Ach is also used to describe those from other nations (Dt 23:7). In some places ach is distinguished from a kinsman by the Hebrew word sheer, as in Nm 27:11; Lv 21:2, but even then, sheer represents either a relative or immediate family member (Lv 25:49). Sheer literally means "the remainder of his flesh" and is sometimes translated as "flesh" (Pr 5:11; Jr 51:35; Mc 3:2-3). As such, it refers to any remaining relative who is not in the context's specified circle of relatives. Thus, the distinction between ach and sheer is contextual, not lexical, and as such, exhibits no limitation on the application of ach.

...or the "before" clause of Matt 1:18-to show that the birth of Christ took place before normal marital relations ensued;

The phrase "come together" is from the Greek: sunelthein (corresponding to paralabein = "to take to himself" in verses 20, 24) and is used 30 times in the NT and does not refer to sexual relations (w: Mk 6:33; Ac 1:6; 1Co 11:17-34); the only possible exception is a textual variant in 1Co 7:5. Of the LXX's six uses of sunelthein, Ws 7:2 is the only possible exception.

...or the use of the word prototokos ("firstborn") in Luke 2:7 rather than the word monogenes ("only born"; cf. Luke 7:12; 8:41-42; 9:38).

Whether the word "firstborn" suggests that Mary had other children besides Jesus cannot be proven. "Firstborn" translates the Greek word prototokos. Although it refers primarily to a child not preceded by another child in birth (LXX: cf., Gn 25:25; 48:18); it is also applied to a child of honor, a child who is not the first born into the family (cf., 1 Ch 26:10; Gn 41:52/Jr 31:9 (LXX 38:9); 1Sm 16:11/Ps 89:20, 27-28 (LXX 88:20, 27-28)). Prototokos appears nine times in the New Testament (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7; Rm 8:29; Cl 1:15, 18; Hb 1:6; 11:28; 12:23; Rv 1:5). Of these, seven refer to Christ. The remaining two are Hb 11:28, which refers to the firstborn killed in Egypt; and Hb 12:23, containing the plural noun protokon, which refers to the saints in heaven. None of the NT references to "firstborn" use it in association with or in opposition to blood-siblings. In each case regarding Jesus, the NT uses "firstborn" to indicate a preeminent status, not to the first child born from Mary.

Regarding an only child, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica (v. 6, cl. 1309), the word "firstborn" referred to the first male child irrespective of subsequent siblings. "Firstborn" was a Mosaic legal term which determined the son's specific duties and privileges within the family and the community. The ceremony which so situated the firstborn was to take place on the 31st day after his birth. He was at that point legally and ritually the "firstborn," even if he turned out to be the only child. Among non-Catholic scholars, Michaelis and Herrick indicate that "firstborn" does not occur before the Septuagint (circa 3rd century B.C.). But in the instances where it does occur after this time, the idea of birth or origin is less prominent, such that privilege, rather than birthright, is the intended meaning. (Wilhelm Michaelis, TDNT, s.v. prototokos", 6: 871).

The reference to Israel as God's "firstborn" does not refer to being born first (Ex 4:22-23). It refers, rather, to the special relationship between God and his chosen people. This unique filial relationship is also mentioned in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha works (cf. Jubilees 2:20; 18:2; 19:28) as well as in rabbinic Judaism (Ex 4:22, Rabba).

Unlike other Scriptural passages where siblings are listed along with the natural firstborn (Ex 6:14-16; 1Ch 3:15), neither Matthew nor Luke (2:7) ever do so with Jesus. For example, we do not find the brothers of Jesus listed as, "Jesus, Mary's firstborn, and then James the younger, Joses, Simon, and Judas."

A related matter regards the Greek word monogenes, which is normally translated "only" in reference to an only son or daughter (Lk 7:12; 8:42); or "only child" (Lk 9:38). The remaining six passages refer to Christ as the "only begotten" son of God (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16; 18; Hb 11:17; 1Jn 4:9). One might argue that if Jesus was the only child born to Mary, he would have been called a monogenes ("only child") rather than a prototokos ("firstborn"). This argument fails on several counts:

(a) Jesus is called the prototokos in reference to God just as much as he is called the firstborn in reference to Mary (Rm 8:29; Cl 1:15, 18; Hb 1:6; Rv 1:5). Yet Christ is also called the monogenes in reference to God (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16; 18; Hb 11:17; 1Jn 4:9). This means that He can be referred to either as monogenes or as prototokos, since the two terms overlap in meaning. An interesting fact in this regard is that the Council of Constantinople, Canon 2, declares as dogma that Christ had two generations, one from God and one from Mary;

(b) the argument assumes that unless a child was specifically titled monogenes, then the child was not an only child, but that is not logical. The argument conveniently eliminates all the instances in Scripture which do not call an only child a monogenes;

(c) in a related matter, the argument fails to notice the specific reason Luke refers to a certain son or daughter as "an only child." In all three narratives the child is either dead, dying, or demon possessed (Lk 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). The sense of urgency for the healing touch of Jesus is heightened by Luke's mentioning that the child was an only son or daughter, since becoming childless is life's greatest tragedy for a mother and father. Hence, Luke is not using monogenes as mere descriptive filler for the story, and thus he certainly would not feel compelled to mention that a son or daughter was an only child unless it added some dramatic effect to the plot. We see the same logic in the Septuagint's use of monogenes in reference to Jephthah's only daughter (Jg 11:34) or Sarah, Raguel's only daughter (Tb 6:11). Their status as an "only child" is mentioned because it is needed to show the seriousness of the situation. In fact, Scripture contains no reference to a child as monogenes unless the story-line exhibits a dramatic reason for saying so;

(d) it assumes that there is only one definition for monogenes, i.e., that it refers exclusively to "only," as in an only child. But monogenes can also mean "unique" or "special." Such meanings occur in classical Greek, as well as the LXX (Ws 7:22), and as such, it is the primary meaning of the New Testament passages cited above referring to Jesus as the monogenes of God (i.e., He is the special son of God), especially since God does not have any more divine sons in addition to Jesus.

Be that as it may, the decision on the meaning of heos hou in Matt 1:25 is even simpler than Sungenis suggests. Simply look up every instance of the construction in the NT and see if any of the other instances bears the required meaning. None does. If you are more enterprising, look up all the instances of this construction in the Hellenistic literature of the NT era to see whether any of those instances bears the required meaning. Again, you will find none. The reason you will find none is because the "continuance" nuance for heos hou when it means "until" no longer exists in NT times.

Oh really? In addition to the above remarks I made to refute Svendsen's idea, even IF there were no instances in the NT or other Greek literature, it doesn't mean that heos hou no longer conveys that the action continues. In other words, unless Svendsen can find a clear indication from the intervening Greek users between the LXX and the NT, which shows, without doubt, that heos hou no longer refers to a continuation, then Svendsen cannot make a case from silence. Svendsen cannot just arbitrarily say that heos hou has changed its meaning. If the form heos hou suddenly dropped from existence in the NT, then perhaps Svendsen has the beginnings of making a case. But the fact is that heos hou, proportionally speaking, occurs as frequently in the New Testament as it does in the LXX. Svendsen has already admitted that heos retains its ability to make the verb continue in the New Testament. Moreover, he has found no Greek grammarian to support his case that heos and heos hou are used differently in the New Testament; and he simply ignores the instances in the New Testament in which heos hou continues the action, giving the lame excuse that they only refer to "while." All in all, Svendsen simply does not have a case.

Indeed, even in the LXX it occurs only a few times out of eighty-five instances. What that tells us is that the semantic range was fading even then, and the "continuance" nuance was quickly becoming the victim of etymology and semantic obsolescence.

As I have shown earlier, the frequency in the LXX of heos hou which refers to a continuation is 14%. In the New Testament it is 18%, thus there is no "fading even then" of the meaning of heos hou. The only victim here is the phrase heos hou, since it has to suffer under the biased exegetical knife of Svendsen.

By the time we reach the first century B.C., heos hou no longer bears the connotation required by the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matt 1:25. By the time we reach A.D. 50 (the approx. date Matthew wrote his gospel), anyone speaking or writing heos hou intending the "continuance" nuance would sound just as strange to his contemporaries as someone today speaking and writing in King James English would sound to us. It would be one thing to speak King James English when quoting a Bible passage. It would be quite another to speak it as a normal mode of communication. The latter, in essence, is what Sungenis is asking us to believe about Matthew when he writes Matt 1:25.

Asking? No, I'm telling you to believe it, because, aside from the historical revisionism Svendsen invents above, that is what the Greek allows and that is the faith of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

In conclusion, two things cannot be asserted regarding ‘heos' and ‘ heos hou': (1) that ‘heos', and ‘heos hou', (as well as ‘heos otou' [sic], ‘ heos an') always terminate the action of the main verb; and (2) that ‘heos' and ‘heos hou' are used differently in Greek grammar.

Unfortunately, Sungenis has demonstrated neither of these points. Sungenis' point (1) is a straw man. I have never asserted that heos "always terminates the action of the main verb."

I never said that Svendsen did. I was addressing my remarks to a general audience. Svendsen just happens to intrude into our website on occasion.

Nor have I ever asserted that heos hou always terminates the action of the main verb. There are a few instances in the LXX where it clearly does not. All I have ever asserted-and continue to assert-is that heos hou in all the literature of the two centuries surrounding the birth of Christ, when it means "until," always terminates the action of the main clause. That is an irrefutable fact.

As we have seen, it is only an irrefutable fact in the mind of Svendsen.

If Sungenis had read my work he would have known this. If Sungenis has an example contrary to my proposed usage for this era, let him produce it- he can't because it doesn't exist.

First of all, I don't consider Svendsen an authority on this topic with which I have to reckon. I only do so gratuitously. Second, I've already shown the instances in the New Testament, and proportionately the same in the LXX, in which heos hou does continue the action of the main verb.

Point (2) is based on Sungenis' misunderstanding of Burton. Burton simply does not address the various nuances of meaning of heos hou. The most he does is point out that it has the same conjunctive force as heos alone. Indeed, if we were to argue from Burton alone, it would be § 321, not § 322 that applies in this case. As we have already shown, Burton's § 321 leaves us with the impression that all instances of heos (that mean "until") terminate the action of the main verb. If we were to allow Burton's general comments to win the day, it would be utterly devastating to Sungenis' view. Honesty, however, compels us to recognize that Burton's grammar gives general or primary usage only, and does not address the various nuances within the general usage.

1 2 3 4 5