Christology
Discipline Overview
Thematic article based on the works of E.W. Bullinger, George Warnock, C. and A. Noordzij, Stephen E. Jones, and Watchman Nee & Witness Lee listed below.
Primary sources: Number in Scripture · The Feast of Tabernacles (Warnock) · Evening and Morning · Feed My Sheep · The Hyssop that Springeth Out of the Wall · From Tent to Temple · Moses and the Way to Sonship · From Passover to Tabernacles · Creation’s Jubilee · The Restoration of All Things · Secrets of Time · The Laws of the Second Coming · The All-Inclusive Christ · The Economy of God
Source abbreviations: NIS = Number in Scripture (Bullinger) · FoT-W = The Feast of Tabernacles (Warnock) · EaM = Evening and Morning (Warnock) · FMS = Feed My Sheep (Warnock) · Hys = The Hyssop that Springeth Out of the Wall (Warnock) · FTT = From Tent to Temple (Warnock) · WAY = Who Are You? (Warnock) · Moses = Moses and the Way to Sonship (Noordzij) · Word = The Word of God and Scripture (Noordzij) · Ark = The Ark of Noah (Noordzij) · Jabez = The Inheritance of Jabez (Noordzij) · PaT = From Passover to Tabernacles (Noordzij) · FoT-N = The Feast of Tabernacles (Noordzij) · SJG = The Signs of Jesus in the Gospel of John (Noordzij) · AIC = The All-Inclusive Christ (Nee/Lee) · EoG = The Economy of God (Nee/Lee) · BEC1–3 = Basic Elements of Christian Life, Vol. 1–3 (Nee/Lee) · KoL = The Knowledge of Life (Nee/Lee) · GC = The Glorious Church (Nee) · CJ = Creation’s Jubilee (Jones) · ROAT = The Restoration of All Things (Jones) · SoT = Secrets of Time (Jones) · LSC = Laws of the Second Coming (Jones) · SUHUR = A Short History of Universal Reconciliation (Jones) · IGCE = If God Could Save Everyone (Jones)
The christological question and what is at stake
Who Christ is determines what he has accomplished — and for whom. Christology is not a theological specialty alongside soteriology and eschatology; it is their common foundation. If the scope of Christ’s atoning work is particular — for an elect group, not for humanity as a whole — then salvation too is particular, and apokatastasis (Acts 3:21) can never be more than a pious longing. But if Christ is the second Adam whose obedience precisely and universally reverses the defect of the first Adam, then the restitution of all things follows from the very nature of his work. Christology and apokatastasis are in that sense inseparable: how the Person and work of Christ are understood decides the scope of the restoration.
This overview draws on five works that illuminate Christ from divergent angles — through numerical patterns in Scripture, through typological hermeneutics, through the jubilee law as a juridical framework, through the organic intermingling of divine and human nature, and through the Logos-Christology of the Gospel of John. However diverse the angles, they converge in one direction: Christ as the all-inclusive Restorer in whom no creature can be definitively lost.
Pre-existence and the eternal Word
At the start of Christology stands not the birth in Bethlehem but the eternal Word of God. “The Word is the origin of everything: it is God himself (John 1:1-3)” — Emmanuel and Jesus are the human names of the Word that was with God from eternity [Noordzij, Word]. Pre-existence is the point of departure that gives the incarnation its theological weight: there was genuinely something before flesh was assumed.
Christ’s eternal identity is underlined by the self-designations that John and Revelation assign to him — “I am the first and the last… beside me there is no God” (Isa. 44:6; Rev. 1:11) — expressions that in their Isaiah context refer to the LORD God himself and in Revelation are applied to Jesus Christ [Bullinger, NIS]. The number 21 (3×7) is stamped on the expression “Christ at the right hand of God”, which occurs twenty-one times in Scripture; the numerical structure confirms in Bullinger’s manner what the texts say in content: the eternal kingship of Christ is divinely authenticated [Bullinger, NIS].
That eternity has an atoning dimension as well. As “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8), Christ’s death on the cross is not an afterthought of God but the core of an eternal purpose — decided before creation, accomplished in time, with eternity as its horizon [Warnock, FTT]. The redemption is as great, as ancient, and as wide as creation itself.
Incarnation: the great self-emptying
Nothing in Christology requires more theological care than the question of how the eternal Word could become flesh. The incarnation is the crossing of a metaphysical divide that is normally regarded as unbridgeable: the absolute enters the finite, the immortal assumes mortality, the Creator enters the creation. How exactly that can be is a mystery that baffles every theologian; but why it had to be, can be stated clearly from several angles.
The most unguarded formulation of the incarnation as self-emptying is that of Phil. 2:7: Christ “emptied himself” (ekenōsen heauton). The incarnation is the moment at which the Most High poured himself into human nature, placed himself in a condition of weakness, flesh and blood, temptation and poverty:
“How could the Most High possibly empty Himself into human nature without becoming poor, and weak, and meek, and lowly?”
[Warnock, EaM, ch. 5]
That kenosis has both a metaphysical and an existential dimension. Metaphysically: the divine glory is laid aside, divine power is not exercised. Existentially: Christ lives as man in complete dependence on the Father, “can do nothing of himself” (John 5:30), and seeks his authority not in position but in communion with the Father [Warnock, FMS]. The kenosis is not a temporary inconvenience but the structural principle of Christ’s earthly existence from manger to cross.
No less powerful than the kenosis line is the incarnation as theophany — as the self-revelation of God’s true character. The question is not only how God could enter flesh, but what that flesh revealed about God:
“That is why the great and mighty God of the universe who created all things could not for ever remain high and lifted up in the heavens… He must come down and show Himself as He really is: for God the Father, living in His own Son in all His fulness, truly revealed Himself as He really is: meek, and lowly, and compassionate.”
[Warnock, Hys, hyssop2.html]
The incarnation is thus God’s self-disclosure as true: in the man Jesus we see not a temporary exception to the divine character but its actual nature.
Viewed juridically, the incarnation was a necessity of an entirely different kind. In order to exercise the right of the kinsman-redeemer (go’el) over humanity, Christ had to become a blood relative of those he redeemed. A redeemer can act only on behalf of his own family [Lev. 25:47-55]. Christ could not come as an angel; as the eternal Creator he stood at a remove; only by being born as a human being of flesh and blood did he acquire the legal right of the nearest kinsman [Jones, CJ, ch. 7; Jones, IGCE]. “For both the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one; for which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb. 2:11). The incarnation is the inscription of the universal Creator into a particular blood-bond — so that he can act with legal right on behalf of all that is flesh.
Along a fourth path, the incarnation is described as a mingling: the divine nature comes to be intimately joined with the human. Christ brings God into man; through his incarnation the unapproachable has become accessible, the unreachable Father reachable:
“The Father was pleased to mingle His own divinity with humanity in the Son. Through the incarnation of the Son, the unapproachable Father is now approachable to man.”
[Nee/Lee, EoG, ch. 1]
The numerical trail of the incarnation runs through the fourteen occurrences of the expression “these are the generations” (tol’doth) in Scripture, of which Matt. 1:1 is the last and decisive one: Jesus as the “last Adam” who closes the series that began with the “first Adam” [Bullinger, NIS]. The pivotal role of Matt. 1:1 is of great typological significance: salvation history runs from the first Adam to the Last Adam, from origin-in-creation to restoration-of-creation.
Two natures and the character of Christ’s humanity
The classical formulation of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) states that Christ is fully God and fully man, the two natures unmixed and inseparable in one person. This doctrine is not formally discussed in the sources studied, but its content sounds throughout — sometimes confirmatory, sometimes in its own formulation.
The two-natures doctrine is confirmed along two lines. On one hand: Christ is “the incarnate God” and at the same time “a true man” who lived on earth for thirty-three and a half years [Nee/Lee, BEC1, ch. 1; BEC2]. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily (Col. 2:9): in him there is no partial or reduced divinity but the unabridged plēroma (Gk: fullness) of the Godhead [Warnock, FTT, tent7.html]. On the other hand: the humanity is real and permanent. After his resurrection Christ was no longer flesh and blood in the old sense, but neither did he return to a state prior to the incarnation. The humanity remained — glorified, but not dissolved:
“After His resurrection, Christ did not put off His humanity to become exclusively God again. Christ is still a man!”
[Nee/Lee, EoG, ch. 1]
And: “Something happened that had never happened before in Creation. He didn’t merely come from God and go back to God… He came forth the Lord from heaven, but He went back a Man from earth, crowned with glory and honor, and made both Lord and Christ. Now there is in Heaven a Man, a Perfect Man” [Warnock, EaM, ch. 5]. The permanent humanity of Christ in his glorified state is of great importance for the Christology of restoration: it guarantees that the definitive joining of God and man is not temporary but eternal.
Remarkable is the formulation that Christ’s two titles — “Son of Man” and “Son of God” — both pertain to his human reality as the self-emptied God, not to two distinct natures as independent entities [Warnock, EaM, ch. 5]. The authority of Christ on earth did not flow from his official position as Messiah but from his union with the Father — a union operative in every step he took, every word he spoke: “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but only what He sees the Father doing” (John 5:19) [Warnock, FMS].
Sinlessness and perfection through suffering
Christ’s sinlessness is the necessary condition for his atoning work. An offering that is itself impure has no cleansing power. The requirement of a “lamb without blemish and without spot” (1Pet. 1:18-19) stands or falls with the genuine, un-simulated sinlessness of Christ’s entire life. This is worked out along several lines.
First as an innate condition: Christ was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Heb. 7:26) — a characterization that pertains to his person, not only to his actions [Warnock, FoT-W, ch. 7]. Second as lifelong obedience: the word that God sends out does not return to him empty (Isa. 55:11); Christ was this Word and walked year in year out, from his twelfth year to the cross, in complete yes to the will of the Father — overcoming every temptation, including the supreme temptation in the wilderness [Noordzij, Word]. Third as acquired perfection: sinlessness is not the same as perfection in the sense of Heb. 2:10. Christ was sinless from birth, but only after a life of obedience in suffering was he “made perfect” (teleiōtheis) — a distinction that underlines his true humanity:
“Thus the Son of Man was sinless and spotless from His birth until His death, but He was not declared PERFECT until He had learned obedience by the things which He suffered.”
[Warnock, EaM, ch. 5]
That acquired perfection is at the same time his legal qualification as high priest (Heb. 5:8-9) and the model for the sonship that his followers must reach [Noordzij, Jabez]. He who calls overcomers to the life of the firstfruits has himself walked that path first — through suffering, obedience, and so to perfection.
Three offices: prophet, priest, and king
The classical distinction of three offices — prophetic, priestly, and kingly — provides a useful framework for ordering the many-sided work of Christ, even though the concept of office is not the primary organizing principle in the sources studied.
The prophetic office is already active in the first recorded words of Jesus: “Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:49). Bullinger sees in the fact that precisely this sentence was preserved as the only utterance from the first twenty-nine years a deliberate redemption-historical signal: the Father’s house as vocation and direction of the entire ministry [Bullinger, NIS]. The prophetic office is not the announcement of abstract future knowledge but the disclosure of who the Father is — and to that end Christ himself is the living Word. “What I have heard from the Father, that I have made known to you” (John 15:15): the prophetic ministry is the communication-relation with the Father that Christ maintained throughout his life [Warnock, FMS].
The priestly office is the most fully developed in the sources studied, because it is the direct ground of the atonement. Christ, unlike the earthly high priest, entered the heavenly sanctuary “by his own blood, once for all, and obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). The once-for-all-ness and sufficiency of this offering are absolute: Christ did not have to “offer himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year” (Heb. 9:25), for his offering is eternally sufficient [Warnock, FoT-W, ch. 7]. The heavenly High Priest is not only the offerer but also the intercessor: after his ascension he entered the heavenly sanctuary to make intercession throughout the entire Pentecost age [Jones, LSC, ch. 10].
The priestly office is linked in Scripture seven times to the expression “after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5-7) — and precisely that number seven (= divine seal on completion) marks this priesthood as absolute and irreplaceable [Bullinger, NIS]. Melchizedek is “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb. 7:3): the type of a priesthood that is not biologically inherited but heavenly and indestructible [Noordzij, Jabez]. Christ’s priesthood is of the same order: not temporary, not bounded to one people, but universal in reach and eternal in character.
The kingly office has an eschatological character that is strongly present in the sources studied. Christ will establish the “fifth monarchy”, the stone cut from the mountain without human hands that grinds all previous kingdoms to powder (Dan. 2) [Bullinger, NIS]. But the royal authority of Christ is not understood primarily as an office: it springs from his union with the Father, not from a position-title. “The authority of Christ sprang from his union with the Father, not from his messianic office” [Warnock, FMS, feed3.html]. That means his royal judgment is not the work of a magistrate enforcing laws but of a Restorer returning creation to God’s intention: “The purpose of the law is to correct the sinner and restore the lawful order” [Jones, ROAT, ch. 1].
Atonement: multiple models, universal reach
No doctrine in Christology has produced more variation in formulation than the doctrine of atonement. How does the offering of Christ work? In what way does his death bring about the removal of guilt and the breach between God and man? The sources studied employ several models — not as mutually exclusive alternatives but as complementary perspectives that together give a richer picture.
The juridical satisfaction model is formulated most clearly by Nee and Lee, who describe the atonement as the payment of a debt that God’s righteousness demands. Christ died as substitute: his death was “reckoned as ours” by God, so that the debt of sin is “righteously paid”. The reversal is radical: the same righteousness that once pronounced condemnation now pronounces justification:
“For forgiveness He has obtained for me, and full acquittal was gained; all debts of sin are paid; God would not lay His claim on two, first on His Son my surety, and then again on me.”
[Nee/Lee, BEC1, ch. 2]
The Christus Victor model sounds most strongly in Warnock: the crucifixion is the moment at which God places himself in the weakest position in order to overcome the strongest enemy precisely through that weakness. “We preach Christ crucified… to those who are called, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1Cor. 1:23-24) [Warnock, Hys, hyssop1.html]. The blood of Christ functions as a shield that keeps the destroyer out (Ex. 12:13,23); the protective power is not juridically transactional but participatory — whoever applies the blood is protected [Noordzij, PaT].
The typological-priestly model operates through the high-priest typologies of the Law. The two goats of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) picture two aspects of the atoning work: the first goat is slain and its blood sprinkled in the Holy of Holies (corresponding to the offering of Christ); the second goat bears the sins of the people away to an uninhabited land (corresponding to the eschatological removal of sin) [Jones, LSC, ch. 10; Noordzij, PaT]. Christ fulfils the first phase; the second phase — the definitive removal — awaits its completion at his return.
The participation model — atonement as the infusion of the human with the divine life — is characteristic of Nee and Lee. The death of Christ is not only the payment of a debt but the liberation from an enslaving power. “The death of Adam enslaved us to death, while the death of Christ freed us from death” [Nee/Lee, EoG, ch. 1]. The atoning work of Christ is not completed at his dying but continues in his resurrection, through which the life-giving Spirit dwells in believers.
The universal scope of the atonement connects all these models. Warnock states it plainly: “That full and complete Atonement was made for the whole human race by Jesus Christ on the Cross, there is no doubt whatsoever” [Warnock, FoT-W, ch. 7]. Jones grounds that universality juridically through the three conditions of the kinsman-redeemer’s right: the right (Christ became human), the payment (his blood covers the entire debt), the motivation (God’s love is universal). When all three are fulfilled, and all three apply to the whole of humanity, the conclusion is unavoidable:
“If you had the lawful right to redeem all men, and you had the cash to do so, and you loved them as much as God loves the world, what would YOU do? Yes, God would indeed save all mankind if He were capable of doing so. And that is why He has actually done it.”
[Jones, IGCE]
The scriptural anchor-text for the universal reach is Col. 1:20: “and through him to reconcile all things to himself… whether things on earth or things in heaven.” The word “all things” (ta panta) carries no tacit limitation; it encompasses the whole creation [Jones, IGCE; Noordzij, PaT]. Every particularism that restricts the scope of this atoning work to a chosen group must answer for how it interprets the “all things” of Col. 1:20.
The Adam-Christ symmetry: the christological ground of apokatastasis
The heart of the apokatastasis Christology is the Adam-Christ parallel of Rom. 5:12-21 and 1Cor. 15:21-22. The structure is clear: as the transgression of one brought the many down, so the righteousness of one brings the many to justification. The question is: how many?
The text permits no asymmetry. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1Cor. 15:22): the subject “all” (pantes) is the same in both halves of the sentence. Whoever reads the first half extensionally — Adam’s fall touches the whole of humanity without exception — but restricts the second half to believers, makes Christ narrower than Adam:
“If Adam’s sin only created the possibility of death for men, and yet all died, then it would be reasonable that Christ’s righteous act only created the possibility of life for men. And yet only a small fraction of mankind would obtain that life. Can Christ then be weaker than Adam?”
[Jones, CJ, ch. 5]
The answer given by the restoration tradition is no: the Second Adam is not weaker than the First. The universal reach of Christ’s work follows from the structural validity of the parallel, not from sentimental optimism.
Christ as “Last Adam” has a dual meaning. He is the last of the old race — the definitive end of the line that began with Adam — and at the same time the “Second Man”, the beginning of a new type of creation:
“from the first Adam there came Christ, destined not only to become the Last Adam (the last of Adam, the last of the old race), but the Second Man (the beginning of the second creation).”
[Warnock, FoT-W, ch. 1]
As the Last Adam, Christ became through his resurrection “a life-giving Spirit” (1Cor. 15:45) — the source of new life that he imparts to all [Nee/Lee, EoG, ch. 1]. And as type-antitype structure: Adam was from the very beginning a foreshadowing of Christ, not the other way around. Creation began with Christ as the actual goal in mind; Adam was only the prefiguration:
“Adam was made in the image of the Lord Jesus. Adam did not precede the Lord Jesus; the Lord Jesus preceded him.”
[Nee/Lee, GC]
That the last Adam encompasses the whole creation is confirmed by the Jubilee principle: in the jubilee year everything returns to its original owner. Christ is the Jubilee in person — he “proclaimed the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18-21) and thereby sets in motion a universal return that excludes no one definitively [Noordzij, Moses]. Thirty Jubilee years connect the Exodus chronologically with Christ’s ministry; the number is not accidental but Bullinger’s way of tracing the redemptive structure of Scripture [Bullinger, NIS].
Resurrection: firstfruits of a new humanity
The resurrection of Christ is the turning point of salvation history. What was accomplished at the cross — the payment of the debt, the victory over death — finds here its confirmation and its outworking: “Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1Cor. 15:20).
The firstfruits metaphor is powerful: just as the wave offering of firstfruits (Lev. 23:10-14) represented the first ripe produce of an entire harvest, so Christ’s resurrection is not only his own rising but the guarantee and beginning-point of a complete resurrection harvest. The firstfruits sheaf of Lev. 23 speaks of “Christ as firstfruits” (1Cor. 15:20,23), and Noordzij adds the historical concretization: at Jesus’ resurrection, the first “ripe produce” was immediately taken with him — the saints mentioned in Matthew 27:52-53 as raised ones who appeared in Jerusalem [Noordzij, PaT].
In the harvest schema of barley-wheat-grapes, Christ stands as the barley firstfruit at the beginning of a phased resurrection sequence [Jones, CJ]. Each tagma (army division, 1Cor. 15:23) receives its own moment: Christ first, then the overcomers at his return, then the great harvest of humanity. The phasing is encouraging, not restrictive: precisely because there are multiple tagmai, the possibility opens that whoever is not in the first will follow later.
The resurrection marks an ontological transition for Christ himself. As the incarnate Christ he was limited in space, time, and contact — “one grain of wheat, a simple carpenter from Nazareth”. As the risen Christ he is “unlimited”: “Time and space and material things could no longer confine Him” [Nee/Lee, AIC, ch. 5]. That unlimited risen Christ is the Christ who dwells in believers as the life-giving Spirit — the direct making-available of the divine life to all who call upon him.
That the resurrection as a theme is deeply anchored in Scripture appears from the numerical pattern: the word anastasis (resurrection) occurs 42 times in the New Testament — 6×7, the seal of completed divine order stamped on the most central saving fact of Christology [Bullinger, NIS].
Ascension, glorification, and heavenly intercession
The ascension is not the closing of the saving action but the transition to a new phase of it. Something unheard-of took place: for the first time a human being entered into the divine glory — not as a temporary visit but as a permanent union. The ascension made Christ “PERFECT MAN in heaven”, permanently fixing the connection of perfect humanity and divinity [Warnock, EaM, ch. 5].
The glorification has consequences for the office. Christ entered the heavenly Holy of Holies with his own blood (Heb. 9:12) and sprinkled the heavenly mercy seat — completing what the earthly High Priest typologically enacted on the Day of Atonement [Jones, LSC, ch. 10; Nee/Lee, BEC1, ch. 3]. He then took his seat at the right hand of the Father, waiting until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet (Heb. 10:12-13). This position is not inactive rest but active intercession for the community left behind in the world.
The ascension also opens the way for greater works through his people: “The one who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father” (John 14:12) [Noordzij, SJG]. The ascension is for Christ the transfer of the double portion of the Spirit to his church — as Elisha’s double portion of Elijah’s spirit came after Elijah’s “ascension” in the chariot of fire.
The numerical pattern confirms even here: Christ spoken of as “at the right hand of God” appears twenty-one times in Scripture (3×7), a number expressing both divine connection (3) and completion (7) [Bullinger, NIS].
The all-inclusive Christ: Head of all things (Col. 1:15-20)
The Christology of restoration reaches its broadest formulation in Col. 1:15-20 — the passage that describes Christ as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” and as the one in whom God “reconciled all things to himself”. Here creation and salvation coincide: the Christ in whom all things were created is the same one in whom all things are reconciled.
That “all things” is the key word. Nee and Lee stress that Christ as “all-inclusive” — as the all-encompassing Christ — cannot be reduced to any one of his functions. “Christ as Redeemer” is only one dimension; “Christ as all and in all” is the full reality:
“We hear that Christ is the light — but that is not all-inclusive. We hear that Christ is our life — that is not all-inclusive either… Christ is all and in all.”
[Nee/Lee, AIC, ch. 2]
The seven elements added to Christ’s person through his redemption-historical journey — his divine nature, incarnation, human life, death, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement — are all seven integrated in him and available through the Spirit in the believer [Nee/Lee, EoG, ch. 1]. The Christ who dwells in believers is not an abbreviated version but the complete, all-redemptive-dimensions-bearing Christ.
The temple metaphor expresses the same. Jesus is “the temple of God” (John 2:19-21): in him the divine presence dwells fully and permanently, as the glory-cloud that filled the Holy of Holies. And just as the Holy of Holies was not intended for a select few but for the whole community as the meeting-point with God, so the all-inclusive Christ is destined for all things [Warnock, FTT, tent7.html; Noordzij, PaT].
The “all things reconciled” of Col. 1:20 has a cosmic scope. God’s liability as Creator — who did not prevent the evil in his creation — is ultimately his own affair; the guilt of creation rests on the Creator himself. If Christ as go’el settles the debts attaching to creation, then the result is cosmic restoration: “all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven” — reconciled through the blood of his cross [Jones, IGCE; Jones, ROAT, ch. 1].
Apokatastasis as the christological endpoint
The Christology of apokatastasis is not a late conclusion added only at the end to an otherwise conventional argument. It follows from the Person and work of Christ himself — from his pre-existence as the eternal Word, his incarnation as the juridically qualified go’el, his universal atonement as the Last Adam, his resurrection as firstfruit of a harvest that definitively excludes no one, and his cosmic lordship as the Head in whom all things exist and are reconciled.
The early church debate about apokatastasis reflected a fundamental difference in the understanding of Christ himself. Greek Christian thought saw Christ as Purifier — a judge whose verdict is purgatorial and restorative, aimed at the total triumph of the good over evil. The Roman juridical model saw Christ primarily as Judge whose sentence is permanent and punitive. Gregory of Nyssa, the most authoritative early defender of apokatastasis, expressed the Greek Christ-image thus: “Evil will pass over into non-being; it will completely disappear from the field of being. The divine and uncomposite goodness will encompass within itself every rational creature” [Jones, SUHUR]. That is a christological statement: it concerns the nature of Christ’s cosmic jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction is restorative.
The apokatastasis position that emerges from the sources studied distinguishes itself emphatically from naive universalism. The judgment is real and necessary; the lake of fire is no metaphor for gentle refinement but God’s holy revulsion against all that has damaged his creation. But a corrective judgment has an end: as the biblical law limits the number of stripes to forty (Deut. 25:1-3), so divine judgment too — governed by the same law — is bounded and not eternal [Jones, ROAT, ch. 1]. When the judgment has reached its goal, restoration follows. Col. 1:20 is the foundational text; 1Cor. 15:28 is the endpoint:
“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
Where God is all in all — no creature excepted, no one outside the reach of the life-giving Spirit — the apokatastasis panton is complete. And that full completion is not the end of Christology but its ground: the Christ whose work reaches so far, and whose name is so great that every knee bows (Phil. 2:10-11), is the Christ who was from eternity predetermined by God to be “the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29) — and to bring all those brethren truly along into his own glorification.
Last revised: 2026-06-12. This article is part of the Christology discipline overview on apokatastasis.wiki.