Hebrews 1:2--"These Last Days"

The next verse of the Hebrews encomium reads: ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας.

One translation: “in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages” (YLT). What is the referent or timing of “these last days” (ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων)? Goodspeed thinks that the author of Hebrews “conceives himself to be living at the end of an epoch” in the first century and he is anticipating the Messiah's yet future appearance. DeSilva also writes that ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων in Hebrews 1:2 “signals the arrival of the end time.” Furthermore, the expression “last days” is used in Scripture with eschatological overtones that signify the “end of the days.” Note how Numbers 24:14; Jeremiah 23:20; 25:19; Daniel 10:14; Acts 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 9:26; James 5:3; 1 Peter 1:5, 20 utilize this expression. The writer evidently wants to say that the “last days” in this context arrives by means of God speaking through his enfleshed Son (John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16). The account is building up a cumulative argument for the preeminence or superiority of Christ. See Moffatt, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 4.

Sources: Edgar Johnson Goodspeed, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Macmillan, 1908), 31.

David Arthur DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 85.

Hebrews 1:1--Syntax and Rhetoric

Greek text (Hebrews 1:1): πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.

The passage has been rendered: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets” (KJV). The nominal phrase ὁ θεὸς is the subject. The alliterative construction πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως is “a familiar literary figure” whose matter-of-fact sense could be understood as “in many parts and in many ways.” Bruce also opts for the translation, “at various days and in many ways” which preserves the alliteration found in the original text. The five-fold use of the phoneme π principally accentuates the rhetorical figure of Hebrews 1:1; the overall effect of the construction is to emphasize how ὁ θεὸς speaks to the forefathers of Israel. It is through the prophets (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις).

See Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 44.

Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1993), 91. Cf. Hebrews 5:8; 13:14.

2 Peter 2:7 (Witherington Discusses "Righteous Lot")

In 2 Peter 2:7 Lot is called “righteous,” and here again certain popular Jewish traditions may be in mind, not in the Old Testament (cf. Wis 10:6; 19:17).¹⁷³ In any event, he was righteous by comparison to his contemporaries in Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot is portrayed here as one who was oppressed by all the wicked and especially the sexual sinning around him. One suggestion is that Lot is called “righteous” here due to his being hospitable.¹⁷⁴

Source: Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume II.

1 Corinthians 4:6: Not Going Beyond the Things Written

I humbly submit that 1 Cor. 4:6 is speaking of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) when it warns us "not to go beyond the things written (GEGRAPTAI-perfect passive indicative 3rd singular). Now I would like to share what others have said about the subject.

"MH hUPER hA GEGRAPTAI (an idiom, literally 'not above what is written') to act sensibly in not violating written rules and traditions--'to act sensibly in keeping with rules, to observe rules properly.' hINA EN hHMIN MAQHTE TO MH hA GEGRAPTAI 'so that you may learn from us what it means to live according to the rules' or 'the saying means, Observe the rules' 1 Cor. 4:6" (Louw-Nida 89.95).

"The use of GEGRAPTAI, it is written, in the perf. tense refers absolutely to what is found written in Holy Scripture and denotes legislative act or enactment. In the sphere of revelation the written records hold this authoritative position, and GEGRAPTAI always implies an appeal to the indisputable and legal authority of the passage quoted (Matt. 4:4, 6, 7, 10; 11:10). It is completed by such as in the Law (Luke 2:23; 10:26); in the book of the words of Isaiah (Luke 3:4); in the prophets (John 6:45)" (Zodhiates).

"GEGRAPTAI (abundantly attested as a legal expr.: Dssm, B 109f, NB 77f [BS 112ff, 249f] . . .)" (BAGD 166).

"GEGRAPTAI . . . is a formula introducing quotations fr. the OT (cf. Jos., C. Ap. 1 154) Mt 4:4, 6f, 10; 21:13; Mk 11:17; 14:27; Lk 4:8; 19:46 . . . 1 Cor. 1:19" (BAGD 166).

Revelation 1:1 and Signifying

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," (ESV)

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:" (KJV)

"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John" (NWT 2013)

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to point out unto his servants the things which must needs come to pass with speed,—and he shewed them by signs, sending through his messenger, unto his servant John;" (Rotherham EB)

See the NET footnote for Rev. 1:1.

Regarding Rev. 1:1: for σημαίνω, BDAG Greek-English Lexicon has

(1) to make known, report, communicate

(2) to intimate someth[ing] respecting the future, indicate, suggest, intimate

(3) to provide an explanation for someth[ing] that is enigmatic, mean, signify.

Rev. 1:1 is categorized under (1) in this lexicon.

Grant R. Osborne's Remarks Concerning Rev. 1:1b:

The process of revelation is further described with ἐσήμανεν (esēmanen, made it known), the third term in 1:1 (with “revelation” and “show”) with the connotation of “revealing” God’s message. This term has a special purpose, for it is the verb cognate of the Johannine term σημεῖον (sēmeion, sign) and yields the idea of “making known” by means of symbols. This is particularly apropos in light of the predominant symbolism of the book. It is questionable whether Christ (in keeping with the centrality of Christ in 1:1) or God is the subject of “made known” (if ἐσήμανεν parallels δεῖξαι above). While the latter is possible grammatically, Christ is the one who “shows” the revelation to the church and therefore the likely one who “signifies” it to John. The means by which these symbolic truths are to be communicated is “through his angel,” and, as stated above in the introduction, angelic mediation is one of the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. Even a brief perusal of this book proves the extent to which angels feature in the action.

See Osborne, Revelation, Baker Books, 2002 (Ebook published in 2012).

These comments from G.K. Beale equally illuminate Rev. 1:1:

The roots of this verse are in Dan. 2:28-30, 45-47, where in the Greek translations of the OT the verb “revealed” appears five times, the verb “show” (“signify,” “communicate,” Greek sēmainō [only in OG]) twice and the phrase “what must come to pass” three times.

Two Themes in the Book of Hebrews

Two things that stand out to me in reading Hebrews lately are 1)Jesus' role as mediator; 2) the writer's focus on godly fear.

The Greek word μεσίτης (mesitēs) occurs six times in the GNT; out of those occurrences, Hebrews refers to Jesus as mediator of the new covenant three times:

νῦν δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται. (Hebrews 8:6)

Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν λάβωσιν οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας. (Hebrews 9:15)

καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτῃ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι παρὰ τὸν Ἅβελ. (Hebrews 12:24)

Why does the author of Hebrews not only use μεσίτης but also explicitly identify Jesus as mediator of the new covenant, unlike 1 Tim. 2:5, which just calls Jesus the mediator with the implicit understanding that Christ mediates the new covenant?

Secondly comes the notion of godly fear:

ὃς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, (Hebrews 5:7)

Πίστει χρηματισθεὶς Νῶε περὶ τῶν μηδέπω βλεπομένων εὐλαβηθεὶς κατεσκεύασεν κιβωτὸν εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ, δι' ἧς κατέκρινεν τὸν κόσμον, καὶ τῆς κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνης ἐγένετο κληρονόμος. (Hebrews 11:7)

Διὸ βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον παραλαμβάνοντες ἔχωμεν χάριν, δι' ἧς λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ θεῷ μετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους, (Hebrews 12:28)

See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/09/cowardice-fear-and-awe-of-divine-words.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614281?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Cyrus Cylinder (Image and Link)

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

See also https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=327188&partId=1

Some Notes for 2 Kings 2:23ff

2 Kings 2:23-25 (ESV): He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. 25 From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

Iain W. Provan writes (1 and 2 Kings):
Some youths: The Hb. is neʿārîm qeṭannîm, “children.” The use of naʿar alone would allow the NIV’s translation (cf. the additional note to 1 Kgs. 20:14), but the appearance of qāṭān, “small, young,” precludes it. The NIV in fact translates naʿar qāṭān in 1 Kgs. 3:7 and 11:17 (correctly) as “little child” and “boy” respectively (cf. also na‘arâ qeṭannâ, “young girl,” in 2 Kgs. 5:2). The translator has apparently had more difficulty than the authors here in coming to terms with the idea that young persons as well as old should be subject to divine judgment for their sins. Whether there is something more specific to the taunt you baldhead is not clear. It is possible that some prophets, like later Christian monks, shaved their heads as a mark of their vocation. We certainly cannot cite verses like Lev. 21:5 (addressed to priests) and Deut. 14:1 (concerning actions “for the dead”), as some commentators have recently done, against this possibility

NET Bible: tn The word נַעַר (naʿar), here translated “boy,” can refer to a broad age range, including infants as well as young men. But the qualifying term “young” (or “small”) suggests these youths were relatively young. The phrase in question (“young boy”) occurs elsewhere in 1 Sam 20:35; 1 Kgs 3:7 (used by Solomon in an hyperbolic manner); 11:17; 2 Kgs 5:14; and Isa 11:6.

Donald J. Wiseman (1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary) pushes back against the usual criticism of the Elisha account. An extended quote from his work is merited:

It does, however, show the continuing opposition to a true prophet in Bethel, the chief centre of pagan calf-worship. The main objection lies in the curse … in the name of the LORD (v. 24). In the Deuteronomic doctrine of retributive justice (Deut. 7:10) this was a requirement against anyone mocking a prophet, an act which was the equivalent of belittling God himself (Deut. 18:19; Lev. 24:10–16). The word for jeered (NIV, REB, JB) occurs in Habakkuk 1:10; cf. ‘insult’ in Jeremiah 20:8. To deride God’s representative (cf. 2 Chr. 36:16) as God himself (Gal. 6:7) or his city (Ezra 22:5) inevitably incurs judgment. The youths (rather than ‘little children’, AV, or ‘small boy’, JB, for the Hebrew nĕ’ārîm is used of servants or persons in early life of marriageable age, cf. Absalom in 2 Sam. 14:21; 18:5) may have challenged Elisha to demonstrate that he was really the equivalent of Elijah by ascending (Go on up, ‘get along with you’, REB) and mocked him as a baldhead. Baldness, contrary to popular mythology, is not a sign of inferiority or infertility, for Elisha was still young, as opposed to the hairy Elijah (1:8), though long hair may have been thought a sign of strength (2 Sam. 14:26). ⁵⁰ He may have suffered from early loss of hair (alopecia). There is no external evidence that a tonsure was then a mark of a prophet. The youths may well represent Bethel as the headquarters of idolatry and the main seat of Baal worship in Israel at this time. Bears are attested in the hill ranges until mediaeval times. The forty-two may represent an organized mob attacking the prophet rather than signify a number for the ill fated (cf. 2 Kgs 10:14; Rev. 11:2; 13:5).

Job 14:14 (KJV and NWT 2013)

A man has asked me why Job 14:14 (KJV) reads, "If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come." Yet NWT 2013 says, "If a man dies, can he live again? I will wait all the days of my compulsory service Until my relief comes."

So the issue for him is "change" versus "relief." Byington renders the passage: "If a man dies will he come to life? I would wait all the time I had to serve till my relief came;"

He also uses "relief" as opposed to "change."

NET Bible: "If a man dies, will he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait until my release comes."

Footnote: tn The construction is the same as that found in the last verse: a temporal preposition עַד (ʿad) followed by the infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive “release/relief.” Due, in part, to the same verb (חָלַף, khalaf) having the meaning “sprout again” in v. 7, some take “renewal” as the meaning here (J. E. Hartley, Alden, NIV, ESV).

Robert Alter (Hebrew Bible): "If a man dies will he live? All my hard service days I shall hope until my vanishing comes"

Alter's Comment on 14:14: until my vanishing comes. Some understand ḥalifati as “my relief,” but the primary sense of the verbal root is to be gone or slip away, with “change” as a secondary sense. Perhaps the poet is playing on both meanings of the term. See the comment on 10:17.

Comment on Job 10:17 in Alter: vanishings and hard service are mine. This entire clause is one of the notable puzzles in Job. The second of the two nouns is the same word used at the beginning of chapter 7 (and rendered there, because of the immediate context, as “fixed service”). The first noun, ḥalifot, derives from a verb that means “to slip away,” “to vanish,” or “to change.” What Job may be saying is that his existence has become durance vile (“hard service”) in which everything he would cling to slips between his fingers (“vanishings”).

Theological Oration 5.IX (Gregory Nazianzen)

What then, say they, is there lacking to the Spirit which prevents His being a Son, for if there were not something lacking He would be a Son? We assert that there is nothing lacking—for God has no deficiency. But the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of their Names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and the One Three in properties; so that neither is the Unity a Sabellian one, nor does the Trinity countenance the present evil distinction.

Gregory Nazianzen's dates are circa 329-390 CE: he is one of the so-called Cappadocian Fathers.

Johannine Papyri Link

Generally helpful resource:

http://catholic-resources.org/John/Papyri.html

Ancient Judaism and the Creation of All Things

Granted, the Bible as we know it was not complete even in the 5th century BCE, but the Jews still possessed, wrote, and collated holy writings before then. I've also tried going back as far as possible in the history of scriptural interpretation. Whether it is the DSS or LXX, writers consistently understand bara at Gen. 1:1 as "create" although other meanings might be affixed to different verses.

Maimonides, Rashi, Philo, and Nahmanides could only work backward, but these men--particularly the rabbis--were doing interpretation within a protracted stream of thought: they were interpreting in accord with received tradition.

"Love of God" (1 John 5:3)--Some Comments

Greek: αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν, καὶ αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν, (WH)

NKJV: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome."

Does ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ refer to our love for God or his love for us? Here, the phrase likely means "our love for God." Contrast the usage with 1 John 4:9-11.

Begin quote from preceptaustin:

Wuest - The word (barus) speaks of that which is burdensome, severe, stern, violent, cruel, unsparing. Love for God makes the keeping of His commandments a delight rather than a burden. (Word Studies)

BDAG adds that barus alludes to "a source of difficulty or trouble because of demands made" as in Paul's letters (2Cor 10:10). Barus can pertain "to being important because of unusual significance. In positive affirmation of certain legal directives weighty, important (Herodian 2, 14, 3; Jos., Ant. 19, 362 of administrative responsibilities) and the more important provisions of the law (Mt 23:23) or serious charges (Acts 25:7)." BDAG adds that barus can pertain "to being of unbearable temperament, fierce, cruel, savage" (Acts 20:29).

See https://www.preceptaustin.org/1_john_53_commentary

Compare Job 6:3; Psalm 68:19; Galatians 6:2.

Quote from W. Hall Harris III:

The force of the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ (tou qeou, “of God”) in 5:3. Once again the genitive could be understood as objective, subjective, or both.642 Here an objective sense is more likely (believers’ love for God) because in the previous verse it is clear that God is the object of believers’ love.

From Stephen Smalley:

αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, “for this is love for God.” For the construction of the demonstrative αὕτη (“this”), followed later in the sentence by ἵνα (“that”), see 3:11; John 17:3 (cf. also 4:21). The context (note 4:2b) demands that in the phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (literally, “the love of God”) the genitive should be construed in a primarily objective sense (meaning, as in our translation, “love for God”).

Smalley, Dr. Stephen S. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 8765-8769). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Genesis 1:1 and Nahmanides

http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/GenRamban.html

Maimonides is known as Rambam in Jewish circles (standing for Rabbi Ben Moses Maimonides). Another rabbi named Nahmanides is called Ramban instead: his approximate dates are 1194-1270 CE.

The link above shows that Nahmanides also understood bara to mean "create (ex nihilo)" in Gen. 1:1; of course, he employs plenty of mystical/philosophical elements in his reading of the text. That point aside, I am just focusing on what bara possibly means for Nahmanides in the relevant text.

See https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Genesis.1.1?lang=bi

Youngblood, Moses, and Speaking with God God "Face to Face" (Screenshot)