Author¶s Note

Most Christian writers today use the New International Version of the Bible for their Scriptures
references.

I decided to do the same, and the references in the early chapters of this book are all NIV unless
otherwise stated.

Then I came to chapter eight on Hell. The Authorised Version gives ³hell´ for Ê
 on ten of the
eleven occasions in which it occurs, but the NIV translates hades as hell only once in the eleven
occurrences. My subject matter was fast disappearing!

Even so, most Christians still think of hell, discuss hell and preach the hell of the AV even if they read
the NIV. So at this point I reverted to the AV. Usually I have given the NIV or other versions, if
appropriate.

Oh yes! If the AV translators had been consistent and used hell for hades on that eleventh occasion 1
Cor. 15:55 would have read, ³O death where is thy sting? O hell where is thy victory?´ One can
imagine that the response might have been quite deafening!
MERCY ON THEM ALL

Chapters

1. The Fall - The Will of God or not?

2. Almighty, all-loving - and all-wise?

3. Eternal in the Old Testament

4. Eternal in the New Testament

5. "Mercy triumphs over Judgement"

6. Jonah's Three days and Paul's Three days

7. The Purpose of God in Death

8. Hell - in the Old Testament

9. Hell - in the New Testament

10. "Everyone will be salted with fire"

11. The Ages - Past, Present and Future

12. Will God still love Jim in Hell?

13. From Him . .. through Him ... to Him

are ALL THINGS

Appendices

1. The Bible and the Cross" - Rev: G. Campbell Morgan D.D.

2 Bibliography
To suggest that this might have been God's will for His creation, and Man, His

vice-regent, in particular, sounds at first, preposterous. It is almost to accuse God

of being responsible for all the implications of the Fall. It is to make Him responsible , for

example, of war, with its killing and maiming of young men, rape of young women, and

slaughter of millions of innocent children. It is to lay at God's door death by the lingering agonies

of famine and drought, cancer, cholera and the black death and of the ghastly effects

of mental and physical deformities. Enough, enough, you say. Yes, this is totally

unacceptable isn't it?

But what if we maintain that the Fall was outside the will of God? What are

we saying then? Are we implying that the devil is smarter than God? Are we

suggesting that in one masterly stroke Satan ruined God's creation and devastated

His Grand Design - not merely for a million years, or ten million years, but

irrevocably and irreversibly, for ever. Oh yes. There is Calvary. But even Jesus

said "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road

that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and

narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matt. 7:13,14. Only a

few find it. What then of the many? Do they spend eternity in hell as an eternal

and irreversible witness to angels and saints that the devil outsmarted God?

Please don't respond with the "but Adam had to have freewill" answer. What

sort of blessing is freewill if it lands 90 % of mankind in hell for eternity? Any

parent who watched a blind two-year old toddle towards a bonfire and simply let it

fall into the fire and be burned to death because he did not want to deprive the

little child of its freewill would be held to be a monster. The courts would find the parent culpable

- and rightly so.

God well knew that Adam and Eve were innocents abroad, mere babes in the

woods, and that they were no match for the wiles of the devil. He knew the

outcome of the temptation in the garden of Eden before He created Adam and

Eve, even before He created Satan and hell. "Through him all things were made;

without Him nothing was made that has been made" (Jn. 1:3). All things must

include hell and the devil. And hell must be precisely what he intended it to be.
But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones and he will surely curse

you to your face.' The Lord said to Satan, 'Very well, then, he is in your hands;

but you must spare his life." Job 2:1-6.

Satan had no access to Job until God granted it. How much more, then, would

it have been impossible for Satan to have tempted and overcome Eve and then

Adam before the Fall if God had not allowed it?

And if we lean to the "outside the will of God" alternative, let us think of the

implications. If Satan outsmarted God and devastated his purpose once, might he

not be able to do so again? In fact, from this viewpoint, it would appear that the

devil did frustrate God a second time. The view that "perfect-bliss-forevermore"

was Plan A, spoilt by the devil, and Calvary was Plan B, a rescue operation

('rescue operation' and 'rescue mission' are two phrases I heard from different

preachers on successive weekends) then the devil has also largely frustrated Plan

B. For Plan B dictated that the fruits of Calvary could only be enjoyed by faith

and we are told that "the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so

that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Cor. 4:4). Why ever would God

design a rescue operation which by its very nature (the central principle being

faith) was largely doomed to failure?

The picture, then, appears to be:

God creates mankind for unbridled bliss; Satan is inexplicably allowed to step

in and spoil everything; many years later at Calvary God mounts a rescue mission

which operates by faith; Satan has the power to blind potential beneficiaries so

that they cannot believe and so enjoy the salvation purchased at so great a price.

Is this scenario remotely conceivable? Yet it is implied in less stark terms

from pulpits week after week.

Furthermore when God says he "will not let you be tempted beyond what you

can bear" (1 Cor. 10:13), can we be sure of that, or of anything? What happens to

our faith if there is a devil out there capable of outwitting God and God is unable

or unwilling to stop him? (Incidentally, there is a strong implication in this verse

that God does permit all temptation to which we are exposed.)

And we have to ask, "Where was the all-wise, all-loving, almighty God when

this happened? We remember Elijah's challenge to the prophets of Baal when

their god did not answer their day-long cryings at Carmel. '"Shout louder' he said

'Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or travelling. Maybe

he is sleeping or must be awakened, '"1 Kings 18:27. So much for Baal, but it is

unthinkable that the God of the whole Earth, who neither slumbers nor sleeps, was

not looking or not aware when wily, powerful Satan assaulted these two brand

new spiritual babes. God could neither have been disinterested or uninvolved in

an act with such far reaching consequences for him and his plan, let alone Adam,

Eve and all humanity. No. He either positively allowed the Fall with all its

massive implications for good reason or one must question his wisdom, or power,

or love, or all three. Again, "Stop! This is unacceptable" you say.

So where does this leave us? Answer, as always with a spiritual problem -

with the scriptures. Oh, does God tell us whether the Fall was within or outside

his will and hence his plan and purpose for mankind? Indeed he does.

Please turn to Romans 8:20,21.

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the

will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated

from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of

God."

Creation was subjected to frustration. The AV renders this "vanity". Good ^.

News says "futility".

God's wonderful and glorious creation has become frustrated, futile, vain. Its

purpose has been frustrated. That which God proclaimed "Very Good" (Gen.

1:31) is now vanity. '"Meaningless, meaningless!' says the teacher 'Utterly

meaningless. Everything is meaningless'" (Eccl. 1:2). God's grand purpose in

creating sons and daughters in his image, with whom he might have fellowship,

whom he blessed with freewill and a capacity for love that they might, of their

own volition, love him and he them, has been frustrated. They are now separated

from him by sin, turned in on themselves to become their own gods. Self is on the

throne as the sole arbiter of behaviour, ambition, and the use to which they put
their time and energies. "People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money,

boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without

love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self control, brutal, not lovers of good,

treacherous, rash conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - having a

form of godliness but denying its power" (2 Tim 3:2-5).

Quite a character reference for - Man. Man, created to be a "lover of God" has

become a lover of himself, but without self control; a lover of money and a lover

of pleasure. Religious, yes, as long as it does not have power to affect his self-

centred, self indulgent, self gratifying life. His love has become re-directed,

misdirected within instead of outward, upward, heavenward to his all-loving

Creator.

Creation was indeed subjected to frustration but "not by its own choice" we are

told. That's strange. We thought it was specifically of its own choice, or at least

at the choice of its progenitor, Adam. The bible continues "but by the will of the

one who subjected it... in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its

bondage to decay... and be brought into the glorious freedom of the children of

God."

If creation and with it God's grand design for creation was subjected to

frustration by a will other than the will of Adam, whose will was it? Our

immediate reaction might well be, "Oh it must be the devil." But it was subjected

"in hope." The devil never gave anyone hope but false hope, delusory hope.

Satan has no hope and is incapable of conveying hope of any kind. Hope is, by

definition, positive and all the devil is capable of is negative. Jesus said: "The thief comes

only to steal and kill and destroy" (John 10:10) .

We read on and find that the nature of the hope re spelt out, "liberation from its

bondage to decay (the devil is the source of bondage and decay) and brought into

the glorious freedom of the children of God." That settles it; it cannot be Satan.

Then can it be ... dare we suggest ... is Paul saying . . .? Yes. The New

American Standard Bible translates Romans 8:20: "For the creation was subjected

to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it..." Note the

capital H of Him. The translators of the NASB were in no doubt that the one who

subjected creation to futility was God.

The Good News goes further and actually spells it out: "For creation was

condemned to lose its purpose, not of its own will, but because God willed it to be

so."

God willed it to be so.

In the confines of human knowledge and reasoning we may recoil at the mere

suggestion that the Fall was the specific and declared will of God. But Romans

8:20 is not capable of any interpretation other than that given by the translators of

the Good News Bible.

God willed it to be so.

Nor was it a mere permissive, passive, uninvolved acceptance by God of the

tragedy acted out by Satan, Eve and Adam. The Bible states positively and

definitively. God willed it to be so. And how could it have been otherwise?

The view has been propounded that the fall was "God's permissive will."

Whatever is that supposed to mean? The Bible nowhere refers to God's

permissive will. Can we seriously hold the view that God stood by as a

disinterested spectator and "permitted" His creation to be devastated and all

mankind to become doomed to a life of sin with the consequences which we read

s graphically in our daily newspapers as in the bible? Hell on earth and hell

thereafter for many.

An analogy may help at this stage. The analogy of Calvary. On the surface it /

appears that religious bigotry, the jealousy and hatred of High Priests Annas and

Caiaphas, the greed of Judas and the cowardice of Pontius Pilate had conspired to

put Jesus to death. It looks like yet another human assassination. As Dr. Leslie

Weatherhead, a Methodist leaderput it in ˜Ê˜ 
 
Ê

"He was hounded to an untimely death by jealous Pharisees."

So it would seem to an objective historian. But we know that "Satan entered

Judas, called Iscariot, one of the twelve. And Judas went to the Chief Priests and

the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray
Jesus." (Luke 22:3, 4). Satan entered Judas and the infamous saga of Jesus

betrayal, the mockery of a trial and the travesty of justice by which he was

condemned to death by crucifixion after having been declared innocent, was

launched. Paul writes of true wisdom and adds "None of the rulers of this age

understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory" (1

Cor. 2:8).

All the commentaries I have read interpret ³the rulers of this age (Gr.Aion)´ to

be Satan and his minions of whom Paul wrote to the Ephesians "For our struggle

is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities,

against the powers of this dark world (Gr.Aion) and against the spiritual forces of

evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12).

So we could say that the crucifixion was the will and the work of evil men but,

beyond that, it was the will and work of the devil.

But we read prophetically of Jesus on the Cross in Isaiah 53:4 - "we considered

him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted... it was the Lord's will to crush

Him and cause Him to suffer."

"It was the Lord's will." God willed it to be so.

12 March 1995 was designated "Unemployment Sunday." Hymns, prayers and

even the Creed were adapted to this theme on a specially printed sheet. The creed

proclaimed "We believe in the Son of God made human. He suffered and died

because he challenged and upset the powers of his day." No! He upset and

challenged the (religious) powers of his day, but he died because it was God's will

and plan and purpose. "I lay down my life - only to take it up again. No-one

takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (Jn. 10:17).

Peter on the day of Pentecost affirmed "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of

Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs.

Which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was

handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the

help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross" (Acts 2:22,23).
God's will, God's set purpose. Of course.

So on the surface the crucifixion of Jesus was a dastardly human act. But it

was also the work of the devil. Yet, as with Job's affliction, it was also the

positive act of God.

How could it have been otherwise? Satan is totally under God's control. And

so it was with the Fall. At the first level it was a human act, the sin of

disobedience by Adam and Eve; at the second level it was Satan who tempted

them and prevailed; but at the third level it was God. "God willed it to be so."

The consequence: "the result of one man's trespass was condemnation for all

men" (Rom. 5:18).

Lest we should seem to come to too hasty a conclusion on one verse (though it

is hard to see how else one could interpret Romans 8:20) let us move on - to

Romans 11:32.

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy

on them all."

The preceding verses, as with the whole text from chapter one, were a

comparison of Jew and Gentile. Each was disobedient: each received God's

mercy. But the words of Romans 11:32 could scarcely be plainer.

God. God. God has bound all men over to disobedience. Precisely. This was

the effect of the Fall which we have seen was the declared will of God and part of

his plan, just as Calvary was his declared will and part of his plan from before

creation.

Other versions read:

"God has concluded them all in unbelief." (AV)

"For God hath shut up all unto disobedience." (ASV)

"For God has locked up all in the prison of unbelief." (Weymouth)

How could Paul write such a thing? He was not an automaton, or in

suspension like a spiritualist medium, when he wrote this amazing statement. He

was writing inspired scripture but he did not know that. He thought he was

writing a letter, or a treatise. His inspiration was intelligent inspiration. How

could he accuse God of shutting up all men in the prison of disobedience and

unbelief?

The fact is that he could and he did write this statement; because that was what

he believed deep down in his heart and he knew to be true. It was totally

consistent with what he was to write in several other of his inspired letters.

Paul's God was not merely a culpable bystander who for some inexplicable

"reason allowed Satan to ensnare these babes in the woods with catastrophic

consequences to them and to his entire creation. He willed it to be so.

One interesting aspect of this inherited corruption is a comparison between our

physical and spiritual make-up. Butchers often lose a finger or two early in their

careers. But if they subsequently marry and become fathers, their children are not

bom with X point Y fingers and thumbs. They have ten out of ten. The defect is

not passed on.

But when Adam sinned we were all destined to be bom as sinners. "Sin

entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death

came to all men, because all sinned." Romans 5:12.

Adam's sin doomed humanity. This must have been by design. If the effect of

spiritual loss had been the same as physical loss (whether the fingers of the

butcher or, for example Douglas Bader's legs) then each new human being would

have had a new start. Each would have had control "over and responsibility for his

own destiny. But God created us otherwise, Thousands of syears before my birth I

was doomed to be bom and live a sinner with hell as my reward.. And this was by

specific design. This was how God bound all men over to disobedience.

We read on:

God bound all men over to disobedience so ˜˜ ..

Ah! So there was a purpose in his engineering the Fall? Yes.

"So that he may have mercy upon them all."

We need to take a break.

It is bad enough, mind-boggling enough, for a Christian schooled in received

orthodox theology, to have to accept that God engineered the Fall with all its

inexhaustible consequences. But to be told that this was specifically so that he

might have mercy . . . and mercy on all. Well, that does take some accepting.

Some modem versions such as the NEB render this as "show mercy". That lets

theologians off the hook but the text will not bear this translation. It is

unequivocally "have mercy".

Let us face it, if the end of 90% of mankind is anything like the picture which orthodox,

evangelical teachers and preachers present, then to have set up the Fall, ³so that he may

have mercy on them all can only leave us totally perplexed with a great sense

of doom.

While we thought the devil was responsible for the fall, the end of unbelievers,

while lamentable and deeply distressing, was at least logical. The devil tricked

Adam into sin; Adam's sin was passed on down to all men; all men were doomed;

Jesus came to die for our sins and to save those that believed this good news; most

never heard the good news, let alone believed it; those who did hear heard an often

insipid gospel preached by a largely anaemic, compromising and compromised

church made up of Christians singing that they belonged to Jesus but who in fact

belonged very much to themselves. Many have already died outside of saving

grace and God must have known it would have been impossible during their

lifetime to have mercy upon all. Yet he took this drastic, irrevocable step of

plunging mankind into the darkness of unbelief 

Ê
he might have mercy upon



What did Paul think about all this? Surely verse 32 will be followed by an

awful lament, a dirge about how sad it is that due to Satan's wiles and man's evil

heart it has all gone wrong; the plan has backfired. But before we read on in

chapter 11, maybe it strikes us that just as the statement in 11:32 is in perfect
accord with 8:20 as to the Fall being God's will, God's doing, in respect of the

beginning of the Adamic race, so 8:21 is in perfect accord with 11:32 as to the end

and outcome.

"... in Hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay

and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."

Not "part of creation" nor "the remnant of creation" but "the creation" will be

liberated. "Mercy on them all."

Dr. George Campbell Morgan, one of the great Bible expositors of the first

half of the twentieth century, wrote, "If by that Cross all things in the heavens are

to be reconciled, and infinite peace is to follow, I dare trust it, notwithstanding all

of

my sin and all my weakness. By the way^if-by that Cross I am reconciled to God,

and through it I find rest, infinite, eternal and undying. At last my rest shall be

rest with the WHOLE CREATION, for the cosmic order will be restored through

the mystery of God's suffering as revealed in the Cross."

Let us be clear:

Everything that God does is with and for a purpose. Nothing is merely his

"permissive will" or incidental, or capricious, or arbitrary, or pointless. All is

planned in infinite detail and is part of a great and grand design.

.², But what purpose can there be in the Fall? It is presented by the church at

large as an unmitigated disaster with multiplied catastrophic consequences. Can it

possibly be positive, constructive, creative; part of an overall plan?

Paul did not follow his amazing declaration that God had bound all men over

to disobedience with a woeful lament. Instead he wrote:

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!"

(Really! Is this the right place to be extolling God's knowledge and wisdom,

Paul?)

"How unsearchable his judgements, and his paths beyond tracing out!

Who has known the mind of the Lord?

12

But God immediately promised the seed of woman^who would crush Satan's
head,(Genesis 3:15} the first of a remarkable train of prophecies right through the y

Old Testament telling of the Messiah who would come and upon whom would be

laid "the iniquity of us all" (Is. 53:6).

Preachers have not always been explicit on God's attitude to Satan's

ensnarement of Adam and Eve. But there ^ an implied, sometimes expressed,

view that God's hands were bound. He had given Adam freewill and entrusted

him with creation and if Adam chose to hand this over to Satan then God could

not honourably interfere.

All God could do, which he had known before the creation of Satan, hell, the

world and Adam, was to send a Saviour to atone for Man's sins and so reconcile

man to himself. Many preachers (myself included) were more than a little

unhappy with this, as it was very difficult to come to terms with God setting the

whole thing up the way he did/when he knew beforehand that 90 of his beloved

humanity would end up in hell. It was a puzzle, too, as to why God would permit

all this when he knew that the cost of redeeming even the few was the horrific

death of his Son on the Cross. Certainly, there are divine mysteries'but God has v

made us rational beings and sent His spirit to lead us into all Truth. However

that^how it seemed to be and most evangelicals (myself included) simply

accepted it.

‡ The gospel as presented then continued that those who believed in Jesus and

Jlis salvation would be saved but unbelievers would be damned, or sent to helL-A^ '

There are plenty of scriptures for this such as "Jesus said to them 'Go into all the t" ' 1

world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptised

| will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned (AV damned) "'

/Mark 16:15,16/and "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever

rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" (Jn. 3:36).

Preachers have been somewhat divided over what happened to the hundreds

of millions who never heard the gospel. Some fervent evangelists such as

Jonathan Edwards presented graphic pictures of a continuous stream of sinners,

including the "untold millions, yet untold" as the hymn writer put it, pouring into

the abyss of the fires of hell. Others have quoted such scriptures as "(Indeed,
2 l2

when Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,

they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they

show that the requirements of the law are written on the hearts, their consciences

also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending

them). This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets

through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares" (Rom. 2:14-16). This hardly

conveys all heathen rushing headlong into hell, come what may.

But as to those who hear the gospel and do not turn to Christ, virtually all

evangelical preachers of the past few centuries (myself included) have been

unequivocal: they go to hell and burn for ever and ever.

^ More texts are produced and quoted to show that this judgement is

irreversible and eternal.

In the Old Testament Daniel prophesies that at the resurrection "Multitudes

who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to

shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2).

Nor is there any shortage of New Testament scriptures to confirm what we

read in Daniel. "Then he will say to those on his left,' Depart from me, you who

are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels... then they

will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life" (Matt.

25:41, 46) is but one such scripture.

‡»‡

Some preachers have a problem that while Christ rejecters should be

punished, for a God of mercy and love to set the whole thing up so that they burn

for eternity is somewhat extreme. The passive God who has to stand by

honourably while the wily serpent ensnares Adam'and Eve and dooms most of

humanity to an eternal hell does not ring totally true. Why did he let himself get

into that situation in the first place if he knew what the horrendous outcome

would be?

But what a devastating,, mind-blowing realisation it is when we face up to

Romans 11:32. To read that God concluded all in unbelief so that he might have
3 ^

mercy on all, and then to find that he will never be able to achieve his end

because the punishment of many is eternal, shakes our very foundations.

Because of the enormous implications of this scripture I should like us to look

at the passage in Job quoted in chapter 1 once again. May I paraphrase the scene

in modem parlance:

The angels came unto God's presence and Satan was with them. (This is

pretty mind-blowing for subsequent events show it was clearly after the fall of

Satan). God asks Satan where he has been,to which Satan replies that he has (seen^

going to and fro in the earth. God asks Satan if he has seen this wonderful

man Job. Satan says he has but tells God this is only because He (God) has --

put a hedge around Job so that he (Satan) can't get at him. "Stretch out your

hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face"

taunts Satan. "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the

man himself do not lay a finger" says God. Unbelievable catastrophes follow:

Job loses everything, including his sons and daughters.

Then in chapter 2 the angels came before God again and Satan was with them.

God asked him where he's been, (he's been to the earth) and God asked him

whether he has seen this wonderful man, Job.'^noWnetel^ "though you incited me

against him to ruin him without any reason."

I make this point because it seems that God and Satan are agreed on a spiritual

point with which many theologians would have great difficulty. That is.that

when God permits Satan to do something God is effectively doing it himself.

Satan challenged God to stretch out his (God's) hand and strike Job. God did not

argue and say he could do no such thing, especially as he was later to say there

was no reason to strike him. But in response God gave permission to Satan to

stretch out his (Satan's) hand and strike Job. And when Satan (not God) had done

so God said that Job had maintained his integrity "though you incited me against

him."

We may protest: No, God did not strike Job, Satan did. But God himself took

responsibility because Satan could only act when God let him. God therefore
accepted that it was as if God had done it himself. "You incited me against him."

4 ,

^. Many years ago I was discussing this area of scripture with a dear Christian

4"" brother^aew-wth-lne-tord?-«id I said, "Reg, if I have a vicious dog on a leash,

and I know it will savage anyone who comes on to my property; I then see you

come through my front gate and I release the dog, which promptly attacks you,

who has savaged you? I have. I am responsible because it was within my power

to withhold the attack or permit it. The dog had no influence over your fate until

I unleashed it. So alsc^with God and Satan. If God allows Satan to do something

then, effectively, God has done it. So when Satan entered Judas to betray Jesus,

as we have seen, God says through his word that Jesus was "stricken by God". "It

was the Lord's will to crush Him,"(lsaiah 53) although, ostensibly. God was

simply a by-stander in the collusion of the wickedness of Satan and the

wickedness of men. And the Fall is an exact parallel. God engineered the Fall.

But why make the point at such length? Because it explodes the passive God,

permissive God, hands-tied God view of his attitude to the Fall. He allowed it, so

He did it. And of course Paul does not shirk in two places in Romans to state

definitively that the Fall was not by default but the specific, purposeful, positive

will of God - the planned act of God, just as was the work of redemption through

the crucifixion.

Furthermore, this specific/positive, planned act of God in causing mankind to

inherit Adam's sinful nature‡ and-se be bound up, shut up or imprisoned

(whichever version you prefer) in disobedience and unbelief was for a declared,

unequivocally stated purpose^so that he might have mercy y^on alL1'1'

The evangelical view as set out above is that God does not and cannot achieve

this purpose - for whatever reason. If eternal is eternal and everlasting is

everlasting then many of the "all" will never, th'ough all eternity, experience the V;

mercy of God. ^Vv (W< k

Q^-MeA^&ci

This conclusion is inescapable but never ycrbaliscd- because once one faces

the conclusion one is forced to face the implications. Dare we say it? If God had
instigated the Fall withjfte hellish (literally) consequences for a specific purpose,

and he does not and cannot (for whatever reason) achieve that purpose for all

eternity, then plunging humanity into this benighted state would have been a

blunder of unparalleled proportions. It would have been earth-shattering,

5 \^

universe-shattering, everything-shattering. Before you have apoplexy, or want to

indict me for blasphemy, can you disagree with that statement?" ^o Cf^.cMcL^it.c^ ,

As a young Christian I felt tremendous responsibility for my office

colleagues. If I did not testify to them then their blood would be on my hands.

Eze. 3:20,21. So I had my testimony printed and included )/C in everyone's pay K

advice at the end of a month. Then a new accountant joined the staff, so I looked

for an opportunity to share the gospel with him. On doing so he said. "Tony, tell

me, is God all-loving or almighty?" Young and enthusiastic, I immediately

protested that He was both. "No" said my friend, "either he is all loving and

wants to save everyone, but he can't; or he is almighty and can save everyone but

won't. You can't have it both ways." I stuttered some explanation of the hands- -^

tied God type and slunk away. It did concern me as I thought about it, but I took

refuge in conventional evangelical doctrine and pushed it to the back of my mind.

The years passed; I went to Bible School; I was ordained and had what was

considered a relatively successful ministry.

Then one day I was considering the wisdom of God - God is the all-wise God.

I was reading my Authorised (King James) version in Acts 15:18 "Known unto

God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

The can't-have-it-both-ways conversation came back, with a third dimension

now added. God is all-loving, almighty and all-wise. The destiny of the major )<

part of his creation came to mind and my head began to spin. I seemed to lose

God. Oh, my basic faith in his love for me and my salvation never wavered. The

Cross was a fact and was proof of that love. But I could not see him as I had

previously. How can I describe it? I could not take a hold of his shape. Was he

almighty? "Was my arm too short to ransom you? Do I lack the strength to

rescue you? By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea" says Isaiah (50:2) and adds (Is.
59:1) "Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save". If so why did he not

act? One does not have to honour a cheat and a liar, like Satan. Then did he not

lrt/&/(/1^

care enough? Why did he allow all this to happen if he is the all-wise God? And

t\)i^Y6^ -.

if he^s a God of love and knew what was going to happen how could he have

allowed this seeming unmitigated disaster to occur with its awful, awful

consequences?; Was he then all-wise?

^ ^ <y.(^hc^ ^t^ ^iV^^M.^ -L^^U) ,u^AA<^

‡‡ / ,/. ^ ^Z ^..-Y /^ ^- /^^ ^

I -^A^ <^) -^^ ^-^ ^^^^ ^ ^^

\ e-t^^^^ ^ ^ y^-y A-C^, -^y^-^

' ‡ - / '// / / . ‡/ /,

1/-/, ,... ‡.'‡‡^A.- /'."i.'t. -A ^ 7-x,^/'/. /'O --i-" t A,^--^.c /T y-^ f

I myself walked the streets at night crying to God. I felt I would go mad if I

could not find him again, but find Him whole - all-loving, almighty and all-wise.

This dichotomy of accepting two out of the three was unbearable.

"0 Lord God of my salvation, I have cried day and night before Thee: Let my

prayer come before Thee: incline Thine ear unto my cry: For my soul is full of

troubles: and my life draweth nigh unto the grave "(Ps. 88: 1-3 AV).

Of course over the years I had read many times such scriptures as 1

Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die; so in Christ will all be made alive" but

I put the usual evangelical interpretation on it. Christ died to give all the

opportunity of life; personal responsibility has to be exercised. After all, there

'was a body of scripture which taught the eternal damnation of the wicked so all

could not be made alive. It must mean all in Christ. The Bible cannot contradict

itself and 1 Corinthians 15:22 has to be read in the context of all scripture,

including the eternal damnation of unbelievers taught in Daniel, by Jesus in the

gospels and confirmed a number of times in the epistles.

A dear Canadian Christian woman of prayer spent some time with my

mother-in-law at that time and was adamant that all would ultimately be saved.
But she could not quote scripture. Even so, I was impressed by her conviction.

But after walking the streets in prayer night after night scriptures indicating

the salvation of all seemed to leap out at me every time I read the Bible. They

_ were in the gospels, in Romans, Corinthians, all three prison epistles Ephesians,

Philippians and Colossians, in Paul's letter to Timothy. Nor was Paul alone.

Peter and John seemed to teach this as I continued to read my Bible

Jesus said in John: '"But I, when I am lifted up "from the earth, will draw all

men to myself He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die" (Jn.

12: 32, 33). He was indeed lifted up on the Cross but he had said that in that

case, "I will draw all men to myself."

As an odd verse it can, as 1 Corinthians 15:22, be explained away. Evangelicals

will know all the explanations. Oh yes, that means that all will have "the

opportunity" to be saved (which "all" do not) or it means that salvation will be

7 IS

"made available" to all (which it is not). In none of these scriptures or the "all"

scriptures following, did any of the New Testament writers feel obliged to explain

that Jesus' atoning death simply made salvation available. But how many such

scriptures must one "explain away" before one is in danger of rejecting a whole

body of truth?

John also wrote "The Father has sent his son to be the Saviour of the world"

(1 Jn. 4:14). Not the Saviour of the few, or the elect, but of the world. And Jesus

said "I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to

do" (Jn. 17:4). Really? For John also writes "He is the atoning sacrifice for our

sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 Jn 2:2). As

David says in the Psalms, Selah. Pause and consider. If John had believed in the _

eternal damnation of millions, why would he have added that second phrase?

Wonderful indeed for John to be able to declare triumphantly to his fellow

believers, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins," but why add, "and not only

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world?" if that part of his sacrifice is to

be of no avail, wasted, and fruitless? Why would he mention it? Would it not

have been better just to ignore that part, as most Christian writers would today?
Yet John wrote it as a boast in the Word.

Is 90 of that sacrifice to be a waste, to no avail? Will Satan have cheated

Jesus of the major part of the fruits of his victory? Will he be able to keep for

eternity millions for whom Jesus shed his blood? Isaiah prophesied, "After the

suffering of his soul he will see the light of life and be satisfied" (Is. 53:11).

Satisfied? Satisfied? How can he who "is the atoning sacrifice ... for the sins of

the whole world" be satisfied that only a few of those whose sins he has borne

will enjoy his redemption?

Another issue came into sharp relief: "He was crushed for our iniquities; the

punishment that brought us peace was upon him" Isaiah 53:5. That this verse

refers not merely to the elect but to all mankind is clear from the next verse, "All

we like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the

Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." He bore mankind's punishment.

How then will a just God punish unbelievers first in Jesus and a second time,Jta^, -

‡etematiy? Does this not belittle the work of Jesus? Does it not demean his

triumph on the Cross? How can God justly punish eternally those for whom

8iq

Jesus has already been punished? What was the point of Jesus taking their

punishment?

But to revert to the "all" scriptures.

In Romans 5:18, 19 we read "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass

was condemnation/or all men so also the result of one act of righteousness was

justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of

the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the

one man the many will be made righteous." As with the others we explain it

away even though the surface meaning could not be clearer. Some latch on to

"the many" but surely the teaching is irrefutable that "the many" who will be

made righteous are "the many" who were made sinners^ ^ow many were "made

sinners?" How many will be "made righteous?"

Then there were the prison epistles. Paul tells the Ephesians "He made known

to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in
Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfilment - to

bring all things on earth and in heaven together under one head, even Christ"

(Eph. 1:9, 10). Paul apparently sees no need to explain why this has been

frustrated or why it cannot happen. On the contrary; yS we saw that Romans

11:32, where God shut up all in disobedience that he might have "mercy on them

all" was followed by a doxology, particularly extolling God's wisdom and his

judgements. Philippians, too, has a note of triumph about it. Paul declares that

"God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every

name, that at (lit. in) the name of Jesus every knee should bow (a) in heaven and

(b) on earth and (c) under the earth and that every tongue confess that Jesus

Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:9-11).

I have heard it suggested that the millions in hell will have to confess that

they were wrong and in their eternal agony confess that Jesus is Lord. I

remember the bully at school who used to put weaker boys in a half-nelson arm

lock, force them to their knees and make them say "You're the best fighter in the

class. "This suggestion, it seems, is similar to the act of the bully. They, it is

suggested, for whom Christ in his infinite love shed his blood will have to confess

his lordship in endless flames. But how can that which is expressly stated to be

9 9.o

contrary to God's will ("not willing that any should perish, but that all should

come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9 AV) conceivably be "to God's glory?"

To the Colossians Paul wrote "For God was pleased to have all his fullness

dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things

on earth or things in heaven by making peace through his blood, shed on the

cross" (Col. 1:19, 20). Some snatch at reference only to heaven and earth, \

inferring that hell is not included. Well, look back to the Philippians quotation,

"in heaven, and on earth and under the earth."

I think the verse which stopped me explaining away these scriptures was 1

Timothy 2:4 which tells us that this (intercession) "pleases God our Saviour, who ,^

wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the Truth."

I rejoiced to read this. I could hardly believe otherwise but it was good to
read that God wants all men to be saved. The salvation of all was his declared

will.

Then reading on in 1 Timothy 4:10 I was riveted "we have put our hope in the

living God, who is the Saviour of all men, and especially of those who believe."

That settled it. "Especially" does not mean exclusively. In fact it means the

opposite. If I say "I love your roses, especially Peace" it does not mean Xa-/' ^

f 7f^ ^^e^

tbve exclusivelv^Feace. It does not mean that I do not like the others. I mean what I

say. I do like all your roses but Peace in particular.

Jesus is the Saviour of all men, especially the believers. There is a special

salvation (as we will see later) for believers.but he is the Saviour of all men.

"God bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them

all."

Once I^ha^dropped my explaining away I Jiad^bund a whole body of X s<

scripture confirming that God does succeed in his purpose in having mercy i^on

all. <^‡‡^(^A^^-is^'^^'^/ ^e-^L/- po^a, 1\,e^.iL \

10 .;''

But of course this left me with a problem which has probably confronted

every Bible student at some time or another:

I had bodies of scripture apparently supporting two themes which were

diametrically opposed to one another. Firstly there were those indicating a

salvation of all, which meant that God did achieve the purpose for which he

plunged creation into frustration - that he might have mercy on all. Then there

were those which unmistakably indicated the eternal damnation of many; one of

these had to be wrong. I had previously assumed it was the "salvation of all" but

this had led to the problems I have recounted.

Church of England clergyman. Rev. Andrew Jukes, wrote in Restitution of All

Things in 1867, "Now is not this apparent contradiction, - few finding the way of

life, and yet in Christ all made alive, - God's elect little flock, and yet all the

kindred of the earth blessed in Abraham's seed, - mercy upon all, and yet eternal

punishment, - the destruction, - the wrath of God for ever, and yet all things
reconciled to Him, - eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, and yet the

destruction, through death, not of the works of the devil only, but of him who has

the power of death, that is the devil, - the second death and the lake which

burneth with fire, and yet no more death or curse, but all things subdued by

Christ, and God all in all. What can this contradiction mean? Is there any key,

and if so, what is it, to this mystery?"

I decided as a start to examine all the scriptures on eternal, everlasting, for

ever and hell, one by one.

^K

Chapter 3

ETERNAL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Young's Concordance to the Authorised Version shows:

EVERLASTING

Age. Age-lasting olam (Hebrew)

J^Cl^v. (X"<2. So^»& C5 d/je-c tct^h^y. l<T'a-^ CU^i -Q-Cwje KT ^-/vA^r>-<°- <?t-i/v/t

Ä, . ^^'^(A^Jtina t^Civ^'e^fi.t ,,. ,, -. ....

This was somewnat surprising. To me, Age meant a finite period with a ^

beginning and an end. It certainly did not convey Eternity. In fact, it was the opposite

of Eternity. That which is finite is the opposite of that which is infinite. "Agelasting"

meant something which starts, lasts for a period, then ends - the opposite of eternal or

everlasting, as these words are generally understood.

But of course this not only referred to "everlasting contempt" but also applied

to "everlasting life". Surely olam meant "eternal" when it described life hereafter.

Eternal life had to be eternal life. And in all honesty I could not begin to even consider

, . ,.^ ‡ ‡ ^'s OAC

olam having two different meanings in the-same verse.

The Young's translation had appeared to give a ray of light in providing "age-

lasting" but the mists had descended again when I considered eternal life. Even so, I

decided it would be worth looking at every scripture containing olam in the hopes of

some enlightenment.
Young's Concordance shows olam as appearing 418 times and as being

translated in 20 different ways - with another 6 if you include olam with a prefix.

Ignoring odd single figure translations we find it is rendered "ever" and "for ever"

(267), "everlasting" (64), "evermore" (15) and "perpetual" (20) as the most common

renderings.

Some of the "for ever" references were interesting, because they had already

come to an end. Furthermore, God, who knows the end from the beginning and who

had planned the successive phases ofhiserand purpose before the world was created,

had declared them to be olam and yet known that they were to come to an end. For

A.

example:

The Passover Exodus 12

The passover was tremendously important to Israel. Not only was it a

celebration of their deliverance from Egypt but the whole Israelite calendar, and

Jewish calendar to this day, began with reference to the first passover.

After promising "when I see the blood, I will pass over you", the god of Israel

added, "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall

celebrate it as a festival to the Lord - a lasting (olam) ordinance". Exodus 12:14.

The NIV translators did not render olam as "everlasting" in this context as they

did in Daniel 12:2. Why not? Presumable because they knew the celebration of the

passover had, as far as Christians are concerned, come to an end. They were not

going to make the same mistake as the translators of the AV which rendered this

~ passage, "Ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever".

To the Jews the Passover simply came to an end because it was not possible to

keep the feast of Passover after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD.

So they might reason, "Well it was intended to be olam, everlasting, for ever, but the

evil of man stopped it being so, just as the evil of many had thwarted God's purpose of

idyllic and eternal bliss in the garden of Eden."

2 A7,'
But with Christians it is different. The Passover has not merely passed away

but the prophecy in type has been fulfilled. "Christ, our passover Lamb, has been

sacrificed", 1 Cor. 5:7. We do not kill lambs any more because "Now he (Christ) has

appeared once for all (note: once for alt) at the end of the ages to do away with sin by

the sacrifice of himself, Heb. 9:26.

I have heard Christians refer to the celebration generally known as

Communion, or the partaking together of the broken bread and the wine in

remembrance of Christ's death as the Passover. But this is not scriptural. Neither

Jesus nor Paul referred to it as the Passover, nor was it referred to in this way in Acts

(e.g. 20:6,7). The Passover was fulfilled and completed on the first Good Friday when

Jesus, "the lamb that taketh away the sin of the world", was slain.

He offered up - Himself. Who else should offer up the Son of God? And what

else should even the Son of God offer up? He was the High Priest and the Sacrifice,

the ultimate, totally adequate and fulfilling Passover Lamb. There could be no more

Passovers to the believer in Christ. That which was "for ever" had come to an end.

But what is olam in Exodus 12? "Lasting" as the NTV renders it, or "for ever"

, which the AV gives us? These are not merely alternatives, different shades of

meaning. They are opposites! Which is the correct translation of olam7 "For ever" in

the AV which accords with the translation of Daniel 12 - "everlasting contempt,

everlasting life" giving the sense, in common English usage, of unending or eternal?

Or, "lasting" in the NIV which conveys finite time, a period which comes to an end,

and which accords with reality and New Testament teaching on the Passover? Both

translations cannot be right.

Let us move on:

The Sabbath Exodus 31

The sabbath was referred to in the giving of manna but it was entrenched in the

life of Israel as the Fourth Commandment. It was established in The Law, the

decalogue, of which we are told "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at

just one point is guilty of breaking all of it". Jas. 2:10.

Shortly after giving the Ten Commandments also known as The Law (e.g.
Rom. 7:7), God told Moses to observe the Sabbath, like the Passover, "celebrating it

for the generations to come as a lasting (olam) covenant. It will be a SIGN between

me and the Israelites for ever (olam)".

' ^e..\eler<^{

The NIV translators, having here cedered the word which describes ?l'

"everlasting" contempt and "everlasting" life in Daniel as "lasting" in relation to the

Passover, for the obvious reason that it was not "everlasting", now use the same

"lasting" for the Sabbath, for equally obvious reasons. After all, we are not all

Seventh Day Adventists and this would be handing them an argument on a plate,

wouldn't it? The AV translators can be excused for doing so because their version

f^^-ci^fe. A

predated Seventh Day Adventism and, sure enough, they rendered olam, where it first

appears in the above passage, as "perpetual". But have the NIV translators relaxed a

little and slipped into the mould of their AV predecessors? Because the second time

olam appears it is translated "for ever". So in one statement in Exodus 31:16,17 olam

^^ mta^^ a.& f^Lt^-^-^j

'is translated as "lasting" and then "for ever". It is translated^ as, finite time, and. infinity '

A. ,-' ‡Y.

time-wise,in the same passage.

In all seriousness, how can the same word used twice in one sentence have not

merely different meanings, but opposite meanings? Which is correct? The fact is that

Christians "are not under law, but under grace" Rom. 6:14 and "Christ is the end of

the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" Rom. 10:4.

SDAs dispute that The Law is synonymous with the Ten Commandments and it would

take a whole chapter to disprove this exhaustively and conclusively. But no SDA

4^

Minister with whom I have discussed this has an answer to Romans 7:7 "I would not

have known what coveting really was if The Law had not said 'Do not covet'".

"Do not covet" is the tenth commandment and Paul says it is part of The Law.

The fact is, Christians do not legalistically keep the Sabbath (or Saturday as we

now know it); they celebrate resurrection day, Sunday, the first day of the week.
"Christ is the end of the law", and therefore the end of the sabbath as a specific

day to be kept in a legalistic sense. But the Sabbath was instituted olam - choose

which of two opposite translations in Exodus 31:16,17 you wish to apply. -

The Priesthood Exodus 29

Exodus also deals with the institution of the priesthood. I will not quote all the

earlier detail but verse 9 reads, "Then tie sashes on Aaron and his sons. The priesthood

is theirs by lasting (olam) ordinance". NIV.

Interestingly, the AV rings the changes here and gives us "perpetual" again for

olam.

Aaron and his sons were of the tribe ofLevi. Jesus was the lion of the tribe of

Judah. And we read in Hebrews, "If perfection could have been attained through the

Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was

there still need for another priest to come - one in the order of Melchizedek, NOT in

the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a

change of the law". (NB. This reinforces the point concerning the law and the

sabbath.) "He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no-one

from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended

from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests" Heb. 7:11-

14.

The Aaronic levitical priesthood was olam. But it has been superseded by

divine decree. The Great High Priest, Jesus, of the tribe of Judah makes all priestly

ministry by the descendants of Aaron or any priesthoods, other than the intercessory

priesthood of his believers, obsolete and invalid.

Moab and Amman

Rather peculiar phraseology is used in Deuteronomy 23 regarding Moab and

Ammon. They were, of course, under a special curse not only because they did not

assist Israel's passage to Canaan after The Exodus, but actually hired Balaam to

pronounce a curse on Israel. So God declared, "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not

enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not

enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever". AV.

Here olam rendered "for ever" is for a specific period - unto their tenth

generation. The instruction continues, "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their

prosperity all thy days for ever."

In this instance olam or "for ever", the word translated "everlasting" in relation

to punishment, which is generally understood to mean "eternally" is specifically "all thy

days".

In the first instance the NIV conveniently omits a translation for "for ever" and

in the second provides "as long as you live".

How can they translate the same Hebrew word "as long as you live" and

"everlasting"?

6^

The Offerings

It is not surprising that the offerings under the Old Covenant were declared to

be olam and the AV translators have used the "for ever" rendering whereas NIV again

use "lasting". Israel and the high places are declared to be olam and here the word is

translated "ancient" which hardly means "everlasting" in the sense of being eternal.

Everlasting, lasting, perpetual, ancient, as long as you live, can a word really

have so many different meanings?

My last example, chosen from many, is unashamedly self-indulgent! After so

much analytical review of the scriptures this passage, while reinforcing our arguments

on the meaning of olam, is a devotional cameo from God's word.

The Hebrew Slave Exodus 21

The early verses of Exodus 21 deal with the purchase of a Hebrew slave (NIV

euphemistically gives servant) who was to be freed with his wife and children in the

seventh year of service. The text continues, "But if the servant declares 'I love my

master and my wife and my children and do not want to go free', then his master must

take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or doorpost and pierce his

ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." "For life", can you believe it, is

olam. The AV renders it "for ever". Which are we to believe? "For life" clearly

refers to this finite life and is the opposite of infinite life which is "for ever" as this

phrase is generally understood. "For life" makes more sense as far as the context is
concerned but, remember, this is the word translated "everlasting" in Daniel 12.

So now we are to understand that olam refers to this life-span and the life

which the blessed are promised at the Resurrection! God's Word is intended to

7 -4

enlighten, not confuse. And it does indeed enlighten when properly translated and

understood.

But I promised you a devotional gem: In the book of Hebrews (10:5-10) we

read, "When Christ came into the world he said, 'Sacrifice and offering you did not

desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you

were not pleased. Then I said "here I am - it is written about me in the scroll - I have

come to do your will, 0 God ... He set aside the first (covenant with its law,

priesthood and offerings - author) to establish the second (covenant - author). And by

that will, we have been made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for

^ all."

This passage is a quotation from Psalm 40 where the passage begins, "Sacrifice

and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced."

It is a direct allusion to the willing slave of Exodus 20 who could go free, but

proclaims publicly "I love my master ... and do not want to go free". How amazing

that any slave should so love his master. Because he was then taken and his ear was

pierced so that all might see for the rest of his days that he had declared himself to be

the willing slave of his master for life. There was no turning back, no changing of his

mind. His life was no longer his own.

So Jesus, the Man, says to God "my ears you have pierced". Because of my

love for you. Father, I have surrendered my life in its entirety to the doing of your will.

I witness before men and angels that I have chosen not 'to do my own will and I

renounce the right to have my own life. I am not my own. "I do always those things

that please the Father." An it is by this surrender of the will, Hebrews tells us, that we

have been sanctified. Many people died on crosses without affecting humanity. But

Jesus' death on the cross was the ultimate act of surrender to the will of God, the

consummating act of love by the Man Christ Jesus for his Father and his God.

8<^C
There are many other examples under the Old Covenant we could point to.

But is it necessary?

For a language to be at all meaningful there are certain immutable rules. One is

that no word can have different and opposite meanings. Different, yes, but not

different and opposite.

The word "fast" can mean "quick" as a runner who is fast, "tight" as in a rope

tied fast, or the noun "fast" as used in abstention, usually but not exclusively, of food.

So the word "fast" has three totally different meanings. But fast could not mean both -²^

quick and slow. Nor could it mean tight and loose. It could not mean gluttonous and

abstemious. For these are opposites. Such a word would fall into disuse as a writer or

speaker would not be able to convey anything by it.

So with olam.

It CANNOT mean both finite time and that which is infinite; that which has an

end and that which is endless. Such a word would merely convey nothing or, even

worse confuse. And "God is not the author of confusion". If indeed olam does mean

that which is endless, infinite and eternal (and remember, we first started looking at

this word in relation to the day when "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth

will awake: some to everlasting^o/a/w) life and others to shame and everlasting (olam)

contempt"^ then we should be slaughtering lambs, keeping the Passover, keeping the

sabbath (and stoning to death those who don't) and recognising the Aaronic

priesthood.

^/n t^cie^^J^}

Ä J^ave you thought why^-ineidentaUy^ the translators used "lasting" for the

Passover, sabbath and priesthood and "everlasting" for-.life, shame and contempt? I

-i^f^

have a good idea but \e^s withhold judgement until we have reviewed precisely the

9 t,\

same phenomenon in the translation of the equivalent Greek word in the New

Testament!

It may be of interest at this point to note, however, that Dr G Campbell-

Morgan, in his book "God's Methods with Man", says "Let me say to Bible students

that we must be very careful how we use the word "eternity", which, as commonly

used among us, means absolutely without end ... Men have divided the Church,

separated from each other and persecuted one another, upon a thought conveyed by an

English word which has no equivalent in the Bible".

.² Before moving on to the New Testament let me quote one more olam from the

Old. I do so as an appetiser for a later chapter!

"From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God. He said:

'In my distress I called to the Lord,

and he answered me

From the depths of the grave (Heb. Sheol; AV hell)

I called for help, and you listened to my cry,

I said, "I have been banished from your sight;

Yet I will look again towards your holy temple

To the roots of the mountains I sank down

the earth beneath me barred me in for ever (olam)

But you brought my life up from the pit,

0 Lord my God" Jonah 2:1-6

Did you know that disobedient Jonah was in the fish forever? Well he was,

and he called on God, and God brought him out!

\0b^

Chapter 4

ETERNAL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

On the same page, and in the same column, of Young's Concordance as that

on which we find olam as a Hebrew word under "Everlasting", we find aionios, a

Greek word for "Everlasting".

In fact aionios appears 68 times in the New Testament and, in the AV to which

Young's Concordance refers, it is translated in much the same way as olam in the Old

Testament.

Aionios is rendered "eternal" 42 times, "everlasting" 25 times and "for ever"

once.
For completion, let me add that the only other word translated "everlasting" in

the New Testament is aidios and this only once in relation to fallen angels (Jude 6).

Aidios is also translated "eternal" once in relation to the Godhead.

So on every occasion that the word "eternal" or "everlasting" is used in

relation to humanity in the New Testament that word is aionios. Therefore all New

Testament theology regarding eternity in relation to the state of man is derived from

this one word, aionios translated "eternal", "everlasting" or "for ever".

Please excuse the repetition and emphasis but it is important to get the

foundation right, especially in such a crucial area. It is also important to be

comprehensive and not just take selected verses.

Aionios is the adjectival form of the noun aion. The suffix ios has no meaning

of itself but can be equated to the suffix "ly" in English which produces an adverb from

a noun. "Quickly, darkly, forcefully" and many other adverbs are used by all of us

daily. The adverb qualifies the verb but usually derives its meaning from the noun, so

in these three examples we find that if we say that someone runs "quickly" we could

equally say "he is very quick when he runs". I am of course stating the obvious. It is

equally obvious that an adverb derived from a noun cannot have meaning which is the

opposite to that of the noun. "Quickly" cannot mean "slow" which is the opposite of

"quick" from which "quickly" is derived. If a preacher is said to make his point

"forcefully" it cannot mean that his presentation was weak.

Please bear with me, because this is precisely what we are being asked to

^^ believe as Christians.

It is almost axiomatic to state that if we can find the meaning of the noun aion

we will understand what is meant by its adjectival form aionios and that aionios

cannot have any other meaning.

It most certainly cannot have the opposite meaning to the noun from which it is

derived.

Aion is. of course, almost an English word. Aeon is an age, a period of time

with a beginning and an end. It is finite. It is not endless and infinite. It is not

"^ surprising then, that Young's Concordance renders aionios precisely as it does olam -
"Age-lasting".

This should be sufficient to establish that, however" we may feel subjectively,

aionios in relation to fire, punishment, destruction. God, covenant, gospel,

consolation, kingdom or life can only mean that which is finite, "age-lasting" as Young

renders it.

2 £4

But because it is such an important point, let us probe further. (Don't worry at

this stage about aionios life or our aionios God. We'll look at these later.)

If we examine the noun aion in the scriptures, we find that it is used 40 times

and is translated in the AV (to which Young's refers) "world" on 35 of these

instances. So if we look up "world" the context should reveal whether the noun aion

can mean "eternity" and hence its adjectival form aionios can mean "eternal".

I do not say at this stage even "might mean" but whether it possibly "can

mean". We will in fact see that aion cannot possibly mean "eternity" and to try^acTto 'X

require it to mean eternity is to make a complete nonsense of, not one, but most of the

40 occurrences. And if aion cannot possibly mean "eternity" then aionios cannot

possibly mean "eternal".

For example, in Young's Concordance we find

WORLD - Age, indefinite time, dispensation - aion

"Why then", you may ask, "did the translators render a word meaning a period

of time as 'world'?" A good question; but I am afraid I cannot imagine an answer -

except perhaps the implication on the meaning of aionios.

1. Matthew 12:32 (blasphemy against Holy Spirit)

"neither in this world, neither in the world to come".

We will deal with the substance of this verse later. The point we are reviewing

at present is whether aion, here translated "world" can mean "eternity". The answer is

clearly, No. "Neither in this eternity, neither in the eternity to come" is a contradiction

in terms. There can only be one "eternity" by definition as eternity has neither

beginning nor end. There cannot be successive eternities and both "this eternity",

3
implying there are others, and "the eternity to come", implying an eternity which has

not yet started, would be unacceptable translations.

The NIV provides "either in this age, or in the age to come". That is much

better, totally accurate in fact. But if the NIV translators are happy with "age" for

aion why will they not translate aionios as "age-lasting" as Young provides?

And that was but the first of the 35 times out of 40 occurrences that aion is

translated "world".

^ The second occurrence is in the next chapter:

2. Matthew 13:22 "The cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of

riches".

The cares of this eternity? NIV this time provides "the worries of this life".

Why change "age" of Matt. 12:32 to "life" in 13:22? It is not an important point but it

would be more helpful if translators were consistent. Clearly it is not referring to

eternal life but the allotted span on this earth, man's finite life. Then aion again cannot

mean eternity, and aionios cannot mean eternal.

‡^ Please forgive the repetition but I do wish to be clear and unequivocal: I am

not saying aionios does not, or even might not, mean "eternal". I am saying

categorically, aion in this context CANNOT mean "eternity"; ergo, aionios CANNOT

mean "eternal".

The third reference:

3. Matthew 13:39 "The harvest is the end of the world".

45C.

The end of eternity? Eternity has no end. NIV correctly reverts to "age" -

"the harvest is the end of the age". And so in the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh

references, all of which are in Matthew's gospel. In each case, NIV translates aion

precisely as indicated by Young as "age".

Then if aion is an age, a period with a beginning and an end, aionios can

ONLY mean "age-lasting". It can have no other meaning.

4. Matthew 13:40 "So shall it be at the end of the world".

5. Matthew 13:49 "So shall it be at the end of the world".

6. Matthew 24:3 "The sign of thy coming and the end of the world".
7. Matthew 28:20 "Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the

world".

8. Mark 4:19 "the cares of this world".

9. Mark 10:3 0 "and in the world to come".

10. Luke 16:8 "the children of this world".

11. Luke 18:3 0 "and in the world to come".

12. Luke 20:34 "the children of this world marry".

13. Luke 20:3 5 "worthy to obtain that world".

14. Rom. 12:2 "Be not conformed to this aion".

5 '-

15. 1 Cor. 1:20 "Where is the disputer of this aionT

16. 1 Cor. 2:6,8 "the princes of this aion".

17. 1 Cor. 3:18 "seemeth to be wise in this aion".

18. 2 Cor. 4:4 "The god of this aion". (Satan is certainly not the god

of eternity!)

^^ 19. Gal. 1:4 "deliver us from this present evil aion".

20. Eph. 1:21 "not only in this world, but also in that which is to

come".

These are not selected references, but all 20 references up to Ephesians. By all

means check the others, but I rest my case.

In none of these scriptures can aion possibly mean "eternity". Please try to

substitute "eternity" for "world" in any of these 20 references. In every one of these

scriptures aion refers unmistakably to an age, a finite period of time. Aion is an age;

'"' therefore, aionios indisputably means age-lasting.

I fear that I may bore readers, but let me repeat two laws of language.

no word can have two meanings which are different and

opposite.

an adjective cannot have a meaning which is different from

the noun from which it is derived, and especially it cannot

61'-
have a meaning which is opposite to that of the noun from

which it is derived.

Therefore:

Aion having been proved to be an age, a finite period of time, aionios cannot

mean "eternal" but must refer to an age, a finite period of time. Q.E.D.

Aionios is nevertheless translated "eternal" 42 times, "everlasting" 25 times

and "for ever" once in the Authorised Version of the New Testament.

Therefore:

All the translations of the word aionios in the AV are wrong.

What an arrogant statement! But can it be gainsaid on the above arguments?

Especially when the AV translators were similarly proven to be wrong with regard to

olam in the Old Testament?

Why, why, why?

The answer, I believe, is simple.

In the Middle Ages, "the Church" had become a political power to which even

Kings had to bow down, not merely in a spiritual, but a temporal sense. Kings had to

acknowledge the Pope's authority and Europe was virtually ruled by the Pope and the

Church.

The Church so-called, ruled by force, by ignorance and by fear.

Its power ensured that people were kept in ignorance and it was therefore not

difficult to rule by fear. The fear of eternal damnation was a massive weapon in the

armoury of the Church.

The Reformation brought deliverance in some measure, and the release of

Truth by the Spirit of God has resulted in an increasing emancipation. But there were

still vast amounts of doctrine, tradition and human concepts and behaviour which came

across into Protestantism.

"The just shall live by faith" Romans 1:17 had been in the scriptures all along,

^ but when the Holy Spirit breathed life into this Word as read by the monk Martin

Luther, it lived. It became his experience. The saying that "Grace is a free gift but it

may cost you all you have" was never more true than when applied to Luther. It cost
him membership of his beloved Church. He would have loved to stay in that Church

with all it stood for but he could not. "Here I stand. Further I cannot go".

Books have been written on this subject. I have no wish to add to them and

am not qualified to do so. But I do wish to make the point that much of the spirit of

temporal power, of ignorance and fear, including the doctrine of eternal punishment,

moved across into Protestantism. It was against this background that the translators

of the early versions in the vernacular, including the 1611 Authorised Version

^ produced bibles which were the bases of those we have today. In fact, King James

instructed the translators of the version which bears his name, otherwise known as the

Authorised Version, "To sanction no innovation that would disturb the orthodoxy or

peace of the church." (Bible helps ofBagster's edition of the AV.)

What were they to do? Could they translate olam and aionios as "age-lasting",

inferring a punishment that had an end, in view of their own beliefs and the teaching of

the Church on eternal damnation? It was more than could be expected of them so they

translated it "everlasting" or "eternal". And this mistranslation has been the basis of

8 ^0

the doctrine of eternal punishment and damnation which has been accepted and passed

on from generation to generation until our day.

It is true that translators often find it difficult to give a precise rendering as

there are seldom precise counterparts in any two languages. It is also true that the

context must be taken into account in translation.

The French do not have separate and precise words for "to love" and "to like".

Aimer must suffice, together with bien, beaucoup etc. Context must determine how

aimer is to be translated. It is, after all, very different for a man to say to his wife, "I

like that young woman who has moved in next door" and "I love that young woman

who has moved in next door". Similarly, one would not order champignons as a

starter in a French restaurant and expect to receive fungus, nor would one complain of

mushrooms on the sheets in a damp bedroom. Both are "champignons" but the

context assists in the translation.

But context is not sufficient excuse for the translation of olam and aionios as

! "eternal" or "everlasting" in the AV. Neither "love" nor "like" can mean "hate". To
use consistently and almost exclusively "everlasting" and "eternal" which mean

unending and infinite as translations for a word derived from the noun aeon or eon

which by dictionary definition means that which has an end and is finite, is inexcusable.

No, it was not "context" which gave us everlasting and eternal damnation but

the darkness of heresy by which the political church kept millions in subjection through

fear and translations which emanated from this period.

There is nothing in all the writings of the early Church fathers or the creeds to

suggest eternal punishment, but a considerable amount of rejoicing in the truth that

"when the times will have reached their fulfilment - to bring all things in heaven and on

earth together under one head, even Christ". Eph. 1:10.

y'^

In his book "Christ Triumphant" published in 1880 Rev Thomas Allin quoted

nearly 40 Church fathers and early writers to support this view. They include

Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory (of Nyssa), Eusebius, Justin

Martyr and Origen.

There is nothing in the Apostles' or Nicene creeds to suggest eternal

punishment and the word "everlasting" in the English translations of the much later

Athanasian creed is merely aionios which, as we have seen, cannot mean "everlasting".

It is also significant that although the ultimate total victory of Christ was believed and

^ taught in the early centuries there was no condemnation of this view at the first four

General Councils held at Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon.

No, the teaching of eternal damnation did not come from the scriptures, where

it is aionios or "age-lasting", nor was it even contemplated in the early centuries of

Christianity. It came from the dark ages, from the spirit of the Inquisition, from the

evil, vindictive hearts of supposed Church leaders who were themselves guilty of

unspeakable and diabolical tortures and burnings at the stake, all in the name of their

God. They had "created God in their own image" just as the pagans of Greece and

Rome, had produced lustful, vengeful gods from their own degenerate hearts and

minds. The God of the Bible, our God, is merciful, gracious and forgiving beyond

'"" man's wildest dreams. Yes, wildest dreams. Many people today have a problem when

they come to Christ because they just cannot believe that this salvation is so full, free,
instant and total. It is too good to be true. David's God, Peter's God, Paul's God is

nothing like the monstrous torturer Dark Age Church leaders concocted to terrify their

subjects. Eternal damnation was the twin sister of the selling of indulgences and the

like.

Probably the only factor that has caused Christians to hold on to this doctrine,

despite the doubt in their hearts, (and who can claim to have been completely relaxed

10^7

with it?) is the fact that the words olam and aionios as applied to judgement (NIV) or

hell (AV) are also applied, often in the same verse, to eternal life.

A missionary once said to me, "If I go along with what you are saying then I

only have age-lasting life. I know I have eternal life and you're not going to take it

away from me." End of conversation.

Well, we have what we have and we are what we are in Christ, regardless of

any subjective arguments. But let us look at this problem.

Yes, as olam cannot mean "everlasting" because it is applied to many aspects ^

of the Old Covenant dispensation which have passed away, and God knew must pass

away when he introduced them,/4nd as no word can have two opposite meanings; and/

AtAz/z

from a completely different approach, as aionios cannot/'eternal" because its noun is

used numerous times to refer to "this present evil age", "the age to come" and "the

ages (not eternities) to come'*' then IN THIS CONTEXT age-lasting'must refer to life.

But, before you throw this book away, let me re-assure you in making three

points: two facts and one viewpoint.

First fact: when we receive Christ we do have endless, infinite life - eternal life

in common English usage, not because of an adjective, but as conveyed by a noun, the

word for the life we receive in Christ. Invariably, in over a hundred occasions when

our life in Christ is referred to, the Greek word is zoe. This is the very nature of God

and is used in contra-distinction to psuche, the lifespan in the flesh, which is also

translated "life" in English.

"The man who loves his life (psuche) will lose it, while the man who hates his

life (psuche) in this world will keep it for eternal life (zoe)" John 12:25.
11 '-, '

Peter tells us that we "participate in the divine nature" ("partakers of the divine

nature" AV 2 Pet. 1:4) which is, of course, without beginning or end, infinite and

eternal. It is the nature and quality of this new life which assures us that it is infinite

and unending.

Second fact: when we receive Jesus, we are fused with him. "He who unites

himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit" 1 Cor. 6:17. Our spirit lives are

inextricably joined to the Spirit of Jesus and we are as eternal as he is. (I do not

consider it necessary to prove that Christ is God and God is eternal.) Paul refers to

"Christ, who IS your life" Col. 3:4.

These are the facts. Now for the viewpoint.

Paul, I submit, thought and wrote from the background of total assurance that

Cf^' ^.<l}

"when the times will have reached their fulfilment - t&bring all things in heaven and on

earth together under one head, even Christ" Eph. 1:10. He saw that Jesus "must reign

He. fvh.e^ r^fJ:

until he has put all enemies under his feet. , THE LAST ENEMY TO BE

DESTROYED IS DEATH ... so that God may be all in all." These, after all, are his

words and must describe what he believed. Then there are the scriptures quoted in

Cu^d

Chapter two from Romans chapters 5, 8 and 11, Philippians 2, Colossians L 1

Timothy, which declare unequivocally the final, absolute and total victory of Christ,

^~" who reconciled all things to himself so "completing the work you gave me to do."

Paul's thinking had not been blighted, as ours has, by the mediaeval eternal damnation

V-

doctrine. So when he (as with Daniel and Jesus) comparer those who have age-lasting

life as compared with those under age-lasting judgement he "would have meant, and his

readers would have understood, that this referred to the period prior to the ultimate

restoration, after which all will be restored in God. In the ages, there are those who

have life and those who are under judgement. After the ages, God is "all in all". The

distinction refers solely to the conditions of those reconciled to God and who thus
12 £^

have been incorporated into his life and those who are still estranged and under

judgement in time.

But even if you do not accept this viewpoint the fact (yes, FACT) remains:

olam and aionios CANNOT mean eternal. They mean, in the Old Testament

^^eHriy^the New^Al^a^corrW^dered in Young's Concordance,

-\,

^^ager^astmg'^-

Finally what of the olam God, the aionios God? An age-lasting God?

Well, the answer is much the same as eternal life.

Augustus Toplady had no problem in writing his wonderful hymn "Rock of

Ages, cleft for me." and. to my knowledge, no-one has accused him of suggesting that

because he is the Rock "of ages" this implies that God is not eternal.

Of course God is eternal, by definition. But he is also the God of the Ages,

God in all the Ages. But it is in the ages, with an enemy rampant, that we need to

know him as the Rock of Ages. God is still truly God through the ages when some

have already received God's own unending life but others undergo judgement to bring

them to repentance that God may be all in all.

4 f- ^

"To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord (be) glory,

greatness, might and authority before all the age and no<d unto all the ages. Amen" ^

Jude 27 literal. (Nestle Greek text.)

13 !:;.

Chapter 5

THE PURPOSE OF GOD IN JUDGEMENT

The very thought of anyone being consigned to unending fiery torment in

an eternal hell is surely abhorrent to any reasonable mind.

"Ah!" say some, "but we must not try to work these things out in our

minds. God's ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our

thoughts. We cannot understand God. God is a mystery."

God created us as reasonable, rational beings and to say that there is an

q&j> ,n ' es j

unbridgable^understanding-gap between God and ourselves is to make the

Bible pointless. True, fallen man needs to be restored and filled with God's

Spirit to know God, but this is the whole purpose of redemption. "The Son of

God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who

is true. And we are in him who is true - even in his Son Jesus Christ" writes

John (I John 5:20). One of the most important reasons that God came as a

man in his Son Jesus was to enable men to know him. "If you really knew

me, you would know my father as well. From now on you do know him and

have seen him" said Jesus (John 14:7). Nor is this an external knowledge, by

observation, as we know people in the world, for Paul writes: "No-one knows

the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit

of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand ... not

in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit,

expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words" (I Cor. 2:11-13). The same

writer commented in his epistle to the Thessalonians, "Now about brotherly

love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by

God to love each other" (I Thess. 4:9).

God, who is love, teaches us to love by imparting his own nature to us.

The ultimate in God's plan of salvation for the individual is that we "be

conformed to the likeness of his Son," (Romans 9:28) who is "the exact

representation of his being," (Heb. 1:3). The whole work of the Holy Spirit

throughout the entire life-span of the believer is to teach him from within what

God is like and to transform him into God's image.

To say that we do not know what God is like and cannot understand God

is a denial of the very purpose of the New Covenant and the work of

1^

redemption. It also means that we have no frame of reference for our

standards and ethics, or in our behaviour to one another. This would make us

like the unbelieving world which is at the whim of every philosophical and
psychological fad or fashion. The revealed nature of God is our frame of

reference. His nature, which is revealed in his dealings with mankind

throughout the Bible, is our pattern, our guide, our sure behavioural code.

Christ came, "leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (I

Peter 2:21). And He gives us His Spirit to enable us to follow, more, to live

out that example, pattern and code.

All is beauty and harmony in the Biblical revelation of God as taught by

the Church - with one exception. The love of God, his compassion, grace,

forgiveness, mercy, long-suffering, patience, kindness are all facets of his

transcendent goodness. God is good. The humility, meekness, yet strength

and sacrificial suffering of Jesus, God manifest in the flesh, all fit into the

revelation of the unseen God. There is but one jarring note: an incredible

vindictive, torturous punishment of burning billions of souls in endless fire.

According to orthodox doctrine it is not only endless but totally aimless,

pointless and negative. There is no hope that repentance and change of heart

will be rewarded by release or even a sliver of mercy in annihilation. The

fire, the torment, the punishment is to go on, and on, and on not merely for a

million years but endlessly.

Such punishment far exceeds the most diabolical of mediaeval tortures or

anything else that the depraved, sadistic mind of fallen man has managed to - -²-- _

contrive. Hitler burnt the Jews in gas chambers and the civilised world was

rightly outraged: but that burning was relatively quick, not endless. Stalin and

his successors consigned dissidents to Siberia for twenty or twenty-five years

at a time on minor offences and, again, the civilised'world was incensed. But

with complete equanimity Christians can accuse their God of torturing souls,

not for twenty or fifty years, or fifty thousand or fifty million years, but

endlessly. And there is no point in trying to excuse God (as if he needed a

champion) because if endless fiery torment is a fact then God, by specific

design, must have decreed it to be so. It cannot be unfortunate happenchance.

Richard Wurmbran^records an incident in Room 4, the death room, where a

godless communist named Boris was dying:

"All over soon," he (Boris) murmured. "A priest once told me 'You'll rot
in hell.' So be it!"

L\\

‡?( (X- /v "-t^-- A^^/L/v ^x^^.^/^-i/ ^J~/(j3 y.^L.\ i"^.^' /‡^- i/^^-i^ ^-^ f^r I'-iC.^. Y-^^

/'.' .V-7.. -/ ..y,./ . ./. ^/. / /T-^'., -. ./ ^-/,, Ä../.',. .A iT^ft

"What made him speak like that?" I (Wurmbrand) asked.

"I was cursing God for my sufferings. He said I'd be punished for

Eternity."

A pastor named Valentin intervened: "Men curse the Communist Party,

but eventually it may release them. If hell were endless, then God would

be worse than our Secret Police."

It is one thing to sit in a study in the West and write of Hell in terms of

Communist punishments: it is another thing altogether for a compassionate

^ Christian minister suffering himself and beholding others suffering at the

hands of communist torturers, to say that if hell were endless, God would be

worse than the Russian Secret Police. But who can deny the soundness of this

pastor's reasoning?

The narrative continues:

General Stavrat said "I was taught at school and in Church that God will

punish eternally those who die unrepentant and without faith. It is the

received dogma."

"Received in your mind, but not, perhaps in your heart. General."

That surely is it. Christians believe in eternal punishment in their minds

and will defend their dogma with great vehemence, but few really believe it in

their hearts.

The rich young man came to Jesus to ask about eternal life. Jesus said,

"Why do you call me good? No-one is good - except God alone" (Luke

18:19). Jesus was saying that the only One who is absolute, undefiled and

unadulterated goodness is God. God is the definition of goodness; - "who

does not change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17). He is totally and

consistently good. He is the standard by which all goodness is judged. Every

human ethic, every vestige of the image of God in man and the New
Testament itself cry out that to torture endlessly with neither correction nor ,

r . ‡ ‡ ‡ -i ,-n ‡ ‡ ‡ ^O^/t- .fkjfif /U?^''.<?A ^-

reformation in view is evil. Christians raise their voices ''against lum

A-

despotism, such as was the case with the Nazis and Communists, and in

3^

heathenism. How then shall we say that God, whose nature is pure goodness,

can be the perpetrator of such evil? It is totally inconsistent with God's

revelation of himself in the Bible.

The judgements of God, whether in this life or the ages to come, are

always corrective, remedial and positive. There is nothing negative in God

and nothing negative, such as a pointless, endless burning of humanity, can

emanate from God.

Because of our fallen nature we often have a wrong impression of

judgement. Thus we find it difficult to link judgement with love, mercy,

praise and victory, which the Bible does. This difficulty comes from not

realising that God's judgements are positive with blessing as the aim. It may

help us to look at a few of these verses.

"I will sing of mercy and of judgement: unto thee, 0 Lord, will I sing" Ps.

101:1 The NIV substitutes "justice" for "judgement" in Ps. 101 and

elsewhere. But consider: we are taught:

- The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (Jer. 17:9).

- Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived

me (Ps. 51:5).

- The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they

cannot (CANNOT) see the light of the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4).

Man in this condition is expected to turn to Christ which Christians

maintain is only possible by sovereign grace. If he (sinful, deceived, blind)

does not then believe he is to suffer in flames for eternity. How shall we sing

to the world of God's mercy and justice if this be true? When did you last sing

praise to the Lord for his judgements? Of mercy, yes; but can we, like the
psalmist, sing of judgement? If not, why not? Is it because of the background

of endless torture with which we associate judgement? David could sing of

judgement and justice because he knew that their source was love, its purpose

was to direct man from ways of sin, self and flesh into the ways of God. We

must always examine our hearts and minds if we find that they are not in

accord with God's Word - and if we cannot sing of judgement, then they are

not.

4;

"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue

and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice (judgement AV)

and the love of God" (Luke 11:42).

How is judgement or justice the twin of the love of God? How can the

two be linked? Even the most ardent etemal-damnationist surely cannot^old"" k^lc{

that pointless eternal burning comes from God's love. The Pharisees had

passed over "judgement and the love of God". When we see that God's

judgements are always, ever, only and without exception for our ultimate

good, then indeed we can talk of "judgements and the love of God" in the

same breath.

"^ A passage which we looked at in a previous chapter was the paean of

praise with which Paul ended the first of the two parts of the epistle of the

Romans. The relevant part was, "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the

wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgements" (Rom.

11:33) This rapturous praise for God's wisdom followed his statement that

"God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on

them all" (Rom. 11:32). According to orthodox teaching the wisdom of God

could only be referred to with a blush of embarrassment following such a

statement. The startling fact concerning judgement, our subject of this

chapter, is that Paul praises God for his "unsearchable" judgements. The only

other occasion on which this word is used in the New Testament is "The

unsearchable riches of Christ!" (Eph. 3:8). How could Paul praise God for his

unsearchable judgements if he, Paul, believed that the consequences of his

previous statement, (that God had concluded all in unbelief) was that most of

the offspring of Adam would spend eternity in the flames of hell? It is,

frankly, inconceivable and untenable. Yes. God's patient, loving

chastisements, his punishments and corrective judgements, both in this life

and, if necessary, in the life to come are unsearchable riches. He will rebuke

and chasten till all come to know the blessedness of submission to his will.

So it is written of Jesus, "A bruised reed he will not break, and a

smouldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory" (Matt.

12:20).

There we have it. Judgement or Justice is unto victory! It is positive,

corrective and always "unto victory." Can "justice" or judgement which

consigns millions of sin-blighted, blind humanity (for whose sins Christ has

5^

atoned!) to endless flames be construed as victory? Victory for whom, one

might ask.

If received orthodox theology on the subject were true then Calvary would

appear to be a rescue operation of limited success, a Dunkirk, a damage

limitation exercise. How can one talk of victory against the background of

such a doctrine? But received theology is based on the mis-translation of one

word in each of the Old and New Testaments causing Jesus' glorious victory

and total triumph over sin, Satan and death to appear very limited in its effect.

Christ has triumphed - totally, completely, absolutely. "After the suffering of

his soul he will see the light of life and be satisfied" (Isa. 53:11).

It may shock some readers to know that in the three New Testament

scriptures we have just considered the Greek word for "judgement" is

precisely the same as that translated "damnation" elsewhere in the King James

or Authorised Version of the Bible. So Jesus linked damnation with the love

of God; Paul praised God for his damnations; and Isaiah foretold of Jesus

sending forth "damnation unto victory". This is not being in the least bit

facetious. For God's damnations or judgements are unto victory; they do flow

from his love; and he is to be praised for them. The strangeness of these
phrases only copes from wrong thinking emanating from the mediaeval

teaching of a-^resceeseme God of wrath who bums the unbelieving endlessly,

pointlessly, remorselessly. Lord, deliver your Church!

There is basic wrong thinking, too, on the purpose of hell. The mental

concept of i^' being ^ Satan's home ground, where he is lord and master, is

certainly not based on scripture. One hears Christians pray in this way,

sending the devil back to the place where he supposedly musters his forces

and works out his plans. Christian literature, such as C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape

letters" and even jokes also give this impression. Re-read the passages in Job

we considered in the first two chapters. Need it be said that hell is part of

God's creation? "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on

earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers (!) or

authorities (!); all things were created by him and for him. He is before all

things, and in him all things hold together" (Col. 1:16-17).

So hell was created by Jesus, and is for Him. Again, we read: "For of him,

and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen"

(Rom. 11:36). Hell is "of him, for him" and hell is "to him". /W / c/ ^C- LU ^

^^c<^ A-cj 7"fc.,-i' ^.‡^ <-/--¼./7(:'/^ ^A^ cisce^s/^^ ^,e -i--^,/ AA^/S

^ /^,c o-f. ^^ri 6;^./ <^'. ^A?6'L// f^/S)

.y .‡^~ ' --

The "everlasting (lit. age-lasting) fire", we are told, was "prepared for the

devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41), that is, for their judgement. It is no citadel

of Satan. Satan and his minions were cast down from heaven into the earth, or

the heavenlies in which we dwell, and seek to find expression by possessing

men and women. When the demons were confronted by Jesus they pleaded

that they should be permitted to enter the swine and not be tormented before

their time, for they knew that they and their fallen master should be cast into

hell. But it is not their domain, their home, where they have free reign.

Hell was created and prepared by God for the punishment of the devil and

his angels and it also serves for the punishment of the disobedient, the

unbelieving and fearful. But, as we will see, the scriptures show that its
"" purpose is restoration into fellowship with God and that God might be all in

all.

While we are on the subject of God's nature and God's goodness we might

well consider what God requires of us in forgiveness and restoration as well as

vengeance and punishment of one another. God never requires of us more

ivc. '&l^vt*^y't is

than 44e-4s=of^'imsem prepared to do, nor will He require of us an attitude

totally contrary to the attitude He-takes in any situation.

Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against

me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?" Jesus saith unto him, "I say not

unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven."

There are Christians who find it difficult to forgive their brethren once,

and I have heard ministers say "I can never forgive so-and-so for splitting the

work." To forgive someone seven times is quite something. But to Jesus this

was not nearly enough, nor was seventy times seven. That is 490 times. I

doubt whether anyone takes this to mean that one is excused from forgiving

the 491st wrong for, if to forgive is also to forget, we would not know when

that point had been reached. "Love keeps no score of wrongs" (I Cor. 13:5

NEB) writes Paul. So if we had been counting the first 490 offences it means

we had not even truly forgiven the first offence let alone the 490th.

Effectively Jesus' reply to Peter was that he should never stop forgiving. (For

those familiar with Bible Numerics the feature often times seven squared (10

x 7 x 7 = 490) will also be significant. Seven is the number of completion in

scripture, as in the seven days of creation, seven days of the week. Seven

squared represents perfection or completion. ^ What God requires is an

^^i-^^^^f^iy ,^^)K,-^- ^.^-

7^7^ ^ ^ ^^'- ^' ^-^^

''" 6":- <y;j A t^-J <^-> .; -/ ^e /'-<--^-^-C--,/, C

r. i ‡ , ,- ,..-.‡‡ /',.' ‡ . . ‡s'r:..,..(.'..

absolute, fullj free forgiveness.) Nor is the question of the wrongdoer's

apology or repentance mentioned in Jesus' words to Peter. We are not

concerned with the wrongdoer but the attitude of the wronged. Jesus prayed

for the forgiveness of his murderers who were far from sorry for what they

had done. They would gladly have repeated their dastardly act had Jesus

responded to their invitation to come down from the cross. They had not

apologised or repented, yet Jesus forgave them and prayed for their

forgiveness. Is it wrong to ask, incidentally, how and where and when that

prayer will be answered? I believe it is wrong and almost blasphemous to ask

if it will be answered, but it is honouring to Jesus to assume that his cry,

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke

23:34) will be answered, come what may. One might say that those who do

not respond to the gospel do not know what they are doing.. They are blind,

cannot believe, and certainly do not fully appreciate the consequences of what

they are doing. Are the cruficiers of Jesus to be forgiven but those who do not

respond to the gospel not to be forgiven? Or will the crucifiers of Jesus, for

whom he prayed, not experience forgiveness? "Oh what a web -we-weave-. . . ^

-etc^ How glorious, too, was Jesus' free and instantaneous forgiveness of the

sins of the thief on the cross, who admitted "We are getting what our deeds

deserve" (Luke 23:41).

Is it consistent with the character of the Jesus who requires such absolute

and complete forgiveness of us, who prayed for his persecutors, who forgave

the thief on the cross, that he will never forgive your decent, unsaved next

door neighbour, who came to the meetings held by the visiting evangelist but

who did not respond to his appeal?. My question is, "When he is in hell, in

anguish of soul over his sins and his rejection of the offer of salvation, and

turns his eyes heavenward, will Jesus' heart of love have turned to stone? Will

he whose name is Saviour no longer be willing or able to save? He assures us

that "The arm of the Lord is not too short to save" (Isa. 59:1

You refer me to Lazarus and the rich man as recorded in Luke 16. We

will look at this account in some detail in chapter nine, but, at this stage, may

we just make the point that the Lazarus account was in the pre-Calvary age,

the pre-resurrection period. After his death Jesus "led captives in his train"

(Eph. 4:8). Also, "He went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed
long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah" (I Pet.3:19,20).

These were not merely souls who had not heard God's Word. "Noah, a

preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet.2:5) had warned them, and they had rejected

8 ‡'‡^

God's message. They had disobeyed. Yet Jesus, whose name means Saviour

or Salvation, went and preached to them. Are we to believe he took just

Noah's generation aside in the expanse of hell and preached to them in a

comer? I believe that they are mentioned because the context of the teaching

under review in Peter's epistle was Noah's day. Is this not an indication that

Jesus preached to all "the spirits in prison"? This scripture is not often quoted.

One is looked at askance if one refers to it at all as it is considered to be an

embarrassment, somewhat of an unwelcome intruder into Holy Writ. But

why? Is it not God's Word? And is it not glorious - a wonderful revelation of

God's mercy beyond the grave, not merely to those who have not heard, but to

the disobedient? Let us examine our hearts if we cannot rejoice that Jesus

preached to the disobedient in hell.

Jesus spoke of those in His day who "strain out a gnat but swallow a

camel" (Matt. 23:24) and lest there are those today who, in desperate defence

of their position, suggest that Jesus' teaching to the disobedient was merely

confirming the sentence of eternal damnation, it is interesting to read only

nine verses later "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those

who are now (not in text) dead, so that they might be judged according to men

in regard to the body; but live according to God in regard to the spirit" (IPet.

4:6).

I have resisted the temptation to quote highly respected (by me, as by

others) Christian authors who have attempted to justify the eternal damnation

doctrine. Somehow this pointless punishment is supposed to enhance God's

mercy to the few elect and so glorify his name - notwithstanding his express

statements that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11)

and is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet. 3:19).

Reformed theologians, with whom I can now agree in view of the end
result, (i.e. election is not a capricious or arbitrary selection of a few and a

damnation of many for eternity, but m&catling^oufofsome before others for a

specific purpose) emphasise salvation by sovereign grace alone, yet opine that

those who do not come to Christ in this age have effectively damned

themselves and deserve their fate. Do you detect inconsistency here? //O^c ^

So^e^e^^ Q A^_^, (^te-c.hc^. ^nof ff^ ca^c-&^^ ^ i/^e^e-i^e" ^<i

7 ^c/ZL^ ?

But I read a comment on the passage under review in I Peter 3 recently

,.. , Tk,e. ^^'^i<u'^t^U^¼^.. A^lo ^ZA/"

which surpassed them an Jesus did not actually preach to the disobedient but

"heralded" his triumph to them. It was not in any way to affect them, but to

9SH

display his victory - this despite the plain scriptural statement that it was "for

this cause ... that they might live unto God" (I Pet. 4:6 AV).

It seems to me that this is to make God not merely the perpetrator of

pointless, eternal torment, but a sadistic perpetrator of pointless, eternal

torment. Can the human mind contrive anything more sadistic than Jesus

going to hell to display his victory over sin, Satan and death and at the same

time convey to his audience that they will have no part in it but must remain

in hell for eternity?

Jesus did not merely preach, He preached the gospel - and the gospel

means the glad tidings or good news. Why did he do this? He preached it ^

"for this reason" - that the hearers might live. Can there be any doubt in

reasonable minds as to the plain meaning of this passage?

And what is your spiritual reaction to this news, reader? One of joy and

jubilation? Or one of annoyance at a difficult passage which does not fit in

with your doctrine?

"Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do those who are dead rise up

and praise you? Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in

Destruction? Are your wonders known in the place of darkness, or your

righteous deeds in the land of oblivion?" (Ps. 88:10-12) asks the Psalmist.
"Yes, yes, yes," we cry after reading Peter's epistle.. Jesus has visited, ²--

more, preached the gospel to the disobedient, the spirits in prison. He has

shown the wonders of his victory over death, His triumph over Satan and all

demonic powers. But not only so. What profit is it to a benighted soul to see

these wonders if he cannot experience them? Go'd's mercy (an alternative

translation of love) was declared in the grave, his faithfulness as a faithful

Creator and Redeemer was preached to those in Destruction. The dead shall

arise and praise him and know his saving help (RSV) in the land of

forgetfulness. Is this not, too, part of the gospel we are called to preach? I am

sure it was with great joy and jubilation that Jesus preached to the spirits in

prison when he visited them with his "saving help". Can we rejoice with him

- and them? Can we be jubilant? Let us not be mean and small-minded in our

salvation.

10 ‡J'.

Paul told Timothy "we have put our hope in the living God, who is the

Saviour of all men and especially of those who believe. Command and preach

these things" (I Tim. 4:10,11). Will you teach them? Dare you teach this

aspect of the gospel? Jesus said to Thomas, "Because you have seen me you

have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (Jn.

20:29). But he still accepted Thomas who was the first man to hear the

preached gospel and the first man to reject it in unbelief. He had to see Jesus

seven days later before he could believe, just as others who reject will see him

and believe seven thousand year-days later. God is not mean in his mercy, but

"delights in mercy". Let us be sure that we do, too.

Our spirit is not of God if it resents the message that there is hope "in the

grave, in Destruction, in the place of darkness, in the land of oblivion (AV

forgetfulness)" (Ps. 88:11,12). Christians have admitted to me that one

hindrance to accepting the truth of salvation for all was that they resented that

others who had not served God in this life, but who had had their fling in

parties and other pleasures of the world, could be saved. If we envy the world

its joys, one thing is certain: we know nothing of the magnificent truth that "in
thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for

evermore." (Psalm 16:11). Our Christianity is puny and paltry indeed if we

envy the world its life without God.

As Paul told Timothy, Jesus is the Saviour of all men, but there is a special

salvation for the believer and we will see what that might be in a later chapter.

^ But let us rejoice that Jesus is the Saviour of all men. His wonders are known

in the grave. He has preached to the disobedient spirits in prison that they

might live. Let us praise him for his full, abundant and absolute salvation.

Jesus is Victor. Hallelujah!

And so we see that far from requiring a forgiveness of us which is greater

than his own. God's mercy truly "endureth for ever". As we read 26 times in

Psalm 136 (AV) alone, it has been proved to the ultimate. It has reached the

depths of hell.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning the man who had had an

immoral relationship with his step-mother. His sentence, to be carried out by

the Body of believers in the name of Jesus, was, "hand this man over to Satan

so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of

the Lord." (I Cor. 5:5). We see again that judgement is always positive, with

11&-5

correction and restoration as its purpose and aim. That this act was extreme

none will deny. To deliver someone to Satan is frightening in its implications,

but even so it is no malicious abuse of authority, no vindictive wreaking of

vengeance for letting the side down. The whole purpose was that his spirit be

saved.

Once we discover a truth in scripture we see it confirmed time and again

and we see this Holy Spirit inspired act to be in line with our proposition that,

God being what he is revealed to be throughout the scriptures, punishment and

judgement can only be for correction and restoration. God is good; and to

torture for the sake of torturing, with no aim or purpose, is evil by any

standards.

How can the Church present to the world a God whom they hold to be the
perfection of love and an eternal torturer at the same time and expect to be

credible. If it were true (how could it be?) it would not be so bad, but as this

enormous doctrine is based on the mis-translation (or dubious translation if

you are not yet fully convinced) is monstrous.

In his next epistle to the Corinthians, Paul appeals on behalf of the ex-

communicated man. "The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is

sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so

that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow" (2 Cor. 6:6, 7).

"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching" (2 Tim. 3:16) we

read. Let us look a little closer at this word of Paul concerning a man who

was a Christian, part of the Body of Christ at Corinth, who had gone into

immorality and who had been cut off from fellowship and delivered to Satan.

"Sufficient!" says the Apostle, inspired by God. "Enough! No more!". Is

this the word of a God who will punish for all eternity unbelievers who have

never known the grace of God and yet also have never fallen into such

immorality? Do we hear him say "Sufficient"? Why is it sufficient? "So that

he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow" says God through Paul. But

what of the billions in hell? Will they not be overwhelmed by excessive

sorrow? "Ah" you say, "but nothing can be done once they are in hell." I ask,

why not? Did God not create hell and all it is? Did he not create man? Did

he not create Satan, and permit him to tempt Eve and Adam? Did he not

create man so that the loss of a limb would not be passed down, but that sin

12 6'-

would? Did he not know the consequences? If course he did. Hell was his

idea, his concept and he created it. Assuredly he has complete control of hell

and every last soul in it. "If I make my bed in the depths (Heb. Sheol; AV

hell) you are there" (Ps. 139:8) said David.

The punishment of the Corinthian was sufficient and the divinely-inspired

appeal for its cessation was made because its purpose had been accomplished.

From the text we understand that he had repented and Paul enjoins the

Corinthian believers to "reaffirm your love for him" (verse 8).

So it is with the "spirits in prison". The punishment is for their correction

and restoration. When it has served its purpose, when it is deemed

"^ "sufficient" followed by repentance, as prefigured by Jonah (next chapter), the

mercy of God will be known in the grave, his "saving help" in the land of

forgetfulness.

This truth is borne out a number of times in the New Testament.

Once again we must ask whether God was requiring greater mercy and

forgiveness of His Church than He Himself is prepared to show. The man at

Corinth was a Christian; he had known the forgiveness of Jesus and

experienced saving grace; he had then abandoned himself to gross, continuous

sin in a form of sexual behaviour which was unacceptable even by heathen

standards. He was punished, but he was forgiven, restored and lovingly

welcomed back into fellowship after his punishment.

Yet Christians dismiss the possibility of restoration of the unbeliever after

death because he must not have "a second chance". This Corinthian had a

second chance after rejecting Christ, but it happened-to be afforded him in this

life so it is acceptable. Many unbelievers have died without receiving Christ,

yet also without having stooped to the abandoned immorality of this one who

had known the Lord. Is it unjust that they should be given the opportunity of

salvation? Or perhaps I should ask, is it unjust that they should not be given

the opportunity of salvation?

Will God be less generous, less merciful, than He requires His Church to

be?

13 y^

I was once told, "Oh, then you believe in a second chance." I replied, "I

do not even believe in a first chance. I simply do not believe in chance. I

believe in grace and the God of all grace. I believe in his plan and his purpose

for all of his creation and I believe that every detail of that plan was conceived

in his love and his grace and will be to his glory."

It is written of Jesus Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which

most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent: "Woe
to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed

in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long

ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre

and Sidon on the day of judgement than for you. And you, Capernaum, will

you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths (AV hell).

If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it

would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable

for Sodom on the day of judgement, than for you" ' (Matt. 11:20-24).

"More bearable?" What teaching is this? Are we not taught that the

Sodomites are doomed to eternal hell? Do we read here of degrees of

punishment? How shall it be more bearable in the eternal fires of hell for

some than it is for others? If one could conceive of some being put in a better

area is it still not true that the horror of hell, as it is taught to us, is that it is

eternal? Does that not outweigh hotter and less hot flames, more severe or

less severe punishment? In what sense can the word "bearable" be used at all

if the punishment is eternal? Eternal punishment could not be bearable under ²-

any circumstances. Looking a little closer we see that the judgement for the

less sinful is to be "more bearable" than for the hardened of Jesus' day. This

brings another of Jesus' teaching to mind.

The steward who beats his fellow servants is caught off guard by his lord's

early return. He is "cut to pieces" and we are told that his lord "will assign

him a place with the unbelievers" (Luke 12:46). He will "be beaten with many

blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment

will be beaten -with few blows" (Luke 12: 47,48). Many blows, few blows.

More bearable, less bearable. Why these degrees of punishment? The only

logical explanation is, surely, that the punishment is that which is necessary to

bring the recalcitrant back to God. Why should they suffer any more? The

God who said "sufficient" in the case of the Corinthian backslider no doubt

14 -.^

says "sufficient" when the few blows or many blows have served their

purpose.
One of the most striking of Jesus' parables in this respect is found in the

eighteenth chapter of Matthew's gospel. The scenario is that of a servant who

is hopelessly in debt to his lord and king. The king ordered that the servant,

his wife and children all be sold to pay the debt. The servant fell down and

worshipped the king and pleaded for time to pay the debt in full. The king

was moved with compassion and forgave him the debt. The servant then went

to collect a small debt from his fellow-servant. The fellow-servant fell down

before him and besought him, just as he had pleaded with the king, but he

would not relent and cast him into prison. The king was furious and sent for

'him and said, "You wicked servant, I cancelled all that debt of yours because

you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow-servant just

as I had on you? In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be

tortured until he should pay back all he owed" (Matt. 18:32-34). Jesus added,

"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive

your brother from your heart" (Matt. 18:35).

So we have not only the parable but the interpretation given by Jesus

himself. The unforgiving servant is delivered to the tormentors, till he should

pay all. He is not delivered to the tormentors eternally. There is an end in

view once he has paid all. I do believe we must pay attention to every detail

of Jesus' teaching. No word is without significance. And Jesus could well

have taught that the servant was thrown into jail for ever. But he did not.

There was to be an end to the punishment. It would be poor teaching indeed if

Jesus were to postulate a situation where there was a definite end to the

punishment to illustrate endless torment, and he clearly says, "so likewise

shall my heavenly Father do also unto you".

You may recall, too, a parallel in the Sermon on the Mount where the

unreconciled man does not come out of prison "until you have paid the last

penny" (Matt. 5:26). Surely it is clear that the whole tenor of these and other

teaching is that an infinitely gracious and forgiving God is enjoining men,

who are resentful and mean in forgiveness by comparison, to be like him!

How could a God who keeps souls in existence for no purpose other than that

they experience the tortures of hell even longer, without even the mercy of
annihilation, enjoin his children to forgive as he forgives?

15&o

The failure of the translators to render olam and aionios as "age-lasting"

has resulted in various forms of these words being translated as a rather vague

"for ever" or "for ever and ever." This is so in the case of judgement as with

other words which we have examined. The scriptures are rich in teaching

concerning the ages and God's revelation to man on his purposes in the

successive ages is lost. The general conception of things from the average

Christian's point of view is rather simplistic: the gospel is preached in this age;

some believe, some do not believe; the believers go to heaven, the unbelievers

go to hell to weep and gnash their teeth for eternity. Here endeth the first and

every other lesson.

Certainly the scriptures do teach that the gospel should be preached to

every creature and that "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but

whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). It is fair to say, I

think, that this refers to those who hear the gospel because if one has not heard

then it cannot be reasonably held that he has either believed or not believed.

With regard to the vast mass of mankind who never hear, the common attitude

is Abraham's question "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" And

David's reply, "Thou shalt judge the people righteously." If the

joybells/fumace option is indeed of eternal consequence it would seem

preferable for the unreached to remain unreached: at least they have a chance

in eternity whereas those who hear are, according to orthodox teaching,

doomed for eternity if they made the wrong choice. This choice may well be

influenced by the inconsistent life of the person bringing the message, lack of

Holy Spirit anointing, a bad experience with a Church, or any other adverse ²

factor. But there is no return, no escape; burning is the eternal destiny of one

who does not submit to the gospel call.

We will spend a chapter looking at The Purpose of God in the Ages but

one important implication of incorrect translations of aionios should be

brought out at this point.

I was staying with a Christian brother whom I truly love in the faith and he

was aware of my views on this subject. So he by-passed his normal morning

Bible readings rather pointedly and read Mark 3:28, 29 for our edification! "I

tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.

But whosoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven: he

is guilty of an eternal sin." He smiled to my children and said, "That'll give

your Dad something to think about." It did. "Will never be forgiven ..... an

16 bi

eternal sin." What could be more conclusive, more devastating? So do many

Christians dismiss the research and study of other with facile smugness. But

the wonderful thing about receiving Truth from the Lord is that does not need

to fear such apparent demolition of one's research. If what one has been

seeing is indeed the Truth of God's Words, such scriptures will not demolish a

whole body of truth. And so it was with a sense of excitement that I went to

my Greek New Testament. And there, sure enough, was the answer: "eis ton

aiona" - "unto the age". Marshall's interlinear, which gives the Greek with the

literal English translation underneath each word, renders this passage:

"Whoever blasphemes against the Spirit Holy, has not forgiveness unto the

age." The AV "eternal" is, you may have guessed "aionion". So he is in

danger of age-lasting judgement, for an age-lasting sin.

I turned from Mark to the parallel scripture in Matthew where in it Jesus

said of such an offender, "anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not

be forgiven, either in your age, or the age to come.

So we leam that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven

either in this age or the next. But we have seen from many other scriptures

that there is not merely this age and the next (the millennium?) but age.? to

come.

I believe it is important to know what God is saying. If Jesus says that

blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not to be forgiven in this age or the age

to come why did the translators not faithfully translate His words? It may

have no relevance in the life of a Christian but it can be a hindrance to his

seeing the eventual outworking of Christ's redemption in his entire creation, as

we will see in many scriptures in a later chapter. The Bible teaches of "this

(present) age", "the age to come", "the ages to come", "the age even unto the

age", "the age of the ages", "the ages of the ages", and we may assume that

God had a very good reason for using each of these terms. In the bibliography

at the back of this book reference is made to books and booklets which are

devoted to this theme. It is sufficient in our broader study to note these

phrases, to realise the errors into which loose translations and attitudes can

bring one, and to understand that judgement is "age-lasting" in the context of a

number of ages in the economy of God. It is not eternal.

So we see in the scriptures that God's mercy truly "endureth forever;" that

his judgements are linked with his love; are to be praised as unsearchable; and

n^

are unto victory. All sins have been fully punished in Jesus, but sin, which

produced those sins, has to be dealt with. There is nothing spiteful, vindictive

or pointless in his chastisements all of which, in this life or the next, are

positive, remedial, corrective and unto restoration. Hell is God's creation,

under his control and, as all his works, for his glory. Say it: "I will sing of

mercy and judgement: unto thee, 0 Lord, will I sing." ':. ,'; ‡,;

i8 i-r/

Chapter 6

JONAH'S THREE DAYS - PAUL'S THREE DAYS

I was sitting in Church one Sunday morning listening intently to a

visiting preacher, whom I very much respected. He was a conventional

minister as far as the truths discussed in this book are concerned and, in any

case, his sermon was totally unrelated to anything to do with eternal destinies.

Then it happened - in an instant, a moment of time.

I turned to my wife who was sitting next to me and whispered "I've

had a revelation." She replied, "Don't forget it" and I said, "I'll never forget

this".
The revelation, let me hasten to explain, was nothing extra-scriptural.

It was simply the Holy Spirit bringing together three events in the lives of

Jonah, Jesus, then Paul and one verse of an epistle.

Jesus told his disciples, "the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in

my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have

said to you". Jn. 14:26.

The Holy Spirit can only remind us of things we have already learned

and read, which emphasises the importance of saturating ourselves in the

scriptures. This is how he teaches us and gives us revelation, illuminating

scripture by the scriptures. And this is just what happened that Sunday

morning.

69

The type I should like to share with you centres around the conversion

of Saul of Tarsus, later known to us as the apostle Paul. I will use the name

Paul throughout.

Paul was not saved by faith. Paul was saved by grace, by the blood of

Jesus, but faith never came into it.

The great apostle of faith, who preached a "gospel (in which) the

righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first

to last, just as it is written. The righteous will live by faith" Rom. 1:27 was not

himself saved by faith. _

This last phrase, better known in the AV's "The just shall live by faith",

was the Word which God used to liberate Martin Luther and might be

considered the catalyst of the Reformation. Yet the man through whom God

first gave this revelation was saved by a different means.

If we read all three versions of Paul's conversion as it is recorded in

Acts chapter 9 and as testified by Paul at Jerusalem in chapter 22 and before

Agrippa in chapter 26 we understand the following to be the circumstances of

his conversion. (I will not quote each verse of these chapters.)

Paul was "breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's

disciples". He "persecuted followers of this Way to their death, arresting both

men and women and throwing them into prison". He told Agrippa, "I put

many of the saints in prison, and when they -were put to death ... I tried to force

them to blaspheme ... in my obsession against them, I even went to foreign

cities to persecute them".

65

Was this all the sincere "obsession" of a zealous Pharisee? No. When

Paul was blinded by the Shekinah glory Jesus asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do

you persecute me. It is hard for you to kick against the goads."

Paul says he did it, "in ignorance and unbelief 1 Tim. 1:13. This is

difficult to accept in view of Jesus saying it was hard for him to resist. (I do

not for one moment question the inspiration of the scriptures. The scriptures

are faithful and reliable in recording what Paul said, but not necessarily

affirming his view of himself. Just as the Pharisees said to Jesus, 'You have a

demon'. That is inspired scripture in recording what the Pharisees said. But

^ no-one would suggest that Jesus had a demon just because it is recorded in this

context in the scriptures.) But even this is interesting, because "unbelief is a

prime qualification for hell!

The facts : Stephen, "a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit" Acts 6:5,

had preached the gospel to Paul and others, no doubt under a much greater

anointing than most preachers of today. Paul saw the glory on Stephen's face,

was convicted of the Holy Spirit but "kicked against the goads". In other

words, he resisted the work of the Holy Spirit and rejected the gospel. It was

not "easy" to resist because of his pharisaic background; it was "hard" to resist

because of the Holy Spirit's strivings, so Jesus said.

Stephen was then stoned to death "and Saul was there, giving approval

to his death ... and Saul began to destroy the Church". Acts 8:1-3.

Paul was the archetypal unbeliever who is destined for hell. He heard

the gospel, the Spirit strove with him mightily and he rejected the offer of

salvation. It was in this state that he set off for Damascus to kill more

Christians.

66
Then Paul appears to have "got lucky" as our American friends would

say. He "got saved" whether he liked it or not and in spite of himself, contrary

in fact to his own will, wish or desire.

You know the story. In this state of fury, unbelief and antagonism to

the gospel he was blinded by "a light from heaven, brighter than the sun,

blazing around me". Then came the voice and the rebuke. Saul asked "Who

are you Lord?" and the reply came, to his undoubted horror, "I am Jesus,

whom you are persecuting".

Up to this point there was no repentance, no turning to God. Paul had

no alternative but to believe. Faith had not come into the matter. Paul had

been stopped in his tracks by the Shekinah glory of Jesus and been plainly told

by Jesus who he was.

Paul then entered into three days and three nights of his own personal

hell. (The three days and three nights will be seen to be significant.) He was

blind and had no reason to believe that he would ever see again. For three

days he neither ate nor drank. What did he do? The scriptures are silent, but

can we doubt what he did. Imagine the remorse, the agony of soul, the

memory of the Christians, Jesus' Christians, whom he had tried to force to

blaspheme, the men and women he had put in prison - and those he had put to

death. The agony would have been all the greater because of those words "It

is hard for you to kick against the goads". He knew, and he knew that Jesus

knew, that he had known all along in his heart that the gospel was true and that

he had rejected it, that Jesus was Lord and Saviour and he had rejected him.

He had known the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit in his heart. He had

seen the glory on Stephen's face. How the memory of that face, and his

concurring in the decision to kill Stephen, "must have come back again and

again. Paul could not but have cried to God, in his agony of remorse.

67
Then what happened? Ananias, a member of the Church who might

himself have been put to death by Paul had God delayed his grace another day

or so, came to Paul under divine guidance and said "Brother Saul". Can you

believe it? Could Paul have believed it? Brother Saul. How beautiful.

A member of the Church (and this too, we will see to be significant in a

later chapter) brought Paul out of his "inner and outer darkness" into the

glorious light of the gospel by being "filled with the Holy Spirit".

^ No wonder Paul loved and served the Lord with such zeal for the rest

of his life. "The love of Christ constrains us ..." he said.

Who, I ask, of all the unbelievers and Christ rejecters of our generation

^t

is more deserving of hell? Did Paul just "get lucky" Aid does the decent

\ or ^

citizen, next door neighbounwho has not done a tenth of the evil of Paul. but

who does not respond to a gospekoften preached backed with / little prayer

and therefore under little anointing bum in an eternal fire because Jesus is less

gracious to him?

But let there be an end to speculation because Paul tells us himself in

^ his first epistle to Timothy in the first chapter, verses 15 and 16. "Christ Jesus

came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the worst. But for that

very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ

Jesus might display his unlimited patience as example for those who would

believe on him and receive eternal life."

This passage is worth dwelling on. The Authorised Version reads,

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save 'sinners; of whom I am the chief.

Howbeit, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus might show

68

forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them which should HEREAFTER

believe on him to life everlasting".

Paul was shown mercy. He was a recipient. He did not turn to Christ,

decide for Christ, accept Christ or do anything positive. He was shown mercy.

In English language terms, he was passive and not active. Why? For a specific

reason.

Now the NIV addresses a difficult word to translate against the

background of orthodox doctrine - protos. The NIV translators have used

"that in me, the worst of sinners". Protos simply does not mean worst. The ²

AV translates it "that in me first". That was a better translation - except that

Paul was not the first sinner to be saved. Others have used "foremost" and

"chief. Why are they struggling with a fairly straightforward Greek word

which is used 159 times in the New Testament? It is translated "first" 136

times, e.g. seek first the Kingdom, first be reconciled, gather first the tares, the

dead in Christ shall rise first. "Worst" is a bad translation.

The problem the translators had in substituting "worst" for "first" was

that Paul wasn't the first to reject Christ, nor the first convert. But possibly he

was not the worst sinner either. What of Stalin, Hitler or Herod, murderers of

the innocents, or Judas? If he was worse than all these, then God has had

mercy on the worst unbelieving, Christ rejecting sinner in spite of his

murderous antagonism to the anointed gospel. Is God a respecter of persons?

Does this not speak volumes?

He was protos. When you find that the word for "example" (NIV) or

"pattern" (AV) later in the verse is typos you will see that he was saying that

God showed mercy to him in this way because he was a protos-typos or proto-

type. Now a proto-type, as in a new aircraft or car, is the first of its kind.

69
Paul was not the first to be shown mercy. There were 3,000 before him

on the day of Pentecost and 5,000 shortly thereafter. So he was not a

prototype of those who hear the gospel, repent and believe.

Of whom was he a prototype?

Here again the NIV translators have moved away from their

predecessors by giving us "an example for those who would believe on him and

receive eternal life." But look back at the AV rendered: "them which should

HEREAFTER believe." I have a book called the New Testament in 26

Translations. It gives usually between two and six variations of the AV from

26 translations. This passage in 1 Timothy is interesting. It gives the AV and

four alternatives, which are:

should HEREAFTER believe on him. AV

should THEREAFTER believe on him. ASV

would AFTERWARDS rest their faith on him. Weymouth

[ ² - ABOUT to believe on him. Rotherham

were AFTERWARDS to believe on him. TCNT (Westcott

and Hort text)

This is not a selective group, but all the alternatives as they are given.

Can we doubt the message Paul was-putting across after looking at all

these renderings?

70

I The clear message of Paul's letter to Timothy is that he, the Christ

rejecter who was saved in spite of himself, is a prototype of those who will

believe hereafter, thereafter or afterwards.

Why?

So that Christ might display his unlimited patience. When we consider

again all that Paul did, with a train of murder behind him and eagerly

contemplated murder ahead of him, we might well be astounded at Christ's

unlimited patience. But as I have the 26 translations to hand let me give the -²

other eight renderings to really get the sense of it.

show forth his entire long-suffering. Rotherham

show forth the -whole of his long-suffering. Alford

display the fullness of his patience. Weymouth

display his unlimited patience. Berkeley

demonstrate how vast is his patience. OlafNorlie

exhibit... his exhaustless patience. TCNT Westcott and

Hort

give the extreme example of his patience. Knox

demonstrate his perfect patience. NASB

71

_ Ayx-^, tky\ ^ W-^-^e/^/^ ^c^ -^-^

f^hJL^ Ci^i-^t^A. n^Tt^‡e^ ^'^-^-fifi/ie^

Eight different translations but together conveying a sense of a fullness,

a vastness, a completeness, a perfection of something only partially known

before.

Yes, in the age of salvation by grace, through faith (and this not from

yourselves! Eph. 2:8), God's amazing mercy is shown to the believer. But

Paul the prototype gives us a glimpse of greater grace, a fullness of grace,

greater mercy, a fullness of mercy to be shown to even the Christ rejecter. A

university student confessed before the Lord with bitter tears in my home that

her first reaction to this revelation was one of resentment. She was a Christian

² and was "serving the Lord" but what justice was there in the unbelievers also

{jJi{'^VY^^h:Mi being saved?

How wonderful. Can you rejoice in this revelation from scripture that

God's unlimited, exhaustless mercy will ultimately be shown to -Hitler and /?C(L

t^b^tf- 31 §il^u^.i'

-StaftnnwWhat glory this will be to Jesus.

0 what glory filled the heart of the student I referred to when she could

rejoice that the worst of humanity would ultimately experience the cleansing of

Jesus' blood. One of the main reasons for writing this book (with hours of

prayer) is the joy that floods the soul when the truth of Jesus' ultimate
reconciliation of "all things" dawns on the soul. The sense of relief, of liberty;

the expansion of one's spirit, the magnification of one's praise and worship >

have to be experienced to be believed. One enters a whole new dimension of

appreciation and acclamation as one rejoices with Christ and Christians in this

truth.

But with this passage in 1 Timothy the Lord linked the account in

Jonah where Jonah was three days and thre'e nights in the fish - his personal

hell, as he called it. I quoted part of this passage at the end of chapter three.

72

Let us look at Jonah chapters 1 and 2 in more detail. Jonah knew God,

knew the voice of God and had been commanded, "Go to the great city of

Ninevah and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.

But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish ... But the Lord

provided a great fish and Jonah was inside the fish for three days and three

nights. This, of course, is the same period that Paul was in his "hell". From

inside the fish Jonah prayed to the Lord his God. He said, "In my distress I

called to the Lord and he answered me. From the depths of the grave (AV the

belly of hell, Heb. Sheol) I called for help and you listened to my cry. You

hurled me into the deep, the very heart of the seas and the currents swirled

about me; all your waves and banners swept over me. I said, "/ have been

banished/row your sight; yet I will look again towards your holy temple ... the

earth beneath me barred me in for ever (plant). But you brought my life up

from the pit 0 Lord my God ... What I have vowed I will make good, salvation

comes from the Lord! And the Lord commanded the fish and it vomited Jonah

on to dry land".

(Sheol is the Hades of the New Testament and is where Jesus went.

Jesus said "You will not abandon me to Sheol" The AV translates it "hell".)

In 2 Timothy 3:16 we read, "All scripture is God breathed and is useful

in teaching."

How is the account of Jonah, admittedly a popular Sunday School

story, "useful in teaching?"

God certainly does not wish to mislead us and what we have here is an

account of a man who knew God, but ran away from God and so was in a state

of disobedience. He then was cast by God (God prepared the fish) for three

73

days and three nights into what he calls Sheol or hell (AV). He says several

times that he called on God and that God heard him, despite his disobedience,

and brought him out of his hell - even though he was there "for ever" (olam).

Like Paul. he had no reason to believe that he would ever escape. And three

days and three nights is an awfully long time if, during the course of that time,

you do not know that there will be an end. Imagine being in a fish from, say,

Tuesday midday until Friday midday, not knowing whether you will ever get

out!

Three days and three nights appears to be a period denoting judgement

² on sin "for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish,

so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth"

Matt. 12:40. As of interest, the words of Jonah 2:5,6 are almost identical to

those of Psalm 88:6,7 which are generally held to be prophetic of the sufferings

of Christ in atoning for our sin: "You have put me in the lowest pit, in the

darkest depths. Your wrath lies heavily upon me; you have overwhelmed me

with all your waves."

Unless the type is as I have described it, why was he specifically three

days and three nights in the fish? Why does Jonah call it "hell"? Why does he

say- he was there "for ever" or olam, the very word used for everlasting

judgement? Why did he call and God answer? Why was he brought out of the

fish, to proclaim, "Salvation is of the Lord"? And why did God cause this

account to be preserved in the Bible if all these factors are purely co-incidental

and thus misleading?

Scripture is clearly teaching us by type that Jonah the backslidden

preacher and Paul the persecutor of Christians have to go into a period of

judgement - typified by three days and three nights - but then, in both cases,

they are brought out. Judgement is age-lasting, till it has wrought its purpose,

74
as it did in Jonah who said, "I have been banished from your sight (shades of

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"), yet I will look again towards

your holy temple." The backslider turns back to God and goes and fulfils his

ministry. The thorough work of judgement in Paul is demonstrated by the

unparalleled commitment to Christ for the rest of his life.

But the important teaching is that, just as in the case of the disobedient

of Noah's day, judgement comes to an end and the sinner is restored - only,

ever, always of course, because of the atoning death of Jesus. What glory this

will bring to Jesus. "A bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he

shall not quench, till he send forth JUDGEMENT UNTO VICTORY" Matt.

12:20 AV.

Let us pause for a moment and consider the following proposition:

All sin, which must mean every sin past, present and future, including

the sin of not believing in Jesus (Jn. 16:9), committed or to be committed by

every man, woman and child who has ever lived and who will ever live has

been fully, adequately and completely punished in Jesus.

Whether sinners accept or are even aware of the benefits of this atoning

work of Christ or not does not change the fact that Jesus has been fully

punished by God for their sins - "once for all". As previously quoted, "He is

the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of

the whole world" 1 Jn. 2:2. God cannot punish those sins again. The

proposition is :

Any further punitive judgement of sins by God, whether on earth or in

hell, would be unjust. Sin can only justly be'punished once. The fact that the

one whose sin has been atoned for does not accept his pardon does not justify

75

God judging that sin punitively a second time, as if no atonement had been

made.

Some years ago in Britain a form of sentence for crime was used which

seems to have fallen into disuse. It was the option. "One month or one

hundred pounds," the magistrate would pronounce. If the criminal had one

hundred pounds and chose to pay it, he walked free. If he did not or could not
pay he spent the next month in gaol. It was an option: one or the other but not

both.

""' Let us postulate a situation in which exactly that sentence is imposed

on, say, a motorist for excessive speeding. But he has no money and so faces

gaol. Then someone steps up and pays the £100 for him. The motorist walks

free.

This motorist may be extremely grateful to his benefactor or. callously

dismissive of him as a fool. Either way, he goes free. For we are not

e,

concerned with the criminal, penitent or unrepentant, grateful or ungrateful.

We are concerned with the integrity of the judicial system. Regardless of the

attitude of the criminal, the judicial system cannot send him to gaol for that

would be punishing the crime twice and the system would be brought into

disrepute.

So it is with God. Regardless of the sinner. God cannot justly judge

punitively anyone for whose sin Christ has fully paid the price just as if that

price had not been paid.

Alternatively:

76

The purely punitive judgement of sin by God a second time, first in

Jesus on the cross and then in the sinner in hell, would imply that the

atonement of Jesus was not acceptable, adequate or complete. It would be a

denial or denigration of Christ's redemptive work, accomplished at so great a

cost.

The mere suggestion that God could be unjust, or not fully accept the

full and glorious atonement of His Son, is, I agree, preposterous. But I have

made the point starkly to establish that God cannot judge sin punitively twice

and still be just, which he is. The purpose and justification of his judgements

can only be that they are corrective and remedial with restoration as their end,

rather like the chastisement of Christians which produces "a harvest of

righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it." Heb. 12:11.

Eternal judgement is neither corrective nor remedial. It is, by its very nature,
purely punitive. Ergo: God's judgements cannot be eternal. MANKIND'S

SINS HAVE BEEN FULLY DEALT WITH, ONCE FOR ALL, IN JESUS.

| BUT SIN IN MANKIND HAS TO BE DEALT WITH BY JUDGEMENT.

We have seen that endless or infinite judgement cannot be eternal on

four counts:

- the adjective translated "eternal" or everlasting in the OT cannot

mean endless.

the adjective translated "eternal" or everlasting in the NT cannot

mean endless.

God has punished all sin in Jesus; being just he cannot judge sin

punitively a second time; endless punishment is punitive.

77

- punitive judgement by God would denigrate the glorious, finished

work of his Son on the Cross.

Now let me give you a fifth:

All punishment must be proportional to the crime.

Society would not sanction a £10 fine for a diabolical murder. A life

sentence or, in some countries, execution would be considered more

appropriate. Likewise a life sentence for being five minutes over time on a

~ parking meter would be considered outrageous. There must be some sense of

proportion.

Society in England recently debated whether the 28 years Myra Hindley

had spent in gaol for the most heinous torture and subsequent murder of

children was "sufficient". Society was divided. Yet the society would have

been unanimous if her crime had been shoplifting a bar of chocolate and she

had served 28 years.

What am I getting at? Simply this:

For God to punish finite crime committed in a finite lifespan with

infinite punishment would be immeasurably more unjust than 28 years in prison

for stealing a bar of chocolate.

Even Jesus' judgement when he took the sin of the whole world,

terrible that it was, was finite. It had an end.

Infinite punishment for a finite crime is unjust.

78

Regardless of Calvary (and how can we disregard Calvary?) God, being

just, could not punish the sum total of any one person's finite crimes infinitely.

Therefore judgement cannot be eternal.

Let us recall the reason that God caused us all to be bom as sinners in

the first place:

"God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he might have

mercy on them all." His means of having mercy and bringing men to himself is

corrective judgement. It may be in this life, this age of faith, or it may be in

Hades, or even a second death in the lake of fire may be necessary. This we

will deal with in later chapters. But God will succeed in his declared purpose.

Judgement will result in victory, just as in the lives of Jonah and of Paul.

But God is loving; and he is merciful; and he is also just. As shown in

the types of Jonah and Paul, judgement does come to an end when it has

served its purpose. He will have mercy on them all, even the chief of sinners,

and so "shew forth his entire long-suffering," his "vast, exhaustless, unlimited

(yes, un-limited), perfect patience" and so fully honour the all-embracing, all-

encompassing redemptive work of his Son on the cross, "once for all". To him

be glory for evermore.

79

Chapter 7

THE PURPOSE OF GOD IN DEATH

In the domain and appointments of God, nothing just happens. This is as

true of death, and the various forms of death, as it is of any other part of the

creation of God. We may rest assured that both physical and spiritual death,

death as it applies to the individual and to the whole of creation, flow from the

wisdom, power and love of God. Death did not just happen. In his grand

design the almighty and all-wise God of the ages and of eternity has ordained

that death should enter his creation and blend with all other conditions to

__ produce the fulfilment of his ultimate will, plan and purpose for creation. It is

true that death is described as an enemy; so is Satan. But both are tools of
God for his glory.

Jesus propounded the place of death and the law of death in the closing

stages of his public ministry. Then, after a short period of instructing his

disciples privately, he voluntarily and deliberately entered into death to set in

motion the laws of death and new life. One of the first things he taught after

his resurrection was the need of death in the order of things, and its

consequences. The two on the road to Emmaus were "downcast" when Jesus

joined them incognito. He asked them, "What are you discussing?" They

replied, "About Jesus of Nazareth. He was a prophet, powerful in word and

deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed

^~ him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him." Jesus responded,

"How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets

have spoken. Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his

glory?" (Luke 24: 19-26).

But let us look at the words he spoke before entering into death.

"Jesus replied, The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I

tell you the truth, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it

remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. The man

who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world

will keep it for eternal life . . .Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say?

'Father, save me from this hour?' No, it was for this very reason I came to this

hour. 'Father, glorify your name!' Then a voice came from heaven, 'I have

glorified it and will glorify it again.' Jesus said, 'Now is the time for

80

judgement on this world (lit. age); now the prince of this world (age) will be

driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to

myself.' He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die" (Jn.

12:23-33).

Jesus so often referred to the wonders of his creation when he wished to

illustrate a truth. The sower sowing seed is the preacher propagating the

Word of God; and the reapers in the harvest are the fellow-labourers gathering

into the family of God those in whom the Word has generated new life. The
birds of the air, the lilies of the field, the fish taken in the net, all are means of

illustrating his truths. Nor is this the casual use of co-incidental parables of

nature, for in many cases the principles of God in nature are identical to those

in his spiritual creation. "Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies

it remains only a single seed." In the parable recounted by Matthew, the corn

of wheat which fell by the wayside, presumably on the hard, beaten track, was

still glistening in the sun while its brother from the same harvest was buried

away out of sight, suffering corruption under the earth. But the golden

glistening corn with its life intact was destined to be eaten by the fowls of the

air. Even if it were overlooked by the birds, it would never pro-generate or be /‡

the source of life to other ears of wheat. It abode alone. But the ear which

was planted, hidden from sight and suffering corruption, would be the source

of the strong, firm stalk, the bright green blade and, eventually, many ears of

wheat "according to its kind" (Gen. 1:25).

if i^CL> j.

And so^with Jesus. Although flae would never have known the corruption

. . Qt^~

of death, if he had lived ten thousand years. But he would have remained "a

single seed." The life contained within his physical frame would have been

his and his alone. To be multiplied, he had to die.

All nature teaches us that new life, resurrection life, comes from death

alone. There cannot be new life but through death. The fundamental

difference between life and resurrection is that resurrection is life out of death.

"There was evening and there was morning - the first day" (Gen. 1:5). So

we see that when one day has come to the maturity of evening it has to

surrender to the blackness of night so that the crisp, fresh dawn of a new day

may emerge from the nocturnal chrysalis. And so it is with the full cycle of

days which we call a year. The full flush of summer must ripen into autumnal

fall and eventually die in the cold, harsh winter, when it is hard to remember

81

and imagine the warm, balmy days of summer. The decayed remnants of
proud blooms and lush green leaves are often formally buried by the blanket

of snow so that even their remains should not be seen. Then from that death

emerge the flowers of spring, the song of fledglings, the bleat of the lambs.

New life has come out of death. God's law has operated once again and all

creation rejoices in the newness of life. Nor are these interesting phenomena^ cn/Oi^-.

For God set the earth in orbit around the sun to establish a year, he tilted it to

establish the seasons, and he spun it on its own axis to give a twenty-four hour

witness of life and death and new life out of death.

Jesus moved into this law of life, death and resurrection when his time had

come to be glorified. What should he say^Save me from this hour? f Let me

circumvent death?^No, indeed. For this was the second Adam in whom, as in

the first Adam, all mankind was included. He would take mankind into death

so that "by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone" (Heb. 2:9). So

he committed himself to the Father in the greatest act of faith the world has

ever seen, or ever will see, with the confession, "You will not abandon me to

the grave (AV: leave my soul in hell), nor will you let your Holy One see

decay. You have made known to me the path of life," (Ps. 16:10, 11). I will

die bearing the sins of mankind, and will take mankind into death, but the

immutable law of God will operate: I will see life again, resurrection life and

so will all mankind: "Because I live, you also will live" (Jn. 14:19).

Remember, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto

myself." There are Christians who quote this verse with reference to the

^- lifting up of the risen Christ in the life of the believer. But the scripture is

clear: "He said this showing what kind of death he was going to die". His

hearers would have understood from this phrase that he would be lifted up on

a cross to die the agonising death of crucifixion. In this context we must ask

ourselves, Was he lifted up? Indeed he was. Then will he draw all men unto

himself?

It is annoying, but in some ways understandable, that whenever I quote

this or one of half a dozen other such references to support the body of

teaching that Jesus will ultimately do precisely what he said, and that is draw

all to himself, that the response is "Yes, that means he will give all the
opportunity of salvation." He did not say that, nor infer it, or anything like it.

Nowhere do we read of people being given "the opportunity" of salvation or

salvation being "made available" to all.

82

This comment is true of Romans 5:19 "For just as through the

disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the

;^bbedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Oh but that /<-

must mean they have the opportunity of being made righteous. That is not

what Pau^God)said. If that were true then Paul^God)^ere very capable of

saying so and would not be likely to be vague on such an important point.

The whole thrust and tenor of Romans 5 is that "much more" was gained

by the obedience, righteousness and work of Christ than was lost by the sin of

Adam. The subject under review has nothing to do with the individual's

opportunity or'response to the gospel. It is simply a comparison of the effects

of the disobedience of the first federal head of the human race, "the first

Adam", andthe-second federal head, Jesus, who is also the second and last

Adam. All humanity is included in these two federal heads and this is what is

being addressed.

"Much more" is used five times in relation to Christ's victory, but orthodox

teaching holds that Adam's sin was "much more" far-reaching than the >

redemptive work of Christ.

"As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (I Cor. 15:22).

"Oh, but what that means is ..." It means what it says, unequivocally.

I said this line of rationalisation is understandable. Yes, but only because

of entrenched thinking on eternal damnation. In the context of eternal ^"

damnation this passage has to be rationalised. Once we are delivered from

that teaching we are free to believe God's Word.

There is a gospel abroad today which promises spiritual life, the Greek

Zoe, which is God's very own nature, without death. "Come to Jesus" they

say. "Come and receive eternal life and the peace and joy of the Lord" yet

mention nothing of dying with him that we may live with him.

Peter spoke on the Mount of Transfiguration'Just for the sake of speaking,

"For he wist not what to say" (Mk.9:6). He was rebuked from heaven with the

words, "This is my beloved Son: hear him" (verse 7). We need at times to

examine our many words to ponder whether what we are saying is what God

wants us to say. Better still, we need to be silent and "hear him". Let us "hear

him" on the subject.

83

Large crowds were travelling with Jesus, and turning to them he said, "If

anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and

children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my

disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be

my disciple" (Luke 14:25-27).

The tendency to make Christianity easy is, no doubt, from well-

intentioned brethren who want as many souls as possible to be saved. I do not

question their burden for souls and yearning to see the lost receive the

salvation of God. But can any burden for souls compare with that of Jesus

who suffered unspeakable agonies that their sins might be forgiven; who

suffered^the'spiritual death, portrayed more strongly than words of a writer can

ever convey in the cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

(Matt. 27:46). Has anyone ever yearned for the lost as he who wept over

Jerusalem? Yet this is he who turned to the multitude and imposed a

condition in absolute terms on discipleship. We must see this too against the

background of his advice to the rich young man who came to ask what he

might do in order to inherit eternal life. "Sell everything you have and give to

the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Luke

18:22). The question was simply one of eternal life: the answer was

renunciation of worldly wealth and "follow me". As Dietrich Bonhoeffer

remarked, Jesus linked eternal life with discipleship and the Church has no

authority to separate them.

In effect, the Saviour of the World, Lover of men's souls, was saying to

the crowd, "If you want to live you must be prepared to die." There can be no

following Jesus and handling of spiritual realities if family loyalties are to

compete with submission to the will of God. Not only that but he who would

go with the Source and Giver of Life must hate "even his own life." Fleshly

ambition, selfish desires, any consideration of one's own life are not

compatable with serving God and being ministers of his Word and his Life.

There can be no inheriting of eternal life, Zoe, God's life, without the

cleansing power of death to the natural self-life.

Jesus alluded to the bearing of the cross. In another gospel he is reported

as saying that we must take up our cross. One hears Christians complain of

some unpleasant burden, which is part of their lives,as being their cross. For

example, a physical disability, or having to nurse a chronically sick parent, is

referred to as a cross to bear. This is not what Jesus was referring to. These

84

situations are imposed by circumstances on often reluctant carers. Jesus said

we must take up our cross; that is, voluntarily and of our own accord accept

God's will and God's appointments for our lives. His hearers would have been

very aware of the significance of his words. Often they saw wretched

creatures, usually bandits, highwaymen, murderers or rebels, carrying a cross

to the place of crucifixion outside the city. A terrible stigma was attached to

the carrying of the cross. It meant that the man had brought disgrace on

himself and his family. In the words of the hymnwriter it was "The emblem

of suffering and shame". But more: a man carrying a cross was a dead man.

He had been sentenced to death and no longer had any say or control over his

life or destiny. His will had been taken away from him and he had been

forced to carry the crude wooden stake on which he would die. Every step

was a step nearer that agonising death, yet he had no alternative but to take

that step . . . and the next. . . and the next. His feelings or will in the matter

were no longer of any consequence, for he had no option but to walk to his

doom. He was not yet hanging lifeless from the cross, but as far as his will,

his self-determination, his power to choose what course he would take were

concerned, he was dead already.

And this is the illustration which Jesus used in telling the "large crowds"
that they must become as dead men if they were to follow him. If I may again

emphasise the unparalleled love of Jesus for every last soul imprisoned by self

and sin, and his burning desire to see them set free by surrender to the will of

God, then I would point out that the truth is thereby underlined that there is no

way into the glory of God but through death to self. Of course, the glorious ~"

difference is that, unlike the wretched criminal carrying his Cross, we are

assured that if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him. It is surely

most significant that right in the middle of the passage where he told his

hearers that he, the corn of wheat, must die to bring forth fruit, he broke off to

tell them concerning themselves that "The man who loves his life (psuche:

natural life) will lose it; while the man that hates his life (psuche) in this world

will keep it for eternal life (zoe: God's life)" (John 12:25). If we seek our own

will, find our own pleasures, fulfil our own ambitions, then we will find at the

end of the day that we have nothing, because no new life can come but

through death. But if we die to our own will, pleasures and ambitions,

submitting our wills to the will of God, then the Lord will be able to flow his

own life into us and through us. We will find emerging from our death to self

the endless life of Jesus. "If we be dead with him, we shall also live with

him". The second part of the law set out in this scripture is as immutable as

85

the first. Death with Christ by faith assures us of participation in the very life,

nature and glory of God. His peace, his joy, his love, all that he is> become

ours. '

Neglect of this fundamental truth preached, lived and died by Jesus and

seen in all nature has led to the impure admixture of flesh and spirit in

Christianity today. Christians who are far from dead enter into the ministry of

_fl»^Afi-t ‡& //I 9 //I'?

the Word, yingmg the gespgl, prayer for the sick, public prayer, praise and

even the operation of the gifts of the Spirit. The result is that more is-spoken^

- of the preacbeF's-commanji-of English-tban -j)f the wondersT'of the Jesus he\

ireaches; compliments"'are paid to the quality and^fechnique of the soloist ?

_ rather than appreciation of the spiritual vahieof the truths she has/sung;

;omments^are made as to how beauttrully the young man²prays for the ' "^

/‡' -^ f<»

. nestings-father than the need-te-pFay-fiaere-fer-the-^aeetings. Flesh handles

Spirit. Adam's life of depravity and sin is the means of ministering Christ's

life of purity and holiness. For natural life has moved into resurrection life

without ever passing through death. God's immutable law is violated; the

Church is frescoed but not edified; the world is unmoved.

The testimony of God's grace in saving Jack Brown, drug addict,

alcoholic, one-time co-gangster of Al Capone, who was a doomed prisoner on

death row at San Quentin, has brought much glory to the Lord. But I

remember Jack's comment on the occasion of his first visit to a Church in

thirty years. He said of the preacher, "That, young man thought he was Bob

Snoc^&ix-

-~- Hope." Even the ex-gangster was disgusted. The things of God were being

handled by un/crucified flesh and only praying women saved Jack Brown V

from being turned away from the gospel.

But I remember, too, meetings which Canadian evangelist Lome Fox was

conducting in South Africa. His wife had a voice of natural beauty - enhanced

by training. Yet she sat quietly in prayer on the platform meeting after

meeting until she felt the leading and anointing of the Lord - then she sang.

Nearly thirty years later I remember the sense of awe and holy hush which

settled on the gathering of two thousand when Ruth Fox sang, "And this one

thing I know, that when the crimson flow dropped to the earth below, it fell on

me." It was a spiritual experience.

The difference between the Bob Hope preacher and Ruth Fox was that the

natural abilities of the preacher had moved into spiritual realities without

86

passing through death; whereas the beautiful trained voice^was not denied nor V

set aside as being flesh, but had been to the cross and had passed through

death to self, pride and popular acclaim. Thus it could be used to the full to

the glory of God.

Our natural abilities are God-given and are not to be despised. God told

Jeremiah "I formed you in the womb" (Jer.l:5). Paul told the Galatians of

"God, who set me apart from my birth" (Gal. 1;15) not, note, "from my

conversion". Paul's natural brilliance comes through strongly in the epistle to

the Galatians, but in the same letter his testimony is "I have been crucified

with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2:20). The life

which Paul lived, with its obvious natural abilities, had been to the cross. He

had died with Jesus and lived Jesus-life.

The scriptures abound in examples and types of the life - death - new life

pattern in God's dealings with men. Each one deserves a chapter but we will

look at them in all possible brevity.

Creation in Noah's day had to experience the cleansing death of the flood

before the advent of a new age, "This water symbolises baptism, which now

saves you also ... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"(I Peter 3:21).

1 Baptism, as we will see, is our immersion into the death of Christ. "By

these waters also the world of that time was deluged ... By the same word the

present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of

judgement and destruction of ungodly men" (2 Peter 3: 6,7). Both worlds had

to experience death in different forms to make way for a new order. It is a

blessed promise that tells the generation of the atomic bomb, reserved for

judgement by fire, that "we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new

earth, the home of righteousness" (verse 13). The world of righteousness can

only come from this "present evil world" through the death of fiery

judgement. It cannot come, as some Christians pray, through an improvement

in international affairs and a solution to present problems. Abram was

disobedient to God's commission on all three counts and especially regarding

his family ties. He was told to leave "your country, your people and your

father's household" (Gen. 12:1), but only left his land on his father's death and

then took nephew Lot with him. Surely his "death" was to have to kill his

child of promise, Isaac, in that this required the ultimate in surrender of his

will. Once he had surrendered his will, and was prepared to sacrifice "your

87
Equally it has been true in the life of Augustine, St. Francis of Assist, John

Bunyan, John Newton.who wrote "Amazing Grace", and so many other saints y.

down through the centuries.

These incidents also illustrate that to be dead does not mean to be in the

state of a corpse in a coffin. Paul told the Ephesians, "You were dead in your

dpr-o tit-

transgressions and sins" (Eph. 2.1), "separated, the life of God" (Eph. 4:18). ,X

They were ordinary men and women like ourselves but while they were in

their sins they were dead - dead to God, not knowing his life. That is, there

was no relationship or communication between them and God. Likewise Paul

told Timothy, "The widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she

lives" (I Tim. 5:6). If she is given over to the fleshly pleasures of the world, """

indulging her selfish desires, she has no relationship with God. She is dead

(to God) while she lives (to sin).

The glorious fact about the death of Jesus is not that it exempts the self

and sin in us from death, for that would be to our immeasurable loss, but that

it provides a death into which we may enter. We may know the power of that

death to experience the sterilisation, the paralysis of sin, self, lust and every

form of evil which holds us in misery, defeat and woe. Jesus died for every

human being who ever walked this earth, except one. He did not die for

himself. His death was totally for the benefit of you and me. Everything you

see in that death, all it accomplished, is yours and mine.

So as we were dead in sin we can now be dead to sin. "We died to sin;

how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were

baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? We were therefore

buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was

raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new

life" (Rom. 6:2-4). We see again here that our baptism is not an exemption

from death but a plunging into death, Christ's death, so that we can experience

the newness of resurrection life, undefiled and unadulterated by the selfish,

sinful nature which has blighted our lives since the day we were bom. In the

following verses the law of new life out of death is repeated over and over
again.

"If (if!) we have been united with him like this in his death, we will

certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our

old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away

88

only son, Isaac, whom you love", his ultimate possession, he was spared the

act and was told "because you have done this and have not withheld your son,

your only son, I will surely bless you . . . and through your offspring all the

nations of the earth will be blessed" (Gen. 22:16,18). Death to his own will

opened the way to a newness of life and ministry to all nations. But for Isaac,

too, his willingness to yield up his life in obedience was a form of death.

Therefore, "it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned" (Gen.

21:12).

Jacob, meaning usurper or cheat, wrestled all night with the stranger until

daybreak (Gen. 32:26) but the new day saw him as Israel, a Prince of God.

His son, Joseph, was blessed with visions and dreams but went into the death

of the dungeons for many long years before he was brought out to be prime

minister of Egypt. Moses spent forty years as a prince in Egypt before

attempting to deliver Israel by the arm of flesh. He had to experience the next

forty years of death to self in the wilderness before he would become the

spiritual leader of Israel. Israel itself, enjoying the leeks and garlic of Egypt,

likewise had to know the death of the barren wilderness before entering the

new life of Canaan.

Job is humanity in microcosm. "This man was blameless and upright; he

feared God and shunned evil" (Job 1:1). In this state he represents Adam

before the fall. Then Satan was let loose on him and. he experienced a living

death: his seven sons and three daughters were killed, his wife would not have

-^- anything to do with him, he lost all earthly possessions and continued in this

death until he broke and confessed "I despise myself and repent in dust and

ashes" (Job 42:6). Then "the Lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more

than the first" (verse 12) just as the end of the human race will be more

glorious than if it had never experienced the death of sin and estrangement
from God. "For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have

mercy upon all" (Rom. 11:32 RSV).

We have spoken of the wilful Jonah, his death in the fish, his emergence to

obey his commission. And of arrogant Saul of Tarsus, the death of three days

and nights with blinded eyes and a fiery conscience, from which he came to

bring new life to many. We might mention, too, Peter with his self-confident

avowal of loyalty to Jesus, his death of bitter weeping, before becoming the

bold apostle to the circumcision. For all these and many more instances the

law of new life out of death to the old is illustrated by God.

89

with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died

has been freed from sin" (vv 5, 6). We note again that the teaching is not that

we escape death. Our old man -was crucified - with Jesus. By faith we enter

into that crucifixion and experience the rest of death to the dominant power of

the old nature.

"Anyone who has died has been freed from sin". If to be free from sin is

to live, then we have our law propounded again. Everything has to go through

death to enduring life. And once more:

"Now if (if.) we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with

^ him" (verse 8). There is no mention of life without a prior death, but that life

with Jesus is conditional upon death. "The death he died, he died to sin once

for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count

yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Jesus Christ" (vv 10,11). This

verse reiterates the fact that Jesus' death was wholly for us. He died to sin

once for all; he lives to God: in the same way, count yourselves dead to sin

and alive to God - through Jesus. How does it come about? Verse 17 tells us:

"You used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly (AV, obeyed from the

heart) the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set

free from sin." Freedom from sin does not come from being told that we do

not need to die, but by submitting our wills and trusting in our hearts that we

died with Jesus. This way we experience his victory over sin in death and

enter into his life.

In the same way, Paul told the Galatians, we are set free from the world,

or present evil age, our need of its security, its pleasures, its acceptance and

acclaim. No amount of willpower or determination can release us, but Jesus

"gave himself for our sins, to rescue us from the present evil age, according to

the will of our God" (Gal. 1:4). Towards the end of the same epistle, Paul

fLA-M

declares, "My F never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, f-

through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Gal.

6:14).

Through Christ's death I become dead to the world. My living

relationships and communion with it is broken. I still live in it as of "those

who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them" (I Cor. 7:31 -

NASB). It is foreign to me for I glory in the gospel of the cross of Christ,

which the world considers a gory, uncouth story totally unacceptable in its

90

sophisticated circles. Likewise the world is crucified to me. It finds me, with

my love for Jesus, a curiosity, an embarrassment.

To enter into God's life, death to self, sin and the world is essential. Only

by entering into Christ's death to these pernicious enemies within and without

me can I experience death to them. "Whoever hears my word and believes in

him who sent me, has eternal life, and will not be condemned; he has crossed

over from death to life" (Jn. 5:24). It is by believing that we enter into death

to self, as we have just seen in the scriptures on baptism, and pass from death

unto life. The Christian life is "from faith to faith" (Rom. 1:17). As we grow

spiritually and are able to reckon ourselves dead with Christ we enter into his

life. The reality of the power of the self-life and in-dwelling sin in Christians ²

who have been on the way for many years is testimony to the failure to

believe fully for death and so enter fully into life.

In the wonder of God's plan the power of Jesus' death is contained in his

life. Just as he was both the high priest offering himself and at the same time

the sacrificial Lamb being offered, and God to whom sinful man should be

reconciled as well as the Man Christ Jesus bearing the sin of the world, so the
power of his death to render impotent the power of the flesh and in-dwelling

sin is in the life of Jesus which we receive when he comes into our lives.

Andrew Murray wrote in "Like Christ", "Through faith in Christ we

become partakers of Christ's life. That life is a life which has passed through

the death of Christ's cross and in which the power of that death is always

working. When I receive that life, I receive at the same time the full power of

the death on the cross working in me in its never-ceasing energy."

Of course, everything in the Christian life is received by faith and we need

to be aware of this truth to be able to exercise faith for it to be a reality in our

lives.

Paul told the Romans, "For if, when we were God's enemies, we were

reconciled to him by the death of his Son, how much more, having been

reconciled, shall we be saved through his life" (Rom. 5:10).

I am not given to dreams and visions but I have had occasional visions in

the operation of the gift of prophesy. One vision stands out in my mind, and I

have no doubt that this is one reason that I feel so strongly on the subject of

91

entering into new life through death. The vision was centred on a passage of

scripture in Hebrews 10: 19-22, "Therefore, brothers, since we have

confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and

living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we

have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God ..."

I saw the veil, which was the fifteen foot square curtain separating the

Holy of Holies, or Holiest of All, from the Holy Place in the tabernacle. I saw

the high priest go to the left of the curtain, draw it aside, and enter in. This, of

course, only the high priest was permitted to do and then only once a year.

Then the scene changed and I saw the veil rent from top to bottom, just as

_ Matthew told us happened, when Jesus died and Paul confirmed in the passage

we have read from Hebrews. But in the rend I saw the transparent figure of

the crucified Christ. This, too, agrees with Hebrews: "The curtain, that is his

body." I knew at that moment that the only way into the glory was through

the crucified Christ; man could no longer pull the curtains aside and go round
it, as the high priest had. I knew, too, that anyone who passed through the

crucified Christ would experience his death. God could have burnt the veil

up, consumed it, caused it to cease to exist, or cut the fifty taches holding it so

it would fall to the floor to be stepped over. But he did none of these things.

He rent it and inspired Paul to teach us not that the curtain is done away but

that we enter through the curtain, that is to say Christ's crucified flesh.

That life from death is the only valid base for a Christian ministry is borne

^~ out by Paul in Second Corinthians. "We have this treasure in jars of clay/to K

crfvc.^ '

show/that this all surpassing power isj&TGod and not from us. We are hard /

pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair;

persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed" (2 Cor. 4:7-9).

One might ask what the connection is between the first part of this passage

and the rest. Is it not that Paul needed trouble, perplexity, persecution and to

be cast down to keep him trusting in Christ's death for the death of his self-

life? He was not distressed, in despair, forsaken or destroyed for he trusted in

God to keep him. But all these adversities were necessary so that the earthen

vessel should not exalt itself. He continues, "We always carry around in our

body the death of Jesus, THAT the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our

body" (verse 10). There it is again, the immutable law. The dying of the

Lord Jesus, the continuous crucifixion of the ego, the old nature, Adam in us,

is necessary that the life of Jesus might be manifest. No life without death.

"For we who are alive are always given over to death for Jesus' sake, that his

92

life may be revealed in our mortal body. So then death is at work in us, but

life is at work in you" (verses 11, 12).

The troubles, perplexities, persecutions and perils of death were God's way

of delivering Paul to death so that he should not be self-confident and

complacent. "I die daily" was his testimony. He needed God for his

protection, for his very life, and lived in an attitude of surrender to God. He

was dead with Christ. So the life of God was able to flow out of this death to

the Corinthians and all others to whom Paul ministered, us included. Shall we
live differently? Shall we minister in confidence, in assurance, in

complacency? Then let us not expect Jesus life to flow to others.

One hears zealous young Christians quote Philippians 3:10 in prayer: "I

want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection". Did I not pray it

myself with sincerity and longing as a new convert but, like others, stop the

quotation right there? The verse goes on, "and the fellowship of sharing in his

sufferings, becoming like him in his death". How shall we know the risen

Christ and his resurrection power? By allowing sufferings to confirm us to his ^

surrendered will and death. There is no other way.

If all this brings us any sense of gloom or foreboding is that not itself a

proof of how much we are still in the flesh? Should we not rejoice at the

inevitability of death to this bondage of self which the devil would like to

convince us is our freedom? Is it not this very selfish, self-determined, self-

willed nature, which makes me my own god, the enemy to the love, joy, peace ^

and liberty which Jesus knew? Then let us rejoice in death, the womb of a

new life in Christ.

So we see the purpose of death in the plan of God to be the means of

rendering impotent the former state, or cancelling its power, so that the new

state might be experienced and enjoyed unadulterated by the old. "Flesh and

blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does the perishable inherit

imperishable" (I Cor. 15:50).

The Church as a continuing organism is not exempted from the pattern

which creation, Christ and all mankind must experience - life out of death.

Paul tells the Thessalonions, "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus

Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become

93

easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophesy, report or letter supposed to

have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't

let anyone deceive you in any way for that day will not come until the

rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed (except there come a

falling away first and that man of sin be revealed - AV), the man doomed to

destruction. He will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called
God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming

himself to be God" (2 Thess. 2:1-4).

God's temple is the Church; the head of the Church is Christ from whom it

derives its life. The man of lawlessness taking the position of God, "exalting

^- himself over everything that is called God" is death to the Church.

The Reformers interpreted this to be the papacy, as The Epistle Dedicatory.

to the King James Version makes very clear. The translators consider^a ^

in-

version in the vernacular to have dealt "such a blow unto that man of sin as

will not be healed."

Certainly the Church entered a period when all values were corrupted, all

truth lost and the Church became a mighty political power in contra-

distinction to all it was called to be. The beginning of the Restoration through

the revelation of salvation by faith to Martin Luther was the new birth, life

from the dead, the resurrection of the Church. Truth has been revealed and

restored by God's Spirit in stages and phases ever since - much in the

"~ twentieth century. I believe the truth of the total and absolute final victory of

Jesus is another phase, light destroying the darkness of the terrible, terrible

slander of God's character by his Church.

When we consider that the whole of "creation was made subject to

frustration/vanity/futility/fruitlessness" (Rom. 8:20) and experienced the curse

brought upon it by the one who had dominion over it, we appreciate the fact

that the entire creation must experience death before it can enter into its

redeemed life, "into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade" (I Pet.

1:4). For the physical creation and for the generation on earth at Christ's

coming there is the baptism of fire as the means of death that there might be

revealed "a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness" (2 Pet.

3:13).

94

But looking at those of the human race who have lived and died before the

final conflagration can we now see more clearly the purpose of death and

hadesi Those who are baptised into Jesus Christ in this life are baptised into
his death, but those who reject him and will not avail themselves of the

immeasurably costly and precious gift of his death have still to experience

death, the death of hades. God, in his infinite wisdom, power and, yes, his

love, has created a place of death in the spirit world beyond the physical and

fleshly. "God has consigned all men to disobedience, THAT he may have

mercy upon all" (Rom. 11:32) and he will not be thwarted. For those who

will not accept the offer of the death of his Son in this life/go into the death of

sheol or hades. This is the purpose of sheol/hades in the plan of God, for

"known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" (Acts

15:18 AV). There is a special salvation and heritage for those who believe in

this life, as we shall see when we look more fully at the Ages^ and the /

purposes of this age in particular, but the unbelievers, provided with a form of

, ~,T^\- / d®^ in hadeyih&t they^-too^ might be saved. Even there, in their remorse,

(^ei jf_e^£^/^i self-recriminations and abysmal desolation, they will see that the only way

foo^ i^ ^e^^' -^-& j ^^ ^g ^ through Christ and his atonement. Their guilty conscience,

^-² -- suffering and even repentance cannot save them, apart from Christ.

Nevertheless, he is "the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe" (I

Tim. 4:10) and "the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also

for the sins of the whole world" (I Jn. 2:2). He died "so that by the grace of

God he might taste death for every man" (Heb. 2:9).

Nothing can negate the propitiation for the sins of the whole world nor

invalidate Jesus' vicarious death for every one. Even when souls are in hell

the fact of Jesus having borne their sins and tasted death for them stands firm,

and is available to them as they call on him. The figure of Jonah abundantly

illustrated this and the scriptures we are yet to consider will show that

ultimately they are rescued and restored.

But an interesting fact regarding hades-hell is that it is itself a state of

death. We saw that death is not necessarily the condition of the corpse, for the

Ephesians were dead in their trespasses and sins before their conversion, and

the widow given over to pleasure was "dead while she lives". Death, in the

situation of the sinner, is separation from the life of God, whether in this life

or in hades. Hence the close relationship and almost synonymous use of the
terms "death" and "hell".

95

We will see in looking at the sheol scriptures that in almost identical

passages "death" and "hell" are used interchangeably.

Psalm 18:4 The sorrows of hell (sheol) compassed me about;

the snares of death prevented me.

Psalm 116:3 The sorrows of death compassed me;

and the pains of hell (sheol) got hold upon me

The New Testament counterpart of sheol is hades so we should not be

surprised to find passages in the closing chapters of the Bible as Revelation

20:13, 14 "And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and hades

(hell AV) gave up the dead, that were in them: and each person was judged

according to what he had done. Then death and hades (he\\ AV) were thrown

into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." /J& i^Ui Sec ft^J'

f^<i- ¼^/c<- "^ &^<ty /X<2- ^6^u^{ de^^^ ^ j-e^Cg^i^ .

-^^3,

Death and jieIFgivp up their dead. (To what and to whom, one might

^‡s/m^

ask?) Death andjsnare cast into the lake of fire. As we remarked, hell or . Ä

Ä.,, r_iAT^i. i- l^r^d^ ^-/ f&M-e.^^, ^J^i/'^^^-c"

hades is a form of death. Death cannot be said to be destroyed untij^nelMs' deeJk'>^ ^

destroyed. While hell exists, death exists. If hell were eternal, then death

6-^ S^L^}"-^-

would be eternal and if souls were consigned to hades eternally, then they

would be in a state of eternal death. I hope I am correct in assuming that this

conclusion is beyond reasonable dispute. In fact, I suggest that if it is argued

that death can be considered to have been destroyed while a hell full of

billions of burning souls still exists, then that argument is made only because

of its implications. For to accept that there is an end to death in all its forms is

to accept that there is an end to the punishment of the unbelievers in hell, and

this some will not concede in any circumstances.

But what does God's Word say?

"God will wipe every tear from their eyes THERE WILL BE NO MORE

DEATH, or mourning, or crying, or pain: for the old order of things has

passed away" (Rev. 21:4). Death, in this situation, no longer exists for there

shall be no more death: the old order has passed away. Death in all of its

various forms, physical and spiritual, in the form of the corpse and the form of

hades, is an appointment of God for the accomplishment of his purposes.

When those purposes are fulfilled death is done away. It becomes one of the

"old order of things", things which once existed but which exist no longer.

96

Furthermore, we read of Jesus in his role as the redeeming Son of God,

"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. THE LAST

ENEMY TO BE DESTROYED IS DEATH" (I Cor. 15: 25, 26). The word

"for" at the beginning of this quotation links the verse with the previous verse,

"Then the end will come, when he (Christ) hands over the kingdom to God the

Father, after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For ..."

When the Redeemer - Christ presents the kingdom to the Father a complete,

total and absolute work has been done. "The Father has sent his Son to be the

Saviour of the world" (1 Jn. 4:14), nothing less. The Son said to the Father, "I

have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do"

(Jn. 17:4), nothing less. He therefore presents a restored world to the Father,

with all rule and all authority and power put down. This includes Satan's rule, ²-

authority and power and the power of death and hades. He does not present

the remnants of savaged mankind, a few rescued souls, against the background

of the defeat in billionsjaflost in a fiery hell, bearing eternal testimony of .the ^

inability or unwillingness to save them in their extremity. Death no longer

exists, therefore hell as one of the forms of death no longer exists. It is merely

one of the former things. It is the last enemy destroyed in the progressive

triumph of Christ from Calvary's Cross, through the Resurrection, the Church

Age, the first resurrection, his appearance "the second time without sin unto

| salvation", his royal reign in the millennium, the second resurrection, the great

white throne judgement, the casting of death and hades into the lake of fire.

Having seen that hades is a form of death, and the unequivocal statements
of scripture that death shall be destroyed and shall be no more, we may look at ""'

that remarkable statement that "death and hades were cast into the lake of

fire". Death is a state, a condition, and not a place or thing. What can this

verse mean but that death and hell no longer have any use or purpose and are

therefore consigned as garbage or worn-out garments. They are disposed of,

eliminated, as having served their purpose and being of no further use.

I feel so very strongly that the importance of seeing this truth is not simply

to straighten out wrong doctrine. I make no appeal for the erasure of one

doctrine from the "tenets of faith" for the substitution of another.as I consider

this to be incidental. The overwhelming importance of seeing hades and death

as appointments of God and their eradication once they have fulfilled their

purposes is necessary for a right concept of God in his wisdom and power.

97

The concept of a god who would bum his creatures in vindictive torment

without any possibility of respite or release downgrades him to the levels of

Grecian and Roman legend. These demi-gods were endowed with all the

jealous, lustful, vengeful traits of the men in whose minds they were

conceived, but without the limitations of humanity. What was this but a

frustrated yearning by man to be free from these constraints, to be visible, to

be able to fly and so wreak vengeance and havoc on his enemies. The gods of

Greece and Rome were an extension of the sinful natures of those whose

minds conceived them. Men had made gods in their own image. And so a

god who torments and tortures for the sake of torment and torture is degraded

to the level of fallen humanity. But we may say, "Blessed be the Lord God of

^ Israel, who only doeth wondrous things" (Ps. 72:18 AV). Everything that God

does is a cause for wonder, awe, reverence, praise and adoration. "He only

doeth wondrous things." Nothing emanating from God is pointless, aimless

... ,, (jJLvJf'^'f i^^ <u/i. ,__.,-.

and without blessing arid.glory as its ultimate end. He is by his very nature

totally positive, constructive and successful. Because he is totally good that

which he does is for ultimate good, though suffering, hell and death may be

! the means. But by no standards can the eternal torture and torment of
humanity, with no correction, restoration or blessing as its end be called good.

It is accepted that the greater includes the lesser and to say that the pointless,

aimless, purposeless torture of humanity is good is to condone the less

diabolical deeds of Hitler, Lenin and Stalin. All values are thrown to the

winds and Christian ethics become meaningless.

^- But to see a God who had a glorious plan whereby he immersed his

creation into sin, suffering, sorrow and death "but for a moment" that it might

remember for eternity the misery of rebellion and deeply appreciate the

blessedness of subjection and submission to the God of love and glory, and to

see the total accomplishment of that plan, brings praise and adoration from a

grateful heart. It brings, too, a worshipful sense of awe and wonder at his

wisdom, his means of accomplishing his purpose, the awful cost of so blessing

his creation, and the total, absolute and consummate victory in the end.

"The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made. All you

have made will praise you, 0 Lord" (Ps. 145:10).

98

Chapter 8

HELL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Hell is difficult!

What I mean in this context is that it is difficult to review Hell in the

scriptures.

May I state a few facts about the word "hell" in the Bible in just two

translations, the AV and the NIV.

- Sheol is the only Old Testament word which is translated 'hell' in the

AV. It appears as Tiell' 31 times and 'grave' 31 times but is generally

left as Sheol in the NIV.

- There are three different words in the original describing different

places or states with very different characteristics, all of which are

sometimes translated 'hell' in the AV New Testament. There is no

means of knowing from reading the English text which one this is

when we come across the word Tiell' in our Bibles. One of these

words is hades.
Hades appears 11 times in the New Testament.

It is translated Tiell' 10 out of 11 times in the AV;

It is translated 'hell' 1 out of 11 times in the NIV.

Of the other 10 occurrences in the NIV it is translated 'the depths' twice,

'the grave' three times and simply left as hades five times. Why? If it is not

translatable (because of the implications?) on five occasions, why attempt to

translate the other six occurrences, and then by three different English words?

There are no passages in which hades and gehenna (one of the other

words translated as Tiell') are found together or are in any way linked

and there is no scriptural basis for considering them to be the same

place or condition. In fact, the opposite is true. How unfortunate,

then, that both hades and gehenna have been translated as 'hell'.

99

Again, there is no means of knowing which of these Greek words or the

states or places they represent is being referred to when we read 'hell' in our

New Testaments.

Furthermore, we read "and death and hell were cast unto the lake of fire"

(Rev. 20:14). The common understanding of'hell' is that it is the lake of fire.

One might ask. If hell is the lake of fire, however can it be cast into the lake of

fire? Indeed, if hell (hades in this case) is fire at all, what is the point of

casting it into the lake of fire? Shall fire consume fire?

Clearly, the only way of reviewing tiell' with any hope of enlightenment is

,² to look at scripture references containing the word for 'hell' in the original.

PARTI HELL-SHEOL

One source of confusion is that, as we have seen, the only Old Testament

word translated as 'hell', the Hebrew word Sheol, is also rendered 'grave' and

'pit'. Sheol is translated 'hell' 31 times, 'grave' 31 times and 'pit' 3 times, that is

65 occurrences in all.

In comparing the passages where 'hell', 'grave' and 'pit' are used one cannot

help feeling that translators of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were

influenced by commonly accepted theology with regard to hell. In a number

"~ of cases they would have found it virtually impossible to have translated Sheol
as 'hell' because of this preconception. The following are a few such

instances:

"Then Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned for his son

(the supposedly murdered Joseph) many days. All his sons and daughters

came to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. 'No' he said 'in

mourning I will go down to Sheol to my son.' So his father wept for him."

(Gen. 37:34, 35).

Understandably both AV and, three hundred and fifty years later, NIV

translators rendered Sheol as 'grave' in this instance. Yet this is the word

translated as 'hell' in no less than 31 places where it occurs. The reasons for

opting for 'grave' are obvious. They could hardly translate Jacob as saying "I

will go down to hell to my son," his son being the saintly Joseph!

100

Again, there is no means of knowing which of these Greek words or the

states or places they represent is being referred to when we read 'hell' in our

New Testaments.

Furthermore, we read "and death and hell were cast unto the lake of fire"

(Rev. 20:14). The common understanding of'hell' is that it is the lake of fire.

One might ask. If hell is the lake of fire, however can it be cast into the lake of

fire? Indeed, if hell (hades in this case) is fire at all, what is the point of

casting it into the lake of fire? Shall fire consume fire?

Clearly, the only way of reviewing 'hell' with any hope of enlightenment is

-² to look at scripture references containing the word for 'hell' in the original.

PARTI HELL-SHEOL

One source of confusion is that, as we have seen, the only Old Testament

word translated as 'hell', the Hebrew word Sheol, is also rendered 'grave' and

'pit'. Sheol is translated 'hell' 31 times, 'grave' 31 times and 'pit' 3 times, that is

65 occurrences in all.

In comparing the passages where 'hell', 'grave' and 'pit' are used one cannot

help feeling that translators of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were

influenced by commonly accepted theology with regard to hell. In a number

^~ of cases they would have found it virtually impossible to have translated Sheol
as 'hell' because of this preconception. The following are a few such

instances:

"Then Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned for his son

(the supposedly murdered Joseph) many days. All his sons and daughters

came to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. 'No' he said 'in

mourning I will go down to Sheol to my son.' So his father wept for him."

(Gen. 37:34, 35).

Understandably both AV and, three hundred and fifty years later, NIV

translators rendered Sheol as 'grave' in this instance. Yet this is the word

translated as 'hell' in no less than 31 places where it occurs. The reasons for

opting for 'grave' are obvious. They could hardly translate Jacob as saying "I

will go down to hell to my son," his son being the saintly Joseph!

101

Some years later when Reuben wished to take Benjamin down to Egypt, as

the disguised Joseph had demanded, Jacob said, "My son will not go down

there with you; his brother (Joseph) is dead and he is the only one left. If

harm comes to him on the journey you are taking, you will bring my grey

head down to Sheol in sorrow" (Gen. 42: 38).

Did Joseph really believe that if he died he would go to hell, as Sheol is

translated on nearly half the occasions on which it appears? Of course not.

Then why translate Sheol as Tiell' at all in passages where it is not so

obviously the wrong word?

We have the assurance of the Lord Jesus that "many will come from the ²

east and from the west and will take their places at the feast with Abraham,

Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11). So without a doubt

we can say that Jacob did not expect that his destination was hell, as it is

generally understood today, when he said that if he died he would go to Sheol.

"Heaven" might be a better translation! Yet Sheol is the only word translated

as 'hell' in the Old Testament.

Is it conceivable that a word can mean 'hell' as it is commonly presented

from the pulpit today in one passage and the place where Jacob expected to go

in another?
There is the added complication of learning that Jacob is where Abraham

is. "Abraham's bosom" AV (or "Abraham's side NIV) is generally understood ~"

to be the opposite place to hell or paradise in the account of Lazarus and the

rich man in Luke 16.

So Jacob is in Sheol-he\\ and also in paradise. Ergo, Sheol must be

paradise! "Oh what a tangled web we weave ..."

Moving on, David's deathbed charge to Solomon concerning his

treacherous general, Joab, was, "Deal with him according to your wisdom, but

do not let his grey head go down to Sheol in peace" (I Kings 2:6).

Again, consistency in translation would have been a significant problem.

"Do not let his grey head go down to hell in peace," is clearly a contradiction

in terms, that is, if hell is what it is commonly supposed to be. And if Joab

were such an evil man, having slain two of Israel's commanders "shedding

102

their blood in peacetime as if in battle" (1 Kings 2:5) why would he be

expected to go to hell in peace?

(i

" Sheol js'pe3ice." The decision by translators whether or not to use Tiell' or

the euphemistic 'grave' appears to have been purely subjective. The

translators of the twentieth century RSV, NASB and NIV have, with some

exceptions, chosen to avoid translating Sheol at all and simply left the Hebrew

word in the English text.

Surely the very fact that they retained the Hebrew word reveals an area of

serious doubt in their collective minds. But, one might ask, why is Sheol not

^ translatable? And why is it not translatable consistently on all occasions? The

Bible is a revelation and clearly the successive writers and readers of the Old

Testament scriptures over a period of 1,500 years did not have a problem with

the word for they continued to use it. Yet any English word used consistently

would contravene received theology.

Can it be, then, that the received theology, the entrenched background

thinking and concepts against which we read the scriptures is wrong?

One of the most illuminating passages on Sheol is found in the words of

Job: "So man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men

will not awake or be roused from their sleep. If only you would hide me in

Sheol and conceal me till your anger has passed! If only you would set me a

'^ time and then remember me! If a man dies, will he live again? All the days

of my hard service I will wait for my renewal (AV change) to come. You will

call and I will answer you; you will long for the creature your hands have

made (AV thou wilt have a desire to the work of thy hands). Surely then you

will count my steps but not keep track of my sin" (Job 14:12-16).

Job asked to be hidden in Sheol until God's wrath was past! But is not

Sheol or hell the place of God's wrath? Can the same word represent 'hell' or

the place of God's wrath and the place where one my be hidden from God's

wrath?

What then are we to understand when we read the word 'hell' in the Old

Testament?

103

The passage in Job is illuminating, if only to confirm that men close to

God, the prophets and the writers of the Old Testament certainly did not

understand the place translators in the Christian age have rendered as 'hell' on

over 30 occasions, was a place of fire and torment, but that it can be a place of

respite from torment, a place where the departed may escape from their

troubles. In fSheol they wait thefr "for a set time" for "renewal" or "change".

s ,

Why are those in hell (sorry, Sheol) changed? How are they changed?

Into what are they changed? For what purpose are they changed? "You will

long for the creature your hands have made" says Job. Of course!

God will not abandon any of his beloved creatures, tho haifs-o^-whose'

--head-are-k^ewn-to him, but after "a set time" will fulfil his declared purpose

of having mercy on them all, the Lord "not wanting anyone to perish, but

everyone (every one) to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).

"After the suffering of his soul he will see the light of life and be satisfied"

(Is. 53:11). But why did he suffer? "This bread is my flesh which I will give

for the life of the world" (Jn. 6:51).

Shall he then be "satisfied" with anything less than that for which he

suffered death on a cross? Could he be satisfied while billions of "the

creatures your hands have made," those for whom he shed his precious blood

were in eternal torment? Yes, unremitting, unrelenting, unending torment.

Yet this is what we are told to believe.

One remarkable conclusion from a study of all 65 occurrences of Slheol is Y

the total absence of any reference to fire. To darkness, yes, but not to fire.

The nearest we come is in Deuteronomy 32:22 where God says, "For a fire

has been kindled by my wrath, one that bums to the realms of ^heol below. It ^

will devour the earth and its harvests and set on fire the foundation of the

mountains."

One could hardly use this sole verse out of 65 references to justify a

doctrine of a fiery hell. The fire of God's wrath bums to not in Sheol and of y

course there is the added reference to "the foundation of the mountains."

104

No fire in^Sheol. Do I need to repeat thaUSheol is the only word translated

hell in the Old Testament?

What are we to conclude, that men like Jacob, Job and David were totally

ignorant of the fiery aspect of hell, or part of hell? Or that hell was not fiery

in Old Testament times but became fiery in the New Testament dispensation?

Or maybe that our theology on Sheol, the hades of the OT is simply - wrong.

"Ah," you say "but you have only quoted the goodies. Did you not know

that ^Sheol, being the hades of the Old Testament had two parts, one for

goodies and one forhadies?"

L c^dd i & S , it ‡

,²- fo C^CUA. I <2-

Well, let us look at somebadie references.

In Isaiah 14 a taunt is made against the king of Babylon: "Sheol below is

all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of the departed to

greet you - all those who were leaders in the world; it makes them rise from

their thrones, all those who were kings over the nations. They will say to you,
'You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us.' All your

pomp has been brought down to^Sheol, along with the noise of your harps;

maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you" (Is. 14: 9-11).

Many Bible students see in this passage a double fulfilment as relating to

Satan, and the context in the well-known verses 12 to 16 seems to support

^- this. But there can be no doubt that the primary reference is to the person

addressed, the earthly king of Babylon. The other "kings over the nations"

arise to greet him. But they simply refer to/Sheol as the great leveller where

CL V

all alike are devoid of the power they once had. There is certainly, parallel to

the state of the rich man in the Lazarus parable - no mention of fire or even

torment.

«>

I mention this aspect ofJSheol at this point while some readers may be

referring to the scripture passages as we review them (please do!) so that the

--' -- -

impression oLSheol as depicted here may be retained for when we consider

hades in the New Testament. We will see that the hades of the New is the

‡S. s>

^Sheol of the Old (or the Sheol of the Old is the hades of the New, if you prefer

it that way round) and that the account of Lazarus and the rich man is the only

reference to fire in 76 ,Sheol-hades scriptures. We will contend that this

solitary and unique account has a meaning other than that which may appear

105

to be the case on first reading and is not a literal illustration of the place where

the departed, good and bad, go.

The Bible revelation of the place where the departed go, Sheol, as far as

evildoers as well as the righteous are concerned is a place of recognition, of

awareness, of waiting but not of fire.

A passage in Ezekiel may be even more surprising to readers. The prophet

va.ad'c'

enumerates all the ‡"badrc1* kings who have gone to Sheol: "Assyria is there . . .
Elam is there ... Edom is there, her kings and all her princes . . . they lie with

the uncircumcised, with those who go down to Sheol." Then he adds,

"Pharaoh - he and all his armies - will see them and he will be consoled (AV

comforted) for all his hordes that were killed by the sword, declares the

sovereign Lord" (Ezek. 32:22-31).

It is not the purpose of this book to explain the meaning of this passage.

That is the role of the commentators. I quote it simply to point out that

according to scripture there is comfort or consolation in Sheol for the likes of

the dread Pharaoh. This may be revolutionary, dramatic, even unwelcome to

some. But it is scripture.

Hopefully the various and varied passages I have quoted relating to both

. righteous and unrighteousness- departed will at least cause readers to be

vn^v ^^dji,^o^A^t. U tkVLe,'.y Tkji^ coAxe/»/"t<!<L/

prepared to review^oAeo/, and subsequently its NT counterpart, hades, in a

new light. -

One can pass over the odd scripture as being "difficult" but surely a

number of passages from the Pentateuch, historical books, prophets and

kethubim indicating a state or condition in Sheol which is totally foreign to the

generally accepted concept of hell, as Sheol is translated 31 times, warrants a

thorough review of the subject with a completely open mind.

Furthermore, there are two notable instances of Old Testament prophets

having died (and, presumably like Jacob and David having been to Sheol) and

yet appearing again centuries later.

Matthew tells us, "After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and

John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.

106

There he was transfigured before them . . . Then there appeared before them

Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus" (Matt. 17:1-3).

Now we know that Elijah did not die but was translated. But in

Deuteronomy we read, "And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in

Moab, as the Lord had said. He buried him in Moab ..." (Deut. 34:5, 6).

Moses died and was buried. Even so, he appeared with Elijah in the presence
of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.

I refer to this incident because another prophet, Samuel, died and appeared

again. For some reason Bible students have difficulty with the appearance of

Samuel although apparently not with that of Moses. Some go to great lengths

'"~ to prove that it was not in fact Samuel but an evil spirit impersonating Samuel.

This notwithstanding the reaction of the medium when she saw Samuel. The

Bible plainly says, "Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed me by

bringing me up?" and further on "Samuel said, 'Why do you consult me now

that the Lord has turned away from you and become your enemy? The Lord

has done what he predicted through me .. . The Lord will hand over both you

and Israel to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with

ME.' . . . The very next day when the Israelites along the valley and those

across the Jordan saw that the Israelite army had fled and that Saul and his

sons had died they abandoned their towns and fled" (I Sam. 28, 31).

The divine mark of a prophet is that if what he says comes to pass, then he

^_ is of God. Not only did Samuel (or as some say, the spirit) claim to be

Samuel but in reported speech the Bible attributes certain statements to

Samuel: "Samuel said to Saul . . ." and this is inspired scripture. And what

Samuel prophesied, that Saul and his sons would die the following day, came

to pass.

You have probably realised why I am making this point so forcibly -

Samuel "disturbed" from the place where Jacob and David expected to go and

CLCCt^rse-f , . , ,

where Pharaoh was "comforted", said to the cursed: Saul, who had

compounded his sin of consorting with a witch by committing suicide,

"tomorrow you and your sons will be with ME."

So we find that the place of the departed is not only the destination of the

blessed such as Jacob, David and Samuel (in Hebrews 11 Samuel is one of

those "commended for their faith" v 39) and the likes of the evil kings of

107

Assyria such as Sennacherib, Elam, the cursed Edomites and Pharaoh but the

blessed Samuel confirms that the next day the^S^a Saul would be "with
me!"

Apart from confirming and adding to our understanding of Sheol this

passage also indicates that the account of Lazarus and the rich man, where

there is a great gulf between the good and the bad, is something other than a

picture of the place of the departed where good and bad are together. More on

that isolated account later.

One further point before we move on to the three New Testament words

translated as'hell': _^.

All the scriptures we have reviewed so far were pre-Calvary. The Lazarus

account is recorded in the New Testament but was Old Testament,

dispensationally.

It is abundantly clear that a cataclysmic change took place when Jesus

died, was buried, descended into "hell" and rose victoriously.

Matthew tells us that as Jesus gave up his spirit, "The earth shook and the

rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who

had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus'

resurrection (i.e. three days later) they went into the holy city and appeared to

many people" (Matt. 27:51-53). -^

Who were these people? How long had they been dead? Where were they

after they had died? In Sheol? Did they have 'a second chance' to come to

God?

"Ah," you say (again!) "but these were 'holy people'. This would not have

happened to sinners.

Paul tells the Ephesians of events at that time, "When he ascended on high

he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8). This is a

quotation from Psalm 68 which reads, "When you ascended on high you led

captives in your train; you received gifts from men, even from the rebellious

that you, 0 Lord, might dwell there" (Ps. 68:18).

108

-For

The AV is rather different: "Thou hast received gifts from men; yea, for

the rebellious also."

"From the rebellious?" What do they have to give? "For the rebellious?"

What shall be given to the (supposedly) eternally damned, for that is the

situation of "the rebellious" is it not? Surely, for them, the only gift of any

value or interest is their release. What else matters?

Either way, for men or from men, for the rebellious or from the rebellious,

whichever you prefer, the scriptures teach of Jesus giving or receiving gifts to

or from "the rebellious".

We cannot simply dismiss this teaching as yet another "difficult" scripture.

It is in the Bible to inform, to enlighten, to add to the body of teaching on the

subject.

And in fact this is not a problem to those who accept Peter's teaching that

Jesus "went and preached to the spirits in prison, who disobeyed long ago

when God waited patiently in the days of Noah" (I Pet. 3:19, 20). This was

during the period between his death and resurrection. But why did Jesus go

and preach? Why preach to the eternally damned, for these, remember, were

the (/^obedient. What did Jesus have to say to them?

Peter continues after a parenthesis concerning the flood and baptism, "For

^-,. this is the reason the gospel (good news!) was preached even to those who are

now ("now" is not in the text and is "supplied" by NIV translators, supposedly

to give the sense. In fact, it is to fit in with received doctrine) dead, so that

they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live

according to God in regard to the spirit" (1 Pet. 4:6). Comment seems

superfluous. Just believe what it says and rejoice!

The rebellious? The disobedient? Gifts? Gospel? Life? Are these words

even to be mentioned in the same breath?

Well they are. Paul had no problem with them and Peter had no problem

with them. If we have difficulty with what is plainly stated in these scriptures

perhaps we need to review our doctrines and our concepts.

109

Why do I make this point at length? Because, in a sense, our study of

-5 .5

hades is a continuation of our review of Sheol. All that we leamt about Sheol
we bring forward as background knowledge on hades, except that Sheol-hades

&>o-rha.«^

had been partly emptied by the visit of Jesus between his death and

resurrection. But the characteristics must be the same, otherwise it would

have been most misleading of NT writers to have used the word hades to

represent something or somewhere different from that which was commonly

understood by hades in the Septuagint translation of Sheol.

I was intrigued to find, as I set about studying every reference to 'hell' in

the NT that:

Hades appears as 'hell' on 10 out of 11 times in the AV;

Hades appears as 'hell' only 1 out of 11 times in the NIV.

It was the respective 'singles' that intrigued me - that is the single omission

in the AV (why only 10 out of 11?) and the single occurrence in the NIV (why

that one?)

The AV first:

If hades had been translated as 'hell' on the one occasion it was not, then 1

Corinthians 15:55 would have read, "0 death, where is thy sting? 0 hell,

where is thy victory?"

Hell's victory, in terms of conventional theology is massive, mighty and

overwhelming. It is also eternal and thus irreversible.

One must assume that the translators applied their collective mind to this

eleventh occurrence of hades. Presumably their starting position would have

been to have translated it in the same way as on the other ten occasions. But

they clearly just could not bring themselves to do so. Why not?

The answer can only be that it did not fit their theology. The writers of

the NT, who used hades both before and after the 1 Cor. 15:55 occasion (and

most were after) did not have a problem. Why did the translators? The

answer is simply that early church theology rejoiced the ultimate utter defeat

110

and (as we shall see) destruction of hades-hell. But theology over 1,000 years

later did not.

Now for the NIV single, the solitary use of'hell' as a translation for hades:

You may have guessed. It is the Lazarus-and-the-rich-man account, the

only reference to contain fire! In other words, in this instance and in this

instance uniquely it fitted in with their preconceived view of hell. But on the

other 10 occasions, where there is no reference to fire, they preferred not to

use 'hell' as their predecessors had done, but used 'death' or 'grave' or, on 5

occasions, simply opted-out of their role and left hades.

^_ 11" in cf'^i^^''-' ^ set? C^^ a.s a^y Tf^^fl O/XC^/XA^ o.

-Was-there-ever-a-more- blatant example of subjectivity in translation? ItAS'&.&e.'^s. tc,

A-ve, f^ s^- quite inexcusable. ^ ^//\^\

But let us spend some time in Luke 16 and the Lazarus account in

particular.

At first it looks simple. Evangelical preachers use it all the time as the

classic text from which to preach the respective destinies of all mankind -

eternal heaven or eternal hell. I have done so myself.

But a closer look will show that the message of this account is far from

simple. Commentators down the centuries have certainly found it to be far

² from straightforward.

First of all, the gospel message is that salvation is a free gift on the basis

of repentance and faith in the atoning blood and redemptive work of the Lord

Jesus on the Cross of Calvary.

But there is no indication here that Lazarus had repented or believed the

gospel or was in any way godly or devout. In fact, the account is completely

silent on any aspects of the gospel, positively or negatively. The poor beggar

was simply a beggar who was destitute and whose sores were licked by the

dogs. If this teaching is to inform us of those who are to populate heaven,

then blessed are they who are bom, live and die on the pavements of Calcutta.

As to the rich man, well, he did not feed the beggar; which is an

indictment. But salvation does not depend on good works. Many Christians

112

today do not feed the destitute who live in the poorer parts of their own cities,

let alone those in other parts of the world. This is to their shame, but I have
never heard it suggested that it invalidates their salvation. If it did then

preachers should proclaim it unequivocally from the pulpit. This, too, I have

never heard. Conversely, there are wealthy unbelievers who do feed the

beggars and poor of this world but Christian theology is clear that this does

not gain them entry into heaven. Are we to infer that if the rich man had fed

Lazarus he would also have gone to Abraham? Or that the reason he did not

go to Abraham was that he did not feed the beggar. Is this the purpose of

Jesus' teaching? If so we would need to rethink the fundamental doctrine of

justification by faith, for many well-off Christians today would be nurturing a

false hope. ^

In any case, the 'works' or lack of works aspect in the poor-to-go-heaven

and rich-go-to-hell interpretation makes Calvary totally irrelevant. Jesus, of

all people, would hardly be likely to infer this scenario.

What, then, was Jesus wishing to convey by this passage? Augustine

interpreted the account as relating to Jew and Gentile. The more I read, re-

read and, with much prayer, re-read the whole chapter the more I inclined to

this view.

Let us look for some assistance to

- the context of the passage;

the time or dispensational context; '~'

the audience;

- the subject under review when it was recounted.

First, the context:

The subheadings in the NIV refer to six immediately preceding accounts

by Jesus as parables, even though the text does not say they are parables

(which it seldom does). But both the Lazarus account and the previous

account in the same chapter start with identical words, "There was a rich

man." This previous account is undoubtedly a parable, as we shall see.

Furthermore, Matthew records, "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowds

in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable" (Matt.

13:34). So if the previous six of seven accounts were parables as stated

113
correctly, I believe, by the NIV subheadings then number seven must have

been a parable. It was only to his own disciples, so Jesus told them, that he

did not speak in parables. And on this occasion he was addressing the

Pharisees. So Lazarus and the rich man, like wheat, fish, sheep and the rich

man in the previous parable (representative of the Lord himself!) were

representatives, as in all other parables, not literal figures.

The preceding parable is, if anything, more perplexing than the Lazarus

account! As it is not part of our main theme I will not quote it in full (please

do pause to read it) but it contains statements such as "The master commended

the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly" and (believe it or not,

this is Jesus speaking) "I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for

yourselves so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal

dwellings." (So you have decided to check it after all!)

I cannot believe that anyone with the slightest knowledge of the high, in

fact transcendent, ethical tone of the New Testament and of Jesus in the

Sermon on the Mount in particular will contend that this account should be

taken at face value. Jesus cannot really be commending dishonesty of the

individual can he? Why then should the following account which also starts

"there was a rich man?" be taken at face value, especially as it conflicts with

all other teaching on ^Sheol-hades concerning the destiny of mankind, v

righteous and unrighteous.

/-^ The short passage between the dishonest steward and Lazarus parables

ought also to indicate to us that this is an unusual discourse. That "the

kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force" AV or

"the kingdom of God is being preached and everyone is forcing his way into

it" NIV hardly accords with surrender to Christ and the rest of faith which are

prerequisites of salvation. But it does give us a clue as to the subject being

addressed by Jesus.

Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees (which he only did in parables)

concerning the kingdom.

Contrary to much Christian teaching the Jews of Jesus' day -were the

Kingdom of God at that time - right up to the Cross in fact. This is clear from
the words of Jesus to the Pharisees in another place, "Therefore I tell you that

114

the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who

will produce its fruit" (Matt. 21:43).

It is axiomatic that you cannot take away from anyone or any groups that

which they do not have! Jesus and his audience knew that the Jews were

God's Kingdom. But in the only negative thing he ever did Jesus indicated

that they were to lose the Kingdom.

In the prophets Israel^and Judah in particular^are portrayed as God's fig ^x

tree. And Jesus cursed the fig tree just before he told the Pharisees that the

Kingdom would be taken from them. He added, "No man eat fruit from you

again unto the age" (Matt. 21: 19 AV). (Not, "May you never bear fruit _

again" as the NIV so carelessly renders it.)

The two-fold reference to fruit, that Israel were not to bear fruit for an age

and that the Kingdom was to be taken from them and given "to a people who

will bear its fruit," that is the church called out from among the Gentiles, is a

key to the understanding of both the perplexing parables of Luke 16.

In the first the "manager" (the Jews) loses his job through bad stewardship

and is told he had better make friends with the nations of the world because he

is about to lose his privileged position as steward of God's Kingdom.

In the second parable the rich man "fared sumptuously." How does this

represent Jewry? "Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the '~~

covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

Theirs are the patriarchs and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ,

who is God over all, forever praised" writes Paul (Rom. 9:4,5). They were

rich indeed.

The Gentiles, meanwhile, were paupers, spiritual beggars. "No longer live

as the Gentiles do," wrote that same Paul, "in the futility of their thinking.

They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God"

(Eph. 4:17,18). But they were to receive the Kingdom of heaven, just as in

the parable. And what of the "great chasm" (NIV) or "great gulf (AV)

between them? Could this represent the "middle wall of partition" or "the
barrier, the dividing wall" ofEphesians 2 which Christ broke down?

115

I have commented on the Lazarus parable at some length for two main

reasons.

Firstly it is quoted by far and away more times than any other scripture

passage when the question of hell is discussed, even though it is a unique

passage. It is the only hades passage in which fire ("this flame") is mentioned

and (co-incidentally?) the only one out of eleven which the NIV translators

rendered as 'hell'. Is it too uncharitable to suspect that this was because it was

the only one which fitted their concept of hell?

^ >

If we add all the occurrences ^(f hades to all those of^Sheol we have 76 (65 x

+11) references to give us a body of teaching on the subject. The Lazarus

account is the "sore thumb" passage. It is the only passage containing fire. It

is the only passage with the chasm or gulf. In fact, a surface interpretation

(rich go to hell; poor go to heaven) is dramatically opposed to teaching we

have seen concerning the king of Babylon's arrival where he becomes weak f-

like other monarchs^-but where there is no suggestion of fire^to Pharaoh being

comforted, andithe cursed Saul going to be with the blessed Samuel.

of

In these circumstances surely it is unsound exegesis to use the Lazarus

parable to represent the eternal destiny of two kinds of people. In any case, as

we will see later in this chapter hades is not eternal. Hades gives up its dead

and is abolished.

^- Was Jesus using hades figuratively, then?

If so, it would not have been without precedent for he himself had said,

"And you Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go

down to hades" (Matt. 21:23).

The "lifting up to skies" was indisputably figurative. No town has ever

defied gravity and literally been elevated to the skies. It was clearly a

reference to a proud and pompous attitude. And "you will go down to hades"

was the counterpart in the figure of speech. Jesus did not mean an entire city
would literally be removed to hades.

So in this age in which the church called out from among the Gentiles is

God's Kingdom, God's fruit bearer, Judah-Israel experiences hades on earth

116

which indeed they have. Reference to "this flame" ^was particularly ^ci{\<mC.

.appFepriat©,-sad-to-say,-m-the-4-940's.

This warning to Capernaum is repeated in Luke 10, so that accounts for

five occurrences of hades - two in Jesus' soul not being left there, one in the

Lazarus parable and two re Capernaum.

What of the other six? They are:

Matt. 16:18 I will build my church and the gates of hades will not

overcome it.

We will revert to this very interesting verse when we review the role of the

church in relation to hades in chapter eleven.

1 Cor. 15:55 0 hades where is your victory?

I have commented on this verse several times. But how does it sit with

your theology now? One check might be: could you have written that? Paul

could; I can - now. Can you rejoice in it, or is it still on the list of "difficult"

scriptures? Maybe it was not even on that list until you found that this was the

literal translation.

- Rev. 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead and behold I am alive for

ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and hades.

Victorious. Triumphant. Exultant. But why, if the keys of hades are

useless and Jesus cannot release those for whom he shed his blood? We are

almost full circle to chapter two: either he can and won't, or he would like to

but cannot.

Praise God, he can and he will!

- Rev. 6:8 Its rider was named Death, and hades was following close

behind him.

Not much to assist us here. But that is not too important in view of the

last two references.

117
- Rev. 20:13 Death and hades gave up the dead that were in them.

- Rev. 20:14 Death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

Death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire. So: K

- hades cannot be the lake of fire;

- hades cannot be fire at all;

- hades (like death) comes to an end.

flOfl-'ClK.'-:)

Vet^hades with gehenna^ which is fiery, is translated as 'hell' in both AV

and NIV and^most versions, giving the English reader the impression that he is

reading about the same place. How sad. How confusing.

fc ^

In summary,' 75 ou^ of 76 references to ^Sheol-hades (the 76th being ^^

contrary to the main body of teaching from the other 75 and being a parable of

the Kingdom, not individuals) indicate it to be a place of the departed, a place

of waiting, of consciousness, of communication where the righteous and

unrighteous alike await (as Job) a "change".

Before death and hades are destroyed they give up their dead, who are ^

judged. Those not written in the lambs book of life (which infers that some

were written in the lambs book of life, though these were not saints saved in

the age of grace) are cast into the lake of fire, the second death.

^~~~ fc><i. S&eLn

We have still to review gehenna, which will .seem to be fiery, and this we

will do in the next chapter as part of a consideration of several New Testament

themes on judgement by fire.

But before leaving hades (!) a quotation from "The Sadhu" a biography of

the saintly Sadhu Sundar Singh, may be of interest. I should hasten to add

that I do not quote the Sadhu as "proof but merely as of interest. The

scriptures and the scriptures alone are our sole and totally adequate proof.

HELL

"I was told that the love of God operates even in Hell. God does not shine

in His full light, because those there could not bear it, but He gradually shows

them more and more light, and by and by brings them on and moves their
conscience towards something better, although they think that the desire is

118

entirely their own. Thus God works on their minds from within, something in

the same way, though in the opposite direction, as that in which Satan

suggests temptation to us here. Thus, what with God's work within and the

Light without, almost all those in Hell will ultimately be brought to Christ's

feet. It will perhaps take millions of ages, but when it is attained they will be

full of joy and thankfulness towards God; though they will still be less happy

than those who have accepted Christ on earth."

The Sadhu appears to have been referring to hades when he speaks of hell

and it is true that some will not come to Christ as a result of their time in

hades but, as Gregory of Nyssa put it, "need a second death." This, too, we

will address in the next chapter. But the main thrust of Singh's vision is

totally in line with our findings on hades. I particularly like the "full of joy

and thankfulness towards God" comment. This, we have seen, was the very

reason that God consigned all to disobedience, "so that he might have mercy

on them all."

119

Chapter 10

"EVERYONE WILL BE SALTED WITH FIRE"

There are a number of themes on judgement by fire in the New Testament.

Prominent among these themes are:

- Twelve references to Gehenna, the one remaining word of the four

translated in our English Bibles as Tiell' which we have not reviewed;

- references by Jesus to judgement by aionios fire, where gehenna is not

specifically mentioned;

- a cleansing of the earth by fire at the end of this age, as described by

"~ Peter;

- an "appearing" of Jesus in flaming fire, taking vengeance on

unbelievers, as described by Paul to the Thessalonians;

- the second death, referred to in the closing chapters of the Revelation,

which appears to be at the end of the Millennium.

Commentators are not unanimous on which, if any, of the above themes is

an additional description of one of the other themes.

I would not wish to be dogmatic as to the precise nature or positioning of

; all these judgements, most of which are not central to the overall theme of this

book. But our proposition is that all judgement is remedial, with restitution as

^- its aim and end; that Christ's victory is total and absolute and will restore the

whole of creation to God; and that God will achieve his declared purpose of

having mercy on all. "For from him, and through him, and to him are all

things" (Rom. 11:36).

Before reviewing the various judgements of unbelievers by fire it might be

worth remembering that Paul wrote to Christians, "If any man builds on this

foundation (Jesus Christ) using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,

his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It

will be revealed -with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work.

If what he has built up survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up,

he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through

the flames" (1 Cor 3.: 12-15). Note, "he himself will be saved" which

establishes that this passage refers to Christians.

120

The phrase "but only as one escaping through the flames" suggests that

these works are not totally apart from the Christian himself. In Galatians 5:

19, 20 AV we read, "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these:

adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred,

strife, jealousy, wrath, factions, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,

drunkenness, revellings, and the like." Certainly "hatred, strife, jealousy,

wrath" are very much a part o/us and not apart from us. If these "works" are

to be "burned up" then Christians will experience some form of fiery

cleansing. This may be a new and unacceptable thought to many readers, but

please read the scripture in I Cor. 3: 12-15 again and decide for yourself what

it means. But do not just dismiss it. It is the Word of God.

I have referred to this passage in I Corinthians, addressed to Christians, so

that we might have a mind-set in line with scripture when we look at

judgement by fire. The fire is for refining, for purifying, for testing the purely

spiritual and the part-spiritual contaminated by the flesh. It is positive, for our

inestimable good and God's glory.

I think we have been deceived by the art of the middle ages. The spirit of

Dante's Inferno is in line with numerous paintings of horrible writhings of the

dead in flames, with homed creatures cavorting around, usually with

pitchforks. Let us be clear: God is love. He takes no pleasure in the death of

the wicked (Ezek.33: 11) and he most certainly does not wish to impose

unnecessary suffering on his saints. The fiery judgement of unbelievers is for

the same reason as fiery judgement of believers - that the dross be separated ~

out in a refining process.

In case you are offended at my linking the fiery judgement of believers

with unbelievers, please read Luke 12: 35-48. This is a parable concerning a

master and his servant. Jesus identifies the master as "the Son of Man," or

himself, and the unanimous interpretation (as far as I am aware) is that the

servant is a Christian. The subject addressed is the servant's faithfulness and

readiness at his lord's coming or, in this case, unfaithfulness and unreadiness.

The servant in the parable, furthermore, appears to be a church leader as he is

"in charge of all his lord's possessions" including lesser menservants and

maidservants. But the master "assigns him a place with the unbelievers." This

is God's Word, not mine.

121 To say he is assigned a place with unbelievers must mean that he himself

was not an unbeliever, which in turn confirms that he was a believer. Is this

slack believer to suffer the fires of eternal hell, which, we are told, is the

universal fate of unbelievers? If this were so, many Christians today would

need to take serious stock of their positions. But I do not believe this is so.

Slack and fleshly Christians and unbelievers alike have to be purged, cleansed

and refined by fire for their own good and to the glory of God. The fire is not

punishment. Our sins and "the sins of the whole world", (1 Jn. 2: 2) have

been adequately and fully punished in Christ. As I remarked earlier, to punish

sins a second time, as if Christ had not borne them on the Cross, would be

unjust. It would also be a denigration by the Father of the work of the Son.
We cannot view the punishment of sins as if Christ had not come. He has

come; he has borne the punishment of all sins of all men and women for all

time; his sacrifice was acceptable to and accepted by God; God cannot and

will not punish sins again. The fire will only be, can only be, that which is

necessary to accomplish the essential cleansing work of God. We will see this

confirmed when we review Jesus' teaching on the purpose of gehenna.

The Hebrew Christians were exhorted, "since we are receiving a kingdom

that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with

reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29).

It would seem that the very Presence of God in all his glory will have the

effect of fire, a refining fire, for God is not only said to be a fire but "our God

/- is a consuming fire." His Presence alone will be enough to consume the

"wood, hay and straw" of 1 Corinthians, 3.

"But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he

appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire, or a launderer's soap. He will sit

as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them

like gold and silver" (Mal. 3: 2, 3). He, himself, is like a refiner's fire. And

this question, "Who can endure the day of his coming?" is asked concerning

those who are seeking his coming, in his temple; those who "desire" him!

So much for the fiery cleansing of believers; back to our main theme.

As we are fresh from reviewing sheol-hades, and as tartarus is a single

occurrence relative to angels, let us review the last remaining "hell", gehenna

122

PART III HELL - GEHENNA

A few comments first on gehenna as a place:

Gehenna would have been well understood by Jesus' hearers as Gai

Hinnom or the Valley of Hinnom or the Valley of Ben (the Son of) Hinnom.

Joshua locates it as "along the southern slope of the Jebusite city

(Jerusalem)" (15:8), and "The boundary went down to the foot of the hill

facing the Valley of Ben Hinnom, north of the Valley of Rephaim" (18:16).

In other words, S.W. of Jerusalem.

It was referred to many times throughout the O.T, (including for those

interested 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3, 33:6; Neh. 11:30; Jer. 7:31, 32: 11:2,

6; 32:35).

Backslidden Israel built the high places for burning their sons and

daughters in the fire as ascending sacrifices to Baal. I would suggest that the

serious student read Jeremiah 7:1-34, 19:1-15 and Isaiah 66:22-24 here. I will

quote only Jer. 7:30-33 which will be seen to be very relevant:

"The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares the Lord. They

have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have

defiled it. They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben

Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire - something I did not "

command, NOR DID IT ENTER MY MIND. So beware, the days are

coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call it Topheth of the

Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the

dead in Topheth until there is no more room. Then the carcasses of this

people will become food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth,

and there will be no-one to frighten them away."

Several times God says of this abomination of a literal, pointless burning,

of human beings, "nor did it enter my mind." Yet received doctrine tells us

the exact opposite: that the pointless burning of human beings not only

entered God's mind but he foreknew it to be the destiny of millions of his

creatures. And he is the creator of all things, he must not only have

foreknown this destiny, but have created it.

123

Clearly, sheol-hades and gehenna are very different places, states or

; conditions. Yet both are translated 'hell' in our Bibles.

There are a number of interesting features in the NT gehenna scriptures

which, among other things, show it to be a completely different place or state

from sheol-hades.

First of all let us identify where we find the twelve references to gehenna:

One is in James, which is undoubtedly figurative. "The tongue ... is itself

set on fire by gehenna" (Jas. 3:6). Christians would do well to take note of the
allegory.

Two references are in parallel passages in Matthew 23: 15, 33. Jesus

rebuked the Pharisees, "You travel over land and sea to win a single convert,

and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of gehenna as

you are," and "You snakes, you brood of vipers! How will you escape being

condemned to gehennaT. These are interesting but do not help us much in

our study of the nature and purpose of gehenna.

The other nine occurrences are in three passages in Matthew's gospel and

two parallel accounts in Mark and Luke.

They are quite short and you may wish to read them to become familiar

/-. with the background. They are:

First reference Parallel reference

Matthew 5: 22-30

Matthew 10:28 Luke 12:5

Matthew 18: 6-9 Mark 9: 42-47

What do we learn from these scriptures?

- Gehenna is a place of fire. It is implied, but not specifically stated,

that it is aionios or agelasting fire. (Matt. 18)

- It is a place of judgement. (Matt. 5)

- There are strong references to soul and body in every one of these

passages. The body as a whole and specific bodily parts, such as

hands, feet and eyes are referred to constantly. Matthew 5: 30, for

124

example, reads, "It is better for you to lose one part of your body than

for your whole body to go into gehenna."

This will be seen to be one very important differentiation from hades.

We could get into very deep waters here (excuse the mixed metaphors) in

speculating on how people can be thrown bodily into fire and not be

destroyed. Moses was confronted by the phenomenon of the bush which

burned but was not consumed and the three Hebrew colleagues of Daniel

were, of course, thrown into the fiery furnace without being consumed. So

there are precedents for physical existence in fire, without being burned up.
The question of physical resurrection is clearly taught in the scriptures and

is an accepted part of the Christian faith. But few will deny it is a mystery.

Paul wrote at some length on the subject (1 Cor. 15) and one of the first

scriptures we considered indicated physical resurrection to judgement.

"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake; some to olam life,

others to shame and olam contempt" (Dan. 12:2).

Paul tells the Thessalonians that at the Second Coming of Christ "the dead

in Christ will rise first" (Thess. 4:16) whereas a few verses earlier he wrote

that "God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him". Both

are "in Christ", one group descending, one group ascending.

At the Great White Throne judgement "the sea gave up the dead that were ""

in it," which indicates physical resurrection and judgement as neither souls

who die in or outside of Christ are in the sea. Far be it for me to suggest how

this will be. This is not a book on resurrection and it is sufficient to recognise

the scriptural fact of physical resurrection and judgement in reviewing

gehenna.

So often when I have discussed the theme of this book with Christians,

they have countered with, "But what about 'where their worm dieth not and

the worm is not quenched.' " It is said as if this one verse negates all other

statements in the scriptures such as, "so in Christ shall all be made alive; every

knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; I will draw

all men to myself and many others quoted in earlier chapters.

125

Thomas Allin wrote in "Christ Triumphant", or "The Larger Hope" as it

was originally published in 1880. The phrase, 'where their worm dieth not

and the fire is not quenched,' is quoted from the Old Testament, where it

occurs in the Septuagint nine times. Lev. vi: 13; 2 Kings xxii: 17; 2 Chron.

xxxiv: 25; Isaiah xxxiv: 10; Jer. vii: 20, xvii: 27; xxxi: 12; Ezek. xx: 47, 48;

Isaiah Ivi: 24. But in all these passages the flame is temporary. The last is

that specially quoted here and the reference is to the worm and to the fire that

preyed on the dead bodies of malefactors, cast out into Gehenna. In the

striking metaphor of the East, these worms, and this fire are said not to die,
and not to be quenched; because the fires were kept constantly burning to

drive away pollution, and the worm was always preying on the corpse and

offal. The phrase, "into the fire that never shall be quenched,' it will be seen

disappears in the Revised Version. The original word is the same commented

on in the note on S. Matthew iii: 12, translated 'unquenchable,' and proved to

have been frequently applied to a fire, not merely temporary but often very

brief in its duration."

I found it interesting to check each one of Allin's references and was

surprised to find how forcibly it was stated that the fire or "flaming flame"

should not be quenched. Yet none of these fires exists today. While they

existed they were unquenchable but they were certainly not eternal; "age-

lasting" maybe, but not eternal.

Jesus indicates that the judgement has an end.

In the Matthew 5: 21-26 passage, where one is warned that calling

someone "You fool" is in danger of "the fire of hell" (watch your driving,

Christian!) the Lord continues, "Therefore . . ." He then draws the illustration

of one who does not make right and is thrown into prison. "I tell you the truth

you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

If the judgement of gehenna were eternal why would Jesus postulate a

situation where he specifically states that the man comes out? He could very

well have used a man who died in prison, or simply ignored the coming-out

part. But he did not. He specifically used as an illustration someone who

pays his debt in full and then comes out. We cannot simply ignore this part of

Jesus' teaching because it does not fit in with our preconceived ideas,

especially in view of the next point.

126

- The purpose of the fire is to purify.

Mark 9: 47-49 reads: "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with

one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into gehenna, where 'their worm

does not die and the fire is not quenched.' EVERYONE WILL BE SALTED

WITH FIRE."

One has to ask why sincere, bible-loving Christians have a block on the
final statement in Jesus' main discourse on gehenna. They will quote verbatim

the "if your foot causes you to sin ... if your eye causes you to sin ..."

section and even "the fire is not quenched" but do not go on to finish Jesus'

teaching.

So let us examine just what Jesus is teaching in telling his hearers,

"Everyone will be salted with fire?"

The Bible is always its own totally adequate interpreter, and to understand

the allusion, we need to go back first to the Old Testament.

We read, "Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt

of the covenant of the Lord your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to

ALL your offerings" (Lev. 2:13). This was one of God's specific injunctions

to Israel in the wilderness. These offerings were, of course, all types or

shadows of spiritual realities to be revealed in a later age.

Gehenna is not a pointless, vindictive, burning of God's beloved creation

for whom he shed his blood. The casting of people, body and soul, into

gehenna is "for everyone shall be salted with fire" (Mark 9:49 AV). The AV

continues "and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." This latter part of the

verse is now recognised as not being adequately supported by the earliest

manuscripts. But it does reveal the understanding by the early Church of the

previous part of the verse. In any case, what else can "salted by fire" mean?

It must mean something. It is generally understood that when Christians

are told they are to be "the salt of the earth" they are to be its purification and

preservative. This is the function of salt and Jesus' reference to 'salt' in his

teaching on gehenna cannot be dismissed.

127

Those who go through gehenna are "salted" with fire, Jesus said. The

teaching here is surely that those who do not avoid gehenna will nevertheless

one day be an offering to God, though salted or purified by fire.

Fire and salt are refining agents and the statement which is included in all

versions of the N.T. that "everyone (cast into gehenna) shall be salted with

fire" surely indicates that an end, a purpose, is in view. Why "salt" them with

fire otherwise?
Reference to the New Testament also assists us in understanding salting by

fire. Paul wrote, "But even if I am poured out like a drink offering on the

sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of

^ you" (Phil 2: 17).

So the Christian life, which should be one of progressive death to self and

a life lived to God, is looked upon as a sacrifice. Paul counted it a joy to pour

out his life in a ministry which made this offering more deeply spiritual and so

even more acceptable to God.

Peter tells his Christian readers, "think it not strange concerning the fiery

trial which is to try you" (I Pet. 4: 12 AV). So we, too, as Christians,

experience fiery trials - not of literal fire, but painful experiences which are

for a refinement and death to the self-life. Thus our increasingly surrendered

and obedient Christ-life become a pleasing sacrifice to God.

The unbeliever will not have this privilege (this "special" salvation, 1 Tim.

4:10) but will be "salted" with the fire of gehenna to become an offering to

God.

"Everyone will be salted with fire." - Jesus.

If gehenna is for fiery judgement, and those dying outside of Christ in this

age go to hades, where does gehenna fit into the plan of God?

In Revelation 20: 10 we read, "And the devil, who deceived them, was

thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet

had been thrown."

128

Up to this point only the beast, false prophet and devil are in the lake of

fire and brimstone. No members of dead humanity have yet suffered fire, for

those not with the Lord are in hades. But then we read, "And the sea gave up

the dead which were in it; and death and hell (hades) delivered up the dead

which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their

works. And death and hell {hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the

second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was

cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:13-15 AV).

Reference to the sea giving up its dead is a strong indication of physical

resurrection which, we have seen, is a recurring feature of gehenna. Death

and hades deliver up the spirits of the dead which indicates a restoration of the -^

spirits of the dead to resurrection bodies. These who have been in hades are

then judged. Judgement is pointless if it is summary condemnation. Will they

have called on God as Jonah did? Will they have the opportunity to "live

according to God" as the disobedient of Noah's day? We are not told. But it

cannot be discounted in view of the precedents.

Death and hades are consequently destroyed after hades has given up its

dead, hades having no further function. The dead are then judged in their

restored bodies. Only after this are unbelievers cast into the lake of fire. This,

we remember, is for further judgement, to be "salted by fire".

But what is the lake of fire? After reviewing all the judgements by fire, I

have little doubt that the lake of fire and gehenna are one and the same.

We saw that apart from James' allusion to the tongue being set on fire by

gehenna, all uses of this word were by Jesus and there was an emphasis on the

body, and parts of the body, as well as the soul. References to sheol/hades, by

contrast gave the sense of a waiting-place of the departed spirits, with only

one parabolic reference to a flame in seventy-five occurrences. The

overwhelming weight of evidence was against fire in sheol/hades. It was a

state of passivity, of waiting, "Ie sejour des morts."

If, after the first resurrection of the overcomers, the rest of the dead did

not "live" until the end of the thousand years, and the sentence of Jesus to

enter gehenna with a whole body, rather than escaping it by the loss of an eye,

hand or foot, had still not been implemented, it is, I suggest, reasonable to

129

conclude that the judgement of gehenna takes place at the end of the

millennium and is, in fact, the lake of fire.

I had a problem for some time with Revelation 20:15, for there are those

who, after the destruction of death and hades, are themselves cast into the lake

of fire. This is repeated in Revelation 21:8, the last reference to judgement or

anything negative in the Bible. I wanted confirmation that they did eventually

come out of the fire, as Jesus had intimated by reference to salting. Then I
saw that Rev. 21:8 ends "which is the second death."

After studying all 89 references to 'hell' in the Bible I am convinced that

non-fiery hades is the first death and fiery gehenna is the second death.

S. Gregory of Nyssa said, "They who live in the flesh ought, by virtuous

conversation, to free themselves from fleshly lusts, lest after death they should

again need another death, to cleanse away the remains of fleshly vice that

cling to them." (Christ Triumphant. P 205.)

Jesus "has destroyed (AV abolished) death" (2 Tim. 1:10) and "the last

enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:26). We read in Revelation that

the first death, hades, is abolished. But the second death must also be

abolished. Death cannot be said to have been destroyed while the second

death is in existence. The judgement of gehenna, or the second death, then,

has an end, as it must if God is to achieve his declared purpose of having

^ mercy on all. This accords with Jesus' teaching that the fire of gehenna was

for "salting," that is, for a purpose. The second death ends when God, who is

life, is all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

Let us emphasise that those who believe in the total efficacy of Jesus'

victory, and his complete success in restoring mankind, also believe very

definitely and positively in the judgement of both hades (non-fiery) and

gehenna (fiery). We are perhaps more aware of the awfulness of this

judgement in view of our spending more time studying these themes. This

judgement may be only for an age but it can also be unto the ages of the ages.

I do not believe my evangelical zeal is one whit diminished by the knowledge

that judgement is not eternal. Furthermore, I do not believe anyone holding

the eternal damnation view has any concept of eternity, for I do not believe it

is within the capability of mortal man to comprehend it. Surely one would not

be able to sleep at night if one believed such a thing and had unsaved

130

relatives. Yet the complacent, easy-going religion of many evangelicals is

such that they do not expect or even attempt to lead one soul to the Lord year

after year. There are glorious exceptions, but many Church members

certainly do not act as if their work mates, or next-door neighbours, let alone
their relatives, faced an inescapable eternity of suffering.

Our position is: yes, there is a judgement of unbelievers which is to be

avoided at all costs, even at the cost of an arm, a foot, or an eye. A

commitment to Jesus in this life brings pardon full and free and hades and

gehenna are avoided. Praise the Lord. But we hold that if stubborn men

steadfastly refuse that pardon, they will not thwart Jesus in his redemptive

work. They will experience a "hell", be it hades or gehenna; Armageddon or

the second death, that is, the lake of fire, which will cause them to yearn and

long for the peace and joy of the presence of God. This "hell" will cause them

ultimately to call on Jesus, just as the "hell" which some suffer on earth drives

them into his loving, forgiving arms. They are saved only by his blood, but

their unbearable circumstances cause them to relinquish their stubborn will

and yield to God. Hell hereafter is but an extension of this pattern on earth. It

is one of the "things" which are "from him" and "to him" - a means of his

achieving his declared aim of having

MERCY ON THEM ALL.

131

Chapter 11

THE PURPOSE OF GOD IN THE AGES

PARTL THIS PRESENT EVIL AGE

The rather vague translations in the AV of awn and aionios by such

widely different words and phrases as "course", "world", "for ever" and

"eternal" has not only obscured God's purposes in judgement and restoration,

but-hidden truth on blessed scriptural themes with regard to the ages. The x

Revisions have gone some way to correcting this with the substitution of "age"

or "ages" for aion in many instances, although the translators could not bring

themselves to render its adjectival form aionios as "agelasting". We saw

earlier that when the subject was fire, punishment and judgement/they retained x

the AV's "eternal" or "everlasting" in every case. But the realisation that aion

means an aeon or age sheds considerable light on the teaching of the scriptures

on God's plan and purposes in the various ages.

We find that the teaching of Hebrews 1: 2 (AV "by whom also he made
the worlds") is not the creation of the worlds or universe (NIV) but that God

"established the ages", and in 11:3 that "the ages were framed by the Word of

God". It is, of course, true that God created the physical globe on which we

live but a reader of Hebrews might well be confused by the plural when he

reads in the AV, "he made the world?" and "the worlds' were framed by the

/² word of God." Creation of the physical world is not the subject of the

passage; the establishment of a number of ages is what is being conveyed.

The plural form of aion is used both with respect to past and future ages.

We read in Corinthians of "hidden wisdom, which God predestined before

the ages to our glory, the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age

understood; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"

(I Cor. 2:7, 8).

In writing to the Colossians Paul refers to "the mystery that has been kept

hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints" (Col. 1:

26).). To the Ephesians he claims with much humility that his ministry is "to

make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery which for ages past

was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now,

132

through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to

the rulers and authorities in heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose

(the purpose of the ages NASB) which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our

Lord"(Eph.3:9-ll).

These extracts from three of Paul's epistles collectively reveal a message

of inestimable importance. We, the Christians of this age, are told that God

had a plan of great wisdom, which was hidden from past ages, and that this

plan, reflecting "God's purpose of the ages" was accomplished in Christ.

Calvary and the resurrection therefore determined the course of the ages. We

understand rather better now the comment to the Hebrews that, in Christ, God

"established the ages." Furthermore, we are told that this plan is for our glory.

We are informed that the godless rulers of this age still cannot perceive

that wisdom but that it is manifest to God's saints. Then comes the staggering

revelation that the Church is to be the means whereby this hidden wisdom is
to be revealed not only to fellow-men on earth but to "the rulers and

authorities in heavenly realms." I think that every Christian will agree that if

the Church is to reveal God's Plan of the Ages to heavenly authorities, it is of

paramount importance that the Church should enquire with all diligence into

I MA'0 fj^CLfUT ,

what that wisdom is, so that it might understand this facet of its ministry. ^

.A

Also in writing to the Ephesians Paul tells that "in the coming ages he

might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness

toward us in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2: 7). This, incidentally, is one of the only

two occasions on which the AV correctly translated aion correctly as ages. It

could not very well have supplied "in the worlds to come!"

So we read of "the past ages" and "the coming ages" which establish a

plurality of ages both in the past and in the future.

The scriptures break down the ages by referring many times to "this age"

(rendered "this world" by the AV) or "the present evil age" (Gal. 1:4), the

conclusion or "consummation of the age", "the age to come", also known as

"that age", "the ages to come", "the age of the ages", "the end of the ages" and

"the ages of ages". All these phrases are different and are full of significance.

We know that God is eternal and has neither beginning nor ending. He

was before the ages; he conceived and established the ages. We saw in

133

chapter one that after declaring that "God has bound all men over to

disobedience so that he may have mercy on them" Paul continued without a

break, indeed it seems in a spontaneous burst of praise flowing from that

statement, "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

How unsearchable his judgements and his paths tracing out.". To Paul, even if

not to the twentieth century Church, there presented no difficulty in 4ayrog a Sen ^

with-God the responsibility for mankind's being in a lost state of disobedience.

God did it; it was part of his deep, rich wisdom hidden from past ages, and is a

cause for praise because it will cause all to experience the grandeur of his

mercy. God established the ages and exactly when Satan should be created,
should fall, should tempt Adam and Eve, precisely when sin and death should

enter in, the function of sin and death, the futile attempts of fallen man to

"~ establish his own righteousness even when presented with God's code; the all-

glorious redemption of the cross and the salvation of mankind in its

outworking; the establishment of the Church as a body for his Christ - a

temple for God,' the ministry of the Church; the collapse of man's systems and

his own near destruction by the perverted use of his knowledge of physical

science' the second coming of Jesus: the first resurrection; the millennial < A >

reign*, the chaining of Satan by a single angel without demur in due time; the A ^

final judgement; the abolition of death and hell? the delivery of a totally and ^ >

perfectly restored creation to its Creator-God by the Son, the Saviour. These

are but the highlights, all fulfilled or to be fulfilled precisely on time in the

ages established by God in his wisdom. No wonder Paul went into ecstasies.

"for from him and through him and to him are all things.. To him be the

glory to the ages. Amen" (Rom. 11: 36 lit.)

Many textbooks have been written on dispensational teaching regarding

past ages. One does not wish to be dogmatic on these divisions of time but

there were probably ages which resulted in cataclysmic destruction and set the

scene for our present creation as it is set out from the second verse of Genesis;

there was the age of innocence; the age from the fall to the first major

judgement in the form of the flood; the post-deluvial age to Abraham; the age

of promise from Abraham and, I am inclined to believe, an age within an age

in the Mosaic Covenant, for the end of the Mosaic age did not end the age of

Abraham and his seed. Christ's earthly ministry might be termed an age, and

most certainly the period between Christ's first and second advents constitutes

"this present evil age". The millennium is "the age to come", and we are not

told of much beyond that in the Bible because, no doubt, we will be made

aware of the purpose of future ages as we approach them. God did not give

134

his word to satisfy our curiosity, or so we could be know-alls, but as a lamp

unto our feet, and a light unto our path.

But let us look a little more closely at this present age.

We saw that this age is referred to in the scriptures as "this present evil

age". None will deny that it is indeed an evil age. It is said that Einstein was

asked how he thought the Third World War would develop. He replied, "I

don't know, but I'll tell you about the Fourth World War. Men will be

throwing rocks at one another again."

This is not surprising, as Satan is referred to as "the god of this age" (2

Cor. 4:4) and we are told that before we became Christians we "followed the

ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is

now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at

one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires

and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath" (Eph.2: 2, 3).

If we accept that the ruler of the kingdom of the air is the same as the god of

this age, we see satanic influence in the disobedience, rebellion against

authority, fleshly and lustful indulgences in sensuality and the craving for

power all around us as being the satanic influence on human behaviour.

Christians are exhorted to "Put on the full armour of God, so that you can

take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against

flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the

powers of this dark world (darkness of this age (lit.)) and against the spiritual

forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6: 11, 12).

Is this period of evil one of the ages devised in the wisdom of God over

which Paul went into such rapturous praise? one might ask. Yes, indeed it is.

I once knew a preacher to jolt back visibly in his seat when I said, "Jesus

could have cast Satan into the bottomless pit on resurrection mom if he'd

wanted to." Well, is that not so? Is there anything more that Jesus needs to do

in order to be able to chain Satan for the thousand years, then release him a

while, then cast him into the lake of fire? No, there is not. "Are not all angels

ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" (Heb. 1:14).

Did he succeed? Indeed he did.

135

We need to see the devil and his power as "the god of this age" and the

influence of "the rulers of the darkness of this age" in the perspective of God's
overall plan. We should ask ourselves, what is God doing in this age? Why

did he not chain the devil earlier?

Billy Graham was once asked whether he was not discouraged by the fact

that far more heathens were being bom into the world than the numbers he

was reaching. His reply was that he was not discouraged because the

scriptures showed that God would not save all in this age but that he was

"calling out a people for his name." I do not wish to infer that Dr Graham

believes that the others will be saved in a later age. I doubt that very much.

^ But he was pointing out the purpose of God in this very brief age of some two

thousand years: THE CALLING OUT OF A PEOPLE FOR HIS NAME.

The scriptural backing for this statement is Acts 15: 13-18 where James

sums up the First Jerusalem Council with the words, "Brothers, listen to me.

Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking

from the Gentiles a people for himself (for his name, AV, NASB). The words

of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 'After this I will

return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will

restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who

bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' that have been known for

ages."

- Dr Scofield comments in The Scofield Reference Bible, "Dispensationally,

this is the most important passage in the New Testament. It gives the divine

purpose for this age, and for the beginning of the next. (1) The taking out

from among the Gentiles of a people for his name, the distinctive work of the

present, or church-age. The church is the ecclesia - the 'called-out assembly'.

Precisely this has been in progress since Pentecost. The gospel has never

anywhere converted all, but everywhere has called out some."

So we leam that God's purpose in this age is to build a Church, a called-

out people for his name. And that is precisely what the Christian Church is.

God's name denotes God's presence and the Church is "a dwelling in which

God lives by his Spirit" (Eph. 2:22).

In his infinite wisdom God has not chained the Devil and rendered him

impotent in this age, but has allowed him to be "the god of this age". Jesus
136

destroyed him, to be sure, and the Devil has no power of his own. Jesus

declared, "All authority in heaven and in earth has been given to me." (Matt.

28: 18). The authority that Satan has is part of Christ's "all authority" which

has been given to him in the purposes of God. He is destroyed; yet he is given

authority or power; then he is chained, "to keep him from deceiving the

nations any more until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be

set free for a short time" (Rev. 20:3). He is absolutely powerless of himself,

and simply fulfils God's will in God's appointed times. It is God's will that we

should "resist the devil" and we should always remember that he is a defeated

foe who has no option but to do the will of God.

As an interesting aside, on the assumption that the Second Coming is not ^

far in the future, the period between Adam and Christ's Coming will be about

6,000 years. "A thousand years is as a day with the Lord" and it seems

creation must have its sabbath of rest while Satan is chained for 1,000 years.

Jesus said, "I will build by Church" (Matt. 16:18) and in this age he is

doing just that. But how is he doing it? By tribulations, trials, temptations,

persecutions, problems, difficulties and a vast array of other adversities which

come from Satan who is so debased that he cannot help but do evil. The

individual Christian and the Church of Jesus Christ only gr^w in tribulation. ^

Jesus sees the end result: "a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or

any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:27).

With Satan chained that could not be. Even Christ had to suffer at Satan's

hands that he might accomplish his glorious redemption. --‡

God puts man in the most adverse of circumstances. He causes him to

inherit a selfish, sinful, fallen nature with his every desires' being in the ^

direction of laziness, indolence, self-gratification, self-aggrandisement, the

esteem and applause of others, and everything that is contrary to the

sacrificial. God-centred life of Christ. He then sets this man in an evil age,

"for everything in the world, the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes,

and the boasting of what he has and does, comes not from the Father, but from

the world" (Jn. 2:16).

Man is therefore beset by the gravitating forces of fleshliness within and

evil without. In this situation the Lord provides Calvary grace to counter the

power of self and sin and so "rescue us from the present evil age". By the

cross of Christ the world is crucified to the Christian and the Christian is

137

crucified to the world. The power of the world's attractions are broken, and

the bonds of sin and self are severed. But all this comes from a living faith in

the liberating power of the cross and such faith is only sustained by abiding in

the Lord, walking in the Spirit, keeping the body under and "abstaining from

fleshly lusts".

Compromise is all too easy and indolence all too subtle. But he who lays

hold of the grace of God and is victorious in the grace-battle against the flesh,

the world and the devil is termed an overcomer. Great and glorious promises

are given to the overcomer in the book of Revelation, including a place as a '<

pillar in the temple of God, sitting with Christ on his throne and having power

over the nations.

So we see that far from this age being the only one in which the Church

has a calling and ministry, it is the age in which the Church is prepared,

formed and perfected for its ministry in future ages. Paul ends the first part of

his epistle to the Ephesians with the doxology: "Unto him be glory in the

Church by Christ Jesus unto all the generations of the age of the ages" (lit.).

We understand the phrase King of kings to mean that Jesus is the greatest

and supreme being among all those who are called kings. Likewise "Lord of

lords" conveys the sense of the greatest lord of all lords. We may conclude

that "the age of the ages" is the great consummating age of all the ages that

there have been or will be. God has ordained that he should be glorified in the

^² Church, his living temple, in all the generations of all ages right up to and

including the final consummating age when the great work of restoration shall

be absolutely complete with all things in heaven and earth headed up in

Christ. What a glorious calling.

The scriptures teach that Christians will live and reign with Christ in the

age to come and one of God's purposes in this age is to prepare us. The fact is^ ?<
we need the devil^and this is no doubt why Jesus has left him unchained, just ^

as he will release him at the end of the millennium for a short period for the

express purpose of deceiving the nations and exposing hidden rebellion that it

might be dealt with. The difference is that in the present age of faith we are

given access to all the power of Jesus' death and risen life to deal with

rebellion and self-interest. Satan plays an invaluable role in providing the

temptations, trials and opposition which cause the flesh to be exposed and

compel us to call on the Lord for his grace to overcome. Even so, the

138

scripture is clear that he is not permitted to tempt or try us above that we are

able.

An appreciation of this fact enables us to understand why Paul could "also

rejoice in our sufferings" (Rom. 5:3). He did not merely stoically endure

them or accept them with resignation; he rejoiced (AV gloried) in them.

Why? Were they not from Satan? Yes, they were. But they were the

invaluable and indispensable appointments of God for his spiritual growth

"Suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; character, hope"

(Rom. 5:4). They caused him to "have no confidence in the flesh". He knew

h'?

from,day to day experience God's truth that "my power is made perfect in

"^

weakness" and accepted as a principle of life^ "Therefore I will boast all the < "^

more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me" (2

Cor. 12:9). Tribulations, infirmities, weaknesses worked upon by Satan were

for his eternal good. Lashed with stripes, stoned nigh unto death, buffeted in

every conceivable way, he could only exult, "For our light and momentary

troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all" (2

Cor. 4:17).

This is an amazing statement by Paul. It is the clearest revelation we have

to the age-old problem of why God permits suffering.

Few of us would count receiving the 39 stripes across our backs once, let

alone five times, being stoned and thrown out of town as dead, plus all Paul's
other sufferings as a "light affliction". But Paul saw them as "light" and ~

"momentary" relative to the "glory" - and there lies the nub. We have no

conception of the glory awaiting the overcomer. Therefore the sufferings do

not make sense. We do not consider our lesser sufferings as light. To Paul

they were "achieving". They were active, necessary, beneficial.

We saw in chapter one that creation was destined to lose its purpose

according to God's wilLbut that equally it was assured that "the creation itself Y

will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious

freedom of the children of God" (Rom. 8:21).

We read, too, "In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for

whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their

salvation perfect through suffering" (Heb. 2:10).

139

Jesus reached perfection through suffering; Paul saw that sufferings

"achieved ... a glory that far outweighed them all." May God grant us an

understanding of this glory that we may rejoice in our trials to the same end.

James launches straight into his epistle with a brief greeting, and then,

"Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds"

(Jas. 1:2). Pure joy? But are trials not miserable obstacles that hinder us from

serving the Lord properly? Do we not feel that if only we did not have certain

trials which result in anger, or resentment, or lust, or laziness we could serve

God properly? Rejoice in them, says James. Why? Because they expose the

flesh and show us our need so that we can lay hold of the grace of God to

overcome. Without them we would be spiritual dwarfs.

Peter writes in the same vein. He tells Christians then and now not to

wonder what is happening when fiery trials come their way "as though some

strange thing happened unto you" (I Pet. 4:12). "Rejoice!"

Psycho-analysists of our day would tell us that there are places for people

like Paul - and James - and Peter. To accept difficulties and cope with them is

an essential part of life for all of us. But to "glory in tribulations" as Paul did

appears sick masochism unless one sees the divine appointment and the all-

glorious end. To "count it all joy" when one encounters the trials that James
and the early church encountered seems equally unnatural. Only some

appreciation of God's Plan for the Ages, the purpose of trials and tribulations

^_ in developing Christian character and the place of the overcomer in that Plan

makes these statements acceptable, let alone comprehensible.

In a sense, then, this age is one of probation and of opportunity. In God's

wisdom we start off with the handicap of the flesh within, the world without

and Satan rampant, but an abundance of grace is made available to us and, if

we avail ourselves of it, the opportunity of overcoming and qualifying to reign

in the age to come with Jesus himself.

One Saturday evening recently I had dinner with a devout, orthodox

Jewish couple. The previous evening (Friday) they had had their Jewish

friends over for a Passover meal. We soon got on to the seven feasts of

Leviticus 23, Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits etc. I was able to show

them, to their amazement, the New Testament fulfilments.

140

During the conversation the husband said, "Do you believe in life

hereafter?" I explained in some detail that I did and why I did! Then he said,

"So do I. You know, I believe this life is a sort of a game. In a way we are on

trial. And it's not about who wins (he was a wealthy and successful

businessman - a winner by the world's standards) or even how many goals you

score, but how you play the game." Amen. It is a time of trial, but a time of

unparalleled opportunity - if we do not squander it.

I believe this is the Special Salvation referred to by Paul in his letter to

Timothy. The Christian not only (only!) "has eternal life, and will not be

condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (Jn. 5:24) but can

overcome the world," by daily rejecting evil and serving God in this present

evil age to be part of God's Plan. "This is the victory that has overcome the

world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who

believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (I Jn. 5: 4, 5).

PART 2. THE AGE WHICH IS TO COME

There is a word which appears in Revelation more often than all the other

references in the New Testam^mt. I have used it several times in this chapter, y
(A k^'elcjTo*^

We seldom readiof believers, disciples, Christians, or saints (except those

A- pr^rti&ri"/ uvJL,

who have passed on) but those who are addressed are Overcomers.

Wonderful promises are given to the overcomer, hence once again, Paul's, ~"

Peter's and James' references to the great joy with which we should meet

troubles, trials and tribulations. Our faith to walk in victory^ notwithstanding y

these hurdles.makes us overcomers. ^

The overcomer eats from the tree of life in the paradise of God; is not hurt x

by the second death; receives hidden manna (?); and a white stone with a new k"

name written on \\.y known only to the one who receives it. All very cryptic ¥-

and more will no doubt be revealed.

But there are three other promises:

"To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority

over the nations -

(He will rule them with an iron sceptre;

He will dash them to pieces like pottery)

141

just as I have received authority from my father" (Rev. 2:26, 27).

God is a God of structure. His government of Israel and the Church, as

well as the universe and all nature, teaches us of his structures. Nature is

gloriously diverse and varied, but structured to its finest detail.

And God's rule in the millennium will be structured.

Jesus is "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every

title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over

everything FOR THE CHURCH" (Eph. 1:21, 22). Rule, authority, power,

dominion. This speaks to us of structured government, as does "against the

rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and

against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" in Ephesians 6.

The Church has a role in the age to come and the overcomers will have
power over the nations. It is interesting that Jesus quoted an Old Testament

scripture which was prophetic of himself and applied it to the overcomer.

The overcomer "I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never

again will he leave it" (Rev. 3:12).

Forget any static interpretation of a pillar! The overcomer will be an

^- active, authoritative and responsible member of Christ's body through which

"' he will rule and reign.

"To him who overcomes I will give the right to sit with me on my throne,

just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne" (Rev. 3:21).

To Jesus there is to be given "the throne of his father David and he shall

reign over the house of David for ever" (lit. unto the ages) (Lk. 1:33).

My view (undogmatic!) is that this is the throne we are to share, here on

earth, during Christ's millennial reign.

"The Lord will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be

one Lord, and his name the only name ... the survivors from all the nations

that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King,

142

... If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the

King, the Lord Almighty, they will have no rain" (Zech. 14:9, 17).

Clearly this is on earth, and we will be very active in different levels of

authority, participating in Christ's reign on earth.

What a Special Salvation!

Now for some vision, again undogmatic, but I do believe I received this

composite picture from the Lord.

Let us link six scriptures:

- Jesus said we would do his works and greater works (Jn. 14:12).

What are they?

- Jesus said "I will build my church, and the gates of hell {hades)

shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18 AV).

- "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?" (I Cor. 6:2).

- "Do you not know that we will judge angels?" (I Cor. 6:3).

"And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority
but abandoned their own home - these he has kept in darkness, ²L

bound in everlasting chains for judgement on the Great Day" (Jn. 6).

"I hold the keys of death and Hades" (Jesus in Rev. 1:18).

Before presenting the scenario as I see it, let me point out how often

Matthew 16: 18 (above) is misquoted. In prayer meetings one would assume

that hell is the bastion of Satan from whence he, God's great adversary, wages

war against the Church.

Hell or hades is not Satan's stronghold: it is where his minions await

judgement. Furthermore, gates are not weapons of warlAwhoever attacked

anything with gates? Gates are instruments of defence. The picture painted

IO^C^CLI 11 riff ^‡c{.t/)sfr

by Jesus, then, is of the Church attactahg the gates of hell (hades) where men

-X Z:.J/^!^ ZX/^e- j,^/?. -^ y1-^ ^ ^^-^<^^

^{\.k^. , C,-" C ^/e .1 ^-i y^6^''^ "-^^^^s^ 4-' ,<2.^/--'-<‡'A-^-t-^-3

^^<./ ..,. ^ Oi(-( T'e-^'c, ^...'.^,

143

and angels await judgement and the gates not being able to withstand assault

by the Church.

So, the picture:

Jesus has triumphed and has the keys, or means of opening, hades which

he clearly purposes to do. I would suggest that this is for the same reason that

he visited it between his death and resurrection. But Jesus now acts, rules and

reigns in and through his body, the Church. The Church then breaks into

hades and hades yields. But why? Why would the Church break down the

gates of hades if it had no intention of entering hades'} Because -tfae-Cbureh- ‡L

brings out^-^-j^gement-by-it-tneSvorld and the fallen arigel^ "D^ you not ci^cc/ic^i.

know that we will judge angels?" /The scripture which sealed this vision for^

me was Paul's conversion which we reviewed in chapter six. a-s^ f"^

Jesus personally met Paul, the Christ-rejecter, with blinding (literally)

revelation of his glory before consigning him to three days and three nights of

darkness, representing judgement on sin. Jesus then visited Paul in Ananias a

member of his body and gave Ananias the privileged ministry of restoring
Paul's sight, of reconciliation, infilling with the Spirit and the announcement

of his ministry.

Jesus could have again visited Paul, the prototype of those who will

believe hereafter, in person. But he chose to do so in a member of his body.

^~. Nothing in scripture is without significance and this, to my mind, confirms the

linking of the six scriptures concerning the Church breaking down the gates of

hell. What will the Church do when it enters hell? Allow me a little licence:

"The Lord is good to ALL; he has compassion on ALL he has made. ALL

you have made will praise you 0, Lord; your saints will extol you. They will

tell of the glory of your kingdom and speak of your might, so that ALL men

may know of your mighty acts and the glorious splendour of your dominion

endures through all generations. The Lord is faithful to ALL his promises and

loving towards ALL he has made" (Ps. 145: 9-13).

If the saints are to tell all men of the splendour of God's kingdom, and

some men are in hell, will they not have to go there? I would hope that this

picture, together with many other aspects of this book, will prove to be a

144

catalyst for others to prayerfully seek the Lord for light and revelation from

his Word in this age for the enrichment of the Church.

The culmination of the next age (and, remember, this is only one of the

ages to come and certainly precedes "the age of the ages") appears to be the

great white throne judgement with still-unrepentant souls and Satan cast into

the lake of fire, the second death, which we have reviewed in a previous

chapter.

PART 3. THE AGES TO COME

As we move beyond "this present evil age" and "the age which is to come"

the detail becomes less clear, less defined.

I well remember driving on many occasions, through the flat Northern

Transvaal in South Africa and seeing ahead ^the Zoutspanberg Mountains. ^

Beyond lay my home in Zimbabwe. The mountains looked impassable from a

distance but, as one approached, the two-dimensional became three-

dimensional and one drove effortlessly through them.

So, I believe, it is with scripture. Who in the Old Testament, could have

pieced together the dozens of prophesies and numerous types which were

fulfilled at Calvary?

But the end is clear:

"He has made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good

pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times

will have reached their fulfilment - to bring all things in heaven and on earth

together under one head, even Christ" (Eph. 1: 9, 10).

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive. But each in

his own turn; Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to

him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the

Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must

reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be

destroyed is death . . . When he has done this, then the Son himself will be

made subject to him who put everything under him, so that

GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.

145

Chapter 12

WILL GOD STILL LOVE JIM IN HELL?

We all knew Jim. Most of us have known several Jim^s. Ti ^\ s,

Jim was an ordinary, decent, lawn-mowing, commuting, tax-paying,

mortgage-paying father of one wife and two children.

Jim was not a bom-again Christian. In fact he was not a churchgoer,

except when his wife leant on him on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day. He

did quite enjoy the last Easter service, especially that new young preacher's

sermon. It seemed so positive. The preacher proved that one could actually

know one was going to heaven because Jesus had paid the penalty for our sins

and then risen from the dead. He said this was all because God had loved us

so incredibly. Jim had never thought of it quite like that before, not in such a

direct, personal way. The preacher had even urged everyone to receive the

risen Christ into their lives. Jim decided he would think about it. He thanked

the minister at the door and said he'd come again, which he'd intended to do.
The weeks had passed and, well, there was the lawn to mow, the hedge to trim

and Jim just did not get around to getting up early, getting dressed in time,

organising the family and going to Church.

^- Then, one afternoon on the golf-course, Jim had a heart attack and died

instantly. The young preacher didn't say so to Jim's wife and children, of

course, but there could be no doubt as he discussed it with the elders. Jim had

gone to hell. But... Will God still love Jim in Hell?

Of course he will! He cannot help himself. Our mean spirits, which find

forgiveness so difficult, struggle to believe "how wide and long and high and

deep is the love of Christ" (Eph. 3: 18). It is all-embracing, all-encompassing,

all-pervading. God's love is inescapable. "The love of God operates even in

-S't-L.CT.h-i^

hell," said Sadhif Sundar Singh, as fervent an evangelistic as any in the > >

twentieth century. Jesus died for Jim and Jesus will have him.

God is love. (I Jn.4:16).

146

God is not merely loving, as we may be loving. We are at times more

loving than at others. Some people are more loving than others. But God is

love. Love is the very essence and nature of God. God is the very essence

and nature of love. The two are synonymous. What love is, God is; and what

God is, love is. God is a one-word definition of love. Love is a one-word

definition of God.

Jesus is called the Sun of Righteousness in Malachi 4: 2. The sun does what it

does because it is what it is. It cannot help giving off heat and light. To

refrain from giving off heat or light it would have to change its very essence.

It would no longer be the sun.

So it is with God. God is love. He cannot help loving and to stop loving,

or even to diminish his love in any direction to any one at any time, he would

have to change his very nature. "I the Lord do not change" (Mal. 3: 6).

The sun may be hidden by the clouds, or even be obscured by the shape

and path of our heliocentric globe as extreme north or extreme south moves

into the Arctic or Antarctic night of winter. But the sun does not change. It is
always there; its heat and light undiminished. Night will give way to day and

winter to summer according to the immutable laws of God.

"Yes," I was told, "there is the love of God, but you must not neglect to

teach the truth of the wrath of God."

If God is love, then the wrath of God is a part of the love of God. As we

have seen. God's judgements and his hell are means to his declared end of

having mercy on all. Once one's spirit is liberated from the pernicious

doctrine of eternal damnation one is free to enter into uninhibited enjoyment

of the totality of God's love, the universe-filling quality of the one whom "the

heavens and the heavens of heavens cannot contain." What luxury this is after

years of a check in one's spirit, of constraint, of reservation when declaring

f^u-d (~> /"n.CTe.s

God's love, all because of false teaching that God will punish for ever many of

those for whom Christ died.

"Where can I go from your Spirit?"

Where can I flee from your presence?

If I go up to the heavens, you are there;

if I make my bed in the Sheol (AV hell), you are there.

147

If I rise on the wings of the dawn,

if I settle on the far side of the sea,

even there your hand will guide me,

your right hand will hold me fast.

If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me*-

and the light become night around me,"

even the darkness will not be dark to you;

the night will shine like the day,

for darkness is as light to you.

For you created my innermost being;

you knit me together in my mother's -womb.

(Ps. 139: 7-13)

The AV "though I make my bed in hell, you are there" for verse eight was
probably more telling and a real problem for those who saw hell as the

stronghold of the Devil. God is everywhere and therefore love is everywhere.

The love of God is everywhere. Hell is his creation, the nature of hell is his

design, the purpose of hell is part of his wisdom and hell, too, will fulfil its

calling before, as we have seen in chapter ten, hell and death are cast unto the

lake of fire.

As David said. God created our innermost beings. All you and I are

^_ personality-wise, emotionally and intellectually as his beloved creation^ was X

by his design. "He knit us together in our mother's womb." Will he abandon

his creation to eternal flames?

He knew that we were bom as slaves to sin, with a "heart deceitful above

all things" (Jer. 17: 9), "people who cannot tell their right hand from the left"

(Jon. 4:11), and "that the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,

so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor.

4:4). Will he condemn these his beloved creation to bum eternally because

they were doomed and destined from birth by his design not to be able to

believe but by a miracle of his Spirit? Who dare accuse him of such flagrant

injustice? "He has compassion on ALL he has made . . . and loving towards

ALL he has made" (Ps. 145:9, 13). '14~9^- ll ~S^ ^& nv^s^^e, 8^/- fo

6/oe-i. n-ot: L^^- A^JAy ^^^^ ^i ‡sfe^.<// '^e. cl&^/i s e. ^ t,J^ys ^-^ ^-

A- ~^>Cw\ ^'/L^Y-?' ft 6-^-S. 0t'1. ^Cl-Lf f^C't'^/nci/n <$‡ j/r-A-/i<? <-^/T'-i^/'n h'/iTl, '/

Jim in hell is still God's beloved creation and cannot escape his love. .2 Sc< .n ^'

148

I find it quite natural to write now that we were condemned to be bom as

blind, enslaved sinners as part of God's grand design because, as Paul, I can

rejoice in the end. God plunged humanity into this darkness and corruption so

that he might bring his entire creation out, stage by stage, into a greater glory,

OL

a deeper maturity .^as-more wonderful appreciation of his limitless mercy. I Y

can understand how Paul could follow Romans 11:32 with a burst of praise

for his wisdom in doing this for "from him and through him and to him are all

things."
But I understand what a shock it will be to many readers, especially those

who have been intrigued by the title of this chapter and started with it.

It took years for my whole frame of reference to change, for the entire

background against which I read the scriptures to become attuned to this new

reality: that God created all things including Satan, hell and death; that Christ

was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world; that God planned the

! inevitable Fall of Adam and Eve and ensuredLthat their estrangement should

be passed on to all humanity"l»y the way he created us! that Christ could have

put an end to sin, death and Satan on resurrection mom but chose for a

specific reason not to do so; that he will ultimately reconcile all things to

himself that God may be all in all.

As a young evangelical preacher, before the NASB, NIV and other

modem translations had been published, I had difficulty with Paul's prayer in

Ephesians 3 as I read it in my Authorised Version: "For this cause I bow my

knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in

heaven and earth is named" (vv 14, 15).

My Bible School training was that only when we were bom again did we

become sons of God and only then could we truly call God "Our Father" (I Jn.

1: 13). As for the unbelievers, well, did Jesus not say to the Pharisees, "Ye

are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do?"(Jn.8:

14). We were "the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2: 2). So the demarcation

was clear: bom-again, child of God, God is our Father: not bom-again, child

of the Devil, the Devil is our father. But what about Ephesians 3? "... the

Lord Jesus Christ of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named?"

Then the NIV came out with the subtle change: "from whom his whole

family in heaven and on earth." Ah, I thought, perhaps this is the answer: it

149

only refers to those who are "his" by new birth. So I hastened to my

Interlinear Greek-English New Testament based on the Nestle text. The

literal is "The Father, of whom every fatherhood in heaven and earth is

named." The NIV change is simply not based on the text. It is, it seems to

me, an accommodation of evangelical thought. How sad that sincere

translators feel the need to provide a text which conforms with received

doctrines.

The whole of creation belongs to God. He is the creator and therefore in

that sense, the father of "the whole family in heaven and on earth." The father

of the prodigal son was his father before he left, when he returned and all the

^ time in between. And I am sure he loved him even when his son had turned

his back on him and became a wastrel. His welcome back proved that.

God, who is love, will not and cannot leave Jim in hell or forsake any one

member of his precious creation permanently. After all, Jim belongs to God

twice over. God created him, "knit him together in his mother's womb" and

then came in his Son to shed his blood for him, to redeem him, or buy back

his lost creation. He is twice God's and God who is love will not let him go.

All ministers know that funerals are difficult and most, if they are

anything like me, have felt awful hypocrites from time to tim^Jrt^conducting K

funerals.

² This does not apply to Christian funerals. My mother gave instructions

that her funeral was to be a time of rejoicing, even choosing the hymn, "Thine

be the glory, risen, conquering Son." The minister felt it necessary at the

beginning of the service to explain that he had been told that this was to be a

time of rejoicing in Christ's victory over death. People spoke of it for years

afterwards.

But what of unbelivers? Well, the preacher reads nice comforting

passages about Christ's victory and the sure and certain hope of the

resurrection, which at any other time he would say do not apply to

unbelievers. Hence the hypocricy. "0 Death where is thy sting, 0 grave

where is thy victory." he proclaims at the funeral, whereas on Sunday evening

he will tell unbelievers that if they die outside of Christ, death and the grave

have total, complete and eternal victory. Preacher, can you now be consistent

and translate the eleventh Hades like the other ten in the AV from which the

150

scriptures in the funeral service are usually quoted, "0 death where is thy

sting, 0 hell where is thy victory?" If so, what will you preach to sinners on
Sunday evening?

A dear friend of ours lost a "Jim". Her twenty year-old son died tragically

in circumstances in which he was clearly outside of Christ. We shared the

truths of this book and she rejoiced that her son, who certainly had not passed

out of her love, had not passed out of the love and mercy of God. He, too, for

whom Christ shed his blood will be part of the whole of creation which will

ultimately bow the knee and confess that Jesus is Lord.

Years later she was moved from our home group to one led by a young

Christian lawyer and his wife. They were very loving towards her but

strongly opposed this teaching. So she asked them if they would listen to my

tapes on "The Purpose of God in Creation". They agreed and the lawyer said

to me some weeks later, "I think you've got two converts!" Then he added an

interesting observation: "You know", he said "if Jesus proclaimed that he had

the keys of hell and death, and yet never let people out of hell, he could

hardly claim to be a God of love, could he?"

Absolutely. It was a new angle to me. But the revelation of the nature of

God from Genesis to Revelation is as much the basis of a doctrine or a

teaching as any other theme of scripture. And the doctrine of the nature of

God precludes a doctrine of eternal torment, in that the doctrine of God is not

only that he is love, but also almighty and all-wise, as we have seen. If he has

the keys of hell and death, and is a God of love, there can only be one

outcome.

While writing this book, and having completed chapter two (in which I

recounted the office conversation where I was challenged "either he is all-

loving and wants to save everyone, but he can't; or he is almighty and came to

save everyone but he won't") I read in Clifford Longley's column in the Daily

Telegraph of 24 March 1995: "The existence of evil, of suffering especially,

is one of the most common causes of religious doubt in the modem age. How

can a loving, omnipotent God permit disease, injustice, cruelty, genocide?

Either he cannot intervene, hence he is not omnipotent; or he chooses not to,

hence he is not loving." Echos of my office colleague several decades ago! V-

Ec,k.G e S
151

Surely the Church must address, in all seriousness, this almighty or all-

loving issue which is declared to be "one of the most common causes of

religious doubt." We need to be sure of what we proclaim lest we present to

the world grounds for doubt rather than provide grounds for faith. The world

has a point and quite rightly will not be fobbed off by trite non-answers.

,, .,, , . WfcS²-f^-ii^.. CA»»t<£, 0/i.

My wires cousin in her late twenties^had-led-a-fairiy-wild-ltf^-w^er-

‡gr-andfathei-felt a trip to the family in South Africa, where we were then

living, mighUo^ome-good. We were Aen- having very wonderful meetings y

in our home with many university students rejoicing and praising the Lord for

hours on end. It was near-revival and Ann came under strong conviction of

- the Holy SPirit while ^"g with us. Soon she was wonderfully converted.

ft ni\

Whence had arrived in Johannesburg she had been to an all-night party

at the home of a girl she had known in Australia. Once she came to the Lord

she immediately went to testify to Fran. She phoned us and asked if she could

bring Fran to the house, which she did. Fran had been deeply impressed by

the change in Ann and was clearly moved by the Spirit as I spoke to her. Yes,

she said, she had heard the gospel but could never believe in a God who kept

people in hell for ever and ever.

I said, "Well, Fran, I think I am beginning to see something different in

the scriptures" and explained as much of the contents of this book as I had

then seen. Her face opened up and she gladly came to Jesus. Six years later

we had a ^^toas card from her rejoicing in "six wonderful years with

Jesus."

Eternal damnation had been a stumbling-block to her and, once that had

been removed, she became a rejoicing committed Christian. How many

"Frans" are there out there still unsaved because the Church presents a false
and abhorrent aspect of the gospel?

One person who opposed this truth said to a Christian friend of mine that

this teaching was "of the Devil". The response was: "Well, it does glorify

Jesus. And the Devil's not in that business." The Devil is not in the business

of removing stumbling-blocks to salvation, either.

152

As one is released from this spectre of an eternally-punishing God one

becomes horrified that one ever believed him to be so. How the Church has

maligned his character.

One of the university students who came to our home saw this truth and

rejoiced in it. She then met a fervent young Christian whom she married. He

was emphatically opposed to this teaching and tenaciously clung to eternal

damnation. He would not even go into the scriptures on the teaching. It was

as if any questioning of eternal damnation would be a compromise of his

evangelical stance. Then they [a. daughter! He said to me, somewhat y

sheepishly, a couple of years later, "Fatherhood really changes you, doesn't it?

You leam so much. I know now that whatever Anri^does in life, wherever she >‡ ,-.

goes, whatever she becomes, I .can never totally reject her."

Where does that father-heart come from if not from the Father of all

fatherhood? Can he permanently reject, more, permanently torture, even one

of his beloved creation? Emphatically, NO. He could not even if he wanted

to, because God is love. If he can save (and he can save!) then love will drive

him to do so.

True love, even human love, does not and cannot stop loving in a moment

of time. There is no on-off switch marked love. Not only will the bereaved

love long after the deceased has gone but, in counselling deserted wives, I

have known them to say of their husbands who have betrayed them and gone

off with other women, "It may seem strange to you to hear me say this, but I "'

still love him." Of course; if it was true love it cannot be turned off. Yet we

tell the world, rightly, that God loves the sinner with a fervent passionate love

way beyond any love a human being has ever known. That love took him to

the cross. Yet we infer that the moment that sinner dies, maybe
instantaneously in a car-crash or of a heart attack, the love stops, and

unbelievable, eternal, pointless wrath takes its place.

If we cannot stop loving, God most certainly cannot.

Yes, he does still love Jim in hell and that love will save him.

There is a grave danger in Christianity that we believe that God loves us

because we are Christians, because we have repented, because we have come

over on to his side.

153

God loves us ... not because we are now serving him, or witnessing, or

attending all the services. God loves us ... not because we have changed and

don't blaspheme anymore. God loves us because ... He is love. It is nothing

in us that makes us lovable. And this (praise God for it, Christian) is our

security. Rejoice that he loves us not because of what we are, but in spite of

what we are. Nothing we are or do makes us worthy of his love. But he will

always love us, and all his beloved creation, because he is love.

God will still love Jim in hell, while he undergoes the judgement to bring

him to God.

_ We need to remember that we are only Christians because God loved us as

sinners. God loves the unsaved sinner with the same love as he loves the

sinner saved by grace, for that is all a Christian is.

We somehow believe that God loves the Church but are not too sure about

those outside. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

We relate to one another, perforce, in our physical state. We get to know

the person inside the body. Young people are often attracted by physique or

physical features but soon come to know the person living inside that body.

We may find them to be warm and considerate or cold and indifferent, etc.

regardless of their physical attraction or lack of it. The body becomes just the

vehicle they move around in. But once that person, whom maybe we have

~ come to know and love over many decades dies we cannot relate to them any

longer. There is an abrupt end to the relationship. But with God it is not so.

God is not terribly impressed by physique, witness his choice of David as

compared with Jesse's other seven sons. God also relates to the person on the
inside. But he can and does continue to relate to them when they have

"sloughed off this mortal coil" or got out of their vehicle, so to speak.

To continue the analogy, it is as if two people were chatting, one sitting in

a car, the other standing by. Then the person in the car gets out and they

continue their conversation. There is no break in the relationship.

Those who die are still alive to God, as David proclaimed so graphically in

Psalm 139. Is it credible that he loves them fervently one moment and ceases

154

to love them the next? For this is what we must believe if we believe

conventional teaching?

/^ yout'\q »vi<a-»v ^ i^sa^ P(T c^n^e. K h^i-o^j ^^y i^&^ -^^^^i.e-

-Basil 0'¼entteH -Jones was involved in drug-trafficking between Zambia

and Zimbabwe in Africa and London and Amsterdam in Europe. At a point in

time the Metropolitan Police, Interpol and others were looking for him. So he

fled to the anonymity of the Rhodesian commandoes fighting in the bush war

prior to Zimbabwean independence.

Ke

Basil was shot at point-blank range through both sections of the brain and

was reported dead. And he was dead for 28 minutes. After the contact his

body was picked up and he came back into his body with the searing pain and

agony which soon took him into unconsciousness. He lived. Paralysed, blind,

deaf and dumb for a year and more but he lived to have a powerful ministry

and to win many souls to Jesus, including his old drug pals.

TTus you.^ (YtQ^«\.

Basil and I ministered together for a while. I had to help him dress, bath,

and to get around so I knew him very well. But the point of telling Basil's hf^

story here is that for the 28 minutes in which he was dead there was no pain,

no suffering, only indescribable beauty and light. He could see his dead body

lying on the ground all this time yet, he says, "I was still me. I was still Basil- Kt-C

-O'Connell- Jones, with all the gunge and rottenness of my sin." It was this that

caused him to seek God. As he recovered all he could ask his friends was how

he could find God. They, of course, thought it was because part of his brain
had been shot away! They soon found otherwise and, one by one, turned to

^\<5, -Basil's Jesus.

tf^is, ^AyyrA^ ^QOAcie.d yoo^f mn

Now what about this light, this beauty, this music of which -Basil-speaks SfiQ^-e

with such awe? Remember, for nearly half an hour he had no pain, no

suffering. He was out of his body. Dead, as we would say.

To my evangelical mind this was all wrong. It was unscriptural. Or was it

simply my wrong understanding of scripture?

(ze-

1 might add that Basil- knew nothing of the many well documented and

authenticated accounts of people outside of Christ who have had death

experiences and, with them, "tunnels of light" and heavenly music.

155

This may surprise and, sadly, offend evangelicals who understand that

death outside of Christ means either plunging into a lake of fire or, at least,

outer darkness to await fire at a later date.

I have already quoted, in chapter eight, the account of Sadhu Sundar Singh

who stated that "the love of God operates even in hell." We cannot ignore this

comment of such a saint of God, one of the outstanding Christians of the first

half of the twentieth century.

I would be the last to base any doctrine on experiences or anything outside

the scriptures. I believe it has been by slavishly staying with the scriptures

SiCL^" 0*-*-^'

that I have been able to be led into the understandmg^m this book, which is

contrary to everything I had read or been taught.

But we cannot ignore experiences, especially when they result in people

coming to Christ. We need to be sure that we are not merely clinging to an

interpretation of scripture in the delusion that we are being faithful to the

Word itself.

We began this book with Romans 8, so let's continue in this chapter. I

know Paul is writing to Christians and the verse applies to Christians. But

God does not love us as Christians or because we are Christians. God loves
the sinner, who God made a sinner by design, because he wants him to

experience lostness and be enriched by God's mercy.

"I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,

neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, nor anything else in all

creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ

Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8 :38, 39).

If God loves us as sinners, and not because we are Christians, and because

he is love, is it conceivable that he does not love poor blind sinners, who God

determined should be bom as sinners and who do not come to faith in this life,

and find themselves in hell?

I believe the Eternal Damnation doctrine is a hindrance, not only to

unbelievers, but to Christians too. God's ultimate in our lives is that we were

predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son" (Rom. 8:29), or "made

over again like Jesus," as a modem version puts it.

156

I do not believe I was fully open to being changed into that image in the

area of love, mercy, forgiveness and grace while I believed in God as a

perpetrator of pointless torture. It was almost an excuse to limit forgiveness.

This Truth has set me free in innumerable areas of my Christian life.

I have prayed, dear reader, that it will do the same for you.

"Then I heard EVERY CREATURE in heaven, and on the

earth, and under the earth, and on the sea and all that is in

them, singing, -

"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise

and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever" (Rev. 5:13).

157

Chapter 13

FROM HIM . . . THROUGH HIM ... TO HIM ARE . . .

All THINGS

So to our final chapter, a celebration, a time of rejoicing, revelling in the

total, absolute, complete, consummating victory of our wonderful and beloved

Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords.

We looked at some of the "all" verses in chapter two but it was necessary

to review some words such as eternal, hell, damnation, death and related

subjects against the background of commonly held beliefs before we could

uninhibitedly rejoice in a body of scripture which shines through in most of

Paul's epistles: the fulfilment of what God planned and intended when he

plunged mankind into the abyss of "this present evil age," that is "so that he

may have mercy on them all."

7X(4

One person who encouraged me to write the' book said, "It's such a

liberating truth" and it is when the shackles of the old belief, with its

, .Ä C^FeJf kein^,'ii^e'^t^-^^^j0/-. 0(. . ^ .

uncomfortable if unspoken constraint of^Calvary being partial" victory, a ^

‡ "?

rescue operation of limited success, are shaken off.

Let us revel in some of these ALL passages together before we sum up, or

echo God's summing up.

1. Romans 5:15-19

"But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass

of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the

one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"

Let us consider just this verse before continuing.

"The gift is not like the trespass." Absolutely. All commentators would

agree. The trouble is, they agree for the wrong reason! They would tell you

that the gift is not like the trespass because the trespass was universal and all-

encompassing affecting all mankind but that the gift only benefits a few. So ^x

the gift is not like the trespass.

158

But Paul, or God in Paul, would tell you otherwise. The grace, the

blessings of the gift, overflow to "the many", or "the mass of mankind", as

Weymouth puts it. Let us deal with the "opportunity" or "availability"

question with which nearly all commentators and Christian writers feel they

must qualify Paul's (or God's) statement.

It is as if Paul (God) was careless and wrote something which he could not

have thought through properly or he would not have caused theologians so

many problems down through twenty centuries. Commentators feel qualified

to tell you that Paul (God) did not actually mean what he said. What he meant

was that God's gift makes salvation available to all. All will have the

opportunity of taking up God's offer of a gift (which "all" do not in fact have) ^

and if they do not they will bum for eternity.

The reason for their gross presumption in qualifying this verse, and the

following verses which we will review, and all other similar passages in other

chapters of Romans, in I Corinthians, in Ephesians, in Philippians, in

Colossians, and the epistle to Timothy and in the book of Revelation, where

Paul (God) has been presumed to have been careless, unclear and, yes,

misleading, is that all do not receive the gift^tlierefore it must mean what they

think it means rather than what it says.

The reason for contending that all do not receive the gift is the numerous

passages in the gospels and epistles such as "Whoever believes and is baptised

will be saved, but whosoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark ---

16:16). There are many others, such as those spoken by Jesus himself,

"Whoever believe in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will ^

not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" (Jn. 3:36).

These are statements of scripture and I accept them, endorse them and

hold them as strongly as anyone. But they are not stand-alone statements.

They are to be read in the context of the whole of the scripture, the New

Testament in particular.

We read with regard to prayer, "And I will do whatever you ask in my

name" (Jn. 14:13). It is then repeated "You may ask me for anything in my

name and I will do it." That appears to be stand-alone, unequivocal,

unconditional. But it is to be read in the context of "If I had cherished sin in

my heart the Lord would not have listened" (Ps. 66:18); and "But when he

159

asks he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of

the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will
receive anything from the Lord;" (Jas. 1:6-7) and "When you ask, you do not

receive, because you ask with wrong motives," (Jas 4:3). The conditions for

asking in prayer cannot be repeated every time the promise is made. Nor can

we expect God to repeat the various stages of his plan and the final outcome

every time he makes a statement to people in this age and generation.

We have seen that there are many ages. The position of those in this age,

and at the end of this age».and the next is that some are saved and some are ^ ^

still under judgement. But there are many statements concerning the final

outcome and these individual pronouncements have to be read in the context

of the whole.

Paul does not need to be corrected by commentators. What he has written,

he has written - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

But, to the chagrin of those who wish he had been clearer, he repeats his

statement! "Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin:

The judgement followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift

followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of

the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those

who receive God's abundant provision of grace and the gift of righteousness

reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."

"Ah" you say, "there it is. Those who receive." Two comments before

moving to the next verse.

1. Objectors presume that those who receive "in (this) life" are the only ones

who receive, which is not so.

2. Possibly (yes, possibly) this portion is dealing with overcoming, or

reigning over sin in this life, this age.

But let us not speculate. Let us go on.

"Consequently, just as the result of one trespasss was condemnation for all

men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings

life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many

160

were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many

will be made righteous."

Who dare qualify that? Who dare presume to suggest that Paul (God) was

unclear and misleading yet again? Who dare demean the redemptive work of

the glorious Son of God by "explaining" that the outcome will be less than he

plainly stated it to be? "The many will be made righteous." God says so.

Surely all will agree that "the many" made righteous cannot be different

from "the many" who were made sinners. Weymouth renders this "the whole

race" in each case, which is the sense of a somewhat loose translation.

Surely, too, all will agree that the whole tenor of the passage is of victory,

of triumph, of Christ having achieved for mankind MUCH MORE (a phrase

which is used five times in the chapter) than was lost in Adam. If more of

mankind were to be lost in Adam than were redeemed in Christ how could

Paul have written this passage as he did? May I ask you to stop and re-read

the passage and then decide what Paul (God) was actually intending to

convey?

I think our problems often stem from only seeing the picture from man's

side. We see humanity, we see them as sinners, we see Calvary, we see the

gospel preached with its message of salvation, conditional on believing; we

see some accept, some reject (and more who never hear) and we conclude that

that is the end of the matter. All this^notwithstanding a body of scripture that ^

this is not the end of the matter.

But let us look at it from God's side.

He created Man. He ordained that sin would be passed down, inherited.

A n ^ kt/io^f*^ -Bat the inevitability of Satan outsmarting Adam and Eve, "God bound all men

over to disobedience." Why? Well this is a digression but a passage from A. y'

‡»
~^~-

E, Saxby's book "God in Creation, Redemption, Judgement and

Consummation" is interesting:

"By revelation we know that the nature and the name of God is love. This

is enough to prove to us that, unless he had foreseen an ultimate issue to his

work which would be worthy of such a terrific process as the destruction of

his handiwork by sin, he could never have planned such a road to the
161

consummation of his desire. What was that desire? It was to have a race of

beings whose experience of their own will being gratified would once and

for all rid them of all further longing to be independent of himself in

their activities. It was to demonstrate through the sufferings of sin to what

that pathway of self will lead, and thus to provide an experience which would

create a loathing for lawlessness in the redeemed race, and instead implant a

love for holiness within them.

"It was further to furnish the race that he had brought into existence with

such a marvellous evidence of his oneness with them in the incarnation and

sacrifice of his Son, that his creatures would be overwhelmed at the vast

expenditure of the Divine nature and resources on behalf of His offspring."

Whatever your opinion of Saxby's view, it is a divinely declared fact that

God plunged humanity into this state of chaos and satanic confusion for a

declared purpose: "so that he may have mercy on them all."

Is it remotely conceivable that this will not be the outcome? If it is not the

outcome, then God is not God and all is lost. "For God did not send his Son

into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (Jn.

3:17). And if the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World then the

world through him will be saved. "The many will be made righteous."

As one person put it, "I contributed nothing to being made a sinner in

² Adam six thousand years ago, and I contributed nothing to being made

righteous in Christ two thousand years ago." God will not permit the sin into

which he consigned man for a period* to frustrate his declared purpose and

design of putting humanity through this hell-on-earth experience and to bring

humanity out again to his ultimate glory.

A parallel "all" passage, which is also qualified by commentators to make

it mean less than it says, is:

2. I Corinthians 15:17-28

You know the statement: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be

made alive" (v 22).

162
Wonderful; glorious. Praise God! But "Ah, no" say the theologians,

"don't get too excited. It doesn't actually mean that." How annoying of Paul

to have been so careless yet again. This is becoming embarrassing!

Accept it. Believe it. Rejoice in it. It's true!

The passage continues, "But each in his turn." You see, it doesn't all

happen at once. The end of this age, or death if that comes first for you, is not

the final curtain. "Christ the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who

belong to him. Then . . ." (Oh? There's more? The preacher never told us.)

"Then, the end will come when he hands over the Kingdom to God the Father

AFTER he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must

reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be

destroyed is death . . . When he has done this, then the Son himself will be

subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be ALL in

ALL" (vv 23-28).

God is life and God is everlasting. Death is simply the absence of life, the

absence of God. Death is abolished, and can only be abolished by God being

all in all. NOT "all in some" for then death would continue to exist. He

alienated his creation for a while and for a purpose and now has it back in its

entirety, enriched to his glory.

One other interesting aspect oftfnschapter^^Ae.^^ase^-Teferred-to^t-as-a.-

^b^^ .jaaE^^^^^nan^J^ is found in ^raes* 45-49 "The first Adam, became a ^ -

" ty^^-^^^ ^^- ^-r'

living being, the last Adam a life giving spirit. The spiritual did not come

first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust

of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are

those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those

who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man,

so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven."

Two men, two federal heads of the human race. The first Adam, the last

Adam; the first man, the second man: the earthly man, the man from heaven.

Jesus, as to his humanity, was neither the second man nor the last man if

we look at all mankind in order of time. How then is he, the man from
heaven, both the second man and the last man?

163

The teaching is important for two reasons: firstly it has nothing to do with

the fall or redemption. It deals with Adam as he was made; perfect, sinless,

but untried and immature. He was the starting point of God's plan in

developing man in his own image. He was "the earthly man" in God's image,

but lacking God's life: a living being. Remember, this is dealing with Adam

as he was created, before the Fall. It was always going to be necessary for a

second man to come, the man from heaven, the last or consummating man,

"the life giving spirit." To give completion to God's work of creation in man,

he had to receive God's life - to be made one with God.

God withheld this part of his work until man had been through sin and out

the other side into repentance, faith and submission. Only then would he be

fit to receive the second man, the life-giving spirit. "He who unites himself to

the Lord is one with him in spirit" (I Cor. 6:17). "To all who received him, to

those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God -

children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision (!) or a husband's

will, but born of God" (Jn. 1:12, 13).

In this context there are only two men. There is the first Adam and the

second Adam, who is also the last man. Only two; no more.

For these are the two men in whom all humanity is included. They are the

federal heads of the human race, which is precisely how Paul was comparing

them in Romans 5. In one all were made sinners; the other "brings life for all

^² men."

I said that this passage deals with both Adams apart from sin, the fall, and

redemption. It refers to the first Adam as he was created, a living being with

consciousness, intellect and emotions. But of course sin had to come into the

world, mankind had to experience for a brief season life left to himself, his

own will, his own ways, his own government. He had to experience the awful

consequences of a conflict of wills in marriage, in crime, in civil war, in world

wars, to be able to appreciate fully the glory and wonder of an eternity lived

voluntarily under the authority and will of a trariscendently wonderful God of

love and grace. So Adam was first formed as the one in whom all were ^

destined to be born under the tyranny of a sinful nature. But "Christ, a lamb

without blemish or defect,. . . chosen before the creation of the world, but. . .

revealed in these last times for you" (I Pet 1: 19,20) was predestined to

redeem and release us from the tyranny of indwelling sin AND then, but only

164

then, to give completion to the work of God by adding God's life to redeemed

man. "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and

blameless in his sight" (Eph. 1:4).

When one sees the truth and function of these two men, in whom all

humanity is constituted, then any thought of part of humanity being estranged

from God for eternity, let alone punished for eternity, is not possible. "For as

in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn

... so that God may be all in all."

3. Ephesians 1:9,10

"And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good

pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times

will have reached their fulfilment - to bring ALL THINGS in heaven and on

earth together under one head, even Christ" (Eph. 1:9,10).

^^J^^²²^> ^gf f^^t <Wy

It is surely inconceiyable);that if Paul (God) had actually meant^the v ,

j, Ä Cn.c^'we i^^o cowrie. 4r C^-r^/'-i^. 'fr-^ o^ie e^'^ v^t/a Cf-^i^L ‡

remnant of all things, or aU=&afcifl=&a&=age=ceme=to^ChBst, he would have ^^ ^,

used such language. Can we seriously read the passages in Romans 5, in I

Corinthians 15 and here in Ephesians I (let alone others we will review later)

and believe that Paul meant less than the whole creation? He stated it clearly

enough in Romans 8, the very first scripture we looked at in chapter one: "The

creation waits in eager anticipation for the sons of God to be revealed. For

the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will

of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated

from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the

children of God" (Rom. 8: 19-21).

Creation was encompassed in Adam and his will and creation was

encompassed in Christ and the victory he wrought by the surrender of his will.

"And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body

of Jesus Christ once for ALL" (Heb. 10:10).

^>T. A(.<s fa^-c/.e^, cL c^/c/i

Man had nothing to do with being made a sinner 6^?QO~years"ag^ and he

i\c~ C^f^a-^'/

had nothing to do with being made righteous S^QOOryeaaS^ago. The time and

order of his entering into that righteousness is another matter. It may be by

faith in this age so avoiding judgement and gaining a "special" salvation ,< ^

which also enables him to qualify as an overcomer and reign with Christ in his

coming Kingdom. Or it may be by an age, or ages, of judgement until he can

165

say "From the depths ofhades I called for help, and you listened to my cry ... x

I have been banished from your sight, yet I will look again towards your holy

temple ... Salvation comes from the Lord" (Jon. 2)

But the final outcome is not in doubt. According to his good pleasure,

when the times will have reached their fulfilment, he will bring ALL things

together under one head, even Christ.

Let us fear if we dare contradict the plain, unqualified statements of

scripture because they do not fit in with our doctrine^ and consequently

presume to qualify them in teaching and preaching to others.

4. Colossians 1: 15-20

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over ALL creation.

For by him ALL things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible

and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL things

were created by him and for him. He is before ALL things, and in him ALL

things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the Church; he is the

beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything (ALL

things, AV) he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have ALL

his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself ALL things,

whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his

blood, shed on the cross."

Eight ALL'S - and not a qualification in sight.

Of course the Church rejoices in the first seven of these eight ALL'S. It

will fiercely and rightly contend that all things were made "by him" (not so

sure about the "for him"), that he was before all things, holds all things

together, has supremacy in all things and especially that all God's fullness is to

be found in Christ.

But it has a problem with the eighth ALL.

Oh, he died for all, bore the sins of all, in that sense reconciled all. But all

do not come to be reconciled because most do not come to Christ in this short

life span and will languish in hell for eternity, beyond his love and his power.

166

The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world and he will not be

frustrated because stubborn sinners, who in any case by his design were born

with sinful natures, deceitful hearts and blind eyes, do not turn to him in this

CTaA-y ht^ce,f^

life. <He said of them himself, "No one can come to me unless the Father, who

sent me, draws him" (Jn. 6:44). By common consent, all are not drawn in this

age. Did God not know this before he "bound all men over to disobedience so

that he may have mercy on them all?" Of course he did. But this age does not

embrace the totality of his plan.

Possibly some readers still have a problem in that the Ephesians and

Colossians scriptures only refer to "things in heaven and things on earth." So

let us move on.

5. Philippians 2:8-11

"He humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a

cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name

that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in

heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus

Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Where is hell? Where are those who die outside of Christ now, and where

are they to be judged? Twentieth century sceptics will point out that hell
cannot be literally under the earth.

No-one knows where hell is. But at the time of Christ and of Paul, and to

some even to this day, hell was believed to be "under the earth." This is

probably why it is also translated "grave" and "pit" on a number of occasions.

The Bible is not a textbook on science and its purpose is not to educate in

scientific subjects but that God may communicate with man. He has to meet

man at man's finite level, so sometimes statements are made which, today,

may be considered unscientific.

For example, Jesus, creator of the sun, said,"He causes his sun to rise on

the evil and the good" (Matt. 5:45). The wise of this age may say "But the sun

does not rise at all. It just appears to rise. In the context of our universe the

sun is stationary. It is our spinning on an axis that makes the sun appear to

rise." All very true. But Jesus was not concerned with fine points. As that

167

168

A l\]0'o^e ca^ -<<u/^> ‡^e^^o ^ £^-rc(. 1'^i.-U'

. t/ > V

^ /^ ^o// S^,^6- <f / ^ /a .'3

generation, and most to follow pre-Galileo, were to understand it, the sun

rose. So Jesus met them on their level.

All who read Paul's letter at Philippi would have understood "under the

earth" to have meant hades. It would have been most misleading of Paul

(God) to have used the phrase "and under the earth" unless it was to

emphasise the all-encompassing, all-inclusive, all-embracing victory of Christ

throughout all creation and that every last creature of his will ultimately

magnify and glorify his holy name. i-foi^ c6.^ a'-^o^' c^o-<^^ w^-i

0^ "7 f -1 ¼- tcc'i <^^ ';‡ ^<2- rA^^t^Aia^^ 3, ftfi^^^ye -

(7 n^fiy

Literally, the text is "in (Greek-ewjthe name of Jesus every knee should

bow." The "at" could have only been introduced because the translator^7 ><

doctrine only permitted them to see reluctant, eternally damned souls

acknowledging Jesus as Lord from their flames. In fact,if all in heaven, earth
and hell are to bow the knee and confess Jesus as Lord in his name, then all at

that time are in ChristnJust as we read when he hands restored creation to the

Father that God may be "all in all." j^^-^P

C^Cii^s. i {‡(.e ‡'*, tZio / --²'c£^---

Concerniflg the phrase at the end of this passage, "to the glory of God the

Father.." 0ne might ask, how can that which is expressly stated to be contrary

to God's pleasure '("Ac ourely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord,-j-take"no'

-^laa&ufft in thft death of the wicked" JSzek. 33- IP and to God's will, ("The

Lord is ... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to

repentance" 2 Pet. 3:9) be to his glory? No reasonable person could contend

this to be so and still expect to retain any credibility before an impartial

audience. Yet eternal damnationists must maintain this-to be-the case - or V.^ ___-²²

^i<^6 Jettison their interpretation on this verse alone. /'^A// / a^ca'~ c'>rLt tk. ls f^ "^

^ - " / k f<» </ £‡ /^/e^s i^-e ^c) deU^ei.

( ^\U i_s n-e-^^f^Ue-iji /S"/^-f/ay

\._lj^ Tks-y j-^t^^-^ 'c/'^/_^ic^<.^

I cannot but believe that those who do not acceptihe plain, surface

teaching of this passage, as well as the plain, surface teaching of the passages

we have reviewed in Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians are so

set in their ways, so inflexible in their minds, so blinkered by doctrine that

nothing will convince them of the total, absolute and all-embracing victory of

Christ.

6. I Timothy 4:9-1\

"This is a trustworth saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we ""‡

c "

^ labour and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the <

Saviour of ALL men, and especially of those who believe.

169

Command and teach these things."

I referred to this scripture in chapter two when recounting my journey out

of what is now, to me, a most terrible insult to the God of Love and Justice -

the doctrine of unending damnation. I referred in particular to the realisation

that "especially" does not mean "exclusively" but almost the opposite. In

chapter ten I attempted to sketch what, to me, is special about salvation for the

believer. I am well aware that this is indeed less than the tip of the iceberg.

Vast and unimaginable glories await those who trust in Christ in this life

which will be missed by those who are not part of the first resurrection but

come to God in later ages.

There are two other poiuts I should like to comment on here. ^

One of the major objections to the truths in this book, and to an

understanding of this verse in particulanare -

if you tell this to unbelievers they won't bother to repent and come to

the Lord

and

- if you believe this you will lose your zeal

and

- why bother to witness to the lost? If they are going to get saved

anyway why go to all this trouble and expense and use of valuable

time to tell them now?

With regard to the first point, I have recounted the story of Fran, and how

she could only come to Christ when this spectre of the Lord she was supposed

to trust as an eternal, unremitting torturer was dispelled. Thomas Allin

recounts in his book "Christ Triumphant" a similar incident. I will not quote

the long conversation he had with the unbeliever but the crux of it was that he u/^- " ^

J(unbelieverf, wanted nothing to do with a God who was supposed to love him

passionately one minute and stop loving him a minute later, that is when he

died.

170

Paul did not lose his zeal. All the scriptures so far in this chapter are from

Paul's epistles, but he also said, "I have become all things to all men so that by

all possible means I might save some" (I Cor. 9:22). Sadhu Sundar Singh/who

fasted for long periods for the salvation of souls and made annual preaching

trips on foot into Tibet at the risk of his life/believed, "The love of God
operates even in hell." I have found that hours of study of this subject make

me even more keen to bring people to Christ so that they may avoid even one

age of 1000 years under judgement - apart from missing the immeasurable

benefits and blessings of knowing him in this life, even if there were no

eternity.

The third category should read again the books of Jeremiah and Daniel.

Jeremiah was told to go and prophesy against Judah although they would

not listen. We preach the gospel first and foremost because we are

commanded to do so; results are God's business. Even if there were no "fruit"

we should still do so if that is God's will and command. And what did Daniel

do when he saw in the book of Jeremiah that the captivity of Judah was for

seventy years and he knew that seventy years had passed? He did not do the

equivalent of sitting in an armchair to watch TV. "I turned to the Lord God

and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and

ashes." The Return had to be prayed into reality. Praying each phase of God's

plan into being is part of our training for reigning with him in the Millennium.

Remember? We are to have power over the nations. Well, we have now, «s- ^^~

-8aaiel4iad, in prayer, i/ t^(^ ^ iff a^v <?<-£/ (S^^'s-e.-^^c i?///^; a^. A-/AO-K&/

ol'-c/. i

Such objections in any case are subjective. As we read in the epistle to

Timothy, "Command and teach these things." God is well able to take care of

the consequences.

7. Romans 11:32

"For God has bound ALL men over to disobedience so that he may have

mercy on them ALL."

Yes, we have come full circle from the first chapter of this book. I hope

the verse means more now than it did then. But just a few more thoughts.

171

This is not an isolated verse lifted from an array of scripture. It is a

climactic verse. It is a summation.

Paul's epistle to the Romans, like a number of his epistles, is in two parts:

a theoretical or teaching section, followed by a practical, exhortational section.

The first section comprises the first eleven chapters and the second section,

chapters twelve to sixteen.

Romans 1.1:32 is a summary of all he has taught in the first part, for all

*i, * /^i rhi ^^~ ^e&Ao^

that follows it.is a doxology.

tA^c c

In the first section he deals progressively with sin, salvation,

sanctification, glorification; then God's plan for Israel as his servant nation, to

be restored for millennial rule.

AND SO ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED.

^n

"The deliverer will come from Zion and turn godliness away from Jacob.

A ‡"^

And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins" (Rom.

11:26,27).

Jacob is not the Church. Jacob is essentially fleshly or natural Israel. <

Paul said two chapters earlier "For I could wish that I myself were cursed

and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own brothers, those of my, own

°rre>" /-e, i^Qi^J<//it^-tAW ti. w,

^_ race." He would not wish to be cut off from Christ for the Church/ This is

natural Israel. (Incidentally, before I came to see the Truth as I have set it out

in this book I had a real problem that Paul would be prepared to be cut off

from Christ for eternity - unendingly. It seemed to me that that would have

been a bigger sacrifice than that of Jesus, who was assured he would see "the

path of life".) He prays that Israel "may be saved" (the Church is comprised of

the saved) and adds "I am a Israelite myself.. . of the tribe of Benjamin."

I do not read here whether the Israelites want to be saved, or of a second

/, ‡, . chance,, or "violation of their freewill". (Actually, only three people truly had >

U^iL^i^/ea"^ x)t^! j ^ ff j y

rfreewilu^ Adam, Eve and Jesus. The rest were born "children of

disobedience.")

"All Israel shall be saved . . . This is my covenant." Hear it. "God is not a
man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should change his mind.

172

Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfil?" (Num.

23:19). Well, does he? "All Israel shall be saved." The Faithful and True has

declared it. C-<^- rf'S^- u^^e^e i^~?

But what of the heathen? Well, God has purposed to have "mercy on them

J.i/tS/' A-^ ^.e- >J<-U Q-^. t^e. ^A.S deiUd^ed., ,Lc tu/,vo

all," ana, as he=faas=xieclareA-h©-wiU save Israel, sp' win he save ALL, the

heathen included.

A E Saxby, in "God's Ultimate" quotes Psalm 2:

"He said to me 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask

of me and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your _

possession."

We have four options:

- the Son did not ask;

- the Son asked but only for some, even though he had shed his blood

for all;

the Son asked for all, but received only some;

- the Son asked for all and received all.

You decide which of the four it is.

"The earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the world and ALL who live

in it (Ps. 24:1).

He bound ALL over to disobedience, to learn the horror and misery of

self-will, self-rule, the multiplied horrors of clashes of wills, the death that this

brings in estrangement from God, his will and his life. But as assuredly as

God is God, he who bound ALL over to disobedience will have

MERCY ON THEM ALL

<so 14^,0 ^o l^-e-. A-C-t/^ Q^ ne<^> <S<)^_o

C^O^ ^-e- KA^ (JbC,^ ^£U,^ ti-tid.^ Ci^^^i.)

'pvi^ ")i?A^; "k.iCLW^1 fU^r^ -^a -k^lif A-^^i- .

-^/t.^ l^c^l^-ecf r^cJ.\fC^tio^^-^^ A^-^

<^v£- ^o-^/ ^\^.s /^Aj^le 7^3 ^i^/c/^^ci^ /^^c?^

^‡r^ci, ^^V-e^uC^^L '7¼^ -Z/<>-/cA-t?^-<)^L<^^-^ /t. ^^ ^iSL^C^-

-.§^£/ -/L^LA 1^/n^^L^'^y ^^ -¼buc.

a^z^. -A^ -^‡u/^<,^/^//-^'5-.s‡ /^ /Xc /¼^^-^.- <,//' cT^^t'/'

A^^ T^ ^u^s u^ ^yA ^^^^ /^^- s^^^

.-^ 15 ^::