Every Knee, All Things: Philippians 2, Ephesians 1, Colossians 1

"At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." — Philippians 2:10–11

A. The Question on the Table

Picture a vast throne room. Every creature ever born stands before the risen Christ. Every knee bends. Every tongue speaks. The scene is breathtaking. But what kind of scene is it?

I grew up hearing that this passage described two very different groups doing the same physical act. The saved, I was told, would bow in joy. The lost would bow in defeat. Their confession would be forced from clenched teeth, a grudging admission wrung out of the damned just before they were cast into the fire forever. The bowing was real, but it was the cringing of the conquered, not the worship of the willing.

That reading has a long pedigree. John MacArthur teaches that the lost will acknowledge Christ's lordship and then be condemned. Richard Gaffin and G. K. Beale hold a similar view. On this account, the scene in Philippians 2 is something like the end of a war. The losers kneel before the victor, admit they have lost, and are marched off to prison. Their confession changes nothing. It saves no one.¹

I want to press into this passage and ask whether that reading can hold up. Is the bowing a sullen surrender, or is it glad worship? Is the confession forced from the lips of the damned, or is it a Spirit-given cry of praise? And if the confession is real, what does that mean for the scope of God's saving work?

The stakes here are enormous. If Philippians 2:10–11 teaches that every creature will genuinely worship Christ, then the New Testament envisions a world in which no one is left on the outside. If the confession is real, then every tongue that speaks it must belong to a person who has come to know Christ as Lord. And that changes everything about how we read the New Testament's vision of the end.

This chapter gathers five of the New Testament's most sweeping texts about the final reach of Christ's lordship. Each one uses the word "all" in a way that either means what it says or must be quietly trimmed. Together they form a pattern that is hard to miss: Paul and John, writing independently, kept coming back to the same sweeping language. Every knee. All things. All people. Mercy on all. This is not a single proof-text that might be brushed aside. It is a chorus.

B. The Full Text in Context

Five passages form the backbone of this chapter. Each one speaks about the reach of Christ's saving work in universal terms. Let me set them side by side, in their own words, before we open them up.

1. Philippians 2:5–11

The passage known as the Christ Hymn traces a great V-shaped arc. Christ descends from the highest glory into human flesh, goes lower still to death on a cross, and is then raised to the highest name in all reality. The hymn reaches its climax in the last three verses:

Notice the scope. The bowing comes from three realms: heaven, earth, and under the earth. No one is left out. The phrase "under the earth" has no comfortable limiting reading. It refers to the dead, or to the underworld, or to the powers beneath the surface of the created order. Whatever it means, it means the realm that traditional theology places furthest from God. And even that realm bows. John Chrysostom, the great preacher of the early church, said this plainly: Paul's words mean "the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons."²

The confession (Greek exomologēsētai, "to openly and gladly acknowledge") is not bare acknowledgment. It is praise given to the glory of God the Father. That phrase at the end matters. The bowing and confessing produce a result: glory for the Father. A coerced confession from the lips of those about to be destroyed is not glory. It is theater.

2. Isaiah 45:22–25

Paul is not inventing this scene from scratch. He is quoting from the prophet Isaiah, and the original setting matters greatly:

The command is plain: "Turn to me and be saved." The bowing is the response to that command. Those who were angry at God feel shame, but this is the shame that accompanies repentance, not the agony of eternal defeat. And the promise is that "all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory." The passage breathes salvation, not destruction.³

3. Colossians 1:19–20

The word "reconcile" here (Greek apokatallaxō, "to restore to a former state of harmony") is the same word Paul uses for our own reconciliation to God in the very next verse (1:21–22). And the scope is "all things," matching the "all things" created through Christ in verses 16–17.⁴

4. Ephesians 1:9–10

The word translated "unite" or "sum up" (Greek anakephalaiōsasthai, "to bring together under one head") describes God's plan for the end of all things. All things, in heaven and on earth, gathered into Christ. Not some things. All things.⁵

5. John 12:32 and Romans 11:32

In John, the verb "draw" (Greek helkuō, "to drag, to pull with force") is the same word Jesus uses for the Father's drawing of believers in John 6:44. The reach is now widened to "all people." In Romans, the "all" who receive mercy matches the "all" given over to disobedience. The symmetry is exact.⁶

These five passages, read together, paint a single picture. The Christ who descended to the cross is exalted above every name. Every knee bows. Every tongue confesses. All things are reconciled. All things are summed up. All people are drawn. All receive mercy. The question is whether "all" means all.

C. The Heart of the Case

1. Philippians 2 Quotes Isaiah 45, Where the Bowing Is Salvation

This is the starting point, and it is hard to overstate its importance. When Paul writes "every knee shall bow, every tongue confess," he is not writing from a blank page. He is quoting Isaiah 45:23. And in Isaiah, the context is unmistakable: "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth" (Isa 45:22).⁷

As David Burnfield notes, the bowing in Isaiah is not the cringing of the conquered. God asks the nations to turn and be saved. He does not force them. The swearing of an oath of allegiance is something done by willing followers, not by defeated enemies. And the people who bow go on to say, "Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength." These are the words of genuine believers, not the groans of the damned.⁸

Coates, in Once Loved, Always Loved, takes the point further. He notes that Yahweh gives a command for the nations to turn from their idols, which cannot save them, and to the only God who can save. Then Yahweh swears by Himself that every knee shall bow and tongue confess. The context is plainly about salvation, not mere subjugation. Yahweh has just called the nations to turn to Him for salvation.⁹

Some point to Isaiah 45:24, where those who were incensed against God "come to him and are ashamed." Does this shame signal damnation? It does not. The shame is the shame that accompanies repentance, not the agony of final defeat. As Baker points out in Razing Hell, the psalmist prays that the nations will be filled with shame so that they may seek God. Their shame humbles them enough to be reconciled. Standing purified before God, they will know the forgiveness that is theirs through Christ.¹⁰

Keil and Delitzsch, the classic conservative commentators on the Old Testament, read Isaiah 45 in this way. They see the passage as expressing God's desire for "the conversion of all men to Himself." And their conclusion is striking: God's gracious will, which extends to all humankind, "will not rest till its object has been fully accomplished."¹¹

When Paul picks up this passage and puts the name of Jesus into it, he does not strip it of its saving content. He deepens it. The God of Israel who called the nations to turn and be saved has now given the fullest expression of that call in the exalted Christ. Every knee bowing at the name of Jesus is the climax of Isaiah's vision. It is salvation reaching the ends of the earth.

Consider what Paul has done with the structure. Isaiah's God says, "To me every knee shall bow." Paul's Christ receives the same universal homage. The Old Testament passage about God's saving invitation to the nations becomes a New Testament passage about Christ's saving lordship over every creature. If the bowing in Isaiah was saving, the bowing in Philippians is saving. Paul has not changed the meaning. He has enlarged the Person who receives it. The Old Testament background is developed fully in Chapter 7.

Robin Parry, writing as Gregory MacDonald, makes two points that are hard to answer. First, the acknowledgment of Christ in Philippians 2 is universal. Paul emphasizes this by expanding the Old Testament text with the words "in heaven and on earth and under the earth." This goes considerably further than Isaiah, where only the living were in mind. Here, even the dead will bow. Second, the vision is one of universal salvation. The background in Isaiah 45 envisages a saving submission: the nations come to God, swear oaths in His name, and find in Him their righteousness and strength. Paul's use of this material carries the same saving force.¹²

Look too at what Paul does not do. He does not say, "At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, some in worship and some in terror." He does not divide the bowings into two categories. He does not add a qualifying clause. The bowing is one act, by one category of beings (all), producing one result: the glory of the Father.

2. "Confess Jesus Is Lord" Is Spirit-Wrought Worship

Now look at what the universal confession actually says. Every tongue will confess that "Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This is not a forced admission. It is the central Christian confession of faith. And Paul tells us elsewhere exactly what it takes to make it.

This is a remarkable statement. Paul does not say, "No one should say 'Jesus is Lord' without the Spirit." He says no one can. The confession is impossible without the Spirit's work. If that is true, then the universal confession of Philippians 2:11 must be a Spirit-enabled confession. Every tongue confessing Jesus as Lord is doing so by the power of the Holy Spirit.¹³

Step back and look at the whole Christ Hymn to see why this matters. Scholars call the shape of Philippians 2:5–11 a V-shaped trajectory. Jesus begins with the highest glory ("in the form of God," v. 6). He descends into human existence (v. 7). He descends further still to the humiliation of death on a cross (v. 8). Then God raises Him to the highest exaltation and gives Him the name above every name (v. 9). The hymn bottoms out at the cross and rises to the universal confession.

The key insight is that the beginning and the end of the V-shape mirror each other. Jesus starts with the highest glory. He ends with the highest glory, now received from every creature. The universal confession of verse 11 is the completion of the arc. Without it, the hymn does not resolve. George Hunsinger, the Princeton theologian, observed that "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." The universalistic note is as remarkable as the distinctions by which it is expressed.¹⁴

The Greek word for "confess" here (exomologēsētai) strengthens the point. According to Marvin Vincent, this word carries the idea of "frank, open confession" with an element of thanksgiving and praise. Vincent's comment on the same Greek word in Romans 14:11 is even more direct: "Primarily to acknowledge, confess, or profess from the heart. To make a confession to one's honor; thence to praise."¹⁵

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament that Paul and his readers used, also helps here. J. B. Lightfoot, the great New Testament scholar, argued that the secondary sense of "to offer praise or thanksgiving" had "almost entirely supplanted its primary meaning in the LXX." James Dunn concurs: speaking about Romans 14:11, where Paul quotes the same Isaiah passage, Dunn says that exomologēō "almost certainly is intended in its usual LXX sense, 'acknowledge, confess, praise' (as in its only other uses in Paul, 15:9 and Phil 2:11)."¹⁶

Thomas Johnson, writing on this text, observes that every use of this word (exomologēō) in the New Testament carries the sense of willing, and sometimes joyful, acknowledgment. He concludes that "it will not do to suppose that the humble confession of Philippians 2:11 is a reluctant and forced confession from Jesus' conquered enemies."¹⁷

There is something else worth noting. The confession is made "to the glory of God the Father." Would a forced, resentful, clenched-teeth acknowledgment bring glory to God? Isaiah answers: God does not accept worship that comes from impure hearts (Isa 1:11–15). He takes no pleasure in burnt offerings if the heart behind them is rebellious. A coerced confession from a soul about to be tormented forever is not glory. It is the opposite of glory.¹⁸

One more detail deserves attention. Eckerty observes that the bowing in Philippians 2:10 is done "in" (en) the name of Jesus, not merely "at" the name. Scholars such as Vincent and Robertson note that the preposition suggests intimacy. You can bow "to" a king in a forced show of respect. But you cannot bow "in" a king's name without a genuine connection. As Coates notes, Matthew 18:20 uses the same language: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I." No one reads that as forced gathering. And Paul's word for "bow" here (kamptō) is the word for religious veneration. There is a different word (sunkamptō) used in Romans 11:10 for bending by compulsory force. Paul chose the worship word.¹⁹³⁹

3. "Reconcile" Is Not "Subjugate"

Now turn to Colossians 1:20. Paul writes that God's plan is "through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

The word "reconcile" (Greek apokatallaxō) is a strong and specific word. It means the ending of enmity, the restoration of a broken relationship to its former harmony. It does not mean subjugation or pacification. You do not "reconcile" an enemy you intend to torment forever. You do not "make peace with" someone you plan to punish without end.²⁰

This same word family appears across Paul's letters. In Romans 5:10, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son while we were still enemies. In 2 Corinthians 5:18–19, God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ. In Ephesians 2:16, He reconciled both Jew and Gentile to God in one body through the cross, "thereby putting to death the enmity." In every case, reconciliation is a positive, saving act. It is the ending of hostility and the beginning of peace.²¹

Parry makes this case with precision in his treatment of Colossians. He notes that the "all things" reconciled in verse 20 are, without any doubt, the same "all things" that are created in verse 16. In other words, every single created thing. He writes: "It is not 'all without distinction' (i.e., some of every kind of thing) but 'all without exception' (i.e., every single thing in creation)." James Dunn, commenting on the same passage, agrees: "What is being claimed is quite simply and profoundly that the divine purpose in the act of reconciliation and peacemaking was to restore the harmony of the original creation, to bring into renewed oneness and wholeness 'all things.'"²²

The infernalist reading requires "reconcile" to carry a double meaning in Colossians 1:20. For believers, reconciliation is joyful union with God. For the damned, it somehow means eternal torment. But the word is used only once in the verse. There is no textual signal that the author expects his readers to hear two opposite meanings in a single word. Parry observes that the reconciliation spoken of is clearly salvific: the poem "expands on the notion of reconciling all things in terms of making peace through the blood of his cross." The same connection between reconciliation and peace is found in Ephesians 2:14–16, and there it is quite clear that the reconciliation is a positive state of affairs for those reconciled.²³

Norman Geisler has argued that because Paul does not mention those "under the earth" in Colossians 1:20 (as he does in Phil 2:10), the "all things" might refer only to believers. But this ignores the parallel with verses 16–17, where "all things" means everything that exists. Marvin Vincent states plainly that the scope "must be taken in the same sense as in verses 16, 17, 18: the whole universe, material and spiritual."²⁴

George Hurd drives the point home. Paul does not spare detail in verse 16: "all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." The same "all" appears in verse 20. You cannot argue that "all things" means everything when Paul is talking about creation, but only some things when Paul is talking about reconciliation.²⁵

And notice the instrument: "making peace by the blood of his cross." Reconciliation is not achieved by conquest. It is achieved by the cross. The blood of Christ is a saving agent, not a weapon of domination. When Paul says that God reconciles all things by the cross, he is describing a saving act that reaches the whole created order.

Paul draws the connection even tighter in the verses that follow. "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death" (Col 1:21–22). The same verb (apokatallaxō), used just two verses apart, describes what God does for "all things" and what He does for the Colossian believers. The believers' reconciliation is obviously saving. The "all things" reconciliation, described in the same breath with the same word and the same instrument, must be saving too.²⁶

4. John 12:32: "I Will Draw All People to Myself"

Jesus speaks these words as His death approaches. The setting is important. Some Greeks have come to see Him, and their arrival signals that the hour has come. "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified," Jesus says (John 12:23). And then He gives this promise: "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32). The "lifting up" is the cross. The drawing is the result of the cross. And the scope is "all people" (Greek pantas, "all, every one").²⁷

The "lifting up" language runs through John's Gospel. In John 3:14–15, Jesus says, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up." The bronze serpent healed everyone who looked at it. There was no limit on who could look. And now, in John 12, the lifting up of the cross will draw "all people."

The verb "draw" (helkuō) is the same word Jesus used earlier in John's Gospel: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44). In chapter 6, the Father draws people to Jesus. In chapter 12, Jesus Himself will draw all people. The verb is the same. The scope is wider.²⁸

This is not a gentle nudge. The Greek word helkuō means to pull, to drag, to draw by a force that overcomes resistance. Peter drew his sword with this word (John 18:10). Peter dragged a heavy net full of fish 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). As Hurd catalogs, "in each case it expresses the idea of being drawn by a force greater than the resistance of the one being drawn." In every other New Testament use, the one drawn does not resist successfully.²⁹

Some have tried to read "all people" as "all kinds of people," meaning people from every nation rather than every single person. But the Greek pantas here is unqualified. It does not say "all kinds" or "all types." It says "all." And the context confirms this: Jesus has just spoken of His coming death as the "judgment of this world" and the casting out of "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31). When Satan's power is broken by the cross, nothing stands between Christ and the whole human race. He will draw all.³⁰

5. Romans 11:32: "That He May Have Mercy on All"

Romans 9–11 is Paul's long wrestling with the hardest question in his theology: if the gospel is for the world, why has Israel, God's own people, largely refused it? His answer winds through election, hardening, and the mystery of God's plan. And then he arrives at the climax:

Look at the structure. The "all" who are consigned to disobedience matches the "all" who receive mercy. If the first "all" means every person (and it does, since Paul has just argued that both Jews and Gentiles are locked in disobedience), then the second "all" means every person too. The symmetry is exact, just as it was in Romans 5:18 (which Chapter 5 explored).³¹

And notice what happens next. Paul does not pause to qualify, or to explain that "all" really means "some." He erupts into a doxology. "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!" This is not a hymn of limited mercy. It is worship provoked by the staggering scope of what God has done. The doxology exists precisely because the mercy is as wide as the disobedience. God's plan is not to save a fraction. It is to have mercy on all, and that is what drives Paul to wonder.³²

Think about what Paul has just said. He has argued that "all Israel will be saved" (11:26), that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable (11:29), and that the hardening of part of Israel was part of God's plan to bring the Gentiles in. The conclusion in verse 32 gathers all of this up. God locked everyone in the same prison so that He could free everyone by the same mercy.³³

The closing line seals it: "For from him and through him and to him are all things." Everything that came from God returns to God through Christ. The trajectory is not from God to destruction. It is from God, through God, and back to God.

6. Ephesians 1:10: The Summing-Up of All Things

Ephesians opens with one of the most sweeping statements of God's plan in the entire New Testament. Paul calls it "the mystery of his will" and "a plan for the fullness of time." What is this plan? "To unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth" (Eph 1:10).³⁴

The Greek verb here (anakephalaiōsasthai) means "to sum up, to bring together under one head." It pictures a scattered reality being gathered back into unity under Christ. Not some things. All things, whether in heaven or on earth. This is not a plan for the church alone. It is a plan for the cosmos.³⁵

Some have tried to read "all things" here as referring only to the created order in general. But Paul has been talking about persons throughout Ephesians 1. Just before, he speaks of "us" being predestined for adoption (1:5), "we" having received redemption (1:7), and "you" having heard the gospel (1:13). The "all things" of verse 10 is not a shift to impersonal structures. It is the summit of a passage about God's plan for people.

7. The Early-Church and Patristic Reading

How did the earliest Christians read these texts? The evidence points toward the universal reading rather than the forced-submission reading.

Origen, writing in the third century, takes the bowing of every knee and the confessing of every tongue as genuine worship. "Every kind of creature now reveres him," he writes about Philippians 2:10–11. Cyril of Alexandria echoes the point. Martin Luther, in his commentary on Philippians, also reads the passage as universal submission to Christ's lordship, writing that Christ is the Lord "to whom everything is subjected even according to his humanity."³⁶

Gregory of Nyssa, the great Cappadocian father, reads Philippians 2 and 1 Corinthians 15 together and concludes that when all have bent the knee and confessed that Jesus is Lord, God will be all in all. The two passages describe the same event from different angles: the universal confession that leads to God being everything in everyone.³⁷

Burnfield documents this patristic tradition at length. The earliest Greek-speaking Christians, who understood exomologēsētai in their native tongue, had no difficulty reading Philippians 2 as teaching genuine, willing worship from every creature. The forced-submission reading is a later development, driven more by systematic commitments than by the text itself.³⁸

I want to be honest about one important counter-voice. McClymond, in The Devil's Redemption, cites John Chrysostom as holding the opposite reading. In one of his Homilies on Matthew, Chrysostom warns against presuming on future chances to repent. He quotes Paul's words about every tongue confessing and every knee bowing, and then adds: "But there is no advantage in that submission, for it comes not of a rightly disposed choice, but of the necessity of things." Chrysostom reads the universal bowing as grudging, not glad.⁵⁸

Chrysostom was a great preacher, and his pastoral warning against presumption was well placed. But his reading of the Greek here is at odds with the word Paul chose. As we saw above, exomologēsētai does not mean "grudging admission." It means open, willing, grateful confession. And Chrysostom's own reading of Philippians 2:10 in his homilies on Philippians is different from his reading in the Matthew homilies. There he says Paul's words mean "the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons" will acknowledge Christ. The tension is within Chrysostom himself, and the word Paul chose tips the scale toward the willing reading. Burnfield notes a similar inconsistency in how some modern commentaries treat the same Isaiah 45 quotation differently when it appears in Romans 14:11 (willing confession) and Philippians 2:10–11 (forced confession). The same text cannot mean two opposite things.⁵⁰⁵⁹

8. The Power of the Cross, Not the Power of a Conqueror

Coates raises a question that cuts to the heart of the passage: why does every knee bow? Because of the cross. Paul says, "He humbled himself to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him" (Phil 2:8–9). The bowing follows the cross. This bears the question: is there no genuine worship at the foot of the cross?

Thomas Talbott answers with power. He asks: what was the power of the cross, according to Paul? 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." God sent His Son not as a conquering hero, but as a suffering servant; "and the power that Jesus unleashed as he bled on the cross was precisely the power of self-giving love, the power to overcome evil by transforming the wills and renewing the minds of the evil ones themselves."⁴⁰

That is worth sitting with. God did not need a crucifixion to force obedience. He could have done that at any time. He chose the cross because the cross does something force cannot do. It wins hearts. It transforms wills. It overcomes evil not by crushing it from outside but by reaching into it with a love so costly that no resistance can finally hold against it.

I follow Talbott here with gratitude. His reading aligns with the full arc of Philippians 2. The hymn is not about divine power in the raw sense. It is about divine love that descends to the lowest place and is then exalted above every name. The bowing is the response to that love, not to a show of force.

I also follow Hart here on the exegesis. Hart insists that "reconcile" cannot be stripped of its positive content. Reconciliation is, by its nature, the restoration of a relationship. To claim that it means "forced subjugation" is to empty the word of its meaning. If Paul wanted to say "subjugate," Greek gave him plenty of words for that. He chose "reconcile." Where I part from Hart is on the philosophy of freedom. Hart argues that no rational will can finally refuse the Good; I keep the possibility of final refusal open, while arguing that God's love and wisdom make it vanishingly unlikely to be permanent (see Chapter 23). But on the reading of these texts, Hart and I stand on the same ground.⁴¹

Coates drives the point to its conclusion. Paul directly links salvation to the confession by writing, "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" joins together confession and salvation. In the early church, the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord was used in baptismal services to express one's commitment to Christ and subsequent deliverance. The confession is saving.⁴²

D. Engagement with Specific Scholars

The scholarly discussion on these texts divides along a predictable fault line: what does "all" mean?

On the universalist side, Parry reads Philippians 2:10–11 as genuine, saving worship. He argues that the Isaiah 45 background rules out a forced-submission reading. His reasons are straightforward. God calls all the nations to turn and be saved. Swearing oaths in God's name is something believers do, not defeated enemies. And the confession itself is a cry of praise, not a whimper of defeat. On Colossians, he argues that reconciliation retains its salvific meaning throughout: "The word itself and the context make it abundantly clear that Paul speaks of salvation when he speaks of reconciliation and that, as long as a being remains hostile to God, it cannot be said to have been reconciled to him."⁴³

Talbott presses the logic of Colossians 1:20 further. He identifies the precise kind of reconciliation Paul has in mind: "making peace through the blood of his cross." Paul even cited his own readers as examples. "And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death" (1:21–22). If the reconciliation of the Colossian believers is saving, and the same word describes what God does for "all things," then universal reconciliation is in view.⁴⁴

Burnfield gathers the exegetical threads into a sustained case in Patristic Universalism. His treatment of Isaiah 45, Philippians 2, John 12:32, Romans 11:32, and Colossians 1:20 shows that the "all means all" reading is not modern revisionism. It is the plain reading, supported by the earliest interpreters.⁴⁵

George Hurd, in The Universal Solution, connects these passages to the doctrine of God's sovereignty. God's absolute sovereignty is not diminished by giving creatures free will within His pre-determined boundaries. God is glorified not by tormenting the helpless, but by winning their willing allegiance through His love. When Paul quotes Isaiah 45, he declares that every knee shall bow because "it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13).⁴⁶

On the opposing side, Peter O'Brien reads Colossians 1:20 as describing a "pacification" of the cosmos rather than a universal salvation. He argues that "the reconciliation of the principalities and powers is in mind. They are one category whatever others are included. Yet these forces are shown as submitting against their will to a power they cannot resist." Charles Talbert develops this argument in detail, citing Plutarch and the Res Gestae of Augustus as examples of "peace through conquest."⁴⁷

But Talbott exposes the flaw in O'Brien's reasoning. O'Brien adopted the true premise that only "those who have heard the Word of reconciliation and gladly accepted it" will experience reconciliation in the full redemptive sense. But that premise, which universalists also accept and insist upon, is quite consistent with the conclusion that someday all will gladly bow before their Lord. The inference that because reconciliation requires faith, therefore not all will be reconciled, simply does not follow.⁴⁸

Douglas Moo, in his commentary on Colossians, takes a cautious position. He acknowledges the universal language but argues that "reconcile" may refer to the restoration of cosmic order rather than the salvation of every person.⁴⁹

De Young, in Exposing Universalism, makes the most sustained case against the universalist reading of Colossians 1:20. His argument has real force and deserves a careful answer. He grants that Paul uses "all" eight times in verses 15–20, and that it refers to the whole universe each time. But he argues that the reconciliation of verse 20 is "potentially salvific," not actually saving, until an individual believes. His strongest evidence is what follows: "And you who once were alienated and enemies in your minds . . . he has now reconciled" (Col 1:21–22). De Young asks: if all were already reconciled by the cross, why would Paul describe the Colossians as having once been not reconciled? The transition from enemy to reconciled person required faith.⁶⁰

This is a serious point, and I do not want to brush it aside. De Young is right that the Colossians were not experientially reconciled until they believed. But the universalist does not deny this. The universalist says that Paul describes two things: the scope of what God has done at the cross (reconcile all things) and the application of that work to individual persons through faith. The Colossians' reconciliation in verses 21–22 is their entry into the reality that verse 20 announces. The question is not whether faith is needed. The question is whether God will bring every creature to faith. And the universalist answers yes, pointing to Philippians 2:11 (every tongue confessing by the Spirit) and Romans 11:32 (mercy on all) as the texts that say so.⁶¹

De Young also appeals to Colossians 2:15 to interpret 1:20. In that verse, God has "disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross." De Young takes this as military conquest, not willing reconciliation. The "peace" of 1:20 is the peace of subjugation, like the Pax Romana. He argues that this triumph is de jure (accomplished in God's plan) though not yet de facto (realized in history).⁶²

But the word in 1:20 is still "reconcile," not "subjugate." Paul had both words available. He chose the one that means the ending of enmity, not the one that means conquest. And the instrument is the blood of the cross, not a military victory. De Young's reading requires "reconcile" to carry a meaning it never carries anywhere else in Paul. Talbott's response stands: the premise that reconciliation requires glad acceptance is one that universalists insist upon. The conclusion is not that some will never be reconciled. The conclusion is that all will one day gladly accept.⁶³

McClymond, in The Devil's Redemption, adds another angle. He argues that the reference to those "under the earth" in Philippians 2:10 most likely refers to demonic powers. And he notes that Paul's letters consistently treat these powers as coerced into submission, not persuaded to abandon their hostility. In McClymond's words, "Demons do not become angels." He concludes that the Philippians passage describes a forced acknowledgment, not saving worship.⁶⁴

McClymond's argument about the "under the earth" clause requires attention, but it proves less than he thinks. Even if "under the earth" includes hostile spiritual powers, the text says that every tongue in that realm will confess Jesus as Lord "to the glory of God the Father." And the word is still exomologēsētai, the word for glad, willing confession. McClymond's argument also leaves the human dead unaccounted for. Chrysostom, whom McClymond cites, read the same phrase as including "the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons." The question of the fallen angels is addressed fully in Chapter 22. For now, the human scope of the passage is what matters most: every human tongue will make a genuine, Spirit-given confession of Christ as Lord.⁶⁵

One more note is worth adding. McClymond himself records that John Stott, the great evangelical leader and no universalist, found it hard to reconcile an eternal hell with God's promises to unite all things under Christ (Eph 1:10), reconcile all things to Himself through Christ (Col 1:20), and bring every knee to bow and every tongue to confess (Phil 2:10–11). Stott asked how God can "in any meaningful sense be called 'everything to everybody' while an unspecified number of people still continue in rebellion." That question led Stott not to universalism but to conditional immortality. But the question itself is the right one, and this chapter's answer is that the texts mean what they say.⁶⁶

The pattern in the scholarly debate is consistent. Those who limit "all" in these passages must add distinctions the texts do not make. They must read "reconcile" as meaning something different from what it means everywhere else. At each step, the limiting reading requires what the text does not supply.

E. Counter-Objections

Objection 1: Bowing and Confessing Need Not Mean Being Saved

The strongest version of this objection goes like this: "The damned will bow too. Philippians 2 says every knee will bow, but that does not mean every knee bows willingly. The demons believe and shudder (James 2:19), but they are not saved. In the same way, the lost may acknowledge Christ's lordship without receiving salvation."

There is also a deeper problem with the forced-submission reading. The traditional view says that God respects free will enough to let people choose hell. But if God forces the damned to kneel and confess after death, He is overriding their will in the most dramatic way possible. He forces an act of worship from those He will not save. He compels a confession that He knows is false. And He does this "to the glory of God the Father." This is an incoherent picture. As Burnfield puts it, would it not have been more loving for God to override the will before death, when it could have done some good?⁵¹

De Young pushes back by citing Psalm 110:1: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet." He argues that this is the dominant picture of Christ's victory: enemies are placed under His feet, not invited to sit beside Him. The bowing of Philippians 2, on this reading, is the bowing of the conquered, not the worship of the saved.⁶⁷

But De Young's appeal to Psalm 110 has a problem. Psalm 110:1 describes the subjection of enemies, and Paul uses that language in 1 Corinthians 15:25–27. But in Philippians 2:10–11, Paul does not use subjection language. He uses confession and worship language: exomologēsētai, the word for glad confession, and "to the glory of God the Father." If Paul had wanted to echo Psalm 110, he could have written "every enemy will be placed under his feet." He did not. He quoted Isaiah 45, where the bowing is saving.

Psalm 66:3–5 supports this. The psalmist writes, "Say to God, 'How awesome are your works! Through the greatness of your power your enemies shall submit themselves to you. All the earth shall worship you and sing praises to you.'" The submission of God's enemies leads to worship and singing, not to eternal torment. God's power does not crush His enemies; it wins them. Psalm 86:9 says the same: "All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name."

Objection 2: "All Things" Is Cosmic, Not Personal

Some scholars argue that the "all things" of Colossians 1:20 and Ephesians 1:10 refers to the cosmic order, not to individual persons. On this reading, God restores the harmony of the created order without necessarily saving every person within it.

But the logic does not hold. Paul's "all things" in Colossians 1:16–17 includes "thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities." These are personal beings, not abstract forces. If the "all things" created includes personal beings, then the "all things" reconciled must include them too. You cannot narrow the scope of the reconciliation without narrowing the scope of the creation.⁵²

Hurd adds that reconciliation is a relational word. It describes the restoration of a broken relationship between persons. You do not "reconcile" a rock. Only fallen rational creatures need reconciliation with God. And Romans 8 says "all creation" groans and eagerly awaits delivery from bondage. Such language is not about inanimate objects.⁵³

Objection 3: "Reconcile All Things" Means Pacification, Not Salvation

This objection draws on the Roman-imperial background. In the Roman world, "making peace" often meant subjugating conquered peoples. On this reading, God "makes peace" with His enemies by defeating them, not by saving them.

But Paul's word is not "subjugate" (hupotassō) or "conquer." It is "reconcile" (apokatallaxō). And Paul uses this same word in the very next verse for the Colossian believers. "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death" (Col 1:21–22). Are the Colossian believers being "pacified" as conquered enemies? Obviously not. They are being saved.⁵⁴

The instrument of the peace is "the blood of his cross." This is not the language of military conquest. It is the language of sacrifice and atonement. The cross is a saving instrument, not a weapon. Paul connects the reconciliation of Colossians 1:20 to the same cross-centered reconciliation he describes in 2 Corinthians 5:18–19 and Ephesians 2:16.⁵⁵

Talbert's appeal to the Roman-imperial background, while historically interesting, actually makes the universalist case stronger. If Paul knew that "making peace" could mean "imposed pacification" in Roman political language, and he chose to use it alongside "reconcile," then he was deliberately saying something different from what the empire said. The emperor pacified by force. God reconciles by the cross. Paul is not borrowing the empire's vocabulary without question. He is subverting it. The peace of Christ is real peace, not the Pax Romana.

Objection 4: "Draw All" Means "All Kinds," Not "All Individuals"

This is the standard move when "all" becomes inconvenient. Jesus says "I will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32), and the objector says "all" means "all types" or "people from every nation," not every single person.

But the Greek pantas is unqualified. Jesus does not say "all kinds" or "some from every group." He says "all." And the context confirms the universal scope: Jesus has just spoken of the cross as the judgment of the world and the casting out of the ruler of the world (John 12:31). When the cross defeats Satan, Christ draws everyone.⁵⁶

The same verb (helkuō) appears in John 6:44 for the Father's drawing of believers. No one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him. If the "drawing" of John 6:44 is effective, then the "drawing all" of John 12:32 is effective too. Jesus confirmed the universal scope of His mission just a few verses later: "I did not come to judge the world but to save the world" (John 12:47). His mission is saving. And His reach, by His own words, is "all."⁵⁷

F. Conclusion and Pastoral Application

We have looked at five passages in their original language and in their original context. Philippians 2 and its source in Isaiah 45. The word "confess" and the work of the Holy Spirit. The word "reconcile" in Colossians 1. The verb "draw" in John 12. The "mercy on all" of Romans 11. And the plan of Ephesians 1. Each one points in the same direction: toward a God whose saving work reaches all.

God's plan for the end is not the salvation of a remnant and the destruction of the rest. It is the reconciliation of the whole creation through the blood of the cross. Every knee will bow in worship, not submission at gunpoint. Every tongue will confess by the Spirit, to the glory of the Father. All things will be reconciled by genuine peace, not imposed order. All people will be drawn to Christ. God will have mercy on all. All things will be summed up in Christ, and nothing will be left outside His care.

This is not wishful thinking. It is what the texts say when you let them speak in their own words, in their own context, in their original language.

I know the objections, and I have laid them out at their strongest. The forced-submission reading contradicts the Greek word for "confess." The pacification reading contradicts the word "reconcile." The "all kinds" reading contradicts the plain "all." At every turn, the limiting readings must add something that is not there, or strip away something that is.

In Chapter 5, we saw that the second Adam undoes what the first Adam did, and undoes it for all. Now we see the same truth from a different angle. The exalted Christ receives the worship of every creature. The reconciling Christ makes peace with the whole creation. The drawing Christ pulls every person to Himself. These are not separate programs. They are the same program, from Isaiah to Paul to John.

If you have been taught that "every knee shall bow" is a threat rather than a promise, I would ask you to go back to Isaiah 45 and read the passage that Paul is quoting. "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth." That is not a threat. That is an invitation. And according to Paul, it is an invitation that every creature in heaven, on earth, and under the earth will one day accept, freely and gladly, to the glory of God the Father.

Think about what this means for the person you are carrying in your heart right now. Maybe it is a parent who died angry at God. Maybe it is a friend who walked away from the church. Maybe it is a neighbor who never heard the gospel clearly. The passages in this chapter say that the God who reconciles all things by the blood of His cross has a plan for that person too. The drawing of John 12:32 reaches to them. The mercy of Romans 11:32 covers them. And the confession of Philippians 2:11, when it comes, will be real. It will be glad. It will be theirs.

The bowing is not the cringing of the conquered. It is the worship of the saved.

Notes

↑ 1. For the forced-submission reading, see John MacArthur, Philippians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 2001), on Phil 2:10–11; G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), on Phil 2:10–11; Richard B. Gaffin Jr., "The Last Adam, the Life-Giving Spirit," in Central Themes in Biblical Theology, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).

↑ 2. John Chrysostom, cited in James Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation After Death (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021), 289. Chrysostom's comment on the phrase "in heaven and on earth and under the earth": it "means the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons." The Greek exomologēsētai (from exomologeō, Strong's G1843) carries the sense of open, willing confession or praise. See BDAG, s.v. "εξομολογεω."

↑ 3. The word translated "ashamed" in Isaiah 45:24 (Hebrew bôsh, Strong's H954) is regularly associated with the shame that accompanies repentance and turning to God, not with the torment of the damned. See C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 7 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996 reprint), on Isa 45:22–25. Compare Ezekiel 16:63, where God provides atonement and the people feel shame in the context of redemption.

↑ 4. The verb apokatallassō appears only in Colossians 1:20, 22 and Ephesians 2:16. The related root katallassō appears in Romans 5:10–11; 11:15; 1 Corinthians 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18–19. In every instance, the reconciliation is a positive, saving act. See Robin A. Parry (Gregory MacDonald), The Evangelical Universalist, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), ch. on Colossians 1.

↑ 5. On anakephalaiōsasthai, see BDAG, s.v. "ανακεφαλαιοω," meaning "to bring something to a main point, sum up" and "to bring together in Christ." The prefix ana- suggests a restoration or recapitulation; the root kephalē means "head." The word paints a picture of all things being gathered under their proper head.

↑ 6. On helkuō, see BDAG, s.v. "ελκω," "to move an object from one area to another in a pulling motion, draw, with implication of force"; TDNT 2:503–504. The verb appears in John 6:44; 12:32; 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; James 2:6.

↑ 7. On Paul's quotation of Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:10–11, see also Romans 14:11, where Paul quotes the same passage in a context of accountability before God. The Isaiah source sets the framework for both uses.

↑ 8. David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism: An Alternative to the Traditional View of Divine Judgment, 2nd ed. (2016), ch. 4, "Every Knee Will Bow" section. Burnfield notes that the bowing in Isaiah 45 is connected to God's call: "Turn to Me and be saved."

↑ 9. Hunter Coates, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. on Phil 2:5–11. Coates traces the Isaiah 45 context in detail: "Yahweh gives a command for the nations to turn from their idols, which cannot save them, and to the only God who can save. Yahweh then swears by Himself that every knee shall bow and tongue confess allegiance to Him." The context clearly indicates salvation, not subjugation.

↑ 10. Sharon L. Baker, Razing Hell: Rethinking Everything You've Been Taught about God's Wrath and Judgment (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 177–78. Baker connects Isaiah 45:24 to the psalmist's prayer that the nations feel shame "so that they may seek God." Their shame humbles them enough to be reconciled. See also Ps 83:16–18.

↑ 11. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 7, on Isaiah 45:22–25. Quoted in Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4.

↑ 12. Robin A. Parry (Gregory MacDonald), The Evangelical Universalist, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), ch. on Philippians 2 ("Every Knee Shall Bow"). Parry: "This acknowledgement of Christ is universal. Paul emphasizes that there are no exceptions by expanding the Old Testament text 'every knee will bow' with the words 'in heaven and on earth and under the earth.' This is going considerably further than the Isaiah text. In Isaiah only the living were in mind." He adds: "Even those 'under the earth,' that is to say, the dead, will bow. So the picture is of every single individual who has ever lived acknowledging the rule of Christ."

↑ 13. The logic is straightforward: if no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3), and every tongue will confess that "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil 2:11), then the Spirit must be at work in every tongue's confession. See also Coates, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. on Phil 2:10–11: "How many people can confess Christ as Lord apart from the Spirit of God? None. Yet, Paul says in Philippians 2:10–11 that 'every tongue' shall confess. What is the logical implication as such? There is only one plausible answer: eventually, every tongue shall gladly confess in the Holy Spirit."

↑ 14. George Hunsinger, Philippians, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2020), 66. Cited in Coates, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. on Phil 2:5–11.

↑ 15. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887; repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), on Philippians 2:11 and Romans 14:11.

↑ 16. J. B. Lightfoot, quoted in Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 290: the secondary sense "to offer praise or thanksgiving" had "almost entirely supplanted its primary meaning in the LXX." James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), on Rom 14:11: "exomologeō almost certainly is intended in its usual LXX sense, 'acknowledge, confess, praise' (as in its only other uses in Paul, 15:9 and Phil 2:11)."

↑ 17. Thomas Johnson, quoted in Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, "Philippians 2:9–11" section.

↑ 18. See Isaiah 1:11–15, where God rejects worship from those whose hearts are not right: "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams . . . bring your worthless offerings no longer; incense is an abomination to me." If God rejects insincere worship from His own people, the idea that He would accept coerced worship from the damned is inconsistent.

↑ 19. Coates, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. on Phil 2:5–11. Citing W. E. Vine: kamptō is used for religious veneration (Rom 11:4; 14:11; Eph 3:14); sunkamptō in Romans 11:10 "signifies . . . to bend down by compulsory force." Paul chose the veneration word, not the coercion word.

↑ 20. On the meaning of apokatallassō, see Peter T. O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary 44 (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), on Col 1:20. O'Brien himself notes that in all references, the ground of reconciliation lies in the "gracious initiating activity of God." See also Hunter Coates, Grace Abounds: A Holistic Case for Universal Salvation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2024), ch. 5.

↑ 21. Romans 5:10–11; 2 Corinthians 5:18–19; Ephesians 2:16. In each case, reconciliation is a positive, saving act. The same connection between reconciliation and peace is found in Romans 5:1, 10.

↑ 22. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, ch. on Colossians 1: "What is of interest from a universalist perspective is that the poem is quite unambiguous about the extent of the reconciliation Christ has effected through his cross. The 'all things' that are reconciled in v. 20 are, without any doubt, the same 'all things' that are created in v. 16. In other words, every single created thing. It is not 'all without distinction' . . . but 'all without exception.'" James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 104.

↑ 23. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, ch. on Colossians 1. Parry argues that reading reconciliation as punishment "simply will not do": the poem "expands on the notion of reconciling all things in terms of making peace through the blood of his cross. The reconciliation of all things brings peace with God—a notion that, for Paul, clearly expresses salvation." See also Coates, Grace Abounds, ch. 5, on the infernalist double meaning: "The first problem with AHVP is that the infernalist commentator must implicitly assume that 'reconcile' has a double meaning in v. 20. For believers, reconciliation is a joyful eternal union with God. For the damned humans and evil powers, reconciliation has the entailment of forced subjugation. This is nowhere in the text."

↑ 24. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, on Colossians 1:20. See also Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, "Colossians 1:20" section. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 4 (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2005), limits the "all things" to believers, but this ignores the parallel with Col 1:16–17.

↑ 25. George Sidney Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism: A Biblical Response to James B. De Young's Book "Exposing Universalism" (2019), ch. on Col 1:16–20.

↑ 26. The proximity of apokatallassō in Col 1:20 and Col 1:21–22 is one of the strongest arguments for the universal-saving reading. Paul does not pause between the two uses of the verb. The reconciliation of "all things" (1:20) and the reconciliation of the Colossian believers (1:21–22) are described as the same act, through the same instrument (the blood of the cross / his body of flesh by his death). See Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), ch. 4; also Coates, Grace Abounds, ch. 5.

↑ 27. The pantas in John 12:32 is unqualified. The ESV adds "people" for clarity ("all people"), but the Greek simply reads "all" (pantas).

↑ 28. The connection between John 6:44 and 12:32 is significant. In 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." In 12:32, "I will draw all people to myself." The same verb, helkuō, connects the two statements.

↑ 29. George Sidney Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy: The Reconciliation of All through Jesus Christ, 2nd ed. (2018), ch. on John 12:32. Hurd catalogs every New Testament use of helkuō and notes that "in each case it expresses the idea of being drawn by a force greater than the resistance of the one being drawn." See also Gerry Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell: The Righteous Purpose of God's Judgment, ch. on John 12:32.

↑ 30. The "all kinds" reading of pantas is sometimes supported by appealing to the context of Gentile Greeks approaching Jesus in John 12:20–21. But the context of John 12:31 (the "judgment of this world" and the casting out of Satan) supports the universal reading: with Satan's power broken, Christ draws everyone.

↑ 31. On the symmetry of Romans 11:32, see the discussion of the parallel symmetry in Romans 5:18 in Chapter 5. The same structural logic applies: the "all" on one side of the equation defines the "all" on the other side.

↑ 32. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, "Romans 11:25–26a, 32" section. Paul's doxology (11:33–36) is the emotional response to the universal scope of God's mercy. As Burnfield notes, the doxology makes sense only if the mercy is genuinely universal.

↑ 33. Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy, ch. on Romans 11. See also Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, "Romans 11:25–26a, 32" section.

↑ 34. On Ephesians 1:10, see Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary 42 (Dallas: Word, 1990), on Eph 1:10. Lincoln notes that the plan to "sum up all things in Christ" refers to the eschatological unification of the entire created order under Christ's headship.

↑ 35. The verb anakephalaiōsasthai appears in the New Testament only in Ephesians 1:10 and Romans 13:9. In Ephesians, the scale is cosmic: all things, in heaven and on earth, are being gathered under Christ.

↑ 36. Origen, cited in Coates, Grace Abounds, ch. 5; Cyril of Alexandria, cited in Coates; Martin Luther, Commentary on Philippians, on Phil 2:10–11, cited in Coates.

↑ 37. Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Orations, ch. 26; see also Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection. Gregory's universalism is well attested; see also Chapter 15.

↑ 38. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4 and ch. 7. The earliest Greek-speaking interpreters naturally understood exomologēsētai as willing confession, not forced acknowledgment.

↑ 39. Ken Eckerty, "The Work of the Cross," cited in Coates, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. on Phil 2:5–11, and in Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, ch. on Phil 2:9–11. Vincent, A. T. Robertson, and Robert Young note the preposition en ("in") suggests intimacy. Coates: "You can bow to a king in a forced show of reverence, but you cannot bow in a king, that is, in a king's intimate status, if you do not share a symbolic, or in the case of Jesus, ontological intimacy."

↑ 40. Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 66. The full passage: "For God had no need of a crucifixion to compel obedience; he was quite capable of doing that all along. According to the New Testament as a whole, therefore, God sent his Son in the flesh, not as a conquering hero, but as a suffering servant; and the power that Jesus unleashed as he bled on the cross was precisely the power of self-giving love, the power to overcome evil by transforming the wills and renewing the minds of the evil ones themselves." Also quoted in Coates, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. on Phil 2:5–11.

↑ 41. David Bentley Hart, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), second meditation. On the distinction between this book's position and Hart's necessitarianism, see the full treatment in Chapter 2 and Chapter 23.

↑ 42. Coates, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. on Phil 2:5–11: "Paul directly links salvation to the situation in verse 11 by writing, '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' joins together confession and salvation, which was a given in the early church, where the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord was used in baptismal services."

↑ 43. Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, ch. on Philippians 2 and ch. on Colossians 1. On Philippians, Parry argues that "the words of Paul's source text clearly envisage a universal salvation." On Colossians: "The word itself and the context make it abundantly clear that Paul speaks of salvation when he speaks of reconciliation and that, as long as a being remains hostile to God, it cannot be said to have been reconciled to him. The context also makes it abundantly clear that Paul sees Christ as effecting the salvation of all creation."

↑ 44. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 4. Talbott: "In his letter to the Colossians, he went so far as to declare that the very same 'all things' created in Christ—including 'all things in heaven and on earth . . . visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions or powers' (1:16)—would eventually be reconciled to God in Christ (1:20). One could hardly ask for a more specific statement; Paul here applied the concept of reconciliation, which is explicitly a redemptive concept, not only to all human beings, but to all the spiritual principalities and dominions as well."

↑ 45. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, passim. Burnfield's chapter gathers Isaiah 45, Philippians 2, John 12:32, Romans 11:32, and Colossians 1:20 into a sustained exegetical argument for the universal reading.

↑ 46. George Sidney Hurd, The Universal Solution: Presenting Biblical Universalism as the Solution to the Debate between Calvinists and Arminians (2016), ch. on "God's Sovereignty and Human Free Will."

↑ 47. Peter T. O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, WBC 44, on Col 1:20. O'Brien: "The reconciliation of the principalities and powers is in mind. They are one category whatever others are included. Yet these forces are shown as submitting against their will to a power they cannot resist. They are reconciled through subjugation." Cited also in Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 4, and in Coates, Once Loved, Always Loved. For Talbert's development, see Charles H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, Paideia Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), on Col 1:20.

↑ 48. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 4. Talbott's response to O'Brien: "O'Brien has adopted the true premise that in Pauline thought only 'those who have heard the Word of reconciliation and gladly accepted it' will experience reconciliation in the full redemptive sense. But that premise, which Christian universalists also accept, even insist upon, is quite consistent with the Pauline conclusion that someday all will gladly bow before their Lord."

↑ 49. Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), on Col 1:20. James B. De Young, Exposing Universalism (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016), ch. on Col 1:20. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. on Col 1:16–20: "Reconciliation is exclusively a relational term, referring to the restoration of broken relationships. Only fallen rational moral beings are in need of reconciliation with God."

↑ 50. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, "Every Knee Will Bow" and "Philippians 2:9–11" sections. Burnfield: "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)?"

↑ 51. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, "Philippians 2:9–11" section: "So the traditional view asks us to believe that God will grant us all the freedom in the world even to our own eternal damnation while we're alive on earth and will only force His will on us after we're dead and it's too late."

↑ 52. The parallel between "all things" in Col 1:16–17 and "all things" in Col 1:20 is one of the strongest internal arguments for the universal reading. The same phrase (ta panta) in the same hymnic context must carry the same referent. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, ch. on Col 1:16–20.

↑ 53. Hurd, A Defense of Biblical Universalism, same chapter: "It not only says in Romans 8 that 'all creation' will be set free and restored but also that creation groans and eagerly awaits the moment they will be delivered from bondage. Such characteristics are not attributable to inanimate objects."

↑ 54. The immediate literary context is decisive. Col 1:20 says God reconciles "all things" through the blood of the cross. Col 1:21–22 says the Colossians have been reconciled "in his body of flesh by his death." The same word (apokatallassō), two verses apart, describing the same action: the ending of enmity through the cross. See Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 4.

↑ 55. On the cross as a saving instrument rather than a weapon, see the atonement discussion in Chapter 4. The reconciliation of Colossians 1:20 is the same reconciliation described in 2 Corinthians 5:18–19 and Ephesians 2:14–16. See also Coates, Grace Abounds, ch. 5.

↑ 56. Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell, ch. on John 12:32: "Once the judgment of this world has run its course and the ruler of this world is cast out, Christ will drag all men to Himself. He confirmed this just a few verses further (vs. 47) by saying He came 'to save the world.'"

↑ 57. The logic is simple: if the Father's drawing in John 6:44 is effective (no one comes without being drawn, but those who are drawn do come), then the Son's drawing of "all" in John 12:32 must also be effective.

↑ 58. Michael J. McClymond, The Devil's Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 1:55–56. McClymond cites Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, where Chrysostom warns: "If unbelievers after death are saved on their believing, no one shall ever perish. For all will then repent and adore." Chrysostom then adds of the confession in Philippians 2: "But there is no advantage in that submission, for it comes not of a rightly disposed choice, but of the necessity of things."

↑ 59. Chrysostom's own comment on Philippians 2:10 in his Homilies on Philippians, noted above (fn. 2), reads the bowing as including "the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons." The tension between his two readings suggests that Chrysostom's pastoral concern about presumption led him in the Matthew homily to downplay what his own exegesis of Philippians acknowledged. See Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 289.

↑ 60. James B. De Young, Exposing Universalism: A Comprehensive Guide to the Faulty Appeals Made by Universalists (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018), ch. on Colossians 1:19–23. De Young argues that the only way to reconcile 1:20 ("reconcile all things") with 1:21 ("you who were once alienated . . . he has now reconciled") is to recognize that "reconciliation is potential and available for all . . . but all do not appropriate this reconciliation by the cross." He concludes: "If universalists are right in their interpretation, Paul would have said simply that the Colossians were reconciled by Christ's death approximately thirty years earlier."

↑ 61. The universalist distinction between scope and application is not an evasion. Paul routinely speaks of what Christ has accomplished at the cross in universal terms (the scope) and then describes how individuals enter that reality through faith (the application). See Parry, The Evangelical Universalist, ch. on Colossians 1; Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 4. The question is not whether faith is needed but whether God will bring all to faith.

↑ 62. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. on Colossians 1:19–23, citing Col 2:15: God has "disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross." De Young reads this as reinforcing the pacification interpretation of 1:20: "This is not a salvific triumph, not one that is willingly embraced and that brings salvation and freedom from bondage, but like a military conquest it is one from which none ever escapes."

↑ 63. See Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 4, responding to O'Brien's parallel argument. The premise that only those who have gladly accepted the word of reconciliation can be reconciled is one that universalists share. The conclusion is that all will one day gladly accept, not that reconciliation is forced.

↑ 64. McClymond, The Devil's Redemption, 2:963. McClymond argues: "The Philippians reference to those 'under the earth' is most likely to demonic powers, and 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. Demons do not become angels—or at least not in the Old and New Testaments." On the broader question of the fate of Satan and the fallen angels, see Chapter 22.

↑ 65. Even if "under the earth" includes spiritual powers, the text says "every tongue" in that realm will confess. The Greek exomologēsētai does not change its meaning based on who is confessing. The word carries the sense of glad, willing acknowledgment whether the tongue belongs to a human or an angel. See the lexical discussion above (fn. 15–17). McClymond's argument about the demonic powers is addressed in full in Chapter 22.

↑ 66. McClymond, The Devil's Redemption, 1:114–115. McClymond cites John R. W. Stott from his 1988 exchange with David Edwards: "[An eternal hell] would be hard to reconcile with the promises of God's final victory over evil . . . and of God uniting all things under Christ's headship (Eph. 1:10), reconciling all things to himself through Christ (Col. 1:20) and bringing every knee to bow to Christ and every tongue to confess his lordship (Phil. 2:10–11), so that in the end God will be 'all in all.'" Stott reached conditional immortality, not universalism. But the question he raised is the question this chapter is answering.

↑ 67. De Young, Exposing Universalism, ch. on Philippians 2:9–11, citing Psalm 110:1 as "the most frequently cited OT text" used to show that enemies are brought into submission as a conquering sovereign's footstool. De Young connects this to 1 Cor 15:24–25 and argues that the bowing of Phil 2:10 is the same kind of forced acknowledgment. But Paul's language in Philippians 2 quotes Isaiah 45, not Psalm 110. The source text he chose is saving, not conquering.