A Primer on Philippians 2:9-11

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.¹Unless otherwise indicated quotes from the Bible will be from the ESV.

Philippians 2:9-11

The acclamation from every creature in the universe that Jesus Christ is Lord comes as the final scene of the christological drama. It is a coronation scene, at which Christ’s kingly rule is acknowledged by all the cosmic spirit-powers of the universe. These once-hostile powers have been overcome and now render homage to their conqueror. It is universal, but is it salvation? The language is not the language of salvation, nor of reconciliation, but of lordship.

M. Eugene Boring²M. Eugene Boring, ‘The Language of Universal Salvation in Paul’, in Journal of Biblical Literature, 105/2, 282.

M. Eugene Boring had a point.

At first blush, Philippians 2:10-11 may appear to be evidence that Paul was a universalist. However, on closer examination, the passage itself lacks the normal way that Paul speaks of believers being saved.³e.g. see Rom 5:9-10; Phil 1:28; Eph 2:8 To be clear, I am not arguing that since Paul does not utilize such vocabulary in Philippians 2:10-11 then he could not possibly have intended to affirm universalism there. Nevertheless, the point is, since Paul does not utilize such language it is improper for universalists like Boring to simply assert that the ‘”universalism” of vv 11-12 is clear.’⁴Ibid. It must be argued, not asserted. The purpose of this article is to introduce the reader to some of the exegetical questions that universalists need to address before concluding Paul was affirming universalism in these verses.

One of the features of Philippians 2:10-11 that leads universalists to think Paul was affirming universalism in this passage is his statement that ‘every knee should bow’ (πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ) and ‘every tongue confess’ (πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται). There is no doubt that universalists automatically read these clauses as evidence that Paul was saying everyone will worship Jesus. For instance, Andrew Hronich writes,

Paul claims God exalted Jesus so that every knee would bow to Him. My professor, George Hunsinger, was fond of repeating in lectures… that “according to [v.10], the divine/human Jesus, worshiped at first by only a tiny community, will one day be confessed by all the world… The universalistic note here is as remarkable as the distinctions by which it is expressed.”⁵Andrew Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis, Kindle ed. (Wipf and Stock Publishers: 2023), Kindle loc., 9932-9944.

Thomas Talbott writes,

When Paul suggested that every tongue would come to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, he chose a verb that throughout the Septuagint implies not only confession, but the offer of praise and thanksgiving as well.⁶Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed., Kindle ed., (Cascade Books: 2014), Kindle loc., 1389-1400.

John Mortimer follows suit,

Throughout the Old Testament and especially in the Psalms and Isaiah, exomologeomai is used exclusively to denote joyful and voluntary praise.⁷John Mortimer, The Purest Gospel: The Good News That Everyone Will Be Saved, Kindle ed., (Independently published: 2022), Kindle loc., 757-807.

Julie Ferwada does as well,

It’s crazy to think that anyone would bow in submission to God and give Him acceptable, legitimate praise under coercion on his or her way to everlasting torment.⁸Julie Ferwerda, Raising Hell: Christianity’s Most Controversial Doctrine Put Under Fire, Kindle ed., (Vagabond Group: 2014), Kindle loc., 2517-2524.

However, digging a little into the language used by Paul has led me to reject this assumption. This may surprise people. After all, is not bowing a knee and confessing in and of themselves acts of worship? Not necessarily. While it is true that the verb Paul used for bow (κάμπτω) can be used with reference to the act of worship,⁹e.g. LXX 1 Chron 29:20; LXX 2 Chron 29:29; LXX Dan 6:10 [var.]; Rom 11:4, 11 it often does not.¹⁰e.g. LXX Jud 5:27; 7:5-6; LXX 2 Kings 1:13; 9:24; LXX Sir 7:23; 38:18; LXX 4 Macc 3:4 When κάμπτω is used to signify the idea of homage to another the phraseology used is often explicit that one is bending to or towards someone.¹¹Joseph H. Hellerman, Philippians, (B&H Academic: 2015), 121. Varner notes that in eleven of the twelve NT uses of the noun for ‘knee’ (γόνυ) ‘are in conjunction with prayer and/or submission to a god.’¹²William Varner, Philippians: An Exegetical Commentary, Kindle ed., (Fontes Press: 2021), Kindle loc., 1840-1847. However, as with κάμπτω, though γόνυ is used in a context of worship and prayer,¹³e.g. LXX Gen 48:12; LXX 1 Kings 8:54; 18:42; 19:18; LXX 1 Chron 29:20; LXX 2 Chron 6:13; LXX Ezra 9:5; Mark 15:9; Luke 22:41; Act 9:40; 20:36; 21:5; Rom 11:4 other usages of the noun have nothing to do with worshipping, praying to, or honoring a king or deity.¹⁴e.g. LXX Gen 30:3; LXX Deut 28:35; LXX Jud 4:21; 7:5-6; 16:19; LXX 2 Kings 1:13; 4:20; 9:24; LXX Job 3:12; 4:4; LXX Psa 109[108]:24; LXX 35:3; 66:12; Nah 2:10; Heb 12:12 It is always the surrounding context dictating whether the use of γόνυ has to do with prayer, worship or paying homage to another. This means it is a mistake to point to the use of κάμπτω and γόνυ in Philippians 2:10 as if that alone is evidence Paul was saying all will worship or pay homage to Jesus.

To illustrate this, a variant in LXX Daniel 6:10 has Daniel bending his knee in confession to God.

And when Daniel knew that the decree was ordered, he went into his house; and his windows were opened in his chambers toward Jerusalem, and three times in the day he knelt upon his knees (κάμπτων ἐπί τὰ γόνατα αὐτοῦ), and prayed (προσεύχομαι) and gave thanks (ἐξομολογέομα) before his God (ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ), as he used to do before.¹⁵The English translation of LXX Daniel 6:10 is from Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton’s, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Translation, (Samuel Bagster and Sons: 1870). I would normally use NETS translation of the LXX but in this case, Brenton’s translation more clearly represents the Greek of the variation in view.

Like Philippians 2:10-11, bending the knee (κάμπτων ἐπί τὰ γόνατα αὐτοῦ) is used with the much-debated word for ‘confess, praise’ (ἐξομολογέομα). However, in this case, Daniel bends the knee ‘before his God’ (ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ) and so is praying (προσεύχομαι) to God. It is this context that helps me see why Brenton rendered ἐξομολογέομα.¹⁶Sometimes lexical resources will treat ἐξομολογέομα as ἐξομολογέω. For the sake of consistency, I will use the form ἐξομολογέομα when discussing this word as ‘gave thanks’, though the idea of confessing could well also be in view instead. This kind of extra vocabulary provides the kind of context that is missing in Philippians 2:10-11.

In Romans 14:11, Paul does quote verbatim the clause ἐμοί κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ from (‘every knee shall bow to me’) LXX Isaiah 45:23. The retention of ἐμοί (‘to me’) is exactly the kind of additional phraseology required for ‘every knee will bow’ to signify worship or homage will be directed to Jesus. However, in the context of Romans 14, Paul is talking about his fellow believers to whom he wrote. He had in mind how he and they – those who were already believers – would one day bow their knees to Christ in reference to their King. Note, however, when Paul expands the scope to a universal perspective In Philippians 2:10, he drops language denoting the idea of kneeling to someone. Instead, he uses the different construction of ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ (‘at the name of Jesus every knee should bow’).

The exact meaning of the prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (lit. ‘in the name’) is somewhat unclear. It could mean ‘when the name of Jesus is mentioned’ every knee should bow.¹⁷William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (University of Chicago Press: 2000), 713; C.F.D Moule, An Idiom Book of the New Testament Greek, (University Press: 1953), 78. The use of the phrase could also be a way of saying that the proclamation of Jesus’ name causes people to bow their knees.¹⁸Hellerman, Philippians, 121. Neither option means that all who bow do so as an act of worship or paying homage to Jesus.

What about Paul’s statement that ‘every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord’? There is debate about the exact meaning of the Greek word behind ‘confess’, ἐξομολογέομαι. Prominent universalists like David Bently Hart are rather bullish that ἐξομολογέομαι always has the meaning of ‘gladly confess’ and renders the verb as such in his translation of the NT.¹⁹See Kieth Gile’s report of Hart’s comment. Hart lauds Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament as ‘the best lexicon for biblical koine’ while denigrating other lexical resources that disagree with him on the meaning of ἐξομολογέομαι. While Thayer’s does list ‘to profess i. e. to acknowledge openly and joyfully’ as a gloss for ἐξομολογέομαι, it is the second of two glosses. Thayer’s lists verses such as Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5; Acts 19:18; and James 5:16 as instances where ἐξομολογέομα does not have a meaning akin to ‘gladly confess’. What is more, Thayer’s also cites the use of use of ἐξομολογέομα by Plutarch (Antony, 59.5),

At this, Antony was wroth, and Cleopatra said: ‘Thou hast done well, Geminius, to confess (ἐξομολογέομαι) the truth without being put to the torture.’ Geminius, accordingly, after a few days, ran away to Rome. And Cleopatra’s flatterers drove away many of the other friends of Antony also who could not endure their drunken tricks and scurrilities.²⁰The reader should be able to see the Greek text of Plutarch here and the English translation here.

Thayer’s also references Josephus (War. 602),

At this sight his friends, especially those of Tarichae, commiserated his condition; but those that came out of the country, and those in their neighborhood, to whom his government seemed burdensome, reproached him, and bid him produce the money which belonged to them all immediately, and to confess (ἐξομολογέομαι) the agreement he had made to betray them; for they imagined, from the habit in which he appeared, that he would deny nothing of what they suspected concerning him, and that it was in order to obtain pardon that he had put himself entirely into so pitiable a posture.²¹The reader should be able to see the Greek text of Josephus’s statement here and the English translation here.

Both are examples of the use of ἐξομολογέομαι in contexts where forced confession is in view. There are other examples. It is safe to say that when ἐξομολογέομαι is used in non-biblical literature, it simply refers to acknowledging something to be true. This is especially so when the verb is used with ὅτι (‘that/since’) as it is in Philippians 2:11.

There is an obvious reply from universalists, who might point out in many places in the LXX, ἐξομολογέομαι takes on the meaning of ‘praise’ or ‘thanksgiving’.²²Talbott, Inescapable Love, Kindle loc., 1375-1400. To be sure, ἐξομολογέομα was often used to render Hebrew words for ‘praise’ or ‘give thanks’ in the LXX. In the case of Isaiah 45:23, the OT primary source text for Philippians 2:10-11, ἐξομολογέομα translates šābaʿ.²³Since I do not know Hebrew I will use the transliteration of Hebrew words. This word does not generally carry the idea of praise or thanksgiving as such. Rather, šābaʿ means “to swear, take an oath”.²⁴William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 700. It is used for solemn vows or oaths. In any case, the mere fact that ἐξομολογέομα is often used in contexts people does not mean that joy is part of its meaning. The only point I am making here is that such vocabulary is not necessarily used to express the idea that one is gladly swearing allegiance to another. This means one should not simply point to Paul’s use of ἐξομολογέομα to conclude he had ‘joyful confession’ in mind. Rather, one must argue from the context to show why he had that nuance in view.

When Paul quotes ‘every tongue shall confess’’ from LXX Isaiah 45:23 in Romans 14:11 he retained the same phraseology as the OT source text.²⁵Paul changes the word order but this has no bearing on the meaning of the clause As pointed out above, Paul is talking about his fellow believers to whom he wrote. Notice what Paul says just before and after this quotation in Romans 14:10-12.

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Paul’s main concern here is with how the Roman believers had fallen into the trap of being judgmental towards each other. His quotation of LXX Isaiah serves as a way to show that they would eventually have to formally explain to God why they had behaved so poorly towards each other. This has more to do with the confession of sin (c.f. Matt 3:6; Mark 1:5; James 5:16) than an act of joyful praise or worship.

However, in Philippians 2:11, Paul changes the phraseology LXX Isaiah 45:23 from ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τῷ θεῷ (‘every tongue shall acknowledge God’).²⁶This is the translation from NETS, Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., “Esaias,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts), trans. Moisés Silva, (Oxford University Press: 2007) Brenton’s has ‘every tongue shall swear by God’. The variation in translation has no bearing on the point I am making here. to πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς (‘every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord’). Paul’s use of the word ὅτι is his way of introducing the content of the confession.²⁷Varner, Philippians, 83. This brings Paul’s use of ἐξομολογέομα close to how this verb was routinely employed in secular literature with reference to acknowledgment of something being true.²⁸I am indebted to Gary Manning, who pointed this out in a FaceBook group that facilitates biblical language majors in the discussion of the finer points of the original languages of the Bible. Furthermore, of the eleven uses of ἐξομολογέομα in the NT, three have to do with acknowledging one’s sin,²⁹Matt 3:6; Mark 1:5; Jame 5:12 while one has to do with disclosing information about one’s normal practices.³⁰Acts 19:18 Given Paul adapted the phraseology of LXX Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:10-11, we have a very good reason to refrain from assuming he used ἐξομολογέομα because it denotes ‘joyful expression’. He adapted the OT source text for his own purposes and concerns in Philippians 2, and so one must show from that context what he intended to convey. This deep dive into the language used by Paul has shown that universalists cannot simply assume the emphasis on bowing a knee and confessing support universalism. It is the surrounding context in both Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:10-11 that will dictate whether such connotations are in view there.

Another relevant question is whether Paul intended Philippians 2:10-11 to be read as a prediction. After noting that in Romans 14:11 Paul applies Isaiah 45:23 to the Father as the one who will judge all, I. Howard Marshall says,

But in Philippians 2 Christ occupies this divine position as judge. The passage is primarily a statement about his supreme position under the Father. Whoever confesses God as Lord must give that same honor to Christ. In other words the point is not that everybody will confess Christ as Lord but that everybody who recognizes God as Lord should also recognize Christ as Lord.³¹I. Howard Marshall, ‘Does the New Testament Teach Universalism?’ in Christ in our place: the humanity of God in Christ for the reconciliation of the world : essays presented to Professor James Torrance , ed. Trevor A. Hart, et al. (The Paternoster Press: 1989), 318-319. [Emphasis Marshall’s]

In Isaiah 45:23 the Hebrew verbs behind ‘bow’ and ‘swear allegiance’ are in the “imperfect” conjugation. Since I have no knowledge of Hebrew, I am relying on information provided to me by Chris Date. The use of the “imperfect” conjugation means the verbal action in view is incomplete.³²An example of the Hebrew word for ‘to swear’ being used in the niphil perfective form is also found in Isaiah 45:23 when God says, ‘I have sworn’. The use of the niphil perfective form presents the verbal action as being complete and so often has the past in view. This conjugation offered the Hebrew author some flexibility. For instance, Date pointed out to me that the “imperfect” conjugation often is used with a future tense sense. In this case, Isaiah 45:23 would be understood as saying all will bow and all will swear allegiance to God. However, the imperfect conjugation can also be used to refer to what would, could, should, may, might, or can happen.³³Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed., (Zondervan: 2007), 130 In these cases, the verb might not be used to predict what will happen in the future. An example of this provided by Date is Exodus 20:9, ‘Six days you shall labor, and do all your work.’ In this case, the use of the imperfect conjugation (‘labor’, ‘do’) does not signal a prediction is being made but rather a statement about an obligation is expressed. Importantly, it is context dictating what nuance is in view.³⁴Ibid.

One can make the same observation about the Greek Paul chose to use when quoting Isaiah 45:23. The LXX translation of Isaiah 45:23 has future indicative verbs,

‘to me every knee shall bow (κάμψει) and every tongue shall acknowledge (ἐξομολογήσεται) God’

Paul follows the LXX in Romans 14:11,

every knee shall bow (κάμψει) to me, and every tongue shall confess (ἐξομολογήσεται) to God.

In context, Paul is referring to believers.³⁵c.f. Rom 14:8, 10 In this case, Paul’s use of the future indicative form of these verbs is explained by his conviction that believers who judge their fellow believers will be required to give an account of their actions on the day of judgment (v11). Of course, believers will indeed pay homage to their King on that day since they are already committed to him as their Lord and Savior.

When it comes to Philippians 2:10-11, however, Paul switches to the aorist subjunctive form of these verbs, ‘should bow’ (κάμψῃ) and ‘should confess’ (ἐξομολογήσηται).³⁶The ESV has simply ‘confess’ and not ‘should confess’, but the modality ‘should’ is implied. Andrew Hronich argues that this supports the universalist reading of this passage,

‘the “should” in Philippians 2:10 is an aorist subjunctive, a definite outcome that will come to pass because of a prior stated action, and thus should not be understood as “you ought to bow, but you might not.” Rather, it means, “you shall bow!”’³⁷Hronich, Once Loved, Kindle loc., 9944-9950.

This is incorrect. Hronich misleads his audience with the assumption that since Christ’s exaltation to the highest position of authority is certain (Paul says it has already happened), then the aorist subjunctive verbs also express that same sense of certainty. This is a misunderstanding of the function of aorist subjunctives. If anything, the default understanding of an aorist subjunctive verb should be that it ‘indicates that all people should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, but not that they actually will do so.’³⁸Varner, Philippians, 82.

I have read several intermediate Koine Greek grammars to double-check how aorist subjunctive verbs function in sentences.³⁹‘The subjunctive is customarily used to express a hope or desire: “I’m calling so that you might know what happened.” Grammarians call it the mood of probability because it represents the action as uncertain but probable. As such, it is closely related to the future indicative. The future, however, indicates what will take place, whereas the subjunctive indicates what may take place.’ David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek, Kindle ed., (Baker Academic: 1998. Kindle loc., 1916-1922; ‘The subjunctive is the most common of the oblique moods in the NT. In general, the subjunctive can be said to represent the verbal action (or state) as uncertain but probable … In sum, the subjunctive is used to grammaticalize potentiality. It normally does so in the realm of cognitive probability, but may also be used for cognitive possibility (overlapping with the optative) or volitional intentionality (overlapping with the imperative).; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, (Zondervan: 1996), 461-463; ‘“The subjunctive differs from the future indicative in stating what is thought likely to occur, not positively what will occur.”’ A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 3rd ed., Kindle ed., (publication details not given), Kindle locations, 17150-17155; ‘In the indicative mood the speaker presents the action as actual. In the subjunctive mood the speaker presents the action as probable but contingent on existing and known circumstances.’ John D. Harvey, Greek Is Good Grief: Laying the Foundation for Exegesis and Exposition, (Wipf & Stock: 2007), 209; ‘Subjunctive Mood … affirms the possibility that the verbal idea will come to pass. The degree of probability is indicated by context.’ Benjamin Chapman and Gary Steven Shogren, Greek New Testament: Laying the Foundation for Exegesis and Exposition, 2nd ed., revised., (Stylus Publishing, 1994), 209; ‘The subjunctive form is used to grammaticalize a projected realm which may at some time exist and may even now exist, but which is held up for examination simply as a projection of the writer or speaker’s mind for consideration.‘ (italics Porter’s) Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, (JSOT: 1999), 56–57; ‘The subjunctive mood represents the verbal action as indefinite but probable (the mood of probability).’ Andreas J. Köstenberger, Benjamin L. Merkle, and Robert L. Plummer, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament, Kindle ed., (B&H Publishing Group: 2016), Kindle loc., 5285-5286.; ‘Whereas the indicative mood is mainly concerned with assertions about reality, the subjunctive mood makes projections about reality. From the perspective of the writer or speaker, the subjunctive mood grammaticalizes contemplating or projecting actions or states. It is common to understand the subjunctive mood as the mood of probability.’ David L. Mathewson and Elodie Ballantine Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament, Kindle ed., (Baker Publishing Group: 2016), Kindle loc., 5228-5236. The use of the aorist subjunctive does not in and of itself signify a definite outcome simply because of a previous stated action. In fact, depending on context and the kind of clause in which the subjunctive verb is used, the subjunctive mood can take on several nuances.⁴⁰Wallace, Greek Grammar, 462. In the case of Philippians 2:10, the aorist subjunctive verb is part of what is called a ἵνα clause. Even here, there are at least seven basic uses of this construction, meaning one cannot simply assume the use of the aorist subjunctive in Philippians 2:10-11 has a definite outcome in view. Most commentators regard the use of the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction in these verses as a purpose clause. This would simply mean Paul’s ‘every knee should bow’ and ‘every tongue confess’ was a way of explaining why Jesus has been exalted to the highest position of authority.⁴¹c.f. Phil 2:9 It would not mean Paul is predicting absolutely everyone who has lived would bow down to Jesus and acknowledge Jesus as Lord. Rather, Paul is simply elaborating that Jesus is now in a position of authority that was previously thought to belong to God alone. That is, people ought to pay homage to Jesus in the same way as people ought to pay homage to God. This is why God had exalted Jesus after he had humbled himself to die on the cross.

There are a few outliers. Gordon Fee argued the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction in Philippians 2:10-11 should be regarded as expressing the result of Christ’s exaltation.⁴²c.f. v9, Gordon Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: 1995), 223. Daniel Wallace regards the construction as a purpose-result clause.⁴³Wallace, Greek Grammar, 473-474. In both cases, Paul would be saying that the consequence of Christ’s exaltation will be seen in how all will bend the knee to Him and confess that He is Lord. It is disappointing that Fee refrained from giving a reason for his interpretation of the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction, as the viability of his reading is dependent on adequate contextual cues to support it. Wallace, however, does offer some commentary on why his reading should be adopted.

Paul here is not declaring only God’s intention in exalting Christ. Much more than that. The apostle is indicating that what God intends he will carry out. The evidence for this is that he is quoting Isa 45:23 here, though weaving it into his text in such a way that he alters it by turning it into a purpose clause (in the LXX it is a declarative statement using future indicatives after ὅτι). Paul quotes this text in Rom 14:11, though there he introduces it with an introductory formula (γέγραπται γάρ) and, consequently, leaves the moods and tenses as they were in the LXX. The point is simply that since Paul is not directly or formally quoting the OT here, but has worked that quotation into his text by making it the purpose of the exaltation, the subjunctive is required after ἵνα. If both in Isa 45:23 and in Rom 14:11 the future indicative is a predictive future, then Paul seems to be using the Isaiah passage to declare that Jesus Christ is the one who will fulfill the prophecy made about Yahweh. If this is an accurate assessment of the future indicative, then Paul in Phil 2:10-11 is either misunderstanding the OT or he is declaring that Jesus Christ is true deity.⁴⁴Wallace, Greek Grammar, 474.

Notice Wallace is not saying the use of the aorist subjunctive verb form itself signifies a definite outcome as Hronich implies. Rather, Wallace points out Paul’s use of Isaiah 45:23 determines the significance of the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction. That is, context dictates meaning. Even here, though Wallace recognizes that Paul followed LXX Isaiah 45:23 when quoting that verse in Romans 14:11, he downplays the way Paul chose to depart from the exact phraseology in Philippians 2:10-11. Paul’s decision to utilize the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction there instead of the future indicative as he had done in Romans 14:11 indicates he was not necessarily affirming that everyone will bow the knee to Jesus and confess he is Lord. Furthermore, given my discussion above of the various reasons why one cannot simply assume Isaiah himself was making a prediction in the first place, Wallace’s appeal to LXX Isaiah 45:23 as the reason why Paul’s use of the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction appears to be a case where he has kicked the can down the road. Wallace, and anyone who follows him, would first need to establish that Isaiah was making a prediction before concluding Paul’s citation of Isaiah means he was making that all sentient beings who have ever lived will finally pay homage to Christ.

One possible argument universalists might make to support Fee and Wallace’s perspective is to appeal to John 3:16, where the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction is used.⁴⁵I have only seen this particular response made on social media posts but it is worth mentioning here for my purposes.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that (ἵνα) whoever believes in him should not perish (aorist subjunctive) but have (aorist subjunctive) eternal life.

The implied argument is since conditionalists accept that John 3:16 speaks to what will happen to those who believe despite the use of the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction in this verse, then we would be inconsistent when arguing the same construction in Philippians 2:10-11 should not be read as a prediction. However, though Wallace does think the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction in John 3:16 functions as a purpose-result clause, he makes it clear it is the wider context of John’s Gospel that dictates this.

The fact that the subjunctive is all but required after ἵνα does not, of course, argue for uncertainty as to the fate of the believer. This fact is obvious, not from this text, but from the use of οὐ μή in John 10:28 and 11:26, as well as the general theological contours of the gospel of John.⁴⁶Wallace, Greek Grammar, 474.

In other words, John goes on to emphasize believers will not die once resurrected,⁴⁷I have written on this subject here and here. and this is how we know that John 3:16 communicates the idea that believers will not perish. I have never seen any conditionalist argue that the use of the ἵνα + subjunctive verb construction means John 3:16 is a prediction of what will happen. Rather, we cite John 3:16 because we think it is a neat summary of the theme found throughout John that without believing in Christ, people will not live forever but will die. It is not the use of the aorist subjunctive verb per se that tells the reader that believers will live forever. It is the context of John’s broader narrative that tells us this. John 3:16 tells us what should live forever, but John 10:28 and 11:25-26 confirm this will happen.

The reader might notice that I have not commented on the subject of πᾶς (‘all’, ‘every’). I accept that πᾶς is correctly translated in the ESV. In this case, I see no reason to adopt an argument like ‘all does not mean all’, even if other conditionalists or traditionalists might do so. Paul could very well have had all believers in view but not those who are enemies of Christ. Even if universalists establish Paul had genuine worship of the saved is in view, under conditionalism, after all those who reject Christ are destroyed only believers will remain and so only those who would offer worship God will remain. If that is the case, then the argument about whether πᾶς means ‘all’ is moot, at least for my purposes.

I have attempted to highlight several aspects of the language of Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:10-11 that might impinge on how one might interpret these verses. The fact that these technicalities can be read in more than one way means universalists cannot simply quote Philippians 2:10-11 and conclude these verses are clear support for universalism. They must argue their case. They must point to contextual clues for why their reading of these texts should be adopted. For my part, my next article will explain why I think that though these verses may at first glance seem to support universalism, when read in context they do not.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rethinking Hell on Patreon!