Timothy
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Timothy
KeymasterAnders,
As you know, our default hermeneutic is to take literally whatever can be taken literally. However, when literal interpretation necessarily leads to an absurdity or impossibility, no doubt we are dealing with a metaphor, allegory, or hyperbole.
I don’t think Isa. 30:26 can be taken literally, since the earth would be completely scorched, and everyone would be blinded. The context itself refers to the restoration of Israel in the Kingdom. “Light” is a metaphor for the revelation knowledge of God in the NT (ex. Jn. 8:12). Compare this to Isa. 11:9, “for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” See also Isa. 60:1-3.
Timothy
KeymasterThis clause is found many times in the LXX as a rendering of the Hebrew “olam.” This Hebrew term is sometimes claimed to mean infinite time, but more accurately it is indefinite time, as if beyond the horizon (without defining if or when an end might come). Given that the Jewish LXX translators translated “olam” as “unto the age” in Greek certainly could imply the same indefinite time. The NT seems to borrow this clause from the LXX.
Timothy
KeymasterSam,
Sorry for the delay. The sacrifice for sin had to be human not divine. The shedding of blood is not possible for a divine Being who is immortal and has no blood. On the other hand, a mere human (one of God’s billions of creatures) could not be the sacrifice for sin, because in that case God Himself could not take upon Himself any of the consequences of our sin.
“Kenosis” is the solution to this problem. God begat a Son, the “only-begotten of the Father,” who was His apprentice in creation, His Agent in communicating with man, the Son He has been grooming to become “King of kings and Lord of lords.” This is the “only-begotten Son” whom God gave to become flesh and die, because “God so loved the world.” The same “Son of God” was the Agent through whom God created all things (Col. 1:15-17) is the Son of God through whom He is reconciling all things to Himself (Col. 1:20).
In this model of redemption God takes upon Himself the anguish and responsibility of the atonement by doing what He asked Abraham to do — “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Gen. 22:2 NKJ). It is important to understand that Abraham’s sacrifice was to be at least as great as Isaac’s sacrifice. This is THE model of the redemption of man.
Unfortunately, Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Modalism, and Arianism all greatly diminish God’s own sacrifice which demonstrates the extent of His love for humanity. Consequently, all of these diminish the Gospel which (in its unpolluted form) “is the power of God to salvation to everyone who believes.”
In 1 John 1:2 the Son was called “the age-enduring Life” because He was the first “Life” apart from God (immortal), and He is the one through whom we will receive immortality. After becoming mortal man and after dying to make atonement for us, He was raised to immortality as the prototype for what God will do for us also in the resurrection.
Timothy
KeymasterYes, “he” should not be capitalized. Thanks for catching that. The preposition εἰς means “unto, into, for,” – extent. The idea is that he would not see death for the duration of the age. Again, IMO, that is the age to come. This phrase refers to indefinite time as opposed to infinite time, same as the Hebrew “olam.” It does not indicate an “end” but at the same time it does not necessarily mean “endless.” Here is how Young’s Literal Translation renders this verse: “Verily, verily, I say to you, If any one may keep my word, death he may not see — to the age.’ (Jn. 8:51 YLT)
Timothy
KeymasterSam,
The clause εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα “unto the age” can refer to the present age or the Kingdom age. IMO, it must refer to the Kingdom age otherwise it would be saying that Christians cannot die.
July 12, 2023 at 10:34 am in reply to: Due to the Use of Greek Lestes and kakourgos for Thief 4 men were crucified?. #4742Timothy
KeymasterRaymond,
This is complete nonsense. First, the alleged distinction between λῃσταί (robbers) in Matthew & Mark and κακούργους (criminals) in Luke is not a real distinction, since these terms are not mutually exclusive. “Robbers” are “criminals.” The term “robber” is more specific, but “criminals” includes robbers. If Luke intended to indicate two more other than those mentioned by Matthew and Mark he would have used a specific term which described their crimes as something other than robbers. The term “criminals” is generic and includes any crime punishable by death. Since Luke stated that there were two “criminals” (which includes “robbers”), there could not be four “criminals.”
His claim that the Greek of John 19:18 supports two men crucified on each side of Jesus (for a total of four) is wrong. καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄλλους δύο, ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν, μέσον δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν, (and with Him two others, here and there, but in the midst Jesus). That there were only two others and not four is also indicated by vs. 32: “Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.” The critical point is that τοῦ ἄλλου (“the other”) is singular, which necessarily means there were only two crucified with Jesus. All four Gospels agree on this point.
There is no difficulty at all with the idea that both men at first ridiculed Jesus, but that one of them had a change of heart while hanging on the cross for several hours, especially after the supernatural sign of the sun turning dark for 3 hours while they were hanging there.
Whoever wrote that piece seems to be attempting to undermine some other text (1 Cor. 12-14) by providing an example of bad translation regarding the two thieves. But he obviously does not know what he is talking about. His excessive use of hyperbole and absurd metaphor, and his use of foul language, are also evidence that he is not being objective, but has an ax to grind.
Timothy
KeymasterThat would be my guess. They are calling for “peace” and “security.” Also, in Jer. 6:13-14 & Jer. 8:10-12 the false prophets prophesied “peace” when God has declared judgement.
Timothy
KeymasterSam,
I agree with your last post. I would also add that what Jesus told Nicodemus, “Unless a man be born again, he cannot SEE the Kingdom of God,” and again, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot ENTER the kingdom of God,” these words were spoken in a very limited context. That context was the fact that the Jewish leaders (particularly the Pharisees), had placed their “hope” in achieving an inheritance in the Kingdom in two things:
1. Their physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
2. Their outward adherence to the Law of Moses.Jesus repeatedly condemned them as “hypocrites” (see Mat. 23), and He challenged the validity of their physical descent from Abraham in John 8:33-59. When they said, “Abraham is our father” (v. 39) Jesus said, “You are of your father the devil” because their “works” revealed that they were not Abraham’s descendants in God’s sight because they did not do the works of Abraham.
So, within THIS context, speaking to Nicodemus a Pharisee, Jesus made the above statements in John 3. These words were not intended to make an all-inclusive theological claim about all mankind, but addressed these Pharisees of whom Nicodemus was a part. In other words, unless they embraced the Gospel they would have no part in the resurrection of the just.
Timothy
KeymasterSam,
The general principle behind Sharp’s rule usually holds true. But Sharp pressed it too far in attempting to find the “deity of Christ” in certain passages where that was not the intent. Sharp defined the rule too narrowly by excluding plurals and impersonal nouns, rather than allowing those Sharp constructions to help define the intent of this construction. Sharp was trying to claim that the rule indicates that two nouns of the same case always refer to the same PERSON. But the truth of the matter is that the two nouns that fit the first rule are indeed being joined together in a unit for some important reason, but not necessarily to make them refer to the same person (although sometimes they do). For example, the plural nouns “the scribes and Pharisees” fit Sharp’s construction except they are plurals. So he excluded plural nouns because they falsified his rule. Obviously they cannot refer to the same people. However, they are intentionally being joined into one unit, the single group that was opposing Jesus. Sharp also excluded all non-personal nouns (which also falsified his rule) and even singular personal nouns which were proper names, again because they falsified his rule. Sharp’s rule is helpful in exegesis to show that the writer’s intent was to join two persons, classes, or things into a single entity, group, or event without necessarily indicating that the two nouns are identical. This broader understanding fits well with Titus 2:13 where the two nouns are not personal, “the blessed hope and glorious appearing.” The 2 nouns are being joined by this construction into a single group, while not being made identical with each other. In Titus 2:13, the “glorious appearing” is Christ’s coming to defeat the Antichrist and armies of the nations when every eye will see Him. The “blessed hope” is our being gathered to Him at that event. They are joined here because both events occur at the same TIME, not because both terms are identical.
There are other problems with the way that Sharp applied his rule to persons, in part because there are other ways that a noun can be made definite in Greek without using the definite article. For example, in the same verse in the clause, “the great God and our Savior,” Sharp applied his rule to show that Jesus is called “the great God,” because “great God” has the definite article, but Savior does not. However, the genitive “our” (of us) makes the second noun definite by identifying WHOSE Savior. So in reality, both nouns are made definite in this clause, but in different ways (one by the article and the other by the genitive of possession). The sense is then to distinguish them (as Sharp’s 2nd rule does) not make them refer to the same person.
Timothy
KeymasterSam,
While chapters 2-3 deal with the “things which are” (the seven churches which existed in John’s day), the promises attached to each do indeed concern the future. This is apparent because most of them deal with the Kingdom. For example, to the overcomers in Ephesus, Jesus promised they would eat of the Tree of Life. To Smyrna, the overcomers would not be subject to the second death. To Thyatira, the promise to the overcomers is they would rule the nations with a rod of iron (a reference to Psalm 2). So while the circumstances Jesus was addressing certainly existed at the time John wrote, all of the promises are about the distant future.
Timothy
KeymasterJoe,
The oldest manuscripts and the vast majority of manuscripts have ἀσελγείαις which means “sensual” or “licentious.” The KJV was made from only a handful of very late Greek manuscripts and considering the Latin Vulgate. Apparently ἀπωλείαις (“destructive ways”) was found in some of the late manuscripts which they had.
Timothy
KeymasterDave,
Sorry for the delay. Yes, I have been extremely busy. The articles you found explain my position. I do not think you should create division. As long as you are tolerated, there is no problem continuing to fellowship, IMO. However, unless you remain totally silent on this topic, you probably will eventually be asked to leave. IMO, your best approach would be to have conversations only with the pastor and other leaders elders or deacons. If you confine your discussions to them, and let them know that this is what you are doing, they may not feel as threatened and be more willing to have frank discussions.
Timothy
KeymasterPramod,
Questions about the LGV would probably be better in the forum marked “Exegesis of Specific Passages.”
Timothy
KeymasterThanks for catching that. I corrected it. 🙂
Timothy
KeymasterRoman,
I do not think God is ever surprised by any event, nor does He change His mind. Since it was always the Son who interacted with mankind as God’s agent, and not the Father Himself, I take all of these kinds of statements as referring to the Son. Since the Son had an origin, His experience was limited to time since creation. So He was learning by experience, IMO.
-
AuthorPosts