All things in the heavens

     Within Christian universalism, there are two different schools of thought on how extensive the ultimate salvation and reconciliation will be. Some universalists believe that all human beings will be saved, but extend this salvation no further than all humanity, believing that neither the devil nor his angels will ever be reconciled. This is a sort of ‘soft universalism’, or as I often call it, anthropological universalism. Others believe that all rational and conscious beings will be saved, including the devil and his angels, which I call ‘full universalism’. So, which of these is more biblical? In this post, we will examine both sides of the argument and come to a conclusion based on the scriptural evidence.

    Who is the devil?

Before getting into the question of whether the devil will be reconciled to God - which is, indeed, a doozy of a question - we must first examine what the Bible actually says about the nature of the devil. The word “devil” literally means “slanderer”, whereas the word “satan” literally means “adversary” - the being called the devil and the Satan (for example, seen in Matt. 4 and Rev. 12) is the ultimate Adversary and Slanderer of the people of God.

    Most Christians see the devil as an angelic being who was once the greatest of God’s creations, and yet fell (almost immediately) into sin after grasping at equality with God. Now, they believe, he remains the greatest enemy of God and is always working contrary to His will. But is this what scripture actually says? There are two passages thought to teach that the devil originally was a great angelic being and then fell from grace: Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. Let’s take a look at each of these passages.

And there is a word of Yahweh unto me, saying: “Son of man, lift up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and thou hast said to him: Thus said the Lord Yahweh: Thou art sealing up a measurement, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. In Eden, the garden of God, thou hast been, every precious stone thy covering, ruby, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle, and gold, the workmanship of thy tabrets, and of thy pipes, in thee in the day of thy being produced, have been prepared. Thou [art] an anointed cherub who is covering, and I have set thee in the holy mount, God thou hast been, in the midst of stones of fire thou hast walked up and down. Perfect [art] thou in thy ways, from the day of thy being produced, till perversity hath been found in thee. By the abundance of thy merchandise they have filled thy midst with violence, and thou dost sin, and I thrust thee from the mount of God, and I destroy thee, O covering cherub, From the midst of the stones of fire. High hath been thy heart, because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom because of thy brightness, on the earth I have cast thee, before kings I have set thee, to look on thee, from the abundance of thy iniquity, by the perversity of thy traffic, thou hast polluted thy sanctuaries, and I bring forth fire from thy midst, it hath devoured thee, and I make thee become ashes on the earth, before the eyes of all beholding thee. All knowing thee among the peoples have been astonished at thee, wastes thou hast been, and thou art not — to the age.” (Ezek. 28:11-19 YLT)

...thou hast taken up this simile concerning the king of Babylon, and said... “How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one [Lucifer], son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations. And thou saidst in thy heart: the heavens I go up, above stars of God I raise my throne, And I sit in the mount of meeting in the sides of the north. I go up above the heights of a thick cloud, I am like to the Most High. Only — unto Sheol thou art brought down, unto the sides of the pit.” (Isa. 14:4, 12-15 YLT)

The problem with seeing these passages as describing the “fall of Satan” should be obvious; they are not about the devil. Rather, they are explicitly about the king of Tyre and the king of Babylon respectively. And the first passage cannot be describing anything other than the human king of Tyre, even if it uses figurative imagery, because twice in the immediate context it says that this king is “a man” (vv. 2, 9). Likewise, the second passage, about the king of Babylon, also describes this king as a “man” (v. 16) and is said to be describing the judgment of Babylon (vv. 22-23), not of a spiritual being.

    The idea that the the Adversary fell from heaven [1] likely came out of the idea that God cannot create anything that is evil, even to serve a better purpose, despite clear statements to the contrary (Job 2:10; Isa. 45:7). However, in contrast to the strained interpretations of Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 to support this doctrine, we have explicit statements that the Adversary has always been an adversary and a slanderer. It is said that he was both a murderer and a sinner from the beginning (Jn. 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8); although this could, theoretically, be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the doctrine of the “fall of Satan”, the most clear and natural interpretation is that the Adversary was created as a sinner. So, although I would not be too dogmatic on this issue (because there aren’t many passages that discuss it), the most scriptural position seems to be that the Adversary did not fall, but was created as a sinner.

    Furthermore, rather than the Adversary working against God’s ultimate will, there are indications in scripture that he is ultimately an agent of God’s will, and as firmly under the sovereignty of God as we humans are. According to 1 Chronicles 21:1, it was the Adversary that provoked David to take a census of Israel, apparently going against God’s will, for which David was later punished. And yet, according to 2 Samuel 24:1, it was Yahweh that provoked David to take a census of Israel! This is only an irreconcilable contradiction unless we recognize that the Adversary is, ultimately, working out God’s sovereign will as much as we humans are [2], even though he may perceive himself as working against God’s preceptive will. Furthermore, in Job 2:1-6, the Adversary is unable to lift a hand against Job until given permission by Yahweh, and Job later identifies the ultimate source of the evil against him as God (Job 2:10).

    However, this does not mean that the Adversary is purposely working in accordance with God’s will. After all, in both the Old and New Testaments, the Adversary is presented as, well, an adversary. We can conclude that, although the Adversary is ultimately working towards the purposes which God has created for him (whatever they may be), he still perceives himself as working against God’s will (which in a sense is true, as he is going against God’s preceptive will).

    So, rather than seeing the Adversary as a created angelic being that fell away from God and is now working against Him, the biblical picture of the Adversary is as one who was created specifically for the purpose of adversity, and is just as much under the sovereignty of God as we are. The “angels” or “messengers” of the Adversary, however, which are called “demons” elsewhere, do seem to have been corrupted and deceived by the Adversary (for example, see Rev. 12:4, 7-9). With this in mind, let’s examine the question of whether these beings will eventually be reconciled to God.

    Position #1: the Adversary and his angels are beyond redemption

The first position, held by some universalists, is that only humans are able to be saved and reconciled to God, and all other beings are beyond redemption. This position is what I call ‘anthropological universalism’. This position was held by several early Christian theologians like Origen of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea. There are a few passages that can be adduced in support of anthropological universalism:

“Then shall he say also to those on the left hand, Go ye from me, the cursed, to the fire, the age-during, that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers” (Matt. 25:41 YLT)

According to the traditional interpretation of this passage, the age-during fire (of Gehenna?) has been prepared for the Adversary and his angels, even though many humans (the “goats”) will go there as well. However, this is not the best interpretation of this passage based on its overall context; this passage (Matt. 25:31-46) is describing the judgment of the surviving Gentile unbelievers that will remain after the end of the tribulation, with the “sheep” who helped Israel during its time of adversity being granted access to the kingdom, and the “goats” who persecuted Israel being sent far away from the kingdom in Israel and treated as slaves.

    The “age-during fire” in this passage seems to be a figurative description of the adversity which the “goats” are set to experience during the Messianic age (cf. Deut. 4:20; Isa. 48:10; Ezek. 22:20; 1 Pet. 1:7; 4:12). These goats will comprise the “nations” that Christ and believers will “rule over with a rod of iron” (Ps. 2:8-9; Rev. 2:26-27; 19:15), and who will be treated as slaves, forced to obey in all things or suffer severe consequences as a reprimand for their harsh treatment of Israel (Joel 3:5-8; Zech. 14:16-19). 

    So then, it cannot be the punishment of the ‘age-during fire’ itself that will be prepared for the Adversary and his angels, because they will be confined to an ‘abyss’ during the time that this punishment of the goats is taking place (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; Rev. 20:1-3). Rather, this fire is prepared for them in the sense that it will make ready the nations for the deception that the Adversary and his angels will perpetuate at the end of the Messianic age (Rev. 20:7-9). Thus, this passage doesn’t really provide any input on the issue of whether the Adversary and his angels will be saved.

    But even if the traditional interpretation, that the ‘age-during fire’ was prepared for them in the sense that they will be punished by it, was correct, what would this really prove anyway? All that it would show is that the Adversary and his angels will be punished in fire for an ‘age-during’ period. Since the adjective αιωνιος rarely, if ever, means strictly “without end” when used in scripture, this passage would still be equivocal on the issue of whether their punishment will eventually end.

messengers also, those who did not keep their own principality, but did leave their proper dwelling, to a judgment of a great day, in bonds everlasting [αιδιοις], under darkness He hath kept (Jude 6 YLT)

This passage is somewhat stronger evidence that certain fallen angels will never be reconciled. This is because the bonds in which these angels are kept are described as αιδιος, an adjective which does mean strictly “eternal” in Greek. However, the context qualifies the period for which these angels will only be kept in bonds under darkness as only until the “judgment of a great day”, which the parallel passage of 2 Peter 2:4 supports. So then, in what sense are these bonds αιδιος? Another possible translation of this word in this context is “imperceptible” or “invisible”, based on its etymology from the words α- (“not”) and οιδα (“to see/perceive”), which would be equivocal as to whether the punishment of these angels will eventually end.

and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night — to the ages of the ages. (Rev. 20:10 YLT)

This passage characterizes the torment of the Adversary, the beast, and the false prophet as εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων (“for the ages of the ages”). Cross-referencing this passage with others like Gal. 1:5; Php. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 7:12; 10:6; and 15:7, which describe the glory and life of God as continuing “for the ages of the ages”, it is argued that the torment of these beings will never end, for the glory and life of God are likewise unending.

    However, just because God’s glory and life will continue for the ages of the ages does not mean that they will end after that time. It is worth noting that other things categorized as “for the ages of the ages” in scripture, such as the dominion and reign of Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6; 5:13; 11:15) and the dominion of the saints (Rev. 22:5), are explicitly said to end in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 when Jesus will abolish all rule, power, and authority and hand over the kingdom to God, voluntarily subjecting Himself to the Father. In fact, an argument can be made from this passage that the torment of the Adversary, beast, and false prophet will end:

Premise 1. Christ will reign for “the ages of the ages” (Rev. 11:15).

Premise 2. The reign of Christ will eventually come to an end (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

Premise 3. The torment of the Adversary, beast, and false prophet will continue for “the ages of the ages” (Rev. 20:10).

Conclusion. The torment of the Adversary, beast, and false prophet will eventually come to an end.

Although Revelation 20:10 does not necessarily prove that the torment of these three beings will end - any more than Philippians 4:20 proves that the glory of God will come to an end - it is at the very least equivocal on this issue, because we know that other things characterized as lasting “for the ages of the ages” will also end.

    Position #2: the Adversary and his angels will be reconciled

The second position, which I call ‘full universalism’, is that the Adversary and his angels will be reconciled along with the rest of humanity. Full universalism was believed by several of the theological heavyweights of early Christianity, including Gregory of Nyssa and (at first) Jerome of Stridon. This position finds its greatest scriptural support in Colossians 1:15-20:

[Christ] is [the] image of the invisible God, [the] firstborn of all creation, because in him was created the all things, in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities, the all things has been created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and the all things has been established in him. And he is the head of the body, the assembly, who is the beginning, a firstborn out of the dead, so that in all things he may become [the one] having preeminence, because in him all the fullness [of God] was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile the all things to Himself, [he] having made peace through the blood of his cross, through him, whether the [things] upon the earth, whether the [things] in the heavens.

According to this passage, the “all things” which will be reconciled to God are the same all things described earlier as “the all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible”, that is, clearly all beings without exception. This is confirmed by the use of the definite article throughout this passage, which shows each instance of τα παντα to be referring to the same set of ‘things’. This is also the same “all things” which Christ is preeminent over, elsewhere said to be all things in the heavens and upon the earth, whether living or dead (Matt. 28:18; Rom. 14:9 cf. Eph. 1:10).

    Since, per Revelation 12, both the Adversary and his messengers are currently in the heavens, the “all things in the heavens” that will be reconciled certainly includes them. And furthermore, the fact that Jesus is most certainly preeminent over the Adversary - in fact, that is one of the very reasons that He came, to gain power over and nullify the authority of the Adversary (Jn. 12:31; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 3:8) - makes it even more clear that the Adversary is part of the “all things” being considered in this passage. But if the Adversary is part of the “all things” which are created in Him, and which He is preeminent over, then he must also be part of the “all things” which will be reconciled to God through Him.

    Furthermore, Paul states that one category of the “all things” that will be reconciled is the rulers (αρχαι) and authorities (εξουσιαι) in the heavens. And yet this is almost exactly the terminology he uses elsewhere to describe the demonic forces which we currently our enemies:

Put on the panoply of God, to enable you to stand up to the schemes of the Adversary, because ours is not the wrestling with flesh and blood, but with the rulers, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of this darkness, with the spirituals of evil, in the heavenlies. (Eph. 6:11-12)

There can be little doubt that Paul had the same idea in mind when writing about the “rulers” and “authorities... in the heavens” in both his epistle to the Colossians and to the Ephesians. But this means that the same demonic forces that are currently our enemies, including the Adversary, will eventually be reconciled to God. Even if, as non-universalists argue, this Colossians passage is simply describing a potential reconciliation [3], this is still incompatible with the mainstream position that neither the Adversary nor his angels even have the possibility of being saved.

    Another passage that supports the idea that the Adversary and his angels will eventually be reconciled to God is 1 Corinthians 15:24-28:

...then the consummation, when he may deliver the kingdom to the God and Father, when he may nullify all rule and all authority and power. For [it] is necessary [for] him to reign until He may put all the enemies under his feet. [The] last enemy is being abolished: the death. For He subjected all things under his feet. Now when it may be said that all things have been subjected, [it is] clear that the [One] having subjected the all things to him [is] excepted. Now when the all things may be subjected to him, then also the Son himself will be subjected to the [One] having subjected the all things to him, so that God may be the all things, in all.

According to this passage, all of God’s enemies will be subjected to Christ and put under His feet. Of course, the Adversary and his angels are to be included in the category of “the enemies” which will be subjected to Christ and put under His feet. However, throughout the Pauline corpus, the notion of subjection to Christ is always connected to reconciliation, not a subjection of destruction. For example, see Php. 2:9-11 and 3:21, which present the subjection of all things to Christ as a glorious time in which all will bow to Him and acknowledge Him as Lord, and Ephesians 1:21-23, which connects the subjection of all things with the same subjection by which Christ is head of the church, namely, reconciliation.

    However, even if we did not have these other passages that present subjection to Christ as reconciliation, the final verse of this passage should remove any remaining doubt, as it says that after this subjection God will be “the all things, in all” (τα παντα εν πασιν). For God to be “in all”, all beings must first be reconciled to Him, including the enemies that have been subjected under Christ’s feet. Therefore, Paul’s prophecy in 1 Cor. 15:24-28 provides further evidence that the Adversary will be reconciled to God, at the end of the ages of the ages for which his torment will continue (Rev. 20:10).

    Finally, the last passage that supports the idea that even rebel angels (including the Adversary) will eventually be saved and reconciled is Ephesians 3:8-11:

To me, the less than least of all saints, was given this grace: to preach the incomprehensible riches of the Christ to the Gentiles, and to enlighten all [as to] what [is] the administration of the secret, the [one] having been hidden from the ages in God, the [One who] created the all things, so that now the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the assembly to the rulers and to the authorities in the heavenlies, according to a purpose of the ages which He made in the Christ, Jesus our Lord.

Compare this to what Paul wrote at the end of the same epistle to the Ephesians:

Put on the panoply of God, to enable you to stand up to the schemes of the Adversary, because ours is not the wrestling with flesh and blood, but with the rulers, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of this darkness, with the spirituals of evil, in the heavenlies. (Eph. 6:11-12)

There can be no doubt that Paul was writing about the same demonic forces, the “rulers and authorities in the heavenlies”, when he wrote the first passage as the second. However, he expects that in the oncoming ages when the body of Christ will be seated with Christ in the heavens (Eph. 2:6-7), we will also be evangelizing the same demonic forces which are currently our enemies. This is inconceivable if it is impossible for fallen angels to be saved, which is the mainstream position of Christianity.

    Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians shows that at the very least it is possible for fallen angels to be reconciled to God, which in turn implies that they will be reconciled to God. This is because according to God’s very nature, His sovereignty over all and love for all, He must effect the reconciliation of any being that has the potential to be reconciled to Him (as I argued in my last post).

    These three texts provide very strong scriptural evidence that both the Adversary and his fallen angels will be reconciled to God along with the rest of humanity. Not only do we have explicit statements that all of the rulers and authorities in the heavens (referring to demonic forces) will be reconciled to God through Christ (Col. 1:16) and that all of God’s enemies will be subjected and reconciled, thus making God the all things in all (1 Cor. 15:24-28), but we are also told that one of the duties of the body of Christ is to evangelize these demonic forces (Eph. 3:8-11). In contrast, the texts that are used to argue that the Adversary and his angels will not be saved are fairly equivocal on this issue. Because of this, I think we can be certain from scripture that all of God’s enemies, including the Adversary, will be reconciled to Him in the end.

______________________________

[1] It should be noted that, although the fall of the Adversary from heaven is described in scripture (Lk. 10:18, Rev. 12) this is depicted as a future event that will occur close to the time that the Messianic kingdom is established on earth.

[2] For scriptural support of this position, see Job 23:13-14; Ps. 33:14-15; Prov. 16:1, 4, 9, 33; 19:21; 20:24; 21:1; Isa. 45:5-7; Jer. 10:23; Lam. 3:37-39; Dan. 5:23; Acts 17:25, 28; Php. 2:13; Jas. 4:13-15; Rev. 17:17.

[3] This interpretation is hard to reconcile with the grammar of this passage, since the verb “to reconcile” is not in the subjunctive mood (which would introduce an element of uncertainty) but in the infinitive mood.

Two conclusive arguments for universal salvation

     Argument #1 (God will save all people)

Premise 1. God has mercy on, and hardens, whomever he wills according to his will [thelēma] (Rom. 9:18; cf. Eph. 1:4-5, 11)

Premise 1*. God can save anyone that he wills. [This is a weaker form of Premise 1 which leads to the same conclusion.]

Premise 2. God’s will [thelēma] is that all people ultimately be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; cf. Isa. 45:22; Ezek. 33:11; Matt. 5:44-45, 48)

Conclusion. God will ultimately have mercy on and save all people.

     Premise 1

For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. (Romans 9:15-18, NRSV)

This passage makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that one’s current position as either having been shown mercy or having been hardened is not according to one’s own will, but the will [thelēma] of God. Although Arminians would dispute this notion, largely on the basis that God would not arbitrarily assign people to ‘eternal damnation’, this is made absolutely clear elsewhere in scripture as well. Those who have been saved in this lifetime are repeatedly called the “chosen” or “elect” (Matt. 20:16; 22:14; Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; Tit. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; too many others to cite).

    Furthermore, many other passages show that our faith is itself a gift from God, predestined to us long before any choice that we ourselves make:

At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants” (Matt. 11:25, NRSV)

Then the disciples came and asked him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” He answered, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” (Matt. 13:10-11, NRSV) 

“No one can come to me [Jesus] unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.... But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.” (John 6:44, 64-65, NRSV)

The combination of these three passages shows that not only does the Father determine who is able to perceive the mysteries of the kingdom and come to Jesus, but also determines the reverse — in fact, Jesus says that the very reason why some of his disciples would later leave and betray him is because the Father predestined it. This only makes sense if both faith and unbelief are predetermined by God.

For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all... For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. (Rom. 11:32; 12:3, NRSV)

Paul distinguishes between those to whom God has shut up in disobedience (all people), and the few to whom God has allotted a measure of faith (Christians). Again, in both cases, it is God who ultimately causes one’s faith or unbelief respectively — human ‘free will’ has no part in it.

He [God] chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will... In Christ we have also obtained an inheritance, having been destined according to the purpose of him [God] who accomplishes all things according to his counsel and will (Eph. 1:4-5, 11, NRSV)

[God] saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace. This grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began (2 Tim. 1:9, NRSV)

Like in Romans 9:15-18, Paul twice remarks in Ephesians 1:4-11 that our faith and salvation has been predestined to us according to God’s will [thelēma]. Therefore, we can conclude that our faith is not out of ourselves, but is a gift from God, as Paul explicitly states elsewhere in this same epistle (Eph. 2:8-9). Furthermore, Paul says in both of these passages that God gave this grace to us before the world was created, only now manifesting it to us (as he also says elsewhere, esp. Titus 1:2-3). This makes clear that our having been given grace can’t be dependent on a choice that we ourselves make, since the choice was already made by God even before the creation of the world.

For he has graciously granted you the privilege not only of believing in Christ, but of suffering for him as well (Php. 1:29, NRSV)

Here, again, Paul clearly says that our belief in Christ has been granted to us; and not only that, but even the suffering that the Philippian church experienced was brought about by God, showing that the unbelief of others is ultimately part of his will as well.

[Christ is] “A stone that makes them stumble, and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. (1 Pet. 2:8, NRSV)

In this verse, Peter says in no uncertain terms that anyone who disbelieves the gospel was appointed to that unbelief. This is in accord with his statements elsewhere that those who believe in this lifetime are “elect” or “chosen” by the Father (1 Pet. 1:1-2; 2:9; 5:13).

    These are far from the only passages that teach that God controls both faith and unbelief: for example, see John 1:12-13; 15:16; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28-30; 1 Cor. 1:27-28; 3:5-9; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25-26; Heb. 6:1-3; and Jude 4. In summary, the faith or unbelief of humans today is not based on our own choices that we make, but God’s choosing us according to his will [thelēma]. A discussion of whether free will truly exists in the libertarian sense is not the main topic of this article (although I do not believe it does [1]), but these passages make clear that even if it does, our faith is not based on those ‘free will’ choices. Thus, we have arrived at Premise 1: God has mercy on, and hardens, whomever he wills according to His will [thelēma].

    Premise 1*

The Bible clearly teaches that our faith is a result of God’s grace toward us, a decision that he made before the world was created, which we therefore could have had no part in. Even if the Bible didn’t tell us this, however, it follows directly from God’s omniscience (infinite knowledge). If indeed God knows everything, then he knows what circumstances would be required for each person to come to faith in him. If there are no circumstances in which a person could possibly be saved, that means the person was damned from the beginning, which is equivalent to hyper-Calvinist double predestination (that the vast majority of Christians rightfully reject). God’s omnipotence (infinite power) also means that he can bring about these circumstances. Thus, as a logical consequence of God’s omniscience and omnipotence, we can arrive at Premise 1*: God can save anyone that he wills.

    Premise 2

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:1-4, NRSV)

According to this passage, God wills (thelei) that all mankind would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Calvinists dispute that this passage actually refers to all mankind, and argue that either (1) it is simply saying that God wills all the elect to be saved, or else (2) this refers to God’s preceptive will and not his providential will.

    The first objection, that this passage is merely referring to all the elect and not all mankind, is false. Calvinists are correct to point out that “all” (pas) does not always mean all without exception (for example, in Matt. 3:5-6 and Luke 2:1), because it is sometimes used hyperbolically, but the referent of the “all” in 1 Timothy 2:4 is clearly all mankind (pantas anthrōpous) and not simply the elect. There are no qualifications or contextual indications that anything less than every human without exception is meant here, unlike in the other verses that Calvinists point to where “all” does not mean all without exception. How much more clear could Paul have been that God does indeed will all people to be saved? It’s eisegesis to suggest that this means only “all the elect.”

    Furthermore, just two verses earlier, Paul establishes that one of the groups which God wills to be saved is “kings and all who are in authority”. At the time that this epistle to Timothy was written, the king in power was the Roman emperor Nero, who was about as far from the elect as one can get — he’s considered to be one of the worst tyrants in Roman history, who initiated the first widespread persecution of Christians. In fact, many preterists believe that Nero was Antichrist, the fulfillment of the ‘Beast’ prophecy of Revelation 13:1-10. If Paul was including him in the category which God wills to be saved, it’s impossible that 1 Timothy 2:4 is only referring to all the elect and not all mankind.

    However, even if we were not sure that 1 Timothy 2:4 were truly referring to all mankind, other passages make clear that God does indeed will all mankind to be saved. One of the key passages that proves this is Matthew 5:43-48:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous... Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:43-45, 48, NRSV)

This passage shows that the Father loves even his enemies, and that this love of all people — including the enemies of God — is integral to his very perfection. If God ceased to perfectly love all people, then he would no longer be perfect, and therefore he would no longer be God.

    And what is love, fundamentally? Love is that which does no harm to another (Rom. 13:10), and which works for the ultimate good of the object of love, despite any temporary chastising that may occur (Heb. 12:6-11). The prophet Jeremiah tells us that, although God sometimes justly brings grief and affliction to those he loves, he always afterward shows compassion (Lam. 3:31-33). Therefore, because love is fundamental to God’s very being (1 John 4:8), and his love for all people (even his enemies) is integral to his perfection, it’s inconceivable that he could not work toward the ultimate good of all people — meaning that God indeed wills that all mankind (without exception) would eventually be saved.

    The second Calvinist objection to the view that God’s will is for all people to be saved is that this verse is describing God’s preceptive will — meaning His general call for people everywhere to be saved — and not God’s providential will, by which He works all things. However, this verse, in saying that God wills all people to be saved, uses the same Greek verb (thelei) that Paul uses in Romans 9:18 when he writes that “[God] has mercy on whom he wills [thelei], and whom he wills [thelei] he hardens” and in Ephesians 1:6, 11 when describing the will by which God works all things. This is God’s will [thelēma] — in the same way that God has mercy on and hardens whom he wills, he also wills that all people should ultimately be saved.

    In summary, the Bible is clear that God wills the ultimate salvation of all mankind, meaning truly all people without exception. This fact is confirmed by Ephesians 1:10 (NASB), which states that “the mystery of His will [thelēma]... [is] to bring all things together in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.” In fact, God’s perfect love for all people, including his enemies, is integral to his very being and perfection, which means that he must work everything for the ultimate good of all people. This leads us to the second premise: God’s will [thelēma] is that all people ultimately be saved.

    Conclusion

If God has the ability to provide faith and unbelief to people in accordance with his will [thelēma], and if God’s will [thelēma] is that all people will ultimately be saved and shown mercy, the only possible conclusion is that God will ultimately have mercy on and save all people. This conclusion follows directly from the premises. Since, as I showed in the last two sections of this post, both of these premises are proven by scripture beyond a doubt, the conclusion of universal salvation is also, beyond a doubt, the biblical truth.

    Although this argument stands on its own as irrefutable proof of universal salvation, there are also several passages that teach this truth directly. For example,

For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1 Tim. 4:10, NRSV)

He [God] has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth. (Eph. 1:9-10, NRSV)

Therefore God also highly exalted him [Jesus] and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php. 2:9-11, NRSV)

Note: Paul is referencing a passage in Isaiah (44:22-24) in which God swears by Himself that all people will bow and swear allegiance to him — this is a promise that God made and will, beyond a doubt, come to pass (Num. 23:19; Heb. 6:18). Since no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the holy spirit (1 Cor. 12:3), this certainly describes the salvation of all people everywhere.

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. (1 Cor. 15:26-28, NRSV)

For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. (Rom. 11:32, NRSV)

Thus, God’s will for all to be saved shall, undoubtedly, come to pass. The fact that God will ultimately save all people is taught by scripture, both directly and by logical necessity.

    One common (particularly Calvinist) objection to this is that not all people are part of the “elect”, and so not all people have been chosen to receive salvation by God. After all, Jesus said that “many are called but few are elected” (Matt. 22:14), that few find the narrow path to life (Matt. 7:13-14), and that not even all who say to him, “Lord, Lord,” will enter his kingdom (Matt. 7:21-23). Furthermore, the book of Acts implicitly states that not all people have been appointed to “eternal life” (13:48). Does this not prove that not all people will be saved, and render the above argument invalid?

    Actually, this exact same argument can be used against these imaginary detractors: because we know beyond a doubt that God will save all people (see the above), and yet God does not elect some people to “eternal life”, not being elected to “eternal life” must not be incompatible with one’s eventual salvation. And as a matter of fact, the scriptural evidence supports this conclusion.

    The phrase translated as “eternal life,” zōē aiōnios (translated better as “life of the [Messianic] Age”), actually refers to receiving life and reigning with Christ in the Messianic Age, as I argued extensively in this series of posts regarding the definition of aiōnios. Only those who are saved in this life will receive this life of the Age and reign with Christ. However, the salvation of all will not be accomplished until Christ gives up the kingdom to the Father and stops reigning (1 Cor. 15:24-28), which will occur at the end of the ages. [2] Therefore, not receiving the life of the Age is compatible with eventual salvation, because all people will not be saved until after the Messianic Age (and thus after the life of the Age).

    Argument #2 (Jesus will save all people)

Premise 1. Jesus loves all people, including his enemies, in accordance with God’s precept “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 5:43-48; 22:39-40; Mk. 12:31). If he failed to keep this precept, he would be a sinner.

Premise 2. Jesus has the authority to give salvation to anyone who has been placed under his command (John 17:2).

Premise 3. Jesus has been given all authority over heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18) and over living and dead (Rom. 14:9), which includes all people that have ever lived.

Conclusion. Jesus will save all people that have ever lived.

    Premise 1

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous... Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:43-45, 48, NRSV)

This passage is in the larger context of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus presents a new interpretation of the law for Israel to follow. Jesus’ command to love one’s enemy as oneself is, therefore, to be considered one of the precepts of the law. This is confirmed elsewhere in the gospel accounts:

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:35-40, NRSV)

In this statement, Jesus brings the commandment “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18) out of obscurity and establishes it as one of the two foremost commandments, upon which the entire law hangs. And as he stated in the Sermon on the Mount, this same love applies not only to one’s neighbor, but even to one’s enemies. Since Jesus obeyed (and continues to obey) the law perfectly, never sinning (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5), we can be certain that Jesus perfectly loves all people at all times. In fact, if Jesus failed to love all people, then he would be found a sinner, and his death would be worthless.

    As described earlier in this post, love is that which does no harm to a neighbor, and which works for the ultimate good of the object of love, even if it involves temporary affliction and chastisement (Rom. 13:10; Heb. 12:6-11; cf. Lam. 3:31-33). Therefore, we can be certain that Jesus never harms a single person without making sure that it works for the ultimate good of that person; otherwise, as said already, he would be found a sinner, and his death made worthless. We have now arrived at our first premise for argument #2: Jesus loves all people, including his enemies, in accordance with God’s precept “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

    Premise 2

After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:1-3, NRSV)

As proven in my defense of premise 1 (and 1*) of argument #1, God the Father has the sovereignty to give whoever he wills the gift of faith and salvation. According to this passage, that same sovereignty has been given to Jesus, who has the authority to provide “eternal life” to anyone whom the Father has given Him. Since Jesus immediately defines “eternal life” as knowing God and Christ, [3] this means that Jesus has the authority to supply whomsoever He wishes with a saving faith.

    This very thing — Christ gracefully providing a person with saving faith — is explicitly described at least once in scripture, in the case of Saul of Tarsus (Paul). When Saul was on the road to Damascus, he was “still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord” (Acts 9:1). And yet, as soon as Christ appeared to him in a vision, his grace powerfully overwhelmed Saul and provided him with the faith he needed to be saved. This is confirmed in Paul’s own writings:

I am grateful to Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because he judged me faithful and appointed me to his service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the foremost. (1 Tim. 1:12-15, NRSV)

Jesus’ grace was more than abundant to provide Paul with the “faith and love that are in Christ Jesus,” even though he had been a blasphemer and persecutor with no hope of redemption. In fact, we are told that the very reason that Jesus provided Paul with grace is because he acted ignorantly in unbelief, for “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Therefore, we can be certain of the second premise of this argument: Jesus has the authority to give salvation to anyone who has been placed under his command.

    Premise 3

Keeping in mind that Christ has the authority to give faith to anyone who has been placed under his authority, we might ask, how many people have been placed under his authority? In fact, this is answered in the very same verse that we just examined: God has given Him authority over “all flesh” (John 17:2). But there is still some ambiguity in this: does Christ only have authority over those who are currently living, or only over humans, or humans and angelic beings, or is it literally all conscious beings?

    This question is answered elsewhere in scripture:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18, NRSV)

For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. (Rom. 14:9, NRSV)

Jesus’ authority extends over all things in heaven and on earth — this includes not only humans, but also angelic and demonic beings (cf. Eph. 6:12). Furthermore, his authority extends over both the dead and the living, and these categories likely encompass all conscious beings that have ever lived, even animals, which are called nephesh chayyah or “living souls” (Gen. 1:20-21, 24). Even if we take “dead and living” in Romans 14:9 to refer to only humans, which is a possible interpretation, this still includes every human that has ever lived.

    Thus, we have arrived at Premise 3: Jesus has been given authority over all people (at least including all humans and angelic beings) that have ever lived.

    Conclusion

If Jesus truly loves all people, meaning that he wills their ultimate good, and if he has authority to provide anyone under His power with a saving faith, and if Jesus has been given authority over all conscious beings that have ever lived, the only logical conclusion is that all people that have ever lived will be saved by Jesus. Like in argument #1, the conclusion follows directly from the premises, and the premises are clearly supported by scripture.

    This argument stands on its own as proof of universal salvation, but again, this truth — that Jesus will save and reconcile all people — is also affirmed directly by certain passages. For example:

For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all — this was attested at the right time. (1 Tim. 2:5-6, NRSV)

For in him [Jesus] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (Col. 1:19-20, NRSV)

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 free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many... Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:15, 18-19, NRSV)

Note: Although some detractors claim that, because the “all mankind” of v. 18 is elsewhere called “the many,” this needn’t refer to all people without exception. However, it is clear from the context that “the many” refers to all people without exception, because it is the same amount of people who died and were made sinners that will be given grace and made righteous. Humanity as a whole is simply being referred to as “the many” as a contrast with “the one [man].”

For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them. (2 Cor. 5:14-15, NRSV)

Therefore, we can be sure that Christ will bring about the salvation and reconciliation of all people, whether in the heavens (angelic beings) or upon the earth (human beings). This fact is taught in scripture both directly and by logical necessity, as also in argument #1.

    But what about ‘hell passages’?

    These two arguments have shown that universal salvation is clearly taught in scripture, both directly and by logical necessity. However, there are some passages that non-universalists consider to be difficult for universal salvation. These passages fall into three categories:

1. Passages that state that certain people will be judged and punished, but without stating specifically the length of the punishment or whether there is hope of redemption (e.g., Matt. 10:28; 13:49-50; Php. 3:18-19).

2. Passages that state that certain people will be punished and/or destroyed eternally (e.g., Matt. 25:46; Mk. 3:29; 1 Thess. 1:9; Jude 7).

3. Passages that state that less than all people will be saved (e.g., Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23; Acts 13:48).

    The first category of passages actually provides no evidence against universal salvation, and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what universalists believe. The arguments above only prove that all people will, ultimately, be saved and reconciled. There’s no argument against the idea that God punishes people at all, a fact that is also clearly taught in scripture. The question is not whether God will punish people at all, but whether that punishment will be eternal and without hope of redemption. According to the biblical authors, God punishes people in order to restore them (Lam. 3:31-33; Heb. 12:5-11), which goes against the idea of hopeless, eternal punishment.

    The second category of passages, those which state that people will be punished and/or destroyed eternally, is based on an unfortunate mistranslation of scripture. Those passages which characterize punishment as “eternal” do not use the Greek words that mean strictly “without end”, like aidios and ateleutos, but the Greek word aiōnios, which literally means “age-lasting” or “pertaining to/of the Age.” [4] Other passages describe this punishment as eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn (Rev. 14:11; 20:10), meaning literally “for the ages of the ages,” the same period for which Christ will be reigning over the kingdom (Rev. 11:15). Both the life of the Age and punishment of the Age prophesied in scripture will last only until the end of the Messianic Age, when sin and death will be abolished, Christ will step down and voluntarily subject himself to God the Father, and God will finally be all in all (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

    The third category of passages, which are interpreted by non-universalists as saying that not all people will be saved, is based on a misinterpretation of scripture. There are no passages which say that any person will never be saved. The passage parallel to Matt. 7:13ff in the gospel of Luke (13:23-30) makes clear that this is about entering the Messianic kingdom, as are all of Jesus’ other parables which describe the “casting out” of people from the kingdom. Since few people actually enter the Messianic kingdom, and all others will instead be saved only at the end of the Messianic Age, this provides no challenge to the belief that all people will eventually be saved. Likewise, other passages which state that certain people will not receive “life of the Age” (e.g., John 3:36; Acts 13:48) have no bearing on whether all people will be saved after the Messianic Age.

    Because all of the prooftexts for non-universalism fall into three categories, being either based on misunderstanding, mistranslation, or misinterpretation, there is really no good evidence against universal salvation. Furthermore, even if a few passages (especially Matt. 7:13-14; 25:46; Mk. 3:29; and Rev. 14:11 which are the most commonly used against universalists) can be interpreted in a way that contradicts universalism, this in no way addresses the above arguments which show that the broad themes of the Bible, like God’s love for and sovereignty over all people, necessitate the eventual salvation of all. We should rejoice in the truth that Paul tells us to “insist on and teach”: that God is the savior of all mankind, especially of those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10-11).

______________________________

[1] Based on passages like Job 23:13-14; Ps. 33:14-15; Prov. 16:1, 4, 9, 33; 19:21; 20:24; 21:1; Isa. 45:5-7; Jer. 10:23; Lam. 3:37-39; Dan. 5:23; Acts 17:25, 28; Php. 2:13; Jas. 4:13-15; Rev. 17:17.

[2] See the original Greek of Lk. 1:33 and Rev. 11:15, both of which state that Christ will reign “for the ages” (eis tous aiōnas).

[3] As noted above, the term “eternal life” or “life of the Age” refers to living and reigning with Christ in the Messianic Age. However, in the Johannine corpus, it has a more specific meaning. According to John, we already “have” the life of the Age in the present tense if we believe (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47, 54; 1 John 5:11, 13). It is defined as “knowing God and Christ” (John 17:3). This 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). The love of God is being “perfected” in those who are in communion with the Father and the Son (1 John 2:5; 4:12, 18). This is a spiritual blessing which believers possess now. The fact that Jesus can grant this blessing shows that he, like God, is sovereign over our salvation.

[4] The word aiōnios is the adjective form of the word aiōn, meaning “age.” Furthermore, as I argued extensively in another series of posts, the words aiōn and aiōnios (along with their Hebrew equivalent olam) are used all throughout scripture to describe lasting (but not everlasting) things. See the fifth post in the series for a comprehensive debunking of ‘eternal punishment’ interpretations.

Erasing Misconceptions about Universalism

     There are quite a lot of misconceptions, and even complete myths, about universalism that are repeatedly propagated by fellow (usually well-meaning but misguided) Christians. In this post, I would like to refute these misconceptions, so that anyone who is studying the debate about universal reconciliation can erase these harmful and inaccurate depictions of universalism, and find out what universalists really believe. Here are some of the worst myths and misconceptions about universal reconciliation:

    Universalists are religious pluralists

This is the most common and most damaging misconception about universalism. Christian universalism believes that all people will be saved through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and that there is judgment after death (and almost certainly punishment for some, although a few full preterists believe that all punishment was fulfilled in 70 AD), whereas religious pluralists believe that all religions (and non-religions) are equal pathways to God and all people will thereby enter ‘heaven’ immediately after death. Although some religious pluralists might call themselves ‘universalists’ in the sense that they believe all people are saved, Christian universalism is markedly different from religious pluralism.

    Universalists don’t believe the Bible

This misconception is brought about by the belief that there are passages of scripture that unequivocally teach ‘eternal conscious torment’, and that universalists have to simply ignore those passages to believe that all people will be saved. Again, this is simply false. Rather than ignoring these passages, universalists recognize that the words translated ‘eternal’ in relation to punishment often simply mean ‘age-lasting’, and so interpret the judgment passages differently in their context than most infernalists do.

    This doesn’t mean that universalists are ignoring the Bible, but rather that we choose to study it in its original language and within its proper context. I believe every word of the Bible in its original language and context, just as every other universalist I have spoken to does.

    Another myth about universalism that is just as damaging is the idea that universalists force their own preconceptions about judgment and salvation onto the text in order to make it fit with universal salvation. This is also false; virtually all universalists that I know of grew up believing in eternal conscious torment, and only came to believe in universal reconciliation after intense study of scripture (myself included). On the contrary, I’ve found that people only start to believe in universalism when they let the Bible speak for itself, rather than making it conform to the orthodox doctrine of infernalism.

    Universalists don’t believe in hell

This is actually very close to the truth. Many non-universalists use this as a ‘gotcha’ question, as if not believing in hell makes it impossible to believe the Bible. The problem is that virtually all universalists do believe that the punishment that Jesus called Gehenna will (or has already) come upon people; we simply recognize that Gehenna is very different from the modern conception of hell as eternal conscious torment. However, because infernalism automatically defines “hell” as eternal conscious torment, it would be correct in that sense to say that universalists (and annihilationists, for that matter) don’t believe in “hell”. This just isn’t the ‘gotcha’ question that infernalists think it is.

    Universalism is a heresy, and universalists reject orthodoxy established in the time of the apostles

This myth is usually brought up by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, since they believe that all Church tradition can be traced back to the apostles. However, at least in the case of universalism, it’s not true that established tradition appeared this early on. Universal reconciliation was believed by the majority of Church leaders and theologians up to the beginning of the fifth century, and even Augustine of Hippo, an avowed anti-universalist, recognized as late as 420 that “indeed the vast majority” (immo quam plurimi) of Christians believed that punishment would end (Enchiridion 112).

    Furthermore, universal reconciliation was never condemned as heresy, even at the fifth ecumenical council of Constantinople II. Although the emperor Justinian I did manage to posthumously anathematize Origen of Alexandria (a prominent third-century universalist) and his writings at this council, the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas that supposedly condemned universalism were not discovered until the seventeenth century, and should likely be connected to a letter from Justinian to the council rather than the council itself. A few Catholic theologians remained outspoken about universal reconciliation even after this, including St. Maximus the Confessor, which shows that the fifth ecumenical council must not have officially condemned this doctrine.

    So if you are a Catholic or Orthodox and are on the fence about universalism, make sure to recognize that this is a false misconception. You are free to come to your own conclusions about this topic without fear of anathematization, unless you believe that virtually the entire Church up to the fifth century should be anathematized as well.

    Universalists ignore God’s wrath in favor of His love

Again, this is not true. Universalists believe that God will punish evildoers, and that He is just and wrathful as well as loving, since that is what scripture tells us. Denying eternal conscious torment does not mean that one must deny God’s justice or wrath. In fact, to believe in eternal conscious torment means that one must deny the fact that finite sin does not require infinite punishment (Matt. 5:26; 18:34-35; Lk. 12:59), or else infernalists would be the ones denying God’s justice.

    Jesus warned about hell more than he spoke about heaven

Actually, Jesus didn’t talk about either ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’, at least not the modern conceptions of these places. His sermons were mostly concerned with entering the Messianic kingdom (the “kingdom of God/heaven”) and avoiding the punishment of having one’s dead body unceremoniously dumped into Gehenna and burned. But even if these passages were talking about the modern conceptions of ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, Jesus actually talked about heaven three times more than hell. As one person found:

There are 1900 plus verses in the four Gospels that contain Jesus’ words. Surprisingly, only about 60 of those verses, or just three percent of them, might be construed as either directly or indirectly referring to Hell. On the other hand, there are more than three times as many verses in the Gospels in which Jesus references Heaven, eternal life, or his coming kingdom: 192 verses in all, or almost 10%. So, the evidence suggests that Jesus didn’t speak about Hell more than Heaven. In truth, he talked about Heaven three times more than He did about Hell!

It’s time to put to rest this particularly pervasive myth that can be discredited by only a superficial examination of the four gospels.

    There is no passage that says, “people will escape hell”

This objection usually relates to the Lake of Fire, since that is what most Christians think of when they think of ‘hell’. It is true that there is no verse that explicitly says that “people will escape the Lake of Fire”, just as it is true that there is no verse that explicitly says “the Messiah will be resurrected”; but, as Peter pointed out in Acts 2:24-31, the resurrection of the Messiah is a necessary inference from Old Testament prophecy. In the same way, the fact that people will leave the Lake of Fire is a necessary inference from scripture.

Premise 1: The Lake of Fire is called “the second death” (Rev. 20:14; 21:8).

Premise 2: Death will be abolished when all people are made alive in Christ (1 Cor. 15:20-28).

Conclusion: The Lake of Fire will cease to harm anyone when all people are made alive in Christ.

Or, for another deductive argument that does not rest on the assertion that the Lake of Fire comprises actual death for those cast within (although it likely does), see below:

Premise 1: Those who are saved are not harmed by the Lake of Fire (Rev. 2:11 cf. Rev. 21:8).

Premise 2: All people will eventually be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-6; 4:10).

Conclusion: Eventually, no one will be harmed by the Lake of Fire.

Therefore, it is no problem for universalism that no passage explicitly says that anyone will leave the Lake of Fire. It is a necessary inference from scripture, just as the resurrection of the Christ was a necessary inference from the Old Testament.

    If punishment isn’t eternal, then eternal life isn’t either

First of all, this is a false dichotomy; it’s not true that both punishment and life must be eternal, or else neither is. The adjective αιωνιος may not be describing the exact duration of time for both of these things. For example, it could be equally true to say that a person is tall and that a skyscraper is tall, but that doesn’t mean that both of them are equally tall. In the same way, it’s possible that the punishment described in scripture is lasts for a long time, but much shorter (or even infinitely shorter) than the life of believers.

    Second, it’s highly probable that the reward of believers called ζωη αιωνιος (“life age-during”) is not eternal, but lasts only for the Messianic age. This is what I have come to believe after studying the use of this phrase in the New Testament. And at least in the case of Matthew 25:46, where this objection is most commonly raised, the Old Testament context shows that both the “age-during punishment” and “age-during life” are only concerned with which Gentiles are allowed to enter the Messianic kingdom, so both the punishment and the life last for only about a thousand years.

    The fact that “age-during life” probably isn’t eternal does not mean that believers will eventually die after being resurrected. In fact, we are explicitly told by Jesus that those who attain the first resurrection will not die (Luke 20:36), and Paul says that we will become immortal and incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:51-55). It’s just that the phrase “age-during life” is not describing that specific aspect of the resurrection of believers; instead, it is describing our reign together with Christ (which will not be eternal) in His kingdom.

    If universalism is true, why not sin?

There are a number of variations on this one misconception about universalism, varying from “if universalism is true, then Hitler/Stalin/etc. will be saved” to “if universalism is true, then killing people is okay”. I’m legitimately surprised by how many people seem to only be kept from murdering others by the fear of eternal conscious torment (and I hope they only bring it up for the sake of argument).

    But that aside, this is technically true of any form of Christianity that prioritizes faith over works (i.e., any Pauline Christianity), especially those who believe in “Once Saved Always Saved”. Under these forms of Christianity, we are already justified by our faith, and our sins are no longer reckoned to us, so theoretically it would be possible to keep sinning (however unwise). Likewise, it is possible that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, or any number of serial killers chose to trust in Christ on their deathbed and so were saved.

    Universalism just takes this one step further and says that all people will be saved eventually, and their sins no longer reckoned to them. Universalists like myself do not deny that there will be judgment and punishment for evil, but we believe the scriptural truth that this punishment will come to an end, and all beings will be reconciled to God. No one deserves salvation; no one’s works make them more or less worthy of salvation than anyone else. So if this is your problem with the idea that all people will be saved and reconciled, perhaps you should double-check to make sure your own idea of salvation is based on faith, and not works.

    Conclusion

I hope that I have shown that many of the objections raised against universalism are actually misconceptions and myths, and aren’t legitimate arguments against universal reconciliation. I didn’t write the above to mock or belittle non-universalists who use these arguments, but rather in the hope that the debate surrounding universal salvation could be more fruitful, and that those who are honestly studying this issue could learn what universalists really believe without these inaccurate myths muddying the waters. So if you are just now learning about universalism, please take this post to heart, and don’t accidentally propagate these harmful misconceptions.

For Universalism to be False...

    The large majority of Christians believe that not all people, in fact very few people, will be saved. It’s simple, they say, the Bible just tells us that not all people will be saved, so God must just not want all people to be saved! Or - wait - maybe He does want all people to be saved, but He just isn’t powerful enough to save all people. Either way, it’s definitely what the Bible teaches, isn’t it? And the word of God must always be our guideline for figuring out the truth.

    So let’s take a look at everything that would need to happen for universal reconciliation to be false, and for less than all people to be saved, according to the word of God.

    The purpose of the cross would fail

According to Paul in his letter to the Colossians, the very purpose of the cross is to reconcile all things to Christ:

who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted. And himself is the head of the body — the assembly — who is a beginning, a first-born out of the dead, that he might become in all [things] — himself — first, because in him it did please all the fulness to tabernacle, and through him to reconcile the all things to himself — having made peace through the blood of his cross — through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens. (Colossians 1:15-20)

According to this passage, the purpose of Christ’s “making peace through the blood of His cross” is to reconcile all things, whether in the heavens or on the earth, back to Himself. The “all things” that will be reconciled is the same “all things” that were created in, through, and for Christ, and which He is preeminent over.

    For anything less than every being (angelic or human) to be reconciled would mean that either Christ is not preeminent over all things, or else that the very purpose of the cross failed. Either way, this is a massive problem for the position that not all beings will be reconciled and saved.

    Jesus’ wasn’t powerful enough...

Another fact that we are told of in scripture is that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was ultimately effective for every single person, regardless of belief or unbelief:

But, not as the offence so also [is] the free gift; for if by the offence of the one the many did die, much more did the grace of God, and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ, abound to the many; and not as through one who did sin [is] the free gift, for the judgment indeed [is] of one to condemnation, but the gift [is] of many offences to a declaration of “Righteous,” for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one — Jesus Christ. So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of “Righteous” [it is] to all men to justification of life; for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the many be constituted righteous. (Rom. 5:15-19)

for the love of the Christ doth constrain us, having judged thus: that if one for all died, then the whole died, and for all he died, that those living, no more to themselves may live, but to him who died for them, and was raised again. So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more; so that if any one [is] in Christ — [he is] a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things. And the all things [are] of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and did give to us the ministration of the reconciliation, how that God was in Christ — a world reconciling to Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses; and having put in us the word of the reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:14-19)

for one [is] God, one also [is] mediator of God and of men, the man Christ Jesus, who did give himself a ransom for all — the testimony in its own times (1 Tim. 2:5-6)

If Paul’s words in these passages are to be believed, then Jesus truly died as a ransom for all, for every single person who is affected by Adam’s sin (that is, all of humanity without exception). So, if not every person is saved, then His sacrifice was incomplete and did not affect everyone that He intended it to.

    After all, God did place all flesh under Jesus’ care (John 17:2), and since Jesus loves even His enemies (Matt. 5:43-48), if anything less than all flesh is saved, it must be because Jesus wasn’t powerful enough to reach every person that He intended to through His righteous work on the cross.

    ...or Jesus wasn’t loving enough

There is another option, though, since after all the Bible tells us that not all people will be saved (doesn’t it?). Jesus’ sacrifice might not have been incomplete, it might just have been ineffective for the vast majority of humanity. Perhaps He gave us the ability to choose whether we are saved, or tormented eternally, based on insufficient knowledge (1 Cor. 13:12); atheists and non-Christians just aren’t smart enough, or good enough, to choose the right thing.

    After all, that’s what the Bible tells us, isn’t it? Let’s check.

At that time Jesus answering said, “I do confess to Thee, Father, Lord of the heavens and of the earth, that thou didst hide these things from wise and understanding ones, and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, because so it was good pleasure before Thee.” (Matt. 11:25)

And the disciples having come near, said to [Jesus], “Wherefore in similes dost thou speak to them?” And he answering said to them that — “To you it hath been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, and to these it hath not been given” (Matt. 13:10-11)

Jesus answered, therefore, and said to them, “Murmur not one with another; no one is able to come unto me, if the Father who sent me may not draw him, and I will raise him up in the last day” (John 6:43-44)

And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe — as many as were appointed to life age-during (Acts 13:48)

for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness. (Rom. 11:32)

For I say, through the grace that was given to me, to every one who is among you, not to think above what it behoveth to think; but to think so as to think wisely, as to each God did deal a measure of faith (Rom. 12:3)

for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this [faith] not of you — of God the gift, not of works, that no one may boast (Eph. 1:11)

Need I go on? Scripture is quite clear that even our belief is simply granted to us by God. This means that, if Jesus’ sacrifice did not save all people, and it’s not because it was incomplete, then He must have simply wanted the vast majority of people to be tormented eternally.

    What kind of sadistic and bipolar god would say that he does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11), that he loves even his enemies (Matt. 5:43-48), and that he wants all people to know the truth and be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), and then turn around and send the vast majority of humanity to eternal torment with no hope of escape, for the sole purpose of his pleasure? But isn’t that what the Bible says?

    God would be made a liar

The Bible tells us that God has sworn by Himself that all people will bow to Him in praise:

“Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, And shall not return, That to Me every knee shall bow, Every tongue shall take an oath. He shall say, ‘Surely in YHWH I have righteousness and strength.’” (Isaiah 45:22-24 NKJV)

As Paul later intentionally misquotes this passage to prove a point (Php. 2:9-11), He reapplies it to Christ, saying that every person will confess that Jesus is Lord. And yet, we are told in 1 Corinthians 12:3 that no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

    This means that God has sworn by His very self-existence that every person will be reconciled to Him, and confess the Lord Jesus by the Holy Spirit. And since God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), it is impossible that any person could not be saved. But the Bible says that not everyone will be saved, right?

    God would be made a sinner

According to scripture, God is actively willing that all men be saved:

I exhort, then, first of all, there be made supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, for all men: for kings, and all who are in authority, that a quiet and peaceable life we may lead in all piety and gravity, for this [is] right and acceptable before God our Saviour, who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

If this is truly God’s will, then it is quite literally a guideline that He has set for Himself. That means that if anything less than all people are saved, God is a sinner, because “sin” simply means “to miss the mark”. And God can’t sin, so He cannot miss the mark that He set for Himself, which means that all people must eventually be saved.

    But wait, doesn’t this passage just mean that God wills all kinds of men to be saved? Isn’t He only referring to the body of Christ in this passage, which includes both Jews and Gentiles? No, that’s not what this passage is talking about. Paul includes even “kings and all who are in authority” in the “all men” whom God wills to be saved, which means that if even Nero - the persecutor of Christians who was emperor of Rome at the time - is not saved, then God has sinned.

    Conclusion

I hope that this post has shown you that, no, in fact, the Bible does not say that not all people will be saved. It does say that few people will enter the kingdom of God, and that many will go to Gehenna instead; it says nothing about whether all people will eventually receive the gift of salvation and be reconciled to God, which we know from elsewhere in scripture will happen. So we can rest assured that the cross will not fail, that Jesus is both powerful enough and loving enough to save everyone, and that God is not a liar nor a sinner; all people will be saved.

Defying Death: A Defense of the Doctrine of Soul Sleep (part 2 of 2)

Part 1: https://thechristianuniversalist.blogspot.com/2021/12/defying-death-defense-of-doctrine-of.html

    In the previous post of this series, I presented the positive case for soul sleep (the doctrine that the dead have no conscious experience) from scripture. However, I wasn’t able to present the comparatively little scriptural evidence that is often produced against soul sleep by those who believe the traditional model of the Christian afterlife. In this article, I will describe the arguments used against soul sleep, and show why these fail to contradict the clear biblical truth that those who have died are truly dead. The common view of the afterlife cannot be derived solely from the Bible unless a framework of Platonic philosophy is placed over the text.

    The parable of the rich man and Lazarus

This is the most common objection raised against the idea of soul sleep. In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus presents a parable in which a rich man and a beggar named Lazarus die, and their souls go to Hades and the “bosom of Abraham” respectively. Does this not demonstrate conclusively that, after death, our consciousness does live on and that Hades is a place of conscious torment, rather than simply “the Unseen”? First, let’s take a look at what this passage actually says: 

“And — a certain man was rich, and was clothed in purple and fine linen, making merry sumptuously every day, and there was a certain poor man, by name Lazarus, who was laid at his porch, full of sores, and desiring to be filled from the crumbs that are falling from the table of the rich man; yea, also the dogs, coming, were licking his sores. And it came to pass, that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the messengers to the bosom of Abraham — and the rich man also died, and was buried; and in the hades having lifted up his eyes, being in torments, he doth see Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom, and having cried, he said, Father Abraham, deal kindly with me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and may cool my tongue, because I am distressed in this flame.

“And Abraham said, Child, remember that thou did receive — thou — thy good things in thy life, and Lazarus in like manner the evil things, and now he is comforted, and thou art distressed; and besides all these things, between us and you a great chasm is fixed, so that they who are willing to go over from hence unto you are not able, nor do they from thence to us pass through.

“And he said, I pray thee, then, father, that thou mayest send him to the house of my father, for I have five brothers, so that he may thoroughly testify to them, that they also may not come to this place of torment.

“Abraham saith to him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them;

“and he said, No, father Abraham, but if any one from the dead may go unto them, they will reform.

“And he said to him, If Moses and the prophets they do not hear, neither if one may rise out of the dead will they be persuaded.” (YLT)

First of all, it is important to recognize that this passage is a parable. In fact, it is the last of five parables that Jesus used to condemn the Pharisees: the parable of the lost sheep, of the lost drachma, of the prodigal son, of the unjust steward, and finally of the rich man and Lazarus. Like Jesus’ other parables, we must recognize that many, or most, aspects of this story are allegorical and do not describe real life. Otherwise, if it were to be understood completely literally, we would need to believe the following things:

1. That angels (“messengers”) physically carry the disembodied souls of dead people to paradise.

2. That some people’s souls will enter Abraham’s chest cavity after death (“the bosom of Abraham”).

3. That whether you go to torment or bliss after death is decided by whether you received good or bad things in life.

4. That those who are in paradise are able to see those in Hades being tormented.

I haven’t yet met a single Christian who believes in all four of these things, and very few that believe in even one of them. It is interesting, then, that the vast majority of Christians choose to believe that the aspect of conscious existence in the afterlife should be understood literally, whereas all other aspects of this parable are figurative. Instead, we should recognize that, like Jesus’ other parables, all aspects are allegorical for real-life events.

    Keeping this in mind, and using Old Testament imagery as a guide, the correct interpretation of this parable becomes clear. Rather than being meant as an accurate depiction of the afterlife, it is meant to be a condemnation of priestly Israel and the Jewish religious leaders. The rich man, wearing priestly garments of “purple and fine linen” (Exod. 39:27-29), represents the Pharisees (and the Jewish people in general) who, being God’s chosen people, were spiritually rich and yet abused this authority. Like the patriarch Judah and the contemporary high priest Caiaphas, the rich man has five brothers. Similarly, the beggar named Lazarus represents the Gentiles, both of whom spiritually eat with the dogs (Matt. 15:22-26; Mk. 7:26-27).

    This parable, therefore, is not about the state of conscious existence of the dead, but rather about how God is now rejecting His people the Israelites in favor of the Gentiles. The rich man (priestly Israel) has been rejected and cast into torments, in contrast to the spiritual richness that he had experienced previously, whereas the beggar (the Gentiles) has been exalted beyond his previous spiritual lowness. And it is very true that Israel was not convinced even when a man rose from the dead (v. 31), as they remained hardened even after the resurrection of both Lazarus and Christ. Therefore, this parable does not demonstrate the existence of a conscious afterlife prior to the resurrection, but allegorically represents the contrast between God’s treatment of Israel and the Gentile nations.

    “Today you will be with me in paradise”

And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when you may come to your kingdom!” And he [Jesus] said to him, “Verily I say to you[,?] today[,?] you will be with me in the paradise.” (Lk. 23:42-43)

This is another passage that is often used to argue against soul sleep, since Jesus tells the thief on the cross that they will be together in “the paradise” that very day. However, the adverb “today” could either modify the verb “say” or “be [in paradise]”; if the first, then it is not incompatible with soul sleep. Since there is no punctuation in the original Greek, the comma could be placed before or after “today”; both options are entirely possible.

    Furthermore, when the surrounding context is considered, it is impossible that Jesus could have been with the thief in “the paradise” that very day. We are told in John 20:17 that Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father after His resurrection, and furthermore, Jesus went to Sheol/Hades upon His death (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:27, 31) which is considered to be the place of torment in the traditional afterlife, not paradise. Thus, since Jesus did not Himself go to paradise on that day, the thief could not have been with Him there, and so the adverb “today” must modify the verb “say” rather than “be [in paradise].”

    This is often countered by the assertion that to say, “Verily I say to you today,” would be redundant (since it could not be anything other than “today” that Jesus said it on). However, it was actually a common Hebrew/Aramaic idiom to emphasize the solemnity of a statement by adding the word “today” or “this day” (e.g., Deut. 4:26, 39, 40; 5:1; 6:6; 7:11; 8:1, 11, 19; 9:3; etc.). In fact, two such statements are made elsewhere in Luke-Acts:

“Consequently I testify to you in this very day that I am innocent of the blood of all.” (Acts 20:26)

“Concerning all that I am accused of by [the] Jews, King Agrippa, I have supposed myself happy, being about to defend myself before you today.” (Acts 26:2)

Thus, the most likely interpretation of Jesus’ words in Lk. 23:43 is that He was making the solemn declaration, “Verily I say to you on this day, that you will be with Me in the paradise.” He was not claiming that the thief would be with Him in paradise on that very day, for such an interpretation would contradict His clear statement that He had not yet ascended to the Father after His resurrection (Jn. 20:17). Instead, the thief would be in paradise on the day that Jesus “may come to [His] kingdom” (Lk. 23:42) — that is, at the resurrection of the saints. This passage, therefore, is not evidence against soul sleep.

    Giving up the spirit

Despite the evidence presented in my last post that shows that, throughout scripture, people are considered to be represented by their (dead) bodies after they die, some people suggest that this is only the perception of those who are still living, and that they are actually represented by their spirit (or “breath of life”) which returns to God when they die (Ecc. 12:7). It is then argued that the following passages prove that believers enter the presence of God when they die:

When, then, Jesus took the sour wine, he said, “It has been finished.” And having bowed [his] head, he gave up the spirit. (Jn. 19:30)

Yet he being full of holy spirit, having gazed into the heaven, he saw [the] glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Lo, I behold the the heavens having been opened, and the Son of Man standing at God’s right”... And they were stoning Stephen, he calling out and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Now having fallen [on] the knees, he cried out in a great voice, “Lord, may you not put to them this sin.” And this having said, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:55-56, 59-60)

The first problem with this theory is that the human spirit is not conscious, and a consciousness (or soul) only forms when a body and spirit are combined (Gen. 2:7). The spirit is more like a ‘power source’ for the body which animates it [1], producing consciousness (for the best example of this, see Ps. 104:29-30; also Ps. 146:4; Jas. 2:26). Furthermore, because everyone’s spirit, whether righteous or wicked, returns to God when they die, this would mean that every single person enters paradise in God’s presence upon their death, which not a single Christian that I know would espouse.

    However, there is an even greater problem with this theory. In fact, the two passages which are most often quoted in support of it - Jn. 19:30 and Acts 7:59 - actually work against it when put into context. Although Jesus gave up His spirit to God when He died on the cross, three days later He stated that He had “not yet ascended to the Father” (Jn. 20:17)! Jesus’ spirit cannot be identified with Jesus Himself, because while Jesus was dead, He was not with God, where His spirit was. Furthermore, immediately after we are told that Stephen gave his spirit to Jesus, we are also told that Stephen “fell asleep” and “devout men buried him” (Acts 7:60; 8:2). Was it Stephen’s spirit that fell asleep and was buried? Obviously not. Therefore, Stephen’s spirit was not Stephen himself, but merely the animating force which kept Stephen alive.

    Therefore, the spirit cannot be identified with a person’s consciousness after death. Indeed, when God first spoke to Adam about his impending mortality and death, He told him, “You are dust and to dust you will return,” not “you are a breath of life given by me and to me you will return” (Gen. 3:19 cf. 2:7; Ecc. 12:7). Thus, the breath of life or spirit which returns to God upon death is not the person themself, but is the animating force which is given by God, apart from which a person is simply dead (Jas. 2:26).

    To depart and be with Christ

For I know that this will turn out to salvation for me through your prayer and supply of the spirit of Jesus Christ, according to my eager expectation and hope that I will be ashamed in nothing, but in all confidence (as also always now) Christ will be magnified in my body, whether through life or through death. For to me, to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] profit. Yet if [I] live in flesh, this is [the] fruit of work to me. And what will I choose? I do not know! Now I am pressed from the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for [this is] much more excellent; yet to stay on in the flesh [is] more necessary because of you. (Php. 1:19-24)

This passage is considered by many to prove that, at death, believers continue to exist in a ‘disembodied’ state together with Jesus. But is this the best interpretation of Paul’s words? I would argue that it is not. According to my understanding of Paul’s testimony elsewhere in 1 Thess. 4:13-18, at the moment of death, a person loses consciousness - just as if they had “fallen asleep” - and their next conscious moment will be their resurrection at Christ’s coming. Paul’s death, from his perspective, would bring him immediately into the presence of Christ.

    Thus, this verse is fairly equivocal on the issue of soul sleep, since whether soul sleep is true or not, the very next conscious moment after death (for the believer) will be in the presence of Christ. It is eisegetical to read the Platonic idea of the soul’s immortality into this verse when another, more biblical understanding is just as plausible.

    To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?

For we know that if our earthly house, the tent, may have been destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not hand-made, age-during in the heavens. For also in this we groan, longing to be over-clothed [with] our dwelling out of heaven. And if indeed [we are] having been over-clothed, we will not be found naked. For also we, the [ones] being in the tent, groan, being burdened, on which we do not wish to be unclothed, but to be over-clothed, that the mortal may be swallowed by the life.

Now the [One] having brought us about for this very [thing is] God, having given to us the pledge of the spirit, therefore [we are] always being of good courage and perceiving that, being in-home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for through faith we walk, not through sight). Now we are of good courage, and are more pleased to be out-of-home out of the body, and in-home with the Lord. (2 Cor. 5:1-8)

Paul is often misquoted as saying that “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” This is taken to mean that it is possible to exist in a disembodied form together with Jesus. However, this is not actually what Paul says in this passage, and a proper understanding of this passage requires a full grasp of the metaphors which he uses to compare and contrast our current mortal body and our resurrection immortal body.

    First, he describes the mortal body as an “earthly house,” a temporary tent which can be destroyed, and our future resurrection body as an “age-during house in the heavens.” He then moves into another metaphor, using verbs related to clothing, describing our resurrection as an “over-clothing” and our death as being “unclothed” and “found naked.” Notably, he states that “we do not wish to be unclothed” (i.e., die and be without a living body), which is incongruent with the traditional understanding of the following verses that sees him as extolling the ‘disembodied’ afterlife.

    Finally, in verses 6 through 8, Paul moves back to the “houses” metaphor and begins using the Greek verbs ενδημεω (lit. “in-home”) and εκδημεω (lit. “out-of-home”) to describe a person’s relation to their mortal and resurrection bodies. He contrasts being in-home in the body and out-of-home away from the Lord with being out-of-home away from the body and in-home with the Lord. If taken out of context (as it so often is), this may seem to suggest that it is possible to exist in a disembodied form with Jesus.

    However, in the context of the “houses” metaphor, it is clear that Paul is instead saying that, when we are out of the “earthly house” of our pre-resurrection body (our temporary tent), we will be in the “heavenly dwelling” of our resurrection body (our age-during house), with the Lord. This is the primary import of the verbs “in-home” and “out-of-home.” Thus, this does not contradict soul sleep - on the contrary, it provides further evidence that our hope is in the resurrection and not in any ‘disembodied’ afterlife.

    The souls under the altar

And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of the [ones] having been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had held. And they were crying out in a great voice, saying, “Until when, O Master Holy and True, do you refrain from judging and avenging our blood from the [ones] dwelling upon the earth?” And white robes were given to each of them, and it was said to them that they will rest a little time, until their fellow servants may also be fulfilled, and their brothers, being about to be killed as also they. (Rev. 6:9-11)

This is the last remaining scriptural argument against soul sleep, and the strongest argument, since it is the only place in the Bible where apparently ‘disembodied souls’ are actually described. These souls are said to cry out for vengeance and be given robes to wear. First, I’d like to preface my interpretation of this verse by saying that a correct view of death must be able to harmonize all of scripture without contradicting any passage. So if anyone would like to build a doctrine of death and the afterlife solely on this passage, they would need to find a way to explain away the vast scriptural evidence for soul sleep.

    Now, if we interpret this verse literally, we would have to conclude that the souls of these martyrs will be living at the time that this vision foresees, the opening of the fifth seal. However, near the end of the prophecy, it is said that the very same souls of the tribulation martyrs “come to life” at the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4), which is long after the events of the fifth seal. If their souls only “come to life” at that time, how could they possibly be alive in heaven prior to that point? Furthermore, is it really reasonable to believe that once a person is martyred, their soul resides underneath a giant talking altar (Rev. 16:7) in the throne room of God? And can a ‘disembodied soul’ wear physical clothing? All of these oddities and inconsistencies point toward the likely possibility that something more symbolic is going on in these verses.

    To properly interpret the book of Revelation, we need to put it in its proper context. Throughout this prophecy, symbols from throughout the Old Testament are used, and are necessary to understand much of the prophecy’s significance. Otherwise, we would have to believe that Jesus is really a giant bloody lamb in the throne room of God, and that there will be a literal seven-headed beast rising from the sea with a woman on its back. But what context from the Old Testament can help us understand the “souls of the martyrs” underneath the altar? Consider the following:

1. We know from the book of Leviticus that “the soul is in the blood, and [God] has given it on the altar to make atonement” (Lev. 17:11 cf. 4:7). Likewise, in Revelation, the “souls” of the martyrs are found under the altar, and the white robes given to them symbolize atonement (Rev. 7:14).

2. Furthermore, in Genesis 4:9-10, Abel’s blood figuratively calls out for vengeance from the ground where it was spilled by Cain. This is paralleled in Revelation where the “souls” of the martyrs (which, per Lev. 17:11, are “in the blood”) call out for vengeance. 

If we interpret Rev. 6:9-11 in light of these two Old Testament figures, then suddenly this whole exchange makes much more sense. The heavenly afterlife of martyrs is not confined to a sort of half-existence underneath a talking altar in God’s throne room - rather, the imagery of “souls” being underneath altars is a symbol of atonement, which also explains the “white robes” given to the martyrs. Furthermore, they did not literally come to life (even to cry for vengeance) at any time prior to when we are explicitly told that they came to life in Rev. 20:4 -- rather, their spilled blood, under the altar, figuratively cried out for vengeance just as the blood of Abel did (Gen. 4:9-10).

    Therefore, even this passage, when interpreted using Old Testament imagery as with the rest of the book of Revelation, does not support the view that one’s soul can exist apart from one’s body. In fact, since we are told later that “the souls of those beheaded” only “come to life” at the “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:4-6), this rather supports the idea of soul sleep, seeing as the souls of these dead believers are not alive prior to the resurrection. 

    Conclusion

In contrast to the vast body of scriptural evidence for soul sleep, as presented in the first post of this series, there are really only six passages that can be used to argue for the traditional view of the afterlife. Furthermore, all six of these passages are actually compatible with the idea of soul sleep, or even support it, when closely scrutinized in their context. Therefore, the idea of a conscious existence between death and the resurrection cannot be derived from scripture alone; rather, it is taken from Platonic philosophy and the tradition of men (Mk. 7:8), and should be rejected.

______________________________

[1] One easily understood analogy for the body, soul, and spirit is to think of the body as an appliance, the spirit as the electric current which causes the appliance to run, and the soul as the fully working appliance. Neither the appliance nor the electric current can run by themselves; it requires both together. Likewise, neither the body nor the spirit are conscious by themselves; a consciousness (or soul) only appears when both are combined together.