A Spiritual Journey Problem Scriptures

A Spiritual Journey into Salvation Issues…Responses to Critics and Problem Scriptures I admit that there are a number of scriptures which seem to indicate unending punishment of the wicked and salvation of only a few. Likewise, my critics must admit that there are a number of scriptures which seem to indicate that all will be saved and that Christ’s salvation is intended to be universal. Every scriptural perspective has its problem scriptures, which must be interpreted somehow to present a comprehensive and cohesive theology. While I addressed some of the major and more difficult scriptures in my original article, this paper will address others as they have been brought to my attention. Some of the most difficult passages are the parables of Jesus. The difficulties arise from his use of hyperbolic speech (which takes issues to the extreme) and differences in culture. There is also the struggle between literalism and symbolism and how far you take the parable in application. Typically, a parable is read symbolically and statements are interpreted (right or wrong) from the reader’s cultural and theological perspective. For example, in the parable discussed below from Luke 13, if one reads the parable literally, one would have to conclude that there is a narrow door to a house, an owner who closes the door who does not know the people outside. All would agree that statements should not be taken literally, but illustratively. However, the parable begins to break down early on. God, who is generally considered the Owner, and who is omniscient, does not know the people outside. We know this is not the case, due to our understanding of God. Therefore, we re-interpret this statement to mean that God does not know them in the sense that they do not have a relationship with him. My point here is that our theology insists that we re-interpret this verse, even though that is not what it says. If our theology said that God was limited in knowledge, we might take this statement more literally. This is an important point, because everything we read, we interpret through the grid of our culture and theology. If our theology is wrong, our interpretation will be wrong. If we do not know our theology is wrong, we will not know our interpretation is wrong. However, if we can admit that we interpret scripture though a tinted lens of theology, culture and tradition, we have taken the first step to uncovering what may be distortions caused by these elements. As we parables through traditional evangelical lenses, we find that virtually every line must be reinterpreted and in so doing, we risk losing its original meaning. Luke 13:22-30. The Narrow Door. Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the Owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But, he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers.’ “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

This passage is frequently interpreted to mean that few will be saved, due primarily to our frame of reference. But, if considered from a contextual perspective, it can be properly understood in a completely different way. The person asking Jesus this question did not have an evangelical theological background. Rather, it was asked within a first century Jewish culture. Therefore, we have to ask, “What did he mean?” “Why did he ask this question?” He would have asked this question because one of the teachings of the Pharisees was that only the Jews would be saved. The Jews viewed themselves as God’s only chosen people. Out of all the nations of the world, the Jews were a few people. They were the few and they were the ones who where going to be saved. The rest of humanity was condemned. In fact, the Jews had a saying, “God created the Gentiles to fuel the fires of hell.” So, the Jews had a very exclusive concept of salvation. The Jews were taught that only a few would be saved. Therefore, the person asking this question was asking whether or not the teaching of the Pharisees was true. “Is it true, as the Pharisees say, that only the few of us Jews will be saved?” This is how the person meant it and how Jesus understood it and answered it. In his response, Jesus first turns the question back on the questioner to make the person asking the question responsible for the salvation of his own soul. He says, “Make sure that you enter.” Don’t worry about everyone else or rely upon your Jewish pedigree. Make every effort that you enter the door to the Kingdom of God. Jesus, as he always does, turns the issue back to how we live, to our life. He then goes on to state that there is an urgency to the issue. And, that the consequences of not entering are horrifying. In answering this question, Jesus also knows what is about to happen and therefore he emphasizes that the time is at hand in which a decision must be made. Jesus answers this by saying the door is narrow, but it is not what you think it is. I am the door. I am the way. You must enter by me. How is the door narrow? In two ways. First, the way is by Jesus—a way which the Jews found extremely narrow. Many Jews turned and went their own way when Jesus said they must eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, if they were to have life. It is not the way they were looking for. Second, it was narrow by time. The opportunity for the Jews to repent and maintain their privileged position within the kingdom of God is quickly coming to an end. There was a narrow corridor of time and it was about to close. Every Jew will soon have to make the decision—either they are for or against Christ--and if you do not choose to enter the door, you will find yourself on the outside looking in. This is made even more clear in the next statement: “We ate and drank with you; you taught in our streets.” This sentence is more problematic than it may at first appear. What does it mean? Modern Christians have interpreted this verse to mean, “We fellowshipped with Christians and we heard your teaching.” However, that is not what it says. If we look at the parable in context, we have an illustration of someone who is asking if the Jews are the only ones who are going to be saved. Jesus says, “Make sure you are, because the day is coming when things will not go as you want. And, at that time, you will not be able to use as an excuse that you were with me. You may have eaten with me, you may have drunk with me, you may have listened to me. But, you did not obey my words. You cannot use your proximity with me as an excuse.” Who can use the excuse given, except those Jews who ate and drank with Jesus and who heard him teach? Can anyone else, really? To answer affirmative, is to inject a modern theological bias. Jesus is addressing his answer directly to those who were around him, who ate and drank with him and who heard him.

Jesus goes on to bring home a point. He says that you will see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom, but you yourselves outside. What did he mean? The only people to whom this phrase meant anything were the Jews. It means nothing to anyone else. They considered themselves to be the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and therefore, God’s children. All others were considered accursed. Yet, Jesus then says that people from all over will come and take their place in the kingdom. He is saying, “the party is over folks. You, who think you are the chosen of God are going to find yourself on the outside. While Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are in the kingdom, you yourselves are going to find yourself outside the kingdom. It is not enough to say you are his children. I can rise up children of Abraham out of stones. In fact, I am going to gather them from all over the world. When you find yourself on the outside, it is also not enough to say that you were in my presence. No, you who think you are the first chosen of God, will find you are the last to enter.” When Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God, he did not speak just about a future place and event. At times, he refers to the future Kingdom, but more often he referred to the Kingdom of God here and now. He said, “The Kingdom of God is at hand” and “The Kingdom of God is within.” Stop looking to the future, begin to live it now on earth in this life. This is not a parable about the end condition of man. Rather, it is a parable about entering the kingdom life here on earth, though it also references the kingdom hereafter. The Jews thought they had God’s blessing. Jesus is saying it is about to be taken away. The door is about to be shut and the time of the Gentiles is coming. The Jew’s special stance with God is about to be lost and given to those who have not sought it. And, when they try to re-take it, they will find it is too late. These words were fulfilled only a few years later as Christianity took the Roman world by storm and the Jews found their homeland destroyed. The Jews, who were the Sacred Guardians of the Word of God found themselves outside looking in, just as the parable says. Over the centuries, there certainly has been much weeping and gnashing of teeth amongst Jews over the apparent abandonment of them by God. This is the purpose of the parable of the Narrow Door. While this interpretation is very different than suggested by most evangelicals, it nonetheless makes complete sense within both the context of the Jewish culture and theology and within the whole of Jesus’ teaching. It is the Grid of evangelical theology which forces the parable to be interpreted as one of eternal destination. I hope that, while you may not agree with me on this interpretation, you can see that it is possible to be interpreted this way. The parable reads much easier when understood in this way. In fact, the teaching of this parable is exactly the opposite of a narrow salvation. Jesus is saying that it is not a few who will be saved, but many from all over the world. Jesus told this parable to demolish the narrow exclusivism of the Jews and to show that the door to the Kingdom of God is about to be opened wide. In the sense of the special choseness of the Jews, it is about to close, but in the sense of the election of God, it is about to be opened. Paul discusses this in Romans 911. So, Jesus says that salvation (Kingdom of God) is not limited to those who think they are the chosen few, but is wide open to many others. One last aspect, which is overlooked by most evangelicals, is the contradiction between this parable and many others of Jesus, if viewed from the traditional perspective. Jesus portrays God as the Father, accepting the prodigal son with open arms when he wants to come home. He is the Good Shepherd, which seeks that lost sheep, he is the one who goes out and seeks that which is lost. How then, can this be the same God who closes the door and shuts his ears to the cries and wails of those who want in? It is inconsistent. That is another reason that this is not a parable about individual salvation, but about the nation of Israel. Finally, there are many parallels between modern fundamental, conservative, evangelical Christianity and Pharisaical Judaism. Both stressed individual accountability, the importance word

of God, the need for personal righteousness. Both believed that they knew the truth, that they were among the chosen few and that everyone else was going to hell. I think it would behoove us to be aware of these similarities and take the warnings Jesus gave to the Pharisees to heart, lest somehow we find ourselves outside of the Kingdom of God when God decides to do something new. Hebrews 6:4-8 For it is impossible to those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned. Again, we must look at this verse in context. The Epistle of the Hebrews was written to Jews who had become Christians. The writer of Hebrews spent many words comparing the Mosaic system with the "better way." Jesus Christ was a "better revelation" (1:1-4), a "better hope," (7:14) a "better Priesthood," (7:20-28) a "better Covenant," (8:6) "better promises," (8:6) "better sacrifices," (9:23) "better possessions," (10:34) "better country," (11:16) "better resurrection." (11:35). In short, if Jew became a Christian, he was leaving behind the old ways and entering a new and living way (10:20). Until the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, Jewish Christians could still participate in the Jewish sacrifices. Part of the purpose of this book was to convince the Hebrews that there was no need to participate in those sacrifices and, in fact, it was counter-productive. Having put their hand to the plow, they should not look back. Nonetheless, some did. Some even gave up following “The Way” and returned to the old ways. This reminds us of Jesus’ parable of the wineskins: No one after tasting the old wine wants the new and if new wine is placed in old wineskins, they burst are are good for nothing. The Kingdom of God, as Jesus preached it, could not fit into the old wineskin of Judaism. It required a new form of worship. The author of Hebrews was issuing a stiff warning to Jews not to return to the old ways. They were incompatible. Remember also that hyperbolic speech was a common form of speech at the time, meaning exaggeration was used to emphasize a point. For example, Jesus said we are to “hate” our parents, etc. if we are to follow him. Jesus also said, “Nothing is impossible with God” when the question was raised how anyone could be saved (Matt. 19:25-26). Therefore, the author of Hebrews may not literally mean that it is “impossible,” but rather, very difficult. If “impossible” is taken literally, that would mean there is no hope for fallen away Christians to repent. Yet, if you think about it, you can probably think of exceptions. I know a number of Christians who fell away and returned later. How then does this verse apply to them? Real life experience indicates that repentance is not always impossible. However, lest I be accused of watering down the meaning of “impossible,” let us assume for the moment that it is impossible for one who falls away to come to repentance. We then end up with a case of someone who was a Christian, but now is not, and whose end is that of being burned. Being burned usually means being subject to judgment. This could be similar to the situation in which Paul turned over to Satan one who had sinned for the destruction of his flesh that his spirit might be saved (I Cor. 5:5). Paul also refers to the Christian who does not have any lasting work, but is saved as through fire (I Cor. 3:15). So, there is a judgment for Christians, which is like being burned.

Therefore, this passage in Hebrews need not be interpreted as loss of salvation by a fallen believer, but rather a warning of impending and dire judgment. The passage also does not say that the person is cursed, but near to being cursed. By denying that which one once accepted, he crucifies Christ again to himself and puts himself in the position of a non-Christian: One who must face corrective judgment for their sins. I discussed the nature of judgment in my first paper. It’s goal is not to destroy the sinner, but to destroy the sin in the sinner. I Corinthians 13. Love Without a doubt, I Corinthians 13 is one of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible. It provides hope, comfort and encouragement. Typically, this passage is applied to our temporal status here on earth—and rightfully so. However, it also has eternal ramifications, which pose no problem for those with a Universal Salvation perspective, but which pose a host of problems for the traditional view. All scripture must be interpreted in light of the nature of God, as revealed to us in Christ. As Christians, we interpret the Old Testament in light of the knowledge revealed in the New Testament. Passages of Judgment must also be understood in light of passages on mercy. The two cannot be mutually exclusive. Judgment and mercy go hand in hand and, ultimately, mercy prevails as Paul discloses in Romans 11:12. When one reads Chapter 13 of I Corinthians, one cannot put aside passages of judgment. Rather, since this chapter presents the most excellent way which will not fail, passages of judgment must be understood in light of this way. This chapter has as its primary purpose to demonstrate the nature of Love. Love is held up to be the most excellent way to live. Love is the nature of God. John tells us that God is Love. Therefore, this chapter is also describing the nature of God. And now I will show you the most excellent way. If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. If I have all power and knowledge of the present and the future then I am virtually equal to God. Yet, if I possessed all this, but did not possess Love, then I gain nothing and, by implication, really have nothing. Likewise, God knows everything and can do anything, but if he does not act in Love, then He gains nothing. In an absolute sense, God can gain nothing since he is complete in and of himself. Yet, we know that God gave his Son so that he would gain humanity back. So, there is something for God to be gained in his plan. Yet, if God does not act in complete accordance with Love, then he has not gained. In fact, by definition (God is Love), God must act in accordance with Love, since it is the essence of his very nature. How one acts in love is described next. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. When reading this passage, one could replace Love with God. For, this is what God is like. Love keeps no record of wrongs. Is it appropriate to say that God keeps no record of wrongs? Is it

consistent to say that Love keeps no record of wrongs, but God does? How can God keep a record of wrongs and still be Love when Love does not do this? Yet, if one accepts the traditional eschatological view, the record of wrongs against each person will persist for eternity. After all, that is the only basis with which God has to punish a person. How can God be consistent with himself while holding wrongs against a person? One might answer that God does not hold the wrongs against the person, but the person persists in disobedience in hell and therefore it is the person himself who retains the wrongs. This is an excellent answer. However, what if, while a person is in hell, he becomes sorrowful for how he lived? Is there no mercy at that time? Does God say, “Sorry, but there is no forgiveness?” Is this consistent? Of course, perhaps there can be no sorrow in hell? However, this is an inconsistent position in and of itself if one takes the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man as an illustration of life after death. (I dealt with this parable in my original paper on Salvation). In this parable, the Rich man was clearly sorrowful and exhibited compassion. Therefore, if one holds to the traditional view of this parable, one must admit the possibility of sorrow and compassion in hell. In the parable of the 10 Virgins (typically interpreted as a passage on the destination of people after death), the Virgins are very sorry for their actions. In several parables, Jesus says there will be much weeping. All of these parables, if interpreted in the traditional way, demonstrate the existence of sorrow after death. If there is sorrow and compassion in hell, is it unreasonable to consider that God might not have compassion as well for those in hell? Love does not rejoice in evil. If one is in torment and has the least bit of sorrow and compassion, would it not also be wrong not to extend the same towards that person. To not do so would be to rejoice in the evil that the person finds himself in. Compassion is an expression of that which is True. Love rejoices with the truth. How can one rejoice with the truth and yet also allow that which is exhibiting Truth to suffer eternally? Is there not an inconsistency? Jesus said that our heavenly father is merciful. How can he be merciful and not extend mercy to one who himself is expressing compassion while suffering? Love always protects. Who? It does not say, who, but it does say Always. Always means at all times in all circumstances. Therefore, by implication, it applies towards all people. If a person can suffer torment in hell forever, how is Love protecting that person? Perhaps he is being protected against worse punishment. Perhaps. But, if hell is eternal torture, then how is keeping a person there forever protecting towards that person? To hold such a view is to severely limit the protection that Love provides. Love always hopes, always perseveres, never fails. These are perhaps the most powerful statements in the entire chapter. The traditional view says there is no hope for an unrepentant sinner after death. If that is the case, then these statements are false. How can hope be eternal if it ends? The chapter ends saying that hope remains. If there is no hope for sinners after death, then there is no love either. This cannot be. There must be hope for the lost after death. Love perseveres and never fails. Jesus tells the parable of the Good Shepherd who seeks the lost sheep. He does not give up until he finds it. God desires that all men be saved. Does God give up just because life has ended here on earth? Is it not inconsistent to say that God perseveres with us while here on earth, but if he is unsuccessful here and now, he gives up? How can God give up, since it is the nature of Love to persevere? To give up, would be to fail. Yet, love never fails. God never fails. He desires all to be saved, will he fail at that or is it not inconsistent to say that Love wants all men to be saved, but if they do not repent within a few short years, Love gives up and has failed at their salvation?

If a person dies without Christ, he may be lost, he may be perished. But, does that preclude the possibility of being found? Is that sinner beyond the reach of God? Beyond the reach of Love? How can it be, if Love never fails? But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. This part of the passage makes reference to the first of the chapter. People have high regard for the gifts of the Spirit. We tend to put them above Love. Paul says they are imperfect. In a sense, they are childish. They do not compare to the more excellent and perfect way of love. What we know now is but partial and unclear. Yet, a time is coming when we will know fully. Is my understanding of Salvation perfect and complete? Absolutely not. I fully admit my frailty and lack of knowledge. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Yet, when one looks at the nature of God, at the excellent way of Love, Ultimate Restoration of all things makes the most sense. It is the way of Love. Everlasting torment of vast hordes of people based upon decisions they made in a short, finite period of time seems inconsistent with the way of Love. The Way of Love seeks to restore, does not delight in evil, it seeks the good of others. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. In what way is Love the greatest? It is the very essence of God. Everything else flows from Love. There is hope because there is love. If there was no love, there would be no hope. But, because there is love, there is hope and it will never come to an end. There is faith because there is love. Without God’s love, we would not have faith in him. Faith springs from love and will never end because love never ends. Gospel passages referring to “hell.” “...anyone who says, “You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matt. 5:22) “…It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” (Matt. 5:29 & 30) “…be afraid of him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matt. 10:28) “…it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell (Matt. 18:9) “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! 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 hell as you are.” (Matt. 23:15) “…You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matt 23:33) “…it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.” (Mark 9:43) “…it is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.” (Mark 9:45) “…It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”” (Mark 9:47-48) “Fear him who, after killing of the body, has the power to throw you into hell.” (Luke 12:5) The issue with these verses is translation and interpretation. The original Greek word translated “hell” is “Gehenna.” Gehenna literally refers to the Valley of Hinnom. This is a notorious valley

southwest of Jerusalem where Ahaz burned children as an offering to the heathen god Molech. (II Chronicles 28:3). Josiah, later, as part of his reforms, eliminated sacrifice in this valley and ordered that it should be an accursed place ever after. (II Kings 23:10). As a result, Gehenna became the public garbage dump. Fires were always smoldering and there were worms infested the filth. The Valley of Hinnom was identified in people’s minds as the place where useless trash and items were destroyed. It would be the loathest of all places to have one’s body thrown, as opposed to having a respectful burial. In fact, the unburned bodies of criminals were thrown into Gehenna. It was an infamous place of death and destruction. Therefore, when Jesus said these words, he was literally referring to the local garbage dump. In other words, it would be better for you to resolve the issue than to be thrown into the trash heap, where the worm never dies and the fire never stops. It was a very graphic description of the most loathsome end. Let’s look at the passage from Matt. 5:21-22. Jesus gives a progression of illustrations to demonstrate the seriousness of negative words and attitudes towards others. He equates it to murder. He says that if you are angry, you are subject to judgment, if you say “you idiot” you could go to the Supreme Court and if you call someone a fool, you may even be thrown into Gehenna like a criminal. He is making the point of how serious anger and demeaning words are. It need not be understood to refer to hell at all. The first rule of any Bible interpretation is to understand what it meant to both the speaker or writer and what it meant to the hearers. It is clear that Jesus referred to the garbage dump and that the people understood it the same way. And, all of the above the passages make perfect sense if understood in this way, without reference to hell. However, it is also important to determine whether or not there was a deeper meaning to the passage. While Jesus was literally referring to the dump, was he speaking metaphorically of hell? First, one has to understand that there is nothing in any of the above texts which necessitate this understanding. The strongest argument for interpreting Gehenna as hell are the passages of Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:5, where it is stated to fear God who can destroy both and soul in Gehenna. However, an honest reading of this shows that God has the power to do that, but does not state that he will. This is akin to when Jesus said that if God so chose, he could raise up sons of Abraham from the stones. God has that power, but he clearly did not choose to do so. Some of these passages, in context, contrast entering life or the kingdom of heaven with being thrown into Gehenna. It is very clear that Jesus was not referring to entering heaven after death, but eternal life in the present. Jesus continually preached that the Kingdom had arrived here on earth and that it was within; that he had come that we might have life abundantly here and now. This is contrasted awful existence or result of living apart from him. There is no inference to hell as we understand it today. The origin of the doctrine of hell was discussed in summary in my original paper. The church adopted the pagan view, which was also widely held by the Pharisees, but not taught in the Old Testament. The reason, in my opinion, that most (but not all) modern translations translate Gehenna as hell is due to tradition. It has been how the church has interpreted these passages for centuries. Therefore, it is not translated “hell” because that is what Jesus said or necessarily meant, but because later generations of Christians re-interpreted his statement to fit their theology. Additional Thoughts

The earliest Christians did not have a clear understanding of many issues. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were debated for centuries until codified in the doctrine of the Trinity. Circumcision, eating of meat sacrificed to idols, and vegetarianism were all controversies in the early church. Exactly what happened after death was also not a clearly defined doctrine. In all of these issues, new believers brought their non-Christian biases with them. In some cases, the church adopted pagan ideas, corrupting the purity of Christ’s ideal. Over time, due to the weight of tradition, truth can get lost in theology. Unfortunately, the doctrine of hell is one of those.