Perry wrote: > Yes, I am aware of John MacArthur's biases. > Did you consider Zodhiates' position relative > to the translation of "Hapax"? He also indicates > that "Hapax" is used in a couple of different senses, > but specifically references Jude 3 as being one > of the instances similar to the sacrifice...it occurred > once and it will never occur again.
Yes, this is a popular concept among the modern Greek scholars, but these guys all read each other and this is one of those cases where they think they have something to support their "Sola Scriptura" bias (IMO). I am uncomfortable adding so many words in this particular situation. The words "for all" do not appear in the text, and their argument for adding them hinges upon the tense of the verb being modified and other passages in another letter (Hebrews) written by another author where contextual arguments indicate a once for all event. Please note that Zohiates himself indicates, "whenever the aorist tense is used in any mood other than the indicative, the verb does not have any temporal significance. In other words, it refers only to the reality of an event or action, not to the time when it took place." Concerning the aorist participle which we have here, Zodhiates writes, "It does not in itself indicate the time of the action. However, when its relationship to the main verb is temporal, it usually signifies action prior to that of the main verb." Too many times, green horn Greek students try to make th aorist tense a past tense, and while it works in some situations, it does not in others. One example is Mat. 8:17 where Matthew writes, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah." The verb here is in the aorist tense, so does this indicate that Isaiah spoke only of this one event where Jesus healed others? Not likely, IMO. I think the context of Jude is pretty clear that he is contrasting a faith that was delivered to the saints at one time that should then be preserved. He was not talking about a writing down of the faith in some Scriptural Canon and that the Canon should then be preserved. Certainly the Scriptures should be preserved, this is a truth, but I do not believe that either Jude or the Holy Spirit had this in mind when Jude penned Jude 1:3. Perry wrote: > When this is related to "the faith" which has been > entrusted, or delivered once to the saints, it will > never be delivered, or entrusted, to the saints again. > It is done. This is true. The faith is entrusted to them and they must keep it. If they mutiliate and adulterate the faith entrusted to them, they will not get a second chance. It will not be delivered to them again. Perry wrote: > What is this faith for which they were to contend earnestly? > Notice the definite article "the". Not "your" faith or "my" faith. > Personal faith is not being addressed. "The faith" refers to the > whole gospel of Christ, delivered to the saints, and written > about by them in our books of the New Testament. You have to be careful about the significance you place on the definite article in Greek. The Greek language often uses it for emphasis, even in personalized situations. For example, it is not unusual to find "the Peter" or "the James" when in English we don't speak this way (unless you are Lance :-)). Consider the Greek in passages like Rev. 2:13 and Rev. 2:19. The word faith in these passages is modified with a definite article even though it is not carried over into the English translation because it would make for awkward reading in English. The construction of the sentence in Jude 1:3 actually requires the definite article because faith is the word that comes at the very end of the sentence. Literally, the passage reads in the Greek something like, "contend for the once delivered to the saints faith." As you can see, the definite article performs a function of helping the reader anticipate the word faith that comes at the end of the sentence. Perry wrote: > BTW, I also believe that "the saints" refers to ALL > believers, and that the delivery method IS the New > Testament. This is how the Sola Scriptura adherents want us read the passage, but I remain skeptical of this approach. There was no "New Testament" at this time, so it seems more likely that the saints being referred to here had the faith delivered to them orally, through preaching, rather than through the written word. It certainly might extend to including the delivery method of the New Testament, but I think we need to focus upon the immediate saints that he has in mind here, which are those who have had certain men crept in among them unawares who were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. Perry wrote: > None of this means that personal revelation can't occur, > in the sense of revealing scriptural meaning to individuals, > and possibly even revealing other things....but no NEW > revelation, that is, nothing that contradicts "the faith" > (which has been recorded in the New Testament) that > was delivered ONCE FOR ALL to the saints. The > mormon works fail this particular test because they > attempt to ADD TO AND CHANGE "the faith". No revelation during the New Testament period was allowed to contradict the Old Testament writings either, so I'm not sure you are saying much here. As for the Mormon religion failing because they believe in revelation, I can't go along with that. I do go along with your perspective that they alter the identity of the church from what the Lord would have it be, just as Roman Catholicism has. This is what would make it a false religion, not the fact that they profess Jesus to be the Christ or that they believe in ongoing revelation. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
