Justice and mercy

Mercy triumphs over judgment.—James 2:13

In the Law we see the principle of the talion. Sins against men are addressed by doing to the sinner what he did to another. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. This principle applied to the body. A few maiming or capital punishments could be greater against a criminal in certain circumstances (eg. sexual crimes). But permanent destruction of a man or a part of his body was limited to what he had done to others. An example is in King Adonibezek who had cut off the thumbs and great toes of kings and the same was done unto him (Jug 1:7). He saw this as a punishment from God because of what he had done.

The punishment could exceed this in some circumstances, especially property crimes: A thief pays back more than he stole to act as a deterrent. Further, a man could be flogged for a crime because this did not cause permanent physical destruction of an organ.

The talion acted also limited punishments; it prohibited judges from sentencing excessive punishments.

Jesus speaks against the talion in his Sermon on the Mount. It is worth noting that he is teaching not against what is written, but what the people had be taught. When Jesus refutes his opponents he frequently appeals to Scripture saying, "It is written." The rebuke is in not believing Scripture. If his opponents claim to believe Scripture Jesus shows them how they err in their interpretation. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus refutes not what is written but what they have been taught. Jesus prefaces his teaching by denying that he is abolishing the Law,

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:17-19)

And then he says,

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ (Mat 5:21)

And

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ (Mat 5:27)

And

It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ (Mat 5:31)

And

Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ (Mat 5:33)

These are what they have been taught by the scribes. When Jesus addresses these teachings, which are based in the Torah, Jesus explains what they mean. He explains that murder originates in the heart and that lesser sins  such as hatred also violate the law. He explains that adultery can be in the heart. He corrects the teaching they have received on divorce. But consider this teaching,

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ (Mat 5:43)

Hating your enemies is not an Old Testament quote. He tells them to love their enemies.

When it comes to the talion Jesus says,

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. (Mat 5:38-42)

Jesus is not abolishing the Law as he has already said, but he is commenting about how they are applying the Law. None of the examples Jesus gives involves actually losing an eye, or a tooth, or one's life. Jesus is speaking against a spirit of retaliation. The talion was given to administer judgment and limit sentences, it was not given to justify our internal desire for revenge. This is what the Pharisees got wrong and why Jesus spoke so sternly to them in other situations. A spirit of revenge works against mercy. It subverts all that God wants to do. It is antagonistic to God's purposes. Punishment is not wrong, and the principle of the talion is not wrong, but if we let revenge take priority in our hearts we oppose what God is doing.

When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God pronounced judgment against them. The judgment was severe: they became mortal, they were estranged from God, they had difficulty with children, difficulty between each other, difficulty in their ability to get enough food. And such a judgment was necessary, they now knew good and evil and the depths of depravity the human race was now capable meant that they had to be restrained.

Even so, look at the promise when God curses the serpent.

I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.” (Gen 3:15)

The protevangelium contains the promise of deliverance. Even in the curse God is planning to redeem the problem. God does not intend for men to be alienated from him.

Jesus teaches the same thing.

No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar or under a basket, but on a stand, so that those who enter may see the light. Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but when it is bad, your body is full of darkness. Therefore be careful lest the light in you be darkness. If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright, as when a lamp with its rays gives you light. (Luk 11:33-36)

When our eye is healthy, or generous, we view things rightly. We need to pay careful attention that we have healthy eyes. Luke writes this within the context of people saying Jesus operates by the power of Beelzebub. He warns them against having an unclean spirit, and he rebukes them for their unbelief. Then following this is a condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees.

Some have argued that Jesus opposes the religious but defends sinners by virtue of his kindness towards tax-collectors and prostitutes but frequent condemnation of the religious men of the day. This misreads what Jesus does and is doing. Jesus befriended sinners because they were lost. The sick need a physician. Yet the sinners we encounter in these verses are repentant sinners. Jesus offers mercy to those who repent. Jesus had a generous eye, one that defeats his enemies by making them his friends. It is this what the Pharisees get so wrong. They load up burdens on men's backs but do not help lift a finger (Mat 23:4).

It is not that mercy is right and justice is wrong, it is that people do not care for mercy which is a higher virtue. Love is above all.

And it is not that being a sinner gets one right with Jesus, it is repentance that matters. Jesus called Herod a fox (Luk 13:32), he warned the paralytic to stop sinning else something worse than paralysis would happen (Joh 5:14). And Jesus was gracious towards many righteous who were not sinners, including some who were Pharisees.

God is about redemption. He is about getting people into his kingdom. The pathway is faith demonstrated by repentance. The harsh words of Jesus against the Pharisees was because they opposed God's purposes which was to enable sinful men and women to repent and be accepted into the kingdom of Heaven. It matters not whether you consider yourself religious or not, what matters is that you have a heart inclined towards mercy.

But this is not a condemnation of justice. Justice remains. It is only in the context of justice that we can understand mercy. The men who refuse to call sin for what it is have neither justice nor mercy. They refuse to see that sin is an affront to God. They offer acceptance without repentance which is not mercy because it leaves people in their sin and outside God's family. They condemn religion while justifying the rebellious. Yet it is the very nature of justice which should make us so cautious.

Judgment will come. Heaven cries out,

her sins are heaped high as heaven,
and God has remembered her iniquities.
Pay her back as she herself has paid back others,
and repay her double for her deeds;
mix a double portion for her in the cup she mixed. (Rev 18:5-6)

It is the certainty of judgment which men deserve which makes mercy so imperative. Jesus is against men who would refuse the repentant; such an attitude demonstrates that they themselves have not received mercy, that they remain outside the kingdom.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you.” (Mat 21:31).

Hypocrisy: false virtue signalling or injustice

The New York times references a study on why we dislike hypocrites.

We contend that the reason people dislike hypocrites is that their outspoken moralizing falsely signals their own virtue. People object, in other words, to the misleading implication — not to a failure of will or a weakness of character.

The authors blame the issue of honesty: hypocrites signal virtue that they do not have

I don't think this rightly identifies the reason we dislike hypocrisy, though in part this may be due to the definition of hypocrisy. From the abstract

We propose that hypocrites are disliked because their condemnation sends a false signal about their personal conduct, deceptively suggesting that they behave morally. We show that verbal condemnation signals moral goodness (Study 1) and does so even more convincingly than directly stating that one behaves morally (Study 2). We then demonstrate that people judge hypocrites negatively — even more negatively than people who directly make false statements about their morality (Study 3). Finally, we show that “honest” hypocrites — who avoid false signaling by admitting to committing the condemned transgression — are not perceived negatively even though their actions contradict their stated values (Study 4). Critically, the same is not true of hypocrites who engage in false signaling but admit to unrelated transgressions (Study 5).

Hypocrisy is more than not practising what you preach. Paul noted that some preach the gospel out of envy and that, motives wrong, at least Christ is preached (Phi 1:15). Their false virtue signalling, while rejected by him, did not put him him out of sorts (though perhaps Paul was able to identify a benefit that most cannot?). I am not so sure that we dislike hypocrisy because we encounter people fail to live up to what they claim.

The issue of hypocrisy is more in the condemnation aspect of it. Hypocrites do more than just fail to live their morals. Rather that they exempt themselves from the rules for specious reasons while asking others to abide by them. It is as if you and they are being judged in the same court for the same thing and they are the judge. Then they condemn you and acquit themselves.

It is an attack on justice. Not so much an issue of honesty, that they falsely claim their virtue; but an issue of injustice, where a hypocrite demonstrates that he is, in fact, an unjust person and yet he takes on the role of judge and jury.

Vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath

The Calvinist interpretation in Romans 9 states that questioner is silenced by God because God can do what he wills, electing some individuals for salvation (vessels for honourable use) and some individuals for damnation (vessels for dishonourable use). The questioner is told by God: who are you to question me and my ways? God saves and God damns for his own good reasons.

Now there is much to ask about this passage: Who is the questioner? Is God talking about individuals or groups? If groups, are the two groups saved Jews and unsaved Jews or Jews and Gentiles? But what I wish to concentrate on here is Paul's response to the questioner. Romans 9:18-24 says,

So then [God] has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Consider the first part of the response,

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Paul is expanding the potter motif which we see in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The Old Testament passages Paul is alluding to are Isaiah 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jeremiah 18:6. I will consider each of these.

Isaiah 29:16 occurs in an oracle about the seize of Jerusalem.

And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, “Read this,” he says, “I cannot read.”

And the Lord said:
“Because this people draw near with their mouth
    and honor me with their lips,
    while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
therefore, behold, I will again
    do wonderful things with this people,
    with wonder upon wonder;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
    and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden.”

Ah, you who hide deep from the Lord your counsel,
    whose deeds are in the dark,
    and who say, “Who sees us? Who knows us?”
You turn things upside down!
Shall the potter be regarded as the clay,
that the thing made should say of its maker,
    “He did not make me”;
or the thing formed say of him who formed it,
    “He has no understanding”? (Isaiah 29:11-16)

God says that people receiving the vision are like a man who has a document but cannot read it because he is not permitted to remove the seal, or a man who cannot read. This is probably a judgment against the people because God is saying that he will give the people a scroll but not give them the means to understand the scroll. This is in many ways similar to the passage in Romans: God hardens those who he wishes to harden. Yet Isaiah tells us why this is the case. It is not arbitrary. It is not hidden from men because they are not God and God does what he will. Rather God does this because the hearts of the people are not towards God. The people talk as if they are committed to God but they deny God in their hearts. They have an attitude of hypocrisy. They are taught to fear God but they do not fear him truly.

In the next stanza we see this kind of man now speaking back to God: a sinful man who does deeds in the dark; who claims that no one knows about his activity. God's rebuke is that such a man has things upside down, or back to front. The potter is not like the clay. God is not like men. Further, the created thing cannot say that his creator did not make him. What kind of men are these people? Men who honour God with their lips and not their hearts. Men who do evil deeds. Men who say that God doesn't see. Men who say that God did not make them. Isaiah's words here concern wicked men.

Isaiah 45:9 occurs within the passage where God announces he will raise up a man named Cyrus to do his will. God will go before Cyrus performing his mighty acts and God will do this for the sake of his people Israel. Within this prophecy God warns those who would oppose God.

“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him,
    a pot among earthen pots!
Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’
    or ‘Your work has no handles’?
Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’
    or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’” (Isaiah 45:9-10)

God essentially says to those who strive against him: Does the clay oppose the potter? Does the son speak to the father or the mother about what they parent? In this passage the vessel is shifting blame to the creator of the vessel, or the child is shifting blame to the parent. But God says that the person is accountable for his own striving against God. A man cannot blame God for making him that way. He cannot blame his father for begetting a rebellious son. He cannot blame his mother for giving birth to a wicked child. He is responsible for his own actions and cannot wash his hands of his sin by blaming God or parents for making him that way. The whole point here is not that God can make a rebellious person and yet the person is still culpable; rather it is that a culpable person doesn't evade his sin by saying he was born that way. This is not a determinism that says you are still guilty, it is rebuke against a sinner denying guilt by appealing to determinism.

Isaiah 64:8 occurs within in a passage about God's vengeance and mercy. Here the appeal is by men who acknowledge that God is the creator and they are the creature.

But now, O Lord, you are our Father;
    we are the clay, and you are our potter;
    we are all the work of your hand.
Be not so terribly angry, O Lord,
    and remember not iniquity forever.
    Behold, please look, we are all your people. (Isaiah 64:8-9)

They appeal to God by placing themselves in right relationship to him. Their appeal is based on his power and not their own deserving nature. They remind God of his promises (we are all your people).

The three Isaiah passages use the potter motif to emphasise that God is the creator and as such he has authority over men. Yet the first two specifically address evil men. Evil men who deny that God is the potter, or evil men who deny they are culpable for their sinful choices. The third is the right response which acknowledges God's power and appeals to his mercy. Interestingly, common atheist claims are that God doesn't exist and that the world is deterministic therefore men cannot help their actions.

So what does Paul mean in his letter to the Romans? Contra the deterministic interpretation of Calvinists, the allusions to Isaiah imply the exact opposite. Men cannot hide from God. Men make their choices and they are responsible for those choices. Moreover, appeals to determinism are the appeals of wicked men trying to evade judgment. God didn't make them evil for his glory and yet they are responsible anyway, they are evil because they have chosen sin. It is these men God hardens, it is these men God blinds, it is these to whom a powerful delusion is sent.

This is apparent in the Jeremiah passage.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.

Then the word of the Lord came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jeremiah 18:1-10)

The potter makes what he will. The question is why does the potter make what he does? The potter is making a vessel yet during the process that vessel is marred so the potter changes his plan and makes something else. He starts making one type of vessel but finishes making another type of vessel. God is the potter and he tells us why he makes what he does. If God warns and we repent then God changes what he is making. If God blesses and we sin the God changes what he is making.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:21)

Yes he does. God can make what he wills. But God has told us what he will build and why he builds what he does. God makes honourable vessels but if they sin then God will make them dishonourable. And if God makes dishonourable vessels from a sinful people but they repent, then God will make them into honourable vessels. God does make vessels for destruction but God has told us why he does this and what his criteria are. God makes the faithless into vessels of destruction. God also makes vessels of mercy; that is what God does with the faithful. But be warned, if the faithful become faithless then the potter can just as easily turn the clay into a vessel of wrath.

Jesus curses a fig tree

James Tissot (French, 1836-1902).
The Accursed Fig Tree (Le figuier maudit), 1886-1894.

A passage recorded in Matthew and Mark seems somewhat enigmatic.

In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. (Matthew 21)

I have heard the complaint that it was unreasonable for Jesus to curse a fig tree for not having figs on it. I suppose one could add that it is especially unreasonable as it was not fig season (Mark 11:13), though there did not appear to be even buds, just leaves. Interestingly the disciples were not particularly concerned about this. They were impressed with Jesus control over nature. When the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” (Matthew 21)

Before addressing the curse I will take a brief diversion into a discrepancy claim. Some assert that the biblical authors disagree over whether the tree withered immediately or the next day. Matthew states,

And the fig tree withered at once.

Whereas Mark says

And [Jesus] said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it....

And when evening came they went out of the city.

As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. (Mark 11)

3 comments are in order. Firstly, we must be careful how much we read into the word "immediately." It appears to be used frequently to keep the narrative running. It is common in Mark (though not used here). Within a time focused culture such as ours "immediate" implies right now, this second, no delay. While I guess this sense may be used by 1st century Jews, I am less certain it is required.

Secondly, while I have no doubt the tree died at the moment Jesus cursed it, the question is when was this noticed? An animal's death is obvious to people at the very point of death. For plants the process is different and the outward changes are delayed. To be withered to the roots within one day is "at once" for a tree.

Thirdly, and most importantly, if the precise sequence in Mark is correct, which I suspect it is, then Matthew is conflating two episodes. Matthew wishes to discuss the fig tree episode in a single passage. The cursing of the fig tree occurs on the morning Jesus casts out the money changers. Matthew holds back on mentioning the speaking of the curse until the latter discussion about the disciples marvelling at the effect of the curse. He is following a more topical arrangement in this section.

But why the curse, especially if it was not the season for figs?

I do not know much about horticulture or the life cycle of fig trees. There is some information on figs over at Plant Encyclopedia. Fig trees are apparently deciduous and sprout fruit in spring and autumn, though related species can be evergreen or sprout fruit year around. The cursing of the fig tree occurred after the triumphal entry and before Passover, that is ~Nisan 10 and early spring.

The passage indicates Jesus uses the episode to teach his disciples about faith. It is likely that this was Jesus pronouncing a judgment on Israel for failing to recognise him. The episode occurred at the time of judgment concerning the temple, and fig trees are used as a symbol for Israel (Hosea 9:10). Interestingly Jesus tells a parable a year earlier.

A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Look, for three years now I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down. Why should it use up the ground?’ And he answered him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and put on manure. Then if it should bear fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’ (Luke 13:6-9)

Here Jesus is alluding to his ministry. He has ministered to Israel for 3 years. Israel have failed to produce fruit in keeping with the coming of the Messiah. The owner wishes to remove the tree but is convinced to leave it a further year. Jesus will minister for a further year but if Israel still fails to produce fruit then they will come under a curse. The parable is a warning. A year later when Jesus ministry was at an end Israel had still failed as a nation to appropriately recognise the nature of Jesus. The real curse of a real fig tree was symbolic of judgment on the nation of Israel for failing to be fruitful by responding to Jesus.

Does an ideology measure up?

John Tertullian mentions 4 (non-exhaustive) criteria in judging an ideology. They appear quite useful. How does an ideology measure up to

1. Loving one's neighbour as oneself;
2. Doing as you would likewise have done unto you;
3. Focus upon one's own faults before trying to correct others; and
4. Truth telling versus lying.

In as much as a belief system breaks these rules as part of its modus operandi then it can be dismissed as false. For example is if a system knowingly lies to outsiders to increase its effect or credibility it should be dismissed. Quite a useful sieve.

Shields of the earth

Timothy Dalrymple published a guest post by Peter Wehner calling out James Dobson over his comments on the mass shooting in Connecticut, USA. Dobson, in the midst of a much longer broadcast, said,

Our country really does seem in complete disarray. I'm not talking politically, I'm not talking about the result of the November sixth election; I am saying that something has gone wrong in America and that we have turned our back on God.

I mean millions of people have decided that God doesn’t exist, or he’s irrelevant to me and we have killed fifty-four million babies and the institution of marriage is right on the verge of a complete redefinition. Believe me, that is going to have consequences too.

And a lot of these things are happening around us, and somebody is going to get mad at me for saying what I am about to say right now, but I am going to give you my honest opinion: I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us. I think that’s what’s going on.

It is important to note the larger context of his talk. Dobson replays a talk from 30 years ago talking about the breakdown of the family. The entire talk is on the problems for children without stable families. Divorce gets most of his ire, though he is concerned about absent parents and several other negative influences on the family. He surmises that the murderer was likely affected by a negative family background. Dobson's words above about about the larger picture of the problems in the USA including, but not limited to, mass killings.

In Dobson's comment we can see that his comment about a redefinition of marriage refers to his prediction that things will become worse. Further that he believes that the USA is under judgment from God. Dobson goes on to say immediately after the above comments,

We're seeing things happen that didn't happen just a few years ago. And there's a reason for it, something has gone wrong in this country.

In Shirley's book Certain Peace in Uncertain Times she quotes a scripture from Psalm 47:9 that comes to mind and it says, "For the shields of the earth belong unto God." The shields of the earth—he protects his people and cares about them. And when we are faithful to him, when we revere him, when we read his word and try to apply it, when we are committed to our spouses and to our children, the Lord blesses us. And that's been the source of the greatest prosperity and the greatest blessing on this country of any nation in the history of the world. It didn't happen because we're just nice folks, it happened because we followed biblical principles. And if we walk away from them as we are doing now, and turn our back on the fundamentals of the faith that has guided our forefathers, there will be consequences.

I quote this to show that Dobson sees the problem as being at a national level. This is a corporate problem, not an individual one.

Wehner takes Dobson to task for trying to diagnose evil,

Some Christian conservatives seemingly cannot help themselves.  They have to try to find some deep theological explanation for the evil we witness in places like Newtown, Connecticut.  But often in doing so, they injure the very faith they seek to represent. 

My concern with the post is that it is confused.

Starting with the issue of suffering, Wehner is correct when he points out that the Christian life in the New Testament is intimately connected with suffering, ignoring that the Old Testament says the same things. Paul says that followers of Christ share in Christ's suffering (2 Corinthians 1:5). However, that the righteous may suffer does not negate that the wicked may suffer also. Peter tells us that we are to suffer for righteousness not wickedness (1 Peter 3:17). More importantly however, the argument conflates individual suffering for righteousness in an unrighteous world with God's judgment of nation and the resultant strife. God can certainly judge a nation and scripture testifies to this, both in the case of Israel and many other nations. As such, a righteous person within a nation may suffer if God judges a nation as we see with Elijah.

This appears to be what Dobson is saying above. Rejection of God at a national level will lead to God's judgment. Dobson is not claiming that the children killed (or their parents) were being specifically judged by God.

Wehner expands to this level and asks why the nation is not deteriorating if they are under God's judgment.

Violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows. Since 1993, for example, the rate of violent victimization has dropped by more than 70 percent. Those findings undercut the Dobson thesis. If America has gotten less godly, why would God’s judgment (which Dobson believes manifests itself in violent crimes) be getting less, not more, severe? On the flip side, the number, rate, and ratio of abortions in America are lower today than in the past. So why would God lash out now, when the abortion rate is going down, rather than before, when it was going up? And how would Dobson explain why the murder rate was higher when same-sex marriage wasn’t even being discussed and more people believed in God? One can see how terribly confused Dobson’s argument is once it’s actually scrutinized.

What this suggests to me is that Dobson can read the story but Wehner cannot. One needs to have a longitudinal not a cross-sectional view of things, especially history. It takes time for fruit to develop. The consequences of behaviours take some time to work out. We need to look at several decades worth of data and a range of metrics. Accurate data for murder and violence, but also theft, sexual immorality, selfishness, nacissism; and economic issues such as debt. Further, in terms of judgment we need to remember God's patience. God refused to judge the Amorites for 400 years as their sin was not yet full (Genesis 15:16). Repentance would have brought relenting of such judgment as it did for the Ninevites (Jonah; Jeremiah 18:7ff). But repentance and the behaviour that follows has to be real. Wehner's link mentions an 8% drop in the abortion rate 2000–2008; while an improvement, at more than 1,000,000 abortions per year this is hardly a change in heart of the nation.

Wehner makes some other misguided claims. In his third rebutal he says,

Dobson assumes he knows the mind of God and what most grieves, angers and moves His heart.  But surely Dobson knows that Jesus mentions divorce more often than he mentions homosexuality (which Paul addresses but Jesus does not).  So why is same-sex marriage on Dobson’s list but divorce is left off?  And what about the other things that concern God – like indifference to the poor, not caring for the stranger and alien in our midst, a haughty spirit, and riches?  When I listen to James Dobson and I read the gospel accounts, two jarringly different portraits emerge.

Well we can know the mind of God as he has showed us in his word. We may certainly weigh the issues incorrectly as Wehner rightly says; though he then gives a questionable method: counting. While it is true that an issue that the Bible addresses repeatedly is probably important, failure to address things is not condoning them. Jesus addresses divorce a few times, as does Dobson thru-out the broadcast. Jesus does address homosexuality (Matthew 19:4), Dobson does once, and in the context of defending the institution of marriage. Jesus addresses the question of marriage as it was occasional; he was responding to a question. Homosexuality was condemned in Jewish society. It wasn't as if the various Jewish parties were disagreeing over the issue so they brought it Jesus. If homosexuality was condemned and divorce allowed in some circumstances, then if Jesus censures people for being too free with divorce how much more does Jesus reject homosexual practice. If a man may not even look at a woman lustfully he may less look at a man, let alone lie with him.

Other vices may also be a cause of judgment; when people reject God they reject a range of virtues, not just family. The other problems may be of concern to God in the activities of American citizens, though it is the love of riches, not riches, that should be in the above list.

Lastly, Wehner conflates truth and sensitivity.

Now, assume you were a parent of one of the children who was gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School and you heard a well-known Christian figure like Dobson declare that the worst thing you could possibly conceive of – the murder of your first-grade daughter — was a result of the wrath of God.  If you believed this, it would only add to your grief.  And if you didn’t believe it, it would only add to your anger.  And what would Dobson say to the father of the boy who had just dedicated his young life to the Lord?  Why was he the target of God’s judgment?  Because Washington State passed a same-sex marriage initiative?

Truth is not sensitivity. It is fine to discuss the wisdom, or lack thereof, of saying these things at this time. Whether a grieving parent may find Dobson's comments hurtful does not tell us if they are correct or not. This is merely an emotional appeal by Wehner, made worse by misrepresenting a specific death as being due to God's wrath. Nor is this what Dobson said.

I am not a Dobson champion, I disagree with some of his ideas. Nor do I necessarily disagree with Wehner otherwise, I had not previously heard of him and found a couple of his other articles reasonable. Dobson's theology may not always be correct, but it is hardly callous.

Hat tip: MzEllen

Christ and Karma

Krister Sairsingh

Trinidadian Krister Sairsingh shares his testimony of coming to Christ from Hinduism. It is exciting and encouraging. Well worth the read. I found his discouragement with karma interesting:

The law of karma — that whatever wrong we do we will have to pay for in some other life — rules out the very idea of forgiveness. According to the law of karma, reincarnation is therefore necessary in order to pay for the sins of a previous life.  One's present life is determined by one's previous existence while one's future existence is shaped by one's present life. Each soul is held to be responsible for its own destiny. The law of karma offered a simple and attractive explanation of the mystery of suffering in the world. People suffer because of their own evil action. But reincarnation as a necessary working out of the law of karma was never good news to me — even though I knew it undergirded the whole fabric of my religious and moral world.

Reading Jesus' words in the gospels caused him more despair:

As I read the Gospels I became much more aware of my human failings, that I was a creature governed by unruly desires rather than the virtues of compassion and generosity. It dawned on me that I was often unkind to the numerous beggars who knocked at our gates. Whatever charity I showed was born not out of compassion and kindness but out of a desire to build up good karma, to secure a better birth in the cosmic wheel of existence. I began to see how hard I had tried to distance myself from the uncultured lower caste Hindus and how much I distrusted and despised Muslims. There was a feeling of desperation because I knew that I would have to suffer the consequences in some other life for all my evil actions. In some ways the teachings of Jesus even compounded the feeling of distress because he taught that we would be judged for our thoughts, attitudes and words, not just our deeds. I knew the depths of my prejudice and bigotry. Spiritual liberation — release from the cycle of birth and death — seemed humanly impossible. I could only conceive of a downward spiral. I felt there was no way out.

He seems aware of the darkness in the cellar of his soul. It is much darker than most people admit. Our good actions are often less good than we think, and our bad ones much worse than we realise. Karma made him aware of the necessity of judgment and the words of Jesus showed him how much worse the situation is. I laughed at the irony as I was reading this paragraph. It is as if he is told: "Karma is not good news because you are judged for your actions; it gets worse, you are judged for your thoughts and attitudes too."

I can smile because I know the solution, but how despairing it was Sairsingh. A good place to be in order to then grasp how good the Good News is. Who can deliver us from this body of death?

He has delivered 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. (Colossians 1:13-14)

Hardening Pharaoh's heart

In the determinism-freewill debate there is discussion about God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Determinists emphasise that it is God's prerogative to harden (and soften) whoever he pleases. And by implication that people who God shows mercy to inevitably come to him. Arminians, while agreeing that God can show mercy to whomever he chooses, emphasise that God was completing in Pharaoh something that Pharaoh had begun of his own volition. But are we understanding what the text means by harden?

These are the 18 mentions of hardening in Pharaoh in Exodus. The words used are chazaq, qashah, kabad, and kabed. 

Source of hardening	References
	chazaq	qashah	kabad	kabed
God will harden Pharaoh's heart	Exo 4:21; 14:4	Exo 7:3
God hardened the heart of Pharaoh	Exo 9:12; 10:20; 10:27; 11:10; 14:8.		Exo 10:1
Pharaoh's heart was hard(ened)	Exo 7:13; 7:22; 8:19; 9:35		Exo 9:7	Exo 7:14
Pharaoh hardened his heart			Exo 8:15; 8:32; 9:34

2 other useful references are

When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, the mind of Pharaoh and his servants was changed [haphak] toward the people, and they said, "What is this we have done, that we have let Israel go from serving us? (Exodus 14:5)

and

And I will harden [chazaq] the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots, and his horsemen. (Exodus 14:17)

So what does it mean to harden? Metaphorically it views one as resolved, unwilling to change. It implies that Pharaoh was not only unwilling, but unable to change his mind. I concede this is possible. "Harden" is the English word translators have used for these Hebrew words. But these words may carry the idea of "strength" or "resolve".

The primary meanings are

• chazaq: to strengthen, prevail, harden, be strong, become strong, be courageous, be firm, grow firm, be resolute, be sore.
• qashah: to be hard, be severe, be fierce, be harsh
• kabad: to be heavy, be weighty, be grievous, be hard, be rich, be honourable, be glorious, be burdensome, be honoured
• kabed: heavy, great

Tense and context determines meaning, nevertheless the primary meanings suggest that the word used of God's action (predominantly chazaq) includes the concepts of strength and resolve. The NET Bible translates the first occurrence of God hardening Pharaoh's heart thus,

The Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put under your control. But I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go.” (Exodus 4:21)

And the footnote to the word "harden" states,

Heb “strengthen” (in the sense of making stubborn or obstinate). The text has the expression וַאֲנִי אֲחַזֵּק אֶת־לִבּוֹ (va’ani ’akhazzeq ’et-libbo), “I will make strong his will,” or “I will strengthen his resolve,” recognizing the “heart” as the location of decision making (see Prov 16:1, 9).

confirming this sense.

The reference to Pharaoh in Romans 9 reads,

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

And the word harden here is skleruno which literally means "harden" but metaphorically "obstinate" or "stubborn".

If this is the case in Exodus it may modify our interpretation of the passage.

The case of Pharaoh is frequently seen by determinists as a man whom God has chosen to make resistant to God's purposes. Pharaoh has no option of repentance. God made Pharaoh for the sole purpose of showing his glory in passing judgment on Pharaoh.

In contrast to this it may be that God is strengthening Pharaoh's resolve to resist God. God is aware that Pharaoh will reject his ways, but the hardening is not so much making Pharaoh initially resistant, rather maintaining resistance when it is not really feasible to do so.

An analogy I think is helpful is that of a bully threatening a young boy. The bully holds the boy in contempt and intends on hurting him. But if the boy calls on a stronger person to help, the bully is no longer in a position to inflict harm, even if the bully still holds the boy in contempt. Hardening of the bully's heart means that he would continue to threaten and try to attack when there is no possibility of harming the boy; the bully attempts to attack even as the boy calls for his brothers, and fathers, and uncles, variously armed with knives and guns.

Facing the plagues meant that Pharaoh was in a position that even while he held God in contempt, he was unable to resist. Pharaoh could not resist God and the narrative of the plagues makes this clear, much like an unarmed man with a hundred guns poised over him. Yet God gives Pharaoh the obstinacy to refuse the Hebrews. Even when the magicians said it was the hand of God, even when they could not stand in the presence of Pharaoh, even when Pharaoh's servants told him that Egypt was destroyed.

And why did God do this?

Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews,... "But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. You are still exalting yourself against my people and will not let them go." (Exodus 9)

Pharaoh had already chosen against God. God's power manifest to Pharaoh meant that Pharaoh would crumbled. God strengthened Pharaoh's resolve so that God's judgment could be bring God glory.

This is consistent with Paul's reasoning in Romans. After the example of Pharaoh Paul writes,

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory... (Romans 9)

Pharaoh was already a vessel of wrath. But God strengthened Pharaoh's resolve and waited patiently, that his glory may be even more manifest. The hardening was not to make Pharaoh judgment-worthy, it was to delay God's judgment and thus increase God's majesty. And this is indeed what happened. Rahab says to the spies,

I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction. And as soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no spirit left in any man because of you, for the LORD your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. (Joshua 2)

Had God not hardened Pharaoh's heart, he still would have come under judgment, but the Hebrews would have left near the beginning of the plagues. But the 10 plagues afforded many Egyptians to fear God and leave Egypt to join with Israel. And the destruction of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea struck fear into men from the surrounding nations. It was the salvation of Rahab. God's patience in judgment of Pharaoh led to the salvation of a prostitute in Jericho. Peter states,

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (2 Peter 3)

In summary it may be preferable to see the metaphor of hardening a heart more as retaining resolve rather than making one resistant. And the context of Exodus and Romans suggests that hardening was not in order to have a reason to enact judgment—God already had reason enough—but to delay complete judgment.

Raising up the evil or for evil

I understand how people respond to Romans 9, but there is also Romans 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, and other books. In Deuteronomy we read,

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has taught rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you out of the house of slavery, to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 13)

Given what else I read in the Bible I see this an example of how God would use a person to test the hearts of people. That is I do not think that God created a reprobate with the intention that they would grow up and reject God and attempt to draw people away from him. God did not make a person planning for him to always be evil just so he can use him to test others and with the intention of damning him no matter what.

So I see this as an example of someone who has chosen to reject God and subsequently God uses this person to test the hearts of others. Now God could raise up a person like this, ie. bring them into a position of influence, but then God is giving some temporary power to men who have chosen evil, God may do this to bring about other changes he intends.

I have no problems with God using people to his own desires. However the idea that God would force a person to act in a certain way then judge him for it does not seem compatible with God’s frequent call to repentance. How can we choose to do differently when we are constantly doing every little thing according to God's intention?

God's sovereignty and glory

Calvinists have claimed that God chooses specific men for salvation because he is sovereign. Those are saved to maximise God's glory in his mercy, and others are damned to maximise God's glory in his wrath.

These ideas, I think, are incorrect. The issue of sovereignty is a logical question. And damnation, while giving God glory, does so less than salvation.

I don't think it possible for God to force anyone into heaven. Or rather force anyone to love him; heaven is the destination. So I think the Calvinists are incorrect about sovereignty over who is saved because it is not an question of sovereignty.

God can create, God can woo (prevenient grace), God can save, God can give eternal life, God can create freedom of the will.

None of which man can do.

However I think that if God creates us as beings that have the ability to choose or reject God then I think it logically impossible to force love from such a being.

To have such a high view of sovereignty that claims that God can make us love him, seems, to me, as preposterous as a high view of God's omnipotence means he can make 2 + 2 = 5.

So I don't think that non-Calvinists have a low view of God's sovereignty, I think they have a more accurate one.

Further I think God does desire every single person go to heaven. I don't think any have been created specifically for destruction. Neither are we created for redemption; rather for fellowship. Because of Adam's choice we become estranged. God's grace gives us a possible path back. Those who continually reject God's drawing are handed over to destruction. They become unredeemable^* objects of wrath whom God prepares for destruction based on our rejection of him.

It is theoretically possible that every person could choose God.

God does seek his own glory, but the Calvinists are incorrect about this being the reason for creating beings for damnation. Why? Because if we choose obedience and become objects of mercy, God gains even more glory.

God is glorified when he destroys the wicked.

God is glorified more when he shows mercy to the repentant wicked.

What of Romans 9?

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called,...

It is not that God creates beings solely so they can be destroyed and they have no choice to escape that destination. Rather they have insisted on wickedness, they have rejected God's offer of mercy, therefore they are prepared for destruction. Given they are not redeemable, God uses them to maximise his glory in the view of the vessels of God's mercy. God uses a bad situation for good.

If Calvinism was correct about God's sovereignty then he would maximise his glory by saving everyone. That would bring him more glory than damning some.

^*We are children of wrath because we are fallen (Ephesians 2:3). If we reject God to the point we are not redeemable then we are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Romans 9:22).

Does God ordain evil?

God may will certain events. These events may involve sinful actions of men. Some have suggested that because God ordains these events then God is ordaining evil.

God does not desire evil nor ordain evil. When addressing the actions of God there are some subtle issues that need to be kept in mind.

Firstly, there are actions that God does that are not intrinsically sin despite the fact that man doing the same action would be sin. This is not arbitrary, this is because the action does not apply to God. Take killing as an example. God can kill but God cannot murder. This is because he created us and owns us. He is the author of life and can remove it at will. However man can murder. But not all killing is murder. So a man executing a criminal is carrying out God’s command for justice and neither the man nor God are sinning.

Let us suppose that God wills that a particular evil man should die. God could:

1. kill him directly;
2. command a ruler to execute him (judgment from a judge for his sin);
3. command a man/ army to kill him (compare David); or
4. allow a murderer to kill him.

In all but the last situation neither God nor the killer is sinning. In the last case the man is sinning but God is using it for his purposes. Note that in the last example God is not commanding the murderer to murder. Rather the would-be-murderer is to resist sin. In resisting murder (sin) he is obeying God. This is the best course he should take. Resisting sin in this situation does not thwart God’s will. God can still see to the execution of the evil man he wishes dead. The will of God here is that a person be put to death. It is not God's will that a man commits murder.

If God wills a person to kill the evil man then he is not a murderer, he is acting as God’s agent of judgment (example 3) and is not sinning. God can command a person with the authority of the sword to put him to death. That person is doing God’s will and is not sinning.

If God desires something, how can God will a man to do an action and God be without sin yet the man be with sin despite being obedient to God’s intention in his life? Of course God can use evil men, but God does not intend for any man to be evil, he intends for them to repent. In our example God is not intending for the murderer to murder, he intends for the evil man to be put to death. That God does not prevent a murder and uses it for his goal does not make him the author of evil nor does it make murder God’s intention. The best option is for the (potential) murderer to repent of his intended actions and let God carry out his intentions on the life of the person another way. God can know the plans of a wicked man to murder said person. It is God’s will that the man be put to death. It is not God’s will that the person murder him.

That God knows murders will happen does not mean he approves.

Secondly, God does not necessarily ordain things that he uses. God can bring good out of evil, even greater good than had the evil not happened. This does not mean that God desires that the evil happens.

One cannot observe consequences of God working through the actions of evil men and assume that God’s activity equals his approval.

Take teaching truth as an example. False doctrine tests us. Responding to false doctrine may aid us in understanding true doctrine better. God may also use false teaching to purify his people. But better no false teaching than some false teaching. Spreading falsehood means judgment for both those who teach it and those who follow it.

The long-suffering of God

The time of the judges is an interesting period. God intends to lead Israel by men he raises up. Though he commands the Israelites to obey him, frequently they don't and God removes his protection and allows evil men (of which there is no shortage in the world) to oppress them. We see them following God in the time of Joshua but depart soon after his death and several times again even though God delivers them thru Othniel, Ehud and Barak.

We reach a period when the Israelites again choose disobedience:

The people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines. And they forsook the LORD and did not serve him. So the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the Ammonites, and they crushed and oppressed the people of Israel that year. For eighteen years they oppressed all the people of Israel who were beyond the Jordan in the land of the Amorites, which is in Gilead. And the Ammonites crossed the Jordan to fight also against Judah and against Benjamin and against the house of Ephraim, so that Israel was severely distressed. (Judges 10)

It is in their distress that they cried out to the Lord,

"We have sinned against you, because we have forsaken our God and have served the Baals." (Judges 10)

I find this response of God interesting. God said,

"Did I not save you from the Egyptians and from the Amorites, from the Ammonites and from the Philistines? The Sidonians also, and the Amalekites and the Maonites oppressed you, and you cried out to me, and I saved you out of their hand. Yet you have forsaken me and served other gods; therefore I will save you no more. Go and cry out to the gods whom you have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress."

God says enough! He has delivered Israel repeatedly, he will do so no more. And if Israel continues in her idolatry then let her ask for help from the false gods she clings to.

This example of wearing out God's patience is reminiscent of God's words to Moses when the Israelites made a golden calf shortly after God delivered them from Egypt:

And the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them. They have made for themselves a golden calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'" And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you." (Exodus 32)

After rejecting God, God rejects them. In the first he would have destroyed Israel had not Moses interceded for them. In the second he tells Israel that he has delivered them several times already and he is thru.

Nevertheless, the Israelites acknowledged their sin, acknowledged God was right, accepted God's judgment on the matter, stopped their idolatry, and again requested deliverance. They would have worn out my patience, yet God remains ever merciful and kind. After the Israelites' repentance in word and deed God...

became impatient over the misery of Israel (Judges 10)

And again God raises up a deliverer for Israel!

These passages tell us much about the patience and grace of God and it gives us much hope that even those who reject God continually may not be beyond his redemption. But we would do well not to presume on his grace. Some have rejected God and are then only useful for God to show his glory thru his righteous wrath, such as God's judgment on the Egyptians. Proverbs warns:

He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck,/
will suddenly be broken beyond healing. (Proverbs 29)

We do not know the length of our days. None of us deserves life. God is not compelled to save us. These stories give hope for the sinner contemplating repentance but leave no room for presumption.

Does temporal punishment attenuate eternal punishment?

This is a question I have pondered but have never read about elsewhere. I tend to think that hell will have degrees of punishment. Just as believers will be rewarded for their devotion to Christ, and that reward will vary, I think it is possible that the wicked man's punishment may be dependant on his sin. All sin is not equal and it is reasonable to think that punishment will match the crime. Of course God will take into consideration our heart, and an adulterous Christian may be more sinful than an adulterous infidel.

Jesus refers to men being hit with few or many lashes.

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Luke 12)

Jesus also mentions men can be more severely punished.

And in his teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation." (Mark 12)

The proposal I wish to suggest (at least for consideration) is that punishment on earth for wickedness means that punishment in eternity will be less.

I am suggesting that a murderer who is caught and imprisoned or sentenced to death receives a less nasty Hades (or possibly subsequent hell) than the man who is not caught or who is excused by a corrupt justice system (though in the later example the unjust judge may wear some of the guilt). This assumes all other things being equal such as the state of the murderer's heart and the lack of repentance before death.

There is no direct biblical evidence for this proposal, and I do hold it or consider it tentatively, but it seems consistent with Scripture.

I am suggesting this is the case because they have already received some of their punishment.

If I am incorrect it is still possible that a man is changed by the temporal punishment such that his heart is less opposed to God. Due to the lessening of his hatred of God his eternal punishment may be less severe, not because he has received his punishment in part.

If I am correct about this it has implications in biblical exegesis and God's expectations of government.

In terms of biblical understanding, temporal judgment will be seen as having an aspect of mercy. Those whom God judged in Sodom and those whom the Israelites destroyed in Canaan were already wicked. They had decided on a destiny without God. Their eternal dwelling place is unpleasant, yet possibly less than it may have been had God not acted decisively in the situation. Leviticus hints at this when God explains the disaster he will send if they disobey him. Progressive punishments thru to exile are promised if they persist in disobeying him. But even if progressive judgments finally result in exile, God says, on the condition of repentance,

Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God. But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 26)

Even in judgment there is the desire of God that we repent, and his actions, while just, are tempered with mercy and desire for us to return to him. Perhaps even final temporal judgments are actioned so that eternal ones will be less severe.

In terms of government, this brings an even greater responsibility to those who rule us. Failure to punish the wicked not only makes life more unpleasant for the righteous, it means that eternity may be worse for those than it could have been. Of course God's punishment will be just and appropriate, it is just that with poor government the wicked man is able to clock up that much more wickedness and not have any of it dealt with this side of death. Letting the evil man away with his actions may not be a kindness of a despot to his unjust cronies, rather a greater evil delayed. Interesting that Satan can lead a man to curse his friends while that man thinks he is blessing them.

Objects of wrath

The fall of Adam put us in opposition to God. It changed our nature and our relationship with God.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2)

This is not just some, it is all mankind. All men prior to redemption are by nature children of wrath. Even if we desire God's ways we still sin and fall under God's wrath. We deserve judgment.

This is not the pleasure of God. God does not desire that the wicked are destroyed. Jesus says,

God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (John 3)

Paul tells us,

...God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2)

And Peter informs why the day of the Lord is delayed:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3)

Jesus, Paul and Peter all state that God desires the salvation of every man. He would that heaven be filled, that not a single person lost.

Sure, the destruction of the wicked will demonstrate God's glory but their condemnation his not his desire. God gains much greater glory by showing mercy than by just judgment. If God judges by justice alone he will send every man to hell.

So how do we square Jesus' offer of mercy to all men with Paul's comment on God's mercy?

So then God has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9)

I find it interesting that the actions here are not opposites. God is described as hardening men, but not softening them. I am sure God can soften hearts, but the point is the context contrasts hardening and having mercy. These actions of God can be seen in connection to our response to God. We are all children of wrath because of our nature. So when one rejects God's work in his life he is resisting the work of God in drawing him to himself. If we reject God and refuse his ways then God cannot gain glory by offering mercy to us. There is nothing else but to harden us that God's glory may be maximised in our lives; not as objects of mercy, which is God's preference, but as objects of wrath: that all may see that the rebellious will not prevail against God.

And for those who choose God, yet who by their nature are children of wrath, he offers mercy so that they may become children of God. If in judging those who deserve judgment God is glorified, how much more so when he shows mercy to those who deserve judgment!

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! (Romans 11)

Reconciling the talion

We read in the Law of Moses about punishment for crime which causes permanent injury. The law states that the same injury the offender has caused should be meted out to him.

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22-25)

"Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. (Leviticus 24:17-20)

Further, even if a person intends to cause injury by false accusation they are to punished in the way they intended to harm.

If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:16-21)

How is this reconciled with Jesus' teaching? Jesus' views on the inerrancy of Scripture are clear. In commenting on the law he preludes his statements with:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew5:17-20)

Then he discusses anger/ murder, lust/ adultery, divorce, making oaths, talion, and loving your enemy.

The introduction to each topic is:

• "You have heard that it was said to those of old,..."
• for anger and taking oaths
• "You have heard that it was said,..."
• for lust, talion, and love
• "It was also said,..."
• for divorce, though this is relating to the discussion on adultery.

In mentioning "those of old" Jesus is obviously referring to the Hebrews receiving the Mosaic Law. Although Jesus doesn't say "to those of old" for 3 of them (lust, talion, love), the context suggests he is still referring to the Law. As mentioned the divorce commentary is tied into the lust/ adultery commentary so is not a separate discussion. The Old Testament references are:

• Murder
• Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17
• Adultery
• Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18
• Divorce
• Deuteronomy 24:1
• Making oaths
• Numbers 30:2
• Talion
• passages mentioned above
• Loving your neighbour
• Leviticus 19:18

The Old Testament does not have a direct parallel command to hate one's enemies. It may have been (incorrectly) surmised from the Leviticus passage, though there are commands for Israel to fight her enemies. If the idea of hating one's enemies had been incorrectly surmised by many Jews then Jesus is correcting this wrong belief.

However the talion is clearly taught in the Law yet Jesus says,

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39)

How do we reconcile these passages? Jesus' says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" which precludes a resolution that denies the truthfulness of Scripture.

There are at least 3 solutions to this issue, though all may come into play.

The first is that the laws were a limit on punishment. While it may have been appropriate to invoke a judgment that matched the crime, it also limited judgment. It disallows punishments that were excessive, and likely common at the time in other cultures. It rejects the possibility of a sentence of hand amputation for stealing. A man cannot be executed for breaking another's arm. It forced justice to be just.

Second, it may be that this law is for the government and people were applying it personally. What God allows the state to do may frequently be very different to the responsibility of individuals—this concept needs expanding at another time. So the talion may have been a commandment to judges that they may judge justly and men were (wrongly) applying the principle individually. This allows a judge to sentence in this way but prevents individuals from vigilante justice. Jesus was, in effect, saying not to seek one's own justice. If Jesus is saying this here, this message is very consistent with Old Testament teaching: seek justice for others and let God fight for you. We see examples of this in the life of David where he refused to take what would become his but waited for God to give it to him.

A third possibility is that Jesus was calling for a higher way. It is not that justice is wrong, God is very just; rather that mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2). Jesus is saying that forgiveness is greater than vengeance. And this is the message of the gospel: that we owe God a debt we cannot pay but he forgives us if we come to him and ask him to. If we don't, judgment is all that remains possible. We are not to respond like God in the area of judgment as we are still in the era where God is seeking men. We are part of that activity of God and therefore must act in love. If men reject it, punishment will come, but we are to leave that part to God.

So 2 seemingly disparate passages are in fact complementary. We can reject difficult passages as being too hard, we can reject God claiming his Word errs, or we can seek to understand what initially appears contradictory and come to a greater understanding of the ways of God.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (Romans 11)

While I have attempted to reconcile the issue, I have not really explained what turning the other cheek means; that may prove more difficult.

Sinning or living in sin

I was talking recently with family who were relating a story about a music leader living with his girlfriend. The music leader had denied it to the leadership but it had become apparent he was lying. The pastors were made aware of the real situation and discussions were being had about the appropriateness of him leading the church musically. At that time the pastor's wife made the comment that she (herself) is not perfect, with the implication that all are sinners.

I tell this story to illustrate her misunderstanding as I doubt this type of story is unique. While her comment that none are perfect rings of humility and non-judgmentalism, I believe it is a betrays incorrect thinking. A correct understanding of salvation helps avoid this.

As I have previously written, the nature of salvation is not about a set of right beliefs or pronouncement of a creed. A discipleship is a follower. That is, we repent (turn around) and start following Jesus. This is why taking a snapshot of people can make it hard to see who is and who is not a Christian. It is not where we are on the road, it is what direction we are walking in. You can't tell by glancing at the tree, you need to see the fruit, and fruit takes time to develop.

This side of perfection we all sin, so the pastor's wife is correct in this regard. The issue is followers who stumble get up and keep walking (with the help of Christ). It is not the falling that defines us, it is the following. Where pastor's wife goes wrong is she is aligning her faltering with the music leader's turning away. Choosing to deliberately live in a way we know God opposes, with no attempt not live this way, is not the behaviour of one following Christ, it is the behaviour of one refusing to look at him. This is not necessarily apostasy, but it is placing oneself in a dangerous position.

He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck,/
will suddenly be broken beyond healing. (Proverbs 29:1)

I will add that positions of leadership in the church carry a great responsibility and there may be acts of sin that demand you step down, at least for a time, for the sake of the body. This sin may happen in the context of a person attempting to follow Jesus; this is not what I am addressing here.

Who gets saved?

The question is not infrequently raised by those within and without the church about salvation thru Christ alone. It is asked, "What about those who have never heard? " Can any outside the church can get into heaven?

There are actually several groups to consider with this question and my understanding comes thru trying to make sense of all of them. My thoughts are tentative and I am happy to adjust it if I am shown to be scripturally incorrect. Salvation is clearly thru Christ. Christianity states that men only get heaven thru Christ and I am not seeking in this post to defend this--the Bible states that we are fallen and deserve death. In terms of justice, we all deserve hell; that Christ would save any is due to his mercy. We cannot earn our salvation and it is Christ's blood that allows our sin to be forgiven. My question is, who can the blood cover?

From a salvation perspective history is divided at the cross and resurrection. This divides mankind into 2 groups. However these can further be divided into those inside and outside covenantial communities. For those prior to Christ the covenential community were those who followed Yahweh. After Christ it is the true church. Can those outside those groups get into heaven?

Exclusivists claim that only those who are inside these communities are covered by Christ's blood and thus get entry into heaven. Inclusivists say that others can get in, sometimes including people from other religions. Universalists believe that everyone eventually will get into heaven. I would consider myself to be an inclusivist though prefer the term extended exclusivist. Strict exclusives may object to that, though I prefer it as I think entry to heaven is completely tied up in following Jesus.

Previous posts have shown my views on salvation. The saved are those who follow Christ. Repentance has to do with turning around, turning from behaviour that results in death to walking in the ways of God. If this is the case then can people who have never heard the gospel follow Jesus?

One cannot reasonably follow someone they have never heard of. They can however know something of Christ indirectly. Romans informs us there is enough in natural revelation to point to a creator. Because the Holy Spirit is always at work, even amongst the unsaved, he can in some sense draw men to God. The knowledge of God these people have is very limited compared to what we have with the more specific revelation of the Bible, as well as the Holy Spirit indwelling us, but it is still knowledge.

I think it possible for men to attempt to live for God in as much as they know. People living before and after the cross may try to be obedient to what they think God requires of them based on a desire to please God. They are still sinners and fail at times. Their obedience is imperfect because of imperfect knowledge. Sin that is committed is still sin even when we don't know that it is, sincerity cannot override sin; but the punishment may be less based on incomplete awareness.

Because these people are sinners they deserve death as we all do. But I do wonder whether Jesus will allow his blood to cover those who truly wish to live for God as best they know how. It is as if they are looking for God all their lives and when they die and face Christ they recognise him as the one they were looking for.

In the final book of the Narnian Chronicles, The Last Battle, when night falls on Narnia, the creatures are all forced to look at Aslan:

But as they came right up to Aslan one or other of two things happened to each of them. They all looked straight in his face, I don't think they had any choice about that. And when some looked, the expression of their faces changed terribly—it was fear and hatred:... And all the creatures who looked at Aslan in that way swerved to their right, his left, and disappeared into his huge black shadow,... But the others looked in the face of Aslan and loved him, though some of them were very frightened at the same time. And all these came in at the Door, in on Aslan's right. There were some queer specimens among them.

While this is fiction, I think there is something to Lewis' analogy. We can't get our theology from fiction though, so is there anything in Scripture that suggests this?

Passages about Nineveh and the queen of the South may give some clues. Though one could argue these people came into a relationship with Yahweh it was possibly based on less extensive knowledge than that of the Hebrews.

Comments about god-fearing Gentiles suggest these persons were on the path to heaven with perhaps incomplete knowledge; note how Cornelius still needed to be told about Jesus. These either antedate Christ or were perhaps proselytes so do not directly equate to the current situation. But for those who have never heard of Christ, how is their situation different from others pre-Christ outside God's covenant?

Jesus tells a parable about sheep and goats. Many interpreters apply this to Christians but some apply it specifically to those who have no direct knowledge of Christ.

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:31-46)

The setting is the gathering of the nations. This is perhaps a pointer to not equating the sheep with Christians and the goats with non-Christians. A second pointer is that the individuals of the nations are judged by their works. But there is a third feature that points away from this being about Christians and non-Christians. In discussing this with my pastor he suggested that the parable is very likely to be about those who have never heard the gospel because the sheep are surprised by the king's comments. The reaction of the sheep is not one that would seem likely of Christians who have already been told to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked. Whereas those who seek righteousness may do these things yet not know they are doing it for Jesus.

And what of the idea that Christ avails his blood to cover those who only meet him after death? Firstly scripture suggests that we need to make our decision before death (and these people have), not that the power of atonement can only be applied before death. And secondly, this is the situation of those in covenential relationship with God pre-Christ such as Noah, Abraham and David. Christ did not die until after their death but it is still Christ's death that avails them heaven—incidentally, this is consistent with them going to Sheol after death until, at least, Christ's resurrection.

If my conclusion is true, and I am cautious about my conclusions, why evangelise? Why take the gospel to those who have never heard?

Because choosing God without the gospel is probably not common. Telling those who are seeking God about Jesus gives them joy in knowing Jesus now, security of their future, power to avoid sin, encouragement to tell others. And for the majority who are heading to hell it is the opportunity to turn. The gospel is the power of salvation, it convicts sinners who repent and choose life.

Who goes where? Part 2

We have established that Jesus did not ascend to heaven between his death and resurrection by Jesus' own words. Jesus subsequently ascended to heaven 40 days after the resurrection having spent time with his followers (Luk 24:51; Act 1:3). Peter expounds on Jesus' ascension:

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

"The Lord said to my Lord,/
Sit at my right hand,/
until I make your enemies your footstool." (Acts 2:33-35 ESV)

I think it is likely that the righteous were taken from Hades to heaven following Christ's resurrection. We do know that those who die as Christians, that is after the resurrection, go to heaven:

So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8 ESV)

Paul also makes the comment:

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. (Philippians 1:21-24, ESV).

This makes sense if Paul thought that he would go to heaven to be with Jesus when he died. This would be nonsensical if Paul thought he went to Hades or that his soul slept while he waited for the judgment.

The unrighteous remain in the pit in Sheol. Those who don't know Jesus go to Sheol at their death. Both await the judgment. This is possibly what Peter is alluding to in the following passage:

...then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,... (2 Peter 2:9 ESV)

though I concede that this verse is difficult to translate. At the end of the age all will be resurrected and face the judgment. It is at this time men and angels who have rejected Jesus are cast into hell.

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15 ESV)

And the most straightforward understanding is that it is everlasting, conscious and unpleasant.

...and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:10 ESV)

Hell was not made for men but for angels. In choosing to disobey God it became a possibility for humans. But for those who have chosen to follow Jesus our punishment in laid on him and he promises eternity with the Father.

To summarise more fully:

• Hell was created for the fallen angels.
• Hades (Sheol) was created for man because of the fall and the subsequent pending death.
• Man goes to Hades at death, the righteous to Paradise and the wicked to the Abyss (pit).
• Some fallen angels are in Tartarus which is the deepest part of the Abyss.
• Inhabitants of Hades are conscious
• Jesus descended to Hades at his death then rose on the third day and did not go to heaven during that time.
• Jesus subsequently ascended to heaven.
• Christians go to heaven at their death.
• Judgment happens at the end of the age.
• Fallen angels and men who have rejected Christ are cast into hell.

Who goes where? Part 1

Because of the fall of the angels God created hell. Jesus informs us of this:

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels....' (Matthew 25:41 ESV)

The eternal fire does not appear to have been created for man. It was created for the evil angels, presumably soon after their fall, and is in existence now. However I contend that it is currently empty. Hell is also described as the hell of fire (Mat 5:22), the eternal fire (Mat 25:41), unquenchable fire (Mar 9:23), the lake of fire that burns with sulfur (Rev 19:20; 20:10,14-15). It is a place where the inhabitants will be tormented day and night forever and ever (Rev 20:10), where both soul and body are destroyed by God (Mat 10:28).

So what happens to man? Man was not created to die. Death, both man and sentient animals, came as a result of the fall.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that [or when] you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)

When humans died they went to Sheol. Sheol is translated into Greek as Hades in the Septuagint and the bible uses this word in the New Testament. Hades may be used in the context of suffering (or punishment) after death. That is an appropriate albeit restricted meaning, and Hades is generally the place of the dead. A helpful bible translation would use Hades in both the Old and New Testaments to help with interpretation and understanding. Scripture clearly understands Hades to be a real place. It may have metaphorical meaning but words that are used as metaphors also have a literal meaning. Using head as a metaphor for leader does not deny that head refers to a part of the body as well.

Both the good and evil went to Hades, but there is distinction between them. The wicked were cast into the pit (a word that meant a hole in the ground (Gen 37:19)) which was descriptive of the part of Hades that was unpleasant and reserved for evil men. The New Testament equivalent is Abyss—also a word (like pit) that can have both Hades and non Hades connotations.

Of Isaac it is said: "...and Isaac expired and died and he was gathered to his people.” (Gen 35:29). Jacob said, "No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning." (Gen 37:35). From this we can see that Jacob expected that he would descend to Sheol at his death. But we also know that Isaac and Jacob will be in heaven by Jesus' comments: "I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,..." (Mat 8:11).

The stories of Enoch and Elijah also give clues about the realm of the dead. That they were taken to heaven is somewhat out of the ordinary; not just the way in which they went, but the fact they went to heaven and not Sheol.

Further information about Hades comes indirectly from Jesus when he tells the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house—for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.' (Luke 16:19-31 ESV)

From this we learn that Lazarus goes to Abraham's side and the rich man goes to Hades. Whereas Lazarus is comforted the rich man is in torment. And it was not possible to cross the chasm that separated them. Note that Paradise is used for a pleasant place, but it is the context that explains this word. Paradise also refers to heaven (2 Corinthians), the new earth at the end of the age (Revelation) and possibly Eden.

Interestingly Jesus did not ascend into heaven immediately following his death. Peter quoting David says:

I saw the Lord always before me,/
for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;/
therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;/
my flesh also will dwell in hope./
for you will not abandon my soul to Hades,/
or let your Holy One see corruption./
You have made known to me the paths of life;/
you will make me full of gladness with your presence.' (Acts 2:25-28 ESV)

Peter shows that this passage applies to Jesus and that Jesus descended to Hades and was resurrected:

Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:29-32 ESV)

After his resurrection Jesus said to Mary:

Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17 ESV)

One of the criminals on the cross went to paradise which we can see from the above was not heaven. His destination corresponds to Luke 16 where Abraham is said to be in Paradise (as previously mentioned).

And he [one of the criminals] said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:42-43 ESV)

Presumably Peter's enigmatic statement in his first letter corresponds to the period between Jesus' death and resurrection.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,... (1 Peter 3:18-19 ESV)

The dead have some semblance of consciousness in Hades. This can be seen in many passages in the Old Testament. It is also alluded to by Jesus' comments about Abraham (who was in Paradise).

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad. (John 8:56 ESV)

To summarise: hell was created for the fallen angels; Hades (Sheol) was created for man because of the fall and the subsequent pending death; man goes to Hades at death, the righteous to Paradise and the wicked to the Abyss (pit); Some fallen angels are in Tartarus which is the deepest part of the Abyss; inhabitants of Hades are conscious; Jesus descended to Hades at his death then rose on the third day and did not go to heaven during that time,...

more to follow.