{"id":61116,"date":"2026-06-21T16:14:47","date_gmt":"2026-06-21T14:14:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/does-the-old-testament-speak-of-universal-atonement\/"},"modified":"2026-07-04T10:42:49","modified_gmt":"2026-07-04T08:42:49","slug":"does-the-old-testament-speak-of-universal-reconciliation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/en\/does-the-old-testament-speak-of-universal-reconciliation\/","title":{"rendered":"Does the Old Testament speak of universal reconciliation?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row row_height_percent=”0″ back_color=”color-731465″ overlay_alpha=”50″ gutter_size=”3″ column_width_percent=”100″ shift_y=”0″ z_index=”0″ content_parallax=”0″ uncode_shortcode_id=”832119″ back_color_type=”uncode-palette”][vc_column width=”1\/1″][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”158862″]<\/p>\n

Differentiating a Topic<\/h3>\n

From simple, traditional ideas one can arrive at an appreciation of the Bible. This process is a differentiation, and it follows an examination. Whoever values the Bible more highly than tradition thereby gains a handle for recognizing differences between the two. You can distinguish the sources from which certain thoughts arise. What then seems more important to you?<\/p>\n

Once you’ve roughly outlined a topic and clarified it for yourself, you can differentiate further. That’s what this article is about. It doesn’t address the basic claim that hell is absent from the Bible, nor does it survey every passage where something different is taught. It poses a question of differentiation: Does the Old Testament speak of a Universal Reconciliation? And what should be considered here?[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/1″][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”710855″]<\/p>\n

Universal Reconciliation in the New Testament<\/h3>\n

We read directly of a mutual reconciliation of all things in Paul (Col 1:20). There are several similar statements, though often with a different focus. These include the justification of all people (Rom 5:18), the salvation of all people (1 Tim 4:9-11), and the making alive of all people (1 Cor 15:22). It’s also mentioned that God will one day be all in all, not merely something in a few (1 Cor 15:28).<\/p>\n

These statements come from Paul. We’re in the New Testament, chronologically after the resurrection. There’s nothing to misunderstand in these statements. That they’re not understood and joyfully embraced often has to do with notions of hell. These seem to collide with the positive statements of salvation, and many prefer to weight notions of hell more heavily than the testimony of Scripture. But what does the testimony look like in the rest of Scripture? In light of the doctrine of hell, one would think hell is humanity’s real problem. If that were true, hell would have to be mentioned everywhere by all the biblical writers. But that’s not the case.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”137985″]<\/p>\n

No Threats of Hell in the Old Testament<\/h3>\n

In the entire Old Testament there is neither hell nor threats of hell. In the New Testament, too, no one speaks of a hell. Neither Jesus nor the apostles spoke of a hell, even though some translations still use the word “hell.” In the original text, other terms are used that have nothing in common with traditional notions of hell. This is worth noting. Does this information unsettle you? On this website you’ll find dedicated articles addressing all the typical objections, if you’d like to know more.<\/p>\n

Before and after Jesus, no one mentioned a hell, contrary to what tradition falsely leads us to believe. Try using an online Bible and searching various translations for the word “hell.” You’ll soon notice it isn’t as clear-cut as some would have us believe.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”759188″]<\/p>\n

What Jesus Talks About<\/h3>\n

Jesus spoke of Gehenna, drawing on statements by the prophets about a messianic kingdom. The twelve apostles remained within this narrative, and only Paul began something entirely new. Yet no one speaks of a hell, or of needing to escape one. The redemption the Bible speaks of is not redemption from a hell, but from mortality and missing the mark (or: sin).<\/p>\n

Someone then smuggled hell in, permanently distorting the biblical narrative. To this day, hell is taken for granted by many and defended as “biblical.” It’s our task to critically test these foundational narratives against the Bible. This always concerns the text in its own context and according to the original wording. Careful reading shows what is actually stated and what has been added.<\/p>\n

If hell is absent, as one can discover, an understanding of faith collapses for some \u2014 one that derives the seriousness of faith from threats of hell. But hell was never part of the Bible. The uncomfortable question is: what, then, are one’s assumptions built on?[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”310313″]<\/p>\n

Understanding of God<\/h3>\n

How one can read the Bible selectively is well illustrated by the example of threats of hell. These ideas feed the image of a vengeful God who seeks retribution and punishes unbelief mercilessly. There is grace and love for all, to be sure, but with an expiration date. Once that date has passed, neither grace nor love applies anymore, but a terrible judgment follows with a horrific outcome. So the assumptions go.<\/p>\n

This is a selective perception based on certain traditions, and far from traceable in the Bible. The following Bible passages may illustrate this by way of example:<\/p>\n

“And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed: ‘The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in goodness and truth.'”<\/em>
\nExod 34:6<\/p>\n

“There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor any works like yours. All the Gentiles you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name. For you are great and do wondrous things, you alone are God.”<\/em>
\nPs 86:8-10<\/p>\n

“The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love;<\/em>
\nHe will not always contend, nor will he harbor anger forever.”<\/em>
\nPs 103:8-9<\/p>\n

“But you have played the whore with many lovers; yet return to me, declares the LORD.”<\/em>
\nJer 3:5<\/p>\n

“But you are a God of forgiveness, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.”<\/em>
\nNeh 9:17<\/p>\n

“Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: ‘Return, faithless Israel,’ declares the LORD; ‘I will not look on you with displeasure. For I am gracious,’ declares the LORD, ‘I will not harbor anger forever.'”<\/em>
\nJer 3:12<\/p>\n

Many more such Bible passages could be found, for here people are speaking about their understanding of God. Their God will not harbor anger forever, because he is good. This is quite different from the essence of the doctrine of hell, according to which God mercilessly demands his justice and will harbor anger forever. I’ve often experienced that hell-enthusiasts then eagerly cite Bible verses that seem to know nothing more of love and mercy. That’s called selective perception.<\/p>\n

Of course, one might respond that these Bible passages speak, in context, about Israel or about Nineveh, for instance. But that takes nothing away from the writers’ understanding of God. They react according to their own understanding. The fact that they recognize God as merciful carries meaning.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”110238″]<\/p>\n

The Context<\/h3>\n

The writers, and the people described, speak \u2014 as a matter of course \u2014 from within their own context. It can’t be otherwise. Their statements reflect their understanding. That doesn’t have to be my understanding or yours, but every statement certainly has meaning within its own history.<\/p>\n

This is precisely the point at which some ideas diverge from Scripture: not every page of the Bible is about the whole world and all times, as is often interpreted today. A statement like: “You must believe in Jesus, otherwise you’ll be lost forever, and that applies to every person for all eternity” \u2014 that doesn’t exist in the Bible.<\/p>\n

This is derived from a handful of Bible verses. The ideas are shaped by certain foundational assumptions. It’s as if one first puts on rose-colored glasses, only to then conclude that the world looks rosy. That’s due to the glasses, not the world.<\/p>\n

The idea that a particular understanding applies always and everywhere isn’t dismissed just because Jesus didn’t live in Old Testament times. If hell only appeared with Jesus, why did he come at all? Wouldn’t it have been better, as some have put it, if the Savior hadn’t come at all, if hell only became a reality through him?<\/p>\n

Whoever speaks of a hell is following a tradition and an interpretation, not the Bible in its own statements.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”562202″]<\/p>\n

Bible Writers Were Not Evangelicals<\/h3>\n

Neither Moses, nor Jesus, nor the apostles, nor the first communities were Evangelicals. They didn’t think and believe the way many Christians do today. This matters. What we read about them are stories and assumptions of faith that have little to do with today’s assumptions of faith. No doubt everyone means well and may experience their own assumptions as something self-evident. But they are not.<\/p>\n

The relevant question might be: what is my understanding of God built on? Is it traceable to a particular interpretation of the New Testament and to a particular tradition, or have I searched it out thoroughly in the Bible and differentiated accordingly? Is my differentiation and my understanding infallible merely because of my sincerity? Do I understand what the writers meant here or there? Or do I merely think I do? Who speaks where, and what, to whom, why, and to what end? Questions help.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”206671″]<\/p>\n

Universal Reconciliation in the Old Testament<\/h3>\n

Does the Old Testament teach a reconciliation of all things? That was the opening question. We’ve already seen that context matters greatly. By comparison: you can’t fault someone cooking vegetables for it not being dessert. Sometimes it’s about vegetables. Another time, perhaps, about dessert. The two shouldn’t be confused. Likewise, the themes of the Old Testament shouldn’t be confused with the statements of the New Testament. Everything belongs in its own context.<\/p>\n

The Old Testament devotes large stretches to the people of Israel. That’s the explicit context, which we can’t simply hijack and repurpose for our own ends. Yet the story of the Old Testament also includes the rest of the world. It’s not only about Israel; through Israel, the Gentiles were to be blessed. Already at the calling of Abram we read: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen 12:3).<\/p>\n

From there on, the story of Israel is surrounded by similarly worded promises. Israel was important, but not the goal. Israel was also meant to fulfill a function that would lead to blessing for all other Gentiles. The well-known Great Commission from Matthew 28 repeats these ideas, as they had already been expanded by the prophets.<\/p>\n

A Universal Reconciliation or Universal Conciliation isn’t taught directly in the Old Testament, but the direction is clear: to be blessed, so that blessing may be spread.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”181847″]<\/p>\n

The Goodness of God<\/h3>\n

When many Old Testament writers speak of the goodness of God and of the fact that he doesn’t rage endlessly, that’s an important observation. Within the framework of the respective narrative, and as part of a progressive revelation, only what matters for that context is described. Other things remain unmentioned.<\/p>\n

One can recognize that the view of Israel was never meant for Israel alone. All the promises were meant to be extended to all the Gentiles. Details were often lacking. What matters is the direction, the goal of the promise.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”212041″]<\/p>\n

The Foundational Narrative<\/h3>\n

One sometimes gets the impression that the Bible has a single foundational narrative. It sounds something like: “God is always the same and always acts the same way.” This assumption and interpretation is reinforced with statements like “The Bible is the infallible Word of God.” This masks interpretations and declares them divine. Something like that distorts the statements of the Bible. One doesn’t take the Bible seriously by draping ideological assumptions over it.<\/p>\n

As a result, a foundational narrative of the Bible is often taught that rests on two pillars:<\/p>\n