Loading...
There has been an extraordinary range of views in Christianity about who will be “saved,” whether people have any say in the matter, what it requires, whether salvation can be lost, and … most everything else connected with this central teaching of the religion. It may seem odd that disagreements among Christian thinkers would involve the very core message, rather than other issues of less significance and centrality, but, well, there it is.
In my previous post I pointed to passages in the letter to the Hebrews that seem pretty clearly to indicate that a person could well lose their salvation. At the extreme other end of the theological spectrum was/is the view that in fact everyone will be saved.
That’s a view more commonly thought to reside on the margins of Christendom, but it’s always been around – and is getting stronger now than ever – and can easily be traced, again, back to the New Testament, all the way back to its most revered author, the apostle Paul.
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
It can be debated if Paul genuinely believed in universal salvation, but there certainly are some passages that seem like it.
In his letter to the Romans, for example, Paul contrasts the judgment that came to be inflicted on the entire human race because of the sin of the first man, Adam, with the salvation to come with equal universal force through the righteous act of redemption of the second Adam, Christ.
- “And so, as condemnation came to all people through the transgression of one person, so too the righteousness that leads to life comes to all people through the righteous act of one person” (Romans 5:18). Here righteousness and life come not to some but to all.
- He also later indicates that God imprisoned all people in lives of disobedience “so that he might show mercy to all” (Romans 11:32). Once again “all”: as many as are disobedient are saved.
- Or, as Paul says in the book of Philippians, when Christ was exalted at his resurrection, God gave him the divine name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus, in the end, “every knee will bow, of those in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth” (Philippians 2:10). Not some knees, but every knee.
- Indeed, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, at the end of time, “all things” will be subject to the Lordship of Christ, who will then subject all things to God himself, “so that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). Everything, then, will return to submission to God. Surely that means all living creatures, including sinners, no?
That was certainly the view of the greatest theologian of the Christian church of the first three centuries, Origen of Alexandria (circa 185 ). Origen was massively learned and extraordinarily prolific, a one-man publishing industry who produced a fantastic number of treatises, commentaries, and homilies….
The most systematic expression of his thought comes in a work called On First Principles. One of his thoughts was that, in the end, everyone will submit to God’s sovereignty and be saved. That includes the most wicked of humans. And the demons. Even the devil. God will literally be “all in all.”
The backdrop for Origen’s view of the end of all things (universal salvation) comes in his understanding of the beginning of all things. In the first book of On First Principles, Origen explains how all sentient beings originally came into existence. In eternity past, before the world began, God created an enormous number of souls, whose purpose was to contemplate and adore him forever. True adoration, of course, requires freedom of the will: beings need to choose to adore God if their worship is a true honor. That means all souls must also have had the capacity to choose not to worship God—that is, to do evil. None of these created souls was inherently evil, however, and none—not even the soul that was to become the devil—“was incapable of good”.
As it happened, virtually all the souls failed in their task. Only one soul, the soul of Christ, determinedly remained connected with God without flinching. All other souls fell away from the contemplation of God. Some fell in a very big way—none more than the devil. Others fell somewhat less and became demons. Others fell into human bodies. Yet others became brute animals or even plants.
This very bad situation played itself out over the course of many ages in the history of the world. Ultimately, though, Origen maintained that since God is sovereign over all, his sovereignty will be recognized by all. Otherwise he is not really the Lord God Almighty but only relatively mighty and partially sovereign.
Some humans here in this fallen realm realize they need to return to God and so do so in this life by faith in Christ, God’s means of restoration. They then are saved at death. Others don’t do that, and so … and so God will bring them back for another chance. Origen was one of the very few Christians who argued for reincarnation. His logic for it was theological: God wants all people to be saved; but people have the free will to choose God or not; if they choose not, then they are given another chance to choose again (reincarnated); if they don’t choose correctly then, they are brought back again… and it goes on that way for age after age after age, until finally, everyone, “gets it.” It will be of their own free will, but it will result in the will of God.
As Origen says in one place: “We believe that the goodness of God through Christ will restore his entire creation to one end, even his enemies being conquered and subdued” (On First Principles 1.6.1 ). In support of his view, Origen quotes the words of Paul: that at the end God will place all of Christ’s enemies under his feet in “subjection to him” (1 Corinthians 15:25). In Origen’s understanding, “the word ‘subjection’ when used of our subjection to Christ, implies the salvation . . .of those who are subject” (On First Principles 1.6.1 ).
There were other early Christian authors who held to the idea of universal salvation, including a number of prominent theologians whom he later influenced (and before he was declared a “heretic” for his views, especially his idea that even the devil in the end would be saved). All of them thought their views were supported by Scripture, and especially by the writings of Paul.
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
43 Comments
Leave A Comment
Some people get angry at the idea of universal salvation. These are like the elder son in the parable of the Prodigal Son, who resents his brother’s being taken back in unconditionally by the father. Certainly the idea of universal salvation is a lot more palatable than the Calvinists’ predestination to heaven or hell.
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Dale Alison has said that the word for buried in 1 corinthians 15 means to be buried in a mass grave, tomb or stone cave but it does not mean in a hallow grave where bird eat the corpse.
Is this true?
The verb Paul uses in 1 Cor. 15:4, THAPTO, means to be placed in a TAPHOS, which is the place, of whatever kind, a corpse was placed or simply ended up in. 1 Clement uses it to refer to the place from which God brings people when they are born in the world (1 Clem 38:3); Ignatius of Antioch uses it to refer to the bellies of the wild beasts that he is going to when they rip him apart and devour him (Ignatius to the Romans 3:13). (My sense is that most corpses deposited in a shallow grave were not eaten by birds…)
Universalism is certainly appealing to our merciful side. Why did the church broadly go the other way: was it related to formation of the canon? I’ve heard Origen wasn’t sold on revelation, nor was Isaac of Nineveh (also considered a universalist).
Yup, in a sense it had an impact on the canon. In my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell, I argued it’s the reason the Apocalypse of Peter did not make it into the NT.
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Dale Alison has said that hw thinks Iseah 53:9 could be also understood that Jesus was supposed to be burried with the wicked. So he thinks if Jesus was burried in a mass grave the christians would have used that.
When Paul speaks about “the righteousness that leads to life comes to all people through the righteous act of one person,” it is not clear whether this really applies to all people—in the sense of every human being, regardless of what they have done during their lives.
In Romans 2:6–8, for instance, he clearly distinguishes between those who will be saved and those who won’t, *“according to their works”:
— those who, by patience in well-doing, seek for glory and honor and immortality → eternal life
— those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness → wrath and anger
Yet all his arguments in Romans seem to culminate in Romans 11:32 “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all”
Then regarding the role of works there is
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
This suggests we will still be accountable for what we do and the fire imagery suggests it won’t be comfortable but we can still all be saved in Christ.
I too struggle with the idea that people WANT God to consign most of humanity (not including themselves and their loved ones of course) to eternal torment. They often convince themselves that their unbelieving loved ones must have made a last minute decision before death to believe, because the alternative is devastating..
What you have to realize is that universalists don’t believe everyone will be saved initially, the timeline most of the scriptures regarding salvation refer to. Paul’s universalist passages are referring to a longer horizon, some distant time or eternity where everyone will be reconciled – even those who weren’t saved.
It’s sad that so many people would be disappointed if everyone would eventually be saved.
I know this is a bit of a tangent, but I recently watched your podcast where you outlined several models of salvation in Paul’s writings, and it made me think of something I noticed while reading Galatians. A few years ago, I learned about the ancient practice of using curse tablets—thin sheets of lead inscribed with a person’s name or image and an account of something wrong they did, which were then scratched up, pierced, bent, sometimes nailed, and finally buried as a way of calling on a deity to bring harm to that individual. It struck me that this bears a striking resemblance to what happened to Jesus during his trial and crucifixion: his body was beaten, pierced, and nailed, and then buried. So when Paul writes, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” I wonder if he might have had something like this in mind. Could Paul have been portraying Jesus as a kind of living curse tablet—absorbing the curses of the Torah upon himself so that divine wrath would be cast on him rather than on us?
I object to all these words about being “subject” to Christ or God. Being lorded over by them. Being groveling and bent over before or beneath them.
I can believe in and understand much better things like: Joy in Christ, Happiness in Christ, Union with Christ and God, Love of and in and from Christ and God, Singing in Christ, Fullness a Forfilment in Christ, and so forth.
Why do people always have to come up with ideas that we have to be groveling garbage and trash before Christ, and that’s just the way it is?
Well, those words (“subject to”, “every knee will bow”, etc.) are used by the New Testament writers. Or to be precise, those are correct English translations of the Greek words used by the New Testament writers. So your objection is to parts of the New Testament itself.
Why did the Greek New Testament writers have to come up with that stuff?
Where’s the “freedom” in Christ, and the “joy” in Christ?
These things tend to crush and destroy all sense of freedom and joy.
—————————————
It’s one thing that Christ is the primary influence and that people want him to be. It’s another thing that people have to be in this state of bowing and submission.
Being subject to a merciful compassionate God is not onerous. He ensures his subjects live in joy in Christ etc. They are one with Him. He is an infinitely good, kind and loving king. The alternative is being subject to evil. That does not go well.
Idk. I think that if one really does “submit” to God and Christ, They make a person free and independent, not groveling and subjected all the time. Independent in the Light is different from being independent and detached from God and sanity.
I get what you are saying, that it’s better than being subject to evil. That really does leave one in a psychological trap of non-freedom and negative confinement.
I also don’t understand the word “king”. Perhaps it’s because my ancestry has lived in a democracy for so many generations that I/we simply don’t know what it means anymore.
I really like these ideas put forth by Origen, that all people are “saved” and the idea that reincarnation can be a part of this.
I think though people might want to look at the disincentives for taking the long/wrong way around to getting where we need to be in being happy and descent people.
It reminds me a bit of how we got my niece to feel good about brushing her teeth. We told her that it wasn’t worth it to have cavities and have her teeth drilled, and that even worse things can happen. – – – We told her the positive things too, like who wants that yucky fuzzy teeth feeling and that it feels good to have a clean healthy mouth, and that when she gets older she’ll be able to eat anything. —Today I have a 37 year old niece who has never had a cavity and has never had to have her teeth drilled. It was one of those things that was like; Just take our word for it and don’t find out the hard way for yourself. She went with it, and I think she’s glad she did.
The author of 1 John seems to support the idea of universal salvation in 2:2:
“and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
But then in subsequent verses he seems to say that in order for that atoning sacrifice to be effective one must “abide” in Christ and obey his commandments. “Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.”
In thee and thy seed shall ALL the nations be blessed.
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, there was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve kinds of fruit and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
It appears that the theme of the Bible is that all those who desire to enter the Kingdom of Righteousness will.
I’ve always been content to interpret the verses offered to suggest universalism as indicating only the universality of Jesus’ sacrifice, not ultimate salvation. But I must say that I am intrigued by 1 Timothy 4:10: “…we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” Would like to hear Dr. Ehrman’s thoughts on that verse.
Yes, I think “all people” means … “all.” But it’s obvioulsy difficult to reconcile that with other passages in Paul. (I don’t think 1 Timothy was written by Paul). And easy to see it confirmed in yet other passages by Paul!
Though not LDS myself, I explored way more than a typical non-member because of a very good friend. I never noticed before how much Origen aligned with LDS ideas about a pre-earth life. Did Joseph Smith read Origen? While they don’t believe in reincarnation, they have numerous opportunities for redemption after death, which is why they do necessary sacraments such as baptism for people who have already passed. The only folks who are totally screwed are Sons of Perdition, who are cast into Outer Darkness (weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc); those are folks who have received the Gospel and actively rejected it (my buddy was concerned that I was maybe in that position. I remain unconcerned). Anyway, is there any reason to believe that Origen was the source of some of Joseph Smith’s ideas? Or is the idea of universal salvation just end up looking similar for folks using similar sources?
My favorite authors, including Marcus Borg, seemed to believe in universal salvation. I was able to hear this from him in a small group conversation, in fact. I thought it ironic that Borg thought salvation was inevitable; I shared that idea with him: “resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.” For some reason, he didn’t think it was nearly as funny as I did. For the Star Trek community. Yes, this conversation actually did take place.
Very interested in this topic. Would love to here your take on the word aion translated as everlasting. Some say it means an age or ages lasting or something not necessarily eternal. Others say that this would mean eternal life is only age or ages lasting but to me it doesn’t preclude the life going on beyond the age of the suffering. Not sure if I am making sense.
It’s an interesting word, for sure. It definitely means eternal, by way of “age”, but *not everlasting* most of the time. In other words, context may give it a meaning of everlasting, but that’s not the primary idea.
What do I mean that it means eternal, but not everlasting?
You have to think of eternity as something other than endlessness. Think of a sort of timeless time – a stand-in for temporality used by the divine. Unlike physical time, which is the heartbeats winding down and the stars burning out, eternity is a nowness where nothing is corruptible and it is fit for the divinity to dwell in. Now imagine human beings being clothed with incorruptibility like in the resurrection. They aren’t going to be living in time anymore. They’re going to be living in eternity. In the age to come. That’s the idea.
Maybe it’s not about whether we get saved. It’s about when.
Thing is, we get attached to this earth. It’s the only home we know. It kinda makes a person want to be un-saved if we can never live on earth again.
I wonder if we can come back here and at least visit when we get “there”/saved and go on to eternity?
It looks like Jesus did. Come back to earth, that is.
(That is if all of this is true, I think that at least some of it is).
If I were Calvinist, I would want God to send me a certificate of Election. That way I would know I was eternally saved. Also, I could ask others of the “Elect” to show me their certificates. Under Origen’s scheme, everyone would get a certificate but with different redemption dates. At times I seriously wondered about Purgatory so that everyone would have to pay some penalty for their sins. I’ve read somewhere that some Jewish sages taught that souls may have to spend up to a year receiving remediation before they can enter heaven.
Dear Professor Ehrman:
I have a lot to say about this & much more than 6 years ago when living in China [I’m an ABC].
back in 2009, to the Expat Church in Beijing I was citing Franklin Graham & the leadership was saying the son wasn’t a reflection of the father [& boy was this true loudly 6 or 7 years later!
The church I grew up in believed in predestination. I believe since I was never in a place of leadership or authority: they are most likely NOT going to heaven.
Also those that make it intolerably difficult to live a decent virtuous life.
To me universalism is the only way it can work, but I’m reminded of a quote that I will get wrong I’m sure… that says “you can build a house out of scripture that makes a case for universalism, Calvinism, or Armenianism, but you will always have lumber left over.”
Hi Dr. Ehrman
I hope your weekend is going well.
I’m a Christian and I follow your work intently. People have asked “why? He’s as atheist!” Well, because I find your work to be among the most sober, fair, and rigorous of just about anyone. Straight facts with no bull. Not a bad place to go for information.
Anyway, my question here: in this post and others, as well as Heaven and Hell, you lend credibility to universalism. You present it as biblically and theologically legitimate. I think it is too. My only hang up is Jesus talking judgment, destruction, and Gehenna frequently, lending to annihilation. What do you make of this in light of Paul, Origen, and other universalist voices you’ve mentioned?
For what it’s worth, most of the stuff I talk and write about I learned and held to while I was still a Christian (and much of it I learned in seminary being trained as a pastor!).
I deal with your question at length in my book Heaven and Hell. I don’t think that universalism was ever the mainline view within Christianity and certainly not in the NT. Some of Paul’s statements certainly seem to point in that directdion, but others definitely do not; Jesus himself does not appear to have been a universalist. But later readers saw them both as universalists, and my point is that there are certaily passages, especially in Paul, that could be read that way.
Reading the Philippians quote about “every knee” in this context, it strikes me that there is still a partition of knees into three categories: those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth. Does this imply the existence of some judgement to determine where the knees will go (I surely hope both mine will go to the same place)? Or is it just all knees, wherever there might happen to be at the time? Also what time?, the context of the citation does not say “at the end”, just “God has exalted… so that every knee…”.
Or maybe we shouldn’t be taking poetry literally?
Yeah, a bit too literal I’d say. The text is indicating that in the end, every living being will worship (bend the knee to) Jesus.
Hey Bart, I wrote a long chapter titled “A Quasi-Pauline Universalism” in Grace Abounds (2024) that was published with Wipf and Stock and endorsed by several historians/theologians you may know like John Milbank. You might be interested if you want to see a more systematic defense of Paul (and the author of Col/Eph) as a universalist. Let me know if you would like me to send a pdf.
Congratulations!