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 (next week): 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.