Appendix C
A Key-Word Reference for the Original Languages
Some debates come down to a single word. Translate it one way, and the case looks closed. Translate it another, and the whole picture shifts. This book touches on several words like that. Greek words like aiōnios ("eternal" or "of the age"?), kolasis ("punishment" or "correction"?), and apollumi ("destroy" or "lose"?). Hebrew words like olam ("forever" or "an age"?). Each one gets a full hearing in the chapter named below.
This appendix gathers those word-studies in one place. Think of it as a reference shelf you can check without hunting through thirty chapters. For each word I give the range of meaning, the disputed point, the traditional reading, and the reading this book defends. I name the standard lexicons so you can look them up yourself. And I point you to the chapter where the full argument lives.
A word of honesty before we begin. I believe the lexical evidence supports the larger hope. But I will not claim that a word-study alone settles the question. Words live in sentences, sentences in books, and books in the whole counsel of God. A single entry in a dictionary does not decide a doctrine. The entries below inform the argument. They do not replace it.1
How to Use This Appendix
Each entry opens with the English word most readers know, followed by the Greek or Hebrew in italics with a plain gloss. The "Range of Meaning" section gives the lexical spread. The "Disputed Point" names what is at stake. The "Traditional Reading" states the case against the larger hope. The "This Book's Reading" gives the reading this book defends. Footnotes carry the fuller scholarly detail. Every entry points to the chapter where the word is argued in its biblical context.
Argued fully in: Chapter 18
The Greek noun aiōn (from which English gets "eon") means a period of time, an age, or a span of life.2 It appears in the New Testament roughly 125 times. Its range runs from a single lifetime to a great age in God's plan. The word does not carry a built-in meaning of "endless." Aristotle used it for the span of any creature's life.
Marvin Vincent, in his Word Studies in the New Testament, wrote that the word "always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity."3 BDAG, the standard New Testament lexicon, gives "a long period of time" and "an age." LSJ, the classical Greek lexicon, agrees. It lists "lifetime" and "a long period."4
The adjective aiōnios follows from the noun. An adjective takes its force from the noun it modifies. The adjective of "hour" is "hourly." The adjective of "day" is "daily." The adjective of aiōn (age) is aiōnios (of the age, pertaining to the age). Vincent notes that aiōnios "in like manner carries the idea of time." He adds a key conclusion: "Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting."5 Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan reach the same conclusion in their study Terms for Eternity. They write that aiōnios "does not mean 'eternal'" in itself.6
The Hebrew word olam, which aiōnios translates throughout the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), means time stretching beyond the horizon, a period whose end is not seen.7 HALOT and BDB both give the basic sense as "long duration" or "far-off time." In the Old Testament, olam applies to things that plainly ended. Jonah was in the fish "forever" (olam), but only three days. The Mosaic priesthood was "everlasting" (olam), but it gave way to Melchizedek's order. The hills are "everlasting" (olam), but Habakkuk 3:6 says they were scattered.8
When Jesus says "eternal punishment" and "eternal life" in Matthew 25:46, does the word aiōnios mean "endless in duration" in both cases? This is the single most contested word in the entire debate.
James B. De Young argues in Chapter 1 of Exposing Universalism that aiōnios in the New Testament carries the sense of "everlasting." He goes straight to the standard lexicons. BDAG, he notes, gives four definitions for the noun aiōn. One of those definitions is "very long time, eternity (which is a time to come that has no end)." The adjective carries the meanings "without beginning," "without beginning or end (esp. of God)," and "without end." De Young charges that universalists fail to use these standard resources. He further cites TDNT, which states that aiōn "has the full significance of eternity when it is linked with the concept of God." He then points to the parallel in Matthew 25:46. The same word modifies both "punishment" and "life." If the life is everlasting, he says, the punishment must be too.9
Michael McClymond presses the point further in The Devil's Redemption, Appendix J ("Words and Concepts for Time and Eternity"). He warns that one can only determine the meaning of aiōnios by close reading of the word in its literary context. He challenges Ramelli and Konstan's attempt to draw a sharp line between aiōnios and aidios. Their claim that aidios "never refers to punishment" in the New Testament runs into a wall: in Jude 6, aidios describes the "eternal chains" (desmois aidiois) binding the disobedient angels. McClymond also notes that the debate cannot rest on aiōnios alone. Other New Testament phrases speak of the duration of punishment without using that word at all: "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48). These phrases, he argues, at least on the surface, seem to suggest endless duration.10
I take this argument seriously. It is the strongest single lexical case for the traditional view. McClymond puts the sharpest version of the challenge this way: if aiōnios means "age-long" and limited in duration, then in Matthew 25:46 heaven as well as hell must come to an end. He is right that the purely durational version of the universalist argument has no effective answer to this point.10
But the evidence does not settle the matter the way the traditionalist hopes. The best answer is not "the duration is limited." It is that the word is not primarily about duration at all. The word aiōnios can carry the sense of "pertaining to the age" or "of the age to come." It does not require the meaning "endless." It derives from aiōn, a word that is almost always time-bound. In four-fifths of its Septuagint uses, it implies limited duration.5 Several respected translations render Matthew 25:46 without the word "everlasting." Young's Literal Translation reads "punishment age-during." The Rotherham Translation reads "age-abiding correction." The Concordant Literal Translation reads "chastening eonian." Each translator chose a different phrase, but none used "everlasting."11
I want to be honest. The word can carry the sense of "everlasting" when it describes the life of God, who has no end. The question is whether it must carry that sense in every case. The lexical evidence says no. Thomas Talbott puts the point well. In the New Testament, aiōnios applies primarily to God and to the gifts, actions, and possessions of God. Other things are "eternal" in a secondary sense: they have their source in the eternal God. Eternal punishment is therefore punishment that comes from the eternal God and belongs to the age to come. It is not necessarily punishment that lasts forever. It is divine punishment, age-of-the-coming-world punishment.50 The parallel in Matthew 25:46 is real but not decisive. The duration of aiōnios depends on the thing it describes. Life in union with Christ is truly unending, because Christ is unending. Correction that aims to restore is not. The full argument lives in Chapter 18.
One more thing. If the writers of the New Testament had wanted a word that unambiguously means "eternal," Greek had one: aidios. Ramelli and Konstan note that this is the word that carries the strict sense of "everlasting" without ambiguity.12 McClymond challenges this point. He notes that aidios appears only twice in the New Testament, too few times to draw firm conclusions. And one of those two uses is in Jude 6, where it describes the "eternal chains" binding fallen angels. That use, McClymond argues, does refer to God's punishment.10 The challenge is real. But it does not undo the larger pattern. The early Church Fathers were native Greek speakers. Clement of Alexandria and Origen used aidios for eternal blessedness. But they used the more flexible aiōnios for punishment. They saw no conflict between aiōnios punishment and the hope of final restoration.13
Argued fully in: Chapter 19
The Greek word kolasis appears in Matthew 25:46 ("eternal punishment") and in 1 John 4:18 ("fear has to do with punishment"). In classical Greek it meant the pruning of trees. From there it came to mean corrective discipline, aimed at improving the offender. BDAG gives "punishment" and "chastisement." TDNT traces its meaning from pruning to discipline.14
A different word, timōria, carries the idea of retributive punishment. This is the kind of punishment that satisfies the punisher's sense of justice. Archbishop Trench, in New Testament Synonyms, explains the distinction. Timōria "emphasizes the vindictive character of punishment." By contrast, kolasis "refers to punishment that is designed to correct and better the offender."15 Aristotle drew the same line. He taught that kolasis is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer. Timōria is inflicted in the interest of the one who punishes.16
Why This Distinction Matters
If Jesus had wanted to describe endless vindictive torment, Greek had a word for that: timōria. The Pharisees and Josephus used it when they meant eternal retribution, paired with aidios ("eternal") for emphasis. Jesus chose kolasis instead. The word choice is not accidental. It is not proof by itself. But it fits a picture of punishment that serves a purpose, and that ends when its purpose is done.
Does kolasis in Matthew 25:46 describe punishment with a corrective aim? That kind of punishment could end. Or has the word broadened to mean "punishment" in general by the first century?
De Young and other traditionalists argue that by the time of the New Testament, the line between kolasis and timōria had blurred. In the Septuagint, kolasis sometimes appears in retributive contexts.17 De Young adds a sharper challenge. If corrective discipline was the meaning Jesus intended, Greek had a word for that too: paideia. The lexicons identify paideia as clearly signifying "punishment with a view to correction." The writer of Hebrews uses the noun and verb in every verse of Hebrews 12:7–11. Every translation renders them as "discipline." If corrective discipline was what Matthew 25:46 means, De Young asks, why was paideia not used there?17 Hunter Coates, in Grace Abounds, admits that the Septuagint uses "seem to take a more generic meaning." The verb kolazō in 2 Peter 2:9 describes fallen angels held for judgment. That does not fit a neat corrective picture.18
I grant that the distinction was not always sharp in later usage. And De Young's point about paideia deserves an honest answer. If Jesus had wanted to say "discipline," the word was available. But kolasis is not the opposite of discipline. It sits between paideia (the training of a child) and timōria (sheer retribution). Its classical sense of pruning and correcting was still alive in the first century, even if the edges had softened. The real question is not whether kolasis proves correction by itself. It is whether the word is compatible with a corrective reading. And it is. William Barclay, a respected Greek scholar, noted that kolasis "originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better."19
Barclay added that in all Greek secular writing, kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. Thomas Talbott observes that even harsh punishments can serve a saving purpose. Paul delivered a man to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved" (1 Corinthians 5:5).20 R. Zachary Manis adds another angle. On the divine-presence model of hell, the scriptural language of kolasis is used "analogically." Exposure to God's unveiled presence forces the damned to reap what they have sown. The experience feels like retribution to those who suffer it, but the divine intent behind it is the fulfillment of each person's highest good.51
The early Greek-speaking Church Fathers recognized this distinction. Clement of Alexandria adopted the Aristotelian definition. He distinguished kolasis as "absolute discipline" from timōria as "the return of evil for evil." Basil the Great spoke of otherworldly fire as pur kolastikon, a corrective fire. Gregory of Nyssa used the same word family for the correction of sinners in the age to come.21
The Pharisees themselves reveal the contrast. When they meant endless retribution, they used phrases like aidios timōria ("eternal torture") and timorion adialeipton ("unending torment"). Josephus reports these exact phrases. Jesus chose none of them. He said kolasis aiōnios: "correction of the age."22 The full case is in Chapter 19.
Argued fully in: Chapter 27
Three related Greek words appear in passages about the fate of the lost. Apollumi is the verb. Its range surprises many people. It can mean "destroy" or "kill," but also "lose" or "suffer the loss of." In the middle voice, it means "perish." Kittel's TDNT lists four senses: to destroy, to lose, to perish, and to be lost.23
Olethros means "ruin" or "destruction." It appears four times in the New Testament. The most discussed is 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (Greek: olethros aiōnios), often translated "everlasting destruction." Apōleia means "destruction," "waste," or "loss of well-being." W. E. Vine defines it as "loss of well-being, not of being."24
The Lost Sheep Is Not Annihilated
Jesus used apollumi for the lost sheep that the shepherd goes out to find (Luke 15:4). The sheep was not annihilated. It was lost. The prodigal son was "lost" (apollumi) and then "found" (Luke 15:24). Most striking of all: the very people Christ came to save are the "destroyed" ones. "The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost [apollumi]" (Luke 19:10). Being "destroyed" in this word's range is what qualifies someone for salvation. It does not put salvation beyond reach.
Do these words describe the total end of a person? That is the conditionalist reading. Do they describe a person who endures forever in a state of ruin? That is the traditionalist reading. Or do they describe the destruction of what is evil in a person, so that the person is restored? That is the reading this book defends.
Traditionalists like De Young argue that "destroy" here means "ruin," so these texts permit the idea of a person who endures in a state of ruin forever. Conditionalists like Edward Fudge and John Stott argue the opposite: "destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28) means what it says, the cessation of existence.25
I think both readings miss part of the picture. The conditionalists are right against the traditionalists on one key point: "destroy" is not "preserve forever in agony." The natural sense of destruction is not endless preservation. On that point I side with the conditionalists.
But the Bible's own use of apollumi opens a third reading. Paul tells the Corinthians to deliver a sinning man "to Satan for the destruction (olethros) of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved" (1 Corinthians 5:5). Here destruction serves salvation. The flesh is destroyed. The person is saved. Robin Parry calls this "a particularly interesting context." The destruction was an annihilation of the man's sinful nature, not of his humanity or his existence. "The destruction was intended for his own good and salvation."52 Paul also uses apollumi in Romans 14:15 for a brother "destroyed" by food. A few verses later he defines his own meaning: "tear down," "stumble," "offend," and "made weak" (Romans 14:20-21). None of these mean annihilation.26
George Sidney Hurd captures the point well: destruction is not the same as annihilation. A building destroyed by an earthquake is in ruins, but it has not ceased to exist. Some ruins are restored.27 The full case, including the honest relationship to conditional immortality, is in Chapter 27.
Argued fully in: Chapter 4 and Chapter 5
The Greek word pas is one of the most common words in the New Testament. BDAG gives its basic senses as "each," "every," and "all." The King James Version translates it "all" 748 times, "every" 117 times, and "all men" 41 times, among other renderings.28 In itself, the word is a universal quantifier. It reaches as far as the context allows.
When Paul writes "as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22), does the second "all" have the same scope as the first? Is the "all" who are made alive in Christ the same "all" who die in Adam, that is, every human being? Or does the context restrict the second "all" to believers only?
De Young argues in Chapter 9 of Exposing Universalism that the second "all" is limited by context to "all who are in Christ," meaning those who believe. On this reading, the parallel is one of kind rather than scope. Just as death came through one man, so life comes through one man. But the "all" who receive life are only those who believe. De Young presses the point further. The reconciliation texts, he argues, "must be interpreted otherwise, as meaning that Christ's death is sufficient for all but effective only for those who exercise faith." He notes that faith is the "heart of the gospel and the only means of receiving salvation" (Romans 1:16–17; Ephesians 2:8–9; John 3:16–18). Believing in Christ, he charges, goes "virtually unmentioned in universalism."29
I find this reading strained. Romans 5:18 puts the two "all"s in exact parallel. The Greek structure is hōs ... houtōs ("as ... so"): "as one trespass led to condemnation for all, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all." The burden of proof falls on anyone who reads one "all" as universal and the other as restricted. If "all" means "every human being" on the left side, the most natural reading gives it the same scope on the right.30 Talbott puts this forcefully. Paul used the same pattern in Romans 11:32 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. In each, the first "all" determines the scope of the second. To read the second "all" as narrower than the first, one must assume what the text is denying.53
Robin Parry surveys the interpretive options for 1 Corinthians 15:22 in his Evangelical Universalist. Some scholars (Bell, De Boer, Hillert) argue that the "all" of 15:22 does indeed refer to all humanity. The Christians named in verse 23 are a representative group within that larger "all," not an exclusive boundary around it. Talbott reads verses 22–24 as three stages of resurrection, with the "rest" of humanity raised at the end.54 Hronich adds a further point: the verb "made alive" (zōopoieō) in the New Testament is never used for anything but a positive, even glorious, outcome. Paul himself longed for the resurrection because it held glory. A resurrection that raised some for endless torment would be hard to square with Paul's tone.55
The same pattern repeats in text after text. God is "the Savior of all men" (1 Timothy 4:10). Christ gave himself "a ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:6). God desires "all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4). The "restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21) uses the genitive pantōn, which can mean "all things," "all people," or "all." The scope of "all" in each case is the natural universal reading. The limiting reading must be imported from outside the grammar.31 Beilby, in his Postmortem Opportunity, notes the standard counterargument: that "all" means "all without distinction rather than all without exception." But he shows that this popular distinction cannot account for texts like 1 John 2:2. There John deliberately expands the scope beyond "us" to include "the whole world."56
This book's claim is not that "all" automatically means "all saved apart from faith." It means all saved through faith, through Christ, through the cross. De Young is right that faith is the heart of the gospel. This book agrees. The "all" is the scope of Christ's work. The faith is the means by which each person receives it. The universalist hope is that both are real: the scope is universal, and the faith will, in the end, be universal too. Not because faith is bypassed, but because God's patient, persistent, and perfectly wise appeal (see Chapter 29) will finally win a free "yes" from every soul.
Argued fully in: Chapter 18
English Bibles use the word "hell" to translate four very different words. That single translation obscures four distinct meanings.32
Gehenna (Greek for the Hebrew "Valley of Hinnom") was a real valley southwest of Jerusalem. It was the site where King Ahaz had practiced child sacrifice to Molech (2 Chronicles 28:3). King Josiah declared it cursed. It became the city's refuse dump, where fire smoldered and worms bred. By the time of Jesus, the name had become a metaphor for judgment. William Barclay notes that Gehenna was "a kind of public incinerator."33 Sharon Baker, in Razing Hell, gives the picture more color. The people dumped their trash in Gehenna, "where it burned day and night. The fire never went out." Dead bodies of criminals were tossed there too.57 Most Jewish rabbis before Jesus understood Gehenna as temporary. They saw it as a place of purifying fire lasting no more than twelve months.34 Robin Parry notes that the concept of Gehenna in Second Temple literature was "evocative but highly ambiguous and somewhat flexible." There was no single, developed Jewish understanding of Gehenna in Jesus' day that He could take "off the peg" and use.58
Hadēs is the Greek name for the Hebrew Sheol. Both mean the realm of the dead, the place of departed souls. Strong's defines Hadēs as "unseen." It is not a place of punishment in itself. Both the righteous and the unrighteous go there to await judgment. Stephen Jonathan, in Grace Beyond the Grave, notes the confusion that arose from translating both Hades and Gehenna as "hell" in the King James Version. The two words carry quite different meanings.59 The Psalmist writes: "God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol" (Psalm 49:15). Hosea proclaims: "O Sheol, I will be your destruction" (Hosea 13:14). Jesus holds "the keys of Hades and Death" (Revelation 1:18). Paul asks, "O Hades, where is your victory?" (1 Corinthians 15:55). In Revelation 20:14, Hades itself is thrown into the lake of fire. It is not the final state.35
Tartaros appears only once in the New Testament (2 Peter 2:4), as a holding place for fallen angels awaiting judgment. It is borrowed from Greek mythology but used simply as a name for a temporary prison.36
Why Does This Matter?
When the King James Version translates all four of these words as "hell," it creates the impression of one place of endless torment. But the original words describe a garbage dump (Gehenna), a temporary waiting place for the dead (Hades/Sheol), and a holding cell for fallen angels (Tartaros). None of them, in their original meaning, requires endless conscious torment. Reading them accurately opens space for the biblical picture this book defends: judgment that is real, severe, and purposeful, with restoration as its end.
Do these words describe a single, unified place of eternal punishment? Or do they point to distinct realities, none of which requires the traditional doctrine of endless torment?
Traditionalists tend to treat all four words as names for the same final, eternal state. De Young argues in Chapter 2 of Exposing Universalism that the fire imagery describes a real and eternal separation from God. He goes to the lexicons. BDAG, he notes, defines "hell" in the Gospels as "the place of punishment in the next life." EDNT (the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament) says that Gehenna "designates the ‘place of eternal punishing fire.’" De Young charges that universalism's attempts to redefine these terms fail to account for the standard resources. Whether drawn from Gehenna or from Revelation, the picture is the same on his reading.37
I think the traditional conflation loses the texture of the original words. Gehenna is not Hades, and neither is Tartaros. Jesus used the image of the garbage dump outside Jerusalem to warn about the fruit of unrepentance. The rabbis of His day understood it as temporary and purifying. Hades and Sheol name a waiting place, not a final place. Scripture promises their destruction. The four words together paint a picture of real judgment. But they do not paint the single, endless "hell" that later tradition built.
Hunter Coates makes a fair-minded observation: the eschatological meaning of Gehenna is genuinely fuzzy. "We genuinely do not know" precisely what it signifies beyond some form of post-mortem punishment. "We should act with great caution when staking claims" about coherent eschatological doctrines drawn from the Gehenna sayings alone.38 That caution cuts both ways. It should restrain the universalist from over-claiming. But it should also restrain the traditionalist from building an entire doctrine of eternal torment on a metaphor drawn from a garbage dump.
Andrew Hronich, in Once Loved Always Loved, offers a vivid illustration that puts the point concretely. Today, the valley of Hinnom is a park. Gey Ben Hinnom Park, to be precise. Where parents once sacrificed children to Molech, parents now bring their children to community concerts. There is even a sign in the park with the image of a flame and a "no" symbol: no campfires allowed. The fires of Gehenna do not have the final word. Hronich calls it "living proof of how God can turn a hell on earth into a garden park." God foretold through Jeremiah that the whole valley "shall be sacred to the Lord." It "shall not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever" (Jeremiah 31:38–40).60
Argued fully in: Chapter 13
The Greek noun apokatastasis means "restoration" or "return to a former state." It appears in Acts 3:21. There Peter preaches that heaven must receive Christ "until the times of restoration of all things." The Greek phrase is apokatastasis pantōn. Peter says this is what "God spoke by the mouth of all His holy prophets."
The verb form apokathistemi appears in Matthew 17:11, where Jesus says Elijah "will restore all things." BDAG gives the sense as "restoration to an earlier condition." LSJ gives "re-establishment." TDNT traces the word from its medical use (restoring health) to its political use (restoring a people) to its theological use (restoring creation).39
Does the "restoration of all things" in Acts 3:21 include the restoration of all people to God? Or does it refer only to the restoration of cosmic conditions, the renewal of the created order, without implying that every person is saved?
De Young argues in a footnote to his discussion of the passage that apokatastasis "probably refers to the restoration of all the conditions in which people live because of sin, not the restoration of every person to fellowship with God."40
I find this reading hard to sustain. The early Greek Church Fathers still spoke the language as their native tongue. They understood the phrase to include all rational creatures. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa all drew the name for the hope from this verse. If the Greek wording ruled out a personal restoration, their opponents would have said so.41
Moreover, the English word "things" in most translations is misleading. The Greek pantōn is simply the genitive of pas ("all"). It can mean "all things," "all people," or simply "all." The Concordant Literal Version renders it "the restoration of all."
Hronich, in Once Loved Always Loved, points out a telling translation difference. The ESV inserts the word "the" to read "the restoration of the things" — as if only some things are restored. Nearly every other major translation simply reads "the restoration of all things." The NASB, the KJV, the NLT, and Hart's translation all omit the narrowing article.61
Hronich follows Peter's logic further. In context (Acts 3:19–25), the restoration parallels "times of refreshing." It is connected to the Abrahamic promise that "in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed." And it is what "all the prophets who have spoken" have announced. The fulfillment of this promise is tied to all having repented and had their sins remitted.62
As Hurd points out, the restoration "spoken by the prophets since the very beginning" is chiefly about people. The prophetic promises look forward to people being healed, nations being reconciled, and the dead being raised.42 Parry makes a related point from Colossians 1:20. The word Paul uses for the reconciling of "all things" is apokatallassō. The "all things" reconciled in that verse are the same "all things" created in verse 16. That means "every single created thing." And the reconciliation Paul describes is salvific. It brings peace with God. For Paul, peace with God is always a saving reality, not a euphemism for subjugation.63
A "restoration of all things" that leaves most people unrestored is a strange kind of restoration. The full argument lives in Chapter 13.
Argued fully in: Chapter 11
The Greek word hilasmos appears twice in the New Testament, both times in John's letters. In 1 John 2:2, John writes: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." The second use is in 1 John 4:10: "He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
BDAG gives "means of expiation" or "propitiation." TDNT traces the word from its classical use (appeasing the gods) through the Old Testament (the Day of Atonement) to the New Testament (Christ's sacrifice). The debate is whether to stress propitiation (turning away wrath) or expiation (removing sin). Both senses are present.43
The crucial question is not really about the word hilasmos itself. It is about its scope. Does "the sins of the whole world" (holou tou kosmou) mean every human being without exception? Or does "the whole world" mean "the elect from every nation"?
The Reformed tradition, as De Young presents it, reads "whole world" as "people from every nation." On this view, the propitiation is "sufficient for all, efficient for some." It is available in principle but applied only to believers.44
John's language is hard to narrow. He does not say "the sins of the elect throughout the world." He says "the sins of the whole world." The deliberate widening ("not for ours only but also") seems designed to block the very limiting move the Reformed reading makes.
Hronich surveys the word "world" (kosmos) in 1 John. It appears twenty-eight times. In twenty-six of those uses it carries either a comprehensive sense or the narrower sense of "the world of the unsaved." There is no basis for reading "the whole world" in 2:2 as "the elect." If 1 John is a catholic epistle, then "our" refers to Christians in general. "The whole world" refers to those outside the church.64 If the propitiation removes the sin of the whole world, what finally keeps any sinner out?45
Beilby likewise argues for the unlimited scope of the atonement. He notes the deliberate expansion in 1 John 2:2 ("not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world"). He also cites 2 Peter 2:1, where even false teachers are said to have been "bought" by the Master. These texts, Beilby argues, make it very hard to limit the atonement's intent to the elect. The atonement is an act of God. If God intends its scope to be universal, no human choice can frustrate that intent.65
Hurd puts it directly. If Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, and if He takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), then the salvation of the whole world was won at the cross. Not all have yet received it. But provision was made for all. This book's hope is that all will, in the end, receive it through faith.46 The full argument lives in Chapter 11.
Argued fully in: Chapter 8
The Greek verb helkō appears eight times in the New Testament. Its basic meaning is "to draw" or "to drag." Strong's defines it as "drag, literally or figuratively." BDAG gives "to move an object from one area to another in a pulling motion, draw." The word carries the implication of force. It is not a gentle invitation. Peter drew a sword with this word (John 18:10). A full fishing net was dragged to shore with it (John 21:11). Paul and Silas were dragged into the marketplace with it (Acts 16:19). The rich dragged the poor into court with it (James 2:6).47
When Jesus says, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw [helkō] all people to myself" (John 12:32), is this drawing irresistible and universal in its final effect? Or is it a persuasive appeal that people may freely reject?
De Young argues that helkō describes "the pull on a person's inner life," which can be resisted. He cites BDAG directly. The standard lexicon defines helkō in John 12 as figurative, meaning "to attract." On this reading, Christ draws all in the sense of reaching out to all. But many effectively resist until death, at which point His drawing stops. De Young adds that universalists face a contradiction here. If they read helkō as irresistible force, they undermine their own claim that the fires of hell are corrective and therapeutic rather than coercive. A God who "forcibly drags" all people to Himself, De Young objects, is not the God of gentle persuasion that universalists describe elsewhere.48
I find De Young's reading hard to match with how the word is actually used. In all eight New Testament appearances, helkō describes a force that overcomes resistance. The net does not resist the fisherman. The sword does not resist the hand. Paul and Silas do not resist the mob. The same word appears in John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." If drawing is what makes coming possible, and if Christ draws all, then all are made able to come.49
Talbott draws out the implication. Leon Morris tried to reduce "I will draw all people to myself" to a tautology: "I will draw to myself all of those whom I draw to myself." Morris called the words "all people" a "problem." But Talbott points out that the problem is not in the context. Nothing in John 12:32 limits the scope. The problem was the Augustinian picture Morris brought to it, the conviction that "in fact not every man is drawn to Christ." Remove that conviction, and the text says what it says: Christ will draw all.66
Parry builds on this. In the Bread of Life discourse (John 6), the Father wills to give life to all who come in faith. No one can come unless the Father draws. And when the Father draws, the drawn one comes. Now read John 12:32 alongside those premises: Christ will draw all to Himself. The word "draw" (helkō) is the same one used in John 6. Parry notes that Jesus says He will draw all, not merely that He offers salvation to all. Further, John 3:35 says the Father has "given all things" into the Son's hands, and John 6:39 says Christ will "lose nothing" of all the Father has given Him. Together, these texts open a clear line of Johannine hope.67
I want to be careful here. This book does not read helkō as overriding free will. De Young spots a real tension. If I say that God's drawing is irresistible force, and I also say that God's fire is gentle correction, I am pulled in two directions. His challenge is fair. But the tension dissolves if we understand the drawing as the love of God made irresistibly persuasive by the cross ("when I am lifted up"). God draws each person in the way that finally wins a free "yes," without coercion. This is not a contradiction. It is a distinction between the power of love and the power of force. A love that knows each person perfectly (see Chapter 29, on middle knowledge) can draw without dragging. The full case, including the role of middle knowledge in this picture, lives in Chapter 8 and Chapter 29.
Words Inform; They Do Not Settle
This appendix gathers the lexical evidence in one place. The evidence matters. But the hope of this book does not hang on a single dictionary entry. No one Greek word proves universal salvation, just as no one Greek word proves eternal conscious torment. The case is cumulative: the words, read honestly and in their full range, fit inside a larger picture that the whole counsel of Scripture paints. The chapters named above carry that larger picture. These word-studies sharpen the tools. The carpenter is the argument itself.
I have tried to play fair with these words. Where a word can genuinely carry the traditional meaning, I have said so. Where the evidence leans against the traditional reading, I have shown why. Where honest scholars disagree about what a first-century audience would have heard, I have let the disagreement stand.
What I have not done is rest the case on a dictionary alone. The argument of this book lives in the biblical texts where these words appear. It lives in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, in Matthew 25, in John 12, in Acts 3, in 1 John 2, in 2 Thessalonians 1, and across the whole story of Scripture. The words carry the weight. But the story carries the hope. And the story, as I read it, ends with God being all in all (see Chapter 30).
↑ 1. This principle is well expressed in the hermeneutical maxim that a word-study informs but does not determine theology. See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), ch. 1, on the "word-study fallacy."
↑ 2. BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., ed. Frederick William Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000]) s.v. αἰών, gives "a long period of time, without ref. to beginning or end," "a segment of time as a particular unit of history, age," and related senses.
↑ 3. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. IV (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 58–59. Vincent adds: "It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life."
↑ 4. LSJ (A Greek-English Lexicon, compiled by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, rev. by Henry Stuart Jones, 9th ed. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1996]) s.v. αἰών.
↑ 5. Vincent, Word Studies, IV:59. Vincent notes that aiōnios occurs 150 times in the Septuagint, and "in four-fifths of those cases, the term implies limited duration." Thomas Talbott reaches a compatible conclusion by a different route: aiōnios in the New Testament "appears to have a special religious meaning that has nothing to do with the duration of temporal events." See Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), ch. 5.
↑ 6. Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aiōnios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013), 238. Their conclusion after surveying the full classical and Christian usage.
↑ 7. BDB (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs [Oxford: Clarendon, 1907]) s.v. עֹלָם gives "long duration, antiquity, futurity." HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, rev. ed. [Leiden: Brill, 2001]) gives "most distant time, eternity." The Encyclopedia of the Bible defines olam as "times undetermined, remote, obscure, whether it be past or future." Cited in George Sidney Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism (2019), ch. 1.
↑ 8. These examples are compiled from Gerry Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell: The Righteous Purpose of God’s Judgment, ch. 1 ("Aion and Aionios"), and Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 1. See also Sharon L. Baker, Razing Hell: Rethinking Everlasting Torment and the Love of God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), ch. 10, who walks through Jonah 2:6, Philemon 15, Romans 12:2, and John 9:32 to show that olam and aiōn never mean "eternity" in our modern sense when applied to created things. See Jonah 1:17; 2:6; Ezekiel 16:53–55; Exodus 21:6; Leviticus 24:8; Hebrews 8:7–13; Habakkuk 3:6.
↑ 9. James B. De Young, Exposing Universalism (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2018), ch. 1, "The Meaning of the Word ‘Age.’" De Young cites BDAG’s four definitions for aiōn, including "very long time, eternity (which is a time to come that has no end)," and the adjective's senses of "without beginning," "without beginning or end (esp. of God)," and "without end." He then cites TDNT 1:198–202, noting that aiōn "has the full significance of eternity when it is linked with the concept of God" and that "eternity is thought of as unending time — for how else can human thought picture it?" De Young charges that universalists’ failure to cite standard lexicons like BDAG "makes any claims that universalism asserts regarding the meaning of aiōn suspect and unconvincing." He adds that universalism commits the "root fallacy" by insisting that the same Greek word should always receive the same English translation regardless of context.
↑ 10. Michael J. McClymond, The Devil’s Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), V 2, pp. 1141–48, Appendix J, "Words and Concepts for Time and Eternity." McClymond cites Jan van der Watt's review of Ramelli and Konstan: "The same word (e.g., aiōnios) can be used with different meanings, while different words can be used within the same semantic field with basically the same meaning." McClymond challenges Ramelli's claim that aidios "never refers to punishment" by pointing to Jude 6, where the disobedient angels are bound in desmois aidiois ("eternal chains"). He also notes that aiōnios is not the only word that speaks of duration: Mark 9:48 (“where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched”) and the “unquenchable fire” of Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17 suggest endless duration independently of aiōnios. On the "age-long" argument, McClymond concludes that it "fails to provide an effective riposte to Augustine's well-known exegesis" of Matthew 25, because if aiōnios is limited in duration, "heaven as well as hell must come to an end."
↑ 11. See Robert Young, Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (1862; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953); Joseph Bryant Rotherham, The Emphasized Bible (1902; repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1959); Concordant Literal New Testament (Canyon Country, CA: Concordant Publishing Concern, 1983). Beauchemin discusses these translations in Hope Beyond Hell, ch. 1.
↑ 12. Ramelli and Konstan, Terms for Eternity, 237. David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism: An Alternative to the Traditional View of Divine Judgment, 2nd ed., likewise notes that aidios is the word that "unequivocally means ‘eternal’ in the strict sense."
↑ 13. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 6 ("Objection 1: The Eternity Passages"). Burnfield notes that the early Greek-speaking Fathers "would use either aiōnios or aidios when referring to future blessedness but would only use aiōnios when referring to future punishment."
↑ 14. BDAG s.v. κόλασις; TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 vols. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76]) s.v. κολάζω, κόλασις.
↑ 15. Richard Chenevix Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 12th ed. (London: Kegan Paul, 1894), s.v. "Punishment: timōria, kolasis." Cited in Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 2, and Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 2.
↑ 16. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.10 (1369b). Cited by Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), ch. 5, and by Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 2. Talbott adds Plato's argument in the Protagoras (324): "No one punishes the evildoer under the notion, or for the reason that, he has done wrong — only the unreasonable fury of a beast is so vindictive. . . . He punishes for the sake of prevention." See also Plato, Gorgias 477a. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), ch. 7, traces this classical distinction through the Fathers; see also Talbott's observation that even retribution need not entail the absence of a corrective purpose.
↑ 17. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 1 and passim. De Young discusses the kolasis / timōria distinction and argues that the line between them had blurred. He adds a pointed challenge: "If ‘correction’ or ‘improvement’ is the idea involved in the word ‘punishment,’ why wasn’t the term paideia used which the lexicons identify as clearly signifying ‘punishment with a view to correction’?" He notes that paideia is used in every verse of Hebrews 12:7–11 and is translated by all as "discipline." See also NIDNTTE (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Moisés Silva, 2nd ed., 5 vols. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014]) s.v. κόλασις, which notes the semantic range had broadened by the Hellenistic period.
↑ 18. Hunter Coates, Grace Abounds: A Holistic Case for Universal Salvation (2024), ch. on Matthew 25. Coates is candid: "Non-universalists are right to point out that it very well could mean ‘punishment’ in a more remedial sense," and the Septuagint uses "seem to take a more generic meaning."
↑ 19. William Barclay, New Testament Words (London: SCM, 1964), s.v. kolasis. Cited in Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 2, and Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, ch. 1.
↑ 20. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Cited in Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 2.
↑ 21. For Clement of Alexandria, see Stromateis 7.16. For Basil and Gregory, see Coates, Grace Abounds, ch. on Matthew 25, who surveys the patristic evidence: "St Basil the Great, in one text, refers to otherworldly fire as pur kolastikon"; "St Gregory of Nyssa expectedly makes a very similar point several times in his writings." Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), ch. 7, compiles a fuller catalogue: Clement writes that "God does not punish [timōreitai] — since punishment is the retribution of evil with further evil — but corrects [kolazei] for the sake of those who are corrected" (Strom. 7.16.102.3). Didymus the Blind teaches that corrective fire "consumes, not creatures, but certain conditions and certain habits" (Comm. Ps. 20–21). Ephrem the Syrian states that "not even this sin will be able to prevent a person from being justified. God, after giving retribution in Gehenna, will reward this person in the kingdom" (Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron 10.4). See also Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5, who argues that even retribution need not exclude a corrective purpose.
↑ 22. See Josephus, Jewish War 2.8.14 and Antiquities 18.1.3. Hurd summarizes the contrast in The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 2: "The Pharisees used the phrases aidios timōria (‘eternal torture’), eirgmos aidios (‘eternal prisons’), and timorion adialeipton (‘unending torment’). Jesus chose none of them."
↑ 23. TDNT s.v. ἀπόλλυμι. See also Hurd, Extermination or Restoration? A Restorationist’s Response to Annihilationism (2018), ch. 4 ("Defining Destruction"), where Hurd summarizes Kittel's four senses.
↑ 24. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), s.v. apollumi and apōleia. Vine writes: "The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being."
↑ 25. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 2, "The Meaning of Hell," and ch. 13, passim. De Young argues that "destroy" describes a state of ruin that can endure. For the conditionalist case, see Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011); John R. W. Stott's contribution in David L. Edwards and John R. W. Stott, Evangelical Essentials (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988). Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), ch. 7, treats the phrase olethron aiōnion ("eternal destruction") in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, arguing that it is better rendered "ruin of the coming age" and noting that every other Pauline use of olethros is compatible with a corrective or temporary sense.
↑ 26. See the careful analysis in Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, ch. 3 ("Apollumi"). Beauchemin notes the way Paul defines his own terms in Romans 14:15–21.
↑ 27. Hurd, Extermination or Restoration?, ch. 4; and Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 3. The analogy of the earthquake ruins in Antigua, Guatemala is Hurd's own illustration.
↑ 28. Translation frequency counts from James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1890), s.v. #3956 (πᾶς). See also Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, ch. 2 ("Restoration of ‘All’ Things").
↑ 29. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 9, "The Appeal to Texts with ‘All’ and ‘Whole,’" pp. 165–90. De Young argues that the reconciliation texts "must be interpreted otherwise, as meaning that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but effective only for those who exercise faith." He adds: "Not surprisingly, believing in Christ and trusting Christ go virtually unmentioned in universalism, yet faith is the heart of the gospel and the only means of receiving salvation" (citing Romans 1:16–17; Ephesians 2:8–9; John 3:16–18).
↑ 30. For the grammatical argument on the parallel "all"s, see Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), chs. 4–5, and Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 1. The hōs … houtōs ("as … so") structure binds the two clauses in a symmetry that resists asymmetric reading. Talbott notes that the same pattern appears in Romans 11:32: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all." He argues: "in each case the first 'all' determines the scope of the second."
↑ 31. See Hurd, The Universal Solution: Presenting Biblical Universalism as the Solution to the Debate between Calvinists and Arminians (2016), ch. 2, on the scope of "all" in the Pauline and Johannine writings.
↑ 32. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, ch. 2 ("Gehenna"), provides a concise survey of the four words. See also Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 4.
↑ 33. William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of Matthew, rev. ed. (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1975), on Matthew 5:22.
↑ 34. See Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 4: "Many of the Jews … viewed Gehenna as a place of temporary fiery purification, lasting no longer than 12 months." This remains the majority view among Orthodox Jews today.
↑ 35. Strong's Concordance s.v. #86 (ᾍδης). See also Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, ch. 10 ("The Rich Man"): "Paul never once mentions Hades or Gehenna in all his letters (or in Acts) except to proclaim its defeat! ‘O Hades, where is your victory?’ (1 Corinthians 15:55)."
↑ 36. See 2 Peter 2:4. Coates, Grace Abounds, ch. on "Tartarus," notes that "the explicit term for Tartarus does not appear in the OT" and in the New Testament is used only once.
↑ 37. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 2, "The Meaning of Hell." De Young cites BDAG, which notes that "hell" in the Gospels refers to "the place of punishment in the next life." He also cites EDNT (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament), 1:239–40, which says that Gehenna "designates the ‘place of eternal punishing fire.’" De Young charges that universalism’s attempts to redefine Gehenna, Hades, and related terms "never mean endless punishment" fail to account for these standard scholarly resources. He notes that the figurative sense of sheōl in the OT “is the foundation for the NT’s belief in endless punishment: what happened in time reflects a deeper sense of reality beyond time.”
↑ 38. Coates, Grace Abounds, ch. on Gehenna. Coates also observes that Gehenna "is absent in Pauline and Johannine texts and only makes one appearance in the Letter of James (3:6), a figurative one at that."
↑ 39. BDAG s.v. ἀποκατάστασις; LSJ s.v. ἀποκατάστασις; TDNT s.v. ἀποκαθίστημι, ἀποκατάστασις.
↑ 40. De Young, Exposing Universalism, p. 20, footnote 16. Cited in Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 3.
↑ 41. See David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4 (on Acts 3:19–21), who makes this argument in detail. See also Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 3: "The Early Greek Church Fathers, who still spoke the original language, understood it as including all rational creatures."
↑ 42. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 3. Hurd notes that the English word "things" is inserted by translators and can be misleading, since the Greek pantōn is simply "all."
↑ 43. BDAG s.v. ἱλασμός; TDNT s.v. ἱλάσκομαι, ἱλασμός, ἱλαστήριον. See also Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), ch. 5, for the propitiation/expiation debate.
↑ 44. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 11, "Other Texts." De Young presents the Reformed reading of 1 John 2:2: "whole world" refers to the elect throughout the world, or to people from every nation, not every individual. The propitiation, on this reading, is "sufficient for all but effective only for those who exercise faith." He argues that the texts of reconciliation "must be interpreted otherwise, as meaning that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but effective only for those who exercise faith" (see also ch. 9, pp. 165–90).
↑ 45. Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 3, argues that the Greek kosmos in John's writings consistently means the whole created order or all humanity, not a subset. The only exceptions involve obvious hyperbole (e.g., John 12:19).
↑ 46. Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 3. See also Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, ch. 5, who collects the Johannine "world" passages.
↑ 47. BDAG s.v. ἕλκω; Strong’s Concordance s.v. #1670. See also Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. 1, and Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 4, both of which survey all eight occurrences.
↑ 48. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 10, "Texts Dealing with Choice and Freedom," p. 167. De Young cites BDAG, which defines helkō in John 12 as figurative, "the pull on a person’s inner life, to ‘attract’ (251)." He adds that there is "an inherent contradiction" in the universalist use of John 12:31–32: if Jesus will "forcibly draw" or "drag" all people to Himself by "an act of force that is absolutely unconcerned about the willingness of the person drawn," this contradicts the universalist claim that hell’s fires are "corrective and therapeutic, not punitive." Cited in Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 4.
↑ 49. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. 4, surveys every occurrence of helkō in the New Testament and concludes: "In every instance the force which is drawing is greater than the resistance of the person or object being drawn." See also Hurd, The Universal Solution, ch. 2, and Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, ch. 4.
↑ 50. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), ch. 5. Talbott cites William Barclay: "The essence of the word aiōnios is that it is the word of the eternal order as contrasted with the order of this world; it is the word of deity as contrasted with humanity; essentially it is the word which can be properly applied to no one other than God." Talbott concludes: "eternal punishment is simply punishment of any duration that has its causal source in the eternal purposes of God." See Barclay, New Testament Words (London: SCM, 1964), 35; and Barclay, A Spiritual Autobiography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 66.
↑ 51. R. Zachary Manis, Sinners in the Presence of a Loving God: An Essay on the Problem of Hell (Oxford: Oxford University Press), ch. 7. Manis writes that in his model the language of "punishment" (kolasis) is "used analogically rather than univocally" as a descriptor of hell. The divine intent behind the exposure is "the fulfillment of the highest good of every human being." Note: Manis is not a universalist. He is represented accurately here as a source for the divine-presence model; see Chapter 17 and Appendix D.
↑ 52. Robin Parry [Gregory MacDonald], The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), ch. 7, on 1 Corinthians 5:5. Parry observes that every New Testament use of olethros by Paul is either ambiguous or, in this case, explicitly tied to the salvation of the person destroyed. In 1 Thessalonians 5:3 and 1 Timothy 6:9 the word is similarly ambiguous. The destruction of the sinful nature, not of the person, is Paul's consistent concern.
↑ 53. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 4. Talbott examines the parallel structure of Romans 5:18, Romans 11:32, and 1 Corinthians 15:22. In each, two clauses are set in exact correspondence: "as all [fall under X], so all [receive Y]." He argues that the grammatical evidence is "utterly decisive" and that "you can reject it only if you are prepared to reject what is right there before your eyes." His full engagement with John Murray, Charles Hodge, and Douglas Moo is in chs. 4–5.
↑ 54. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 3, surveys the interpretive options for 1 Corinthians 15:22. He discusses Bell (the "all" refers to Christians but Romans 5 must still be read universally), De Boer (the "all" refers to all humans and the Christians in v. 23 are a representative group), Hillert (the "all" means all humans but Paul's focus is only on Christians), and Talbott (who reads vv. 22–24 as three stages of resurrection). De Boer observes that "one can scarcely translate . . . 'all who are in Adam die,' if such a translation is meant to imply that some people are not 'in Adam.'"
↑ 55. Andrew Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis (Wipf & Stock, 2023), ch. on 1 Corinthians 15. Hronich surveys the usage of zōopoieō ("made alive") across the New Testament (John 5:21; 6:63; 14:6; Romans 4:17; 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 36, 45; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Galatians 3:21; 1 Timothy 6:13; 1 Peter 3:18) and concludes that it "only ever refers to a positive, if not glorious, outcome." A resurrection that raises some for eternal torment would be hard to square with Paul's use of this word.
↑ 56. James Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation After Death (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021), ch. 8. Beilby notes that F. F. Bruce reads the "all" as "all without distinction rather than all without exception." But Beilby shows that this limiting move cannot account for texts like 1 John 2:2 or 2 Peter 2:1 that deliberately expand beyond the elect. Note: Beilby is not necessarily a universalist. He argues for postmortem opportunity, not guaranteed universal salvation; see Appendix D.
↑ 57. Sharon L. Baker, Razing Hell: Rethinking Everlasting Torment and the Love of God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), ch. 9. Baker's description of the valley is a compilation of the Old Testament history and later tradition.
↑ 58. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 7. Parry cites David Powys, who describes the Second Temple concept of Gehenna as "a convenient and largely vacuous concept." Parry adds that it is possible that Jesus himself was the first Jewish teacher to use the Valley of Hinnom imagery for final judgment in this way. "There was no single, developed Jewish understanding of Gehenna at the time of Jesus that he could take 'off the peg' and use."
↑ 59. Stephen Jonathan, Grace Beyond the Grave: Is Salvation Possible in the Afterlife? (Wipf & Stock, 2014), ch. 4. Jonathan notes that Hades is the Greek equivalent of Sheol and was used in sixty-one instances in the LXX for Sheol. The King James Version translates both Hades and Gehenna as "hell," which has caused lasting confusion. Note: Jonathan is not a settled universalist. He argues for the possibility of salvation beyond death; see Appendix D.
↑ 60. Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved, ch. on Gehenna. Hronich credits his friend Brian Zahnd for the observation about the park sign. He writes: "The fires of hell do not have the final word for infants or any of God's creatures." He cites Jeremiah 31:38–40 and offers a striking conclusion: "For those who ask for a tangible sign of apokatastasis, I give you: Gey Ben Hinnom Park."
↑ 61. Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved, ch. on Acts 3:21. Hronich compares the ESV, NASB, KJV, NLT, and David Bentley Hart's translation to show that the ESV inserts a narrowing "the" that other translations omit. He argues this creates the misleading impression that only certain things are to be restored.
↑ 62. Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved, ch. on Acts 3:21. Hronich notes that the fulfillment of the restoration is tied to the Abrahamic promise that "in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Acts 3:25), and that "all the prophets who have spoken from Samuel and his successors onward, have also announced" this restoration (v. 24). See also Psalm 22:27; Psalm 86:9; Isaiah 25:6–8.
↑ 63. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 2. Parry argues that in Colossians 1:20 the "all things" reconciled are the same "all things" created in v. 16. The verb apokatallassō presupposes a rupture in relationship that is then repaired. The reconciliation brings peace with God, a notion that for Paul clearly expresses salvation. See also Ephesians 2:14–16; Romans 5:1, 10.
↑ 64. Hronich, Once Loved Always Loved, ch. on 1 John 2:2. Hronich responds to Arthur Pink, who claimed the "world" refers to "Jewish believers." Hronich notes that 1 John was composed when the church largely consisted of Gentile converts. The word kosmos appears twenty-eight times in 1 John, and in twenty-six of those cases the meaning is either comprehensive or refers specifically to the world of the unsaved.
↑ 65. Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, ch. 2. Beilby argues that the universal intent of the atonement is taught in 1 Timothy 2:6; John 1:29; John 12:32; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 2:9; John 3:16–17; and 1 John 2:2. He notes that the atonement is an act of God, and "if God intends to make the scope of the atonement universal, then there is no other choice that can frustrate that." Note: Beilby distinguishes unlimited atonement from universalism. He argues that universalism does not follow from unlimited atonement alone without further premises.
↑ 66. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 6. Talbott's engagement with Leon Morris is detailed and devastating. Morris had written that the expression "all men" is "something of a problem." But, Talbott argues, the problem was not in the text. "Not one word in this Gospel implies that Jesus lacks either the will or the power eventually to draw all sinners to himself." Morris reduced a magnificent prediction of triumph to a tautology by bringing to the text the very assumption the text challenges.
↑ 67. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 4. Parry gathers John 3:35 ("the Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand"), 6:39 ("the will of him who sent me is that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me"), and 12:32 ("I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself"). The word for "draw" (helkō) is the same one found in John 6:44. Parry adds: "Jesus says that he will draw all people, not simply that he offers salvation to all people." He notes that "all people" means "all people, period" — nothing in the immediate context of John 12:32 limits it to "all kinds of people."