Feodor struts onto the stage of theology like a peacock with borrowed feathers, parading ignorance as insight:
https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/12/simple-koine-greek-lessons-for-jesse.html
“The angel Gabriel doesn’t say ‘Hail, Mary.’ Gabriel says, ‘Chaíre, kecharitōménē!’ ‘Greetings, you‑who‑have‑been‑fully‑graced‑forever.’”
This proposed translation is overstated and romanticized. Chaíre simply means “Greetings” or “Rejoice,” a common salutation in Greek letters and encounters. The participle kecharitōménē is indeed perfect passive, but it is not functioning as a pronoun or imperative. It describes Mary as one who “has been favored” and remains in that state. The perfect tense indicates a completed action with present relevance, not eternal permanence. Most modern translations render this as “favored one” or “highly favored.” The rendering “fully‑graced forever” imports theological conclusions into grammar that does not demand them.
“The verb turned into a pronoun, kecharitōménē, is in the perfect imperative passive form. Meaning an action received that permanently characterizes the receiver.”
This claim is simply false. It describes Mary as one who has received grace with continuing effect, not as the object of a command. This is confirmed by the STEP Bible (Tyndale House, Cambridge):
“Function: Verb; Tense: Perfect; Voice: Passive; Mood: Participle; Case: Vocative; Number: Singular; Gender: Feminine — i.e. an action that was done to a female person or thing that is being addressed (e.g., ‘O woman that was done good’).”
"...passive to be visited with free favor, be an object of gracious visitation, to give graciously Lk. 1:28
Kecharitōménē comes from a verb, but in Luke 1:28 it is not used like a normal verb or a command. Instead, it works more like an adjective or title, directly addressing Mary as “favored one.” That is why it is incorrect to call it an imperative or a pronoun.
This excerpt from the NET Bible is also worth adding here:
"The address, “favored one” (a perfect participle, Grk “Oh one who is favored”) points to Mary as the recipient of God’s grace, not a bestower of it. She is a model saint in this passage, one who willingly receives God’s benefits. The Vulgate rendering “full of grace” suggests something more of Mary as a bestower of grace, but does not make sense here contextually."
The text affirms that Mary remains in the state of having been graced. This is why later theology could build on the participle to argue for enduring grace, but Luke himself is simply describing her present condition.
“Mary is not just full of grace or blessing. She was the recipient (passive) of a command, (imperative) completed action (perfect) that was permanent. She is always fully‑graced, fully‑blessed one.”
This conclusion is based on a grammatical error. Gabriel is not issuing a command. He is describing Mary’s state. The participle indicates that she has received grace, but it does not establish eternal sinlessness or perpetual fullness of grace. The Latin Vulgate’s gratia plena (“full of grace”) is interpretive, not a strict translation. The Greek supports “favored one,” not the doctrine of perpetual grace. The theological leap from participle to eternal ontological status is unwarranted.
“Because Mary, by faith, humility, and in righteousness, agreed with God to bear God. She is the faithful Theotokos.”
Mary’s consent is indeed portrayed as faithful, but the incarnation is God’s sovereign act. Luke emphasizes divine initiative (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you”), not human righteousness as the decisive factor. The title Theotokos (“God‑bearer”) was affirmed centuries later at the Council of Ephesus (431 CE). It is not a biblical designation in Luke. To apply it here is anachronistic, importing later doctrinal language into the text. Exegesis asks what the text meant in its own time; doctrine asks how the church later articulated faith. Mary’s faith is exemplary, but the text does not elevate her to a unique ontological role beyond being chosen and favored.
“The Greek word for ‘daily’ isn’t there in the Lord’s Prayer. Not even close. The Greek word, which doesn’t appear anywhere in all of Greek literature ‑ ALL of Ancient Greek literature ‑ but is in both Matthew and Luke, is… epiousion.”
This conclusion is based on a grammatical error. Gabriel is not issuing a command. He is describing Mary’s state. The participle indicates that she has received grace, but it does not establish eternal sinlessness or perpetual fullness of grace. The Latin Vulgate’s gratia plena (“full of grace”) is interpretive, not a strict translation. The Greek supports “favored one,” not the doctrine of perpetual grace. The theological leap from participle to eternal ontological status is unwarranted.
“Because Mary, by faith, humility, and in righteousness, agreed with God to bear God. She is the faithful Theotokos.”
Mary’s consent is indeed portrayed as faithful, but the incarnation is God’s sovereign act. Luke emphasizes divine initiative (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you”), not human righteousness as the decisive factor. The title Theotokos (“God‑bearer”) was affirmed centuries later at the Council of Ephesus (431 CE). It is not a biblical designation in Luke. To apply it here is anachronistic, importing later doctrinal language into the text. Exegesis asks what the text meant in its own time; doctrine asks how the church later articulated faith. Mary’s faith is exemplary, but the text does not elevate her to a unique ontological role beyond being chosen and favored.
“The Greek word for ‘daily’ isn’t there in the Lord’s Prayer. Not even close. The Greek word, which doesn’t appear anywhere in all of Greek literature ‑ ALL of Ancient Greek literature ‑ but is in both Matthew and Luke, is… epiousion.”
Early Christian writers debated this issue. Jerome himself translated it differently in Matthew (“supersubstantial”) and Luke (“daily”), showing the ambiguity. The church fathers held varied views, often embracing multiple layers of meaning. Origen considered "bread necessary for existence" the most likely meaning in a literal sense, but also explored a spiritual interpretation of the "bread of the coming age." John Chrysostom favored the sense of "bread for today" or simply sufficient for subsistence. Many Greek and Latin fathers, such as Augustine and Cyril of Jerusalem, saw a reference to the eucharist in the "supersubstantial" interpretation.
The term epiousion is unusual, but its rarity does not justify abandoning the plain sense of the Lord’s Prayer. Ancient Greek often contains hapax legomena whose meaning is clarified by immediate context rather than speculative theology, and here the petition naturally emphasizes dependence on God’s provision. Compound words do not always yield their meaning by simply combining their parts, though the components often guide the possible sense. In this case, the prefix epi can mean “for” or “toward,” while ousia often referred to “substance” in the practical sense of livelihood or resources. Taken together, the word conveys “bread sufficient for life.” In Matthew and Luke, the request for bread follows petitions for God’s kingdom and will, situating it within the realm of daily reliance. To insist that “daily” is “not even close” overstates the case, since the semantic range of the components readily supports the traditional rendering. Eucharistic or metaphysical interpretations are later theological overlays, not demanded by grammar or narrative context. The New English Translation has this excerpt on Matthew 6:11:
The term epiousion is unusual, but its rarity does not justify abandoning the plain sense of the Lord’s Prayer. Ancient Greek often contains hapax legomena whose meaning is clarified by immediate context rather than speculative theology, and here the petition naturally emphasizes dependence on God’s provision. Compound words do not always yield their meaning by simply combining their parts, though the components often guide the possible sense. In this case, the prefix epi can mean “for” or “toward,” while ousia often referred to “substance” in the practical sense of livelihood or resources. Taken together, the word conveys “bread sufficient for life.” In Matthew and Luke, the request for bread follows petitions for God’s kingdom and will, situating it within the realm of daily reliance. To insist that “daily” is “not even close” overstates the case, since the semantic range of the components readily supports the traditional rendering. Eucharistic or metaphysical interpretations are later theological overlays, not demanded by grammar or narrative context. The New English Translation has this excerpt on Matthew 6:11:
"Or “Give us bread today for the coming day,” or “Give us today the bread we need for today.” The term ἐπιούσιος (epiousios) does not occur outside of early Christian literature (other occurrences are in Luke 11:3 and Didache 8:2), so its meaning is difficult to determine. Various suggestions include “daily,” “the coming day,” and “for existence.” See BDAG 376-77 s.v.; L&N 67:183, 206."
The STEP Bible also concurs with the NET Bible:
"what recurs on a day to day basis, daily, This word occurs nowhere else in Greek literature except in the context of the Lord's prayer. Guesses include, necessary for today, necessary for tomorrow, daily, sufficient."
The same above cited source also contains an excerpt from the Liddell, Scott, Jones dictionary:
"ἐπιούσιος, ον, either, sufficient for the coming (and so current) day, (ἐπιοῦσα (i.e. ἡμέρα)), or, for the day (ἐπὶ τὴν οὖσαν (i.e. ἡμέραν)), ἄρτος NT.Matthew.6.11 [NT]; τὰ ἐ. uncertain meaning."
“The prefix epi: above, beyond, or super (like epic), and the noun, ousia, as in the Nicene description of the Trinity: three person’s of one ousia, substance or being.”
The prefix epi- is not limited to the sense of “above” or “super. ” In Greek usage it frequently means “for,” “upon,” or “toward,” depending on context. To restrict its meaning to “super” is selective. Likewise, the noun ousia can indeed carry the philosophical sense of “substance” or “essence,” as in Aristotle and later Nicene theology, but in everyday Greek it often referred to “property,” “resources,” or “means of livelihood.” Taken together, epiousion most naturally conveys “bread for sustenance” or “bread for the coming day.” Reading it as “super‑substantial bread” imports later metaphysical categories into a prayer originally concerned with dependence on God’s provision.
It is true that Aristotle and other philosophers used ousia in metaphysical senses long before Christianity, and those meanings later shaped theological debates. But the evangelists were not writing with Aristotelian metaphysics in mind. They were preserving a prayer of reliance upon God, not constructing a philosophical treatise. The Nicene fathers, centuries later, drew on philosophical categories to articulate doctrine, but that development should not be retrojected into Matthew and Luke.
The prefix epi- is not limited to the sense of “above” or “super. ” In Greek usage it frequently means “for,” “upon,” or “toward,” depending on context. To restrict its meaning to “super” is selective. Likewise, the noun ousia can indeed carry the philosophical sense of “substance” or “essence,” as in Aristotle and later Nicene theology, but in everyday Greek it often referred to “property,” “resources,” or “means of livelihood.” Taken together, epiousion most naturally conveys “bread for sustenance” or “bread for the coming day.” Reading it as “super‑substantial bread” imports later metaphysical categories into a prayer originally concerned with dependence on God’s provision.
It is true that Aristotle and other philosophers used ousia in metaphysical senses long before Christianity, and those meanings later shaped theological debates. But the evangelists were not writing with Aristotelian metaphysics in mind. They were preserving a prayer of reliance upon God, not constructing a philosophical treatise. The Nicene fathers, centuries later, drew on philosophical categories to articulate doctrine, but that development should not be retrojected into Matthew and Luke.
The fact that both Matthew and Luke chose to preserve the rare word epiousion from their shared source tradition is significant. They did not replace it with the ordinary Greek word for “daily,” suggesting that the unusual form carried a nuance beyond the commonplace. That very ambiguity explains why interpreters have continued to debate its meaning. Thus, the evangelists’ choice of wording highlights ongoing dependence on God’s provision, encompassing both material and spiritual dimensions. The ambiguity itself is arguably part of the richness of the prayer.
Excellent rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteDid you see this article?:
ReplyDeletehttps://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/12/jesse-is-free-to-comment-here-blocks-me.html
Feodor was permanently banned after a prolonged pattern of disruptive posting. Over the course of nearly eighteen months, he published comments almost daily, sometimes three or four in a single day, many of them political in nature and misplaced on theological articles. He frequently recycled snippets of replies he had posted elsewhere on the internet.
DeleteThis harassment persisted from October/November 2023 until it began to ease only around April/May 2025. Despite repeated requests to leave, he continued returning. I personally had to delete his disruptive comments in moderation, so I know firsthand the extent of what I dealt with.
It's amazing you've lasted this long. I've gotten the astonishment from some over my continued tolerance of feo's twin, Dan Trabue.
ReplyDeletefeo is keen on proving himself to be everyone's intellectual superior, relying on that time-tested tactic called "baffle 'em with bullshit". I would wager that if there was a way to know how he'd respond to a given issue...what position he'd take on it or against one's own...he would argue against himself if one were to state that position first.
Like Dan, feo takes positions based on what he thinks truth should look like, and then abuses Scripture to argue for that false, self-satisfying position. Now he whines that this notorious behavior has found him once again blocked for participation. It won't stop him from trying.
My interactions with Feodor have consistently been challenging. His tendency toward lengthy, self-important commentary makes dialogue insufferable. Based on my limited experiences, this pattern appears deliberate. To continue engaging this person would only suck the life from my bones.
DeleteSo, at long last, we have Feodor’s promised rebuttal. I laughed out loud reading it, not because it was convincing, but because it so perfectly sidestepped the actual evidence.
ReplyDeleteI never denied that participles can function as titles. What I pointed out is that kecharitōménē in Luke 1:28 is a perfect passive participle in the vocative case, not an imperative or a pronoun. It describes Mary as one who has received grace with continuing effect, not as the object of a command. The perfect tense indicates a completed action with present relevance, but it does not grammatically establish eternal permanence or ontological sinlessness.
The article mistakes grammar for church dogmatics. Gabriel’s use of kecharitōmenē conveys a state resulting from God’s action, but Greek grammar alone cannot bear the weight of the claim that Mary’s identity is permanently redefined. To insist otherwise is to confuse linguistic nuance with dogmatic assertion.
Equally, the dismissal of Protestant scholarship is historically inaccurate. Far from denying “holy things,” the rise of Protestantism ignited the modern discipline of biblical studies: the Reformation’s drive to return to the sources (ad fontes) produced widespread study of Hebrew and Greek, critical editions of Scripture, and the scholarly infrastructure that underpins biblical research today.
His handling of “daily bread” suffers from the same methodological flaw. By insisting that epiousion must exclusively signify the eucharist, he reduces a complex and debated term to a single dogmatic reading. Patristic writers themselves offered multiple interpretations, and the immediate context of Matthew 6 emphasizes daily dependence on God’s provision. To dismiss the plain sense as a denial of holiness is inaccurate; the petition encompasses both material sustenance and spiritual reliance, and the Protestant reading is fully consistent with the text’s breadth.
Instead of engaging the points made in my article, Feodor reframed them into caricatures and attacked those. That is not a rebuttal; it is evasion. He never touched the substance of my refutation. His performance proves him more interested in rhetorical bluster than anything else.
"Rhetorical bluster" is his stock-in-trade. He came forth proclaiming his intellectual majesty and from that point on his focus has been to force our acceptance of this claim. Despite failing miserably, he acts as one so desperate to succeed in this plan that it's not possible to regard him as emotionally disordered.
DeleteFeodor wants Gabriel’s greeting to Mary to function as a doctrinal cornerstone, but the Greek form itself resists that use:
ReplyDeletehttps://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2026/01/disbelieving-in-gods-transformative.html
The participle kecharitōménē is a descriptive address, not a theological decree. It identifies Mary as one who has been favored, with the effect continuing into the present. Nothing in the morphology turns this into a command or a title of permanent status. To read sinlessness or perpetual grace into the grammar is to mistake linguistic description for metaphysical assertion.
The deeper issue is that Feodor treats syntax as if it were a theological engine. Grammar can tell us how words function in a sentence, but it cannot establish doctrines centuries in the making. By collapsing linguistic evidence into dogmatic conclusions, he bypasses the actual data.
And when he dismisses Protestant scholarship, he overlooks the fact that the Reformation’s return to the sources gave rise to the very tools, philology, textual criticism, critical editions, that modern biblical study depends on. His post therefore falters both in its linguistic claims and in its historical framing. At this point, I’m living rent‑free in a professional pedant’s head.
Feodor’s treatment of epiousion tries to lock a rare word into a single theological meaning, but the evidence points to a wider horizon:
ReplyDeletehttps://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2026/01/epiousion-and-why-jesse-thinks-firefly.html
The compound can naturally suggest provision for daily life or for the coming day, since epi- often carries the sense of “for” or “upon,” and ousia in ordinary Greek referred to property or livelihood. To insist that it must mean “super‑substantial bread” is to force metaphysics onto a term whose usage is far more flexible.
What makes this especially clear is the way the word functions in its immediate literary context. Matthew 6 is a passage about dependence on God’s provision, with petitions that emphasize daily needs and trust rather than speculative metaphysics. To wrench epiousion into a narrowly eucharistic sense ignores the flow of the prayer itself, which moves from material sustenance to forgiveness and deliverance.
The semantic ambiguity of the term is precisely what allowed later interpreters to explore multiple layers of meaning. Its rarity in Greek means we cannot reduce it to a single definition, and its placement in a prayer about reliance on God makes “daily bread” a natural rendering. The richness of epiousion lies in its layered possibilities, not in narrowing it to one metaphysical claim.
By dismissing alternative readings and caricaturing opponents, Feodor sidesteps the complexity of the text and weakens his case. And when he postures as if his conclusions were the only “educated” ones, the irony is not hard to miss: serious scholarship requires engagement with evidence, not the repetition of dogma. His rhetoric reveals more about his unwillingness to grapple with the text than about the text itself, the posture of a charlatan rather than a serious scholar.