Variant Kinds of Dualism (Kevin Corcoran)

Kevin Corcoran analyzes different kinds of dualism in his book, Rethinking Human Nature. Dualism here primarily refers to anthropological twoness: it is the claim that humans are composed of not one, but two things (e.g., body/soul or body/spirit).

Rene Descartes insists that a substance either has mental or physical properties (e.g., being in pain or having a certain mass/weight), but not both.

What kind of dualism is Descartes espousing? The technical name for his philosophy is substance dualism: he argues for two categories--res extensa (extended substance) and res cogitans (thinking substance). The French thinker asserts that he is the latter rather than the former; that is to say, Descartes is not absolutely identical with his body, but allegedly is identical with his soul (mind).

So Descartes allows for the possibility of disembodied existence as a thinking thing. Yet there are questions that can be asked concerning resurrection when it's understood within a dualist framework. For example, does substance dualism satisfactorily account for a resurrection of the body? Physicalist accounts of the resurrection are often heavily critiqued or discounted, but I wonder if dualism (especially of a Cartesian kind) fares any better.

How can the resurrection body be numerically identical with the body that preceded it, since at death, all bodies--with the exception of Christ's body--undergo corruption? That question is difficult to answer using Cartesianism, although hylomorphic/hylemorphic dualism thinks it can provide a plausible answer to the question. But I've seen hylemorphic/hylomorphic accounts that appeal to divine miracle-working in order to justify an absolute identity between the pre and post-resurrection body. Are such approaches satisfactory explanations of the resurrection?

Admittedly, the resurrection is a divine miracle, and so is life itself. Yet multiplying explanations to preserve numerical identity between living and resurrected bodies seems less than satisfactory.

I. Compound Dualism claims that humans are form and matter composites (otherwise known as hylomorphism). Matter (hyle) and form (morphe) constitute two metaphysical principles that define what things (including human beings) are. Aristotle taught hylomorphism: he argues that material objects are matter and form unities. Some examples include tree and treeness or rock and rockness. In the case of human beings, the body is matter, the soul is the substantial form of the body; soul is that which gives the organized material body its distinct form.

Thomas Aquinas rejects substance dualism since he does not believe that the body and soul are two independent substances which possess the capability to subsist on their own. Although he believes the soul can survive the body's death, the soul post mortem is not an actual human being although Aquinas believes that the soul is a subsistent thing. Yet see page 37.

Corcoran apparently reckons that compound dualism is incoherent. But why?

See p. 39

Compound dualists believe that the post mortem soul is able to contemplate God and subsist temporarily without a body.

II. Emergent Dualism

William Hasker represents emergent dualism--he illustrates this kind of dualism with an electro-magnetic field and its source. Minds emerge from complex biological systems with examples including solidity and molecular structure. Mentality supposedly emerges from a suitably complex physical system.

Hasker claims that mentality or mind is not reducible to neural firings or brain events. Mind is allegedly a new phenomenon that emerges from a physical system. So Hasker posits that it's capable of exerting force on that from which it emerges.

See p. 41.


For potential advantages of emergent dualism, see p. 42.

Colossians 3:23--Some Observations

I. Greek: ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε, ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις (Colossians 3:23)

II. Translations: "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men" (ESV)

"Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men" (NASB)

"Whatever you are doing, work at it whole-souled as for Jehovah, and not for men" (NWT 2013)

II. To Whom These Words Were Addressed:

See Colossians 3:22: οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλίαις, ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας, φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον. (SBLGNT)

III. Potential Literary Background:

It's difficult to say what motivated the counsel found at Colossians 3:23, but F.F. Bruce (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians) makes this suggestion:

Christian slaves are next addressed. Within the context of a household code household slaves are primarily in view, and slaves in a Christian household at that. But the directions given would be applicable to slaves whose duties were not within the household (slaves employed in agriculture or industry, for example), and to slaves of pagan masters. Both in this letter and in Ephesians the injunctions to slaves are more extended than those to masters, and are accompanied by special encouragement. This, it has been suggested, is “a reflection of the social structure of these churches”¹⁹⁹ (the implication being that they contained more slaves than masters). That may well be so. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that “the content of the admonitions would certainly be more readily approved by owners than by slaves.”²⁰⁰

IV.Observations:

John Eadie:

In this verse the common reading is καὶ πᾶν ὅ, τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε, but the better reading is ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε, ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις—“Whatever ye are in the way of doing, work it heartily as to the Lord, and not to men.” They were, in any task that might be assigned them, to labour at it, to work it out, and that without grumbling or reluctance, not only doing it honestly but cheerfully, as Chrysostom says- μὴ μετὰ δουλικῆς ἀνάγκης. [Ephesians 6:6.] The heathen slave might do everything with a grudge, for he had no interest in his labour, but the believing slave was to act with cordiality, plying his toil with alacrity, for he was serving in all this industry no human master, but the Lord, who had bought him with His precious blood. Let this be the feeling, and there would be no temptation to fall into eye-service, men-pleasing, and duplicity of heart or conduct. The apostle says without reservation—“as to the Lord, and not to men.” There is no necessity to take οὐκ as meaning οὐ μόνον. The immediate object of the service must be man, but the ultimate object is the Lord; the negative, though absolute in form, being relative in sense. Winer, § 55, 1. The service, whatever its nature, or its relation to man, was ever to be felt and viewed as an act of obedience done to Christ. See under Colossians 3:17. In doing it to others, they did it to Him; and to Him, with such claims upon their love and fealty, they could not but give suit and service heartily. As usual, in the parallel place in Ephesians, the thought is given more fully, and the relationship of the slave's labour to Christ is twice noted. Besides, not only was the servant to work as here- ἐκ ψυχῆς—“from the heart,” pointing out his relation to his work, but he is enjoined also to labour- μετ᾿ εὐνοίας-that is, “with good will” to his master.

On the other hand, James Dunn thinks Colossians 3:23 likely echoes Deuteronomy 6:5: compare Mark 12:30. Note how NEB and NJB translate this passage. Dunn writes (The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, pages 255-56):

The motivation will be strengthened by doing the "whatever" for the Lord (Christ), even when it is also to be done for human masters. If there is indeed an echo of Deut. 6:5, we should note again how easily the Christian writer thinks of the Lord to be loved from the whole ψυχή as Christ (see also on 3:22). Here, too, the thematic statement (2:6-7) continues to exert its influence.

Of course, those familiar with the NWT will know that "Jehovah" appears in Col. 3:23 rather than "Lord."

August H. Konkel's Remarks About 1 Kings 8:63

The sacrifices previously described as being without number (v. 5) are here enumerated in terms of oxen and sheep (v. 63). Communal peace offerings introduce the sacrifices and appear to be the central aspect of the dedication. The main function of these offerings is to provide food for the table; these sacrifices are for joyous occasions of celebration.²¹ Worshipers and priests share the peace offerings, providing a bonding of the community and a cele- bration of the covenant (Lev. 7:11–15, 30–36). The blood, fat, and entrails of the peace offering are devoted to God (3:3–5). The quantity of these offerings, plus the burnt offerings and grain offerings given to God, is so great that the great bronze altar does not have sufficient capacity (1 Kings 8:64). The entire court was consecrated for the occasion. Sacrifices were an essential part of the ritual in ancient temple dedications. The central event was the divine possession of the temple (cf. vv. 11–12), which was necessarily accompanied with great celebration and sacrifices for the occasion. The significance of the temple dedication is expressed in the anguage of its own culture. Hurowitz is able to cite numerous parallel examples from Mesopotamian literature.²² Esarhaddon dedicated the Assur temple by placing the god in his eternal dais and offered countless sacrifices. His dignitaries and the people celebrated for three days in the temple courtyard.

Quoted from August H. Konkel, 1 & 2 KINGS: THE NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY.

See Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, 273–77.

Some Thoughts Concerning 2 Kings 4:39

Regarding 2 Kings 4:39, it seems to me that the "wild gourds" were naturally poisonous, not baneful because of a curse.

NLT: One of the young men went out into the field to gather herbs and came back with a pocketful of wild gourds. He shredded them and put them into the pot without realizing they were poisonous. (2 Kings 4:39)

NET translates the last part of 2 Kings 4:39, "not knowing they were harmful."

The NET Bible adds this note: tc The Hebrew text reads, “for they did not know” (יָדָעוּ, yada’u) but some emend the final shureq (וּ, indicating a third plural subject) to holem vav (וֹ, a third masculine singular pronominal suffix on a third singular verb) and read “for he did not know it.” Perhaps it is best to omit the final vav as dittographic (note the vav at the beginning of the next verb form) and read simply, “for he did not know.” See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB),

John Lange offers these comments on 2 Kings 4:39. I will not post what he writes about 2 Kings 4:40, but you might find those comments instructive as well if you choose to read them:

The פַּקֻּעֹת שָׂדֶה are wild cucumbers or gourds (cucumeres agrestes, or, asinini), also called bursting-cucumbers. They have the form of an egg, and a bitter taste. When they are ripe they burst in pieces if pressed on the stem, whence their name (פקע fidit, rupit). When eaten they cause colic and violent purging. The young man took these wild gourds for ordinary ones, which were very much prized as food (Num. 11:5). The Sept. and Vulg. translate by colocynth. Keil also prefers this, because this fruit does not burst when touched, and so could be easily carried home in the garment and cut up; but the root פקע is too distinctly in favor of the bursting-gourd, which did not burst in this instance simply because the specimens collected were not entirely ripe (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 441 sq.). However, the cucumis colocynthi L., or the poisonous colocynth, also has a remarkably bitter taste—a vine which creeps upon the earth, and has light green leaves (cf. I. c., s. 427).

On the other hand, Iain W. Provan writes:

We do not know whether the mixture is really deadly in a literal sense—that is only what the men who have tasted it say. What is indisputable is that Elisha knows, in his wisdom, what to add to the pot to make everything all right—even though no one else knows what the cook originally put in (v. 39). He has remarkable insight, even into the various properties of plants. It is this that makes him a better cook than his servant—as he was a greater healer in 4:8–37.

See Provan, 1 and 2 Kings.

Expositor's Bible Commentary (Old Testament):

This chapter closes with two incidents relative to Elisha's miraculous help in food matters in the prophetic school at Gilgal. In the first instance, a student who had been sent to gather wild vegetables brought an unknown type to them and cut the gatherings into the stew. Its bitter taste convinced the diners that the stew was poisoned; so immediately they cried out to Elisha. He called for flour to be brought; and when he had stirred it into the pot, the stew was found to be both tasteful and safe. Elisha's faith effected a miraculous cure. As had been the case with Elijah his teacher, Elisha had used flour to demonstrate the concern of God for one's daily provisions (cf. 1Ki 17:14-16).

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and the Rapture

(1) First, let me say that Jehovah's Witnesses believe there are two hopes or eternal destinies for the righteous: some of the righteous will live forever on earth, while others (the 144,000) will reign immortally in heaven. It is my belief that 1 Thess. 4:13-18 refers to those who will dwell in the heavens of God's presence for all eternity.

(2) I understand the Rapture to be an event in which God removes His church from earth to heaven bodily apart from the experience of physical death. Thus, while I certainly profess that certain Christians (i.e., the 144,000) will be snatched up to meet the Lord Jesus Christ in the air, I do not agree that this seizing will be "bodily" (that is, the physical body will not be taken upward); nor does it appear that those taken up to meet Christ will bypass physical death.

(3) 1 Thess. 4:13-18 has reference to the resurrection which occurs during the parousia of Christ. That is why Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to comfort one another with the words found chapter four of that letter. Finally, 1 Cor. 15:35ff indicates that Christians who will reside in heaven forever must undergo the experience of physical death: Jehovah God imparts the heavenly inheritance to certain humans via spiritual resurrection.

Someone asked about those members of the 144,000 who are living when God executes judgment upon this evil age (Gal. 1:4; 2 Thess. 1:6-9). Will they too have to undergo the experience of physical death. It is not wise to be dogmatic here, but the biblical account of Enoch may suggest that God Jehovah will shorten the lives of the 144,000 who are living when Christ reveals himself in all his glory.

Revelation 20:4 (Beheading?)

Revelation 20:4 (ESV): "Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

SBLGNT: Καὶ εἶδον θρόνους, καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ’ αὐτούς, καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν πεπελεκισμένων διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν τὸ θηρίον οὐδὲ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἔλαβον τὸ χάραγμα ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτῶν· καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ [a]χίλια ἔτη.

Commentary: "The martyrs in chapter 6 were said to be 'slain' or 'slaughtered.' Here they have been beheaded. They are actual martyrs because in John's visions all faithful Christians have been killed. They are not an elite group that is more 'spiritual' than other believers. The further description of them as those who had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands (v. 4) places the accent not on their martyrdom as such but on the faithfulness that made martyrdom inevitable."

See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Rev/Reign-Martyrs

Albert Barnes: "That were beheaded - The word used here - πελεκίζω pelekizō- occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, 'to axe,' that is, to hew or cut with an axe - from πέλεκυς pelekus 'axe.' Hence it means to behead with an axe. This was a common mode of execution among the Romans, and doubtless many of the Christian martyrs suffered in this manner; but 'it cannot be supposed to have been the intention of the writer to confine the rewards of martyrs to those who suffered in this particular way; for this specific and ignominious method of punishment is designated merely as the symbol of any and every kind of martyrdom'” (Prof. Stuart)."

Logical Possibility, Scripture, and the Virgin Birth

The expression "logical possibility" means that a statement (P) is not self-contradictory such that P and ~P.

It is logically possible (not self-contradictory) that a man could have experienced physical birth through a virgin, which occurred by means of the holy spirit. But would such a man still have been perfect (in the relevant sense) and thus qualified to ransom his life for humanity?

One older Witness publication argued that only the Word/Logos (the preeminent Son of God and first creation) was qualified to ransom humanity and meet Satan's challenge against Jehovah's divine sovereignty. The more I think about perfect humans coming from imperfect ones, it seems complex since Job effectively said clean beings do not emanate from unclean ones (Job 14:4). Psalm 49:7-8 indicates that humans could never provide a heavenly deliverer: the savior had to come from on high. All the "sent" passages in John might also suggest that God provided a divine being in human form to save us and sanctify his name. See Hebrews 10:5-6. At the end of the day, I not only reckon that the virgin birth is logically possible, but I place my faith in God's wondrous miracle.

Douglas J. Moo, Hoti, and Galatians 4:6

Greek: ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, κρᾶζον· Αββα ὁ πατήρ. (SBLGNT)

There is some debate about whether ὅτι in Galatians 4:6 is demonstrative or causal.

NWT: Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!”

HCSB: And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba, Father!”

CEV: Now that we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. And his Spirit tells us that God is our Father.

ESV: And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Tyndale Bible: Be cause ye are sonnes God hath sent the sprete of his sonne in to oure hertes which cryeth Abba father.

While it seems that ὅτι is definitely causal in this case, Douglas J. Moo writes the following (Galatians, Baker Exegetical Series):

The initial ὅτι (hoti, because) is most naturally taken in a causal sense, and this also fits the sequence of Paul’s argument: we have received the adoption as sons, and because we are now sons, we also have the Spirit. The only problem with this interpretation is that the claim that possession of the Spirit proceeds from the status of sonship appears to contradict Paul’s usual sequence, which is just the opposite. Especially important is Rom. 8:14–17, a passage with many obvious similarities to Gal. 4:4–6

Moo quotes the verses in Romans, then he professes:

Further, earlier in Galatians Paul has assumed that the Spirit marks the beginning of Christian experience (3:3). For these reasons, some interpreters suggest that this initial ὅτι might have a “declarative” function and depend on an implied assertion such as “to prove that”; see NAB: “As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’” (see also Lietzmann 1932: 25; Dunn 1993a: 219; Moule 1959: 147; Rohde 1989: 173). However, this is not the obvious way to understand ὅτι, and it is doubtful if we need to introduce such a reading in order to preserve Pauline consistency. A careful reading of Rom. 8:14–17 shows that Paul is not clearly arguing for a sequence of Spirit—sonship. Having the Spirit means that one is a “son”; but Paul is not clearly saying that the Spirit confers sonship. Nor does Paul’s claim that the Spirit marks the “beginning” of Christian experience (3:3) mean that the Spirit must be absolutely prior to all other Christian blessings. Paul wants to associate the status of sonship with the gift of the Spirit, but claiming that Paul teaches a strict temporal or logical sequence between them would be overreading this text and others (see, e.g., R. Longenecker 1990: 173; Martyn 1997: 391; Schreiner 2010: 272).[18] The “sequence” of sonship and Spirit in various texts in Paul is thus probably dictated more by rhetorical than theological concerns.

In addition to the commentators that Moo invokes, see John Eadie's extended comments on Galatians 4:6.

Some of My Favorite Theology Books

https://www.amazon.com/ideas/amzn1.account.AEPCG3HGI5LDNR2LI6UHVGBP44JQ/3LKN7S1DAZWRC

Jerome's Commentary With Respect to Daniel 3:25

"And they said to the king in reply, 'Truly, O king!' The king answered (the Vulgate omits "the king"): 'Behold, I see four men unbound and walking about in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt, and the appearance of the fourth man (B) is the likeness of a son of God.' " Let me say again, how wise was the fire and how indescribable the power of God! Their bodies had been bound with chains; those chains were burnt up, whereas the bodies themselves were not burnt. As for the appearance of the fourth man, which he asserts to be like that of a son of God, either we must take him to be an angel, as the Septuagint has rendered it, or indeed, as the majority think, the Lord our Savior. Yet I do not know how an ungodly king could have merited a vision of the Son of God. On that |44 reasoning one should follow Symmachus, who has thus interpreted it: "But the appearance of the fourth is like unto the sons," not unto the sons of God but unto gods themselves. We are to think of angels here, who after all are very frequently called gods as well as sons of God. So much for the story itself. But as for its typical significance, this angel or son of God foreshadows our Lord Jesus (p. 512) Christ, who descended into the furnace of hell, in which the souls of both sinners and of the righteous were imprisoned, in order that He might without suffering any scorching by fire or injury to His person deliver those who were held imprisoned by chains of death.

See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm

God Recommends His Own Love (Romans 5:8)

The supreme manifestation of Jehovah's love is Jesus Christ's ransom sacrifice: that ransom provides the basis for Jehovah's vindication and is our sole way to obtain everlasting life (Romans 6:23). Notice what we learn about God's love and our need for the ransom from Romans 5:8, 12:

After reading the verses:

Comment on Rom. 5:8: God sent Christ while we were yet sinners. What an expression of divine love since the Son of God did not die for righteous or good people, but in behalf of sinners.

Romans 5:12 stresses our need for the ransom that Jehovah lovingly provided through Christ: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."

Jehovah made Adam and Eve perfect, but they used their free will to disobey him. The first couple was given just one limiting and reasonable directive: don't eat from the tree that's in the middle of the garden. Nevertheless, they ignored Jehovah and consequently repudiated his sovereignty. Yet how did Adam and Eve's disobedience affect us?

To address that question, please consider Romans 5:13, 14:

After reading the verses:

By virtue of Adam's disobedience, sin ruled as king from Adam down to Moses even prior to the Mosaic law code. However, once Jehovah gave the law to Israel, then sin became manifest because the law code plainly defined sin: it clearly demonstrated that we are sinners and need a redeemer. As Paul wrote in Romans 7:7, I would not have known how to identify sin or covetousness if it had not been for the law of Moses.

To illustrate sin's effect on us, we might compare it to an illness or disease. Nevertheless, while diseases like hemophilia can be transmitted from parents to their children, it is still possible for a child to carry hemophilia genetically without actually having the disease. But that is not the case with sin. If a parent is sinful, then children will be tainted with sin too. Therefore, how can we escape this predicament?

Romans 5:18, 21 explains the way:

What does the expression, "their being declared righteous for life" mean? One scholar writes that when God declares someone righteous, he doesn't cleanse the person inwardly, but rather Jehovah acquits the accused person standing before him. Yes, our situation is comparable to an accused person, who appears before a human judge to receive a sentence of innocent or guilty. We can be thankful that Jehovah lovingly acquits those who exercise faith in the ransom; he declares them guiltless. The result of being declared righteous is "everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 5:21).

As we reflect on God's love for us even while we were sinners, the question naturally arises as to how we can show appreciation for the ransom. Two concrete ways are dedication and baptism along with preaching the good news of God's kingdom. It is also good to ask ourselves in what other ways we might show gratitude to Jehovah for Jesus' ransom sacrifice, for it is by means of the ransom that God especially recommends his love to us.

Philip Comfort's Remarks on Revelation 13:18 (666/616)

This work was published in 2008.

Revelation 13:18 in the Cambridge GNT: Including the Apparatus

Bruce Metzger's and Revelation 13:18 (666/616)--Screenshots

Margaret Barker Comments About Revelation 13:18 (666/616)

Taken from Barker's Revelation of Jesus Christ, pages 233-235. My posting these remarks do not constitute an endorsement of Margaret Barker's position:

Most references to the beast refer only to his mark (14.9; 16.2; 19.20, 20.4), but the introduction of his 'number' is another device to indicate Nero. The name of the beast and 666, the number of its name (13.17), refer to the way that letters were also used as numbers; the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet was used for 1, the third for 3 and so on. Treated thus, a process known as gematria, the Greek name 'Neron Caesar', spelled in Hebrew letters, becomes N (50) + R (200) + W (6) + N (50) + Q (100) + S (60) + R (200), making 666. This spelling of the name is confirmed by an Aramaic document found at Murabba'at, dated 'the second year of the Emperor Nero'. This implies an interpretation of the name by people who understood Hebrew or Aramaic, even though Revelation is now written in Greek. The identification of the beast as Nero has been a commonplace among scholars since it was first suggested a century ago, long before the Murabba'at document confirmed the contemporary spelling of the name Nero. The problem is that this form of gematria is only known elsewhere using Greek letters, not Hebrew. At the end of the second century CE, however, there were some versions of Revelation which had the number of the beast as 616, a further challenge to scholars' ingenuity (Irenaeus, AH 5.30). It could represent the Latin form 'Nero Caesar', the final 'N' of the Greek form being dropped and thus the gematria number being reduced by 50 to 616. Or it could be conventional gematria with the Greek letters of the name 'Gaios Kaisar', and the beast could be Caligula. By the time of Irenaeus, the end of the second century CE, the identification of the beast as Nero was not known (AH 5.28-30), but the fear of Nero had passed into Christian tradition, and there can be no doubt that Nero's evil reign was written into the final interpretation of the beast in the Book of Revelation. The Ascension of Isaiah, whose Christian version was completed towards the end of the first century CE, 'foresees' the reign of Nero:

Beliar will descend, the great angel, the king of this world ... He will descend from his firmament in the form of a man, a king of iniquity,* the murderer of his mother** and he will persecute the plant which the twelve apostles of the Beloved have planted ... By his word he will cause the sun to rise by night, and the moon also he will make to appear at the sixth hour. And he will do everything he wishes in the world; he will act and speak like the Beloved and he will say, 'I am the LORD and before me there was no one' ... And all men in the world will believe in him. They will sacrifice to him and will serve him saying, 'This is the LORD and besides him there is no other' ... And the power of his miracles will be in every city and district and he will set up his image before him in every city. (Asc. Isa. 4.1-12)

The beast, however, had taken many forms before it was identified as Nero. The evil reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-163 BCE) was also a time of the beast, as can be seen from Daniel 7.19-27 which explained that the time of the fourth and last beast had come. When a false rumour arose that Antiochus was dead, civil strife broke out in Judea and Antiochus returned to quell the trouble in Jerusalem (2 Macc. 5). A great slaughter followed, with 40,000 killed and a similar number sold as slaves. He robbed the temple and defiled the sanctuary by entering it and then setting up a pagan altar. Many Jews adopted his pagan ways and sacrificed to idols (1 Macc. 1). The Book of Daniel addressed this situation and interpreted the ancient vision of the Man ascending to heaven as a sign of hope for those troubled times (Dan. 7). There would be an abomination set in the temple, but the saints would triumph. Much of what is said about the beast in Revelation could have been said of Antiochus. Had these fragments of Revelation been discovered for the first time, abandoned in a cave, it would have been easy for scholars to argue for a date in the second century BCE. The beast had the blasphemous name 'Epiphanes', which means 'The Manifest God'; there had been a rumour of his death but he returned to wreak havoc in Jerusalem just as the beast returned 'from the bottomless pit' to wreak havoc in Jerusalem (11.7-8); he blasphemed God's Name and his dwelling, the temple (13.6), and he both took captives and slew with the sword (13.10)

There is more, but see Barker.

In What Sense Did God Possibly Create Darkness? (Isaiah 45:7)

Here are suggestions for reading:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44092130?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Information for this article: "THE CREATION OF DARKNESS AND EVIL (ISAIAH 45:6C-7)"
Tina Dykesteen Nilsen
Revue Biblique (1946-)
Vol. 115, No. 1 (JANVIER 2008), pp. 5-25.

Furthermore, see http://christianthinktank.com/iamwrong1.html

Note the comments made here: https://bible.org/seriespage/13-knowledge-lord-isaiah-4424-4525

Stephen B. Miller's Remarks About Daniel 3:25

What impressed Nebuchadnezzar most of all was that now the three Jews had been joined by a fourth man, and this one looked like “a son of the gods.” Porteous69 and the majority of Jewish scholars have identified this person as an angel. For example, Slotki remarks, “The Talmud asserts that it was the archangel Gabriel (Pes. 118a, b).”70 According to Lacocque, “The expression is used in the inscriptions at Karatepe and Ugarit where it designates the members of the divine court.”71 However, the expression “a son of the gods” ascribes deity to the being, since an offspring of the gods partakes of the divine nature. Young remarks: “The meaning is son of deity, i.e., a Divine Person, one of the race of the gods, a supernatural being.”72 The NRSV's “the appearance of a god” seems to capture the idea well, for the king believed that he had seen no less than a god in the flames with the three Hebrews. The KJV renders this phrase “the Son of God,” an apparent allusion to the second person of the Trinity. Either the NIV or KJV translation is possible grammatically. In biblical Aramaic the plural noun ’ĕlāhîn may be assumed to have the same force as ’ĕlōhîm in biblical Hebrew, which can be rendered as a plural, “gods,” or as a singular, “God,” when denoting the true God, the plural form being an attempt to express the divine fullness and majesty.73 In this context, however, the translation of the NIV and most modern versions is to be preferred, since Nebuchadnezzar was polytheistic and had no conception of the Christian Trinity. Thus the pagan king only meant that the fourth figure in the fire was divine. From the Christian perspective, we know that the preincarnate Christ did appear to individuals in the Old Testament. Most likely the fourth man in the fire was the angel of the Lord, God himself in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, a view held by many expositors (cf. comments on 6: 21–22).74 It is certainly true that when believers go through fiery trials Christ is with them. The three Hebrews experienced literally the promise, “When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze”(Isa 43:2).

Miller, Stephen B. Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture: 18 (The New American Commentary) (Kindle Locations 2197-2218). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Daniel 3:25: "a Son of God"

Daniel 3:25 (ESV) reads: He answered and said, "But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods."

Bob Utley offers these remarks:

"the fourth is like a son of the gods" A considerable amount of speculation has been made about this fourth personage. He is an angel of the Lord (cf. Dan. 3:28 also 6:22). It is humorous to note that when Nebuchadnezzar calls the boys out by name, he makes no mention of that fourth person!

The Anchor Bible Commentary, Daniel 1-9 (by L. F. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella) says for Daniel 3:25: "a divine being. Literally, ―a son of God,‖ rightly understood in vs. 28 as an angel; cf. also vs. 26."

PANTA in Philippians 3:8 and 1 John 2:20

Moisés Silva argues that panta has a relative sense in Philippians 3:8. After all, the context indicates that this Greek adjective is delimited since the "all things" Paul references are objects that he considers to be "refuse" (skybala) or objects that he viewed as loss (ezemiothen). It is clear that Paul is not saying he deemed "all things" in the cosmos to be skybala. One would be doing violence to 3:8 by construing the author's words that way. Rather, panta is not being used in an absolute sense at Philippians 3:8, yet there are other New Testament constructions that make the same point.

Besides 1 John 2:27, we encounter an interesting variant for 1 John 2:20 that appears in the KJV: "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." Concerning this epistolary verse, Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the NT) states:

"If the reading of the bulk of later manuscripts is correct, 'all things' would have to be taken as meaning all things necessary to salvation (v. 27). But it is probably better to accept pantes [rather than the neuter pural accusative panta] as original--'you all know.'"

Earle agrees that neither the variant of 1 John 2:20 nor 1 John 2:27 imply that the holy ones know "all things" or are taught concerning "all things" in an absolute sense. Why, then, should we hastily conclude that the apostles meant Jesus was omniscient simply because they attributed "great knowledge" to him in John 16:30? Compare Proverbs 28:5.

Brief Note on Pronunciation of Scriptural Terms (Somewhat Lighthearted)

"If you don't know how to pronounce a word, say it loud!" (William Strunk, Jr.)

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/pronounce

Those of us engaged in lots of public reading can sometimes either wonder how a certain biblical term is pronounced or we might insist that our way of saying a word is the only right way. I've also spoke with some friends who insist that words should be pronounced like they're read on the WT publications. But while I'm not denigrating the efforts that Witnesses have made to bring us numerous sources and Bible aids, I would humbly submit that pronunciation dogma is not a good thing.

Sure, we want to pronounce words correctly and to the best of our ability. However, there is usually more than one acceptable way to pronounce biblical terms. This post is meant to be lighthearted but educational. So I will conclude with some examples. How do you say Nisan, Jehoshaphat, Sanhedrin, Logos or Salome?

I've checked all of these words and you might have fun checking on their pronunciation as well.

I say "vahy-tuh-min," but you say "vit-uh-min." 😊

John E. Hartley Commentary on Job 38:7

From the New International Commentary on the Old Testament:

In various Near Eastern religions the morning stars were venerated as gods and goddesses. Many of them had an important role in the pantheon, esp. Venus. In this reference they are identifed among the sons of God, or angels, who were created by God for special service. In Gen. 1 the stars were created on the fourth day, but here they existed at the initial stages of creation. This apparent discrepancy indicates that “the morning stars” in this context is primarily a term that forms a synonymous parallelism with “the sons of God,” who, it is assumed, existed prior to the creation of the earth. It is, therefore, used metaphorically to refer to these heavenly creatures independent of the existence of the physical stars.

Romans 13:1-2 and the "Instituted" Authorities

Greek: Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω, οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν. 2 ὥστε ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν, οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρίμα λήμψονται. (Romans 13:1-2 SBLGNT)

ESV: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

NWT 2013: "Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities,a for there is no authority except by God;b the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves."

In what sense have the "governing authorities" been instituted or placed in their "relative positions by God"? Does Jehovah directly appoint every king on earth and directly remove every king? See Daniel 2:21.

We know from specific biblical examples that Jehovah has directly placed some rulers in their positions and he has deposed some. However, is Paul saying that's always the case?

One objection I've had to reading the text this way is that it's hard to see how God placed rulers like Nero or the biblical Pharaoh of Egypt in their relative positions. These men were wicked and even persecuted God's people or blasphemed the name of Jehovah. How could he have placed such men in their relative position? Yet God permits wickedness and also uses the wicked to accomplish his purpose.

Ralph Earle adds this observation about Romans 13:1: "Here the primary emphasis is on the authority of governments to rule. It should not be inferred from this passage that all rulers are chosen by God, but rather that all rule is divinely ordained. Goverments are set to enforce law. Since most people will not be ruled by love, they must be ruled by law. That is inevitable in an imperfect world" (Earle 204).

1 Samuel 15:33: What did Samuel Do to Agag?

After King Saul failed to slay the Amalekites, Samuel the prophet expressed Jehovah's displeasure for Saul's actions. Then 1 Samuel 15:33 states:

And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. (ESV)

Samuel declared:

As your sword has made women childless, so your mother will be childless among women.

Then he hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord at Gilgal. (HCSB)

However, Samuel said: “Just as your sword has bereaved women of children, so your mother will be most bereaved among women.” With that Samuel hacked Aʹgag to pieces before Jehovah at Gilʹgal. (NWT 2013)

Robert Alter translates part of 1 Samuel 15:33 this way: "And Samuel cut him apart before the LORD at Gilgal." He then offers these remarks:

Samuel cut him apart before the LORD. "There is a long-standing consensus that the unique verb used here means something to this effect. The ghastly idea seems to be a kind of ritual butchering."

See The David Story, page 93.

A. Graeme Auld gives these comments (I and II Samuel: A Commentary, Page 175):

"33a. How precisely Samuel dispatches Agag is unclear: this is the unique instance of šsp (mt) in hb. The traditional 'dismember' presupposes a link with the later biblical šṣp. The gt’s choice of esphaxen may have been influenced by two sibilants followed by p in the unfamiliar Hebrew."


On page 180, Auld writes: "The slaying of Agag has features of both execution and sacrifice. Samuel’s judgment that the punishment will fit the crime suggests criminal process. and yet what happens is not simply 'at Gilgal' but 'before Yahweh' or 'in Yahweh’s presence' (in this respect, his death anticipates the death of seven of Saul's family in 2 Sam 21:9). There are regular elements of due order, or ritual, in judicial executions; but given the opaqueness of the unique verb šsp, it is unwise to say more."

From David Tsumura's 1 Samuel Commentary:

And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces: McCarter thinks that the LXX translation and the fact that it was done “before the Lord” suggest “sacrificial butchering.” He suggests that “cutting” in covenant ceremonies symbolized the punishment of covenant breakers, and therefore the Amalekites at the time of Moses had broken a covenant with Israel.⁹⁷ However, as Hertzberg holds, Samuel's action rather “takes the event from the sphere of sacrifice into that of the ban”; see the punishment of Achan in Joshua 7. Instead of Saul, Samuel completed the performance of the “ban” on the Amalekites, devoting Agag their king to the Lord.

Sibylline Oracles 2.95-96 (Wine, Blood, and Things Sacrificed to Idols)

Orac. Sib. 2.95-96: "Do not damage your mind with wine or drink to excess. Do not eat blood. Abstain from what is sacrificed to idols."

One could tentatively date the Sibylline Oracles from circa 150 BCE to circa 180 CE.

Milton Terry translation: "Disable not Thy mind with wine nor drink excessively. Eat not blood, and abstain from things Offered to idols."

Jean Danielou Explains Tatian's Anthropology

The source used for this entry is Jean Danielou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture: A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council of Nicea, Vol. 2. Trans. John Austin Baker. London: Darton, Longman & Todd & Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973.

Tatian (120-173 CE) apparently believes that humans share in "a portion of divinity" (Oratio ad Graecos 7) by virtue of their distinctive creative origins (see Danielou 2:390). God made us free but we do not possess the Good as such: only God is Good in the strictest sense.

This church father argues that two differentiable spirits were present in the first man: the soul and one spirit greater than the soul. Thus, originally, man was partially matter but somewhat transcended matter (Oratio 12). The second spirit (pneuma) is the ruah YHWH of the Hebrew Bible (2:390). It is also the "Pauline concept of the divine life in which men share through Christ" (Ibid.).

Oratio 13 stresses the ostensibly anthropological dualism of Tatian (2:391). The soul is "darkness" and from below; the realm of matter might be metaphysically or inherently evil for Tatian; conversely, spirit is light and from God. Matter and spirit were originally united, but the first man abandoned God by forsaking the divine spirit. Humankind is now confined to the material realm wherein idolatrous acts transpire with alacrity. See Oratio 13.

While Middle Platonism contends that man is a rational being by nature as does Stoicism, Tatian denies this type of philosophical anthropology. He argues that humankind is the image of God by virtue of the fact that man participates in the divine life (2:392). Compare Oratio 20; Phaedrus 7 (246a-250c, Jowett translation) concerning the anthropological loss of "wings." Cf. Danielou 392-93.

For Tatian, Paradise originally belonged to another world (i.e., it was celestial). Tatian's anthropology therefore sounds Gnostic in some respects, but it is probably due to the intellectual climate in which both the Gnostics and Tatian originated. On the other hand, his anthropology seems to be more Platonist in nature than Gnostic. See Danielou 2:393-94. Also consider the Essene notion of two spirits or a similar concept found in the Shepherd of Hermas. Vide Danielou 2:396-97 for a contrast and similarities between Tatian's views and the ancient Gnostics.

Numbers 31:28 and the Soul

"And levy a tribute unto Jehovah of the men of war that went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the oxen, and of the asses, and of the flocks" (Numbers 31:28 ASV)

Septuagint (LXX): καὶ ἀφελεῖτε τέλος κυρίῳ παρὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν πολεμιστῶν τῶν ἐκπεπορευμένων εἰς τὴν παράταξιν μίαν ψυχὴν ἀπὸ πεντακοσίων ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν βοῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν προβάτων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν αἰγῶν

Brenton Translation of the Septuagint: "And ye shall take a tribute for the Lord from the warriors that went out to battle; one soul out of five hundred, from the men, and from the cattle, even from the oxen, and from the sheep, and from the asses; and ye shall take from their half."

Richard Elliot Friedman Translation: "And you shall levy a tax for YHWH from the men of war who went out to the army, one individual out of five hundred, from humans and from cattle and from asses and from sheep."

According to E.W. Bullinger (Appendix 13 of the Companion Bible):

Nephesh is used of the Lower Animals and Man in seven passages, and rendered in three different ways:

1."creature". Genesis 9:15, 16.

2."the life". Leviticus 17:11, 14.

3."soul". Numbers 31:28.

EGF: Compare Proverbs 12:10.

Fifteen Recommended Books From Different Fields

I don't celebrate New Year's Day, but seeing all of these top five/ten lists recently made me want to write my own list of recommended books. So here you go.


1. Furuli, Rolf. The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 1999.

2. Grant, Robert M. Gods and the One God. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.

3. Mastronarde, Donald J. Introduction to Attic Greek. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1993.

4. Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2017.

5. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2017.

6. Moule, C.F.D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

7. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

8. Brooks, James A., and Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Lanham, MD, 1979.

9. Silva, Moises. Philippians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

10. Herrick, Paul. Introduction to Logic. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

11. Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: W. W. Norton, 1978.

12. LeDoux, Joseph. Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. New York: Penguin, 2003.

13. Rocca, Gregory P. Speaking the Incomprehensible God: Thomas Aquinas on the Interplay of Positive and Negative Theology. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2004.

14. Black, David (editor). Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

15. Green, Joel B. Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

A Few More Thoughts Pertaining to Exodus 34:29 ("Radiant")

"As Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant in his hands, he did not know that the skin of his face had become radiant* while he spoke with the LORD." (Exodus 34:29, Catholic NABRE)

Footnote: Radiant: the Hebrew word translated “radiant” is spelled like the term for “horns.” Thus the artistic tradition of portraying Moses with horns.

"Moses came down, after this, from Mount Sinai, bearing with him the two tablets on which the law was written; and his face, although he did not know it, was all radiant after the meeting at which he had held speech with God" (Knox Bible).

"Cumque descenderet Moyses de monte Sinai, tenebat duas tabulas testimonii, et ignorabat quod cornuta esset facies sua ex consortio sermonis Domini" (Latin Vulgate).

The Douay-Rheims Bible famously reports that Moses' face "was horned from the conversation of the Lord."

Menahem Haran reviews the historical developments that led to the Vulgate and DR rendering "was horned," but then Haran writes:

However, most commentators, both the older and the more contemporary, have already concurred that the verse refers to rays of light radiating from the brilliance of Moses' face, just as in Habakkuk 3.4 it is said of God himself: 'rays of light, qarnayim [cognate with qaran], flash from his hand' (before which we read that 'his brightness is like the light'). The splendour surrounding the image of God is alluded to in several additional biblical passages: the seventy elders of Israel saw God 'and under his feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity' (Ex. 24.10), Ezekiel saw 'radiance all about him' (Ezek. 1.27-28), while the psalmist describes the Lord as 'wrapped in light as with a garment' (Ps. 104.2; see also below). Something of the divine radiance was imparted, then, to Moses' face, which thereafter also shone. Later on the passage relates how the people, being repulsed by this radiance, were afraid to get close to Moses, but he dispelled their fears, and after telling them the Lord's message he put a masweh over his face. The substantive masweh, also mentioned only in this passage, is mostly explained, according to the context, as a veil or scarf hung over the face, though the etymology is uncertain.

To understand the wider context of Haran's remarks, see Barrick, W. Boyd, John R. Spencer, and Gösta W. Ahlström. In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honour of G.W. Ahlström. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Pages 159-160.

Different Approaches to Mentality and Materialism/Physicalism

Philosophers of mind wonder if mental properties can be reduced to neural states. For instance, is it possible to reduce my perception of redness to a particular brain state? The answer to these questions is not simple, but some potential approaches that could be taken are:

1) Supervenience theory which has been given the label "property dualism." It posits that there are not two substances (body and soul) but two kinds of properties (mental and physical attributes) which stand in some kind of dependent relationship that preserves their distinctness but coequal real status.

2) Eliminative materialism (EM) which entails completely reducing mental states to brain states (usually in an ontological sense). But one downside to EM is that it wants to do away with talk of emotions and subjective states (qualia or raw feels), thereby replacing them with neuroscientific terminology.

3) Biological naturalism which is John Searle's take on the philosophy of mind says that all conscious states arise from lower-level brain processes. So consciousness is then a higher-level brain process that arises from neuronal activity.

Reductionism is not always wrong, but one problem is that it normally oversimplifies complex phenomena. Josef Seifert wrote an overlooked book about getting back to the things themselves (based on a saying by Edmund Husserl). In that work, Seifert demonstrates why reductionism could be problematic. The bottom line is that many think the reduction of subjectivity to synaptic connections and neural firings is overly simplistic, but I personally am inclined to favor this kind of reductionism. I am a Christian materialist, so I have to reconcile physicalism as it pertains to humans with my belief in God. Yet I see no genuine conflict between these two ideas.

See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

Jesus, A Perfect Man?

In light of recent discussions here about divine and human perfection, I want to offer scriptural evidence that Christ was a perfect human. I understand that Christendom normally calls Christ, "the God-man," (Deus homo) but this blog entry is not intended to address that issue. Rather, I want to establish that Jesus was a perfect human and being perfect in his case meant, being sinless.

The apostle Peter identifies Jesus as a man used by God: "Israelite men, listen to these words! Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—" (Acts 2:22 LEB)

However, Jesus was not just any ordinary man; like Adam, he was sinless:

"For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the law would be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:3-4 LEB).

What does Paul mean when he writes that God the Father (apparently) "condemned sin in the flesh"?

Numerous articles, commentaries, and papers have been written about this verse. Here's one suggestion from Colin G. Kruse:

"because the apostle has just said that God sent his Son 'in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sin offering', it is best to think of sin being condemned in the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, that is, when God presented his Son as a sin offering, the condemnation that humanity's sin deserved was absorbed by the incarnate Christ when he died on the cross (cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Col 2:14-15)."

I don't believe that Christ was God incarnate, nor do I believe he died on a cross. Yet Kruse captures the spirit of how I partly understand Romans 8:4: God condemned sin through Christ by presenting his Son as an offering for our sins. Secondarily, Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses by perfectly obeying its precepts. Other verses confirm that he did not sin:

2 Corinthians 5:20-21; Hebrews 4:15-16; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 2:21-25.

So, I emphasize that at least one way Christ was perfect was through his sinless course. Compare 1 Timothy 3:16.

Hebrews 5:8-9 proclaims that Christ learned obedience from the things he suffered and that he became perfect. But the context there suggests the writer is discussing Christ becoming perfect in his capacity as high priest.

How Culture Directs Contemporary Exegesis (Screenshot)

Professor Joseph Kelly, Saturnalia, and the Inception of Christmas

Joseph Kelly, who has written a book on the origins of Christimas, also states:

"Many Romans venerated the sun, whose birthday was Dec. 25, or a virility god named Mithra with the same birthday. Also, the Romans observed a raucous celebration called Saturnalia Dec. 17-23. Thus, Dec. 25 offered a date with a good theological basis that also would counter several pagan holidays.

Although we don't know the final steps, in 336 the church at Rome officially observed the 'birth day of Christ' Dec. 25. This tradition spread."

See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/joseph-kelly-true-meaning-of-christmas.html

God's Perfection and Human Perfection

One cannot talk about the biblical concept of perfection without including God's perfection. Even Matthew 5:48 mentions God prior to giving the command for Jesus' disciples to be perfect like God the Father is perfect. God and man's perfection are two different things, but we cannot understand one without comprehending the other. Not only does Jehovah not lack anything, but he is also morally perfect: without moral blemish and with no wickedness residing in him. God's activity is perfect and he is fully just (Deuteronomy 32:4). That is not a mere abstraction. Let us not overlook the moral component of God's perfection. And what about the moral component of Jesus' perfection? Perfection in the case of Jesus did not simply mean that he lacked any old generic quality: the Christ was sinless. Deny that datum and one abnegates Scripture and subverts the Christian ecclesia. Divine and human perfection have multiple facets that encompass the moral dimension. I refuse to water down that aspect of divine or human perfection.

The ancient Hebrews also tried to observe Torah, but could not do it perfectly. However, Christ did (Romans 8:1-5).

Wine and Glad Hearts?

ESV renders Psalm 104:15, "and wine to gladden the heart of man," but I understand this usage of "heart" to be figurative like Deuteronomy 6:5ff. Also see how the Greeks used kardia (compare Romans 2:28-29; 1 Peter 3:4).

Since God made wine to gladden the human heart and Jesus even turned water into wine, there's apparently nothing wrong with being "merry/glad" from wine; however, being drunk is another matter, and problem drinking is still another story. In my humble estimation, moderation is the key: "Give me neither riches nor poverty." We likely need to avoid extremes when it comes to eating, drinking, our clothing or anything else (1 Corinthians 10:31). The main thing is whether we're glorifying Jehovah God by our eating and drinking habits.

War/Battle Motifs in Revelation

Revelation 1:16, 2:21-23; 9:7-9; 11:7; 12:1-17; 13:7; 14:19-20; 16:13-16; 19:11-21; 20:1-10.

David Aune's Remarks on Revelation 19:11:

καὶ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρίνει καὶ πολεμεῖ, “With justice he judges and wages war.” The use of the present tense in the verbs κρίνει, “he judges,” and πολεμεῖ, “he wages war” (here the general or gnomic present, used to express customary actions and general truths; see Burton, Syntax, § 12), often used in explanatory remarks in Revelation, suggests that this phrase is a narrative aside. The phrase κρίνειν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, “to judge with righteousness,” is not used here exclusively in connection with the destruction of the rider's enemies (contra Beckwith, 732; Mounce, 344) but also has the positive connotation of the salvific action of Christ toward his people, i.e., as judge of his Church (Holtz, Christologie, 169– 70; Rissi, Future, 22). When God is described in the OT as “judging with righteousness,” it can be applied to the nations as well as to his people (Pss 9: 8; 72: 2; 96: 13; see Prigent, 292).

Aune, Dr. David. Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 1234). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

For more commentary pertaining to these war motifs, see Aune's 3-volume Word Biblical Commentary.

Parallelism Among the Hebrew Poets

There is a literary phenomenon that appears in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) known as parallelism. A simple way to explain the subject is that one may find a) synonymous parallelism, b) antithetical parallelism and c) synthetic parallelism. Examples of type a (synonymous parallelism) include:

Job 38:7; Psalm 150:1-2; Micah 5:2.

Job 3:3 exemplifies antithetical parallelism, and Psalm 42:1 illustrates synthetic parallelism.

See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/Major-Characteristics-Hebrew

Wilderness Motifs in Revelation (ἔρημος)

1. She gave birth to a male child who is to shepherd all the nations “with a rod of iron”. Her child was snatched up to God and to his throne, while the woman fled into the desert where she has a place prepared for her by God’s command. There they will take care of her for twelve hundred and sixty days. (Revelation 12:5-6, J.B. Phillips NT)

Greek: καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱόν, [a]ἄρσεν, ὃς μέλλει ποιμαίνειν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ· καὶ ἡρπάσθη τὸ τέκνον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἔφυγεν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, ὅπου ἔχει ἐκεῖ τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα ἐκεῖ τρέφωσιν αὐτὴν ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα. (SBLGNT)

But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time.

(Revelation 12:14, ESV)

Greek: καὶ ἐδόθησαν τῇ γυναικὶ αἱ δύο πτέρυγες τοῦ ἀετοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ἵνα πέτηται εἰς τὴν ἔρημον εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῆς, ὅπου τρέφεται ἐκεῖ καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ ὄφεως. (SBLGNT)

And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns.

(Revelation 17:3, ESV)

Greek: καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν με εἰς ἔρημον ἐν πνεύματι. καὶ εἶδον γυναῖκα καθημένην ἐπὶ θηρίον κόκκινον, [a]γέμοντα ὀνόματα βλασφημίας, ἔχων κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ κέρατα δέκα.

Did Jehovah Replace Faithful Apostles Too?

Why did Jehovah replace unfaithful Judas but not the faithful disciple James when he was martyred?

Jesus' apostles fill an important role in Jehovah's purpose: they are secondary foundation stones for the holy city, New Jerusalem, which started to be formed on the day of Pentecost (Revelation 21:14, 19-20). Revelation 21 states that exactly 12 figurative stones are needed to support the holy city. So then, what if one of the twelve apostolic stones draws away from Jehovah? Would that stone then need to be replaced?

For the answer to these questions, see Acts 1:15-17; 1:21-26. (Compare Ps. 69:25; 109:8). In fulfillment of these psalms, the Apostles made the decision to replace Judas Iscariot. They were undoubtedly directed by holy spirit.

On the other hand, the faithful disciple James martyred by Herod was not replaced (Acts 12:1-2). The special role played by the Twelve also explains why faithful apostles were not replaced. The Twelve were meant to be witnesses of Christ's life, death and resurrection. For example, the inspired Apostles Paul and John relate that the Twelve along with certain other Christians saw, touched and heard God's Son before and after his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:8; 1 Jn. 1:1).

In this way, the valuable witness of the Twelve was substantiated; however, as faithful apostles like James, John, and Peter died, it eventually became impossible to fill their apostolic office with someone who had personally witnessed the resurrected Jesus. Only a miraculous divine act could mitigate that situation. Therefore, Jehovah saw fit to replace Judas Iscariot, but he did not fill the spot of faithful apostolic witnesses or martyrs.

Vincent Taylor and the Gospel of Mark's Place of Composition (Screenshot)

Aquinas' Five "Proofs" for God's Existence?

There's a question about the status of Aquinas' five ways to "prove" God's existence. Are they really proofs after all?

The five ways are:

1) The argument from motion
2) argument from efficient causes
3) argument from possibility and necessity
4) argument from degress of perfection/gradations of being
5) argument from the governance of the world

Concerning these five ways, here's what I once wrote to a colleague:

In Prima Pars, Quest. 2, Articulus 3 of the Summa Thelogiae, Aquinas does write: "Respondeo dicendum quod Deum esse quinque viis probari potest."

But I would agree that reason is limited; a posteriori demonstrations (like the five ways) can only show that God's existence is possible or maybe probable.

For the potential sense of the Latin word, probari, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/probo#Latin

Compare the words of Cicero (Ver. 2.1.10): "his ego iudicibus non probabo C. Verrem contra leges pecuniam cepisse?"

Did Jesus Practice Voluntary Poverty? Examining 2 Corinthians 8:9

Before answering the question concerning Jesus and whether he practiced voluntary poverty or not, some important distinctions need to be made. Firstly, poverty could be relative or absolute. Relative poverty means that one's poverty is to a degree; for example, if someone makes $20,000.00 annually while supporting a family of six, he or she is considered poor in the USA although that would not be the case in other lands. On the other hand, absolute poverty means someone does not have life's essentials: not enough money for food, water or adequate clothing (see 1 John 3:17-18).

The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary makes the following distinctions:

"POVERTY, INDIGENCE, PENURY, WANT, DESTITUTION mean the state of one with insufficient resources. POVERTY may cover a range from extreme want of necessities to an absence of material comforts. INDIGENCE implies seriously straitened circumstances. PENURY suggests a cramping or oppressive lack of money. WANT and DESTITUTION imply extreme poverty that threatens life itself through starvation or exposure."

So it is possible to be poor in one sense without being impoverished in another sense, and there are different levels of poverty. Morover, we could include a distinction between involuntary and voluntary poverty. That is, some people are poor by dint of circumstances over which they have no control; others choose to be poor for a sense of vocation, whether to God or for some other cause. What about Jesus Christ? Did he choose to be materially poor?

2 Corinthians 8:9 reads:
hOTI DI' hUMAS EPTWXEUSEN PLOUSIOS WN hINA hUMEIS THi EKEINOU PTWXEIAi PLOUTHSHTE.

BDAG Greek-English Lexicon defines PTWXEUW this way: "to be or become poor as a beggar, be (extremely) poor . . . of Christ in ref. to renunciation of transcendent prosperity EPTWXEUSEN PLOUSIOS WN he became poor (for the [aorist] cp. Tob 4:21; B-D-F section 331; Rob. 834) 2 Cor 8:9 . . ."

This Greek lexicon obviously suggests that Christ voluntarily became poor in that he renounced his transcendent or heavenly glory and privileges. In other words, he emptied himself, taking on the appearance and form of a man (Philippians 2:6-7). Therefore, I will grant that Paul is probably not using the Greek terms PTWXEUW or PTWXEIA to describe Christ's socioeconomic status although he makes a contrast between Christ's being EN MORFHi QEOU and his existing hWS ANQRWPOS.

Nevertheless, I have always been under the impression that Jesus' family was not that well off from a financial perspective: neither was Jesus after his ministry started in 29 CE. Granted, Jehovah God always made sure that his beloved Son had bread for each day and Jesus was certainly no advocate of an encratic lifestyle, which is to say he was no severe ascetic (he enjoyed social events and apparently drank wine). However, I believe it is possible to say that Jesus was poor in the sense that he have lots of currency on his person and his net worth likely was close to zero.

Christ did not have any money set aside for a rainy day; he was quite impecunious, it seems. Why the Son of Man did not even have a place to lay his head and apparently only had one fine garment to his name when he died.

In closing, I'd just like to say that I remember doing some research on Luke 2:22-24 some years ago and I believe that these verses suggest that Jesus' family was not well to do. Maybe they were not even lower middle class. For they offered "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons" at the temple in Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old. I'll need to go back and check out those sources again. At any rate, I am not arguing that Christians should renounce everything and become impoverished. But I do believe that we have the supreme example of a self-sacrificing worshiper of God in the PERSONA CHRISTI. It is also evidently incumbent upon all Christians to imitate Jesus' fine example of
not pleasing one's self in order that we might enrich others spiritually.

Is It Possible for Imperfect Humans To Be Perfect?

Perfect in the appropriate sense of the word is not that hard to define or understand within a biblical context. Something/someone can be absolutely perfect or relatively perfect; absolute means to be fully complete/mature without qualification. Only Jehovah God is absolutely perfect in the fullest sense. On the other hand, relative perfection means something/someone is well suited for the task at hand; that is, perfect to a degree, with qualifications.

Noah was relatively perfect. He led an overall righteous life, but he once got intoxicated, thereby becoming in some way exposed because of his error (Genesis 6:9; 9:20-27; Hebrews 11:7). Job was "perfect" (Job 1:1 KJV). However, Job had to repent in dust and ashes since he committed mistakes by overly defending his righteousness instead of God's (Job 42:6). John the Baptist's parents were perfect in a relative sense because they were Torah-observant Jews (Luke 1:5-6). Yet only God is perfect in the absolute sense without qualification. These words from J.A. MacDonald (Pulpit Commentary) are worth consideration:

"The power of man is formative. He can mould, he can combine, he can disjoin. He cannot create. He cannot destroy, God can create. He can reverse the act of creation."

As for Jesus, he was fully human (both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians agree on that point). Yet he was separated from sinners, without sin, and morally unblemished: "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth" (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22-23). Furthermore, Jesus was the unique/only-begotten Son of God (John 1:18; 3:16).

Regarding Matthew 5:48, much has been written on the verse, even by the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. The simple answer is that Jesus was encouraging his disciples to be perfect (mature, complete) in love as Jehovah is perfect in love. Analogies don't presuppose that both things being compared are exactly the same. For instance, when Jesus states that his disciples should be one as he and his Father are one; the oneness in each case does not correspond exactly 1:1 (see John 17:21-23).

I think Jesus was perfect insofar as he was sinless just like Adam initially was. Christ was sinless, but that does not mean he was incapable of sinning--those are two very different things.

Elaine Pagels and Contemporary Gnostic Studies

One problem with Elaine Pagels is her controlling ideology that's superimposed on the Gnostic Gospels (i.e., feminism); in my estimation, there is a great chasm between the so-called "orthodox views" in antiquity and Gnosticism. While scholarship's picture of the Gnostics has become clearer since the 1940s, some general features of the philosophy/religion seem apparent. The Gnostics denigrated flesh/matter and elevated spirit: some Gnostics were also libertines, but others tended to be ascetics. Read Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch to see the big difference between "orthodox" thinking and Gnosticism although we have to allow room for ideology or propaganda in the pre-Nicenes. Something else to consider is that Gnostics would not have accepted/did not accept John 1:14--the Word became flesh. Some writers also assert that 1 Timothy and 1 John were early jousts against Gnostic/proto-Gnostic thinking.

Another objectionable aspect to Gnosticism was the belief in aeons paired in masculine-feminine deities (so-called syzygies). That the world of matter is evil by virtue of being material is an affront to both Judaism and Christianity. From my studies of the Hermetic literature, I do not think it was even prominent in the first century CE. Hans Dieter Betz calls attention to the fact that the date for Poimandres is "still open to discussion" (Antike und Christentum, 206). So we must be careful with lingual comparisons unless we carefully examine the original texts themselves.

Revelation 21:23 and Divine Glory (Robert H. Mounce)

Mounce writes:

The heavenly city has no need of sun or moon to shine because it is illuminated by the glory of God. Isaiah had pictured the glorious restoration of Jerusalem in much the same terms (Isa 60:19–20). John is not supplying his readers with information about future astrological changes but setting forth by means of accepted apocalyptic imagery the splendor that will radiate from the presence of God and the Lamb. In his Gospel John used language in much the same way. He called Jesus the “true light that gives light to every man” (John 1:9) and the “light of the world” (John 8:12; cf. 3:19; 12:35). The metaphor is not uncommon in apocalyptic language (2 Esdr 7:39–42). The nations are said to walk by the light of God’s glory, and the kings of the earth bring their splendor into the city. Isaiah 60 serves as a model. The glory of the Lord is seen upon Jerusalem, and nations and kings are attracted to its brightness (Isa 60:1–3). The wealth of the nations comes back to Zion as her sons and daughters return from afar (Isa 60:4–5; also vv. 6, 9, 11, 13, 17).

Source: Mounce, Robert H. 1998. The Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans.

Basic Logic for Theology

It's commonly agreed that we can't have theologic without logic itself. Theology usually is defined as "the doctrine of God" (something to that effect) or more colloquially as "talking about God" whereas "logic" is "the science/study of correct thinking." Logic studies correct ways of thinking, that is, correct inferences. What do we mean by correct inferences? Here are some examples:

1. Modus Ponens

A) If P, then Q
B) P
C) Therefore, Q

2. Modus Tollens

A) If P, then Q
B) Not Q
C) Therefore, Not P

3) Conjunction

A) P
B) Q
C) Therefore, P and Q

4) Hypothetical Syllogism

A) If P, then Q
B) If Q, then R
C) Therefore, If P, then R

5) Disjunctive Syllogism

A) Either P or Q
B) Not P
C) Therefore, Q

Acts 2:21--Proof of Jesus' Deity?

Many Trinitarians attempt to argue that Acts 2:21 is proof of Christ's deity. However, the context (Acts 2:22ff) suggests otherwise--nevertheless, what exactly are Trinitarian scholars saying about Acts 2:21?

Greek: καὶ ἔσται πᾶς ὃς ἐὰν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου σωθήσεται. (Acts 2:21)

LXX (Joel 2:32): καὶ ἔσται πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται ὅτι ἐν τῷ ὄρει Σιων καὶ ἐν Ιερουσαλημ ἔσται ἀνασῳζόμενος καθότι εἶπεν κύριος καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι οὓς κύριος προσκέκληται

ESV: And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

Darrell L. Bock:

The reference to the Lord (κύριος, kyrios) needs careful attention. In Joel this means calling out to Yahweh (יְהוָה), Israel’s God, for salvation. At a literary level, nothing in Peter’s speech up to this point would have anyone think otherwise about the meaning of this reference, because verse 20 speaks of the day of the Lord, which would be the day of God’s judgment. But one of the functions of the entire speech is to show that Jesus is Lord, a key title also applied to Yahweh. Peter will give Jesus a place alongside Yahweh as carrying out the plan and will make clear that the name one is to call on belongs to Jesus (Acts 2:38; 4:10–12).

Bock insists that Peter would have applied Joel 2:32 to the resurrected Christ in this way, although he would likely not have spoken the divine name--YHWH. So Bock thinks Peter's quotation of Joel is geared to demonstrate that Christ is LORD (YHWH). See Bock, Acts, Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2007 [2012].

Craig Keener (Acts--An Exegetical Commentary):

The expression “call on the Lord’s name” was familiar in Jewish texts, where it concerned especially praying to him,[642] as in the later Targum on this verse (Tg. Joel 3:5), or praise (Jdt 16:1). Luke’s term for “call upon” (ἐίικαλέω) could also apply to a formal appeal to Caesar (as in Acts 25:11–12, 21; 26:32; 28:19), but it is the Lord who could grant true deliverance. Peter’s sermon expounds at length on this final line from Joel, arguing that the Lord’s name on which his hearers must call in this salvific era is Jesus (2:21, 34, 38).[643] Thus Peter concludes by exhorting them to call on the Lord’s name by baptism in Jesus’s name (2:38).[644] After this Peter com- pletes his Joel quotation, picking up later in Joel’s sentence after the point where he broke off to begin expounding the last line he had quoted (2:39; see also comment there).[645] Cultic invocation of Jesus’s name appears elsewhere in Acts (22:16) and early Christianity (e.g., Rom 10:9, 13; cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 12:3; Phil 2:11); in this context, Jesus’s name is necessary for salvation (Acts 4:12), and in the immediate context, he is “Lord” (2:36).[646]

Peter Pett's Commentary:

To ‘call on the name of the Lord’ was to approach God in worship and to seek His mercy. Compare Genesis 4:26; Genesis 12:8; 2 Samuel 22:4; Psalms 55:16; Psalms 86:5; Psalms 105:1; Psalms 116:13; Psalms 116:17; Psalms 145:18). But here was probably the added idea that it was Jesus Who was the Lord Who had to be called on.

The Expositor's GT:

But just as in Romans 10:12 this same prophecy of Joel is beyond all doubt referred by St. Paul to the Lord Jesus, so here the whole drift of St. Peter’s speech, that the same Jesus who was crucified was made both Lord and Christ, points to the same conclusion, Acts 2:36. In Joel κύριος is undoubtedly used of the Lord Jehovah, and the word is here transferred to Christ. In its bearing on our Lord’s Divinity this fact is of primary importance, for it is not merely that the early Christians addressed their Ascended Lord so many times by the same name which is used of Jehovah in the LXX—although it is certainly remarkable that in 1 Thess. the name is applied to Christ more than twenty times—but that they did not hesitate to refer to Him the attributes and the prophecies which the great prophets of the Jewish nation had associated with the name of Jehovah, Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, pp. 8, 10, 16 (1894), and for the force of the expression, ἐπικ. τὸ ὄνομα, in 1 Corinthians 1:2, see Harnack, History of Dogma, i., p. 29, E.T.— ὃς ἂν ἐποκ., “whosoever”: it would seem that in St. Peter’s address the expression does not extend beyond the chosen people . . .

[Conzelmann; Haenchen]

Jehovah Sets Precedents? An Idea in Germ Form

A dear friend I knew some years ago, now deceased, used to tell me that she felt Jehovah sets precedents (always?) before he acts. I don't remember reading about this concept in WT literature, but it may be there. And frankly, I don't find the idea objectionable and it even seems scriptural. But I need to do more research, find the scriptural basis for believing that Jehovah sets precedents although the organization has written that Jehovah will set a precedent for all time to come, when he destroys Satan, his demons, and other rebels after the test mentioned in Revelation 20:7-10. Maybe Jehovah also set a precedent when he gave his Son to eradicate sin and death. See also Jude 1-7.

Edward P. Arbez and John P. Weisengoff: Notes on Genesis 1:1-2 (Screenshots)

Is It Possible That the Third Heaven Is Identical with Paradise in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4?

We find recurrent antecedents in Jewish writings that indicate paradise and the third heaven might be identical. See Andrew Lincoln, Paradise, page 6.

Compare Apocalypse of Moses 37.5; Life of Adam and Eve 25.3.

2 Baruch 51:11: For there shall be spread before them the extents of Paradise, and there shall be shown to them the beauty of the majesty of the living creatures which are beneath the throne and all the armies of the angels who are now held fast by my word, lest they should appear, and are held fast by a command, that they may stand in their places till their advent comes. http://www.cepher.net/2-baruch-51.aspx

Comments from the International Critical Commentary on 2 Corinthians:

εἰς τὸν παράδεισον. See on Luke 23:43 and Sewte on Revelation 2:7, the only other passages in N.T. in which παράδεισος occurs; also Hastings, DB. ii. pp. 668 f., DCG. ii. p. 318; Salmond, Christ. Doct. of Immortality, pp. 346 f. The word tells us little about the nature of the unseen world. In the O.T. it is used either of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9, Genesis 2:2:10, Genesis 2:15, etc.) or of a park or pleasure-ground (Song of Solomon 4:13; Ecclesiastes 2:5; Joel 2:3; etc.); but it represents three or four different Hebrew words. We must leave open the question as to whether St Paul regards paradise and the third heaven as identical, or as quite different, or as one containing the other, for there is no clue to the answer. See Int. Journal of Apocrypha, July 1914, pp. 74 f.

Robert Thomas' Exegetical Treatment of Revelation 4:11

The combination ēsan kai ektisthēsan has occasioned various explanations. One takes the former verb to express the existence of creation in the will of God before its actual existence and the latter verb to refer to the actual creation (Swete; Charles). In other words, ēsan looks back to the eternal past and ektisthēsan pictures the genesis of nature (Swete). This view furnishes a possible explanation of the imperfect tense of ēsan, but it introduces into the context a completely foreign element, the thought of the potential existence of cre- ation (Beckwith). The imperfect tense could just as well view the state of creation immediately after the initial creative act. Another approach to this combination of verbs has been to understand the second as explanatory of the first.¹⁰⁷ Existence, first thought of as an accomplished fact, is made more specific by the latter verb (Beckwith). This proposal is modeled after the creation account in Genesis where the general description of man's creation in Genesis 1 is followed by a more detailed account in Genesis 2 (Charles; Beckwith; Ladd). The debilitating deficiency of this view is the difference between the two verbs. They convey two significantly distinct thoughts, and construing the latter as elaboration of the former is impossible. A third explanation for the two-verb combination is the figure of hysteron proteron, because of the non-chronological arrangement of the two: certainly the τίσις (ktisis, “creation”) must exist before one can say ēsan. The latter verb is proposed to be the act of creation, and the former one the process of creation (Moffatt). Though hysteron proteron is a common literary device of this author (cf. Rev. 3:9, 17) (Beckwith), it is unnecessary to resort to it because of the reverse chronological sequence of the two verbs. The writer may be thinking logically rather than chronologically. The simplest and most satisfactory explanation is that the two verbs speak of the simple fact of the creation's existence (ēsan) and then of the fact of the beginning of its existence (ektisthēsan) (Alford; Ladd). All created things (ta panta) existed in contrast to their prior nonexistence, and God gave them that existence by a specific act of His own power.

Thomas quotes Henry Alford. Here's what he writes about Revelation 4:11:

The elders, though themselves belonging to creation, in this ascription of praise look on creation from without, and that thanksgiving, which creation renders for its being, becomes in their view a tribute to Him who called them into being, and thus a testimony to His creative power. And thus the reason follows): because Thou didst create all things (τὰ πάντα, “this universal whole,” the universe), and on account of Thy will (i. e. because Thou didst will it: “propter voluntatem tuam,” as Vulg.: not durch Deinen Willen, as Luther, which represents διὰ with a gen. “For thy pleasure,” of the E. V., introduces an element entirely strange to the context, and however true in fact, most inappropriate here, where the ὅτι renders a reason for the ἀξιότης of ἡ δόξα, ἡ τιμή, and ἡ δύναμις) they were (ἦσαν, not = ἐγενήθησαν, came into being, as De W., al.: for this it cannot signify: nor again, though thus the requirement of ἦσαν would be satisfied, as Lyra, “in dispositione tua ab æterno, antequam crearentur:” nor, as Grot., “erant jam homines quia tu volueras, et conditi sunt, id est, iterum conditi, per Christum:” nor again as Bengel, “all things were, from the creation down to the time of this ascription of praise and henceforward.” The best explanation is that of Düsterd., they existed, as in contrast to their previous non-existence: whereby not their coming into being, but the simple fact of their being, is asserted.

The remarkable reading οὐκ ἦσαν is worth notice: “by reason of Thy will they were not, and were created:” i. e. “they were created out of nothing.” But besides the preponderance of authority the other way, there is the double chance, that οὐκ may have arisen from the preceding ου, and that it may have been an escape from the difficulty of ἦσαν) and were created (they both had their being,— ἦσαν; and received it from Thee by a definite act of Thine,— ἐκτίσθησαν).

Sources:

Henry Alford, "Commentary on Revelation 4:4." Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/revelation-4.html. 1863-1878.

Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

________________. Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

Scholarly Suggestions Pertaining to Revelation 4:11

Greek (NA28): ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν, λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν, ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν.

Grant Osborne (Baker Exegetical Commentary):

Many have noted the strange order in the two final verbs; one would expect them to be reversed, with the act of creation preceding the existence of creation. Some (R. Charles, Swete, Mounce) interpret ἦσαν as teaching the preexistence of creation in the mind of God, the potential of existence before it was created. This is ingenious but unnecessary. It is far simpler to note the ABA pattern and see ἐκτίσθησαν (ektisthēsan, were created) as restating the “created all things” of the first element. We do not have chronology here but rather a logical order (so Ladd 1972:78; Thomas 1992:368). God is creator and sustainer of the whole of creation. As Beale (1999:335) says, the purpose “is to emphasize preservation because the pastoral intention throughout the book is to encourage God's people to recognize that everything that happens to them throughout history is part of God’s creation purposes.”

R. Dean Davis, "The Heavenly Court Scene of Revelation 4-5,"(pages 229-230): Several scholars have made reference to a problem in the words of praise of the second hymn: "for thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created" (4:11). They believe these words suggest that all things existed before they were created. Some manuscripts try to solve the problem by substituting εἰσίν ("are") for ἦσαν ("were") or placing οὐκ ("not") before ἦσαν ("were"). The real solution, however, appears to be one of the following: (1) Hebrew parallelism is present here; (2 ) the καί ("and") is epexegetical; or (3) the two clauses are a hysteron proteron in which there is Inversion of the logical sequence. Beckwith has demonstrated that this inversion is a common feature of Revelation.

Sources:

Davis, R. Dean, "The Heavenly Court Scene of Revelation 4-5" (1986). Dissertations. Paper 31.

Osborne, Grant. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Talk Regarding the Pattern That Jesus Left for Us (John 13:15; 1 Peter 2:21)

A good instructor knows that students learn best from patterns or examples: instructors may provide examples regarding how to solve math problems, then the students are asked to try solving the problems by following the teacher's example. Similarly, our Leader and Teacher Jesus Christ left a pattern for his disciples to follow (1 Peter 2:21). But how in particular did he leave this pattern for us?

Notice the lesson that he stated in John 13:5: the most frequently used footwear in ancient Israel was the sandal. Since sandals were just made of straps attached to one's soles and ankles, this meant that a traveler's feet would usually get dusty or dirty with ease as he walked in the ancient eastern world. Because sandals usually got so dirty, and rather quickly at that, it was common for a guest to take them off when entering a home. A host might then wash the feet of his guest or have someone else to perform the task. Hence, the Bible famously mentions this practice at a number of places (Genesis 18:4, 5; 24:32; 1 Samuel 25:41).

Why did Jesus wash the feet of his followers? Why would a Master wash the feet of his disciples? It was an object lesson that illustrated humility. Reading John 13 bears out this point.

(Read John 13:12-14)

By saying, "you also should wash the feet of one another," Jesus stressed the obligation that his followers have to deal humbly with one another. The Greek verb translated "should" at times refers to a financial debt, but in John 13:14, Jesus stresses the moral debt that his disciples owe each other; it is a debt to exercise humility and modesty in the service of our God (Micah 6:8).

Yet the verse that pinpoints how Jesus left a pattern for his disciples to follow is John 13:15: "For I set the pattern for you, that just as I did to you, you should also do"

What a powerful lesson in humility shown by Jesus as he washed his disciples' feet. His example demonstrates the importance of not striving to earn positions, prestige or futile honor. Instead, Christians serve each other just like Jesus ministered to his followers (Matthew 20:28). He set the pattern: his followers then imitate what the Instructor does. Jesus' actions likewise remind Christians to perform the humblest services for one another.

Yet how can disciples of Christ apply the principles that he taught regarding humility?

The Apostle Peter taught that humility is key to being an approved worshiper of Jehovah. See 1 Peter 5:1-7, where the inspired writer urges ancient Christians to be humble in imitation of Christ.