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).

Henry P. Smith Offers Commentary on 1 Samuel 28:13 (ELOHIM)

It has been suggested that since the Hebrew word ELOHIM which appears in 1 Samuel 28:13 is plural, its proper referent in the text is spirits, not Samuel. This view is not impossible from an exegetical standpoint since the semantic range of ELOHIM certainly allows for this interpretation. However, I read ELOHIM in 1 Sam 28:13 as an intensive plural. That is, it appears to be talking about "a god" or "a divine being" instead of "gods" (i.e. spirits).

Commentators obviously give differing viewpoints on the construction but I found Henry Preserved Smith's take to be of interest (The International Critical Commentary on The Books of Samuel).

Smith argues that the "plural participle [in 1 Sam 28:13] would seem to indicate more than one ghostly figure. But only one is described in what follows, and we must suppose the agreement grammatical instead of logical. Similar instances of ELOHIM with a plural adjective are found Jos. 24:19 (E) Dt. 5:23 1 S[amuel]17:26, 36, etc" (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969, page 241).

I tend to agree that the context indicates that only one spirit or "god" appeared. ELOHIM, as in the other places Smith cites, seems to appear with a plural verb in 1 Sam 28:13 for grammatical (i.e., agreement) and not logical reasons.

Family Matters by Trevor J. Burke

I used Trevor Burke's book "Family Matters" when I was studying for the Ph.D. He analyzes the metaphorical devices used in 1 Thessalonians, particularly, the brother and sister language employed by Paul. I want to post some information from Burke's study. Time and circumstances will determine the extent of these blog entries.

New Testament Anthropology and Ancient Greek

The Semantic Domain of YUXH

When we research the signifier YUXH, we find that there are divergent opinions and views about the denotation of this term. BAGD list the following senses (glosses) of YUXH:

(1) Life on earth in its external, physical aspects--breath of life, life-principle, soul of animals (Gen. 9:4; Rev. 8:9).

Under this category, BAGD goes on to say that when the YUXH leaves the body, "death occurs." From there it evidently lives in Hades "or some other place outside the earth" (Rev. 6:9; 20:4).

(2) YUXH can also denote earthly life itself (Mt 20:28). Rev. 12:11 seemingly describes 'loving one's life' (something that the "brothers" mentioned in that self-same verse refuse to do).

(3) YUXH is the seat and center of the inner life of man in its many and varied aspects (Ps. 106:9; Prov. 25:25; Rev. 18:14).

(4) YUXH may also depict the feelings and emotions of humans (Mk 12:30-33).

(5) Lastly, YUXH sometimes conveys the sense of "the seat and center of life that transcends the earthly" (Phaedo 28; Mt 10:28).

So says BAGD. Conversely, Louw-Nida gives us an entirely different picture of YUXH. Based on the semantic domains listed in their lexicon, the soul cannot be an incorporeal "substance" that departs from man at death. That is, it probably is not an entity capable of living in another realm when a man or woman ceases to live "under the sun." Here are the semantic fields listed by Louw-Nida.

(1) The inner self (26.4). See Phil. 1:27.

(2) Life (23.88).

(3) A person (9.20).

(4) A living creature (4.1). Cf. Rev. 16:3.

None--I repeat, none--of the fields of meaning listed by L-N suggest that the NT teaches about an immortal soul. This observation is in line with what I have noted in my personal Bible reading, and it appears to be in line with what the scriptural literary corpus teaches. Even the Grammar of Septuagint Greek (by Conybeare and Stock) notes that the Septuagintal phrase KATA THN YUXHN hEAUTOU can be rendered "for his life." This is not apodictic proof, but all of these little details add to the case for those who do not believe in an immortal soul. Furthermore, we need to consider L-N and their remarks about PNEUMA.

Louw-Nida on PNEUMA Listed by Their Semantic Domains

(12.18) The Holy Spirit.

(12.33) Spirit, in general (a supernatural being). Cf. John 4:24

(12.37) Evil spirit.

(12.42) A ghost (Luke 24:37). But read this information carefully.

(26.9) Inner being.

(30.6) Wind.

A Discussion About NAOS and HIERON (The Great Crowd)

I believe that NAOS and hIERON semantically overlap. In fact, I think that they overlap considerably and at times are barely distinguishable from one another. Of course there are many that do not hold these views, and I now wish to cite two such authorities. I will explore this question within the context of a broader question about the great crowd of Rev. 7:9ff.

Commenting on the "the man of sin" (ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS), David J. Williams writes: "He is described in the language of the OT as setting himself up in God's temple, not literally, but in a figure. But this is not a figure of the church, which is sometimes called the temple (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:21). He also is proclaiming himself (APODEIKNUMI can have this sense) to be God (v 4; cf. Isa. 14:13; Ezek. 28:2; Dan. 7:25; 8:9-12; 11:36-39). Temple is NAOS, denoting the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum of the temple in Jerusalem (in contrast with hIERON, which embraced the whole temple precinct) in which it was believed God dwelled" (Williams, page 125).

So where does the "man of sin" sit? Does he position himself in the figurative "building" where worship to God is carried on and where God is said to dwell symbolically? Or does he "sit" in the SANCTUM SANCTORUM DEORUM?

The phrase APODEIKNUNTA hEAUTON hOTI ESTIN QEOS could indicate that ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS is depicted as sitting in the "whole temple precinct" and thus it could be said to semantically overlap with hIERON.

But let us consider another example (John 2:19). Baptist Professor Gerald Borchert writes:

"Jesus' response--'destroy [LUSATE could mean 'tear down'] this temple [NAOS, the inner segment of a temple], and I will raise [EGERW could mean 'rebuild'] it again in three days'--was completely misunderstood by the Jews" (Borchert, page 165. Words in brackets original).

Interestingly, Borchert avers that NAOS refers to "the inner segment of a temple" and applies this definition to the figurative use of NAOS in John 2:19. But I highly doubt that NAOS means "the inner segment of a temple" in 2:19. In the very next passage, the Jews wonder how Jesus can tear down and then rebuild a temple that took "forty-six years" to complete (John 2:20). Did it take forty-six years to build the inner sanctum? This Johannine account seems to be using NAOS to denote "the whole temple precinct."

Probably some of the most problematic passages are found in Revelation, however. One is Rev. 7:15 wherein the "great multitude" are said to be rendering LATREIA (LATREUOUSIN) day and night EN TWi NAWi AUTOU. What does NAOS denote here? BAGD says that NAOS in Rev. 7:15 denotes the "heavenly sanctuary." David Aune (when explaining 7:15) claims that "the worship of God in the heavenly temple by heavenly beings continues unendingly" (52B:475). Can this rightly be said of the great crowd? Are they too in "the heavenly sanctuary"?

Trying to look at this subject as dispassionately as possible, I must say that the answer is not easy. Nevertheless, I will posit some reasons to view the "great crowd" as a group of individuals who survive God's execution of judgment and continue to live on earth after this execution of justice.

The "great crowd" comes out of the "great tribulation" (Rev. 7:14). This could very well imply that these individuals are survivors of Jehovah's divine judgment and they will live forever under the rule of His benevolent kingdom. But let's look a little closer at this account.

Rev. 7:15 exclaims that "the One seated on the throne will spead his tent over them." In Rev. 21:3, 4, a comparable utterance is made about those who evidently make up the new earth: "The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them."

Notice that this exclamation is made after the New Jerusalem is seen "coming down out of heaven from God." Presumably, she (the holy city) figuratively comes to the earth, and it is in this sense that God dwells with mankind. But I have argued elsewhere (in agreement with Barnes' notes on the New Testament) that the holy city does not actually come to earth, but figuratively rests on a visionary mountain. In any event, it seems safe to declare that New Jerusalem will benevolently influence future earthly conditions.

Rev. 7:16, 17 reports that the great crowd "will hunger no more nor thirst anymore . . . And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes." Rev. 21:4 similarly tells us that God "will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."

Furthermore, the Lamb shepherds and progressively guides the great multitude to "fountains of waters of life." Yet those who inhabit New Jerusalem, where God and the Lamb serve as the new Temple, do not have to be led to "fountains of waters of life." In fact, "a river of water of life, clear as crystal" flows from the "throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of "the broad way of New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:1, 2). Therefore instead of being led to waters of life--those who inhabit the heavenly city of New Jerusalem are said to provide these waters. Thus I conclude that the great crowd is an earthly class. Nevertheless, I'm not trying to be dogmatic. There are exegetical issues with Rev. 7:15 that we must continue to examine. What does it mean for the multitudinous group of Revelation 7 to be standing before God's throne? I would like to research that point further. Nonetheless, these points should help all to see why I continue to affirm that the great crowd will live forever on earth. There are other reasons, but this explanation should suffice for now.

Louw & Nida Greek-English Lexicon on Revelation 14:4 and PARQENOS

"PARQENOS, OU [masculine]: an adult male who has not engaged in sexual relations with a woman- 'virgin, chaste.' hOUTOI EISIN hOI META GUNAIKWN OUK EMOLUNQHSAN PARQENOI GAR EISIN 'these are men who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins' Re 14:4. It is very rare that the same term can be applied to a man who has not engaged in sexual relations with a woman as is used in speaking of a woman who has not had sexual relations with a man. In fact, in English the use of 'virgin' as applied to a man seems strange. In many languages there is simply no term for a man who is a virgin, since such a state is regarded as being unthinkable. However, the first part of this statement in Re 14:4 indicates clearly the state of the persons in question. But if one does attempt to find a satisfactory term, it is important to determine whether such a word implies homosexuality, for this tends to be the case in some languages. See also comments at 9.39."

See Semantic Domain 9.33.

D. Edmond Hiebert Explains the "Spirits in Prison" (1 Peter 3:19)

A third view, apparently the oldest, identifies these "spirits in prison" with fallen angels, equated with "the sons of God" in Genesis 6. This view was widely known and generally taken for granted in the apostolic age. It is strongly presented in the Book of Enoch, a composite pre-Christian, Jewish apocryphal writing widely known in the early Christian church., This view fell into disfavor with the fourth-century church.12 This angelic trans-gression was always viewed as having taken place just prior to the Flood. Proponents point to 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6 as evidence that this view was known and accepted in the early Christian church. They also point out that in the Gospels the word "spirits" frequently refers to supernatural beings (Mark 1:23, 26, 27; 3:11; 5:2, 8; etc.). The only clear instance in the New Testament where "spirits" is used of the surviving part of man after death is in Hebrews 12:23, but this is immediately indicated by the addi-tion "of righteous men made perfect."13 References to "spirits" as supernatural beings, either good or bad, occur in the intertes-tamental literature, for example, Tobit 6:6; 2 Maccabees 3:24; Book of Jubilees 15:31; The Testament of Dan (in The Testa-ments of the Twelve Patriarchs) 1:7; 5:5. This view seems to be supported by the teaching in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 [14] and is therefore the most probable.

See http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/BSac-NT/Hiebert-1Peter3-Pt2-BS.htm for the entire exegesis of 1 Peter 3:18-22.

My Actual View of Revelation 14:4

This post is intended to make clear what I really believe about Rev 14:4 since there appears to be some confusion.

"These are the ones not defiled with women, for they have kept their virginity. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They were redeemed from the human race as the firstfruits for God and the Lamb" (HCSB).

The Greek παρθένοι appears here in its masculine form, referring to virgin males. See LSJ and BDAG. Chrys Caragounis also informs his readers that παρθένος "is applicable to both men and women, as becomes clear from a look at examples garnered from NT times to the present" (The Development of Greek and the New Testament, page 307). One example that he gives to show παρθένος can refer to either men or women is Revelation 14:4. In this particular case, the text applies to men; at least, on the surface level.

That is what I want to clarify in this post. I have clearly distinguished the surface (grammatical-level) understanding of Rev 14:4 from the deep structure (interpretive) understanding. I believe it's hard to deny that the 144,000 are depicted as males at the surface level. The words, "These are the ones not defiled with women" along with the masculine form of παρθένος support the idea that 144,000 males of Jewish descent are being portrayed here. John did not envision literal women not defiling themselves with literal women. But he could easily write about males keeping themselves clean in this respect (on the surface level).

However, what all of this means on the interpretive level is another matter. In that regard, I have not rejected anything that Jehovah's Witnesses teach about this verse. My concern has been purely grammatical. The remarks I made earlier only dealt with how the 144,000 are depicted. On the interpretive level, I believe that the 144,000 are spiritual Israelites who did not commit spiritual fornication.

A Question on Matthew 24:15

One of our readers asks the following:

Hi Edgar,

I looked for a way to post a question, but could not find a link. Please forgive me for posting my question here.

My question relates to the NWT rendering of Matt. 24:15 - "When you catch sight of the....."

"catch sight" - I really like this rendering, and I think it very well captures the sense of Jesus' words, because this phrase has the sense of 'capturing' a fast-moving event that is not of long duration. In 66 CE the Roman troops briefly and suddenly breached the wall and stood in the temple area. But then they just as suddenly withdrew. So from the perspective of a Christian in the city, he could "catch sight" of the brief event. This is different than Luke 21:20, where the NWT uses "see" with respect to the Roman armies surrounding the city in 66 CE. This was not quite so sudden an event, and it lasted a while - so the rendering "see" makes very good sense.

I think this is yet another example of the superiority of the NWT. I would like to be able to defend the Matt. 24:15 rendering based upon the Greek grammar itself. Could you examine this and help me to know how to make a defense?

Thanks so much, Edgar.

[End of Quote]

My response:

"When, therefore, you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)-World English Bible

'Whenever, therefore, ye may see the abomination of the desolation, that was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever is reading let him observe)-Young's Literal Translation

Both of these translations and many others use the verb "see" in Mt 24:15. The Greek ἴδητε is the aorist subjunctive active (second person plural) of ὁράω ("I see, look upon, experience"). Since the verb's mood is subjunctive and second person plural, YLT renders it "ye may see." It can also be translated "you will/shall see." But I also like the NWT handling of the grammar "you catch sight . . . "

Regarding the English expression "catch sight of," dictionary.com says: "to get a glimpse of; espy: We caught sight of the lake below."

I believe that the NWT chose this rendering because of the aorist tense that occurs in this verse. At one time, the aorist was commonly viewed as the "once-for-all" tense. But after the famous article by Frank Stagg, we now consider the aorist to be the default tense or it's a verb form which expresses undefined action. See "The Abused Aorist," Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 91, No. 2 (Jun. 1972): 222-231. Cf. http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/06/more-on-greek-tense-aorist.html

While the aorist by itself may not communicate a "once-for-all" time action, the context of a verse may lead us to belive that the action being portrayed by a writer occurs in a punctiliar fashion. That seems to be the case for Mt 24:15. Maybe others can provide some helpful input.

Repost of Genesis 1:26 and How Many Speakers

This post constitutes a repeat of material that has been submitted before. But just how many speakers are there in Genesis 1:26-27? On a related point, what is the significance of Elohim?

"We have . . . suggested that the plural name for God, Elohim, denotes God's unlimited greatness and supremacy. To conclude plurality of Persons from the name itself is dubious. However, when God speaks of Himself with plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26, 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8) and plural verbs . . . it does seem to indicate distinctions of Persons, though only plurality, not specifically Trinity" (Charles Ryrie, Basic
Theology, 51).

Dr. Alan Hauser expands on the argument set forth by Ryrie. He does not think that the use of the plural form for "God" in Genesis 1:26 necessarily proves that Genesis affirms God's triunity. One reason that Hauser arrives at this conclusion has to do with the Hebrew word Elohim. Granted, Elohim is a plural noun as are the pronouns "us" and "our." But these words, while they might seem to indicate plurality, do not perforce indicate triunity. We must also remember that in Hebrew it is common for the grammatically plural noun to cause verbs to be plural (Cf. Genesis 20:13, 35:7). E.A Speiser therefore renders Genesis 1:26 as follows: "The God said, 'I will make man in my image, after my likeness.'" His translation suggests only one person is speaking.

Commenting on Deuteronomy 6:4 and its use of Elohim, Baptist seminarian president John. D.W. Watts says that the term Elohim conveys "to the Semitic ear the idea of the total sum of divine attributes and powers . . . 'One Lord' conveys the essential idea. He is unique, different, exclusive. He is not many, but one . . . Yahweh [YHWH] is a single unified person. In no sense is he to be understood as represented in diverse forms and appearances in different places as Baal and other nature deities were" (The Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol. 2:214).

There is also another probable explanation for Genesis 1:26 and its use of "us" or "our" for God. The Hebraic expert Wilhelm Gesenius described the Hebrew word translated "us" as a "plural of self-deliberation." Both Gesenius and C. Westermann have upheld this view and classed Isaiah 6:8 in the same category as Genesis 1:26. In other words, what Gesenius says is that God could have been talking or 'deliberating' with Himself at
Genesis 1:26. While this is a grammatical possibility, I personally concur with the view that the Father was addressing His Son at Genesis 1:26 when God uttered the words "us" and "our." The New Testament would also seem to support such a conclusion (Col. 1:15-17).

At any rate, if God spoke to His Son, we would only have two persons in dialogue, not three. The view that God was 'self-deliberating,' however, cannot be easily discounted and may even be less problematic.

I will close with a quote from Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament:

The creation of man does not take place through a word addressed by God to the earth, but as the result of the divine decree, "We will make man in Our image, after our likeness," which proclaims at the very outset the distinction and pre-eminence of man above all the other creatures of the earth. The plural "We" was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity: modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis; or as an address by God to Himself, the subject and object being identical; or as communicative, an address to the spirits or angels who stand around the Deity and constitute His council. The last is Philo's explanation: διαλέγεται ὁ τῶν ὁ͂λων πατὴρ ταῖς ἑαυτο͂υ δυνάεσιν (δυνάμεις equals angels). But although such passages as 1 Kings 22:19., Psalm 89:8, and Daniel 10, show that God, as King and Judge of the world, is surrounded by heavenly hosts, who stand around His throne and execute His commands, the last interpretation founders upon this rock: either it assumes without sufficient scriptural authority, and in fact in opposition to such distinct passages as Genesis 2:7, Genesis 2:22; Isaiah 40:13 seq., Genesis 44:24, that the spirits took part in the creation of man; or it reduces the plural to an empty phrase, inasmuch as God is made to summon the angels to cooperate in the creation of man, and then, instead of employing them, is represented as carrying out the work alone. Moreover, this view is irreconcilable with the words "in our image, after our likeness;" since man was created in the image of God alone (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:1), and not in the image of either the angels, or God and the angels. A likeness to the angels cannot be inferred from Hebrews 2:7, or from Luke 20:36. Just as little ground is there for regarding the plural here and in other passages (Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; Isaiah 41:22) as reflective, an appeal to self; since the singular is employed in such cases as these, even where God Himself is preparing for any particular work (cf. Genesis 2:18; Psalm 12:5; Isaiah 33:10). No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis, - an interpretation which comprehends in its deepest and most intensive form (God speaking of Himself and with Himself in the plural number, not reverentiae causa, but with reference to the fullness of the divine powers and essences which He possesses) the truth that lies at the foundation of the trinitarian view, viz., that the potencies concentrated in the absolute Divine Being are something more than powers and attributes of God; that they are hypostases, which in the further course of the revelation of God in His kingdom appeared with more and more distinctness as persons of the Divine Being. On the words "in our image, after our likeness" modern commentators have correctly observed, that there is no foundation for the distinction drawn by the Greek, and after them by many of the Latin Fathers, between εἰκών (imago) and ὁμοίωσις (similitudo), the former of which they supposed to represent the physical aspect of the likeness to God, the latter the ethical; but that, on the contrary, the older Lutheran theologians were correct in stating that the two words are synonymous, and are merely combined to add intensity to the thought: "an image which is like Us" (Luther); since it is no more possible to discover a sharp or well-defined distinction in the ordinary use of the words between צלם and דּמוּת, than between בּ and כּ. צלם, from צל, lit., a shadow, hence sketch, outline, differs no more from דּמוּת, likeness, portrait, copy, than the German words Umriss or Abriss (outline or sketch) from Bild or Abbild (likeness, copy). בּ and כּ are also equally interchangeable, as we may see from a comparison of this verse with Genesis 5:1 and Genesis 5:3. (Compare also Leviticus 6:4 with Leviticus 27:12, and for the use of בּ to denote a norm, or sample, Exodus 25:40; Exodus 30:32, Exodus 30:37, etc.) There is more difficulty in deciding in what the likeness to God consisted. Certainly not in the bodily form, the upright position, or commanding aspect of the man, since God has no bodily form, and the man's body was formed from the dust of the ground; nor in the dominion of man over nature, for this is unquestionably ascribed to man simply as the consequence or effluence of his likeness to God. Man is the image of God by virtue of his spiritual nature. of the breath of God by which the being, formed from the dust of the earth, became a living soul.

The quote from K-D is primarily informational. I do not agree with their triune suggestions for the text.

Restored Internet

MY internet has been out since Wednesday, but we're back up now. I'll be posting replies on Saturday and Sunday. It's good to be back.

Regards,

Edgar

A "Mock Humility," How? (Colossians 2:18 NWT)

One of my favorite WT articles is from 7/15 1985, pp. 10-14. That WT dealt with modern philosophies that tend to draw us away from God (Colossians 2:8). They are not necessarily theories, but rather philosophies of life. Cf. the German term Lebensphilosophie. Here is a brief quote from paragraph 16 of that article:

"Self-appointed judges and teachers pose yet another danger. Like those in Colossae, they may make issues of purely personal matters. They are often characterized by 'mock humility.' (Colossians 2:16-18) Their holier-than-thou attitude betrays a wrong motive—a desire to elevate themselves above others. They are often 'righteous overmuch,' quick to go beyond what the 'faithful slave' has said or published. Thus they may ignite controversies over such matters as recreation, health care, styles of dress and grooming, or the use of alcoholic beverages. (Ecclesiastes 7:16; Matthew 24:45-47) Attention is thereby diverted from spiritual matters and focused on fleshly desires."

I've just always liked this paragraph since it shows the rightful place of conscience in our worship to Jehovah. I have no intention of applying this material to anyone but myself.

All the best!

Edgar

Understanding Acts 2:24

"Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it" (KJV).

"But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him" (NIV).

The more I look at this passage, the more it seems that it could be an example of deliberate ambiguity. WDINAS can refer to either "cords" or "pains," and both meanings seem appropriate here. But the stress may be on the cords--without excluding the notion of "birth pangs."

In this regard, Richard Longenecker writes: "The imagery is of 'death pangs' (WDINAS TOU QANATOU; NIV, 'agony of death') and their awful clutches (cf. 2 Sam. 22:6; Pss. 18:4-6; 116:3), from which God is 'freeing' Jesus 'because it was impossible to keep its hold on him' (Acts. The Expositor's Bible Commentary. P. 75).

The last part of 2:24 that is marked by KAQOTI seems to show where Peter placed the stress at, namely, on the idea of cords constricting Jesus while at the same time causing figurative pain (i.e., Jesus, did not literally suffer while in hADHS).

Louw-Nida note: "hOTI, KAQOTI: markers of cause or reason, based on an evident fact - 'because, since, for, in view of the fact that'" (Sec. 89.33). See Luke 1:7.

Arnobius of Sicca Regarding Human Lingual Conventions

Arnobius of Sicca writes: "Yet, if you consider the true state of the case, no language is naturally perfect, and in like manner none is faulty. For what natural reason is there, or what law written in the constitution of the world, that PARIES [i.e. 'wall'] should be called HIC, and SELLA [i.e. 'chair'] HOEC?-since neither have they sex distinguished by male and female, nor can the most learned man tell me what HIC and HOEC are, or why one of them denotes the male sex while the other is applied to the female. These conventionalities are man's, and certainly are not indispensable to all persons for the use of forming their language; for PARIES might perhaps have been called HOEC, and SELLA HIC without any fault being found, if it had been agreed upon at first that they should be so called, and if this practice had been maintained by following generations in their daily conversation" (Adversus nationes 1.59).

My Remarks: HIC is a Latin masculine pronoun applied to words like PARIES (meaning 'wall') whereas the pronoun HOEC [SIC] is applied to words that are grammatically feminine. But Arnobius expresses the idea that these are mere human conventions. We can't read too much into grammatical gender.

Genesis 2:3 (NWT)

The NWT renders Gen 2:3: "And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making."

The Hebrew SHAVATH is perfect state. Now the NWT elsewhere consistently renders Hebrew perfects as indicative of complete action and imperfect states as significative of ongoing or continuous action. For example, Gen 2:2 in the NWT reads:

"and he [God] proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all the work that he had made."

Now, if you study the footnotes for Gen 2:2-3 and the
appendix for the imperfect and perfect states in the
NWT, I believe it will help you to see why Gen 2:3 is
rendered "he has been resting."

Brenton's LXX has hOTI EN AUTHN KATEPAUSEN APO PANTWN TWN ERGWN AUTOU. KATEPAUSEN is aor ind act 3rd sg. This is interesting since the aorist tense generally delineates action as a whole:

"Since the aorist tense simply denotes occurrence without reference to initiation, progress, completion, or any such thing, it is usually translated from the indicative mood into English by a past tense" (Greek Enchiridion, W.G. MacDonald, page 9).

This is also what the qal perfect highlights (i.e.,
undefined action). The same morphological form,
KATEPAUSEN, appears in Heb 4:4. Therefore, it is
possible that Gen 2:3 may simply describe an action in
its entirety, leaving its temporal reference somewhat
undefined.

As regards the qal stem, it is normally divided into
two classes: "verbs that represent action (fientive)
and verbs that describe a state of being (stative)"
(The Complete Word Study: Old Testament, page 2282).
Some sources that I have consulted say that there is
no "passive counterpart" to the qal stem; others
debate this point. At any rate, the qal perfect in Gen
2:3 seems to describe "simple, perfective action
viewed as a whole" (ibid., 2283).

What Are the Potential Implications of Special Relativity Theory?

A. Michael Guillen believes that special relativity is one of the "five equations that changed the world." Professor A. P. French (MIT) also is convinced that Einstein’s scientific achievements deeply affected the intellectual development of modern physics. The special theory of relativity has unalterably changed how we perceive the world; moreover, it has ushered in an era of science called the new physics.

B. Albert Einstein postulated his theory of special relativity in 1905. It deals with bodies that move at ultra-high speeds (near the speed of light). Einstein used thought experiments (Gedanken experiments) to test his ideas. In one of his these experiments, the renowned physicist mentally explores relative simultaneity by using the example of a train and lightning striking within the view of observers on the train. According to special relativity theory, if a train is traveling West, then lightning appears to strike first in the West and subsequently in the East. On the other hand, if the train is headed East, the lightning appears to strike first in the East and then in the West for an observer riding on the train. But if the train is in a position of rest, the bolts of lightning—relative to the observers' frame of reference—strike simultaneously in the East and in the West. Einstein's theory accordingly does not abolish the notion of simultaneity altogether. It only says that a "rigid reference body" or coordinate system must be shared in order for simultaneity to obtain. The train is just such a coordinate system. Simultaneity for Einstein is thereby relative as opposed to being absolute. And the operative equation for special relativity is e = mc2.

I. Some Implications of Special Relativity for the World

A. When a person accelerates, his or her perception of time and space shrinks by a factor involving two quantities. These two quantities are v (velocity) and c (light). While acceleration makes time and space appear to shrink, it actually causes mass and energy to expand: only the perception of space and time shrinks.

B. When someone is at rest, no reductive percepts transpire. But movement that takes place near the speed of light results in percepts being significantly altered. The faster that objects move, the smaller that impressions of inches and seconds become. If one travels near the speed of light, the entire cosmos apparently shrinks ad nihilum for him or her. Reciprocally, however, a person's mass and energy seems to expand ad infinitum (since zero is the reciprocal of infinity).

C. Yet before these effects start to occur, spatial objects must be moving close to the speed of light (300,000 km/sec). Stephen Hawking points out that at 10% the rate of light-speed, an object's mass only increases .5%. At 90% light-speed, however, the same object would assume more than twice its normal mass.

II. Further Implications of Special Relativity

A. Special Relativity implies that energy and mass are two sides of the same coin. Brain Greene writes: "From e=mc², we know that mass and energy are interchangeable; like dollars and euros, they are convertible currencies (but unlike monetary currencies, they have a fixed exchange rate, given by the speed of light times itself, c²" (The Fabric of the Cosmos, page 354).

B. Mass can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass.

C. We now know that it's possible to split an atom and generate power from this act of fissioning. Moreover, successive fission, fusion and fission is possible. The atom bomb and the sun demonstrate how hydrogen fusion works.


Bibliography

French, A. P. Special Relativity. New York: Norton, 1968.

Guillen, Michael. Five Equations That Changed the World: The Power and Poetry of Mathematics. New York: MJF Books, 1995.

Hawking, S. W. A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam Books, 2011.

ANDRES in Acts 17:34

Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress argue that ANDRES is not used generically in Acts 17:34. In part, they write:

"We could go on with further examples from the New Testament, but the analysis would be similar. There are many cases in which the context by itself would not require the meaning "man." But in all of these cases the meaning "man" makes sense and is not foreign to the context. Our approach here is just the same that Greek lexicographers regularly use in studying the meanings of word. We are not arguing that ANHR could never lose its male semantic component in specialized idioms, but only that the argument that it loses its male marking in any New Testament examples is based on very doubtful evidence, and is not sound lexicography."




See http://www.bible-researcher.com/aner.html

Moulton and Milligan on BASILEUS

This discussion is based on M-M's Vocabulary of the New Testament.

BASILEUS was a title adopted by Alexander the Great and it was used by his successors "in the Syrian and Egyptian monarchies." It was a title known to Jews of the Diaspora and later came to be applied to the Roman Emperor.

Concerning the title BASILEUS BASILEWN (Rev 17:14; 19:16), Deissmann presented evidence that this phrase was "in very early Eastern history a decoration of actual great monarchs and also a divine title." Furthermore, "Dittenberger (p. 648) contests Strack's attempt to claim BASILEUS as well as BASILISSA as a term applicable to non-regnant members of a royal family: he notes that there is all the difference between BASILEUS and its feminine. Wilcken Archiv iii. p. 319 supports him, and notes inscriptions where BASILEUS is promptly dropped when a mere H. R. H. is named after the king and his consort. He also commends Dittenberger's remark that Augustus and Augusta had the same difference after Domitian's time."

BDAG on BASILEUS

I have the BDAG Greek-English Lexicon in print, but do not own the electronic form. It's a little much to type out. So I'll just post a brief snippet and those who want to consult BDAG may do so at their convenience.

BDAG notes that BASILEUS denotes "one who rules as possessor of the highest office in a political realm, king, [generally] of a male ruler who has unquestioned authority (exceptions are client rulers who owe their power to the grace of Rome) in a specific area POIEIN TINA B. make someone king J[ohn] 6:15."

The word is applied to human kings, Christ, God and Abaddon (Rev 9:11).

I also found an interesting reference in LSJ where Aristotle calls the queen bee "BASILEUS." But there are good reasons why this fact does not necessarily prove that BASILEUS was used generically (of males and females) in ancient Greece or in Scripture.

Melek Links

I've been arguing that MELEK means "king" and not "king or queen." It's interesting that Melek is also a Hebrew name for boys. Hebrew girls are evidently not named MELEK although I have not researched that particular issue with any semblance of thoroughness yet.

Here are some links that appear to support my position on MELEK:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/42_lesson01.html

From this site: "Every noun is either masculine or feminine. An obvious masculine noun is אישׁ (iysh - man) and an obvious feminine noun would be אשׁה (iyshah - woman). As can be seen in this example the suffix ה (ah) can be added to a masculine noun to make it feminine. Another example is the word מלך (melek - king), a masculine noun whereas מלכה (mal'khah - queen) is the feminine form."

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/4428.htm (See BDB at this link)

Commentary on Revelation 14:4

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

For they are virgins - παρθένοι parthenoi. This is the masculine form, but this form is found in the later Greek and in the Christian fathers. See Suidas and Suicer, Thes. The meaning of the word, when found in the feminine form, is well understood. It denotes a virgin, a maiden, and thence it is used to denote what is chaste and pure: virgin modesty; virgin gold; virgin soil; virgin blush; virgin shame. The word in the masculine form must have a similar meaning as applied to men, and may denote:

(a) those who are unmarried;

(b) those who are chaste and pure in general.

The word is applied by Suidas to Abel and Melchizedek. "The sense," says DeWette, in loco, "cannot be that all these 144,000 had lived an unmarried life; for how could the apostle Peter, and others who were married, have been excluded? But the reference must be to those who held themselves from all impurity - "unkeuschheit und hurerei" - which, in the view of the apostles, was closely connected with idolatry." Compare Bleek, Beitr. i. 185. Prof. Stuart supposes that the main reference here is to those who had kept themselves from idolatry, and who were thus pure. It seems to me, however, that the most obvious meaning is the correct one, that it refers to the redeemed as chaste, and thus brings into view one of the prominent things in which Christians are distinguished from the devotees of nearly every other form of religion, and, indeed, exclusively from the world at large.

From Vincent's Word Studies:

Virgins (παρθένοι)

Either celibate or living in chastity whether in married or single life. See 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, 1 Corinthians 7:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2.

From Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:

These are they which were not defiled with women - They are pure from idolatry, and are presented as unspotted virgins to their Lord and Savior Christ. See 2 Corinthians 11:2. There may be an allusion here to the Israelites committing idolatry, through the means of their criminal connection with the Midianitish women. See Numbers 25:1-4; Numbers 31:16.

John Gill also writes:

for they are virgins; for their beauty and comeliness in Christ, chastity, sincerity of their love, uncorruptness in doctrine and worship, and for the uprightness of conversation

Revelationcommentary.org provides some helpful information too:

Some have suggested that spiritual celibacy be intended here. That is, the 144,000 remained faithful to the Lord and did not commit spiritual immorality with the woman presented in Revelation 17-18. However, the text refers to women and not the woman. For they have kept themselves chaste further defines this unique group. Literally, the Greeks [SIC] says, For they are virgins (parthenoi). Parthenoi usually refers to women exclusively. Here it refers to men only. These men have not engaged in sexual intercourse. They are Jewish celibates. Some have attempted to make "the women" refer to "the woman" of Revelation 17. However, this is unlikely. There is both a ritual and moral purity ascribed to the 144,000.

Anselm of Canterbury on the Divine Emotions or Lack Thereof

BUT how art thou compassionate, and, at the same time, passionless? For, if thou art passionless, thou dost not feel sympathy; and if thou dost not feel sympathy, thy heart is not wretched from sympathy for the wretched; but this it is to be compassionate. But if thou art not compassionate, whence cometh so great consolation to the wretched? How, then, art thou compassionate and not compassionate, O Lord, unless because thou art compassionate in terms of our experience, and not compassionate in terms of thy being.

Truly, thou art so in terms of our experience, but thou art not so in terms of thine own. For, when thou beholdest us in our wretchedness, we experience the effect of compassion, but thou dost not experience the feeling. Therefore, thou art both compassionate, because thou dost save the wretched, and spare those who sin against thee; and not compassionate, because thou art affected by no sympathy for wretchedness.

Taken from Proslogium (CHAPTER VIII).

Arguments from Silence and Exegesis (BIOS)

Without getting into the issue of what constitutes an argument from silence, let's just say that I don't think I'm guilty of one where the application of BIOS is concerned. The Greek term BIOS does not simply mean "life" but it refers to a particular kind of life. It is possible to conceive of life in abstract or concrete terms: Hebrew makes this kind of distinction. On the other hand, we can refer to spiritual and physical life. In that case, Jehovah would fit into the former category, but not the latter one. But let me explain why my refusal to apply BIOS to God at present is not an argument from silence.

Let's imagine that we were never told men should be family heads. Suppose that the term KEPHALH (or its Hebrew equivalent) was never applied to men in the scriptures. Imagine that the concept of a male family head also was never introduced in the Bible. Do you think we would be justified in applying KEPHALH to males in that case? I personally would have a problem, if that were the case.

But now, let's move from the counterfactual to a factual situation. There are many people today who refer to certain buildings as "churches" or they call them churches. Granted, the word EKKLHSIA does appear in scripture, and I have no problem rendering it as "church, congregation" or "assembly." One problem, however, is that no first-century Christian ever understood the word church to signify a building. That use of the word comes much later in Greek history. So would you consider it an argument from silence, if a Christian today refused to apply the term "church" to a building in which people worship? IMO, it's just a matter of trying to do the scriptural terms justice. Use and usage are integral aspects of lexicography, semantics, exegesis and hermeneutics. I can't just decide to call an object (O) by a signification (S) with no lexical justification. Well, I guess that I could. But the speech act would mean very little to anyone except me.

David Conway and the Logical Problem of Evil

David Conway argues that the proposition "evil is omni-preventable" is true, regardless of whether it is necessarily or contingently true. He chides those who might make such modal distinctions regarding truth as necessarily or contingently true (at least, in this case he does). For a truth to be necessarily true means that it's true in all possible worlds. Contingent truths are true in some possible worlds, but could be false in others.

Let's accept Conway's claim that the proposition "evil is omni-preventable" is true although I have reservations about his approach since the modal distinctions make a huge difference here. I do not believe that it will suffice to say that the aforegoing utterance is true. Why is that the case? Imagine S (a 3 pack a day smoker) who has made a choice which could be described as "evil" (morally speaking) which leads to yet another evil, namely, lung cancer. Granted, one might argue that God could have prevented S from smoking 3 packs a day and he could have prevented S from getting lung cancer by dint of this "evil" habit. Yet, in order for God (the omnipotent and omniscient being of Christianity and Judaism, etc) to prevent these two evils, it seems that God could not have created S with the ability to perform (or refrain from performing) the action (A) which brought it about that S suffered the evil of lung cancer.

Even if Conway wants to argue that God could have made the world such that S could never have made the decision to smoke, etc, I truly do not see how that God's not preventing the aforementioned evils work to disprove his existence.

In summary, one of my objections to Conway's claim regarding the omni-preventability of evil is that he has failed to flesh out what he means by "evil" (moral or natural). It is not sufficient to say that the proposition "evil is omni-preventable" is true, even if one accepts Conway's point about the modal distinctions. We now have to make subtle distinctions regarding evil and show why God should bring it about that S cannot choose to smoke 3 packs a day, drink alcohol in great quantities or drive 120 mph on I-40, all actions which could be characterized as "evil" insofar as they have the potential to wreak great harm.

Concerning Isaiah 7:14 (ALMA/ALMAH)

I wrote this post over ten years ago. It has been slightly edited to make sense for this blog.

I have been reviewing John Meier's work entitled A Marginal Jew and I am trying to share thoughts with you while working my way through the book. On pp. 221-222, Meier writes:

"We have no clear evidence that the famous passage of Isa 7:14 cited by Matthew ('behold, a virgin shall conceive') was ever taken to refer to a virginal conception before NT authors used it. The Hebrew text refers simply to a woman called an 'ALMA^, a young woman of marriageable age. Even the [LXX] of Isa 7:14 need not refer to virginal conception. While PARQENOS, the word the [LXX] uses to translate 'ALMA^, does often mean 'virgin,' it can also carry the more general meaning of a young girl of marriageable age and is so used at times in the [LXX]."

Admittedly, one has to look at the extensive footnotes in Meier's monograph to comprehend his line of thought fully here. Is there solid linguistic evidence for rendering Isa 7:14 with the term "virgin"? Frankly, I have no objection to the NWT rendering of Isa 7:14 ("maiden"), but it seems that 'ALMA^ could very well refer to a virgin.

I think you make a good point about the Hebrew word OTH ("sign"). OTH is often used to delineate wondrous works (i.e., miracles) of YHWH in the OT. The appearance of OTH in Isa 7:14 is thus a good indicator that something was unusual or supernatural about the "maiden" conceiving ('bearing a son').

I guess the only problem with translating it "virgin" is the historical circumstances surrounding the prophecy of Isaiah. It is quite possible that a married woman, namely, Isaiah's wife, fulfilled the prophecy in ancient Judah. We cannot be dogmatic about the identity of the "maiden" in ancient times, but the point is that she probably did not conceive and give birth to a son while a virgin. Nevertheless, I think the semantic range of 'ALMA^ certainly allows for the translation "virgin." The prophet could have actually used the term 'ALMA^ in an ambiguous way since his words were ultimately propleptic in nature. That is, he could be talking about a young girl of marriageable age in the minor fulfillment and a literal virgin in the antitypical fulfillment of this prophecy. But I tend to lean toward the "virgin" shade of meaning for the word 'ALMA^.

To be fair to Meier, PARQENOS does not necessarily refer to a virgin. But the synchronic evidence suggests that the LXX translators had a literal virgin in mind when they used PARQENOS. LSJ has this information on PARQENOS:

parqe/nos, Lacon. parse/nos Aristoph. Lys. 1263 (lyr.). h(, maiden, girl, Hom. Il. 22.127, etc. ; ai( a)/qliai p. e)mai/ my unhappy girls, Soph. OT 1462, cf. Aristoph. Kn. 1302 ; also gunh\ parqe/nos Hes. Th. 514; p. ko/ra, of the Sphinx, dub. in Eur. Phoen. 1730 (lyr.); quga/thr p. Xen. Cyrop. 4.6.9 ; of Persephone, Eur. Hel. 1342 (lyr.), cf. S.Fr.804; virgin, opp. gunh/, IDEM=Soph. Trach. 148, Theoc.27.65.

2. of unmarried women who are not virgins, Hom. Il. 2.514, Pind. P. 3.34, Soph. Trach. 1219, Aristoph. Cl. 530.

3. *parqe/nos, h(, the Virgin Goddess, as a title of Athena at Athens, Paus. 5.11.10, au=Paus. 10.34.8 (hence of an Att. coin bearing her head, E.Fr.675); of Artemis, Eur. Hipp. 17 ; of the Tauric Iphigenia, Hdt. 4.103 ; of an unnamed goddess, SIG46.3 (Halic., v B.C.), IG12.108.48,au=IG 12.108.54=lr (Neapolis in Thrace); ai( i(erai\ p., of the Vestal Virgins, D.H.1.69, Plu.2.89e, etc. ; ai( *(estia/des p. IDEM=Plu.Cic.19; simply, ai( p. D.H.2.66.

4. the constellation ti=D.H. Virgo, Eudox.ap.Hipparch. 1.2.5, Arat.97, etc.

5. = ko/rh III, pupil, X.ap.Longin.4.4, Aret. SD1.7.

II. as Adj., maiden, chaste, parqe/non yuxh\n e)/xwn Eur. Hipp. 1006, cf. Porph. Marc.33 ; mi/trh p. Epigr.Gr.319 : metaph., p. phgh/ Aesch. Pers. 613.

III. as masc., parqe/nos, o(, unmarried man, Apoc.14.4.

IV. p. gh= Samian earth (cf. parqe/nios III), PMag.Berol.2.57.

Acts 1:8 Read As An Imperatival Sentence

Acts 1:8 reads:

ALLA LHMYESQE DUNAMIN EPELQONTOS TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS EF' hUMAS KAI ESESQE MOU MARTURES EN TE IEROUSALHM KAI EN PASAi THi IOUDAIAi KAI SAMARIAi KAI hEWS ESXATOU THS GHS.

While studying the NT use of the future tense, I ran across something I had not thought about before. Daniel B. Wallace says that Acts 1:8 is an example of the predictive future. But he goes on to point out that the second future in the passage, namely, LHMYESQE DUNAMIN EPELQONTOS TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS EF' hUMAS KAI ESESQE MOU MARTURES, may be imperatival (Wallace, GGBB, 568). In fact, John Polhill contends that the future tense in Acts 1:8 does have "an imperatival sense" (Polhill, Acts, 85). He words the passage: "you will [must] receive power" and "you WILL be my witnesses."

Morphologically, the futures in Acts 1:8 could be construed as predictives or imperativals.

The Denotation of the Biblical Term for Soul

The word "soul" (Hebrew nepes and Greek psyche) apparently has three primary meanings in the Bible:

(1) A human person.

(2) An animal.

(3) The life enjoyed by a person or animal.

Genesis 2:7 describes Adam becoming a "living being" (Amplified Bible) or a "living soul" (New World Translation). The apostle Paul also invokes this account when reproving some in the Corinthian ecclesia (1 Cor. 15:45). Furthermore, animals are called "souls" in Numbers 31:28; Ezekiel 47:9; Revelation 8:9; 16:3. For an example of psyche denoting "life," see Matthew 16:25; 20:28.

Technically, I do not believe that there is any dichotomy between the body and the soul in the OT or NT. A number of biblical commentators have also noted this point:

"The Jewish origin of the word [YUXH] is determinative: NEPES is the living quality of the flesh. The soul belongs to man's earthly existence. It does not exist without physical life. It is not, say, freed by death, then to live its untrammeled purity. Death is its end. The word YUXH can also mean the person, and this is related to SWMA, SARX and PNEUMA (Rom. 16:4: hUPER THS YUXHS MOU 'For my life')" (Conzelmann, Hans. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament, 179).

The Next Few Days (Memorial)

I'm not going to be blogging much for the next few days because of the Memorial of Christ's death (Nisan 14) and I also have a talk dealing with Jesus' resurrection this week. So, those of you who observe the Memorial, have a wonderful observance. Everybody is invited. Our observance will be tonight, starting at 7:30 PM.

All the best,

Edgar

Edited Review of Daniel B. Wallace's Greek Grammar

I have to laud and simultaneously criticize Daniel B. Wallace's book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996). If I have ever written an ambivalent book review, this is it.

Wallace's grammar merits a five star rating in terms of what it teaches about biblical Greek. It is probably one of the best New Testament Greek grammars on the market. The author is to be commended for his scientific approach to Greek grammar and linguistics in general. For the most part, past decisions about what constitutes a subjective genitive or an objective gentive, an ablative of separation or a dative of reference in a particular Bible verse have been highly subjective. Wallace tries to improve the process and he should praised for his efforts.

A laudable aspect of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is Wallace's ability to implement recent works on aspect and Aktionsart. He also gives plenty of examples throughout his grammar that illustrate Greek voice, mood, and aspect. The author is generally level-headed in his approach and anyone reading this work cannot help but improve his or her proficiency in Greek. The professor's discussion on demonstrative and relative pronouns is excellent and the section concerning the Granville Sharp Rule is probably one of the most enlightening and lucid treatments of the subject, although I disagree with Wallace's conclusion on the famed rule. Overall, Wallace's work is a welcome addition to any scholar's library. The only drawback to this grammar is his failure to interact fully with the many possibilities of the New Testament Greek text.

At this point, I do not want to sound like a broken record, but I must object to Wallace's dogmatic assertions about the Witnesses' understanding of John 1:1c; 8:58 and Titus 2:13. Despite his "learned" protestations to the contrary, Jehovah's Witnesses are on solid ground regarding their understanding of the aforesaid passages.

For example, Margaret Davies poses the question: "Is Jesus' remark, 'Before Abraham was, I am he' a reminder that he is the eternal LOGOS?" (Davies 86). She concludes that this reading of Jn 8:58 "is neither an obvious nor a necessary reading" (86). She also writes: "We should conclude, therefore, that the Johannine Jesus' use of the 'I am' form draws on Wisdom declarations from its Scripture, and does not assert Jesus' divinity" (Davies 87).

Lastly, I think Wallace also overlooks some key information when he analyzes the demonstrative pronoun hOUTOS in 1 John 5:20. The bias appears to shine through clearly in this case: he dismisses the alternate view too hastily. While I do not necessarily fault Wallace for taking a doctrinal stand based on how he reads the Greek of the New Testament, I think he needs to let his readers know (more fully) that there are other ways to understand the text.

In A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament written by Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, they say regarding 1 John 5:20 and hOUTOS:

"the ref. is almost certainly to God the real, the true, op. paganism (v 21)."

Overall, despite the few shortcomings that I believe Wallace's grammar contains, I can still recommend it with a clear conscience. As with any work, I suggest reading it critically and trying to research the examples he gives, for yourself.

Are Christians Still Under the Mosaic Law?

Concerning Eph 2:14-15:

The International Critical Commentary on Ephesians and Colossians (T. K. Abbott) has this to say:

"The Mosaic law as such, not merely certain aspects of it, has come to an end in Christ. He is the 'end of the law,' Rom 10:4. Faith having come, we are no longer hUPO PAIDAGWGON" (page 64).

Abbott adds:

"NOMOS here is not to be limited to the ceremonial law; there is nothing in the connexion to show such a limitation, which on the contrary, would make the statement very weak . . . The moral law retains its obligation, not, however, because the Jewish law is only partially annulled, but because its obligation was independent of the law and universal (Rom 2:14)" (64-65).

He goes on to show that Christians now fulfill the "moral law" of the Mosaic Code since a life governed by the spirit is in direct conformity with the moral precepts of the ancient Jewish Law mediated by Moses. Abbott makes an astute observation when he also notes the Pauline contrast between works of law and fruit
of the spirit. We also do well to recall the apostle's words found at Gal 5:18: "Furthermore, if you are being led by spirit, you are not under law" (EI DE PNEUMATI AGESQE OUK ESTE hUPO NOMON).

If THN EXQRAN is in apposition to NOMON TWN ENTOLWN EN DOGMASIN, which I think it is, then Eph 2:14-15
indicates that the entire Mosaic Code was made inoperative via the death of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I must therefore reject R. Schnackenburg's suggestion (The Epistle to the Ephesians. T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1991) when he contends that only the ceremonial aspects of the Law were abolished by means of Christ's death. Paul, on the other hand, clearly teaches that Christians are not under Law, but serve God under the loving assurance of His manifested and benevolent unmerited kindness (Rom 6:14-15).

Richard Longenecker (in his Word commentary on Galatians) likewise writes that Paul delivers the 'coup de grace' to the Judaizers whom he theologically opposes since he teaches that the Law "no longer has validity as a PAIDAGWGOS regulating the life of [Christian] faith" (149). No longer are Jewish precepts (moral or ceremonial) required for Christian faith. So Longenecker observes, when commenting on Galatians 3:25.

I find that James Dunn also has to concede this point in some way, namely, that Paul teaches the Law has been fulfilled and rendered inoperative through Christ. While he apparently wants to avoid a type of dualism that is evidently posited by Lutherans, Dunn has to treat Paul's letter to the Romans with a certain amount of scholastic integrity. He thus believes that the traditional antithesis between law and grace (undeserved kindness) can withstand scrutiny, but "not in the overdrawn terms of the classic Lutheran formulation" (Romans 1-8. Dallas: Word Books, 1988, pp. 340-341).

Regardless of how Dunn exegetes Rom 6:14-15 and other such texts, I think the Pauline teaching on Law is quite clear: Christians are no longer bound by the Torah, although they conduct lives in harmony with its moral precepts. Paul wrote: "So, my brothers, you also were made dead to the Law through the body of the Christ, that you might become another's, the one who was raised up from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God" (Rom 7:4).

Also:

"For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness" (Rom 10:4).

Peter van Inwagen on God's Maleness or Lack Thereof

Professor van Inwagen (University of Notre Dame) writes:

"Before leaving the topic of the personhood of God, I should say a word about sex--not sex as the vulgar use the word, not sexual intercourse, but sexual dimorphism--what people are increasingly of late, and to my extreme annoyance, coming to call 'gender.' We haven't yet officially said this, but, as everyone knows, God does not occupy space, so he can't have a physical structure; but to have a sex, to be male or female, is, among other things, to have a physical structure. God, therefore, does not have a sex. It is literally false that he is male, and literally false that he is female" (The Problem of Evil, page 21).

Although van Inwagen does not think God is male or female, he uses the third-person singular pronoun "he" to avoid calling God "it."

What Makes Language and Consciousness Possible?

Concept-formation can be explained without appealing to non-physical factors. I am not arguing that perceptions are conceptions. But what I am suggesting is that conceptions are possible representations of percepts by dint of natural language and neural networks. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (based on the work of Eleanor Rosch) have argued that we categorize things (e.g. birds, chairs, tables, and teapots) according to fuzzy prototypical characteristics (cf. Metaphors We Live By). However, the prototypes by means of which we classify various objects emanate from our somatic experiences. For example, although I had never seen a Highland Cow until the year 2002, I knew that it was a cow upon first sight. Yet the Highland Cow was unlike any cow I had ever seen before.

Lakoff and Johnson would say that I was able to associate the Scottish cow with my prototype of such animals based on past somatic experiences. But my concept of cowness is nothing more than the result of what I've perceived with my sense organs (inter alia) and how my brain represents the usual properties of bovines which it derives from distal and proximal stimuli. There is no need to posit a soul in order to account for concept-formation, language or consciousness.

Why I Developed the Father as Metaphor Argument

My dissertation is entitled "Metaphor and Divine Paternity." I started forming the ideas for the work after talking with a friend about the possibility that God might be an emblematic father rather than a literal father.

The research that I undertook moved me in the direction of God's metaphorical fatherhood. The divine metaphor "Father" is old and it seems to harmonize with other figures used to reference God. But I also believe that the metaphorical view undermines the eternal generation idea. If Jehovah is a symbolic father of the Son as opposed to being a literal father, then the eternal generation idea loses its force. If Father is a metaphor for how God relates to his Son or to creation, then the Son's eternal generation becomes a moot point since Jehovah has not literally fathered anyone.

2 Sam 7:14 teaches us that God fathered the Davidic line of rulers in ancient Israel. Did Jehovah literally sire those men? I think it's not hard to see how the use of Father within the text is metaphorical.

We've been discussing this point for a little while now. I'm going to move on soon, but just wanted to provided a fuller description of my viewpoint.

Repost of How the Term "Father" is a Metaphor

Since the issue of God's paternity is the subject of my dissertation and has been a recent topic for discussion on this blog, I want to direct our readers to this blog entry. Thanks everyone.


http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2011/09/metaphorical-use-of-father-for-god.html

Edgar

Acquitted from Sin (Romans 6:7 NWT)

The passage in Romans 6:7 is an arresting text.

"For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin" (NWT).

"for he who has paid the penalty of death stands absolved from his sin"
(Weymouth).

"For he that is dead is freed from sin" (Webster's).

"for a dead man can safely be said to be immune to the power of sin" (Phillips).

Certain scholars and theologians understand the language of justification/being declared righteous to signify that God has actually made a Christian righteous, whereas most would probably say (including Jehovah's Witnesses) that worshipers of Jehovah are imputed righteous upon the basis of Christ's sacrifice (not actually made righteous). To quote Romans 4:4-8:

"Now to the man that works the pay is counted, not as an undeserved kindness, but as a debt. On the other hand, to the man that does not work but puts faith in him who declares the ungodly one righteous, his faith is counted as righteousness. Just as David also speaks of the happiness of the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 'Happy are those whose lawless deeds have been pardoned and whose sins have been covered; happy is the man whose sin Jehovah will by no means take into account'" (NWT).

Paul apparently teaches that Christians are accounted righteous--they are reckoned as being righteous in this life (not actually made righteous by the divine act of justification). Furthermore, in order to maintain a right standing in the sight of God, one must produce works that show evidence of his/her faith.

Romans 6:7 also indicates that one who has already been acquitted of his/her sin has undergone a symbolic death whereby imputation of guiltlessness has been effected (brought about). See Hebrews 10:14.

These words from Acts 13:38-39 might bear on the matter at hand:

"Let it therefore be known to YOU, brothers, that through this One a forgiveness of sins is being published to YOU; and that from all the things from which YOU could not be declared guiltless by means of the law of Moses, everyone who believes is declared guiltless by means of this One" (NWT).

"As a man that is dead is acquitted and released from bondage among men, so a man that has died to sin is acquitted from the guilt of sin and released from its bondage" (Henry Alford on Romans 6:7).

Christian Materialism, Neuroscience and Personal Identity

I have been reading various works on consciousness, from both the substance dualist and materialist perspective. Psychology usually teaches us that consciousness is simply awareness: it involves awareness of one's thought and feelings. Consciousness involves visual awareness, auditory awareness, gustatory awareness, olfactory and tactile awareness.

Charles G. Morris (Understanding Psychology) defines consciousness as the human awareness of mental processes such as making decisions, remembering, daydreaming, concentrating, reflecting, sleeping, and dreaming. It is also good to remember that consciousness evidently obtains on a graded continuum such that a person in a vegetative state or a young newborn may be aware, even though both entities experience awareness at different places on the graded continuum.

There are also two books I'd like to mention that you might find interesting. One is Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are by Joseph LeDoux. This work is very challenging to read because LeDoux writes in a somewhat technical manner at times. However, he makes a profound point about the "self" in the opening portion of his work.

LeDoux does not deny that an aesthetic, moral or social self possibly exists. However, he contends that one's feeling of self-awareness or one's ability to reason morally is rooted in the neural or synaptic self. In his own words, "My notion of personality is pretty simple: it's that your 'self,' the essence of who you are, reflects patterns of interconnectivity between neurons in your brain . . . Given the importance of synaptic transmission in brain function, it should practically be a truism to say that the self is synaptic" (LeDoux, Synaptic Self, page 2).

The other book I have in mind is The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul written by Francis Crick. This book is even more difficult to read because of its demanding content. Nevertheless, it is of interest that Crick believes the notion of a "soul" (an immaterial aspect of humans) which gives us a sense of self-awareness or feeling of subjectivity is superfluous, redundant or pleonastic. Most scientists now think that the brain takes care of all things that were once attributed to the soul. Crick thus maintains:

"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that 'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" (The Astonishing Hypothesis, page 3).

Yes, it seems that experiences, heredity and memories make us what we are. Long-term memories probably are coded and stored in the hippocampal area of the brain. Other parts of the brain play their role in storing and retrieving memory. Nurture and nature wire our synapses; our synapses, in turn, make us who we are.

But does the foregoing mean that the same brain must be placed in an individual, who is deemed worthy of the resurrection? In view of what we now believe as Jehovah's Witnesses, the answer cannot be in the affirmative. Firstly, those who receive an earthly resurrection will have new bodies, including presumably different brains. Yet, we believe that resurrected Job (supplied with a different body) will be the same PERSON that we read about in the OT book bearing his name. And what about those who will be granted immortal and incorruptible life in the heavens (2 Corinthians 5:1-2). Once again, they will have or already have different bodies of a spiritual nature. But it seems reasonable to suppose that Paul, Peter, and John are the same persons they were in the first century. Hence, restoring personhood to S1 or S2 (with S representing a subject/person) does not appear to be dependent on providing S1 or S2 with their original brains. What seems most important in this case is the memory of God rather than man. Even if God gives someone a different body or brain, he can still bring it about that the same person rises from the dead on the "last day." Nancey Murphy skillfully explains how personal identity is fulfilled by a various number of distinct criteria. In other words, not just one criterion determines personal identity or the persistence conditions for human personhood.

Slight Absence

Greetings to all readers!

I haven't blogged much lately because of a minor illness. But I'm recovering now and should post something by this weekend. Hope everyone is doing well.

All the best,

Edgar

Lactantius on the "Brightness" of Divine Truth

Hello all,

This is taken from Divine Institutes 1.5.1 (Numbering based on Anthony Bowen and Peter Garnsey's Translation):

"the effect of the actual truth is too strong for even a blind man not to see divine brightness when it forces itself on his eyes."

Regards,

Edgar

Revelation 6:14-17 and Variant Readings

This passage could potentially be used by a Trinitarian and likely has been utilized to prop up the idea that Christ is Almighty God. It reads:

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great Day of His wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?" (21st Century KJV)

Notice the use of "His" in 6:17. But other translations contain the following lectio:

for the great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand? (ASV)

Either way, the verse does little to support Trinitarianism.

The NET Bible provides these remarks:

Most mss (A Ï bo) change the pronoun “their” to "his" (αὐτοῦ, autou) in order to bring the text in line with the mention of the one seated on the throne in the immediately preceding verse, and to remove the ambiguity about whose wrath is in view here. The reading αὐτῶν (autwn, "their") is well supported by א C 1611 1854 2053 2329 2344 pc latt sy. On both internal and external grounds, it should be regarded as original.

Two Ways to Argue for God's Existence

1) Logical evidence is limited in what it can prove regarding the existence of God. One reason is because of our limited experience with the material world and God.

Examples of logical arguments for God's existence are the ontological (Anselm of Canterbury and Descartes), cosmological (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas) and teleological arguments. My favorite line of reasoning for God's existence is the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam argument says that everything which begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause. Now the cause of the universe is either personal or impersonal. But, based on what we know about how complex entities come into existence, it is plausible to believe that the universal cause of all things is personal.

2) Scientific arguments for God revolve around the universe's structure, its laws and constants. There are four basic physical forces that operate in the cosmos: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. It has been observed that if electromagnetism were significantly weaker, then electrons would not be combine with atoms to form molecules. Furthermore, if the four basic forces were not fine-tuned as they appear to be, life as we know it would not be possible.

3) One argument that I've used recently with atheists has been the moral argument for God's existence, which was developed quite effectively by Immanuel Kant and suggested by Fyodor Dostoevski. The gist of this argument is that one must believe in God to make sense of morals or ethics. If God does not exist, or if we do not at least believe in God, then there is no foundation for absolute morality. It's also hard to make sense of similar morals that exist in diverse cultures, if God does not exist.

Thomas F. Torrance on Divine "Father" Terminology

Torrance indicates that "Father" (a divine epithet for the Christian deity or first person of the tripersonal Godhead) is a relation rather than a description of God's essence or substance. He then continues:

"Hence Gregory Nazianzen like Athanasius insisted that they [the terms 'Father' and 'Son'] must be treated as referring imagelessly, that is in a diaphanous or 'see through' way, to the Father and the Son without the intrusion of creaturely forms or sensual images into God. Thus we may not think of God as having gender nor
think of the Father as begetting the Son or the Son as begotten after the analogy of generation or giving birth with which we are familiar among creaturely beings."

Quote taken from Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 158.

See Nazianzen's Orationes 29.16; 31.7, 31ff.

How to Arrive at the Truth Without an Infallible Body of Humans

How can we know (with a high degree of certainty) whether our understanding of the Scriptures is correct? I propose a threefold answer.

(1) Rely on what the Scriptures themselves say.

In Acts 17:10-12, Luke records that the Jews in Beroea were "more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica" because they not only received the apostolic witness eagerly, but they also "carefully examined the Scriptures daily" to verify the evangelical message of Paul and Silas.

Louw-Nida observe that the Greek term (ANAKRINW) can denote: "to try to learn the nature of truth of something by the process of careful study, evaluation and judgment--to examine carefully, to investigate, to study thoroughly" (See Semantic Domain 27.44). John B. Pohill also writes: "This was no cursory investigation either, no weekly Sabbath service, as at Thessalonica. They met daily to search the Scriptures" (Pohill 363). And what was the result? POLLOI MEN OUN EX AUTWN EPISTEUSAN.

Question: If we cannot reach a certain understanding of the Scriptures by consulting them and thoroughly studying them, then how did the Beroeans become believers through this method? Why didn't they need an infallible human authority to teach them the truth?

My next case example is Apollos. Luke says that this man "thoroughly proved the Jews to be wrong publicly, while he demonstrated by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (Acts 18:24-28).

Question: If sharing Scripture with a person who subscribes to a different interpretation only results in "biblical ping-pong," then how did Apollos prove the Jews to be wrong publicly? How did he "demonstrate" (EPIDEIKNUS) by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah if we can't prove anything by comparing Scripture?

(2)Though I believe the previously mentioned examples clearly show the fallacy of thinking that one cannot arrive at the true understanding of Scripture by consulting and comparing Scripture, as I mentioned hitherto, discussing Scripture is not the only way to attain truth. If we want to really understand God's will as set forth in Scripture, we must also offer ebullient and sincere prayers. The psalmist earnestly supplicated God: "Teach me to do as is acceptable to you, because you are my God. Your spirit is good; let it lead me over level ground" (Ps. 143:10 Byington). See also Ps. 43:3.

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ also taught us the way to comprehend Scripture. He encouraged humans to 'keep on asking, seeking and knocking' because "everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened" (Matt. 7:7-11 NWT). So diligent prayer is a second requisite for authenticating one's understanding of Scripture. But there is yet a third way.

(3) The Primitive EKKLHSIA also relied upon apostolic teaching and the older men and apostles in Jerusalem to accurately understand Scripture (Acts 2:40ff; 15:1ff). Today I believe one must be in frequent association with the organization God is using to fully perceive the Divine written Revelation. So, far from believing that studying Scripture is enough, I contend that the way to guarantee one's view of Scripture is correct is by employing the three methods I have delineated above. Study, meditate, pray and find the true Christian EKKHLSIA.

The Meaning of Aktionsart (K. L. McKay and Stanley Porter)

Here is part of an old dialogue written to a friend:

Keep in mind that different grammarians or linguists use the term Aktionsart in bewildering and disparate ways. But older grammars often employ Aktionsart as a reference to action that is delineated by the verbal stem.

Stanley Porter points out that K. Brugmann (in 1885) was the first writer who employed the German term Aktionsart to describe: "the kind of action indicated objectively by the verb" (Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the NT, Stanley Porter, 29). So when I talk about "kind of action" in this context, I mean action in terms of completed, durative, ingressive or conative (inchoative) activities that are objectively signaled by the respective verb stem (root + affix) or in some other fashion.

For example, K.L. McKay (when discussing the conative and inceptive use of the Greek present "tense") provides an example from Jn 10:32:

DIA POION AUTWN ERGON EME LIQAZETE: "for which of these deeds are you trying to stone me?"

McKay thinks that the present verb LIQAZETE in this passage, "has the effect of so emphasizing the incompleteness of the activity that the most natural English equivalent is try to do" in this case.

So in Jn 10:32 we evidently have an example of the conative present. Certain scholars would argue that the conative "kind of action" is signaled by the verbal stem (Aktionsart). Others would contend that we know LIQAZETE is conative present (imperfective aspect) in view of contextual features that mark the action of the verb (still referring to Aktionsart). I hope the example from Jn 10:32 helps you to see how Aktionsart is applied by graammarians and linguists.

Addressing Stuckenbruck's Treatment of Greek Pronouns

Loren T. Stuckenbruck, in Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (Tubingen: JCB Mohr, 1995),lists a number of biblical passages in which the singular Greek pronoun or third person singular verbs seem problematic.

He apparently concludes that the Lamb is being worshiped alongside God in a "monotheistic framework" when we encounter such usages. But I am not so sure the examples that he provides support his point. Let us examine Revelation 11:15 as a case example:

"The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and HE will rule as king forever."

Grammatically, John's use of BASILEUSEI ("will rule") could refer to God or Christ. Stuckenbruck thinks that it refers to both the Messiah and the Lord Almighty (Jehovah) as a unit. But grammar does not necessitate that we read the text in a Trinitarian manner. Furthermore, the context suggests that it is YHWH (the Father), who will rule as King forever and ever (Rev 11:16-17).

Even if one objects to the NWT's use of the Tetragrammaton in Rev 11:16-17, the surrounding verses still manifestly indicate that KURIE, hO QEOS or hO PANTOKRATWR takes up HIS great power and begins to rule as King through His Messiah, who clearly is not the Lord in this context.