vice versa, this might be a plausible interpretation. Instead, he’s careful to establish a comparison between the two, referring to both groups as “the many” or “all people” in the same sentence, showing that it’s the same group (all humanity) in view in both cases.

    These aren’t the only passages establishing universal salvation by far. In the famous Carmen Christi, we’re told that one day “every knee will bow... and every tongue will confess, ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’” (Phil. 2:10-11), which is a confession that cannot be made except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). Paul says that “all things” that were created, “whether in heaven or on earth,” shall be reconciled to God by the blood of Jesus (Eph. 1:9-10; Col. 1:16-20). God “wills that all people be saved,” and therefore he sent Jesus as the “correspondent ransom on behalf of all” (1 Tim. 2:4-6). He “imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (Rom. 11:32). Paul tells us to “insist upon and teach” that God is “the savior of all people, especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10-11). [4]

    The salvation of all is also taught implicitly throughout the rest of the Scriptures. Many passages tell us that God has the power to control people’s thoughts and desires, including their faith and unbelief; no one comes to Jesus unless it’s willed by the Father. [5] Even if this biblical determinist view is rejected, it follows from God’s omniscience and omnipotence that he knows the circumstances under which each person would come to faith in him, and is able to bring this about. We’re also told that love for all people, even his enemies, is integral to God’s very being and perfection (Matt. 5:43-48; 1 John 4:8). Those whom God loves, he may justly chastise and punish, but he always shows compassion afterward, to the ultimate good of the object of love (Lam. 3:31-33; Heb. 12:6-11; cf. Rom. 13:8-10). Therefore, God wills for all people, even his enemies, to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4).

    It follows logically from God’s sovereignty over and love for all people — which are major themes found all across the Bible — that he will cause all people to be saved. [6,7] But when will all people come to faith in God and Christ and be saved? The answer is given by Paul in his discourse on the resurrection:

But each [will be resurrected] in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the One who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all...

Look, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When this perishable body puts on imperishability and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. 15:23-28, 51-57)

Paul says that death will be destroyed at “the end” (Gk: to telos), after every ruler and authority has been abolished, when Jesus finally subjects all things under his feet and gives up the kingdom to the Father. [8] Elsewhere, in his epistle to the Philippians, Paul says, “He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself” (Phil. 3:21). Therefore, in making all things (including his enemies) subject to himself, Christ will transform their bodies to be immortal and incorruptible like his.

    This will all take place when we are resurrected “at the last trumpet,” at which time both death and its “sting,” which is sin, will be swallowed up in God’s victory through Christ (1 Cor. 15:54-57). Then God will be “all in all” (15:28). If all people will be immortal and incorruptible, with God dwelling in them, and no more ability to sin, what else can this be but the salvation of all people? [9] Indeed, if no one will sin any more after the resurrection, further punishment would be utterly pointless and cruel. God doesn’t punish out of a mere vengeance, but out of a desire for restoration and reconciliation (Lam. 3:31-33; Heb. 12:6-11).

    It might be objected to this universalist view that this makes Jesus’ sacrifice pointless. But that’s turning the entire situation on its head. All people will be saved and made immortal, not in spite of Christ, but because of him. The very reason that he died was to “abolish death and bring light and immortality to life” (2 Tim. 1:11). In every passage where he discusses the salvation of all, Paul is clear that it is because of Christ’s sacrifice that this wonderful outcome will take place. Jesus is the only way to the Father, so it would be impossible for all people to be saved except through him (John 14:6). This objection, therefore, makes as little sense as asking what the point of a firefighter’s sacrifice was if he died saving everyone from a burning building. Would Jesus’ sacrifice somehow be more meaningful if he saved only one-tenth of all people?

    Judgment on the Last Day

    Paul’s teachings about the resurrection of the dead and the salvation of all are clear, and his discourse in 1 Corinthians 15 makes these events simultaneous. Yet there is one passage which speaks of a judgment occurring at the same time as the resurrection:

I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge. (John 12:47-48)

Elsewhere in the gospel of John, “the last day” is when the resurrection of the dead takes place (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24). If there will be a judgment on “the last day,” this threatens our conclusion, based on Paul’s epistles, that all people will be saved at that time. How should we interpret this passage?

    First of all, note that even those who hear and do not keep Christ’s words are considered to be part of the “world” that he came to save. These people, along with the rest of those whom God has given Jesus, will be raised up on the last day, and ultimately none of them will be lost (John 6:39; cf. 3:35; 13:3; 17:2; Matt. 11:27; Rom. 14:9). We’re told that those who didn’t keep the words of Jesus in their lifetime will be judged on “the last day,” but we’re not told if this judgment will result in any punishment, whether eternal or limited. Notably, it isn’t Jesus who will judge them at that time, even though he’s the one to whom all judgment has been committed by the Father (John 5:22, 27). Instead, he says, “the word that I have spoken will serve as judge.”

    What is “the word” that Jesus spoke? Immediately before this, Jesus told the crowds that he was the one who had been sent by God, the light and savior of the world (John 12:44-47). It is this word that shall “judge” unbelievers on “the last day.” To judge (Gk: krinō) doesn’t always imply punishment, but can also simply mean to determine a course of action, or to deem someone right or wrong. [10] When, on the last day, those who rejected Jesus’ word are resurrected and “come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), that same word will deem them to have been wrong. At that time, “all Israel will be saved,” including those who were disobedient to Jesus’ message in this life (Rom. 11:26, 32). Therefore, this judgment isn’t incompatible with the salvation of all on “the last day”; to the contrary, it will occur only when unbelievers have been saved and realized that they were wrong!

    Conclusion

    Most Christians believe that, after death, those who didn’t believe in Jesus as Messiah in this life will be hopelessly tortured forever in ‘hell,’ or at the very least annihilated forever. However, the biblical hope is much greater than this dystopian picture in which God abandons most of his creation to destruction. Most of the passages which are interpreted as referring to ‘hell’ (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 13:37-43, 47-50; 18:8-9; 23:33; 25:31-46; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 12:5; John 5:28-29; 2 Thess. 1:5-10; Rev. 14:11; 20:11-15) actually refer to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, an event of great redemptive-historical significance to the early Christians, as it marked the end of the Old Covenant and the full arrival of the New Covenant, and vindicated the followers of Jesus over other Jewish sects (Matt. 22:1-14; 23:34-38; Heb. 8:13; 9:8-10; 10:8-9; Rev. 18:20-19:9).

    Other judgment passages, such as John 3:17-21 and Romans 2:5-10, refer to the present Messianic age, when Jesus reigns over and judges the gentiles (Ps. 2:6-9; Isa. 11:10-12; 42:1-4; Zech. 14:9; Matt. 28:18; Acts 13:33; 17:30-31; 2 Cor. 6:2). Those who follow Jesus have “eonian life,” which is defined as the state of knowing God and Christ (John 17:3); it is more than a mere intellectual knowledge, and involves God and his Son actually coming to dwell in communion with us (John 14:23; 1 John 1:3; 2:24; 3:23-24; 4:12-13; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 3:17). We belong to the “kingdom of God” with its spiritual blessings (Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13). In contrast, those who don’t follow Jesus continue in darkness and death, because they refuse to come to Jesus who is the Light and Life; they are “having no hope and without God in the world” (John 3:36; Rom. 6:16, 21-23; 8:6, 13; 2 Cor. 7:10; Eph. 2:12; etc.).

    However, this state will not last forever. At the “times of the restoration of all things,” Jesus will return from heaven (Acts 1:11; 3:21; cf. Rom. 8:20-23). Then all people, including God’s enemies, will be subjected to him by being resurrected into immortal, sinless bodies, and death and sin will be abolished (John 6:39-44; 1 Cor. 15:20-28, 51-57; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Phil. 3:21). Thus the salvation of all which was secured by Christ’s sacrifice will be effected (Rom. 5:12-19; 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 1:9-10; Phil. 2:10-11; Col. 1:16-20; 1 Tim. 2:4-6; 4:10). About the eternal state, the Bible says very little, although it may be imperfectly foreshadowed in Revelation 21-22. But we can be sure that God has amazing things planned, not just for a small subset of people, for all of us!

______________________________

[1] Contrary to some idiosyncratic readings of this passage, “Christ the firstfruits” cannot refer to the body of Christ without doing violence to the text. The preceding section deals with the importance of Jesus’ bodily resurrection, concluding, “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have died” (1 Cor. 15:20), after which Paul segues into his discussion of the resurrection. Moreover, I’m aware of no place in Paul’s epistles where he uses “Christ” as a metonym for “the body of Christ.”

[2] It may be objected that after describing the resurrection of “those who are Christ’s,” Paul states, “Then comes the end,” which implies that the consummation comes some time after the resurrection. However, the word translated as “then” in v. 23 (Gk: epeita) differs from the word translated as “then” in v. 24 (Gk: eita). The former word indicates a necessary order in time, whereas the latter can be used to describe simultaneous events, as in fact proved by the immediate context (see the Greek of 1 Cor. 15:5-7; cf. Matt 28:16-18; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:33-38; John 20:19-20).

[3] David Konstan and Ilaria Ramelli, “The Syntax of Εν Χριστω in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,” Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no. 3 (2007): 579–93.

[4] Note that “especially” (Gk: malista) carries a sense of specialness, but not exclusivity; see how Paul uses this word elsewhere (Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 5:8, 17; 2 Tim. 4:13; Tit. 1:10; Philem. 16), notably in Galatians 6:10, which is extremely similar to 1 Timothy 4:10 in construction and meaning. God is the savior “especially” of believers because he begins to save us from sin in this life.

[5] Exod. 10:1; Deut. 2:30; 30:6; Josh. 11:19-20; Ezra 1:1; 6:22; 7:27; Neh. 7:5; Ps. 33:13-15; 105:23-25; Prov. 16:1, 4, 9; 19:21; 20:24; 21:1; Jer. 10:23; 24:7; Ezek. 36:36-37; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 11:25; 13:10-11; John 1:12-13; 6:44, 64-65; 15:16; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28-30; 9:15-18; 11:32; 12:3; 1 Cor. 1:27-28; 3:5-9; Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Phil. 1:29; 2:13; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2:25-26; Heb. 6:1-3; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4.

[6] To put this argument in the form of a deductive syllogism: (1) God has the power to bring all people to faith in him; (2) God wills all people to come to faith in him; (3) thus, God will cause all people to come to faith in him.

[7] For more extensive argumentation in favor of Christian universalism, see Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012); Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014); David Bentley Hart, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019). For the long pedigree of this view throughout the history of Christianity, see Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Boston: Brill, 2013); Ilaria Ramelli, A Larger Hope? Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2019); Robin Parry and Ilaria Ramelli, A Larger Hope? Universal Salvation from the Reformation to the Nineteenth Century (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2019).

[8] Many object to the view that Christ will actually stop reigning and be subjected to God at the end, but Paul couldn’t be clearer on this point. He states that Christ will, at this time, “hand over the kingdom to the God and Father,” that “he will reign until” such a time, and that “the Son himself will be subjected to” God. The idea that the Messiah will stop reigning once all enemies have been subjected to God comes from Psalm 110:1-2, one of the most quoted Messianic prophecies in the New Testament: “Yahweh says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. Yahweh shall send the staff of your strength from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies!’” The very reason that Jesus now sits at the right hand of God is to subject all to him; to say that Jesus will never stop reigning is to say that he will ultimately fail in the purpose for which he was sent. And of course, Jesus can only “rule in the midst of [his] enemies” as long as there are enemies.

[9] It would be impossible for anyone to resist coming to God once they meet him face-to-face. Although I disagree with Thomas Aquinas on many things, he is correct when he states, “if the will be offered an object which is good universally and from every point of view, the will tends to it of necessity, if it wills anything at all; since it cannot will the opposite... consequently, that good alone which is perfect and lacking in nothing, is such a good that the will cannot not-will it: and this is Happiness“ (Summa Theologica II.I.10.2). Sin is merely the result of an impaired will that can't see what is truly good for itself, so knowing the truth sets us free from sin (cf. John 8:31-34). Thus, when all our mental defects are taken away at the resurrection, we'll have no more propensity to sin.

[10] Luke 7:43; 12:57; John 7:24; 8:15; Acts 3:13; 4:19; 13:46; 15:19; 16:4, 15; 20:16; 21:25; 25:25; 26:8; 27:1; Rom. 2:3; 14:5, 13; 1 Cor. 2:2; 7:37; 11:13; 2 Cor. 2:1; 5:14; Tit. 3:12.