He gives evidence from Hebrew grammar/syntax: the whole argument doesn't hinge on accents, but when he mentions the accent, he's ultimately making a syntactic/grammatical point.
To me, " In translating the Hebrew word ‘eres “earth” in 1:1 and 1:2, the EVs have blurred the connection of these early verses of Genesis to the central theme of the “land” (‘eres ) in the Pentateuch. Although ‘eres can be translated by either “earth” or “land,” the general term “land” in English more closely approximates the use of ‘eres in chapter 1." hits the nail square on the head.
This is not about the origins of the universe, its not that philosophical (and neither is John 1:1). Better to argue about creatio ex nihilo elsewhere, either for or against.
The sky and the land - the breath and the dirt for man & the resurrection for new man.
These are beginnings.
"A strong case, however, can be made for reading the phrase as a construct and subordinating v.1 to vv.2-3: “When God set about to create the heavens (sky) and the earth (land) — the world being then a formless waste ""...."The first act of Creation would have been the creation of light from darkness, and vv.1-3 would say nothing of an original Creation."
Context usually determines whether a translator chooses earth or land. While I don't think Genesis is philosophical, it is a story about cosmic beginnings: plenty of evidence supports this view, but either way, other verses say that God created the heavens, the earth, and all therein. What part of our world did God not create?
I'm not sure who you're quoting at the end, but other writers say the direct opposite. One book I was reading the other day said Hebrew grammar cannot adjudicate this issue. Another book argues that Genesis 1:1 has to be absolute. Whatever the right way to read it, Jehovah created all things including our planet, the sun, moon and stars. See Nehemiah 9:6.
"it is a story about cosmic beginnings: plenty of evidence supports this view," - ????
You cannot impose "other verses" on this unless you have a very good reason to do so. - do you have any?
Both quotes are from the commentaries you directed me to - "Sailhamer" etc?
Nehemiah 9:6, how does that relate to the "US" in Genesis 1? - devoid of any accompaniment.
John 1:3 - everything is created with gods active wisdom (now I cam appreciate the usages of Logos a little better), both old and new creations.
I can see a link from John 1:3 to col 1:16 in language even though they are two distinct beginnings. Looking at the contexts, far to much is made of ta panta.
Thanks for providing the source of the quote. I like Sailhamer, but don't agree with him on everything. When I talked about evidence, I meant the grammar and context of Genesis 1:1. Again, I was connecting Nehemiah with genesis 1:1, not with 1:26-27. But Isaiah says something similar to Nehemiah, that Jehovah alone created things. As you know, 1:26 has been interpreted many ways.
Why take us panta in a relative sense at John 1:3? Ta panta normally means the universe, unless context says otherwise.
I thought this guy said some pertinent things whether you think he's right or not. And I'm not focusing on the statement about the accent: https://books.google.com/books?id=imJBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=tifcha+accent+genesis+1:1&source=bl&ots=dlVe2QWDK4&sig=ACfU3U0ohHsY5VEKkM9DhC7woEo8wPIPMg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI_76P4ODvAhVQHc0KHSR1Do04FBDoATADegQIBhAD#v=onepage&q=tifcha%20accent%20genesis%201%3A1&f=false
See chapter 6 of this book: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3vGii49IYHIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=related:mU0W3g_33o4J:scholar.google.com/&ots=wI-h6FKA-v&sig=b1-hNcPFsnBV5yDs0OfMwn0NMxY#v=onepage&q&f=false
I have just read Dunn (pg.267 & 268) on this ta panta point & he cites 1 Cor 8:6 but like a number before him he misses the point of καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ καὶ αὐτοῦ.
This is the all new things which they are part of now.
Note also how he also omits to quote the most important part of 1 Col 1:16. on page 268. - does not fit his argument. Again, CF 1 Peter 3:22.
Colossians 1:23 doesn't contain the expression "ta panta," right? And what I'm actually claiming is that it normally refers to the cosmos (universe) unless context dictates otherwise. See for instance, Philippians 3:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. So ta panta can be used absolutely or relatively.
We have to watch how Paul writes, and I don't think his statement in 1 Cor. 8:6 can be solely restricted to the new creation. You have to consider what his overall point is, and there has been much ink spilled over that issue. As you know, the issue is whether Christians should partake of food sacrificed to idols. In such a context, why limit ta panta to the new creation?
Regardless, I think many references support ta panta being a common way to reference trhe universe. See Revelation 4:11.
BTW, I've got Dunn's commentary and will check it out later. For 1 Corinthians, I would recommend Anthony Thiselton's work.
A.T. Robertson Word Pictures: "All things (ta panta). The universe as in Romans 11:35, a well-known philosophical phrase. It is repeated at the end of the verse."
I think the reference should really be Rom. 11:36, which seems to be an example of ta panta being the universe. Compare Acts 17:24-25.
So what scripture tells us that Paul did NOT preach to every creature under heaven? - Do you get my point.
We assume that it is hyperbole but the scriptures themselves do not tell us that. As I said, I do not believe that ta panta is a technical term. A term of emphasis, probably.
For Rev 4:11, compare Matthew 26:42 & 1 John 2:17.
Firstly, Colossians 1:23 doesn't use ta panta, so it's not a similar example. Secondly, what reason do we have to believe that Paul preached to every creature under heaven? How was that even possible since Paul did not travel to every part of the world. As far as we know, based on his own accounts, he preached around the Mediterranean Sea: remember the three missionary journeys of Paul? I've often heard the verse explained as to all the then known world. Either way, Paul did not preach to every last person. That simply was not possible for him. Since when did Paul go to China or to Carthage and Ethiopia?
Whether we call ta panta a technical term or not, why does it not refer to the universe in some texts? What else does it mean in Acts 17:24-25 or in Revelation 4:11? I don't think Romans 12:2 subverts the meaning of ta panta in Romans 11:36. The focus is somewhat different in 12:2: notice the transition in 12:1 with "therefore."
Abbott-Smith Greek Lexicon:
2. Neut.,
(a) sing., πᾶν , everything, all: πᾶν τό , c. ptcp., 1 Corinthians 10:25; 1 Corinthians 10:27, Ephesians 5:13, 1 John 2:16; 1 John 5:4 (sc. ὄν ); πᾶν ὅ , John 17:2, Romans 14:23; collectively, of persons (Westc., in l), John 6:37; John 6:39; c. prep., in adverbial phrases, διὰ παντός , always, Matthew 18:10, al.; ἐν παντί , in everything, in every way, 2 Corinthians 4:8, Philippians 4:6, al.;
(b) pl., πάντα , all things : absol., John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 2:10, Hebrews 2:8, al.; of certain specified things, Mark 4:34, Luke 1:3, Romans 8:28, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, al.; acc, πάντα , adverbially, wholly, in all things, in all respects, Acts 20:35, 1 Corinthians 9:25, al.; c. art., τὰ Papyri, all things -(a totality, as distinct from anarth. πάντα , all things severally; cf. Westc., Eph., 186 f.), absol.: Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 3:9, Hebrews 1:3, al.; relatively, Mark 4:11, Acts 17:25, Romans 8:32, al.; πάντα τά , C. ptcp., Matthew 18:31, al.; πάντα ταῦτα (ταῦτα Papyri), Matthew 6:32-33, al.; πάντα , c. prep. in adverbial phrases, πρὸ πάντων , above all things, James 5:12, 1 Peter 4:8; ἐν Papyri, in all things, in all ways, 1 Timothy 3:11, 1 Peter 4:11, al.; κατὰ πάντα , in all respects, Acts 17:22, al.
See also https://books.google.com/books?id=k2hBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%CF%84%E1%BD%B1+%CF%80%E1%BD%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1+philo+alexandria&source=bl&ots=W1x7JurdcG&sig=ACfU3U3lmHHeUwoIDHsD2l-Wk_9u-TmPBw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvgLL8gO3vAhXcQTABHSfpBw84FBDoATACegQIBhAD#v=onepage&q=%CF%84%E1%BD%B1%20%CF%80%E1%BD%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1%20philo%20alexandria&f=false
Another reference for ta panta: https://books.google.com/books?id=SPvsph6TNYAC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=%CF%84%E1%BD%B1+%CF%80%E1%BD%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1+philo+alexandria&source=bl&ots=UMBbISjGbK&sig=ACfU3U1AncFauY4dvt3nKjsv-YxG8Tr2Zw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvgLL8gO3vAhXcQTABHSfpBw84FBDoATAJegQICxAD#v=onepage&q=%CF%84%E1%BD%B1%20%CF%80%E1%BD%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1%20philo%20alexandria&f=false
I will grant you Acts 17:25, but how does the fact that Revelation has a finite verb modifying ta panta affect whether it's talking about the universe. Btw, I did not argue that we have a terminus technicus in ta panta.
How does a verb appearing with ta panta negate its meaning? Here is Grant Osborne's position from the BECNT:
Three main verbs in the last half of this hymn form an ABA pattern: “created,” “exist,” and “were created.” God is the emphatic subject (CJU, sy , you yourself), and all creation is the object (tci TiClVTa, ta panta , all things). The first element centers on the creation theology that virtually dominates the Bible (Ps. 19:1-2; 33:9; Isa. 40:28; 45:18; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16) and is a key theme throughout the Apocalypse (Rev. 3:14; 4:11; 10:6; 14:7; 21:1). There is certainly a further contrast with Caesar, for only God creates life, but the major message is the worship of the Creator who has made “all things” possible. Christ has already been called “the ruler of God’s creation” (3:14), and here we see that celebrated.
Ian Paul in the TNC Commentary: Revelation here reiterates the creation language of John 1, that all of creation came into being by your will and by the word of God’s command. The Greek text has the odd word order existed and were created (AT), which most English translations change to its more logical reverse order – but this is just poetic expression rather than logical or sequential. It is not just the prosperity of the world that is owed to God as Lord, but its very existence.
"Here they [the 24 elders] think of creation, with all its wonders; of the heavens which declare God's glory, and the firmament which shows forth His handiwork; of sun, and moon, and stars in their manifold and resplendent glories; of the mountains and the valleys; of the rivers and the fountains of waters; of the rich exuberance of vegetable life, which covers the earth with a gorgeous carpet of every hue; and of all those animals upon its surface which 'run races in their mirth:' and for them they praise. To God all creatures owe their origin. In Him they live, and move, and have their being. Because of His will they were— let the reading be considered and remembered: 'were,' not 'are'— because of His will they were in His idea from eternity; and when the appointed moment came, they were created. Wherefore let them praise."
Milligan, William . The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 1068-1072). . Kindle Edition.
Milligan, William . The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 1067-1068). . Kindle Edition.
"because thou didst create all things: the hymn of the Elders goes beyond a mere repetition of that-of the Living Creatures; it adds as a ground of praise God's work in creation, a frequent theme in Heb. psalmody; e.g. Ps. 33e-9, 102^5, 136'^"
Gordon Fee (First Epistle to the Corinthians) makes these points among others concerning 1 Cor. 8:4-6:
Murphy-0'Connor ("Cosmology") argues that the formula is not cosmological at all, but strictly soteriological. But his argument rests too heavily on a suggestion by M. M. Sagnard ("A propos de 1 Cor. VIII,6," ETL 26 [1950], 54-58) that the [dia] indicates movement, or direction, on the basis of which he asserts that "the unity of the text derives from the unity of a single movement." He is right in seeing the main concern as soteriology, but that does not preclude that the first member in each clause refers to creation. That the early church easily brought these two ideas together can also be seen in Heb. 1:1-3 and John 1:1-13.
Thanks, others might like to read the Philippians paper: I've already got it and enjoyed perusing the work. The Goulder book you mention is expensive; I have not checked to see if Scribd or some other online resource has it.
archive.org has the Goulder work: it can be obtained on a 14-day loan basis.
I also just want to say about termini technici that scholars often debate/have debated whether parousia is a terminus technicus in the GNT. Whether it is or not, however, it clearly refers to Christ's parousia as distinct from others. That is a similar claim I'm making about ta panta: it may not be a terminus technicus, but could it still refer to the universe at times? I think so. See the many references to Philo I provided and I have more coming.
Also see Hebrews 2:6-10. I think it's a very good candidate for understanding ta panta as the universe, especially in light of what verse 8 states. Compare verse 10.
As verse 5, says, he has not subjected the future world to angels. Then, to whom has he subjected it, and what is the dominion of the king's authority? It is only earthly dominion that the writer of Hebrews has in mind? His use of ta panta goes beyond what the psalmist composed: his authorial intent seems different. Christ was given authority in heaven and on earth; the writer of Hebrews contends that nothing escpaes the Son of Man's authority--not one thing (ouden) in heaven and on earth with the exception of the God who granted authority to him, but Hebrews does not even make that qualification.
All I'll say for now is that I don't think 2:5 overthrows the universal scope of Jesus' authority. The context of Hebrews suggest otherwise, and even the angels do obeisance/homage to Christ (1:6).
So who was actually carrying out v42? I suggest you read the lxx chapter carefully. For "angels to worship Jehovah", why would you even say it, wouldn't that be a given. I can see what it is saying. I do not need to go elsewhere for that.
I didn't have time to read the whole context earlier because I was doing my letter writing with a group this morning.
It's a little confusing because I think I know what you mean, but when I read the verse, a different idea is communicated. For example, you mention verse 42 above, which speaks about a warrior's actions. Who is carrying that out? Well, it's Jehovah. See Deut. 32:39.
Is it redundant for a writer to urge spirit beings to worship Jehovah? I don't think so. Not onyl are they encouraged to worship/do homage to God, but we must remember that not all angels are holy. See Psalm 97:7 (LXX); 103:20.
Angels and sons are one and the same, if you means spirit beings in heaven/in a loose sense, the terms may refer to some human beings. But the signifiers are not always coterminous/coextensive or coreferential.
I think sons and angels are two different things for Deut 32:8--best not to confuse them.
MT appears to distinguish the sons of Adam from the sons of Israel (see Ellicott's commentary). As for the LXX, it also seems to distinguish the sons of Adam and the angels of God. Just because Joshua and Moses spoke the words does not mean they received the obeisance/homage.
tc Heb “the sons of Israel.” The idea, perhaps, is that Israel was central to Yahweh’s purposes and all other nations were arranged and distributed according to how they related to Israel. See S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC), 355-56. For the MT יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֵי (bene yisraʾel, “sons of Israel”) a Qumran fragment has “sons of God,” while the LXX reads ἀγγέλων θεοῦ (angelōn theou, “angels of God”), presupposing בְּנֵי אֵל (bene ʾel) or בְּנֵי אֵלִים (bene ʾelim). “Sons of God” is undoubtedly the original reading; the MT and LXX have each interpreted it differently. MT assumes that the expression “sons of God” refers to Israel (cf. Hos. 1:10), while LXX has assumed that the phrase refers to the angelic heavenly assembly (Pss 29:1; 89:6; cf. as well Ps 82). The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21), while reserving for himself Israel, over whom he rules directly. For a defense of the view taken here, see M. S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 52-74.
"Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels."
I just don't buy it. Sons of Isreal WERE messengers. As I have said before the origin of the majority of gods were men, both in Sumerian and Egypt. Devine assemblies are when royalty are written into deity and that how later texts get confused.
What people are not told is that they are talking about a DSS fragment with not quite 4 words on it. Does that constitute direct evidence of Deuteronomy? - it has no context.
"The verb הנחל is a Hophal, “cause to be taken as possession”. From the context, this is a reference to the nations who were in the land of Canaan that were possessed by Israel when they invaded under Joshua and took over."
You're dealing with 3 different things in Deut. 32:43: the MT, LXX and the DSS. What's important for the present discussion is how the writer of Hebrews understands the text, but you originally brought LXX into it. Th e LCD does not identify Israel as messengers and MT doesn't either. The DSS likely has no bearing on Hebrews 1:6.
I don't buy euhemerism, but even if other nations viewed gods as former humans, I don't view Israel in the same light. Their concept of God and gods was different
Yes, Hebrews 3:2 only mentions Moses and related that he was faithful in all of God's house. Which house? Then you know the contrast made in Hebrews 3:3-6.
Hebrews 3:2-Moses is faithful in all of God's house. Also see 3:1.
3:3 (ESV)-For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself.
Sounds like a contrast to me: see 3:4.
3:5-Moses was a servant in all God's house to presage things that would later transpire
3:6 (ESV)-but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.
See http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/BSac-NT/Scott-Heb3Moses-BS.pdf
My point being is that IMHO I do not think Hebrews 1:6 is claiming that the messengers (whatever they might be) bow before Jesus, but rather they bow again before Jehovah at the inauguration of the new Joshua. And I certainly do not think that any other meaning would go down well with Hebrews.
Context helps distinguish Jesus Christ from Joshua in Hebrews. For example, read Hebrews 2:11-18 and 3:1, 6. Placing Joshua in the discussion at 3:1-6 also seems perplexing.I
Your thought on Hebrews 1:6 does not work grammatically. Jehovah is giving the command for another to be honored.
There are many directions this thread is taking and I find that does not promote overall understanding. I was also concise earlier because of doing other things while posting, but the point I was making from Heb. 2:11-18 was try applying those verses to the Old Testament figure, Joshua. It makes more sense to read those verses in the light of the Christian Messiah, Jesus Christ. Since when was Joshua a high priest and apostle to Christians? When was he a high priest, period?
What I meant about Heb. 1:6 is that the verse speaks of God's firstborn likely coming again into the world, then it says: λέγει Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
So what's the verb's object in this scripture, and who is the referent of the passage's grammatical object?
When I say that Hebrew 3:1-6 is perplexing if you read Joshua instead of Christ Jesus is why Heb. 3:3-4 introduces the one who crafts the house and πάντα.
Furthermore, why write that Moses was a servant in the house, but "Joshua" was a son over the house?
Yes, I know about the KJV rendering of Heb. 4:8.
Okay, Joshua entered but not Moses, yet Heb. 3:19 uses a plural "they" to speak of those not entering. How does it even remotely suggest that it has Joshua in mind? The ones (plural) who did not enter were faithless individuals who did not trust Jehovah: Moses doesn't fit that bill. But faithful Israelites (plural) entered into God's rest back then under Joshua.
Barnes makes these comments for Heb. 4:8. See also Acts 7:45:
For if Jesus - Margin, "That is, Joshua." The Syriac renders it, "Joshua the son of Nun." "Jesus" is the Greek mode of writing "Joshua," and there can be no doubt that Joshua is here intended. The object is to prove that Joshua did "not" give the people of God such a rest as to make it improper to speak of a "rest" after that time. "If Joshua had given them a complete and final rest; if by his conducting them to the promised land all had been done which had been contemplated by the promise, then it would not have been alluded to again, as it was in the time of David." Joshua "did" give them a rest in the promised land; but it was not all which was intended, and it did not exclude the promise of another and more important rest.
Kel @ trinity delusion does think that is what it means but his conclusions are still very different.
I never claimed that any of Hebrews is about anyone other than Jesus. The point is how he he being paralleled with Joshua & the terms that are being pulled from Deuteronomy.
Don't focus on what is being said - rather focus on what is being quoted:-
Deut 1:38. Psalms 95:6.
So who else from the beginning of the 40 years entered?
I'm just saying that Trinity Delusion doesn't think Jehovah/God is being shown obeisance in Heb. 1:6 unless I misunderstood him.
Without trying to be sarcastic or facetious at all, I feel the need to pay attention to the quotes, allusions, and what's being said. Some confusion may be caused by the Greek spelling, but context adds clarity to matters. The whole discussion about the high priest in Hebrews 2, 3, 5-9 only makes sense if Christ is the focus and if Joshua (Moses' minister and the military commander) is not.
Granted, Joshua entered Canaan, but so did many others: the language of Hebrews suggest that many failed to enter that rest; however, some entered God's rest in a typical way.
Just who constituted the generation? Did it include all Israelites?
Psalm 95:6 is a good text, but one phenomenon that occurs in the GNT is a reapplying of texts from YHWH (Jehovah) to the Lord Jesus Christ. This in no way means I equate Christ with YHWH, but the language of the Tanakh for Jehovah is applied to Christ more than once. And in Hebrews 1:6, God simply cannot be the object of worship. It won't work grammatically.
Two Joshuas in Hebrews-https://books.google.com/books?id=EBvoBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=hebrews+1:6+grammatical+analysis&source=bl&ots=2Do9fDEA-T&sig=ACfU3U2L_CD6ZOwc6OOFzD1bnYU3iIFp1g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPwqnl-PbvAhVuleAKHZ2_AfQ4PBDoATAHegQIExAD#v=onepage&q=hebrews%201%3A6%20grammatical%20analysis&f=false
Discourse analysis and Hebrews-https://books.google.com/books?id=DF6vAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=hebrews+1:6+grammatical+analysis&source=bl&ots=sGV9dhpRob&sig=ACfU3U2ADGxykaPWkaBoAeqoHWKYkQjazg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPwqnl-PbvAhVuleAKHZ2_AfQ4PBDoATAIegQIEhAD#v=onepage&q=hebrews%201%3A6%20grammatical%20analysis&f=false
Did you read this - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147825549.pdf
I am not the only one that noticed that Joshua was conspicuously missing from Hebrews 11 & that book you just posted noticed the same. Especially for the fact that it refers directly to Jericho.
I am not sure how that Later Joshua ties in, if at all - he does not hold the stature of the other mentioned in Hebrews.
Also, I think Nehemiah 7:7 calls him Jeshua. So that is a bit sketchy. I thought the priestly role in Hebrews I more in terms of Melchizedek?
To be blunt - women and children do not count in these accounts, it is the family heads and tribal leaders, but I thought you would already know that.
Besides, if they did not survive there would have been much of an army going into Canaan.
I read some of that file due to other responsibilities, but I plan to read more later. You have a legit question about the absence of Joshua, but at the same time, there is likely a good reason why the name does not appear much. Secondly, too many questions remain unanswered if we're going to posit a Joshua = Jesus reading of Hebrews. Why take that route anyway when Christ is the prophet greater than Moses?
The priestly role in Hebrews is Melchizedekian, but the writer refers to Jesus Christ as the priest-king in the manner of Melchizedek. Compare Psalm 110:1-4. If you read German, see the work by William Loader, which to my knowledge has not been translated into English: William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche.
But he's apparently written something here too: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/znw-2018-0013/html
I understand what scholars call "patriarchal tendencies" in the OT/Tanakh, and I've argued that the faithless men were punished for what happened with the 12 spies, not the women or children. But these seemingly unimportant figures still entered Canaan: the children eventually would have become adults. Besides, there have been correctives in scholarship for the common patriarchal reading of these accounts.
Maybe we both agree that somehow, more than Joshua and Caleb entered the land of Promise.
My point about understanding the text that are being used is in regard to the original target audience.
I am sure that they were intimately familiar with the texts quoted in there original contexts. So if the interpretation in Hebrews veered to far from the original context and meaning it would lose much of is credibility to that early audience.
I was referring to what Joshua did before Moses died, but I know Joshua was Moses' successor as human leader of the nation. I probably said it earlier in this thread, but at any rate, I'm aware of the change.
It's common in the GNT for texts to be reappropriated. Paul does it often in Romans and we even see him doing the same thing in Acts. As the WT has pointed out, there's a difference between the contextual application of a verse and its principled application. But with Paul, he was full of holy spirit, so he spoke with apostolic authority. Hebrews 1:6 applies an OT verse to Christ that originally applied to Jehovah and so does Heb. 1:10-12. The same thing probably happens in Romans 10:13-15.
ἀπόστολος occurs one time in the LXX, at 1 Kings 14:6. It's associated with the shaliach idea and the men well-known for this office were the Twelve selected by Jesus. But he is God's shaliach and identified as high priest in 3:1 along with being ἀπόστολος. A number of people in the Tanakh were sent with orders--as envoys. Not just Joshua. Moreover, Hebrews draws from Numbers and Psalms, not only Deuteronomy.
I'm taking a break and will check later to see replies:
Not saying Pauline audience is the same: did you read the Third Mill article about Hebrews? I agree with them that the "Hebrews" were Jewish Christians. That is a fairly common view although not the only one.
Notice on BLB that Thayer does mention 1 Kings 14:6 in the LXX. Right? :-)
When I said Hebrews alludes to Numbers, I had Numbers 12 in mind. 12:7 is pretty clear: Hebrews 3 is drawing on that verse.
Pg 112 - Moses as a priest, he is clearly presented fulfilling many of the functions of a priest; indeed he 'fills in' when Aaron fails (Ex. 32-4).
94 - Only once throughout biblical literature is Moses called, 'priest' (Ps. 99: 6). It is contentious whether the term is used here in a technical sense; cf. Levine (1989: 49 - Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society).); for a different view, cf. Gray (1971: 179-270 - Sacrifice in the Old Testament ([1925: Oxford]; Second Edition; New York: Ktav))."
Thanks for the additional info, Duncan. For Joshua 1:13, see 1:12: Joshua is addressing those words to someone else, not talking aabout his own rest. Heb. 4:8 similarly speaks of Joshua giving others rest, not giving himself rest, although he too received it.
Did the rest allude to death? I don't think that's the rest that Heb. 4:8 is talking about: again, we're talking about a rest that Joshua is giving to others--ultimate provided by Jehovah. I'm just making an inference about your meaning based on the last verse you cited. Maybe that's not what you're claiming.
I admitted that I wasn't sure of your point. I tried to interpret it charitably, but you didn't provide enough details for me to understand your intent. Joshua 1:13 applies to someone other than Joshua, but he's speaking those words, and 24:29 mentions Joshua's death. Hence, my original confusion at your point.
Yes, Moses speaks of the rest which comes from God, but Joshua led them to that rest and spoke to Israel about it. That is why Heb. 4:8 refers to Joshua.
Sorry about the ambiguity but I thought we were on one trajectory. The other scripture is not focusing on Joshua's death but on the title he was also given - the servant of the lord.
I was confused because of not being sure what your point was, plus this thread started about Genesis 1:1 before moving to Hebrews 1:6 and so forth, so there have been many digressions here. Hard to keep up when that happens :)
Thanks for clarifying the previous remarks.
You mention that Joshua was servant of the LORD, but Hebrews 3:1-6 maintains that Moses was a servant in Jehovah's house, but Jesus is a Son over God's house. So, 3:1-6 does not depict Jesus as a servant, but contrasts him with God's ancient servant Moses. This is not to say that Christ is not the Servant of YHWH, but Hebrews depicts him as high priest and Son of God, not as Jehovah's servant.
I'm not denying that Jehovah gave Israel rest, but how did he give them rest? Was it not through Joshua, who brought them into the land of Promise?
Going back to Heb. 4:8, after reading it more closely, it denies that Joshua gave Israel rest. I needed to read it more attentively before I commented. Therefore, I now see that it says Joshua did not give Israel rest; however, while Joshua did not give the nation ultimate rest, he was God's agent for providing that rest. See also Joshua 11:23.
112 comments:
Not sure how anyone can argue on the basis of accents?
He gives evidence from Hebrew grammar/syntax: the whole argument doesn't hinge on accents, but when he mentions the accent, he's ultimately making a syntactic/grammatical point.
Another article supporting the absolute reading for Genesis 1:1 is https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/old-testament-pubs/3/
Jiri Moskala
On the other hand, this piece challenges the appeal to Hebrew accents: https://forums.accordancebible.com/topic/12963-expositor/
Use the search term "Sailhamer"
To me, " In translating the Hebrew word ‘eres “earth” in 1:1 and 1:2, the EVs have blurred the connection of these early verses of Genesis to the central theme of the “land” (‘eres ) in the Pentateuch. Although ‘eres can be translated by either “earth” or “land,” the general term “land” in English more closely approximates the use of ‘eres in chapter 1." hits the nail square on the head.
This is not about the origins of the universe, its not that philosophical (and neither is John 1:1). Better to argue about creatio ex nihilo elsewhere, either for or against.
The sky and the land - the breath and the dirt for man & the resurrection for new man.
These are beginnings.
"A strong case, however, can be made for reading the phrase as a construct and subordinating v.1 to vv.2-3: “When God set about to create the heavens (sky) and the earth (land) — the world being then a formless waste ""...."The first act of Creation would have been the creation of light from darkness, and vv.1-3 would say nothing of an original Creation."
Context usually determines whether a translator chooses earth or land. While I don't think Genesis is philosophical, it is a story about cosmic beginnings: plenty of evidence supports this view, but either way, other verses say that God created the heavens, the earth, and all therein. What part of our world did God not create?
I'm not sure who you're quoting at the end, but other writers say the direct opposite. One book I was reading the other day said Hebrew grammar cannot adjudicate this issue. Another book argues that Genesis 1:1 has to be absolute. Whatever the right way to read it, Jehovah created all things including our planet, the sun, moon and stars. See Nehemiah 9:6.
Compare John 1:3.
"it is a story about cosmic beginnings: plenty of evidence supports this view," - ????
You cannot impose "other verses" on this unless you have a very good reason to do so. - do you have any?
Both quotes are from the commentaries you directed me to - "Sailhamer" etc?
Nehemiah 9:6, how does that relate to the "US" in Genesis 1? - devoid of any accompaniment.
John 1:3 - everything is created with gods active wisdom (now I cam appreciate the usages of Logos a little better), both old and new creations.
I can see a link from John 1:3 to col 1:16 in language even though they are two distinct beginnings. Looking at the contexts, far to much is made of ta panta.
For Nehemiah 9:6 there is a n interesting comparison - Genesis 37:9.
To be more precise, my second quote is from - Expositor’s Bible Commentary Notes. 1st, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), n.p.
Thanks for providing the source of the quote. I like Sailhamer, but don't agree with him on everything. When I talked about evidence, I meant the grammar and context of Genesis 1:1. Again, I was connecting Nehemiah with genesis 1:1, not with 1:26-27. But Isaiah says something similar to Nehemiah, that Jehovah alone created things. As you know, 1:26 has been interpreted many ways.
Why take us panta in a relative sense at John 1:3? Ta panta normally means the universe, unless context says otherwise.
I thought this guy said some pertinent things whether you think he's right or not. And I'm not focusing on the statement about the accent: https://books.google.com/books?id=imJBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=tifcha+accent+genesis+1:1&source=bl&ots=dlVe2QWDK4&sig=ACfU3U0ohHsY5VEKkM9DhC7woEo8wPIPMg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjI_76P4ODvAhVQHc0KHSR1Do04FBDoATADegQIBhAD#v=onepage&q=tifcha%20accent%20genesis%201%3A1&f=false
See chapter 6 of this book: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3vGii49IYHIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=related:mU0W3g_33o4J:scholar.google.com/&ots=wI-h6FKA-v&sig=b1-hNcPFsnBV5yDs0OfMwn0NMxY#v=onepage&q&f=false
On creation in Genesis
I do not believe that ta panta was a technical term with one specific meaning. Compare Colossians 1:23.
I have just read Dunn (pg.267 & 268) on this ta panta point & he cites 1 Cor 8:6 but like a number before him he misses the point of καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ καὶ αὐτοῦ.
This is the all new things which they are part of now.
Note also how he also omits to quote the most important part of 1 Col 1:16. on page 268. - does not fit his argument. Again, CF 1 Peter 3:22.
Colossians 1:23 doesn't contain the expression "ta panta," right? And what I'm actually claiming is that it normally refers to the cosmos (universe) unless context dictates otherwise. See for instance, Philippians 3:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. So ta panta can be used absolutely or relatively.
We have to watch how Paul writes, and I don't think his statement in 1 Cor. 8:6 can be solely restricted to the new creation. You have to consider what his overall point is, and there has been much ink spilled over that issue. As you know, the issue is whether Christians should partake of food sacrificed to idols. In such a context, why limit ta panta to the new creation?
Regardless, I think many references support ta panta being a common way to reference trhe universe. See Revelation 4:11.
BTW, I've got Dunn's commentary and will check it out later. For 1 Corinthians, I would recommend Anthony Thiselton's work.
A.T. Robertson Word Pictures: "All things (ta panta). The universe as in Romans 11:35, a well-known philosophical phrase. It is repeated at the end of the verse."
I think the reference should really be Rom. 11:36, which seems to be an example of ta panta being the universe. Compare Acts 17:24-25.
So what scripture tells us that Paul did NOT preach to every creature under heaven? - Do you get my point.
We assume that it is hyperbole but the scriptures themselves do not tell us that. As I said, I do not believe that ta panta is a technical term. A term of emphasis, probably.
For Rev 4:11, compare Matthew 26:42 & 1 John 2:17.
For romans 11:36, compare Romans 12:2
Firstly, Colossians 1:23 doesn't use ta panta, so it's not a similar example. Secondly, what reason do we have to believe that Paul preached to every creature under heaven? How was that even possible since Paul did not travel to every part of the world. As far as we know, based on his own accounts, he preached around the Mediterranean Sea: remember the three missionary journeys of Paul? I've often heard the verse explained as to all the then known world. Either way, Paul did not preach to every last person. That simply was not possible for him. Since when did Paul go to China or to Carthage and Ethiopia?
Whether we call ta panta a technical term or not, why does it not refer to the universe in some texts? What else does it mean in Acts 17:24-25 or in Revelation 4:11? I don't think Romans 12:2 subverts the meaning of ta panta in Romans 11:36. The focus is somewhat different in 12:2: notice the transition in 12:1 with "therefore."
Abbott-Smith Greek Lexicon:
2. Neut.,
(a) sing., πᾶν , everything, all: πᾶν τό , c. ptcp., 1 Corinthians 10:25; 1 Corinthians 10:27, Ephesians 5:13, 1 John 2:16; 1 John 5:4 (sc. ὄν ); πᾶν ὅ , John 17:2, Romans 14:23; collectively, of persons (Westc., in l), John 6:37; John 6:39; c. prep., in adverbial phrases, διὰ παντός , always, Matthew 18:10, al.; ἐν παντί , in everything, in every way, 2 Corinthians 4:8, Philippians 4:6, al.;
(b) pl., πάντα , all things : absol., John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 2:10, Hebrews 2:8, al.; of certain specified things, Mark 4:34, Luke 1:3, Romans 8:28, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, al.; acc, πάντα , adverbially, wholly, in all things, in all respects, Acts 20:35, 1 Corinthians 9:25, al.; c. art., τὰ Papyri, all things -(a totality, as distinct from anarth. πάντα , all things severally; cf. Westc., Eph., 186 f.), absol.: Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 3:9, Hebrews 1:3, al.; relatively, Mark 4:11, Acts 17:25, Romans 8:32, al.; πάντα τά , C. ptcp., Matthew 18:31, al.; πάντα ταῦτα (ταῦτα Papyri), Matthew 6:32-33, al.; πάντα , c. prep. in adverbial phrases, πρὸ πάντων , above all things, James 5:12, 1 Peter 4:8; ἐν Papyri, in all things, in all ways, 1 Timothy 3:11, 1 Peter 4:11, al.; κατὰ πάντα , in all respects, Acts 17:22, al.
See also https://books.google.com/books?id=k2hBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%CF%84%E1%BD%B1+%CF%80%E1%BD%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1+philo+alexandria&source=bl&ots=W1x7JurdcG&sig=ACfU3U3lmHHeUwoIDHsD2l-Wk_9u-TmPBw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvgLL8gO3vAhXcQTABHSfpBw84FBDoATACegQIBhAD#v=onepage&q=%CF%84%E1%BD%B1%20%CF%80%E1%BD%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1%20philo%20alexandria&f=false
Another reference for ta panta: https://books.google.com/books?id=SPvsph6TNYAC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=%CF%84%E1%BD%B1+%CF%80%E1%BD%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1+philo+alexandria&source=bl&ots=UMBbISjGbK&sig=ACfU3U1AncFauY4dvt3nKjsv-YxG8Tr2Zw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvgLL8gO3vAhXcQTABHSfpBw84FBDoATAJegQICxAD#v=onepage&q=%CF%84%E1%BD%B1%20%CF%80%E1%BD%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1%20philo%20alexandria&f=false
Clear references to ta panta meaning the universe
I was also citing Revelation 4:11 for the "all things" reference. It seems hard to take "all things" there in a less than absolute sense.
https://biblehub.com/text/acts/17-25.htm
This is the context of what he gives man - does he give man the universe?
I don't have a problem with Rev 4:11, but it is not τὰ πάντα, it is ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα. Not a technical term but the meaning is clear.
I will grant you Acts 17:25, but how does the fact that Revelation has a finite verb modifying ta panta affect whether it's talking about the universe. Btw, I did not argue that we have a terminus technicus in ta panta.
How does a verb appearing with ta panta negate its meaning? Here is Grant Osborne's position from the BECNT:
Three main verbs in the last half of this hymn form an ABA pattern: “created,” “exist,” and “were created.” God is the emphatic subject (CJU, sy , you yourself), and all creation is the object (tci
TiClVTa, ta panta , all things). The first element centers on the creation theology that virtually dominates the Bible (Ps. 19:1-2; 33:9; Isa. 40:28; 45:18; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16) and is a key theme
throughout the Apocalypse (Rev. 3:14; 4:11; 10:6; 14:7; 21:1). There is certainly a further contrast with Caesar, for only God creates life, but the major message is the worship of the Creator who has
made “all things” possible. Christ has already been called “the ruler of God’s creation” (3:14), and here we see that celebrated.
Ian Paul in the TNC Commentary: Revelation here reiterates the creation language of John 1, that all of creation came into being by your will and by the word of God’s command. The Greek text has the odd word order existed and were created (AT), which most English translations change to its more logical reverse order – but this is just poetic expression rather than logical or sequential. It is not just the prosperity of the world that is owed to God as Lord, but its very existence.
Vincent's WS: All things (τὰ πάντα)
With the article signifying the universe.
"Here they [the 24 elders] think of creation, with all its wonders; of the heavens which declare God's glory, and the firmament which shows forth His handiwork; of sun, and moon, and stars in their manifold and resplendent glories; of the mountains and the valleys; of the rivers and the fountains of waters; of the rich exuberance of vegetable life, which covers the earth with a gorgeous carpet of every hue; and of all those animals upon its surface which 'run races in their mirth:' and for them they praise. To God all creatures owe their origin. In Him they live, and move, and have their being. Because of His will they were— let the reading be considered and remembered: 'were,' not 'are'— because of His will they were in His idea from eternity; and when the appointed moment came, they were created. Wherefore let them praise."
Milligan, William . The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 1068-1072). . Kindle Edition.
Milligan, William . The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 1067-1068). . Kindle Edition.
Beckwith's Revelation Commentary:
"because thou didst create all things: the hymn of the Elders
goes beyond a mere repetition of that-of the Living Creatures;
it adds as a ground of praise God's work in creation, a frequent
theme in Heb. psalmody; e.g. Ps. 33e-9, 102^5, 136'^"
(Page 503)
See https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%CF%84%E1%BD%B0+%CF%80%CE%AC%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1&t=LXX#s=s_primary_0_1
LXX usages of ta panta and these include Nehemiah 9:6 and Genesis 1:31
Gordon Fee (First Epistle to the Corinthians) makes these points among others concerning 1 Cor. 8:4-6:
Murphy-0'Connor ("Cosmology") argues that the formula is not cosmological at all, but strictly soteriological. But his argument rests too heavily on a suggestion by M. M. Sagnard ("A propos de 1 Cor. VIII,6," ETL 26 [1950], 54-58) that the [dia] indicates movement, or direction, on the basis of which he asserts that "the unity of the text derives from the unity of a single movement." He is right in seeing the main concern as soteriology, but that does not preclude that the first member in each clause refers to creation. That the early church easily brought these two ideas together can also be seen in Heb. 1:1-3 and John 1:1-13.
Hebrews 1:1-3 is not talking about the past creation. Also Hebrews 1:8 is referring to the culmination, the greatest age.
ἔθηκεν πάντων κληρονόμον
τὰ πάντα by the powerful sayings.
Even genesis 1:31 lxx is qualified and it is certainly no a direct translation of the Hebrew without that qualification.
We've talked about Hebrews 1:1-3 before, so I will let that stand.
In search of a copy of - Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation, M. D. Goulder FS (Leiden: Brill, 1994)
https://www.academia.edu/39533090/Philippians_2_5_11_Revisited
Thanks, others might like to read the Philippians paper: I've already got it and enjoyed perusing the work. The Goulder book you mention is expensive; I have not checked to see if Scribd or some other online resource has it.
archive.org has the Goulder work: it can be obtained on a 14-day loan basis.
I also just want to say about termini technici that scholars often debate/have debated whether parousia is a terminus technicus in the GNT. Whether it is or not, however, it clearly refers to Christ's parousia as distinct from others. That is a similar claim I'm making about ta panta: it may not be a terminus technicus, but could it still refer to the universe at times? I think so. See the many references to Philo I provided and I have more coming.
Also see Hebrews 2:6-10. I think it's a very good candidate for understanding ta panta as the universe, especially in light of what verse 8 states. Compare verse 10.
I am reading verses 1-4 carefully & there is a comparison here and verse 5 speaks for itself:- https://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/2-5.htm
Context.
CF Psalms 8:6
https://studybible.info/interlinear/Psalms%208:6
As verse 5, says, he has not subjected the future world to angels. Then, to whom has he subjected it, and what is the dominion of the king's authority? It is only earthly dominion that the writer of Hebrews has in mind? His use of ta panta goes beyond what the psalmist composed: his authorial intent seems different. Christ was given authority in heaven and on earth; the writer of Hebrews contends that nothing escpaes the Son of Man's authority--not one thing (ouden) in heaven and on earth with the exception of the God who granted authority to him, but Hebrews does not even make that qualification.
Hebrews 2:7-8: ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ’ ἀγγέλους, δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας [a]αὐτόν, 8 πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ· ἐν [b]τῷ γὰρ [c]ὑποτάξαι τὰ πάντα οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον. νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὁρῶμεν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ὑποτεταγμένα·
Verse 5 gives us the scope of that which follows - https://biblehub.com/greek/oikoumene_n_3625.htm
https://time.com/5743505/new-testament-heaven/
Still mulling this over.
All I'll say for now is that I don't think 2:5 overthrows the universal scope of Jesus' authority. The context of Hebrews suggest otherwise, and even the angels do obeisance/homage to Christ (1:6).
Deuteronomy 32:43 the wording of the lxx with regard to Joshuah (his name will be called). Did the angels worship him or help him?
https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/4-11.htm
Are you sure it's Deuteronomy 32:43 you want? That is referring to Jehovah being worshiped or honored. Compare Revelation 3:9 and 4:10-11.
So who was actually carrying out v42? I suggest you read the lxx chapter carefully. For "angels to worship Jehovah", why would you even say it, wouldn't that be a given. I can see what it is saying. I do not need to go elsewhere for that.
Angels and sons - one and the same.
See deut 32:8 sons of Adam - angels.
Joshua the of Naue and Moses finished speaking to all Israel.
I didn't have time to read the whole context earlier because I was doing my letter writing with a group this morning.
It's a little confusing because I think I know what you mean, but when I read the verse, a different idea is communicated. For example, you mention verse 42 above, which speaks about a warrior's actions. Who is carrying that out? Well, it's Jehovah. See Deut. 32:39.
Is it redundant for a writer to urge spirit beings to worship Jehovah? I don't think so. Not onyl are they encouraged to worship/do homage to God, but we must remember that not all angels are holy. See Psalm 97:7 (LXX); 103:20.
Angels and sons are one and the same, if you means spirit beings in heaven/in a loose sense, the terms may refer to some human beings. But the signifiers are not always coterminous/coextensive or coreferential.
I think sons and angels are two different things for Deut 32:8--best not to confuse them.
MT appears to distinguish the sons of Adam from the sons of Israel (see Ellicott's commentary). As for the LXX, it also seems to distinguish the sons of Adam and the angels of God. Just because Joshua and Moses spoke the words does not mean they received the obeisance/homage.
See https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/2232/Deut-Hebrews%28ALLEN%29.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Heiser also wrote his dissertation on Deut. 32.
NET Bible Note for Deut. 32:8:
tc Heb “the sons of Israel.” The idea, perhaps, is that Israel was central to Yahweh’s purposes and all other nations were arranged and distributed according to how they related to Israel. See S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC), 355-56. For the MT יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֵי (bene yisraʾel, “sons of Israel”) a Qumran fragment has “sons of God,” while the LXX reads ἀγγέλων θεοῦ (angelōn theou, “angels of God”), presupposing בְּנֵי אֵל (bene ʾel) or בְּנֵי אֵלִים (bene ʾelim). “Sons of God” is undoubtedly the original reading; the MT and LXX have each interpreted it differently. MT assumes that the expression “sons of God” refers to Israel (cf. Hos. 1:10), while LXX has assumed that the phrase refers to the angelic heavenly assembly (Pss 29:1; 89:6; cf. as well Ps 82). The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21), while reserving for himself Israel, over whom he rules directly. For a defense of the view taken here, see M. S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 52-74.
"Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels."
I just don't buy it. Sons of Isreal WERE messengers. As I have said before the origin of the majority of gods were men, both in Sumerian and Egypt. Devine assemblies are when royalty are written into deity and that how later texts get confused.
What people are not told is that they are talking about a DSS fragment with not quite 4 words on it. Does that constitute direct evidence of Deuteronomy? - it has no context.
"The verb הנחל is a Hophal, “cause to be taken as possession”. From the context, this is a reference to the nations who were in the land of Canaan that were possessed by Israel when they invaded under Joshua and took over."
You're dealing with 3 different things in Deut. 32:43: the MT, LXX and the DSS. What's important for the present discussion is how the writer of Hebrews understands the text, but you originally brought LXX into it. Th e LCD does not identify Israel as messengers and MT doesn't either. The DSS likely has no bearing on Hebrews 1:6.
I don't buy euhemerism, but even if other nations viewed gods as former humans, I don't view Israel in the same light. Their concept of God and gods was different
Moses and Joshua - compare Hebrews 3:2.
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=30&page=46
Yes, Hebrews 3:2 only mentions Moses and related that he was faithful in all of God's house. Which house? Then you know the contrast made in Hebrews 3:3-6.
Is it a contrast? Why is this book called Hebrews?
I could lay out my points later, but Hebrews 3:3-6 do appear to contrast Moses and Jesus. Wasn't the book possibly addressed to Hebrew Christians?
The Jesus of Hebrews 3:2-6 is clearly not Joshua of the Tanakh
Hebrews 3:2-Moses is faithful in all of God's house. Also see 3:1.
3:3 (ESV)-For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself.
Sounds like a contrast to me: see 3:4.
3:5-Moses was a servant in all God's house to presage things that would later transpire
3:6 (ESV)-but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.
See http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/BSac-NT/Scott-Heb3Moses-BS.pdf
Many things published that explain the raison d'être of Hebrews, but see https://thirdmill.org/seminary/lesson.asp/vid/181/version/
Conspicuous by absence - see Hebrews 4:8 and compare Hebrews 11.
Who's faith was involved regarding the walls of Jericho? Now we have a new and improved Joshuah.
I know how common the name was by its use in Josephus but that does not reflect my point.
See Hebrews 3:19 - who was allowed entry?
So which Jesus was counted more worthy of glory than Moses????
https://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/4-8.htm
Don't you find it odd that he seems to only be mentioned twice in the whole of the NT even though Hebrews used Deuteronomy frequently?
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147825549.pdf
My point being is that IMHO I do not think Hebrews 1:6 is claiming that the messengers (whatever they might be) bow before Jesus, but rather they bow again before Jehovah at the inauguration of the new Joshua. And I certainly do not think that any other meaning would go down well with Hebrews.
Context helps distinguish Jesus Christ from Joshua in Hebrews. For example, read Hebrews 2:11-18 and 3:1, 6. Placing Joshua in the discussion at 3:1-6 also seems perplexing.I
Your thought on Hebrews 1:6 does not work grammatically. Jehovah is giving the command for another to be honored.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26422229?seq=1
Only Joshua was allowed entry? Is that the point of 3:19?
Obviously not the only one - Deuteronomy 1:36.
But Moses gave the name to Joshua & it is him and Moses that spoke. He took command.
You know the KJV translation of Hebrews 4:8.
Perplexing - oh yes.
How many people is Jesus likened to throughout Hebrews?
Hebrews 2:11-18 is not the only letter to focus on the whole psalms 22.
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/hebrews1_6.html
There are many directions this thread is taking and I find that does not promote overall understanding. I was also concise earlier because of doing other things while posting, but the point I was making from Heb. 2:11-18 was try applying those verses to the Old Testament figure, Joshua. It makes more sense to read those verses in the light of the Christian Messiah, Jesus Christ. Since when was Joshua a high priest and apostle to Christians? When was he a high priest, period?
What I meant about Heb. 1:6 is that the verse speaks of God's firstborn likely coming again into the world, then it says: λέγει Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
So what's the verb's object in this scripture, and who is the referent of the passage's grammatical object?
When I say that Hebrew 3:1-6 is perplexing if you read Joshua instead of Christ Jesus is why Heb. 3:3-4 introduces the one who crafts the house and πάντα.
Furthermore, why write that Moses was a servant in the house, but "Joshua" was a son over the house?
Yes, I know about the KJV rendering of Heb. 4:8.
Okay, Joshua entered but not Moses, yet Heb. 3:19 uses a plural "they" to speak of those not entering. How does it even remotely suggest that it has Joshua in mind? The ones (plural) who did not enter were faithless individuals who did not trust Jehovah: Moses doesn't fit that bill. But faithful Israelites (plural) entered into God's rest back then under Joshua.
Concerning obeisance to Jesus, your friend at Trinity Delusion writes that Christ is the one to whom the angels are doing obeisance.
See this blog for a wealth of resources on Hebrews: https://polumeros.blogspot.com/2021/04/new-hebrews-article-in-jbl.html
Barnes makes these comments for Heb. 4:8. See also Acts 7:45:
For if Jesus - Margin, "That is, Joshua." The Syriac renders it, "Joshua the son of Nun." "Jesus" is the Greek mode of writing "Joshua," and there can be no doubt that Joshua is here intended. The object is to prove that Joshua did "not" give the people of God such a rest as to make it improper to speak of a "rest" after that time. "If Joshua had given them a complete and final rest; if by his conducting them to the promised land all had been done which had been contemplated by the promise, then it would not have been alluded to again, as it was in the time of David." Joshua "did" give them a rest in the promised land; but it was not all which was intended, and it did not exclude the promise of another and more important rest.
Kel @ trinity delusion does think that is what it means but his conclusions are still very different.
I never claimed that any of Hebrews is about anyone other than Jesus. The point is how he he being paralleled with Joshua & the terms that are being pulled from Deuteronomy.
Don't focus on what is being said - rather focus on what is being quoted:-
Deut 1:38. Psalms 95:6.
So who else from the beginning of the 40 years entered?
"Therefore I was angry with this generation"
I'm just saying that Trinity Delusion doesn't think Jehovah/God is being shown obeisance in Heb. 1:6 unless I misunderstood him.
Without trying to be sarcastic or facetious at all, I feel the need to pay attention to the quotes, allusions, and what's being said. Some confusion may be caused by the Greek spelling, but context adds clarity to matters. The whole discussion about the high priest in Hebrews 2, 3, 5-9 only makes sense if Christ is the focus and if Joshua (Moses' minister and the military commander) is not.
Granted, Joshua entered Canaan, but so did many others: the language of Hebrews suggest that many failed to enter that rest; however, some entered God's rest in a typical way.
Just who constituted the generation? Did it include all Israelites?
Psalm 95:6 is a good text, but one phenomenon that occurs in the GNT is a reapplying of texts from YHWH (Jehovah) to the Lord Jesus Christ. This in no way means I equate Christ with YHWH, but the language of the Tanakh for Jehovah is applied to Christ more than once. And in Hebrews 1:6, God simply cannot be the object of worship. It won't work grammatically.
You mentioned Caleb earlier and his descendants were allowed to possess the land too. What about the women and children, who did not sin against God?
Two Joshuas in Hebrews-https://books.google.com/books?id=EBvoBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=hebrews+1:6+grammatical+analysis&source=bl&ots=2Do9fDEA-T&sig=ACfU3U2L_CD6ZOwc6OOFzD1bnYU3iIFp1g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPwqnl-PbvAhVuleAKHZ2_AfQ4PBDoATAHegQIExAD#v=onepage&q=hebrews%201%3A6%20grammatical%20analysis&f=false
Discourse analysis and Hebrews-https://books.google.com/books?id=DF6vAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=hebrews+1:6+grammatical+analysis&source=bl&ots=sGV9dhpRob&sig=ACfU3U2ADGxykaPWkaBoAeqoHWKYkQjazg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPwqnl-PbvAhVuleAKHZ2_AfQ4PBDoATAIegQIEhAD#v=onepage&q=hebrews%201%3A6%20grammatical%20analysis&f=false
For more info on the dative of the direct object, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=dative+direct+object
Did you read this - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147825549.pdf
I am not the only one that noticed that Joshua was conspicuously missing from Hebrews 11 & that book you just posted noticed the same. Especially for the fact that it refers directly to Jericho.
I am not sure how that Later Joshua ties in, if at all - he does not hold the stature of the other mentioned in Hebrews.
Also, I think Nehemiah 7:7 calls him Jeshua. So that is a bit sketchy. I thought the priestly role in Hebrews I more in terms of Melchizedek?
To be blunt - women and children do not count in these accounts, it is the family heads and tribal leaders, but I thought you would already know that.
Besides, if they did not survive there would have been much of an army going into Canaan.
"Moses' minister and the military commander" - not one Moses dies. Who is leader?
I read some of that file due to other responsibilities, but I plan to read more later. You have a legit question about the absence of Joshua, but at the same time, there is likely a good reason why the name does not appear much. Secondly, too many questions remain unanswered if we're going to posit a Joshua = Jesus reading of Hebrews. Why take that route anyway when Christ is the prophet greater than Moses?
The priestly role in Hebrews is Melchizedekian, but the writer refers to Jesus Christ as the priest-king in the manner of Melchizedek. Compare Psalm 110:1-4. If you read German, see the work by William Loader, which to my knowledge has not been translated into English: William R. G. Loader, Sohn und Hoherpriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche.
But he's apparently written something here too: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/znw-2018-0013/html
I understand what scholars call "patriarchal tendencies" in the OT/Tanakh, and I've argued that the faithless men were punished for what happened with the 12 spies, not the women or children. But these seemingly unimportant figures still entered Canaan: the children eventually would have become adults. Besides, there have been correctives in scholarship for the common patriarchal reading of these accounts.
Maybe we both agree that somehow, more than Joshua and Caleb entered the land of Promise.
My point about understanding the text that are being used is in regard to the original target audience.
I am sure that they were intimately familiar with the texts quoted in there original contexts. So if the interpretation in Hebrews veered to far from the original context and meaning it would lose much of is credibility to that early audience.
Multiple themes, multiple levels - https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=jibs
Another interesting thing its that Jesus is called ἀπόστολος at the beginning of Hebrews 3 - a term that I do not think is ever used in the LXX?
But it does not mean that the function did not exist, but we do know someone in Deuteronomy who was sent forth with orders.
I was referring to what Joshua did before Moses died, but I know Joshua was Moses' successor as human leader of the nation. I probably said it earlier in this thread, but at any rate, I'm aware of the change.
It's common in the GNT for texts to be reappropriated. Paul does it often in Romans and we even see him doing the same thing in Acts. As the WT has pointed out, there's a difference between the contextual application of a verse and its principled application. But with Paul, he was full of holy spirit, so he spoke with apostolic authority. Hebrews 1:6 applies an OT verse to Christ that originally applied to Jehovah and so does Heb. 1:10-12. The same thing probably happens in Romans 10:13-15.
But was Hebrews designed to convince Hebrews? - this is the big question. The audience for the Pauline letters, is it the same?
Kel -
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/numbers12_8.html
ἀπόστολος occurs one time in the LXX, at 1 Kings 14:6. It's associated with the shaliach idea and the men well-known for this office were the Twelve selected by Jesus. But he is God's shaliach and identified as high priest in 3:1 along with being ἀπόστολος. A number of people in the Tanakh were sent with orders--as envoys. Not just Joshua. Moreover, Hebrews draws from Numbers and Psalms, not only Deuteronomy.
Yes, I agree that Hebrews has multiple foci like other books.
I was going by this:- https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=lxx&strongs=g652
https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?id=3188949&url=article
Moses As Priest and Apostle: https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004311695/B9789004311695_005.xml
I'm taking a break and will check later to see replies:
Not saying Pauline audience is the same: did you read the Third Mill article about Hebrews? I agree with them that the "Hebrews" were Jewish Christians. That is a fairly common view although not the only one.
Notice on BLB that Thayer does mention 1 Kings 14:6 in the LXX. Right? :-)
When I said Hebrews alludes to Numbers, I had Numbers 12 in mind. 12:7 is pretty clear: Hebrews 3 is drawing on that verse.
See Joshua 1:13 - who's rest Vs Hebrews 4:8?
Also Josh 24:29.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/108821.pdf
Pg 112 - Moses as a priest, he is clearly presented fulfilling many of the functions of a priest; indeed he 'fills in' when Aaron fails (Ex. 32-4).
94 - Only once throughout biblical literature is Moses called, 'priest' (Ps. 99: 6). It is contentious whether the term is used here in a technical sense; cf. Levine (1989: 49 - Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society).); for a different view, cf. Gray (1971: 179-270 - Sacrifice in the Old Testament ([1925: Oxford]; Second Edition; New
York: Ktav))."
Thanks for the additional info, Duncan. For Joshua 1:13, see 1:12: Joshua is addressing those words to someone else, not talking aabout his own rest. Heb. 4:8 similarly speaks of Joshua giving others rest, not giving himself rest, although he too received it.
Did the rest allude to death? I don't think that's the rest that Heb. 4:8 is talking about: again, we're talking about a rest that Joshua is giving to others--ultimate provided by Jehovah. I'm just making an inference about your meaning based on the last verse you cited. Maybe that's not what you're claiming.
That's not the point I was trying to make. The rest comes from god but spoken of by Moses, NOT Joshua.
I admitted that I wasn't sure of your point. I tried to interpret it charitably, but you didn't provide enough details for me to understand your intent. Joshua 1:13 applies to someone other than Joshua, but he's speaking those words, and 24:29 mentions Joshua's death. Hence, my original confusion at your point.
Yes, Moses speaks of the rest which comes from God, but Joshua led them to that rest and spoke to Israel about it. That is why Heb. 4:8 refers to Joshua.
Sorry about the ambiguity but I thought we were on one trajectory. The other scripture is not focusing on Joshua's death but on the title he was also given - the servant of the lord.
It just does not work, as it was not Joshua who gave or declared that rest - what about Joshua 21:44 & 45?
I was confused because of not being sure what your point was, plus this thread started about Genesis 1:1 before moving to Hebrews 1:6 and so forth, so there have been many digressions here. Hard to keep up when that happens :)
Thanks for clarifying the previous remarks.
You mention that Joshua was servant of the LORD, but Hebrews 3:1-6 maintains that Moses was a servant in Jehovah's house, but Jesus is a Son over God's house. So, 3:1-6 does not depict Jesus as a servant, but contrasts him with God's ancient servant Moses. This is not to say that Christ is not the Servant of YHWH, but Hebrews depicts him as high priest and Son of God, not as Jehovah's servant.
I'm not denying that Jehovah gave Israel rest, but how did he give them rest? Was it not through Joshua, who brought them into the land of Promise?
Going back to Heb. 4:8, after reading it more closely, it denies that Joshua gave Israel rest. I needed to read it more attentively before I commented. Therefore, I now see that it says Joshua did not give Israel rest; however, while Joshua did not give the nation ultimate rest, he was God's agent for providing that rest. See also Joshua 11:23.
"nation ultimate rest" - I would be interested to know any scriptural refences that back that up.
If there aren't any then it would lead me to think that this was written after 70ce.
Regarding the rest, Joshua 1:13-15 is important regarding the two sides of the river - those with and without rest.
Post a Comment