The Holy Angels of God

God's loyal angels are called "holy" and "elect."

"the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38; Rev. 14:10-12).

"I charge thee in the sight of God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels" (1 Tim. 5:21).

(both quotes are taken from the ASV)

Concerning 1 Tim. 5:21, Gordon Fee observes:

"The inclusion of the elect angels is unusual and serves to intensify the solemnity of the charge. Elect may either refer to the angels as the chosen ministers of God who carry out his will (Bernard) or serve as a contrast to the fallen angels (Kelly), probably the latter, given the context of judgment" (Fee, Gordon. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. P. 131).

When Jesus speaks of TWN AGGELWN TWN hAGIWN in Mark 8:38, he evidently means that the angels are "holy, set apart, sanctified, and consecrated" to God (Zodhiates). While we want to avoid what James Barr called "illegitimate totality transfer," I think that the aforementioned definitions of hAGIOS overlap with one another. The lingual sign HAGIOS points to the faithfulness and sinlessness (IMHO) of God's loyal angels. This holiness is derived, however, and not self-caused as is the holiness of God.

In the Similitudes, we also read:

"But you, having been strengthened by the HOLY Angel,and having obtained from Him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from Him?" (Sim. 5.4.2)

Thus, even in the patristic writings, the angels are recognized as being "holy."

The "little child" of Isaiah 11:6 (John Gill)

and a little child shall lead them;

Gill's remarks:

become through the grace of God so tractable, that they shall be led, guided, and governed by the ministers of the Gospel, Christ's babes and sucklings, to whom he reveals the great things of his Gospel, and out of whose mouths he ordains praise. Bohlius interprets this little child of Christ himself, by whom they should be led and directed, see ( Isaiah 9:6 ) and the following passages are referred to the times of the Messiah by the Jewish writers; and Maimonides in particular observes, that they are not to be understood literally, as if the custom and order of things in the world would cease, or that things would be renewed as at the creation, but in a parabolical and enigmatical sense; and interprets them of the Israelites dwelling safely among the wicked of the nations of the world, comparable to the wild beasts of the field. (This verse may apply to the future state when all things will be restored to their original state before man fell. By Adam's sin, death and bloodshed were introduced into the creation. ( Romans 5:12 ). In the final state these will be removed and the wild nature of animals become tame. Editor.)

Interesting thought. Scholars debate whether the description in Isaiah is symbolic or literal.

Another Dissertation on The Johannine Comma

See https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/16486

It's a doctoral thesis that is under embargo until 8-15-2013. So there's limited access for now.

Regards,

Edgar

Is It Possible for a Unipersonal Being to Love Himself?

My response to Trinitarians who argue that since God is eternally love, he must be triune is the command quoted in Mt 22:39, namely, "You must love your neighbor as yourself."

I concede that God did not become love but IS love eternally [or everlastingly] (1 Jn 4:8): love is Jehovah's essence or nature, as the "Draw Close to Jehovah" book points out. Ergo, why can't a non-created unipersonal being, who is everlasting love, love Himself prior to loving anyone else? If the unipersonal God of the Bible has
always loved Himself, then He has supremely loved the One who is worthy of being supremely adored.

And if I can become a (quasi) object by conducting a rationally inward form of discourse with myself, then why can't the unipersonal God of the Bible make Himself the supreme object by loving Himself as He loves others whom He has created? It seems to me that before I direct my affections toward a particular beloved entity (i.e. an external and
alterior personal object like my son or wife) in a scripturally proper way, I must first have proper love for myself.

How Should We Understand 1 Peter 4:14?

I will now post what I have found concerning the syntax of 1 Peter 4:14:

MAKARIOI hOTI TO THS DOXHS KAI TO TOU QEOU PNEUMA EF' hUMAS ANAPAUETAI.

Most works that I've referenced focus on the two occurrences of the definite article TO in this passage.

"The articles [TO . . . TO] relate the modifiers THS DOXHS and TOU QEOU to PNEUMA" (Brooks and Winberry, Syntax of NT Greek, p. 79).

This book on Greek syntax suggests the rendering, "The Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God rests upon you."

Norman Hillyer (1 and 2 Peter, Jude, p. 135) thinks that the construction TO THS DOXHS KAI TO TOU QEOU PNEUMA is an example of hendiadys that should be rendered, "the glorious divine Spirit." Hillyer also believes there is a clear example of hendiadys in 1 Pet 2:25. Most works that I've consulted, however, do not construe the syntax in 1 Pet 4:14 as Hillyer does.

Concerning the textual issues surrounding 1 Peter 4:14, Bruce Metzger states:

"After DOXHS a considerable number of witnesses, some of them early, read KAI DUNAMEWS. The words are suitable to the context, but their absence in such diversified witnesses as P72 B K Psi 049 330 Tertullian Ephraem Cyril Fulgentius al, and the fact that those that have the addition present it in somewhat different forms, sufficiently condemn all of them as homiletic supplements to the original text" (A Textual Commentary on the GNT, p. 624-625).

A. T. Robertson (A Grammar of the Greek NT, p. 767) notes that when Peter writes TO THS DOXHS, it is an elliptical construction, in which PNEUMA is to be understood (i.e. "the spirit of glory").

One other thought that occurred to me is the likelihood that the construction in 1 Pet 4:14 that we've been discussing is a genitive of apposition.

Concerning the genitive of apposition, Richard A. Young writes:

"The genitive of apposition explains or identifies the head noun, giving more specific information. The genitive of apposition is unusual in that the head noun does not have to be in the genitive case. Apposition can be made clear in English by using 'namely,' 'that is,' or 'which is.' This is sometimes called the epexegetic genitive" (p. 39).

Examples of the genitive of apposition are Jn 2:19; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5.

1 Peter 4:14 could be a genitive of apposition. I'd be willing to entertain any opposing views, however.

In answer to my challenge, someone wrote:

"Doesn't a genitive of apposition usually has the
'[article] noun [article] noun' form?"

MY RESPONSE:

I'm not aware of any such restriction regarding genitives of apposition. Wallace lists Romans 4:11 as an
example of a genitive of appoposition and it has KAI SHMEION ELABEN PERITOMHS SFRAGIDA THS DIAKAIOSUNHS THS PISTEWS THS EN THi AKROBUSTIA EIS TO EINAI AUTON PATERA PANTWN TWN PISTEUONTWN DI' AKROBUSTIAS EIS TO LOGISQHNAI AUTOIS THN DIKAIOSUNHN

Nevertheless, I no longer think that 1 Pet 4:14 might be a genitive of apposition in view of the way Peter no doubt utilizes KAI in the text. KAI is probably ascensive here.

One Link to My Dissertation: Metaphor and Divine Paternity

See http://www.scribd.com/doc/118352057/Metaphor-and-divine-paternity

Regards,

Edgar

Dissertation on How Deuteronomy Portrays Divine Paternity

http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/365?show=full

Description: This study investigates the literary and theological context of Deuteronomy 32, 1, 8, and 14 (in that order) where the fatherhood of God is revealed. Subsequently, it discusses the structure and genre of each chapter. Finally, it analyzes the verses in their context that speak of God as the father of Israel (Deut 32:6, 18; 1:31; 8:5; 14:1-2).

Chapter 4 logically begins with Deuteronomy 32, for there it reveals Yahweh as the progenitor of Israel. Moreover, it is the only occurrence in Deuteronomy where the word "father" is used metaphorically for Yahweh. Deuteronomy 1 reveals Yahweh as caregiver , as he is compared to an earthly father carrying his son. Deuteronomy 8 continues the caregiving theme in the form of Yahweh disciplining Israel for their refinement and for their good. Deuteronomy 14 presents Yahweh's fatherhood as covenant partner .

Against Heresies V.36.1 (Irenaeus)

For since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment (plantationem), that they vanish not away among non-existent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence. For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated (for faithful and true is He who has established it), but the fashion of the world passes away; that is, those things among which transgression has occurred, since man has grown old in them. And therefore this [present] fashion has been formed temporary, God foreknowing all things; as I have pointed out in the preceding book, and have also shown, as far as was possible, the cause of the creation of this world of temporal things. But when this [present] fashion [of things] passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, [then] there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain [continually], always holding fresh converse with God. And since (or, that) these things shall ever continue without end, Isaiah declares, For as the new heavens and the new earth which I do make, continue in my sight, says the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And as the presbyters say, Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy.

Was Christ Always KURIOS?

John 20:28 is a controversial passage that has been explained in a sundry and diverse ways. The brilliant exegete Theodore of Mopsuestia (one who affirmed Christ's Deity) felt that John 20:28 was not addressed to the Son, but to the Father of our Lord and Savior. Of course his approach was condemned in 553 C.E. and does not have wide acceptance today, though it is certainly a probable view at the very least.

Frankly I have no problem with calling Jesus KURIOS or QEOS. Yet this doesn't mean that Jesus is Almighty God. In Col. 1:15, 16, human and angelic rulers are called KURIOTHTES. Acts 2:36 also tells us that Christ was made KURIOS--he was not always such. Yes, he was QEOS in his pre-human existence, but I think that John makes a vital distinction between the Almighty hO QEOS and the one who was QEOS (without the Greek article).

Scholar J. Gwyn Griffiths writes that QEOS in Jn 1:1c, "Taken by itself" could be rendered "And the Word was (the) God" or "and the Word was (a) God" (See "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation" by Rolf Furuli). Many students of the early fathers also know Origen thought that God with the article denotes something different than God without the article in Jn 1:1c.

Trevor Burke Discusses Paraleipsis (Paralipsis) in Thessalonians

New Master of Theology Dissertation on the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7)

http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/132539?ln=el

Free download, but it's written in Greek. The author is Pavlos D. Vasileiadis.

Paraleipsis (Paralipsis) in Scripture by Koester

These comments from Craig R. Koester might be useful where the conscription of rhetoric in the Bible is concerned. The Greek construction upon which he remarks is περὶ ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν κατὰ μέρος(Hebrews 9:5):

"The author concludes his description of the furnishings [of the Tabernacle] by commenting that he cannot deal with these things in detail (cf. 11:32). Rhetorically, passing by something without detailed comment was called PARALEIPSIS (Rhet. ad Her. 4.27 Sec. 37' Lausberg, Handbook SS 882-886). By identifying some aspects of a large topic while refusing to make detailed comment, the speaker alludes to his familiarity with the subject matter, while relativizing its importance. Here, Hebrews makes clear that what is most important is not the sanctuary, but the ministry that takes place within it" (Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 2001), 404.

Donald Mastronarde on Greek Grammatical Gender

Greek Gender and Some Johannine/Pauline Verses

Richard A. Young (Intermediate New Testament Greek, page 76) reveals that the antecedent of the masculine pronoun hOS in 1 Tim 3:16 is the neuter noun MUSTHRION. He suggests that the shift in gender signals a reference to someone personal, namely, Christ.

Also, in John 16:14, the apostle uses a masculine pronoun (EKEINOS) when referring to a neuter antecedent (PNEUMA). An interlocutor once disagreed with me on this point by arguing that EKEINOS actually should be construed with PARAKLHTOS in 16:7:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."

My interlocutor provided the translation. My response was:

You may be right about John 16:14. Since John employed EKEINOS (the "far away demonstrative"), the antecedent of EKEINOS may well be PARAKLHTOS in John 16:7. What you say may also be true of John 14:26, where EKEINOS could point back to PARAKLHTOS. However, EKEINOS could just as easily refer to PNEUMA in both passages as Young points out in his grammar (page 78). Its really hard to tell.

Interestingly, Daniel B. Wallace disagrees with Young and thus sides with you on this issue. Personally, I think either construal of EKEINOS does not prove the masculinity of the Holy Spirit. Wallace points out that not only is PNEUMA appositional to PARAKLHTOS, but the relative pronoun that follows PNEUMA is also neuter; on the other hand, he rightly concludes that such a construction does not prove the personality of the Holy Spirit. But you too present a strong line of reasoning.

Also note the pronoun-antecedent usage in Rom. 2:14; 1 Cor. 6:9-11.

More Evidence That BASILEUS Refers to Males Only

In a book edited by John Haldon (A Social History of Byzantium), Liz James writes about the activities of Eirene, an eighth-century empress of Byzantium:

"Wallace-Hadrill saw queens as honorary men because of their links to power, authority, prestige, and honor. In response, Stafford argued that queens did not become men because the title 'king' was reserved for men alone. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that the title 'king' could be separated from the person of the king and thus filled by either sex. Thus the public body of the ruling queen was not a king's body but a queen's, gendered feminine not masculine. The case of Eirene supports this view. The only evidence for Eirene using the male title BASILEUS is limited to her signature as 'emperor of the Romans' on a couple of legal documents and the use of BASILEUS on one gold coin from Sicily. If Eirene needed to construct herself as a man, as a BASILEUS,then one might expect this title to feature on all of her official documentation, on all coins and seals. Instead, she used the feminine form, BASILISSA, which was also the title which Byzantine historians of her reign use for her."

The Sicilian coins are not easy to read because the lettering is obscured.

See p. 45-46 of the this book.

The Old Interpreter's Bible on 1 Corinthians 7:25 and Parthenoi

Some years ago, I copied numerous pages for general study and when I did graduate work. I'll probably never work my way through everything I copied, but there is something from the old Interpreter's Bible I'd like to share. Taken from the commentary on Corinthians, we read:

"The Greek word (παρθένοι), translated unmarried (RSV), is literally virgins (KJV); but it is clear from what follows that the apostle has in mind the unmarried men as well as the maidens (Rev. 14:4). It may be that these are people who have taken a vow of celibacy" (Interpreter's Bible, page 84).

Now there's a lot in this brief quote that we can analyze. The Interpreter's Bible claims that the Apostle Paul is referring to both women and men in 1 Cor 7:25. Yet not all concur with this sentiment:

"Now regarding your question about the young women who are not yet married. I do not have a command from the Lord for them. But the Lord in his mercy has given me wisdom that can be trusted, and I will share it with you" (1 Cor 7:25 NLT).

"Concerning unmarried women I have no command to give you from the Lord; but I offer you my opinion, which is that of a man who, through the Lord's mercy, is deserving of your confidence" (Weymouth).

But the NET Bible renders this passage: "With regard to the question about people who have never married, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one shown mercy by the Lord to be trustworthy."

The note for 1 Cor 7:25 (NET) explains:

Grk "virgins." There are three main views as to which group of people is referred to by the word παρθένος (parqenos) here, and the stance taken here directly impacts one's understanding of vv. 36-38. (1) The term could refer to virgin women who were not married. The central issue would then be whether or not their fathers should give them in marriage to eligible men. (This is the view which has been widely held throughout the history of the Church.) (2) A minority understand the term to refer to men and women who are married but who have chosen to live together without sexual relations. This position might have been possible in the Corinthian church, but there is no solid evidence to support it. (3) The view adopted by many modern commentators (see, e.g., Fee, Conzelmann, Barrett) is that the term refers to young, engaged women who were under the influence of various groups within the Corinthian church not to go through with their marriages. The central issue would then be whether the young men and women should continue with their plans and finalize their marriages. For further discussion, see G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 325-28.

The NET Bible therefore probably does not mean to include men and women "in the mix" (so to speak) when it chooses the rendering "people who have never been married" but primarily has women in mind. However, you have likely noted that the Interpreter's Bible includes Revelation 14:4 to apparently show that men are perhaps called virgins in that apocalyptic book. That's another testimony to how we should understand John's words in the Bible's final work.

In his NIV commentary on Revelation, Craig Keener writes that although male virgin language is rare, we do find this use in 1 Cor 7:25 and possibly in Revelation 14:4. Even though we may have a surface use of masculinity in 14:4, that does not mean all members of the 144,000 are males in the prophecy's fulfillment. But describing these Christians as male harmonizes with John's earlier vision in the same book:

καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων, ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες, ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ (Revelation 7:4 WH).

How are the 144,000 delineated in 7:4? As the "sons of Israel" (υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ). This wording along with the whole tribes scenario leads me to believe that "virgins" in 14:4 should be understood as having a masculine sense.

Jeremiah 31:32 and Metaphors

"not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day of my taking them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah" (Jeremiah 31:32 Darby Bible Translation).

Notice that Jehovah said he was a "husband" (masculine) to their "fathers" according to this translation. Now we've already talked about that expression "fathers" on this blog previously, but what about the term "husband" when it is applied to Jehovah? Should we take this expression literally or is it metaphorical?

God was the husband of a holy nation. Nations aren't people, but they're constituted of people. God was a figurative spouse to Israel as Christ is a symbolic husband to the Christian ecclesia. I would (and have) argued that the term Shepherd (as applied to God) is also metaphorical. The 3/15, 2004 WT reasons thus:

"The Law covenant later made with the Israelites showed that in a covenant relationship, Jehovah can be thought of as a husband and the other party as a wife. (Jeremiah 31:32)"

Compare Isaiah 54:4-6.

An Official Statement on NAOS

I usually don't provide many quotes from the Watchtower publications because of respecting their wishes about publication copyright. I like to apply the rule of fair use for Witness and non-Witness publications. So I will only submit one paragraph from the Revelation Climax book:

The 24 elders and the anointed group of 144,000 are described as being "round about the throne" of Jehovah and "upon the [heavenly] Mount Zion." (Revelation 4:4; 14:1) The great crowd is not a priestly class and does not attain to that exalted position. True, it is later described at Revelation 7:15 as serving God "in his temple." But this temple does not refer to the inner sanctuary, the Most Holy. Rather, it is the earthly courtyard of God's spiritual temple. The Greek word na·os′, here translated "temple," often conveys the broad sense of the entire edifice erected for Jehovah's worship. Today, this is a spiritual structure that embraces both heaven and earth.—Compare Matthew 26:61; 27:5, 39, 40; Mark 15:29, 30; John 2:19-21, New World Translation Reference Bible, footnote.

See page 124, paragraph 14.

One thing I appreciate about the Revelation book quote is that it says NAOS "often" (not always) denotes the entire temple building rather than the Holy of Holies alone. The quote seems in harmony with LSJ and other NT lexica.

Grammatical Gender, Christ and 1 Corinthians 1:24

αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς, Ἰουδαίοις τε καὶ Ἕλλησιν, Χριστὸν θεοῦ δύναμιν καὶ θεοῦ σοφίαν (1 Corinthians 1:24 WH Greek Text)

I've been trying to make the point that there's a difference between ontological/sociological gender and grammatical gender. The verse above is a good example of how grammatical gender works. Notice that δύναμιν and σοφίαν are both accusative feminine although they refer to Χριστὸν which is accusative masculine: he is the power and wisdom of God. So I again emphasize that we cannot read ontological inferences into accidents that belong to human language. By "accidents" I mean the contingent features of our abstract sign systems (i.e. languages).

Should We "Christianize" Idols?

A Catholic gentleman once told me that the Apostle Paul "baptized" or "christianized" pagan idols for the Gospel's sake. He asked me if I would condemn St. Paul for his actions.

MY REPLY:

As regards your observation above, I have real problems with it. But then--you're not surprised by that, are you?

Scripturally I have problems with your construal of Acts 17 because of what 1 Cor. 10:14 says: "Therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry." No, we are not to "Christianize" idols and baptize them (as you suggest). Stating this point even more forcefully is 1 Thess. 1:9: "you turned to God from [your] idols to slave for a living and true God."

The believers in first century Thessalonica did not baptize their idols or "Christianize" them. They abhorred, shunned, rejected, and turned away from them! Their example is totally at odds with your interpretation of Paul's action in Athens (cf. 1 John 5:21).

Commenting on Rev. 9:20, David Aune writes that "Antagonism to idolatry is also expressed in the NT (1 Cor. 14:15), and critiques of idolatry (often borrowing from Hellenistic Jewish apologetic) are also found among the early Christian apologists (Tatian Oratio 4.2; Theophilus Ad Autolycum 1.9-10; 2.2). Celsus charged that Christians cannot bear to see temples, altars, and images" (Origen Contra Cels. 7.62).

"When a Christian passes through temples, he will spit down upon the smoking altars and blow them out. As to rooting out the strange gods in every way, it has been commanded, 'you shall utterly destroy all places where the pagans sacrifice to their gods. You shall overturn their pillars and dash them to pieces. You shall cut down down their groves. You shall burn their graven images. You shall destroy their names'" (Tertullian, On Idolatry II; Scorpiace 2).