If we died with him, we will also live with him.

[sitifan]

If we died with him, we will also live with him.
Source: 2 Timothy 2:11, New International Version.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2 Timothy 2:11

The above sentence is a blend of first and second conditionals, isn't it?
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/sentences/conditional-sentences/

 

[Annabel Lee]

The above sentence is a blend of first and second conditionals, isn't it?

No. In context, the "if"-clause seems to be about the past -- a dying to something in the past -- not about a possible future happening. The "then"-clause promises that, if that took (or has taken) place, "we will live with him" in the future. Thus, grammatically, the conditional may be compared to a conditional as mundane as the following one:

If you turned in the book late, you will receive a fine in the mail.​

That does not mean "If you turned in the book, you would receive a fine in the mail" (2nd conditional) or "If you turn in the book, you will receive a fine in the mail" (1st conditional), each of which concerns the future. Rather, in the italicized example, the speaker assumes that the book was turned in (in the past) and states what will happen if it was turned in late.

 

[jutfrank]

It depends what you mean by 'first' and 'second' conditional. If you're talking purely about form, then yes.

But as Annabel Lee correctly says above, the condition clause expresses a real condition, not an unreal one. In other words, dying is a historical fact rather than a hypothetical.

 

[Annabel Lee]

If we died with him, we will also live with him.
Source: 2 Timothy 2:11, New International Version.

In the King James Version, the sentence reads as follows:

If we be dead with him, we shall also live with him.​

The "if"-clause is in the subjunctive but seems to be about the present rather than about the future. This interpretation is consistent with the use of the past tense in the "if"-clause of the New International Version. If we died, we are dead.

 

[jutfrank]

The "if"-clause is in the subjunctive but seems to be about the present rather than about the future

Yes, I too think it's essentially about a real present. In fact, both clauses relate to present time, I think. The theological message by my reading is something akin to "If you have Christ in your heart now, you may share in his eternal majesty (both now and after you die physically)."

 

[Annabel Lee]

The theological message by my reading is something akin to "If you have Christ in your heart now, you may share in his eternal majesty (both now and after you die physically)."

Beautiful. The message in the verse Sitifan has quoted strikes me as very similar to the message of Romans 6:11:

"Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."​

​

Parsing the grammar together with the semantics here almost requires a sermon. I wonder what John Donne would have said.