Final Thanks

Appreciate you all. I'm officially done and no further comments will be approved. Best regards, Edgar.

Benjamin L. Merkle, "Exegetical Gems"-Part XV-Subjunctive Mood-Chapter 18

In chapter 18 of Exegetical Gems From Biblical Greek, Benjamin Merkle focuses on Hebrew 13:5 and the subjunctive mood. He begins by asking whether the passage from Hebrews is one of the most powerful verses in the Bible and, if so, then why?

While the subjunctive is sometimes used to express uncertain action, Merkle invokes 1 John 2:28 and 1 John 3:2 to show that the subjunctive does not always express uncertain action but might communicate the fact that a time is unknown or indefinite, yet the event could still be certain (80-81). Hence, Merkle prefers to tag the subjunctive mood as indefinite but probable, i.e., the mood of probability (Ibid.).

The subjunctive mood's reference frame is normally the future, but in contrast to the future indicative tense-form, the subjunctive reveals what might occur in the future versus what will transpire. Merkle then lists and gives examples for different uses of the subjunctive like purpose, result, conditional and indefinite relative, to name a few.

Another use of the subjunctive mood is emphatic negation, a usage expressed by the occurrence of two negative particles along with the aorist subjunctive or future indicative. Daniel Wallace points out that there can be no stronger way to negate a statement in Greek than by this usage, which brings us back to Hebrews 13:5.

This verse contains emphatic negation: Ἀφιλάργυρος ὁ τρόπος· ἀρκούμενοι τοῖς παροῦσιν· αὐτὸς γὰρ εἴρηκεν Οὐ μή σε ἀνῶ οὐδ' οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλίπω·

Merkle points out that Hebrews 13:5 commingles possibly three biblical texts to convey the idea that a Christian does not need to love money because the covenant-keeping God promises to never abandon his people: he will sustain those who rely on him.

Exegetical Gems contends that this passage is one of the strongest found in Scripture because it contains five negatives--this feature emphasizes the certainty of what is promised. On pages 82-83, Merkle concludes the chapter by discussing and quoting Charles Spurgeon, a well-known theologian who apparently was self-taught in Greek but evidently had no academic training in the subject. Spurgeon summed up Hebrews 13:5 in a sermon with the title "Never! Never! Never! Never! Never!" In other words, the God of the covenant (Jehovah) will never leave those who trust in him.

Some Links About the Social Trinity (FYI)

No, I have not converted to Trinitarianism,  but these links provide information about the so-called social Trinity and they illustrate the difference between the social Trinity and the Latin Trinity:

https://www.gordonconwell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Dr.-John-Jefferson-Davis%E2%80%94Defending-the-Social-Trinity.pdf

https://philarchive.org/archive/BROTPW

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lujpr/vol3/iss1/2/

https://theaquilareport.com/why-we-must-reject-social-trinitarianism-it-is-neither-nicene-nor-biblical/

https://bjrt.gtu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/4-2-6_Ryu.pdf

Last Day of Blogging

Greetings all,

Thanks for reading the entries here and for all the conversations/dialogues about the posted subjects. I'm going to devote more time to family, working a little more, but also to congregational responsibilities and meditation/study of the Bible. This blog has kept me mentally occupied, but other things need my attention now. I appreciate you all, and there might be a post or so submitted before I end blogging, but the plan is to turn off commenting and stop posting by 12:00 am EST tonight.

Best regards and agape/philostorgos to my brothers and sisters out there (Romans 12:10). May Jehovah keep sustaining you "while you are eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:7).

Comments on Kyrios/Kurios in Philippians by John H.P. Reumann

 

Jesus, God, and the Presence of Created Elohim

Jesus declares that he and his Father are one (Jn 10:30). But this verse need not suggest that he is claiming equality with the Father (Jn 14:28; 17:3; 20:17; 1 Cor 8:5-6; 11:3; 15:24-28). Moreover, the apostle John describes Jesus as theos in his Gospel (Jn 1:1, 18; 20:28). Nevertheless, it appears that Second Temple Judaism and Christian NT writers respectively utilize theos or elohim in a broad monotheistic framework. Therefore, elohim is applied to Melchizedek five times in the Qumran document concerning the ancient king-priest of Salem (11QMelch 2:9-13). Philo also speaks of Moses as a god in De Vita Mosis 1.155-62. We may thus conclude that the New Testament possibly teaches us there are subordinate divine beings or godlike ones who are not to be equated with YHWH in either a positional or ontological sense (Psalm 8:5; Jn 10:34-36).

In a similar vein, Phil 2:6-7 basically communicates the notion that a subordinate divine being humbly became the man Jesus Christ who subsequently lived on earth and underwent an excruciating and ignominious death. Afterwards, God resurrected him, giving Christ a position of authority more eminent than any other station in the universe, save that of the Father Himself (Phil 2:5-11). According to Phil 2:6-11 and 1 Cor 15:24-28, however, the Son will eventually return the Kingdom to his God and Father when all God's enemies have been placed under the feet of Christ. Jn 17:3 assures us that the Son of God is not to be identified with the only true God. For the apostle John, there was only one true Deity: the Father. The writer of Philippians likewise subscribes to the thought found in the Johannine Gospel. He intimates this belief by his use of morphe and the cotext of Phil 2:6-7. Interestingly, Paul does not say that Christ was God but that he existed in God's form; he contrasts the divine form (appearance) with the form Christ took on earth (a slave's form appearance) and he writes that Christ came to be in the likeness of men. Notice the stress on outward form rather than a substantial essence.

Darrell Bock (2000:182) also cites Philo’s Quod Deterius Potiori insidiari solet 160-162 and De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 9-10 as examples of references to Moses’ “deification.”

Anthony Meyer Assesses Pietersma's Hypothesis Concerning the Tetra/LXX (Images)

 

Marcelo Epstein, the LXX, and the Tetragrammaton (THE BIBLE TRANSLATOR, VOL. 45, NO. 3)

 

1 Corinthians 8:6 Does Not Teach That Christ is YHWH/Jehovah

When commenting on the Greek of 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6, Clarence T. Craig observes that for the first century writer of Corinthians: “only one is really God, the Father of all, who is the Creator and consummation of all things” (Craig “Interpreter’s” 93-94). Craig further elucidates this point, noting:

Paul chose his prepositions [ex and dia] carefully in order to distinguish between God the Father, who is the ultimate source of creation, and Christ, the Lord, through whom [dia] this activity takes place . . . it is perfectly clear what Paul wants to affirm. Neither Caesar nor Isis is Lord, but only Jesus Christ. When Paul ascribed Lordship to Christ, in contrast to later church dogma, he did not mean that Christ was God. Christ was definitely subordinated to God (93-4).

[ Interestingly, Hans Conzelmann provides evidence that “The Christian use of kurios cannot be derived from the LXX. The reverse is in fact the case” (1969:83-4). His comments suggest that when the early Christians called Jesus “Lord” (kurios), they did not mean that he is God or YHWH. Concerning 1 Cor 8:5-6 and its use of kurios for Jesus Christ and theos for God the Father, see Moffatt 1938:106-08. The same writer adds further testimony to how the first century ecclesia viewed Christ (1938:250-51).]

"The Jesus of St. John" (J. Ernest Davey)-Pages 166-167 (Image)

 

Interesting Book Review of Robert J. Wilkinson's "Tetragrammaton"

 https://brill.com/view/journals/jjs/2/4/article-p732_25.xml?language=en