I appreciate your work, and this was a very well-written and interesting piece. That said, as one who thinks universalism and annihilationism are the only two exegetically feasible options, I disagree with much of what you say here. A couple brief observations:
1) You seem to suggest it's an argument against a universalist-consistent reading of the Sheep and the Goats passage that the passage simply ends with no suggestion of the redemption of the goats. But surely this is a non-sequitur. Christ's aim in this context was to threaten eschatological judgment in order to prompt repentance, not to explain how, when, or why there might be a further redemption beyond the aionion chastisement. Indeed, elaborating on the latter might have distracted from this repentance-prompting aim. Moreover, even in everyday contexts, we frequently make threats of certain consequences, knowing those consequences are finite, but omitting to mention that fact because it would distract from the point we're trying to make or the aim we have. When a parent threatens their children with some punishment, they typically don't say "And remember, after I send you to your room, you'll eventually come out, we'll reconcile, and you'll be perfectly happy again!" (even though they typically know this is what will subsequently occur). Why is that? Because in some contexts, for some audiences, we know that the behavior or remorse we're trying to prompt might not occur if we went on to elaborate about how everything would ultimately be alright in the end.
2) You wrongly accuse Hart and others of thinking 'aionion' can never have both a quantitative and a qualitative sense in a given passage. But to my knowledge, neither Hart nor any prominent universalist has ever suggested such a thing (or if they have, they need not). Instead, what they suggest is that this term can in some contexts have an exclusively quantitative meaning, in others an exclusively qualitative meaning, and in still others both. The suggestion, then, is just that, based on other passages in the NT implying universal salvation, we can reasonably take the sense in the Sheep and the Goats passage to be purely qualitative (though in other contexts we might interpret it both qualitatively and quantitatively).
At any rate, those are just a couple of my thoughts. Keep up the great work!
1. I’d stake my argument more on the fact that this is referring to the Last Judgment and the same term (aionion) is used to describe the state of the sheep and the goat.
2. I’m not accusing him of that, I’m saying in this particular context he and Fr Kimel claim that because it has a qualitative meaning it does not have a quantitative one. Since the term can mean different things, we must go to the context. In context, I see no justification for the dichotomy.
Thanks for the clarifying response! I'll just leave the point about what Hart and Fr Kimel do or don't mean, since I have no particular investment in that. On the substance, though, I'll just say a purely qualitative meaning in context seems just as plausible to me as the alternatives. The immediate context, I think, simply underdetermines which sense is correct.
To your first point: I see what you're saying, but then I still don't think it gets you very far vis-a-vis the implications for universalism/infernalism. It's true that aionion qualifies both life and punishment, but then (again) on a qualitative reading it just means that both the punishment and the life belong to the Age to Come. So, sort of back to square one on whether we have strong reason to think there *must* be an additional quantitative, infinite duration sense here.
At any rate, as I'm sure you'd agree, the issue can't be settled by this passage on its own haha. Thanks again for your engagement.
I come at this post from an angle which is not the hart and Kimmel position exactly as I have misgivings over certain premises of Hart’s which lead to a passive subject who’s incapable of veering from desiring the Good even as he pursues other goods which more or less lead his tropos into disjunction with his logoi and thus toward ill-being.
The major issues I take with your argument here is two pronged. The first prong is that many parables and sayings are pastoral and to encourage repentance. There is not in my mind any way to reconcile the New Testament’s clear annuity in my mind without keeping this in mind.
The second prong is that you picked the only quote of Maximus the Confessor I remember to potentially imply eternal annihilation or distance or whatever. Yet Maximus asks in another text essentially where will we be when God is all in all if we don’t participate in his energies through piety and virtue in this life? This may at first seem to confirm your impression but I think it is a) pastoral and b) who can go through this life and not participate to even an infinitesimal amount in God? The Holy Spirit is in all aspects of conscience law or adoption, and each to the degree possible should seek to abide in it. But even I’ll-being is not non-being, it’s a deficit of being. Thus in a sense this allows us if we follow Issac the Syrian and Gregory of Nyssa, to develop an idea of what occurs when we pass out of this world and open our eyes to eternal life. Those who have labored receive double wages and crowns, those who have been humbled and repented are purified by God’s love, and those who have been self loving and full of corruption take a long time for Gods love to become not an indictment but the means of turning them inside through that tiny bit of them that couldn’t help but remain in God.
The idea you presented that disturbed me was one which Aquinas held and I cannot sympathize with: “The idea that the judgment of the wicked makes possible the blessings of the righteous is a persistent Scriptural pattern from Genesis to Revelation.” What about Paul who kicks a sinner out of the church that he might be refined by fire. What about Christs descent into hades rendering him everywhere present and the gospel preached even there. When is death swallowed up in victory and hades despoiled?
If Christ abandons the flock for the one sheep and he speaks of the Father as running out to the prodigal son, in what way can we say he is no longer capable of the impossible.
Now with all this said I tend to hold universal salvation in tension with the necessary fear of Gehenna, but as I’ve grown older my motivation is not to escape hell but to become the person who God can work through to help raise people out of it. We pray for the dead and the liturgy is always offered by all and for all. Let us not give up on anyone and if necessary as st. Silouan did, think of ourselves as the one who will be the last in hell.
Oh, and also, you mention the Unforgivable Sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) right near the end; I would love to read your take on what that sin actually is, and for you to properly unpack the term and explore it. It's one of the big unanswered questions (along with what exactly are the seven thunders from Revelation, and why Dan is removed as a tribe from the 12x12k) that I haven't been able to suss out during either my exegeses or isogeses.
Thank you for the profound reflections and kind words! Very encouraging
Re blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: in my view, it consists of the violent/activity rejection of the Truth after it has been manifestly revealed — the failure to repent. I believe Peter Leithart gives a good explanation for how in its immediate context it relates to the apostate Jews, who not only rejected Jesus, but rejected (and persecuted) His apostles who offered forgiveness and reconciliation. Thus, their sin is not forgiven, and Jerusalem is destroyed exactly 40 years later (a very symbolic number in scripture).
Absolutely. Glad to give a boost to anyone climbing the ladder instead of sprinting down the highway. My prayer is for prots to be wiser with their tongues. God gave us twice as many ears as mouths. It’s always best to reflect on something before responding, otherwise what you are having is a reaction, and not a response.
I’m happy to rebuke such infants on the milk.
I think you’re right about the eschatological implications, and everything you said is accurate. There is that Luciferian refusal to serve, (which is to turn to God, which is to repent) that absolutely has to be imbedded into the blasphemy.
I think the apostasy is trying to cut off from the Holy Spirit entirely. To reject the Force, to use a cinematic parable. To become Emperor Palpatine, who is ruled by his fear of death. The Holy Spirit is the constant reminder that death is defeated, and that there is no fear for the one who believes in God.
Extremely well-written and unassailable to any with eyes that can read.
"The resulting consequence is an internally “split subject,” to borrow a Lacanian term."
- That's perfectly fine, as long as you remember to return it promptly!
The implications of the split subject having subjective and objective components made me think of Kant. The "thing in itself" language cemented Kant further, with his distinction between the noumenon and the phenomenon of any given object.
You're correct that the winnowing of the ungulates is a final separation. It's clear to anyone who hasn't preemptively shoehorned their thinking into the false dichotomy between one of either two protestant heresies.
But what is best about your writing is that you convict me. Your rhetoric led to the unassailable connection of "sheep membership" to Christ's second great command. As a misanthrope, I struggle with loving my neighbor. It is important for me to be reminded by my fellows in the Body to find within myself to locate the "little Christs" found within everyone. To gain the wisdom of St. Paisios : https://www.holycrossoca.org/newslet/1402.html
I also appreciate how you mentioned the parasitism of the wicked. It's a concept my mind locked onto very tightly. Heaven is only heaven because it is purged of the wicked. Heaven is "spread out before us," but the servants of darkness do much to blot that light out. I'm reminded of how Daniel had to wait for months in Babylon because of how effective the demons were at keeping the angels at bay. We are now in a Neo-Babylon that eclipses the actions of Nebuchadnezzar at his MADDEST. How can the kingdom reach any of us at this dark hour?
The uninformed recoil at the thought of hell because they haven't thought thoroughly enough and to a definite end (to borrow from a GKC line) as to the necessity of its existence. I am experiencing that necessity every day on this planet, when I see the manners in which the wicked thoughtlessly carry out the will of their master, the prince of the air. It is already so clear to me that we require a separation.
The wicked are the goats, and the righteous are the sheep, but we can recouch that metaphor as parasites versus symbiotes. The wicked reflexively seek to take, while the righteous desire that interplay with the divine, which defines the Orthodox walk of theosis.
I appreciate your very well-written and interesting prose without immediately undercutting that comment: I agree with you whole-heartedly.
Three disagreements (without getting into metaphysical debate of universalism's necessity as we both know the arguments already).
1. Your stance that eternal damnation is true based on Matthew 25:46 is irresponsibly stated. Even granting that this is a reference to the final judgement as an eternal separation of humanity into sheep and goats, in the context of 1st century Judaism and Christianity this could just as well mean the punishment of eternal oblivion, that is, annihilationism, contrasted to eternal life. You are wrongly assuming the uniformity of the NT texts as teaching the resurrection and eternal existence of all, when in reality the NT texts evidence divergent eschatologies. This textual homogenization follows, I think, from your prior commitment to a homogenization of tradition according to which those views which have by now become standard (e.g., immortality of the soul, damnation as divine presence) must simply be what the texts mean and what Jesus meant. This is unjustified. The view of damnation as the experience of the divine presence is based on theological developments of St. Paul and Revelation's (divergent) eschatologies and imagery of fire. How does Matthew's eschatology actually relate to these? How do you know he doesnt think of damnation as annihilation, or simply imprisonment in a place? Do you know Matthew has the same view of God being "all in all" as Paul? You assume far too much...
2. Following from the above, while your claim that you "spit" on philosophical understandings that contradict "Christ's words" is a nice display of piety, some self-reflection would reveal that it is just hot air. As explained above, you have assumed a whole host of theological/philosophical/rhetorical, etc, ideas in your understanding of this text (I could mention more, such as the assumption that the aion of eternal life is one which can be exclusive of any being which participates in life, or that sin is ontologically an activity, or regarding philosophy and rhetoric, that this text in its original writing has anything to do with split subjects and other philosophical notions, rather than simply being a condemnation of the rich and uncharitable).
What you are doing, simply put, is saying that what Jesus meant (moving past the text to a theory of the psychology of divine incarnation as precluding error, ignorance, finitude and contextual limitedness) can only be what is theologically right. But this means that an appeal to Jesus as a historical person is not being done (nor is an appeal to Jesus words over against other NT texts being made, which appeal you would reject anyways), rather one of two things is being done here: (a) what you take to be the "traditional" position/s is guiding how you are choosing to read the text, and so you are in actuality only spitting on any argument you take to be contrary to the "traditional" position, or (b) you recognize that the word of Christ that matters for theology is the Word as Truth (not knowing Christ according to the flesh) which is sought after by seeking to discern a united reading which is metaphysically and morally the best and most worthy of God.
I think it is clear that you are operating upon option (a) because of your rhetoric of spitting on (so discounting out of hand) universalist readings, which themselves operate on option (b). If you object that you are not doing this, and that you are appealing to what you think the historical Jesus meant in opposition to anything in disagreement with his perspective, then you will have to be a fully Torah observant Jew because in the Gospels this is what he is portrayed as wanting his followers to be, and on eschatology you will have to be undecided, because without the prior weight of tradition or theological argument there is no way to claim Jesus view as definitely eternal torment, annihilationism, or universalism.
3. The theology you have presented is one in which salvation is bought at the cost of the eternal damnation of persons. This is an eternal dualism, in which the damned become the true sacrifice for salvation and are therefore the truly righteous. So much for the Cross overturning of pagan ideas of Sacrifice.
Is the state of the righteous often in Scripture one defined by their gleeful triumph over an enemy now turned prey? Yes. Is that the only way to understand salvation given in Scripture? No, for St. Paul in Romans God only allows there to be vessels of dishonor during the process of his salvific economy, working with human freedom to provoke by jealousy to salvation, which ultimately transforms all into vessels of honor. Is there one moral vision of the universe and its end inherent to all the texts of Scripture? No, such a moral vision is found through a theological reading, preferring one text's vision over another and assimilating them together into an image befitting of God (which makes them Scripture) as one seeks to see God through and beyond the text. This all being the case, I do not believe the moral image you have provided is befitting of God.
Lastly, if the above does not make this evident, I think your barbed comments directed at Hart/Fr. Kimel claiming they arent good readers of Scripture should, in this case, be redirected to yourself and your favored source (Fr. Lawrence). Hart and Fr. Kimel take the historical contextuality of Scripture seriously and are cognizant of the motivations and structure of their hermeneutics. In contrast, I see a lack of self-reflection in your hermeneutics.
Please take my harsh comments as friendly criticism, because that is what I mean them to be. God bless :)
You’re correct: I do assume that what Jesus teaches is theologically correct, and I pray that I’d never be so lost as to say otherwise. Praying for you, brother.
I think you misunderstood my criticism (or maybe I was unclear, writing after a 12 hr night shift and all), so let me try to summarize.
You make the assertion that eternal damnation is what Jesus teaches in Mtt 25:46, and that you oppose this to any philosophical argument that argues for universalism through a synthetic use of scriptural texts rather than simply following Christ's word. However, your interpretation of the text is influenced by numerous theological and philosophical ideas which developed long after, and so cannot be assumed as being the text's clear meaning prior to your own attempt to make use of this text in a philosophical argument. Thus, there is no opposition between a stance based on Jesus' words and a philosophically motivated stance, there are only philosophically motivated stances that use Jesus' words to defend a doctrine.
The above being the case, all that can matter is whether the doctrine to be defended is one that is worthy of God. Do you agree?
Hi Trey,
I appreciate your work, and this was a very well-written and interesting piece. That said, as one who thinks universalism and annihilationism are the only two exegetically feasible options, I disagree with much of what you say here. A couple brief observations:
1) You seem to suggest it's an argument against a universalist-consistent reading of the Sheep and the Goats passage that the passage simply ends with no suggestion of the redemption of the goats. But surely this is a non-sequitur. Christ's aim in this context was to threaten eschatological judgment in order to prompt repentance, not to explain how, when, or why there might be a further redemption beyond the aionion chastisement. Indeed, elaborating on the latter might have distracted from this repentance-prompting aim. Moreover, even in everyday contexts, we frequently make threats of certain consequences, knowing those consequences are finite, but omitting to mention that fact because it would distract from the point we're trying to make or the aim we have. When a parent threatens their children with some punishment, they typically don't say "And remember, after I send you to your room, you'll eventually come out, we'll reconcile, and you'll be perfectly happy again!" (even though they typically know this is what will subsequently occur). Why is that? Because in some contexts, for some audiences, we know that the behavior or remorse we're trying to prompt might not occur if we went on to elaborate about how everything would ultimately be alright in the end.
2) You wrongly accuse Hart and others of thinking 'aionion' can never have both a quantitative and a qualitative sense in a given passage. But to my knowledge, neither Hart nor any prominent universalist has ever suggested such a thing (or if they have, they need not). Instead, what they suggest is that this term can in some contexts have an exclusively quantitative meaning, in others an exclusively qualitative meaning, and in still others both. The suggestion, then, is just that, based on other passages in the NT implying universal salvation, we can reasonably take the sense in the Sheep and the Goats passage to be purely qualitative (though in other contexts we might interpret it both qualitatively and quantitatively).
At any rate, those are just a couple of my thoughts. Keep up the great work!
1. I’d stake my argument more on the fact that this is referring to the Last Judgment and the same term (aionion) is used to describe the state of the sheep and the goat.
2. I’m not accusing him of that, I’m saying in this particular context he and Fr Kimel claim that because it has a qualitative meaning it does not have a quantitative one. Since the term can mean different things, we must go to the context. In context, I see no justification for the dichotomy.
Thanks for the clarifying response! I'll just leave the point about what Hart and Fr Kimel do or don't mean, since I have no particular investment in that. On the substance, though, I'll just say a purely qualitative meaning in context seems just as plausible to me as the alternatives. The immediate context, I think, simply underdetermines which sense is correct.
To your first point: I see what you're saying, but then I still don't think it gets you very far vis-a-vis the implications for universalism/infernalism. It's true that aionion qualifies both life and punishment, but then (again) on a qualitative reading it just means that both the punishment and the life belong to the Age to Come. So, sort of back to square one on whether we have strong reason to think there *must* be an additional quantitative, infinite duration sense here.
At any rate, as I'm sure you'd agree, the issue can't be settled by this passage on its own haha. Thanks again for your engagement.
You disagree because you have been malprogrammed with protestant delusions.
How could you possibly agree when you're wearing a blindfold?
I come at this post from an angle which is not the hart and Kimmel position exactly as I have misgivings over certain premises of Hart’s which lead to a passive subject who’s incapable of veering from desiring the Good even as he pursues other goods which more or less lead his tropos into disjunction with his logoi and thus toward ill-being.
The major issues I take with your argument here is two pronged. The first prong is that many parables and sayings are pastoral and to encourage repentance. There is not in my mind any way to reconcile the New Testament’s clear annuity in my mind without keeping this in mind.
The second prong is that you picked the only quote of Maximus the Confessor I remember to potentially imply eternal annihilation or distance or whatever. Yet Maximus asks in another text essentially where will we be when God is all in all if we don’t participate in his energies through piety and virtue in this life? This may at first seem to confirm your impression but I think it is a) pastoral and b) who can go through this life and not participate to even an infinitesimal amount in God? The Holy Spirit is in all aspects of conscience law or adoption, and each to the degree possible should seek to abide in it. But even I’ll-being is not non-being, it’s a deficit of being. Thus in a sense this allows us if we follow Issac the Syrian and Gregory of Nyssa, to develop an idea of what occurs when we pass out of this world and open our eyes to eternal life. Those who have labored receive double wages and crowns, those who have been humbled and repented are purified by God’s love, and those who have been self loving and full of corruption take a long time for Gods love to become not an indictment but the means of turning them inside through that tiny bit of them that couldn’t help but remain in God.
The idea you presented that disturbed me was one which Aquinas held and I cannot sympathize with: “The idea that the judgment of the wicked makes possible the blessings of the righteous is a persistent Scriptural pattern from Genesis to Revelation.” What about Paul who kicks a sinner out of the church that he might be refined by fire. What about Christs descent into hades rendering him everywhere present and the gospel preached even there. When is death swallowed up in victory and hades despoiled?
If Christ abandons the flock for the one sheep and he speaks of the Father as running out to the prodigal son, in what way can we say he is no longer capable of the impossible.
Now with all this said I tend to hold universal salvation in tension with the necessary fear of Gehenna, but as I’ve grown older my motivation is not to escape hell but to become the person who God can work through to help raise people out of it. We pray for the dead and the liturgy is always offered by all and for all. Let us not give up on anyone and if necessary as st. Silouan did, think of ourselves as the one who will be the last in hell.
Oh, and also, you mention the Unforgivable Sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) right near the end; I would love to read your take on what that sin actually is, and for you to properly unpack the term and explore it. It's one of the big unanswered questions (along with what exactly are the seven thunders from Revelation, and why Dan is removed as a tribe from the 12x12k) that I haven't been able to suss out during either my exegeses or isogeses.
Thank you for the profound reflections and kind words! Very encouraging
Re blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: in my view, it consists of the violent/activity rejection of the Truth after it has been manifestly revealed — the failure to repent. I believe Peter Leithart gives a good explanation for how in its immediate context it relates to the apostate Jews, who not only rejected Jesus, but rejected (and persecuted) His apostles who offered forgiveness and reconciliation. Thus, their sin is not forgiven, and Jerusalem is destroyed exactly 40 years later (a very symbolic number in scripture).
Absolutely. Glad to give a boost to anyone climbing the ladder instead of sprinting down the highway. My prayer is for prots to be wiser with their tongues. God gave us twice as many ears as mouths. It’s always best to reflect on something before responding, otherwise what you are having is a reaction, and not a response.
I’m happy to rebuke such infants on the milk.
I think you’re right about the eschatological implications, and everything you said is accurate. There is that Luciferian refusal to serve, (which is to turn to God, which is to repent) that absolutely has to be imbedded into the blasphemy.
I think the apostasy is trying to cut off from the Holy Spirit entirely. To reject the Force, to use a cinematic parable. To become Emperor Palpatine, who is ruled by his fear of death. The Holy Spirit is the constant reminder that death is defeated, and that there is no fear for the one who believes in God.
Extremely well-written and unassailable to any with eyes that can read.
"The resulting consequence is an internally “split subject,” to borrow a Lacanian term."
- That's perfectly fine, as long as you remember to return it promptly!
The implications of the split subject having subjective and objective components made me think of Kant. The "thing in itself" language cemented Kant further, with his distinction between the noumenon and the phenomenon of any given object.
You're correct that the winnowing of the ungulates is a final separation. It's clear to anyone who hasn't preemptively shoehorned their thinking into the false dichotomy between one of either two protestant heresies.
But what is best about your writing is that you convict me. Your rhetoric led to the unassailable connection of "sheep membership" to Christ's second great command. As a misanthrope, I struggle with loving my neighbor. It is important for me to be reminded by my fellows in the Body to find within myself to locate the "little Christs" found within everyone. To gain the wisdom of St. Paisios : https://www.holycrossoca.org/newslet/1402.html
I also appreciate how you mentioned the parasitism of the wicked. It's a concept my mind locked onto very tightly. Heaven is only heaven because it is purged of the wicked. Heaven is "spread out before us," but the servants of darkness do much to blot that light out. I'm reminded of how Daniel had to wait for months in Babylon because of how effective the demons were at keeping the angels at bay. We are now in a Neo-Babylon that eclipses the actions of Nebuchadnezzar at his MADDEST. How can the kingdom reach any of us at this dark hour?
The uninformed recoil at the thought of hell because they haven't thought thoroughly enough and to a definite end (to borrow from a GKC line) as to the necessity of its existence. I am experiencing that necessity every day on this planet, when I see the manners in which the wicked thoughtlessly carry out the will of their master, the prince of the air. It is already so clear to me that we require a separation.
The wicked are the goats, and the righteous are the sheep, but we can recouch that metaphor as parasites versus symbiotes. The wicked reflexively seek to take, while the righteous desire that interplay with the divine, which defines the Orthodox walk of theosis.
I appreciate your very well-written and interesting prose without immediately undercutting that comment: I agree with you whole-heartedly.
God bless.
Three disagreements (without getting into metaphysical debate of universalism's necessity as we both know the arguments already).
1. Your stance that eternal damnation is true based on Matthew 25:46 is irresponsibly stated. Even granting that this is a reference to the final judgement as an eternal separation of humanity into sheep and goats, in the context of 1st century Judaism and Christianity this could just as well mean the punishment of eternal oblivion, that is, annihilationism, contrasted to eternal life. You are wrongly assuming the uniformity of the NT texts as teaching the resurrection and eternal existence of all, when in reality the NT texts evidence divergent eschatologies. This textual homogenization follows, I think, from your prior commitment to a homogenization of tradition according to which those views which have by now become standard (e.g., immortality of the soul, damnation as divine presence) must simply be what the texts mean and what Jesus meant. This is unjustified. The view of damnation as the experience of the divine presence is based on theological developments of St. Paul and Revelation's (divergent) eschatologies and imagery of fire. How does Matthew's eschatology actually relate to these? How do you know he doesnt think of damnation as annihilation, or simply imprisonment in a place? Do you know Matthew has the same view of God being "all in all" as Paul? You assume far too much...
2. Following from the above, while your claim that you "spit" on philosophical understandings that contradict "Christ's words" is a nice display of piety, some self-reflection would reveal that it is just hot air. As explained above, you have assumed a whole host of theological/philosophical/rhetorical, etc, ideas in your understanding of this text (I could mention more, such as the assumption that the aion of eternal life is one which can be exclusive of any being which participates in life, or that sin is ontologically an activity, or regarding philosophy and rhetoric, that this text in its original writing has anything to do with split subjects and other philosophical notions, rather than simply being a condemnation of the rich and uncharitable).
What you are doing, simply put, is saying that what Jesus meant (moving past the text to a theory of the psychology of divine incarnation as precluding error, ignorance, finitude and contextual limitedness) can only be what is theologically right. But this means that an appeal to Jesus as a historical person is not being done (nor is an appeal to Jesus words over against other NT texts being made, which appeal you would reject anyways), rather one of two things is being done here: (a) what you take to be the "traditional" position/s is guiding how you are choosing to read the text, and so you are in actuality only spitting on any argument you take to be contrary to the "traditional" position, or (b) you recognize that the word of Christ that matters for theology is the Word as Truth (not knowing Christ according to the flesh) which is sought after by seeking to discern a united reading which is metaphysically and morally the best and most worthy of God.
I think it is clear that you are operating upon option (a) because of your rhetoric of spitting on (so discounting out of hand) universalist readings, which themselves operate on option (b). If you object that you are not doing this, and that you are appealing to what you think the historical Jesus meant in opposition to anything in disagreement with his perspective, then you will have to be a fully Torah observant Jew because in the Gospels this is what he is portrayed as wanting his followers to be, and on eschatology you will have to be undecided, because without the prior weight of tradition or theological argument there is no way to claim Jesus view as definitely eternal torment, annihilationism, or universalism.
3. The theology you have presented is one in which salvation is bought at the cost of the eternal damnation of persons. This is an eternal dualism, in which the damned become the true sacrifice for salvation and are therefore the truly righteous. So much for the Cross overturning of pagan ideas of Sacrifice.
Is the state of the righteous often in Scripture one defined by their gleeful triumph over an enemy now turned prey? Yes. Is that the only way to understand salvation given in Scripture? No, for St. Paul in Romans God only allows there to be vessels of dishonor during the process of his salvific economy, working with human freedom to provoke by jealousy to salvation, which ultimately transforms all into vessels of honor. Is there one moral vision of the universe and its end inherent to all the texts of Scripture? No, such a moral vision is found through a theological reading, preferring one text's vision over another and assimilating them together into an image befitting of God (which makes them Scripture) as one seeks to see God through and beyond the text. This all being the case, I do not believe the moral image you have provided is befitting of God.
Lastly, if the above does not make this evident, I think your barbed comments directed at Hart/Fr. Kimel claiming they arent good readers of Scripture should, in this case, be redirected to yourself and your favored source (Fr. Lawrence). Hart and Fr. Kimel take the historical contextuality of Scripture seriously and are cognizant of the motivations and structure of their hermeneutics. In contrast, I see a lack of self-reflection in your hermeneutics.
Please take my harsh comments as friendly criticism, because that is what I mean them to be. God bless :)
You’re correct: I do assume that what Jesus teaches is theologically correct, and I pray that I’d never be so lost as to say otherwise. Praying for you, brother.
I think you misunderstood my criticism (or maybe I was unclear, writing after a 12 hr night shift and all), so let me try to summarize.
You make the assertion that eternal damnation is what Jesus teaches in Mtt 25:46, and that you oppose this to any philosophical argument that argues for universalism through a synthetic use of scriptural texts rather than simply following Christ's word. However, your interpretation of the text is influenced by numerous theological and philosophical ideas which developed long after, and so cannot be assumed as being the text's clear meaning prior to your own attempt to make use of this text in a philosophical argument. Thus, there is no opposition between a stance based on Jesus' words and a philosophically motivated stance, there are only philosophically motivated stances that use Jesus' words to defend a doctrine.
The above being the case, all that can matter is whether the doctrine to be defended is one that is worthy of God. Do you agree?