By Norman Walford 16th January 2014
Talking about Jesus and Hell last week, I mentioned briefly that St Paul never uses any of the standard Hell-words such as Gehenna, Hades, or the lake of fire, such as we find elsewhere in the New Testament . I was surprised at this, and surprised at myself also that I’ve taken so many years to discover such a basic fact. Sometimes we just see what we expect to see and filter out the rest.
I got curious about that, so this week I’m asking the question for my own benefit as much as for anyone else’s, if Paul doesn’t use these words, then what words does he use, what does he mean by them, and what did he actually think about ‘Hell and all that’.For this I’ve listened through the thirteen NT letters that conventionally carry his name. Nothing more, no commentaries or anything. This is how I like to study the Bible, just read it and see what it says. So …
Paul uses a whole series of words to convey his understanding of the Hell-condition, and I don’t find them pleasant reading. They include wrath, destruction, condemnation, and death; to which can be added the concepts of punishment and exclusion or separation. We need to look at all these, but before that there’s one essential—we need to understand the kind of timeline that Paul is operating with.
Paul’s basic timeline of existence for non-Christian people divides into three parts, like this:
- Life on Earth, the here and now. This is followed by
- The Day of the Lord, or the Day of Jesus Christ, what we often call Judgment Day. And after this
- Eternity, which can also be translated from the Greek as “the Age to Come”.
For Christian people, those who have come to know God and received the Holy Spirit, it’s slightly more complicated. The first (life on earth) part is subdivided into two by our conversion so we get this:
- Life on Earth before conversion
- Conversion, meeting God and receiving the Spirit
- Life on Earth from then on
- The Day of the Lord
- Eternity
Once we understand these timelines it starts to get easier. And to get the full picture we need to understand only one more thing. When Paul uses his “words”, he sometimes applies them to a single time segment, but more often he applies them to multiple time segments. And often when he does that, he doesn’t see a clear distinction things happening in one time segment and things happening in another. It’s as if he sees past, present, future, and eternity as all being facets of one single, eternal, timeless reality. Which may in fact be the case. To be dead now and to be dead in eternity are really the same thing. Does that make any sense?
Let’s look at an example. Wrath, or the anger of God. For Paul, someone who doesn’t know God is under the wrath of God during his earthly life; he gets the wrath of God meted out to him on the Day of the Lord; and then he is subject to the wrath of God in the Age to Come. But they are not really three different things. For a God who exists outside of time there’s no real distinction.
A Christian meanwhile is seen as having been subject to God’s wrath prior to his conversion, but this wrath is lifted when he come to Christ. After that there is no more wrath. By the way, Paul uses a similar way of thinking when he talks about more positive things such as salvation. We are “saved” when we receive Christ for the first time; we continue to be saved as an ongoing process through life; we are saved on the Day of the Lord; and we remain saved into eternity. Again for Paul, it’s all one salvation.
With these two principles established—Paul’s timelines, and the way he slots his “words” into those lines—we are now in a position to return to the primary question, which is this: Is there any trace in Paul of the sort of Universalism that could indicate the entire human race ultimately being reconciled to God and brought into the kingdom, even those who reject him now? And the short answer is, I really can’t find it.
Let’s look briefly at Paul’s words one by one. We’ve discussed wrath, which just means God’s anger—though I’m not sure why I say “just”! After all, God’s wrath is equated (e.g. Romans 5) with God’s enmity which sounds fairly bad. Anger can of course be lifted. But the basic problem we come up against right through is this: on Paul’s timeline, eternity—the Age to Come—doesn’t have any subdivisions. There’s just one homogenous “age to come” and that’s it. There’s no part one and part two.
Now death, which Paul uses a lot. This is not death as we normally think of it, the kind of point-event that happens when we have our heart attack or whatever. It’s something else than that, more an ongoing process. So Paul can speak of “the widow who lives for pleasure (being) dead even while she lives” [1 Timothy 5.6] or Christians having been “dead in their trespasses” before being made alive [Ephesians 2.5] Dead means cut off from God, just as Paul speaks of Christians as being “dead to the world”. The connection is severed. The line is dead. Though I suppose even death can be reversed, hypothetically.
From this perspective destruction seems even worse. The problem with destruction is that’s it’s an ongoing progressive process. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. The longer it goes on, the less reversible it becomes. Granted Paul doesn’t use this word very often in unequivocal reference to the Age to Come—though “… who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord”[2 Thessalonians 1.9] is pretty forthright (one of Paul’s earliest letters – did he mellow later?).
This passage in Thessalonians is interesting as it links together three concepts of punishment, destruction, and exclusion from God’s presence. The concept of exclusion—and if from God’s presence then also from God’s Kingdom—is not common in Paul but Jesus used it a lot. So do I. It’s difficult to tell people that they are “dead” and need to be made alive, easier to explain to them that they are outside God’s Kingdom and need to come in.
In all these I can’t find much to suggest that Paul saw any of these states of being—or non-being—as anything but permanent and irrevocable in the final, eternity segment of existence. So, is there anything that, if I were a Universalist, I might grasp onto to back up my position? I’ve identified two possibilities, though neither convince me.
The first is in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death”, and then that “death is swallowed up in victory”. Obviously one could argue Universalism from here—it perhaps implies a Kingdom so infinite and all-embracing that all negatives and blemishes are crowded out. But does it indicate that there’s no space outside that boundary for anything else to exist? Not necessarily. It reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ allegorical novel The Great Divorce in which Hell is portrayed ultimately as an almost microscopic particle lodged in a tiny crack in the ground of Heaven between two blades of grass. As we get further from God we diminish, get smaller. As the separation is complete we virtually disappear. Hell is no longer big enough to make even a meaningful dent in the boundary of God’s Kingdom. Heaven gets bigger, Hell just shrivels into nothingness, and all within it.
The second candidate passage is from Timothy: “The living God who is the saviour of all men and especially of those who believe.” So is God really the actual saviour of all men, of everyone who ever existed? The problem with this interpretation (apart being contrary to everything else Paul ever says) is that it is a logical nonsense. Either he’s the saviour of all men or he’s not. And if he is, then how can he be especially the saviour of one particular subgroup and less so of the others? You can’t be half a saviour. It makes no sense. I can only think that Paul means the potential saviour of all men. I don’t see how it can mean more than that.
It’s important to understand that Paul didn’t know everything. We tend to think of the Bible as a book that has all the answers, that if we dig around hard enough we can find them all—but of course it doesn’t. It only tells us what God wants us to know, which is not at all everything. Paul is ambiguous on many things, probably because there were many questions to which he didn’t know the answers. Why should he?
I see no suggestion in any of Paul’s writing that he saw anything but finality in any of the frightening words he uses to describe life without God. That’s what gave the urgency to his sense of mission. For me it makes sense to live life on that basis. If one day we wake up on the other side and find a whole lot of people there we really hadn’t expected to see—that’s a bonus.
Link to My Blog Archive
PhariseeChurch 
Ever occur to you that the first Adam sinned and ALL men are under the judgment of that act in the garden. And God being full of GRACE, knowing what Adam would do, in His sovereign goodness sends His Son, as the second Adam, to die a horrible death on a Cross ( stake) so that ALL men may live.
And by your conclusion, which is simply reversion to the Christian religious system’s mode of thinking {” well, if when we get there, and I see old sinful uncle Harry there, more power to him and all the rest of mankind who weren’t as righteous as myself, because I was good enough to make it, even if the rest of the sinners didn’t , and I think that they should have rotted in a burning hell for eternity, …….which is simply judging by your own standards ( 1 Cor. 3&4 ) } .
If the love of God dwells in your heart, why do you search so to prove that God, who is love personified, will consign ALL men to ” hell ” forever. Would you do such to your child? Was the death upon the Cross that was horrible beyond man’s imagination, because it included a realm of suffering from the celestials that we could not see,….not enough to overcome the work of man and satan ? Was it not enough to satisfy God’s purpose in even allowing His son to be subjected to such travesty? Is, or does grace truly abound over sin? Or is it easier for you to remain in the discipline of many theologians who have gone before you, who have been filled with the mire of Roman Catholic doctrine that was manufactured to obtain filthy lucre through the fear of men, who then tried to buy their way out of consignment to a fiery hell via penance.
And by the way, 1Timothy 4:10,11 is not only a proof of total reconciliation, it is a reminder that ” heaven ” is not a place or state that is governed by socialistic ideas.
” Heaven” is not a mansion or streets of gold. There will be LEVELS of attainment there, wherever or whatever that is. All men will be saved, but ESPECIALLY believers, alludes to ” winning the race ” as Paul ( whom you don’t seem to think is as important in God’s economy as he is ….and you being a gentile by birth, should really be so grateful for his work in the kingdom ) would write about it. There will be winners, second, third, etc place runners and although running ( having been saved ), only the winner will secure a trophy, and all it contains. ( another subject )
I suggest you continue to study the subject of reconciliation and listen to His voice ( the eternal Word ) within, and be aware that once introduced to this subject, you will be hounded by the Spirit of Grace UNTIL you SEE it and submit to truth. Why do I say that ? Because it happened to me, and it required many years ” of coming back again and again ” to His knocking at my door and bringing up the subject. And I was a hard nut to crack ! Finally, here is a simple test. If the majority of the Christian religious system believes something, you can almost be sure that it is faulty, or contains some sort of error, somewhere.
If this sounded aggressive, I am sorry. Time for all men to wake up.
Jim Rapalje / Benson, NC
Thanks Jim, I really appreciate your input here!
Probably I was a bit negligent in omitting Paul’s discussion in Romans of “all will be made alive” – this was an oversight.
I wasn’t wanting particularly to talk about what i may or may not believe. The question was what Paul, the man who lived, walked the earth, wrote letters, etc. believed in his heart of hearts.
He clearly talked about things like wrath, death, destruction etc. and he must have meant something by these words. I suspect he had his own inner conflicts over the subject, as we all do, struggling with questions like, what about those who never heard, etc. Questions to which none of us know the answers with certainty, since God has chosen not to tell us.
It’s entirely possible that his views changed over time, between Thessalonians (? 52 AD), Romans (? 57 AD) and Timothy (? 62 AD). Why not? Most of us change our views over time. How many of us agree exactly with what we were saying 10 years ago. Not me, certainly. Not you, I think. Maybe he did mellow, taking a more inclusivist later in his life. I’m not sure.
I’m not quite sure why you accuse me of saying God consigns men to Hell. I quite specifically start by stating that Paul never talks about Hell, never uses the word. He talks about some other things that sound quite unpleasant but never of Hell. I find very little suggestion anywhere in Paul of God deliberately inflicting pain on people in the afterlife as a kind of retribution. Separation from God is … separation from God. What it might feel like on the eternal stage I haven’t got the faintest idea. I don’t suppose Paul had the faintest idea either.
I will, as you suggest, continue to study and listen. Perhaps in 10 years time I’ll have a deeper understanding – if I haven’t by then been moved to a stage where incomplete understanding is no longer an issue.
Norman
Hi Norman,
You wrote: “The question was what Paul, the man who lived, walked the earth, wrote letters, etc. believed in his heart of hearts.”
Actually, no. The question should be, “What is the testimony of Jesus, in harmony with The Law and The Prophets.” I understand your thought process very well, since I’m a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and have been following Jesus for 21 years now.
The words and actions of Jesus are superior to Paul, and to everyone else. Jesus has no equal. Neither Jesus nor any other human author of the Bible agreed with Paul that “All Scripture is God-breathed.” And even Paul didn’t say that all Scripture is equal .
It isn’t equal. Paul is inferior. Jesus is above all. Paul didn’t even know what the most important commandment is. (No it isn’t “Love” or “Love your neighbor.” Paul, and the Beatles, were wrong.)
Thanks. I wrote two blogs, one after the other. The first one was about what Jesus said about hell, The second one was about what Paul said about hell. I entirely accept what you say, that Jesus has precedence; but that doesn’t mean we should totally ignore Paul’s opinion! Are in any case, they don’t disagree.
Jim R. you abuse scripture to prove your point and use emotive statements as well. Norman is right. The proper interpretation is “potential”. That is obvious from the text, and all of Scripture, and not agenda driven in the least.
Then you accuse him of self righteousness and condemning others for even writing this piece? Are you not being self righteous or at least absurd?
There is an American minister who has stated on record that Jews do not need to come to Messiah Yeshua to be saved. That they are under a different covenant and it is worthless to try to convert or witness to them…what?
If that is true than the 1st century Jews and Jewish leaders who wanted nothing to do with him, and even aided in his assassination had nothing to lose as well. The atheists, blasphemers, etc. have nothing to lose. Christians can renounce him, and have nothing to lose. We can live any way we chose, believe anything we chose, and have nothing to lose.
At this point…there is no point in the Cross.
Thanks Leo. this seems to have somehow attached itself to a different post – I’m not sure how that happened!
Norman
What I don’t understand about the Universalist’s point of view is that, if all who call themselves Christians are going to heaven anyway, why then does Jesus exhort us believers to put aside the deeds of darkness and walk as children ‘in the light’ and to be careful not take His grace in vain, failing which, we will be found guilty of crucifying the Son of Man all over again (Hebrews 6:6)? Maybe I’m missing something, could someone explain? Also, He distinguishes between the wide and narrow gate (Luke 13:26, 27), and what’s scary is that he says not everyone who claims to know him will in the final day be known by Him. Would be interested in hearing your views.
Lena
Its not about all who call themselves Christians getting to heaven Lena, but everyone, the whole human race. Strictly we shouldn’t be talking in platonist concepts like heaven anyway – its the Kingdom of God. The NT doesn’t generally talk about heaven in that way. So its about everyone getting into the Kingdom.
My problem with this is that once you take that on board, everything just unravels. I mean,why bother to even try? What’s the point? We all get there so just take it easy.
My second problem is that bible interpretation is not about finding verses to back up the position,its about, ‘Did Jesus believe that, yes or no?’ ‘Did Paul believe that, yes or no?’ And as far as I can see the answer is No.
If that’s the case we don’t need the Bible to guide an direct us, in fact we might as well do away with the Ten Commandments too! It just doesn’t make logical sense to suggest that Christ would have been sacrificed just so that we can go on freely sinning rather than living free from the tyranny of sin ( which was what he rescued us from in the first place)!
I think you’d have to postulate one of two alternatives:
1. That God gave people a ‘second chance’ after death. Those who had rejected in life, as soon as they died and were exposed to the full wonder of God’s presence, would all, inevitably, see the magnitude of their mistake and immediately turn to God for grace and forgiveness.
2. Some kind of purgatory situation like the Catholics think, where after death people who have rejected God undergo some kind of purging process which eventually leads them, like the Prodigal Son, to finally figure out they’d be better off in the Kingdom than without.
I find neither convincing on any level, for dozens of reasons.
If either was the case then why would Christ have bothered to come into this world in the first place, to point the way to heaven via the cross – when he could have simply accomplished his rescue mission on the other side! Why the hassle of coming to earth?!
Well precisely. That’s the whole problem. If you analyse it, the entire fabric falls apart.
Hi Norman,
You wrote above, QUOTE:
“I entirely accept what you say, that Jesus has precedence; but that doesn’t mean we should totally ignore Paul’s opinion! Are in any case, they don’t disagree.”
To be honest, on the topic of hell, I have not compared the teachings of Jesus and Paul. So I have no basis to disagree with your assertion “they don’t disagree” on the topic of hell.
However Jesus and Paul do clearly disagree on some other points, including what is the First and Greatest, Most Important Commandment. Although it is actually “off topic” for this thread, it is literally the most important thing according to Jesus. Here is the Scripture comparison.
JESUS’ WORDS
Which is the greatest commandment in the Law?
Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these TWO commandments.” [Matthew 22:36-40, Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18]
Of all the commandments, which is the most important?
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, of Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than THESE.” [Mark 12:28-31, Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Leviticus 19:18]
But, in contrast, Paul didn’t know the greatest, most important, first commandment according to Jesus. Paul made up his own rule.
PAUL’S WORDS
“The entire law is summed up in a SINGLE command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” [Galatians 5:14, Leviticus 19:18]
And again, Paul wrote:
“He how loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not covet, and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this ONE RULE: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” [Romans 13:8-10, Leviticus 19:18]
Jesus said it’s TWO commandments, with the greatest, most important, first command to
.1) first, love God with everything you’ve got, and
. 2) second, love people.
Paul said no, it ONE commandment- to love people.
So Jesus and Paul disagree.
I am following Jesus.
I don’t really see a disagreement here.
Jesus seems to have seen loving God and loving one’s neighbour as two sides of the same coin. He would never have accepted the possibility that you could sincerely love God, and simultaneously hate to your neighbour. Such “love” would never be acceptable to God.
“Whatever you have done to the least of these, you have done also to me” or words to that effect.
St Paul was building churches and trying to regulate their behaviour. He was a very practical man, and loving people is a very practical business. The problem with the “loving God”is that it is very difficult to define just what it means in practice. Are we talking about an emotion here? Are we talking about how much time you spend praying, how much time you spend in church? I really don’t know.
How do YOU define loving God?
Norman,
We’ve been trained by the “Bible-believing Evangelical” environment and tradition we are surrounded with to falsely assume that “All Scripture” is somehow “equal”, and equally authoritative and equally correct, and it all somehow “harmonizes” if only we are smart enough to understand it.
So, the logic goes, if Paul wrote – or even said – something, it must be true, and if Paul did something it must be right….. Because PAUL wrote; “All Scripture is God-breathed”…. and “I have become all things to all men”… and “I became your father… therefore I urge you to imitate me” and “follow me as I follow Christ”… etc. No other New Testament author ever said such things.
No one besides Paul ever said; “All Scripture is God-breathed.” Jesus never said or implied that. The Apostle Peter wrote of PROPHECY of Scripture, not All Scripture, and no it isn’t the same thing. The RISEN Lord Jesus is the only one in all history that can NOW claim “I have become all things to all men”. When Jesus walked the earth even He didn’t claim that. He didn’t command us to be all things to all men, and we cannot, and we should not try to do that. That would be thinking we are God and we are not.
We should heed the warnings of Jesus in Matthew Chapter 23, and not the words of Paul the Pharisee “I became your father… therefore I urge you to imitate me”. It’s a direct contradiction. Follow Jesus or Follow Paul because Paul said so.
But we have been trained not to see Paul’s obvious sin, boastful false testimony, false teachings, and contradictions of the teachings of Jesus. We have been trained to “beg the question” and assume that Paul MUST be right, even where he clearly is wrong, and we start talking about “what Paul really meant”, Paul’s feelings, experience, personality, emotions, intentions, etc. to justify everything Paul ever said, wrote, and did.
There is a clear disagreement here between Paul and Jesus about which is the Most Important Commandment.
I don’t agree that “Jesus seems to have seen loving God and loving one’s neighbour as two sides of the same coin.” That is confusing the clear distinction that Jesus made between 2 commandments, not 1.
I agree with you that Jesus “would never have accepted the possibility that you could sincerely love God, and simultaneously hate to your neighbour. Such “love” would never be acceptable to God.”
However, we Love God and Love people in different ways.
It is very possible to “love people”, like the Beatles, with our own man-made definition of what we think “love” is, without loving God or knowing God at all.
Loving people certainly is PART of how we demonstrate our love for God. But it isn’t the only part or the only way, and it isn’t synonymous with loving God. To love God means more than simply to love people – Paul was wrong. Jesus gave us 2 separate (but connected) commandments for a reason, and we don’t need Paul or any other man to further “simplify” or “refine” them for us.
What is most important is not my definition of what is loving God, but rather the words of Jesus – HIS definition, not Paul’s definiton. So to begin with, we should let Jesus speak for himself, without trying to “harmonize” his words with Paul the Pharisee.
If you reject Paul’s understanding of Christianity, it is very unclear to me just what you are wishing to put in its place. Almost the entire doctrinal basis of Christianity over the last 2000 years is based on Paul’s teachings. If you discard Paul and the other epistles, what are you left with? Just Jesus as a good man, leading by example.
That is not a road that I would go down.
Norman,
“reject” and “discard” are pretty strong words. I don’t “discard” half the Psalms because David wrote them, but neither do I approve of adultery and murder. The Psalms, like the New Testament letters, are Scripture, but they include a lot of human feelings, experience, emotions, etc. that are neither the Word of God nor the Testimony of Jesus.
It is accurate to say almost the entire doctrinal basis of MARCIONISM or “Nominal Western Christianity” over almost 2000 years is based on Paul’s teachings.
Here is helpful link.
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/56-marcionism.html
But if we have an Orthodox view of Scripture, we should look first to the testimony of Jesus recorded by the Gospel writers, backed up by The Law and The Prophets. Paul should not be the center. Jesus should be the center. And Jesus was The World’s Greatest Teacher, not just “a good man, leading by example.”
Interesting article.
I have never thought of Paul as a Marcionite! He had great respect for the Old Testament.
Paul never spent time with Jesus. And he spent very little time with the 12 Apostles. This makes his theological insights all the more remarkable. He seems to have worked out the entire theology of salvation by grace purely by reading the Old Testament under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
The 12 “proper” Apostles in the meantime seem to have achieved virtually nothing between them, in the spite of all the advantages they had. A bit pathetic really.
Norman
Norman,
You are not saying that Paul’s “remarkable theological insights” are somehow superior to the teachings of Jesus and the 12 Apostles, even when Paul is alone in his opinion and he contradicts Jesus – are you?
To contradict someone implies that you know what that person is saying. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, never had a chance to listen to him. The gospels were put together after Paul had finished his active ministry, so he didn’t know what was in those either. He was effectively working blind, with only the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit, and maybe a few shreds of gossip about Jesus’s actual teaching.
I would see Jesus’s teachings as being primarily “old dispensation” teaching. Paul is an apostle of the “new dispensation”. This inevitably makes for differences.
Certainly I don’t see him as superior, just different.
Norman,
You are right – Paul didn’t know Jesus and His teachings very well, and Paul’s teachings were different. Since Jesus is God, and we are to follow Jesus, where they are different Paul was wrong.
Since I graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary, I am familiar with the false idea that somehow Jesus and His teachings are outdated, and only Paul really knew the truth. (Naturally they wouldn’t use the word outdated – they would say “old dispensation” …) Since Paul didn’t really know Jesus and the Original 12 appointed Apostles, Paul didn’t know what an Apostle was either. He claimed the title for himself “Apostle to the Gentiles” but no one agreed with Paul regarding apostles.
Parable of the 12 heavenly chalkboards
What is a common analogy for a permanent decision?
“Written in stone.”
What could be more permanent than that?
How about written in stone in heaven (in other words, for eternity.)
And what kind of a stone is the most solid, permanent, and unchangeable?
Perhaps a foundation stone?
The Book of Revelation written by the Apostle John, chapter 21 verse 14 says… “The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostle of the Lamb.”
Nothing about a “13th Apostle” or an “Apostle of the Gentiles”…. Hmmmm…..
Parable of the 12 heavenly chalkboards
Imagine “Wackyjesus” in “Wackyheaven”, built on the foundations of 12 chalkboards:
“Matthias, you should have developed your skills in writing and public speaking. Your name never appears in the Bible after your appointment as the 12th Apostle in Acts 1. [erase erase erase]
Actually, the same is true for you Thaddaeus, after you were appointed. You should have hired a PR firm to promote your name and make if famous. [erase erase erase]
Of course, you both are specifically mentioned in Acts 6:2. “So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together.” And this is before Saul/Paul is even mentioned. But let us not confuse the issue with facts. Paul did a much better job of marketing himself, and he wrote about himself hundreds of times. Share of voice equals share of mind. And most Evangelical pastors who read the Bible spend most of their time listening to the voice of Paul, so they become “like Paul.” But I digress…
James, we had a good run. I didn’t think King Herod would knock you off so quickly. [erase erase erase]
Oh well. Wow, they’re dropping like flies. Now I’ve got 3 slots open. I’d better buy a case of chalk and some more erasers. I’ll have to change the names on these 12 chalkboards hundreds of times in the next couple of millennia.
I guess I had better plan ahead, and save a slot for the last Pope, Francis. And the head Mormon Apostle. And I need to save a throne for my mom, or she’ll be mad. And one for Muhammad too. Who needs truth in relationship, when I can quickly get market share, and totally dominate the market, through mergers and acquisitions?
And one throne for that other guy named Peter. When he was younger, he used to have the great theological insight about territorial spirits and wrestling with dark angels. What was his last name? Begins with a consonant. Sounds almost like he was in the personal transportation industry back in “sword and sandal epic” days… “Peter Charioteer?” Maybe not. This isn’t the “fullest” description of him, but it’s full enough. Anyway, I should save a throne for him too.”
So what is the application of this parable?
Beware of the NAR whale – it’s really a killer whale with a man-made horn strapped on top. The only place in the New Testament that mentions anything like “Seven Mountains” is Revelation 17, “seven hills on which the woman sits.” (The Great Prostitute, that is.) Rome is the city that sits on seven hills, the perfect place for Peter the Roman, the New World Pope for the New World Order, to replace the original Apostle Peter in the apostate church of the Antichrist.
I’m fairly comfortable with the idea of old and new dispensations in this context.
Jeremiah told us that the old covenant would in due course be replaced by a new covenant, which the book of Hebrews tells us was ushered in with Jesus’ death.
Jesus lived on earth in the time of the old covenant.
Seems reasonable to me…
So you are following Paul rather than Jesus because Jesus is, practically speaking, outdated? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be what you are saying.
I’m not really “following” anyone at all. I am a Christian, meaning I have accepted the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on my behalf, and in doing that I have received the gift of the Holy Spirit and thereby come into personal relationship with God.
I read the whole bible, including the Law, the Prophets, the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the teachings of the various letter writers. I take all these various moral, legal, and theological teachings, and try to come up with a practical synthesis to govern my daily life.
In understanding that atoning sacrifice, I am deeply grateful to Paul for explaining it. Had she not done so, I would be a rather at a loss in my understanding.
Norman,
I am following Jesus. I know Him personally, I communicate with HIm, He has brought be into relationship with my Father in Heaven, and they have given me the Holy Spirit too. It’s are real, it’s a living relationship. What you are describing about yourself sounds to me like what Jesus warned us of in Matthew 7:21-23.
I’m not trying to be offensive. But if you are “not really “following” anyone at all” then by definition you are not following Jesus. I am following Jesus. So we are going in different directions. I encourage you to open the GOSPELS and spend some time listening to the words of Jesus Himself, if you want to really know HIM.
May the LORD bless you and keep you. But please, wake up! Farewell.
Don’t worry. We will meet in the Kingdom one day.
Norman,
I wonder which ‘Kingdom” you are were talking about.
In the Kingdom I am part of, Jesus the Messiah of Israel is the King.
Poem – What is love?
Two men came to Jesus
With different motivations.
They asked Him the same question
Relevant to all the nations:
Which is the Most Important?
The answer was the same.
Jesus did not manipulate
He was not there to play a game.
“Love the Lord your God” said Jesus
as He quoted from The Law –
to fulfill and not abolish
was His purpose, full of awe.
Jesus did not make all Scripture
Into one new great commandment.
He summarized The Law and Prophets
“First and Greatest” and “The Second.”
The Love of God is higher
Than the love of any man.
Receive from God, give back to God-
Then to others, that’s His plan.
The Love of God involves much more
Than simply “love your fellow man.”
Worship, trust, and pray to God,
and obey Him – that’s His plan
To worship and pray to neighbors,
Whoever they may be,
Or trust and obey our enemies
Would be idolatry.
The love of God is first and greatest,
And the love of man is second.
“All we need is love” are words
of dead Beetles on the pavement.
“The entire law is summed up in a single command”
are not the words of Jesus our Salvation.
It’s false teaching of Paul the Pharisee
“an accuser of our brethren.”
“Love” without God is Satan’s word through Paul
in his chapter to the Corinthians.
“I will show you the most excellent way”
is the road to eternal perdition.
Where is God in Paul’s chapter on love?
Nowhere in view of the eye.
Paul sings about himself like a Mexican Mariachi
“I, I, I, I.”
Jesus is The Most Excellent Way
Not the words of a Pharisee.
The words of Jesus are very clear.
Jesus said, “You must follow ME.”
Many self-professed “Bible-believing Evangelicals” won’t listen to the words of Jesus, because they are brainwashed through reciting their “mantra” – “all scripture is God-breathed.”
This “Evangelical Mantra” has been accepted by the collective subconscious mind of “The Evangelical Church” without thought, question, reflection, or even 2 witnesses from the Scripture itself. It’s based on a misinterpretation, out of context, of one verse in one letter written by one man, Paul the Pharisee, who was unfamiliar with the personal ministry and teaching of Jesus.
But, “Once an idea has been accepted by your subconscious, it remains there and it governs your behavior until it is replaced or changed.” [ as a pastor named Bishop Dale C. Bronner observed in one of his sermons]
(Definition from the American Heritage Dictionary.) Mantra (noun) (Hinduism.) A sacred formula believed to embody the divinity invoked and to possess magical power, used in prayer and incantation.
When cult members repeat their mantra, it makes them deaf to the voice of God, unable to hear God. Instead, it puts their focus on their one “special man” above all others – his personality, words and teachings, character, life example, feelings, experience, intentions, mind, will, emotions, etc. Their cult leader is their hero – he is always right, could never be wrong about anything specific, and he must be obeyed in all things and never questioned. He will give himself a special title, write at least one special book, and claim special authority, with no need for a second witness to back him up.
Here are 3 examples.
.1) Fuhrer. The title of Adolf Hitler as the leader of the German Nazis, author of “Mein Kamph”. Mantra: “Heil Hitler.”
.2) The self-appointed Prophet Muhammad, author of The Koran. Mantra: …..”and Muhammad is his prophet.”
.3) Paul the Pharisee, the self-appointed Apostle to the Gentiles, whose 13 letters comprise one third of what, today, we call the “New Testament.” (The first, original “New Testament” was composed by the second century heretic Marcion, and he coined the term “New Testament.” His new “book” contained nothing except 10 of Paul’s letters and an abbreviated Gospel of Luke. There were no other “New Testament” books, and the Hebrew Scriptures were the “Old Testament” which was irrelevant, according to the heretic Marcion.) Mantra: “All Scripture is God-breathed….”
I got my Masters Degree at Dallas Theological Seminary. I was attracted to the school because they put Paul’s mantra of “All Scripture is God-breathed” above everything else, and I wanted to heed Paul’s command and “Preach the Word” like Paul….
This mantra is a misinterpretation out of context of 2 Timothy 3:16. It ignores the previous verse, 2 Timothy 3:15, which clearly indicates that Paul was NOT referring to his own letters when he wrote the words “All Scripture.”
Paul was probably making reference to some of the Hebrew Scriptures, quite likely including the Law and the Prophets. We cannot be completely certain exactly which “Scriptures” Paul meant in “All Scripture”, and what Paul meant by “God-breathed.” Why can’t we be certain?
Because we must establish a matter by the testimony of two or three witnesses, especially something as important as “What is the Word of God.” No one else in the pages of the Bible besides Paul ever said anything like “All Scripture is God-breathed”. And Paul only said it here, one time, in the middle of a personal letter.
The Apostle Peter made reference to “Prophecy of Scripture,” not “All Scripture,” and no it’s not the same thing at all. Jesus never said anything like that. And no one, not even Paul, ever said that all Scripture was equal.
I remember the general approach to the Bible at Dallas being that “every word in the 66 Books is the Word of God”….. and we should interpret it based on “the intended meaning of the author in the historical grammatical context.”
That is the basic idea of the heavy-duty seminary language we were being trained in. It sounds so right, so intelligent, so professional, so “godly”….. but it is fundamentally flawed.
When we look at Paul’s teachings and testimony about himself, (in his letters that make up 1/3 of the New Testament,) we should NOT immediately ask ourselves; “what did Paul say, what did Paul mean, and how does this apply to my life?” The fundamental question is NOT “what was in the mind of Paul?”
Before any of that, the FIRST question to ask is; “does Paul agree with Jesus, who came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets?”
Paul contradicted himself, and his teachings and testimony about himself don’t harmonize with the teachings of Jesus (or with Luke’s record of his life.) Let’s not waste our time with endless debates about “what Paul really meant” with his wacky teachings about “baptizing the dead” or “there is neither male nor female.” Paul was wrong. Jesus reminds us from The Law “at the beginning, the Creator made them male and female.” [Matthew 19:4, Genesis 1:27]
As to the question of “whether the Bible is ALL truly Gods WORDS”…
The underlying unspoken assumption is that “The Bible” (66 Books) was given to us by God as “one book” and it’s all “equal” in level of authority, priority, and importance. This comes from unconsciously believing Paul’s mantra, the “Evangelical Mantra”, that “All Scripture is God-breathed”, and falsely assuming Paul was referring to every word in the 66 Books of the Bible. Yet even here, not even Paul, not even once, ever said that “All Scripture is EQUAL” in authority, priority, and importance.
No one in the pages of the Bible ever said or wrote that “all Scripture,” or “the Bible,” is “all truly God’s words”. Jesus never said anything like that, and Jesus did not see it that way. Jesus did not see even the Hebrew Scriptures, what we call the “Old Testament”, as a whole unit or book that was all equal or “all truly God’s words.” Jesus spoke of The Law, or The Law and the Prophets, holding these 2 sections of the Old Testament above the third, least important sections the “Writings.” And Jesus held the Psalms, the first book of the “Writings” section, above the other books in the “Writings” section in importance, since some parts of some Psalms are prophetic.
Obviously, the New Testament Scriptures were not written when Jesus was walking the earth. But if we want to get closest to The Source, Jesus himself, it makes sense that we should look first to the eyewitness testimony of two of His appointed Apostles who walked with Him faithfully for over 3 years, Matthew & John. (Also to other eyewitness testimony, recorded by Mark and Luke.) This is more accurate, important, and authoritative than personal letters written by Paul the Pharisee, who never knew Jesus personally, had no part in His ministry, and had no eyewitness testimony.
We should follow the Jesus of the Gospel writers. We should not follow the “jesus” of Paul the Pharisee or Muhammad or any other man, who had their own ideas of who “jesus” was and what He did.
I didn’t read all the comments, only your post, so maybe someone has brought up this or a similar thought. I have been thinking about this very subject and I think Paul’s (and Jesus’) idea of fire has to be considered. Like in 1 Corinthians 3:15 where he says they will be saved, but as by fire. In Revelation Jesus is apparently speaking to Christians (unless He was addressing unbelievers in the congregation but I kind of doubt that) that if they overcame the lake of fire would not harm them, or that they would not be thrown into it ( by not having their name remain in the book of life). How do we reconcile these thing?
Maybe there is a lake of fire standing before heaven. Those who are cast into it (Rev 20:15) apparently don’t want to go there. Paul says in Philippians 3:11 ‘if I might attain to the ‘ek’ resurrection of the dead’ (that is the actual Greek and is a word found nowhere else in the N.T.). Was Paul indicating that it was possible to bypass that fire, which even for him was not a sure think, but it was what he was aiming for?
Also, with the unpardonable sin Jesus says it won’t be forgiven in this age or the next. Does that mean that in the next age other sins can be forgiven (‘but as by fire’)? He also said that those guilty of that particular sin were in ‘danger’ of eternal judgement. Is it possible that even someone guilty of that sin, perhaps could have a change of heart in the next age, and thereby not being eternally judged?
Just some other thought that should be considered in the discussion. I myself am trying to figure this out and I assume that the question of universalism is bigger now in 2017 than it was when you wrote your post.
Thanks Jerry.
One thing I think worth pointing out is this:
We tend to assume that Paul knew all the answers, and that therefore if we dig deep enough in his writings we will actually find the answers to any questions that we may have.
I think this is probably a fallacy. In reality Paul didn’t know everything. He was just human, and he just knew what had been revealed to him, which was certain things but probably not others.
When it comes to this particular question, I find that Paul is actually quite vague. He gives a general impression of something negative round the corner for those who reject Christ, but is not very specific about it, and that’s probably because he didn’t know.
Terms like “shall not see life” and “the wrath of God” and so on are actually quite vague and could mean various things. And I think he’s probably doing that on purpose because it simply hasn’t been revealed to him.
The lake of fire in revelation is obviously very interesting, if one could use such a term!
How literally can we take it? After all it tells us among other things that Hades will be cast into the lake of fire. Hades originally was the Greek god who was in charge of the underworld in Greek mythology. Later on, Hades becomes a synonym for that on the world itself. In translation it is often the used as a synonym for Sheol, the old testament underworld. All the old Mesopotamian civilizations seem to have believed in this shadowy place below the ground.
But primarily Hades comes straight out of Greek mythology. So if we’re going to take Revelation totally literally, we’ve got a bit of a problem.
The other thing perhaps worth pointing out is that fire, as a metaphor, can be used in a variety of ways. Or with a variety of connotations. It can be used to imply pain. It can be used to imply destruction. It can be used to imply a refining process. Probably one could think of a few others. The medieval Catholic Church seems to have rather played up the pain aspect. But we need to be careful not to be over influenced by that.
Just a few thoughts!
Dear Norman, you said QUOTE:
“In reality Paul didn’t know everything.”
AMEN AMEN.
Paul literally didn’t know the first (greatest, most important) thing about Jesus’ teachings – see Galatians 5:14, and Romans 13:8-10, and compare with Jesus…..
Jesus was asked twice which Commandment is the greatest or most important one, (Matthew 22 and Mark 12)
Both times Jesus answered quoting the same two commandments, from the Law of Moses.
Jesus said that one of these two commandments is the first and greatest most important one. Which one is it? The one in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, or the one in Leviticus 19:18 ?
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “ is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ [Mark 12:29-30, Deuteronomy 6:4-5]
Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.” [Matthew 22:37-38, Deuteronomy 6:5]
Poem – What is love?
Two men came to Jesus
With different motivations
They asked Him the same question
Relevant to all the nations:
Which is the Most Important?
The answer was the same.
Jesus did not manipulate
He was not there to play a game.
“Love the Lord your God” said Jesus
as He quoted from The Law –
To fulfill and not abolish
was His purpose, full of awe.
Jesus did not make all Scripture
Into one new great commandment
He summarized The Law and Prophets
“First and Greatest” and “The Second.”
The Love of God is higher
Than the love of any man.
Receive from God, give back to God-
Then to others, that’s His plan.
The Love of God involves much more
Than simply “love your fellow man.”
Worship, trust, and pray to God,
and obey Him – that’s His plan
To worship and pray to neighbors,
Whoever they may be,
Or trust and obey our enemies
Would be idolatry.
The love of God is first and greatest,
And the love of man is second.
“All we need is love” are words
of dead Beetles on the pavement.
“The entire law is summed up in a single command”
are not the words of Jesus our Salvation.
It’s false teaching of Paul the Pharisee
an “accuser of our brethren.”
“Love” without God is Satan’s word through Paul
in his chapter to the Corinthians.
“I will show you the most excellent way”
is the road to eternal perdition.
Where is God in Paul’s chapter on love?
Nowhere in view of the eye.
Paul sings about himself like a Mexican Mariachi
“I, I, I, I.”
Jesus is The Most Excellent Way
Not the words of a Pharisee.
The words of Jesus are very clear.
Jesus said, “You must follow ME.”
Amen again.
Instead of spending so much time trying to figure out “what Paul really meant”, – when Paul was wrong about many things anyway – we should instead listen to the voice of Jesus. It is found here…..
The message of The 11 (“The narrow gate”)
“The eleven disciples went to Galilee”
“Where Jesus had told them to go”
They heard His voice and obeyed His will
Despite uncertainty down below
Jesus spoke to them at length
He wasn’t really a Tweeter
Only 3 of them wrote Scripture
Matthew John and Peter
“Feed my sheep” said Jesus, for though
“Heaven and earth will pass away”
I have the words of eternal life and
“My words will never pass away”
“Enter through the narrow gate”
The voice of Jesus through the eleven
Believe in Jesus “through their message”
And “eat from the tree of life” in heaven
Jesus commissioned the eleven
With “everything I have commanded you”
“Teaching THEM to obey” Jesus
And “THEM” means me and you !
“The command given by our Lord and Savior”
Is not a Pharisee speaking alone
It came rather “through your apostles”
Matthew Peter and John
If a Pharisee boasts proudly
Those men added nothing to my message
He doesn’t speak for Jesus
His words are nothing more than garbage
Bibliography
All “quotes” in “quotation marks” are from the writings of the Apostles Matthew John and Peter in the Bible, mostly the “Red Letter” words of Jesus. [Matthew, John, Revelation, 2 Peter – NIV]
Thanks!