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 (next week): 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).

Who are Jesus' teachings for?

    According to most Christians, Jesus’ teachings as recorded in the four gospel accounts are useful for all believers. However, hyper-dispensationalists claim that Jesus’ teachings are meant only for ethnic Jews, “the circumcision” (Rom. 15:8), and aren’t applicable to gentiles. I once held strongly to this view, as you can see from earlier posts on my blog. [1] Although I still think a distinction should be drawn between the teachings of Paul and the other apostles — see my recent posts on “Challenges to Dispensationalism” — I don’t think this distinction is as severe as hyper-dispensationalists claim. What does this mean for Jesus’ teachings? Are they for us, or just for ethnic Jews?

    Jesus and Jesus’ teachings

    First, let’s look at Jesus’ own claims about his teachings. In Matthew’s gospel, when he sends out his disciples, he tells them not to go on the road that leads to gentiles, nor to go into Samaritan cities, but “go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:5-6). When speaking to a Phoenician woman, he says, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). This draws upon the imagery, from the Hebrew Bible, of Israelites as lost sheep without a shepherd (Isa. 53:6; Jer. 23:1-2; 50:6; Ezek. 34:5-6); the Messiah, Jesus, was promised to be a shepherd for these lost sheep (Ezek. 34:23-24). Furthermore, the Johannine Jesus says that salvation is “from the Jews” (Gk: ek tōn ioudaiōn; John 4:22).

    These handful of verses, which are often prooftexted by hyper-dispensationalists, should be read more carefully in their context. Just because Jesus sent his disciples out to Israel doesn’t mean that his teachings aren’t applicable to gentiles; that’s a non sequitur. Later on, he did explicitly dispatch his disciples to “all the gentiles” (Gk: panta ta ethnē; Matt. 28:19), using the same word ethnoi (“nations”) used in 10:5. If his sending of his disciples to Israel alone proves that his teachings are for Israel alone, then his sending of his disciples to all the gentiles proves that his teachings are for gentiles (but really, neither argument is valid).

    In the second instance, the context shows that Jesus was testing the gentile woman’s faith. He refers to the Israelites as “children,” teknoi, while referring to gentiles as “dogs,” kunaria (15:26). The woman answers that even dogs eat crumbs from the table of their master, where the children also eat (15:27). Jesus responds, “O woman, your faith is great!” (15:28) In context, Jesus’ mission to the lost sheep refers not specifically to his teachings, but to his miracles, and in fact he does perform a miracle to heal the gentile woman’s daughter (15:28). This proves that Jesus’ miracles, during his earthly ministry, were primarily for Israel (cf. Matt. 15:29-31), though he was also willing to heal faithful gentiles; it tells us nothing about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of his teachings for gentiles.

    In fact, throughout Matthew’s gospel, Jesus anticipates an expansion of scope for his ministry that will include gentiles. When a faithful gentile comes to him for help, he predicts that many “sons of the kingdom” — that is, Israelites — will be cast out, while “many from east and west” will take their place in the kingdom (Matt. 8:10-12; cf. 22:1-14). Jesus “will announce justice to the gentiles... and in his name gentiles will hope” (12:15-21). Though sent to Israel, he performs a miracle for a gentile woman (15:21-28). The kingdom of God is taken from the Jewish religious leaders and given to “another nation” (Gk: ethnei; 21:33-45). This culminates in Jesus sending his disciples to “all the gentiles” (28:19).

    The same thing is found in the other gospel accounts. Mark records the same incident where Jesus saved a gentile woman’s daughter (7:24-30), and in the disputed long ending, Jesus tells his disciples to go out to “the whole world” (Gk: ton kosmon hapanta) and preach the good news to “every creation” (Gk: pasē tē ktisei; 16:15). In the Luke-Acts corpus, Jesus is said to be both “a light for revelation to gentiles and glory to your people Israel” (Lk. 2:32); he tells his disciples to go first to Jerusalem, then both Judea and Samaria, and finally “to the extreme parts of the earth” (Ac. 1:8), to preach to “all the gentiles, having begun from Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:47). They first preach to diaspora Jews of all nations in Jerusalem (Ac. 2), then to Judeans and Hellenists across the land (11:19-20), and it’s divinely revealed that God will accept gentiles who “work righteousness” without requiring them to become ethnic Jews (10:9-11:18).

    In the gospel of John, although Jesus says that salvation is “from the Jews” because the temple for worship was in Jerusalem (4:20-22), he anticipates a soon-coming time when true worship will no longer be only in Jerusalem — by extension, salvation will no longer be only “from the Jews” (4:21, 23-24). The Johannine Jesus anticipates the extension of his ministry to “other sheep which aren’t from this fold,” which will become “one flock” (10:16). At the end of his public ministry, “some [God-fearing] Greeks” seek Jesus and aren’t turned away (12:20-22). John’s gospel never says anything about the gentiles, ethnoi, explicitly, but it does talk about an expansion of Jesus’ ministry beyond the Jews.

    Paul and Jesus’ teachings

    Jesus anticipated that his ministry would expand beyond ethnic Jews, and even hyper-dispensationalists can’t deny that gentiles who “work righteousness” can be saved under his teachings without becoming ethnic Jews (Ac. 10:34-35). However, they claim that Paul’s audience isn’t under Jesus’ teachings; after all, in his gospel, salvation isn’t dependent upon works at all (e.g., Eph. 2:8-10), which is a legitimate difference between him and the other apostles. But what did Paul have to say about the usefulness of the teachings of Jesus while he was on earth?

    The clearest teaching about this is in the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus). There, Paul says that those who don’t listen to “these things” and “the sound words our Lord Jesus Christ” are “conceited, knowing nothing, having an unhealthy attitude about controversy and disputes over words,” from which come all manner of sins (1 Tim. 6:3-4). The preceding context suggests that Paul is referring to Jesus’ words as recorded in the gospel accounts, because he quotes the exact words of Jesus as recorded in Luke 10:7 (Gk: axios ho ergatēs tou misthou autou), referring to them as “the Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18). Elsewhere, he says that “every Scripture” is useful for teaching and moral instruction (2 Tim. 3:16-17), which must therefore include Jesus’ teachings in his ministry.

    The best case for strict hyper-dispensationalism could be made if the Pastoral Epistles aren’t actually written by Paul, which is ironic, since hyper-dispensationalists are mostly absolute Biblical inerrantists who must regard the Pastorals as authentic. However, even in Paul’s undisputed epistles, he assumes the usefulness of Jesus’ teachings for his audience.

    In one place, he cites a command of “the Lord” that a husband and wife shouldn’t be divorced, and that the wife should stay unmarried if she is divorced, which Paul considers to be binding on his audience (1 Cor. 7:10-11). This command is found in all three synoptic gospel accounts (Mk. 10:2-12; Matt. 19:3-12; Lk. 16:18). While it’s technically possible that Paul has a different command in mind, one that was revealed only to him, Ockham’s Razor militates against such a possibility. We shouldn’t postulate a second commandment when we know of an identical one from the gospel accounts.

    But didn’t Paul say that Jesus was “a minister of the circumcision” (Rom. 15:8)? Yes, but prooftexting this in favor of hyper-dispensationalism ignores the context. Paul says that “Christ received you... for [Gk: gar] Christ has become a servant of the circumcision, on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the gentiles might glorify God” (15:7-9). He then goes on to cite many Scriptures that prove the gentiles would come to worship God through the Messiah (15:10-12). Paul’s point, therefore, is to show that Christ’s ministry did indeed have the secondary purpose of bringing in the gentiles, though he was primarily a servant of Israel.

    Two different ‘good news’?

    Any unbiased reader of the Scriptures should agree that there are differences between Paul and the other writers of the New Testament. For Jesus and the other apostles, works are a prerequisite of salvation along with faith (Matt. 5:17-20; 16:27; 23:1-3; John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:10f; 1 John 2:3-6; 5:1-4; Jas. 2:10-24), but for Paul, salvation is by grace through faith alone (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5; 11:5-6; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Php. 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4-5), and works are a result of this (2 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 5:22-25; Eph. 2:10; Php. 1:6; 2:12-13; Tit. 2:11-14; 3:8). For John, the message through which one is saved is simply that Jesus is the Messiah (John 14:15-24; 15:10-12; 20:31; 1 John 2:3-11; 3:18-24; 4:7-5:5), but for Paul, the message through which one is saved is that the Messiah died for our sins and was raised on the third day (1 Cor. 15:1-5; cf. Rom. 10:9).

    Despite these differences, I’m no longer convinced that this requires two entirely separate “good news” or gospels (Gk: euangelion) for Paul and the other apostles. Yes, Paul spoke of “my good news” (Rom. 2:16; 16:25; Eph. 3:1-3; Col. 1:25-26; 2 Tim. 2:8), but he also spoke of “our good news” (2 Cor. 4:3; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:14), “the good news of God” (Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 1 Thess. 2:2, 8-9), and most often “the good news of Christ” (Rom. 15:19; 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 4:4; 9:13; Gal. 1:7; Phil. 1:27; 1 Thess. 3:2; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8). “The good news of Jesus Christ” is what was also proclaimed by the gospel accounts (Mk. 1:1). Paul says that the same good news was proclaimed by him and the other apostles (1 Cor. 15:1-11). “The good news” is for “every believing-one, Jewish first and also Greek,” not just for some believing-ones (Rom. 1:16).

    Furthermore, hyper-dispensationalists claim that the other apostles must have never truly understood Paul’s gospel — otherwise they would’ve been part of “the body of Christ” and not “the Israel of God.” But Paul himself, though he emphasizes that his good news comes from Christ alone and no other human (Gal. 1:6-12), also says that he “laid before [the other apostles] the good news that I proclaim among the gentiles” to make sure that it wasn’t “for nothing” (2:2). This implies that the other apostles, even if they didn’t preach Paul’s gospel, certainly knew about it. In the same passage, he says that he preached the same faith that he used to persecute (1:22-24), and nowhere indicates that he ever changed what he preached. [2]

    Paul’s gospel is said to have been “a secret” in times past (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26), which hyper-dispensationalists appeal to as proof that it can’t have been taught before him. Yet this “secret” is said to have been contained in the Old Testament prophets (Rom. 16:25-26; cf. Gal. 3:8); his “good news” is “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The good news that Paul proclaims was made manifest not by Paul himself, but by “the appearance of our Savior, Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:9-10; cf. 1 Pet. 1:20).

    How then can we explain the clear differences between Paul and the other apostles? One way is simply to reject absolute Biblical inerrancy; every Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching and moral instruction (2 Tim. 3:16-17), but never claims to be absolutely without error or human influence. Maybe the apostles simply disagreed on comparatively minor issues, like whether works come logically before or after salvation, while agreeing on the larger “good news.” [3] The other possible solution, which I favor, is the one I set forth in my recent post about dispensationalism: perhaps the writings of the other apostles are to God’s people as a whole, while Paul’s writings are to the subset of God’s people who understand the true meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection, who are therefore charged with “the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18-20).

    Conclusion

    Hyper-dispensationalists draw a severe distinction between Paul’s teachings and the teachings of Jesus (while he was on earth) and his disciples. This distinction, although supported by some clear differences between Paul and the other apostles, is contradicted in several places by Jesus and Paul themselves. Jesus’ teachings aren’t only for ethnic Jews, but were considered by Paul to be useful for his audience, as well. A sharp distinction between the “good news” preached by Paul and the other apostles can’t be drawn, and the evident differences between Paul and the other apostles can be explained in other ways. For these reasons, even though I used to strongly argue for hyper-dispensationalism, I don’t think it’s a sustainable view in light of the whole testimony of the Scriptures.

______________________________

[1] See my series of posts on the topic of “Pauline Dispensationalism.”

[2] This context suggests that the apparent distinction between a “good news of the uncircumcised” and “of the circumcised” at Gal. 2:7 should be understood as what Wallace calls the “Genitive of Direction” (for which he gives the example of Rom. 8:36, “sheep for slaughter”). Paul was given to preach the good news to the gentiles, while Peter was given to preach it to ethnic Jews. This is supported by the context: he goes on to say (2:8) that the same one (God) was working in Peter “for a commission to the circumcised” (Gk: eis apostolēn tēs peritomēs) and in himself “to the gentiles” (Gk: eis ta ethnē). In the next verse (2:9), he says that he and the other apostles agreed that he should go “to the gentiles” (Gk: eis ta ethnē) and them “to the circumcised” (Gk: eis tēn peritomēn). The emphasis is on the difference in direction, not in type, of the commission.

[3] It’s also possible that — in the case of works — there’s no contradiction at all. Paul may simply be emphasizing the divine point of view, by which our works are the result of God working in us, while the other apostles emphasize the human point of view. The other apostles do also say, in some places, that our works are the result of God and Christ in us (Heb. 8:10-11; 10:14-17; 1 John 4:10-12, 17-19; cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 24:7; 31:33-34; Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-28).