Contexts for “Universalistic” Texts

 

 Part 3

 

(Isaiah 53:6)

 

“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 John 2:2, and the second 1 Timothy 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. Hebrews 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 John  2:2, and 1 Timothy 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