Garrett Lisi back in 2007 was an unemployed surfer and snowboarder. He liked to study theoretical physics and published an "Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything." I think about this sometimes because the guy wasn't in the sphere of the heady cultural theoretical physicists... He was some dude without a job that was curious about the subject so he decided to read in between boarding. Why do I think about this a lot? Because I don't much of anything about the mechanics of Greek or Hebrew and when I talk about things that make sense in context to me, I sometimes get pushback (rightly so as im not looking to build any strange doctrines here) from people that do know the mechanics and functions of how the languages work. While I know people and how people work, I can't discredit the rules of how people write and they way that language functions. Rules are rules and they exist, but, with some rules, there are exceptions. "I before E unless its Weird" for example. It's a rule, but there are exceptions to the rule.
When discussing greek and looking at the word "Kai" one of the definitions is "but" where it combines 2 statements. People that I have talked to who know greek or claim they do on the internet ( I believe them), say that "Kai" ALWAYS means "and" and never "but". yet, when I am looking at passages contextually I think it does make sense that it means "but" in contrast in a few places rather than "and". Look at this passage in Mark 12, where they translate "Kai" as "and", but then the translators have to add the word "yet" to imply the contrast rather than the word "Kai meaning "but" for the contrast
Mark 12:12The contrast is there. "They desired to seize Christ- BUT they feared the people, for they understood that He spoke the parable against them. ..,." The nuanced connection is contrast. I'm my poking around the internet trying to understand the nuances of the matter I found this:
12 And they were seeking to seize Him, and yet they feared the people, for they understood that He spoke the parable against them. And so they left Him and went away.
Some lexicons list "but" as one of the possible renderings for kai, driven by its usage in translation—but emphasize that this is not its usual function:Strong’s Concordance lists many possible meanings—and, also, even, indeed, but—but remarks that kai is never adversative in Greek, unlike Hebrew waw. -Blue Letter BibleThayer’s Lexicon also counts “but” among possible English translations—yet clarifies that kai itself is not adversative.-Blue Letter BibleSo, while dictionaries include it, they're acknowledging that the nuance arises from context or translator choice—not a fundamental meaning shift.
Luke 20:19Greek: The text includes a καί where translators often render “but”: “They were watching Him closely, and yet (καί) were seeking how to accuse Him.”Scholars note this zone of contrast even though grammarians typically insist καί is not inherently adversative -kukis.org
John 18:28Greek: In the narrative of Jesus’ trial, καί introduces a clause that functions like “yet they themselves entered not,” implying a contrast between expectation and action.Again, grammatically καί doesn’t mean “but,” yet translators render it as such for clarity and narrative flow-kukis.org
Revelation 3:1
“To the angel of the church in Sardis write:He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: ‘I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.
This, like Mark 12:12 seems to be an outlier of the standard way Kai is used. There are places where "And" is used yet "But" would also fit.
John 1:5
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Light is incomprehensible to darkness. Light is comprehensible in of itself. Contrast of light and dark. "The Light shines in the darkness, BUT the darkness did not comprehend it"
Luke 6:47-49
47 Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.”
"The one who has heard BUT has not acted accordingly." Kai is used conversely and could be defined interchangeably with "and" without loss of context. The one who hears is contrasted with the one that does not acted accordingly"
Jeremiah 31:15
This is what the LORD says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamenting and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.”Matthew 2:18
“A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she refused to be comforted, Because they were no more.”
The contrast of weeping and mourning and sorrow BUT refusing to be comforted. Associated but contrasting. While Kai ALMOST universally means "And" it does seem to have exemptions. Now, getting to the important reasons that I have even looked into this at all. In Acts 21:21 the word is used however "but" would be a more accurate context for the chapter because they're contrasting how Paul IS teaching the Law of God BUT they have been told that he teaches them to forsake Moses.... leading into the prescription to offer the sacrifice to prove that the contrast is unfounded in 22-24
Acts 21:20-24
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
Contextually: They have been told you teach contrary to the Law BUT you actually walk orderly- keeping the law. The context gives the contrasting definition. Quick reminder: I don't know greek, and scholars will probably hate this entire post, but im probably autistic so hopefully that gives me some credibility. Anyway, with these examples, we can look at the contrast Christ makes between Peter being called a rock BUT Christ is the rock and the revelation that He- Christ, is the stone is what the church is built upon.
Matthew 16:13-20
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.
The context is of the revelation of Christ being the Messiah, the Savior, and with this revelation are the keys to the Kingdom of God- the Gospel that Christ has come. Christ is stating that though Peter is called a "rock" the revelation that Christ is the Stone in which the builders rejected- the Rock of God, that revelation is what the church is built upon. He brings it around in verse 20 to remind them to tell no one this revelation until His time. The focus being the revelation of Christ- not the supposed invention of the papacy of Peter. The contrast used of Kai is in the sense of "but" not "and". The fluid context of the text fits with "but" over "and" as, with "and" the text becomes jarring and disjointed causing the reader to leap from the revelation of Christ as the Messiah to the exaltation of Peter as the head of the church - which is contrary to the rest of the scriptures.
Matthew 21:
41 They *said to Him, “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, and will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.”42 Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures,‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This came about from the Lord,And it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. 44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”
Christ is the Chief cornerstone, the Rock- the revelation. Those scriptures are all of these if you want to look them up, I'm not going to make this post 40 pages:
1 Corinthians 10:4, Luke 6:47-49, Deuteronomy 32:4, Genesis 49:24, Deuteronomy 32:15, Deuteronomy 32:18, Deuteronomy 32:30-31, 1 Samuel 2:2 , 2 Samuel 22:23 , 2 Samuel 22:47, 2 Samuel 23:3, Psalm 18:2, Psalm 18:46, Psalm 28:1, Psalm 42:9, Psalm 62:5-8, Psalm 78:35, Psalm 89:26, Psalm 92:15, Psalm 94:22, Psalm 95:1, Psalm 144:1, Isaiah 44:8, Habakkuk1:12, 1 Peter 2:8, Psalm 31:3, Psalm 62:1-2
Look at this in John chapter 1
John 1:41-42Christ is calling Peter back to the moment Christ called Peter.
41 He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).
Matthew 16
15 He *said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
The revelation of Christ as the Messiah/ Rock of our salvation, to the naming of Peter. this points to the Matthew 16 account that Christ is making a play on words off Peter name being little rock/stone TO the Revelation that Christ is the Rock of our Salvation, the Stone which the builders rejected. This isn't establishing Peter as supreme Pontiff in the seat that Christ says is His alone as the leader and head of the church- its a reminder that we are supposed to follow Christ and conform to His image and at His revelation He is the one that gives us a new name
Also look at 2 more examples of "kai" in a contrastive sense:
Matthew 21:41The contrast of wretches ending with new life.
He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, BUT will rent out the vineyard to other vine-growers who will pay him the proceeds at the proper seasons.
" Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. 44 and he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”"
Kai is used in both contexts here, in the "and" and the contrasting "but" comparing those who fall on the rock to be broken vs those who refuse and will be crushed by the rock. For details on Christ being the Rock.
Examples of "Kai" being used in the ancient Greek:
ClytemnestraIn the night, I say, that has but now given birth to this day here.Chorus280 But what messenger could reach here with such speed?ClytemnestraHephaistos, from Ida speeding forth his brilliant blaze.-Aeschylus, Agamemnon- 5th century B.C.
Contrasting the night giving birth to day with a speedy messenger.
Teucer:...When he died, he left a conflict over his armor to his allies.Helen:But then what trouble is this to Ajax?
In Euripides' Helen (line 102 in Perseus edition), the Greek for Helen's line "What harm if he did?" is: καὶ δὴ τί τοῦτ᾽ Αἴαντι γίγνεται κακόνTransliteration: kaì dḕ tí toût’ Aíanti gígnetai kakónIt means roughly "And indeed, what harm does this become to Ajax? - Euripides' Helen Perseus edition
Shall I leave the station of the ships and the Atreidaealone, and go homeward across the Aegean sea ? BUT what face shall I show to my father Telamon when I appear before him ? how will he ever endure to look upon me when I appear ungraced—without meed of valour, of which he himself had a great crown of fame ? That cannot be endured -Sophocles, Ajax 462 καὶ ποῖον… “But what…?”
“Dikaiopolis: But who has ever seen an ox so vaunting—such a kritanites?”“But who has ever seen an ox like that—a kritanites—of all the vaunting deeds?”Here, καὶ initiates a rhetorical question that underscores incredulity—effectively performing a contrastive/adversative function: “But who ever saw...?”Aristophanes, Acharnians 86 καὶ τίς εἶδε πώποτε βοῦς κριβανίτας
So, there are SOME exceptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment