Mikeedwards123.files.wordpress.com



Is God A Universalist And Saves All?Mike EdwardsUpdated August 23, 2014CONTENTS Introduction2Human Reasoning3Reasons Universalism Is A Possibility3Hell, No!There Is No Quota On God’s GraceMore Reasons Universalism Is A Possibility5RegretsAccountabilityJusticePostmortem ChancesReasons Universalism Is Less Of A Possibility7Free WillGod’s SovereigntySummary of The Possibilities And Impossibilities Of UniversalismBiblical Passages Concerning Universalism10Romans 5:17-19Romans 9-11I Corinthians 15:22Ephesians 1:10, 11Col 1:16-20 Phil 2:10-11Everlasting Punishment Or DestructionThe Book of Revelation Conclusion15Appendix I – The Book of Revelation18IntroductionUniversalism means God will eventually save all people, either in this life or after death. All people will eventually enter Heaven because God will woe them to their knees to accept and believe in a loving Creator. More evangelical writers who believe that Scriptures are God’s spoken and inspired words to us are suggesting that Scriptures teach that God will eventually convince all people to accept the gift of eternal life. Obviously, God does not accomplish this on earth as many die in unbelief. Christians are encouraged to test every belief according to Scripture to best know how to represent God to others (i.e. I Thessalonians 5:21). Let’s consider if God is a Universalist according to biblical and human reasoning.Our beliefs influence our feelings about God and what we tell others about God. For example, if we believe God keeps some alive consciously to torture them in a lake of fire forever, we may misrepresent God or hesitate to talk about God for who can defend such actions by a loving God. If our interpretations suggest to others that God is a sadistic torturer, they may be influenced to close their heart to God. Scholars will forever debate what Romans 5:18 means: “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all.” At first reading this is a very strong passage to support Universalism (UN). If Adam’s sin condemns every single person, Jesus’ life saves every single person. Those who oppose UN may suggest since faith is an individual choice, Jesus’ actions are applicable to those who choose faith. There are no final answers about UN but understanding what we currently believe can impact our relationship with God.One may not be inclined to read through all my arguments so I wanted to share here my main conclusions, as I seek further insights into God’s true nature. I hope you will read my discussions so you can better make your own conclusions. I became more open to the idea of UN when I realized that eternal, conscious torture, also known as Hell, is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Obviously, not all can be saved if some burn in Hell forever. I also believe that the Bible doesn’t clearly state what happens to unbelievers after death when meeting their Creator. We do know all unbelievers and believers face some time of judgment after death. I will suggest later what the tone of this judgment may be. We don’t know if there will be a second death or the possibility of all reconciling with God after judgment. A loving God could allow a second death out of respect for freedom; a loving God could eventually save everyone if freedom will allow it. Currently, I am not persuaded God is a Universalist, but I still believe God’s mercy and grace is going to be much wider after death than some have every imagined. Why wouldn’t one want to believe God is a Universalist if all can be saved from themselves? If freedom and justice can be defended in such a scenario, I cannot imagine anyone not desiring such an outcome. It would be just like God to show mercy and give all a second chance when meeting their Creator. The case and hope for UN biblically may be greater than supposed by evangelical believers. We must not be dogmatic regarding certain doctrines that can impact one’s openness to a relationship with their Creator. UN has a higher probability in my mind than thought previously because I will defend that the popular understanding of Hell is not found anywhere in the Bible. Hell appears to be an invention over the centuries to force people into submission. Some will be dissatisfied that I do not discuss certain topics or biblical passages more in detail. I may someday write more in detail to those that I have convinced the discussion is worth having and that UN is a possibility biblically and philosophically. For now, I will discuss briefly that human reasoning is worthy of consideration, as is obviously Scripture, in trying to answer questions that reveal what God is truly like. Secondly, I will discuss my views on Hell and Election that are not negotiable for me based on exegetical and rational scrutiny. Thirdly, I will discuss reasons for believing that UN is possible. Fourthly, I will discuss reasons that suggest UN is less likely. Fifthly, I will discuss biblical passages that are used to support UN. The primacy of Scripture is important but it is subject to human interpretation, thus why human reasoning is worthy of consideration. Finally, I will conclude with personal reflections how my beliefs about God seem to impact my interactions with others. I hope my writing will enable others to determine how their own beliefs may shape their actions. We must discuss our views openly and in peace to test our beliefs or our love is a facade.Human Reasoning Scholars, who know Hebrew and Greek as their second language, cannot agree on interpretations. Since biblical interpretations are fallible, we must consider philosophical reasons. As it relates to God, rational and relational coherence is as important as theological coherence. We all have the ability to understand God because we are made in God’s image, and the Holy Spirit resides within believers. The first chapter of Romans says we all have an internal sense that a Being greater than ourselves exist. We all have an internal moral compass and can mostly agree on basic rights from wrongs. Even if we have never heard the Creator’s name spoken or know of God’s ways according to Scriptures, we all have a sense of God and what God is like. The primacy of Scripture is important. The Apostle Paul says that the Bible is the inspired words of God recorded through human vessels (2 Tim 3:16-17). We are also capable of thinking like God and understanding God because we are made in God’s image. We can consider if a biblical teaching seems plausible based on what we believe a loving God would be like. Questions about God must be solved on biblical and philosophical grounds since interpretations are fallible. When there are two debatable interpretations that can stand up to scrutiny, I believe we must err on the side that portrays God as the most relational and comprehensible to the human?mind. For example, Hell as endless torture, if there is a defensible exegetical alternative, should be rejected. The importance of human reasoning is unescapable, whether we like it or not, and turns out to be a reason for why UN is a possibility. If freedom and justice can be defended in such a scenario, I cannot imagine God not saving us all from ourselvesReasons Universalism Is A PossibilityHell, No!A definition of Hell that suggests God is a sadistic torturer is not negotiable in my mind. Hell seems to be an invention over the centuries to scare people into submission and obedience. Philosophically, it is not possible that God is involved with such a place as Hell where humans are forever, consciously tortured. Scriptures don’t teach that God punishes people forever for sins committed in a few short years. Fire destroys so God would have to keep humans purposely alive to continue to torturer them. Most humans would not punish their enemies to this extent. Unending suffering is pointless as it doesn’t produce any good. Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna are the words translated as “Hell” in the Bible. (Tartarus is used once) When we understand the biblical use of these three words, we will know what God says about Hell. The Old Testament word Sheol translated as Hell is not a place of everlasting conscious punishment. Sheol was a region or place of darkness occupied by the dead regardless of beliefs. Recent Bible translations rightly translate Sheol as “Sheol” because of the connotations that go with the word Hell. There is a reason God didn’t warn Adam and Eve about Hell as a consequence for rebellion. It didn’t exist. Noah didn’t warn evildoers about Hell before their death by Flood. The popular understanding of Hell is not found in the OT. Hades was used in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the OT, to represent the Hebrew word Sheol. Sheol (Hades) in the OT doesn’t refer to a place where God tortures the dead.The NT is silent as well about a place of eternal, conscience torture. The word Hell in the NT is translated from the two Greek terms – Hades or Gehenna. We mentioned Hades was a translation of Sheol. Gehenna is found twelve times in the NT. Eleven occurrences are used by Jesus in the gospels. When we understand what Jesus says about Gehenna, we will understand what the Bible says about Hell. Gehenna was the name of a real, literal, this-world valley nearby Jerusalem that has a history. It was the local city garbage dump where fires were kept burning to dispose of the garbage. Gehenna also symbolized a place of slaughter and judgment, as Gehenna was the place of burned Israeli children sacrificed to false gods (Jer 7:30-31; 19:2-5). When Jesus warned of others going to Gehenna, this was not a reference to afterlife punishment. Gehenna symbolized the horror of being rejected and abandoned by God to the merciless enemy who would cause their dead carcasses to be thrown into the burning, worm-infested valley. We have translated Gehenna into a word that is not an actual historical place. Hell is a substitution not a translation of the word Gehenna. The best translation of Gehenna in the NT is Gehenna not Hell. Paul wrote fourteen epistles and never mentions Hell. It can matter what we think Scriptures teaches about life after death for those who don’t inherit eternal life through faith. We don’t have to feel obligated to sell fire insurance. As it turns out UN is possible because there is no such place of eternal, conscious torment for those who fail to believe in their first life. Sheol, Hades, or Gehenna could simply be a place where eventually people could be saved from, as Scriptures does not definitively rule that out. Hell can be removed as a stumbling block to believing God is a Universalist. The Bible simply teaches we die a first death and those who believe in God inherit eternal life in Heaven. We do not know what happens to those that don’t believe here on earth, other than they are judged just as believers after death.There Is No Quota On God’s GraceA definition of election that suggests God preordained some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation without a choice is not negotiable in my mind. We would accuse earthly parents of immorality if they showed similar favoritism toward their children. God does not have a quota on His grace. One can hardly blame one for rejecting a God that claims to be a God of love and freedom but arbitrarily chooses who to save. Jesus knew nothing about a quota on God’s grace. In John’s gospel see what Christ said to the Samaritan woman (4:13-14], to Jews persecuting him (5:24), to disbelieving Jews (8:24, 51), to Martha (11:25-26), to Philip and Andrew (12:25-26), and to the crowd (12:36, 46). Jesus spoke as if salvation was available to all who desired it. Context may restrict words such as “whoever, anyone, everyone,” but no contextual indicators in these passages suggest God limited His grace. John 3:16 is one of hundreds of verses that speak of everybody’s freedom to choose or reject the Creator: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”God’s predestination act is that of choosing Christ. A few select passages are said to contradict God’s universal grace, but a careful study reveals God elected Christ to save the world and not that God elected only certain individuals.? Ephesians 1: 4-5 says: "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” God predestinates those who choose to believe in Christ. I Peter 1:20-21 confirms Christ was chosen beforehand to save all those who believe. God does not play favorites. The viewpoint that God chooses only certain individuals for salvation and others have no choice is indefensible exegetically and morally. Christians would admonish one another in Christ, on the grounds of scriptural teaching, if mercy was exercised in such an arbitrary fashion. God's grace is not limited to an elected few at the exclusion of others.I have briefly argued exegetically and morally for certain definitions of Hell and Election. Many who defend their views contrary to what I have said suggest their views are a mystery, because they cannot be explained from a loving God viewpoint. I believe removing these two pillars certainly increases the possibility that God is a Universalist. If there was a Hell where people are tortured forever without any opportunity for repentance or that God elects only a few to Heaven thus damming other to this Hell, then Universalism is impossible because clearly some will not be saved. Before we consider biblical reasons for UN, we need to explore issues such as regrets in Heaven, accountability, justice, and postmortem decisions as they related to the topic of Universalism. More Reasons Universalism Is A PossibilityRegretsHow is Universalism possible if Heaven is not a place of great sadness or pain? Surely, unbelievers will have even more regrets than believers. This objection is the easiest to defend. Scriptures talk about all being judged, believers and unbelievers in this life (2 Cor 5:10; I Cor 3:15). We know believers will have some regrets yet they will be in Heaven for sure. One would assume the thief on the Cross would have more regrets than most, but Jesus described Heaven as Paradise to the thief on the Cross. God is capable of handling regrets yet remain at peace with Himself. Since we are made in God’s image, God surely will empower us to handle regrets in Heaven whether few or many. Those who don’t believe in UN understand they will have to handle the sadness of their loved ones not choosing God. We can assume we will be able to become more like God in this way whether UN is true or not. One day somehow we will be able to live in Paradise and have peace despite regrets on earth. AccountabilityHow is Universalism possible without undermining accountability here on earth? People may only feel accountable if God threatens Hell or death. God warns all the time in Scriptures that evil has its own consequences. A person who tells the truth does not fear being caught and leaves a legacy for others to follow. The wicked must live in fear and die in vain. Sin creates its own accountability. God warned people for their own good the consequences of their rebelliousness, but the fear of God was never meant to lead people into a growing relationship with God. The truth is fear does not change one’s heart. Fear only leads to possible temporary changes to not get caught, not lifelong transformation. It is far better to be motivated by love than fear. Serving a boss out of respect rather than obligation increases productivity. Our preconceived notions of what we think is necessary to produce obedience may not be God’s. If you preach God’s unconditional love, who will follow? No gloomy uncertainty as to God's favor can conquer our battle against self-centeredness. Has it eliminated all your destructive habits? Fear and obligatory love never lead to intimacy in human or spiritual relationships. Obligatory obedience doesn’t lead to reflections how to better ourselves, only to reach certain “good” standards. Do we truly love our partner if we are successful 85% of the time? The truth is we only change when we understand God’s unconditional love for us. When?we understand how much God loves and values us, we will be more empowered to live selflessly. The threat of Hell or a second death is not necessary for people to feel accountable here on earth, nor does it lead to being the kind of people we truly desire to be. Justice How is Universalism possible without justice failing in the long-run for the sake of victims? We are all destined to die and eventually face judgment (Heb 9:27). I doubt anyone truly wants to get exactly what they deserve. Thank God His justice will not be like human justice which often is “an eye for an eye.” A murderer who seeks forgiveness and believes in God cannot ever payback to victims the times missed with their murdered one. Cannot one be forgiven here on earth or after death in the presence of God? Is the only justice for a child beater to be beaten? Is the only justice for an adulterer to be cheated on? Punishment can never make things totally right for a victim. A child beater may actually have to experience emotionally the terror they give others, to bring them to their knees. God’s love and God’s wrath are two sides of the same coin. When human parents punish, they don’t stop loving their child. God restorative purpose in punishment cannot be denied. God punishment has always been in hopes of redeeming the guilty. Judgment in the afterlife can have the same purpose. God’s justice may have an educative component after our life here on earth. Some may not believe in UN because of their concept of justice. Universalism does not deny justice in the afterlife. Victims will have their revenge one day, though our idea of revenge may not be the same as God. We must take into account God is both just and full of mercy and grace. Why couldn’t God show mercy after death as God does here on earth time and time again? Might we forgive our tormenters if we could see the heart as God does and our enemies seek forgiveness? Believers and unbelievers may go through the same process of justice, some having more regrets than others. God’s justice seemingly will have a cleansing effectPostmortem ChancesHow is Universalism possible if people die cursing God and there are no second changes after death? Postmortem changes are possible, even likely, both intuitively and biblically. Many people after death will meet God for the first time, never having heard His name spoken or read His words written down in Scriptures. If God is full of thousands of chances here on earth for those who hear about God, why do we think God will not be full of grace when hearing about Him for the first time. God doesn’t seem to draw a line in the sand here on earth as He didn’t for the thief on the Cross. God will not be any different after death. It is hard to imagine how anyone when given a chance would choose a second death over Heaven. We can only speculate how God will distinguish those who are insincere to simply save their hide, so Heaven doesn’t become another earth.Several biblical passages imply decisions after death are made regarding one’s eternal destination. John 5:25 says that the dead will hear the voice of God and those who hear will live. Verse 29 says those who have done evil will be condemned but we do not know whether repentance will take place. Romans 14:11-12 says: “It is written: As surely as I live, says the Lord, “every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God." So then, we will all give an account of ourselves to God.” This doesn’t rule out the possibility that some can make a decision at Judgment. I Peter 3:18-20 speaks of Christ preaching to those in Noah’s day who were disobedient. Preaching is normally for the opportunity to respond. I Peter 4: 6 goes on to say that both justice and the opportunity to repent (“live according to God in regard to the spirit”) are a reality. The possibility of eternal decisions after death doesn’t negate the blessing of changing here on earth. We may want to tell an addict after the 10th relapse then is no hope, but this is not God’s nature. Chances and forgiveness may be even possible after death. Who better to determine when enough chances have been given than our merciful, perfect God?Reasons Universalism Is Less Of A Possibility Free WillIsn’t Universalism less likely because God doesn’t force people against their will? There may be some stubborn Hitlers or Saddam Husseins after death who continue their rebelliousness even in the presence of God. Is it totally irrational to think that some may continue to reject God, even in His presence, despite visible evidence that God and Heaven are real? Many may choose to be in bondage to selfishness. Many denied Jesus was the Son of God despite amazing miracles. Why would God be respectful of freedom here on earth but then change His ways after death? God can’t force people or those would be false professions. But, before I defend freedom which in my mind makes UN less likely, let’s consider how God could eventually win over those who reject Him here on earth without violating their freedom. Second chances seem a reality after death as they are here on earth. I suspect many when meeting God will be convinced in a heartbeat. They may have rejected God for false reasons here on earth. Maybe they had earthly parents that they deplored and thought of God as a representation rather than the perfection of their human parents. It is a reasonable question to ask how anyone in their right mind, if truly free, would choose death over life. Isn’t the choice of a second death totally irrational, suggesting one is not truly free? If we had had the same influences as Hitler or some other hideous criminal, it seems possible we might have made similar choices. True freedom may be more of a reality in the presence of God.Believers already understand the possibility that no one in their right mind would reject a full court press by God after revealing clearly His amazing grace and love. Why can’t God take as long as He wants to convince someone of who He really is? No one knows what the timetable is after dying and entering God’s presence. One may think that some will sneak into Heaven to save their hide. That doesn’t seem any different than people on earth accepting God for fear that they are going to burn in Hell. Who better than God can know the true thoughts of those He has created. God may just wait until one genuinely acknowledges Him. It just may take some longer than others to accept the truth. There are some very good reasons though to be persuaded that God will not force one against their will. We cannot deny easily that God is a God of freedom. Practically every page of Scriptures shouts this. Every book in the Bible has an aspect of John 3:16 in it: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” We will see if one’s choice enters predominantly in the bible passages that suggest the possibility of Universalism. God doesn’t have a quota on His grace, but God gives all a choice to accept or reject God. God understands that forced love is not genuine and never leads to true intimacy. This is what makes God so amazing. God knew of the possibility that His children were going to rebel against God but He still chose to create. Heck, we parents do the same! We bring children into a world knowing they will suffer at some point and could choose to turn against our ways.If we suggest God eventually can convince everyone to choose Him, I would ask “what is taking God so freaking long.” If God can make people choose Him without violating their freedom, why doesn’t God do so here on earth rather than allowing so much suffering? The other side of the coin is that suffering can serve as a megaphone to distract me from my own selfishness. When evil was chosen suffering became a necessary part of God’s story to lead us of our own volition to a paradise appropriate for free beings. Suffering enables me to not fall in love with temporal existence and love what the world offers.?I am more likely to look to God, who desires our everlasting happiness, during adversity than prosperity.?One can argue freedom is necessary in the beginning to change the world on their own accord. I want to believe Universalism is possible, but I also believe God is a God freedom. I understand we do not have total freedom. I am not free as a child to not be abused. I am not free to be born in a country where there is no poverty. Despite one’s view of the free market, not all can be materially rich based on their circumstances. The Bible speaks a great deal about God being a tremendous respecter of freedom regarding fundamental beliefs. Others can control what we say outwardly under stress, but no one can control our inner most thoughts. Those who have never heard of God will surely have that opportunity someday. Those who were led astray because of poor models will surely have another change when meeting their Creator. But, I am not convinced yet that even God will save everyone against their will. For UN to not be true, it only takes one person when meeting God to spit in His face. We all have either read about or experience some very real evil. Just one person denying God seems realistic to me. A better model than Universalism, unless the biblical evidence is to the contrary, is that God’s mercy and grace after death is going to be much wider than imagined.God’s SovereigntyIsn’t Universalism less likely because God’s will doesn’t always prevail? Both Universalists and non-Universalists may actually agree that God’s will is never thwarted or God isn’t sovereign. Since not all choose God here on earth non-Universalists may argue for exclusive election to defend God always get His human. Many Universalists may be persuaded toward UN because they believe God can only be sovereign if God eventually accomplishes His will. Since God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (I Tim 2:4 i.e. 2 Peter 3:9), it is suggested the logical conclusion is that God eventually saves all. The reality is that God’s will is thwarted often, unless one believes that all the evil and suffering in the world is God’s will. Our definition of God’s sovereignty must not lead down the slippery slope of suggesting God is responsible for the presence of evil in the beginning.Many are wed to the notion that God always gets His way, so they begin to explain the beginning and continuance of evil in nonsensical ways. To protect the idea that God’s will is always done, it may be suggested that God preordained evil in the beginning for some grand purpose. Evil is justified if something good eventually comes from the bad. It is argued this somehow doesn’t make God the author of evil. This is illogical. If God’s willed evil then God desired evil. Suggesting God desired evil is no different than suggesting God tortures people forever in a lake of fire. Both views are irrational. The truth is God’s will is thwarted daily. God could only avoid this by either not creating or not allowing freedom. Evil in this world proclaims loudly that God does not get His way. God is not some sadist that delights in evil to bring about some magnificent purpose. If this was true, why isn’t God powerful or good enough to bring about His will on earth without having to plan for evil? God understood the potential for evil by creating humans, but this does not make Him the originator of evil, any more than human parents are to blame for their children’s sins by simply bringing them in the world. God’s risk for intimacy is no more insane than a parent who chooses to have a child born in an already corrupt world where freedoms exist. Human beings actualize their potential for evil based on the freedom given them to choose right or wrong. Atrocities such as child abuse are a by-product of God allowing human beings to choose how they act and treat others. Evil is not a thing in of itself created; evil stems from misguided desires. God allows the possibility for evil because of freedom, but this does not make God the orchestrator of evil. Evil is not some grand scheme by God.For God to always control our circumstances makes a mockery out of freedom. God clearly doesn’t interfere with the freedom of others to inflict suffering. God didn’t even protect His own Son from suffering. God doesn’t promise physical protection but He does promise the grave isn’t our final destination. Evil people can destroy our physical bodies but never our souls. When evil was chosen suffering became part of God’s story to lead us of our own volition to a paradise appropriate for free beings. Some believe that God controls the day you are going to die to be with Him in heaven. Personally, I do not like the logical or relational baggage that goes with such a thought. God doesn’t appoint a person to be killed by a drunk driver on a certain day? For some that is just too much to bear. You may want to reconsider certain beliefs if they are causing distance between you and God. God is not responsible for all the evil in the world that causes suffering and leads to premature deaths. God gets a bad rap by insisting God controls everything. Universalists, who insist God’s always win, say that God will judge all after death but always convince others His ways were righteous. Non-universalists who insist God’s will is always done must do mental gymnastics with the presence of evil. God’s will is not always accomplished. God has never demanded His way from the beginning. I do not think God will demand His way after death, though we have discussed the possibility that all will choose God of their own free will eventually. God desires to save all, but that doesn’t mean God will eventually save everyone. Free will theists rightly defend that God may not be able to save everyone, because God is a respecter of freedom. God can be sovereign and yet people still reject Him. God, unlike humans, does not have to control to be in control.Summary of The Possibilities And Impossibilities Of UniversalismUniversalism is a possibility because Hell and the notion that there is a quota on God’s grace (aka selective election) is morally and biblical impossible. Even the necessity of human reasoning in biblical interpretation makes Universalism a strong possibility. Universalism cannot be ruled out because of regrets. Regrets are likely in Heaven whether you believe before or after death. The threat of Hell or a second death is not necessary for accountability reasons. Sin has its own consequences. Justice after death can still be possible without an “eye for eye” mentality. The loss of one’s childhood can never been given back, thus why God created true confession from the guilty and forgiveness from the victim. Justice from a fair, merciful God is entirely possible despite people being given a second chance after death. Postmortem changes seem likely since people get second changes anyway here on earth. Universalism seems less likely from a freedom standpoint and a reasonable understanding of God’s sovereignty. Now, we will turn our attention to whether Universalism is possible from a biblical, exegetically viewpoint. It is my belief that we must weight our view of what we perceive a loving God to be like more from God’s spoken or inspired words. In Scriptures we have God’s actually words such as the Ten Commandments and God speaking from the Heavens at Jesus’ baptism. I will not defend here but I also believe other recordings of God’s thoughts and ways in the Bible are reliable. Biblical Passages Concerning UniversalismThere are five main Scriptures considered by Universalists to best defend their position: Romans 5:17-19, I Corinthians 15:22, Col 1:20, Phil 2:10-11, and Ephesians 1:10. I will also discuss Romans 9-11 and an overview of the Book of Revelation with the “lake of fire” references. I will only quote here some of the verses due to space limitations. It is best the reader look at these verses within their immediate context (Chapter) and larger context (Book). When first reading these passages, UN seems to be a reasonable possibility. Unfortunately, no definite interpretations of these passages can be determined as is the case for all interpretations. We must be careful. Any position can usually be defended if we look at verses in isolation. “For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23) can be used to insist that only annihilation (a second death) is biblical. This passage is not referring to what happens after judgment. Context and the whole counsel of God are critical to interpretation.Romans 5:17-19“For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”This passage can be a strong argument for UN when first reading. Death came to all people through Adam (v. 17). The parallel would be then that grace comes to all through Jesus. The parallel continues in verse 18 with “condemnation for all people” versus “justification and life for all people.” “Verse 19 says “many,” but “many” in Scriptures can refer to “all” and the connection of verse 19 to verse 18 strongly suggests this. This passage though is not necessarily discussing a one for one trade value - all sin so all are saved. Verse 15 says: “But the gift is not like the trespass.” Death reigns through one man, but the gift of righteousness reigns supreme because of who Jesus is (v. 17). The trespass of sin is being compared to the gift of grace. Obviously, they don’t compare. The blessing of grace is far greater than the curse of sin: “Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin” (v.16). Paul’s emphasis is on the gift and not who may nor may not receive the gift. The context does not promise all come to Christ.Verses 15-17 don’t refer to our receiving the gift through an act of faith but being recipients of God’s gift, just as a newborn receive life without any decision on their part. But, Paul has spoken all along that the gift of faith must be received. Faith comes through Christ “to all that believe” (Rom 3:22). A person is justified by faith apart from observing the law (3:28). “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (4:3). Paul just said in the immediate context of this passage: “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gain access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God” (Rom 5:1-2). Faith is not a work because it doesn’t earn anything; it just receives what Christ earned in our place. "For it is by grace you have been saved, thought faith--and this is not from yourselves--it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).The assumption in all of Scripture is that salvation is a gift for all who wish to receive it. God never imposes His salvation on anyone; God cannot guarantee one’s salvation. Romans 10 clearly speak of the freedom always assumed in receiving God’s gift. Paul wishes for the Israelites to be saved, but they must believe in God’s righteousness: “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (10:4). Paul did not assume all the Jews would believe though he hoped for that. Paul did assume the gift was available to all. Paul says in Romans God’s gift is free and not earned by works, but again it must be received: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (10:9). Romans 5 does not tell us God will eventually bring all to have faith in Christ against their will. Universalists use the parallelism in this passage to defend their views but it may just do the opposite, if the Universalist does not believe in the traditional understanding of original sin. Romans 5:12-21 is often used to define the doctrine of original sin which suggests we are condemned to hell after death because of Adam’s original sin in the garden, unless justified by Jesus the Christ. God never holds a person responsible for another’s sin. Children are not guilty for their parents’ sins. “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each of you will die for your own sin” (Deut 24:16; i.e. Ex 18:20). Grammar cannot solve this debate, but do we really think newborns are guilty for Adam’s sin? This passage implies Adam’s sin was not transferred or inherited but certainly influential. Sin came in the world through Adam but Adam’s sin didn’t come into us. We are born in sin but not with sin. The reality is that only one person has ever lived a totally unselfish life due to that influence. Thus, I believe the parallelism suggest we don’t inherit Adam’s guilt; condemnation is conditional based on choices. We don’t inherit Jesus’ grace; faith is conditional upon choice. Romans 9-11This passage is not always referred to as a strong argument for UN. It is worth discussing though. Paul did not have a clear theology of UN or Exclusion Election as some have suggested. Paul grieved for his people, the Jews, and wished that he was cut off from Christ for their sake (9:3). Paul likely had in mind present blessings for obeying God’s calling as a nation, but Paul in Romans doesn’t imply UN in his reader’s future. Why were the Israelites being cut off? Just as God’s unconditional love can always be assumed in any passage, the freedom to believe or rebel can be assumed. Freedom is not mentioned in this particular verse but Paul says in the immediate context salvation is by belief (9:30, 32). “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (10:9). Romans 9:15 says: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” God’s salvation is not arbitrary or selective, but God has a right to choose any nation for a particular task so to show his love for all nations. In the example of Jacob and Esau, both can’t inherit the birthright. God didn’t choose the firstborn to illustrate salvation isn’t inherited or earned but given. But God’s choices are always so that all can win. Romans 11:26 states “all Israel will be saved.” This does not promise every single Jew will be saved. That depends! This passage is contrasting the nation of Israel as a whole that was grafted out for a season, while the Gentiles were grated in, and then grafted back in. But, notice the conditions for being grafted back in. Branches were broken off because of unbelief (v. 20), and “if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in for God is able to graft them in again” (v. 23). Paul in Romans does not assume salvation is a guarantee as much as an opportunity for all to receive. Romans does not does not rule out the possibility of universalism eventually through a postmortem experience, but neither does Romans imply all accept God’s gift. I Corinthians 15:22“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”Romans 5 suggest we don’t inherit Adam’s guilt but choose sin. This changes the meaning of the parallelism suggested. We also don’t inherit grace but choose grace. Sin entered the world through Adam; God’s grace entered the world through Christ. This passage has the common theme of “in Christ.” Our hope is always in Christ (I Cor 15:19). This was similar to Romans 5:17: “grace reigning (coming) through the one man, Jesus Christ.” Freedom can always be assumed in choosing to become alive in Christ. I don’t want to make a mountain out of a molehill but this passage says “in Christ all” and not “all in Christ.” In Christ all may come; all in Christ don’t come. Passages that state God elects individuals to be saved before the world was created use the phrase “in Christ” or “through Christ” we have been chosen by belief (Eph 1:4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, I Peter 1:20-21). God elected Christ to save all those who believe: “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph 1:13). Believing is done in one’s lifetime, not before the world was created. Universalists often assume a legalistic than relational interpretation of the Cross when referring to passages such as I Cor. 15:22. It is assumed that Jesus death was a substitution for our death, rather than a desire to influence how much God loved us. A relational view doesn’t seem to lead to as many implications that Christ death possibly or must guarantee salvation for all. Jesus’ death on the Cross for all was not in vain. The Cross was to satisfy some need in us, not God, at the expense of Jesus. The Cross is not about payment but empowerment from sin and death. The Cross wasn’t a one-time act of justice. Jesus exhorts us to take up the Cross daily and follow him (Lk 9:23). The Cross is an act of continual love to influence us to trust in God. God will go to great lengths to prove His love and win our hearts. Talking about the Cross in legalistic terms rather than relational terms doesn’t convey God’s true love. Law court judges care to impart justice; a biblical judge cared to liberate and persuade to do right. God’s actions were to restore not judge. Jesus' death was a depiction of how far God will go to have a relationship with us, not how far God will go to get sins paid for. God allowed Jesus to die to persuade us to trust in Him. Scriptures can be used to justify the legal or relationship view of the Cross, but do we really think God needed to be appeased by human sacrifice like the other OT gods? Do we think God was so mad at sinners that He had to kill someone?Do we think the Cross is to change God’s attitude about us or our attitude about God?Do we think the Cross was to satisfy some need of God’s or to satisfy some need in us?Do we think the Cross was about God’s wrath and justice or His mercy and love?Do we think the Cross is about escaping Hell or having a relationship with God?Do we think God had to be appeased and His honor restored before He could love us?Do we think God couldn’t forgive until His Son died but Jesus could forgive before His death?Do we think there is any price for sin where the sin no longer matters or has consequences? Do we think God’s wrath was toward the sinner or the sin?Do we think sin offerings in the OT were for God or for us to illustrate sin’s devastation? Jesus’ death, rather than some other act of love, may have been necessary but not for the reasons we may think. The Cross can provoke repentance for our own gain rather than pay some penalty. The Cross demonstrates the destructiveness of sin and forgiveness is never without a cost. The Cross can convince us God would do anything to gain moral authority and credibility. The Cross proves God loves us more than we can ever imagine. We may die for a righteous person. Only Jesus would die for a guilty person. The Cross enables us to know God sees us as Christ as our sins are nailed to the Cross. The Cross empowers us to be comfortable with God despite our guilty feelings. The Cross can persuade us to follow in Jesus’ footsteps to trust in God than our own wisdom. Jesus died not to change God’s attitude but our attitude toward God. The Cross wasn’t about exacting punishment; it was about prevailing over sin’s power. The Cross frees us to have a free conscience so we can have a relationship with our Creator. Ephesians 1:10, 11“…to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” Universalists do not believe this passage teaches that some are elected before the creation of the world (v. 4) for Heaven and others for Hell. It is impossible that a loving God would show such favoritism. Universalists may suggest this passage suggest God’s election includes all because God works out everything according to his will. I discussed that God does not promise that His will always be accomplished. This does not de-God God. This passage is similar to other Scriptures that speak of God’s election being in Christ. I mentioned God predestines individuals to salvation if they choose God’s gift of salvation through Christ. God elected Christ to save the world if they will have Him. The gospel has been God’s plan from the beginning when sin entered the world. Those who chose faith through Christ will be saved (I Cor 2:7). Ephesians 1:4 says God “chose us in Him before the creation of the world to holy and blameless in His sight.” Verse 5 explains God’s predestination act is that of choosing Christ as the Savior for those who would accept God’s gift. God not respecting one’s freedom to choose is foreign to the context and the rest of Scriptures. God predestinates those who choose to believe in Christ to be saved. Similarly, Romans 8:28, 29 says God foreknew those who love Him to be conformed to the likeness of God’s Son.? In verse Eph 1:11 Paul repeats again we are chosen through Christ. On what basis is one chosen through Christ?? “When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit” (v. 13). I Peter 1:18-21 confirms the object of God’s election is Christ to save all those who believe: Ephesians 1:13 ("when you believe") suggest one’s belief in Christ is a present reality, not something that has been reached in eternity past. Yet, Scripture’s emphasis is not so much on human freedom but God’s sovereignty and mercy toward those who cannot achieve their own salvation. God did not abandon us to our own vices. When sin entered and destroyed the world, God elected to save through Christ any that would be convinced and believe. Salvation cannot be earned, but it must be received. A theology which teaches that God loves and desires to save all people is the most biblical one.?The interpretation which declares that God chooses beforehand those who are to believe in Jesus Christ, thus passing over the rest of humankind, must be rejected. It is unbiblical to suggest that God’s grace is limited as opposed to universal. Salvation is a gift from God available to all. Col 1:16-20 “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or power or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him…and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” All things were created in Christ to be reconciled through Christ. Reconciliation is never imposed by God. The readers were alienated from God because of evil behavior (v. 21). The originally readers, including us, reconcile by putting off evil behaviors and “continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel” (v. 23). Jesus died to influence all. Jesus’ death is not a failure if some rebel. God’s sovereignty in this context does not demand the victory in the sense that all things must be reconciled to Him. The victory was obtained when God fulfilled His promise that a baby would be born of a virgin to live, die, and resurrect from the dead. Paul in this passage is speaking of what Christ has done: “by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” Paul is not referring to what Christ may do in the future by reconciling all. Many today hate Christ but whether they know if or not they are still under Christ’s subjection. Jesus is declared “over all” even during Israel’s disobedience (Rm 9:5). God promised what He would do, not what we may do. Phil 2:10-11“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Paul in this chapter encourages his fellow believers to not be looking “to your own interests but each of you to the interests of others (v. 4) and to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (v. 12). Paul is focused in the present and the impact of Jesus’ obedience on the Cross (v. 9). Paul isn’t thinking of some outcome in the distant future where all people will eventually bow down and acknowledge Jesus. Paul isn’t discussing or guaranteeing anyone’s salvation eventually someday. Paul warns his readers that some will be destroyed, but others saved if they continue in the faith (1:28). All potentially may or may not honor Jesus but the context doesn’t suggest certainty. In Paul’s time all did not bow or acknowledge Jesus. God always gives the freedom to love or hate God in this life. Why would it be any different after death? We cannot know if everyone will eventually be saved. Romans 10:9 speaks of acknowledgment. Choice is always involved: “…it is with your mouth that you profess you faith and are saved. As Scripture says, ‘Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame…Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom 10: 10, 13). Everlasting Punishment Or DestructionMatthew 25:46 says: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Jesus began to speak about the end times at the end of His ministry. I will discuss in an appendix on Revelation that the end times are expected to happen within the generation of the readers in the first century: “Then, you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death…this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Mt 24: 9, 34). Matthew 25:46 is at the end of a colorful apocalyptic story. Are we ready to say salvation is by works which seems to be the point of the story? All fail so are we all destined to death forever? Unending punishment cannot be the meaning, as Jesus never spoke of a place where God tortures the conscious forever. Jesus was warning His readers of the severity of the times and their actions on earth have consequences that last forever. In that sense punishment lasts forever. We can be forgiven but regrets can last forever. Memory wipes are not promised. This passage does not rule out the possibility of postmortem decisions after death but it is not the point of the story.2 Thessalonians 1:9 says: “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord…” This verse is in the context of the “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1). The “last days” and Jesus’ coming spoken of in the NT were to happen in the lifetime of the readers. The writer promises justice for his readers who suffer at the hands who do not obey God (vs. 6-7). If the writer is referring to times when Jesus comes again in the first century, the unjust will face judgment and destruction, which is death. It has been defended that the word use for everlasting “aionion” can mean age enduring, not everlasting as this word is used in other places to not mean everlasting. Paul is promising his readers’ their torturers will be punished. This passage isn’t meant to speak to the issue of whether postmortem decisions are a reality or not. The Book of Revelation I do not believe any of the Revelation passages shed light on whether Universalism is biblical or not. Revelation is no different than any other book of the Bible. We do not know what happens after an unbeliever dies and faces their Creator. The lake of fire in Revelation has no different meaning than the word Jesus used translated as Hell in our English language. Gehenna was the name of a real, literal, this-world valley nearby Jerusalem that has a history where fires were kept burning to dispose of the garbage and symbolized a place of slaughter and judgment. The lake of fire in Revelation is surely being use symbolically for where those rebellious against God were cast. “God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29). Judgment for actions here on earth is a reality. We do not know the exact nature of this judgment or what one’s final destination will be after such judgment. (Please see Appendix 1 for further thoughts on the Book of Revelation) ConclusionAt this time I do not believe God is a Universalist, but I am a hopeful Universalist. I am very optimistic of God’s mercy and grace here on earth and in the life to come. Heaven may be much more populated than ever imagined. This belief impacts my attitude toward God greatly and how I communicate about God to others. The main philosophically and biblical reasons for my opposition to UN is that God is a tremendous respecter of freedom here on earth. I do not believe that will change after death. I am very optimistic that many, many people will accept God for the first time or change their mind after meeting God. I am not certain that God will be able to convince all. In summary: Who wouldn’t want to believe and hope all can be saved?Human and biblical reasoning are subjective so both must be given their dueUniversalism is a possibility because Hell is morally and biblical impossibleUniversalism is a possibility because there isn’t a quota on God’s grace (aka selective election)Universalism is a possibility because it does not undermine accountability or justiceUniversalism is a possibility because postmortem changes are likely due to God’s penchant for second chances. God may save many people after death because they had no or poor opportunities to know God on earth. God may give the vilest of humans a second change after a period of judgment and possible repentance. I can think of no logical reason that God will stop giving second changes after death. The Bible does not say clearly what happens during and after judgment of our first death Universalism seems less likely because God is a tremendous respecter of freedom based on human reasoning and biblical interpretation. Jesus died to influence all of God tremendous love but He will not force the relationshipUniversalism seems less likely based on an appropriate definition of God’s sovereignty when combined with the freedom model. God can want to save all people and not save all people and remain sovereignLike many doctrines in the Bible, no one can dogmatically say God is a Universalist or not according to Scriptures. Christians take all the fun out of discussing theology when they declare they are right and others are wrong. Some may be defensive because they only know what they have been told by others. In fairness it can cause a good bit of cognitive dissonance to consider certain lifelong views to be untrue. I was taught many conservative views growing up that I no longer believe in. And I believe in my new opinions strongly. I do not believe husbands have any more authority over their wives than wives have over their husbands. I don’t believe Hell as traditionally understood is biblically or morally possible. The list could go on. If Christians cannot discuss their views openly then our love is a facade. There may be a good reason Jesus didn’t give a theological treatise about specifics of the afterlife for those that do not believe. Jesus did give believers the hope of eternal life after death, but Jesus wanted us to focus on the benefits of our current relationship to better handle earthly struggles. It is not all bad we don’t have final answers. Then, we may stop talking about God. We may just focus on jumping through hoops rather than having a relationship. Jesus seemed more interested in the heart than doctrine. I promised I would share how my beliefs about the possibilities of UN impact my attitudes toward God and my actions with others. I have always felt the idea of Hell as traditional understood was morally bankrupt. I knew my God was not a sadistic torturer. Who the hell wants to get to know a hellish, sadistic torturer who some say predestines people to an afterlife of eternal conscious punishment? We no longer have to feel guilty that we don’t want to sell fire insurance; instead, we can share the great news about life with God. Imagine if you discovered there is no such place as Hell. I believe it could lead to more natural conversations about God with others. I have never meet a Christian who isn’t dying to tell others about their relationship with God and how they feel life is better with God than without God. How we answer if God is a Universalist shapes our feelings about God and how we convey God to others. Personally, the possibility of God eventually saving all frees me to focus on Jesus’ main message of kingdom life here on earth and not the afterlife - “if you died tonight…..” Jesus mostly threatens Gehenna with the religious of His day because He didn’t want them dragging others down into the gutter of God’s conditional love. Jesus came to declare God’s radical, unconditional love which is more likely to change the world. God really does dig me which makes me dig Him even more. The more I know God loves me, the more I think I will love God. The more I love God the more I think I will act less selfishly toward others.Knowing God could be a Universalist allows me to think about accountability possibly more on God’s terms. Accountability is important for evil people, but that doesn’t change them. The threat of punishment is less critical for people I hang around. Sin leads to unhappiness in the long-run which is punishment enough. People aren’t sadistic and don’t act in their best interest to be more miserable. Many are more likely to break the vicious cycle of destructive habits the more they know God loves them. We have tried thinking and implying to others that God love us less when we disobey. Is it working for you? Not me!Knowing God may save the vilest of people after death gives me a new perspective on justice. I knew Jesus came to replace the Law and “an eye for an eye,” but I don’t always put that attitude into action. I assumed people would suffer the same consequences as their victims, accept me of course, but punishment never makes things totally right for the victim. Victims’ loses can never be replaced. Jesus was put on a Cross by others. Will those people need to be put on a Cross for the sake of justice? If murderers must be murdered after death, then there is no hope of those regretting their actions every being reunited with their loved one. God’s judgment may be unlike anything we can imagine in terms of cleansing. We just want our accusers or attackers to take responsibility for their wrongdoings and seek to make amends whatever it may cost them. The possibility of second changes after death helps me convey to others what God’s forgiveness may look like here on earth. Our idea of revenge may not be God’s. I have believed in a model of freedom for some time now. It has helped me to better understand and explain evil and suffering in our world. A model of freedom makes me more at ease in sharing the gospel with others. Jesus didn’t force Himself on others. He accepted people for who they are and where they were in their spiritual journey. I am not obligated to force the gospel on others. As a result I talk about God more than I ever have. My main obligation toward others is not to change their opinion about God; my main goal is to love others as God loves them. When others are ready to talk about God we will know. God will take care of one’s attitude toward God if people are open. In summary, I have a greater appreciation of what God is really like. That is a very good thing. Since I want to be like God toward others, it helps me to have the right thoughts, behaviors, and motives with others. This can only lead to more success in treating others as they wanted to be treated. That is how I want to be remembered. God will not berate me if I don’t meet that goal perfectly but with possibly more correct views of what God is really like, I have a better chance to fulfill some of my dreams. What a God!Appendix I – The Book of RevelationMany readers accept that the Bible never refers to a place where God keeps unbelievers alive to torture them. Fewer accept as I do that all of the events in Revelation refer to a time during the first century when Jesus fulfilled His promise to come again. The new heaven and earth spoken of in Revelation (21:1-2) is not speaking about a time in the future when God will destroy the earth and come down to reign. John, the writer, was speaking of events there were to occur in the life or at least the generation of his readers. In order words all events refer to in Revelation come to past before 100 AD. This view may help us to understand Revelation much more clearly. All references in the New Testament of the “last days” refer to the times of the writer, which was in the first century (i.e. Heb 1:1-2; Acts 2:15-17; I Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1; James 5:3; 2 Peter 3:3; I Peter 1:5,20; Jude 17-19; I Jn 2:18-20). Peter writes to his readers: “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Pe 4:7). Matthew records Jesus saying “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass way until all these things have happened” (Mt 24:34). The Book of Revelation, that is supposedly a book of the future, speaks of events taking place soon (Rev 1:1; 22:6). Daniel was told to close up and seal his words as the fulfillment was in the future (Daniel 12:4, 9). John in Revelation was told to leave his book unsealed (Rev. 22:10), because his words were to be fulfilled soon (Rev. 1:1, 3, 22:6-10). If John words were to be fulfilled centuries later as were Daniel’s, wouldn’t have John been told to “seal” his words? Biblical scholarship suggests that the Book of Revelation was written prior to AD 70. This explains why no mention is made of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. Prophecies in Revelation describe events leading to the destruction of the Temple and the Day of the Lord in Jerusalem in AD 70. In the first century the great tribulation was fulfilled. The city and the Temple were burned and biblical Judaism ceased to exist. The covenant nation of Israel and biblical Judaism were forever destroyed. The new heaven and earth that John spoke in Revelation 21 and 22 of was not a physical but a spiritual reality. The “new heaven and earth” speaks of a present reality in the time of the writer of Revelation 21: 3-7. Our inheritance is more powerful and far more joyful than the old Judaic system. We no longer have to be in bondage by the power of Satan. Believers after death are resurrected immediately into the presence of God, because Jesus has come after His resurrection. A literal day around AD 70 was the third most important date in human history along with Christmas and Easter. We often say “Jesus is with us.” We can say that because Jesus has returned as prophesied by John in Revelation and other NT writers!Passages in Revelation, as well as other Biblical passages referring to fire and one’s destination, don’t refer to a place of eternal conscious punishment. A loving God is not capable of such actions, must less most humans when judging their enemies. Also, if we accept that the events within Revelation concern current events of the readers and not events thousands of years in the future, then Revelation may be more understandable than ever thought: 1:1-3 – “The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place” (see also 22:6). The writer is referring to events that will take place soon. We have no reason to interpret events predicted in Revelation to take place thousands of years later.1:18: God spoke to John in a vision initially and said “And I hold the keys of death and Hades.” The ending of the story is “Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire” (20:14). There is no reason to not believe between Revelations 1-20 we will learn how this happened during the lifetime of the readers as opposed to Jesus’ supposed second coming thousands of years later and counting. There is no fire in the Bible where humans are torturer consciously forever. Obviously, this lake of fire is symbolic as the inanimate “death” is cast there. I might as well go ahead and spoil the story for you as I understand it. Most accept that in Old Testament times the dead regardless of beliefs simply went to a place of darkness or the grave. The Hebrew word used was Sheol. Hades was the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Sheol. Most believe that the dead now (post Sheol/Hades times) go straight into the presence of their Creator. This can only be true if Death has been done away with. It has! Something happened in the first century to allow death to be cast into the lake of fire. 11:3:7 “And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1260 days, clothed in sackcloth…..now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them.” There is a parallel in history where this has already happened and are not events still waiting to happen in the future. Josephus has recorded in history that in the first century the Jews had some early success but eventually the Roman armies sacked the city of Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple which had been rebuilt after the destruction of the first temple in 566 BC by the Babylonians. Perhaps over a million people were killed in the first century of which the majority were Jews. Jesus warned his disciples and readers about these events years prior in Matthew 24. The temple will be destroyed (v.2). Jesus encouraged his readers to prepare to flee when these horrible times come (v.16). Then, Jesus said “Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly, I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (vs. 34-35). Clearly, Jesus was not warning of destroying the earth as the earth is obviously still around and in fact will never be destroyed as promised after the Flood in Genesis. Jesus was referring to some event during the first century where things from a spiritual perspective would never be the same (they will pass away). 14:11-12 “And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name” (v. 11). There is no such place as Hell where there is eternal conscious torture. Those who worship the beast (ungodly force) will suffer horribly. God goes on to say “This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus” (v.12). These times are during John’s readers. This passage isn’t referring to a final judgment above the earth. The Bible doesn’t give all the details of such a judgment when we die. 19:20: “The two of them (beast and false prophet) were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.” Again, there is no biblical evidence of a place such as Hell where people are burn forever while kept alive. The writer is talking about first century times when God will eventually have the last word. What is this victory according to Revelation 20-22? 20:10: “The devil is thrown into the same lake of burning sulfur where the beast and prophet had been thrown.” Again, there is no previous biblical reference to believe this lake of fire is the traditional concept of Hell where there is eternal conscious torturing. The devil is simply defeated. The phrase “tormented day and night for ever and ever” can refer to this death being final during this first century victory. One can surmise the devil no longer has the power of sin over us as in the past from the beginning of creation. 20:12: “The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.” All those who have died are judged according to their deeds. This judgment does not necessarily rule out postmortem decisions. The emphasis is on the present times of the writer. It is sometimes assumed many then are cast into the pit of Hell but no such place exist. In verse 14 death and Hades are then thrown into the lake of fire, meaning destroyed. The grave no longer holds people after they die. This happens after Jesus comes again. Most Christians believe when we die we go immediately to Heaven and not stay in the grave as OT believers. Doesn’t this mean Jesus has already come? 21:1-2 “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away…I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down of heaven from God….” John was telling believers soon they can begin to experience Heaven on earth, because of the new spiritual reality coming.21:22 “I did not see a temple in the city.” There will no longer be a physical temple. We believers are the temples.When Jesus comes we can know that sin doesn’t have to have a stranglehold on us, that the grave is not our intermediate destination but that we can enter instantly into God’s presence. Most Christians believe these two truths have already happened. Could this mean then that Jesus has already come again after leaving His disciples after His resurrection? Revelation suggests this is the case. God told John “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near” (22:10). “Look, I am coming soon! ....Yes, I am coming soon (22:12, 20).” In the first century the great tribulation was fulfilled as over a million lost their life. Jerusalem and the Temple were burned down, thus forever destroying biblical Judaism and the Law. Early church historians affirm Jesus came on a literal day sometimes around AD 70. Christ’s comings were borrowed from OT portrayals of God coming from Heaven. In the Old Testament God comings to execute judgments were not physical, visible comings. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 Paul assured his audience they have not missed the “day of the Lord.” Why was Paul’s audience fearful they could miss the coming of Jesus if such a coming is supposedly a rapture-removing, visible, world-ending coming? Only a non-visible, spiritual coming of Jesus could possibly be missed. The new heaven and earth were fulfilled in AD 70 as Jesus came and replaced the new with the old covenant. When Christians die, we go to heaven and are not in limbo. Jesus has already returned!?. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download