For part one, click here: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2024/11/a-defense-of-truth-of-reconciliation-of.html
Responding to attempts to evade the truth of Col. 1:20
The idea that all created beings (including Satan and all other wicked spiritual beings) are ultimately going to be reconciled to God is, of course, contrary to what most Christians believe. For them, this conclusion is contrary to what they think is revealed elsewhere in Scripture about the fate of most humans (and of many non-human beings). But even among those who adamantly reject the truth of universal reconciliation, at least some Christians have acknowledged – even if reluctantly – that what Paul wrote in Col. 1:20 certainly appears to be affirming it. They’ve simply concluded – for reasons not based on a straightforward reading of the text itself – that this view just can’t be right. So how do Christians get around the truth of Col. 1:20 without simply ignoring what Paul wrote in this verse?
There are actually several ways in which Christians try to harmonize what Paul wrote in Col. 1:20 with their belief that many human and non-human beings are ultimately going to be “eternally separated from God.” The first strategies that I’ll be considering are found in an article on the “Evidence Unseen” Christian apologetics website ((Col. 1:20) Does this passage teach universalism? ).
The first reason given in this article is that reconciliation is “contingent on our response” and “contingent on having faith in the gospel.” However, since we have good reason to believe that God – for whom all things are possible – can reconcile the “all” of Col. 1:20 to himself, we have good reason to believe that God can (and thus will) ensure that every being who belongs to this “all” will ultimately respond to God in the way that he or she needs to respond in order for reconciliation to occur. This is the case for believers now (to whom God has given the faith that resulted in our being reconciled to him), and it will be the case for all others in the future (when God-given faith will no longer be necessary for reconciliation).
Moreover, the commonly-held view that only those who have faith in the gospel before they die will ever be reconciled to God simply begs the question against the view that those who die in unbelief will, ultimately, be reconciled to God. If God is, in fact, going to reconcile all to himself through Christ, then it would necessarily follow that dying in unbelief cannot (and will not) prevent God from ultimately reconciling all to himself through Christ).
In accord with this point – and as I’ve argued elsewhere on my blog (see, for example, the following articles: The faith-producing calling of God and “Therefore they could not believe”) – it’s God who determines who has faith in the gospel in this lifetime, and who doesn’t. Believing the gospel isn’t something that’s “up to us.” Those who believe the gospel do so because God gave them the faith to believe. Thus, the very fact that God isn’t giving faith to all (or even most) people – and yet intends to reconcile all to himself through Christ – proves that God can (and will) reconcile those who die in unbelief to himself just as easily as he can reconcile believers to himself. Only those who are being given the faith to believe the gospel are being reconciled to God now, but faith won’t be essential to being reconciled to God in the future. In fact, not only will faith not always be necessary to being reconciled to God, but – as will be the case for expectation/hope – faith will one day not even be possible (for ultimately, all people – whether they were believers in this lifetime or not – will know the truth experientially/by observation).
The second objection in the “Evidence Unseen” article is based on the commonly-held view that “Jesus didn’t purchase salvation for angels.” However, the verse referenced in support of this view (Hebrews 1:14) neither says nor implies that “Jesus didn’t purchase salvation for angels.” Here’s what’s said in this verse:
“Are they [i.e., God’s celestial messengers or “angels”] not all ministering spirits commissioned for service because of those who are about to be enjoying the allotment of salvation?”
Even if both good and wicked celestial beings are in view here (which would imply that the wicked spirits aren’t obediently carrying out the service for which they were commissioned), it would by no means follow that “Jesus didn’t purchase salvation” for them.
Consider, for example, what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:10. In this verse we read that Paul was “enduring all because of those who are chosen, that they also may be happening upon the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with glory eonian.” That Paul was “enduring all” for the sake of the salvation of others in no way implies that Christ didn’t die to purchase the salvation of Paul himself. In the same way, the fact that the spiritual beings in view in Heb. 1:14 were commissioned for service because of others who are in need of salvation in no way means that Christ didn’t die to purchase their salvation (or the salvation of any spiritual beings who are also in need of being saved). In fact, Paul’s reference to the blood of Christ’s cross in Col. 1:20 indicates that the reconciliation of all celestial beings who are in need of being reconciled to God will occur by virtue of the fact that Christ shed his blood for them (and that their salvation was, therefore, just as much purchased by Christ through his death as was the salvation of all mankind).
We go on to read the following in the Evidence Unseen article: “Surely, Satan will not be saved in the end.” But as I’ve argued in more depth elsewhere (see, for example, my defense of the expression “for the eons of the eons” in the CLNT), the verse referenced to support this claim – Revelation 20:10 – isn’t referring to “the end” of anything. Nor is it describing the “final state” of Satan and the two spiritual beings with whom he’ll be “tormented day and night for the eons of the eons.” Rather, the future time periods during which these beings will be tormented in the lake of fire are the future eons of Christ’s reign. And this future span of time isn’t going to continue endlessly, but rather will end when Christ abolishes death and subjects all to himself so that God may be “All in all” (see my previous article for more on the meaning of this expression: “That God may be All in all”).
Of the three objections given in the Evidence Unseen article, the last one is, arguably, the most strained in its attempt to reconcile Paul’s words with the belief that most humans (and many spiritual beings) will never be saved. Here it is in its entirety:
Third, reconciliation refers to a healed universe—whether voluntarily or involuntarily. The term “reconcile” (apokatallassō) typically refers to restoring a broken relationship. In this passage, Paul is referring to Jesus’ relationship with his fractured and fallen creation. Thus, in our view, Paul is using the term “reconcile” to describe how Jesus will bring peace to the world. However, this could be through “voluntary submission” or through “involuntary submission.” That is, the universe will be “reconciled” because “everyone and everything will be subordinated to Christ.” Bruce concurs, “This reconciliation of the universe includes what would otherwise be distinguished as pacification. The principalities and powers whose conquest is described in Col. 2:15 are certainly not depicted as gladly surrendering to divine grace but as being compelled to submit to a power which they are unable to resist. Everything in the universe has been subjected to Christ.” This seems to be what Paul means when he writes, “At the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11). This means that all people will bow to Christ. Yet, some will bow to him as their Savior, and others will bow to him as their Judge.
In this third objection we’re told that the reconciliation referred to in Col. 1:20 will, for many beings (both human and non-human), involve “involuntary submission,” and being “compelled to submit to a power which they are unable to resist.” This, we’re told, will result in a “healed universe.” But that which is most in need of healing within the universe is the relationship between God and his estranged creatures (which necessarily involves the spiritual healing of those who are at enmity with God).
Now, whenever an estranged creature is reconciled to God, it’s God (and not the estranged creature) who initiates and accomplishes the reconciliation; thus, in one sense, all estranged creatures are reconciled to God “involuntarily” (for the will of those in need of being reconciled only becomes involved – in a positive sense, at least – after God has already begun to do that which will result in reconciliation taking place). But that’s not what the author of the Evidence Unseen article has in mind when he refers to “involuntary submission.” Instead, what the objector has in mind here is a state of forced outward submission to God that leaves the creature inwardly hostile toward him.
However, in no other place in any of Paul’s letters does the word “reconcile” ever refer to a state of affairs involving continual estrangement and enmity between those reconciled. Even the author himself seems aware of the fact that Paul used the same term translated “reconcile” elsewhere to refer to the restoration of a broken relationship – i.e., to the cessation of estrangement and enmity between two individuals. As already noted, this point is made clear from what Paul went on to write in the very next verse (Col. 1:21). For Paul, being reconciled to God and remaining “estranged and enemies in comprehension” are incompatible states of affairs.
It would, therefore, make no sense for Paul to use the same word in Col. 1:20 to refer to a state of affairs that will involve a forced/involuntary change in the outward behavior of many beings, and no effect whatsoever on their inward, spiritual condition (leaving them eternally estranged from/spiritually separated from God). But that’s exactly the position that’s being argued for in the last objection above: a state of “universal reconciliation” in which the majority of those in need of being reconciled to God remain permanently un-reconciled to him. Such a position as this is simply contradictory nonsense.
The fact that this last objection involves the absurd and contradictory belief that “reconciliation to God” can mean remaining permanently un-reconciled to God is bad enough. However, it’s what this view entails that I find even more offensive. According to Paul, it’s “through the blood of [Christ’s] cross” that the peace resulting from the reconciliation of all to God will be brought about. Thus, if the universal reconciliation of which Paul wrote in Col. 1:20 will actually involve a large number of both human and celestial beings being eternally estranged/spiritually separated from God, it would mean that this tragic state of affairs will be the outcome of Christ’s sacrificial death. However, as already noted, Christ’s sacrificial death (which, again, was the ultimate act of faith in, and obedience to, God) is the basis on which God is justifying all mankind and reconciling estranged beings to himself. When God reconciles sinful, estranged beings to himself, he’s expressing/acting in accord with the truth that he’s exceedingly more pleased by Christ’s obedience unto death than he is displeased by our sins.
The author refers to Phil. 2:10-11 in support of his view that some will be subjected to Christ without being reconciled to God. Here’s how Phil. 2:9-11 reads in the CLNT:
Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father.
The nature of the adoration of Christ referred to in these verses is said to be “for the glory of God, the Father.” We know from Scripture that God is not pleased by those who “honor him with their lips” while their hearts are “far from him” (Matt. 15:7-8, 18; Mark 7:6; cf. Isa. 29:13). What pleases God (and thus glorifies him) is truth “in the innermost being” (Psalm 51:6). Through the words of the Psalmist, God states that “the one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice glorifies me” (Psalm 50:23). Moreover, according to Paul, it is a heart that is full of thanksgiving toward God for his abundant grace – not a forced and hypocritical “confession” from the lips of those who have no love for God or his Son – that is “to the glory of God” (2 Cor. 4:15). In accord with this consideration, the word that’s translated “acclaiming” in Phil. 2:11 (exomologeō) expresses the idea of open, enthusiastic acknowledgement and praise when God is in view (see, for example, Luke 10:21 and Romans 15:9).[i] Thus, what Paul wrote in these verses does not support the idea that any created being (whether celestial, terrestrial or subterranean) can, or will, do what’s being referred to in these verses against his or her will. All who will be “bowing” and “acclaiming” will be doing so willingly.
Additional strategies considered
Another strategy employed by Christians attempting to evade the truth of Col. 1:20 can be found in an online article by John Piper (What Does Paul Mean: “Christ Will Reconcile to Himself All Things”?). In this article, Piper refers to the view against which he’s arguing as “universalism,” and defines it as follows:
“That all rebel creatures, including the devil, will be reconciled to God in the end.”
Notwithstanding Piper’s rejection of what he refers to as “universalism,” it is precisely this view that we find being affirmed in Colossians 1:20. As already noted, the word “all” in Col. 1:16-17 includes every terrestrial or celestial being in existence – i.e., “all…that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible” (and as I also noted in part one, even Piper would agree that, in these verses, the word “all” includes Satan and his angels).
When we allow Paul’s words in Col. 1:16 (as well what he wrote in verse 17) to inform our understanding of what he had in mind in Col. 1:20 (and thus “interpret Scripture with Scripture”), we’re left to conclude the following: The “all” of v. 20 includes every created being on earth or in heaven except Christ himself (which, of course, includes Satan and the other wicked, celestial “rulers and authorities” referred to in Col 2:15 and elsewhere). We have just as much reason to believe that the “all” of Col. 1:20 includes every created being in the universe other than Christ as we have reason to believe that the “all” of Col. 1:16 includes every created being in the universe other than Christ. Or, to put it another way, we have just as little reason to limit the scope of the “all” in v. 20 that God is pleased to reconcile to himself through Christ as we have reason to limit the scope of the “all” in v. 16 that is created in, through and for Christ.
Another point to consider is this: Had Paul actually wanted to succinctly communicate the idea that God is pleased to reconcile to himself every being on earth and in heaven – and that this reconciliation will be occurring through Christ – what else could he have written besides what we actually read in Col. 1:20? What we read in this verse is precisely what we’d expect to read if it was, in fact, Paul’s intention to communicate such a point to his readers (and thereby confirm a truth already revealed in 1 Cor. 15:28).
After stating his rejection of “universalism,” Piper went on to write the following:
“I don’t think such universalism fits with what Jesus or Paul or John say elsewhere. Nor is it a necessary meaning of Colossians 1:20.”
In support of his contention, Piper references three standard “proof-texts” for the doctrine of “eternal torment” (i.e., Matthew 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and Revelation 14:11). He goes on to imply that, if one holds to the “universalist” understanding of Col. 1:20, one must think that “Colossians 1:20 says something different from these three texts.” However, as I’ve argued elsewhere on my blog, none of these verses referenced by Piper are revealing what the final state of anyone will be. Instead, the state of affairs that’s being described in each of these verses pertains to a future period of time that will precede the final state of affairs that will be brought about when the “all” of Col. 1:20 have been reconciled to God. [ii] There is, therefore, no contradiction between the verses referenced by Piper and the understanding of Colossians 1:20 against which he’s arguing.
Piper goes on to provide us with his interpretation of what Paul wrote in Colossians 1:20:
“…it’s assumed Paul means ‘all things’ in the universe now will someday be reconciled to God. I don’t think he means that. I think he means that the blood of Christ has secured the victory of God over the universe in such a way that the day is coming when “all things” that are in the new heavens and the new earth will be entirely reconciled to God with no rebel remnants.
In another place, Piper says that Paul’s point is that “nothing contaminated by sin will inhabit the new heavens and the new earth that’s not reconciled to God. Everything will be reconciled that’s there.” He goes on to say that “…when Paul says that all things will be reconciled in heaven and on earth, he means that because of the work of Christ, there will be nothing unreconciled on earth, nothing unreconciled in heaven, when God consummates his purposes…All things will be reconciled in that earth and that heaven.”
Piper’s interpretation is contrary to what’s actually being communicated in this verse. It not only requires that we read into the text ideas that simply aren’t there (i.e., that Paul had in mind beings and locations in the new creation only), but it requires that we refuse to allow the immediate context to inform our understanding of what Paul had in mind when he used the word “all” in this verse. But even if we could manage to understand Paul’s words in Col. 1:20 in a way that is consistent with what Piper thinks Paul was trying to say, Piper’s interpretation would still be contrary to the truth that all humans are going to be justified and thus reconciled to God (which, as already noted, would’ve already been believed by the original recipients of Paul’s letter, and ought to be presupposed by us as well). And this consideration, by itself, rules out Piper’s interpretation. For the apostle who elsewhere made it clear that all mankind will be justified through Christ’s obedience would’ve undoubtedly understood “those on the earth” to include all mankind now (and not simply those among mankind who will be on the new earth during the final eon of Christ’s reign).
Piper goes on to appeal to what Paul wrote in Philippians 2:10 in support of his understanding of Col. 1:20:
Perhaps there is a very good reason why Paul omits the term “under the earth” when he says that Christ will “reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven.” He does not say: “whether on earth or in heaven or under the earth,” as he does in Philippians 2:10. Indeed there is a good reason for not saying this.
The reason would seem to be that there will be an “outer darkness” — an “under the earth” — that does indeed have unreconciled beings in it. But this does not take away from “all things” being reconciled in heaven and on the earth in the age to come.
There are a number of problems with Piper’s appeal to v. 10 in support of his understanding of Col. 1:20. The first (and biggest) problem is that – as noted earlier – the future state of affairs being referred to in Phil. 2:10-11 presupposes the salvation of those who will be bowing and acclaiming. Another problem with Piper’s appeal to Phil. 2:10 is that the subterranean location of the beings referred to as “subterranean” is a present location that is within the present earth. In 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 we read the following:
For if God spares not sinning messengers, but thrusting them into the gloomy caverns of Tartarus, gives them up to be kept for chastening judging…
Besides, messengers who keep not their own sovereignty, but leave their own habitation, He has kept in imperceptible bonds under gloom for the judging of the great day.
These sinning messengers were, I believe, previously referred to in 1 Pet. 3:19-20. In these verses we read that, after Christ was “vivified in spirit” (i.e., after he was resurrected), he went to “the spirits in jail also,” and heralded “to those once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed…”[iii] Interestingly, it was the understanding of the demons that, at some future time, they would be sent away into what they referred to as “the submerged chaos” (Luke 8:31). Based on what’s revealed elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Rev. 9:1-11; 20:1-3), it’s likely that the “submerged chaos” to which the demons feared being sent is the same subterranean location in which the “sinning messengers”/“spirits” referred to above are currently imprisoned.
So we can reasonably conclude that the beings referred to by Paul as “subterranean” in Phil. 2:10 are non-human, spiritual beings who were formerly “in the heavens” (prior to being imprisoned somewhere within the earth). We can also conclude that the subterranean location in which these beings are presently imprisoned is distinct from the place where John Piper believes all wicked spiritual beings – and most humans – will undergo “eternal conscious torment” in the future (i.e., “the lake of fire and sulfur” that’s referred to elsewhere in Scripture). For we know that after the “wild beast” and “false prophet” are cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20), Satan himself will be temporarily imprisoned in the subterranean location referred to as “the submerged chaos” (Rev. 20:1-3); only later will he join the “wild beast” and “false prophet” in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Thus, the subterranean location referred to in Phil. 2:10 is not even the same location in which Piper (erroneously) thinks “unreconciled beings” will be eternally excluded from the new heavens and new earth (in fact, if – as I believe – the lake of fire will actually be heavenly in its location, then Satan will be just as much “in the heavens” during the time of his eonian torment as he is “in the heavens” right now).
In fact, we have good reason to think that the subterranean location in which certain spiritual beings are imprisoned (and will be imprisoned in the future) will continue in existence for no longer than the present earth will continue in existence. In any case, since Paul had in mind a present location (and a present, temporary state of affairs) when he referred to subterranean beings in Phil. 2:10, we can conclude that the reconciliation of these beings is no less certain to occur as the reconciliation of any human on earth or any celestial being in the heavens. But since, when writing to the saints in Philippi, Paul knew that there were spirits imprisoned under the earth who will ultimately be reconciled to God, why didn’t he refer to these beings in Col. 1:20?
It’s possible that, when Paul wrote his letter to the saints in Colosse, he simply wasn’t aware of the fact that there were spiritual beings imprisoned under the earth (according to this view, Paul learned this information later, at some point between the time that he wrote Colossians and Philippians).[iv] But let’s assume that Paul was aware of these imprisoned spirits when he wrote to the saints in Colosse. If that’s the case, then we need only conclude that Paul simply didn’t think it was necessary to include a reference to them in Col. 1:20 to make the point that he wanted to make in this verse. By not referring to imprisoned subterranean beings in Col. 1:20, Paul wasn’t saying or implying that these beings won’t be reconciled to God; instead, their reconciliation can be reasonably inferred from the fact that Satan himself is ultimately going to be reconciled to God (for Satan – although presently among those who are “in the heavens” – is also going to be temporarily imprisoned in the same subterranean jail in the future [Rev. 20:1-3, 7]). And since Satan and his messengers are ultimately going to be reconciled to God, we have no reason to think that those spiritual beings who are presently imprisoned under the earth won’t be reconciled to God. Or, to put it another way, we have no reason to think that these beings won’t be among those who are going to be subjected to Christ at the end of his reign (and will thus be part of the “all” in whom God is going to be “All”). And this fact alone completely undermines Piper’s argument from Phil. 2:10.
Apparently sensing the weakness of his first interpretation of Col. 1:20 (according to which Paul was only referring to what will be true for those in the new creation only, and not what God’s intention is for everyone now), Piper goes on to provide yet another interpretation, as follows:
But if someone pushes back and says, “Well, it looks, Piper, like it’s referring to the present heaven and earth, not just the future heaven and earth,” then my suggestion would be — if they’re right and I’m mistaken in that first suggestion — that Paul teaches in the next chapter, Colossians 3:4, and in Philippians 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 5:8, that Christians who have died are now in heaven. And Paul would then be saying that all of them are reconciled to God by the work of Christ.
That’s my suggested answer to the pushback and the suggestion that he may be referring to the present heaven and not just the future heaven: Christians are there. Christians are reconciled in heaven through the blood of Christ.
Piper’s second attempt at evading what Paul wrote is no better than the first. As with his first interpretation, this one requires that we ignore the contextually-informed meaning of “all” (and understand it to mean something like, “all who believe,” or “all who have been reconciled”). So it's not just that it “looks like Paul was referring to the present heaven and earth” (which is, of course, true); it's that Paul has already defined the scope of the “all” of Col. 1:20 (and, as is clear from v. 16, it necessarily includes every being who exists in the present heavens or present earth). Piper’s second interpretation also presupposes the erroneous (and gospel-contradicting) belief that only some humans – and not all mankind – are ultimately going to be reconciled to God.
Moreover, contrary to Piper’s assertion, Paul did not teach that “Christians who have died are now in heaven” (for a brief consideration of the verses referenced by Piper, see my remarks for the fifth footnote).[v] For Paul, there can be no “life after death” apart from the resurrection. This is made clear in 1 Cor. 15:17-19 and 29-32 (verses 20-28 are parenthetical). In these verses Paul argued that, if there isn’t going to be a resurrection, we have nothing to look forward to beyond this life. If the dead aren’t being roused, our focus should be on this life only; even dying as a martyr for Christ would bring no personal benefit or “gain” if the dead aren’t being roused.
Since deceased believers are not “now in heaven,” they can’t be “those in the heavens” who either have been, or are in need of being, reconciled to God. Instead, Paul was referring to non-human, spiritual beings (including all who are presently in rebellion against God – i.e., those whom he referred to in Eph. 6:12 as “the spiritual forces of wickedness among the celestials”).
Conclusion
Despite the differences in strategies (some of which are incompatible), each of the above attempts to evade the truth found in Col. 1:20 presupposes that all mankind aren’t going to be justified by God. But this view is, of course, contrary to the truth that “Christ died for our sins” (and that God is, therefore, the Savior of all mankind). But, as has already been noted, the truth that all humans are going to be justified because of Christ’s death would’ve already been believed by the original recipients of Paul’s letter (and ought to be presupposed by us as well). And this consideration, by itself, invalidates any interpretation of Col. 1:20 that can only be true if some humans for whose sins Christ died aren’t going to be justified by God (and thus reconciled to God). Since all estranged humans are ultimately going to be reconciled to God, we must conclude, based on what’s revealed Col. 1:20, that all estranged celestial beings (“those in the heavens”) are going to be reconciled to God as well.
[i] The verse from the Hebrew Scriptures that Paul undoubtedly had in mind here (Isaiah 45:23) also indicates that those bowing to God are not (or are no longer) in rebellion against him. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, from which Paul regularly quoted), the same word used by Paul that’s translated “acclaiming” or “confess” in Phil. 2:11 is used. Consider also the ESV translation of the Hebrew text:
“To me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear allegiance.”
Here it’s evident that those who will ultimately bow to God are swearing their allegiance to him as well.
Moreover, in the very next verse (Isa. 45:24) we read that even those who made and worshiped idols (see v. 20), and were formerly “incensed against” God in their unbelief, will come to him (though understandably ashamed of their past conduct). We need not think that anyone’s being “ashamed” because of their past shameful conduct in any way precludes their also being saved by God. In fact, one could argue that being saved presupposes that one has come to realize that their past conduct was, in fact, shameful. In Ezekiel 16, for example, we’re told that apostate Israel will be ashamed of their past idolatry when they are redeemed by God. To be both saved as well as ashamed of one’s past behavior are not mutually exclusive experiences.
[ii] With regard to Matthew 25:46 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9, the Greek word that’s translated “eternal” in these verses (at least, in less literal Bible versions) – i.e., aiōnion – doesn’t mean “eternal” or “endless.” Instead, it’s the adjectival form of the Greek noun that means “age” or “eon” (for a more in-depth defense of this point, see part one of my study on 1 Timothy 4:10 or part two of my study on John 3:16). This being the case, a more accurate translation of aiōnion would be “age-lasting” or “eonian.” In neither of these verses is the “final destiny” of anyone in view.
As is evident from what we read in Matt. 25:42-43, those who will suffer the eonian punishment of which we read in v. 46 (the “goats”) will be people from among the nations who will be alive on the earth when Christ returns – specifically, those who refuse to bless the persecuted saints of Israel during the time of Israel’s “great affliction” (as referred to by Christ in Matt. 24:15-25). And the “punishment” or “chastening” into which they’ll be going will be taking place on this earth during the eon to come (when, as we read in Rev. 2:26-27, the saints will be exercising authority over the nations and “shepherding them with an iron club, as vessels of pottery are being crushed”). For a more in-depth examination of what the eonian destiny of the “goats” will involve, click here for part six of my study on Matthew 25:31-46.
With regard to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Paul was referring to the fate of those who will be killed/destroyed at Christ’s return (and who will be remaining dead for the entirety of the future eon that will begin at this time). For an in-depth defense of this understanding, see the following article: Are Unbelievers Destined for “Everlasting Destruction?”
With regard to Revelation 14:11, the expression that’s commonly translated “forever and ever” in this verse (eis tous aiónas tón aiónón) literally means, “for the eons of the eons” (the plural form of the Greek noun that means “age” or “eon” appears twice in this expression). And it’s clear from this verse that the “eons of the eons” are the duration of time for which the smoke that’s associated with the torment of the wicked will be ascending. However, as I’ve argued in more depth elsewhere, we have good reason to believe that the torment that will be suffered by “those worshipping the wild beast and its image” will not continue for as long as we’re told the smoke will be ascending. And not only this, but the “eons” that are in view here are the eons of Christ’s future reign (which Paul referred to as “the oncoming eons” in Eph. 2:7). And since Christ’s reign will have both a beginning and an end (1 Cor. 15:22-28), it follows that the eons for which he’ll be reigning – i.e., the “eons of the eons” – will also have a beginning and an end.
[iii] We know that these “spirits in jail” to whom Christ heralded are not humans, because (1) the humans who were alive on the earth in the days of Noah are dead, (2) dead humans are not “spirits,” and (3) the dead are lifeless/without spirit (and thus unconscious). These points notwithstanding, some have attempted to identify the “sinning messengers” referred to in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 with certain deceased human beings. According to one theory, Peter and Jude had in mind the people who perished in the judgment associated with the rebellion led by Korah, Dathan and Abiram (as recorded in Numbers 16; cf. Jude 11). Another theory is that the “sinning messengers” in view are the men who were sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan, and who brought up a bad report of the land (Numbers 13-14).
However, neither of these views is plausible. Neither the men who took part in Korah’s rebellion nor those who gave a bad report of the land are referred to as “angels” or “messengers” elsewhere in Scripture (whether in the original Hebrew or the Septuagint translation). Nor are the people who were involved in either event said to have “left their own habitation.” On the other hand, if Peter and Jude had wanted to refer to certain sinful beings who belong to the same general category of non-human, spiritual beings referred to in (for example) Rev. 12:7-9 as “messengers,” we have good reason to believe that they would’ve used the exact terminology that they did, in fact, use.
[iv] As I’ve noted elsewhere (and as has been compellingly argued by Bo Reicke in his article Caesarea, Rome, and the Captivity Epistles), Paul’s letter to the Colossians – as well as his similar “Ephesians” letter – was likely written while Paul was imprisoned in Herod’s pretorium in Caesarea (Acts 23:33-35; 24:22-27). According to what we read in Acts 24:27, Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea lasted a little more than two years (from approximately A.D. 58 to A.D. 60). Paul’s letter to the Philippians, on the other hand, was likely written later (i.e., during the time of his house arrest in Rome, as referred to in Acts 28:16, 30).
According to this understanding of when Paul wrote his “prison epistles,” it’s possible that Paul learned that there were rebellious spiritual beings imprisoned under the earth after he wrote his letter to the Colossians. We know that Peter and Jude – who likely wrote their letters in the early to mid 60’s (and thus after the time of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea) – had knowledge of these imprisoned spirits. And it’s possible that Peter – who, in his first letter, reveals the interesting detail about Christ heralding to these imprisoned spirits after his resurrection (1 Pet. 3:19-20) – learned what he knew from Christ during the time between Christ’s resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3).
Thus, it’s conceivable that Paul learned of these imprisoned spirits from what Peter later wrote concerning them (or from believers among the Circumcision who’d learned it from Peter or Jude). If Paul did, in fact, learn of these imprisoned messengers sometime after his imprisonment in Caesarea, then it would explain why he referred to them in his letter to the Philippians but not in his letter to the Colossians.
[v] In Col. 3:3-4, the “death” that all believers have already died is the death of our old self – i.e., the death of who we were before we came to be “in Christ,” and thus became a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17; cf. Gal. 2:20 and Rom. 6:1-11). And the “life” we now have (and which is “hid together with Christ in God”) is the life that we’ll enjoy when we’re glorified and have “put on immortality” (i.e., when we’re vivified). And this event – our glorification – will occur simultaneously for all believers at the future time described in 1 Cor. 15:51-52 and 1 Thess. 4:15-17.
In Phil. 1:20-24, Paul was not saying that he expected to go to heaven when he died. In v. 20, Paul shared his expectation that Christ would be “magnified in [his] body, whether through life or through death.” The “gain” that dying would mean for Paul wasn’t life in heaven in a “disembodied state”; rather, it was the magnifying of Christ. And the event to which Paul was referring in v. 23 (“My desire is to depart and be with Christ”) is that which will occur when, at the future time referred to in 1 Thess. 4:15-17, the saints in the body of Christ are snatched away to meet Christ in the air. Only then will Paul – who is now among “the dead in Christ” – depart from the earth to “be with Christ.”
In 2 Cor. 5:8, Paul was not expressing his desire to be dead or without a body. This is evident from the fact that there are only two “homes” of which Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 5:1-5: (1) The present “terrestrial tabernacle house” (i.e., the mortal body, in which Paul existed while living on earth), and (2) the future “house not made by hands, eonian, in the heavens”/“habitation which is out of heaven” (i.e., the immortal body, in which Paul will exist after being resurrected). It wasn’t the condition immediately following the “demolishing” of his mortal body that Paul desired; rather, the condition for which Paul longed was that of being “clothed” with his future, immortal body (when “the mortal may be swallowed up by life” and death is “swallowed up by victory”). Only after being “clothed” with his heavenly body (and not immediately after dying and being “unclothed”) did Paul expect to be “at home with the Lord.”
For a more in-depth defense of the
position that those who’ve died are, in fact, lifeless (and thus without any
sensory awareness or the capacity for conscious, volitional activity), see the
following article: https://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/06/life-after-death-part-3.html
