Help on Greek Grammar - Roo?

[MoGrace2U]

Roo,
I am looking for some examples that help to show the difference between an anarthrous construct vs an articular one. The Greek dictionary I have doesn't give much in the way of detail on grammatical terms nor does it explain the examples it uses.

I have been looking at Rev 20 and how 1000 years is used - 3 times with the article and 3 times without. Also the tense of the one is in the nomative plural while the other is in the accusative plural.

Your input here would be appreciated.

[kangaroojack]

Hi Robin,

Let me say first of all that I am NOT a Greek scholar. But I did study Greek enough to be able to compare grammarians when they differ and to make a determination for myself which grammar to accept. And the grammarians do differ on some things. Most points of Greek grammar are fixed. But on some points the grammarian may be able to support his theological presupposition. The definite article is sometimes one of those matters that is not as fixed.

In reference to the thousand years there is no big deal regarding the presence of the article three times and its absence three times. The presence of the article indicates a definitive time line in reference to the thousand years. So the absence of it would not indicate an indefinite time line.

The nominative and accusative is not about tense but about case and function. The noun in the nominative is the subject and in the accusative it is the direct object.

I would help me if you would tell me specifically what you are trying to find out. I feel like I am shooting in the dark. Are you trying to make a determination regarding the fulfillment of the thousand years?

Roo

[MoGrace2U]

Hi Roo,
Well something I am seeing with these 2 sets of 3 mentions of 1000 years, seems to be related to whether we are speaking of an earthly time frame of actual years or an heavenly period called '1000 years'. Both are being referred to with this term of '1000 years' - but there is some distinction.

The '(the) 1000 years' I see as referring to the period that Israel's 10 tribes were in exile - a prophetic time period which has a 'last days' when their exile would be completed. It is earthly and concerns a chronological period.

The fact that Satan in his binding is part of the '(a) 1000 years' puts that binding in the heavenly realm. He could no more deceive Israel once she was scattered into the nations - because his task had been to bring their idolatry to its fullness; after which there was no more he could do to them. That leaves it open for God's judgments and the other prophecies that speak of the time they would be restored and their idolatry forgiven or judged if they didn't answer the call of the gospel.

His being loosed at the end of (the) 1000 years is at the time when her exile is over, hence the earthly time frame. At that time he is permitted to deceive the current generation that is bringing all the prophecies to their fulness in the last days. In particular which was to judge Judah who had committed the same idolatry. Judah was returned from Babylon and left in the land until this last day arrived - but then she was to be judged too. And the devil was given a little season to once again deceive the idolators to bring their sins to their fulness in time for this judgment to take place.

Meanwhile, the saints ruling and reigning with Christ are within the heavenly period as they are alive from the dead. Thus the first resurrection which begins with Christ, gathers the saints post cross who have been made alive in Christ, is marked for fulfillment with the resurrection of the rest of the dead - and occurs when the (the) 1000 years are fulfilled.

The heavenly period is not marked for an end in the same sense but is merely showing us what fulfills it and brings it into its fullness AS the resurrection that has its beginning with Christ Himself, therefore it continues to gather saints in every generation thereafter.

All total, the time of Israel's (10 tribes) exile from the Assyrian invasion until the resurrection of the dead was 1000 years. The time when all Israel would wait until all 12 tribes were restored to their promised kingdom - in heaven!

I probably have not made this very clear here, but questions are welcome!

[kangaroojack]

Sept 28, 2010 15:12:23 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Hi Roo,
Well something I am seeing with these 2 sets of 3 mentions of 1000 years, seems to be related to whether we are speaking of an earthly time frame of actual years or an heavenly period called '1000 years'. Both are being referred to with this term of '1000 years' - but there is some distinction.

The '(the) 1000 years' I see as referring to the period that Israel's 10 tribes were in exile - a prophetic time period which has a 'last days' when their exile would be completed. It is earthly and concerns a chronological period.

The fact that Satan in his binding is part of the '(a) 1000 years' puts that binding in the heavenly realm. He could no more deceive Israel once she was scattered into the nations - because his task had been to bring their idolatry to its fullness; after which there was no more he could do to them. That leaves it open for God's judgments and the other prophecies that speak of the time they would be restored and their idolatry forgiven or judged if they didn't answer the call of the gospel.

His being loosed at the end of (the) 1000 years is at the time when her exile is over, hence the earthly time frame. At that time he is permitted to deceive the current generation that is bringing all the prophecies to their fulness in the last days. In particular which was to judge Judah who had committed the same idolatry. Judah was returned from Babylon and left in the land until this last day arrived - but then she was to be judged too. And the devil was given a little season to once again deceive the idolators to bring their sins to their fulness in time for this judgment to take place.

Meanwhile, the saints ruling and reigning with Christ are within the heavenly period as they are alive from the dead. Thus the first resurrection which begins with Christ, gathers the saints post cross who have been made alive in Christ, is marked for fulfillment with the resurrection of the rest of the dead - and occurs when the (the) 1000 years are fulfilled.

The heavenly period is not marked for an end in the same sense but is merely showing us what fulfills it and brings it into its fullness AS the resurrection that has its beginning with Christ Himself, therefore it continues to gather saints in every generation thereafter.

All total, the time of Israel's (10 tribes) exile from the Assyrian invasion until the resurrection of the dead was 1000 years. The time when all Israel would wait until all 12 tribes were restored to their promised kingdom - in heaven!

I probably have not made this very clear here, but questions are welcome!

Hi Robin,

I am going to give you my thoughts on the 1,000 years. I have put this forth to many furtrusts over the years and I feel that I have not yet been refuted.

John said that he saw that ANCIENT serpent be chained and cast into the abyss for thousands of years. The Greek "chilias" is plural. Note that it says that it was the ancient serpent, the devil and satan that was bound. Whot does the title "ancient serpent" make you immediately think of? It makes me think of the same serpent who was in the garden in the beginning. I am suggesting to you that satan was bound at that time. And he was bound for the entire old covenant period up until Christ. Have you ever thought to yourself why we don't hear of demon possession or any satanic activity in the old testament? It is because satan was bound during that entire period up until Christ. Jude and Peter both say that the evil angels were in chains. Would this not have included satan?

Many have tried to refute this by saying that it was satan who came against Job and it was satan who tempted David to number the people. Therefore, satan was indeed active during the old covenant period. But the word "sawtawn" simply means "adversary" and it should not have been translated "satan." I assert that in the case of Job it was a human adversary and in the case of David numbering the people it was God himself. The Hebrew "sawtawn" simply means "adversary." It can be any adversary.

I haven't met much resistance in saying that "sawtawn" was a human adversary of Job. But I have gotten resistance in saying that God was Israel's adversary in the case of David numbering the people because David appeared to have confessed that as sin. The narrative in 1 Chronicles 21 says it was "sawtawn" who moved David to number the people. But the 2 Samuel 24 narrative says that it was the Lord God.

So if David was moved to number the people both by satan and God, then God was clearly in league with satan. No, because the word "sawtawn" simply means "adversary." But if God alone was Israel's adversary then God moved David to sin. No, beause it was not the numbering of Israel that was David's sin. It was lawful for him to number Israel. The sin was in his including the tribes of Benjamin and Levi which the law excluded from being numbered from any military census. Therefore, it was God who was the adversary against Israel and He moved David to number the men. But David unlawfully numbered Benjamin and Levi too. Thus Joab spoke against him and David confessed his sin.

Job's "sawtawn" was a human adversary and Israel's adversary was God Himself. Thus we have no record of satanic activity during the entire old covenant period. This is because "the ancient serpent" had been bound in the garden when he was cursed.

He was loosed for the "little season" between Christ's first and second comings. It was at that time that we see all manner of satanic activity. He was judged at the end of that "little season" and then cast into the lake of fire at Christ's parousia.

I welcome all here to pick this apart.

Roo

[Morris]

Hi Roo. I'm not going to pick anything apart but I would like to make some comments/questions it the interest of learning.

Sept 28, 2010 17:01:50 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

John said that he saw that ANCIENT serpent be chained and cast into the abyss for thousands of years. The Greek "chilias" is plural.

This actually surprised me. My current understanding is that this is a figure of speech, in the same vein as Psalm 50:10, "For every beast of the forest is Mine, And the cattle on a thousand hills". But what I am unsure of is if the Greek "thousand/chilias" is ever not plural when used in this manner. In other words, would it ever appear as 'chilia ete' ("thousand [non-plural] years"). I'm basically just wanting to know if it appears that way because it has to (as a plural), per Greek language rules, or does it appear that way as an option opposed to another way (as singular). Hope I explained that question alright.

Note that it says that it was the ancient serpent, the devil and satan that was bound. Whot does the title "ancient serpent" make you immediately think of?

My study indicates that the Greek word leans more toward "original". Naturally, 'old' is also inferred by this word, but it would appear to me that the point is to identify the original accuser and the first to speak maliciously and falsely of another.

The Greek says "the serpent the original who is traducer and accuser". Note that 'serpent' here means "a snake, figuratively, (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person". In my opinion, it isn't saying, 'the ancient serpent who is devil [as a name] and satan [as a name]', but rather 'the original cunning and malicious person who was the first to speak maliciously and falsely of another [as a character trait] and accuser [as a character trait] '.

Now, the original 'serpent' was what we call satan (whatever that means to the individual interpreter), but I know this much; if it was a normal man, he would be the one by which sin entered the world, not Adam. Covenant or not, that is a sin in basic character, and is even spoken about in the ten commandments, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor". It is seen in many places in the old testament including Deuteronomy 19:15-21.

[MoGrace2U]

Morris, I am not sure that Ps 50:10 is a good example because in the LXX chilia is not used to modify the hills. The Hebrew is the first letter X which stands for oxen and later became a numeral, which is how the LXX translates it as bous - oxen. Other than than that it seems that when a noun modifies another noun in the Greek, plurality is found in both - so it is 1000s years. Which is why adding the article is specifying something to us that is distinct from when it doesn't.

[Morris]

Sept 29, 2010 11:39:31 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Morris, I am not sure that Ps 50:10 is a good example because in the LXX chilia is not used to modify the hills.

I honestly didn't look at the LXX but the Hebrew. There, "thousand" does modify "in mountains of".

So, I wasn't trying to say anything about the word or use of "chilia", but rather the idiom of 'thousand' meaning 'all' or 'of a great many'. That's all.

[MoGrace2U]

Morris,
Don't be embarassed! We're just trying to figure out when 1000 means a literal 1000 years in time vs 1000 as pertains to what is not counted as something numeric or in time. So far the commentary I have states that the anarthrous construct is noting the quality of something. Which is why I think here in Rev 20 it is used as an idiom we are not familiar with for something in the heavenly realm, while the articular when used is for a prophetic earthly time period. It made sense to me!

[Morris]

Sept 29, 2010 23:37:15 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

...the anarthrous construct... [and] the articular

Could someone explain these a little to me?

[kangaroojack]

Robin wrote:

This actually surprised me. My current understanding is that this is a figure of speech, in the same vein as Psalm 50:10, "For every beast of the forest is Mine, And the cattle on a thousand hills". But what I am unsure of is if the Greek "thousand/chilias" is ever not plural when used in this manner. In other words, would it ever appear as 'chilia ete' ("thousand [non-plural] years"). I'm basically just wanting to know if it appears that way because it has to (as a plural), per Greek language rules, or does it appear that way as an option opposed to another way (as singular). Hope I explained that question alright.

Hi Robin,

Keep in mind that "chilias" is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "elep" and the thought in the Revelation is Hebrew. The Hebrew "elep" may be translated in the singular or in the plural without variation in meaning. Example, in Exodus 20:6 it says that God will show mercy to thousands of generations of those who love Him. Yet in Deuteronomy 7:9 it says that God shows mercy to a thousand generations of those that love Him.

I think that "chilias" is translated in the singular in the Revelation 20 because of its noun case. But the thought of "chilias" is Hebrew and we have seen that there is no difference in the meaning of the plural or the singular of its equivalent "elep."

Robin:

My study indicates that the Greek word leans more toward "original".

Yes it was the original serpent that was bound. Therefore, satan was bound when he was cursed in the garden. He was loosed for the "little season" between Christ's appearance and the final judgment.

Robin:

Now, the original 'serpent' was what we call satan (whatever that means to the individual interpreter), but I know this much; if it was a normal man, he would be the one by which sin entered the world, not Adam. Covenant or not, that is a sin in basic character, and is even spoken about in the ten commandments, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor". It is seen in many places in the old testament including Deuteronomy 19:15-21.

The Genesis narrative indicates that the serpent was an actual beast of the field which the Lord God had made and that he was an intelligent creature. The narrative says that he tempted the woman. Paul said that by the disobedience of the one man Adam sin entered into the world.

Roo

[Morris]

Sept 30, 2010 16:10:04 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Robin wrote:
...
Hi Robin,

That was me, Roo.

Keep in mind that "chilias" is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "elep" and the thought in the Revelation is Hebrew. The Hebrew "elep" may be translated in the singular or in the plural without variation in meaning. Example, in Exodus 20:6 it says that God will show mercy to thousands of generations of those who love Him. Yet in Deuteronomy 7:9 it says that God shows mercy to a thousand generations of those that love Him.

I think that "chilias" is translated in the singular in the Revelation 20 because of its noun case. But the thought of "chilias" is Hebrew and we have seen that there is no difference in the meaning of the plural or the singular of its equivalent "elep."

That was quite enlightening. Thanks.

Yes it was the original serpent that was bound. Therefore, satan was bound when he was cursed in the garden.

The use of 'therefore' here is unfounded. Just because it speaks of something that was original doesn't mean the event happened at its origin. I painted an original oil painting that was framed. Yet it was many years after its painting that I finally framed it. "original" speaks of the object, not the action here.

Jesus declared that He bound Satan when on earth, and that this was evidence that the kingdom had come to them. Matthew 12:22-30. I don't see any indication that Satan was bound in the garden and loosed at the first advent.

The Genesis narrative indicates that the serpent was an actual beast of the field which the Lord God had made and that he was an intelligent creature. The narrative says that he tempted the woman. Paul said that by the disobedience of the one man Adam sin entered into the world.

I am fully aware of this. My point was that the 'serpent' couldn't be another man because of the consequences this sin of accusation (against God) would imply.

[kangaroojack]

Morris said:

That was me, Roo.

Not another mistake! I need a break!

Morris:

The use of 'therefore' here is unfounded. Just because it speaks of something that was original doesn't mean the event happened at its origin. I painted an original oil painting that was framed. Yet it was many years after its painting that I finally framed it. "original" speaks of the object, not the action here.

It was the primeval serpent that was bound. That he was bound is substantiated by the fact that there was no satanic activity throughout the old covenant period up until Christ. This is again substantiated by the fact that the evil angels had been bound in chains 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.

Peter said that that the evil angels had been chained in the abyss just like in Revelation 20. Was the serpent (satan) excluded only to be cast into the abyss at a later date? Peter did not indicate any exceptions.

The evil angels obviously had been released by the time of Jesus. So they previously had been bound in the abyss and then released. Are you suggesting that there will be another binding and releasing?

Please read my post to Robin inwhich I talked about there having been no satanic activity in during the old coveannt age. I may have already answered any objections you might have.

Roo

[Morris]

Oct 1, 2010 15:20:33 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

It was the primeval serpent that was bound. That he was bound is substantiated by the fact that there was no satanic activity throughout the old covenant period up until Christ. This is again substantiated by the fact that the evil angels had been bound in chains 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6.

Yes, it was the 'primeval' serpent that was chained. I'm not saying there was no binding. I'm saying "Primeval/Original" is a description of a nature, that nature being of the "cunning and malicious person", not a statement regarding when.

The text isn't saying "a serpent in primeval times", it is saying "the original accuser and malicious one". The identification of the "Dragon" is being revealed here; it is pointing to the Dragon as Satan, not the 'serpent', which is used figuratively as a character trait (and ironically as the figure of speech comes from him in the first place).

Now, note that those references of him being bound are new testament. You won't find these in the old testament. There is no reference to Satan being let loose at the time of Christ. In fact, He gives parables indicating that He could, and did, bind Satan.

Peter said that that the evil angels had been chained in the abyss just like in Revelation 20. Was the serpent (satan) excluded only to be cast into the abyss at a later date? Peter did not indicate any exceptions.

That is why I think Revelation 20 speaks of the time of the new covenant in its very broadest viewpoint. Christ binds Satan and because of this "the second death has no power" over us and we are "priests of God and of Christ".

Jesus said on numerous occasions that "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven". It is because He held the "key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand" that He can give us the "keys of the kingdom of heaven, [and the great chains that these keys operate, so that] whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven". But that's just the way I see it stack up with the rest of scripture.

1 John 3:8
"He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil."

When it says "that He might destroy", it doesn't mean "possibly in the future". It means "he should be annulling" presently and actively.

As an entire study unto itself, the "He might destroy" here is the same base word as in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 when it says "loose" in "whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven". This base word (G#3089) has been translated as 'break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose,
melt, [and] put off'.