Mercy on Them All

8/8/2019 Mercy on Them All

1/173

Authors Note

Most Christian writers today use the New International Version of the Bible for their Scripturesreferences.

I decided to do the same, and the references in the early chapters of this book are all NIV unless

otherwise stated.

Then I came to chapter eight on Hell. The Authorised Version gives hell forhades on ten of the

eleven occasions in which it occurs, but the NIV translates hades as hell only once in the eleven

occurrences. My subject matter was fast disappearing!

Even so, most Christians still think of hell, discuss hell and preach the hell of the AV even if they read

the NIV. So at this point I reverted to the AV. Usually I have given the NIV or other versions, if

appropriate.

Oh yes! If the AV translators had been consistent and used hell for hades on that eleventh occasion 1

Cor. 15:55 would have read, O death where is thy sting? O hell where is thy victory? One can

imagine that the response might have been quite deafening!


2/173

MERCY ON THEM ALL

Chapters

1. The Fall - The Will of God or not?

2. Almighty, all-loving - and all-wise?

3. Eternal in the Old Testament

4. Eternal in the New Testament

5. "Mercy triumphs over Judgement"

6. Jonah's Three days and Paul's Three days

7. The Purpose of God in Death

8. Hell - in the Old Testament

9. Hell - in the New Testament

10. "Everyone will be salted with fire"

11. The Ages - Past, Present and Future

12. Will God still love Jim in Hell?

13. From Him . .. through Him ... to Him

are ALL THINGS

Appendices

1. The Bible and the Cross" - Rev: G. Campbell Morgan D.D.

2 Bibliography


3/173

To suggest that this might have been God's will for His creation, and Man, His

vice-regent, in particular, sounds at first, preposterous. It is almost to accuse God

of being responsible for all the implications of the Fall. It is to make Him responsible , for

example, of war, with its killing and maiming of young men, rape of young women, and

slaughter of millions of innocent children. It is to lay at God's door death by the lingering agonies

of famine and drought, cancer, cholera and the black death and of the ghastly effects

of mental and physical deformities. Enough, enough, you say. Yes, this is totally

unacceptable isn't it?

But what if we maintain that the Fall was outside the will of God? What are

we saying then? Are we implying that the devil is smarter than God? Are we

suggesting that in one masterly stroke Satan ruined God's creation and devastated

His Grand Design - not merely for a million years, or ten million years, but

irrevocably and irreversibly, for ever. Oh yes. There is Calvary. But even Jesus

said "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road

that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and

narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matt. 7:13,14. Only a

few find it. What then of the many? Do they spend eternity in hell as an eternal

and irreversible witness to angels and saints that the devil outsmarted God?

Please don't respond with the "but Adam had to have freewill" answer. What

sort of blessing is freewill if it lands 90 % of mankind in hell for eternity? Any

parent who watched a blind two-year old toddle towards a bonfire and simply let it

fall into the fire and be burned to death because he did not want to deprive the

little child of its freewill would be held to be a monster. The courts would find the parent culpable

- and rightly so.

God well knew that Adam and Eve were innocents abroad, mere babes in the

woods, and that they were no match for the wiles of the devil. He knew the

outcome of the temptation in the garden of Eden before He created Adam and

Eve, even before He created Satan and hell. "Through him all things were made;

without Him nothing was made that has been made" (Jn. 1:3). All things must

include hell and the devil. And hell must be precisely what he intended it to be.


4/173

But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones and he will surely curse

you to your face.' The Lord said to Satan, 'Very well, then, he is in your hands;

but you must spare his life." Job 2:1-6.

Satan had no access to Job until God granted it. How much more, then, would

it have been impossible for Satan to have tempted and overcome Eve and then

Adam before the Fall if God had not allowed it?

And if we lean to the "outside the will of God" alternative, let us think of the

implications. If Satan outsmarted God and devastated his purpose once, might he

not be able to do so again? In fact, from this viewpoint, it would appear that the

devil did frustrate God a second time. The view that "perfect-bliss-forevermore"

was Plan A, spoilt by the devil, and Calvary was Plan B, a rescue operation

('rescue operation' and 'rescue mission' are two phrases I heard from different

preachers on successive weekends) then the devil has also largely frustrated Plan

B. For Plan B dictated that the fruits of Calvary could only be enjoyed by faith

and we are told that "the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so

that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Cor. 4:4). Why ever would God

design a rescue operation which by its very nature (the central principle being

faith) was largely doomed to failure?

The picture, then, appears to be:

God creates mankind for unbridled bliss; Satan is inexplicably allowed to step

in and spoil everything; many years later at Calvary God mounts a rescue mission

which operates by faith; Satan has the power to blind potential beneficiaries so

that they cannot believe and so enjoy the salvation purchased at so great a price.

Is this scenario remotely conceivable? Yet it is implied in less stark terms

from pulpits week after week.

Furthermore when God says he "will not let you be tempted beyond what you

can bear" (1 Cor. 10:13), can we be sure of that, or of anything? What happens to

our faith if there is a devil out there capable of outwitting God and God is unable

or unwilling to stop him? (Incidentally, there is a strong implication in this verse

that God does permit all temptation to which we are exposed.)


5/173

And we have to ask, "Where was the all-wise, all-loving, almighty God when

this happened? We remember Elijah's challenge to the prophets of Baal when

their god did not answer their day-long cryings at Carmel. '"Shout louder' he said

'Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or travelling. Maybe

he is sleeping or must be awakened, '"1 Kings 18:27. So much for Baal, but it is

unthinkable that the God of the whole Earth, who neither slumbers nor sleeps, was

not looking or not aware when wily, powerful Satan assaulted these two brand

new spiritual babes. God could neither have been disinterested or uninvolved in

an act with such far reaching consequences for him and his plan, let alone Adam,

Eve and all humanity. No. He either positively allowed the Fall with all its

massive implications for good reason or one must question his wisdom, or power,

or love, or all three. Again, "Stop! This is unacceptable" you say.

So where does this leave us? Answer, as always with a spiritual problem -

with the scriptures. Oh, does God tell us whether the Fall was within or outside

his will and hence his plan and purpose for mankind? Indeed he does.

Please turn to Romans 8:20,21.

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the

will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated

from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of

God."

Creation was subjected to frustration. The AV renders this "vanity". Good ^.

News says "futility".

God's wonderful and glorious creation has become frustrated, futile, vain. Its

purpose has been frustrated. That which God proclaimed "Very Good" (Gen.

1:31) is now vanity. '"Meaningless, meaningless!' says the teacher 'Utterly

meaningless. Everything is meaningless'" (Eccl. 1:2). God's grand purpose in

creating sons and daughters in his image, with whom he might have fellowship,

whom he blessed with freewill and a capacity for love that they might, of their

own volition, love him and he them, has been frustrated. They are now separated

from him by sin, turned in on themselves to become their own gods. Self is on the

throne as the sole arbiter of behaviour, ambition, and the use to which they put


6/173

their time and energies. "People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money,

boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without

love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self control, brutal, not lovers of good,

treacherous, rash conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - having a

form of godliness but denying its power" (2 Tim 3:2-5).

Quite a character reference for - Man. Man, created to be a "lover of God" has

become a lover of himself, but without self control; a lover of money and a lover

of pleasure. Religious, yes, as long as it does not have power to affect his self-

centred, self indulgent, self gratifying life. His love has become re-directed,

misdirected within instead of outward, upward, heavenward to his all-loving

Creator.

Creation was indeed subjected to frustration but "not by its own choice" we are

told. That's strange. We thought it was specifically of its own choice, or at least

at the choice of its progenitor, Adam. The bible continues "but by the will of the

one who subjected it... in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its

bondage to decay... and be brought into the glorious freedom of the children of

God."

If creation and with it God's grand design for creation was subjected to

frustration by a will other than the will of Adam, whose will was it? Our

immediate reaction might well be, "Oh it must be the devil." But it was subjected

"in hope." The devil never gave anyone hope but false hope, delusory hope.

Satan has no hope and is incapable of conveying hope of any kind. Hope is, by

definition, positive and all the devil is capable of is negative. Jesus said: "The thief comes

only to steal and kill and destroy" (John 10:10) .

We read on and find that the nature of the hope re spelt out, "liberation from its

bondage to decay (the devil is the source of bondage and decay) and brought into

the glorious freedom of the children of God." That settles it; it cannot be Satan.

Then can it be ... dare we suggest ... is Paul saying . . .? Yes. The New

American Standard Bible translates Romans 8:20: "For the creation was subjected

to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it..." Note the

capital H of Him. The translators of the NASB were in no doubt that the one who

subjected creation to futility was God.


7/173

The Good News goes further and actually spells it out: "For creation was

condemned to lose its purpose, not of its own will, but because God willed it to be

so."

God willed it to be so.

In the confines of human knowledge and reasoning we may recoil at the mere

suggestion that the Fall was the specific and declared will of God. But Romans

8:20 is not capable of any interpretation other than that given by the translators of

the Good News Bible.

God willed it to be so.

Nor was it a mere permissive, passive, uninvolved acceptance by God of the

tragedy acted out by Satan, Eve and Adam. The Bible states positively and

definitively. God willed it to be so. And how could it have been otherwise?

The view has been propounded that the fall was "God's permissive will."

Whatever is that supposed to mean? The Bible nowhere refers to God's

permissive will. Can we seriously hold the view that God stood by as a

disinterested spectator and "permitted" His creation to be devastated and all

mankind to become doomed to a life of sin with the consequences which we read

s graphically in our daily newspapers as in the bible? Hell on earth and hell

thereafter for many.

An analogy may help at this stage. The analogy of Calvary. On the surface it /

appears that religious bigotry, the jealousy and hatred of High Priests Annas and

Caiaphas, the greed of Judas and the cowardice of Pontius Pilate had conspired to

put Jesus to death. It looks like yet another human assassination. As Dr. Leslie

Weatherhead, a Methodist leaderput it in The Transforming Friendship

"He was hounded to an untimely death by jealous Pharisees."

So it would seem to an objective historian. But we know that "Satan entered

Judas, called Iscariot, one of the twelve. And Judas went to the Chief Priests and

the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray


8/173

Jesus." (Luke 22:3, 4). Satan entered Judas and the infamous saga of Jesus

betrayal, the mockery of a trial and the travesty of justice by which he was

condemned to death by crucifixion after having been declared innocent, was

launched. Paul writes of true wisdom and adds "None of the rulers of this age

understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory" (1

Cor. 2:8).

All the commentaries I have read interpret the rulers of this age (Gr.Aion) to

be Satan and his minions of whom Paul wrote to the Ephesians "For our struggle

is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities,

against the powers of this dark world (Gr.Aion) and against the spiritual forces of

evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12).

So we could say that the crucifixion was the will and the work of evil men but,

beyond that, it was the will and work of the devil.

But we read prophetically of Jesus on the Cross in Isaiah 53:4 - "we considered

him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted... it was the Lord's will to crush

Him and cause Him to suffer."

"It was the Lord's will." God willed it to be so.

12 March 1995 was designated "Unemployment Sunday." Hymns, prayers and

even the Creed were adapted to this theme on a specially printed sheet. The creed

proclaimed "We believe in the Son of God made human. He suffered and died

because he challenged and upset the powers of his day." No! He upset and

challenged the (religious) powers of his day, but he died because it was God's will

and plan and purpose. "I lay down my life - only to take it up again. No-one

takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (Jn. 10:17).

Peter on the day of Pentecost affirmed "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of

Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs.

Which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was

handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the

help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross" (Acts 2:22,23).


9/173

God's will, God's set purpose. Of course.

So on the surface the crucifixion of Jesus was a dastardly human act. But it

was also the work of the devil. Yet, as with Job's affliction, it was also the

positive act of God.

How could it have been otherwise? Satan is totally under God's control. And

so it was with the Fall. At the first level it was a human act, the sin of

disobedience by Adam and Eve; at the second level it was Satan who tempted

them and prevailed; but at the third level it was God. "God willed it to be so."

The consequence: "the result of one man's trespass was condemnation for all

men" (Rom. 5:18).

Lest we should seem to come to too hasty a conclusion on one verse (though it

is hard to see how else one could interpret Romans 8:20) let us move on - to

Romans 11:32.

"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy

on them all."

The preceding verses, as with the whole text from chapter one, were a

comparison of Jew and Gentile. Each was disobedient: each received God's

mercy. But the words of Romans 11:32 could scarcely be plainer.

God. God. God has bound all men over to disobedience. Precisely. This was

the effect of the Fall which we have seen was the declared will of God and part of

his plan, just as Calvary was his declared will and part of his plan from before

creation.

Other versions read:

"God has concluded them all in unbelief." (AV)

"For God hath shut up all unto disobedience." (ASV)

"For God has locked up all in the prison of unbelief." (Weymouth)


10/173


11/173

Ah! So there was a purpose in his engineering the Fall? Yes.

"So that he may have mercy upon them all."

We need to take a break.

It is bad enough, mind-boggling enough, for a Christian schooled in received

orthodox theology, to have to accept that God engineered the Fall with all its

inexhaustible consequences. But to be told that this was specifically so that he

might have mercy . . . and mercy on all. Well, that does take some accepting.

Some modem versions such as the NEB render this as "show mercy". That lets

theologians off the hook but the text will not bear this translation. It is

unequivocally "have mercy".

Let us face it, if the end of 90% of mankind is anything like the picture which orthodox,

evangelical teachers and preachers present, then to have set up the Fall, so that he may

have mercy on them all can only leave us totally perplexed with a great sense

of doom.

While we thought the devil was responsible for the fall, the end of unbelievers,

while lamentable and deeply distressing, was at least logical. The devil tricked

Adam into sin; Adam's sin was passed on down to all men; all men were doomed;

Jesus came to die for our sins and to save those that believed this good news; most

never heard the good news, let alone believed it; those who did hear heard an often

insipid gospel preached by a largely anaemic, compromising and compromised

church made up of Christians singing that they belonged to Jesus but who in fact

belonged very much to themselves. Many have already died outside of saving

grace and God must have known it would have been impossible during their

lifetime to have mercy upon all. Yet he took this drastic, irrevocable step of

plunging mankind into the darkness of unbeliefso thathe might have mercy upon

all.

What did Paul think about all this? Surely verse 32 will be followed by an

awful lament, a dirge about how sad it is that due to Satan's wiles and man's evil

heart it has all gone wrong; the plan has backfired. But before we read on in

chapter 11, maybe it strikes us that just as the statement in 11:32 is in perfect


12/173

accord with 8:20 as to the Fall being God's will, God's doing, in respect of the

beginning of the Adamic race, so 8:21 is in perfect accord with 11:32 as to the end

and outcome.

"... in Hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay

and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God."

Not "part of creation" nor "the remnant of creation" but "the creation" will be

liberated. "Mercy on them all."

Dr. George Campbell Morgan, one of the great Bible expositors of the first

half of the twentieth century, wrote, "If by that Cross all things in the heavens are

to be reconciled, and infinite peace is to follow, I dare trust it, notwithstanding all

of

my sin and all my weakness. By the way^if-by that Cross I am reconciled to God,

and through it I find rest, infinite, eternal and undying. At last my rest shall be

rest with the WHOLE CREATION, for the cosmic order will be restored through

the mystery of God's suffering as revealed in the Cross."

Let us be clear:

Everything that God does is with and for a purpose. Nothing is merely his

"permissive will" or incidental, or capricious, or arbitrary, or pointless. All is

planned in infinite detail and is part of a great and grand design.

., But what purpose can there be in the Fall? It is presented by the church at

large as an unmitigated disaster with multiplied catastrophic consequences. Can it

possibly be positive, constructive, creative; part of an overall plan?

Paul did not follow his amazing declaration that God had bound all men over

to disobedience with a woeful lament. Instead he wrote:

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!"

(Really! Is this the right place to be extolling God's knowledge and wisdom,

Paul?)

"How unsearchable his judgements, and his paths beyond tracing out!

Who has known the mind of the Lord?

12

But God immediately promised the seed of woman^who would crush Satan's


13/173

head,(Genesis 3:15} the first of a remarkable train of prophecies right through the y

Old Testament telling of the Messiah who would come and upon whom would be

laid "the iniquity of us all" (Is. 53:6).

Preachers have not always been explicit on God's attitude to Satan's

ensnarement of Adam and Eve. But there ^ an implied, sometimes expressed,

view that God's hands were bound. He had given Adam freewill and entrusted

him with creation and if Adam chose to hand this over to Satan then God could

not honourably interfere.

All God could do, which he had known before the creation of Satan, hell, the

world and Adam, was to send a Saviour to atone for Man's sins and so reconcile

man to himself. Many preachers (myself included) were more than a little

unhappy with this, as it was very difficult to come to terms with God setting the

whole thing up the way he did/when he knew beforehand that 90 of his beloved

humanity would end up in hell. It was a puzzle, too, as to why God would permit

all this when he knew that the cost of redeeming even the few was the horrific

death of his Son on the Cross. Certainly, there are divine mysteries'but God has v

made us rational beings and sent His spirit to lead us into all Truth. However

that^how it seemed to be and most evangelicals (myself included) simply

accepted it.

The gospel as presented then continued that those who believed in Jesus and

Jlis salvation would be saved but unbelievers would be damned, or sent to helL-A^ '

There are plenty of scriptures for this such as "Jesus said to them 'Go into all the t" ' 1

world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptised

| will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned (AV damned) "'

/Mark 16:15,16/and "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever

rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" (Jn. 3:36).

3

Preachers have been somewhat divided over what happened to the hundreds

of millions who never heard the gospel. Some fervent evangelists such as

Jonathan Edwards presented graphic pictures of a continuous stream of sinners,

including the "untold millions, yet untold" as the hymn writer put it, pouring into

the abyss of the fires of hell. Others have quoted such scriptures as "(Indeed,


14/173

2 l2

when Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,

they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they

show that the requirements of the law are written on the hearts, their consciences

also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending

them). This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets

through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares" (Rom. 2:14-16). This hardly

conveys all heathen rushing headlong into hell, come what may.

But as to those who hear the gospel and do not turn to Christ, virtually all

evangelical preachers of the past few centuries (myself included) have been

unequivocal: they go to hell and burn for ever and ever.

^ More texts are produced and quoted to show that this judgement is

irreversible and eternal.

In the Old Testament Daniel prophesies that at the resurrection "Multitudes

who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to

shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2).

Nor is there any shortage of New Testament scriptures to confirm what we

read in Daniel. "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... then they

will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life" (Matt.

25:41, 46) is but one such scripture.

Some preachers have a problem that while Christ rejecters should be

punished, for a God of mercy and love to set the whole thing up so that they burn

for eternity is somewhat extreme. The passive God who has to stand by

honourably while the wily serpent ensnares Adam'and Eve and dooms most of

humanity to an eternal hell does not ring totally true. Why did he let himself get

into that situation in the first place if he knew what the horrendous outcome

would be?

But what a devastating,, mind-blowing realisation it is when we face up to

Romans 11:32. To read that God concluded all in unbelief so that he might have


15/173

3 ^

mercy on all, and then to find that he will never be able to achieve his end

because the punishment of many is eternal, shakes our very foundations.

Because of the enormous implications of this scripture I should like us to look

at the passage in Job quoted in chapter 1 once again. May I paraphrase the scene

in modem parlance:

The angels came unto God's presence and Satan was with them. (This is

pretty mind-blowing for subsequent events show it was clearly after the fall of

Satan). God asks Satan where he has been,to which Satan replies that he has (seen^

going to and fro in the earth. God asks Satan if he has seen this wonderful

man Job. Satan says he has but tells God this is only because He (God) has --

put a hedge around Job so that he (Satan) can't get at him. "Stretch out your

hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face"

taunts Satan. "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the

man himself do not lay a finger" says God. Unbelievable catastrophes follow:

Job loses everything, including his sons and daughters.

Then in chapter 2 the angels came before God again and Satan was with them.

God asked him where he's been, (he's been to the earth) and God asked him

whether he has seen this wonderful man, Job.'^noWnetel "though you incited me

against him to ruin him without any reason."

I make this point because it seems that God and Satan are agreed on a spiritual

point with which many theologians would have great difficulty. That is.that

when God permits Satan to do something God is effectively doing it himself.

Satan challenged God to stretch out his (God's) hand and strike Job. God did not

argue and say he could do no such thing, especially as he was later to say there

was no reason to strike him. But in response God gave permission to Satan to

stretch out his (Satan's) hand and strike Job. And when Satan (not God) had done

so God said that Job had maintained his integrity "though you incited me against

him."

We may protest: No, God did not strike Job, Satan did. But God himself took

responsibility because Satan could only act when God let him. God therefore


16/173

accepted that it was as if God had done it himself. "You incited me against him."

4 ,

^ . Many years ago I was discussing this area of scripture with a dear Christian

4"" brother^aew-wth-lne-tord?-id I said, "Reg, if I have a vicious dog on a leash,

and I know it will savage anyone who comes on to my property; I then see you

come through my front gate and I release the dog, which promptly attacks you,

who has savaged you? I have. I am responsible because it was within my power

to withhold the attack or permit it. The dog had no influence over your fate until

I unleashed it. So alsc^with God and Satan. If God allows Satan to do something

then, effectively, God has done it. So when Satan entered Judas to betray Jesus,

as we have seen, God says through his word that Jesus was "stricken by God". "It

was the Lord's will to crush Him,"(lsaiah 53) although, ostensibly. God was

simply a by-stander in the collusion of the wickedness of Satan and the

wickedness of men. And the Fall is an exact parallel. God engineered the Fall.

But why make the point at such length? Because it explodes the passive God,

permissive God, hands-tied God view of his attitude to the Fall. He allowed it, so

He did it. And of course Paul does not shirk in two places in Romans to state

definitively that the Fall was not by default but the specific, purposeful, positive

will of God - the planned act of God, just as was the work of redemption through

the crucifixion.

Furthermore, this specific/positive, planned act of God in causing mankind to

inherit Adam's sinful nature and-se be bound up, shut up or imprisoned

(whichever version you prefer) in disobedience and unbelief was for a declared,

unequivocally stated purpose^so that he might have mercy y^on alL1'1'

The evangelical view as set out above is that God does not and cannot achieve

this purpose - for whatever reason. If eternal is eternal and everlasting is

everlasting then many of the "all" will never, th'ough all eternity, experience the V;

mercy of God. ^Vv (W< k

Q^-MeA^&ci

This conclusion is inescapable but never ycrbaliscd- because once one faces

the conclusion one is forced to face the implications. Dare we say it? If God had


17/173

instigated the Fall withjfte hellish (literally) consequences for a specific purpose,

and he does not and cannot (for whatever reason) achieve that purpose for all

eternity, then plunging humanity into this benighted state would have been a

blunder of unparalleled proportions. It would have been earth-shattering,

5 \^

universe-shattering, everything-shattering. Before you have apoplexy, or want to

indict me for blasphemy, can you disagree with that statement?" ô Cf^.cMcLît.c^ ,

As a young Christian I felt tremendous responsibility for my office

colleagues. If I did not testify to them then their blood would be on my hands.

Eze. 3:20,21. So I had my testimony printed and included )/C in everyone's pay K

advice at the end of a month. Then a new accountant joined the staff, so I looked

for an opportunity to share the gospel with him. On doing so he said. "Tony, tell

me, is God all-loving or almighty?" Young and enthusiastic, I immediately

protested that He was both. "No" said my friend, "either he is all loving and

wants to save everyone, but he can't; or he is almighty and can save everyone but

won't. You can't have it both ways." I stuttered some explanation of the hands- -^

tied God type and slunk away. It did concern me as I thought about it, but I took

refuge in conventional evangelical doctrine and pushed it to the back of my mind.

The years passed; I went to Bible School; I was ordained and had what was

considered a relatively successful ministry.

Then one day I was considering the wisdom of God - God is the all-wise God.

I was reading my Authorised (King James) version in Acts 15:18 "Known unto

God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

The can't-have-it-both-ways conversation came back, with a third dimension

now added. God is all-loving, almighty and all-wise. The destiny of the major ) ,n ' es j

unbridgableûnderstanding-gap between God and ourselves is to make the

Bible pointless. True, fallen man needs to be restored and filled with God's

Spirit to know God, but this is the whole purpose of redemption. "The Son of

God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who

is true. And we are in him who is true - even in his Son Jesus Christ" writes

John (I John 5:20). One of the most important reasons that God came as a

man in his Son Jesus was to enable men to know him. "If you really knew

me, you would know my father as well. From now on you do know him and

have seen him" said Jesus (John 14:7). Nor is this an external knowledge, by

observation, as we know people in the world, for Paul writes: "No-one knows

the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit

of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand ... not

in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit,

expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words" (I Cor. 2:11-13). The same

writer commented in his epistle to the Thessalonians, "Now about brotherly

love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by

God to love each other" (I Thess. 4:9).

God, who is love, teaches us to love by imparting his own nature to us.

The ultimate in God's plan of salvation for the individual is that we "be

conformed to the likeness of his Son," (Romans 9:28) who is "the exact

representation of his being," (Heb. 1:3). The whole work of the Holy Spirit

throughout the entire life-span of the believer is to teach him from within what

God is like and to transform him into God's image.

To say that we do not know what God is like and cannot understand God

is a denial of the very purpose of the New Covenant and the work of

1 ^

redemption. It also means that we have no frame of reference for our

standards and ethics, or in our behaviour to one another. This would make us

like the unbelieving world which is at the whim of every philosophical and


43/173

psychological fad or fashion. The revealed nature of God is our frame of

reference. His nature, which is revealed in his dealings with mankind

throughout the Bible, is our pattern, our guide, our sure behavioural code.

Christ came, "leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps" (I

Peter 2:21). And He gives us His Spirit to enable us to follow, more, to live

out that example, pattern and code.

All is beauty and harmony in the Biblical revelation of God as taught by

the Church - with one exception. The love of God, his compassion, grace,

forgiveness, mercy, long-suffering, patience, kindness are all facets of his

transcendent goodness. God is good. The humility, meekness, yet strength

and sacrificial suffering of Jesus, God manifest in the flesh, all fit into the

revelation of the unseen God. There is but one jarring note: an incredible

vindictive, torturous punishment of burning billions of souls in endless fire.

According to orthodox doctrine it is not only endless but totally aimless,

pointless and negative. There is no hope that repentance and change of heart

will be rewarded by release or even a sliver of mercy in annihilation. The

fire, the torment, the punishment is to go on, and on, and on not merely for a

million years but endlessly.

Such punishment far exceeds the most diabolical of mediaeval tortures or

anything else that the depraved, sadistic mind of fallen man has managed to - --- _

contrive. Hitler burnt the Jews in gas chambers and the civilised world was

rightly outraged: but that burning was relatively quick, not endless. Stalin and

his successors consigned dissidents to Siberia for twenty or twenty-five years

at a time on minor offences and, again, the civilised'world was incensed. But

with complete equanimity Christians can accuse their God of torturing souls,

not for twenty or fifty years, or fifty thousand or fifty million years, but

endlessly. And there is no point in trying to excuse God (as if he needed a

champion) because if endless fiery torment is a fact then God, by specific

design, must have decreed it to be so. It cannot be unfortunate happenchance.

Richard Wurmbran^records an incident in Room 4, the death room, where a

godless communist named Boris was dying:

"All over soon," he (Boris) murmured. "A priest once told me 'You'll rot


44/173

in hell.' So be it!"

L\\

?( (X- /v "-t^-- A^^/L/v ^x^^.^/^-i/ ^J~/(j3 y.^L.\ i"^.^' /^- i/^^-i^ ^-^ f^r I'-iC.^. Y-^^

/'.' .V-7.. -/ ..y,./ . ./. ^/. / /T-^'., -. ./ ^-/,, ../.',. .A iT^ft

"What made him speak like that?" I (Wurmbrand) asked.

"I was cursing God for my sufferings. He said I'd be punished for

Eternity."

A pastor named Valentin intervened: "Men curse the Communist Party,

but eventually it may release them. If hell were endless, then God would

be worse than our Secret Police."

It is one thing to sit in a study in the West and write of Hell in terms of

Communist punishments: it is another thing altogether for a compassionate

^ Christian minister suffering himself and beholding others suffering at the

hands of communist torturers, to say that if hell were endless, God would be

worse than the Russian Secret Police. But who can deny the soundness of this

pastor's reasoning?

The narrative continues:

General Stavrat said "I was taught at school and in Church that God will

punish eternally those who die unrepentant and without faith. It is the

received dogma."

"Received in your mind, but not, perhaps in your heart. General."

That surely is it. Christians believe in eternal punishment in their minds

and will defend their dogma with great vehemence, but few really believe it in

their hearts.

The rich young man came to Jesus to ask about eternal life. Jesus said,

"Why do you call me good? No-one is good - except God alone" (Luke

18:19). Jesus was saying that the only One who is absolute, undefiled and

unadulterated goodness is God. God is the definition of goodness; - "who

does not change like shifting shadows" (James 1:17). He is totally and

consistently good. He is the standard by which all goodness is judged. Every

human ethic, every vestige of the image of God in man and the New


45/173

Testament itself cry out that to torture endlessly with neither correction nor ,

r . -i ,-n ^O^/t- .fkjfif /U?^''.


46/173


47/173

previous statement, (that God had concluded all in unbelief) was that most of

the offspring of Adam would spend eternity in the flames of hell? It is,

frankly, inconceivable and untenable. Yes. God's patient, loving

chastisements, his punishments and corrective judgements, both in this life

and, if necessary, in the life to come are unsearchable riches. He will rebuke

and chasten till all come to know the blessedness of submission to his will.

So it is written of Jesus, "A bruised reed he will not break, and a

smouldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory" (Matt.

12:20).

There we have it. Judgement or Justice is unto victory! It is positive,

corrective and always "unto victory." Can "justice" or judgement which

consigns millions of sin-blighted, blind humanity (for whose sins Christ has

5 ^

atoned!) to endless flames be construed as victory? Victory for whom, one

might ask.

If received orthodox theology on the subject were true then Calvary would

appear to be a rescue operation of limited success, a Dunkirk, a damage

limitation exercise. How can one talk of victory against the background of

such a doctrine? But received theology is based on the mis-translation of one

word in each of the Old and New Testaments causing Jesus' glorious victory

and total triumph over sin, Satan and death to appear very limited in its effect.

Christ has triumphed - totally, completely, absolutely. "After the suffering of

his soul he will see the light of life and be satisfied" (Isa. 53:11).

It may shock some readers to know that in the three New Testament

scriptures we have just considered the Greek word for "judgement" is

precisely the same as that translated "damnation" elsewhere in the King James

or Authorised Version of the Bible. So Jesus linked damnation with the love

of God; Paul praised God for his damnations; and Isaiah foretold of Jesus

sending forth "damnation unto victory". This is not being in the least bit

facetious. For God's damnations or judgements are unto victory; they do flow

from his love; and he is to be praised for them. The strangeness of these


48/173

phrases only copes from wrong thinking emanating from the mediaeval

teaching of a-^resceeseme God of wrath who bums the unbelieving endlessly,

pointlessly, remorselessly. Lord, deliver your Church!

There is basic wrong thinking, too, on the purpose of hell. The mental

concept of i^' being ^ Satan's home ground, where he is lord and master, is

certainly not based on scripture. One hears Christians pray in this way,

sending the devil back to the place where he supposedly musters his forces

and works out his plans. Christian literature, such as C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape

letters" and even jokes also give this impression. Re-read the passages in Job

we considered in the first two chapters. Need it be said that hell is part of

God's creation? "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on

earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers (!) or

authorities (!); all things were created by him and for him. He is before all

things, and in him all things hold together" (Col. 1:16-17).

So hell was created by Jesus, and is for Him. Again, we read: "For of him,

and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen"

(Rom. 11:36). Hell is "of him, for him" and hell is "to him". /W / c/ ^C- LU ^

^^c


49/173

"" purpose is restoration into fellowship with God and that God might be all in

all.

While we are on the subject of God's nature and God's goodness we might

well consider what God requires of us in forgiveness and restoration as well as

vengeance and punishment of one another. God never requires of us more

ivc. '&l^vt*^y't is

than 44e-4s=of^'imsem prepared to do, nor will He require of us an attitude

totally contrary to the attitude He-takes in any situation.

Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against

me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?" Jesus saith unto him, "I say not

unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven."

There are Christians who find it difficult to forgive their brethren once,

and I have heard ministers say "I can never forgive so-and-so for splitting the

work." To forgive someone seven times is quite something. But to Jesus this

was not nearly enough, nor was seventy times seven. That is 490 times. I

doubt whether anyone takes this to mean that one is excused from forgiving

the 491st wrong for, if to forgive is also to forget, we would not know when

that point had been reached. "Love keeps no score of wrongs" (I Cor. 13:5

NEB) writes Paul. So if we had been counting the first 490 offences it means

we had not even truly forgiven the first offence let alone the 490th.

Effectively Jesus' reply to Peter was that he should never stop forgiving. (For

those familiar with Bible Numerics the feature often times seven squared (10

x 7 x 7 = 490) will also be significant. Seven is the number of completion in

scripture, as in the seven days of creation, seven days of the week. Seven

squared represents perfection or completion. ^ What God requires is an

^^i-^^^^f^iy ,^^)K,-^- .^-

7^7^ ^ ^ ^^'- ^' ^-^^

''" 6":-


50/173

concerned with the wrongdoer but the attitude of the wronged. Jesus prayed

for the forgiveness of his murderers who were far from sorry for what they

had done. They would gladly have repeated their dastardly act had Jesus

responded to their invitation to come down from the cross. They had not

apologised or repented, yet Jesus forgave them and prayed for their

forgiveness. Is it wrong to ask, incidentally, how and where and when that

prayer will be answered? I believe it is wrong and almost blasphemous to ask

if it will be answered, but it is honouring to Jesus to assume that his cry,

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke

23:34) will be answered, come what may. One might say that those who do

not respond to the gospel do not know what they are doing.. They are blind,

cannot believe, and certainly do not fully appreciate the consequences of what

they are doing. Are the cruficiers of Jesus to be forgiven but those who do not

respond to the gospel not to be forgiven? Or will the crucifiers of Jesus, for

whom he prayed, not experience forgiveness? "Oh what a web -we-weave-. . . ^

-etc^ How glorious, too, was Jesus' free and instantaneous forgiveness of the

sins of the thief on the cross, who admitted "We are getting what our deeds

deserve" (Luke 23:41).

Is it consistent with the character of the Jesus who requires such absolute

and complete forgiveness of us, who prayed for his persecutors, who forgave

the thief on the cross, that he will never forgive your decent, unsaved next

door neighbour, who came to the meetings held by the visiting evangelist but

who did not respond to his appeal?. My question is, "When he is in hell, in

anguish of soul over his sins and his rejection of the offer of salvation, and

turns his eyes heavenward, will Jesus' heart of love have turned to stone? Will

he whose name is Saviour no longer be willing or able to save? He assures us

that "The arm of the Lord is not too short to save" (Isa. 59:1

You refer me to Lazarus and the rich man as recorded in Luke 16. We

will look at this account in some detail in chapter nine, but, at this stage, may

we just make the point that the Lazarus account was in the pre-Calvary age,

the pre-resurrection period. After his death Jesus "led captives in his train"

(Eph. 4:8). Also, "He went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed


51/173

long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah" (I Pet.3:19,20).

These were not merely souls who had not heard God's Word. "Noah, a

preacher of righteousness" (2 Pet.2:5) had warned them, and they had rejected

8 '^

God's message. They had disobeyed. Yet Jesus, whose name means Saviour

or Salvation, went and preached to them. Are we to believe he took just

Noah's generation aside in the expanse of hell and preached to them in a

comer? I believe that they are mentioned because the context of the teaching

under review in Peter's epistle was Noah's day. Is this not an indication that

Jesus preached to all "the spirits in prison"? This scripture is not often quoted.

One is looked at askance if one refers to it at all as it is considered to be an

embarrassment, somewhat of an unwelcome intruder into Holy Writ. But

why? Is it not God's Word? And is it not glorious - a wonderful revelation of

God's mercy beyond the grave, not merely to those who have not heard, but to

the disobedient? Let us examine our hearts if we cannot rejoice that Jesus

preached to the disobedient in hell.

Jesus spoke of those in His day who "strain out a gnat but swallow a

camel" (Matt. 23:24) and lest there are those today who, in desperate defence

of their position, suggest that Jesus' teaching to the disobedient was merely

confirming the sentence of eternal damnation, it is interesting to read only

nine verses later "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those

who are now (not in text) dead, so that they might be judged according to men

in regard to the body; but live according to God in regard to the spirit" (IPet.

4:6).

I have resisted the temptation to quote highly respected (by me, as by

others) Christian authors who have attempted to justify the eternal damnation

doctrine. Somehow this pointless punishment is supposed to enhance God's

mercy to the few elect and so glorify his name - notwithstanding his express

statements that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 33:11)

and is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet. 3:19).

Reformed theologians, with whom I can now agree in view of the end


52/173


53/173


54/173

thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for

evermore." (Psalm 16:11). Our Christianity is puny and paltry indeed if we

envy the world its life without God.

As Paul told Timothy, Jesus is the Saviour of all men, but there is a special

salvation for the believer and we will see what that might be in a later chapter.

^ But let us rejoice that Jesus is the Saviour of all men. His wonders are known

in the grave. He has preached to the disobedient spirits in prison that they

might live. Let us praise him for his full, abundant and absolute salvation.

Jesus is Victor. Hallelujah!

And so we see that far from requiring a forgiveness of us which is greater

than his own. God's mercy truly "endureth for ever". As we read 26 times in

Psalm 136 (AV) alone, it has been proved to the ultimate. It has reached the

depths of hell.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning the man who had had an

immoral relationship with his step-mother. His sentence, to be carried out by

the Body of believers in the name of Jesus, was, "hand this man over to Satan

so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of

the Lord." (I Cor. 5:5). We see again that judgement is always positive, with

11&-5

correction and restoration as its purpose and aim. That this act was extreme

none will deny. To deliver someone to Satan is frightening in its implications,

but even so it is no malicious abuse of authority, no vindictive wreaking of

vengeance for letting the side down. The whole purpose was that his spirit be

saved.

Once we discover a truth in scripture we see it confirmed time and again

and we see this Holy Spirit inspired act to be in line with our proposition that,

God being what he is revealed to be throughout the scriptures, punishment and

judgement can only be for correction and restoration. God is good; and to

torture for the sake of torturing, with no aim or purpose, is evil by any

standards.

How can the Church present to the world a God whom they hold to be the


55/173

perfection of love and an eternal torturer at the same time and expect to be

credible. If it were true (how could it be?) it would not be so bad, but as this

enormous doctrine is based on the mis-translation (or dubious translation if

you are not yet fully convinced) is monstrous.

In his next epistle to the Corinthians, Paul appeals on behalf of the ex-

communicated man. "The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is

sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so

that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow" (2 Cor. 6:6, 7).

"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching" (2 Tim. 3:16) we

read. Let us look a little closer at this word of Paul concerning a man who

was a Christian, part of the Body of Christ at Corinth, who had gone into

immorality and who had been cut off from fellowship and delivered to Satan.

"Sufficient!" says the Apostle, inspired by God. "Enough! No more!". Is

this the word of a God who will punish for all eternity unbelievers who have

never known the grace of God and yet also have never fallen into such

immorality? Do we hear him say "Sufficient"? Why is it sufficient? "So that

he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow" says God through Paul. But

what of the billions in hell? Will they not be overwhelmed by excessive

sorrow? "Ah" you say, "but nothing can be done once they are in hell." I ask,

why not? Did God not create hell and all it is? Did he not create man? Did

he not create Satan, and permit him to tempt Eve and Adam? Did he not

create man so that the loss of a limb would not be passed down, but that sin

12 6'-

would? Did he not know the consequences? If course he did. Hell was his

idea, his concept and he created it. Assuredly he has complete control of hell

and every last soul in it. "If I make my bed in the depths (Heb. Sheol; AV

hell) you are there" (Ps. 139:8) said David.

The punishment of the Corinthian was sufficient and the divinely-inspired

appeal for its cessation was made because its purpose had been accomplished.

From the text we understand that he had repented and Paul enjoins the

Corinthian believers to "reaffirm your love for him" (verse 8).


56/173

So it is with the "spirits in prison". The punishment is for their correction

and restoration. When it has served its purpose, when it is deemed

"^ "sufficient" followed by repentance, as prefigured by Jonah (next chapter), the

mercy of God will be known in the grave, his "saving help" in the land of

forgetfulness.

This truth is borne out a number of times in the New Testament.

Once again we must ask whether God was requiring greater mercy and

forgiveness of His Church than He Himself is prepared to show. The man at

Corinth was a Christian; he had known the forgiveness of Jesus and

experienced saving grace; he had then abandoned himself to gross, continuous

sin in a form of sexual behaviour which was unacceptable even by heathen

standards. He was punished, but he was forgiven, restored and lovingly

welcomed back into fellowship after his punishment.

Yet Christians dismiss the possibility of restoration of the unbeliever after

death because he must not have "a second chance". This Corinthian had a

second chance after rejecting Christ, but it happened-to be afforded him in this

life so it is acceptable. Many unbelievers have died without receiving Christ,

yet also without having stooped to the abandoned immorality of this one who

had known the Lord. Is it unjust that they should be given the opportunity of

salvation? Or perhaps I should ask, is it unjust that they should not be given

the opportunity of salvation?

Will God be less generous, less merciful, than He requires His Church to

be?

13 y^

I was once told, "Oh, then you believe in a second chance." I replied, "I

do not even believe in a first chance. I simply do not believe in chance. I

believe in grace and the God of all grace. I believe in his plan and his purpose

for all of his creation and I believe that every detail of that plan was conceived

in his love and his grace and will be to his glory."

It is written of Jesus Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which

most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent: "Woe


57/173


58/173

One of the most striking of Jesus' parables in this respect is found in the

eighteenth chapter of Matthew's gospel. The scenario is that of a servant who

is hopelessly in debt to his lord and king. The king ordered that the servant,

his wife and children all be sold to pay the debt. The servant fell down and

worshipped the king and pleaded for time to pay the debt in full. The king

was moved with compassion and forgave him the debt. The servant then went

to collect a small debt from his fellow-servant. The fellow-servant fell down

before him and besought him, just as he had pleaded with the king, but he

would not relent and cast him into prison. The king was furious and sent for

'him and said, "You wicked servant, I cancelled all that debt of yours because

you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow-servant just

as I had on you? In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be

tortured until he should pay back all he owed" (Matt. 18:32-34). Jesus added,

"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive

your brother from your heart" (Matt. 18:35).

So we have not only the parable but the interpretation given by Jesus

himself. The unforgiving servant is delivered to the tormentors, till he should

pay all. He is not delivered to the tormentors eternally. There is an end in

view once he has paid all. I do believe we must pay attention to every detail

of Jesus' teaching. No word is without significance. And Jesus could well

have taught that the servant was thrown into jail for ever. But he did not.

There was to be an end to the punishment. It would be poor teaching indeed if

Jesus were to postulate a situation where there was a definite end to the

punishment to illustrate endless torment, and he clearly says, "so likewise

shall my heavenly Father do also unto you".

You may recall, too, a parallel in the Sermon on the Mount where the

unreconciled man does not come out of prison "until you have paid the last

penny" (Matt. 5:26). Surely it is clear that the whole tenor of these and other

teaching is that an infinitely gracious and forgiving God is enjoining men,

who are resentful and mean in forgiveness by comparison, to be like him!

How could a God who keeps souls in existence for no purpose other than that

they experience the tortures of hell even longer, without even the mercy of


59/173

annihilation, enjoin his children to forgive as he forgives?

15&o

The failure of the translators to render olam and aionios as "age-lasting"

has resulted in various forms of these words being translated as a rather vague

"for ever" or "for ever and ever." This is so in the case of judgement as with

other words which we have examined. The scriptures are rich in teaching

concerning the ages and God's revelation to man on his purposes in the

successive ages is lost. The general conception of things from the average

Christian's point of view is rather simplistic: the gospel is preached in this age;

some believe, some do not believe; the believers go to heaven, the unbelievers

go to hell to weep and gnash their teeth for eternity. Here endeth the first and

every other lesson.

Certainly the scriptures do teach that the gospel should be preached to

every creature and that "Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but

whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). It is fair to say, I

think, that this refers to those who hear the gospel because if one has not heard

then it cannot be reasonably held that he has either believed or not believed.

With regard to the vast mass of mankind who never hear, the common attitude

is Abraham's question "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" And

David's reply, "Thou shalt judge the people righteously." If the

joybells/fumace option is indeed of eternal consequence it would seem

preferable for the unreached to remain unreached: at least they have a chance

in eternity whereas those who hear are, according to orthodox teaching,

doomed for eternity if they made the wrong choice. This choice may well be

influenced by the inconsistent life of the person bringing the message, lack of

Holy Spirit anointing, a bad experience with a Church, or any other adverse

factor. But there is no return, no escape; burning is the eternal destiny of one

who does not submit to the gospel call.

We will spend a chapter looking at The Purpose of God in the Ages but

one important implication of incorrect translations of aionios should be

brought out at this point.


60/173


61/173

seeing the eventual outworking of Christ's redemption in his entire creation, as

we will see in many scriptures in a later chapter. The Bible teaches of "this

(present) age", "the age to come", "the ages to come", "the age even unto the

age", "the age of the ages", "the ages of the ages", and we may assume that

God had a very good reason for using each of these terms. In the bibliography

at the back of this book reference is made to books and booklets which are

devoted to this theme. It is sufficient in our broader study to note these

phrases, to realise the errors into which loose translations and attitudes can

bring one, and to understand that judgement is "age-lasting" in the context of a

number of ages in the economy of God. It is not eternal.

So we see in the scriptures that God's mercy truly "endureth forever;" that

his judgements are linked with his love; are to be praised as unsearchable; and

n^

are unto victory. All sins have been fully punished in Jesus, but sin, which

produced those sins, has to be dealt with. There is nothing spiteful, vindictive

or pointless in his chastisements all of which, in this life or the next, are

positive, remedial, corrective and unto restoration. Hell is God's creation,

under his control and, as all his works, for his glory. Say it: "I will sing of

mercy and judgement: unto thee, 0 Lord, will I sing." ':. ,'; ,;

i8 i-r/

Chapter 6

JONAH'S THREE DAYS - PAUL'S THREE DAYS

I was sitting in Church one Sunday morning listening intently to a

visiting preacher, whom I very much respected. He was a conventional

minister as far as the truths discussed in this book are concerned and, in any

case, his sermon was totally unrelated to anything to do with eternal destinies.

Then it happened - in an instant, a moment of time.

I turned to my wife who was sitting next to me and whispered "I've

had a revelation." She replied, "Don't forget it" and I said, "I'll never forget

this".


62/173

The revelation, let me hasten to explain, was nothing extra-scriptural.

It was simply the Holy Spirit bringing together three events in the lives of

Jonah, Jesus, then Paul and one verse of an epistle.

Jesus told his disciples, "the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in

my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have

said to you". Jn. 14:26.

The Holy Spirit can only remind us of things we have already learned

and read, which emphasises the importance of saturating ourselves in the

scriptures. This is how he teaches us and gives us revelation, illuminating

scripture by the scriptures. And this is just what happened that Sunday

morning.

69

The type I should like to share with you centres around the conversion

of Saul of Tarsus, later known to us as the apostle Paul. I will use the name

Paul throughout.

Paul was not saved by faith. Paul was saved by grace, by the blood of

Jesus, but faith never came into it.

The great apostle of faith, who preached a "gospel (in which) the

righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first

to last, just as it is written. The righteous will live by faith" Rom. 1:27 was not

himself saved by faith. _

This last phrase, better known in the AV's "The just shall live by faith",

was the Word which God used to liberate Martin Luther and might be

considered the catalyst of the Reformation. Yet the man through whom God

first gave this revelation was saved by a different means.

If we read all three versions of Paul's conversion as it is recorded in

Acts chapter 9 and as testified by Paul at Jerusalem in chapter 22 and before

Agrippa in chapter 26 we understand the following to be the circumstances of

his conversion. (I will not quote each verse of these chapters.)

Paul was "breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's

disciples". He "persecuted followers of this Way to their death, arresting both


63/173

men and women and throwing them into prison". He told Agrippa, "I put

many of the saints in prison, and when they -were put to death ... I tried to force

them to blaspheme ... in my obsession against them, I even went to foreign

cities to persecute them".

65

Was this all the sincere "obsession" of a zealous Pharisee? No. When

Paul was blinded by the Shekinah glory Jesus asked him, "Saul, Saul, why do

you persecute me. It is hard for you to kick against the goads."

Paul says he did it, "in ignorance and unbelief 1 Tim. 1:13. This is

difficult to accept in view of Jesus saying it was hard for him to resist. (I do

not for one moment question the inspiration of the scriptures. The scriptures

are faithful and reliable in recording what Paul said, but not necessarily

affirming his view of himself. Just as the Pharisees said to Jesus, 'You have a

demon'. That is inspired scripture in recording what the Pharisees said. But

^ no-one would suggest that Jesus had a demon just because it is recorded in this

context in the scriptures.) But even this is interesting, because "unbelief is a

prime qualification for hell!

The facts : Stephen, "a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit" Acts 6:5,

had preached the gospel to Paul and others, no doubt under a much greater

anointing than most preachers of today. Paul saw the glory on Stephen's face,

was convicted of the Holy Spirit but "kicked against the goads". In other

words, he resisted the work of the Holy Spirit and rejected the gospel. It was

not "easy" to resist because of his pharisaic background; it was "hard" to resist

because of the Holy Spirit's strivings, so Jesus said.

Stephen was then stoned to death "and Saul was there, giving approval

to his death ... and Saul began to destroy the Church". Acts 8:1-3.

Paul was the archetypal unbeliever who is destined for hell. He heard

the gospel, the Spirit strove with him mightily and he rejected the offer of

salvation. It was in this state that he set off for Damascus to kill more

Christians.

66


64/173


65/173

Then Paul appears to have "got lucky" as our American friends would

say. He "got saved" whether he liked it or not and in spite of himself, contrary

in fact to his own will, wish or desire.

You know the story. In this state of fury, unbelief and antagonism to

the gospel he was blinded by "a light from heaven, brighter than the sun,

blazing around me". Then came the voice and the rebuke. Saul asked "Who

are you Lord?" and the reply came, to his undoubted horror, "I am Jesus,

whom you are persecuting".

Up to this point there was no repentance, no turning to God. Paul had

no alternative but to believe. Faith had not come into the matter. Paul had

been stopped in his tracks by the Shekinah glory of Jesus and been plainly told

by Jesus who he was.

Paul then entered into three days and three nights of his own personal

hell. (The three days and three nights will be seen to be significant.) He was

blind and had no reason to believe that he would ever see again. For three

days he neither ate nor drank. What did he do? The scriptures are silent, but

can we doubt what he did. Imagine the remorse, the agony of soul, the

memory of the Christians, Jesus' Christians, whom he had tried to force to

blaspheme, the men and women he had put in prison - and those he had put to

death. The agony would have been all the greater because of those words "It

is hard for you to kick against the goads". He knew, and he knew that Jesus

knew, that he had known all along in his heart that the gospel was true and that

he had rejected it, that Jesus was Lord and Saviour and he had rejected him.

He had known the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit in his heart. He had

seen the glory on Stephen's face. How the memory of that face, and his

concurring in the decision to kill Stephen, "must have come back again and

again. Paul could not but have cried to God, in his agony of remorse.

67


66/173

Then what happened? Ananias, a member of the Church who might

himself have been put to death by Paul had God delayed his grace another day

or so, came to Paul under divine guidance and said "Brother Saul". Can you

believe it? Could Paul have believed it? Brother Saul. How beautiful.

A member of the Church (and this too, we will see to be significant in a

later chapter) brought Paul out of his "inner and outer darkness" into the

glorious light of the gospel by being "filled with the Holy Spirit".

^ No wonder Paul loved and served the Lord with such zeal for the rest

of his life. "The love of Christ constrains us ..." he said.

Who, I ask, of all the unbelievers and Christ rejecters of our generation

^ t

is more deserving of hell? Did Paul just "get lucky" Aid does the decent

\ or ^

citizen, next door neighbounwho has not done a tenth of the evil of Paul. but

who does not respond to a gospekoften preached backed with / little prayer

and therefore under little anointing bum in an eternal fire because Jesus is less

gracious to him?

But let there be an end to speculation because Paul tells us himself in

^ his first epistle to Timothy in the first chapter, verses 15 and 16. "Christ Jesus

came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the worst. But for that

very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ

Jesus might display his unlimited patience as example for those who would

believe on him and receive eternal life."

This passage is worth dwelling on. The Authorised Version reads,

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save 'sinners; of whom I am the chief.

Howbeit, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus might show

68

forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them which should HEREAFTER

believe on him to life everlasting".


67/173

Paul was shown mercy. He was a recipient. He did not turn to Christ,

decide for Christ, accept Christ or do anything positive. He was shown mercy.

In English language terms, he was passive and not active. Why? For a specific

reason.

Now the NIV addresses a difficult word to translate against the

background of orthodox doctrine - protos. The NIV translators have used

"that in me, the worst of sinners". Protos simply does not mean worst. The

AV translates it "that in me first". That was a better translation - except that

Paul was not the first sinner to be saved. Others have used "foremost" and

"chief. Why are they struggling with a fairly straightforward Greek word

which is used 159 times in the New Testament? It is translated "first" 136

times, e.g. seek first the Kingdom, first be reconciled, gather first the tares, the

dead in Christ shall rise first. "Worst" is a bad translation.

The problem the translators had in substituting "worst" for "first" was

that Paul wasn't the first to reject Christ, nor the first convert. But possibly he

was not the worst sinner either. What of Stalin, Hitler or Herod, murderers of

the innocents, or Judas? If he was worse than all these, then God has had

mercy on the worst unbelieving, Christ rejecting sinner in spite of his

murderous antagonism to the anointed gospel. Is God a respecter of persons?

Does this not speak volumes?

He was protos. When you find that the word for "example" (NIV) or

"pattern" (AV) later in the verse is typos you will see that he was saying that

God showed mercy to him in this way because he was a protos-typos or proto-

type. Now a proto-type, as in a new aircraft or car, is the first of its kind.

69


68/173

Paul was not the first to be shown mercy. There were 3,000 before him

on the day of Pentecost and 5,000 shortly thereafter. So he was not a

prototype of those who hear the gospel, repent and believe.

Of whom was he a prototype?

Here again the NIV translators have moved away from their

predecessors by giving us "an example for those who would believe on him and

receive eternal life." But look back at the AV rendered: "them which should

HEREAFTER believe." I have a book called the New Testament in 26

Translations. It gives usually between two and six variations of the AV from

26 translations. This passage in 1 Timothy is interesting. It gives the AV and

four alternatives, which are:

should HEREAFTER believe on him. AV

should THEREAFTER believe on him. ASV

would AFTERWARDS rest their faith on him. Weymouth

[ - ABOUT to believe on him. Rotherham

were AFTERWARDS to believe on him. TCNT (Westcott

and Hort text)

This is not a selective group, but all the alternatives as they are given.

Can we doubt the message Paul was-putting across after looking at all

these renderings?

7 0

I The clear message of Paul's letter to Timothy is that he, the Christ

rejecter who was saved in spite of himself, is a prototype of those who will

believe hereafter, thereafter or afterwards.

Why?

So that Christ might display his unlimited patience. When we consider

again all that Paul did, with a train of murder behind him and eagerly

contemplated murder ahead of him, we might well be astounded at Christ's

unlimited patience. But as I have the 26 translations to hand let me give the -

other eight renderings to really get the sense of it.

show forth his entire long-suffering. Rotherham


69/173

show forth the -whole of his long-suffering. Alford

display the fullness of his patience. Weymouth

display his unlimited patience. Berkeley

demonstrate how vast is his patience. OlafNorlie

exhibit... his exhaustless patience. TCNT Westcott and

Hort

give the extreme example of his patience. Knox

demonstrate his perfect patience. NASB

71

_ Ayx-^, tky\ ^ W-^-ê/^/^ ^c^ -^-^

f^hJL^ Ciî-^tÂ. n^Ttê^ ^'^-^-fifi/ie^

Eight different translations but together conveying a sense of a fullness,

a vastness, a completeness, a perfection of something only partially known

before.

Yes, in the age of salvation by grace, through faith (and this not from

yourselves! Eph. 2:8), God's amazing mercy is shown to the believer. But

Paul the prototype gives us a glimpse of greater grace, a fullness of grace,

greater mercy, a fullness of mercy to be shown to even the Christ rejecter. A

university student confessed before the Lord with bitter tears in my home that

her first reaction to this revelation was one of resentment. She was a Christian

and was "serving the Lord" but what justice was there in the unbelievers also

{jJi{'^VY^^h:Mi being saved?

V

How wonderful. Can you rejoice in this revelation from scripture that

God's unlimited, exhaustless mercy will ultimately be shown to -Hitler and /?C(L

t^b^tf- 31 ilû^.i'

-StaftnnwWhat glory this will be to Jesus.

0 what glory filled the heart of the student I referred to when she could

rejoice that the worst of humanity would ultimately experience the cleansing of

Jesus' blood. One of the main reasons for writing this book (with hours of

prayer) is the joy that floods the soul when the truth of Jesus' ultimate


70/173

reconciliation of "all things" dawns on the soul. The sense of relief, of liberty;

the expansion of one's spirit, the magnification of one's praise and worship >

have to be experienced to be believed. One enters a whole new dimension of

appreciation and acclamation as one rejoices with Christ and Christians in this

truth.

But with this passage in 1 Timothy the Lord linked the account in

Jonah where Jonah was three days and thre'e nights in the fish - his personal

hell, as he called it. I quoted part of this passage at the end of chapter three.

72

Let us look at Jonah chapters 1 and 2 in more detail. Jonah knew God,

knew the voice of God and had been commanded, "Go to the great city of

Ninevah and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.

But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish ... But the Lord

provided a great fish and Jonah was inside the fish for three days and three

nights. This, of course, is the same period that Paul was in his "hell". From

inside the fish Jonah prayed to the Lord his God. He said, "In my distress I

called to the Lord and he answered me. From the depths of the grave (AV the

belly of hell, Heb. Sheol) I called for help and you listened to my cry. You

hurled me into the deep, the very heart of the seas and the currents swirled

about me; all your waves and banners swept over me. I said, "/ have been

banished/row your sight; yet I will look again towards your holy temple ... the

earth beneath me barred me in for ever (plant). But you brought my life up

from the pit 0 Lord my God ... What I have vowed I will make good, salvation

comes from the Lord! And the Lord commanded the fish and it vomited Jonah

on to dry land".

(Sheol is the Hades of the New Testament and is where Jesus went.

Jesus said "You will not abandon me to Sheol" The AV translates it "hell".)

In 2 Timothy 3:16 we read, "All scripture is God breathed and is useful

in teaching."

How is the account of Jonah, admittedly a popular Sunday School

story, "useful in teaching?"


71/173


72/173

as it did in Jonah who said, "I have been banished from your sight (shades of

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me"), yet I will look again towards

your holy temple." The backslider turns back to God and goes and fulfils his

ministry. The thorough work of judgement in Paul is demonstrated by the

unparalleled commitment to Christ for the rest of his life.

But the important teaching is that, just as in the case of the disobedient

of Noah's day, judgement comes to an end and the sinner is restored - only,

ever, always of course, because of the atoning death of Jesus. What glory this

will bring to Jesus. "A bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he

shall not quench, till he send forth JUDGEMENT UNTO VICTORY" Matt.

12:20 AV.

Let us pause for a moment and consider the following proposition:

All sin, which must mean every sin past, present and future, including

the sin of not believing in Jesus (Jn. 16:9), committed or to be committed by

every man, woman and child who has ever lived and who will ever live has

been fully, adequately and completely punished in Jesus.

Whether sinners accept or are even aware of the benefits of this atoning

work of Christ or not does not change the fact that Jesus has been fully

punished by God for their sins - "once for all". As previously quoted, "He is

the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of

the whole world" 1 Jn. 2:2. God cannot punish those sins again. The

proposition is :

Any further punitive judgement of sins by God, whether on earth or in

hell, would be unjust. Sin can only justly be'punished once. The fact that the

one whose sin has been atoned for does not accept his pardon does not justify

75

God judging that sin punitively a second time, as if no atonement had been

made.

Some years ago in Britain a form of sentence for crime was used which

seems to have fallen into disuse. It was the option. "One month or one

hundred pounds," the magistrate would pronounce. If the criminal had one

hundred pounds and chose to pay it, he walked free. If he did not or could not


73/173

pay he spent the next month in gaol. It was an option: one or the other but not

both.

""' Let us postulate a situation in which exactly that sentence is imposed

on, say, a motorist for excessive speeding. But he has no money and so faces

gaol. Then someone steps up and pays the 100 for him. The motorist walks

free.

This motorist may be extremely grateful to his benefactor or. callously

dismissive of him as a fool. Either way, he goes free. For we are not

e,

concerned with the criminal, penitent or unrepentant, grateful or ungrateful.

We are concerned with the integrity of the judicial system. Regardless of the

attitude of the criminal, the judicial system cannot send him to gaol for that

would be punishing the crime twice and the system would be brought into

disrepute.

So it is with God. Regardless of the sinner. God cannot justly judge

punitively anyone for whose sin Christ has fully paid the price just as if that

price had not been paid.

Alternatively:

76

The purely punitive judgement of sin by God a second time, first in

Jesus on the cross and then in the sinner in hell, would imply that the

atonement of Jesus was not acceptable, adequate or complete. It would be a

denial or denigration of Christ's redemptive work, accomplished at so great a

cost.

The mere suggestion that God could be unjust, or not fully accept the

full and glorious atonement of His Son, is, I agree, preposterous. But I have

made the point starkly to establish that God cannot judge sin punitively twice

and still be just, which he is. The purpose and justification of his judgements

can only be that they are corrective and remedial with restoration as their end,

rather like the chastisement of Christians which produces "a harvest of

righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it." Heb. 12:11.

Eternal judgement is neither corrective nor remedial. It is, by its very nature,


74/173

purely punitive. Ergo: God's judgements cannot be eternal. MANKIND'S

SINS HAVE BEEN FULLY DEALT WITH, ONCE FOR ALL, IN JESUS.

| BUT SIN IN MANKIND HAS TO BE DEALT WITH BY JUDGEMENT.

We have seen that endless or infinite judgement cannot be eternal on

four counts:

- the adjective translated "eternal" or everlasting in the OT cannot

mean endless.

the adjective translated "eternal" or everlasting in the NT cannot

mean endless.

God has punished all sin in Jesus; being just he cannot judge sin

punitively a second time; endless punishment is punitive.

77

- punitive judgement by God would denigrate the glorious, finished

work of his Son on the Cross.

Now let me give you a fifth:

All punishment must be proportional to the crime.

Society would not sanction a 10 fine for a diabolical murder. A life

sentence or, in some countries, execution would be considered more

appropriate. Likewise a life sentence for being five minutes over time on a

~ parking meter would be considered outrageous. There must be some sense of

proportion.

Society in England recently debated whether the 28 years Myra Hindley

had spent in gaol for the most heinous torture and subsequent murder of

children was "sufficient". Society was divided. Yet the society would have

been unanimous if her crime had been shoplifting a bar of chocolate and she

had served 28 years.

What am I getting at? Simply this:

For God to punish finite crime committed in a finite lifespan with

infinite punishment would be immeasurably more unjust than 28 years in prison

for stealing a bar of chocolate.

Even Jesus' judgement when he took the sin of the whole world,

terrible that it was, was finite. It had an end.


75/173

Infinite punishment for a finite crime is unjust.

78

Regardless of Calvary (and how can we disregard Calvary?) God, being

just, could not punish the sum total of any one person's finite crimes infinitely.

Therefore judgement cannot be eternal.

Let us recall the reason that God caused us all to be bom as sinners in

the first place:

"God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he might have

mercy on them all." His means of having mercy and b

Mercy on Them All

Documents