Did Tertullian Move Toward Heresy?

Was Tertullian really a heretic by the prevailing (orthodox) standards of his day and those standards which obtained a century or so later? Interestingly, a number of scholars are now answering this question with a resounding "nay!"

One powerful line of evidence that suggests Tertullian never stopped being "catholic" is the fact that (for a time) Cyprian of Carthage evidently read nothing but the works of Tertullian. He in fact called him "the master" and tried to emulate his approach vis-à-vis theological and salvific issues (Vide Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, Chapter 53).

Yet there are other lines of evidence that indicate Tertullian, by the standards of orthodoxy prevailing during his time and shortly thereafter, was not a heretic.

T. Barnes writes: "Tertullian's later writings receive abuse and condemnation in subsequent ages. Many of the charges are unmerited"(83). He concludes that Tertullian was bold enough to sound forth an "unpalatable truth," namely, that "the church is not a conclave of bishops" but functions as the ordained locus of the Holy Spirit. In other words, where the Spirit of God is, there is the church (Ibid., 83-84). Cf. Pudicitia 21.17:

"And accordingly 'the Church,' it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops (ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum). For the right and arbitrament is the Lord's, not the servant's; God's Himself, not the priest's."

William Tabbernee believes it is "highly unlikely" that Tertullian "ever separated from the catholic church at all." He also argues that the fiery Carthaginian surely did not found the group known as the Tertullianists, a post-Montanist sect (475-476). While Tertullian's works are supposedly condemned by Pope Gelasius in the Decretum Gelasianum, patristic scholars note that this document could be forged (Cf. J. Quasten).

Matthew 24:48 and EAN DE EIPHi

One point to consider about the construction in Matthew 24:48 is that Jesus doesn't technically say that the "evil slave" will begin to think his master is delaying or that he will beat his fellow servants, etc. Rather, Matthew uses ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ which means that we have a third class conditional in 24:48.

Richard A. Young states that a speaker/writer who employs the third class conditional thinks that it has the prospect of coming to fruition, but the outcome is left undetermined. See https://bible.org/article/second-thoughts-first-and-third-class-conditions-some-exegetical-distinctions for more information on these kind of conditionals in Greek.

Does Tertullian Clearly Distinguish the Persons of the Trinity?

Certain ecclesiastical historians (Jean Danielou and Jaroslav Pelikan) have argued that Tertullian possibly does not distinguish the three Persons of the Trinity, as one might expect, if he was really a Trinitarian qua Trinitarian. Reading Adv Praxean 12, I think they might be right. It says:

"If you are still offended by the plurality of the Trinity, on the ground that it is not combined in simple unity, I ask you how it, is that one only single speaks in the plural, Let us make man after our image and likeness,1 when he ought to have said, Let me make man after my image and likeness, as being one only single . Also in what follows, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, he is deceptive or joking in speaking in the plural while being one and alone and singular. Or was he speaking to the angels, as the Jews explain it, because they, like you, do not recognise the Son? Or, because he was himself father-son-spirit, did he for that reason make himself plural and speak to himself in the plural? Nay rather, because there already was attached to him the Son, a second Person, his Word, and a third Person, the Spirit in the Word, for that reason he spoke in the plural, Let us make, and Our, and Of us."

Aquinas Believes That Christ Still Has His Fleshly Body

Thomas Aquinas writes:

Christ's body in the Resurrection was "of the same nature, but differed in glory." Accordingly, whatever goes with the nature of a human body, was entirely in the body of Christ when He rose again. Now it is clear that flesh, bones, blood, and other such things, are of the very nature of the human body. Consequently, all these things were in Christ's body when He rose again; and this also integrally, without any diminution; otherwise it would not have been a complete resurrection, if whatever was lost by death had not been restored. Hence our Lord assured His faithful ones by saying (Mat. 10:30): "The very hairs of your head are all numbered": and (Lk. 21:18): "A hair of your head shall not perish."

But to say that Christ's body had neither flesh, nor bones, nor the other natural parts of a human body, belongs to the error of Eutyches, Bishop of Constantinople, who maintained that "our body in that glory of the resurrection will be impalpable, and more subtle than wind and air: and that our Lord, after the hearts of the disciples who handled Him were confirmed, brought back to subtlety whatever could be handled in Him" [St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56]. Now Gregory condemns this in the same book, because Christ's body was not changed after the Resurrection, according to Rom. 6:9: "Christ rising from the dead, dieth now no more." Accordingly, the very man who had said these things, himself retracted them at his death. For, if it be unbecoming for Christ to take a body of another nature in His conception, a heavenly one for instance, as Valentine asserted, it is much more unbecoming for Him at His Resurrection to resume a body of another nature, because in His Resurrection He resumed unto an everlasting life, the body which in His conception He had assumed to a mortal life.

See Summa Theologica (Tertia Pars, Quest. 54, Art. 3)

Hebrews 10:26-31

The wording, "after having received the accurate knowledge [τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας] of the truth," is evidently a reference to Christians and apparently encompasses more than just a knowledge of Christ's atoning sacrifice. Such knowledge as spoken of in Epistle to the Hebrews actually entails an intimate acquaintance with many details regarding the Christian faith. The writer of Hebrews certainly does not have unbelievers--ones who have merely been presented with the Gospel--in mind; he is talking about believers, who accurately (i.e. fully and deeply) come to know the truth about God and Christ, then reject such knowledge because they develop a wicked heart lacking faith (Heb 3:12). It is important to note that the author of Hebrews is referring to those who willingly and persistently sin. He is not talking about those Christians who commit transgressions out of ignorance:

"Apostasy can only occur μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν . . . a condition which is explained in detail in chap. 6 [of Hebrews]. Without this preceding knowledge of the covenant its willful repudiation is impossible. Those spoken of in ver. 25, as having abandoned meeting with their fellow Christians, and possibly as having neglected, if not renounced, the confession of their hope, were perhaps alluded to here, as on their way to apostasy. They are warned that they are drifting into an irredeemable condition, for to those who have repudiated and keep repudiating the one sacrifice of Christ, οὐκέτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία"(Expositor's Greek Testament 4:348).

"It is most important here to keep this cardinal point distinctly in mind; that the Ἐκουσίως ἁμαρτάνοντες are not mere professors of religion, but real converts, or else ver. [Heb 10:29] becomes unintelligible . . ." (Alford's Greek Testament 4:199).

The text is more intelligible if we interpret Heb 10:29 as a reference to a hypothetical apostate Christian. Notice that the writer also uses ἡμῶν in 10:26. How could he be
referring to non-Christians or those who have simply been exposed to the Gospel since he employs ἡμῶν?

Differences Between the Great Crowd and the 144,000

Firstly, the 144,000 are said to hail from the 12 tribes of Israel, and they have a definite number; conversely, the "great multitude" comes from all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues and they cannot be numbered. Granted, the kings and priests of Revelation 5:9-10 are said to come from diverse backgrounds too. But it seems odd for John to describe the 144,000 as Israelites in Revelation 7:1-8, then do a literary flip, as it were, and talk about the 144,000 as an indefinite and uncountable group from all tribes, etc.

While there are certainly differing scholarly views of Revelation 7:9, Robert L. Thomas thinks that META TAUTA EIDON "indicates a vision that is distinct from the preceding one" of Revelation 7:1-8. Furthermore, he reasons that the 144,000 and the great multitude cannot be the same group since "The earlier one was numbered, but this one is innumerable. One is exclusively Jews, the other is not. One is facing a period of wrath, the other has been delivered from it (Beckwith; Scott). This multitude includes far more than the 144,000" (Thomas, Revelation 1-7, page 484).

It has been suggested that the great multitude could be a heavenly group. Regardless of that debate, I just find it hard to believe that the multitude is numerically identical with the 144,000. Numerical identity is a concept that tries to explain what it means for two objects (A and B) to be the same. For instance, if the apostle named Paul who lived during the first century is numerically identical with the apostle of the same name resurrected to heaven by God, then the two "Pauls" are the same person. The above mentioned principle would similarly apply to the 144,000 and the great multitude, if they are numerically identical. But it's highly doubtful that they constitute the same (numerically identical) group.

The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles on Acts 7:56

to Him that has given us Himself for an earnest of the resurrection; who was taken up into the heavens by the power of His God and Father in our sight, who ate and drank with Him for forty days after He arose from the dead; who is sat down on the right hand of the throne of the majesty of Almighty God upon the cherubim; to whom it was said, "Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool;" whom the most blessed Stephen saw standing at the right hand of power, and cried out, and said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God," as the High Priest of all the rational orders,—through Him, worship, and majesty, and glory be given to Almighty God, both now and for evermore. Amen.

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles VI.6.30

More Comments on John 6:49 (Died in the Wilderness)

I wanted to get these comments all in one place:

Jamison, Fausset and Brown explain John 6:49 thus:

"recurring to their own point about the manna, as one of the noblest of the ordained preparatory illustrations of His own office: 'Your fathers, ye say, ate manna in the wilderness; and ye say well, for so they did, but they are dead—even they whose carcasses fell in the wilderness did eat of that bread; the Bread whereof I speak cometh down from heaven, which the manna never did, that men, eating of it, may live for ever.'"

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible also makes this observation:

"It was an opinion of the Jews themselves that their fathers, who perished in the wilderness, should never have a resurrection. Our Lord takes them on their own ground: Ye acknowledge that your fathers who fell in the wilderness shall never have a resurrection; and yet they ate of the manna: therefore that manna is not the bread that preserves to everlasting life, according even to your own concession."

William Milligan and William Moulton (in their commentary on John) point out that Jesus' mention of the wilderness (John 6:49) is not accidental. It calls to mind verses like Numbers 14:35, which indicate that the wilderness was the place of disobedience and where obstinate men perished. Specifically, they write:

Ver. 49. Your fathers did eat the manna in the wilder ness, and died. No other bread has given life eternal. Even the manna, the bread given out of heaven, did not bestow life on their fathers, who (as the people themselves had said) ate the manna in the wilderness. It seems very probable that the addition 'in the wil derness' is more than a mere repetition of the words of ver. 31. It recalls Num. 14: 35; Ps. 95: 8-11, and other passages, in which 'the wilderness' is specially mentioned as the scene of disobedience and of death ; and thus the fathers, who (Deut. 1 : 32) ' did not believe the Lord ' and died, are contrasted with the believer who ' hath eternal life' (ver. 47). Ver. 50.

MY RESPONSE: It seems to me that Jesus' remarks in 6:31 actually follow the request in 6:28 which is premised upon the requisite works that please God. They asked for a sign because Jesus claimed to be the one God had sent (6:29). They may or may not have perceived a link between Jesus' utterance and Daniel 7:13-14. Either way, I don't see how death as punishment cannot be the issue. The "death in the wilderness" motif is cited in 1 Corinthians 10:3-5; Hebrews 3:17. Even Jude 5 refers to those males who died in the wilderness despite eating manna.

Notes on 2 Corinthians 3:18

Text: ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος (2 Corinthians 3:18 W-H with Diacritics).

1. ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ-Perfect participle passive voice. See 2 Corinthians 3:14. Dative of manner ("with unveiled face"). See Zerwick, Grammatical Analysis, page 540; Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples (sec. 60).

2. κατοπτριζόμενοι-"Present middle participle of κατοπτρίζω, late verb from κάτοπτρον, mirror (κατά, οπτρον, a thing to see with). In Philo (Legis Alleg. iii. 33) the word means beholding as in a mirror and that idea suits also the figure in 1 Co 13:12. There is an inscription of third century B.C. with EGKATOPTRISASQAI EIS TO hUDWR, to look at one's reflection in the water. Plutarch uses the active for mirroring or reflecting and Chrysostom takes it so here. Either makes good sense" (Robertson's Word Pictures).

3. κατοπτριζόμενοι, "the present middle participle of κατοπτρίζω (only here in NT). In the middle it means 'to reflect as a mirror' (A-S, p. 242). Since they did not have glass mirrors (only bronze) in Paul's day, 'glass' [KJV] is incorrect" (Word Meanings in the NT, 251).

4. ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν-"The idea in the phrase before us is; that there is a continual increase of moral purity and holiness under the gospel until it results in the perfect glory of heaven" (Barnes Notes on the Bible).

Robertson and Vincent on 1 Corinthians 11:7

Taken from Robertson's Word Pictures

The image and glory of God (εικων και δοχα τεου — eikōn kai doxa theou). Anarthrous substantives, but definite. Reference to Genesis 1:27 whereby man is made directly in the image (εικων — eikōn) of God. It is the moral likeness of God, not any bodily resemblance. Ellicott notes that man is the glory (δοχα — doxa) of God as the crown of creation and as endowed with sovereignty like God himself.

The glory of the man (δοχα ανδρος — doxa andros). Anarthrous also, man‘s glory. In Genesis 2:26 the lxx has αντρωπος — anthrōpos (Greek word for both male and female), not ανηρ — anēr (male) as here. But the woman (γυνη — gunē) was formed from the man (ανηρ — anēr) and this priority of the male (1 Corinthians 11:8) gives a certain superiority to the male. On the other hand, it is equally logical to argue that woman is the crown and climax of all creation, being the last.

[END OF QUOTE]


Next, we read in Vincent's Word Studies:

Image and glory (εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα)

For image, see on Revelation 13:14. Man represents God's authority by his position as the ruler of the woman. In the case of the woman, the word image is omitted, although she, like the man, is the image of God. Paul is expounding the relation of the woman, not to God, but to man.

John 6:49 Meaning of the Wilderness and Death

Greek: οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἔφαγον ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τὸ μάννα καὶ ἀπέθανον (WH with Diacritics)

"Your forefathers ate the manna in the Desert, and they died" (Weymouth NT).

"Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died" (NIV).

Theodore of Mopsuestia's commentary on this passage:

" 'Your fathers who ate manna,' he says, 'were not only not delivered from the sentence of death, but every last one of them in fact died in the wilderness, and not one of them was found worthy of entering the promised land. But whoever eats this food is freed from death."

See Commentary on the Gospel of John (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2010), p. 68.

Thomas Aquinas remarks similarly in his Commentary on John:

"Secondly, he mentions for how short a time this was done, saying, in the desert: for they were not given manna for a long period of time; and they had it only while in the desert, and not when they entered the promised land (Jos 5). But the other bread [from the true heaven] preserves and nourishes one forever. Thirdly, he states an inadequacy in that bread, that is, it did not preserve life without end; so he says, and they are dead. For we read in Joshua (c 5) that all who grumbled, except Joshua and Caleb, died in the desert. This was the reason for the second circumcision, as we see here, because all who had left Egypt died in the desert."

See http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John6.htm

Irenaeus of Lyons Commenting on Exodus 33:19-22

‎"The prophets, therefore, did not openly behold the actual face of God, but [they saw] the dispensations and the mysteries through which man should afterwards see God" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.20.10).

Then Irenaeus writes: "If, then, neither Moses, nor Elias, nor Ezekiel, who had all many celestial visions, did see God; but if what they did see were similitudes of the splendour of the Lord, and prophecies of things to come; it is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, 'No man hath seen God at any time' " (Ibid. IV.20.11).

He's discussing Exodus 33:19-22. Interesting how he applies this text to the Father. Furthermore, when he quotes the Lord's words, evidently referring to John 1:18, he likewise applies these words to the Father.

Regards,

Edgar

Criticisms of C. F. Burney (Colossians 1:15 and the Midrashim)

C. F. Burney wrote an article that has garnered attention in some circles: "Christ as the APXH of Creation," JTS 27 (1926) 160–177.

This article submitted that Colossians 1:15 exposits the first word of Genesis 1:1 (doing so midrashically), but accomplishes this job indirectly by alluding to Proverbs 8:22.

[See also Jeffrey S. Lamp, "Wisdom in Col 1:15–20: Contribution and Significance," JETS 41/1 (March 1998) 45–53.]

While the scholarly community at large has spoken approvingly of Burney's thesis, as with other matters, not all concur with his overarching thesis:

"This thesis [of Burney's] would presuppose that the passage was an exegesis of the Hebrew text, but the insight that 1:15-20 is a citation of a Hellenistic Christian hymn does away with this assumption. Moreover, it cannot be carried through in particulars without the aid of artificial explanations, and it is not sufficient for comprehension of the whole context--for this would be necessary if ARXH (beginning) from the second strophe is to be included. For a critique, cf. Jervell, Imago Dei, p. 200, n. 107; Gabathuler, Jesus Christus, Haupt pt der Kirche, 26-29; Feuillet, Le Christ sagesse, 189-91" (Eduard Lohse, Colossians and Philemon, page 47).

What Lohse means with respect to the "hymn" of Colossians 1:15-20 is that if we do possibly have what amounts to a pre-Pauline hymn in these verses, then it would seem unlikely that Paul is explaining a Hebrew text (as Burney suggests) since the hymn would evidently have Hellenistic as opposed to Semitic textual roots. Moreover, other NT "hymns" like Philippians 2:5-11 or 1 Timothy 3:16 would also have Hellenistic origins. That's provided these passages are truly hymnic.

But another criticism I have of Burney's work is that I believe he committed what Carson would later call "exegetical fallacies." One such fallacy is known as illegitimate totality transfer (as James Barr labels it). Neither RESHITH nor ARXH probably have all the meanings in any one context of usage (USUS LOQUENDI) that Burney attributes to each term. It's usually fallacious to believe that language works that way.

I do not think that the Midrashim always or necessarily engage in positing several different meanings for one word in a determinate context. The Midrashim may offer commentary on different levels of meaning that a word or verse has, but they do not have to posit multiple senses for words used in concreto. What I am saying is that Burney suggests RESHITH/ARXH possibly mean (i.e. lexically denote) "in RESHITH" "by RESHITH" "into RESHITH" "beginning" "Sum-total" "head" and "firstfruits" all in one context. This approach seems to be an example of illegitimate totality transfer. Midrash as an explanatory approach does not commit the exegete to the so-called ILL. See Burney, p. 176-177 and http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tmm/tmm07.htm

This post is urging that Burney is probably wrong in his analysis of RESHITH/ARXH because we now know that language generally does not operate in the way he contends. I do not even think that one who does Midrash is committed to the view that some Hebrew or Greek word in Scripture must bear multiple senses all at once within a given context.

I am not primarily trying to account for what the apostle Paul may or may not have done. My point is that it's usually fallacious to maintain that a word means S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, Sn in any given literary context where "S" represents a given "sense" for a particular sememe/morpheme/lexeme.

Philo of Alexandria's Relationship with Greek Philosophy

Here are some points on Philo and Greek philosophy.

J. N. D. Kelly ("Early Christian Doctrines," page 20)
writes:

"Guided by the Middle Platonists he so much admired, Philo taught that God is utterly transcedent; He transcends even virtue, knowledge and absolute goodness and beauty, the eternal Forms which his revered master, Plato, had postulated. God is pure being (TO ONTWS ON), absolutely simple and self-sufficing, and can be described as 'without quality' (APOIOS)--which probably means that, by his transcendence, He cannot be included in any of the logical categories in which we classify finite beings."

From the illustrious historian of philosophy, F. Copleston ("A History of Philosophy: Greece and Rome"
Vol II: 202:

"Filled with admiration for the Greek philosophers Philo maintained that the same truth is to be found in both the Greek philosophy and Jewish Scriptures and tradition. While believing that the philosophers had made use of the Sacred Scriptures, he at the same time did not hesitate to interpret the Scriptures allegorically when he deemed it necessary."

See Philo, De Opificio Mundi 24-25.

"What is important, from the point of view of his metaphysic, is that he identifies the Logos with the Platonic world of Forms or archetypes, of which the sensible world is a copy" (Kelly, 21).

See http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Doctrines-J-Kelly/dp/006064334X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375379504&sr=1-1&keywords=jnd+kelly+christian

http://www.amazon.com/History-Philosophy-Greece-Parts-Volumes/dp/B000MUNXJS/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375379540&sr=1-7&keywords=copleston+greece+rome

The Holy Angels of God

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

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

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

(both quotes are taken from the ASV)

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

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

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

In the Similitudes, we also read:

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

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

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

and a little child shall lead them;

Gill's remarks:

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

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

Another Dissertation on The Johannine Comma

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

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

Regards,

Edgar

Is It Possible for a Unipersonal Being to Love Himself?

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

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

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

How Should We Understand 1 Peter 4:14?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In answer to my challenge, someone wrote:

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

MY RESPONSE:

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

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

One Link to My Dissertation: Metaphor and Divine Paternity

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

Regards,

Edgar

Dissertation on How Deuteronomy Portrays Divine Paternity

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

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

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

Against Heresies V.36.1 (Irenaeus)

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

Was Christ Always KURIOS?

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

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

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

Trevor Burke Discusses Paraleipsis (Paralipsis) in Thessalonians

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

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

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

Paraleipsis (Paralipsis) in Scripture by Koester

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

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

Donald Mastronarde on Greek Grammatical Gender

Greek Gender and Some Johannine/Pauline Verses

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

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

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

My interlocutor provided the translation. My response was:

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

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

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

More Evidence That BASILEUS Refers to Males Only

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

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

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

See p. 45-46 of the this book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremiah 31:32 and Metaphors

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

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

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

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

Compare Isaiah 54:4-6.

An Official Statement on NAOS

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

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

See page 124, paragraph 14.

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

Grammatical Gender, Christ and 1 Corinthians 1:24

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

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

Should We "Christianize" Idols?

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

MY REPLY:

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

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

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

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

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

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.