Welcome to The Kingdom Come Where Christ is King!
Eccesiology Eschatology Soteriology Bibliology Christology Pneumatology
Hamartiology Hermeneutics History Apologetics Humor Website
 
Welcome to The Kingdom Come Where Christ is King!
Home

Context for Universalistic Proof-texts

As TKC has been doing, we wanted to offer a strong rebuff to the universalism that has crept into the preterist circles.  Preterist Universalism (PU) has been trotted out under various sub-headings, from Transmillennialism, Comprehensive Grace, Common Grace, Infinite Grace, Comprehensive Reconciliationism, to the recent highjacking of the term Pantelism. Advocates of PU have complained bitterly that they are misrepresented in our responses even though much of the material we address has come from their own websites.  They complain when we will not let them take over our websites with their reduction of Christ's PRECIOUS GRACE, into their form of common or cheapened grace.  If they want to write opposing articles, let them do so on their own stagnant websites and forums.  And if the need arises, we'll respond.

In keeping with the strong response against PU, Erick Blore has written a fine series of articles I asked him to share with us here on TKC.  I will present these articles as one package, thus allowing the reader to gain a more comprehensive look at the subject, not to mention you can print the series out as one package.

Also, I have added a link to this series to the The End of Preterist Universalism where the reader can find writings opposing PU by other preterists writers such as Sam Frost, David Curtis, Don Preston, and myself (and no, you PU that have said such before, I offer my writing against PU along with these other men, not because I want to see it associated with theirs, but because I wanted to gather a collection of writings specifically opposing PU -- thus I now add Erick Blore's writings to that collection). 

So, without further delay, I present to you, Erick Blore's excellent treatment of the "Context for Universalistic Proof-texts"

Contexts for Universalistic Proof-texts: Part 1 (1 Jn. 2:2)
 

            The purpose of this article is to offer a valid alternative interpretation to a verse that is often used to support the idea that Christ’s death on the cross was for each and every human being.  A better approach is to see the multi-national scope of Christ’s work according to the promise made to Abraham (Gen. 12:3 cf. Rev.7:9-10; 22:2), and the first century authors combating a spirit of Jewish superiority and covenant exclusivity based on God’s choosing of their nation.  Though Israel was God’s chosen nation that was never meant to imply every person in that nation was chosen (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39, 44; Rm. 9:8; 11:2), nor that God never planned to reveal himself in and through other nationalities – i.e. including Gentiles in the New Covenant “Israel” (Eph. 2:19).

 

            The two respective views (universal atonement, and particular redemption) have a long history, and are not new to the current preterist movement, but both can affect eschatological views about life for mankind in the New Covenant age and so it is important to get both the CROSS as well as the parousia correct.  Indeed, where we fall short in understanding the one we will inevitably fall short in the other, and our message to the world will be at best compromised, and at worse yet another false testimony about the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.  It is my opinion that the view labeled “Limited Atonement” or “Particular Redemption” is most in line with the scope of Scripture, and the big picture of God’s redemption of mankind in Christ according to the promise made to Abraham.  The following will simply seek to establish context for one of the more common proof-texts cited against this view.

 
“…and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2)
 

Though John (an Apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2:9)) does not supply a particular name or church to which he is writing, one can deduce from the text that it was a Jewish audience – and thus from a largely anti-Gentile culture- from the following verses:

 

a)  4:11-14  --- an emphasis on loving fellow Christians “friends” based on Christ’s being the Savior of “the world” for “whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God.”  These verses are reminiscent of the same author’s earlier account of Christ’s rebuking of the Pharisee Nicodemus (“Israel’s teacher”) when Christ taught him that God sent His Son because he loved the WHOLE world (i.e. not just Israel) that WHOSOEVER believed in Him would be born from above – not necessarily born a Jew (cf. Jn. 3:16).  The Apostle John’s ministry in general was to Jews (Gal. 2:9).  It is not my opinion that the “world” of John 1 is limited to the Jewish world but the exact opposite.  

 

b) 2:22-24; 5:9-13; --- the audience was under attack by those antichrist’s who taught among other things that it was possible to have the Father and yet deny the Son and/or to deny that Jesus was that particular hoped for Son/Messiah.  Who else but Jews would teach that they had “the Father,” but not the Son, or that Jesus was not the long awaited Messiah?  Even today we see these are particularly “Jewish” critiques of Christian theology. 

 

c) 4:2-3 --- another heresy addressed by John is “docetism” (the belief that Christ only appeared to be incarnate and never truly died on the cross).  Some believe this heresy is associated with the early Gnostic sects, and these sects are thought to have started in Samaria with Simon “Magnus.”  However many believe that Gnosticism is Jewish in origin.

 

d)   The false teachers were at one time associates of John and the other Jewish Apostles who “went out from us” (2:19).  Again, John’s primary location for ministry was in Jerusalem to the Jews (Gal. 2:1, 9)

 

            All of the previous considerations add to the context of the universalistic proof-text, and should not be quickly discounted.  As Paul often encouraged the Gentiles through these types of statements it would be reasonable to assume that the Apostles to the Jews would seek also to correct the brethren of their own nationality for their bias attitudes (as Christ did with Nicodemus).  Moreover, we also see in the same epistle John implicitly teaching a PARTICUAL REDEMPTION.  In 1 Jn. 3:16 he states, “We know love by this, that He laid down His life for US; and WE ought to lay down our lives for the BRETHREN.”  The “us” is clearly qualified as the Church upon which John basis his exhortation to “love the brethren.”  Moreover, in 4:9-11 we see a parallel passage that states, “By this the love of God was made manifest in US, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that WE might live through Him.  In this is love, not that WE loved Him but that He loved US and sent His Son to be a propitiation for OUR sins.  Beloved if God so loved US, WE ought to love ONE ANOTHER.”

            Notice also how the “propitiation” spoken of here is for the Church alone – compare this with the “propitiation” spoken of in the passage under consideration (2:2).  And, yet another time when “propitiation” is used in the New Testament in a multi-national sense (only for those who have faith) is in Rm. 3:25, 29.  In fact, even the doctrine of propitiation taken from the Old Testament sacrificial system is based on a “limited atonement,” for the High Priest sacrificed not for every individual on earth, but only himself, his household, and those taking part in the chosen nation of God, to make atonement for “the people” – now the spiritual elect “descendants of Abraham”  (Lev. 16:17; Heb. 2:17; 9:15; 13:10; Rm. 9:24,11:5).  

  

            This repeated emphasis on loving the brethren (the Jews were tempted to hate their Gentile brethren) is followed by 4:14 which states, “We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the whole world.  WHOEVER confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God.”  This is another verse reminiscent of Christ’s exhortation to Nicodemus that one must be “born again,” that God so loved “the world” that “whosoever believes in Him” will have everlasting life.  This type of language is used often in the Bible in a multi-national sense, such as in Romans 10:12-13 when Paul states, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of ALL [nationalities], abounding in riches to ALL [people from all nations] who call on Him; for ‘WHOEVER calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”

            With these considerations it is clear that John was writing to Jews who themselves were assaulted by false Jewish teachings and tempted to look down upon their Gentile “dog” brethren, and this was the impetus for 1 Jn. 2:2 which teaches that Christ’s “propitiation” or “mercy seat” was not only for the “inner court” citizens of Heaven (the Jewish Christians), but also for those once consigned to the outer court of the Gentiles.  It by no means necessarily teaches or even implies (nor can it be taken as such without contradicting John himself)  that Christ expiated the sins of every human being, but rather the sins of  “the people” from all nations according to the multi-national promise made to Abraham.  No propitiation means no expiation which means no salvation from sins and no reconciliation or even intended reconciliation of every human being.

            As the lamb in the Old Testament was only for the covenant community, so too is the Lamb today only for the New Covenant community member no matter what nationality.  And as John records Christ explicitly telling Jews that his death was ONLY for His sheep (of which the unbelieving Pharisees were not, cf. Jn. 10:11, 26) it seems unlikely that in this one verse he suddenly changed his tune from what He taught in his gospel and the rest of this epistle, which was in fact a particular redemption.  Let those who see Christ’s work in a universalistic scope please dispense with using this particular verse as support, for it in no way upholds such an idea.  Instead, let us ALL give glory to God that though we are Gentiles, Christ’s work was done on our behalf as well.

 

Erick Blore

 
Contexts for “Universalistic” Texts - Part 2 (1 Tim. 2:4-6)
 
 
            The purpose of this article (like the previous one) is to offer a valid alternative interpretation to a verse that is often used to support the idea that Christ’s death on the cross was for each and every human being.  It is my conviction that a better approach is to see the multi-national scope of Christ’s work according to the promise made to Abraham (Gen. 12:3 cf. Rev. 7:9-10), and the first century authors combating a spirit of Jewish superiority and covenant exclusivity based on God’s choosing their nation.  Though Israel was God’s chosen nation that was never meant to imply every person in that nation was chosen (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39, 44; Rm. 9:8; 11:2), nor that God never planned to reveal himself in and through other nationalities – i.e. including Gentiles in the New Covenant “Israel” (Eph. 2:19).
            The two respective views (universal atonement, and particular redemption) have a long history, and are not new to the current preterist movement, but both can affect eschatological views about life for mankind in the New Covenant age and so it is important to get both the CROSS as well as the parousia correct.  Indeed, where we fall short in understanding the one we will inevitably fall short in the other, and our message to the world will be at best compromised, and at worse yet another false testimony about the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.  It is my opinion that the view labeled “Limited Atonement” or “Particular Redemption” is most in line with the scope of Scripture, and the big picture of God’s redemption of mankind in Christ according to the promise made to Abraham.  The following will simply seek to establish context for one of the most common proof-texts cited against this view.
 
 
 
“… [God] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  For there is one God and Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time...” 1 Tim. 2:4-6
 
 

            Can we through context establish that Paul is not implicitly teaching a universal redemption?  I believe so.  First, Paul is writing to Timothy, a half Jewish disciple (Act 16:1) sent to minister to the Ephesian church to which this letter was sent (1 Tim. 1:3).  Earlier Paul had Timothy circumcised because of the constant contact he would have with Jews in Derbe and Lystra, and the ethno-centric Jew of the first century in Ephesus would no doubt also have a serous aversion to Timothy without this drastic step being taken.  Also, the Jews who were already despised by the local Gentile worshippers of Diana (Act. 19:34) would not be so warm-hearted toward these pagans, nor the local authorities that thought little of this “sect.”  Paul saw that Timothy would be the right guy to help bridge some ethnic and theological gaps in this city, and so stayed him there to minister and rebuke those who wanted to focus on genealogies and “be teachers of the law” (1 Tim. 1:7) to the spiritual detriment of the poor Gentile Christians.

 
            We know that this community of believers started out largely Jewish, with about twelve disciples who were baptized by John (I assume “the Baptist” (Act. 19:3,7)). For three months Paul taught the kingdom in the synagogues (Act. 19:8), to which many Jews responded in faith. After some hardened their hearts he spent two years “reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus,” from which we can deduce that some Greeks as well as Jews may have begun to fellowship together (Act. 19:10 -20). By virtue of the fact that Paul later devotes a whole letter almost exclusively to the Gentiles in Ephesus (Eph. 2:11-12) correcting their notion that they are second class citizens in the kingdom (as opposed to first class Jewish believers), we know that the Gentile numbers would eventually be as significant as the Jewish.

            A weaker point, yet one worth considering is that we also see Revelations 2:6 in which Jesus compliments this church in the last days for hating the practices of the Nicolaitans - a group thought by some to have been started (though it cannot be proved) by a “fallen from grace” Jewish proselyte deacon Nicholas (Act 6:5). If it were assumed that Nicholas was the founder of this group, he (and his ilk from Jerusalem) may have been zealous for the Law - having undergone circumcision at a later age to join the Jewish community (contrast this with Timothy who was circumcised later to spread the message of grace). If this is the case, we must ask how did this church come to “hate” such legalistic deeds (as contrasted with licentious deeds of the Neo-Balaams in Pergamos (Rev. 2:14-15 both of which the Lord hated)). What was it that transformed this church from a legalistic Jewish dominated community (this can be demonstrated without reference to the Nicolaitans), to one that apparently “hated” legalism?


 

            As I stated, Paul left the right man for the job in the city to deal with the tensions between Jew and Gentile believers - the young man Timothy.  Who else could bridge such gaps?  He was in essence Jew and Gentile, circumcised out of love for the Jew, spreading the gospel with Paul out of love for the Gentile as well.  He was mentored by Paul who emphasized his glorious ministry to the Gentiles (e.g. 2 Tm. 1:11; 4:17). He was not predisposed to hate either group, nor be ethno-centric, for he was a “mixed breed.” Timothy was taught the Old Testament by his grandmother and mother from his youth (2 Tm. 3:15) and so no Jewish sectarian could stump him with the Scriptures. This was the first step in nurturing this hurting church.


 

            Secondly, Paul wrote a letter primarily devoted to the Gentiles in Ephesus in which he explains to them that they were not afterthoughts in God’s redemption plan, nor born-again illegitimately, but were God’s very own “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before hand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).  He goes on to explain to them that they are now joined to the “commonwealth of Israel” (2:12) as one Body with the Jewish believers.  He repeatedly emphasizes this point, calling them “fellow citizens” (2:19) and reminds them that of God he was predestined to be a minister to the Gentiles (1:9; 3:1-13).  He admonishes them not to loose heart over their tribulations, and informs them that for this reason, “I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom THE WHOLE FAMILY in heaven and on earth is named” that they would be able to realize how much God loves His Gentile children (3:19). He realizes there are problems going on between them and the Jewish Christians and so explicitly tells them to do their part to behave in this “one body” with “one God and Father of ALL [Jews and Gentiles] who is above ALL [people from every nation], and through ALL [Jew and Gentile believer], and in YOU ALL [Christians from the JEWS and GENTILES]” (4:4-6) (unless one believes that God is in every individual, but I think I‘ve shown from the context that that is untenable - or at least an unlikely interpretation).


 

            Lastly, Paul wrote specifically to Timothy about how to handle among others the Jewish (or Jewish sympathizing) Christians in Ephesus who “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm” (1 Tm.1:7-8).   Timothy was instructed to “wage the good warfare” at Ephesus with the pure gospel of Christ in these last times when some would depart from the faith and speak lies to others, “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1:18, 4:1-3).  This then is the broader context of Paul’s first letter to Timothy, and quite frankly the broader context of much of the first century, i.e. ethno-centric Jews consigning Gentiles to second-class citizens in God’s kingdom (keeping them in their “Gentile court” outside the temple) and Jesus, Paul, et al. correcting them with doctrines such as the one to the ethno-centric Jewish teacher of Israel Nicodemus, “for God so loves the WORLD [Jews and Gentiles] that WHOSOEVER [Jew or Gentile] believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16).


 

            Consequently, why would it be thought strange when we see that in Eph. 4:4-6 “all” means Jew and Gentile Christians, and that the broader context of Paul’s letter to Timothy in Ephesus could easily support this contention? Moreover, the qualifiers to the “all” of 1 Tim. 2:4 are blaring out at us in 3D Technicolor.  Paul shows that he means all TYPES of people when he immediately adds, “for kings and all who are in authority.”  Now if Paul simply meant all individuals, wouldn’t that necessarily cover the king? But the point is that they were to “pray for those [in this case Gentiles] who persecute you.”  If Paul literally meant for them to pray for every individual (after all that’s who God supposedly wants to save) wouldn’t that require knowing everybody, or at least a lot of time on one‘s hands. I must admit, I pray for a lot of people, but I can’t imagine that God is going to grant my request to save EVERY individual.  But on top of this, Paul - after telling them to pray for ALL [types of] MEN (like GENTILE kings) -- reiterates to these ethno-centric legalists that this pleases God who wants ALL [types of] MEN (and woman) to be saved, and how does he put the last nail in the coffin of their bigoted, discriminatory, anti-authority/anti-Gentile prayer life? First, in verse 5, he appeals to the mediatorial work of Christ for ALL men (and where have we heard about this ethno-inclusive gospel that was to be testified about “in due time” more clearly than in Ephesians 3:1-7 regarding this “mystery” concerning the Gentile elects’ redemption). He further appeals to his own Christ commissioned Apostolic ministry, “for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle - I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying - a teacher OF THE GENTILES in faith and truth.” (2:7).


 

            In light of the context, universalists ought to take another look at what Paul’s point is in this particular verse.  Paul saying, “God wants SOME to be saved” would completely defeat his point, and add fuel to the fire already in Ephesus (who already believed God wanted some to be saved - i.e. the faithful JEW). As preterists, we of all people know that words like “world” “earth” “all” etc. are often qualified by the context. Is it possible that the same thing is going on in 1 Tm. 2:4?  I believe I have provided sufficient contextual evidence based on exegesis to support the case for a muli-national understanding of this passage and do hope that as three more parts in this series remain those holding to concepts of universal redemption based on these passages are rethinking the use of these passages for supporting their beliefs. 


 

Erick Blore      

        

Contexts for “Universalistic” Texts: part 3 (Is. 53:6)
 

Proof Text:  “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”  (Is. 53:6)

 

            This is the third article in a series meant to engage the contexts of the verses that are sited in support of a universal atonement/reconciliation.  I am seeking only to address the most popular texts in an effort to be brief - the first article was regarding 1 Jn. 2:2, and the second 1 Tm. 2:4-6.  To reiterate my position I am of the conviction that Christ died for all peopleS without distinction NOT all people without exception, and I believe that the Scriptures support this; however, there are not a few verses that are often brought up against the doctrine of particular redemption that must be addressed.  Therefore, what I’m seeking to provide is a remedy for the Preterist Universalist proof-text through Biblical context.

 

            Conceptually, it is not odd for the preterist to see “global” or “world”  language used in a limited sense, and logically it is easy enough to see that one could refer to every people without singling out every person, but the task remains to show that the Scriptural evidence (particularly in regards to these “universalistic” texts) is more in line with an ethnic-inclusive redemption plan than a omni-individual plan.  Admittedly, these articles are not explicitly arguing the positive case FOR particular redemption, but simply demonstrating that preterist Universalists are overlooking key contextual clues for understanding these most beloved verses leading to a disingenuous representation of the Biblical authors’ original intent. 

            From the perspective of this “particularist” the glorious mystery revealed in the New Testament that took the limits off of covenant union with YHWH and extended it to all nations must now unfortunately be spoken of as “limited” in contrast to what the New Testament authors never meant to teach, i.e. that reconciliation was guaranteed to every individual regardless of faith in God’s only begotten Son.  It is my contention that it is more correct to speak of the classic doctrine of “Particular Redemption” as extensive, and universal reconciliation in all its forms as “hyper”-extensive – that is, taking the New Testament doctrine of a multi-national Covenant “Israel” rooted in faith and redefining it as an omni-individual Covenant enjoyed regardless of faith.  The passage in question cannot be used to support “hyper-extensivism,” yet as we will discover, it is glorious in its own right as a precious promise of an inclusive salvation to come with the Christ of God who inherited the nations.  

            To begin, we must ask, “What would compel a student of God’s word to consider that Isaiah 53:6 may be speaking in terms of the elect from all nations, and not universal redemption for all individuals, or even redemption for all physical Jews?”  In answer will note that there are several reasons, the first coming from the previous chapter when the author states, “YHWH has made bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (52:10).  And in verse 15 he continues, “So shall he sprinkle [or “startle”] MANY nations.  KINGS shall shut their mouths at Him…”  The “kings’” astonishment over the news of Christ demonstrates that Isaiah has in mind a world-wide dissemination of the gospel, and we know that the ultimate prophetic fulfillment of these verses was accomplished through the first century missionary journeys of Paul et. al., and so very early on Isaiah sets the stage for an international “report” that will astonish the nations.  Similarly, we saw in 1 Tm. 2:2 Paul requesting that prayers and intercessions be offered for these kings so that among other things the Church could in essence be fruitful and multiply among the Gentiles (Paul’s target audience (2:7)). 

     

            Another clue in discerning the message of Isaiah 53:6 is found in 53:11, 12  “By His knowledge My Servant will justify MANY for He will bear THEIR iniquities…And He bore the sin of MANY, and made intercession for the transgressors”?  The Septuagint states it as follows:

 

 “The Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to show him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.  Therefore he shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death; and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.”

 

            We must ask ourselves if “many” has now been redefined apart from the “nations” it was previously referring to - the “heathen” which the Son would inherit (Ps. 2:8).  It may be possible that it is a different qualitative group than the “many nations” in 52:15, but we must not be too hasty in making such a separation.  We find keys to unlocking this mystery from several New Testament passages.  The language we find in Isaiah sounds very similar to that of Heb. 9:28 regarding Christ bearing the sins of the “many.”  And, who is this “many” that Christ died for in Hebrews?  We don’t have to wonder, or guess, the author of Hebrews tells us plainly within the discourse, he states, “For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified [i.e. set apart for salvation of the soul (Heb. 10:39)].”  In Hebrews it is only those marked out for salvation through Christ’s Priesthood that is included in the congregation of the “many.” 

 

            It is this “many” that Christ has in mind when he institutes the Lord’s Supper, saying, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mt. 26:28 cf.20:28).  This forgiveness of sins only came to those who “drank the blood” and “ate the flesh” of the Son of Man, and no others.  “Many” in this case is therefore an extensive term in regards to its multi-national connotation, but it’s also an exclusive term in its reference to those in Christ.  We see Paul using the term “many” primarily in a multi-national sense in Rm. 5:15 when talking about Adamic sin being spread to all peopleS.  In a verse that is classically (yet hastily in my opinion) applied to every individual Paul states, “For if by one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace of the One Man, Jesus Christ abound to [the] many…For as by one man’s   disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience [the] many will be made righteous (Rm. 5:15, 19).

 

            Paul is teaching nothing new here, but simply reiterating Isaiah’s doctrine that “All we [every race] like sheep have gone astray” (cf. 1 Pt. 1:2; 2:21-25 spoken to the Jewish “elect”).  The Jews were a chosen race but they like the Gentiles were under sin, and God “does not show [racial] partiality” (Rm. 2:11; 3:9).  As a Calvinist one might be temped to state that “the many” is a word that “limits” the work of Christ, but technically in context it was a word used by the authors to “extend” the work of Christ to nations beyond Israel.  But again, to make an ethnically inclusive term for all peopleS into an individually inclusive term for all people is not being fair to the original intent of the apostle Paul’s doctrine of the “mystery,” i.e. that the Gentiles (a qualitative NOT quantitative term) would be part of “Israel” (a covenantal term).        

            Someone may say, “In Is. 54 Isaiah speaks of God as being “Israel’s Redeemer,” and who but every national fleshly Jew would he be referring to?  Certainly this at least means that regardless of the number of Gentiles at least ALL fleshly Israelis will be reconciled, that Christ is the Redeemer of ALL physical Israel?”  But is this really the case?  No!  Again, we find out in the New Testament that the people associated with Isaiah are ONLY the “elect” children of the heavenly Zion (cf. Is. 52:7-10 cf. Hb. 12:22), and that THESE are the people (according to Paul) that Isaiah himself has in mind when he tells the barren woman to “sing” only a few verses later (Is. 54:1).  To Paul, “ALL Israel” is the elect Jew and the elect Gentile.  Concerning the gospel some Jews were made enemies of God for the elect Gentiles’ sake, but concerning the election (i.e. of that particular nationality/race) some Jews were beloved by God for the sake of the patriarchs.  In saving all of the elect Jews and Gentiles God in Christ saves ALL ISRAEL.

 

            You will recognize this particular verse (Is. 54:1) from Galatians 4:27 when after teaching the Gentile Christians that the apostate Jews where NOT heirs of the prophetic promises for redemption, and that those Jews were in bondage and to be “cast out,” (i.e. not enjoying the redemptive benefits of the New Covenant including reconciliation) he then tells these Galatian believers, that, “the Jerusalem above is free and the mother of US ALL, for it is written: Rejoice [Sing]…”  Now, here again ALL must mean ALL OF THE ELECT from every nation because it makes absolutely no sense to state that this ALL is omni-individual or in reference to every Jew when it is specifically juxtaposed to the Jewish “children of the bondwoman.”

 

            Therefore, when we come to Is. 53:6 in particular we find the author at the end of a long discourse that preaches (among other things) judgment upon the Old Covenant nation of Israel -  interspersed with glimmers of hope for the humble - we should not think to ourselves that Isaiah is suddenly changing his tune to grant the wicked of his day or any other era some type of a post-mortem and/or “last days” second chance  (which would seem to be necessary in the Preterist Universalist’s scheme for all those who died in their wickedness prior to the Parousia) though he does promise hope to the Commonwealth as a nationality in general.  In light of the many warnings about trusting in ones national heritage for salvation in the New Testament we should not, indeed we cannot, accept as an option that being born Jewish granted one a free ticket to eternal life and therefore a RECONCILIATORY relationship to God.  Even under the Old Covenant the High Priest’s work was not valid for the Jew who sinned presumptuously, or was cut off from his people (Nm. 15:30-31), so we “go beyond the Scriptures” to make the benefits of Christ’s atonement extend to those who live and die in rejection of the High Priest, the Covenant Community, the Sacrifice, and the gift; and be sure “reconciliation” is a benefit derived from the cross and priesthood of Christ.

 

            When Isaiah states that God would lay upon the suffering servant “the iniquity of us all” the Spirit has in mind not every Jew, nor every individual per se, but every nation and people who all share in corruption.  This included men like the Ethiopian eunuch who (though a worshiper of YHWH) was confused over the meaning of Isaiah 53, and though - it could be argued - unable to be considered a part of the “assembly of YHWH” according to Law (Dt. 23:1), would now be ushered into the Presence of God through faith in Christ (Act. 8:37).  This gospel proclaimed by Paul was what excited the Gentiles in Antioch and repulsed the Jews, namely that, “through this Man is preached to YOU [Jews] the forgiveness of sins; and by Him EVERYONE [Jew AND Gentile] who BELIEVES is justified from all things from which YOU [Jews] could not be justified by the Law of Moses… So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath” (Act. 13:38-39,42)  The Jews eventually rejected Paul’s multi-national gospel while the Gentiles rejoiced as Paul continued to preach from Isaiah (Act. 13:47).  Paul’s message was clear, no faith equals no justification, and without being justified before God the Judge one is not reconciled to God the Creator.  What upset the Jews about Paul’s gospel were the implications, i.e. not that every individual could be justified before God, but that GENTILES could be, and that apart from the Law.    

            All of these considerations should influence our interpretation of Is. 53:6. I do pray that the Preterist Universalist will reconsider using this particular verse to support their claim of universal individual reconciliation; for only those who have their iniquities placed upon Christ can be reconciled to God, and this particular passage (as well as 1 Jn. 2:2, and 1 Tm. 2:4-6) does not teach that Christ’s atonement was for every individual, but “all” peopleS.  As full-preterists we have many issues to debate and implications to explore, and keeping an open mind is essential to this process, however, as long as THESE particular passages are foundational to the Preterist Universalists’ view, that view will be undermined.  In other words, if the Bible does teach Preterist Universalism we cannot conclude (in light of their contexts) that it is taught in THESE passages.  Therefore, without extending reconciliation beyond the scope of the divine Author’s intent, let us rejoice in the God who reconciles without national distinction all those individuals who have been given to His Son.

   

Erick Blore

             

 
 
 

 

By Erick on 2005 Oct 27 - 16:59 | Hermeneutics | add new comment | email this page | printer friendly version | 2549 reads
Universalism by Guest (not verified)
Universalism: its eschatological foundations by John Riffe
Bath water by DemondF (not verified)
Pre-70AD Millennialism & Universalism by John Riffe
John by king neb

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.