Please understand that one of the differences between you and I is age: I am considerably older than you. I took two years of "biblical languages" way back when (1968-1970), Dana and Mantey, Robertson and Thayer were big names back then. And much of what I write comes from that background. It is Thayer [on "telos"] who says "In the Grk. writ. always of the end of some act or state, ... in the scriptures always of a temporal end." Never ever assume, David, that when I give a [technical] definition I speak of my own authority. That never happens. As it turns out, you are the first to quote to me some authoritative comment that challenges what I have "known" for some 35 years or so. I appreciate this [your] additional reference.
Now, as to this present distress: I do not have your reference in my library and could not care less if it is available on the Net. As a result -- I can neither confirm or deny that specific referenced claim. But I do have Rogers and Rogers (Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament.) In their book, which i am reading for the first time regarding Ro 10:4 - we have this " telos - end, goal, completion; the word could mean that Christ is the goal of the Law, not temporally but directively and teleological .. or it could mean that Christ is the end of the law, temporally .. or it could be a combination of both meanings ... " (p.334). Their comments could be considered as diametrically opposed to Thayer's .......... Thayer actually denying what Rogers and Rogers allow. I do respect both opinions.
The solution (before doing some extensive research on this ) for me will be to combine the thoughts and continue to teach that the law is brought to an end in Christ -- He being the purpose of the law. The primary concept in "telos" IS "end, completion or termination" and I will not teach a meaning that circumvents this primary usage. If "goal [as in 'purpose']" is an accepted nuance, it does not (IMO) escape the temporal concept of "completion."
As a supporting example, I have made the same type of decision concerning the word "eis" I do not believe that the primary usage of "eis" (into, for [as regards purpose]) is countered by definitions of some scholars that include "because of." If and when we find ourselves using scholarship to defeat scholarship, we find ourselves adrift in the sea of Knowing. Because much can be said in denial of my opinion only gives credence to Paul's claim that "when we think to know something, we do not yet."
Pastors do not have the option of equivocation. We are to present "with a view to persuasion." That has been a part of my life for nearly 40 years. So we have a difference of opinion. God will use both opinions to make His will a reality.
JD.
-Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 22:30:47 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Torah & Jewish traditions
JD wrote:
>>> The church was never "right" based on its
>>> collective understanding of the Message.
David Miller wrote:
>> Yet, apostle Paul wrote that the church of the
>> living God is the pillar and ground of the truth
>> (1 Tim. 3:15).
JD wrote:
> It is such because it is the asseembly of the
> true and living God. The truth, in the assemblage,
> dwells in God. This is not a statement by Paul that
> the "church" is, therefore righteous or right acting.
> I mean, most of leters were written for the purpose
> of dealing with some misunderstanding. If I made
> a list, it would seem quite large.
The fact that you read the church dealing with misunderstanding in the New Testament writings is a testimony to the fact that the church IS the pillar and ground of the truth in its COLLECTIVE understanding. Only if you could point out how the church was apathetic toward falsehood would you have a case that the church collectively never had it right. The fact that the New Testament writings are still read today, thousands of years later, and considered inerrant truth by many believers all over the earth, is a very strong testimony that the church did indeed have it right.
David Miller wrote:
>> If the church was never "right" in its collective
>> understanding, then where is the truth to be
>> found after Christ ascended?
JD wrote:
> You know the answer to this question.
> I am not sure why you are disagreeing,
> here.
The answer is that the true church of Jesus Christ is ALWAYS right in its COLLECTIVE understanding, as opposed to what you said, that the church was NEVER right based upon its COLLECTIVE understanding.
David Miller wrote:
>> My perspective is that the truth continues on earth, found
>> in the body of Christ. Hence, 1 Cor. 12 argues that Christ
>> is not like the mute idols which the Corinthians had previously
>> followed, but rather Christ has the power of speech, and it is
>> through the members of his body (his church, the collective
>> of saints in a local community).
JD wrote:
> Sound to me like you are saying that the truth exists
> in the true and living God (in Christ) !! I agree.
Yes, I am saying that, but if you agree, why then did you say that the church was never right? If the trust exists in them, how could they never be right? What am I missing here about the way you think?
David Miller wrote:
>> Therefore, it seems to me that your perspective
>>> The church was never "right" based on its
>>> collective understanding of the Message.
David Miller wrote:
>> Yet, apostle Paul wrote that the church of the
>> living God is the pillar and ground of the truth
>> (1 Tim. 3:15).
JD wrote:
> It is such because it is the asseembly of the
> true and living God. The truth, in the assemblage,
> dwells in God. This is not a statement by Paul that
> the "church" is, therefore righteous or right acting.
> I mean, most of leters were written for the purpose
> of dealing with some misunderstanding. If I made
> a list, it would seem quite large.
The fact that you read the church dealing with misunderstanding in the New Testament writings is a testimony to the fact that the church IS the pillar and ground of the truth in its COLLECTIVE understanding. Only if you could point out how the church was apathetic toward falsehood would you have a case that the church collectively never had it right. The fact that the New Testament writings are still read today, thousands of years later, and considered inerrant truth by many believers all over the earth, is a very strong testimony that the church did indeed have it right.
David Miller wrote:
>> If the church was never "right" in its collective
>> understanding, then where is the truth to be
>> found after Christ ascended?
JD wrote:
> You know the answer to this question.
> I am not sure why you are disagreeing,
> here.
The answer is that the true church of Jesus Christ is ALWAYS right in its COLLECTIVE understanding, as opposed to what you said, that the church was NEVER right based upon its COLLECTIVE understanding.
David Miller wrote:
>> My perspective is that the truth continues on earth, found
>> in the body of Christ. Hence, 1 Cor. 12 argues that Christ
>> is not like the mute idols which the Corinthians had previously
>> followed, but rather Christ has the power of speech, and it is
>> through the members of his body (his church, the collective
>> of saints in a local community).
JD wrote:
> Sound to me like you are saying that the truth exists
> in the true and living God (in Christ) !! I agree.
Yes, I am saying that, but if you agree, why then did you say that the church was never right? If the trust exists in them, how could they never be right? What am I missing here about the way you think?
David Miller wrote:
>> Therefore, it seems to me that your perspective
>> of the meaning of this phrase is at odds with the
>> author of the statement. I would suggest that the
>> word "end" here must have the same connotation
>> as when Jesus said, "I am the Alpha and Omega."
>> It does not mean extinction or termination of the law,
>> but rather refers to the fulfillment of the goal. It carries
>> a meaning more analogous to how we speak of the
>> "end of man," referring not to man's termination or
>> removal, but rather to his ultimate purpose and fulfillment
>> in life, his reason for existing.
JD wrote:
> "Telos" is the word translated "end" in Romans 10:4.
JD wrote:
> "Telos" is the word translated "end" in Romans 10:4.
> The word always means "end of a state [of being] or
> an action," end or termination.
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the crux of the Miller-Smithson adversarial relationship involves the extreme terms you use like "never" or "always." :-) These kinds of words often provoke me to respond because examples to the contrary of your assertion readily come to mind.
Consider how Zodhiates in the Complete Word Study Dictionary contrasts 8 different uses in the New Testament. Pay attention to number V, where he says: "It [telos] does not, as is often supposed, mean the extinction, end or termination in time." Notice how he even uses the same English idiom that I did, "end of man," to explain this nuance. I'm not going to quibble with you right now about Romans 10:4 and its meaning because I'm too tired. I'm only trying to help you see that "telos" does not ALWAYS mean "end of a state [of being] or an action," end or termination. (p.s. Also see Rev. 1 for Jesus saying that HE IS THE "TELOS.").
G5056
??????
télos; gen. télous, neut. noun. An end, term, termination, completion. Particularly only in respect to time.
(I) Generally, with the gen. (Luk_1:33; 1Co_10:11; 2Co_3:13, unto the end of the transient shining of Moses' countenance [cf. 2Co_3:7]; Heb_7:3; 1Pe_4:7; Sept.: Dan_11:13). With the gen. implied (Mat_10:22; Mat_24:6, the end of all things or this generation [cf. Mat_24:14]; Mat_24:13; Mar_13:7, Mar_13:13; Luk_21:9, of the completion of the divine plan; Joh_13:1, of life). To the end of life (1Co_1:8; 2Co_1:13, héo?s télous [héo?s (G2193), until]; with méchri (G3360), as far as, till the end (Heb_3:6, Heb_3:14); with áchri (G891), as far as, until the end (Heb_6:11; Rev_2:26). In 1Co_15:24, the end of the work of redemption which is the entrance into heaven, the last or remainder of the dead in Christ. In an absolute sense, with écho? (G2192), to have, to have an end means to be ended, figuratively to be destroyed (Mar_3:26). Adv. in the acc., tó télos means finally, at last (1Pe_3:8). With the prep. eis (G1519), in, unto the end particularly to the end, continually, perpetually, forever (Luk_18:5; 1Th_2:16; Sept.: Job_14:20; Psa_79:5; Psa_103:9).
(II) Figuratively it means end, event, issue, result (Mat_26:58; Jam_5:11, the issue or event which the Lord gave). Followed by the gen. of person or thing, meaning final lot, ultimate fate (Rom_6:21-22; 2Co_11:15; Phi_3:19; Heb_6:8; 1Pe_1:9; 1Pe_4:7, 1Pe_4:17; Sept.: Ecc_7:2). Of a declaration, prophecy, accomplishment, fulfillment (Luk_22:37, "have an end," are fulfilled). In 1Co_15:24; Heb_7:3, the goal reached, the beginning of a new order of things.
(III) Figuratively meaning the end or final purpose, that to which all the parts tend and in which they terminate, the sum total (1Ti_1:5).
(IV) Figuratively it means a tax, toll, custom, tribute, particularly what is paid for public purposes for the maintenance of the state (Mat_17:25; Rom_13:7). In another sense among the Greeks, public officers and magistrates were called tá téle?; hence the Gr. NT term telo??ne?s (G5057), a publican, a collector of taxes.
(V) With the def. neut. art. tó, télos usually means end, goal, or the limit, either at which a person or thing ceases to be what he or it had been up to that point or when previous activities ceased (2Co_3:13; 1Pe_4:7). It does not, as is often supposed, mean the extinction, end or termination in time. It simply means the goal reached and conclusion of the activity that went before. For example, when we speak of the end of the war, we speak of victory. When we speak of the télos andrós (gen. of ane??r [G435], man), of man, the end of man, we speak of the full age of man; also used of the ripening of the seed. It denotes not an end of life simply, but of one's activity also. If it simply referred to death, another word, teleute?? (G5054), death, would be used.
(VI) The adv. phrase eis télos means "to the last" or to the conclusion of that spoken about, as in Joh_13:1 where reference is made to Christ's work of love (see Mat_10:22; Mat_24:13; Mar_13:13). It may also mean at last or in the end, finally (Luk_18:5); or completely (1Th_2:16).
(VII) In Rom_10:4 it means either termination or goal. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes. This means that the Law as a demanded obligation has come to an end because Jesus has fulfilled its demands and imparted His righteousness to those who believe. Christ has freed believers from its tyranny. The standards of righteousness come to us now not from without by imposition, but from within by the Spirit who writes the Law upon our hearts. See Sept.: Ecc_12:13.
(VIII) Héo?s télous (héo?s [G2193], until) in 2Co_1:13 means completely, as contrasted with apó mérous (apó [G575], in); mérous ([G3313], part), not completely (as in 2Co_1:14).
Deriv.: entéllomai (G1781), to charge, command; pantele??s (G3838), complete, whole, entire; polutele??s (G4185), very expensive, costly; téleios (G5046), finished, complete; telesphoréo? (G5052), to bring to an intended perfection or goal; teléo? (G5055), to finish, complete; telo??ne?s (G5057), a reaper of taxes or customs.
Syn.: péras (G4009), a limit, boundary, uttermost part; suntéleia (G4930), a completion, consummation, fulfillment; ékbasis (G1545), end, outcome, result; o?méga (G5598), the last letter of the Greek alphabet.
Ant.: arche?? (G746), beginning; pro??tos (G4413), the first; aparche?? (G536), the firstfruits, the beginning or onset; álpha (G1), the first letter of the Greek alphabet, beginning.
