"I lay down my life" in John 10

[theend0218]

There are those who say that "to lay down my life" in John 10 does not refer to Jesus' death. They point to I John 3:16 as proof - that since we are to lay down our lives for our brothers as Jesus did for us it cannot mean death as we are not asked to die for each other. Here was my response in that thread (slightly edited for use here). Feel free to respond:

The concept of "laying down one's life" in John's writings (John 10 and I John 3) involves using the term "to lay down" in a metaphorical sense, and thus the exact meaning would have to be determined by the context. The most obvious meaning in John 10 is to "sacrifice" - the extent of that sacrifice would, again, be determined by the context in which it is used. Since the extent of Jesus' sacrifice as the Servant of God (as in Isaiah; see especially Isaiah 53 where the concept of "offering for sin" is central) was unto death, I do not see how one can categorically say it does not mean death. John 10:17-18 seems to clearly point to Christ's death and resurrection. Just because we might not need to sacrifice unto death for our brother does not mean that John did not have Christ's willingness to die [and more, for He in fact did die] for us in mind in I John 3. The example of love given seems to fit perfectly well with the idea that Jesus sacrificed His life for us, and so we ought to sacrifice our life for our brothers. The sacrifice or laying down could never be the same in our case as it was for Jesus whether we understand "laying down" as death or not. It is possible, and I would say probable, that in John's writings this term does include the death of Christ on our behalf. As Mark says, "For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (10:45). The "giving" and the "laying down" very well could be describing the same type of sacrifice, one unto death. That the same term is not used in John as in Mark seems immaterial, for they often used different terms to convey the same concepts. Just as Jesus came to serve, and that service resulted in His death, so He came to lay down his life for us, and that involved His death on our behalf.

As for John's use of this term, see also: John 13:37-38; 15:13. John 13 certainly seems to point to a use that includes death. John 15, as in the other references, certainly can include His death as revealing the extent of His love and sacrifice for us.

 

[DIANAC]

There are those who say that "to lay down my life" in John 10 does not refer to Jesus' death. They point to I John 3:16 as proof - that since we are to lay down our lives for our brothers as Jesus did for us it cannot mean death as we are not asked to die for each other. Here was my response in that thread (slightly edited for use here). Feel free to respond:

The concept of "laying down one's life" in John's writings (John 10 and I John 3) involves using the term "to lay down" in a metaphorical sense, and thus the exact meaning would have to be determined by the context. The most obvious meaning in John 10 is to "sacrifice" - the extent of that sacrifice would, again, be determined by the context in which it is used. Since the extent of Jesus' sacrifice as the Servant of God (as in Isaiah; see especially Isaiah 53 where the concept of "offering for sin" is central) was unto death, I do not see how one can categorically say it does not mean death. John 10:17-18 seems to clearly point to Christ's death and resurrection. Just because we might not need to sacrifice unto death for our brother does not mean that John did not have Christ's willingness to die [and more, for He in fact did die] for us in mind in I John 3. The example of love given seems to fit perfectly well with the idea that Jesus sacrificed His life for us, and so we ought to sacrifice our life for our brothers. The sacrifice or laying down could never be the same in our case as it was for Jesus whether we understand "laying down" as death or not. It is possible, and I would say probable, that in John's writings this term does include the death of Christ on our behalf. As Mark says, "For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (10:45). The "giving" and the "laying down" very well could be describing the same type of sacrifice, one unto death. That the same term is not used in John as in Mark seems immaterial, for they often used different terms to convey the same concepts. Just as Jesus came to serve, and that service resulted in His death, so He came to lay down his life for us, and that involved His death on our behalf.

As for John's use of this term, see also: John 13:37-38; 15:13. John 13 certainly seems to point to a use that includes death. John 15, as in the other references, certainly can include His death as revealing the extent of His love and sacrifice for us.

Hello,
As I answered in the other thread that indeed, Strong's 5087 for lay down means to place, to set, to appoint, to ordain. In only one place, however, Rev 11:9 #5087 means physical death. Combined with Jesus' physically dying for us, we can conclude that we need to lay down our lives for our brothers to the point of death, (in extreme case, if necessary). We remember that in WWII soldiers laid their lives for their comrades. That is the ultimate love!
Take care,
Diana

 

[Uphill Battle]

Amen!

We have to be prepared to give up this life for the cause of Christ.

Someone very wise once said "He who tries to save his own life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake, will truly find it." Wonder who?

 

[theend0218]

Yes, I certainly agree. This is one reason why it is often difficult to point to a literal meaning for a particular Greek word. The term in question may literally mean to simply lay something down. Only the context and author's usage can determine in what sense something is being laid down. Once an author (or, in this case, speaker) uses a term in a metaphorical sense new rules apply, so to speak. Jesus seems to have had something more in mind that simply living for His people. As important as living for us was, the sacrifice and service He rendered went beyond life and included His death. As you have pointed out, it has at times meant that for those of us who follow Him as well. Thanks for the posts.

 

[Edial]

I do not see how one can categorically say it does not mean death.

Hi there, theend0218.
I know that I had a problem with the understanding of that concept, but not from the theological perspective, but from a personal.
The verse that "changed me" to a certain degree was this one -

JN 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

Once I understoofd it, I could no longer call some of my friends friends. I began thinking to myself: "Will I be able to die for him/her if the opportunity calls"?

Currently I do not have many friends, but many acquaintances.

But I do have a few friends.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[theend0218]

Hi, Edial. Thanks for the post. Hope you are doing well. I often wonder, myself, what I mean when I call someone friend. It is food for thought. See you around the board.

 

[GenemZ]

There are those who say that "to lay down my life" in John 10 does not refer to Jesus' death. They point to I John 3:16 as proof - that since we are to lay down our lives for our brothers as Jesus did for us it cannot mean death as we are not asked to die for each other. Here was my response in that thread (slightly edited for use here). Feel free to respond:

In all fairness, I think you misunderstood what was meant. In the case of it being used in....

John 10:15 niv
"Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep."

He had completely dedicated his life for the spiritual benefit of his sheep. If it requires his death to do so? Then he will do so. But, to say it means death? That is not what he was saying.

In Heaven He was God. He completely laid down his right to enabling Himself by the power of His own Deity, and came to earth to depend solely on the Father for all his needs, for our needs. At any moment he could enable Himself by His own Deity. Yet, He chose not to. For He was totally laid down in His life for us. It pleased the Father that Jesus refused to function in the enabling power of who he was as God! At any time he could take it up again, but He refused to!

That is why Satan tempted Jesus to turn the stones into bread. You think Satan was really concerned that Jesus fasted for forty days? No! Satan understood that if Jesus was to qualify to die in our place, that he could only do so if he remained in the status of functioning as one of us. "As a man."

The moment if He stepped out of that function, and took on his own power of Deity, it would have disqualified for Him to die in our place! He had to die as one of us. He had to be the perfect substitute, not just a substitute. If God wanted only a substitute, then the animal sacrifices would have been enough. Jesus functioning as God could not die in our place. He had to volunteer to refuse to function in His own power. He had to depend on the Father for guidance, and the Holy Spirit for power.

John 10:16-18 niv
"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

I saw this for the first time yesterday! I always thought he was speaking of his death and resurrection. But he was speaking of a present condition, not a future one! He was letting them know that he is God who lays down his right to his own power. He has the right to take it up at any moment if he should so choose. But, he is refusing to do so, because he has laid down his life for the saving of His sheep! For that reason the Father loves Him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He loves the sheep so much that he is even denying himself of his right to be as God! He is taking abuses that God would never tolerate. He was allowing himself to be weak so he could save the weak! This is perfect love!!!!!!!!!!!!

Philippians 2:5-8 niv
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!"

Laying down his life did not mean dying. Laying down his life meant he was willing to die if need be. And, it was needed! He was God who became as a man, so he could die in our place! He completely laid down his life well beyond what we can comprehend! God's love was fully manifested for all to see when God became as a man, and allowed himself to be humiliated by the evils in this world. God can not be hurt. God can not be humiliated. God can not die. Yet, God became fully as a man not allowing Himself to enable Himself by the power of His own Deity! Why? For the sake of His sheep that he loves so much. He, out of love for his sheep, even denied Himself of his own power.

Grace and love, GeneZ

 

[theend0218]

Hi, GeneZ. I always find your posts interesting.

I think I stated clearly that the most obvious metaphorical meaning in John 10 for "lay down my life" was sacrifice. I still think that is the case, and I do not see how that would not in turn be a reference to His death for the extent of the sacrifice included His death. I think Mark 10:45 is indeed relevant at this point. In the last paragraph of your post #7 you mention that it does not mean death, but would include a willingness to die. I do not quite see the need to stress this difference - it was for this reason, to endure death for us, that Jesus came (John 12:23-27). Linguistically, to lay down does not mean either to die or a willingness to die. It literally means to lay something down. It is a rather graphic term when taken literally, and actually lends itself to a metaphorical meaning of give up one's life. The ultimate act of giving up one's life is to die - to sacrifice here, for it is a giving of one's life for others.

Your interpretation of laying down and taking up again is interesting, but I do not see the reference to laying down the right to His own power here in this passage:

verse 17: "I lay down my life that I may take it up again"
verse 18a: "No one has taken it [or takes - variant readings] away from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative."
verse 18b: "I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again."

The "it" of verse 18 (used four times) most logically connects to the term translated "life" in verse 17. The authority mentioned in verse 18 is an authority He says that He has to lay "it" down and take "it" up again. He speaks of the authority as something still possessed, and "This commandment I received from my Father" (verse 18c).

I believe the reference here seems to more clearly refer to His life as given for them, and given freely, not as one coerced. The term "commandment" (or charge, commission) in John has significance: it is the charge or commission given to Christ by the Father to lay down his life and take it up again. As He says in John 2:18-22:

"Destroy this temply, and in three days I will raise it up."
"But he was speaking of the temple of his body."
"When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he said this"

Even though the emphasis is genersally on the work of the Father or of the Spirit in Jesus' resurrection, Jesus did clearly say that He would "raise it up." In John 10 He states that this charge was His from the Father. I think I will stay with my OP on this one. Thanks, again.

 

[sawdust]

Amen!

We have to be prepared to give up this life for the cause of Christ.

Someone very wise once said "He who tries to save his own life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake, will truly find it." Wonder who?

If dying for Christ is what it means to "lay down ones life" and the above is the mindset we are to have as Christ's disciples, how then does it separate us from the present day "suicide bombers" or the WW2 kamikaze pilots?

Edial brought up the verse I believe is most relevant. Here it is again.

JN 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

He underlined the first sentence but what I see here as being important is what Jesus goes on to explain. That is in v.14, "do what I command". I believe what Jesus is trying to get through to us is the importance of doing God's will. Jesus was not willing to die first and foremost, He was willing to do the Father's will and only the Father's will. That's what's important! That's the only thing that counts!

Laying down one's life is not the attitude "I am willing to die for you Lord" but rather:

saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” Lk.22:42

It may be for some of us that in the "nevertheless" of our lives, death may be a part.

peace

 

[sawdust]

I think I stated clearly that the most obvious metaphorical meaning in John 10 for "lay down my life" was sacrifice.

I agree but I think you fail to recognise the sacrifice He made to "become as a man" before He ever got to the Cross.

peace

 

[GenemZ]

Hi, GeneZ. I always find your posts interesting.

I think I stated clearly that the most obvious metaphorical meaning in John 10 for "lay down my life" was sacrifice. I still think that is the case, and I do not see how that would not in turn be a reference to His death for the extent of the sacrifice included His death.

He did not say, I will lay down my life for the Sheep. He said it was something he was already doing.

I play this song for you because it makes you happy.

I will play this song for you because it makes you happy.

They are not saying the same thing. One is taking place. The other is about to.

I lay down my life for my Sheep.

I will lay down my life for my Sheep.

The death of Jesus was yet to take place when he spoke those words.He was already in the process of laying down his life when he said, "I lay down my life for my Sheep. "

"I pay the price for loving you."

Or?

"I will pay the price for loving you."

If laying down one's life meant his death, then Jesus was speaking in the wrong tense.

John 10:15 nasb
"Even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."

The Father was presently knowing Him. And, he was presently knowing the Father as he spoke those words! It was going on at that moment, whatever to lay down his life, means.

He was in the act of laying down his life as he spoke. And, he was able to take it back up if he wanted to. Yet, he chose not to because he loves his sheep. The Father loved him because of this. It was jealous Satan's lust to be as God. Jesus was refusing to place himself in that very position. That must have driven Satan nuts!

Sorry, if this is all too new for you to accept. I know it can be. And, should be challenged! Prove all things! We are told to. I am not offended if it does not sit right with you. I am expecting it to do just that.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[sawdust]

He did not say, I will lay down my life for the Sheep. He said it was something he was already doing.

I play this song for you because it makes you happy.

I will play this song for you because it makes you happy.

They are not saying the same thing. One is taking place. The other is about to.

I lay down my life for my Sheep.

I will lay down my life for my Sheep.

The death of Jesus was yet to take place when he spoke those words.He was already in the process of laying down his life when he said, "I lay down my life for my Sheep. "

"I pay the price for loving you."

Or?

"I will pay the price for loving you."

If laying down one's life meant his death, then Jesus was speaking in the wrong tense.

John 10:15 nasb
"Even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."

The Father was presently knowing Him. And, he was presently knowing the Father as he spoke those words! It was going on at that moment, whatever to lay down his life, means.

He was in the act of laying down his life as he spoke. And, he was able to take it back up if he wanted to. Yet, he chose not to because he loves his sheep. The Father loved him because of this. It was jealous Satan's lust to be as God. Jesus was refusing to place himself in that very position. That must have driven Satan nuts!

Sorry, if this is all too new for you to accept. I know it can be. And, should be challenged! Prove all things! We are told to. I am not offended if it does not sit right with you. I am expecting it to do just that.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

I have been ever mindful of the sacrifice Christ made as not grasping equality with God, but until you said the above, I realised I was only ever seeing it in a "once off sense" (ie. being sent from heaven). Yet it seems to me now, Christ was making this sacrifice moment by moment while He was on the earth.

You've given me something to really think about. I like that.

peace

 

[GenemZ]

I have been ever mindful of the sacrifice Christ made as not grasping equality with God, but until you said the above, I realised I was only ever seeing it in a "once off sense" (ie. being sent from heaven). Yet it seems to me now, Christ was making this sacrifice moment by moment while He was on the earth.

You've given me something to really think about. I like that.

peace

That is why Satan tempted Jesus to turn the stones into bread. He was trying to trick Jesus into taking up his life for just a moment in time. If he did? Jesus could no longer qualify to die in our place. Only as a man could he die in the place of mankind.

It was his love for us that helped keep him free from the power of temptation. Its like a husband who truly loves his wife will not be tempted away by other women. Yet, Jesus did not yet have his wife. His Bride was what he was yet to die for.

He loved us by faith during those days. It was his love for the Father that was before his eyes at all times. That, with the love for us, kept him from considering giving into temptation. The more I think about it, Jesus most likely saw no temptation in being tempting. He only saw contempt and disgust for the sins of the flesh because he had all truth to see through them for what they are. Vanity and emptiness. Yet, I am sure that a temptation to pummel the Pharisees was always before him. But, knowing the Father's plan nullified it all.

Truth nullifies a lie. Knowing the truth makes a lie into nothing. Satan is the father of lies. And, his lies were an attempt to create something out from nothing. It was only an illusion of being an answer to a problem. Lying is a counterfeit for God's power to create, who is the only one who can create something out from nothing.

Satan tried to recreate reality when he discovered the lie. But, he ended up creating nothing. Only an illusion. A mirage of an oasis for a man dying of thirst on a desert. That is why Satan never satisfies. The only sense of any satisfaction comes while the illusion is first demanding one's full attention. But, once the fool begins to drink, he ends up with sand in a mouth having a parched tongue.

Ramble switch off.....

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[theend0218]

Hi, Genez. What follows is more than I generally care to get into, but I feel I need to at least address your point (post 11) concerning the use of the present tense. So, here goes, and I apologize in advance for being so redundant.

I am always reluctant to hang the meaning of a passage on Greek Grammar unless there is some obvious reason to do so. When it comes to verb tense - well, as one Greek Grammarian said:

"Probably nothing connected with syntax is so imperfectly understood by the average student as tense." Robertson, Greek Grammar in the Light of Historical Research, page 821.

I want to address your comments in two ways. First, the grammar; second, what I said in my OP.

1. The grammar: That Jesus uses the present tense does not in any way limit what He had in mind to the moment or time in which He spoke. It can include what was then going on, but it can include all that He came to do - past, present and future. His life was a sacrifice for us. However, just to make a point, it could in fact point to something yet in the future. The use of the present tense would not rule that out.

It is well established in every major language that the use of the present is used to refer to something yet in the future from the viewpoint of the speaker. Jesus could have had in mind only His death and still have used the present tense. [However, that was not my position] This is very common in the Gospels. I do not think Jesus had ONLY His death in mind, but it certainly was central to His mission.
You probably know this already, but I think it is worth going over again briefly. The Greek verb tense has more to do with the KIND of action than it does with the time of the action. The kinds of action in the verb tenses are punctiliar (action regarded as a whole, represented by a dot, or point), durative (represented by a continuous line) and perfect (continuance of perfected or completed action, represented by a point with continuos line extending from it).

The point here is that all three kinds of action are found in the present tense. That is, when evaluating an action expressed by the present tense we have to consider that the time involved may well be in the past, future or present as regards the speaker. The present tense does not limit the action spoken of to the present time of the speaker. Two common examples: the historical present and the futuristic present. One can find good discussions of these in most Greek Grammars.

In discussing the futuristic present Robertson points out that "It is not merely prophecy, but certainty of expectation that is involved. As examples note . . ." He goes on to list 15 examples, one of which is the passage in question (Robertson's Grammar, pages 869-870). "In John 10:15ff. [the Greek verb "lay down"] really covers the whole of Christ's life viewed as a unit (constative aorist)." What is the constative aorist? "The 'constative' aorist just treats the act as a single whole entirely irrespective of the parts or time involved. If the act is a point in itself, well and good. But the aorist can be used also of an act which is not a point . . . All aorists are punctiliar in statement. The 'constative' aorist treats an act as punctiliar which is not in itself point-action" (page 832). When Jesus said "I lay down my life for the sheep" you cannot limit the action to the moment in which he spoke. I do not think you in fact intended to do that. However, did make quite a point of showing that Jesus did not say 'I will do" something. He did not need to use the future tense to refer to a future event. This is well established in every Greek Grammar I have read. I suspect you and I both use the present tense in English at times when we could easily mean the future, or be referring to why we are involved in a certain project that may extend well into the future. He was laying down His life throughout His ministry, but in this passage the cross was certainly in view as the ultimate gift for His sheep. I do not see how the giving of His life as a ransom for many can be excluded from the meaning of laying down His life in this passage for any reason, the least being the use of the present tense.

2. My OP position: I did not say that "to lay down" meant only to die - the most obvious metaphorical meaning of the term in this passage is to sacrifice, and the context points to the extent of that sacrifice, which must include His death. I said two things there - sacrifice (which is more than His death) and the extent of the sacrifice (unto death). I tried to be accurate in what I said and careful as to how I said it.

Again, I am loath to get into this sort of thing with the Greek language, but I wanted you to know that I rarely fail to at least consider what light the Greek text as we have it may throw on a passage. That does not mean I am correct, or that I always understand or use the Greek language well. I certainly do not like to appeal to the Greek text to establish a point. In this case, though, I believe my OP position conveys well what Jesus meant. I think I tried to be careful in how I worded my position. To lay out my position as clearly as I can: there is no doubt in my mind that "lay down" in this passage refers to more than his death, but it does include his death, and I think in light of the phrases "lay down" and "take up again" it undoubtedly was uppermost in His mind.

 

[Edial]

In all fairness, I think you misunderstood what was meant.

Unfortunately I also misunderstood people on more than one occasions.
And it is something that I am learning to scramble back from.

In the case of it being used in....

John 10:15 niv
"Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep."

He had completely dedicated his life for the spiritual benefit of his sheep. If it requires his death to do so? Then he will do so. But, to say it means death? That is not what he was saying.

I completely agree with you on this.

The same way that a shepherd (that is not a hired hand) would fight the wolves even to the point of death.

In Heaven He was God. He completely laid down his right to enabling Himself by the power of His own Deity, and came to earth to depend solely on the Father for all his needs, for our needs. At any moment he could enable Himself by His own Deity. Yet, He chose not to. For He was totally laid down in His life for us. It pleased the Father that Jesus refused to function in the enabling power of who he was as God! At any time he could take it up again, but He refused to!

This is a very interesting angle.

That is why Satan tempted Jesus to turn the stones into bread. You think Satan was really concerned that Jesus fasted for forty days? No! Satan understood that if Jesus was to qualify to die in our place, that he could only do so if he remained in the status of functioning as one of us. "As a man."

The moment if He stepped out of that function, and took on his own power of Deity, it would have disqualified for Him to die in our place! He had to die as one of us. He had to be the perfect substitute, not just a substitute. If God wanted only a substitute, then the animal sacrifices would have been enough. Jesus functioning as God could not die in our place. He had to volunteer to refuse to function in His own power. He had to depend on the Father for guidance, and the Holy Spirit for power.

Yes.

John 10:16-18 niv

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."!

I saw this for the first time yesterday! [/QUOTE]
I appreciate that.

I always thought he was speaking of his death and resurrection. But he was speaking of a present condition, not a future one! He was letting them know that he is God who lays down his right to his own power. He has the right to take it up at any moment if he should so choose. But, he is refusing to do so, because he has laid down his life for the saving of His sheep! For that reason the Father loves Him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He loves the sheep so much that he is even denying himself of his right to be as God! He is taking abuses that God would never tolerate. He was allowing himself to be weak so he could save the weak! This is perfect love!!!!!!!!!!!!

Philippians 2:5-8 niv
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!"

Since Phil.2 is (arguably ) my most favorite text I am inclined to receive what you are saying.
But I do have a question below.

Laying down his life did not mean dying. Laying down his life meant he was willing to die if need be. And, it was needed! He was God who became as a man, so he could die in our place! He completely laid down his life well beyond what we can comprehend! God's love was fully manifested for all to see when God became as a man, and allowed himself to be humiliated by the evils in this world. God can not be hurt. God can not be humiliated. God can not die. Yet, God became fully as a man not allowing Himself to enable Himself by the power of His own Deity! Why? For the sake of His sheep that he loves so much. He, out of love for his sheep, even denied Himself of his own power.

Grace and love, GeneZ

All this is excellent.
You probably are correct in what you are saying.

Yet there should be a better hermeneutical connection (in my opinion ) between the John and the Phil. texts.

If you are correct, (and I do think that whenever Jesus spoke in parables, there are always more than one thing that he wanted to convey) there has to be more.

As a matter of fact I will start looking for more evidence myself.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[theend0218]

Genez and Edial - you both see a wonderful connection to the Philippian passage. I agree with you both in this sense - both speak to Christ becoming a servant for us (and all that would mean from the standpoint of the Son of God becoming flesh - a major theme in John as well; living the life of a servant on our behalf) and becoming obedient "to the point of death" (Philippians 2:5-8). As Jesus says in John 10 "for this reason the Father loves me" - Paul says in Philippians 2:9-11 "Therefore also God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name . . ."

All I wanted to establish in this OP was that Jesus' death on our behalf was in view (not the only thing in view) and I believe it has been established, even with reference to Phil 2 for Paul cannot envision the self-emptying of the Son of God without going on to the death of the Cross and the exaltation that followed. The emphasis in John 10 seems to be on the sacrifical service on behalf of His people, even unto death; the emphasis in Phil 2 on the attitude and obedience toward the Father who sent Him. Both share a connection, to be sure, and neither can speak of the service/sacrifice of Jesus without reference to the ulitmate conculsion of it for us. With this I think I will close my portion out. Thanks for the posts and good thoughts.

 

[Edial]

Hi, Genez. What follows is more than I generally care to get into, but I feel I need to at least address your point (post 11) concerning the use of the present tense. So, here goes, and I apologize in advance for being so redundant.

I am always reluctant to hang the meaning of a passage on Greek Grammar unless there is some obvious reason to do so. When it comes to verb tense - well, as one Greek Grammarian said:

"Probably nothing connected with syntax is so imperfectly understood by the average student as tense." Robertson, Greek Grammar in the Light of Historical Research, page 821.

I want to address your comments in two ways. First, the grammar; second, what I said in my OP.

1. The grammar: That Jesus uses the present tense does not in any way limit what He had in mind to the moment or time in which He spoke. It can include what was then going on, but it can include all that He came to do - past, present and future. His life was a sacrifice for us. However, just to make a point, it could in fact point to something yet in the future. The use of the present tense would not rule that out.

It is well established in every major language that the use of the present is used to refer to something yet in the future from the viewpoint of the speaker. Jesus could have had in mind only His death and still have used the present tense. [However, that was not my position] This is very common in the Gospels. I do not think Jesus had ONLY His death in mind, but it certainly was central to His mission.
You probably know this already, but I think it is worth going over again briefly. The Greek verb tense has more to do with the KIND of action than it does with the time of the action. The kinds of action in the verb tenses are punctiliar (action regarded as a whole, represented by a dot, or point), durative (represented by a continuous line) and perfect (continuance of perfected or completed action, represented by a point with continuos line extending from it).

The point here is that all three kinds of action are found in the present tense. That is, when evaluating an action expressed by the present tense we have to consider that the time involved may well be in the past, future or present as regards the speaker. The present tense does not limit the action spoken of to the present time of the speaker. Two common examples: the historical present and the futuristic present. One can find good discussions of these in most Greek Grammars.

In discussing the futuristic present Robertson points out that "It is not merely prophecy, but certainty of expectation that is involved. As examples note . . ." He goes on to list 15 examples, one of which is the passage in question (Robertson's Grammar, pages 869-870). "In John 10:15ff. [the Greek verb "lay down"] really covers the whole of Christ's life viewed as a unit (constative aorist)." What is the constative aorist? "The 'constative' aorist just treats the act as a single whole entirely irrespective of the parts or time involved. If the act is a point in itself, well and good. But the aorist can be used also of an act which is not a point . . . All aorists are punctiliar in statement. The 'constative' aorist treats an act as punctiliar which is not in itself point-action" (page 832). When Jesus said "I lay down my life for the sheep" you cannot limit the action to the moment in which he spoke. I do not think you in fact intended to do that. However, did make quite a point of showing that Jesus did not say 'I will do" something. He did not need to use the future tense to refer to a future event. This is well established in every Greek Grammar I have read. I suspect you and I both use the present tense in English at times when we could easily mean the future, or be referring to why we are involved in a certain project that may extend well into the future. He was laying down His life throughout His ministry, but in this passage the cross was certainly in view as the ultimate gift for His sheep. I do not see how the giving of His life as a ransom for many can be excluded from the meaning of laying down His life in this passage for any reason, the least being the use of the present tense.

Thanks for being so thorough ... I think.
(But seriously, I do appreciate a well-thought out answer).

Yes, based on the Greek, one cannot necessarily limit the action to the moment it was spoken.

2. My OP position: I did not say that "to lay down" meant only to die - the most obvious metaphorical meaning of the term in this passage is to sacrifice, and the context points to the extent of that sacrifice, which must include His death. I said two things there - sacrifice (which is more than His death) and the extent of the sacrifice (unto death). I tried to be accurate in what I said and careful as to how I said it.

Yes.

Again, I am loath to get into this sort of thing with the Greek language, but I wanted you to know that I rarely fail to at least consider what light the Greek text as we have it may throw on a passage. That does not mean I am correct, or that I always understand or use the Greek language well. I certainly do not like to appeal to the Greek text to establish a point. In this case, though, I believe my OP position conveys well what Jesus meant. I think I tried to be careful in how I worded my position. To lay out my position as clearly as I can: there is no doubt in my mind that "lay down" in this passage refers to more than his death, but it does include his death, and I think in light of the phrases "lay down" and "take up again" it undoubtedly was uppermost in His mind.

It certainly appears that you and Gene found 2 meanings that are within the same parable which are not mutually exclusive.

Your position is Biblically solid.

I am going to search for more evidence in support of Gene's position, since it presents an interesting connection that I think exists.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[GenemZ]

It certainly appears that you and Gene found 2 meanings that are within the same parable which are not mutually exclusive.

Your position is Biblically solid.

And, I for one do not understand what he is arguing for. For, I do not see any real contradiction in what he has to say with my own. It seems that there is a different emphasis, rather than a contradiction. At least, that seems to be they way it is to me.

I am going to search for more evidence in support of Gene's position, since it presents an interesting connection that I think exists.

Never accept anything on the basis of only one witness. I am not being dogmatic about this. It just came to me the other day.

I have had this sort of thing happen to me in the past, and later on was proven to be true, and some were possibly not. And, one was not. I believe when this happens it is designed to get us to do our own thinking, not to always quote from another source without having throughly thought it through to one's own satisfaction. It breaks through the wall of preconceived ideas that denominations have not yet devised a pat answer for.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Edial]

And, I for one do not understand what he is arguing for. For, I do not see any real contradiction in what he has to say with my own. It seems that there is a different emphasis, rather than a contradiction. At least, that seems to be they way it is to me.

But there are no contradictions. This is what I meant when I said -
It certainly appears that you and Gene found 2 meanings that are within the same parable which are not mutually exclusive.
... or the double negative does make it appear that I said that these 2 are contradictory?

Ed

 

[GenemZ]

All I wanted to establish in this OP was that Jesus' death on our behalf was in view (not the only thing in view) and I believe it has been established, even with reference to Phil 2 for Paul cannot envision the self-emptying of the Son of God without going on to the death of the Cross and the exaltation that followed.

I agree with that statement. You seem to think I disagree with you on something, and I am not sure what it is. All I wished to clarify was that to lay down ones life did not imply only death, but could include death. That it meant much more than just death. That's all.

The emphasis in John 10 seems to be on the sacrifical service on behalf of His people, even unto death; the emphasis in Phil 2 on the attitude and obedience toward the Father who sent Him. Both share a connection, to be sure, and neither can speak of the service/sacrifice of Jesus without reference to the ulitmate conculsion of it for us. With this I think I will close my portion out. Thanks for the posts and good thoughts.

I believe we are sounding like each other, and do not even know it.

And, the Shepherd was willing to fight the wolf. That does not mean the Shepherd would die when he did! Jesus was already fighting the wolves off (Pharisees). Since Jesus needed to die, he made sure to antagonize them with truth, truth, and more truth. Yet, if it were not the Father's will for him to die, Jesus would have not. It was not inevitable. It was God's choice. Jesus needed to die to pay for our sins.

It was not inevitable that Jesus had to die. If the Father wanted this Shepherd to live, it would have been easily caused to be. Here is an example why being a Shepherd did not have to end in death when facing the wolves.

1 Samuel 17:33-37 niv
"Saul replied, "You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a boy, and he has been a fighting man from his youth."

But David said to Saul, "Your servant has been keeping his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it.

Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God.

The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine."
Saul said to David, "Go, and the LORD be with you."


Jesus laid down his life voluntarily. He did not have to die. He, like David, could have easily destroyed the Pharisees (wolves). Yet, he had to die because he needed to pay for our sins. In his case the Father caused him to entice and anger the wolves, as to have them put him to death.

Jesus did not fight the Father's will. It was not fighting the Father's will (which was the laying down of his life). If the Father wanted him to live? Or, die? It was all in the Father's hands. He refused to take up his own life (power of his Deity) and save his life. This is what pleased the Father.

Jesus could have said, "no." He all the power at his disposal to do so. Yet, out of love he was obedient. He was not obedient because he had no choice in the mater. He put himself in the position to be without his choice. That is a laid down life. The fact that he died on the Cross showed that his laying down of his life was always without compromise. It was complete.

"A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. "

After the ascension and glorification? It is now... "My will be done." The Father has handed over to the Son all authority and responsibility to make his enemies into his footstool. Now his humanity rests, and his Deity does all the work. The Father is simply enjoying the show.

The Father provides for our needs. But, the Son's needs are now Divinely self sufficient! He is now the Commanding Deity of the Trinity of destroying the Son's enemies and making them into his footstool. All authority has been given to Him! The Father now watches and sits by. Before, the Deity of Christ stood by and watched as the Father commanded the plan for his earthly walk.

Ramble switch has been getting a lot of use lately! (ramble switch off).

Grace and peace, GeneZ