Chapter 7: Every Knee, Every Tongue (Philippians 2:9–11 · Isaiah 45:22–25 · Romans 14:11)

A defeated enemy can be forced to kneel. Soldiers have always known that. An army can be made to lay down its weapons and bow before a conqueror. But here is the question I want you to sit with: can a defeated enemy be forced to glorify?

Paul says every tongue's confession is "to the glory of God the Father." That is not the sound of a captive grinding his teeth. That is the sound of worship.

The passage is one of the most famous in the New Testament. It comes at the climax of what scholars call the Christ Hymn, the great poem in Philippians 2 about the descent and exaltation of Jesus. After describing how Christ emptied himself, took the form of a servant, and humbled himself to death on a cross, Paul declares the result:

Read it slowly. Notice the scope. Every knee, not some. Every tongue, not most. And the three zones Paul names leave no one out: those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth.² There is no fourth category. There is no place left to stand outside this worship.

Now notice the purpose. The confession is made "to the glory of God the Father." I want to stay with that phrase, because the whole argument of this chapter turns on it. If this universal bowing and confessing were merely the forced surrender of defeated enemies, would that bring God glory? Jesus himself warned against empty worship: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" (Matthew 15:8). If lip-service from His own covenant people grieved Him, why would lip-service from all creation satisfy Him?

This passage does not stand alone. Paul is quoting the prophet Isaiah, and the original context makes the meaning even harder to limit. In Isaiah 45:22–23, God himself swears an oath, and He swears it in the same breath as a call to salvation:

The oath is sworn in righteousness. The audience is "all the ends of the earth." And they are told to "turn to me and be saved." The bowing and the saving are the same event. Paul knew this. He built the Christ Hymn on it. And the hope I want to lay out in this chapter is that every tongue's confession is a true one. Not a forced admission that Jesus has won, but a free, Spirit-filled cry of worship from a heart that has finally come home.

The Text in Context

The Christ Hymn begins at Philippians 2:5 and moves in what scholars have long described as a V-shaped pattern.⁴ Jesus starts at the highest height, in the form of God. He descends, emptying himself, taking the form of a servant. He descends further still, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Then the trajectory reverses. God exalts him to the highest place and gives him the name above every name. The low point of the V is the cross. The high point is the universal confession.

This shape matters. The hymn is not about two separate events (a humble death, then a triumphant coronation). It is one continuous story in which the cross and the confession belong together. The self-giving love of the cross produces the worship of every tongue. As Hunter Coates puts it, the beginning of the hymn is "retroactively justified by the end." We can only fully see what the descent meant when we reach the ascent.⁵

The key verb is "confess" (Greek exomologeō, "to confess openly, to acknowledge with praise").⁶ This is not a neutral word. In the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, it translates the Hebrew words for "praise" (yadah) and "give thanks" (hodah).⁷ When Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth" (Matthew 11:25), the Greek verb is exomologeō. When Paul said, "I will praise you among the Gentiles, and sing to your name" (Romans 15:9), the verb is exomologeō. The word appears eleven times in the New Testament. In none of those uses does it carry the sense of forced or grudging acknowledgment.⁸

David Bentley Hart's translation of Philippians 2:11 makes this point in a single word. Where most English versions read "every tongue confess," Hart renders it: "every tongue gladly confess that Jesus the Anointed is Lord, for the glory of God the Father."⁹ He adds "gladly" not as decoration but as a lexical judgment. The word exomologeō, in its biblical range, carries the sense of joyful, open-hearted acknowledgment. It is the language of praise, not of defeat.

Now consider the verb for bowing. Paul uses kamptō (Greek, "to bend"), which Vine's Expository Dictionary defines as a word "used especially of bending the knees in religious veneration."¹⁰ This matters because Paul had another word available. In Romans 11:10, he uses a different verb, sunkamptō (Greek, "to bend down by compulsory force"), quoting Psalm 69:23. Paul knew the difference between voluntary bowing and forced bowing. In Philippians 2, he chose the word for worship, not the word for conquest.¹¹

J. B. Lightfoot, one of the greatest New Testament scholars of the nineteenth century, made a further observation about exomologeō that bears on our passage. He noted that its secondary sense, "to offer praise or thanksgiving," has "almost entirely supplanted its primary meaning in the LXX." And he added that such implications of praise exist "in the very passage of Isaiah which St. Paul adapts."^11b Paul was not borrowing from Isaiah and changing the meaning. He was carrying the meaning forward. The praise character of the confession is baked into the source text.

One more detail deserves notice. The confession in Philippians 2:10 is made "in" the name of Jesus (Greek en), not merely "at" His name, as some English translations render it. Ken Eckerty observes that the preposition en implies entering into relationship with the name. It does not describe a mere reaction to power. "Confession 'in' His name cannot mean anything but intimacy."^11c This is the language of worship, not the language of surrender.

The scope of the confession also deserves attention. Paul names three realms: beings "in heaven and on earth and under the earth." The phrase "under the earth" (Greek katachthoniōn) refers to the realm of the dead.¹² This is not a scene limited to the living. It includes those who have already died. As Parry observes, Paul is expanding the scope of the Isaiah passage in a breathtaking way. The original vision addressed only the living, "the survivors of the nations." Paul extends it to include the dead and even angelic creatures.^12b If even those under the earth will confess Jesus as Lord "to the glory of God the Father," then this confession extends beyond the grave.

The Heart of the Case

1. The Exegetical Move: Confession That Is Worship

I said the whole argument turns on the phrase "to the glory of God the Father." Let me show why.

In Paul's theology, glorifying God is not something you do through gritted teeth. It is the signature of a transformed heart. Paul says elsewhere that we were made "to the praise of his glory" (Ephesians 1:12, 14). He says that one day God will receive "praise" from every believer at the judgment seat of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:5). He says the goal of all creation is that "God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28; see Chapter 5). Glorifying God is the purpose of redeemed existence.¹³

So when Paul says that every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord "to the glory of God the Father," he is placing this confession inside the same frame. It is not a confession that merely proves Jesus has power. It is a confession that achieves what God set out to do. God is glorified when hearts are won, not when lips are forced.

Marvin Vincent, in his respected Word Studies in the New Testament, defined exomologeō in its Philippians 2:11 usage this way: "Primarily to acknowledge, confess, or profess from the heart. To make a confession to one’s honor; thence to praise."¹⁴ It is hard to imagine a forced confession made "from the heart." That description fits worship, not subjugation.

Thomas Johnson draws the same conclusion. Every use of the word exomologeō in the New Testament "connotes a voluntary confession," including all the related verbs. "Inherent in the nature of confession is willing and, sometimes, joyful acknowledgment."¹⁵ The word simply does not mean what the traditional forced-confession reading needs it to mean.

Consider the breadth of the evidence. Jesus used this word when He praised the Father in spontaneous prayer (Matthew 11:25). Believers use it when they confess sins in repentance (James 5:16). Paul uses it in a quotation of the Psalms about singing God’s praise among the nations (Romans 15:9). In every case, the word describes something that flows from within. It is never imposed from without. If Paul had wanted to say "acknowledge under compulsion," he had other words available. He chose the word for praise.

2. The Isaiah Move: The Oath Is Sworn by the Saved

Paul is not making this up. He is quoting Isaiah 45:23, and the context of the original passage is even more telling than the quotation alone.

Read the verses around the oath. In verse 22, God says: "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." The oath about every knee bowing comes in verse 23, immediately after the call to salvation. The bowing is the turning. The two belong together.¹⁶

Then look at verse 24. Those who bow go on to say: "Surely in the LORD I have righteousness and strength." Only a genuine believer could say this. This is not the cry of a conquered enemy. It is the testimony of someone who has found God to be everything they need.¹⁷

And notice what happens to those who were once hostile. Verse 24 also says, "All who were angry at Him will be put to shame." In the prophets, shame is usually a good thing. It is the first step of repentance. Ezekiel says that God’s restored people "shall be ashamed of all that they have done" (Ezekiel 16:63). The shame is the turning. It is the moment when the rebel stops fighting and begins to weep. It is not punishment. It is homecoming.^17b

And verse 25 seals it. "In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory." Justification and glory are the marks of the redeemed. They are not the marks of the subjugated. Isaiah’s original vision is one of universal salvation, not universal defeat.

Robin Parry reaches a similar conclusion in his detailed treatment of Isaiah 45:20–25. He observes that the passage addresses "the survivors from the nations," those who have lived through God’s judgments and who still carry their wooden idols. God challenges them to see the futility of their gods, then calls them to turn to Him and be saved. It is in that salvific context that the oath is sworn. Parry gives three reasons why this cannot be a scene of forced worship. First, God has just called all the nations to come and be saved. Second, the swearing of oaths in the Lord’s name "is something his own people do, not his defeated enemies." Third, those who confess go on to say, "In YHWH alone are righteousness and strength," a cry that "sounds like the cry of praise from God’s own people."¹⁹

Parry also addresses the objection that verse 24’s language of shame excludes the nations from salvation. He notes that the contrast in the passage is between the shamed nations and vindicated Israel. If shame here were meant to exclude people from salvation, then none of the nations would be saved, which flatly contradicts Isaiah’s teaching elsewhere (Isaiah 2:1–4; 60:1ff.; 66:18–23). The better reading, Parry argues, is that the nations are ashamed of their past idolatry, not excluded from future grace. Ezekiel 16:63 uses the same Hebrew word for shame (bosh) to describe God’s redeemed people after He makes atonement for them.^19b Paul builds on this foundation. He does not change the meaning of Isaiah’s vision. He fulfills it in Christ.

3. The Whole-Canon Move: Paul Quotes Isaiah Again

Notice the translation. The ESV, following the Greek, renders exomologeō here as "give praise." Not "acknowledge." Not "submit." Praise. The same word Paul used in Philippians 2:11 is used here, and the standard translation treats it as worship.²¹

Burnfield points out a telling inconsistency in how some commentators handle this. The Bible Knowledge Commentary interprets the bowing in Romans 14:11 as referring only to believers, and therefore as an uncoerced confession. But it interprets the same quotation of the same Isaiah passage in Philippians 2:10–11 as including unbelievers, and therefore as partly coerced. How can Paul quote the same Old Testament text and mean two completely different things?²²

Parry presses this point further. He sets Romans 14:10–12 within the broader context of 14:1–12. Paul is addressing the division between "the weak" (who kept the food laws) and "the strong" (who did not). In that setting, the Isaiah 45 quotation serves two purposes. First, it stresses that believers are accountable to God and must not usurp His role by judging one another. Second, it recalls a passage about the conversion of the Gentiles, where all are shown "bowing and praising (exomologēsetai) God alongside Israel." That reinforces Paul’s argument that God accepts Jew and Gentile equally. "There is no hint of condemnation in the context."^22b

This is a remarkable verse. Paul says that the confession "Jesus is Lord" requires the Holy Spirit. It is not something a person can say on their own power. It is the Spirit who enables the confession. Now place that claim alongside Philippians 2:11, where every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If every tongue will make this confession, and no one can make it except by the Holy Spirit, then the Spirit is at work in every tongue. And where the Spirit is at work, we are dealing with a genuine confession, not a forced one.²⁴

Hunter Coates presses this logic in Grace Abounds. He observes that Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 12:3 leaves only two options. Either every tongue is merely acknowledging Jesus, in which case all beings have the Holy Spirit already. Or every tongue is genuinely confessing, in which case all beings will be brought to genuine faith. Either way, the conclusion points to universal salvation.²⁵

4. The Theological Move: God Is Not Glorified by Extorted Lip-Service

I want to answer the "forced submission" reading head-on, because it is the most common response to this text, and it deserves a fair hearing.

The traditional reading goes like this: Yes, every knee will bow. But this includes both the willing worship of the saved and the reluctant submission of the damned. The wicked will be forced to admit that Jesus is Lord, the way a defeated rebel is forced to kneel before a king. They will acknowledge His authority, but it will not save them. It will only confirm their doom.

I grant that this reading is possible in the abstract. Forced acknowledgment does happen. Even the demons "believe and shudder" (James 2:19). So, in principle, one could bow before Jesus and still refuse His love.

But that is not what Paul says is happening here. Notice what the text adds beyond a mere bowing. Every tongue confesses, and the confession is "to the glory of God the Father." That phrase changes everything. It tells us the purpose and the result of the confession. And Paul does not say the result is the glorifying of God’s power, or the display of His wrath. He says the result is the glory of God the Father. The fatherly glory. The glory of a God whose deepest identity, according to Jesus, is that of a father who runs to meet His returning child (Luke 15:20).

Think about it practically. Does a father receive glory when his child is dragged before him in chains, forced to say the right words, and then thrown into a dungeon forever? Or does a father receive glory when his lost child freely comes home, looks him in the eye, and says, "You were right. You were always right. I am yours"?

Gerry Beauchemin asks the same question in Hope Beyond Hell. He points out that a forced worship would not glorify or satisfy a loving God. Jesus said, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me" (Matthew 15:8). If God rejects the insincere sacrifices of His own people, "why does anyone think He’ll accept the coerced worship of a subjected soul?"²⁶

Beauchemin also notes a connection the traditional reading overlooks. In Romans 10:9–10, Paul links mouth confession with salvation: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." This is the same confession, the same lordship title, and the same mouth-and-heart language as Philippians 2:11. In Romans, it is a saving act. Why should it be anything less in Philippians?^26b

There is also a logical problem with the forced-submission reading that Burnfield identifies. The traditional view teaches that God will not force anyone to accept Him during this life. People who go to hell do so because they freely rejected Christ. But then the traditional view turns around and says that after death, God will force the damned to acknowledge Christ, against their will. So God respects freedom enough to let people damn themselves, but then He overrides that freedom to extract a confession that saves no one? Burnfield is right to ask: "Wouldn’t it have been more compassionate for God to force His people to love Him before they died so that they would end up in heaven instead?"²⁷

The forced-submission reading creates a strange picture of God. He is powerful enough to make every tongue confess, but not gracious enough to make the confession count. He can bend every knee, but cannot (or will not) win every heart. That is not the God Paul is singing about. The Christ Hymn celebrates a God whose self-giving love accomplishes what it sets out to do. The cross is not a half-measure. It reconciles all things (Colossians 1:20; see Chapter 6). And the confession it produces is real.

Thomas Talbott draws this out with clarity. The universal bowing in Philippians 2 is tied to the cross. Christ "humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him" (vv. 8–9). Every knee bows because of the cross. And Talbott asks: what kind of power did the cross unleash? "Was it the power of a conqueror to compel his enemies to obey him against their will? If that had been Paul’s doctrine, it would have been very strange indeed. For God had no need of a crucifixion to compel obedience; he was quite capable of doing that all along."^27b The power of the cross, Talbott argues, is the power of self-giving love. It overcomes evil not by brute force but by transforming the wills of the evil ones themselves.

Talbott presses the logic further. If the confession in Philippians 2 is sincere, then the confessors have been reconciled. If it is insincere and forced, then "their actions are merely fraudulent and bring no glory to God." A dictator might take pleasure in forcing defeated enemies to make obeisance. But "a God who honors the truth," Talbott writes, "could not possibly participate in such a fraud."^27c

Hronich makes a related observation from the Old Testament. God does not delight in insincere worship. Malachi quotes God asking, "Shall I accept that from your hand?" (Malachi 1:13). If God rejected the hollow sacrifices of His own covenant people, why would He design a future in which billions confess His Son’s lordship with empty hearts? As Hronich puts it, "The whole notion of forced, submissive worship is foreign to the text." Does not Christ Himself say that God seeks those who "worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24)?^27d

5. The Constructive Move: Every Heart Finally Won

So what does this text actually promise? I believe it promises this: every creature, in every realm, will finally and freely worship Jesus as Lord. And this worship will bring glory to God the Father.

The path there is not overnight, and it is not painless. The fire of God’s purifying judgment (see Chapter 17) may burn long for some. But the end is not a parade of conquered slaves. It is a homecoming. Every knee bows because every heart has been won. Every tongue confesses because the Spirit has done His work in every soul.

George Sidney Hurd captures this well. In his reading of Romans 14:11, he notes that the word "confess" in the Philippians 2 passage is the strengthened form of the ordinary word for confession. The regular word (homologeō, "to agree, to come into agreement") appears, for example, in 1 John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us." The strengthened form (exomologeō) means "to fully agree with." Everyone, Hurd argues, "will come into full agreement with God, but each one in his own order."²⁸

Hurd also connects this to the wider timeline of Philippians 2 itself. He notes that verse 13 of the same chapter says: "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." Why will every knee eventually bow? Because God is at work in His creation, giving people the very desire to do what pleases Him. The bowing is real, and it is willing, because the God who works in us does not work by force. He works by love.²⁹

I do not see this as happening all at once, like a single flash at the Second Coming. The process unfolds across the ages. Some will confess willingly in this life. Others will confess at the judgment. Still others may hold out in rebellion for ages. But God has sworn, and His oath will not return empty: every knee, every tongue, every heart.

Hronich draws attention to a detail in Philippians 2 that is easy to overlook but hard to explain away. Paul does not end the confession at verse 11. He continues immediately: "Therefore, my beloved, work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12–13). The word "therefore" joins the universal confession to the language of salvation. The early church would have heard this connection at once. The confession "Jesus is Lord" was the baptismal formula by which new believers expressed their commitment to Christ. Paul is linking confession and salvation as two sides of the same reality.^29c

We should also connect this passage with what we saw in Chapter 6. In Colossians 1:20, Paul says that God will "reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." Notice the overlap. Colossians names "all things" on earth and in heaven. Philippians names "those in heaven and on earth and under the earth." The two texts cover the same territory, using the same totalizing language. Both tie the universal scope to the cross. The reconciliation of all things and the confession of every tongue describe the same outcome: the full triumph of the love poured out at Calvary.

The Psalms sing the same song. "All the earth shall worship you and sing praises to you; they shall sing praises to your name" (Psalm 66:4). "All nations whom you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name" (Psalm 86:9). "The LORD is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works. All your works shall give thanks to you, O LORD" (Psalm 145:9–10). These are not pictures of forced submission. They are pictures of glad worship. And they are the same picture Paul paints in Philippians 2.^29b

Engagement with Specific Scholars

The universalist reading of Philippians 2:9–11 has strong support across the tradition. Hart places it among his list of the New Testament’s "most famously universalist verses" and renders the Greek in a way that makes the praise-character of the confession unmistakable.³⁰ Parry argues that the context of Isaiah 45 rules out a reading of forced worship, since the passage is a call to salvation and the response is praise. He notes that Paul expands Isaiah’s scope to include the dead and angelic beings, and that "the terminology Paul uses is suggestive of salvation rather than forced submission." In Paul’s letters, Parry observes, "there are no examples of an involuntary confession of Christ’s Lordship."^30b Beauchemin assembles twenty distinct arguments that the confession is genuine worship. Among them: the kamptō/sunkamptō distinction, the 1 Corinthians 12:3 connection, and the link to Romans 10:9, where mouth confession is directly tied to salvation.³¹

Talbott, writing in The Inescapable Love of God, builds his reading on both the verb and the cross. He cites Lightfoot’s observation that exomologeō carries implications of praise "in the very passage of Isaiah which St. Paul adapts," and he argues that praise and thanksgiving can only come from the heart. No monarch can force a genuine act of praise. Those who confess Christ either do so sincerely, in which case they are reconciled. Or they do not, in which case the confession is fraudulent and brings God no glory.^30c

Hronich, in Once Loved, Always Loved, cites his Princeton professor George Hunsinger. Commenting on Philippians 2:10, Hunsinger taught that "the divine/human Jesus, worshiped at first by only a tiny community, will one day be confessed by all the world." He called the "universalistic note here" both "remarkable" and inescapable.^30d Hronich also stresses that the Greek word exomologeomai "literally means 'gladly confess.'" It "denotes exuberance, whereby those who are confessing the lordship of Christ are doing so from a standpoint of gladness."^30e

Among the early fathers, the reading was taken seriously. Gregory of Nyssa understood the universal bowing of Philippians 2 as a picture of the whole creation united in Christ. He wrote that when "everything in heaven, on earth and under the earth bends the knee to him, and when every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," then every creature will have "become one body" joined to Christ "through obedience to one another."^32c Origen likewise wrote of Philippians 2:10 that "every kind of creature now reveres him." Cyril of Alexandria said of the passage that Christ "worships as one who has assumed the worshiping nature of humanity." Luther himself wrote that this is "This Lord, to whom everything is subjected even according to his humanity."³² None of these readers saw in the text a scene of forced submission. They saw worship.

On the fair-minded side of the debate, James Beilby, who is not himself a universalist, acknowledges that the case is not easily dismissed. He concedes that the "should" in Philippians 2:10 is an aorist subjunctive that means "you shall bow," not "you ought to bow but might not." He also grants that John Chrysostom understood the three-zone formula to mean "the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons," not merely representatives from each group.^32b Still, Beilby pushes back, and I will take his strongest objections seriously in the next section.

It is also worth noting that John Stott, one of the most respected evangelical leaders of the twentieth century, conceded the force of these texts even though he was not himself a universalist. Stott acknowledged that an eternal hell "would be hard to reconcile" with the biblical promises of God's final victory, including "bringing every knee to bow to Christ and every tongue to confess his lordship" in Philippians 2:10–11, "so that in the end God will be 'all in all' or 'everything to everybody.'" Stott asked: "How God can in any meaningful sense be called 'everything to everybody' while an unspecified number of people still continue in rebellion against him and under his judgement?"^32d Stott himself chose conditional immortality rather than universal salvation. But his honest acknowledgment of the difficulty shows that the universalist reading of this text is not wishful thinking. Even its opponents feel its weight.

On the other side, James De Young argues in Exposing Universalism that the bowing and confessing can be the compelled acknowledgment of Christ’s lordship at judgment. In his reading, even the damned and the demons must admit who Jesus is. Every knee proves Christ’s universal rule, not universal salvation.³³ I take this reading seriously. It is logically possible. But as I have shown, it faces three textual problems. The word exomologeō never means forced confession in the New Testament. The Isaiah 45 context is a call to salvation, not a scene of conquest. And 1 Corinthians 12:3 links the confession "Jesus is Lord" to the work of the Holy Spirit.

McClymond presses a related point in The Devil’s Redemption. He argues that "under the earth" in Philippians 2:10 refers most likely to demonic powers, and that these powers, in Paul’s letters, are always "coerced into submission" rather than persuaded to abandon their hostility. If the bowing includes the forced surrender of demons, McClymond reasons, then not every knee that bows is bowing willingly.^34b This is a fair argument, and it deserves a direct answer. I grant that Paul elsewhere describes the subjugation of hostile cosmic powers (1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Colossians 2:15). But there is a difference between subjugation and confession. Paul does not say the powers are merely defeated. He says every tongue confesses, and the confession is "to the glory of God the Father." Those are worship words, not conquest words. And the question remains: does God receive glory from a confession that is fraudulent? As Talbott asked, would God participate in such a charade?

De Young also suggests, regarding 1 Timothy 4:10, that Christ may be called "Savior" of all not in a redemptive sense but only in a general sense of lordship. He reads this as "parallel to Philippians 2:10,11," which he takes as a "forceful confession."³⁴ But as Hurd responds, it is hard to see how Christ is the "Savior" of someone He does not actually save. If God only forces a person to confess before sending him away forever, in what sense is He that person’s Savior? And if the Holy Spirit enables the condemned to confess Christ as Lord, would not that confession lead to salvation?³⁵

Counter-Objections

Let me state the strongest pushbacks against this reading and answer them fairly.

This is a fair point. The demons do recognize Jesus. But notice the difference. The demons’ recognition in the Gospels is not described as being "to the glory of God the Father." It is a cry of terror, not of worship. The two scenes are not parallel. In Philippians 2, the purpose is stated: this confession glorifies the Father. It is worship. The demon scenes include no such purpose clause.

There is a second difference. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:3 that no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. The demons do not confess Jesus as Lord. They confess Him as "the Holy One of God," which is a recognition of identity, not a saving confession of lordship. Paul’s claim is specifically about the confession "Jesus is Lord," and he says it requires the Spirit.

Objection: "Every knee proves sovereignty, not salvation." De Young and others argue that the bowing proves Christ’s absolute authority, which is compatible with the damnation of those who bow. Kings in the ancient world received homage from their subjects, including their prisoners. Christ is being pictured as the universal King, and His subjects include both the willing and the unwilling.

I grant the sovereignty reading on its own terms. Christ is the universal King. But Paul did not stop at "every knee should bow." He added "every tongue confess" and then added "to the glory of God the Father." The additions make sovereignty alone an inadequate reading. Sovereignty can be displayed by conquest. Glory to the Father cannot. The glory of the Father, as Paul understands it, is that His saving purpose is accomplished (Ephesians 1:6, 12, 14).³⁶

Objection: "Even unwilling praise can bring God glory." Beilby offers a creative counter to the praise argument. Even if exomologeō carries the sense of praise, he suggests, the praise may not be the intent of the one confessing. Instead, it could be that the fact of universal confession itself brings praise and glory to God. Beilby illustrates this with a vivid analogy. As a devoted Minnesota Vikings fan, he cannot avoid praising the Green Bay Packers' quarterback for being talented, even though doing so brings him no joy. Integrity demands the acknowledgment even when the heart resists it.^36c

I appreciate the honesty of the analogy. But there is a difference between admitting a rival quarterback is talented and confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord "to the glory of God the Father." Beilby’s football admission does not involve the Holy Spirit. Paul’s confession does (1 Corinthians 12:3). And the "glory of God the Father" language is not the language of a grudging tip of the cap. It is the language Paul uses for the purpose and completion of God’s saving work. A forced or resentful confession would satisfy a conqueror’s ego, but it would not satisfy the Father whose glory is tied to the redemption of His children.

Objection: "This is an eschatological scene, not a promise of salvation." Some argue that the bowing and confessing describe the final judgment, where all are compelled to acknowledge Christ before receiving their sentence. The scene is judgment, not salvation.

But again, the text says more than a judgment scene requires. A judgment scene needs acknowledgment. It does not need "glory to God the Father." It does not need a word (exomologeō) whose every other biblical use means voluntary praise. And it does not need to be built on an Isaiah passage that is explicitly about salvation. Paul shaped this text with care. He loaded it with the vocabulary and the source-context of genuine worship. If he meant forced submission, he had better tools for the job. He chose the tools of worship instead.

Objection: "Universalists are contradicting themselves." De Young presses this charge in chapter 10 of Exposing Universalism. He argues that universalists appeal to Isaiah 45:22–23 as an irresistible divine command, treating the oath as something God "proceeds to swear by Himself that He will do," while also insisting the resulting confession is "not forced" but free and willing. De Young asks: which is it? Either the confession is compelled by an irresistible decree, or it is free. It cannot be both.

This is a sharp question, and it deserves a clear answer. The resolution is not contradiction but sequence. God is determined to win every heart, and He will not stop working until He does. But the means He uses are not brute force. They are the means of the cross, of the Spirit, of patient love that does not give up. God’s oath is irrevocable. The method of its fulfillment is not coercion but persuasion, carried out across the ages, until every will says yes freely. This is exactly what middle knowledge illuminates: God knows what would win each person’s free consent, and He is wise enough and patient enough to arrange it. The oath is certain. The freedom is real. There is no contradiction.

We should also note that the picture Philippians 2 paints is confirmed elsewhere. In Revelation 5:13, John hears "every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea" speaking in unison. Their words are pure praise: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" (see Chapter 15). The same three realms. The same universal scope. And no one reads Revelation 5:13 as forced worship. The entire context is a scene of glad praise. It is natural to read Philippians 2:10–11 the same way, as Beauchemin argues: "Why would these two contexts not be related?"^36b

Conclusion: The Sound of Worship

The Christ Hymn tells a story with a beginning and an end. The beginning is self-emptying love. The end is universal worship. And the cross stands at the turning point between them.

What I have tried to show in this chapter is that the end of the story is not coercion but praise. The Greek word for "confess" is a word of voluntary, open-hearted worship. The Isaiah passage it quotes is a call to salvation. Paul’s own canon links the confession "Jesus is Lord" to the work of the Holy Spirit. And the purpose of it all is "the glory of God the Father," a goal that cannot be reached by forced lip-service.

This does not tell us the whole story. It does not tell us how long the process takes, or what kind of purifying fire some must pass through (see Chapter 17). It does not tell us what the word "eternal" means when applied to judgment (see Chapter 18). But it tells us the destination. Every knee. Every tongue. Not most. Not some. All.

And that destination is worship, not surrender. It is the sound of every voice, from every realm, freely confessing the name above every name. "Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." That is not the sound of a dungeon. That is the sound of a homecoming.

The hope I am asking you to consider is that this text means what it says. The Christ who emptied himself, who went to the lowest point of the V, who bore the cross for the sins of the whole world, will not stop until every knee bows in genuine worship. Every tongue will sing His praise. That is the glory the Father is waiting for. And it is the glory He has sworn to receive.

In the next chapter, we will hear Jesus make an even more direct promise: "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32). The cross that reconciles all things (Chapter 6) is the same cross that draws all people. And the drawing is not a suggestion. It is a promise.

Notes

↑ 1. All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise noted.

↑ 2. The three-zone formula (ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, epouraniōn kai epigeiōn kai katachthoniōn) is a totality formula, meaning "all beings everywhere." See Peter T. O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 238–41.

↑ 3. The Hebrew text uses shava ("swear an oath"), a term that connotes allegiance and devotion. The Septuagint renders the parallel phrase with ἐξομολογήσεται (from exomologeō), aligning the oath with praise and open confession. See also Isaiah 45:24–25 for the continuation of the response in terms of justification and glory.

↑ 4. The V-shaped or U-shaped pattern of the Christ Hymn has been widely recognized. See Ralph P. Martin, A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1997). Hunter Coates, Grace Abounds: A Holistic Case for Universal Salvation (2024), discusses the V-shape and notes that "the beginning of the series is retroactively justified by the end."

↑ 5. Hunter Coates, Grace Abounds. Coates emphasizes that the two endpoints of the hymn (Christ's pre-incarnate glory and the universal confession) flow into each other, and that "in both cases, the hero (Jesus) enjoys the highest glory and status in heaven."

↑ 6. ἐξομολογέω (exomologeō): BDAG defines it as "to acknowledge something, ordinarily in public," with the specific sense "to acknowledge in praise, praise" in Philippians 2:11 and Romans 14:11. The word's Septuagintal range strongly favors the meaning of praise and thanksgiving. See also TDNT, s.v. ὁμολογέω.

↑ 7. The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament notes that exomologeō is the word used in the Psalms to translate the Hebrew words for "praise" (yadah) and "give thanks" (hodah). See also Gerry Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell: The Righteous Purpose of God's Judgment, who catalogs the Septuagintal and New Testament usage.

↑ 8. The eleven occurrences of exomologeō in the New Testament: Matthew 3:6; 11:25; Mark 1:5; Luke 10:21; 22:6; Acts 19:18; Romans 14:11; 15:9; Philippians 2:11; James 5:16; Revelation 3:5. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, notes that "none of these can be seen as 'forced' praise. They relate to what flows naturally from the heart."

↑ 9. David Bentley Hart, The New Testament: A Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), rendering of Philippians 2:11. Also in Hart, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), Second Meditation. Hart renders the full phrase: "every tongue gladly confess that Jesus the Anointed is Lord, for the glory of God the Father."

↑ 10. W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, s.v. "bow," notes that κάμπτω (kamptō, Strong's 2578) "is used especially of bending the knees in religious veneration" (Romans 11:4; 14:11; Ephesians 3:14; Philippians 2:10). Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, cites Vine on this point and contrasts kamptō with sunkamptō.

↑ 11. συγκάμπτω (sunkamptō, Strong's 4781): "to bend together by compulsory force" (Vine). Paul uses this word in Romans 11:10, quoting Psalm 69:23 (LXX 68:24), in a context of judgment. The word choice in Philippians 2:10 is therefore significant: Paul selected the word for voluntary, reverent bowing rather than the word for forced subjection.

↑ 11b. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1868), comment on Philippians 2:11. Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 66, cites Lightfoot's observation and builds on it: "such implications of praise exist 'in the very passage of Isaiah [45:23] which St. Paul adapts.'" James Dunn concurs with Lightfoot, stating that exomologeō "almost certainly is intended in its usual LXX sense, 'acknowledge, confess, praise.'" See Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988).

↑ 11c. Ken Eckerty, "The Work of the Cross," cited in Timothy Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2023). Eckerty writes: "I think it's significant that the bowing of every knee and the confessing of every tongue is done 'in' the name of Jesus, not 'at' as translated by the KJV. Scholars such as Vincent, Robertson, Young, Rotherham, and Bullinger all say that it is best translated 'in.' 'In' Christ's name implies an 'entering into' or an intimacy with His name." The Greek preposition ἐν (en) plus the dative carries this relational sense.

↑ 12. καταχθόνιος (katachthonios): "subterranean, under the earth." In Greco-Roman cosmology, the realm of the dead. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, notes that "since 'under the earth' refers to the abode of the dead (or hell), then even in death an opportunity remains to confess Christ unto salvation."

↑ 12b. Robin Parry [Gregory MacDonald], The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 103–4. Parry notes that Paul's expansion of Isaiah 45 is "going considerably further than the Isaiah text. In Isaiah only the living were in mind. All the survivors of the nations would bow, but the dead were dead. Not so here. Even those 'under the earth'—that is to say, the dead—will bow." John Chrysostom likewise understood the three-zone formula to mean "the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons." See James Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021), 289, who cites Chrysostom on this point. However, Chrysostom himself resisted the universalist conclusion. McClymond, The Devil's Redemption, V 1, pp. 55–56, cites Chrysostom's Homilies on Matthew, where Chrysostom argued that the universal submission "comes not of a rightly disposed choice, but of the necessity of things," and warned that a theory of postmortem repentance would lead to universalism: "If unbelievers after death are saved on their believing, no one shall ever perish." The difference between Chrysostom's worry and the hope defended in this chapter is precisely the distinction between forced submission and free worship. This book agrees with Chrysostom that mere necessity would not suffice; it disagrees that the passage describes mere necessity.

↑ 13. For the glory of God as the goal of redeemed existence, see Ephesians 1:6, 12, 14; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 10:31; Revelation 5:13. The glorification of God is repeatedly tied to the completion of His saving purpose, not to the display of power over the conquered.

↑ 14. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), comment on Romans 14:11, applicable also to Philippians 2:11.

↑ 15. Thomas Johnson, as quoted in David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism: An Alternative to the Traditional View of Divine Judgment, 2nd ed. Johnson's full statement: "Every use of the word [exomologeō] in the New Testament connotes a voluntary confession. This includes all the cognate verbs, homologeō; and the related noun, homologia. Inherent in the nature of confession is willing and, sometimes, joyful acknowledgment. It will not do to suppose that the humble confession of Phil. 2:11 is a reluctant and forced confession from Jesus' conquered enemies."

↑ 16. The connection between Isaiah 45:22 and 45:23 is immediate and syntactically unbroken. The imperative "Turn to me and be saved" introduces the oath that follows. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism: "It is clear from v. 22 that those who bow their knee and swear allegiance to God do so willingly because God asks them to turn to him and be saved."

↑ 17. Isaiah 45:24 (ESV): "Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength." This is the language of personal testimony, not coerced submission. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell: "Only a genuine believer could say this. Note that this is stated as an oath (vs. 23), making it especially pertinent."

↑ 17b. On shame as a step toward repentance rather than a mark of damnation, see Ezekiel 16:60–63; 36:31–33; Jeremiah 31:18–20; 2 Thessalonians 3:14–15. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, lists a range of passages where "being ashamed is usually a positive thing and often a sign of genuine repentance."

↑ 18. David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, section "Every Knee Will Bow."

↑ 19. Robin Parry [Gregory MacDonald], The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 73–75. Parry treats Isaiah 45:20–25 in detail, arguing that the passage addresses "the survivors from the nations" who are idolaters, that God calls them to turn and be saved, and that the oath is sworn in that salvific context. His three reasons for rejecting forced worship are drawn from the text itself. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, reaches a similar conclusion independently.

↑ 19b. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, 75. Parry writes: "Being ashamed of past idolatry is not an inappropriate response for those YHVH redeems from such things." He cites Ezekiel 16:63, where God says that after He makes atonement for Israel, "you will remember and be ashamed (bôsh) and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation." The same Hebrew root (bôsh) appears in Isaiah 45:24. See also Isaiah 45:16–17 for the parallel contrast between those who make idols (who will be put to shame) and Israel (saved with everlasting salvation).

↑ 20. Paul's quotation of Isaiah 45:23 in Romans 14:11 uses the same verb (exomologeō). The context in Romans 14 is the judgment seat of God (v. 10), where every person will give an account. George Sidney Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy: The Reconciliation of All through Jesus Christ (2014), reads this as a reference to a future, willing submission of all to Christ.

↑ 21. Interestingly, the ESV, NASB, NRSV, and other standard translations render exomologeō in Romans 14:11 as "give praise" or "give praise to God," while in Philippians 2:11 they render the same word as "confess." The lexical range of the word is the same in both cases; the translation difference reflects the theological tradition surrounding each passage, not a linguistic difference.

↑ 22. David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism: "How can it be that Paul would refer to the same passage from Isaiah and yet have in mind two completely different groups of people (only the saved vs. saved and unsaved) and two completely different types of confession (un-coerced and coerced)?"

↑ 22b. Robin Parry [Gregory MacDonald], The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed., 104–5. Parry reads Romans 14:10–12 in the broader context of 14:1–12, where Paul is addressing the division between "the weak" (who kept the Mosaic food laws) and "the strong" (who did not). The Isaiah 45 quotation, Parry argues, serves a dual function: it reminds believers that they are accountable to God, not to one another; and it recalls a passage about the conversion of the Gentiles, reinforcing Paul’s point that God accepts all equally. See also James Dunn, Romans 9–16, on this reading.

↑ 23. The technical verb in 1 Corinthians 12:3 is εἰπεῖν (eipein, "to say"), but the content of the saying is the identical confession as Philippians 2:11: κύριος Ἰησοῦς (kyrios Iēsous, "Jesus is Lord"). Paul's claim is that this confession, in any form, requires the Holy Spirit.

↑ 24. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell: "This is strong evidence it refers to a sincere worship since fear alone could bring about a forced worship without the need of the Holy Spirit moving the heart." The logic is straightforward: if the Spirit is required for the confession, and the confession will be universal, then the Spirit's work will be universal.

↑ 25. Hunter Coates, Grace Abounds: "Those who have the Holy Spirit are always said to be those who have faith and love in God. Since this is true, all cannot just be acknowledging that Jesus is Lord in Philippians 2:11. All must be confessing that Jesus is Lord in joyful praise."

↑ 26. Gerry Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell: The Righteous Purpose of God's Judgment, section on Philippians 2:9–11.

↑ 26b. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell: "Paul links mouth confession with salvation. 'If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus…you will be saved…with the mouth confession is made unto salvation' (Ro. 10:9)." The verbal and conceptual parallels between Romans 10:9–10 and Philippians 2:11 are striking: the same title ("Lord Jesus"), the same mouth/tongue language, and the same act of confession.

↑ 27. David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, section on Philippians 2:9–11.

↑ 27b. Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 66. Talbott ties the universal confession directly to the cross: Christ "humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), and it is because of the cross that God exalted him to the place where every knee bows. The cross, Talbott argues, is not the instrument of compulsion but of self-giving love. See also Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved, who quotes and develops Talbott's argument at length.

↑ 27c. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 66–67. Talbott writes: "Those who bow before Jesus Christ and declare openly that he is Lord either do so sincerely and by their own choice or they do not. If they do so sincerely and by their own choice, then there can be but one reason—they too have been reconciled to God. And if they do not do so sincerely and by their own choice, if they are instead forced to make obeisance against their will, then their actions are merely fraudulent and bring no glory to God. A Hitler may take pleasure in forcing his defeated enemies to make obeisance against their will, but a God who honors the truth could not possibly participate in such a fraud."

↑ 27d. Timothy Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2023). Hronich writes: "It is inconceivable how God the Father might be glorified through a ruse, whereby those in hell begrudgingly acknowledge His lordship. This might do for Napoleon, but not for the Abba of Christ." He cites Malachi 1:10, 13 and Leviticus 10:1–7 (the death of Aaron’s sons for profane sacrifice) and concludes that "the whole notion of forced, submissive worship is foreign to the text and a blasphemous insult to the very nature of God."

↑ 28. George Sidney Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy: The Reconciliation of All through Jesus Christ (2014). Hurd distinguishes between homologeō ("to confess or come into agreement") and its strengthened form exomologeō ("to fully agree with") and argues that the universal confession is genuine, willing agreement with God, unfolding across the ages.

↑ 29. George Sidney Hurd, The Universal Solution: Presenting Biblical Universalism as the Solution to the Debate between Calvinists and Arminians (2016). Hurd connects Philippians 2:10–11 with 2:13: "Why will every knee eventually bow, and every tongue confess Jesus Christ as Lord? Because it is God who works in us, giving us the will to do His good pleasure."

↑ 29b. Hurd, The Universal Solution, cites Psalms 66:3–4; 86:9; and 145:8–10 as Old Testament anticipations of the same universal worship Paul describes in Philippians 2. The Psalms speak of "all the earth" worshiping, "all nations" glorifying God's name, and "all his works" giving thanks. These are not conquest texts. They are worship texts.

↑ 29c. Timothy Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved. Hronich draws attention to the continuity from verse 11 to verse 12: "Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore . . . work out your own salvation . . . for God works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:11–13). The word "therefore" (hōste) joins confession to salvation as cause and effect. Hronich also notes that the confession "Jesus is Lord" was used in early baptismal liturgy to express one’s commitment to Christ and subsequent deliverance, reinforcing the salvific character of the confession in this passage.

↑ 30. David Bentley Hart, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), Second Meditation. Hart includes Philippians 2:9–11 among the universalist texts and translates πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσηται as "every tongue gladly confess," bringing out the praise-character of the verb.

↑ 30b. Robin Parry [Gregory MacDonald], The Evangelical Universalist, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 105. Parry’s summary argument: "Elsewhere in Paul’s letters when he speaks of confessing Jesus as Lord it is always in a context of salvation. No one can say that 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). If someone confesses with their mouth and believes in the heart that Jesus is Lord, then they will be saved (Rom 10:9). There are no examples in Paul of an involuntary confession of Christ’s Lordship." He adds that exomologeomai "is a word almost always meaning 'praise'" in the LXX Psalms.

↑ 30c. Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 66–67. Talbott cites Lightfoot and applies the sincerity test: those who confess either do so sincerely (and are therefore reconciled) or insincerely (in which case the confession is fraudulent and brings no glory to God). Since the text says the confession is "to the glory of God the Father," the confession must be sincere.

↑ 30d. George Hunsinger, Philippians, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2020), 66–67. Hunsinger is cited in Timothy Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved. Hunsinger comments on Philippians 2:10: "According to [v. 10], the divine/human Jesus, worshiped at first by only a tiny community, will one day be confessed by all the world." Hunsinger also observes that "confessing is not a neutral act. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit."

↑ 30e. Timothy Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2023). Hronich argues that exomologeomai "literally means 'gladly confess'" and "denotes exuberance, whereby those who are confessing the lordship of Christ are doing so from a standpoint of gladness." He notes that Christ Himself uses this word in praising the Father in Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, and that in none of the eleven New Testament occurrences does it denote forced obeisance.

↑ 31. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell. On the Romans 10:9 connection: "Paul links mouth confession with salvation. 'If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus…you will be saved…with the mouth confession is made unto salvation' (Ro. 10:9)."

↑ 32. Coates, Grace Abounds, citing Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and Luther on Philippians 2:10–11. The patristic and Reformation readings uniformly understood the passage as describing genuine universal reverence toward Christ.

↑ 32b. James Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation After Death (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021), 289. Beilby, who is not himself a universalist, acknowledges two exegetical points that weigh in the universalist’s favor: (1) the "should" in Philippians 2:10 "is aorist subjunctive and should not be understood as 'you ought to bow (but might not)' but 'you shall bow'"; and (2) John Chrysostom’s reading of the three-zone formula as meaning "the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons," not merely representatives from each zone. Beilby prefers to focus his counter-argument on whether the minor premise (that all who bow are saved) can be sustained.

↑ 32c. Gregory of Nyssa, On 1 Corinthians 15:28, as cited in Michael J. McClymond, The Devil's Redemption, V 1, p. 286. Gregory interprets the subjection of all to Christ in Philippians 2:10–11 as part of the universal restoration: "By uniting us to himself, Christ is our unity; and having become one body with us through all things, he looks after us all. Subjection to God is our chief good when all creation resounds as one voice, when everything in heaven, on earth and under the earth bends the knee to him, and when every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Then when every creature has become one body and is joined in Christ through obedience to one another, he will bring into subjection his own body to the Father." McClymond himself questions whether Gregory’s universalism is adequately grounded, but the passage confirms that one of the great Cappadocian fathers read Philippians 2:10–11 as describing genuine, universal worship.

↑ 32d. John Stott, in David L. Edwards and John R. W. Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1988), as cited in McClymond, The Devil's Redemption, V 1, pp. 114–15. Stott defended conditional immortality (the view that the wicked eventually cease to exist) rather than either eternal conscious torment or universal salvation, but his acknowledgment of the difficulty the "every knee" passage poses for any view of final condemnation is telling. McClymond notes that "some arguments used by current universalists are akin to earlier conditionalist arguments," and observes that Stott's paragraph, "read out of context, would most likely be interpreted today as an argument for universalism."

↑ 33. James B. De Young, Exposing Universalism (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock / Resource Publications, 2018), chs. 9–10. De Young's treatment of the "all" and "whole" texts appears in ch. 9, "The Appeal to Texts with 'All' and 'Whole,'" pp. 165–90. On Philippians 2:9–11, De Young reads Paul as affirming that all the universe will acknowledge Christ's triumph, but insists this does not require a saving relationship. He frames the universal bowing through Psalm 110:1 ("Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet"), arguing that the wider apostolic teaching portrays Christ's enemies as forced to submit to a conquering sovereign, not as loving worshipers. De Young adds: the Philippians themselves had to "work out their salvation with fear and reverence" (Phil 2:12) and "appropriate Christ personally by faith" (1:29), which shows that Christ's triumph did not automatically make them Christians. Ch. 10, "Texts Dealing with Choice and Freedom," extends the argument by accusing universalists of internal contradiction: they appeal to Isaiah 45:22–23 as an irresistible command (God "proceeds to swear by Himself that He will do it") and then claim the resulting confession is "not forced" but willing (citing Young, A Second Look at Universalism, 44–46). De Young responds that the texts about universal confession "refer to the conquest of all the forces opposed to Christ who before or after death confess him under constraint, not willingly or lovingly or in a saving manner."

↑ 34. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. 9: "Alternately, the word 'Savior' may refer, not to personal salvation in a redemptive sense, but to Jesus Christ as the Lord of all, by forceful confession, parallel to Philippians 2:10,11." Cited in George Sidney Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism (2019), who quotes De Young and responds.

↑ 34b. Michael J. McClymond, The Devil's Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), V 2, p. 963. McClymond argues that the "under the earth" (katachthoniōn) in Philippians 2:10 refers most likely to demonic powers, and contends that Pauline texts about the subjugation of hostile powers (1 Cor 15:24–28; Col 2:13–15) "cannot be equated with the notion of a free, glad, or voluntary submission of Satan and demons." He concludes that "every indication we have in the Pauline Letters is that these powers are coerced into submission and not persuaded to abandon their hostility to God." McClymond adds bluntly that demons do not become angels, "at least not in the Old and New Testaments." See also V 1, pp. 55–56, where McClymond cites John Chrysostom interpreting "every knee" as grudging submission rather than willing worship. Chrysostom wrote that "there is no advantage in that submission, for it comes not of a rightly disposed choice, but of the necessity of things." McClymond notes that Chrysostom was explicitly concerned that a theory of postmortem repentance would lead to universalism.

↑ 35. George Sidney Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism: A Biblical Response to James B. De Young's "Exposing Universalism" (2019). Hurd responds: "It should be obvious that He is not the 'Savior' of someone whom He does not save but rather forces to call Him Savior before being cast away from His presence forever. And neither does Philippians 2:10,11 refer to a forced confession since Paul says that no one can call Jesus Lord except by the Holy Spirit."

↑ 36. In Ephesians 1:6, 12, and 14, Paul three times names "the praise of his glory" (or "the praise of his glorious grace") as the purpose of God's saving acts. The glory of the Father is consistently tied to the accomplishment of salvation, not to the display of sovereignty over the lost.

↑ 36b. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell: "That this is true worship is confirmed in Re. 5:13 and by the entire context (Re. 5:11–14) if they are related. 'Every creature in heaven and earth and under the earth…I heard saying: ‘Blessing, honor, glory, power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb’…' (Re. 5:13). Why would these two contexts not be related?" The overlap of the three-zone formula (heaven, earth, under the earth) and the universal scope strongly suggests the same reality.

↑ 36c. James Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 290–91. Beilby writes: "This Minnesota Vikings fan cannot avoid giving praise to the Green Bay Packers' quarterback, Aaron Rodgers. I'm not at all happy about it and felt an overwhelming desire to delete the sentence as soon as I wrote it, but it is undeniably true that he is a great quarterback and, therefore, integrity demands that I acknowledge it." While the analogy is creative, it conflates begrudging admiration of a rival’s talent with the confession "Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father," which Paul links to the Holy Spirit’s work (1 Cor 12:3) and to salvation (Rom 10:9). The analogy, moreover, does not address the "glory" clause, which points to an outcome God delights in, not one He merely extracts.