Peter McKenzie

Judas seems to be more important to your case than mine – although I am still not sure in which way he factors in. Much of our argument is based on speculation. If I say that he was a believer who backslid when his flesh got the better of him, you will merely reject that as me not being true to the text. Much of what you say is answering questions that I am not answering. I don’t dispute the fact that he ended up badly – but you seem to think I am saying he was a good man. I don’t know where to go with that so I think we should just leave him for now. As I mentioned several times, our impasse is situated at the grammar of verse 37. You insist that the present tense be an ongoing feature that spans time beyond the death of Jesus. At the same time you accuse me of not paying attention to context and relying on what people are thinking. When you say that you believe the words that are written, it somehow insinuates that I don’t. And yet my whole case is based on the words that are written. Essentially, our disagreement lies around one thing: I say that the present tense situation has an expiry date. You say it is ongoing. I have told you why I believe that and you argue by way of an assertion it seems. I say that because the thing you assert needs to be supported by a premise that these Jews fully understand a type of “coming” that is different than the “coming” that they are engaged in – a physical approaching Jesus in order to follow him as He ministers around the country side. I have shown you from the grammar in this post and I have shown you what the present tense means. You have NEVER listed the inspired grammar and show me where my view is contradicted by the grammar. In fact you make an end-date to the present tense and yet you cannot point to even one verse that lists the end. A person from a different persuasion could say that the end date is the conversion of Paul, or mid-Acts, the death of Paul. You name it. Speculation has no proof. And you have no grammar. Here is why I believe that there is an expiry date that can be concluded from the text, FROM THE TEXT: – the will of the Father stated in verse 39, serves to locate the setting as an earthly one – GIVEN that Jesus came down from Heaven to do that very will. This will is not the only will. In fact, there is more information regarding what else the Father’s will entails in verse 40. These different aspects of his will do not interfere with each other. But it can be seen that it is an earthly will that is in view – IN THE TEXT. In John 17, we see that the passage serves to provide a wrap up by Jesus of His earthly ministry. He is giving a recap and a report of the will that He set out to do while He walked the earth. Earlier you said, in regard to the present tense being a deal breaker for me, that it doesn’t say “everything that the Father GAVE me”. But in John 17:6 it does say that very thing – “I have made your name known to those you GAVE me from the world”. Surely that is some evidence that you will take a look at without trumpeting your lofty standard and berating my own lowly one? This is essentially a matter of doing basic reading. I suggest that we let the context determine whether there is an end date to the present tense used in any passage. You are rigidly denying the possibility of doing that here – without giving a reason why we cannot do that. You asked for a verse and I gave you one. Re John 17:20 you said: This is the verse that the other believers come in. “Believe” in this verse is present active, the ones who are presently believing because of their word. If Jesus was talking about all present believers through the entire chapter, He would not have had to add in that He was not asking on behalf of “these alone”, for they would all be included. I am not quite sure what you are driving at here. It is clear from the text that Jesus is referring to the “given ones” up to verse 19. After verse 20, there are definite markers that indicate He is back to referring to the original group. In verse 23 he mentions that He “loved them” (past tense). In verse 24, He mentions them directly – “whom you have GIVEN me”. If you are suggesting a “giving” that is Calvinistic (people given before they are born) here I would reject that notion. There is more past tense used in the last 2 verses. So, as it regards how much Jesus is referring to the 2nd generation believers, who will believe in me through THEIR (the first believers) word”, I think the only reference to their inclusion is in verses 20 and 21. Verse 22 MIGHT be pointing at them, but you would have to concur that Jesus is referring to a corporate giving of glory there – and not giving his actual glory to individuals who exist at that time. IOW something like “Jesus decided before time that He would give HIs glory to believers”. That premise might fit in this verse – but I don’t think it is the likely one. I really think we are at an impasse. My whole argument really rests on the expiry date of the present tense in verse 39. Your argument seems to be based on an insistence that there is no expiry date. I feel like we should let the text decide that. You insist that I am not good at doing the reading and I like to add things. I have pushed past the offence that is embedded there. I have given you some push back as well – but in order to leave this as a civil exercise, I think we should agree to disagree at this point. I will say that I do believe in the words that are written. You cannot do that observation without determine what the words mean. What the grammar means. The truth of the word cannot contradict the grammar. That is in the inspired model of interpretation. When you try to do interpretation by meditating on what you think the readers were thinking without considering the grammar (which they would familiar with) you can take a giant step past reality and then create a theory that has no verse to back it up. All you have is what you imagine they are thinking. I am not sure why you feel it is necessary to say this kind of stuff. I have told you that I am all for doing the observation as a FIRST exercise. In that regard, I have determined to figure out FIRST what the intended meaning of the author is. When you say the “truth of the word cannot contradict the grammar” – what you are really saying is the “truth of the word ACCORDING TO HOW I INTERPRET IT”. The better method is to figure out the grammar first before you do any interpretation. I said this before, but I feel that your biggest mistake is wanting to do interpretation prematurely. Here’s a synopsis to where I see things to this point: – I am mainly interested in determining what was being said in context to the original hearer here. – You seem to argue as though you disagree with what is being said to the original hearer – I don’t understand why you insist that the present tense of verse 39 defeats my argument. – given that it works with both my argument and yours, it seems the crux of the matter comes down to whether or not Jesus was referring to all believers there across the entirety of time. – you insist that Jesus was stating universal, theological truth about “giving” there – despite the fact that the context is dealing with specific, pre-existing people. So your claim seems to go against the warp and the woof of the passage. IOW your “giving” is a different “giving” that Jesus is referring to in the passage. – although, you claim to be the purveyor of sound methods of interpretation and only go with the inspired words of scripture, you make an unfounded claim that Jesus is jumping from the specific occasion pointed at individuals to stating a universal truth. – you argue against me vehemently on many points, but surely you must agree that the use of the present tense doesn’t hurt my view in verse 39. If Jesus is making a universal truth statement, then it must ALSO apply to those ones as well. – As such, the real argument is whether or not the present tense has an end date. The context of the Father’s will suggests that it does – as that will is seen as happening in the setting. – It seems that the burden of proof is on you to establish that the “giving” is continuing today. In the passage, looking at the inspired words of the text and yielding them their proper authority – without reading anything into the text or trying to imagine by way of speculation what the actors were thinking, my case seems pretty airtight.