Reconciliation in the New Testament

We read directly in Paul’s writings about the mutual reconciliation of all things (Col 1:20). There are several similar statements, though they often have a different focus. These include, for example, the justification of all people (Rom 5:18), the salvation of all people (1 Tim 4:9–11), and the raising of all people to life (1 Cor 15:22). It is also mentioned that God will one day be all in all, and not just something in a few (1 Cor. 15:28).

These statements come from Paul. We are in the New Testament, specifically in the period following the Resurrection. There is nothing to misunderstand in these statements. The fact that they are not understood and joyfully embraced often has to do with notions of hell. These seem to conflict with the positive messages of salvation, and many prefer to give greater weight to the notions of hell than to the testimony of Scripture. But what does the rest of Scripture say? In light of the doctrine of hell, one might think that hell is humanity’s real problem. If that were true, hell would have to be mentioned everywhere by all the biblical writers. But that is not the case.

Throughout the entire Old Testament, there is neither hell nor any threats of hell. In the New Testament, no one speaks of hell either. Neither Jesus nor the apostles spoke of hell, even though some translations still use the word “hell.” The original text uses different terms that have nothing in common with traditional notions of hell. This is worth noting. Do these facts trouble you? If you’d like to know more, this website has separate articles addressing all the typical objections.

Before and after Jesus, no one mentioned “hell,” contrary to what tradition would have us believe. Try using an online Bible and searching for the word “hell” in various translations. You’ll soon realize that it’s not as clear-cut as some would have us believe.

Jesus spoke of Gehenna, drawing on the prophets’ statements about a messianic kingdom. The twelve apostles remained within this narrative, and only Paul embarked on something entirely new. However, no one speaks of a hell or of the need to escape it. The salvation the Bible speaks of is not about a hell, but about mortality and falling short of the mark (or: sin). Someone then introduced the concept of hell, thereby permanently distorting the biblical narrative. The usual suspects here are the early Church Fathers, who had a lasting influence on the Church with their ideas. It is up to us to critically examine their insights and foundational narratives.

Without hell, some people’s understanding of faith—which derives the seriousness of faith from threats of hell—collapses. However, hell was never part of the Bible. On what, then, do they base their assumptions?

The Concept of God

The example of threats of hell illustrates well how the Bible can be read selectively. These ideas fuel the image of a vengeful God who seeks retribution and mercilessly punishes unbelief. While there is grace and love for all, they come with an expiration date. Once that expiration date has passed, neither grace nor love applies; instead, a terrible judgment with a cruel outcome follows. So the assumptions go.

This is a selective interpretation based on certain traditions and is by no means supported by the Bible. The following Bible passages may serve as examples:

“And Yahweh passed before him and proclaimed: ‘Yahweh, Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.’”
Exodus 34:6

“None among the gods is like you, Lord, and nothing is like your works.” “All the nations you have made will come and worship you, Lord, and glorify your name. For you are great and perform wonders; you alone are God.”
Ps 86:8-10

“The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love;
He will not always chide, nor will He harbor resentment forever.”
Ps 103:8–9

“But you have committed adultery with many lovers, and yet you should return to me, says Yahweh.”
Jer 3:5

“But you are a God of forgiveness, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.”
Neh 9:17

“Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: ‘Return, O backsliding Israel,’ says the LORD; ‘I will not look upon you with anger. For I am gracious,’ says the LORD, ‘and I will not hold a grudge forever.’”
Jer 3:12

Many more Bible passages like these could be found, for here people are speaking about their understanding of God. Their God will not hold a grudge forever, because He is gracious. This is quite different from the essence of the doctrine of hell, according to which God mercilessly demands His justice and will hold a grudge forever. I have often seen that proponents of hell then eagerly cite Bible passages that seem to make no mention of love or mercy. This is what is called selective perception.

Of course, one could point out that these Bible passages refer, in context, to Israel or Nineveh, for example. However, this does not detract from the writers’ understanding of God. They respond in accordance with their understanding. The fact that they recognize God as merciful is significant.

The Context

The writers and the people they write about also react within their own context. The statements are presented and made as their own understanding. That doesn’t have to be my understanding or yours, but every statement certainly has meaning within its own story.

That’s exactly the point: there’s no context for the world as a whole, as it’s often interpreted today. A statement like, “You must believe in Jesus, or you’ll be lost forever—and that applies to everyone,” doesn’t exist in the Old Testament. Nor is this argument dismissed by the fact that Jesus wasn’t alive back then. For if hell only came into existence with Jesus, then why did he come? Wouldn’t it be better—as some have suggested—that the Savior shouldn’t have come at all if hell only became a reality with him?

Anyone who speaks of hell is following a tradition and an interpretation, not the Bible’s actual teachings.

The authors of the Bible were not evangelicals

Neither Moses nor Jesus, nor the apostles, nor the early churches were evangelicals. This is significant. What we read about them are stories and religious beliefs that have little to do with the present day and current religious beliefs. Undoubtedly, everyone means well and may take their own assumptions for granted. But they are not self-evident. Becoming aware of this can trigger a seismic shift in one’s own understanding of faith.

The relevant question might be: What is my understanding of God based on? Is it based on a particular interpretation of the New Testament and a particular tradition, or have I thoroughly researched it in the Bible and considered it in a nuanced way?

Reconciliation in the Old Testament

Does the Old Testament teach the reconciliation of all things? That is the question here. We have already seen that context is of great importance. To illustrate: You can’t accuse someone who is cooking vegetables of not making dessert. In this case, it’s about vegetables. Another time, perhaps, it’s about dessert. They are not to be confused. Likewise, the themes in the Old Testament are not to be confused with the teachings of the New Testament. Everything belongs in its own context.

The Old Testament is devoted for the most part to the people of Israel. That is the explicit context, which we cannot simply hijack and repurpose for our own ends. The history of the Old Testament, however, includes the rest of the world. It is not just about Israel; rather, through Israel, the nations were to be blessed. As early as Abram’s calling, we read: “All the families of the earth shall be blessed in you” (Gen. 12:3).

From that point on, the history of Israel is interwoven with similar promises. Israel was important, but it was not the ultimate goal. Israel was also meant to fulfill a role that would lead to the blessing of all other nations. The well-known Great Commission in Matthew 28 reiterates these ideas, as they had already been expanded upon by the prophets.

Universal reconciliation is not explicitly taught in the Old Testament, but the direction is clear: to be blessed so that blessings may be shared.

The Goodness of God

When many Old Testament writers speak of God’s goodness and of the fact that He does not remain angry forever, this is an important observation. Within the framework of each narrative and as part of a progressive understanding, they describe only what is relevant to that context. Other aspects are left unmentioned.

It is clear that the vision of Israel was never intended for Israel alone. All the promises were meant to be extended to all other nations. Details were often lacking. What matters is the direction, the goal of the promise.

The Core Narrative

One sometimes gets the impression that the Bible has a single underlying narrative. It goes something like this: “God is always the same, and He always acts the same way.” This assumption and interpretation are reinforced by statements such as “The Bible is the infallible Word of God.” This masks interpretations and declares them to be divine. This is a distortion of the Bible’s teachings. One does not take the Bible seriously by imposing ideological assumptions upon it.

As a result, it is not uncommon for a basic interpretation of the Bible to be taught that rests on two pillars:

1. Human beings are fundamentally sinful and need salvation; otherwise, they will end up in hell.
2. This salvation comes through “faith in Jesus,” a choice that everyone must make in this life.

Neither of these statements is true in this formulation. Nevertheless, it is taught and even declared to be valid for all time. This fails to recognize that, on the one hand, the Bible speaks in much more nuanced terms, and on the other hand, it does not express the same concerns. Here, one is operating within traditional assumptions that were devised by people and imposed on the text of the Bible as “truth.”

Framework narratives are important because they simplify a point of view. However, no framework narrative should be confused with the message of the Bible. Framework narratives are interpretations. The biblical text is simply the biblical text, even if one could ask many questions about it. If we assume that the Scriptures are inspired by God’s Spirit, as Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim. 3:16–17), this does not apply to interpretations. Therefore, anyone who believes that faith should be able to rely on the Bible should exercise caution when it comes to foundational narratives and oversimplifications.

Master narratives, for example, lead people to reject universal reconciliation and to deliberately overlook positive statements, even in the Old Testament. Once the idea of hell has been internalized, it is usually difficult to let go of this narrative. This article aims to raise awareness that texts must be understood in context and that not every text revolves around the same underlying narrative. This allows us to develop a more nuanced perspective, which in turn brings freedom and confidence.

What’s next?

How can we explore these ideas further? There are already several topic pages on this website with many posts on this subject. Here are a few examples:

We find the broadest perspective in Paul. Others speak about the focus of their mission. Not every approach emphasizes the same points. Paul speaks to all people and explains how God brings everyone to their destination. Statements about judgment do not need to be rejected, but simply interpreted within their own context.

Where can we find information about the last things? The focus on the end times, for example, draws on texts from the Prophets and the Gospels, of which the Book of Revelation is an extension. These texts deal primarily with Israel and Israel’s future. Just as it began with Abram, it will be brought to a close here. This has nothing to do with the present day. It seems pointless to speak of the end times while relying on letters and books that do not address the present day.

Where can we find statements about the present day? In Paul’s writings. Where is there mention of a church made up of people from all nations? In Paul’s writings. These observations are easy to understand if we allow the text the space it needs to convey what it was intended to say.

You don’t find the same statements everywhere. The Bible mentions the reconciliation of all things, but it is not a theme in most books of Scripture. You find this statement in Paul’s writings. That is significant. However, using other parts of the Bible to override his statements is not very helpful. Every text has its own place.