The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Qaz' official review of Max King's Irrevocable

Max King’s main thesis in “Irrevocable” is that when Paul says “all Israel will be saved” in Romans 11:26, Paul literally means all Israel. Unlike non-dispensationalist Arminians and Calvinists, King does not think “all Israel” refers to a remnant. I think King successfully made his case. King shows that the ‘blinding’ of Israel was only for a very limited time, “until the fullness of the gentiles” (Romans 11:25), which King (citing Matthew 24:14) identifies as sometime shortly before AD 70.

Contra dispensationalism, King argues that God’s covenant promise to Abraham has nothing to do with a restored Jewish kingdom in which Christ physically reigns on earth for 1000 years after a “church age”, but with Christ taking his rightful throne in heaven (which King believes happened in the 1st century). To make his case, King points to Acts 2:29-36 and Acts 7:49-50. According to King, heaven is the realm where Christ fulfills the covenant promise to sit on the throne of David forever, not earth. Copiously referencing the Hebrews, King argues that the notion of the locus of God’s covenant-dealing with mankind going from type (earth; earthly Jerusalem) to anti-type (heaven; heavenly Jerusalem) and then back to type again (earth, earthly Jerusalem) is absurd.

I would have given the book 5 starts if not for a couple things. First, King never offers an explanation of what happens to people post-parousia who perform the “works of the flesh”, actions which the New Testament says would exclude someone from the kingdom. It’s clear from “Irrevocable” that King is now a universalist (unlike at the time he wrote his previous books). It would have been nice for such a great mind to weigh in on the purgatorial universalist vs ultra universalist debate. Second, there’s no index of scripture! As someone who likes to go back and check what a theologian said on a particular verse after having read the book in its entirety, an index of scripture saves me a lot of time. An index of scripture in a book that cites scripture on virtually every page is a no-brainer, and I’m especially surprised Irrevocable does not contain one since King’s most recent prior work (“The Spirit of Prophecy”) does.

1 Like

I think that’s a fair review qaz.

That probably didn’t rate a mention given that wasn’t the focus of his work, i.e., Romans 9—11.

I suspect King is probably well beyond the likes of such juvenile universalism — I suspect probably more inclusionist.

Yep, that apart from a number of typos would be my solitary bugbear.

Yeah, typos galore. Unclosed quotation marks too. The book could use an editor badly.

Maybe there is no need for a index of scripture. Maybe Max has realized the futility of arguing scripture verses, and simply wants to state a point?

Bugbear? :slight_smile:

Well I take your point Chad… however, his arguments based on given texts and definitely worth pondering are better found when you know the text in view said argument is about and so can find the reference in an index, as opposed to scratching your head trying to remember where in the those pages did I read thus and so, etc?

noted :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like