What happens to those who die without hearing about Jesus? This question has troubled Christians for centuries. A baby dies in a remote village. An elderly person passes away in a country where Christianity is forbidden. A slave hears a twisted version of the gospel that supports their oppression. Are all these people automatically condemned to hell? James Beilby, a conservative evangelical theologian at Bethel University, believes the Bible offers hope for these situations through what he calls “postmortem opportunity” – a chance to respond to the true gospel after death. This comprehensive report examines Beilby’s biblical arguments, explores how other conservative scholars support this view, analyzes the key Scripture passages, and connects these ideas to near-death experiences where people report meeting God.
Understanding Beilby’s conservative theological framework
Before diving into the biblical arguments, it’s crucial to understand that James Beilby approaches this topic as a committed conservative evangelical Christian. He firmly maintains several orthodox positions that shape his entire argument. First and foremost, Beilby insists that “explicit, conscious, and intentional faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.” This sets him apart from liberal theologians who might argue that people can be saved through other religions or through being good people. Beilby rejects these ideas completely. He believes that Jesus is the only way to God, just as Jesus himself said in John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Beilby also maintains that the Bible is God’s inspired Word and the ultimate authority for Christian belief and practice. He doesn’t pick and choose which parts of Scripture to believe but accepts it all as true. This commitment to biblical authority means that any theory about postmortem opportunity must align with what the Bible teaches. As Beilby writes in his book, “Specific theological beliefs cannot contradict what Scripture clearly teaches and should be based on reasonable inferences from what Scripture does teach.” This careful approach ensures that his arguments stay within the boundaries of conservative biblical Christianity.
What makes Beilby’s position unique is that while he maintains these conservative commitments, he also argues that “death is not the end of salvific opportunity and that some might receive their first and only opportunity to hear the gospel and respond to God’s salvific offer after death.” This isn’t about giving people a second chance – it’s about ensuring everyone gets a first genuine chance to hear and respond to the true gospel. Beilby emphasizes that this opportunity is limited to specific groups of people who never had a real chance during their earthly lives.
Amy Peeler, a New Testament professor at Wheaton College, one of America’s most respected evangelical institutions, praised Beilby’s work, saying: “Beilby’s scriptural and theological arguments are cogent, careful, and convincing. He does not claim too much for any of the passages but simply shows how those texts that might seem to close the door to Postmortem Opportunity, when considered fully and in context, do not.” This endorsement from a scholar at such a conservative evangelical college shows that Beilby’s ideas are being taken seriously within mainstream evangelical Christianity.
The three categories of people who need postmortem opportunity
Beilby identifies three specific groups of people who he believes will receive a postmortem opportunity to respond to the gospel. Understanding these categories is essential because it shows that Beilby isn’t arguing for universal second chances or suggesting that everyone gets to reconsider their decision after death. Instead, he’s focused on those who never had a genuine opportunity to hear and understand the true gospel during their earthly lives.
The first group is the unevangelized – those who never heard the gospel due to geographical or temporal isolation. Think about the millions of people who lived in the Americas before European missionaries arrived. Consider those living in North Korea today where sharing the gospel can result in execution. What about the countless people throughout history who lived and died in places where the name of Jesus was never spoken? Beilby argues that a just and loving God would not condemn these people to eternal hell simply because of when and where they were born. They deserve to hear the gospel at least once, even if that opportunity comes after death.
The second group is what Beilby calls the pseudoevangelized – those who heard a distorted or false version of the gospel. This category particularly resonates with the dark chapters of Christian history. African slaves in America often heard a version of Christianity that justified their enslavement. Some were told that God made them inferior and that slavery was their divinely ordained position. Victims of abuse by religious leaders heard the gospel from the very people who were harming them, creating a twisted association between Jesus and their trauma. People raised in cults that claim to be Christian but teach false doctrines never heard the true gospel, only a counterfeit version. Beilby argues these people never received a genuine presentation of who Jesus really is and what he offers.
The third group includes those lacking cognitive capacity – infants who die, people with severe mental disabilities, and those who never develop the ability to understand abstract concepts like sin and salvation. Conservative Christians have long believed that God shows special mercy to these individuals, often teaching an “age of accountability” before which children aren’t held responsible for their sins. Beilby’s framework provides a biblical foundation for this mercy, suggesting that these individuals will have the opportunity to encounter Christ in a way they can understand after death.
The biblical foundation: Christ’s descent to the dead
The cornerstone of Beilby’s biblical argument rests on a fascinating and mysterious passage in 1 Peter 3:18-20. This passage has puzzled Bible scholars for centuries, but Beilby believes it provides crucial evidence for postmortem evangelization. Let’s examine this passage carefully, as Beilby does in his book.
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.” (1 Peter 3:18-20, ESV)
Beilby interprets this passage as describing a literal journey that Christ made between his death on the cross and his resurrection on Easter Sunday. He argues that the passage follows a clear chronological sequence that matches ancient Christian creeds. The passage describes five distinct events in order: Christ’s crucifixion (“put to death in the flesh”), his death, his descent to the realm of the dead (“went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison”), his resurrection (“made alive in the spirit”), and his ascension to heaven (mentioned in verse 22).
This interpretation aligns with the Apostles’ Creed, one of the earliest statements of Christian faith, which declares that Jesus “descended into hell” or “descended to the dead” depending on the translation. Beilby notes that this wasn’t a controversial idea in the early church. Many church fathers, including Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Origen, believed that Christ literally went to the realm of the dead during the three days his body lay in the tomb.
But who were these “spirits in prison” to whom Christ preached? Beilby acknowledges that scholars have proposed various interpretations. Some believe they were fallen angels. Others suggest they were the disobedient people from Noah’s time. Still others argue that this refers to Christ preaching through Noah before the flood. Beilby carefully examines each interpretation and concludes that the most natural reading is that Christ preached to human spirits – the souls of those who had died.
As Beilby writes: “Understanding 1 Peter 3:18-22 as expressing a doctrinal formula makes it very difficult to see the descent as anything other than the descent of Christ into Hades.” He quotes scholar MacCulloch: “No other interpretation than that of the work of the discarnate Spirit of Christ in Hades seems natural and self-evident here. Indeed all other interpretations merely evade this evident meaning.”
The significance of this interpretation cannot be overstated. If Christ did indeed preach to spirits in the realm of the dead, it establishes a biblical precedent for the gospel being proclaimed after death. This doesn’t mean everyone gets unlimited chances to accept Christ after death. Rather, it suggests that God ensures everyone receives at least one genuine opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel, whether in this life or the next.
The gospel preached to the dead: 1 Peter 4:6
Just a few verses later, Peter makes another remarkable statement that Beilby sees as confirming postmortem evangelization. In 1 Peter 4:6, we read:
“For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.” (1 Peter 4:6, ESV)
This verse explicitly states that “the gospel was preached even to those who are dead.” The Greek word used here for “preached” is euangelizo, from which we get the word “evangelize.” It specifically means to proclaim good news or to preach the gospel. This isn’t just a general announcement or a proclamation of judgment – it’s the sharing of the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Beilby argues that this verse provides direct biblical evidence for postmortem evangelization. The dead mentioned here are literally dead people, not spiritually dead people still living on earth. The purpose of this preaching is “that they might live in the spirit the way God does” – pointing to the possibility of salvation and spiritual life even after physical death.
Some scholars try to explain this verse away by saying it refers to people who heard the gospel while alive but have since died. However, Beilby points out that this interpretation doesn’t fit the grammar or context of the passage. The verse says the gospel was preached “to those who are dead,” not “to those who are now dead but were alive when they heard it.” The straightforward reading suggests that the preaching happened while they were in a state of death.
This interpretation gains support from the broader context of Peter’s letter. Throughout 1 Peter, the apostle is encouraging Christians who are suffering persecution. He wants them to know that God’s justice will ultimately prevail and that his mercy extends even beyond death. The fact that the gospel can be preached to the dead shows that God’s salvific work isn’t limited by human death. This would be incredibly encouraging to Peter’s readers who may have lost loved ones who never heard the gospel.
Christ’s cosmic victory: Ephesians 4:8-10
Paul provides another piece of evidence for Christ’s descent to the realm of the dead in his letter to the Ephesians. In Ephesians 4:8-10, Paul writes:
“Therefore it says, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.’ (In saying, ‘He ascended,’ what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)” (Ephesians 4:8-10, ESV)
Beilby sees this passage as describing the same descent mentioned in 1 Peter. Paul quotes Psalm 68:18 and then provides his own inspired commentary on it. He argues that Christ’s ascension to heaven implies a prior descent “into the lower regions, the earth.” Many conservative scholars interpret “the lower regions, the earth” as referring to Hades or Sheol, the realm of the dead in biblical cosmology.
The phrase “he led a host of captives” is particularly intriguing. This has traditionally been understood as Christ liberating the righteous dead from their captivity in Sheol/Hades. Before Christ’s death and resurrection, even believers who died didn’t go directly to heaven but to a place of waiting. When Christ descended to the realm of the dead, he proclaimed his victory and led these captive souls to freedom. This event is sometimes called the “Harrowing of Hell” in Christian tradition.
This interpretation is supported by Jesus’s words to the thief on the cross: “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus didn’t say “Today you will be with me in heaven” because Jesus himself didn’t ascend to heaven until after his resurrection. Instead, both Jesus and the thief went to Paradise, understood as the blessed portion of the realm of the dead, from which Christ later led the righteous to heaven.
The cosmic scope of Christ’s victory is emphasized in Paul’s statement that Christ descended and ascended “that he might fill all things.” This suggests that Christ’s salvific work extends to every realm of existence – heaven, earth, and the realm of the dead. No place is beyond the reach of his saving power. This provides a theological foundation for believing that those who die without hearing the gospel aren’t automatically beyond the reach of God’s grace.
Biblical objections and Beilby’s responses
Beilby doesn’t ignore the biblical passages that seem to argue against postmortem opportunity. Instead, he carefully examines each one and shows how they don’t necessarily close the door on his theory. His approach demonstrates intellectual honesty and a commitment to taking all of Scripture seriously.
The most commonly cited objection comes from Hebrews 9:27: “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” Many Christians read this as meaning that immediately after death, a person faces final judgment with no opportunity for salvation. However, Beilby argues that we need to read this verse in its context. The author of Hebrews is comparing Christ’s single sacrifice with the repeated sacrifices of the Old Testament priests. Beilby explains:
“Just as human beings only die once, and after that face judgment (Heb 9:27), so Christ will only die once to pay the price for human sin, and after that ‘appear a second time’ to bring salvation to those who are being judged (Heb 9:28). The point here is that human beings die only once, and Jesus died only once.”
Furthermore, Beilby points out that the verse doesn’t specify when “after that” occurs. There’s no indication that judgment happens immediately upon death. In fact, most conservative Christians believe in a future judgment at Christ’s second coming, which means there’s already a time gap between death and final judgment. During this intermediate period, Beilby suggests, the unevangelized could receive their opportunity to hear the gospel.
He also addresses the verse by noting that “it is possible to believe that the judgment that an unevangelized person experiences includes an opportunity to hear the gospel and that they are judged by their response to that offer.” In other words, the judgment itself could include the presentation of the gospel, with the person’s response determining their eternal fate.
Another significant objection comes from Jesus’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. In this story, a rich man dies and finds himself in torment, while a poor man named Lazarus is comforted in “Abraham’s bosom.” The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers, but Abraham refuses, saying there’s a “great chasm” fixed between them that cannot be crossed.
Beilby responds to this objection in several ways. First, he notes that this is a parable, not a literal description of the afterlife. Parables use symbolic language to convey spiritual truths, and we shouldn’t build detailed doctrine from their imagery. Second, even if we take the parable more literally, it specifically addresses someone who had adequate opportunity during life – the rich man had “Moses and the Prophets” but ignored them. This doesn’t necessarily apply to those who never heard the gospel at all. Third, the parable’s focus is on the finality of decisions made by those who rejected clear revelation, not on the fate of the unevangelized.
Some also point to 2 Corinthians 6:2, where Paul writes, “Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” This seems to emphasize that salvation is only available now, in this life. Beilby acknowledges the urgency of responding to the gospel when we hear it but argues that Paul is addressing people who are hearing the gospel in that moment. He’s not making a statement about those who have never heard it. The emphasis on “now” is meant to prevent procrastination among those who have the opportunity, not to condemn those who lack opportunity.
Conservative evangelical scholars who support postmortem opportunity
While Beilby’s view might seem radical to some evangelicals, he’s not alone in his position. Several respected conservative scholars have argued for similar views, though they may use different terminology or emphasize different aspects. Understanding this broader scholarly support helps demonstrate that postmortem opportunity can be held within the bounds of conservative, biblical Christianity.
Gabriel Fackre, who taught at Andover Newton Theological School until his death in 2018, developed what he called the “divine perseverance” view. Fackre described himself as an “ecumenical evangelical” who maintained the authority of Scripture. His central argument was that God’s love is so persistent that it continues to pursue sinners even after death. Fackre wrote that “sinners who die outside the knowledge of the gospel will not be denied the hearing of the Word.” He didn’t see this as a second chance but as God ensuring everyone gets a first genuine chance to respond to the gospel.
Fackre based his view on God’s character as revealed in Scripture. The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4) and is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). If God truly desires all to be saved, Fackre argued, he would ensure that all have a genuine opportunity to respond to the gospel, even if that opportunity comes after death.
Donald Bloesch, a theologian in the United Church of Christ who identified as a “progressive evangelical,” also supported a form of postmortem evangelization. Bloesch wrote extensively about maintaining evangelical orthodoxy while addressing difficult questions about salvation. He argued that “Hell is a reality…But it is not the final word on human destiny because God’s grace pursues the sinner into hell.” Bloesch was careful to distinguish his view from universalism – he didn’t believe everyone would be saved, but he did believe everyone would have a genuine opportunity for salvation.
Bloesch made an important distinction: “This is not to be confounded with the doctrine of a second chance. What the descent doctrine affirms is the universality of a first chance.”
Clark Pinnock, who taught at McMaster Divinity College, was another evangelical scholar who supported the possibility of postmortem salvation. Pinnock’s theological journey is interesting – he began as a strict Calvinist but gradually moved toward Arminian theology while always maintaining a high view of Scripture. In his later work, Pinnock argued for what he called “wideness in God’s mercy” while still maintaining that salvation comes only through Christ. He left open the possibility that those who die without hearing the gospel might encounter Christ after death.
Terrance Tiessen, a Reformed theologian, developed a view he calls “accessibilism.” While remaining within the Reformed tradition with its emphasis on God’s sovereignty in salvation, Tiessen argues that God ensures universal access to salvation. This might happen through general revelation, through dreams and visions, or through postmortem encounter. Tiessen’s work is particularly significant because it shows that even Reformed theologians, who typically emphasize predestination and election, can find room for postmortem opportunity within their theological framework.
Jerry Walls, a philosopher at Houston Christian University, has written extensively about the afterlife from an evangelical perspective. While Walls is perhaps best known for his defense of a Protestant version of purgatory (a place of purification for believers after death), he also supports the possibility of postmortem evangelization for the unevangelized. Walls argues that God’s justice and love require that everyone have a genuine opportunity to respond to the gospel. He sees postmortem opportunity as consistent with God’s character as revealed in Scripture.
These scholars represent a significant stream within evangelical thought. While they may be a minority, they demonstrate that belief in postmortem opportunity isn’t incompatible with conservative theology, biblical authority, or evangelical faith. They all maintain that salvation comes only through conscious faith in Jesus Christ – they simply argue that the opportunity for such faith extends beyond physical death for those who never had a genuine chance during life.
The timing of postmortem opportunity: When and where?
One of the fascinating aspects of Beilby’s research is his exploration of different theories about exactly when and where postmortem opportunity might occur. While the Bible doesn’t give us a detailed timeline of what happens after death, various passages provide hints that theologians have used to construct different models. Understanding these different possibilities helps us see the flexibility within the biblical framework while maintaining core Christian truths.
The immediate encounter model suggests that at the very moment of death, every person who hasn’t had a genuine opportunity to respond to the gospel encounters Christ directly. This encounter would be unmistakable – not a vague spiritual experience but a clear presentation of who Jesus is and what he offers. The person would then make their eternal decision based on this encounter. This model has the advantage of simplicity and ensures that no one enters eternity without having met Jesus personally. Some see support for this in Paul’s statement that “every knee should bow… and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Philippians 2:10-11), suggesting a universal encounter with Christ.
The intermediate state model proposes that postmortem opportunity occurs during the period between individual death and the final resurrection at Christ’s return. Traditional Christian theology has long taught that souls exist consciously between death and resurrection – this is called the “intermediate state.” During this time, the unevangelized could hear the gospel and make their decision. This model aligns with the idea that Christ preached to spirits during his three days in the tomb, establishing a precedent for proclamation in the intermediate state. It also fits with the biblical teaching that final judgment doesn’t occur until Christ returns, suggesting that destinies aren’t absolutely fixed at the moment of death.
The judgment encounter model places the postmortem opportunity at the final judgment itself. When the unevangelized stand before God’s throne, they would hear the gospel clearly presented and make their final decision. This interpretation finds support in passages like Revelation 20:11-15, which describes books being opened at the final judgment. These books might contain not just records of deeds but also the opportunity for those being judged to respond to the gospel. This model emphasizes that God’s judgment is perfectly just – no one is condemned without having had a clear opportunity to accept salvation.
The divine perseverance model, advocated by Gabriel Fackre, suggests that God continues to pursue souls after death until they make a definitive choice. This isn’t endless opportunity – at some point, people make a final decision that cannot be reversed. But God’s love is so persistent that he ensures everyone has sufficient opportunity to understand and respond to the gospel. This model emphasizes God’s character as revealed throughout Scripture – a God who seeks the lost sheep, who runs to embrace the prodigal son, who doesn’t want any to perish.
Beilby himself doesn’t insist on one particular model, recognizing that the Bible doesn’t give us enough detail to be dogmatic about the exact timing and location of postmortem opportunity. What matters is the principle that God, in his justice and love, ensures that no one is condemned without having had a genuine opportunity to respond to the gospel. The exact mechanism by which this happens is less important than the theological truth it represents.
Biblical support from universal opportunity passages
Beyond the specific passages about Christ’s descent and preaching to the dead, Beilby draws support from numerous biblical texts that speak of God’s universal love and desire for all to be saved. These passages create what might be called a “theological pressure” toward postmortem opportunity – if God truly loves all and wants all to be saved, it seems inconsistent with his character to condemn those who never had a chance to hear the gospel.
Perhaps the clearest statement comes from 1 Timothy 2:3-4: “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The Greek word for “all people” here is pantas anthropous, which literally means all human beings without exception. God’s desire isn’t limited to certain groups or time periods – he wants every single person who has ever lived to be saved.
Beilby argues that if God genuinely desires all to be saved, and if God is omnipotent (all-powerful), then God would ensure that all have an opportunity for salvation. It would be strange for an all-powerful God to desire something but not take action to make it possible. This doesn’t mean everyone will be saved – people can still reject God’s offer. But it does mean everyone should have the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel.
Similarly, 2 Peter 3:9 tells us: “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Peter is explaining why Christ hasn’t returned yet – God is patiently giving more people the opportunity to repent. But what about those who die without ever hearing the gospel? Wouldn’t God’s patience extend to them as well, perhaps through postmortem opportunity?
Jesus himself declared in John 12:32: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” This universal drawing doesn’t guarantee universal salvation, but it does suggest that Christ’s salvific work reaches every person in some way. If billions have died without hearing the gospel, how can Christ draw them unless there’s some form of postmortem opportunity?
The prophet Ezekiel records God saying: “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezekiel 33:11). This reveals God’s heart – he doesn’t delight in condemning people but desires their repentance and salvation.
The book of Revelation presents a vision of heaven that includes people “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Revelation 7:9). How can this be fulfilled if entire people groups throughout history lived and died without ever hearing the gospel? Postmortem opportunity provides one answer – these people heard the gospel after death and responded in faith.
Beilby also points to God’s justice as revealed throughout Scripture. Abraham asked, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25). The Bible consistently presents God as perfectly just and fair. But is it just to condemn someone to eternal hell for not believing in Jesus if they never heard about Jesus? Most people’s sense of justice says no – and Beilby argues that our God-given sense of justice reflects God’s own perfect justice. A just God would ensure everyone has a genuine opportunity to respond to the gospel.
Near-death experiences and their biblical connections
One of the most intriguing aspects of Beilby’s postmortem theology is how it relates to the thousands of documented near-death experiences (NDEs) where people report encountering divine beings, experiencing life reviews, and making spiritual decisions. While Beilby doesn’t base his theology on NDEs – he bases it on Scripture – these experiences provide interesting parallels to biblical accounts and may offer glimpses into the reality of postmortem encounters with God.
Research by organizations like the International Association for Near-Death Studies has documented common elements in NDEs across cultures and religions. People frequently report leaving their bodies, moving through a tunnel toward a light, encountering deceased relatives or divine beings, experiencing a comprehensive life review, and reaching a point where they must choose whether to return to life or continue into death. Remarkably, about one-third of people who identify the divine being they meet specifically say it was Jesus, even when they come from non-Christian backgrounds.
The Bible itself contains accounts that parallel modern NDEs. The apostle Paul describes an experience in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 where he was “caught up to the third heaven” and “caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.” Paul’s uncertainty about whether he was “in the body or out of the body” mirrors the confusion many NDE experiencers report about their physical state during the experience.
Stephen’s vision at his martyrdom in Acts 7:55-56 provides another biblical parallel. As Stephen was being stoned to death, “he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” Notice that Jesus is standing, not sitting – many commentators suggest Jesus rose to receive Stephen, just as many NDE experiencers report being welcomed by Jesus or other divine beings.
The life review commonly reported in NDEs has biblical support in passages about judgment. 2 Corinthians 5:10 states: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” Many NDE experiencers describe reviewing their entire lives, seeing how their actions affected others, and understanding the moral weight of their choices – very similar to biblical descriptions of standing before God in judgment.
John Burke, a pastor and researcher who has studied over 1,000 NDEs, writes in his book “Imagine Heaven” that these experiences often align remarkably with biblical descriptions of the afterlife. Burke found that people from various religious backgrounds who have NDEs often report encounters that match biblical theology more closely than their own religious traditions. This suggests that these experiences might be genuine glimpses of spiritual reality rather than culturally conditioned hallucinations.
Dr. Gary Habermas, a respected Christian apologist and professor at Liberty University, has researched NDEs extensively. He states: “I don’t think the nature of NDEs helps us construct what kind of worldview is true, only that the naturalistic [atheistic] alternative is probably false, since there is very strong evidence here for an afterlife.” Habermas has documented over 100 cases where people having NDEs reported accurate information about events occurring at a distance from their physical body, suggesting these experiences involve more than just brain chemistry.
The transformation that often follows NDEs also parallels biblical descriptions of encountering God. People frequently return from NDEs with reduced fear of death, increased love for others, stronger faith, and a sense of life purpose – similar to biblical accounts of people being transformed by encounters with God. This transformation suggests these experiences involve genuine spiritual encounters rather than mere hallucinations.
Beilby’s concept of a “moment of death encounter” where the unevangelized meet Christ aligns remarkably with many NDE accounts. People from non-Christian backgrounds sometimes report meeting a being of light whom they later identify as Jesus, even though they had little or no knowledge of Christianity before their experience. Some report being given a choice whether to accept this being’s love and enter into his presence or to turn away. This mirrors Beilby’s theological proposal that those who haven’t heard the gospel might encounter Christ at death and make their eternal decision based on that encounter.
However, it’s important to note that not all NDEs are positive. Researchers estimate that about 23% of NDEs are distressing or hellish experiences. People report encounters with evil beings, experiences of darkness and isolation, or visions of hell. This diversity of experiences supports the biblical teaching that there are two eternal destinations and that not everyone will be saved. It also suggests that postmortem opportunity doesn’t guarantee salvation – people can still reject God even when confronted with spiritual reality.
Comparing different Christian views on postmortem opportunity
To fully understand Beilby’s position, it’s helpful to compare it with other Christian views on what happens to those who die without hearing the gospel. Each position claims biblical support, and understanding these different interpretations helps us see why this remains a debated issue among sincere Christians who all affirm the authority of Scripture.
The traditional exclusivist position, held by many conservative evangelicals, maintains that only those who explicitly believe in Jesus during their earthly lives can be saved. This view emphasizes passages like John 14:6 (“No one comes to the Father except through me”) and Acts 4:12 (“There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”). Exclusivists argue that if postmortem salvation were possible, the Bible would clearly teach it, and the urgency of missions would be undermined. They often point to Romans 1:18-20, which says that even those without special revelation are “without excuse” because God’s existence and nature are evident in creation.
The inclusivist position suggests that people can be saved by Christ without explicitly knowing about Christ. Inclusivists argue that those who respond in faith to whatever revelation they have received (through nature, conscience, or non-Christian religions) are saved by Christ’s work even if they don’t know his name. They point to biblical examples like Melchizedek, Job, and the Magi who seemed to know God without being part of Israel. Inclusivists often cite Romans 2:14-16, which speaks of Gentiles who “by nature do what the law requires” and suggests they will be judged according to their response to the light they received.
The hopeful universalist position held by some Christians suggests that eventually all people will be saved through Christ. They emphasize passages that speak of Christ reconciling “all things” to himself (Colossians 1:20) and God being “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). However, most evangelicals reject this view as contradicting clear biblical teaching about hell and eternal punishment.
Beilby’s postmortem opportunity position is distinct from all of these. Unlike exclusivists, he believes salvation opportunities extend beyond death for some. Unlike inclusivists, he maintains that explicit faith in Christ is necessary – people can’t be saved through other religions or general revelation alone. Unlike universalists, he affirms that some will ultimately reject Christ and be lost forever. His position might be called “extended exclusivism” – salvation is exclusively through conscious faith in Christ, but the opportunity for such faith extends beyond death for those who lacked genuine opportunity during life.
It’s worth noting how different scholars interpret the same biblical passages to support their different views. Take 1 Peter 3:19-20, the passage about Christ preaching to the spirits in prison. Exclusivists often argue this refers to Christ proclaiming victory over demons, not offering salvation to dead humans. Inclusivists might see it as Christ preaching to Old Testament saints who were already saved but waiting for his victory. Beilby sees it as Christ offering salvation to those who died without adequate opportunity. The same passage, three different interpretations – showing how complex biblical interpretation can be.
Different interpretations of key biblical passages
The debate over postmortem opportunity often centers on how to interpret specific biblical passages. Understanding these different interpretations helps explain why sincere, Bible-believing Christians can come to different conclusions on this issue. Let’s examine how various scholars approach the key texts.
Regarding 1 Peter 3:19-20 and the “spirits in prison,” at least five major interpretations have been proposed. First, some argue Christ preached through Noah to the people of Noah’s generation while they were alive – they are “in prison” now but weren’t when the preaching occurred. Second, others suggest Christ proclaimed his victory to fallen angels imprisoned for their rebellion. Third, some believe Christ preached to Old Testament saints waiting in Sheol/Hades for his victory to release them. Fourth, certain scholars argue Christ offered salvation to the generation that died in Noah’s flood. Fifth, Beilby and others see this as Christ offering salvation more broadly to those who died without adequate opportunity.
Each interpretation has strengths and weaknesses. The Greek word for “spirits” (pneumata) usually refers to supernatural beings, which supports the fallen angel interpretation. However, the context connects these spirits specifically to “the days of Noah,” which suggests human beings from that time. The grammar seems to indicate that Christ went and preached after being “made alive in the spirit,” suggesting this happened after his resurrection, not through Noah before the flood. Yet the traditional timing has Christ descending to Hades between his death and resurrection, not after.
For Hebrews 9:27 (“it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment”), interpretations vary based on how one understands “after that.” Exclusivists see this as immediately after death, closing the door on postmortem opportunity. But Beilby and others note that most Christians believe in a future judgment at Christ’s return, not immediate judgment at death. This creates an intermediate period where postmortem evangelization could occur. Some also argue that the judgment itself could include the opportunity to respond to the gospel – people are judged based on their response to Christ whenever they encounter him.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 is interpreted differently as well. Exclusivists see it as clear evidence that destinies are fixed at death with an uncrossable chasm between the saved and lost. Those supporting postmortem opportunity note several things: it’s a parable using symbolic language, not a literal description of afterlife geography; the rich man had “Moses and the Prophets” and thus adequate opportunity during life; the parable addresses those who rejected revelation they received, not those who never received it; and even taken literally, it describes the situation before Christ’s death and resurrection, which changed everything.
Addressing the missionary objection
One of the most common objections to postmortem opportunity is that it undermines the urgency of Christian missions. If people can be saved after death, why risk our lives and spend our resources sending missionaries around the world? Why not just let everyone die and meet Jesus in the afterlife where he can present the gospel perfectly without cultural barriers or human error?
Beilby takes this objection seriously and provides several compelling responses. First and foremost, he emphasizes that Jesus commanded us to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). This isn’t optional – it’s a direct command from our Lord. We don’t obey God’s commands only when we fully understand the reasons behind them. Even if God has a backup plan for those we fail to reach, that doesn’t excuse us from obeying his clear instructions.
Second, Beilby argues that missions provides people with the opportunity to experience salvation and transformation in this life, not just the next. When someone accepts Christ, they receive forgiveness, peace, purpose, and the Holy Spirit’s power to live differently. They become part of God’s family, the church, and can experience Christian community. They can raise their children in the faith and influence others for Christ. All of these blessings are lost if someone only encounters Christ after death. Missions isn’t just about eternal destination – it’s about abundant life beginning now.
Third, accepting the gospel in this life may be easier than accepting it after death. Here, we respond to God in faith without seeing him directly. This faith is precious to God and brings special blessing. Jesus told Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). Those who reject Christ after seeing him face-to-face in the afterlife may face greater condemnation because they rejected greater light.
Fourth, Beilby notes that missionaries become partners with God in his redemptive work. When we share the gospel, we have the privilege of participating in God’s mission to save the world. This shapes us spiritually, increases our faith, and brings us joy. Paul wrote, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:15). We would lose this privilege if we abandoned missions.
Fifth, the possibility of postmortem opportunity doesn’t mean everyone who dies without hearing the gospel will accept it when offered after death. People can reject Christ even when confronted with him directly – Satan did, after all. The longer someone lives without God, developing habits of sin and self-centeredness, the harder it may become to surrender to Christ. Reaching people early in life gives them the best opportunity to develop faith and Christian character.
Finally, Beilby emphasizes that postmortem opportunity is for those who lack genuine opportunity in this life. It’s not a second chance for those who heard and rejected the gospel. This maintains the urgency of responding to the gospel when we hear it. As 2 Corinthians 6:2 says, “Now is the day of salvation” – for those who hear the gospel, there’s no guarantee of future opportunity.
The conservative theological safeguards in Beilby’s view
Throughout his work, Beilby is careful to maintain several theological safeguards that keep his view within the bounds of conservative evangelical Christianity. Understanding these safeguards is crucial because they distinguish his position from liberal theology or universalism.
First, Beilby absolutely maintains that salvation is only through conscious faith in Jesus Christ. This isn’t negotiable. He rejects any form of religious pluralism that suggests people can be saved through other religions. He also rejects the inclusivist idea that people can be saved by Christ without knowing Christ. For Beilby, saving faith requires explicit knowledge of and trust in Jesus. The postmortem opportunity he envisions is specifically an opportunity to hear about Jesus and respond to him in faith.
Second, Beilby affirms that not everyone will be saved. He’s not a universalist. Even if everyone receives an opportunity to respond to the gospel, whether in this life or the next, many will reject it. Jesus himself said the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and few find it (Matthew 7:14). Postmortem opportunity doesn’t change this reality – it simply ensures that everyone has a genuine chance to find the narrow gate.
Third, Beilby maintains the reality of hell and eternal punishment for those who ultimately reject Christ. He doesn’t soften the biblical teaching about the seriousness of sin or the reality of judgment. Those who reject Christ, whether in this life or the next, face eternal separation from God. The possibility of postmortem opportunity doesn’t minimize the tragedy of rejecting Christ.
Fourth, Beilby restricts postmortem opportunity to specific categories of people who lacked genuine opportunity in this life. This isn’t a universal second chance. Those who heard the true gospel and rejected it don’t get another opportunity after death. The principle is that everyone gets one genuine opportunity – for most, that’s in this life, but for some (the unevangelized, pseudoevangelized, and those lacking cognitive capacity), it comes after death.
Fifth, Beilby bases his arguments on careful biblical exegesis, not sentimentalism or human reasoning. While he does appeal to God’s character as loving and just, he grounds these appeals in Scripture. He doesn’t say, “I can’t imagine a loving God condemning people who never heard the gospel.” Instead, he says, “The Bible reveals God as loving and just, and the Bible hints at postmortem opportunity, so this view aligns with biblical revelation.”
Sixth, Beilby maintains the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. He doesn’t claim special revelation or base his view on church tradition that contradicts Scripture. He acknowledges that the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach postmortem opportunity but argues that it’s a reasonable inference from what the Bible does teach. This approach respects biblical authority while recognizing that we must sometimes draw theological conclusions from biblical principles rather than explicit statements.
Historical support in Christian tradition
While Beilby bases his arguments primarily on Scripture, he also notes that the idea of postmortem opportunity has deep roots in Christian history. This historical perspective is important because it shows that this isn’t a novel idea invented by modern liberals but has been considered by orthodox Christians throughout the centuries.
The Apostles’ Creed, one of the earliest and most widely accepted Christian creeds, includes the phrase “he descended into hell” or “he descended to the dead” (the Latin word inferna can be translated either way). This credal statement, which dates back to at least the 4th century and possibly earlier, suggests that the early church believed Christ did something significant in the realm of the dead between his crucifixion and resurrection. While Christians have debated exactly what Christ did there, the creed establishes that his salvific work extended to the realm of the dead.
Many early church fathers supported the idea that Christ preached to the dead. Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) wrote about Christ evangelizing those in Hades. He believed that God’s justice required giving everyone, including those who died before Christ, an opportunity for salvation. Origen (184-253 AD), one of the most influential early theologians, also believed in Christ’s descent to Hades to offer salvation to the dead. While some of Origen’s views were later considered heretical, his belief in Christ’s preaching to the dead was widely shared.
Irenaeus (130-202 AD), who was taught by Polycarp (who was taught by the apostle John), wrote: “The Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching his advent there also, and declaring remission of sins received by those who believe in him.” This direct line from the apostles through Polycarp to Irenaeus gives special weight to his testimony about early Christian belief.
Augustine (354-430 AD), perhaps the most influential theologian in Western Christianity, wrestled with these questions. While he was more cautious about postmortem opportunity than some earlier fathers, he acknowledged the mystery surrounding Christ’s descent to the dead and didn’t completely rule out the possibility of salvation being offered there. He wrote that it would be “most unreasonable” to suppose that the ancient saints who believed in Christ’s future coming weren’t liberated by Christ’s descent to Hades.
During the Medieval period, the “Harrowing of Hell” became a central theme in Christian art, literature, and theology. Countless paintings, sculptures, and mystery plays depicted Christ descending to Hell/Hades, breaking down its gates, and liberating the righteous dead. While interpretations varied, the common belief was that Christ’s salvific work extended to those who had died before his coming.
Even some Protestant Reformers left room for this belief. Martin Luther, in his Torgau sermon on Christ’s descent, spoke of Christ destroying hell’s power and taking away its victory. While Luther focused more on Christ’s victory over death and hell than on evangelization of the dead, he maintained the traditional belief in Christ’s literal descent.
The implications for pastoral care and Christian hope
Beilby’s view of postmortem opportunity has profound implications for pastoral care and the hope we can offer to grieving Christians. Every pastor faces heartbreaking questions from their congregation: What happened to my baby who died? What about my grandmother who lived in a country where Christianity was illegal? What about my friend who was abused by church leaders and rejected Christianity because of it? Beilby’s framework provides biblically grounded hope without compromising theological integrity.
For parents who have lost infants or young children, postmortem opportunity offers assurance that their children will have the chance to respond to Christ in a way appropriate to their capacity. This goes beyond the traditional “age of accountability” teaching by providing a biblical mechanism for how those who die young can exercise faith in Christ. Parents can have confidence that their children aren’t automatically saved (which might seem to make infant death a guarantee of heaven) nor automatically condemned (which would be unjust), but rather that they receive a genuine opportunity to respond to Christ’s love.
For those grieving loved ones who never heard the gospel, Beilby’s view offers hope without false assurance. We can’t guarantee that someone who died without hearing the gospel will accept it when offered after death. But we can trust that God, who is perfectly just and loving, will ensure they receive a genuine opportunity to respond to Christ. This maintains the seriousness of human choice while trusting in God’s fairness.
This view also helps address the emotional struggles many Christians face about the fate of the unevangelized. It’s natural to wonder how a loving God could condemn billions of people who happened to be born in the wrong place or time. Beilby’s framework allows us to affirm both God’s love for all people and the necessity of faith in Christ without resorting to theological compromises that undermine the gospel.
For missionaries and evangelists, this view can actually increase rather than decrease motivation. Knowing that God ensures everyone receives a genuine opportunity for salvation, whether through our efforts or through postmortem encounter, frees us from the crushing burden of thinking that people’s eternal destinies depend entirely on our success or failure. We can share the gospel with joy and confidence, knowing we’re participating in God’s mission but that he won’t let anyone slip through the cracks due to our limitations.
Responding to common concerns and objections
Despite the biblical and theological support for Beilby’s position, many sincere Christians have concerns about postmortem opportunity. Addressing these concerns honestly and biblically is important for helping people understand and evaluate this view.
Some worry that postmortem opportunity opens the door to universalism. If God offers salvation after death, won’t everyone eventually accept it? Beilby firmly rejects this conclusion. The Bible clearly teaches that some will be eternally lost. Even when confronted with truth directly, people can still reject it. Satan himself dwelt in God’s presence yet rebelled. The Israelites saw God’s miracles in the Exodus yet repeatedly turned away. Judas walked with Jesus for three years yet betrayed him. Human free will means some will tragically reject God’s love even when it’s perfectly presented.
Others fear this view undermines biblical authority by building doctrine on inference rather than explicit teaching. Beilby acknowledges that Scripture doesn’t explicitly teach postmortem opportunity but argues that many doctrines Christians accept are based on theological inference rather than explicit statements. The Trinity, for example, is never explicitly described in Scripture but is inferred from various passages. The age of accountability for children is widely believed but not explicitly taught. Theological reasoning from biblical principles is a legitimate and necessary part of Christian doctrine.
Some argue that postmortem opportunity contradicts God’s justice by giving some people a “better” opportunity than others. Why should those who reject the gospel in this life not get a second chance while the unevangelized do? Beilby responds that justice requires everyone receive a genuine opportunity, not that everyone receives identical opportunities. Those who heard the true gospel in this life have already received their genuine opportunity. Justice doesn’t require giving them another chance after they’ve rejected the first one.
A practical concern is that this view might lead to spiritual complacency. If people believe they might get another chance after death, won’t they put off responding to the gospel? Beilby emphasizes that postmortem opportunity is only for those who never received a genuine opportunity in this life. Anyone who has heard the true gospel needs to respond now. There’s no biblical promise of postmortem opportunity for those who heard and rejected the gospel. As Hebrews 3:15 warns, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”
Some worry about departing from traditional evangelical teaching. While postmortem opportunity is a minority view among evangelicals, Beilby shows it has historical precedent and contemporary support from respected evangelical scholars. Moreover, truth isn’t determined by majority vote. The Protestant Reformation itself involved challenging widespread traditional beliefs based on fresh examination of Scripture. We should be willing to reconsider traditional positions if biblical evidence warrants it.
The significance for understanding God’s character
Perhaps the most profound aspect of Beilby’s argument is what it reveals about God’s character. The Bible consistently presents God as both perfectly just and infinitely loving. Postmortem opportunity helps reconcile these attributes in a way that honors both without compromising either.
God’s justice demands that no one be condemned without cause. It would be unjust to punish someone for rejecting something they never heard about. Human courts recognize this principle – ignorance of the law can be a legitimate defense if the person had no reasonable way to know the law. How much more would divine justice ensure that everyone has a genuine opportunity to respond to the gospel before facing eternal judgment?
God’s love is described in Scripture as surpassing human understanding. The parable of the lost sheep shows God as one who pursues the lost relentlessly. The parable of the prodigal son depicts God as a father who runs to embrace returning children. Would such a God allow billions to perish without ever having a chance to respond to his love? Postmortem opportunity demonstrates that God’s love extends as far as possible while still respecting human free will.
As Beilby writes: “The God revealed in Scripture is not one who grudgingly offers salvation to a few while eagerly condemning the majority. Rather, he is a God who ‘desires all people to be saved’ and who is ‘not willing that any should perish.’ Postmortem opportunity reflects this divine heart.”
This view also helps us understand biblical passages about God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. God is sovereign in ensuring everyone receives an opportunity for salvation, whether in this life or the next. But humans are responsible for how they respond to that opportunity. This maintains both divine sovereignty and human responsibility without logical contradiction.
Furthermore, postmortem opportunity demonstrates God’s wisdom in dealing with the complexities of human history and culture. God understands that someone raised in a culture hostile to Christianity faces different challenges than someone raised in a Christian family. He knows that someone who was abused by religious leaders has barriers to faith that others don’t face. By providing postmortem opportunity for those who lacked genuine opportunity in life, God shows perfect understanding of individual circumstances while maintaining the same standard for all – conscious faith in Christ.
Practical applications for Christian living
If Beilby’s view is correct, what difference should it make in how Christians live and minister? While this doctrine primarily addresses what happens after death, it has significant implications for life and ministry here and now.
First, it should increase our confidence in evangelism. We can share the gospel knowing that God won’t let anyone perish simply because we failed to reach them or communicated poorly. This doesn’t reduce our responsibility – we’re still commanded to make disciples. But it removes the paralyzing fear that someone’s eternal destiny depends entirely on our performance. We can share the gospel with joy and freedom, trusting God to ensure everyone receives a genuine opportunity one way or another.
Second, it should deepen our trust in God’s justice when we face difficult questions. When skeptics challenge us about the fate of those who never heard the gospel, we can confidently affirm that God is perfectly just and won’t condemn anyone unfairly. While we may not know exactly how God ensures justice in every case, we can trust his character as revealed in Scripture and possibly expressed through postmortem opportunity.
Third, it should increase our appreciation for the privilege of hearing the gospel in this life. Those of us who have heard and believed the gospel have received an incredible gift – the opportunity to know Christ now, to experience his transformation in this life, and to serve him on earth. We shouldn’t take this privilege for granted or assume everyone has the same opportunity. This should motivate gratitude and faithful service.
Fourth, it should shape how we do pastoral care and counseling. When counseling those who are grieving loved ones who died without clear evidence of faith, we can offer hope without false assurance. We can encourage them to trust God’s justice and love while acknowledging the mystery of each person’s eternal destiny. This pastoral approach avoids both the harsh certainty that condemns all non-Christians and the false comfort that assumes everyone is saved.
Fifth, it should influence our approach to apologetics and theology. When discussing Christianity with skeptics or seekers, we can present a view of God that is both biblically faithful and morally compelling. Many people reject Christianity because they can’t reconcile the idea of a loving God with the condemnation of those who never heard the gospel. Postmortem opportunity provides a biblical answer to this objection without compromising core Christian doctrines.
Future research and unanswered questions
While Beilby’s work provides a substantial biblical and theological framework for postmortem opportunity, many questions remain for future research and reflection. Acknowledging these questions demonstrates intellectual honesty and recognizes that God’s ways are higher than our ways.
One significant question is how postmortem opportunity relates to the final judgment. Revelation 20 describes the great white throne judgment where books are opened and the dead are judged. How does this relate to postmortem evangelization? Are people offered the gospel at this judgment, or does it occur earlier? Beilby doesn’t provide a detailed timeline, acknowledging that Scripture doesn’t give us enough information to be dogmatic about the precise sequence of events.
Another question concerns the nature of the postmortem encounter with Christ. What form does it take? Is it a vision, a direct presence, or something else entirely? How much does the person understand about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection? These details remain mysterious, and perhaps they should – God may deal with each person individually according to their capacity and need.
There’s also the question of how this applies to Old Testament saints. Traditional theology teaches that Old Testament believers were saved by faith looking forward to the Messiah, even though they didn’t know Jesus’ name. Did they receive fuller revelation after death? How does Christ’s descent to Hades relate to their salvation? These questions intersect with postmortem opportunity but extend beyond Beilby’s primary focus.
The relationship between postmortem opportunity and mental capacity raises additional questions. How does God reveal himself to those with severe intellectual disabilities? What about those with dementia who may have lost the ability to understand the gospel they once believed? Beilby’s framework suggests God will ensure they have appropriate opportunity, but the details remain unknown.
Conclusion: A hope grounded in biblical truth
James Beilby’s case for postmortem opportunity represents a thoughtful, biblically grounded attempt to address one of Christianity’s most challenging questions. By carefully examining Scripture, engaging with theological tradition, and maintaining evangelical commitments, Beilby offers a view that upholds both God’s justice and his love without compromising the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation.
The biblical evidence Beilby presents – from Christ’s preaching to the spirits in prison to the universal scope of God’s salvific desire – provides substantial support for the possibility that those who die without adequate opportunity to respond to the gospel may receive that opportunity after death. This isn’t a liberal compromise or sentimental wishful thinking, but a conclusion drawn from careful study of God’s Word by a conservative evangelical scholar who maintains the authority of Scripture and the exclusivity of salvation through Christ.
The support from other conservative evangelical scholars like Gabriel Fackre, Donald Bloesch, and Jerry Walls demonstrates that this view can be held within orthodox Christianity. The connections to near-death experiences, while not proving the doctrine, provide intriguing parallels that suggest the possibility of postmortem encounters with Christ. The historical precedent in Christian tradition, from the early church fathers to the Apostles’ Creed, shows this isn’t a novel idea but one with deep roots in Christian theology.
Most importantly, Beilby’s view presents a picture of God that aligns with the full biblical revelation of his character. The God who sent his only Son to die for the world, who leaves the ninety-nine to seek the one lost sheep, who is not willing that any should perish – this God can be trusted to ensure that everyone receives a genuine opportunity to respond to his love. This doesn’t guarantee universal salvation – human free will means some will tragically reject God’s offer. But it does mean that no one will be condemned without having had a real chance to be saved.
For Christians, this view should inspire greater confidence in God’s justice, deeper appreciation for the gospel we’ve received, and renewed commitment to sharing the good news with others. We can engage in evangelism and missions with joy, knowing we’re participating in God’s great redemptive work while trusting him to ensure no one falls through the cracks. We can offer hope to those grieving loved ones who died without clear faith, pointing them to the God who is both perfectly just and infinitely loving.
As we await Christ’s return and the full revelation of God’s plans, we can rest in the assurance that the Judge of all the earth will do right. Whether through our gospel proclamation in this life or through divine encounter after death, God will ensure that everyone who would respond to his love in faith has the opportunity to do so. This is the hope that Beilby’s biblical scholarship offers – not a guarantee that all will be saved, but confidence that all will be treated fairly by a God whose love and justice exceed our highest imagination.
In the end, Beilby’s work reminds us that theology isn’t just an academic exercise but a practical exploration of who God is and how he relates to humanity. The question of postmortem opportunity ultimately points us back to the character of God revealed in Scripture – a God who is love, who is just, and who desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Whether that knowledge comes in this life or the next, we can trust that God will accomplish his purposes while respecting human freedom and maintaining perfect justice. This is the biblical hope that sustains us as we navigate the mysteries of life, death, and eternity.
© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.
