Category: Debates

Introduction

Last year, Dan Paterson from Questioning Christianity participated in an impromptu discussion on the final fate of the lost on the Premier Unbelievable? YouTube channel with a universalist named Jordan Wood. I am not going to review the entire discussion as Chris Date, Mark Corbett, and Dan Paterson have already done so here. Rather, I want to offer my thoughts on a single debate point discussed during the discussion. I will include a link to the timestamp of this exchange here. Specifically, one of the reasons Paterson gives for rejecting universalism is the biblical passages where ‘perishing is directly contrasted against the eternal life for those who do believe.’ Paterson offers 2 Peter 3:9 as an example.

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.¹Unless otherwise indicated, all quotes from the English Bible will be from the ESV.

He then cites 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.

Paterson is quite clear that he has in view the final fate of people.

The perishing is the thing that does not ultimately happen for those who trust in Jesus rather than being something that is subsumed within those who trust in Jesus.

I think it would be fruitful to quote Wood’s response to Paterson and then make a few comments.

I think the first thing is that … death and life seem to be similarly contrasting ideas or conceptions. And yet in Christ we have both. Christ dies, but he’s also resurrected. I wouldn’t say that because he’s resurrected, he didn’t die. He didn’t perish in the sense of death, the separation of body and soul or any of that. In fact, I think Paul insists that we must not only say that it’s that he died, but that because he died, therefore all died. Our death is so tied up into the death of the son of God that in a kind of bizarre sense this the death of the Son of God even makes our death not only possible but possibly remedial. So unless we want to say that Christ didn’t really die because death and life are two different fates. I would say Christ himself makes something possible that seems to our logical minds impossible which is exactly of course the claim of the resurrection from the dead anyway. So I think … in that sense you already have it integrated and not only does it just happen to be integrated but it’s necessarily integrated into the very heart of the gospel of the dead and resurrected Christ. The lamb who was slain but now and who can even be seen right in revelation as the lamb who was slain reigning on the throne. Well those right there are an intentional blending of two seemingly opposite things. And yet that’s the mystery. That’s the glory. That’s the power. The manifestation of God’s power is the bringing together the opposites.

I think I can show that this is a case of the smoke-and-mirrors fallacy. The smoke-and-mirrors fallacy occurs when a person gives a lot of information, but on closer examination, it turns out to be only the appearance of substance. It happens when most of what a person says does not properly address the argument of their opponent.²I do not intend to say or imply that Wood was dishonest, just that his response the appearance of rebutting Paterson’s argument when it does no such thing.

 

Preliminary thoughts

A preliminary issue to address is Wood’s admission that Christ died and resurrected. This is a mundane point to make, but it is necessary at this juncture, since Wood wants to counter Paterson’s contrast argument (‘perishing is directly contrasted against the eternal life for those who do believe’). Wood thinks that if he can show the Bible refers to believers being dead and alive at the same time, then he has an escape route from Paterson’s position. However, at the heart of NT (especially Paul’s) soteriology is the conviction that what happened to Christ (he died and was resurrected) is considered true of believers (we die and then are resurrected). Keeping this in mind will help prevent us from overreading statements from Paul that might at first blush seem to support Wood’s position.

A second preliminary point I wish to make concerns Wood’s argument that he would not say that, since Christ was resurrected, he did not die. I think this is a form of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. Normally, the motte and bailey fallacy happens when a person makes a hard-to-defend claim (the bailey) and, when challenged, retreats to an easier-to-defend claim (the motte). In this case, Wood immediately retreated to the motte: the statement that Christ’s resurrection does not mean he did not die. This is perhaps the easiest statement to defend, since everyone would agree with it. Christ’s resurrection doesn’t mean he did not die (it would be impossible to have a resurrection without dying). We can wholeheartedly agree with Wood that the resurrection of Christ cannot mean that he did not die, while also affirming without contradiction that there are two ultimate fates that humans face: death or life. This means that while much of Wood’s argument rests on his argument, it fails to support his rebuttal of Paterson’s statement. This, then, is a red herring that I hope does not lead people to think Wood has made some kind of telling blow against Paterson’s argument.

For the rest of this article, I will focus on three questions impinging on this debate. First, does the fact that believers have life and death in Christ offer a sufficient basis for Wood’s counterargument? Second, does the statement ‘therefore all died’ (c.f. 2 Cor 5:14) provide sufficient warrant to suppose that what happens to believers applies universally? Has Wood omitted discussing data that unequivocally shows Paterson is correct?

 

Understanding Paul’s prolepsis

There is not sufficient space in this argument to discuss NT soteriology in full. Since Wood quotes Paul (2 Cor 5:14), I will focus on some of Paul’s statements that relate to this subject. To properly understand Paul’s soteriology, one must come to grips with how he used prolepsis in discussing the implications of the union between believers and Christ. Prolepsis is a common device used in literature and on the screen that can be used flexibly.³Joseph Dear has written on this subject for Rethinking Hell here, here, and here. For instance, the movie Dead Man Walking (1995) is about a Catholic nun who helps a death-row inmate confront his past as his execution date approaches. Given the context, it would be ludicrous to suggest that simply because ‘Dead Man Walking’ is a reference to this man, then he is somehow pictured as being dead and alive at the same time.⁴Incidentally, ‘Dead man walking’ also has a dictionary entry, ‘a condemned man walking from his prison to prison cell to a place of execution’. An older example of prolepsis is found in John Keats’s poem Isabella (1820): ‘So the two brothers and their murdered man Rode past fair Florence’. This is the proleptic anticipation of the assassination of a living character.

Prolepsis is also a normal feature of biblical rhetoric. For instance, in Genesis 3:20, Eve is referred to as the mother of all living people before she has had any children. Obviously, people do not think this means Eve is a woman who has not yet given birth and has literally given birth to children. In Joshua 6:2, God tells Joshua that he has defeated Jericho before this happens. Obviously, people do not surmise that Joshua is simultaneously someone who has not yet won a battle and has literally won one. We understand such rhetorical devices as ways of speaking about a person as if a future event had already happened.

Paul’s soteriological reasons for using prolepsis concern the need to show that Christ’s death and resurrection have implications for believers in this age. Underlying this concern is Paul’s need to establish reasons why believers can and should cease sinning. One passage where this can be seen is Romans 5-6. In Romans 5, Paul affirms that death spread throughout the world because people sin. Just as Adam’s act of sin led to his death, so also acts of sin by other people are the reason they too die (c.f. Rom 1:32). The fact that people sin is why death spread throughout the world (Rom 5:12). There is more to note, though. Throughout Romans 5-6, Paul refers to death as a power that rules over those who sin (Rom 5:14, 17; 6:9), while sin reigns through death (Rom 5:20-21). Humans are enslaved to sin (Rom 6:6). At a theological level, Paul needs to show why believers are no longer enslaved to sin in this age.

Romans 6 is Paul’s answer to that problem. Romans 6 is concerned with answering the question: ‘How can we who died to sin still live in it?’ The answer to this question lies in Paul’s insistence that Christ’s death and resurrection are to be regarded as our death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-5). Our participation in his death and resurrection means sin (Rom 6:6-7, 12, 14) and death are no longer our masters (Rom 6:9, 11). The key point to note is that this is true only for believers, because Christ’s past death and resurrection are reckoned to be our past death and resurrection. This is similar to Ephesians 2:6, Paul goes so far as to say that God has already ‘seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus’. Any living believer can verify that they have not, in fact, ascended to sit beside Christ. Likewise, we can testify that we have, in fact, not yet died and been resurrected. This is how you can know that Paul was using the literary device of prolepsis.

There is a twist, though. Normally, with prolepsis, a writer speaks of a future event as if it has already happened to a person. When Paul uses this device in passages like Romans 6, he is saying Jesus’s past death and resurrection have implications for believers in the present and in the future. In the present, believers can reckon themselves to be freed from enslavement to sin and death (Rom 6:11). Christ’s death is reckoned to be our death, so we can consider ourselves to be dead to sin. A keyword here is ‘reckon’ (Rom 6:11).⁵The Greek word Paul uses is λογίζομαι (logizomai). There does not appear to be any special nuance to this word. In a context like Romans 6:11, λογίζομαι just means ‘reckon’ or ‘consider’. Paul’s use of this word shows that he did not think believers have actually died and been resurrected in this age, but that we can think and act as if this has already happened to us. This also explains why Paul could write as if he thought his audience had already been resurrected in one context (Eph 2:6, ‘made us alive together with Christ’) but write of our future resurrection in another context (1 Cor 15:20-24, ‘so also in Christ shall all be made alive’).

All of this helps us understand passages such as Romans 6:3-5:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

There is a present-tense truth here, unpacked through the literary device of prolepsis. Though believers will die in the future, our participation in Christ’s death means Paul can talk as if believers have already died. The sense of death here is the same as what we mean when we say Christ died. It is the loss of life. We can consider ourselves no longer enslaved to sin because Christ’s loss of life on the cross is counted as if believers had actually died. This is a different sense of dying we see in Ephesians, where it more refers to a lifestyle that makes sinners as if they are dead to God. Likewise, being able to ‘walk in newness of life’ means living a lifestyle that is congruent with what God wants believers to live. This is a different sense of living that is expressed in Romans 6:5, where Paul refers to the future resurrection of believers (‘we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his’). All of this means believers are never both alive and dead in the same sense at the same time.⁶I acknowledge Willian Tanksley for bringing this truth to my attention. Just as with Christ, the actual death and resurrection of believers are sequential events in time. Christ was never dead and alive at the same time, and this is the same for believers. This being so, Wood contention that there is ‘an intentional blending of two seemingly opposite things’ is an inaccurate oversimplification of Paul’s thought. It means Wood has not provided a legitimate counter-example to Paterson’s argument.

 

Does 2 Corinthians 5:14 support Wood’s argument?

If Wood can show that Paul was a universalist, then he would have given good reason to think that Paterson was incorrect in saying there are two possible fates in store for people. However, Wood seemingly smuggles in an implied argument from the language of ‘all’.

I think Paul insists that we must not only say that it’s that he died, but that because he died, therefore all died.

Wood has 2 Corinthians 5:14 in mind.

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died.

Wood does not explicitly argue that this is evidence that everyone who has ever lived will eventually be saved, but it is patently clear that this is his argument. The idea is that if Paul thought all humanity would eventually be saved because all humans have died because Christ died for all humans, then what Paul says about his believing audience in other contexts is applicable to every person who has ever lived. Since this is an implied argument, Wood’s audience is left to infer that his argument hangs on the contention that ‘all’ (πᾶς, pas) is used absolutely, so Paul had all humans in view.

I would contend that the evidence points to another conclusion. In his book The Use of Πᾶς in the New Testament, J. William Johnston discusses his methodology for analyzing the use of πᾶς. Johnstone outlines two aspects of his methodology. First, there are syntactical considerations. Broadly speaking, syntactical considerations refer to how the combination of πᾶς with other words affects the sense of this word.⁷Johnstone gives the example of the use of the article in the following phrase, πᾶσα ἡ πόλις (Matt 8:34) which can be contrasted with the anarthrous phrase πᾶσα πόλις (Matt 12:25). In Matthew 8:34, the use of the article (ἡ, hé) dictates that πᾶς has the sense of ‘whole’ (πᾶσα ἡ πόλις = ‘the whole city’). In Matthew 12:25 could mean πᾶς has the sense of ‘every’ (πᾶσα πόλις = ‘every city’). Greek nouns can be definite even without the use of the article so Matthew 12:25 could possibly be regarded as having an implied article so ‘the whole city’ is in view. In effect, this just illustrates the way the use of the article can affect the sense of πᾶς. J. William Johnston, The Use of Πᾶς in the New Testament, (Peter Lang Publishing: 2004), 34. Second, there are contextual considerations. This concerns how literary context affects the scope of πᾶς. Johnstone explains it this way,

At another level, the scope of πᾶς is often further qualified by the context in which it is found. The sense suggested by the syntax of πᾶς may often be modified by semantic and contextual features that must be considered in making a final determination of meaning.⁸Ibid., 34.

In this respect, πᾶς is similar to the English word ‘all’, since both are often modified by context. For instance, if I were talking about children in the schoolyard and the sudden onset of a violent storm, I might go on to say ‘all are safe’. In this context, I do not mean all people everywhere are safe. I mean, all the children who were in the schoolyard are safe. An example from Paul may be found in 1 Corinthians 9:20-22:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

When Paul wrote ‘I have become all things (τοῖς πᾶσιν) to all people’, he was referring to the specific examples he had just mentioned. This and the previous scenario of the use of the English word ‘all’ are instances when someone refers back to a previous subject in a way that limits the scope of who is included in the ‘all’.

In the preceding context of 2 Corinthians 5:14 we find that Paul uses ‘we’ language: ‘we have this treasure in jars of clay’ (2 Cor 4:7), ‘We are afflicted in every way’ (4:8), ‘but not destroyed’ (4:9), ‘the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our bodies’, ‘always carrying⁹Paul uses the present active plural participle, περιφέροντες, which modifies ἔχομεν (‘we have’) from the beginning of 2 Corinthians 4:7. in the body the death of Jesus, the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our bodies’ (4:10), ‘we who live … the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh’ (4:11), ‘we have the same spirit of faith … we also believe’ (4:13), ‘he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you¹⁰The word ‘you’ is plural here. into his presence (4:14), ‘we have a building from God’ (5:1), ‘we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life’ (5:4), ‘we walk by faith, not by sight’ (5:7), and ‘the love of Christ controls us’ (5:14). The repetition of this ‘we’ language is one indicator that Paul primarily has in mind what is true for his believing audience.

Furthermore, in 2 Corinthians 4:11, he speaks of his audience as οἱ ζῶντες (‘those who live’). In 2 Corinthians 4:9, he says these people are οὐκ ἀπολλύμενοι (‘not destroyed’). We can compare this to how he references unbelievers as τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις ‘those who are perishing’ (2 Cor 4:3). The participles ἀπολλύμενοι and ἀπολλυμένοις are from the much-debated word for ‘destroy’, ἀπόλλυμι. Setting aside the question of what ἀπόλλυμι may mean in this context, it can be seen that Paul uses οἱ ζῶντες to refer to people who already believe. He is not using it for every person who has lived on earth. This is important to note because Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 5:14 that ‘one has died for all, therefore all have died’ is part of a broader parallel statement spanning v14b to v15:

one has died for all

therefore all have died;

he died for all

that those who live (οἱ ζῶντες) might no longer live for themselves

Note how Paul used οἱ ζῶντες in the second part of this statement. As noted above, the designation οἱ ζῶντες is how Paul refers to those who already believe, as opposed to unbelievers. This and Paul’s use of ‘we’ language is exactly the same kind of contextual information seen in my schoolyard analogy. This information shows that ‘died for all’ and ‘all have died’ are not instances in which Paul intended to use πᾶς (‘all’) in its absolute sense.

Another line of evidence that supports this conclusion is that Paul uses the aorist tense with ‘have died’ (v14b). Aorist indicative verbs, such as the one Paul uses, generally refer to ‘past time with reference to the time of speaking’.¹¹Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An exegetical syntax of the New Testament, (Zondervan: 1996), 555. This makes perfect sense, where he is referring to people who have already come to a saving faith in Christ. They have believed, and so they can be said to have died because they have participated in his death and resurrection. Paul spells this out in some detail in Romans 6. On the other hand, Paul refers to unbelievers as those who were still perishing (2 Cor 4:3) and are ‘dead in the trespasses and sins’ (Eph 2:1). They are people who do not believe and so remain slaves to sin and death. It would, then, be theologically absurd to say that these people have already died as if they have already participated in Christ’s death.

Like many universalists, Wood has quoted 2 Corinthians 5:14 as if that were all he needed to show that Paul was a universalist. I have shown from the context of this verse that Paul was not using πᾶς (‘all’) absolutely. If Wood (and any other universalist reading this article) continues to maintain that ‘all died’ must be taken absolutely, then I invite him to explain how the context of the verse supports the universalist conclusion. Simply replying on the word πᾶς (‘all’) alone is not enough to win the debate.

 

Has Wood omitted discussing data that shows Paterson is correct?

The answer to this is yes.

In Romans 6:19-22, Paul states that his believing audience had been destined to suffer death but were now destined to eternal life:

For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

This is exactly the kind of contrast that Paterson had in mind, and it completely undermines Wood’s argument. Notice that Paul contrasts the outcome of the path his believing audience was on with the outcome of the path they are on now. Though ‘fruit’ can be used in a variety of ways in the Bible, it was also ‘a common metaphor for the outcome of one’s behavior’.¹²Frank Thielman & Clinton Arnold, Romans, (Zondervan Academic: 2018), no page given, available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/581251, (Accessed: 2 January 2026); Richard Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, (William. B. Eerdmans Publishing: 2016), 136. Examples of this usage of the motif can be found in Psalm 104:13,¹³‘From your lofty abode you water the mountains; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work.’ Jeremiah 6:19;¹⁴Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing disaster upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not paid attention to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. 17:10;¹⁵‘I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.’ LXX Prov 11:30,¹⁶From the fruit of righteousness grows a tree of life, but souls of the lawbreakers are removed before their time. (The Lexham English Septuagint) and Matthew 7:15-18.¹⁷Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. Frank Thielman and Clinton Arnold point to an example in secular Greek literature.¹⁸“In every dealing there is nothing worse than bad companions,” says Eteocles in Aeschylus’s play, Seven Against Thebes (600–601), “let that bitter fruit [καρπός] never be plucked. The field of folly yields death as its harvest [θάνατον ἐκκαρπίζεται].’ Frank Thielman & Clinton Arnold, Romans, no page given.

I would also suggest that Paul had Genesis 3 in mind when writing Romans 6:21-22. Paul has already stated that sin and death came into this world through Adam, with subsequent generations going on to sin and die (Rom 5:12, 14-15a, 17). He clearly had been reflecting on the early part of Genesis when composing this section of Romans. We can also note that in the early part of Genesis 3, Eve is convinced by a crafty talking serpent to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, an act that God had previously forbidden (Gen 2:17), as this would cause those who ate that fruit to die.¹⁹I am well aware of the debate over whether the clause ‘in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’ refers to separation from God, ordinary death, or both. Chris Date has produced a short video here that well summarizes the official Rethinking Hell view on that subject. I do not intend to speak into that debate here as the argument I will make below stands regardless of whether death is viewed as the cessation of life or as separation from God. In LXX Genesis 3:2-6, the word καρπός (karpos) is used to refer to the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The consequence of eating from the forbidden tree includes death. This is seen when God tells Adam that he will return to dust (Gen 3:19). In this context, the return to dust is presented as a reversal of the creation of Adam (v19, ‘…you return to the ground … out of it you were taken … you are dust … to dust you shall return’). In Genesis’s own terms, death is the reversal of the creation of humans. It is ‘decreation’ of the person.²⁰This is true regardless of whether Genesis 3 also presents death as separation from God. This ‘decreation’ of Adam and Eve would eventually happen precisely because they are denied access to the fruit of the Tree of Life when they were expelled from Eden to ensure they would not live forever (Gen 3:22). Adam did end up living an extremely long time (Gen 5:5). As long as this life was, it still had an end.

The Hebrew word translated as ‘forever’,ʿôlām, is heavily debated. I do not intend to enter that debate here. John Walton summarizes his study of the OT use of ʿôlām.

Careful study of the term that the NIV translates “forever” has demonstrated that it is not an abstract term, suggesting infinity or eternity per se, but characterizes something as being open-ended, with no anticipated ending built in. It is better translated “perpetual life,” suggesting that the fruit constantly counteracts any aging.²¹John H. Walton, Genesis (Zondervan Academic: 2001),170.

Even if death in Genesis is presented as separation from God, it is still true that a result of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. This meant they would be able to eat the fruit of the tree of life and so would not live perpetually. They would go on to die an ordinary death. In my estimation, this is the most likely backdrop for Paul’s thought in Romans 6:21-22, which is part of a passage where he had been talking about the actual death of Christ being counted as the actual death of believers. That backdrop indicates that Paul had ordinary death in mind with ‘For the end of those things is death’ (Rom 6:21) and the promise that believers will be alive forever with ‘eternal life’ (Rom 6:22).

Another piece of evidence for my reading of Romans 6:21-22 is Paul’s use of the noun τέλος (telos). Τέλος is polysemous. However, when used with reference to the goal, end, completion, or consummation of something, it emphasizes the outcome. At times, it is context that dictates which nuance of τέλος is in view. Still, often it is the use of this noun in combination with other words that gives the word its sense.²²See BDAG and BrillDAG, “τέλος”, for examples. This is something I wish to note because there is always the temptation to cherry-pick lexical glosses when debating the meaning of passages.

There is a particular usage of τέλος that is relevant for our discussion of Romans 6:21-22. When used with words capable of taking the genitive case,²³For a brief introduction to the use of the case system in Greek see here. τέλος refers to the final end of something. For instance, Appian uses τέλος in this way when writing about how Hannibal’s invasion of Italy came to an ‘end’ (τέλος) (The Hannibalic War 61).²⁴‘When Hannibal had departed from Italy the Senate pardoned all the Italian peoples who had sided with him, and voted a general amnesty except as to the Bruttians, who remained most zealous for him to the end. From these they took away a considerable part of their land, also their arms, if there were any that Hannibal had not taken. They were also forbidden to be enrolled in the military forces thereafter, as being no longer free persons, and they were required to attend as servants upon the consuls and praetors who went about inspecting the affairs of government and the public works of the provinces. Such was the end (τέλος) of Hannibal’s invasion of Italy.’ Hannibal had left Italy, and so the invasion had ended. In LXX Wisdom of Sol 14:14, we are told that there will be a speedy ‘end’ (τέλος) to idols. Several Greek lexicons note instances in Greek literature when τέλος was used with nouns in the genitive case to refer to a ​​​​​​person’s death. For instance, BrillDAG quotes Homer’s use of τέλος in Iliad 3.309, Ζεύς … οἶδε … ὁπποτέρῳ θανάτοιο τέλος πεπρωμένον ἐστίν Zeus, (trans., ‘Zeus … knows for which of the two death is fated’), and Hesiod’s use of the word in Works and Days 166, τοὺς μέν θανάτου τέλος ἀμφεκάλυψε, (trans., ‘the fate of death covered some of them’).²⁵BrillDAG, “τέλος.” LSJ quotes Xenophon’s use of τέλος in Cyropaedia 8.7.6 (ἐμοὶ μὲν τοῦ βίου τὸ τέλος ἤδη πάρεστιν, trans. ‘the end of my life is now at hand’) and Demosthenes’s use of that noun in Against Eubulides 57.27 (πᾶσίν ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις τέλος τοῦ βίου θάνατος, trans. “Yet for all men the end of life is death”). BrillDAG notes Sophocles use of τέλος in this way in Oedipus at Colonus 1530 (χὤταν εἰς τέλος τοῦ ζῆν ἀφικνῇ, tran. ‘when you reach the end of life’.²⁶BrillDAG, “τέλος.”

I have found other examples. In Against Apion 2.144, Josephus wrote of Apion dying in torment due to an infection caused by an ulcer on a sensitive part of his body: τοῦτο μὲν Ἀπίωνι τοῦ βίου τὸ τέλος (“And this was the end of Apion’s life”). Likewise, ordinary death is in view in LXX Ecclesiastes 7:3.

It is better to go to the house of sorrow than to go to the house of drinking, as this is the end of every person, and the one who lives shall give a good thing into his heart.²⁷LES, 2nd ed.

The phrase ‘this is the end of everyone’ renders τοῦτο τέλος παντὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. It is a statement that everyone inevitably dies. In Hebrews 7:3, Melchizedek is presented as one who will not die (μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ‘having neither beginning of days nor end of life’).

The point is, the use of τέλος with a word capable of taking the genitive case was a way of talking about the ordinary death of a person. It is highly likely he chose to use τέλος with a demonstrative pronoun in the genitive case in verse 21 because it was a normal way of referring to the death of someone. Moreover, it is a way of referring to a person’s ultimate fate.

This second aspect of my point means my argument in response to Wood does not stand or fall on the definition of ‘death’. Even if death refers to something like separation from God, it is still the ultimate fate of the person who sins. Death is still the ultimate outcome of a life of sin. Paul also sets this in direct contrast with the ultimate fate of eternal life (v23), the final outcome of a life of sanctification. This is precisely the contrast that Paterson had in mind in his discussion with Wood.

Now, Wood might reply that Paul was addressing people who had successfully changed from a trajectory that would end in their ultimate death to one that would end in their possessing eternal life. He would be correct. However, Paul is quite clear in Philippians 3:19 that the final fate of the enemies of the cross is their destruction. The exact phraseology Paul uses is ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια. The copula ἐστὶν (‘is’) is implied, and the phrase is to be regarded as an equative clause. ²⁸Stanley Porter and David Yoon, Romans: A Handbook on the Greek Text, (Baylor University Press: 2023), 366. This is set in direct contract with Paul’s comments about his believing audience. Specifically, Paul encourages his believing audience by affirming that Christ ‘will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body’ (Phil 3:21). In 1 Corinthians 15:51-57, Paul spells this out further, saying that believers will be transformed with imperishable, incorruptible bodies. That is, for Paul, the transformation of our bodies is when we will be made immortal. So, for Paul, there will be some whose ultimate fate is their destruction and some who will be made immortal on their resurrection. So when Paul states in Romans 6:21-22 that the final outcome of sin is death and the final outcome of the sanctification of believers is eternal life, he believed that some would end up dead (note also Romans 1:32 and 6:16).

 

Conclusion:

It is now clear that Wood failed to rebut Paterson’s point that the Bible teaches there are contrasting fates for believers and unbelievers. Aside from the fact that Wood ignores biblical data that supports Paterson’s point of view, his claim that there ‘are an intentional blending of two seemingly opposite things’ is vague and does not accurately reflect Paul’s soteriology. Whatever integration of death and life for believers one might find in Paul’s thought, it is clear that the Apostle did not think that believers are simultaneously dead and alive. This means there is no integration of opposites in Paul, as Wood implies. Furthermore, Wood’s reliance on 2 Corinthians 5:14 without explanatory support has been shown to fail to support his point of view at all.

All in all, Wood had a lot to say, but it only gave the appearance that he had engaged with Paterson’s argument. Wood’s response sounds good, but it lacks substance. He offered nothing that effectively counters the Bible’s teaching that there are contrasting final fates for believers and unbelievers. This was merely an instance in which the smoke-and-mirrors fallacy was used to sidestep a difficult argument.