Can you get out of hell?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ย. 2024
- Matthew 5:17-26.
The end of the Law and the Prophets is described in the same terms as the end of a person’s experience in hell.
Christian Universalism
Universalism
Universal Christianity
Universal Salvation
Universal Reconciliation
Hell
Heaven
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
Great job pointing out the parallelism in Matthew 5.
would any dad who loves his kids allow them to suffer eternally ?💔😢
Thing is.. people like me unfortunately become Satan's children at one point.... the ownership changed.......... I wish I was still God's child.
i'm working my way through your messages and decided to look into one, right after completing my morning online devotions.
in what i consider one of God's very gentle, personal ways of making a point, today's gospel lectionary reading [which i read about 10 minutes ago] includes the comment by Jesus about "getting out", which is also part of your opening comments, here.
i just stumbled across your site within the past few days and i'm enjoying it greatly.
Thanks for the encouraging words!
So glad you’re enjoying the content!
Another universalist here
An excellent presentation. Here are a few more reasons people can get out of hell:
THE FORGIVABLE SINS -- "Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not ... either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:31-32). The wording strongly suggests that all sins except one, including blasphemies against Christ, will be forgiven in the next age if they're not forgiven in this age. (For Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, compare Matt. 12:32 with Eph. 2:7.)
BAPTISMS FOR THE DEAD -- In 1 Cor. 15:29, Paul addresses -- and does not condemn (per se) -- the Corinthians' practice of being baptized for the dead. But this practice would have been absurd if one's eternal fate is sealed at death. Also, prayers for the dead were almost universal in the early church.
THE DEAD HEAR THE GOSPEL AND LIVE -- "For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may *live in the spirit* according to the will of God" (1 Peter 4:6). (Also see Psalm 68:18, Zech. 9:11-12, Matt. 12:29, Eph. 4:8-10.)
WHO IS THIRSTY? -- "The Spirit and the Bride say, 'Come'. And let the one who hears say, 'Come'. And let the one who is *thirsty* come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price." (Rev. 22:17) The setting of Rev. 22:17 is the Rev. 21-22 new heaven and new earth, since the "water of life" is also mentioned in Rev. 21:6 & 22:1, and it's the Rev. 21-22 "Bride" who is speaking -- not the "church" or the "lampstands." But who are the thirsty ones? Who else is there? The thirsty ones must be those in the Lake of Fire, located outside the city gates (Rev. 22:14-15), which never close (Rev. 21:25).
SODOM RESTORED -- "I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them ... And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before" (Ezek. 16:53,55). In verses 47-55, the pronouns "their" and "they" identify the restored individuals as being those who were destroyed in Gen. 19 because of their abominations (Ezek. 16:50) and for other reasons (Ezek. 16:49). They will first need to be punished and purified in God's symbolic and refining Lake of Fire.
DRY BONES LIVE -- "Then he said to me, `Son of man, these bones are the *whole* house of Israel. Behold they say, "Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are clean cut off."' Therefore prophesy, and say to them, `Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will open your graves, O my people... And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, O my people. And I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live'" (Ezek. 37:11-14a).
BLINDINGS -- God has either directly caused, or permitted, various groups of people to be blinded to the truth (e.g. Mark 4:10-12, Rom. 11:25, 2 Cor. 4:3-4). This would seem to require an unblinded opportunity in the afterlife.
DEAFENING SILENCE -- The first 2/3 of the Bible is completely silent about Hell, and the last 1/3 uses the ambiguous-at-best Greek word _aion_ and its derivatives to describe Hell's duration. This makes no sense if (a) God is love and (b) eternal torment is true. There would have been clear and dire warnings on almost every page. For instance, why did Noah infinitely understate the penalty when he warned his neighbors only of a worldwide flood and not of eternal conscious torment?
EVENTUAL UNIVERSAL SALVATION EXPLICITLY TAUGHT -- See John 12:32, 17:2, combination of (John 3:35, 6:37), Rom. 5:18-19, 8:19-21, 11:32,36, 14:11 , *1 Cor. 15:22,28* , Eph. 1:10, Phil. 2:10-11, 3:21, Col. 1:20, 1 Tim. 2:3-6, 4:10, Titus 2:11, 1 Pet. 4:6, 1 John 2:2, 4:14, Rev. 5:13, 15:4, 21:5,24-25, 22:2, combination of (Rev. 22:1,14-15,17a,17c), Psalm 22:27,29, 65:2-3, 145:10a, Isa. 25:6-8, 45:22-25, 57:16, Lam. 3:22,31, Ezek. 16:53,55, Mal. 3:2-3. These verses, and many others like them, imply second chances.
There are loads of stories of people entering and leaving heaven and hell. One awesome story is that of Jannes and Jambres (they sneak into heaven).
How does inflation play into all of this? 😂
They past away at the cross, the law that is!
Thank you so much for your easy to understand clarity. I stumbled upon your channel after listening to Bishop Barrons commentary on Hon Von Baltasar as well as a "Difficult to understand monolog" by David Bentley Hart. Wow, he does seem brilliant though! Ha! I also listened to Ralph Martin who is very alarmed how this apparent upswing in the awareness of many Roman Catholic that we dare to hope that all will be saved. What are your thoughts on these gentleman? I might also suggest that you check out the blog and youtube channel of Larry Chapp a retired theology professor who respects Barron, Balthasar, and Vatican ll. He has come out and said he is a Universalist. By the way my wife is a little concerned about my new found interest in this subject. She wants to know about the ultimate salvation of Hitler, Stalin, etc. I told her i guess we will be with them at some point around the table of the Lord. Whoa, I suspect their ultimate redemption will first be delayed by unfathomable pain we cannot comprehend. Thanks again, i made notes in Matthew 5 in the margin of my bible and look forward to your future posts. God bless you.
Thanks for sharing!
I greatly appreciate Bishop Barron. I’ve learned a lot from him and continue to grow from his teaching. I am familiar with Hart and Balthasar but haven’t explored their work deeply up to this point. And I’ll definitely check out the others you mentioned.
Ultimately, I just can’t escape the testimony of Scripture which, for me, clearly indicates that Christian Universalism is true.
Thanks again for the info and feedback!
This fascinates me. Atheism is a valid position then. God would punish you for disbelief temporarily but then you receive the same infinite reward. This God is both unnecessarily cruel and ultimately forgiving, I can't draw the diagrams here but I think there's a strong game theory argument for disbelief.
@@chaotickreg7024 Fair question.
But I f you’re looking for a reason to disbelieve, you’ll definitely find one. For myself, a God that won’t give up on anyone is far more appealing at face value than one who does so. Is never ending punishment the only reason for believing? If so, we should question whether we really care about God, or good, in the first place.
Thanks for the thoughts!
@@orthodoxuniversalist Do you believe in Allah? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? God doesn't present anything for me to even to believe in. It seems believe in God is an empty claim, like a God needs to exist for me to question or doubt, and I don't even see a God we could be talking about. What God? Belief in what?
Accomplished on the cross?
Interesting concept. Could be paying the last penny is just the last step before anhilation. Could be an argument for conditionalism. After all, the second death is a second death.
Thanks for sharing!
Conditionalism definitely lines up with the text better than never ending conscious torment. In regard to whether Universalism or Conditionalism fits better with this text specifically? Well, death isn’t mentioned here, we’re just told that someone confined in hell will “get out” after they pay the last penny. To Christ’s audience, if they were told that someone they knew was going to get out of prison, I can’t imagine that they would think, “Right. They’re going to be executed, then.” Getting out of jail, unless clarified, generally is just synonymous with liberty.
Conditionalism could fit here, but we would have to import it from our understanding of other texts. And again, it definitely fits better than never ending conscious torment does.
Thanks again!
@@orthodoxuniversalist Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You are absolutely correct about this text only pointing to the one theological outcome rather than the other.
I pray that either one of these outcomes is the result in the end but I evangelize like the worst outcome is predicted.
On a personal note, I find it so hard to understand how many Christians I know who are fine with eternal torture. Isn't the implication on God's character an awful one if that is the case. Especially Calvinists who believe in eternal torment. God just made them for torture. What kind of God would that be?
Either way, may the Lord bless you and keep you.
@@MrPYACOBY Thanks for the encouragement!
It feels like the tide is turning in regard to belief in eternal conscious torment. I think the church is waking up to the validity of other positions… hopefully.
Glad we could connect. Thanks again!
@@MrPYACOBY About conditionalism being wrong: "The wages of Sin is death" yes, but what is death? Jesus said "it is better YOU ENTER INTO LIFE" WAIT, ENTER INTO LIFE? DOES IT MEAN I AM DEAD RIGHT NOW? EXACTLY. That's why He said the other parable "Your brother was dead, yet now he is alive". (Meaning repentance)
Not only that, the wages of sin is death, BUT "He who has died is freed from sin" Rom6:7. Just like every believer dies to himseld, so will the lost.
Notice in the parable "you shall enter into life" is written as "you shall enter into the kingdom" in the gospel of Mark, which is more literal. Because LIFE is just a parable of full life with God with a glorified body. The first one was Christ. "ALL SHALL BE VIVIFIED IN CHRIST (He is the second Christ), BUT EACH ONE IN HIS OWN ORDER"1Cor15
And remember the word mistranslated as detroyed is the same word for "released" as in "she is released from the Law", it means "to be done away with" Kata-rgeo or "Katalize + done" or make something fullfilled.
Matt 21:31: - Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God >[before]< you.
It’s important to understand that in Matt 22:31, Jesus taught that the tax collectors and prostitutes were entering and will enter the kingdom of God >[before/ahead] < and not “instead” of those disobedient sons of the kingdom. This understanding makes even more sense of Jesus’ words In Luke 13:30, which come “after” the judgment of Luke 13:27-28.
The context of this saying becomes much clearer in light of Jesus’ teaching In Mark 10:17-27. In this specific case, we have a parallel between those who will not be able to enter the kingdom [ie] the rich young man and those who will be able to enter the kingdom [ie] the elect/disciples. So, in this context, the following words of Jesus [ie] “but many who are first will be last, and the last first”, can only be applied to the “order” of those entering the kingdom.
I think this can be safely established by understanding that being “last” doesn’t mean “never”. After all, what is impossible for man is possible with God [ie] universal reconciliation.
Good presentation!
Peace
Great points! Another group of texts that are often interpreted based on conventional theological notions rather than on the message that they reveal on their own. Thanks for sharing!
I agree with this because it presents the Gospel as Good News without diminishing the seriousness of sin, the reality of punishment (kolasis not timoria), the need of repentance and the centrality of the Cross.
God is good and he is always good. Grace and Peace.
There is no sin.
@@Rileyed Thanks for bringing up these points! Agreed - we definitely don’t want evil souls in heaven. The hope would be that all souls would be cleansed of evil.
But I wanted to share my thoughts as well on “all the verses that say the second death and they burn forever and ever…”
First, as JI Packer points out, “Every Text has it’s immediate context in the passage from which it comes, its broader context in the book to which it belongs, and it’s ultimate context in the Bible as a whole…” (“Scripture” 1958)
We have to begin with the “immediate context.” If we simply invalidate one text based on another, we’re abrogating scripture, not honoring it. I definitely think there’s a lot to say about the conflicting texts that you’ve mentioned, some of which have already been addressed on this channel. But what arguments could be from Matthew 5 to disprove what has been said. I’m definitely open to hearing a different perspective. But I’d like to hear an opposing argument from the immediate context before we jump to other Scriptures.
In regard to the “forever and ever” texts specifically, I do have to ask what you think about the fact that these Greek terms are plural. How many forevers and evers can there be? For the most part, Christian Universalism is defensible without even having to discuss the Greek, but when it comes to these terms, our English translations have done a disservice to the original languages.
Thanks for the feedback!
@@orthodoxuniversalist they argue about this for 2000 years. Can read all the arguments. It’s a waste of life. Most folks who spend too much time on one doctrine it side tracks them from the doctrines that produce in them the love of God and pure faith.
I think it’s bad doctrine and a waste. Though it is sad to think of the judgement day. Don’t want to harp on that too much mentally either.
But can read where God says the memory of those who didn’t make it into the kingdom is deleted from our minds. So whatever happens. They suffer and cease to exist as you may say. They never get to eternal life with God.
If we can get out of Hell that proves to me that all will be restored. Not just a select few but sooner or later all. We just need our sins corrected and cleansed first. It also proves the true kindness and mercy of God and Jesus. Is it mostly from erroneous translations that we were taught that Hell is supposedly some awful place where you can never escape? I don't think that God and Jesus said that they would keep us there with no intention of letting us go.
Boom! Thanks for sharing!
It’s kindness and mercy to only burn you alive for a few trillion to a few googplexian years instead of all of eternity? Seriously? That’s mercy in your eyes?
Sending a single person to hell no matter how evil for any length of time at all is the complete opposite of mercy. It’s not justice, or mercy. It’s pure vengeance and sadism, nothing more or less. Punishment exist for a reason. Hell doesn’t fit a single one of the reasons of punishment. Even if it isn’t eternal. WHICH JESUS SAID IT WAS NUMEROUS TIMES. You’re trying to change your bible because you realize how horrendously sadistically evil your God is and you need to make apologetics for it. Jesus made it very clear Hell is ETERNAL EVERLASTING INFINITE conscious torture in fire. Of course, Jesus wasn’t actually God, he was just a preacher that stole the idea of hell from the romans and greeks. There is no concept of an afterlife at all in the OT, then God just one day decides to make one after 4000 years? The OT makes it very clear that once you die, that’s it, dust, nothing else, you go to sheol, which is THE GRAVE!. Sheol is not hell, unlike what the liars who translated the KJV say. There is slight mentions of heaven in the OT, but it’s made very clear that heaven isn’t for anyone other than prohpets and angels and God.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v They are wrong about universalism and restorationism, but you have a pop culture view of hell and thats why you think its so bad. All of you are wrong.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v Thanks for sharing your take!
There’s definitely a lot to consider in all of this, but I’d like to share two points. First, the Old Testament does contain the concept of an afterlife. Sometimes this concept is easy to miss, and sometimes it’s not. Moreover, the Pharisees of the first century were strong believers in a resurrection of the dead and their belief was rooted in the Old Testament.
One text that clearly illustrates this belief is Daniel 12:2: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Obviously, we need to understand that the term translated here in the English as “everlasting” has a range of meanings, which I would have my own view on. But this text makes it clear that there was a concept of the afterlife that was recognized in the OT.
In regard to hell being “the complete opposite of mercy,” I’d be interested in hearing about the source for the information you’ve gleaned about hell. Hell is going to be… well, hell. But if someone lives all their life in a dark room with the curtains shut, and then finds themselves standing in the daylight on a summer day, that would be hell too. Hell, in my view, isn’t so far removed from this kind of experience. It isn’t that God wants to torture us for the sake of torture. He has a world he has prepared for us, an eternity he wants us to explore and, like any good parent, he won’t allow us to sit in the dark and miss out on life and light - even if it means dragging us into the daylight when we’d rather avoid it. For some, this sudden exposure to the light will be hell at first. Yet for those who have already received the light (Christ) it will be beautiful from the outset, for they will have already grown accustomed to the light.
Thanks again!
I haven't watched the video yet but the debt in Matthew 5:26 is referring to purgatory
Interesting. How did you come to this conclusion?
THE WORD IN VERSES BEFORE TRANSLATED AS HELLFIRE IS GEHENNA FIRE. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TURN HELL INTO PURGATORY WHENEVER YOU WANT TO.
My man haven't you come out to the concluion yet that hell is nothing but "purgatory" for the lost? "Reject profane fables ... this is a faithful teaching, and worthy of being received by everyone, God is the Saviour of all men, especially those who believe, this command and teach"1Tim4:9-10
HAS GOD'S PURPOSE BEEN REVEALED TO YOU? 👇
"Having made known to us the purpose of His will, that in the dispensation of the fulness of the times he will gather together all things in Christ, all things I say, wether they be on earth or heaven"Eph1:9-10
You can't say "somethings will be eternally separated from God" since that's not His purpose, has it been revealed to you yet?
DO YOU EVEN KNOW YOUR TRANSLATION TRANSLATES THE SAME WORD FOR "WORLD" AND "AGE" AS "ETERNAL" WHENEVER IT WANTS TO? BECAUSE A STUMBLING STONE HAS BEEN CAST TO YOU. THE ORIGINAL WORD IS EON: "THESE SHALL GO AWAY TO EON CHASTISEMENT". NOW GO AND THINK WHY THESE ROMANS WOULD TURN IT INTO "THESE SHALL GO AWAY TO ETERNAL CHASTISEMENT", HOW IT'S GOING TO BE ETERNAL IF IT HAS BEGINNING TO BEGIN WITH?
What about lo I am with you until the end of the age? Then after that he's not with you anymore? So far I agree with what you're saying I'm just curious about that. And if you're Orthodox what about Mary's perpetual virginity and Matthew saying he did not know her until after she bore a son?
Thanks for commenting!
To answer your first question, the promise of Christ that he will be present to the end of the age was delivered to the apostles (Matthew 28:20). By extension, this can be applied to the believers that would come after the apostles, but no commentator uses this text to argue for a future alienation from God that the wicked will experience in hell. To do so would be to take this passage wildly out of context. And if we are considering whether the apostles/believers will still experience fellowship with God at the conclusion of this “age,” the answer is given conclusively in the last few chapters of Revelation. All God’s people will be gathered to him and never be separated from him again.
As to your second question, I am not Eastern Orthodox. The channel is named in reference to Gregory of Nyssa.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
@@orthodoxuniversalist
What’s your faith? I curious …
Thx !
Nice video. I hope you're right.
But I have a question: How does an universalist interpret the closed door and the narrow gate in Luke 13 and Matthew 7?
Is this a question open to anyone who adheres to universalism? Or are you only interested in the view the presenter of this channel has?
Peace
@@thatwhichhasbeen-isthatwhi6575 Feel free to answer my question ✌🏼
@@LordCario34 Thanks for your response. As an adherent to what I like to call “biblical universalism”, here are my reasonings concerning my interpretations of Luke 13 and Matt 7.
In Luke 13:23 Jesus was asked the question, “Are there only a few being saved”. It is Jesus’ response to that question that is often read with the preconceived idea of either “eternal torment” or “permanent annihilation” in mind. Yet, I would contend that verse 30 - And behold, some are last who will be first, and some first who will be last - shows that he had neither of those two options in mind. Jesus isn't forever excluding anyone from his kingdom, but he did give a warning that for the many it wouldn't be any time soon. No one who rejects Jesus will be able to enter into the kingdom. On that day, all those who practice the deeds of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom 1 Corinthians 6:9. But that's not to say they never will, especially “after” they have learned the way of righteousness. Unfortunately, for some, this will be an extremely painful process. Being cast into the outer darkness/Gehenna fire is what I believe alludes to this process. So, whilst it is true that, in the present only a few are being saved, it doesn't disclude “all” in the future being saved. Those first into the kingdom, I believe are God’s elect, but that's a different issue :)
In Mathew 7:13, both gates are an entrance into the same place. In other words, two gates lead to the same destination. One path is narrow, and the other is broad. In Matt 18: 8-9 + Matt 5:29, Jesus taught his followers by way of figurative language to [apollymi/destroy] parts of themselves so they would be able to enter into life by the narrow path. In doing so, they would avoid the broad path that leads to destruction; a path by which the many will enter. This destruction being the harsher and more painful reality of the coming judgment in Gehenna fire Matt 10:28. Not one that kills or punishes forever, but one that figuratively destroys the “whole” person who wilfully continues to sin, thus leading to their eventual entrance into the Kingdom.
Peace
@@LordCario34 Hi, sending posts on TH-cam seems to be a bit hit or miss these days. I’m just wondering if you received my post concerning Matt 7 and Luke 13. I’m not looking for a specific response to the post, but it would be nice to know that you at least received it :)
Peace
Thanks for the question! The closed door and the narrow gate, as they are described in Matthew, should be sobering to us, but they don’t rule out the hope of eventual restoration. I plan to discuss these texts in more detail in the future but I have one video posted on these texts in the “Common Objections” playlist, called “Christian Universalism: Second Chances.”
If someone can escape Hell, then Pascal's Wager is invalid and there is no longer any reason to believe. Thanks for making my atheism make sense!
Well, if escapism is the only reason to follow God, Pascal’s wager is of the utmost importance. But what if faith is about gaining something, not just avoiding something? What if it’s about loving something, not just about shielding ourselves from the hatred of God?
Maybe following God offers us the best possible experience?
Thanks for the perspective.
@@orthodoxuniversalist Then why am I happier after becoming an atheist? I never stopped looking for God, he has never come and made my life better. I just don't see anything in reality that matches your description.
@@chaotickreg7024 Thanks for being real!
It sometimes seems hard to share perspectives in comments sections. I definitely respect your perspective. Rooting for you in your search. 🤛
@@orthodoxuniversalist I hate when religious people love-bomb their way out of a good argument. You have no reason to believe in God. Have a great day though! Good luck with your futile search!
I'm not a convinced universalist, but if I were, I would be a purgatorial universalist, which is what I believe Orthodox Universalist is too, if I'm not mistaken.
So, basically, Hell is very much a real place of unspeakable suffering. It might not be forever, but I don't think you want to experience conscious, agonising torment for what could be billions upon billions of years. Besides, it's entirely possible that we're wrong, and there truly is eternal conscious torment in Hell, in which case, you are screwed. Best to act as if Hell is everlasting suffering, just in case, is it not?
do you know of any blog/article posts that dive into "aiōnion" punishment regarding Matt. 25:46?
I quote some resources in the “Universalism Debunked?” video that might be helpful. Ilaria Ramelli’s take is helpful, wherever you can find it. “Time And Eternity In The Greek Fathers” by David Bradshaw is also good.
But most commentaries that you can find will shed interesting light on that text. It’s really fascinating how many scholars - even those who hold to the doctrine of unending torment - admit that the term aionion is fairly ambiguous in Matt 25:46.
@@orthodoxuniversalist right. I’ve been dwelling on this topic of 1.5 years now & it feels so true because my initial encounter with God was so potent with love that it felt odd to embrace ECT (especially as a Calvinist) because it felt so inconsistent with the love I felt from Him. I just couldn’t believe that He loved me with such infinite love, yet was willing to send my family to unending torment for His glory & one day He’d transform me to be more like Him to actually celebrate such a horrific thing.
My biggest hangup has been although I see the word “eternal” as something that can be pertaining to the quality or origin of something & therefore punishment for the wicked may not be unending, where in the Bible do we actually see those who are judged coming out of that judgement or exiting it & entering into life?
@@frankmercurio Great questions man.
I can relate to your story. When I first heard about the possibility that all might eventually be saved (this was 17+ years ago), I experienced an incredible peace. Yet, within days, I had rejected the notion. There were just too many unanswered question, fears, and too many prominent Christian voices telling me the idea was wrong. To be honest, part of me also didn’t want to believe it. I wanted to be in ministry at the time and a belief in universalism seemed like a roadblock that would prevent me from working in any conventional ministry.
The thing that’s convinced me once and for all that universalism is true, is the biblical basis for it. Texts like Colossians 1:15-22 just wouldn’t let me hold on to my belief in unending conscious torment. This passage paints history in big strokes, from beginning to end, from creation to the full manifestation of God’s will realized. And we are given the promise that “all things” (the same all things that were created) will be reconciled to God, and this reconciliation is defined as resulting in peace.
So it’s true, many will experience suffering in eternity. But it’s also true that we’ve been given this undeniable vision of the conclusion that God has in mind, and this conclusion includes the reconciliation of all things to God.
If we couple this vision (which we also see in Eph 1, Phil 2, Rom 5, 1 Cor 15, etc) with texts that imply that people can “get out” of hell (Matt 5) it’s hard to escape the universalistic implications.
It’s awesome that you’re taking the time to figure this stuff out! Thanks for your commitment to the absolute truth!
@@orthodoxuniversalist I relate to that as well. I take Biblical theology very seriously & am thoroughly committed to being faithful to the Word & not drifting in any “liberal” direction, I can relate to wanting to get involved in ministry & now I’m starting to question how my ministry should even look - should I really be preaching the gospel with such intensity out of fear of the damned that they otherwise would be tormented unendingly? It felt like my goal was to urgently send a message of hell escapism rather than “come & see the beauty of God & partake of a unique role in His Kingdom”. Obviously even if purgatorial universalism is true, I still want them to escape judgement, but it’s different
It’s crazy how the in the gospels, Jesus talks about giving us peace & making our joy complete, & 1 John 4 says that he who fears has not been perfected in love. When I fully embraced ECT, I constantly felt fear & practically no joy - I was glad to be saved, but my family whom I love & spend most of my time with were likely going to experience unfathomable torment without any hope of it ending & I became exceedingly depressed & ironically felt far from God
Once I started to realize the strong possibility of the universal reconciliation of all things, I likewise became filled with immense joy & I felt closer to God for the first time in years. My obedience to Him started to come from love for Him rather than fear of Him.
Also, even though I believed I could never lose my salvation, any time I would sin, I believed that though I will not face ECT, I had just committed something so heinous & horrific, that it’s worth me being tortured beyond what I can even imagine without end - which caused me to loathe myself. It’s really bizarre
What about how it. Says that they will be tortured forever and ever
Thanks for reaching out!
The phrase, “forever and ever” in scripture is translated from Greek terminology that decisively describes an age, a period of ages, or that which is associated with such periods of time.
While the English translations of these terms can lead us to think about something that starts and never stops, it’s important to remember two things. First, these terms are plural whenever they are used as you cite them. There cannot be multiple “forevers,” so be default, “ages” seems a more natural and appropriate translation of the Greek. Second, even if these terms do describe eternity, we have to remember that eternity is not just something that doesn’t have an end but also something that doesn’t have a beginning. The punishment that will be experienced by unbelieving sinners will be one which is associated with infinity itself. It is boundless, but not necessarily unending.
My next video (hopefully out in the next few days) will dive a little deeper into this topic.
Thanks again for the question!
Please consider using the King James Bible based on the textus receptus.
Can a person ever leave the land of Oz? 😂😂
Gullibility can be both funny and sad, sigh.
Universalism? Gross.
You are the prodigal son’s brother Jesus spoke of
This is a well argued video.
However, I don't think you've interpreted "until" correctly. It's not English, and it need not be figurative in either case.
The preposition ἕως does not denote "until" as a condition then a change of state at the end. It denotes a condition with no inherent reference to a change of state unless it is supplied by context. So, for instance, Jesus is with us ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, "until the completion of the age." He is there throughout the age, and this condition does not change. Likewise, Jesus instructs his students to get in the boat ἕως οὗ ἀπολύσῃ τοὺς ὄχλους "while he dismissed the crowds" (Mt 14.22).
The only way to get a change of state out of ἕως is if it is implied by the context and adds something to the meaning of passage (something we can argue was intended).
So in reference to the law and the prophets will not pass away until all things are fulfilled, "until" has more of a sense of "while." Breaking the Law into sections is not what Jesus intended (not saying it's bad to do so). Some parts of the Law will _never_ pass away: murder, theft, blasphemy, et al. are inherently, and eternally, wrong. However, food laws depended upon the division of the nations at Babel, and so their telos was completed at Pentecost. If we read it as "until" with a reference to end, then we are committed to saying prohibitions in what you included in the moral law would also have to pass. It's not possible to have a consistent interpretation of Jesus' statement if "until" implies a change of state.
However you can argue that in the case of being thrown into the prison, "until you pay the last penny" has a telos included in it. It's a debtor's punishment, and Jesus gave the telos.
This passage is a bit of a problem text if you don't have some form of purgatory, though. You have to qualify whether Christ's sacrifice paid it all, but do so when the context is believers, not unbelievers, being punished (thus, somehow, you must pay debts that Christ didn't pay). A key part of the definition of hell is that it is for those who do not believe or apostasize in virtually every church.
I think you must come up with some form of purgatory from this passage. We know the doctrine predates Christianity. It could be a place like the Roman Catholics hold. It could be the presence of God burning people, like we hold in the Orthodox Church. Both of these are modeled on the Bible in II Maccabees. It could be something like the vision Hades being temporary, and people liberated by the prayers for the dead, as shown in the _Apocalypse of Peter._ This would work well with an image of debt slavery, because the individual can no longer free himself and relies on the generosity of others.
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback!
I definitely agree that the implication/ translation of the term “until” is extremely important to understand. But the shift implied by the context here (inferring that all will be accomplished, and that the last penny can be paid) seems incredibly hard to deny.
In regard to the need to insert the idea of purgatory here, I just can’t bring myself to see it. Even if it was an established idea which predates Christianity, the whole context, from verses 21-30 (with the last penny mentioned at the center, in verse 26) is about hell. And while there is a reference to offering a gift at an alter, which could imply that this statement is meant for believers (or those practicing their faith) this could also be taken as evidence that faith without works is dead - that is, not living, not saving… not faith at all.
Moreover, the Sermon on the Mount was delivered to a widely diverse audience, with many from the Greek Decapolis in attendance, as well as Jews, and of course the disciples. And when Jesus finished speaking, “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29).
So, Christ’s audience was not made up of believers exclusively, I can’t see hard and fast evidence that he was talking about believers exclusively, and the whole force of the context is about hell.
Just want to say that I genuinely appreciate your feedback on these issues. Great discussion, great perspective!
Thanks!
@@orthodoxuniversalist I don't think the oral traditions you're assuming are a good framework. The correct context for the Gospels is Second Temple Judaism. It's not Protestant vs Catholic debates of the 16th century, or the faith/works dichotomy of the Reformers.
The oral tradition about faith without works not being faith can't be invoked as a given. Even in James it's not remotely clear he thought any such thing (I tend to think James meant "A man is justified by his works and not by faith alone" with "faith without works is dead" instead of "faith without works is not faith"). If that's a contentious point in James, it has to be justified with Jesus' words directly to read it anywhere in the Gospels. On the other side, however, Jesus explicitly says some people who have sufficient faith to do miracles will fail to enter, people who are waiting and expecting him will fail, and that people will be judged by their works.
It doesn't follow that every use of "Gehenna" refers to "hell." We've overlaid it with all sorts of later traditions: for example Gehenna was supposedly a garbage dump always on fire. We cannot find a single source for this "fact" in the first millennium. It comes, IIRC, form a 13th century rabbi and has no primary sources behind it and no archaeological evidence behind it. When Jesus used "Gehenna" here he may just as easily have been referring to destruction, the depravity in Jeremiah, or to something we don' t know. We need the oral tradition to make the passage a clear reference to hell.
For who he was addressing, we don't need to speculate based on speculations about who was in the audience. "Fulfill the Law" was a Jewish idiom that meant to correctly interpret the Law or to correctly obey it. His target audience, for every single statement, are people who are concerned about the Law. People who weren't concerned with that in the audience simply weren't his target.
Given the idiom, that every point interprets the OT, that ἕως denotes duration but only contextually connotes change, I don't think there is a clear case Jesus was saying the Law would end (So I'm arguing the exact opposite of "Jesus intends to say the Law has an end but the prison is without end"). To argue that it connotes a change, then we have to demonstrate the point facilitates.
On the issue of not seeing purgatory, your entire video is an argument for purgatory. "Purgatory" is a state or condition in the after life wherein people are purged of their sins and saved by their torments. It means this when Roman Catholics use it. It means it when Orthodox use it (though we Orthodox are often so nervous of sounding Roman Catholic, you'll find no shortage of people afraid to use the word). It means it when non-Chalcedonians use it. By arguing there's an exit from hell, you're effectively arguing purgatory and hell are the same. If you're going to be radical enough to rethink whether everyone can be saved, then why shy away from "purgatory." The people who dislike you won't dislike you any less. Other than the stigma of "that's a Roman Catholic word," is there really any good reason to do so? It even enables a historical argument that is fairly strong for you.
@@kainech Boom! More great points!
So, the basis for my comments on faith verses works weren’t based on oral traditions from the 16th century. They were made based on exegesis. But I respect where you’re coming from.
I do find it interesting that you equate Gehenna with purgatory in this text. Do you do this across the board, or just on this occasion? I’d also be interested to know if you do the same with Hades. As I’ve stated previously, I’m a Prot, so I’d love to learn more about the Catholic or Orthodox views on these terms specifically.
You also mentioned that I might basically be arguing that hell and purgatory are one and the same. That’s near exactly what I’m arguing. But by consequence, in my mind, this would imply that the doctrine of purgatory as a separate place simply isn’t necessary and, therefore, that it is not the focus of this text. But I’d be interested in hearing what evidence you have that the doctrine of purgatory as its own entity is definitely rooted in ideas that predate Christianity. As a formal doctrine within the church, it seems a fairly late arrival, and the argument could be made that Christians in the first few hundred year had deliverance from hell in mind, not deliverance from purgatory, when they spoke of any postmortem hope.
Concerning Christ’s message being intended exclusively for the Jews because the Law is mentioned - this seems a stretch. If a speaker addresses a large audience that lives in a predominantly Muslim area, and refers to the Koran, should we assume that he is only talking to Muslims? Surely we would have to assume that all those who live in such a setting (not just Muslims) would be familiar with the local respect for the Koran. The speaker himself would, obviously, also be familiar with this, and therefore to use it as the basis for the points he makes does not prove that he only wants the Muslims in his audience to embrace and heed his message, it simply means he is raising subjects with which his whole audience is going to be familiar.
If I make a point about the Law, can I not make the point for a wide audience, who might also be familiar with it? I can’t see why not.
@@orthodoxuniversalist When I say "oral tradition" I mean a basic conceptual framework from which the Scripture is read, and which a given person inherits. Pitting faith and works, and having faith that doesn't save as not being faith is a very, very late tradition. It's later than purgatory. An example for me would be reading the gate facing east in Ezekiel as Mary. This certainly wasn't in mind for the original author and arose a few hundred years after Christ. I can't import that in directly and would have to justify it.
You're right. The doctrine of purgatory as a separate place is very late. For our part, we don't view it as a place (and I don't think most Roman Catholics do either at this point). We respond harshly to the idea of purgatory as a place, and that's the reason most Orthodox will condemn the idea. However, I'm not so sure that's fair to the RCCs, because I doubt most RCs have a conception of a special holding cell for souls to be tormented. The doctrine of "hell" split in two in the west and formed "purgatory" and "hell," when it originally all went under one banner. Since it is a splitting of the original doctrine into two daughter doctrines, our conceptions for both terms are actually very late, and "purgatory" is closer to what you mean than "hell." That's why Roman Catholics like Bishop Barron who hope that all will be saved talk about hoping hell is empty, because if we split hell and purgatory all salvific suffering is in purgatory.
Rejecting purgatory as a label for the afterlife but accepting hell accepts one half of this dichotomy, and there's a host of knock-on doctrines that come with that, and they are younger than the split of hell and purgatory. If you have a purgatorial hell, then you cannot have a conception of "Jesus paid it all" unless you're wanting to say Jesus beats people into submission. This sort of penal view of atonement is squarely at odds with a purgatorial hell. The entire Reformed doctrine of the atonement presupposes the medieval RC idea of merit (hence grace is "unmerited favor"). They insisted that Christ paid it all so that nothing is left over. Then we cannot have a purgatory since all payment was made. Then we cannot have prayers for the dead either, because you have no merits to offer. Then you run up against the Bible, so Luther rejected II Maccabees, and by extension the whole deuterocanonical books, since they have prayer for the dead. If you have a purgatorial hell, you must revisit all those points, and it's not enough to just note purgatory as a separate place came later.
For how I (or Orthodoxy) uses terms, death is a mystery. The last judgment is even more of a mystery. We simply do not know what will happen. Positions in Orthodoxy range from "You must believe in eternal torment" to "I suspect all will be saved but cannot know for certain." Almost all positions are within bounds except a convinced universalism that says it knows with certainty. That's out of bounds for us. For myself, I think there's a fourth option none of the main three have considered, and just like every big prophecy in the past, will leave us scratching our heads wondering why we didn't see it ahead of time, but of the three, I'd be more in the hopeful category. Limitations are that we may not say we know all will be saved, may not say anybody is suffering the fires of hell now (though we may affirm that people have experienced the resurrection), and we may not say the fires of hell are created.
For terms in the tradition, all of them are figurative an allegorical. Hades does not refer to purgatorial fire but the abode of the dead. We hold there are different states there but cannot say more with confidence. Most people use "gehenna" to simply mean "hell." People with a more academic background tend to nuance it more. Takes on "hell" range from "torment forever" to "it's purgative with the hope of purifying souls."
I tend to see "gehenna" in light of its immediate context and hold to a more purgatorial view of hell in general. So, in Mt 23.33 it refers to Jeremiah and points to the destruction of Jerusalem. In 23.15, it's the same sense, but since it refers to people, it cannot mean the destruction of Jerusalem. "Gehenna of fire" seems to be an allusion to the end of Isaiah and to I Enoch's place of punishment for the angels.
Regarding the audience, I did not say it was just Jews but a Jewish idiom and narrows the audience to those with questions of the Law. This can include God fearers and proselytes. In the same way, if I gave a lesson on what Paul means by "taking captivity captive," I may well have non-Christians in the audience, but they're there because they know the phrase and are interested in it. Jesus is giving a lecture on the proper interpretation of the Law and the prophets so the people who listen will be those who want that lesson. The entirety of the Sermon on the Mount is the application of the Law and the prophets (not just the Law; e.g. chapter 6 is a meditation primarily on a single verse and not in the Law).
@@kainech Really interesting stuff!
I appreciate the clarification given concerning Gehenna and Hades from the Orthodox and Catholic perspective. I’d be curious to learn specifically what you make of Hades as mentioned in Luke 16, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Is Hades representative simply of the abode of the dead here?
I also appreciate your insights into the history/ nuance of purgatory and hell from the Orthodox and Catholic camps. My stance would be that the whole nature of punishment after death is for the sake of purgation. It’s not about anyone being beaten into submission. It’s about the veil being removed between man and God. Those who have received Christ in this life will find this to be bliss. Those who haven’t will experience this as torment. But anything exposed to the light becomes light (Ephesians 5:13). Thus, Christ restorative work as the light will see all things set right.
I agree that Matthew 5-7 is largely about the Law, but I still think we’re making some problematic assumptions if we decide the message could not be intended for and received meaningfully by the crowd at large. First, you stated that “his target audience for every single statement was those who were concerned with the Law.” Why do we have to assume that the Law was not a relevant enough “concern” for the whole crowd, even if just by local association? Could the entire audience not have recognized that the points Christ was making were widely relevant? You also explained that “those who listened would be those who want that lesson.” But deciding, as a key to our interpretation, who was listening and who was not in a particular audience, seems like a shaky means for shaping our understanding. If Christ had opened his message by stating, “I’d like to take some time to talk about the Law,” maybe we could make a stronger case that he wanted some people to tune him out. But he didn’t. His opener was addressed to “the poor in spirit,” “those who mourn,” “the meek,” etc. With a crowd largely made up people who had come to him for healing, and comprised of people from various demographic and geographical regions, the majority of which were following him because of their felt needs and weaknesses, Christ’s opening would have appealed to everyone in the crowd. I find it hard to assume that he (a) didn’t intend the message to be received by the whole crowd and (b) that, in our exegesis, we’re supposed to make a division between a target audience and a simply present audience within the the same crowd mentioned in 4:25-5:1 vs 7:28-29.
I also really admire your appreciation of a “fourth option.” This brings to mind the imaginative conversation that C.S. Lewis shares with us in The Great Divorce, between himself and George MacDonald, where Lewis asks MacDonald, “But there is a real choice after death? My Roman Catholic friends would be surprised, for to them souls in Purgatory are already saved. And my Protestant friends would like it no better, for they’d say that the tree lies as it falls.’
‘They’re both right, maybe,” replies MacDonald. “Do not fash yourself with such questions. Ye cannot fully understand the relations of choice and Time till you are beyond both.”