For introduction

Proponents of a universal reconciliation see this as sound biblical doctrine, taught so directly in the Bible. Opponents see here a heresy that must be strongly condemned and marginalized. Thus, the concept of universal reconciliation often stands in a field of theological tension. Against the backdrop of this tension, this series of articles offers several clues to better understanding. However, striking differences remain between the various views.

Reconciliation is not a question of a marginal detail, but a core question of faith about God’s nature and action – towards the completion of God’s ways. The explosiveness lies in the fact that it can lead our understanding of faith out into a wide open space and freedom. For some, this may sound scary, but for others it is liberating because important questions are allowed to be asked and satisfied by answering them from the Bible directly.

The Bible speaks of reconciliation. Every Christian will testify to that. However, it becomes problematic when one speaks of reconciliation for the whole world. This “universal reconciliation” is often controversial. Therefore, an attempt will be made here to make a neutral – but still critical – introduction. This is not meant to be a historical treatise or a dogmatic examination of all the details, but a presentation of different approaches with the most commonly cited arguments.

It will not be possible to be completely neutral. Always, I also choose an apologetic approach in favor of an all-inclusive reconciliation because I think the Bible clearly teaches this. However, I don’t want to be one-sided there. I regularly refer to the arguments and consequences of a heaven-and-hell doctrine because they are often unknown – not least where it is taught. The aim of this article is to encourage a healthy and differentiated debate.

Reconciliation in the Bible

About the wording: In the Bible there are the three different words in the Greek that have to do with reconciliation. Not every language has suitable terms for translation.

The first of the three terms corresponds to the Old Testament language. There, atonement is the “covering” of something, with the purpose of a protection. The term used is “kaphar” in Hebrew, the only word for reconciliation in the Old Testament. The first time it is used is in Gen 6:14 where Noah “covers” the ark with pitch. This “covering” was a protection against the judgment of the coming flood. In the New Testament, this means “to atone,” as in the term “atonement cover” (Rom 3:25). Greek terms used are gr. hilasterion, hilaskomai, hilasmos. This covering is through blood. Blood is the protection. In Romans 3, this is the first term mentioned.

This was not a final solution. This Old Testament covering was only temporary and could also be removed. It had to be reapplied year after year. Then a development takes place. A new term is introduced by Paul. This concept no longer aims at covering sin.

This second term is the Greek katallasso. It denotes something like “changing downward,” namely, as if God is changing toward us. The reason for this changed attitude lies in the cross and resurrection. This is described in detail in 2Cor 5:14-21. It is a unilateral reconciliation from God to the whole world. It does not require any works. This is what is completed and accomplished. The new term is more thorough and has a different foundation. This reconciliation is not dependent on us, because God reconciles Himself to us first. This is unilateral and not yet the final goal, but it is the precondition for it.

The third term is a reinforcement of the last term. From katalasso we go to apokatalasso. This word points to a change that is not unilateral but mutual. It is the believers who are apokatalasso with God (Col 1:22). It is a mutual reconciliation. This mutual reconciliation is also what Paul says about the whole created world in Colossians 1:20. That is the goal of God. Here God brings about mutual reconciliation by making peace through the blood of the cross. All-atonement is the result when God will be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

“He [Christus] is the head of the body, the called-out church, of which He is the beginning as the firstborn from the dead, so that He may become the first in everything, since the entire completion [Gott/Gottes] their pleasure in being in Him [Christus] to dwell and through Him [durch Christus] to reconcile the universe to Himself (by making peace through the blood of His cross).”
Col 1:18-20

Accordingly, it is written here: God is the All-Reliant, who reconciles all things to Himself through Christ, making peace through the blood of His cross.

• Now imagine that you have a problem with universal reconciliation; does that mean you have a problem with God’s purpose and work?
• Whoever rants “universalist!” has a problem with God or his image of God?
• Whoever thinks that universal reconciliation works without God and Christ has perhaps never seriously read the letter to the Colossians?

There is no understanding of the Bible that is more Christ-centric than the doctrine of universal reconciliation.

Does God have a goal – and does He achieve it?

The all-atonement is an understanding of the Bible according to which God will surely reach the goal with His creation. The goal at the end of God’s ways is the mutual reconciliation of all creatures with Him, the Creator, through Jesus Christ.

The reconciliation in today’s usage is a common interpretation of the Bible, which recognizes that God pursues a goal consistently and successfully through Jesus Christ until completion. If any man currently does not want to answer the offered grace and peace, this does not mean a final take. Rather it reminds of the words, that “man thinks, but God directs” (cf. Prov 16:9). God has the last word when it comes to the final destiny of His world.

The reconciliation (all will be saved) is in direct contrast to the “heaven and hell” teaching, according to which only a few will be saved. In the doctrine of heaven and hell, God also has a goal, but unfortunately cannot achieve it. The maxim of the doctrine of hell is “God thinks, but man directs”, just the opposite of what bible writers believed to be true. Man, as hell-teaching highlights, has the last word when it comes to his own final destiny.

The reconciliation comes in variations, just as the doctrine of heaven and hell comes in various forms. The thoughts of universal reconciliation cannot be assigned to a certain theological direction and there are believers from all ecclesiastical directions who recognized from the Bible that God will once reach the goal with all people. There are parishioners, pastors, churchgoers and ministers who believe in it.

It does not require theological training to believe in God, and so it does not require trusting Him with everything. One reads of such trust and experience, for example, in the Lamentations:

“For the Lord does not cast off forever, but when He has afflicted, He has mercy according to the abundance of His graces. For not from the heart does he humble and afflict the children of men.”
Cl 3,31-33

There are, of course, differences in the theological anchoring and in the responses to “difficult” texts. But this is also the case with every other subject and every other doctrine.

Is it worth thinking about this question?

Absolutely! It is about fundamental knowledge, about the outlook of the Gospel. Likewise, it is about the scope of death and resurrection. It is about God and about His Son Jesus Christ and what God has done through Him.

Those who take the trouble to pursue this question will read through the Bible with great personal profit. Those who start the journey may not yet know all the stopovers, nor do they have a clear destination in mind. One does not have to commit oneself to a particular tradition or insight, but can try to read God’s statements on the subject with an open mind and curiosity.

For example, have you ever heard a sermon on the following passage?

“Credible is the word
and worth every welcome
(because for this we toil and are reviled),
That we rely on the living God,
who is the Savior of all people,
especially of the faithful.
This instruct and teach.”
1Tim 4:9-11

It is a matter of clarifying significant questions and hasty answers are not appropriate. The essays here would like to provide suggestions for a more in-depth discussion.