What's the purpose of Israel in history?

[jriccitelli]

I don’t see 70ad as exhausting Gods Judgment, only 'confirming' His messages of judgment. And true Homer, the earliest church fathers would have caught onto the fulfillment, if that is what it was. God told us ‘how’ He judges – with fire, sword, destruction and death – it doesn’t make a difference whether you are Jew, Barbarian or Greek, or 'when', or 'where' it happens. God sets a Day, for everyone. 70ad was a clear warning to ‘all’ and to whomever that God fulfills 'all' His promises and words. So how shall we escape if ‘we’ ignore so great a salvation?

Either Jesus is saying everyone is going to hell, or Marks Gospel is shortening a longer dialog, as most of this text seems to be a combination of thought centered around the teaching about judging others actions, yet aware that all our own actions will also be judged. I consider Jesus repeats or reminds the disciples of things He has already taught, even if brought from other contexts (or, is it Mark that brings it from another context?). The salt losing flavor probably originated in the sermon discourse (Matt.5:13) but we notice the Gehenna references occurring later on in the sermon around 5:30. And yet the same salt idea is used again in Luke 14:34, with a fair amount of application to the call of discipleship as it is in Matt 5:13. So the reference to salt in Mark 9:50 is almost odd in connection to the cost of discipleship and being light unto the world, but not in reference to sacrifices as the application of Mark 9:49 seems to allude to. Everyone could be everyone, but it does not mean everyone will be of the same kind of sacrifice. There is a sacrifice of the saints (a willing sacrifice), and there is one of the unrepentant unbelievers (Jer.12:9, Ezekiel 39:17, Rev. 8:13, 19:21). There are at least two metaphoric fires, one post-mortem and one pre-mortem. One is a trial, a testing of the repentant, the other a destination for those who refuse to repent.

There is no reason to think that ‘all’ the biblical references to: a separating and dividing, the sheep and goats, clean and unclean, etc. can be discarded just because we want to believe hell is The refiners fire.

I think there is harmony with the comparison and contrast of: living sacrifices that are salt unto the world - with the wicked awaiting a day of disaster, the objects of wrath prepared for destruction (Prov.16:4, Rom.9:22). God prepares, or seasons, each one, nothing is rash, also is foretold and all are warned of it's coming. It's up to us to decide what sacrifice we will offer.

Jesus never limited the judgment of man to be put solely on the Jews and restricted to a literal place called Gehenna or the Hinnon valley, we are reminded that just as Sodom, Tyre, Capernaum, and those in Noah’s day were judged, we all, and all sinners alike are guilty and will face judgment, punishment and destruction if we do not repent and offer our sacrifice, willingly.

[steve]

then the earliest church Fathers were woefully misinformed, which is hard to explain how they could be so far off base so soon.

Homer,

The early church seems also to have favored infant baptism, monarchial bishops and eucharistic transubstantiation. Were they capable of so badly misunderstanding the scriptures so soon after the death of the apostles? Apparently.

[dwilkins]

then the earliest church Fathers were woefully misinformed, which is hard to explain how they could be so far off base so soon.

Homer,

The early church seems also to have favored infant baptism, monarchial bishops and eucharistic transubstantiation. Were they capable of so badly misunderstanding the scriptures so soon after the death of the apostles? Apparently.

I've been trying to read through the Ante-Nicene writings lately as well as some books based on them. In my opinion, they included a number of positions that would be impossible if some form or preterism weren't true. There is no label for preterism from the time, and there are certainly some futurist assumptions mixed in as well. But, a number of their assumptions (especially that the Old Testament believers and Christians were in heaven upon death) could only have happened if certain important eschatological events had transpired already. In addition, as I'm sure you are aware, it was commonly assumed in the first few hundred years that the Olivet Discourse (which most now assume is parallel to the content of Revelation) had been fulfilled in the sacking of Jerusalem. It was a few hundred more years until people tried to tackle Revelation in writing, partially because of some question of it canonicity, but there is an assumption by modern futurists that a lack of attribution of the contents of Revelation to the events of Jerusalem is evidence that they didn't interpret it that way. I'd suggest that they didn't interpret it at all for some time, so silence is not an argument on their side. More importantly, the early church almost immediately rejected 2nd Temple Judaism and wrote powerfully against it. Their view of the purpose of Israel in history unquestionably assumed that the role of Israel under the Old Covenant was over. In my opinion, one of the reasons that Dispensationalists are so ignorant of the Ante-Nicene writings is that they can't accept this eclipse of that nation.

Doug

[Paidion]

Thank you very much, Steve, for taking the time from your busy schedule to give me more details concerning your thoughts about Gehenna.

George MacDonald considered "salted with fire" as being the necessity for everyone to be purified. Either they will be "salted" now, or in the next life.

In any case, it seems that the "salting with fire" is positive. For Jesus' very next sentence is:

Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltness, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.

So it seems each of us needs the purifying salt. But some require the more severe purification, and thus the "salting with fire." Those are my thoughts about it.

So, up until now, I have indeed thought of Gehenna as post-death purification. I have presumed "The Lake of Fire" in Revelation to be just another name for "Gehenna."

I appeciate your observation that the Isaiah passage concerning "the worm not dying", etc. refers to conditions in this life, rather than the next. But, as has been pointed out, Jesus often applied OT prophecies in a different way from that which the prophets seemed to intend. So wouldn't it make sense that He might be applying them to post-mortem purification?

Also notice that the total destruction of the earth and heavens in 2 Peter and Jude contrasts greatly with the "destruction" described in Isaiah. The latter is a destruction of the old in order to establish a restored earth, whereas the former is total annihilation. This may have been one of the reasons the early Christians rejected 2 Peter and Jude, and considered them to be inauthentic.

In any case, I would appreciate your thoughts concerning the Lake of Fire, and how this fits into the whole scheme as you understand it.

May God bless you, Steve, and continue to provide you with His enabling grace as you continue your work and teaching. May He continue to fill you with His gentleness and humility combined with firmness and boldness, so that you many induce many to think and learn, and to grow in the grace of our altogether lovely Lord Jesus!

[steve]

Thank you, Paidion,

The lake of fire is what I see as the eschatological "hell" after the future judgment. I see no evidence that it is a place of eternal torment for humans. It is said to be that for the devil and his nearest confederates (Rev.20:10), but my interpretation of Revelation, for the past thirty years or more has been that none of these characters are actual human beings. To "Death and Hades," which are also cast in there (v.14), it seems not to be eternal torment, but, rather, "the Second Death." Then again, "Death and Hades" aren't human beings either. People are cast in there (v.15) without mentioning what their subsequent experience long-term may be.

As you know, I am open to universal reconciliation and seeing the lake of fire as a purging experience. The explanation you, George MacDonald and Parry provide about "salted with fire" makes good sense, it seems to me. Whether it is the only sensible answer I do not know. Those of other views have not, to my knowledge, provided alternative explanations of that verse for me to consider. As I said, I have always found it perplexing. If I never hear an explanation better than the universalist one, it may tip the scales for me.

This brings us back to the identification of Gehenna. If the "seasoned with salt" passage is about Gehenna (as the immediate context seems to support), and if the "salt" statement is about the lake of fire (again, reasonable), then this would seem to undermine my identification of Gehenna with AD70. That is a factor to consider.

If, upon other grounds, however, we could be confident that Gehenna is a reference to AD70, then we would desire to find some way to harmonize these statements. Can this be done? I am not sure. Could it be that the purging in question is national? The removal of the dross in Israel and the survival of the remnant could conceivably be seen as a purging. This might not work as well as the other view you mentioned.

[dwilkins]

Paidon,

You said,

"Also notice that the total destruction of the earth and heavens in 2 Peter and Jude contrasts greatly with the "destruction" described in Isaiah. The latter is a destruction of the old in order to establish a restored earth, whereas the former is total annihilation. This may have been one of the reasons the early Christians rejected 2 Peter and Jude, and considered them to be inauthentic."

I don't think there is any foundation for seeing 2 Peter (or Jude) as the annihilation of physical creation. In the history of Israel (and in their writings about other nations in distress) language like this is used to describe invasion or military disaster. Speaking of the purpose of Israel in history, one of the things we might take away from their writings on other nations' destinies in Isaiah is that the hermeneutic the early church used was divorced from an ability to appreciate the Hebrew point of view. Since Stoics did indeed teach a physical dissolution of the earth, it was quite natural for those who were opposed to Jews generally in the 2nd Century to fall back on this understanding instead of going back to the Old Testament to define the terminology.

Doug

[Paidion]

I don't think there is any foundation for seeing 2 Peter (or Jude) as the annihilation of physical creation.

It appears that I made a mistake concerning Jude. But I can't see what else these passages from 2 Peter can mean, unless we explain them away as being symbolic of something else:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
(2 Peter 3:10-13)

[Paidion]

The early church seems also to have favored infant baptism, monarchial bishops and eucharistic transubstantiation.

I don't think so, if by "the early church" you refer to the church prior to 200 A.D.

Some have been misled by the supposed writings of Ignatius, who lived from 30 A.D. to 107 A.D. It is "the universal opinion of critics"* that eight of the fifteen letters ascribed to him are spurious. Others have the opinion (which I share) that either NO genuine writings of Ignatius remain in our day, or if some of the letters ascribed to Ingatius were actually written by him, they were heavily interpolated.

I know of no other writings prior to 200 A.D which "favored infant baptism, monarchial bishops and eucharistic transubstantiation." Or even one of these three.

* Introduction to the letters of Ignatius, Volume 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers.

[dwilkins]

I don't think there is any foundation for seeing 2 Peter (or Jude) as the annihilation of physical creation.

It appears that I made a mistake concerning Jude. But I can't see what else these passages from 2 Peter can mean, unless we explain them away as being symbolic of something else:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
(2 Peter 3:10-13)

In the Old Testament prophets phrases such as "the sky rolled up like a scroll" (Isa 34) have to do with national disaster through military defeat. The term translated "elements" in 2nd Peter 3 is used to refer to rudimentary parts of the Mosaic worship system throughout the NT. It never (I suppose with the possible exception of 2nd Peter 3) refers to the physical universe or planet earth. The temple, in the first century, was referred to as the "heaven and earth". Romans and Hebrews are clear that the temple was designed to physically replicate the heavens, and heaven itself. When it says that "the earth and its works will be judged", which works would those be? Earthquakes? Is it possible that the whole point was judgment against the religious system of the day, the works of which were eventually a rabid murdering of the prophets and followers of God? It is not outside of the normal use of the imagery, especially when combined with similar passages, to see that passage as talking about judgment against the current temple based religious system that existed at the time of the writing of 2 Peter.

The connection to the purpose of Israel in history is clear. They had a role that included designed obsolescence. Deuteronomy 32 (a passage quoted by Jesus, Peter, and Paul) is clear that at some point in the future the nation would become so degenerate that Gentiles would be recruited in the last generation to make the apostate portion of the nation jealous, and then the apostate portion of the nation would be put to the sword. Then, the nation under the Old Covenant would be done away with so that the faithful remnant would represent God under the New Covenant. This is the eschatology (or, end time) of Israel.

Doug

[jriccitelli]

In any case, it seems that the "salting with fire" is positive. For Jesus' very next sentence is:
Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltness, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another (Paidion)

Salted with fire ‘has’ to be good or positive? Maybe if you’re the one who’s going to eat it.
Remember people are thrown into hell, that action demonstrates a rejection and anger on Gods part. You carefully put gold in a furnace, big difference. Do you even see that Jesus uses the same verbatim salt applications earlier in different contexts, one that refers to discipleship and cost?
National or personal, nations are comprised of ‘humans’. God never condemns anything on earth except 'humans'. Nations of them, handfuls of them, or individuals, it doesn’t matter. We all sin together and generally collectively, as we all affect each other and all move in relatively complimentary sins together (complimenting each other on our sins, look at gangster and hip hop culture, homosexuality, drug culture, etc.). I see no reason to think national judgments mean we are clear of the individual judgments, OT or NT.
God bless, and have a repentive day.