Who Did Jesus Christ Say He Came To Save?

[Saved-By-Grace]

There are some who admit that the Lord Jesus Christ "died" for the whole human race, in some special way, but deny that this equates to the actual Atonement that Jesus made through His death on the cross. This is no more than "splitting hairs", as the death of Jesus Christ IS His Atonement for the sins of the whole human race. I have also shown from 1 John 2:2, where John writes of Jesus, "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.". Where, like its use in 1 John 5:19, the phrase "the whole world", contextually, can only refer to the unsaved, lost world. I have also shown from the use of Hebrew and Greek lexicons, that the Greek noun, "ἱλασμός", has the meaning "atonement", where it is used time and again in the LXX as an equivalent to the Hebrew, "כִּפֻּר", which basically means "atonement". This, some for theological purposes have rejected. These same people argue that the death of Jesus Christ was for the "non-elect", but only in the sense that they enjoy the same "blessings" as the "elect" do. When pressed as to what these "blessings" might be, they usually respond, by sharing in the temporal "blessings" of the rain, and sun-shine and food, etc, etc. As if these were not shared by the entire human race from creation! It has nothing to do with the death of Jesus Christ.

I will now show from John's Gospel, where in chapter 5 we read of Jesus' encounter with the Jews, who took offence to what He said and did, and wanted to murder Him for this. Thus we read in verse 16:

"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day"

The response of the Jews to Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath Day. Jesus responds to them;

"My Father works still, and I work" (verse 17)

Which further enraged the Jews, as Jesus here claims a special relationship with Yahweh, and Deity, to which we read;

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God" (verse 18)

Again the Jews response was to murder the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, the words that follow, are directly addressed to these same Jews, who were bent on murdering Jesus. We read in verse 19;

"Then answered Jesus and said unto THEM..."

So to these murdering Jews, the Lord Jesus says:

"Verily, verily, I say unto YOU, He that hears My word, and believes on Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto YOU, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." (verses 24-25)

All of this was spoken to these same Jews. Note what Jesus says to THEM. If you "hear My word", and "believe on Him (the Father), WILL have eternal life. It is clear from Jesus' own words, that ALL (not some) of these Jews, had the capability to HEAR and BELIEVE in their sinful, lost state. "They that HEAR shall LIVE". Which means that these Jews, according the the Lord Jesus, were NOT "dead" in the sense that some argue, that the are not ABLE to respond one way or another, to His Words. This is what God Incarnate is saying, and not me or some theology.

Also, to these SAME murdering Jews, Jesus tells them this;

"but these things I say that YOU might be saved" (verse 34)

We have the use of the Greek conjunction, "ἵνα", which means, that everything that Jesus had told these Jews, from the beginning of this chapter, was "in order that", they MIGHT BE SAVED. Notice the use of "σωθῆτε", which is in the Greek subjunctive mood, indicating "condition", that these Jews, like the rest of lost sinners, MIGHT be saved (not WILL), the condition being, they had to HEAR and BELIEVE, and ONLY then could they be SAVED.

Yes, Jesus not only DIED for these murdering Jews, but also wanted them to REPENT and BELIEVE in Him and be SAVED.

Further, Jesus goes on to say to these same Jews:

"Search the Scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me. And you will not come to Me, that you might have life."

These Jews were not WILLING of themselves to HEAR and BELIEVE, so that THEY could enjoy ETERNAL LIFE. Not as some would pervert these words, so that they mean, they COULD not COME to Jesus, because the Holy Spirit had not thus enabled them! This is no more than theological twisting of what the Word of God actually says.

 

[BobRyan]

John 3:16 "God so loved the World... yes really"
Matthew 11 "come unto Me ALL who are weary and heavy laden... yes really"
1 John 4:14 "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD...yes really"
1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD...yes really"

Some forms of Calvinism view all that as the Bible's "hyperbole" and marketing hype. But for the rest of us it is scripture, it is truth, it is the Word of God. Just like Exodus 20:11

 

[The Archangel]

"but these things I say that YOU might be saved" (verse 34)

We have the use of the Greek conjunction, "ἵνα", which means, that everything that Jesus had told these Jews, from the beginning of this chapter, was "in order that", they MIGHT BE SAVED. Notice the use of "σωθῆτε", which is in the Greek subjunctive mood, indicating "condition", that these Jews, like the rest of lost sinners, MIGHT be saved (not WILL), the condition being, they had to HEAR and BELIEVE, and ONLY then could they be SAVED.

With all of your other unsupported, ham-fisted "handling" of the text, you should probably be aware that the subjunctive, in Greek, when part of a ἵνα clause such as this one, does not express "condition," it expresses purpose or goal. Your entire treatment of this verse (ie. the conclusions you draw from it) is based on a misunderstanding of basic Greek.

The Archangel

 

[BobRyan]

Saved-By-Grace said: ↑
"but these things I say that YOU might be saved" (verse 34)

With all of your other unsupported, ham-fisted "handling" of the text, you should probably be aware that the subjunctive, in Greek, when part of a ἵνα clause such as this one, does not express "condition," it expresses purpose or goal.

so also in English... you are making a distinction without a difference in the point being made above.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

John 3:16 "God so loved the World... yes really"
Matthew 11 "come unto Me ALL who are weary and heavy laden... yes really"
1 John 4:14 "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD...yes really"
1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD...yes really"

Some forms of Calvinism view all that as the Bible's "hyperbole" and marketing hype. But for the rest of us it is scripture, it is truth, it is the Word of God. Just like Exodus 20:11

 

[The Archangel]

so also in English... you are making a distinction without a difference in the point being made above.

Not at all. While the nuance is, perhaps, subtle, there is both a distinction and a difference in what was offered as meaning and what Jesus actually said.

The Archangel

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

With all of your other unsupported, ham-fisted "handling" of the text, you should probably be aware that the subjunctive, in Greek, when part of a ἵνα clause such as this one, does not express "condition," it expresses purpose or goal. Your entire treatment of this verse (ie. the conclusions you draw from it) is based on a misunderstanding of basic Greek.

The Archangel

you WONT accept what the Bible plainly says, because it goes against what you believe. You also show your ignorance of your Greek knowledge!

 

[The Archangel]

you WONT accept what the Bible plainly says, because it goes against what you believe. You also show your ignorance of your Greek knowledge!

That's funny! I am not the one who has mistaken the subjunctive here. So....

The Archangel

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

That's funny! I am not the one who has mistaken the subjunctive here. So....

The Archangel

show me that what I have said of Jesus offering these murdering Jews eternal life, is not correct. If you can?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

With all of your other unsupported, ham-fisted "handling" of the text, you should probably be aware that the subjunctive, in Greek, when part of a ἵνα clause such as this one, does not express "condition," it expresses purpose or goal. Your entire treatment of this verse (ie. the conclusions you draw from it) is based on a misunderstanding of basic Greek.

The Archangel

so the whole "purpose" that Jesus Christ came into the world, is THAT these sinners MIGHT be saved. Are you saying that they could have been saved without following what Jesus says to them, HEAR and BELIEVE? This, my friend it the CONDITION that Jesus makes for their salvation.

 

[The Archangel]

show me that what I have said of Jesus offering these murdering Jews eternal life, is not correct. If you can?

You're missing the point. I merely pointed out your mistake with the Greek text. That's my only intent... to demonstrate you didn't know how the subjunctive worked.

The Archangel

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Not at all. While the nuance is, perhaps, subtle, there is both a distinction and a difference in what was offered as meaning and what Jesus actually said.

The Archangel

in your mind perhaps. read the whole context and show me that no CONDITION was made by Jesus to them being saved?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

You're missing the point. I merely pointed out your mistake with the Greek text. That's my only intent... to demonstrate you didn't know how the subjunctive worked.

The Archangel

I have just shown from Jesus' own words, that the fact that He mas made CONDITIONS to these Jews, the subjunctive does include this

 

[The Archangel]

in your mind perhaps. read the whole context and show me that no CONDITION was made by Jesus to them being saved?

It isn't about context. It's about you saying the subjunctive verb gave condition, which it clearly does not by itself. As part of the "hina" clause, its meaning is purpose or goal. That's all. Rather than trying to bait others, perhaps you should go study your Greek.

The Archangel

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

It isn't about context. It's about you saying the subjunctive verb gave condition, which it clearly does not by itself. As part of the "hina" clause, its meaning is purpose or goal. That's all. Rather than trying to bait others, perhaps you should go study your Greek.

The Archangel

If, as you say you know Greek, you should know that in every case, there are "exceptions" to the so-called "rules" to the grammar. This is fact. contextually the use of the subjunctive by Jesus is "conditioned" on HEARING and BELIEVING.

 

[The Archangel]

If, as you say you know Greek, you should know that in every case, there are "exceptions" to the so-called "rules" to the grammar.

Not all. And, you're use of "so-called" 'rules'" demonstrates you have no earthly clue which ones and why.

This is fact.

According to.....?

contextually the use of the subjunctive by Jesus is "conditioned" on HEARING and BELIEVING.

First, the Subjunctive in and of itself conveys contingency, not condition. Now, in English, one might argue that there is no difference in contingency and condition, however in Greek there is.

In Greek, condition is expressed in a somewhat formulaic way, using ει and εαν for the most part as "indicators." Some conditions are introduced with the negative particles, but we'll leave that for now. In Greek, there are four types of conditions and which condition it is depends on the formula. The ίνα clause does not introduce a condition; it introduces a purpose or goal-oriented clause.

These are not "so-called 'rules.'" These rules are grammatical guideposts that help the savvy reader to discover the author's meaning.

You see... you can't claim to "know Greek" just because you clumsily wield a parsing tool and lexicon while reading what others say about the Greek text. You actually have to roll up your sleeves and work the language. You might know about Greek, but you have yet do demonstrate that you "know" Greek.

The Archangel

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Not all. And, you're use of "so-called" 'rules'" demonstrates you have no earthly clue which ones and why.



According to.....?



First, the Subjunctive in and of itself conveys contingency, not condition. Now, in English, one might argue that there is no difference in contingency and condition, however in Greek there is.

In Greek, condition is expressed in a somewhat formulaic way, using ει and εαν for the most part as "indicators." Some conditions are introduced with the negative particles, but we'll leave that for now. In Greek, there are four types of conditions and which condition it is depends on the formula. The ίνα clause does not introduce a condition; it introduces a purpose or goal-oriented clause.

These are not "so-called 'rules.'" These rules are grammatical guideposts that help the savvy reader to discover the author's meaning.

You see... you can't claim to "know Greek" just because you clumsily wield a parsing tool and lexicon while reading what others say about the Greek text. You actually have to roll up your sleeves and work the language. You might know about Greek, but you have yet do demonstrate that you "know" Greek.

The Archangel

can you not deal with the passage in question? If you are wrong, are you and the rest of the "Reformers/Calvinists" humble enough to admit this? If I am wrong, then show me where and then if proven from Scripture, I WILL admit it here on BB and change. Your arguments with my use of the Greek does NOT disprove anything.

 

[The Archangel]

can you not deal with the passage in question? If you are wrong, are you and the rest of the "Reformers/Calvinists" humble enough to admit this? If I am wrong, then show me where and then if proven from Scripture, I WILL admit it here on BB and change. Your arguments with my use of the Greek does NOT disprove anything.

Yawn... Go chase your windmills...

The Archangel

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Yawn... Go chase your windmills...

The Archangel

You can check out Dr Samuel Green's, Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, pages 320-323, and Dr George Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, pages 358-365, both available on archive.org, and then come back and show me that I am wrong. You still cannot respond to what Jesus and Paul say in John 5 and Romans 2?

 

[BobRyan]

Saved-By-Grace said: ↑
"but these things I say that YOU might be saved" (verse 34)

Clearly the "goal" -- "That you might be saved" is stated in that verse

The Archangel said: ↑
With all of your other unsupported, ham-fisted "handling" of the text, you should probably be aware that the subjunctive, in Greek, when part of a ἵνα clause such as this one, does not express "condition," it expresses purpose or goal.

so also in English... you are making a distinction without a difference in the point being made above.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

John 3:16 "God so loved the World... yes really"
Matthew 11 "come unto Me ALL who are weary and heavy laden... yes really"
1 John 4:14 "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD...yes really"
1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD...yes really"

Some forms of Calvinism view all that as the Bible's "hyperbole" and marketing hype. But for the rest of us it is scripture, it is truth, it is the Word of God. Just like Exodus 20:11

These not so-subtle details too large to miss

Not at all. While the nuance is, perhaps, subtle, there is both a distinction and a difference

Sounds like wishful thinking

 

[BobRyan]

There are some who admit that the Lord Jesus Christ "died" for the whole human race, in some special way, but deny that this equates to the actual Atonement that Jesus made through His death on the cross. This is no more than "splitting hairs", as the death of Jesus Christ IS His Atonement for the sins of the whole human race. I have also shown from 1 John 2:2, where John writes of Jesus, "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.". .

Your comment brings up an important detail about Atonement -- Calvinists don't understand the Bible definition of Atonement as defined by God in the Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" where BOTH the work of Christ as the "Lord's Goat" - the LAMB of God -- and ALSO the work of Christ as High Priest (The MAIN POINT according to Hebrews 8:1) is required to satisfy the Bible's broad-scope meaning for Atonement.

1 John 2:2 "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" NIV

Thus "the Atoning Sacrifice" completed at the cross - but the full Leviticus 16 scope for the "Term" that we call "Atonement" must include BOTH the work of Christ as sin offering (Atoning sacrifice) AND the work of Christ as High Priest.

This not-so-subtle detail gets totally lost in all the story-telling of Calvinism.

And it is the irrefutable solution for the Arminian position on the subject of atonement.

Calvinism only survives the key Bible detail .. by ignoring it whenever it comes up.