tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post721723912796401457..comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Luke 10:6-"Friend of Peace"Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-11511686317454706262016-10-27T07:03:15.587-07:002016-10-27T07:03:15.587-07:00I have reported to NET. Someone else had already s...I have reported to NET. Someone else had already spotted this one in the e-sword version.Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-24750574003040794412016-10-24T12:28:00.662-07:002016-10-24T12:28:00.662-07:00Concerning Lk 7:35, you're correct. That's...Concerning Lk 7:35, you're correct. That's a good catch. In all seriousness, you might want to let the NET folks know about that typo. Luke 1:32 is not exactly like Amos 7:14 and related scriptures, but I understand the passage to be metaphorical, though many people disagree with me. I'm not denying that Jesus was begotten by holy spirit, but that just means God caused his human birth just as he caused the preexistent Christ to exist.<br /><br />Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-52017876437144326002016-10-24T07:58:17.505-07:002016-10-24T07:58:17.505-07:00Whats the implication for Luke 1:32?Whats the implication for Luke 1:32?Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-23316563065101033282016-10-24T07:55:43.785-07:002016-10-24T07:55:43.785-07:00Isn't it Luke 7:35?Isn't it Luke 7:35?Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-43915420296136514492016-10-23T14:23:10.051-07:002016-10-23T14:23:10.051-07:00See the KD comments for 1 Sam. 19:22: http://bible...See the KD comments for 1 Sam. 19:22: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/1_samuel/19.htmEdgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-36825010286000599082016-10-23T14:13:53.943-07:002016-10-23T14:13:53.943-07:00Both links that you submitted above indicate that ...Both links that you submitted above indicate that Amos 7:14 is an example of guild language, in this case, for Amos (i.e., he was not formally part of any prophetic guild). I don't understand "sons of the prophets" to be saying anything about a tradition per se, but it's more like a printers' guild or scholarly guild. Yes, the words may describe a tradition, but what's being emphasized is the class or group itself and the training that the guild undergoes. It's seems clear from many uses of the terminology that we're not referencing literal sons of the prophets. See 2 Kings 5:22.<br /><br />IMO, Acts 3:24-25 does not undo the idiomatic usage of "son." For example, while Christ, the angels, righteous Jews, and the 144,000 are all called "sons," we can distinguish senses for each of these referents. Likewise for "sons of the prophets" language. We have to examine how the phrase is used contextually.<br /><br />Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-85787127108873511682016-10-23T12:39:58.518-07:002016-10-23T12:39:58.518-07:00https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Tq7UcPMwacC&a...https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Tq7UcPMwacC&pg=PT440&lpg=PT440&dq=amos+7:14+idiom&source=bl&ots=b1oyCGeWTj&sig=J-tp98dqHU_MajNOs8Vbx6EOhGk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMscGL0_HPAhVCBBoKHaACCS4Q6AEIRTAJ#v=onepage&q=amos%207%3A14%20idiom&f=false<br /><br />https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j2wAkTzHnZ8C&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=amos+7:14+guild&source=bl&ots=xjWoqfRtKA&sig=UoEcO6u6jZF9Osr1U91jU-zM0Vg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja1NbG0_HPAhVGVxoKHWLxA88Q6AEIQjAI#v=onepage&q=amos%207%3A14%20guild&f=false<br /><br />The as an idiom it seems problematic. Act 3:24,25. Is this saying it was a line of tradition?Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-83171576472222100232016-10-22T18:04:21.948-07:002016-10-22T18:04:21.948-07:00I don't know if the language is always underst...I don't know if the language is always understood to be an idiom, but there's probably enough cases to establish its usage. A number of commentators think the idiom appears in Amos 7:14. I also read Louw-Nida 9.4 and 12.15. Some interesting points on "son" and "son of God" there.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-89768474746710911382016-10-22T12:31:52.405-07:002016-10-22T12:31:52.405-07:00Not sure about 2 but we do have Amos 7:14 so is Be...Not sure about 2 but we do have Amos 7:14 so is Ben nabiy always to be understood as an idiom?<br /><br />Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-35561524221072361982016-10-22T11:44:14.606-07:002016-10-22T11:44:14.606-07:00Duncan,
I agree with much of what's stated ab...Duncan,<br /><br />I agree with much of what's stated above, but I'm a little skeptical about the "worthy" suggestion (number 2). Also, what about "sons of the prophets" which refers to a class/guild--not a quality? I also wonder about exactly which sources indicate expressions like "son of X" can mean "a person worthy of, destined for . . ."<br /><br />Sons of the resurrection doesn't have to mean those counted worthy of the resurrection, but could just mean those who will be raised from the dead (i.e., the class of people raised from the dead or possibly, those destined for a resurrection). But "worthy of" and "destined for" mean two slightly different things to me. I could be wrong, but we often speak of people being "destined for success" or "destined for greatness," but we conversely say "S is worthy of this honor/award."Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-70810416477518096912016-10-22T11:30:52.903-07:002016-10-22T11:30:52.903-07:00Quote,
"man of peace" in the NIV is lit...Quote,<br /><br />"man of peace" in the NIV is literally "son of peace." The common Hebrew idiom "son of ..." can mean two things: (1) a person who shares in a quality, or (2) a person who is worthy of a quality.[3] Thus our passage can mean either (1) a peaceful person, or (2) a person worthy of, destined for, peace. The two concepts blend into each other, but we can see the idea of "worthy of, destined for" in the phrase, "sons of the resurrection" (20:36), that is, those who are worthy of the resurrection, those destined for resurrection. The term "son of peace" in our passage probably means "a person worthy of peace, destined for peace."<br /><br />End <br /><br />Ben shalom - Son of Everything in Order.Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14509064648619505383noreply@blogger.com