Revelation 6
(Rev 6:9-11 ESV) 9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.
This passage suggests the martyrs’ “souls” dwell in heaven awaiting the resurrection. I do not take this to refer to actual souls pleading for actual vengeance. Here are some of the reasons –
* It’s hard to imagine a Stephen or other early martyrs begging for vengeance. Following Jesus’ example, Stephen begged for God’s forgiveness for those who stoned him. And many other early Christian martyrs did the same.
* It would be truly awful to imagine spending thousands of years begging for God to avenge one’s death. After all, in Revelation, the vengeance doesn’t come until the End of time.
* Other than in the Revelation, we are constantly taught that vengeance is God’s and that our role is to love our enemies and do good to them. I doubt the ethical standards are lowered in heaven.
* Mounce, in the highly influential New International Commentary of the Revelation, notes that in Hebrew jurisprudence, the victim had to plead his own case in criminal court.
* Mounce further notes that, as the plea for vengeance comes from under the altar, which is where the blood of the sacrifice would be, the idea may well be that it’s the blood — or their deaths — that cries out for vengeance, which would be parallel with Gen 4:10 –
(Gen 4:10) The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.”
* Soul or psuche is also means life. Our “soul” is not our Platonic, disembodied self. It’s our life. A modern near-equivalent would be “life force.” And in some contexts, it actually means the entire person, body and “soul.”
For example,
(1 John 3:16) This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
“Life” and “lives” translate psuche. Hence, John may be speaking of the sacrificed lives rather than the disembodied martyrs themselves. In fact, this use of psuche is common in John’s gospel (e.g., John 12:25; 13:37,38; 15:13). And I think this likely comes closest to John’s thought. In parallel with Gen 4:10, this makes the best sense to me.
If we remember that the Law says that “life is in the blood” (Lev 7:11,14), and we consider that the martyrs’ blood has been sprinkled beneath the altar (Exo 29; Lev cc 1, 3, 4), then it only makes sense to speak of their lives (psuche) being there.
Hence, I take this as a figurative device building anticipation for the fulfillment of God’s wrath against evildoers later in the book, assuring his readers that God is as aware of the need to avenge the martyrs as he was aware of his promises to the Jews confirmed by the daily sacrifices in the temple.
It is, after all, very hard to read this passage literally. Why would “souls” be kept “under the altar”? Why store souls where the blood of the sacrificed would be? Well, because the lives of the martyrs are the sacrifices in mind, and their blood cries out for vengeance — but not the disembodied consciousnesses of the martyrs.
Hebrews 12
(Heb 12:22-24 ESV) 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Alexander argues,
Our worship here on earth is also connected to the one festal gathering in Heaven. There is only one assembly and we all should worship in unsion with one another, with all the angels and with the spirits of the righteous made perfect.
Again this points to a reality, which is tremendous: Our bfrothers and sisters of old, Peter, James, Paul, Priska, Phoebe, Ignatius, Justin, Thekla, Origen, Peter Waldo, Menno Simons, Alexander Campbell, Don Hayes (Father of one of our preachers who passed away last July) … all of God’s people are still alive even though their bodies rot away and awit their resurrection.
We join their worship in Zion, not vice versa! This is by the way a strong NO to any unscriptural forms of worship, because the tabernacle had to be patterned according to this Heavenly temple, and the church is built according to the same pattern. Our worship is patterned after the Heavenly one. We learn the New song that is being sung by the Angels and the 24 Elders (Rev 14:3). We should not make strange noises in the “Upper room”, we should not be a disturbance in the festal gathering, but blend in harmoniously.
First, I utterly disagree with any notion that this passage supports patternism. As I wrote in New Wineskins a while back, Hebrews couldn’t be clearer in its rejection of that theory.
But for our present purposes, we need to consider the preceding paragraph —
(Heb 12:18-21 ESV) 18 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest 19 and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. 20 For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21 Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.”
This is a reference, of course, to Mt. Sinai. In contrast, the writer explains, we have come to the new Jerusalem. I covered the prophetic background of the New Jerusalem in an earlier post and won’t repeat that material here. Rather, we need to also consider what follows —
(Heb 12:25-29 ESV) 25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27 This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken–that is, things that have been made–in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
God is speaking to us from heaven, and he promises to “shake” the earth and heavens as he shook the earth at Sinai (Exo 19:18; Psa 77:18), but this time the things that cannot be shaken will remain.
The world will be purified. The kingdom cannot be shaken and so will endure. But God, who is a consuming fire, will destroy all that can be shaken.
Thus, we see a system in which the heavens and earth will be transformed — not obliterated — with some elements destroyed and some elements preserved. The destruction will be by God, a fire that consumes — rather than a fire that tortures without consuming. This passages is very much in line with the theme I’ve been teaching. I should have used it as a proof text.
The one difficulty is the question of what happens to the dead between now and Judgment, and I think the likely result is that the dead are transformed out of time, into the presence of God — who lives outside time — and so are transported by God directly to Judgment. But I will grant that there are passages that speak in terms of the dead in Christ in heaven with God. Indeed, there’s at least one passage that says we’re already with God in heaven!
(Eph 2:4-7 ESV) 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved — 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
I have to admit that I have a little trouble imagining myself sitting in heaven right now, but that’s what it says. Now, if we accept that statement as true, there is a real sense in which all the saved are already in heaven. I consider this as well as I can in a post from some time ago. And if all Christians have an existence in heaven, then it’s no great problem to imagine that upon our deaths, our earthly existences cease while our heavenly existences continue — but this is not the resurrection. The resurrection is a revival of our bodies and transformation, in parallel with the transformation of the rest of creation.
Does this contradict the notion that we pass directly to Judgment? Well, remember that there is no earthly time in heaven. How long has Abraham been in heaven in heavenly time? Well, it’s a nonsensical question, because if there’s such a thing as heavenly time, it’s got nothing to do with ours. That’s a fact.
For purposes of our age of accountability discussion, the fate of the saved between death and the Second Coming doesn’t matter. The scriptures use different images and metaphors to speak of it — and it’s hard to reconcile them literally, largely because it’s about something beyond our comprehension.
But it’s very clear, I think, that the “Where Are the Dead?” theory is wrong. The picture we see in Hebrews is of the dead in Christ with God in heaven — not in a storage tank awaiting Judgment. They are quite clearly already judged and found righteous. And yet other passages speak of the general resurrection, followed by the Judgment. And so it seems to make the most sense to remember that God isn’t bound by time and leave it at that.
John 5
(John 5:28-29 ESV) 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
This passage does not speak of two resurrections but two fates for those resurrected in a single resurrection. There is but one “hour” when God’s voice is heard and “all who are in their tombs” come out. It’s all one resurrection in this passage.
The Early Church Fathers
In chapter 4 of The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment
Justin Martyr, a second century writer and among the finest minds of early Christianity, agrees with the gist of the theory presented here. Dialogue with Trypho V.
“‘But I do not say, indeed, that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.'”
To similar effect is Tatian, Oration to the Greeks 13 —
The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die. If, indeed, it knows not the truth, it dies, and is dissolved with the body, but rises again at last at the end of the world with the body, receiving death by punishment in immortality. But, again, if it acquires the knowledge of God, it dies not, although for a time it be dissolved.
— and Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Auto. 2.24 (and 2.27) —
For man had been made a middle nature, neither wholly mortal, nor altogether immortal, but capable of either; so also the place, Paradise, was made in respect of beauty intermediate between earth and heaven. And by the expression, “till it,” no other kind of labour is implied than the observance of God’s command, lest, disobeying, he should destroy himself, as indeed he did destroy himself, by sin.
See also Arnobius and Lactantius.
On the other hand, the church moved very quickly toward Greek thought in this area, as it did in many other areas.
Jay said, "I have to admit that I have a little trouble imagining myself sitting in heaven right now, but that’s what it says. Now, if we accept that statement as true, there is a real sense in which all the saved are already in heaven."
That is why we like to read Paul, we make it say what we wish it to say.
Eph 2:6 And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
Just my opinion, but I would think Paul was speaking of the church/ body of Christ/ temple/ sanctuary. But if you prefer to think you are already in Heaven go for it, I was looking forward to something better.
Jay thinks, "Thus, we see a system in which the heavens and earth will be transformed"
I do to, into ashes.not a place to dwell eternally.
Jhn 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Jhn 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.
If he was going to come back to scrub down this old place for us to live with him forever. (he would have told us)
Like we do with the bible, we must read the early church fathers in context. Tatian is arguing against the varieties of Greek thought with one basic claim: that those who seek for immorality apart from the one true God will not find it. Tatian is not really talking about eternal punishment or annihilation in as much as he is trying to get the Greeks to be more Theocentric about existence itself…that their seeking after virtue and immortality as an end in itself is futile…
Tatian – Address to the Greeks – CHAP. VII.–CONCERNING THE FALL OF MAN.
Tatian – Address to the Greeks – CHAP. XIV.–THE DEMONS SHALL BE PUNISHED MORE SEVERELY THAN MEN.
Tatian – Address to the Greeks – CHAP. XXV.–BOASTINGS AND QUARRELS OF THE PHILOSOPHERS.
Tatian – The Gospel of Tatanus – Section XLIII
The other writers you mention either don’t speak of hell or speak of it very little. Lactantius certainly believed in an eternal hell:
Lactantius – The Divine Institutes – Book VII – Of a Happy Life – Chap. X – of Vices and Virtues, and of Life and Death
Lactantius – The Divine Institutes – CHAP. XIII.–WHY MAN IS OF TWO SEXES; WHAT IS HIS FIRST DEATH, AND WHAT THE SECOND AND OF THE FAULT AND PUNISHMENT OF OUR FIRST PARENTS.
Lactantius – The Divine Institutes – CHAP. LXXII. — OF CHRIST DESCENDING FROM HEAVEN TO THE GENERAL JUDGMENT, AND OF THE MILLENARIAN REIGN.
Jay,
i know this isn't a conclusive game to play or anything, but i always find it interesting: Suppose God had wanted to tell us that hell is, in fact, everlasting. Hypothetically, what would the Bible say differently than it does?
–guy
Jay,
In the end what we have here regarding the question of ‘conditional immortality’ or ‘eternal punishment’ is a pastoral concern.
Today’s modern ear cannot hold in tension the great love of God with the wrath of God—so we need to make a small tweak in our eschatology in order to get people to listen and to hear. But this is exactly where I think Tim Keller has the better approach.
Where Fudge takes on the criticism of our age, agreeing that it is quite impossible to have an eternal conscious punishment as something a just God would decree, Keller instead unhinges the close bond between God with the punishment of hell, just long enough for us to see that we’ve done this to ourselves. So, where Fudge moves around the furniture in hell—under the guise of reclaiming the true biblical view—in order to allow the modern person to feel that hell is more just; Keller, however, using a bit of existential analogy, tries to get his audience to see how hell is more or less self-made—thereby he is able to maintain a traditionally terrifying hell and hold this in a reasonable tension with a loving good God.
Fudge hopes that a new restored view of hell might belay the objections of the masses. Keller, on the other hand, turns those critical eyes back on to themselves.
While with Arnobius we can find views sympathetic to ‘conditional immortality’, surprisingly he arrives at these conclusions directly due to his Greek thinking—his bouts of Neo-Platonic and Gnostic formulations. His entire theory of the of the soul is based on a dialectic with the Greek philosophy, not with the bible…
http://books.google.ca/books?id=breEvGaPxPcC&…
For whom is this hard to imagine? Maybe if we confuse a few things. Stephen forgave the persons who stoned him. He will not take that back. But the context is the day of judgment, the day of God's Wrath. As soon, and whenever we pray "Amen, come Lord Jesus", we ask for terrible things to happen on this earth.
Christians who proclaimed God's Kingdom on this hostile planet have frequently been killed because of this message. God's Day of Wrath will come, and it will be a day of revenge (as seen e.g. in Rev 18:6 and Rev 18:20-24!).
Will Stephen rejoice on this day? You bet, he will! Why? What would be the alternative? Shall the wicked hav it their way for all eternity? Every day the day of judgment is delayed is a day aof woe and sorrow to uncountable humans – but also a day (a "today") to repent and find Grace.
But, Jay, we have to pray maranatha iuf we want to pray in His will. So, I think this objection is a bit superficial.
It does not say that they spent thousands of years begging for vengeance, but that they were expecting this day and simply asked "How much longer will it take?" And they received an answer, didn't they? So they needn't ask any more.
This objection is a bit polemic in tone and does not give justice to the whole conversation described. Just a side-remark: It is the fifth seal that's being opened. All even seals have to be broken, before the book can be opened, and in the course of breaking the seals we get an impression of the content of this book. It starts with four horse-men who bring all sort of distress and woe – which is described in more apocalyptic details in the descriptions of the trumpets and the thunders and the bowls … until it's climax in the destruction of Babylon. The fifth seal is followed by the sixth describing the final judgment – which is exactly what the martyrs prayed for.
So this prayer (or cry) of the souls beneath the Altar takes place – if put on a timeline – to the end of the events of Revelation, which will be a time a tremendous persecution of the saints by the beast who will overcome the saints, send them to prison or kill them (Rev 13:7 and Rev 14:13). If you put the fifth seal in context with these dramatic events, you will understand a little better why the souls beneath the Altar are so distressed. Every day new martyrs arrive, coming out of great tribulation, having stories to tell that are shocking and discouraging – The Beast seems to be the great victor! "How long will you wait, Lord??!!"
This is exactly what is asked for in Rev 6:9-10, isn't it? They don't ask: "When can we strike back, and have an eye for an eye?" They ask: "How long before YOU will judge and avenge?".
Don't you see that their request in in full harmony with what you describe as "ethical standards"?
I don't know Mounce, and I don't have access to this commentary. But this scene in REv 6:9-10 has nothing to do with a court-scene. This comment therefore does not shed light on this text, but adds confusion …
These are two different stories blended together.
First, I agree, that "beneath the Altar" is pointing to sacrifices, and therefore we have to connect martyrdom to the idea of a scrifice to Godm, which is common place in the New Testament: Rom 12:1-2 (can and should be read not only metaphorically, but also in the light of martyrdom), 2Ti 4:6 is speaking of martyrdom as a drink-offering which in the Law can follow an animal-sacrifice; which is fitting, because the only sacrifice of atoning value is Christ's, but our martyrdom is like a drink-offering poured over the cross. So in this sense, the phrase "beneath the Altar" is of high significance.
Second: There might be a parallel between Gen 4:10 and Rev 6:9-10; but not in the sense, that the souls is identical with the blood. Period. We don't accept that otherwise either, otherwise we would shrink from blood-transfusion like the JWs. But Blood is a symbol for life and therefore the soul.
When Paul bent over Eutychus in Acts 20:10 he said: "His life (soul) is in him" – so he was not dead. But he did not mean, that he was not bleeding!
So this is a very simplistic way of arguing: "See, Blood means Soul, so it is just the shed blood that is crying." Not at all! We do not see or hear Abel's blood crying in Gen 4:10, but God speaking in a metaphoric sense because He witnessed the murder.
Come on, Jay, this is not very convincing what you try to do! I'm sure you could do a lot better.
I said it once, and I'll repeat it, because it is very important: The contrext or concept defines the meaning of a word. It is not correct to narrow a word down in its meaning in order to simplify the Word of God.
There are instances, where soul is synonymous for life.
Yet there are instances, where soul is synonymous for blood.
And there are instances where blood is synonymous with life.
But there are also instances, where the soul is synonymous with the "inner man"
And instances where it is hard to distinguish spirit and soul.
Now, in Rev 6:9-10, you cannot say a conversation between souls and Christ will not take place, because that ios, what is clearly written. If you deny this, you contradict the author of Revelation. But blood (in the matrial sense) cannot speak – Abel's blood did not literally speak; but these souls do. Blood cannot be comforted, but these souls were comforted. And blood cannot be clothed in white robes, abut these souls could. Blood cannot wait, but these souls are called to be patient.
In this case it would be absolutely wrong to stick to this narrow definition, that blood and souls are one and the same.
You may find an ally with this quote of Justin when speaking about the destruction of the lost in Hell (but even this, Justin actually leaves open) – yet concerning the intermediate state, Justin clearly confesses that the souls after death are diveded up into two different reagions, just as in our Lord's parable/story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16.
So I take Justin as a wittnes from the church of Christ of old, as a wittnes for the historic understanding in the church of Christ concerning this; and I can call a dozen more witnesses! Your witnesses (Lenski, Mounce, et.al.) are all much younger, far removed from the Apostolic teachings, they never listened to an elder that was appointed by one of the twelve apostles or was raised in a church where Peter, Paul or John personally taught. Prove to me that your view was held to by churches of Christ in the beginning! You can't! And that's why I am really at odds with these modern commentaries.
I wrote this with a broad smile on my face: I am writing to a church af Christ leadership, and I thought they might eventually understand what I mean. Don't be so defensive, Jay 😉
Of course there is a Heavenly Pattern for worship (the whole tabernacle was built according to it) – and this pattern might be a little different than the "Five Acts of Worship". In Fact every liturgical service (be it RC, Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox) is patterned after the kind of worship described in Revelation (this dialogue of doxologies, affirmations, worship, …). But that's actually a side remark.
My maion pointis: The spirits of the perfected saints are worshipping together with the agels in one festal gathering. And we blend in. So the dead are not dead, they are engaging in worship.
To this you reply:
And – said to say it again – you bring together two different texts from different contexts, not understanding the different concepts or ideas.
Eph 2:4-7 speaks of our identity in Christ ("in Christ") is one of the key-phrases in this letter. It does not speak of "spirtits of perfected saints". Being "in Christ" means, our life is hidden in the glory, where Christ is (Col 3:3-4 – compare this with Eph 2:4-7 and you'll see the same thought).
But, really, Jay – you mix apples and pears, because you don't grasp the concept.
Alexander