Book Review: The Fire That Consumes (Edward W. Fudge)

The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment by Edward W. Fudge

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I have discussed, read and heard from people on this topic at time in the past ten years, but finally decided to jump into a very detailed study of the issue of final punishment from a more annihilationist position. Having been raised in a typical traditional view of hell as conscious torment, I was intrigued to see what the "other side" had to say. I found this book to be very, VERY thorough, and very enlightening. I am not sure how much more could be say, but in nearly 500 pages, Fudge covers an incredible amount of ground.

Universalism: All means ALL! (Pt 4)

As we continue our brief look at the doctrine of universalism and their belief that God wishes, desires and sets out to accomplish the ultimate salvation of every single human on earth, I now turn attention to some passages that have a definite "limited" scope of redemption. We've already discussed and looked at many misused passages where the Greek word for "all" has a limited scope and meaning, so we know that the original language in these instances are not as far reaching as the universalist would like to imply, but what about some of the more clearer passages that show redemption was intended to be more restrictive?

Let us turn our attention to one of the earliest passages regarding the prophecy of the coming messiah and his promised redemption. Isaiah 53 tells us much about the coming Messiah and the suffering he would do and the ultimate redemption he would accomplish. Now, look closely at the scope of his redemption:

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

So, we are told he would come, and by his sacrifice, he shall bare the sins of every single human? All? No..., he would bare the sins of many. Looking at the Hebrew word used here for many, which is rab, none of the meanings for this word could be stretched to apply to every single person, it has a limited scope in mind. So, this was the prophesied hope given to Israel. Also, note, in this redemption plan, it is noted that he shall "see his seed." Some may try to argue that we are all God's children, we are all his seed, and therefore this obviously applies to every single person. However it takes little effort to prove otherwise. Flip back to the garden, and God's declaration of the promise of a savior back then.

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen. 3:14-15)

So, we have two seeds mentioned, the seed of the women (speaking directly of Jesus and ultimately those that are his) and the seed of the serpent (and ultimately those who are his). We'll come back to this in a moment.

Now, jump back to the Greek Scriptures, and what are we told there? First, we have Joseph being told of his wife's pregnancy, and the angel tells him:

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matt. 1:21)

His people? Not every single person, just those that are his? But aren't all people on Earth the children of God, therefore his people? Obviously not, as we have already seen there are two seed lines. On top of that, we find Jesus later making a distinct delineation between the two lines and their fathers when speaking with some Jewish leaders:

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. (John 8:38-44)

So, Jesus divides the lines into the children of his Father, and the children of the devil, similar to what we have seen in Genesis.

Jesus divides again using different languages when he speaks of the story of the Good Shepherd, he divides mankind into those that are his sheep and those that are not, and then plainly states:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (John 10:11, 15)

...and then he further explains in verses 24 and following what it is he gives to these sheep of his:

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

So, if Jesus says he lays his life down for the sheep only...then he tells these Jews that they are not his sheep, and that further, he gives only his sheep eternal life (where are non-sheep promised eternal life?), and again, these men being addressed are plainly told they are not part of the sheep; then how can we twist this to say he laid down his life and paid the price to give every single person in the world, without exception, eternal life? Was Jesus confused about what he was come to do, or was he just lying to them?

In an echo of the passages we looked at in Isaiah, even Jesus himself repeats

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45)

At another time, when he was establishing the actual new covenant, he states:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24)

This of course leads us to look at the same language used later in Matthew, where Jesus' people are again to referred to as the sheep, while the rest are referred to as the goats, when they come to the judgment and are separated:

Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world...“Then he will say to those on his left (the goats), ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels...And these (goats) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous (sheeps) into eternal life. (Matt. 25:31-46)

So, again, the language of blessing for sheep, and not for others (goats) is evident; so how can we possibly make these things out to say salvation is universally applied to every single member of mankind, and that all will be ultimately given eternal, blessed life?

While there are a couple other stray, seemingly "universal" sounding verses about Jesus dying for the whole world and the like, this part is already too long to jump into that. The Bible can't be promoting both a limited and unlimited scope as truth, and hopefully the evidence we've seen for a limited view has been persuasive enough to cause a further study into these other seemingly universal sounding words. We'll look into those in the next part...Lord willing.

Until then....

Universalism: All means ALL! (Pt 3)

Let us look now at the covenantal aspects that some of these universalism interpreters seem to be totally missing. I am going to keep this really simple, and will be assuming most readers already understand much of this (in other words, time and space will not be given to expound or defend this very deeply).

The Old Testament tells us of God's dealing with his people; a special people chosen out of all the nations. A small group in comparison to many nations, but a group in which God showed special treatment to. They had the oracles and sacraments of God; they had his laws, his words, he special blessings (and cursings). They were HIS people unlike any other nation.

God had this special relationship with them, and established what is known as the Covenant, with them. They lived under the blessings of this Covenant, and received things that no other people received from God. One of the promises God gave to his people was that of a Messiah. A savior who would come and set them free. They, the people of God, this small group of people, were given a special promise of redemption by their creator, that no other nation was promised.

When this savior came upon the scene, he came first and foremost to his people; that was his mission, to his people, the covenant people of God (Matt. 15:22-24). His mission was to them, as their Messiah. He collected and taught the twelve, and then sent them only out to these same covenant people (Matt. 10).

Sure, this is painting with broad strokes, but I am trying to keep it simple, since that is what is required here. Sure, I know the promise of the Gentiles coming in was prophesied, and the eventual divorce and destruction of God's once covenant people had already been foretold (Deut. 32, Isaiah 65-66, etc.); but for now, the playing out that was going on at the time of Jesus, was the Messiah reaching out to HIS chosen and covenanted people.

So, his mission was limited to that of the nation that was God's covenanted people. He was their savior, he had come for them, and he sent forth apostles to them for their repentance. The focal point of Jesus' ministry while he was here, was to those covenanted people of God.

The Jews likewise had in their mind that it was them and them alone who God was for. Even the Apostles, who knew who Jesus was, were still under the impression he was there solely to bless and save the Jews. Those who converted from the Jewish ways to become followers of Jesus, likewise thought he was solely concerned with his covenanted people of old. We know even Peter had some issues with this, and had a hard time when Paul was called into the scene to be the preacher unto the Gentiles.

This is (or should be) common knowledge to those reading the Bible. This is the culture and understanding of those living at that time. The Jews were IT when it came to a relationship with the creator, the Gentiles were NOT. So, you have these preachers (the Apostles) now burst on the scene with claims that not only was Jesus the sacrifice and savior of the Covenant people, but that this salvation was also now being offered to those outside the old covenanted people. The gospel went to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). A hard pill to swallow as a Jewish man of that time frame.

So, with this understanding in your hand now, and I hope the universalists can get their head around this historical truth; is it so hard to understand that when it is proclaimed by a teacher that "Jesus died for all," it was not a declaration of Jesus' sacrifice being for every single member of mankind, but that it was a direct address to, a direct attack against, the idea that if Jesus was the Messiah (as many of these former Jews fully believed now), that his sacrifice was not simply only for the Jews as they still tended to think, but that he had died for...you guessed it..."all manner of men," both Jews AND Gentiles. They had to be taught and convinced that now, in this gospel age, the old ways of Judaism were quickly passing away, and that salvation was being offered to all men everywhere, all types of men, not just the Jews. Again, a hard pill to swallow, but the reality that needed to be preached.

That is why in part one I could declare (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that I AM a universalist also. I believe that the gospel message went from being for one small group of the world's population, to now being declared to be applicable to all of mankind...all manner of men everywhere, and not just the Jews any longer. The gospel and sacrifice was for all...in it's proper understanding as we have seen.

This leads us right back to our look at one of the universalist's scriptures we discussed...let us see how, in context, this is exactly what Paul was also saying here in 1 Timothy 2:1-8:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all (types of) men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all (types of) men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all (types), to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

Paul makes it a special point to note that he has been called to be an Apostles unto the Gentiles, again, letting them know that the message and promises are no longer to be thought of as strictly applying only to the single group of God's original covenant people, but now the message, hope, redemption and promises are for all (types of) men.

Paul is in no way saying that God was wishing for every single solitary member of the human race to be saved, as that would be contradictory to so many other passages...some of which we will look at in the next section.

Jump on over to PART 4

Universalism: All means ALL! (Pt 2)

OK, picking up where I left off the other day, let us delve into the original languages some; something most universalist promoters I have talked to do not like to do, or deny what is being said. Either they are trying to be dishonest to the text to fit their position, or they are just not wanting to admit that the English translation can only mean what it means in English as we use it today.

There are two main root words that are usually used and translated in some form of the English term all. Anyone with an interlinear Bible, Strong concordance, or electronic Bible program would have no problem quickly looking this up:

The first of these words is Strong's number 3650 - holos

In the KJV, it has been translated "all" 65 times, "whole" 43 times, "every whit" 2 times, and "altogether" 1 time

The meaning is listed as - all, whole, completely and would be more of what we would consider a word for all-inclusive, the whole of something.

The second word is Strong's numbered 3956 - pas

In the KJV, this one has been translated "all" 748 times, "all things" 170, "every" 117 times, "all men" 41 times, "whosoever" 31 times, "everyone" 28 times, "whole" 12 times, "all manner of" 11 times, and "every man" 11 times.

The meaning of this word is two-fold:

When used in the context of an individual:
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

When used in reference to a large number, or collectively (of a group, etc.):
2a) some of all types

So, in a nutshell, holos would mean whole, all-inclusive, the whole of what ever is the topic; pas would depend on what the topic is, but in the case of speaking of a large number or group, is speaking of part of them, all-types of the group; not all-inclusive or every single one, but a selection of them. Now, with the original understanding in hand, let us go examine some of the usages in Scripture. Let us start where we left off in part one, and put one of those verses I used to the test:

And Jesus went about all (holo) Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of (pas) sickness and all manner of (pas) disease among the people. (Matt. 4:23)

So, we have both words used here, "holo" meaning whole, meaning he did go throughout all of the land, but did he heal every single disease and sickness in the place? No, the word "pas" tells us he healed all kind and types of them, but not every single one without exclusion. Let us look at the very next verse for an example of translation confusion for those not knowing the original word and usage:

And his fame went throughout all (holo) Syria: and they brought unto him all (pas) sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Again, both words are used, but the English translates slightly different, even though the same root words are used in the same manner. He was known throughout the entire, whole land of Syria, and they brought to him "pas" - speaking of a large group of people - so "all types" or "all manner of" sick people; not every single sick person without exception.

There are so many numerous examples I could use, but for the sake of brevity, I will stop with these examples (look further, here are just a few more, Matt. 14:35; 24:14; 26:56; Mark 12:33; 12:44).

Lets turn back to one of the key passages the universalists like to toss around, which is 1 Tim. 2:4, which states about God "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." But now, let us put it back into it's context and look closer:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 1-4)

God wills for all men to be saved...and you guessed it, every single use of "all" in these series of verses in pas. How are we to understand the use of pas here; look at the context, he is talking about groups of people...kings...and all those in authority; therefore pas refers to "all manner" of these men, and not every single solitary one of them. So a more proper rendering of this verse would be (in summary), "pray for kings and those in authority, for God wills for all manner of men to be saved (even the rulers, in other words). Hmmmmmmmm.

The few verses that follow and finish up this section of Paul's address are even more revealing, bringing this entire section into more understanding from a covenantal standpoint, but I will save that for next time.

Continue to part 3

Universalism: All means ALL! (Pt 1)

I AM A UNIVERSALIST! There you go, I said it, go run and spread the news of my heretical views....or, stick around and let me explain.

I had another slight run in with a handful of people who would fall into a universalist understanding of salvation last week, and so it sparked the idea of laying down some of my thoughts here (since they never listen long enough to consider what is being said). Let me first make a brief, and probably too wide of a brush definition of what is the normal understanding of universalism.

Universalism is at the basic root, the belief that since God will not be thwarted by Satan, and Satan will win nothing, that God has a plan to take it all back. God desires that all mankind be saved (1 Tim 2:4). He therefore sent His Son Jesus to lay down his life and provide a blood covering for all, and since Jesus' blood is effective, all will be saved.

So, how am I a universalist? I believe God wishes all to be saved, and sent his Son to die for all. The key difference lies in the understanding of the Greek word lying behind the English translation "all." Sadly, I will not get deeper into this till part two...so don't go spreading rumors about me yet.

Oddly, when you try to bring up what the little word all means in the original language, they close out everything you have to say, it seems. They start throwing out things like, "stop speaking to me of man made understandings," as if I am using tricks of man to distort the word of God; but isn't that backwards thinking? After all, the Scriptures in question come from a Greek and Hebrew language background that has been translated as closely as possible to an English understanding, by man. So the English Bible translation is the only real "man-made" part of the equation, and is only as good as the translators were (and we know how that can be ;-}).

The universalist crowd would, and have said, all means all; implying it means all-inclusive when applied to whatever the topic is. So, when it says God wishes all to be saved, it means He wishes all people, without exclusion of any, every single individual, to be eternally saved. When Jesus died for all, it means He died for all men, without exclusion, every single person to have ever lived. They don't get that from looking at the original language, or from even considering the usage of the word in Scriptures that won't fit this understanding they have, they simply just keep repeating, ALL MEANS ALL.

I agree, all does mean all; but all does not always mean all-inclusive. It doesn't in English, nor does it in the original language, and when you consider the Scriptures within their proper Covenantal context, it makes no sense at all when you try to force that upon it.

Now before I break out the original languages and get all theological and technical, let us just simply consider in this first part, how the English word itself is used, to see some examples of variances in use that even we have for it in our day and time, and how it can mean something different in different scenarios, contradicting their understanding with their own modern language.

"Man, I tossed and turned and was up all night." So, are we saying that we did not sleep a single moment of the entire night? Sure, we could be saying that is literally true, but is that commonly what we mean?

"I wish you'd stop, you're stay on my case about that all the time." So, not a minute goes by when the person is not on the other person's case about the issue?

"I think about you all the time." Not a minute goes by that I am not thinking about you?

"All of America was glued to their TV that night." Every single individual in America was watching TV that night?

"When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." (Matt. 2:3) Every single person in Jerusalem was troubled?

"Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matt. 3:5-6) So, we are to understand that every single person of Judea and every single person in every region of Jordan went and got baptized by John?

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (Matt. 4:8) So, from the top of that mountain Jesus saw every single kingdom on the whole globe (or does world always mean whole globe...a topic for another day).

I could go on and on, but you hopefully get the point. Context (in sentence structure as well as cultural/covenantal use) plays a huge part of how a word is to be understood, and we still to this day use simple translational understandings with such words as all.

Let me end by revealing the thrust of my argument, and set it up for part two of this series. While I wish, as I am sure many of you do too, that translators were always consistent in translation, this is not always so, and if taken strictly at English face value, can lead to confusions such as the universalists make. I leave you with but one single example of the same exact same Greek word for all being translated in a more proper manner.

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. (Matt. 4:23)

The same single little Greek word is here translated as the phrase "all manner of" which is exactly the thrust of the word more often than not.

Click to get to Part 2