Among
those who believe (as I do) that the truth of the salvation of all humanity is
clearly revealed in Paul’s letters, some assume that there must be evidence for
this glorious truth within the Book of Revelation as well. At the very least,
it’s assumed by some that John wouldn’t have ended his prophetic work without
revealing that those whose names not found written in the “scroll of life” (and
who must therefore be “cast into the lake of fire” and thus “injured by the second
death”) will be saved. And since John did not explicitly reveal that anyone
will be delivered from “the lake of fire” or “second death,” it’s reasoned that
the lake of fire/second death must be a means of salvation.
According
to this theory, the lake of fire figuratively represents some sort
of future “purification process” in which (to paraphrase a couple proponents of
this theory) “all the false that humans harbor in their hearts concerning God
will be purged away,” and people will undergo the “death of their carnal self” so that they will be made fit for an
eternity of fellowship with God and others. Some holding to this theory believe
that the purgatorial process symbolized by the lake of fire will be undergone
by mortal humans, while others believe that those undergoing it will already be
immortal. Still others seem to believe that this process will involve people
who are physically dead (those who affirm this view would, of course, deny that
the dead are unconscious). And then there are, of course, those who simply
choose to remain agnostic concerning the details (being sure only of the fact
that the lake of fire must be
figurative, and will involve some sort of purification/refinement process that
will result in the salvation of those who must undergo it).
In
contrast with the theory that the lake of fire symbolizes some sort of
purification process that will result in the salvation of certain sinners, I
see no good reason to believe that Revelation was intended by God to reveal the
“post-eonian destiny” of anyone (whether their names are found written in the
scroll of life or not). Revealing what happens to people after the eons of
Christ’s reign ends is simply not the purpose of this prophetic work. As I
pointed out at the end of my five-part study on the second death (click here for
part one of this study), John recorded only what was revealed to him in
the visions he received from God. And what ultimately happens to those human
beings who are to be cast into the lake of fire to die a second time was simply
not a part of John’s vision. It was not part of the information that John was
inspired by God to make known.
This in
no way means that being cast into the lake of fire will be the end of anyone’s
story, however. Just as John saw further into the future than did Ezekiel (and
revealed more in his prophetic work than Ezekiel did in his), so I believe that
the apostle Paul saw further into the future than John. In contrast with John
(whose vision does not take us beyond the final eon of Christ’s reign), Paul
was provided with information concerning what is to occur at the end of
Christ's reign, when death is abolished and the kingdom is delivered up to God.
Thus, it is Paul – and not John – who reveals the ultimate and final destiny of
those who will be cast into the lake of fire (as well as the ultimate and final
destiny of those who won’t be cast
into the lake of fire).
Now, in
the aforementioned study on the subject of the second death, I defended the
following argument:
1. Being
“cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15) and thus “injured by the second
death” (Rev. 2:11) is a future judgment that will involve mortal humans literally
dying a second time, and remaining lifeless for the remainder of Christ’s
future reign.
2. At the
end of his eonian reign, Christ is going to abolish death by vivifying all
people and making them immortal (1 Cor. 15:22-28).
3.
Everyone who is going to be cast into the lake of fire and injured by the
second death will eventually be saved from the second death.
The soundness
of this argument depends, of course, on the validity of its premises. And
according to the first premise, those who are to be
“cast into the lake of fire” will literally die a second time. But is this
premise true? In the first four parts of the study, I argued that it is. That
is, I argued that the “lake of fire” that we’re told in Revelation 21:8 is
“burning with fire and sulfur” is to be understood literally, and will be the divinely-appointed means by which
certain people will be returned to
the same lifeless condition they were in before being restored to life to be
judged by God. Which people? Answer: those whose names are not found “written
in the scroll of life” (see Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:19).
But what is the “scroll of life” to which John referred? The
scroll (or “book”) of life would’ve likely been understood by John as a
reference to God’s record of who is worthy to live on the earth at a certain
time instead of being “cut off from the land of the living” (see Exodus
32:32-33 and Psalm 69:28; cf. Deut. 29:20, where having one’s name “blotted out
from under heaven” involves being killed). In Revelation, the “scroll of life”
should be understood as God’s record of those deemed worthy of the allotment of
eonian life in the kingdom of God during the final eon of Christ’s reign. Those
whose names will be found written in the scroll of life will get to be among those
with whom we’re told God will be “tabernacling” during this time (Rev. 21:3).
The use of the terms “mankind” and “peoples” (plural) in this
verse to refer to this category of people indicates that John had in view both
redeemed Israelites and people from among the nations. Those among the nations
who will be part of the “mankind” and “peoples” with whom God will be
“tabernacling” are later referred to as “walking” by means of the light of the
new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24). In Scripture, “walking” often refers figuratively to
one’s conduct in life (see,
for example, Psalm 15:2; 26:1, 3; 78:10; 81:13; 119:1; Acts 14:16; 21:21;
Romans 4:12; 6:4; 8:4; 13:13; 14:15; 2 Cor. 5:7; Gal. 5:16; 6:16; Eph. 2:2;
4:1, 17; 5:8, 15; Phil. 3:17, 18 etc.). Consider, especially, how John (who
wrote the Book of Revelation) used this imagery in his first letter:
“If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice
the truth. But if we walk in
the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and
the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin…whoever hates his brother
is in the darkness and walks
in the darkness, and does not know
where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes” (1 John 1:6-7;
2:11).
In these verses, “light” refers to true wisdom – i.e., knowledge
that comes from God (see John 1:4-5). Thus, when we’re told that the nations
will be “walking” by means of the light of the new Jerusalem, the idea being
expressed is that the nations will be conducting themselves in accord with the
knowledge that comes from God (which should not be surprising, given that
they’ll be part of the “mankind” and “peoples” with whom we’re told God will be
“tabernacling” during this time). That everyone living on the new earth –
including the nations of which we read – will be comprised of those whose names
were found written in the “scroll of life” is also supported by Peter’s
affirmation that the new earth will be a place where “righteousness is dwelling”
(2 Pet. 3:13). In light of these considerations, it’s reasonable to believe
that the names of everyone who will be dwelling on the new earth during the
final eon (and who will thus be able to enter “the portals into the city,” in
accord with Rev. 22:14) will, at the judgment referred to in Rev. 20:11-15, be
found written in the “scroll of life.”
Now, since the “life” to which “the scroll of life” pertains is
eonian life on the new earth – and since it is the opposite of the “death” that those whose names are not written in
the scroll of life must undergo – it logically follows that the death that must
be undergone will involve literal death. Being cast into the lake of fire should,
therefore, be understood as a judgment that terminates the lives of those who
will not be allowed to live on the new earth (and who will not be part of the
“mankind” and “peoples” with whom God will be “tabernacling” during the final
eon of Christ’s reign). This judgment will be the means by which God puts the
lives of those not found written in the scroll of life “on hold” until the time
comes for them to be vivified in Christ at what Paul referred to in 1 Cor.
15:24-28 as the “consummation” (when all people are subjected to Christ,
reconciled to God and become part of the “all” in which we’re told God will be
“All”).
An invalid
interpretive strategy
Among those who deny that the lake of fire refers to a literal place
that will bring the lives of certain mortal humans to an end (until the time
comes for them to be vivified in Christ at the end of his reign), a common strategy used in defense of a figurative interpretation
involves simply appealing to passages of Scripture in which the term “fire” is
used in a figurative sense. To better understand what’s wrong with this kind of
strategy, consider the following example of this sort of “interpretative
strategy” being employed:
1. In Luke 3:16, John the Baptist was using the term “fire” in a
figurative sense when he stated that Christ was going to be “baptizing [the
people of Israel] in holy spirit and fire.”
2. In Luke 17:29, Christ declared that “fire and sulfur” rained
down from heaven and destroyed the inhabitants of Sodom.
3. Since the “fire” referred to in Luke 3:16 should not be
understood as literal fire, the “fire and sulfur” referred to by Christ in Luke
17:29 should not be understood as literal fire and sulfur.
Here is a similar example of this type of strategy based on
verses from the Hebrew Scriptures:
1. In Ezekiel 21:31, God used the term “fire” in a figurative
sense when he said, “And I will pour out my indignation upon you; I
will blow upon you with the fire of my wrath, and I will deliver you into
the hands of brutish men, skillful to destroy.”
2. In Ezekiel 38:22 God declared concerning Gog,
“With pestilence and bloodshed I will enter into judgment with him, and I will
rain upon him and his hordes and the many peoples who are with him torrential
rains and hailstones, fire and
sulfur.”
3. Since the “fire” referred to in Ezekiel 21:31
should not be understood as literal fire, neither should the “fire and sulfur”
referred to in Ezekiel 38:22 be understood as literal fire and sulfur.
The conclusions reached in these arguments (i.e., that the fire
and sulfur referred to in Luke 17:29 and Ezekiel 38:22 is to be understood
figuratively) are not valid. These conclusions simply do not follow from the
fact that the term “fire” (or related fire-based imagery) is used figuratively
elsewhere. We can’t just assume that the term “fire” is being used figuratively
in a certain verse or passage merely because it’s used figuratively in a
different context. In fact, we should never assume
that the term “fire” is being used figuratively at all when we find it used in
Scripture.
In accord with the rules of communication, we ought to try and
understand Scripture according to the normal, plain, ordinary and
straightforward meaning of what is being said unless we have
good reason to believe that figures of speech have been employed, or that the
speaker/author intended a word or expression to be understood in a way other
than how it would normally or ordinarily be understood (this method of
scripture interpretation is sometimes referred to as the “literal whenever
possible” principle). This is an approach to
Scripture interpretation that, while recognizing and appreciating figures of
speech, begins from the “starting point” that Scripture should be understood in
accord with the plain, ordinary, straightforward and primary meaning of words
and statements unless certain contextual considerations dictate otherwise, and make
such an interpretation untenable (for example, if a literal interpretation of a
verse or passage were to result in a contradiction involving another statement
of scripture, then one would have good reason to reject the literal
interpretation as untenable and seek out another meaning).
Whether one realizes it or not, we naturally employ this method
of interpretation to some degree or another when reading the Scriptures. It is
not an outright, wholesale rejection of this method of interpretation that
usually results in people erroneously interpreting something as figurative when
it ought to be understood literally; rather, most erroneous interpretations
that involve interpreting something figuratively that ought to be understood
literally are simply the result of an inconsistent and arbitrary use of this
method. In any case, whenever the “literal whenever possible” principle of
scriptural interpretation is abandoned (whether fully or in part), it is
inevitably the imagination, preferences, opinion, conjecture and suppositions
of the reader that end up becoming the only “rule” of interpretation.
To illustrate this point, let’s suppose that,
upon reading Christ’s words in Luke 17:29, someone finds that they are
uncomfortable with the idea of God destroying entire cities with literal fire
and sulfur, and finds it difficult to reconcile such an action with what they
believe concerning the love and mercy of God. Would such a reader therefore be
justified in interpreting the “fire and sulfur” referred to in Luke 17:29 (or
the “fire eonian” referred to in Jude 1:7) as something other than literal fire
and literal sulfur? No. Apart from having some good, contextually-informed
reason to interpret these terms figuratively, the reader ought to understand
the terms “fire” and “sulfur” literally. Otherwise, the reader is just letting his
or her own preferences and opinions determine what scripture means or doesn’t
mean.
In light of the above considerations, I think
it’s ironic that some have accused those holding to a literal interpretation of
the second death/lake of fire as being arbitrary in their interpretive method. For
example, one believer (who I’ll refer to as “R.L.”) who rejects the literal nature
of the second death/lake of fire has accused those who interpret the lake of
fire literally as inconsistently deciding what is literal and what isn’t.
According to R.L., those holding to a literal interpretation simply ”pick and choose what fire is
spiritual and what is literal to suit their traditional teachings, and
upbringing. One has to wonder what spirit is guiding them. It certainly isn’t
the spirit of truth.”
The first point that needs to be made here is
that, in contrast with R.L.’s implied dichotomy between that which is
“spiritual” and that which is “literal,” something’s being “spiritual” (such as
a spiritual body, a spiritual believer or a spiritual endowment/gift) doesn’t
make it non-literal. See part three of
my study on the second death for a more in-depth
defense of this important point. So I’m going to assume that by “spiritual”
here, R.L. meant “figurative.” In any case (and in contrast with R.L.’s claim),
I believe it’s actually those who interpret the “fire and sulfur” of Revelation
21:8 as figurative (while, at the
same time, interpreting the “fire and sulfur” referred to in Luke 17:29 as literal) who are, in fact, guilty of
“picking and choosing” what is figurative and what is literal, based on their
own imagination, preferences, conjecture and suppositions. Those
who, in accord with the “literal whenever possible”
principle of interpretation, understand the “fire and sulfur” referred to in
Revelation literally are actually the ones being consistent, and doing what
they can to avoid the very thing that R.L. is accusing them of doing.
Some
figurative fire passages considered
One example of a passage in which there are good,
context-based reasons to understand the term “fire” in a figurative sense is 1 Corinthians
3:11-15 (which is also a passage commonly appealed to in support of the theory
that the lake of fire is not to be understood literally). In
this passage, the “fire” that Paul said will reveal and test “each one’s work”
(i.e., at the time when each believer is “manifested in front of the dais of
Christ” and “requited for that which he puts into practice through the body,
whether good or bad”) is clearly not a literal fire, since a literal fire
couldn’t reveal and test the work we did during this lifetime. The “fire”
imagery used in verses 13-15 is simply an extension of the figurative imagery
used in verses 12-13 (where Paul depicted the work of each believer as
consisting of “gold and silver, precious stones, wood, grass and straw”). Just
as it’s clear that Paul’s not referring to literal gold or grass here, so it’s
equally clear that he’s not referring to literal fire. But again, the reason
the “fire” is to be understood figuratively is not because the term “fire” is used figuratively elsewhere (e.g.,
in Luke 3:16 or Ezekiel 21:31). Rather, there are contextual considerations
that indicate that the “fire” of which Paul wrote in this passage should be
understood in a non-literal way.
The same thing could be said of other passages
that are commonly appealed to by those who reject a literal interpretation of
the second death/lake of fire. For example, in Matthew 25:41 we read that a
certain category of people (who are figuratively referred to as “goats” or
“kids” in v. 33) will be going into what Christ referred to as “fire eonian.” As I argued in part six of my study on Matthew 25:31-46, I
believe that what Christ referred to as “fire eonian” is not going to involve
literal fire. But the reason I came to this conclusion wasn’t because I just
didn’t like the idea of God using literal fire as a means of judgment (or
because I just didn’t understand why
God would do such a thing). Rather, my reason for coming to this conclusion is
because there are certain contextual considerations that naturally
lead one to interpret the “fire eonian” referred to in this verse as a figure for
something else. For example, in this particular context (and in accord with
prophecies such as Ps. 2:8-9 and Zech. 14:16-19), Christ
was clearly referring to a state of affairs involving the “chastening” of the nations during the eon to come (see the
aforementioned study for more in defense of this point). Christ even went on to
refer to the “fire eonian” as “chastening eonian” in v. 46.
Significantly, in Jude 1:7, the exact same
expression used by Christ in Matt. 25:41 (“fire eonian”) is also used to refer
to the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (the consequences of which have
indeed been “eonian” in duration). And I believe that this fire was just as literal as the fire that, in 1 Kings 18:38,
we’re told came down from heaven and “consumed
the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the
water that was in the trench.” And the reason I believe this is because, in
contrast with the context of Matthew 25:41, there are no context-based reasons
that indicate that the fire (as well as the sulfur) referred to in Genesis 19
in connection with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (and which Jude
clearly had in mind) was something other than literal fire and sulfur.
A related example in which context-based
considerations lead to the conclusion that a non-literal fire is in view is found
in Matt. 13:49-50. In this passage (cf. verses 40-42) we read that Christ told his
disciples that, at the conclusion of the eon (which will take place at Christ’s
return), the “Son of Mankind” will be dispatching his messengers, and they will
be “severing the wicked from the midst
of the just. And they shall be casting them into a furnace of fire.
There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth.” One
reason for understanding the “furnace of fire” imagery figuratively is that Christ
elsewhere referred to the fate of unbelieving and wicked Israelites at the time
of his return as follows: “Now I am saying to you
that many from the east and the west shall be arriving and reclining with
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens, yet the sons
of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness. There shall be lamentation and gnashing of teeth” (Matt.
8:11-12). The “sons of the kingdom” here are unfaithful Israelites who will be
alive on the earth at the time of Christ’s return. In Luke’s account we read
the following concerning the wicked Israelites who are to be “cast into outer
darkness” at the time of Christ’s return: “There there will be
lamentation and gnashing of teeth, whenever you should be seeing
Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, yet you
cast outside.”
Notice the words, “whenever you should be seeing [them] in the
kingdom of God, yet you cast outside.” When we keep in mind that the
geographical territory of the “kingdom of God” where “Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob and all the prophets” will be enjoying their eonian allotment is the land
of Israel, we can conclude that the “outer darkness” in which the unbelieving
Israelites will banished (and yet remain able to see those in the kingdom of
God) will be outside the territory of the land of
Israel. These wicked “sons of the kingdom” will, in other words, be
banished from the land of Israel and exiled among the nations to be part of
that category of humanity that Christ will be “shepherding with an iron club” and “crushing” as “vessels of pottery” during this time.
Once we see that the “furnace of fire” can’t be a literal
description of the eonian fate of those cast outside the kingdom of God during
the eon to come, we can then seek to understand what this figurative imagery
was intended by Christ to communicate. And when we do so, we find that similar figurative imagery involving “furnaces” had already
been used in the Hebrew Scripture to refer
to a place of affliction and trial (see Deut. 4:20 [cf. Ex. 3:7]; 1 Kings 8:51; Jer. 11:4; Is. 48:10;
Ez. 22:18-22). In light of this information, we can then
conclude that Christ was simply employing this previously-used figurative
imagery to describe the fate of certain unfaithful Israelites who will still be
alive following Christ’s return at the end of this eon. They will be banished
from the geopolitical territory of the kingdom that is going to be restored to
Israel, and made to live among the nations during the time of his millennial
reign (an undesirable state of affairs for any Israelite that will be cause for
much “weeping and gnashing of teeth” at the time).
Another passage that is commonly appealed to by
those who understand the lake of fire figuratively is Malachi 3:1-4. In this
passage we read the following:
Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way
before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple;
and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is
coming, says the Lord of
hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he
appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. He will sit as a refiner and
purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like
gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to
the Lord.
Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as
in former years.
Here we’re told that the “sons of Levi” will be purified by
Christ, as gold and silver are refined and purified by fire. Thus, for these
particular Israelites (whom God has chosen to have an allotment in the kingdom
that will be restored to Israel), the refining of gold and silver by fire is
used as a figure for the refining/purifying of the hearts (and conduct) of
certain Israelites at a future time (and which will apparently involve a time
of trial and affliction that will be brought about through the authority of
Christ himself). However, after referring to those among God’s covenant people
who will be purified in preparation for the coming kingdom of God, we read of a
different category of people in the next few verses:
“Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will
be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against
those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his
wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the
sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of
hosts.”
That a distinction is being made between two different categories
of people who will be on the earth when God “draws near for judgment” is
further emphasized in verses 16-18. The fate of this second category of
people (i.e., those who do not fear and serve God) is described using more
“fire” imagery in the next chapter (Mal. 4:1-3). However, we no longer find the
“refining fire” imagery of Mal. 3:1-4 being used. Instead, the imagery we find
is that of a consuming fire that will reduce the wicked to ashes under the feet
of the righteous:
“For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven,
when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day
that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of
hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who
fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing
in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. And you
shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your
feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.”
The contrast between the different “fire” imagery used in the
last two chapters of Malachi could not be more striking. For the “sons of Levi”
who are in view in Mal. 3:1-4, the trying events of the day of the Lord will
result in their spiritual purification, so that “they will bring offerings in
righteousness to the Lord,” and so that “the offering of
Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of old and as in former
years.” However, the same cannot be said for those referred to as “the
arrogant and all evildoers.” Rather than being refined and purified “like gold
and silver,” we read that the day of the Lord will “set them ablaze” and reduce
them to “ashes.”
Thus, although figurative imagery involving “fire” is, on
occasion, used in the Hebrew Scriptures to represent the “purification” of
certain people during a time of judgment, the people who are represented as
being “purified” or “refined” are not all people without exception. Rather, in
the context of Mal. 3:1-4, they should be understood as those among God’s
covenant people who will be enjoying an allotment in the kingdom that is to be
restored to Israel. For those who have not been chosen by God for this eonian
destiny, the figurative “fire” to which they’re appointed will not be a
“purifying fire.” Rather, it will be a destructive, consuming one that will
“set them ablaze” and turn them into “stubble.”
This is the case not only for events that will be occurring in
the future, but for events that have occurred in the past as well. For example,
in the book of Ezekiel we find the imagery of fire used in reference
to a national judgment that God brought upon
Israel (Ezekiel 21:31-32; 22:20-21, 29-31). Although I believe this divine
judgment is perfectly consistent with the truth that those who perished during
the judgment will ultimately be saved, there’s little reason to believe that
this judgment resulted in the “spiritual purification” or “refinement” of those
involved in it. Most likely, those involved in this judgment were killed (and
of course remain dead to this day). Thus, even
when, in contexts involving judgment, we find figurative, fire-related imagery
being used, it doesn’t necessarily mean that those being judged are necessarily
undergoing a process of “spiritual refinement” or “purification.” We must allow
context (in conjunction with a consistent interpretive method) to determine
what the inspired author had in mind when he used such imagery.
Another text in which the term “fire” is clearly being used in a
figurative sense (and which, not surprisingly, is commonly appealed to by those
who believe the lake of fire symbolizes a process of purification) is Hebrews
12:29. In this verse we read that “our God is also a consuming fire.” I believe this to
be a strange “proof-text” for those who hold to the figurative lake of fire
view, for the “fire” with which God is figuratively equated here is not said to
be a refining or purifying fire, but rather a
“consuming fire.” And lest one object that something has to be consumed in
order for something else to be purified, the clear emphasis here is on that
which is consumed. To refer to a fire as a “consuming fire” is to put the
emphasis on that which is burned up when coming into contact with the
fire. Recall the distinction
made between the two categories of people in Malachi 3-4: some will be purified
by the “fire” of the day of the Lord (like gold and silver), while others will
be “consumed” by it (like vegetation that is set ablaze and reduced to ashes).
And in the immediate context, those who will encounter God as a
“consuming fire” are those who refuse and turn from him (see Heb. 12:25-26). It
is these who will expose themselves to the fearful judgment referred to
earlier, in Hebrews 10:26-31:
For at our sinning voluntarily after obtaining the
recognition of the truth, it is no longer leaving a sacrifice concerned with
sins, but a certain fearful waiting for judging and fiery jealousy,
about to be eating the hostile. Anyone repudiating Moses' law is dying
without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much
worse punishment, are you supposing, will he be counted worthy who tramples on
the Son of God, and deems the blood of the covenant by which he is hallowed
contaminating, and outrages the spirit of grace? For we are acquainted
with Him Who is saying, Mine is vengeance! I will repay! the
Lord is saying, and again, "The Lord will be judging His
people." Fearful is it to be falling into the hands of the living
God!
The “consuming fire” with which God is being equated in Hebrews
12:29 is, in other words, the same “fire” that we’re told in Mal. 4:1-3 will turn
the wicked into “stubble” and “set them ablaze” so that they will be “ashes
under the soles of” the feet of the righteous. It is a reference to the
indignation of God that will be manifested during the day of the Lord (Heb.
12:25-29; cf. 10:25-39), and which will result in the eonian destruction of
those not appointed for eonian life in the kingdom of God (cf. 2 Thess. 2:8-9).
Very well written, Aaron.
ReplyDeleteJust found your site...these are really well written!
ReplyDeleteThough when talking about literal v spiritual interpretation, and the “literal whenever possible” principle, how do you understand Paul’s introduction of a new covenant, “not of the letter, but of the spirit” (2 Cor 3:6 , Rom 7:6)? Here he lays out a new way to relate to Scripture...spiritually, rather than literally. Right? Such is the basis of the new covenant. A new hermeneutic.
Paul then demonstrates this idea by reinterpreting circumcision (the central act of covenant) to be “of the heart, not the flesh, and by the Spirit, not the letter (Rom 2:28-29). Whereas Genesis 17:14 very clearly states that circumcision must be of the flesh, lest one breaks the covenant and is cut off. Apart from the new covenant hermeneutic principle, Paul would be a deceiver, rather than a revelator, would he not?
So when approaching the Lake of Fire, I ask myself am I approaching by the old covenant or the new, by the letter or by the spirit, literally or spiritually.
Curious as to your thoughts on this. As such seems quite relevant to this particular discussion.
Hi Ben!
DeleteThanks for commenting. You wrote: “Though when talking about literal v spiritual interpretation, and the “literal whenever possible” principle, how do you understand Paul’s introduction of a new covenant, “not of the letter, but of the spirit” (2 Cor 3:6, Rom 7:6)? Here he lays out a new way to relate to Scripture...spiritually, rather than literally. Right? Such is the basis of the new covenant. A new hermeneutic.”
When Paul used the words, “not of the letter, but of the spirit,” he wasn’t saying, “not literally, but figuratively.” Surely you don’t think that when Paul went on to say “for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying,” he was saying that a “literal” hermeneutic is killing while a “figurative” hermeneutic is vivifying! That wouldn’t make any sense. And just based on this consideration alone, I see no good reason to believe that Paul was introducing a “new hermeneutic” here, or laying out “a new way to relate to Scripture…spiritually, rather than literally.” Paul certainly USED figurative language at times in his letters (as did all of the inspired writers of Scripture) – in fact, I think Paul was doing just this when he referred to the “new covenant” in 2 Cor. 3:6 – but this has nothing to do with a “new hermeneutic” being introduced.
The fact is that Paul wasn’t referring to the "letter" of SCRIPTURE at all in these verses. The subject of “hermeneutical principles” is completely foreign to the context of both 2 Cor. 3:6 and Rom. 7:6 (thus, if your hermeneutic has led you to conclude that Paul was referring to hermeneutical principles in these verses, you may need to reconsider your hermeneutic!). The covenant of “the letter” to which Paul was referring in 2 Cor. 3:6 is the covenant between God and Israel that requires obedience to the precepts that were engraved on the stone tablets given to Moses (which we find referred to in v. 3). It is this that Paul had in mind when he said “the letter is killing” (and when he went on to refer to “the dispensation of death, by letters chiseled in stone”). It is the law that kills. But those Jews who’d become members of the body of Christ (such as Paul himself) had become “exempted from the law, dying in that in which [they] were retained…” (Rom. 7:6).
As far as what, exactly, Paul had in mind when he referred to he and his co-laborers as “competent dispensers of a new covenant,” I’ve provided some remarks on this subject elsewhere; see my response to the second objection in the following article: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/11/gods-covenant-people-response-to_3.html. This article is actually part of a larger series that I posted on my blog in September-November of 2018, and in which I defend the view that the body of Christ should be understood as a company of believers that is distinct from the believers among God’s covenant people, Israel. I’ve written more articles on this subject since this time, and – if you’re interested in it – I recommend starting with one of the more recent articles I’ve posted in defense of what I believe concerning it (here’s a link to part one of my study “The Israel of God”: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-israel-of-god-part-one.html). This study – along with my original articles from 2018 on the subject of God’s covenant people – will help you better understand how I approach Paul’s words in 2 Cor. 3:6.
(Continued below)
You went on to say: “Paul then demonstrates this idea by reinterpreting circumcision (the central act of covenant) to be “of the heart, not the flesh, and by the Spirit, not the letter (Rom 2:28-29). Whereas Genesis 17:14 very clearly states that circumcision must be of the flesh, lest one breaks the covenant and is cut off. Apart from the new covenant hermeneutic principle, Paul would be a deceiver, rather than a revelator, would he not?”
DeletePaul was no more “reinterpreting circumcision” (or using a so-called “new hermeneutic”) in Rom. 2:28-29 than Moses was in Deut. 10:12-16 or 30:6 (cf. Ezek. 44:7-9). Surely you don’t think that, by referring to “circumcision of the heart” in these verses, Moses was saying that literal circumcision was irrelevant and unnecessary. As I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere, circumcision is just as important to the identity and expectation of God’s covenant people, Israel, as it was in Moses’ day. With regard to God’s redemptive plan for the earth, circumcision was (and continues to be) no trivial or inconsequential matter to God. God himself instituted circumcision as the covenant sign between himself and Israel, and declared it to be “throughout [Israel’s] generations” and “an eonian covenant.” And when Paul wrote, circumcision was still the sign of God’s covenant with Israel, and everything that we’re told God said to Abraham in Genesis 17:9-14 continued to be just as true and authoritative during Paul’s day as it was when God first spoke these words to Abraham. God has not nullified his covenant with Israel; for God to do so would mean that he has “thrust away” his covenant people (which is something that Paul said God had not done).
However, being physically circumcised has never been sufficient for God’s covenant people; they have ALWAYS needed to have the sort of “heart circumcision” to which Moses and Paul referred. This “circumcision” of the heart is what enables members of God's covenant people to be not just “listeners to law” but “doers of law” (Rom. 2:13), and thereby be included among those of “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” with whom God “shall be concluding…a new covenant,” and who thus “may be obtaining the promise of the eonian enjoyment of the allotment” (Heb. 9:15). For more on Rom. 2:28-29 (and other related verses concerning Paul’s references to Israel), see part two of my study, “The Israel of God” (http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-israel-of-god-part-two.html).
Much more could, of course, be said on this and other related subjects (and has been said elsewhere on my blog), but I’ve already written way more than I intended to in this response! So I’ll just conclude by saying that, since I don’t think Paul was revealing any sort of “new hermeneutic” in 2 Cor. 3:6 or Rom. 7:6, I don’t think that these verses have any bearing whatsoever on whether we should understand the lake of fire literally or figuratively.
Aaron
Wow, thank you for the wonderful response. In reading your blog, I think you are brilliant. And your knowledge of Scripture is phenomenal!
ReplyDeleteBut yes, if taken LITERALLY, I do see the Lake of Fire as part of that ministration of death and condemnation, of the letter that kills. Whereas a figurative Refiner’s Fire “purifying a priesthood” as Malachi 3:3 suggests…would be life giving, rather than death dealing. Would it not?
Or take the Flood of Noah as another example. Literally, it’s a story of judgment, death, and condemnation, leaving one fearful of God’s wrath. But taken figuratively, as a symbolic baptism, our “consciences are cleansed” (1 Peter 3:21). For as we enter the ark of Christ, in Whom there is no condemnation (Rom 8:1), so too we enter a covenant of Rest (“noah”).
Paul emphasizes this point yet again by expressing how the Law is but a shadow, pattern, or outline, of that which has its True Substance in Christ, in Whom are hidden all the treasures of Divine Wisdom and Knowledge. Thus, as the Light of God’s Wisdom lifts that veil, blind hearts begin to see that ministration of greater Glory.
As such, early church fathers such as Origen spoke of the “Transfiguration of the Word” from letter to spirit and from old covenant to new. Thus, some are being nourished on the “milk” of the Word, being trained in righteousness under that first covenant of the letter. But the meat and wine of the Word is prepared for those pressing into maturity, to sup bountifully upon the Wedding Feast of the Spirit of the Word. The glorified, transfigured Word! That “hidden wisdom”, reserved for the mature, that wisdom of another age.
Thus I likewise wonder whether that “next age” is perhaps marked less by a particular time on a calendar, than it is by our own spiritual maturation. Just a thought.
Hi Ben,
DeleteYou wrote: "But yes, if taken LITERALLY, I do see the Lake of Fire as part of that ministration of death and condemnation, of the letter that kills. Whereas a figurative Refiner’s Fire “purifying a priesthood” as Malachi 3:3 suggests…would be life giving, rather than death dealing. Would it not?"
I'm just not seeing how 2 Cor. 3:6-7 has anything at all to do with how we should interpret certain parts of Scripture (whether it be Gen. 7, Rev. 20:11-15 or any other passage). I'm thinking that perhaps your commitment to a "non-literal hermeneutic" may be causing you to miss the rather simple meaning of Paul's affirmation that "the letter is killing." Once again, Paul was clearly referring to the precepts of the law engraved on the stone tablets given to Moses, and not to a "literal hermeneutic" by which one interprets Scripture. The "dispensation of death" came "by letters chiseled in stone" (2 Cor. 3:7). And as Paul said in Romans 7 (in the immediate context of Rom. 7:6), "For, when we were in flesh, the passions of sins, which were through law, operated in our members to be bearing fruit to death" (v. 5), and, "For apart from law Sin is dead. Now I lived, apart from law, once, yet at the coming of the precept Sin revives. Yet I died, and it was found that, to me, the precept for life, this is for death" (vv. 8-10). I think my understanding of both 2 Cor. 3:6 and Rom. 7:6 is well-informed by the context. Your interpretation, on the other hand, seems strained and disconnected from the context.
Now, obviously a lake burning with fire and sulfur would in fact result in the death of any mortal cast into it. That's the point (and why I believe it's referred to as "the second death"). It's not supposed to be "life giving" or vivifying. That's not its purpose. Instead, it puts people (i.e., those whose names won't be found written in "the scroll of life") in NEED of being vivified. And the vivification of which those cast into the lake of fire will be in need will occur through Christ at the end of his reign (i.e., at the time when death, the last enemy, is abolished, and all are vivified in Christ). There's no need to try and make the lake of fire into something that will accomplish what Christ himself is going to accomplish directly, by his own God-given power and authority.
As far as the Flood of Noah and Peter's reference to it 1 Pet. 3:21, I think this actually serves to illustrate what's wrong with your hermeneutic. The flood itself was a literal flood that literally ended the lives of those who weren't on the ark. Nothing that Peter wrote indicates that the flood wasn't literal; the fact that the salvation of people through baptism can be understood as represented by the salvation of the eight souls on the ark (who were "brought safely through water") doesn't change the literal nature of the historical flood itself, or transform the historical account of the flood into some allegory. And there's no good reason to understand the "fire and sulfur" referred to in Rev. 21:8 as any less literal than the "water" referred to by Peter in 1 Pet. 3:21 (or in 2 Pet. 3:5-6), or as any less literal than the "fire and sulfur" referred to by Christ in Luke 17:29. And any appeal to 2 Cor. 3:6-7 in support of a non-literal interpretation of the "fire and sulfur" referred to in Revelation would involve begging the question against the validity of a literal interpretation (since, again, Paul wasn't referring to the "letter" of Scripture or explaining how we should interpret Scripture in this verse).
(Continued below)
You wrote: "Paul emphasizes this point yet again by expressing how the Law is but a shadow, pattern, or outline, of that which has its True Substance in Christ, in Whom are hidden all the treasures of Divine Wisdom and Knowledge. Thus, as the Light of God’s Wisdom lifts that veil, blind hearts begin to see that ministration of greater Glory."
DeleteI assume you're referring to Paul's words in Col. 2:16-17, and to what we read in Hebrews 10:1. But here, again, what's actually said in these verses does not support your hermeneutic. Everything to which Paul referred in Col. 2:16 is as literal as can be. But as A.E. Knoch helpfully remarked in his commentary, these things "all foreshadowed the rest and joy and plenty of that future kingdom on the earth, in which the body of Christ has no part. The divine picture of our portion is the physical body of Christ, risen and ascended and seated at God's right hand in the celestial spheres..." The fact that they foreshadowed something else (certain things that we're told "are impending") doesn't change their literal nature. Similarly, the fact that the law has "a shadow of the impending good things, not the selfsame image of the matters" doesn't change the law into something non-literal (and it certainly doesn't affect the meaning of the words "fire and sulfur" in Revelation, or necessitate a non-literal interpretation).
With regard to "early church fathers," I don't have as high of an opinion of them as you apparently do (see, for example, part two of my study, "They Will Not Tolerate Sound Teaching": http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2020/07/they-will-not-tolerate-sound-teaching_2.html). And with regard to Origen in particular, I certainly don't consider him an authority on hermeneutics!
Aaron
I so appreciate the thoroughness of your responses. You do such a wonderful job diving into the depths of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with you, I think most allegorical exegesis appears entirely unfounded, if one has no place for such in one’s hermeneutical toolbox. And obviously the majority of Protestant reformers held non-literal interpretive methods in general disdain.
But there is a vast history of early church writings that discuss the “letter v spirit” passages precisely as a discussion of hermeneutics. So to be overly dismissive of that idea is to fail to grasp how the early church actually understood Paul and that early time of transition. Given how nearly 2,000 years have passed, I find a certain value in also learning how others closer to his day understood him.
In discussing Scripture, rabbis too have a fourfold method of interpretation sometimes known as PaRDeS, or Paradise. The deepest level in Hebrew is known as “Sod”. This word gets translated into English as secret or mystery. So rabbinically, when Jesus and Paul speak of the mysteries or secrets hidden, they do so by unveiling the “sod” level of interpretation.
Hi Ben,
DeleteIf what certain Christian "fathers" said concerning the meaning of 2 Cor 3:6 or Rom. 7:6 is anything close to the interpretation you've shared with me in our discussion, then I see no good reason to believe that their understanding of these verses has any merit. And my dismissal of their views has nothing to do with when they lived (or how closely they lived to the time of Paul). Rather, it has to do with the fact that I just don't believe Paul was talking about a literal vs figurative hermeneutic in these verses. I have no more reason to think such an understanding of these verses is correct than I have reason to think that Origen was correct for believing in the "preexistence of souls" (or in their immortality and conscious existence in a disembodied state).
You seem to assume that the closer a church leader or writer lived to the time of Paul, the more likely he is to have understood Paul and the distinctive doctrines Paul taught in his letters to the saints in the body of Christ (and which were in accord with "the administration" that was given to him for the nations). However, in light of the continuous threat posed by false teachings and teachers entering the ecclesias to which Paul wrote (a state of affairs which, based on some of Paul's later warnings, is something that we have reason to believe grew worse after his death), I see no good reason to assume this. In fact, I've provided evidence that a number of the "early church fathers" believed and taught things that contradicted what Paul taught concerning salvation (whether the salvation of humanity in general or of those in the body of Christ); again, please see part two of my study, "They Will Not Tolerate Sound Teaching."
Aaron