Scripture and the Fathers contra universalism

[Michie]

A rhetorical game that universalists like to play is to suggest that in the early Church there was from the beginning a robust universalist tradition running alongside the standard teaching that some are damned forever, and that the latter view simply became dominant at some point and pushed aside the former. Indeed, they claim, this non-universalist view is rooted in only a handful of scriptural passages, in illustration of which they will quote two or three of the best-known texts explicitly threatening everlasting punishment. They will then claim that there is, by contrast, a mountain of scriptural passages implying universalism. Origen, on this narrative, was simply giving expression to what was already clearly there in the tradition, indeed what was perhaps the dominant tendency in the New Testament itself. This is standard David Bentley Hart shtick, both in his book That All Shall Be Saved and in earlier work.

The whole thing is sheer fantasy. The reality is that from the Old Testament all the way through to the time of Origen, there is a loud, clear, and consistent emphasis on precisely the opposite of universal salvation – on the condemnation and perpetual exclusion of those who fail to repent of evildoing in this life. Origen and the very few orthodox writers who sympathized with him beginning only in the third century represented a novelty – and a tentatively proposed one that was immediately resisted as such – not some longstanding mainstream loyal opposition.

The universalist sleight of hand vis-à-vis scripture is accomplished via two main moves. First, when considering the scriptural evidence against universalism, the universalist tends to focus primarily on passages that on a natural reading threaten perpetual suffering. He then argues (not plausibly, but put that aside) that these passages don’t really entail such suffering. And then he claims thereby to have defused the scriptural evidence against universalism.

But that is to conflate the debate over universalism and the debate over annihilationism. If you take account of all the passages that indicate final exclusion of the wicked (bracketing off the question whether those excluded are annihilated or suffer perpetually) the collection of anti-universalist scriptural texts is massive.

Continued below.

Scripture and the Fathers contra universalism

A rhetorical game that universalists like to play is to suggest that in the early Church there was from the beginning a robust universalist ...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

 

[TahitiRun]

The whole dilemma surrounding UR vs ECT (I think) is really a matter of perspective. It's like Arminianism and Calvinism. They're both wrong if looked at from one side only. You need to see both sides of the same coin, and do so at the same time to get a clear understanding of how scripture presents it.

I also feel that what is considered as accepted doctrine and dogma within mainstream denominations should be revisited from time to time. Scripture should be able to stand on it's own merits apart from any particular interpretation, doctrine or dogma being held, whether on parchment or tradition, and let the Spirit of Christ determine it's outcome.

Jesus grew up reading and hearing both scripture and oral traditions, and exposed it for what it was when needed (Mat 15:3, Mar 7:13, as examples). Those in the Spirit of Christ should be able to do likewise.

 

[Der Alte]

@Michie @TahitiRun
Two passages, one spoken by the Father, Himself, the other spoken by Jesus, Himself, which thoroughly disproves universal reconciliation.

Jeremiah 13:11-14​

(11) For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.​

(12) Therefore thou shalt speak unto them this word; Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Every bottle shall be filled with wine: and they shall say unto thee, Do we not certainly know that every bottle shall be filled with wine?​

(13) Then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness.​

(14) And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

= = = = = =

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many [NOT a few.] will say to me in that day, [Judgement day] Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

= = = = =

Romans 1:24​

(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:​

Romans 1:26​

(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:​

Romans 1:28​

(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;​

 

[Michie]

I appreciate all your hard work @Der Alte!

@Michie @TahitiRun
Two passages, one spoken by the Father, Himself, the other spoken by Jesus, Himself, which thoroughly disproves universal reconciliation.

Jeremiah 13:11-14
(11) For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
(12) Therefore thou shalt speak unto them this word; Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Every bottle shall be filled with wine: and they shall say unto thee, Do we not certainly know that every bottle shall be filled with wine?
(13) Then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness.
(14) And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

= = = = = =

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

= = = = =

Romans 1:24
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:26
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:28
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;​

 

[TahitiRun]

@Michie @TahitiRun
Two passages, one spoken by the Father, Himself, the other spoken by Jesus, Himself, which thoroughly disproves universal reconciliation.

Jeremiah 13:11-14​

(11) For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.​

(12) Therefore thou shalt speak unto them this word; Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Every bottle shall be filled with wine: and they shall say unto thee, Do we not certainly know that every bottle shall be filled with wine?​

(13) Then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness.​

(14) And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

= = = = = =

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

= = = = =

Romans 1:24​

(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:​

Romans 1:26​

(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:​

Romans 1:28​

(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;​

The texts don't actually disprove universal reconciliation of the soul (that is: the soul according to the spirit). The texts simply recognize/teach that the "flesh" (the carnal and natural man) was never atoned for by Christ and therefore never reconciled to God in Christ. Read Rom 8:5-8.

Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God

For Jesus tells us that "the flesh profits nothing" (Joh 6:63).

And again, this is what Paul judged in 1Co 5:5. That the destruction of the flesh would result to the saving of the spirit.

 

[Der Alte]

The texts don't actually disprove universal reconciliation of the soul (that is: the soul according to the spirit). The texts simply recognize/teach that the "flesh" (the carnal and natural man) was never atoned for by Christ and therefore never reconciled to God in Christ. Read Rom 8:5-8.
those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God
Rom 8:5 For Jesus tells us that "the flesh profits nothing" (Joh 6:63).
And again, this is what Paul judged in 1Co 5:5. That the destruction of the flesh would result to the saving of the spirit.

In addition to English, I read both Hebrew and Greek. I do not require any amateurish attempts by anyone presuming to school me in what any vss. "really means" without any grammatical/lexical support.

 

[TahitiRun]

In addition to English, I read both Hebrew and Greek. I do not require any amateurish attempts by anyone presuming to school me in what any vss. "really means" without any grammatical/lexical support.

That's all well and good. However, your confidence in the flesh does not impress me. Read Php 3:4.

Laying that aside. Did you read the scriptures I posted? Would you care to comment on them?

 

[Der Alte]

That's all well and good. However, your confidence in the flesh does not impress me. Read Php 3:4.

Laying that aside. Did you read the scriptures I posted? Would you care to comment on them?

So all you can do is post empty accusations without providing anything credible to back up your opinions.
Your own confidence in the flesh does not impress me, either.,

 

[TahitiRun]

So all you can do is post empty accusations without providing anything credible to back up your opinions.

I'm not sure what accusations I made. You stated that you read English, Greek and Hebrew. I responded that I was not impressed therewith and to read what Paul said about having confidence in the flesh. Paul referred to his own personal achievements as "dung" (Php 3:5-8). And so should you. It wasn't an accusation on my part it was rather an observation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The whole dilemma surrounding UR vs ECT (I think) is really a matter of perspective. It's like Arminianism and Calvinism. They're both wrong if looked at from one side only. You need to see both sides of the same coin, and do so at the same time to get a clear understanding of how scripture presents it.

Yes, I was thinking this in the other thread. Dichotomies do not communicate truth, the truth tends to be found in discussions set free from either side.

 

[Der Alte]

I'm not sure what accusations I made. You stated that you read English, Greek and Hebrew. I responded that I was not impressed therewith and to read what Paul said about having confidence in the flesh. Paul referred to his own personal achievements as "dung" (Php 3:5-8). And so should you. It wasn't an accusation on my part it was rather an observation.

That's it exactly! Implying that my understanding of Hebrew and Greek is "dung" and "relying on" my own understanding. Since I have studied both Hebrew and Greek I do not require correction or explanation of either language from anonymous posters online who very likely don't know a hithpael from a hat or an aorist from an apple. I also have the most recent editions of both lexicons. Anything available free online is outdated.

 

[TahitiRun]

That's it exactly! Implying that my understanding of Hebrew and Greek is "dung" and "relying on" my own understanding. Since I have studied both Hebrew and Greek I do not require correction or explanation of either language from anonymous posters online who very likely don't know a hithpael from a hat or an aorist from an apple. I also have the most recent editions of both lexicons. Anything available free online is outdated.

My comments were directed towards the pride you exhibit in your responses. However, if you are now relying on your own understanding I would like to offer you 1Co 8:2 for reading.

I would imagine that many here, if not most, do have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek grammar, as well as the ability to open up a lexicon to study a particular Hebrew or Greek term of related interest, or it's grammatical syntax within a particular passage, etc. All of these type study materials are readily available whether purchased online or through your local College bookstore.

However, this is not were spiritual knowledge comes from. It's acquired through the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) lifting the words off the pages of your bible and transporting those words into your heart and therein revealing it's content.

 

[Der Alte]

My comments were directed towards the pride you exhibit in your responses. However, if you are now relying on your own understanding I would like to offer you 1Co 8:2 for reading.

I would imagine that many here, if not most, do have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek grammar, as well as the ability to open up a lexicon to study a particular Hebrew or Greek term of related interest, or it's grammatical syntax within a particular passage, etc. All of these type study materials are readily available whether purchased online or through your local College bookstore.

However, this is not were spiritual knowledge comes from. It's acquired through the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) lifting the words off the pages of your bible and transporting those words into your heart and therein revealing it's content.

Were you looking in a mirror when you made this post? Perhaps you should devote more time to exegeting scripture instead of judging and insulting other posters as you did in this and the previous post. While some posters here may have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and access to lexicons and grammars I see very little evidence of that. What I see mostly here are unsupported claims what particular words "really mean" or anonymous "scholars" being quoted as experts. As for "spiritual knowledge" one cannot have that without knowledge of the words.

 

[TahitiRun]

Were you looking in a mirror when you made this post? Perhaps you should devote more time to exegeting scripture instead of judging and insulting other posters as you did in this and the previous post. While some posters here may have a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and access to lexicons and grammars I see very little evidence of that. What I see mostly here are unsupported claims what particular words "really mean" or anonymous "scholars" being quoted as experts. As for "spiritual knowledge" one cannot have that without knowledge of the words.

LOL...no, I was actually looking at your posts. But, nonetheless, that was a funny retort. I really don't see how my posts are insulting you though. Please ignore them, if you do.

I've only been here a few days, and I see lots of people posting the Greek text, or snippets of it, and making an effort to provide exegesis thereof. I don't necessarily agree with the exegesis, but I do see it being done, and I think it's great. That's how we grow.

For example, I recall reading a post about the Greek subjunctive mood and how it always means potentiality rather than certainty. It usually does mean that, but not always. I checked the passage and found the verb was actually being used within a purpose-result clause where the result follows the purpose. In that particular instance the subjunctive mood was actually one of intention and its sure accomplishment as opposed to being simply potential. So even though I didn't agree with the post, or comment on it, I still found it of interest to read. So I think the forum is great even if I don't agree with everything being said.

 

[Der Alte]

LOL...no, I was actually looking at your posts. But, nonetheless, that was a funny retort. I really don't see how my posts are insulting you though. Please ignore them, if you do.

I've only been here a few days, and I see lots of people posting the Greek text, or snippets of it, and making an effort to provide exegesis thereof. I don't necessarily agree with the exegesis, but I do see it being done, and I think it's great. That's how we grow.

For example, I recall reading a post about the Greek subjunctive mood and how it always means potentiality rather than certainty. It usually does mean that, but not always. I checked the passage and found the verb was actually being used within a purpose-result clause where the result follows the purpose. In that particular instance the subjunctive mood was actually one of intention and its sure accomplishment as opposed to being simply potential. So even though I didn't agree with the post, or comment on it, I still found it of interest to read. So I think the forum is great even if I don't agree with everything being said.

Did a quick search on the koine subjunctive. A purpose clause is no indication that the action is certain.

Koine Greek: Verbs - Subjunctive - WikiChristian

wikichristian.org

 

[TahitiRun]

Did a quick search on the koine subjunctive. A purpose clause is no indication that the action is certain.

Koine Greek: Verbs - Subjunctive - WikiChristian

wikichristian.org

Did a quick search on the koine subjunctive. A purpose clause is no indication that the action is certain.

Koine Greek: Verbs - Subjunctive - WikiChristian

wikichristian.org

Read Daniel Wallace's Basics of NT Syntax, page 206, or simply read his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pages 471-477.

 

[Der Alte]

Read Daniel Wallace's Basics of NT Syntax, page 206, or simply read his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pages 471-477.

II. The Subjunctive Mood
A. Definition
1. General Definition
The subjunctive is the most common of the oblique moods in the NT. In general, the subjunctive can be said to represent the verbal action (or state) as uncertain but probable. It is not correct to call this the mood of uncertainty because the optative also presents the verb as uncertain. Rather, it is better to call it the mood of probability so as to distinguish it from the optative. Still, this is an overly simplistic definition in light of its usage in the NT.
2. Detailed Description
The subjunctive mood encompasses a multitude of nuances. An adequate description of it requires more nuancing than the mere notion of probability, especially in the Hellenistic era. The best way to describe it is in relation to the other potential moods, the optative and the imperative.
a. In Relation to the Optative
Descriptions of the subjunctive and optative moods in standard grammars sometimes tacitly assume that the optative was still in full flower in the Koine period. But it was in fact dying out. The reason is that it was too subtle for people acquiring Greek as a second language to grasp fully. You can see why: English-speaking students also have a great difficulty grasping the difference between these two moods. In the table given at the beginning of this chapter, for example, we described the subjunctive with “might” and the optative with “may.” We would be hard-pressed to state the difference between those two helper verbs, however. In the NT there are 1858 subjunctives and less than 70 optatives-a ratio of 27:1! This simple statistic reflects the fact that in the Hellenistic era the subjunctive is encroaching on the uses of the optative. The subjunctive thus, at times, is used for mere possibility or even hypothetical possibility (as well as, at other times, probability). This is especially true in conditional sentences (there are about 300 third class conditional sentences in the NT [this class involves the subjunctive], and not one complete fourth class condition [this class involves the optative]).

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 461–462.​

b. Ἳνα + the Subjunctive
The single most common category of the subjunctive in the NT is after ἵνα, comprising about one third of all subjunctive instances. There are seven basic uses included in this construction: purpose, result, purpose-result, substantival, epexegetical, complementary, and command. Its usage in the Koine period has increased from the classical as this construction came to be used as a periphrasis for the simple infinitive.
1) Purpose Ἳνα Clause (a.k.a. Final or Telic Ἳνα)
The most frequent use of ἵνα clauses is to express purpose. In classical Greek, this idea would have been expressed more often by the infinitive. The focus is on the intention of the action of the main verb, whether accomplished or not. In keeping with the genius of the subjunctive, this subordinate clause answers the question Why? rather than What? An appropriate translation would be in order that, or, where fitting, as a simple infinitive (to …).
We must not suppose that this use of the subjunctive necessarily implies any doubt about the fulfillment of the verbal action on the part of the speaker. This may or may not be so; each case must be judged on its own merits. The subjunctive is used, however, because it answers the implicit deliberative question. Further, many instances of purpose clauses shade off into result as well, especially when the divine will is in view. (See purpose-result category below.)
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 471–472.​

​

​

 

[TahitiRun]

II. The Subjunctive Mood​

A. Definition​

1. General Definition​

The subjunctive is the most common of the oblique moods in the NT. In general, the subjunctive can be said to represent the verbal action (or state) as uncertain but probable. It is not correct to call this the mood of uncertainty because the optative also presents the verb as uncertain. Rather, it is better to call it the mood of probability so as to distinguish it from the optative. Still, this is an overly simplistic definition in light of its usage in the NT.​

2. Detailed Description​

The subjunctive mood encompasses a multitude of nuances. An adequate description of it requires more nuancing than the mere notion of probability, especially in the Hellenistic era. The best way to describe it is in relation to the other potential moods, the optative and the imperative.​

a. In Relation to the Optative​

Descriptions of the subjunctive and optative moods in standard grammars sometimes tacitly assume that the optative was still in full flower in the Koine period. But it was in fact dying out. The reason is that it was too subtle for people acquiring Greek as a second language to grasp fully. You can see why: English-speaking students also have a great difficulty grasping the difference between these two moods. In the table given at the beginning of this chapter, for example, we described the subjunctive with “might” and the optative with “may.” We would be hard-pressed to state the difference between those two helper verbs, however. In the NT there are 1858 subjunctives and less than 70 optatives-a ratio of 27:1! This simple statistic reflects the fact that in the Hellenistic era the subjunctive is encroaching on the uses of the optative. The subjunctive thus, at times, is used for mere possibility or even hypothetical possibility (as well as, at other times, probability). This is especially true in conditional sentences (there are about 300 third class conditional sentences in the NT [this class involves the subjunctive], and not one complete fourth class condition [this class involves the optative]).​

​

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 461–462.​

b. Ἳνα + the Subjunctive​

The single most common category of the subjunctive in the NT is after ἵνα, comprising about one third of all subjunctive instances. There are seven basic uses included in this construction: purpose, result, purpose-result, substantival, epexegetical, complementary, and command. Its usage in the Koine period has increased from the classical as this construction came to be used as a periphrasis for the simple infinitive.​

1) Purpose Ἳνα Clause (a.k.a. Final or Telic Ἳνα)​

The most frequent use of ἵνα clauses is to express purpose. In classical Greek, this idea would have been expressed more often by the infinitive. The focus is on the intention of the action of the main verb, whether accomplished or not. In keeping with the genius of the subjunctive, this subordinate clause answers the question Why? rather than What? An appropriate translation would be in order that, or, where fitting, as a simple infinitive (to …).​

We must not suppose that this use of the subjunctive necessarily implies any doubt about the fulfillment of the verbal action on the part of the speaker. This may or may not be so; each case must be judged on its own merits. The subjunctive is used, however, because it answers the implicit deliberative question. Further, many instances of purpose clauses shade off into result as well, especially when the divine will is in view. (See purpose-result category below.)​

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 471–472.​

​

​

Keep reading to the purpose-result category, pages 473-474.

 

[TahitiRun]

Keep reading to the purpose-result category, pages 473-474.

You may or may not have all the pages to post, so I'll post an excerpt of my copy, here:

3) Purpose-Result Ἳνα Clause

Not only is ἵνα used for result in the NT, but also for purpose-result. That is, it indicates both the intention and its sure accomplishment. BAGD point out in this connection: “In many cases purpose and result cannot be clearly differentiated, and hence ἵνα is used for the result which follows according to the purpose of the subj[ect] or of God.

As in Jewish and pagan thought, purpose and result are identical in declarations of the divine will.” Likewise, Moule points out that “the Semitic mind was notoriously unwilling to draw a sharp dividing-line between purpose and consequence.” In other words, the NT writers employ the language to reflect their theology: what God purposes is what happens and, consequently, ἵνα is used to express both the divine purpose and the result.

This probably does not represent a change in syntax from classical to Koine, but a change in subject matter. It is, of course, possible to treat each of these examples as simply purpose ἵνα clauses in which there is evidently no doubt about the accomplishment from the speaker’s viewpoint. Hence, in order that is an acceptable gloss.

John 3:16 τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

He gave his only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him should not perish but should have eternal life.

The fact that the subjunctive is all but required after ἴνα does not, of course, argue for uncertainty as to the fate of the believer. This fact is obvious, not from this text, but from the use of of οὐ μή in John 10:28 and 11:26, as well as the general theological contours of the gospel of John.

Phil 2:9–11 ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν … ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ … καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός

God highly exalted him … in order that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow … and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Paul here is not declaring only God’s intention in exalting Christ. Much more than that. The apostle is indicating that what God intends he will carry out.

The evidence for this is that he is quoting Isa 45:23 here, though weaving it into his text in such a way that he alters it by turning it into a purpose clause (in the LXX it is a declarative statement using future indicatives after ὅτι). Paul quotes this text in Rom 14:11, though there he introduces it with an introductory formula (γέγραπται γάρ) and, consequently, leaves the moods and tenses as they were in the LXX.

The point is simply that since Paul is not directly or formally quoting the OT here, but has worked that quotation into his text by making it the purpose of the exaltation, the subjunctive is required after ἵνα. If both in Isa 45:23 and in Rom 14:11 the future indicative is a predictive future, then Paul seems to be using the Isaiah passage to declare that Jesus Christ is the one who will fulfill the prophecy made about Yahweh. If this is an accurate assessment of the future indicative, then Paul in Phil 2:10–11 is either misunderstanding the OT or he is declaring that Jesus Christ is true deity. This text is one of scores of incidental or almost casual uses of the OT by NT writers in which the OT spoke of YHWH while the NT writer applies the statement to Christ.

Cf. also Matt 1:22; 4:14; Luke 11:50; John 4:36; 12:40; 19:28; Rom 3:19; 5:20; 7:13; 8:17.

For other possible instances, cf. Mark 4:12 (par. Luke 8:10); Rom 7:4; Eph 2:7; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 John 1:9.

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 473–474.

 

[Der Alte]

You may or may not have all the pages to post, so I'll post an excerpt of my copy, here:

3) Purpose-Result Ἳνα Clause

Not only is ἵνα used for result in the NT, but also for purpose-result. That is, it indicates both the intention and its sure accomplishment. BAGD point out in this connection: “In many cases purpose and result cannot be clearly differentiated, and hence ἵνα is used for the result which follows according to the purpose of the subj[ect] or of God.

As in Jewish and pagan thought, purpose and result are identical in declarations of the divine will.” Likewise, Moule points out that “the Semitic mind was notoriously unwilling to draw a sharp dividing-line between purpose and consequence.” In other words, the NT writers employ the language to reflect their theology: what God purposes is what happens and, consequently, ἵνα is used to express both the divine purpose and the result.

This probably does not represent a change in syntax from classical to Koine, but a change in subject matter. It is, of course, possible to treat each of these examples as simply purpose ἵνα clauses in which there is evidently no doubt about the accomplishment from the speaker’s viewpoint. Hence, in order that is an acceptable gloss.

John 3:16 τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

He gave his only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him should not perish but should have eternal life.

The fact that the subjunctive is all but required after ἴνα does not, of course, argue for uncertainty as to the fate of the believer. This fact is obvious, not from this text, but from the use of of οὐ μή in John 10:28 and 11:26, as well as the general theological contours of the gospel of John.

Phil 2:9–11 ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν … ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ … καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός

God highly exalted him … in order that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow … and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Paul here is not declaring only God’s intention in exalting Christ. Much more than that. The apostle is indicating that what God intends he will carry out.

The evidence for this is that he is quoting Isa 45:23 here, though weaving it into his text in such a way that he alters it by turning it into a purpose clause (in the LXX it is a declarative statement using future indicatives after ὅτι). Paul quotes this text in Rom 14:11, though there he introduces it with an introductory formula (γέγραπται γάρ) and, consequently, leaves the moods and tenses as they were in the LXX.

The point is simply that since Paul is not directly or formally quoting the OT here, but has worked that quotation into his text by making it the purpose of the exaltation, the subjunctive is required after ἵνα. If both in Isa 45:23 and in Rom 14:11 the future indicative is a predictive future, then Paul seems to be using the Isaiah passage to declare that Jesus Christ is the one who will fulfill the prophecy made about Yahweh. If this is an accurate assessment of the future indicative, then Paul in Phil 2:10–11 is either misunderstanding the OT or he is declaring that Jesus Christ is true deity. This text is one of scores of incidental or almost casual uses of the OT by NT writers in which the OT spoke of YHWH while the NT writer applies the statement to Christ.

Cf. also Matt 1:22; 4:14; Luke 11:50; John 4:36; 12:40; 19:28; Rom 3:19; 5:20; 7:13; 8:17.

For other possible instances, cf. Mark 4:12 (par. Luke 8:10); Rom 7:4; Eph 2:7; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 John 1:9.

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 473–474.

Excellent quotation but please show me where either God, Jesus, Paul or Wallace said or implied that even those who do not believe in Jesus will be saved and will, in fact, bow their knees just as those who believed?
See Philp 2:9-11 above. Is everybody here arguing that unbelievers will be forced to become believers? If so see e.g. Jeremiah 13:11-14, Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 25:46, Romans 1:24, Romans 1:26, Romans 1:28, Revelation 20:15