It seems fair to say that much of the rationale behind universalism is the desire to reconcile the ‘Arminian’ passages of scripture (which state or imply that God wants to, or will, save ‘all men’) and the ‘Calvinist’ passages (which state that God always gets what He wants). As many universalists have argued, those two sets of passages taken together (in isolation) imply that God will save all men. Unfortunately, to many bible-believing Christians, the universalist interpretation of the passages about the final judgement and Hell seem strained, with a lot of ‘reading between the lines’ to fill in what isn’t actually in the text. However, there is an alternative, non-universalist, interpretation of scripture that also affirms that ‘all men’ (in the sense of ‘every man’) will be saved, thereby reconciling the Arminian and Calvinist passages without recourse to universalism. Since I’ve not seen this interpretation mentioned in any of the debates on universalism, I thought I would bring it up here for discussion.

In summary, this alternative interpretation claims that, read in context, the words ‘men’ or ‘man’ in the relevant passages refer to the physical descendants of Adam (who inherit Adam’s sin, and are therefore the exclusive objects of salvation). But not all homo sapiens are physical descendants of Adam. The non-Adamic homo sapiens are those referred to as ‘tares’ in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew 13. In Matthew 13:38-39, Jesus states that, “The tares are the sons * of the evil one [Satan], and the enemy who sowed them is the devil.” In the next verse, Jesus states that the tares “are gathered and burned with fire.” It is instructive to note that ‘tares’ are a variety of weed (Lolium temulentum) that looks like wheat, until differences emerge near harvest time (hence Jesus’s instruction in Matthew 13:39 to not remove the tares till harvest time, “lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them”). In other words, the tares look like human beings, but they are the physical descendants of Satan, and this will become more apparent (in their behavior) as we get closer to the Last Days. Like the real tares, they are utterly destroyed in the fire at ‘harvest time’.

At the outset, it should be stressed that we are commanded to love our enemies, no matter who they are (Matthew 5:44), and not because of what they are but because of who our God is, and who we are in Him (1 John 4:8). But that love has to be appropriate to the kind of creature we’re dealing with. We cannot distinguish the wheat from the tares, so we are not to cast judgement and show favoritism in who we choose to help (except for practical reasons such as proximity, or biblical ones such as parental responsibility). There is no excuse for not loving anyone (though we don’t have to like them). However, it is not appropriate to wish salvation upon the tares, anymore than one would wish a bicycle on a goldfish. The tares are the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Romans 9:22).

To understand how Satan could possibly have physical descendants who look human, we need to turn to Genesis (I won’t attempt a complete biblical exegesis here, I’ll just raise enough points to show that this view is not as unbiblical as at first glance). Clearly, the Fall didn’t happen because Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit (even if it was in disobedience to God). The ‘fruit’ symbolized something that the serpent (Satan) tempted Eve into doing (and Adam too, but for him, it didn’t have the same physical consequences as it did for Eve). It isn’t necessary to go into the sordid details here, though it is worth noting that in Romans 1:21-27, Paul places sexual impurity (including homosexuality) top on his list of the manifestations of spiritual rebellion. In 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, Paul draws a parallel between adultery and the way Eve was tempted by Satan, “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted…” In Genesis 3:15, God says to Satan, “I will put enmity between … thy seed and her [Eve’s] seed”. Notice the word ‘seed’ crops up repeatedly, a word that usually means ‘physical descendant’.

Shortly after the Fall, Eve gives birth to Cain and Abel, who have notably different personalities. 1 John 3:12 says Cain was “of that wicked one, and murdered his brother.” In John 8:44, Jesus told some of his persecutors, "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning … " Again, the terminology implies physical descent from Satan, with murderousness as one of the prime characteristics of that descent. Both Cain and Abel are excluded from Adam’s genealogy in Genesis 5. Abel may have been excluded because he had no descendants, but although Cain had descendants (Genesis 4:16-24), his entire lineage was left out of Adam’s genealogy. It is likely that the two lineages (Satan’s and Adam’s) would intermingle from time to time, so God had to ‘weed out the bad seed’ occasionally, notably in the Flood (which was probably a local one), and in his exclusion of Esau and Ishmael from Israel’s inheritance. God also kept the Israelites genetically isolated in Egypt for 400 years (Genesis 15:13; as slaves, they would not have been allowed to mingle with non-slaves), and subsequently forbade them from marrying non-Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:3–4). It is unlikely that this ban was motivated solely by fear of religious pollution, as other religions don’t have a problem absorbing spouses from other faiths.

But God had a larger plan than simply isolating the Israelites genetically. Not all of Adam’s seed were taken into captivity in Egypt, and subsequently led out by Moses as ‘Israelites’. Many Adamites (descendants of Adam) were scattered throughout the world. In Genesis 12:3 God told Abraham, “All peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” The word translated ‘peoples’ is ‘mishpachah’ (Strong’s 4940), which is better translated ‘kindered’ (as in the Douay-Rheims and Amplified Bible translations). God told Abraham that all his Adamite kinfolk (not ‘every person’) around the world would be blessed through him. Similarly, in Genesis 22:18, where God says to Abraham, “Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,” the word translated ‘nations’ is ‘gowye’ (‘the nations’), which according to Strong’s (1471), is often used “specifically of descendants of Abraham.” God had already planned beforehand that He would reconcile all of Adam’s descendants back to Himself, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, so that, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). The ‘all’ in that verse are those who ‘die in Adam’, excluding those who are not Adam’s descendants, and who therefore did not inherit his sin.

All Adamites will be saved, even those who had never heard of Jesus (such as Abraham, whose faith “was credited to him as righteousness”, Romans 4:22). All Adamites, past, present and future, will be saved through their innate faith in God’s saving grace. This innate faith may have been the gift that God imparted to all Adamites when He created ‘ha’adam’ or ‘Adamkind’ (poorly translated as ‘Man’ in most Bibles) in “His own image” in Genesis 1:27. Note, in that verse, what was created in God’s image was both “male and female”, so God’s image could not be passed on through Eve (or Adam) alone. So the descendants of Satan and Eve could not inherit the image of God, nor could they inherit Adam’s sin. Instead, they inherit the sin nature of their father ‘the devil’, marked by a rebelliousness that caused him to fall from Heaven to Earth (Rev 12:9). It is noteworthy that Matthew 23:32 states that when Jesus returns, “All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them [the nations, not ‘people’ as in some translations] one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” The word translated ‘nation’ there is ‘ethne’ (Strong’s 1484), where we get the word ‘ethnicity’. In other words, Jesus will separate the Adamic bloodline from the Satanic bloodline.

Why can’t the children of Satan be saved from their sin? The Bible teaches that Adamkind is composed of body, soul and spirit (1 Thess 5:23, Hebrews 4:12). Paul taught that, "The Spirit Himself (meaning the Holy Spirit) beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God (Romans 8:16). However, Paul states that “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).” Since the ‘tares’ (the seed of Satan) are excluded from salvation (being entirely consumed in the fire, as real tares are), it follows that they are the ‘natural man’, lacking a spirit to ‘bear witness’ that they are ‘children of God’, and are therefore unable to respond to the Spirit of God.

The children of Satan only have a body and a soul, they lack a spirit (which was the ‘image of God’ that was given to Adam and Eve as a couple). It is noteworthy that Jesus said, “be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). He did not mention ‘spirit’ being in hell, because the spirit cannot be destroyed (being the image of God), which is why it ultimately returns to Him in the salvation of all Adamkind. On the other hand, the Bible states that “The soul that sins [without the spirit] shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). Hell destroys both soul and body, so it entirely consumes the seed of Satan. However, Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet are cast into Hell, where “they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev 20:10). Satan is an angelic being, and it is quite likely that angels never die. Jesus taught that believers “will be like the angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25), where there is no death (Rev 21:4). The Beast and the False Prophet will have their souls and bodies destroyed, but while on earth they were indwelled by Satan or a fallen angel under Satan’s direction, who will therefore spiritually represent the Beast and False Prophet in Hell ‘for ever and ever’.

So Satan and his fallen angels will be the sole occupants of Hell. Because Satan’s offspring only have a soul and body, their spirit is Satan (or a fallen angel under his control), who indwells them from time to time. When they are not possessed, Satan’s children only follow their (corrupted) natural instincts, as “brute beasts … who have gone the way of Cain” (Jude 1:10-11). As such, they cannot ‘sin’ (anymore than a rabid cat can ‘sin’). It is Satan who sins in their bodies whenever he indwells them (or directs a fallen angel to do so). So he will pay for the sins ‘of’ his children in Hell (and the fallen angels will pay for their part), just as Jesus paid for the sins of His people. There is a terrible irony in this, as the Satan-indwelled Antichrist (meaning ‘in place of Christ’) seeks to be a counterfeit Jesus. So it is fitting that Satan should be punished by being made to play ‘Jesus’ for real. It is noteworthy that in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Jesus says to the goats, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). He did not say, “The eternal fire prepared for the devil, his angels, and all human sinners.” That’s because no human beings dwell in the ‘eternal fire’, they are all consumed by it (for the relevant verses, please refer to the literature on Annihilationism).

What about God’s mercy, which the Bible says is “everlasting” (Psalm 100:5)? Should He be kind to Satan and his angels, and either destroy them or forgive them? Angels are a special category of beings, they possess privileges and powers that humans don’t enjoy (humans were “made a little lower than the angels” (Psalm 8:5)). Such an exalted status carries a corresponding responsibility, with more severe penalties for transgression (for example, among believers, teachers are judged more severely than others (James 3:1), in terms of God’s discipline in this life, and degrees of reward in the next (1 Cor 3:10-15)). Presumably, Satan and his angels will continue to sin in Hell (after all, Satan returned to sinning after being bound for a thousand years (Rev 20:7)). Perhaps the privilege of being immortal carries the responsibility of eternal punishment for unrepentant continual rebellion. If Satan or his angels were to repent, God may well forgive them, and in that sense, His mercy is everlasting. But the Bible states that Satan and his angels are tormented “for ever and ever”, which implies that they never repent (Rev 20:10), though God may be ever-merciful in his willingness to forgive. Their torment may well be their own psychic pain in the presence of someone they hate. In Rev 15:2 the saved are standing (comfortably) on “something like a sea of glass mixed with fire” before “the throne of God” (Rev 4:6). It may be this very same sea that Satan and his angels are standing on, but it is the presence of God (rather than the fire) that torments them. After all, before his fall, Satan “walked among the fiery stones” (Ezekiel 28:14), which didn’t seem to bother him.

Some may object that in Romans 9:27, Paul quotes Isaiah 10:22 in stating that, “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.” So how can all of Abraham’s Adamite ‘kinfolk’ be saved? Paul supplies the answer, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Romans 9:6). He cites the example of Esau, whom God ‘hated’ (Romans 9:13). As was mentioned earlier, the Satanic and Adamic bloodlines probably mingled at certain points, leading God to ‘weed out the bad seed’ such as Esau and Ishmael. Not all who can trace their descent to Adam necessarily have a pure Adamic bloodline. If some of their ancestors were from the Satanic line, the Satanic genes will be present in some individuals (while skipping others) in the generations that follow. So it is possible for non-identical twins, such as Esau and Jacob, to bear the Satanic and Adamic genes respectively. Correspondingly, someone who has a mixed bloodline (i.e. a ‘Gentile’) can be saved, if he happens to have the Adamic genes inherited from a distant Adamic ancestor (so the Adamic bloodline doesn’t correspond to any particular ‘race’ by physical appearance). The saved will come from “every nation, tribe and tongue” (Rev 7:9), but only a remnant (literally, ‘the remainder’) of those who call themselves ‘Israel’ will be saved. To those who have the Adamic genes, “The [Holy] Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16).*

Hello, FE.

I found your post tacked onto one of the (maybe the) first threads on the whole forum, and have moved it here for better convenience of discussion (with a new header for helping browsing members get an idea of your topic if they want to discuss it.)

All new members have their posts automodded at first, as an anti-spam measure; which has worked great since we instituted it, but does mean there can be a bit of a lag on your first posts until we teach the forum engine you aren’t a spambot. Fortunately a mod has already approved your first post by the time I checked in tonight, so you’ll only need another one or two posts.

I’m pretty sure we actually have talked about the theory that God intends to save only the human sons of Adam, not any rebel angels nor human sons of Satan, but I think it was only in passing (maybe once or twice) on other topics. You make a reasonably detailed (yet helpfully concise) case on the topic, so it’ll be a good ground for discussion. It’s possibly the position of Irenaeus at least among the Fathers, who expected all humanity to be saved but not the rebel angels (slated for annihilation – so strictly speaking he was an annihilationist.) Human descendants of Satan or other rebel angels would have been included if he thought them a different species than the Incarnation as son of Adam; and that was a common belief back then, so though I don’t recall him being that specific on the topic he could have had that in mind (or I’m just not recalling enough. )

Of course, those of us who argue universal salvation means all sinners saved from sin, appealing to theological principle and various scriptural indications, will naturally include any human descendants of rebel angels (which I agree the scriptures, both OT and NT, do tend to hint pretty strongly at). My guess is that this will be the majority of any discussion you get on the topic.

Others of us (not myself) think the Bible actually points toward the spiritual rebels being impersonal powers or psychological projections of human personas or something of that sort; so you may get some answers along that line, too.

I know there’s at least one member (fairly recent) whom if I recall correctly agrees largely with you on the non-salvation of rebel angels (interpreting Matt 25 for example as referring to rebel angels not to humans), but last I checked I think he regards all humans as sons of Adam, so would disagree with you on that point (but agrees with Irenaeus as far as he goes: all humans yes, rebel angels no). I’m not sure I can find his thread again, but you two might like comparing notes a lot. I’ll see what I can do about that in the next few days.

Hi Jason,

Thanks very much for your reply, and for creating a separate thread for this topic. On the salvation of human descendants of Satan or other fallen angels, I’d just like to spell out my own understanding of what the Bible says. It seems that the ‘image of God’ given to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:27) is the ‘spirit’ with a small ‘p’, that allows its bearer to commune with the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:16, 1 Corinthians 2:14). This ‘image of God’ could not be passed on by Satan and Eve (perhaps because it was originally only in Adam, or is comprised by Adam and Eve together). So the presence of this ‘image of God’ makes all the difference for the purposes of salvation and sanctification. Most (if not all) of us are a hybrid of Satanic and Adamic genes (hence our aberrant behavior), but I would speculate that the ‘image of God’ is tied to a genetic mutation that doesn’t crop up in every descendant of Adam (if they have some Satanic ancestry). This mutation allows God to ‘hack’ into the bearer of His ‘image’, to compensate (via ‘sanctification’) for the distortions caused by the hybridization. God will not do this for those who lack the ‘image’, because the ‘image’ is all that He really wants to save. It is somehow part of the Godhead, and is what the Elect are eventually conformed to (Romans 8:29). Those without the ‘image’ are like all other animals, in terms of having only a body and a soul (Revelation 8:9, "and died a third of the creatures in the sea, having souls ‘psoo-khay’, Strong’s 5590] … "). The Bible doesn’t mention animals being saved, and hybrid animals are an abomination to God (Leviticus 19:19, “Do not mate different kinds of animals”].

FE,

I do regard genetic tampering and/or a divine rearrangement (as a safety device after the rebellion of our original human ancestors) to be a key factor in what’s going on with us humans, eventually to be repaired at the resurrection. I tend to go with both malicious tampering and also penal restriction. But sin doesn’t require those handicaps first (though sin can or does lead to both in very different ways).

I mention the distinction because, so far as you’ve reported your beliefs on the topic, your anthropology doesn’t account yet for all humanity being a hybrid of “Satanic and Adamic genes”. In fact, so far as rebel angels are spirits, they may not have genes to pass down the way we do (or not anymore, if they’re the spirits of rational animals which died between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, so to speak); and even if they have an equivalent for their ‘subtle bodies’ (i.e. only God can be and is pure spirit, all creatures require some kind of created nature in which to exist and so have bodies, even if very different ones from ours), it wouldn’t necessarily interface with our genetics at all or in the same way.

That being said, the rebel angels aren’t only bodies and souls; they also have rational spirits, from the Father of spirits. Otherwise (as you yourself note in comparing the terms) they would only be equivalent to non-rational living organisms (e.g. plants or non-sentient animals). That would also mean they cannot sin even if they behave in corrupted or naturally imperfect ways (or ways inconvenient to rational creatures), nor be culpable for such behaviors. They aren’t persons yet.

That’s why the Bible doesn’t mention “animals” being “saved” from their sins – unless those animals (like us, or the “glittering” reptile from Gen 3, the chief rebel dragon) have and are spirits! (God reveals to Isaiah in Isa 64:24, the second of the two famous ‘mountain of God’ visions, which bookend his whole prophetic collection, that the bronze serpent from Gen 3 will eventually live in peace on the mountain of God, eating the dust as prophesied – whatever that actually means but certainly a symbol of humility – along with other ‘ravening’ animals. Part of the behind-the-scenes point of Job is that what God allows Satan to do to Job and to his family is for Satan’s eventual benefit, with God telling Job at the end that He is entirely capable of taming Leviathan and giving him as a present to His little daughter. Children are playing in peace with the serpent/dragon either way.)

The scriptures do actually talk about Nature and its creatures generally (even if they aren’t spirits) being saved from the corruptions visited on them by rebellion, most directly in Romans 8:19-23 but the ideas can be found elsewhere, too. Animals are saved from the corruptions visited upon them by sinners; sinners are saved from that, too, but also from their sinning and their sins.

The distinction is on whether creatures have (and are) spirits or not. Thus God creates unfallen spirits some of whom rebel: all the stars, representing the sons of God, sang in joy at first. Fallen angels are still spirits; they started out as spirits (whether or not as spiritual animals like us), they’re still spirits.

The scriptures don’t talk remotely as much about the salvation of rebel angels (or rebel elohim, rebel gods, little ‘g’ as we would say in English distinction compared to the one and only God Most High, ground of all reality), compared to the salvation of the human species; but the scriptures do mention saving rebel angels/elohim on occasion, including occasionally in Paul’s epistles.

Now, be fair here: “many Bible-believing Christians” would regard your argument as seeming strained with a lot of ‘reading between the lines’ to fill in what isn’t actually in the text, too! Just as you call that “reading in context”, we Christian universalists try to read in context, too. (Though we don’t always agree with each other on the best way(s) to do that.)

Re Matt 13: Jesus’ whole rebuke back at Matt 8:5-13 is that “the sons of the kingdom” themselves are the ones who will be shocked to find far more people coming into the kingdom than they were expecting while they themselves are being thrown outside where the wailing is and the gnashing of the teeth! That phrase, “sons of the kingdom”, is the same phrase Jesus uses in Matthew’s description of the wheat, to talk about people who will certainly be saved – but the contexts there continue to warn against people expecting other people not to be finally saved.

I would say any interpretation of the Matt 13 parables (including the wheat and the weeds) not only should keep that in mind (since Matthew goes to the trouble to report it – his Gospel tends to feature call-forward details like that); but also that (as GosMatt 12, the immediately preceding chapter, makes clearer than the other Synoptics), Jesus has just recently shifted over to parables the afternoon after the Pharisees of Capernaum had charged Him with serving and healing by the power of the devil, when He had healed a demonized man a second time (as Matthew also somewhat clarifies) whose latter state was worse than his former. The Pharisees are condemned by Jesus for being willing to contradict their own principles in order to put limits on God’s intentions or capabilities in saving people from sin; so I’m going to be loath afterward to interpret Jesus’ parables (and to interpret His interpretation of His parables!) with limits on His salvation of people from sin! Otherwise I would be volunteering for the condemnation of the Pharisees, and for the condemnation of the sons of the kingdom.

So at the very least, the “wheat/sons of the kingdom” in that parable are not one of two completely separate people of elect and non-elect: even the sons of the kingdom may be sons of the evil one (apparently by being sure God will not save various people!) and punished thereby.

To which could be added that the parable has nothing at all to say about conversion, as well as depicting the landowner being surprised and impotent to do anything about the enemy sowing the tares; so Calvinists and Arminians (i.e. any Protestant non-universalists, and their catholic predecessors) must both acknowledge that the details shouldn’t be held to rigorously even in a “spiritual” sense.

Relatedly, who are the wheat, whom the tares resemble until the end of the age when their rotten poisonousness shows forth? Jesus in explaining the parable quotes Daniel 12:3 in reference to them shining forth (like the sun in GosMatt, like the blue sky and the stars in Daniel into the eons of the eons): they are the instructors, or those who have insight, and those who lead the many to righteousness, who having died will be raised to eonian life. Those who are raised from death to eonian contempt or abhorrence would be those who, by contrast, are not concerned with leading the many to righteousness. What do the righteous understand? The angel of God explains to Daniel shortly afterward (almost the end of the final prophecy given to Daniel): “Many will be purged, made white (or purified) and refined (i.e. in a furnace); but the unjust will act unjustly and none of the unjust will understand but the instructors (or those who have insight) will understand.”

The overall referential context indicates that the “wheat” are those who at least have a heart for universal salvation, and the “weeds” are those whose hearts are set against universal salvation. But that doesn’t mean the weeds aren’t also going to be saved from their sins: if I interpreted the fire destroying the “weeds” as a hopeless punishment, I would be interpreting the parable like one of the weeds, not like one of the wheat!

(Note that I’m not talking about a question of mere doctrinal understanding, but an attitude of the heart: a non-universalist could interpret this parable like one of the weeds technically, and even believe it thus, without necessarily being one of the weeds whose attitude toward salvation from sin will be punished by God unless and until they repent of it. In other words, I don’t mean you or any other non-universalist is necessarily a “weed”. On the contrary, you’re clearly trying to interpret as much salvation as you see possible. )

Any created spirit, even if it (or he or she) is our enemy at the moment, is a child of the Father of spirits. The mode, or modes, of saving love may differ according to the creature we’re dealing with, but due to their circumstances and character, not due to some choice of God’s not to save sinners from sin. It is appropriate to hope for and believe in the salvation of the tares from being tares into being wheat, and for the salvation of vessels of wrath prepared for destruction into vessels of mercy – Paul himself says all those who are saved from sin were once children of wrath! (And Paul’s referential contexts of Rom 9 go back to OT texts where God is saying He will still save from sin those whom He punishes even to death; with God critically rebuking those who teach hopelessness instead!)

If anything that particular statement would imply separate physical descendants; though that isn’t mutually exclusive to some combined physical descendants also existing. But the seed of Eve is the one who crushes the head of the serpent though being poisoned first by a strike at the heel: that’s generally regarded as a reference to Christ. If so, then the statement isn’t about two separate races at all.

No doubt the point there would be that Abraham is descended from Noah who was descended from Seth. That doesn’t mean Cain’s descendants are some kind of race which doesn’t have spirits. (Though I agree there are strong hints both OT and NT that Satan sexually seduced Eve and Cain was the child, though in the Hebrew she was hoping he would be YHWH!)

You can see this is going to be a problem, so you go with the limited flood theory – though you wouldn’t have to if you inferred that one or more wives of the sons were of Cain’s “race” and didn’t have spirits (according to your anthropology). (I tend to agree the flood was probably limited, but I’m good to go either way. )

So who was the bad seed mingling to produce Esau? Isaac? – or his wife? About neither of whom practically anything bad is ever said in scripture, contrary to every other patriarch! And Jacob was the twin of Esau (though apparently a fraternal twin).

Also, Esau wasn’t excluded from the inheritance after all; Isaac specifically says Esau is to be blessed under Jacob (who acts quite Satanish himself in his story, unlike the merely irresponsible Esau who takes the lead in forgiving his brother’s sins against him).

They would have been entirely allowed (maybe required) to breed with other slaves however; and if you don’t think masters took advantage of slaves for breeding on occasion, well…

Their relative genetic isolation would have been a factor of their own culture and religion, not imposed on them by Egypt: toward the end it wasn’t genetic isolation but a eugenic genocide which Egypt was enforcing! And why only kill off newborn sons? So the daughters could continue to breed, but not from Hebrew stock. (The point apparently was that Hebrew stock was too strong and warlike, thus the pharaohs came to fear the Hebrews and wanted to both reduce their numbers and water down the stock.)

Which they had already been doing, back into the Egyptian captivity (and earlier). Note that Moses, as one key example, didn’t marry an Israelite, he married a Midianite.

Religious pollution is however the only explanation given, and routinely given. There are tacit exceptions to the principle, but for religious conversions (as for example with Moses).

When the one and only frequent explanation is that Jewish men simply cannot be trusted to stay religiously strong in their faith when taking wives from outside their faith, with plentiful examples directly connected to that reason for the ban, other explanations for the ban need not be proposed. Another explanation might also still be true, of course, but we don’t have to go looking for it.

Have to go now, more later perhaps.

Hi Jason,

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately time doesn’t permit me to reply in full at the moment, but I’d just like to make a few preliminary observations.

I think you’re referring to Isa 65:25, ""The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. " I don’t think that says the serpent will be saved and will ‘live in peace’. If ‘eating dust’ is a metaphor for ‘being humbled’, then Satan will presumably be doing that in Hell. Nor does Isa 65:25 mention that the serpent is either Satan or the bronze serpent from Genesis 3, it could just be a snake, to go with the wolf, lamb, ox and lion.

You didn’t cite which part of Job alludes to this ‘behind-the-scenes point’, and I don’t see it. The reference to Leviathan in Job 41:1-10 is part of a hyperbolic rhetorical question, not a prophecy of future events.

That’s odd, because Jesus said of his disciples and those “who will believe in me through [the disciples’] message” (GosJn 17:20), that "I pray for them. I am not praying for the world ‘the ungodly multitude’, Strong’s 2889) (GosJn 17:9), that “those you have given me … be with me where I am.” (GosJn 17:24). So Jesus refused to pray that ‘the ungodly multitude’ would be with Him where He is. If Jesus wanted the ‘ungodly multitude’ to eventually repent and be saved, He would have included them in His prayer. Nor can it be argued that Jesus prayed for the ‘ungodly multitude’ when He prayed for ‘the world’ in GosJn 17:21-23. The parallelisms between the first part of Jesus’s prayer and second part that refers to ‘the world’ (believers at large) indicate that it is one and the same prayer, excluding ‘the ungodly multitude’ (the section headings were, of course, not part of the original text). Jesus merely wanted to emphasise that the prayer, from its beginning, wasn’t just for the disciples but also for all believers (‘the world’ minus the ‘ungodly multitude’).

To make a more general observation, I think we can both agree that it is crucial to be clear on what (or who) God actually wants to save. Jn 3:16 says “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” The word ‘world’ there (‘kosmon’, Strong’s 2889) has a number of meanings, one of which is ‘an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution’. God’s primary concern is to restore or enhance the particular organized order that He began with. An arrangement can be restored without including every object that was in the original arrangement (e.g., 9 marbles can be arranged in a triangle, but the same can be done with 6 marbles).

For example, God preserves the order of the 12 tribes of Israel in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:12), but Paul taught that only a remnant of Israel will be saved (Ro 9:27). When Paul stated that “all of Israel will be saved” (Ro 11:26), he was referring to the reunification of remnants of ‘all’ the 12 tribes that were then divided into two houses, Judah (the Judahites, or ‘Jews’ as most bibles confusingly translate it) and Ephraim (the ten ‘lost’ tribes or ‘Gentiles’ as they were called by the Judahites. In GosJn 7:35, “Then said the Jews [Judahites] among themselves, Where will he [Jesus] go, that we shall not find him? Will he go to the dispersed [the lost 10 tribes of Ephraim] among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles [the Ephraimites]?” It would never have occurred to the Judahites that Jesus would teach non-Israelites, so by ‘Gentiles’, they clearly meant ‘the dispersed’).

In order to transcend the category of “all men” and which men are which, without a lot of complicated speculations about their origins, there are some general statements that should render the issue of origination a mute point as regards the reconciliation/salvation of all.

In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up(gathering together into one) of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth Eph 1:9-11 NAS

In Ephesians Paul first categorizes this “all” that will be gathered into one in Christ, (pas gr.) as “everything in heaven and in earth”, but He goes further in Colossians.

For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. Col 1:13-22

In Colossians Paul expands and specifies the categories of what “whether things in heaven or things on earth” means.

First, he makes it clear that all we who are in the light were once in the darkness. Second, He expands and clarifies what “all things” (pas) includes, beginning with everything Jesus has created, which is all things because John tells us

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being(John 1:3)

Paul further includes everything that He is before, which is everything since everything was created by/through Him; and everything He is over, which is everything because Eph 4:10, among other verses tells us he has “ascended far above all heavens so that He may fill all things”.

Then Paul tells us that God made all His fulness dwell in Jesus so that he could reconcile all these things, the same all things Paul just listed in verses 15-18- all things in heaven or in earth.

Then, pointedly I think, Paul wraps up by again explaining that we who are reconciled were once all “formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds” and are now only reconciled by His death.

At this point I think it is already clear that it would not matter where the source of the alienation or even the creation of certain evil men or “sons of Satan”- because we know in the end** there is nothing that has come into being that did not come into being through Him**(Jn 1:3)- but Paul goes further, getting even more specific in 1 Corinthians 15…so lets follow on with him,

For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 1Cor 15:25-28

Here and in preceding verses(22-24) Paul quantifies the universal nature of the subjection of all things to Christ as including all His enemies. If we question the nature of that subjection, it is defined for us in verse 28-- they shall all be turned over to God so that God shall be “all in all”. Also in Colossians 1, we have the nature of the subjection described as “reconciliation through the blood of His cross” and in Ephesians 1 “gathering together into one of all things in Christ”.

So, we were all once enemies- and all the enemies shall be summed up, gathered into one, subjected and then,** turned over to God reconciled for Him to fill all in all.**

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow,** of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth**, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-11)

In Phillipians at least, we see that everything with knees or a tongue will be subjected, declaring Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Finally, Paul tells us in Romans 8 that the entire creation was “subjected to futility” by God so that God could set it free into the “glorious liberty of the sons of God”.

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. Rom 8:20-22

Taken alone this verse might not totally convince a person- but taken in context with all the other verses, it should be clear, again, that the entire creation, everything and everyone, children of God, children of men, sons of Satan, angels, demons, principalities and powers- everything in heaven and earth will be redeemed and restored into the all in which God will be “all in all”. This was always His plan, as Paul states in Ephesians 1, His “kind intention” which he “purposed in Himself” who “works all things according to the counsel of His will” and who, as Paul told Timothy “desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth”.

He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.(Eph 4;10)

I think we see the prophetic fulfillment of these things in John’s apocalypse(unveiling)…

Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice,

“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”

And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,

“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” Rev 5;11-13

And He who sits on the throne said, **“Behold, I am making all things new.” **And He *said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” (Rev 21:5)

As I read all these verses I understand that,

The ascension of Jesus Christ over all things assures that he will subject, reconcile and fill all things, whatever things, including His adversaries- even death itself, until God fills all in all through the agency of His Son- the Alpha Omega, the Chief Cornerstone.

These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Eph 1:19-23

And we are to be apart of the work of the restoration of all things, and not because we earned it, but because of His grace.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Eph 2:4-7

We have ascended with Christ, and are seated with Him in the heavenly realms, and are being “filled up unto all the fulness of God”(Eph 3:19) So that in the ages to come we might be “workers in the fields of the ages” gathering in a harvest of all things reconciled.

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.Now** all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation**, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2 Cor 5:17-20

This, in my opinion, is the gospel the apostles proclaimed from the beginning.

Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,** whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began**. Acts 3:19-21

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to** the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God**, for obedience to the faith— to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever Rom 16:25-27

In all wisdom and insight **He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, **the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.Eph 1:9-11

Wow… Great post eagle. If I wasn’t already convinced, I would be now. This ranks high up there because at least half of the entire post is scripture. Again, great post.

Always glad to edify

Hi Eaglesway,

The scope of ‘all’ in the Bible is always conditional on relevant limitations (if any) mentioned or implied anywhere in scripture. For example, Mark 1:5 says, “And all the country of Judea was going out to him [John the Baptist], and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.” It is unlikely that every person in Judea and Jerusalem went out to John (e.g. the Roman garrison would not have, since they worshipped their own Roman gods). In Mat 10:22 Jesus tells His disciples, “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake …” Obviously, the disciples weren’t hated by each other or by other believers, so they weren’t hated by ‘all men’ without exception. Mat 4:24 says of Jesus, “So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick …” The nation of Syria is a huge place, it is most unlikely that the entire country brought their sick to Jesus. In Mat 26:52 Jesus states “All who take the sword will perish by it.” This can’t be true of everyone who uses a weapon violently, since many of them die by other means (Jesus was stating a general rule, that people who live by violence tend to die violently). These examples are not exhaustive.

On the topic of salvation, the ‘all’ who are saved in the Bible excludes, for example, the ‘tares’ of Matthew 13:24-30 (who are “burned” to destruction, as are literal tares. If the ‘burning’ was merely remedial, the metaphor would be a poor one); Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet who are “tormented day and night for ever and ever” (literally ‘for the ages of the ages’) in Rev 20:10; and the ungodly multitude (“the world”) in GosJn 17:9 for whom Jesus refused to pray that they would be “with me [Jesus] where I am [in Heaven]”. The ungodly multitude and the ‘tares’ are probably the same group.

Hi Fever Effect,

All is not always composed within limitations however, as in John 1, for instance, where we understand that Jesus created all things(What did He not create? All is indeed all). In Colossians 1, as I posted above, Paul is specific and emphatic that the “all” he is referencing is composed of-everything Jesus created. Surely Paul is not confused, and speaking of one “all” in verses 16-19and another all in verse 20. As I see it, he is clearly explaining what the “all” to be reconciled is, before he declares the reconciliation. So also in 1 Corinthians 15.- everything over which Jesus reigns- including His adversaries, all whom the Father has subjected to Him- "Sit thou at my right hand until I make all you enemies a footstool for your feet.’ Then there is Eph 1:9-11,having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ

Even if you do not accept my understanding of Colossians 1 and 1 Cor 15- it is clearly not true that “all” is “always” presented with limitations, so the question remains- what does “all” mean in the verses I posted above? The sum total of those verses leads me to conclude that everything in heaven and earth- all that he created is included.

The reason nobody teaches these verses- in 40 years of Christianity I have never heard any of them taught in any denomination, is that they are not considered, thought about, talked about- because they are not understood- because they are prohibited by caveat-because you cant read them with the same literal approach you are using with the parable and deny that they define “all things” by one another quite thoroughly, as Paul said in 1 Cor 2, “comparing spiritual words with spiritual ideas”.

1 Cor 2:13 And we are setting these truths forth in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the [Holy] Spirit, combining and interpreting spiritual truths with spiritual language [to those who possess the Holy Spirit].(Amplified)

Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all…

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

The burning of the tares, if not metaphoric of the lake of fire(which is not eternal according to 1 Cor 15- death will come to an end and God will be all in all), would be at least to utter destruction if you take it literally as referring to destruction, which would make you annihilationist perhaps, but at least eliminates eternal torment, but if you look at 1 Cor 3:13-17

13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by firYou can see that people can be saved through fire.

Also, in separating the wheat and the chaff, burning the chaff with unquenchable fire- it is clear that each seed of wheat has chaff on it. The fire burns the chaff. Jesus said “Everyman will be salted with fire…”- our God is a consuming fire, and Jesus’ eyes are as flames of fire. We are also purifies in “fiery trials”. Light is as fire to darkness, consuming it.

The tares would be difficult if it were not for all the verses that you have to ignore if your interpretation is correct- and if a person were to base their whole understanding of the eternal judgment of God on that one portion of scripture. But if you cannot believe Paul in the bible you cannot believe Jesus in the bible either.

If the lake of fire is “hell” and hell is forever- how shall death be destroyed- as 1 Cor 15 clearly states? How does God become “all in all” if many burn forever or are annihilated?

It is difficult to reconcile most of the verses I posted if a large part of creation is tormented forever or annihilated. Since the epistles are the foundations of the kingdom, built upon the chief cornerstone of the Logos- I can come to no other conclusion myself.

"Behold I am making all things new!

“If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me”

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order”

having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ

Hi Eaglesway,

That’s why I said, “conditional on relevant limitations (if any)”. Where there are relevant limitations, the ‘all’ is restricted. If not, then not. As I mentioned, there are explicit limitations (the ones I listed, at least) on the ‘all’ when it comes to salvation. As for the verses you cited, the ‘all’ or ‘any’ is restricted by context (such as the particular audience the human author, e.g. Paul, is addressing, or the group he’s referring to. E.g. if I’m talking to or about American citizens, and I say, “All are entitled to US passports,” it’s clear that I’m not referring to every human being). Unfortunately, I don’t have time to go over each verse you mentioned, but googling them should bring up relevant commentaries. It also helps to read the verse in the context of the passage it’s in, as well as in the context of the Bible as a whole.

I do see the limitations where they exist and I understand your point, but there are scriptures that explain that eventually all these limitations will be removed. That is God’s plan- Alpha to Omega, through the eons. “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things”.

My point is that there are no limitations within the verses I listed and taken together they present a vision of all things restored at the end of the ages. It appears to me that you are using one parable and a particular interpretation of it to dismiss a half dozen or so clear testimonies that as far as reconciliation is concerned- all is all.

Colossians 1:15-20 is, of itself, sufficient to the task of revealing all reconciled, if you read it thoroughly .

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.** All things were created through Him** and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that** in all things He may have the preeminence.**

19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

If Jesus created all things, He is before all things, He is over all things, all things hold together in Him and He is exalted, pre-eminent over all things- on this we do not disagree because there are so many verses declaring these points that is is undeniable. In Colossians 1:20 Paul tells us all these same things will be reconciled.- everything in heaven and on earth.

In addition, Paul supplies enough verses declaring the 1)reconciliation of all things Col 1 2)the "gathering together of all things into one in Christs Eph 1 3) the subjection of every adversary and the abolishment of death and hell and God becoming all in all 1 Cor 15 4)The setting free of the whole creation from futility in Rom 8 and even the doxology in Romans 11

32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Peter proclaimed the restoration of all things on the day of pentecost, Acts 3:19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the *Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

22 For as in Adam ALL die, SO ALSO in Christ ALL will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

Also in your first post you indicated that these tares are sons of Satan and not human, are they therefore bound for destruction without hope of redemption in your view? What then is the point of evangelism? if every adversary is not subjected, what do you do with 1 Cor 15:22-28?*