Heaven (John 14:1-3)

The Bible apparently uses the word "heaven" to signify (a) the region of celestial bodies, (b) another region wherein birds fly, and (c) the place where God lives. Here are what some Bible dictionaries state about how scripture employs this word:

"In the Bible, [heaven] means primarily the region of the air and clouds, and of the planets and stars, but chiefly the world of holy bliss above the visible heavens. It is called 'the third heaven,' 'the highest heaven,' and 'the heaven of heavens,' expressions nearly synonymous. There holy beings are to dwell, seeing all of God that it is possible for creatures to see. Thither Christ ascended, to intercede for his people and prepare for them a place where all shall at length be gathered, to go no more out forever, Ephesians 4:10 Hebrews 8:1 9:24-28 (American Tract Society Bible Dictionary).

"KJV designation [heaven of heavens] rendered 'highest heaven' by most modern translations (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 2:6; 2 Chronicles 6:18). According to an ancient understanding of the universe, above the canopy of the sky was a further canopy above which God dwelt. TEV understands 'heavens of heavens' as 'all (the vastness) of heaven'" (Holman Bible Dictionary).

See http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/view.cgi?n=2660

There are interesting thoughts in the online Catholic Encyclopedia too:

Where is heaven, the dwelling of God and the blessed?

Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere. According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere. Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.

In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their happy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation. At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of the blessed (Revelation 21). Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the blessed. Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has decided nothing on this subject.

My Comment: Jesus spoke of his Father's "house" in which there are many abodes/mansions (KJV). Someone asked me, and I also used to wonder, if God lives in a house (a dwelling place), is it created or uncreated? If the "house" is created, then where did God live before the dwelling place was made? On the other hand, how can there be an uncreated house for Jehovah that exists everlastingly/eternally with him? Is God confined by some kind of dimensional space? I believe such questions arise because we fail to understand (grasp) things outside of our material universe. As the Apostle John wrote to first-century anointed Christians, what we'll be has not been made known to us (1 John 3:1-3).

The Inveterate Provisionality of Philosophy/Theory (Van inwagen and Kripke)

Peter van Inwagen insists that theologians who have studied philosophy should know "how provisional and shaky all philosophical ideas and conclusions are" (God, Knowledge & Mystery, p. 2). No philosophical or metaphysical theory (strictly speaking) is ever conclusive as such.

This suggestion, whether right-headed or wrong-headed, certainly reflects van Inwagen's proclivity for metaphysical/epistemological pessimism (skepticism). For instance, in The Problem of Evil: The Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of St Andrews in 2003 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006), we read:

Philosophical arguments are not best thought of as
free-floating bits of text--as mathematical proofs can
perhaps be thought of. A proper mathematical proof,
whatever else it may be, is an argument that should
convince anyone who can follow it of the truth of its
conclusion. We cannot think of philosophical arguments
as being like that (p. 37).

We may conclude from van Inwagen's analysis that "it seems reasonable to believe that no non-theological philosophical argument for a substantive conclusion is a [philosophical] success" (ibid, p. 54).

Of course, this claim must be understood within its proper context. van Inwagen wants to persuade us that the argument (or set of arguments) for the logical problem of evil is a philosophical failure like all other non-theological contentions since "the problem" evidently does not have the power to bring it about that philosophers of all stripes agree with its substantive conclusions regarding ultimate reality. In order to fully appreciate the context for his statements, one must read the chapter in The Problem of Evil titled "Philosophical Failure." It is difficult to summarize the chapter's contents and general thesis in a short blog post.

Finally, Saul Kripke also makes this claim in Naming and Necessity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980 [1972]), p. 64:

Let me state then what the cluster concept theory of
names is. (It really is a nice theory. The only defect
I think it has is probably common to all philosophical
theories. It's wrong. You may suspect me of proposing
another theory in its place; but I hope not, because
I'm sure it's wrong too if it is a theory).

Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6 (The Spirit Cries, "Abba, Father")

It's always profitable and enlightening to compare Romans 8:15 with Galatians 4:6:

οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον ἀλλ’ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν· αββα ὁ πατήρ (Romans 8:15, NA28).

Ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν κρᾶζον· αββα ὁ πατήρ (Galatians 4:6, NA28)

My comment: In one passage, the person(s) anointed with spirit cries out "αββα ὁ πατήρ," whereas in Galatians, the crying out is performed by τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν.

Remarks from John Eadie's commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians:

But why the double appellation, first in Aramaic and then in Greek, as in Mark 14:36, Romans 8:15? The childlike lisp in the word Abba, and its easy labial pronunciation, may account for its origin, but not for its use here (Olshausen); nor can Dr. Gill be listened to in his dream that "the word being the same pronounced backwards or forwards, shows that God is the Father of His people in adversity as well as in prosperity." It is a superficial explanation of the formula to allege, with Beza, Schott, Usteri, and Conybeare, that ὁ πατήρ is merely, like the Abaddon-Apollyon of Revelation 9:11, explanatory of the Aramaic Abba. For why should such a translation be made by Jesus in the garden, where no human ear heard Him, and by Paul when writing to the Romans of the Spirit of adoption? Nor is it more likely that the double appellation is meant to convey what the elder interpreters find in it-to wit, that it was uttered to point out the spiritual brotherhood of all men in all languages. This opinion, so naturally suggested, cannot certainly apply to the individual address of the Saviour in Mark 14:36. But one may say, in the first place, that endeared repetition characterizes a true child, as it clings to the idea of fatherhood, and loves to dwell upon it. In the second place, the use of the Aramaic term must have arisen in the Jewish portion of the church, with whom it seems to have been a common form of tender address. And then, as believing Jews used another tongue in foreign countries, they appear to have felt the ὁ πατήρ to be cold and distant, so that, as to the Lord in His agony, the vernacular term impressed on the ear and heart of childhood instinctively recurred. ῾ο πατήρ is what the apostle wishes to say; but in a mood of extreme tenderness, speaking of God's children and of their yearning filial prayerfulness and confidence in approaching and naming Him, he prefixes the old familiar term ᾿αββᾶ. It was no absolute term at first, like some other names, but ever a relative one. So Jesus, realizing His Sonship with unspeakable intenseness, in that awful prayer names His Father ᾿αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ. The double appellation could only arise among a bilingual people, where certain native words were hallowed, and in moments of strong emotion were used along with their foreign equivalent. And soon the phrase became a species of proper name, so that in heathen countries ᾿αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ passed into an authorized formula.

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

From John H. Sailhamer's Expositor's Bible Commentary on Genesis (page 20):

"The statement in [Genesis] 1:1 not only identifies the Creator, it also explains the origin of the world. According to the sense of 1:1 (see Notes), the narrative states that God created all that exists in the universe. As it stands, the statement is an affirmation that God alone is eternal and that all else owes its origin and existence to him. The influence of this verse is reflected throughout the work of later biblical writers (e.g., Ps 33:6; John 1:3; Heb 11:3)."

Also: "In opening the account of Creation with the phrase 'in the beginning' (BERESIT), the author has marked Creation as the starting point of a period of time."

Here's what Keil-Delitzsch say:

"'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'" - Heaven and earth have not existed from all eternity, but had a beginning; nor did they arise by emanation from an absolute substance, but were created by God. This sentence, which stands at the head of the records of revelation, is not a mere heading, nor a summary of the history of the creation, but a declaration of the primeval act of God, by which the universe was called into being. That this verse is not a heading merely, is evident from the fact that the following account of the course of the creation commences with w (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact expressed in Genesis 1:1, as the primary foundation upon which they rest. בּרשׁיח (in the beginning) is used absolutely, like ἐν ἀρχῇ in John 1:1, and מראשׁיח in Isaiah 46:10. The following clause cannot be treated as subordinate, either by rendering it, 'in the beginning when God created ..., the earth was,' etc., or 'in the beginning when God created...(but the earth was then a chaos, etc.), God said, Let there be light' (Ewald and Bunsen)."

David S. Oderberg argues for a cosmic beginning as he refutes Adolf Grünbaum in the article "Adolf Grünbaum and the Beginning of the Universe," Philosophia Naturalis Band 36 (1999):187-94.

See http://www.davidsoderberg.co.uk/home/articles



Robert Jastrow (agnostic astronomer) famously wrote:

Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces.

The first scientific indication of an abrupt beginning for the world appeared about fifty years ago. At that time American astronomers, studying the great clusters of stars called galaxies, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.

This discovery led directly to the picture of a sudden beginning for the Universe; for if we retrace the movements of the moving galaxies backward in time, we find that at an earlier time they must have been closer together than they are today; at a still earlier time, they must have been still closer together; and if we go back far enough in time, we find that at a certain critical moment in the past all the galaxies in the Universe were packed together into one dense mass at an enormous density, pressure and temperature. Reacting to this pressure, the dense, hot matter must have exploded with incredible violence. The instant of the explosion marked the birth of the Universe.

Other Parts of the Westminster Confession (III.3-5, 7)-Predestination

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.

John Piper expresses this thought on Unconditional Election: "We are not saying that final salvation is unconditional. It is not. We must meet the condition of faith in Christ in order to inherit eternal life. But faith is not a condition for election. Just the reverse. Election is a condition for faith. It is because God chose us before the foundation of the world that he purchases our redemption at the cross and quickens us with irresistible grace and brings us to faith."

See http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_III.html

Also: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Election

Big Bang Question (Duncan)

Duncan,

I'm not ideologically committed to one theory of the cosmos like the Big Bang, but it seems that a Christian must be committed to some view of the universe that accepts a beginning and creation of the world (Gen 1:1). The Big Bang theory could turn out to be wrong; however, that would not mean that the universe is eternal or uncreated or did not have a beginning. Nevertheless, the Big Bang still lives in scientific circles--it is healthy and thriving in this way:

"Let us focus first on mainstream science. To what evidence does it appeal? The evidence comes primarily from geology and astronomy. The mainstream claims that the geologic formations contain rocks that were formed millions of years ago. And astronomers claim that by extrapolating backward from the present motions of distant galaxies, we arrive at a time about 14 billion years ago, when the matter and energy of the present visible universe were concentrated in a very small region of space, from which they moved outward explosively in a 'Big Bang.' The universe then gradually expanded outward to its present size" (Vern Poythress, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006, page 101).

This quote from Poythress' work abides by copyright law for the United States of America. It qualifies as fair use.

Let's also not forget Alan Guth's "inflationary universe" idea which was supposed to be confirmed last year by the observation of "strong gravity waves." That development possibly was one of the big letdowns of 2014.

Possibility and God (Beginnings of Some Thoughts)

Vincent Brümmer distinguishes four types of modalities:

1) Conceptual impossibility-impossible by definition.
2) Logical impossibility-if an assertion that something has been done results in a contradiction, regardless of how one defines the terms used in the assertion.
3) Factual impossibility-things are impossible based on the known structure of reality.
4) Normative possibility-a form of possibility that involves rights and duties (i.e. employees and employers each have prescriptive responsibilities toward one another by means of some formalized agreement).

Some things clearly appear to be factually, conceptually or logically impossible like square circles or events that have happened, then unhappened (Nicomachean Ethics 6.2). Nothing is also red and green all over: that too is factually impossible. Nor is Lebron James both taller than 6 feet and not taller than 6 feet at the same time and in the same respect (law of noncontradiction).

God does not do things that by their very nature are impossible; otherwise, we land ourselves in many contradictions. Is it possible for God to sin or act unjustly? Is it possible for God to be tempted or tempt anyone with evil things? See Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18; James 1:13-15

Can God create a universe that has always existed? Or is a universe that has always existed by its very definition uncreatable?

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/19-26.htm

Vermes, and Divine Paternity in "The Religion of Jesus the Jew"

Geza Vermes (The Religion of Jesus the Jew) provides examples of men calling God "my Father" or "Father," thus indicating that the statements made by Jesus like we encounter at John 5:17 are not that out of the ordinary, as some would have us believe.

Vermes writes (on pp. 177-178):

The formula "my Father who is in heaven" occurs also in Midrashic
texts almost automatically in first person speech. Thus at the end of
his famous exposition of Exodus 20:6, "of them that love me and keep
my commandments" as referring to Jewish martyrs of the Hadrianic
persecution, after quoting Zechariah 13.6 the early second-century R.
Nathan concludes:

"These words caused me to be loved by my Father who is in heaven"
(Mekh on Ex. 20:6, Lauterbach II, 247). Another striking example
figures in Sifra on Leviticus (ed. Weiss 93b):

R. Eleazar ben Azariah said: Let no-one declare, 'I do not desire . .
. swine flesh or forbidden sex, but one must say, although I desire
them, what shall I do since my Father who is in heaven has given me
such commandment.

For texts where individuals are portrayed as addressing God as "my
Father," in Second Temple Judaism, see Marianne M. Thompson's The
Promise of the Father (pp. 48-53).

See Vermes' work at http://www.amazon.com/The-Religion-Jesus-Geza-Vermes/dp/0800627970

Revelation 22:2 ( ξύλον)

ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πλατείας αὐτῆς· καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ξύλον ζωῆς ποιοῦν καρποὺς δώδεκα, κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον ἀποδιδοῦν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὰ φύλλα τοῦ ξύλου εἰς θεραπείαν τῶν ἐθνῶν (Revelation 22:2, WH).

BDAG seems to indicate that ξύλον in Rev. 22:2b refers to trees by the water. Conversely, Tyndale renders the passage:

"and on either side of the river was there wood of life . . . and the leaves of the wood served to heal the people withal."

On the other hand, commentator David Aune suggests:

"On each side of the river there were trees of life" and he makes these comments:

"The term ξύλον, 'tree,' is a collective referring to numerous trees found along banks of the river" (Revelation, 52C:1177).

Examples of ξύλον being used collectively are found in Gen. 1:11-12; 3:8; Lev. 26:20; 1 Chron. 16:32; 2 Chron. 7:13; Eccl. 2:5; Jer. 17:2.

A.T. Robertson Discusses Luke 2:27 and Translation Issues

"The English translation of a Greek aorist may have to be in the past perfect or the present perfect to suit the English usage, but that proves nothing as to how a Greek regarded the aorist tense. We must assume in a language that a good writer knew how to use his own tongue and said what he meant to say. Good Greek may be very poor English, as when Luke uses ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν (Lu. 2:27). A literal translation of this neat Greek idiom makes barbarous English. The Greeks simply did not look at this clause as we do" (GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH, page 129).

Origen Defines "the beginning" in His Commentary on John

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm

The Apostle John's Use of HN ("was") in the Gospel's Prologue

Pretend that I make the following utterance: "I WAS at the store last night, when shots rang out of nowhere" (CAPS for emphasis). I guess that one could interpret the statement as "Edgar started and continued to be at the store last night," but that's probably not what I meant nor would hardly any English speaker interpret my utterance in that fashion.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the LOGOS is the beginning of creation (Rev. 3:14); however, I'm not so sure one can conclude the Apostle John is delineating the LOGOS' creaturely inception in Jn 1:1a when he refers to the "beginning." John may be saying that the LOGOS was the beginning, etc., but HN could simply just tell us the LOGOS "was" EN ARXHi without meaning that he came into existence then, or conversely, that he already existed when all things began and he now continued to exist. Whichever perspective is true, my concern is the role that HN plays in shaping theology and translation.

The LXX version of Gn 1:1 indicates that John may have the "beginning" mentioned by Moses in mind as opposed to referencing the creation of the LOGOS. In other words, I'm just not confident that HN can adjudicate whether Christ is God and uncreated or God's created Son, who started to exist at some point.

See John 1:9-13 for how the writer uses HN in the Prologue.

Brief Notes About Hebrews 1:8

ὁ Θεὸς in Heb 1:8 can either be construed as a subject nominative, nominative of address or a predicate nominative.

Interestingly, William Tyndale evidently understood ὁ Θεὸς as a subject nominative.

"But unto the son he saith: God thy seat shall be for ever and ever" (Tyndale's NT).

C.F.D. Moule writes: "Luke XVIII.11 ὁ Θεὸς (Heb. 1:8, which looks similar, may conceivably be a true Nominative, construed so as to mean Thy throne is God; but see commentators IN LOC.) . . ." (An Idiom Book of NT Greek, p. 32).

As is known by those familiar with issues related to the Trinity doctrine and Christology, B.F. Westcott also favored the translation "God is your throne."

In his commentary on Hebrews, he writes: "The phrase'God is Thy throne' is not indeed found elsewhere, but it is in no way more strange than Ps LXXI.3 [Lord] be Thou to me a rock of habitation . . . Thou art my rock and my fortress" (p. 26).

It is also obvious that the term "throne" applied to God in Heb 1:8 is not to be taken literally; God is understood as the one who upholds, guarantees or supports the Messiah's kingly rule.

Furthermore, in this case, God is not said to be a throne for His people. He is, according to Westcott and Tyndale, the Son's Throne. While M.J. Harris does not favor this interpretation of Heb 1:8, he nevertheless says that the expression "God is your throne" must mean "your throne is founded on (or protected by) God" since it is a metonomy not belonging to the category of the divine (see Jesus As God, p. 213).

What is so hard to understand about God being Jesus' throne in that He upholds or supports his kingship? After all, the ancient Davidic kings of Judah also had God as their throne since they sat upon the figurative throne of YHWH (1 Chron 28:5; 29:23). To me, a similar idea is being communicated in Heb 1:8.

Romans 16:20 and Genesis 3:15

Gen 3:15 (OG/LXX): καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν

Romans 16:20 is likely influenced/shaped by Genesis 3:15 and hearkens back to that passage:

From Henry Alford's GNT:

συντρ. τ. σατ. is a similitude from Genesis 3:15.

συντρίψει, not as Stuart, ‘for optative,’ nor does it express any wish, but a prophetic assurance and encouragement in bearing up against all adversaries, that it would not be long before the great Adversary himself would be bruised under their feet.

From Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:

"Bruise.—With reference to Genesis 3:15."

From the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

"shall bruise Satan, &c.] The very first promise of Redemption (Genesis 3:15,) is doubtless here referred to.—The 'Enemy who soweth tares' had been already 'bruised' by the Redeemer, in His triumphant work; and that victory would be, in due time, realized in the personal ('under your feet,') triumph over sin and death, and final deliverance from all trial, of each of His followers."

From John Gill's Exposition of the Bible:


"so here is a manifest allusion to what was said by way of threatening to him, 'it', the woman's seed, 'shall bruise thy head', ( Genesis 3:15 ); and which has had its accomplishment in Christ, who has not only destroyed the works of the devil, but him himself, and spoiled his principalities and powers, and bruised him and them under his feet, when he led captivity captive"


Barnes also writes:

"Will bruise - The 'language' here refers to the prediction in Genesis 3:15. It here means to 'subdue, to gain the victory over.' It denotes Paul's confidence that they 'would' gain the victory, and would be able to overcome all the arts of those who were endeavoring to sow discord and contention among them."

More recent commentators have also pointed to the "clear" Genesis allusion in Romans 16:20. See Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, "God Is A Warrior."

Part of a Paper in the Works on God, Time, Boethius and Aquinas (Only a Draft)

The foregoing does not include footnotes which do appear in the actual paper. The quotes taken from Boethius come from his work De Consolatione.

Boethius writes that God is eternal insofar as God has a “complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life” (Aeternitas igitur est, interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio). He contrasts temporal and divine existence by arguing: "whatever lives in time exists in the present and progresses from the past to the future, and there is nothing set in time which can embrace simultaneously the whole extent of its life; it is in the position of not yet possessing tomorrow when it has already lost yesterday" (Nam quicquid vivet in tempore, id praesens a praeteritis in futura procedit: nihilque est in tempore constitutum quod totum vitae suae spatium pariter posit amplecti. Sed crastinum quidem nondum apprehendit: hesternum vero jam perdidit).

This medieval thinker maintains that eternity refers to the unique quality of divine timelessness (the property of experiencing the past, present and future in one simultaneous moment). Divine eternity is supposedly atemporality or timelessness: it is viewed as the eternal present. Hence, Boethius insists that God is entirely outside of time, but still has some type of duration and the divine one evidently beholds what occurs in the past, present and future--all of which are tenses from a human standpoint--as though it happens in one durative present. William Lane Craig accordingly explains the Boethian view in these terms: “God's 'now' is a unity (unum) embracing past, present, and future, which never comes to be or passes away, in contrast to the fleeting ‘now’ of the temporal process.” Campenhausen also writes concerning the notion of divine atemporality found in Boethius:

We must be clear that God's Being exists in eternity, i.e. not in the dimension of the transient, earthly time in which our activity takes place. That which unfolds to us as past, present, and future, lies before his view as if it were eternally present. For that reason the decisions of his "providence" are not really prior to our free actions, but can correspond to them precisely at any given moment.

When Boethius contrasts God’s eternity with the kind of eternality delineated in the writings of Plato, he reckons that embracing the whole of "everlasting life in one simultaneous present" (aliud interminabilis vitae totam pariter complexam esse praesentiam) is “clearly a property of the mind of God” (quod divinae mentis proprium esse manifestum est). This Boethian view presumably resolves (possibly eases) the dialectical tension between divine foreknowledge and human free will, for if God beholds future contingents as if they are presently taking place, then He does not thereby cause these contingent events to occur; God merely knows future contingents as presently instantiated events since he subsists in an eternal now:

Since, therefore, all judgment comprehends those things that are subject to it according to its own nature, and since the state of God is ever that of eternal presence, His knowledge, too, transcends all temporal change and abides in the immediacy of His presence. It embraces all the infinite recesses of past and future and views them in the immediacy of its knowing as though they were happening in the present (Quoniam igitur omne iudicium secundum sui naturam quae sibi subiecta sunt comprehendit, est autem deo semper aeternus ac praesentarius status, scientia quoque eius omnem temporis supergressa motionem in suae manet simplicitate praesentiae infinitaque praeteriti ac futuri spatia complectens omnia quasi jam gerantur in sua simplici cognitione considerat. Itaque si praeuidentiam pensare uelis qua cuncta dinoscit, non esse praescientiam quasi futuri sed scientiam numquam deficientis instantiae rectius aestimabis).

Boethius poses an objection to the use of such terms as "foreknowledge" or "prevision" wherein God's knowledge of future contingents is concerned. If God is completely outside of time, then his knowledge of the future is not technically speaking “a kind of foreknowledge of the future, but as the knowledge of a never ending presence.” God is above the temporal fray, beholding all events in one simultaneous moment. Craig explains that in the case of Boethius: "Hence, rightly considered God’s knowledge is not strictly knowledge of a thing to come, but of a never-failing instant. He overlooks, as it were, all things from the highest peak."

With God's atemporal omniscience in mind—Lady Philosophy asks Boethius and by extension all contemporary philosophers who have trouble reconciling God's foreknowledge with the free will of finite rational agents: "Why, then, do you insist that all that is scanned by the sight of God becomes necessary? Men see things but this certainly doesn’t make them necessary. And your seeing them doesn’t impose any necessity on the things you see present, does it?"

Boethius recons that God's knowledge of the future is comparable to a human spectator (s) observing a horse race (r). Necessarily in this case, if r is occurring at T1, then r is occurring in the presence of s at T1. However, s does not cause r to happen or bring it about that r necessarily occurs simply by watching r. The proposition, "Necessarily, if the race is occurring, then it is occurring" (hypothetical necessity) must not be confused with the proposition "Necessarily, the race is occurring" (simple necessity). Confusion between the two propositions results from a modal fallacy. Similarly, Boethius contends that God’s knowledge of future contingents does not bring about their actualization nor does God’s foreknowledge make future contingents necessary. Beholding events and causing them are two distinct actions even for an omnipotent deity.

The definition of eternity found in De Consolatione seems to be a precise concept in the writings of Boethius. He utilizes this definiens to illuminate how one might reconcile human freedom and divine foreknowledge. By invoking the Augustinian concept of divine atemporality (timelessness), Boethius attempts to offer a plausible and convincing response to one perennial question of philosophy, but whether his efforts are truly successful remains to be seen. Nevertheless, having reviewed the Boethian approach to God and time, I will now discuss Thomas Aquinas' view of God and time while noting how the "Angelic Doctor" clarifies Boethius' definition or concept of divine eternity.

Kenneth Wuest's Rendering of John 1:14--Does He Overtranslate?

Taken from Kenneth S. Wuest, The New Testament: An Expanded Translation

Peter Head on Kurios in the OG/LXX

Those who have spent a lot of time studying the history of the tetragrammaton might enjoy looking into this issue, if you have not already done so.

Peter Head (Christology and the Synoptic Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. pp. 160-162) notes:

It now seems unlikely that KURIOS translated YHWH in
pre-Christian versions of the Greek OT. The oldest
[MSS] of the Greek OT, and every [MS] of known [sic]
Jewish milieu, use YHWH in Hebrew letters, sometimes
in Aramaic, sometimes in palaeo-Hebrew.

He then lists P.Fouad 266 (2nd cent. BCE); 8HevXIIgr (1st cent. BCE); 4QLevb which employs the form IAW; the Cairo Geniza fragments of Aquila, Symmachus and P.Oxy.1007 (Head, p. 161).

After listing evidence for this conclusion from the ANF, Head then cites Jellicoe's "The Septuagint and Modern Study." This work evidently states that KURIOS as a replacement for YHWH "was a Christian innovation." However, Head thinks that the observation by Jellicoe and similar comments made by George Howard must be "nuanced somewhat" since Philo and Josephus apparently employed KURIOS and QEOS to render YHWH. See Philo, De mutatione nominum 18-24 and Josephus, Antiquities XIII.68; XX.90. But the latter author begins writing and comes after Christianity began.

Head thus concludes that Greek-speaking Jews were in the habit of pronouncing KURIOS and allegedly substituting this Greek term for YHWH in theological discussions and in their sacred texts. Head further appeals to the literature from Qumran (1QapGen) to prove that some Jews substituted "other forms" for YHWH, though I do not think this specific point makes his argument more robust, since the Qumran example that Head provides is apparently not a case of YHWH being replaced by KURIOS; nor does a similar quote from Origen (Psalms II.2) help because Origen just says that the Greeks pronounce ADONAI as KURIOS.

The rest of his discussion merits attention too.

John Sanders and Time (Short Reflection)

The minor quibble that I have with John Sanders (besides the relations between divine persons idea) is that "duration of consciousness" (i.e., awareness) may be a necessary but it's probably not a sufficient condition for defining what time possibly means in relation to God. It's possible that a subjective view of time doesn't do justice to time itself, much less God's relationship to time.

Thinking (intentional cogitating) is one form of awareness, but there are also forms of consciousness that do not involve thinking per se. The quibble is a small one since I agree with Sanders that time is uncreated. From what I understand, at least, he doesn't believe that time is a created thing.

DIA--How to Translate It (Revision of Post)

Rom 11:36 has διά + the genitive which can be translated "through" or "by." Either translation is able to communicate the notion of intermediate agency.

Col 1:16 is also διά + genitive and Heb 2:10 has this construction too (δι’ οὗ). Compare Heb 1:2.

What will determine how one renders the construction should be context or translator preference. But, as I see it, nothing is wrong with communicating agency with "through" or "by." BDAG shows that διά may be used as a "marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby someth. is accomplished or effected, by, via, through" (224); διά can also be a "marker of pers. agency, through, by" (225).


In John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16, διά is applied to "Christ as intermediary in the creation of the world" (225).

Progressive Illumination

According to John 2:22, Jesus' disciples only comprehended the saying in Jn 2:19 when (ὅτε) Jesus was raised from the dead--then they "called to mind" (ἐμνήσθησαν) the statement he made concerning his body.

Another interesting passage is John 12:16: "These things his disciples took no note of at first, but when Jesus became glorified, then(τότε) they called to mind (ἐμνήσθησαν) that these things were written respecting him and that they did these things to him."

Or what about Acts 11:15-16, where Peter himself testifies that it was only when the holy spirit descended upon Cornelius and his household that Peter "called to mind the saying of the Lord" (ἐμνήσθην δὲ τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ κυρίου) about Christians being baptized with spirit and water.

All such verses indicate that early Christians, including those who were circumcised Jews, progressively were guided into all the way of truth (John 16:12-13).

Michael Coogan's Remarks on the Divine Name (from His Introduction to the Old Testament)

2 Samuel 13:15 (LXX/OG)-Use of Agapao

καὶ ἐμίσησεν αὐτὴν Αμνων μῖσος μέγα σφόδρα, ὅτι μέγα τὸ μῖσος, ὃ ἐμίσησεν αὐτήν, ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀγάπην, ἣν ἠγάπησεν αὐτήν. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Αμνων ᾿Ανάστηθι καὶ πορεύου (2 Samuel 13:15, LXX).

"Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her, for the last wickedness was greater than the first: and Amnon said to her, Rise, and be gone" (Brenton).

Interesting uses of ἀγάπην and ἠγάπησεν.

D. A. Carson makes this observation: "even in the Septuagint it is far from clear that the αγα­-πάω word-group always refers to the 'higher' or more noble or less emotional forms of love. For example 2 Samuel 13 says that Amnon incestuously raped his half-sister Tamar: he 'loved' her — a vicious act, transparently sexual, emotional, and violent — and both αγαπάω and φιλέω are used."

See "God Is Love," BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 156 (April-June 1999): 131-2.

Good Luck--Not!

The word "luck" can be defined many different ways. Some definitions are "the force that seems to operate for good or ill in a person's life, as in shaping circumstances, events, or opportunities," "good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance" or "a combination of circumstances, events, etc., operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person" (dictionary.com)

I often hear people wish one another "good luck" or someone might say, "If it wasn't for back luck, I'd have none at all."

While scripture does teach that "time and chance" befalleth all (Ecclesiastes 9:11), the idea that we're subject to the forces of luck (destiny/fortune) is not scriptural. It also seems that positing luck as a causal factor of the universe clashes with the scientific account of causes and their effects. In simple terms, it's hard for me to understand how stepping on a crack has anything to do with my mom's back, or how encountering a black cat or breaking a mirror affects one's fate. Luck seems to be the kind of thing that dreams are made of.

Bishops and Overseers (More Dialogue)

The office of "bishop" was non-existent in the first century: number of sources demonstrate this fact. There were EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI, but no "bishops" in the technical sense of the word. Francis Beare writes concerning Phil 1:1:

"The two words translated bishops and deacons have been much debated. In the second century they became specialized in ecclesiastical usage; the bishop as the head of the local Christian community, the deacons as his assistants in whatever duties he might assign them."

Beare then adds: "Negatively, it may be said that the use of the plurals [in Phil 1:1] rules out any possibility that the Philippian church is governed by a monarchical bishop."

After citing Polycarp and other sources, Beare concludes: "This passing reference [to EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI in Phil 1:1] does not provide us with any crumb of information about the status or function of EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI at Philippi; and we are not entitled to read into them in this context the significance which belongs to them in later Catholic usage" (Francis Beare, Epistle to the Philippians, 1959, pp 49-50).

So while the Primitive Congregation used EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI, it does not follow that these "offices" were hierarchically arranged or that these men were leaders of the Church. The EPISKOPOI and DIAKONOI were "individuals designated for special service within the Church and perhaps subject to the Church" (Gerald Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Series, page 8).

Heinrich Meyer also reasons: "We may add that placing of the officials after the church generally, which is not logically requisite, and the mere subjoining of them by SUN, are characteristic of the relation between the two [the overseers, assistants and the flock], which had not yet undergone hierarchical dislocation" (Meyer, Philippians and
Colossians, page 14).

Jesus Christ issued this command: "Neither be called 'leaders,' [KAQHGHTAI] for your Leader [KAQHGHTHS] is one, the Christ [hO XRISTOS]" (Mt 23:10 NWT).

Admittedly, the term translated "Leader" can evidently mean either "leader, master, guide, teacher or professor." Certain scholars favor the sense "teachers" in this passage, but I think that "leader" is just as likely in view of Mt 23:6-8.

The Geneva Bible of 1599 has: "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ."

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master,[even] the Christ" (ASV).

"nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director -- the Christ" (YLT).

One could argue that Jesus is saying that his followers should not be called "leaders" or "teachers" (i.e., they should not be given these titles). But I think such an argument, if valid, simply makes the important point.

Ellicott's Commentary: "Neither be ye called masters.—The word is not the same as in Matthew 23:8, and signifies 'guide,' or 'leader;' the 'director' of conscience rather than the teacher. (Comp. Romans 2:19.)"

The Greek Word APOFEUGW and 2 Peter 1:4

I'm undertaking a word study on APOFEUGW in 2 Peter 1:4. Here is part of what I've written so far:

Louw-Nida Greek and English Lexicon (21.14) states that APOFEUGW can mean-"to become safe from danger by avoiding or escaping" and "to escape, to avoid."

L-N points out that it's hard to adjudicate how EXFEUGW and APOFEUGW differ from FEUGW or from one another. It may be the case that EXFEUGW/APOFEUGW are "somewhat more emphatic than FEUGW" (21.14).

The same reference work notes that in the case of these related terms, "there is no special indication of movement, but simply the fact of not having to experience some particular difficulty or danger" (ibid). See Mt 23:33; Lk 21:36; Rom 2:3; Heb 11:34.

but here's what LSJ says about APOFEUGW:

APOPHEUGW/O: "flee from, escape . . . rarely c. gen. [2 Peter 1:4 example]" (p. 226) and "c. inf., avoid, LEGEIN Phlp. in Ph. 617.14: abs. get safe away, escape" and "go free" (used of manumitted slaves). Also utilized as a "law-term" in Hdt. 6.82, Pl. Lg. 94.6d and "abs. get clear off, be acquitted opp. hALISKOMAI, Hdt. 2.174." Also employed with reference to a woman giving birth to a child.

From Vincent's Word Studies:

"Having escaped (ἀποφυγόντες)

Only in this epistle. To escape by flight."

Robertson also tells us that this form of the verb (ἀποφυγόντες) in 2 Peter 1:4 is a second aorist active participle.

Trinitarian Equality and John 5:17-18

From December 23, 2003:

While the word ἴσος can mean "similar" it can also have the denotation "equal." Why would the first-century Jews have been so upset, if they only thought Jesus was making himself like or similar, but not equal to his Father? Furthermore,
remember what Paul wrote in Phil. 2:6:

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ

On the other hand, I find the words of Trinitarian scholar G.R.B. Murray of interest:

"Bultmann, however, went on to point out that the Jews failed to grasp that Jesus is the Revealer; second, they made the mistake of viewing equality with God as independence from God, whereas for Jesus it meant total dependence on God ([Bultmann] 244). In light of these (undoubtedly correct) observations, the expression 'equal to God' is a misleading interpretation of the declaration of Jesus. That Jesus spoke of God as his own Father rightly points to the unique relation to God, and it is the Evangelist's concern to make plain the nature of that relationship. But in vv. 19-30 we see a twofold emphasis that exists in tension: on the one hand there is the acknowledgement by Jesus of the total dependence of the Son on the Father, and on the other a consciousness of the Father's appointment of the Son to perform on his behalf works that God alone has the right and power to execute (vv 19-20, 21, 22, 26-27,30). It is perhaps not irrelevant to note that the Jews were ready, when they wished, to recognize that in certain conditions men could be spoken of as God. For example they viewed Ps 82:6, 'I said you are gods, sons of the Most High all of you,' as relating to the people of Israel. And they glorified in the fact that in Exod 7:1 God states that he has made Moses as God to Pharaoh, whereas since Pharaoh made himself as God he had to learn that he was nothing (Tanh. B sec. 12 in Str-B 2:462-64). It would seem that in their eyes God could exalt a man to be as God, but whoever made himself as God called down divine retribution on himself. They saw Jesus in the latter category" (John, page 75).

While I do not agree with Murray's comments in toto, I think the last few sentences of the quote provided above shed light on monotheism in ancient Judaism. Having said the foregoing, I would argue that certain Jews thought Jesus was making himself equal to God (not merely similar), but they were mistaken.

Johannine Themes (A Short Reflection)

Caution is essential when we're trying to determine the theme of a particular book of scripture. For instance, as we read John's Gospel, it's easy to see themes that deal with the glory which the Father has given to the Son (John 1:14) as well as the theme of divine agency (John 1:1-3). Furthermore, it appears that John clearly presents the two motifs of KATABASIS and ANABASIS that are intimately connected with the event mentioned in 1:14. And think of how the Apostle concludes chapter 20 of his Gospel: "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have belief by means of his name" (v. 31). So, I'm kind of reluctant to concur with Bultmann when he evidently states that the Incarnation represents the focus of John's Gospel.

See http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-John-Commentary-Johannine-Monograph/dp/1625649037/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424206802&sr=1-1&keywords=bultmann+johannine

Discourse Analysis and the Meaning of Biblical Texts

Discourse analysts contend that grasping the macrostructure of a text is key for determining textual understanding. We must not only look at individual lexemes, morphemes or examine basic syntax. Discourse, paragraphs, sentences, constituent structures, and context serve as the sine qua non for examining textual communication.

When I talk about the context of a passage, I am not simply referring to the (immediate) literary context of a passage; to really ascertain the meaning of a text, it seems that one must consider the religious, political, and social context of a particular discourse.

A work that nicely sums up the aforesaid issues, and helps one to move from intermediate to advanced biblical Greek is "Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Graded Approach to Learning Intermediate and Advanced Greek" by George H. Guthrie and J. Scott Duvall (Zondervan).

This work explains how to diagram Greek sentences: it also contains a number of texts that allow students of NT Greek to work on parsing and discourse analysis as students personally advance in their Greek studies.

Please see https://books.google.com/books?id=TdkJlOqiEnIC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Biblical+Greek+Exegesis:+A+Graded+Approach+to+Learning+Intermediate+and+Advanced+Greek&source=bl&ots=TYVzWcWQV7&sig=e7hUuQPFAHgrmlNP5mjXAyDmiiE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=o6njVJ68OYLCsATwtYLgAg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Biblical%20Greek%20Exegesis%3A%20A%20Graded%20Approach%20to%20Learning%20Intermediate%20and%20Advanced%20Greek&f=false

A Small But Important Change in NWT 2013 (Revelation 19:17-18)

Greek: Καὶ εἶδον ἕνα ἄγγελον ἑστῶτα ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ, καὶ ἔκραξεν ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων πᾶσι τοῖς ὀρνέοις τοῖς πετομένοις ἐν μεσουρανήματι Δεῦτε συνάχθητε εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον τὸ μέγα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα φάγητε σάρκας βασιλέων καὶ σάρκας χιλιάρχων καὶ σάρκας ἰσχυρῶν καὶ σάρκας ἵππων καὶ τῶν καθημένων ἐπ' αὐτούς, καὶ σάρκας πάντων ἐλευθέρων τε καὶ δούλων καὶ μικρῶν καὶ μεγάλων (Rev 19:17-18, WH).

NWT (1984): I saw also an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice and said to all the birds that fly in midheaven: "Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of God, that YOU may eat the fleshy parts of kings and the fleshy parts of military commanders and the fleshy parts of strong men and the fleshy parts of horses and of those seated upon them, and the fleshy parts of all, of freemen as well as of slaves and of small ones and great."

NWT (2013 Rev): I saw also an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice and said to all the birds that fly in midheaven: "Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of military commanders and the flesh of strong men and the flesh of horses and of those seated on them, and the flesh of all, of freemen as well as of slaves and of small ones and great."

It's a good change to render 19:18 with "flesh" instead of "fleshy parts."

Dialogue on the Resurrection

[Interlocutor]
And here we have it: the problem. Did you really just argue that the JW teaching is not a re-creation because of a metaphor? It counts as a resurrection and not a re-creation because, metaphorically and not literally, S1 still lives? With all due respect, you've got to be kidding.

[Edgar Response]
Let's not misrepresent my argument. I am not contending that a resurrection as opposed to a re-creation takes place BECAUSE S1 still lives metaphorically. Rather, my position is that S1 is resurrected BECAUSE S1 is truly dead (not conscious or existent) and is raised from that condition by God through Jesus Christ and the holy spirit.

[Edgar Previously]
If I type a document, save it to my C drive, then transfer it to a floppy disk, delete the original file, then insert the floppy in another computer and retrieve the document on the floppy disk-- how can anyone legitimately claim that I'm "re-creating" the original document?

[Interlocutor]
Well, the same way that the Magna Charta that is in the US Archives is a copy (a re-creation) of the original. The same way that, if I try to sell you the Declaration of Independence, I'm committing a fraud -- what I have is a copy. The same way that the absolute best copy of Goya's Saturn is worth a couple grand and the original is priceless.

[Edgar Response]
The word "copy" is ambiguous. It can refer to something (X) that is exactly like another distinct thing or the word may have reference to something (X) that has been made to resemble something else. I have deliberately refrained from using the word "copy" when illustrating the possible relationship between a deceased person and the same person existing after God resurrects him or her. Keep in mind that the computer disk example is just that: one should not take the illustration literally. All examples have their own limitations.

But let us assume (as I am suggesting) that the resurrection could be analogous to opening a file that derives from an original document which initially existed on the C-drive. I still don't see how that [necessarily] constitutes "re-creating" the file. It is unnecessary to recreate something that never ceased to exist in the first place. However, please do not infer that I am trying to say S1 never stops existing (although in a metaphorical sense, that point is true) post mortem. The original point of my example was to illustrate how something that exists, dies and comes back to life can still be considered numerically identical through the whole process. In the case of the file example, the file exists, is transferred to a disk, and then deleted but continues to exist on the disk. You can clearly see that I am not positing a strict analogy between the file example and a person who dies, but is later raised from the dead.

[Edgar Previously]
Similarly, I don't see why my view regarding the dead being brought back to life can't be termed "resurrection."

[Interlocutor]
There are two main reasons. First, the JW perspective eliminates the uniqueness of the individual. In exactly the same way we can print out an unlimited number of the saved documents, and each one we will claim is THE document, under the JW thinking there is no "thingness" to any of us. There are only (potentially many) examples of that thing. This is generally and for good reason considered to be a pretty big drawback to the JW position.

[Edgar Response]
As I've said earlier, my example involving the computer file should not be misconstrued. It was intended to show how numerical identity can be preserved although an object might be deleted but continue to exist in another form. I believe that it misrepresents the Witness position to claim that Witnesses say there are "potentially many" examples of a particular thing, in this case. Furthermore, I don't know how you can make that claim about my belief when I've made it clear that I believe the self is neural and coupled with the body proper. If S1 is a neural self that is metaphysically distinct from S2 (another neural self), S3, S4 . . . , then there cannot be many instantiations of S1. Only S1 experiences particular synaptic connections, brain states and sensory experiences peculiar to S1. S1 also has a particular genetic code, [fingerprints], and set of unique memories. The atomic structure of S1 also belongs to S1 and only to S1. Therefore, one and only one S1 can exist.

[Interlocutor]
Second, and related, the JW position that there is a complete break at death -- as you said, there is a literal and total break -- makes it tough to see how continuity is maintained (continuity being generally considered a really important element of the whole resurrection vs. re-creation question). Cartesian dualists, whatever else their problems might be, don't have this problem.

[Edgar Response]
Continuity is preserved (on the Witness account) because while people die (completely and totally), there is a sense in which human persons continue living. They live unto God [i.e., in his memory].

Some Thoughts from the Late "Bar Enosh" on Exodus 3:14

I've pasted together some thoughts from Brother "Bar Enosh." This material was all gathered and posted by the late brother on another forum:

There is no connection with Exodus 3:14 [and John 8:58], because the Hebrew does not say "I Am." It says *ehyeh* which means "I Will Be/Become." As William Propp says in the Anchor Bible's commentary on Exodus 3:14 (1999), "The imperfect of *hyy* [*ehyeh*] always refers to the future. If one could say 'I am that I am' in Hebrew at all, it would probably be through some such barbarous circumlocution as *anoki hu asher anoki hu*'." (page 204)

The ancient translators Theodotion and Aquila had no problem expressing *ehyeh asher ehyeh* as ESOMAI hOS ESOMAI. There is little reason to believe that God is speaking "absolutely" here, rather than enigmatically, both revealing and concealing. In the context of Exodus 1-3, "I will be who/what I will be" is particularly relevant.

Finally, my dear brother "Bar Enosh" wrote:

Because of the situation with Hebrew verbs, or rather our present
understanding of them (or lack thereof), there are times when context
provides key to meaning. What is the context of Exodus 3, if not
what God is going to do in the future for His nation?

I notice that even most translations that, for whatever reason, want
to render EHYEH as "I Am" in Exodus 3:14 translate that same word
as "I will be" just 2 verses prior (3:12)! Why the inconsistency?
If it is "I will be" in Exodus 3:12, it makes sense for it to be "I
Will Be" in verse 14, I would think.

And in fact, that is how many independent, Jewish and other
translations render EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, including the translations in
several commentaries (i.e., _The Anchor Bible: Exodus 1-18_ by
William H.C. Propp: "Then Deity said to Moses, 'I will be who I will
be.' And he said, 'Thus you will say to Israel's Sons: "I-will-be
has sent me to you."'")

"I Am" does not faithfully represent the LXX, the first translation
of Exodus 3:14 into another language. Even though the verse has EGW
EIMI ("I am"), that is not the conclusion of the verse, which
continues, hO WN, "the Being/Self-Existant One." Later translators
in the LXX tradition (e.g., Theodotion) recognized that this
understanding of the LXX translators was not the most faithful
rendition of the Hebrew, and rendered Exodus 3:14 as ESOMAI hOS
ESOMAI, corresponding to "I will be Who I will be."

People will understand or appreciate the context of Exodus 3
differently and thus render Exodus 3:14 differently. But I think it
to be safe ground to interpret the context as relating to God's
future acts involving Moses and Israel.

God, Time, and Divine Immutability (Duncan)

The Old Testament appears to depict God as a dynamic being within time:

"The everlasting (or at best relatively timeless) nature of God's eternity has been clearly implied in Ps. 90:2,Isa. 40:28, 41:4; 43:10, and 44:6; while Isa. 48:3 allows any view. Eccl. 3:11, too, will not support an absolute timelessness. Thus Schmidt's thesis that the OT supports a Boethian understanding of non-durational timeless eternity cannot be maintained. We can conclude with the vast majority of scholars that Yahweh is understood by OT writers to be everlasting, or at best 'timeless' in a relative sense" (A. Padgett, God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time, page 29).

Like Stephen T. Davis, Padgett also concludes that Boethius' theory of divine timelessness in The Consolation of Philosophy 5 does not seem to be in accord with the Old Testament account of a God who is depicted in temporal language. Moreover, William Hasker considers the scriptural accounts that Davis references. While he concludes that it is intelligible to speak of a timeless God acting in history, he nonetheless concedes that there is a problem envisioning an atemporal God bringing about distinct events that take place "at different points in time." For example, Hasker wonders how it is metaphysically possible for God to split the Red Sea (by an eternal act of will) and (by an eternal act of will) to ordain that the wheels of the Egyptian chariots loosen? Additionally, Hasker believes that God's responsiveness concerning prayer is also a potential difficulty for the timeless view of divinity: "For in responding to another it is of the essence that one first acts, then waits for the other to react, then acts responsively, and so on. There seems to be no way this sequence could be collapsed, as it were, into a single timeless moment."

If one construes the scriptural language of prayer literally, it is potentially difficult to reconcile God's atemporality with the deity of Scripture who hears and answers prayers (Psalm 65:2). So the biblical accounts that depict God responding to the prayers of His creatures appear to undermine the notion of divine atemporality--even the advocates of divine atemporality have admitted that reconciling prayer with divine timelessness is not an easy task. Maybe the solution is to understand the response language of Scripture in anthropomorphic terms. On the other hand, it is possible that the God of Scripture is sempiternal (God has neither beginning nor end, but still exists temporally).

From a consideration of the biblical and logical evidence, I submit that God is not a timeless being existing in an eternal now. Of course, if God is sempiternal, it is fitting to ask how he keeps from being conditioned by the accidents of time. Terence Fretheim has written that the God of the Old Testament is temporal, but he is not touched by the vicissitudes of time. It could also be posited that God is not adversely conditioned by his temporality: Jehovah does not age or grow decrepit with the passage of time. Nor does the divine essence undergo change (James 1:17). If God is a temporal being, there could be a sense in which He changes but still remains God.

John Sanders posits relational changes in God: he suggests that God willingly chooses to enter into an ever-changing relationship with rational creatures. The biblical scholar James Barr has been critical of theories that assert God is temporal based on lexical studies of olam or aiwn. But one might legitimately wonder what significance the Bible has if one cannot infer, deduce or learn about theo-ontological concepts pertaining to God's nature from the very book that declares Him to be either atemporal or sempiternal.

More on God, Time, and Psalm 90 (A Response to One Brother)

Dated 7/31/2009:

As you are well aware, the NWT translates OLAM in Psalm 90:2 and elsewhere as "time indefinite" and I think this is enlightening since the etymology for the Hebrew term suggests that the Psalmist is possibly referring to "hidden time, long" (Gesenius). It seems to me that Psalm 90:2 is not just enunciating God's "eternal" past but also the fact that God's existence is endless or boundless. That is, I take the Psalmist to be saying that God has always existed (in time) and always will exist (in time): God has no beginning nor will he have an end.

I concede that the attempt to plumb (explore fully) God's eternal/everlasting psyche is probably futile. Of course, Trinitarians will say that God was never alone in the first place, although Tertullian does venture a theological opinion regarding God's solitary existence and what God was possibly doing before he generated his own Word, thereby making that impersonal Word the Son of God (a personal entity). Tertullian's account can be found in Adversus Praxean 5-7; it is undoubtedly based partly on Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8:22ff. His suggestion is that God conducted discourse within himself when alone much like a man or woman thinks or deliberates when by him/herself.

The mode in which God knew prior to creation or knows now is a tough question. But I'll just say that I'm very much opposed to the absolute divine timeless idea when it comes to Jehovah since a number of implications flow therefrom. If God is timeless, God does not, nor can God change ontologically or cognitively. Furthermore, if God is timeless, he does not have genuine emotional states. Additionally, if God is timeless, then God knows all things as present: all events whether past, present or future to us are all present to him. I can flesh out these implications at another time.

Slavery in the First Century CE

In the deceptively simple-looking publication Exploring the NT World, Albert A. Bell, Jr. provides a useful discussion of slavery in the first century world (pp. 192-194). Bell supplies a number of primary sources to uphold his contentions, and what he concludes is that while first-century Christians did not push for an abolition of slavery, they did "call for an enlightened attitude toward slaves as fellow human beings" (Bell 194). Cf. Gal. 3:28.

Richard R. Melick, Jr. also has some perceptive observations in his commentary on Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. (See pp. 316-320, 341-345 of his work.) Melick lists a number of good reasons why Paul did not protest slavery (railing against slavery could have made matters extremely difficult for those who were slaves!), while also showing that Paul "taught equality" and paved the way for first-century Roman society to make changes in its own thinking regarding slavery. In Colossians, Paul showed that those who were "masters" in a fleshly sense also had the Master over them (Col. 4:1).

Here is a more detailed passage from Melick's commentary on this issue:

"Slaves were, generally speaking, victims of war. The slavery was political and economic, not racial. Similarly, virtually every class of person lived with the realization that war could cause them to lose everything and be sold into slavery. Those who revolted, seeking to use power to gain freedom, found themselves in a worse position than before. It simply would not do for Paul to advocate slaves walking away from their masters. That would endanger many innocent lives and frustrate the spread of the gospel" (Melick 316).

Additionally, we read:

"Treating others the way they wanted to be treated [a message preached by both Jesus and Paul] would mean the release of slaves. As discussed earlier, however, the Roman Empire was not ready for that message, and to preach that kind of rebellion in those circumstances would have hindered the message of the gospel. The deeper matters of fair dealing had to come from the heart anyway, and Paul spoke directly to that end" (Ibid., 320).

Even if Paul or Peter had issued pronouncements against slavery, these locutions would have carried no weight with the Roman world, and later slave-owners would have found yet other reasons to perpetuate the institution of slavery and cruelly treat their human property. The fact of the matter is that neither the OT nor the NT encourages those who own slaves to treat them inhumanely (vide Exodus 21:20; 21:26). Even if God permitted slavery, he never urged masters to beat or mistreat their slaves: never would God have exhorted one man to hurl racial epithets at another man. Teachings against racism and nationalism are perspicuously contained in the early Christian documents.

The Apostle Peter said that God is not partial, and Paul reminded the Romans that people of the nations can worship Jehovah too(Acts 10:34, 35; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 7:39; Tit.3:3). Furthermore, if one reads the entire account of Philemon, it quickly becomes evident that ancient Christians did not favor the enslavement of fellow humans(Philemon 13-16).


Exploring The NT World. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. The New American Commentary. Nashville,
TN: Broadman, 1991.

The Christian Priesthood

Written on another forum and updated after further input; edited again on 12/29/17.

1) 1 Peter 2:5 suggests an ongoing progression that started in the first century CE and evidently continues now: καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡς λίθοι ζῶντες οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικὸς εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας. . . (NA28)

2) Exodus 19:4-6 seems to communicate the idea that Israel had the opportunity to become a nation of kings-priests, if they obeyed the Torah: the production of a royal priesthood would take place by adherence to Jehovah's law (mediated through Moses). But the law (Torah) would lead Israel to Christ in harmony with Galatians 3:24ff.

3) In the case of fleshly Israel, I see the kingly and priestly offices as likely compossibles if they proved obedient; at the very least, some natural Israelites would have been perpetual kings in the nation and others would have constituted age-abiding priests. Compare Isaiah 49:6-7; 61:6; 66:21-22. But all hinged on their acceptance of God's Son.

4) It's quite likely that Peter is alluding to Exodus 19:6 along with other passages in 1 Peter 2:9-10--maybe the apostle has Luke 22:28-30 in mind also. But the words of Psalm 110:1-4 seem primarily applicable to the Messiah; he then arranges for his anointed followers to be joint-heirs with him into perpetuity.

Of course, I hope it's understood that this is how I perceive things now. I'm willing to be corrected.

Hebrews 13:17

Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπείκετε, αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες, ἵνα μετὰ χαρᾶς τοῦτο ποιῶσιν καὶ μὴ στενάζοντες· ἀλυσιτελὲς γὰρ ὑμῖν τοῦτο (Hebrews 13:17).

Of course πείθω can mean "to persuade" but it does not necessarily have that denotation.

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority" (NIV).

"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account" (NASB).

"Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give
account." (NKJV)

These translations harmonize with commentaries that I consulted on this subject:

"The second mention of leaders in this chapter (v. 17) refers to the current leadership, whom the addresses are enjoined to obey" (Gordon, R. P. Hebrews. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000, 172).

"Leaders are to be obeyed as those intent on presenting 'souls' (i.e., people destined for eternal life; see 6:19) intact at the final judgment. Ready obedience will make the leaders' task joyful; grudging compliance will make them sigh or grumble (v. 17c)" (Pfitzner, V. C. Hebrews. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997, 202).

Furthermore I find it interesting what the magisterial work by Ellingworth has to say about this text:

"πείθω, 'obey' (Jas. 3:3 of horses; 4 Macc. 10:13; 15:10; 18:1; 2 Clem. 17:5; Ep. Diog. 5:10; Ign. Rom. 7:2 bis; Bauer 3b; R. Bultmann in TDNT 6.3f; BD [Sec.] 187.6). Πείθεσθε suggests continuous action"(Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Page 723).

Concerning ὑπείκετε, he writes:

"4 Macc. 6:35, of reasoning, not yielding to pleasure; here of due deference to the leaders by the led" (Ibid).

My Courses This Semester

Just to let you know what has my academic attention this semester:

1) World religions-I'm teaching 3 sections of this course
2) Logic
3) Ethics: A Historical Survey
4) First Year (University) Experience

A total of six classes which will keep me busy. So I'll likely be replying to messages here on weekends.

Martin Hengel v. Louis H. Feldman

Some here might enjoy reading Louis H. Feldman's article in JBL 96/3(1977): 371-382 entitled "Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect."

Martin Hengel was the author of Judentum und Hellenismus, Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berucksichtigung Palastinas bis zur Mitte des 2 Jh.s v. Chr. translated as Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974).

Hengel has essayed an influential historical account of how ancient Judaism (more specifically, Judaism from 330 B.C.E. onward) was cross-fertilized notionally by means of the "inroads of Hellenism." He consequently argues that scholars should not make a sharp differentiation between Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism. Secondly, Hengel maintains that the Greek influence on Judaism was much more pervasive (and significantly earlier) than has been previously thought. The upshot of his suggestions is that "the background of the NT in Palestine was a Judaism that had been hellenized for the preceding 360 years." Feldman, however, attempts to refute 22 points put forward by Hengel; his retorts are worthy of consideration. Some may even conclude that he has successfully confuted the arguments posited by Hengel.

In any event, Feldman maintains:

"There is actually very little in Hengel that has not been said before. It is, however, the sheer accumulation and evaluation of evidence that is impressive" (Feldman, page 371).

See http://books.google.com/books/about/Judaism_and_Hellenism.html?id=mJTXAAAAMAAJ

Also: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2584&context=etd

The She-Bears of 2 Kings 2:24 (Pulpit Commentary)

"And he went up from there to Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, you bald head; go up, you bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them" (2 Kings 2:24).

Elisha could not tell what would be the effect of his curse. It could have no effect at all excepting through the will and by the action of God. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood; or, the forest; i.e. the forest, which, as all knew, lay within a short distance of Bethel, and was the haunt of wild beasts (see 1 Kings 3:24). And tare forty and two children of them. It is not said how far the lads were injured, whether fatally or not. But the punishment, whatever its severity, came from God, not from the prophet, and we may be sure was just. For "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" A severe example may have been needed under the circumstances of the time, when a new generation was growing up in contempt of God and of religion; and the sin of the lads was not a small one, but indicated that determined bent of the will against good, and preference of evil, which is often developed early, and generally goes on from bad to worse (Pulpit Commentary).

The comments below are from the late J. Hampton Keathley III:

"'Young lads.' The KJV has 'little children' which really misses the meaning here. These were not children, but young men. The word 'lads' is the Hebrew naar and was used of servants, of soldiers and of Isaac when he was 28 years old. This was a crowd of young men, perhaps students of the false prophets, who were here as antagonists to Elisha's prophetic ministry and authority. If not students, they were sent by the false prophets or idolatrous priests of Bethel to stop Elisha from entering the city. In Elisha Satan had an enemy and he was acting to protect his territory. Remember, however, Elisha was going to Bethel not to curse, but to bless."

"So Elisha, as a prophet, saw their hardened and rebellious condition, unresponsive to correction. In the name of the Lord (i.e. by His authority) Elisha simply turned them over to the Lord and to their own devises, which had the effect of removing them from even the common protection of God. He probably said something like, 'may God deal with you according to what you deserve,' or 'may you be cursed for your sins of rebellion.' This would demonstrate to the city and to people all around a vital truth: without the Lord there is no protection and that blasphemy of God's servants and His Word in order to hinder God's message is serious business. Note that Elisha did not call out the bears, God did. Two female bears (not three bears--papa bear, mamma bear, and baby bear) came out and tore up forty-two young men."

See https://bible.org/seriespage/4-elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25

The Gnostic Reading of John's Gospel (Bultmann)

Rudolf Bultmann's notion of the Gnostic Redeemer-myth has certainly not gone unchallenged. In fact, some scholars have outright taken it to task. See, for instance, the comments of O. Betz in "The Concept of the So-Called 'Divine Man' in Mark's Christology" (Studies in NT and Early Christian Literature, pp. 229-240. Edited by D. Aune)

Martin Hengel also has written extensively about the origins of Christology in his famed work The Son of God, The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976); unfortunately, Hengel's depiction of the relationship between Judaism and Hellenism is also governed by certain presuppositions that seem to adversely affect Hengel's interpretation of the actual Sitz im Leben for first century Palestine. Cf. L. H. Feldman, "Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism in Retrospect." JBL 96 (1977): 371-382. At any rate, I think Bultmann too hastily draws parallels between John's Gospel and Gnosticism where they likely do not exist.

Revelation 13:8 (NET Bible)

"and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed."

"The prepositional phrase 'since the foundation of the world' is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, 'the Lamb who was killed' (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase 'since the foundation of the world' modifies the verb 'written' (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase 'written in the book of life since the foundation of the world' occurs with no ambiguity" (NET Footnote).

καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (WH of 1881)



Picture used with kind permission from http://bibleencyclopedia.com/nasb/NASB_Revelation_13-8.jpg

DIABOLOS and Qualitativeness (John 6:70)

"It is doubtful in what sense this word [DIABOLOS] should be taken, Whether we should render it DIABOLIKOS (= TOU DIABOLOU hUPOURGOS), or EPIBOULOS, (both given in Euthym.,) it will be an hAPAX LEGOMENON in the N.T. Of the two however the latter is the harsher, and less analogous to N.T. diction. Certainly in the dark act here prophesied, Judas was under the immediate instigation of and yielded himself up to Satan; and I would understand this expression as having reference to that league with and entertainment of the Evil One in his thoughts and purposes, which his ultimate possession by Satan implies. This meaning can perhaps hardly be rendered by any single word in another language. The E.V. 'a devil,' is certainly too strong; 'devilish,' would be better, but not unobjectionable. Compare hO hUIOS THS APWLEIAS, [John] ch. XVII.6" (Alford's Greek Testament, 1:697).

"Have not I chosen you twelve, and yet one of you is the devil? (Tyndale's NT)

"DIABOLOS (#1333) slanderer, devil (DJC, 171-72). Satan has made Judas his ally, a subordinate devil (Barrett). Monadic noun not requiring art. (GGBB, 249)" (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 198).

Wallace believes that DIABOLOS is a monadic noun in John 6:70 since there's only one devil. He prefers the rendering, "one of you is the devil" (GGBB, 265).

"EX hUMWN hEIS DIABOLOS ESTIN. Even of you one is a devil. Lucke, referring to Esth. VII.4 and VIII.1, where Haman is called hO DIABOLOS, as being 'the slanderer,' or 'the enemy,' suggests that a similar meaning may be appropriate here. But Jesus calls Peter 'Satan' and may much more call Judas 'a devil.' Besides in the present connection 'traitor' is quite as startling a word as 'devil'" (Expositor's Greek Testament, 1:761).

"He [Judas] is a devil because through him finally the devil will seek Jesus' life (cf. 13:2, 27)" (J. Ramsey Michaels, John, p. 122).

Paul Dixon wrote in January 1997 (BGreek): "I did find 6:70b to be qualitative, as did F.F. Bruce and Hendriksen (see commentaries). It does seem the Lord was not identifying Judas with the personal devil any more than he was with Peter in Mk 8:33 (Bruce). Rather, 'His devilish character appears especially from this fact that others ever so many of them, had deserted the Lord when they felt that they could not agree with him and when they rebelled against the spiritual character of his teaching, this one individual remained with him'" (Hendriksen).

John 1:1, Harner, Dixon and Qualitativeness

Here's something I wrote almost 15 years ago. I'm open to correction on what I stated then:

When I was first introduced (formally) to the history and grammar of the English language, I was taught the outmoded symbol-referent model. I have since abandoned it in favor of the signifier, signified, and referent paradigm. Now I make that observation in order to stress that I am not saying the qualities of the "terms" (θεὸς or διάβολος) are emphasized by the preverbal anarthrous PNs; to the contrary, it seems that the qualities of the referent (or grammatical subject) are stressed in John 6:70 and 8:44. So the respective terms or signifers ("slanderer" and "liar") apparently stress qualities of the subjects (Judas and Satan respectively) discussed by John. In John 1:1c, therefore, it might be the case that θεὸς primarily serves to delineate the qualities of the Λόγος (the referent or grammatical subject) as opposed to depicting his identity. This is not the same as claiming that the quality of θεὸς is emphasized over against "the qualities and all" of the term in this fateful passage. As the KIT appendix says: "It [θεὸς] merely expresses a certain quality about the Word [Λόγος] . . ."

But how does one prove that a construction is qualitative (with very little if any emphasis on indefiniteness) rather than definite or qualitative-indefinite or indefinite-qualitative? Work from usage, grammar [syntax], and context. Hence, I may not agree with Harner or Dixon's statistics for qualitativeness in John (Harner said that about 80% and Dixon wrote that 94% of preverbal anarthrous PNs in the Fourth Gospel are qualitative, I believe). I may question some of their examples and the inferences they draw from the data, but 6:70 and 8:44 evidently stand as legitimate examples of places where the qualitity of the subjects are stressed (as does 1:1c). But are these examples of pure qualitativeness? Maybe we don't have to go that far.

Now as far as fronting for emphasis is concerned, Wallace gives John 5:10 as an example of a preverbal anarthrous qualitative PN. Frankly, this verse is highly debatable. Nevertheless, it's possible that the reason why there's a fronted PN could be for the purpose of emphasizing the qualities of a literary or grammatical subject. If the Jews were arguing about the "kind" of day on which the man was healed, then John's use of Σάββατόν in 5:10 could be primarily qualitative in nature. Granted, this conclusion cannot be reached by the syntactical construction alone; however, I am simply pointing out that anarthousness might be used to focus on the quality of the subject delineated by the signifier in question. But we must determine such qualitativeness or lack thereof from the context. Even in English, we may front nouns to emphasize qualties.

Kinds of Theism

Here are some terms that might be helpful to know. I have taken these thirteen words and their respective definitions from The Divine Attributes (written by Joshua Hoffman and Gary S. Rosenkrantz). See pp. 9-13:


1. Hecastotheistic-Pertaining to the belief that every sort of object has supernatural powers.


2. Ditheism-Refers to a belief in two gods. For instance, Hippolytus of Rome was called a "ditheist" by "Pope" Callistus.


3. Myriotheism-The belief in a countless number of gods.


4. Zootheism-Also known as theriotheism. Refers to the belief in animal gods.


5. Anthropotheism-The belief that the gods originated as men or that they are men with respect to their essence (nature).


6. Herotheism-The worship of deified humans.


7. Autotheism-The worship (deification) of oneself.


8. Monotheism-The belief in one God.


9. Henotheism-Worshiping one god without rejecting the belief that other gods exist.


10. Kathenotheism-The worship of one god at a time as supreme. It allows for a succession of "supreme gods."


11. Psychotheism-The belief in a wholly spiritual God or gods.


12. Physitheism-The belief in a God or gods that is/are physical in nature.


13. Hylotheism-Identifies God with matter.

Hebrews 4:3 (What Some Commentators Say)

Text: Εἰσερχόμεθα γὰρ εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν οἱ πιστεύσαντες, καθὼς εἴρηκεν Ὡς ὤμοσα ἐν τῇ ὀργῇ μου Εἰ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου, καίτοι τῶν ἔργων ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γενηθέντων (Nestle GNT 1904).

"ἈΠῸ ΚΑΤΑΒΟΛῆς ΚΌΣΜΟΥ] from the foundation of the world, i.e. since the world began. Comp. Hebrews 9:26; Matthew 13:35; Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8" (Meyer's NT Commentary).

"Although the works were finished (καίτοι τῶν ἔργων γενηθέντων)

This is an awkward and indirect way of saying, 'these unbelievers did not enter into God's rest, although he had provided that rest into which they might have entered.' The providing of the rest is implied in the completion of God's works. The writer assumes the readers' acquaintance with the narrative of the creation in Genesis" (Vincent's Word Studies).

"From the foundation of the world (apo katabolh kosmou). Katabolh, late word from kataballw, usually laying the foundation of a house in the literal sense. In the N.T. usually with apo ( Matthew 25:44 ) or pro ( John 17:24 ) about the foundation of the world" (Robertson's Word Pictures).

Revisiting Greek Articles (Generic Use)

Wallace (GGBB, page 227) refers to the generic article as the "categorical article" which "distinguishes one class from another."

The key to identifying a generic article is by inserting the phrase "as a class" after the nominal word that the Greek article is modifying. So, ὁ ἄνθρωπος with a generic article would mean "humankind" (human beings as a class). This use of the article would set humanity apart from both animals and angels, which form distinct classes too. See Matthew 4:4.

One example that Wallace provides of the generic or categorical article is 1 Timothy 3:2, which reads (in part): "the overseer must be above reproach" (δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι):

"Grammatically speaking, the article could either be monadic (indicating that for each church there is one overseer,) or it could be generic (indicating that overseers as a class are in view). When other considerations are brought to bear, however, it is unlikely that only one overseer is in view: (1) The monadic view cannot easily handle 1 Tim 5:17 ('let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor') or Titus 1:5 ('appoint elders in every town'); and (2) the context of 1 Tim 2:8-3:16 involves an interchange of singular and plural generic nouns, suggesting strongly that the singular is used as a generic noun" (page 229).

Syntax of NT Greek (Brook and Winbery) also states:

"This use of the article is often referred to as the generic use. This use of the (definite) article may be translated as though the article were indefinite. Sometimes it may be best to translate a singular noun as though it were plural" (page 75).

Then examples such as Luke 10:7 are given along with 1 Timothy 3:2. Brooks and Winbery suggests "A bishop must be irreproachable" for the latter verse. See also Mt 18:17 and how the articles are employed there.

Harrington Discusses the Term "Ecclesia" in Matthew 18:17

One Catholic commentator contends that EKKLHSIA (ecclesia)in Mt 18:17 has reference to the local Christian community (A.T. Robertson explains this passage in a similar fashion):

"The local congregation is meant, whether in formal assembly for meeting or through its board of elders" (Daniel J. Harrington (S.J.), The Gospel of Matthew [Sacra Pagina Series], Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1991, page 269).

He supplements this observation about EKKLHSIA with these words:

"Against this common Near Eastern tendency toward social hierarchy Matthew forbids the use of titles and the exercise of highly authoritative roles (23:8-12) . . . The resistance to hierarchically structured roles and emphasis on equality is typical of sects in the first generation. All the members have begun a new life together and are to participate fully and equally in the emerging community" (Harrington, op. cit., page 323).

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master,[even] the Christ" (Matthew 23:10 ASV).

While I do not agree with Harrington's assessment of Matthew's Gospel and his historical-critical presuppositions, his exegesis of Mt 23:8-12 seems correct and his view of the reference for ecclesia (Mt 18:17) is plausible.

On the other hand, Meyer's NT Commentary insists:

Τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ] is not to be understood of the Jewish synagogue (Beza, Calvin, Fritzsche), which is never called by this name, and any reference to which would be contrary to the meaning of Jesus; but it is to be taken as referring to the community of believers on Jesus (comp. note on Matthew 16:18), which is, as yet, regarded as one body with the apostles included (Matthew 18:18). There is here no allusion to individual congregations in different localities, since these could come into existence only at a later period; neither, for this reason, can there be any allusion to presbyters and bishops (Chrysostom), or to those whom they may have invested, as their representatives, with spiritual jurisdiction (Catholic writers, comp. besides, Döllinger).

The Man of Lawlessness Within the Context of Apostasy

Regarding the connection between APOSTASIA and ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS, TDNT makes these comments:

"In 2 Th. 2:3 APOSTASIA is used in the absol. sense as an event of the last days alongside or prior to (?) the appearance of the ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS. Here a Jewish tradition is adopted which speaks of complete apostasy from God and His Torah shortly before the appearance of the Messiah. This is applied to the apostasy of Christians from their faith to error and righteousness (v. 11f.) in the last days (Mt. 24:11f.)" (TDNT 1:513).

In the footnote (page 513), TDNT states that APOSTASIA is undoubtedly used of "Christians" in 2 Thessalonians because the word implies a prior turning to God. I might add that the word especially applies to apostate followers of Christ in this context, who are likely nominal disciples of the Lord.

This academic work reckons that the "apostasy" and the ANQRWPOS THS ANOMIAS "are to be differentiated, but only in such a way that the apostasy makes possible the power of the man of sin, and this in turn increases the apostasy" (1:513-514).

Origen's Remarks on the Son

And the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "At the end of the days He spoke to us in His Son, whom He made the heir of all things, through whom' also He made the ages," showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the "through whom" belonging, when the ages were being made, to the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Now if, as we have seen, all things were made through Him, we have to enquire if the Holy Spirit also was made through Him. It appears to me that those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that "all things were made through Him," must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was made through the Logos, the Logos accordingly being older than He. And he who shrinks from allowing the Holy Spirit to have been made through Christ must, if he admits the truth of the statements of this Gospel, assume the Spirit to be uncreated. There is a third resource besides these two (that of allowing the Spirit to have been made by the Word, and that of regarding it as uncreated), namely, to assert that the Holy Spirit has no essence of His own beyond the Father and the Son. But on further thought one may perhaps see reason to consider that the Son is second beside the Father, He being the same as the Father, while manifestly a distinction is drawn between the Spirit and the Son in the passage, "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he shall not have forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to come." We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ.

Origen, Commentary on John 2

Initial Links on "The Fear of God" (Jewish Sources)

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6045-fear-of-god

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0006_0_06302.html

http://www.mhcny.org/pdf/mitzvatasei4.pdf

Romans 8:16 and the Spirit's Witness

Jewett argues that the rendering "bear witness to" for Rom 8:16 "is inadmissible because this verb [συμμαρτυρέω] is in fact typically used to depict co-witnessing of some sort" (Romans, p. 500).

The text reads: αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν ὅτι ἐσμὲν τέκνα θεοῦ (UBS5).

Daniel B. Wallace argues somewhat extensively that συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι is a dative of indirect object ("bear witness to") rather than a dative of association ("bear witness with"). He appeals (INTER ALIA) to BDAG in support for his argument. On the other hand, Robert Jewett (Commentary on Romans in the Hermeneia series) robustly contends that the construction in Romans 8:16 should be understood as indicating some type of co-witnessing in view of the prefix σύν and based on examples that we find in Plato's Hipp. maj. 282b1 (συμμαρτυρῆσαι δέ σοι), Plutarch (Adul. amic. 64c13) and Josephus (Ant. 19.154). Moulton-Milligan also suggests that there are texts from the papyri that favor the understanding "bear witness with."

Rogers and Rogers (The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, page 330): "συμμαρτυρεῖ pres. ind. act. συμμαρτυρέω (#5210) to bear witness w. someone, to confirm, to testify in support of someone. Used in the papyri where the signature of each attesting witness is accompanied by the words, 'I bear witness w. and I seal w.'" (MM).

Comma Johanneum and Erasmus (Cambridge History)

"In the case of the New Testament Erasmus shocked contemporaries by omitting the famous proof text for the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 where the genuine text reads: 'There are three that witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.' The spurious addition amplifies thus, 'There are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit'. Erasmus could not find this form in any Greek manuscript, and therefore omitted it. Such was the outcry that he rashly promised to insert the reference to the heavenly witnesses could it be found in any Greek manuscript. One was discovered at Dublin, late and worthless. Erasmus, having sworn to deliver the head of John the Baptist, made the insertion in his second edition in 1519. Happily Luther in his translation did not follow him at this point. But others did, including the King James Version. As late as 1897 the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, with the endorsement of Pope Leo XIII, declared the passage to be authentic. Forty years later this decision was reversed." (Cambridge History of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Volume 3:10-11.)

Picture Attribution: Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Werkstatt_von_Lucas_Cranach_d.%C3%84._-_Portr%C3%A4t_des_Erasmus_von_Rotterdam.jpg