"And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.'"
--Romans 11:26-27

There were great mysteries afoot, and they had to do with these two groups of people. Somehow, God's acceptance of Israel would bring about the fulfillment of his promise to Abraham: "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen. 12:3).

These were weighty issues for Paul. They should be not be lightly dismissed. It was his generation that witnessed the rejection of Jesus at the hands of an angry mob shouting, "no king but Caesar" (Jn. 19:15). Having been a vehement opponent of the early Christians, breathing "murderous threats" against those he sought to persecute, it was easy for Paul to relate to this mentality.

Paul had been confronting the Judaizers who were doing their best to leverage a law system still standing (cf. Paul's letter to the Galatians) while at the same time pacifying Jewish brethren (believers) not yet weaned from a law waiting to be fulfilled (cf. Acts 21:17-24). He was also attempting to ward off a strong separatist movement among Gentile believers (who saw the hardening of Israel as God's rejection) that threatened to sever them from the very roots of their only gospel hope (the subject of 1 Cor. 15). From this perspective the ministry of Paul was not simply a balancing act--it was a full-fledged juggling routine.

Hebrew ancestors, law-zealous Jews, Jewish Christians, righteous gentiles (Romans 2:14-16) and believing Gentiles--living under an "all nations" salvation promise delivered to Abraham so many generations before (Gen. 12:1-3)--how would God pull this off? What would he do? What would be the conclusion of this victory of God at the consummation of all things and what would be the scope of this victory? Would the victory of God be as broad in Christ as the failure of humankind had been in Adam?

Whatever the answer, Paul recognized it and could only proclaim, "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Rom. 11:33). The culmination of God's final work in fulfilling his "all nations" promise was beyond the glory of anything Paul could have imagined. Simply stated, the victory of God was stunning! So stunning that the enlightenment of his journey to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:1-4) was enough for him to endure being stoned and left for dead, shipwrecked and beaten on more than one occasion.

God was up to something and it would be so inclusive that Paul could say that God "imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (Rom. 11:32, emphasis mine). It was nothing less than comprehensive grace that would cause Paul to spill over in exultation of the glory of God.

Fundamentally Flawed

Ask your typical believer today to describe the victory of God and the reaction will probably seem muted compared to Paul's in Romans 11. Divorced from the first-century context of the ministry of Jesus, most would paint a dim picture of a fallen humanity about to find themselves in the hands of an angry God.

Finding power by selling fear, many believers are more than happy to undermine Paul's vision of victory and embrace the message of damnation delivered by revered reformers like Jonathan Edwards. Edwards, and others like him, are gleefully quoted for their words of anger and condemnation toward their fellow man. As the sermon goes, humanity is depraved and God is damningly upset about it! From such messages we get a picture of a cruel God whose idea of a vacation is time away to stoke the fires of hell only to return to the task of tossing people into them. Is this the victory of God that prompted Paul to spill over with joy regarding the glory of God's ways?

Ignoring the biblical context of covenant, passages of hope such as John 3:17: "For God did not send his son into the world to condemn it, but that the world through him might be saved" are written off as some kind of cruel hyperbole. More 'realistic' passages (and certainly more useful making sure the pews--and the collection plates are full) are those like Matt 4:13,14: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

In the fundamentalist's theological landscape, it is God's will that humanity be saved rather than lost, but poor God just doesn't get his way. "It's not that God is cruel," quipped Woody Allen, "it's just that God is an underachiever." Paul doesn't seem to share Allen's cynicism or the fundamentalist's pessimism. "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God," he writes. These are not the words of a man who expects billions of people throughout time to burn in perpetual fiery torment.

One of Calvinism's five classic points is "limited atonement" (the 'L' in 'TULIP'). Everyone for whom Christ died is saved--but Christ died only for the 'elect,' a group of people chosen by God through the ages to receive salvation. The Calvinist is quick to point out, however, that his Arminian opponents also limit the atonement: Christ died for everyone, but not everyone will accept this gift. Salvation, in the Arminian schema, is universal in scope but not 100% efficacious.

It's like having to choose between a laundry detergent that will get half of your wash 100% clean or one that will get all of your wash halfway clean. Not much of a choice.

Universally Uninspired

Universalism offers an alternative, but it comes at an exegetical price. For the Universalist, salvation is 100% efficacious and universal in scope. Universalism is the belief that all individuals will be saved. It finds its argumentation based upon what it feels is the inconsistency between the judgment of God regarding sin and his will for all to be saved.

The biggest problem with the modern Universalist movement is that it tends to marginalize Christ and Scripture regarding the salvation of mankind. Typically, those espousing universal salvation do so apart from the covenantal framework of biblical eschatology. This breech creates a void that does irreparable damage to the redemptive story and relies more on philosophical presupposition than inspired prophetic fulfillment, not to mention that it continues to approach soteriology from an individualistic Western perspective. It challenges the Calvinist/Arminian debate, but does not effectively deconstruct the underlying modernist soteriological assumptions (while "deconstruction" is something of a fad, the fact remains that some things desperately need deconstructing).

In America, Universalism was born of varied and various mystical and pietistic traditions having German roots in the teachings of George de Benneville (1703-1793). Out of his teachings came the one widely considered the father of American Universalism, John Murray. Murray wed Calvinist efficacy with Arminian scope and declared that the election of God was for all mankind.

With this proclamation the Universalist movement was off and running. While the early proponents of Universalism had a high regard for Scripture and Christ as its revealer (1803 Universalists convention and 1870 reaffirmation), by the time of the 1st World War, Universalism was immersed in German rationalism, biblical criticism and the Social Gospel movement.

By the 1950's, a quasi-biblical paradigm of universal salvation dissolved into a religious pluralism that said all religions are to be valued as a means of achieving the potential within all mankind. The outgrowth of this pluralism eventually resulted in the merging of the Universalist Church of America with the American Unitarian Association, forming the Unitarian Universalist Association in 1961.

Problems regarding the teaching of universal salvation from these standpoints are immense. Once the concept of salvation is severed from its Hebraic roots, the victory of God is reinterpreted through the lens of human worth and Christ is removed as the central figure in the victory of God. Once Christ is removed as the central figure of history and the archetype of a new humanity, the true story of hope gives way to any number of stories and the foundation for the continued development of human society is compromised.

Comprehensive Grace

Perhaps a more biblical soteriology can emerge out of this quandry. Our goal in putting forward a doctrine of Comprehensive Grace is neither to lend credence to the limited salvation of humanity as held by many fundamentalists, nor to open the door to the religious relativism held by those teaching universal salvation. Instead, we seek to re-frame the entire issue of salvation by placing it back into its first century, covenantal setting. In this way, we can 'bracket' discussions about hell, its metaphorical usage in the New Testament and its purpose today, and the thorny question of what happens when we die.

We need to see anthropology through the lens of a transformed cosmology. Simply stated, man is changed because his world is changed. Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world. Through the gift of Christ he dwells in a world of righteousness and life. The issue is cosmic and corporate, not individual and limited. Now, as then, evil does not thwart the "much more" of God's grace (Romans 5:9, 10, 15, 17, 20).

The overarching focus of the teaching of Comprehensive Grace is to recover the setting of Paul's ministry and what he saw that caused him to become overjoyed at the understanding that God had indeed "imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (Romans 11:32, my emphasis). Correctly seen by Paul, this triumph of God was carried out and accomplished through Christ and his collective body (i.e., the firstfruit believers).

Comprehensive Grace affirms a high Christology and sees Jesus as none other than 'God come in the flesh' in whom "all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" (Col. 1:19). Jesus is seen as the focal point of history for all things were made by him and through him and for him (Col. 1:15-20).

It is before this God that "every knee bows" and "every tongue confesses"--even those "under the earth" (Col. 2:9-11, emphasis mine). Must this bowing episode be forced, rather than inspired? For John the revelator it was an inspired event as he viewed the Lamb in his High Priestly garments (Rev. 1:17) and fell on his face. For Peter, it was simply realizing he was in the presence of the Lord of heaven and earth (Lk. 5:1-8). For Paul it was a direct intervention of God first casting him into darkness only to bring him into the light (Acts 9). And what of the fate of the billions of others ("every creature," Rev. 5:13) who came to see and praise the One who alone possesses immortality? Was their fate to be cast aside or brought into this victory?

Rather than attempting to preemptively answer any possible question that might come up from this perspective, Comprehensive Grace is content to leave the judging of individuals to God for he alone has the knowledge of good and evil and he alone understands all that is needed to prepare the way for his holy and righteous love.

Our goal, formidable enough in itself, is to understand the first-century context of the reign and ministry of Christ and the saints in bringing about a new world of righteousness and life. When we see this, perhaps we will join Paul in proclaiming to all humanity the love of God that surpasses comprehension (Rom. 8:37-39).

The message of Comprehensive Grace is not one that affords us the luxury of determining ourselves who is "in" or "out" for eternity. We accept our humble station as servants who know only what the Father deems necessary. The message of the greatest story ever told is one of inspiration to know and fall in love with God--not to spend a lifetime trying to avoid the fate of eternal torment.

The call of Scripture is to be compelled by God's love (2 Cor. 5:14), not religion's fear. The call of the Creator is for the creation to find abundant life by aligning itself with universal spiritual principles, to find freedom, love and acceptance by living for God in living for the building up of humanity. In essence, the call of those embracing Comprehensive Grace is to bring the world to its knees by being Christ to the world.

None of this happens apart from understanding the biblical story as the greatest story ever told. To understand this one must see the transformation that literally changed the world--and to see that one must see the biblical unfolding of the restoration of all things.

The Birth and Ministry of Jesus

On the surface it appears that the focus of the New Testament is the fate of Israel (along with Judah). As word of the Messiah's birth came to King Herod, in fear he inquired of the chief priests and scribes as per the place of this birth. In response, the words of the prophet Micah were given: "And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel" (Matt. 2:6/Mic. 5:2). This priority was echoed in the commission of Jesus to the seventy when he gave them the instructions: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:5).

Jesus himself affirmed that he, as well, was sent only to this lost people (Matt. 15:24). Through signs and wonders and events such as the reading of the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue in Nazareth (Lk. 4:18), Jesus was proclaiming that Israel's long awaited Messiah had come--that in him, the year of Jubilee had arrived and the great gathering was in process.

From the first of his ministry Jesus announced the coming of the kingdom (Matt. 4:17) and the need for its recipients to "repent" (turn) so that they might gain entrance. For Jesus, his mission was not to "abolish" but to "fulfill" (Matt. 5:17-18). With all of his talk of the law and the prophets, of God and his people, it is little wonder that some concluded that the message and ministry of Jesus was exclusive of all outside of the houses of Israel and Judah (Heb. 8:8).

Without a careful (and broad) reading of the text, one could arrive at the conclusion that the ministry of Jesus was indeed one of exclusivity. Exclusivisity comes naturally to us. Israel excluded the Gentiles who, by the middle of the first century, were only too happy to return the favor. Eventually, after A.D. 70, the people of God would perpetuate this sectarian spirit. The church excluded "unbelievers" with no less zeal than their Jewish predecessors had rejected the Gentile. In the process, the message was muddied and the victory of God was whittled into all but the smallest of branches.

Because they have severed the gospel from its roots and fail to see Jesus as the one true hope of Israel, present-day believers are struggling with the relationship of the church and Israel. Some even suggest parallel plans of redemption (separate but equal?) for Israel and the church, making us wonder if the separatism is to continue even in the heavenly realms!

Two of the best examples of this come from the 'a' and 'pre' millennial perspectives. The amillennialist cuts off Israel at the cross and denies her promised fulfillment by pushing the "restoration of all things" into a future that no longer even acknowledges Israel as a point of fulfillment at all. Meanwhile, the premillennialist labors to keep Israel and the church separated until the final resurrection, at which time the church's dispensation ends, Christ returns and takes up his throne in Jerusalem to reign for a thousand years on earth, in Jerusalem. But even this ultimately fails as Satan gains an upper hand and Jesus must put an end to the earth as we know it.

In sum, one view sees the church as displacing Israel and the other sees the church as remaining separate from Israel. What needs to be seen is that the New Testament represents the church and Israel as inseparable.

The Church in an Age of Fulfillment

The ministry of Jesus began in what Paul referred to as "the fullness of times" (Gal. 4:4, 5). In the words of Jesus, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mk. 1:15). The idea that this fullness would last two thousand years (and counting) was foreign to Jesus and the New Testament writers. As the church was finding its beginning on the day of Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that "this" was "that" prophesied by the prophet Joel. They were not the last days of the eternal new covenant that was just beginning, rather, they were the last days of the Mosaic covenant--the one Jesus, invoking the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 9:24ff., 11:31, 12:11), predicted would come to an end in his generation (Matt. 24:1-36).

Seeking relationship with God under the Old Covenant would never be acceptable as it occurred in a world where the powers of sin and death had their way with those made in the image of God. In Adam, humanity was alienated from God and there was no victory for either. What was needed was a new world that would bring forth a new man through a new relationship of life and righteousness.

From this perspective, both the amillennialist and the premillennialist must scurry to change imminent time statements into elastic or postponed predictions. In their mind, this promised new world did not come as predicted but is still future. In this the nature of the church and its union with Israel--and, by extension, New Testament fulfillment--is missed.

The promise of eternal life was given by God before time began (Titus 1:1, 2). This was his purpose for humanity before anything was created. It was during this "fullness of time" period in which Jesus and the New Testament writers saw themselves as living and laboring so that this purpose of God would be fulfilled: "He (God) has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth" (Eph. 1:9, 10). This is also echoed in the statement that, "through him (Christ) God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven." (Col. 1:20).

This "restoration of all things" was to take place between the ascension and parousia of Christ (Acts 3:19-21) and gave purpose to the church in working it out. It is during this "fullness of time" period alone that we are provided with the only source for defining the church and its role, at least in terms of original intent (in principle, God will always have a people who work to bring glory to his name). It is also helpful to see that the church's role was much broader than itself as indicated in passages such as 2 Cor. 5:19 which tells us that, "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself." In this the "all nations" promise to Abraham would be fulfilled (Gen. 12:1-3, cf. Rev. 21:3).

The Solidarity of Jesus and Israel and the Church

Jesus entered into the Old Covenant age with the specific purpose of transforming it into a world of everlasting life. His ministry was to fulfill all things spoken by the prophets (Acts 3:24) and to realize Peter's declaration in Acts 3:25: "You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, 'And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'"

This is what caused the Jewish leaders to be disturbed in Acts 4:1ff., because in Jesus the resurrection out from among the dead was being preached. By being joined with the body of Jesus through baptism, early believers were participating with Jesus in his age-changing reign. Their reigning with Christ would not be seen until the end of the age at which time the revealing of the sons of God would be manifested (Rom. 8:18ff.).

Their unity with Christ was the unity of the one body of Jew and Gentile on behalf of the whole world (Eph. 4). Traditionally, this has been clouded because of a limited or one-way view of election. Were the elect chosen for their own salvation or the salvation of others? Did non-election mean irreconcilability? If Isaac is elected, does that mean that Ishmael is forever rejected? If Jacob is elected is Esau eternally rejected? Or, putting it as Paul did to an audience of Gentile believers who were excluding a hardened Israel at the time, "Has God rejected his people" (Rom. 11:1)? His emphatic answer? "By no means!" In the eyes of Paul, believing saints comprising the body of Christ were a special people for a special work in a special time (Eph. 1:4). This is because Jesus is the one elect just as he is the one seed (cf. Isa 42:1, Gal. 3:16). Clearly the election of Jesus does not mean that everyone else is excluded.

From this perspective, Jesus determined those joined to him--and they were not joined to him to be 'exclusive,' but 'inclusive.' As Paul would say, "For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them" (2 Cor. 5:14,15). Jesus did not die for himself, he died for the all. Believers in Christ, then, being joined to Christ in the death of baptism, were not dying for themselves, but for the all as well.

Those who had died in Christ were the chosen firstfruits who would bring about life for the all who had died in Adam. As such, they were part of the firstfruit body of Jesus that prepared the way for the rest of the harvest. It should be seen that half of the harvest is not excluded--it is as broad as the "dead" which is as broad as the "all" who had died in Adam up until the time of Christ.

This is demonstrated in the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" in Romans 9-11 that eventually comprise a part of the "all Israel [that] shall be saved." Wrath is but one side of the coin of salvation.

As throughout the entire Old Testament, the wrath of God prepared the way for the acceptance of his creation. Paul knew this by personal example as, by a special act of God, he was turned to Jesus at the very time of his rebellious hardening. Likewise he knew that even though much of Israel was considered "enemies" of the gospel, regarding election they were beloved for the sake of the fathers and that God could/would in fact act on their behalf as promised.

The problem in Romans 9-11 is not one between Israel and the church but one between Israel and Israel. In Romans 9:6 the Israel rejecting the fulfillment of their promises through Jesus is not the true Israel, but the Israel accepting fulfillment through Jesus is the true Israel--they are of Jacob. It was the ministry of those joined to the body of Christ to serve as a "light to the Gentiles." Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 49 in being a light to the Gentiles by taking on what Israel could not do.

Let's not forget that it was Peter, a Jewish fisherman, who played such a prominent part in the church's establishment at Pentecost. His message was to "turn" and seek the fulfillment of all promises in Christ, just as Peter himself was in Christ. This formed an unbreakable bond between Israel and the church and was the basis for Paul's statement in Acts 13 that "we" are a light to the Gentiles, thus establishing his solidarity to Jesus. You cannot separate Israel from the church anymore than you can separate Christ from the church.

The church was initially made up of Israelites and Jews who became one with Jesus for the purpose of bringing about the change of ages. The Gentiles were brought in because the redemption of Christ that would come through Israel was for all of those in Adam. This was God's method of blessing all of humanity. This also means that the salvation of Israel was not of their initiative. God brings destruction on the vessels of wrath so that he might accept them.

As unbelievable as it might sound, Paul asked, "What will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11:15). We need to understand that the acceptance Paul is speaking of is God's acceptance of Israel, not Israel's acceptance of God. That nuance, however subtle, is an important one to our understanding of redemption.

The Corporate Concepts of Eternal Wrath and Salvation

When studying the transformative events of the first century Hebrew world, what must remain in the forefront of our thinking is that the actions of God in dealing with his people were always on a corporate basis. The obsession of modernity to view everything on a purely 'individual' basis is foreign to the language of Scripture and a relatively new and Western approach to these issues.

As well, much of the biblical language regarding salvation may specifically be tied to averting the cataclysm of Jerusalem's destruction as opposed to the more conventional concept of 'saving souls.' Jesus exhorted his followers to flee the wrath to come (see Matt. 24).

A strong example of experiencing the judgment of fire and yet being saved from the loss of one's relationship with God might be viewed in the 1 Corinthians 3 passage. There Paul explains that some build with gold and precious metals and their work will stand while others build with wood, hay and stubble and their work would be destroyed--though the builder himself would be saved "through fire" (v. 15). This is no doubt what the vessels of wrath experienced. They were ultimately accepted by God (Rom. 11).

In this instance, the judgment of Matthew 25 makes sense: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Many see the eternal punishment as eternal conscious suffering versus those who experience eternal life (or heaven). They point out that both words for "eternal" are the same, so eternal life must have a direct correspondent in eternal suffering. But this does not seem to fit the story of Romans 9-11 as told by Paul. Is there an answer for this apparent conflict? We believe so and it will be the subject of future writings.

The fiery wrath of God that was poured out on Jerusalem was certainly an 'eternal' punishment. There never again will be a single nation chosen for favor by God. Those who constituted hardened Israel did not see it coming because of their faith in the law system (temple complex, etc.) and they suffered dearly for it. The righteous, on the other hand, did see it coming and they escaped this destruction. However, while the 'punishment' of God upon Jerusalem was/is eternal, the 'punishing' was not. They suffered for a time and eventually were destroyed. At that point, the 'punishing' stopped. And Paul said that it led to their acceptance.

The city and the system of Jerusalem were the object lessons of God for all of humanity. It was in this city that Jesus was rejected and outside of its gates that he was crucified. It would also be to this city that he would return as the victory of God for all humanity.

His judgment was as broad as his offering on the cross--and Jerusalem was central in both events. The day Jerusalem and its law system fell was the day that the great accuser of the brethren fell.

Unlike Eden, no longer could a tempter use the law as leverage against a stubborn, blinded and weak humanity. In the end, the original intent of God for his creation was restored. Through the inclusive mission of Christ and his firstfruits body (the church), the work of God was complete and the whole of creation in Adam (Romans 8) found its release in being revealed as the sons of God.

Little wonder that Paul considered it the greatest truth he had ever witnessed. Had God cast off those made in his image? No more than he had cast away his people. And that is what makes the story of redemption the greatest story ever told.

TIM KING is president of Presence Ministries and editor of Living Presence Journal. This article first appeared in Living Presence Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, Summer 2002.

URL: http://www.presence.tv/cms/compgrace.php

---

Top of Page

Email Article

Printer