Is UR fair to those who believe NOW?

[Todd]

Homer, thank you for your very reasoned objections to my assertions. You bring up very good points. First I will say that my thoughts are an attempt to understand how God might work things out, and I will be first to say that I may not have it figured out. It is just that I am not satisfied with other explanations at this point - including the more traditional teaching. However, I will attempt to address your questions.

You wrote...

Are you sure you are not confusing the work of the conscience, that God has placed in all people, with the work of the Holy Spirit? You make no mention of our conscience.

Paul mentions that the conscience works together with the Spirit to lead us (Rom 2:15). I think the real question is to determine if the Spirit indeed works in the heart of everyone or only Christians. I mentioned several passages earlier which I think say that the Spirit is at work in everyone's heart, but probably the most plain one is John 16:8 which states that the Spirit convicts the world of sin; I don't think that is limited to Christians, but includes everyone. Also, consider this passage....

Rom 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

If Christians are freed from condemnation, doesn't that mean that the unsaved are being condemned? When we yield to the Spirit we become free from condemnation. What is the condemnation Paul is referring to?...isn't it the condemnation (or conviction) of the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin? Paul descibes the internal struggle that wages war in the soul in the latter part of Rom 7. I think that all people are convicted by the Spirit, although there are many who harden their heart against it.

Romans 10:8-16 (New King James Version):

8 . But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”
14. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15. And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

16. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” 17. So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

It seems apparent that Paul did not conceive of any answer other than "they can't" to his three rhetorical questions in verse 14.

It does seem so, I agree. But this would limit salvation to a very small fraction of mankind. I don't think that is the right answer. Besides, "hearing" could also mean responding to the Spirit's conviction as it "speaks" to your heart.

Do you believe there is a law(s) given whereby those who adhere to it are saved? The Law was "holy, just, and good". Is there another one that is easier to keep or somehow more able to save?

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. I did not claim that people are saved by keeping the Law of Moses. I said that people are saved by yielding to the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 2:20-21 (New King James Version)
20. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

It is my understanding that Paul is stating a principle here - that is, if man can be saved by obedience (even one person, for then all potentially can) or lawkeeping, then Jesus died for nothing. Do you see it otherwise?

Heb 5:9
And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

What I have said is that those who respond to the Spirit with obedience receive eternal salvation. It seems reasonable to me that this verse from Hebrews could be so affirming.

Acts 5:32 (New King James Version)
32. And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

And here we see in the Greek text that the obedience is an on-going result of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which was given prior to the obedience. Do you believe that all men are indwelt by the Holy Spirit? If so, wouldn't all men obey God? Peter is saying the obedience is the sign of the indwelling Spirit.

Terms like Indwelling and receiving, referring to the presence of the Holy Spirit in one's life, could be referring to the same thing as Romans 8:1 (quoted above). When someone yields to the Spirit's leading, he is no longer condemned by it and has "received" the Spirit. Conversely, those who are carnal minded remain convicted and have not "received" but continue under God's wrath.

Do you believe people who despise the cross of Christ, and yet abound in good deeds are justified in the sight of God?

A person like this seems conflicted within himself and has probably never heard the truth of the Gospel properly taught; however, he may unknowingly be responding to the Spirit's leading as he is motivated to do good works.

Todd

[Todd]

Homer, here's one other thought...

Acts 17:30 says that, "God calls on all men everywhere to repent." How does He do that? Is it by sending out preachers? I suppose that is one way, but it can't be the only way because this method only reaches a handful of folks. I think that the Holy Spirit is calling everyone to repentance through convicting the world of sin.

Todd

[steve]

Homer,

As I was re-reading this thread, I came across a post from you, directed to me, way back in April of 2009 (page three of this thread). Somehow, I had overlooked it. Perhaps you are beyond the point of caring to have it answered at this late date, but I will answer anyway, since you presented it and I have neglected it until now:

Steve wrote:

But it seems to me that it is God, not us, who is in the position to mete out the relative punishments. Perhaps that is why He gives us no guidebook telling how much each person should be or will be punished. All that matters is that God knows what is just, and that He will ultimately do what is just.

I agree that God, and only God, knows what is just, and He will do only what is just. However, the universalist has already circumscribed that which is just for God to do. The judgement of God must be corrective, not punitive, and must be temporal. God's actions weighed in the scales of man!

As I pointed out long ago, God has a "track record", a record of facts. It is easy to argue and speculate about what, in our opinion, God must do in the future. However, I would like to know if God's past actions are consistent with the universalist's standards of what is just. Was God just in condemning all who have lived on this earth to suffering and death for the sin committed by Adam and Eve? The untold agonizing deaths of innocent little children? Was God unjust in this or not, according to human standards?

Time and eternity are infinitely different. When we are suffering temporally, to us it may seem like "an eternity," but it isn't. "No chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful"—and it never seems brief enough to the one being disciplined. "Nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Hebrews 12:11)

If suffering is intended for corrective purposes, it can be seen as the action of a loving Father, regardless how long He wisely sees fit to let it continue. On the other hand, suffering that holds out no possibility of "peaceable fruit of righteousness" being yielded from it can not be said to be a loving action, and is difficult to attribute to one who has always affirmed that He is the Exemplar of unconditional love toward His creatures.

And Steve wrote:

Speaking only theoretically, it seems to me that it would be nothing short of wonderful (for God and for all concerned), if there was no delay whatsoever! However, it would be necessary for any such confession to be genuine and sincere. That might take some dealings, requiring some amount of time.

And I do not understand why a person like Hitler or Hugh Hefner, acknowledged to be intelligent men, would not immediately recognize their predicament and acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and thus, according to universalist theory, be saved. Certainly, according to universalist theory, God only desires their correction and would put nothing in their way. And what if their confession was based on self-interest? Most all people in this life initially come to Christ for their own sake. And certainly they will believe Jesus to be Lord when they face Him; there will be no doubt.

Wouldn't that be great? Would it not be desirable, from your point of view, for Hitler and Hefner to repent sooner, rather than later? In fact, wouldn't we all rejoice to learn of either of these men repenting even sooner still—before their deaths? If we would not begrudge them the grace of God in a death-bed repentance, why does their death change our attitude toward them? Would it be less desirable for them to be saved—even belatedly—than for them to suffer an enless, infinite, and valueless torment?

I suppose that there are people you love, perhaps some related to you, whom God has forgiven for their pasts sins, and you find it an occasion of rejoicing. Suppose one of those people had failed to repent in their lifetime, but you learned that they repented immediately after death and God had forgiven them. Would you complain and say, "But they repented too quickly! They should suffer longer for their sins!"? Is it presently a cause of grief to you that they repented as early as they did, and were not made to remain a longer portion of their lives alienated from God? Perhaps God should not have let them get away with it. Grace is a scandalous thing, isn't it! Perhaps, if Hitler or Hefner were your own wayward son, you would be more in God's position of sympathy toward him, and find less to complain about in the prospect of his being given a chance to repent after death—and the earlier the better!

And Steve wrote:

I believe the concern is over whether God inflicts pain in order to heal and restore, or whether He does so out of sheer vindictiveness. The latter raises questions as to how it can be said that he who has seen Jesus has seen the Father, or how Jesus could exhort us to love our enemies as the Father loves His enemies.

Vindictive and vengeance are synonomous, and scripture repeatedly informs us that vengeance belongs to God, "He will repay". This doesn't sound as though His only intent is to correct errant behavior. In Revelations 6:9-10 the martyrs cry out for God to take revenge. Was this wrong on their part or were they actually pleading for correction? I do not see how this passage fits the universalist theory.

The martyrs do cry for vengeance. Vengeance is good—it is the just settling of a score. Without it, there is no justice—a bad circumstance for the universe. Vindictiveness is not the same thing. It is a disposition. A judge on the bench may have to settle the score by punishing a criminal. That is vengeance. It is no credit to the judge if he carries out his duties with a personal vendetta and a vindictive disposition.

God is not like the average judge, because the earthly judge dispassionately serves a higher system of law that places requirements even upon him. God, however, is not subject to any law above Himself, but is the sovereign determiner of what shall be regarded as right and wrong, and what penalties should be attached. Furthermore, God is the supreme offended party in any suit, and has the prerogative of forgiving. We might say that God owes it to other victims to punish their oppressors. Actually, God owes nothing to anybody, and has every right to command the victims to forgive their oppressors, just as He forgives them. Come to think of it, that is not an entirely hypothetical situation.

I believe that God does settle all scores. For those who avail themselves of His grace in this lifetime, the score is settled by the substitution of a sacrificial Victim. For those who do not do so, other settlements are ordained. The question that is raised by the universalist is not whether God will avenge the deaths of the martyrs upon their persecutors (He did that in AD70, and has done so on other occasions, as well). The question is whether He does so vindictively or with a desire to restore them from their fallen state. Both are possibilities, but universalists suggest that the Bible portrays God (in Christ) as more inclined to one end than to the other.

And:

As Paidion said, there is an eternity of difference between eternity and a season of several millennia.

And as Paidion understands aionios, he is locked in to a temporal, milliniums long age of agonizing, "corrective" yet loving torment in literal fire which he has no qualms about. I see in God's unending punishment, of separation from God, that the condemned have exactly what they desire. I go with C. S. Lewis on this. I will leave it to others to decide which system is most loving.

I seriously doubt if Paidion has "no qualms" about anyone suffering for thousands of years. Who would not cringe at that suggestion? What he has said is that suffering for thousands of years may still have the purpose of restoration as its desired end. Eternal suffering (which is different by a magnitude of infinity) has no such possible purpose, by definition. I think Paidion is simply trying to reconcile his theology with what the Bible says about God and His purposes. Aren't we all?

And Steve wrote:

and if Jesus could say of those who crucified Him, "Father, forgive them. They know not what they do!"—then maybe real forgiveness is possible in the heart of God, even for the monster Hitler. Who can certainly say otherwise?

Steve, do you believe that Jesus' intent was for God to forgive them unconditionally? IMO Jesus' prayer was answered on the day of Pentecost when 3000 of those whom Peter accused of crucifying Jesus repented and were saved, and perhaps numerous others later.

Then we see it similarly. Evangelical universalists do not expect God to forgive anyone unconditionally. They think He will forgive them on the basis of their repentance and faith—just as He forgave those 3000 on the Day of Pentecost. They simply believe that God's passionate desire to save people is not restricted to the years of their miserable lives, and does not end the moment they suffer the ultimate misfortune of dying in their sins. In other words, the God who loved them and had compassion on them while they were on earth still loves them and has compassion on them when they change venues.

[Homer]

Hi Bro!

Thanks for your belated reply. You wrote:

(me)

Was God just in condemning all who have lived on this earth to suffering and death for the sin committed by Adam and Eve? The untold agonizing deaths of innocent little children? Was God unjust in this or not, according to human standards?

(Your reply)

Time and eternity are infinitely different. When we are suffering temporally, to us it may seem like "an eternity," but it isn't. "No chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful"—and it never seems brief enough to the one being disciplined. "Nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (Hebrews 12:11)

If suffering is intended for corrective purposes, it can be seen as the action of a loving Father, regardless how long He wisely sees fit to let it continue. On the other hand, suffering that holds out no possibility of "peaceable fruit of righteousness" being yielded from it can not be said to be a loving action, and is difficult to attribute to one who has always affirmed that He is the Exemplar of unconditional love toward His creatures.

But I asked about the "untold agonizing deaths of little children". How was that for the purpose of correction?

Perhaps, if Hitler or Hefner were your own wayward son, you would be more in God's position of sympathy toward him, and find less to complain about in the prospect of his being given a chance to repent after death—and the earlier the better!

It is certainly not my right to complain about anything God does. We find it easy to overlook the requirements for Justice when those dearest to us are involved, but we can (and should) see the necessity of it, just as for those not close to us.

Then we see it similarly. Evangelical universalists do not expect God to forgive anyone unconditionally. They think He will forgive them on the basis of their repentance and faith—just as He forgave those 3000 on the Day of Pentecost. They simply believe that God's passionate desire to save people is not restricted to the years of their miserable lives, and does not end the moment they suffer the ultimate misfortune of dying in their sins. In other words, the God who loved them and had compassion on them while they were on earth still loves them and has compassion on them when they change venues.

We have long argued over the meaning of aionios at this forum. You understand the word in the sense argued by the universalists, that it is a temporal word meaning "age", in spite of the great majority of lexcicons and dictionaries. It appears to be used for both an age and eternity in the Septuagint. I have argued that it is used in a non-literal sense relative to earthly things, and of endless duration related to heavenly things. If the usage of the word regarding the temporal is the literal sense of the word, then Todd's argument is as valid as Paidion's. Paidion can correct me if I misunderstand him, but he has argued that hell is a literal place of torment wherin a person will be corrected for a very long time. He bases this on the use of aionios for very long periods of time. But I have recently noticed that the word was used in the Septuagint for the three days Jonah was in the whale (Jonah 2:6)! If it is time based, who can argue that three days is not within the literal meaning of the word, and even less than three days? Like an immediate confession of Jesus as Lord when confronted with Him.

Alas, it is all so much speculation rooted in wishful thinking and poor exegesis! Not that there is anything wrong with a tender heart; we should all have one.

God bless you bro, Homer

[steve7150]

Alas, it is all so much speculation rooted in wishful thinking and poor exegesis! Not that there is anything wrong with a tender heart; we should all have one.






I don't think God's will is wishful thinking Homer as neither ET or CI bring God pleasure yet Eph 1 says all things are for his pleasure and only UR provides that to him. I think Paidion concludes that "aion" means millions of years by applying the phrase "ages upon ages" and multiplies 1,000sX1,000s but i think it's likely "aion" is an undefined amount of time, left to God to define.

The main obstacle imagined to be the barrier that God just can't overcome is man's supposed free will. Paul on his way to rounding up Christians had his free will turned around in less then a minute when he said "Lord what will you have me do", so i wonder how other folks free will will hold up when they meet the Lord?

UR is not wishful thinking as it is expressly stated in scripture right in plain sight in many places but Christians have been conditioned to qualify & reject it like this , "according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time to unite all things in him , things in heaven and things on earth." Eph 1.10

This so called wishful thinking is called by Paul to be "his purpose", in other words God's purpose for all things not only in heaven but on earth to be united in Christ.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

I think steve7150 has provided a cogent argument. I would be interested in hearing it refuted.

As for my view of aionios, I am not sure that I have ever committed myself to one interpretation. There have been many examples given by Paidion and others of its use where it clearly did not mean "unending." The Psalms talk about the everlasting (Heb. olam; Gr. aionios) doors of Jerusalem and the everlasting hills, etc. Many uses of the word applied to temporal things have been provided. As I recall, when you have responded to these lists, you did so with instances where the word does mean endless. This demonstrates only that the word is flexible, sometimes speaking of endless things (e.g., "God"), and other times of things not endless, (like the fire that consumed Sodom).

My position is that aionios is used in a variety of applications, which are determined by the specific case and context. This means that reference to "eternal fire" or "eternal punishment" might or might not be referring to an endless situation. In some contexts, there is not enough information to help us decide, so we must do what we always do with ambiguous verses—we harmonize them with the rest of scripture.

My opinion is that aionios sometimes conveys the idea of something rooted in eternity (i.e., originating in God), like the "eternal fire" that consumed Sodom, or the "eternal destruction" which is said to come "from the presence of the Lord."

Often, however, I think the relation of the word to aion ("age") is misunderstood so as to make an "age" or "ages" a reference to duration. Scholars have sometimes made the case that aionios can mean "of an age" or "pertaining to an (or the) age"—meaning the age to come. Eternal punishment, eternal life, and some other uses, then, could mean, respectively, "the punishment of the coming age" or "the life of the coming age," without any suggestion, one way or another, of duration.

Since aionios is such a flexible word in the Bible and the extrabiblical Greek literature, it seem dangerous, at the risk of libeling the nature of God, to seize upon one possible meaning and to insist upon it's application only when it is describing ultimate destinies—for no better reason than to prop up an exegetically tottering orthodoxy.

You mentioned that we all ought to hold to strict justice, even when it is our own kin who must be punished, but my point was that God, while holding Himself to such an integrity, is also the one who sovereignly decided what the penalties should be for sins, before He even created the system of justice. Certainly He foresaw that there would be Hitlers and Hefners, and appointed the penalties appropriate for whatever guilt they would incur. If you or I were making such rules about the punishment of our own erring children, and had the choice between endless torment, annihilation, or corrective discipline, which would any humane parent choose? And why should we think God would exhibit less compassion in His choice of options?

Besides, How would it be less just for God to allow someone to repent and be forgiven post-mortem than is was for Him to allow you or me to repent and be forgiven pre-mortem? Is not either case an equal violation of justice? If there is a just way for Him to forgive us in Christ, could He not, if He wished, find a justification for forgiving in Christ those who turn to him a moment or a year or a decade too late (by our reckoning of "too late")?

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

I thought you made a good argument for your position but after a bit of reflection I am not so sure.

You wrote:

Certainly He foresaw that there would be Hitlers and Hefners, and appointed the penalties appropriate for whatever guilt they would incur. If you or I were making such rules about the punishment of our own erring children, and had the choice between endless torment, annihilation, or corrective discipline, which would any humane parent choose? And why should we think God would exhibit less compassion in His choice of options?

The analogy of God, as Father, to good human fathers does not hold in many respects. Your argument presupposes that God is the Father of such as the Hitlers and Hefners of this world. This is, IMO, false. They would seem to be children of the devil as Paul said of Elymas, Acts 13:10. And consider carefully John 8:40-47:

John 8:40-47 (New King James Version)
40. But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41.You do the deeds of your father.”
Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”
42. Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46. Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47. He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

We are our Father's children by adoption. And He disciplines us as sons for correction, Hebrews 12:7. It appears to me that God is not in the business of disciplining those who are not His children, but, at some point at least, "gives them over" to the path they have chosen, Romans 1. Why would He ever do that if He is determined to save them?

It is my belief that God does that which we humans (most of us) could not do. This is, I believe , the meaning of what happened when Noah entered the Ark. You may recall that it was God who closed the door behind Noah; I believe it was because God knew that Noah would not be able to do it.

Besides, How would it be less just for God to allow someone to repent and be forgiven post-mortem than is was for Him to allow you or me to repent and be forgiven pre-mortem? Is not either case an equal violation of justice? If there is a just way for Him to forgive us in Christ, could He not, if He wished, find a justification for forgiving in Christ those who turn to him a moment or a year or a decade too late (by our reckoning of "too late")?

It would be no less just if God had established no cut-off point. There are many indications in scripture that there is a cut-off point, and that the point may be reached prior to death for some.

And by the way, your argument about what a father would not do to his child is just as applicable to annihilationism as it is to the traditional view. No good father annihilates his children, and if you hold to your analogy it would appear you have run out of options; you are stuck with universalism.

I hope to respond to steve7150 when I have time.

God bless, Homer

[steve]

A father could possibly live (with sadness) with the option of annihilation (or death) of the children who chose that course of alienation incorrigibly. It would not please Him that they would choose such an option, but it would be an option that satisfied justice, affirmed their choice, and did not have lingering consequences.

[Homer]

Hi Steve 7150,

You wrote:

UR is not wishful thinking as it is expressly stated in scripture right in plain sight in many places but Christians have been conditioned to qualify & reject it like this , "according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time to unite all things in him , things in heaven and things on earth." Eph 1.10

This so called wishful thinking is called by Paul to be "his purpose", in other words God's purpose for all things not only in heaven but on earth to be united in Christ.

Your quote of scripture sounds good but it is proof-texting of the worst kind. Consider verse 9 and the whole context. Paul is writing about the blessings of redemption and in verse 9 he refers to "the mystery of His will":

Ephesians 1:9-10 (New King James Version)
9. having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10. that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.

The mystery of his will is the "that" of verse 10. Now read Ephesians 3:1-12 and you will see what that mystery is:

Ephesians 3:1-12 (New King James Version)
1. For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2. if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3. how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4. by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5. which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6. that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7. of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.
8. To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9. and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10. to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11. according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12. in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.

This mystery, the uniting (or summing up) of all things is clearly a reference to the gentiles being brought into the church on an equal basis with the Jews, a frequent topic of Paul's. And I should not need to prove again the obvious: "all" (pas) frequently does not literally mean all in total.

The problem we have is one of bias. Bias that is based on noble ideas and a tender heart. It is easy to be inclined toward universalism, and the traditional and annihilationist views are not winsome. Yet the scriptures are full of threats directed to those who reject our Lord. God is not like the blustering Wizard of Oz.

As I have argued from the beginning of this interminable discussion, souls will be lost because of the teaching of universalism. If universalism arguments are accepted, it can not be shown from scriptures that there is any time lapse at all between judgement day and when a person might repent. And this is all the unregenerate needs to hear before he decides to take his chances.

God bless, Homer

[steve7150]

This mystery, the uniting (or summing up) of all things is clearly a reference to the gentiles being brought into the church on an equal basis with the Jews, a frequent topic of Paul's. And I should not need to prove again the obvious: "all" (pas) frequently does not literally mean all in total.





Homer i see no contradiction between the Eph 1 quote & Eph 3 as "all things" includes gentiles & jews. To read into the word "gentiles" a contradiction to, or qualification of God's purpose to gather all things in Christ is reading into the text limitations that are not stated by Paul. Additionally in Eph 3 we now see Paul call God's purpose "according to his eternal purpose" referencing back to his Eph 1 stmt about "his purpose" is to gather all things in Christ as an eternal purpose. IMO gathering all things in Christ is in fact the bedrock of God's plan for mankind in the fullness of time. If it is in fact God's purpose then physical death has no meaning to God , only to us but not God.
You can take the position that "all" is just an expression but if that is the case Paul usage of the word is extremely loose & even casual as he sometimes quotes OT verses and adds "in heaven" & "on the earth" & "under the earth" (Phil 2) which explicitly includes all the dead and all the living who have ever lived from all the nations. In fact the phrase "gentiles" i think is another way of saying folks from "all the nations."