The Apocrypha: a response . . .

Devin, concerning the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon of Scripture since it was included in the Septuagint and that further even Jesus leaves room for its possible inclusion when he said that the Law and Prophets were until John the Baptist. (Luke 16:16)

However, please correct my understanding if I am wrong; but isn’t the Apocrypha used to reinforce doctrine rather than as a source for doctrine as are the 39 OT books and the 27 NT books? I do not wish to argue, I simply ask for clarification considering the following observations:

Despite the fact that New Testament writers quote largely from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament, there is not a single clear-cut case of a citation from any of the fourteen apocryphal books . . . . The most that can be said is that the New Testament writers show acquaintance with these fourteen books and perhaps allude to them indirectly, but in no case do they quote them as inspired Scripture or cite them as authority (Unger 1951, 101).

Finally, it must be observed that the apocryphal books, unlike the canonical books of the Old Testament, make no direct claims of being inspired of God. Not once is there a, “thus says the Lord,” or language like, “the word of the Lord came unto me, saying . . .” In fact, some of the documents actually confess non-inspiration! In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states: “Ye are entreated therefore to read with favor and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have labored to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases.”

Too, there is the matter of literary style. Dr. Raymond Surburg has written:

When a comparison is instituted of the style of the Apocrypha with the style of the Biblical Hebrew Old Testament writings, there is a considerable inferiority, shown by the stiffness, lack of originality and artificiality of expression characterizing the apocryphal books (1980, 7).

In closing, let me say that I am indeed thankful—indebted perhaps is a better choice of words—to the Catholic Church for the canon of Scripture, both old and new; although, I  must say at this juncture in my journey I believe I am more in the Orthodoxy camp than Rome, theologically.

Blessing, I am yours for the journey,

 Jim

Is the canon closed?

Answer in response to whether or not the canon is closed:

Problem is that you do not take into consideration that Ephesians 2:20 informs us that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone.” If the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, are we still building the foundation? Hebrews 6:1-3 encourages us to move on from the foundation. Although Jesus Christ is most definitely active in the church today, His role as the cornerstone of the church was completed with His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. If the work of the cornerstone is, in that sense, complete, so must the work of the apostles and prophets, who were the foundation, be complete. Thus we can say in the words of Scripture that even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! Galatians 1:8; and if it is not another Gospel, then must adhere to the principle of sola scriptura. Right?

I am yours for the journey,

Jim R/~

P.S. Please continue to pray for and support our ministry in the former Soviet Union and in Southern Asia.

 Click here to support! 

Communion: A Rememberance Or Another Crucifixion?

The Meaning Of Galatians 3:1, which reads:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

Luther comments,

“So vividly had [Paul] described Christ to them that they could almost see and handle Him. As if Paul were to say: "No artist with all his colors could have pictured Christ to you as vividly as I have pictured Him to you by my preaching. Yet you permitted yourselves to be seduced to the extent that you disobeyed the truth of Christ."[1.]

The Intervarsity Press Commentary concerning this passages says,

“This initial question reveals the nature of Paul's evangelistic preaching as he founded the churches in Galatia. His use of the term portrayed means that his preaching was like painting a picture with words or putting up a public poster for all to see. The perfect tense of the verb crucified indicates that Paul's vivid portrayal of Christ crucified was not only of the historical event but also of the present, saving power of the cross of Christ for all who believe in him.”

James A. Fowler, says,

“This initial question reveals the nature of Paul's evangelistic preaching as he founded the churches in Galatia. His use of the term portrayed means that his preaching was like painting a picture with words or putting up a public poster for all to see. The perfect tense of the verb crucified indicates that Paul's vivid portrayal of Christ crucified was not only of the historical event but also of the present, saving power of the cross of Christ for all who believe in him.

“Paul is not implying that the Galatians saw the physical crucifixion of Jesus with their physical eyes, but that metaphorically with the "eyes of their heart" (Eph. 1:18) they understood the meaning of the death of Christ as he had powerfully placarded such to their minds. Christ did not die needlessly (2:21), but His death set in motion the "finished work" (Jn. 19:30) whereby God accomplishes the entirety of His work of redemption and restoration of man.”[2.]

Roman Catholics and the Orthodox communities see it differently. Two prime examples are former Presbyterian ministers, Scott Haun and Marcus Grodi,[3.]now converts to Roman Catholicism, who both agree that Paul was referring to the eucharistic transformation of the bread and wine into the literal, sacrificial flesh of Christ as it occurred at the time of his death for our sins on the Cross of Calvary.

So, in a real sense, they say, the Communion service was a reminder to the Galatians of an historical event as well as a current sacrifice that was tranformed in clear sight right before them through the eyes of faith.

In other words, since the Galatians were not at the Crucifixion, how could Paul have been referring to that when he said that Christ was crucified right before their eyes? He must have been referring to the Eucharist, they contend.

I, for one, must admit that that is a good point; however—and, this is a big ‘however’—if we are to take that literally, we too must be nailed to the Cross [in him] literally to make that more than just an analogy. This I contend on the basis of:

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

So, once again, we are at an exegetical stalemate that can only be broken by either a Roman Catholic or a Protestant eisegesis of the text; and, of course that is not acceptable.

There is, however, a tertium quid, I believe, that applies. And, that is, just plain common sense.

Briefly, I would argue that Jesus referred to himself as a door, a road, a vine, as bread and water; however, anyone through common sense can see that he was not a literal door, or a literal road, or vine, or bread or water—yet, it a real spiritual sense, he was all of these.

I am open for correction, but this is the way I see it.

---

[1.] Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535) by Martin Luther Translated by Theodore Graebner (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949) Chapter 3, pp. 86-106

[2.] Quoted from James A. Fowler’s commentary on Galatians 3:1 @ http://www.christinyou.net/pages/galgbrbf.html
[3.] Journey Home, Marcus Grodi interview of Scott Haun on EWTN

Same-sex Marriages

Gay marriages are in the news these days. Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who has championed same-sex marriage in the state since taking office in January, held a party in New York City and promised to help push for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry in other states. "Passing this law not only completes the promise that we made to the people of the state during the campaign; it's going to make a real difference in people's lives,"

Mr. Cuomo told reporters at the Dream Downtown Hotel near the meatpacking district, where he hosted a reception for lawmakers and gay rights advocates. "And I don't think this is just about gay people who now choose to get married," the governor added. "This is a statement that we should all feel good about."

A city official married the first couple in New York City to wed under the state's new law allowing same-sex marriage Sunday. Phyllis Siegal, 76, and Connie Kopelov, 84, were married in a chapel at the city clerk's office as a crowd of onlookers cheered.

The two, of New York, have been together for 23 years. Kopelov left the clerk's office in a wheelchair, but used a walker to approach reporters. "Your cheers are wonderful," Siegal told well-wishers outside the office.

She told reporters the experience was "just so amazing. It's the only way I can describe it."

Surprisingly, very few Christians understand or can defend the Biblical stance on this issue.

Many have asked what my position is on the subject. So, perhaps, a blog is the best place to deal with it.
First of all both Old and New Testaments are adamantly opposed to sexual activity between people of the same sex. The scriptures explicitly forbid it.

For starters, just read Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

And, of course, the New Testament follows though on this theme culminating with Jude 5-7 which reads: "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day - just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."

Of course, advocates of same sex marriages are well aware to these verses of scripture, but through a series of contorted hermeneutical maneuvers manage to illogically circumvent these obvious proscriptions. Perhaps, the most ridiculous one is to somehow tie heterosexual marriages with the ancient practice of slavery as an example on how we must change our position on same sex marriages to keep up with the times.

Well, for one thing, marriage between the opposite sexes is not slavery-nor is it, archaic. Furthermore, Jesus recognized the marriage as consummated when the opposite sexes were joined together. To put it bluntly, the puzzle just does not fit in same sex marriages.

Read it for yourself: "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,' and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matt. 19:4-6

Finally, even reason itself dictates against the practice. It simply is not natural.

I know that some argue that gays are just born that way; but I maintain that the same line of reasoning and argument could be used to condone pedophilia.

Question: "What is the five (5) fold ministry?"

Answer: The concept of the five-fold ministry comes from Ephesians 4:11, "It was he who gave some to be (1) apostles, some to be (2) prophets, some to be (3) evangelists, and some to be (4) pastors and (5) teachers." Primarily as a result of this verse, some believe God has restored, or is restoring, the offices of apostle and prophet in the church today. Ephesians 4:12-13 tells us that the purpose of the five-fold ministry is, "to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." So, since the body of Christ definitely is not built up to unity in the faith and has not attained to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ, the thinking goes, the offices of apostle and prophet must still be in effect.

However, Ephesians 2:20 informs us that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone." If the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, are we still building the foundation? Hebrews 6:1-3 encourages us to move on from the foundation. Although Jesus Christ is most definitely active in the church today, His role as the cornerstone of the church was completed with His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. If the work of the cornerstone is, in that sense, complete, so must the work of the apostles and prophets, who were the foundation, be complete.

What was the role of the apostles and prophets? It was to proclaim God's revelation, to teach the new truth the church would need to grow and thrive. The apostles and prophets completed this mission. How? By giving us the Word of God. The Word of God is the completed revelation of God. The Bible contains everything the church needs to know to grow, thrive, and fulfill God's mission (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The cornerstone work of the apostles and prophets is complete. The ongoing work of the apostles and prophets is manifested in the Holy Spirit speaking through and teaching us God's Word. In that sense, the five-fold ministry is still active.

Did Mary Have Other Children? by Matt Slick

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).

As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

•Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

•Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

•Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

•John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."

•Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."

•1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

•Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother."

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.

There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word brother means fellow Jews or cousin in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.

Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

•Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

•Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm

There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, they hated Me without a cause."

He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Fathers house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."

Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.

To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9,

"Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mothers sons. 9For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."

This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says,

"Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets." Gods will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

Sola Scriptura or The Magisterium

Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible?

Roman Catholics often say that it was their church that gave us the Bible. They sometimes claim this when defending their "Sacred Tradition" so that they might support extra-biblical teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, and Mary worship.  They often say the only way the Christian church knew what books are to be included in the Canon of Scripture was because it was revealed by word-of-mouth in the early church; that is, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, this argument implies that tradition is superior to Scripture.  Of course, we are not saying that the Roman Catholic church teaches that tradition is above Scripture.  But when Sacred Tradition is claimed to be the thing by which Scripture is given, then tradition is inadvertently the thing that gives blessing and approval to the Bible.  Heb. 7:7 says, "But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater." The unfortunate psychological effect of saying that Roman Catholic tradition is what gave us the Bible, is that it elevates their tradition to a level far greater than what is permitted in Scripture.  In fact, it is contradicted by scripture:

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other," (1 Cor. 4:6).

The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God, to not go beyond the written Word, so that we might not make mistakes in what is true.  Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic church tradition is that it results in various justifications of it's non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, purgatory, indulgences, penance, works of righteousness, etc.  Because it has deviated from trusting God's Word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas.  Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible?  No, it did not.

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.  The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire.  Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point.  The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition.  In other words, it discovers what is already authentic.  Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word.  It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done.  Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed.  If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible?  It didn't, so it cannot make that claim.  The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired.  The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired.  That is what those who are of God do.

Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit.  There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic.   Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church.  To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.

Fifth, the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, ²¹ for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God," (2 Pet. 1:20-21). The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

Conclusion

The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27).  The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church. This is very important.  The Christian Church recognizes what God has ordained through his sovereign inspiration to be the word of God. When the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself above the word of God.  It needs to repent.

Petra or Petros?

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built?

by Matt Slick

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it," (Matt. 16:18).

The Roman Catholic Church Puts a great deal of emphasis on Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him.

1. Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it."  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 552).
2. "By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).

The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18.  Here it is in context.

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" ¹⁴ And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.  ¹⁵ He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" ¹⁶ And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." ¹⁷ And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. ¹⁸ "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. ¹⁹ "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ²⁰ Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).

There are problems with the Roman Catholic position.  First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English.  "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender.  It is similar to the English words actor and actress.  The first is masculine and the second is feminine.  Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine.  Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros.  But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra."   Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:"  "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie."  Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood?  Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else.  What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?
The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

• Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
• Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
• 1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
• 1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8).  Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus!  If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?
In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:

1. Source:  Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
   
   1. Petros:  "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα
   2. Petra:  πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone."
2. Source:  Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell.
   
   1. PETRA πέτρα , (4073)) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved.

A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.

• Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. ³⁰ But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
• Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." ⁵⁸ And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
• Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...¹⁴ But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built.  Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16).  This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.

• Deut. 32:4,  "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
• 2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; ³ My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
• Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
• Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock?  I know of none."
• Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.

The Aramaic Kepha

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'."  The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic, but Greek.  Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position.  We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have:  the aramaic text.  Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?
Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros, not petra.  It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.

"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter....The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."¹

Jesus is the rock on which the church is built

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus.  The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him.  We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built.  The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

_____________
1.  Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995, c1985). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (835). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.

The Human Soul and Sin

The Original Sin

Theological Considerations

Quotes:

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (A.D. 354-430)
Though the sin of Adam, "nature was vitiated [i.e., corrupted], therefore was transformed for the worse; man not only became as sinner, but also begets sinners. In Adam all sinned; his moral character becomes theirs. Thus the penalty pronounced upon him passes also upon them.  We have his sin and are burdened with his guilt. As original sin brings condemnation, it must have this effect even in the case of children. There is in us a necessity of sinning and the absolute unfitness of man for salvation.

Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033 - 21 April 1109)
Original sin is the lack of original righteousness, caused by the disobedience of Adam, through which we are all the children of wrath.

Martin Luther (Eisleben, Germany 10 November, 1483; died at Eisleben, 18 February, 1546)
Original sin is the rot of all actual sin, the corruption of nature; by it the memory, the understand, and the will are weakened. The nature and essence of man is, from his birth, an evil tree and he is a child of wrath.

Huldrych (or Ulrich) Zwingli (1 January 1484 - 11 October 1531)
Adam was created free, but died through his sin, and with him the whole human race. Sin, as original sin, is "the infirmity and defect of shattered nature."

Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875)
"To represent the constitution [of a new born] as sinful, is to present God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin." Charles Finney (Finney's Systematic Theology, Bethany House, p. 261).

Jonathan Edwards (October 5, 1703 - March 22, 1758)
"That mankind are all naturally in such a state... that they universally are the subjects of that guilt and sinfulness, which is, in effect, their utter and eternal ruin, being cast wholly out of the favor of God, and subjected to his everlasting wrath and curse."

John Wesley (1703-1791) founder of modern Methodism
In 1739 Wesley preached a sermon on Freedom Of Grace, attacking the Calvinistic understanding of predestination as blasphemous, as it represented "God as worse than the devil."

Winkie Pratney (born 3 August 1944)
"To equate humanity with sinfulness is to make God the Author of His own worst enemy; to make God responsible for the thing that has brought Him unhappiness." (Youth Aflame, Bethany House, pg. 78).

Assemblies of God (1917-current)
"Man was created good and upright; for God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." However, man by voluntary transgression fell and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God (Genesis 1:26,27; 2:17; 3:6; Romans 5:12-19)." (The General Council of the Assemblies of God: STATEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS, 4. The Fall of Man, Statement of Fundamental Truths 3/6)

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:

In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair." In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.[i]

Original sin^[1] is, according to a doctrine proposed in Christian theology, humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man.^[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.^[3]

Those who uphold the doctrine look to the teaching of Paul the Apostle in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 for its scriptural base,^[2] and see it as perhaps implied in Old Testament passages such as Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3.

Some Christians do not accept the doctrine indicated by the terms "original sin" or "ancestral sin", which are not found in the Bible.^[4] The doctrine is not found in other religions, such as Judaism,^[5] Hinduism^[6] and Islam. Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.^[7]

The prevailing view also in Eastern Orthodoxy is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. Orthodoxy prefers the term "ancestral sin." Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind (see also traducianism), but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.^[31]

The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam's descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, man remains free.^[2] Instead of accepting the Lutheran interpretation of Augustine's teaching, Orthodox Churches accept the teaching of John Cassian, which rejects the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally.

Pelagianism is the teaching that man has the capacity to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God or the Holy Spirit, and therefore that salvation is effected by man's efforts. The doctrine takes its name from Pelagius, a British monk who was accused of developing the doctrine (he himself appears to have claimed that man does not do good apart from grace in his letters, claiming only that all men have free will by God's gift); it was opposed especially by Augustine of Hippo and was declared a heresy by Pope Zosimus in 418. Denying the existence of original sin, it teaches that man is in himself and by nature capable of choosing good.^[4]

In Semi-pelagian thought, man doesn't have such an unrestrained capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then increases and guards that faith, completing the work of salvation.^[5] This teaching is distinct from the traditional patristic doctrine of synergeia, in which the process of salvation is cooperation between God and man from start to finish.

---

[i] It should be noted, however, that within the Roman Catholic Church there is still open debate on some of the nuances of this position.

The Human Soul

The Trichotomous Theory

The Trichotomous position holds that man is constitutionally a triune, possessing a body, a soul and a spirit; or better yet holistically a body, soul, and spirit—since, you can not have a creature that can honestly qualify as a human being unless he or she possesses all there in an inseparable unity.

This position has a very interesting history. When the Christian church divided into the Eastern and Western divisions in the early days of Christianity, the Western or Latin Church, held to the dual theory, while the Eastern or Orthodox division generally held to the triune position.

(As a side comment, it should also be pointed out that the Western Church held to the Augustinian position of the stain of the original sin left on all mankind; whereas, the Orthodox division held to varied positions more closely associated with the Pelagian doctrine that man is man in the image of God and therefore born sinless. In any event, the Orthodox do not feel compelled to accept the Immaculate Conception of Mary the Mother of Jesus, because they say she like all of us was born sinless—the difference being, of course, that she chose never to sin. This we will discuss more thoroughly in our section on sin.)

Now, let’s take a closer look at this position.

The trichotomists hold that man consists of 3 distinct elements:
1. The body—which is the material part of our constitution;
2. The soul— which is the principle of animal life;
3. and the spirit—which is the principle of our rational life.

Reasons for this view are:

Trichotomists hold to this theory on the basis of Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Literally, the breath of lives—we should, however, not read too much into this, as dichotomists hold that could mean spiritual and fleshly life; and it could also mean that God breathed into man the power of reproduction of lives.)

Trichotomous believe that Hebrews 4:12 which read that the word of God is able to “divide asunder of soul and spirit” means that He can literally divide them, therefore, they must be separate.

Other theologians, such as A. H. Strong, Myer Pearlman, and Henry Clarence Thiessen held that the immaterial part of man is composed of two portions: the upper is the spirit and the lower is the soul; which work in unison with one another.

Further, they ascribe the soul with the powers of imagination, memory, understanding; and then to the spirit that of the powers of reason, conscience, and free will.

In other words, man’s immaterial nature is looked upon as one nature, but composed of two parts. (Williams, p. 106)

Those who believe that man is tripartite quote 1 Thessalonians 5:23
“And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

And also, they quote Hebrews 4:12, which reads,
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Now, let look at one more consideration. 1 Corinthians 15:44 says the Christian’s body “is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”

Yet, Jesus said to the disciples following the resurrection,
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Luke 24:39

What then does this mean?

May, I suggest that our resurrected bodies will be very much like those we now have; yet immortal, like Adam and Eve’s original bodies, and like Christ’s resurrected body.

One Final Word, Hopefully, About Polygamy.

When God created Adam, then formed Eve from his DNA as the first woman as a helpmate for him, God pronounced it very good. (Genesis 1: 31) Jesus continues the theme in Matthew 19: 4-6, and says,

“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

He then further clarifies his position with,

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now, my question is, “If God had not intended for man to practice monogamy, why then did Jesus add, ‘and [he that] marries another woman commits adultery.’”

The only logical reason is that he was already married, and to marry another woman would be to commit adultery—otherwise, it would not have been adultery. If the polygamous were right, marrying a hundred more wives would not constitute adultery. Just what part of “marries another woman” do the polygamous not get?

Now, furthermore and without going into great detail, since I have already dealt with the issue ad nausea, the usage of New Testament Greek in each of the 8 cases that the word is used in the New Testament clearly indicates the singular—at least the consensus of Greek scholars are committed to that translation of the use of the word μιᾶς as singular, meaning ‘one’ in the context of all 8 instances that the word in that form is used in the New Testament.[1]

So, when Paul continues the theme with his restrictions on plural marriages in his list of qualifications for elders and bishops in 1 Timothy 1: 1-13 and Titus 1: 1-9; why would we consider any other meaning than ‘one’?

1 Timothy 3:2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν—which, in English reads: The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching. Note, this is the same word, why make an exception?

Titus 1:6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα—which in English reads: “[I]f anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior.” Note, this is the same word, why make an exception?

Let's look at some other examples:

"But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB (Contextually, a plurality is not suggested here.)

1 Corinthians chapter 7 discusses marriage and it is always in the context of "wife" (singular) and "husband" (singular). It does not make sense for the singular words to be used, if it is possible to have more than one wife. If it were acceptable to God to have more than one wife, then the word "wives" would have to have been used here. The wording of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 completely excludes the possibility of polygamy, in my opinion—unless, one applies a strange new hermeneutics.

Ephesians chapter 5 (verses 22-33) discuss marriage. Here again we do see the plural "wives" used. However, it is used because Paul is writing to the overall category of husbands and wives.

"Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 NASB

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," - Ephesians 5:25 NASB

Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23 NASB

Then I pointed out:

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself [not themselves] ready." - Revelation 19:7 NASB

Friend, since none of these indicates a plurality—unless you use an Old Testament polygamous paradigm as your hermeneutical tool. I choose to accept the contextual and New Testament linguistic approach.

Again, since in my opinion, the overwhelming use of the Greek points in the solid direction of monogamy and since we can easily deduct this from the context of the other examples, why should we make the only other exception that of relating to wives? It just does not make sense to me, otherwise.

In times past—as I have mention previously, God winked at such practices but he now calls all men to repentance.

Now, for a brief historical survey, it should be noted that polygamy as a part of Jewish the lifestyle had largely fallen out of practice during New Testament times, due largely some feel because it was proscribed by Roman law. However, it took until the year 1000 CE for the practice to be officially banned in a synod called by Rabbeinu Gershom.

Furthermore, polygamy among Christians in general never gained any significant traction. Christian theologians have bickered among themselves over the issue for centuries; although, polygamous marriages were virtually unheard of in the primitive church or for the first two centuries thereafter—the exception being, of course, that of a polygamous convert who embraced Christianity.

Ideally, it can be argued that monogamy is not only Biblical, but also as the Catholic Church has declared: 

"[P]olygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."[2]

If any man is contentious, all I can say, as Paul said, is that we have no other such custom, neither do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11: 16

[1] As pointed out, the indelible use of the word in the following instance is a prime example of how the word applies in each of these circumstances:

Luke 14:18 καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν• ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον.

They all as one began to make excuses. "The first said to him, 'I have bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please have me excused.’…” Note: “I have bought one field, only—not two or three, only one …”

Luke 17:34 λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται•

I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed. The one will be taken, and the other will be left. Note: “two in one bed, one taken, one left”

Luke 22:59 καὶ διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς ἄλλος τις διϊσχυρίζετο λέγων• ἐπ' ἀληθείας καὶ οὗτος μετ' αὐτοῦ ἦν, καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν.

After about one hour passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, "Truly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean!"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “About an hour …”

Acts 24:21 ἢ περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα ἐν αὐτοῖς ἑστὼς ὅτι περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι σήμερον ἐφ' ὑμῶν.

“[U]nless it is for this one thing that I cried standing among them, 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged before you today!'"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “I am being judged for one thing only — not two or three, only one!”

Hebrews 12:16 μή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδετο τὰ πρωτοτόκια ἑαυτοῦ.

[Le]st there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like  Esau, who sold his birthright for one meal. "Note: “One meal” not two.

[2]  Catholic Cathechism, para. 2387 April 05, 2009, Vatican website

---

Monogamy In A New Testament Context

My dear friend, please don’t confuse the issue with the genitive—that’s not the point; the translation and context is, however. So, I have gone over some of what I have written you and hopefully improve the clarity.

 

As I said, there are 8 occurrences of the word μιᾶς in the New Testament. Here they are with their meanings (pay particular attention to the context of each):

 

Luke 14:18 καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν• ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον.

 

They all as one began to make excuses. "The first said to him, 'I have bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please have me excused.'

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “I have bought one field, only—not two or three, only one …”

 

Luke 17:34 λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται•

 

I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed. The one will be taken, and the other will be left.

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “two in one bed, one taken, one left”

 

Luke 22:59 καὶ διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς ἄλλος τις διϊσχυρίζετο λέγων• ἐπ' ἀληθείας καὶ οὗτος μετ' αὐτοῦ ἦν, καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν.

 

After about one hour passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, "Truly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean!"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “About an hour …”

Acts 24:21 ἢ περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα ἐν αὐτοῖς ἑστὼς ὅτι περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι σήμερον ἐφ' ὑμῶν.

 

“[U]nless it is for this one thing that I cried standing among them, 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged before you today!'"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “I am being judged for one thing only — not two or three, only one!”

 

Hebrews 12:16 μή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδετο τὰ πρωτοτόκια ἑαυτοῦ.

 

[Le]st there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like

Esau, who sold his birthright for one meal.

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “One meal” not two

1 Timothy 3:2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν,

 

The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “Same word, why the exception?”

 

Titus 1:6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα.

 

if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior.

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “Same word, why the exception?”

 

Let's look at some other examples:

 

"But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB (Contextually, a plurality is not suggested here.)

 

1 Corinthians chapter 7 discusses marriage and it is always in the context of "wife" (singular) and "husband" (singular). It does not make sense for the singular words to be used, if it is possible to have more than one wife. If it were acceptable to God to have more than one wife, then the word "wives" would have to have been used here. The wording of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 completely excludes the possibility of polygamy, in my opinion—unless, one applies a strange new hermeneutics.

 

Ephesians chapter 5 (verses 22-33) discuss marriage. Here again we do see the plural "wives" used. However, it is used because Paul is writing to the overall category of husbands and wives.

 

"Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 NASB

 

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," - Ephesians 5:25 NASB

 

Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal:

 

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23 NASB

Then I pointed out:

 

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself [not themselves] ready." - Revelation 19:7 NASB

 

Friend, since none of these indicates a plurality—unless you choose use an Old Testament polygamous paradigm as your hermeneutical tool. I choose to accept the contextual and New Testament linguistical approach.

 

Again, since in my opinion, the overwhelming use of the Greek points in the solid direction of monogamy and since we can easily deduct this from the context of the other examples, why should we make the only other exception that of relating to wives? It just does not make sense to me. Friend, in times past, God winked at such practices (my words here, not Jesus’ because I know that he was addressing the issue of divorce here) but he now calls all men to repentance.

 

May God bless you,

             

Jim

P.S. And as far as I can determine, the use of the μία form is just as singular, no matter how you slice it as it regards marriage.