Timothy
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Jonathan,
1. The Bible uses human procreative terminology to tell us about the relationship of the Father and Son, such as “begotten” and “only-begotten of the Father.” When these terms are understood in their normal sense, it requires that the Son was begotten of the same “kind” as God. It does not, however, require that the Son was eternal simply because the Father is. The fact that He had a beginning (which “begotten” requires) means they had a different history, the one existing before time and the other in time. Take for example Adam and Seth. Both were of the same “kind” – fully human. But they had a different history. Adam was created as an adult, while Seth was begotten as a baby and had to grow up to adulthood. IMO, it is a mistake to assume immutability (unchangeableness) for the begotten Son. Being “eternal” is a description of God’s history before time began (which we have no way of understanding). But God chose to beget His Son as “the Beginning” of TIME (6 days of creation), and thus within time. Can God change in His ontological nature? We cannot know that. All Scriptures that refer to God not changing have to do with His character and His faithfulness to keep His word. No Scripture suggests that God cannot alter His ontological nature, which we do not even know what that is. Likewise, it is fully within God’s power to beget a Son of like kind and give Him the capacity for change in order to “become flesh.” IMO, the “change” argument is entirely philosophical, not biblical, and presumes things that we simply cannot know. It is better to just take Scripture at face value.
2. I believe the Bible is clear in passages such as John 1:14 and Phil. 2:6-8 that Jesus was fully transformed from a divine being (of the same “kind” as God) into a human being. This transformation was permanent. He did not retain “divinity” as part of His ontological nature at His birth from Mary, nor regain it after His resurrection. Instead, He was to become a glorified man, made immortal (as we will also be in our resurrection – 1 Jn. 3:2). We do not become “divine beings” in the resurrection.
3. We do not agree with “hypostatic union” of later Trinitarianism, that Jesus ever possessed two natures simultaneously. Rather He possessed 2 natures sequentially, first divine, then human. But now He is resurrected, glorified, and immortal, but still human.
Bread gives physical “life” in this age, but God’s words in the Gospel gives “life” for the age to come. Those who live (remain alive) “by bread alone” have a temporary life for this age only. But those who obey God’s Words (now) have “life” that will continue again after death in the resurrection. John wrote: “He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 Jn. 5:12 NKJ). John spoke of our having “life” (eternal) both now and in the future (cf. 1 Jn. 2:25). The reason for this is because we have the Spirit, which is the deposit on eternal life, the resurrection to immortality (Rom. 6:1-14; Eph. 1:14)
Yes, regarding statements in the Law which are quoted in the NT, the reference is to “life” in the age to come via resurrection. Consider Rom. 7:10 where Paul refers to the Law which was supposed to being “life” instead brought “death” to Paul. Again, the reference is to “life” in the age to come vs. literal “death.” Paul found the Law, which states that those who keep it will have “life” through the Law, Paul found that because he could not keep it, the Law was a “death” sentence for him. Again, keep in mind the juxtaposition of ideas, “life” vs. “death.” Paul did not DIE at the time, nor was he thinking that the Law brought some sort of “spiritual” death. For Paul, since the path to “life” (immortality) was through keeping the Law of Moses, his own failures to keep it meant he had no hope of the resurrection to immortality. This is where grace stepped in and the New Covenant solved the problem.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Pramod,
The word ζήσεται (translated “shall live”) means to be physically ALIVE. In the future tense (as here) it refers to BECOMING ALIVE in the future (cf. Matt. 9:18; Jn. 11:25). In the NT it implies the resurrection, thus “eternal life.” The LGV note was intended to distinguish the English word “LIVE” from how it is commonly understood, — one’s MANNER of living. In other words, one might suppose that LIVING by God’s words, or LIVING by faith, simply means conducting ourselves in this age. But that is not the meaning. In Matt. 4:4 and Lk. 4:4 Jesus’ statement refers to eternal life in the coming age, not to one’s day-to-day manner of living in this age. Translate the word “live” as to “be alive” and you will have the proper sense. Jesus was saying that “bread” may provide LIFE now in this age, but LIFE in the age to come is provided by adherence to God’s words. God’s words do not necessarily provide “LIFE” in this age, as we all grow old and die. But God’s words heeded now in this age will provide LIFE in the resurrection and the coming age. In the same way, the statement, “the just shall LIVE by faith,” means the “just” who have “faith” now will BE ALIVE in the resurrection (eternal life).
Grace & Peace, Tim
Anders,
Sorry I missed this earlier. I agree with everything except the last paragraph. IMO, the 144,000 in Rev. 14, who are the “First-fruits,” are the Sethites, the very first covenant people of God who “called to themselves the name of Yahweh,” the descendants of Seth who did not corrupt themselves with women (Gen. 6). They are seen on Mt. Zion as resurrected and in the Kingdom.
IMO, “All Israel” that will be saved at Christ’s return is ONLY the 144,000, 12k from each tribe mentioned in ch. 7. Paul refers to “all Israel” meaning the 12 tribes, not every Israelite.
Anders,
The “Bride” in Rev. 21-22 is the New (restored) Jerusalem. I think the “guests” are the individual believers, both Jew and Gentile, both living and resurrected. In the OT we have Jerusalem and her children in passages such as Isa. 50:1 etc.
Michael,
That’s a tough one IF we base the decision exclusively on the external textual evidence. This is because κατισχύσητε (have strength / be able) seems to be the older reading, but καταξιωθῆτε (be counted worthy) seems to come from a much wider geographical area and be by far the majority reading. I will have to do some research into quotes of this verse in the ECFs also before I translate it in the LGV. In any case, I will certainly put in a footnote explaining the variant and the external evidence.
Based on the internal evidence, I would lean heavily towards κατισχύσητε (have strength / be able) as the original reading. The other reading is at best awkward. The subjunctive verb κατισχύσητε fits MUCH better with the infinitive ἐκφυγεῖν (“to escape”). This is because ἐκφυγεῖν is in the active voice, not passive voice. That means the one watching and praying actively performs the action of escaping, rather than God doing the action while the one watching and praying is passive in escaping (such as a pre-trib rapture would require). It really ought to be translated “flee” (which requires personal action) rather than “escape” (which could be understood as passive). So, praying to be “found worthy” to actively do something that one does himself seems to be somewhat difficult and awkward. Also, the clause “all these things” in this context includes BOTH the events of AD66-70 and the events of the end-times, so it is equally applicable to BOTH for Christians living through them. We therefore have the historical precedent of the AD66-70 “escape” of the early Christians from the Roman army which clearly involved their active fleeing on foot when they saw the Roman army attempting to surround Jerusalem (as Jesus commanded in vss. 20-21). So, based on the internal evidence I will have to translate the passage something like this: “Be alert the whole time, praying, so that you may have strength to flee all these things that are about to occur, and to stand before the Son of Man.”
Finally, keep in mind that in either case this verse does not indicate what we should pray for specifically, but rather what is the intended result, what we should hope to attain by watching and praying, what would be the result. This verse contains what is called a “ἵνα clause” (hina-clause), which is the conjunction ἵνα (that) followed by a verb in the subjunctive mood. This kind of construction always means “so that, in order that, etc” pointing to the intended result, which is either “to be found worthy” or “to have strength” depending on the variant. (Compare Matt. 26:41 which has the same construction). In other words, this verse tells us what we might hope to attain by being watchful and praying. It does NOT tell us how to pray or what specifically to pray about. In that case, the variant becomes much less important.
Grace & Peace, Tim
No, Irenaeus did not teach a pre-trib rapture. He taught that Christian will be persecuted by antichrist, and that the resurrection is after the tribulation. So called pre-trib “researchers” are lying and misrepresenting the early Christians. You should read the last several chapters from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 5, chapters 25-36. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
Pre-trib teachers sometimes take a few out of context quotes from a few early Christians and claim they were pre-trib. The problem with the above quote from Irenaeus is that they reverse the sequence in the passage. “Caught up from THIS” is a reference to being persecuted under antichrist during the tribulation. Irenaeus’ quote of Jesus’ statement about “tribulation” is precisely what the second coming rescues Christians from.
Here is an article I wrote long ago that exposes some of those lies.
https://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdfTim
OK. In English that is also the case. I am not sure whether in spoken Greek one might do that. But in written biblical Greek, one would use the pronoun that agrees in gender with the particular noun, regardless of sex.
I am not sure I understand your question. The nouns “youth” or “child” in Greek are neuter nouns, even if they refer to a boy or a girl, so any pronoun that refers back to either term would have to be neuter. In order to indicate the sex of a child or youth, one would have to use a different noun that indicates sex, such as “son” or “daughter” or “boy” or “girl.”
The sex of animals is not normally indicated in the Greek. For example, in Gen. 22:3 Abraham saddled his “donkey” (which is grammatically feminine in Greek {LXX}), so any pronouns referring to it must also be feminine. But this does not indicate the sex of the donkey as female. It is just that the noun “donkey” is always grammatically feminine in Greek. The grammatical gender of other animals may be always masculine or always neuter. A “bear” is always feminine grammatically. All Greek nouns have a fixed gender which is not inflected to indicate sex when referring to animals. The noun “lion” λέων is always masculine, whether it refers to a male lion or to a lioness. See Ezek. 19:2 for an example of a young female lioness called a “lion-whelp” σκύμνος (masculine). Again, when a pronoun is used in reference to an animal, it must agree in gender with the noun (regardless of sex of the animal), and therefore the pronouns also do not indicate the sex of the animal in Greek.
With humans, Greek has completely different nouns to refer to the sexes, “man” and “woman.” But “anthropos” refers to “humans” and includes male and female. A “child” or “youth” in Greek is neuter, but this does not mean the child is sexless.
Grammatical “gender” is an entirely different thing than “sex.” There is certainly some overlap. For example, personal names given to girls are normally feminine nouns, and names chosen for boys are usually masculine.
Anders,
A pronoun must always agree in number and gender with its antecedent/referent. Therefore, in vs. 13, the masculine pronoun ἐκεῖνος does NOT have “Spirit” as its referent. Rather, its antecedent/referent is “Helper” in verse 7.
The confusion is created because the text uses two different titles to refer to the same entity in this dialogue, the “Spirit of Truth” (which is neuter) and the “Helper” (which is masculine). Since both of these are titles for some kind of entity, whether this is a “person” or not cannot be determined from such titles alone. That is, one cannot rightly argue that since “Spirit” is neuter, this entity cannot be a non-person. Likewise, because “Helper” is masculine in Greek, one cannot rightly argue that this must be a person. The gender of titles/names for nouns do not necessarily indicate personhood or non-personhood. Many non-personal nouns are masculine or feminine in Greek.
In English the gender of nouns is different, using masculine pronouns exclusively for male persons, and feminine pronouns exclusively for females, and using the neuter pronoun for all non-personal entities. This is not the case in Greek. This makes translating this passage very difficult, because the translator has to choose a pronoun in English either masculine or neuter, but in doing so, he has the potential to mislead the English reader. If the translation is done very literally, the same entity would be called sometimes “it” and sometimes “he.” So in essence, the translator has to choose based on other considerations, and one’s general understanding of what or who the Spirit is.
So you can substitute the masculine noun “Helper” in every place where there is a masculine pronoun in those verses, and you can substitute “Spirit of Truth” whenever there is a neuter pronoun. For third person verbs, you should substitute the last named entity before the verb, (either “Helper” or “Spirit of Truth”).
Another point that needs clarification is that the “Spirit of God” (while neuter) the genitive “of God” implies personhood in some sense. In other words, whatever personal characteristics we infer about the “Spirit of God” are those of “God” (the Father), not a third person. So whenever the “Spirit” is portrayed in personal terms, it is normally the person of the Father that is being associated, but occasionally it is the person of Christ. We also have terms such as “the Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9; 1 Pet. 1:11). No one supposes that there are 5 divine persons: the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of your Father, and the Spirit of Christ.
Consider how the terminology is used in the three parallel passages: Matt. 10:20; Mark 13:11; Luke 21:14-15. Also, take a look at Rom. 8:9-11.
Grace & Peace, Tim
I think one of the reasons certain translations fail to faithfully translate the latest revisions to the critical text is the fear of running off customers. Changes like those I mentioned above can really rattle certain theological camps. After all, a large part of making new translations is to make money from sales. If you scare off your customer base by translating in a way that seems to contradict their theological systems, the money dries up.
On the other hand, there is also a tendency for the translators to play to the personal biases of the readers. For example, the NRSVue takes a gender neutral approach to translation, and even waters down very specific wording against homosexuality. For example, “homosexuals” in 1 Cor. 6:9 is changed to “male prostitutes” in the NRSV and NRSVue. But this should not be surprising since these translations are done by a committee sponsored by the World Council of Churches, which seeks to downplay homosexuality.
Michael,
In the past, when I first began to translate the LGV, I tended to put more trust in the “Majority Text.” But as I have continued to study the NT in Greek, and having come to understand certain doctrines better, I have increasingly begun to favor the critical text and agree with the latest revisions (as in Nestle-Aland 28th Edition). I am finding that the latest scholarly revisions tend to favor what I have already come to understand about the doctrine of God and His Son. That is, the critical text editions are slowly adding support for what I believe the Scriptures teach generally. For example, Jude 1:5 in the latest revisions says that “Jesus” saved the people out of Egypt, in agreement with what the Latin Vulgate has stated since the 4th century. The earliest Greek copies support this reading. Likewise, John 1:3-4 in the NA-28 changes the location of the period, so that verse 4 begins with “What originated in Him was life” rather than the previous 26th edition which had “what originated” as the ending of verse 3 (without Him nothing originated what originated), which is an awkward and redundant statement.
While almost all recent versions claim to follow the NA-28 text, often they fail to carry through. For example, the NRSV makes the correction in John 1:3-4, but the NASB fails to do so. The NRSVue and ESV make the correction in Jude 1:5, but the latest version of the NASB does neither.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Michael,
In Acts 21 Paul was in Jerusalem for two purposes. The first was to deliver the special collection he had taken from many of the Gentile churches for the persecuted Jewish believers in Judea (Rom. 15:25-28), intending to deliver the gift on Pentecost (Acts 20:16).
His second reason was to complete his Nazarite vow, a vow he made while at Cencreae (Acts 18:18). The Nazarite vow is described in Numbers 6. It involved shaving the head at the beginning, then not cutting the hair during the entire time of the vow, and finally bringing an animal sacrifice offering to the Temple, shaving the head again, and throwing the hair into the fire with the burn offering.
When Paul arrived in Jerusalem and met with the church, there were others who had also made a Nazarite vow and were also preparing to conclude it on Pentecost.
This in no way conflicts with Paul’s practice which was to live as a Jew when among Jews, and as a Gentile when among Gentiles.
When Paul rebuked Peter in Gal. 2, it was because of what Peter did was among a MIXED congregation of Jews and Gentile believers, especially after he had already eaten non-kosher with Gentiles when he was at Cornelius house (Acts 11:3). Because of Paul’s teaching on UNITY of Jew and Gentile in Christ, the Jews in the Antioch church viewed eating “kosher” as optional, not a requirement since they were no longer under the Law of Moses. Paul rebuked Peter because his actions were creating a division between the Jewish and Gentile believers, which was destroying unity and Paul’s message.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Anders,
This is the result of a textual variant in the KJV/Textus Receptus which reads:
τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου, οὓς δέδωκάς μοι
keep them in the name of you, those-who you gave me
The relative pronoun οὓς is masculine plural (those who).But all the early copies as well as the vast majority have:
τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι
Keep them in the name of you which you-gave me
The relative pronoun ᾧ is neuter singular (which).Virtually all modern versions (except the NKJV) read as the LGV. Here is the NASB (Updated): “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, [the name] which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.” Note that the NASB adds “the name” before “which” so that the reader knows without question that the pronoun refers back to “name.”
Grace & Peace, Tim
Michael,
There is no indication that the men of Nineveh were promised immortality in the resurrection. Their repentance was because the king of Nineveh passed a law requiring it. Their “repentance” resulted in God sparing the city, not in eternal salvation and the resurrection to immortality.
Revelation 20 indicates that “the rest of the dead” (those not included as “Christ’s” in the 1st resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15:23 & Rev. 20:4) will be raised and judged at the end of the 7th Millennium. It also indicates that they will be judged individually according to their works. The statement “those not found written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire” implies that many WILL be found written in that book. Also, that “wicked generation” of Israelites will also be raised at the same time at the same judgement.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Michael,
1 John 5:7 is not found in any ancient Greek copies. It is found only in a very few late Greek copies dating after the 14th century. It was also not included in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (4th cent). While it is claimed that Tertullian sort-of “quoted” it, it is more likely that these were Tertullian’s own words. Tertullian was the first to use the term “trinity” and the first to refer to the Spirit as an independent being, a third person. Tertullian also wrote in Latin, so the statement almost certainly originated in Latin, and it was added very late to a few Greek copies due to the Latin influence. In any case, virtually all textual scholars agree that it is not original to John.
Another point that carries a lot of weight IMO is that this verse was never used in the Trinitarian vs. Arian controversies in the 4th century to help support Trinitarianism. If it had been known, it certainly would have been used and have been a game-changer.
Grace & Peace, Tim
Sorry I missed this, John. Yes, the 24th was Passover based on the visual observation method of the new moon. The modern calendar uses the NASA data to calculate the new moon which is usually a day or sometimes two days before the new moon would be visible to the eye at sunset.
Sorry, I missed this. I don’t get notifications when someone posts on the forum, and I have been busy and haven’t checked for a while.
If you compare the following from Luke’s account I think the answer to your question will be apparent.
Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go.
No doubt the same was true when He sent out the 12. That is, He was sending them ahead to preach in the towns and villages where He was planning to go personally behind them. So when He said: “You will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes,” He meant that they would not finish their assignment before Jesus would catch up to them. It does not refer either to AD 70 or the 2nd coming, IMO.
God is “King of kings” and “Lord of lords” now. When God gives the Kingdom to the Son, then He will fill that role.
God is “King of kings” and “Lord of lords” now. When God gives the Kingdom to the Son, then He will fill that role.
Anders,
It is important to consider all statements within their contexts, and not to extrapolate beyond them into areas that the writer never intended. The “God is love” statements in 1 John 4 are clearly referring to God’s love for US. They have nothing whatever to do with “love” shared between alleged members of a Trinity.
1 John 4 (NKJV)
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.“God is love” in this context means that God’s love for us, as demonstrated by giving His Son, provides the epitome of the standard for “love.” So to define “love,” we are to look at what He did for us, and we are to emulate it in our interactions with fellow Christians. “God IS love” means that God defined “love” by demonstration.
Making the kind of leap outlined above in that Trinitarian argument would be like saying that God did not exist before Day one of creation, because James says “God is light” and “light” was created on day 1.
The key point is in vs. 15, WHO is the one who will be “showing” Christ at His appearing (the one performing the action of the verb). From a purely a grammatical viewpoint, it could be either “God” in vs.13 or Jesus Himself in vs. 14. There is no way to prove either way from the grammar since there are a couple of different was to punctuate the sentence. However, the clause “whom no man has seen nor is capable of seeing” proves the referent is God since Jesus has been seen by many. Also, the clause, “who ALONE holds immortality” cannot refer to Jesus since the word “alone” would rule out God Himself as not having immortality.
Anders,
God made a series of promises to Abraham, all of which are part of the Abrahamic Covenant. But those specific promises are not fulfilled at the same time. These include:
1. A son through Sarah
2. This son would become a great nation
3. persecution and subjugation of Abraham’s descendants
4. through Abraham’s seed all nations would be blessed
5. permanent inheritance of the land by Abraham himself and his ‘Seed’NONE of these promises occurred or will occur at the same time. They are each fulfilled progressively. The statement in Acts 7:5 concerning the land is specifically, “he would give it to him in possession, and to his seed after him.”
The fact is, God gave the land temporarily to Abraham’s descendants but not to Abraham himself. So, the latter part of this statement was fulfilled in a limited sense after the exodus, but definitely not the first part.
I think you are making a mistake by supposing that verse 17 must refer to everything in verse 5. It is clear in v. 17 that the context refers to when a specified time had been fulfilled which was a very specific part of the promises to Abraham. That specified time is recorded in Gen. 15.
Gen. 15 (LXX)
13 And it was said to Abram, Thou shalt surely know that thy seed shall be a sojourner in a land not their won, and they shall enslave them, and afflict them, and humble them four hundred years.
14 And the nation whomsoever they shall serve I will judge; and after this, they shall come forth hither with much property.
15 But thou shalt depart to thy fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age.
16 And in the fourth generation they shall return hither, for the sins of the Amorites are not yet filled up, even until now.This is precisely, and exclusively, what Acts references in v. 17:
Acts 7:17-20 (NASB)
17 “But as the time of the promise was approaching which God had assured to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt,
18 until there arose another king over Egypt who knew nothing about Joseph.
19 “It was he who took shrewd advantage of our race, and mistreated our fathers so that they would expose their infants and they would not survive.
20 “And it was at this time that Moses was born; and he was lovely in the sight of God; and he was nurtured three months in his father’s home.Moses was the “fourth generation” from Levi, Abraham’s great-grandson who was taken into Egypt with his father and brothers. (Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses {1 Chron. 6:1-2).
Obviously when Moses was born it was not the TIME for Israel to inherit the land, either temporarily (under the Law) or permanently (in the Kingdom). Moses was 120 years old when he died and Joshua took the Israelites into the land. The statement, “the promise was approaching which God had assured to Abraham”, the ONLY “promise” in view was their deliverance from slavery through Moses — the exodus. That is pretty plain in Steven’s speech as he went on to describe it in detail through all of verses 17-44. The entrance into the promised land is not even mentioned by Steven until v. 45 where it is only mentioned in passing that Joshua brought the tabernacle into the land. But nothing is said of inheriting the land, or the Abrahamic Covenant.
The whole point of Steven’s sermon was that God fulfilled a promise to Abraham regarding the deliverance from Egypt, gave them His Law, but even so they refused to obey Him.
Anders,
Acts 7:5 does indeed refer to the permanent inheritance of the Land, because it refers to Abraham HIMSELF inheriting the land along with His ‘Seed’ who is Christ (Gal. 3:16). God said He would give the Land “to YOU and to your seed.” This can only occur after the resurrection since Abraham died long before the exodus. The ONLY promise of the Land inheritance given specifically to Abraham is the permanent possession. The only part of God’s promises to Abraham that were fulfilled already are the promise that he would have a Son (Isaac) through Sarah, and that his descendants would be abused for 4000 years, then enslaved for a time but delivered in the “fourth generation.” Gen. 15:13-16.
Anders,
The land that God promised to Abraham as a permanent inheritance includes the land of seven nations (Gen. 15:18-20; Deut. 7:1; Acts 13:19) and extended from the Nile to the Euphrates. However, under the Mosaic Covenant, God only gave Israel a temporary residence (within the borders of the whole land He would eventually give to Abraham), as long as they kept His Law. “The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with Me” (Lev. 25:23 NASB). The ultimate penalty for Israel was exile from the Land.
Regarding Acts 7:17, the “promise” referenced concerned the APPOINTED TIME when their slavery would end, as stated in the Abrahamic Covenant:
Gen. 15:13-16 (NKJV)
13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.
14 “And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.
15 “Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.
16 “But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”This is NOT the permanent inheritance promised to Abraham personally and his “Seed” who is Christ (Gal. 3:16). It is the temporary inheritance under the Law of Moses. Note that Abraham would be dead (v. 15) when this temporary inheritance of his descendants would take place. It is THIS promise specifically that Steven referenced in Acts 7:17.
In Galatians 3, Paul made this very clear distinction between the permanent inheritance promised to Abraham and His ‘Seed’ (Christ), vs. the arrangement under the Law of Moses which was temporary. Yes, it involved the same land, but under two different covenants.
Thar sounds very much like Gnosticism, which was a significant heresy in the 2nd century. The Nicolaitans, Cerinthus, and Marcion held that heresy.
In the LXX, “the Most High” is translated as ὁ ὕψιστος lit. “the highest.” That is, there is none higher. So IMO that must refer to the Father. In vs. 9, “Yahweh” is also the Father, his proper name. The LXX translators did not attempt to transliterate the personal name “Yahweh” as they did with other names. This was out of reverence for God’s name. Even today Jews will not pronounce God’s name out of fear of demoting it. The LXX translators used the common word κύριος “master” in the place of Yahweh in the same way that many English translations use LORD (in all caps) for the sacred name.
Anders,
Yes, you are correct, that was a contradiction. The note 132 was an older version. I had previously corrected the note for John 1:1 after exploring the comments regarding Jn. 1:1c of Wallace in “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”. But I somehow missed correcting the note for John 5:18. I have corrected it. Thanks for catching that.
Tim
