Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Arguments/positions against Evangelical Universalism.

Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby AlSmith » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:08 pm

The passage Philippians 2:9-11 (as part of 2:5-12) is often cited as a UR text, on the understanding that ‘confess’ in verse 11 means (voluntary) praise. From NIV, my underlining:

    9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
    10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.
The wording of verse 10 is ‘should’ as distinct from ‘will’ (in either case applying to the actions in both verses 10 and 11), unlike the parallel OT verse, Isaiah 45:23 (NIV):

    … Before me every knee will bow;
    by me every tongue will swear.
So on this NIV translation, arguably the Philippians passage could be taken as a picture of what should happen (in terms of all people rightly coming to honour Jesus), as distinct from what will happen. This might seem a rather picky point concerning just one word, but at face value it seems potentially to undermine the UR interpretation and this has been niggling me ... :?

Perhaps translation issues are at play here. Of the other Bible translations I have checked, the wording of verses 9/10 is again ‘should' in some cases, ‘may’ in others, and actually ‘will’ in the GNB. Presumably the Greek wording is relevant to clarifying this, but I don’t have the Greek knowledge to pursue that! - perhaps others could advise?

Also, perhaps the 'should' wording underlies a point which Howard Marshall expresses as a reason for disagreeing with the UR interpretation of the passage, in the book Universal Salvation: The Current Debate, Chapter 4:

    “The statement [Philippians 2:9-11] is one of purpose, and it does not necessarily follow that the purpose will be fulfilled. The point is simply that God intends that Christ shall have the same honour from all people as that to which he himself is entitled.”
He does not spell this out further in terms of the wording of the passage, though, so I might be mistaken.

I don’t think I have seen this point - and/or Marshall's point if different - addressed anywhere and would much value comments from forum members in response.

Thanks in anticipation :D

Al
'Love is patient, love is kind ... Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.' - 1 Cor 13:4a, 6-8a
User avatar
AlSmith
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:41 pm
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Paidion » Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:07 pm

Isaiah 45:23 (NIV):

… Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.


This passage is not quoted in Philippians 2:9-11. Rather it is quoted in Romans 14:11

As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.

Indeed, the Greek translated as "Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God" in Romans 14:11 is IDENTICAL to the Greek in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 45:23. That's because all New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are probably quoted from the Septuagint.

Here is the Greek clause which is identical in Rom 14:11 and Isaiah 45:23
ὁτι ἐμοι καμψει παν γον και πασα γλωσσα ἐξομολογησεται τῳ θεῳ

I would like to point out also that in Philippians 2:10 it's incorrect to take the English word "should" and assume it means "ought to" as in "You should eat your broccoli!" Rather the Greek word translated "should bow" is a subjunctive in Greek, even as it is in the English translation. Unfortunately that bit of information is useless for many English-speaking persons who NEVER use the subjunctive in English. Here is a sample of a subjuctive in English, "If you should swallow a bite of the 'destroying angel' mushroom, you would die."

So the subjunctive is used in the following passage. Most of us non-subjunctive users today, would say "would bow" rather than "should bow." Maybe if you should try doing that, you would better understand the meaning as Paul intended it.

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. (Phillipians 2:9-11)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Craig » Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:30 pm

I have very limited Greek as well Al I am sorry, but I have heard that John 3:16 is similar if that is any help.

John 3:16
New King James Version (NKJV)
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Edited to add:

Those who are more expert in Greek may be able to confirm also if the "have" is also subjunctive, thus

Young's Literal Translation
may not perish, but may have life age-during.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
will not die but will have eternal life.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
shall not be lost, but he shall have eternal life.
Craig
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:45 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby JasonPratt » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:55 am

What they said; they beat me to it, but Paidion was more detailed than I would have been anyway. :)

I'm going to move this thread to "Discussion Negative", since people looking for counter-arguments might find it more easily there.
Cry of Justice -- 2008 Novel of the Year (CSPA retailer poll).
Sword To The Heart -- metaphysical argument to orthodox trinitarianism (and thence to universalism)
Trinitarian universalist exegetics, on internet radio, or here in forum posts.
User avatar
JasonPratt
Administrator
 
Posts: 9792
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Dyer, TN

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Username » Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:03 am

Hi Al

Good question, sir. I can add nothing to Paidion's excellent analysis of the original NT Greek. But if I may just spin off for a moment into a sort of philosophical-cum-hermeneutical fugue, as it were :D , do you not detect a note of desperation in Marshall's casual dismissal of the - in my opinion - clear Universalist reading of the verse in question?

These proof-text hermeneutical debates cannot - ultimately - arbitrate on the truth or otherwise of UR. That can only be done by viewing everything in the Bible through the illuminating lens of a wider hermeneutic - the metanarrative if you will. Which, of course, I believe is one of God's saving love for all his children :D .

Blessings to you, and hope your back is improving.

All the best

Johnny
Username
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:50 am

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby AlSmith » Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:33 pm

Many thanks Paidion, Craig, Jason and Johnny for your helpful comments.

Paidion wrote:
Isaiah 45:23 (NIV):

… Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.


This passage is not quoted in Philippians 2:9-11. Rather it is quoted in Romans 14:11

Yes, it would perhaps have been more accurate if I had stated in my OP that the (Philippians) passage has Isaiah 45 as its background, rather than that Isaiah 45:23 is a parallel verse.

Paidion wrote:I would like to point out also that in Philippians 2:10 it's incorrect to take the English word "should" and assume it means "ought to" as in "You should eat your broccoli!" Rather the Greek word translated "should bow" is a subjunctive in Greek, even as it is in the English translation. Unfortunately that bit of information is useless for many English-speaking persons who NEVER use the subjunctive in English. Here is a sample of a subjunctive in English, "If you should swallow a bite of the 'destroying angel' mushroom, you would die."

So the subjunctive is used in the following passage. Most of us non-subjunctive users today, would say "would bow" rather than "should bow." Maybe if you should try doing that, you would better understand the meaning as Paul intended it.

Thanks Paidion, this explanation is helpful. I don't however have the grammatical knowledge to understand what nuance, if any, is implied by use of the subjunctive in verse 10/11 - again perhaps you or others could advise? If Paul meant that all people ‘would’ or ‘will’ (bow ... confess), as is often inferred by universalists, might he not have used a different, more definitive wording (which would translate as such into English)?

Or if it's the case that the actual wording means something other than an unambiguous ‘would’ or ‘will’, does this undermine its value as a UR text? Perhaps that might also explain Howard Marshall’s comment - whether right or wrong - that “The statement [Philippians 2:9-11] is one of purpose, and it does not necessarily follow that the purpose will be fulfilled…” that I quoted in the OP.

Craig wrote:... I have heard that John 3:16 is similar if that is any help.

Thanks Craig for pointing that out and for listing those translations. Perhaps someone will be able to say whether further parallels can be drawn between the interpretation of verse 10/11 and John 3:16.

JasonPratt wrote:I'm going to move this thread to "Discussion Negative", since people looking for counter-arguments might find it more easily there.

Sorry if my OP might come across as challenging the UR interpretation of the passage in a negative way. I'm looking to believe the UR interpretation and am hoping that clarification of this point will support that, rather than meaning to put a counter-argument. And perhaps I'm making too much of a semantic point and there's really no issue here ... :?

johnnyparker wrote:But if I may just spin off for a moment into a sort of philosophical-cum-hermeneutical fugue, as it were, do you not detect a note of desperation in Marshall's casual dismissal of the - in my opinion - clear Universalist reading of the verse in question?

Not sure about that, much as I'd like to be. ('philosophical-cum-hermeneutical fugue' - what a wonderful expression!)

johnnyparker wrote:These proof-text hermeneutical debates cannot - ultimately - arbitrate on the truth or otherwise of UR. That can only be done by viewing everything in the Bible through the illuminating lens of a wider hermeneutic - the metanarrative if you will.

I'm sure you're right about that Johnny, and doubt whether this or any other individual text would by itself swing me decisively one way or the other.

johnnyparker wrote:Blessings to you, and hope your back is improving.

Thanks, I'm on the mend, and now quite good at using a laptop lying on my back! I hope you're enjoying your holiday in France.


Blessings all. :D

Al
'Love is patient, love is kind ... Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.' - 1 Cor 13:4a, 6-8a
User avatar
AlSmith
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:41 pm
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Sobornost » Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:37 pm

I've just realised that 'OP' means 'Original Post'. Thanks Al - I've seen it used a lot and have been afraid to ask :oops: :lol: :D
Sobornost
 
Posts: 4137
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby AlSmith » Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:51 pm

Well, truthfully, I've just kind of assumed it meant original/opening post - hope I'm right! :lol:
'Love is patient, love is kind ... Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.' - 1 Cor 13:4a, 6-8a
User avatar
AlSmith
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:41 pm
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Craig » Thu Sep 19, 2013 2:59 pm

Perhaps that might also explain Howard Marshall’s comment - whether right or wrong - that “The statement [Philippians 2:9-11] is one of purpose, and it does not necessarily follow that the purpose will be fulfilled…” that I quoted in the OP.

Craig wrote:
... I have heard that John 3:16 is similar if that is any help.

Thanks Craig for pointing that out and for listing those translations. Perhaps someone will be able to say whether further parallels can be drawn between the interpretation of verse 10/11 and John 3:16.


Again, others please correct me if I am wrong, but in my simple understanding of it, I wonder if Howard Marshall would say that John 3:16 is a statement of purpose, and that it may not be fulfilled. Would he say that those who believe should not perish and they should have eternal life, but we can't be sure about it?
Craig
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:45 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Paidion » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:21 pm

Okay Al, would THIS make sense to you?

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, for the following reason. God did it so that at the name of Jesus every knee would 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. (Phillipians 2:9-11)


I agree with you that if Paul had meant "every knee WILL bow" in this sentence as a definite outcome, he would have used a future tense rather than a subjunctive.

The scriptural sentence is analgous to the following: "I will turn up the thermostat so that every person in the room should be warm (Or WOULD be warm, if that sits better with you. It doesn't necessarily follow that when I turn up the thermostat, every person in the room WILL be warm. Some people require more heat than others in order to feel warm.)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby AlSmith » Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:00 pm

Paidion wrote:Okay Al, would THIS make sense to you?

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, for the following reason. God did it so that at the name of Jesus every knee would 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. (Phillipians 2:9-11)

Thanks Paidion. Your "... for the following reason. God did it ..." rephrasing seems to highlight the sense of purpose in the description that follows.

Paidion wrote:I agree with you that if Paul had meant "every knee WILL bow" in this sentence as a definite outcome, he would have used a future tense rather than a subjunctive.

Paidion, I conclude from this that, in your view, Paul wasn't inferring in Philippians 2:9-11 (considered in isolation) that every knee will bow ... and every tongue will confess … (ie that all people will come to honour Jesus) as definite outcomes.

If that conclusion is correct, then I suggest the passage provides less concrete support of UR than some other UR texts, such as the passages in Romans 5 and Colossians 1, which I think can be taken more unequivocally as proclaiming that all without exception will be reconciled to God.

I also suggest that conclusion and the sense of purpose (first point above) together seem in line with at least the first sentence that I quoted from Howard Marshall in the OP (sorry Johnny :( ):

    "The statement [Philippians 2:9-11] is one of purpose, and it does not necessarily follow that the purpose will be fulfilled. The point is simply that God intends that Christ shall have the same honour from all people as that to which he himself is entitled."
Nevertheless, perhaps the majestic and triumphant tone of the passage suggests that most will ‘bow’/’confess’, supporting a ‘wide hope’. And perhaps the passage increases the support for UR when viewed alongside other, 'stronger' UR texts. :)

Craig wrote:Again, others please correct me if I am wrong, but in my simple understanding of it, I wonder if Howard Marshall would say that John 3:16 is a statement of purpose, and that it may not be fulfilled. Would he say that those who believe should not perish and they should have eternal life, but we can't be sure about it?

Thanks Craig for your input above. I’m afraid I'm not quite sure that I've understood your question, but I expect that any uncertainty expressed from an Arminian perspective (such as Marshall’s) about the fulfillment of John 3:16 would be in regard to whether an individual will come to belief, rather than in regard to whether a believer has eternal life.


Blessings :D

Al
'Love is patient, love is kind ... Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.' - 1 Cor 13:4a, 6-8a
User avatar
AlSmith
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:41 pm
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby JasonPratt » Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:55 pm

Paidion, I fixed your BBCode there, closed up the quote. :)

Al,

While the grammar at Philippians could be read as an idealization or capability rather than a prediction, the context of the original Isaianic prophecy stressed that this was certainly going to happen: God's evangelical word goes out successfully, God practically stakes His own ultimate deity on the outcome. Why Paul would change that to a mere ideal possibility, is something that IHMarsh, or any Arminian, would have to explain.

On the other hand, the original Isaianic prophecy could be read as only applying to all surviving humans after God's catastrophic butt-kicking of evildoers (at the beginning of the Messianic millennium for example). The scope, in other words, could be regarded as limited. But Paul definitely states the scope as being as extreme as possible, including the dead as well as the living. So any Calvinist would have to explain why the scope is so wide as to include those under the earth, thus referring to those who have not yet been resurrected.

Putting it another way, the Isaiah verses definitely affirm Calvinistic assurance of victorious evangelical salvation in a situation that might or might not involve Arminian scope of evangelism; and the Pauline versions (in 1 Cor and Rom) definitely affirm Arminian scope of evangelical salvation in a situation that might or might not involve Calvinistic assurance of victory; and both sets of verses are explicitly talking about loyal allegiance in their original languages (so there's no escape by positing God accepting hypocritical worship while still rebelling in their hearts, even if that was theologically possible and attested to as something God accepts elsewhere in scripture -- which is exactly the reverse of the situation!)
Cry of Justice -- 2008 Novel of the Year (CSPA retailer poll).
Sword To The Heart -- metaphysical argument to orthodox trinitarianism (and thence to universalism)
Trinitarian universalist exegetics, on internet radio, or here in forum posts.
User avatar
JasonPratt
Administrator
 
Posts: 9792
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Dyer, TN

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby AlSmith » Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:38 pm

Many thanks for those helpful additional comments, Jason, in particular your pointing out the certainty in the Isaianic prophecy. I haven't yet quite got my head around one or two of the other, finer points!

Al
'Love is patient, love is kind ... Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.' - 1 Cor 13:4a, 6-8a
User avatar
AlSmith
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:41 pm
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Cindy Skillman » Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:13 pm

And then we have:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (Joh 3:16-17 KJV)


So . . . do we take the first subjunctive thingummy as meaning that everyone who believes on Him WILL be saved, and the second one (might) as meaning that He MIGHT (but in fact will fail to) save the world? Hmm . . . it seems to me that if people want to go translating "should" as "it ought to happen, but maybe it won't" in other places, they'll have to apply it here too. And what's more, the "might" really SHOULD be (but typically isn't) received in the same spirit as the "should" in verse 16.

When I was barely able to read, my mom signed me up to receive "classics for children" . . . a book every month, and despite the fact that I needed a dictionary to read them, I felt guilty NOT reading the books my mother so kindly bought for me. I didn't understand them and when I went back to read them with my own children, it was like reading a whole new story, but I think it did give me a feel for other ways to use language. I never read this verse as "ought to," and I really don't think the translators meant to confuse people with their use of "should." It's uncommon today, but historically, "will" and "should" are often used to mean practically the same thing. There's a wee nuance there that tells one when she OUGHT to use WILL and when it's preferable to use SHOULD. Thinking on it, I believe that "will/would" is to be used when the thing to happen more or less happens on its own, and "shall/should" leans toward an outside sort of nudge.

Certainly not as scholarly as Paidion or Jason, but hey . . . I'm always interested in words and their little nuances.
. . . we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

http://www.journeyintotheson.com
User avatar
Cindy Skillman
Administrator
 
Posts: 4176
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:11 am
Location: South Dakota, USA

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby AlSmith » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:26 pm

Thanks for those comments, Cindy. I don't have the relevant grammatical (or Greek/linguistic) knowledge in this area, so am in the hands of others like yourself who do. In particular, I wasn't aware of the interesting 'wee nuance' you described.

As for my original wording point, perhaps there's no real issue. It had just been niggling me though ("Why didn't Paul just say 'will' ... ?!"), and I'm glad I raised it as I've found the responses helpful. They've also prompted me to study further the passages/themes in Isaiah, and elsewhere in the OT, that seem particularly relevant to UR.

Blessings :D

Al
'Love is patient, love is kind ... Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.' - 1 Cor 13:4a, 6-8a
User avatar
AlSmith
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:41 pm
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:41 pm

By "textual variant" is the following saying there is an ancient MSS that says "will" rather than "should" at Phil.2:11?

Also, is the John 3:16 comparison point valid?


On Philippians 2.11, Hawthorne and Martin write:

What then does this mean? Does it mean that eventually every created, intelligent being will in fact admit that Jesus is Lord, either voluntarily or by compulsion? These are questions that belong to the field of systematic theology… The issue is debated.

V11 means, then, that the hope of God is that every intelligent being in his universe might proclaim openly and gladly (Lightfoot) that Jesus Christ alone has the right to reign. (Emphasis added.)

The “debate” mentioned in the quotation is over a textual variant – a spelling difference between different Greek copies of Paul’s letter. It’s a difference of just one letter: ἐξομολογήσεται v. ἐξομολογήσηται. The translation difference is thus “every tongue will confess” v. “every tongue should confess.” I’m mystified that the Word Biblical Commentary is unable to make a call on a textual variant!

Silva responds very well: regardless of which verb form was Paul’s original word choice, the confession of every tongue is still certain! John 3.16 uses a similar syntax to express the purpose of God’s sending his unique Son: that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life! Does God just “hope” that everyone who believes in Christ will have eternal life or is his purpose certain?

Further, as Silva points out, Paul is nearly quoting a very certain OT passage. Isa. 45.23 says, “By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ ” In the Septuagint, that last phrase “swear allegiance” is the exact same word translated “confess”in Phil. 2.11.

The eventual submission of every creature to Christ’s lordship is certain; it is very disappointing that the WBC commentators are so uncertain about that one little Greek letter!

Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, Philippians, vol. 43 of Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 129.

Moisés Silva, Philippians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 111-2.


https://graceandknowledge.com/theology/ ... cowardice/


The following is from the Rogertutt thread (post of Mon May 22, 2017 10:08 pm):

should and may – James Coram

As to the word “should” in Phil 2:10,11 and the “may” of 1Cor. 15:28, it is not the should or may of doubt but is a dependent clause based upon the grammar of the subjunctive. For instance, a clear example of the subjunctive of “may” and “should” is when I state, “I have a pen in my hand. I will loosen my grip on the pen so that it may or should be falling.” The falling of the pen is dependent on my loosing it. It definitely will fall should I loosen my grip on it. There is no doubt in the “may” or “should.”

Now, looking at the passage; “Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with a Name that is above every name, that in the Name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God the Father.” Phil. 2:9-11. Every knee bowing and every tongue acclaiming is dependent upon

1. Christ going to the cross (verse 8), and
2. God gracing Him with a Name above every name.

Since these have taken place, all WILL bow the knee, and their tongue WILL acclaim Jesus as their Lord.


viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1940&p=108222&hilit=phil+2#p108222



"Phil 2:10–11, in which Paul stresses again that each and every creature will finally submit to Christ: “that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow, in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld, and every tongue may proclaim that Jesus Christ is the Lord.” In Phil 3:21 Paul hammers home again that Christ has the power to “submit all beings to himself.” Now, the verb that indicates the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ on the part of all is ἐξομολογέω, which in the NT always means a voluntary and spontaneous, and not forced, confession, just like ὁμολογέω and ὁμολογία. This universal confession will be voluntary..." [p.40-41]

Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)

Scholars directory, with list of publications:

http://www.isns.us/directory/europe/ramelliilaria.htm

"Talbot argues Paul anticipated this exhaustive reconciliation because of the verb he chose: confess. According to Talbot, “he chose a verb that throughout the Septuagint implies not only confession, but the offer of praise and thanksgiving as well.”3 He goes on to suggest that, while a king or queen could force a subject to bow against their will, praise and thanksgiving can only come from the heart:

"either those who bow before Jesus Christ and declare openly that he is Lord do so sincerely and by their own choice or they do not. If they do this sincerely and by their own choice, then there can be but one reason: They too have been reconciled to God.4" "

http://www.jeremybouma.com/a-pauline-un ... ans-29-11/



9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. (Phil.2:9-11)

3Therefore I inform you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor.12)

22"Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. 23"I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. 24"They will say of Me, 'Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.' Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame.…(Isa.45)

11 It is written: “As surely as I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow before Me; every tongue will confess to God. (Rom.14:11)

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." (Rev.5:13)


P.S. I suggest this thread might be more appropriate in the section "Discussion Positive".
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:53 pm

"In looking at Phil. 2:10, "That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow," it may be objected that they "should," but they will not. But the original here means that they not only "should," but that they also will; the same construction is in John 3:16 where the Word reads "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish," etc. There is no doubt expressed in the word "should," a believer will certainly not perish. Besides, the passage in Isa. 45:23 states by the divine oath that "every knee shall bow." "In the Name of Jesus" (Greek and R. V.) means more than simply using the name of Jesus. It signifies, according to the Hebrew idiom, in the very nature of Jesus. This implies not only a change of heart, but that He has bestowed His own nature and spirit. Besides, the confession is that "Jesus Christ is Lord." No hypocritical confession will satisfy God. "No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" (1Cor. 12:3). Further, Phil. 2:11 says that the confession is "to the glory of God the Father." No confession compulsion and force would glorify God the Father." The whole text implies a real change of heart to make this confession truly "in the Name of Jesus" and "to the glory of God the Father." Note, further, that those who "bow" and "confess" are in heaven," "in earth," and "underearth." This includes the whole creation of God."

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/is_hell_ ... d_age.html

"It is admitted that the scope of Phil. 2:10-11 is universal. Yet our writer states that many of those who bow and confess will finally be lost. No doubt this is partly due to his profound ignorance of the niceties of Greek grammar. It escapes, him that the word "confess" here, as usually, is in the Greek Middle Voice. This grand fact ensures that the confession is not forced or artificial, but with the emotions, from the heart, spontaneous, with the whole man behind it. It is confession indeed. That is the force of the Middle Voice in Greek. One needs only compare this verb (exomologeO), which only occurs once in the Active Voice, with the shorter verb(homologeO), which only occurs once in the Middle Voice, to observe that the former expresses the heart's emotions and zeal, whereas the latter expresses mere matter of fact confession."

http://alexanderthomson.blogspot.ca/200 ... -hell.html

This includes everyone in the universe, including the dead and demons:

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

John speaks of "every creature" & to emphasize this again he repeats "and all that are in them":

Rev.5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

This worship (v.13) uses the same worshipful words as the redeemed of vs 9-10 use in v.12:

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

All this being in the context of salvation - "the Lamb that was slain" (v.12 & 13).
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:44 pm

"The OP makes the point that God wants to save everyone and then asks why conservatives believe God's will can be thwarted and why it cannot be fulfilled in the next life.

Let's summarize the points before which Jeff and company continually freeze like Bambi in the headlights.

(1) The Philippain hymn pictures everyone in the universe, righteous and unrighteous, bowing before Christ and making the saving confession. Paul teaches that no one can sincerely confess Jesus as Lord apart from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3).

(2) The universal confession envisaged must be a saving confession because (a) the hymn in based on the divine invitation to universal salvation in Isaiah 45:22-23 and (b) the alternative explanation is the absurd assumption that the unrighteous dead are portrayed as making this saving confession before a lever is pulled and they are then sucked down to Hell.

(3) The hymn in Revelation 5:13 similarly envisages all humanity, living and dead, worshiping Jesus and God. But how did the evil dead get to Heaven to sing this hymn? John tells us that the gates of the New Jerusalem are permanently open (21:25), so that those outside, the evil dead (22:15) can enter and be saved (22:15).

"God our Savior...desires everyone to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 2:4)."

Indeed, various NT texts imply the possibility of postmortem repentance and salvation (e. g. 1 Peter 3:19; 1 Corinthians 15:38-29), texts to be discussed later. But is God the Savior only of the righteous or of both the righteous and the unrighteous? Paul gives this thrilling inclusive response:

"The living God...is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe (2 Timothy 4:10)." Here "especially means "more immediately" and leaves the door open for postmortem repentance.

as famed evangelical apologist C. S. Lewis eloquently puts it: "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside."

Many more NT texts confirm this glorious hope."

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... 057/page-7
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby DaveB » Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:03 pm

Philippians 2:10-11J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
That is why God has now lifted him so high, and has given him the name beyond all names, so that at the name of Jesus “every knee shall bow”, whether in Heaven or earth or under the earth. And that is why, in the end, “every tongue shall confess” that Jesus Christ” is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:10-11The Message (MSG)
9-11 Because of that obedience, God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or anything, ever, so that all created beings in heaven and on earth—even those long ago dead and buried—will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ, and call out in praise that he is the Master of all, to the glorious honor of God the Father.

Philippians 2:10-11New American Standard Bible (NASB)
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:10-11New English Translation (NET Bible)
10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow
—in heaven and on earth and under the earth—
11 and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father.

Kehillah in Philippi 2:10-11Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
10 That at haShem of Yehoshua, KOL BERECH (every knee YESHAYAH 45:23) will bow, of beings b’Shomayim and ba’Aretz and mitachat laAretz (in the world below), 11 And KOL LASHON (every tongue YESHAYAH 45:23) shall make hoda’ah (confession) with an Ani Ma’amin that is an open and public admission that Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua (Yeshua) is Adoneinu, to the kavod of Elohim Avinu.

Philippians 2:10-11New Century Version (NCV)
10 so that every knee will bow to the name of Jesus—
everyone in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.
11 And everyone will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord
and bring glory to God the Father.

Philippians 2:10-11Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow—
of those who are in heaven and on earth
and under the earth—
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,[a]
to the glory of God the Father.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby maintenanceman » Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:42 pm

Dave you have shown me some new translations COOL. Thanks so much.

You used the 'Phillips' translation. :D

Cool Bro :lol:
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Paidion » Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:51 pm

Dave, it doesn't matter how many versions one quotes that render the text as "every knee SHALL bow." All of them are mistranslations.

The Greek is a subjunctive, not a future. And so it needs to be translated into English as a subjunctive in English. The problem is that grammar is seldom taught in modern elementary schools. The solution to the problem is not to substitute English subjunctives with futures. The solution is to teach grammar. When you look back in the thread, many examples of English subjunctives were used as examples.

8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)


The text states that God exalted Him and bestowed the highest name on Him FOR A PURPOSE. The purpose is so that every knee should (or "would" if you prefer) bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. This makes it no less certain than the sentence, "Every knee will bow."

Let me give you an example. I might say, "I gave the starving man some food so that he should live." Isn't the probability that the man will live just as great as if I had said, "I gave the starving man some food, and now he will live."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby DaveB » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:15 pm

I would have thought that maybe one or two of the translators would have known that. The fact that they ALL mistranslated it just boggles my mind.

The word 'should' does not convey the same meaning, generally, as 'will'. "I should go to church next Sunday" vs "I will go to church next Sunday".
Every knee 'will bow' or 'every knee should bow'.

Will every knee bow, Don? Is that what Paul meant?
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby davo » Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:47 pm

DaveB wrote:I would have thought that maybe one or two of the translators would have known that. The fact that they ALL mistranslated it just boggles my mind.

It’s maybe not that bad Dave…

Of these 59 translations

    31 render the word — “should
    22 render the word — “will” (2 of which render it twice)
    4 render the word — “shall
The subjunctive mood refers to verbs that are used to describe hypothetical or non-real actions, events, or situations; used to express an action which may or should happen, but not necessarily true at the present. Examples: we are out to dinner, and I say… “I should pick up the tab on this” — and subsequently I do. Or, we catch a taxi from the airport, and you say… “I should pay the driver” — and subsequently you do.

That <κάμψῃ> kamyē (bow or bend) of Phil 2:10 is in the active voice means the subject produces the action, i.e., it is NOT something imposed upon said subject — if that were the case such would be indicated by the passive voice; It’s not.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby DaveB » Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:18 pm

Okay, thanks. I should have (no pun) paid more attention in grammar class.
Active voice, subjunctive mood. I get that.

For my $.02, the overriding 'tone' of the passage is one of victory and joy, bringing praise to God the Father; it does not have any sense of hesitation or wistful hopefulness - it reads like: Every voice will confess (active) Jesus as Lord.

Do you think Paul was unconvinced about the hope, so used 'should' rather than 'will''?
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby davo » Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:26 pm

DaveB wrote:Do you think Paul was unconvinced about the hope, so used 'should' rather than 'will''?

I don’t think so, but that’s me. Seems to me it’s been more a supposed problem raised in arguments against universalism where claims are sometimes raised that the worship involved is forced… I personally think that notion in itself is “forced”, quite apart from any universalism.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Paidion » Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:23 pm

Hi Dave, you wrote:The word 'should' does not convey the same meaning, generally, as 'will'. "I should go to church next Sunday" vs "I will go to church next Sunday".
Every knee 'will bow' or 'every knee should bow'.


From what you wrote above, it seems that you still don't get it. "Should" is used in TWO different ways in English. You appear to be stuck on the one that means "ought to". The subjunctive "should" does NOT mean "ought to." Your sentence, "I should go to church next Sunday" means I ought to go to church next Sunday. That is NOT a subjunctive. However, if the sentence were:
"My wife pressured be so that I should go to church next Sunday," THAT would be a subjunctive. I have already suggested that if you prefer, you can substitute "would" since that is the way many modern people used the subjunctive. The would say it this way:

"My wife pressured me so that I would go to church next Sunday." That would the most usual way of using the subjunctive in our day. The meaning is the same whether the word is "should" or "would."

This sentence DOES NOT MEAN "My wife pressured me so that I OUGHT TO go to church next Sunday." Nor would it be appropriate to remove the first part and write, ""I will go to church next Sunday." That would be a simple future and not a subjunctive at all. It would be true whether my wife pressured me or not.

So examining the Philippians passage, let's substitute "would" for "should" and see if that makes sense to you:

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 would bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth...


So God exalted His Son and bestowed on Him the highest name FOR A PURPOSE. The purpose was so than every knee would bow to Him.
If we can accept that God's exaltation of His Son will truly have this effect, then it will be true that every knee will bow.

By using "should" instead of "would" as the subjunctive, the meaning is the same.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:22 pm

Why does the NASB (and NAS 1977) translate Phil.2:10 as:

New American Standard Bible
so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Do the caps indicate a quote? Does the NASB have any footnotes explaining the translation as "will" instead of "should" or "may"(YLT)?

Is there a textual variant as this claims:

"The “debate” mentioned in the quotation is over a textual variant – a spelling difference between different Greek copies of Paul’s letter. It’s a difference of just one letter: ἐξομολογήσεται v. ἐξομολογήσηται. The translation difference is thus “every tongue will confess” v. “every tongue should confess.” "
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby DaveB » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:23 pm

Paidion wrote:If we can accept that God's exaltation of His Son will truly have this effect, then it will be true that every knee will bow.


Ok, thanks, yep I did not get it, still don't, but I do understand what you are saying in the quote above.
In and of itself, the verses don't 'sew up the case' for UR - Paul could have, I reckon, used the word for 'will' instead of that subjunctive mood.

Do you think Paul was thinking 'will'?
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:55 pm

NT Wright is considered a leading NT scholar. His version has "shall".
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby DaveB » Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:05 pm

I've read a ton of Wright and respect his scholarship immensely. I'm heartened to hear his 'shall' in this context.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby steve7150 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:38 am

I've read a ton of Wright and respect his scholarship immensely. I'm heartened to hear his 'shall' in this context.










I think the context is about exalting Jesus so Paul may be simply saying that in Isaiah it says "everyone knee will bow" to God and now that Jesus is Lord , every knee should now bow to Jesus that had been destined to bow to God.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:21 am

This is a comment by Greek scholar & popular author Bill Mounce:

"Is the subjunctive “shall” or “might”? (John 3:16)

I was asked about the subjunctive in John 3:16. The concern was that the NIV/NLT reads “shall,” which makes it a promise of salvation. His contention is that the subjunctive makes it a “condition of salvation” and it should be translated as “may,” and the Greek grammar does not “allow” the translation “shall.”

First of all, let’s have a little humility. To say that two major translations mistranslate a famous verse, choosing a translation that the Greek does not “allow,” is quite a claim.

Is it possible for two major translations to make a major mistake? Sure. I think that translating οὕτως in John 3:16 as “so” is precisely that. But is it possible that two major translations violate Greek grammar in the same verse? Highly unlikely.

Please people. Be very careful before claiming that major translations have chosen a translation that the Greek (or Hebrew) does not allow. You may disagree. You may not like it. But to claim that the translators violate Greek grammar requires too much hubris.

The NIV reads, “For God so loved the world that (ὥστε) he gave his one and only Son, that (ἵνα) whoever believes in him shall not perish (ἀπόληται) but have (ἔχῃ) eternal life.”

Why are ἀπόληται and ἔχῃ in the subjunctive? Is it because they are giving a “condition of salvation”? To be frank, I am not even sure what that means. Is there any question that if a person truly believes, he or she will truly be saved from perishing and will truly receive eternal life?

ἀπόληται and ἔχῃ are in the subjunctive because they are in a purpose clause. God sent his son for the purpose saving those who believe and for the purpose of bringing them safely to eternal life. Because purpose is not a statement of reality (indicative), it must be moved into the subjunctive.

The only remaining question is how to convey purpose in English. Some use “shall/will” (NIV, NLT, NASB, HCSB). Other translations use “should” (ESV, KJV) or “may” (NRSV,NJB). I don’t think there is any real difference in meaning.

Do you hear any difference?"

https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with- ... -john-3-16

There are interesting comments following the above quote.
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:59 am

Here's another comment from NT Greek scholar Bill Mounce re the subjunctive:

"A few blogs back I talked about my growing apprehension with connecting may and might by default with the subjunctive. Many of you responded with helpful information. Thanks.

Mike Aubrey left a comment about Margaret Sim's book Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek: New Light from Linguistics on the Particles Hina and Hoti, and it was repeated by Carl Conrad on the Biblical Greek forum. Richard Walker is correct; It seems that the use of may/might in purpose clauses now belongs to a higher register of English and is to be eliminated from modern translations that aspire to a certain type of clarity. Thanks.

The comment by David Croatia was also helpful. He started polling people and found that almost every person hears the idea of contingency or probability in may/might. His examples of misuse were especially interesting. (Translations are from the NIV.)

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to (ἵνα) help you and be (ᾖ) with you forever (John 14:16, NIV). Is there any question that the Holy Spirit might be with you?

For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us (ἵνα) to do (περιπατήσωμεν) (Eph 2:10). Does this mean, as David heard preached, that sanctification is probable, but not a reality, because of the subjunctive verb. It is true that we do not always do what the Lord has prepared for us to do, but that doesn’t come from the subjunctive. The NIV got this one right.

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that (ἵνα) they too may obtain (τύχωσιν) the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10. Does this mean that the elect might, but not necessarily, obtain their salvation? The NIV committee needs to look at this one.

So I am more encouraged than ever to remove may/might as default translations for the subjunctive."

https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with- ... -and-might
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:58 am

"2:9-11 Subjunctive Purpose-Result [Ina Clause"

"Normally the subjunctive mood refers to potential action. However, this use of i[na
with verbs in the subjunctive mood indicates not only intention, but also its sure accomplishment
(Wallace, 473). Therefore, Paul is not merely arguing God’s desire that pa/n go,nu ka,myh | i.e.
“every knee should bow” and pa/sa glw/ssa evxomologh,shtai i.e. “every tongue should confess”,
he is declaring the intention that God will most certainly carry out. “The fulfillment of this
divine intention will take place at the parousia” (O’Brien, 239)."

http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver ... 2_1-11.pdf

"What may be influencing the translation of Philippians 2:10 is the verb "confess" in Philippians 2:11. Some texts have this verb in the subjunctive mood, but there are a good number of texts with it in the indicative mood (the difference is a single letter)."

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVansw ... 7-13a.html
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby DaveB » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:54 am

Thanks Origen! Very interesting.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby JamesAH81072 » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:01 am

Origen; wrote:"2:9-11 Subjunctive Purpose-Result [Ina Clause"

"Normally the subjunctive mood refers to potential action. However, this use of i[na
with verbs in the subjunctive mood indicates not only intention, but also its sure accomplishment
(Wallace, 473). Therefore, Paul is not merely arguing God’s desire that pa/n go,nu ka,myh | i.e.
“every knee should bow” and pa/sa glw/ssa evxomologh,shtai i.e. “every tongue should confess”,
he is declaring the intention that God will most certainly carry out. “The fulfillment of this
divine intention will take place at the parousia” (O’Brien, 239)."

http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver ... 2_1-11.pdf

"What may be influencing the translation of Philippians 2:10 is the verb "confess" in Philippians 2:11. Some texts have this verb in the subjunctive mood, but there are a good number of texts with it in the indicative mood (the difference is a single letter)."

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVansw ... 7-13a.html


I wonder if the early manuscripts have it in the indicative mood?
JamesAH81072
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:46 pm

JamesAH81072 wrote:
Origen; wrote:"2:9-11 Subjunctive Purpose-Result [Ina Clause"

"Normally the subjunctive mood refers to potential action. However, this use of i[na
with verbs in the subjunctive mood indicates not only intention, but also its sure accomplishment
(Wallace, 473). Therefore, Paul is not merely arguing God’s desire that pa/n go,nu ka,myh | i.e.
“every knee should bow” and pa/sa glw/ssa evxomologh,shtai i.e. “every tongue should confess”,
he is declaring the intention that God will most certainly carry out. “The fulfillment of this
divine intention will take place at the parousia” (O’Brien, 239)."

http://www.angelfire.com/tn/steveweaver ... 2_1-11.pdf

"What may be influencing the translation of Philippians 2:10 is the verb "confess" in Philippians 2:11. Some texts have this verb in the subjunctive mood, but there are a good number of texts with it in the indicative mood (the difference is a single letter)."

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVansw ... 7-13a.html


I wonder if the early manuscripts have it in the indicative mood?


The comments i've seen don't go into detail re specific MSS:

[Re confess in Phil.2:11]:

"The verb can be taken as a future passive indicative (exomologesatai) or as an aorist subjunctive (exomologesetai).
The manuscript evidence is about evenly divided. The aorist subjunctive parallels KAMPSE (bow) in 2:10. The change
to the aorist subjunctive could have been intended to bring the two verbs in line with each other, or a scribe
could have been influenced by Isa 45:23, where both verbs - KAMPSEI and EXOMOLOGESETAI - are in the future
indicative. In either case the meaning is not changed."

"Philippians and Philemon (2009): A Commentary By Charles B. Cousar" [p.51]

https://books.google.com/books?id=uZh1B ... ve&f=false


"All that the Prophets Have Declared: The Appropriation of Scripture in the ...By Matthew R Malcolm" [see endnotes # 66ff]

https://books.google.com/books?id=bZRoD ... ve&f=false
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Paidion » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:20 pm

Here is the paragraph from Bill Mounce (quoted by Origen) that makes the same point that I made:

Mounce wrote:ἀπόληται and ἔχῃ are in the subjunctive because they are in a purpose clause. God sent his son for the purpose saving those who believe and for the purpose of bringing them safely to eternal life. Because purpose is not a statement of reality (indicative), it must be moved into the subjunctive.


Exactly!
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby DaveB » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:35 pm

I thought I would never say this, and perhaps it has never been said: I am disgusted by the subjunctive mood. I'm a moodist. I would round up all the subjunctives and send them back to Latin school, or Greek school, and good riddance to them all. They have no place in the crystal-clear empyrean intellectual heights in which I dwell. UP here, we see a subjunctive flappin' around, we shoot 'em. Yep. We load up with a... load of indicatives packed in gerunds and hang a few dangling participles on that load and fire away. 'Subjunct THAT" we yell. Or someone will do the Michael Jackson crotch-grab and bellow "Yo I got yer subjunctive right here, yo!"

Okay okay, I made a little bit of that up out of thin Empyrean air. But someone said let your yes be yes, and your no your no. It was actually put a bit more elegantly if I remember.

So when the good St. Paul says the S -word - 'should' - someone, Timothy maybe, or Mark, or Chip or someone - 'should' have jumped up and said "Paul, I mean, what the hey? Say what you mean. Will everyone confess? What's this 'may' stuff and this 'should' stuff?? Are you getting moody? (ha)."

Peace. The fit has passed, I accept the grammatical realities and will rest contentedly, sorta, within them.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby JamesAH81072 » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:22 pm

DaveB wrote:I thought I would never say this, and perhaps it has never been said: I am disgusted by the subjunctive mood. I'm a moodist. I would round up all the subjunctives and send them back to Latin school, or Greek school, and good riddance to them all. They have no place in the crystal-clear empyrean intellectual heights in which I dwell. UP here, we see a subjunctive flappin' around, we shoot 'em. Yep. We load up with a... load of indicatives packed in gerunds and hang a few dangling participles on that load and fire away. 'Subjunct THAT" we yell. Or someone will do the Michael Jackson crotch-grab and bellow "Yo I got yer subjunctive right here, yo!"

Okay okay, I made a little bit of that up out of thin Empyrean air. But someone said let your yes be yes, and your no your no. It was actually put a bit more elegantly if I remember.

So when the good St. Paul says the S -word - 'should' - someone, Timothy maybe, or Mark, or Chip or someone - 'should' have jumped up and said "Paul, I mean, what the hey? Say what you mean. Will everyone confess? What's this 'may' stuff and this 'should' stuff?? Are you getting moody? (ha)."

Peace. The fit has passed, I accept the grammatical realities and will rest contentedly, sorta, within them.


Your opinion is subjective and indicative of subjunctive mood swings so it's imperative that you stop before you become an objective mess of mental breakdowns which is attributive to your mood swings :P
JamesAH81072
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:49 am

> We have the use of the subjunctive which does indicate the aspect of
> futurity but with the possibility that this may not happen, without
> getting into a doctrinal statement i will refrain from saying why this
> may not happen(I'd be happy to talk about it off-list if anyone so
> desires). One would think that the future indicative would be used for
> future statements of absolute surety. "will" should be reserved for
> sure events of the future which occur in the indicative mood.

There is no need to get into doctrine here. The above assertion is
simply not borne out by the facts. The subjunctive in a purpose clause
**in and of itself** cannot help us determine whether the writer or
speaker thinks there is a possibility that the purposed action or event
will not happen. This is a simplistic and reductionistic view of the
construction that does not take into account other factors that may
clarify whether or not the writer or speaker considers the purpose
certain or not. The subjunctive is normally used in a purpose clause
because a purpose by its very nature is unfulfilled at the point of
intention. This has nothing to do with the certainty or lack thereof of
the purpose being fulfilled. Whether there is a possibility that the
purpose will not be fulfilled must be determined by other
considerations. For example, one must consider whether or not the
person who intends an outcome has the ability and determination to
fulfill the purpose, as well as the nature of the intended outcome
itself. There are so many exceptions to your above formula that it
would be impossible to list them all here, so I will offer just one
that disproves the universal assertion you have made:

2 Cor 5.10 TOUS GAR PANTAS hHMAS FANERWQHNAI DEI EMPROSQEN TOU BHMATOS
TOU CRISTOU, hINA KOMISHTAI hEKASTOS TA DIA TOU SWMATOS PROS hA
EPRAXEN, EITE AGAQON EITE FAULON.

Note that Paul portrays all of us (TOUS ... PANTAS hHMAS) appearing
before the judgment seat of Christ as **necessary** and thus
**certain** (FANERWQHNAI DEI). He further portrays the **purpose** of
this necessary event as being the reception of each one's due for the
things done in the body, whether good or evil. Does anyone really think
Paul has in mind that once the **necessary** and **certain** appearance
before the judgment seat of Christ occurs, God's very purpose for that
appearance may fail to materialize? Paul certainly does not doubt that
the divine purpose will be fulfilled. This is a case where the person
who purposes has both the ability and determination to fulfill the
purpose. And the nature of the purpose is such that another
**necessary** and certain event is rendered meaningless without its
stated purpose being fulfilled.

It should also be noted that hINA may be used to mark a consecutive
clause (result) with the subjunctive (see BDAG 3.; L-N 89.49), and
sometimes it is not easy to determine whether purpose or result is
intended. Note the important comments in BDAG in this regard:

"In many cases purpose and result cannot be clearly differentiated, and
hence hINA is used for the result that follows according to the purpose
of the subj. or of God. As in Semitic and Gr-Rom. thought, purpose and
result are identical in declarations of the divine will" (see examples
there).
============

Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI


https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-g ... 25250.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-g ... 25248.html
https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-g ... 25246.html
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby DaveB » Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:37 am

Thanks to you both!

I should be getting to work now.. :D
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby qaz » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:16 am

All this grammar stuff is over my head, but TLDR it sounds like Phil 2:9-11 doesn't teach universalism, right?
qaz
 
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Origen; » Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:56 pm

qaz wrote:All this grammar stuff is over my head, but TLDR it sounds like Phil 2:9-11 doesn't teach universalism, right?


I'd agree with this quoted earlier in the thread:

"This is a case where the person who purposes has both the ability and determination to fulfill the purpose."

And that it also applies to our passage.
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby DaveB » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:55 pm

Origen; wrote:"This is a case where the person who purposes has both the ability and determination to fulfill the purpose."


I am going to take that and run with it!! :D
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Philippians 2:9-11 – ‘should’ vs ‘will’

Postby Invernessian » Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:46 am

Well, I've just come across this topic while trying to catch up with some of the discussions going back several years now.

I am no Greek or Hebrew scholar although I do own and occasionally refer to my copy of "The Englishman's Greek New Testament" for some insights. I can't really comment, therefore, on what the word "should" in the KJV translation of Phil. 2:10 means definitively. Does the word mean "shall" or "will" or "should"?

The author, Caroline Noel, of the following great hymn seemed to have no doubt about the meaning of the word. I have no idea what her knowledge of Greek might have been.

"At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,
Every tongue confess him King of glory now;
'Tis the Father's pleasure we should call him Lord,
Who from the beginning was the mighty Word"

One last thought: the KJV translation of the Septuagint in Exodus 20 is full of "thou shalt not"s. We know exactly what that is saying to us.
User avatar
Invernessian
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:18 pm


Return to Discussion Negative

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests