Is Jehovah God sparing/parsimonious when it comes to giving his servants the holy spirit? I think enough scriptures assure us that God is not selfish, stinting or sparing, but he gives the holy spirit generously to those who obey him and sincerely ask for the spirit. See Matthew 7:7-11; Luke 11:13; Acts 5:32; Titus 3:5-6; James 1:5.
Cambridge Dictionary: sparingly-"in small amounts, or without wasting any"
In addition to the verses above, I want to focus on Ephesians 5:18 (ESV): "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,"
(HCSB): "And don’t get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but be filled by the Spirit"
Greek (SBLGNT): καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι
This blog entry will concentrate on the latter part of Ephesians 5:18. How should it be rendered, and is there any significance to translating it one way rather than another? As you see above, ESV prefers "but be filled with the Spirit" while HCSB opts for "but be filled by the Spirit."
Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, (WB Commentary Series) offers these comments:
"The use of ἐν with πληροῦσθαι in an instrumental sense is unusual (cf. also Abbott, 161–62; J. A. Robinson, 204; Schnackenburg, 242 and n. 598). Believers are to be filled by the Spirit and thus also filled with the Spirit. The idea of being filled with the Spirit recalls that of being filled up to all the fullness of God in 3:19 and that of the Church as the fullness of Christ in 1:23 (cf. also 4:13). Clearly, the Spirit mediates the fullness of God and of Christ to the believer."
Lincoln thinks Ephesians 5:18 communicates the idea that believers should be filled "by the Spirit" and in that way, they will be filled "with" the Spirit. He mentions that ἐν could be employed with πληροῦσθαι instrumentally (i.e., "with the Spirit"), but that would be "unusual." According to the NET Bible, it would be so unusual because, "There are no other examples in biblical Greek in which ἐν + the dative after πληρόω indicates content." This point along with the context might suggest a strong case for Paul meaning, "be filled by the Spirit/spirit." Unfortunately, NET dwells on the purported Trinitarian overtones of the passage, but I'm trying to think about Bible translation without bringing those issues into play. What does the lexical data suggest?
J.P. Heil (Ephesians, page 230) offers the rendering, "And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is dissipation, but be filled in the Spirit." Why does he opt for this rendition?
As with many other matters, these exegetical issues cannot be settled in a blog post, but there is good reason to answer the question in the title of the post, negatively. While I don't believe that Ephesians 5:18 depicts the Spirit/spirit as the agent doing the filling, it does appear that the agent could be either Christ or his Father, Jehovah based on the texts above. In either case, the ultimate credit for sending the spirit or giving holy spirit to the people of God goes to Jesus' Father (Acts 2:32-33). He does not give the holy spirit sparingly.
Tuesday, November 29, 2022
Does Jehovah God Give the Holy Spirit Sparingly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
314 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 314 of 314Why a masculine pronoun to translate John 1:3 is not a mistranslation: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/22785/in-john-11-3-translated-pronouns-as-him-or-it-neuter-or-masculine
https://biblehub.com/greek/eite_1535.htm
This is the term that is the fly in the ointment. Ta panta is qualified by this. It is not open.
Irrelevant Duncan. He still needs to exists before humanity/human civilisation. That's the point.
John1:10NKJ"He was in the world(part of humanity), and the world(humanity) was made through Him, and the world(humanity) did not know Him." It does not help your case.
I have been looking into the prologue translation. Turns out that the term in question means neither "it" or "him" and is best translated as "that". "That" as can be applied to a person or a thing and in that respect does not even need to be translated into English. It can be omitted. In this case logos can be treated the same as in other places that it is used. Discussion regarding "pros" is a red herring as it is used elsewhere and never means facing or face to face.
Bit of leap isn't it? Especially if we make the world humanity (a view I'm inclined to agree with) being in the world would then mean being human. When was this ever true of the Father?
John1:10-12"He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11He came to His [c]own, and His [d]own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [e]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: "
Clearly referring to the logos in his humanity.
Some commentaries claim the Ta Panta here is "angelic beings and human government". Edgar gave me a historic quote that could be understood that way, however I think it is a couple of centuries removed. What I need to do now is investigate Roman political parlance of the period and see how it compares. Religion and state were basically treated as one and the same so "Cesar is Lord" may be just one of many politically dependent terms that include a heavenly aspect.
On the point of good translation and not necessarily using the original terms:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The word was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through the word, and apart from the word nothing came to be that has come to be.
Anything else is embellishment based on pre-understanding/assumption.
Zec 7:3 LXX λέγων πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῗς τοὺς
I have extracted this list from a blog, I will have to trawl it as time permits:-
[1] Christopher Bryan, Render to Caeser: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower (Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 11.
[2] Wati Longchar, “Together Towards Life: Mission FROM the Margins – Implications for Theological Education” Yu-Shan Theological Journal No. 24, 21-38 at 25.
[3] Neil Elliott, “Anti-Imperial Message of the Cross” in Richard Horsley ed. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1997), 167.
[4] “On the Cross these stupid powers displayed for all to see the one secret that they had to keep if they were to retain their power, the secret of founding violence.” Robert Hamerton Kelly, Sacred Violence: Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Cross (Mineapolis: Fortress, 1992), 85.
[5] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1133078918767026176.html.
[6] Marianne Sawicki, Crossing Galilee: Architectures of Contact in the Occupied Land of Jesus (London: Bloomsbury, 2000), 158.
[7] Robert Williamson Jr. “The Politics of Scripture: Fishers for a New Kingdom – Mark 1: 14-20” https://politicaltheology.com/fishers-for-a-new-kingdom-mark-114-20-robert-williamson-jr-2/?fbclid=IwAR1ahI0avbmbDaxoua70MqnG9NbdsEcnm2_Igw69d9lDMPihMi89N3JHRwM#.WlzD4HMFFfo.facebook.
[8] N.T. Wright, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” in Ricahrd A. Horsley ed. Paul and Politics (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2006), 161-162.
[9] Warren Carter, “Roman Imperial Power: A New Testament Perspective,” in Jeffrey Brodd and Johnathan L. Reed eds. Rome and Religion: A Cross- Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 138.
[10] Joerg Rieger, Christ and Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 31.
[11] Joerg Rieger, Christ and Empire, 29.
[12] Cynthia Briggs Kittredge and Claire Miller Colombo, “Colossians,” in Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Wisdom Commentary 51 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2017), 146.
[13] The Roman imperial ideology perceived the Roman Emperor as the true sovereign God. See Arthur M. Wright, Jr., The Governor and King: Irony, Hidden Transcripts, and Negotiating Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2019), 59-62.
[14] As cited in Klaus Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 47.
[15] Although the term Father has resonance with Second Temple Judaism there is an interpretation that this has been co-opted from the Roman imperial context. As Adam Winn elaborates; “There is no attempt here to deny such Jewish significance. But when this language was read by Greeks and Romans, it no doubt called to mind, at least for some, the unavoidable imperial realities through which they daily saw this language (e.g., on Roman coins, Roman temples, Roman public inscriptions). Instead of choosing one background over another, interpreters might be better served to recognize the multivalent nature of this language that makes it useful for contrasting the kingdom of the God of Israel with Rome’s empire.” Adam Winn, “Striking Back at the Empire: Empire Theory and Responses to Empire in the New Testament” in Adam Winn ed. An Introduction to Empire in the New Testament (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016), 7.
[16] Loveday Alexander, “Ancient Book Production and the Circulation of the Gospels”, in Richard Bauckham ed. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 86.
[17] Scot McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2018), 2.
[18] Harry O. Maier, “A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire” in Journal for the study of the New Testament 27/3 (2005), 323-349 at 349.
[19] Scot McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 132.
[20] Matthew E. Gordley, New Testament Christological Hymns: Exploring Texts, Contexts, and Significance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2018), 136.
[21] Mark S. Medley, “Subvesrive Song: Imagining Colossians 1:15-20 as a Social Protest Hymn in the Context of Roman Empire” in Review and Expositor 116/4 (2009), 421-435 at 428.
[22]https://outoftheearth.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/magnificat-mary-sings-resistance/?fbclid=IwAR3wXF2cwuh6o_jrpg80FbLOEWdrqVRlY5oBU4rDK3DrPzklLjfKg8uAtaI.
[23] Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 84.
[24] Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed, 83.
[25] Carter further proposes that “this remembering as a form of self-presentation and purposeful self-assertion defines Jesus-believers and is to empower the living of God’s purposes that are at odds with and resisted by Rome’s world.” Warren Carter, John and Empire (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 115.
[26] Scot McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 149.
[27] Judith A. Diehl, “Anti-Imperial Rhetoric in the New Testament,” in Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, eds. Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2013), 66.
[28] Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Referential Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 47.
[29] John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 142-43.
[30] As cited in Scot McKnight, The Letter to the Colossians, 154.
[31] George Zachariah, “Church without Walls: Church Happening in the Streets” https://www.academia.edu/2644195/Church_without_Walls_Church_Happening_in_the_Streets.
[32] Ched Myers, “Jesus’ Risen, Mutilated Body” https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/jesus-risen-mutilated-body?fbclid=IwAR1AM2THZlzVFJDuW4Crj9LLIvIg40A6GUaFwAfu6lKHmMSu4f_cbS2dl-w.
[33] Eph 2:14-17; 4:3; 6:15, 23; Phil 4:7, 9; Col 3:15.
[34] This is particularly visible in the Gospel of John. In the Gospel of John, Christ is not mocked (unlike in the Synoptic Gospels) by the soldiers while putting a crown of thorns on His head. (John 19:2). The author seems to emphasize the concreteness of the coronation of Christ.
[35] Robert Hamerton Kelly, Sacred Violence, 82
[36] Harry O. Maier, “A Sly Civility: Colossians and Empire”, 348.
[37] John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed, In Search of Paul (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2004), 11.
[38] Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed, 84.
Regarding footnote 27.
v. 16 For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities all things were created through him and for him.
“The poem . . . declares that a new and different kingdom exists, and that it is ruled by One who forgives, redeems, reconciles and establishes peace, not only on earth but also in heaven. Greater than everything ‘visible and invisible’, this Ruler surpasses all ‘thrones or powers or rulers or authorities’ and existed before any human ruler. These are bold and risky words from a man already imprisoned in the empire (Col 4:10)."
the "existed before any human ruler" is still an assumption imposed.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/in-romans-819-what-is-the-meaning-of-%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%82
Duncan, with all love and respect, I don't know where you read the point about autou being translated as "that" instead of "him" or "it," but please explain to me how a pronoun that can be masculine or neuter grammatically/morphologically can't be rendered as either "him" or "it." The word "that" is demonstrative and Greek has words for to indicate demonstrativity such as houtos. Whoever is saying that autou can't be rendered in the ways mentioned above is propagating misinformation.
As for pros, so much has been written about pros ton theon in John 1:1b. The Logos being "face to face" is certainly a possible meaning for the preposition. And in the rendering you offered, how does that work to not render the pronouns in the unit? And to say that John 1:1c could not be rendered any differently without it being embellishment just strikes me as wrong.
In your translation, you render houtos as "the word." How is that a literal translation, since as we've discussed before, houtos is "this" or "this one"?
While I disagree with his theology, please note what AT Robertson writes about the grammar of John 1:1b in his WP work:
With God (προς τον θεον). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Προς with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of προς: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (παρακλητον εχομεν προς τον πατερα). See προσωπον προς προσωπον (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of προς. There is a papyrus example of προς in this sense το γνωστον της προς αλληλους συνηθειας, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of προς here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koine, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has παρα σο the more common idiom.
I'm not saying Robertson's is the only explanation but I think he shows the "face to face" understanding is possible. I have not checked BDAG yet.
Anthony Thiselton, Systematic Theology, page 253:
The phrase “was with God” (Gk. ēn pros ton theon, John 1:1)
means strictly “face to face with God.” Danker calls it a “marker of
closeness of relation or proximity.”114 The prologue also stresses, as Paul
does, Christ’s role as mediate Creator: “All things came into being
through him, and without him not one thing came into being” (1:3).
BTW, I'm locking thsi thread at 300 or less comments. It's long since jumped the track on the subject of the OP :-)
From the JFB Commentary, section on Job. IT concerns parallelism:
The chief characteristic of Hebrew poetry is parallelism, or the correspondence of the same ideas in the parallel clauses. The earliest instance is Enoch's prophecy (Jude 14), and Lamech's parody of it (Ge 4:23). Three kinds occur: (1) The synonymous parallelism, in which the second is a repetition of the first, with or without increase of force (Ps 22:27; Isa 15:1); sometimes with double parallelism (Isa 1:15). (2) The antithetic, in which the idea of the second clause is the converse of that in the first (Pr 10:1). (3) The synthetic, where there is a correspondence between different propositions, noun answering to noun, verb to verb, member to member, the sentiment, moreover, being not merely echoed, or put in contrast, but enforced by accessory ideas (Job 3:3-9). Also alternate (Isa 51:19). "Desolation and destruction, famine and sword," that is, desolation by famine, and destruction by the sword. Introverted; where the fourth answers to the first, and the third to the second (Mt 7:6). Parallelism thus often affords a key to the interpretation. For fuller information, see LOWTH (Introduction to Isaiah, and Lecture on Hebrew Poetry) and HERDER (Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, translated by Marsh). The simpler and less artificial forms of parallelism prevail in Job--a mark of its early age.
For more on pros ton theon in John 1:1b, see also https://www.bsw.org/filologia-neotestamentaria/vol-21-2008/a-grammatical-analysis-of-john-1-1/525/article-p101.html
HebrewNKJ"And:
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens(the new creation?) are the work of Your hands.
11They will perish, but You remain..."
Hebrews1:2NKJV"has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the [b]worlds; (lit.ages.)all who were saved by Christ knew him at John he is maker of a world that did not know him there is simply no spiritualising that away. Note here he was before the beginning of the ages of
(of mankind?) have it your way but this is not about anything spiritual
Isn't face to face something like prosopon pros prosopon?
Servant, just like genesis, in the beginning does not equal at the beginning. With genesis the beginning encompasses all that follows. In John it is the same, pre and post the word becoming flesh. The word becomes flesh at Jesus baptism. Jesus then speaks the father's words. The words that the "Jews" do no understand. The light does not reach them.
Duncan, please see the AT Robertson quote I posted. He shows that while face to face can be said another way, that does not negate Greek having an idiom that cod be rendered face to face. With idioms, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Like, that's par for the course.
https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/exodus/33-11.html
There is more than one way to say things in Greek and Latin, right? Just like English
Those papers can spout as much bunk as they like regarding pros and try to give some special significance but the usage says otherwise.
https://biblehub.com/greek/pros_4314.htm
How do you think Robertson and others who say it can mean "face to face" came up with the idea? They examined uses of pros and how it's used with the accusative case, in particular. Robertsonson knew about prosopon pros prosopon. He includes that in his comments on John 1:1b and yet he still said pros ton theon can mean "face to face" with God.
I've pointed out how idioms work, and besides, I'm just talking about what the phrase could/can mean. Not what it does mean.
People who write journal articles, lexica, grammars, monographs, and commentaries might be biased, but most of them do know Greek and know it well.
Just looked up the supposed quote in M&M and immediately afterward is says to compare John 6:52.
Also, part is in brackets which I think usually means it's missing and is filled with an educated guess. So we have no context, shaky wording and only a single supposed example. I call it clutching at straws.
All papers I have seen roll out this single "example".
The person I asked regarding "him" and "it" is a Greek speaker and it's my mistake, they did say "this" not "that". I must have had an idiom in my head at the time - "this and that" ;)
Houtos and Autos tell us nothing. There is nothing to indicate a person is in view. That's pure eisegesis. Just like trying to connect logos in Revelation with the term in John and vice versa. It's circular and dangerous. John 1:4 & 1:5 tells us what we need to know about this gospels theme.
Duncan, if you're talking about the brackets in Moulton-Milligan, it's more than it than you suggest. That lexicon chiefly deals with Greek in the papyri, which often are broken up and fragmentary. Hence, the brackets but it's usually more than an educated guess. Besides, other works now supersede M-M.
With all due respect to your Greek speaker, sorry if he/she needs to brush up on ancient Greek grammar, but one thing houtos and autou tell us is that grammatically, the first one is masculine and the second form can be masculine or neuter grammatically. I'm not saying this necessarily transfers to the real world in terms of the Logos has to be ontologically masculine or neuter (for that matter), but if someone denies that either pronoun is grammatically masculine or neuter, then I suggest an intro in Greek morphology. :-)
And my comments did not pertain to establishment personhood but this whole time I've just been addressing the translation issue for those who think autou can't be translated "him." They're just wrong. But I've acknowledge that autou could be rendered "it." However, that wouldn't necessarily tell us anything about the ontos of the Logos either. These are grammatical categories. Maybe I should start a grammar teaching business :-))
I disagree with your take on connecting Revelation with John and what John 1:4-5 tells us, but that will likely get us nowhere, so I'm going to grab some low carb ice cream. Cheers.
should be "to the establishment of personhood."
Also, I remember an example of houtos in Plato's Symposium where the pronoun is handled this way: "That guy" or something to that effect. Still, masculine, feminine and neuter are grammatical categories: I am not trying to make a huge jump from grammar/morphology to ontology/metaphysics.
Btw, as I think you know, this is a near/proximate demonstrative whereas that is a remote demonstrative/
Duncan, I'm getting like you :-)
Although I did say that houtos could be translated "that guy" or something to that effect, I should have said "this guy." That guy would be ekeinos.
Let me just say that the person I discussed this with put it this way. Logos is masculine and a rock is feminine, that's just the way that Greek works (I know it's the same in french - a dog is masculine and cat feminine).
Normally this is not relevant in an English translation, why make it relevant now?
Ok, so we might call a ship, "she" but this is not generally part of the English language and anyone speaking Greek knows these for what they are.
"Besides, other works now supersede M-M." - I am happy to see some other examples then?
"BTW, I'm locking this thread at 300 or less comments. It's long since jumped the track on the subject of the OP :-)"
- apologies Edgar, that was my fault for asking questions in here, where in hindsight probably wasn't appropriate. Hope you can understand where I was coming from though, fascinated by the bible but would rather not be overwhelmed by something that cant be found in scripture.
The only verse I can really throw in here (If I'm following this convo correctly) is Matt 22:43.
The case for Jesus' pre - existance is very strong (whether one will admit it or not, In this case I agree with the Witnesses) even looking at other writings besides the bible proves that the idea wasn't foreign in NT times - you also have the parallels of the prologue found throughout the bible where similar statements are bought up.
again if I'm following correctly:
How can something other than a "person" be "pros ton theon"? - in what other case would that make sense?
The same "Word" mentioned in 1:1 is again said in 1:14 to "become flesh" (compare parallel in Phil 2)
"The son of man" - is also said to ascend to heaven, some take this too mean Jesus ascended as "flesh" however this is clearly wrong due to other clauses which say that is not possible. "Son of man" can be the (Hebrew)idiom but in Jesus' case since he is the only occurrence with the article used before it, I get the feeling it means "Messiah" or something along those lines. This would make sense as people late describe seeing Jesus in heaven at Gods right hand. + (John 6:62) “ascending to where he was before” - Where was Jesus before he was apparently born a man? (Check NWT for cross references of similar wording)
again I apologise if I haven't followed this conversation correctly.
John 1:6 - Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος,
This is quite clear, so John is known to be a He/Him.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/360500511.pdf
Foot note - 132 Summaries of scholarly interpretative trends can be found in Carr, Angels and Principalities: 1-2; Peter. T. O’Brien ‘Principalities and Powers and their Relationship to the Structures’, RTR 40 (1981), 1-4. Expanded somewhat in ‘Principalities and Powers: Opponents of the Church’, in Biblical Interpretation and the Church, (ed. D.A. Carson; Exeter: Paternoster, 1984), 111-128.; Arnold, Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians. (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1989), 42-51; Andrew T. Lincoln, "Liberation from the Powers: Supernatural Spirits or Societal Structures?" in The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson. JSOTSup Vol: 200. (Edited by M. Daniel. Carrol, David J. A. Clines, and Peter R. Davies; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 335, 338-348. Robert E. Moses also gives an overview of the 4 major interpretive trends in Powerful Practices: Paul's Principalities and Powers Revisited. (ThD diss.: Divinity School of Duke University, 2012), 6-44.
Just noticed something - Luke 17:26 - John 15:26 - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Comforter - https://www.gotquestions.org/Noah-comfort.html - John 1:32
Duncan, what the Greek speaker told you about gender is on the money, but I've been saying this for years on the blog. logos is masculine, sophia is feminine, and pneuma is neuter, but these are grammatical categories. We should not necessarily make ontological inferences. I've said this for years on this blog 😃
Anonymous, I understand why you brought up the issue. No worries and I agree with you on pre existence. I like Servant's point about Hebrews 1:10-12 too.
Servant, create and make are two different words in Hebrew.
Ephesians 1:4 - is this what you are referring to? or not quite what you had in mind ;)
3 and a half years of ministry laid the foundation of the world.
If you are referring to the NT regarding "foundation" this relates to ktesis and the act of building & creating city states full of people.
I have found many more foundation stones throughout the Roman and Greek empires that refer to "creation" in regards to cities.
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/morphetheou.html
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Heb1_10.html
You have been saying it for years but my point still stands - its bad translation to use it in English unless you have a very solid reason for doing so. The word becoming flesh is not a good reason. It does not say the word became a person or the word became Jesus. This is the very definition of eisegesis.
http://www.newhumanityinstitute.org/pdfs/john-theme-new-creation-&-new-exodus.pdf
For the word becoming flesh - see Jeremiah 32:26 & John 20:22.
Duncan, you're confusing the issue again. My argument this whole time has been about translation and grammar, not whether the Logos is really a person or not. Him is not a bad translation in this case because the pronoun could be either masculine or neuter but Logos is masculine. So whether one thinks the Logos is a person or not is not the main point. The issue is that Logos is clearly masculine grammatically and autou refers to the masculine noun. So why translate a masculine reference as "it"? If Logos was not masculine, okay, then go for "it." But Unitarians want to render a masculine/pronoun combine with "it," when any other time, they probably would not do things this way. I repeat, the issues I'm raising concern grammar. In terms of the grammar, "him" is not a mistranslation.
See Revelation 21:15-17, where a feminine pronoun is used to describe the city of New Jerusalem. In terms of its geopolitical/metaphysical status, a city is an "it." However, John uses a feminine pronoun to reference New Jerusalem. Why?
Whatever the answer to that question, it shows the point I've been trying to make. Translation issues and grammatical issues should be separated from matters of ontology/metaphysics/theology.
Some translation I checked usually translate the feminine pronouns in Rev. 21 with "it." Is that a mistranslation of the feminine pronouns found in that chapter?
Correction - For the word becoming flesh - see Jeremiah 32:27 & John 20:22.
That's me done on this thread. Thanks Edgar.
Info about Moulton-Milligan being updated/replaced:
https://dailydoseofgreek.com/special-editions/revision-and-update-of-moulton-milligan-2/
Link to download of M-M: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjbvLvbr678AhX1mmoFHUjlAPMQFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbiblicalstudies.org.uk%2Fpdf%2Fe-books%2Fmoulton_james-h%2Fvocabulary-of-the-greek-testament_moulton-milligan.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2zcySBbsDAcoX1t_lKqueI
John4:2,3KJV"When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) "
Does verse 1 contradict verse 2?
Would not Jesus or his disciples need to be baptized themselves BEFORE having authority to administer a baptism that was approved by JEHOVAH?
The proper names of cities are often feminine in Biblical Hebrew - just like ships?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/horizons/article/abs/israel-and-ziontwo-gendered-images-biblical-speech-traditions-and-their-contemporary-neglect/2381E3A88E87F267FD5FFA35DAED13F6
So I would have to say that once one knows that the city is Jerusalem or new Jerusalem then it is feminine. With that knowledge then, "it" is an incorrect translation.
But that is the point. Our understanding of the surrounding text tells us a good from a bad translation.
Without that knowledge - The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city gates and walls.
Just fine.
Duncan, to be a little more exact, the word for city (polis) is feminine, so the pronoun fittingly is also feminine, but even Bill Mounce renders the feminine pronoun as "it" in this case. That's an English thing, not a Greek, but the case is similar to ships in English, as you say.
As an example, Revelation 21:11:
KJV: Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
ESV: having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.
Most translations in English choose "it" at Rev. 21:11 and the other places in the chapter. I don't see it as wrong translation but they're trying to convey how we think of cities in English.
For Rev. 21:11, YLT renders: having the glory of God, and her light is like a stone most precious, as a jasper stone clear as crystal,
But then YLT for Rev. 21:22: And a sanctuary I did not see in it, for the Lord God, the Almighty, is its sanctuary, and the Lamb,
Compare https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/21-22.htm
Jeremiah32:27"“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is there anything too hard for Me?"
John20:22NKJV"And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."
Compare:John1:18"No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten [h]Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."
Hebrews 1:2NKJV"has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the [b]worlds(Lit.ages). "
Servant, John 1:18 does not imply that Jesus had seen the father. In fact I am not sure what you are trying to imply with that one?
However the term in Hebrews means worlds and ages but not in the way you think. It's about spheres of influence. Eg. World of sport or the industrial age.
The cause always precedes the effect Duncan he laid the FOUNDATION of the world therefore he must have preceded the world. The world spoken of here is perishable thus we are not speaking of anything spiritual same as in John he MADE the world he subsequently entered thus he must have preceded it, thus we need not address your assault on the lexicon to dismiss this line of reasoning as unsound.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:064ad3c7-bd9e-4a8b-a818-0572b738fc46/files/m24091818edb0b8153f1bb040988143e7
Utterly irrelevant if the world means civilisation then he must preexist civilisation the distinction and between make and create Does nothing for your argument .
Hebrews 1:1-4 - through whom He made the ages
https://youtu.be/fkMzyD_DUi8
The father was in the world.
https://youtu.be/nH1vyKKchco
None of this is helping you,there have been ages since there have been humans Jesus must preexist human civilisation to be in any way the cause of the ages that influence men your desperate farfetched contrivances continue to fail you I'm afraid.my point is that the logos is not an abstraction. he is a son in the image and likeness of his maker.
Genesis1:26NIV"Then God said, “Let US make mankind in OUR image, in our likeness, "
Only living intelligence can serve as a representation of JEHOVAH.
He laid the foundation of the earth Hebrews1:10 earth whether earth refers to the planet or humanity he MUST precede the earth,Duncan that's basic logic.
John6:46ZNIV"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. "
1Kings8:27KJV"“But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!"
Not does not contain Duncan Cannot contain. So if you are saying JEHOVAH visited via a heavenly messenger.
e.g Genesis3:8NIV"And they heard the [c]sound of the LORD God walking in the garden..." all well and good. But clearly "he" refers to the logos.
John1:10NIV"He was in the world, and though the world was made throug(dia) him, the world did not recognize him."
The preposition "dia" (from which is derived the word diameter) suggest instrumentality thus the one spoken of here is not the source of the power and wisdom manifest in the creation but the instrument of that source thus most definitely not the Father
That is what I was also thinking about Trinity Delusion's video: he skipped the fact that John 1:10-11 has to be read in context. 1:10 refers back to 1:3, which is clearly the Logos, not the Father, through whom all things come into being. The Father might have been in the world through Jesus (i.e., representationally), but the verses in question are not talking about that. Okay, that is my last comment on this thread. Cheers.
Luke3:38NIV"the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God." In what way is Jesus the ONLY begotten Son of the GOD?
Duncan, have you ever noticed that a lot of people in the bible are called "Son(s) of God" but not The "Son of God" (The article matters)
read here for further info (I will not go into heavy detail): https://en.calameo.com/read/00636219750a04d78c679
Allin makes a similar argument for Heb 11:7 - however, similar to yourself he forgets (or purposely misleads on) certain points
Issac like Jesus are only begotten in certain senses, Issac because he was supposed to be the sole agent for establishing a covenant.
“And he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son: this mighty faith enabled him to do this, though he was his only begotten son by promise, and in the church’s line, concerning whom he had received so many promises, and in whom only they were to be fulfilled, as that a numerous seed should descend from him, who should inherit Canaan, and through whom Christ was to descend into the world, in whom himself and all nations were to be blessed. Yet faith silenceth reason and natural affection, assureth him God could fulfil his promises by him though he should offer him, as he raised him from a dead body and womb at first, and gave him to him: so he obeyeth God’s word, and offereth him. ”
Matthew poole's Commentary - (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/hebrews/11.htm)
Jesus because he was the only thing directly created by God. also see prov 8:22 -30 (Like it or not the early writers understood this as a symbolic reference to Jesus, the common arguments are fatally flawed)
see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyUlVMERmwU&t=233s&ab_channel=NWTDefended
Anonymous,
Yes the article matters, but in what way?
Jesus - the son of god.
Solomon - son of god.
Jesus - the son of David.
Solomon - son of David.
When it comes to Wisdom - that begins in Job, but you also need to pay attention to books that you may not consider canon. Such as Sirach (ecclesiasticus), where the high priest is also a personification of Wisdom. Even if you do not consider it canon you must recognize when it was written compared with GJohn, considerably earlier.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Wisdom%209%3A1-2&version=NRSVA
I think I am going to leave it at that. I could go further but I get the impression that Edgar (who has been very tolerant) does not really want this discussion here, but I don't know where else to hammer it out. There is much research still to be done. I know that I do not have answers for everything.
I think this covers Sirach:-
https://www.librarything.com/work/533994/book/40616041
Micah5:2NIV"“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans a of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”"
I am fully aware of the hand waving that normally passes for a response to this verse, but at the risk of same I'm going to submit it anyway.
Servant, thanks for your inputs I will go back through the post as this is an important subject. Let me just point out that when quoting Hebrew texts one needs to understand the intricacies and difficulties of translation, for example -
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4163.htm
There may be much commentary and discussion of each word used, especially when it has very few examples.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Bethlehem
https://firmisrael.org/learn/lechem-hebrew-word-bread-biblical-meaning/
But like many of the things I study, I ask ask this type of question - Why was this town/place called the house of bread? Is Jesus being called the Bread of life just coincidental to it or not?
But I think you are going to have to demonstrate the understanding of "origins", for your own peace of mind.
https://biblehub.com/text/micah/5-2.htm
Sorry, looks like I posted to the wrong blog again.
Duncan, I will post your comment to the other thread where you meant for it to go. Thanks.
As predicted
Strong's 4136"Feminine of mowtsa'; a family descent; also a sewer (
Common theme the emptying of the belly. Now if this only referred to his descent from Adam,wouldn't it be trite to mention it after all isn't that true of every man good or not.
It's also true that every man owes his existence to the ancient of days. obviously motsaah here refers to his "exiting the belly" sometime in the ancient past consider.
Proverbs8:24NIV"When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;"
See how the Hebrew for given birth is used at Isaiah51:2.
Such an ancient going forth would make Israel's messiah unique and would be worthy of mentioning.
Once again Edgar thank you for answering the question we got through, not so sound ungrateful, is there a place where I can fire off the last couple? Its fine if not, your assistance has been very much appreacitated
Unknown, you can go ahead in this thread and pose your questions. I just don't want to keep this thread open much longer and I might be busy for the next few days.
Servant, it's all about digging deeper:-
See:- https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/M/mozah.html
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/35-16.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/35-18.htm
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2017-21&version=NRSVUE
These connections are not made in a lexicon.
Unrestrained speculation does not strike me as a reliable approach to sacred research. The bible is its own best expositor Duncan.We abandon the inner logic of the sacred text at our peril.
I hope you are not suggesting that the Micah mentioned in Judges had anything to do with the Micah who wrote the book named after him.
Yes words can be used literally and figuratively and synonyms are a thing
Proper names are often used as an excuse to speculate heedlessly. Who knows what namers really had in mind?
1Peter1:21N8V"For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
The Holy Bible is a single work by the one divine author the men through which the mind of JEHOVAH was documented are but his scribes/clerks,the bible is not comparable in terms of its authority with any other writing however learned it's writers.
Sorry, you are still not paying attention and the relationship between the 2 micah's is interesting but not the point. It is the relationship between Bethlehem (house of bread) Ephrathah (productive) Benjamin (son of the right hand) and his descendants, and a place called "origin" as you like to call it, this is about geography and place names. It is very interesting that both Micah's gravitate to this location, however you are going to have to learn about the problems of differentiating between name and descriptions in Hebrew.
I don't see any synonyms here. Did you even read the actual descriptions of the place name? This is the source of a river or spring in the Ephrathah region.
It's not what what you want to hear, but that place was here centuries before "Micah", one of "the twelve" penned those words.
I don't call that are wreckless at all.
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/mikkedem_6924.htm
Time or Geography?
More abuse of a proper name for purposes of baseless extra biblical speculation.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1404.2021.4
"Further, the book also memorializes Micah as a Moreshite, thus pointing to an outlying agricultural town in the Judean breadbasket of the Shephe lah."
If we go by the sacred text definitely time. I'm afraid that our distinct views of the authority of the sacred text will always prove problematic.
His origin is not from Bethlehem it is from "Olam" strong's definition:long duration, antiquity, futurity:
No "origin (the place) of old" or "origin to the east"
It strange that Matthew 2:6 does not include your point, so who is reaching?
“‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
https://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/16-31.htm
So tell me, what about Sabbath observance, Forever?
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/32-7.htm
Forever?
https://biblehub.com/text/job/22-15.htm
Forever?
https://biblehub.com/text/proverbs/23-10.htm
Forever?
And especially - https://biblehub.com/text/micah/7-14.htm
Forever?
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Micah5_2.html
Kels take on the same verse, however he does not know so much about the Hebrew options, but brings us to a similar place.
What does that have to do with anything? The Micah who wrote the book Micah is a contemporary of the prophet Isaiah thus hundreds of years post the the Micah of Judges. Assuming that that rather tendentious claim is what you are getting at.
We have now exceeded 300 comments on this thread, so I'm going to close it within the next hour. I am not jumping into the Micah 5:2 discussion and I understand how Socinians/Unitarians want to interpret the passage. I would just suggest reading Hebrew scholars who have given Micah 5:2 lots of philological attention. See James May (OTL series), Bruce Waltke on Micah and Elizabeth Achtemeier on the Minor Prophets. Many others have writen about this verse. Also compare Psalm 90:2. Granted, olam does not always mean "forever" or that a thing will go on without end.
There was a brief discussion here concerning Micah 5:2-https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/03/micah-52-ancient-days-and-first.html
When did I ever say that Olam necessarily meant forever?
Olam means east? We all originate from places of antiquity why would something so trite rate a mention? Absence of mention does not equal mention of absence.
Here's the thing first century Israel was full of ancient settlements. So someone being born in a town or village with a long history would be the very definition of unremarkable.
Servant, I am tired of being charitable, you seem to be purposely misreading anything I put up. I said 2 Micah's didn't I? The fact that they seem to be from the same geographical location is interesting, that is all - as I again already said.
You did not interact with anything I have said.
וְאַתָּ֞ה בֵּֽית־לֶ֣חֶם אֶפְרָ֗תָה צָעִיר֙ לִֽהְיוֹת֙ בְּאַלְפֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֔ה מִמְּךָ֙ לִ֣י יֵצֵ֔א לִֽהְי֥וֹת מוֹשֵׁ֖ל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וּמוֹצָאֹתָ֥יו מִקֶּ֖דֶם מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃
And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath,aThe clan to which the Bethlehemites belonged; see 1 Sam. 17.12; Ruth 1.2; 4.11.
Least among the clans of Judah,
From you one shall come forth
To rule Israel for Me—
One whose origin is from of old,
From ancient times.
Rashi connects the last part to psalm 72 -
May his name be eternal;
while the sun lasts, may his name endure;-b
let men invoke his blessedness upon themselves;
let all nations count him happy.
18Blessed is the LORD God, God of Israel,
who alone does wondrous things;
[Jdg 6:14-16 NLT] (14) Then the LORD turned to him and said, "Go with the strength you have, and rescue Israel from the Midianites. I am sending you!" (15) "But Lord," Gideon replied, "how can I rescue Israel? My clan is the weakest in the whole tribe of Manasseh, and I am the least in my entire family!" (16) The LORD said to him, "I will be with you. And you will destroy the Midianites as if you were fighting against one man."
I think Micah 5:2 is done, however you look at it. Thanks Edgar.
Not a New Testament Exercise
Finally, it should be emphasized that neither Jesus nor any other author of the New Testament went back into the Old Testament (Tanach) to find proofs or hints that Jesus is pre-existant. Such efforts are totally foreign to the New Testament. Finding proofs of
Jesus’ pre-existence in the Old Testament is not a New Testament exercise. It is not a biblical exercise. Finding hints or proofs of Jesus’ deity in a passage like Micah 5:2 is an activity of men beginning in the centuries after the New Testament was written. Jesus and the Apostles never appealed to the Old Testament to show Messiah’s pre-existence. Rather, Jesus and the apostles appealed to the Old Testament to show the suffering, death, burial, resurrection and exaltation - of the man descended from David, Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah - to the right hand of God Almighty (Luke 24:26-27, 44-46; Acts 2:22-36, 3:18, 10:30, 17:2, 31, etc.). Even John does not make these kind of appeals.
Okay, I had to clock into work before I could close the thread, but I just want to say a couple of things, then lock it. I'm sure these issues will arise again in the future and I'm contemplating a thread about Phil. 2:6ff.
@servant, you might have been addressing Duncan about olam, but I did not mean to imply you thought olam always meant forever. I concur with the way you understand Micah 5:2.
Why people find preexistence so remarkable strikes me as odd, but not everybody thinks the same way. To reduce Jesus to a man and no more than that misses the point of the NT, even if someone thinks he was a man with miraculous beginnings.
Post a Comment