Every conversation about postmortem salvation eventually arrives at the same place. You can lay out the biblical evidence, explain the theological reasoning, walk through the patristic witness—and sooner or later, someone will say: "But what about Hebrews 9:27? 'It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.' End of discussion." And if that verse doesn't settle things, they'll follow up with the story of the rich man and Lazarus, or with Paul's statement that we'll be judged for "things done while in the body." These three texts—Hebrews 9:27, Luke 16:19–31, and 2 Corinthians 5:10—function in popular evangelicalism as a kind of triple lock on the door between this life and any possibility of postmortem grace.
I want to be honest about why this chapter matters. If these passages actually teach what they are commonly said to teach—that physical death permanently and irrevocably seals every person's eternal destiny, with no possibility of postmortem salvific opportunity—then the entire argument of this book collapses. It doesn't matter how compelling the evidence from 1 Peter 3–4 might be, how persuasive the universal reconciliation passages are, or how deeply the character of God points toward a postmortem offer. If Scripture explicitly closes the door at death, then the door is closed. We take the Bible seriously, and we must follow where it leads.
But here is the thesis of this chapter: the most commonly cited scriptural objections to postmortem salvation—Hebrews 9:27, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, and 2 Corinthians 5:10—do not, upon careful examination, teach that salvific opportunity ceases at physical death. What they do teach is important, and we will honor each text by reading it carefully in its context. But what they do not teach is equally important—and the gap between what these verses actually say and what they are popularly assumed to say turns out to be enormous.
We'll work through each passage in turn, giving each one the careful, respectful exegetical treatment it deserves. I'll present the objection in its strongest form, engage with the scholars who press it, and then show why the objection does not withstand scrutiny. Let's begin with the text that almost everyone reaches for first.
No verse is cited more often against postmortem salvation than Hebrews 9:27. In popular preaching, in systematic theology textbooks, and in casual conversation, this verse functions as the definitive proof-text that death is the deadline for salvation. Millard Erickson writes that the verse "seems to assume an invariable transition from one to the other, with no mention of any additional opportunities for acceptance."1 Ronald Nash goes further, claiming that the verse teaches "the judgment of each human reflects that person's standing with God at the moment of death."2 J. I. Packer, in a Christianity Today article entitled "Can the Dead Be Converted?", answers flatly in the negative, resting his case primarily on this verse and then pivoting to an argument about prevenient grace.3
The argument seems straightforward: people die once, and then comes judgment. No gap. No intermediate period of grace. No second chances. Death, then judgment—that's it. But is this really what the author of Hebrews is saying? To find out, we need to do what careful Bible readers always do: read the verse in context.
Here is the passage in its fuller context, Hebrews 9:25–28 (ESV):
Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
When we read the verse in context, something immediately becomes clear. The subject of this passage is not personal eschatology—not the question of what happens to individual souls after death. The subject is the finality and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. The author of Hebrews is making an argument about the superiority of the new covenant over the old. Under the old system, the high priest had to enter the Most Holy Place every year with the blood of animals. The sacrifices had to be repeated again and again because they could never fully deal with sin. But Christ's sacrifice was different. He offered himself once for all. His death does not need to be repeated.
Key Insight: The point of Hebrews 9:27 is not to teach a doctrine about the impossibility of postmortem salvation. The point is to illustrate the "once for all" nature of Christ's sacrifice by analogy with the "once for all" nature of human death. Just as people die once (not repeatedly, as in reincarnation), so Christ died once (not repeatedly, as in the old sacrificial system).
This is the critical observation that changes everything. The verse uses human death as an analogy for Christ's sacrifice. The parallelism between verses 27 and 28 makes the structure transparent: "just as" people die once and then face judgment, "so" Christ was offered once and will appear again for salvation. The author is drawing a comparison between two "once for all" events. The death-then-judgment sequence in verse 27 serves as the analogy; the sacrifice-then-return sequence in verse 28 is the point being illustrated.
James Beilby provides one of the most thorough examinations of this passage in his Postmortem Opportunity. He notes that the passage teaches exactly two things about human death: first, that it occurs once (not multiple times), and second, that judgment follows it. Neither of these claims is in any way problematic for postmortem opportunity.4
Let's take each claim in turn. The statement that people die once is, as Beilby observes, a denial of reincarnation—the idea that human beings cycle through multiple lives and deaths. If this text is an argument against anything, it is an argument against reincarnation, not against postmortem salvation.5 There is a world of difference between saying "you only die once" and saying "once you die, all hope is lost." The first statement is clearly taught here. The second is not.
What about the claim that judgment follows death? The postmortem opportunity theorist has absolutely no quarrel with this. We believe in judgment after death. The question is not whether judgment follows death but what the nature of that judgment includes. Does it include an opportunity to hear the gospel and respond? The text says nothing about this one way or the other. It simply says that judgment comes after death—a claim that every postmortem opportunity advocate affirms wholeheartedly.
Beilby drives this point home with devastating clarity. He observes that "there is nothing in the text whatsoever to justify" the specific claims that Erickson and Nash make. To say that the text teaches an "invariable transition" with "no mention of additional opportunities" is to note an absence—an argument from silence—and then to treat that silence as if it were a positive teaching. But the text's silence about what happens between death and final judgment is just that: silence. And silence, as any student of logic knows, proves nothing.6
There is another problem with using Hebrews 9:27 to close the door at death, and it is one that traditional interpreters rarely acknowledge. The text says that judgment comes "after" death—but it says nothing about when that judgment occurs. Stephen Jonathan, drawing on the work of C. J. Field, makes this point powerfully. Field asks: "Two thousand years nearly have come and gone since these words were written: has judgment come?" His point is that the text does not teach that judgment occurs immediately after death. There is a gap between death and final judgment—and this gap is precisely where the postmortem opportunity fits.7
This is not a controversial claim. Most evangelicals already believe in an intermediate state between death and final judgment. They believe that the dead are conscious in Hades or paradise, waiting for the resurrection and the final judgment. They already believe, in other words, that events occur between death and judgment. The postmortem opportunity advocate simply suggests that one of those events may be an encounter with God in which the unsaved person has the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel. Boyd makes precisely this argument, noting that "most evangelicals agree that there are other events between death and judgment, such as Christ's return and the bodily Resurrection, and the postmortem view merely adds one more event or process, namely, the evangelization of the previously unevangelized."8
Packer's argument deserves special attention because it takes a different tack than Erickson and Nash. After briefly citing Hebrews 9:27, Packer quickly pivots away from the text itself and argues that coming to Christ is not like "choosing a preferred dish from a menu." True conversion, he says, requires the pressure of gospel truth, the sense of God's presence, and a deep realization of one's need—all of which are produced by God's prevenient grace. He then asserts that "Scripture says nothing of prevenient grace triggering post-mortem conversions" and concludes that extending the offer even thirty seconds beyond death would be pointless because nothing would come of it.9
Jonathan's response to Packer is incisive. First, Packer never actually explains how Hebrews 9:27 is supposed to rule out postmortem salvation—he simply asserts it and moves on. Second, Packer's own argument about prevenient grace actually cuts against his position. If coming to Christ requires the drawing work of the Holy Spirit, and if God is a God of relentless love who desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), then why would we assume that God's prevenient grace ceases to operate at the moment of death? Is God's arm suddenly shortened? Does the Holy Spirit lose interest?10
Packer's assertion that God's grace would accomplish nothing if extended beyond death is especially troubling. He offers no argument for this claim—he simply states it. But it contradicts the very nature of the God revealed in Scripture, the God who pursues the lost sheep until he finds it (Luke 15:4–7), the God who is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), the God who declares that his steadfast love endures forever (Psalm 136). The burden of proof falls heavily on those who claim that this God would abandon the pursuit of the beloved dead at the precise moment when they might be most receptive to his grace.
One further point deserves mention. The Greek word translated "judgment" in Hebrews 9:27 is krisis (κρίσις). Harrison points out that this word does not inherently refer to eternal condemnation in hell. It is used throughout the New Testament in a variety of contexts—some referring to divine judgment, others to human courts, others to the process of discernment and evaluation. The word itself simply means "a decision, a determination, a process of judging." It says nothing about the outcome of that judgment or about the duration of any consequences that follow.11
Harrison makes the additional observation that the immediate context of Hebrews 9:28 may even be speaking about a judgment that Christians face. The verse speaks of Christ appearing "a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." Many commentators see this as a reference to the faithful—believers who are waiting for Christ's return. If so, the judgment in view may be the judgment of rewards (as in 1 Corinthians 3:10–15), not the judgment of final condemnation.12
Perhaps the most striking observation comes from David Burnfield's research. He notes that when you search reference Bibles, commentaries, and systematic theologies for passages that explicitly teach that physical death ends all hope of salvation, the cupboard is remarkably bare. Burnfield was "more than a bit surprised (shocked might be a better term)" to discover how little scriptural support actually exists for the traditional teaching that death is the absolute deadline.13
He surveyed multiple reference Bibles and found that none of them linked Hebrews 9:27 with another passage that "specifically refuted the doctrine of a second chance after death." He consulted The Bible Knowledge Commentary, multiple online commentaries, and Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology—one of the most widely used evangelical theology textbooks. Grudem's treatment of "no second chances for salvation" cites only the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31), Hebrews 9:27, and Hebrews 10:26–27. That's it.14
A Telling Observation: If the doctrine that physical death permanently seals every person's eternal destiny were really a prominent, clearly taught biblical teaching, we would expect it to have widespread scriptural support. Instead, the doctrine hangs by a few thin threads—primarily Hebrews 9:27, a verse that, as we have seen, does not actually teach what it is claimed to teach. The absence of clear biblical support for the traditional position should give thoughtful Christians serious pause.
Let me pull together what we have found. Hebrews 9:27 teaches two things: that people die once (not multiple times) and that judgment comes after death. The first point is a denial of reincarnation. The second point is fully compatible with postmortem opportunity, which affirms that judgment follows death but holds that the judgment itself may include an encounter with God. The verse says nothing about the timing of judgment relative to death, nothing about the nature or content of that judgment, nothing about the duration of any resulting punishment, and nothing about the impossibility of grace operating between death and final judgment. The verse is set in a context that is about the finality of Christ's sacrifice, not about personal eschatology. To use it as a proof-text against postmortem salvation is to make it say something it simply does not say.
The second passage most commonly cited against postmortem salvation is the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19–31. The story is familiar to virtually every churchgoer. A rich man dressed in purple lives in luxury while a poor man named Lazarus lies at his gate, covered in sores. Both men die. Lazarus is carried by angels to "Abraham's side," while the rich man finds himself in Hades, in torment. The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus with a drop of water for his tongue, but Abraham replies: "Between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us" (Luke 16:26, ESV).
The argument against postmortem salvation goes like this: the "great chasm" is fixed, impassable, and permanent. Once you're on the wrong side, there's no crossing over. Death seals your fate. The rich man is stuck in torment forever with no hope of reprieve. This is what awaits all the unsaved, and no amount of postmortem opportunity theology can bridge that chasm.
It's a powerful image. But does the passage actually teach what it is claimed to teach? Let's look carefully.
The first question scholars debate is whether this is a parable or a literal, historical account of real events. Some interpreters—particularly those who want to use it as a proof-text about the afterlife—insist that it is a literal account because Jesus names one of the characters (Lazarus). In every other parable, the argument goes, the characters are unnamed. So the naming of Lazarus must mean this is a real story about real people.
But there are strong reasons to see this as a parable. First, the opening formula—"There was a rich man"—is identical to the opening of the parable of the dishonest manager in Luke 16:1. It is the standard way Jesus introduces a parable.15 Second, the name "Lazarus" is almost certainly the Greek form of the Hebrew Eleazar, meaning "God has helped"—a symbolic name that captures the character's role in the story perfectly. The name tells us about the man's theological significance, not necessarily his historical identity.16 Third, as Talbott observes, Jesus was probably reworking a well-known Near Eastern folktale about the reversal of fortunes after death. The UK's Evangelical Alliance report on hell notes that "several versions had been produced in Jewish literature at the time." We should no more take every detail of this story literally than we should every detail of other parables.17
But here is the crucial point: even if we take the story as fully literal, it still does not teach what opponents of postmortem salvation claim it teaches. Whether parable or history, the exegetical conclusions are the same. Let me explain why.
The single most important observation about this passage—one that is frequently overlooked in popular preaching—is that the story is set in Hades, not in Gehenna or the Lake of Fire. The text is explicit: "In Hades, where he was in torment" (Luke 16:23). As we explored in Chapter 21's taxonomy of afterlife terminology, Hades and Gehenna are not the same place. Hades (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol) is the realm of the dead—the intermediate state where people await the final judgment. Gehenna, and later the Lake of Fire, refers to the final state of punishment after the last judgment.
This distinction is absolutely critical. Whatever is happening to the rich man in this story is happening in the intermediate state—the period between death and final judgment. It is not happening in the final, eternal state. Beilby makes this observation central to his exegesis: if the rich man is in Hades (the intermediate state), then what we are seeing is a snapshot of the time before the final judgment, not after it.18 The "great chasm" is a feature of the intermediate state, not necessarily a feature of the final state. And postmortem opportunity, as we have argued throughout this book, operates precisely in the intermediate state and at the final judgment.
The Hades-Gehenna Distinction: The story of Lazarus and the rich man is set in Hades—the intermediate state between death and final judgment—not in Gehenna or the Lake of Fire. Whatever the "great chasm" means, it describes a condition in the intermediate state, not the final eschatological reality. This distinction alone undermines the use of this passage as a proof-text against postmortem salvation. (For the full taxonomy of afterlife terminology, see Chapter 21.)
What about the great chasm itself? Doesn't the fact that it is "fixed" and cannot be crossed prove that the rich man's fate is sealed permanently? Not necessarily—and for several reasons.
First, as Talbott points out, "not one word in the story implies that this great chasm will remain in place or remain unbridged forever."19 The text says that the chasm exists and that it currently prevents travel between the two regions. It does not say that it will always exist or that it can never be overcome. The chasm may be a temporary feature of the intermediate state that will be rendered irrelevant when the final judgment arrives and death and Hades are themselves cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:14).
Talbott suggests a thought experiment that I find compelling. He notes that when Jesus preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19) and proclaimed the gospel to the dead (1 Peter 4:6), he was in effect "flinging himself into the chasm in order to build a bridge over it." Christ holds the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:18). Whatever barriers exist in the intermediate state, they are subject to the authority of the risen Lord.20
The patristic universalist tradition makes a similar point through a different angle. Thomas Allin argues that the situation is comparable to a prison sentence. If you told a prisoner's family that "between him and you there is a barrier that cannot be passed," you would be speaking truthfully—even if the barrier were to be removed at the end of the fixed period of punishment. The statement describes a present condition, not an eternal one.21
Second, the very fact that communication is happening across the chasm—Abraham and the rich man are having a conversation—shows that the chasm is not absolute in every respect. Gregory MacDonald (Robin Parry) observes that the story describes "some intermediate period between death and final judgment. If that is so, then the chasm may be fixed up to the Day of Judgment but not necessarily afterwards."22 When the last enemy—death—is finally destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26), the entire landscape of Hades will be transformed. The structures of the intermediate state are temporary by definition.
There is a detail in this story that almost everyone misses, and it is absolutely devastating to the traditional use of this passage. The rich man never asks for salvation. He never expresses faith in God. He never repents. He never says, "I was wrong about how I lived my life, and I want to turn to God." What does he ask for? He asks Abraham to send Lazarus to bring him water. Then he asks Abraham to send Lazarus as a messenger to his brothers.
Think about what this reveals. Even in Hades, the rich man still views Lazarus as someone whose job is to serve him. First, "send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue." Then, "send Lazarus to my family." He is still acting like the wealthy patron who gives orders. He has not changed. He has not been humbled. He has not turned to God.23
Beilby highlights this observation as central to the passage's meaning. The story does not present a scenario in which someone sincerely seeks salvation and is denied. It presents a scenario in which someone who has not repented—who is still operating with the same self-centered worldview he had in life—is told that the consequences of his choices are real. The passage says nothing about what would happen if the rich man genuinely repented and placed his faith in God. To read the passage as teaching that genuine repentance is impossible after death is to import a conclusion that the text itself does not support.24
So what is the story actually about? When we step back and look at the broader context of Luke 16, the answer becomes clear. Luke 16 contains three parables, each addressing the same topic: wealth and how it is used. These parables bracket Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees, who "loved money" (Luke 16:14). The parable of the rich man and Lazarus fits perfectly in this context: it is a story about the spiritual danger of wealth and the reversal of fortunes that God's justice brings about.25
Beilby, drawing on the work of Bauckham, notes that "the parable's unity hinges on Abraham's unexpected refusal of the rich man's request, directing attention away from an apocalyptic revelation of the afterlife back to the inexcusable injustice of the coexistence of rich and poor."26 The point is not eschatological cartography—mapping the afterlife. The point is moral: how you treat the poor matters, and God's values are the reverse of the world's values.
N. T. Wright captures this well: "The parable is not, as often supposed, a description of the afterlife." Robert Yarbrough goes even further: "It is widely accepted that this story is parabolic and not intended to furnish a detailed geography of hell."27 Caird agrees, stating that "it was not the intention of Jesus to propagate a strict doctrine of rewards and punishments... or to give a topographical guide to the afterworld."28
Now, Erickson makes a fair point that "it is fallacious to assume that the only point that can be drawn from a passage is the primary point." A story can teach something about eschatology even if that isn't its main point. I accept this. But as Beilby responds, even if the passage assumes something about the afterlife, what it assumes is that the intermediate state involves distinct regions for the righteous and unrighteous—a view that is fully compatible with postmortem opportunity. The passage does not assume or teach that salvific status is permanently fixed at death.29
Let me address head-on the strongest version of the objection. Someone might say: "Fine, the story is about wealth, and the setting is Hades rather than Gehenna. But the chasm is still fixed. Doesn't that at least imply permanence?"
Harrison provides a helpful analysis. He notes that the passage says those in the torment section of Hades "cannot cross over" to the comfort section, and vice versa. But it says nothing about the duration of this arrangement. It describes the current state of affairs in the intermediate realm—not an eternal decree.30 Harrison also points out that the Greek understanding of Hades (which forms the cultural background for this passage) included the idea of separate compartments for the righteous and the wicked, but this was understood as a temporary arrangement—a waiting area, not a final destination.
Moreover, the fact that neither Lazarus nor the rich man were offered a postmortem opportunity in this story can be explained simply by the fact that both men had already been evangelized during their lifetimes. Beilby makes this observation: the rich man and Lazarus were both Jews who had access to "Moses and the Prophets" (Luke 16:29). They were not unevangelized. The absence of a postmortem opportunity in this story is, at best, an argument from silence, and it can be easily accounted for by the characters' prior access to divine revelation.31
Beilby raises an additional point that deserves mention. If we insist on reading every detail of this story as literal, authoritative teaching about the afterlife, we are committed to some very uncomfortable conclusions. We would have to believe that the saved in heaven (or paradise) can see the unsaved suffering in torment—and even carry on conversations with them across the divide. This idea was popular in the Middle Ages and appears in Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon, but most contemporary evangelicals would find it difficult to reconcile with the idea of heavenly bliss. As Beilby puts it, "it is difficult to reconcile the eternal bliss of believers with the idea that the torture of unbelievers is experientially present to them." If we wouldn't press these details into a full-blown doctrine, then we should be equally cautious about pressing the "great chasm" into a proof that postmortem salvation is impossible.32
Jonathan, in his thorough analysis, raises several additional questions about the passage that should give us pause. Does the passage teach that poverty equals piety and wealth equals wickedness? Are the final destinies of these two men decided by their response to Christ—or is that reading something into the text that simply isn't there? Will there really be contact between those in bliss and those in torment? Each of these questions reveals that the passage is being made to carry far more doctrinal weight than it can bear.33
The story of Lazarus and the rich man does not teach that salvific opportunity ceases at death. It is a parable about wealth, set in the intermediate state (Hades, not Gehenna), featuring a rich man who never repents or asks for salvation. The "great chasm" is a feature of the intermediate state, not a statement about eternal fixity. The story says nothing about what happens at the final judgment or whether God might extend grace to those who have never heard the gospel. To use this passage as a proof-text against postmortem salvation is, in Jonathan's words, to employ a reading that "must be refuted and refused."34
The third text commonly cited against postmortem salvation is 2 Corinthians 5:10 (ESV): "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 bad." The argument is straightforward: judgment is based on what we did "in the body"—that is, during our earthly, embodied lives. Nothing done after death counts. As Ronald Nash puts it, "postmortem judgment is for premortem conditions."35 If the judgment evaluates only earthly deeds, then there is no space for a postmortem encounter with God to change the verdict. Physical death marks the boundary, and everything that matters has already happened.
This sounds compelling on the surface. But once again, careful exegesis reveals that the text does not actually say what it is being asked to say.
The most important question to ask about 2 Corinthians 5:10 is: who is Paul talking to? Is he addressing all people—believers and unbelievers alike—or is he addressing believers specifically? The answer to this question dramatically affects what the verse can be used to prove.
Beilby observes that there are strong reasons to see Paul as speaking to believers only in this passage. The broader context, running from 2 Corinthians 4:16 onward, is addressed to Christians. Paul speaks of "we" and "us" throughout—referring to himself and his fellow believers. He talks about the heavenly body God has prepared for believers (5:1), about being "at home in the body" versus "at home with the Lord" (5:6–8), and about making it our goal to "please the Lord" (5:9). The flow of the passage is about how Christians should live in light of their coming accountability before Christ.36
Jonathan confirms this reading. He notes that the connector "For" (gar) at the beginning of verse 10 links it to verse 9's exhortation to "please the Lord." The coming judgment motivates believers to live faithfully. Paul's focus throughout this section is on the Christian life, not on the destiny of the unevangelized.37
Murray Harris provides additional grammatical support for this reading. He argues that when Paul applies the principle of judgment according to works to all people (as in Romans 2:6), he describes "two mutually exclusive categories of people" (Romans 2:7–10). But in 2 Corinthians 5:10, Paul describes "two types of action... which may be predicated of all people"—good deeds and bad deeds that any believer might perform. The structure of the verse fits a believers-only reading far more naturally than a universal reading.38
The term Paul uses for "judgment seat" is bema (βῆμα). Jonathan notes that the bema in Corinth had two primary functions: it served as a platform for public speeches and as the place for judicial verdicts. Some Corinthian believers might even have remembered Paul himself standing before the bema of Gallio, the Roman governor (Acts 18:12–17).39
If Paul is speaking to believers, then the "judgment seat of Christ" in this passage refers to what theologians call the bema judgment—the judgment of rewards for believers, not the final condemnation of the lost. This judgment determines what rewards Christians receive based on their faithful service (see 1 Corinthians 3:10–15, where Paul describes a fire that tests each person's work, with the possibility of loss of reward but not loss of salvation). It is about accountability and stewardship, not about whether a person is saved or damned.
Hurd, in The Triumph of Mercy, makes this point explicitly. The judgment in view is the Bema Seat Judgment, not the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20. Its purpose is to evaluate each believer's service, with the result being reward or loss of reward—not salvation or damnation. As Paul writes elsewhere, "there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1).40
Believers' Judgment vs. Final Judgment: If 2 Corinthians 5:10 is addressed to believers (as the context strongly suggests), then the "judgment seat of Christ" refers to the judgment of rewards, not the judgment of condemnation. This verse says nothing about the destiny of the unevangelized or the possibility of postmortem salvation for those who never heard the gospel during their embodied lives.
But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Paul is speaking about all people in this verse—believers and unbelievers alike. Even on this broader reading, the verse still does not teach that salvific opportunity ends at death. Here's why.
The verse says that people will be judged for "what they have done in the body, whether good or bad." This tells us something about the basis of judgment—it includes earthly conduct. But it does not say that earthly conduct is the only factor considered in judgment. To claim that the verse excludes all postmortem factors is to make an argument from silence. The verse teaches that premortem conduct matters at the judgment; it does not teach that only premortem conduct matters.41
Consider an analogy. If I say, "Students will be graded on their performance during the semester," this tells you that semester performance counts toward the grade. It does not tell you that a final exam is impossible. The statement identifies one factor in the evaluation without excluding others. In the same way, 2 Corinthians 5:10 identifies earthly conduct as a factor in judgment without excluding the possibility that God might also consider a person's response to a postmortem encounter with Christ.
Beilby puts it this way: the verse "implies only that judgment includes premortem factors and to claim that there could be no postmortem factors is an argument from silence."42 This is precisely right. The verse teaches that earthly actions have consequences at the judgment. It does not teach that the judgment cannot also include new information, new opportunities, or new encounters with the living God.
There is a deeper theological problem with pressing 2 Corinthians 5:10 into service against postmortem salvation. If we read the verse as teaching that all people (believers and unbelievers) will be judged solely on the basis of their earthly deeds, then we have created a serious conflict with Paul's own teaching about justification by faith. Paul's entire theology of salvation is built on the conviction that people are saved by grace through faith, not by works (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 3:21–28; Galatians 2:16). If the judgment in 2 Corinthians 5:10 is a universal judgment based solely on works, then Paul is contradicting himself.
Beilby resolves this tension by noting that if the verse is addressed to believers only, the apparent conflict disappears. For Christians, the judgment of works is about rewards and loss of rewards—not about salvation itself. Salvation is secure in Christ; the question at the bema is how faithfully the believer lived out that salvation. This reading preserves Paul's emphasis on grace while taking seriously his teaching about accountability.43
Jonathan further notes that Paul held judgment by works "in tension with" justification by faith throughout 2 Corinthians 5. In this very chapter we find both Paul's confidence that believers are forgiven (v. 19) and righteous in Christ (v. 21), and his insistence that all believers will appear at the judgment seat. The resolution is that the judgment evaluates the quality of the believer's service, not the status of the believer's salvation.44
Jonathan draws a conclusion that I believe is exactly right: "Since this text is quite patently referring to a believers' judgment of works, those who claim that it disproves posthumous salvation by providing evidence that one's conduct or decisions in life, not in the afterlife, are what really matters, are claiming far more than this verse permits." He adds, pointedly, that "this verse has no bearing to those who have not heard the gospel during their lives."45
This is the key takeaway. Even if we accept that 2 Corinthians 5:10 teaches that Christians will be evaluated on the basis of their earthly conduct (which it does), the verse says absolutely nothing about what happens to the billions of people who lived and died without ever hearing the name of Jesus. It says nothing about the unevangelized, the pseudoevangelized, infants who died in infancy, or people with severe cognitive disabilities. To extend the verse to cover these categories of people—and to use it to deny them any possibility of postmortem grace—is to make the text carry a burden it was never designed to bear.
2 Corinthians 5:10 teaches that believers will appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive what is due for their earthly conduct. This is a statement about Christian accountability and stewardship—about rewards, not about salvation or damnation. Even if the verse is read more broadly as applying to all people, it identifies earthly conduct as a factor in judgment without teaching that it is the only factor. The verse says nothing about the possibility of postmortem encounters with God, nothing about the destiny of the unevangelized, and nothing about the impossibility of grace beyond death.
In Luke 13:23, someone asks Jesus, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" Jesus does not answer the speculative question directly. Instead, he calls for practical action: "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to" (Luke 13:24). He then describes a scenario where the "owner of the house" gets up and closes the door, and those outside knock and say, "Lord, open the door for us." But the owner replies, "I don't know you or where you come from" (Luke 13:25).
Some have taken this as teaching that the door of salvation eventually closes forever. But Beilby observes that the passage is a sharp rebuke against those who believe that a superficial acquaintance with Jesus is sufficient for salvation. What is required is committed relationship. The "closed door" is a warning against presumption—against assuming that merely being around Jesus or having a casual familiarity with his teaching guarantees entry into the kingdom. There is nothing in this passage that teaches death is the end of salvific opportunity.46
Paul writes, "Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:2, ESV). This is sometimes cited to prove that salvation is available only during this present life. But the verse is a quotation from Isaiah 49:8, applied by Paul to encourage the Corinthians to respond to the gospel with urgency. It teaches that now is an appropriate time for salvation—not that now is the only time. Saying "today is a great day to go to the beach" does not mean tomorrow the beach ceases to exist. Paul is encouraging responsiveness, not establishing a theological deadline.
Psalm 49:7–9 declares that "no one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them—the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—so that they should live on forever and not see decay." Some see this as teaching that once someone dies, no redemption is possible. But this psalm is wisdom literature addressing the futility of human efforts to ransom another person from death. The psalmist is making a point about the limitations of wealth and human power—a theme that runs throughout the psalm. No amount of money, no human effort, no earthly resource can buy back a life from the grave. This is certainly true, and it is entirely consistent with the postmortem opportunity position.
But here is the critical observation: the psalm says nothing about what God can do. Indeed, the psalmist himself draws exactly this distinction. In verse 15, he declares with confidence: "God will redeem me from the realm of the dead; he will surely take me to himself." The psalm contrasts human powerlessness with divine power. Human beings cannot ransom the dead—but God can. And it is divine power, not human effort, that postmortem opportunity depends upon. Far from undermining the case for postmortem salvation, Psalm 49 actually supports it by affirming that God's redemptive reach extends even to the realm of the dead.
One final text deserves mention, though it is not Scripture. Second Clement 8:3 reads, "After we have departed from this world, we can no longer make confession there or repent any more." This passage from a non-canonical early Christian writing is sometimes cited as evidence that the earliest Christians universally believed death was the deadline for salvation.
Two responses are sufficient. First, 2 Clement is not Scripture. It is an anonymous Christian homily from roughly the mid-second century—not part of the inspired canon that the church has received as authoritative. It cannot settle a theological question that depends on biblical exegesis. Second, even as a historical witness, 2 Clement represents one strand of early Christian thinking, not the unanimous consensus. As we explored in Chapters 24 and 25, multiple church fathers—including Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and others—taught some form of postmortem opportunity or universal restoration. Burnfield documents that four of the six major theological schools in the early church taught universalism.47 The view represented in 2 Clement was one position among several, not the settled consensus of the ancient church.
Having examined each of the three main texts in detail, we are now in a position to step back and observe a pattern. In every case, the passage is being asked to teach something it does not actually teach. Hebrews 9:27 teaches the "once for all" nature of death and Christ's sacrifice—not the impossibility of postmortem grace. Luke 16:19–31 teaches about the dangers of wealth and the reversal of fortunes—not the permanent fixity of destiny at death. And 2 Corinthians 5:10 teaches about believers' accountability for their earthly conduct—not the absence of any postmortem encounter with God.
The pattern reveals something important about how proof-texting works—and why it so often fails. Each of these verses contains a legitimate and important teaching. But in each case, opponents of postmortem salvation have read into the text a conclusion that the text itself does not support. They have confused the absence of a teaching with the denial of that teaching. Because the text doesn't mention postmortem opportunity, they conclude that the text rules it out. But silence is not denial. A verse that doesn't discuss postmortem salvation is simply a verse about something else—not a verse against postmortem salvation.
The Argument from Silence: In each of the three main proof-texts examined in this chapter, the argument against postmortem salvation depends on an argument from silence—the fact that the text does not mention postmortem opportunity is treated as evidence that the text denies it. But arguments from silence are among the weakest forms of argumentation. A text that does not address a topic simply does not address it. It neither affirms nor denies what it does not discuss.
Compare this with the positive biblical evidence we surveyed in earlier chapters. In 1 Peter 3:18–4:6 (Chapters 11–12), we found a text that does explicitly address Christ's activity among the dead—preaching to the spirits in prison and proclaiming the gospel to the dead "so that they might live in the spirit as God does." In Ephesians 4:8–10 (Chapter 13), we found Paul teaching that Christ descended to the lower parts of the earth and led captives in his train. In the universal reconciliation passages (Chapter 14), we found texts that speak of every knee bowing and every tongue confessing. In the Pauline witness (Chapter 15), we found Paul declaring that Christ is Lord of both the living and the dead (Romans 14:9).
The positive evidence speaks. The objection texts are silent. When a text that explicitly discusses Christ preaching to the dead is set against texts that simply don't mention postmortem salvation, the exegetical weight falls heavily on the side of postmortem opportunity.
Some readers may feel that this chapter has been an exercise in explaining away difficult texts—finding clever ways to avoid the plain meaning of Scripture. I want to push back on that characterization gently but firmly. What we have done is read each text in its context—which is the most basic principle of responsible biblical interpretation. This is not a liberal principle or a progressive hermeneutical innovation. It is the foundational rule of exegesis that every seminary student learns in their first year of biblical studies. Reading Hebrews 9:27 in the context of Hebrews 9:25–28 is not "explaining away" the verse; it is reading it properly. Recognizing that Luke 16 is a parable about wealth set in Hades (not Gehenna) is not evasion; it is exegesis. Noting that 2 Corinthians 5:10 is addressed to believers is not cleverness; it is paying attention to the grammar and flow of Paul's argument.
The question is not whether we are "explaining away" these texts but whether we are reading them more carefully than those who use them as proof-texts. I believe the evidence shows that we are. It is the proof-text approach—ripping a verse out of its context and making it say something the author never intended—that does violence to Scripture, not the approach that reads each text in its literary and theological setting.
A more sophisticated objection holds that even if no single text conclusively proves that death is the deadline, the cumulative weight of multiple texts pointing in that direction should settle the question. This is a fair-minded objection, and it deserves a fair-minded response.
The problem is that the cumulative weight is illusory. When you examine each text individually, you find that none of them actually points in the claimed direction. Hebrews 9:27 is about Christ's sacrifice. Luke 16 is about wealth. 2 Corinthians 5:10 is about believers' rewards. Luke 13:25 is about presumption. 2 Corinthians 6:2 is about urgency. Psalm 49 is about the limitations of human power. Zero plus zero plus zero does not equal three. When none of the individual texts teaches that death ends salvific opportunity, combining them does not create a teaching that none of them contains. You cannot build a strong wall out of bricks that are not actually there. Each supposed "brick" in the wall against postmortem salvation, when picked up and examined, turns out to be a brick from an entirely different wall—a wall about sacrifice, or wealth, or stewardship—placed here by well-meaning but mistaken builders.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger, we have texts that do positively address Christ's activity among the dead: 1 Peter 3:18–4:6, Ephesians 4:8–10, Romans 14:9, and the universal reconciliation passages. These texts speak directly to the question. The objection texts do not. The cumulative case actually runs in favor of postmortem opportunity, not against it.
It is true that the majority of Christians throughout history have believed that physical death permanently seals one's destiny. But the majority of Christians throughout history also held many views that have been subsequently corrected by more careful attention to Scripture—including the belief that the earth is the center of the universe, that slavery is biblically sanctioned, and that unbaptized infants go to hell (or to limbo, or to some other unpleasant fate). The question is not what the majority has believed but what the biblical text actually teaches. And as we have seen, the biblical text does not teach that salvific opportunity ceases at death.
It is also worth noting that the traditional view was not as unanimously held in the early centuries of the church as many people assume. As we explored in Chapters 24 and 25, the idea that God might save people after death was not some late innovation or liberal departure from orthodoxy. It was present in the church from the very beginning. Multiple church fathers—including some of the most brilliant theological minds in Christian history—taught some form of postmortem opportunity or universal restoration. The idea that death permanently seals destiny became dominant in the Western church largely through the influence of Augustine and the medieval Latin tradition. But it was one position among several in the first five centuries—not the unanimous, unchallenged consensus it is sometimes presented as. The tradition has been built on a misreading of a handful of texts, reinforced by centuries of repetition and assumption rather than by careful exegetical work.
This is perhaps the most important question of all. If Hebrews 9:27, Luke 16, and 2 Corinthians 5:10 do not actually teach that death is the deadline for salvation, then what does the Bible say about this question? The answer, as we noted when discussing Burnfield's research, is striking: there is no clear, unambiguous biblical text that explicitly teaches that physical death permanently and irrevocably ends all possibility of salvific grace. The doctrine that death is the deadline is an inference—drawn from texts that, upon careful examination, do not support it. It is tradition, not exegesis, that sustains this belief.
By contrast, as we explored in Part V of this book (Chapters 14–17), there are numerous texts that point positively toward God's continued salvific activity beyond death. The biblical evidence runs in one direction: toward a God whose love, mercy, and saving purpose are not limited by the boundary of physical death.
Let me be clear about what this chapter has and has not argued. I have not argued that Hebrews 9:27, Luke 16, and 2 Corinthians 5:10 are unimportant or that they should be ignored. Each text teaches something valuable and true. Hebrews 9:27 teaches the finality and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Luke 16 warns us about the spiritual dangers of wealth and the reality of consequences in the afterlife. 2 Corinthians 5:10 reminds believers that we are accountable to Christ for how we live. These are important truths, and we should receive them with gratitude.
What I have argued is that none of these texts teaches what opponents of postmortem salvation claim they teach. None of them establishes that physical death permanently and irrevocably seals a person's eternal destiny. None of them closes the door on the possibility that God—the God who is rich in mercy, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love—might continue to pursue the beloved dead with the same relentless grace he showed them during their earthly lives.
The "triple lock" turns out not to be locked at all. Each of the three bolts, when examined up close, turns out to be engaged with a different door entirely. Hebrews 9:27 is about Christ's sacrifice, not personal eschatology. Luke 16 is about wealth, not the impossibility of postmortem repentance. 2 Corinthians 5:10 is about believers' rewards, not the destiny of the unevangelized. The door to postmortem grace has not been locked by these texts—because these texts were never about that door in the first place.
I want to close with a personal reflection. When I first began studying this question, Hebrews 9:27 stood in my mind like a wall. I had heard it cited so many times, with such confidence, that I assumed the case was closed. It was only when I sat down with the Greek text and read the passage in its full context that I realized how much I had been reading into the verse that was never there. The wall turned out to be made of paper. And the same was true of Luke 16 and 2 Corinthians 5:10. Each text had been clothed in a theological significance that the author never intended. Each had been pressed into service for a doctrine it was not designed to serve.
This is not a criticism of the sincere Christians who have cited these texts in good faith. We have all been shaped by a tradition that assumes death is the deadline, and when that assumption goes unchallenged, it colors how we read every related passage. But when we allow the texts to speak for themselves—in their own contexts, on their own terms, about their own subjects—the assumed meaning falls away, and we are left with a surprising discovery: the Bible does not teach what we thought it taught about the finality of death. The door that we assumed was locked has never been locked at all.
In the next chapter, we will examine additional scriptural objections that are sometimes raised against postmortem opportunity—including Galatians 6:7–8, John 8:24, Revelation 22:11, John 3:36, 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9, and Proverbs 11:7. As with the texts examined here, we will find that careful, contextual exegesis dissolves the objection. The scriptural case against postmortem salvation is far weaker than most Christians have been led to believe. And the scriptural case for it, as we have seen throughout this book, is far stronger than most Christians have ever been told.
1 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 1166. Erickson's language is characteristically measured, but the implication is clear: he reads Hebrews 9:27 as ruling out any intermediate opportunities. ↩
2 Ronald Nash, "Restrictivism," in What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, ed. John Sanders (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1995), 123. Nash's claim that the verse teaches judgment reflects one's standing "at the moment of death" goes well beyond what the text actually states. ↩
3 J. I. Packer, "Can the Dead Be Converted?," Christianity Today, January 2009. Packer's article deserves credit for engaging the question directly, even if his argument is ultimately unconvincing. ↩
4 James Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation After Death (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021), 107–109. ↩
5 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 109. ↩
6 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 109. Beilby's observation that there is "nothing in the text whatsoever" to justify Erickson's and Nash's specific claims is one of the most important exegetical points in the debate. ↩
7 Stephen Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave: Is Salvation Possible in the Afterlife? A Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Evaluation (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), chap. 5, "Biblical and Theological Challenges Opposing Posthumous Salvation," under "Hebrews 9:27–28." Jonathan quotes C. J. Field's pointed question about the two-thousand-year gap between the writing of Hebrews and the final judgment. ↩
8 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, "Biblical and Theological Challenges Opposing Posthumous Salvation," under "Hebrews 9:27–28." Jonathan cites Boyd's argument that the postmortem view merely adds one more event to the list of things evangelicals already believe occur between death and judgment. ↩
9 Packer, "Can the Dead Be Converted?" Packer's claim that extending the offer even thirty seconds beyond death would be "pointless" is asserted without argument. ↩
10 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, under "Hebrews 9:27–28." Jonathan's response to Packer is one of the most effective in the literature. ↩
11 Stephen M. Harrison, Is Salvation Possible After Death? An Investigation of the Biblical, Theological, and Practical Aspects of Postmortem Evangelization (self-published, 2014), chap. 5, "Examination of Alleged Counter-Arguments from Scripture," under "Hebrews 9:27." Harrison's analysis of krisis is thorough and compelling. ↩
12 Harrison, Is Salvation Possible After Death?, chap. 5, under "Hebrews 9:27." Harrison notes that the surrounding context of Hebrews emphasizes Christ's role in rewarding faithful believers, which may color the meaning of "judgment" in 9:27. ↩
13 David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism: An Alternative to the Traditional View of Divine Judgment, 2nd ed. (2016), chap. 7, "Answering Objections," under "Hebrews 9:27." ↩
14 Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, chap. 7, under "Hebrews 9:27." Burnfield surveyed multiple reference Bibles and commentaries and found no passage that specifically refuted the possibility of salvation after death. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 816–17, treats the topic of "no second chances" under the heading of the intermediate state but offers only three texts as support. ↩
15 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, under "Luke 16:19–31." The identical opening formula in Luke 16:1 and 16:19 strongly suggests that both are parables. ↩
16 Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 252–55. Morris notes that "Lazarus" is the Greek form of "Eleazar" and that its etymological significance is likely deliberate. ↩
17 Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), chap. 9, "The Refiner's Fire." Talbott cites the UK Evangelical Alliance report's observation about the well-known Near Eastern folktale tradition behind this story. ↩
18 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 112–13. The Hades-Gehenna distinction is central to Beilby's exegesis of Luke 16. ↩
19 Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, chap. 9. ↩
20 Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, chap. 9. Talbott's suggestion that Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19) represents a bridging of the chasm is theologically rich and exegetically suggestive. ↩
21 Thomas Allin, Universalism Asserted (London: Forgotten Books, 2015), cited in Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, chap. 7, under "Luke 16:26." Allin's prison analogy is simple but effective. ↩
22 Gregory MacDonald (Robin Parry), The Evangelical Universalist, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), cited in Talbott, Inescapable Love of God, chap. 9. MacDonald's point about the intermediate nature of the period described in Luke 16 is important. ↩
23 Harrison, Is Salvation Possible After Death?, chap. 5, under "Luke 16." Harrison highlights the rich man's ongoing sense of entitlement—even in Hades, he expects Lazarus to serve him. ↩
24 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 113–14. ↩
25 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 111–12. Beilby notes that the three parables in Luke 16 all address the theme of wealth and its use. ↩
26 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 112, citing Richard Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 104. ↩
27 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 113. Beilby cites both N. T. Wright and Robert Yarbrough in support of reading the passage as parabolic rather than as a description of the afterlife. ↩
28 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, under "Luke 16:19–31." Jonathan cites Caird's observation about Jesus' intention in the passage. ↩
29 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 112. Beilby engages Erickson's point fairly but shows that even on Erickson's own terms, the passage only assumes the existence of distinct regions in the intermediate state—a view fully compatible with postmortem opportunity. ↩
30 Harrison, Is Salvation Possible After Death?, chap. 5, under "Luke 16." Harrison notes that the text describes a present condition without specifying its duration. ↩
31 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 113. The observation that both the rich man and Lazarus had access to "Moses and the Prophets" means they were not unevangelized—and the absence of a postmortem opportunity in the story may simply reflect this fact. ↩
32 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 112–13. Beilby's point about the difficulty of reconciling heavenly bliss with witnessing the torment of the lost is widely acknowledged in the literature. ↩
33 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, under "Luke 16:19–31." Jonathan raises several penetrating questions about the passage that expose its unsuitability as a proof-text about the afterlife. ↩
34 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, under "Luke 16:19–31." ↩
35 Ronald Nash, "Restrictivism," in What About Those Who Have Never Heard?, ed. Sanders, 128. ↩
36 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 114–15. ↩
37 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, under "2 Corinthians 5:10." ↩
38 Murray Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 406–8. Beilby cites Harris's argument in Postmortem Opportunity, 115. ↩
39 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, under "2 Corinthians 5:10." ↩
40 Dennis Hurd, The Triumph of Mercy: The Reconciliation of All through Jesus Christ (self-published, 2017), chap. 6, "The Restoration of All Things." ↩
41 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 114–15. ↩
42 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 115. ↩
43 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 115. ↩
44 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, under "2 Corinthians 5:10." Jonathan notes the tension between judgment by works and justification by faith that Paul holds throughout 2 Corinthians 5. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 271–73, suggests some Corinthians held an overrealized eschatology that caused Paul to remind them of future accountability. ↩
45 Jonathan, Grace beyond the Grave, chap. 5, under "2 Corinthians 5:10." ↩
46 Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, 113–14. ↩
47 Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, chap. 3, "Universalism in Church History." Burnfield documents that universalism was taught in four of the six major theological schools of the early church—Caesarea, Alexandria, Antioch, and Edessa—while only one (Latin North Africa) held firmly to eternal torment. ↩
Allin, Thomas. Universalism Asserted. London: Forgotten Books, 2015.
Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Bauckham, Richard. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Beilby, James. Postmortem Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation After Death. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021.
Burnfield, David. Patristic Universalism: An Alternative to the Traditional View of Divine Judgment. 2nd ed. 2016.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Harris, Murray. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Harrison, Stephen M. Is Salvation Possible After Death? An Investigation of the Biblical, Theological, and Practical Aspects of Postmortem Evangelization. Self-published, 2014.
Hurd, Dennis. The Triumph of Mercy: The Reconciliation of All through Jesus Christ. Self-published, 2017.
Jonathan, Stephen. Grace beyond the Grave: Is Salvation Possible in the Afterlife? A Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Evaluation. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014.
MacDonald, Gregory (Robin Parry). The Evangelical Universalist. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012.
Morris, Leon. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Nash, Ronald. "Restrictivism." In What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, edited by John Sanders, 107–39. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1995.
Packer, J. I. "Can the Dead Be Converted?" Christianity Today, January 2009.
Talbott, Thomas. The Inescapable Love of God. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014.