Jason Pratt:
Chris doesn't mention the goats' narrative and thematic contexts in Matt 25's judgment. But I did as evidence for universalism!
The
goats are explicitly part of the Shepherd's flock. Jesus in John 10
insists that none of His flock shall be lost, contrasting this (10:10)
to the brigand who comes to {apolesê}. Does the Shepherd hopelessly
apollum His flock?! Flattering Jesus as a brigand gets one of Jesus'
servants thrown outside with the goats (by application) in another Matt
25 parable!
Jer 7:32-33 (echoed at Jer 17:27) refers to God's
wrath poured on Jerusalem that (per 7:17) won't be quenched. The wrath
didn't continue, but Jerusalem wasn't annihilated: God often promises,
including in Jeremiah, to restore her!
Isaiah 30:27-33: Israel
has been shattered by YHWH such that no human could remake them, and
aren't penitent yet when the Assyrians overrun them (vv.15-17). God
still promises they shall eventually repent and be restored with great
blessings. YHWH smites the invading Assyrians to death in Gehenna
valley; but calling it "Topheth" indicates YHWH rejects what happens
there.
Sodom suffering "eternal fire" doesn't count as evidence
for annihilation, since YHWH prophecies Sodom shall be at least
resurrected (Matt 10:15, 11:24 par) and apparently restored to
friendship with Israel (Ezekiel 16).
Chris affirms general
resurrection, so even the bodies at Isaiah 66 (much moreso their souls)
aren't annihilated. Those who feel shame are the people, who had
themselves been rebelling against God again, going out to give the
corpses a proper burial: sacrificial mercy to fallen enemies.
Jesus
explains the unquenchable fire's spiritual purpose in Mark 9:49-50: the
fire salts into peace (both ancient treatments for infection), so
maggots consume a person's corruption (nasty though the treatment may
seem to the person.) Jesus ends Matt 18 by warning apostles to have
mercy on enemies!
Matt 5:30 warns believers, amid contexts about
loving our enemies; not hating lest we go to Gehenna; and being sent to
prison for refusing reconciliation. Torment isn't annihilation; and
release involves reconciliation.
Christ scours the chaff off each
grain in Matt 3:12 / Luke 3:17; the imagery fits tough-love salvation
from sin. In JohnBapt's Malachi 4:1-3 reference, "every evildoer" burned
like chaff, whose roots and branches will be set ablaze, includes the
rebel Israelite leaders (to whom JohnBapt was specifically speaking)
from Mal 3:1-7: but there it's a refining fire that surely will save
them from sin!
Jesus says the wheat and the weeds are the "sons
of the kingdom" and sinners respectively. But Jesus also warns "sons of
the kingdom" who don't expect those outside the kingdom to be saved,
with a related threat (Matt 8:12)!
As for Paul's "vengeance"
("justice" in Greek, which shall come to be value/honored by those who
experience it) of flaming fire at 2 Thess 1:7-8, why doesn't it refer
even more directly to Isaiah 2 and its extended prophecy where (unlike
Isaiah 66) there are specific parallel phrases?--and which predicts the
punished people will eventually serve God loyally in peace with their
former enemies!
The prodigal son's father draws an explicit parallel between being lost (a cognate of {apollumi}) and being dead.
Jesus doesn't say at Matt 10:28 (or Luke's parallel) that God will destroy body and soul in Gehenna, only that God can
do so. Jesus instantly follows this (in Luke as well) by talking about
God's concern even for small birds. This thematically parallels another
saying about God valuing people much more than birds. Jesus shortly
afterward (6:27-28, Matt 6:28-30) draws a similar analogy about God's
provision for flowers which, explicitly unlike even people of little
faith, are effectively annihilated with fiery furnace imagery! God
values people more than to annihilate them.
Annihilation happens
in the Day of YHWH, the Great Sabbath when God rests from finishing His
work. But Jesus challenges regarding the sabbath (Luke 6:6-11 and
parallels): "Is it allowed on the sabbath to do good or to do evil, to
save a soul or to destroy?" GosMark uses "kill" instead of "destroy":
"kill" is the meaning of {apollumi} in mind. Matthew directly connects
this (via Isaiah 42) to Jesus' mission to save those whom God's people
aren't expecting.
"Restless" people (Chris' description) aren't
annihilated. The term for refining gold fits more with Malachi 3 than
Isaiah 34. The Temple imagery parallels sacrifices being cleaned and
offered to God as a pleasing incense. The verses after Isaiah 34:10
reveal animals living safely in the area, and God healing the region
along with its people. When St. Paul cites Malachi 1:2 at Romans 9:13,
he indicates the result of "Esau" (Edom) being "hated": "'The older will
serve the younger'". This, not annihilation, fits Jacob's prophecy:
Esau shall be blessed in Jacob.
Tyre wasn't permanently destroyed
by Nebuchadnezzar, nor even by Alexander later: Jesus evangelized many
people from Tyre, and prophesied Tyre (and Sodom) would find judgment
day more tolerable than Galilee! Annihilation isn't more tolerable than
annihilation.
Chris thinks God overcomes death by sentencing sinners to permanent death!
If
stopping an abstract kingdom's dominion parallels annihilation, God
must annihilate every sinner along with our rebel dominion.
Daniel 2:44: God did not simply destroy the Roman kingdom but transformed and incorporated it into Christ's new kingdom.
Dan 7:27 refers to a king (not a kingdom) whose kingdom and dominion shall not be annihilated (in the sense required).
The
false prophet and the devil are thrown into the lake of fire along with
the beast to be tormented into the eons of the eons: but annihilation
cannot involve continuing "torment", and the beast cannot be tormented
if the beast is only an abstract kingdom.
Rev 19:20: Christ slays
the final rebel kings in language directly echoing the salvific 23rd
Psalm! The "kings of the earth" (same phrase) show up in chapter 21
following Christ into the New Jerusalem, bringing the nations' glories
with them; echoing Ezekiel's similar prophecy that even the kings of
Israel's enemies will reconcile with her in the day of YHWH.
Editor:
The original post.
The longer critical response.
Apologies in advance (or since this is a comment, apologies after the fact {wry g}) for the brusqueness of the rebuttal--but I wanted to cover as many topics as possible from Chris' introductory argument, and I was trimming down to under 1Kwords from an original rebuttal of over 3K.
ReplyDeleteThe longer version, linked by Nick above at the end, features more detailed discussion, and more credit for Chris, too. {s!} Consider this a short and punchy topical overview.
Thanks again to Nick for hosting our three-way debate! Next up, I'll be working on comments to Joe Dear's rebuttal of my introductory argument.
Note: my rebuttal (and this comment) was written before reading and responding to JD's rebuttal of my own introductory argument--it's entirely possible I may adjust or correct some of the data/rationale claims later.
JRP