"I checked the Greek, and yup, all power means all power.": ἐξουσία can be translated "power", as the KJV does, but even the NKJV corrects this to "authority", its usual translation. "Power" typically translates from δυναμις. Osborne has this to say about it: "ἐξουσία here is a more comprehensive term than ‘power’ (dynamis), referring to position as well as function...".
Mt. 28:18 is quite a remarkable declaration. With regard to the verb, Osborne comments "The divine passive 'has been given' (ἐδόθη) shows this authority/power comes from God himself, and it has been called the enthronement of the Messiah as eschatological ruler and judge."
I think this strengthens your point, "Holy Scripture is exceedingly clear on who holds ultimate power on this plane".
Thanks CM, it’s been a busy week so I haven’t been able to respond but I really appreciated your comments on this essay.
Indeed though, Matthew 28:18 is a deeply profound statement. When I reread the Gospels last year with a specific focus upon verses and parables pertaining to the Kingdom, statements like this made it impossible for me to reconcile futurism with Christ’s words.
I will hyperlink that definition there, it does strengthen the argument. Thanks for the recommendation, God bless you sister.
I finally read to the end of your post! I think there's even more there in Mt. 28 that supports what you are saying. Osborne goes on to describe the "all authority" declaration as alluding to Dan. 7:13-14. He also sees it as a continuation of Mt. 11:27, and points out numerous places in Matthew where Jesus' authority is emphasized. Also that the authority is heavenly as well as earthly.
My understanding of all these matters generally seems to align well with yours, now anyway. Your articles have helped me, and think they will help others. I'm still reading your book, by the way.
I don't fully understand what got into me that I would listen to the dispensationalists. From childhood I knew most of the scriptures that they were avoiding and twisting. Why didn't I just laugh it off like so many other deceptions and continue in my walk?
I guess maybe I needed a lesson, and it might have had to do with the "easy answers" offered in the futurist view. That's the part I was hooked on. Understanding unfulfilled prophecy has been difficult and frustrating for me. I'll gladly read OT fulfilled prophecy over and over, and learn new things each time about what people do to come under judgement, and what results. There are patterns, and they reveal how God sees our behavior, and how he responds. So fulfilled prophecy applies to the present as well. No need to keep sending prophets to be abused and killed.
What finally got my attention was all the church people talking about the rapture and how it was going to spare them persecution. Now if God choses to do that, fine, but if instead persecution comes to those expecting to be spared (it's already come to many others), and their beliefs are shattered, how are they going to respond to that?
On top of that, there was someone in my local church who was teaching about the pre-trib rapture, a popular topic with some, but not with the church leadership, and it appears to have led to a small split, but one with larger ramifications. That in turn has led to soul-searching and appeals for unity through being "one in the spirit". There is much remaining to be done.
As I may have mentioned before, the last straw was when one of the pastors I had been following online for several years began using 2 Tim. 4:3-4 from his NKJV to condemn those who disagree:
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."
The irony is that if he is wrong, the passage may condemn HIM. I don't want that -- he appeared to be a good teacher, and well informed in other matters -- but dialog with him about it at this time would seem to be precluded. Perhaps I should send him a personal letter about this (not about arguing over the teaching).
Now I have the task of re-understanding the Olivet discourse and the whole book of Revelation, among other things. I've already begun, some time ago.
As always, thank you for your fine musings on the Bible. I have Steve Gregg's impressive "Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary" on the nightstand next to my bed. I've had that book on my nightstand since the early 2000s, when my tendency was more toward an agnostic Jesus Seminar approach to understanding the Bible. I think I have gotten through Gregg's book maybe 1 1/2 times (I'm a slow reader), but the Book of Revelation (as are many passages in the New Testament still) is inscrutably unknowable for me. Revelation, in particular, seems written in a deliberately cryptic symbolic way that leaves it open to endless interpretation, interpretation which can be tied to both the "ancient" and "modern" world. I guess this is what makes the book so rich, but also divisive. Great job parsing through some of your own thoughts and changes in terms of interpreting this fascinating book.
This brings to mind "The Parable of the Ten Virgins" from Matthew 25. The virgins are to prepare themselves for the bridegrooms return. On The Road to Emmaus in Luke they were walking and Jesus had to open their understanding to see how his first coming was written all throughout the Old Testament. Seems likely people will be just as slow to understand the scriptures speaking of his second coming.
Another somewhat short comment (abbreviated, anyway), on Lk. 17:20-21. I won't say much here about "not with observation" other than that it might be saying "not with observable signs". It's a matter for scholarly debate, working from known usage and from the context. Speaking of which ...
"within you" vs. "in the midst of you" in v. 21 is more difficult. Here I will ask a question, after noting that the antecedent of "you" is the Pharisees, to whom Jesus addresses the statement, and then breaking down part of the statement.
Literally, but allowing for word order differences, this is "for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you". "Within" is ἐντὸς ("entos" - "within, inside"), a rare preposition. Here it takes the 2nd person plural genitive pronoun ὑμῶν ("humōn" - "you") to form what appears to be "within you". ἐστιν ("estin" - "is") appears last for emphasis, targeting the 3rd person singular "kingdom".
BUT, "you" is the Pharisees. Really? The Kingdom of God was within THEM?
And so ensues the scholarly discourse. I'll offer just one brief snippet from within a longer analysis by Garland: *
"[After two other cases] (3) Matill presents over forty usages of the word (ἐντός) over the span of one thousand years and finds seven well-attested meanings. The meaning “among” or “in the midst of” has legitimate support, and the narrative context can be the determining guide for understanding what it means here. The meaning that seems to make the best sense in this context with a plural pronoun is “in your midst” (NASB, ESV, TNIV, NIV 2011) or “among you” (NJB, NAB, NRSV)..."
He goes on to offer contextual support, but I need to break off for now. Short ending, the statement likely self-refers to Jesus in the midst of the Pharisees, rather than to the Pharisees themselves.
* Garland, David E., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke, Zondervan, 2011
I'm still reading your post, mostly acknowledging, and seeing nothing to deny--I am at a "reset point" in my reading of prophecy, backing up and having another (hopefully fresh) look.
When you bring up the lexical form ἐγγίζω ("eggizo") of the verb appearing in Mt. 10:7, however, I can comment already. This is not meant to detract from your message but to offer a cautionary note about using common reference tools to translate from the Greek, and about NT KJV/Textus Receptus translation. (The TR Greek, by the way is identical to the NA28 here, as it usually is.)
The verb appearing in this passage is Ἤγγικεν ("Ēggiken"), the third person singular perfective active indicative form. Verbs can present time ("when" something happens -- more important in English) or aspect (what "kind" of action occurs -- more important for the ancient Greeks).
Greek aspect is something that was less-well understood in the times of the King James translators, and this instance of the verb is expressed in the perfective aspect. Other possible aspects are undefined and continuous. When this situation occurs, it can be advisable to go in for a closer look.
"The perfective (“combinative”) aspect describes an action that was brought to completion (and hence is in the past) but has effects felt in the speaker’s present." *
Taking aspect into account, verse 7 can be translated as "As you go, proclaim the message, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’ " (Mounce translation) or "As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ " (NIV and Osborne translations). Which by no coincidence are the ways it is typically translated. But either way, the action occurred (that is, completed, hence being "perfect") in the past and the effects are still felt in the present, a "kind" of action, not a "when" property of action. The definition you quote applies to the undefined aspect of the lexical form, namely the present active indicative defaulting to undefined aspect.
A fine point perhaps, but maybe not. My various translations are divided in their renderings of this verse. There's no perfect way to bring this use of perfective aspect over into English. Beware of reference tools dealing only with lexical forms, disregarding inflection, and particularly when writing of "timing" in the context of a verb inflected as perfective aspect.
* Mounce, William D.. Greek for the Rest of Us, Third Edition (p. 55). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition. "
I had a terrible time with the KJV growing up, even though we were taught the meanings of the words and how to pronounce them. In college I took a humanities elective that introduced me to the modern translations of the time (c. 1977). In the 90s I "converted" to the NKJV and the NIV, with mostly the NIV for extended reading. Now I use a mix of translations, original-language commentaries, lexicons, and grammars, and I read the morphologically-tagged Greek directly when I can. Certain kinds of phrases read as easily as English now. I'm not there with the Hebrew yet.
Mounce's _Greek for the Rest of Us_ introduces the idea of "Bible study Greek", an approach for people that want to understand the Greek well enough to work with the Greek-level commentaries for Bible study, but are not seeking to learn at the seminary level or to become Greek-language scholars like the commentators themselves.
That's where I am right now for the most part, and I think serious Bible students should at least give it a try. The worst part comes first -- getting the alphabet plugged into your brain -- and then it starts to settle in and you go on. I recommend not waiting until 70 years old to start, though.
It's like how the story of the Virgin Mary is probably a mistranslation by Greek scholars; that story being the Hebrew word for virgin is practically identical to that of the one meaning a young girl (or woman), with only a subtle difference in spelling between the two. Even English words like cleave can have multiple usages and different meanings. So this is not a blasphemous thing to say: I doubt she was a virgin, since she was married, but adding that to the story -- even if a mistake -- got a woman venerated, which was very important to the Church.
I learned Russian, which is a Cyrillic language, just like Greek; in fact, I can read Greek because of Russian, as many Greek letters are familiar (though I have no idea what I am saying!). Yet even if I did know Greek, translating it into Russian and back, the chance I would get something wrong is extremely high. I would even go so far as to say that in years past, they evidently did get some things wrong, but those wrongs were useful to the Church, and those who knew were "Frater Noster Taciturnus."
Whether Mary was pristine or not is really of no importance; she was the mother of Jesus Christ. Nothing else matters. It did give the whole story a little more oomph, admittedly.
The NT accounts are emphatic that Mary was a virgin. Osborne* offers this resolution:
Mt. 1:22 “Look, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son” (Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν). ... An enormous amount has been written about the use of Isa 7:14 here in Matthew. The problem is the Hebrew ʿalmâ (Isa 7:14 MT) and the Greek παρθένος (Isa 7:14 LXX as well as Matthew here); the Hebrew term mainly refers to a young woman able to bear children, while the Greek term denotes a virgin. Two poles can be detected: some believe the Isaiah passage was a messianic prophecy not meant to be fulfilled in Isaiah’s day but only in the virgin birth of Jesus. Others argue that there is no messianic component whatsoever and Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of Hezekiah or Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Isa 8:3–4) to a “young woman” in Ahaz’s day. However, a growing consensus prefers a view between these extremes. The prophecy was given to Ahaz and introduced by “Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign.” In other words, it was mainly intended for Ahaz that God would destroy the kings he dreaded (Isa 7:14–17). So at least a partial fulfillment is indicated for Ahaz’s time. Yet the larger Isaianic context indicates also that a greater picture was envisaged as well. This promised “Immanuel” would bring a dawning of a great light (9:2–3) and would be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6). He is the “shoot from the stump of Jesse,” the “Branch” on which the Spirit rests (11:1–11), showing a distinct messianic longing.
The LXX recognized this greater thrust and chose to interpret ʿalmâ with the narrower “virgin” (παρθένος), thus emphasizing the supernatural manifestations of the child’s birth. Matthew utilized this Septuagintal emphasis and applied it to the virgin birth of Jesus. As Blomberg says, “So it is best to see a partial, proleptic fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in his time, with the complete and more glorious fulfillment in Jesus’ own birth.”
* Osborne, Grant R., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew, Zondervan, 2010
Wow. Fascinating. I was aware that the NIV translated the Isaiah 7:14 passage as "young woman"and that translation was a controversy at the time among KJV only groups. However, I hadn't realized that it had been parsed out to such a degree. It is discussions like these that make me wonder how God could think a simple wretch like me could understand anything in the Bible. It is still, in may ways to me, an inscrutable group of writings which I can interpret a variety of ways depending on my emotional state. I will leave it at that.
That is the beauty of the True Word, Chris; it is meant to be reread. God knows we cannot begin to conceive His Holiness, we have to be subjected to the sins of the mortal world before we even grasp that. We have to experience evil to know Good.
More will be revealed, as the saying goes; just like the other saying, you will only listen if you hear. So many worldly things are strictly here to get us away from God's Word, to distract us for this very reason. We have to be ready to hear things we did not listen to before, but have always been there. Through living in Christ, God gives us the humility to go back to His Word and LISTEN this time, such is His love for us.
We are not meant to understand the Bible, Chris. It is folly to try. Our minds are incapable of knowing the extent of Him, for we are finite. But maybe our reason to be here is to be faithful to His Word, so we can be more like Him. Because I know I do not want to be like His adversary.
And the next logical conclusion is that God wants HIS will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. And He has commissioned and empowered the church to make it happen with all His power and authority. Dispensationalism and hopeless eschatology have emasculated Christ and make Christians ignorantly promote and condone Satan’s will on earth and heaven by exalting him as god over creation. May God open the eyes of His elect, tear down the satanic industrial complex, and raise up warriors who will proclaim Christ’s preeminence over all creation. Amen! It will be done.
Great article! I don't see any evidence at all for the Premill/nor the Zionist Dispensational paradigm anywhere in Scripture. It's actually very discouraging that so many people have been duped by this. Although I appreciate the Amillennial and Postmillennial view (I was one for about 10 years), I feel they still miss the mark. Amills for example, are very anacronistic in their intrepretations. That is to say, they don't realize what time it is for the new testament authors. The end of the AGE (or "world" as "mistranslated" by the KJV) was speaking about the end of the age the authors were in at the time, the Old Covenant AGE (Heb 1:2 Matt 24:3, etc). These last days of 30-70AD was indeed the transition period from the Old Covenant to the New, which Hebrews speaks so much about (Heb 8:13) The passages are clear- there was something indeed VERY imminent for those in the first century. It was going to be an "earth" shattering event! As you pointed out, amazingly- Christ indeed brought forth Judgement upon THAT generation (Matt 24:34, Mark 9:1, etc). However He also brought Salvation in his "Second" coming (Heb 9:28,Luke 21:28). Satan was indeed the God is "this age" (the Old Covenant age where Adam gave up dominion to Satan in the Garden). But we read of his destruction in Jn 12:31, Rev 20, etc. but in the New Covenant/New Heavens and Earth- Christ has dominion for all time! Eschatology is about Covenants, Israel's covenants. The resurrection/judgement/second "coming" were all prophesied about for Old Covenant Israel- Us in the New Covenant, there shall be no end as we now dwell in Christ's eternal Kingdom.
"I checked the Greek, and yup, all power means all power.": ἐξουσία can be translated "power", as the KJV does, but even the NKJV corrects this to "authority", its usual translation. "Power" typically translates from δυναμις. Osborne has this to say about it: "ἐξουσία here is a more comprehensive term than ‘power’ (dynamis), referring to position as well as function...".
Mt. 28:18 is quite a remarkable declaration. With regard to the verb, Osborne comments "The divine passive 'has been given' (ἐδόθη) shows this authority/power comes from God himself, and it has been called the enthronement of the Messiah as eschatological ruler and judge."
I think this strengthens your point, "Holy Scripture is exceedingly clear on who holds ultimate power on this plane".
Thanks CM, it’s been a busy week so I haven’t been able to respond but I really appreciated your comments on this essay.
Indeed though, Matthew 28:18 is a deeply profound statement. When I reread the Gospels last year with a specific focus upon verses and parables pertaining to the Kingdom, statements like this made it impossible for me to reconcile futurism with Christ’s words.
I will hyperlink that definition there, it does strengthen the argument. Thanks for the recommendation, God bless you sister.
I finally read to the end of your post! I think there's even more there in Mt. 28 that supports what you are saying. Osborne goes on to describe the "all authority" declaration as alluding to Dan. 7:13-14. He also sees it as a continuation of Mt. 11:27, and points out numerous places in Matthew where Jesus' authority is emphasized. Also that the authority is heavenly as well as earthly.
My understanding of all these matters generally seems to align well with yours, now anyway. Your articles have helped me, and think they will help others. I'm still reading your book, by the way.
I don't fully understand what got into me that I would listen to the dispensationalists. From childhood I knew most of the scriptures that they were avoiding and twisting. Why didn't I just laugh it off like so many other deceptions and continue in my walk?
I guess maybe I needed a lesson, and it might have had to do with the "easy answers" offered in the futurist view. That's the part I was hooked on. Understanding unfulfilled prophecy has been difficult and frustrating for me. I'll gladly read OT fulfilled prophecy over and over, and learn new things each time about what people do to come under judgement, and what results. There are patterns, and they reveal how God sees our behavior, and how he responds. So fulfilled prophecy applies to the present as well. No need to keep sending prophets to be abused and killed.
What finally got my attention was all the church people talking about the rapture and how it was going to spare them persecution. Now if God choses to do that, fine, but if instead persecution comes to those expecting to be spared (it's already come to many others), and their beliefs are shattered, how are they going to respond to that?
On top of that, there was someone in my local church who was teaching about the pre-trib rapture, a popular topic with some, but not with the church leadership, and it appears to have led to a small split, but one with larger ramifications. That in turn has led to soul-searching and appeals for unity through being "one in the spirit". There is much remaining to be done.
As I may have mentioned before, the last straw was when one of the pastors I had been following online for several years began using 2 Tim. 4:3-4 from his NKJV to condemn those who disagree:
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."
The irony is that if he is wrong, the passage may condemn HIM. I don't want that -- he appeared to be a good teacher, and well informed in other matters -- but dialog with him about it at this time would seem to be precluded. Perhaps I should send him a personal letter about this (not about arguing over the teaching).
Now I have the task of re-understanding the Olivet discourse and the whole book of Revelation, among other things. I've already begun, some time ago.
Bravo !!! Will Share !
As always, thank you for your fine musings on the Bible. I have Steve Gregg's impressive "Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary" on the nightstand next to my bed. I've had that book on my nightstand since the early 2000s, when my tendency was more toward an agnostic Jesus Seminar approach to understanding the Bible. I think I have gotten through Gregg's book maybe 1 1/2 times (I'm a slow reader), but the Book of Revelation (as are many passages in the New Testament still) is inscrutably unknowable for me. Revelation, in particular, seems written in a deliberately cryptic symbolic way that leaves it open to endless interpretation, interpretation which can be tied to both the "ancient" and "modern" world. I guess this is what makes the book so rich, but also divisive. Great job parsing through some of your own thoughts and changes in terms of interpreting this fascinating book.
This brings to mind "The Parable of the Ten Virgins" from Matthew 25. The virgins are to prepare themselves for the bridegrooms return. On The Road to Emmaus in Luke they were walking and Jesus had to open their understanding to see how his first coming was written all throughout the Old Testament. Seems likely people will be just as slow to understand the scriptures speaking of his second coming.
Another somewhat short comment (abbreviated, anyway), on Lk. 17:20-21. I won't say much here about "not with observation" other than that it might be saying "not with observable signs". It's a matter for scholarly debate, working from known usage and from the context. Speaking of which ...
"within you" vs. "in the midst of you" in v. 21 is more difficult. Here I will ask a question, after noting that the antecedent of "you" is the Pharisees, to whom Jesus addresses the statement, and then breaking down part of the statement.
ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν.
Literally, but allowing for word order differences, this is "for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you". "Within" is ἐντὸς ("entos" - "within, inside"), a rare preposition. Here it takes the 2nd person plural genitive pronoun ὑμῶν ("humōn" - "you") to form what appears to be "within you". ἐστιν ("estin" - "is") appears last for emphasis, targeting the 3rd person singular "kingdom".
BUT, "you" is the Pharisees. Really? The Kingdom of God was within THEM?
And so ensues the scholarly discourse. I'll offer just one brief snippet from within a longer analysis by Garland: *
"[After two other cases] (3) Matill presents over forty usages of the word (ἐντός) over the span of one thousand years and finds seven well-attested meanings. The meaning “among” or “in the midst of” has legitimate support, and the narrative context can be the determining guide for understanding what it means here. The meaning that seems to make the best sense in this context with a plural pronoun is “in your midst” (NASB, ESV, TNIV, NIV 2011) or “among you” (NJB, NAB, NRSV)..."
He goes on to offer contextual support, but I need to break off for now. Short ending, the statement likely self-refers to Jesus in the midst of the Pharisees, rather than to the Pharisees themselves.
* Garland, David E., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke, Zondervan, 2011
I'm still reading your post, mostly acknowledging, and seeing nothing to deny--I am at a "reset point" in my reading of prophecy, backing up and having another (hopefully fresh) look.
When you bring up the lexical form ἐγγίζω ("eggizo") of the verb appearing in Mt. 10:7, however, I can comment already. This is not meant to detract from your message but to offer a cautionary note about using common reference tools to translate from the Greek, and about NT KJV/Textus Receptus translation. (The TR Greek, by the way is identical to the NA28 here, as it usually is.)
The verb appearing in this passage is Ἤγγικεν ("Ēggiken"), the third person singular perfective active indicative form. Verbs can present time ("when" something happens -- more important in English) or aspect (what "kind" of action occurs -- more important for the ancient Greeks).
Greek aspect is something that was less-well understood in the times of the King James translators, and this instance of the verb is expressed in the perfective aspect. Other possible aspects are undefined and continuous. When this situation occurs, it can be advisable to go in for a closer look.
"The perfective (“combinative”) aspect describes an action that was brought to completion (and hence is in the past) but has effects felt in the speaker’s present." *
Taking aspect into account, verse 7 can be translated as "As you go, proclaim the message, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’ " (Mounce translation) or "As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ " (NIV and Osborne translations). Which by no coincidence are the ways it is typically translated. But either way, the action occurred (that is, completed, hence being "perfect") in the past and the effects are still felt in the present, a "kind" of action, not a "when" property of action. The definition you quote applies to the undefined aspect of the lexical form, namely the present active indicative defaulting to undefined aspect.
A fine point perhaps, but maybe not. My various translations are divided in their renderings of this verse. There's no perfect way to bring this use of perfective aspect over into English. Beware of reference tools dealing only with lexical forms, disregarding inflection, and particularly when writing of "timing" in the context of a verb inflected as perfective aspect.
* Mounce, William D.. Greek for the Rest of Us, Third Edition (p. 55). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition. "
Very interesting. My Greek is rusty and mostly classical. I'm still trying to figure out the KJV fixation. Its like reading Milton.
I had a terrible time with the KJV growing up, even though we were taught the meanings of the words and how to pronounce them. In college I took a humanities elective that introduced me to the modern translations of the time (c. 1977). In the 90s I "converted" to the NKJV and the NIV, with mostly the NIV for extended reading. Now I use a mix of translations, original-language commentaries, lexicons, and grammars, and I read the morphologically-tagged Greek directly when I can. Certain kinds of phrases read as easily as English now. I'm not there with the Hebrew yet.
Mounce's _Greek for the Rest of Us_ introduces the idea of "Bible study Greek", an approach for people that want to understand the Greek well enough to work with the Greek-level commentaries for Bible study, but are not seeking to learn at the seminary level or to become Greek-language scholars like the commentators themselves.
That's where I am right now for the most part, and I think serious Bible students should at least give it a try. The worst part comes first -- getting the alphabet plugged into your brain -- and then it starts to settle in and you go on. I recommend not waiting until 70 years old to start, though.
It's like how the story of the Virgin Mary is probably a mistranslation by Greek scholars; that story being the Hebrew word for virgin is practically identical to that of the one meaning a young girl (or woman), with only a subtle difference in spelling between the two. Even English words like cleave can have multiple usages and different meanings. So this is not a blasphemous thing to say: I doubt she was a virgin, since she was married, but adding that to the story -- even if a mistake -- got a woman venerated, which was very important to the Church.
I learned Russian, which is a Cyrillic language, just like Greek; in fact, I can read Greek because of Russian, as many Greek letters are familiar (though I have no idea what I am saying!). Yet even if I did know Greek, translating it into Russian and back, the chance I would get something wrong is extremely high. I would even go so far as to say that in years past, they evidently did get some things wrong, but those wrongs were useful to the Church, and those who knew were "Frater Noster Taciturnus."
Whether Mary was pristine or not is really of no importance; she was the mother of Jesus Christ. Nothing else matters. It did give the whole story a little more oomph, admittedly.
The NT accounts are emphatic that Mary was a virgin. Osborne* offers this resolution:
Mt. 1:22 “Look, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son” (Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν). ... An enormous amount has been written about the use of Isa 7:14 here in Matthew. The problem is the Hebrew ʿalmâ (Isa 7:14 MT) and the Greek παρθένος (Isa 7:14 LXX as well as Matthew here); the Hebrew term mainly refers to a young woman able to bear children, while the Greek term denotes a virgin. Two poles can be detected: some believe the Isaiah passage was a messianic prophecy not meant to be fulfilled in Isaiah’s day but only in the virgin birth of Jesus. Others argue that there is no messianic component whatsoever and Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled in the birth of Hezekiah or Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (Isa 8:3–4) to a “young woman” in Ahaz’s day. However, a growing consensus prefers a view between these extremes. The prophecy was given to Ahaz and introduced by “Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign.” In other words, it was mainly intended for Ahaz that God would destroy the kings he dreaded (Isa 7:14–17). So at least a partial fulfillment is indicated for Ahaz’s time. Yet the larger Isaianic context indicates also that a greater picture was envisaged as well. This promised “Immanuel” would bring a dawning of a great light (9:2–3) and would be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6). He is the “shoot from the stump of Jesse,” the “Branch” on which the Spirit rests (11:1–11), showing a distinct messianic longing.
The LXX recognized this greater thrust and chose to interpret ʿalmâ with the narrower “virgin” (παρθένος), thus emphasizing the supernatural manifestations of the child’s birth. Matthew utilized this Septuagintal emphasis and applied it to the virgin birth of Jesus. As Blomberg says, “So it is best to see a partial, proleptic fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in his time, with the complete and more glorious fulfillment in Jesus’ own birth.”
* Osborne, Grant R., Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew, Zondervan, 2010
Wow. Fascinating. I was aware that the NIV translated the Isaiah 7:14 passage as "young woman"and that translation was a controversy at the time among KJV only groups. However, I hadn't realized that it had been parsed out to such a degree. It is discussions like these that make me wonder how God could think a simple wretch like me could understand anything in the Bible. It is still, in may ways to me, an inscrutable group of writings which I can interpret a variety of ways depending on my emotional state. I will leave it at that.
That is the beauty of the True Word, Chris; it is meant to be reread. God knows we cannot begin to conceive His Holiness, we have to be subjected to the sins of the mortal world before we even grasp that. We have to experience evil to know Good.
More will be revealed, as the saying goes; just like the other saying, you will only listen if you hear. So many worldly things are strictly here to get us away from God's Word, to distract us for this very reason. We have to be ready to hear things we did not listen to before, but have always been there. Through living in Christ, God gives us the humility to go back to His Word and LISTEN this time, such is His love for us.
We are not meant to understand the Bible, Chris. It is folly to try. Our minds are incapable of knowing the extent of Him, for we are finite. But maybe our reason to be here is to be faithful to His Word, so we can be more like Him. Because I know I do not want to be like His adversary.
The Kingdom is not yet to come — the Kingdom has come. - YESS!
https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2023/04/jesus-christ-to-his-church-do-your-job.html?m=0
And the next logical conclusion is that God wants HIS will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. And He has commissioned and empowered the church to make it happen with all His power and authority. Dispensationalism and hopeless eschatology have emasculated Christ and make Christians ignorantly promote and condone Satan’s will on earth and heaven by exalting him as god over creation. May God open the eyes of His elect, tear down the satanic industrial complex, and raise up warriors who will proclaim Christ’s preeminence over all creation. Amen! It will be done.
The Church is not a pause in God's plan.
It IS God's plan.
1000%.
Great article! I don't see any evidence at all for the Premill/nor the Zionist Dispensational paradigm anywhere in Scripture. It's actually very discouraging that so many people have been duped by this. Although I appreciate the Amillennial and Postmillennial view (I was one for about 10 years), I feel they still miss the mark. Amills for example, are very anacronistic in their intrepretations. That is to say, they don't realize what time it is for the new testament authors. The end of the AGE (or "world" as "mistranslated" by the KJV) was speaking about the end of the age the authors were in at the time, the Old Covenant AGE (Heb 1:2 Matt 24:3, etc). These last days of 30-70AD was indeed the transition period from the Old Covenant to the New, which Hebrews speaks so much about (Heb 8:13) The passages are clear- there was something indeed VERY imminent for those in the first century. It was going to be an "earth" shattering event! As you pointed out, amazingly- Christ indeed brought forth Judgement upon THAT generation (Matt 24:34, Mark 9:1, etc). However He also brought Salvation in his "Second" coming (Heb 9:28,Luke 21:28). Satan was indeed the God is "this age" (the Old Covenant age where Adam gave up dominion to Satan in the Garden). But we read of his destruction in Jn 12:31, Rev 20, etc. but in the New Covenant/New Heavens and Earth- Christ has dominion for all time! Eschatology is about Covenants, Israel's covenants. The resurrection/judgement/second "coming" were all prophesied about for Old Covenant Israel- Us in the New Covenant, there shall be no end as we now dwell in Christ's eternal Kingdom.
I think covenantalism is definitely a reading that makes sense. Dispensationalism seems like beautiful mind meets hash pipe