Hurricane Helene

 Dear readers,

We experienced Hurricane Helene this week. My family and I are fine, but Internet is spotty here at best. 

Philippians 2:22-Like Father and Son

Please note that the focus of this post is not the kenosis of Christ or the Trinity doctrine, but how to understand the Greek of Philippians 2:22.

Greek: τὴν δὲ δοκιμὴν αὐτοῦ γινώσκετε, ὅτι ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.
 
ESV: "But you know Timothy's proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel."

The words in Philippians 2:22 hearken back to Phil. 1:1; 2:6-7. There in the later verses, Paul delineates how Jesus (who existed in God's form) assumed the form of a slave. Now in Phil. 2:22, as is customary, Paul begins with the postpositive δὲ that here functions adversatively. 

γινώσκετε is the present active indicative 2nd person plural of γινώσκω and it's the "main verb of the independent clause" (Thomas Moore, Philippians, page 158). The object of γινώσκετε is τὴν δοκιμὴν (accusative singular feminine) and the verb could either be a progressive present that denotes continuous action at the present time or it could be a customary present, which describes an action that occurs on a regular basis.

Moore points out that ὅτι functions syntactically to identify the dependent conjunctive clause that modifies δοκιμὴν: on the other hand, he points out that the ὅτι clause functions semantically in such a way that it amplifies the import of δοκιμὴν (i.e., it functions substantivally and epexegetically). The ESV renders δοκιμὴν αὐτοῦ, "Timothy's proven worth"; compare BDAG.

While studying this passage, I found ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον to be quite interesting due to what comes next. In this part of the verse, Paul alludes to the spiritual relationship that he and Timothy shared: the former was like a father to the latter (1 Corinthians 4:17; Philippians 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 2:7, 11; 1 Timothy 1:2, 18; 5:1-2; 2 Timothy 1:2; 2:1 and compare Titus 1:4; Philemon 10). The language here is supposed to connote more tenderness than if Paul had used υἱός.

Joseph Hellerman explains that πατρὶ τέκνον portrays Timothy as a subordinate to Paul, but σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν depicts Timothy as a fellow-worker with the apostle for the sake of the good news (Hellerman, Philippians, page 150). The language employed here is supposed to be reflective of how Elijah and Elisha related to one another: Hellerman likewise suggests that the ancient rabbis enjoyed this kind of camaraderie with their disciples.

One thing that struck me while reading this account is that Paul seems to juxtapose two different images or metaphors: a slave and a dear child. The apostle writes that Timothy was both a slave and child as he imitated the example of Jesus Christ. Hellerman mentions the "social stigma" that was attached to slavery, but conversely, calling Timothy a "child" would connote tenderness. In his NIGT Commentary on Philippians, Peter O'Brien writes:

"In speaking of Timothy being like (ὡς) a τέxνoν and himself as a πατὴρ, Paul is using the imagery of spiritual parenthood1630 that he employed elsewhere and that had its counterpart in Judaism, ultimately deriving from the OT. So he calls himself the father of an entire Christian community, the Corinthians whom he had begotten ‘in Christ Jesus through the gospel’ (1 Cor. 4:15; cf. Gal. 4:19), while he describes Timothy (1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Tim. 1:2) and Titus (Tit. 1:4) as his children."

Lastly, Hellerman makes the observation that εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον discloses the action in which Timothy was engaged, not the content of the message (page 151). In this connection, ἐδούλευσεν could be a gnomic aorist.

What Does It Mean to Say That the Logos/Word Shares the Father's "Essence"? (Wallace and John 1:1c)

Trinitarians do not propose that the Logos/God the Son is the same person as the Father or the holy spirit (Holy Spirit): the doctrine of the Trinity is often interpreted in this way by friend and foe alike. But the church creeds make it clear that the divine "persons" should not be confounded, nor should the divine substance be divided.

So when Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) asserts that the Logos "shared the essence [nature] of the Father," (based on John 1:1c) he means that the Son is fully God as the Father is fully God, but they're not the same person. Augustine of Hippo discusses this very point in his work De Trinitate.

To word matters another way, Wallace is claiming that the Logos has all of the properties that pertain to Deity; the Word is supposedly Omnipotent, Omniscient, Impassible, Infinite, in short, he is reputedly everything that systematic theologians believe God the Father is. Thus, they claim that the Logos is fully God in this sense, according to John 1:1c. Wallace therefore does not mean what the "person on the street" possibly means when he/she wields the term "essence." Please consult Dana and Mantey for similar language regarding Jn 1:1c.

On the other hand, it appears highly problematic to aver that the Son has every property (P) that the Father does. If the Son and Father share/are the same nature and have every divine property in common, then how could we tell them apart?

Trinitarians obviously appeal to concepts like eternal filiation, eternal spiration or to unbegottenness in the case of the Father, to obviate modalism. However, we must ask whether eternal filiation or spiration are satisfactory approaches and are they scriptural? Moreover, these views evidently presuppose a Platonic schema when it comes to time and divine begettal. However, does not Plato's schema have some logical difficulties?

Charles Ryrie once wrote about the eternal generation doctrine:

“I agree with Buswell (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, pp. 105-12) that generation is not an exegetically based doctrine. The concept it tries to convey, however, is not unscriptural, and certainly the doctrine of sonship is scriptural. The phrase 'eternal generation' is simply an attempt to describe the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity
and, by using the word 'eternal,' protect it from any idea of inequality or temporality. But whether or not one chooses to use the idea of eternal generation, the personal and eternal and coequal relation of the Father and Son must be affirmed.”

Trinitarian Spiros Zodhiates criticizes the eternal generation doctrine because he thinks it is not taught in the Bible. There's also the question of whether eternal generation or spiration strictly conform to the principles of logic: John Feinberg thoroughly examines the (potential) logical merits or demerits of these notions in No One Like Him.

A Quote From Duns Scotus About the Will (Nothing Too Heavy Per Theology)

"Nihil aliud a voluntate est causa totalis volitionis in voluntate" (Duns Scotus).

I don't totally agree with this Latin saying, but it just sounds so cool when pronounced. :-)

In Defense of the Resurrection: Verses That Speak About Being Raised from the Dead

Verses about the resurrection from the dead:

Mark 16:6; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; Hebrews 6:1-2; 1 Corinthians 15:1-58; Acts 17:31 Hebrews 11:19

Daniel 12:2, 13
Isaiah 26:19
Hosea 13:14
Ezekiel 37:1-14

Compare Romans 6:9; Revelation 1:18

Aion in Micah 5:2 (5:1 LXX) Does Not Refer to Eternity (Glenny)

 

Source: Glenny, W. Edward. Micah: A Commentary based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus, 2015.

James Barr's Remarks Pertaining to Olam in the Hebrew Bible (Screenshot)

 

Translating Mark 15:39

It is interesting how many different ways that Mark 15:39 is translated:

"Surely this man was the Son of God!" (NIV)

"Truly this man was a son of God" (BBE).

"Truly this man was Son of God" (Darby).

"This man positively was the son of God" (Byington).

"Truly, this man, was God's son!" (Rotherham EB)

“Certainly this man was God’s Son.” (NWT 2013)

Compare NET Bible.

Darrell D. Hannah and Angels As Mediators in Ancient Judaism

From the book, Michael and Christ: Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in Early Christianity. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999 (Wissenschaftlicbe Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: Reihe 2; 109), ISBN 3-16-147054-0.

Page 18: While it is not a common motif in OT angelology we do on occasion encounter angelic intercessors and mediators on behalf of humanity (Job 5.1, 16.19, 33.23-28; Zech. 1.12-13). This also seems to fit the royal court pattern; angels intercede for men and women just as members of the
royal court could intercede with the Monarch for those outside the court (cf. Esther 4). This theme will find a great deal of development in later, especially apocalyptic, literature.20 On the other hand, just as an ancient court might contain those who would intercede and defend commoners, so
they could also include those who would serve as public accusers. We find this reflected in the folk tale which frames the book Job (1-2 and 42.7-17). The "Accuser" or "Adversary" here will later develop into the embodiment of evil known as Satan or the Devil, a process already under way in Zech. 3 and 1 Chron. 21.1.21

Page 44: In a related passage, the patriarch Dan instructs his children concerning, apparently, the same angel: "Draw near to God and to the angel who intercedes for you, because he is the mediator between God and men for the peace of Israel. He shall stand in opposition to the kingdom of the enemy" (TDan. 6.2). Three verses later this angel is further identified as ό αγγβλος της ειρήνης. Some have thought this passage suspect. It certainly is very similar to I Tim. 2.5: Έΐς yáp θεός, εις και μεσίτης θεού και ανθρώτων, άνθρωτος Χριστός ' Ιησούς. Hollander and de Jonge‚ who believe the Testaments is essentially a Christian work, view this passage as evidence of a primitive angel Christology.88 Hurtado would rather describe the phrase which parallels 1 Tim. 2.5 as a Christian interpolation. While this is certainly possible, there is nothing specifically Christian about the passage. As we have seen, an angelic mediator between God and humanity could appear in Jewish as well as Christian works.89 If the phrase "mediator between God and men" is not rejected as an interpolation, then it may reflect the tradition that Michael was a heavenly mediator for humanity in general.90

Morphe in the Septuagint (LXX)

καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς Ζεβεε καὶ Σαλμανα ποῦ οἱ ἄνδρες οὓς ἀπεκτείνατε ἐν Θαβωρ καὶ εἶπαν ὡσεὶ σύ ὅμοιος σοί ὅμοιος αὐτῶν ὡς εἶδος μορφὴ υἱῶν βασιλέων. (Judges 8:18)

ἀνέστην καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνων εἶδον καὶ οὐκ ἦν μορφὴ πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν μου ἀλλ᾽ ἢ αὔραν καὶ φωνὴν ἤκουον (Job 4:16)

τέκτων ξύλον ἔστησεν αὐτὸ ἐν μέτρῳ καὶ ἐν κόλλῃ ἐρρύθμισεν αὐτό ἐποίησεν αὐτὸ ὡς μορφὴν ἀνδρὸς καὶ ὡς ὡραιότητα ἀνθρώπου στῆσαι αὐτὸ ἐν οἴκῳ (Isaiah 44:13)

τότε Ναβουχοδονοσορ ἐπλήσθη θυµοῦ, καὶ ἡ µορφὴ τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἠãοιώθη, καὶ ἐπέταξε καῆναι

τὴν κάµινον ἑπταπλασίως παρ’ ὃ ἔδει αὐτὴν καῆναι·  (Daniel 3:19 Rahlfs)

Aquila includes morphe in Isaiah 52:14. Compare Tobit 1:13.

C.H. Talbert writes: "It is perhaps significant that Aquila reads μορφή in Isa 52 14 (Hatch and Redpath, 11, p. 934)."

See Talbert, "The Problem of Pre-Existence in Philippians 2:6-11." Journal of Biblical Literature (1967) 86 (2): 141–153. 

2 Corinthians 11:14-15-μετασχηματίζεται (BDAG Screenshot)

Greek: καὶ οὐ θαῦμα, αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Σατανᾶς μετασχηματίζεται εἰς ἄγγελον φωτός·

There are five GNT occurrences of μετασχηματίζω. The form that appears in 2 Corinthians 11:14 (μετασχηματίζεται) is present middle indicative 3rd person singular.

Psalm 69 and the Messiah of God (Modified Talk)

One way to identify a person is by obtaining his or her fingerprint--we even see this technology with phones. In a similar manner, we can identify God's Anointed One or Messiah by the unique way in which he fulfilled Bible prophecies: that Messiah is Jesus Christ.

While various texts in the Pentateuch, the prophets, and the Psalms bear witness about Christ, we're going to consider a few verses from Psalm 69 in order to see what they tell us about Jehovah's chosen Messiah (Luke 24:44).

1) Psalm 69:4-this verse initially applied to King David. His enemies wanted to kill him without cause. 

John 15:24-25-Christ was hated without cause, yet he showed courage to the point of putting his life on the line. Jesus riled up the religious leaders of his day by doing God's will. What an example that he set for us as Witnesses of Jehovah since we're often hated without cause too.

2) A second event foretold can be found in Psalm 69:9. 

"For jealousy for your house has eaten me up" (Byington)

Notice how Jesus fulfilled this prophecy in John 2:13-17-(show picture)

Godly jealously or zeal consumed Jesus; it was like fire in his bones. Jesus could not tolerate people making a mockery of God's house. In his day, things had devolved to such a point that Israelites who offered sacrifices were being charged excessive prices by the religious leaders and exploitation took place with the money changers. Again, Jesus sets an example for us. Are we similarly jealous for Jehovah's interests?

3) The prophecies about Jesus were not vague but offered numerous specifics. We find one example of this point in Psalm 69:20-21. Jesus felt deep emotional agony/heartbreak and was offered wine mixed with gall. As we know, Jesus refused the poisonous drink because he evidently wanted to be alert while accomplishing Jehovah's will.

Insight Book: "In recording the fulfillment of this prophecy, Matthew (27:34) employed the Greek word kho·leʹ (gall), the same term found in the Greek Septuagint at Psalm 69:21. However, Mark’s Gospel account mentions myrrh (Mark 15:23), and this has given rise to the view that in this case the 'poisonous plant' or 'gall' was 'myrrh.' Another possibility is that the drugged drink contained both gall and myrrh."

These three points from Psalm 69 are a mere snapshot of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. However, they contain abundant meaning for us and strengthen our conviction that Jesus is the true Messiah by means of whom Jehovah's promises become yes (2 Corinthians 1:20).

God, Jesus, Sleep, and the Trinity

 I know what the Trinitarian "response" will be, but here it goes:

Jehovah God doesn't need sleep: "Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep" (Psalm 121:4 KJV).

Jesus, however, apparently did need sleep: "And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?" (Mark 4:38 KJV)

God doesn't need food or drink: "Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?" (Psalm 50:13 KJV)

But Jesus evidently did need food to live: "The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children" (Matthew 11:19 KJV).

It's hard to understand how one person can both need sleep/food qua human, but not need sleep/food or drink qua divinity. I would also argue that some things we do as humans do not befit the dignity of God and I'm not talking about sinful acts but simply things associated with being biological entities like expelling waste products.

Words of the Month (September 2024)

1) Paradoxical:

Main Entry: par·a·dox·i·cal Pronunciation: \ˌper-ə-ˈdäk-si-kəl, ˌpa-rə-\Function:  adjective
Date: 1598
1 a : of the nature of a paradox b : inclined to paradoxes
2 : not being the normal or usual kind <a paradoxical pulse> <paradoxical drug reactions>

[From Merriam-Webster online]

2) The German term "Welterfahrendesleben" which can be translated "life-experiencing-the-world."

3) ignoratio elenchi-"an ignorance of proof"

See https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignoratio+elenchi?fbclid=IwY2xjawE3a2RleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHYnfpp993oFMjFN0RvPCrVJdvy6ZGO7wPoC6N2NyzP7zzleIuPMDLh4PBQ_aem_D-2QRQMq-R2u91ZJjHmbpA