Thread split: John 17:12 and Judas

[Isaiah40:28]

Originally Posted by Isaiah40:28
Now verse 12.
"While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me". And again, Jesus makes reference to a name, this time He says it is a name given Him by the Father. So again, He invokes the name of God as the means by which He protected this group.
Safe from what is where we disagree.
You say it is say from premature death and this includes Judas. Jesus needed Judas to be physically protected so that he would be able to fulfill the work of Satan prophesied by Scripture.
I see it as spiritual protection, which does not include Judas.
His reference to having protected them and kept them safe is exactly what He promised He would do to those that the Father gave Him back in John 6:37,39.
And in the second part of verse 12, He states that He has lost none, except one.
He has completely fulfilled the Father's will given to Him, by protecting and keeping those that Father gave Him. He has not failed the Father in doing the work that was assigned to Him, to keep all the Father had given Him and He will raise them up at the last day.

I don't dispute this, but I argued from a different point. One that stated those whom the Father gave Jesus included two groups. Those whom the Father gave Jesus (all of them) as identified in John 17 because Jesus even states 'those whom you 'gave' me', establishing the full group. I agree here, but it is in verse twelve something is revealed that portrays not just a spiritual keeping but a physical one as well. And since we know that Judas was not apart of the spiritual keeping, THIS keeping refered to by Christ MUSt be different because Jesus states he has kept all the Father gave him and NONE are lost EXCEPT ..."
But my question is - what warrents the spiritual sense in verse 12? Not that it can't be implied and direct. But if it indeed must be seen in the spiritual sense we DO have a problem with the sentence structure showing Judas was indeed part of those given to Christ.

So I will ask this instead regarding the spiritual.

Since it is contrasting one group from another which Christ had. We find the scripture states Christ kept them ...that thou gavest me (meaning all of them)..and none of them is lost, but/except the Son of Perdition..; (paraphrased KJV)
OR

...I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. - NASB

OR

...I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction - ESV

Why can we not postulate this single giving of men (which definately includes Judas because of the sentence structure) be that God gave all of them to Christ but they have different purposes which seperate the two groups?

If that be the case it makes more sense to see the 'but/except which includes Judas there only regarding those whom the Father gave to Christ, but NOT including him in those who recieve and believed Christ.

And since Judas is the exception to this "keeping", it must follow that Jesus never intended to preserve Judas because Judas was the son of perdition all along.

So you DO contend that Judas was apart of those the Father God the Son, but that he was kept for another purpose? (presumably to fulfill his part in the prophesy)

His choosing was not for salvation(and I agree with you on your comments on that word), it was for fullfillment of Scripture and purpose, which we both agree was fully known to Christ.
So if Christ loses Judas, it must mean that He was never intended to be part of the kept or else Jesus failed to preserve those that were given to Him.

You seem to be asserting that Judas was given to Christ with the others but for a different purpose. Though all were given to Him at once not all were given for the same purposes. To that I agree and is what I have been trying to say.

Thus verse 12 SPECIFIES or Establishes that Christ has kept them all, and lost none the Father gave except for Judas. Please notice that in the verse itself 'kept' is used differently than for 'lost'. One is a physical sense including those who are not lost and the other is in the physical sense revealing who IS lost.

That's why I don't see Judas as being part of those in verse 12 whom Jesus protected and kept safe.

Then please explain the sentence structure of verse 12 which places Judas as one of those whom Christ kept but lost so as to fulfill prophesy. I'm not being rude here but seriously want to see you explain away either in the English or Greek (I can read both) how 'not loosing one except for' does not place Judas squarely inside that group given by the Father.

And since we know that's not true, then it seems right to say that Jesus was never given Judas in the salvific way that John 6 and John 17 speak of.
Judas wasn't lost because Jesus stopped keeping him safe. He was lost because he was the son of perdition and to fulfill prophesy.

No. It might 'seem' right in your eyes but you still have the glaring problem with the scripture that states in essense - All that you have given me I have kept ... and none are lost except for..."

What seems right and what the passage actually says' diverge. HEY - I'm not 100% sold myself on the idea though I am strongly arguing for because I want to see something that directly disputes it. And I do have to take scripture for what it states and this HERE is my problem the plain reading of the verse and it's specific sentence structure..

 

[skypair]

Isaiah,

First, how do you end up arguing with yourself?

Well, anyway, I do have a theory but you may not like it. From John the Baptist on, it was announced that "the kingdom is at hand." If that be the case, Christ kept those given to Him as He would in the MK physically. We find, in fact, in the MK that as long as one appears to obey, they live and receive blessing. In His first advent, this "kingdom" extended to those who followed Him -- the 12, the 70, those who asked healing.

But this is dispensationalism and that may be a problem for you, eh? Grace, the spiritual kingdom, was supposed to and did "flow" from this "kingdom at hand" but the physical apect -- rather than becoming millennial -- went out of the earth with Christ.

skypair

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Isaiah,

First, how do you end up arguing with yourself?

Is that what you think is happening?
I owe a response to Allan, but I wanted it to be in a new thread.

Well, anyway, I do have a theory but you may not like it. From John the Baptist on, it was announced that "the kingdom is at hand." If that be the case, Christ kept those given to Him as He would in the MK physically. We find, in fact, in the MK that as long as one appears to obey, they live and receive blessing. In His first advent, this "kingdom" extended to those who followed Him -- the 12, the 70, those who asked healing.

But this is dispensationalism and that may be a problem for you, eh? Grace, the spiritual kingdom, was supposed to and did "flow" from this "kingdom at hand" but the physical apect -- rather than becoming millennial -- went out of the earth with Christ.

skypair

I have no idea what to say to this stuff.
Sorry.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Ahhhhhhh!
I just lost my reply to Allan.
I don't have time right now to redo it.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

I don't dispute this, but I argued from a different point. One that stated those whom the Father gave Jesus included two groups. Those whom the Father gave Jesus (all of them) as identified in John 17 because Jesus even states 'those whom you 'gave' me', establishing the full group. I agree here, but it is in verse twelve something is revealed that portrays not just a spiritual keeping but a physical one as well. And since we know that Judas was not apart of the spiritual keeping, THIS keeping refered to by Christ MUSt be different because Jesus states he has kept all the Father gave him and NONE are lost EXCEPT ..."
But my question is - what warrents the spiritual sense in verse 12? Not that it can't be implied and direct. But if it indeed must be seen in the spiritual sense we DO have a problem with the sentence structure showing Judas was indeed part of those given to Christ.

So I will ask this instead regarding the spiritual.

Since it is contrasting one group from another which Christ had. We find the scripture states Christ kept them ...that thou gavest me (meaning all of them)..and none of them is lost, but/except the Son of Perdition..; (paraphrased KJV)
OR



OR




Why can we not postulate this single giving of men (which definately includes Judas because of the sentence structure) be that God gave all of them to Christ but they have different purposes which seperate the two groups?

If that be the case it makes more sense to see the 'but/except which includes Judas there only regarding those whom the Father gave to Christ, but NOT including him in those who recieve and believed Christ.




So you DO contend that Judas was apart of those the Father God the Son, but that he was kept for another purpose? (presumably to fulfill his part in the prophesy)



You seem to be asserting that Judas was given to Christ with the others but for a different purpose. Though all were given to Him at once not all were given for the same purposes. To that I agree and is what I have been trying to say.

Thus verse 12 SPECIFIES or Establishes that Christ has kept them all, and lost none the Father gave except for Judas. Please notice that in the verse itself 'kept' is used differently than for 'lost'. One is a physical sense including those who are not lost and the other is in the physical sense revealing who IS lost.




Then please explain the sentence structure of verse 12 which places Judas as one of those whom Christ kept but lost so as to fulfill prophesy. I'm not being rude here but seriously want to see you explain away either in the English or Greek (I can read both) how 'not loosing one except for' does not place Judas squarely inside that group given by the Father.



No. It might 'seem' right in your eyes but you still have the glaring problem with the scripture that states in essense - All that you have given me I have kept ... and none are lost except for..."

What seems right and what the passage actually says' diverge. HEY - I'm not 100% sold myself on the idea though I am strongly arguing for because I want to see something that directly disputes it. And I do have to take scripture for what it states and this HERE is my problem the plain reading of the verse and it's specific sentence structure..

Here's the Cliff's Notes version of my original reply which will hopefully clarify anything that I have previously stated in an unclear or even inaccurate manner.
Judas was not "given" to the Son as the John 6 passage describes those who are given.
He was chosen by Christ as a disciple and we agree that it was not a salvific choosing.
Two different actions with two different results.
1) Christ choosing 12 disciples
2) the Father giving 11 true sons to Jesus.

Thus, Jesus protected, preserved and lost none of those which were given to Him by the Father to be raised up at the last day.
Now with regards to Judas' "lostness'.
Judas was lost, not because Jesus stopped keeping him, but because Jesus never was given Judas to keep.
Judas was lost due to his status as the 'son of perdition and to fulfill prophesy'.
IOW, his "lostness" was self-induced and therefore not part of the ones whom Jesus was charged with keeping.
So for Jesus to say that "none has been lost", He's referring to the 11 He was given to keep.
And for him to say "except the one", He's reminding His Father that He has completed the job given Him and the "lost" condition of Judas is not Jesus' responsibility. Yes, he's lost, Jesus says, but the reason Judas is "excepted" is because he never was part of those to whom the Son was expected to keep.

That's why I see verse 12 as being a spiritual keeping of souls and not a mere physical protection of bodies.

I understand why you intrepret verse 12 the way you do, but it was not written in a vaccum.
John 6 provides the context for Jesus' words in John 17.
Am I supposed to ignore context in favor of sentence structure?

I've never been one to espouse the "plain" reading plan, since so much of the Bible requires intense reading and careful hermeneutics.

I can think of several examples of "plain reading" that none of us hold, yet other's like JW's and Mormon's do prefer.

So for non-Calvinist's to say that they strive after the "plain reading" compared to the Calvinists who try to explain things away that don't suit their views is faulty.

And it would be nice to see that charge against Calvinists dropped by the non-Calvinists on this board and IRL(in real life).

I may have missed some things you mentioned or asked, Allan, but my time here is gone for today, so I'll have to let it go for now.

 

[Allan]

Everything before this does not address my questions in posted for the OP, with the exception of your rendition of what Jesus meant by 'except'.

I understand why you intrepret verse 12 the way you do, but it was not written in a vaccum.

Obviously you don't.

John 6 provides the context for Jesus' words in John 17.

Sorry, but verses in chapter 17 are the context of Chapter 17 and chapter 6 is a supporting passages. And yet neither deny the issue I set forth, which is your OP.

Am I supposed to ignore context in favor of sentence structure?

I can not help this, but THIS is the most ridiculous statement have seen in months. Seriously, if I would have said this, you would have bashed my head in (and so would most others on the BB )It is the structure of the sentence (through which it's meaning is derived) which is the very content that establishes the context. SO YES. If the sentence does not say it, then your opinion is being forced into the passages.

I've never been one to espouse the "plain" reading plan, since so much of the Bible requires intense reading and careful hermeneutics.

The plain reading of the text is part of basic hermeneutics. And 'so much of the bible' does not require intence reading to grasp the the meaing of a text. I do agree there are at times 'some' though few difficult passages, and so an intence study would be necessary to understand the full dynamics of the passage but not its principle meaning.

So for non-Calvinist's to say that they strive after the "plain reading" compared to the Calvinists who try to explain things away that don't suit their views is faulty.

And vise versa. And yet this is exactly what you did above by trying to explain away what 'except' mean - as in Christ was reminding God Judas was not given to Him. And yet what Christ said was that he had kept all the Father gave me except Judas.

If your mother gave you all of her eggs and you used them all except one - Is not that one part of the whole given?

If your Father gave you all his puppies and you kept them all except the one who was sick and died. Is not that one who was to die part of the whole which was given.
Jesus states

...I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction - ESV

Those you gave me, is a direct reference to ALL that gave gave. And not one is lost EXCEPT FOR...

And it would be nice to see that charge against Calvinists dropped by the non-Calvinists on this board and IRL(in real life).

I agree. And it would be great to see that SAME charge against the Non-Cals dropped on this board and IRL.


Please just deal with what I set forth, first. It is not that I hold this view doctrinally and teach it as such but until it was brought it up I never noticed it before. So I am asking to see a refute against it that is consistant with the sentence structure . However, I agree with all you have stated about Jesus keeping those whom God intended Him to keep in the spiritual sense of the word. But as I stated it does not negate the possibility posed or based on verse 17:12 that those whom God gave was ALL of the 12 but there were 2 groups within the whole given.


PS> If I find the answer - I'll post it too

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Everything before this does not address my questions in posted for the OP, with the exception of your rendition of what Jesus meant by 'except'.
Obviously you don't.


Sorry, but verses in chapter 17 are the context of Chapter 17 and chapter 6 is a supporting passages. And yet neither deny the issue I set forth, which is your OP.

I can not help this, but THIS is the most ridiculous statement have seen in months. Seriously, if I would have said this, you would have bashed my head in (and so would most others on the BB )It is the structure of the sentence (through which it's meaning is derived) which is the very content that establishes the context. SO YES. If the sentence does not say it, then your opinion is being forced into the passages.


The plain reading of the text is part of basic hermeneutics. And 'so much of the bible' does not require intence reading to grasp the the meaing of a text. I do agree there are at times 'some' though few difficult passages, and so an intence study would be necessary to understand the full dynamics of the passage but not its principle meaning.


And vise versa. And yet this is exactly what you did above by trying to explain away what 'except' mean - as in Christ was reminding God Judas was not given to Him. And yet what Christ said was that he had kept all the Father gave me except Judas.

If your mother gave you all of her eggs and you used them all except one - Is not that one part of the whole given?

If your Father gave you all his puppies and you kept them all except the one who was sick and died. Is not that one who was to die part of the whole which was given.
Jesus states
Those you gave me, is a direct reference to ALL that gave gave. And not one is lost EXCEPT FOR...


I agree. And it would be great to see that SAME charge against the Non-Cals dropped on this board and IRL.


Please just deal with what I set forth, first. It is not that I hold this view doctrinally and teach it as such but until it was brought it up I never noticed it before. So I am asking to see a refute against it that is consistant with the sentence structure . However, I agree with all you have stated about Jesus keeping those whom God intended Him to keep in the spiritual sense of the word. But as I stated it does not negate the possibility posed or based on verse 17:12 that those whom God gave was ALL of the 12 but there were 2 groups within the whole given.


PS> If I find the answer - I'll post it too

Allan, I think I'm done.
I do not think there is anything further I can discuss about the passages that I haven't already said without getting repetitative.
You have a different interpretation about what the John 17:12 says than I do and I'll just have to leave it at that.

I think the points I've made stand up exegetically.
Obviously you disagree.
Even our style of hermeneutics is apparantly different for this passage.

Your analogies about gifts of eggs and puppies do not address my view which is that the Father did not give Judas to Jesus as a son, but that Jesus chose Judas as a disciple.
Judas wasn't given, therefore his lostness was not connected to Jesus' assignment from the Father.

I'm not perfect in my understandings, but at this point the interpretation that I've been arguing for is what fits best within the overall picture and the different commentaries that we use in our house have not suggested your view of 'physical protection' as a means of understanding the passage.
Perhaps your commentaries do.
What can I say.
It all goes back to methods of interpretation.

And unless I can think of a way to explain my argument differently to you, I'd like to move on.