A response to N. T. Wright on universalism (part 3 of 3)

Part 2: N. T. Wright on Pauline universalist texts

The same is true, finally, of the various Johannine passages (John 10:16, 12:32, 1 John 2:2, etc.) sometimes quoted as universalistic. In many the context indicates that the meaning is similar to Paul’s: the gospel is not for Jews only, but for Gentiles also (cf., eg., 12:32 in the context of 12:20ff.). In addition, some of the starkest of the Johannine judgment-sayings are found, as we saw earlier, right beside the richest promises of salvation for those who believe (John 3:14–17, 18–21). Again the position is quite clear: God in His great love has made one way of salvation for all men without exception. Those who refuse this way have no alternative left to them. And accepting the way of salvation, for John as for Paul, is bound up with faith in Jesus Christ.

    I agree with Wright that John 10:16 isn’t universalist on its own; nor, for that matter, are John 12:32 and 1 John 2:2. They must be taken in the larger context of John’s writings. John says that God desires every person to be saved through belief in Jesus (John 1:7, 9; 17:2-3), and that he’ll persist until this is fulfilled (6:37-40, 44-45). God desires to save, and Jesus died on behalf of, the entire kosmos, “world” (John 1:29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 8:12; 12:46-47; 17:21-25; 1 John 2:2; 4:14), which always refers to the stubbornly unbelieving mass (John 1:10; 3:19; 7:7; 8:23; 9:39; 12:31; 14:17, 19, 27, 30-31; 15:18-19; 16:8-11, 20, 33; 17:6-18, 25; 18:36; 1 John 2:15-17; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:4-5; 5:4-5, 19).

    Those who don’t have faith in Jesus are now under the condemnation of “darkness” and “death”; judgment isn’t merely relegated to the future (John 3:18-21, 36; 5:22-24; 12:25, 31; 1 John 2:9-11; 3:14). This isn’t hopeless, because we were once under the same judgment! (John 5:24; 12:46; 1 John 2:9; 3:14) Indeed, the purpose of God’s judgment is that all people give him and his Son honor, and all are drawn to Jesus (John 5:22-23; 12:31-32). To give an example: the Pharisees will die by their sins, but will one day recognize that Jesus is who he claimed to be (John 8:24, 28). There will be a future judgment on “the last day,” when everyone is raised (John 6:39-40, 44; 11:24), but the result of this judgment will be “life of the Age” for those who now reject Jesus (12:46-50; cf. 17:2-3).

    If Revelation was written by the same John, this too shows restoration after judgment. The “rulers of the land”, who stubbornly resisted Jesus’ rule even unto death at his hands (Rev. 1:5; 6:15; 17:2; 18:3, 9; 19:19-21), are afterward seen entering New Jerusalem, where salvation is available to those outside (21:24; 22:2, 14-15). Indeed, the depiction of judgment and (eventual) restoration in John’s writings is wholly universalist. If Wright stopped assuming that any reference to God’s judgment must be hopeless, he would see this too.

Before moving on to a positive conclusion, we need a short excursus. There are some passages in the New Testament—I think particularly of Acts 10:2, 4, 27, 30–35 and (on some interpretations) Romans 2:12–16—which seem to allow for the fact that some people are saved without actually hearing and confessing the name of Jesus Christ, since in this life they had, as it were, possessed a Christ-shaped faith. They had been genuinely dissatisfied with their surrounding religion and humbly seeking to serve God in prayer and good works as best they knew how. As I have argued elsewhere, I believe that Scripture leaves this possibility open while giving us no encouragement to think that the category of people involved will be large. There are no promises of salvation for those who neither believe nor are baptized.

    Perhaps surprisingly, I’m more strict than Wright on this issue. Justification (membership in the covenant community) only belongs to those with faith in Jesus the Messiah; that much is clear all throughout Paul’s writings. In Acts 10, the holy spirit only falls on Cornelius and his household after they hear and believe the word about Jesus. Romans 2:12-16 must be read in the whole context of Paul’s argument in Rom. 1-3, which is to establish the guilt of every person and the one way of salvation, faith in and of Jesus. I’m unsure what a ‘Messiah- shaped faith’ without knowledge of the Messiah, Jesus, would look like.

    This might seem harsh, even arbitrary — what about people who never even heard the name of Jesus, or people who die too young to grasp the message about him? If we remove the assumption that those who die in unbelief are punished hopelessly, then this no longer seems so harsh. It’s somewhat ironic that Wright, despite his warnings against the pluralists’ rejection of one way of salvation, ends up positing another way of salvation in order to make his view of punishment seem more palatable.

I want now to conclude by pointing up another, and more biblical, ‘universalism’. This is the doctrine, which is in fact totally opposed to the usual ‘universalism’, that there is one God and one way of salvation for all, Jesus Christ. This is, of course, assumed and referred to all through the NT. Acts 4:12 (‘no other name … in which we must be saved’) is perhaps its classic expression: compare John 10:10, 14:6, Romans 10:12–13, and many other passages.

    Of course, I have no quarrel with this, other than Wright’s claim that the idea of one God and one Messiah is somehow opposed to universal salvation. He can’t totally be faulted for this, since this article was written before ‘biblical universalism’ really grew in popularity. It’s a shame that he hasn’t published any updated arguments against universalism, which might better address my own beliefs.

We may trace the different biblical elements of this ‘universalism’ as follows. It begins with God’s promise to Abraham, that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed. God has chosen to save the world through Abraham’s family, and supremely (of course) in the true seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3 and Romans 4). For Paul, the cardinal sin of the Jews was that national pride and ‘boasting’ which turned the vocation of being a light to the Gentiles into a racial privilege. This universal promise is based on the fact that God is one, as was (and is) confessed daily by the pious Jew in the ‘Shema’ (Rom. 3:29–30: cf. Deut. 6:4ff.). Thus, any suggestion that there is more than one way of salvation is not merely an attack on the uniqueness of Jesus Christ (as we see, for example, in the work of John Hick), but also contains the implication that there is more than one God.

    I agree wholeheartedly.

The universal promise is fulfilled, not in Israel according to the flesh (because of her national pride and consequent failure to accept her suffering Messiah) but in her anointed representative, Jesus. In His death and resurrection He put to death ‘fleshly’ Israel and brought her to life again as a worldwide community. This is why the resurrection and the Gentile mission are so intimately connected. Over against the Jewish exclusivism attacked in Romans 2:17ff, stands the Christian assurance of Romans 5:1–11: we (the worldwide, believing, missionary church) boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the reconciliation.

    Amen, and thanks be to God!

Biblical ‘universalism’, therefore, consists in this, that in Christ God has revealed the one way of salvation for all men alike, irrespective of race, sex, colour or status. This biblical ‘universalism’ (unlike the other sort) gives the strongest motives for evangelism, namely, the love of God and of men. (This itself is evidence that we are thinking biblically here.) This view specifically excludes the other sort of ‘universalism’, because scripture and experience alike tell us that many do miss the one way of salvation which God has provided. This is a sad fact, and the present writer in no ways enjoys recording it, any more than Paul in Romans 9–11 looked with pleasure on his kinsmen’s fate. Yet it cannot be ignored if we wish either to remain true to scripture or really to love our fellow men. If the house is on fire, the most loving thing to do is to raise the alarm.

    ‘Biblical universalism’ consists in the fact, not only that God has provided a single way of salvation for everybody, but that this salvation will ultimately be effective for all people. The motive for evangelism is that, as John says, those who separate themselves from the Light and the Life condemn themselves to darkness and death; this is a state that we should want everyone to escape as soon as possible. No threat of hopeless punishment is necessary for evangelism, despite what some non-universalists claim.

    Wright brings up an interesting point with Romans 9-11, though not what he intended. At the beginning of this passage, Paul is in deep despair over his brethren’s refusal to have faith in their Messiah (9:1-5); at the end, he praises God, “to whom are all things”, for his wisdom (11:33-36), and he quotes Isaiah 40, a passage that originally dealt with the restoration of punished, rebel Israel. What could’ve caused this change of heart? Maybe he recognized that “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26)?

I frequently meet people who tell me that they are ‘universalists’ in the usual sense while in no way thinking the Bible supports their view. This position is perfectly clear: I simply disagree with its view of scripture, of God and of Christ. What is not even clear is the position of the person who maintains that universalism finds support in the Bible. It might be more comfortable if it did: but we are in this business to discover truth.

    Like Wright, I strongly disagree with the basic assumptions of pluralistic universalists — that the Scriptures don’t form a coherent story, and that there’s more than one possible way of salvation. But the position of ‘biblical universalists’ is absolutely clear: God will never abandon trying to save certain people, but he’ll persist until all people are restored through the one way of salvation (Jesus the Messiah) that he’s provided. Wright may disagree with this, but he hasn’t provided any good reasons to do so; none of the passages he’s appealed to say anything about hopeless punishment, because the Bible itself says nothing about hopeless punishment! To the contrary, the eschatology of the apostles is absolutely triumphant: not that God will hopelessly destroy his enemies, thus ensuring that they never submit to him, but that he’ll persist until every enemy truly submits to him and is restored!

A response to N. T. Wright on universalism (part 2 of 3)

Part 1: N. T. Wright’s general concerns about universalism

What then of the texts which are cited as positive evidence for universalism? The most popular occur in Romans (5:12–21, 11:32) and 1 Timothy (2:4, 4:10). We must take them in order. As always, the context must be the main factor in determining the meaning. And the context of Romans is the Gentile mission of which Paul speaks continually: the gospel is for all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe (Rom. 1:16–17). Jewish particularism is Paul’s chief enemy, and the one way of salvation (eg Rom. 4:9–17, 10:12–13) one of his main emphases. It is in this context that the two Romans passages in question occur.

    I agree — one of Paul’s chief concerns in his letter to the Romans is the unity of Jew and gentile in the Messiah, and the fact that neither has precedent over the other. This is because of the historical situation of the Roman church. All Jewish people were expelled from Rome from AD 49-54 (Acts 18:2; Suetonius, Divus Claudius 25), and this certainly affected that church’s development with regard to ethnic distinctions.

If we were to maintain, on the basis of the word ‘all’ in Romans 5 and 11, that Paul was a universalist, we would do so in the teeth of (eg) Romans 2:6–16, 14:11–12 and such other passages as 2 Thessalonians 2:7–10.

    Paul’s knowledge of God’s judgment doesn’t negate his universalism. The fact that some will receive “wrath and anger, tribulation and distress” (Rom. 2:8-9) doesn’t mean they can’t be saved eventually; as he says elsewhere, we believers were once “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). Paul’s point here is to establish that God’s wrath is already being revealed against the unrighteous (Rom. 1:18ff), and that all people, Jew and gentile alike, are indeed unrighteous (3:9ff). In Rom. 14:11-12 (and 2 Cor. 5:10), Paul’s main concern is the judgment of believers, which certainly won’t result in hopeless punishment! Finally, Paul refers to unbelievers as “the perishing-ones” (2 Thess. 2:10; cf. 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3), but we too were once dying because of our sins (Eph. 2:5). None of Wright’s citations support a belief in hopeless punishment.

Nor will it do to say that Paul had not thought through the implications of Romans 5: the epistle is far too tight-knit for that. Chapter 5 as it stands is flanked by the long section on justification by faith (3:21–4:25) and the presentation of ‘being in Christ’, of baptismal participation in His death and resurrection, and its results (chapters 6–8). On the one side, faith as the sine qua non of justification: on the other, membership of the professing community as the assurance of salvation. Nor can Romans 5 be detached from this context, as though it (or at any rate vv. 12–21) were a separate excursus put in here but unrelated to the context. It is a careful bridge-passage, taking up and making more precise the themes of chapters 1–4 (universal sin: the law: grace: the righteousness of God seen in the obedient life and death of Jesus Christ: the resultant justification and life which, in chapters 1–4, are for believers) and so arranging these themes that they can be used again throughout chapters 6–8, in the anthropology which leads from man-in-the-flesh to man-in-the-Christ, man-in-the Spirit. Man-in-Christ enters the sphere of Christ delineated precisely by 5:12–21: indeed, 6:15–18, with its personifications of ‘obedience’ and ‘righteousness’, can only be understood if 5:12–21 is presupposed. Whatever 5:12–21 is asserting, it simply cannot contradict chapters 1–4 and 6–8. But if that is so, ‘all’ in this passage simply cannot mean ‘all individual human beings without exception’. If Paul had meant that, he should have torn up the letter and begun again from scratch.

    I agree with everything Wright says here about the unity of the letter. Romans 5:12-21 certainly can’t contradict the rest of the letter, which does emphasize the importance of faith (3:21-5:1) and the distinction between man-in-the-flesh and man-in-the-spirit (6:12-8:17). But this doesn’t contradict the universalist interpretation — all people were once ‘man-in-the-flesh’, and all people, through the faith in and of Jesus the Messiah, will be ‘man-in-the-Messiah’.

We can, however, find an alternative explanation without either forced exegesis or special pleading. Again the context is the clue. The point Paul has been making all along since 1:5 (see particularly 1:16–17, 2:9–11, 3:21–4:25) is that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, stand on a level before God. All alike are in sin; all alike can only be justified through faith. Chapter 4 in particular stresses that Abraham’s true family are not just Jews according to the flesh, the possessors of circumcision and the law, but the worldwide community of the faithful. That point being established, Paul can move on in 5:12ff. to show how Christ’s faithful people enjoy the blessings that flow from Jesus’ undoing of the sin of Adam. But his eye is still on the difference between Jew and Gentile—or rather, on the fact that this distinction has been done away in Christ. That is the significance of the references to the law in 5:13–14, 20.

    Once again, I agree with everything Wright says here, about Paul’s focus in Romans on the equality of Jew and gentile in the Messiah. The distinction between those under law and not under law at Rom. 5:13-14 is surely significant (cf. 2:12-16). Wright is about to argue, based on this, that “all people” (Gk: pantas anthrōpous) at 5:18 only means “Jew and gentile alike”, which is to say, “some Jews and some gentiles”. But surely he wouldn’t want to argue that “all people” (Gk: pantas anthrōpous) to whom death spread (5:12) refers only to some Jews and some gentiles, even though this is where Paul makes his clearest distinction between those-under-law and those-not-under-law!

    This is a serious inconsistency in Wright’s interpretation — he has to argue that “all people” has a significant change in meaning between vv. 12 and 18. And the universalist interpretation still incorporates the Jew-and-gentile-alike angle, because “all people” certainly includes both Jews and gentiles! Wright is correctly making the jump from “all people” to ‘Jew and gentile alike’, but then illegitimately jumping from ‘Jew and gentile alike’ to mean only ‘some Jews and some gentiles’.

Within this context, the correct gloss to put on ‘all men’ in vv. 12, 18 is not ‘all men individually’ but ‘Jews and Gentiles alike’. If further definition is required, it appears in v. 17: ‘those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness through the one man Jesus Christ’.

    Wright fails to mention the most important feature of v. 18, which is the parallelism: Paul says that “all men” were condemned by Adam’s trespass, and “all men” will be justified by Jesus’ righteousness! Paul also refers to both groups as “the many” (Gk: hoi polloi), as opposed to “the one” (5:15, 19). But he’s careful to maintain the parallelism throughout the entire passage; he never says, for example, that “all men” were condemned by Adam, while “many” were justified by the Messiah. Those who will be justified in the Messiah are the same number as those who were condemned in Adam.

    Nor is Paul saying that salvation through Jesus is merely available to all people. If that were the case, he would’ve written that “the many may be made righteous” (present subjunctive) because of Jesus’ obedience. On the contrary, he wrote that whereas “the many were made sinners” because of Adam, “the many will be made righteous” (future indicative) because of Jesus (5:19). This is a certain event, not a mere possibility.

    Wright argues that v. 17 limits the scope of v. 18. It’s true that Paul says those who will reign in life are “the ones taking [Gk: lambanontes; active voice] the gift of righteousness.” But he never says that only some people will take this gift. We should read the clearly universal scope of “all people” (v. 18) back into the more ambiguous scope of v. 17, rather than vice versa; all will ultimately take the gift of righteousness. Paul goes on to say that grace superabounds where sin abounds, so that where sin reigned in death, grace will reign unto life (5:20-21). But if less people will be made righteous than were made sinners, on the contrary, sin will superabound where grace abounds, so that (at least in some people) sin will forever reign in death. This ruins Paul’s careful argument.

Closely related to Romans 5 is 1 Corinthians 15:20–28, which is sometimes also quoted in this connection. Much of what has been said above applies here too, with the following additional points being necessary. First, the ‘all’ of v. 22 clearly has the same general sense as in Romans 5, as can be seen from v. 23: those who will share Christ’s resurrection are οι τοῦ χριστοῦ, those who are Christ’s.

    I agree that the “all” of 1 Corinthians 15:22 has the same sense as Romans 5, but that sense is every person without exception! Once again, it’s the same number who are dying in Adam that will be made alive in the Messiah (v. 22). Once again, the clearly universal scope of “all” must define the more ambiguous scope of “those of the Messiah”, rather than vice versa. It’s probably significant that Paul refers to “those of the Messiah” (Gk: hoi tou christou) rather than “those in the Messiah” (Gk: hoi en [tō] christō); while not all people are in the Messiah yet, every person belongs to him by his lordship over them (Rom. 14:9).

Second, in view of such other passages in the letter as 6:9, the triumphant eschatology of vv. 24–28 cannot be seen as implying universalism. God will be all in all, yes, and every knee will bow at the name of Jesus (Phil. 2:10): but Romans 14:10–12, which like Philippians 2 quotes Isaiah 45:23 at this point, makes it clear that this will take place before the judgment seat, where (2 Cor. 5:10) each one will receive those things done in the body, whether good or bad. So-called ‘sovereign grace universalism’, whether Barthian or otherwise, fails because it lacks a biblical theology of judgment.

    It’s hard to see how the victorious eschatology of 1 Cor. 15:24-28, 51-57 doesn’t imply universalism. Jesus’ enemies will be subjected to him, yes, by being conformed to his body of glory (Phil. 3:21); this connects to the overall topic of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. Paul quotes two Scripture passages (Isa. 25:8; Hos. 13:14) which originally dealt with the punishment of God’s enemies unto death for their sins, and their eventual restoration, in connection with the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:54-55). [4] The idea here is that God will be triumphant over his enemies, not merely by destroying them — which would simply mean that they never truly submit to him! — but by ensuring that they do submit and return to him.

    Wright cites Rom. 14:10-12 and 2 Cor. 5:10 to show that people can bow to God and still be judged. But as I said earlier, when read in context, both of these passages deal with the judgment of believers! Surely Paul isn’t saying that, even though we have faith in him, God will hopelessly punish us if we step out of line! So then, this judgment has nothing to do with hopeless punishment. Paul quotes Isa. 45:23 to show that we’re accountable only to God, not to other people, because God is the one to whom all people will bow (Rom. 14:10-13). If it were possible to truly submit to God, and yet be hopelessly punished, then we as believers would have no assurance of salvation — ironically, the very thing of which Wright accused universalists earlier!

Romans 11:32 occurs, like 5:12–21, within the wider context of Paul’s discussion of God’s dealings with Jews and Gentiles. God’s purpose is being worked out through the hardening of the majority of Jews, which is designed (9:19–24, 11:11–15, 25, 30) to spread the gospel worldwide. But, Paul argues, this cannot be used by Gentile Christians as a reason for a theological inverted snobbery in which Jews would be regarded as unconvertible, as undoubtedly excluded from God’s salvation in Christ. This is the whole thrust of chapter 11: Paul is not looking forward to a distant future in which there will be a final and unprecedented large-scale conversion of Jews, but to the present continuous effects of his own ministry (cf. 11:14 and 11:31; they have now been disobedient, so that because of the mercy shown to you they may also now receive mercy). Jews, he is arguing, are still firmly within God’s saving purposes, and a Gentile-dominated church cannot afford to ignore the fact. And within that context comes the summary in 11:32: God has shut up all men in the prison of disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Once again the context demands the gloss ‘Jews and Gentiles alike’ beside both occurrences of ‘all men’: that is what the argument is all about. If any doubt remains, it is dispelled by 11:23: Jews can be grafted back into the olive tree if they do not remain in unbelief. There is no thought of salvation apart from faith. And Paul knew, as 11:14 indicates (‘that I may save some of them’), that faith would not extend to all without exception. Romans 11 is no more a promise of universalism than Romans 5.

    I certainly agree that, for Paul, the salvation of the Jews is contingent upon their belief in the Messiah; his careful argument in Rom. 9:30-10:21 leaves absolutely no doubt about that. I also agree that Paul hoped to save some, not all, of his brethren through his ministry (11:14). But that doesn’t negate the force of v. 26: “all Israel will be saved” (Gk: sōthēsetai; future indicative). This is clearly referring to a future event of universal scope, when the dead are raised and “the totality of the gentiles comes in” (11:15, 25). Throughout Romans 9-11, Paul draws together many Scripture passages that speak of the restoration of punished, rebel Israel, even those who were punished unto death. [5] Finally, in Rom. 11:32 as in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:22, the same amount (“all”) who are now disobedient will be shown mercy; Wright’s interpretation misses this parallelism, as he agrees that everyone without exception has been disobedient, but only some Jews and gentiles will be shown mercy.

What then of 1 Timothy 2:4 and 4:10? Again the context is important: the ‘proof-text-without-context’ method, for which evangelicals are so often criticized, is the regular ploy of the universalist at this point. 1 Timothy 2:1–7 is about prayer, and the need in particular to pray for all men, especially those in authority. Lest readers should think this is a counsel of folly, advising them to pray for people who are hardened and reprobate persecutors of the church, vv. 3 and 4 emphasize that God’s grace knows no human barriers. Universal prayer must be made because man cannot tell whom God will save, and must realise that human and fleshly categories of who may be eligible for grace are just the sort of thing that the gospel shatters. This is further supported by reference to the Pauline Gentile mission and the universal gospel preached therein (2:5–7), based on the fact that there is one way of salvation for all men (see below).

    I object to Wright’s characterization of universalists as prooftexters. While this is definitely true of some universalists, many of us are especially concerned with context, such as the extended context of Paul’s Scripture quotations in 1 Cor. 15 and Rom. 9-11 which deal with the restoration of punished rebels! [4,5] If 1 Timothy is authentically Pauline, then it was written when Nero was in power. So when Paul says to pray for “all people”, including kings, and that God desires “all people” to be saved (1 Tim. 2:1-4), he must be including the worst of the worst such as Nero (a modern parallel would be Hitler). This doesn’t prove universal salvation, but it does prove that God wants universal salvation — indeed, he works all things toward this end (Eph. 1:9-12). To avoid universalism, we’d have to say that God doesn’t persist in this desire, but abandons trying to save some people when they die.

And again the wider context reveals a doctrine of final judgment quite irreconcilable with ‘universalism’: compare 1 Timothy 1:6–11, 4:1–2, 5:24, 6:9–10.

    None of this extended context says anything about hopeless punishment. Paul says that the law is for those who don’t conform to the blessed God’s glorious good news (1 Tim. 1:6-11), but doesn’t say that anyone will never conform to this good news. Is universalism the false teaching that Paul talks about in 1 Tim. 4:1-2? Well, it’s certainly not universalists who deny that every creation of God is good and not to be rejected, being sanctified by God’s logos and prayer! (1 Tim. 4:4-5) Paul’s statement about “judgment” at 5:24 isn’t talking about God’s judgment; the context makes clear that it’s about the human judgment of who should be an elder in the church (5:17-25). Desiring riches leads people into ruin and destruction (6:9-10), but this isn’t hopeless, and can be avoided with charity (6:17-19).

This also sets the scene for the other problematic verse in this letter (4:10): though some have seen this as universalistic, it is in fact best taken as a cautious statement aimed against those who thought that salvation was the prerogative of one small racial or doctrinal group. This, too, is a note to be struck firmly when writing on this subject: it is no part of Christian duty to set bounds to God’s grace, to dictate whom God may bring to faith and whom He may not. All we can do is observe what scripture teaches clearly and consistently: that there will be no salvation (in the fullest sense) without faith.

    There’s no indication of ethnic tension in 1 Timothy 4, or even in the entire letter. There’s not even the possibility that “all people” at 4:10 could simply mean “[believing] Jews and gentiles alike”, because Paul explicitly singles out “believers” as a subset of this “all people”! In line with the use of malista (“especially”) elsewhere in the NT, the Pauline corpus, and the Pastoral Epistles, he must be saying that God is truly savior of all people, but believers have some (temporal?) precedence. Malista never in the NT carries a sense of exclusivity. [6] Paul says that this saying, that God “is savior of all people, especially [not exclusively] believers”, should be insisted upon and taught (1 Tim. 4:10-11).

Part 3: N. T. Wright on John and biblical ‘universalism’

______________________________

[4] See my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 for more details.

[5] See my exegesis of Romans 9-11 for the details.

[6] Ac. 20:37-38; 25:26; 26:3; Gal. 6:10; Phil. 4:22; 1 Tim. 5:8, 17; 2 Tim. 4:13; Tit. 1:10; Philem. 16; 2 Pet. 2:9-10.

A response to N. T. Wright on universalism (part 1 of 3)

    N. T. Wright is a scholar that I’ve come to greatly admire over the past year, after reading his work on Paul and especially his four-volume series Christian Origins and the Doctrine of God. On the issue of universalism, however, I find many reasons to disagree strongly with him. I believe, for Scriptural and theological reasons, that God desires to save all people and will persist until his intention is fulfilled; Wright believes, on the other hand, that God desires to save all people, but he’ll stop persisting toward this end out of respect for some people’s free choice to reject him. Here, I’ll be responding to his 1978 Themelios article against universal salvation, to show why I think his analysis is ultimately flawed. [1]

‘There are two Biblical ways of looking at salvation. One says that only Christian believers will be saved: the other says that all men will be saved. Since the latter is more loving, it must be true, because God is love.’ This argument (though the words are mine) is regularly used by university teachers of my acquaintance to persuade undergraduates to accept ‘universalism’ in its most common form—the belief, that is, that God will save all men individually.

    As a universalist, I would say that there’s only one biblical way of looking at salvation: it comes by grace, through faith in Jesus as Messiah and Lord, and ultimately all people will come to this faith (Rom. 10:8-13; cf. Phil. 2:9-11). Perhaps when Wright wrote this article, he’d only interacted with pluralistic universalists like John Hick and ‘hopeful universalists’ like von Balthasar, who see two different eschatologies in the Scriptures. Universalists like myself, who may be called ‘evangelical universalists’ or ‘biblical universalists’, see the Bible as a coherent story pointing toward Jesus the Messiah as its fulfillment, like Wright does.

It explicitly plays off passages of scripture which appear to support it (Romans 5:12–21, 11:32, 1 Tim. 2:4, 4:10, John 12:32, etc.) against those which quite clearly do not (Romans 2:6–16, Matt. 25:31–46, John 3:18, 36, 5:29, etc.). I have argued against this view elsewhere, at a more systematic level. Here I want to look in more detail at the biblical evidence. The proponents of universalism admit very readily that their doctrine conflicts with much biblical teaching. What they are attempting, however, is Sachkritik, the criticism (and rejection) of one part of scripture on the basis of another. We leave aside the implications of this for a doctrine of scripture itself.

    Once again, it seems that Wright has mostly known pluralistic and ‘hopeful universalists’ who see in the Bible two distinct eschatologies. In his other article that he cites here, “Universalism and the World-Wide Community”, he interacts only with John Hick and John Robinson, both liberal theologians who rejected the Bible as a single, coherent story, and held that all religions contain some (relative) truths about God. As a ‘biblical universalist’, my view of the Scriptures is largely the same as Wright’s, so this criticism doesn’t really land.

More important for our purpose is the fact that the great majority of the ‘hard sayings’, the passages which warn most clearly and unmistakeably of eternal punishment, are found on the lips of Jesus Himself… I begin here because we need to be reminded of the uncompromising warnings which the evangelists place on the lips of Jesus Himself (and if they were creations of the early church, they are quite unlike anything else that the early church created).

    I wonder what passages exactly Wright is referring to here. Is he talking about the ‘sheep and goats’ judgment (Matt. 25:31-46), which is the only one that explicitly speaks of “eternal punishment” (Gk: kolasis aiōnios)? But Wright himself has acknowledged elsewhere that aiōnios means “of the [Messianic] Age” rather than strictly “eternal” (e.g., How God Became King, pp. 44-45; see also Ramelli and Konstan, Terms for Eternity). In his NT translation, Wright typically translates zōē aiōnia as “life of the age to come,” but coupled with punishment, translates aiōnios as “everlasting” (compare his translation of Matt. 25:46 to Lk. 18:18) — why is this? Furthermore, Wright later claimed (and I agree) that the entire Olivet discourse, including the ‘sheep and goats’ judgment, refers to the AD 70 fall of Jerusalem, not a post-mortem punishment (Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 184, 533).

    Is he talking about the ‘Gehenna’ sayings of Jesus? But, once again, Wright acknowledges elsewhere that Jesus, when he spoke of ‘Gehenna’, was referring to the coming destruction on Jerusalem (JVG, pp. 183, 330), in line with the parallels in the Hebrew Bible (Jer. 7:30-34; 19:2-15) and the context of Jesus’ own saying (Matt. 23:33-38). Is he talking about the ‘narrow gate’ sayings of Jesus (Matt. 7:13-14; Lk. 13:22-30)? But, at least in the Lukan account, this is a warning against the person who asks, “Are few being saved?”, for failing to recognize that many unexpected people will be entering God’s kingdom! [2] Like some of Jesus’ other sayings (e.g., Matt. 10:39; 19:30), this saying is ironic and paradoxical: “many” are destroyed because they wish to be part of “few” who are saved, while the “few” are those who accept that “many” unexpected people will be saved!

    Jesus does say that many will follow a “broad path” that leads to apōleian, “destruction” (Matt. 7:13). But he also affirms, in various parables, that he’ll pursue and find everyone he intends to save, even to apolōlos, “the destroyed-one” (Matt. 18:10-14; Lk. 15:3-32; 19:10). Wright and I agree (contra Calvinism) that Jesus desires to save everyone — his love for even his enemies, in imitation of his Father, is integral to his perfection (Matt. 5:43-48; Lk. 6:32-36). So Wright must believe that, at some point, Jesus will stop going after that 100th destroyed sheep.

Nor is there any tension between statements of God’s love and warnings of God’s judgment. If this is a problem for us, it certainly was not for them: compare John 3:16–21. Perhaps this is why many advocates of universalism abandon the attempt to argue their case from the Bible at all.

    Of course, I agree that God’s love and his judgment aren’t in tension, and I’d point to the exact same passage to make my point. For Wright, however, his love and his judgment are in tension, because Wright believes that the judgment is hopeless; at some point, God stops trying to save some people. In contrast, for John, the purpose of judgment is “that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (John 5:22-23); Jesus came not only to judge the world but also to save the world, and he judges the world to drag all people to himself! (12:31-32, 46-50) The judgment can’t be hopeless, because believers in Jesus were once under the same condemnation of “death” and “darkness” (John 5:24; 12:46; 1 John 2:9; 3:14).

The attempt is still made by some, however, usually on the basis of certain passages in the Pauline corpus (an odd inversion, this, of the old liberal position where Jesus was the teacher of heavenly truths and Paul the cross-grained dogmatic bigot). But at the same time most exegetes would agree that one of Paul’s foundation doctrines is justification by faith, which has its dark side in the implication: no faith, no justification. There are no problems of salvation (leaving aside for a moment the few passages in dispute) for those outside the believing community.

    I agree with Wright that the doctrine of justification by faith, or covenant membership based on one’s faithfulness to Jesus the Messiah, is central to Paul’s teachings. I also agree that there’s no salvation outside of the believing community. However, the believing community who are loyal to Jesus will one day extend to all of humanity; every person will bow and confess that Jesus the Messiah is Lord (Phil. 2:9-11). The fact of justification by faith is no problem to ‘evangelical’ or ‘biblical universalists’, as we believe that all people will, in the end, be justified because of what Jesus did, through faith in him.

We will return to Paul in a moment, but before that we must look at a passage which has sometimes been used to get universalists round the awkward corner thus created—namely, 1 Peter 3:18–22, which has sometimes been interpreted as offering a ‘second chance’ to people who do not have faith in this life. But, as has been argued at length by commentators of various outlooks, the writer is most probably referring simply to Christ’s proclamation to evil spirits that their power had been broken.

    I don’t think that any “awkward corner” has been created at all. The idea that one’s ‘free choice’ to accept or reject God is set in stone (and, consequently, no longer ‘free’) after death is an unsupported assumption. [3] So the fact that this assumption isn’t explicitly refuted in the Scriptures isn’t evidence in its favor. In this life, we’re all given first, and second, and as many chances as we need, because God does desire our salvation; why should it be different after death? Does God’s character change toward some people? In any case, if the Bible does declare that all people will be saved, this alone would be proof enough that there’s a ‘second chance’ after death. For what it’s worth, though, I agree with Wright that 1 Peter 3:18-22 isn’t good evidence of this.

In any case, the next chapter (1 Peter 4, especially vv. 17–18) rules out any possibility that ‘those who do not obey God’s gospel’ will be saved. The ‘second chance’ theory must look outside the Bible for support: though there, too, it is open to attack.

    1 Peter 4:17-18 doesn’t refute the possibility of post-mortem repentance, because it’s not talking about a post-mortem judgment at all. Peter is speaking of the persecution that his audience is experiencing, the “fiery ordeal”; this is a krima, “judgment”, that has “begun at the house of God” (1 Pet. 4:12-17). But Peter gives them hope by telling them that this krima will envelop their persecutors, “those disobeying God’s good news”, as well (4:17). He quotes Proverbs 11:31 (LXX), saying that if it’s difficult for the righteous to be rescued (from persecution), how much more ho asebēs, “the ungodly”, and hamartōlos, “the sinner” (4:18)?

    This whole passage deals with the coming tribulation that enveloped the Roman and Jewish worlds from AD 66-70, not the possibility of post-mortem salvation. We should hope that it’s possible for “ungodly-ones” (Gk: asebōn) and “sinning-ones” (Gk: hamartōlōn) to be saved, because Paul tells us that they’re precisely the ones whom Jesus died for! (Rom. 5:6-8) Of course, the ungodly aren’t saved as ungodly people (in their sins), only when they repent (and are saved from their sins). But since we were all ungodly at one time, we should hope that it’s possible for other people, who are now ungodly, to be saved as well!

We might note at this point that, though many profess to believe in a ‘second-chance’ universalism, they do not usually enjoy ‘assurance’ in the old-fashioned sense. Hence the revival of interest in praying for the dead (which does not, except in rare cases, spring from a return to the classical doctrine of purgatory, but rather from a vague general uncertainty about the way of salvation itself). Universalism of this kind, therefore, has the worst of both worlds: no clear doctrine of justification by faith, and hence no assurance of salvation. It neither has its cake nor eats it.

    Perhaps this is true of the pluralistic universalists that Wright is acquainted with, but it’s not true of ‘biblical universalism’. Universalists like myself agree with Paul’s robust doctrine of justification by faith, and our assurance of salvation is that Jesus died for us, the same as Wright’s own assurance.

Part 2: N. T. Wright on Pauline universalist texts

______________________________

[1] N. T. Wright, “Towards a biblical view of universalism,” Themelios 4, no. 2 (Jan 1978): 54-58; unfortunately, I was unable to find any more recent study from Wright that specifically deals with universal salvation, but a recent interview suggests that he may have softened toward universalism while remaining a staunch Arminian.

[2] See my recent blog post on the ‘narrow gate’ sayings, and several other warnings of Jesus against assuming a limited scope of salvation: “Warnings against non-universalism”

[3] Hebrews 9:27 is the only verse that is typically adduced to support this position. However, that passage (Heb. 9:25-28) only uses the fact that there is a krisis (“judgment”) for everyone after they die once, as an analogy for the fact that Jesus had to die only once as a sacrifice to bring salvation. There’s no indication that this post-mortem krisis is followed by hopeless punishment for anyone.

"I will drag all to myself": an exegesis of John 12:20-50

    In my exegetical series on several key passages from Paul’s letters (Rom. 9-11; 1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-18), we’ve seen that he believed in the ultimate restoration of all of God’s enemies. Paul connected this restoration to the eschatological resurrection that will happen at Jesus’ return. We also saw that Jesus himself, as recorded in the synoptic gospels, warned against assuming a limited scope of salvation, although he never said that everyone will be saved (Mk. 3:22-30; Matt. 5:25-26; 7:1-23; 18:21-35; Lk. 11:14-23; 12:57-59; 13:22-30). In John’s gospel, on the other hand, there is a saying attributed to Jesus (12:32) which has been taken as an explicit claim of universal salvation. Is this correct? Let’s take a look at the entire context, John 12:20-50, to see how the universalist interpretation fares.

    “The hour has come”

Now among those who went up to worship at the festival were some Greeks. They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew, then Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.

    At the close of Jesus’ public ministry in John’s gospel, we see that his influence hasn’t just reached Jewish people, but also gentile ‘God-fearers.’ There are “some Greeks” (Gk: hellēnes tines) who came to the temple to worship Israel’s God at Passover; having heard of Jesus, they ask to see him. This illustrates what John said in the previous chapter, that Jesus would be dying “not only for the nation [of Israel], but also to gather the scattered children of God into one” (11:51-52). These Greeks go to Philip, not only because he’s Jesus’ only disciple with a Greek name, but also because he’s from Bethsaida in the predominantly gentile region of upper Galilee (cf. Matt. 4:15).

Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain, but if it dies it bears much fruit.”

    The glorification of Jesus, and the Father’s glory in Jesus, are major themes in the gospel of John (7:37-39; 8:54; 11:4; 12:16, 28; 13:31-32; 14:13; 16:14-15; 17:1, 4-5, 10). Now, however, it’s revealed that he must die in order to be glorified, which so far in John’s gospel he’s only hinted at (2:18-21; 3:14; 12:7-8). Jesus uses an agricultural metaphor to make his point: according to the ancient understanding of plant growth, seeds had to die before bringing forth fruit (cf. 1 Cor. 15:36-37). Likewise, the Son of Man must die in order to be glorified and bear more ‘fruit.’

    How is this an answer to the Greeks’ arrival? Up to this point, John says several times that the “hour” of Jesus hadn’t yet come, because of which he couldn’t be arrested (2:4; 7:30; 8:20). From this point forward, however, it’s said that his hour has come (12:27; 13:1; 17:1). The Greeks’ arrival marks a turning point; it shows Jesus that his influence has grown beyond the nation of Israel, as he’d predicted (John 10:16; cf. 11:51-52). The purpose of his ministry to Israel has been fulfilled, and the time has come for him to die on their behalf.

    “The one loving his life is losing it”

“Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever serves me, the Father will honor.”

    Jesus says, “the one loving his life is losing it” (both verbs are in the present tense). This reiterates a point made earlier in John’s gospel: those who “love” darkness refuse to come to the Light, to keep doing their evil deeds (3:18-20); they are therefore in “death” because they refuse to come to the one who is the Life (5:24; 11:25-26; cf. 8:51; 14:6). This is a presently ongoing judgment, not something relegated to a future day of recompense. For John, just as the Messianic Age and its Life have broken into the present day (3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40, 47, 54; 10:28), the judgment of the Messiah has also broken into the present day, and condemns those who refuse to come to him (3:18-21, 36; 5:22-24).

    Elsewhere in John’s writings, the life of the Messianic Age — zōē aiōnia, literally “life of the Age,” but often translated as “eternal life” — is always said to be a present blessing (John 3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40, 47, 54; 10:28; 1 John 3:15; 5:11, 13). Thus, when Jesus says that “the one hating his life in this world will keep it for life of the Age,” he still isn’t talking about a future day of recompense. The “world” (Gk: kosmos) is the unbelieving mass, and Jesus’ followers are taken out of it (John 1:10; 3:19; 7:7; 8:23; 9:39; 12:31; 14:17, 19, 27, 30-31; 15:18-19; 16:8-11, 20, 33; 17:6-18, 25; 18:36; 1 John 2:15-17; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:4-5; 5:4-5, 19). This is so that they can experience the “life of the Age,” which is characterized by intimate knowledge of God and Jesus (John 17:3).

    Jesus not only says that his followers must hate their lives in this world; they also have to follow him and go where he goes, and the Father will honor them. Where is he going? This ties into the previous verses, where Jesus says that he’s going to die in order to be glorified (12:23-24). His followers must be willing to hate their lives to the extent that they obediently die like him, and just as the Father will glorify Jesus, he’ll also honor them.

“Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say: ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” The crowd standing there heard it and said that it was thunder. Others said, “An angel has spoken to him.” Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not for mine.”

    Like in the synoptic gospels, Jesus is troubled and wants to be saved from his fate (Mk. 14:32-39; Matt. 26:36-44; Lk. 22:39-44), but in John’s gospel, he’s shown to be far less anguished than in the others. This accords with the overall more exalted depiction of Jesus in this gospel. Even so, John is clear that Jesus’ psychē (the same word translated as “life” at 12:25) is severely distressed (Gk: tetaraktai; cf. John 13:21). When the Father speaks to him, even though he speaks for the crowd’s sake, they don’t understand it; this is because, as John goes on to say, their eyes have been blinded and their hearts hardened (12:39-41).

    “I will drag all to myself!”

“Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die.

    This continues the theme that the Messiah’s judgment has broken into the present day, rather than being relegated to a future day of recompense (3:15-16, 36; 5:22-24; 12:25). “This world” is to be judged “now”! But the result of this judgment is unexpected: “I will drag all people [Gk: pantas helkusō] to myself.” Earlier in John’s gospel, it was said that the Father “drags” (Gk: helkusē) people to Jesus by teaching “all people” (Gk: pantas), so that they come to him and are raised up on the last day (John 6:37-40, 44-45). Does this really mean that every person will eventually believe and be saved? Does that even make sense in light of the rest of John’s gospel?

    In fact, the rest of the gospel does anticipate this. John’s gospel, contrary to Calvinism, insists that God wishes everyone to believe and be saved. God sent John the Baptist to testify about the Light, “so that all people [Gk: pantas] may believe through him” (1:7); the Light enlightens “every person” (Gk: panta anthrōpon), even though some now reject him (1:9-11; cf. 3:19-20). God sent Jesus to save “the world” (1:29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 8:12; 12:46-47; 17:21-25), which in John’s writings always refers to the stubbornly unbelieving mass (see my commentary on John 12:25). God gave Jesus “all flesh” (Gk: pasēs sarkos), and he intends to give them all the “life of the Age” (17:2-3).

    Yet John’s gospel also, contrary to Arminianism, affirms God’s persistence in saving all that he intends to save. All that the Father gives Jesus “will come” to him (Gk: hēxei; future indicative), and he “shall not cast out” anyone who comes to him (6:37). God’s will is that Jesus will lose none of what the Father has given to him, but will raise them all up on the last day (6:39). The Father doesn’t yet drag absolutely everyone to Jesus — indeed, the reason that Judas betrayed him is that God didn’t drag him (6:64-65) — but God will teach “all people” so that they are dragged to Jesus and raised on the last day (6:44-45).

    Therefore, Jesus’ statement (at the climax of his public ministry) that he will “drag all people to myself” isn’t merely an accidental affirmation of universalism; it’s the culmination of John’s repeated statements that God desires all people to believe, and that he will persist until his desire is fulfilled. How does this square with judgment? Once again, John believes that the Messiah’s judgment has broken into the present day (3:18-21, 36; 5:22-24; 12:25). But this judgment isn’t hopeless, because we ourselves were once under the condemnation of “darkness” and “death”! (John 5:24; 12:46; 1 John 2:9; 3:14) The purpose of the Messiah’s judgment is “that all people may honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (5:22-23).

The crowd answered him, “We have heard from the law that the Messiah remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?” Jesus said to them, “The light is in you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may not overtake you. If you walk in the darkness, you do not know where you are going. While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become children of light.”

    The crowd understands that Jesus’ saying about being “lifted up” is a reference to his death (12:32-33). However, they know from their Scriptures that the Messiah’s reign will be forever (Ps. 89:35-37; 110:4; Isa. 9:7; Ezek. 37:25). How then can he be “lifted up”? Rather than answering their question directly, Jesus responds that he, “the light,” won’t be with them for much longer (an implicit confirmation that he’s going to die), and so it would benefit them to pass from darkness to light and become “sons of light” (cf. John 1:9-13) while he’s still with them.

    “He has blinded their eyes”

After Jesus had said this, he departed and hid from them. Although he had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

    John applies Isaiah 53:1 to explain why the crowds didn’t believe in Jesus. This shows that he, like other NT writers, understood the 4th Servant Song (Isa. 52:13-53:12) as a Messianic prophecy (cf. Matt. 8:14-17; Lk. 22:35-38; Ac. 8:26-35; Rom. 10:16; 1 Pet. 2:19-25). Jesus not only departed from the crowd; he actually “was hidden” (Gk: ekrubē) from them. This was presumably to ensure that they wouldn’t (yet) believe in him, and the prophecy would be fulfilled.

And so they could not believe, because Isaiah also said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they might not look with their eyes and understand with their heart and turn — and I would heal them.” Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him.

    Calvinists point to this citation as evidence that God ultimately doesn’t desire some people to believe and be saved. However, in the original context of the prophecy, God is sarcastically telling Israel’s corrupt religious leaders to keep doing what they’re already doing — seeing but not understanding, listening but not hearing — until he accomplishes his purpose of punishing Israel for its sins (Isa. 6:9-13). Afterward, he plans to teach them so that they do see and understand (Isa. 29:10, 18-24; 30:18-22; 35:4-5). The extended context of John’s citation, therefore, actually supports God’s intention of ultimately healing these people.

    John says that Isaiah prophesied this because he “saw his [Jesus’] glory.” There are two possibilities here: either John is talking about his first citation (Isa. 53:1), which contextually speaks of the Messiah’s glory (Isa. 52:13; 53:11-12), or he’s talking about his second citation, which contextually speaks of Yahweh’s glory (Isa. 6:1-3). The first option might be preferred since it’s a prophecy about the Messiah specifically; on the other hand, the second citation is the closest antecedent, and John does see Jesus as having God’s glory (John 1:14; 8:54; 11:4; 17:5). Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional, and John sees Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of both prophecies, both the glory of the Messiah and the glory of God.

Nevertheless many, even of the authorities, believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they did not confess it, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue, for they loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God.

    Just as God, through Isaiah, sarcastically told Israel’s religious leaders to keep on seeing and not understanding, and to dull the minds of the people (Isa. 6:9-10), the Pharisees are dulling the minds of the people by preventing them from confessing belief in Jesus. This is because they loved “the glory of people” (Gk: tēn doxan tōn anthrōpōn) more than “the glory of God” (Gk: tēn doxan tou theou). This is to be contrasted with Jesus, who, per John’s earlier statement, is the glory of God, the same glory which Isaiah saw (John 12:39-41).

    “The word I spoke will judge him”

Then Jesus cried aloud: “Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in the darkness.”

    John uses a common idiom, which means those who believe in Jesus “believe not [only] in him but [also] in him who sent me.” Of course, they do believe in Jesus, but their belief in him points to a deeper belief in the Father, by the Jewish principle that an agent (shaliach) of a person is to be regarded as the sender himself. Likewise, those who see Jesus see the one who sent him (the Father), because the Father is working and speaking in and through him; this is a major theme of John’s gospel (3:34; 5:17-20, 30; 6:38; 7:14-18; 8:16-18, 25-29; 10:37-38; 14:6-11). Finally, Jesus exhorts the crowds once more to believe in him, so that they “don’t stay in the darkness” (Gk: en tē skotia mē meinē); this continues the theme of presently ongoing judgment, and the possibility of rescue from that judgment.

“I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge…”

    Elsewhere in John’s gospel, we’re told that Jesus will be judging the world, and indeed this judgment has already begun (3:18-21; 5:22-30; 9:39; 12:31). He’s using the same idiom as before: he “came not [only] to judge the world but [also] to save the world.” This makes little sense if the judgment is a hopeless judgment, as non-universalists believe, but that’s not what John believes about judgment. The very reason that Jesus judges the world is to drag all people to himself, so that all people honor both him and the Father! (John 5:22-23; 12:31-32) Furthermore, this passage confirms that “the world” which Jesus came to save includes those who now stubbornly reject him, contrary to Calvinism.

    Jesus does talk about a judgment that will take place “on the last day,” the same day that all who are dragged to him (i.e., every person) will be raised (John 6:39-40, 44; 11:24). Those who reject Jesus will be judged, not by him, but by his “word.” The word krinō, “judge,” doesn’t necessarily imply punishment; it can simply mean to determine a course of action, or to deem someone right or wrong (e.g., Luke 7:43; 12:57; John 7:24; 8:15; Acts 3:13; 4:19; 13:46; 15:19; 16:4, 15; 20:16; 21:25; 25:25; 26:8; 27:1; Rom. 2:3; 14:5, 13; 1 Cor. 2:2; 7:37; 11:13; 2 Cor. 2:1; 5:14; Tit. 3:12).

“…for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.”

    Once again, we’re told that Jesus speaks the very words of God, because God has given a command to him about what to say (cf. John 3:34; 5:30; 7:14-18; 8:25-28; 14:9-10). The “word” (Gk: logos) which will judge on the last day those who reject Jesus is therefore the same as God’s “commandment” (Gk: entolē), and this commandment is “life of the Age.” When Jesus raises everyone the Father has given him (i.e., all people) on the last day, those who rejected him in this life will be judged by the word that he spoke, and they’ll be shown to have been wrong. This judgment, however, will result in “life of the Age” — they’ll come to know God and Jesus, whom they formerly rejected (John 17:3).

    Conclusion

    At the climax of Jesus’ public ministry in the gospel of John, he makes a surprising claim: “if I’m lifted up from the earth, I’ll drag all people to myself” (12:32). Universalists take this as evidence that Jesus will ultimately save everyone, but is that correct? As it happens, the extended context in John’s gospel supports such an interpretation! God desires everyone to be saved through belief in Jesus (1:7, 9, 29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 8:12; 12:46-47; 17:2, 21-25), and he’ll persist in this intention until it’s fulfilled (6:37-40, 44-45).

    Both the life and the judgment of the Messianic Age have broken into the present time (3:18-21, 36; 5:22-24; 12:25, 31), and the purpose of judgment is to bring all people to Jesus (5:22-23; 12:31-32). There will be a future judgment on “the last day,” when everyone is raised (6:39-40, 44; 11:24), but the result of this judgment will be “life of the Age” for everyone who now rejects Jesus (12:47-50; cf. 17:2-3). Thus, like Paul, John (and Jesus, if John’s gospel faithfully records his teachings) believed in the eventual restoration of all God’s enemies, and connected this to the resurrection of the dead (cf. Rom. 11:11-36; 1 Cor. 15:20-28, 51-57; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 5:10).