Podcast: Special

In “Let there be Light!” Nathan explores how natural beauty symbolizes the beauty of God’s nature now encountered in Christ.

Before he raised Lazarus from the dead, Jesus gave his disciples a lesson in how to live forever.

In “How to Live Forever” Nathan contrasts Jesus’ promise to keep his sheep safe with the subsequent death of one of them.

Christian nationalism is an example of when making good is bad because we must use fallen tactics to make people “good.”

In “When Making Good is Bad,” Kent and Nathan explore what the Bible has to say about Christian Nationalism.

“When Making Good is Bad” Episode Notes

Nathan and Kent discuss how Christian growth is from good to excellent.

In “From Good to Excellent,” Kent and Nathan discuss the Christian doctrine of sanctification. It’s not what you may think.

---

“From Good to Excellent” – Episode Notes

Last week we discussed the justification that is by the faith of Christ. This week we’ll discuss the sanctification that is by the faith of Christ. Here are my questions for Nathan today:

In your view, what does it mean to become righteous, or to be sanctified? And is that the same as what people are calling spiritual formation in Christ? What would it mean to become “like Christ”?

I think someone becomes righteous through faith. That is, the person who lives by the faith of the son is righteous according to God’s standard.

The notion that justification and sanctification are different stages in the Christian life presumes an anemic gospel. It presumes little change at the point of faith with a slow progression across the divide between imputed righteousness and actual righteousness. Every place in the NIV where “sanctified” is used refers to something a Christian receives at the point of faith. I think “justified” refers to a person’s moral standing while “sanctified” refers to their spiritual status. They’re really two sides of the same coin.

I’m not sure if “spiritual formation” as commonly used is a biblical concept. The phrase comes from Paul’s indictment on the Galatians in 4:19.

I plead with you, brothers and sisters, become like me, for I became like you. You did me no wrong. As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself. Where, then, is your blessing of me now? I can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me. Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you. My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,

Galatians 4:12-19 NIV

Notice that Christ isn’t formed through growth but through birth. Notice that he’s in birth pains “again” until Christ is formed in you. He wants them to get back to the way they were when Christ was formed in them, not go forward through a process of spiritual disciplines until Christ will somehow imperceptibly develop within them.

So, if we’re going to use the phrase “spiritual formation” as Paul did, it more closely equates to the common use of the term “regeneration.” This was Peter’s understanding of what happens when a person believes the gospel according to 1 Peter 1:23-25.

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For,

“All people are like grass,

and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;

the grass withers and the flowers fall,

but the word of the Lord endures forever.”

And this is the word that was preached to you.

NIV

What does it mean to become like Christ? The person who has the faith of the Son is like the Son.

---

And secondly, what is the mechanism of that transformation? What about spiritual disciplines as practices for formation in Christ?

Excepting prayer and corporate worship, the spiritual disciplines are only incidentally mentioned in scripture.

Paul mentions exercise in godliness as paying off some dividends but to what end? In most cases, prayer and worship seem to result in immediate benefits such as a change of circumstances, the receiving of wisdom, or direct insight from God such as through a prophetic word, or divine empowerment.

The mechanism of spiritual growth comes from the exercise of the new life.

But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 3:7-14 NIV

How does sanctification relate to “eternal life”? Is eternal life what we get at the end when we die? Or is it life now in Christ? Romans 5:21 “so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Yes!

In that Romans 5:21 dichotomy, Paul contrasts two things with three. Grace contrasts with sin while righteousness and eternal life contrast with death. 1 John 5:11-13.

Romans 8:11-17 integrates the concepts in a process that he equates to resurrection from death.

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[fn] his Spirit who lives in you.

Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Through the gospel, God gives the gift of right living to everyone who believes.

In “The Gift of Right Living,” Kent and Nathan examine the Christian doctrine of justification. We compare traditional Protestant teaching about “imputed” righteousness scripture.

---

The Gift of Right Living – Episode Notes

Is justification a legal standing of righteousness before God? Is it more than legal?

It seems to include a legal standing, but it also supersedes it.

According to Paul in Romans 1:18 the wrath of God is manifest on the ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who hide their truth in their unrighteousness. Then he goes on to describe the false worship and idolatry of the pagan world. They didn’t know the law, but they still had behaved unrighteously. So, a person can be unrighteous without breaking a law.

In Romans 5:13, Paul says that sin isn’t imputed where there is no law. Based on that we could say that until Moses, everyone had imputed righteousness if the only definition of unrighteousness is the breaking of a law, but Paul goes on to say that “death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those who hadn’t sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.” If simply being absolved of legal culpability was enough, then all those people would have been just fine, but they weren’t.

It seems that not only were they not righteous, but they needed to acquire some legal guilt for their own good.

The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:20-21 NIV)

It would seem that legal guilt is secondary to a basic unrighteousness that precedes legal guilt and is manifested by it.

At the same time, we could say that it’s legal standing if we understand the nature of the law we’re under. More on that later.

Bottom line: The justification provided in Christ is more than, “counted to have performed the law.” If that’s all it was, then God in giving the law would have made us guilty only to absolve us in Christ. This would make God’s standard of righteousness pretty low and arbitrary.

“Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? 8  Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? 9  Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10  So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’ ” (Luke 17:7-10)

The best the law can make anyone even as a standard we’re declared to have fulfilled is “unworthy.”

Is it the verdict of the final judgement, brought forward into the present, declaring believers to be righteous?

If you mean “once saved always saved,” I don’t think so. 

Back to the legal aspect of justification, it doesn’t seem that judgment will just be on the basis of external performance of a written code but on the condition of a person’s character.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Romans 2:12-16 NIV

We’re reckoned righteous like Abraham was on the basis of faith. It’s the entrance into a relationship with God based on grace and faith as his was. Now, his faith wasn’t perfect and neither was his moral performance. But he believed enough and God accepted it. And at the same time we might say that God advanced Abraham the righteousness based on faith trusting that he would come to have and express saving faith in time.

What is the meaning of “righteous”? (righteousness)

It seems to refer to character in conformity with the nature of things. Appropriate disposition and action.

This is why Paul puts “ungodliness” and “unrighteousness” together.

It’s why Jewish judgmentalism was the same sin as pagan idolatry.

Paul makes a distinction between the righteousness that is according to the law and the righteousness of God. Surely they can’t be the same since God doesn’t follow law. And those who follow law are looking to hit the minimum requirement. In fact, law presumes unrighteousness.

Paul says that the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel  – that suggests it’s not revealed in the law.

Is it Christ’s righteousness imputed to us? If not, then what?

This has to do with the notion of merit, but wouldn’t that make God a debtor to a person who lived a certain way?

Could any human life merit God’s favor? If it did, could it be favor?

God isn’t gracious because Christ earned grace.

Christ came and died because God is gracious. Christ graciously died because he is God.

It wasn’t Christ’s perfect legal compliance that is counted to us, but his grace:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[fn] because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.18 Therefore, as one trespass[fn] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[fn] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Romans 5:12-19 NIV

In Christ, humankind has been woven into the grace and faith of the Trinity. By the faith of the son we’ve come to fit in this austere community and our belonging we have become empowered to minister the grace flooding into our lives.

In Romans 5:12-19, grace is the echelon we inhabit through Christ but it’s also the mechanism whereby we actually become righteous.

Justification is progressive as we live by the faith of the Son.

That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Romans 4:22-25 NIV

Is it a permanent status? Can you lose it? Does it come and go as we vacillate in our faith?

No, it’s not permanent.

Yes, you can lose it.

No, it doesn’t come and go as we vacillate in our faith. When we act outside of faith we find ourselves to have violated the covenant. The good news is that if that happens, we only need to resume a life of faith to know we’re justified by grace.

Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.[fn] 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.  But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:20-23)

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.[fn] 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (Gal. 2:11-13)

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[fn] by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Gal. 5:3-5)

See the big picture so you can get ready for death and life.

In “Get Ready for Death and Life,” Kent and Nathan compare popular notions about hell and judgment with what the Bible really says. Spoiler: They’re not the same.

“Get Ready for Death and Life” – Episode Notes:

Now let’s discuss “What the hell?” What version of hell best accounts for the data? Is eternal conscious torment simply what the Bible teaches? Or are there other interpretations that offer a sufficient, or better, account for the biblical data? And what about the data of our moral sensibility, or philosophical views of the eternal soul, or of justice? Do these also count as data that needs to be accounted for?

What version of hell best accounts for the data?

A word about words

Our word “hell” along with the concept is of pagan origin: also Hell, Old English hel, helle, “nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death,” from Proto-Germanic *haljō “the underworld” (source also of Old Frisian helle, Old Saxon hellia, Dutch hel, Old Norse hel, German Hölle, Gothic halja “hell”). Literally “concealed place” (compare Old Norse hellir “cave, cavern”), from PIE root *kel- (1) “to cover, conceal, save.”

Old Norse Hel (from Proto-Germanic *halija “one who covers up or hides something”)was the name of Loki’s daughter who ruled over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl “mist”) It might have reinforced the English word “as a transfer of a pagan concept to Christian theology and its vocabulary” [Barnhart].

“Hell” represents four(ish) words in the original languages of the Bible. Note that there are 13 occurrences of the word in NIV compared with 54 in KJV.

“Sheol” is literally “the grave” but could also refer to the place of imprisoned spirits. It’s translated “death” or “hades” in the Greek Old Testament.

“Tartarus” and “Hades” in Greek refer to the place of disembodied spirits that was somewhat synonymous with the pagan notion. This was thought of in Jewish and Christian thought as a soul jail for those awaiting final judgment.

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.  In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

(Luke 16:22-23 NIV)

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.

(2 Peter 2:4-9)

The last word is the one most associated with a place of eternal judgment – “Gehenna.” Jesus spoke of it in vivid terms that evoked modern notions of a place of eternal torment.

“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. 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“ ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.”

(Mark 9:43-48 NIV)

The Valley of Hinnom was infamous as a place of defilement and violence.

“This is what the LORD says: “Go and buy a clay jar from a potter. Take along some of the elders of the people and of the priests 2 and go out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate. There proclaim the words I tell you, 3 and say, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, you kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. 4 For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. 6 So beware, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter. “ ‘In this place I will ruin[fn] the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who want to kill them, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds and the wild animals.

(Jer. 19:1-7 NIV)

See, the LORD is coming with fire, and his chariots are like a whirlwind; he will bring down his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For with fire and with his sword the LORD will execute judgment on all people, and many will be those slain by the LORD. “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD. 24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”

(Isaiah 66:15-16; 22-24 NIV)

Some have said that Jesus updated the prophetic image into a metaphysical one, but there doesn’t seem to be any basis for that: “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”

(Matthew 5:29-30 NIV)

Since it’s a place for the incineration of bodies, the mention of eternal fire and worms doesn’t suggest eternal suffering but is metaphorical for final, inescapable judgment. Hell is the place of final eradication of the wicked. Far from being a place for souls to live and suffer eternally, it seems to be a soul incinerator:

“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

(Matt. 10:28)

It is not only an incinerator for the souls of the wicked but for all that is outside the will of God:

“The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.”

(Rev. 20:13-15 NIV)

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

(John 3:16 NIV)

The counterargument:

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

(Daniel 12:2-3 NIV)

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,  I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’  “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’  “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’  “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

(Matt. 25:41-46 NIV)

They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

(Rev. 20:9-10 NIV)

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus. Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.”

(Rev. 14:9-13 NIV)

The counter-counter argument. In Daniel 12 it is the contempt that is everlasting while the shame isn’t modified. In Matt. 25, we must confront the connection between the failure to show mercy and eternal suffering. It seems that Jesus was commenting and expanding on Daniel.

“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

(Matt. 13:40-43)

Note the contrast between “life” and “punishment.” What might that punishment be? Notice that fire “devoured” the human armies besieging the camp of God’s people in Rev. 20:9. Rev. 14 obviously describes divine judgment as in Luke 19 and other passages. The mention of the “smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever,” seems to be apocalyptic language as was used in Isaiah 34:

For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause. Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch, her dust into burning sulfur; her land will become blazing pitch! It will not be quenched night or day; its smoke will rise forever. From generation to generation it will lie desolate; no one will ever pass through it again.      

(Isaiah 34:8-10 NIV) 

Unlike with the doctrine of final judgment, the notion of eternal suffering as just punishment dissonates with the rest of the scripture.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

(Deut. 21:18-23 NIV) 

‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death. You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’ ”

(Lev. 24:17-22 NIV)

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

(Romans 3:25-26 NIV)

And what about the data of our moral sensibility, or philosophical views of the eternal soul, or of justice?

The moral argument against hell is insurmountable. It seems well within the rights of a creator to uncreate as he so chooses. It doesn’t seem “right” for an omniscient creator to give rise to multitudes of sentient beings knowing full well that most of them will spend an infinitesimal time on earth and then eternity in unimaginable torment. Attempts at justification make things worse or at least no better. He’s God, get over it? That’s true but it sure does seem like a high hurdle/low bar for people to cross to know this God of love.

People will choose hell over God’s presence?

The philosophical view on the eternal soul doesn’t seem to hold up. That the soul is eternal comes from Plato’s specious dualism.It’s unsupportable/unfalsifiableIt seems likely that anything that can come into being can cease to exist.The Bible seems to teach conditional immortality from first to last.

And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

(Gen. 3:22 NIV)

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

(Rev. 22:1-2 NIV)

And in the middle:

“So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong. He repays everyone for what they have done; he brings on them what their conduct deserves. It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would pervert justice.  Who appointed him over the earth? Who put him in charge of the whole world?  If it were his intention and he withdrew his spirit and breath, all humanity would perish together and mankind would return to the dust.

(Job. 34:10-15 NIV)

All of this means that if people are conscious in hell, God is keeping them alive so they can suffer.

Some ramifications

If there’s no “hell” why bother preaching the gospel? Because the gospel is good news! There is no mention of hell in the book of Acts nor really anything more than a passing warning about “judgment.” Because if we love people we’ll want them to have eternal life.Because God wants people in his kingdom/family.

Because other people need to glorify God.

What if I disagree? That’s fine. It’s not really a core issue.

I would advise you to stop and consider: If you’re wrong you are perpetuating a monstrous caricature of God.

That monstrous depiction is making people choose between the good news of Christ and a legitimate moral sensibility.

The gospel is the only full disclosure of God.

In “The Full Disclosure of God,” Nathan shares why the cross is the only logical way to ever fully know God.

“The Full Disclosure of God” Episode Notes:

The Abraham Test

After God’s joyful provision of a son for Abraham through his aged wife Sarah, Scripture blurts out:

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

(Genesis 22:1-2 NIV)

Even sight-read, these words sting my ears.

This episode begins with the editorial note that God was testing Abraham, but does that make it any less barbaric? Atheist, Adam Lee, writes:

That the sacrifice was not actually carried out does not change the moral revulsion we should feel at this episode. What kind of god would demand a man prove his obedience by murdering his only son? And more so, what kind of man would obey such a command?

What kind of a man indeed! Lee probes deeper into the believer’s moral character with a question he ironically calls, “The Abraham Test.” Here’s how he formulates it:

Do you believe that violence in God’s name is wrong, or do you merely believe he hasn’t personally told you to do violence? If God appeared to you and spoke to you, commanding you to commit a violent act – to murder a child, say – how would you respond? ^[i]

How would you answer? What do you think your answer says about you?

And yet this test falls short of the one God gave to Abraham. God didn’t just command him to “commit a violent act” or even to “murder a child.” That would have been much easier than what God required. Look again.

It wasn’t, “murder a child,” but “take your son.”

It wasn’t just, “take one of your sons,” but “your only son.”

And God reveals that he knows just what emotional price he expects Abraham to pay when he further specifies, “whom you love – Isaac.”  It’s one thing to contemplate the ghoulish possibility of murdering anyone’s child, but to take one of our own, even our only one?

I suspect that Adam Lee might not have kids because if he did, he wouldn’t have gone so easy with his wording. This isn’t just a moral issue; it’s an existential one. When we have children, we discover what might be called the immutability of existence. That is, we can’t imagine our lives without them. And we come to know instinctively their inherent irreplaceability. In naming just who he required from Abraham, “Isaac,” God acknowledges the pricelessness of this offering.

Nothing could ever compensate any sane parent for the loss of their child. No offer of fame, fortune, or honor could ever be promised in trade for their continued presence with us. And God doesn’t make any such offer. He simply makes this staggering demand without qualification or assurance of any kind. This is no quid pro quo for there could never be any quid that could adequately reward such a quo.

The narrative goes on to waylay us with another blow while we’re still reeling from the implications of this command. God’s command is met with Abraham’s equally perplexing response:

Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”

“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.

“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

(Genesis 22:3-10)

I’ve seen dramatizations of this story where Abraham struggles with God’s command. I suppose they were trying to make the story relatable. But scripture portrays inhuman compliance. Abraham doesn’t delay. He gets up early the next morning and makes all necessary provisions. Part of that due diligence was to take servants with him, but it’s noteworthy that he left them behind when it came time to do the deed. Surely, if he’d taken them along they would have tried to stop him. From the moment the command came, Abraham had every intention of seeing it through.

Nobody can relate to Abraham’s actions in this story, but the details keep the events very human. Isaac and the servants seem to assume Abraham knows what he’s doing when he takes them three days into the wilderness to worship. Surely, all three of them noticed that he’d failed to bring along an animal to sacrifice, but they most likely assumed he’d acquire one along the way. As he and Isaac ascend the mountain together, the prospects of finding an animal dwindle to zero. Lest we become numb to the parental agony Abraham must be feeling, the narrative gives Isaac lines. Both we and Abraham are prevented from objectifying him with his first word, “Father.”

It’s hard to imagine how the feeble old man remained on his feet under the weight of innocence and trust conveyed in his son’s address. And yet, rather than distance himself, Abraham responds with a tender, “Yes, my son?”

Then, after Isaac’s naive question and Abraham’s shrewd lie, the narrator adds, “And the two of them went on together,” as if he’s talking about a father-son camping trip. We might make ourselves believe that’s what is happening except for the explicit depiction of the father tying up his son to slaughter him in the very next verse.

Yes, Mr. Lee is correct, this story is a test for us. He’s just wrong about exactly what it was designed to test for.

What kind of God?

Adam Lee’s “Abraham Test” is meant to answer, “What type of man,” but the answer to that question is secondary to the answer to the first one he asked above, “What kind of god would demand a man prove his obedience by murdering his only son?”

And that answer is, “The only kind.”

This closing episode in the Abraham saga doesn’t concern itself with morality but with theology. People who make moral judgments about Abraham and God in this story reveal a fundamental misunderstanding. We can’t join Adam Lee in comparing God’s actions to what we would have done because we aren’t God.

When we speak of God, we refer to the ultimate reality and the ground of all being. That notion defies definition because all definitions are comparative, and nothing can compare to God. When we consider God, we must relinquish all other considerations. The act of doing this is called “reverence” or “fear.”

Imagine coming face to face with a being who alone is eternal and from whom all things have sprung. This being exists apart from time and yet is present simultaneously in every moment in every part of this universe and all others that might exist. No law applies to this being and no words can fully describe it. That’s because it predates laws, language, and even ideas. In its presence, everything melts into insignificance.

Only a being like this deserves to be called, “God,” because only an ultimate being is worthy of worship. Anything penultimate would only be quantitatively superior to us. If quantitative superiority made one worthy of worship, then toddlers owe me a lot more respect than they normally demonstrate.  You might say that the difference between me and a toddler isn’t great enough to merit worship, but who are you to say? Exactly what is the quantitative distance that creates the divine divide? Suppose a god like Thor did exist. We might respect him or fear him, but since his attributes are just like ours only larger, we wouldn’t really owe him worship. If he required it, we might comply but only by coercion.

And yet the God of the Bible isn’t anything like Thor because he’s nothing like us. While the gods of antiquity obviously expand on human traits, the God of the Bible is transcendent. That is, he’s holy. This is why images of him were prohibited because any depiction would only misrepresent him.[ii]

Because he’s qualitatively different from us, we are prone to underestimate him as Adam Lee and other skeptics do. Before anyone has a chance at connecting with God, they must learn to properly esteem him. For God to be God he must be supreme. For him to be supreme he must be beyond all other considerations including the closest familial bonds, “common decency,” or any other human moral construct. Otherwise, the superior consideration would become ultimate, and he would just be “big” or “impressive.”

This brings us to the next section of the Abraham story:

But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

(Genesis 22:11-12 NIV)

Perhaps most of us are so relieved that the father of our religion doesn’t kill his son that we fail to notice how weird things get at this point.

At the point of high drama in the story we’re suddenly introduced to a new character, “the angel of the LORD.” We might not think much of it and just assume God who spoke directly to Abraham in vs. 1 has randomly opted to revoke his command through one of his minions.

But this is no minion.

He speaks as if he is God himself, “because you have not withheld from me your son…” At the same time, he speaks of God in the third person, “Now I know that you fear God.”

What’s going on here?

This enigmatic personage appears several times, especially in the early books of the Old Testament. For example, he comforts Hagar in Genesis 16 and commissions Moses in Exodus 3. In both cases, he’s referred to as the Angel (more accurately Messenger) of the LORD. In both instances, he speaks as though he is God and not just on behalf of God. He seems to be God and yet is also God’s messenger. In the current story, he must be God since only God could countermand an order given by God. This agrees with his self-identification as the recipient of Abraham’s sacrifice.

So, God has always been a unified community.

But that’s not the primary consideration here. The person who stops the sacrifice isn’t referred to as “the Messenger of God,” but as “the Messenger of the LORD.” That’s striking because this is the first mention of the proper name of God in this story. Look back over it. In verses 1-10, the divine being is exclusively referred to as “God.” He’s designated “the LORD” for the first time in verse 11.

We might attribute the shift to the author’s literary choices except for the fact that “God” drops from the narrative altogether at this point making way for only “the LORD.”

The LORD Will Provide

Look over the conclusion of the story to see what I mean:

Abraham looked up and there in a thicket, he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”

The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.

(Genesis 22:13-19 NIV- emphasis mine)

The Hebrew word translated “God” in Scripture refers to the generic concept of the divine being. The word, LORD, in all caps in most English translations, stands for the sacred name of God written in four Hebrew letters and pronounced (we think) “Yahweh.”

The word for God’s nature appears exclusively in the first section of this story where the deity speaks abruptly and makes an ultimate demand. The proper name, Yahweh, introduces a section marked by mercy, provision, and promise.  These two sections turn around an axis where the Messenger of Yahweh speaks in the third person about Abraham’s fear of God while also identifying himself as one and the same.

This looks intentional to me.

God in his nature compels fear expressed as the ultimate sacrifice. Surely any consideration that could override the will of God would itself be god as far as we are concerned. This reality is inescapable and without it, nobody can truly know God. So, to answer Adam Lee’s question, everyone who claims to worship God must be willing to do as Abraham did.

At the same time, Yahweh as a person would never accept such a horrible sacrifice since his character is benevolent love.

This dichotomy between God in his nature and Yahweh in his character sets up a divine dilemma. Without the ultimate sacrifice, God’s holiness remains unsettled. But if he should accept the ultimate sacrifice, his love would be obscured. Abraham on the horns of that same dilemma surmised its resolution, “God will provide for himself the lamb…” (Genesis 22:8a ESV).

Abraham’s supposition proved true with the ram offered in place of Isaac, but that sacrifice hardly qualified as a substitution in kind. The ultimate sacrifice was yet to be made. So, Abraham gave the place a name that would serve as a placeholder for the day when God’s holiness and love would come together in the loving sacrifice of God’s son, his only son whom he loves – Jesus.

At the dawn of this era, the Messenger of Yahweh was born the Offspring of Abraham. On a mountain called Calvary, the LORD provided the Lamb as the ultimate sacrifice who was both the placard of his holiness and the gift of his love.

---

[i] Lee, Adam. The Abraham Test – Big Think

[ii] Deuteronomy 4:15-20

Our second conversation with our esteemed listener, Mike Harper.