The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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

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

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!)

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

And then we have:

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.

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 :smiley:

Al

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?

graceandknowledge.com/theology/ … cowardice/

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

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:

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” "

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”.

“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."

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.”

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).

"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."

christianforums.com/threads … 057/page-7

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.

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

You used the ‘Phillips’ translation. :smiley:

Cool Bro :laughing:

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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’’?

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.

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:

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.

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.” "

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’?

NT Wright is considered a leading NT scholar. His version has “shall”.

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

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.