150 Mistranslations in the Bible PART 6

This is the sixth in a series of seven articles, in which the following Scriptures are discussed in a Genesis to Revelation sequence.

	PART 6
108	ROMANS 1:23
109	ROMANS 2:9-10
110	ROMANS 5:8
111	ROMANS 8:19-21,39
112	ROMANS 8:24
113	ROMANS 8:29
114	ROMANS 11:7 & 2 CORINTHIANS 3:14
115	ROMANS 11:25 & EPHESIANS 4:18
116	ROMANS 11:29
117	1 CORINTHIANS 11:20
118	1 CORINTHIANS 12:28
119	1 CORINTHIANS 15:29
120	2 CORINTHIANS 3:14
121	2 CORINTHIANS 7:8
122	2 CORINTHIANS 7:9-11
123	2 CORINTHIANS 11:6
124	EPHESIANS 1:4
125	EPHESIANS 4:18
126	EPHESIANS 5:21
127	1 TIMOTHY 5:17-18
128	2 TIMOTHY 1:9-10
129	2 TIMOTHY 3:16

#108 = ROMANS 1:23

THE VERSE:

And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image (Greek “eikon”) made like (Greek “homoioma”) to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS TRANSLATION:

Human beings rejected God and went into idolatry. The mistranslations in this verse are of consequence to people who use this verse to draw certain conclusions regarding the nature of God. Specifically, some people have reasoned from this translation that God does not have any form or shape. That is completely wrong.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSLATION:

1) The Greek word here translated “changed” should be correctly translated as “to exchange one thing for another”; in other words, to replace something with something else. It is correctly translated “exchanged” in translations like the NAS, NIV, RSV, etc.

2) In the Greek NT there are two different words with somewhat similar meanings, but also with some distinct differences between them. Romans 1:23 is the only place in the New Testament where these two words are used together, expressing a relationship to each other.

These two words are “eikon” and “homoioma”. I have included them above in the quoted verse. These two words are in fact a parallel to the two Hebrew words in Genesis 1:26. Those two Hebrew words in Genesis 1:26 are “tselem” meaning “image”, and “demuwth” meaning “likeness”.

Thus Hebrew “tselem” = Greek “eikon” = English “image”.

And Hebrew “demuwth” = Greek “homoioma” = English “likeness”.

In Genesis 1:26 “image” refers to “look like God”; and “likeness” refers to “possessing characteristics like God".

So coming to Romans 1:23:

The word “eikon” refers to a true and accurate image of someone or something. The word “homoioma”, on the other hand, is used to express abstract concepts, characteristics, or attributes, independent of appearances.

So when a writer is making a literal comparison to something else, then the word “eikon” is used. And when a writer is making a conceptual comparison to something else, then the word “homoioma” is used.

In Romans 1:23 the expression “into an image made like to” is a translation of the Greek expression “en homoiomati eikonos”. Let’s look at these three Greek words.

1) “En” means “in” or “into”. It always takes the dative case.

2) “Homoiomati” is the dative case of “homoioma,” here translated as “made like to”.

3) “Eikonos” is the genitive case of “eikon,” here translated as “an image”.

A correct literal translation of this Greek expression is “into the likeness of an image,” and it is correctly rendered this way in many translations, including ASV, ERV, Darby, YLT, WEB, EMTV, WORRELL, DOUAY, LEB, WEB, etc.

Now this expression “into the likeness of an image” is another way of saying “for the concept of an image”. So Paul is in this verse talking about a conceptual comparison, not a literal comparison.

Let me repeat that: in Romans 1:23 Paul is making a conceptual comparison, rather than a literal comparison. Paul is not saying that they made their idols to look like God, not at all. The idols of the pagan religions don’t even remotely look like God, something Paul understood very clearly.

Rather, Paul is saying that the glory that belongs to God the pagans applied to their idols.

The focus of Romans 1:23 is not on God! The focus of this verse is on the glory of God! And Paul’s comparison is not between God and idols. Paul’s comparison here refers to the glory of God being attributed by pagans to their idols.

A CORRECT TRANSLATION OF THIS VERSE:

“And exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the concept of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”

 

THE CORRECT MEANING OF THIS VERSE:

The pagans replaced “the glory of God” with idols, some of which had a human appearance, and others looked like animals, birds or creeping things. What God Himself looks like doesn’t enter the picture in this verse. It is the glory of God, rather than the appearance of God, that the pagans tried to apply to their idols. In simple terms: the pagans ascribed God’s characteristics and powers to their idols, not necessarily God’s looks or appearance.

Many different images (Greek “eikon”) make up this one specific concept (Greek “homoioma”) of paganism ... that an image of a bull or snake or eagle or frog, etc. can supposedly represent the powers of God.

But Romans 1:23 tells us nothing at all about God’s own shape or appearance. And the assertion that this verse supposedly proves that God has no shape is utterly absurd.

#109= ROMANS 2:9-10

THE VERSES:

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Romans 2:9-10)

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS TRANSLATION:

The implication here is that Paul referred to non-Israelites as “Gentiles”. But that is not correct. At no point in any of his letters did the Apostle Paul ever refer to any individual person as “a Gentile”.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSLATION:

The word “Gentile” in these verses is a mistranslation.

In verse 9 the Greek word mistranslated as “the Gentile” is “hellenos”.

In verse 10 the Greek word mistranslated as “the Gentile” is “helleni”.

These two words are the genitive singular case and the dative singular case of the noun “hellen” respectively. And the noun “hellen” means: a Greek person.

“Hellen” does not mean “Gentile”.

The majority of English translations have corrected this mistranslation, and they read either “the Greek” or they just say “Greek”, since the Greek text does not contain the definite article. Translations with this correction include: ASV, RSV, NRSV, Darby, YLT, Coverdale, ERV, EMTV, Williams, etc.

THE CORRECT MEANING OF THIS VERSE:

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that does evil, of (the) Jew first, and also of (the) Greek; But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that works good, to (the) Jew first, and also to (the) Greek: (Romans 2:9-10)

THE CORRECT MEANING OF THIS VERSE:

The word “Gentile” is a slang expression intended to refer to all non-Israelites. In all places where it appears in our English translations of the Bible, it is a mistranslation. These two verses here are the only place where we have the word “Gentile” in the singular form in our English Bibles. Both are mistranslations.

For a thorough discussion of the word “gentiles” in our English Bibles see my 30-page 2017 article entitled “The Use of the Word ‘Gentile’ in the Bible”.

#110 = ROMANS 5:8

THE VERSE:

But God commends His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS TRANSLATION:

Some people have used this verse to claim that God loves all sinners, including  adulterers and murderers, unconditionally. That is not correct. There are two mistranslations in this verse.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSLATION:

I have explained this verse and the mistranslations in it in detail in my 2015 article “God Does Not Love All Sinners!”. See that article for a thorough explanation.

Briefly:

1) The first mistranslation involves the expression “while we were yet sinners”.  In the Greek text this is in the present tense, and not in the past tense. This expression correctly reads “while we are yet sinners”. It is speaking about us in the present tense, and not in the past tense.

2) The second mistranslation involves the expression “but God commends His love”. The Greek text for this expression reads “sunistesin de ten eautou agapen”.

The verb “sunistao” (i.e. “sunistesin” in the text) is translated as “commends”. But that’s not really what this verb means in this context. In this context this Greek verb means “to introduce” and “to exhibit”. (In modern Greek the shortened word “sunisto” also means “to introduce” when applied to a person.) A more appropriate translation of this Greek text is “God introduces His love”.

A CORRECT TRANSLATION OF THIS VERSE:

But God introduces His love towards us, in that, while we are yet sinners, Christ died for us.

THE CORRECT MEANING OF THIS VERSE:

This verse is not speaking about unrepentant sinners in the world. The pronoun “us” refers to converted members of God’s Church. All of us are still sinners, as the Apostle John spells out quite clearly in 1 John 1:8-9. And in Romans Paul was addressing church members, not sinners in the world. The world is not a consideration in this statement.

Here is how this works.

As long as we were unrepentant, we were cut off from God (Isaiah 59:2). And at that time Jesus Christ’s sacrifice did not in any way whatsoever apply to us. We were cut off from any access to forgiveness of our sins, and we were cut off from God’s love.

       

Then God opened our minds by calling us, along with also calling millions of other people who did not respond to that calling (i.e. see the parable of the sower, and also Matthew 22:14).

When we responded to that calling, then access to forgiveness of our past guilt was opened unto us. When we repented, then God “introduced us to His love”. How? By applying the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to our sins. And at that point, and not before that point, Christ had also died “for us”.

The article adds many more details to this explanation.

#111 = ROMANS 8:19-21, 39

THE VERSES:

For the earnest expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, (Romans 8:20)

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8:21)

Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:39)

THE PROBLEMS WITH THESE TRANSLATIONS:

The Greek noun “ktisis” means both “creature” and “creation”. Clear examples for both meanings are Romans 1:20 (for “creation”) and Mark 16:15 (for “creature”). It is always the context that tells us whether it means “creature” or whether it means “creation”.

Here in Romans 8 Paul has used this word “ktisis” five times: once each in the four consecutive verses 19-22, and then at the end of the chapter in verse 39.

Verses 19-22 form one context. And in verse 22 the translators have correctly translated “ktisis” as “creation”. It doesn’t make sense to say that “the whole creature groans and travails”. Here in verse 22 it must mean that “the whole creation groans and travails”.

So verse 22 establishes the subject that Paul is discussing here. Paul is talking about the whole “creation” in these verses, rather than talking about “creatures”. Thus in verses 19-21 “ktisis” should be consistently translated as “creation”, in agreement with “creation” in verse 22.

Coming to “ktisis” in verse 39:

Verses 38-39 form one single sentence. So the context for “ktisis” in verse 39 starts in verse 38. We should ask ourselves: does this list that Paul presents in these two verses focus on living beings (i.e. “creatures), or does it focus on things that don’t have life (i.e. “creation”)?

Before concluding this list with the statement “any other ktisis”, Paul lists: death, life, height, depth, the present creation (things present) and the future creation (things to come). These things are not “creatures”; they fall under “creation”.

Paul also lists: angels, principalities and powers. These words can apply to “creatures” who can exercise power and authority. But these three words cover all possibilities of “creatures”. Angels are listed; and demons are potentially also covered by the words “principalities and powers”; and (other) human beings are potentially also covered by the words “principalities and powers”.

So there is “no other creature” that could be implied by the concluding expression “any other ktisis”. In this list Paul is speaking mostly about  abstract things.

It seems clear to me that here in Romans 8 Paul has consistently used the word “ktisis” with the meaning of “creation”.

CORRECT TRANSLATIONS OF THESE VERSES:

For the earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)

For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, (Romans 8:20)

Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8:21)

Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creation, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:39)

THE CORRECT MEANING OF THESE VERSES:

In discussing the glory of God and the love of God, Paul has focused on the big picture that covers all of creation, rather than on just “creatures”. In practice this correction does not have any significant consequences. I have included these verses here simply to provide a clearer picture of what Paul is discussing.

#112 = ROMANS 8:24

THE VERSE:

For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? (Romans 8:24)

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS TRANSLATION:

This is the main Scriptures people use to claim that true Christians are already “saved” now in this life. That is not correct.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSLATION:

The claim that we are now already “saved” contradicts clear statements by Jesus Christ. For example:

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. (Matthew 24:13)

These are the words of Jesus Christ. And here the Greek word “sothesetai” is the future tense of “sozo”, and it is correctly translated as “shall be saved”, in the future. Here Jesus Christ Himself clearly stated that being saved is still future.

Matthew 24:13 tells us that once we come into God’s Church, we have to continue to “endure” tests and trials. But we are not yet saved. So we are converted Christians, and that means that God has given us His holy spirit. But we are still not yet saved, even while we are enduring trials.

It is only after we have faithfully endured tests and trials “unto the end” of our lives, that then we shall be saved, in the future, at the time of the first resurrection.

In Matthew 10:22 Jesus Christ made basically the same statement as in Matthew 24:13. So Jesus Christ said this on at least two different occasions.

So how do the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:24 tie in with the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:13? Is there any contradiction?

The answer is that in Romans 8:24 Paul did not use the verb “saved” with the present tense! Paul did not say “we are saved”. Rather, Paul used the Greek aorist tense with the verb “saved”.

The aorist tense in biblical Greek is something for which we have no equivalent in English. This Greek tense focuses on exactness and accuracy, without regard for present, past or future. And the 12,043 times that the aorist and second aorist tenses are used in the Greek New Testament include many hundreds of examples, where it has been correctly translated by the future tense in English.

Whenever we see a Greek verb in the aorist tense in the New Testament, then it is always the context which tells us whether this verb should be translated into English in the present, past or future tense. The Greek verb in the aorist tense itself does not give us any clues in this regard. The context is the only criterion we can use to translate such a verb correctly.

Now when the context itself does not give us a clue as to a present, past or future application, then translators invariably rely on their own understanding of the subject matter being discussed. That is all they have to go on. And that is all any of us have to go on in such cases.

It follows that when the translators have an incorrect understanding of a specific subject, that then there is the danger that they might translate something incorrectly.

Specifically, here in Romans 8:24 the Greek verb in the aorist tense could theoretically be correctly translated as “we were saved”, or as “we are saved”, or as “we shall be saved”. Potentially the aorist tense includes all these possibilities.

But only one of them is correct in the context of verse 24.

The translators opted for the present tense “we are saved” statement, because that agreed with their incorrect understanding of the subject of salvation. And so they could not understand that their translation was in open opposition to the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:13.

A correct understanding of Matthew 24:13, and of the whole subject of “salvation”, means that here in Romans 8:24 the aorist tense must be translated into English by the future tense.

(The aorist tense is discussed further in my 1995 article “Some Facts About N.T. Greek Verbs.)

A CORRECT TRANSLATION OF THIS VERSE:

For we shall be saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? (Romans 8:24)

THE CORRECT MEANING OF THIS VERSE:

The expression “we are saved by hope” is something of a contradiction of terms, as pointed out by Paul in this verse. If we supposedly “are” saved, then we don’t need to have any hope. “Hope” is only something that can exist before we receive the thing we hope for. That’s what Paul is saying in this verse.

“Hope” is always focused on the future. And “we shall be saved” is likewise focused on the future. So since we must have hope, therefore “are saved” is not really a possibility here in verse 24. It can only be “shall be saved”.

#113 = ROMANS 8:29

THE VERSE:

For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS TRANSLATION:

Some people assume that this verse says that some people are predestinated to be in God’s Kingdom. Implied is that all those who are not predestinated will not be in God’s Kingdom. But this is not correct. There are mistranslations involved in this context.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSLATION:

The context actually starts in the previous verse. So let’s start our examination with verse 28.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

Note that the subject of this verse are the people who are “the called according to God’s purpose”. Implied is that all of us already understand what is meant by “God’s purpose”.

Now we come to the first problem with our English translations. In our versions verse 29 starts a completely new sentence. But that is misleading!

Verse 29 starts with the Greek conjunction “hoti”, which is translated as “for” in order to introduce a new sentence. This conjunction “hoti” is in our age today more clearly translated as “because” or as “so that”.

In plain language, when “hoti” is translated as “because” or as “so that”, then it is much easier to see that verse 29 is in fact a continuation of the sentence that started in verse 28. (There was no punctuation in the original Greek text.)

“Hoti” is a conjunction which joins what follows to what went before. Verse 29 is an elaboration of verse 28. That is what Paul intended when he wrote verse 29.

Verse 29 is not a new thought at all.

In plain terms:

In verse 29 Paul explains why “all things work together for good to them that are called according to God’s purpose”.

None of the translators really understood what Paul was saying here. They read their own biases into Paul’s words. And so they changed a few things here and there, so that the text would be compatible with their own views.

It is always a problem when translators try to translate something that they don’t really understand. It is not a case of them not understanding the Greek words they translated; they do understand those Greek words. What they don’t understand is the concept that Paul explained by using these Greek words. They couldn’t grasp the intended meaning. This is a problem not only here in Romans 8, but in many other places as well, where the translators were also really clueless as to what the texts they were translating actually mean.

So here once again is verse 29 as it appears in the KJV.

For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)

And here is the Greek text for verse 29.

“Hoti ous proegno kai proorisen summorphous tes eikonos tou huiou autou prototokon en pollois adelphois.”

The 9 English words “for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate” are supposed to be a translation of the 5 Greek words “hoti ous proegno kai proorisen”.

Notice the three-word Greek expression “proegno kai proorisen”.

In this expression the verb for “he did foreknow” is “proegno”, and this is the aorist active indicative third person singular of the verb “proginosko”, which verb is made up of the words “pro” + “ginosko”.

The verb for “he did predestinate” is “proorisen”, and this is the aorist active indicative third person singular of the verb “proorizo”, which verb is made up of the words “pro” + “horizo”.

This Greek verb “proorizo” is the sole foundation for all the ideas about “predestination”! This verb is the key to the subject of predestination!

So let’s now examine the Greek root verb “horizo” and then also the verb “proorizo” more closely. The following information is based on the Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament (TDNT) for the entry entitled “horizo, aphorizo, apodiorizo, proorizo”.

“horizo. This word (from horos, ‘boundary’) means ‘to limit’ and then figuratively ‘to fix’, ‘to appoint’. Time as well as space can be limited.” (page 728, the abridged one volume by Geoffrey W. Bromiley; bold type is my own emphasis)

“proorizo. This rare and late word has in the NT the sense ‘to foreordain’.” (TDNT same page)

We get our English word “horizon” from “horizo”, because the horizon is a boundary for how far we can see. Now these two definitions in TDNT present some very interesting information! Can we see the significance of the above statements?

For the root word “horizo” this recognized reference work gives us the exact meaning of the word. But for the word “proorizo” it does not actually give us the meaning at all! Can we see that?

The statement “has in the NT the sense” is a way of telling us that this reference work will only give us a theological interpretation for what the author thinks the word should mean in the NT! Can we see that? For “proorizo” this Theological Dictionary does not provide the actual meaning of the word.

There is a huge difference between providing the actual literal meaning of the Greek words “horos” and “horizo” on the one hand; and then on the other hand stating that “in the NT” the word “proorizo” has a certain sense! What about the “sense” or “the literal meaning” this word “proorizo” has outside the NT, i.e. in a non-religious context?

Since “proorizo” is a rare and late word, therefore we don’t really have examples from classical Greek (i.e. we are not aware of uses outside of the NT). Later meanings and also the meaning of “proorizo” in modern Greek (where it means “to destine” or “to intend”), are heavily influenced by the theological meaning that was attached to this word after New Testament times, and therefore such meanings cannot be relied on.

So here is the point:

Once again not a single biblical scholar understands this verse correctly. All of them have read their own prejudices regarding “predestination” into the Greek word “proorizo”. And so this Greek word has since then been used with the meaning that people after New Testament times assigned to this word. And they have consistently assigned a wrong meaning to this word, which assignment in fact ignores the meaning of the root words for “proorizo”.

This is what a lack of understanding will produce. And that is why no matter how brilliant a scholar may be, no amount of human intelligence can get around the constraint that “the things of God knows no man without access to the spirit of God” (see 1 Corinthians 2:11, paraphrased).

To come to a clearer understanding of this Greek word “proorizo”, let’s examine all the Greek words in the NT that have the common stem “horizo”.

1) Horizo: As we have already seen, this word refers to “setting a boundary” or “setting a limit”. A clear example of this meaning is found in Hebrews 4:7.

Again, he limits (Greek “horizo”) a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. (Hebrews 4:7)

In this verse the meaning of “horizo” is quite clear. It has to do with setting a limit or a boundary.

2) Aphorizo: This word means “to sever” or “to separate”. A clear example is found in Matthew 25:32.

And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate (Greek “aphorizo”) them one from another, as a shepherd divides (Greek “aphorizo”) his sheep from the goats: (Matthew 25:32)

In this verse the word “aphorizo” is used twice, and the meaning “to sever” or “to separate” or “to divide” is also easy to recognize from the context. This meaning is clearly linked to the meaning of “horizo”, since boundaries separate or divide groups of people or animals.

3) Apodiorizo: This word also means “to separate” with the intention of defining a distinction between the things that are separated. This word is only used once, in Jude 1:19.

These be they who separate (Greek “apodiorizo”) themselves, sensual, having not the spirit. (Jude 1:19)

Thus far all three Greek words very clearly have to do with setting a boundary or a limit, which has the effect of separating people (or animals) into different groups.

4) Proorizo: This word is mostly mistranslated as “predestinated”. But one verse where we get closer to the correct meaning is 1 Corinthians 2:7.

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained (Greek “proorizo”) before the world unto our glory: (1 Corinthians 2:7)

“Ordained” is in fact a mistranslation of the Greek word “proorizo”. But the translators chose this word “ordained” because it was quite obvious to them that in this context “predestinated” would even more clearly be a wrong translation. But the translators simply couldn’t understand the correct intended meaning.

However, can you see that the mystery of God wasn’t in any way “predestinated”? Rather, shortly before the flood God modified His plan for mankind in such a way that the new plan limited the number of people who would be in the first resurrection to exactly 144,000. So before the flood God in effect “set the boundary” for how many will be in the first resurrection.

God setting a limit (i.e. a boundary) is not at all the same as God “predestinating” certain people.

That (God setting a very rigid boundary for how many will be in the first resurrection) is a mystery for most of mankind, which even the Church of God didn’t understand in the 1950's and 60's and 70's, a time when many ministers still erroneously believed that the first resurrection will comprise two groups of people: the 144,000 and the “great multitude which no man could number” (Revelation 7:9). But that belief is wrong!

At any rate, can we see that here in 1 Corinthians 2:7 the word “proorizo” has nothing at all to do with any kind of individual predestination? The focus is not on individual people; the focus is on God’s overall plan for mankind. And the meaning of “proorizo” here in this verse ties perfectly into the meaning of the root word “horizo”. So 1 Corinthians 2:7 shows us how we are to understand Romans 8:29.

By contrast, assigning the meaning “to predestinate” to this word “proorizo” is totally out of character with the other three words in this family of words (i.e. horizo, aphorizo, and apodiorizo). The meaning “to predestinate” is totally artificial and completely inappropriate. It simply doesn’t fit with any of the words in this group.

This word “proorizo” is only used six times in the NT, five times by Paul and once by Paul’s traveling companion Luke (i.e. in Acts 4:28). Matthew, Mark, John, James, Peter and Jude never used this word “proorizo” in their writings. So none of them ever speak about any supposed “predestination”. Six of the authors of NT books never use this word at all, which means that they never in any way refer to “predestination”. That should also make us think.

If there really was such a thing as “predestination”, then why would six of the eight NT authors have completely ignored this subject?

Here is the correct meaning with which the Apostle Paul used this word “proorizo”.

This word does NOT mean “to predestinate”! The root word “horizo” really means: to limit, to set a boundary, to set parameters! And the word “proorizo” means “to set a limit before”. That is 100% in keeping with the meanings of the root word “horizo” and the prefix “pro”.

Now without an understanding of the plan of God, by which plan God beforehand set a limit of exactly 144,000 people for the first resurrection, it is pretty well impossible for any scholar to comprehend the correct meaning for the word “proorizo”. Scholars cannot grasp that for a certain phase of His plan God has in advance set a very clear limit, a boundary which may not be exceeded. But we in God’s Church should be able to understand this.

So can you understand the meaning of the word “proorizo”? It refers to a predetermined boundary which may not be exceeded.

Now let’s continue with Romans 8:29.

The word “ginosko” means “to know”, and “horizo” means “to determine a limit” or “to establish a boundary”. In the Greek text both these verbs have the prefix “pro”, which means “before”. So “proginosko” means “to know in advance” or “to know before”. And “proorizo” means “to determine in advance a boundary”.

Notice that these two Greek verbs are joined by the conjunction “kai”. This three-word Greek expression “proegno kai proorisen” means “to know in advance and to determine a limit in advance”. The word “and” is the correct translation for the Greek word “kai” in this context.

Yes, at other times it is sometimes appropriate to translate “kai” as “also”; but that is not the case here in Romans 8:29, in spite of what most scholars have done.

In this expression “proegno kai proorisen” the two verbs are in the identical form in every way, and they are joined by the word “and”!

Here is a problem:

In Greek it is one expression, which our translators have changed into two expressions, because of their lack of understanding. Can we see that?

Our English translations of Romans 8:29 have changed this 3-word Greek expression into the following two English expressions:

        1) whom he did foreknow

        2) he also did predestinate

That is wrong!

In this wrong format “he also did predestinate” is presented as a consequence of the expression “whom he did foreknow”. And the expression “whom he did foreknow” is presented as a prerequisite for the expression “he also did predestinate”.

These two English expressions are presented as a form of progression. That false picture is achieved by mistranslating “kai” in this context as “also”. Now that mistranslation may sound pretty logical to some people, as if Paul used the first expression as a foundation for the second expression. We can follow that kind of reasoning.

But it is wrong!

In Paul’s Greek text these two verbs are joined on equal terms by the word “and”! They are not presented as the second one being a consequence of the first one. They are presented as equal terms.

Yes, I know, this is all very subtle! Guess who is the original master of all subtleties? (Hint: consider Genesis 3:1.) This is a mistranslation with huge consequences, because it presents the foundation for the false teaching about predestination.

The focus which Paul’s statement has in the Greek language, has been completely altered by these English translations, and that is in addition to mistranslating “proorizo”.

So now back to the rest of the Greek text of verse 29.

1) The Greek conjunction “hoti” means “because”.

2) The Greek pronoun “ous” means “whom”.

3) In this context the Greek conjunction “kai” means “and”, which is what “kai” means about 90% of the time in the over 9000 places where it is used in the New Testament. It overwhelmingly means “and”!

So the first 5 Greek words of verse 29 mean:

“because whom He foreknew and predetermined (i.e. within the limits God had set)”.

Now let’s see why Paul introduced this statement with the word “because”. Who is this talking about? The point Paul is making is this:

“All things work together for good to them who are the called according to God’s purpose of building the Family of God (verse 28), because the people God pre-knew and predetermined ...” (and then follows the next part of verse 29).

So let’s now look at that next part of verse 29.

The Greek adjective “summorphous” is the accusative plural masculine of “summorphos”, made up of the words “sun” which means “with” + “morphe” which means “form”. Now this adjective “summorphos” is typically used to describe “the essence in character” and not merely a form or outline. In other words, “summorphos” describes something that is complete and durable, character-wise.

In our English translations “summorphous” is translated as “to the image”. But it really should be translated as something like “the character-image”. It is a reference to a specific type of character.

Now we come to a grammatical technicality. This may seem to be somewhat complicated, but it is extremely important. I will try to simplify this point as much as possible. See if you can understand this?

I mentioned that “summorphous” is in the accusative case. This simply means that Paul used this word as the direct object in the statement he was making. In other words, “summorphous” represents the direct object for the statement that precedes this word.

So when our English translations translate “summorphous” as “to the image”, then they have changed this into the indirect object of the preceding statement. This represents a change in focus, from the focus Paul presented when he wrote this letter. This may seem like a minor technicality, but it has profound consequences.

Here is the point:

Since the adjective “summorphous” is presented by Paul as the direct object (i.e. the accusative case) of the preceding statement, therefore Paul must also have implied an obvious verb to qualify this direct object.

Keep in mind that in biblical Greek auxiliary verbs are commonly implied, as is demonstrated by the great number of italic font verbs found in the KJV of the NT. (Examples of auxiliary verbs are forms of “be, do, have” and “shall, will” for the future tenses.)

So the accusative case “summorphous” means that in English verse 29 should correctly read as follows:

“because the people God pre-knew and predetermined to have the character-image ...”

Note that I have put the words “to have” in italics, to indicate that they are not in the actual Greek text, but that they are clearly implied by Paul, because Paul wrote the word for “character-image” in the direct object case (i.e. accusative).

And the direct object implies a verb between the subject and the direct object. This means that there simply must be a verb between the words “the people” and the words “the character-image”. (The verbs “pre-knew” and “predetermined” apply to God and not to the subject of this expression, which subject is “the people”.) It is “the people” who are to have that “character-image”; and that character-image is what God both pre-knew and predetermined!

I realize that this is all quite technical for most people. And Satan has confused most people by dealing deceitfully with these technicalities.

So here is the point we need to understand:

When Paul wrote this, in Paul’s mind what was “predetermined” and “pre-known” to God was what would be the ultimate outcome for the people that God would call! What was pre-known and predetermined by God was what type of character all those in the first resurrection would have, rather than predetermining who those individuals would be! And the predetermining was within the clear boundary which God had set, that boundary being exactly 144,000.

“The thing” which God has predetermined is “what” and not “who”!

To repeat in simple terms:

What was “predestinated” was the type of character all those in the first resurrection would have! But God did not “predestinate” who would be a part of that group!

That is the point Paul was making! And this is compatible with everything else that Paul wrote in all of his letters.

It is Satan who has deceived the whole world into a false idea about “predestination”! Regarding any specific individual human being, there is no such thing as predestination for the ultimate outcome of that person’s life.

Simply put: God predetermined that there would be exactly 144,000 people in the first resurrection, who would all have the same character that Jesus Christ has. But the identities of those 144,000 people are not at all decided by God until those people have completed their physical lives.

Yes, upon real repentance their names (i.e. including our names) are already added to the Book of Life, in anticipation of them making the grade. So after people have come to real repentance this removes some of the anonymity, but their (i.e. including our) names are only added to the Book of Life on the clear understanding that it is still quite possible for those names to be “blotted out”.

Revelation 3:5 tells us that those who overcome will not have their names blotted out of the Book of Life, implying that if those individuals do not overcome, then their names will be blotted out of that book.

This potential, that the names of people who do not overcome can still be blotted out, retains a certain anonymity regarding the final composition of that group of 144,000 people. Now once people have lived a faithful life in response to God’s calling, then their inclusion in that group of 144,000 is secure and no longer anonymous. This applies to people like Abraham, Moses, David, etc., who have completed their physical lives.

Let’s now continue with verse 29.

The Greek words “tes eikonos” are both in the genitive singular case. They mean “of the likeness”. (These words are the feminine gender.)

The Greek words “tou huiou autou” are also all in the genitive singular case. They mean “of His Son”. (These words are the masculine gender.)

So our translation of verse 29 now looks as follows:

“because the people God pre-knew and predetermined to have the character-image of the likeness of His Son ...”

Let’s continue with our translation.

The Greek pronoun “auton” is the accusative singular masculine form of the pronoun “autos”, and it means “Him”! Note that the accusative case cannot mean “He”! So it doesn’t really translate as “that He might be ...”.

The pronoun “auton” is clearly the accusative case, and must therefore be translated as “Him”! This pronoun is the object of this statement; it is not the subject of the statement that Paul made. So here we have another subtle twist in emphasis in our English mistranslations.

The Greek adjective “prototokon” is the accusative singular masculine form of “prototokos”, which means “firstborn”.

The Greek expression “en pollois adelphois” is in the dative plural masculine form, required by the preposition “en”, and it means “among many brethren”.

So now we can put the whole picture for verses 28-29 together.

“All things work together for good to them who are the called according to God’s purpose (of building the Family of God), because the people God pre-knew and predetermined to have the character-image of the likeness of His Son, for Him (i.e. for that Son) to be (i.e. to become) firstborn among many brethren.”

This may all seem to be rather complicated, but in these verses Paul was making the same point that the Apostle John made in his first letter.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

Here John has the same focus which Paul has in Romans 8. God has predetermined a specific number of human beings who will all have the character-image of Jesus Christ. They have the same character as Jesus Christ, and not the same looks as Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ grants them the privilege to sit with Him on His throne (Revelation 3:21). Only those who have the same character that Jesus Christ has can possibly sit with Christ on Christ’s throne. Anyone with lesser character would never be granted that privilege.

“Predestination” is not about who has been predetermined, but about what God has predetermined. The focus is on what God will do for us in the resurrection. Nowhere in Romans 8 is there any focus on some individuals supposedly being predetermined or predestinated. What is predestinated is our destiny to become the sons of God by a resurrection.

This is the same potential destiny for all the people God calls. But whether or not we will make it to that destiny has not yet been decided by God, because that outcome depends totally on how we respond to the calling of God, how we live our lives.

Let’s also continue with the next verse.

Moreover whom He predetermined, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. (Romans 8:30)

In this verse the Apostle Paul summarized the whole process of salvation as follows:

1) God devised a plan to build the Family of God. This is implied by the expression “whom He predetermined” (to have the opportunity to be in the first resurrection), because God’s plan requires a fixed number of people to be prepared for the first resurrection.

2) In order to carry out that plan God has “called” a certain number of people. This is a logical consequence of the plan God set in motion.

3) And amongst the people that God has called, those that have repented are the ones God has also “justified”, i.e. God has forgiven all their past guilt.

But keep in mind that not all those that are called will end up in the first resurrection, because many who are called do not respond to God’s calling. That is what Jesus Christ meant when He said, “many are called but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14), because the many end up on stony ground and amongst thorns.

In Romans 11:29 Paul points out that “the calling of God is without repentance”, meaning that the calling of God is unchangeable. This means that those who do not respond appropriately to that calling from God are likely to end up in the lake of fire!

So when Jesus Christ said that “many are called but few are chosen” I believe that Jesus Christ meant that “many” will therefore end up in the lake of fire, where there will be very short-lived “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (see Matthew 22:13; etc.).

In this regard we need to understand once and for all that whenever any activity involves individuals using their own free wills to either accept God’s way of thinking and to obey God’s laws joyfully, or else to resist God’s way of using their minds and to go against God’s will, then there will always be a lot of collateral damage!

There will always be large numbers of people who will have to be permanently destroyed by the lake of fire! “That is the nature of the beast” (a figure of speech, this is not meant to be a reference to some end-time individual).

As far as “collateral damage” is concerned:

1) There was a lot of collateral damage amongst the angels who had been given a free will, with one third of the angels following Satan.

2)  There was a staggering amount of collateral damage amongst all the people who lived before the flood.

3) There was a lot of collateral damage amongst the people of Israel who came out of Egypt with Moses. And that level of collateral damage continued all the way down to the national captivities for both Israel and Judah.

4) And in the future there will once again be a huge amount of collateral damage during the millennium when Jesus Christ will be ruling. That collateral damage will be in the form of a rebellion by “Gog and Meshech and Tubal” (see Ezekiel 38 and 39).

5) And at the end of Jesus Christ’s 1000-year perfect rule over this earth there will once again be a staggering amount of collateral damage (see Revelation 20:8-9).

In fact, God created this whole present universe and everything in it with a physical composition, precisely for God to be able to deal with all the collateral damage that would occur from the implementation of God’s plan to create the Family of God. Testing free independent minds always produces some collateral damage, precisely because those minds have the freedom to make wrong choices.

So don’t for one moment think that this present age (i.e. from after the flood up to Christ’s second coming) will somehow escape with only very minor collateral damage, because that is simply not correct!

Yes, the vast majority of human beings are at this time spiritually blinded, so that they may come up in the second resurrection. However, we need to understand that there will be a lot of collateral damage amongst the people that God has called during this New Testament age before Christ’s second coming!

It is wishful thinking on our part when we try to freely assign all those who don’t respond to God’s calling to the time of the second resurrection. There is accountability, and God is not playing games. And we need to understand the truth.

Anyway, to continue with Paul’s summary in Romans 8:30:

God has also predetermined the condition that will apply to the ultimate outcome, that all those who have been justified will in due time also be “glorified”.

Let’s note that at this present point in time God has very clearly not yet “glorified” any of us! Paul was simply spelling out the whole process from being called by God to eventually being given a glorious new spirit body in the resurrection.

It is this process that Paul was explaining in Romans 8:28-30; but Paul was not speaking about any one specific individual supposedly being selected before birth and then being guaranteed salvation.

#114 = ROMANS 11:7; 2 CORINTHIANS 3:14

THE VERSES:

What then? Israel has not obtained that which he seeks for; but the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded (Greek “poroo”)   (Romans 11:7)

But their minds were blinded (Greek “poroo”): for until this day remains the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which vail is done away in Christ. (2 Corinthians 3:14)

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE TRANSLATIONS:

Blindness always absolves people from all guilt. We cannot expect a blind person to see something. If Israel had been blinded, then it wasn’t their own fault when they didn’t obey God. But that is not true.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THESE TRANSLATIONS:

The words “were blinded” in these two verses represent a mistranslation.

The Greek verb “poroo”, translated as “were blinded” in these two verses, has been formed from the Greek noun “poros”, which was apparently a kind of stone. And so the verb “poroo” means: “to harden by covering with a callus, to cover with a thick skin”. This Greek verb clearly means “to harden”.

My 2018 article “Harden Not Your Heart” examines this Greek word, amongst others, in detail. See that article for more information.

A CORRECT TRANSLATION OF THESE VERSES:

What then? Israel has not obtained that which he seeks for; but the election has obtained it, and the rest were hardened (Greek “poroo”)   (Romans 11:7)

But their minds were hardened (Greek “poroo”): for until this day remains the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ. (2 Corinthians 3:14)

THE CORRECT MEANING OF THESE VERSES:

The people of Israel hardened their own hearts and minds. This means that the people themselves were responsible for not attaining to salvation at that time. This responsibility for what happened to them is to some degree diluted by the false claim that they were “blinded”. But the Israelites were in fact fully responsible for the penalties God brought upon them. It was because the people of Israel had hardened their minds, that God eventually “divorced” both houses of Israel.

This mistranslation is well known, and it has been corrected in translations like ASV, RSV, NRSV, ERV, Lexham NT, etc.

#115 = ROMANS 11:25; EPHESIANS 4:18

THE VERSES:

For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Romans 11:25)

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Ephesians 4:18)

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE TRANSLATIONS:

These two verses also imply diminished responsibility for OT Israel (Romans 11:25) and for all people (Ephesians 4:18), because they were all supposedly “blinded”. But this is also a mistranslation.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THESE TRANSLATIONS:

My 2018 article “Harden Not Your Heart” also examines these two verses in detail. The comments in the previous section also apply to these two verses.

The Greek noun “porosis” which is translated as “blindness” in these two verses doesn’t refer to “blindness” at all. This Greek word really means “hardness”.

This mistranslation is also well known, and it has been corrected in many different translations in one or both of these verses. This includes translations like ASV, RSV, NRSV, YLT, ERV, Darby, etc.

A CORRECT TRANSLATION OF THESE VERSES:

For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits; that hardness has happened to a part of Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. (Romans 11:25)

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart: (Ephesians 4:18)

THE CORRECT MEANING OF THESE VERSES:

We human beings ourselves have hardened our minds, when it comes to believing and obeying the true God. And the penalties that God has imposed on Israel specifically, and on the world in general, are the consequences of our hardness of heart. “Blindness” would imply a diminished accountability for our actions. “Hardness of heart”, on the other hand, increases our accountability before God.

The human mind spontaneously rejects the truth of God not because the mind has been “blinded”, but because the mind is so totally selfish, and hardness of heart is one way that selfishness will manifest itself.

#116 = ROMANS 11:29

THE VERSE:

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS TRANSLATION:

This verse is not talking about repentance one way or the other.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSLATION:

The word here translated as “without repentance” does not apply to the biblical concept of repentance. Rather, this word applies to the idea of regret or being sorry. See also the lengthy section that deals with Matthew 21:29 for more information on the real meaning of repentance.

A CORRECT TRANSLATION OF THIS VERSE:

For the gifts and calling of God are unchangeable.

THE CORRECT MEANING OF THIS VERSE:

To use the word “repentance” in this verse is somewhat misleading. In response to God’s calling we do have to repent. But that requirement of repentance is not being addressed in this verse. Paul’s point here is that God is in full control of the execution of His plan for mankind. God’s purposes will be achieved.

Some of the translations that have rejected the term “without repentance” include:

1865 Anderson NT = ... are irrevocable

EMTV = ... are irrevocable

1795 Haweis NT = For unchangeable are the gifts ...

Lexham English Bible = ... are irrevocable

1729 Mace NT = ... are irrevocable

2020 New Heart English Bible = ... are irrevocable

NRSV = ... are irrevocable

1936 Williams NT = ... are never taken back

ESV = ... are irrevocable

All these translations recognize that this verse is not speaking about the concept of repentance. And therefore they have avoided using the word “repentance” in their translations.

#117= 1 CORINTHIANS 11:20

THE VERSE:

When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. (1 Corinthians 11:20)

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS TRANSLATION:

People infer from this verse that “Lord’s supper” is an alternate name for “the Passover”. And so various churches in this world observe what they call “the Lord’s Supper”. And even some Church of God groups have accepted “Lord’s Supper” as a supposedly valid name for the Passover. That is a heresy.

THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS TRANSLATION:

This verse does not contain any mistranslations. Rather, this verse is misinterpreted and misunderstood. The Apostle Paul did not call the Passover “the Lord’s Supper” in this verse. And Paul never at any time referred to the Passover as “the Lord’s Supper”.

To understand verse 20 correctly, we need to understand the context for verse 20. The context covers six verses, i.e. verses 17-22. So let’s briefly examine this context.

Verse 17 = Paul states that he must correct them for a specific problem.

Verses 18-19 = Paul identifies the problem in general terms.

Verse 20 = Paul’s most fundamental correction for the Corinthians.

Verses 21-22 = Paul provides more details concerning the heresy.

The point we need to clearly understand is that verse 20 is an expression of strong correction. Verse 20 does not tell us what to do. Verse 20 tells us what we are not to do! Verse 20 states something that is prohibited.

Let’s look a little more closely at these six verses.

Verse 17:

Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse.

“I praise you not” means “I need to correct you”.

The expression “you come together” refers to the matter about which Paul needed to correct them. Paul’s subsequent statements make quite clear that with the expression “you come together” Paul was referring to how they observed the Passover.

So verse 17 has identified the subject that Paul was going to address, i.e. Passover observance. But verse 17 has not yet identified the actual problem.

Verses 18-19:

For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

The expression “first of all” tells us that in connection with the Passover Paul was going to address at least two different problems. It is not just one point that Paul is correcting; there are actually two problems Paul addresses. Those two problems have caused divisions in the congregation, and those problems are in fact heresies.

Note! How the Corinthians observed the Passover included heretical ideas. That is what Paul is saying. And those heretical things had caused divisions in the congregation. Paul is here not talking about heresies in general terms. No, Paul is talking about heresies involved in the way some people were observing the Passover.

Paul has told us about heresies. So Paul has now started to reveal the heresies, to which he is referring. After verses 18-19 we can expect the people to say: what heresies are you talking about, Paul? What do you mean?

We should expect verse 20 to identify the heresy he has referred to. And that is precisely what verse 20 does ... it identifies one specific heresy.

Verse 20:

When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.

What is Paul saying with the expression “this is not to eat the Lord’s supper”? Paul is saying: you are not to come together for the purpose of eating the Lord’s supper! “Eating the Lord’s supper” is not the purpose for which we get together at the Passover. That is what Paul is saying here.

Paul is not referring to the Passover observance as “the Lord’s supper”. Paul is making a negative statement, telling them what they are not to do. Paul is saying: you are not to come here to eat a supper! That’s not what the Passover observance is about.

So what was “the heresy” that Paul is speaking about?