1

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

1.Is 'For' used as a conjunction?

2.What is the subject in the sentence?

that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

3.Is this part of sentence used as an adverbial-that-clause? I think this clause functions as in

I eat that I may live.

  • The subject of gave is He, which was omitted from your transcription. The subject of loved is God. The subject of shall not perish is whoever believes in Him. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Jan 7 '18 at 12:24
  • @Tᴚoɯɐuo it's my mistake. It was omitted. – SinK Jan 7 '18 at 12:32
  • 1
    Your understanding of that in that whoever... is correct: it has the force of so that. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Jan 7 '18 at 12:34
1
  1. You are correct in assuming that for is used as a conjunction there (see definition #2 in the Merriam-Webster dictionary). More generally, it is just an old-fashioned way to say because. You would see it used like that a lot if you ever get a chance to read the King James version of the Bible or Shakespeare's plays. So, we can actually reword the sentence to make it read like this:

Because God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son...

In other words, it's saying that the reason God gave his one and only son is because he loved the world very much.

  1. The subject of the clause whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life is whoever believes in him. Why? Well, in simple language, the subject of a sentence or a clause is what we're talking about and the predicate is what it's doing. What or who are we talking about in this clause? Apparently, it's whoever believes in him. That's what makes it the subject. What is happening with them or what are they doing? They shall not perish but have eternal life. And that's your predicate.

  2. That's exactly right. that connects the two dependent clauses he gave his one and only son and whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. And as Tᴚoɯɐuo aptly pointed out, it's similar in meaning to the expression so that.

  • 1
    If you find the use of for in the sense of “because” to be “old-fashioned” then (1) you'd be (mostly:-) right and (2) there’s a lot more where that came from, for the familiar King James Version of that verse is even fancier still: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” This may be hard for learners to understand in the old style it's written in, and might give even native speakers pause. – tchrist Jan 7 '18 at 15:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.