Universal Reconciliation – The Good, the Bad and the guy who had himself Castrated

Maybe it is just among the people that I am friends with on Facebook, but there seems to be a massive shift happening in people’s theology on hell. Universalism in particular seems to be increasingly popular among many, especially those who can be considered as Progressives. As you may or may not know, I am currently researching and writing a book about heaven and hell and so I have spent quite a bit of time studying universalism as of late. And I must conclude that 90% of the arguments that I hear levelled against universalists are both unfair and born out of ignorance. With that in mind, I would like to write a few posts on the topic. First I will explore the case from the universalists perspective, are adherents looking for an excuse to sin? Do they claim that all roads lead to heaven and that Jesus died for nothing? Do they have a low view of the Bible and is a commitment to the goodness of God clouding their judgement as to the severity of sin? My hope is that once we have looked into this one might have a clearer understanding of exactly what universalists do and do not believe and be able to respond accordingly. Too often we are ready to talk and not listen and as a result we simply end up speaking past one another. After that, I will write a few more posts on why I personally reject universalism citing eight main reasons why I cannot accept it.

So what exactly is universalism? Universal Reconciliation, which is also sometimes called UR for short or inclusivism is the belief that all men will eventually come to a saving faith in Christ and be redeemed. To point out the obvious this means that universalists also believe that post mortem repentance is available to all and that God will sustain their lives as long as necessary in order for them to accept the gift of eternal life. Essentially then, universalists believe, as do adherents of the traditional view of hell, that all people will live forever. The imagery of hell and fire then is interpreted to be purgatorial, a place of punishment with the intent of restoring the individual to whom they were meant to be in Christ. God’s justice therefore is seen as restorative rather than as retributive and an emphasis is made that places no limit on the saving power and the mercies of God.  It is commonly and unfairly assumed that universalism equates to ‘many roads leading to heaven’ or an ‘escape from consequences of sin’. This is unfair criticism as universalism actually proclaims that Jesus death and life saves all, was completely necessary and that everyone will receive the measure of punishment due to them in the afterlife but with a restorative intent behind the punishing.

Some people have embraced the label of hopeful universalists meaning that they either are not 100% convinced of the doctrine but hold it to be a genuine possibility or they suppose that some may indeed reject Gods offer of salvation even into eternity.

Scriptural Support

As well as appealing to larger themes of redemption in the Bible such as a new heaven and earth where God is all in all, universalists appeal to a wide range of scriptures to support their view, these are the most common verses one might come across in UR literature.

He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. - Ecclesiastes 3:11

Say to God, “How awesome are Your works! Through the greatness of Your power your enemies shall submit themselves to You. All the earth shall worship You and sing praises to You; they shall sing praises to Your name.” Selah – Psalm 66:3-4

Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. – Matthew 5:25-26

“At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts. – Jeremiah 3:17

And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. – Luke 3:6

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. – John 3:17

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” – John 12:31-32

And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. – John 12:47

…and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. – Acts:3:20-21

But Isaiah is very bold and says: “I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.” – Romans 3:20

Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. – Romans 5:18

For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. – Romans 11:32

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. – 1 Corinthians 15:22

Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. – 1 Corinthians 15:28

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. – 2 Corinthians 5:18-19

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. – Ephesians 1:7-10

For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. – Colossians 1:19-20

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all. – Colossians 3:11

Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – Philippians 2:9-11 

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 1 Timothy 2:3-6

For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. – 1 Timothy 4:10

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. – Titus 2:11

You have put all things in subjection under his feet.” For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. – Hebrews 2:8

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. – 2 Peter 3:9

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
– 1 John 2:2

Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”– Revelation 21:2-7

The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. (1)
– Revelation 21:23-26

Did this list surprise you as it did with me initially? It is certainly a longer list of ‘supportive texts’ than the eternal conscious torment view can claim. While the interpretation of some of these verses is debatable others put forward a decent case in favor of the salvation of all peoples. Ecclesiastes 3:11 for example is one of those verses where a lot of people are familiar with the phrase, “He has put eternity in their hearts”, but to add ‘He has made everything beautiful in its time” broadens the picture a little bit too. Matthew 5:26 says that no one will escape prison until they have paid the last penny that they owe. The context, and verse 22 in particular, make it clear that Jesus has gehenna in mind here. 1 Timothy 4:10 has been worded very interestingly as well, what does Paul mean by saying that God is the savior of all men, especially those that believe?


Perhaps though Revelation 21:23-26 puts forward the strongest case of all. The kings of the earth are consistently portrayed in a negative light until the culmination of the book when their glory is brought into the city of God. In Revelation the kings of the earth are deceived by demons (16:14), they commit fornication (17:2, 18:3,9) and are ruled by the counterfeit bride called the harlot (17:18). In chapter 19:19 they are said to side with the beast and gather their armies together to make war against Jesus and His army. But then right at the end in chapter 21 when we read about the new heavens and the new earth it says that the kings of the earth will bring their glory into the city where the gates are never shut. Many people have argued that the open gates represent a post mortem invitation where people may enter the city once they have repented and been purified. Whether one agrees with the universalist interpretation or not, it is probably unfair to claim that those who hold the view have a low view of scripture, a misinterpretation possibly, but one can see from the above list how one could arrive at UR conclusions based on scripture.

In the early church

As far as historical written evidence goes, universalism as a belief in the church can be traced back as far as Origen in the early 3rd century. While condemned for heretical beliefs at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553AD, Origen was highly regarded and influential both during and after his life. Origen taught that “we, however, know of no incorporeal substance that is destructible by fire, nor (do we believe) that the soul of man, or the substance of ‘angels,’ or of ‘thrones,’ or of ‘dominions,’ or ‘principalities,’ or ‘powers,’ can be dissolved by fire”(2). In his eyes, the ‘fire that consumes’ did not consume the wicked but consumed the wickedness that indwells those cast into the fire. Origen believed that “no being will remain outside the number of the saved”(3), it is worth noting that Origen was never condemned as a heretic for his belief in universal salvation but rather for his belief in the preexistence of the soul. Although his faith had clear Gnostic undertones to it(4), he was instrumental in helping developing the concept of the Trinity as well as giving the world the Ransom Theory of the Atonement. Origen was also a martyr for Christ and even allegedly had himself castrated (after reading Matthew 19:12) in order to ensure his reputation as a respectable tutor to young men and woman. One could hardly accuse this particular universalist of being a liberal who was secretly looking for a license to sin as many conclude of today's adherents.

Gregory of Nyssa, was the bishop of Nyssa and one of the three Cappadocian Fathers, he participated in the First Council of Constantinople late in the 4th century and such was his reputation that he was affectionately called the ‘father of fathers’. Is his book Sermo Catecheticus Magnus he says the following:

…the annihilation of evil, the restitution of all things, and the final resurrection of evil men and evil spirits to the blessedness of union with God, so that He may be all in all, embracing all things endowed with sense and reason…(5)

Similar quotes can be found in the writings of men like St. Jerome, Clement of Alexandria and more. Hardly outcasts in their day and age. It is no wonder then that Augustine could say that there were a great many people in that particular period of church history that, while not rejecting the Christian faith, rejected the teachings of eternal conscious torment.

Gehenna Redeemed

If God is one day to be all in all then hell needs to be emptied of its inhabitants either by them perishing or through post mortem repentance and salvation. In the book of Jeremiah 31:40 there is a remarkable prophecy that gehenna will one day be restored and be holy to the Lord which is the kind of verse one would expect to find if this were to be true. This is what it says:

And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the Lord. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever.

The chapter (from verse 31) is referring to a future period when the new covenant has been instituted. While the term Ge-hinnom is not specifically mentioned in the above verse it is undoubtedly a reference to it in a similar vein as Isaiah 66:24.

How Long is Forever?

While we sometimes use the term forever in a non-literal way, like when we say, “this food is taking forever to be ready”, we generally interpret it as meaning something is ongoing or eternally fixed in its state. The Greek word aionios however simply mean ‘age-during’ and can simply refer to a specific period of time. To give an example where it cannot refer to and eternal period of time, Romans 16:25, which uses the word aionios, says…

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began (chronos aionios).

Obviously the mystery Paul is speaking of here has since been revealed and is no longer a secret. That is not to say though that aionios cannot refer to an unending time period, it just means that we need to interpret it in its context. So an argument can be made that when the Bible says that the wicked will be tormented forever one can draw from several examples in scripture where ‘forever’ is not the end of the story. The Moabites were forbidden from entering the LORD’s assembly forever (Deuteronomy 23:3) but later Ruth was redeemed through her marriage to Boaz. The Mosaic covenant was established forever (Leviticus 24:8) but only until it vanished (Hebrews 8:7-13). Jude 7 tells us that Sodom is undergoing a punishment of eternal fire but Ezekiel 16:53-55 promises a future return to its former state. The Priesthood was everlasting (Numbers 25:13) but prevented by death from continuing contrary to Christs priesthood (Hebrews 7:22-24.

Conclusion

In many circles when universalism is mentioned people tend to just assume that those who hold to it do not have any sort of reverence for scripture and that if it were true, then evangelism would be meaningless. I have heard far too many people say that throwing eternal conscious torment out of the window downplays the severity of sin and the justice of God. But an honest reflection (I have attempted to be as fair as possible here and accurately present the universalist perspective) affirms that universalism does not teach that anyone gets away with their sins or that God is not just. It could also be argued that universalism does not downplay the importance of Christ’s sacrifice but rather makes it all the more glorious. It is time that we lay thoughtless objections and accusations aside, like “universal redemption means that all roads lead to heaven”. Rebuttals like these serve no value at all and only demonstrate the ignorant mindsets of the persons who make them.

In writing this post I was not trying to convince anyone of a particular view inasmuch as I was trying to help people see that there are persons out there who love God, who take the Bible seriously and actively desire to see Gods Kingdom growing on earth but do not necessarily agree with us on every point of doctrine. And while we should be working toward correctly interpreting the word in this matter and others areas wherever they may arise, we need not demonize those who disagree with us. A little humility could just reveal that we were on the wrong side of the argument in the first place.

This post painted the ‘pro universalism’ position and the next will focus on a case against universalism. For now though I would love to hear your thoughts, is the universalist case stronger than you might have thought it to be previously? Do you think that what someone believes about hell is a salvation issue if they have faith in Christ? If you are a universalist, are there other points that you feel I should have included to further build your case? Do you feel that what I have written is a fair reflection of what universalists believe and do not believe? As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I am writing a book on heaven and hell with some space allocated to universalism and this is your chance to help me refine my thoughts and make it better than it would be without your input.


You can check out the follow up article to this one by clicking here.



1 – The argument here is that if the gates remain open to the City of God and the prodigals are always welcome home. Furthermore, the ‘kings and nations’ who bring their glory into the city were elsewhere in the book found to be Gods enemies, warring against the Lamb, something has changed in the interim. 
2 - Book VI, 71:5, p. 606.
3 – The Sacred Writings of Origen, chapter LXXI
4 – McGuckin, John Anthony (2004), The Westminster handbook to Origen, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Know Press, ISBN 0-664-22472-5
5 - https://supernaturalgospel.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/the-historicity-of-universalism/

Jesus, Nonviolence and the Old Testament (Pt 4)

This is my final post in the four-part series on whether or not it is okay for Christian to resort to violence in certain circumstances. For anyone just joining in on the conversation, I recommend reading parts 1, 2 and 3 first. For everyone else, in this post I will focus on the violence of the Old Testament and how Jesus followers who believe we are not permitted to partake in similar actions to deal with it. Of course I can only speak for myself really as pacifism comes in many shapes and forms.

Having made a case thus far that Jesus never acted violently and never permitted us to partake in violence and also having looked at numerous New Testament passages to show that nowhere is just war, striking an enemy or killing ever condoned against flesh and blood we can now turn our attention to the prophets of old. What I am going to suggest here right from the start and try to validate is that the Bible is not a flat book where each scripture holds equal weight for Christians. This may seem obvious but this is at the very core of why so many people fall on the wrong side of the line on this issue. It needs to be understood that the Old Covenant and the book (Torah) detailing its formation and history was for a certain people group, at a certain time in history and written by people who were living under it and reveals how they understood God to be and what He expected from them. Is the Old Testament profitable to Christians for reading? Is it profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness? Yes and yes! The Old Testament is a collection of valuable books that reveal to us the woeful condition of man, weak to the flesh, perpetually violent and on a high speed path headed toward destruction. But it is more than that, it also is a collection of books with much hope in them - they accurately portray God's golden rule to us (love God and love others), they promise redemption in the form of God Himself come in the flesh to redeem not only us, but creation itself. In short, the Old Testament prepares us for the arrival of Jesus and points us to Him. But we are not obligated in any way to live by rules and regulations as the nation of Israel once did and even if you wanted to, it would be impossible to do so because the temple, sacrificial system and priesthood all came to a grinding halt in 70AD when Jerusalem was destroyed. 

So what is my point in all of this? It’s rather simple really. People who use the Old Testament to condone violence against enemies, or killing for your country, or supporting the death penalty and more must do so by gathering support from the Law and the Prophets and applying it to life under the New Covenant. A Covenant inaugurated by Christ when He laid down His life for us - the same Christ who told us to love our enemies, to do good to those who seek to harm us, to turn the other cheek. The same Jesus called the Prince of Peace who said that the peacemakers would be called the sons of God and that His disciples “do not fight” (John 18:36). You see, if instead of forgiving my enemies I want them hanged I can appeal to Moses. If I want to kill them myself on the battlefield I can appeal to David and if I dream of holy war I can appeal to Samson. But I cannot look to Jesus and do the same because Jesus modeled something radically different to us.

This is a complicated issue which I am not going to be able to explain in a few lines on a single blog post and I am certainly not teaching Marcionism to you (a 2nd century fellow who completely rejected the OT). But let me make a few statements and back them up with some examples which help to validate my point. Here goes: The Bible is not our final authority but the Jesus revealed to us in the Bible is. Salvation is not found in the Bible but it will point us to the one who is called Yeshua (which means salvation in Hebrew). The Bible is not a rule book to follow but it introduces us to Jesus and the Spirit who guides us into all truth. We know all of this because the Bible tells us it is so. Jesus did not tell His disciples to follow the Bible - He told them to follow Him. A lot of people stumble over this because if the Old Testament was inspired by God then it cannot contradict itself in any way, can it? Wrong. Because just like my children ask for sweets practically every day my answer is not always the same because circumstances change all the time. So we find similar situations in the Bible. We find people getting stoned to death for failing to keep the Sabbath, a law most Christians do not feel obligated to keep anymore. We find Jesus sending His disciples out with supplies and sometimes without. More closer to the topic of this series, we see Elijah calling fire down from heaven to consume his enemies (2 Kings 1:10) but when Jesus' disciples want to do the same thing He rebukes them and says that they do not know what manner of spirit they are of (Luke 9:54-55). Now as a biblicist I can choose the way of Elijah or the way of Jesus as my heart desires and still say that I am living by biblical principles, but as a Christian I have to follow the way of Jesus and renounce the way of violence and enemy hate. It is no accident that what immediately follows in Luke 9 is about the cost of discipleship. Let’s move on now and look at other areas where Christians feel more compelled to follow Jesus than the Bible even if they are not aware of it.

Abortion

This is one of those unique topics that all Christians actually seem to agree upon. Human life is immeasurably valuable and abortion is one of the darkest stains on society. But the Bible never specifically says this. In fact, there is a biblical case that can be made for abortion. In Hosea 9:14 Hosea prays this prayer against Ephraim:

'Give them, O Lord— What will You give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts!'

Where did Hosea get this idea from? Because the context here is regarding harlotry and disobedience Hosea is likely drawing inspiration from the Law itself. I suspect that Hosea had Numbers 5:11-21 in mind where God Himself gives Moses instructions as to how to abort a pregnancy if a woman is suspected of adultery. It is a bizarre ritual forcing a woman to drink a deadly mixture of holy water and sand. Question – do we follow the Bible in this example or do we follow Jesus who taught that all life is precious (Matthew 6:26, 10:29-31) and to stand up for those who can not speak for themselves?

Polygamy

One can easily use the Bible to support the idea of polygamy or having multiple sexual partners. From Lamech in Genesis 4 onward, polygamy is everywhere in the Bible. 1 Kings 11:3 says that Solomon had 700 wives and because that clearly wasn’t enough another 300 concubines as well. 2 Samuel 5:13 states that David had several wives and concubines as well. Scripture only condemns the affair with Bathsheba because she was already married to another man. The Law of Moses even made provision for people who practiced polygamy (Exodus 21:10). You could get sentenced to death for a lot of things in the Bible - picking up sticks at the wrong time, being rebellious against your parents and more, but not once is a negative word even mentioned against what was seemingly the very common practice of having several wives. But Christians take Jesus’ idea of the ideal found in the initial creation (Matthew 19:3–6) to be greater than the concession for polygamy (and divorce) Moses made for people of hard hearts to be their yardstick. Because on some level, we know that we are to follow Jesus and not the Bible in everything that it teaches in every place. Likewise, we know that woman are not subhumans who only serve to satisfy our needs and give us children. Jesus broke all sorts of social norms in His interaction with woman and I can just imagine the apostle John washing Mary's feet after Jesus had ascended to heaven, such was the radical transformation His teachings would have left on His followers.

Slavery

Christianity’s history is a mixture of embarrassing failures to imitate Jesus (like the crusades) and glorious victories such as the abolishment of slavery. Yet slavery is found throughout the Bible. Who can forget Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery only for him to eventually enslave the whole of Egypt (Genesis 47:13-26) which eventually culminated in Egypt’s slavery of Israel. Slavery is one of those subjects that the Bible could have condemned but instead permitted. The Law of Moses had much to say about slavery and the verse below is probably as bad as it gets though.

“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. – Exodus 21:20-21

I hope that you find that verse appalling; if the world recognizes this as a gross violation of human rights how much more so should followers of Jesus? There is not a person that Jesus did not die for, there is not a person that He does not love and He was especially fond of sticking up for the outcasts, the downtrodden, the widows and the lepers. I love that the gospels contain stories of Jesus healing slaves and I do not for a second think that he thought of them as property to be fixed but rather as humans to be healed.

Of course, I have been emphasizing the worst parts of the Old Testament but there is much, so much good in there as well. Much of it was well ahead of its time and there is so much there that does reveal God's heart and ultimately leads us to Jesus. But here is the deal. The Bible itself repeatedly tells that in the past God spoke to His people through the prophets but now, He speaks to His people through Jesus. Christ is what God has to say (Hebrews 1:1-3). I love the story of Jesus' transfiguration in Luke 9:28-36. We read about Peter, James and John seeing Jesus, Moses and Elijah standing together and they want to build them three tabernacles to dwell in as though they were equals. Luke makes Peter look silly and says that he did not know what he was talking about (verse 33). After Peter says this a cloud appears and a voice speaks out of it saying, “this is my beloved Son, hear Him!”, and Moses and Elijah disappear and only Jesus remains. I’m not sure how much clearer it could have been. Luke makes it clear, "The Law AND the Prophets were until John, since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached (Luke 16:16)."   

Conclusion

For three hundred years the church faithfully followed the words and example of Jesus, it refused to participate in violence and embraced enemy love even to the point of death. It was not until Constantine that people started ‘conquering by the sign of the cross’ and it was not until Augustine that  just war became a theological concept that one could faithfully pick up both their cross and their sword. Used incorrectly, the Bible can be used to justify just about anything. So if something (like resorting to violence) in the Bible seems contrary to the way and teaching of Jesus, we don’t need to feel obligated to water down what Jesus said in order to harmonize the conflicting ideas. Rather we need to listen to Jesus, to follow Him and then wrestle with the conflicting idea on the side until we know what to do with it. Today, parts of the church are so confused that they can turn a blind eye to refugees, they can be pro the death penalty, pro war and still call themselves pro-life. Jesus taught us to pray, “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven”, if the Sermon on the Mount means anything to us, if we are to proclaim the peace of Christ, we need to start faithfully live out and model His way of life and His kingdom principles.

Peace

THE BOOK OF REVELATION - A New Translation (Book Review)

There is not a book in the Bible that captures the imagination of people more than the apocalyptic letter from John to the Seven Churches in Asia written from the Isle of Patmos. Indeed my own interpretation of it has changed significantly over the years so I was very interested to learn that a new translation had been made that tackled it in a new and refreshing way.

The Book of Revelation: A New Translation is a collaboration between writer Michael Straus and artist/illustrator Jennifer May Reiland. What makes this book unique to other offerings before it is that Michael has approached the Greek from a literary perspective. Acknowledging the poetic and symbolic style of the original author, Michael has stuck close to the original Greek but has at the same time broken free from the normal constraints of English grammar and vocabulary, in a sense, using his pen as a paintbrush himself to convey the ideas that John himself expresses difficulty to put into words.

Jennifer’s artwork captures the words in images both vividly and explicitly. The paintings are sexually graphic and caught me off guard, some may find them offensive and inappropriate and it certainly not appropriate for younger readers. But the images do a good job of conveying what is already in the text, it highlights the debauchery, violence and depravity of a world in chaos fearfully awaiting its judgement and the saints who eagerly await redemption. There are modern elements in the paintings as well, one can see smoke pouring out of the Twin Towers in one image, perhaps the most powerful for me though is one of victims of ISIS kneeling with heads bowed and hands tied behind their backs. It really allows the reader to connect on an emotional level to the words that they are reading.

As for the translation itself, there are several aspects that make it unique. The most obvious is that all headings, verses and chapter numbers have been left out. Many phrases and especially the songs recorded in Revelation have also been recorded in various languages including French, Italian, Dutch, Spanish, Greek and Hebrew. Revelation 4:5 for example reads:

Dominus Deus Omnipotens qui erat, et qui est, et qui venturus est.

This requires a certain level of familiarity with the book already to know what is been said (or a mastery of several languages) but again, I think it is a powerful way of conveying the image that a great number of people from a multitude of nations are worshiping God and present or represented throughout the book. In addition to this there are excerpts from musical scores where songs appear and even links to Handel’s Messiah videos where lines from Revelation are relevant to that work.

As far as the translation of specific words goes, there are several interesting choices and phrases throughout. Breaking away from traditional translations the church and Israel are spoken of using feminine language. Revelation 2:9 says, “I know the sacrilege of those contesting for Israel’s heart even as they are worshiping her foe”. Chapter 3:9 is translated as “She who overcomes will be a pillar in the temple of my God”. The pale horse of the apocalypse is also translated as the green horse which is perhaps irrelevant but more consistent with the translation of the Greek word chloros as we see it elsewhere in scripture (Mark 6:39 and Revelation 8:7 for example). Hell is also mentioned a few times which is a bit of a break away from modern translations.

All in all, this is not the easiest or most readable translation out there. A lot of the sentences are extremely long, some of the language is in high English, archaic or not in English at all and can be difficult to follow. I would recommend it as a supplementary book for those who enjoy studying Revelation though, it certainly enhances ones perspective of John’s letter and provokes thought.



Check out these links for more...

The Book of Revelation on Amazon
The Book of Revelation Website
Jennifer May Reiland's Website
Michael Straus Interview


*I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.

War, Pacifism and Love - Pt 3

Welcome back to Part 3 of my discussion on War and Pacifism. Sorry it has been a while but I have been devoting my spare time to writing my next book and I am trying to keep the momentum going. I did today though feel that I needed to finish up this series as well and so I will quickly be returning to it once again. For those who don’t know, I am using one of David Servant’s blogs which was critical of those who embrace non-violence as a resource and I encourage you to read part one and two of my response to get up to speed with us over here.

Today, I want to focus on Jesus’ commands to love ones enemies and to love ones neighbors. Let’s use the two portions of scripture below to frame the conversation.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. – Matthew 5:43-45

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” – Matthew 22:36-40

David’s post, which I think represents well those who support just war theory, has essentially argued that Jesus’ commands to love ones neighbors and to love ones enemies cannot be taken as umbrella statements for all peoples. In his post he argues that because these principles can be found in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18) alongside other commands to kill ones neighbors and enemies, that they cannot possibly be all-encompassing statements made by Jesus pertaining to ALL peoples.

Accordingly, loving ones neighbors and enemies does not apply to people who are not among you or are aggressive toward you. Amazingly, David uses the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10 to define ones neighbor as those whom we are in contact with. By this definition though, we side with the Priest and the Levite who passed on the other side of the road and essentially buried their heads in the sand to the suffering of their fellow man. The whole point of Jesus’ parable was that the one who was different, reviled and separate from their own tribe fulfilled the law by being a neighbor to the man who was left for dead.

When Jesus said that we are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, He did not have in mind your neighbor who plays his music to loud or the guys at work who takes credit for your ideas. His listeners would have had their Roman oppressors in mind as the Greek word used for enemies (echthroi) would include religious and political enemies. Not only that, but the word Jesus used for ‘love’ was agape, He is not saying love your enemies like you love pizza but love your enemies like God loves us with a self-sacrificial kind of love. When Jesus follows up by saying that if your enemy causes you to walk one mile with him go two miles, He is referring to an old right that Roman soldiers had over the Jews where they were legally permitted to force a civilian to carry their loads for them for up to one mile.

The only enemy that a Christ follower has a right to war against is the principalities, authorities, cosmic powers and spiritual forces of evil, our enemy is never ever flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12) and both Christ and the early church demonstrated this through their own deaths when they prayed that their executioners would be forgiven rather than fight back to save themselves. Peter encouraged us to suffer for doing good rather than retaliate (1 Peter 2:18-23). Jesus said that the peacemakers will be called the children of God, to be called a child of God or a son of God means that we are reflecting His image. He even went as far as to say that because His kingdom was not of this world or one defined by lines drawn in the sand that His followers would NOT fight. Here is the bottom line, at the end of the day we either trust in the power of the sword or we trust in the power of the cross. We can only choose to carry one as they are mutually exclusive and represent two different kingdoms.

This surely still leaves a lot of questions about all of that divinely sanctioned violence in the Old Testament though. In my last post, I will suggest an alternate approach to scripture than the one David has promoted which I believe waters down the teachings of Jesus in an attempt to harmonize them with some of the darker parts of the Bible.

Making America Great Again - book review

I have to admit that I have never been all that into politics. Sure I recognize that those who govern our lands have the capacity to do a lot of good and a lot of harm and our voices matter but generally speaking, I find that politics can be pretty boring and there is always a suspicion that those in power are more focused on looking out for themselves than the people they are meant to be serving. And besides, the Kingdom of God operates in such a contrary manner to the kingdoms of men that trying to play their game can be like trying to figure out how to play water polo from a manual for rules of soccer. I must confess though, that Donald Trump's presidency got me flipping through the news channels every so often which is something that I normally would avoid. It's just been pure TV drama from day one (on both sides of the fence) and like road kill, it's hard to look away.

So I was intrigued by Pastor David Moore's new book entitled, 'Making America Great Again' and had to have a look, I didn't know who he was beforehand but when an African American Pastor writes a book with a foreword by Brian Mclaren I figured that this had to be interesting. I must say though, I presumed that this book would be more theological than it is, maybe highlighting the sharp contrast between greatness through the eyes of many American evangelicals to what greatness looks like in the life of Jesus and those who imitate Him. I was kind of wrong and right in my assumptions...

The book is indeed about power, on our relationship with it and with Jesus but it is not really a book with neat little theological arguments in it at all. Rather, this read offers something powerful and unique to us in that it opens up a conversation that invites us to see America through the eyes of the poor, the disadvantaged, people of color and outsiders. Something that middle class white men like myself can be oblivious to because our life experiences can look very different in similar circumstances. I appreciated that Dr Moore spoke of his time in South Africa as well which is certainly more familiar to me than the USA.

For anyone who wants to better grasp the things that divide a society or understand the social and economic inequality that society, including modern evangelicism, not only ignores but oftentimes promotes then this is a great book to pick up and digest. It will help in your quest to be less ignorant and more Jesusy to your neighbors. The Kingdom of God will not come through political campaigning, through coercion or by standing on the heads of others but rather through men and woman who are prepared to be the hands and feet of Christ and lifting others up.



*I received this book free from the author and/or publisher through the Speakeasy blogging book review network. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR,Part 255.
You can pick up a copy of Making America Great Again by clicking over here.

War, Pacifism and the New Testament - Pt 2

In my previous post I started to talk about war and pacifism and why Christians cannot seem to agree on this topic. One could be forgiven for reading the Bible and concluding that Jesus is the Prince of Peace but His father a God of War. Yet these same scriptures testify that Jesus is the perfect representation of His Father, His express image and purest expression revealed to man. So how do we get around this dilemma? One ancient heresy called Marcionism simply discarded the Old Testament and followed the New. The problem with this though is that Jesus Himself drew greatly from the Old Testament in his own teachings, they clearly had His stamp of approval on them and so anyone who claims to ‘follow Jesus’ needs to approach their OT with the same degree of respect and seriousness. Another far more common method of solving the problem is to simply water down both Testaments until they fit neatly together. So verses like the two below are interpreted rather liberally or ignored entirely. These verses come from Numbers 31:17-18 where Moses is angry with his soldiers for not having killed the Midianite woman and the children when slaughtering the men as well, this was part of his instructions to his army.

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.

In other words, kill all the male children and women but you can keep the virgins as the spoils of war. We often hear and are shocked and disgusted that Pharaoh had all of the young boys murdered when Moses was a baby and likewise when Herod tried to kill Jesus and did the same in Bethlehem. But when we get to Numbers 31 we come up with something like, yeah but you need to understand the context and so killing children, babies and ladies of another faith is actually merciful or Gods judgment etc.

Anyway, I am getting a bit side tracked here and will return to the Old Testament in my fourth and final post in this series but for now let me refocus on the point that I want to raise. Many Christians, knowing the stories of the flood, the genocide of the Canaanites, a one man army called Samson, a mighty warrior named David and so on, have concluded that Jesus words of love for your enemies and neighbors, responding to evil with goodness, showing forgiveness and mercy and grace cannot be absolutes. Because if they were, then we need to ask some hard questions around the Old Testament and start apologizing for things like the Crusades and the burning of heretics and witches and the drowning of the Anabaptists and for the thousands of dead and orphaned children in the Middle East in the last century. Using David Servant’s post mentioned in my previous blog, I would like to look today at how Christians have tried to soften Jesus‘ words by depicting Him more like the warrior God that many people seem to prefer in an attempt to reconcile the violent and meek portrayals of God in scripture.
   
The New Testament

Almost everyone is quick to admit that The New Testament could be stamped with a far lighter age restriction for violence than the Old but there are some portions that always get highlighted which I would like to look at. Apart from Jesus commands to love ones neighbor as he loves himself and to love and bless your enemies which David argued in his post cannot be taken as umbrella statements extended to all people which I will address in my next post, there are four other arguments that he and others generally use to try and justify violence.

The sword

The first argument against non violence and non resistance is taken from a verse where Jesus tells His disciples to buy swords. I used this verse myself a long time ago when I was on the other side of the fence on this debate. Let's read it in Luke 22:35-38:

And [Jesus] said to [His apostles], “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.” And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough” (Luke 22:35-38).

I'm not the only one to use this verse before, David mentions it in his article as well but here is the thing. Why did Jesus tell His disciples to get some swords and what was the purpose for carrying them? Were the swords for self defense as many presuppose? They cannot be and here is why, the section above itself tells us why Jesus told them to get 'a couple' of swords, it was simply to fulfill what was previously written in order that He would be 'numbered with the transgressors'. Two swords is not enough if you intend on using them against the Roman soldiers or a band of thieves but it is enough to fulfill a scripture as Jesus sees it. Moreover, when Peter actually does go and pull one of them out and chops a guys ear off with it, Jesus intervenes and heals the man, in other words, He repays evil with kindness. If that is not enough, He rebukes Peter and says to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). If we are going to justify godly violence through Jesus' words and actions then this certainly is not the scene to build your case on. There is of course one more time when Jesus Himself is portrayed with a sword which I will address when I get to the book of Revelation.

Jesus' violent outburst in the Temple

"The pacifist claim that Jesus never used force to achieve His objectives is also patently untrue. Jesus at least once “made a scourge of cords” (John 2:15) and violently drove money changers from the temple while overturning their tables. “Gentle Jesus” was not always so gentle".

This was David's statement regarding Jesus' actions when He 'cleansed' the temple but I think that he is wrong about this one as well. I have written about this before so instead of repeating everything here I will post a link to that article (click here) and make just a few simple observations about Jesus' 'cleansing' of the temple.

1 - His actions were not spur of the moment rage but premeditated and deliberate. Before Jesus even enters the temple or the city He wept over it (Luke 19:41-44), John 2 mentions that He made a whip, that would have taken Him at least a few minutes. Note here that if you have ever worked with farm animals like bulls and sheep the sound of a cracking whip is a great way to steer them, Jesus didn't go all Indiana Jones on anyone or use it as a weapon. Anyone who claims that is reading into the text what simply is not there.

2 - According to John 2:18 the Jews did not interpret the turned over tables as the actions of an out of control man, rather, they saw them as the symbolic actions of a prophet.John 2:18 says, "What sign do You show to us, since You do these things"? We have all watched movies recreating this scene before but does this statement maybe cause you to envision it a little differently?

3 - If not, then consider this, in the Gospel of Matthew this account ends with the blind and the lame coming to Jesus and Him healing them while the children around him rejoiced and sang "Hosanna to the Son of David" (Mathew 21:14-15). One has to wonder, if Jesus' actions were really that violent then you would expect the children to be scattering and the lame to keep their distance but that is not what happened. Perhaps the prophet got it right when he wrote in Isaiah 53:9 that there was no violence or deceit found in Him.

The war imagery

Good Christians tend to distance themselves from things that are seemingly bad. So the argument here is that if war was something bad and unchristian then the New Testament writers would have distanced themselves from the terminology that we find in some of the epistles. For example, Paul encouraged believers to “put on the full armor of God” (Ephesians 6:11-17). He also referred to Epaphroditus and Archippus as his “fellow soldiers” (Phillipians 2:25; Philemon 2), and admonished Timothy to “Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:3). This is a fairly odd argument to make since Paul also reminded us that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood. The analogies simply can't be used to endorse actual military actions. Jesus on occasion used odd examples Himself, the parable of the unjust steward or the shrewd manager, the good Samaritan, He told us to be as wise as serpents as well... No one assumes that Jesus approves of unjust stewardship or that serpents like the one in Genesis 3 should be commended for their wisdom, neither should we assume that Paul endorsed war because he drew from the imagery around it. 

The Book of Revelation 

The first time Jesus came as a lamb but next time He will return as a lion right? I have heard that saying as I am sure that you have as well. If anyone is going to make a case for a violent, blood thirsty, vengeful god then Revelation is certainly your best bet in the New Testament. As David once again put it, 'And when Jesus returns, Scripture foretells us that “in righteousness He judges and wages war.” (Rev. 19:11)'. This is another point which I have addressed elsewhere before and so I would rather point you toward that article (over here) than rehash everything here once again. But let me once again make just a few points on the book of Revelation.

1 - The Jesus of the Gospels is the same yesterday, today and forever. He did not abandon His values laid out in the Sermon on the Mount.

2 - Revelation 5 tells us that Jesus won not by killing His enemies but by dying for them. The lion that John hears about in Revelation 5 he is startled by when he looks and sees as a slain lamb. Paul said that this message sounds foolish to those who are perishing but to those who are being saved the cross reveals the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18).

3 - Revelation only once refers to Jesus as a lion and then turns the imagery on its head by proclaiming Him as the lamb, a title used a further 27 times for Him during the remainder of the book.

4 - John cleverly uses violent imagery in Revelation to contrast it with the way of the Lamb. For example, the sword Jesus carries is not in His hand but in His mouth, meaning that His weapon is truth. Jesus wears a robe into battle with His own blood on it while His 'soldiers'  are all dressed in white.   

Of course there is more that could be discussed with all of these points and feel free to bring up any questions, rebuttals or insights in the comments but I hope that I have laid sufficient ground to open some readers up to a different way of thinking about war and violence and the disciples relationship to them. Stay tuned for part 3 in this series, for now let me leave you with one more verse to reflect on.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. - Matthew 5:9.

War and Pacifism

I am a fan of David Servant's blog which means that I regularly receive and read the articles that he posts. To this day I think that he has written one of the most well rounded introductions to conditional immortality there is and I have often referred people to it and have read it more than once myself. Recently however, he posted an article challenging the Anabaptist stance on military service, war and pacifism which has prompted this post or rather, series of posts. I figured that this may get long and so I would like to address his post with a series of four of my own, each highlighting a specific topic relating to the overall theme. This blog will attempt to set the stage for the rest of the discussion, the second post will deal with what the New Testament says about violence, military service and pacifism, the third with Jesus' commands to "love your neighbor" and your enemy and why I think that David is wrong in his interpretation. The last post will be on two different approaches to the Bible which I believe is essentially why David and the Anabaptists, a person and a people both devoted to Christ and serious about scripture, can land on such polar opposite positions on such an important topic.

Starting with a story

I would like to start by retelling a story from World War 2 that happened at the Battle of the Bulge which I first read about in Keith Giles' book, Jesus Untangled. In the war there was a special army unit whose  job it was to each day go out and kill German soldiers who were wounded but still alive on the fields from the previous days fighting. One morning a soldier came across a German sitting against a tree, the man was not wounded but simply to exhausted to have retreated back to safety. When he was spotted a man raised his rifle to kill him but the German requested in English if he could please first have a moment to pray. His would be executioner lowered his rifle and asked him if he was a Christian to which the man replied yes. The man then said that he too was a Christian and then sat down next to the other man under the tree, pulled out a Bible and the two started to read and pray together. After they finished praying and the German said amen, the American (I am assuming, I suppose that he could have been British or something else as well) stood up and said, "well, I guess that we will meet again in heaven", and shot his German brother in the head.

This is an extreme, even absurd, example but it is perfect to illustrate the dangers involved when a church believes in just war. If you are not familiar with Just War Theory, it is a philosophical attempt to reconcile three things:

 - Taking human life is seriously wrong.
 - The state has a duty to defend its citizens.
 - Protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires       willingness to use force and violence.

Just War Theory then proceeds to lay out certain guidelines as to when it is okay to kill another person or to harm them in some other way. The Anabaptist position which rejects participation in violence and war for Christians would be that of Pro-Life as opposed to the more common Christian position which is better defined as Pro-Birth or Pro-those -we -deem-deserving -of-life (which makes allowance for things like the death penalty). Yet I need to stress that Anabaptists still acknowledge the validity of point number two, that the state has a right to defend itself, they simply believe that they, personally, are to obey Christ, their master and commander, over that of the state (which is why they do not choose to partake in the military) when the two are at odds.

"No (Christian) soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier" -2 Timothy 2:4

The Anabaptist mindset, and those who agree with them, is that the kingdoms of the world coexist alongside the kingdom of God for now. We are not to get caught up in the affairs and agendas of worldly kingdoms, even though God has established them that their can be order in a fallen world. Instead Christ followers are to devote themselves to the Kingdom of Heaven and to establish Gods will here on earth and follow the decrees of King Jesus. These are mostly laid out in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus famously says things like "turn the other cheek" and "blessed are the peacemakers".

To the Anabaptist mind, our weapons are not made of iron or steel and used to cut down people. But rather they are metaphorical, the armor of God is to clothe yourself with Christ Himself. The breastplate of righteousness, having feet shod with the gospel of peace, your shield is faith, your helmet is salvation and your sword is truth, held not in you hand but swinging out of your mouth. These are terrible weapons for soldiers on a physical battleground but nevertheless they are essential weapons in the army of God. The book of Revelation essentially tells us how Christ conquered not by slaying His enemies but by laying down His own life for them as a lamb. The book continues by encouraging Christians to follow the Lamb wherever He goes, even to the point of death (14:4).

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. - Ephesians 6:12

To reiterate, this is not to say that Anabaptists and like-minded Christians do not believe that the state has a right to defend itself, they do and Romans 13 essentially makes provision for that. The view simply states that while Governments have certain rights and functions the Christian is not to be entangled in them. We should obey them and live at peace with all men as far as possible. But we, as Christians, are to be led rather by Romans 12, to bless those who persecute us, to feed your hungry enemy and to repay evil with good.

Of course Anabaptists cannot and do not use a 'cut and paste' approach to scripture and believing that Jesus modeled 'non-violent resistance' (not pacifism so much) needs to be reconciled with the violent parts of the Bible as well. So in my next post I will look at the New Testament. I will address the war imagery that is often used there, Jesus' moment of turning over tables in the temple and more. Check back soon for part 2.