|
"How I shall admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how
exult, when I behold so many kings. . . groaning in the lowest abyss
of darkness, so many magistrates who persecuted the name of the
Lord, liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against
Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in raging fire."
(de Spectaculis, 30) Thank God most people who have been taught the
doctrine of eternal torment would never say such things! Most
are simply victims of Church theologians, who themselves are victims
of a long succession of eternal tormentists. Such writings can only
come from one who is "in the gall of bitterness" (Acts 8:23).
According to Strong's Concordance, the word translated "gall" is
actually the poppy plant. Wormwood is opium that comes from the
poppy. Jesus refused to drink it even on the cross (Matt. 27:34), in
order to teach us not to harbor bitterness in our hearts, no matter
how trying our circumstances become. Bitterness drugs the mind and
prevents us from putting on the mind of Christ. It prevents us from
truly understanding the law of Jubilee, which is necessary to
inherit the first resurrection.
The Roman
government often persecuted the early Christians. Many were
tortured, killed, and often fed to the lions for sport. Most of the
early Church looked to Jesus' example in His lamb-like attitude
toward their persecutors. However, some of them turned bitter.
Tertullian, quoted earlier, gloried in the thought that someday God
would torture his adversaries and give them what they deserved. He
did not have the mind of Christ. He did not know the power of
forgiveness and love. In His famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said
in Matthew 5,
43 You have heard that it was said,
"You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy." 44
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who
persecute you 45 in order that you may be sons of your
Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the
evil and the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you
love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the
tax-gatherers do the same? 47 And if you greet your
brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even
the Gentiles do the same? 48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as
your heavenly Father is perfect.
When Jesus speaks
of "sons," it is a Hebrew idiom. The Hebrew idiom in this case means
that "sons" are those who imitate their fathers. Sons of Abraham are
those who imitate his faith. The sons of the heavenly Father are
those who do good to their enemies, even as God does by sending rain
and sunshine upon both the righteous and the unrighteous. This is
God's character trait in His genes, which He desires to pass down to
His children.
Yes, of course,
this means that the just will always be at a disadvantage in the
world. Do not the wolves always have a natural advantage over the
sheep? Someone wrote a poem, a take-off on the words of Jesus
(above):
The rain? It raineth every day A little wry
humor can often take the edge off our natural disadvantage. But the
Achan Doctrine would scold God for His attitude toward His enemies.
Those with the spirit of Achan would exult in the sinners' utter
destruction or eternal torture.
This carnal attitude was foreign to the great
Christians of the past who believed in the restoration of all
things. Men like Gregory of Nyassa, the man described as "the man
enchanted with Christ" (The Fathers of the Eastern Church, p. 169).
His treatise on 1 Cor. 15:28 is magnificent. (See
Appendix
3 .) One only needs to read the
writings of the early Church to see a tremendous difference in
attitude between the restorationists and the champions of eternal
torment who troubled them.
Wolves in the Church It would be naive
to claim that all who were restorationists were godly, while all
eternal tormentists were scoundrels. Yet in reading Church history
it is surprisingly easy to pick out the wolves among the sheep just
by the testimony of their lives. Jesus said, "Ye shall know them by
their fruits (Matt. 7:16)," and it is true.
Both the sheep
and the wolf leaders were, of course, highly intelligent, educated,
and scholarly. But some were genuinely filled with the love of God
toward others and manifested all the fruits of the Spirit in their
character. A few of these were Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyassa, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
These all taught the restoration of all things.
On the other
hand, there were also a few major Church leaders who were more akin
to ravenous wolves, bitingly sarcastic and bitter, such as
Tertullian (quoted above), whose poison pen dripped with bitter
eloquence. Others were just as bad. The historians do not hesitate
to list Jerome and Theophilus of Alexandria as other prime examples
of such Church leaders.
Jerome tailored
his doctrinal beliefs to conform to Rome's version of orthodoxy. His
desire for recognition was the only thing that was said to exceed
his scholarship. When confronted with the question of Arianism,
instead of searching the Scriptures for truth, he simply wrote to
the bishop of Rome, asking what position he should adopt. His
attitude was much like a modern attorney today, whose job it is to
defend a client regardless of his guilt or innocence. Jerome was one
of the foremost scholars of his day, but he chose to use that
scholarship like a lawyer paid to argue his client's case, not as an
honest truth seeker.
Historians
describe Theophilus of Alexandria as an "unprincipled man" having a
"base mind" and not hesitating to make false accusations in order to
further his political agenda. For many years Theophilus believed and
taught that all men would be saved. This was, in fact, taught by all
his predecessors in Alexandria from the beginning. But one day an
issue came up where Theophilus wrote a treatise, agreeing with
Origen that God was a Spirit and did not have a corporeal form. The
"Scetic" monks of Egypt, who disagreed violently with this
assertion, confronted him with it, and Theophilus out of fear
suddenly proclaimed his agreement with the monks.
Later, a wealthy
widow donated a large sum to Isidorus, the superintendent of the
almshouse for the church in Alexandria-under the condition that
Theophilus not be told about it. She was well aware of Theophilus'
flagrant misuse of funds and wanted the money to be spent
specifically on clothing for poor women, rather than lofty building
projects. Theophilus heard of it, flew into a rage, and banished
Isidorus by false accusations.
It happened that Isidorus was a great admirer of
Origen. So to get even with Isidorus, Theophilus called together a
synod of a few loyal bishops, condemned Origen as a heretic, and
forbade anyone henceforth to read his works. When a group of 300
Nitrian monks refused to acquiesce in denouncing Origen, he then
sent armed men to attack and kill them. Eighty of these monks,
however, escaped, making their way to Constantinople, appealing to
the bishop there, John Chrysostom, who, they knew, was a man of
great integrity. John was horrified, and after hearing the case, he
sided with the monks. However, Theophilus succeeded by outrageous
accusations to depose John and send him into exile. He ultimately
drove John to his death. These accusations were gleefully translated
into Latin by Jerome, who, according to historian, Hans von
Campenhausen, "lost all feeling of decency and veracity" (The
Fathers of the Latin Church, p. 178.) This controversy aroused suspicion against Origen
in Rome also, particularly when a new Roman bishop was elected with
the support of Jerome's friends. Origen was thus opposed by the new
bishop and the West in general. And so Origen, a man of integrity,
love, and kindness was slandered and cursed by the basest of men,
wolves in sheep's clothing. And why? It was NOT for his teaching on
the restoration of all things! It was because he believed
that God was a spirit (John 4:24). Yet this later became the
pretext by which the Church would denounce Origen and legitimize the
doctrine of eternal torment for sinners.
The Achan
Doctrine thus became the orthodox position of the Church. Even so,
it would be another 150 years before there were enough bishops
opposed to restoration teaching to condemn it by a formal Church
Council.
Church Councils Condemn
Origen Origen was
finally condemned in the Fifth General Council in 553 A.D., attended
by only 148 bishops. Even so, nothing was specifically said about
Origen's beliefs regarding the salvation of all men. It was left to
the Emperor Justinian (527-565 AD) to condemn Origen's belief in the
restoration of all things. He did so specifically in Anathema
IX,
"If anyone says
or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only
temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration
will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be
anathema."
The Church Council itself spelled out fifteen
Anathemas against Origen, but none of them condemned his teaching
that all men would be saved. In fact, they also said nothing about
Origen's belief that even demons would ultimately be restored.
This is particularly striking, since the Emperor himself had done
so, and the Church Council would certainly have been pressured to
follow his lead. Ironically, the same Church Council, in Session
1, claimed to follow "in every way" the writings of
the two Gregorys, who taught that all men would be
saved:
"We further declare that we hold fast to the
decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy
Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian,
Gregory of Nyassa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of
Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings
on the true faith."
In Donald Attwater's book, Saints of the
East,
page xvii, he writes about these early Church leaders and their
beliefs:
"Origen and Gregory of Nyassa and
many others among the Eastern Fathers believed that He came
to save all spiritual creatures, not men only. He did not shed His
blood on earth at Jerusalem for sin alone; He offered Himself as a
gift on the high altar of Heaven to save the angels and all the
universe, of which this little corner of
earth is the smallest part." In Robert Payne's book, Fathers of the Eastern
Church, pp.
145 and 146, he affirms with more clarity the things Gregory and
others taught:
"So always,
Gregory [of Nyassa] celebrates the grandeur and nobility of men,
with such charity that he could bring himself to believe that even
the Prince of Darkness would once more be restored to his seat
beside the throne of God. For Gregory, as for Origen, there is
universal salvation." It is clear,
then, that the Fifth Church Council in 543 A.D. understood what they
were condemning. However, they seem to have been rather selective in
their condemnations, choosing to anathematize Origen and Theodore,
but not Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyassa, or Gregory of
Nazianzus. All of these early Church Councils (from 325 AD on) were
primarily concerned with questions of the nature of God and of
Christ, rather than the ultimate fate of the unbelieving sinners. If
an average Christian today were to read the records of those
Councils, it would often seem like endless hair-splitting of
subjects that have no practical bearing on one's Christian life.
Thus, while Origen and all of his writings were anathematized, the
specific doctrines mentioned deal with lesser issues than the
salvation of all men and all angels.
In Canon 1 of the Seventh Church Council in 692 AD,
held in the city of Trullo, the Council upheld the decision of the
Fifth Church Council (above) against Origen. Of this we read in
Aristenus' notes on the Council in the book, Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. XIV, p. 361, "The fifth
[Council] was held in the time of Justinian the Great at
Constantinople against the crazy Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus,
who remodeled the Greek figments, and stupidly said that the same
bodies they had joined with them would not rise again; and that
Paradise was not subject to the appreciation of the sense, and
that it was not from God, and that Adam was not formed in flesh,
and that there would be an end of punishments, and a restitution
of the devils to their pristine state, and other innumerable
insane blasphemies." Their main
concern seems to be over the inclusion of demons or devils in the
restoration of all things. It is unfortunate that no one-including
Origen and the others-made a distinction between man and satanic
beings in the final restoration. One may believe in the restoration
of all men without going so far as to believe in the restoration of
"devils" as well. These are really separate issues, but no one in
those days seemed to really know the difference between
reconciliation, resurrection, salvation, and
justification.
Distinctions in Terminology Justification is a legal term relevant to
sinners. Sinners need justification before the law.
Reconciliation is a term that applies to
enemies. Enemies need to be reconciled to each other.
Salvation is a broad term often translated
"deliverance," and is generally needed by those who are in imminent
danger. The word also carries the meaning of "health," or
"well-being," and in this sense the danger is death from disease or
condition of mortality.
Resurrection is something that the dead
need.
While these terms
are all generally related to each other, Paul uses the terms
carefully-and so should we. One very good illustration of Paul's
terminology is found in Romans 5:9 and 10, where we read,
9 Much more then, having now been
justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the
wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we
were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death
of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be
saved by His
life. Note that the blood of Jesus justifies us sinners,
because His blood paid the price for our sin, thereby satisfying the
demands of the law. As enemies, we are then reconciled to God
through His death. Finally, we are "saved from the wrath of
God" by
His life. The wrath of God, i.e., judgment for sin, is ultimately
the death penalty (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23). We are saved from that
penalty of sin by Jesus' resurrection to life. All of these concepts
operate harmoniously in our lives, but they have different
functions.
What About Satan? Romans 5:18 speaks of the justification of "all
MEN," yet says nothing of Satan being justified. The idea that Satan
ever would be "justified" is foreign to the Scriptures. 1 John 2:2
says that the blood of Jesus is the propitiation (covering) for the
sins of the whole world, but it is apparent that John was speaking
of the habitable world of "all MEN," not of Satan or demonic beings.
Hence, Jesus' blood is never applied to Satan.
1 Timothy 4:10
says God is the Savior of "all MEN," again saying nothing about
angels or spiritual beings. As we showed earlier, salvation deals
with those in danger of death, or "the wrath of God." Being
justified by Jesus' blood, we are then saved by His resurrection
life. Because salvation is based upon justification by His blood, we
cannot say that Satan ever will be "saved" either.
Neither do the
Scriptures tell us that Satan will be "resurrected."
It is only when we get into Colossians 1:16-20 that
the apostle speaks of reconciling "ALL THINGS" that have been
created, including things in earth and in heaven. We never find Paul
telling us that the created universe will be "saved" or "justified."
It is always "reconciled." Reconciliation always speaks of enemies,
those who oppose each other as adversaries. The term "Satan"
literally means Adversary, which is practically synonymous with
"Enemy." And so, when Paul wrote about ta panta, "THE ALL" being reconciled to God, whether they were
beings in heaven or in earth, it seems self-evident that he spoke of
both heavenly beings and earthly beings. Satan and men are portrayed
in the Bible as being adversarial to God until such time as we are
reconciled to Him. For men, this includes justification. For Satan,
it does not. Therefore, the reconciliation of all things in heaven
takes a different path from reconciling all men on earth.
It was commonly
believed in the early Church that Satan and his hosts were fallen
angels who had originally been subject to God. Today, others are
exploring different possibilities. Some say that Satan is merely a
personification of man's fallen nature and the works of the flesh.
Others say that Satan is indeed a separate spiritual entity, but
that Satan was created to be God's adversary from the
beginning.
1 John 3:8 says
he sinned from the beginning, and John 8:44 says he was a murder
from the beginning. We also know from Isaiah 45:7 that God creates
evil. Isaiah 45 is the great chapter on the sovereignty of God, and
this is part of the proof God gives, showing that evil is not out of
God's control. God does, of course, use evil for good purpose, for
we know that to us all things work together for good. Hence, we are
to give thanks to God in ALL things (1 Thess. 5:18), not just for
the "good" things.
Jude 6 speaks of
angels who left their first estate. This is speaking of the
situation in Genesis 6:1-4 leading up to the flood, not the fall of
angels prior to the creation of Adam. The NASV renders Jude 6 as
follows:
6 And angels who did not keep their own
domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal
bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great
day.
This refers to
those who apparently intermarried with the daughters of men,
producing giants in the earth, as we read in the account of Genesis
6.
Likewise, in Ezekiel 28 we have the most well-known
passage that has been interpreted to mean that Satan was originally
a good and powerful angel. Yet this passage is clearly speaking of
"the leader of Tyre," who is specifically
said to be a MAN.
2 Son of man, say to the leader
of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD, Because your heart is lifted
up, and you have said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods, in
the heart of the seas; yet you are a man
[awdawm, "ADAM," or "man"] and not God, although you
make your heart like the heart of God- From verse 12 and on, the prophet speaks about
"the king of Tyre" in terms that seem to be referring to a situation in the
garden of Eden. Verses 13-15 tell us,
13 You were in Eden, the garden of
God; every precious stone was your covering: the ruby, the topaz,
and the diamond; the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; the lapis
lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; and the gold, the
workmanship of your settings and sockets, was in you. On the day
that you were created they were prepared. 14 You
were the anointed cherub who covers, and I placed you
there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in
the midst of the stones of fire. 15 You were blameless in your ways from
the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in
you.
Although it has
been commonly believed for a long time that this passage is
referring to Satan, it is actually a comparison between the king of
Tyre and Adam himself in the garden of Eden. Adam was perfect in the
day he was created. He walked with God on the holy mountain
(kingdom) and among the "stones of fire." In other words, Adam had
full access to the presence of God and all its glory.
God had also given Adam dominion over all the
earth-hence, he was the "anointed cherub who covers." A cherub does
not necessarily have to be an angelic being. Adam was a cherub in
that pristine state prior to his fall. Though he was created with a
physical body, that body was not subject to the limitations of the
flesh prior to his fall. His body was much like Jesus'
post-resurrection body. I believe Adam originally had the ability to
move freely between heaven and earth, or between the spiritual
dimension and the earthly.
Another point to
consider is whether or not angels have a free will. The only way
Satan could be a fallen angel is if he were an independent agent
with a free will, having the ability to rebel against God. If Satan
really did rebel against God in this manner, then we have to ask
ourselves why he would create angels with the ability to sin, and
then not make provision for their salvation, as he did for man. Of
course, if the angelic rebellion took place without God's prior
knowledge, then it brings into question the very power and
sovereignty of God.
It seems to me
that the fallen angel theory creates more serious problems than it
solves. When we study the history of religious thought in ancient
times, especially in the Greek-speaking world, it seems that the
people spent much time trying to explain how a good God could create
such a mess upon the earth. In trying to separate God from any and
all responsibility for evil, it was necessary to give all evil or
sinful beings a totally free will. While this seemed to justify God,
it did so at the expense of His sovereignty.
The Greek philosophers believed that spirit was
good and matter was evil. From this basic assumption, they decided
that a good God could never create evil matter. So they postulated
that an evil god, called the Demiurge, created matter. He was like
the Satan of other religions. While this view succeeded in sparing
God from any responsibility for evil in the world, they also deposed
God as Creator. And in all this, they still did not solve the
underlying problem, Who created the Demiurge? Scripture clearly
tells us that God created all things. John 1:1 and 2 identifies the
Creator (Logos) with Jesus Christ, not with Satan or a fictitious
Demiurge. If God created Satan, and Satan is evil, then God created
evil. Even if God created Satan good, but gave him the freedom to
fall, the divine law still would hold God responsible. This we will
show in our next chapter.
And so,
regardless of the antiquity of this belief in fallen angels, I do
not think it is warranted. It seems to me to be a belief that was
more apt to be accepted in a Greek culture, and the early Church
leaders were unable to break free of their cultural mindset in this
matter.
It is beyond our
scope here to delve further into these different views. However, let
us say that if Satan is a fallen angel, as the majority have
believed since the days of the early Church, then the weight of
evidence shifts slightly in support of the view that Satan will at
some time be restored to his original place. On the other hand, if
Satan was created to be God's adversary from the beginning, then
once his purpose has been fulfilled, there is reason to believe he
will be eradicated when his purpose has been fulfilled and when all
things are reconciled.Clement of Alexandria in the second century
A.D., who was Origen's teacher and head of the Church in Alexandria,
wrote in his commentary on 1 John 2:2,
"He, indeed, saves all; but some He
saves converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow
voluntarily He saves with dignity of honour; so that 'every
knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, of things on earth,
and things under the earth'-THAT IS, ANGELS AND MEN." Clement followed
the common belief that Satan and his hosts were "fallen angels." And
so he argued that the only beings "in heaven" who needed
reconciliation were the FALLEN angels, who were in an adversarial
relationship with God. There is obviously no need to reconcile
angels who never fell. But Clement goes beyond reconciliation by
saying God "saves" them. I would dispute this
terminology.
In his commentary, Clement quoted Paul's statement
in Philippians 2:10 that "every knee should bow." He took this to
mean that all men and all the fallen angels would bow to God, at
which time God would save them all. However, in view of the fact
that Paul never says elsewhere that fallen angels are "saved" or
"justified," Clement's conclusion is really only an assumption. Paul
was quoting from Isaiah 45:23, where God says,
23 "I have sworn by Myself, the word has gone
forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to
Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear
allegiance." 24 They will say of Me, "Only in the LORD are
righteousness and strength." Men will come to Him, and all who were
angry at Him shall be put to shame. 25 In the LORD all the offspring of
Israel will be justified, and will glory.
Notice that in the same passage all the seed of
Israel is to be justified. It says nothing whereby we might justify
Satan. When Paul quotes this passage in Philippians 2, he adds as
his commentary, "of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and
under the earth." I do not dispute Paul's inspired writings, of
course. I merely point out that Paul focused his attention on every
knee bowing, saying that this goes beyond the justification of all
Israel (or even of all men). Paul included all angels and men in his
statement, and this is consistent with Revelation 5:13, where every
creature in both heaven and in earth are shown to be giving glory to
God.
On the other hand, we must also ask ourselves the
critical question: Does this also refer to every living creature
that ever lived? Will every dog, lion, and mosquito also be
resurrected to bow the knee to God at the end of all time? Obviously
not, for God resurrects only mankind. In fact, Psalm 22:29 seems to
indicate precisely the opposite, saying, "All those who go down
to the dust will bow before Him, even he who cannot keep his soul
alive." From the
beginning, God said that Adam would surely die if he sinned. This
was the judgment of God, and no one could escape his mortality,
except through the prescribed Biblical path in Christ. Psalm 22:29
seems to indicate that death is God's way of forcing all men to bow
before Him. They bow the knee in death. Death proves that all men
are subject to God, no matter what they do and no matter what they
believe about themselves. Death is the final trump card that ends
the game of life.
Paul takes this
theme and appears to reinterpret it to mean that all things in both
heaven and earth will bow their knee in glorifying God. It does not
appear to be about death, but about life and restoration. And yet,
the Scriptures clearly teach us that the path to life is through
death. True believers know that we are to die daily to self-will and
be subject to God. Such death is bowing the knee to God and
glorifying His name. Believers undergo this "second death" in their
lifetime, while the rest must undergo the "second death" in a future
age. But either way, death is the only path to life. The fire of God
operates in our lives today as we submit to the law and judgment of
God in the process of sanctification and purification.
So is Paul really
reinterpreting Isaiah 45:23, or is he merely telling us that the end
of this death process is life? All will indeed bow the knee, but the
reconciliation of all things will not take place apart from
judgment, or the fire of God. Death is the process by which life is
dispensed to all creation. God will not simply say, "Well, boys will
be boys," and then give life to all, regardless of the way they
lived their lives on earth. He will give life only after all have
bowed the knee and confessed that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory
of God.
If this is the
case, then what about angels or satanic hosts who are spiritual
beings? This is the real question at hand. If Satan is purely an
adversary and was possibly created as such from the beginning, then
it follows that there is no good in Satan. Hence, when he is cast
into the lake of fire, there is no spiritual gold in him to be
purified. In this way he is unlike mankind. Man is to be purified as
gold and silver in the furnace of affliction, but the resulting
salvation comes only because there was some gold or silver in the
lump of metal to begin with. All else is burned up, leaving that
which is good. In the case of Satan, one would be hard pressed to
prove that there is any good in him that would survive the fiery
trial.
Here again, if Satan were a fallen angel, then one
might have some basis for argument that there is something good in
him that could be saved, for one would have to admit that Satan was
originally good. So here is where we must discuss the meaning of
reconciliation as it is used to describe
"all things" in heaven and in earth.
The Limits of Reconciliation There are many passages where Paul speaks of
reconciling all things in both heaven and in earth. But where Paul
appears to choose his words carefully, those after him in the early
Church made no real distinction between reconciliation, salvation,
and justification. It is apparent from Philippians 2 that all angels
and men will indeed bow their knee to Jesus Christ, for this is
something that enemies do when they have been fully
defeated, subdued, or subjected to God. Every tongue must confess
that He is Lord. But technically, this does not tell us precisely
what Christ will do with them thereafter.
When Paul deals
with the widest scope of the creation itself, he says it will be
reconciled to God, implying that it is presently at enmity with God.
That is, the creation is out of harmony with the nature and
character of God. It is in a state of rebellion, or revolt. Not only
would this include people, but land, sea, and air itself. Pollution
and unhealthful living conditions are all out of step with the
character of God. Ungodly men have claimed large portions of
creation for their own purposes and have subjected it to unrighteous
laws. But in the Tabernacles Age there will be an administrative
change, and all things will begin to be subdued to the Kingdom of
God and the law of Jesus Christ.
To reconcile creation, then, is to bring the
creation itself into subjection to the laws of God. This includes
inanimate objects, as well as animals, birds, and fish. This does
NOT mean that animals, birds, fish, or rocks must be
justified or even saved. God is going to
reconcile them. Satan, demons, devils, etc. (no matter how
one understands their nature) are also part of God's creation and
will be reconciled, but
nowhere are we told that Satan will be justified. Neither will Satan
be saved.
Some years ago a
man asked me the question: "Will bugs be saved?" His wife was
horrified and embarrassed that he would ask such a silly question,
but I treated it like a serious question. After all, if all things
in heaven and earth will be reconciled to God, does this mean that
every dog, elephant, and mosquito will be raised from the dead and
saved? If one believes in the idea of transmigration of souls,
commonly called "reincarnation," then one might extend salvation to
dogs, which are at present, according to that view, just unfortunate
souls in a lower state of spiritual evolution.
However, I do not hold this belief, nor do I
believe that all dogs will be saved, even though I do believe that
dogs will be reconciled as a part of creation. That is,
when creation is reconciled to God, there will no longer be
adversity between any of God's creatures. Isaiah 11:6-9 tells
us,
6 And the wolf will dwell with the
lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and
the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will
lead them. 7 Also the cow and the bear will graze;
their young will lie down together; and the lion will eat straw
like the ox. 8 And the nursing child will play by the
hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the
viper's den. 9 They will not hurt or destroy in all
My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of
the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah paints for us a picture of the
reconciliation of all creation. No doubt it is symbolic of people,
but I believe it also has reference to actual animals living on
earth in the ages to come, prior to the final Creation Jubilee. It
appears that in the reconciliation God will change the diet of the
predatory animals, so that lions "will eat straw like the
ox." But this does
not necessarily mean that all the lions of past millennia will be
raised from the dead and receive salvation. The same would hold true
with mosquitoes and flies, hopefully, or else the earth might be
literally overrun with these pests.
If God is not bound to raise these dead pests from
the dead in the reconciliation of all things, then I suggest that
God will simply keep a certain number of animals, birds, and fish on
the earth in the ages to come for the purpose of beautification and
companionship. It is doubtful if He will retain every pest and
noxious weed that currently grows, for these seem to be the result
of Adam's sin and the curse upon the ground which came from it (Gen.
3:17). Likewise, pests and harmful bacteria currently are a major
part of the diet of birds and fish. If their diets are changed like
that of the ox and lion, then perhaps such harmful creatures may be
eliminated altogether. To reverse the curse, then, would appear to
mean the elimination of these harmful creatures, which came upon the
earth after the fall of man. Hence, the
reconciliation of creation would be to restore harmony to creation
and reverse the effects of Adam's fall.
God is under no
obligation to raise past animals from the dead, harmful or
otherwise. There is no indication that dogs and cats, once dead,
ever would be raised from the dead, although it may perhaps be
conceivable that God would raise certain ones from the dead for the
sake of happiness of their previous owners. We are really not told
in the Bible, but God is a Creator and life-giver by nature. He
delights to make His children happy. There is no reason to think
that God would not or could not "resurrect" some animals from the
dead, if He so chose to do so to beautify the earth and to make His
children happy. But this still could not be regarded as
justification or salvation as defined in the Bible. Even so, this is
mere speculation and, perhaps, a bit of wishful thinking. The bottom
line is that we do not know for sure what God will do, but we know
that life will be happy and harmonious.
Will there be
animals in the Kingdom of God during the time of the restoration of
all things? Most certainly, for God created all things "very good"
from the beginning, and there is no reason to think that God has
changed His mind. But will those animals be immortal? It might be
the case that the very docile lion whose diet is changed to straw
might not be immortal, even though he is reconciled to God. However,
it would seem to me that, ultimately, death would be abolished
totally from the universe, in the sense that there will be no more
death.
For man, this
means all will be raised from the dead, never to die again. For the
animals, it would appear that those chosen to live on the earth in
the ages to come will remain alive and not die. Most likely they all
will be vegetarian, and their digestive system will change
considerably, no longer needing insects as part of the food chain.
It is difficult to conceive the massive changes that would have to
take place just in this regard, because of the delicate "balance of
nature" that currently exists, but we know that this would not
present much of a problem with a sovereign God.
In regard to
plant life, it is also apparent that ferns and oak trees will not be
resurrected, justified, or saved. The earth would be a barren place
without plant life, so it is safe to assume that plant life will
exist in the restoration of all things. It would appear that animals
would eat plant life. So when death is abolished, this does not
include plant life. Plants die when animals eat them. The
restoration of all things will no doubt mean that plant life will be
more lush, nutritious, and absolutely disease-free.
The concept of
the restoration of all things means that the earth is not going to
be destroyed, as so many today have been told. It was created for a
purpose, and that purpose will be fulfilled. It was meant to house
the Kingdom of God and be a kind of headquarters or beginning point
for the Kingdom of God in the universe. The fire that is to come
upon the earth will be the Holy Spirit's baptism that will cleanse
the earth and bring all into harmony with the purposes of God. God
will not fail in His purpose for creation. His word has gone forth,
and it will not return to Him void.
How is Satan Reconciled? Once we come to terms with the meaning of
reconciliation, and see that it does not necessarily include
resurrection, justification, or salvation, then we must ask
ourselves if the early Church leaders went too far in their belief
of universal salvation. Paul says of God in 1 Timothy 2:4
that "He desires [thelo, "wills"] all MEN to be
saved," but he says nothing of dogs. Later in the same book,
Paul tells Timothy in 4:10 that God "is the Savior of all
MEN, especially of believers." John 2:2 says that He "is the
propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those
of the whole WORLD." It is
clear from these and many other statements that salvation is
applicable to mankind and to the world of people. The term is never
applied to animals, rocks and trees, or to Satan and fallen
angels.
These are the Biblical tools by which you, the
reader, may draw your own conclusion as to the fate of those other
than mankind. Technically, the Bible is silent on this, but we
suggest that if we define reconciliation beyond certain limits
allowable by Scriptural context, we would be compelled to include
dogs and mosquitoes in the plan of salvation, along with Satan and
his hosts.
As for Satan or
demons and devils, we do not believe that the kingdom of darkness
and sin will forever co-exist with God and His Kingdom. In the end
there will be nothing left that is not put in subjection to Christ.
Either God will reconcile creation by ending their existence
altogether, or He will reconcile them as a part of creation in
whatever way He may see fit. History will not end with the universe
divided between good and evil, light and darkness, God and Satan,
heaven and hell. This was the view of Persian Dualism, adopted by
the Manichean sect in the third and fourth century A.D.
Unfortunately,
the great Augustine had been a member of the Manichean sect for
eight years prior to his conversion in 386 A.D. While he did
renounce most of its beliefs, he never freed himself from the root
belief that good and evil would co-exist in eternity, and that God
would not truly reconcile all of creation to Himself. Thus, he saw
history ending with all mankind separated into heaven or hell.
Essentially, he rejected the truth stated plainly in Hebrews 2:8 and
9,
8 Thou hast put all things in
subjection under His [Christ's] feet. For in subjecting all
things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to Him. But now
we do not yet see all things subjected to Him. While one may argue the point one way or the other
from a doctrinal position, we here in this book are concerned with
the more practical and relevant question of whether all men
or only a relatively small fraction of mankind
shall be saved. We do not believe that evil must exist forever, for
that is a doctrine of Persian Dualism, rather than of Christianity.
At the end of time, one way or the other, the light of God's Kingdom
will fill the entire universe, leaving no room for anything or
anyone outside of God's
dominion.
|