What do you think?
Rate this book
Irrevocable: Paul's radical vision in Romans 9-11, and why Christianity can't handle it.
"In 1971, Max King burst on the spiritual literary scene with The Spirit of Prophecy, turning the popular study of biblical eschatology—'end-times' teaching—on its head.
Now, in Paul's radical vision in Romans 9-11, and why Christianity can't handle it, King revolutionizes our understanding of the nature and scope of salvation—in Scripture and our lives today—in this same powerful way.
Drawing on his trademark attentiveness to the biblical text and the world of both Old and New Testaments, King helps us untangle some of the Apostle Paul's most confounding a portion of his famous letter to the Romans, specifically chapters 9-11.
Drawing on Hebrew eschatological and apocalyptic influences, the teachings of Jesus, and a unique understanding of the epistle writer's place in history, King demonstrates that this portion of Scripture—often used in religious history to exclude Jewish people from the table of blessing—means the exact opposite of what it's commonly taken to mean...and this is good news for us all.
IRREVOCABLE is a ground-breaking work of canonical theology, with attention to biblical detail that impresses the studious, and a heart toward the grandeur of Paul's vision of God that bolsters the compassionate.
If believers, skeptics, and scholars alike are ready are tired of old religious polarities that are increasingly irrelevant in a pluralist, globally-connected world, and are ready for a biblically-rooted vision of God-as-Source pervading all reality, IRREVOCABLE is your invitation to discover a paradigm-shifting vision of life with God, each other, and the entire universe that will change the way you see everything.
Now, in Paul's radical vision in Romans 9-11, and why Christianity can't handle it, King revolutionizes our understanding of the nature and scope of salvation—in Scripture and our lives today—in this same powerful way.
Drawing on his trademark attentiveness to the biblical text and the world of both Old and New Testaments, King helps us untangle some of the Apostle Paul's most confounding a portion of his famous letter to the Romans, specifically chapters 9-11.
Drawing on Hebrew eschatological and apocalyptic influences, the teachings of Jesus, and a unique understanding of the epistle writer's place in history, King demonstrates that this portion of Scripture—often used in religious history to exclude Jewish people from the table of blessing—means the exact opposite of what it's commonly taken to mean...and this is good news for us all.
IRREVOCABLE is a ground-breaking work of canonical theology, with attention to biblical detail that impresses the studious, and a heart toward the grandeur of Paul's vision of God that bolsters the compassionate.
If believers, skeptics, and scholars alike are ready are tired of old religious polarities that are increasingly irrelevant in a pluralist, globally-connected world, and are ready for a biblically-rooted vision of God-as-Source pervading all reality, IRREVOCABLE is your invitation to discover a paradigm-shifting vision of life with God, each other, and the entire universe that will change the way you see everything.
274 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 29, 2019
4 people are currently reading
7 people want to read
About the author
Max R. King
7 books5 followersMax R. King (b. 1930) is the founder of the school of thought known as Transmillennialism. King served as a minister in the Churches of Christ for 40 years prior to developing Transmillennialism and has had a critical impact on the development of Covenant Eschatology through his books The Cross and the Parousia of Christ and The Spirit of Prophecy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 1, 2025
Reading Max King is my guilty pleasure. Really, there are more important and interesting topics for me than the rather obscure topic of Full Preterism. True, the book of Revelation is a main interest of mine, and thus Full Preterism, as a possible interpretation of Revelation, I find mildly interesting but rather nutty.
The reason Max King is my guilty pleasure is that among the Full Preterists he really is a great writer and is remarkably well read. So kind of like Herod hearing John the Baptist, I hear Max King gladly, though I find him perplexing. I have read The Cross and the Parousia twice now, the first time with some confusion, the second with more clarity. Having now read Irrevocable, I think I need to read the Cross and the Parousia a third time, and then read Irrevocable once more. Certainly with Irrevocable and probably also with the Cross and the Parousia, I think the trick is to read them with Bible in hand to look up some of these verses in Romans to get the context. (I did look up some verses in Irrevocable, but not as many as I should have!)
The thing about Romans is that it is a remarkably difficult book, and I think that people like King that are looking for simple answers are kidding themselves. I had this same feeling when reading Daniel Boyarin's book about Paul, where he claims to have found a consistency in Paul's theology which I think is simply not there.
King does make a couple grammatical points that I found intriguing. Concerning Romans 9.6b (For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel NAS), Max King writes concerning the translation of "not Israel" that "a diverse a group as James Dunn, Douglas J. Moo, John Piper, and Thomas S. Schreiner are among those who argue for its placement [not Israel] at the latter part of the sentence rather than at the beginning: Concerning the common rendering, 'for not all those descended from Israel are Israel,' Dunn commented: 'or, more precisely, "For all those from Israel, these are not Israel."'"
I find Dunn's suggestion theologically attractive in that it suggests that for Paul Israel is not limited to ethnic Israel, but does it work grammatically? I'm thinking not. Nor, do I think, does it fit the context. But I am willing to be persuaded differently
Concerning Romans 9.3 (For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sakeof my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, NAS) King writes, "the verb’s mood, the perfect indicative [sic, should be imperfect indicative] , leaves open the possibility of being translated, 'I was wishing' (cf. John G. Lodge, Romans 9-11: A Reader-Response Analysis [1996], 40). Thus, 'I was wishing' points to a time previous to Paul’s writing Romans, the time, we maintain, when Paul was committed to opposing Christ, believing him to be a false messiah that was leading some of his kinsmen astray." This, it seems to me, is likely.
So at this point I have read the works of three Full Preterists: Max King, Don K. Preston, and Ed Stevens. I have read three books countering the Full Preterist view, by Lance Conley, Bryan Hodge, and Sam Frost. How much further down this bunny trail can I go? I don't know; I just know I need to give it a rest for now.
The reason Max King is my guilty pleasure is that among the Full Preterists he really is a great writer and is remarkably well read. So kind of like Herod hearing John the Baptist, I hear Max King gladly, though I find him perplexing. I have read The Cross and the Parousia twice now, the first time with some confusion, the second with more clarity. Having now read Irrevocable, I think I need to read the Cross and the Parousia a third time, and then read Irrevocable once more. Certainly with Irrevocable and probably also with the Cross and the Parousia, I think the trick is to read them with Bible in hand to look up some of these verses in Romans to get the context. (I did look up some verses in Irrevocable, but not as many as I should have!)
The thing about Romans is that it is a remarkably difficult book, and I think that people like King that are looking for simple answers are kidding themselves. I had this same feeling when reading Daniel Boyarin's book about Paul, where he claims to have found a consistency in Paul's theology which I think is simply not there.
King does make a couple grammatical points that I found intriguing. Concerning Romans 9.6b (For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel NAS), Max King writes concerning the translation of "not Israel" that "a diverse a group as James Dunn, Douglas J. Moo, John Piper, and Thomas S. Schreiner are among those who argue for its placement [not Israel] at the latter part of the sentence rather than at the beginning: Concerning the common rendering, 'for not all those descended from Israel are Israel,' Dunn commented: 'or, more precisely, "For all those from Israel, these are not Israel."'"
I find Dunn's suggestion theologically attractive in that it suggests that for Paul Israel is not limited to ethnic Israel, but does it work grammatically? I'm thinking not. Nor, do I think, does it fit the context. But I am willing to be persuaded differently
Concerning Romans 9.3 (For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sakeof my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, NAS) King writes, "the verb’s mood, the perfect indicative [sic, should be imperfect indicative] , leaves open the possibility of being translated, 'I was wishing' (cf. John G. Lodge, Romans 9-11: A Reader-Response Analysis [1996], 40). Thus, 'I was wishing' points to a time previous to Paul’s writing Romans, the time, we maintain, when Paul was committed to opposing Christ, believing him to be a false messiah that was leading some of his kinsmen astray." This, it seems to me, is likely.
So at this point I have read the works of three Full Preterists: Max King, Don K. Preston, and Ed Stevens. I have read three books countering the Full Preterist view, by Lance Conley, Bryan Hodge, and Sam Frost. How much further down this bunny trail can I go? I don't know; I just know I need to give it a rest for now.
February 29, 2020
A Book Review of Irrevocable Paul’s Radical Vision in Romans 9:11ff and Why Christianity Can’t Handle It By Max King
King offers a vision of canonical theology with an attention to biblical detail that impresses the studious and a heart toward the grandeur of Paul’s vision of God which is compassionate and embracing everyone.
These particular passages appear to place Judaism outside of salvation of Jesus. King is clear salvation is for all, and at the heart of his message is that the message of the Bible is one of continuing revelation.
In this age of division King provides a framework for unity, and of hope.
Fr. River Damien Sims, sfw, D.Min., D.S.T.
www.temenos.org
King offers a vision of canonical theology with an attention to biblical detail that impresses the studious and a heart toward the grandeur of Paul’s vision of God which is compassionate and embracing everyone.
These particular passages appear to place Judaism outside of salvation of Jesus. King is clear salvation is for all, and at the heart of his message is that the message of the Bible is one of continuing revelation.
In this age of division King provides a framework for unity, and of hope.
Fr. River Damien Sims, sfw, D.Min., D.S.T.
www.temenos.org
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews