Semitic Influence on the Greek New Testament: Causes and Conclusions drawn

Semitisms in the New Testament

    If one wishes to be a serious student of New Testament Greek, it is essential that he understand Hebrew. Why? It is because the New Testament was primarily written by Jews who were living in or, alternatively, were from Palestine. It is apparent then that the New Testament itself would be heavily influenced by Semitic language, culture, and idioms. And that is what the current study attempts to understand.

    The purpose of the following is to understand how the New Testament is influenced by Semitisms, and in what ways Semitisms change the contemporary exegete's reading of the New Testament. The first issue to look at is the source of the Semitisms. Where did they come from? Was the New Testament a) written in a Semitic language and then subsequently translated into Greek? Was the New Testament b) translated from an original Semitic utterance? Or, perhaps, the New Testament c) has its own unique style influenced by common religious language and Old Testament scripture. After these three options have been treated, it will be concluded that that option a) is false, but that there are truths to both b) and c). Following the discussion on the source of Semitisms in the New Testament, examples of common Semitisms will be illustrated. They will be illustrated with a view to illustrate how understanding Semitisms in the New Testament can greatly assist the exegete in his study.

 

I. Sources of Semitisms

    There are three broad categories to look at in order to understand how Semitisms have entered into the New Testament. To be sure, there are overlaps between the following categories; there is just not one solution to this issue. Thus, like any complex issue, there are no easy answers.

A. Greek New Testament written in a Semitic language

    The first consideration to look at is whether or not the Greek New Testament was originally written in a Semitic language, and then subsequently translated into Greek. But this option does not seem tenable because there is no evidence for this. That is, there are no Semitic Manuscripts of the New Testament that predate the Greek Manuscripts. Of course, there may have been some written documents. But there would not have been an original Gospel account in Hebrew or Aramaic.

    Further, an original Semitic Manuscript would only make sense in the Gospels and epistles written to the Jews in Palestine. What about Paul's letters to the gentiles in Asia Minor or in Rome? These letters would surely have been written in the Greek language. So this conception only would make sense for the Gospels and any epistles written only to Palestinian Jews. But once again, there is no evidence of any Semitic Manuscript that predates the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, so there is no reason to believe this to be the case. Therefore it does not seem reasonable to assume that the New Testament was first written in Semitic and then translated into Greek.

B. Greek New Testament translated from original Semitic utterances

    The second consideration to look at is whether or not the Greek New Testament was originally spoken in a Semitic dialect and then translated in Greek (it is possible that there may have been some written documents as well). Remember, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and so were his disciples, so the language they would have spoken would have been a Semitic Dialect.

1. Cultural influence    

    H.F.D. Sparks, while analyzing Luke's gospel account, makes an accurate observation. He says that Since Jesus and His disciples were Palestinian Jews, they were Semitic speaking Jews. Based upon this, it makes sense that the primitive source (oral or written source material) of the Greek New Testament would also be Semitic.

    Further, since Luke lived near and around Christians for years, he would have picked up their religious language, which came from the LXX. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, and it was the predominant version of Holy Scripture used during this time. And in virtue of it being a translation of the Hebrew, it is chock-full with Semitisms. Not only did non Semitic speaking Christians following the LXX influence Luke, but also Luke's Semitic peers (For example the Apostle Paul), who would have spoken in a Semitic idiom, influenced him.
So Luke, who should have at least some amount of Semitic influence being a gentile, was influenced by his sources which were originally Semitic. Also, he would have been influenced by common Semitic idiom based upon the LXX.

2. Source influence

    How the Semitic sources and style influenced the actual writing process is another consideration to look at. For if all ones source material is heavily Semitized, will not the final product likewise be Semitized?

     Moule point out that the source Material of the writers would have influenced the writing style of the authors of the New Testament. He goes on to say that Luke's sources were probably oral and written, and depending on the context of his gospel he would have changed his style. Hebrews is very polished and poetic in comparison to Luke but shows a distinct style. Revelation, on the other hand, is heavily Semitized. What this means is that the authors changed their style based on the context. For example, if Luke was writing about a Jew who was serving at the temple, then of course he would use Semitisms to make his gospel authentic.

    It makes good sense to believe that the authors were influenced by their culture, and thus had Semitisms. In virtue of the fact that the LXX was the primary source of scripture for Greek speaking Jews and gentiles, then surely some Semitisms would have been transferred into common speech, just as today the King James Version of the bible has brought new idioms into the English language. Moreover, to write an accurate narrative set in Palestine it had to be an authentic. Thus one would have had to use Semitisms. For these reasons it seems appropriate to see that the Semitisms found in the Greek New Testament came from both cultural and source material influences.

C. Greek New Testament written in special style

    So while it seems best not to understand that the Greek New Testament was a translation from an original Semitic version, it does seem best to see that the both cultural and source material influenced the writing of the Greek New Testament. But is the New Testament as common of a book as any other work of that period, or is there a particularity about it? In other words, was the New Testament written in a special style unique to itself of not?

    It seems certain that the writers were influenced by the LXX, and this would have yielded a distinct Semitic dialect. Even A.T. Robertson admits in reference to the LXX's influence on the Greek New Testament, "It is not always easy to decide what is due to the use of the LXX and what to the development of the koine vernacular." And if this dialect was based upon religious literature, and it is, then large portions of the Greek New Testament are probably based upon ancient Israeli idioms. This dialect would have become a sort of religious language or subculture. Much like how the Southern Baptists have their own unique language particular to them (Once saved always saved, Revival, Baptism, Jesus saves, etc.), so also would the early Christians would have had a language particular to them. Because of this, Moule concludes that biblical Greek has a distinct flavor to it, in large part due to the molding of Christian thought into the text.

    Therefore it is the conclusion from the previous discussion is that the Greek New Testament was influenced by Semitisms in two ways: The first of these ways is that the Greek New Testament was influenced was through the original Semitic utterance that was used as a source material of the text. If the authors did not put the Semitisms into their own work (especially in the gospels), then they would not have been authentic. Further, Semitic utterances were spawned by cultural norms. These cultural norms and idioms influenced the non narrative texts, such as the Pauline epistles or Hebrews. The second way the Greek New Testament was influenced was through using a religious language unique to the subculture of which Christianity existed. But this point ought not be stressed too far, as most of the influence would have come from the LXX, that is the Old Testament scriptures, which really overlaps with the first point.

II. Illustrations

    With that being said, it seems best to look at a few illustrations of Semitisms from the New Testament text itself, in order to better understand the Greek New Testament.

A. Infinitive Absolute

    In Hebrew there are two infinitive forms. They are the infinitive construct and the infinitive absolute. Both do not have direct parallels into Greek (the construct is close). The absolute adds emphasis generally, although it has a number of other uses. But when a verb is situated next to an absolute with the same root, then this shows great emphasis. For example Genesis 2:17 says, "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die (tWmT' tAm))))))." The phrase "surely die" is literally dying you will die." In the same way Jesus emphasized his point, when He quoted Isaiah in Mathew 13:14, and said "you will indeed hear" (avkoh/| avkou,sete). Jesus is being very emphatic, and is using an idiom used throughout the Old Testament. When the dative noun with the indicative verb in Greek is used, it effectively takes the place of the verb with infinitive absolute in Hebrew to show emphasis.

B. Casus Pendens

    This Semitic idiom is a bit more complicated. Its structure is set up with a Casus Pendens (Lat. hanging case), followed by a non-verbal predicate, and then a subject. For example, when Jesus states in Mathew 6:4, "and your father (Casus Pendens), the one who sees in secret (non verbal predicate), he (subject) will repay you (kai. o` path,r sou o` ble,pwn evn tw/| kruptw/| avpodw,sei soi)," He is using this idiom. To be sure, this is not something that a koine speaker would normally say. Clearly, Mathew, by using the source material he had (his memory, or oral reports, or written reports) introduced this Semitism, in order 1) to be accurate and 2) to write an authentic gospel account. So this Semitism comes from the source material that he had available, and the context demanded this Semitism.

C. Adjectival Substitutes

 

    Hebrew has something called a construct state. It is basically a chain of words following one after another. The last word is the absolute in the construct chain, meaning that it is the word that all the previous words modify. So the phrase, "the son of the king of Israel" would mean that Israel has the son of the king within it. In Greek, this structure would be similar to having two nouns together with the second noun as a genitive. This genitive would limit or qualify the first noun. These genitives are 1) genitive of an abstract noun in place of an adjective of quality, for example "body of our lowliness" etc. 2) use of son (uJioV) with a following genitive of origin or definition, for example "son of peace."

    The idea of a son of peace is a perfect example. Luke 10:6 states, "And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you." What this example means is that this son is characterized by peacefulness. This is a way that Greek can mimic the construct state in Hebrew. If one understands this construction, then one will be able to see that the son of peace is not someone born from peace necessarily, but one that is characterized by peace.

    These three examples, the infinitive absolute, Casus Pendens and Adjectival substitutes are all directly taken from Semitic idiom and usage in the Hebrew Bible. Even having a modest knowledge of Hebrew will greatly assist in understanding the Greek New Testament.

 

 

 

Verbal Aspect in Greek

Verbal Aspect

When entering into a discussion concerning Greek verbal aspect, there are two names that come to the forefront, Buist M. Fanning and Stanley Porter. Both men have come to similar conclusions about the morphological meaning behind the Greek verb forms. They state that instead of time being the focus of the Greek verb, instead, kind of action is the focus. What this means is that the Aorist is no longer the 'past tense', the present is no longer the 'present (temporal) tense', instead, their aspectual value expresses kind of action. Because of their convincing argument on the whole, it will be demonstrated in the following that Greek grammaticalizes aspect, specifically kind of action instead of grammaticalizing the traditional category of time. Time still has some place within the Greek verbal system, but it is not the focus of the Greek verb. In order to prove this hypothesis, Porter and Fanning's views on Greek aspect will be summarized. Following the summary, conclusions will be drawn based upon the previous summary section, along with biblical applications of certain key texts.

I. Tenseless verbs

Greek verbs do not primarily grammaticalize time, they primarily grammaticalize aspect. For instance, the present tense does not semantically encode present time but, rather, it would imply an action in process and near proximity. However, time does play a significant have a role in Greek pragmatically. According to Porter, time is implied by certain words that express time based upon their lexical meaning (i.e. now, after, tomorrow, etc). But the morphological additions (sufformatives) to the naked lexical form do not imply time.

A. Aspect Defined

Rodney Decker quotes Porter as he defines how the Greek verbal system functions, and states, "[a]spect, therefore, grammaticalizes how a specific process (P) is viewed by the speaker. Attitude grammaticalizes the speaker's perspective (S) on the point of reference (R). And time is a non-grammaticalized category of temporal reference established on the basis of deixis". Porter separates aspect, attitude (similar to mood) and time as three factors that weigh heavily upon the meaning of a given Greek verb. As is clear here, aspect is distinct from time and attitude. Aspect is only narrowly defined as the process viewed by the speaker. All three together as they are related in a context would constitute Aktionsart.

B. The indicative mood and aspect

The following section explicates aspectual definitions of the six tenses in the indicative mood, to the end that the connection between theory and practice may be made clear. It is vitally important to differentiate aspect from Aktionsart. The former is a view to the process of an action, while the latter is what the action means in relation to its context. Understanding this difference will allow further clarity to the discussion.

The aorist tense is, according to Porter, perfective (not to be confused with the perfect tense) in aspect. Perfective aspect is simple and plain, only defining the action broadly as whole, not pointing to the beginning or end of the action. Thus the aorist tense is not focused upon past time, as is traditionally assumed. But instead it is focused upon an external view of the action. The Aorist views a scene as a snapshot or as a man in a helicopter viewing a parade from far above. He does not worry about the beginning or the end, the details, or any matter of time. But instead he sees the entire parade as a whole. The Aorist tense is only worried about the external picture, and to speak of the Aorist in terms of time or frequency is speak of it in terms of Aktionsart.

In contrast to the perfective aspect, the imperfective aspect views an action as a continuing, vivid, incomplete action. The present and imperfect tense forms are imperfective in terms of aspect in Porter's system. Both the present and imperfect tenses do not indicate time. Rather, the present tense indicates proximity or on-going process of action, while the imperfect tense indicates remoteness or adds extra detail.

Finally, Porter adds a third aspect to the two traditional aspects, perfective aspect and imperfective aspect. He adds the stative aspect, within which the perfect and pluperfect fit into his system. He defines the stative aspect as a "reference to a condition or state that depends upon the process". The stative aspect is suspect at best, because it is usually assumed to have Aktionsart value instead of Aspectual value.

This means that according to Porter there are three aspects in total. They are the perfective, imperfective and stative aspect. The present and imperfect tenses represent the imperfective, the aorist tense is perfective, and the perfect and pluperfect tenses are stative. So where does the future tense fit into this system? In Porter's system, the future tense has a very vague definition. He says that the future tense "is best seen as semantically designating the speaker's expectation [+expectation] that an event is coming about…[it reflects] both attitude and aspectually…[but is] aspectually vague". In the end, Porter does not have the future tense categorized within the indicative mood, but it is presented here for simplicity, and because almost all scholars unanimously categorize the future tense in the indicative mood.

C. Non-Indicative moods

The non-indicative moods which are represented by the optative, imperative and subjunctive moods are projections of a certain point of view. For example, Porter states that the subjunctive mood grammaticalizes "projection with no expectation of fulfillment". The imperative gives direction to an action, while the optative is basically a nuanced subjunctive. Thus the non-indicative moods have representation in this aspectually focuses system. Infinitives and Participles have been traditionally considered tenseless, so there is no substantial difference for these two.

II. Potential problems and disagreements

Up until this point, Porter's views in general about aspect have been summarized, but the following will highlight some potential problems of non time tensed verbal forms and the points of disagreement between Buist M. Fanning and Stanley Porter.

A. How is time understood in Greek?

It is built into the human condition to understand events in terms of time, but how is this accomplished in Greek, if the verbal forms do not indicate time? In Porter's system, time is understood in terms of Deixis. Deixis can be almost any contextual factor surrounding the verb. Lyons is quoted in Porter and defines Deixis as,

"the location and identification of persons, objects, events, processes, and activities being talked about, or referred to, in relation to the spatio-temporal context created and sustained by the act of utterance and participation in it, typically, of a single speaker and at least one addressee"

This may seem very technical and vague, but it simply means that time is indicated by context. For example, if one were to relate the conquests of the great Mongolian conqueror Ghengis Khan in Greek, it would be apparent by context that this happened before the speaker's utterance. For if the conquest was happening presently or in the future, how could the speaker relate completed action? Temporal indicators such as "now, tomorrow, yesterday, soon and next month," can also imply time based upon their lexical form. So stating that "Ghengis sacked Yenking 800 years ago in 1206" will indicate past time, based on context and time based lexical forms ("800, year, ago, 1206"). Therefore time can still be understood without the semantic verb forms to intrinsically code for time.

B. The Stative Mood

Porter is novel in his view that there are three moods. This is odd because stativity is generally assumed to have Aktionsart value. It is not essential to understand whether or not there are three rather than two aspects, but it is still odd that Porter takes this position.

C. The Augment

The issue of the augment is nearer to the heart of the issue than the previous two objections. The augment is the preformative attached to the aorist and imperfect tenses. Traditionally it has been understood to indicate past time. But if the morphological verb forms do not indicate time, then what does the augment signify?

Porter defends his conclusions concerning Greek aspect by saying that the augment is not a past time morpheme, as is usually assumed. In his analysis of Homeric Greek, he finds that in simile and gnomic literature that the aorist generally has the augment, although there are multiple exceptions. Additionally, some iterative (past referring) aorists do not have the augment. Further, aorists usually have the augment in speeches with present reference, but preterite (past referring) aorists often do not have the augment. Although the imperfect has representation in many past referring contexts, it still has representation in both present and timeless contexts. This is especially true as it is used in 1^st and 2^nd class conditional sentences. Thus Porter concludes that the augment's main purpose is not to indicate past time, but rather the augment indicates emphasis.

D. Verbs and Time

While Stanley Porter has stolen most of the attention in the previous sections, Fanning is given his say here. Both men are in essential agreement in broad terms with regard to Greek aspect. For them, Greek aspect grammaticalizes the speaker's subjective view of the action, instead of the traditional temporal categories. But Fanning disagrees with Porter, in that he sees some temporal significance in the Greek verbal form. He states that "the linguistic evidence is overwhelming that in the indicative forms the tenses carry a double sense of time and aspect together."

Fanning's synthesis between the tensed focus and aspectual focus of Greek verb forms may be a bit of a stretch. Moises Silva states, "Fanning is, I think, much too generous in his attempt to salvage what he can out of the traditional grammars; while I commend him in the attempt (it needs to be done), the result is a certain instability." Whether Silva's conclusion is true or not has yet to be seen, as there just hasn't been enough time for an extended analysis of the data available.

Fanning in an effort to defend his synthesis between aspect and time believes that while Porter finds present, aorist and perfect tenses used for past, present, future and omnitemporal uses, these examples shouldn't make law. After all, when is it acceptable to use hard cases as a basis for law? Further, he wonders why it is conclusive that the present tense isn't present in time. If one focuses on gnomic and historic present uses, then one will find some awkwardness. But all of these apparent exceptions can be explained. Perhaps Porter has gone too far in trying to make a system without exceptions that he has missed the boat entirely.

In conclusion Porter has gone, perhaps, too far in his system so that he overlooks the obvious (time tensed verbs), Fanning on the other hand may have - in an attempt to synthesize the traditional view of the Greek verb with the new - produced an unstable system. Definitive conclusions will have to wait until more data and scholarship has become available.

III. Conclusion and Application

The debate continues and it is not yet apparent which position will prove the test of time, but the evidence from scripture and other contemporary Greek sources seems convincing. The Greek verbal system does Grammaticalize aspect, although in what way time and kind of action are related is still debated. Practically it seems best to see the tenses as referring to time. For example, the majority of the Aorist and Imperfect tenses do refer to the past, while only rarely do they refer to the present. The future tense itself always refers to the future. So while Porter's theory does seem valid, it doesn't shake the world of Koine Greek, as some might think.

It seems best to understand that there are two aspects, perfective and imperfective. The perfective aspect includes the aorist and future tenses, while the imperfective aspect includes the present, imperfect, perfect and pluperfect. The perfective aspect grammaticalizes completed action, while the imperfective aspect grammaticalizes action in process. In the previous discussion, broad strokes have been made for the purposes of clarity and simplicity, but the individual tenses themselves can have a more detailed semantic definition. The following will explicate the six tenses, then application of this theory to the New Testament will be given.

A. The Indicative Moods

The present tense encodes for proximity and action in process. The imperfect encodes for remoteness and action in process. The perfect tense encodes for near proximity and action in process. The pluperfect encodes for far remoteness and action in process. The aorist encodes for remoteness and completed action. Finally, the future tense encodes for future reference and completed action.

B. The Non-Indicative Moods

The non-indicative moods and the infinitive and participle are similar, with some variety. The imperative encodes for its tense and it gives direction. The subjunctive encodes for its tense and it expresses a potentiality, real or hypothetical. The optative in Koine Greek is like the subjunctive, but with more emphasis. The participle generally agrees in time with its main verb according to context, and encodes it's tense according to the outlines above. The infinitive encodes it's tense according to the outlines above.

C. Textual examples

In the nineteenth chapter of John, while Jesus hung upon the cross, he exclaimed "it is finished" (tete,lestai). If one were to take the traditional semantic meaning of the perfect verb, that this is a past action with present results, then it could be argued (and it has been argued) that Jesus' atonement is so sure that in the past it was already completed, securing a redeemed people group for himself. The results of this pre-atonement, or pre-assurement of the atonement are continuing upon the cross itself. While this may help prove the point of a particular atonement, it clearly isn't the point of the passage.

If one were to understand that the Perfect encodes for near proximity and action in process, it would be clear that Jesus' exclamation implies intensity. If John would have used the aorist tense, for instance, then it would just be a statement of the event, plain and simple. If John would have used the present or imperfect tense it may have added some detail to the narrative. Instead, John used the most intense verb form possible in Greek, to show intensity of the suffering of Christ and the satisfaction of His work on the cross. Any other tense used would not have shown the emotional affect upon the Savior of the world, caused by the work of the cross. Thus the perfect makes better sense on a tenseless paradigm for Greek. Although, surely this doesn't discount that in the past Christ's death was planned (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:28).

In another place in John's gospel, Jesus prays to the Father that he would sanctify (a`gi,ason) his people by God's word, which is true (John 17:17). Traditionally the aorist has been considered past time, and even punctiliar. Some have thought that because the aorist is used here (a`gi,ason) that this is a punctiliar, instantaneous, total sanctification. This is verse does not prove that point, although other parts of scripture may teach that. The aorist is perfective in aspect, and that means it shows a snapshot or a complete action, while encoding for remoteness. This lends itself to narrative nicely. If one were to take this verb as teaching total sanctification, then one would be mistaken. If one were to insist on this view of the aorist, then in verse 15 when Jesus prays to the Father to keep (thrh,shj) His people, it would not be a continuing action; it would be instantaneous. Or, for example, in verse 18, would Jesus' sending (avpe,steila) His people into the world be instantaneous? Both of these examples, while in the same block of text as verse 17, use aorist verbs that are not instantaneous. The point of view grammaticalized is remoteness and completed action, but the verb form itself does not comment anymore. It does not say that the action was past, present, future, durative or instantaneous. It just gives the bare bone outline of the narrative. Thus John 17:17 should not be abused as being a proof text for total or instantaneous sanctification.

The last example given will not be a response against incorrect views of the tenses themselves, instead, it will be an example of how this system works within a simple narrative. Mark 1:4-5 says, "⁴evge,neto VIwa,nnhj Îo`Ð bapti,zwn evn th/ evrh,mw kai. khru,sswn ba,ptisma metanoi,aj eivj a;fesin a`martiw/nÅ
⁵kai. evxeporeu,eto pro.j auvto.n pa/sa h` VIoudai,a cw,ra kai. oi` ~Ierosolumi/tai pa,ntej( kai. evbapti,zonto u`pV auvtou/ evn tw/ VIorda,nh potamw/ evxomologou,menoi ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/nÅ"Notice how the aorist verb "appeared" (evge,neto) gives a simple outline to the narrative, while the imperfect verbs, "were going out" (evxeporeu,eto) and "were being baptized" (evbapti,zonto) give details to the outline of the narrative. This is because the aorist (in this text) is giving the a outline of the text, while the imperfect is giving details to the narrative. The imperfect is less remote than the aorist, and it emphasis the process of the action since it is imperfective in aspect. Thus it is the best tense to use in contrast with the very basic perfective aspect of the aorist verb. Therefore a tenseless system can even explain why the author uses certain tenses over others in a narrative, and even the meaning behind that choice.

IV. Closing Remarks

The question of how to understand Greek verbal aspect is a hot topic for the evangelical world. But as was demonstrated, even a time tensed framework for understanding the significance of the morphological forms, yields a pragmatically workable system of interpretation. And while the tenseless system appears to be correct, pragmatically it is almost impossible to see the aorist as referring to anything else but past time, except in some exceptional contexts, and likewise with the rest of the tenses. Therefore it is appropriate to understand that Greek grammaticalizes aspect primarily, but one must practice sensitivity with regard to the pragmatic temporal implicature found in almost all contexts in the New Testament.

Fatboy days

Food is good. Sitting is good. Wasting time on the internet is good. I feel like ive been busy in the past, and today is a good rest day. There is one problem though... I have a lot of Hebrew homework due tommorow. So I have two choices at this point: Sleep or Hebrew. Sleep is calling, hebrew is not. Maybe ill do it in the morning before class - yea. That is a good idea.



...good night

I often wonder what it would have been like to have been educated in the Roman world. Would I have been taught the classics, virgil and so on. Would my focus have been rhetoric, focused not on the truth of the matter, but rather on the eloquence of the speaker and my capability to win the argument?

St. Augustine would have been trained like this. Since he was not born in Italy, he was not educated in the liberal arts, such as science and math. No, he would have been taught the literature found in the classics, translated from Greek to Latin. His focus would have been on analyzing the text and speaking on every inch of detail that could be found in the literature. He knew that the writers he was studying had a specific purpose for every word they used, the syntactical functions implemented, and the grammatical constructions employed.

Furthermore, he would have been able to speak competently on these works, after having done such a study. In effect, his training at the schools in Thagaste would prepare him for his awesome duty of preaching the word of God later in his life in Hippo. Born in the small North African town of Thagaste, Augustine would eventually become a Bishop and a central figure in church history.

What should we learn from this? I think that we ought to read good literature, and that we ought to pay attention to the words, grammar, and syntax employed. But We should especially do this with scripture.

God inspired the texts we have today in the original autograph down to the very “jot and tittle”, and “scripture cannot be broken”. Therefore the text we have today is the same as it has been since writing. Why not take it very seriously? Every word written in scripture is from the mind of the sovereign pantocrator of the Universe, God Himself. How can we afford to treat it with any less care?

Call to ministry

What is the relationship between a divine call by God into full time ministry and natural talent? No actually, I am curious. To anybody who reads this, if anyone actually does indeed read this, what do you think?

The deceitfulness of eternal security

A profession of faith, a historical moment of belief, or whatever it may have been still does mean your salvation is secured until the end. The bible is clear. If you do not abide in the vine, then you will be burned up (John 15:6). If deny the master who has bought you, then you bring upon yourself swift destruction (2 pet 2:1).

Look at what the author of Hebrews says, “For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (6:4-7).” Never does the bible say that based on a profession of faith one is secure to the end. One may have all the outward signs of the a regenerate person and yet fall away.

Therefore let us cast aside this spurious use of the phrase “eternally secure”, and let us move to a more responsible phrase. That is, the phrase perseverance of the saints. For what does Jesus say, only those who continue in His word will prove to be His true disciples (john 8:31). It is significant that Jesus is speaking to those who followed Him; those who claimed to believe in Him, yet still, they must continue or abide in His word to be His true disciples.

Can we be secure in our salvation? Yes, for those whom God has effectually called in virtue of His plan will be justified and glorified (cf. Rom 8:28-30). The word “called” or called into union with Christ presupposes a plan in the past (28). God who is all-powerful cannot fail, and therefore, we cannot fail to be brought into glorification (30). Glorification according to God’s plan (28) surely includes both calling and justification (30). So then, can the called and justified be lost? Never! God cannot lie (cf. Titus 1:2), and he speaks through Paul telling us that nothing can separate us from the love which was granted to us in Christ (Rom 8:31-39). If Christ died for us (32, 34) and we died with Him (Rom 6:5), then it is impossible for us to be have not “died in Him”. Further, we were united in Christ by God’s election in eternity past (Eph 1:4), affirmed by a promise within the Godhead (2 Tim 1:9). Therefore our perseverance is assured.

But we must persevere. We must workout our salvation with fear and trembling in virtue of it being God who works in us (Phil 1:12-13). Remember, “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven…”, then you will be saved - but only then.

Union with Christ

What does it mean to be "in Christ"? Does it mean that one is in a favorable position with regard to Christ? Or that God’s disposition is laid favorably upon us? Perhaps it means that one is in the same category of Christ, and as a consequence, God sees us in a new relationship with Him separate from the world. But these definitions have no ground in truth. What is true is this: the phrase “in Christ” means to be in union with Christ. This union is far more than a simple categorical or abstract principal. It is mysterious - yet personal.


Union with Christ means that on account of the fact that we have died in Christ, that we will also live in Christ (Rom 6:1ff). Furthermore, we were chosen “in Christ” before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Therefore from the first – eternal election – to the last – glorification, we are in union with Christ. That is, our union is timeless. We were chosen before time in Christ and we will be united in a resurrection body like His (cf. Rom 6:5; 1 Cor 15:50ff), when Christ returns and is glorified together with us for all eternity (1 Thess 4:17). Our salvation, then, was secured before time for all time. There was never a time when we were not in Christ.

Our heavenly inheritance, then, is secured in virtue of this union. Our election, predestination, calling, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification and finally our glorification is all of Christ. But not only this, we are not only in Christ but also in the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus and the father are one (John 10:30), and if anyone obeys Christ the Father will love Him and make His abode with the believer (John 14:23). In addition, we have received the Spirit of God also (1 Cor 2:12), thus, we are in constant communion and union with the Triune Godhead.