Tree Imagery in Isaiah

Isa. 6:13; 7:2; 10:19; 14:8; 17:6; 24:13; 34:4; 37:24; 40:20; 41:19; 44:14, 23; 55:12-13; 56:3; 57:5; 60:13; 61:3 and 65:22; 66:17.

I sometimes wonder why Isaiah uses so much tree imagery. How do other prophetic books compare with his?

The Pauline Idiom, "Work with your hands"

"whoso is stealing let him no more steal, but rather let him labour, working the thing that is good with the hands, that he may have to impart to him having need." (Ephesians 4:28 YLT)

Cambridge Greek Testament: ἐργαζόμενος ταῖς χερσὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν,, 1 Corinthians 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:11. ἐργ. τὸ ἀγαθόν is not to be confused with the phrase in Romans 2:10; Galatians 6:10. The best parallel is Titus 3:8; Titus 3:14 καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι. There were disreputable methods of making a living, the evil of which would not be purged by a charitable subscription, so the addition of τὸ ἀγαθὸν is not superfluous.

John Eadie writes: "Manual employment was the most common in these times. Acts 20:34; 1 Thessalonians 4:11. τὸ ἀγαθόν is something useful and profitable. His hands had done what was evil, and now these same were to be employed in what was good."

"And we toil as we labor with our hands. They dishonor us and we bless; they persecute us and we endure." (1 Corinthians 4:12 Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

"and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you," (1 Thessalonians 4:11 ESV)

Compare Acts 18:3; 20:17-38; 1 Thess. 4:12; 2 Thess. 3:8-11.

Distinguishing the Spiritual from the Mental (The Pairing Problem)

My understanding of Jaegwon Kim's pairing problem (PP) is that it's specifically a joust against substance dualism; moreover, there is not just one aspect to his PP. The issue that Kim examines is causal interaction between the mental and the physical; he wonders what allows the substance dualist to suggest that a mind can interact causally with a body (an extended thing). Since minds don't exist in space, according to the Cartesian dualist, then what's the specific relation that makes causal interaction between minds and bodies possible? How is it possible for immaterial minds to be part of the universe's causal continuum, and how is it possible to distinguish the action of one non-spatial mind from another? Regardless of how we answer these questions, I don't see divine causation and mental causation in the exact same light. Therefore, while there are questions that persist regarding divine causation, it does not seem that divine causation is susceptible to the same criticisms that Cartesian mental causation is. Firstly, no disrespect intended, but I believe that substance dualism of any variety--particularly Cartesian thought--is false and extremely problematic, whereas theism is not patently false, even if divine causation may be hard to understand. One must first substantiate the actual or likely existence of the res cogitans (as Descartes conceived it) before the res cogitans can be equated with God. Even if I believe in the mental (somehow), I do not accept the existence of a res cogitans. Maybe something that might also explain why I don't see Kim's PP as particularly applicable to theism per se, is because I believe spirit encompasses more than the mental does. I.e., the mental is only one aspect of the spiritual. So the terms "mental" and "spirit/spiritual" are not coextensive to me.

Thomas More and Bible Translations Prior to Wycliffe

I'm about 98% sure that Thomas More made inaccurate statements about the status of English Bible translations in his time. The book John Wycliffe and Reform by John Stacey directly addresses this issue (See pp. 73ff). In particular, Stacey provides this information:

"Sir Thomas More, whose interest lay in the permission or refusal of the Church to read translations as much as in the translations themselves, made this not unbiased statement: "For ye shal understande that the great arch heretike Wickliffe, whereas the hole byble was long before his dayes by vertuous and wel lerned men translated into the English tong, and by good and godly people with deucion and sobrenes wel and reverently red, toke upon hym of a malacious purpose to translate it of new."

But More's comments likely are not accurate and "it must be assumed from what he said that English translations were common and popular before Wyclif's time" (Stacey 73).

Stacey also observes that More's comments were challenged in 1719 by John Lewis and they apparently have no basis in fact. He concludes:

"As Margaret Deanesly points out, if orthodox translations had existed on any scale, particularly in the period immediately before Wyclif, the opposition to the translations associated with him would be inexplicable. The evidence all points to the fact that there was no widespread reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular and that when Wyclif deliberately took the step of instigating a translation he was breaking with the general tradition" (Stacey 74).

Of course, this post and the quotes above deal with English renderings of the Bible prior to Wyclif (Wycliffe).

God, for Thomas Aquinas, Is Pure Bliss or Pure Actuality

From Fergus Kerr's book After Aquinas:

"God, for Thomas, is not even an agent with capacities to know and love. God is nothing other than ceaseless and total actualizations of being, knowing, and loving - utter bliss."

Thomists will recognize the language used by Kerr since Thomas Aquinas famously insists that God is actus purus or actus essendi et perfectus. Kerr includes another quote for reflection: Deus est beatitudo per essentiam suam.

Source Material: Fergus Kerr, After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2002.

Also see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01125b.htm

1 John 3:1 (Some Notes)

Greek: Ἴδετε ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ, ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶμεν, καὶ ἐσμέν. διὰ τοῦτο ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν. (NA28)

English Translations: (See what sort of love the Father has given to us: that we should be called God's children--and indeed we are! For this reason the world does not know us: because it did not know him. (NET Bible)

See what marvellous love the Father has bestowed upon us--that we should be called God's children: and that is what we are. For this reason the world does not recognize us--because it has not known Him. (Weymouth)

See what sort of love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are. That is why the world does not know us, because it has not come to know him. (NWT 2013)

See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God's, and are such! This is why the world does not know us because it did not know him. (Byington)

Comments: καὶ ἐσμέν.

From the NET Bible: "tc The phrase καὶ ἐσμεν (kai esmen, 'and we are') is omitted in 049 69 Ï. There seems to be no theological reason to omit the words. This has all the earmarks of a classic case of homoioteleuton, for the preceding word (κληθῶμεν, klhqwmen, 'we should be called') ends in -μεν (-men)."

Regarding the words, ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν, we read:

"sn The pronoun him is a clear reference to Jesus Christ (compare John 1:10)." This statement is also found in NET.

However, the pronominal "him" is not all that clear, like many such references in the First Johannine Epistle. W. Harris Hall III explains:

"The referent of αὐτόν (auton, 'him') in 3:1. Again the referent of the third person pronoun is a problem. It could refer either to God the Father or to Jesus Christ, but since the Father is clearly mentioned in 3:1a and God is mentioned in 3:2a, it seems preferable to understand αὐτόν in 3:1b as a reference to God the Father. However, it is important to remember that Johannine christology associates Jesus with God, and there may have been little difference here as far as the author was concerned."

See https://bible.org/seriespage/10-exegetical-commentary-1-john-228-310

While I don't accept his Trinitarian presuppositions, there is likely a measure of truth to this observation.

Henry Alford avers: "because it did not know Him (viz. God: the Father."

He additionally states:

But Whom did the world not know, and when? αὐτόν here, by the very requirements of the logic of the passage, must be the Father, who not being recognized, neither are His children: τὸν υἱοθετήσαντα, as Œc.; Aug(38), Benson, al., understand Christ: “ambulabat et ipse Dominus Jesus Christus, in carne erat Deus, latebat in infirmitate.” But this can only be, if we understand that the world rejected that revelation of the Father which was made by Christ His Son. And if we introduce this element, we disturb the strictness of the argument. It is the world’s ignorance of God, considered (and this is the force, if it is to be pressed, of the aor. ἔγνω) as one great act of non-recognition, disobedience, rebellion, hate (for all these are involved in St. John’s οὐ γνῶναι, as their opposites in his γινώσκειν), which makes them incapable of recognizing, loving, sympathizing with, those who are veritably children of God: cf. ch. 1 John 5:1).

Ephesians 5:19 (Notes)

Notes on Ephesians 5:19: λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ, (WH 1881)

λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ, (NA28)

λαλοῦντες-present active participial form of λαλέω, "to speak." Rogers and Rogers also state that the "following four parts. [participles] indicate the outworking or practice of being filled w. the Spirit" (page 444). Compare Daniel B. Wallace, GGBB, pp. 639, 650-51.

Bengel's Gnomon: "ᾠδαῖς) songs, which are or may be sung on any sacred subject.—πνευματικαῖς, spiritual) not worldly, as those of the drunkards are."

See Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 157 for Ephesians 5:19.

Vide the grammatical diagram for Eph. 5:15-20 at https://denniswretlind.blogspot.com/2018/01/ephesians-515-20-grammatical-diagram.html

MESITHS (Christ as "Mediator")

Μεσίτης:

This word potentially denotes: "one who mediates [between] two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal, mediator, arbitrator," and it functions as a technical term (terminus technicus) in Hellenistic legal discourse (BDAG Greek-English Lexicon, 634). Louw and Nida suggest that Μεσίτης when used in the Pastoral Epistle, 1 Timothy (2:5) probably signifies: "a person who acts as a mediator in bringing about reconciliation," in other words, the term could mean: "mediator, one who reconciles" (40.6).

http://namesforgod.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Mediator.jpg

"Beloved" (Matthew 3:17)

Matthew 3:17: "And see a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (KJV).

Greek: καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα (WH).

καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα (NA28).

Possible texts that have influenced/been influenced by Matthew 3:17 or that are related to the Matthean text include:

1) Luke 3:22; 9:35

2) 2 Peter 1:16-17

3) Mark 1:11; 9:7

4) Matthew 17:5

Compare Psalm 2:7; Isaiah 42:1 (LXX)

Meyer's NT references Epiphanius (Haer. 30.13) and Justin Martyr (Trypho 88)-Vide Contra Celsum 1.43-48.

Question: Does Matthew 3:17 allude to David's name when the voice from heaven calls Jesus, ὁ ἀγαπητός? In other words, is Jesus implicitly being identified as David's primary offspring here? The Messiah? Compare Matthew 12:18; Mark 12:6.

Revelation 3:14 and BDAG (Edited for Readability)

Big thanks to a good friend.

ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ (Hom.+) 1. the commencement of someth. as an action, process, or state of being, beginning, i.e. a point of time at the beginning of a duration. a. gener. (opp. τέλος; cp. Diod. S. 16, 1, 1 ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς μέχρι τοῦ τέλους; Ael. Aristid. 30, 24 K.=10 p. 123 D.: ἐξ ἀ. εἰς τέλος; Appian, Bell. Civ. 5, 9, §36; Wsd 7:18) B 1:6; IEph 14:1; IMg 13:1; IRo 1:2, cp. vs. 1. W. gen. foll. (OGI 458, 10 life) ἡμέρας ὀγδόης B 15:8; ἡμερῶν (2 Km 14:26) Hb 7:3; τῶν σημείων first of the signs J 2:11 (ἀ. τοῦ ἡμετέρου δόγματος Orig., C. Cels. 2, 4, 20; cp. Isocr., Paneg. 10:38 Blass ἀλλ᾿ ἀρχὴν μὲν ταύτην ἐποιήσατο τ. εὐεργεσιῶν, τροφὴν τοῖς δεομένοις εὑρεῖν=but [Athens] made this the starting point of her benefactions: to provide basic needs for livelihood; Pr 8:22; Jos., Ant. 8, 229 ἀ. κακῶν); ὠδίνων Mt 24:8; Mk 13:8; κακῶν ISm 7:2. As the beginning, i.e. initial account, in a book (Ion of Chios [V BC] 392 fgm. 24 Jac. [=Leurini no. 114] ἀρχὴ τοῦ λόγου; Polystrat. p. 28; Diod. S. 17, 1, 1 ἡ βύβλος τὴν ἀ. ἔσχε ἀπὸ . . .; Ael. Aristid. 23, 2 K.=42 p. 768 D.: ἐπ᾿ ἀρχῇ τοῦ συγγράμματος; Diog. L. 3, 37 ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς Πολιτείας; cp. Sb 7696, 53; 58 [250 AD]) ἀ. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰ. Χ. Beginning of the gospel of J. C. Mk 1:1 (cp. Hos 1:2 ἀ. λόγου κυρίου πρὸς Ὡσηέ; s. RHarris, Exp. 8th ser., 1919, 113–19; 1920, 142–50; 334–50; FDaubanton, NThSt 2, 1919, 168–70; AvanVeldhuizen, ibid., 171–75; EEidem, Ingressen til Mkevangeliet: FBuhl Festschr. 1925, 35–49; NFreese, StKr 104, ’32, 429–38; AWikgren, JBL 61, ’42, 11–20 [ἀρχή=summary]; LKeck, NTS 12, ’65/66, 352–70). ἀ. τῆς ὑποστάσεως original commitment Hb 3:14. ἀρχὴν ἔχειν w. {p. 138} gen. of the inf. begin to be someth. IEph 3:1. ἀρχὴν λαμβάνειν begin (Polyb.; Aelian, VH 2, 28; 12, 53; Diog. L., Prooem. 3, 4; Sext. Emp., Phys. 1, 366; Philo, Mos. 1, 81) λαλεῖσθαι to be proclaimed at first Hb 2:3; cp. IEph 19:3.—W. prep. ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς from the beginning (Paus. 3, 18, 2; SIG 741, 20; UPZ 160, 15 [119 BC]; BGU 1141, 44; JosAs 23:4; Jos., Ant. 8, 350; 9, 30) J 6:64 v.l.; 15:27; 1J 2:7, 24; 3:11; 2J 5f; Ac 26:4; MPol 17:1; Hs 9, 11, 9; Dg 12:3. οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀ. αὐτόπται those who fr. the beginning were eyewitnesses Lk 1:2. Also ἐξ ἀρχῆς (Diod. Sic. 18, 41, 7; Appian, Bell. Civ. 5, 45 [189]; SIG 547 9; 634, 4; UPZ 185 II 5; PGen 7, 8; BGU 1118, 21; Jos., Bell. 7, 358) J 6:64; 16:4; 1 Cl 19:2; Pol 7:2; Dg 2:1. πάλιν ἐξ ἀ. (Ael. Aristid. 21, 10 K.=22 p. 443 D.; SIG 972, 174) again fr. the beginning (=afresh, anew; a common expr., Renehan ’75, 42) B 16:8. ἐν ἀρχῇ (Diod. S. 19, 110, 5; Palaeph. p. 2, 3; OGI 56, 57; PPetr II, 37, 2b verso, 4; PTebt 762, 9; POxy 1151, 15; BGU 954, 26; ViHab 14 [p. 87, 4 Sch.]) at the beginning, at first Ac 11:15; AcPlCor 2:4. ἐν ἀ. τοῦ εὐαγγελίου when the gospel was first preached Phil 4:15; sim., word for word, w. ref. to beg. of 1 Cor: 1 Cl 47:2.—τὴν ἀ. J 8:25, as nearly all the Gk. fathers understood it, is emphatically used adverbially=ὅλως at all (Plut., Mor. 115b; Dio Chrys. 10 [11], 12; 14 [31], 5; 133; Lucian, Eunuch. 6 al.; Ps.-Lucian, Salt. 3; POxy 472, 17 [c. 130 AD]; Philo, Spec. Leg. 3, 121; Jos., Ant. 1, 100; 15, 235 al.; as a rule in neg. clauses, but the negation can inhere in the sense: 48th letter of Apollonius of Tyana [Philostrat. I 356, 17]; Philo, Abrah. 116, Decal. 89; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 6, 11; without art. ApcSed 10:3; cp. Hs 2:5 cj. by W., endorsed by Joly; s. Field, Notes, 93f) τὴν ἀ. ὅτι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν (how is it) that I even speak to you at all? But s. B-D-F §300, 2. More prob. the mng. is somewhat as follows: What I said to you from the first (so NT in Basic English; sim. REB et al.; cp. τὴν ἀρχήν ‘at the beginning’ Thu 2, 74, 2; s. also RFunk, HTR 51, ’58, 95–100; B-D-F §300, 2, but appeal to P is specious, s. EMiller, TZ 36, ’80, 261). b. beginning, origin in the abs. sense (ἀ. τῆς τῶν πάντων ὑποστάσεως Orig. C. Cels. 6, 65, 4) ἀ. πάντων χαλεπῶν Pol 4:1; ἀ. κακῶν ISm 7:2 (cp. 1 Ti 6:10, which has ῥίζα for ἀ., and s. e.g. Ps 110:10; Sir 10:13); ἀ. κόσμου B 15:8; ἀ. πάντων PtK 2, p. 13, 21. ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς fr. the very beginning (Is 43:13; Wsd 9:8; 12:11; Sir 24:9 al.; PsSol 8:31; GrBar 17:2) Mt 19:4, 8; J 8:44; 1J 1:1 (of the hist. beg. of Christianity: HWendt, D. Johannesbriefe u. d. joh. Christent. 1925, 31f; HWindisch, Hdb. ad loc.; difft. HConzelmann, RBultmann Festschr., ’54, 194–201); 3:8; 2 Th 2:13; ὁ ἀπ᾿ ἀ. 1J 2:13f; Dg 11:4; οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀ. those at the very beginning, the first people 12:3; τὰ ἀπ᾿ ἀ. γενόμενα 1 C1 31:1; ἀπ᾿ ἀ. κτίσεως Mk 10:6; 13:19; 2 Pt 3:4 (on ἀ. κτίσεως cp. En 15:9); ἀπ᾿ ἀ. κόσμου Mt 24:21. Also ἐξ ἀ. (X., Mem. 1, 4, 5; Ael. Aristid. 43, 9 K.=1 p. 3 D. [of the existence of Zeus]; TestAbr A 15 p. 96, 11 [Stone p. 40]; B 4 p. 109, 7 [St. p. 66]; Ath., R. 16, p. 67, 18; Philo, Aet. M. 42, Spec. Leg. 1 300; Did., Gen. 50, 1) Dg 8:11; ἐν ἀ. in the beginning (Simplicius in Epict. p. 104, 2; Did., Gen. 29, 25 al.) J 1:1f; ἐν ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως B 15:3. κατ᾿ ἀρχάς in the beg. Hb 1:10 (Ps 101:26; cp. Hdt. 3, 153 et al.; Diod. S.; Plut.; Philo, Leg. All. 3, 92, Det. Pot. Insid. 118; Ps 118:152; Just., D. 2, 3).

2. one with whom a process begins, beginning fig., of pers. (Gen 49:3 Ῥουβὴν σὺ ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου; Dt 21:17): of Christ Col 1:18. W. τέλος of God or Christ Rv 1:8 v.l.; 21:6; 22:13 (Hymn to Selene 35 ἀ. καὶ τέλος εἶ: Orphica p. 294, likew. PGM 4, 2836; 13, 362; 687; Philo, Plant Jos., Ant. 8, 280; others in Rtzst., Poim. 270ff and cp. SIG 1125, 7–11 Αἰών, . . . ἀρχὴν μεσότητα τέλος οὐκ ἔχων, expressed from the perspective of historical beginning).

3. the first cause, the beginning (philos. t.t. ODittrich, D. Systeme d. Moral I 1923, 360a, 369a;—Ael. Aristid. 43, 9 K.=1 p. 3 D.: ἀρχὴ ἁπάντων Ζεύς τε καὶ ἐκ Διὸς πάντα; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190 God as ἀρχὴ κ. μέσα κ. τέλος τῶν πάντων [contrast SIG 1125, 10f]) of Christ ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως Rv 3:14; but the mng. beginning=‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the Ἀρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160–77). [ὁ γὰ]ρ πρ (=πατὴρ) [ἀρ]|χή ἐ[σ]τ̣[ιν τῶν μ]ελλόν|των for the Father is the source of all who are to come into being in contrast to the προπάτωρ, who is without a beginning Ox 1081, 38f (SJCh 91, 1 ἀρχή; on the context, s. WTill, TU 60/5, ’55 p. 57).

4. a point at which two surfaces or lines meet, corner (from the perspective of an observer the object appears to begin at that point), pl. corners of a sheet Ac 10:11; 11:5 (cp. Hdt. 4, 60; Diod. S. 1, 35, 10).

5. a basis for further understanding, beginning τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀ. elementary principles Hb 5:12 (perh. w. an element of gentle satire: ‘the discrete items or ABC’s that compose the very beginning [of divine instructions]’; cp. MKiley, SBLSP 25, ’86, 236–45, esp. 239f). ὁ τῆς ἀ. τοῦ Χ. λόγος elementary Christian teaching 6:1.

6. an authority figure who initiates activity or process, ruler, authority (Aeschyl., Thu. et al.; ins; pap, e.g. PHal 1, 226 μαρτυρείτω ἐπὶ τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ δικαστηρίῳ; Gen 40:13, 21; 41:13; 2 Macc 4:10, 50 al., s. Magie 26; so as a loanw. in rabb. ἀ. = νόμιμος ἐπιστασία Did., Gen. 60, 9) w. ἐξουσία Lk 20:20; pl Oenomaus in Eus., PE 6, 7, 26 ἀρχαὶ κ. ἐξουσίαι; 4 Macc 8:7; Jos., Ant. 4, 220) Lk 12:11; Tit 3:1; MPol 10:2 (αἱ ἀρχαί can also be the officials as persons, as those who took part in the funeral procession of Sulla: Appian, Bell. Civ. 1, 106 §497.—The same mng. 2, 106 §442; 2, 118 §498 al. Likewise Diod. S. 34+35 fgm. 2, 31).—Also of angelic or transcendent powers, since they were thought of as having a political organization (Damascius, Princ. 96 R.) Ro 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15; AcPl Ha 1, 7. Cp. TestJob 49, 2; Just., D. 120, 6 end.

7. the sphere of one’s official activity, rule, office (Diod. S. 3, 53, 1; Appian, Bell. Civ. 1, 13 §57; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 177, Ant. 19, 273), or better domain, sphere of influence (Diod. S. 17, 24, 2; Appian, Syr. 23 §111; Arrian, Anab. 6, 29, 1; Polyaen. 8:55; Procop. Soph., Ep. 139) of angels Jd 6. Papias (4 v.l. for ἄρχω).—S. the lit. on ἄγγελος and HSchlier, Mächte u. Gewalten im NT: ThBl 9, 1930, 289–97.—DDD 144–50 (‘Archai’). EDNT. DELG s.v. ἄρχω D. M-M. TW. Sv.

Was Timothy Considered a Jew?: Continued Discussion

Einsteinian Evidence for the Expanding Cosmos, Et Alia

I think what I've written below is accurate:

Einstein proposed his theory of special relativity in 1915. The equations for general relativity, however, were published in 1917. Almost immediately, a Dutch astronomer named Willem De Sitter found that Einstein’s relativistic equations “predicted an exploding universe, in which the galaxies of the heavens moved rapidly away from one another” (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers [New York: W. W. Norton, 1978]), 13. Another line of evidence supporting this conclusion had already been provided by Vesto Melvin Slipher in 1913. He observed that one dozen galaxies were in the Milky Way’s vicinity, “moving away from the earth at high speeds, ranging up to two million miles per hour. Slipher's hint was the first hint that the universe was expanding” (ibid). In the 1920s the expanding-universe concept gained momentum by means of further cosmological discoveries. Using a one-hundred inch telescope, Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason undertook monumental observations. See Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (New York: Vintage Books, 2005), 229-233.

The Christian Parousia: "Presence" or "Coming"?

My studies have suggested that παρουσία primarily does not have the import "coming" or "advent" when applied to Christ: it appears that παρουσία possibly could mean "arrival" in some contexts. In that connection, the word evidently refers to the visit of important personages in the Greek papyri. However, does παρουσία mean "arrival" in Matthew 24:3?

BDAG Greek-English Lexicon points out that παρουσία has these potential denotations: (1) "the state of being present at a place, presence" or (2) "arrival as the first stage in presence, coming, advent."

Sense (1) is clearly found at Phil 2:12 where Paul contrasts his own παρουσία with his ἀπουσία. 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 10:10 also seem to be examples of παρουσία being used to mean "presence" although some believe that it may signify "arrival" in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. See Rogers and Rogers, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 391. But compare Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians (New International Biblical Commentary), p. 364.

BDAG suggests that παρουσία in 2 Cor 7:6 and Phil 1:26 refers to the "coming" of Titus or Paul. However, one could just as well understand παρουσία in these verses as "presence" or "the state of being present at a place." See Moises Silva's work Philippians (The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary), pp. 86-87. To witness examples of παρουσία employed as a terminus technicus (technical term) in the case of Christians and non-Christians, consult Moulton-Milligan, p. 497.

Regarding the use of παρουσία as terminus technicus for the "presence" of Jesus Christ, I find N.T. Wright's comments enlightening:

"But why should we think--except for reasons of ecclesiastical and scholarly tradition--that PAROUSIA means 'the second coming,' and/or the downward travel on a cloud of Jesus and/or the 'son of man'? PAROUSIA means 'presence' as opposed to APOUSIA, 'absence'; hence it denotes the 'arrival' of someone not at the moment present; and it is especially used in relation to the visit 'of a royal or official personage.' Until evidence for a different meaning is produced, this should be our starting-point" (Jesus and the Victory of God, page 341).

What does Wright mean by the "arrival" of Christ, however? In that same publication, he makes it clear that he is apparently referring to the "enthronement" of Christ and not to his so-called Second Advent:

"For the ordinary sense of 'arrival', cf. 1 Cor. 16:17; 2 Cor. 7:6, 7; 10:10; Phil. 1:26; 2:12. From this, the most natural meaning for the word as applied to Jesus would be something like 'arrival on the scene,' in the sense of enthronement" (ibid).

TDNT makes the point even clearer in its treatment of παρουσία. Finally, Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon shows that ἔρχομαι possibly denotes: "to move from one place to another, either coming or going."

Arius of Alexandria (Maurice Wiles' Book)

I like to suggest book titles when I run across them while doing research. One study that you may wish to consult is Maurice Wiles' Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through the Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Despite the title, Wiles provides a very sympathetic treatment of the "arch-heresy" that earned the vilification of churchmen like Athanasius and those of his ilk. Wiles' work is especially important since he has spent most of his academic career studying the history Arianism and how it developed through the centuries.

On page 12 of this publication, Wiles observes that
Arius (in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia) called
the pre-existent Son, PLHRHS QEOS MONOGENHS ('full god
only-begotten'). He evidently derived this title from
the Prologue of John's Gospel wherein the writer
employs MONOGENHS and PLHRHS (Jn 1:14) as well as QEOS
coupled with MONOGENHS in Jn 1:18. Wiles also notes
the textual variants for 1:18 (MONOGENHS QEOS or
MONOGENHS hUIOS) but points out Arius' ostensible
preference for the reading MONOGENHS QEOS. The
patristic scholar then writes:

"The text of St John's gospel left Arius in no doubt
that the Word or Son was a divine entity; he was QEOS.
But the same passage equally clearly implied that
there was a differentiation between the application of
that term to the Father and to the Word; the latter
was MONOGENHS QEOS" (Wiles 12).

Arius further appealed to Jn 17:3, which makes a
marked distinction between 'the only true God' and
'Jesus Christ'. Arius thus concluded that while Christ
is QEOS--the Father is ALHQINOS QEOS (a point earlier
observed by Novatian in De Trinitate 31). Moreover,
Arius wisely observed that Jn 17:3 did not simply
apply to the humanity of Christ since one would
apparently be "wrenching" the saying "from its context
in the gospel" by exegeting the passage that way
(13). Arius therefore concluded that the Son is a
creature: he is the divine Wisdom spoken about in Prov
8:22-31, who was created (KTIZW) and formed (QEMELIW)
as well as born (GENNAW).

Arius' reasoning is interesting here since he
believes, as did Eusebius of Nicomedia, that in this
case, begetting and creating refer to the same
phenomenon. Eusebius of Nicomedia pointed to such
texts as Deut 32:18 where we read that God brought
forth (begot) Israel and He is even said to have
begotten the "drops of dew" in a poetic sense (Job
38:28). Ergo, the language of procreation can be
employed to delineate a created being, one brought
forth NON EX DEO, SED NIHILO. Consequently it is not
hard to see how Arius reasoned that the Son is a
creature although the Son was "begotten timelessly
before God created the worlds."

Ironically, though affirming the creaturely status of
the LOGOS, Arius still believed that the Son should be
worshiped as God. As Wiles recounts the theological
reasoning of Athanasius, Arius' arch-rival, we read:
"If the Son is not essentially God, then the only
alternative is that he is a creature. And that both
precludes him from fulfilling any saving role
[according to Athanasius], and also means that the
worship which Arians offer to him is a form of
blasphemous idolatry" (7-8).

Athanasius seems to be partly correct at this point, if
by 'worship', Arians were rendering LATREIA or
PROSKUNEW in a manner that belonged to only Almighty
God. Supposedly the Arians vigorously sang songs of
praise (hymns) to the Lamb of God and worshiped Him as
if he were God, since he 'participated' in God. If
this depiction of the ancient believers of Jesus
Christ is accurate, then we can confidently contend
that the Arians markedly differentiated themselves
from Jehovah's modern-day Witnesses who only render
LATREIA to the one identified as Jehovah (YHWH) in
Holy Writ. But I hope this information will give you an
idea of the gems that are contained in Wiles' study.
Now tolle, lege! :-)

Zerwick on Matthew 28:19

Maximilian Zerwick insists that εἰς τὸ ὄνομα in Mt 28:19 is being used sensu stricto "to suggest the end and effect of baptism" in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit: he explicitly connects baptizing with εἰς τὸ ὄνομα. I think Zerwick is also stressing the difference between εἰς and ἐν. See his work Biblical Greek, section 106.

While Zerwick perceives a noticeable lexical distinction between εἰς and ἐν without putting too much emphasis on there being one name for the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. However, Zerwick does mention the Trinity while articulating the reason for Matthew using εις in 28:19 although I stress that he doesn't argue that all three have the same name.

By "end," I assume that he's referring to the telos of baptism (i.e., goal, purpose, function) and "effect" might be understood as its result (what baptism brings about). One is baptized (Zerwick possibly is arguing) "into" the name of Father, Son and Spirit rather than "in" the name of Father, KTL.

There may not be a major distinction between the two in this case, and for my purposes, it's not all that important.

John 8:56 and Rhetorical Devices

Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν, καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη. (John 8:56 WH)

Jesus utters a relatively simple utterance, but the syntax is noticeably rhetorical (with all probability). More than likely, the Lord intentionally spoke this way or that's how John recorded the account by means of divine inspiration.

What I mean by rhetorical is when Jesus states that Abraham rejoiced to see "my day," but he both saw and rejoiced. If we track the verse rhetorically, we seem to find the structure "rejoiced" (A), "to see" (B), "he saw" (B), and "rejoiced" (A). So the passage contains a literary crisscross.

"Divine Delegation of Authority"

I've long thought of something that I call the "Divine Delegation of Authority Principle." It seems that after Jehovah God brought forth his only-begotten Son, he has always delegated authority to others and thereby acted mediately through agents. In other words, it seems that Jehovah never does hardly anything directly: he effects the divine will through various agents in order to accomplish his purpose. Examples include:

1) Angels and the Egyptian plagues (Ps. 78:49)

2) God transmitting the Jewish law by means of angels (Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2)

3) Creating the world through his Son (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2)

4) Transmitting other covenants through angels

5) Resurrecting people through prophets, the apostles or Jesus Christ

The birth of Christ took place through/by means of the holy spirit, a force which has an interesting role in all divine acts.

Scriptures That Deal with Poverty and Helping the Poor

Poverty and Assistance Scriptures

1 Samuel 2:1-6

Psalm 70:5; 72:12-14

Proverbs 14:21

Proverbs 19:1,15-17

Proverbs 30:6-8

Ecclesiastes 7:12

Amos 8:4-6

Malachi 3:10

Matthew 6:25-34 (Luke 12:22-33)

Mark 10:21

Luke 6:20-22

Luke 19:1-8 (sell what you have and give to the poor)

Luke 14:12-14

Luke 16:14

2 Corinthians 6:4-10

Galatians 2:10

James 5:1-8

1 Timothy 3:3; 6:9-10; 2 Timothy 3:2

Revelation 3:16-21

John 5:24, Present Participles, and Gnomic Perfects

The present participles ἀκούων and πιστεύων in Jn. 5:24 are instances of verbal adjectives that signal a durative or progressive Aktionsart. An interlocutor once took exception to this claim, it seems, on the basis of mostly theological rather than grammatical factors--although his grammatical objections were not wholly lacking. For instance, Jn. 5:24 also contains the perfect verbal form μεταβέβηκεν.

I submit that the perfect here in no way disproves my suggestion that the two participles in 5:24 are durative per their Aktionsart. Richard A. Young writes:

"The perfect is normally interpreted as expressing a completed act with continuing results. There are problems with this definition if time is not a function of form, for completed acts are always past. Contextually the perfect may refer to something past (Matt. 19:8), present (Matt. 27:43), possibly future (Matt. 20:23; John 5:24; Jas. 5:2-3), omnitemporal (Rom. 7:2), or timeless (John 3:18). It seems better to view the perfect and pluperfect as members of the stative aspect in which the speaker conceives the verbal idea as a condition or state of affairs" (Intermediate NT Greek, p. 126).

Wallace also classifies the perfect in Jn 5:24 as a "gnomic perfect." He explains: "The perfect tense may be used with a gnomic force, to speak of a generic or proverbial occurrence" (GGBB, p. 580-581). One could also speak of the gnomic perfect as a timeless perfect. See James 1:24.

In any event, it could be possible that John is saying, the one hearing and believing ὁ τὸν λόγον μου (the Son's word) is the one who has eternal life timelessly speaking. As Alford exclaims:

"But here the faith is set before us as an enduring faith, and its effects described in their completion (see Ephesians 1:19, Ephesians 1:20)."

Style in the Book of Jude

I have not read Jude much with attention to his style:
my concern with Jude has been more exegetical,
doctrinal or theological. Therefore, I'll post what
A. T. Robertson has to say about this Bible book's style.

(1) Jude has "a rugged rotundity of style that is
impressive and vigorous, if a bit harsh" (A Grammar of
the GNT, p. 124).

(2) Jude shows a willingness to employ both metaphors
and triplets. His work is more Hebraistically flavored
than James' epistle.

(3) While some have asserted that James does not have a
"command" of Greek grammar, Robertson states there is
actually "little that is peculiar in [Jude's] grammar, for
he shows the normal use of the Greek idiom" (125).

(4) The optative mood occurs twice in Jude.

(5) "Cases, pronouns, tenses, free use of the
participles, indicate a real mastery of current Greek"
(125).

(6) "Deissmann (Light, p. 235) considers Jude a
literary epistle in popular style and 'cosmopolite' in
tone (p. 242), with a certain degree of artistic
expression" (Robertson, 125).