Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Matt 4:3//Lk. 4:3

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    What evidence may be put forward to support the claim that GENWNTAI in Matt. 4:3//Lk. 4:3 means be made , not become , and that the hINA found there is
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 30 11:51 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      What evidence may be put forward to support the claim that GENWNTAI in
      Matt. 4:3//Lk. 4:3 means 'be made', not 'become', and that the hINA
      found there is "ecbatic" or eventual?


      Has any commentator/grammarian ever argued that these words are to be
      taken this way in Matt. 4:3//Lk. 4:3?

      Yours,


      Jeffrey

      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • David Cavanagh
      ... Dear Jeffrey, Sorry to be so thick, but can you explain the point of the question for the benefit of a poor amateur theologian who often doesn t get the
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 30 1:42 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
        >
        > What evidence may be put forward to support the claim that GENWNTAI in
        > Matt. 4:3//Lk. 4:3 means 'be made', not 'become', and that the hINA
        > found there is "ecbatic" or eventual?
        >





        Dear Jeffrey,

        Sorry to be so thick, but can you explain the point of the question for
        the benefit of a poor amateur theologian who often doesn't get the
        technical niceties?

        David Cavanagh
        Major (The Salvation Army)
        Naples (Italy)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Dear Jeffrey, ... It would mean that the petition is not aimed at getting Jesus to work a miracle, but to induce Jesus to act like Israel did when it was
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 30 1:54 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          David Cavanagh wrote:
          > Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
          >
          >> What evidence may be put forward to support the claim that GENWNTAI in
          >> Matt. 4:3//Lk. 4:3 means 'be made', not 'become', and that the hINA
          >> found there is "ecbatic" or eventual?
          >>
          >>
          Dear Jeffrey,
          > Sorry to be so thick, but can you explain the point of the question for
          > the benefit of a poor amateur theologian who often doesn't get the
          > technical niceties?
          >

          It would mean that the petition is not aimed at getting Jesus to work a miracle, but to induce Jesus to act like Israel did when it was hungered to demand that God produce one for him.

          In other words, instead of meaning 'You yourself, Jesus, through power
          which you possess as Son of God, make these(this) stones(stone) bread',
          as it usually thought to do, it would mean 'Give the command (to God)
          in order that these stones might be made (by God into) bread. After
          all, that's what Jesus' reply to the petition suggests that it means.

          Jeffrey

          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
          1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
          Chicago, Illinois
          e-mail jgibson000@...
        • David Cavanagh
          Dear Jeffrey, Thanks....so the point would be that instead of proving his own power, Jesus is being tempted to prove that he (the personal representative of
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 30 2:05 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Jeffrey,

            Thanks....so the point would be that instead of proving his own power,
            Jesus is being tempted to prove that he (the personal representative of
            the new Israel) is specially favoured by God?

            David Cavanagh
            Major (The Salvation Army)
            Naples (Italy)



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... First of all, he is not tempted. He is tested. And there is absolutely no hint in the temptation story that Jesus is in need of, or is in any way
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 30 2:39 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              David Cavanagh wrote:
              > Dear Jeffrey,
              >
              > Thanks....so the point would be that instead of proving his own power,
              > Jesus is being tempted to prove that he (the personal representative of
              > the new Israel) is specially favoured by God?
              >
              First of all, he is not tempted. He is tested. And there is absolutely
              no hint in the "temptation" story that Jesus is in need of, or is in any
              way concerned about, having it proved that he is the object of God's
              special favour. That he is -- and that he and the Devil know it -- is
              the presupposition of the story.

              Jesus is tested to see if he will refuse to do what Israel did when
              under the hardship of 'hunger', they, contrary to what Deut. 8: (cf.
              esp. vv. 15-17; cf. Deut. 6:16) says they should have done, put god to
              the test and demanded that God fulfill his obligations to "his son" by
              feeding them.

              Jeffrey

              --
              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
              1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
              Chicago, Illinois
              e-mail jgibson000@...
            • David Cavanagh
              ... Fair point about temptation and testing: I m aware of the argument, but just followed the traditional (and majority) translation. If Jesus is being
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 30 11:14 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                >
                > Dear Jeffrey, you wrote:
                > >
                > First of all, he is not tempted. He is tested. And there is absolutely
                > no hint in the "temptation" story that Jesus is in need of, or is in any
                > way concerned about, having it proved that he is the object of God's
                > special favour. That he is -- and that he and the Devil know it -- is
                > the presupposition of the story.
                >








                Fair point about temptation and testing: I'm aware of the argument, but
                just followed the traditional (and majority) translation.

                If Jesus is being paralleled with Israel, however, I suggest that builds
                in the question of God's favour. That both Jesus and the Devil know that
                Jesus is God's "son" is true; but unless we opt for a simple appeal for
                hunger, what is the Devil supposed to be hinging the test on? "Go on, if
                you're really God's (beloved) Son, prove it! Tell him to turn these
                stones into bread, then you'll have something to eat!". I'm aware, as
                you suggest in the following paragraph (below) that the issue at stake
                is trust -but the nature of testing/temptation is that the real issue is
                veiled (it's not very effective to say, "I'm going to test your trust
                now"!).
                >
                >
                > Jesus is tested to see if he will refuse to do what Israel did when
                > under the hardship of 'hunger', they, contrary to what Deut. 8: (cf.
                > esp. vv. 15-17; cf. Deut. 6:16) says they should have done, put god to
                > the test and demanded that God fulfill his obligations to "his son" by
                > feeding them.
                >








                David Cavanagh
                Major (The Salvation Army)
                Naples (Italy)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.