The Narrow Path Ministries

I haven't been able to keep up reading through the prior discussions on the views of hell, which progress at a rate faster than I can keep up with. My questions here may already be answered, however, I am hoping someone can answer these two questions, or direct me to the thread where these questions may already be addressed.

I have been told that the universal reconciliation view is refuted by Psalm 49:19 where some are said to "never see the light of life", and Matthew 12:32 as per the unpardonable sin.

How would one who adopts the UR position understand these two passages which appear to indicate that some will never be reconciled to God?

I am supposing for Matthew 12:32 "this age" is the old covenant, and that "the age to come" is the new covenant. Thus allowing that the next age after the new covenant, commences after the final judgement, and would not be included in this verse. Is this valid? Are there other ways of understanding this verse?

thrombomodulin wrote:I have been told that the universal reconciliation view is refuted by Psalm 49:19 where some are said to "never see the light of life", and Matthew 12:32 as per the unpardonable sin.

I've been doing some reading on Christian universalism the last couple months, so this piqued my interest.

I haven't seen a universalist explanation of Psalm 49:19. But my thinking is that it may not be wise to use a single line of poetry to form or refute a major doctrine. It might slightly strengthen or weaken an argument, but one would want to be very careful in going beyond that. I think it would disprove universalism only to someone who is already convinced universalism is incorrect.

I am supposing for Matthew 12:32 "this age" is the old covenant, and that "the age to come" is the new covenant. Thus allowing that the next age after the new covenant, commences after the final judgement, and would not be included in this verse.

My understanding is that "the age to come" was understood by the Jews to be the messianic age. So your summation would be correct; and it's also the universalists' understanding.

With that in mind, we can look at Mt. 12:32. First, I believe the thing that's said to be unpardonable would have to be a deliberate act, not an accident -- in this case, the Pharisees saying Jesus did something by Satan's power when they knew very well it was by God's power.

Second, I've seen two slightly different universalist explanations:

(1) They will not be pardoned, but sometime before the end of "the age to come" they will pay the full penalty for their offense, the same as a convicted criminal pays the penalty for his offense if he's not pardoned; then they'll untimately be saved.

(2) As you alluded above, in this statement Jesus did not address anything beyond "the age to come;" they will be pardoned in the age following that age.

Plugging ' "Matthew 12:32" universalism ' into Google turns up quite a bit of good material; in particular, a forum I'm going to have to spend some more time on. Here's a thread there that addresses Mt. 12:32:
http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/ ... =11&t=1535

The meaning of Psalm 49:19 is clear when you look at it in its context:

10 For he sees that even the wise die;
the fool and the stupid alike must perish
and leave their wealth to others.
11 Their graves are their homes forever,
their dwelling places to all generations,
though they called lands by their own names.
12 Man in his pomp will not remain;
he is like the beasts that perish.
13 This is the path of those who have foolish confidence;
yet after them people approve of their boasts. Selah (ESV)

The sons of Korah are saying that everyone dies, both the wise and the foolish. They can't take their wealth with them. They will stay in their graves permanently. Man is just like the beasts; he dies and is gone for good.

It seems that the Hebrews didn't think very much about a possible after-life.


14 Like sheep they are appointed for Sheol;
Death shall be their shepherd,
and the upright shall rule over them in the morning.
Their form shall be consumed in Sheol, with no place to dwell.

Like sheep they are all appointed for Sheol (the grave). Their bodies will be consumed in the grave. There is no place for them to dwell.


15 ¶ But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol,
for he will receive me. Selah

God will keep me from death, and will receive me.

16 Be not afraid when a man becomes rich,
when the glory of his house increases.
17 For when he dies he will carry nothing away;
his glory will not go down after him.

Don't worry about the rich and all of their wealth. They can't take it with then — neither their riches nor their glory.

18 For though, while he lives, he counts himself blessed,
-and though you get praise when you do well for yourself--
19 his soul will go to the generation of his fathers,
who will never again see light.
20 Man in his pomp yet without understanding is like the beasts that perish.

A rich person who is praised and glorified by man, will go to "the generation of his fathers" (in other places, a person who dies is said to be "gathered to his fathers"). Though he was rich, he will die and will never again see the light of day! He is dead! Such pompous people who do not understand, will die like beasts — die and be gone for good.

It seems that the ancient Hebrews didn't think very much about a possible after-life.

Paidion,

Is it your view that the OT Hebrews did not believe in a future resurrection at all? Psalm 49:15 mentions being received by God, and being redeemed from the grave. Is this not indicating, like Job 19:26, a hope of future resurrection from the dead?

My assumption is that "the light of life" would be best understood in contrast to verse 15, thus implying the wicked will not partake in the resurrection to "eternal life". I am less inclined to see this as a reference to literal sunlight as, I think, the sun will still be present on the day when "all who in their graves will come forth" (John 5:28) - in which case they wicked will "see the [sunlight] of life", albeit perhaps not for very long.

thrombomodulin,
i don't know what paidion believes regarding the resurrection, but i think the ancient hebrews not thinking much of a possible after-life is a valid observation. though specifically in the sense of how "after-life" is used today: the theory that when we die, our immaterial soul leaves our body and goes to heaven or hell, to await the last day. psalm 49 is one of the ot passages usually pointed to as an indicator of another theory of the scriptures painting a picture of man's nature as a indivisible whole being, as opposed to a physical body and a non-physical soul or spirit. it does seem to me that they thought we go to the grave and that was it, until of course God "ransoms our soul from the grave" on the last day.

grace and peace
jeremiah

My understanding is that "the age to come" was understood by the Jews to be the messianic age. So your summation would be correct; and it's also the universalists' understanding.

I thought that Jesus was the Messiah - that He knew it and took that into consideration. And the Jews rejected their Messiah.

But I actually do not think that relevant to the question. I think the answer is simple, "this age" refers life on earth prior to the resurrection and judgement, "the age to come" is post judgement. And Jesus clearly saw it that way:

Matthew 13:49
New King James Version (NKJV)

49. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just,

Luke 18:30
New King James Version (NKJV)

30. who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

That also was a view common among the Jews - that of two ages, this life, the eschaton, and the age to come, Daniel 12:1-4.

i agree with homer. i would like to add galatians ch. 1 to the list:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen. (nasb)

it seems it would be hard to say paul would call a present messianic age evil.

grace and peace,
jeremiah

Homer wrote:I think the answer is simple, "this age" refers life on earth prior to the resurrection and judgement, "the age to come" is post judgement.

That's the way I was taught, but I no longer believe it's the best explanation. It would, however, disprove universalism (i.e., if there's a sin that's forever unpardonable), so a universalist wouldn't be able to accept it (or would have to change his view). But I'm not a universalist, so that's not a factor in my reasoning.

It seems to me we should, to the extent possible, understand things the way the original hearers would've understood them. I did a little more checking on the Jewish understanding of "the age to come," and near as I can tell, what I said is correct; even today they use it to refer to the messianic age. Yes, they rejected the Messiah, but He and the messianic age still came on schedule.

And Jesus clearly saw it that way:
Matthew 13:49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just

It's not at all clear to me that Jesus saw it that way. Clearly He's speaking of the final judgment, at the end of the age of life on earth. I don't think He's referring to an age in the same sequence as "this age" and "the age to come," but if He is, He'd have to be referring to the end of "the age to come," because that's when the judgment will be. Either way, I don't see a conflict with universalism here.

Luke 18:30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.

Again, I see no conflict with universalism here. The meaning of this verse doesn't change no matter how one understands "the age to come."

backwoodsman,

what about galatians chapter one. if the "age to come" refers to the new covenant, than why would paul speak of Christ delivering us from this "present" evil age?

grace and peace
jeremiah

jeremiah wrote:what about galatians chapter one. if the "age to come" refers to the new covenant, than why would paul speak of Christ delivering us from this "present" evil age?

I did a little checking, and couldn't find any universalist reference to Galatians 1:4, except comments on the meaning of the word "aionios." So it seems we'll have to resort to my scatterbrained thinking, for better or worse.

In order for Galatians 1:4 to have any bearing on universalism and the unpardonable sin, Paul's "present evil age" and Jesus' "the age to come" would have to be mutually exclusive, but I see no reason to think this is so. Of course, it would be so, if we were to take a Jewish view of "the age to come," i.e. the messianic age. They thought the prophecies of the messianic age meant physical peace, perfection, and exaltation of physical Israel, but they were wrong -- they describe spiritual conditions that are fulfilled in the church. So I see no reason we can't be in both those "ages" at the same time.