Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,103
30,232
113
It's always God moving first. It's just a matter of what He actually does vs. what we say He does.
So true! And then there are those who believe they needed no help from God at all! .:oops::censored::geek::giggle:
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
3,006
401
83
Faith is all man has to "work" with. Why would you lead him to believe it to even possibly be a useless, futile endeavor?
On the other hand, it is not man's work (Jn 6:29; Eph 2:8-9; Phil 1:29), and not only this but all faith comes through Christ (Act 3:16).
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
3,006
401
83
My, my, my. This thread is hoppin' like hot taters. And what's interesting is that I haven't posted here in the last few days due to time constraints; yet, not once did I receive any email alerts to replies as I usually do. (In retrospect, that was quite a blessing. :D ) But be that as it may, during my little sabbatical, I finished my Exodus typology argument that I think proves conclusively that the doctrine of Unconditional Election is as valid as is the the doctrine of Total Depravity and that God's great salvation is a 100% supernatural act to which his elect (such as the ancient Hebrews in Egypt) responded as they only could, since all things are possible with God, including achieving his desired ends. My argument will follow in the next post.
 

BillyBob

Active member
Dec 20, 2023
407
176
43
Texas
If this text were referring to the world to come (1John 2:2), then I certainly would agree that the issues with the meaning would be resolved. However, my initial thought was that it was to include the gentiles as well as the Jews.
In addition to studying your thoughts, I also did a search to find what others thought. In doing so, I chose to follow these three links:
https://www.monergism.com/understanding-1-john-22-john-samson-0
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/securing-our-faith-
ii
http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/cr-news/item/4457-the-whole-world-in-1-john-2-2
Please notice that the last two sites are rather reformed which is fine with me but may concern others. The 1st link is from an independent church leader, and to be honest I enjoyed it more than the others. However, they each come to a similar conclusion and are brief and to the point.
Each came to it meaning that forgiveness through Christ would be given to others as well as the Jew.
But, I'm glad I went through this exercise. In addition investigating their view, I saw several links to articles that I would like to read.
 

BillyBob

Active member
Dec 20, 2023
407
176
43
Texas
Thank you BillyBob, I really appreciate your comment. At minimum, I hope it at least opens up another line of reasoning
normally not associated with those verses. Please keep me updated as to your thoughts on it, as we can all learn from each other.

Roger
Sorry Roger but my post #6504 was meant to be a reply to you. However, my mouse has gone crazyo_O
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
3,006
401
83
The Exodus Typology, Pt 2

As a reminder, the parallels between the types and antitypes will be limited to the more salient points that will more directly support and highlight my argument, which, again, is to show that Moses (a type of Christ) was sent to "save" only the ancient Hebrews in Egypt, which were God's elect by virtue of His covenant with Abraham wherein He promised the patrriarch that He would make a great nation out of him; and to also show that God's "firstborn" (Ex 4:22; 7:1) were totally powerless and helpless to extricate themselves from the yoke of bondage under Pharaoh -- a bondage that was decreed by God (Gen 15:12-16. In short, Israel's redemption by Moses from their physical slavery by a physical king of a physical nation in this temporal reality is the soteriological template of Christ's spiritual and eternal redemption of his Father's elect that were given to the Son, just as God gave Abraham a great nation by making one out of his own loins even though Sarah's womb was dead and Abraham was past his fatherning years.

1. Just as God had compassion and mercy on his elect nation (Ex 3:7), so, too, He still has mercy and compassion today on whom he sovereignly decrees to bestow such (Rom 9:15).

2. God did not save Israel for Israel's sake, for she was very much an idolater as her Egyptian captors themselves (Josh 24:2, 14).

3. God saved Israel through Moses because of the oath he swore to the patriarchs and for his love for their descendants (Ex 6:5, 8; Deut 7:8). Likewise, God saves his NC "nation" (his Church, cp. Mat 21:43) because of the promises He made to her and the grace he gave to her in eternity in Christ (Tit 1:2; 2Tim 1:9; Eph 1:4, 11), and because of the promises He made to Christ himself (Isa 49:5-9; Jn 6:37).

4. Just as Moses was a type of Christ, likewise Aaron was to Moses what John the Baptist was to Jesus (Ex 7:1).

5. God "came down" to rescue his sorely oppressed people (Ex 3:8, 5:23). So, too, when we were as powerless as the ancient Hebrews (Rom 5:6) God rescued his elect from the kingdom of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of light (Col 1:13).

6. Just as God rescued Israel from Pharaoh's jaws of death, likewise king David twice rescued his sheep from certain death by wild beasts (1Sam 17:34-37), as does the Son of David and Good Shepherd to this day rescue his sheep, as well (Lk 15:1-7).

7. Just as God began his work of salvation in his elect and will bring it to completion (Phil 1:6), likewise God "came down" and initiated his rescue mission through Moses and brought it to completion after parting the Red Sea (Ex 3:8, 20; 14:27-28).

8. Pharaoh was himself a type of Satan: He accused God of lying to the people, as the Serpent implied to Eve (Ex 5:9, cp. Gen 3:1-4); he lied to Moses several times (Ex 8:8-15; 25-32; 9:27-35; 10:16); and he had a murderous heart, desiring to kill all Hebrew males at birth (Ex 1:15-16); all of which proved what Jesus said about the evil one (Jn 8:44).

9. Just as Satan's kingdom is a dominion of darkness (Col 1:13), likewise Pharaoh's kingdom was immersed in spiritual darkness, as Moses faced off against the king's sorcerers, magicians, enchanters and wise men (Ex 7:17, 22; 8:7, etc.). Likewise, in this NC age the saints of God battle not against flesh and blood but against dark spiritual forces of evil (Eph 6:12).

10. To be in spiritual darkness is to precisely be in the state of spiritual death! Is not the body in the tomb enclosed in black darkness? Or when buried in the grave? And isn't sleep used as a metaphor for physical death Mat 9;24; Jn 11:11)? And in a sleep state, don't we only see darkness? And what is blindness, especially from birth, if not utter darkness? |And has not Satan blinded the minds of unbelievers (2Cor 4:4)? Yet, after God "came down" and manifested his great power, his light shined upon the Israelites (Ex 14:20) so that the Israelites believed in Him after He crushed Pharaoh and his army (Ex 14:31). In a real sense, God raised the Hebrews from the dead through Moses when he exerted his incomparably great power on their behalf against Pharaoh who had the power of death (Ex 10:28; Eph 1:19).

11. Just as Satan is the god of this world (2Cor 4:4), likewise the pharaohs of ancient Egypt not only acknowledged other gods but they themselves were also deified and God brought judgement upon all of them (Ex 12:12). Likewise, Christ will judge all his moral creation and soon will crush the devil under our feet (Rom 16:20), as Moses crushed Pharaoh under his (Ex 14:15-18).

12. Just as the Hebrews were in physical slavery under the power of Pharaoh, likewise the entire world is enslaved to sin and the basic principles of the world (Rom 6:18, 22; Gal 4:3) and is currently under the control of the evil one (1Jn 5:19).

13. Just as salvation is of the Jews (Jn 4:22), so Moses led many Gentile captives (apparently) of Pharaoh out of the Land of Darkness (Ex 12:38) and from their prison (Isa 42:7; 49:9), thereby freeing the prisoners.

14. Just as God seeks those who will worship him in Spirit and in Truth (Jn 4:23-24), so God sought out his covenant people to worship him (Ex 9:1, 13; 10:3; 12:1ff.).

15. God's awesome demonstration of his power from the beginning of his first plague to the last one, and beyond that to the parting of the Red Sea that at once provided the narrow way to Life for the Hebrews (Mat 7:14) while simultaneously the Sea served as the burial ground for God's enemies. This ongoing exhibition of power, which extended for multiple days, served as an example of God's sanctifying work unto obedience to God (1Pet 1:2), which would include the life saving obedience of faith (Rom 16:26); therefore, it is extremely noteworthy that when God parted of the Red Sea, Moses succinctly summarized the outcome of God's display of power in this way:

Ex 14:31
31 And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.
NIV

Also, we should not miss the fact that the people not only put their trust in God but in his Chosen Servant Moses! After all, "He who does not have the Son does not have the Father (1Jn 2:23). And "no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him" (Jn 6:44, 65). And, again, "all that the Father gives to me will come to me" (Jn 6:37). God's mighty power enabled the people to trust in his Servant, as well, whom he sent to rescue them. What an awesome picture!

It took nothing less than the final dramatic, salvific act of God to finally convince Israel! (Of course, this doesn't mean all Israel in the distributive sense trusted the Lord, since God never intended to save all Israel any more than he ever intended to save the entire world; for Abraham's descendants, again, consist of Natural Children and Children of Promise.) But nonetheless, this doesn't detract from the force of the above text and its placement in the Exodus narrative. There's not even a remote hint that the ancient Hebrews really trusted in the Lord prior to the final curtain falling on Israel's Redemption (Ex 14:10-12). Nor is there anything in the narrative that hints that the Israelites were pricked in their conscience and thus turned to the Lord in an effort to soothe their corrupt conscience. Nor is there anything in this account that remotely suggests that salvation is partly God's and partly sinners', such as with a quid pro quo arrangement whereby God does his part and the sinners do theirs by their response with their faith. Rather what we have is what Rom 9:16 that says, "Therefore, it does not depend on man's desire [will] or effort but on God who has mercy.". God's salvation is just that! HIS salvation. A salvation that is not synergistic but a 100% supernatural, monogernistic, gracious act of God that was motivated by his eternal love for the elect in Christ.

It's also equally as noteworthy that we find the "fear of the Lord" in this passage. The FEAR of THE LORD, which is the beginning of [godly] knowledge, wisdom and understanding (Prov 1:7; 9:10). And it is this reverential awe of God that moves the heart to trust him and love him! Notice the logical order of the phrases: They feared God and [then] put their trust in him and and Moses.

In summary, then, what we have learned from The Exodus is that God sovereignly intervened, intruded into, broke into the lives of more than 600,000 Hebrews who basically were pagans for the most part (Josh 24:14) before He redeemed them. In other words God broke into their lives when they were DEAD in their transgressions, sins and uncircumcision of their hearts (Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13) to raise them from the dead whereby he freed them from the slavery to their sin nature. Likewise, God has always saved his elect by his sovereign grace (power) -- both Old and New Covenant saints alike. The ancient Hebrews in Egypt did not seek after God; rather He sought them out for the purpose of redeeming them; so it appears Paul knew of what he spoke in Rom 3:11.
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
3,006
401
83
There's a very informative and intriguing passage in Exodus 15 that deals with the Song of Moses and Miriam that is very pertinent to Ex 14:31. The Song in part reads:

Ex 15:8-10
8 With the blast of Your nostrils the waters piled up, the floods stood fixed in a heap, the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea.

9 The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my desire shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.

10 You [Lord] blew with Your wind, the sea covered them; [clad in mail] they sank as lead in the mighty waters.
AMP

As we might recall, the entire world was destroyed by the deluge of the Flood, save for eight people. And the waters that slew the world simultaneously saved the eight people as they were brought through the water, which symbolized baptism, by the ark. And this water now saves us also today-- it saves by the resurrection of Jesus (1Pet 3:20-21). In other words, to be baptized by the Spirit is to be spiritually raised from the dead.

The parallels are striking between the Flood and the Exodus, since Egypt was a type of world -- a world ruled by Pharaoh the god of that world. And, of course, the Israelites were God's elect people and they, like Noah and his family, were also saved by the water! The Exodus passage above says "blew with Your wind", i.e. the Holy Spirit (which Jesus also likened to "wind", cp. Jn 3: 5-8) and the "waters piled up, the floods stood fixed in a heap", which of course allowed the Israelites to safely pass through those baptismal waters by foot on dry ground. And this all accords nicely with the 10th point to my Exodus argument that God raised his covenant people from the dead; for they were as good as dead in the Land of Slavery and Darkness in which they dwelt -- until God rescued those helpless, hapless, pitiful people, which at the very end he did by the power of the Holy Spirit when He "baptized" the Israelites as they walked through the heaps of water on dry ground. It's no wonder at all that Moses summarized the passage through the Sea with what he wrote in Ex 14:31. When the people "saw the great power the Lord displayed...: THEN they UNDERSTOOD! But not before. Then the Fear of the Lord gripped their darkened, pagan hearts! But not before!
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,103
30,232
113
And again, exactly what help does He give?
For starters, He draws us with loving kindness and rewards those who seek Him (a Scriptural promise),
revealing Himself in a myriad of ways. He circumcises our hearts (I rarely see that one being mentioned
by most). The Holy Spirit convicts the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment. Surely that
acts as an impetus for some. He opens the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf. Because of His great

love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions.
<= From Ephesians 2, echoed in Colossians 2:13 ~ When you were dead in your trespasses and in the
uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.
There are varying opinions on the
order of some of these events, some essentially claiming that an enemy of God who is hostile in their
mind toward Him and a slave to sin is free to choose to believe, and then those things will take place.
God knows and we know Scripture says none seek Him, but people do seek truth, and Jesus is the
embodiment of Truth, being Truth itself. Some believe faith itself is a gift, and Paul asked, what does
any of us have that we did not receive? His divine power has given us everything we need for life and
godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
For my own
self I can state with conviction that faith the size of a mustard seed moved the mountain of my unbelief...
and coming to faith was quite the journey for me, for I resisted and ran and rebelled against what I thought
the Bible taught about God until I was almost fifty years old. It's kind of funny because not too long ago
someone said that nobody goes to bed an unbeliever and wakes up the next day believing, but I know
a former member who claimed that very thing for both herself and her husband!



Jesus' words in Matthew 17:20-21
Faith the size of a mustard seed moved the mountain of my unbelief .:)
 

rogerg

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2021
3,855
641
113
If this text were referring to the world to come (1John 2:2), then I certainly would agree that the issues with the meaning would be resolved. However, my initial thought was that it was to include the gentiles as well as the Jews.
In addition to studying your thoughts, I also did a search to find what others thought. In doing so, I chose to follow these three links:
https://www.monergism.com/understanding-1-john-22-john-samson-0
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/securing-our-faith-
ii
http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/cr-news/item/4457-the-whole-world-in-1-john-2-2
Please notice that the last two sites are rather reformed which is fine with me but may concern others. The 1st link is from an independent church leader, and to be honest I enjoyed it more than the others. However, they each come to a similar conclusion and are brief and to the point.
Each came to it meaning that forgiveness through Christ would be given to others as well as the Jew.
But, I'm glad I went through this exercise. In addition investigating their view, I saw several links to articles that I would like to read.
Hi BillyBob,

I briefly reviewed the links you provided and will do so again in more detail tomorrow. However, for some reason
(maybe my stupid is kicking in or perhaps I am just tired), I am not really grasping their reasoning as it pertains to our discussion. My earlier reply to you regarding the world to come took into consideration that it will be populated (or be comprised of) both Jew and Gentile - everyone saved and not just of one group or the other. So, if your reservation is based upon a distinction that you perceived I made on the basis of that, it was not my intention to do so. I think that all who become saved, become so, by Christ - He is the ONE Shepherd of the ONE fold, as the verse below so informs us - they are, and will be the world to come - also referred to in the Bible as the new Jerusalem and the Israel of God. So, if you would, when you have a chance, and so inclined, please elaborate further on where you see a problem, and sorry for any confusion that my prior explanation might have caused.

[Jhn 10:16 KJV]
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

[Rev 21:2 KJV]
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

[Gal 6:15-16 KJV]
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,505
468
83
From what I've seen, there is nothing I can cite that you will accept even though I and others see the construction in the verses we've discussed and in other places. Once someone becomes the [only] authority, that one can make anything into anything and claim everyone else is wrong. This seems to be the case here so far.

IOW, you see my translation and interpretive work as being not as authoritative as your work. And you see the work of 4 others I cited as not being as authoritative as your work. I'll add another source hereinbelow. As yet, it seems we've found no one who is as authoritative as you. And to make certain we see you as authoritative, it seems we're in a logical fallacy if we don't.

I'm trying to be respectful here. These are just the facts as I see them.

I'm truly not opposed to taking a position against the crowd, but in this case I agree with the crowd and don't see your authority or agree with your work. So far, you've shown no one who agrees with your work, not even the in the article you presented.

It seems you're versed enough to know that there can be a fine line in this type of analysis. I simply think you're just on the wrong side of the fine line here. IOW, to me this is not some extreme disagreement. Some observations:
  • You are having to carry the verb over from 17:2 and insert it in 17:3 to make purpose work.
    • It would have been very easy for John to continue the string of didōmi into 17:3 or even infer it more clearly, but he didn't.
  • It makes sense to me that John in 17:3 is explaining and making clear what eternal life is.
    • It's either what is this EL that Christ is giving to men, or why is Christ giving it to men
      • The reason why Christ is giving EL to men is because it is the Father's will that Jesus give EL
        • This seems simple and clear enough at minimum in 17:2.
      • Just what is this EL that Christ is giving per the Father's will?
        • This may be one of the, if not the only place EL is defined or explained for us as it relates to men.
        • Many seem to think EL is just living forever
          • But here (and elsewhere) John tells us it's much more than that
    • The wording "this is the eternal life" seems to me to flow better into content than purpose.
      • Content: And eternal life is this: that men know God
      • Purpose: And eternal life is this: [it is given] so men can know God
        • Purpose would be more likely if the pronoun was not there
          • And eternal life is this [given] so men can know God
  • I see 1John basically and in many ways as a commentary on GJohn:
    • NKJ 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, [in order] that (hina) we may know (subjunctive) Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
      • God is Eternal Life
      • Jesus Christ is Eternal Life
        • It's [purposefully] difficult at times in John's writings to distinguish between God and Jesus Christ
      • Jesus Christ has given to us an understanding for this purpose: so we can know God/Eternal Life
        • We know God <> We know Eternal Life
          • John17:3 cf. 1John5:20 This is Eternal Life for men: to know God who is Eternal Life
    • NKJ 1John5:11-12a And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this [eternal] life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has [eternal] life;
      • God gave us Eternal Life which is in Jesus Christ
      • We have Jesus Christ <> We have Eternal Life
      • John17:3 Eternal Life is knowing God and Jesus Christ
        • This is relationship language
          • We have Jesus Christ who is Eternal Life <> We have Eternal Life <> We Know God and Jesus Christ
          • Eternal Life for men is This: Men having relationship with God and Jesus Christ who God sent (and gave to men).
The language of the Text is tough at times for we Englishers. But as I read it, it makes these equations.

The fine line I spoke of earlier acknowledges that content and purpose can be very close. But it seems to me that purpose needs to be forced here and that substantival makes more sense and combines very nicely with other writings of John.

One more proposed authority promised above (the highlighting is mine):

NTFE (by N.T. Wright)

17 After Jesus had said this, he lifted up his eyes to heaven.

“Father,” he said, “the moment has come. Glorify your son, so that your son may glorify you. 2 Do this in the same way as you did when you gave him authority over all flesh, so that he could give the life of God’s coming age to everyone you gave him. 3 And by ‘the life of God’s coming age’ I mean this: that they should know you, the only true God, and Jesus the Messiah, the one you sent.

4 “I glorified you on earth, by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me, alongside yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.

6 “I revealed your name to the people you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you; you gave them to me; and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything which you gave me comes from you. 8 I have given them the words you gave me, and they have received them. They have come to know, in truth, that I came from you. They have believed that you sent me.”

"I mean this" is substantival and not purpose.

To conclude this discussion from my end:

We can both pull from lists of fallacies and send them back and forth. There is the one you've posited and there are ones that speak to rejecting all the work and credentials of all others in favor of only oneself.

Firstly, I did not agree with your interpretation by translating myself. To double check myself I referred to some outside resources and found they do not agree with you. To triple check I asked you for an outside resource that agreed with you and the one you supplied does not agree with you.

Unless and until you can substantiate your proposed authority by any other sources, I'll just rest here. and consider the case closed.

Additionally, I stand on the way I read the language of John 6:39-40 and see it conforming to my reasoning above.
n the basis that that man has more scholastic qualifications. A man’s opinions are not verified by the number of his degrees, or publications, or acolytes; but by his ability to demonstrate that the facts consistently fit his thesis, and the lack of contradicting facts.



I have been spending some time looking through the NT usages of hoti and hina. Since Greenlee’s hypothesis, that the hina + subjunctive can equal a substantive devoid of any sense of consequence or intention, collapsed in the first four of his listed examples, I have arrived at a hypothesis of my own. I think the facts fit my thesis and I haven’t yet seen or heard any countervailing facts, so I invite posters to suggest some contradicting texts if they see any in scripture.



Here is my thesis.



Hoti is always followed by indicative verbs, so is used to introduce statements that the author or speaker considers definite: actions or states that definitely did occur, are definitely occurring or will definitely occur, and on the basis of which the action or state in the governing clause occurs. Hence, the clause hoti introduces can be either causative or substantive, hoti meaning either that or because.



Examples of hoti with past indicatives are John 6:26 and Mr. 11:18; with present indicatives are Lu. 19:31 and Mr. 9: 38; with future indicative are John 14:12, Rom 9:28 and Jas. 1:10



On the other hand, hina is always followed by subjunctive verbs, so is used to introduce statements that are contingent: describing states or actions that may or may not occur in the future of the governing clause. Hence, the clause that hina introduces cannot be causative or substantive, but is a contingent possibility that is either the intended or accidental consequence of the governing clause, hina meaning “so that” or “with the intention that” or “with the result that”.



I am open to someone presenting counter-examples to this hypothesis . Let’s see them if you have them. If you do, will mean I need to accommodate them by tweaking my hypothesis or discarding it. But so far, my thesis it seems sound.



Therefore, I will apply it to John 17:1-3 in my next post.
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,505
468
83
On the other hand, hina is always followed by subjunctive verbs, so is used to introduce statements that are contingent: describing states or actions that may or may not occur in the future of the governing clause. Hence, the clause that hina introduces cannot be causative or substantive, but is a contingent possibility that is either the intended or accidental consequence of the governing clause, hina meaning “so that” or “with the intention that” or “with the result that”.



I am open to someone presenting counter-examples to this hypothesis . Let’s see them if you have them. If you do, will mean I need to accommodate them by tweaking my hypothesis or discarding it. But so far, my thesis it seems sound.



Therefore, I will apply it to John 17:1-3 in my next post.
John 17:1-3



  • Tauta (These things) elalEsen (spoke) ho IEsous (Jesus) kai (and) epEren (lifted) tous ophthalmous outou (his eyes) eis (to) ton houranon (the heaven) kai (and) eipen (said),


“Pater (Father), elEluthen (has come) hE hOra (the hour) ; doxason (glorify) sou ton huion (your son), hina (so that) kai (also) ho huios sou (your son) doxasEi (may glorify) se (you).



  • KathOs (Just as) edOkas (you gave) autOi (to him) exousian (authority) pasEs sarkos (over all flesh), hina (so that) pan (everything) ho (which) dedOkas (you have given) autOi (to him) dOsEi (he may keep on giving) autois (to them): zoEn aiOnion (aeonous life).


  • autEi de (And this) estin (is) hE aiOnios ZoE (the aeonous life) hina (so that) ginOskOsin (they may keep on knowing) se (you) ton monon (the only) alEthinon theon (true God) kai (and) hon (whom) apesteilas (you sent), IEsoun Christon (Jesus Christ).


Firstly, how do you think v. 2 should be translated? I don’t think most translations get it right at all, for the following reasons.



Notice that “all flesh” (pasEs sarkos) is genitive fem. singular; ”everything” (pan) is accusative neut. singular; “to them” (autois) is masc./neut. dative plural.



Most translations consider pan to be the referent of autois, and zoEn aiOnion to be the direct object of dOsei. They interpret this verse as,



“Just as You gave to Him authority over all flesh, so that he may give aeonous life to all you have given to Him.”



This does not seem to me to be a likely translation.

  • “All flesh” (pasEs sarkos) cannot be the referent of “all” (pan), since “all flesh” (pasEs sarkos) is feminine, and pan is neuter.
  • All which you have given to him” (pan ho dedOkas autoi) cannot be “all flesh which you have given to him” because “all which” would need to be feminine, pasan hEn.
  • Because John uses pan for “all” and not pas, pan should be referring to things (everything) and not persons (everyone).


This direct translation makes perfect sense – “the aeonous life” understood as being in apposition to the clause “everything which You have given to Him”.

So,

“Just as You gave Him authority over all flesh (fem. pl.), so that everything (pan: neut. s.) which (ho: neut. s.) You have given to him (autOi: masc. s.) he may keep on giving to them (autois: masc. pl.): aeonous life.



“All flesh” (pasEs sarkos fem. s) can be the referent of “to them” (autois: m. pl.) since “all flesh (though feminine)” is comprises both men + women (which, when collectively are referred to by the masc. pl. in koine Greek).



This translation makes semantic and grammatical sense of the Greek text.



If one translates v.2 as I do, with anarthrous “aeonous life” used appositionally, then the arthrous “the aeonous life” in v.3 refers back to the anarthrous “aeonous life” in v.2, as one mentions seeing “a dog” on the street and then uses the definite article to refer to that particular dog, as in “I saw a dog. The dog was black.”



So, “And this (i.e. “everything you have given to Him”) is the aeonous life, so that (hina) they may keep on knowing you the only true God and) Jesus Christ whom you sent.”



It is my conclusion by looking at the occurrences of hina and hoti in the Bible, that hina always introduces a subordinate clause describing an event or state that the writer or speaker sees as subsequent to, and as a causally linked consequence of, its governing clause: having the sense of “so that as a result…”. It can sometimes be translated into English simply as “that”, but the “that” is introducing either the purpose or the unintended consequence of the governing clause.



  • KathOs (Just as) edOkas (you gave) autOi (to him) exousian (authority) pasEs sarkos (over all flesh), hina (so that) pan (everything) ho (which) dedOkas (you have given) autOi (to him) dOsEi (he may keep on giving) autois (to them): zoEn aiOnion (aeonous life).


  • autEi de (And this) estin (is) hE aiOnios ZoE (the aeonous life) hina (so that) ginOskOsin (they may keep on knowing) se (you) ton monon (the only) alEthinon theon (true God) kai (and) hon (whom) apesteilas (you sent), IEsoun Christon (Jesus Christ).

In the above text the purpose/intention of the Father giving Jesus authority over all flesh was so that the Jesus might keep on giving to all flesh everything the Father gave Him.

Everything the Father gave Jesus is equated to aeonous life.

And that aeonous life is being given for the purpose/intention that we may keep on knowing Jesus and the Father by experience, by learning to participate in all those things.



It may feel a little clumsy translating the Greek this way, because the Greek construction does not woodenly-literally convert word for word exactly into how we speak in English. But the ideas as I have expressed them are certainly discernible in the Greek. This reading ties in with the rest of scripture that tells us, in various ways, that we receive all the treasures and attributes of God in Him. And the more of these treasure in Christ that we experience the more we get to know Him and the Father.



I have tried to construct a comparable narrative in a different context. Here goes -



Let’s take a situation of a military leader giving one of his officers an intake of cadets to train and then lead into combat. The officer has served the leader loyally and with distinction before becoming the cadets’ trainer and during their training.



The leader is being addressed by the officer, after the officer has completed the cadets’ training and is about to lead his trainees out into some region of the theatre of war.



“Please, make sure to back me up to the max, so I can back you up to the max. Just as you gave me authority over all these cadets, so that everything you have assigned to me, I may apportion to them: daily requirements.

And these are the daily requirements: so that they may be healthy, trained and equipped to do what we need to do out in the field.”
 

PaulThomson

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2023
3,505
468
83
John 17:1-3



  • Tauta (These things) elalEsen (spoke) ho IEsous (Jesus) kai (and) epEren (lifted) tous ophthalmous outou (his eyes) eis (to) ton houranon (the heaven) kai (and) eipen (said),


“Pater (Father), elEluthen (has come) hE hOra (the hour) ; doxason (glorify) sou ton huion (your son), hina (so that) kai (also) ho huios sou (your son) doxasEi (may glorify) se (you).



  • KathOs (Just as) edOkas (you gave) autOi (to him) exousian (authority) pasEs sarkos (over all flesh), hina (so that) pan (everything) ho (which) dedOkas (you have given) autOi (to him) dOsEi (he may keep on giving) autois (to them): zoEn aiOnion (aeonous life).


  • autEi de (And this) estin (is) hE aiOnios ZoE (the aeonous life) hina (so that) ginOskOsin (they may keep on knowing) se (you) ton monon (the only) alEthinon theon (true God) kai (and) hon (whom) apesteilas (you sent), IEsoun Christon (Jesus Christ).


Firstly, how do you think v. 2 should be translated? I don’t think most translations get it right at all, for the following reasons.



Notice that “all flesh” (pasEs sarkos) is genitive fem. singular; ”everything” (pan) is accusative neut. singular; “to them” (autois) is masc./neut. dative plural.



Most translations consider pan to be the referent of autois, and zoEn aiOnion to be the direct object of dOsei. They interpret this verse as,



“Just as You gave to Him authority over all flesh, so that he may give aeonous life to all you have given to Him.”



This does not seem to me to be a likely translation.

  • “All flesh” (pasEs sarkos) cannot be the referent of “all” (pan), since “all flesh” (pasEs sarkos) is feminine, and pan is neuter.
  • All which you have given to him” (pan ho dedOkas autoi) cannot be “all flesh which you have given to him” because “all which” would need to be feminine, pasan hEn.
  • Because John uses pan for “all” and not pas, pan should be referring to things (everything) and not persons (everyone).


This direct translation makes perfect sense – “the aeonous life” understood as being in apposition to the clause “everything which You have given to Him”.

So,

“Just as You gave Him authority over all flesh (fem. pl.), so that everything (pan: neut. s.) which (ho: neut. s.) You have given to him (autOi: masc. s.) he may keep on giving to them (autois: masc. pl.): aeonous life.



“All flesh” (pasEs sarkos fem. s) can be the referent of “to them” (autois: m. pl.) since “all flesh (though feminine)” is comprises both men + women (which, when collectively are referred to by the masc. pl. in koine Greek).



This translation makes semantic and grammatical sense of the Greek text.



If one translates v.2 as I do, with anarthrous “aeonous life” used appositionally, then the arthrous “the aeonous life” in v.3 refers back to the anarthrous “aeonous life” in v.2, as one mentions seeing “a dog” on the street and then uses the definite article to refer to that particular dog, as in “I saw a dog. The dog was black.”



So, “And this (i.e. “everything you have given to Him”) is the aeonous life, so that (hina) they may keep on knowing you the only true God and) Jesus Christ whom you sent.”



It is my conclusion by looking at the occurrences of hina and hoti in the Bible, that hina always introduces a subordinate clause describing an event or state that the writer or speaker sees as subsequent to, and as a causally linked consequence of, its governing clause: having the sense of “so that as a result…”. It can sometimes be translated into English simply as “that”, but the “that” is introducing either the purpose or the unintended consequence of the governing clause.



  • KathOs (Just as) edOkas (you gave) autOi (to him) exousian (authority) pasEs sarkos (over all flesh), hina (so that) pan (everything) ho (which) dedOkas (you have given) autOi (to him) dOsEi (he may keep on giving) autois (to them): zoEn aiOnion (aeonous life).


  • autEi de (And this) estin (is) hE aiOnios ZoE (the aeonous life) hina (so that) ginOskOsin (they may keep on knowing) se (you) ton monon (the only) alEthinon theon (true God) kai (and) hon (whom) apesteilas (you sent), IEsoun Christon (Jesus Christ).

In the above text the purpose/intention of the Father giving Jesus authority over all flesh was so that the Jesus might keep on giving to all flesh everything the Father gave Him.

Everything the Father gave Jesus is equated to aeonous life.

And that aeonous life is being given for the purpose/intention that we may keep on knowing Jesus and the Father by experience, by learning to participate in all those things.



It may feel a little clumsy translating the Greek this way, because the Greek construction does not woodenly-literally convert word for word exactly into how we speak in English. But the ideas as I have expressed them are certainly discernible in the Greek. This reading ties in with the rest of scripture that tells us, in various ways, that we receive all the treasures and attributes of God in Him. And the more of these treasure in Christ that we experience the more we get to know Him and the Father.



I have tried to construct a comparable narrative in a different context. Here goes -



Let’s take a situation of a military leader giving one of his officers an intake of cadets to train and then lead into combat. The officer has served the leader loyally and with distinction before becoming the cadets’ trainer and during their training.



The leader is being addressed by the officer, after the officer has completed the cadets’ training and is about to lead his trainees out into some region of the theatre of war.



“Please, make sure to back me up to the max, so I can back you up to the max. Just as you gave me authority over all these cadets, so that everything you have assigned to me, I may apportion to them: daily requirements.

And these are the daily requirements: so that they may be healthy, trained and equipped to do what we need to do out in the field.”
I wonder if we should move this discussion to a new thread, and discuss it there, studier.
 

HeIsHere

Well-known member
May 21, 2022
6,334
2,461
113
Where's the smiley face to go along with this statement?

But you supplied a reference when I asked you to, so, were you expecting to use an "authority" yourself, until it disagreed with you?

Seems all you're left with at the moment is to claim logical fallacy. But rejecting all authority is not necessarily a good thing.

If we were to set aside all "authority" - which I'm not inclined to do here - it's down to you and me.

Stalemate.

Next discussion?
Agree, this is a discussion board not a tightly structured debate format of proposition, premise, inference and conclusion.
Authority and expertise of others in important.
 

studier

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2024
1,189
233
63
There are varying opinions on the
order of some of these events
Do you have an opinion on the order of these events?


rewards those who seek Him (a Scriptural promise),
God knows and we know Scripture says none seek Him, but people do seek truth, and Jesus is the embodiment of Truth, being Truth itself.
It seems like this seeking God is a confusing issue based mainly on Romans 3:11.