In my experience of reading the Greek there is a similar subtlety as all the renditions in English. My understanding of the words may or might or should carry a broad range of nuance. That's why all the translations you cite are good.
The subjunctive in English is often the same as the indicative. The present indicative and subjunctive, except for "be", are identical in first person singular and all persons plural, and the past subjunctive is identical to the indicative except for the singular of "be". Some speakers don't seem to even have a subjunctive, saying "if I was", which I consider wrong. The subjunctive is used less in English than in Spanish or French. AFAIR I've never heard anyone say "si yo era", it's always "si yo fuera" or, more rarely, "si yo fuese". German, English, and Spanish have present and past subjunctives. Spanish even has two past subjunctives (the -ra form used to be a pluperfect, and still is in Portuguese) and the rarely used future subjunctive. In Greek, the subjunctive shows aspect (imperfect, perfect, or aorist) but not tense, so "ζήσωμεν" can be past or future.
I am a classicist, so my expertise isn't really in New Testament, but Greek more broadly. Really, the only reason it is subjuntive is because it is in a purpose clause. May was traditionally the modal verb used for that. In such contexts, it really isn't adding any uncertainty. The more interesting question to ask is why Paul uses the aorist subjunctive, which typically in non-indicative moods refers to something that happens once with lasting effect. The only temporal marker is hama, which means that we live at the same time. Paul is not specifying when. A good English translation of the hina clause would be "in order that we may live at the same time with Christ." This preserves the ambiguity of the Greek.
In my opinion the term "awake or asleep" in this verse (and in the context of the versese before) is deeper than simply whether we are dead or alive. It is talking about spiritual awakenness vs sleeping spiritually (see e.g. "drunkenness" in this context in the verses before). Maybe as a (small) confirmation there is the different terms in greek for dead / aslept in chapter 4 and different term for sleeping in chapter 5.
I agree with your viewpoint, which brings to mind our sanctification: Presently positional, but fulfilled in the future when Christ returns! Setting aside some $ for the R C Bight Exegetical Summary, which has a very appealing format. Thank you for this informative presentation!😊🙏📖
@bma I would probably render that subjunctive with the modal idea, "so that whether awake or asleep, we can live together with him." That gets at the idea of it being a present reality but leaves open the idea of a future together with Christ.
I always took it to mean that it is now available to us, whether or not we follow through. Any failure then falls on us not accepting rather than on Christ's sacrificial efficacy.
Thank you, Darryl, for this question that you've raised, using it as a stimulus to further study and thought. At first I thought, of course Paul would say that we live with Jesus now and will continue to live with Him at His return. But then again, in the context of this letter, where Paul is discussing what will happen when Christ returns (among other things of course), is he not talking about what is ahead, rather. Looking back to 4:17 he seems in his thought to be oriented towards the future life here. So I am inclined (for what it's worth) to go with the future life of the resurrection body. Those who have died, live with him now and will continue to live with him. Those (of us, here) who are alive, when he comes, will join them in a new 'soma pneumaticon'. It comports with the future orientation of our salvation earlier in the letter. So why do we encourage on another? Because when Christ returns, Oh Glory, we will all be together with him in life everlasting. Anyway very thought provoking and thank you again. Please, keep it up! We are indebted to your generosity.
How would it 'feel' to you to leave out the 'will, might, may, or should' and simply say 'we live together with Him'? It, in my opinion, could still have the subjunctive feel (and ambiguity) without the leading word that seems to have a more theologically directive drive.
Excellent choice of a verse given that so many Christians ignore or deny the importance of the second coming and our resurrection. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, without faith in our Resurrection when he comes, it doesn't matter if we believe in Christ Resurrection... in other words, it becomes a matter of salvation testing one's faith in Christ's whole work, and not just focusing on what was finished on the cross.
Your take on this subjunctive translation of Luke 21:32: Verily I am saying to you that by no means MAY this generation be passing by till all SHOULD be occurring.
I dont see a problem with the subjuctive meaning might. It seems to me that Paul may be implying that some of those believers in Thessolonica may not continue on in the faith. I dont understand how the passage could be referring to the present or Paul's present. How could dead people be living with or for Christ?
What you're saying and correct me if I am wrong. Because there's two schools of thought we have lost what the meaning would be to the writers in their day. That has happened in a few Hebrew passages too. 🤔
Thanks for your comment. I wouldn't say we've lost the meaning. The issue is perhaps one of theology. Did Paul see his theology as "all of life" or did he intend for us to read this as only future related? Reading in English in a case like this can obscure the meaning. Not that it is simple in Greek either, but it is at least clearer, at least in my opinion.
@@bmaPaul knew the resurrection had to be fullfilled and accomplished,,Jesus said all things in prophets, law Psalm, = resurrection judgment salvation,,,had to happen in his generation,,Jesus said so,Paul knew Jesus So Paul said FOR IF THE DEAD RISE NOT CHRIST IS NOT RISEN PAULS FAITH WAS IN VAIN PAULS LABOR WAS IN VAIN,, GODS EYEWITNESSES WERE FALSE WITNESSES PAUL KNEW RESSURECTION HAD TO HAPPEN IN HIS GENERATION,,SO PAUL SAID FOR IF THE DEAD RISE NOT !!! CHRIST IS NOT RISEN !!!!! YES THE DEAD DID RISE !! PAUL'S FAITH WAS NOT IN VAIN
In the King James Version (and Old English is just like this), words like "shall", "should" and "ought" are imperative. "The gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against it." In other words, "It ain't gonna happen". "Thou shalt not have strange God's before me", means "Don't you dare do it." The word "might" also has an imperative connotation, to wit: 2 Cor. 5:21 - For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. This is imperative. Christ's sacrifice makes us (those who believe in the efficacy of his sacrifice) the righteousness of God. There's no "maybe" about the effect - only the maybe of a person's "persuasion". Catholicism makes a person doubt his salvation. No Catholic ever says, "I am saved", because only the canonized saints are in heaven - according to the magical magisterium. Everyone else is purging his own sins in Purgatory. This is mainstream Catholic doctrine. This lack of confidence toward God is fatal. Or as Hebrews 10:39 says, "We are not of them who draw back _unto perdition..."_ Heb. 10:35 - Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
I came looking for this comment. Once you understand that "might" and "may" are used in this verse in set phrases which reflect their archaic meanings most of the purported difference in shades of meaning between the translations disappear. The phrase "so that we might live" is not intended to convey a level of certainty as many modern uses of "might" do.
@@david672orford - That's true. If it said, "...that we SHOULD live", then there would be the sense of imperative. "Shall", "Should", "Ought" are imperatives in the KJV (as a rule). "Will" is used mostly as a "desire". In the verse which says, "To day if ye WILL hear His voice, harden not thine heart", speaks to the hearer's desire and not to the inevitability of hearing from God. I was struck by this when reading the old NIV (don't know if they changed it again but...). That version says, "Today if you hear his voice..." No. It's not "if you hear his voice", it's " if you WILL hear his voice". If you WANT TO hear God's voice then don't harden your heart. The NIV makes it sound like a random voice from God might come your way. That's not generally how this works. It's "seek and ye shall find". It's a DESIRE to hear from God. It doesn't just randomly happen. Who wrote this: "Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you"? That's true. There's an entire sermon in this truth, for real.
I depend on the Holy Spirit for interpetatention ultimately, but for the sake of conversation, I would defer to our choosing to be found in Christ at all times, whether that be in word, thought, or deed. I think that, to me, speaks of the word, might in the sentence
This is an interesting video, but instead of clarifying the meaning of the subjunctive, I find it makes it more nebulous. At about 3:30> you give a more "up-to-date" idea of the meaning of the subjunctive. You stated that the newer idea is that the subjunctive is: "something that is put forward as a hypothesis or for considerational contemplation regardless of whether it's possible or impossible. The idea of possibility is not really the point. It's the idea of putting it forward for contemplation, putting it forward for thinking about, for considering." I find this explanation of the subjunctive to be nebulous. It does not really say anything. "Putting something forward for contemplation." I really have no idea what that means in any concrete manner. It is nebulous. I have been around a long time (I'm 71). I first learned Greek back in the good ol' days (1970s), when things were much more concrete than they are now. We live in a culture now that has been taken over by a post-modern worldview that makes everything vague and relative. We live in a time when "truth" is relative. People think that what is your truth is not my truth. This sort of philosophical backdrop has strongly influenced academia and even Christian academia. If one wants to replace the long-held historical understanding of the subjunctive, one should at least have a good reason for making such a change, and the "new" idea should actually be comprehensible and actually mean something. If a "new" idea can't be clearly stated, then it probably is not a good idea. Regarding whether this passage is referring to a future state or a present state, I think that contextually and logically it should be considered as future. The phrase, "whether we are awake or sleep" seems clearly to refer to a future event, anticipating the resurrection of the dead. I think this is borne out by the context of the entire letter, especially in light of Paul's earlier discussion in ch. 4 of the coming of Christ and the resurrection, where he refers to those who are asleep (dead in Christ) and those who are "alive and remain" at the coming of Christ, when we rise to meet Christ and the risen dead in Christ in the clouds and in the air, when Paul then states, "...and thus we will be together with the Lord always." This last statement seems clearly to be related to the statement in the passage under discussion here, where Paul says, "we will/can/may/might live together with Him." I think this is talking about when we meet Him together at His return, the operative phrase being "together ( or at the same time) with Him." In some sense we are "living with Christ" spiritually, but we are not truly with Him as we shall be when He appears. Then all of use, living and dead, will be together with Him "at the same time."
Your analysis seems to also reveal the ambiguity of the English words. I have never taken “may” or “might” as suggesting a “might not” possibility, rather the sense that Christ’s death makes our life with him possible. The uncertainty lies in whether Christ would die for us or not, not in whether his death would make our life with him possible or not. So for me, “may,” “might,” “will” are basically equivalent. Your point about learning Greek remains. However, it also seems clear that learning Greek is not going to resolve questions like this, but at least the Greek student will understand the issues and options.
This is what Chat GPT says: The Greek word "ζήσωμεν" (zēsōmen) appears in 1 Thessalonians 5:10. It is a verb in the subjunctive mood, first-person plural, meaning "we might live" or "we should live." In the context of 1 Thessalonians 5:10, the verse reads: > "ὅς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν." > > "He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him." Here, "ζήσωμεν" expresses the purpose or result of Christ's death for believers: that they might live together with Him, whether they are spiritually "awake" (alive) or "asleep" (dead). The use of the subjunctive mood indicates that this is a potential outcome or purpose.
The death of Christ is totally effective, but humans choose whether to accept salvation; so, the best translation is probably that we “can live with Him.”
💥I agree, we live with Christ by faith the moment we believe. It is not strictly a future state. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation." (2 Cor. 5:17).
God's predestinated elect family IS under obligation to be conformed to the likeness and image of Christ. The bride of Christ IS obligated to take up our cross daily, through self denial, self sacrifice, and always telling the truth. Agapé is walking in the commandments of our Lord, we are His royal preists
Why do the peoples ( Christians in particular ) differ in their religions? Because , All the prophets and messengers, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them, spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Aramaic is originally Arabic, because Adam, peace be upon him, the first of the prophets, spoke Arabic, as did the people who lived thousands of years after him, until the last of the prophets, Noah, peace be upon him. The last of the prophets from the lineage of Ishmael, the firstborn son of Abraham, from his wife Hagar, peace be upon them, spoke Arabic. All the revelation that came down to the prophets was in the Arabic language, then the messengers translated it into the language of their people, and God sent a messenger to every nation, and their number is approximately: The messengers are three hundred and some, and the prophets are one hundred thousand and twenty-four thousand. ------------------------------ Rabbi Moore ( And his wife ) Ishmael In the Abrahamic Covenant or not ? ua-cam.com/video/SrC6L7HZ480/v-deo.html&ab.
@@EJ_7715 that Christ died for those who don’t believe the gospel also. It’s a particular view of the atonement that states the barrier was removed for the whole world ( not just believers) but it doesn’t lead to universalism because one still has to believe the gospel for eternal life.
@@TheLaymansSeminary To be clear I believe Christ's sacrifice only benefits the believer, so in that way He died for the believer only. Or rather those that will or would believe.
Modern translators are more interested in pushing their Gnostic agenda than making the text more easily understood. The best example of this is John 1:3. Why would you translate "dia", "Through" in this verse rather than "By". "By" is MUCH clearer than "through". "All things were made BY Him..." (KJV) "Through him all things were made" (NIV) English speaking people simply don't talk like that. "Who is your car made by?" You would never ask, ""Who is your car made through?" We don't talk like that and yet these translator committees, in order to make a "clearer" translation, obscures the Creator. They sacrifice clarity on the altar of their religion - Gnosticism. Today, we have the best translators that money can buy.
We can see that where you go to church drives your interpretation. If you hold to the fact of Jesus' resurrection from the dead - and that's the name unto which you were baptized, you believe in the PRESENT REALITY of your life in Christ. On the other hand, if you go to one of the myriad pie-in-the-sky churches then your interpretation holds off that new life until after you're dead. You don't start living with Christ until after you stop breathing. One of these theologies is biblical, the other is not. Guess which is which.
Intersting video. I turned to NLT version and it says: We can live with him forever. I like that.
J o h n 1 4 : 3 K J V ☺
Darryl, thanks for your comments on this verse.
In my experience of reading the Greek there is a similar subtlety as all the renditions in English. My understanding of the words may or might or should carry a broad range of nuance. That's why all the translations you cite are good.
The subjunctive in English is often the same as the indicative. The present indicative and subjunctive, except for "be", are identical in first person singular and all persons plural, and the past subjunctive is identical to the indicative except for the singular of "be". Some speakers don't seem to even have a subjunctive, saying "if I was", which I consider wrong.
The subjunctive is used less in English than in Spanish or French. AFAIR I've never heard anyone say "si yo era", it's always "si yo fuera" or, more rarely, "si yo fuese".
German, English, and Spanish have present and past subjunctives. Spanish even has two past subjunctives (the -ra form used to be a pluperfect, and still is in Portuguese) and the rarely used future subjunctive. In Greek, the subjunctive shows aspect (imperfect, perfect, or aorist) but not tense, so "ζήσωμεν" can be past or future.
Thanks for another great video 💥
I am a classicist, so my expertise isn't really in New Testament, but Greek more broadly. Really, the only reason it is subjuntive is because it is in a purpose clause. May was traditionally the modal verb used for that. In such contexts, it really isn't adding any uncertainty. The more interesting question to ask is why Paul uses the aorist subjunctive, which typically in non-indicative moods refers to something that happens once with lasting effect. The only temporal marker is hama, which means that we live at the same time. Paul is not specifying when. A good English translation of the hina clause would be "in order that we may live at the same time with Christ." This preserves the ambiguity of the Greek.
In my opinion the term "awake or asleep" in this verse (and in the context of the versese before) is deeper than simply whether we are dead or alive. It is talking about spiritual awakenness vs sleeping spiritually (see e.g. "drunkenness" in this context in the verses before).
Maybe as a (small) confirmation there is the different terms in greek for dead / aslept in chapter 4 and different term for sleeping in chapter 5.
I agree with your viewpoint, which brings to mind our sanctification: Presently positional, but fulfilled in the future when Christ returns! Setting aside some $ for the R C Bight Exegetical Summary, which has a very appealing format. Thank you for this informative presentation!😊🙏📖
@bma I would probably render that subjunctive with the modal idea, "so that whether awake or asleep, we can live together with him." That gets at the idea of it being a present reality but leaves open the idea of a future together with Christ.
I always took it to mean that it is now available to us, whether or not we follow through. Any failure then falls on us not accepting rather than on Christ's sacrificial efficacy.
Thank you, Darryl, for this question that you've raised, using it as a stimulus to further study and thought. At first I thought, of course Paul would say that we live with Jesus now and will continue to live with Him at His return. But then again, in the context of this letter, where Paul is discussing what will happen when Christ returns (among other things of course), is he not talking about what is ahead, rather. Looking back to 4:17 he seems in his thought to be oriented towards the future life here. So I am inclined (for what it's worth) to go with the future life of the resurrection body. Those who have died, live with him now and will continue to live with him. Those (of us, here) who are alive, when he comes, will join them in a new 'soma pneumaticon'. It comports with the future orientation of our salvation earlier in the letter. So why do we encourage on another? Because when Christ returns, Oh Glory, we will all be together with him in life everlasting. Anyway very thought provoking and thank you again. Please, keep it up! We are indebted to your generosity.
💥 "that we will live with Him"
How would it 'feel' to you to leave out the 'will, might, may, or should' and simply say 'we live together with Him'? It, in my opinion, could still have the subjunctive feel (and ambiguity) without the leading word that seems to have a more theologically directive drive.
I think that's a reasonable solution. Thanks for suggesting it!
Excellent choice of a verse given that so many Christians ignore or deny the importance of the second coming and our resurrection. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, without faith in our Resurrection when he comes, it doesn't matter if we believe in Christ Resurrection... in other words, it becomes a matter of salvation testing one's faith in Christ's whole work, and not just focusing on what was finished on the cross.
Glad to see you dig this deep too.
Philippians 3 : 10 KJV
This verse is in the Bible for a big reason.
@@rickmorgan8856 yes to explain growth and how reward is a motivator
Your take on this subjunctive translation of Luke 21:32: Verily I am saying to you that by no means MAY this generation be passing by till all SHOULD be occurring.
I dont see a problem with the subjuctive meaning might. It seems to me that Paul may be implying that some of those believers in Thessolonica may not continue on in the faith.
I dont understand how the passage could be referring to the present or Paul's present. How could dead people be living with or for Christ?
What you're saying and correct me if I am wrong. Because there's two schools of thought we have lost what the meaning would be to the writers in their day. That has happened in a few Hebrew passages too. 🤔
Thanks for your comment. I wouldn't say we've lost the meaning. The issue is perhaps one of theology. Did Paul see his theology as "all of life" or did he intend for us to read this as only future related? Reading in English in a case like this can obscure the meaning. Not that it is simple in Greek either, but it is at least clearer, at least in my opinion.
@@bmaPaul knew the resurrection had to be fullfilled and accomplished,,Jesus said all things in prophets, law Psalm, = resurrection judgment salvation,,,had to happen in his generation,,Jesus said so,Paul knew Jesus
So Paul said
FOR IF THE DEAD RISE NOT
CHRIST IS NOT RISEN
PAULS FAITH WAS IN VAIN
PAULS LABOR WAS IN VAIN,,
GODS EYEWITNESSES WERE FALSE WITNESSES
PAUL KNEW RESSURECTION HAD TO HAPPEN IN HIS GENERATION,,SO PAUL SAID
FOR IF THE DEAD RISE NOT !!!
CHRIST IS NOT RISEN !!!!!
YES THE DEAD DID RISE !!
PAUL'S FAITH WAS NOT IN VAIN
🎆
In the King James Version (and Old English is just like this), words like "shall", "should" and "ought" are imperative. "The gates of hell SHALL NOT prevail against it." In other words, "It ain't gonna happen".
"Thou shalt not have strange God's before me", means "Don't you dare do it."
The word "might" also has an imperative connotation, to wit:
2 Cor. 5:21 - For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
This is imperative. Christ's sacrifice makes us (those who believe in the efficacy of his sacrifice) the righteousness of God. There's no "maybe" about the effect - only the maybe of a person's "persuasion".
Catholicism makes a person doubt his salvation. No Catholic ever says, "I am saved", because only the canonized saints are in heaven - according to the magical magisterium. Everyone else is purging his own sins in Purgatory. This is mainstream Catholic doctrine. This lack of confidence toward God is fatal. Or as Hebrews 10:39 says, "We are not of them who draw back _unto perdition..."_
Heb. 10:35 - Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
I came looking for this comment. Once you understand that "might" and "may" are used in this verse in set phrases which reflect their archaic meanings most of the purported difference in shades of meaning between the translations disappear. The phrase "so that we might live" is not intended to convey a level of certainty as many modern uses of "might" do.
@@david672orford - That's true. If it said, "...that we SHOULD live", then there would be the sense of imperative. "Shall", "Should", "Ought" are imperatives in the KJV (as a rule).
"Will" is used mostly as a "desire". In the verse which says, "To day if ye WILL hear His voice, harden not thine heart", speaks to the hearer's desire and not to the inevitability of hearing from God.
I was struck by this when reading the old NIV (don't know if they changed it again but...). That version says, "Today if you hear his voice..."
No. It's not "if you hear his voice", it's " if you WILL hear his voice". If you WANT TO hear God's voice then don't harden your heart. The NIV makes it sound like a random voice from God might come your way. That's not generally how this works.
It's "seek and ye shall find". It's a DESIRE to hear from God. It doesn't just randomly happen. Who wrote this: "Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you"? That's true.
There's an entire sermon in this truth, for real.
I depend on the Holy Spirit for interpetatention ultimately, but for the sake of conversation, I would defer to our choosing to be found in Christ at all times, whether that be in word, thought, or deed. I think that, to me, speaks of the word, might in the sentence
I translate it as will myself!
This is an interesting video, but instead of clarifying the meaning of the subjunctive, I find it makes it more nebulous. At about 3:30> you give a more "up-to-date" idea of the meaning of the subjunctive. You stated that the newer idea is that the subjunctive is:
"something that is put forward as a hypothesis or for considerational contemplation regardless of whether it's possible or impossible. The idea of possibility is not really the point. It's the idea of putting it forward for contemplation, putting it forward for thinking about, for considering."
I find this explanation of the subjunctive to be nebulous. It does not really say anything. "Putting something forward for contemplation." I really have no idea what that means in any concrete manner. It is nebulous. I have been around a long time (I'm 71). I first learned Greek back in the good ol' days (1970s), when things were much more concrete than they are now. We live in a culture now that has been taken over by a post-modern worldview that makes everything vague and relative. We live in a time when "truth" is relative. People think that what is your truth is not my truth. This sort of philosophical backdrop has strongly influenced academia and even Christian academia. If one wants to replace the long-held historical understanding of the subjunctive, one should at least have a good reason for making such a change, and the "new" idea should actually be comprehensible and actually mean something. If a "new" idea can't be clearly stated, then it probably is not a good idea.
Regarding whether this passage is referring to a future state or a present state, I think that contextually and logically it should be considered as future. The phrase, "whether we are awake or sleep" seems clearly to refer to a future event, anticipating the resurrection of the dead. I think this is borne out by the context of the entire letter, especially in light of Paul's earlier discussion in ch. 4 of the coming of Christ and the resurrection, where he refers to those who are asleep (dead in Christ) and those who are "alive and remain" at the coming of Christ, when we rise to meet Christ and the risen dead in Christ in the clouds and in the air, when Paul then states, "...and thus we will be together with the Lord always." This last statement seems clearly to be related to the statement in the passage under discussion here, where Paul says, "we will/can/may/might live together with Him." I think this is talking about when we meet Him together at His return, the operative phrase being "together ( or at the same time) with Him."
In some sense we are "living with Christ" spiritually, but we are not truly with Him as we shall be when He appears. Then all of use, living and dead, will be together with Him "at the same time."
💥
Your analysis seems to also reveal the ambiguity of the English words. I have never taken “may” or “might” as suggesting a “might not” possibility, rather the sense that Christ’s death makes our life with him possible. The uncertainty lies in whether Christ would die for us or not, not in whether his death would make our life with him possible or not. So for me, “may,” “might,” “will” are basically equivalent. Your point about learning Greek remains. However, it also seems clear that learning Greek is not going to resolve questions like this, but at least the Greek student will understand the issues and options.
Exactly! Thanks for your comment!
This is what Chat GPT says: The Greek word "ζήσωμεν" (zēsōmen) appears in 1 Thessalonians 5:10. It is a verb in the subjunctive mood, first-person plural, meaning "we might live" or "we should live."
In the context of 1 Thessalonians 5:10, the verse reads:
> "ὅς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα εἴτε γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν."
>
> "He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him."
Here, "ζήσωμεν" expresses the purpose or result of Christ's death for believers: that they might live together with Him, whether they are spiritually "awake" (alive) or "asleep" (dead). The use of the subjunctive mood indicates that this is a potential outcome or purpose.
🧨💥
The death of Christ is totally effective, but humans choose whether to accept salvation; so, the best translation is probably that we “can live with Him.”
🧨
💥🌋🧨
Paul does not want to communicate certainty, because some of his audience might fall away from the faith and not live with Christ.
💥I agree, we live with Christ by faith the moment we believe. It is not strictly a future state. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation." (2 Cor. 5:17).
Galatians 2 : 20 KJV
@@rickmorgan8856 Amen!
@@Dougeb7 Yes ! Amen brother.
God's predestinated elect family IS under obligation to be conformed to the likeness and image of Christ. The bride of Christ IS obligated to take up our cross daily, through self denial, self sacrifice, and always telling the truth. Agapé is walking in the commandments of our Lord, we are His royal preists
Why do the peoples ( Christians in particular ) differ in their religions?
Because , All the prophets and messengers, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them, spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Aramaic is originally Arabic, because Adam, peace be upon him, the first of the prophets, spoke Arabic, as did the people who lived thousands of years after him, until the last of the prophets, Noah, peace be upon him. The last of the prophets from the lineage of Ishmael, the firstborn son of Abraham, from his wife Hagar, peace be upon them, spoke Arabic. All the revelation that came down to the prophets was in the Arabic language, then the messengers translated it into the language of their people, and God sent a messenger to every nation, and their number is approximately: The messengers are three hundred and some, and the prophets are one hundred thousand and twenty-four thousand.
------------------------------
Rabbi Moore ( And his wife )
Ishmael In the Abrahamic Covenant or not ?
ua-cam.com/video/SrC6L7HZ480/v-deo.html&ab.
Should could also refer to the role the believer has in salvation. Christ didn't die for the unbelieving.
Are you willing to formally debate that?
@@TheLaymansSeminary debate this translation? Or that Christ died for those that would believe?
@@EJ_7715 that Christ died for those who don’t believe the gospel also. It’s a particular view of the atonement that states the barrier was removed for the whole world ( not just believers) but it doesn’t lead to universalism because one still has to believe the gospel for eternal life.
@@TheLaymansSeminary To be clear I believe Christ's sacrifice only benefits the believer, so in that way He died for the believer only. Or rather those that will or would believe.
@@EJ_7715 yes but this is a different view of the atonement that I am talking about.
Modern translators are more interested in pushing their Gnostic agenda than making the text more easily understood. The best example of this is John 1:3.
Why would you translate "dia", "Through" in this verse rather than "By". "By" is MUCH clearer than "through".
"All things were made BY Him..." (KJV)
"Through him all things were made" (NIV)
English speaking people simply don't talk like that. "Who is your car made by?" You would never ask, ""Who is your car made through?" We don't talk like that and yet these translator committees, in order to make a "clearer" translation, obscures the Creator. They sacrifice clarity on the altar of their religion - Gnosticism.
Today, we have the best translators that money can buy.
We can see that where you go to church drives your interpretation. If you hold to the fact of Jesus' resurrection from the dead - and that's the name unto which you were baptized, you believe in the PRESENT REALITY of your life in Christ.
On the other hand, if you go to one of the myriad pie-in-the-sky churches then your interpretation holds off that new life until after you're dead. You don't start living with Christ until after you stop breathing.
One of these theologies is biblical, the other is not. Guess which is which.
G a l a t i a n s 2 : 2 0 K J V
English really isn't that great of a language! 😅 💥
💥
💥
💥
💥
💥
💥
💥
💥
💥
💥