When we speak of the Lord's prayer in this post, we are not talking about the model prayer that the Lord Jesus gave to His disciples upon the occasion of them asking Him to teach them to pray. Rather, it is the prayer found in John chapter 17 that we call the Lord's prayer. True, our Lord spent much time in prayer, but none of His prayers are recorded so fully as this. Most Bible scholars who try to harmonize the Gospels have the Lord Jesus praying this prayer in the Upper Room after He had finished His instructions to the disciples. Whether He prayed in the Upper Room or somewhere on the way to the Garden, this much is sure; we are all privileged to be able to read the prayer of God the Son as He converses with God the Father.The context to this prayer is so very important. Jesus closes chapter 16 with these words... "In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." This verse, verse 33, makes it clear that Christ was not the victim but the victor. The Lord's prayer in chapter 17 proceeds from this truth.
This is really a simple prayer to follow and can easily be divided into 3 sections...
First, in verses 1-5 Jesus prays for Himself. Why did He do that? Because He was preparing Himself for the sufferings out ahead. However, this was not a selfish prayer, He had instead the glory of the Father in mind. In fact, this "glory" is a theme that appears throughout His prayer.
Second, in verses 6-19 Jesus prays for His disciples, the ones He mentions in verse 6 as the "men which thou gavest me out of the world." Christ's prayer for His disciples is that they will be overcomers like His is. The burden of the Lord's prayer in verses 6-12 is security, this theme changes to sanctity in verses 13-19. When we are secure in the Lord's salvation, we know that we are not of the world. When we know that we are not of the world, then we are to live holy lives for the glory of God.
Third, in verses 20-26 Jesus prays for... "them also which shall believe on me through their word." Here Christ prays for all believers throughout all the ages. He has already prayed for security and sanctity, now He prays for unity in His church. The Puritan preacher Thomas Brooks wrote: "Discord and division become no Christian. For wolves to worry the lambs is no wonder, but for one lamb to worry another, this is unnatural and monstrous." Why is the Lord Jesus so concerned about unity? Because some will believe through a faithful witness (verse 20), and so that the world may believe that the Father hast sent the Son (verse 21).
Now... What can be inferred from this text?
- The most obvious truth that we can glean is the 5 prayer priorities of the Savior:
1) Glory... (to God)
2) Security... (of the Believer)
3) Sanctity... (of the Believer)
4) Unity... (of the Believer's Church)
5) Ministry... (to the Lost World)
What is it that Christ asks in behalf of His followers?
- The greatest of blessings: security, sanctity, unity, peace, love, and eternal glory.
But what can be inferred (if anything) concerning the Atonement with respect to this prayer? Why did Christ not pray for the world?
- Christ says... I pray not for the world; at least not in these petitions, which are for believers only. How odd it would be for Him to pray for the world that He desires for believers to overcome. However, He does pray for the world indirectly in verses 21 and 23, that they may believe and that they may know God hath sent Him.
This text no more proves that our Lord did not ever pray for the world, both before and afterward, than His praying for the apostles alone in verses 6-19 proves that he did not pray for them also which shall believe through their word in verse 20. In fact, Luke 23:34 records this prayer of Christ from the cross... "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do". How striking is this passage! While they are actually nailing Him to the cross, as He is in the very process of atoning for sin, He prays for their salvation. Not only did Jesus pray for believers; but He also prayed for His enemies, even His crucifiers. His prayer that day procured forgiveness for all that were penitent, and a suspension of vengeance even for the impenitent. It also fulfilled the prophecy found in Isaiah 53:12 which says He... "made intercession for the transgressors". Matthew Henry writes in his commentary on Luke 23:34... "Now He made intercession for transgressors, as was foretold (Isaiah 53:12), and it is to be added to His prayer (John 17), to complete the specimen He gave of His intercession within the veil: that for saints, this for sinners."
We would all do well to immitate the prayer of our Lord, both in its priorities and in its plenitude.
4 comments:
"and so that the world may believe that the Father hast sent the Son"
"How odd it would be for Him to pray for the world that He desires for believers to overcome"
You see no contradiction here? Wouldn't it be more appropriate if he had prayed for the world to overcome also by the testimony of the of the church and become one with it? He doesn't. He doesn't pray it, because he does not intend the world to over come the world.
The unity is not one of agreement, either, but of union as is described: "that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."
Now notice, that the them and the world are maintained as particular groups in opposition to one another. Throughout the prayer that is the case. Jesus is clear that his own have their origin in heaven as he did, and are not of the world by that fiat. It is not a petition that the world would become one with them at all. But that the world would know that these were given him out of the world, and the world was not. In the end the testimony will be exactly what was prayed. The world will know. The nature of prayer is always future potentiality which is why the Greek has a subjunctive case for knowledge.
Your answer doesn't broach the subject of why he would not pray for the world, if these were of the world and it was possible that the world could join in the numbers of those who were given to him. Repeatedly, Jesus anounces that the ones he is praying for are those given to him. When? It is past tense. Even with the future believers he says: "loved them even as you loved me" putting the love of the father for the future believers in the past. Even if this is speaking toward the eschaton the case remains the same, it is an action begun in the past for a particular group that excludes the world. So they may believe? Or, was it so that they would know that the Father sent Jesus not a witness lending to the salvation of those in the world, but as testimony against the world? It follows the pattern of John 3, believers/unbelievers, or those later in John that have been given the ears to hear the Gospel so they might turn and be saved, verses those from whom it has been withheld so that they will not. Further, this love is said to be the same kind of eternal love that the Father has for the Son.
Far from proving your case, you have demonstrated an inconsistency, for you made a point of saying that world in John three meant the whole world, that the whole world is loved of God, and inferred in doing so that God's love is exhaustively universal in the hopes that all men will be saved. But in the prayer you have said that the world is not the object of the love of God at least in a global non-particular sense. But, only those who will be saved you say are the object of portions of the prayer.
I agree that there is discrimination. The discriminating love of God does not apply equally to all. In fact the word kosmos doesn't always mean the totality of mankind which you have made clear, but can be the whole of the part of it. In John 3 it does not need to mean mankind at all, but merely needs to mean the creation to fit in perfect harmony with the incarnation.
As to the prayer on the cross two things: For Jesus to say Father forgive them they know not, implies something I don't think you want to admit. And that is that the will cannot be engaged if one does not know, if they know not they have a choice. Does not one need to know what they do to incur guilt and need forgiveness? Or are people held responsible even though they do not know? Remember you said that moral responsibility is founded in choice.
Second, the prayer is not an appeal for their salvation universally is it? Did Jesus once say that he said only what the Father says, does only what the Father does, and that the Father always hears his prayers. And wouldn't you agree that in the Garden or the Upper Room, that the High Priestly prayer will be answered absolutely, and that was always the case? If Jesus was praying for the salvation of those who crucified him, even if we only restrict it to the immediate audience, are you ready to concede that everyone who was there were saved? The fact is he didn't pray for their salvation, nor can it be universalized for the same reason that you did not universalize world in John 17. It doesn't need to be. It only needs to have application to some and still be true.
Back to John 17. The sanctification that is spoken of is the cross and if you agree that the sacrifice was the sanctifying work as Jesus says, and that it was his sanctification that sanctified those given him, past tense, and the sacrifice now is past tense, isn't it true that the sanctification of all saints happened then and is limited to those for whom he sanctified himself? Again, follow the aorist clauses. This is not something that flows along in time, but is as the Scripture says the Lamb of God slain from the foundations of the world. Done once for all who would believe, John 3:16, and not for those who are condemned already because they have not believed, past tense. It is an eschatologcal outlook; something begun with the decree and in time fulfilled and finally consummated in the parousia.
That is why you need to listen to the audio of White, paying attention to the nature of the word foreknowledge. Like John 17, the verb is of this kind which indicates something begun in the past and continuing in the present. Such that these given ones are the ones who are being forknown by God, and these alone are called and sanctified and justified and glorified and no others.
You issued a challenge for a verse. And you knew one didn't exist. Now, I issue the same challenge, find one verse where Jesus prays for the whole world of man kind exhaustively. You will not find one, you will have to justify the texts.
We have a different view, and I hope you can see what is wrong with the exlusive statements which PP made. His isolated the view I hold and others in the SBC hold as being foreign to the Gospel.
On this thing we can agree: We preach Christ and him crucified, and resurrected for remission of sin through repentance and faith in Him who died for sinners.
Amen?
I agree with much of what you have written, especially unity being better described as union.
Where we have our differences in our understanding of this prayer, it is where we have our differences overall. (At least we are consistent) :)
First, I differentiate the "world" in John 17 from the "world" in John 3 because the text, context, and the Lord do. In John 17, Christ speaks of those given out of the world; I see no such division in John 3. No contradiction or inconsistency there.
Second, your explanation of salvation taking place sometime in eternity past seems fatalistic and defeatist.
Third, you seem to simply gloss over the Luke 23 prayer. Matthew Henry said it should be added to the John 17 prayer. Not to mention the fact that Isaiah points out His intercession was for "transgressors", not the elect only.
Fourth, you wrote... "And wouldn't you agree that in the Garden or the Upper Room, that the High Priestly prayer will be answered absolutely, and that was always the case?" This got me thinking about that Garden prayer. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Jesus pray for the Father to let the cup pass from Him? Does God always get what He desires?
I am curious what you think about this quote. It is taken from the manuscript of Dr. Danny Akin's chapel sermon delivered at SEBTS on Feb. 19, entitled a "A Great Commission Theology for Life - 1 Timothy 2:1-7".
"The Savior God desires (Gr. “telei”; wishes, wants) all to be saved. The statement is profound in its simplicity. No qualifications. No exceptions. And yet there is much here for our theological reflection.
1) God desires all to be saved, He does not decree all will be saved. There is no soteriolgical universalism hiding in this verse. God truly and genuinely desires some things that sadly do not come to pass.
2) God is willing to save all though He does not will to save all, He desires the salvation of all but did not decree the salvation of all. God delights in the eternal perishing of no one, though He has designed a world where some do perish eternally. Thus we distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he has designed will happen. There is a great tension and mystery in all of this, but there is no mystery in the revealed basic, bedrock, biblical truth: God desires all men, all persons, to be saved. This is His heart and this must be our heart. The nations are on His heart. All humanity is on His heart. In Ezekiel 18:32 God tells us, “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone.” (ESV)."
Fifth, I can say Amen to your last statement... "We preach Christ and him crucified, and resurrected for remission of sin through repentance and faith in Him who died for sinners." However, I find it disappointing that you cannot affirm what Scott Gordon did on February 5th, 2009 at 9:30 am on SBCToday. He wrote... "As a 5-pt-er myself…and understanding the biblical doctrine of limited atonement…I have no problem with witnessing to someone and saying that Jesus died for your sin. The atonement is certainly sufficient for all while being efficient only in the hearts and lives of the elect. And another thought…it is the sin of the world that placed Jesus on the cross. The fact of the fall of man in the garden necessitates a Redeemer. From that original sin, all men are left “dead in their trespasses and sins.” Certainly the Scripture then also speaks truth in that the “free gift is not like the offense,” we do not preach universal atonement from the Scripture (neither Arminian or Calvinist would do such). BUT, we are to be about this task of calling many to repentance while understanding that “many are called but few are chosen.”
Sola Gratia!"
Thomas,
Check out this link... http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=214
I could spend days here.
Gracious response. Thanks.
"First, I differentiate the "world" in John 17 from the "world" in John 3 because the text, context, and the Lord do. In John 17, Christ speaks of those given out of the world; I see no such division in John 3. No contradiction or inconsistency there."
Okay. Generally, the world, all and ever passgages are argued in a similar vein. The point that I was making was that there is a discriminating love and a general love. In John 3 kosmos can mean the created order, it can mean all men. In that sense it does not need to discriminate, as you point out in quoting Akin. All of creation is God's creation. There are various usages of kosmos. In John 17 it is used a couple of ways, the mass of humanity, the reprobate and of the old created order. I was just establishing that you make the distinction, also. My question was why doesn't Jesus pray for the world which is a sub-division of all mankind, the reprobate? Let me rephrase it if I can. Why doesn't he pray that the world which is reprobate might all be saved? Why does he isolate it from the rest? Wouldn't it better fit a general atonement if he had pleaded with the Father that they might also join him? The ones who will believe are not of that group, for he divides them out as those who were given him already.
I didn't mention an eternal salvation. I did say that it was done as declared from the beginning those thing which will be in the end, for the same reason that you hold to a doctrine of foreknowledge. As Adrian said "Everything that is going to happen will happen." Decreedally, in the covenantal sense it flows from concepts like Isaiah 55. "My word which goes forth...will not return to me void." Though Adrian does not place it in the decree, Calvinists do. Salvation of the elect is actualized in time and foreknown as a forgone conclusion from eternity. Something we both agree upon. Scripture says that what was accomplished on Calvary is accordingly the same the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world, the same yesterday, today and forever, the Lamb, as one slain on the throne in heaven, now. That is all I meant. It goes without saying that the ones who are the final recipients of the blood's salvific benefit are those for whom the same lamb was slain, beginning to end. Not a drop is wasted.
Fatalism is a canard. Whether as a Calvinist or an Arminian, we both believe that God's foreknowledge does not change and he has known forever the names of all that will be saved. So predestination is not only a Biblical doctrine, but one shared by both camps as such. Jesus' prayer (I said Garden but I wasn't thinking really), recognizes those given, doesn't it? And he discriminates, doesn't he? He is going to Calvary to sanctify himself for them, the high priestly work of Hebrews. For whom? Only the children of Israel were included as the beneficiaries of the blood atonement. He tells us that it is for those who are the believing ones, and not for the world.
As to the prayer of passion, Jesus didn't just ask that the cup pass from him, but, if it were possible. I am not sure if there are any other prayers of possibility that Christ made, but in any case we know they would have to be subordinated to the fact that he knows the Father's will and that his prayer's are always answered which renders the prayer of passion something like this: "I wish this was not so, never the less not my will but yours." As I said, Jesus knows his appointment, and knows that it will be and that there is no possibility it could be otherwise. He knows the omnipotence of God if he had choosen otherwise, but even if it were possible it would not be the Son's will, but his Father's. So let's take this into reality. We pray not knowing the future (usually), right? But Jesus knew the future, right? Then the pray becomes, "If it were possible that there was any other way I would pray that your will be done." In fact that is what he says: "Not my will, but yours." Now examine that final statement. Contrast it with "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." Knowing what we both agree upon, that God does know our choices, is it possible that we could choose other than the way it would be? Adrian says no, and it cannot be any other way or we open the door to open theism. Therefore, we likewise pray your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Christ's confidence on the cross is examined in Psalm 22 where there is a true cry of abandonment and the comfort that in that separation God never does abandon his holy one to see corruption nor does he turn his eyes away from him. Christ was a man, the nature of man unspoiled by sin is not to want death but life. Thus the plea. This is not a hope of possibility of an alternative ending, but the prayer from the heart of the One who was both God and man, of confidence that the counsel of God has been forever settled in heaven. We can have confidence likewise, even in the tribulations of life, that God will give us this day our daily bread. Think about that, daily bread, new every morning are his mercies, for it is his power and his kingdom and "though he slay me, yet will I praise him." He has made provision for every day, predestined it to be, in that and that alone is the confidence we have as believers, no matter how much we might desire it to be different from the sufferings of this present life, we pray both for relief and that his will will be done. We know that he will never leave us nor forsake us, because unlike us where we would choose differently, his will never changes and always works all things for the good.
I didn't think I glossed over Luke. You exchanged forgiveness for salvation. Why? There is no petition for the salvation of the souls of the people, is there? And my response appealled to a weakness
in the argument for libertarian free-will. Even if I conceded the generalist atonement, the application still requires that God regenerates the will freeing it from bondage to sin. This appeal I make has to do with knowledge and what it requires to make a choice and what virtue if any is attached to it. Without knowledge the Arminian has no basis for making any choice. But who has a true knowledge of God in a salvific sense? The unregenerate. Hardly, for to have such knowledge one must have experienced union with it. Bare knowledge such as that which the demons have is not sufficient for their repentance, nor is the bare knowledge of Christ in man, for many have had it and hated it. The question is what makes some one love it? Is the love for God shed abroad in the hearts of all men, unregenerate and regenerate? If so, then why didn't both theives love Christ equally? Choice? How so, for Christ said they did not know and the demeaning thief was one with the crowd. Obviously, his prayer was not effectual, equally.
As to Matthew Henry, I don't know exactly what he said or how it should be tempered with other things he has said on the subject. Let me reiterate. Some in the crowd might have later been saved, and if the application is to be made in a salvific sense the whole of the part rule for pas suffices to make it truthful. But as I have explained we do not even need to go there for the prayer is not one of salvation but of forgiveness and forgiveness does not necessarily extend itself to cover every sin, but may only be applied to specific ones.
Isaiah is a like case. That he interceded for transgressors does not need to be exhaustive. As with the cross scene, intercession can be limited to some or all of the trangressors. And as Rev said, it can be that some benefits of a non-salvific nature may also be interceded for, while at the same time salvific benefits are. In the sense of Christ the Intercessor however, it is narrowly focussed upon the heirs of salvation for it is written that he ever lives to make intercession for the saints and not others. I am prejudiced so, I prefer this last as the explanation for Isaiah. Nevertheless, it only needs to be a part of the whole to be true. This is why the all and many terms in Romans are mixed. The whole of the part is still all of them who are of that part. At the cross, I think that it can be taken several ways and still apply. But, as I said: for transgressors who do not know they are transgressors? Why do they need forgiveness? Speaking of Isaiah, ever read this: "O Lord, why do you make us wander from your ways and harden our heart, so that we fear you not? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes of your heritage."
The tribes of God's heritage we know from Paul is true Israel and that not all Israel is Israel, but all Irael will be saved. How so? Judas was of the tribes but he was predestined for destruction. It is God who forms the heart and out of it flow the issues of life. On the cross Jesus wasn't praying that all would receive new hearts or that would have been done. If he was praying for their salvation, that would have been done. But to pray for their forgiveness does not entail, necessarily, that all who were there were the object of it, or that it meant the same as salvation. You imported that into the text.
A new heart, Ezekial says, is necessary for new life and God does not put old wine in new, nor does he put new wine in old, but when he renews he renews completely. Out of a heart of life no death flows and out of a heart of stone no blood of life can, either. So Ezekial says that God himself makes us to walk in his statutes and keep his commandments after putting a new heart in us. It is he that both gives new life and empowers it to obey the commandments to repent and believe. Without regeneration preceding faith, there can be no faith for there is no heart of flesh out of which the love of God can flow. So, Jesus is not makig an appeal that his life would become the life of all his audience if they would but choose, for that choice, the will to obey and the power to do so, are from God, and as Isaiah says two chapters later, his will is done on earth as it is in heaven.
I have no problem with the two wills theory (Akin) as long as we do what we do with the love of God for his creation and allow that God does have discriminating love. In that sense he does long for the salvation of all and at the same time has not willed that all will be saved. That also then means that the blood of Christ which flows life to those for whom it was shed does not have to reach any further than those for whom it was intended. God can, and has, sent his son into the world that the believing ones, the ones given to him before the foundations of the world (Titus 1), are made manifest by the preaching of the word according to the promise for the sake of the elect.
Joe, forgive me for the manner in which I have approached this. I know you did not intend harm. I hope now you can see that what I intended was that no harm would be left when all was said and done.
"I have no problem with witnessing to someone and saying that Jesus died for your sin. The atonement is certainly sufficient for all while being efficient only in the hearts and lives of the elect. And another thought…it is the sin of the world that placed Jesus on the cross."
I would contest the fact that he is a 5-pointer, 4.5 maybe. It was not the sin of the world that placed Christ on the cross, but the sin of Adam, and it was not even that, but the Father who placed him there, for it pleased him to bruise the Son. And that according to John 3:16 because of his love for his creation so that his name would not be blasphemed but glorified, John 17. Gordon is right in this, Christ went to the cross and his mission was manifold. His cross condemned the world and saved his own out from among them. So yes in this sense he went to the cross for the sin of the whole world. To propitiate it for some, and to destroy others by it. For just as John three says that He did not come into the world to condemn it but to save: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." so we know that world doesn't mean all men, John 9:39 also says: "Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”" And notice this is the Isaiah passage which Jesus has stated marks the difference between those he came to save- for who his blood was shed for their salvation- and those for who his blood condemned. As I said, throughout John the careful precision of the word of God cuts like a surgeon's scalpel separating the sheep from the goat's, clearly judging between men, setting some on the right, some on the left, all the while pointing to the covenant made and the promises kept.
So, in John 3 there is a division, you just didn't see it.
Post a Comment