Luke 1:37 says For nothing will be impossible with God....
The word translated nothing.....well, it's actually three Greek words...ou, which is a negative inclusion, pas which loosely means every. But the third part of that word is actually rhēma which is a word in scripture used to describe the spoken Word from God.
So - when we read this verse - realize it is saying to us that No Word from God is impossible.
Whatever He has said - It is possible.
The power of God's Word - it is to be received in humility, because it has the power to save, heal, deliver, and His words have life. Because His words are spirit, there are many times when we don't have the capacity to understand a word from God, yet we must be able to position our hearts to receive the life and power from that Word, in that, after faith comes understanding.
That's a really good word!
MOST
3 days ago
Posts
11 comments:
Interesting enough, in Hebrew rhema is a thing or an event. -Jon
That's true Jon...
However - this particular instance of Rhēma is Greek (as is most of the New Testament) - meaning "that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word"
It is the same Rhēma that is used in Matthew 1:22 translated 'spoken of the Lord'...and also Matthew 2:15 (and a few other instances).
A very Good Word, indeed.
Thanks, Chris, I needed this reminder tonight. Sometimes, I am not patient enough and begin to doubt.
This helps.
right on point!
Now that’s a good word right there.
Hi,
Not a huge deal and it doesn't change your post too much, but your exegesis is a bit off:
You said that pas means none, or no. This is the opposite of what it means ... pas means "every, each, or all."
The Greek phrase very literally rendered is this: "For with God every thing is not impossible."
Suitable English renderings eliminate the double negative in some way, either "For all things are possible with God" or "For with God nothing is impossible."
Thanks Anonymous....
I suppose it simply depends on which etymological documentation you review...
Would you mind sharing with me which etymological documentation you were using which suggested that pas means no, or none?
Every lexicon that I'm aware of reflects that pas always means "all, each or every."
In this passage there is the presence of the negative particle ouk which negates "every thing" or "every word," thus making the statement "not everything" or "nothing."
If there is some lexicon that says pas means no or none, I'm curious as to which one you are referring to. If not, the conclusion you are reaching may be a good one but it is reached through poor analysis. This type of error may work occasionally, but will inevitably lead to error.
We have an obligation, especially when others take our word for it--as you have several people on here who take your word for it--to be accurate in what we say and to admit when we make a mistake.
James 3:1
Thank you again Anonymous for stopping by. And also - thank you for reminding us that not everyone should consider themselves to be a teacher.
I must correct myself in my post - you are correct, pas does mean every - what I did mistakenly present was that - but in doing so, I left out the negative 'ou'.
The Greek would read:
Hoti para theos ou pas rhēma adynateō.
There are three words that derive nothing...'ou pas rhēma'
ou pas - when literally translated means negatively including all the forms of declension...
Do you have a name Anonymous?
Do you know to whom and why James wrote his letter?
The reference to James was not to say that you are not or should not be a teacher, but a reminder to all of us who are teachers that we should be careful what we teach. Clearly, you are a teacher and that is a good thing. Teaching that pas means the opposite of its real meaning was simply an error ... and I'm glad to see you are not above admitting that.
Too often I hear preachers and teachers misspeak and then go to great lengths to demonstrate why they are correct. Sometimes, we are simply in error. Part of the reason I pressed you on the lexicon you were referring to was because I did not think there was one ... I thought perhaps you were about to travel down the road of self justification when you inferred that the meaning of pas was simply a matter of which lexicon you choose (even when no lexicon teaches that pas means no, or none!). Glad to see that I was wrong.
James tells us in 1:2 that he is writing to the twelve tribes in dispersion.
My name is Joe.
Not looking for a fight, brother. Just a friendly reminder to check our facts before presenting our teaching - from one teacher to another. I see from many of your posts that you are not above correcting brothers and sisters you believe to be in error (see your post on the fool in Psalm 14:1, for example). Good to see that you are not above taking correction yourself.
May the Lord, our God, bless you, your family, and your ministry.
Thanks Joe.
I appreciate your presence and input.
One of the many reasons I sit under the teachers that I do is because of their honesty, transparency, and willingness to admit that something they taught was wrong.
I too have no issues admitting I made a mistake...and actually, take joy in doing so. I know it builds my character, strengthens my 'credibility' and honors the Lord.
We are taught (in James 3) to be afraid of an unruly tongue as possibly one of the greatest evils. The interaction of mankind has always been thrown into confusion by the tongues of men (what people say). Every age of the world, and every condition of life, private or public, can give examples of this. Hell has more to do in campaigning for the fire of the tongue than most men generally realize; and whenever men's tongues are employed in sinful ways, they are set on fire of hell. No man can tame the tongue without Divine grace and assistance.
James, however, does not suggest it is impossible, but certainly a challenge. Man's tongue confutes itself, which at one time pretends to adore the perfections of God, and to refer all things to him; and at another time condemns even good men, if they do not use the same words and expressions.
Religion does not admit contradictions: how many sins would be prevented, if men would always be consistent…Edifying language is the genuine product of a consecrated heart; and none who understand Christianity should expect to look for the fruit of one tree on another. But too often, we prove more teachers succeed in bridling their senses and appetites, than properly restraining their tongues.
Then, depending on Divine grace alone, let us pay attention to bless and not curse; and let us aim to be consistent in our words and actions. (3:13-18)
Be blessed Joe.
Post a Comment