Zodhiates, Hasker, and the Question of God's Temporality

In Psalm 90:2, we read that God is “from eternity to eternity” (me olam ad olam); it could be said that Jehovah is “from hidden time to hidden time” (Gesenius). It thus appears that the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures (Tanakh) depict YHWH as a dynamic being within time somehow. Concerning the God of the Hebrews, we read: “temporal categories are inadequate to describe the nature of God's existence” (Zodhiates 2348). Nevertheless, olam when used of the Creator in Ps. 90:2 expresses “the idea of a continued, measurable existence, rather than a state of being independent of time considerations” (2348).  

Moreover, the question regarding how a timeless deity possibly responds to prayer might lend support to the temporal view of God: “For in responding to another it is of the essence that one first acts, then waits for the other to react, then acts responsively, and so on. There seems to be no way this sequence could be collapsed, as it were, into a single timeless moment” (William Hasker in God, Time, and Knowledge, page 156).

See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/06/omniscience-god-and-time.html

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/02/god-time-and-divine-immutability-duncan.html

Recommendations for Books About "Spirit" (Roman)-In Process

Here are some books/publications I own. I'm not going to put them in alphabetical order due to time constraints, but some of these might be helpful for the study of pneumatology:

George Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Cambridge UP, 1970.

Cornelis Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel. Mohr/Siebeck, 2002. 

Roberto Pereyra, "The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul," DavarLogos XIII, 2 (2014): 5-24.

John R. Levison, Filled With the Spirit. Eerdmans, 2009. 

Pieter De Vries, “The Relationship between the Glory of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH in Ezekiel 33-48,” OTE 28/2 (2015): 326-350. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2015/v28n2a7

Gordon D. Fee, God's Empowering presence: the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul. Hendrickson, 1994.

Gitte Buch-Hansen, »It is the Spirit that Gives Life«: A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John’s Gospel. De Gruyter, 2010.

James A. Davis, Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1.18-3.20 Against the Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period. UPA, 1984.

Frank Yin-Chao Lin, "The Significance of the Spirit of Adoption to Christian Life: An Exegetical Study of Romans 8:12-30." Ph.D. Diss., 2017.

Marie E. Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and its Bearing on the New Testament. H. Charlesworth and Co., 1976.

Anthony Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit. Oxford UP, 2012.

JoAnn Davidson, "Power or Person: Nature of the Holy Spirit" (2016). Faculty Publications. 864. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pubs/864

John R. Levison, The Spirit in First-Century Judaism. Brill, 2002.

Comments From Augustine of Hippo on Romans 5:12

Augustine of Hippo has some interesting remarks pertaining to Romans 5:12:

"But if the apostle had wished to assert that sin entered into the world, not by natural descent, but by imitation, he would have mentioned as the first offender, not Adam indeed, but the devil, of whom it is written, that 'he sinneth from the beginning'; of whom also we read in the Book of Wisdom: 'Nevertheless through the devil's envy death entered into the world.' Now, forasmuch as this death came upon men from the devil, not because they were propagated by him, but because they imitated his example, it is immediately added: 'And they that do hold of his side do imitate him.' Accordingly, the apostle, when mentioning sin and death together, which had passed by natural descent from one upon all men, set him down as the introducer thereof from whom the propagation of the human race took its beginning" (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins 1.9).

Nisan 14, 2024

I'm taking a break from blogging today and will not be checking much for comments either. I want to express my desire that fellow Witnesses will have a nice memorial of Jesus' death tonight, and any readers who might be so inclined are welcome to attend the memorial.

Thanks to Jehovah through Jesus Christ for such a blessed and loving act whereby our Lord gave his body in our behalf.

Christian love,
Edgar

I Statements in Logic and Their Contraposed Forms

Logic textbooks traditionally teach about four kinds of categorical statements (i.e., propositions) when discussing the Aristotelian square of opposition: they are A, E, I, and O propositions. The first two are universal statements whereas the last two are particular utterances. I will now explain briefly how I propositions work. These are particular affirmatives:

Example of an I proposition:

A) Some trees are oaks.

But what happens if we contrapose an I proposition? This would entail switching subject and predicate, then adding the complement (a term not belonging to the class) of the switched subject and predicate.

Here is the contraposition of an I proposition:

B) Some non-oaks are non-trees.

What?

Notice that B) is similar to the utterance:

C) Some non-Greeks are non-humans.

C)  is the contraposition of Some humans are Greek.

An interesting result of contraposing an I proposition is that the true value of the statement differs after one does the contraposition; it is not preserved with I propositions.

Whether one is doing logic, theology or some other discipline, reasoning correctly is important.

Impossibility and God

Among the things that seem impossible, I guess an angle cannot be trisected using only a straightedge and compass, 7 + 5 cannot be made to equal 13, nor can anyone create square circles, and I doubt that unmakeable hammers can be made. Also, it seems analytic that a Euclidean triangle cannot be four-sided: some things are impossible by their very nature just like uncreatable worlds are impossible to create.

Biblically, we are taught that God cannot sin, lie or be tempted (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18; James 1:13); you can take what Jehovah proclaims to the bank (2 Corinthians 1:20-22 Revelation 21:3-5).

Updated Version: On the Lord's Evening Meal and Communion Sacrifices

One Scriptural passage that helps me to appreciate tomorrow night's upcoming Memorial of Christ's death on Nisan 14 is 1 Corinthians 10:18:

"Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they that eat the sacrifices communion with the altar?" (ASV)

When posing this rhetorical query, Paul alludes to the OT practice of communion sacrifices. One encounters a lovely description of such offerings in Leviticus 7:1-38. I want to recount briefly what that biblical chapter recounts and apply it to the apostolic words in 1 Corinthians 10:18ff.

The communion sacrifices were peace offerings designed to restore the broken relationship that obtained between God and His ancient worshipers; they constituted a holy presentation to Almighty God (YHWH), and when offering a communion sacrifice, an Israelite was supposed to offer Jehovah his or her best.

Leviticus 7:28-30 mandates that one presenting a communion sacrifice to Jehovah should offer the "fat upon the breast" to God as a wave offering: Leviticus 7:30 briefly explains what a wave offering entailed. In addition to offering the fat and the blood to Jehovah (Leviticus 7:33), the one giving peace offerings to God also was commanded to present "the right leg" of his sacrifice as "a sacred portion" to the officiating priests. Furthermore, the High Priest and his sons were to have a share in this communion offering. What a privilege all those who offered communion presentations enjoyed! Paul rightly said that those who sacrificed upon the altar became (by their respective gifts to God) sharers in the altar. But how might this Levitical practice apply to Christians today?

As Paul intimates, the Lord's Evening Meal (1 Corinthians 11:20) or Lord's Supper is the antitype of the OT peace offerings. Just as ancient worshipers of God brought their sacrifices to Jehovah in order to repair the breach that obtained between themselves and God, so anointed Christians annually observe the Memorial of Jesus' death in order to remember how God repaired the figurative breach between him and sinful humanity, thereby fully reconciling humanity from sin and death.

Anointed Christians share in the antitypical communion meal by partaking of Christ's blood (the cup of wine) and his body (the bread). The emblems at the Memorial are symbols or signs of the spiritual reality effectuated by God and Christ. Those who partake of the cup and wine on Nisan 14 share with God's altar as they have a meal in effect with Jehovah, his High Priest Jesus and fellow anointed ones (underpriests). It is still an inestimable privilege to convene for a meal with God. Anointed Christians therefore esteem the undeserved kindness that Jehovah has shown to them through the Son of God's ransom sacrifice. However, they are not the only ones who benefit from being present at the yearly communion meal.

The great crowd of other sheep who possess a hope of living forever on earth while not partaking of the emblems and thus sharing in the altar still have their appreciation for Christ's sacrifice deepened as they listen to the discourse given about Jesus' death and watch the symbols of his death being passed around the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore, I hope that everyone attending the Memorial this year reflects deeply on what Christ's death means for us, and may you continue to grow in love and appreciation for Jehovah God (YHWH) and his only-begotten Son.

Jehovah Is Unequivocally the Grand Creator

Nehemiah 9:6 (HCSB)-"You alone are Yahweh. You created the heavens, the highest heavens with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them, and the heavenly host worships You."

Jehovah created the stars (Psalm 8:4-5; 19:1-4; 1 Corinthians 15:39-41). Scientists estimate that the cosmic stars outnumber the multitudinous grains of sand on earth. For example, the Milky Way galaxy contains an estimated 100-400 billion stars, and it is but one of an estimated 2 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe.

Galaxies are arranged into clusters, which some have compared to grapes.

Clusters are organized into superclusters and certain scientists describe clusters this way:

"These usually consist of chains of about a dozen clusters which have a mass of about 10^16 solar masses (ten million billion suns). Our own Local Supercluster is centred on Virgo and is relatively poor having a size of 15Mpc. The largest superclusters, like that associated with Coma, are up to 100Mpc in extent. The system of superclusters forms a network permeating throughout space, on which about 90% of galaxies are located."

See https://www.icc.dur.ac.uk/~tt/Lectures/Galaxies/Clusters/Cambridge/gal_lss.html
Furthermore,, think of the many oceans, lakes, and rivers on earth: Scotland has the impressive Loch Lomond and we all know about the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

One academic website provides this data: "The total number of tree species on Earth is around 73,000, including roughly 9,000 not yet known to science."

See https://seas.umich.edu/globalchangebiology/publications/number-of-trees-on-earth

All of these things testify to the power and wisdom of Jehovah, our grand creator (Ecclesiastes 12:1 NWT 2013).

Quick Response Concerning Quotations of Christopher Stead in My Thesis

I have been accused of mishandling the words of scholar Christopher Stead from his book, Divine Substance. This accusation caused me to look at my Th.M. work to see if this charge is true: IMO, it is not. I found six occurrences of Stead's name, checked them all, and I find no merit for the accusations. At no time did I say or imply that Stead agreed with my worldview or theology. Those interested can see for themselves: https://theses.gla.ac.uk/71906/1/10395258.pdf

For example, here is one citation/quote from my thesis (page 23):

"Adv Prax 8. George C. Stead, in his magisterial study concerning the notion of divine substance,
points out that Tertullian has no problem applying substantia to God. He notes that Tertullian uses
substantia in Adv Prax 9 to refer to uncreated spiritus, which is differentiated from created finite
spiritus by its inherent 'purity, subtlety and power, which was at first concentrated in the Father, then
distributed to the Son and Spirit,' see Divine Substance (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1977), 161."

Please tell me how this cite gets Stead wrong.

Here is another example (page 70 of my thesis):

"Stead further discerns that Tertullian depicts God as a Mind (nous) containing Word in the sense of 'plan' or 'thought' within it. Moreover, he further states: 'This latter is sufficiently distinct to be addressed as a 'partner in dialogue .' Yet this Sermo does not become Son until God utters the words, 'Let there be light' (fiat lux) as recorded in Gen 1:3. Stead writes that it is only at this point that one can speak of Discourse (Sermo) as Son in the fullest sense. It might, therefore, be inaccurate
to argue that Tertullian thinks the Son is a timeless res et persona internal beside God."

Again, one has to be careful to distinguish my words and beliefs from those of Stead: I did not conflate the two. I likewise discuss Stead on page 74 of my thesis.

For the record, my training is in ecclesiastical history, so I am technically a church historian, which the YT video gets wrong.

What about the claim that Tertullian is a Trinitarian? Did I get Tertullian wrong? I've actually been over this point many times on this blog, but I can cite numerous scholars who fault Tertullian's doctrine for not being fully Trinitarian. Here are some examples:

Church historian Gerald Bray writes:

"In his counterblast to Praxeas, Tertullian came as near as he could to trinitarianism, without abandoning his fundamentally monotheistic and, to our minds, unitarian position. The Father always remained God in a way which did not apply to the other two persons, however much he might share his power and authority with them."

See Bray's The Doctrine of God, pages 130-131_ for the full details.

Concerning Tertullian's fuller statement of God's existence prior to the generation of His Son, A. Harnack perspicuously notes that although the ratio et sermo dei existed within God since "he thought and spoke inwardly," God the Father was still "the only person" subsisting prior to the temporal generation of the Son (Harnack, History of Dogma, 2:259). Edmund Fortman also concludes that the preeminent Son of God: "was generated, not from eternity but before and for creation, and then became
a second person." Antecedent to his generation, however, the Logos was not "clearly and fully
personalized" (Fortman 111). It therefore seems erroneous to think that the Son was eternally a res et
persona internal beside God. Tertullian makes this point clearer in Adv Prax 5.

See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2007/06/lonergan-on-tertullian.html

By the way, the video criticizes me for citing/quoting Harnack. Guess they've never read much church history where such "old guys" are quoted.

Here is what Mark Smith actually wrote about my thesis, which became a book: See https://books.google.com/books?id=yvWlC0kUlkYC&pg=PA297&dq=edgar+foster+angelomorphic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Cs7FUu_KDobqkQfYtIHQAw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=edgar%20foster%20angelomorphic&f=false

He does not put it down there.

Overall, the video doesn't "get" my thesis.

Do Writers of the Christian-Greek Scriptures (NT) Quote the Hebrew Bible Verbatim?

The answer is complicated.

See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Quotations-NT

https://repository.westernsem.edu/pkp/index.php/rr/article/download/233/245

http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2014/02/ecclesiastes-and-new-testament.html

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=second_person

Interesting Quote From Thomas Aquinas (Summa Contra Gentiles I.4)

"owing to the infirmity of our judgement and the perturbing force of imagination, there is some admixture of error in most of the investigations of human reason" (Thomas Aquinas, SCG I.4).

Ephesians 4:6 and the One God of "All"

Ephesians 4:6:

εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.

πᾶς is not used absolutely or in an unqualified sense here: it is utilized relatively. The apostle has the Christian congregation in mind, for it is this ecclesia that the one God and Father of all (εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων) especially rules "over" (ἐπὶ πάντων), works "through" (διὰ πάντων), and is "in" (ἐν πᾶσιν) by means of his holy spirit (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Ephesians 2:19-22). Nevertheless, Paul is not espousing pantheism or panentheism in this account--his inspired counsel for the Ephesians strictly applies to the first-century Christian assembly composed of anointed ones, not to the cosmos as a whole.

William Larkin (Ephesians: A Handbook on the Greek Text, page 71):

εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ. Nominative subject of an implied equative verb. The combination of titles occurs consistently in Ephesians in formal or liturgical contexts: salutation, 1:2; doxology, 1:3; prayer, 1:17; thanksgiving, 5:20; benediction, 6:23 (cf. 3:9, 14).

πάντων. Genitive of subordination. The fourfold πᾶς in this climactic statement probably all have the same gender, whether neuter or masculine (Best, 371). There is not enough in the context to distinguish the use of different genders with different items. Paul’s frequent cosmic focus in Ephesians, particularly with the use of πᾶς (1:10, 22, 23; 3:9, 15; 4:10), would be congruent with neuter gender. The term πατὴρ, however, denotes personal relationship, and the theme of church unity here (4:4) followed by a focus on individual church members (4:7) suggests that the gender is masculine and thus personal (contra Lincoln, 240; Best, 371).

"Nobody" and Matthew 24:36

Matthew 24:36 (YLT) is rendered: "And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers of the heavens -- except my Father only"; But the NWT translates this passage "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."

NWT's rendering "nobody" is a perfectly fine translation. The Greek word in question (an adjective) has the forms OUDEIS, OUDEMIA, and OUDEN (grammatically masculine, feminine, and neuter forms). Matthew 24:36 has the masculine OUDEIS whereas 2 Corinthians 12:11 has the neuter OUDEN. BDAG Greek-English notes that when these forms are used as substantives (i.e., they function as nouns), then one may translate OUDEIS as "no one, nobody" or render the neuter OUDEN as "nothing." See page 735 of this lexical resource.

The Hearer of Prayer (Jehovah) Deserves To Be Praised (Modified Talk)

Praise Jehovah, The Hearer of Prayer

We have many good reasons to praise Jehovah, the hearer of prayer (Psalm 65:2). Through prayer, we gain the needed power to serve Jehovah faithfully, and prayer helps us to develop a close relationship with God as we see divine promises fulfilled in our personal life and organizationally. Tonight, we’ll examine three comforting aspects regarding Jehovah, the hearer of prayer.

1) The inspired psalmist David shows there is an important connection between prayer and our personal relationship with Jehovah in Psalm 61:1, 8:

Hear, O God, my cry for help. Do pay attention to my prayer. (verse 1)

Then I will sing praises to your name forever, As I pay my vows day after day. (Verse 8)

There may be times when we make certain promises to Jehovah while praying. We may promise him that we’ll exert ourselves to overcome some weakness or we may vow to develop a Christian quality. We also might vow to increase some aspect of our theocratic service. How can we demonstrate seriousness regarding these vows? We can make them a regular matter of prayer, maybe even praying about these vows on a daily basis. Praying incessantly about promises that we have made to Jehovah will likewise help us to keep our vows.

2) Prayer to Jehovah gives us an opportunity to show that we trust him.

Trust in him at all times, O people. Pour out your hearts before him. God is a refuge for us. (Selah)-Psalm 62:8

All of God’s people know that we should manifest unwavering trust in him at all times. Should we not also pour out our hearts to him in prayer? However, there may be times when it becomes difficult to pray and leave matters in God’s hands. Why might that be the case? One reason is that Jehovah doesn’t always reply to our prayers overnight. It may take time for him to respond, and that will require trust on our part. The 4/15/2015 WT uses the example of a child to illustrate why we need to exercise patience when we pray to Jehovah:

“A child cannot rightly expect a parent to grant every request or to do so right away. Some of a child’s requests may be mere passing whims. Others must wait till the time is right.”

Some requests may not be in a child’s best interests. That may also be the case when we approach Jehovah in prayer. Yet the scriptures promise that Jehovah knows our limitations; he remembers that we are dust. God promises that along with trials, he will make a way out. He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear (1 Corinthians 10:13).

3) We can be confident that Jehovah hears the prayers of all right-hearted ones.

Psalm 65:1-2: Praise awaits you, O God, in Zion; We will pay our vows to you.

O Hearer of prayer, to you people of all sorts will come.

Before Jesus became human, he witnessed Jehovah being the Hearer of prayer. Later, when carrying out his earthly ministry, Jesus prayed all night to his heavenly Father (Luke 6:12). Prayer was not just a psychological crutch for Jesus, but he truly believed that God listened to his prayers. Jehovah was real to Jesus, and if we follow his example, Jehovah will be real for us too.

Psalm 65:2 says that all sorts of people will come to the hearer of prayer. Therefore, we also learn that Jehovah is not partial (Acts 10:34-35). Even in the days of King Solomon, foreigners could prayerfully approach Israel’s God at the temple in Jerusalem, and offer sacrifice (1 Kings 8:41-42). Jehovah listens to the prayers of all those who fear him and work righteousness. The important factor is our heart condition, and what our hearts motivate us to do.

Epaphroditus and Depression (Philippians 2:26)

If you compare Philippians 2:26, where it says Epaphroditus "is depressed because you heard he had fallen sick" with Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33, you'll see that it's the same Greek verb in all three verses, translated as "was full of heaviness" or "very heavy" in the KJV.

Matthew and Mark use the infinitival form of the word, but Philippians 2:26 has the participial morphology with the point being that Epaphroditus and Jesus both had moments where they felt distressed or depressed.

The Greek grammarian Bill Mounce defines ἀδημονέω as "to be depressed, or dejected, full of anguish or sorrow." On the other hand, we equally learn that Paul and others were there for Epaphroditus, and Jehovah's angel comforted Jesus in his time of need. The same thing can happen for us when we feel depressed.

Proverbs 4:23 (Modified Talk)

Proverbs 4:23: מִֽכָּל־מִ֭שְׁמָר נְצֹ֣ר לִבֶּ֑ךָ כִּֽי־מִ֝מֶּ֗נּוּ תֹּוצְאֹ֥ות חַיִּֽים׃

HCSB: "Guard your heart above all else, for it is the source of life."

Why is it so important to safeguard our figurative heart? The Bible book of Proverbs mentions the heart almost 100 times, and in this context, the heart refers to the "inner person." As the January 2019 WT notes, the inner person refers to our private thoughts, feelings, motives, and desires; it's who we genuinely are--not who we appear to be (1 Peter 3:3-4).

When contemplating the history of ancient Israel, we find that most members of the nation did not safeguard their hearts (Hebrews 3:7-13); even King Solomon allowed his heart to be led astray by a harem of pagan wives (Nehemiah 13:26-27). Therefore, how can we safeguard our hearts today?

Play the video and ask the questions.

Some Ways that Satan Tries to Mislead Us Today:

A) False Religion
B) Greed and love for material things
C) Sexual Immorality
D) Discouragement
E) Discontent
F) Doubt

We can safeguard our heart by studying, meditating on, and applying the Bible. Prayer, the Christian ministry and meetings are essential too. Also, work hard to fight fleshly desires.

Limping Upon "Two Crutches"? (1 Kings)

1 Kings 18:21

Hebrew: וַיִּגַּ֨שׁ אֵלִיָּ֜הוּ אֶל־כָּל־הָעָ֗ם וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ עַד־מָתַ֞י אַתֶּ֣ם פֹּסְחִים֮ עַל־שְׁתֵּ֣י הַסְּעִפִּים֒ אִם־יְהוָ֤ה הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לְכ֣וּ אַחֲרָ֔יו וְאִם־הַבַּ֖עַל לְכ֣וּ אַחֲרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־עָנ֥וּ הָעָ֛ם אֹתֹ֖ו דָּבָֽר׃

The part that has long fascinated me about this verse is why Elijah spoke of Israel "limping" on two different opinions or being "paralyzed by indecision" (NET Bible).

NET Ftn: tn Heb “How long are you going to limp around on two crutches?” (see HALOT 762 s.v. סְעִפִּים). In context this idiomatic expression refers to indecision rather than physical disability.

William Barnes (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary): "How much longer will you waver, hobbling between two opinions? This is not a conscious reference back to Obadiah, but not entirely incidental to him either. The Hebrew idiom here is akin to our English expression 'sitting on the fence.' Obadiah had finally come down publicly on Elijah’s side in 18:16, but the people here would still remain publicly uncommitted until after the fire fell from heaven (18:39)."

1 Corinthians 13:1--"I have become"

The Greek verb γέγονα is a form of γίνομαι: γέγονα is the perfect indicative active first-person singular form of γίνομαι, which means it signifies completed action performed by an agent. Notice how 1 Corinthians 13:1 has "I have become" for γέγονα or "I am become" (KJV). So the action is completed, it really happens (hence, the indicative), and it's first person singular ("I). Compare 1 Corinthians 13:11.

HCSB: "If I speak human or angelic languages but do not have love, I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal."

Paul Gardner (1 Corinthians, ZECNT): "Love, as Paul describes it here, is not an extra special grace-gift but is what marks all who are possessed by the Spirit. Gifts being exercised in a context where this is not present, where self is first and God and neighbor second or third, where status is sought rather than humility seen, make the person simply irrelevant spiritually. The person has become like random noise, which has no purpose or meaning. The verb meaning 'to become' or 'to be' (γέγονα) is in an intensive perfect. The present results are what matters to Paul. If this person spoke in this way, without love, then he or she has become or simply is a noisy gong. What Paul is saying is clear thus far."

Intensive Perfect Definition (Daniel Wallace, GGBB, page 574): "The perfect may be used to emphasize the results or present state pro-duced by a past action. The English present often is the best translation for such a perfect. This is a common use of the perfect tense."

Words of the Month (March 2024)

1. Naufragous has been defined as "causing shipwreck." See https://www.wordnik.com/words/naufragous

The word reminds me of 1 Timothy 1:19-ἔχων πίστιν καὶ ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν, ἥν τινες ἀπωσάμενοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν·

2. Prolegomenon-(Oxford Languages)-a critical or discursive introduction to a book. The plural form is prolegomena.

3. Catachresis-From the Oxford English Grammar, page 58:

(Plural catachreses.) The (perceived) erroneous use of a term applied to a concept.

1926 H. W. FOWLER Wrong application of a term, use of words in senses
that do not belong to them.

An old-fashioned term, originally rhetorical. Examples given by Fowler
were the ‘popular’ use of chronic = ‘severe’, asset = ‘advantage’, conservative
(as in conservative estimate) = ‘low’, annex = ‘win’, and mutual =
‘common’.

1589 G. PUTTENHAM Catachresis, or the Figure of abuse . . . if for lacke of
naturall and proper terme or worde we take another, neither naturall nor
proper and do vntruly applie it to the thing which we would seeme to expresse.
 catachrestic, catachrestically.