Continuation of Condemnation
19For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was proclaimed among you by me and Silvanusd and Timothy, was not “Yes” and “No,” but in Him it has always been “Yes.” 20For all the promises of God are “Yes” in Christ. And so through Him, our “Amen” is spoken to the glory of God. (2 Cor 1:19-20)
Condemnation, and subsequent judgement, is not the proactive hammering of God against humanity, rather God’s letting go of His protective insulation of them.
Condemnation is the antithesis of the God of Yes. God, who created you and every human in an inexhaustible “yes” to life, wisdom, goodness, love and beauty, cannot be the author of evil yet we see condemnation as inherently bad. We believe condemnation has to do with punishment, diminishment, crushing. Squishing the guilty for being flawed and failures. From the Greek katakrino: properly, judge down, i.e. issue a penalty (exactly condemn); to judge someone "decisively (decidedly) as guilty.
What Necessitates Condemnation?
God is the great judge, he illuminates truth. Whether one was in alignment with Law and Order or misaligned or guilty of iniquity or trangsression. God reveals. To condemn is to bring to light exactly where and how a failure took place. To judge if and how someone was guilty of breaking the law and correlating the appropriate response to the offense. In order for condemnation to exist, there must be a standard by which adherence and transgression can occur and a system in which ones actions can be witnessed, recalled and examined, in light of that standard. Such a system is predicated on intelligable individuals with the capacity for free will, cognition and an understanding of the standard by which they must abide. It’s complex.
It would be unjust to hold individuals who are not free, not cognisant, and not aware of the standard by which they are expected to adhere, to that standard of existence. Paul expounds upon this at length. It would also be unjust to condemn those in the system if their actions were not properly witnesses, recalled or examined accurately. This is why in just societies a convicted person must stand trial before a verdict is made. This is why all are considered innocent until proven guilty.
Why then in the church do we preach a message where God, the Great Judge, and therefore the church, considers all guilty until proven innocent? Why do we assume the justice of God to be a simple thing? Why do some even assume God prioritizes condemnation above mercy and grace? That adherence to law and order can only be maintained through constraint, restriction and fear of punishment or reprisal?
As it stands now, we know human behavior and action is recorded for accurate recalling and then examined…
(Revelation 20:12 )And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne. And books were opened, and one of them was the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their deeds, as recorded in the books.
It is witnessed by God, spiritual observers, the dead in faith possibly, and those who live among us …
(Hebrews 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us…)
(Heb 13:2) Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.
(Matt 6:3) 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
We can know that our entire life is “recorded for quality assurance.” The proof is in the pudding. There will be no mistaking that what we did and didn’t do will be in our file. It matters. But that is just one aspect of the justice system in place in the Cosmos. Can humanity be liable to condemnation as a starting point based on that? I don’t think so. IT can certainly allow for condemnation. Lets look at who we are as humans. Are we cognisant, free will agents who understand cosmic law and the consequences for breaking the standard of existence. Are humans even born with an innate understanding of the standard at all?
We are told in Genesis 1 and 2 that humans are made in God’s image. We are unlike the fish the birds and the apes, we are tselem of God. Based on the fact that God gave them roles as administrators, rulers of land and beast, leaders with dominions of authority, it’s safe to say that humans are cognisant beings. Since God gave them a variety of trees to choose from and a command to withhold their hand from a certain tree, it proves they could make choices and had the capacity to weigh their choices against at least one standard, God’s express word or rule, “Do not eat of it’s fruit.” So we see humans could think fully and make choices as free will agents, but did they understand the consequences and therefore the scope of the divine standard of cosmic law and order?
I’d argue that they had a limited understanding of consequence for a few reasons.
The Limited Understanding of Humanity
They couldn’t comprehend the consequence of death. They were the first in line, they had no forebearers to look to. No examples by which to measure the acuity and devastation of death. They simply had no categories for it.
As a parent, I know that if my toddlers, which are infinitely philosophical, cognisant and intellectual than myself, are having a difficult time understanding something, it is because they are just too young or I did a poor job explaining. They are not guilty for their poor understanding or mistakes based on their small comprehension, I am. If i tell them to not touch the fire because it will burn them, they will inevitably touch the fire if they don’t understand what burn means. they’ve never been burned before. Even if I tell them that the burn hurts, it is in their understadning an ouchie, it bites, it feels bad…whatever it is that they can understand as a negative result, sometimes they still touch the fire because proximity to it hasn’t lived up to my description…until it does. sometimes the children hear our warning and simply want to test our word against theirs, “will the fire hurt me? what does burn actually feel like? is it really that bad?” and sometimes they simply don’t grasp the consequence. It depends on maturity. A three year old may test your word but an eight month old just can’t understand the warning.
Are we to assume that adam and eve were more mature than infants compared to God? that the first humans to hear the first command of God could fully grasp the warning sufficiently? even if they behaved as an older child to see what burn, or rather die, means, they were children in a sense. I’d suggest they were bound to test the first warning they recieved. They needed to know that the word of warning from their caregiver was a genuine word or not.
The consequence was unseen and/or delayed in one respect altering their understanding of consequence. Eve took the fruit first. The express command was given to Adam. For God made Adam first and placed him in the garden with this command before Eve was even formulated. (Gen 2) “16And the LORD God commanded him, ‘You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.’ 18The LORD God also said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make for him a suitable helper.’”
The command that Eve retorted seems to have be bestowed by Adam down the line. We can assume this because it has a caveat that God did not tell Adam. This caveat is perhaps crucial to the fall of Adam. “God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’” Just that fact that she believed that if she touched the fruit she would die (a state in which she had no good categories) yet when she touched the fruit she in fact did not die, led to a sundering of the rest of what God told them through Adam. When Adam watched Eve eat of the fruit and not die physically, perhaps this too amplified the unreliablilty of God’s command. Such unreliabilty would give Adam the resolve to eat of the fruit himself. It is his eating of the fruit that opens their eyes and effects their being. Death, had God allowed them to comprehend it before the eating of the fruit is easily seen when you study a spent leave that is whithered and decaying on the ground, or even better understood when the light leaves an animals eyes upon losing its life blood. Even if God showed this to these first humans upon giving them the command, the moment Eve ate the fruit and did not fall down dead was an indicator they didnt understand the consequence. Especially if one would argue the God was talking about spiritual death as the primary consequence. How does one fully understand that concept?
If they had a limited understanding of consequence, how can it be just to give the anything but a limited consequence? I’d suggest anything other than limited consequence is unjust.
Consider the condemnation of humanity.
After all, Natural Death is a consequence all humans still face. This is the consequence of Adam’s failing. He was told that disobedience would lead to death and all those born after Adam die. Was God indeed speaking of spiritual death? Did God explain that humans die naturally outside of Eden and without access to the Tree of Life? Is the inheritance of even spiritual death a just conseuence on future generations? The writer of Ezekial tell us that it is not just. That future generations should not die for the sins of their forebearers.
Ezekial 18:20 “The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.”
That is justice. What do we do when both responses to death and guilt come from the same bible, the same source? Perhaps Adam did grasp that consequence?
Paul tells us all die after Adam because all sin. Adam’s sin isn’t my punishment. My sin brings about my own consequence. Adams failing simple made my choice to sin so much easier and accessible.
Condemnation to eternal torment and torture seems like an unlimited consequence. Eternity is unlimited. Any eternal consequence has no limit in a sense.
Is the concept of hell and eternal condemnation intended for Adam then or something or someone else? Is hell as eternal as we have come to believe? Either eternal consequence is intended for those with unlimited understanding or there is a limit on the consequence; eternity cannot mean what we think it means, it must be limited.
Death is the consequence but maybe death is not infinite. Actually we see this is the case in the resurrection. All who have died will rise to 2nd life and judgement.
(Revelation 20:12-13 )And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne. And books were opened, and one of them was the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their deeds, as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead, and each one was judged according to his deeds.
So at some point natural death is made finite. That consequence is limited.
Then there is the 2nd Death after the Resurrection. Death and Hell themselves are destroyed in a death of their own. This seems permanent and eternal. Those also not recorded in the book of life are thrown to this 2nd death as well.
(Revelation 20:14-15)Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire.15And if anyone was found whose name was not written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Is the 2nd death an eternal consequence? Is it limited like natural death or unlimited? Are those not found in the book those with unlimited understanding?
Can anything or anyone beside GOD have unlimited understanding or nature?
perhaps elemental principles, powers in the spiritual realms?
Perhaps sons of god/angels who are kept in chains until the day of judgement?
perhaps the once living and dead. Those that have been given a 2nd chance whom have been through the veil and come back through it again?
perhaps the grave, desire, death, barreness, wastelands, and fire?
(Proverbs 27: 20) “Sheol and Abaddonc are never satisfied; so the eyes of man are never satisfied.”
(Proverbs 30:15-16) “There are three things that are never satisfied, four that never say, ‘Enough!’: 16Sheol, the barren womb, land never satisfied with water, and fire that never says, ‘Enough!’”
eternal natural processes. rotation of planet around sun. tides. nitrogen cycle. forests. expansion of space. survival.
In summary, Condemnation requires some things to be considered Just.
eye for an eye justice; unlimited consequence requires unlimited understanding and limited understanding requires limited consequence.
condemnable parties must be cognisant with free will at the time of their transgression
According to our Justice system today, all are considered innocent until proven guilty. Mercy preceded Punishment. The benefit of the doubt is extended until it’s overturned by evidence.
In light of these things, I believe we need to exam our views on life after death in light of God’s nature. Our doctrines surrounding time itself, hell and judgement need to be symbiotic with the character of God, a deep understanding of scripture and, we can’t forget, sound logic. God after all is the God of Order.