Predestination is misunderstood...

No need. I just wondered how much NCT is followed. I actually don't like the labels and categorizations beyond a degree. But sometimes they can begin an understanding of an orientation.

FWIW, I don't see it as a Greek gramma and syntax issue. That's actually pretty simple and the English translation reflects the Greek well in this regard.

As I just laid out in post #6920, Jesus is speaking at minimum to some from the crowd but also openly in a crowd. If we just stay with Luke and don't try to cross-reference Luke's portrayal of the event, then 'your sons" in Luke 11:19 is speaking of the "sons" of some from or all in the crowd.

"sons" is used widely in the Text in both a specific and a general sense (see Luke 20:34, 36 for example). Also, I see Jesus saying "your sons" in a rhetorical sense as He's shifting the focus from Himself to others to make His point. This is all part of His argumentation which I've been saying needs to be wrung out in these verses.

I think this also answers what you expressed re: the demons being the ones who will judge. The language is clear that the ones who will judge are "your sons" - the sons of some or all from the crowds. I don't see Jesus saying those in the crowds are demons or satanic and "your sons" being figurative for this. But this is part of what @reneweddaybyday and I were discussing - who are "your sons" - and I think, like I've been saying, that we get closer to answering this by working through Jesus' argument.

One more thing re: "your sons" and judges.

NKJ Luke 11:19 "And if I cast out demons (neuter) by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons (masculine) cast them out? Therefore they (masculine) will be your judges.

"your sons" & "they will judge you" are both masculine and "demons" is neuter. "they" refers to "sons".

Also, and I'll try to look at it later, or maybe some will jump in and do it for me, but this could be used in the sense of "your sons will be used in your judgment" IOW here stands examples of some who believed truth you rejected. Jesus could even be speaking of a judgment of their current thinking to make them rethink it. It's hard to tell at the moment. Maybe it'll play out as we look at His reasoning and who "your sons" are. There is the view that Jesus is speaking of Jewish exorcists as "your sons" but this is debated in the article I mentioned to @reneweddaybyday.

We seem to think similarly and express in our individual ways to some degree. Your last sentence seems to reflect my thoughts as well. It's this orientation to God - to Christ - that is clearly lacking in too many. Simply put, it's man properly orienting to true and absolute authority and this has been the issue from mans' beginning. It's all getting firmly and finally worked out in Christ in Spirit under Grace and this is what Biblical Faith actually is - belief and submission - submission and belief - bowing in obeisance (typically translated "worship") in Spirit and Truth as Jesus said per John 4 that God the Father was then and now seeking.

Thanks again for your input. Refreshing, especially in an open forum.

I know how to adjust when a momentary sideline takes place...
(see post #1 in this thread with over 6000 posts)

But, when new topic begins to take on a life of its own?
Then a new thread would be better, and for your advantage.
For that way, the idea you want to discuss could be developed over a period of time,
with people seeing the thread title and more wanting to join in to learn specifically the new topic.

In Christ, GeneZ

Unless you're a Greek scholar how wold you know if the English translation reflects the Greek well? The fact some think "your sons" belong to Jesus and some think they belong to Jewish unbelievers is enough to wonder if the Greek is reflected well in the translation. In English there is no question "your sons" are Jewish unbelievers as one never uses "your" when referring to one's own person.

It could be suggested that "your sons" is a reference to Jewish people in general but that tends to blur the lines somewhat when the overriding principle that Jesus is discussing here is the definitive and obvious distinction between those who do God's work and those who do Satan's work.


As I haven't followed your discussion with @reneweddaybyday , I'm not 100% sure what the exact disagreement is. I was simply responding to your link where it was suggested that "your sons" are the disciples of Jesus. English does not convey that. No-one speaking of something belonging to themself refers to it as yours. It would be my sons or God's sons if it referred to believers.

Thanks, Gene. Understood.

As I said, I didn't start the topic of discussion. If someone would like to transition it to a new thread, I'll go with the flow. Also, I have no idea if the topic will last as I have no plans to continue it in my own or to take a lot of flack for showing what I see from the Text.

At minimum 3,000+ hours being taught Scripture from the original languages. Then 3 years of Greek in seminary. Then asked to travel overseas and teach Greek for the seminary (had to bow out). Then about 20 years in practical work in translating and teaching from the Greek and some Hebrew.

I disagree that in English there is no question that "your sons are Jewish unbelievers". I understand your reasoning, but there is an alternative view.

One of the big lessons I learned in 3rd year in advanced Greek was a bit of a surprise to all of us in class. We had worked for some time translating and breaking down one of the Thessalonian letters, every word, every clause to understand its structure. We finished and all felt pretty good about our work. But I noticed something that prompted me to ask my fellow students (who were mostly about half my age), 'So, now that we know what this Text says, what does this certain part mean?' It was deer in the headlights time and nobody could answer. There is translation and there is interpretation and there is the Holy Spirit as the ultimate Teacher.

The more study being done in the Text, and the more scholarship researches it, the more some very interesting things are coming to light. For one thing, I'm watching for articles that speak of the use of some very learned rhetoric used in the Scriptures. More are seeing it in more places in Paul. It's something to watch in Jesus also. Remember when Jesus was in one of His debates with the Pharisees (John 8:17) and He suddenly referred to Torah as "your law"? There's a reason for this. It's one of the things to consider in Luke 11. Jesus does things for a purpose and we have no record of anyone ever getting the better of Him in debate.

I'd like to here of an example of using your when it means mine if you have one?

"Your" used rhetorically:
Ever heard a mother tell a father, look what your son did!?
Did Jesus disown the Torah in John 8:17 when He called Torah, your law, or was He making a point?
Stephen in Acts 7: "our fathers" (Acts 7:11, 12, 15, 38, 39, 44, 45) shifts to "your fathers" to make a point and distance himself from them for resisting the Holy Spirit and killing the prophets (7:51, 52).

Generic usage of sons:
NAS Matthew 27:9 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel;
NAS Acts 7:37 "This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, 'God shall raise up for you a prophet like me from your brethren.'

I have no doubt that "your" can be used rhetorically and that "sons" is used generically in many ways. So, these words themselves are not the final factor in how Jesus is using them. Again, they are only part of the analysis. For me the real issue is how does the reasoning of Jesus' argument work. Also, what else is in context? Also, where in the NC do we see Jewish exorcists functioning successfully? I think it's these questions that when answered tell us who "your sons" are.

I'm going to take this step-by-step, and see if @reneweddaybyday is still active.

If you care to do some thinking, one exercise in reasoning I've played out is simply to go through the various questions and scenarios with Jesus' first premise and question: NKJ Luke 11:17b-18 Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls. 18 "If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?

• Does Jesus mean Satan never divides himself?
• Does Jesus' argument work conclusively if Satan may divide himself for some reason? By "conclusively" I mean can the argument be concluded without leaving open continuing back and forth unproven accusations?
• Does Jesus argument and next question about "you sons" work conclusively if "your sons" are Jewish exorcists in league with Satan?

Without Satan knowing it, Jesus was predicting what Satan would do to himself in the future when his false evangelists will cast out demons. For Satan must be divided against himself to pull off that deception. Satan must make it look like its Jesus power doing it.. To pull off that illusion, Satanized evangelists must say all sorts of bad things about Satan which are true to make it look convincing.

In Matthew 12:26, Jesus was subtly dropping a hint for the future that when Satan does those things through false Christian healers? That it will be an indicator to Satan that his kingdom can not stand! That by trying to win in that deceiving way? Satan will become his own herald of doom by the deception acting as the announcement that he is divided against himself and is going to lose!



And, here we have it happening today just as Jesus said it would happen!


grace and peace .............

This is indeed on of the interpretations put forth about Jesus' argument. It was one of the interpretations I put forth when this discussion was beginning.

First, since the discussion is concerning Luke's version. I'd like to remain in Luke rather than mix Luke with Matthew or Mark apart from some restriction.

Then, I asked where in the NC Text even outside of Luke we see Jewish exorcists functioning successfully - casting out demons.

Then, I asked how does Jesus' logic work to successfully conclude His argument if arguments remain - IOW, if there remain unfounded allegations worth considering from either side?

Here are some thoughts and questions based upon Jesus' opening premise that every kingdom divided against itself will be destroyed and fall like a house of cards (paraphrase):

• Assume Satan may cast out demons strategically (and thus be dividing his kingdom strategically at times).
  • Does Scripture say he can?
    • Then Jesus may be doing Satan's work and the allegations could be correct accusation.
    • But then Jewish exorcists may also be doing so, so the same allegation can stand against them.
      • This doesn't seem to be a great argument to make by either side and it goes against Jesus' opening premise.
  • If Jews say Jesus is, and their sons are not,
    • Then how is this proven?
  • If Jesus says He is not, and their sons are,
    • Then how is this proven?
  • Would the Jews allow for a consideration that Satan could be tricking them?
    • Not likely, and this puts us back into the above dilemma – where’s the proof if Jesus' opening premise has exceptions?
• Do we see any retort from the Jews to Jesus' opening premise that every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed?
• How does Jesus' opening premise work conclusively in His argument if His established premise is not conclusive and there are exceptions to it?

If we start here, then how does the fake evangelists concept work?

Is there an argument in the Text about exorcisms being done in Jesus' name by others who may or may not be of Jesus' followers? The answer is, yes, and then there is some logic to how Jesus responds to this report. See Mark 9 and work it out and we can discuss it. But I'll just be bringing this back to Luke to deal with the discussion that's really about Luke.

BTW, I'm open to being proven wrong as long as it's ultimately the Word proving me wrong. But we should all know that one another's "proof" is not always proof. So, expect argument.

Another BTW, I do see this fake evangelists as an interesting discussion, but I'm not so clear that this is the Scripture to use to discuss it, at minimum due to some of the above, which is not all there is to discuss re: Luke 11.

Many will SAY...

I doesn't believe what they say, neither does the Lord ... why do you?

The tension is between "not everyone ... " which is singular and individual and "many" which is plural.

People believe [some people] that because they belong to a church or denomination that does those things that will save them.

Jesus had just spent an hour teaching that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an evil tree to produce good fruit or for the good tree to produce evil, good and evil in this connection I take to mean poisonous.

So they were just lying.

Overthinking.......
The Art of Obscuring a thought.


Some ought to write a book on how to do it.


Because they do it so well.

Operation overthink. I've heard of it. And stop squeezing your brow and let a thought come in.

The book's already been written. The lessons have already been taught. Some have reversed the overthink allegation noting it seems like projection. Some use philosophical principles they learn from others and use them rightly or wrongly for their own purposes, such as bowing out of analyzing what is really being taught from Scripture.

I never had an issue with the detail down to the minutia. I fed on it and learned from it. I still do when I find exegetical works or do my own. There's a man in Korea (I think) who does analysis on chiastic structures in the NC Writings. Intensive work and a challenge to follow. Do you remember being instructed on Chiasms? Like it or not, God has men on this earth who get into the minutia of the Text, be it grammar and syntax, structure, logic, rhetoric, poetry, historical context, etc., etc., to make certain God is being properly understood. I thank Him for His gifts among men. There are also unbelievers who teach some topics in historical settings that focus on times important to the Bible and who Bible teachers should sit down and learn from.

Any analysis of the Text yet to substantiate your repeating a theory re: false evangelists from lessons you've heard? Did you look into Mark 9 and see how it might apply to your theory and relate to Luke 11?

But none of those examples mean mine, quite the opposite. They each disassociate themselves from belonging even if there is a legitimate ownership.

I fail to see how this argument can be used to claim the use of "your sons" in Luke 11:19 can mean Jesus' disciples which, was the claim of the link you posted (unless I completely misunderstood that link).

Have you actually said somewhere who you think the "sons" are?

Doesn't common sense tell you that if one is constantly undermining oneself, you will fall apart?

The rhetoric is to shift focus for whatever purpose the one using the rhetoric has in mind

• Stephan didn't say your fathers are not my fathers in a strict sense. He simply shifted the focus in his case to distance Himself.'
• Jesus didn't disown the Torah. He simply shifted the emphasis to it being their Torah to focus them on their value of it and proper use of it.
• It's this rhetorical shift of focus for whatever its purpose that we may have to look at.
• Jesus can well be saying, 'so, you're accusing Me, how about these sons of yours/Israel - your sons - your neighbors - men you've known all your lives - who may also my followers - are you accusing them also?' If we get into context in Luke this may become more of a distinct possibility we need to be looking at. If you want to do this on your own, please do, and let me know what you see. There are several things to look at here in the light of other Scriptures in and out of Luke.
• How about if we use another contemporary example? I used one earlier about a mother distancing herself to place focus on her husband's responsibility for dealing with the actions of her naughty son. What if the mother wants to bring the father into a closer praise of their son for some accomplishment? My husband, look what your beautiful son has accomplished!
• The rhetorical shift of focus can be for any purpose and the shift of focus does not mean the son of the father is not also the son of the mother. Just as the rhetorical shift of focus does not mean the Mosaic Law was not also Jesus's Law in His pre-death life. And just as the rhetorical shift of focus by Stephan does not mean the fathers were not also his fathers.
• All we have to do at this point is see the possibility until all is analyzed.
• We're not even looking at the logic of Jesus' argument yet. I mentioned some potential insight just above. I mentioned some of it here. There is more.
• Rather than any effort to think it through and respond with some reasoning, I received this response to my linked post (as I understand it to be).
• It looks like you're still looking. So, I'm still responding.

I don't think so. Is there a reason I should rather than just working it through with you or whoever cares?

FWIW, I think there is a distinct possibility that the article I referenced originally for @reneweddaybyday is correct and that Jesus is referring to His followers. I'm open to you or anyone else changing my mind.

Also, to be clear and to update this, I had not purchased the article before because I saw no need to have it at that stage. I have since purchased it and read it and find it well thought out and explained. I can see why it's noted in the NET Bible and several other places.

I cannot provide it since I have no approval by the publisher to do so. I'm happy to provide the link if you want to pay 37.50 or so for it. It's the best price I found. If not, then I'll take us through it when I'm ready. We're already working through some of what it contains which we had started on before I had it and knew all it says.

Yes. So, isn't this what Jesus is saying? Is Satan actually continually undermining himself? Or is Jesus saying this is not happening as you're alleging because Satan is not doing this? You're not seeing satanic activity in any of this successful exorcism activity taking place among you.

So, it may be common sense in the way you seem to be suggesting, if we think Satan who has been God's adversary for millennia at minimum is dumb enough to do this, or if we think Jesus' argument needs Satan to be dumb, or if we think Jesus' argument is saying Satan does things Jesus' Premise says he doesn't do, or...