FaceBook Comment

Responding Contra Infernalism

24 min readOct 6, 2023

Preface

There was a day where I received criticism for quoting the Fathers (i.e. Clement of Alexandria & Hermas the mystic) in support of Christian universalism (or a purgative hell/post-mortem redemption at least), for quoting Corinthians and 1st Peter as well, and this same individual made empty appeals to Second Temple Judaism; in addition, this person (we’ll assume it’s a he and call him Josiah) said that “the predominant or consensus view in Second Temple Judaism was eternal perdition.” Josiah seems overly confident in his misguided assertions and seems desperate, and even insecure for his attempts in refuting Christian universalism, so here’s a list of things I’m going to cover in this post:

The Universalist Interpretation of 1st Corin. 3:12–15
1st Peter 4:6 in Light of Post-mortem Redemption
2nd Temple Judaism & Why the Consensus View Fails
Saint Clement of Alexandria
The Shepherd of Hermas

The Universalist Interpretation of 1st Corin. 3:12–15

Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, 13 each one’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one’s work. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire.

From this Pauline passage, it seems he is discussing an eschatological and post-mortem event where God will expose the works of every person, specifically those of the Church due to “the Day will show it”. The old and bland argument is that this passage is only in reference to Christians in general aside from non-believers and wicked people. This is a dubious argument, because it assumes that everyone in the Church are righteous or blameless, yet in the Gospels, we find Jesus exposing evildoers being part of the faith or church community (cf. Matt. 7:21–23). If there are sinners (i.e. predominantly evil people) in the Church, then this principle for them doesn’t exclude those who are not part of the Church yet are sinners. The apostle Paul is addressing two kinds of people in the Church: justified and unjustified believers. Also, Paul makes a distinction between spiritual and carnal believers, and addressing the carnal as, “Are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mankind?” (verse 3). This demonstrates how they remain in their sins while professing the name of Christ as Jesus has stated in the Gospel of Matthew. With this in mind, Paul warns but encourages them, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (verses 16–17). The given destruction for those who defile their temple is purgatorial suffering and delayed redemption from the totality of their sins (cf. verse 15).

Verse 13 demonstrates that this is speaking of an event where the just and unjust will be judged. Verse 14 is a description of the righteous or the saints receiving a reward, which is the first resurrection and a Christological reign on earth (cf. Revelation 20:6). Verse 15 reveals that those that weren’t faithful in good works will suffer a loss of time, which is a delayed resurrection, and they will be saved, indicating surely that they will be raised as the saints from the dead, but only after their purgatorial suffering due to “so as by fire”. Another pointless objection would be that Paul simply meant Christians, that is, those justified by virtue since Paul refers to them receiving a reward for their labor (cf. verse 8). However, verse 8 serves as a parallel to verse 14 due to “receiving a reward” while both verses are addressing faithful Christians, but verse 15 serves as a contrast and as a reference to malice believers (i.e. sinners in the Church).

So then, if sinners partake of the Church, and Paul is addressing them, it stands to reason that this same purgatorial principle applies to those outside of the Church as sinners. It extends to all sinners since Paul has said, “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (15:28). God cannot be in all hearts or souls of their own volition if some perish by total, ontological destruction or by perpetual torments. Now, in earlier verses (9–11), people have argued that Paul intended believers who are righteous, whether mature or immature due to his expression: “9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building.” However, verse 15 and Paul’s warning to malice Christians in general cannot be narrowed to the fate of faithful Christians (cf. 16–17). He calls them holy to encourage them apart from sin, and not as a realized fact. In verse 10, Paul explains that he laid a foundation, which means he provides a path to righteousness as an example, and inspires believers to do good works due to his assertion “and another builds on it” (cf. 1st Corinthians 4:15). Verse 11 is when Paul transitions to the idea that there is no other moral foundation or criteria other than Christ. Verse 12 is where Paul elaborates that everyone will be measured by this same standard or Christ’s foundation since he makes no specific mention of the Church.

Finally, Maximus the Confessor separates people into two groups, the righteous and sinners. For the righteous, he says fire will reveal their good deeds as well as the wicked in his commentary of 1st Corinthians, Chapter 3:

“And in the case of sinners, the works are completely consumed while discernment renders conscience righteous and diminishes the sins through repentance and saves the human being; and he is responsible for the loss of time that has passed as a result of the neglect of the virtues. But also, in the future age, the works of sin give way to nothingness and nature saves its own powers by taking them through the fire of judgment” (Q. et Dub. 159, trans. Despina Prassas).

1st Peter 4:6 in Light of Post-mortem Redemption

5 But they will have to give an account to God who stands ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason, the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that they might be judged like/similar to [kata] men in the flesh, but live in the spirit like/similar to [kata] God.

Peter writes to his audience that they should strive to be like Christ by ceasing from their sins, and to not be deterred from this path due to discouragement from sinners (cf. 1–4). However, Peter explains that everyone will be judged, whether living or dead, and he makes no moral-metaphorical distinction with these two terms. He states that the Gospel was preached not only to those alive in the flesh, but also to those who died since he makes an inclusive statement. The Gospel was preached to the spirits in prison, so that they may be judged akin to men in the flesh being judged as well, and in hopes that they would be spiritually alive akin to God. The term kata derived from Koine Greek has been used to mean “like” or “similar to” rather than just “according to” (e.g. Ephesians 4:24).

Now, Josiah naively attempts to argue that 1st Peter 3:19–21 is actually in reference to Enochian elements due to scriptural examples similar to 2nd Peter and Jude; however, both of these books make mention of fallen angels in chains or in Tartarus, but not in reference to Christ preaching the Gospel to spirits. In other words, these examples have no substantial aid to 1st Peter 3:19 unlike 1st Peter 4:6 having more resemblance and more contextual correlation. I argued that if Peter meant demons or satanic spirits, he would have used the term daimon and not pneuma. However, Josiah, in his last desperate attempt, argued that pneuma always refers to angelic, demonic, or God’s spirit (note: I am not sure if he’s subconsciously using an absolute statement out of frustration, then I pardon his nonsense). The term pneuma has been used in reference to human spirit, or a metaphysically animating force, or simply breath belonging to a human; for example, “But Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up his spirit,” or “And may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless,” or “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful,” or “My soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God, my Savior” (cf. Matthew 27:50; 1st Thessalonians 5:23; 1st Corinthians 14:14; Luke 1:46–47). Pneuma is such a broad term, so it’s evident that Josiah is blatantly wrong and ignorant. Another example where spirits are mentioned as human souls is found in 1st Enoch, chapter 22, “These beautiful places are intended for this, that upon them may be assembled the spirits, the souls of the dead; for they have been created, that here all the souls of the sons of men might be assembled” (cf. verse 3).

2nd Temple Judaism & Why the Consensus View Fails

An interesting but faulty objection used against Christian universalism is the annoying appeal from infernalists, concerning the “consensus” views that Second Temple Jews embraced. Josiah arrogantly stated that the consensus view in Second Temple Judaism supports eternal perdition; on the contrary, such an objection fails entirely. The philosophical issue here is that this person seems to think that majority predicates on validity, except this a logical fallacy since truth has no correlation with a large population.

The theological appeal to Second Temple Judaism is actually an arbitrary and ineffective objection against Christian universalism. There was no suffering and resurrected messiah as a consensus view in Second Temple Judaism, especially in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. There has been maybe a few outliers in the academic community like Israel Knohl, but he was refuted by a critical review. Even if eternal perdition was the consensus view of Second Temple Judaism, it wouldn’t be validated since the Christian concept of the messiah was neither the consensus view, nor the minority view. The assumption that primitive or biblical Judaism(s) retained all spiritual truth is at best misleading and at worst theologically detrimental to the Christian faith. Josiah asserts theological nonsense, and wrongly renders a primitive but flawed religion as the doctrinal basis for Christian post-mortem eschatology. These kinds of appeals are seriously blinding and laughable.

Many proponents of Infernalism often appeal to Second Temple Jewish books like 1st Enoch and 3rd/4th Maccabees. The first book of Enoch has often been used to validate eternal perdition, but there are also universalistic notions in 1st Enoch. Permit me to bestow a universalistic passage from Enoch. However, before I elaborate on this passage, Enoch has a vision in “the middle of the earth” where “branches rooted in and sprouted out of a tree that was cut” (cf. 26:1). He sees “a holy mountain” and towards the east, he saw “beneath the mountain…water that flowed towards the south” (cf. verse 2). Towards the east again, Enoch saw “another mountain of the same height” and a deep valley was between them, though it wasn’t broad; it also had water that flowed along with it (cf. verse 3). He then envisioned a mountain which was “towards the west” and “not high” (e.g. it was described as being lower than the former). And between them was another valley, which included other sterile but deep valleys at the end of the three. Then Enoch envisioned all valleys being deep, not broad, and of hard rock, but trees were implanted on them, which left Enoch amazed (cf. 4–5). So then, Enoch inquires for insight and the angel responds in 27th chapter, verses 2–4.

2. Then answered Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and said to me: “This cursed valley is for those who will be cursed to eternity, and here will be assembled all those who have spoken with their mouths unseemly words against God, and speak insolently of his glory, here they will be assembled, and here will be their judgment.
3. And in the latter days there will be the spectacle of a just judgment upon them in the presence of the just, in eternity forever; for this reason they who have found mercy will bless the Lord of glory, the Eternal King.
4. And in the days of their judgment they will bless him for his mercy, according to which he has assigned to them their lot” (Enoch 27:2–4).

Explaining the Symbolism of Enoch 26:

Let me provide an interesting analysis of Enoch 26. The middle of the earth signifies the affairs of humans or our current life being the premise for how the afterlife will transpire. The branches that are rooted in and sprouted out of the tree, which was cut, signifies an event where humans will receive their own resurrection despite the fact their mortality was once their reality, and their immortal conditions were taken from them. The first mountain is described by Enoch as being holy and only this mountain is given this description, so the first mountain symbolizes the saints, or the righteous in Christ with the waters being their good works.

On the next mountain, Enoch describes it being of the same height but separated by a valley yet the valley isn’t broad; in other words, he is perceiving non-believers due to the lack of a holy title, and who lived in righteousness, because there were waters that also flowed along with it, signifying good works. The not-so broad valley that divides them symbolically means that there is hardly any distinction between the holy Church and non-believers who work in love.

But the mountain that he envisioned towards the west must be of the wicked due to it having an inferior height, signifying a life that didn’t reach the moral goal; in addition, there was no current of water mentioned for this mountain to indicate any presence of good works in the conduct of their lives. In other words, it demonstrates that these must be the wicked. There were valleys that divided them, which indicate the afterlife, but trees were present upon these valleys to signify the potential for post-mortem redemption. All the mountain imagery highlights the eschatological event of the resurrection due to the rising or tall nature of these mountains.

Explaining the Symbolism of Enoch 27:

Verse II: The angel explains that the purpose behind these valleys is to imprison wicked souls and for them to receive suffering for an indefinite duration/ages (i.e. aionios) instead of “to eternity”. The angel also mentions their malice words towards God and the divine glory. Verse III: The angel explains that in a later time, they will receive a fair judgement in the presence of the righteous, because they have found mercy in this moment from the Lord and shall bless God for it. Verse IV: The angel mentions that during this additional or sequential judgment where the wicked souls who have been morally refined will praise the Lord for granting them mercy.

Some will try to render those who have found mercy from the Lord as being the saints or righteous, but remember, the preeminent subject from verse 2 to verse 4 are the wicked souls being given the judgement and the “just judgement”. The mention of an additional judgement or a“just judgement” also indicates that another verdict has been passed onto the wicked, which is described as finding mercy from God. There is simply no indication from the text that suggests otherwise, which Christian infernalists would erroneously attempt to say that the righteous will see the wicked being tortured forever while the saints will be finding mercy as their idea of a just judgement. Finally, the last verse suggests that the wicked who have found mercy during the days of their judgement will bless God for His mercy towards them. If the author meant the righteous blessing God for mercy while assigning “the days of their judgement” to the wicked, he would have specified this, but fortunately, he means the wicked who have now repented and blessed God for bestowing divine mercy.

In a comment, Father Kimel Aiden mentions a universalist direction in Enoch concerning Dr. Ramelli’s analysis of Enoch, “I don’t know how Ramelli would respond (though she does mention a passage of the Enochic Book of Parables as possibly pointing in the universalist direction)”. This further validates my analysis of 1st Enoch retaining universalist tendencies. Every usage of “forever” or “eternity” found in 1st Enoch can be explained away by the Greek term aionios; however, there are a few passages that seem to indicate that fallen angels and demons will be condemned “for all eternity [correction translation: ages/eons]”. (cf. Enoch 10:13). I am not claiming an inerrant consistency of Hell in Enoch since I could acknowledge that there are possible infernalist passages in 1st Enoch due to it possibly being written by multiple authors with their own post-mortem viewpoints. The purpose for mentioning Enoch and for displaying a universalist passage is to demonstrate that using Second Temple Jewish books like Enoch does not exclusively support eternal perdition, while deny Christian Universalism as a possible view. It’s a cheap attempt in ridding away Christian universalism, including Josiah’s childish insistence that eternal perdition must be a valid dogma due to some “consensus view” within Second Temple Judaism. The appeal to antiquity and majority certainly have limitations in discovering genuine Christian dogma, and his theological appeal to a primitive religious tradition, which was used “selectively” by the New Testament authors and the patristic era, as if it’s some super, magisterial, pre-Christian creed is blatantly flawed.

Saint Clement of Alexandria

In this section, I will be responding to Josiah’s accusations against my universalist interpretation of Clement’s post-mortem view. I stated in a comment towards a genuine learner (not Josiah) that Clement believed that Christ had preached the gospel to all those in Hades, including the wicked (cf. Stromata, Book VI.6). Josiah replied against my statement by using a fragment that contains Clement’s exposition of 1st Peter 4:6, thus saying:

These are trained through previous judgments. Therefore he adds, “For this cause was the Gospel preached also to the dead” — to us, namely, who were at one time unbelievers. “That they might be judged according to men,” he says, “in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” Because, that is, they have fallen away from faith; while they are still in the flesh they are judged according to preceding judgments, that they might repent. Accordingly, he also adds, saying, “That they might live according to God in the spirit.” So Paul also; for he, too, states something of this nature when he says, Whom I have delivered to Satan, that he might live in the spirit” (From the Latin Translation of Cassiodorus).

Josiah’s usage of this fragment was genuinely interesting, but failed to compel me to reshape my exegesis of 1st Peter 4:6 and of Clement’s Stromata. It seems likely that we should interpret this potential fragment of Clement in light of the doctrine of Reserve (i.e. the belief that certain doctrines should not be recklessly taught to the infantile believers for the sake of their moral progression). However, Josiah responded as if the doctrine of Reserve is some arbitrary appeal that is used when it isn’t convenient for universalist affirmations within the text of the Fathers or of saint Paul; on the contrary, such a claim is presumptuous and desperate since the doctrine of Reserve (if we are to faithfully judge the views of the Early Church) is a major variable when it comes to assessing patristic or Christian literature in general, concerning their post-mortem, eschatological views. It’s such an ignorant and ill-tempered response to something that is essentially plausible and has patristic support; in fact, the most influential figures like saint Ignatius of Antioch and Origen of Alexandria made use of the doctrine of Reserve (cf. Trallians 5; Contra Celsus Book 1, VII). Josiah was not impressed due to his theological prejudices.

Moreover, Clement of Alexandria demonstrates a reading that cannot be dismissed in his Stromata Book 6, Chapter 6. I believe this key passage should be used to highlight or disclose certain hints or subtleties that Clement makes regarding the post-mortem condition of all souls. Here, he says:

“Therefore, the Lord preached to those in Hades. For the Scripture says, ‘Hades says to Destruction: We have not seen His form, but we have heard His voice.’ Certainly, it was not the place itself that received the voice, but those who descended into Hades and surrendered themselves to destruction, just as if they willingly cast themselves from a ship into the sea. Therefore, these are the ones who have heard the divine power and voice. For who in their right mind should suppose the souls of the just and of the sinners in one judgement to be accusing Providence of injustice?

In this passage, Clement does not specify who is in Hades initially, but towards the end of this paragraph or section, he highlighted two kinds of people: virtuous and wicked souls. Clement is stating that it is unreasonable, after his explanation that Christ preached the Gospel to all those in Hades within the scriptural narrative, for anyone to think that the souls of the just and wicked to be accusing God of injustice, as if the gospel was not preached to them in their astral states. But since the Gospel was preached to the dead, according to Clement, he inquires over the matter of how can anyone think that the souls in Hades to be blaming God for the lack of moral oversight. However, an infernalist will (wrongly) interpret this as the supposing mind to be charging God with injustice for having both kinds of souls in one judgement as being irrational, but Clement means the souls in Hades are accusing God — though it’s hypothetical — rather than the theorizer accusing God of injustice. Some will venture on to say that Clement was simply being theoretical when he mentioned the souls of sinners, but why mention them at all if he simply believed that the just souls heard the gospel preached to them only? Here’s the original Greek in case some readers wonder why there’s “one,” “to be,” and “mind” in this English translation since I wasn’t using the common translations that are available online:

ἐπεὶ τίς ἂν εὖ φρονῶν ἐν μιᾷ καταδίκῃ καὶ τὰς τῶν δικαίων καὶ τὰς τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ὑπολάβοι εἶναι ψυχάς, ἀδικίαν τῆς προνοίας καταχέων.

Since/For (επεί) who (τις) in their right thinking (αν ευ φρονών) and in one judgement (και εν μια καταδίκη) should suppose (υπολάβοι) the souls of the just and of the sinners (Τάς ψυχας των δίκαιος και των ἁμαρτωλῶν) to be charging (είναι καταχέων) Providence of injustice (πρόνοιας της καταχεων)?

Since Clement has admitted that Christ preached the gospel to everyone in Hades, specifically the virtuous and wicked souls, let us now observe the words of Clement further. He then adds to his rhetorical question with another question by explaining that Scripture reveals His preaching of the Gospel: “But how? Do not the [Scriptures] disclose the Lord preaching to those who perished in the Deluge, rather than bind those in chains and watch over them?” It seems Clement affirms Christ preaching the Gospel in general, but denies the notion that Christ went to imprison them and keep them under guard. If Clement wished to demonstrate an infernalist understanding to his readers, why did he not simply state the no soul of the wicked nature in Hades has received the Gospel, nor can they be delivered from their bonds after death? He makes no exceptions and implies post-mortem redemption for the wicked in Hades, so then, in the next passage, Clement makes mention of the righteous souls in Hades receiving life despite living away from sinless perfection. He re-accounts a passage from the Shepherd of Hermas where the Disciples like the Lord descend into Hades to preach the Gospel, and though, Clement omits the wicked in this specific passage, he does not claim eternal perdition for these same souls.

After these claims, he does mention rational souls as being the upright, but he does not deny the wicked of possible redemption from Hades. He states a principle concerning divine intent and judgement: “If, then, in the deluge all sinful flesh perished, punishment having been inflicted on them for correction, we must first believe that the will of God, which is disciplinary and beneficent, saves those who turn to Him.” As Clement teaches, if God’s will or judgements are always intended towards edification, then we must believe that Christ proclaimed also to the wicked, because for God to deny such a possibility would indicate that this principle as being false; also, since Clement has stated that all those in Hades (even the wicked) have received the Gospel, denied the interpretation that Christ only bind those in Hades, and has conferred not a single interpretation that wicked souls remain in permanent ruin, then Clement’s interpretation of Christ in Hades is universalist, whether hopeful or confident. There are few instances where he is conceding to the wicked receiving possible redemption via implications, which, due to the practice of Reserve, is his style of obscuring his universalism from the masses. Even if some or all wicked souls refused to repent towards the preaching of Christ, intending to argue for infernalism, Clement has stated that this salvific administration continues through the disciples of Christ, which implies that the wicked souls in Hades don’t have a single chance at possible redemption but many chances.

The Shepherd of Hermas

The final literature in this post for Christian universalism will be discussed; the Shepherd of Hermas was commonly respected in the Early Church, as was other works like 1st Clement and the epistle of Barnabas (not the gospel of Barnabas). Josiah made attempts to argue that the Shepherd of Hermas did not belong to the universalist camp but was indicating a redemption for righteous souls who died prior to receiving the Gospel or who died in enmity towards it. Here’s his assumption:

On the contrary: When Hermas asks the meaning of this image, and of the stones who came “from the depths, already having the seal,” the Shepherd replies: “For they died in righteousness and great purity-only they did not have this seal.” (Similitudes 9.16.7)
Those who were given the seal (viz. baptism, in some sense) did not include “the unjust,” as you contend, those who departed this life in a state or state of enmity; but were those who were righteous when death came (those who were disposed toward God in this life and yet hadn’t had the opportunity to receive the sacrament of initiation into the Church (the Tower) that is baptism. Your claim — that in 9.16 “the unjust” were given “the seal of preaching” — is a confused and flatly untrue statement of fact with respect to the content of the text you refer to.

But all this is based on his own speculation, which is deeply flawed and seeks to distort what Hermas is recording or what the Angel is relaying to Hermas. Let’s start with the exact passage and permit me to bestow a unique numbering to avoid confusion:

Section 1:“Explain to me a little further, sir,”
I said. “What is it that you desire?” he asked. “Why, sir,” I said, “did these stones ascend out of the pit, and be applied to the building of the tower, after having borne these spirits?” “They were obliged,” he answered, “to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God.
Section 2: Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For,” he continued, “before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.
Section 3: And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.” “Why, sir,” I asked, “did the forty stones also ascend with them out of the pit, having already received the seal?”
Section 4: “Because,” he said, “these apostles and teachers who preached the name “of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of the preaching.
Section 5: Accordingly they descended with them into the water, and again ascended. [But these descended alive and rose up again alive; whereas they who had previously fallen asleep descended dead, but rose up again alive.]
Section 6: “By these, then, were they quickened and made to know the name of the Son of God. For this reason also did they ascend with them, and were fitted along with them into the building of the tower, and, untouched by the chisel, were built in along with them. For they slept in righteousness and in great purity, but only they had not this seal. You have accordingly the explanation of these also” (The Shepherd of Hermas, Book 3, Similitude 9.16).

In section 1 and 2, or in the beginning, Hermas inquires the Angel as to why stones came out of the pit and were fitted into the building of the Tower; the Angel responds that if someone walks apart from the name or character of Christ, then he is dead, but if he repents by “laying aside his state of death,” then he is able to enter the Kingdom of God. The criteria for this divinized life is repentance from dead works, and moral commitment in imitating Christ’s love. The seal is mentioned as being the water where souls traverse from death to life (i.e. probably baptism).

In section 3, those in the pit make use of the seal to enter the Kingdom of God, but Hermas inquires on why the 40 stones ascended with them since the 40 stones already possessed the seal. In section 4, the Angel explains that the 40 stones represent the apostles and teachers of the Church, and not only did they preach the Gospel, but also gave the seal or baptism.

In section 5, “they descended with them into the water, and again ascended” implies the holy saints descending and ascending with their audience, but an additional exposition tells us that “these descended alive and rose up again alive,” which implies righteous, non-believers due to descending with moral life, and “whereas they who had previously fallen asleep descended dead, but rose up again alive,” which implies wicked souls repenting due to descending without moral life yet they were revived. I believe the Angel is relaying a contrast of just and unjust souls receiving life from the preaching of the apostles and teachers.

In section 6, the identity of those who were made alive and made to know the Son of God, and were added to the Tower is narrowed down to the unbelieving, righteous souls due to “they slept in righteousness and in great purity, but only they had not this seal”. Based on this whole passage, the apostles and teachers already retained the seal as they ascended, but the Angel claims that the righteous non-believers did not possess the seal, so then, who received the seal of preaching if not the just souls, according to the Angel? The only plausible reading would be to deduce that the wicked souls that repented, had received the seal or baptism from the apostles and teachers. The purpose behind the seal or baptism is to make a pledge towards God that one will devote themselves to a pure conscience. This is also taught in 1st Peter, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience” (3:21).

Based on my exegetical exposition, let’s address Josiah’s misguided claims. He says, “On the contrary: When Hermas asks the meaning of this image, and of the stones who came “from the depths, already having the seal,” the Shepherd replies: “For they died in righteousness and great purity-only they did not have this seal.” Josiah is creating a false correlation between the righteous non-believers with the 40 stones that ascended with them, which symbolically represents the apostles and teachers, since the righteous souls (i.e. non-believers) do not retain or receive a seal unlike the disciples of Christ. And to quote his second argument: “Those who were given the seal (viz. baptism, in some sense) did not include “the unjust,” as you contend, those who departed this life in a state or state of enmity; but were those who were righteous when death came (those who were disposed toward God in this life and yet hadn’t had the opportunity to receive the sacrament of initiation into the Church (the Tower) that is baptism.” How does it not include the unjust souls when the disciples of Christ already possessed the seal, while the justified non-believers did not receive the seal, even after their ascension according to the Angel’s last statement in this chapter? The sacrament of baptism is intended for those who are repenting from predominant sin, meaning that the righteous non-believers have no need of promising to God for a good conscience due to already retaining a pure conscience. Josiah’s exegesis in interpreting the Angel in Hermas’ book is incompetent and contradictory, and even desperate.

There are many objections as to why the two-tier (i.e. Christian disciples and justified non-believers only) understanding of this account fails:

It doesn’t address or demonstrate as to who received the seal after death since the disciples already retained the seal prior, and the non-believers, specifically the just in Hades, never received nor possessed the seal.
The passage in section 5 demonstrates a three-tier understanding: those who descended with them in the water and ascended, those who descended dead but arose alive again, and those who descended alive but arose alive again.
The seal/baptism, according to the first epistle of Peter, is intended as a pledge unto having a pure conscience before God, which is absurd if it’s applied to justified non-believers since they already possess a pure conscience. According to the Angel, only they had not this seal; this proves the logic that they don’t need to promise God for a pure conscience.
Though it is assumed that both souls from righteous and wicked groups ascend into the water, implying that the righteous non-believers also receive a seal from this, would exegetically contradict the Angel’s last statement about them not having the seal. So then, we must conclude that the Angel around sections 1 and 2 is speaking generically about the souls in Hades becoming alive, but divulges into detail around sections 4 and 5.

Conclusion

Josiah made many desperate and flawed attempts to project his infernalism towards the data. The first epistle to the Corinthians illustrates that the righteous and sinners among the Church will receive their outcomes, but ultimately being redemptive at the end, as supported by Maximus’ reading. The first epistle of Peter demonstrates that Christ did indeed preach the Gospel to the dead, as evidenced by Melito’s, Clement’s, and Hermas’ books. Clement based on the Stromata and Hermas’ Angel both insist a hopeful universalist fate (if not confident).