Life After Death? Part 1: The Nature of Man

When we come to Scripture to find out what it has to say about any given subject, we cannot simply assume as true that which, by virtue of its nature, requires a divine revelation in order for us to obtain any certain information on it. We must instead ask, "What has God revealed to us about such-and-such?" One such subject is the state of human beings after death. There are many today who seem to take for granted the idea of "life after death" - i.e., the view that people are conscious and "alive" after death, in a different (usually "disembodied") state of existence. The idea that human beings are "immortal souls" temporarily living in disposable bodies is almost universally believed among those who have some sort of religious or "spiritual" worldview. And this includes the vast majority of Christians.

John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, once said in a sermon, "I am now an immortal spirit, strangely commingled with a little portion of earth. In a short time I am to quit this tenement of clay, and remove into another state."

19th century southern Presbyterian Robert Dabney wrote: "It is the glory of the Gospel that it gives a victory over death...While the worms destroy the unconscious flesh, the conscious spirit has soared away to the light and rest of its Savior’s bosom."

C.S. Lewis wrote in his book The Weight of Glory, "There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendors." 

And on the radio not too long ago, I heard Greg Laurie (a popular author, evangelist and mega-church pastor) say, "Death for the believer is not the end of life, but a continuation of it in another place" (https://twitter.com/greglaurie/status/393774409305325568).

Even among those who may be agnostic on the subject, many are quite open to the possibility that people "pass on" to a "better place" after they die. But apart from a divine revelation concerning this, is this really a reasonable approach to take? It seems to me that a much more reasonable approach would be to assume just the opposite until we have compelling evidence to believe otherwise. We know, for example, that syncope (a temporary loss of consciousness) is due to a shortage of oxygen to the brain because of a temporary reduction of blood flow. But what happens when there is a permanent reduction of blood flow to the brain and all brain activity ceases? Is there any observable indication that a person whose brain has stopped functioning completely is more conscious than a person who has simply experienced a temporary reduction of blood flow to their brain? Do not our own God-given senses suggest otherwise?  

God designed this present existence in such a way that it certainly appears to us as if consciousness terminates with death (meaning that only a restoration to life could restore one's consciousness). The idea that a dead man is more conscious than a man who is merely suffering a temporary shortage of oxygen to his brain is so contrary to appearances and observation that, if God wanted us to believe it, he would have to make it known to us by divine revelation. For unless it is revealed by God that, appearances notwithstanding, those who have died are just as conscious as they were when they were still alive, all we have is our own vain speculation - and vain speculation is, of course, as far removed from faith as the east is from the west.Without such a thing being made known to us through revelation, we could have no certain knowledge of it. Consequently, the idea that the dead are conscious should not be taken for granted as true before it can be shown to have been revealed by God. We must instead ask, "Has God revealed that those who die are just as conscious as they were before they died? Has God revealed that human beings suffer or enjoy in a 'disembodied state' of existence after death?" To answer questions such as these we must discover what scripture has to say about it. And the best place to begin is, I believe, at the beginning. 

The Nature of Man 

In Genesis 2:7, we read that "God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Notice that Adam is spoken of in this verse as existing in two different states at two different times. After having been formed from the "dust of the ground," the finished creation was called "man." The creature "man" had no existence until God formed him from the dust of the ground. But once formed by God, it was "man" that existed. If an angelic being had asked God, "What is this that you have formed from the dust of the ground?" God could have replied, "This is man." But the inanimate human form that God made from the dust of the ground was not initially a living, sentient being. For it was man who we are then told received the "breath of life" from God and consequently became a "living soul." Here we have the second state in which Adam existed after his creation - as an animate, "living soul." But consider the following: if Adam could exist as a man before receiving the breath of life from God, would he not remain a man even if the "breath of life" left him and returned to its divine source? 

Now, just as it was Adam who was created from the dust of the ground as a fully formed human being - and just as it was into Adam's nostrils that God breathed the "breath of life" (thereby making him a "living soul") - so it was Adam who listened to his wife and ate of the forbidden tree. It was also Adam who was cursed to eat of the ground in pain all the days of his life (Gen. 3:17). And in each instance in which Adam is referred to above, the entire human person is in view (not merely some "part" of Adam that is not essential to his personhood). But note that it is to this same man named "Adam" that God said, "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Gen. 3:19). 

Was God addressing a "who" or a "what" when he spoke these words? Obviously, he was addressing Adam, the entire human person. Notice the words "your" and "you" in the above verse. So where is Adam now? If God's words in Genesis 3:19 reveal anything about what happened to Adam after he died, they reveal that Adam returned to the ground. In other words, the man who became a conscious, sentient being when God animated him eventually returned to the earthly elements from which he was formed. The organ which gave Adam the ability to think and be self-aware (i.e., his brain) not only ceased to function but ceased to exist in an organized form. The man identified as "Adam" in the opening chapters of Genesis is dead, and has returned to the dust. Death is spoken of as a return here, but there was nowhere else to which the person Adam could return after he died except the ground from which he was made. Had Adam originated in heaven, then we might expect him to have returned to heaven after he died. But since Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, it was to the dust of the earth that he had to return after death. 

But what about the "breath of life" which came from God and which made Adam a "living soul?" Since this "breath" is said to have come from God himself (for we are told that God breathed it into Adam's nostrils), we should expect this to have returned to God when Adam died. But of course, this breath of life from God was not Adam. Adam is never identified with the breath of life from God that made him a living soul. Instead, Adam is identified with the "dust of the earth" from which he was formed. If the person, Adam, was actually the "breath of life" that God breathed into Adam, then it would've been more accurate for God to have said to Adam, "By the sweat of your body's face shall your body eat its bread, till you return to me, for out of me you were taken; for you are a breath of life, and to me you shall return." As strange as this wording may sound, this would be much more consistent with the common idea of what man is. But of course, that's not at all what God said. Adam was not constituted by the "breath of life" that God breathed into him; rather, he was constituted by the physical body that God formed from the dust. Thus, when Adam's physical body died and returned to the dust, Adam died and returned to the dust. But Adam did not return to God when he died, because Adam was not the "breath of life" that came from God. The "breath of life" was simply what made Adam a "living soul" (as opposed to an inanimate, dead soul). It's what enabled Adam's physical brain to function, and thus made it possible for Adam to be a conscious, self-aware being. 

In James' letter we read, "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead" (James 2:26). Notice that James refers to the body apart from the spirit as being "dead." When a person dies, it is because his body has died, not his spirit (as we'll see later on, the "spirit" of which James is speaking here is the "breath of life" from God, and is not something that either lives or dies). From this we may conclude that a man is constituted by his body (which man's spirit leaves at death), and not by his spirit (which leaves his body). Why should we conclude this? Because in Scripture it is the person - the individual self - who is said to "die" or to be "dead." But a person could not be said to "die" or be "dead" if they were constituted by something that doesn't die and is never dead. Since it is the body that dies rather than the spirit, it is the body that constitutes a human person. 

Moreover, if man is constituted by something other than his physical body and is actually an immortal, non-physical substance of some sort - i.e., an "immortal soul" - then it would mean that Adam was an "immortal soul" when God declared to him, "By the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." But of course, a non-physical immortal soul did not die and return to the dust of the earth. That's absurd. Adam was a physical, mortal being constituted by a physical, mortal body. Because Adam was constituted by his physical body, Adam died when his body died. And when Adam's body returned to the dust, Adam returned to the dust. 

Consider the following argument: 

1. Every man is a non-physical, immortal soul.

2. The man, Stephen, was killed for his faith in Jesus.

3. After he died, Stephen was buried by devout men (Acts 8:2).

4. Therefore, a non-physical, immortal soul died and was buried by devout men. 

The conclusion is obviously absurd and false, and the argument is therefore unsound. Since it cannot be denied that "Stephen" was a man, the only way to avoid the conclusion that an immortal soul died and was buried is to deny either premise 1 or 3. Either "Stephen" is not an "immortal soul," or "Stephen" did not die and was not buried. But since Scripture is clear that Stephen diddie and that he was buried, it follows that Stephen is not a non-physical, immortal soul. Rather, "Stephen" refers to a person who was constituted by physical matter. That is, "Stephen" refers to a fully physical being, not an immortal soul. When Stephen's body died, Stephen died. When Stephen's body was buried, Stephen was buried. And when Stephen's body inevitably returned to the dust, Stephen returned to the dust. Nowhere is it revealed or suggested by the inspired author that "Stephen" left his physical body and remained alive and conscious somewhere in another state of existence. No, what the devout men buried was Stephen. If you or I had been present when Stephen was being stoned to death, we would've observed Stephen lose consciousness without regaining it. We would've seen him lie motionless, and sometime afterwards we would've seen certain "devout men" carrying Stephen away to be buried (Acts 8:2). And there is no indication given that, appearances notwithstanding, Stephen was just as conscious right after he "fell asleep" as he was right before he "fell asleep." 

We're told that before Stephen died he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Did the Lord receive Stephenwhen he died, or Stephen's spirit? Luke tells us that it was Stephen who "fell asleep" as he was being stoned to death. If "Stephen" = Stephen's spirit, then it would mean Stephen's spirit fell asleep as it was being stoned to death. But was it a spirit that was stoned to death? Did a spirit"fall asleep?" Of course not; that's absurd. We're then told that some devout men "buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him." If "Stephen" went to heaven when he died, how did these devout men bury him? Did they bury a disembodied spirit? Again, of course not. The human person, "Stephen," was constituted by his body, and whatever happened to his body happened to him. When Stephen's body began to be struck by stones, Stephen began to be struck by stones. When Stephen's body died, Stephen died. When Stephen's body was buried, Stephen was buried. 

Because human beings are constituted by their physical bodies and can't exist apart from their physical bodies, Scripture always speaks of dead people as being wherever their dead body is (which would be inappropriate if we weren't, in fact, constituted by our bodies). For example, in Acts 2:29 we read, "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." Similarly, Paul states in Acts 13:36, "For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption." Here we see that the person, David, was identified by both Peter and Paul with the body that had died, had been buried, and had ultimately "saw corruption." Never is David identified with some disembodied "part" of David that was alive and conscious somewhere within or beyond the physical universe. Or consider Abraham's wife, Sarah. After she died at age 127, Abraham refers to her as "my dead" (Gen. 23:4). We later read that Abraham "buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah east of Mamre in the land of Canaan" (v. 19). Obviously, Abraham did not bury an "immortal soul!" But Abraham did bury his wife. Thus, Abraham's wife Sarah was constituted by her physical body, and she could thus be said to be wherever her physical body was. When Sarah's body died, Sarah died, and when Sarah's body was buried, Sarah was buried. 

The Soul 

Now let's return to Genesis 2:7: "God formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Notice that we are not told that God placed a "living soul" into something that was not already man; Adam was a man before he received the "breath of life" and became a "living soul." It was the "breath of life" (something that was not "man" but was given to man) that God breathed into the nostrils of a fully formed human being that then caused this human being to become a "living soul." But what is the meaning of the word "soul" in Scripture? 

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible has this to say on the Hebrew word translated "soul" (nephesh): "The word 'soul' in English, though it has to some extent naturalized the Hebrew idiom, frequently carries with it overtones, ultimately coming from philosophical Greek (Platonism) and from Orphism and Gnosticism which are absent in 'nephesh.' In the OT it never means the immortal soul, but it is essentially the life principle, or the living being, or the self as the subject of appetite, and emotion, occasionally of volition" (Vol. 4, 1962, "Soul," emphasis added). 

Based on how the Hebrew and Greek words usually translated "soul" are consistently used throughout Scripture, I believe we can understand them in the following ways:

1) The sentience of living beings - that is, their sensation (broadly speaking) or sensory awareness  (Gen 1:20, 30; 19:17; 35:18; Ex 4:19; 21:23; Lev 17:11-14; 1Sam 22:23; Job 12:10; Esther 7:7; Prov. 12:10; Jonah 4:3), OR the seat of the desires and sensations of sentient beings (Ex 15:9; Deut 23:24; 2 Kings 4:27; Ps 27:12; Prov. 6:30, 23:2; Eccl 6:7, 9; Jer. 22:27; Micah 7:3; Zech 11:8; Hab. 2:5). 

2) By extension, nephash and psuche can denote any sentient being, or any being with a capacity for sentient existence (Genesis 1:20-21, 24-25; 2:7; cf. Rev. 16:3).  

Genesis 35:18 is a good example of the first understanding of the word "soul" (nephesh) as found in Scripture: "And as [Rachel's] soul (nephesh) was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin." Notice that we are not told that "Rachel" was departing at this time. Rather, we are told that something (i.e., Rachel's nephesh) was departing from her. And after it departed, we then read (vv. 19-20), "So Rachel died, and she was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem), and Jacob set up a pillar over her tomb."

It is evident from these verses that "Rachel" was not thought to be that which was departing from her as she was dying. Rather, Rachel was understood to be wherever her body was as she was dying, not where her "soul" went after it departed. This fact tells us that Rachel was thought to be constituted by her body. When Rachel's body died, Rachel died, and when Rachel's body was buried, Rachel was buried. So what was the "soul" (nephesh) that was said to be departing from Rachel when "she called his name Ben-oni"? Answer: it was simply Rachel's sensation, or sentience, that was "departing" from her. 

Whenever "body" (soma) and "soul" (psuche) are distinguished in the NT (e.g., in Matt 6:25), "soul" likely stands for the sensation or sentience that is common to all biological beings (which must be sustained by food and water, and can be "lost" if one dies, or "saved" if one is kept alive). Sentience depends on life. Only a living being can be sentient and conscious. By "life" I mean the kind of life shared by all living things (including plants, animals and human beings). So how should we define this "life" that is shared by all living things/beings? First, let's determine what this life isn't. Whatever this life is, it is not a personal entity or thing. That is, it does not exist as a person, is not conscious, and does not have a first-person perspective. Nor is this life that is shared by all living things something that either lives or dies, or that can be considered as either alive or dead. A living thing is either mortal or immortal, but life is not a living thing and is neither mortal or immortal.

Life is not something that can exist outside of or apart from a living being (whether the being is mortal or immortal, personal or impersonal). Just as love cannot exist apart from a lover and thought cannot exist apart from a thinker, so life is inseparable from a living thing. So what is "life?" It is a capacity for functional activity. This would include activities such as self-organization, self-regulation of internal conditions, the transmitting of information, etc. For many living things, "functional activity" would include self-motion, and among the highest forms of life (such as God, angels and humans), "functional activity" would also include things like self-awareness (the capacity to notice the self), rational thought and volitional activity. 

According to the second Scriptural meaning of the words translated "soul," a physical, embodied creature is being referred to, and (as with the first meaning) has no reference at all to any aspect of human nature that is (or can be) conscious after death. Instead, it simply denotes the physical, embodied person themselves (see, for example, Acts 2:41-43; 3:23; 7:14; 27:37; Romans 2:9; 13:1; 1 Corinthians 15:45; James 5:20; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:14; Revelation 18:13). In Leviticus 5:1-4, a soul (nephash) can see, hear, touch and speak with lips. In Deut 14:26, it is said that souls can hunger and thirst. In Jeremiah 2:34, souls are said to have blood. In Leviticus 7:20-27, it is said that souls can eat and be killed. In Lev 17:11-14 the soul of a creature is said to be "in the blood," and is even equated with the blood. Frequently the Law of Moses commanded that any soul which disobeyed certain laws should be "cut off" or killed (e.g. Ex 31:14; Lev 17:10; 19:8; 20:6; Num. 15:27-31). Through the prophet Ezekiel, God warned the Israelites that "the soul that sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. James 5:20). We are further told that souls can be strangled or snared (Prov. 18:7; 22:25; Job 7:15), torn to pieces by lions (Psalm 7:2) or utterly destroyed by the sword (Josh 11:11; cf. Josh. 10:30-39; Eze. 22:27; Prov. 6:32; Lev. 23:30). 

All of these verses make perfect sense if we simply understand that "soul" is being used interchangeably with a mortal, human person (which, when alive, has a capacity for sentience). Because the Hebrew and Greek words translated "soul" commonly have the sense of a breathing, sentient creature when human persons are in view, it is frequently used interchangeably with the human "self." Hence, the term is often employed emphatically to refer to the persons themselves. For example, when David says, "I humbled my soul with fasting" (Ps. 35:13), it is simply an emphatic way of saying "I humbled myself with fasting." Similarly, for Job to say, "My soul is weary of life" (Job 10:1) is simply an emphatic way of saying "I am weary of life." And for Samson to say, "Let my soul die with the Philistines" (Judges 16:30) is simply to say, "Let me die with the Philistines." For the prophet Jeremiah to say, "They have dug a pit for my soul" (Jer. 18:20) is another way of saying, "they have dug a pit for me." It is said in Psalm 22:9 that no one can "keep alive his own soul" - i.e., keep himself alive. And in Psalm 89:48, it is rhetorically asked whether one could deliver one's soul from the power of the grave - i.e., keep oneself from the power of the grave. 

It is noteworthy that humans are not the only beings referred to as "souls." The first four times that the word nephash appears in the Bible it is applied to the lower forms of animal life that God created - i.e., flying, land-dwelling and aquatic creatures (Genesis 1:20-21,24-25; cf. Rev 16:3). And while the expression nephesh chaiyah ("living soul") occurs twelve times in the Old Testament, it is applied to human beings only once (Gen 2:7). This tells us that our being a "living soul" is not something that is unique to man. It is not what distinguishes us from the beasts. Non-human animals are "living souls" as well. But in contrast to the rest of the creatures God created on this planet, humans bear God's image. But in what does the divine image consist?  

It is our unique capacity to be like God and represent him. After we are told that man was created in God's image (Gen 1:27) we read, "And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (v. 28; cf. Ps. 8:4-8). And later God declares to his heavenly court, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil" (3:22). So what enables us to be like and represent God in the sense of which Scripture speaks? Is it some non-physical "part" of us that is immortal, and which leaves our body at death to suffer or enjoy in a disembodied state? No, for Scripture says nothing about such a thing. Well what is it that enables mankind to have dominion over "all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas?" Is it not primarily our wonderfully designed human brain? While our brain has the same general structure as that of other mammals, it is over three times larger than the brain of a typical mammal with an equivalent body size, and gives us the ability to do things that no other "living soul" created by God can do. Human beings are truly "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Ps. 139:14-16). But God used the same earthly elements to create us as he used to create every other "living soul," and we are only alive and sentient because of the same "spirit" or "breath of life" that animates every other "living soul." This will become more evident in the next section. 

The Spirit 

Genesis 1:30 and 2:19 tell us that all "living souls" have something in common: God's breath, or spirit (see Gen. 7:21-22), which is what makes us all "living souls." But what is the meaning of the word "spirit" as it appears in Scripture? In both the Old and New Testament, the words for "spirit" (ruach and pneuma, respectively) literally mean "a current of air." Even in the English language, the word "spirit" comes from the Latin word meaning "breath"; the English words "inspiration" and "respiration," for instance, have the same Latin root. From earliest times people could see the intimate connection between breath and life; when a person's body stops breathing, it also becomes inactive and dies. Breath, then, was appropriately seen as the outward manifestation of the animating power or life-force, and was viewed as God's own breath given to man (see Job 27:3). This observable connection between breath and life is the reason why the same word is used for both "spirit" and "breath" in the Hebrew and Greek languages. 

As is the case with several words in all languages, the Hebrew and Greek words translated as "spirit" (ruach andpneuma) can be used in more than one sense in Scripture. For example, the word ruach is, in many cases, used to denote wind, or a breeze (Gen 3:8; 8:1; Ex 10:13, 19; 15:10; Num 11:31; 2Sa 2:11; 1Ki 19:11; Job 1:19; 8:2; Ps 1:4; 55:8; 83:13; 107:25; Prov. 25:14; Eccl. 1:6; Isa 64:6; Jer. 10:13; 51:1; Ez. 1:4; 5:2; Dan 7:2; etc.). With regards to that which can be said to belong to human beings, however, "spirit" refers to either: 

1) The "breath of life" (lit. "lives") - which is an animating, life-sustaining power or force from God - given to both human beings and animals (Gen 2:7; 6:17; 7:15, 22; Num 16:22; 1Ki 10:5; Job 7:7; 12:10; 15:30; 19:17; Ps 104:29; 146:4; Eccl 3:19; 12:7; Jer. 10:14; 10:17; 37:5; 51:17; Matt 27:50; Luke 8:55; 23:46; Acts 7:59; James 2:26; etc.);

or 

2) The mental disposition, state of mind or prevailing attitude/feeling of a person which motivates (and is made known through) their actions and behavior (Deut 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Prov. 16:9, 18, 19; 29:11; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 61:3; Mark 2:8; Luke 9:55; John 3:6; 4:23-24; 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; 18:5; Rom 2:29; 11:8; 1 Cor. 2:11; 4:21; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:23; Phil 2:19; 2 Tim 1:7; 1 Pet 3:4; 1 John 4:6). 

Notice that in each case above, the word "spirit" simply denotes some kind of invisible, active power or force that has visible effects. For example, when Christ said, "The words I have spoken to you are spiritand life" (John 6:63) he meant that his words were an unseen, active force that produced visible effects in people's lives (i.e., effecting a positive change in a person's actions and behaviour) and imparted "life." But Christ's words are not "spirit" in the same sense that an angelic being (both good and evil) can be called a "spirit" (Judges 9:23; 1 Sam. 16:14; Mark 1:23, 26; 3:11; 5:13; Luke 4:33; Acts 8:7; Heb 1:14). Nor are angelic beings "spirit" in the same sense that the breath that is in all living beings is "spirit" (Gen 6:16; Psalm 104:29 ; Eccl 3:19; Luke 8:55; 23:46; James 2:26). Nor is the breath of life in all living things "spirit" in the same sense that a person's state of mind or mental disposition is their "spirit" (Deut 34:9; Num 5:14; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Eccl 7:9; Acts 17:16; Rom 11:8; Eph 4:23). The words translated "spirit," while conveying a similar idea (that of an unseen power or force with visible effects), does not refer to the same exact thing every time it appears in Scripture, but must be understood by the context in which the words appear. 

Whenever body, soul and spirit are distinguished in the Greek scriptures (e.g., in 1 Thess. 5:23), "soul" likely denotes the sentience, or capacity for sentience, possessed by all living beings, while "spirit" refers to the mental disposition of a person. It may also be added that, in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, the words translated "heart" are (when used in a figurative sense) equivalent to this second definition of "spirit" (i.e., the mind or mental disposition of a person, from which good or evil intentions spring – see Matt. 15:18-19). 

The "breath of life" given by God is that which is present in all "living souls" (both human or animal), and which "departs" from them at the time of death (i.e., when one stops breathing) and returns to God (Gen 1:30; 2:7; 6:17; 7:21-22; Job 34:14). Moreover, it is evident that the Hebrew words translated "breath" and "spirit" are often used interchangeably. For example, in Gen 6:16 (ESV) the word translated "breath" in the expression "breath of life" is not neshâmâh(as it is in Gen 2:7) but rûach. This is the same word Solomon used when he declared that both man and beast have the "same breath (rûach)" (Eccl 3:19) and that, at death, "the spirit (rûach) returns to God who gave it." Or consider Job 27:3, where Job declares, "...As long as my breath (neshâmâh) is in me, and the spirit (rûach) of God is in my nostrils..." When Job speaks of "the breath that is in me" and "the spirit of God in my nostrils" he's not referring to two different things. Rather, the same idea is being repeated for emphasis; the "breath" that was in Job and the "spirit of God" that was in his "nostrils" both refer to his life-force or life-sustaining power, of which God was understood to be the source.

In these verses Job is employing what is referred to as "Hebrew parallelism," which is a figure of speech by which the same or similar idea or meaning is expressed using two different words or expressions (see, for example Job 4:17; 8:11, 15; 27:4; Ps 119:105; Prov. 3:1). If this “spirit of God” that Job declared was in his nostrils (cf. Isaiah 2:22; Eccl 12:3) was actually Job himself (i.e., the “real” Job), then Job would have been saying that he was in his own nostrils! But the "spirit of God" that was in Job's nostrils is simply a reference to the "breath of life" that God is figuratively said to have breathed into Adam's nostrils, and which he gives to all "living souls" to keep them alive. Similarly, in Job 34:14 we read: "If he should set his heart to it and gather to himself his spirit (rûach) and his breath (neshâmâh), all flesh would perish together, and man would return to the dust." Or consider Isaiah 42:5: "Thus says God the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, who gives breath (neshâmâh) to the people on it, and spirit (rûach) to those who walk on it..."

In Psalm 104:29 (ESV) we read, "When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath (rûach), they die and return to their dust." Here the same word translated "spirit" elsewhere is translated "breath" (which, again, means that the translators understood that these two Hebrew words can have the same meaning). The same can be said for Psalm 146:4 as well: "When his breath (rûach) departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish." It is evident that the Psalmists had in mind the same "breath of life" that God breathed into Adam and gives to all "living souls," whether human or animal. 

In light of the above we may reasonably conclude that the "spirit" that is represented as returning to God at death is the same "breath of life" that was breathed into Adam and which is given to all "living souls." It is this life-sustaining power or force from God that is common to all living souls, and which is manifested through breathing. In Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 we read:

I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath (ruach), and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 

Notice that the spirit or breath of which author is speaking here is something that is present in both human beings and animals alike. We are further told in Job that if God were to "gather to himself his spirit," all flesh would "perish," and we would "return to the dust" from which we were made (Job 34:14). As far as our constitution as creatures made by God, man is not above the beasts. We are both made of the same earthly elements, and we have the same type of "breath," or spirit, given by God which makes us "living souls." When our spirit or breath returns to God (i.e., when we stop breathing), we return to the dust, which is the "one place" to which both man and beast go. Prior to banishing him from the garden, God told Adam, "By the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for youare dust, and to dust you shall return" (Gen 3:19).  

Further support for the views for which we have been arguing so far may be found in Ezekiel 31:1-14. In this prophetic vision concerning the house of Israel, the Jewish nation is figuratively represented as a slain army being raised back to life by God through the agency of his prophet, Ezekiel:

The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones.And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. And he said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord God, you know." Then he said to me, "Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord."

So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live." So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

In verses 5, 6, 9 and 10, the word translated above as "breath" is ruach. As we've noted previously, this is the Hebrew word most commonly translated "spirit." That which is being so vividly portrayed in the above prophetic vision is essentially the reverse of what takes place at death. At death, man's "spirit" or "breath of life" departs from him and returns to God, and he begins to return to the dust of the earth. This process of bodily decomposition continues until the only physical remains of a person are bones (as depicted in the above prophecy). Recall also that the "spirit" or "breath" that departs from man at death is not the man himself but that power which sustained his life and made him a "living soul." It is this "spirit" or "breath" from God that keeps us alive. When this is withdrawn from us and returns to its source (God), our life necessarily "departs" from us as well, leaving us in a lifeless state. Notice that in Ezekiel's vision, the members of this slain army are first re-constituted by God. But as Ezekiel notes, there was still "no breath in them." After they have been re-constituted with fully formed bodies, Ezekiel must then prophecy to the breath and command it to come "from the four winds" to animate the lifeless army. This "breath" from God was the only thing lacking to make the members of this army of "living souls" once again. There is no suggestion that the members of this resurrected army were constituted by, or consisted of, anything more than their newly-formed bodies. The "spirit" or "breath" that was breathed into them was simply that which gave them life, and without which they would've remained lifeless. This spirit or breath was not them, but was rather something that God gave them so that they could live again. 

In the book of the Revelation, the apostle John is given a vision of two witnesses who, after prophesying to the people of Israel for 1,260 days, are killed by "the beast" (Rev 11:1-8). We are told that their dead bodies would lie in the street of the "great city" (Jerusalem), and that the people would celebrate their deaths for three and a half days (vv. 9-10). But then we read (v. 11), "But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them." Notice first that the two witnesses are spoken of as being present where their dead bodies are. Notice also that this "breath of life from God" is singular; the two witnesses didn't each receive a separate“immortal soul” from God, but rather a single breath of life that entered both of them. This is undoubtedly the same "breath" or spirit that was breathed into Adam's nostrils and which made him a "living soul" (Gen 2) the same "breath" or spirit that Solomon says is shared by all living things (Eccl 3) and the same "breath" or spirit referred to in Ezekiel's vision that came from the "four winds" and re-animated the dead army. Once given by God this "breath" or "spirit" belongs to those to whom it is given (and may thus be referred to by them as "my breath" or "my spirit"). But it is important to remember that this same breath or spirit is common to all "living souls." It is not a person that exists somewhere in a conscious state after one dies.

Is Your Hope Set on the Living God?

In the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh - the God of Israel - is frequently contrasted with the false gods worshipped by the nations. To emphasize the superiority of Yahweh over these false gods, he is sometimes referred to as "the living God." One notable example is found in Jeremiah 10. After describing the gods of the nations as lifeless idols, the prophet goes on to declare in v. 10, "But Yahweh is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King. At his wrath the earth quakes, and the nations cannot endure his indignation."

The apostle Paul also used this expression when contrasting the true God with the false gods worshipped by the nations. In Acts 14, we read that the people of Lystra were so astonished by a miracle performed by Paul that they mistakenly believed he and Barnabas to be manifestations of the gods Zeus and Hermes. When they attempted to offer sacrifices to them, Paul cried out, "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them." Here Paul referred to God as the "living God" to contrast him with the false gods believed in by the people of Lystra. And in Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, we read of how these believers had "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come" (1 Thess. 1:9-10). As in Acts 14, the true God is said to be "living" not just because he is living (which, of course, is true) but to emphasize his superiority over the idols which the believers in Thessalonica had formerly served.

Now, consider how, in v. 10, Paul refers to Christ as "his Son." Whose Son? Answer: "the living and true God." Being the Son of the living and true God, it necessarily follows that Jesus is not himself the living and true God (for Jesus is not his own Father). Moreover, Scripture is clear that the living God is not only Jesus' Father, but he is also Jesus' God (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, 17; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3; Rev. 1:6; 3:12). Jesus is therefore distinct from the living God. It also follows that any object of man's worship that isn't the God and Father of Christ is also not the living God. This criteria not only disqualifies the deities of other major world religions (such as Islam), it disqualifies the deity of mainstream Christianity as well. For the God affirmed in the orthodox creeds of Christianity (as well as in the various "statements of faith" of mainline Christian churches) is a "triune" being consisting of three distinct but equally divine "persons" (i.e., God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit). But Jesus is not the Son of this "tri-personal" being. He is instead the Son of a "uni-personal" divine being (i.e., the Father). And since the triune God of mainstream Christianity is not the God and Father of Jesus, this god is not the "living and true God" of whom Paul wrote.

In 1 Timothy 4:10, Paul provides us with another important criteria that disqualifies the god of mainstream Christianity from being the true and living God. There, Paul writes, "For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." To better understand Paul's use of the word translated "especially" here, we need only look to other examples of this word in his letters. In Galatians 6:10 we read, "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith" (cf. 1 Cor. 14:1; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 5:8, 17; Titus 1:10; Philemon 16). Obviously, Paul is not saying here that believers are to "do good" to those who are of "the household of faith" to the exclusion of all others. Paul is saying that believers are to do good to all people, but that those who are of "the household of faith" should be of first priority. Similarly, Paul calls God the Savior "especially of those who believe," since Scripture reveals that believers are going to be saved by God before everyone else. But this early salvation of believers does not in any way take away from the salvation that all people are certain to receive from God at a later time, when Christ abolishes death (including the "second death!") and God becomes "all in all."

Unlike the living God on whom Paul and his fellow believers relied, the God of mainstream Christianity is most assuredly not "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." The God of mainstream Christianity is the savior of believers exclusively (not "especially"). Depending on which theological "camp" they fall into, Christians must admit that the God in whom they believe is, in the end, either unable or unwilling to save all people without exception. According to mainstream Christian doctrine, all who die without faith in Christ will be lost forever and consigned to a place of eternal conscious torment. But thank God that this god - a "savior" who either cannot or will not save all people from such a hopeless and nightmarish place - is just as imaginary as the place itself, and that all who presently lack this knowledge will one day come to rejoice in it.

The Salvation of All: A Necessary Inference

If there's snow covering the ground in the morning, one may infer that the temperature was below 32 degrees during the night. This would be a necessary inference - i.e., “a conclusion militated by reason and logic applied to known facts.” We use such reasoning in everyday life so often that we usually don't even realize we are doing it. If I tell you my age, that is a direct statement. But if tell you the date of my birth, you may reason to the same conclusion. This is all that is meant by "necessary inference." It's a conclusion that is not directly stated but necessarily follows from other known facts. Whether a conclusion is stated directly or indirectly, either way it is just as true.

Some seem wary of the use of logic and reason when it comes to reading Scripture and trying to understand what it teaches. It’s almost as if they see logic and reason as enemies of our faith. The reality, however, is that logic and reason are invaluable allies of the student of Scripture. If anything, it is more often our feelings and desires – and not clear, logical thinking – that get in the way of truth.

Now, it’s evident that Scripture sanctions the use of reasoning in our coming to believe what is true. We read that Paul "reasoned from the scriptures" to prove that Christ must die and rise again, and that Jesus is the Christ (the "scriptures" from which Paul reasoned were the Old Testament - cf. Acts 28:23). But what passage from the Hebrew Scriptures directly or explicitly states that Christ would rise from the dead (without reasoning to conclusions)? What passage directly or explicitly stated that Jesus of Nazareth would be Christ? Hebrew prophecy definitely shows that Jesus is the Christ, but this requires taking passages and reasoning to the necessary conclusion that Jesus would rise from the dead, and that he is the Christ. Note that this was the method Paul "customarily" used to persuade people (Acts 17:2).

Peter used this kind of argumentation as well. For example, he quoted David's prophecy that "you will not leave my soul in Hades nor allow your Holy One to see corruption" (v. 27). He reasoned as follows: 1. David said "my" soul, but he could not have meant himself since he did die (v. 29). "Therefore" (conclusion), the reference must have been to the Christ, David's descendant (v. 30). 2. And if he did not see corruption, then he must have been raised from the dead (v. 31).

Another example of necessary inference can be found in Acts 11:1-18 (cf. 10:9-35, 44-48). The Jews were questioning Peter for teaching the gospel to Gentiles. But it was concluded that Peter was in the right because of the following facts: 1. He had a vision showing he should not consider things unclean if God had cleansed them. 2. The Spirit told him to go with the messengers from Cornelius. 3. An angel had told Cornelius to send for Peter. 4. Cornelius received Holy Spirit baptism as Peter preached to them. Peter and the Jews thus came to the conclusion that the Gentiles had been granted repentance to life (note "therefore" and "then" - vv. 17-18). (cf. Peter's conclusion in 10:28.) Here is one of the most important doctrines of the New Testament; yet the practice was begun on the basis of evidence, none of which directly stated the conclusion. The conclusion had to be inferred.

Jesus himself made use of logic and reason in his teaching and interactions with people, and expected those listening to him to do the same. For example, the synoptic Gospels inform us that the Sadducees (who did not believe there would be a resurrection; see Mark 12:18; Acts 23:8) confronted Jesus with an anti-resurrection argument in an attempt to confound him and undermine his growing influence (Mark 12:18-23). The argument with which they confronted Jesus is an example of a reductio ad absurdum. In such an argument you grant your opponent's premise (in this case, that there will be a resurrection), show that it leads to an absurd or unacceptable conclusion (in this case, that adultery will be permissible in the resurrection), and argue, therefore, that the granted premise should be denied.

In response to their argument against the resurrection, Jesus used Scripture and reason to expose the error of the Sadducees, and to teach those listening the truth on this subject (vv. 24-27). Note that Jesus did not condemn reasoning from scripture; what he condemned was reasoning incorrectly. A scribe who overheard this interaction between Jesus and the Sadducees understood them to be "reasoning together" (Mark 12:28). But Jesus exposed the erroneous premises on which the Sadducees' argument was based, and concluded that they were "greatly mistaken"(v. 27). By applying reason to what Scripture said, Jesus was able to infer this remarkable conclusion from a verse that directly said nothing about resurrection, and thereby confound those who had attempted to confound him.

Finally, consider also the use of rhetorical questions in Scripture. These are questions asked for which the hearer is expected to understand the answer without explicitly being told it. Some examples are 1 Corinthians 1:13; Luke 10:36f; Mark 8:36f; 1 Peter 4:17f; etc. All these instances require the student to reach conclusions that are not directly stated, but must be inferred.

Many other examples of such argumentation being used in Scripture could be given, but these should be sufficient to convince the reader of the importance on which Scripture places the use of logical thinking in coming to know what is true. The capacity to reason and think critically is a gift from God, and we should make every effort to use it as we seek to understand what God has revealed to us in Scripture.

An Inferior Hope

Consider the following question that a person might ask their pastor concerning a loved one who (as far as they know) died in unbelief: "Is there any hope for those who die before coming to faith in Christ?" In response to such a question, the only honest and consistent answer that a herald of the gospel (as it is popularly understood) could give is, "None whatsoever." Thus, the gospel as popularly understood by both Christians and non-Christians alike is a message woefully inadequate in its ability to provide hope for all people. It is so inadequate, in fact, that it provides no hope whatsoever for a vast number of human beings (i.e., those who die in a state of unbelief, without having yet been justified by God). It is my belief that the true gospel is a sure and abundant source of inspiration and encouragement in all circumstances - even the death of a loved one who dies in unbelief. And it is also my belief that the hope which the gospel provides is consistent with our purest and loftiest desires. But if this is the case, this hope is also incomparably greater than the hope that most Christians have, unfortunately, settled.

It is a widely-held belief among most professing Christians that our life on this earth is probationary, and that God has suspended the eternal destiny of his image-bearing creatures on something that they must do or experience before they die. "Where will you spend eternity?" is a somber question often included in the presentation of the gospel by "evangelical Christians" (especially prominent in gospel tracts). This rhetorical question is, of course, meant to elicit a repentant response of faith from those to whom it is posed. But the underlying assumption of this and other similar questions is that there is more than one location or state in which a person might spend the entirety of their future, post-mortem existence, and that their final, eternal destiny ultimately hinges on a decision they must make - or a conversion experience they must have - before they die. According to the traditional view, those who die in unbelief regarding Jesus Christ and his redemptive work will find themselves irreversibly and irredeemably condemned to a hopeless, God-forsaken place of suffering and despair with no possibility of relief or deliverance. After billions and billions of years of separation from all that is good and worth living for, the unredeemed will be no closer to an end of their suffering than they were the moment it first began. It is this disturbing and nightmarish scene that is implicit in every presentation of the traditional, "orthodox" gospel.

According to the traditional view, "hell" (a place or state of eternal conscious torment or permanent loss) is to be the fate of a vast number of human beings. And assuming such a place of unimaginable horror and hopelessness awaits those who die in a certain state or condition, how could anyone avoid this fate without a Savior who is both able and willing to save them? But according to the gospel as it's traditionally understood and proclaimed, Jesus is either unwilling or unable to do just this. Consider the two most popular theological camps into which most Christians fall: the Arminian camp (named after Jacobus Arminius, 1560-1609) and the Calvinist camp (named after John Calvin, 1509-1564).

For those Christians who fall into the Arminian (or "free will") theological camp, humans are able to successfully thwart God's sovereign purpose for them by resisting his best efforts to save them. According to this position, God genuinely wants all people to be reconciled to himself, and sent his Son into the world to die for all people without exception. This position also affirms that God is doing everything he can (at least, up until a certain point) to make the salvation of all people a reality. However, Arminians also believe that God is ultimately unable to achieve what he wants due to the exercise of human "free will." A small number of so-called "Free Will Theists" hold that, even though God may pursue the salvation of sinners forever, this is no guarantee that God will actually succeed in saving them (for, they believe, his will may simply be forever resisted by them). The more common view, however, is that God will pursue the salvation of sinners only up to a certain point (e.g., physical death, or even some time prior to this), after which time God gives up on them completely, and they are lost forever. Either way, God is ultimately unsuccessful according to the Arminian position, and loses many whom he'd desired and hoped would be saved.

The situation is very different for the traditional Reformed/Calvinist position. For those who fall into this theological camp, God is fully able to save all people and reconcile them to himself, but he is ultimately unwilling to do this, and did not send Jesus into the world for this purpose. Some Calvinists believe (inconsistently) that Jesus died for everyone, and that the atonement is thus universal in its scope. What makes this view inconsistent is that they also believe that God elected only some to be finally saved, and that he works redemptively and efficaciously in the hearts of only this select category of people to bring them to saving faith in Christ and his atoning work. From the rest of humanity he withholds his redeeming grace, leaving them to die in a state of sinful rebellion and unbelief (and ultimately, to suffer his wrath for all eternity in hell). Thus, according to Calvinism, God is fully successful in his redemptive purpose, and saves no less (and no more) than the exact number of people that he wanted to save from before the foundation of the world.

As is obvious from the above descriptions, the Arminian and Calvinist positions differ radically in what they affirm and deny in terms of God's willingness and ability to save people. This has, unsurprisingly, been a source of ongoing debates and controversies between both parties throughout much of church history, with some on both sides of the debate being reluctant or unwilling to consider the opposing party as being within the bounds of what they consider to be Christian orthodoxy (or, in more extreme cases, to be considered "Christian" at all!). It is significant, however, that both views ultimately lead to the exact same conclusion - namely, that most people will never be reconciled to God but will instead spend their final state in endless separation from him. Thus, according to these two theological views, those persons who end up forever lost do so ultimately because God either lacked the will or the power to actually save them. But is this the true and living God revealed in scripture? I don't think so. I believe that God is much better - infinitely better - than this, and that the facts of the gospel - and the unavoidable implication that follows from these facts - will bear this out fully, as we'll see in the remainder of this article.

Fact 1: Jesus Loves You, This I Know

Scripture teaches that Christ was conceived and born a human being (Heb. 2:14, 17; 1 John 4:2-3), and that he lived his entire life without sin (John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 7:26-27; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). And since "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4), it follows that Christ perfectly kept - and continues to keep - the law of God. That is, Christ perfectly met, and continues to meet, the holy demands of God's law. But what is the law of God? What does it demand of men? Along with the commandment to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, the greatest commandment, according to Jesus, is to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matt 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-31). This sacred commandment is called the "royal law" by the apostle James (James 2:8). And according to the apostle Paul, it is this commandment in which the entire law is "fulfilled" (Gal 5:14) and "summed up" (Rom 13:9). There can be no denying the centrality and supremacy of this law in the NT.

But what is love? Although the word is never explicitly defined in Scripture, enough is said about love to give us a good understanding of its nature. According to Paul, the reason why the entire law is "summed up" in the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves is because "love does no harm to a neighbor" (v. 10). By doing "harm to a neighbor" Paul evidently meant doing anything which is inconsistent with a person's best interest. Love, then, necessarily does the opposite - i.e., it seeks to promote a person's best interest in whatever way it can. Love wills the highest good and well-being of others, not their harm. 

Though love may at times appear severe from the perspective of the beloved, it always looks to the future happiness and well-being of its object (Heb 12:5-11). It does not and cannot will pain and suffering as an end in itself. In Lamentations 3:31-33 we read, "For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly (lit., "from the heart") afflict or grieve the children of men." Here the prophet reveals what may be understood as a universal principle underlying God's relationship with humanity: the grief that God causes his human creatures is temporary, and is not an end in itself. God's ultimate purpose for humanity does not involve anyone's being afflicted or grieved. And in 1 John 4:8 the apostle reveals why this is so: because "God is love." Because God's nature is unequivocally defined by love, it is impossible for him to do anything that is inconsistent with anyone's best interest.

Having briefly considered the nature of love, let us now ask: does Christ perfectly obey the commandments that he himself declared to be the greatest of all? That is, does Jesus keep God's law? It would be impossible to deny this while at the same time affirming Jesus' sinless nature. Thus, we may say with confidence that, not only does Jesus love his Father with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength, but that he also loves his neighbor as himself. 

Now, it is evident that by one's "neighbor" Christ meant anyone within the sphere of one's influence, whether they be considered a friend or a foe (Luke 10:25-37; Matt 5:43-45). This means that Christ loves (i.e., wills the best interest of) all people, both dead and living- for as Lord of all, all people are within the sphere of Jesus' sovereign influence. And his perfect obedience to God's law necessitates that Christ's love not only embraces the entirety of Adam's fallen race, but that his love for all people is at least equal to his love for himself.

That Paul understood Christ's love to be greater and more extensive than anyone can fathom is evident from his writings. Consider, for example, Paul's powerful prayer in Ephesians 3:14-19:

For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord's holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

Notice how Paul speaks of people who are "rooted and established (or "grounded") in love" as needing power just to grasp (or "comprehend") "how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ." If Christ's love was somehow limited, it would not require any power to grasp, and it certainly couldn't be said to "surpass knowledge." We encounter such limited, imperfect love every day, both in other people and in ourselves. But the love of the one who not only commanded his disciples to love their enemies, but then showed what this kind of looks like by laying down his life for a sinful, selfish world, can truly be said to "surpass knowledge." Christ's love is infinite in scope; there are no limits to its width and length and height and depth. It is for this reason that fallen human beings require power from God just to grasp it.

Now, let us ask: What would such perfect and limitless love want to do for those who comprise the objects of its embrace? Answer: Anyone whose heart was motivationally governed by such perfect, unsurpassable love would want to do all that was within their power to promote the best interest of their neighbors to the fullest extent possible. Thus, because Jesus' disposition toward all people is one of complete benevolence, it would be impossible for him to neglect to do all that he could to promote the best interest of his fellow man. His perfect obedience to God's law means that he could never will anything less than this for anyone. Because perfect love is necessarily redemptive in nature, it follows that if Jesus could save everyone and make them fit for heaven, he would do so, ultimately. But can he?

Fact 2: Jesus is Lord of Everyone

As important as the fact of Jesus' love for the world is to our faith, this fact alone would be insufficient as a grounds for trusting him to actually save anyone. For to have the will and desire to do something does not, by itself, mean one also has the authority and power. The latter fact must be established independently of the former. While Jesus is fully willing and inclined to save everyone, this in itself is no guarantee that he will, in fact, save everyone. So let us ask: does Jesus also have the authority and power to do what we know he has the will and desire to accomplish? To answer this question, let us consider another essential aspect of Christ's identity: his Lordship.

Central to the believer's understanding of the gospel is the fact that Jesus is Lord (Luke 2:10-11; Rom 10:9). When God raised Jesus from the dead, we are told that he made him "Lord of all" (Acts 2:36; 10:36; Rom 10:12) and gave him "all authority in heaven and on earth" (Matt 28:18). In Romans 14:8-9 Paul gives his readers the end or purpose for which Christ died: so that he "might be Lord both of the dead and of the living." The "dead and the living," of course, includes the entire human race, for all people come under one of these two divisions. Moreover, the word "Lord" (kyrios) is a title of respect and dignity, and in its fullest sense denotes one who has absolute ownership rights of another, claiming them as one's property. 

Because of his humble, lifelong obedience to God that culminated in his death on a cross, God raised Jesus from the dead and gave him this exalted status, thereby making Christ the "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36; cf. 1 Cor 11:3). Elsewhere we learn that all people have been given to Christ by God (John 3:35; 13:3; Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22) and that Christ is "the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15) and thus the inheritor of "all things" (Heb. 1:2 cf. Psalm 2:8). While some Christians today seem to hold to the mistaken idea that Jesus must be made Lord of one's life, the truth is that Jesus is already Lord of everyone's life. He is our Lord regardless of whether or not we realize it or are presently submitting to his Lordship. And as Lord, it is his will - not ours - that will ultimately be done.

We are further told that Jesus has the power to subject all to himself (Phil 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 15:25-28), and that there is nothing outside of his control (Heb. 2:8). Thus, that which had previously been said of the Father can now be said of the Son: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). "Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the deeps" (Ps 135:6). "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'" (Dan 4:35). To be "Lord" is to have absolute ownership rights. As Lord of all, it necessarily follows that Jesus is completely sovereign over the destiny of all people, whether living or dead. That is, Jesus has the full power and authority to determine the final state of each and every individual; as Lord of all, our lives are completely at his disposal, and he alone is the final arbitrator of human destiny.

If Jesus wants everyone to remain sinful for all eternity, he has the power and authority to make it so (we certainly have no power or authority to make ourselves fit for heaven!). And if Jesus wants to ultimately transform all people into loyal and obedient subjects of God, he has the power and authority to bring it about. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him. It is, therefore, entirely up to Jesus whether or not people will remain sinful wretches for all eternity, or be transformed into holy subjects of God's kingdom. We are all, quite literally, at Jesus' complete mercy. As Lord of all, there is nothing in heaven or on earth that can prevent Jesus from accomplishing his will and purpose for each and every human being. Jesus and Jesus alone has the final word in regards to our future destiny. Like his Father, Jesus is to us the Potter, and we are but clay (Isaiah 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6). Any threat to his sovereignty is only apparent, not real. All opposition to his will must ultimately yield.

But mustn't a person's subjection to Jesus be voluntary if they are to be truly saved and made fit for an eternity in heaven? Of course. We should rightfully think it absurd to speak of people being forced into heaven whilst remaining in a state of willful disobedience and hardened rebellion against God. But this is not at all what is being argued for here. The salvation of any sinner ultimately involves a transformation of the heart (brought about by God) which leads to the voluntary re-alignment of the human will with the divine will. And since God is all-wise and all-knowing, he necessarily knows the exact conditions and circumstances in which such a response to his grace would be elicited from all people without exception. 

That is, God - being God - necessarily knows exactly what it would take to elicit such voluntary love and obedience from every one of his image-bearing creatures. Being all-knowing and all-wise, God knows the exact conditions necessary to bring about a state of universal salvation in which all people respond to Jesus' Lordship with heartfelt obedience, and to his grace with love and thanksgiving. And since Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth from his Father, it follows that he has the authority to bring about the exact conditions and circumstances necessary to elicit such a response from all people, regardless of how sinful and hardened in rebellion against God they might presently be.

The apostle Paul, perhaps more than any other person, had a clear understanding of the truth of divine sovereignty (Rom 9:19-20). Consider that it is Paul who declared himself to be the "chief of sinners" whom Christ came into the world to save (1 Tim 1:15). But in spite of his hard-heartedness and self-righteousness, Jesus graciously saved Paul from his own unbelief. On the road to Damascus, Paul was neither seeking out God, nor repentant, nor deep in prayer contemplating whether or not to "accept Jesus as his personal Savior." He was instead in the middle of hunting down more believers in order to have them imprisoned, or worse (Acts 9:1-6). Though overflowing with religious zeal, he was deep in unbelief, and utterly oblivious to the fact that he was, in actuality, living in rebellion against the true Messiah and Lord of the universe.

Yet when the appointed time came (see Gal 1:13-16), Christ appeared to Paul and subjected him to himself in an instant with the glorious revelation of who he is. As a result of his remarkable encounter with the risen Christ, Paul was forever changed, and his will forever yielded to Christ – and this took place without any resistance from Paul. Paul tells us that "the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 1:14). Jesus' grace was "more than abundant" (lit., "super-abounded"; cf. Rom 5:20) and overwhelmed Paul, irresistibly producing within him both his faith in, and love for, his Savior. Paul was incapable of fighting it off or rejecting it; it would have been like trying to stop the sun's rays from lighting up the sky at daybreak. And if Jesus thus saved Paul, it stands to reason that he can save anyone, irrespective of their present unbelief or unwillingness to seek God.

A necessary conclusion

As Lord of all, it is evident that Jesus has unlimited power and authority to do for all people what he is, in his heart, inclined or willing to do for them. So if it is indeed true that Jesus is Lord of all, then it follows that Jesus has all power and authority to promote, to the fullest extent possible, the best interest of all people. Christ has the authority and power to ultimately transform each and every sinner into a loyal subject of God, just as he did for Paul on the road to Damascus. Again, as Lord, there is nothing in heaven or on earth that can prevent him from doing what he wants to do. And since the extent to which the best interest of others can be promoted is determined by one's power and wisdom, it follows that Jesus is fully able to promote the best interest of all people to the fullest extent (for he has all power and wisdom). This means that Jesus is fully able to bring every person who has ever lived to the same place of willing, humble submission to himself that Paul was brought to on the day that his apostolic destiny was revealed to him.

If Jesus wants all people to be reconciled to God that they might thereby fulfill the "chief end" for which they were created (which, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is "to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever") then there is nothing to prevent this from happening. And since Jesus loves all people perfectly, we can be confident that Jesus does, indeed, want all people to be reconciled to God. So what is the conclusion (the "necessary inference") that we should draw from these facts? Answer: We should conclude that all people are ultimately going to be reconciled to God and become willing, obedient subjects of his kingdom.

Consider the following argument:

(1) Jesus' love for all people is equal to his love for himself, which means he is fully inclined to save all people (i.e., Jesus genuinely wants to ultimately bring about the circumstances in which voluntary love and obedience will be elicited from all people).

(2) Jesus is Lord of all, which means he is sovereign over the destinies of all people, both dead and living (i.e., Jesus is fully able to bring about the circumstances in which voluntary love and obedience will be elicited from all people).

(3) Because Jesus is both fully able and fully inclined to save all people, it follows (as a necessary inference) that all people, whether living or dead, will ultimately be saved by Christ, and will become willing, obedient subjects of God's kingdom.

The conclusion of this argument follows unavoidably from the known facts. According to this argument, if some people will not ultimately be saved, then it will either be because (1) Jesus was unable to save them (which would mean that Jesus is not Lord of all), or because (2) Jesus was unwilling to save them (which would mean Jesus does not perfectly keep God's law). One would be trying in vain to discover a third option. Jesus is either able to save everyone, or he is not. Jesus either genuinely wants everyone to be saved, or he does not. If Jesus is neither able nor willing to save everyone, then it follows that not everyone will be saved. But if Jesus is both able and willing, then it is inevitable that everyone will ultimately be saved. One may not understand how or when Jesus will accomplish the salvation of all people, but we can be certain that it will be accomplished. Jesus' love for sinners (manifested most fully in his sacrificial death on the cross - 1 Pet 3:18; Rom 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Luke 23:34) and his power and authority to subject sinners to himself (manifested most fully in the miraculous conversion of Paul) unite to forge an unbreakable divine promise that all sinners will ultimately be reconciled to God. To deny this conclusion one must deny either Jesus' power and authority to save all people, or his desire and willingness to save all people.

But What About...?

In spite of the above argument, many will still find themselves unable to embrace the conclusion at which we've arrived (in spite of the fact that the conclusion irresistibly follows from the premises). The following are three objections that may be raised.

Objection 1: "Universal Salvation Contradicts Scripture"

What about the passages in Scripture that have traditionally been understood to teach or imply that some will never be saved? This is a legitimate question. The short answer is that such passages have been mistranslated and/or misinterpreted. However, it is not the purpose of this article to examine such passages. While the importance of carefully examining Biblical texts and weighing the validity and probability of interpretations cannot be overstated, a lack of full understanding of how exactly a verse or passage should be interpreted need not be a hindrance to trusting that God will ultimately save all people. Consider the following: Is it more certain that Jesus Christ is both able and inclined to save everyone, or is it more certain that the traditional interpretations given to a certain set of passages are correct? In view of the above arguments, I submit that every candid reader will have to admit that the former is far more certain than the latter. Jesus' ability and willingness to save all people are undeniable and irrefutable facts which, when seriously reflected upon, no Christian can honestly deny. However, the traditional interpretations given to passages such as Revelation 20:11-15 or Matthew 25:46 (for example) are not nearly so certain. It is far more likely that those texts which have traditionally been thought to teach or imply that some will never be saved have been misinterpreted by readers of Scripture than it is that the Bible does not teach Christ's universal Lordship or his redemptive disposition toward Adam's fallen race.

So while a person may have some degree of confidence as to the correctness of the traditional interpretation of passages like Matt 25:46 or Rev 20:1-15, nothing can be more certain than the dual facts that (1) Jesus is a sinless human being who is perfectly obedient to God's law and, consequently, fully inclined to ultimately reconcile every person to God, and that (2) Jesus is Lord of all, and consequently has the power and authority to reconcile every person to God. Upon these two pillars of truth rests the glorious hope of the final salvation of all mankind. When considered in the light of these essential truths about Christ, the doctrine of an "eternal hell" for any portion of mankind is shown to be false and of uninspired origin. If Jesus is in fact Lord of all, then the ultimate salvation of all people is a future certainty. There is no possibility that it will not take place. But if, according to the traditional understanding of the gospel, some people will never be saved, then it would entail that Christ is either unwilling or unable to save them. And as we've seen, neither is, nor can be, true. They are utter impossibilities. Jesus is both fully able and fully inclined to save everyone. Thus, it follows that the interpretation of any inspired Biblical passage which would entail that Christ is either unwilling or unable to save all people is necessarily a false interpretation, and must consequently be rejected. Even if one is unsure of how exactly a verse or passage harmonizes with the Scriptural fact that Jesus is going to save everyone, one need not doubt this fact, or the inspiration of the verses in question. Assuming one is willing to affirm the authority and internal consistency of Scripture, it is not necessary to know how exactly a verse should be interpreted in order to know how it can't be interpreted.

Objection 2: "Universal Salvation Wouldn't Be Fair"

While some people will happily embrace the idea of universal salvation as good news, others are much less thrilled at the thought of anyone's being saved apart from their becoming a believer before they die. "If everyone's ultimately going to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth," some might ask, "what's the point of being a believer in this life?" Others will go so far as to say something like, "If I believed everyone was ultimately going to heaven, I would just do whatever I wanted to now, and live it up. If we're all going to be saved regardless of what we do, why shouldn't I?" But what a person seems to be saying when they respond in this way is that they see no present advantage to being a believer. They would (it would seem) trade every spiritual blessing that is presently available to believers for all that this world has to offer if they thought that everyone was ultimately going to be saved. The belief that they're avoiding some kind of post-mortem calamity of eternal consequence by being a faithful "Christian" is (it would seem) the only thing that's preventing them from abandoning their faith altogether and doing what they really want to do (which, apparently, is living a life of godless hedonism and yielding without resistance to every temptation that presents itself to them).

Little needs to be said in response to this kind of reasoning. As will be evident to most reading, such a response to the idea of universal salvation is little more than a knee-jerk reaction that, unfortunately, betrays a rather dubious motive for becoming (and remaining) a disciple of Christ. The simple fact is that the truth of universal salvation in no way means there is no advantage to being a believer now or in the future. Moreover, it's important for those who think it's "unfair" for people to be saved without believing on Christ in this life to understand that, apart from God's graciously bringing about saving faith in our hearts, no one would be saved by faith in this life. It is ultimately because of God's sovereign will and purpose that anyone becomes a believer or remains an unbeliever. The faith that distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever is not something that the believer originated by the power of his own "free will" (i.e., will-power), and for which he/she can take any credit. 

According to Paul, a person is a believer rather than an unbeliever because God predestined them for this and chose them as the "firstfruits" to be saved (Rom 8:28-30; 2 Thess. 2:13). A person believes because it was granted to them by God that they should believe (Phil 1:29), and God graciously assigned to them a measure of faith (Rom 12:3). Paul understood that it was God's grace - not his own innate goodness or willingness- that was the source of his faith and love (1 Tim 1:13-14). When a person believes and becomes a "new creation in Christ," this is no less the sovereign work of God than the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is all God's doing (2 Cor. 5:17-18). God alone is the efficient cause of our believing the truth and being "born again" (John 1:12–13; 1 John 3:1–2, 9; 5:1).

Because God is working all things according to the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11), someone's being a believer or an unbeliever must ultimately be attributed to God's purpose and will, and not their own. Although God certainly works through the instrumentality of human beings in reconciling people to himself, it is God alone who "gives the growth" (1 Cor. 3:5-9). There is nothing that we contribute to our salvation that does not ultimately have its source in God. Apart from God's Spirit at work in one's mind and heart, one would have no interest in spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Our hearts must be opened by God just so that we will pay attention to what is being said when the gospel is proclaimed to us (Acts 16:14), and those who hear and believe the truth do so only because they were appointed by God for this (Acts 13:48). No one becomes a believer or remains an unbeliever apart from the divinely-controlled circumstances that God is using to accomplish his redemptive purpose in the world. There is not a single person who is saved apart from God's will that they be saved, and there is not a single person whom God has tried to save but was unsuccessful. Any objections that the salvation of some people apart from faith would be "unfair" are, therefore, entirely unwarranted.

Objection 3: "All Are Not Saved Now"

The final objection we will consider could be expressed as follows: "Granting that Jesus could save everyone and make them fit for heaven, the fact is that he hasn't done this yet. And since Jesus is clearly permitting people to remain unsaved now, why not believe he will permit people to remain unsaved for all eternity? Why think it will be any different in the future?"

Notice the word "yet" used in the above objection ("...the fact is that he hasn't done this YET."). This small word makes a huge difference, and even if it was absent from the objection, I would urge its inclusion. For just because Jesus hasn't saved everyone YET doesn't mean his intention isn't to save everyone at some future time. Is Jesus doing everything within his power and authority to make every person who has ever lived fit for heaven right now? If Jesus is, in fact, doing everything within his power and authority to make all people fit for heaven right now, then it would mean that Jesus' power and authority over human beings is extremely limited (for of course, there is not a human being living on this planet who could be considered fit for an eternity in heaven right now). But as noted earlier, Scripture does not allow us to affirm anything less than the complete sovereignty of Jesus over all people (Matt 28:18 Acts 10:36; Rom 14:9; Phil 2:9-11; 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 15:25-28). We are even told that there is nothing outside of Jesus' control (Heb 2:8). Thus, the only tenable position for the believer is that Jesus isn't presently doing everything within his power and authority to make all people fit for heaven right now.

But if Jesus has the power and authority to make any given person fit for heaven right now, can we consider his unwillingness to do so as being inconsistent with his love for the person? Not at all. For an unwillingness on Jesus' part to exercise his power and authority to make any given person fit for heaven right now is perfectly consistent with Jesus' love for the person. How so? The answer is simply that love does not merely seek to promote the present happiness of another, but rather seeks promote their ultimate well-being, or best interests. In order to secure a more lasting and worthwhile blessing for human beings, it is quite possible that Christ must be willing to allow us to experience temporary unhappiness and pain, apart from which the "chief end" for which we were created by God could not be realized. Thus, if Jesus' will is that all people will ultimately be perfected and realize the chief end for which they were created (which is glorifying God and enjoying him forever), then his being unwilling to make all people fit for heaven right now is perfectly consistent with his love for them.

Consider the fact that no one thinks they've already experienced the fullness of their salvation from sin, pain and death yet. But this doesn't mean we're never going to experience it. There is an infinite difference between Jesus' permitting the temporary sinfulness and suffering of those within the sphere of his influence, and his permitting the endless sinfulness and suffering of those within the sphere of his influence. To truly love a person means to will their ultimate good or well-being as an end. That is, love is concerned with a person's best interests, and not merely with what will make someone happy right now, in the short-term. The permitting of temporary sin and suffering is fully consistent with a person's ultimate good and well-being, and thus may be considered fully consistent with Jesus' love for them. The permitting of endless sinfulness and suffering, however, is not consistent with a person's ultimate well-being and best interests, and thus cannot be consistent with love.

If some people are never going to be saved from everything from which they need to be saved - and Jesus has the power and authority to accomplish their salvation - then their fate is ultimately due to an unwillingness on Jesus' part. And this unwillingness to ever save them (which is a willingness to leave them in a permanent state of sin and suffering) could not possibly be understood as an expression of love for the person. Rather, this unwillingness would betray either hatred/ill-will for the persons or (what's just as evil) a calloused indifference toward them. But any unwillingness to promote the bests interests of those within the sphere of his influence would be impossible for Jesus.

I'll close this essay with a quote from one of the "early church fathers," Clement of Alexandria (c.150 – c. 215):

For either the Lord does not care for all men (and this is the case either because he is unable- which is not to be thought, for it would be a proof of weakness - or because he is unwilling, which is not the attribute of a good being - and he who for our sakes assumed flesh capable of suffering, is far from being luxuriously indolent) or he does care for all, which is befitting for him who has become Lord of all. For he is Savior; not of some, and of others not. But in proportion to the adaptation possessed by each, he has dispensed his beneficence both to Greeks and Barbarians, even to those of them that were predestinated, and in due time called, the faithful and elect...And it cannot be said that it is from ignorance that the Lord is not willing to save humanity, because he knows not how each one is to be cared for. For ignorance applies not to the God who, before the foundation of the world, was the counselor of the Father...Nor does he ever abandon care for men, by being drawn aside from pleasure, who, having assumed flesh, which by nature is susceptible of suffering, trained it to the condition of impassibility.

And how is he Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all? But he is the Savior of those who have believed, because of their wishing to know; and the Lord of those who have not believed, till, being enabled to confess him, they obtain the peculiar and appropriate boon which comes by him.

The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter II.—The Son the Ruler and Savior of All (http://st-takla.org/books/en/ecf/002/0020412.html)