Monday with Mounce

There are quite a few exegetical difficulties in 1 John 1:1, starting with why the initial relative clauses are introduced with a neuter relative pronoun.

1 Timothy 2:12 is one of the most debated verses today. My point in discussing it is not to enter into the general debate but to deal with an erroneous misunderstanding of the present tense. Most of what follows comes from my commentary on the Pastorals.

Ephesians 3:6 presents us with two issues. One is the oddity of words compounded with σύν. The other is with the theological implications of Jews and Gentiles being “joint heirs ... fellow members of the body ... and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” The mystery of the gospel is the combining of these two people–groups. Do you separate them in your mind to any degree? Why? Whatever we believe, we have to make sense of these three compound words.

Translations are divided as to whether Jesus used the whip to drive the people or just the animals out of the temple. And even if he used the whip on people, it doesn't necessarily mean he hit the people. Or does it? An interesting question whose answer depends on the gender of a word. This is best taught with a screencast and phrasing.

Most of us are familiar with Don Carson’s excellent book, Exegetical Fallacies, and most of us are aware of the common error called the “etymological fallacy.” But the question I am asking is can a word’s etymology ever be trusted to define a word?