5. Participle. The present participle, like the present inf., is
timeless and durative.
(a) The Time of the Present
Participle Relative. The
time comes from the principal verb. Thus in πωλοῦντεςἔφερον (Ac. 4:34. Cf. πωλήσαςἤνεγκεν in verse 37) the time is past; in μεριμνῶνδύναται (Mt. 6:27) the time is present; in ἔσεσθεμισούμενοι (Mt. 10:22), ὁβλέπωνἀποδώσει (Mt. 6:18), ὄψονταιτὸνυἱὸντοῦἀνθρώπουἐρχόμενον (24:30) it is future. Cf. Mt. 24:46; Lu.
5:4; 12:43. Further examples of the pres. part. of coincident action are seen
in Mt. 27:41; Mk. 16:20; Jo. 6:6; 21:19; Ac. 9:22; 10:44; 19:9.
(b) Futuristic. Just as the pres. ind. sometimes has a
futuristic sense, so the pres. part. may be used of the future in the sense of
purpose (by implication only, however). Cf. εὐλογοῦντα (Ac. 3:26); ἀπαγγέλλοντας (15:27); διακονῶν (Ro. 15:25). In Ac. 18:23, ἐξῆλθενδιερχόμενοςτὴνΓαλατικὴνχώραν, the pres. part. is coincident with the
verb. In 21:2 f. the pres. parts. διαπερῶν and ἀποφορτιζόμενον are futuristic (cf. 3:26; 15:27). Blass, page 189, notes ὁἐρχόμενος (Jo. 11:27) and ἐρχόμενον (1:9). This use of the pres. part. is
common in Thuc. (Gildersleeve, A. J. P.,
1908, p. 408).
(c) Descriptive. But usually the pres. part. is merely
descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of
purpose in ἄγοντες (Ac. 21:16). In τοὺςσωζομένους (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably
iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of τοὺςἁγιαζομένους in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10).
(d) Conative. It may be conative like the pres. or
imperf. ind. as in πείθων
(Ac. 28:23) or τοὺςεἰσερχομένους (Mt.
23:14).
(e) Antecedent Time. By implication also the pres. part. may
be used to suggest antecedent time (a sort of “imperfect” part.). So τυφλὸςὣνἄρτιβλέπω (Jo. 9:25). See further Mt. 2:20; Jo.
12:17; Ac. 4:34; 10:7; Gal. 1:23. Cf. ὁβαπτίζων (Mk. 1:4).
(f) Indirect Discourse. Cf. p. 864. An example of the pres.
part. with the object of a verb (a sort of indir. disc. with verbs of
sensation) is found in εἴδαμέντιναἐκβάλλονταδαιμόνια (Lu. 9:49). The pres. part. is common
after εἶδον in Rev. (10:1;
13:1, 11; 14:6; 18:1; 20:1, etc.). Cf. Ac. 19:35, γινώσκειτὴνπόλινοὖσαν.
(g) With the Article. The present participle has often the
iterative (cf. pres. ind.) sense. So ὁκλέπτων (Eph. 4:28)=‘the
rogue.’ Cf. ὁκαταλύων (Mt. 27:40); οἱζητοῦντες (2:20). The part. with the article
sometimes loses much of its verbal force (Moulton, Prol., p. 127; Kühner-Gerth, I, p. 266). He cites from the papyri, τοῖςγαμοῦσι, C. P. R. 24 (ii/a.d.). Cf. τοὺςσωζομένους (Ac. 2:47). So in Gal. 4:27, ἡοὑτίκτουσα, ἡοὐκὠδίνουσα.
(h) Past Action Still in
Progress. This may be
represented by the pres. part. So Mk. 5:25; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 59.
(i) “Subsequent” Action. Blass finds “subsequent” action in the
pres. parts. in Ac. 14:22 and 18:23. But in 14:22 note ὑπέστρεψανεἰςτὴνΛύστραν—ἐπιστηρίζοντεςτὰςψυχὰςτῶνμαθητῶν, the aorist ind. is “effective” and
accents the completion of the action. The pres. part. is merely coincident with
the “effective” stage. It is a point, not a process in the aorist.
(j) No Durative Future
Participles. The few fut.
parts. in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar, not durative, unless τὸγενησόμενον (1 Cor. 15:37) be durative, but this
example is pretty clearly ingressive punctiliar.(A. T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [Logos
Bible Software, 2006], 891-92)
Which is shed for many (τοπεριπολλωνἐκχυννομενον [to
peri pollōn ekchunnomenon]). A prophetic present passive participle. The
act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in
20:28. There ἀντι [anti] and here περι [peri].
Unto remission of sins (εἰςἀφεσινἁμαρτιων [eis
aphesin hamartiōn]). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be
restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the
modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical
remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his
death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the
shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive)
sins.(A.T. Robertson, Word
Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1933], Logos
Bible Software edition)
In Jewish legend there is the murder of Isaiah. Further, the Zechariah
whose murder is recorded in 2 Chron 24 20ff. came to be identified with
Zechariah the prophet. We should perhaps make allowance for a certain amount of
poetic licence here, and taken Jerusalem as typical of Israel as a whole. The
present participles of the Greek text may then be taken to mean something like
'ever ready to slay the prophets and stone her messengers'. (T. W. Manson, The
Sayings of Jesus As Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St.
Luke Arranged with Introduction and Commentary [London: SCM Press Ltd.,
1937], 127)
Ἰερουσαλὴμ Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς τροφήτας καὶ λιθοβολουσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους
πρὸς αὐτήν.Compare
21:35; also Neh 9:26; Jer 2:30. So also Luke and therefore Q. Note the
(Semitic?) solecism and the catchword connexion with v. 34 (‘I send to you
prophets’, ‘the prophets sent’). The double vocative here adds, as Clement of
Alexandria, Paid. 1:9–7:9, saw,
emphasis and pathos (cf. Acts 9:4), and the divine passive (‘sent’)
distinguishes the speaker (Jesus) from the sender (God). For the killing of the
prophets see on 23:31, and for stoning (see on 21:35) note Jn 8:59 (Jesus);
Acts 7:59 (Stephen); Heb 11:37 (OT heroes); 4 Baruch 9 (Jeremiah); Josephus, Ant. 4:22 (Moses); b. Sanh. 43a (Jesus); Exod.
Rab. on 6:13 (Moses). The Zechariah of 2 Chr 24:20–2 (cf. 5:35) was stoned,
and this fact enhances narrative continuity. Manson, Sayings, pp. 126–7, rightly observing that Jewish tradition does
not place many executions of prophets in Jerusalem, suggested that the present
participles may mean ‘ever ready to slay and stone’. This is probably correct,
although we observe that in our Gospel ‘all Jerusalem’ has been complicit in
the slaughter of infants (2:1–12), has sent Pharisees to oppose Jesus, and has
been predicted as the place of the Messiah’s execution (16:21; 20:17–18).(W.
D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew,
3 vols. [International Critical Commentary [London: T&T Clark
International, 2004], 3:320)
Jesus speaks first of what the inhabitants of the city have done in
the past. Jerusalem is the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s
messengers (the present participles point not to an occasional aberration, but
to the continuing practice). (Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew [The Pillar New Testament Commentary;
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992], 590-91)
Poured out has sometimes been rendered “shed” (for
example, Brc). Whichever expression is used, the readers must understand that
it refers to death.(Barclay Moon Newman and Philip C. Stine,
A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew [UBS
Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1992], 805)
My blood: see Lv 17:11 for the concept that the blood is “the seat of life” and that
when placed on the altar it “makes atonement.” Which will be shed: the present participle, “being shed” or “going
to be shed,” is future in relation to the Last Supper.(Donald
Senior, John J. Collins, and Mary Ann Getty, eds., The Catholic Study Bible, 2
vols. (2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 2:1391)
[The Liberator is the title of a
journal published in Melbourne, Australia, Joseph Symes being the editor. He is
a skeptic in religious matters. The following occupied a page in recent issue
of his paper.]
The Book of Mormon is the best
attested of all holy books or Bibles. I may go further and say that it is the
only Bible that is attested at all, except perhaps the Koran. I must explain. .
. .
[Then follows the story of the
first vision and the coming of Moroni]
The story told above is
thoroughly consistent with itself, and in perfect keeping with the leading
doctrines of the Bible. No Christian can consistently refuse to credit it.
2. It is quite likely that God
should reveal himself on plates of metal as on tablets of stone; to Joseph
Smith as to Moses; in America as in Western Asia. Here the plates are
described; the stones Moses received are nowhere described. Here dates are given;
in the Bible important and necessary dates are never given.
3. As no one knows what the Urim
and Thummim was, no one can prove that Joseph Smith’s description and use of it
are incorrect or improbable. To his positive and detailed statement, what can
the Christian oppose?
4. It must be admitted that the
world needed a divine revelation in Smith’s day quite as much as it ever did;
and therefore a compassionate God was as likely to reveal himself to Mr. Smith
as to Mr. Moses, Mr. Isaiah, etc. In the next place let us see what others
relate to Mr. Smith’s book.
[Here follows the testimony of
the three and the eight witnesses.]
I ask, what would the Jew or the
Christian not give to have his Bible attested in the above manner?
Of course, the impartial skeptic
attaches no importance whatsoever to religious testimony or to Spiritualistic
testimony or to Theosophic testimony.
But here we find a number of men
who produce and publish a wonderful book; the publication of which is followed
by cruel persecution against Smith, and his friends, and the most astounding
social and commercial development of our century. This is not a tale of past
ages the records of which have gone through many vicissitudes, and were written
we know not when or by whom; but a contemporary development. Men are yet living
who were born before Joseph Smith; scores possibly still live who remember him.
His work and that of his followers is in full life and vigor in Utah; and the
Mormon missionaries are in many lands.
I am no friend to Mormonism —
except in so far as it is a system of industry and progress. But I submit the
Book of Mormon as the best attested Bible in the world, that the
Jewish-Christian Bible has no evidence at all in comparison with it. (Joseph
Symes, “The Best Attested
of All Bibles,” repr. Deseret Weekly 53, no. 6[July 25,
1896]: 20, comments in square brackets added for clarification)
Ordinarily “blood of the covenant” דם ברית
was understood to refer to the blood of circumcision.
Jerusalem Talmud Yebamot 8.9A.5: Whoever has pulled forth the foreskin
(and thus made his circumcision unrecognizable), whoever is born circumcised
and whoever had himself circumcised before his conversion to Judaism, one must
make the blood of the covenant drip from him (by cutting into the site of
circumcision). R. Simeon b. Eleazar (ca. 190) taught, “The schools of Shammai
and Hillel were not of different opinions about the fact that one must make the
blood of the covenant drip from one who is born circumcised, because his
foreskin is pressed down. They were of different opinions concerning the
proselyte who converts to Judaism already circumcised; for the school of
Shammai said that one must make the blood of the covenant drip from him,
whereas the school of Hillel said that one did not have to do this.”—Parallel
passages include t. Šabb. 15.9 (133); y. Šabb. 19.17A.39; b. Šabb. 135A; b.
Yebam. 71A; Gen. Rab. 46 (29B).(Hermann L. Strack and Paul
Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash,
ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino;
Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1140)
In a
recent blog post, Mike Thomas addressed Latter-day Saints and modern translations of the Bible. This is not his first attempt at this; see Latter-day Saints and the Bible. Near the end of his article, Thomas wrote that:
The words of Martin Luther in
1521 at the Diet of Worms reflect the authority every Christian should
recognise in the Bible. The Reformers’ emphasis on the authority of the Bible,
often sealed with their martyrdom, is fundamental to our faith. The challenge
of the cults should drive us back to the Word, remind us of it’s full and final
authority. Mormons reading their Bibles in modern translations, their own
language, give us great opportunities to open the word of God to them.
Couple of things:
1. Mike has been challenged time and time again to debate me
on whether the Bible teaches Sola
Scriptura. He has refused to do such. Ditto for Tony Brown.
2. Mike has been refuted time and time again on his attacks
against the Church, such as his comments (which appear in this post) on Latter-day
Saint soteriology, not just his pathetic attempts to defend Sola Scriptura. For
more, see here.
3. Luther’s comments do not speak of the Protestant belief
in the “full and final authority” of the Bible. Instead, it shows that the
ultimate “rule of faith” for the Protestant is their right to private interpretation. On this, as I wrote previously:
Functionally, the Conscience (still affected by the noetic effects of the Fall), not the Bible, is Central to Protestantism
Consider the following representative quotations:
Martin Luther, Diet of Worms (1521): “Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.”
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:184: What Protestants deny on this subject is, that Christ has appointed any officer, or class of officers, in his Church to whose interpretation of the Scriptures the people are bound to submit as of final authority. What they affirm is that He has made it obligatory upon every man to search the Scriptures for himself, and determine on his own discretion what they require him to believe and to do.
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:161: Although in the external court of the church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions (unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.
In this light, the Protestant is only ultimately obligated to assent to any given doctrine if and only if he judges it to be “biblical.” In other words, his conscience plays the ultimate normative role. To say that some faculty functions in an ultimate sense is to say that one is bound or obligated to assent to the judgments of that faculty (here, one’s conscience) without any exceptions.
The Authority of the Church in the New Testament: Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem
The Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) shows that the New Testament Church did not view Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith; instead, the authority of the Church was, alongside then-oral revelation and written revelation, equal authorities. The doctrinal decision in this Council privileged the authority of the Church. Furthermore, it is important to focus on this event as it demonstrates the distinction of different types of preaching (insider vs. outsider) as discussed above. Finally, it shows the fallaciousness of the naïve Protestant understanding and use of the so-called “Berean test.”
Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called. Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.
This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.
In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 (LXX) in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision during the Council of Jerusalem. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes:
On that day I will raise up the tent of David that has fallen, and I will rebuild its things that have fallen, and I will raise up its things that have been destroyed, and I will rebuild it just as the days of the age, so that the remnant of the people, and all the nations upon whom my name was invoked upon them, will search for me,” says the Lord who is making these things. (Amos 9:11-12 | Lexham English Septuagint)
Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.
Furthermore, the text of Amos 9:11-12 is problematic. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדוםWithout it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” יירשׁוwas also misunderstood as “to seekידרשׁוIt is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
An honest Protestant should ask themselves the following questions:
·Could a member of the believing community object to James’ interpretation of Amos 9:11-12 using the “Berean test” and object to the Council’s decisions?
·Could one appeal, as Luther et al., taught believers had a right to, to the internal forum of conscience, and disagree with the Council’s decree?
·If “no,” why not?
·Protestants functionally know the difference between outsider and insider tests of faith. Once people accepted the Gospel, they were bound to the normative authority of the apostles and the Church.
The Biblical authors were not "proto-Protestants" on the issue of the privileged position of the conscience (a la Luther et al); they also accepted other proximate rules of faith, not just "Scripture."
Furthermore, Mike lies through his teeth, in an attempt to piety-signal, when he wrote the following:
Luther stood firm before princes,
popes, and emperors. For most of us it is not a stretch to know the Scripture
and stand firm on its authority. By precept and example, we have opportunities
to show how much a Mormon can trust the Book of books. It’s what made me a
Christian.
In an interview with the late Doug Harris in 2008, Mike Thomas said the following about his wife's "conversion experience" to Evangelical Protestantism, which led to his embrace of such a theology:
She came along that evening [to a friend's Protestant church], and the love that was shared there, the gospel was preached and Ann lasted about twenty minutes into the service when she fled the building. And I thought, "what have I done? I've done something dreadful here; something is wrong and I've not picked up on this." So I rushed out to her; two of the ladies in the church came out as well--very concerned. And Ann was sobbing in the carpark. And we said, "what's wrong?" And she said, "there's nothing wrong; it's just so wonderful!" And the Spirit of God was so powerful and she just couldn't take the weight of it. It was an incredible experience." (8:23 mark)
In reality, Ann suffers from emotional (and probably psychological) issues, had an emotional breakdown, and violá, embraces satanic nonsense (i.e., Protestantism). I hope Mike keeps sharp objects away from her. But once they embraced Protestantism, they also embraced the clout that comes with the "counter-cult" movement. I mean, it sure beats a regular 9-to-5. It also shows that the Protestant "testimony," as seen in various creeds and other works, is "feelings, not more than feelings." But sure, let's rewrite history and engage in piety signalling.
For previous refutations of Mike Thomas and Tony Brown, see:
23. The confession of the false prophets
turns out to be nothing but air; and their words are blown away by the curt
response of the one they have called ‘Lord’.
καὶτότεὁμολογήσωαὐτοῖςὅτιοὐδέποτεἔγνωνὑμᾶς. This
redactional line serves to introduce a phrase taken from Ps 6:9. Lk 13:27,
which must be closer to Q (see Jeremias, Lukasevangelium,
p. 233; Gundry, Commentary, p. 132),
reads, ‘And he will say, “I tell you, I do not know (οἶδα) where you come from” ’. Matthew
prefers a word stronger than ἐρῶ
(so Luke), and he chooses ὁμολογέω because of its solemnity, public character, and legal sense (which
connotes irreversibility); its use in the judgement scene of Mt 10:32 may also
have been a factor (cf. Rev 3:5). The use of the third person αὐτοῖς (‘I will confess to them’) serves to differentiate the false prophets from Matthew’s
readers. Matthew is, after all, not concerned with correcting the false
prophets but with giving the true sheep a warning. As for the use of the second
person just four words later (‘I never knew you’),
this creates a contrast with the threefold σῷ of the false prophets in 7:22. Note also
that Matthew has changed the tense: ‘I do not know’ (perfect with present
sense) has become ‘I never knew you’. The change was probably made so that
7:23a would cover the protracted period of ministry presupposed by 7:22.
‘I never knew you’ (cf. 25:12, also in a judgement scene) is not to be
taken literally. How could the judge of the earth do right if he knew nothing
of those who stood before him? And how could God lack knowledge of any
individual? ‘I never knew you’ is a formula of renunciation and means, ‘I never
recognized you as one of my own’ (cf. Amos 3:2; Jn 10:14; 1 Cor 8:3; 2 Tim
2:12, 19).(W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison
Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. [International Critical
Commentary; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 1:717, emphasis added)
