How often have you seen people that overcome by an addiction that they have lost everything; friends, family, job, home, money- everything? We often refer to people in this situation as having hit "rock bottom".
What if someone has hit rock bottom and not done anything wrong? Really, does this happen?
The answer is an emphatic YES and the example is found in the book of Jeremiah...
6 Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into
thedungeonof Malchijah the king’s son, that was in the court of
the guard: and they let down Jeremiah with cords. In the dungeon
there was no water, but mire; and Jeremiah sank in the mire. (WEB) note: emphasis added
6 And they took Jeremiah and threw him into thepitof Malchiah, the king's son, which was in the court of the guardhouse. And they let Jeremiah down with ropes. But no water was in the pit, only mud. So Jeremiah sank into the mud. (LITV) note: emphasis added
6 And they take Jeremiah, and cast him into the pit of Malchiah son of the king, that is in the court of the prison, and they send down Jeremiah with cords; and in the pit there is no water, but mire, and Jeremiah sinketh in the mire. (YLT) note: emphasis added
Jeremiah, Chapter 38 (World English Bible)
6 Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into
the dungeon of Malchijah the king’s son, that was in the court of
the guard: and they let down Jeremiah with cords. In the dungeon
there was no water, but mire; and Jeremiah sank in the mire. (emphasis added)
7 Now when Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, a eunuch,
who was in the king’s house, heard that they had put Jeremiah in
the dungeon (the king then sitting in the gate of Benjamin),
8 Ebedmelech went out of the king’s house,
and spoke to the king, saying,
9 My lord the king, these men have done evil
in all that they have done to Jeremiah the prophet, whom they have
cast into the dungeon; and he is likely to die in the place where he
is, because of the famine; for there is no more bread in the city.
10 Then the king commanded Ebedmelech the
Ethiopian, saying, Take from here thirty men with you, and take up
Jeremiah the prophet out of the dungeon, before he dies. (emphasis added)
11 So Ebedmelech took the men with him, and
went into the house of the king under the treasury, and took there
rags and worn-out garments, and let them down by cords into the
dungeon to Jeremiah.
12 Ebedmelech the Ethiopian said to Jeremiah,
Put now these rags and worn-out garments under your armpits under the
cords. Jeremiah did so.
13 So they drew up Jeremiah with the cords,
and took him up out of the dungeon: and Jeremiah remained in the
court of the guard.
14 Then Zedekiah the king sent, and took
Jeremiah the prophet to him into the third entry that is in Yahweh’s
house: and the king said to Jeremiah, I will ask you something. Hide
nothing from me. (emphasis added)
15 Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, If I
declare it to you, will you not surely put me to death? and if I give
you counsel, you will not listen to me.
16 So Zedekiah the king swore secretly to
Jeremiah, saying, As Yahweh lives, who made us this soul, I will not
put you to death, neither will I give you into the hand of these men
who seek your life.
17 Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, Thus says
Yahweh, the God of Armies, the God of Israel: If you will go out to
the king of Babylon’s princes, then your soul shall live, and this
city shall not be burned with fire; and you shall live, and your
house.
18 But if you will not go out to the king of
Babylon’s princes, then shall this city be given into the hand of
the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and you shall not
escape out of their hand.
19 Zedekiah the king said to Jeremiah, I am
afraid of the Jews who are fallen away to the Chaldeans, lest they
deliver me into their hand, and they mock me.
20 But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver
you. Obey, I beg you, the voice of Yahweh, in that which I speak to
you: so it shall be well with you, and your soul shall live.
21 But if you refuse to go out, this is the
word that Yahweh has shown me:
22 behold, all the women who are left in the
king of Judah’s house shall be brought out to the king of Babylon’s
princes, and those women shall say, Your familiar friends have set
you on, and have prevailed over you. Your feet are sunk in the mire,
they have turned away back.
23 They shall bring out all your wives and
your children to the Chaldeans; and you shall not escape out of their
hand, but shall be taken by the hand of the king of Babylon: and you
shall cause this city to be burned with fire.
24 Then Zedekiah said to Jeremiah, Let no man
know of these words, and you shall not die.
25 But if the princes hear that I have talked
with you, and they come to you, and tell you, Declare to us now what
you have said to the king; don’t hide it from us, and we will not
put you to death; also what the king said to you:
26 then you shall tell them, I presented my
supplication before the king, that he would not cause me to return to
Jonathan’s house, to die there.
27 Then came all the princes to Jeremiah, and
asked him; and he told them according to all these words that the
king had commanded. So they left off speaking with him; for the
matter was not perceived.
28 So Jeremiah stayed in the court of the
guard until the day that Jerusalem was taken.
I remembered Jeremiah being lowered into a pit, but couldn't find in the World English Bible, so I did a little searching and found out that The WEB uses "dungeon" instead. However you translate the word, the point is that Jeremiah was in a situation through no fault of his own.
He didn't stay there, of course, because God (and Zedekiah) had plans for him. Zedekiah wanted to inquire of God and Jeremiah's response was to show him a way out of his immanent predicament with the Chaldeans. Zedekiah didn't listen and paid the price.
The point of all this is to say that if you are at "rock bottom" in your life, it is possible that God is using you. Consider this passage from the book of 1st Peter...
1 Peter, Chapter 2 (WEB)
19 For it is commendable if someone endures
pain, suffering unjustly, because of conscience toward God. (emphasis added)
20 For what glory is it if, when you sin, you
patiently endure beating? But if, when you do well, you patiently
endure suffering, this is commendable with God.
21 For to this you were called, because Christ
also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow
his steps,
22 who did not sin, “neither was deceit
found in his mouth.”Isaiah 53:9
23 Who, when he was cursed, didn’t curse
back. When he suffered, didn’t threaten, but committed himself to
him who judges righteously;
24 who his own self bore our sins in his body
on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to
righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed.
The modern, liberal theologian has joined the cultic religionist
in seeking to “water down” hell and make eternal punishment nothing more
than a momentary oxidation of the body. He inconsistently affirms the
eternal nature of God and the future state of the righteous by denying
the everlasting duration of the punishment of the unrighteous. He also
perverts the Bible’s teaching about punishment in hell. In fact, when he
finishes interpreting Bible contexts, “eternal” does not mean “forever and forever,” “punishment” becomes “non-existence,” and “hell”
refers to a geographical location where the unrighteous will
momentarily experience some degree of suffering as God kills them, then
discards their bodies to be eaten of worms and burned by fire. With more
than a mere sprinkle of philosophy, he cools the flames of hell by his
rationale.
Accepting annihilation, as opposed to believing in everlasting
punishment, is not a result of a more accurate definition of the Greek
word “aionios” and the Hebrew word “olam,” because the words do mean
“endless duration” in many instances — the integrity of those opposed to
“endless duration punishment” requires that they admit that. If not
actually stated, the implication is seen in the writings of the
opponents of hell that a proper definition of words requires that one
deny the reality of eternal punishment in hell. The reasoning is
presented as though in exegeting Biblical contexts since words have a
particular meaning in one context, then those words must have the same
meaning in all contexts. Specifically, as it relates to this study, the
conclusion is drawn that since “aionios” and “olam” mean “age lasting”
or a “duration of time,” then that is what they must mean in passages
addressing the future punishment of man. That is not an accurate
analysis. While words will always retain their basic meaning, there are
extensions and variations in different contexts. The rejection of an
“endless duration” of punishment does not rest on the definition of the
words — it rests on human reasoning that sets aside the most basic
understanding of passages.
Every bible student recognizes that the words “eternal,”
“everlasting” and “forever” are used sometimes to describe what is
actually less than “endless duration.” For instance, Jonah said of his
stay in the fish’s belly that it was “forever” but we know that it was actually only three days (Jonah 2:6). In this instance the word “forever”
is used in the sense of that which seems to be so to the writer — that
is a legitimate use of language, because there is a kind of “poetic”
latitude involved. Does the fact that both the Hebrew words and the
Greek words that are translated “eternal” and “everlasting” are used
for time-frame references of shorter duration justify a denial of an
eternal hell? The preponderance of Biblical evidence proves that such an
interpretation is incorrect.
Neither is a person logically forced to believe that the soul or
spirit of man cannot exist separate from Divine presence and sustenance,
because he has learned better definitions of the words “spirit,”
“soul,” “death” and “destroy.” Contrariwise, I believe that
definitions are manipulated to sustain “conditional immortality.” There
may have been some factor that caused a person to accept “conditional
immortality” but once having accepted it, he is then logically forced
to reinterpret many passages.
And, there are some implications necessarily flowing from modern
reasoning which, when pursued with consistency, reach far beyond the
nature of man and eternal punishment. For instance, Edward Fudge, in
being consistent with his belief in “conditional immortality” says, “Every
scriptural implication is that if Jesus had not been raised, he — like
those fallen asleep in him — would simply have perished (1 Cor. 15:18). Scriptures such as 2 Timothy 1:10; Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 20:14 affirm that his resurrection reverses every such estimation of affairs, assuring us instead of the death of Death,”
(Fudge, p. 145, The Fire That Consumes). If that statement isn’t
saying that not only does man cease to exist at death but that when
Jesus died, He also ceased to exist, I must confess that I do not
understand it.
Furthermore, I believe that if he reasons consistently, he will
cease believing in “eternal life” — radical, liberal theologians have
already. Existence then becomes “man focused” with both heaven and hell
a “now” experience. None of us are immune from the flood of religious
materials being published containing modernistic concepts. Like all
error, left unattended, it can subtletly erode faith. Without hell there
is not much incentive to restrain evil aspirations — without heaven
there is not much reason for people trying to live righteously.
More Than A Drop Of Water On Lazarus’ Finger — Luke 16:19-31
This account conveys an existence beyond the grave, during which,
time continues on the earth — the well being of the rich man’s brethren
on earth was of grave concern to him, lest they should also come to
this place — vv. 29-31.
Why do “annihilationists” demote the story of the rich man and
Lazarus from inspired truth to folklore or mythology? Obviously, because
it says some things they refuse to accept. It says, first of all, that
there is existence after death. It not only says there is existence but
that there is conscious existence. And then it affirms that there is
some degree of suffering on the part of the unrighteous which is
ongoing, though this context does not deal with “eternal punishment.”
Jesus’ teaching here takes direct issue with the “conditional
immortality” view of man.
So-called “scholars” who believe in “conditional immortality”
first deal with the passage by referring to it as a “parable.” That is
nothing new — The Watchtower has been doing that for many years. The
purpose of labeling it in that fashion is to imply that it cannot be a
true picture of life after death. However, if we were to grant that it
is a parable, the parables Jesus taught were always fact or true to
fact, else a parallel could not be drawn — parables parallel truth so
that from an established, accepted truth, disciples could learn
spiritual truth.
Since calling it a parable is not nearly adequate to destroy its
credibility, they intensify their attacks by saying that Jesus borrowed
the story from the folk-lore of the Jews. Fudge says, “Morey
acknowledges that Jesus borrowed this story from a common rabbinical
tale of the time and that it should not be pressed into a literal
preview of the world to come” (Afterlife pp. 30f, 84f, as quoted
in The Fire That Consumes, p. 126.) Fudge admits that the Jews’
folklore and Jesus statements in Luke 16 are not exactly the same: “There
are differences between these stories and Jesus’, of course, and
therein lies the Lord’s uniqueness. But the basic plot was well-known
folklore,” (p. 127). Fudge refers to Froom who cites a discourse
of Josephus concerning Hades which, he says, paints almost precisely
the same picture as the account in Luke 16. Then Fudge says, “He
(Froom) concludes that Jesus was clearly using a then common tradition
of the Jews to press home a moral lesson in a related field.”
However, Fudge admits that the account in Josephus is generally admitted
by his own scholars to be spurious (p. 127), and, in so doing, annuls
his own proof.
When the opponent of hell has finished with this context, the
rich man doesn’t need for Lazarus to come and dip his finger in water to
cool his tongue, for he has totally extinguished the flame. The rich
man just thinks he exists and that he views Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom.
Furthermore, the rich man really isn’t suffering, for there is no
existence after death — you see, he doesn’t understand that his soul has
been extinguished along with the body. However, I consider the most
serious consequence of their position to be a necessary charge of either
dishonesty or ignorance against Jesus Himself. They must accuse Jesus
of, either ignorantly or intentionally, using a lie to try and impress a
moral truth when they say that He used mere tradition of the Jews drawn
from folklore and mythology.
It is not just the Lord’s uniqueness that makes the account in Luke 16
different — it is His understanding as God of what is beyond the grave.
It is impossible for me to believe that Jesus used a lie to teach a
moral truth — such an affirmation is totally incongruous and illogical.
It is not from deeper wells of wisdom that men draw their conclusions
denying hell as eternal punishment — it really springs from the waters
of modern, materialistic concepts that will douse, not just a fiery
hell, but the very flames of inspiration. When one begins to question
reliability of certain sections of scripture to establish credibility of
his position, he needs to understand that he has forsaken God, the
fountain of living waters and hewn out for himself broken cisterns that
can hold no water (Jeremiah 2:13).
He dilutes the very truth he uses to sustain his own belief system. One
cannot attack the credibility of the scripture on one point and use it
as support for his belief system on another.
“Image Is Everything”
Man as a special creation made in God’s image differs
significantly from the rest of animal creation — there is more to him
than a living, animated body — “IMAGE IS EVERYTHING!”
Are all men infused with an immortal soul? Can God annihilate the
spirit (soul) He has given or, once brought into existence, is it
indestructible? “Immortality” means “not subject to death.”
“Conditional immortality” affirms that the soul can sustain its
existence only as it is connected to and cared for by God — left alone
it will perish as a coal of fire dies when separated from its source.
“Conditional immortality” affirms that only the righteous will be
raised to immortality. On the other hand, the unrighteous, perchance
they be raised, will be annihilated as their bodies are oxidized in
“Gehenna’s” unquenchable fire that will be quenched after it has burned
up their bodies and the soul will become nonexistent. “Conditional
immortality” necessarily makes “gehenna” a physical fire — a literal
place filled with dead bodies being eaten by worms and being oxidized by
“unquenchable fire.” Besides other problems, such a physical
interpretation presents a conflict between the bodies being consumed in a
lake of fire and being eaten by worms.
Proper definitions of the Hebrew words “ruach” and “nephesh,”
and the Greek words “psuche,” “zoe” and “pneuma” give us an idea of
the flexibility of these words. Consult a lexicon for detailed
definitions. Our English words “soul,” “spirit,” “life,” “person,”
“being,” “breath,” etc., are translations of the Hebrew and Greek.
Now, whether or not “ruach” means “breath” is not the issue, for it
does sometimes carry that simple idea. But, it is inaccurate to say that
since “ruach” means “breath,” then it must mean that exclusively. In
fact, the definition of the Greek word “pneuma” as “air” or “wind,”
since it is used in reference to the Holy Spirit, is the basis for some
denying that the Holy Spirit is a part of the Godhead. Nor is the issue
whether or not “nephesh” and “psuche” can simply mean a person, a
living animated being, for the words convey that thought at times. The
real issue is whether or not there is an inner man, made in God’s
likeness, which exists after the body is dead. The “inner man” is
called both “soul” and “spirit,” but to people who want to quibble
about meanings of words, Paul used neither “pneuma” nor “psuke” when
he referred to the “inner man” that is renewed day by day while the
“outer man” was decaying — there is an “inner man” and an “outer man,”
(2 Corinthians 4:14-5:4).
There are generally two positions postulated about the “soul” of
man: (1) that the soul is just the life that animates the body and when
the body dies man ceases to exist; or (2) that the real man is the
spirit or the soul which tabernacles, temporarily, in a living animated
body and continues to exist, even when separated from the physical part.
For years The Watchtower has denied the existence of an “inner man” by
a simplified form of argumentation. Their arguments are stripped of the
flare of intellectualism, devoid of philosophical reasoning, missing
the reciprocal name dropping of respected, fellow scholars so common in
current times; but, none the less, presenting man as a soul — not having
a soul — which soul simply ceases to exist at death in the same way
that animals die. I doubt that any so-called scholar of our times would
wish to be identified with Charles Tazz Russell, nor would they accept
him as a scholar, but in the later 1800’s and early 1900’s he was making
arguments similar to those made by some who have embraced “conditional
immortality” in our time.
Man as a special creation differs significantly from animals that have soul (“nephesh” ). “And
the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being,” (Genesis 2:7, NKJV). Genesis 2 describes in detail what Genesis 1 revealed in general terms. But Genesis 1:26-27, contains essential information in relating God’s creation of man in order to give a correct interpretation of Genesis 2:7 — “Let
Us make man in Our image, According to Our likeness…So God created man
in His own image; in the image of God He created them; male and female
He created them,” (NKJV). “Image” and “likeness” make a difference in how we understand who and what we are. “Image” is not said of beasts of the field nor birds of the heaven, though it is said of them that they have “soul” (“nephesh,” “life,” in Genesis 2:19). Simply put, God is spirit (John 4:24); man is created in God’s likeness (Genesis 1:26-27);
therefore, the likeness man has with God is spirit. If we accept the
spirit nature of God, then we are forced to accept that image in man. In
reference to the nature of God, one who believes in conditional
immortality will not argue that God is just “breath” or “life,”
because if he did, he would reduce God to being just as extinguishable
as he conceives of man’s spirit being. What is there about man that
differentiates him from animals, if he is just alive as the animals are
alive?
Since God imparted “spirit” to
man, is He, consequently, powerless to annihilate the spirit? I would
hesitate to affirm what God could not do — that is like asking, “Could
God not force man to be good?” or “Could God not have forgiven sin in
some other way than through the death of Christ?” God must act
consistent with His very nature ; hence, I would not answer the question
in that form. Rather, since God cannot deny Himself, I would answer
that God has conveyed to us what He has done and what He has done is
make man in His image and after His likeness. God is both eternal and
immortal — man is not eternal, because he had a beginning but his inner
part, made in God’s likeness, is necessarily immortal. The issue is
whether or not the Bible teaches that the soul part of man survives
death. An appropriate question here would be, “Is God powerless to
fulfill His threat of an eternal, conscious torment of the unrighteous?”
Two Simple Answers To “Conditional Immortality”
First, in Matthew 10:28,
Jesus is giving assurance to His apostles whom He is sending on the
“limited commission” — don’t be afraid of what men can do to you. By
having a priority in fears, there is an understanding of the greatness
of God and His protective ability. Man can kill the body but he cannot
kill the soul — thus there is a difference between the outer part, the
living animated being, and the inner part of man. Fearing God more than
man is based on an understanding of the greater power that God has. But
if man can do what God can do by killing the body, why would Jesus say, “But rather fear him...”
? Jesus is saying to His apostles, If you have to die — and later they
did — those who kill you cannot touch that which is the “inner being”
(soul).
There is significance in the words used by Jesus to describe the differences in the greatness of power: “Kill”
(Greek, apokteino) means taking life, murder, put to death (Vine, p.
630). It is taking the life from the body by inflicting sufficient harm
on the body so as to render it incapable of existing — man can take life
by harming the body sufficiently. But only God can “destroy” the soul — (apollumi) “The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being...”
(Vine, p. 304). Jesus’ statements surely indicate the immortality of
the soul. If man were able to kill the body but not kill the soul, then
when the body dies, the soul lives on — otherwise, to kill the body
would also be to kill the soul. God is able to destroy the body and soul
in hell (gehenna) — remember, it is not said of God that He is able to
“kill” the body and soul but rather that He is able to “destroy” both
in hell. In the parallel account in Luke 12:4-5,
it is stated differently and proponents of “conditional immortality”
would have Jesus say that God will “kill” the soul. But, again, look at
the contrasts between the power of men and that of God. Men have the
power to kill the body but after that, have no power to do anything more
— that is, they have no power to affect the soul, as Matthew records
Jesus’ statement (10:28). In v. 5, the admonition is to fear the One,
which after He hath killed — and the parallel contrast goes back to the
power of men to “kill the body” — also has power to cast into hell. “Killing”
has reference to the body — not to the “killing the soul.” Instead of
trying to make Jesus say that God “kills the soul,” the consistent
parallel is the power of God to deal with the soul, which man cannot
touch, by inflicting eternal loss of well being. Matthew’s account, “...destroy both body and soul in hell,” is recorded by Luke as “after he has killed (the body) hath power to cast into hell.” It is after the “killing”,
that God still has power to do something else. Luke’s account does not
say that God “kills the soul,” which is what one embracing “conditional
immortality” would like for Him to say.
Then, Jesus answered the materialistic Sadducees conclusively in Matthew 22:23-33.
The Sadducees and their belief are identified and they pose their
“unanswerable” question for Jesus. The dilemma they posed for Him is
found in verses 24-28. Jesus answers in verses 29-33. In His answer He
proposes first that in the resurrection — which affirms that there is a
resurrection of the dead — men are as angels. The point of comparison is
that angels do not marry but that necessarily implies something else
about the nature of angels. Are angels created beings or eternal? Are
angels immortal? They do exist separate from God (Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4).
From Peter’s second epistle (2:4), evil angels have been cast down to
“tartrarosas” and bound in chains — they are existing beings, currently
bound and experiencing some form of punishment as they await the coming
judgment. Jesus then makes an argument based on God’s statement of
“being” — “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Then He states the second part of the argument: “God is not the God of the dead but of the living,”
(v. 32). The necessary conclusion from His argument is that Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob are living, though dead physically. “Conditional
immortality” contradicts Jesus’ argument.
Shortening The “Eternity” Of “Eternal Punishment”
By what reasoning process do the opponents of “eternal punishment”
seek to diminish the time-frame reference so that “eternity” is not a
quantitative qualification of endless duration? The observations here
are not designed to be exhaustive of all the arguments but, rather, are
an examination of the most common ones that are considered to be the
most persuasive. The answers in this section are summations and
objections to the basic fallacies involved in their arguments.
(1) Some opponents of hell say: “The
adjectival use of ‘aionios’ can never mean more than the noun use of
‘aion.’ Therefore, since ‘aion’ means ‘age;’ then ‘aionios’ must mean
nothing more than ‘age lasting.’” The fallacy of that statement
can be seen by examining contexts containing the words “eternal” and
“forever.” It cannot be successfully denied by the opponents of an
“eternal hell” that the words “eternal” and “everlasting,” as they
apply to God, convey “endless duration” — the evidence is there; they
have no choice — Rom 1:25, 9:5, 11:36; 16:27; Eph 3:21 — cf. Heb 13:8.
Would they dare affirm that God is just an “age lasting” God?
Furthermore, the passages that describe the existence of the righteous
in the resurrection use the word “aionios” to describe an eternal time
frame reference — Matt 19:29; 25:46; Lk 16:9; Rom 2:7; Tit 1:1; Heb 5:9; 2 Cor 5:1.
To believe in both the eternal nature of God and the “endless duration”
of the future of the righteous means that one must accept the fact
that “aionios” does, indeed, mean more than the noun usage of “aion.”
Therefore, “aionios” (endless duration) can also describe the future
existence of the wicked. It is not a more accurate definition of the
word, “aionios,” that causes one to deny “everlasting punishment.” The
argument, as stated in the beginning of this paragraph, is blatantly
false.
(2) Others seek to “water down hell” by arguing that the fire of
hell is eternal but the resurrected evil are burned up immediately by
the fire. That necessarily recognizes the “endless duration” sense of
“aionios” as descriptive of the fire. But the most logical question
that comes to mind is, “Why have an eternal fire, if it accomplished in
an instant the punishment of the wicked in burning up their bodies?”
So, a second explanation is offered that is slightly different and is
designed to address that problem — “The fire is
called eternal, because it has eternal consequences but the fire only
lasted as long as it took to consume evil men.” John Stott said, “The
fire itself is termed ‘eternal’ and ‘unquenchable,’ but it would be
very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible. Our
expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed forever, not
tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has
done its work) which ‘rises for ever and ever’ (Rev. 14:11; cf. 19:3).”
This little bit of sophistry throws muddy water on hell by its
materialism — so now the fire is not eternal but the smoke is eternal
evidence of the destruction of the evil — evidence for whom and for what
reason? God did it, so He surely knows about it and why He did it. The
unrighteous are supposedly eternally gone, so there are no evil people
around for whom the smoke will serve as a warning. The righteous are in a
totally different existence, where there is no evil so they don’t need
to know. Furthermore, Stott’s answer ignores the rest of verse 11 in
chapter 4 — “…and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” Also, v. 10, affirms that anyone who worships the beast will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, “and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the lamb.”
If the evil souls cease to exist because they are separated from God’s
presence, that contradicts what John says here — he says they are
tormented in the presence of the Lamb. Their explanation is not only
nonsensical, it plainly contradicts what the passage, in its entirety,
says.
(3) Notice this subtle play on words — “But
Jesus did not say ‘eternal punishing’ — He said, ‘eternal punishment.’
‘Eternal punishment’ would mean ‘annihilation,’ because its results
would be for eternity.” Jesus did not have to employ the
participle “punishing” in order to convey a continued, ongoing
punishment. For instance, when Cain said to God, “My punishment is greater than I can bear...” (Gen 4:13),
he referred to God’s curse placed upon him (vv. 11-12). As long as he
lived, the punishment continued. Cain could have said the same thing by
using a verbal expression — “My being punished is too great.” The
prepositional phrase “...into everlasting punishment”
carries the same connotation as “being punished forever,” just as a
person might be sent into banishment would mean that he was being
banished and would continue being banished for the whole duration of
time. It is significant that the quantitative qualification of the
punishment Jesus described is “eternal” — it is not just death — the punishment endures eternally.
(4) Jude said, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah…are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The efforts put forth by those who believe in “conditional immortality” and “annihilation” from Jude 7 argue that Jude used the word “eternal”
to qualify punishment by fire for a period of time that was of the few
minutes or hours that God rained the fire and brimstone on the cities
and they were destroyed. They affirm that since Sodom and Gomorrah
suffered the vengeance of “eternal fire”
and it was the annihilation of the cities, then the “eternal
punishment” of the wicked at the final judgment will also be
annihilation. In this way, they say that “eternal fire”
is called that because it has “eternal consequences” in
“annihilation” rather than an “ongoing punishment.” There appears to
me to be, first, a certain anomaly in that position. On the one hand
they argue for “the vengeance of eternal fire”
being the destruction of the cities that took place in just a few
minutes. On the other hand, they affirm that the unrighteous will be
raised to suffer “eternal punishment” when their resurrected bodies are
forever annihilated. But, if it was “eternal punishment” when fire and
brimstone consumed them, then how can it be “eternal punishment” at
their resurrection?
Another thing that seems strange to me about that interpretation would be the use of “eternal”
as it applies to fire since, according to them, even a temporary fire
would accomplish the same thing. And, if these inhabitants were
annihilated when the fire and brimstone fell on the cities, that fire
could just as appropriately be called “momentary” fire instead of “eternal” fire — they would become just as nonexistent by a “momentary” fire as they would by an “eternal” fire — the consequences are the same.
In the context and in a comparison of a similar account by Peter (2 Pet 2:6-9), I do not believe the “eternal fire”
describes the physical fire and brimstone that fell upon the cities.
The fire and brimstone that destroyed the cities of the plains is not
called “eternal fire” — the sulfurous
rain from heaven destroyed the cities and left them as a sign of the
eternal doom. Jude’s illustration serves as a type that includes the
righteous vengeance of God in “everlasting punishment.” The word “example” (Greek “deigma” — specimen, pattern) lends credence to that idea. The verb form “deigmatizo” is found in Matt 1:19; Heb 6:6, and Col 2:15. The intensified “hupodeigma” is found in 2 Pet 2:6.
In the immediate context, v. 6 certainly reaches beyond our physical
world in anticipation of eternal, existence consequences. “Undergoing the vengeance of eternal fire”
goes beyond what happened on the day that God rained fire and
brimstone on the cities of the plains - their eternal doom was sealed on
the very day of their destruction. Of those inhabitants, Jude could
appropriately use the destructive fire as an example of their eternal
expectations.
In Peter’s similar account of God’s righteous judgments on the ungodly (2 Pet 2:6-9), he draws this conclusion: “The
Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to
reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished,” (v. 9). Literally, the text reads, “...but to keep unjust men being punished for a day of judgment” — “BEING PUNISHED”
— the very participial form that the annihilationist says cannot be
true. For however long, from whatever time frame Peter wrote, these
unrighteous are “being punished” in some form. “Being punished” cannot convey annihilation or a state of “non-existence.”
And to the “conditional immortalitist” we would say that the
disobedient angels who are shut up, the unfaithful Israelites, the
worldly of Noah’s day and the homosexuals of Sodom and Gomorrah continue
their existence. Though they are separated from a relationship with God
they are “kept” by Him. Or being
facetious, we might ask, “Perhaps, after thousands of years, they are at
this very moment cooling into nothingness as a coal that is separated
from the fire of its life?” Pray tell us, “How long does it take for the
soul created in God’s likeness, when separated from God’s presence, to
fade into non-existence?”
(5) Also, an argument is made based on the fact that chaff, tares and branches are to be “burned up,” (Matt 13:30; 40; Jno 15:6). This, they say, cannot refer to eternal, conscious punishment, because “burned up”
means “annihilated.” Their conclusion is that we must interpret
“eternal punishment” by “eternal fire” as meaning “consumed” and
“annihilated.” But words must be used consistent within the figure of
which they are a part. “Burned up” is
consistent with the tares, chaff or branches. Jesus could not
consistently have said that the tares or chaff would be punished with
“everlasting punishment.” That would not fit the figures. Whenever a
figure is employed in scripture, there must be consistency within the
figure. Then when the figure is understood, straightforward conclusions
can be drawn and lessons applied from the figures. Their reasoning is
fallacious in that it makes the figures of speech employed by Jesus
serve as the greater force in interpreting the duration of punishment
rather than the straight forward explanation given or the applications
drawn from the figures.
(6) Another procedure of diminishing the time frame reference of
“eternal duration punishment” is to affirm that “eternal punishment”
is said to be a time when souls are “destroyed.” Jesus said that God
has power to destroy the soul (Matt 10:28).
And, if man’s soul is destroyed, eternal punishment would be the
burning up of the bodies of the unrighteous after their resurrection.
But the Greek word “apollumi” does not mean annihilation — it is never
so translated and does not convey that thought. Note Vine, pp. 304-306;
Thayer, pp. 64-65. Compare 2 Thess 1:9 — “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” Its meaning is “loss of well being,” not loss of being.
REASONING IN ANTITHETICAL FORM — In an antithesis one can
conceive of the lucidness of a truth on one side by coming to a
knowledge of the force of the other side. (note Dungan, pp. 346-348).
For instance, in Matthew 25:46, the phrases “eternal life” and “eternal punishment” are used as opposites with both “life” and “punishment” quantitatively qualified by “eternal.” Therefore, if one can conceive of the duration described by “eternal life” as promised by God as endless, then he is forced to accept that the threatened “eternal punishment” has the same duration, since the word “eternal”
gives quantitative qualification to both. Since the word “aionios” is
used in the N.T. to designate the duration of eternal happiness, and
also to describe the continuance of the future misery of the wicked, by
which rule of interpreting language can we possibly avoid the conclusion
that the words have the same sense in both instances? I would say, that
if the scriptures do not affirm the endless duration of the punishment
of the wicked, neither do they affirm the endless duration of the
happiness of the righteous nor the endless duration of the nature of
God! And that is the reason that I said that if those believing in
“conditional immortality” reason consistently, they will eventually
deny the endless duration of heaven and the “Eternal God,” Himself.
Interpreting The “Fire” Of Gehennah
Literal, spiritual, physical, figurative, real or metaphorical —
these words are tossed around at times without precise concepts and, in
the minds of their users, are arrayed as absolute opposites where one’s
opponent is supposed to be forced to choose one or the other. When the
opponents of “eternal punishment” talk about hell’s fire, they do so
either to diminish the pain quotient or limit the duration. They are
materialistic in viewing man as a living, animated being without an
immortal soul. They try to interpret consistently their concept of the
mortal soul of man and the eternal fire that consumes by saying that the
unrighteous that are raised are oxidized in a short time in the
physical fires of “Gehenna.” They say it is called “eternal fire” only
because it has eternal consequences in the total annihilation of the
evil. They even ridicule those who believe in eternal punishment by
attributing to them a concept about physical maggots and a physical fire
burning forever where bodies are neither consumed by the worms nor
burned up. And, while they charge those who believe in eternal
punishment with grave inconsistencies, they subtly hide their own — how
can there be physical maggots in lake of fire that is consuming bodies?
So, how shall we understand the language used by Jesus and His apostles
when they speak of “eternal punishment,” the “fire of Gehenna,”“where the worm dieth not,”“outer darkness,”“everlasting destruction,” etc.?
First, the words “literal” and “physical” do not always apply
to the same thing nor do they mean the same. For instance, I believe
that God is literally God and is existent but I do not believe that He
is physical — contrary to Joseph Smith’s claim that he saw God who was
flesh and bones. I believe that there are literal angels but I do not
believe they are physical, though they, perhaps, in times past took
physical forms in appearing to man. I believe that Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob literally exist, though they are dead physically (Mt 22:23-33);
therefore, I believe that the inner man survives death and literally
exists, while the outer man, the physical part of him, decays in the
grave (cf. 2 Cor 4:16-5:4). I believe that one day there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous (Jno 5:28-29) but I believe it will be a resurrection of changed, spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15:35-57). Therefore, to affirm that hell and its fire is reality is not to affirm nor believe that it is a physical place.
Second, figurative language does not diminish reality. The
engaging of figurative language enhances and adds color to concepts — it
gives communication a greater dimension. Furthermore, the only way that
God can communicate existence beyond the physical world is to
communicate in language common to and originating with man’s physical
existence. Hence, He speaks of heaven as being made of pure gold to
describe its beauty and splendor (Rev 21:18).
He employs “anthropomorphism” when speaking of how He acts in a
physical world but only the foolish affirm that God has a physical
finger, back, hand, hair, etc. Therefore, to affirm that hell is literal
and punishment is excruciatingly painful is not to affirm that it is a
physical place. Neither, does saying that it is a place mean that there
is a geographical, physical location somewhere down below. By
comparison, remember that the rich man conveyed his concern to Abraham
lest his brothers on earth also come to this “place” of torment, though this does not describe his final state (Lk 16:27-28).
The picture Jesus painted by graphic, descriptive language was, “…where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched…” (Mk 9:43-48); “…outer darkness…” (Mt 25:30); “…weeping and gnashing of teeth…” (Mt 25:30); “…eternal fire…” (Mt 25:41); “…eternal punishment…” (Mt 25:46); “…God who can destroy both body and soul in hell,” (Mt 10:28); and John’s statement “…the second death…lake of fire…” (Rev 20:4, 15).
Physically, fire and outer darkness cannot exist at the same time;
however, in using descriptive language, scripture employs words to
convey to us the greatest degree of the most excruciating pain, the
greatest depths of despair and an understanding of what is utterly
loathsome. I use the word “descriptive” in trying to avoid the
preconceived concepts associated with “figurative” and “metaphorical,”
because people frequently conclude that if something is described by
figurative language, then it cannot be real. I believe that Jesus chose
descriptive words to paint a picture of the continued existence of
punishment for the unrighteous. The language is not designed to say that
there is a physical fire consuming dead carcasses or that there are
physical maggots feasting on dead bodies. In references to “Gehenna,”
Jesus drew from the geographical location in the valley of Hinnon and
their acquaintance with all they knew it to be. As applied to the final
destiny of the wicked, the descriptive language of punishment conveys to
our minds the most horrible kind of experience with which we have any
acquaintance. It is the means by which we can identify the terrible,
eternal consequences of facing a just God who must vindicate His very
nature.
Isaiah 66:24 — “…Where The Fire Is Not Quenched…”
Jesus so plainly affirms the resurrection of both the righteous and the evil that even the annihilationist cannot deny it, (Jn 5:28-29).
But, having rejected the continued existence of the evil after the
resurrection, they are forced to invent interpretations that try to
reconcile the totality of revealed, inspired information and, in so
doing, present some nonsensical explanations. For instance, the
annhilationist views the resurrection of the evil as a time when God is
going to kill them again and this time they will be killed forever — the
spirit totally annihilated; totally nonexistent for eternity. God kills
them as He casts their bodies into the valley of Hinnon where the
maggots will eat them and fire will burn until the bodies have been
consumed - “no pain, just shame,” they say.
Though annihilationalists are forced to accept the plain truth
that the unrighteous will be raised, they have a problem explaining why
God is going to raise them and of what consequence it is for them to be
raised, only to be annihilated again. So, in view of their belief
system, their first dilemma is explaining why the evil will be raised.
If, when man is killed, his soul ceases to exist, he has been
annihilated. So why raise him to annihilate him again? Their second
dilemma is trying to give an interpretation that explains away the
ability of man to do what God can do — man can kill the body; God
destroys both in hell (Mt 10:28).
But, if when man kills the body, the soul part of man is extinguished,
that is, he is annihilated and ceases to exist, then man can do what God
does and that makes their interpretations contradict what Jesus plainly
said in Matthew 10:28.
To avoid the impact of Jesus’ teaching about hell and eternal punishment in the picturesque language, “where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched,” (Mk 9:44-46), opponents of eternal punishment try to explain away Jesus’ use of Isaiah’s description of the judgment (Isa 66:22-24).
Edward Fudge, a conditional immortalitist, said, “In
chapter 66 Isaiah anticipates the same scene on a massive scale at the
end of time. In this prophetic picture, as in the historical event of
Isaiah’s day, the righteous view ‘the dead bodies’ of the wicked. They
see corpses, not living people. They view destruction, not conscious
misery. Discarded corpses are fit only for worms (maggots) and fire —
both insatiable agents of disintegration and decomposition.” “To the Hebrew mind, both worms and fire signify disgrace and shame (Jer 25:33; Amos 2:1).
Worms and fire also indicate complete destruction, for the maggot in
this picture does not die but continues to feed so long as there is
anything to eat. The fire, which is not ‘quenched’ or extinguished,
burns until nothing is left of what is burning. According to God’s
prophet Isaiah, this is a ‘loathsome’ scene, which evokes disgust rather
than pity (Is 66:24; see the same word in Dan 12:2).
This scene portrays shame and not pain. This passage of Scripture says
nothing about conscious suffering and certainly nothing about suffering
forever.” (Fudge, Two views of Hell, pp. 32-33).
I must confess that my first reaction to reading Fudge’s interpretation was, “So what — what difference does it make?”
And, I don’t mean that in reference to what God reveals through Isaiah
but to what Fudge’s conclusions are. So what if the dead bodies are
physically burned up and eaten by worms? What difference does that make
to the spirits of those bodies which, according to Fudge, suffered for a
moment while God killed the body and extinguished the soul into total
annihilation? They were just as totally nonexistent, obliterated, gone
forever, the moment the physical body could no longer sustain life. What
happens to their bodies cannot matter when there is no consciousness.
They certainly are not ashamed. Are the righteous who look on their
bodies ashamed? Fudge’s explanation presents a vacillating manipulation
of Jesus’ use of the text as he makes part of it figurative and then
demands that the worms and fire be physical and literal so as to
diminish the duration of eternal punishment. His conclusions make the
final scene totally inconsequential to the condemned evil.
In reference to the context of Isaiah 66:22-24, Fudge had previously said, “This symbolic picture of the future…”
Then when it comes to his interpretation of v. 24, he makes it both
literal and physical, not symbolic. On the one hand, he symbolically
interprets the statement “…and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me…” as “Then the righteous and their descendants will endure forever, and ‘all mankind’ will worship God,”
(p. 32) — no actual, seventh-day, Sabbath keeping as he views it.
Then, he makes the bodies, maggots and fire literal and physical. When
Fudge finishes his interpretation of Isaiah 66:22-24, the worm that cannot die, dies; the fire that is not extinguished is extinguished.
The annihilationist is not justified in inserting concepts into
the picture Isaiah gives us of the final judgment that contradict the
message. Fudge inserts “until the corpses are gone”
to qualify how long his physical maggots live and the physical fire
burns and, in so doing, takes issue with the very time frame reference
as Jesus used the terms to describe “eternal”
punishment. According to Fudge’s position, it certainly does not
matter to the evil how long it takes for their dead bodies to be
consumed, for they are long gone, obliterated and non-existent with no
awareness of pain or shame. Nor would it matter to them how loathsome
their bodies are to the righteous.
Fudge also said, “It is inexcusable to interpret language from this text, whether quoted directly or indirectly from the mouth of Jesus (Mk 9:48),
to give a meaning diametrically the opposite of Isaiah’s clear picture.
Yet that is exactly what traditionalist interpreters have done without
exception, down to the present day,” (Ibid.). One could just as appropriately say that Joel 2:28-30,
says nothing about Holy Spirit baptism and it is inexcusable to
interpret the language of the text so as to apply it to Holy Spirit
baptism (Acts 2:16-21). Or, since Psalms 2:9, says nothing about the resurrection, Paul’s use of it as applying to Jesus’ resurrection is an inexcusable error (Acts 13:34).
But Fudge is really reversing the process of interpreting prophetic
language. Proper interpretation of prophetic language should arise from
the inspired application of the prophecy and not the reverse.
Similarly, when Jesus used the terminology of Isaiah 66:22-24,
He certainly would understand the intent and meaning of the language
since he was the one who spoke through Isaiah. Then, when he became
flesh his application of that prophetic language in Mark 9:42-47, makes Isaiah 66:22-24
clear, because it comes from his understanding of an eternal hell and
its eternal punishment. Who is Fudge to forbid Jesus using prophetic
language exactly as the apostles did?
So, how is this context to be understood? Obviously, it involves
figurative language. But figurative language must have its background in
that which is real. To paint a picture of the final judgment and the
condition of both the righteous and the unrighteous, Isaiah draws from
what Israel would understand in their physical history — events, for
instance, like Isaiah 37:36.
The conveying of eternal existence can be described only in terms with
which physical man, in his own experience, can identify. Hence, we are
limited in our comprehension of things that are beyond our existence and
experiences. The warnings about hell are designed to say that it is so
terrible that man should do whatever it takes to avoid it.
Fear can be an appropriate motivation to turn men from their
sins, when they are truly aware that they will stand accountable before a
just God who, necessarily, will reap vengeance upon evil men (Heb 10:28-29).
But annihilation is not punishment — it is merely nonexistence. When
men “water down” hell by their philosophical theories they annihilate a
God-given restraint of evil. And, in so doing, they also create an
unbalanced perspective about God. In magnifying the love of God, they
diminish his justness — God is not only love, but, in his justness, is
also a God who must punish evil.
It matters not how strenuously one may argue to try to shorten
eternal punishment or how vigorously he may seek to diminish the pain
quotient, hell still is hell. If the “conditional immortalitist” is
correct, then the unrighteous will suffer for only a moment and then be
eternally snuffed out of existence — that will be a great comfort to
them. However, if what I have affirmed is correct, then the
annihilationist view is one of the greatest deceptions ever fostered on
man and those who embrace it will find out too late. The final, eternal
punishment of the unrighteous that reject hell is just as inevitable as
the ant’s that climbed upon the railroad track to challenge the
existence of a locomotive. Denying the evidence will not change the
facts. — Jim R. Everett Jim R. Everett Mon, 27 May 2002 19:06:13 CDT
"THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS"
The Virtue Of Gentleness (4:5)INTRODUCTION
1. Among several general exhortations which Paul includes in this last
chapter of his epistle to the Philippians, we find the following
admonition:
"Let your gentleness (moderation,KJV) be known be known to
all men. The Lord is at hand." - Php 4:5
2. The virtue referred to in this verse is a very important one, and well
worth the time in this lesson taking a closer look at it.
[We begin by noticing...]
I. THE NATURE OF THIS VIRTUEA. DEFINITION OF "GENTLENESS"... (from Barclay)
1. The word epi-ei-kei-a is one of the most untranslatable words in
Greek
2. The difficulty can be seen by the various translations given it:
a. Patience (Wycliffe)
b. Softness (Tyndale, Cranmer)
c. The patient mind (Geneva Bible)
d. Modesty (Rheims Bible)
e. Forbearance (Revised Version)
f. Moderation (King James Version)
g. Sweet Reasonableness (Matthew Arnold)
B. DESCRIPTION OF "GENTLENESS"... (from Erdmans)
1. It describes that courtesy and graciousness which should
characterize a Christian gentleman
2. The term indicates something of "the power of yielding"
a. The ability to give way to the wishes of others
b. The poise of soul which enables one to sacrifice his own
rights, not by necessity, but out of generosity and sympathy
3. It is the opposite of stubbornness and thoughtlessness
4. It was embodied in the man Jesus Christ - cf. 2Co 10:1C. "GENTLENESS", THEN... (as defined by Pulpit Commentary)
1. Is the opposite of contention, rigor and severity
2. Is the spirit that enables a man to bear injuries with patience,
and not demand all that is rightly his due, for the sake of
peace
3. A good example of where this virtue is to be applied is seen in
1Co 6:1-7 (note the willingness to be defrauded enjoined by
the apostle Paul)
[Perhaps with a better grasp of the nature of this virtue, let's now
examine...]
II. THE DISPLAY OF THIS VIRTUEA. IT IS TO BE A PERSONAL QUALITY OF ALL CHRISTIANS...
1. Notice that Paul says "Let YOUR gentleness..."
2. Elders especially must display this virtue - 1Ti 3:3
3. So also should teachers - 2Ti 2:24-26 (not the same word used
here, but the same idea)
4. Indeed, ALL Christians are to display this virtue - Tit 3:1-2
5. For good reason, for it is a part of that "heavenly wisdom"
which comes from above - Jm 3:17B. IT IS TO BE KNOWN TO ALL MEN...
1. This is the difficult part of the exhortation
a. It is easy to be considerate, kind, and gentle toward some
persons
b. There are others, however, toward whom it is difficult to
show a spirit of gentleness
2. The hard task, and the real test, is to display this
"gentleness" or "sweet reasonableness" toward...
a. The unkind
b. The thankless
c. The perverse
[But as we continue on with our text, there is good reason to do so...]
III. THE REASON AND MOTIVE FOR DISPLAYING THIS VIRTUEA. "THE LORD IS AT HAND"...
1. This may possibly mean "the Lord is nearby"
2. Or it could refer to either meeting the Lord at death or at His
final coming, both events are always imminent!
3. He who is our Judge is ever watchful, ever aware of our conduct
and treatment of others
4. One day we will have to answer to this Judge!
B. THE DANGER OF NOT DISPLAYING "GENTLENESS"...
1. If we are not gentle in our treatment of others, do we expect
Him to be gentle in His treatment of us?
2. Remember the "Parable Of The Unforgiving Servant"? - Mt 18:21-35
3. Also, James warning in Jm 2:13CONCLUSION
1. The display of this virtue has great advantages...
a. It can contribute much to the comfort of life and the peace of
society, by reducing friction between people - e.g., Pr 15:1
b. It can contribute to promoting the gospel of Christ (as we
demonstrate by our example the "gentleness" found throughout the
gospel message)
2. Are we a "gentle people"? May we ever be, for "the Lord is at hand"!
Speaking of the Lord being at hand, are you living a life pleasing to
Him...?
A major cleavage within Christendom pertains to the point at which the
“new birth” occurs. Most of Christendom maintains that a person is born
again, and thus has sin washed away by the blood of Christ, when that
person “accepts Jesus Christ as his personal savior.” By this
expression, it is meant that a person must mentally and/or orally decide
to embrace Christ as the Lord of his life. Hence, the new birth is seen
simply as a determination of the will—a moment in time when the person
accepts Christ in his mind and couples that decision with an oral
confession.
The passage in the New Testament that alludes specifically to being
born again pertains to a conversation that Jesus had with a high-ranking
Jewish official:
There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that
You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You
do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Most
assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see
the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when
he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be
born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is
flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel
that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’ ” (John 3:1-7, emp. added).
In an effort to avoid identifying “water” (vs. 5) as water baptism,
many within Christendom in the last half century have proposed a variety
of novel interpretations. For example, some have proposed that “water”
is a reference to the Holy Spirit. While it certainly is true that John
uses the word “water” symbolically to represent the Spirit later in his
book (7:38-39), that fact had to be explained by the inspired writer.
However, in chapter three, the normal, literal meaning is clearly in
view, not only because water baptism throughout the New Testament is
consistently associated with the salvation event (e.g., Acts 2:38;
8:12-13,36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16; Romans
6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21),
but even in this context, eighteen verses later, the term clearly has a
literal meaning: “Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim,
because there was much water there” (John 3:23). Additionally, if
“water” in John 3:5 is an allusion to the Holy Spirit, the result would
be nonsensical: “unless one is born of the Spirit and the Spirit.”
Another quibble offered in an effort to avoid the clear import of John
3:5 is that “water” is a symbol for the blood of Jesus. Of course, no
rationale exists for making such a connection. Elsewhere John refers
explicitly to water and blood, but clearly distinguishes them from each
other in their import (1 John 5:6).
Perhaps the most popular notion, advanced only in recent years, is that
“water” is a reference to a pregnant woman’s “water”—i.e., the amniotic
fluid that accompanies the physical birth of a child. However, this
suggestion likewise fails to fit the context of Jesus’ remarks. In fact,
Nicodemus himself thought that Jesus was referring to physical birth
(“mother’s womb”). But Jesus corrected his misconception, and contrasted
such thinking with the intended meaning of “water and Spirit.” Indeed,
Jesus would not have told Nicodemus that he needed to be born physically
(“water”). He would not have included the act of physical birth in His
listing of prerequisites to entering the kingdom. That would make Jesus
say that before a person can enter the kingdom he or she must first be a
person! What would be the point of stating such a thing? [Would it
perhaps be to ensure that everyone understands that non-humans (i.e.,
animals) cannot enter the kingdom?!] Later in the same chapter, did John
baptize near Salim “because there was much amniotic fluid there”?
If one cares to consult the rest of the New Testament in order to allow
the Bible to be its own best interpreter, and in order to allow the
Bible to harmonize with itself, additional passages shed light on the
meaning of John 3:5. According to the rest of the New Testament,
spiritual conception occurs when the Gospel (i.e., the seed of
the Holy Spirit—Luke 8:11) is implanted in the human heart and mind
(James 1:18; 1 Corinthians 4:15; Ephesians 6:17; 1 Peter 1:23). The Word
of God, in turn, generates penitent faith in the human heart (Romans
10:17) that leads the individual to obey the Gospel by being baptized in
water (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Hebrews 10:22). The resulting condition
of the individual is that he or she is now a child of God, a citizen of
the kingdom, and member of the church of Christ (Matthew 28:19-20;
Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:4).
Additional verses in the New Testament clarify and cinch this meaning
of John 3:5, pinpointing the “new birth,” while also allowing us to
understand the activity of the Holy Spirit in the act of conversion.
Consider the following chart (Jackson, 1988):
John 3:5
Spirit
Water
Kingdom
1 Corinthians 12:13
Spirit
Baptized
Body
Ephesians 5:26
Word
Washing/Water
Cleansed Church
Titus 3:5
Renewal of Spirit
Washing of Regeneration
Saved by Mercy
These verses demonstrate that God achieves conversion through the
Gospel message authored by the Holy Spirit. When a person comes to an
understanding (Acts 8:30) of the that inspired message, his penitent
faith leads him to submit to water immersion for the remission of sins
(Acts 8:36,38; 10:47). The result of his obedient response to the Gospel
is that he is saved and cleansed from past sin and instantaneously
placed into the kingdom of Christ.
Notice that submission to the divine plan of salvation does not mean
that humans save themselves by effecting their own salvation. Their
obedience does not earn or merit their forgiveness. Rather, the terms or
conditions of salvation are stipulated by God—not by humans—and are a manifestation of His
mercy! When people submit to the terms of entrance into the kingdom of
Christ, they are saved by the blood of Jesus and the grace of God—not
their own effort! Water immersion is not to be viewed as a “work of
righteousness which we have done” (Titus 3:5). When we submit to
baptism, we are being saved by “the kindness and love of God our Savior”
(Titus 3:4). We are being saved “according to His mercy” (Titus 3:5).
REFERENCES
Jackson, Wayne (1988), “The New Birth: What is It?,” Christian Courier, 24:14, August.
