My experience has been that most commentators writing today, even if they're Trinitarian, don't view Mark 5:6 as an example of worship or adoration. I've posted material from the NET Bible and Ralph Earle previously, but here's another scholar who takes the position that Mark 5:6 is not an example of Jesus receiving worship:
Robert A. Guelich (WB Commentary on Mark 1-8:26): Seeing Jesus “at a distance” (καὶ ἰδὼν . . . ἀπὸ μακρόθεν), he “ran” (ἕδραμεν) and “bowed” (προσεκύνησεν) before him. This verse resumes the action of 5:2 by describing in greater detail the encounter between Jesus and the possessed man. Yet this encounter hardly sets the stage for conflict or a struggle (cf. Robinson, Problem, 83–86). The man not only takes the initiative but does so as though urgently drawn by Jesus (cf. 1:23). Certainly, his “bowing,” though most likely not an act of “devotion” (so Lohmeyer, 95), betrays his recognition and acknowledgement of Jesus as his superior (cf. 3:11). And this submissive gesture of recognition stands in stark contrast to the previous description of one totally uncontrollable (5:3–4) and accents Jesus’ power to do what none before had accomplished.
Friday, October 15, 2021
Robert A. Guelich on Mark 5:6
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
yeah, I've never seen this verse used as an argument for high christology ... for very good reason.
I agree, but never underestimate Trinitarians :-)
They can spot Jesus' deity in the least little act or word. You know, like "I exist."
In all seriousness, there are many scholarly Trinitarians.
Absolutely, and I have high respect for many of them, but there are bad apologetics dresssed up as scholarship sometimes. :).
I have heard good arguments for the trinity, none of them rely on strict exegesis of the New Testament though, or the claim that the first christians were trinitarians.
Indeed, there are schloarly Trinitarians. Why is it that all the major Greek lexicons are produced by Trinitarians and none by Unitarians? I think it is because either they know better not to produce one because then they would realize that the Lord Jesus is God, or if they did produce one and tried to erase all reference from this fact they would totally embarrass themselves.
Roman: You hit the nail on the head. I undertook a study of the Trinity years ago, and what I found is that much of the support for the doctrine has nothing/little to do with Scripture, but instead, metaphysical trappings. For instance, John 1:1 supposedly buttresses the Trinity doctrine if one presupposes that the Word is God the Son (second person of the Trinity) and "God" in 1:1b is the Father (i.e., the first person of the Trinity) but the anarthrous theos in 1:1c refers to God understood definitely or if that doesn't work, then construe theos in 1:1c as qualitative or a mass noun. But they load these verses with all kinds of metaphysical presuppositions.
FR: I made it clear that my comment was tongue in cheek: I would never deny that many Trinitarians are scholarly, no doubt about it. Do you really think a Unitarian could not produce a major lexicon? You do realize that some major lexica are produced by scholars who are not that religious at all or they're mildly religious. If you understood the history of Trinitarianism, then maybe you'd know why more lexica aren't made by Unitarians.
Do you really believe that Unitarians aren't aware of all the Christologically-significant verses in the Bible? We've read all of them and still are not convinced that Jesus is God. If you think a Witness or Unitarian can't be intellectually honest or a good scholar, you're deceiving yourself.
I'm still waiting for the names of Greek lexicons of the New Testament produced by Unitarians.
Ever heard of Joseph H. Thayer?
Yes, and thanks for mentioning him. Please provide proof that he was a Unitarian.
First of all, why is it up to me to prove he was a Unitarian? Have you ever read his lexicon or researched this scholar?
See https://bibtheo.com/2021/02/28/greeklexicons/
Quote:
Thayer’s can be useful, especially if there are no other options readily available, but be cautious with it. Not only is it antiquated (1901), but Thayer’s own Unitarian theology comes through in some entries. Per the Baker edition of Thayer’s, “A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes” (vii). R. Daly has written a helpful post on Thayer’s at the Biblical Languages Research blog, discussing Thayer’s strengths and weaknesses in some detail.
Because when I asked for a lexicon produced by a Unitarian you gave the name Jospeh H. Thayer. When I asked you for proof your response was asking me why I am asking you for proof. That doesn't make sense.
I am well aware that they asserted Thayer was a Unitarian, but I have never seen proof that he was.
Furthermore, even if he was a Unitarian the lexion that bears his name still teaches the Lord Jesus is God in a few places so referring to him does not help your case at all.
Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form. (NASB)
1. Concerning 'Deity' (theotēs): the state of being God.
http://biblehub.com/greek/2320.htm
1 Peter 2:25
For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls. (NASB)
1. Concerning 'to' (epi: C 2 f): to God
http://biblehub.com/greek/1909.htm
2. Concerning 'Shepherd' (poimēn): of Christ
http://biblehub.com/greek/4166.htm
Revelation 5:12
saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.” (NASB)
1. Concerning 'wisdom' (sophia): supreme intelligence, such as belongs to God: Rev. 7:12, also to Christ, exalted to God's right hand, Rev. 5:12 (sophia).
http://biblehub.com/greek/4678.htm
The Lord Jesus possesses "supreme intelligence" which is the same thing as saying He is omniscient (God).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supreme?s=t
Revelation 22:13
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (NASB)
1. Concerning the Greek word protos (first): the Eternal One, Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13
http://biblehub.com/greek/4413.htm
The Eternal One is "the Alpha and the Omega" and "on the meaning of the phrase cf. Rev. 11.17"
http://biblehub.com/greek/1.htm
Thus, the Lord Jesus is the "Lord God, the Almighty" (cf. Revelation 11:17).
FR, I first thought you were sincere with your remarks but I now feel you're here to push your own agenda which includes putting down JWs. Maybe I'm wrong.
I wondered why you asked me about Thayer's apparent Unitarianism because Google exists and the Introduction for Thayer's lexicon makes the statement about him.
At any rate, you asked me a question and I answered it. We've already been through the other issues. Cheers.
One other thing. Do you know the history of Thayer's lexicon? Not all of the lexical comments represent his personal beliefs. He originally I indicated his thoughts with the help of brackets.
See the comments for firstborn in Thayer: https://biblehub.com/greek/4416.htm
One problem is that the lexicon has been edited or amended.
I go by what is commanded in 2 Corinthians 10:5 to anyone (JW or not) who denies the Lord Jesus is God.
Again, no actual proof that Thayer was a Unitarian. Someone or some people said so, but that is not actual proof. That kind of proof goes poof.
I know Thayer used brackets when eplying brackets. In the citations from the 4 passages I referred to no brackets were used.
Firstborn: "this passage does not with certainty prove that Paul reckoned the λόγος in the number of created beings."
And yet we have 4 passages which teach the Lord Jesus is God - you ignored all of them. It is sad that you had to go back more than a century to find a lexicon and that by one who with no convincing proof he was a Unitarian. For the past 100+ years this is the best Unitarians can refer to? That is a sad state of affairs.
2 Corinthians 10:5 has nothing to do with denying Christ is God.
All we can go by are the writings of Thayer and testimony from his era. It wasn't just someone who said so, but scholarly articles make this claim and the introduction of the lexicon bearing his name. Maybe you could check with the publisher who made the claim. If he wasn't a Unitarian, I will stand to be corrected.
You ignored the part where the lexicon says firstborn in Colossians 1:15 is a partitive genitive and that Christ was brought into being before the created things. Yes, I acknowledge the quote you mentioned: never denied it. I didn't ignore anything but merely asked you to note what was stated about the partitive, which you ignored, and that Christ was brought into being--which you ignored :-)
I stuck by the reason I asked you to see the link.
You apparently don't know why Unitarians did not produce more lexicons. It's got nothing to do with inability or fear of being exposed. Even secular writers and less than religious people make lexicons plus there are Unitarians with lexical skills; however, Trinitarians have made it difficult for non-Trinitarians to publish with coercion and threats. Very unchristian.
Some of the history of unitarianism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/unitarianism.html
I'll dig deeper on the lexicon issue. Don't gloat yet.
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5 ESV)
See, nothing about Christ being God in this verse. In fact, Paul distinguishes Christ from God here, just like when he writes that "God" raised Christ from the dead.
To obey Christ is to obey the biblical Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5) and the biblical Christ is God.
I don't know if Thayer was a Unitarian or not. You gave his name when I asked about Unitarian lexicons. I wanted proof. If he was then his lexicon in several passages affirms the Lord Jesus is God. If Thayer wasn't a Unitarian then you are down to zero with the number of lexicons of the New Testament produced by Unitarians.
I know what Thayer's say concerning "firstborn". It is not consistent with what is affirmed immediately afterwards. Thus, it cannot be used to justify a position about this word from this passage using this lexicon.
Coercion methods? Are you kidding me. How ridiculous! They have written plenty of books about numerous topics for hundreds of years, but all the while a grand total of zero lexicons because of coercion?! What a joke.
They know if they produced one their false teaching would be exposed, but if they played make believe with how the words of the Bible are properly defined they would be ridiculed (and rightfully so). Thus, they produce nothing.
There isn't a Unitarian from this list?
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2021/09/lexicons-you-need-for-nt-greek-study.html
It's not gloating. It's called setting the record straight.
You assert Christ is God while the bible teaches differently. Usual Trinitarian fare.
One thing you fail to understand about Thayer's Lexicon is he was editing the work of previous lexicographers. Some of the comments were theirs.
Trinitarians have destroyed works, corrupted texts and used violence against many. Start with Richard Rubenstein's When Jesus Became God and read about Michael Servetus. You remember that Calvin had him killed. Plenty others in the mix.
And the jury is out on Unitarian lexicons.
Only 1 verse in the Bible is needed which teaches the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer to prove He is God. Since the Bible teaches quite a few examples of this leaves no doubt that He is God (Acts 7:59; 9:14, 21; 22:16; Romans 10:12-14; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:22; etc.).
It is interesting that the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only God is the proper recipient of prayer.
Good News From God!: Prayer is part of our worship, so we should pray only to our Creator, Jehovah. (Matthew 4:10; 6:9) (page 24)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102012193
They also affirm Jesus is not to be prayed to.
The Watchtower: Should Christians pray to Jesus Christ? No. (Do You Remember?, June 15, 2015, page 32)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015450
However, they also teach the appropriateness of prayer to Jesus.
a. The Watchtower: The prayer offered by Stephen when he was being martyred is recorded at Acts 7:59, 60. (Questions From Readers, February 1, 1959, page 96)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1959086
b. All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial: Paul expresses the prayer that the Lord of peace may give them "peace constantly in every way," and he concludes his letter with greetings in his own hand—2 Thess. 3:16. (page 233)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990114
The "Lord of peace" to whom Paul expresses this "prayer" is the Lord Jesus.
The Watchtower: Even as Jehovah is the God of peace, so his Son, Jesus Christ, is the "Prince of peace," and the "Lord of peace." (Isa. 9:6; 2 Thess. 3:16) (The Christians' Possession of Peace, August 15, 1966, page 486)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1966601
c. Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand!: Thus, with John, we fervently pray: "Amen! Come, Lord Jesus." (page 319)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988044
More examples can be given. One can't blame Trinitarians for the mess the JW's have created for themselves. This holds true for all who deny the Lord Jesus is God.
I didn't originally refer to Thayer's. You did. What was affirmed in the 4 passages I referred to were left without brackets and they all teach Jesus is God.
I know the jury is out on Unitarian lexicons, as in out cold because none were supplied.
FR.
Who makes lexicons isn't really relevant to the question of theology proper or Christology ... if every lexicon was produced by atheists it would do nothing to deomonstrate that God doesn't exist, and if every lexicon was produced by a Roman Catholic it would do nothing to demonstrate the existence of apostolic office ... So I don't know what the point is of that.
I'm not going to go into the specific passages, this has been done a lot, and frankly, picking out Watchtower articles here and there from the past is also irrelevant ... EVEN IF the Watchtower contradicts itself from time to time (which the actually do because generally if they find a position that they once held to be incorrect they change it) that literally says nothing about whether or not the small o orthodox doctrine of the trinity is true or not, even if it was FULL of contraditions, that wouldn't make a difference.
If we take the period after the New Testament, the second and third centuries, you have Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Origen, Tertullian, etc etc ... none of them were homoousian trinitarians, some of them had a kind of economic trinity ... (as did Arius, and the hetero ousians), none of them had an ontological trinity. In patristic scholarship this is pretty much standard ... In fact you don't have and actual fully formed doctrine of the trinity until the Cappedocian Fathers.
Now ... if the NT was so clearly trinitarian (in the orthodox ontological sense) .... why doesn't it show up earlier? Why is basically everyone in the following centuries subordinationist (using terms like deuteros theos for the Logos, saying the Father wasn't always the Father, and constantly applying the LXX version of Proverbs 8 to the pre-incarnate Christ where Sophia is created, saying that only the Father is Autotheos and the Logos's divnity is secondary, etc etc)?
The Fact is the Christological passages, in order to be understood in an orthodox trinitarian way, almost always have to be ripped from their historical/cultural contexts, and molded into frameworks constructed centuries later ... frameworks which were not available to the first Christians or the next couple of generations of Christians, which is why they were all ontological subordinationsts.
The fact is when it comes to early Christology in new testament/Christian origins scholarship, you have the early high Christology crowd ... which just so happens to be almost ENTIRELY made up of anglo-american evangelicals ... and those who follow a more subordinationst line (James McGrath, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen, etc etc) are either secular or not evangelical Christians.
Now I am NOT saying that their scholarship is bad, or that they are not good scholars, what I am saying is that that should AT LEAST raise an eyebrow, and when you look into the arguments themselves you'll notice that they almost inveriably rely on obfuscation, unclarity, and ignoring data.
The point is the ridicule of Trinitarian scholarship despite the fact that there are a grand total of zero lexicons of the New Testament that could be cited which were produced by Unitarians. Thayer's is not definitive and even if it was there are plenty of examples that teach the Lord Jesus is God in this lexicon.
I point out the Watchtower because Edgar is a JW. By their own teachings the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer.
I am going by how words of the Bible are properly defined. Whatever someone from the 2nd or 3rd century believed doesn't much concern me. The Galatian church held unbiblical beliefs. I don't go by the beliefs of what certain Christians think, but instead go by what the Bible affirms.
I have written it before, and I will write it again now - and hopefully you will address it. The fact that the Bible teaches the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer demonstrates He is God. If this were to occur in just one verse is all that is needed to prove this. The fact that the Bible teaches this quite a few times is even more proof that He is God.
FR,
I posted another source written by a Greek scholar, which says Thayer was a Unitarian, and he quotes from the lexicon itself. What you fail to recognize, but Dr. Decker knew, is that Thayer was editing the work of others. So places where he may seem to uphold Christ's deity are likely from the hands of others: Decker points to the entry in Thayer for huios to discern something about his Christology.
The current stand of Jehovah's Witnesses is that Jesus is not the proper recipient of prayer; even when the WT said Christ was the holder of this position, they still did not affirm the full deity of the Son.
You produce no places in the GNT where we're commanded to offer Jesus our prayers. Not one, but I understand.
So in one instance we are to go by what huios means in Thayer's lexicon, but concerning the several others where the Lord Jesus being God is affirmed we are not to go by them?
That is not being consistent at all.
That the WT affirmed the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer, but then insist He isn't God is inconsistent by their own standards of who alone prayer ought to be addressed to.
Whether it is a command or not is irrelevant. The fact is Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer. This proves He is God.
I don't know how else to explain what's happening in Thayer's lexicon. He edited C.G. Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti and put brackets to show hi additions; however, Thayer was later edited, and the brackets were removed. Most of the high Christology (if not all) is not from Thayer's hand. This information is not hard to find.
In 2 Timothy 1:12 'God' is affirmed by Thayer.
to trust in Christ (God), 2 Timothy 1:12
https://biblehub.com/greek/4100.htm
I'm a JW too, being a JW doesn't mean that the watchtower is some kind of magisterium, of unchangable doctrine ... what's true and unchangable is scripture.
biblical words are properly defined by their historical, cultural, and contextual usage ... which means that one has to understand the historical context, the cultural context, the literary context, etc etc ... which includes the early reception history.
BTW, the argument over whether or not Jesus receives prayer doesn't prove much ... it's largely a question of definition, and also it doesn't prove that he is the most-high God either way. All it proves is that Jesus would also be the proper recipient of prayer .... that's IF the NT teaches that (which I don't think it does).
A piece of scriptural evidence you claim proves Jesus is the most-high God only proves that IF the other options of interpretation (which are less metaphysically absurd, i.e. Jesus is the God he serves as the Christ of) are exhausted ... which they certainly are not in this case.
It's interesting to note how many universities have a "trinity college". It seems to me that trinitarian scholarship has some similarities to evolutionary biology papers. Whether the author is particularly of that persuasion or not they have to give the respective dogma the nod in there works (even when it is totally unnecessary and superfluous to the work in hand).
Roman,
You assrted, "the argument over whether or not Jesus receives prayer doesn't prove much..."
On the contrary it proves He is God.
1. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE): To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God who responds to the prayers of his people. (4:1062, Prayer, P. A. Verhoef)
2. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty one with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected. (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss)
3. Judaism 101: G-d is the only being to whom we should offer praise. The Shema can also be translated as "The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone," meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other.
http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm
4. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): The religion of Israel demanded exclusive worship of Yahweh, and therefore all prayer in Israel was necessarily addressed to the one God. It is obvious that this was of decisive importance (2:790, "The Main Features of OT Prayer," euchomai, Herrmann).
1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer which proves He is God.
Theological Lexicon of the New Testament: First Corinthians is addressed to "those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in any place" (1 Cor 1:2), the church being the gathering of those who adore Christ, who celebrate his worship (cf. Ps 145:18) and pray to him from a pure heart. Over and against the religious individualism of the Greek cities, all believers are united in their adoration of Christ as Lord and God; their common "invocation" is the expression of their unity. (2:44, epikaleō)
That said, the Cambridge Greek lexicon I suspect will be devoid of theological comments? Ones produced in the UK by academic teams who are predominantly atheist.
That is how the word epikaleō when used in this passage is properly defined. You don't like this definition because it refutes your false teaching. Here's another example:
A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament: to invoke, to pray to, to worship...of Christ...1 Cor. 1:2 (epikaleō, page 279-280)
Here's a Unitarian.
John Schoenheit: “call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In this context, to “call on the name” of the Lord means to pray to him, to ask him for something. Christians are to call on the name of the Lord Jesus, that is, pray to him for help in life.
http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Commentary/1-Corinthians/Chapter1
Hans Conzelmann (Hermeneia Commentary for 1 Corinthians):
It should be noticed that this "calling upon" is not a prayer. The latter is directed in Paul exclusively to God. To the "Lord" he directs the cultic invocation, and also possibly personal requests (2 Cor 12:8); Bultmann, Theology 1:126-128 [128-130].
Conzelmann is wrong. Strange quotation. Conzelmann is wrong. What does "The latter is directed in Paul exclusively to God" mean?
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): categorizes 1 Corinthians 1:2 epikaleō (call upon) under (#10) "General prayer" (2:874, Prayer, H. Schonweiss, C. Brown).
FR, please don't accuse me of ignoring your remarks: I'm working todsy, so my time is limited. But I wanted to clarify that when Conzelmann says "The latter," he is talking about prayer. He apparently distinguishes calling upon/ on from prayer: Conzelmann writes that prayer only is directed to God in Paul, not to the Lord.
The more I see how ancient Greek writers use epikaleo, I believe the case for prayer to Jesus weakens.
NIDNTT could be wrong.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/epikaleo
Always worth a look.
I just looked up Bill Mounce, he appears to be on the NIV translation committee.
Acts 22:16 is interesting.
Edgar,
In adition to the NIDNTT the TDNT also afrirms it refers to prayer.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): Often in the NT the believer calls on God or Christ, or the name of God or Christ, in prayer (3:497, epikaleō, K. L. Schmidt).
Duncan,
Thanks for citing William Mounce.
Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: Jesus is the addressee when epikaleō is used in the sense of praying (Acts 7:59) (Call, page 93).
I think if mounce meant "pray" he would have written "pray". As per the other works you cite. Is that the case?
Mounce taught Jesus is being prayed to in Acts 7:59.
Just one passage where the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer proves He is God.
You missed my point, EVEN IF Jesus was prayed to (which he wasn't, as has been pointed out to you already, calling on the name of, or callin on is not the same as praying), that wouldn't prove that Jesus was the most-high God ... only that some Christians prayed to God and Jesus ...
Your are incorrect in both assertions. He is prayed to for that is what the word means and by being the proper recipient of prayer does prove He is God.
1. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE): To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God who responds to the prayers of his people. (4:1062, Prayer, P. A. Verhoef)
2. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty one with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected. (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss)
Honestly, if all it takes to resolve a nuanced issue was citing an evangelical dictionary, then what's the point of even talking about the issue?
Because certain people play make believe with what the words of the Bibe mean.
To invoke does not necessarily mean, "offer prayer to a divine person"
See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invoke
Prayer cannot be divorced from this word. From the link you cited:
to ask for aid or protection (as in prayer)
If that is enough see here to stop denying the obvious.
1. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): Often in the NT the believer calls on God or Christ, or the name of God or Christ, in prayer (3:497, epikaleō, K. L. Schmidt).
2. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): categorizes 1 Corinthians 1:2 epikaleō (call upon) under (#10) "General prayer" (2:874, Prayer, H. Schonweiss, C. Brown).
3. A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament: to invoke, to pray to, to worship...of Christ...1 Cor. 1:2 (epikaleō, page 279-280)
4. John Schoenheit: “call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In this context, to “call on the name” of the Lord means to pray to him, to ask him for something. Christians are to call on the name of the Lord Jesus, that is, pray to him for help in life.
http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Commentary/1-Corinthians/Chapter1
5. The Watchtower: If the heart is filled with unclean thoughts or fantasies, how can one call upon Jehovah God in prayer out of a pure heart—1 Tim. 5:2; 2 Tim. 2:22. (Beware of Adulterous Leanings!, September 1, 1973, page 540)
FR, arguing over definitions of English words is misdirected and is not how biblical research is done. 2 Tim. 2:22 is qualified by καθαρᾶς καρδίας so is not the same.
I don't agree with the comments in 4, John Schoenheit may be a Unitarian but others contradict him on a number of points (qualification would be required as context is to some extent subjective), see 1 Cor 1:1 which your link shows. To be called too and to call upon.
That's why I asserted (with plenty of evidence) that epikaleō when used in association with the Lord ('calling on the Lord' or something similar) or in reference to Jesus refers to praying to Jesus.
Post a Comment