If EU Is True How Do You Define "Son Of Perdition"

General posts on Evangelical Universalism.

If EU Is True How Do You Define "Son Of Perdition"

Postby JamesAH81072 » Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:09 pm

Which is the title given to two people. Judas Iscariot(John 17:12)and the antichrist(2 Thessalonians 2:3)which defines perdition as destruction?
JamesAH81072
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:07 pm

Re: If EU Is True How Do You Define "Son Of Perdition"

Postby Origen; » Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:53 pm

The term "perdition" refers to "loss of well being", not hell or eternal loss of well being:

"684 /apṓleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" (see the meaning of the root-verb, 622 /apóllymi, "cut off") but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being(Vine's Expository Dictionary)

While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled. (Jn.17:12)

The koiné Greek word for "lost" in that passage is apollumi.

"The use of "apollumi" is interesting; it's the same word Jesus uses to describe the people that he came to find and save. The same verb is used in the parable of the lost coin in Luke 15:8-10, which describes a woman who has "apollumi" a silver coin. After "losing" the coin, she "seeks diligently" until she finds it. After she finds it, she then "rejoices" with her friends. In the parable, the lost coin represents a sinner, while the woman represents God. The woman finding her coin is akin to a sinner repenting (God gets back something that is very valuable to him)."

Apollumi is also used of the "lost" prodigal son who is later found (Luke 15).

Everyone, before they are saved, are "children of disobedience", "children of the devil" and "children of wrath":

By this the children of God and the children of the devil can be distinguished:Anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is anyone who does not love his brother. (1 Jn.3:10)

in which you used to walk when you conformed to the ways of this world and of the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience. (Eph.2:2)

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Eph.2:3)

So Judas being called "son of perdition" is much the same.

His destiny, along with the rest of mankind, is to have God living in him as his all:

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor.15:28)

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.

Jn.1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Scholars Corner:
http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

Minimal Statement of Faith for Evangelical Universalists:
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=57
Origen;
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: If EU Is True How Do You Define "Son Of Perdition"

Postby JasonPratt » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:20 am

To Origen's fine exposition, I will add that even in the context of John 17, both locally nearby and back to the start of the Final Discourse (chp 14 if I recall correctly offhand), Iscariot is included among the all things given to the Son by the Father and the purpose of the Son is to lose none of the all things the Father has given to Him but rather to give eonian life to all whom (and even which!) the Father has given Him.

That necessarily includes Iscariot, so he will not be finally lost, even though he was not protected the way the other apostles and disciples were -- all of whom also, to one degree or another, betrayed Christ that night eventually. I think there is a strong argument that Christ is even trying to edge them up to understanding that how successful they are as His apostles will depend on how successfully they love Iscariot despite his treachery (which they don't know about yet at the time of the Discourse, thinking that he had gone out to either prepare for the real Passover Supper the next night or to do some customary charity in his place of honor if this was the real Passover Supper that night -- their confusion over this is a bit of evidence that Jesus was holding the Passover one night early, which solves a number of harmonization problems, by the way.)


Note that this argument, if it applies to Iscariot (and I think it necessarily does), would apply by the same token to the final Antichrist, too. He is a servant and representative of destruction, but that by itself doesn't mean he will be finally lost. None of us have any inherent advantage over Satan himself, and St. Paul in Ephesians goes so far as to say that he and his own salvation stand as an example of the chief of sinners. (He goes very far in Ephesians talking about universal salvation even for rebel spirits in other ways, too, including using our responsibility to evangelize them as an emphatic example of our responsibility to evangelize everyone else, too: the greater includes the less, if we're supposed to evangelize even then for salvation, then obviously we're supposed to evangelize these or those fellow humans, too. No one is excluded, and we have no excuses that someone is inherently not to be evangelized.)
Cry of Justice -- 2008 Novel of the Year (CSPA retailer poll).
Sword To The Heart -- metaphysical argument to orthodox trinitarianism (and thence to universalism)
Trinitarian universalist exegetics, on internet radio, or here in forum posts.
User avatar
JasonPratt
Administrator
 
Posts: 9815
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Dyer, TN

Re: If EU Is True How Do You Define "Son Of Perdition"

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:16 am

JamesAH81072 wrote:Which is the title given to two people. Judas Iscariot(John 17:12)and the antichrist(2 Thessalonians 2:3)which defines perdition as destruction?


I would add that the Calvinist site - Got Questions and Wiki, both comment on the son of perdition:


It should be noted, that I don't always agree with Got Questions commentary. :D

And I found this interesting - from Wiki:

Similar uses of "son" occur in Hebrew, such as "sons of corruption" (Isaiah 1:4 בָּנִים מַשְׁחִיתִים benim mishchatim), however the exact Hebrew or Greek term "son of perdition" does not occur in Jewish writings prior to the New Testament.

According to some modern biblical criticism New Testament writers derived the "son of perdition" (and "man of sin") concepts from Daniel and 1 Maccabees 2:48 "And they did not surrender the horn to the sinner." et al.[13] John related the "Son of Perdition" concepts by language, referring to "the star that fell from heaven" Revelation 9:1 by two names, one Greek, and the other Hebrew. (Revelation 9:11) The Greek name is "Apollyon" (Greek: Aπολλυων), from the Greek root word "apollumi" (Greek:απολλυμι).[14] It refers to utter loss, eternal destruction, and disassociation." [Strong's 622] The Hebrew name is "Abaddon" (Greek: Aβαδδων), from the Aramaic root word "'abad", which means the same thing as the Greek root word. Strong's 07 Daniel 7:11 says that the eventual destiny of the "great beast" is to be slain, and his body "destroyed" ('abad), and given to the eternal flames (generally accepted by religious scholars to be a reference to hell).

Matthew Henry wrote:

Of the kings that came after Antiochus nothing is here prophesied, for that was the most malicious mischievous enemy to the church, that was a type of the son of perdition, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming, and none shall help him.[15]


There is also a discussion on Christian Stack entitled What is a faithful translation for “the son of perdition” in John 17:12?

I thought the first answer was very thorough:

The Greek words used here are huois tes apoleias

"houis"
The Strongs number for this is G5207. Looking at the Vines entry, this definitely means "son". This can mean both "male offspring" or, more generically, "descendant".

"tes"
Strong G3588. This word means "of the". It's just a very simple word.

"apoleias"
Strong G684. This means "destruction", "perishing" or "ruin".

Translation

The literal translation of this phrase would be "son of destruction" or "son of ruin". The choice of using the word "perdition" is acceptable in the old form of the word ("utter destruction"), however it has taken on the connotation of "eternal damnation" and so it's no longer an appropriate translation, in my opinion.

In Context

If we look at what Jesus is saying here, he's saying that he saved and protected all of his disciples except for Judas. He refers to Judas as the "son of perdition" saying that he was the only one who he did not protect.

If we look at this in light of Luke, we find this verse:

Luke 22:3 (NIV)
Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.
Here, we see that Satan entered Judas. After that point (in John 17), Jesus calls Judas the "son of destruction". What he's referring to here is clearly that Judas was of Satan and not of God.

Was Judas innocent?

The problem with looking at things too closely is that we often lose sight of the bigger picture. The question being asked was, essentially, was Judas a product of circunstances or did he play an active role in betraying Jesus. If we read further in Luke we see this passage:

Luke 22:4-6 (NIV) Emphasis added
4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.
Clearly, there was plotting involved, a conscious effort to betray Jesus, and a choice that Judas made. While, yes, he was a "son of destruction" this was due to his actions and his choices.

Jesus was protecting the twelve apostles, except for Judas. But what was he protecting them from? He was protecting them from Satan! Once he stopped protecting Judas, the temptations and desires of Satan entered into him and he was overtaken by the overwhelming temptations, to which he succumbed.

Jesus allowed Judas to be tempted--he withdrew his protection from Judas so that Satan could enter into his heart--and Judas chose to turn away from God and from Jesus.

Summary

Jesus was protecting the apostles from being tempted by Satan. With Judas, he withdrew that protection so that Satan could enter into his heart and tempt him. With that temptation, Judas was allowed to choose to betray Jesus--which he did.

Judas intentionally plotted against Jesus and consented to the betrayal. Therefore was fully guilty of the betrayal.

shareimprove this answer
edited Oct 4 '11 at 15:36
answered Oct 4 '11 at 15:21

Richard
18.8k2596208

Are you saying that e.g. "the one doomed to destruction" is wrong, and that we should stick with the literal "son of destruction", or do you think it is acceptable? – James T Oct 4 '11 at 16:33
2
Given my full explanation, I think all of the translations are acceptable. Paraphrases tend to pull theology from other places in the bible in order to interpret specific phrases. So, the literal translation is most accurate to the original. The other translations tend to reflect theology found in other parts of the bible rather than the original language. – Richard Oct 4 '11 at 16:46
add a comment
Eastern Anglo-Catholic / Holy Fool; Inclusivism / Purgatorial Conditionalism / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Theosis; Zombie Apocalypse;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Kampo, Bruno Gröning, Johrei, Charismatic, Čhaŋnúŋpa);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 3024
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks


Return to General Discussion on Evangelical Universalism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Origen; and 7 guests