δίδωμι

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
At John 5:26 some Trinitarian friendly posters would like δίδωμι to mean "allow,"

2. to grant, give to one asking, let have:


But I don't see how that changes anything, since the sense is to grant or allow something which one does not already possess. So for instance Matt. 12:39 (σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ ), John 15:16 (ἵνα ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε τὸν Πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δῷ ὑμῖν), 1 John 5:16 (Ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, αἰτήσει, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον. ), etc.

Roger, your thoughts... I'm specifically referring to Trapeza's rather odd comment here:

I explained clearly that διδόναι means grant, allow or permit. This is not controversial in the least, but you like to argue about stupid things.
Trapeza imagines that by choosing the English word "permit" for δίδωμι at John 5:26 he is apparently presenting an "out" for Trinitarians, by supposedly allowing the possibility of this verse to say that Jesus already had life in himself, he only needed God's permission. But this betrays an ignorance of the range and function of δίδωμι in the bible, and certainly in the writings of apostle John. It never means the allowing of something one already possesses.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Joh 5:20 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ.

Where to begin? Simply this that one cannot exegete too much meaning out of one word. It means simply that God granted or allowed the Son to have life in himself. Now what that means can only be determined by a close examination of the word in context. And there is a lot of context in John 5...
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Joh 5:20 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ.

Where to begin? Simply this that one cannot exegete too much meaning out of one word. It means simply that God granted or allowed the Son to have life in himself. Now what that means can only be determined by a close examination of the word in context. And there is a lot of context in John 5...

Could you explain the difference between “ God gave the Son to have life in himself” vs “ God allowed the Son to have life in himself” ?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Joh 5:20 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ.

Where to begin? Simply this that one cannot exegete too much meaning out of one word. It means simply that God granted or allowed the Son to have life in himself. Now what that means can only be determined by a close examination of the word in context. And there is a lot of context in John 5...
That's John 5:26. I made the same mistake yesterday and did not catch it in time.

It seems to me that διδωμι has a range between active and passive. The English word "grant" does as well. One can grant something by action or inaction, grant passage by not preventing it for example.

So the BDAG gloss "grant" that contains J 5:26 does not favor either view. But their entry for ζωὴ that Christ received life tips it towards an active sense.


BDAG ζωὴ
β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a;
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
At John 5:26 some Trinitarian friendly posters would like δίδωμι to mean "allow,"

2. to grant, give to one asking, let have:


But I don't see how that changes anything, since the sense is to grant or allow something which one does not already possess. So for instance Matt. 12:39 (σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ ), John 15:16 (ἵνα ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε τὸν Πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δῷ ὑμῖν), 1 John 5:16 (Ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, αἰτήσει, καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον. ), etc.

Roger, your thoughts... I'm specifically referring to Trapeza's rather odd comment here:


Trapeza imagines that by choosing the English word "permit" for δίδωμι at John 5:26 he is apparently presenting an "out" for Trinitarians, by supposedly allowing the possibility of this verse to say that Jesus already had life in himself, he only needed God's permission. But this betrays an ignorance of the range and function of δίδωμι in the bible, and certainly in the writings of apostle John. It never means the allowing of something one already possesses.
Well, the word has a wide range of usage. And if BDAG is the standard, and no evidence has been given otherwise and we allow BDAG to interpret itself we have:

BDAG ζωὴ
β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a;

So in effect Jesus is saying he received life in himself from the Father at J 5:26.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Well, the word has a wide range of usage. And if BDAG is the standard, and no evidence has been given otherwise and we allow BDAG to interpret itself we have:

BDAG ζωὴ
β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a;

So in effect Jesus is saying he received life in himself from the Father at J 5:26.
Yes, I don’t see how the statement makes sense any other way. Thanks for that citation.
 
At John 5:26 some Trinitarian friendly posters would like δίδωμι to mean "allow,"
You are obsessed with the Trinity. I am not “Trinitarian friendly.” I believe in the Trinity even less than you do! You just cannot imagine that the world is not divided up into Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian. Your mind is completely devoted to this one concept. The rest of us, those who don’t operate in your sphere, do not think about the Trinity all day. Nor do we make it the focus of all of our conversations. I don’t support one person because he’s a Trinitarian and withdraw support from another because he’s not. This question doesn’t come up in my thinking when I approach what someone is arguing. There are non-Trinitarians here who I agree with quite a bit. I don’t agree with you, though, on nearly anything because you’re a wicked creature that does nothing but spread lies, half-truths, and nonsense.
 
And then you continue your old habit of opening multiple threads on topics that are already being discussed, trying to break up the topic and make people post between threads. This must be a professional troll tactic.
 
I can only think of how unfortunate people are not to know Hebrew. We always use the word נָתַן to mean “let.” This is a very common meaning of the word, and the usage in Greek parallels it perfectly.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I can only think of how unfortunate people are not to know Hebrew. We always use the word נָתַן to mean “let.” This is a very common meaning of the word, and the usage in Greek parallels it perfectly.
Hebrew and Greek are two different languages.

I think you just lack discernment. The simplest of the apostle’s and of Jesus’s words are twisted in your strange hands. Read and take heed of the BGAG entry which Roger furnished above, if you won’t take my word for it. Be reasonable.

Why won’t you tell us the difference in meaning between saying “ God gave the Son to have life in himself” and “ God granted the Son to have life in himself” ?

Do you even know ? Or are you just seeking attention, or else perhaps out to create mischief , or maybe are just plain ignorant ?
 
Why won’t you tell us the difference in meaning between saying “ God gave the Son to have life in himself” and “ God granted the Son to have life in himself” ?
One does not “give someone to do something” in English. It isn’t something we say. “I gave him to see my bank statement.” No, you allowed him to see your bank statement. So, what is the difference? The first is nonsense in English; the second is good English.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
One does not “give someone to do something” in English. It isn’t something we say. “I gave him to see my bank statement.” No, you allowed him to see your bank statement. So, what is the difference? The first is nonsense in English; the second is good English.

I think you finally figured out that there is no real difference in meaning between the two statements, and above is just a lame excuse to save face. It is not “nonsense in English” to say the following:

“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;”

KJV
 
I think you finally figured out that there is no real difference in meaning between the two statements, and above is just a lame excuse to save face. It is not “nonsense in English” to say the following:

“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;”

KJV
Yes, it’s nonsense. We don’t give people to do things. That’s not how ANYONE speaks English today.

You’re sounding like a KJV-Only nut. Look at other translations and stop trying to force the KJV down our throats.
 
Last edited:
There’s a semantic difference between give someone to eat something and give someone something to eat. The former is not good English—it should be allow someone to eat something. The latter is good English.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Yes, it’s nonsense. We don’t give people to do things. That’s not how ANYONE speaks English today.
No, it is not. You just have understood the verse incorrectly. The following is a dead give-away:

“One does not “give someone to do something” in English.”

John 5:26 is not saying “the Father gave Jesus to do eternal life” but “the Father Gave Jesus to have eternal life.”

You are just confused, that’s all.
 
Top