The Narrow Wider Hope

This was originally a paper prepared for the

UMJC Theology Committee Forum, Spring, 2008.

By Daniel C. Juster

The Issues At Hand

Defining Perspectives on Afterlife and Salvation

I t has been very important to me to teach on the meaning of salvation

from what I call a “Gospel of the Kingdom” perspective. Salvation is a
concept that is far richer than going to heaven when we die, as important
as that may be. Rather, salvation encompasses the whole of life, individual
and corporate. It is not only about life after death, but also about the full
meaning of our life in the present. Nevertheless, the question of our des-
tiny in the “afterlife” is a pressing one. The answer to this question is an
important part of the meaning of salvation. Different religions give vari-
ous answers to this question. It is so central that for many the very word
salvation has to do with a positive destiny in the afterlife.

Buddhist, Hindu, Greek Views

In some forms of Hinduism and in some Greek traditions, after the
payments of karma through re-incarnation, the soul attains bliss
and freedom from the cycle of death and re-birth. According to the
original Theravda school of Buddhism, there is no hope of personal
immortality—but only the hope of attaining peace and the end of
the illusion of the individual ego. Some forms of Vedanta Hinduism
see the individual eventually absorbed into the being of Brahmin,
never again to be a distinct individual.

New Covenant Views

The New Covenant Biblical view of the afterlife is more concrete
than other sophisticated developed religious philosophies from an-
cient times. The resurrection provides a hope that is much more
within our conceptual grasp. This afterlife will be analogous to

14
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

physical existence including the recognition of friends, and the en-

joyment of pleasures analogous to our life in this age. The chief
pleasure will be to enjoy God. The question of who gets to enjoy this
afterlife of bliss and enrichment is a crucial question. In no way does
sophistication deliver us from dealing with the question. Different
religions and even traditional views based in Scripture come to dif-
ferent conclusions. Generally, with significant exceptions, the reli-
gious perspective of traditional Judaism and Christianity was a Nar-
row Hope. What do we mean when we use the term “Narrow Hope”?
It is a hope that some will attain an everlasting life of fulfillment af-
ter death. However, it is also a view that only those who fulfill very
specific criteria can obtain this positive afterlife. In addition, it is the
view that only a small minority of the human race throughout his-
tory have met the criteria. Here are some examples of classical for-
mulations of the Narrow Hope.

Traditional Jewish Views

In Judaism we read that the righteous from all nations have a place
of fulfillment in the Age to Come.1 This looks very broad until we
note how Judaism defines the righteous. The righteous are those
who follow the seven Noahchide commandments. This includes
abandoning idol worship. This excluded the greater part of the whole
human race. Despite the greater emphasis in Judaism on a Wider
Hope for human beings in general, there is little in classical Ortho-
doxy to support such an application for pagans. Salvation is for faith-
ful Jews, proselytes and benay and banot-Noach (those non-Jews
who follow the seven Noachide commandments). Did some think in
Wider Hope terms? Yes, but this was not the consensus. Though all
Jews have a place in the Age to Come, those who commit gross sins
without full repentance will be excluded. Judaism’s Narrow Hope
was quite wide for Jews. The Essenes were an exception to this, for
they saw salvation as only for the truly righteous, which was mostly
limited to fellow Essenes.

1 Cohen, Abraham, Everyman’s Talmud

15 15
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Views

In classical Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox formulations,
there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. There was a
Wider Hope tradition for the best Greek philosophers who lived a
virtuous life and anticipated Biblical truth. These philosophers live
in a special place near to paradise, but not fully a part of paradise.
Generally, those having a blessed life in the hereafter included only
people baptized into the Church and participating in the sacraments.
Sacramental life in the Church was seen as necessary to salvation.
This excluded Jews who were thereby seen as lost. God’s rejection of
the Jewish people was part of classical Catholic theology. This rejec-
tion was repudiated at Vatican II.

Evangelical Doctrinal Views

The classical Evangelical Doctrine also produced various formula-
tions. In classical Calvinism, those who were destined for a fulfilling
afterlife were the elect who were predestined by God. The predes-
tined would prove their election by confessing Jesus as savior and
Lord, by being baptized and by living a righteous life. It was totally
by irresistible grace, but a transformed life was a necessary part of it.
Similar formulations are found in classical Lutheranism but without
as consistent a view of predestination. Luther’s Bondage of the Will
is in accord with Calvin. Jacob Arminius rejected the strong predes-
tination perspective and instead emphasized the free choice of the
will. The saved are those who have repented and confessed Yeshua as
Lord and Savior, with the accompanying transformation to follow
expected (the transformation from being born again.)

Classical Dispensationalist Views

Classical Dispensationalism departed from the necessity of repen-
tance and transformation. A joyful afterlife was attained by believing
that Jesus died for one’s sins and rose again. This would be affirmed
by a prayer of “receiving Jesus.” A person who did so believe would
be encouraged to have assurance for a fulfilling everlasting life. No
life transformation was necessary, for then salvation would not be by
grace. This was a departure from both classical Calvinism and classi-

16
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

cal Arminian teaching. The person who so believes is said to be “born

again.” Dispensationalism greatly influenced Jewish missions in the
first half of the 20th century.
Classical Evangelical views became prominent in Jewish mis-
sions in the 19th century and are still common in Messianic
Judaism. Dispensational views remain common in 20th and early
21st Century Jewish missions. Those who are destined for heaven
and who will escape Hell are only those who have sincerely con-
fessed Yeshua as savior (in dispensationalism) and Savior and Lord
in Classical Evangelicalism. In this view, the Jewish people are as
lost as any other people. The election of the Jewish nation does not
imply their personal salvation which is only attained by the confes-
sion of Yeshua and experiencing being born again.
John Wesley was the most noteworthy exception to this con-
sensus and came up with a view that I call the Narrow Wider Hope.
We will spend considerable space on this viewpoint and Wesley’s
Scriptural argument for it. In mentioning this, I should define the
Wider Hope and the Narrow Wider Hope. Those of the Wider Hope
perspective embrace the truth that human beings are only destined
for heaven through the great act of God in the crucifixion and
resurrection of Yeshua. All who are ultimately saved will only be
saved through him. However, the application of that sacrifice may
be very broad. Those of the widest Wider Hope are universalists.
They include Pastor Neal Punt who believed that all human beings
were elect. We also include John McQuarrie and Kaffman. In both
systematic theologies, the case is made that all human beings will
ultimately be saved. Evil men will have to pay for their sins in Hell,
which is reinterpreted as Purgatory. Norman Grubb, the famous
biographer of missionaries, came to the view of the eventual salva-
tion of all. So did Carlton Pierson, a high profile religious leader and
recording artist.
Most proponents of a Wider Hope view are not universalists.
Rather, there is still a view that some will have a positive eternal
destiny and some will not. However, the way to get in on the atone-
ment is not only by an explicit response to the message of the Good
News, but by various other means. Making an ultimate commitment

17 17
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

to goodness, or responding rightly to the truth

in nature and culture are also seen as sufficient Most propo-
to attach people to Yeshua. Of course, those
nents of a
who have a Wider Hope view also apply this to
the Jewish people who can be included in the Wider Hope
atonement of Yeshua by rightly responding to view are not
God and the revelation of God in the Hebrew universalists.
Bible. In such a view, no one knows the pro-
portions of those who have rightly responded
and those who have not. However, God is just and has given every
human being a significant chance to respond. The numbers of the
“saved” or those destined for a positive destiny after this life could
be a majority of human beings—or may not be such a large number.
In general, those of this persuasion are optimistic about the number
and proportion of humanity included in a positive afterlife.
The Narrow Wider Hope also embraces the view that there are
ways to respond to God other than by explicit response to the Good
News and Confession of Yeshua. This may include a response to the
revelation of God in nature and culture so that one does turn to
God or the Good. However, other statements of Scripture mitigate
against this hope and warn against having too much confidence
in such responses. We are not given much expectancy that such
responses are widespread. Indeed, it is thought that Scripture
teaches that people generally do not respond positively to these
sources of revelation and truth. Therefore without the Gospel
being presented, it is likely that people will be lost or destined for
eternal destruction. Rather than rest upon the hope that people are
responding to truth and revelation in nature and culture and are
thereby included in some way in the salvation that is in Yeshua, the
proponent of the Narrow Wider Hope believes that it is not wise to
put much hope in this possibility.
However, in the defense of God’s justice, we can argue that
there is a broader equality of opportunity such that no one is left
without real opportunity. Thus, our orientation to presenting the
Gospel does not substantially change. Indeed, for the assurance of
one’s destiny afterlife, explicitly confessing and embracing Yeshua

18
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

is central. In addition, the proponent of the Narrow Wider Hope

holds that it is generally true that people are destined for a positive
everlasting destiny only by their explicitly embracing Yeshua. This
is also the primary basis for our confidence in the destiny of others,
both Jew and Gentile. The Narrow Wider Hope would accept the
possibility that Jews can be included within the salvation that is in
Yeshua by rightly responding to the true revelation of God that is
contained in Judaism. One might reasonably observe that there is
more opportunity for those involved in Judaism since there is more
revelation within Judaism than in any other religion or culture that
does not explicitly embrace Yeshua.
In general, the question I am addressing is this: “How impor-
tant is the explicit embrace of Yeshua for receiving salvation (which
includes joyful everlasting life in the Age to Come?” In addition I
respond to this question: “How great is the need of Jewish people
to embrace Yeshua? Is there a really a Wider Hope and if so, how
wide is it?” I also evaluate, “How does this contributor’s view differ
from other views and what are the strengths and weaknesses of this
contributor’s view?” The first questions will permeate the paper and
the last ones will figure significantly in the conclusion. With this in
mind, let us go to the body of the paper.

The Case for the Narrow Hope

I believe that our theological interpretations are influenced by how
Scripture was mediated to us through those who first become our men-
tors and teachers. Scripture texts are strung together with a particular
interpretive slant. We are unaware that there is any such slant, thinking
we are simply being given a straightforward presentation of Bible teach-
ing. Imagine my surprise when I found that texts which had been used
to support the pre-tribulation rapture seemed to be out of context—
misapplications of those very texts! In the same way, any textual presen-
tation in support of narrow or Wider Hope views needs to be dealt with
by pursuing one great question, “What does this text really mean?”
Secondly, “Have I been given an interpretation of this text which is not
supported by the evidence?” With this in mind we proceed.

19 19
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

The Narrow Hope view is supported by numerous Scriptures

from the New Covenant writings that individually and together
appear to make a strong case for the Narrow Hope. Let us look
briefly at these texts. They are mostly from the Gospel of John and
the Pauline writings. Here is the list from John:
“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave
the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12)

“Yeshua answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of
God unless he is born again.” (John 3:3)
“Yeshua answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom
of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”. (John 3:5)
“Do not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ ” (John 3: 7).
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”
(John 3:16)
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the
Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” (John 3:36)
“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent
me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from
death to life.” John 5:24
“Yeshua said to them, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and
drink his blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53.
“I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I
am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” John 8:24
“I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father, but
through me.” (John 14:12).

The great verse in Acts 4:12 states:

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under
heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Also in Acts 16:30, 31
we read the words to the Philippian jailor who asked,
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” “They replied, believe in the Lord
Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

20
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

Romans provides these texts:

“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Yeshua/Messiah to
all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:22, 23)

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in
Messiah Yeshua your Lord.” (Romans 6:23)

“That if you confess with your mouth that Yeshua is Lord and believe in
your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it
is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your
mouth that you confess and are saved. For there is no difference between
Jew and Gentile . . . for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will
be saved.” (Romans 10:9,10).
These verses above do not exhaust the entire corpus of supporting
texts, but are sufficient to give us evidence claimed for the Narrow
Hope/Evangelical understanding which is also held by many Messianic
Jews—a view which has been massively influential in our movement.
The import of these texts seem very clear to a proponent of Narrow
Hope. Those who believe and embrace Yeshua are “saved,” that is
they have the certain prospect of a fulfilling and everlasting life after
death. This embrace of Yeshua includes trusting in his atonement for
our sins and his resurrection. The opposite is also true; if one does
not confess, believe in, or embrace Yeshua, one is lost and has only
the prospect of eternal death, loss, or Hell. The texts say that to not
believe in Yeshua is to die in one’s sins and this implies being lost
(John 8:24). To not believe means that the wrath of God rests upon
them. Only those who are born again through believing in Yeshua are
saved, only those who confess with their mouth and believe with their
heart, have everlasting life (Romans 10:9,10). Since all have sinned,
the only way out of the dilemma is to be born again through Yeshua
in an explicit embrace of the Good News. Only in doing so, can one
see the Kingdom of God, and have a positive afterlife.
The late Francis Schaeffer was a very forceful proponent of the
Narrow Hope view. His book Death in the City details his view.2

2 Schaeffer, Francis, Death in the City: Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1969

21 21
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

Anyone who holds that so many are to be eternally lost is challenged

to present a theodicy—a defense as to how God remains just in con-
demning so many. Schaeffer argues that all human beings deserve
everlasting separation from God. The greatest sin of all is failure to
submit to God and his sovereignty and worship the creature rather
than the creator. This sin manifests itself in explicit idolatry—or
a much more subtle idolatrous form in self-worship and all those
things in our lives outside of the will of God. Schaeffer takes a
corporate dimension of humanity into account. All individuals who
are lost, are lost either because they or their ancestors personally
refused the knowledge of God. The refusal of this knowledge cre-
ates God-deficient cultures which are rightly under the judgment
of God. So lost-ness is a corporate judgment; it is not only an indi-
vidual matter. Humans deserve Hell. A person’s rejection of God is
an enormous evil in God’s eyes.
Continuing in this understanding, the first chapter of Romans
presents a view of a humanity that has rejected the revelation
of God in nature and culture. Because God judges individually as
well as corporately, it is only in the preaching of the Gospel, that a
new opportunity for salvation is given to people who have rejected
the former revelation. This view also answers that question of the
fairness of the historical process whereby the Gospel is offered to
some centuries before it is offered to others. Even the Wider Hope
view, in all its varieties outside of universalism, has to deal with
this. Corporately, those who embraced the historical revelation in
Scripture (first the Jews and then Messianic Jews), bring the Gospel
to others over historical time. Judgment on peoples is corporate and
that those who bring the Gospel create new communal connections
that bring people into the Kingdom; this modality fits perfectly
within the ways of God’s justice.
Creating a new corporate reality is part of God’s way of justice.
It is not merely an individualistic matter as is often imbedded in
Western views. Rather, justice is both a matter of judging individu-
ally and with equality according to the violation of the Law of God.
This justice also judges cultures for their corporate responsibility in
their ancestral rejection of revelation. Individuals can be lost as part

22
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

of their larger corporate being. Because Abraham walked with God,

the new opportunity for salvation spread and will continue to spread
forth from Israel to the nations. According to Schaeffer’s and similar
others, motivation in bringing the Gospel to others, a new corporate
reality is created. Those who bring the Gospel become part of the life
of those who are offered the Gospel; hence, a new corporate reality
spreads from those who bring the Good News. Because people made
choices which produced God-deficient cultures, people must be
the instruments to reverse this through the spreading of the Good
News. Schaeffer is a moderate Calvinist who asserts both election
and human responsibility for a response to God.
Personally, I can not find any logical objec-
tion to Schaeffer’s view, but there may be reasons
Personally, I of the heart to resist such a stark position. We
can not find require evidence from the texts of Scripture and
any logical not merely a subjective response if Schaeffer is
objection to to be challenged. Most who hold to a Narrow
Schaeffer’s view, Hope view will see Judaism as being a deficient
but there may culture because of the failure of our ancestors to
embrace the testimony of the Apostles to ancient
be reasons of
Israel. On this basis it is argued that Jews now
the heart to need the Good News as much as the people of
resist such a other cultures.
stark position. It is interesting that John Hagee, one of the
more important Christian Zionist leaders today,
combines a Narrow Hope view for the peoples of
the earth with a very Wider Hope view for Jews. All faithful Jews
will be given opportunity to embrace Yeshua when He returns. This
includes a resurrection opportunity for those Jews who have died.
Judaism provides a way to faithfulness that brings Jews within the
realm of salvation. This is Hagee’s reading of the covenants with
Israel and his interpretation of the meaning of, “All Israel will be
saved,” from Romans 11.

23 23
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

Verses Used in Support for the Wider Hope View

A significant number of Scriptures are used to support Wider Hope
view points. We list the most significant ones. Amazingly, some of
these texts are in the same writings from John, Paul and Acts, as the
texts used to foster the Narrow Hope view.
First from the Gospel of John:
“The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.”
(John 1:9)

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but
to save the world through him.” (John 3:18)

“May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent
me.” (John 17:21)

“Everyone who loves has been born of God, and knows God.” (I John 4:17)
From Acts we read the following:
“Then Peter began to speak, ‘I now realize how true it is that God does
not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him
and do what is right.’ ” (Acts 10:34)

“Yet he has not left himself without testimony; he has shown kindness
by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides
you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” (Acts 14:17)

“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit
the whole earth, and he determined the times set for them and the exact
places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him
and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from
each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being. As
some of your own poets have said, ‘ We are his offspring.’”

Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the
divine being is like gold or silver, or stone—an image made by man’s
design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he
commands all people every where to repent. For he has set a day when
he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed.” (Acts
17:24-31).

24
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

Other texts provide these statements:

“You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”
(Jer. 29:13)

“Since what can be known about God is plain to them because God has
made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God’s invis-
ible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature—having been clearly
seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are with-
out excuse.” (Romans 1:18,19)

“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for

all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification
that brings life for all men” (Romans 5:18)

“For as in Adam all die, so in Messiah all will be made alive.” (I Cor. 15:22)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith (genitive), it is the gift
of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8)

“This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved
and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one
mediator between God and men, the man Messiah Yeshua, who gave
himself as a ransom for all men, the testimony given in its proper time.”
I Timothy 2:3-6)

The Wider Hope and Universalism

Generally, those with a Wider Hope perspective embrace the verses
we have quoted above as clearly teaching the Wider Hope view. On
the basis of these verses, they interpret the verses that appear to teach
a Narrow Hope view. Of course, the proponents of Narrow Hope em-
brace the Narrow Hope-oriented verses and at the same time—
through the same matrix of verses, Wider Hope proponents make
their case. Some of these same verses are interpreted not only as a
basis for a Wider Hope, but as the widest hope possible: Universalism.
While some verses, like the ones in Acts, seem to just say that human
beings can respond to God even if they have not heard the Good News
explicitly, the other verses that speak in terms of “all” are taken to
mean that eventually all human beings will be saved. Even Adolph
Hitler, by this view, will eventually be saved, though it will take a

25 25
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

long, long time of purgation. The Universalist thus sees people in

several categories: those who have responded to the Gospel and walk
in assurance of salvation; those who have responded to Goodness for
itself and thereby have responded to Yeshua without knowing it (for
they have responded to his light, and He is the light that lights every
man), and those who are given to evil but who will eventually em-
brace Yeshua. Those in the last group will spend much time in purga-
tory. Philippians 2 and Isaiah 45 are added to these arguments. The
ultimate, positive embrace of Yeshua (not merely a forced acknowl-
edgement that does not save) is evidenced in the saying that “every
knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Yeshua is Lord’’
Karl Barth provides us with an interesting approach. He is
not willing to blunt either the texts that tend to universalism or
the texts that seem to restrict salvation to those who embrace
Yeshua with radical commitment. Cornelius Van Til, a Narrow Hope
Calvinist, accuses Barth of universalism in his book “Christianity and
Barthianism.” 3 However, it is really much more subtle. Barth is will-
ing to embrace paradox as an essential part of truth (Is this the influ-
ence of Kierkagaard?). Therefore, Barth holds forth the universal hope
of salvation for all, while also presenting the embrace of the Gospel
as the way to be saved without which men are lost. He never resolves
the paradox. This has special connection to the election of the Jewish
people. Barth’s embrace of “All Israel shall be saved,” from Romans 11
fits the same pattern of his Wider Hope affirmation. One of the rea-
sons I included Ephesians 2:8 in the texts used by Wider Hope propo-
nents is that they are very insistent that the Greek puts forth the view
that it is the faithfulness of Yeshua that saves us, not our response.
It is by faith that we are saved, that is His faithfulness, not our subjec-
tive faith response. It is argued that almost all references to salvation
by faith in Paul are of this order. This is certainly an over statement
since Romans 10: 9, 10 make our subjective confession and believing
in the heart a key to salvation. In addition, Abraham was justified by
his response in Romans 4. Johannine texts and Hebrews make the
response of faith in the subject crucial to entering into salvation.

3 Van Til, Cornelius, Karl Barth and Evangelism: Nutley, New Jersey; Presdy7terian and Reformed
Publishing, 1964.

26
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

One can clearly see the genius of dialectical theology in seeking to do

justice to both sets of passages without an easy harmony.

Wider Wider Hope Views, (Excluding Universalism)

The contrasts among Wider Hope views lie in different interpretive
approaches to Scriptures, which Scriptures are given greater weight,
and how human beings are evaluated. Those in the present category
do not see the passages that are taken to be universal as referring to
all people as individuals. They credit the assertion that there are re-
ally evil people who are destined for everlasting separation from God.
The rejection of the Good News when rightly presented, with the
accompanying conviction of the Holy Spirit, does lead to the great
danger of separation from God. However, inclusion in everlasting
life through the atonement of Yeshua is connected to making an
implicit response to the unseen Yeshua by such things as commit-
ting one’s life to Goodness itself, depending on the grace of God (as
in Ramanuja’s Vadanta Hinduism), responding to God through the
covenants given to ancient Israel, responding rightly to natural rev-
elation or the truth within one’s culture. The passages that warn of
everlasting damnation and the obvious reality of truly evil people,
convince these folks that there is a serious life choice to be made
that determines one’s salvation. All of the Wider Hope texts are taken
as supporting the wideness of God’s mercy, but not without limita-
tion. The percentages of those saved and lost is simply not within
our human ability to discern. In addition, our assurance for the des-
tiny of others should be primarily by their embrace of Yeshua.
It is interesting that many do find it troubling that the great
mass majority of humanity will be lost. Even a Narrow Hope theo-
logian, Benjamin B. Warfield, argued that the greater number of
humanity would be saved. He argued that the numbers saved at the
end of this age, before the Age to Come, would be so huge that it
would dwarf the number lost through all of history. This hope was
based on the great number that Scripture stated would turn to God
at the end of the Age. The Wider Hope view expands to include those
who have not specifically confessed Yeshua. Many Puritans and
Wesleyians also held to a great universal conversion of the nations

27 27
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

at the end of days. This is my view as well based on Isaiah 2, 11, 45,
and 61 and many other texts. I do not know, however, if this great
number is greater than the number of those who will be lost.

Arguing the Narrow Hope View

Basically, the proponents of the Narrow Hope view hold that those
passages used to support both universalism and the Wider Hope are
really to be interpreted in quite a different way. For example, that all
will bow the knee to Yeshua (Phil. 2) is understood either as the
general massive conversion of nations at the end of days (Narrow
Hope optimists) or of the forced bowing of both the saved and lost
(Narrow Hope pessimists). That the truth will be testified to all in
due time from I Timothy 2 is to be interpreted to mean that the
testimony will come to all ethnic groups, but not to every individual
that has ever lived. The latter would require an opportunity to em-
brace the testimony after death. (Dawn Bible Students (an off-shoot
of Jehovah’s witnesses) holds that all who have not had opportunity
to accept or refuse the Good News will be resurrected to have their
opportunity in the Millennial Age. The difference of interpretation
turns upon the meaning of all, as in all individuals that have ever
lived—or as corporate in meaning.
We find similar interpretations for every Wider Hope text. An
example is found in the perspective that Yeshua is the light that
lights every man, yet only producing social order, not implying
that all have that light sufficient to respond to the truth so as to
be saved. In the same way, the knowledge of God in Romans 1 is
knowledge that is rejected, not knowledge that any longer gives an
opportunity to respond and be saved. As in Calvinism, it can only
now be suppressed knowledge that brings condemnation. Acts 10:34
only implies the righteousness of proselytes to Judaism in that day
who really sought God as Cornelius. For such people, God finds the
means to bring them the Good News and they explicitly will say
“yes” to it. Acts 17 provides a larger challenge. What does it mean to
say that God overlooks the former ignorance? It only means that he
did not destroy those societies up until that time. It does not mean
that people were in any way included in the grace of salvation.

28
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

Finally, statements in Romans about salvation being given to

all men, are a matter of its offer or its potential—not a matter of its
actual effect. All men are not thereby saved. In Calvinism, it is dif-
ficult to see how the offer is real, but Arminians have no difficulty
on this point. The atonement is sufficient for all, but only applied to
those who embrace Yeshua.

Wider Hope Arguments

In the same way that Narrow Hope views lead to certain interpreta-
tion of the Wider Hope Scriptures, so the Wider Hope Scriptures lead
to their specific interpretation of the Narrow Hope Scriptures. Most
proponents would look at the Scriptures of John and note that John
is specifically speaking about the kairos moment (a special divine
time of opportunity and destiny) which brought the Jewish people to
a defining moment. The right or wrong choice was destiny-determin-
ing for the individual and the nation. So also in the presentation of
the Gospel to this day, this kairos moment comes to people. Their
individual and corporate choices determine their destiny. To reject
the Son in the context of Holy Spirit conviction for the truth brings
condemnation. John should not be read in terms of universal state-
ments about peoples, but in terms of such a moment of exquisite re-
sponsibility for truth that can not be denied without great culpability.
This is understood as the context of the Johannine language. It is as
the words of Acts 17, “Now he commands . . . to repent.”
Almost all views teach that men are only condemned for refus-
ing the truth that they can know. Those who have not heard the
Gospel are not condemned for the refusal of embracing Yeshua,
but their refusal of the truth that they do know. However for Wider
Hope people, to hold that men are so condemned, has as its corol-
lary in that they could embrace that truth that they know and not be
under God’s condemnation. Acts 10:34 does not state that its truth
is only for proselytes, but for all people who do righteousness as a
life-orientation in every culture. Such folks must be in some kind of
grace-state because of the light of Yeshua that gives light to every
man. That there is no other name according to Acts 4:34 is not stat-
ing the ultimate perdition of all who have not explicitly embraced

29 29
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

Yeshua. Rather it is telling us that all who are ultimately saved will
be saved by Yeshua’s atonement, for all will eventually realized that
their salvation is in Him. Furthermore, the Hebraic sense of “Name”
means the essence of the person’s meaning. One can respond to that
essence of truth without yet knowing the historical Yeshua since He
is that “light who lights every man.” Finally, his name is the one to
be proclaimed as the only name given to maximize the opportunity
for salvation through the preaching of the Gospel. This verse does
not preclude the Wider Hope understanding.
This is then applied to Jewish people. Though there was a spe-
cial responsibility that brought condemnation to the Jewish nation
in the first century, and the experience of the terrible destruction
of Israel and Jerusalem by the Romans, we can not say that all Jews
necessarily are outside of the grace of God from that time forward.
There is no biblical statement to that effect that all Jews thereafter
who have not explicitly embraced Yeshua are on their way to Hell.
Instead, anti-Semitism and an entrenched anti-Judaistic theol-
ogy among Christians has made the true hearing of the Gospel
impossible for many Jews. There is no logical or biblical reason
why a proper response to the covenants with Israel, especially the
Abrahamic Covenant, would not place Jews within a grace context
in a relationship with God. The time of Jewish responsibility for
embracing Yeshua is, and continues to be kairos time and not a
specific post-chronos (ordinary, chronological) time. The truth in
the Hebrew Scriptures which is reflected in Judaism, in spite of
what some would see as aberrations, is sufficient to lead one to God.
...If [truth] was sufficient in pre-Yeshua days, it is sufficient now.
Indeed, one can not draw any line in chronos
time where a person would be condemned
and lost; ten minutes after the resurrection ...If [truth]
or after Shavuot (Acts 2) or 100 years later. was sufficient
The time of responsibility for the Gospel is in pre-Yeshua
when it is presented with Holy Spirit power days, it is
bringing conviction. sufficient now.
However, whether for Jews or Gentiles,
the maximum opportunity for salvation is

30
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

through the Good News presented in the power of the Spirit which
brings conviction. Most conservative Wider Hope proponents are
clear about this.

Key Proponents of the Wider Hope

and Narrow Wider Hope Views
Key recent conservative proponents should be noted. Jacque Marit-
ain, the Catholic philosopher, is one important proponent.4 His views
greatly influenced Vatican II. (It might be noted that Catholic theol-
ogy today is Wider Hope.) Proponents also included Dr. Stuart Hack-
ett of Wheaton College and later of Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School; Dr. David L. Wolfe of Wheaton and later Gordon College;
Clark Pinnock of Macmaster University and formerly of Trinity Evan-
gelical Divinity School; and Douglas Harrink5 of The King’s Univer-
sity, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. These all argue for such views. In a
limited way I would include Kenneth Kantzer, the former dean of
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. C. S. Lewis would also be in-
cluded in this number. Billy Graham recently made it clear that he
holds to such a view (Narrow Wider Hope) in an interview with Larry
King and in a Time magazine interview. I have not included liberal
theologians in this list since the pivotal presupposition of scriptural
authority can be lacking. Of course, Conservative Jews who believe
in an afterlife as well as some more modern Orthodox thinkers hold
to their own versions of a Wider Hope view. Following are some
short summaries.
Stuart Hackett and David Wolfe (from lectures and oral discus-
sion) argued in ways parallel to Jacques Maritain. His Maritain’s
book, The Range of Reason, gives a good summary. Catholic Michael
Novak’s book Belief and Unbelief 6 presents a similar argument.
Basically, all of these argue for a God-consciousness, or a conscious-
ness of ultimate Good in all people. When one responds to God or
to Goodness in itself and for itself, and decides to live by Goodness,

4 Maritain, Jacque, The Range of Reason: New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 66-85.
5 Harrink, Douglas, Paul Among the Post Liberals: Grand Rapids, Michigan; Brazos Press, 2003 see
especially 25-45.
6 Novak, Michael, Belief and Unbelief

31 31
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

one comes into a place in God’s grace. Such a person knows Yeshua
in an intuitive but indefinite way. They do not know him as the his-
torical Yeshua, but know the reality of the truth which is ultimately
Yeshua Himself. Maritain called this knowledge by connaturality.
(Some have called these ”beneficiaries” “Christians unawares” or
“unconscious Christians.” This last phrase is unfortunate and not
used by most since the person is not unconscious of the reality of
the choice. One sees more than hints of this in those special people
who live for others. One example is Ramanuja’s idea of depending on
the grace of God for everlasting life or, for instance, the goodness of
Socrates. Optimists think that the percentages of such people who
respond without yet receiving the Gospel are large, while pessimists
hold the numbers to be small and skeptics simply say they do not
know. However, anyone who really turns in heart to the Truth is
included within the salvation of Yeshua.
Kenneth Kantzer taught that anyone who sincerely sought the
truth and sought to live by it would be saved. Such a person was not
in the same category of those who have not embraced the journey to
know and live by the truth. However, Kantzer believed that all such
people would be led on to the explicit confession of Yeshua before
their death.
John Sanders in No Other Name has given a very comprehen-
sive summary of Wider Hope.7 This is perhaps the most important
book yet written on the Wider Hope.

An Evaluation: Prospects and Dangers

The failure to recognize that we live with mystery is one of the great
problems, in my view, with dogmatic Narrow Hope and dogmatic
Wider Hope people. C. S. Lewis noted that God has not explicitly told
us or made himself clear concerning those who have not had oppor-
tunity to embrace the Good News.8 The very verses we have quoted

7 Sanders, John, No Other Name: Grand Rapids, Michigan; Eerdmans, 1992. Sanders provides and
amazing list of Wider Hope proponents from the early Church Fathers, to the Middle Ages, to
Reformation and Post Reformation theologians up until and including the 20th century. The list
is not short!. The numbers of famous leaders and theologians who held to some level of the Wider
Hope should cause to realize that this is not a heresy, but was put forth by many well received lead-
ers and thinkers who were clearly within the orthodox tradition of their denominations.
8 Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity

32
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

for both sides do show that there is mystery. I do

The failure not want to go as far as Barth in embracing contra-
dictory paradox—but I also want to warn against
to recognize
too hastily and easily harmonizing texts by mini-
that we live mizing the force of one set of texts or the other.
with mystery Though some with a more Greek philosophical
is one of the orientation would like to see all fuzzy edges disap-
pear in all our theological definitions; some mat-
great problems
ters of Scriptural presentation do leave us with
with dogmatic possibilities and with some uncertainty. Humility
Narrow Hope in the face of those aspects of Scripture is impor-
and Wider tant. That Yeshua rose from the dead is clear. That
Hope people. Yeshua is deity is very clear. Resolving God’s sover-
eignty and the openness of history due to human
choice is one of those unresolved mysteries.
In this regard I believe that John Wesley had the greatest clarity
in dealing with the texts we have quoted.9 Wesley realized that the
Bible did not give us an optimistic view of the destiny of men and
women who died without explicitly confessing Yeshua. Therefore,
the motivation to proclaim the Good News was born of a passionate
love and desire to minimize the number who would be lost (mean-
ing eternal destruction or separation from God). At the same time
Wesley knew that he could not preclude the possibility of people
turning to God through the revelation of Yeshua in nature, culture
and conscience. If they did so, they entered into a realm Wesley
called prevenient grace. Prevenient grace, according to Wesley,
is that grace that comes to a person before he or she is fully con-
verted. To make a choice for Yeshua, one must first come under
the influence of such grace. This was Wesley’s answer to Calvinists
who taught that only the elect would ever choose salvation and in
a sense are saved before the choice. One can be under the influ-
ence of the grace of God which enables a choice but still say “no.’’
In addition, one can say “yes” to revelation from God without

9 Sanders, John, No Other Name presents a summary of Wesley’s view on this to my knowledge.
See pages 249-251, and for more complete information, in Wesley’s Works, Vol. 6, p. 286; Vol. 7;
197-199, :258, 353.

33 33
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

knowing the Gospel story. Thus, for Wesley there are not just two
categories of human beings; the saved and the lost. There is a third
category, namely those who embrace the revelation that God has
given and are thereby on the road to Yeshua. Is it necessary that
they embrace Him before they die? It seems that this was left a mys-
tery in Wesley’s teaching.
Charles Augustus Hopkins Strong, the greatest 19th century
Baptist theologian came to similar conclusions as detailed in his
Systematic Theology. The 19th century witnessed the rise of
Protestant missions in a substantial way. Generally, missionar-
ies found what they were expecting. Most pagan cultures were
degraded. Darkness was profound. However, now and then mis-
sionaries would happen upon a tribe that had renounced their idols
and were seeking the one God above the gods. There are numerous
direct testimonies from missionaries from that period attesting to
cases where people responded to that which God had made known
through the natural order of things. Strong lists examples.10
The primary motive for Methodist evangelism was to see that
human beings did not end up eternally lost. This was not the only
motive. The motive of obedience in proclaiming the Good News,
pleasing God and the eschatological motive were also present. With
regard to this last motive, Methodists understood that the progress
of the Gospel moved history to the climax of the end of this age and
the full dawning of the Age to Come. Yet, “saving souls” for eternity
was the primary motive. I presented something of this viewpoint in
my book Jewish Roots in its first printing in 1986.11 I have made it
clear that I am most sympathetic to Wesley’s handling of Scripture
on this matter. He credits both sets of Biblical texts, whereas I find
that proponents of the Narrow Hope view and the wider Wider Hope
view do not acknowledge texts on the other side, opting instead
to try to explain them away. I think Wesley is better than Barth
because he does not leave us with a stark paradox but has a reason-
10 Strong, Charles Agustus Hopkins, Systematic Theology: Valley Forge, Pa; The Judson Press, 1967
reprint of 1906 edition, pp. 664, 666, 843,844. It is quite amazing to read his argument which has
amazing parallels to the argument in this book. Strong was a very forceful proponent of the narrow
Wider Hope.
11 Juster, Daniel, Jewish Roots, A Foundation of Biblical Theology: Shippensburg, Pa., Destiny Image:
200 3rd. edition, pp.

34
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

able harmony of the texts. Additionally, I think there are significant

negative repercussions to both a Narrow Hope view and a wider
Wider Hope view.

Difficulties in Wider Hope Views

First of all, those who hold to a wider Wider Hope view, in my experi-
ence, usually find it impossible to maintain a deep burden that people
explicitly embrace Yeshua. In my experience in the mainline de-
nominations, I have rarely found people who were effective in evan-
gelism who embraced a wider Wider Hope view. I do not think there
is any example of an effective movement of Gospel progress in any
stream or denomination that has embraced a wider Wider Hope
view. Those who think that such a view will lead to greater effective-
ness, in my view, are very wrong and are speaking from a speculative
ivory tower perspective, and not from the reality of historical evi-
dence. It is very difficult to not be oriented as though others are in a
safe place even though they have not confessed Yeshua. Once this
mindset has become consciously or unconsciously embedded there
is a great diminishing of zeal to bring others to explicit faith in Ye-
shua. For some in the wider Wider Hope perspective, this would
have to be an almost unconscious orientation. People will be seen as
good or as having responded to revelation if they are “nice” and not
particularly bad. The Bible picture of human evil calls into question
our easy evaluation of “nice” people. Those of us who reflect on the
Holocaust should note that Hitler only succeeded because so many
we would have judged as “nice and good” were shown to be self cen-
tered and willing to see the Jews destroyed for the sake of their own
security. Self-centeredness is damning and can be dominant in ap-
parently good and nice people.
The wider Wider Hope position is that the motivation to evan-
gelize is fueled by the desire to see people enter a more enriching
fullness of faith than is possible in either the revelation from nature
and culture, or that is available from Judaism without Yeshua.
However, this motive has never been proven sufficient for effective
evangelism. One may argue that the eschatological motive is suf-
ficient. This is an important motive indeed, and is emphasized by

35 35
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

Paul in Romans 11 and by Yeshua in Matthew 24. Again, this as a

sole motive has never proven sufficient for effective evangelism. One
may add to this the motive of obedience and pleasing God. Again,
any of these motives for evangelism either separately or together,
have never proven adequate. This holds true for both Jewish out-
reach and Gentile outreach. Only the motivation of compassion to
see that people are not lost to eternal death has proven sufficient
throughout history. Only this produces the requisite intercession
and anointing of the Spirit to be effective. The other motives do
enhance our passionate commitment. They are important addition-
al and correct motives. This seems to hold true for Jewish evange-
lism as well. In Israel, the United States, Russia, Ukraine and South
America, we find whole movements of Messianic Jews that were
only birthed though those who had the passion from that motive
to see that people were not lost but would have everlasting life.
There may be people who have the wider Wider Hope view and are
effective. However, they are exceptions. Story after story of effective
evangelism comes after the people involved in witness were given a
revelation of the great need to the ethnic group to be reached. Their
heart is broken by perceiving their lost condition. They cry out in
intercession and receive extraordinary anointing to accomplish the
task. We have no other evidence for broad effectiveness for either
Jewish or Gentile Evangelism. In general I believe that the holding
of wider Wider Hope views will eventually produce a decrease in the
numbers in our Messianic Jewish movement.
In addition, it is very important to have a proper evaluation of
the condition of people we seek to reach. Romans 1 is quite clear
concerning the general condition of the pagan world. This is a
world characterized by idolatry, suppressing God’s revelation, and
sometimes ultimately devolving into uncontrolled passions which
manifest in perverted sexuality. So no one should be lulled into any
complacency in regard to the condition of the pagan nations of the
world. As Messianic Jews, I would think that we would take little
comfort in the condition of the Islamic peoples.
With regard to Jewish people, the New Covenant already gives
warning concerning the danger of works righteousness, pride, and

36
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

hypocrisy which were causes of blindness to Yeshua at that time.

Yeshua said to the religious leaders of his day, that had they known
the Father, they would have recognized and embraced Him. We may
point to the providential blindness as a reason for hope (Romans
11). Such providential blindness may imply mercy for those who
have been blinded. Yet it may also be judicial hardening which does
not imply greater mercy. Such hardening has led to furtherance of
Gentile salvation and is temporary. At any rate, the conclusion of
Romans 3 is that Jewish people in general have violated the cov-
enant sufficiently that we can say they need to embrace the Gospel
to ensure their eternal destiny with God. At least Romans 3 is say-
ing that the atonement of Yeshua needs to be offered for all people.
However, Romans 3 seems to be saying more. It seems to be saying
that there is no difference not only with regard to the objective
atonement as being necessary for all, but that a subjective faith
response to Yeshua is important for all for eternal destiny.
Additionally, we can empirically evaluate the condition of the
Jewish people. Many are Orthodox Jews who, in my experience, do
not profess to have a living relationship with God. It is even more
so among Conservative and Reform Jews. Of course there are many
exceptions. Furthermore, the moral condition of the larger secular
Jewish community is alarming, to say the least. Though we do not
ultimately judge any individual and do not know the heart with
certainty, can we not see that our people are in great need? Is it not
proper to say so? Relativism, New Age philosophies, immorality,
atheism, skepticism and terribly wrong commitments to causes like
abortion rights are rampant. Only the Gospel has the power to pull
our people back from the brink.
A word about gentile believers witnessing to Jews. There is
a strong consensus among UMJC leaders that Jews are called to
live and identify as part of their people. This means we are not to
assimilate. Gentile witness often conveys that the “one new man”
of Ephesians and the “no difference” between Jew and Gentile of
Galatians 3 must translate effectively as an end of the importance
of Jewish life and identity. This can be an impartation of error both
in the presentation of the Gospel and in the first lessons of disciple-

37 37
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

ship. Therefore some have held that it is better that Gentiles be told
to not seek to lead Jews to Yeshua. I share the concern on the issue
of assimilation. However, I believe that in light of the error of the
wider Wider Hope view, this is not an option. The importance of
presenting the Gospel to our people is a superceding concern. The
answer is to see the Church as a whole embrace a commitment to
the truth that Jewish people are not to assimilate. Much better is to
lend ourselves to efforts such as The Road to Jerusalem where the
Church is mobilized to fully support Messianic Jews. In this there is
education for Gentile believers to call Jews to maintain Jewish life.
This should be part of the presentation of the Good News.
Moreover, the idea that Gentiles should not seek to encourage
Jews to make a decision for Yeshua, while yet hoping that we as
Messianic Jews will be able to accomplish the task of evangelism
is another ivory tower view. Why? Because the vast majority of
Messianic Jews in our movement came to know Yeshua through the
witness of Gentiles, and this continues to this day. To discourage
Gentile witness to Jews is a great mistake. We will find ourselves
sawing off the proverbial limb upon which we are sitting. Surely
many Jews have become members of Churches that have little
understanding of Jewish calling and identity. We all grieve over this.
However, we can pray that God will open eyes and call them to their
Jewish calling and identity. As the consensus of Christian leaders
continues to know that this is right, this becomes more and more
a possibility.

Difficulties in Narrow Hope Views

The Narrow Hope view also provides us with its difficulties. This lens
too easily thinks that it can judge who is, and who is not “saved” on
an individual basis. It involves a judgment of the unseen heart. It
does not take into account those Scriptures that more than hint at a
wider mercy from God for those that seek the Truth. I see no gain in
holding to this position over against the Narrow Wider Hope view.
For one thing, it makes us so narrow that others will unnecessarily
dismiss us as bigots. When Billy Graham was on Larry King’s show
and was asked concerning the destiny of those who have not

38
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

accepted Yeshua, he made two statements. One was that Yeshua was
the way and that he was called to proclaim salvation through believ-
ing in him as that way of salvation. He made it clear that there was a
danger of being lost. Secondly, however, he also said that the destiny
of those who have not had opportunity to receive Him was a mystery
and that God was the judge, not Billy Graham. He trusted that God
was merciful and would save all that He could. He held out hope for
God’s mercy. This seemed to satisfy Larry. At least Billy Graham did
not look like a narrow minded bigot.
About a year previous, one of the leaders of a major Jewish out-
reach was also on Larry King’s show with a noted Rabbi. The Rabbi
accused the leader of having an abhorrent and narrow view that all
those who have not explicitly embraced Yeshua were going to Hell.
He stated that the leader believed that the victims of the Holocaust
went from the ovens of Auschwitz to the eternal barbecue in Hell.
This was an emotional tactic that was not totally valid. However,
it had its effect. The leader had nothing to say and responded as
if this was his view. Jesus was presented as the only way, and this
meant explicit confession in this life every case. Instead, the leader
could have asserted that Yeshua was the way to salvation for Jew
and Gentile, and the way to assurance for one’s eternal destiny. At
the same time he could have said that God would mercifully judge
all who sought the truth and to live according to righteousness in
dependence on his grace. This is the basic teaching of the Judaism
of the Siddur.

Conclusions
In conclusion, I have put forth an argument for a view I call the
Narrow Wider Hope. It affirms the following:
1. That we are to act on the basis of the general “lost-ness” of
people, both Jew and Gentile. We are only to be at rest with regard
to their destiny when they have explicitly confessed and embraced
Yeshua and have given evidence that this embrace is sincere. This
evidence shows an authentic transformation and a growing ability to
bring forth good fruit. We may meet people who give evidence that
they know and walk with God, but have not yet embraced Yeshua.

39 39
Kesher: A Journal of Messianic Judaism

We need not condemn them as lost and judge their hearts, but we
are not to have confidence in their destiny unless they embrace
Yeshua. They may be on the road to him.
2. We are also to hold open the possibility of a wider mercy or
hope on the basis of the many Scriptures quoted here. This hope
should be held in a way that does not blunt our zeal to see people
embrace Yeshua. At the same time, this hope enables us to give a
more powerful theodicy arguing for the justice of God in the face of
evil—and giving answers to those who ask, like Larry King, concern-
ing the destiny of those who have not explicitly embraced Yeshua.
Indeed, many who claim to hold to no Wider Hope view show that
this is not so when they are asked concerning their departed loving
grandmothers. Somehow they hope there was some transaction
whereby they were received into heaven.
We might feel better were we to hold to a wider Wider Hope
view. We would be lulled into a greater sense of false peace. Yet
what is to be gained by holding to such a view. If it blunts our zeal,
it may lead to fewer being brought into everlasting life. If the wider
Wider Hope turns out to be so, and that would be wonderful—we
will have lost nothing by not holding it today. I believe the reason
against holding to it, is that the evidence of Scripture is against it.
Practically, I think we have shown that it is better to not hold to it.
As well, the Gospel is the way to maximize the opportunity for
salvation for all people. Francis Schaeffer is correct, in my view, with
regard to the God-deficiency of cultures as traced to the decisions
of ancestors. Most have rejected the revelation of God in nature and
culture. Gospel presentation when backed by intercession and a
godly life is the way to maximize the opportunity of salvation for all
peoples. It is truly Good News because it gives a new opportunity for
response for all those who responded wrongly in their ancestry and
in their present orientation in life.
I put forth the case for the importance of both Jew and Gentile
explicitly embracing Yeshua for assurance concerning their eternal
destiny after his life, yet holding to the possibility of God’s wider
mercy (which may in fact include others in his grace who have not
made an explicit confession of faith). I would agree with Kenneth

40
 The Narrow Wider Hope  Daniel C. Juster

Kantzer’s hope that in some way people would embrace Yeshua before
death or even in the transaction of dying. However, I do not know that
this will always be the case. I am willing to rest in the mystery of God.
Ultimately, as C. S. Lewis said, God has been clear on the destiny of
those who sincerely embrace Yeshua, but he has not clearly told us
concerning others. Therefore, we had better do our utmost to see all
people embrace Him. Our only clarity is in the destiny of those who
truly embrace the Gospel. This makes us “narrow.”
Dr. Daniel Juster is the Director of Tikkun International, a network of congrega-
tions and ministries in the United and abroad. He was a honors graduate in
Philosophy from Wheaton College, completed graduate course work for Philoso-
phy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, and received an M. Div. from
McCormick Theological Seminary. He also received a Th.D. from New Covenant
International Seminary, New Zealand. Dr. Juster is an author of several books
on Messianic Jewish theology, theology and apologetics including Jewish Roots,
a Foundation of Biblical Theology, The Biblical World View, An Apologetic, and
Revelation, the Passover Key. Dr. Juster serves on numerous boards as part of
furthering the Messianic Jewish Movement and the progress of the Church.

41 41