E
EarlyActs
Guest
Notes on paraluomai vs parerchomai in Mt 24, reviewing the article on their translation that is called “Preterist Defense for passed away”
1, the Un’ID article "Preterist Defense of 'to pass away.' is one of the best examples of why we don’t say to much about language if we don’t aren’t immersed. The passage has two words in use for ‘pass away’ (‘parelthein’ the past completed tense of ), and the article spent time comparing only one about Christ’s words. So to clarify:
Heaven and earth will pareleusetai (verb, paraluomai)
But my words will not parelthosin (verb, parerchomai)
The instances of paraluomai is mostly about crippling or disabling, with a sharp case of ‘undoing’ (reference not exact). If you have a copy of the Jewish war, 3.386 is one. It may not sound like destruction, but it is not a great thriving sign. But when you see that the Didache reinforced the view of the disappearance (below), you see that the ancients believed that the cosmos design was pretty particular, that the whole would collapse if the parts were not in particular locations.
The contrasting structure is that the words of Christ will not lose force. Ps 90:6 reminds us that the rest of creation will wither, will disappear. Cp. Is 40:6 is actually about the Word vs. all flesh, and is compared to mere grasses. Dn 7:14 is cited here by BAG’s literary lexicon. James 1:10 is humans as grass again. 2 P 3:10 is mentioned because the permanence contrasts with the dissolving, diminishing to nothing. As for intensity of heat, 2 P 3 uses three metallurgical terms so that we get that point.
Ps 148:6 gives a rare instance of permanence, however, to the cosmos. Likewise Mordecai preserves his people by effort, Est 10:3.
All this would seem to put the weight on the word choice of ‘heaven and earth’ as an expression. Why not just say something like ‘ta archaia’ about the old covenant becoming ineffectual, 2 Cor 5:17, instead of heaven and earth? It is easier for ‘heaven and earth’ to disappear than God’s word. That’s no threat if it doesn’t actually disappear! It is still a threat if the powers of the universe even slightly begin to entrope. In THE PRIVILEGED PLANET etc we know of the cosmological ‘sweet spot’ the earth has; nothing in our system can be altered without harm to the whole.
The cosmos is in Didache 10:6. As you may know, there was an interesting approach by Christians in the next centuries: up to 3 months of teaching was required before a person was ever asked if they would agree to be a Christian; that’s not just ‘do you believe these things?’ but ‘will you agree to the cost of up to your life about these things?’ The Didache validates the understanding that ‘heaven and earth’ would disappear. It is implausible that a person agreeing to their death would find much challenge over a ‘heaven and earth’ that is merely changing or becoming crippled—unless that entailed a realization that the whole system would collapse. It does.
Finally, it seems that the scroll imagery is very necessary here. As you know Is 34 has the rolled up scroll imagery of the cosmos. 34:4 is identified by the ABS NT Greek notes as an allusion in Mt 24:29, Mk 13:24-25, Rev 6:13-14. No doubt. Cp. The synagogue practice at the lecturn table: a pair of dowels are at either end of a ‘book’, and the reader unrolls wide enough to read a few columns of text. One dowel provides new columns, the other collects the unrolled, and so on. But the practice of rolling them up (‘helissomenon’) is to put it away. The reading is done. To open a scroll is ‘enoixthen’. We know this when we cp. With Heb 1:12, 10-12 actually, which is the same motif as the scroll, but now is also the same contrast as this Mt 24 text in question. It is quoting Ps. 102.
“You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord,[ac]
and the heavens are the works of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you continue.
And they will all grow old like a garment,
12 and like a robe you will fold them up
and like a garment[ad] they will be changed,
but you are the same and your years will never run out.”[ae]
I cannot see where an elaboration like this would be overlooked in the allusion made by Jesus. We know from Ps 148, that a permanence was granted to the cosmos, but so was ‘the land of Israel.’ Yet that is withdrawn. So why would ‘heaven and earth’s’ withdrawn permanence be any different?
The syntax shows a contrasting construction with a special ‘hoi de…’ formula. De is the usual negative. Meanwhile we can rule out a superfluous negative: paraluo would only work if meant to enhance or extend the destructive meaning. He wouldn’t say “…but the destruction is not going to destroy.” ‘hoi’ is only indicating a plural nominative (the plural is the pair—heaven and earth), and BAG has no note. The note-stuffed NET gives the plainest sense: that the passage is following the OT’s many contrasts to the word of God. All flesh is like withering grass, but the Word endures forever. Is 40:8, or 55:11.
For all his examples, the writer does not tell us what the remaining contrast is! Correct me if I’m wrong. Judaism’s pretense of permanence, either from the Abrahamic promises, or from the permanence of the Psalm, was finally mistaken. (It can still be found in Zionism which says Jews will rule the world).
All of which detail is meant to contrast with the scroll of the universe. It gets rolled up, but the word remains.
I just wanted the writer to know that immersion in a language might have taken him to very different directions.
Now for the rest of the article:
there is literally nothing left to stand on (about the end of the heavens and earth) for a doctrine in all His teachings. The OT is already devoid of any such concept.
This is on p5 of the article and is patently false, as seen from Psalms and Isaiah, all the NT allusions. Even if you were to go to the Rev (21), which is not always a solid point for examples, you would have the rather categorical ‘no place found for them’ of v11 of heaven and earth. Not coincidentally (the passage is so far in the ordinary sense), while that scroll is rolled up, other scrolls are unrolled (enoixthasan). This is the heaven temple. It’s what they do there, moving from one scroll to another. The reading of one is over, the reading of another has begun.
I would like to go back to the concept of ‘all flesh’ which was in the Is 40 line that supported a contrast of the loss of this heaven and earth with the word of God. This repeated ch 34 and in turn the Psalm that Heb 1 makes more prominent. The important thing, though, is from none of these passages (about parerchomai) but from the repetition from the Cataclysm that all flesh would be impounded. The evil of man sometimes takes on a systemic effect, and everything associated must be purged. (In the pre-Cataclysm times, there is a case of mingling the ‘seed’ of animals, humans and Nephilim, which violates ‘after their kind.’)
We see this repeated in the cleansing of Canaan, along with the fact of the Nephilim being there—and maybe being the reason for the elimination of all life.
When this is realized, it may be possible to understand further why all flesh must end. To bring all this up to date, a person may want to read the charter of the WEF before refuting the ‘hell in a handbasket’ line. It doesn’t matter whether it succeeds; it matters that a 2nd generation National Socialist tried to effect it in the 21st century, that a social credit score determines whether you heat or even eat in Europe, that the Christian West’s civil code distinctions between child sexual abuse and actual education are being blurred.
Overall we must understand Israel as a parable to the nations. We would need to include the whole account of Israel, like Romans 2 does.
1, the Un’ID article "Preterist Defense of 'to pass away.' is one of the best examples of why we don’t say to much about language if we don’t aren’t immersed. The passage has two words in use for ‘pass away’ (‘parelthein’ the past completed tense of ), and the article spent time comparing only one about Christ’s words. So to clarify:
Heaven and earth will pareleusetai (verb, paraluomai)
But my words will not parelthosin (verb, parerchomai)
The instances of paraluomai is mostly about crippling or disabling, with a sharp case of ‘undoing’ (reference not exact). If you have a copy of the Jewish war, 3.386 is one. It may not sound like destruction, but it is not a great thriving sign. But when you see that the Didache reinforced the view of the disappearance (below), you see that the ancients believed that the cosmos design was pretty particular, that the whole would collapse if the parts were not in particular locations.
The contrasting structure is that the words of Christ will not lose force. Ps 90:6 reminds us that the rest of creation will wither, will disappear. Cp. Is 40:6 is actually about the Word vs. all flesh, and is compared to mere grasses. Dn 7:14 is cited here by BAG’s literary lexicon. James 1:10 is humans as grass again. 2 P 3:10 is mentioned because the permanence contrasts with the dissolving, diminishing to nothing. As for intensity of heat, 2 P 3 uses three metallurgical terms so that we get that point.
Ps 148:6 gives a rare instance of permanence, however, to the cosmos. Likewise Mordecai preserves his people by effort, Est 10:3.
All this would seem to put the weight on the word choice of ‘heaven and earth’ as an expression. Why not just say something like ‘ta archaia’ about the old covenant becoming ineffectual, 2 Cor 5:17, instead of heaven and earth? It is easier for ‘heaven and earth’ to disappear than God’s word. That’s no threat if it doesn’t actually disappear! It is still a threat if the powers of the universe even slightly begin to entrope. In THE PRIVILEGED PLANET etc we know of the cosmological ‘sweet spot’ the earth has; nothing in our system can be altered without harm to the whole.
The cosmos is in Didache 10:6. As you may know, there was an interesting approach by Christians in the next centuries: up to 3 months of teaching was required before a person was ever asked if they would agree to be a Christian; that’s not just ‘do you believe these things?’ but ‘will you agree to the cost of up to your life about these things?’ The Didache validates the understanding that ‘heaven and earth’ would disappear. It is implausible that a person agreeing to their death would find much challenge over a ‘heaven and earth’ that is merely changing or becoming crippled—unless that entailed a realization that the whole system would collapse. It does.
Finally, it seems that the scroll imagery is very necessary here. As you know Is 34 has the rolled up scroll imagery of the cosmos. 34:4 is identified by the ABS NT Greek notes as an allusion in Mt 24:29, Mk 13:24-25, Rev 6:13-14. No doubt. Cp. The synagogue practice at the lecturn table: a pair of dowels are at either end of a ‘book’, and the reader unrolls wide enough to read a few columns of text. One dowel provides new columns, the other collects the unrolled, and so on. But the practice of rolling them up (‘helissomenon’) is to put it away. The reading is done. To open a scroll is ‘enoixthen’. We know this when we cp. With Heb 1:12, 10-12 actually, which is the same motif as the scroll, but now is also the same contrast as this Mt 24 text in question. It is quoting Ps. 102.
“You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord,[ac]
and the heavens are the works of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you continue.
And they will all grow old like a garment,
12 and like a robe you will fold them up
and like a garment[ad] they will be changed,
but you are the same and your years will never run out.”[ae]
I cannot see where an elaboration like this would be overlooked in the allusion made by Jesus. We know from Ps 148, that a permanence was granted to the cosmos, but so was ‘the land of Israel.’ Yet that is withdrawn. So why would ‘heaven and earth’s’ withdrawn permanence be any different?
The syntax shows a contrasting construction with a special ‘hoi de…’ formula. De is the usual negative. Meanwhile we can rule out a superfluous negative: paraluo would only work if meant to enhance or extend the destructive meaning. He wouldn’t say “…but the destruction is not going to destroy.” ‘hoi’ is only indicating a plural nominative (the plural is the pair—heaven and earth), and BAG has no note. The note-stuffed NET gives the plainest sense: that the passage is following the OT’s many contrasts to the word of God. All flesh is like withering grass, but the Word endures forever. Is 40:8, or 55:11.
For all his examples, the writer does not tell us what the remaining contrast is! Correct me if I’m wrong. Judaism’s pretense of permanence, either from the Abrahamic promises, or from the permanence of the Psalm, was finally mistaken. (It can still be found in Zionism which says Jews will rule the world).
All of which detail is meant to contrast with the scroll of the universe. It gets rolled up, but the word remains.
I just wanted the writer to know that immersion in a language might have taken him to very different directions.
Now for the rest of the article:
there is literally nothing left to stand on (about the end of the heavens and earth) for a doctrine in all His teachings. The OT is already devoid of any such concept.
This is on p5 of the article and is patently false, as seen from Psalms and Isaiah, all the NT allusions. Even if you were to go to the Rev (21), which is not always a solid point for examples, you would have the rather categorical ‘no place found for them’ of v11 of heaven and earth. Not coincidentally (the passage is so far in the ordinary sense), while that scroll is rolled up, other scrolls are unrolled (enoixthasan). This is the heaven temple. It’s what they do there, moving from one scroll to another. The reading of one is over, the reading of another has begun.
I would like to go back to the concept of ‘all flesh’ which was in the Is 40 line that supported a contrast of the loss of this heaven and earth with the word of God. This repeated ch 34 and in turn the Psalm that Heb 1 makes more prominent. The important thing, though, is from none of these passages (about parerchomai) but from the repetition from the Cataclysm that all flesh would be impounded. The evil of man sometimes takes on a systemic effect, and everything associated must be purged. (In the pre-Cataclysm times, there is a case of mingling the ‘seed’ of animals, humans and Nephilim, which violates ‘after their kind.’)
We see this repeated in the cleansing of Canaan, along with the fact of the Nephilim being there—and maybe being the reason for the elimination of all life.
When this is realized, it may be possible to understand further why all flesh must end. To bring all this up to date, a person may want to read the charter of the WEF before refuting the ‘hell in a handbasket’ line. It doesn’t matter whether it succeeds; it matters that a 2nd generation National Socialist tried to effect it in the 21st century, that a social credit score determines whether you heat or even eat in Europe, that the Christian West’s civil code distinctions between child sexual abuse and actual education are being blurred.
Overall we must understand Israel as a parable to the nations. We would need to include the whole account of Israel, like Romans 2 does.