- In Luke 11:28, the Greek word for “rather” doesn’t mean “What you have said is wrong, and what I am going to say is right.” It usually means, “What you have said is true but insufficient, and I’m going to tell you something more fully true.” You could probably translate it as something like, “That’s true, but…”
A person who is not completely correct, is at least partially wrong.
I really did take your idea into account when I made my statement.
Jesus is correcting the woman’s “insufficient” answer.
If she is innocent, he aims her at a higher blessing.
If she is devious, he cuts her off.
The same word gets used by Paul in Romans 9:20 and Romans 10:18. Amusingly, you get old translation people translating it in one instance as “nay, but” and then in the next one as “yea, verily.” One of these things is not like the other!
I would agree, the translators of the KJV, and especially the definitions found in Strongs are inconsistent. But, in both the examples you’re citing, a correction is in fact being made to a partial error.
In Romans 10:18, the phrase being corrected is “did they NOT hear?”
Since Paul is going to prove they did hear; he intends to absolutely contradict an affirmative answer to the previous rhetorical question. That’s why he says “rather”, for the potential expectation/excuse implied by the previous question (not any perceived sarcasm) is in fact wrong. Those mentioned clearly did hear even if they refused to listen. The very fact that God punishes them so severely is proof that they did hear but refused consent. They were “obstinate”.
In Romans 9:20, we have an example that is very difficult to elucidate clearly.
In the passages, God is merciful to Jacob and has pity on Esau (Romans 9:15) but God hardens the heart of Pharaoh. (Romans 9:18.)
Conflicts in Augustinian, Calvinist, and Thomist theologies are going to make Romans 9:20 a very difficult verse to use as a clear example. We’re likely to have people disputing anything anyone says based on pre-conceived notions rather than coming to a convincing conclusion.
The issue is also that “hate” mentioned in Romans 9:13 is so strongly misinterpreted, that there is no clear contrast by the time we reach Romans 9:20.
Pharaoh spoke back against God, but neither Jacob nor Esau (the man) does so in the end.
As to “rather”:
Paul essentially has an imaginary speaker say “God has no right to find fault, for no one can resist his will.” and then he corrects this rhetorical accusation with “rather”.
In the original Greek.
But look carefully: In Romans 9:20’s the verb in Greek is actually negative, eg: "the thing formed will not say, ‘why have you made me like this!’ "
Translators totally butcher this verse in various ways in order to preserve a theological tradition. But, Paul is in fact reversing a previous argument and saying that it is almost entirely wrong.
Rather than get into a deep discussion here, I would suggest you look for clearer examples of what you wish to prove from scripture passages which are less controversial. I think, as a matter of apologetics to a wide audience, that it is better to show grammar in places where all people agree to the interpretation. That is going to be far more convincing than trying to extract points from controversial passages.
- Actually, you don’t have to go to some kind of shady mother goddess worship to explain the woman’s remark.
I did say, “if the woman were innocent, then…”
But I don’t think you even have to go that far. It was pretty typical in the ancient world to praise someone by saying how lucky their parents were to have had them, how great a son he must be, how lucky their hometown was to have them in it, how happy their house must be to have them within the walls, and so forth. You still hear this today - “You’re such a good boy. You must be a comfort to your parents.”
Correct, the woman’s compliment is not about Jesus’s mother. It’s about Jesus.
That’s exactly my point. Jesus’ mother is merely an excuse for this rude woman to open her mouth.
Saying Jesus’ mom was blessed was a more extreme version of this, and is intended in the Bible to show yet another person whom God is using as a prophet, speaking the exact truth without knowing it. It doesn’t say anything about whether the woman is good or bad; it just says that she is prophetically truthful.
I don’t see that it says she is truthful. Whether she’s truthful or not depends on whether or not she really is talking about Jesus’ mother; or if she intends a different meaning: “I’d love to have a man as powerful as you on my breast and womb.”
Even the demons would say things like “I know who you are … the son of God.”
Such a statement, even if truthful, was damaging; and for that reason Jesus silenced many a demon.
You’re overlooking the context of the statement, and that the woman interrupted Jesus’ defense of himself against an accusation of being beelzebub. Jesus had just cast out a demon, and the devil wanted very badly to END Jesus’s discourse.
THAT is the context, when the woman “lifts up/exalts” her voice, and pays Jesus this apparent compliment. She is trying very hard to change the subject as quickly as possible. And for what purpose?
