The Evangelical Universalist Forum

2 Corinthians 6:2 and Universalism

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

One of the biblical verses used by traditional Christians to refute Universalism is 2 Corinthians 6:2,

*“AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU, AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU.” Behold, now is “THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,” behold, now is “THE DAY OF SALVATION”— *(NASB)

They say this verse establishes that there is no such thing as post-mortem salvation; salvation must occur today, before death, for this verse says *now is the acceptable time * and now is the day of salvation.

But is this so? Does this verse say that? I think not, and the reason is in the Greek. The Greek clauses for *now is the acceptable time *and now is the day of salvation are these:

*νῦν καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος *and νῦν ἡμέρα σωτηρίας.

There is no definite article the in Greek in either of these clauses.

Thus, 2 Corinthians 6:2 should read, as in Young’s literal translation,

for He saith, ‘In an acceptable time I did hear thee, and in a day of salvation I did help thee, lo, now is a well-accepted time; lo, now, a day of salvation,’

The indefinite article a is correctly used in place of the incorrect definite article the used in most modern Bible versions.

Note that the definite article is indeed used in Greek, as can be seen in the next verse in 2 Corinthians, i.e., verse 6:3,

giving no cause for offense in anything, so that the ministry will not be discredited, (NASB)

The Greek words for the ministry are ἡ διακονία, where the word ἡ is the feminine nominative form of the definite article the.

So, 2 Corinthians 6:2 is not biblical proof that salvation is based only on what one does now in this life on earth.

1 Like
The idea of Death as the deadline for salvation
#2

Great catch, Lancia. Thanks for posting this! It just goes to show that you always need to check the more literal translations, and to the extent we’re able, the original languages as well.

1 Like
#3

Thanks, Cindy.

Of significance here is authors of the different Bible versions might have unwittingly (or sometimes wittingly) mistranslated the Hebrew and Greek to favor their points of view throughout the Bible. That’s called bias. In 2 Corinthians 6:2, the evidence is undeniable that words were added. And that addition really changes meaning. How many other examples are there of changed meanings to key verses in the Old and New Testaments? Posters here have raised the issue that many words, such as those translated as eternal, everlasting, and destruction, do not mean, in the original language, eternal, everlasting, and destruction, as we normally view those words. This bias can influence the unwary reader in a particular direction that may not have been intended originally. How many believers (and non-believers, for that matter) have a distorted view of what’s really being said as a result of such mistranslations? The answer is potentially mind-boggling.

#4

One of the stages in my journey to EU was realising that the translations into English was not always accurate.

So when the translation difficulties of of eternal punishment came up, I had already crossed that bridge - which made things easier. I have friends who will find crossing that bridge quite difficult.

What I find scary is that when verses contradict the nature of God - His love and goodness - people seem happier to redefine goodness rather than accept that a mistake has been made somewhere.

Even more scary is that some churches and denominations take on the practice or doctrine of questionable passages - which is very hard to change.

Thanks for posting about 2 cor 6: 2.

Mike

#5

Yes, good catch lancia. I love stuff like that. Mistranslation/ addition, etc. is a big problem, particularly with our Western tendency to be linear, literal and to ignore the overarching themes present in what we read.

#6

To be fair, a lack of a direct article in Greek isn’t the same as definitely having only an indirect article in English. It could mean “the acceptable” (etc.) or “an acceptable”, either one.

There is an interesting positive argument for Christian universalism from 2 Cor 6:2 and its contexts, however, including its referential contexts, which we’ve discussed in recent weeks in a couple of threads (including this one from my exegetical notes).

#7

I agree with Jason on this. Sometimes a definite article is needed in the English translation even when no article is used in the Greek.

I think the main point is that there is no justification in assuming that the passage affirms no post-mortem salvation. It doesn’t address post-mortem salvation at all or the lack thereof. In my opinion it is saying that TODAY is always the Day of Salvation, that we should never at any time reject the continual process of salvation which God is working in our lives. That’s why Paul says in verse 2: “Behold, now is the favorable time.” NOW is always the favorable time to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”. Indeed he precedes it all with verse 1:

Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.

We must work together with God as we are receiving His grace to continue down the road of salvation. “Working together with Him” is “synergism” directly from the Greek of this verse as opposed to the “monergism” (God doing everything for our salvation apart from us) which proponent of Calvinism espouse. It would appear that Paul was not a Calvinist.

I think what Paul is saying is that since salvation from sin (not merely from the punishment of sin) is a process and occurs daily, then TODAY and every day is the Day of Salvation.

#8

One might also observe that trying to get no post-mortem salvation by appealing to “today is the day”, requires stressing “today” in some limited fashion not found in the text – leaving an appeal to the literal meaning of the word and then OMG NO ONE CAN EVER BE SAVED FROM SIN AFTER THE DAY PAUL WROTE THAT LETTER! :unamused: :wink:

(Which is aside from observing that the quoted scripture is talking about a day of salvation to come not only in Paul’s future but our own future when Jerusalem is saved from invading armies and Nephilim-level rebels are dragged off mountains and out of the depths of the sea to be whacked upside the head until they learn to behave properly.)

#9

Yes Jason, that is precisely what I was thinking. Thanks for bringing it up.

#10

“AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU, AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU.” Behold, now is “THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,” behold, now is “THE DAY OF SALVATION”— (NASB)

They say this verse establishes that there is no such thing as post-mortem salvation; salvation must occur today, before death, for this verse says now is the acceptable time and now is the day of salvation.

Even if the translation is accurate if TODAY is the only day of salvation it would rule out deathbed conversions, it would rule out putting off a decision for more then a day after you hear the gospel.
So obviously it means the time of salvation s/b ASAP.

#11

Yes, it’s always today – except when it’s this night. :wink: But I think Father’s gates in the kingdom of light are open always in any case. If it wasn’t so, we couldn’t come, since until we see that light it’s night always here.

#12

This is all Greek to me. Pun intended!

How would one know that a definite article is needed in the English translation when none is used in the Greek? The definite article clearly exists in the Greek. So, if it were not included in the Greek, why would one think it was intended to be included?

#13

^^ Context.

Also, there are a few obscure grammatic rules where a direct article is implied even when it isn’t printed (although in at least one of those few cases it’s more of a guideline than an actual rule). But this isn’t one of those special situations.

The most common of the special grammatic situations is this, for example:

genitive direct article == “the”
genitive noun A == “A-of”
pronoun == “us” “me” “you” whatever
kai-conjunction == “and”
{implied genitive direct article == “the”}
genitive noun B == “B-of”
{implied pronoun same as the first one}

There’s also a second implied identical pronoun, but the explicit pronoun can shuffle around a bit in that word order, and some adjectives can be added for either of the nouns, and theoretically there could be more nouns in the list.

The sequence can be spelled out explicitly, too, which is what this form is a shorthand for.

While this is generally recognized by grammarians, there was (and still is) a big controversy over whether omitting or including direct articles beyond the first one means the nouns necessarily refer to different topics or are different ways of describing the same topic. The trinitarian grammarian Granville-Sharpe tried to work out a fairly convoluted set of further rules on this which would end up with all disputed examples testifying one way or another to trinitarian theism yaaaay! :unamused: But after awhile the overly ad hoc nature of those “rules” became obvious, and so even trinitarian grammarians tend to restrict the G-S rule(s) to this (and maybe one other different variant).

I think everyone agrees that the situation above, where the second noun’s direct article and pronoun are omitted, certainly indicates that the same topic is being described two different ways; but then non-trinitarians will try to make something out of the lack of a direct article when “God” is noun B and “Jesus/Christ” is the zero noun (so to speak) being described with noun A and noun B. (The idea is that if Jesus isn’t explicitly described as “the God” then Jesus isn’t intended to be on theological par with the Father but is some kind of lesser god instead. But then Jesus turns out to be certainly or probably described as “the God” implicitly by various rules, and even explicitly on occasion, so then the criteria changes to never-called-the-God-without-ANY-further-description-AT-ALL-of-ANY-kind. Which trinitarians regard as being just as ad hoc as G-S’s attempts to make all the data variants indisputably fit ortho-trin with overly-complicated rule sets.)

If it wasn’t for the Christological (and sometimes Pneumatological) issues involved, no one today would probably care much about whether direct articles are ever certainly implied in Biblical Greek or not. :slight_smile: So take that for what you will. :laughing:

(I’m on the trinitarian side, but I can still poke some fun at the various gymnastics attempted over the years by various groups, my own included. I can argue in detail all the various points in the NT where Jesus is certainly or probably called “the God”, too; but I also know it’s kind of a trivial point which doesn’t mean remotely as much as referential and conceptual contexts do. Even Satan is called “the god” with an explicit direct article at least once, for example.)

#14

Thanks for that thorough explanation, Jason.

However, I wonder, then, why Young’s Literal Translation uses the indefinite article a, not the definite article the, in the relevant parts of 2 Corinthians 6:2.

“for He saith, 'In an acceptable time I did hear thee, and in a day of salvation I did help thee, lo, now is a well-accepted time; lo, now, a day of salvation,”

#15

I wonder.

The following translations also do not have the word “the” in them:

A Conservative Version Interlinear:
http://studybible.info/ACVI/2%20Corinthians%206

For He is saying, “In a season acceptable I reply to you, And in a day of salvation I help you.Lo! Now is a most acceptable era! Lo! Now is a day of salvation!” (CLV)

For he saith—In an approved season, have I hearkened unto thee, and, in a day of salvation, have succoured thee;—Lo! now, a well-approved season, Lo! now, a day of salvation: (Rotherham)

(he says for: In a season acceptable I listened to thee and in a day of salvation I helped thee. Lo, now a season well accepted, lo, now a day of salvation.) (Emphatic Diaglott NT)

https://studybible.info/CLV/2%20Corinthians%206

In a time acceptable i heard you and in a day of salvation i helped you. Behold now [is] a time acceptable, behold now [is] a day of salvation. (The New Greek English Interlinear New Testament, with UBS 4th edition, Nestle-Aland 27th edition, editor J.D. Douglas, PhD, 1990, p.634).

2 Cor.6:2 For he says, “In an acceptable time i heard you, and on a day of salvation I helped you.” Look: Now is an acceptable time. Now is a day of salvation." (The New Testamtnt: A Translation, by EO scholar David Bentley Hart, 2017, p.358)

#16

I don’t know, although various sources i’ve read all concur Paul is drawing from, or quoting out of, the Septuagint’s translation of Isaiah 49:8. And most of the English translations of the Septuagint i read do not say “the”. Of the following 5 English translations of the Septuagint only one says “the”, & it is in italics indicating the word “the” is not in the original.

Brenton English Septuagint Translation
8 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I succored thee: and I have formed thee, and given thee for a covenant of the nations, to establish the earth, and to cause to inherit the desert heritages:

Charles Thompson Translation (Septuagint)
8 Thus saith the Lord, "In an acceptable time I have hearkened to thee, and in a day of salvation helped thee; and have formed thee and given thee for the covenant of nations that thou mayst reduce the earth to order and possess desolate heritages,

Complete Apostle’s Bible (Septuagint)
8 Thus says the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard you, and in a day of salvation have I helped you; and I have formed you, and given you for a covenant of the nations, to establish the earth, and to cause to inherit the desert heritages;

LXX 2012: Septuagint In Modern English
8 Thus says the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard you, and in a day of salvation have I succored you: and I have formed you, and given you for a covenant of the nations, to establish the earth, and to cause to inherit the desert heritages:

https://studybible.info/LXX2012/Isaiah%2049

Apostolic Bible Polygot English (“the” is in italics, indicating it is not in the original Greek):
https://studybible.info/ABP_Strongs/Isaiah%2049

Also, BTW, most of the translations (from the Hebrew, i assume) here say “a” not “the”:

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%2049:8
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/49-8.htm

Likewise with all of these Hebrew sources:

Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament:
https://studybible.info/IHOT/Isaiah%2049

Hebrew-English Interlinear:
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/49-8.htm

https://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/49-8.htm

#17

Cindy also remarks upon the allegation of 2 Cor.6:2 as an anti-universalist “proof text” here:The idea of Death as the deadline for salvation

Many commentators erroneously consider the verse to be a Scriptural proof vs eventual universal salvation and or postmortem salvation.

#18

The following was posted on another forum/website:

There is nothing in the passage supporting your comments.

If it is “a” day of salvation that doesn’t equate to “the only” day of salvation.

If today is “a” day of salvation, tomorrow may be another day.

To the Lord a day is as a thousand years (2 Pet.3:8).

Now is “a” day of salvation. The present moment is always “now”, whether
today or in a 1000 years after Paul wrote that or in 3000, 5000 or 10,000
years after he wrote it.

#19

This passage, 2 Cor.6:1-2, makes no mention of God’s love expiring, like the date on a milk carton, when this life ends, & then it’s do not pass go, do not collect $, do not go to heaven, but go directly to judgement & endless hell fires.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_pass_Go.Do_not_collect$200.

[If that were so, where are all the babies & children who died without believing in Christ. Are they the ones who gain salvation by luck, hence the lucky lottery winners, & without a choice of their own free will are irresistibly forced into heaven?]

#20

This is a quote from years back, but I just came across it today. I cannot find an explicit occasion on which Jesus is called “the God.” Jason, I would be deeply thankful for any reference to a verse or verses in which this is the case.