not published in the Dutch Daily…

Originally posted on September 10, 2008 – by Andre Piet

Today the Dutch Daily offered space to an article written by Rev. N. Catsburg, under the title ‘In universal reconciliation even the devil is saved’. In my opinion it is an accumulation of arguments already refuted and suggestive lines of reasoning. In response to this I sent a brief and factual rebuttal to the Dutch Daily, but I was informed that it would not be published. This despite the fact that, in my view, the Dutch Daily still had something to make up for (see at the bottom of this weblog: ‘editing Dutch Daily’). Be that as it may, I hereby place the rejected letter below:

In the Dutch Daily of 10-09-08 Rev. N. Catsburg responds to the growing interest in the theme of ‘Universal Reconciliation’. A point-by-point response to this.

1. Neither the Greek word ‘aion’, nor the Hebrew word ‘olam’ means ‘eternity’. The Biblical Encyclopedia says about this: “The Hebrew ‘olam’, of which ‘eternity’ is the translation in the OT, is related to a verb that means ‘to conceal’. It therefore denotes something that in the past or in the future is (still) hidden… It thus has the meaning of a very long time.”
2. Catsburg writes: “You will also have to be consistent in translating, and not apply a ‘pick and choose’ translation.” A peculiar argument when one considers that precisely those who believe in Universal Reconciliation argue for a consistent rendering of ‘aion’. That is, not rendering it one time as ‘eternity’ and another time as ‘eon’. Eons in the Bible have a beginning (“before the eons”) and an end (“the consummation of the eons”), and therefore ‘eternity’ is not an appropriate rendering of ‘aion’.
3. Catsburg wonders why those who believe in Universal Reconciliation still concern themselves. After all, everything will turn out well anyway. Now the expectation of ‘all’s well that ends well’ indeed gives an unprecedented peace. But precisely for that reason we do concern ourselves and also want to let others share in that peace and joy! You proclaim the Gospel because it is Gospel, i.e., good news! Moreover, we would like to spare unbelievers the judgments and the pain that await them, even if these are not endless. Jeremiah warned Israel of the impending exile that would last seventy years. Was this announcement of judgment perhaps not serious because eventually everything would turn out well?
4. The “eonian gospel” is the Gospel of the eons. Just as “the eonian God” is the God of the eons. In these cases as well, eternal does not mean endless, but refers to eons.
5. The expression “the eons of the eons” (NBG “all eternities”) refers to the surpassing eons in which Christ will reign with His own (Rev. 22:5). Is this reign endless? No, for according to the apostle Paul Christ’s reign has a “until.” He must reign until He has annulled death as the last enemy. After that He will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father, after which God will become “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:22–28).
6. Because eternal is not endless, Catsburg worries about eternal life, which would then also come to an end. That concern is misplaced. For indeed the eons come to an end, but at “the consummation of the eons” death, as the last enemy, will be annulled and Life will triumph. That is why Christ died: to overcome death and ultimately to annul it!

   André Piet, Rijnsburg

    

editing Dutch Daily

In my ‘letter to the editor’ of the day before yesterday I had written the following:

As a first counter-argument I read that Wim Hoogendijk turns a “ransom for many” in Mark 10 into a “ransom for all.” That seems to me a blunder, since the phrase “ransom for all” is not a quotation from Mark 10 but from 1 Tim. 2:6. Literally! In this passage Paul writes that Gód wills that all people be saved and that Christ Jesus therefore gave Himself as a “ransom for all.

The Dutch Daily made it into:

As a first counter-argument I read that Wim Hoogendijk turns a ‘ransom for many’ in Mark 10 into a ‘ransom for all.’ But that concerns a quotation from 1 Tim. 2:6.

A rather fatal error in the main editorial commentary is thereby reduced to a mere sloppiness and the explanation of the correction is removed! Without consultation and without any indication that the text was edited by the Dutch Daily…

Delen: