Christ’s Authority to Give Eternal Life to All People: Thoughts on John 17:2

I was reading in Jesus’ prayer from John 17 this morning and came across a phrase my Reformed friends often use to point to election, “For you (the Father) grant him (Jesus) authority over all people* that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.” (NIV)

I’ve heard John Piper and others talk about this phrase as incontrovertible evidence that the writer of John’s gospel was, indeed, a Calvinist.

I think this verse can be read that way. And in that sense, I wan to be respectful to my Reformed friends.

Nevertheless, I don’t think it has to be read that way. I fact, I think this very verse helps us see an alternative interpretation.

The sentence is divided into 2 phrases: 1. For you grant him authority over all people, and 2. that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.

If I understand them right, my Reformed friends essentially say that phrase 2 refers to a specific subset of phrase 1. In other words, there’s almost a sort of contrast between the two phrases. They could paraphrase the verses like this, “For you, Father, gave him, Jesus, authority over all people, but specifically, Jesus will give eternal life to only those the Father gave him.”

In this sense, my Reformed friends can maintain that Jesus is the lord of the world, while only being the savior of those whom God unconditionally elected.

But…

…as I said, I don’t think this has to be the only option. In fact, I see no reason to see these phrases as contrasting. Nor do I think phrase 2 refers to a specific subset of phrase 1. And I see no reason to assume the “all” in phrase 2 refers to anything less (qualitatively or quantitatively) than the “all” in phrase 1.

Instead of a contrast, I see a synonymous parallelism.

The parallelism is established by the usage of two key words used in both phrases:  “gave/di,dwmi,” and (as already noted) “all.”**

If the statements are synonymous parallels and not in contrast, then the two phrases essentially become equal: God gave all flesh = all those the Father gave Jesus.

Let me paraphrase John 17:2 like this, “For you, Father, gave him, Jesus, authority over all flesh in order that he might give eternal life to those over whom the Father gave him authority.”

Or, let me say it one other way…

“For you, Father, gave Jesus authority over all flesh in order that he might give eternal life to all flesh.”

The authority Jesus has is SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE of bestowing eternal life. That’s the point Jesus is making. And assuming I’m right in this, why in the world would God give him authority to give eternal life to all, but then not give him all for the purpose of eternal life? That just would not make sense.

In other words, I think this verse only makes coherent sense of Jesus’ authority and God’s gifting if, and only if, the statements are intended to by synonymous parallels.

 

So, there you go. I’m not sure if I’m right. I haven’t found a commentator to agree with me…which is always a good sign and a bad sign. So, tell me what you think.

 

* “People” is not John’s word in the Greek. John’s word is sa,rx – flesh.

*Two different Gk. words are used for “all,” but both refer to an all encompassing or holistic reality. In other words, I don’t see any exegetical significance to the word choice here. I think it’s just to break up the monotony. John does that sometimes.

Love for God and Love for Neighbor

I wrote this piece a few years ago, but I republish it now because I think these observations are important now more than ever. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how we make Justification a completely vertical reality pertaining only to God, but don’t think often think of it as effecting our horizontal relationships with other people. But we are wrong in this. Being justified before God is part and parcel of being in just relationships with other persons. We cannot have God and ignore our neighbors. I think my journey to this realization began a few years ago with this post. 

Saul’s Conversion: The Rest of the Story

It struck me this morning that Saul’s conversion story in Acts 9 is just as much a story about his reconciliation with other people as it is a story about his reconciliation to God. After all, it is not God in some abstract sense that Saul curses in vs. 1. No, it is the Lord’s disciples whom he is “breathing out murderous threats against.” (1)

In other words, Saul’s sins are a violation of God’s law made tangible in his sin against the Lord’s disciples. It is precisely there, in that broken human to human relationship, that Saul’s sins against Christ exist and become incarnate, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (9:4)

Here the 2 Great Commandments – love of God and love of neighbor – are shown to be so intertwined that separation is nonsensical.

Saul is a sinner against God because he does not love his neighbor as himself.

Saul is a sinner against other human beings because he does not love God with his entire heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Interestingly, I’ve never heard this passage preached this way. I always hear it as a ‘gospel’ passage whereby God reconciles Paul to Himself and Himself alone.

But this is only half the story – God tells Saul to go into the city and await instruction. Saul later encounters a group of disciples who are afraid of him; he then spends several days with them (19), probably seeking their forgiveness, learning from them, and healing a very broken relationship with them. It is this part of the story I’ve never heard from an Evangelical pulpit.

But if contemporary Evangelicals wish to maintain some moral authority in the postmodern world, we must begin to pick up this other side of this story. No longer can we permit ourselves to believe the gospel is just a spiritual reconciliation of “my” individual self and God. No, no, we must see that the gospel inescapably entails reconciliation between “me” and the larger community of human beings created in God’s image…especially those whom I have hurt or excluded. The true gospel necessarily holds together love for God and love for neighbor. Any gospel that doesn’t proclaim both isn’t THE gospel.

Musings on the Message #3: The Greatest Story Ever Told

Despite what many of us have been taught, preaching is primarily narratival.

By “Narratival” I do not mean that preaching is primarily about story telling or great illustrations – beneficial as those tools might be. What I mean here is that Christian preaching that seeks to be faithful to the witness of Scripture must not abstract principles from the Scriptures and redemptive history. The Triune God did not give us abstracted rules and logical syllogisms. The Triune God gave us a story of creation, brokenness, law, redemption, cross, resurrection, ascension, and eschaton. Trinitarian preaching places the listeners and the preacher within the story of God’s redemptive work in the world, emphasizing the work of God, lifting up the person of God, and exalting the cross of Christ above all humanity.

Christian preaching proclaims this narrative of redemptive history as an alternative narrative to every other allegiance demanding story in our fallen world. Christian preaching does not proclaim the narrative of nationalism, the story of psychology, or the myth of modernity. Our story is not the story of the nations; it is the story of the Triune God made flesh in the cruciform Messiah who has come to reconcile the entire cosmos to the divine order first established in His creation (Gen. 1-2, Eph. 1:10).

Finally, it should be noted that Narratival Christian preaching emphasizes the contemporary church as a participants in and extensions of salvation history, as opposed to either being mere observers of redemptive history, the climax of salvation history, or the leftovers of salvation history. The narrative of redemption did not die with the apostles – it continues in us. But while we are participants, it does it find its ultimate fulfillment in those of us in the postmodern age (in this, the residue of Modernity seems to still influence our assumptions).  Contemporary Christian preaching needs to recover a sense of the continuation of God’s saving purposes in our day. It needs to recover a sense of the contemporary church as participants in God’s grand narrative. God still speaks today and Christian preaching proclaims that present word.

For the details of narratival presentations (and, yes, preaching is a presentation) check out this fantastic book by Nancy Duarte.

And what I’d really like is for JR Forasteros to write a piece on how Duarte’s book and sermonizing come together.

A Radical Review: The Bad, Pt. 3 (False Dichotomy 1 and 2)

Gospel Preaching vs. Entertainment: On page 49 Platt rightly criticizes that most people are just looking for a good show that won’t put them to sleep when they go to church. Obviously this should be criticized. But Platt goes so far as to create a false dichotomy between true gospel preaching and entertainment. I’m sorry, but since when did entertainment become the enemy of the gospel? Since when did holistic experiences become the enemy of the God who created us with 5 senses? And if well written sermons, dramas, and music are so terrible, why in the world is the Bible one of the most well articulated, well crafted, symbol-laden, entertaining books in the history of the world? 

Let me be clear: There are churches that let entertainment rule the day and be an end in itself. This is sin. But that doesn’t mean that we must resign ourselves to passionless preaching and terrible music. Growing, dynamic churches are churches that appeal to people at all kinds of levels (because God created us with so many different levels). The Gospel preaching vs. entertainment dichotomy is one we must carefully consider, but the two are not, in my opinion, ultimately antithetical…unless of course you believe truth should be dull, irrelevant, and eye-gougingly boring. 

God has a plan for your life vs. You’re a sinner who can’t save yourself: One of Platt’s primary points of pontification is when he sets up this false dichotomy. He wants people to believe that the way the gospel is often presented (God has a plan for your life) is a false gospel that should be replaced by You’re a sinner who cannot save yourself. 

The problem I have is that I don’t see these two things as necessarily contrasting. Again, I think we can take the former too far – American individualism has hijacked this idea and suggested that God’s plan for people’s life is prosperity and comfort. But we need not overreact to that misunderstanding of the gospel. After all, is “You’re a sinner who can’t save yourself” equal to, “God doesn’t have a plan for you life”? 

No.

The fact is, God does have a plan for you: his plan is that you be conformed to the image of Christ, that you participate in his renewal of all creation which is happening in the present. But in order to do so, we need to understand that this is his work, and we are only participants because he invited us. We do not save ourselves. We cannot save ourselves. But, yes, God has a plan for us: to save us, so that we might work with him to save all of creation! 

In other words, Platt needlessly separates these two ideas. 

 

Delighting in the Gift, Not the Packing Paper

Dora the Explorer is my daughter’s favorite show. Cassie and I love it because it’s educational (man, has it helped her vocabulary expand!), and because it’s not schizoid and random like Sponge Bob Square Pants.

Today Cassie and I were on our weekly lunch date and while walking through the mall we saw a “Backpack,” Dora’s trusty companion backpack that has his own special song and carries all the items Dora needs during her adventures. The price of Backpack is normal nearly $30, but its sale price was down to $4. So we got it…fully expecting the Phoebus to get really, really stoked.

About 5 minutes ago we gave it to her. She looked at it. Got a smile on her face. Pulled the packing paper out. Then threw Backpack on the ground, taking absolute joy in the packing paper!

Immediately, with a smile on my face (because, after all, I could smile – I only spent $4, not $30), I realized that this is exactly what I do with God.

In the cross of Jesus, God gave the world the greatest gift it could ever receive – Himself! And for free, no less!

But in so many ways we are prone to look at God’s gift, throw it down on the ground, and get distracted by the “filling”: Blessings are good, but they are not the God who gives them. Feelings are good, but they are hardly ever consistent. Theology is good, but theological pronouncements can never fully represent or take the place of the God to whom they point. Material possessions are good, but they can distract from God. Love is good, but when pursued for itself, it leaves us lacking.

These things are mere “filling” when compared with the real gift. We are permitted to delight in them, but often we throw down the gift and trade it for something that, well, ends up being nothing more than a bowl of soup compared to the family inheritance, the packing paper when compared to the Backpack.

The real gift is the God who blesses us even when we don’t see it; the real gift is the God who is present even when we lament his absence; the real gift is the God who cannot be shackled by our systematic theology but seeks always to draw us deeper and deeper into Himself (a place no systematic theology can fully comprehend); the real gift is the God who can call us to give all our possessions away in order to have eternal life; the real gift is the God who is Love in the flesh, in it’s purest form – self-giving love that serves others and seeks them above Itself.

So let’s delight in the gift, not just the packing paper. After all, when the gift IS the Giver, delighting in the gift IS delighting in the Giver.

 

 

What are some other ways we trade the Gift for the packing paper? Is there a time where God showed you this was exactly what you were doing? How did He redirect your focus?

God is Not Strong Enough

Here’s my sermon from on the Problem of Evil: Is God strong enough to eradicate evil?

http://www.mylhumc.net/502652.ihtml

The sermon should be near the top of the player’s list, but if not, click on the tab that says, “speakers,” click on my name (Tom Fuerst) and it’s the sermon titled, “God is Not Strong Enough.”

The Word of the Lord Came to Jonah…

As I study through the book of Jonah, I’m going to start writing little reflection pieces here and there about different things that catch my eye. This won’t be anything too serious or deep, just some reflections based on the text.

Jonah 1:1: And the word of Yahweh came to Jonah…

I’m intrigued by this phrase, “the word of Yahweh came to Jonah.”

This same “word” was the agent of creation in Genesis 1, when Yahweh spoke everything into existence.

It is by this word that Yahweh created the sea: the sea that will eventually get violent and try to destroy Jonah’s ship (1:9).

It is by this word that Yahweh creates all the creature of the sea: one of whom swallows Jonah and takes him into the depths of the earth (1:16).

It is by this word that Yahweh creates plant life: plant life that would eventually give shade to Jonah only to die off later by the mouth of a worm that Yahweh also created through this word (4:6-7).

It is by this word that the Holy Trinity decided amongst themselves to create humanity in God’s image: a humanity which would later not recognize their Creator, would pray to their own gods (1:5), and hate rather than celebrate God’s redemptive desires (3:10-4:1).

And it is by this Word that even Jonah, in spite of all his faults, will eventually be redeemed by the God who created everything and therefore loves everything…including self-righteous sinners (John 1).

There’s just something beautiful and intriguing about Yahweh’s providential care  and love for His creation. From the beginning of Jonah’s story, the narrator wants us to know that the God who created by His word is the same God who sends his word out to his creatures that they might not be destroyed…de-created by their Creator under the weight of their own sin.

QoD: What Mortals Misunderstand

“This is what mortals misunderstand. They say of some temporal suffering, ‘No future bliss can make up for it,’ not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into glory.”

CS Lewis, The Great Divorce.

Do I Even Want the Gospel for Timothy McVeigh?

Here’s the latest sermon I preached on the myth “All Good People Go to Heaven and All Bad People Go to Hell.” Timothy McVeigh is my case study for whether or not I would rather believe this myth or the true gospel. Let me know what you think.

http://www.mylhumc.net/502652.ihtml

Do you REALLY believe this is redeemable?

I’m preparing for my sermon on Sunday where I’m going to posit that the most heinous of criminals can receive the grace of God. While studying for it and trying to take it out of the realm of logical abstractions and into the world of real life, I came across this famous photo from the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19th, 1995.

Maybe it’s because I have a daughter now about this girl’s age, but I have to tearfully admit that this question really forces me to consider whether I really believe the gospel can redeem such evil. That I know, logically, that it does and can redeem such evil, forces me to bask in the greatness of God’s grace. But my heart still doubts and fears, not only for Timothy McVeigh, but for myself. – Matthew 5:21-22