Chapter 17
How Far Does God’s Reconciling Work Reach?
How big is the gospel?
Not how important, and not how true. How big. How far does the saving work of Christ actually reach? Is there any corner of creation that falls outside of it? Is there any person whom God does not, in principle, intend to save?
These are not fringe questions. They sit at the heart of the New Testament itself. A whole cluster of passages declares that God intends to reconcile “all things.” “Every knee” will bow before Christ. In the end, God will be “all in all.” These texts do not appear in a single letter or a single mood. They appear across Paul’s writings, in different decades, addressed to different churches. They form a pattern.
I want to walk through that pattern carefully in this chapter. My aim is not to prove universalism. Nor is it to dismiss universalism. It is something more basic. I want to let these passages say what they say. I want to engage the best scholarship on both sides honestly. And then I want to ask a simple question: What do they tell us about the scope of God’s saving intention? Because the answer to that question matters for everything this book argues.
We start with what most scholars agree is an early Christian hymn. Paul quotes it in his letter to the Colossians. It celebrates Christ’s supremacy in two movements: first in creation, then in redemption. The second movement contains one of the most sweeping statements in the New Testament:
For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace through the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:19–20, ESV) — Colossians 1:19–20
The structure of the hymn makes the scope hard to miss. In verse 16, “all things” were created through Christ. In verse 20, “all things” are reconciled through him. The parallel is deliberate. James Dunn comments that Paul’s claim is that God’s purpose in the cross was to restore the harmony of the original creation.1 The “all things” reconciled in verse 20 are the same “all things” created in verse 16. Every single created thing.
Robin Parry, writing as Gregory MacDonald in The Evangelical Universalist, presses the point directly. The word Paul uses for reconciliation is apokatallasso (ἀποκαταλλάσσω). It appears only here, in Colossians 1:22, and in Ephesians 2:16.2 In every use, it describes a genuine repair of a broken relationship. In Colossians 1:22 it refers to the salvation of believers. In Ephesians 2:14–16 it describes Jews and Gentiles being brought together in Christ. Both times, reconciliation is a positive state: peace with God, hostility overcome.
Parry argues that this makes the non-universalist readings of verse 20 very hard to sustain.3 Some have suggested that “reconciling all things” simply means God imposes order on the universe. The wicked are “reconciled” by being punished. But that reading drains the word of its meaning. You can hardly say that a person suffering eternal punishment is “at peace” with God. Paul even says the reconciliation was accomplished by “making peace through the blood of his cross.” Peace and reconciliation go together in Paul. They point to salvation, not subjugation.4
Others argue that Paul states God’s desire but not the result. David Powys, for instance, claims the text refers to God’s intent rather than an actual achievement. Parry’s response is sharp: Paul does not write as though this is a hope. He treats the reconciliation as something already accomplished in Christ. The cross has already reconciled all things. Paul knows nothing of a theology in which God fails to accomplish his own purposes.5
I find Parry’s exegesis strong. The scope of the reconciliation really does match the scope of creation. Where I hold back is on the conclusion. Does this text, by itself, guarantee that every person will in fact be saved? I don't think it can bear that weight alone. The passage tells us the reach of God’s intention. It tells us the direction of the cross. But the question of whether each person freely receives that reconciliation is a question these verses do not settle. That question belongs to the freedom argument (see Chapter 22) and the synthesis (see Chapter 24).
What Colossians 1 does settle is this: the gospel is as big as creation. There is no corner of the universe God does not intend to reclaim.
If Colossians gives us the scope of reconciliation, Philippians gives us the picture of confession. Paul’s great Christ-hymn builds to this climax:
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9–11, ESV) — Philippians 2:9–11
Paul is quoting Isaiah 45:23. In Isaiah, Yahweh swears by himself that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess before him. Paul takes that divine oath and applies it to Jesus. The expansion is striking. Isaiah was speaking of the living. Paul adds “in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” That third layer is the realm of the dead.6 Even the dead will confess Christ as Lord. This much is not controversial among scholars.7
The debate is about the nature of the confession. Is this forced submission or willing worship?
The traditionalist case for forced submission faces real problems. First, take the Greek word for “bow.” Paul uses kampto (κάμπτω), which Vine associates with religious veneration (Romans 11:4; 14:11; Ephesians 3:14). Paul had a different word available if he meant compulsory bowing. In Romans 11:10, he uses sunkampto (συγκάμπτω), which does mean bending down by force.9 He chose not to use it here.
Second, consider what Paul himself says about confessing Christ as Lord. In 1 Corinthians 12:3, he writes, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit.” Andrew Hronich drives this home. If no one can confess Christ apart from the Spirit, and Paul says every tongue will confess, the conclusion follows: every tongue will one day do so through the Spirit.10
Third, the context of Isaiah 45 itself deserves a closer look. Verse 22 says, “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth!” Yahweh then swears the oath about every knee. Non-universalists point to verse 24, which mentions those who “were incensed against him” coming in shame. But in context, these are former idol-worshippers who turn from their worthless gods to the only God who can save. The shame is the shame of having worshipped idols, not the shame of damnation.11
Thomas Talbott presses the point with characteristic directness. A ruling monarch can force a subject to bow. But “praise and thanksgiving can only come from the heart.”12 A confession wrung from an unwilling soul brings no genuine glory to God. J. B. Lightfoot noticed the same thing long ago: the implications of praise exist “in the very passage of Isaiah which St. Paul adapts.”13
Hronich sharpens the argument further. Whenever a demoniac praised Christ in the Gospels, Jesus rebuked it. If God takes no pleasure in insincere worship, why would the climax of the Christ-hymn celebrate exactly that? God desires worship “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Forced, grudging obeisance is “foreign to the text and a blasphemous insult to the very nature of God.”14
I think the universalist reading of Philippians 2 is the more natural one. The text envisions willing confession, not coerced surrender. But “more natural” does not mean “certain.” There is a grammatical question about the aorist subjunctive. There is a contextual question too: Paul quotes the same Isaiah oath in Romans 14:11 in a judgment setting. The Philippians 2 passage powerfully supports the scope of God’s intention. Whether it guarantees the outcome for every individual remains an honest question.15
Paul tells the Ephesians that God has made known “the mystery of his will.” This mystery is “a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Ephesians 1:9–10, ESV).16
The key word is anakephalaioo (ἀνακεφαλαιόω): to sum up, to gather under one head. God’s eternal plan is to unite everything under Christ. The scope is cosmic. “All things in heaven and on earth” echoes the “all things” of Colossians 1:16, 20. The trajectory points the same direction: God is working to bring all of creation into harmony under Christ’s headship.
For our purposes the passage confirms what Colossians taught. God’s saving plan is not a rescue operation for a minority. It is a plan to reclaim everything he made. Whether “unite all things” means the personal salvation of every individual or the restoration of cosmic order under Christ’s rule is debated.17 But at minimum, the text puts the church on notice: think bigger than you have been thinking about the reach of the gospel.
Now we reach the densest of the universal-scope passages. Paul is writing about the resurrection:
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22, ESV) — 1 Corinthians 15:22
The parallel structure is tight. “In Adam all die” sets the scope: every descendant of Adam, every human being. “In Christ shall all be made alive” repeats the same “all.” If the first “all” is genuinely universal, the second must be as well. Talbott is blunt: “The grammatical evidence here seems utterly decisive.” You can reject it, he says, only if you are willing to reject what is right there before your eyes.18
The traditional reply, found in John Murray and others, is that the second “all” is restricted to “those who are Christ’s.” Paul says in verse 23, “But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to him.” Murray argues that this limits the “all made alive” to believers.19
Talbott’s response is forceful. From the premise that the second “all” refers to those who belong to Christ, it does not follow that this “all” is narrower than the first. To reach that conclusion, you must assume that some people will never belong to Christ. But that assumption begs the very question at stake. And it contradicts what Paul says next. Christ must reign “until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” When all things are subjected to him, “then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (vv. 25–28).20
Hronich presses the same structural point. If Christ’s subjection to the Father is the model for all other subjection, then it must be willing. Christ is not subject to the Father because he lacks the power to rebel. He is subject because his will is wholly aligned with the Father’s. In the end, Paul says, all things will be subject to Christ in the same way. And when that happens, God will be “all in all.”21
I think the universalist reading of 1 Corinthians 15 is stronger than many evangelicals admit. But I also think the traditionalist can make a reasonable case. The phrase “those who belong to him” in verse 23 does introduce a narrowing. Paul may be describing stages of a resurrection sequence, not a statement of universal scope. The text is genuinely contested. The point for this book is not to resolve the debate. It is to show that Paul’s vision of the end includes a moment when every competing will is brought into harmony with Christ. That vision coheres perfectly with a God who pursues every soul to the very end of the judgment.
Paul’s argument in Romans 5 is an extended comparison. Just as Adam’s trespass brought condemnation for all, so Christ’s act of righteousness brings “justification and life for all” (v. 18). The drumbeat of the passage is “much more.” Grace is not merely adequate. Grace exceeds the damage sin has done.
Talbott provides the sharpest reading. He observes that the parallel structure of verse 18 fixes the reference class with precision: “Just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for them all.” The same “all” who were condemned in Adam will eventually receive justification and life in Christ.22
The standard rebuttal, from scholars like F. F. Bruce, is that “all” here means “all without distinction rather than all without exception.” In other words, Paul is saying that God’s saving plan includes Gentile as well as Jew, not that every individual will be saved.23 N. T. Wright and Thomas Schreiner make a similar move with Romans 11:32: Paul is talking about groups (Jews and Gentiles), not about every last individual.24
This response has real force. Paul was fighting a battle on a specific front. His opponents assumed that God’s saving plan was limited to Israel. Paul insisted it included Gentiles too. “All” in some of these passages does primarily mean “all kinds of people.”
But it is not the whole picture. Talbott points out that even if Paul excludes Jesus himself from both uses of “all” (Jesus is neither condemned in Adam nor saved by Jesus), the structure demands that the same set condemned in Adam is the same set justified in Christ. That is not “all without distinction.” That is the whole human race.25 And the “much more” language of the passage pushes in the same direction: if grace does not exceed the damage, the comparison fails.
Paul reaches the climax of his sustained argument about Israel and the Gentiles with this declaration:
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (Romans 11:32–33, ESV) — Romans 11:32–33
The “all” imprisoned in disobedience is the same “all” on whom God has mercy. Talbott reads this as the most direct statement of universalism in Paul. If the scope of the disobedience is universal, the scope of the mercy is universal too.26
The traditional reading (Wright, Schreiner, Dunn) sees the “all” as referring to Jews and Gentiles as corporate groups, not to every individual. Dunn writes that the verse means God’s mercy is “not for Jews only, nor for Gentiles only, but for all.”27 On this reading, Paul is making an ethnic-inclusion point, not a universalist one.
I think both readings capture something real. Paul is absolutely making an ethnic-inclusion point. His entire argument in Romans 9–11 is about Israel’s place in God’s plan and the surprising inclusion of Gentiles. But the language keeps exceeding the ethnic frame. “Mercy on all” is an odd way to say “mercy on both groups” if you do not mean every member. And the doxology that follows suggests Paul himself feels the scope is almost too large to hold: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!”
At minimum, the verse tells us that God’s mercy is the final word, not his wrath. The trajectory of Paul’s argument ends in worship, not in fear.
Step back from the individual passages and look at the whole cluster. Colossians: God reconciles “all things.” Philippians: every knee bows, every tongue confesses. Ephesians: God unites “all things” under Christ. 1 Corinthians: in Christ all are made alive, and God becomes “all in all.” Romans 5: grace exceeds condemnation for the same “all.” Romans 11: God has mercy on all.
The trajectory is unmistakable. Parry is right to say that these texts, taken together, envision the salvation of all creation as the purpose of the cross and the direction of God’s plan.28 The “hell texts” exist too, and I take them seriously. But the universalist passages are not obscure proof-texts plucked from the margins. They are among Paul’s most soaring declarations of what God has done in Christ.
Where do these texts leave us? I believe they establish three things.
First, God’s saving intention is genuinely universal. He does not intend to rescue a remnant and let the rest perish. The scope of the atonement (see Chapter 3) and the scope of the reconciliation match the scope of creation itself.
Second, these texts make biblical universalism a live and respectable hope. A reader who takes these passages at their most natural reading and concludes that all will be saved is not distorting Scripture. She is reading with the grain of some of Paul’s strongest statements. This matters because the church has sometimes treated universalism as obviously heretical. These texts say otherwise.29
Third, these texts do not, by themselves, settle the outcome. Confessing Christ as Lord (Philippians 2) could, in principle, be willing or unwilling. “Reconciliation” in Colossians 1 could be embraced or resisted. “All made alive” in 1 Corinthians 15 could refer to stages of a process still unfolding. The freedom argument of Chapter 22 remains in play: a real “yes” requires the possibility of a real “no.”
This is why the distinction between universal scope and universal salvation matters so much for this book. I argue for the scope. I hold the salvation as a hope. I do not assert it as a certainty, because freedom is real and I will not pretend it isn’t. But the trajectory of these texts gives that hope a solid biblical foundation. And a God who reaches this far in his intention will not stop reaching when a person dies. That is the bridge to everything this book has been building.
The same God who intends to reconcile “all things” is the God who meets the dying at the threshold (Chapter 11), who keeps pursuing in Hades (Chapter 8), and who stands before every remaining soul at the judgment (Chapter 27). The universal-scope passages do not prove the mechanism of the threefold offer. But they reveal the heart behind it. A God who wills the reconciliation of “all things” is exactly the kind of God who would do what this book describes.
And the question of whether that hope will be fully realized? That question, held honestly and without false certainty, belongs to Chapter 24.
↑ 1. James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 104.
↑ 2. The verb ἀποκαταλλάσσω (apokatallasso) occurs in the NT only at Colossians 1:20, 22 and Ephesians 2:16. Its root, καταλλάσσω (katallasso), appears at Romans 5:10; 1 Corinthians 7:11; and 2 Corinthians 5:18–20. Both forms presuppose a rupture in relationship that is then repaired.
↑ 3. Gregory MacDonald [Robin Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), ch. 5, “Paul.” Parry’s discussion of Colossians 1:15–20 argues that every non-universalist interpretation requires strained readings of either “all things” or “reconcile.”
↑ 4. The association of peace with God, reconciliation, and salvation in Paul: Romans 5:1, 10; Ephesians 2:14–16. For the argument that reconciliation in Colossians 1:20 must carry salvific meaning, see Parry, Evangelical Universalist, ch. 5; and Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, trans. Andrew Chester (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982), 260–77.
↑ 5. David J. Powys, “Hell”: A Hard Look at a Hard Question—The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 337. Parry’s reply is in Evangelical Universalist, ch. 5. Paul’s use of the aorist tense (ἀποκαταλλάξαι) implies that the cross-work was decisive, though the reconciliation continues to unfold in history.
↑ 6. The three-level cosmology—heaven, earth, and under the earth—encompasses every being in creation, including the dead. John Chrysostom reads the phrase as encompassing “the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons.” See Parry, Evangelical Universalist, ch. 5.
↑ 7. George Hunsinger observes of Philippians 2:10, “The divine/human Jesus, worshiped at first by only a tiny community, will one day be confessed by all the world.” See Andrew Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved (2024), ch. 4.
↑ 8. Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. 4. Hronich surveys every NT occurrence of ἐξομολογέω and finds none that denote forced obeisance. Jesus uses the word in Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21 for praising the Father. On the Septuagint background, see J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 4th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1878), 115–16.
↑ 9. W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Nelson, 1984), s.v. “Bow.” Vine distinguishes κάμπτω (religious veneration) from συγκάμπτω (compulsory bowing). See Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. 4.
↑ 10. Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. 4. The argument: if “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3), and “every tongue” will confess (Phil 2:11), then every tongue will confess in the Spirit. The logical implication is that every person will one day confess Christ through the Spirit’s work.
↑ 11. Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. 4. The wider passage (Isaiah 45:20–25) begins with a call to the nations to turn from their idols. The shame of v. 24 attaches to those who were incensed against Yahweh but now come to him. The shame is over past idol-worship, not over an everlasting damnation.
↑ 12. Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), ch. 5. Talbott’s observation about the LXX overtones of ἐξομολογέω is confirmed by Lightfoot and Dunn. See also Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 289–90.
↑ 13. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 4th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1878), 115–16. Lightfoot notes that in the LXX, ἐξομολογέω has “almost entirely supplanted its primary meaning” with the sense of offering praise and thanksgiving. See also James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), 819.
↑ 14. Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. 4. Hronich’s rhetorical point: forced worship is something a despot might enjoy, not the God revealed in Christ. See also Malachi 1:10, 13 on God’s rejection of insincere worship.
↑ 15. Beilby provides a balanced treatment of the “every knee will bow” passages. He notes that the universalist argument’s minor premise—that all who bow are saved—is open to challenge. Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 289–90.
↑ 16. On ἀνακεφαλαιόω (anakephalaioō) in Ephesians 1:10, see Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary 42 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 32–34. The word means “to sum up” or “to bring together under one head.” Lincoln links it to the cosmic reconciliation of Colossians 1:20.
↑ 17. Lincoln, Ephesians, 77–78. Lincoln reads Ephesians 1:10 as cosmic in scope but stops short of drawing a universalist conclusion. See also Karl A. Moritz, “‘Summing Up All Things,’” in Christ’s Victorious Church: Essays on Biblical Ecclesiology and Eschatology in Honor of Tom Schreiner (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019), 101–24.
↑ 18. Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Talbott argues that when Paul sets up a parallel structure with “all” in both clauses, the second “all” must match the first. Murray’s claim that the second “all” is more restrictive than the first attributes an incoherent sloppiness to Paul.
↑ 19. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959–65), 1:203. Murray argues that the second “all” in both 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Romans 5:18 is restricted to those who belong to Christ.
↑ 20. Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Talbott argues that Paul’s description of the end in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 envisions a triumph in which every competing will is brought into subjection to Christ—and nothing short of universal reconciliation qualifies as such a triumph within Paul’s framework.
↑ 21. Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. 4. Hronich argues that Christ’s subjection to the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:28 is the model for all subjection. Since Christ’s subjection is plainly willing, all subjection must be willing too. See also Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5, who makes the same argument: “So long as a single will remains in a state of rebellion against Christ… at least one power in the universe is not yet in subjection to Christ.”
↑ 22. Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Talbott reconstructs Paul’s precision in identifying the reference class: the same “all” condemned in Adam are the same “all” who receive justification and life in Christ. This is not “all without distinction” but the whole human race.
↑ 23. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 130. Bruce’s formula—“all without distinction rather than all without exception”—has become the standard non-universalist reply to the Pauline “all” passages. See also Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 281–82.
↑ 24. N. T. Wright argues that Romans 11:32 is the conclusion of Paul’s case that God’s mercy extends to Jews and Gentiles alike; “to assume that this verse must mean ‘all men individually’ is to take the text right out of context.” See N. T. Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); and Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 625–28.
↑ 25. Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Talbott refutes Charles Hodge’s claim that because the first “all” in Romans 5:18 excludes Jesus, the second “all” may likewise exclude vast numbers of people. As Talbott shows, this reasoning attributes unwarranted theological significance to a perfectly ordinary way of speaking. The important point is that the same reference class appears in both clauses.
↑ 26. Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. See also Romans 11:30–31, where Paul describes a double movement: the Gentiles received mercy while Israel was disobedient, and now Israel will receive mercy as well. The climactic v. 32 draws both movements together: God imprisoned all in disobedience so that he might have mercy on all.
↑ 27. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), 697. Dunn reads Romans 11:32 as a statement about corporate groups rather than individuals: “A Christianity which takes the ‘all’ seriously cannot operate with any kind of ethnic, national, cultural, or racial particularism.”
↑ 28. Parry, Evangelical Universalist, ch. 5. Parry reads the Pauline universalist texts as “a central and pervasive theme,” not isolated proof-texts. The same point is made by Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5, who calls universal reconciliation “a central and pervasive theme in Paul.”
↑ 29. The relationship between postmortem opportunity and universalism is explored in Chapter 28. The author’s own position—conditional immortality with openness to universal restoration—is stated in Chapter 24.