The repetitious use of the “I” pronoun is offensive in others and to be avoided in any discourse. I shall take the risk. The following is my reaction and reflection upon the book by Richard H. Bell, entitled, “The Irrevocable Call of God”, 2005. I stumbled upon this book investigating the pro’s and con’s of Christian universalism which maintains that all of mankind, past present and future, is being gathered together by Christ to rest for all eternity in the arms of our father God. About four years ago I equated such a hypothesis with the pagan cults and was certain that the Bible would never support such an intellectual pipe dream.
I am an amateur biblical theologian and an amateur Christian who has embraced a life long romance with the Bible. Having read three or four more popular books about this subject, the title of Dr. Bell’s book intrigued me. If God had an eternal destiny in mind for the people of Israel, the people who have rejected the Messiah for over 2000 years, could not this same destiny await all peoples? Paying over $100 for a book gave me a few moments pause but I was curious enough to take the plunge.
The author was a complete unknown to me so I began reading as if in the dark. The Greek, Hebrew and German is way above my pay grade but it is sprinkled through the text so that it allowed frequent skipping without loosing the train of thought. There are footnotes galore, probably close to half the text, citing mostly current biblical scholars of the last fifty years. Dr. Bell contrasts the work of recent systemic theologians and biblical scholars with a sprinkling of theologians of historical note. The text is 422 pages with another 130 pages of reference material in the back of the book.
This man is a thinker with multiple degrees in science, theology and he teaches philosophy. One would think that scholarship at this level would make this book difficult to follow but this is not the case. I was hooked within the first few pages. Everything is an argument, everything is a collection of contrasting opinions from familiar minds that force the reader to think right along with the author. Most impressive is the way he handles scripture, his is a hermeneutic for the 21st century.
A case in point is the tension in the writings of St. Paul regarding the religion of Israel and the spiritual destiny of the Jew. The author uses the word “development” to describe the unavoidable change in Paul’s thinking between his early letters and the last letter to the Romans. How can one with a narrow static hermeneutic account for this obvious difference, one should ask, which Paul is correct? I would guess that the author would say they are both correct but that the more mature Roman perspective is the way forward. Possibly, all scripture is true but all scripture must be weighed as if on a scale. The Roman perspective on the future of Israel is a 10 while the Galatian perspective is an immature 3. Please don’t blame this methodology on the author.
This is a book that meticulously details the relevant scripture, particularly in St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. You may find an answer to the biblical question of our time, does “all” mean “all”? Did the apostle Paul mean "all"?
You may read this book and at least have an informed opinion.
G.Goslaw
Landers, Ca.
