James 1:27--Look After Orphans and Widows

Greek: θρησκεία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὕτη ἐστίν, ἐπισκέπτεσθαι ὀρφανοὺς καὶ χήρας ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν, ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου. (WH 1885)

"Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (WEB).

"The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world" (NWT 2013)

From Dan G. McCartney's James Commentary in the Baker Exegetical Series: The verb “to look after” (ἐπισκέπτομαι, episkeptomai) carries several possible connotations. In the Greek OT it was used to translate the Hebrew pāqad, which could mean “to visit” or “to bring justice to,” and both these meanings can also be found in the NT (e.g., Luke 1:68; Acts 15:36). It can also mean “to care for” (Heb. 2:6) or “to seek out” (Acts 6:3) or “to concern oneself with” (Acts 15:14).[5] Any of these meanings work well here. The most common meaning in the NT is “to go see a person with helpful intent” (BDAG 378). It is the motive of helpful intent, the objective of giving aid, or undertaking to look out for the interests of someone that is operative here. Given James’s concern that people do things for the needy rather than just say things to them (2:16), it is unlikely that James has only visitation or an intellectual interest in mind here.

From Scot McKnight's James Commentary in The New International Commentary on the New Testament Series:

ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, see BDAG, 378. The term is cognate with ἐπίσκοπος. The present tense indicates vivid or characteristic action and behavior. The infinitive defines αὕτη and thus functions as a complement of the predicate. It is structurally equivalent with τηρεῖν at the end of 1:27.

In What Sense Is God Infinite? Brief Reflection

Is God infinite? First of all, we have to determine what the word "infinite" means when God is the referent of the term or in what sense He is infinite. (After all, we can describe the individual marks on a ruler as "infinite" but that's not the same as divine infinity.) If God is qualitatively infinite, then it means that He is unlimited with respect to His intrinsic perfections, not necessarily with respect to space-time. On the other hand, if God is infinite in the Thomistic sense of the word, it simply means that He is absolute or boundless perfection: God is not finite. Elsewhere (in the Summa Theologica), Thomas associates God's self-subsistent ESSE with His infinity. At any rate, it is difficult to see how qualitative infinitude implies being unlimited vis-a-vis space and time SIMPLICITER.

Aquinas also writes in Summa Contra Gentiles 1.43.1:

"Infinity cannot be attributed to God on the score of multitude, seeing there is but one God. Nor on the score of quantitative extension, seeing He is incorporeal. It remains to consider whether infinity belongs to Him in point of spiritual greatness. Spiritual greatness may be either in power or in goodness (or completeness) of nature. Of these two greatnesses the one follows upon the other: for by the fact of a thing being in actuality it is capable of action. According then to the completeness of its actuality is the measure of the greatness of its power."

From the same portion of SCG, Aquinas likewise explains:

"But in God infinity can be understood negatively only, inasmuch as there is no term or limit to His perfection. And so infinity ought to be attributed to God."

The Meaning of SARX in Context

I would submit that the potential meaning of σὰρξ depends on the literary context in which it occurs. σὰρξ may refer to that soft substance which covers our bones and is permeated with blood, as one lexicographer notes. See 1 Corinthians 15:39; Revelation 17:16; 19:18, 21 for examples of this usage. Additionally, σὰρξ possibly refers to the "physical body" (1 Timothy 3:16); to "human beings" (John 1:14; 1 Peter 1:24); to "human nature, with emphasis upon the physical aspects" (i.e., physical nature) or it may denote "life" (Hebrews 5:7) according to Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2:220. Ultimately, what "flesh" meant to ancient Greeks becomes realizable by means of context.

Markus Barth and Ephesians 5:23 (KEFALH)

The meaning "ruler over" for KEFALH does not mean that the husband could not "nourish" and cherish his wife as Christ does the congregation. The husband in his role as "head" is not supposed to be an autocrat or totalitarian ruler.

BGAD says that KEFALH, when applied metaphorically to Christ and others, denotes "one of superior rank." Louw-Nida makes similar observations. So if we are going to contravene the wisdom of the major lexica in this regard, I think we will need some powerful evidence to maintain such a contravention. Yet I am not so sure that any passage from Ephesians serve the purpose.

For instance, Markus Barth (Anchor Bible Commentary on Ephesians) makes this observation:

"In our translation [of Eph. 5:23], these words are marked as a parenthesis which complements the Messiah's title 'head' with a more specific and extensive description. To use a paraphrase again, the parenthesis says in effect, 'He, and he alone, is not only Head but also Savior'; or, 'He proves Himself Head by saying'; or 'His work of salvation includes his dominion over the church.' However, this interpretation and its variations have always been and still are challenged by a sizable group of commentators who believe that Christ is not the only one predicated as 'savior.' They hold that in a subordinate way the husband, too, is the 'savior of his wife'" (Barth, Volume 34A, pages 614-15).

While I will let others haggle over the idea of the husband being a "savior" of his wife, the main point I want to make with the quotation from Barth is that the parenthesis in Eph. 5:23 functions as a clarification of Christ's position as KEFALH of his own body, the Christian EKKLHSIA. He is KEFALH (according to this passage) insofar as he's Lord and Savior.

Habakkuk 3:4 in J.J.M. Roberts' Commentary (Screenshot)

Wish I also had the next page.

Translating Romans 1:11-12 (τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν)

Greek: ἐπιποθῶ γὰρ ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἵνα τι μεταδῶ χάρισμα ὑμῖν πνευματικὸν εἰς τὸ στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς, τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν συνπαρακληθῆναι ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστεως ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ. (Romans 1:11-12 WH)

NWT 2013: "For I am longing to see you, that I may impart some spiritual gift to you for you to be made firm; or, rather, that we may have an interchange of encouragement by one another's faith, both yours and mine."


ESV: "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you—that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine."

For Romans 1:12, the Weymouth New Testament states: "in other words that while I am among you we may be mutually encouraged by one another's faith, yours and mine."

The Expositor's Greek Testament calls τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν, "an explanatory correction." The Cambridge Bible observes that Paul is using tact at 1:11-12 in order to combine sympathy with judgment: he wants to clarify that he will not only encourage the holy ones in Rome (1:7), but they will strengthen him too.

From Richard Longenecker's Romans commentary: The second statement of 1:11-12 begins with the expression τοῦτο ἔστιν (“that is”) and the postpositive connective δέ (a mildly adversative “but,” though here probably best translated simply “and”), which together signal an explication. So this second statement is meant to clarify and expand on the immediately preceding statement.

Robertson's Word Pictures: That is (τουτο δε εστιν). "An explanatory correction" (Denney). The δε should not be ignored. Instead of saying that he had a spiritual gift for them, he wishes to add that they also have one for him.

Brief Comment on Mark 12:41-44 and Widows in Kings

Jesus speaks of the widow from Zarephath at Luke 4:25-26 (In fact, he insists there were many widows in Israel at the time). See 1 Kings 17:7-24; Proverbs 19:17.

I cannot help but surmise that the Zarephath widow and the widow in 2 Kings 4:1-7 possibly background (influence/provide a setting for) Luke 21:1-4 and, by extension, Mark 12:41-44. I'm only making a suggestion: it could be wrong. However, I've read similar ideas in commentaries or journal articles that deal with the unnamed Markan/Lukan widow. It certainly would not be a stretch to discern similarities between Kings and Mark/Luke--particularly the example in 1 Kings.

More Notes on the Widow Who Gave Two Mites (Mark 12:41-44)

Jehovah's righteousness is partly reflected when he shows appreciation for the little things that we do (Hebrews 6:10). Yes, even those with few material possessions can still honor Jehovah with their valuable things (Proverbs 3:9-10) and he will appreciate what they do in his behalf. Mark 12:41-44 bears out this point.

In that account, we discover that Jesus observed numerous wealthy individuals dropping money into the treasury chests for the Jewish temple--these receptacles apparently were shaped like trumpets or horns and they contained small openings at the top. Many sources confirm this understanding of the matter including Alfred Edersheim's research on the ancient Jewish temple.

Worshipers of Jehovah (YHWH) would put various offerings into these treasury chests; some rabbinical sources report that thirteen treasury chests might have been distributed around the walls of the Court of the Women. These smaller treasury chests likely were distinct from a larger receptacle into which money from the other treasury chests was put (NWT Study Bible Notes).

While the wealthy were contributing what appeared to be grandiose valuable things, since they were giving many copper coins, an unnamed widow of scanty means just contributed "two small coins of very little value," literally two lepta (the plural form of the Greek word, lepton).

The lepton's value was 1/128th the value of a denarius, which amounted to a day's wage in the first century CE: lepta were apparently the smallest copper or bronze coins used in ancient Israel. Some Bible translations render Mark 12:42 with the word "mites" to describe her contribution. Imagine that! The widow gave currency that amounted to 1/128th the value of a day's wage--an amount which was monetarily insignificant since two coins would have been 1/64th the value of a denarius.

To emphasize the small amount given by the widow, Mark not only reports that she contributed two little coins, but he stresses that the money was of "very little value."

The NWT study Bible note explains that the expression, "of very little value" derived from the Greek means, "which is a quadrans." The Greek word that's equivalent to the Latin term, quadrans, refers to a Roman copper or bronze coin valued at 1/64th the value of a denarius. In other words, two lepta equal a quadrans. So Mark used currency terminology familiar to the Romans, but these words would have been familiar to his Jewish readers too.

It is evident that the widow's contribution was extremely small in monetary value. Nevertheless, how did Jehovah and Jesus view her small gift?

Read Mark 12:43.

It's interesting that the widow put more money in the treasury chests than all the coins placed there by the wealthy. Why was her contribution more valuable? Some wealthy people likely offered contributions in order to be viewed as righteous and some possibly were ostentatious. Although the widow offered money of little value in a material sense, note how Jehovah considered her gift, according to Mark 12:44:

"For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on" (ESV).

The wealthy contributed funds out of their surplus, but the widow gave to Jehovah from her "want" (poverty). She completely relied on God by going out of her way to give. Hence, the widow's contribution was priceless in Jehovah's eyes: it was more valuable than all the contributions of the wealthy combined.

In his Mark commentary, Eckhard J. Schnabel writes: "The concluding phrase all she had to live on (lit. 'her entire life') may mean that after she had donated two perutot, she was without the ability to pay for her next meal. She is an example of what it means to fulfil the greatest commandment: loving God with one's entire self (12:29–32)".

This account of the unnamed widow helps us to see that whether we're able to give little or much, Jehovah God does not forget our work and the love we demonstrate for his beauteous name.

Daniel Lloyd's "Ontological Subordination in Novatian" (Link)

Please see https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1183&context=dissertations_mu

Lloyd references my book "Angelomorphic Christology" a few times and, more importantly, he interacts with some of its contents. Aside from these points, his dissertation is important for patristic studies.

Terms of Rhetoric for Greek (Hypallage)

1) Hypallage-"reversal of the syntactic relation of two words (as in 'her beauty's face')." See https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypallage

This syntactic reversal is a form of hyperbaton and known by another name, transferred epithet.

Syntax is concerned with word order or what one book calls, "sentence construction."

E.W. Bullinger gives these two examples of hypallage and many others:

Galatians 6:1.-"The spirit of meekness": i.e., meekness of spirit.

Ephesians 1:9.-"The mystery of His will."

For the second example, Bullinger explains:

The word μυστήριον (musteerion) rendered mystery always means a secret. And here it is the Secret pertaining to God's purpose: i.e., the Secret which He hath purposed; or, by the figure Hypallage, His Secret purpose, because the noun in regimen is the word qualified instead of the word which qualifies.

On the other hand, Georg Benedikt Winer strenuously attempts to refute the notion that any genuine examples of hypallage appear in the Greek New Testament. He thinks no example normally offered by commentators is unquestionable including Ephesians 2:2; 3:2.

Victor Hamilton and Exodus 34:29

Three times (vv. 29, 30, 35) this unit uses the verb qāran for Moses’s face “radiating light” or “glowing.” All three of these occurrences are in the Qal stem. The only other occurrence of this verb is once in the Hiphil, Ps. 69:31 [32]: NIV, “This will please the LORD more than an ox, more than a bull with its horns [maqrin, Hiphil participle, and so better “developing its horns”] and hoofs.” The uncommon verb qāran provides the common related noun qeren which means “a horn.” It occurs about a hundred times in the Bible, and refers to: (1) a projection on an altar, the altar's horns; (2) the horn of an animal; (3) as a metaphor for pride and vanity or for strength. It is this cognate connection between the verb qāran and the noun qeren that has led to the idea that Moses's face developed horns, or hornlike phenomena that emanated from his face. Thus, among the ancient versions, LXX translates the verb nonliterally, Moses's face “shone” (dedoxastai), while Vulgate translates more literally, Moses's face “was horned,” that is, v. 29, “he knew not that his face was horned [ignorabat quad cornuta esset facies sua].” I shall have more to say on this in the commentary section. See Kasher (1997), who documents instances in postbiblical literature of a “horned” Moses, and Propp (1987), who debates whether the biblical text suggests Moses’s face was “transfigured” or “disfigured,” and who opts for the latter.

Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Published by Baker Academic.

Philippians 1:19, 27; 4:23 and God's Holy Spirit

I submit that both Phil. 1:27 and 4:23 possibly do not refer to the holy spirit. But here's one thing to think about--there are a number of factors that we must take into consideration when trying to understand PNEUMATOS in Phil. 1:19, 27. Besides looking at the macrostructure of Philippians, we must also consider the cotext of Phil. 1:19 and examine the unit it composes. Moises Silva lays out the subunits of Phil. 1 as follows:

Letter opening-Phil. 1:1, 2
Thanksgiving-Phil. 1:3-8
Expansion-Phil. 1:6-8
Prayer-Phil. 1:9-11
Paul's Missionary Report-Phil. 1:12-26 etc.

There is more detail in Silva's commentary on this matter, but this outline might suffice for now. My objective in posting the structure of the first 26 verses of Philippians is to show which unit we should consider when trying to exegete 1:19.

Phil. 1:27 actually belongs to a different textual unit. Now this does not mean that 1:27 has no bearing on 1:19; nevertheless, I think that we should be careful before attempting to interpret 1:19 through the prism of 1:27. The same warning could apply to Phil. 2:1; 3:3, and 4:23.

A number of points in the GNT and Phil. 1:19 make me think that Paul is speaking of the holy spirit when he talks about "the spirit of Jesus Christ."

(1) Paul proclaims that both the prayers of the brothers and sisters as well as
the spirit of Jesus will "result in his deliverance" (Emphatic Diaglott) or
his "salvation" (NWT). Scholars are not certain whether the SWTHRIAN mentioned
refers to eternal salvation, deliverance from prison, or vindication in a
legal sense. But regardless of what "salvation" Paul is talking about, he
most certainly has in mind his eternal destiny as well as a possible release
from prison (this may be an example of deliberate ambiguity). But how would
this "release" come about? Would it happen through the mental disposition of
Christ manifested by Paul or through the holy spirit that God had vouchsafed to
Christ? In answer to this question, notice that Paul associates the spirit of
Jesus with the prayers of the first-century brothers and sisters in Philippi
(Cf. Acts 4:23-31).

But why didn't Paul call the "spirit of Jesus Christ" God's spirit if they
are in fact one and the same? Well, remember when Paul reports that
he entreated the Lord three times, begging God to remove a thorn that
evidently plagued Paul for quite some time (2 Cor. 12:8). What was the result
of Paul's prayer? Jehovah told him that His power was perfected in Paul's
weakness. Consequently, the apostle said that he would boast in his weakness, "so
that the POWER of the Anointed" would "abide upon him" (2 Cor. 12:9 Emphatic Diaglott).
Notice that DUNAMIS is first described as God's power, then it is called "the
POWER of the Anointed" (Christ). But how would Paul be infused with the power
of the Anointed? Acts 1:8; 10:38; Eph. 3:16ff all indicate that the power of
God is communicated via His holy spirit. I therefore conclude that Paul
believed that God and Christ work so closely together when imbuing believers
with the holy spirit--as one WT pointed out--that to desire the spirit of
Jesus Christ is to desire the spirit of God.

Is Eternal Life A Present Possession? Johannine Writings and Greek Aspect

An interlocutor from days of yore contends that eternal life is a possession of the believer in the here-and-now (hic et nunc). Personally I have no disagreement with him as long as he is not interpreting present "eternal life" to mean "eternal security." He never really explained this point, so I am therefore not sure what my partner in dialogue means by eternal life being a present possession of the Christian believer. However, I notice that he seems to rely on some passages in the Johannine corpus. Two that I will cite are John 3:36 and 1 John 5:12:

hO PISTEUWN EIS TON hUION EXEI ZWHN AIWNION hO DE APEIQWN TWi hUIWi OUK OYETAI ZWHN ALL' hH ORGH TOU QEOU MENEI EP' AUTON (Jn. 3:36).

hO EXWN TON hUION EXEI THN ZWHN hO MH EXWN; hO MH EXWN TONN hUION TOU QEOU THN ZWHN OUK EXEI (1 Jn. 5:12).

One point that immediately comes to my mind when reading these verses is that one must "have" (EXEI) the Son in order to see (eternal) life. EXEI is the present indicative active 3rd-person singular form of the verb EXW ("to have or hold"). It could signify continuous action in both Johannine verses. Nevertheless, does it?

When discussing the controversial passage found in 1 Jn. 3:9, Buist M. Fanning concludes that 1 Jn. 3:4-10 is not discussing habitual or customary sin but should be interpreted in a generic or gnomic manner (Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, 217). But he adds:

"Again, the possibility of a habitual sense cannot be ruled out entirely (cf. Matt. 7:17, John 3:36), but it seems less likely. On purely grammatical grounds, therefore, the absolute interpretation of 1 John 3:4-10 is to be preferred" (217).

Note that while Fanning emphatically denies 1 John 3:4-10 deals with the habitual sinning of a Christian believer or godly believers, he alternately appears to think that Mt. 7:17 and Jn. 3:36 do delineate continuous action. Fanning evidently clarifies his terminology on page 210 of Verbal Aspect after citing Jn. 3:36 again. He explains:

"The gnomic present can be viewed as the final step on the continuum which moves from very narrow reference(instantaneous present), to narrow reference (descriptive present), over to wider reference (customary present), and finally to widest reference (gnomic present). Thus, the gnomic present is similar to the customary present in that they both express generalized continuing or repeated occurrence (this is the aspect-meaning), but the gnomic use is even more general and indefinite, even less focused on particular people and restricted circumstances."

It is not important to understand what Fanning is saying to the nth detail. I quote him to show that 1 Jn. 3:4-10, according to Fanning and others, could potentially be delineating habitual action by its use of the present tense (imperfective aspect), although it's possible that the present does not signify continuous action. Yet Fanning appears to sense a difference aspectual nuance between Mt. 7:17, Jn. 3:36 and 1 Jn. 3:9. His work on aspect thus allows for the possibility that Jn 3:36
and 1 Jn 5:12 may well be saying that the one who
*continually* obeys the Son NOW 'has' life. But one
must continue in such obedience in order to retain the
present possession that JWs refer to as a 'saved
state'.

However one construes the present in Jn 3:36, it seems that Jesus was not teaching eternal security when he encouraged implicit obedience to the Son. I thus conclude that eternal life is a present posession, mutatis mutandis.

Heidegger, Greek Wisdom, and the Soul

Robert Bowman once suggested that we should agree with the ancient Greeks, when they are "correct" about some theological or philosophical subject (like the dichotomy of soul and body). But when they are wrong, Rob asserts, we should accordingly reject the findings of Greek wisdom (SOFIA).

I too believe that accurate knowledge (EPIGNWSIS) is accurate knowledge: it doesn't matter who the source of such knowledge is. If a teaching is correct--then it is correct. But is this the case when it comes to the human YUXH? Is this true of most ancient Greek ideas? Were they on the mark when it came to formulating ontological ideas about Being qua Being?

Plato taught that the soul is tripartite and immortal. According to this ancient Greek, the soul has always existed (in some transcendent realm prior to one's earthly birth) and will continue to exist after death. In fact, Plato taught that death is a release for the soul. Thus, when an individual dies, the soul gains its long awaited release from the body. Such a philosophy tends to denigrate the physical and disproportionately elevates the so-called "spiritual" side of humans (Wolterstorff). Furthermore, Plato's notion of the soul is not in keeping with either Jewish or Christian teaching (Gen. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:45). The same principle applies to other ancient Greek philosophers. Therefore, for the most part, we cannot rely on Greek wisdom to formulate an accurate concept of humanity. (As Paul observed in 1 Cor. 1:22ff, the Greeks sought wisdom, yet through such SOFIA, they could not come to know God.) Indeed, any THEOLOGIA conceived by humans is not worthy of our credence. So in the end, I would conclude that we ought to be very careful about accepting what the Greeks taught as fact or trying to draw strict correlations between what the Greeks thought and what the Bible teaches. The YUXH of Plato or Heraclitus is not the YUXH of the apostle Paul.

Both Nicholas Wolterstorff and Martin Heidegger have issued timely warnings about mixing Greek SOFIA with the SOFIA TOU QEOU. Interestingly, Heidegger writes:

"The SOFIA TOU KOSMOU [wisdom of the world], however, is that which, according to [1 Cor. 1:22], the hELLHNES ZHTOUSIN, the Greeks seek. Aristotle even calls the PRWTH FILOSOFIA (philosophy proper) quite specifically ZHTOUMENH--what is sought. Will Christian theology make up its mind one day to take seriously the word of the apostle and thus also the conception of philosophy as foolishness?" (Primary Readings in Philosophy for Understanding Theology, P. 259. Edited by Diogenes Allen and Eric O. Springsted).

Wise words from the German thinker who made thinking about the Being (Dasein) of beings his life's work.

Romans 8:23 Comment (Heinrich Meyer)

From Meyer's NT Commentary: epexegesis: (namely) the redemption of our body from all the defects of its earthly condition; through which redemption it shall be glorified into the σῶμα ἄφθαρτον similar to the glorified body of Christ (Php 3:21; 2 Corinthians 5:2 ff.; 1 Corinthians 15:51), or shall be raised up as such, in case of our not surviving till the Parousia (1 Corinthians 15:42 ff.). So, in substance (ΤΟῦ ΣΏΜ. as gen. subj.), Chrysostom and other Fathers (in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 463), Beza, Grotius, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, and most modern expositors. On the other hand, Erasmus, Clericus, and others, including Reiche, Fritzsche, Krehl, and Ewald, take it as: redemption from the body. This is linguistically admissible (Hebrews 9:15); we should thus have to refer it, not to death, but to deliverance from this earthly body through the reception of the immortal and glorious body at the Parousia, 1 Corinthians 15:51. But in that case Paul must have added to τοῦ σώματ. ἡμῶν a qualitative more precise definition, as in Php 3:21 Remark.

See also Hans Lietzmann, An die Romer, page 85.

Revelation 12:10 and the "Accuser"

Greek: καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγουσαν Ἄρτι ἐγένετο ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἐβλήθη ὁ κατήγωρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν, ὁ κατηγορῶν αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός.

The word translated "accuser" in Revelation 12:10 is κατήγωρ: the term is actually used of someone who brings a legal charge before a judge in court. Compare Zechariah 3:1-5.

From Vincent's Word Studies: "The correct form of the Greek for accuser is a transcript of the Rabbinical Hebrew, κατήγωρ. The Rabbins had a corresponding term συνήγωρ for Michael, as the advocate of God's people. The phrase is applied to Satan nowhere else in the New Testament."

From Jurgen Roloff's Revelation commentary: It is surprising that Satan is characterized here with a word like "accuser" (Gr. kategor), which appears nowhere else in the New Testament. In terms of the history of the motif this forms an association with the notion of Satan as the accuser of human beings before the divine tribunal (Job 1:9-11, 2:4-5: Zech. 3:1). This does not mean that the dominant view of Satan in this chapter as God's adversary should be minimized, but rather that a particular aspect of his activity is highlighted: his aim is to destroy the relationship of God with human beings.

Jurgen Roloff. Revelation (Continental Commentary Series) (Kindle Locations 2201-2203). Kindle Edition.

Jurgen Roloff. Revelation (Continental Commentary Series) (Kindle Location 2200). Kindle Edition.


William Mounce's definition for κατήγωρ: "accuser, Rev. 12:10, a barbarous form for κατήγορος*"

SEISMOS in the Gospel of Matthew (Quotes from Blomberg)

Regarding Matthew 8:23-25:

"As commonly happened, a sudden squall arises on the Sea of Galilee. Matthew, however, calls the storm a seismos (literally, earthquake), a term used for apocalyptic upheavals (cf. 24:7; 27:54; 28:2), often with preternatural overtones. This seems to be no ordinary storm but one in which Satan is attacking. The boat is in danger of being swamped, and lives are at risk."

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (p. 149). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (p. 149). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

EGF: I don't necessarily agree with the claim that the "seismos" originated with Satan although it could have (Job 1:19). The main point I want to make is what seismos might signify in Matthew's Gospel.

Regarding Matthew 21:10-11:

"The whole procession has a powerful impact on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, even though they are used to huge crowds of festival pilgrims. 'Stirred' is rather mild for eseisth (used of earthquakes and apocalyptic upheavals; 27:51; Rev 6:13). The NEB's 'wild with excitement' and Weymouth's 'was thrown into commotion' both capture the sense better."

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (p. 313). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (p. 313). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Continuing with Blomberg's remarks:

"Famine ravaged Judea, as predicted in Acts 11:27-30, datable to ca. A.D. 45-47 by Josephus, Ant. 20.51-53. Earthquakes shook Laodicea in A.D. 60-61 and Pompeii in A.D. 62 (cf. also Acts 16:26)."

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (p. 356). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (The New American Commentary) (p. 356). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

EGF: Blomberg makes remarks throughout his commentary concerning other earthquakes (seismoi) that are mentioned by Matthew.

Divine Institutes 1.7 (Lactantius Discusses "God Is Love")

Can any one suspect that this is spoken of Jupiter, who had both a mother and a name? Why should I say that Mercury, that thrice greatest, of whom I have made mention above, not only speaks of God as “without a mother,” as Apollo does, but also as “without a father,” because He has no origin from any other source but Himself? For He cannot be produced from any one, who Himself produced all things. I have, as I think, sufficiently taught by arguments, and confirmed by witnesses, that which is sufficiently plain by itself, that there is one only King of the universe, one Father, one God.

But perchance some one may ask of us the same question which Hortensius asks in Cicero: If God is one only, what solitude can be happy? As though we, in asserting that He is one, say that He is desolate and solitary. Undoubtedly He has ministers, whom we call messengers. And that is true, which I have before related, that Seneca said in his Exhortations that God produced ministers of His kingdom. But these are neither gods, nor do they wish to be called gods or to be worshipped, inasmuch as they do nothing but execute the command and will of God. Nor, however, are they gods who are worshipped in common, whose number is small and fixed. But if the worshippers of the gods think that they worship those beings whom we call the ministers of the Supreme God, there is no reason why they should envy us who say that there is one God, and deny that there are many. If a multitude of gods delights them, we do not speak of twelve, or three hundred and sixty-five as Orpheus did; but we convict them of innumerable errors on the other side, in thinking that they are so few. Let them know, however, by what name they ought to be called, lest they do injury to the true God, whose name they set forth, while they assign it to more than one. Let them believe their own Apollo, who in that same response took away from the other gods their name, as he took away the dominion from Jupiter. For the third verse shows that the ministers of God ought not to be called gods, but angels.

See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.i.viii.html#iii.ii.i.viii-p4.1

Brief Reflections About ALHQINOS/ALHQHS

Brief thoughts on ALHQINOS/ALHQHS:

Louw-Nida point out that ALHQHS and ALHQINOS may possibly denote that which pertains to actual existence, "real, really, true, truly." See John 6:55.

This source comments on John 17:3 (in semantic domain 70.3), noting that this passage could be rendered "that they may know you, the only one who is really God." We are then told that the rendering "the only one who is really God" could be understood in some languages as "the only God who exists" or "who is God and there are no other gods."

In semantic domain 72.1 of Louw-Nida, we also read ALHQHS may signify: "pertaining to being in accordance with historical fact" or "true, truth." Cf. John 4:18. Compare John's use of ALHQINHOS (ALHQINH) in John 19:35.

LSJ observes that ALHQHS (the Doric form is ALAQHS) can mean "unconcealed, true, real" with its opposite being "false" or "apparent." On the other hand, in classical Greek, ALHQINOS can mean "agreeable to truth." When used of persons, it may denote "truthful, trusty"; when employed with respect to things, "true, genuine."

I would encourage our brothers and sisters on this site to study the entry for ALHQINOS in BDAG. It is very informative, especially if one also consults the entry for MONOS in BDAG.

Scriptures to Help Quell Anxiety

Psalm 23:1-6; 41:1-3; 55:22; 68:5, 19-20; 94:19

Isaiah 41:10, 12-14

Matthew 6:25-34

Luke 12:22-34

2 Corinthians 1:1-10; 4:7-9, 16-18 7:6-7

Ephesians 3:20

Philippians 4:6-7, 19-20

1 Peter 5:6-7

Hebrews 13:5-6

Mark 12:44 Notes

Greek: πάντες γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ περισσεύοντος αὐτοῖς ἔβαλον, αὕτη δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὑστερήσεως αὐτῆς πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν ἔβαλεν ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς.

Zerwick's Grammatical Analysis: περισσεύοντος-participle, "be in excess, abound"

τοῦ περισσεύοντος αὐτοῖς-"of that which abounds to them" or "out of their surplus"

τῆς ὑστερήσεως-"want, poverty"

εἶχεν-imperfect active indicative 3rd-person singular of ἔχω.

τὸν βίον-"physical life, livelihood"

Rogers and Rogers:

περισσεύοντος-present active participle used as a substantive, "to be in abundance"

ὑστερήσεως-genitive singular feminine of ὑστέρησις, "deficiency, want, need."

εἶχεν-"to have, to possess."

βίον-accusative singular masculine of βίος, "living, livelihood, the means by which life is sustained"

The Expositor's Greek Testament: Mark 12:44.— ἐκ τῆς ὑστερήσεως, from her state of want, cf. on Lk.— ὑστέρησις, here and in Philippians 4:11.— πάντα ὅσα: this not visible to the eye; divined by the mind, but firmly believed to be true, as appears from the repetition of the statement in another form.— ὅλον τὸν βίον, her whole means of life. For the use of βίος in this sense vide Luke 8:43; Luke 15:12; Luke 15:30; similarly in classics.

NIDNTT:

ὕστερος-(a) The cognate nouns hysterēma and hysterēsis are interchangeable (cf. Mk. 12:44 with Lk. 21:4). Jesus contrasts the gifts to the temple treasury of the wealthy, who give from their abundance, with the gift of an impoverished widow, who gives everything she has. In this context either noun means want in general, i.e., poverty (cf. a similar contrast in 2 Cor. 8:14; 9:12). The general sense of need or lack is evident in Paul's response to the gift he received from Philippi. He does not complain of "living . . . in want," for he has learned the secret of self-sufficiency in every circumstance (Phil 4:11-12).

Aquinas, the Resurrection from the Dead, and Body Members

Thomas Aquinas believes that all of our body members will be restored in the resurrection, even if they are not used in the "afterlife." E.g., our kidneys, blood vessels, and genitalia. Now this restoration would present no problem for the righteous inhabiting the new earthly society of God's making (Rev. 21:1-5), but why heavenly creatures would have such members seems hard to comprehend. Of course, the pushback from the opposing side is that heaven and earth will unite one day--also that no one is going to heaven. But if some will be in heaven, as I believe, then human body parts appear to be redundant.

Reminds me of what one man said years ago in the field ministry: since flesh and blood cannot enter heaven, those who inherit the heavenly kingdom will just have fleshly bodies with no blood coursing through their veins. In any event, here are the sections from Aquinas:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP_Q80_A1.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q54_A3.html

Mark 12:43 Notes

Greek: καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἡ χήρα αὕτη ἡ πτωχὴ πλεῖον πάντων ἔβαλεν τῶν βαλλόντων εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον· (SBLGNT)

Zerwick's Grammatical Analysis: προσκαλεσάμενος is the aorist middle participle nominative singular masculine of προσκαλέω (Mounce: "to call to one's self, summon").

πάντων ἔβαλεν τῶν βαλλόντων-"all those throwing," present participle for an imperfect.

Vincent's Word Studies: This poor widow (ἡ χήρα αὕτη ἡ πτωχὴ):

The Greek order is very suggestive, forming a kind of climax: this window, the poor one, or and she poor.

Constable's Notes: "The poor widow's offering was worth more than the others, because it cost her more to give it, and most of all because she gave it willingly. Since she gave two coins, she could have kept one for herself. Her sacrifice expressed her love for God and her trust in God to sustain her (cf. 1 Kings 17:8-16)."

NIDNTT: γαζοφυλάκιον-"In Mk. 12:41, 43 and Lk. 21:1, gazophylakion refers to one of the thirteen trumpet-shaped collection boxes in the temple, into which the Jews (including the widow lady noticed by Jesus) threw coins. These were marked to indicate the use to which the funds were put. Jn. 8:20 refers to the gazophylakion as the place where Jesus taught in the temple precincts; he was probably standing in the Court of the Women, where the collection boxes were placed."

Mark 12:42 Notes

Greek: καὶ ἐλθοῦσα μία χήρα πτωχὴ ἔβαλεν λεπτὰ δύο, ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης. (WH)

Zerwick's Grammatical Analysis: ἐλθοῦσα-aorist participle feminine of ἔρχομαι; in this verse, Mark uses μία for τίς.

πτωχὴ-"poor"

ἔβαλεν-aorist active indicative of βάλλω.

λεπτόν-a small coin.

EGF: κοδράντης-The lepton's value was 1/128th the value of a denarius, which amounted to a day's wage in the Roman world. So it would take one hundred twenty eight lepta to equal one denarius.

A lepton was apparently the smallest copper or bronze coin used in ancient Israel. Some Bible translations render Mark 12:42 with the word "mites" to describe the widow's contribution. The widow gave currency that amounted to 1/128th the value of a day's wage--an amount which was monetarily insignificant; two coins thus would have been 1/64th the value of a denarius. (Based on the NWT Study Bible Notes)

Larry Hurtado (Mark): 12:42 / Two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny: The two coins of the widow were the leptons, the smallest denomination in coinage in circulation at the time. The two coins together equaled a penny (Greek, a kodrantes), an almost equally insignificant coin. (See “Money,” IDB, vol. 3, pp. 423–35, esp. p. 428). If this amount was the widow’s whole economic means (all she had to live on, v. 44), she was indeed poor!

Carl Conrad Translation of Mark 12:42: "Then one poor widow came and put in two tiny bits of small change, a pittance."

Byington (The Bible in Living English): "And one poor widow came and dropped in two mites, that is, a farthing."

NET Notes: These two small copper coins were lepta (sing. “lepton”), the smallest and least valuable coins in circulation in Palestine, worth one-half of a quadrans or 1/128 of a denarius, or about six minutes of an average daily wage. This was next to nothing in value.

Further Reading: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Kubis2/publication/303942909_The_Poor_Widow's_Mites_A_Contextual_Reading_of_Mark_1241-44/links/575fcb9908ae414b8e54a5a6.pdf

http://www.bavlionline.org/articles/the_metrology_of_judaean_small_bronze_coins_david_hendin.pdf

Mark 12:41 Notes

Greek: Καὶ καθίσας κατέναντι τοῦ γαζοφυλακίου ἐθεώρει πῶς ὁ ὄχλος βάλλει χαλκὸν εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον· καὶ πολλοὶ πλούσιοι ἔβαλλον πολλά·

Zerwick's Grammatical Analysis: καθίσας is an aorist participle ("he sat down . . . and"); κατέναντι ("opposite"), used with the genitive phrase τοῦ γαζοφυλακίου.

γαζοφυλακίου ("treasury, where boxes were put out to receive the coins of offerers")

βάλλει is present indicative active 3rd-person singular ("tense of [direct] speech")

EGF: I suggest that βάλλει might be rendered "throw, cast, drop"; ESV translates the verb "put"; NWT uses "dropping."

Rogers and Rogers: γαζοφυλακίου-"Probably a reference to the thirteen trumpet-like chests placed at intervals around the walls of the court of the women in the Herodian temple"

χαλκὸν-"copper, brass, bronze money."

πλούσιοι-"rich, very rich."

ἔβαλλον (imperfect indicative active)-"they were repeatedly casting."

Notes on Matthew 10:29

Text: οὐχὶ δύο στρουθία ἀσσαρίου πωλεῖται; καὶ ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ πεσεῖται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν.

οὐχὶ, in a manner analogous to the Latin nonne, introduces a question with the expectation that the answer will be "yes." See Zerwick and Grosvenor, page 31.

ἀσσαρίου-diminutive form of Latin as (= 1/16th denarius or less than a half hour's wage).

ἀσσαρίου is a genitive of price (Zerwick-Grosvenor).

Genitive of price-"The genitive substantive specifies the price paid for or value assessed for the word to which it is related. This is relatively rare in the NT" (Daniel B. Wallace, GGBB, page 122).

Brooks and Winbery use the terminology "adverbial genitive of measure" which includes the genitive of price or genitive of measure.

ANEU TOU PATROS hUMWN is an example of the substantive with an adverbial preposition (see Brooks and Winbery,
22).

KAI-"And yet."

NET Bible translates the latter portion of this verse:
"Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from
your Father's will."

The NET Bible footnote, however, states: "Or 'to the
ground without the knowledge and consent of your
Father.'"

"nonne duo passeres asse veneunt et unus ex illis non cadet super terram sine Patre vestro" (Matthew 10:29 Biblia Sacra Vulgata).

Vincent's Word Studies:

Sparrows (στρουθία)

"The word is a diminutive, little sparrows, and carries with it a touch of tenderness. At the present day, in the markets of Jerusalem and Jaffa, long strings of little birds, sparrows and larks, are offered for sale, trussed on long wooden skewers. Edersheim thinks that Jesus may have had reference to the two sparrows which, according to the Rabbins, were used in the ceremonial of purification from leprosy (Leviticus 14:49-54)."

1 Timothy 5:23: Brief Notes

I like William Mounce's Pastoral Letters commentary in the Word series, but have quibbles with him over some issues. 1 Timothy 5:23 reads:

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities" (KJV).

Greek (SBLGNT): μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ διὰ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ τὰς πυκνάς σου ἀσθενείας.

Mounce reasons that Paul's words to Timothy deal with drinking wine for medicinal purposes only--something like an "elixir" (a panacea) that cures colds and about everything else. But do we have reason to believe the use of wine in this verse is that circumscribed?

It has been observed that Paul was probably quoting a notable proverb from antiquity. After all, the ancients seem to have extolled the virtues of wine in moderation: they recognized its healing properties when used moderately. However, is 1 Timothy 5:23 limiting temperate drinking (particularly, the imbibing of wine) to health purposes alone? Here are some thoughts culled from biblegateway although I hope to build on these sources later:

NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: "use a little wine. Most people drank wine with their meals. It was watered down (often about two parts water to one part wine), and not distilled to a higher than natural degree of fermentation. Some have suggested that Timothy was abstaining from wine to avoid the criticism of the false teachers (4:3). your stomach. Wine was often used to settle stomachs and was thought to prevent dysentery; it could be used to disinfect water. Some restorative diets recommended water, others wine; wine was also used in some remedies (i.e., medicinally)."

Expositor's Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition): New Testament: Apparently for medicinal purposes, Timothy is told not to restrict himself to drinking water but to "use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses." The word for wine is sometimes used in LXX for unfermented grape juice. Furthermore, it is generally agreed that the wine of Jesus' day was usually rather weak and, especially among the Jews, often diluted with water. Moreover, safe drinking water was not always readily available in those eastern countries.

Asbury Bible Commentary: "A little wine indicates moderation and probably is a comment on the local water. Perhaps Timothy may be interpreting purity more physically/ascetically than Paul intended."

Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary:

For the most part in the NT, oinos is used literally, but occasionally it has symbolic meanings. In 1 Tim. 5:23, Paul exhorts Timothy to drink a little wine for his stomach's sake, and wine is a means of healing in Lk 10:34. John the Baptist abstains from drinking wine, perhaps following a Nazirite vow (Lk 1:15). However, Jesus, like most people, likely drank wine, as can be seen by the exaggerated accusation that he was a “glutton and a drunkard” (Mt 11:18–19), used by his opponents to mean that he did not fast nor abstain from wine (9:14–17; Mk 2:18–22; Lk 5:33–38). Additionally, Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine (Jn 2:1–11).

Symbolically, oinos is used negatively in Revelation, referring to the wine and cup of God’s wrath (14:10; 16:19; 19:15) and to the debauched ways of Babylon (14:8). Positively, oinos serves as a token of hope for the coming celebration for all believers at Jesus’ return. A picture of this coming new age is given in the creation of wine at the wedding in Cana (Jn 2:1–11) and in Jesus’ promise that he will not drink wine again until the great feast when the kingdom of God comes in all its fullness (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25). See NIDNTT-A, 41–42.

Rhodian Geometric oinochoe by the Bird and Zigzag Painter, 740/720 BC. Paris: Louvre.

Thanks to Wikipedia Commons.

Genesis 1:1, Wisdom 11:17, and 2 Maccabees 7:28 (Creatio Ex Nihilo)--Image

Notes Pertaining to the Book of Proverbs

1. What Is a Proverb?

While the English word "proverbs" conveys the idea of short maxims and pithy observations on life, the Hebrew misle (pl. of mashal) "refers to an apothegm that has currency among those who fear the LORD" (Bruce Waltke, page 56). Others suggest that "proverb" in the biblical sense refers to a brief comparison or representation (ibid.). See Prov. 10:26.

2. Proverbs juxtaposes destructive and healthy patterns of behavior. Proverbs 5:22-23; 14:12; 16:25; 29:3.

3. Authorship:

Proverbs claims Solomon as its writer and I accept what the text states. On the other hand, critical scholars usually want to question Solomonic authorship, and R.N. Whybray maintains that we cannot be sure whether all parts of the book can be traced back to David's son. Nevertheless, Whybray reckons that 1 Kings 4:32 must have some historical foundation; it seems unreasonble to suppose that it does not. He estimates that Proverbs may have been written or produced between the 10th-6th century BCE. See The Book of Proverbs, 4-5.

Robert B. Laurin believes Proverbs was probably edited around the 5th-4th century BCE as it eventually assumed its current shape.

4. The purpose of proverbs seems to be articulated in Prov. 1:7: "The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge; But the foolish despise wisdom and instruction" (ASV).

The fear of God is reverential awe--it is the fear of displeasing God and is expressed by observing his commandments. Compare Leviticus 19:3; Ecclesiastes 12:13; Malachi 3:5.

6. Specific proverbs and the wisdom they contain:

"Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it" (Prov. 4:23 NIV).

"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another" (Prov. 27:17 NIV).

7. An exegesis of one proverb:

Commenting on Prov. 2:6, Fox explains: "Wisdom engenders mature piety because God is the source of wisdom, and in seeking it you are in effect seeking him."

See Michael V. Fox, "The Pedagogy of Proverbs 2," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 113, No. 2 (Summer, 1994): pp. 233-243.

Image thanks to Wikipedia Commons

The Ontological Argument in Anselm and Descartes

Philosophy of Religion (Loosely based on David Stewart's text)

Arguments for God's Existence

1. Anselm of Canterbury made the ontological argument for God's existence famous: subsequent versions were posited by Rene Descartes, Kurt Gödel and by Alvin Plantinga. The starting point for Anselm's ontological argument is God's being or perfect being theology. This form of argumentation is a priori because it starts from the concept of God (a perfect being in the absolute sense). We might also consider the ontological argument to begin with premises that are deductive and that logically proceed from a possible divine being to an actual divine being (i.e., God).

2. Existence is a great-making property or perfection for Anselm and Descartes: they reason that existent beings take precedence over merely possible entities. The Anselmian and Cartesian form of argumention is a priori as well since it begins with a particular idea concerning God's essence, namely, that God necessarily exists.

3. Why the focus on divine being when formulating the ontological argument? God is called Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (I am the being) in Exodus 3:14 (LXX). The Latin Vulgate has "ego sum qui sum" and also refers to God as "qui est." Both ways of treating the Exodus text seem to place emphasis on God's being: maybe 3:14 even identifies God as being itself (ipsum esse subsistens).

4. The medieval thinkers also tended to view essence and existence as distinct in relation to creatures but they argued that essence and existence in God's case are identical (the same thing), an idea known as absolute divine simplicity. So God exists necessarily because God is his own existence.

5. Descartes maintains that the very idea of God is "clear and distinct." Clear and distinct ideas are transparent, not obscure, self-evident, and easily distinguished from other ideas. The Euclidean postulate, "all right angles are equal to one another" is a clear and distinct idea. Another example is "all triangles are three-sided polygons." That proposition is clear and distinct like 2 + 2 = 4 is. What about the idea of God. Should it likewise be categorized as a clear and distinct idea?

To learn more about ontological arguments in general, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

See David Stewart, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, Seventh Edition (London and Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2010), ISBN: 978-0-205-64519-0.

The Milgram Experiment and Human Nature: Nothing New Under the Sun

Stanley Milgram wrote these words about his famous "shock" experiment:

"This is, perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work became patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

Milgram conducted his experiment back in the 1960s. He found that at least 60% of those participating as subjects of the experiment were willing to shock people (administering up to 450 volts), if they could be persuaded that the experimenter (the one conducting the experiment) would take full responsibility for what happened to those who were purportedly being shocked.

Milgram's work was undertaken some 40 years ago. I wonder how most people would respond if they participated in similar experiments today. Would 60-85% of people living in our time be willing to shock their fellow humans if an authority figure commanded them to carry out the action? Certain secular studies have asserted that the human race is getting better in terms of social values, moral practices and aggressive tendencies (e.g., Stephen Pinker). I wonder if a new Milgram study would refute or support these claims. My guess based on the Bible, scientific studies, and personal experience is that "nothing don't change much." Or as Qoheleth said in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

Wisdom Texts: the Book of Job (Work in Progress)

The term "wisdom texts" is a designation that has been given to the books of Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. The description is common in professional Bible studies. So in harmony with this familiar way of designating certain Hebrew Bible texts, I want to discuss some general features of the so-called Wisdom texts and their contents. My comments are based on lecture notes I once used in tandem with Robert B. Laurin's Old Testament introductory work.

1. The wisdom texts contain instruction for living the "good life." What is the best way of living? Why are we here? Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes seek to answer those questions and they show worshipers of God how to apply knowledge intelligently (Proverbs 27:11). For example, Proverbs 1:7 states that wisdom begins with fearing YHWH (Jehovah). Ps. 111:10, while not part of the wisdom texts, also repeats this truism: genuine wisdom begins with reverential fear of God. Job likewise emphasizes this point (Job 28:28).

2. Some aspects of life considered in the wisdom texts include living peacefully with others (Proverbs 15:1; 16:32); handling money wisely (Proverbs 22:7; 23:21); understanding the value of a godly wife (Proverbs 18:22; 31:10-31). But the most important consideration in the wisdom texts is one's relationship with God (Proverbs 6:16-19; Ecclesiastes 12:12-13).

3. One unique feature of Job is how the book wrestles with human suffering. Some question whether Job deals with this perennial issue, but the book certainly raises the question, Does God cause suffering? Furthermore, Job makes us wonder about our basis for faith in God. Some answers given in Job are that God does not bring about general human suffering and the book affirms that humans should worship God regardless of personal circumstances.

4. In Job, we equally learn about three "friends" or "comforters" of Job: Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. These men purportedly visited Job to give him comfort, to be his friends. However, all they did was accuse Job of sin and they unwittingly misrepresented God's will, purpose, and nature. The men later repented as Job ministered in their behalf, but yet another character appearing in the book is Elihu. He was a wise young man, who patiently waited until the "comforters" of Job finished speaking. Job's wife plays a minor part in the book. She's known for telling Job to just curse God and die; he reprimands her by saying she speaks as one of the foolish women do. Job admonishes his wife to accept the good and bad which the true God allows. Regardless of his dire circumstances (loss of property, children, and diminishing health), he will not give up serving Jehovah. Job doesn't know why he's suffering; he even begins to justify himself instead of God. Nevertheless, in the end, Job is rewarded bountifully by God--even receiving twofold what he lost.

5. Job is a book filled with speeches by Job himself and the other characters mentioned above. However, the weightiest speech is given by God himself in Job 38-42. Jehovah reminds Job of his relative insignificance: he was not around when God founded the world. At that time, the morning stars applauded and the sons of the true God sang out with joy. This final speech is given in the midst of a windstorm as Jehovah makes it clear that he is God while Job is not. The book's epilogue is chapter 42, wherein Job is blessed, but also repents in dust and ashes.

6. A question lingering from the book of Job is whether God tempts humans or not. The book itself seems to deny that any injustice can exist alongside God. He is perfectly righteous and holy and just. One Bible writer would later affirm with utmost clarity that God himself does not try people with evil (James 1:13-17). The same Christian writer points to Job as a sterling example of patience and endurance. Additionally, James writes that we see Jehovah's compassion and mercy in his dealings with Job (James 5:10-11).

1 Timothy 4:3 ("Foods")--Mounce's Remarks and NIDNTT

Greek: κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν.

ESV: "who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."

βρῶμα, “food,” is used elsewhere with various shades of meaning. Paul uses it in his discussions of food being a stumbling block to “weaker” Christians (Rom 14:15, 20; 1 Cor 8:8, 13). Paul's contrasting of food with milk in his discussion of spiritual immaturity (1 Cor 3:2) suggests that βρῶμα is solid food. Paul interchanges it with κρέας, “meat,” in similar discussions (Rom 14:15, 20, 21; 1 Cor 8:13: “If food [βρῶμα] is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat [κρέα]).

William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 12386-12390). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Also from the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology under the entry for βρῶμα

1. Lit. use. In the NT, as in the OT, food is a gift from God. We should ask for it daily (cf. Matt. 6:11) and receive it thankfully (cf. 1 Tim. 4:4). Ascetic and ritual tendencies, which classed certain foods as taboo, are rejected by the NT as false teaching (Col 2:16 - 17; 1 Tim 4:3 - 7; Heb. 13:9). No food is unclean as such (Mk 7:18 - 19; cf. Acts 10:14 - 15), and no food possesses any special significance for our relationship to God (1 Cor. 8:8; cf. 6:13). The kingdom of God is realized not in eating or drinking but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17).

But Christians can be commanded to avoid a particular food (e.g., meat offered to idols) if a fellow Christian by eating will be plunged into a conflict of conscience (Rom. 14:15, 20; 1 Cor. 8:13). Out of love for that tempted believer for whom Christ died, the "strong" Christian must be willing to forego a particular food.

"for my name is in him": Exodus 23:21 and Later Reflections on YHWH and the Angels

"Be attentive to him and listen to him. Do not defy him, because he will not forgive your acts of rebellion, for my name is in him" (Exodus 23:21 CSB).

While the name of God is said to reside in the angel escorting Israel, it does not appear that any angel mentioned in the canonical literature of Judaism is exalted to the extent that Yahoel or Metatron are: the latter angel is called "the lesser YHWH" in 3 Enoch. And one encounters this passage in Apocalypse of Abraham 10:

"I am called Jaoel by him who moveth that which existeth with me on the seventh expanse upon the firmament, a power in virtue of the ineffable Name that is dwelling in me."

Andrei Orlov explains that "the peculiar designation 'Yahoel' (Slav. Иаоиль) in itself reveals unequivocally the angelic creature as the representation of the divine Name. It is no coincidence that in the text, which exhibits similarities with the Deuteronomic Shem theology, the angelic guide of the protagonist is introduced as the Angel of the Name."

See http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/yahoelsinger.html#_ftn1

Now the Apocalypse of Abraham was written after Philippians and Hebrews: its terminus ad quem is probably the end of the first century CE. Moreover, 3 Enoch is quite late in relation to the GNT although the ideas contained in the work must have an earlier inception date. Of course, the DSS are relevant since 11Q Melchizedek uses Elohim, but the exalted figures of apocalyptic Judaism still possibly exceed what the canonical Jewish texts allow ad litteram.

Bible Translation: Some Complexities and Matthew 24:3

Translation is based on the needs of the target audience. I myself prefer an eclectic translation where both the literal and idiomatic method is used; others prefer a more literal approach to translation. While caution is needed when dealing with kernel clauses, I nonetheless see a place for analyzing such clauses when one is translating. One thing that might help us to determine what the text "really" says might be to compare translations so that we may discern what each translator is trying to accomplish. When undertaking this task, what one quickly discovers is that not all translators aim for literal renderings.

"What will be the SIGN of THY presence, and of the CONSUMMATION of the AGE?" (Matt. 24:3 Emphatic Diaglott)

"What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (NIV)

"What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" (NRSV)

"Tell us when these things shall be,--And what the sign of thy presence and the conclusion of the age?" (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible)

"Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?" (NWT 2013)

"Tell us when this will be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the final time." (Byington)

Nota Bene: Rotherham's Bible is described as "a literal word-by-word translation with added emphasis to further explain the hidden riches of the original languages."

2 Timothy 3:14-15 and [τὰ] ἱερὰ γράμματα

In Martin Hengel's book on the LXX, he provides a quote from Josephus to demonstrate that γράμματα clearly seems to reference the scriptural text itself. Besides, γράμματαis is not all that uncommon for "writings" sacred or otherwise. Furthermore, we must understand this Greek word (γράμματα) within its unique literary context. Was Timothy made wise unto salvation by means of sacred letters of the Hebrew alphabet or was it by means of the sacred text itself? The former interpretation doesn't seem tenable especially when 2 Timothy 3:14-15 affirms that the holy writings can make someone wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. So we're not talking about a study of the Hebrew Bible (Torah/Tanakh) divorced from a quest to know the Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:7-11):

"Paul now spells out why the sacred writings are a source of confidence and instruction for Timothy. In them is the message that enables Timothy to be wise with a wisdom about salvation. However, Paul must add a qualifier: it is not the Hebrew Scripture alone that should instruct Timothy concerning salvation, but that Scripture understood through the faith of those who are 'in Christ Jesus.' This is implied in 3:14 and proclaimed in 4:2."

William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 22292-22294). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Mounce also writes:

"It may be concluded that the expression 'sacred writings' is drawn solely from the vocabulary describing the Hebrew Scripture, but since Paul is thinking about the culmination of the scriptural hope realized through faith in Christ Jesus, he chooses the anarthrous plural construction to develop his argument in the direction of joining the Hebrew Scripture and the gospel."

Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 22275-22278). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Location 22275). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Translating John 1:3

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:3 NIV)

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν (SBLGNT)

There is no doubt that ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 is grammatically masculine, but the issue is how one renders the pronoun αὐτοῦ. Most translate in accordance with the pronoun's antecedent, which in this case is masculine: ὁ λόγος. But αὐτός can be rendered "he/she/it" (3rd person singular). It is like qui est in Exodus 3:14 (Latin Vulgate). Some try to make the construction, "she who is," but in context, one should translate "He who is" and certainly not "it that is."

Raymond E. Brown on Nicaea and the Use of Scripture

"A development from the Scriptures to Nicaea, at least in formulation and thought patterns, is recognized by all. Indeed, the council fathers at Nicaea were troubled over the fact that they could not answer the Arians in purely biblical categories."

Source: Raymond E. Brown, "Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?" TS 26 [1965]: 545–73.

Leave My "Bara" Alone (Genesis 1:1)

I'm not an Hebrew-Aramaic scholar, but I've followed the most recent discussions on the Hebrew term, bara, and noticed that certain scholars want to militate against traditional views of the verb's denotation.

Bara admittedly has different senses, depending on the context. "Create" even has different meanings in English: creating a song versus creating mayhem as opposed to creating progeny. We also have to look at the whole of scripture and contextualize Genesis 1:1 from which the whole issue arises. I think bereshith indicates creation is the meaning of bara in Gen. 1:1. It appears that bara and asah could be interchangeable at times, but bara likely communicates an idea that asah does not.

Considering the ancient evidence, one finds that the LXX understands bara to mean "create" and the Latin Vulgate follows suit. Is there any ancient evidence to the contrary?

I must admit it's odd to me that so many scholars and members of Judaism (including Rashi, Maimonides and Nachmanides) could be wrong about the meaning of bara. I also find it strange that the Bible at the very outset would not provide information about our ultimate origins, including the origin of matter. As I study Jewish history and what lexicographers have concluded, and most Hebrew scholars today, it is difficult for me to reject the "create" meaning for Gen. 1:1.

Scientific Limitations, Theoretical Hypotheses, and Christianity (Draft Version)

Clearly science just like religion believes there are certain premises which function as starting points--these are basic axioms, hypotheses or working assumptions (archai). Scientists who militate against these conventional premises usually are castigated and anathematized as it were; science's guild does not allow wayward dissent. The paradox of this situation is that scientific progress has often transpired because an inquiring mind was willing to go against the paradigmatic grain (e.g., the Copernican Revolution); paradigms in science usually shift when a courageous individual becomes unafraid to swim against the tide. But when paradigm shifts occur, this does not necessarily mean that a total discontinuity with past ideas has to occur.1

After the momentous work of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s, other significant developments took place in science, many of which attempted to modify or subvert Einstein's view of the universe. But I have not seen anyone completely accomplish that task yet. Granted, quantum physics did yield new aspects of "reality" and Einstein apparently was mistaken about particle physics as shown by the two-slit experiment; however, Einstein has not been toppled. To the contrary, relativity theory still has immense explanatory power. This is not to say that one day, the paradigm will not shift again. We likely will find out more about the nature of black holes, the second law of thermodynamics, the "twin paradox," the two-slit experiment and the notion of simultaneity. Nevertheless, although our paradigm might shift once more, we will not wholly disassociate ourselves from past ideas in toto.

Despite the progress that science has made, as we can see, she is not without her limitations. Paradigmatic changes are common in science and science just like religion works from a given set of presuppositions. Science has made a clean break with religion, and it has endeavored to eschew metaphysics, but without much success. What accounts for metaphysics rearing its head in scientific discussions? One reason has been due to the fact that science has its own inherent limitations. For instance, science can tell us how a particular planet or star moves, but science cannot tell us why a celestial body moves (its final cause). Empirical investigation cannot tell us why out of all the vast reaches of space, we as minute earthlings are here on this specific rock. What is the purpose of life? Why do we die? Paul Davies has indicated that science frequently runs into "turtle trouble" when it delves into metaphysics. In other words, science has an epistemological boundary when it comes to explaining things; it cannot answer the infinite regress of questions that arise from reflection on sensory experience.

Eventually we get to a point where it's no longer possible to empirically investigate certain questions any further. The problem of infinite regression inevitably arises. As one woman reportedly told Bertrand Russell, the earth is not just hanging in space, but "it's turtles all the way down." We may chuckle at such an idea since we know that the earth is not supported by turtles. Yet while we may ridicule an infinite regression of turtles, we find that science runs into the same "turtle trouble" whenever it tries to explain, for instance, the origin of life. There are obvious limitations to science, yet this paper about science is not meant to polemicize empirical investigations. Rather, the point has been 1) to show that science has inherent limitations; (2) to demonstrate that science, when kept in its proper sphere is good, but becomes less utile when one tries to make it an explanatory tool for all things related to human existence; it can become the proverbial knife that cuts the hand of its wielder; (3) to illustrate how rightly utilized science can enhance our view of the cosmos.

Personally, I love science, but know its limitations. I do not believe that we should put complete trust in science when interpreting the Bible--nor should it be ignored. A vital balance is needed: both scientism and its converse should be avoided.

"A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it." - Rabindranath Tagore, Stray Birds

The classic statement on paradigm shifts was made by Thomas Kuhn. See his reflections on that important work here: https://eu.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Second_Thoughts_on_Paradigms.pdf

Does Jehovah Perform Miracles Today Like Healing or Cause People to Speak in Tongues? (Response to a Friend)

Dated 12/27/2005

Edgar:

I have no doubt that Jehovah has been working and continues to work in many ways (John 5:17). Jehovah's eyes probe the entire earth in order that he may show his strength in behalf of those whose hearts are complete toward him (2 Chronicles 16:9; John 4:23-24). Was God's blinding of the Gestapo [in modern times] a miracle? Maybe it was. There are some complexities that I do not wish to discuss here. Suffice it to say that I wonder whether the term "miracle" adequately describes God's actions toward the Gestapo.

Friend: "The preaching work is to my mind the best example. It cannot be done without God's Spirit motivating, directing, sometimes even protecting, etc those who do the work. It is not in our own "strength" that we do it."

Edgar:

I have no disagreements with what you say here. It just seems that the FDS [faithful and discreet slave] does not think "miracle" is the best term to describe the work that Jehovah God is doing today. Maybe you've read something different in our literature. But it seems that "miracle" is restricted to divine acts that excite wonder or amazement, acts that cannot be explained simply by the laws of nature or human power.

Addendum: Some years ago, one WT publication did use "miracle" in a looser sense to describe the invention of modern technology and new developments of the contemporary era. But such miracles would not be directly attributable to God like healing or speaking in tongues would be.

Ranko Stefanovic on Revelation 16:16: Armageddon/Harmageddon

Revelation 16:16-Harmageddon (William Milligan's Comments)

Why Har-Magedon? There was, we have every reason to believe, no such place. The name is symbolical. It is a compound word derived from the Hebrew, and signifying the mountain of Megiddo. We are thus again taken back to Old Testament history, in which the great plain of Megiddo, the most extensive in Palestine, plays on more than one occasion a notable part. In particular, that plain was famous for two great slaughters, that of the Canaanitish host by Barak, celebrated in the song of Deborah,[438] and that in which King Josiah fell.[439] The former is probably alluded to, for the enemies of Israel were there completely routed. For a similar though still more terrible destruction the hosts of evil are assembled at Har-Magedon. The Seer thinks it enough to assemble them, and to name the place. He does not need to go further or to describe the victory.

Milligan, William. The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 3649-3651). Kindle Edition.

Milligan, William. The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 3644-3649). Kindle Edition.

Milligan, William. The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Location 3644). Kindle Edition.

Note: For you spelling purists out there, the word may be spelled "Har-Magedon," Harmagedon or Harmageddon. Also see the more recent paper written here: http://home.tamk.fi/~mark/fi/docs/Armageddon.pdf

Luke 2:50: "they did not understand" (NIV)

My personal view is that there are few, if any, slam dunks in exegesis: we base our understanding of biblical texts on things other than grammar when all is said and done. Rolf Furuli brings out this point in his book on biblical translation and bias. Now exegesis is not reading one's preconceptions into the Bible; that would be eisegesis. Nevertheless, to illustrate how Greek texts have various possibilities when it comes to translation or exegesis, I would like to draw a contrast between Jesus' parents being shocked and his parents lacking comprehension in Luke 2:50. In my humble opinion, the Greek text communicates the latter understanding as opposed to the former:

"SUNHKAN aor. ind. act. SUNIHMI (# 5317) to bring together, to understand, to comprehend" (Rogers and Rogers New Linguistic and Exegetical Key, p. 114).

Moulton-Milligan say that the "literal meaning" of SUNIHMI is "bring together"; metaphorically speaking, it conveys the sense "perceive" or "understand" (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 607-608).

Finally, the NIDNTT confirms this way of approaching Luke 2:50:

CL & OT 1. In cl. Gk. the vb. syniēmi originally meant to bring together, a meaning not found in the NT. Fig., syniēmi means to perceive, take notice of, understand, comprehend. The noun synesis originally meant a joining (e.g., of rivers); then, in a transferred sense, the faculty of judgment, apprehension, understanding, insight, comprehension. Neither vb. nor noun acquired any great philosophical importance. The adj. synetos means quick at apprehending, clever; also intelligible. The opposite is asynetos, stupid or unintelligible.

In [Luke] 2:47 the insight of Jesus at twelve years of age is the subject of amazement, and there is no doubt that such insight is regarded as a gift from God. Conversely, his parents' failure to understand (2:50) must be seen as the opposite. In addition, it is the risen Christ who enables the downcast disciples on the Emmaus road to understand the Scriptures and to grasp the fact that his sufferings were foreordained by God (24:45).

This brief exercise illustrates how when we're faced with two or more possible options for translating a Greek word, the deciding factor will be context and passages in which a word is similarly used by other writers. We must also consider the synchronic features of a word--not just the diachronic features.

Aspect, Aktionsart and 1 John 3:9

There are a number of fine works that examine aspect and Aktionsart from different perspectives. However, I
would initially like to mention Rolf Furuli's approach to tense and aspect.

Rolf, like Bernard Comrie, evidently defines tense as "the grammaticalization of location in time" (Furuli, The Role of Theology, 75). He then writes:

"Given Comrie's definition of 'tense,' neither Hebrew nor Greek have tenses, save possibly Greek future, which is viewed by most researchers as a tense" (ibid).

Alhough I have read the studies produced by Porter, Furuli, Fanning and McKay, I have been very hesitant to concur with the non-temporal view of Greek tenses ex toto. In my personal estimation, there does not seem to be good reason for totally removing the notion of tempus from Greek tenses, even when the future "tense" is not under consideration. But I do believe that aspect is more prominent than the concept of tempus when it comes to Greek tenses. Furthermore, Wallace and Fanning seem to have a point when they contend that a number of factors (i.e., affected vs. non-affected meaning) provide temporal data in Greek.

Firstly, as Richard Young points out, "Although the thesis that time is not grammaticalized in Greek may sound extreme, it seems to be the logical conclusion one draws from the study of the nuances of Greek 'tenses'" (Young, Intermediate NT Greek, 105). However, Young qualifies this remark:

"Nevertheless, there is still merit in the traditional view that temporal distinctions are grammaticalized in the indicative mood, even though it results in a greater number of anomalies. This does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the analysis, since all languages have forms which overlap into the semantic domain of other forms" (ibid., 107).

S. M. Baugh (A First John Reader, 52) argues that "the function and force of tense forms varies with the different moods." Therefore, "An author chooses the tense form of a participle and the tense form of a complementary infinitive for different reasons" (ibid.). He then illustrates this argument with the example of 1 Jn. 3:9.

Baugh believes that three factors buttress his interpretation of 1 Jn. 3:9.

(1) The immediate context.

(2) The lexical significance of hAMARTANEIN.

(3) The influence of DUNAMAI upon the tense form of its complementary infinitive.

He contends that since the infinitive form of hAMARTANW does not appear elsewhere in the NT, John must have used the infinitive at 3:9 to signal an ongoing activity, not a state. He concludes: "the phrase OU DUNATAI hAMARTANEIN in 1 John 3:9 expresses the fact that the Christian is prevented by the new birth and the abiding presence of God from falling into persistent sin" (52).

In ftn. 16 on page 52 of his A First John Reader, Baugh also addresses views posited by Smalley and Wallace regarding this verse. He demonstrates that 1 John 5:16 with its use of hAMARTANONTA does not eradicate the iterative force of 1 Jn. 3:9--hAMARTANONTA is an adverbial present participle utilized to express action contemporaneous with the main verb. John's discussion of sin differs in this regard.

Baugh thus insists that time may be grammaticalized in certain moods. I encourage you to read his entire Excursus in A First John Reader as well as Baugh's comments regarding aspect in the Primer that he produced. You might also want to review D. B. Wallace's assessment of the temporal and non-temporal views of Greek "tense." See Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 504-510. Compare Stanley Porter's research with Buist Fanning's Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek.

Hebrew Names and Greek Morphology

One work I'd highly recommend is A Morphology of New Testament Greek: A Review and Reference Grammar (Lanham and New York: University Press of America, 1994) by James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery. You will have access to a number of morphological forms by using this grammar.

This reference work shows that IEREMIAS (nominative) would be IEREMIOU in the genitive singular. But IOUDAS would be IOUDA because some -AS nouns (masculine first declension) end with a genitive -OU, whereas others terminate with the Doric ending -A in the genitive singular. This phenomenon is what might be confusing at first--Brooks and Winbery provide helpful information on p. 49ff of their book.

Notes on Colossians 2:9: "Bodily"?

Robertson's Word Pictures states: "Paul here asserts that 'all the PLHRWMA of the Godhead,' not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (SWMATIKWS, late and rare adverb, in Plutarch, inscription, here only in N.T.), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (Philippians 2:9-11), 'the body of his glory' (TWi SWMATI THS DOXHS)."

Louw-Nida (8.2): "SWMATIKWS: EN AUTWi KATOIKEI PAN TO PLHRWMA SWMATIKWS: 'in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily' or . . . in physical form' Col 2.9. It is also possible to interpret SWMATIKWS in Col 2.9 as meaning 'in reality,' that is to say, 'not symbolically' (see 70.7)."

BDAG suggests that SWMATIKWS (adverbial of SWMATIKOS) bears the potential sense "bodily, corporeally" and probably should be understood from Col 2:17 "as = in reality, not fig." See page 984.

Roger and Rogers New Linguistic and Exegetical Key agrees with Robertson concerning SWMATIKWS: "The word [in Col 2:9] refers to the human body of Christ (Johnson, 310), indicating also the full humanity of Jesus a humanity which was not simply a covering for His deity (Lohse; TDNT; Moule; Lohmeyer; O'Brien).

But Petr Pokorny is most certainly right when he concludes: "The concept SWMA has a further meaning that comes to light especially in ---> 2:17. SWMA is also the archetype (---> 1:15), the reality in contrast to the shadow and copy. This is the most probable meaning here, given the framework of the interpretation of 2:19" (Colossians:
A Commentary, 122).

2 Corinthians 1:3-7 (An Emphasis on Divine Comfort)

2 Corinthians 1:3-7 (SBLGNT): Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν καὶ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως, 4 ὁ παρακαλῶν ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ θλίψει ἡμῶν, εἰς τὸ δύνασθαι ἡμᾶς παρακαλεῖν τοὺς ἐν πάσῃ θλίψει διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. 5 ὅτι καθὼς περισσεύει τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς, οὕτως διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ περισσεύει καὶ ἡ παράκλησις ἡμῶν. 6 εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας· [a]εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν, 7 καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ [b]ὑμῶν· εἰδότες ὅτι [c]ὡς κοινωνοί ἐστε τῶν παθημάτων, οὕτως καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως.

"Note that the word 'comfort,' as a noun or a verb, occurs ten times in this passage. It has the connotations of encouragement and strength as well as consolation" (Philip B. Harner, An Inductive Approach to Biblical Study, 100).

Also notice how Paul elsewhere uses words for comfort in his second letter to the Corinthians.

The Attributive Genitive (Wallace)

Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 78-88) explains that in the case of the attributive genitive, "The genitive substantive specifies an attribute or innate quality of the head substantive. It is similar to a simple adjective in its semantic force, though more emphatic: it 'expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with more sharpness and distinctness.'"

The last part of that quote is taken from A.T. Robertson's big grammar.

As Wallace points out, the genitive itself (whether possessive or descriptive, etc.) is grammatically substantival, but semantically adjectival; that is, the genitive functions like an adjective, although it is formally a substantive (i.e., a noun).

See Luke 16:9; Romans 6:6 for potential examples.

Joel Green on Luke 17:21

Joel B. Green explains:

Attempts to read Luke's ἐντὸς ὑμῶν as a reference to the inward, spiritual dynamic of the kingdom of God (e.g., Caragounis, “Kingdom of God?” 423–24) find ready adherents in this age of psychology and individualism here in the West. But they falter especially on the grounds that (1) nowhere else in Luke-Acts is the dominion of God regarded as an inner, spiritual reality; and (2) the notion that the Pharisees contain within themselves the kingdom of God is inconsistent with the Lukan portrayal of persons from this Jewish group. For the usage of ἐντός + plural object with the sense “among,” see the survey in Mattill, Last Things, 203–7. Cf. Lebourlier, “Entos hymōn”; Maddox, Purpose, 134; Carroll, End of History, 79. An alternative translation is grammatically possible and makes sense within this co-text—namely, “within your purview” (cf. the related views of Darr, Character Building, 11314; Beasley-Murray, Kingdom of God, 102–3).

See The Gospel of Luke, page 1607.

Source: https://www.scribd.com/book/276704356/The-Gospel-of-Luke

The Baker Compact Dictionary of Biblical Studies (A Review)

Tremper Longman III and Mark L. Strauss. The Baker Compact Dictionary of Biblical Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2018.

I'm amazed at how useful this concise dictionary is. One usually encounters numerous technical terms in academic biblical studies: many of the words tend to perplex unseasoned readers. Even those of us who have become acclimated to reading professional biblical studies may find ourselves confounded by theological vocabulary or termini technici associated with scriptural studies.

The new work written by Longman III and Strauss provides definitions for unfamiliar terms and it contains entries for place names, personal names, academic specialties, and the definitions are clear and specific. Not only do the authors discuss strictly biblical topics or words, but even words that apply to the ancient world at large are found in the dictionary. For example, an informative paragraph about the Epicureans not only defines the word, but says that Epicurus was a materialist who believed that matter and space exist--bodies and motion--but nothing else.

There is not much written about Shekinah, other than the term is rabbinic and derives from a Hebrew verb meaning "to dwell." The book provides more information for the word "Ketuvim." An acronym for the Hebrew Bible is Tanakh (also spelled Tanach or Tanak): these letters stand for Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible), Nevi'im (the Prophets), and Ketuvim refers to "the Writings." Which books comprise the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim? The Baker Compact Dictionary supplies accurate and helpful definitions for each one of these words.

While I by no means endorse everything that this dictionary asserts, readers of academic biblical literature will be hard pressed to find a resource that has this much content for such a low price. I also want to thank Baker Books for sending me a review copy of this publication; I was not under obligation to give a favorable review.

DOXA in Exodus and Ezekiel LXX

Exod. 16:10 proclaims that Jehovah's glory "appeared" in the cloud--it was some kind of visible manifestation. Compare Exod. 13:21; 16:7; 24:16; 40:34-35; Numbers 16:42; Ezekiel 3:23. Ezekiel 43:2 states that the earth shone because of God's glory.

It's hard for me to understand how one can deny that YHWH's glory in Ezekiel 1:28 is visible, bright, and overwhelming to the prophet. I also do not necessarily see the brilliance restricted to lightning in the verse: "The meaning is, In the brightness, or light, that was about what I saw, was the appearance of the rainbow" (Benson Commentary).

2 Cor. 3:18 mentions beholding the Lord's glory-DOXA "as in a glass" (KJV) which again connotes visibility on some level. Furthermore, Paul urges that "we" are changed "into the same image from glory to glory" by the spirit of God.

This page contains plenty of information on DOXA: https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=1391

The rendering "glory" is vague, but the basic idea is still conveyed that the word DOXA potentially refers to external splendor, an outward manifestation of brilliance, etc.

John 1:29 and "Sin"

Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει· ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. (John 1:29 NA28)

" The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (ESV)

Why does 1:29 say τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (singular) instead of the plural form "sins"?

Robert Mounce: Temple, 1:24, writes that John uses the singular (“sin”) because there is only one sin and it is characteristic of the entire world, “the self-will which prefers ‘my’ way to God's— which puts ‘me’ in the centre where only God is in place.”

See Mounce, Robert H.. John (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 1758-1760). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Stanley Porter believes that 1:29 uses the singular form "to represent sin in its collective sense" (John, His Gospel, and Jesus, page 210). Compare Westcott (John, 1:40).

Rogers and Rogers claim the singular form appears in 1:29 in order to reference "the mass of sin and the subsequent guilt incurred (Godet; Hoskyns)."

On the other hand, before reading too much into the singular, maybe one should compare 1 John 3:5 and other texts that speak of the Lamb (Jesus) taking "sins" away.

David Stewart and Arguments for God's Existence

David Stewart and Arguments for God's Existence

1. William Paley uses the complexity of a watch and its parts along with order and motion to suggest an intelligent designer.

2. The world and its order are being compared to artifacts that exemplify design, intelligence and mechanical skill.

3. A watch or another artifact might be imperfect; for example, a watch might seldom tell the correct time or sometime fail to work properly. Nevertheless, one might still arrive at the conclusion that watches have designers, albeit imperfect ones. (p. 145)

4. Most people would not be inclined to believe that a watch just came to be organized in the form of a watch by an impersonal "principle of order" (p. 146); watches do not assume their respective forms by chance or random events (p. 146). Compare Heb. 3:4.

5. Another way to confront secular views of God is by emphasizing problematic features of things that infinitely regress (p. 148). See the first and second "way" of Aquinas' cosmological argument. If the universe has always existed and did not have a beginning, it would be an example of infinite regression. However, what are the chances that the cosmos infinitely regresses?

6. Immanuel Kant possibly makes a case for God or a supreme being by appealing to the existence of morality and ethics (p. 154). Is it possible for morality to exist without God? See Romans 2:14-15.

See David Stewart, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, Seventh Edition (London and Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2010), ISBN: 978-0-205-64519-0.