Simmons-Frost Debate
Does King's Corporate Body View Lead to Universalism?
Part 1
Written by Sam Frost
Introduction:
When I initially finished this
piece, the debate with Kurt Simmons was not in the forefront.
Recently, however, it has come to the forefront. The basic charge is
laid out that the "corporate view" necessarily leads to
Universalism. Now, I am a student of Logic proper, and I use the
term "necessarily" in the logical sense. That is, like math, 4
necessarily
follows 2+2. What Simmons alleges is that Max King's view as
outlined in
The Cross and the Parousia
necessarily leads to Universalism, even though Universalism is
explicitly
denied in that book.
Now, it is true that King may have
changed his views. I believe that he has changed his understanding
of "all" in passages like
Rom
5.18;
I Co
15.22 and "all Israel shall be saved." I believe, also, that
passages like "every
knee
shall bow to the glory of the Father" are taken quite literally.
However, on pages 485-486 in King's book, he decidedly rejects
Universalism and shows convincingly that
it is the biological definition
of death that leads to Universalism.
Now, King may have changed his
views on such passages, but the point to notice is that his view of
covenant eschatology and corporate identity between Adam and Christ
is not affected in the least.
It is not the point of contention
that Simmons is making it out to be. In other words, Beck, King and
Tim King may in fact be Universalists,
but they did not get there
because of the corporate view.
They allegedly got there through another route, most notably upon a
reflection of the grace of God, who God casts out and who he keeps
in, and upon what basis does he do so. This hardly has anything to
do with the corporate view and it is Simmons' full responsibility to
show that the corporate view
necessarily
leads to Universalism. If he merely argues that some who have come
to accept the universalist concept also accept the corporate view,
then he has merely argued
ad hominem.
Or, more logically,
propter hoc.
That is "after this, therefore because of this", which every
logician will tell you is a fallacy. No, what Simmons
must
prove
is that it is no mere coincidence that some who hold to the
corporate view have also come to accept the universalistic view
because it is the necessary, logical step. That it is, in fact,
the corporate
view itself
that leads to universalism. Finally, he must also show not from his
own exegesis, but from the exegesis of King and myself (who he has
consistently lumped together) that we lead to Universalism.
Now, with the
above being said, this first part will deal with the framework of
Full Preterism. My second part will then deal with the corporate
view which I fit into this framework. It is the framework, however,
that dictates to me that the swallowing up of "the Death" for "all
peoples" does not, and cannot, lead to Universalism.
Opening
Remarks
It's been a
long time coming, but finally a debate is breaking out within the
Preterist camps concerning soteriology. The usual suspects, Calvin
and Arminius are involved, of course. Phrases like "age of
accountability" and "free will" are popping up on one hand, and
"predestination" and "sovereignty of God" on the other. Another
person comes into play as well, Max King. It's a funny world when a
staunch Calvinist like me defends a card carrying freewiller like
Max King. But, hey, that's God.
Now, whenever I have discussions
about Max King it is usually with two types of people: those who
understand King's exegesis in
I Co
15 in his book
The Cross and the Parousia of
Christ,
and those who
think
they understand his view and then proceed to dissect it based on
their faulty misunderstanding. The problem is that King's book is so
systematic in terms of a total approach that one quote or a few
quotes do not do him justice. I can take quotes from his book and
string them together to make the man sound like a monster. It's like
taking a few quotes from Calvin's
Institutes of the Christian
Religion.
Notice the title of the book,
Institutes!
It's a whole system. Each quote fits into a larger whole, and if the
whole is not grasped, then the parts will not make much sense.
Now, I make no bones about the
approach I will take in dismantling what has been called
"Preterist-Idealism" (PI). I am an inerrantist in my doctrine of the
Bible. I also believe in Logic proper. Exegesis should be free from
contradiction, false inferences, and informal fallacies. The
Westminster Confession of Faith, in its brilliant opening chapter,
states, "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary
for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either
expressly set down in Scripture, or by
good and necessary consequence
may be deduced
from Scripture." I do not believe that Scriptures gives us
comprehensive answers to every question we may ask, or that may be
inferred from its pages. However, I do believe that the answers it
does give, and the true logical deductions that can be made from
them, is the Truth and is not contained in paradoxes, antinomies and
some ethereal "experience" that "transcends" language. Such a
theology cannot be defended, much less explained so as to understand
it, and, therefore, it is useless to me.
I.
Dubois' Opening Move:
Accept the Bluff
In the article entitled "Full
Preterism vs. Idealism Part 3: Full Preterisms", Dubois shows that
he has accepted, without challenge, the universalist claim. That is,
if "the Death" (which is not defined by Dubois) is destroyed in 70
C.E., then all men are no longer in Adam and therefore cannot be
condemned in Adam. Brian Simmons has erroneously accepted this as
well, and Kurt Simmons has rightly pointed this out. Dubois writes,
"In that AD 70 has occurred, all men are no longer in Adam. That
condemnation has been put away." He does not seek to prove this.
This is just supposed to be the case and it is repeated by B.
Simmons and Todd Dennis. This is the
entire
reason for the recent fluff.
Because this paper will be posted
at several sites, my intent is to be as definitive as possible. In
another article, "Full Preterism vs. Idealism Part 1 & 2" Dubois
wrote, "...Universalism is clearly against scripture..." Therefore,
PI is a
reactionary
movement. The logic is this: Universalism is erroneous. Full
Preterism leads to Universalism. Therefore, Full Preterism is
erroneous. Perfect logic, but is the second premise true? That's the
case, and Dubois, Dennis and B. Simmons have set out to halt Full
Preterism and replace it with PI. As for Kurt Simmons, his beef is
the same logic: Universalism is erroneous; Corporate Body view (Max
King) leads to Universalism; therefore Corporate Body is erroneous.
Simmons, unlike Dennis and Dubois, wants to keep Full Preterism, but
his version is nothing more than a strange amalgamation of
futurist soteriology with preterist eschatology, much like PI.
Now, we
should not have to wade through every page (only 12) of
Dubois' argument since the entire case rests on the premise that the
destruction of "the Death" means universal salvation for all.
If it can be shown that this premise is false, the rest of Dubois'
and Simmons' argument fails or is irrelevant since it is built off
of this. It will be my approach to dismantle the bluff he accepts
from the universalist. The universalist appears to have a royal
flush over and against Dubois full house. Dubois folds to the
universalist. It is my conclusion that when the hands are seen, the
universalist actually only had a pair of deuces. A full house beats
a pair every time.
II. The Death
What are often sorely lacking in
these exchanges are definitions. I could not find a definition of
"the Sin" or "the Death" in these articles. Sometimes "the law" was
defined as the "the law of Moses." That's pretty definite. There are
622 of those recorded in Exodus through Deuteronomy.
K. Simmons
refers to the "law of sin and death" (Rom
7.23; 8.2). He states that "this law existed in the garden" (from
his article, "Is Universalism a Logical Corollary of Full
Preterism?").
Dubois says the "eternal law" existed in the garden and that it was
this law that Adam broke.
None of them define this ethereal law. Both of these views fail to
understand Paul.
When Paul took up the argument of the "one man" Adam in
Rom
5.12, he does not end until 8.39. In 5.12-8.39 Paul deals with three
reoccurring terms, "the law," "the sin," and "the death."
So as to be definitive, let me quote from the great Robinson,
respected by all Greek scholars, about the use of the definite
article, "the." He wrote, "It defines, limits, points out from...The
Greek article is a pointer" (A
New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament,
10th Edition, 275). Paul used it throughout 5-8 and those wishing to
ignore this are doing so to their own theological peril.
It's not just "any" law, or "any" sin, or just "any" death. It is
the
death,
the
law and the
sin. Very specific, very limited in meaning.
Since this is the case,
the
meaning
of "the sin" in 5.12 is the same meaning in 6.1 or 7.23.
If I am making an argument for "the cat", and my argument is a few
pages long, and on the last page I am still talking about "the cat",
would you infer that each time I mention "the cat" I have a
different cat in mind? No, you would not. But, that is exactly the
problem.
Every commentary that mentions "the sin" in 5.12 completely changes
the definition by the time they get to 6.1.
Even the translations change.
Now, if K.
Simmons has "the law of the sin and the death" in 7.23 as being the
"law that existed in the garden", then clearly 5.12 and the entrance
of "the sin" and through the sin, "the death" through Adam are
speaking of the same thing. In other words,
Genesis 3 is to be carried all
the way through Romans 5-8.
If "the sin" is defined as
x
in 5.12, then it
must
be defined as x
in 7.23, etc.
What happens is that it becomes
y
or p,
i.e., some other definition.
Imagine Paul with a
Genesis
scroll unrolled before him. Of course, he probably knew it from
memory as many 9 year old Hebrew children do. Nonetheless, he is
commenting on the story of Adam. He says, and I translate,
"Therefore, as through one man the Sin came into the world and
through the Sin, the Death." In staying consistent with our
method given above, Paul wrote, "What, therefore, will we say? Is
the Law
the
Sin? No way! However, I know not the Sin except through the Law"
(7.7). This is the same where he says, "sin is not recognized when
there is no law" (5.13).
[What is “the sin” – please tell us! – Adam’s transgression?]
Rather than make Paul mean some
complicated, theological thought here, I take a simpler approach.
What Paul cites is the basis for every law that has ever been made.
It is the law that makes an act criminal. If there is no law against
it, then it is perfectly legal.
Now, does this make the law itself sin? No.
But,
the law defines sin.
That's all Paul is saying here. Without law, there can be no
definition of sin.
The law itself defines what is good and what is evil. The more it
defines good and evil actions, the more
knowledge
of good and evil is increased. The more the law is increased, the
more opportunities to
transgress
abounds. With these simple principles, let's turn back to Adam.
Adam is given what Paul calls
"the commandment". Let's look at that commandment: "the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gn
2.17). This is known as a prohibitive imperative in law. The Law of
Moses has a bunch of them. They are all the "thou shalt nots". They
are commandments.
Paul's context in 5.12, we would all agree, is
Gn
3. The "one man" is Adam and
he is talking about the "entrance" of "the sin" and "the death." If
a law is needed to define specifically a sin, then what sin is
defined in the law given to Adam? Clearly:
eating of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil.
It's not "the knowledge" that is "the sin", but the
act of eating.
This is what Paul called, "the Transgression" (5.14) and "the
Offence" (5.15).
He has only one specific act or transgression in mind: Adam's. This,
then, is "the Sin." The sin of eating from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil brought forth in "all men" the knowledge
of good and evil. We see this acted out in
Genesis
5 with Cain and "sin crouching at the door" of his
heart.
Murder is an
evil
thought "from the heart" according to Jesus. Murder is evil
knowledge.
We see in Noah's story that the basis for the flood is the fact that
all men everywhere "thought evil thoughts". Where did "all men" get
this "knowledge" of "evil" from? They didn't get it from the Devil.
They got it from the Tree, from where Adam got it and "passed it on
all men" born from him and his wife, Eve, the "mother of
all
the living."
Now, we have the "commandment" that
Adam broke defined, and we have the specific sin made known by the
commandment defined. Does the law set forth the penalty? Of course.
It is known in the Septuagint version as
thanatos.
Paul uses the same Greek word with the article, "the death." It is
"the death" that Adam would receive when he ate (transgressed) the
commandment.
What was "the death"? Clearly, Adam was
exiled
on the "day" he ate. He received what Paul called, "the
Condemnation" (5.16). The
Greek word here,
katakrima,
is used in only one other place in
Romans,
8.1!
The
condemnation removed "for those
in Christ Jesus"
is none other than the condemnation given to "all men" (5.18).
But notice even here that Paul's "in Christ" (as opposed to those
"in Adam") is where the condemnation is removed.
We shall see
that what this means is that though the
cause
of the condemnation is removed for "all peoples", the
effects
of the condemnation still remains for every man, woman and child
that is born into "the world", for it is the fact that "the sin
entered the
world"
(Rom
5.12), and its effects, apart from its now ended
reign,
are still very much present.
Here is where
a problem enters. How can "all men" be condemned for the act of "one
man"? K. Simmons believes that God would be unjust to punish "all"
for the sin of "one." However, the corporate theology in the Hebrew
Scriptures is rampant. One story in particular well illustrates the
point. Under Joshua, Israel goes out to fight the nations in the
land of Canaan. They are told not to take any plunder. When they go
to fight Ai, they are defeated. When Joshua seeks to find out why,
God repeats several times that
Israel
has sinned against him and
Israel
has taken plunder. In the story we find out that it is only
one man,
Achan. The actions of one man was transferred to the actions of all
Israel. One member in the body of Israel stole, the whole body
stole. [1]
We, again, see this illustrated in
Hebrews
where Levi is said to have given a tithe to Melchizedek since Levi
was "in the loins of Abraham". The logic follows with Adam and Eve,
"the mother of
all
the living."
Every
genealogy in the Bible can be followed to Eve. There is not one
human being alive today that cannot follow their lineage back to Eve
and Adam. Not one. This is Paul's point.
Paul's reasoning is
causal,
and this is often missed. In 5.12 he used the phrase "so also" which
is causal. The
effect
was that "the death passed to
all"
of whom Eve is the mother. Stick with
Genesis
3 when reading
Romans
5.
Adam was condemned to exile from the Garden.
But, not just the Garden. We often forget what was
in
the Garden, and
why
God exiled him. He was exiled from, "the Tree of the Life." More
explicitly, "eternal life" (Gn
3.22). Lo! And behold! Paul wrote, "for as through the one man
(Adam) came to all men to condemnation, so also through the
righteous act of the one man (Jesus) to all men to justification of
life."
Then, this righteousness will reign in "eternal life" (5.21). So,
there we have it. "Life", "death", "the sin," "the commandment,"
"eternal life", "all men", and "Adam." All of it is Genesis 3
material and, therefore, all of it is to be defined "according to
the Scriptures" of
Genesis.
Adam's condemnation was separation from "the life." This meant that
he was cut off from "eternal life."
God adds an
extra touch: he made it
impossible
for any man to have access to the Eternal Life. From the bench of
God's court, God decreed that the Death penalty of the Sin of Adam
would
rule
or stand
over all that would be born to him.
The
Law
gives the death and the sin its
power
because the Law is
God's Law.
It is "holy, righteous, and good." From the picture of
Genesis
3, then, we see that
the
reign of the Death is
man's inability to receive eternal life.
This passed to every man in that, as can obviously be seen,
no man
was born to Adam and Eve with access to "the Life." Man has become
like God in that he has "the knowledge of good and evil." That is,
he can make his own laws without any reference to God, and can
impose them on other men just like God can. God imposed on Adam a
law. God has no laws imposed on him. God decides what laws to impose
for he knows "good and evil" truly. Man, however, only has himself
as a reference to good and evil. God's knowledge of good and evil is
known only by reference to Himself. So, Adam, like God, begins to
create and build and make laws with reference to himself, and impose
them on society. Truly, Man is like God. Well, not entirely. He
lacks one thing:
immortality.
It should be plain at this point
that
all men born
to Adam and Eve, all the genealogies that we see in the Bible, are
born
outside,
in
exile
and under
the penalty of Adam.
They are all born with the ability to think in terms of right and
wrong, good and evil, bad and good, black and white. They are born
with an ability to create an entire world without any reference to
God. They can come up with religions, worldviews, government
theories and laws. They do not need God to do this, they can do it
on their own.
They are also
all born without eternal life, or "the Life." And this means that
they are born under the ruling of the law that Adam broke.
The Death
("in the day you eat, you shall surely
die")
rules over them, and the Sin (Adam's sin of eating of the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil, causing man to think outside of
God's revealed word) ruled in the Death.
It is proven that in the Bible, every man born since Adam and Eve
were born to these sets of circumstances.
Show me one religion, one
philosophy that has no reference to what is good and what is wrong.
It cannot be done. We have, for thousands of years, been operating
in what Isaiah called "the darkness", blindly stumbling in the
world, creating religions, gods, ideas and cultures. All of them are
cut off from the Light. All of them are without eternal life. They
are what Paul calls, "vain philosophies." However, man is made in
God's image. That is, he thinks and creates. But he does so apart
from God's revelation. However, man's
knowledge
of the world is based in terms of "good" and "evil." Without God
revealing to him what is good, and what is evil, man will call that
which is good, "evil", and that which is evil, "good." It is his
nature to do so, being that he has "knowledge" in terms of "good and
evil" but does not have "eternal life": "And this is eternal life:
that they may know You." Without the knowledge of God in the heart,
one has only knowledge of good and evil, cut off from eternal life
and made a slave of the rule of God over Adam when
Adam sinned:
"you are cut off from eternal life".
That
was the "reign of the Death."
That Paul is thinking along these
lines is made plain by the contrasted parallel found in
Rom
5.21:
"For just as the Sin reigned in the
Death, so also Grace might reign through the Righteousness to bring
Eternal Life." The parallels are "the Sin" with "Grace". Grace
covers "the sin" and bring forgiveness. "The Death" is parallel with
the phrase, "The righteousness to Eternal Life". It was
"unrighteousness" or "condemnation" brought through the one act of
Adam (5.16).
This
condemnation for all men was being in exile from the Life eternal
with no possibility of
receiving it.
Having righteousness means having eternal life (resurrection life
"through the body of the Son", 7.4) Eternal life
is now possible.
Get this:
the reign
of the Death meant all men being cut off from Eternal Life with God,
having no
possibility or any means whatsoever of attaining to it.
Likewise, and in contrast, the reign of Grace in Righteousness in
the Age to Come for Paul meant,
the possibility and means for
attaining Eternal Life with the Father is now available to all men.
This will become crystal clear when we read the Prophets.
III.
The Promise
Very early on in
Genesis
God ordains a promise: the "seed" of the woman will "crush the head"
of the serpent (3.15). Paul envisioned the fulfillment of this
promise as arriving "very soon" (Rom
16.20). As stated before,
Gn
3 looms large in the mind of Paul. The promise is the crushing of
the head of Satan. This would mean the
reversal
of God's judgment. After all, it was God that wrote the law given to
Adam, and wrote its penal code as well. The reign of the Death was
God's kingdom in action since it was a God imposed penalty. Since it
was God's decision, it would also follow that God, the Divine Judge,
can annul his decision. It was God who made "the serpent" (3.1), and
it would be God that would crush the head of this serpent through
the Seed of the woman. Everything that follows this story is to be
seen in light of this story. From Noah to Abraham to Moses to
Christ, all of these stories illustrate these opening scenes of
Genesis.
They are all
patterned after
the Exile and Promised Restoration motifs. Abraham "goes down" to
Egypt, and so does Jacob. Moses leads them "out of" Egypt and "into"
a land much like the description of Eden. They break God's laws and
are "exiled". Jesus goes "down to" Egypt and crosses the Jordan.
David did, too. David "ascends" a "second time" to the throne of
Jerusalem and as a result, "unites Judah and Israel", and then comes
the glory of Solomon. All of these stories have the same patterns to
them. They each illustrate the Story to Come, the one Story that
will end all stories and wrap them up into one. It is within this
framework that we must read Paul.
The prophets predict the coming
fall of Jerusalem.
They also predict an "age to come" in which God will set all things
aright. It is this latter consideration that I want to press,
for it enters into the controversy today that faces Full Preterism.
This controversy centers around the promise to "swallow up the
Death" (Is
25.8). We will return to this passage shortly. First, I want to make
some connections with Paul and his Greek vocabulary.
·
Point # 1:
In
I Co
15.54 Paul quotes
Is
25.8. In the Hebrew it is "ha
muth"
or "the death." The Septuagint also reflects this, and so does Paul.
Paul mentions "the death" in
I Co
15.26.
There, the "last enemy that is being destroyed"
in Paul's day was "the death." No doubt that "the death" he has in
mind here is the same "the death" he has in mind in 15.54-56.
·
Point # 2:
Paul also
quoted from
Hosea
13.14 where "death" is addressed in the vocative. Paul links these
two contexts together, meaning that "the death" in
Is
25.8 is the same "O' Death" that is being addressed in
Hos
13.14. Both of
these contexts are Restoration of Israel contexts, with which no one
would disagree.
·
Point # 3:
In
I Co
15.56 Paul links "the death" with "the sin" and "the law." Very
recently, many scholars, none of which are Full Preterists, have
noted the clear connection between 15.56 and
Rom
5. In other words, 15.56 is a condensed argument of
Rom
5, which the Corinthians would have been familiar with since Paul
stayed so long with them. In the letter to the Romans, however, Paul
has to expound upon this doctrine since he has never visited Rome.
The same can be said for the language of
II Co
3.5, which appeals and quotes
Gen
1.3 and
clearly connects "the death" with the "law written in Stone." The
Law of Moses was "the administration of the Death" (3.7).
Unless Paul
has more than one definition of "the death" that consistently occurs
in contexts talking about Israel and the Law of Moses, then we are
perfectly logical in insisting that
all
of these usages of "the death" means one thing:
the death that passed on to all
men as the result of the one man.
·
Point # 4:
John's vision of "the death and the hades" (which, in the Hebrew
Scriptures, these words are often coupled together) ends with the
destruction of "the Death." That John has
Isaiah
in mind (or, rather, that the Spirit inspiring John is alluding to
His past revelations given to Isaiah) is plain.
The Death is destroyed and John writes, "He will wipe away the tears
from their eyes. There will be no more the Death" (Rev
21.4). Now, let's read
Is
25.8: "He will swallow up the Death forever. The Sovereign Lord will
wipe away the tears from all faces." That there is a connection here
is plain for all to see.
·
Point # 5:
Conclusion, John and Paul did not make up a new doctrine concerning
"the death." They explicitly got it from
Isaiah.
John pictures
the
fulfillment,
therefore, of
Is
25.8 in Rev
21.
Paul is looking forward to the
same fulfillment
in I Co
15, using the same language. It is quite
clear and plain that Paul has connected "the death" with "the law of
Moses" and more explicitly with the law given to Adam, which he
transgressed. It is quite plain for anyone to see that with the
"dissolution of the law" of Moses, the "administration of the Death"
would be equally swallowed up. The Law of Moses was "added
to" the Law that Adam broke, and thus became the main "administer"
of the Death which came because of Adam.
The fulfillment and subsequent dissolution of the "written code on
stones" would mean that "the Death" would cease to "reign" over "all
peoples."
The Death does
not reign
in the New Heavens and New Earth.
Problem: If "the death" is swallowed up for all men, then would that
not mean that all men are now inside the Restored Kingdom? Answer:
Not according to Scriptures.
Since we have
proven that
the promise involves the restoration of the kingdom, and that the
restoration of the kingdom is tied to the dissolution of the law of
Moses, and, further, that the law of Moses was merely "added"
to show forth the death and the sin of Adam which exiled all men
from "the life eternal," then we must now show that the Prophets
never, ever pictured a time, ever, of universal salvation
after the fact
of swallowing up the death.
Since we have shown that Paul and
John were drawing from the Prophets, then we must also see if they
have anything to say concerning the Age to Come. It will become
crystal clear that John, in
Rev
21,22, is merely receiving a vision from the Spirit who
already gave these same visions
to the Prophets
as recorded in the Bible.
In the Isaian passage, the death is
swallowed up and Mount Zion is restored. This passage is, in
agreement with a multitude of commentators, in parallel with other
like Restoration passages. For example, Paul saw
Hos
13 and
Is
25 as addressing the same time of Restoration. John, in
Rev
21,22, who, as we saw, clearly had
Is
25 in mind, also refers to many other Prophets. We will consider
Zechariah
in a moment.
First, in
Isaiah
25 "the death" is swallowed up. Let us quote the passage in full:
And in this
mountain will the LORD of hosts make unto all peoples a feast of fat
things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow,
of wines on the lees well refined. 7 And He will destroy in this
mountain the face of the covering that is cast over all peoples, and
the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death
for ever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces;
and the reproach of His people will He take away from off all the
earth; for the LORD hath spoken it (JPS).
Notice that "all peoples" are in
mind here as well as "all nations." The death will be swallowed up
for "all peoples", the "veil" that is spread over "all the nations"
will be taken away. If we have Edenic restoration in mind, this
would mean that the Cherubim that stands guard to eternal life would
be removed. God's verdict would be annulled. Eternal life would now
be
available
as opposed to
not available.
The reign of
the death meant that eternal life is available
for no one.
[Sentence of death was opposed, not eternal life unavailable]
The swallowing up of the death means that is now available for
all nations.
However, this
does not mean that it is guaranteed for every single individual.
The reason I
say that is because I read the rest of the passage:
And it shall
be said in that day: 'Lo, this is our God, for whom we waited, that
He might save us; this is the LORD, for whom we waited, we will be
glad and rejoice in His salvation.' 10 For in this mountain will the
hand of the LORD rest, and Moab shall be trodden down in his place,
even as straw is trodden down in the dunghill (JPS).
Who are the "we" here? It is this
"salvation" that Paul wrote about and was "nearer now" to his
generation. It is on "this mountain", mount Zion, that John saw in
Rev
21,22. But, things don't look good for Moab, which commentators
recognize as a metonymy for "nations" or "enemies of Israel" in
general. If
everyone
gets salvation as a result of the swallowing up of the Death, then,
clearly, the destruction of Moabites is a lie! Too bad for the
Moabites!
You have to see this picture. If
the sheet of the Death that covers "all peoples" includes Moab, then
it follows that the sheet of the Death is
removed
for Moab. Moab is no longer under the sheet, for the sheet has been
removed. However,
Moab is
destroyed, not saved!
Isaiah
26 continues to remark that "in that day" (26.1) "grace will be
shown to the wicked, though they learn not righteousness." What is
interesting here is that Paul speaks of "grace reigning in the
righteousness to eternal life"!
As we have
shown, "eternal life" is the
result of
the swallowing of the Death.
However, just because the Death is swallowed up for all, does not
mean that all
enter into the
Kingdom of God wherein is Eternal Life.
The old Age of the Reign of the
Death and the Sin in the Death (of Adam) did not mean that everyone
would perish. The elect had faith in an "eternal country." They
hoped
for eternal life while
under
the reign of the Death of Adam. So, likewise, the Age of the Reign
of Grace in Righteousness does mean everyone gets eternal life, just
as not everyone under the Reign of the Death meant everyone
perished. It is the Reign of the Grace in the Righteousness
unto
Eternal Life that has replaced the Reign of the Sin in the Death,
but this does not guarantee that everyone gets eternal life, anymore
than the previous reign guaranteed that all would perish.
Is
26.2 speaks of the "gates" that are now "open" in order for the
"righteous nation" to "enter." There are several passages in
Isaiah
like this. This is exactly what Jesus meant to Nicodemus in that we
must be "born again" to "enter the kingdom of God."
The "righteous
nation" that enters into the Mount of Zion are those who were under
the effects of Adam's rebellion, the reign of the Death. The reign
of the Death has been removed, the
cause
has been dealt with. The
effects,
clearly, remain.
If they did not remain, the language of "entering in" and the
mention of the "wicked" who do not learn righteousness is
meaningless.
There are many passages I could go
to, but one more from
Isaiah
will work, then we will consider
Zechariah.
In chapter 60 we have
Rev
21,22. The "gates" are "never shut" (60.11). This is the same in
Is
25,26 where as
a result of the death being swallowed up,
that gates are now opened. Eternal life resides inside. Listen to
the Prophet:
Thy gates
also shall be open continually, day and night, they shall not be
shut; that men may bring unto thee the wealth of the nations, and
their kings in procession. 12 For that nation and kingdom that will
not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly
wasted (JPS, 60.10-11).
That this same imagery is in John's
vision is plain (Rev
21.25). The point of this is plainly taught in the Prophet:
after the removal of the death
for all peoples, all peoples must enter into the City to gain
Eternal Life. It does not automatically mean that they get Eternal
Life.
Therefore, the Bible plainly teaches that in the Age to Come, after
the Death has been swallowed up and its reign has ceased,
nations can and will
still rebel against God's People, and they shall face "utter waste"
and "perish"
as a result.
In my more exhaustive studies on
Isaiah, located on our website, I show that "sheol" is never the
place of "fire." The "fiery judgment" or "burning sulfur" mentioned
in Isaiah is what was to come
after
sheol. John called it the "second death", and he got it from
Isaiah.
No one perished in sheol. They "slept", to use a biblical euphemism.
The burning and perishing happens
after
Israel is
raised from the dead and restored. The enemies of Israel, "all the
nations" of the OT world from Adam to Rome who were in Hades, or
Sheol, would be raised and
then
enter into eternal life, or eternal punishment. This is exactly how
Isaiah predicted it and John is merely repeating him.
It is through the destruction of
"the death" that any one can be raised to Eternal Life. If the Death
still reigns, then
no one
can have eternal life.
By understanding that "the death" is being cut off from Eternal
Life, as seen in the Garden of Eden, then the "swallowing up" of the
Death means that Eternal Life can now be had. But, as the
prophets show, God must draw that person "into" the "gates". If such
a person fails to come and drink of the water (Is
55.1-5), he shall "perish" in the "second death." It's that simple.
Zechariah
14 is perhaps even more explicit. In parallel with
Isaiah
in many, many places, this prophet foresees a time when:
And it shall
come to pass in that day, that there shall not be light, but heavy
clouds and thick; 7 And there shall be one day which shall be known
as the LORD'S, not day, and not night; but it shall come to pass,
that at evening time there shall be light. 8 And it shall come to
pass in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem:
half of them toward the eastern sea, and half of them toward the
western sea; in summer and in winter shall it be. 9 And the LORD
shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One,
and His name one. 10 All the land shall be turned as the Arabah,
from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; and she shall be lifted up,
and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of
the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananel
unto the king's winepresses. 11 And men shall dwell therein, and
there shall be no more extermination; but Jerusalem shall dwell
safely.
Again, the parallel language
between this passage and
Rev
21,22 is unmistakable. And the
same pattern
is seen in
Isaiah
as here, for
after
the Restoration of Israel, when, in
Isaiah,
the Death is no more, we have these "nations" in
Zech.
14.16 who can still rebel against the Lord. Who are these nations?
They are not saved. Obviously. But, isn't the Death swallowed up?
Therefore, it means that the swallowing up of the Death does not
mean, and the Spirit does not want us to infer, universal salvation
for every single individual! No prophet teaches it. The swallowing
up of the Death simply means that salvation ("living waters") and
Eternal Life
are now available.
One final passage should end this
silly inference from the universalists. In
Rev
22.14,15 we clearly, clearly have the
same pattern
as seen in the Prophets:
inside
the City, through the gate, are those who have eternal life.
Outside
the city are those who do not, but who may, at the calling of God,
enter into the City. Those
outside
are the ones being invited
inside.
John is not making this up, dear readers. It was already written in
the Prophets that the Age to Come would look like this. The death
has been removed for those inside as well as those outside. If not,
then no one
outside could enter inside!
However, the
effects
of being born "in Adam" have not been taken away.
The reign of the Death meant that
one was born as a son to Adam and Eve, the mother of all the living.
He was born in exile, cut off from eternal life with God, having no
possibility of attaining Eternal Life and Righteousness with God.
When he died, he entered "sheol" and "slept." That was the end of
that. Not a good life, would you say? Now, God has arranged a new
heavens and a new earth. This new arrangement for the world ended
the reign of the death and provided for justification from "the sin"
of Adam (Rom
5.17). Grace now reigns in Righteousness in the Age to Come, and
some have thought that this means that now everyone "gets saved."
No. We have proven that the Scriptures teach no such thing. Rather,
then, what we are left to infer is that in the Age to Come, in the
New Heavens and New Earth, people have sex like Adam and Eve did.
Procreation did not end in A.D. 70! In the new arrangement, though,
the East gate stands open! The Cherubim is gone! Now all nations
have access to the true Tree of The Life! The Death has been
swallowed up in victory!
Yet, the Scriptures teach that even
after this victory,
some
nations will not come. They remain in Adam, having the knowledge of
good and evil. We are born "outside" the Tree of Life. We all must
"enter" the gates of the New Jerusalem. If we fail, then we have
nothing but "the second death" to look forward, what
Isaiah
called "fiery destruction."
Remaining in Adam is not the
"result" of his sin. Adam and Eve had kids, and these kids had kids,
and so on, up to you and your kids. The flesh that Adam had is the
same as yours and mine. The same way they produced kids is the same
way we produce kids. Thus, we are "like Adam." That seems plain
enough. This nonsense that Christ ended being "in Adam" since "the
death " is no more confuses Paul's terms. "The death" and "Adam" are
not the same. The Death was a penalty for what Adam
did,
not for who Adam
was.
The result
of this penalty was exile from the Life. All men are still born "in
Adam" and born "in exile."
But, since the
penalty
has been removed, the Life can now be attained. But, the actual
penalty and the
effects
of that penalty are also two different things.
I could serve 25 years in prison. When I finish my term the penalty
has been paid for and is no more.
The
effects
however, remain. By failing to distinguish between cause and effect,
many Preterists have made bad logical inferences.
As for this talk about how we have
to "redefine" things, what about it? Luther "redefined" Roman
Catholic theology. The question is, are we redefining Scriptures? If
I am redefining bad theological definitions, then so be it. The fact
of the matter is that I believe the Scriptures teach a plain
message. We have shown without question that the swallowing up of
the death hardly meant universal salvation for every individual.
Therefore, the definition of "the death" that some have that leads
them to make such a conclusion is
a wrong, unscriptural definition.
As I began this article, I noted that definitions are hard to come
by. I have given mine. I have shown how it is that "the death" can
be no more for all men without requiring the universal salvation of
all men. The Scriptures unanimously teach this.
It is often times that for a
theological movement to survive it must work through the problems
that it raises. If it cannot, then it quickly goes by the wayside.
By using traditional theological guides (like cause and effect,
parallelisms, inferences drawn from comparison and contrast), I have
shown that there is no contradiction between saying that Adolph
Hitler was not
ruled
by the Death and the Sin of Adam. He was under the Age of Grace and
Righteousness.
However, being
born under the effects of that now ended reign of the Death, Hitler
appears to have never entered into Eternal Life. The "effects" and
the "reign" are logically two
different
things. My solution is that the "effects" remain, but can be and are
only reversed when one becomes a member of the Body of Jesus.
The ending of the reign means that one
can
become a member. One can now be set free from the effects of that
old reign, and be transformed from being a member of the body of the
death and the sin, and become adopted to a new family.
One may ask,
"how can the body of the Death" be around without the reign of the
Death? Easy.
The body
of the
Death is the Body generated as a
result of
(effect) the
reign of the death.
It is the death that is swallowed up, not the effects, which, in
this case, is the body created by the Death that came through Adam.
Being a member of
the body of the death simply means being born as a "member"
to the family of Adam and Eve, the mother of all the living. Under
the reign
of the Death, we could not be adopted by God. Israel's adoption was
"according to the flesh" and it failed "because the flesh is weak."
It was under the reign of the Sin and the Death. It was "not able"
to come in to righteousness. Now, it "is able" to come in because
the reign
of the death has been effectively removed so that those under the
effects
of that now ended reign can be made new members of the Body of
Christ, the Israel of God.
I suppose that my biggest point in
all of this is that the Scriptures force me to think in such a way.
The death is swallowed up for "all peoples" yet "some nations" still
rebel and "perish". Thus, one raises the question, "how can that
be?" It is because we wrongly see sin and rebellion as having its
cause in the reign of the Death. Death does not have to be reigning
in order for men to be evil. Being born give us that. We have,
remember, the knowledge of good and evil. Did this cease in A.D. 70?
Hardly. But, because the death's reign has ended, the true knowledge
of good and evil (as God defines it) has infiltrated the
world....and has been changing it. Our whole apologetics is built on
this foundation that man cannot reason apart from God. This goes to
the very heart of apologetics. Being born outside Eternal Life, in
Adam, having the knowledge of good and evil did not cease.
These are the
effects
of one man's sin.
They are not the
cause.
Adam's sin was the cause. Adam's exile was the cause of all
men's exile. In Christ, the effects can be reversed because
the cause has been done away with through the atoning work of
Christ. It is this type of logical solution that gives
satisfaction to this issue.
[1] According to Simmons, they were
not made sinners. They merely inherited the potential to become
sinners. "That mankind inherited Adam's fallenness, but that no man
is condemned before God based upon that fallenness until
he personally acts upon it,
having attained to the age of accountability" (art. cited above).
Paul explicitly stated, "the result of one trespass was condemnation
for all men"
(Rom
5.18). This is where Simmons' Church of Christ Arminianism comes
heavily into play and it continues throughout his theology. But,
note, in the example given above concering Achan's sin, why did God
route all
the Israelites because
one man's
sin? He said, "Israel
has sinned" not "Achan has sinned"! It is Simmons' failure to
realize the corporate nature here in the beginning that undermines
his theology throughout.
To receive Kurt Simmons’ e-mail newsletter, The Sword & The Plow, click the Subscribe link:
All rights reserved.