I’ve certainly been skeptical about a lot of things, but I’ve never doubted what the word “if” meant.

In other words, I’ve learned that, if I didn’t meet the conditions required to either correct or achieve the desired result of any stipulation, then it wasn’t gonna’ happen.

But when I used to read the Bible, seeing this word in the text never raised any flags for me. And I’d never heard anybody suggest that “if” had any significance to the things Jesus Christ or His apostles taught. However, after learning to study the Scriptures inductively, I developed a skill for extracting its meaning based completely on the text rather than on any particular doctrine.

And if I can learn to do that, anybody can.

The Greek Particle “εἰ” [meaning “if,”or sometimes “since”] forms the basis for First Class Conditional sentences in the Greek New Testament. Of the over 500 occurrences of “εἰ,” approximately 300 function as the protasis of those conditional sentences. The protasis is the “if” in a conditional sentence that reads, “If…then…” “Then” is called the apodosis in the conditional sentence, and is commonly implied rather than actually used.

In his letter to all who [were] beloved of God in Rome, called as saints, the apostle Paul’s use of the word “if” was fundamental to establishing the significance of the concept of “Christ being in you” for the reader:

“However, you are not [then] in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells In you. But if anyone does not possess the spirit of Christ, [then] he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, [then] the Spirit [is] alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, [then] He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead shall also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” [Rom. 8:9-11] [brackets mine] [my emphasis]

[Is being “in” Christ that important? see: [Getting the Most Out of In]

He then reminded them that they were not in debt to their flesh—that their actions must bear witness to their ownership in the Lord:

“So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, [that is], to live according to the flesh. For if you are living according to the flesh, [then] you are destined to die. But if, by the Spirit, you are putting to death the deeds of the body, [then] you shall live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” [Rom. 8:12-14] [brackets mine] [my emphasis]

So why is it important to be able to recognize conditional sentences in the Bible?

Because conditional expectations aren’t exclusive to this life only. Note the conditions that Paul places upon the brothers in Rome for “belonging” to Christ, or the penalty awaiting them if they continued to live “according to the flesh.”

And remember that his letter was written to the saints. They were already “saved.”

[ἅγιος: (hâ’-gee-âs) a saint; someone set apart to or by God; consecrated; holy; morally pure; upright]

“If” is a little word with big consequences.

The preposition “in” is a term we don’t often give much thought.

And the semantic range of the Greek word ἐν [meaning in, on or among] was extensive in the minds of the apostolic authors of the First Century. But most uses weren’t critical to understanding Jesus Christ’s good news about God’s kingdom.

However, when it was recorded to describe a position of close affiliation and structured grammatically as a conditional sentence, the implications were crucial for the Biblical reader to grasp.

For example, what does it actually mean to be “in Christ?”

In the seventh chapter of the apostle Paul’s letter to all who [were] beloved of God in Rome, called as saints, he illustrated the complex nature of the struggle between the flesh and the spiritual Law embedded in every man or woman called to obedience in the Lord Jesus Christ:

“For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, having been sold into bondage to sin.” [Rom. 7; 14]

And in Paul’s mind, this conflict between the will of the flesh and a man’s desire to live righteously had only one solution:

“Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” [Rom. 7:24-8:1] [my emphasis]

This is an interesting statement.

Because ἐν was always expressed in the Dative case, typically suggesting proximity, both spatially as well as in the context of association. And it seems highly unlikely that I could realistically reflect the character of anybody I wasn’t actually close to.

So, is being “in Christ” just an issue of semantics?

You bet it is. Any serious relationship requires a lot of hard work. It takes a commitment of time and effort to get to know someone well—even Jesus. His death unshackled me from the bondage of my sin, but my resulting relationship with Him won’t mean much if it’s only sought as an occasional necessity.

To be “in Christ” demands a healthy extent of personal, determined involvement in what the text of the Scriptures confirms were His priorities.

In order to do that, I’ve gotta be all in.

“…but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him.” [1Jn. 2:5]

.

Taking up your cross is the choice that keeps on shelling out.

That’s why Jesus encouraged His disciples to do it. But I think too many of us are deceiving ourselves about what it really takes to lay down our lives for His sake.

“...If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life [ψυχή: soul, being, life] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? [ψυχή: soul, being, life] Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father—with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.” [Matt. 16:24-27] [my emphasis or additions]

I didn’t notice any instructions here to join a congregation and lend a hand once in a while.

Of course, becoming part of a congregation is a natural consequence of the Spirit at work in each of us. Fellowship and generosity are a vital part of the marrow existing inside the bones of His Body. Without them, that Body would be severely compromised.

On the other hand though, Jesus never suggested that discipleship is demonstrated predominately through charitable behavior.

Giving is easy—especially if I have something to spare.

For what man is denying himself who finds some time to show up and help out when convenience permits? It might even be that he doesn’t have to start driving an older vehicle or sell all his toys. But, if he truly wants to examine what he might be willing to give up in exchange for his life, perhaps he should reevaluate the significance of what he continues to treasure in his bubble of privacy.

I didn’t used to realize that I’d never reap the precious life I thought was already mine until I actually practiced what Jesus and His disciples spoke about.

So reaping rewards from Jesus Christ when He returns used to be irrelevant to me because I had no understanding about how His good news about God’s kingdom was connected to reaping. [see: Matt. 16:27; Gal. 6:7-8]

There will be reapers and there will be weepers.

The call to discipleship is the opportunity to reap. But the greatest stumbling block to God’s people for reaping abundantly in Christ’s kingdom won’t be for their lack of generosity.

It’ll be their lack of tenacity.

No man is fit to rule over another, right?

Perhaps that depends on who you ask.

While the Framers of the Constitution of the United States were adamantly opposed to the traditional notion of an individual sovereign, they did weave some threads of executive authority into the fabric of what this country attempts to achieve in the form of balanced powers of government.

Their intent was that this Executive Branch was to implement the will of a responsible citizenry through their elected representatives. It was to lead, yet remain accountable to the collective voice of the people.

This was to be accomplished through the Electoral process in the several state legislatures, rather than by popular vote—a process proven to be easily corrupted. The Electoral College was thought to be the most equitable approach for rendering the unified will of the people under a single mechanism.

It’s no secret that most of our nation’s founders regarded the only legitimate source of authority to flow from God Himself, through His people, to those whom His people elect. Hence, our system of self-governance was designed to keep this chain of sovereignty unobstructed, because history has demonstrated that when that flow of authority is interrupted, the Lord will indeed let the chips fall where they may.

The fool has always argued that true freedom makes no provision for any form of moral authority. But there’s a wealth of documentation from the eighteenth century confirming that the Framers established The United States Constitution with the understanding that it could effectively serve only a society bound to a legitimate code of moral conduct.

Some reliable sources even claim that our system of balanced powers was based upon [or at least be inspired by] verses in the Scriptures;

“For the Lord is our judge [Judicial Branch],

The Lord is our lawgiver [Legislative Branch],

The Lord is our king [Executive Branch];

He will save us“ [Isa. 33:22] [parenthesis mine]

I can’t verify the accuracy of this claim, but I certainly accept that it’s plausible.

The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with examples of how a nation refused, time after time, to govern itself by the standards of its Sovereign, that is, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As such, the reality of human liberty is seldom as it seems. It’s subject to the stumbling blocks of temptation on a daily basis.

And even a righteous government can’t help the man content to live in bondage.

But God’s design and establishment of the nation of Israel provided the world with a paradigm for personal freedom and just ruling among His people. It was a system virtually unheard of in that day.

The principle that personal freedom had only One Legitimate Source was as evident then as it is today. Many brilliant men have attempted to improve upon this system, asserting that freedom is a right granted unconditionally from our Creator with no strings attached.

However, without the moral clarity demonstrated by personal repentance and submission to the only Righteous King, Jesus Christ, real freedom is only a pipe dream for even the most determined citizen.

So, can a disciple of Jesus Christ truly be a patriot as well?

The answer to that might depend upon my understanding of the two terms. It seems that the man who truly appropriates and discharges the expected functions of both could readily bear the title of the one as well as the other.

But if the ideals of one ever conflict with the other, then choices need to be made. History confirms that such circumstances existed.

The life in complete surrender to the Righteous King is a life bound up together with Him. 

And there’s no end to the freedom.

The Lord’s Revelation to His apostle John is translated into plain English.

But can the untrained disciple really understand the allegorical references to the events preceding Jesus Christ’s return? Should he try to read it without some level of qualified assistance?

Maybe that shouldn’t be his goal.

Many would readily surrender this task to the professional scholar or clergyman, suggesting that the art of reading between the lines requires certain resources connected to formal instruction. As a result, the escatalogical flowcharts abound. We can pick and choose.

But, while the metaphors are certainly relevant to Biblical prophesy, they’re clearly secondary to the theme of the first three chapters of the book known as ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ⸀ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ, or Revelation of John.

By focusing on the introduction, I can discover two important reasons about why it was written:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants [δοῦλος: a slave, bond servant], the things which must soon take place. And He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one reading and those who are hearing the words of the prophecy, and heeding the things which are written in it, for the time is near.” [Rev. 1:1-3] [my emphasis]

If indeed I consider myself to be a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and I’m reading, hearing and heeding the words of Biblical prophecy, I could eventually determine how to apply these verbs to John’s visions of multi-headed dragons, seals and bowls.

On the other hand, I could discover that the first three chapters of the Revelation of John are explicitly prophetic as the Biblical definition of prophecy goes—that is, that it’s not always about predicting the future. And, if I chose to re-read them, I’d also realize that they’re remarkably straightforward and coherent. I wouldn’t need study guides, commentaries or puzzling diagrams to understand them.

[προφητεία: (prô-fā-tāy’-ah) prophesy, preaching the message of God, the gift of preaching the message of God, an inspired message or utterance, intelligible preaching; sometimes proclaiming the future as a warning to preparedness and continued obedience]

Embedded in each passage of prophesy spoken to the seven churches in these first three chapters is the assurance of future rewards and honor in Christ’s presence for “overcoming,” or being a“victor” over the power of sin in this age.

[νικάω: (nǐ-kâh’-ōh) to conquer, overcome; win the verdict]

For example: “He who is overcoming, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” [Rev. 3:21 ]

Not only that, each instance was followed with a common charge, expressed in the Greek Imperative Mood, making it a statement of force rather than a suggestion:

“The one having an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” [Rev. 3:22]

One dog in me wants to dwell on the mystery of prophetical visions.

The other one just wants to eat what’s set before him.

It certainly sounds like something I should have.

And, at the time of Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry, it was the most highly sought after state of existence. It was the ultimate ambition of every man, woman and child of the ancient Jewish and early Christian Church culture of the First Century.

The Synoptic Gospel accounts even describe two separate instances where Jesus was directly questioned concerning the exact qualifications and conditions necessary for either “inheriting” or “having” something referred to as eternal life [ζωή αἰώνιος]. And these are only what was recorded. [see; Matt. 19:16, Mk. 10:17, Lk. 18:18, 10:25]

So how can I get it?

If I consider myself to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, perhaps the first thing I’d want to establish is what it actually is.

The Hebrew word “עֹלָם” [(ōlâm): long duration, antiquity, futurity] was commonly translated as “everlasting” throughout the Old Testament. The parallel Greek New Testament term “αἰώνιος” [eye-ówn-ee-ôs] is defined as “eternal, unending, everlasting,” but in a context of quality rather than time.

And given the breadth of their meanings, it’s not easy to bring the full realm of definition across in any translation. Even so, the serious Bible student would do well to recognize the word “eternal” from a perspective of value rather than duration.

For example, in a closing sentence, Jesus confirmed the future consequences for those who would fail to act upon His commands, and those who would not:

“These will go away into eternal punishment [κόλασις: correction, punishment], but the righteous into eternal life.” [Matt. 25:46] [my emphasis]

The reader can clearly recognize the contrast between the two different outcomes modified with the adjective αἰώνιος [eternal]. The nouns “punishment” and “life” are expressed in diametric opposition to each other. But the force of “eternal” is identical in both instances. As a modifier of each of the nouns, its presence as an adjective attaches a condition of quality to each outcome. The quality of one outcome was good, the other— not so much.

But even if I’m able to “go away into” eternal life someday, what does that mean to me here and now?

The meaning of ζωή αἰώνιος is exhaustive in its ability to defy the presence of time. Biblical scholars have long noted that both עֹלָם and αἰώνιος have always carried a semantical connection to something not completely in view or comprehensible. Their dimensions extend both into the past as well as the future, perhaps reinforcing the idea that the Creator of their meanings was—and is, unrestricted by the constraints of time.

So, for Christ’s disciple, perhaps the real essence of “eternal life” can best be understood in the apostle John’s first letter:

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.” [1Jn. 1:1-4] [my emphasis]

The Source of eternal life had been revealed to John, and He manifested Himself in the bond of fellowship. The implication is clear. Through belief, Christ’s disciple’s lives were bound up together with that of the Source’s, that is, Jesus Christ:

“If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himseif is in the Light, we have feliowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” [1 Jn.1:6-7]

It would seem to me that any life in genuine cohesion with the Lord would have to be a life that experiences quality, not just duration.

And by definition, it’s clearly a process:

“And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who is possessing the Son possesses the life. He who is not possessing the Son of God does not possess the life.” [1Jn. 5:11-12] [my emphasis]

It’s worth noting that the Greek verb ἔχω [(echō): to have, to hold, to possess] had a very broad semantical range to include the the characteristics of compliance as well as association. It was a very inclusive word often used to suggest the presence of an obedient heart.

John’s words here are fairly straightforward. Though God had given the life, the potential for its actualization was realized through possession of the Son. ζωή αἰώνιος [eternal life] was the gemstone of the disciples of Jesus Christ and His Church.

It was a precious pearl they sought.

So, if I perceive eternal life as nothing more than a gift in perpetuity at my resurrection, then I’ve clearly misinterpreted its meaning. On the other hand, the full dimension of what eternal life actually is can only be realized by being raised from the dead [or transformed] and sharing in Jesus Christ’s glory and inheritance when He returns to inaugurate His kingdom. [see: ICor. 15]

My capacity to take hold of eternal life in the present day seems to parallel the sanctification process taking place in me, because any desire I have to overcome the world by living in faithful obedience to Him can never be demonstrated in a life lacking quality.

If my perspective of eternal life is focused only on the future, I might never experience it in the completeness that God intended for me to.

What kinda life would that be?