An unnamed friend and I are having an ongoing conversation about eternal judgment. Right now we're discussing the possibility of a post-mortem opportunity for repentance & saving faith.
I think others will be interested in reading some of what I'm saying here (I'm an arrogant little SOB like that, as you know). :)
However, as I don't have permission (I haven't asked), I'm not posting any of the other half of the conversation, except to say that my friend raised points from the following passages from Hebrews.
--------
Re: Hebrews 9:27
I'm really not sure what this verse means. And I'm not just saying that because what it seems to mean on the surface is something I don't like or seems confusing. I really just don't know what it might seem to mean on the surface. The context isn't terribly helpful. Prisca-or-whoever :) is talking about the atonment work of Christ by comparison to the Day of Atonement in ancient Israelite religion. Christ's atonement is superior to Aaron's atonement. Then there's this analogy at the end of the chapter: "Just as human beings are appointed to die once, and after this - judgment, so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many [cf. Isa 53:12], He will appear a second time to those who eagerly await Him: not to bear sin, but to bring salvation [lit. "without sin, but for salvation"]." (9:27-28, cf. ESV & NET). I guess there's a parallel between human beings' dying once and Christ's having been offered once (in sacrificial death). I suppose that parallel is that they both die only once--so Christ won't be offered a second time, anymore than human beings die a second time. (Aside: John's concept of "the second death" isn't in play here--I wouldn't claim that this is a denial of that notion.) This plays well into the overall context: whereas the high priest must perform the Atonement sacrifice annually at Yom Kippur, Christ's atonement sacrifice is once-for-all-time. Now what can the parallel be between judgment after death for human beings and Christ's returning to bring salvation after His sacrifice? I guess they're related at least in that Christ's return is connected to the judgment. The context into which Christ brings salvation (to whom? to those who eagerly await Him) is the judgment of human beings who have died. I'm not sure that these insights fully capture the thrust of the analogy, though.
A couple observations & suggestions: "human beings" is plural here (anthropois), in "it's appointed for human beings to die once and after this - judgment". So (I think) the author is thinking about judgment on the scope of a universal judgment -- on the last day, coinciding with the return of Christ -- rather than individual judgments. The popular (I'm not sure it's biblical) picture that when an individual dies they immediately meet Christ and are judged and sorted into Heaven/Hell, or Paradise/Hades. (Reformed Protestant Orthodoxy has it, as you might remember from Historic Xian Belief that the righteous/unrighteous are sorted into Paradise/Hades as intermediate states prior to the general resurrection and final judgment which decides who is part of the New Heavens/New Earth/New Jerusalem and who is cast into the lake of fire). Further, in the context of this passage, the point of the analogy (as far as I can make it out) is that human beings don't die a second time; I don't see that it teaches any clear doctrine regarding what may or may not happen in between death and judgment (i.e., whether or not there is any further opportunity for repentance). If you like, it is implied/assumed by the author(ess) here that judgment comes after (not before) death. But I don't think we can force on this verse support of the doctrine that judgment comes *immediately* after death.
So in conclusion, this is not a very clear verse to start with, and what it does seem to say isn't in the context of answering the question whether or not there is a post-mortem opportunity for repentance prior to final judgment. Using it to support the denial that there is such an opportunity is poor proof-texting, in my opinion.
---------
Re: Hebrews 3
vv. 1 - 6 -- Comparison of Jesus & Moses. Jesus superior to Moses.
vv. 7 - 19 -- Exposition of Psalm 95 (7b-11)
Here we have a warning to Christians, based on a warning to the Israelite community at the time of the Psalmist, with a comparison to the story of the rebellion of the first generation of Israelites in the wilderness. The warning is that just as the rebellion, disobeidence, and lack of faith (that God would keep His promise to give Israel the land if they'd just walk into it) of the ancient Israelites provoked God to deny them entrance into the Promised Land ("God's rest"), so too rebellion, disobedience, and lack of faith on the part of members of the church community (in the first century and by extension in the twenty-first century) may/will provoke God to deny them entrance into "God's rest". What is rebellion, disobedience, and lack of faith in the first-century context? "Forsaking the living God" (by turning to some form of idolatry? perhaps: legalism, angel-worship, paganism, or submission to the emperor cult?) in connection with forsaking an initial confidence/faith in Christ's sufficiency. The author of Hebrews exhorts the first-century Christians to persevere to the end in their reliance on Christ for salvation, and not to seek security from some other source (some form of idolatry on the side). The Christians are warned that giving up on their faith/reliance on Christ alone for salvation would mean that they would not be able to enter "God's rest". (A theology of Hebrews is needed to explicate the local concept of "God's rest" in this book--my memory isn't good enough to give an exposition on the concept here. Eternal salvation/life with God after death/judgment is probably a part of the concept here, but I suspect there is some realized eschatology--really some now/not yet or double-fulfillment eschatology--at work in this concept as well.)
What does this passage have to say for our purposes in the present discussion? Well, there is a very real warning of the possibility of not entering God's rest (if you like, of "losing one's salvation"). And there is a historical reminder that some (a generation of unfaithful Israelites) in the past have actually forfeited God's rest. So can we conclude that this passage teaches that some will definitely not enter God's rest? My answer: a tentative maybe/I'm not so sure. There is definitately a warning that such a fate is possible, but the possibility doesn't logically necessitate the actuality for anyone. Now, one might argue that the passage teaches a condition: "If you do not persevere in faith to the end, you will not enter God's rest", and that we have independent knowledge that some have not persevered to the end; hence, we can deduce that some will not enter God's rest. I'd buy that--although we might have to examine further what it would mean that some have not persevered to the end, and also to examine further how absolutely certain we really are that this is a true premise. The best textual argument in this passage for accepting this premise is true is the example of the ancient Israelites who provoked God and did not enter the Promised Land. But I would argue that the Promised Land--"God's rest" in their context--and "God's rest" in the first-century context of the writer of Hebrews are non-identical. Indeed, it is conceivable that some ancient Hebrews who lived in Moses' generation and forfeited "God's rest" in their lifetime might enjoy some other form of rest in an eternal, post-mortem, or post-resurrection context. I am open to argument that this conceivability is not an actual possibility for other reasons (grounded in scriptural exegesis of other passages).
------------
Re: Hebrews 4
The warning & comparison to Moses' generation continues.
v.1 - the promise of entering God's rest still stands. (For whom? For those of us yet living? For those who lived before Christ also? The clear intent of the author's claim here is that the promise stands for "you", the living audience of the epistle. No claim is made regarding the eternal fate or post-mortem options of dead Israelites)
v.2 - in order for the message (euangelion) to benefit, one must listen with faith
vv.3&4 - Those who have believed enter God's rest. God's rest is established from the foundation of the world, in connection with the Sabbath rest of God in Genesis 1.
vv.5-7 -- The offer of God's rest stands: "today", even while some have already failed to enter it (the author of Hebrews on the face of it is more ready to equate the rest forfeited by Moses' generation with the rest offered to the first-century Christians)
vv.8-10 -- Entering the land with Joshua was *not* the true rest of Israel; for God speaks (through the psalmist) of entering rest later on (perhaps even to Israelites in the land in David's time?); the true Sabbath rest for the people of God is participation in God's 7th-day rest from all His works. I take this to mean that it is an eternal rest, at the end of time, when all God's plans for creation of the heavens and earth have come to completion, and the Body of Christ has finished its work of representing the Son of God until He returns. (I theologize rather than straightforwardly exegete here; but then I take it the author of Hebrews does likewise! This is certainly not a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.)
vv.11-13 -- Exhortation: strive to enter God's rest; hold fast, do not fall into the disobedience of unfaith. God knows the truth of every person's heart/mind/intentions/thoughts, and all are thus accountable to God. We cannot hide our faith or lack thereof from Him.
vv.14-16 -- We don't walk alone in our striving & perseverence in faith. Rather, Jesus has walked before us, and represents us in the heavenly tabernacle as our high priest even now, so that we have grace as needed--for resisting temptation to unfaith and (I hope) for restoration from unfaith, with repentance.
As you say there is some sense of urgency in Chs. 3-4. But on the other hand the force of the "Today" in 4:7 is to remind the readers of the epistle that the offer still stands today, and did not expire between Joshua and David. The force does not seem, at least primarily, to be "you have today to choose faith because tomorrow you might have to face judgment". In preaching from this passage I would probably emphasize the ongoing extension of grace & opportunity from God and God-in-Christ to humanity; not an immanent threat that this extension of grace & opportunity will be cut off. In this passage at least, I do not see that doctrine being taught. This is not to say that faith or unfaith do not matter -- not at all! Rather, that God is gracious to those who struggle in faith, and (I believe) God is gracious even to those who have fallen into unfaith, so that they may yet be restored. Is such restoration possible only before, or also after death? Is it possible only before, or also after the descent of the New Jerusalem and the destruction of death? These are significant questions to which I don't want to claim to have biblical answers--not yet, at any rate.
----------
----------
You say: "I find it hard to believe that God in laying out the message of salvation would leave out the important detail of a choice after this life."
I respond: I can sympathize with your reasoning. But this is still an argument from silence. That doesn't mean your wrong. Or that such reasoning is bad theology. But it is going beyond simple exegesis and proclamation of the Word of God written.
Such reasoning indeed makes me hesitant, if not skeptical, to affirm as doctrine that there is a post-mortem opportunity for repentance. But I wouldn't want to rule it out or condemn such a belief as heresy, either.
---
Another question (I put this into my interlocutor's mouth): "If God can or will save some people after death, why would God, or why should God's servants, even bother with extending an offer of salvation to living people? Especially as it might seem that after death many would be more inclined to accept such an offer, as they are no longer being tempted by all the things that now attract them away from a righteous relationship to God (i.e. 'Sex, Drugs, & Rock&Roll')?"
Response: Because God & the members of Christ's body love the world and the people of the world, and yearn for the restoration of right relationships between human beings, between human beings and God, and between human beings and the ecosystem. God is, and Christians ought to be, interested in more than just someone's "eternal destiny" in the sense of "Heaven or Hell". Not that deathbed conversions are impossible or of no value. But God actually cares about the world and about our lives and relationships and the health of all of the above right now, during our lifetime. God has sent us into the world to do some of the work of restoration here and now, as a foretaste of the grand and complete restoration at the End. God's Kingdom is already here in the Church. At least, it's supposed to be.
---
Further points:
Of course we are responsible as servants of Christ and members of His Body to continue the work He started on earth, and that is first and foremost proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Everyone is responsible for their own response to the message. And the Holy Spirit is doing His own thing in concert with our efforts, and perhaps sometimes apart from our efforts. It is not our responsibility to make others love God or choose repentance. Each individual is responsible for his/her own choices.
But that doesn't mean that some form of restorationism is not true. It does mean (and I suppose this is your point) that the truth of restorationism is irrelevant to our responsibility to preach the Gospel, and to each individual's own responsibility to hear & respond to it. (And we should not confuse these two domains of responsibility.)
-
Eternal separation from God is preached by Jesus and elsewhere in the scriptures as a possibility. A real possibility. I don't know that that--by itself--must prevent bible-believing Christians from hoping that Hell will be empty. Again, if we have good reason to think that some people have failed to meet certain conditions, and if we have good reason further to think that meeting certain conditions is necessary for avoiding Hell as an eternal and permanent destiny, then we have good reason to think Hell will not be empty. But we both agree that we are not responsible to discern the eternal destiny of any concrete individuals. The reality of Hell--regarldess of the number of its occupants--is certainly one impetus to us to preach the Gospel.
---
---
---
I think there's lots of significant agreement between us here; I also think there's room for more fruitful discussion. Feel free please to bring up more relevant passages.
Or if you want to take a hiatus from this conversation for a while, that's OK. :) It doesn't have to be constant and unceasing to be ongoing.
And here is the rest of it.
------
"Make me a channel of Your Peace."
-St. Francis
Read the full post.
Posts
