#3 (part b) Christ died for those who ultimately perish
Here's my next argument that Christ died for those who ultimately perish
Luke 22:
17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
21But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
This passage is the institution of the Lord’s supper. Christ gives the bread to the disciples (including Judas) and says that it’s given for you. My argument is simple:
P1: Judas was among those for whom Christ gave his body
P2: Judas was ultimately lost
C1: Therefore, Christ gave His body for those who were ultimately lost.
Calvinists try to deny P1 in two ways. Some say that “you” is general and doesn’t necessary include Judas. But this is a small group here, just 12 people. It’s basically direct address. Further, the parallel passage in Mathew says of the cup: “Drink from it, all of you” NASB and Mark says “they all drank of it”. So it seems all participated and all were addressed by “you“.
Other Calvinist’s try to claim that in verse 21 “but” should be translated “except”. As if the sense was that Christ died for all except Judas. The Greek word "plen" can mean except. Here's the Strong's entry for "plen":
moreover, besides, but, nevertheless
besides, except, but
An example of a case where plen means except would be:
Acts 8:1And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
The problem is if it were to be used in the sense of “except“ it would be within the same sentence or would be providing an example of something outside the category. In Luke 22 “but” is part of a new sentence, starting a new thought. So most people would reject this idea right of the bat.
But looking at the grammatical issue a bit deeper we find a different reason. According to "A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, plen only carries the sense of except, if it is with hoti (ie except that) or used improperly was a preposition with a genitive. So if the passage had been written this way:
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, but the hand (assuming hand is genitive) of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
"plen" could mean except. But hand is not genitive, it is nominative. Further, we had to remove "behold" to get it to work. So the sentence structure doesn't allow this reading. Plen could also mean except if it had been written this way:
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, but that hand of him that betrayeth me which is with me on the table.
But I had to insert that (hoti). I also had to add "which" to get the rest of the sentence to work. So we see that plen can't mean except in this case. We are left with a very clear statement from Christ where He says He gave His body for one who ends up ultimately perishing.
Luke 22:
17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
21But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
This passage is the institution of the Lord’s supper. Christ gives the bread to the disciples (including Judas) and says that it’s given for you. My argument is simple:
P1: Judas was among those for whom Christ gave his body
P2: Judas was ultimately lost
C1: Therefore, Christ gave His body for those who were ultimately lost.
Calvinists try to deny P1 in two ways. Some say that “you” is general and doesn’t necessary include Judas. But this is a small group here, just 12 people. It’s basically direct address. Further, the parallel passage in Mathew says of the cup: “Drink from it, all of you” NASB and Mark says “they all drank of it”. So it seems all participated and all were addressed by “you“.
Other Calvinist’s try to claim that in verse 21 “but” should be translated “except”. As if the sense was that Christ died for all except Judas. The Greek word "plen" can mean except. Here's the Strong's entry for "plen":
moreover, besides, but, nevertheless
besides, except, but
An example of a case where plen means except would be:
Acts 8:1And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
The problem is if it were to be used in the sense of “except“ it would be within the same sentence or would be providing an example of something outside the category. In Luke 22 “but” is part of a new sentence, starting a new thought. So most people would reject this idea right of the bat.
But looking at the grammatical issue a bit deeper we find a different reason. According to "A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, plen only carries the sense of except, if it is with hoti (ie except that) or used improperly was a preposition with a genitive. So if the passage had been written this way:
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, but the hand (assuming hand is genitive) of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.
"plen" could mean except. But hand is not genitive, it is nominative. Further, we had to remove "behold" to get it to work. So the sentence structure doesn't allow this reading. Plen could also mean except if it had been written this way:
This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you, but that hand of him that betrayeth me which is with me on the table.
But I had to insert that (hoti). I also had to add "which" to get the rest of the sentence to work. So we see that plen can't mean except in this case. We are left with a very clear statement from Christ where He says He gave His body for one who ends up ultimately perishing.
Comments
Apologies in advance if I can't continue the conversation in a timely manner.
Notes:
John 6... Jesus chose the entire 12, with full knowledge that "one of you is a devil".
John 17... None of those given to the Son were lost except the son of perdition "that scripture would be fulfilled."
1 Cor 11... anyone who eats and drinks (the body and blood) without discernment, "eats and drinks judgment on himself."
It appears that we cannot conclude from the last supper scene that Jesus took the wrath for Judas' sins on himself on the cross.
These passages seem to confirm P2. As such, they strenghen my argument. If they disprove P1, I don't see how.
God bless,
Dan
P2 is a given.
P1 is not a given. Instead, it is only true (in terms of the actual cross and actual Atonement) if it is true that everyone who partakes of the Lord's Supper (the symbol and rememberance of said cross and atonement) is included in the actual cross and atonement.
I agree that John 6 isn't so helpful here.
John 17 "might" let you argue that Jesus took the wrath for Judas' sins (but only if you take it alone with no context at all-- not wise). However, even if Jesus died for Judas' sins per John 17... John 17 says that he is the ONLY one lost. So, this eliminates all other reprobates from the Cross (even if Judas was there). Note: Double jeopardy (double "justice", which is injustice) is another discussion, and indeed is the clincher. I'm just arguing with you about your logic regarding Judas at the moment.
1 Cor 11 demonstrates that NOT all who partake in the symbol (Lord's Supper) are included on the Cross. Gotta run... but think about this.
Just a follow up on my previous 1 Cor 11 "non-comment"...
My point is this: Consumption of the Lord's Supper has no bearing on whether someone is saved (i.e., merely consuming the Supper does not make one saved, or even indicate one is saved, but actually incurs judgement if it is done without discernment). Therefore also, participation in the Lord's Supper is not a proof that the consumer is included in the atonement that it symbolizes.
Your logic (P1, P2, C1) requires (or assumes) that participation in the Supper indicates who is died for on the cross (and/or who is atoned for behind the curtain). 1 Cor 11 indicates that you cannot make this assumption.
Additionally, non-participation in the Lord's Supper does not mean that someone is not saved... so again, the Luke 22 scene does not serve to prove universal atonement.
I'm just saying your logic doesn't help you. ...I'm not saying it proves the contrary.
Very good post. I enjoy your blog. Keep up the great work!
Billy
"Your logic (P1, P2, C1) requires (or assumes) that participation in the Supper indicates who is died for on the cross (and/or who is atoned for behind the curtain)."
Hum... I don't think it does. Luke 22 is more of a direct statement, my body is given for you (including Judas). Only the elements (bread and wine) are symbolic. The statement regarding Christ's death is real.
"1 Cor 11 indicates that you cannot make this assumption."
I think 1 Cor 11 is saying that taking the Lord's supper without self examination is a sin. It doesn’t' really cover the extent of the atonement.
As for John 17 and the justice pickle, I will leave that for another day. I will only point out that John 17 is in relation to the atonement, more specifically intercession. As such it’s not about penal substitution. The lamb isn’t penalized, nor is it a payment of a debt. The atonement and penal substitution are the two great analogies of the NT for explaining what Christ did for us on the cross. But it’s important not to mix metaphors.
God bless,
Dan
God be with you,
Dan
Hmm.. Not sure what you mean here, so I have no comment.