Category: Biblical Exegesis

Gavin Ortlund is one of my favorite Christian apologists. He is kind in his critique of those with whom he disagrees. His YouTube channel is replete with irenic, thoughtful, and knowledgeable interaction with a range of people with whom he disagrees. Recently, Ortlund published a video on his YouTube channel entitled Annihilationism: Why I am not convinced.¹While Ortlund uses the word annihilationism, I prefer the word conditionalism to describe my view of the final fate of the lost. In this video he seeks to steelman conditionalism and then offers reasons why he has not adopted this view of hell. There is already a lengthy response video available by RH called Responding (again) to Gavin Ortlund. In this article, I do not intend to relitigate all that was said in that video. Instead, I would like to simply outline why Ortlund failed to convince me that his rejection of conditionalism is merited.

It is safe to say that Ortlund holds to C. S. Lewis’s view of hell. This version of traditionalism emphasizes that hell should be seen in terms of self-exile as much as it entails divine judgment on unrepentant sinners. As such, ‘the judgment of hell is not an arbitrary one’.²Gavin R. Ortlund, ‘A Losing Battle Against Reality: C. S. Lewis On The Nature And Necessity Of Hell’, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 176:703 (Jul 2019): 342. Hell is to be seen as the ‘logical implication of the related doctrines of God and sin’.³Ibid., 327. God is ‘primal and necessary being’,⁴Ibid., 333. and so ‘union with that Nature is bliss and separation is horror’.⁵Ibid, 334. This is the basis for the conclusion that ‘hell is simply being banished from God’s presence and favor’.⁶Ibid., 334. Hell is also seen as a logical implication of human sin. Sin is defined as the refusal to submit to God. For Lewis (and Ortlund), human evil is to be seen as a trajectory where those who freely reject God will continue on that path, so hell is the culmination of a path of opposition to God. God will judge people according to their sins, and their rejection of God is the rationale for why they are punished. This is how Ortlund comes to the conclusion that God’s punishment of people eternally is not arbitrary or cruel. Ortlund frequently states that those who end up in hell will eternally be miserable, but he rejects the notion that hell is a torture chamber.⁷Joseph Dear has already published articles that directly and indirectly interact with Ortlund’s view. You can read his articles here and here. It is unclear whether Ortlund thinks those in hell will experience torture of some sort, but he does hold that hell will be awful for them.

In Annihilationism: Why I am not convinced, Ortlund gives several reasons why he remains unconvinced that conditionalism is the biblical view of hell. The first reason he gives for his skepticism is that he does not think that conditionalism coheres with all the passages relevant in the hell debate. Ortlund later identifies Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10, and 22:15 as the main verses that he thinks cannot be explained by conditionalists. The language Ortlund thinks tips the scale in favor of ECT is ‘they have no rest, day or night’ in Revelation 14:11, for he thinks this does not sound like people who cease to exist in hell. He also points to ‘they will be tormented day and night forever and ever’. Later on, Ortlund discusses some arguments that might be offered in response to his view. He briefly discusses some arguments made in response to his position on these verses, but does not address some of the stronger arguments offered by conditionalists. Due to the limited scope of this article, I will focus on showing how those stronger arguments work to show that Revelation 14:11 and 20:10 are no obstacle to conditionalism.⁸Readers can watch Ortlund’s video and make their own assessment of his response to the arguments he does discuss.

Perhaps the weakest argument from Ortlund is his appeal to Revelation 22:15. Unfortunately, Ortlund has missed that Revelation 22:6-21 is the epilogue to the book and so is not part of the vision itself.⁹Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Kindle ed., (William. B. Eerdmans: 1997), Kindle loc., 8271; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, (William B. Eerdmans: 1972), 289; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, (William B. Eerdmans: 1999), 1122; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Kindle ed. (Baker Publishing Group: 2012), Kindle loc., 17243 The function of the epilogue is described by Beale,

The epilogue now shows clearly that the purpose of the book is to induce holy obedience among God’s people so that they may receive the reward of salvation.¹⁰Beale, The Book of Revelation,, 1122.

Revelation 22:14-15 is a general statement issued from a perspective prior to the coming of Christ (c.f. Rev 22:12). It is a statement referring to believers and unbelievers generally. Verse 15 says nothing about the wicked other than the fact that they are not in the city with the righteous. There is no clarification that the wicked will be alive to experience eternal torment and conditionalists can just as easily say that the wicked are in the place where they will be killed. This verse is not evidence for Ortlund’s view of hell.

With respect to the phrase ‘they have no rest, day or night’ in Revelation 14:11, I contend that Ortlund has missed two strong arguments from conditionalists. The first strong argument is put forward by Ralph Bowles in his Does Revelation 14: 11 Teach Eternal Torment? Examining a Proof-text on Hell, where he presents the case that the structure of Revelation 14:9-11 consists of a chiasm. A chiasm ‘is a literary device in which a sequence of ideas is presented and then repeated in reverse order’. The chiasm looks like this.

9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice,

–(A) “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,

—-(B) he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger

——(C) he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

——(Ci) And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever

—-(Bi) they have no rest, day or night

–(Ai) these worshipers of the beast and its image, if anyone receives the mark of its name.”

This is the ESV, but I have made an adjustment at line Ai so it reads ‘if anyone’ instead of ‘and whoever’. This is warranted on the basis that the εἴ τις clause in Ai (‘if anyone receives’) is syntactically and grammatically identical to the εἴ τις clause in line A (‘If anyone worships’). If there is a chiasm in this passage,¹¹I will be defending Bowles’s thesis that Revelation 14:9-11 has a chiasm in another article I am currently writing. then the statement about the ongoing lack of rest does not clarify the meaning of ‘the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever’. Rather, the reference to continual lack of rest refers ‘to the intense experience of the judgement as it happens; it’s a full-strength outpouring of God’s wrath that leaves no rest or break while it is unfolding’.¹²Ralph Bowles, Does Revelation 14: 11 Teach Eternal Torment? Examining a Proof-text on Hell, 28.

Another approach to Revelation 14:9-11 is taken by Chris Date and William Tanksley in a Rethinking Hell presentation called Hell and the Book of Revelation. Date and Tanksley focus on the way that visions and dreams can be interpreted in a passage. In his presentation of this argument, Date often begins with a discussion of Joseph’s interpretation of the dreams of others in Genesis 40-41. For instance, Date points out that Joseph interprets dreams involving three vine branches (Gen 40:9-11) or three baskets (Gen 40:16-17) as having to do with three days (Gen 40:12, 18). He also points out that Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dream of seven cows and seven ears of a plant (Gen 41:1-7) as having to do with seven years of good harvest and seven years of famine (Gen 41:25-31).

Brian J. Tabb has identified ways in which Revelation routinely interprets its visions. Some of the examples he identifies are as follows: seven lampstands are interpreted to be seven churches (Rev 1:19-20), seven lamps are interpreted to be seven spirits of God (Rev 4:5), seven horns and with seven eyes are interpreted to be seven spirits of God (Rev 5:6), golden bowls are interpreted to be the prayers of the saints (Rev 5:8), two olive trees and lampstands are interpreted as the two witnesses (Rev 11:3-4), the 144,000 are interpreted to be undefiled followers of the Lamb (Rev 14:3-4), and fine linen is interpreted to be the righteous deeds of the saints (Rev 19:8).¹³This is from page 2276 of Zondervans -NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible- Revelation Brian J. Tabb Bethlehem College & Seminary PhD, London School of Theology – Zondervan. The NIV Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message . Zondervan. Kindle Edition. There is no doubt that Revelation incorporates interpreted imagery throughout the work.

Date and Tanksley adopt a whole picture approach to interpreting Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10. This means that they agree that the symbolism as a whole depicts a final punishment of eternal torment (even though the individual passages might not exactly all show that), but each of the passages is individually interpreted to mean a miserable end rather than endless misery. For example, although the Beast is seen as tormented forever in Rev 20:10, the interpreting angel says it will go to its destruction (Rev 17:8, 11). Likewise, elements of Revelation 14:9-11 (the cup of wrath, torment, and rising smoke, Rev. 18:6-7, 9-10; 19:3, c.f. 16:19) are applied to Babylon, who is said to be found no more once she has been destroyed. Given the use of the elements of “the cup of wrath,” “torment,” and “rising smoke” refer to the completed and total destruction of Babylon, it follows that the use of the same elements in Revelation 14:9-11 should communicate the same point. Date and Tanksley also point to the statement ‘This is the second death, the lake of fire’ in Revelation 20:14 (c.f. Rev.21:8), arguing that this is an interpretive note clarifying that the imagery in Revelation depicting eternal torment means those who are punished by fire and sulfur will die a second time. If so, this interpretive note serves to clarify that Revelation 14:9-11 also means those punished by fire and sulfur will die as a result.

There is more that could be said in defense of the thesis put forward by Bowles and the thesis offered by Date and Tanksley, but the main point I wish to make at this juncture is that neither thesis contests the usual meaning of the language of torment. In both cases, the usual meanings of the verb βασανίζω (basanizō, Rev. 14:10, 20:10) and the noun βασανισμός (basanismos, Rev. 14:11) as having to do with torture/torment are not contested. This is because both approaches to the hell texts in Revelation are fundamentally focused on the prima facie meaning of the words in the text they are discussing.

In contrast, though Ortlund states that he cannot get past the use of the language of torment in Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10, his own version of ECT does not at all fit with that language. To be sure, Ortlund does conceive of hell as being a horror for those who end up there, but this is a result of ‘being banished from God’s presence and favor’. This is a far cry from the imagery in Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10, where fire and sulfur are the means of punishment causing the physical torment of those who are being punished, and that torment is supervised by the Lamb. One might respond by pointing out that the verb βασανίζω could be used with reference to the battering of a boat by a storm (Matt 14:24; Mark 6:48), great mental distress (2 Pet 2:8), pain resulting from disease (Mat 8:6), or pain in childbirth (Rev 12:2) elsewhere in the NT. However, the idea is still that the person experiences great pain and suffering. In contexts where someone causes another extreme pain, especially through a medium like fire, it is difficult to see how this does not amount to torture. This is likely why William Mounce defines βασανίζω in terms of physical torture when discussing its use in Revelation 14 and 20.

But basanizō can also denote the retributive judgments on impenitent sinners at the close of this age (Rev. 9:5; 11:10) as well as the doom that awaits those who worship the beast and his image (14:10). John also uses this term to describe the horrendous torture in the lake of burning sulphur that awaits Satan and his agents at the end of history (20:10)—a torment that will last “day and night for ever and ever.” Such a horrific future for the unbeiever (sic.) should serve as a catalyst for the Christian to preach the gospel. That torment will be real and the only hope to avoid it is Christ.¹⁴William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Zondervan: 2006), 737.

Furthermore, the noun βασανισμός (Rev 14:11) does not have the same range of meaning as its cognate verb, βασανίζω. There is little evidence of the use of βασανισμός prior to the NT, but it is used in 4 Maccabees 9:6 and 11:2, where it unequivocally refers to torture. Thus, highly regarded lexica of NT Greek define the word in terms of torture.¹⁵‘‘the severe pain experienced through torture, torment’, William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 168; ‘βᾰσᾰνισμός -οῦ, ὁ βασανίζω examination, torture, torment’, Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, ed. Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015); ‘severe pain associated with torture and torment’, Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 286.

One caveat is required at this juncture. I do not intend to imply that the Biblical authors intended to convey the idea of sadistic torture, as is the case in 4 Maccabees. If this is all that Ortlund rejects, then I would have less reason to dispute his argument. Having said that, it is inescapable that both βασανίζω and βασανισμός as they are used in Revelation 14:9-11 and 20:10 have in view the idea that intense pain is being inflicted on those being punished. This is one reason why Ortlund’s view of hell does not cohere well with the traditionalist proof texts.

Another reason for this disjuncture between Ortlund’s view of hell and the traditionalist proof texts has to do with how the scene in Revelation 14:9-11 has the torment of the Beast worshippers as taking place in the presence of the Lamb and his angels. That is, the punishment takes place in the throne room, which can hardly be said to fit with the notion of banishment that forms a central role in Ortlund’s own defence of traditionalism. I have no doubt that Ortlund will be able to think of ways to synthesize this scene with other biblical data on the final fate of the lost, to show that the punishment does not take place in the great throne room after all. But that will come at the cost of his argument that the prima facie meaning of the words in Revelation 14:9-11 supports his view rather than conditionalism. If he no longer takes ‘in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb’ (V10) at face value, then why can he legitimately appeal to the face value of ‘they have no rest, day or night’ as a way to defeat conditionalism?

This problem is not restricted to these select traditionalist proof texts. For instance, Matthew alone uses multiple words and phrases that do not cohere with Ortlund’s version of ECT. Matthew 10:28 is a well-known verse cited in defense of conditionalism. The basic argument put forward is, when the Greek word behind ‘destroy’, ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) is used in the Synoptics in contexts where one person is destroying another person, it always has the nuance of ‘to slay’. Glenn Peoples has an article here, where he outlines this argument. I would add that ἀπόλλυμι is used interchangeably in the Synoptics with a verb that means ‘to kill’, ἀποκτείνω (apokteinō). The reader can compare those verses in Matthew that use ἀπόλλυμι (Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 21:14; 22:7; 27:20) or ἀποκτείνω (Matt. 14:5, 17:23; 21:35, 38-39; 22:6; 23:34, 37; 24:9: 26:4). In each case, one verb can be swapped out for the other without changing the meaning of the verse. That list grows when we consider the other Synoptic Gospels. This is because in this specific kind of context that is in view in Matthew’s narrative, these two verbs function as synonyms. Matthew 10:28b, therefore, refers to the body and soul being killed in Gehenna. This being so, then all other verses from Matthew that are cited in the hell debate also refer to the complete destruction of the person.

There are other problems that these verses pose for Ortlund. In Matthew 3:12, Matthew uses two compound verbs communicating that the chaff will be completely done away with. I have previously discussed this verse here and shown how the motif of an unquenchable fire has to do with being unable to put that fire out and so prevent it from fully consuming what it burns, and not necessarily with a fire that never goes out. We know that elsewhere in scripture, it does describe fires that go out (e.g. Ezekiel 20:47). The question I would ask Ortlund is, if Matthew intended to convey the idea that people survive that fire forever, then why was the image of chaff used?

In Matthew 13:40-43, Jesus interprets his own parable of the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:24-30). At first glance, the reader might think that the statement about weeping and gnashing of teeth indicates an endless period of suffering. However, the text gives no indication that the weeping and grinding of teeth will continue forever. That this event will happen at the end of this age does suggest a finite period of weeping and gnashing of teeth. There are also two clear clues that Matthew intended to say that those thrown into that fire will be completely burned up by it. I have discussed these clues here, but will summarise them briefly. The first clue is in verse 40, where Matthew says ‘Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age’. The idea here is that the incineration of weeds at a harvest (Matt 13:30) gives a picture of what will happen to those who are punished at the culmination of the current age. The second clue falls in verse 42 with the statement ‘throw them into the fiery furnace’. The Greek phraseology behind ‘fiery furnace’ has a combination of εἰς (eis, into) + κάμινος (kaminos, ‘furnace’) + πῦρ (pur, fire). This particular combination of words is only found in LXX in Daniel 3, where variations of the phrase are used with reference to the superheated fire into which Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown (LXX Dan 3:6, 11, 20-21, 23, 26), and 4 Maccabees 16:21, which is a direct reference back to Daniel 3. In LXX Daniel 3, the verb καίω (kaiō ,’to burn’) is part of the construction. It is used as a participle that adds a sense of intense ferocity at which that fire burned. While 4 Maccabees does not use καίω at all,¹⁶4 Maccabees 16:21 has a truncated version of the construction with εἰς κάμινον πυρος. Matthew uses καίω in verse 40 when Jesus refers to the incineration of the weeds at a harvest as the example of what will happen to those thrown into the eschatological fire. In doing so, Matthew not only evokes a sense that the fire will be superheated to a point where it is guaranteed to incinerate those thrown into it, but he also adapts Daniel’s phraseology to explicitly state this is what would happen. People can weep and gnash their teeth as they are brought to and thrown into the place where they are killed, but they most certainly cannot weep and gnash their teeth forever if they are killed by fire (keep in mind that Matthew has the body and soul killed in this fire, which sets it apart from the scene in Luke 16:19-32).

There are a few comments that we might make at this point. The prima facie meaning of the words and image in Matthew 3:12, 10:28, and 13:40-42 fail to cohere with Ortlund’s view of hell. Furthermore, if these three texts teach that the whole person is killed, then this would establish that other contested passages in Matthew also refer to the actual death of the sinner. For instance, since Matthew 10:28 does teach that Gehenna is where the whole person is slain, then those other places in Matthew that refer to Gehenna refer to the same fate (Matt 5:22, 29-30l 18:8-9). Likewise, Jesus’s statement about the wide path leading to destruction (Matt. 7:14), which is followed by a statement that those who do not bear good fruit will be disposed of in a fire (Matt. 7:19), and an analogy of a house that is completely destroyed by a storm and flooding (Matt. 7:27) should be read as statements about people being killed.

Furthermore, Matthew’s use of the OT helps us to see that he viewed those texts he drew from as teaching conditionalism. As discussed above, Matthew drew from LXX Daniel 3 when describing the sheer intensity of the fire he had in mind Matthew 13:40-42. Commentators also note ‘the righteous will shine like the sun’ (v43) echoes language from LXX Daniel 12:3 (Th.).¹⁷Donald Alfred Hagner, Matthew 1-13, (Zondervan Academic: 2000), 394; Walter T. Wilson, The Gospel of Matthew, vol. 1: Matthew 1–13, Kindle e., (William. B. Eerdmans: 2022), no Kindle loc. given; D. A. Carson, Matthew, Kindle ed., (Zondervan: 2010), no Kindle loc. given; Craig A. Evans, Matthew (Cambridge University Press: 2012), 281; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, (William. B. Eerdmans: 2007), 537. This is striking since Daniel 12:2 is one of the texts cited frequently by traditionalists in support of the doctrine of eternal torment. The structure of Matthew 25:46 also appears to be based on LXX Daniel 12:2, as has been noted by Davies and Allison,

The line in antithetical parallelism is based upon LXX Dan 12:2–3: ‘And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall rise, some to life everlasting (εἰς ζωην αἰώνιον), some to reproach, and some (οἱ δέ) to dispersion and eternal shame.¹⁸W. D. Davies & Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, (T&T Clark: 2004), 432.

While it is true that LXX Daniel 12:2 and Matthew 25:46 do not contain the same language with respect to what happens to the unrighteous, they share the same language with respect to what happens to the righteous. The prepositional phrase εἰς ζωην αἰώνιον (eis zōēn aiōnion) appears in both Matthew 25:46 and LXX Daniel 12:2. Εἰς ζωην αἰώνιον is also used in LXX Psalms of Solomon 3:16 and 4 Maccabees 15:3. The second text was penned after Matthew so would not be a source text for his thought processes. LXX Psalms of Solomon 3:15-16 possibly could have played a role in shaping how he expressed his thoughts, as it does refer to the fate of the righteous vis-à-vis the unrighteous, but LXX Daniel 12:2 is much closer to Matthew 25:46 in terms of its pithy syntax. Furthermore, Matthew also picks up on the use of the adjective δίκαιος (dikaios, ‘just, righteous) from an alternative Greek text of LXX Daniel 12:3 (Th.). On balance, the evidence suggests that Davies and Allison are correct. We can be confident not only in the fact that Matthew crafted his narrative in such a way that it unequivocally teaches conditionalism, but also in thinking that he thought OT texts like Daniel 12:3 are also conditionalist texts.

A similar observation can be made with respect to Matthew’s quotation of LXX Psalms 36:9 and 11 (the meek shall inherit land) in Matthew 5:5 (“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth).¹⁹NT quotations of the OT are rarely exact so in the context of studies of biblical intertextuality the description of one author quoting another refers to a high degree of verbal correspondence between an author’s text and the OT source text. It will be fruitful to read LXX Psalms 36:9-11 in full.²⁰LXX Psalm 36 aligns with Psalms 37 in our English Bibles.

For the ones who act wickedly will be destroyed. But the ones who wait upon the Lord, they will inherit the earth. And yet a little while, and the sinner will surely not exist (οὐ μή + ὑπάρχω), and you will seek for his place, and you will surely not find (οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω) him. But the meek will inherit the land, and they will delight in the multitude of peace.²¹Unless otherwise indicated all quotes from the LXX will be from Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner et al., The Lexham English Septuagint, 2nd Edition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

LXX Psalms 36:10 juxtaposes the construction οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω with the construction οὐ μή + ὑπάρχω (ou mē + huparchō). The verb ὑπάρχω does have a range of meaning broader than ‘to be’, ‘exist’. However, in the case of LXX Psalms 36:10, ὑπάρχω translates the Hebrew ʾayin, which means ‘non-existence; nothing; not, no; without’.²²The Lexham Analytical Lexicon of the Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012). This is similar to LXX Isaiah 41:11-12.

Look! All who oppose you will be dishonored and feel shame, for they will be as though they did not exist (ὡς οὐκ ὄντες), and all your adversaries will be destroyed. 12 You will seek them, and you will not find the people who rage against you, for they will be as though they did not exist (ὡς οὐκ ὄντες), and those who wage war against you will be no more (οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω).²³Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner et al., The Lexham English Septuagint, 2nd Edition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

Shalom M. Paul notes that two words in the Hebrew in verse 11 express nonexistence.²⁴Paul identifies the Hebrew words as אַיִן and אֶפֶס. Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, (William B. Eerdmans: 2012), 168. The LXX has ὡς οὐκ ὄντες (hōs ouk óntes) the much-debated verb ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi). Ὄντες is the participle form of the verb to be εἰμί (eimi), so ὡς οὐκ ὄντες is a way of saying that a person no longer exists. In verse 12, the construction οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω is used in parallel with the phrase ὡς οὐκ ὄντες. This shows οὐ μή + εὑρίσκω was a way of saying that someone had died and so had ceased to exist. Matthew does not use any variation of this construction (except c.f. Matt 2:18 where a single negative particle is used). It is, however, remarkable that he quoted parts of LXX 36, which does appear to state the wicked will be annihilated, then speaks of the destruction of the whole person throughout the rest of his narrative. Matthew surely must have viewed LXX 36 as a thoroughly conditionalist text.

Much more could be said about the way in which the other Gospel authors interacted with OT texts when referring to the final fate of the lost reveals their view that those same OT texts support their view of conditionalism. There is a lack of space to lay out that case here. I will say, if one holds that the divine inspiration of the Bible means there is a high degree of cohesion between individual authors on theological issues, as I am sure Ortlund does, then it stands to reason that Mark, Luke and John were conditionalists who regarded their OT source texts as support for conditionalism.²⁵This is not to say this the only way we know that Mark, Luke and John were conditionalists, since the work has been done to show that they were. If Matthew unequivocally taught that the whole person will be killed at the last judgment, then what room is there to say that there is any ambiguity with respect to his fellow Gospel authors’ teaching on the final fate of the lost?

This goes a long way towards eroding the force of Ortlund’s arguments that not all texts conditionalists cite have to do with the final fate of the lost. His point is to say that the body of biblical evidence cited in support of conditionalism may contain passages that only refer to death from this earth and not to the ultimate fate of the wicked. I can readily concede that the temptation to see conditionalism in every possible text is real, and conditionalists can at times claim evidence for our point of view that the passage does not support. Nevertheless, once we account for these more ambiguous passages, we are still left with a sizable body of evidence that we conditionalists have shown to support conditionalism. We have endeavored to apply the rules of hermeneutics to these passages to ensure we are not reading our view into these texts. That body of evidence is still much larger than the three passages from Revelation that cause Ortlund to remain unconvinced about conditionalism. This raises the question of why just three passages should keep him from accepting conditionalism when a much larger body of evidence really does support this view. Ortlund’s calculus seems to be off at this point, since the greater body of evidence in favor of conditionalism should tip him towards this view.

Part of Ortlund’s argument is that many claimed conditionalist passages do not clearly refer to non-existence. My response to this is that we do not have the burden to show any given passage explicitly says that the lost will be rendered non-existent. Rather, our burden is to show that these passages refer to the death of the person, the end of their life, as the punishment. If the person is said to be dead, then I resist entirely the notion that traditionalists like Ortlund can legitimately expect conditionalists to show that these passages speak to non-existence. I would suggest that the ambiguity he sees in these texts is a result of the assumptions he brings to the passages and are not inherently in them. Ortlund has – perhaps unintentionally – shifted onto conditionalists a burden to prove something we do not claim, while offering a select few verses from Revelation that prima facie conflict with his particular version of traditionalism.

One aspect of Ortlund’s argument has to do with ‘the nature of eternal life as the parallel opposite fate of eternal death.’ Ortlund contends that eternal ‘involves the quality of one’s existence, not just ongoing existence’. This is a self-defeating argument. Putting aside the debate about whether the biblical language of eternal life includes the idea of a quality of life, Ortlund admits here that it also has to do with ongoing existence. This means, if a biblical author states that unbelievers are denied eternal life, then they are denied an eternal quality of life and ongoing existence. This has some bearing on some of my previous comments. Those passages that do not explicitly say that a person is rendered non-existent need not do so if they explicitly state that unbelievers will be denied eternal life. Some of Ortlund’s reasons for rejecting conditionalism end up providing ways of defeating other arguments.

I truly respect Ortlund and appreciate his ministry. My comments here are not intended to attack him but simply outline why I remain utterly unconvinced of his reasons for rejecting conditionalism. Given the broad range of subjects that he discusses on his YouTube channel, I can understand that he was not able to cover everything in the depth of detail as I have in my response. That will just be the result of the nature of his ministry. He should keep doing what he does, as he adds a sane voice to a diverse range of controversial subjects. Having said that, Rethinking Hell is a single-subject project. We have already spent years studying the subject in great detail and, in most cases, have already more than adequately shown why Ortlund’s arguments against conditionalism fall flat. I would hope that when he has the time, Ortlund would review our material in more depth. Either way, I will still consider him a potential friend of the Rethinking Hell ministry.

This is the second article in my response to John Dickson and Greg Clarks. Their argument is that Romans 2:5-6 supports their contention that Paul taught there would be degrees of eternal punishment for those who reject Christ. This is important for their case against annihilationism, for they think that conditionalism cannot sufficiently account for degrees of punishment in hell for ‘a Hitler-figure … will receive the same judgment as a non-Christian humanitarian worker.’^[1] My two-part series aims to show that Dickson and Clarke have misunderstood one of the passages they use to support their argument. In my first article I focused on their appeal to Paul’s statement that sinners are ‘storing up wrath against yourself’, showing their misunderstanding. You can find part one here.

In this article I will focus on this argument as they discuss Romans 2:5-6.

God will judge the world on the basis of human behaviour, in other words, ‘according to deeds.’ As Paul says in his letter to the Romans: Romans 2:5–6.

…In the above passage Paul quotes Psalm 62:12 saying that God’s judgment is “according to what each has done”. This does not mean ‘because of’ what each has done; it means ‘commensurate with’ or ‘in proportion to’ what each has done.^[2] (emphasis Dickson and Clarke’s)

The relevant Greek preposition behind ‘according to’, κατά (kata), is polysemous. Beale, et al, note there are at least eight main variations of meaning of κατά when it is used with a noun in the accusative case.^[3] However, even in these categories, there can also be variation of nuance.^[4] My point is, there are several factors that exegetes take into account when trying to ascertain the exact nuance a polysemous preposition like κατά may have in any given context. Sometimes a proposition can even function as a double entendre or take on various meanings as it is used multiple times in the same passage. This is to say, the exegete must avoid simply assuming a proposition like κατά has a specific meaning in any given context.

This relates to Dickson and Clarke’s argument. They give no reason for their particular understanding of ‘according to.’ Κατά can be understood as referring ‘to the thing which is the ground or basis of something, and hence the item provides a standard for evaluation’.^[5] However, this use of κατά does not necessarily denote the idea of variation in a standard. Perhaps this is why the many commentaries on Romans I have consulted, the subject of degrees of punishment has not been broached. There are parallels in the LXX and NT where the word for ‘each’ ἕκαστος (hekastos) is combined with κατά (LXX Ps 61:13; Prov 21:12; Mat 16:27; 1 Cor 3:8; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:23). It is not always clear that degrees of punishment or reward is in view in these examples. For instance, in Matthew 16:27 Jesus says that ‘he will repay each person according to what he has done.’ The combination of ἕκαστος and κατά is used there, but Jesus had just stated that those who seek to save his life would lose it, while the reverse would be true for those who chose to follow him (v25). Gaining the whole world would be futile if that means one loses one’s life (v26). In that context, what one does could result in life or death for that person. The combination of ἕκαστος and κατά is used to express a precise and impartial standard of justice without the notion of degrees; rather, loss of life.

In contrast, Matthew 25:14-15 is an example where ἕκαστος + κατά is used in a context where there is variation in what people receive.

14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. (Matt 25:14-15 ESV)

The statement on the number of talents each servant receives is why ‘each according to his ability’ reads as a rationale for the variation of treatment of each servant. This kind of context is missing from Romans 2:6.

As discussed above, Paul had already articulated that those committing a range of sins all deserve to die (Rom 1:32). As Steven Runge points out, Romans 2 is not a completely new section but ‘builds directly on the latter half of chapter 1’.^[6] In fact, most commentators point out that Romans 2:1-11 is directed at those who judge others even as they commit those same sins (Rom 2:1-3). These people commit the same sins so also deserve to die just as the ones they judge. They all deserve the one and same punishment of death. This all means that Paul’s ‘He will render to each one according to his works’ in Romans 6:2 is a statement emphasizing God’s impartiality in judgment without emphasizing degrees of punishment.

It comes as no surprise then that Romans 2:6 forms part of a chiasm, with its counterpart being a parallel statement that ‘For God shows no partiality’ (v11). Douglas Moo is one of many commentators who think Romans 6:6-11 has a chiastic structure, like a passage followed by its reflection.^[7] Moo represents this chiasm in the following way.

A. God will judge everyone equitably v. 6

B. Those who do good will attain eternal life v. 7

C. Those who do evil will suffer wrath v. 8

C′. Wrath for those who do evil v. 9

B′. Glory for those who do good v. 10

A′. God judges impartially v. 11^[8]

Since verse 6 is aligned with verse 11 in the chiasm, then each should be read as reflections of one another. Paul’s emphasis on God’s impartial judgment in verse 11 confirms that verse 6 is an affirmation that an ‘impartial standard of judgment that will be applied in the final Assize.’^[9] This is all that Paul is saying in verse 6. Note too, the emphasis on those who seek immortality (along with glory and honor) being given eternal life. This must be seen in light of Romans 1:32. As noted above, Paul had stated that those who committed sins deserve to die. The language he used behind ‘deserve to die’ (ἄξιοι θανάτου) is used in Luke 23:15 (ἄξιον θανάτου) where Pilate tells the Jewish leaders that Jesus was innocent of any crime that might warrant the death penalty. It is also used in Acts 23:29 (ἄξιον θανάτου) and 25:25 (ἄξιον … θανάτου) where Paul is said to have committed no crime that warranted his death. This shows such language referred to ordinary death. Romans 1:32 emphases that sinful behaviour should result in the death of the sinner while 2:7 shows that those who are righteous will be rescued from that death by being made immortal.

Some might think that Paul’s use of the couplet of synonyms θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία (thlipsis kai stenochōria, ‘tribulation and distress’) implies that there will be an ongoing experience of punishment in hell. We do need to keep in mind that the chiasm in Romans 2:6-11 has the couplet of synonyms θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία in parallel with ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός (orgē kai thumos, ‘wrath and fury’) so I will be discussing both couplets. In the LXX, ὀργὴ and θυμός are synonymous, being used interchangeably ‘to translate every variety of Hebrew word expressing divine wrath.’^[10] The couplet ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός is used a way of portraying the intensity of anger that motivates someone to act in a certain way. An example of this is LXX Jeremiah 7:18-20, where persistent idolatry provokes God to anger to the point that his wrath and anger was being poured out on the idolater with such intensity that it ‘will burn and not be quenched.’^[11] Dunn says that ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός is used with reference to final judgment in LXX Isa 13:9.^[12]

LXX Isaiah 13:9 For behold, the incurable day of the Lord comes, a day of wrath and anger, to make the whole world desolate and to destroy the sinners from it. (NETS)

The Greek word behind ‘destroy’ in LXX Isaiah 13:9 is ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi). It translates the Hebrew word ḥāram. Mounce says ḥāram is most often used to refer to the complete destruction of cities, which ‘involves the total annihilation of the human and animal population’.^[13] The LXX translator also followed the emphasis in the Hebrew on people being destroyed from the world. There is no doubt that LXX Isaiah 13:9 refers to people being killed and so removed from the world on the day of the Lord. Recall that in Romans 2:5 Paul had written of ‘the day of wrath.’ This coupled with his use of ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός in Romans 2:8 indicate that Paul had LXX Isaiah 13:9 in mind as an OT source text for his thought. This is another line of evidence that he thought that the wicked would be killed by God on the day of the Lord.

In the chiasm of Romans 2:6-11, ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός is in parallel with θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία (thlipsis kai stenochōria, ‘tribulation and distress’). Unlike ὀργὴ and θυμός, θλῖψις and στενοχωρία are not synonymous. Paul uses θλῖψις is used in 2 Thessalonians 1:4-6 in conjunction with the cognate verb θλίβω (thlibō, ‘to squeeze, press, afflict’). In Romans 2:6 Paul used ἀποδίδωμι (apodidōmi, translated in the ESV as ‘render’), which is a variation of the words for ‘repay’ in 2 Thessalonians 1:6 (ἀνταποδίδωμι, antapodidōmi, ‘to repay’) verse 8 (δίδωμι, didōmi, ‘to give’). The verb ἀποδίδωμι was also used in LXX Isaiah 66:15 which, as observed above, was a major OT source text for Paul’s thought in 2 Thessalonians 1:8. There is good reason to think that Paul used θλῖψις in Romans 2:9 because he had in mind what he was teaching in 2 Thessalonians.

In contrast to θλῖψις, στενοχωρία is used rarely in the LXX and NT, and it is not used at all in Isaiah 66 or 2 Thessalonians 1. Nevertheless, Robert Jewett has surveyed the uses of the couplet θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία and instances when the individual words are used in the LXX and NT.^[14] His conclusion is ‘στενοχωρία conveys the unavoidability of divinely imposed disaster.’^[15] It is no surprise he also concludes θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία at times ‘appears to constitute a formula for divine wrath’ that ‘depicts the manner in which divine wrath is experienced.^[16] The majority of commentators on Romans 2:9 made similar conclusions. None suggested that θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία express the idea that people would experience affliction differently to each other. On the contrary, the use of the couple simply emphasizes that people will feel the force of that which afflicts them. If it is a natural disaster or persecution at the hands of others (Rom 8:35) one will feel the full effects of that which afflicts them. In the context of a chiasm where the full ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός of God is poured out on those who have sinned and deserve to die, θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία emphasizes that those same people will fully experience that divine wrath as they are executed. This is surely a rebuke to those who mischaracterize conditionalism as the view that unbelievers will be snuffed or blipped out of existence.

Given Dickson and Clarke failed to do anything more than simply state what they think “according to what each has done” means and so opened themselves up to the charge they committed eisegesis. Eisegesis is a technical way of saying ‘read into the test’. I have discussed the various factors that need to be taken into account when interpreting Romans 2:6. This shows that Dickson and Clarke interpreted this verse in a way that fits with their commitment to the doctrine of degrees of punishment in hell, and not necessarily because the evidence supports that reading of Romans 2:6.

Overall, it should be clear that Dickson and Clarke have entirely misunderstood Romans 2:5-6. Their appeal to the phraseology ‘according to what each has done’ and ‘storing up wrath against yourself’ is insufficient for establishing their contention that Paul was teaching degrees of punishment in Romans 2:5-6. They even miss Paul’s emphasis on conditional immortality in this passage. Rather than being evidence that might work against conditionalism, this passage gives the reader good reason to think Paul was a conditionalist. If only Dickson and Clarke had focused on some of Paul’s language used in that passage, they may have seen this too.

1. ¹John Dickson and Greg Clarke, 666 And All That – The Truth About The Future, Kindle ed., (Aquila Press: 2007), 79-80. ↑
2. ²Dickson and Clarke, 666 And All That, Kindle loc., 1072-1094. ↑
3. ³In English syntax (word order) generally tells the audience whether a noun is the subject or object of the clause, In Greek, the ending of a Greek noun that tells us this, When the Greek ending is in the form that indicates it might be the object, that is called the accusative case. ↑
4. ⁴Gregory K. Beale, , Daniel Joseph Brendsel, & William A. Ross, An Interpretive Lexicon of New Testament Greek: Analysis of Prepositions, Adverbs, Particles, Relative Pronouns, and Conjunctions, Kindle ed., (Zondervan: 2014), Kindle loc., 1238-1259. ↑
5. ⁵Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999), 163. ↑
6. ⁶Steven E. Runge, High Definition Commentary: Romans, (Lexham Press: 2014), 37. ↑
7. ⁷D. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed. (Eerdmans: 2018). Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2015314, accessed: 13 March 2025, no page given. ↑
8. ⁸A very basic introduction to biblical chiasm can be found here. Note, however, there can be variations in the use of chiasmus that this article does not discuss. ↑
9. ⁹Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis, (Zondervan, 2012), 152–153. ↑
10. ¹⁰Anthony Tyrell Hanson, The Wrath of the Lamb, (S.P.C.K.: 1957), 206-209. ↑
11. ¹¹In LXX Gen 27:41-44, Esau is characterized as having determined to kill his brother Jacob over having missed out from the blessing from their father. Jacob is told that moving to Mesopotamia will allow time for Esau’s wrath and anger to dissipate. In LXX Deut 29:23 it is said God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah in wrath and anger and verse 28 associates God’s wrath and anger with his exile of future sinful Israelites. See also LXX Isaiah 10:5 and 30:30. ↑
12. ¹²James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, (Word Books: 1988), 87. ↑
13. ¹³William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, (Zondervan: 2006), 175. ↑
14. ¹⁴Robert Jewett, Romans: A commentary, (Fortress Press: 2007), 207-208. ↑
15. ¹⁵Jewett, Romans, 208. ↑
16. ¹⁶Jewett, Romans, 207. ↑

In Australian apologetics circles, John Dickson is widely respected as a historian, author, and public advocate for the Christian faith. Though he steadfastly rejects conditionalism, the generally irenic tone of his responses to our comments has led many Australian conditionalists to maintain their deep respect for him. Just as Dickson maintains an irenic tone while not pulling his punches when critiquing conditionalism, I want to offer my own critique of his exegesis in a respectful way.

Dickson has co-authored a book with Greg Clarke called 666 and All That: The Truth About the Future in which they argue the following in support of the doctrine of degrees of punishment in hell.¹John Dickson and Greg Clarke, 666 And All That – The Truth About The Future, Kindle ed., (Aquila Press: 2007).

God will judge the world on the basis of human behavior, in other words, ‘according to deeds.’ As Paul says in his letter to the Romans: Romans 2:5–6.

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will give to each person according to what he has done” [a quotation from Psalm 62:12].

This statement is fascinating because it contradicts the common misconception that God’s punishment of sinners will be applied equally to all, as if a Hitler-figure, to use an admittedly clichéd example, will receive the same judgment as a non-Christian humanitarian worker. We venture to say that this is not what the Scriptures teach….

In the above passage Paul quotes Psalm 62:12 saying that God’s judgment is “according to what each has done”. This does not mean ‘because of’ what each has done; it means ‘commensurate with’ or ‘in proportion to’ what each has done. The Apostle emphasizes the point by talking about “storing up wrath against yourself”. ‘Storing up’ (thēsaurizō) is a financial term, meaning to amass or accumulate. In other words, God’s wrath against an individual can be lesser or greater depending on what s/he has done in life.²Dickson and Clarke, 666 And All That, Kindle loc., 1072-1094. (emphasis Dickson and Clarke’s)

My response to this will be in two parts, with part 1 focusing on the meaning of Romans 2:5 while part 2 will discuss Romans 2:6.

Dickson and Clarke base their argument from ‘storing up wrath against yourself’ solely on a basic lexical definition of θησαυρίζω (thēsaurizō, ‘to store up’). Dickson and Clarke are correct that θησαυρίζω can refer to accumulating something (e.g., LXX 4 Kingdoms 20:17; Luke 12:13-21) or even piling up dirt to construct fortifications (LXX Zecharia 9:3).³Since there are textual variants in the LXX I will use either the LES (Lexham English Septuagint) or NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). Unless otherwise indicated I will use the ESV when quoting the Bible in English. To the untrained exegetical, eye this looks compelling. There is much more that needs to be taken into account when exegeting Romans 2:5.

For instance, there is a more general sense of θησαυρίζω that need not imply adding things together. Citing BDAG,⁴William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 456. John Harvey thinks the verb ‘carries the idea of doing something that will bring about a future condition.'⁵John D. Harvey, Romans, B&H Publishing Group: 2017), 56. There is a good reason to think this more general sense of θησαυρίζω is what Paul had in mind in Romans 2:5. In the context of Romans 2:5, Paul had already spoken of a multitude of sins deserving the penalty of death. Romans 1:18-32 speaks of all who are unrighteous and ungodly as those who deserve to die for their sins. The list of sins includes murder alongside relatively ‘minor’ sins like a child’s disobedience of his or her parents, envy, foolishness, and gossip. In fact, murder is the only sin that we might consider to be serious enough to warrant the death penalty. Yet Paul refrains from making a distinction between the seriousness of these sins, instead saying, ‘those who do such things deserve death.’ This is evidence that Paul did not have in mind the idea that variegation in sin warrants degrees of punishment as he was writing Romans.

In Romans 2:1-5, Paul addresses a hypocritical interlocutor who presumes that he is safe from divine judgment because he had apparently experienced God’s kindness and blessing (Rom 2:4). Paul pulls no punches, telling the interlocutor that he has no excuse (Rom 2:1) because he commits the same sins as those addressed at the end of chapter 1 (or otherwise contained in some source of law). This means Paul’s ‘you are storing up wrath against yourself’ should be read in light of his previous statement that those committing a range of sins all deserved the same penalty of death.

Additionally, James Dunn (along with other commentators on Romans) thinks Paul’s ‘you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath may be echoing the Greek of LXX Tobit and hints the same with LXX Psalms of Solomon.⁶James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, (Word Books: 1988), 84.

LXX Tobit 4:8 According to the abundance you have, give alms from them in proportion to the abundance. If you possess a little, do not be afraid to give alms in proportion to the little, 9 for a good treasure you store up for yourself against a day of necessity. 10 For giving alms delivers one from death and will not allow that one to go into darkness. (LES)

LXX Psalms of Solomon 9:5 The one who practices righteousness stores up life for himself with the Lord, and the one who practices injustice is responsible for the destruction of his own soul, for the judgments of the Lord are in righteousness for each man and household. (NETS)

It is unclear whether Paul had a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek version of Tobit in mind when he wrote Romans 2:5. Nevertheless, David deSilva discusses how Tobit had influenced the NT with respect to its theme of almsgiving. He discusses a range of NT passages to demonstrate this, noting Paul’s development of this theme in 1 Timothy 6.⁷David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance, 2nd ed., (Baker Publishing Group: 2018), 79-82. The NT authors had also developed Tobit’s ‘day of necessity’ for the ‘day of wrath’ theme (deSilva mentions Mat 25:31-45). It is reasonable to conclude that where there is evidence that Paul echoes Tobit, he was to some extent influenced by the older work in the way he expressed his own thoughts.

Most commentators think Paul uses irony at this point.⁸e.g. See Thomas Schriener, Romans, 2nd ed. (Baker Academic: 2018), 118-119, accessed at https://www.perlego.com/book/2051130, 8 February 2025. Where Tobit 4:9 has a good treasure being stored up and the Psalms of Solomon has life being stored up, Paul turns this on its head so that it is wrath. Interestingly, the author of Tobit has already prayed for his own death due to his many sins.

LXX Tobit 3:4-6 You gave us over to plunder, captivity, and death, and made us a proverb of disgrace to all the nations among which we were dispersed. And now your many judgments dealing with me are true because of my sins and those of my fathers; for neither have we observed your commandments, nor have we walked in faithfulness before you. So now deal with me as you see fit. Command to take up my spirit that I may be released and may become dirt, since it is more profitable for me to die than live. For I have heard untrue reproaches, and much grief is within me. Command that I be released of the distress immediately into the eternal place. Do not turn your face away from me.” (LES)

Notice the language: ‘You gave us over to plunder, captivity, and death’, ‘Command to take up my spirit that I may be released and may become dirt’, and ‘it is more profitable for me to die than live.’ Death here is the loss of life. The connection of plunder and captivity with death makes this clear enough. Moreover, the notion of the spirit being released so the person becomes dirt echoes the account of the creation of Adam (Gen 2:7). OT authors sometimes used this language from Genesis to speak of the ‘decreation’ of a person so death is spoken of as the reversal of a person’s creation (c.f., Gen 3:19; Ps 104:29, Eccl 3:20; 12:7). Carey A. Moore regards ‘my spirit’ as meaning ‘my life’ precisely because of this connection with the breath of life (Gen 2:7).⁹Carey A. Moore, Tobit, (Yale University Press: 1996), 140. See also, Robert J. Littman, Tobit The Book Of Tobit In Codex Sinaiticus, (Brill: 2008), 74. This is followed by Tobit 3:7-15, where a character named Sarah prays for her own death because a demon kept killing her husbands on her wedding day. The much-debated verb ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) is used alongside the conventional verb for ‘to kill’ (ἀποκτείνω, apokteinó).

LXX Tobit 3:15 … Seven of mine are already dead (ἀπόλλυμι)! So then why should I live? Now if it does not seem right for you to kill (ἀποκτείνω) me, command that regard be had on me and show mercy to me that no longer may I hear a reproach.” (LES)

Like Tobit, Sarah is talking about ordinary death (a phrase herein used to refer to the most common sense of the word, ‘the end of life’, as opposed to any spiritual death or fine distinctions like ‘first death’). This is context for the statement that ‘giving alms delivers one from death’ in Tobit 4:10. Though Paul applies Tobit’s ‘you store up for yourself against a day of necessity’ ironically, reversing so those who sin store up wrath against themselves, his ‘those who practice such things deserve to die’ (Rom 1:32) shows that he continued to have Tobit’s emphasis on ordinary death.

The Psalms of Solomon is a collection of Jewish poems written by several authors. These poems were originally written in Hebrew in the first century BC and were translated into Greek by the end of the first century AD. It is impossible to say whether Paul interacted directly with Psalms of Solomon, but it should be noted that the language used throughout these Psalms show how the subject of punishment on the basis of works could be perceived around the time Paul wrote Romans.

The Psalms of Solomon evince an ordinary view of death. That is, when ‘Solomon’ talks about death, it is the loss of life and cessation of vital functions that is in view (e.g., 2:35–38; 3:11–16; 13:9–10; 14:1–6; 15:1–15; 17:25–26). R. B. Wright says that in the Psalms of Solomon,

Life after death is concentrated entirely in the hope for bodily resurrection (viz. 2:31; 3:12) and betrays no certain trace of a belief in an immortal soul. The life of the righteous “goes on forever” (13:11), but this is in the kingdom, after the “day of mercy” (14:9). Thus the psalmist conceives of man as essentially embodied and the occasional use of the term “soul” corresponds to its use in the psalter to mean “person.” He posits no body/ soul dualism and is not in the least “otherworldly” in his thinking.¹⁰R. B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1985), 645.

As a whole, the various Psalms of Solomon teach the righteous will live forever while sinners will be killed. God is portrayed as one who ‘puts the arrogant to sleep for eternal destruction in dishonor’ (2:35). Sinners ‘will perish in the day of the judgment of the Lord for eternity’ (15:13), and ‘will perish for the eternal time (15:15) since ‘all the substance of sinner’ will be destroyed (15:7) and so ‘will be removed into destruction’ (13:10). This is set in contrast to what will happen to the righteous. They ‘will arise into eternal life’ so ‘their life will never come to an end’ (3:16). ‘Famine and sword and death are far from the righteous’ (15:8). ‘The holy ones of the Lord will live in it for eternity (14:2) as their ‘planting is rooted for eternity (14:3).¹¹The references above are from LEH. The emphasis on ordinary life and death in both Tobit and the Psalms of Solomon means that statements about storing up life or being repaid according to one’s works cannot be statements conveying the notion of degrees of punishment.

Some scholars even doubt that LXX Psalms of Solomon 9:5 are about the ‘mechanics’ of divine justice at all, instead insisting the point is no one can hide from God.¹²Paul R. Williamson, Death and the Afterlife: Biblical Perspectives On Ultimate Questions, Kindle Edition, (InterVarsity Press: 2017), Kindle loc., 1881-1896; David Falk, ‘Psalms and Prayers’ in Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume I: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, ed. by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Paul Seifrid, (J. C. B. Mohr: 2001), 42. The same approach is often taken by commentators on Romans 2:5-6, since they are reluctant to think Paul was teaching eternal life could be obtained by doing good works.¹³e.g. See Schriener, ‘How does judgment according to works fit with Paul’s theology? The most interesting question relates to the implications of these verses. Did Paul believe that some could obtain eternal life by doing good works? How does this fit with his claim that no one can be righteous before God by the works of the law (Rom. 3:20)? The main reason Paul introduced the issue of repayment according to works is to show the Jews that God is impartial,10 that there will be no special favoritism for them.’ Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., (Baker Academic: 2018), 122. In any case, it is clear that around the time that Paul wrote Romans, statements about storing up something or being judged by one’s works were not necessarily ways of talking about degrees of reward or punishment. If one comes to Romans 2:5-6 assuming otherwise—as Dickson and Clarke appear to—then one will be in danger of assuming he was talking about degrees of punishment when he was not.

Another way we can know Paul was not talking about degrees of punishment is to note his reference to the day of wrath (Rom 2:5). It has long been recognized that in biblical scholarship the NT authors took up the OT theme of a day of God’s wrath and applied it to the day when Christ returns.

In the Old Testament, the day of God’s wrath not only dawns for gentiles (Isa 13:9, 13; Ezek 38:18–19, 23; Zeph 3:8) but also, in an ironic way, for Israel because of Israel’s wickedness (Zeph 1:15, 18; 2:2–3). This is exactly Paul’s point here.¹⁴Frank Thielman, Romans, (Zondervan: 2018), accessed at https://www.perlego.com/book/581251, 1 March 2025, no page given.

Zephaniah is particularly illuminating for our purposes. Bear in mind, Zephaniah is talking about what would happen to sinful Israel on the day of wrath.

Zeph 1:15 A day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness (ESV)

Maria Eszenyei Szeles describes the picture created by this verse as a scene akin to

the devastation caused by a hurricane, the ravaging of a tornado, the evidence of total conflagration and havoc at the hands of a cruel enemy—material destruction, homes in ruins, human beings butchered.¹⁵Maria Eszenyei Szeles, Habakkuk and Zephaniah, (Eerdmans: 1987), 87

The Hebrew word behind ‘devastation’ (mešôʾâ) is translated in the LXX by ἀφανισμός (afanismos), which can mean ‘ruin’, ‘destruction’, or ‘annihilation.'¹⁶T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, (Peeters: 2009), 106. The word is translated in the following way in prominent translations of the LXX.

LXX Zeph 1:15 That day will be a day of anger, a day of affliction and torture, a day of darkness and extermination (ἀφανισμός), a day of gloom and darkness, a day of cloud and fog. (LES)

LXX Zeph 1:15 That day will be a day of wrath, a day of affliction and anguish, a day of untimely fate and annihilation (ἀφανισμός), a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and fog (NETS)

Any doubt that the prophecy includes an emphasis on the wicked being killed is dispelled by further statements that God ‘will pour out their blood like dust, and their flesh like cow dung’ (v17),¹⁷The LES and NETS are identical. and bring a swift end to them (v18). Paul is expanding on Zephaniah with new revelation or typology, even though Paul uses all of the same ideas of ‘die’ (1:32) and ‘perish’ (2:12).

This fits with what Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, where he alludes to Isaiah 66 in more than one way. In his commentary on discussing whether Paul employed Isaiah 66 in this in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, Jeffrey Weima notes that LXX Isaiah 66:6 and 15 use ἀνταποδίδωμι (antapodidómi, ‘to repay’), which Paul picks up in 2 Thessalonians 1:6.¹⁸Jeffrey A. D. Weima, ‘1– 2 Thessalonians’, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, (Baker Publishing Group: 2007), 883. Isaiah also uses a cognate of the word, ἀποδίδωμι (apodidómi, ‘to give back’) in LXX Isaiah 66:15. Paul uses δίδωμι (didómi, ‘to give’) in 2 Thessalonians 1:8. Paul’s εν φλογι πυρος (en pyri phlogos, ‘in flaming fire’) in 2 Thessalonians 1:8a is drawn from Isaiah 66:15.¹⁹Weima discusses a relevant textual variant of 2 Thessalonians 1:8 but concludes that εν φλογι πυρος was Paul’s. Weima, ‘1– 2 Thessalonians’, 883-884). In the same verse, Paul also echoes Isaiah’s αποδουναι … εκδικησιν (apodounai … ekdikēsin, ‘render vengeance’) with διδοντος εκδικησιν (didōmi ekdikēsin, ‘inflicting vengeance’). Beale notes that 2 Thessalonians 1:8 is ‘the only place in the Old Testament where this combination of terms is found.'²⁰G. K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, (InterVarsity Press, 2003), 189. Fee points out that part of 2 Thessalonians 1:8 uses some of the language from Isaiah 66:4.²¹Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, (Eerdmans: 2009), 256-257. Weima also thinks there is some verbal similarity between 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and LXX Isaiah 55:5.²²c.f., Paul’s οπως ενδοξασθη το ονομα του κυριου ημων Ιησου, hopōs endoxasthē to onoma tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou en hymin, ‘so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified’ with Isaiah’s ινα το ονομα κυριου δοξασθη, hina to onoma kyriou doxasthē, ‘so that the name of the Lord may be glorified.’ Weima, ‘1– 2 Thessalonians’, 886. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that 2 Thessalonians 2:5-10 ‘is the result of a conscious reflection of Isa. 66, supplemented by a few other OT texts.²³Weima, ‘1– 2 Thessalonians’, 883.

In Isaiah 66, God slays his enemies (Is 66:16), leaving their rotting corpses open to the elements to be abhorred by the still living righteous (Is 66:24). Though the Hebrew word ḥālāl and the Greek word τραυματίας (traumatías) can refer to being wounded, they also often are used with reference to the fatal wounding or slaying of a person. This is worth mentioning here since some LXX translations render τραυματίας as ‘wounded’ in LXX Isaiah 66:15. Shalom M. Paul translates the Hebrew to “And many shall be the slain of the Lord”,²⁴Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, (Eerdmans: 2012), 624. while Ottely notes that the Hebrew ‘regularly rendered ‘slain.'²⁵Richard R. Ottley, ed., The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus), vol. 2, (Cambridge University Press, 1906), 386. One Greek lexicon I own says τραυματίας can be understood as referring to a wounded man (2 Mac 4:42), casualties of war (wounded or dead, 1 Mac 1:18), the corpse of one slain (1 Kgs 11:15), or one fatally wounded (Deut 21:1).²⁶Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint : Revised Edition (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2003). In any case, verse 24 clearly depicts these enemies of God as having been killed.

Since this is a primary OT source text Paul had in mind when penning 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, then it stands to reason that he had in mind the death of those who had afflicted the Thessalonian church on the day of Christ’s return (v10) when they ‘will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction’ (v9). The word for ‘destruction’ is ὄλεθρος (olethros). While traditionalist commentators regard ὄλεθρος in a way that fits with the doctrine of eternal torment, it should be noted in the LXX this noun was used ‘always with the general sense “destruction,” though often death is at least implied as well.’²⁷ὄλεθρος, in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, 2nd ed., edited by Moisés Silva, Olive tree ed., (Zondervan: 2014), no page given. Beale points to several instances in the LXX where ὄλεθρος is used with reference to death.²⁸Beale cites LXX 1 Kings 13:34; Ezek 14:16–18; 3 Macc 6:30, 34. G. K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, (InterVarsity Press, 2003), 188. Others think Paul used ὄλεθρος with reference to physical death in 1 Thessalonians 5:3, 1 Corinthians 5:5, and 1 Timothy 6:9.²⁹For instance, see D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 213; Charles A. Wanamaker. The Epistle to the Thessalonians, Kindle ed., (Eerdmans: 1990), Kindle Locations 3874-3876; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians, Kindle ed., (Baker Publishing Group: 2014). Kindle loc., 11681-11696; Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, (A. & C. Black: 2003), 261. The point is ὄλεθρος is the kind of word that afforded Paul the ability to talk about the permanent death of the wicked. Since Isaiah 66 was an OT source text for 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, it follows that he had in mind Isaiah 66:24 when he wrote about the eternal destruction of those who had persecuted the Thessalonian church. After all is said and done, this context shows that Paul was talking about the death of the wicked when he wrote ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον (eternal destruction).³⁰For more on this argument, please see our 2-part series on this passage.

Paul’s emphasis on the death of the person on the day of judgment in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 helps us to understand what he meant by storing up wrath and being judged by works in Romans 2. The notion of storing up wrath is the idea that people have acted in such a way that God’s full wrath will be poured out on them, thus ending their lives. Being judged by one’s works is just a way of saying God’s judgment for sin is not arbitrary.

A significant problem for Dickson and Clarke’s reading of Romans 2:5 as a statement of degrees of punishment in hell is Paul’s explicit reference to the day of judgment. Paul is talking about what happens to the wicked on that day when they are judged by God. Even if ‘you are storing up wrath for yourself’ implies some kind of variation in the intensity of wrath being poured onto each sinner, Dickson and Clarke have yet to explain why this should be read as a statement about the punishment people receive once they are in hell, as opposed to “on the day of wrath.” Their logic turns directly against them, as even if they are correct, it would actually prove that all that added-up wrath is repaid on a day — that is, over a finite amount of time.

All in all, Dickson and Clarke have failed to account for the breadth of evidence that needs to be considered to properly understand Romans 2:5. By basing their conclusion on a particular gloss of a single word in the verse, they have presented a case that rests on a single data point. This is a text-book example of cherry-picking evidence. An unfortunate result of this they have indeed misunderstood Romans 2:5.

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.

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this? She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”¹Unless otherwise indicated all quotes of the Bible will be from the ESV. On occasions when I am discussing relevant Greek words and phrasing I may provide my own rendering but this is not intended to suggest errors on the part of the ESV.

I love John’s Gospel.

The reason for this is simple. Somehow, despite penning his narrative with relatively easy to read Greek, John was able to express his theology in profound ways. On nearly every rereading of his narrative I find something new jumping out at me. This is the case with John 11:25-26. I have, in the past, spent some time thinking about these verses and made a few observations here and here.

Since then, I have become more aware of studies into the Greek verbal aspect and how this affects the way we interpret Scripture. I have even attempted to apply this knowledge to my exegesis of Jude 7, which you can read here. Just a few weeks ago a debate was conducted between James White and Leighton Flowers over whether John 6:44 teaches unconditional election.²The debate can be found here. I have very little interest in this debate, but one claim White made about John’s use of the present tense with reference to true believers received some attention by a few Greek scholars who believe this argument betrays a misunderstanding of Greek verbal aspect.³For a brief discussion of the verbal aspect as it relates to his controversy over Greek aspect in the White vs Flowers debate see here. This prompted me to reflect on John’s use of the present tense with reference to believers throughout his narrative. This led me to greater clarity on how John expressed his conviction that not all will accept Jesus and will become immortal. It also gave me insight into how John characterizes those who do reject Jesus and why that is disastrous for them.

Given my past study of John 11:25-26, I was already aware that John used participles in the present tense there. Verse 25 has πιστεύων (pisteuōn, ‘believing’) and verse 26 has two participles, ζῶν (zōn, ‘living’) and πιστεύων (pisteuōn, ‘believing’). Greek participles are complex and I do not have space to describe all the ways they can be used in the Bible.⁴For those who are interested in introductions to Greek participles can follow the link here and here. It is sufficient to note that the participles I am discussing here are substantive, which means they are acting like a noun. In John 11:25 ὁ πιστεύων (ho pisteuōn) simply means ‘the believing one’ or ‘the one who believes’, (though the ESV has ‘whoever believes’, which is acceptable).⁵The word ὁ (ho) is just an article that means ‘the’. Its use here is how we know that πιστεύων (pisteuōn, ‘living’) must be acting like a noun here. This is followed by εἰς ἐμὲ (eis eme), which simply means ‘unto me’.

This is where things get interesting. The participle, πιστεύων (pisteuōn) is from the verb πιστεύω (pisteuō), which means ‘to trust’. In his narrative, one of the common ways that John refers to genuine believers is to use a particular construction that utilizes the verb πιστεύω (pisteuō). I shall let some respected NT scholars explain.

Leon Morris,

A very important construction and one that John uses often is that in which he follows the verb “believe” with the preposition eis, which normally means “into”. It is interesting that John uses this preposition rather than en, “in”. In English we normally speak of believing “in” Jesus rather than believing “into” him, but John prefers the more dynamic expression.⁶Leon Morris, Jesus Is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing: 1989), 179.

There cannot be the slightest doubt that when John uses the expression pisteuein eis, he is conveying the idea of wholehearted trust in Jesus Christ.⁷Ibid., 180.

Murray J. Harris,

This distinctive prep. phrase “believe in” depicts the total committal of one’s total self to the person of Christ as Messiah and Lord, something more than an intellectual acceptance of the message of the gospel and a recognition of the truth about Christ, although these aspects are involved. For John, belief involves not only recognition and acceptance of the truth but also adherence and allegiance to Jesus as the Truth (14: 6).⁸Murray J. Harris, John, Kindle ed., (B&H Publishing Group: 2015), Kindle locations 1647-1650.

It is not that John always used this construction, since John did use the formula with the dative in John 3:15 (ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ, ho pisteuōn en autō, ‘whoever believes in him’). He can even express the idea of wholehearted trust without the use of a preposition at all (e.g. John 5:24, 38; 8:31). John also can combine πιστεύω (pisteuō) with ὅτι (hoti, ‘that’) to refer to facts that are believed (e.g. John 9:18; 11:26; 16:27; 20:31) or in contexts where giving intellectual credence to a statement is in view (e.g. John 2:22; 5: 24, 38, 50; 8: 31).⁹Ibid., Kindle locations 1640-1643. One could even come to believe through a witness (John 1:7). Nevertheless, John’s frequent use of the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuō + eimi) construction stands out as a way he emphasized those who have wholehearted trust in Christ.¹⁰There are variations of the construction where it might refer to believing unto his name (John 1:12; 2:23) the Son (3:18; 5:40), Son of Man (9:35), Jesus (12:11), the Light (12:36). Jesus often might simply say ‘believe in me’ (6:35; 7:38; 12:44, 46; 14:1, 12; 16:9; 17:20) or the variation ‘believe in him’) might be used (John as narrator can use this variation but Jesus does as well, see 2:11; 3:16; 4:39; 6:29; 7:38; 12:37, 42.

I wish to point out that in John, believing in Jesus–in the sense of believing propositions about him–is just as important for obtaining eternal life as believing unto him (having wholehearted trust in him). This is seen at various places in John’s narrative. For instance, in John 3, after Nicodemus becomes confused about Jesus’s teaching on the need to be born again, Jesus admonishes him asking, ‘ If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?’ (3:12). Here the verb πιστεύω (pisteuō) is not used as part of the the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuō + eimi) construction here. In this context Jesus is talking about understanding and accepting as true propositions he makes about earthly and spiritual things. It is important that Nicodemus does accept Jesus’s claims as being true. Shortly after this, Jesus teaches that wholehearted trust in him (believing unto him) is how one obtains eternal life (3:15-16, 18, 36). Jesus will go on to emphasize the same point using the variations of believing (6:47), believing in Jesus (5:24) and believing unto him (6:40). Believing Jesus’s teachings and wholehearted trust in him are how one obtains eternal life.

This comes together in John 11:25-27. When Jesus says ‘Whoever believes in me’ (11:25) and ‘everyone who … believes in me’ (11:26) he is using the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuō + eimi) construction. Jesus is stating that those who have wholehearted trust in him will be resurrected and will never die forever.¹¹Since I have published my article where I discuss the meaning of οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (ou mē apothanē eis ton aiōna) in John 11:26 I have vacillated between my own reading of the clause and Glenn Peoples’s reading of it. I find his reading (‘not be dead forever’) very attractive as John would then be presenting a strong contrast between eternal life as living forever and the fate of being dead forever. That would fit very well with the CI reading of Matthew 25:46 as presenting eternal life as living forever in contrast with an eternal punishment that amounts to the eternal privation of life. Alas, I am not quite there yet, as I still see elements in John that make me think that my reading of οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (ou mē apothanē eis ton aiōna) is to be preferred. At the end of verse 26 Jesus asks Martha if she believes what he has just said. This does not involve the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuō + eimi) construction but is the simple use of the verb in the question ‘Do you believe this?’ (πιστεύεις τοῦτο;, pisteueis touto?). Likewise, Martha’s reply (11:27) does not use the πιστεύω + εἰς construction. Instead, Martha emphatically says ‘“Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God’. The verb πιστεύω (pisteuō) is used in the perfect active indicative form. This ‘denotes a present state of firm, settled belief, with the previous act of believing implied.’¹²Murray J. Harris, John, Kindle ed., (B&H Publishing Group: 2015), Kindle locations 1647-1650), Kindle locations, 7004-7007. Carson explains that this ‘reflects the state of her confident trust… Her faith is a rich mixture of personal trust … and of confidence that certain things about Jesus are true’.¹³D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Kindle ed., (Eerdmans Publishing: 1991), Kindle locations, 8633-18081. This shows that believing in the sense of accepting what Jesus says about himself and believing in the sense of wholehearted trust in him go hand in hand as part of what it means to be a true believer. Though Jesus will later have to remind her of this (11:40), in 11:25-27, John characterizes Martha as one who properly responds to Jesus.

In contrast, John does not characterize all who interact with Jesus in this way. In the Prologue (John 1:1-18) to his narrative where he introduces the main points of his Gospel, he makes it clear that not all received him when Jesus came to them (1:11). Those who did receive him are also described as those who “believe unto” his name (1:12). This qualification is the first use of the the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuō + eimi) construction (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, tois pisteuousin eis to onoma autou, ‘the ones believeing in his name’) in John and it shows that he viewed the reception and rejection of Jesus in terms of believe and trust in him. If one receives Jesus one believes him and has wholehearted trust in him. If one rejects Jesus then one has chosen to disbelieve him so has not placed wholehearted trust in him.

As the narrative unfolds, John presents characters which exemplify this negative response to Jesus. In John 5, certain Jews had decided to kill Jesus ‘because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God’ (5:18). Later in the same chapter Jesus tells his listeners that though they seek eternal life in the Scripture (5:39), they in fact ‘refuse to come to me that you may have life’ (5:40). They are people who outright refuse to receive Jesus (5:43) and so it is questioned whether they can believe (5:44) the witnesses regarding who Jesus is. Jesus ends with a scathing appraisal on the listeners,

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? (5:45-47)

Since there is no indication of a change of audience between John 5:18 and 5:33-47, it is safe to say that Jesus is continuing to address the Jews. These Jews do not believe in the sense of accepting the validity of claims about Jesus. This characterisation of the Jewish interlocutors as those who do not receive Jesus and do not believe him follows Jesus’s teaching on the resurrection (5:24-30).

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Unlike John 11:25-26, Jesus explicitly says not all will be resurrected to life. Whereas in 11:25 the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuō + eimi) construction is used, in 5:24 Jesus says ‘whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me’. In this case John uses the πιστεύω (pisteuō ) + dative noun construction,¹⁴The Greek used is ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων τῷ πέμψαντί με (ho ton logon mou akouōn kai pisteuōn tō pempsanti me). ‘Hearing’ (ἀκούων, akouōn) and ‘believing’ (πιστεύων, pisteuōn) are governed by the one article, so ‘hearing and believing’ describes the one person, not one person who hears and another person who believes. which means ‘give intellectual credence to’. This is a reference to the Father, which is not at all surprising given Jesus can impart life to others because, like the Father, he has life in himself (5:21, 26). In this context, the Father is a witness testifying to who Jesus really is (5:37), but Jesus also has the same authority to execute judgment as his Father (5:27). Not all will be resurrected to life; some will only be resurrected to judgment. It is not surprising that John does teach there is a resurrection to judgment since he has already told the Jews who opposed him in 8:21-24 that they would die in their sins if they failed to believe that he is I AM (i.e. God). This means John 11:25-26 presupposes that not all will believe Jesus and wholeheartedly trust him, so not all will be resurrected as believing and living people who will never die again.

As his narrative unfolds, John reminds his audience that not all believe and trust Jesus. While speaking to a crowd about the life found in him, Jesus states that they do not believe (6:35). Using the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuō + eimi) construction, he restates his message that those who wholeheartedly trust him will ‘have eternal life’. He ‘will raise him up on the last day’ (6:40). Some in the crowd complain (6:41) as do the disciples (6:67) at his claim to be the source of life. Clearly not all believed (6:64). Many disciples turned their back on him (6:66), though the twelve continue to believe him (6:68-69). One of the major points developed in John 6 is not all will believe and wholeheartedly trust Jesus.

In chapter 10 Jesus again tells the Jews that they do not believe him (10:24-26). Though several of them will come to place their trust in Jesus (see 10:42; 11:45 where the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuō + eimi) construction is used) there are others who continue to act in direct opposition to Jesus. There are Jews who report to the Pharisees who, along with the chief priests determine to have Jesus killed in order to prevent more people from placing wholehearted trust in him (11:46-48, the πιστεύω + εἰς (pisteuō + eimi) construction is used again: πάντες πιστεύσουσιν εἰς αὐτόν, pantes pisteusousin eis auton, ‘everyone will believe in him’). We are back at chapter 11 where Martha has been characterized as one who properly responds to Jesus with belief and trust. In this same chapter the Jewish leadership is characterized as those who not only refuse to believe and trust Jesus but seek to prevent others from doing so. John thus presents the characters in his narrative in such a way that he made it clear not all will come to believe Jesus and have wholehearted trust in him. This means that not all will be resurrected as living people who will never die again.

This is not the only way that John uses negative characterization to teach that not all will believe and trust Jesus. In certain places he emphasizes that some will face judgment. Though Jesus does state that he did not come to judge but to save (3:17; 12:47), there is good reason to think there is a time when those who reject him will be judged by him (5:22, 27, 29-30; 12:48), not because he brought them condemnation but because they were already condemned (3:18). Just as John characterizes certain interactions with Jesus as examples of true belief and wholehearted trust he also makes it clear that those rejecting Jesus are in some sense already condemned. One of the clearer statements that people do reject Jesus falls in John 3:17-21.

¹⁷ For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. ¹⁹ And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. ²⁰ For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. ²¹ But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God. (Emphasis added.)

Jesus is saying the verdict is already in (αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, hautē de estin hē krisis, ‘this is the judgment’). There are those who love the darkness and not him. This resembles the Prologue to John’s Gospel where we are told that ‘He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him’ (1:5-11). John 3:18 connects wholehearted trust in Jesus (ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν, ho pisteuōn eis auton) with this verdict. ‘Those who do not believe are already condemned’ (ὁ … μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ho… mē pisteuōn ēdē kekritai). This is not a separate judgment from the one that will take place after the resurrection. It is a rhetorical way of talking about a future event as if it is happening in the present. This literary device is called prolepsis. An excellent example of prolepsis can be found in John Keats’s poem entitled “Isabella” (1820),¹⁵See also Joseph Dear’s article on prolepsis.

So the two brothers and their murdered man
Rode past fair Florence

Needless to say, it would be quite alarming if people argued that Keats had in mind a ‘spiritual’ kind of murder because the murdered man is alive whilst riding with the two brothers. The literary device is proleptic in the way it anticipates the future assassination of a still-living character through the use of the past tense (‘rode’). It is a reference to the man as having already been “murdered” (his future fate) at a time when that fate had not yet befallen him. John uses the same kind of literary device when he speaks of a person already having eternal life (3:16, 36, 5:24; 6:47) or being condemned (3:18). The decision to reject Christ now means the wrath of God remains on a person (3:36) and so anticipates the future judgment as if it is a present reality.

In light of this, Jesus’s affirmation that those who “believe unto” him will be resurrected as living ones cannot be seen to apply to all who are resurrected. John did not think all would come to believe and trust in Jesus; therefore, the statement that resurrected believers would be living people who would never die forever cannot apply to those who reject him. To be sure, everyone will be resurrected (5:25, 28-29a). However, John makes a distinction between those who have done good and those who have done evil. Only believers will rise to the resurrection of life (5:29).

Returning to the use of the present tense in John 11:25-26, from a verbal aspect point of view the present tense of the participles ‘lives’ (ζῶν, zōn) and ‘believes’ (πιστεύων, pisteuōn) convey the sense of progression.¹⁶See this link for a decent introduction to Greek verbal aspect. That is, the point of view presented by John with the use of the present tense is one of an ongoing process. It is like watching a parade on the television. You don’t see the parade as a whole, but the continual passing by of the participants in the parade. This is why I am always tempted to translate ζῶν (zōn) as ‘living one’ and πιστεύων (pisteuōn) as ‘believing one’, though that can read awkwardly in English. The perspective of an ongoing process provided by the present tense participles makes me think of life in a dynamic sense. Since ζῶν (zōn) and πιστεύων (pisteuōn) are participles that are functioning like nouns they tell you something about the person as one who is actively and ongoingly believing and living. To be sure, John does use other tenses with reference to true believers,¹⁷For example, see the use of the aorist tense in the following verses John 1:7; 2:11, 22-23; 4:39, 41, 50, 53, 5:44; 8:24, 30-31; 10:42; 11:15; 11:40, 45; 17:8; 20:8; 20:29. but he chose to use the present tense in 11:25-26, and that does add a nuance to the statement that believers who die and are resurrected are actively living and believing forever.

The use of ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων (ho zōn kai pisteuōn) in 11:26 is interesting for another reason. John could have just said that those who believe will die, be resurrected (11:25), and live forever (11:26). The inclusion of πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ (eis eme pisteuōn, ‘believing unto me’) in 11:26 is surprising because we tend to assume that belief in the eschaton is unnecessary as we will already be saved. But John is emphasizing how we will continue to have wholehearted trust in him after our resurrection. You die entrusting him with your fate and you will be resurrected as one who will forever be that kind of person.

Why add ζῶν (zōn, ‘living’)? After all, οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (ou mē apothanē eis ton aiōna, ‘never die forever’) sufficiently communicates the idea that resurrected believers will be immortal. In John 4 ζῶν (zōn, ‘living’) is used when Jesus tells a Samaritan woman who could obtain living water (4:10).¹⁸The participle ζῶν (zōn, ’living’) is being used as an adjective here but this does not alter what may be drawn from its use here. The idea of ‘living water’ could very well have to do with purification since moving water tends to become clean.¹⁹My lecturer at Bible College suggested this in our exegetical class on John 4. However, drinking ‘living water’ means one ‘will never be thirsty again’ as it will be ‘a spring of water welling up to eternal life’ 4:14). The language behind never thirsting again is the οὐ μὴ + εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (ou mē + ton aiōna) construction that is used in John 11:26 to express the idea of never dying forever. This living water will eternally flow from the resurrected believer so that person will be immortal (see also John 7:38). In John 6, Jesus talks about how he is the living bread (6:48-51). He is living because of the living Father (6:57), who has life in himself and has granted that Jesus has life in himself (5:26). Jesus is thus the way one can live forever (6:51). Coming back to John 11:26, by describing resurrected believers as ζῶν (zōn, ‘living’), John emphasizes that we will be living in the same way as the Father and Jesus are now ζῶν (zōn, ‘living’). It is noteworthy that John refrains from referring to genuine believers who have not yet been resurrected as ζῶν (zōn, ‘living’) people. So, while it it is true that all will indeed come alive at the final resurrection, only believers who have died and resurrected as believers will be resurrected as ζῶν (zōn, ‘living’) people. According to John, those of us who have genuine faith and trust in Christ have eternal life now in a proleptic sense but this will only be realized for us when we are resurrected as immortal people.

If believers are resurrected so they are ζῶν (zōn, ‘living’) people who will never die, what did John think would eventually happen to those who will be resurrected to judgment (5:29)? John 15 gives us a clue. Early in this chapter, Jesus describes one who fails to remain in him (15:1-6).

1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.”

Using an extended vine metaphor, Jesus tells his disciples that those who chose to not remain in him are like unproductive branches.²⁰I realize there are people who will argue that this passage does not have to do with the final fate of the lost, but the point of the metaphor is to at least describe what happens to those who do not bear fruit and do not choose to remain in Jesus. The vine metaphor is from the Old Testament where the vine stands for Israel herself.²¹See, for instance, Isa. 5:1-7; 27:2-6; cf. Ps. 80:8-16; Jer. 2:21; 6:9; 12:10-13; Ez. 15:1-8; 17:5-10; 19:10-14; Hos. 10:1-2; 14:7. G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, (Baker Publishing Group: 2007), 491) Andreas j. Köstenberger observes that John transforms this into a metaphor about Jesus.

whereas the vine’s purpose of existence is to bear fruit for its owner, references to Israel as God’s vine regularly stress Israel’s failure to produce good fruit, issuing in divine judgment … In contrast to Israel’s failure, Jesus claims to be the “true vine,” bringing forth the fruit Israel failed to produce. Thus Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God, fulfills Israel’s destiny as the true vine of God…²²Ibid.

Notice how he says ‘whoever abide in me’ (he uses the present participle here, ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοὶ, ho menōn en emoi) is the one who who bears fruit. However, not abiding in Jesus means one is discarded and withers (15:6). The word behind ‘withers’ is ξηραίνω, which when used with the passive voice (as it is here) means ‘become dry’ or ‘dry up’.²³William Arndt, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (University of Chicago: 2000), 684. Is it interesting that John also uses the aorist tense here, which does not convey any idea of the process of drying out. The branch that is detached from the vine is a dead and dry stick. This is the opposite of being those believers who have living water flowing out of them so they themselves are truly living. The wordplay between ‘takes away’ (αἴρω, airei) and ‘prunes’ (καθαίρω, kathairei) helps contrast those who bear fruit and those who do not. Contrary to the universalist position that all will eventually be purified, Jesus is saying that those who remain in him will be ‘cleansed’ (this is a connotation of pruning a plant, though not one which can be pressed too far in this context). This is not what happens to those who fail to bear fruit. Those people are dead and so will be discarded and disposed of in a fire.

All that I discuss above is relevant for how we should interpret John 3:16.

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

If believing and trusting Jesus means we become living people instead of becoming dried out branches that are disposed of in a fire, then we have another good reason to think that ‘perish’ (ἀπόλλυμι, apollumi) really does refer to the actual death of those who reject him. Daniel Wallace states that the use of πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (pas ho pisteuōn; Wallace translates this as ‘everyone who believes’) in John 3:16 should be regarded as a statement of a general and timeless truth (which he calls “gnomic”).²⁴Daniel Wallcace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, (Zondervan: 1996) 620. As such, this verse is the perfect verse for conditionalists to cite as a summary of John’s conviction that eternal life can only be obtained through Jesus with the implication that not everyone will finally escape death. As such, this is a prooftext that conditionalists can cite in discussions with both universalists and traditionalists.