Many thanks Paidion, Craig, Jason and Johnny for your helpful comments.
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.
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.
… 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.
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 …
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!)
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.
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.
Al