Loading...Do the early Christians think God is more just and determined to punish or more merciful and determined to forgive?
I deal with the matter in one of the chapters in my next scholarly book, Journeys to Heaven and Hell: Tours of the Afterlife in the Early Christian Tradition, coming out in April with Yale University Press. The book has been done for months now, and I am right now reading through the final page proofs sent to me by the press – making final corrections of typos before it heads into production. (It’s a very long process: usually a book doesn’t get published for about a year after the author has finished writing it and sent it to the publisher. This always reminds me of the famous poem of John Donne, “Hymn to God the Father,” with its celebrated refrain (about God forgiving sin): “When thou has done, thou hast not done, for I have more.”).
The book is written for scholars, but with a few helps non-scholars will be able to get the vast majority of it. Here’s the beginning of the chapter on the relation of God’s justice and mercy, an issue obviously of huge important to any discussion (or journey to!) heaven and hell.
The chapter is called “The Justice and Mercy of God in Textual Conflict.” To understand this part, a couple of helps:
- “katabasis” (plural “katabaseis”) literally means “going down,” but is commonly used for ancient journeys by mortals to the realms of the dead.
- “eschatological” means “understanding of what happens at ‘the end’ – either the end of the world or the end of life. Or, I suppose, the end of a book.
- “Akhmim” refers to the place where a copy of the Apocalypse of Peter was discovered in the 1880s
- “paranetic” means “giving advice or exhortation”
************************
Chapter Five
The Justice and Mercy of God
The theological investments of Christian katabaseis are not merely eschatological or, as we saw in the previous chapter, Christological. At the most fundamental level they concern the character of God, in particular two unusually important divine qualities: justice and mercy.[i] Christian history has been replete with attempts to balance the two. God is both severe and gracious; he strictly judges and he mercifully forgives. But which attribute is dominant? Theologians may argue: neither. God is both infinitely just and infinitely merciful. But when it comes to the individual – say to the individual sinner — does mercy triumph over judgment or judgment over mercy? This has never been a purely disinterested inquiry.
For most of its history, a large majority of the Christian community has affirmed, sometimes with startling alacrity, the ultimate and eternal damnation of anyone outside the Christian faith and, indeed, even of many within it. But minority voices have always appealed to the witness of the New Testament itself to argue that, in the end, all will be saved. In this view God is indeed a judge to be respected and feared. He does have laws, commandments, requirements, and demands, and violating them brings punishment. But he is also, even more fundamentally, a loving being who cares for those he created and understands them completely, not just superficially, and is intent on bringing them back to the ways of righteousness. Since he is the Almighty Sovereign, and since this is what he desires, it is what he will do. Even though judgment awaits sinners, in the end, love will triumph over all: in one way or another, God will restore everyone and be reconciled with all. Even sinners will be saved.
It is no surprise that the ancient debate over universal salvation played itself out in various Christian tours of the afterlife, and sometimes within the manuscript tradition of a single text. In this chapter I will return to the oldest known form of the Apocalypse of Peter and argue that it endorsed a universalistic view, but that the passage in question suffered a scribal intervention. The alteration was much smaller than the complete rewriting attested in the Akhmim edition discussed in ch. 4. But the theological effect of the change was even more significant. By changing just a few short lines, later scribes managed to alter the perspective of the account as a whole – to reverse it, in fact.
This part of my argument is not new, although I will provide it with significant additional support.[ii] More important, I will be mounting an argument for why the change was made, broadly similar to what we saw in the previous chapter, to make a Petrine pseudepigraphon more suitable for Christian reading. But in this case I will be making a stronger claim that a scribe changed the text of the Apocalypse of Peter specifically to facilitate its acceptance as part of the Christian canon of Scripture.
The Apocalypse of Peter and the Question of Canon
Once again I approach the question from a possibly unexpected perspective, by framing the discussion of the Apocalypse in relation to its canonical history and by doing so in relation to another Petrine pseudepigraphon with strikingly similar theological and parenetic concerns even if, at first glance, the similarites are not obvious. The book of 2 Peter does not present a katabasis but like the Apocalypse it does focus on an eschatological question, the ultimate divine judgment of sinners. It is striking that even though 2 Peter was scarcely known during the first three Christian centuries, let alone revered, it became part of Scripture, whereas the Apocalypse of Peter, which was both better known and revered, disappeared into oblivion. Understanding this reversal of fortunes will shed some light on the textual problem of Apocalypse of Peter 14, which, in its oldest form, indicated that at the end Christ will deliver all sinners from their torments in hell.
[i] Naturally they involve a large range of other theological issues as well, including, for example, what it means to be human, the nature of evil, and ecclesiology.
[ii] See, for example, M. R. James, “The Rainer Fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter,” JTS 32 (1931) 270-74.
It’s a bit ironic that I’m reading books almost exclusively written in English, and I write down all the words I don’t know or don’t remember, and the other day I tracked down the word “exhortation” – only to note right next to it its meaning: παραίνεση.
Katabasis is the greek “κατάβασις”, which means, as you wrote, “going down” (from the preposition “κατά” [denotes downwards movement] and the verb “βαίνω” [=tread, walk]).
It’s amazing how mind broadening experience can be to delve into the intricacies of a foreign language.
Sorry for the irrelevant babbling! (In any case, people already know your content is incredible, haha!)
Wow, I look forward to this book, and I find it readable while I hope that the rest of it is this readable.
I am more familiar with the term “descensus” and simply refer to the descent of Christ, but I am all for expanding my vocabulary. If I correctly recall, ancient Greek fragments of the Apocalypse of Peter do not indicate universal salvation but the Ethiopian version does. Is that correct?
In my field, at least, “descensus” refers to Christ’s descent to Hades after his crucifixion; I have a chapter of that as well in my book.
Another “kata” word with universalist implications appears in Pauls writings.
In Phil. 2:10 Paul assures us that every knee will bow in heaven and earth and under the earth. The last place is katachthonios, a word meaning the realm of the dead.
Pauls wording about knees bowing and toungues swearing allegience seems to borrow directly from Isaiah 45:23.
“I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.”
Paul seems to imply an inclusion of all souls. While some have tried to catagorically divide bowing as having two distinct motivations, namely the damned bowing in defeat and the blessed bowing in worship, the original language both in Isaiah and Phillipians supports only one motive and that is willing worship and surrender coming from all people who ever lived, even those down under!
Origen >>>> Augustine
off topic q – in Romans 14:14 “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” do you think the implication here is that this was a recognized teaching of Jesus?
Doesn’t seem to be. He appeals to no authority other than his own, as one who is in Christ.
But in Romans 8:38-39 he says “For I am convinced that neither death nor life … nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Here its his own opinion that he’s expressing.
But in Romans 14:14 he’s “convinced in Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean” – isn’t he saying the reason he now believes that is because of Jesus?
14:14 seems to be talking about his position “in Christ” (a common phrase of his, here simply given in an alternative form). He doesn’t say that he got the saying from Jesus, e.g. (He is “in Christ” by the way, because he has been baptised. see Romans 6:1-6)
Yes Paul doesn’t directly say its Jesus teaching in Rom 14:14 but isn’t that the implication.
Romans 14:14 “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.”
Jesus is Paul’s master and Paul is his servant – he’s not going to ignore his master’s teaching.
He has begun a new life in Christ and its “in Christ” that he’s persuaded nothing is of itself unclean.
He doesn’t imply that he got the saying from Jesus, no. It certainly can be seen as similar to a teaching of Jesus, but that’s not the same thing.
Would it be fair to call Origen the first universalist – that being the belief that eventually will be saved from hell? As I recall, it was largely for this reason that his views were declared heretical. I’ve also understood Augustine to be the primary force behind the doctrine of eternal damnation.
He’s the first *on record* who argued it systematically. He thought, of course, that Paul was a universalist, and he could certainly point to versees in Paul that do seem to lean that way.
A few things I recall from Catholic school: God condemns no one. We condemn ourselves by rejecting God. Why can’t we see the error of our ways, after death, and repent? The answer usually given was that there is no change after death. What you were when you died is what you will eternally be– a great stasis. Which never made sense to me. We had a particular priest with a theological bent, and I suppose he was getting this stuff from Aquinas. He loved to razzle dazzle us with Thomism. But for all I know he might have understood very little and might have been spouting heresies. Little Catholic kids in the third grade wouldn’t have known, and I rather doubt that the nuns would have.
Do you think John the Baptist told Jesus he was the messiah?
No. In the Gospels there are clear indications that he didn’t think so. (The exception is Matthew’s baptism scene, but that little conversation appears to be a later explanatoin of why the lesser was baptizing the greater)
Hi Bart,
I am not following you on this. All three Synoptic Gospels have something similar to Mark 1:7-8: “He proclaimed, ‘The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.'” (NRSV)
Perhaps there is an argument that this speech did not come from the historical John the Baptist, and I will read some of those arguments if they exist.
Also, we see John the Baptist expressing doubt in Jesus being the Messiah while John suffered in a Roman jail. In my judgment, his doubt while suffering in jail does not support that never said anything along the lines of Mark 1:7-8.
Do you have any recommendations for your view, perhaps the consensus view, written strictly in English?
–James
Yes, I don’t think that the saying goes back to the historial John, but apart from that, it’s important to remember that the Gospels also record John sending his disciples to ask Jesus from prison if he was “the one.”
As a suggestion / request… ever consider doing a post on the Epistle of Jude, possibly the most useless letter in the New Testament? Why the heck did Christians read and eventually canonize such drivel, even if they genuinely thought it was from an apostle? Revelation might be mysterious in its accusation of the “bad guys”, but at least it gives clues to who they are and offers some advice. Jude just says evil false Christians exist and assures readers that God will judge ’em. No call to action or teaching or moral code or anything.
Context: I recently read the section in your book “Forgery and Counterforgery” where you suggest “Jude” was taking a shot at Deutero-Pauline Christian works like Colossians, but even if that was true, later Christians clearly missed that point when they happily enshrined it with works that thought Paul was great… clearly too subtle on the point. I wonder what readers thought the epistle was saying 100 years after it was written.
Good idea. But yes, the point of the letter, in my view, is what I lay out in Forgery and Counterforgery.
Just out of interest, Bart, if you wrote this book as a post grad, would you get your doctorate as a result?
Are you asking whether this would be a suitable dissertation? Yes, I should think so.
So A of Peter is early second century and presents the idea of universal salvation. And Revelation (also early second century) presents a view of a final destruction of “the damned” (what I gleaned from your book HEAVEN AND HELL). So both these views were circuiting at the same time. Were these views developed in different regions and traditions or did they co-exist within the same Christian communities and create a lot of tension?
Originally they started out in different regions; they later did circulate among the same groups and people had different views of them. Eventually there were people who thought both should be Scripture; others that niether should be; and others that only one or the other should be. John won out. I expalin a bit about that in the new book
Uh … is this chapter going to be on the quiz?
Just yours.
“the character of God, in particular two unusually important divine qualities: justice and mercy.[i] Christian history has been replete with attempts to balance the two. God is both severe and gracious; he strictly judges and he mercifully forgives. But which attribute is dominant? Theologians may argue: neither. God is both infinitely just and infinitely merciful.”
That for theologians (who want to spend their lives telling other people what to do….) seems terribly convenient!
Well now I’ve got to know how that scribe changed the Apocalypse of Peter, and why! And what does it all have to do with 2 Peter? If I wasn’t already planning to buy the book, this clever cliff-hanger has sealed the deal.
Do you have any idea how Journeys will be priced? Often, academic books and textbooks are quite expensive — books in the Anchor Bible series are often close to $100, for instance. If that’s the case for your book, I may see if I can talk my local university library into snagging a copy.
That’s a great question! I’m afraid I have no idea.
This reminds me of a question I’ve been meaning to ask. One of my favorite books is C.S. Lewis The Great Divorce. In it, he travels from hell to heaven along with a bus full of others. They are each met by a guide. A tour takes place. I’m not sure if this qualifies as an apocalypse. Your thoughts?
It’s set up as a heavenly journey, and yes it’s a terrific book. It’s not so much an attempt to imitate the anicent genre, of course; it’s set up as an answer to William Blake, the Marriage….
Why did Apocalypse of Peter not make it into the Christian canon?
In my book I argue that it is because the narrative originally indicated that in the end Christ will have mercy and deliver everyone from their torments in hell.
I never had a good reason to work this in until now: In your view is the Didache promoting a punishment in the afterlife or a null existence for evildoers post-resurrection?
You once mentioned (I think) that certain early communities believed that the resurrection would be of those “saved” through Jesus and those that were wicked would simply not be resurrected (the “stinking corpses” quote). I hope I am not not “Misquoting Erhman” (heh) sorry if so.
Do you think the Didache (specifically Chapter 16) promotes that view? It sure seems there it does. But then in Chapter 1, it almooost seems like it is saying that there is a punishment for the baddies, a wage to be repaid.
It would be helpful for other readers of teh blog if you would quote the verses that appear to hou to be indicating afterlife punishment in the Didache. Chapter 16, as you probably know, appears to be from a completely different source from the rest of the book and is a highy apocalyptic passsage about the coming end (not the afterlife)
Yikes. I hope you don’t laugh at whichever translation I choose. I just imagine you rolling your eyes.
This almost sounds to me like a Purgatory/Hell afterlife:
Chapter 1. The Two Ways; The First Commandment
…. Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and, coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing.
Ah, sorry to be a pain: but now that you’ve quoted the passage blog readers won’t know your questoin about it! You need to quote and ask in the same comment. Isn’t this fun?
In your view is the Didache promoting a punishment in the afterlife or a null existence for evildoers post-resurrection?
You once mentioned that certain early communities believed that the resurrection would be of those “saved” and those that were wicked would simply not be resurrected. Chapter 1 almost sounds to me like a Purgatory/Hell afterlife:
Chapter 1. The Two Ways; The First Commandment
…. Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and, coming into confinement, he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing.
In Chapter 16, The Coming of the Lord: It is the standard Second Coming fare yet includes the line: “third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him.” You pointed out that this was a later interpolation. re the Second Coming vs. the Resurrection, I kind of saw 1:1, but take your point. Still it seems to explicitly imply only the good are resurrected.
My sense is that most authors at that time thought that the ultimate penalty was a death sentence. The passage you’re quoting is a paraphrase of Matthew 5:26, and it is meant metaphorically just to mean, You’re going to be held completely responsible and will get the full penalty you deserve. It’s *possible* that he means torment after death, but Jesus himself didn’t and there’s nothing definitive about it in the Didache. I take chapter 16 to be an apocalyptic description of judgment — resurrection for the righteous. Those not raised, of course, are being penalized by staying dead.