Craig Keener's Thoughts for Matthew 4:8-10 (Pages 86-7)

For the third temptation, the devil took Jesus “to a very high mountain” (v. 8). Again, this is visionary, so we should not expect to be able to identify a specific mountain in or near Israel. Nevertheless, “high” mountains do figure significantly in Jewish traditions (see Isa 40:9; Ezek 17:23; 20:40; 40:2; Bar 5:7). Two passages from intertestamental writings could be especially pertinent. The patriarch Levi describes a dream: “And I beheld a high mountain, and I was upon it” (T. Levi 2:5). A vision is explained to Enoch: “This high mountain which you have seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is his throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when he shall come down to visit the earth with goodness” (1 Enoch 25:3).
The devil showed Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor” (v. 8). Taking Jesus up to a high mountain, that he may see “all the kingdoms of the world,” may allude to Deut 34:1–4, where God showed Moses the length and breadth of the Promised Land. But the parallel is inexact, for the devil shows Jesus the kingdoms of the world, not the land of Israel, and offers to give them to him, not withhold them. We should understand these kingdoms as Gentile kingdoms, some of which have oppressed Israel and some, like the Roman Empire, that still do. The devil promises to give “all these” to Jesus. This is a dream offer for a would-be messianic leader of Israel itching to throw off the Gentile yoke. The language of the devil’s offer, “all these I will give you,” parallels the Testament of Job, in which the devil gains authority over all that Job owns (T. Job 8:1–3; 16:2).

Introduction to Ephesians (Adaptation of a Talk)

1) What is the sacred secret (τὸ μυστήριον)?

2) What is Jehovah's administration (οἰκονομίαν)?

3) How can each of us promote unity in Jehovah's organization today?

Eph. 1:8-9, the sacred secret involves the messianic kingdom ruled by Jesus Christ and his 144,000 co-rulers.

Mark 4:11 links the sacred secret with God's kingdom when Jesus there exclaims to his disciples: “To you the sacred secret of the kingdom of God has been given.”​

Compare Ephesians 3:4-6.

In a similar manner, Jehovah's sacred secret and his administration are intimately related. Continuing with Eph. 1:10, we read that Jehovah purposed . . . (read Eph. 1:10)

So what is this administration? It is God's arrangement for unifying all his intelligent creatures, both the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. This administration will carry out its objective in two stages. The first stage prepares the sacred congregation of anointed ones for life in heaven under Jesus Christ as their spiritual Head. This stage began at Pentecost 33 C.E. when Jehovah started to gather those who would rule with Christ in heaven. (Acts 2:1-4) Since the anointed have been declared righteous for life on the basis of Christ’s ransom sacrifice, they heartily accept their standing as “God’s children.”​—Rom. 3:23, 24; 5:1; 8:15-17.

The second stage of Jehovah's administration prepares those who will dwell in Paradise on earth under Christ’s Messianic Kingdom. The “great crowd” comprise the initial part of this group. (Rev. 7:9, 13-17; 21:1-5)

During the Thousand Year Reign, they will be joined by billions of resurrected ones. (Rev. 20:12, 13) Imagine how the resurrection will further demonstrate our unity! At the end of the thousand years, the “things on the earth” will be subjected to a final test. Those proving faithful will be adopted as earthly “children of God.”​—Rom. 8:21; Rev. 20:7, 8.

Both stages of God’s administration are concurrently developing today​—the heavenly and earthly parts.

Galatians 2:11-14 ( Adaptation of a Talk)

What lessons can we learn from Paul's inspired letter to the Galatians?

Read Galatians 2:11-13.

Did you notice why Peter refused to associate with his gentile brothers when circumcised Christians were around? Peter trembled at men, thereby giving way to the snare mentioned in Prov. 29:25. Despite his firsthand knowledge of Jehovah’s thinking on the matter, Peter feared the opinion of circumcised Jewish brothers from Jerusalem (men from James). So Paul resisted him face-to-face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην). What possibly accounted for Peter's fear of the men from James?

Ronald Y.K. Fung offers this suggestion:

Peter's "fear" may have been no more than a genuine concern lest he, who was head of the "home mission" work of the Jerusalem church (cf. 2:7), should appear to be (and be reported as) apostatizing from Judaism and thus prove a stumbling-block to those whom he was seeking to evangelize. But the actual term used ("he was afraid"; phoboumenos) suggests a rather stronger emotional reaction and makes it plausible that there was more to the message from James than was suggested above: if that message had also appealed to Peter's concern for the physical safety of the Jewish Christian churches in Judea, which were already in considerable jeopardy from nonChristian Jews (cf. 5:11; 6:12) as a result of the increasing rumors of Jewish Christian fraternizing with uncircumcised Gentiles in Antioch and Galatia, this would provide further explanation for Peter's behavior.

Whatever caused Peter's fear, Paul felt the need to correct Peter because he avoided the non-Jewish brothers when the circumcised brothers were around. How would Peter respond to Paul's strong counsel?

Please notice Galatians 2:14

Although Peter demonstrated the fear of man sometimes, he never forsook Jehovah or Jesus. For example, Peter publicly denied his Master, not just once, but three times. (Luke 22:54-62) Later, Simon Peter treated gentile Christians as if they were somehow less than circumcised Jewish Christians. But the apostle Paul did not tolerate such class distinctions in the congregation (compare James 2:1-4). Before Peter's conduct could spoil the brotherhood, Paul summoned up the necessary boldness to counsel Peter directly, that is, face-to-face--and he counseled Peter in front of all the brothers at Antioch. (Gal. 2:11-14)

How did Peter respond to Paul's strong rebuke? Did he take offense and decide to quit being a Christian?

We know that Peter seriously considered Paul’s counsel, applied it, and kept running in the race for life. See Proverbs 19:20. May we imitate his fine example.

Physis and Nature

I thought you might enjoy this tidbit from Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon. The information can be found under semantic domain 58.8:

"φύσις,εως f: the nature of something as the result of its natural development or condition--'nature.' τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς 'beings who by nature are not gods' Ga 4.8; θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως 'sharers in the divine nature' 2 Pe 1.4.

For languages in which there is really no ready equivalent to the lexical term 'nature,' it may be possible to render the expression in Ga 4.8 as 'beings who are really not gods,' and in 2 Pe 1.4 one may translate 'to share in what God is like' or 'to be like God in certain ways.'"

What the Word "Subsistence" Means in Trinitarian Lingo

I would say that "subsistencies" within a Trinitarian context means "divine persons." For a number of Trinitarians, subsistencies are persons and persons are subsistencies (a convertible proposition)--the denotation "person" for
subsistentia is a familiar one to those who have studied Latin theology.

In this regard, I notice that the Iconoclastic Council of 754 professes:

"They [the Nestorians] fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity."

The same council declared:

"If anyone shall not confess, according to the tradition of the Apostles and Fathers, in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost one godhead, nature and substance, will and operation, virtue and dominion, kingdom and power in three subsistencies, that is in their most glorious Persons, let him be anathema."

Another source (The Belgic Confession, Article 8) provides this understanding of the tripersonal deity:

Nevertheless, this [triune] distinction does not divide God into three, since Scripture teaches us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each has a distinct subsistence distinguished by characteristics—yet in such a way that these three persons are only one God.

It is evident then that the Father is not the Son and that the Son is not the Father, and that likewise the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.

We close with these observations from Calvin:

"But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence, - a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God. When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.13.6).

Species of Dualism: Substance Versus Hylemorphic Dualism

I believe that dualism is false, but to be fair, not all dualistic thought belongs to the same genus. There are various species of dualism such as substance dualism, emergent dualism, and property dualism. Edward Feser even speaks of hylomorphism in dualistic terms, calling it "hylemorphic dualism" (also spelled hylomorphic). So what is the difference between substance dualism and the other dualistic variants?

The most famous advocate of substance dualism has to be Rene Descartes (1596-1650 CE), a French philosopher known as "the father of modern philosophy." Cogito, ergo sum is likewise forever anchored to our memory of Descartes. That famous dictum sheds light on one aspect of Cartesian dualism (substance dualism). Why is that the case? Because Descartes proposes two substances that exhaust creaturely reality: res extensa and res cogitans.

Res extensa refers to extended substance (which is unthinking and exemplified by material substances), and res cogitans refers to thinking substance (soul or mind). In classical thought, a substance is a thing that bears properties, but cannot be borne as a property itself. For example, a table is capable of bearing properties that might include color, molecularity, being made of wood, having legs, and it bears the property of extension. On the other hand, res cogitans is non-extended, mental, incorporeal, and rational. Descartes contends that God creates both res extensa and res cogitans; however, God himself is transcendent and uncreated substance--the supreme being.

In contrast to substance dualism, hylomorphism submits that material objects constitute matter and form unities: for example, the matter of a tree is united with the form of treeness to comprise one hylomorphic compound. By "matter" (hyle), Aristotle possibly signifies the "stuff" out of which a material object is composed; on the other hand, "form" (morphe) denotes what an object is. It signifies the essence or substance of a material object. A tree is material or physical, but its treeness presumably is not. In any event, hylemorphic dualism is not the same as substance dualism.

See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/03/variant-kinds-of-dualism-kevin-corcoran.html

Compare https://www.newdualism.org/papers/D.Oderberg/HylemorphicDualism2.htm

Some Thoughts on Proverbs 9:10

James Moffatt's OT: "To know the Deity is what knowledge means."

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible: "The beginning of wisdom, is the reverence of Yahweh, and, the knowledge of the Holy, is understanding"

Roland Murphy and Elizabeth Huwiler: Verse 10 is a key statement for understanding verses 7–12. Holy One is literally the plural (of majesty) as in 30:3b. Knowledge of the Holy One is a definition of fear of the LORD. As always, knowledge is practical, active, and reverent.

Jewish Encyclopedia Entry for "Fear of God": "The Hebrew equivalent of "religion." It is the mainspring of religion, morality, and wisdom, and is productive of material prosperity and well-being. Who fears God will refrain from doing the things that would be displeasing to Him, the things that would make himself unworthy of God's regard."

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

Luke T. Johnson's Remarks About Luke 17:21

The kingdom of God is among you: This saying is unique to Luke and has been interpreted in several ways. The critical problem is the understanding of entos hymon. Some read this as "within you" as though the rule of God were a spiritual awareness. This fits the sense of the Greek adverb (cf. e.g., Matt 23:26), but it does not do as well with the plural pronoun "you," or the narrative context of Luke, in which such a statement to the Pharisees would be unthinkable. The present translation follows the majority opinion that the adverb entos with the plural pronoun should have the sense of "among you." This makes good sense of the narrative context: Jesus tells the Pharisees that the kingdom is forming around the prophet even in their midst, yet they cannot see it for what it is.

Source: Luke T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina Series), page 263.

Cindy L. Westfall Explains the Aorist Qua Default "Tense"

Victor Hamilton on Exodus 34:27-28

If Moses is the writer referred to in v. 27, the Lord must be the subject referred to in v. 28b. There are several reasons for this (Moberly 1983: 103). First, in “he was there . . . he ate . . . he drank . . . he wrote,” one might expect that because the first three subjects of the verb are Moses, then more than likely Moses is also the subject of the fourth “he.” This is not necessarily so. Hebrew can shift the subject of third-person verb within the same sentence without clearly indicating so, such as we observed in 34:5 (see comments there). Second, making the Lord the subject of the verb in v. 28b makes the claim of that verse consistent with 34:1 (and with Deut. 10:4). Otherwise, there is a blatant inconsistency between the identity of the writer of the Decalogue in 34:1 and 34:28b. Third, in v. 27 the Lord tells Moses to write down “these words” (2x), while v. 28 uses other phraseology, “the words of the covenant—the Ten Words.” If Moses is the writer in v. 28b, then one would expect the language to echo v. 27, that is, “And he [Moses] wrote these words.” Fourth, the note in v. 28a (Moses’s forty-day fast) would more than likely have followed v. 28b rather than preceded it, if Moses were the writer in v. 27 and 28b. Why break up two references to the same author’s scribal activities through this parenthetical remark?

See Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary.

Paul and the Temple of God

Dear blog readers,

Here is an essay that I wrote in the nineties. I have not completely polished it up yet, but I think the work contains a number of points that some might find interesting.

Best,
Edgar
_______________________________________________

The Temple of God

Anointed Christians have been given a wonderful trust: they have the inestimable privilege of comprising a temple class. Paul discusses this figurative temple of God in 1 Corinthians 3, thereby demonstrating the importance of treating God's sacred edifice with respect. We ultimately learn that both the anointed and the great crowd have the responsibility of being holy as God is holy (1 Peter 1:14-16).

"Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16 NABRE)

In the past humans worshiped God at different material temples and sanctuaries. The Garden of Eden was the first sanctuary of God: it is also conceivable that Melchizedek worshiped Jehovah in an earthly sanctuary. Furthermore, as time progressed, God ordered the Israelites to build the tabernacle in the wilderness and to construct Solomon's temple on Zion. In Ezekiel 40, the ancient prophet of God was shown a glorious temple and blessed with a grand tour of it. In the NT, Hebrews 8 discusses the true tent that God built in heaven--all of these structures enjoyed divine approval and were used as approved sanctuaries. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul focuses on a different temple: this temple is comprised of living stones.

"And, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet.2:5 NAB)

The living stones that compose God's temple have been anointed with the holy spirit; all persons in this group have experienced the special work described at 2 Cor. 1:21, 22:

"But the one who gives us security with you in Christ and who anointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment." (NAB)

This Scripture makes it plain that God works through His anointed congregation since the spirit is not given apart from the temple of God, the "place" in which the spirit of God dwells.

"Through him [Christ] the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." (Eph. 2:21, 22 NAB).

John also professes: "But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge . . . As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you." (1 Jn. 2:20, 27).

These scriptures indicate that God does not work through individuals only, especially through individuals who are not part of the spirit-anointed congregation or associated with it. As a group, God's children have been appointed as stewards of the sacred secrets of God. Jehovah imparts His sacred secrets to the chosen ones (1 Cor. 4:1, 2). With knowledge, however, comes both privileges and responsibilities. In 1 Cor. 3:17, Paul helps us to appreciate what our privileges and duties are toward God.

"If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy." (1 Cor. 3:17) These apostolic words echo the sentiments of 1 Chronicles 16:22: "Touch not my anointed, and to my prophets do no harm." (NAB).

It is a very serious matter for anyone to try wreaking havoc on the temple of God, in any way. Whether one persecutes or opposes those who are part of the true temple, or whether someone attempts to denigrate the congregation of anointed ones--the outcome is the same: if anyone tries to destroy God's temple, God will deal accordingly with that person.

When Paul wrote those words to the Christians in Corinth, there were members of the temple itself, who were doing things to destroy the temple of God. The Corinthians were engaging in schisms and immorality; they were taking their brothers to court and they were not applying biblical standards in their respective marriages. All such actions could result in the destruction of the temple. How apropos Paul's words were! As Christians, we have a responsibility to remain holy before our God. May Paul's warning make us endeavor to uphold holiness in the Christian congregation. In the NAB, an interesting comment appears, "Holy: belonging to God." Since anointed Christians belong to God, may all such ones, as well as the other sheep, remain holy before God.

"What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God." (2 Cor. 6:16 NAB)

1 Corinthians 15:58--The Work of the Lord

I find it intriguing that the apostle Paul does not explicitly define the Lord's work in 1 Cor. 15:58. Another question I've long had about this verse is how do we know the Lord, in this case, is Jehovah. Could it be Jesus Christ instead, whom God made Kurios? Here's what others have written about 15:58.

NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible:

15:58 your labor in the Lord is not in vain. Speakers and writers often concluded a work or a section with a summary statement (cf. the risk of acting in vain in vv. 2,14,17); conclusions sometimes offered exhortations. Many people who believed in future judgment thought that those who did not (such as Sadducees or Epicureans) lacked reasons to behave morally. In view of the future resurrection of the body, which will last forever, believers should live wholly for Christ (cf. 6:13 – 14).

Expositor's Greek Testament:

περισσεύοντες κ.τ.λ. adds the positive to the foregoing negative side of the injunction: “abounding (overflowing: see parls.) in the work of the Lord always”. τ. ἔργον τ. Κυρίου (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1; Colossians 3:23 f., Matthew 21:28, Mark 13:34) is “the work” which “the Lord” prescribes, while “the work of God” (Romans 14:20 : cf. Romans 3:9 above) is “the work” which “God” does: contrast 1 Corinthians 12:5-6 above.—“Knowing (as you do) that your toil is not empty in the Lord.” εἰδότες implies assured knowledge, such as springs from the confirmation of faith given in this chap. On κόπος, see note to 1 Corinthians 3:8; and on κενός, 1 Corinthians 15:14 : the “toil” is “empty” which is spent on illusion; “ce n’est pas là une activité d’apparat, accomplie dans le néant, comme si souvent le travail terrestre, mais un sérieux labeur, accompli dans la sphère de l’éternelle réalité” (Gd[2590]); hence the pr[2591] ἐστὶν rather than ἔσται.—ἐν Κυρίῳ: in the sphere of Christ’s authority, wrought under His headship, which supplies the basis of all Christian relations and duties; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:36, 1 Corinthians 4:17, 1 Corinthians 7:22, etc.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, page 608:

The phrase to ergon tou kyriou, “the work of the Lord,” will appear again in 16:10 as a way of expressing the evangelical ministry, in which both Paul and Timothy are engaged. Cf. Phil 3:30 [sic], where Epaphroditus’s ministry is characterized as “the work of Christ.” In each case, the subj. gen. expresses the one who has assigned the task to Paul, Timothy, or Epaphroditus. Here the phrase has a broader comprehension, denoting all that Corinthian Christians do in their service of the Lord, and the gen. is rather objective. Such service is more important than all disputatious denials of the resurrection of the dead or queries about its nature; that is why Paul recommends it to them.

Note the variants for Philippians 2:30 (not 3:30):
https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp|reference=Phil.2.30&options=GNHVU

David E. Garland on 1 Corinthians 11:1

Paul often calls on his charges to follow his example or commends them for already doing so (4:6, 16–17; 7:7; Gal. 4:12; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:6–9). This appeal was a common literary and hortatory motif in antiquity (B. Dodd 1999: 16–18; see also Fiore 1986: 26–163), but it takes a different twist in light of the divine command “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:26; cf. Matt. 5:48) and Paul’s assertion that he follows the example of Christ. He is to be followed only insofar as he adheres to the divine standard set forth by Christ. As the Corinthians' founding apostle, he revealed that standard to them by preaching the crucified Christ and ing [sic] what that means. Following his example in this instance entails two things: (1) submitting to his authority (see Michaelis, TDNT 4:668–69) and his injunctions to dissociate themselves from anything overtly connected to idolatry; and (2) imitating his personal example by forgoing the exercise of perceived rights so that one achieves a greater benefit for others.

See David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2013 edition (eBook).

Aorist As the Default Greek Tense (Jeannine K. Brown)

Truth-Functional Logic

I teach formal logic from time to time, and the course involves discussing truth-functional logic. One example of a truth-functional statement might be, "If it is raining, then the grass is wet." You could rewrite this conditional statement as r------->w. In other words, express an "if . . . then" statement by using truth-functional connectives (symbols that connect utterances/compound utterances).

Another example could be, "John and Carol are home" which could be symbolized as J & C. So, you're taking wordy sentences and reducing them to variables coupled with symbols.

For more information, see https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms2.htm

William R.G. Loader Discusses Genesis 1 & 2 (Imaging God)

Genesis 1:28: Replenish or Fill?

Robert Alter uses "fill" in Genesis 1:28. The Hebrew word is מָלָא

See Genesis 1:22.

KJV: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Alter: "And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and conquer it, and hold sway over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the heavens and every beast that crawls upon the earth.'"

Brown-Driver and Briggs:

2 transitive fill, of populating sea and earth Genesis 1:22,28; Genesis 9:1 (all P); consecrate מִלְאוּ יֶדְכֶם ליהוה; (literally fill the hand) Exodus 32:29 (compare below); especially of glory of ׳י filling tabernacle and temple; Exodus 40:34,35 (P) 1 Kings 8:10,11, compare Isaiah 6:1; see also Jeremiah 23:24, especially literal Ezekiel 10:3; Ezekiel 43:5;Ezekiel 44:4; 2 Chronicles 5:14; 7:1,2; followed by 2 accusative fill jars (with) water 1 Kings 18:34; absolute overflow עַלכָּֿלגְּֿדוֺתָיו ׳מ Joshua 3:15 (compare 1 Chronicles 12:16.

Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: See https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H4390&t=KJV

Apocope in the New Testament--2 Corinthians 12:7?

Merriam-Webster definition for "apocope": the loss of one or more sounds or letters at the end of a word (as in sing from Old English singan)

Another example of apocope is "photo" for photograph.

I've wondered if apocope occurs in the Bible. Are there examples of this linguistic phenomenon?


Johann Bengel invokes 2 Corinthians 12:7 as an example:

The word σατᾶν only occurs in the LXX. twice or thrice, and that too as indeclinable; but σατανᾶς is declined in thirty-four places in the New Testament, and among these, nine times by Paul; and in this single passage it is used as an indeclinable noun, by a well-weighed apocope [the loss of a syllable at the end], certainly not without good reason. ἄγγελος σατᾶν then does not seem in this passage to be in apposition, as if it were said the angel Satan for the devil, for the devil is nowhere called an angel, but he himself has his angels. Therefore Satan is either a proper name in the genitive or an adjective in the nominative, so that there is denoted either an angel sent by Satan or a very destructive angel, an angel like Satan himself or the devil, as distinguished from the fact of his being sent by Satan.

W.H.C. Frend's "The Rise of Christianity" (A Review)

I review The Rise of Christianity (Fortress Press: 1984) in this entry. Never has a more vivid and prosaic account of Christianity been written: everyone fascinated by the church's early growth will want to purchase this tome.

Introductory Remarks

The late W. H. C. Frend's classic work on Christianity's ascent from a first-century movement based in Palestine to a universal religion with increasing social power should be read by students and scholars of early Christian history. The book is over 1000-pages long, it has a copious amount of scholarly notes at the end of each chapter, contains helpful bibliographies, maps, a synopsis of events and two indices (subject and name indexes). Moreover, Frend's approach is objective. Another plus is that his method entails a consideration of early Christianity's primary sources. I will admit that the book is not an easy read; on the other hand, it contains material that's indispensable for ecclesiastical historians.

Specific Contents of The Rise of Christianity

Frend's study begins with the Jewish background of Christianity which leads to his chronicling Israel's Babylonian Captivity, the Maccabean Revolt, and the Jewish Diaspora. Frend then focuses on Jesus of Nazareth's baptism as well as the temptations of Jesus that the Gospels report. The relationship between Jesus and John the Baptizer is explored as well as Jesus' role qua "martyr prophet." But this section could have been developed in more detail.

In this historical account written by Frend, we learn about the apostolic deeds of Paul and his ministry to the ancient world. Frend's account of Paul includes the liturgy, Christian baptism and the apostle's conception of the Eucharist.

A movement known as Gnosticism was viewed with suspicion by early Christians from its inception. Gnosticism later was branded a heresy by the ancient church since it advocated mystical knowledge at odds with ecclesiastical teaching. Frend's book provides helpful details about Gnosticism, then we are treated to a rehearsal of the details concerning the Decian Persecution (249-251 CE).

Frend's chapter on the Constantinian Revolution (305-330 CE) is also informative. It sheds light on the Donatist movement and the Arian Controversy, which resulted in the ecumenical council of Nicaea (325 CE). At that time, the council decided that the Son of God was "begotten" and consubstantial with the Father rather than "made."

The book concludes with an exploration of an early group called the Monophysites, who believed that Jesus had one nature--a divine one. Historical details on Saint Benedict and monasticism are told. Frend's account is detailed, erudite, and well researched. I would highly recommend this scholarly resource to advanced readers of church history.

B.B. Warfield Discusses the "God is love" Argument for the Trinity

Our sympathies go out to that old Valentinian writer — possibly it was Valentinus himself — who reasoned — perhaps he was the first so to reason — that “God is all love,” “but love is not love unless there be an object of love.” And they go out more richly still to Augustine, when, seeking a basis, not for a theory of emanations, but for the doctrine of the Trinity, he analyzes this love which God is into the triple implication of “the lover,” “the loved” and “the love itself,” and sees in this trinary of love an analogue of the Triune God. It requires, however, only that the argument thus broadly suggested should be developed into its details for its artificiality to become apparent. Richard of Victor works it out as follows: It belongs to the nature of amor that it should turn to another as caritas. This other, in God’s case, cannot be the world; since such love of the world would be inordinate. It can only be a person; and a person who is God’s equal in eternity, power and wisdom. Since, however, there cannot be two divine substances, these two divine persons must form one and the same substance. The best love cannot, however, confine itself to these two persons; it must become condilectio by the desire that a third should be equally loved as they love one another. Thus love, when perfectly conceived, leads necessarily to the Trinity, and since God is all He can be, this Trinity must be real. Modern writers (Sartorius, Schoberlein, J. Muller, Liebner, most lately R. H. Grutzmacher) do not seem to have essentially improved upon such a statement as this. And after all is said, it does not appear clear that God’s own all-perfect Being could not supply a satisfying object of His all-perfect love. To say that in its very nature love is self-communicative, and therefore implies an object other than self, seems an abuse of figurative language.

See https://bbwarfield.com/works/trinity/

Review of Matthew Barrett's "None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God"

Matthew Barrett, None Greater: The Undomesticated Attributes of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2019), 283 pp.

One common theme in the philosophy of religion and theology is the divine attributes. I can readily think of numerous studies written by Gary Rosenkrantz and Joshua Hoffman, Edward Wierenga, Millard Erickson, and Gerard Hughes, so this new book by Barrett caught my attention--especially in view of open theistic beliefs and process theology.

Barrett writes from a Reformed standpoint: his stance is rooted in classical theology. Chapter 1 explores divine incomprehensibility. He ponders whether it's possible to know God's essence? The answer given is that God is utterly incomprehensible; in the words of Calvin, we must not speculate on the essence of God, but simply adore it.

Chapter 3 investigates whether God is the perfect being, an entity without limitations. Those familiar with Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument for God's existence will be familiar with Barrett's reasoning in the chapter. While I think most western theists would have no problem conceiving God as infinite, what the term means when applied to God is by no means clear and distinct. Compare Richard Swinburne's The Coherence of Theism.

I cannot help but find Barrett's choice of subject matter interesting whether I agree with him or not: he discusses aseity in Chapter 4, meaning God's self-existence and self-sufficiency (i.e., God doesn't need his creation). Classical theists will agree that God did not need pre-existing matter to make the cosmos--nor is God a contingent being like the beings he's created. However, as if aseity is not complex or controversial enough, Barrett introduces a section about the Trinity, eternal generation and eternal spiration. While that section gives Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian thinkers something to gnaw on, the imposition seems unnecessary in a chapter that's complex enough.

The remaining attributes probed are divine simplicity, immutability, impassibility, timeless eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnisapience, righteousness, goodness, love, jealousy, and glory. The book contains a glossary, notes, and a bibliography. Those who like divine attribute analyses will probably like Barrett's approach. If one is more favorable toward open theism or likes the thought of God having self-imposed limitations, then you'll find plenty of statements to critique. Moreover, the book is not strictly academic but becomes devotional at certain points. All in all, I think Barrett is worth reading.

I received this book free from the publisher, but I was not required to write a positive review.

Mark Rooker Analyzes Exodus 20:5

Not only are we not to make any image of a god, but we are also forbidden to bow down and worship an existing image (Exod 20:5). The word translated “bow down” (wh) is a unique verb in that it is the only root attested in the rare shafel stem in the Old Testament.12 The verb occurs 170 times in the Old Testament with the meaning of “bow down” or “prostrate oneself,” whether out of respect to a human superior or in obeisance to a god. For example, the Israelites “bowed down” to the image of the golden calf (Exod 32:8). They bowed to the lîlîm made by human hands (Isa 2:8) and to a carved image (Isa 44:15,17). “Bowing down” is a religious gesture that conveys homage and reverence. Idolatry involves “bowing down” in reference to the worship of the stars (Deut 4:19; Jer 8:2) and the worship in a pagan temple (2 Kgs 5:18). But it is fitting for worshippers to “bow down” to Yahweh, the true God (Gen 24:26,48,52; Ps 99:9). Many times this action of bowing down includes placing one’s face to the ground (Gen 18:2; 19:1; 24:52; 42:6; Isa 49:23). We are not only not to bow before idols but also not to “worship them” or “serve them” (bd). The root (bd) often occurs with wh (bow down) in reference to the worship of other gods.13 The verb bd (“worship”) frequently has Yahweh as its object. We see this early in the book of Exodus as we learn that the Israelites will worship God on Mount Sinai (Exod 3:12; 4:23; 7:16; 8:1[7:26]; 8:20[16]; 9:1,13; 10:3,7,8,11,24,26; 12:31).14 For the Israelites to turn back after being delivered from Egyptian bondage (bdîm) and serve other gods would be to reverse the exodus.15 The verb bd (“serve”) can be distinguished from the verb wh (“bow down”) by the fact that wh refers to prostration, whereas bd often refers to making offerings (Exod 10:26; Isa 19:21). As with wh (“to bow down”), the word for worship (bd) has a nontheological usage as it refers to serving kings and political suzerains, which may involve paying tribute (Gen 27:29; Ps 72:11).16

Rooker, Mark. The Ten Commandments: Ethics for the Twenty-First Century (New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology) (Kindle Locations 807-827). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Albert Barnes, John 1:14, and the Incarnatio Christi

Like a lot of things posted here, this blog entry is the first word rather than the last about the subject:

I want to deal with the language of "assumption" that is used by those who advocate the Incarnation of Christ. But first I want to clarify why I raised the problem of the Logos becoming flesh. Here is a quote from Barnes' Notes on the Bible about John 1:14 that I find somewhat troubling:

"The expression, then, means that he became a man, and that he became such by the power of God providing for him a body. It cannot mean that the divine nature was 'changed' into the human, for that could not be; but it means that the λόγος Logos, or 'Word,' became so intimately united to Jesus that it might be said that the Logos, or 'Word' 'became' or 'was' a man, as the soul becomes so united to the body that we may say that it is one person or a man."

1. So the Word "became" a man by virtue of the fact that God provided a body for him (according to Barnes). In other words, the bodiless (incorporeal) Logos became or was embodied by divine power, but he became flesh (came to have a body) without any change occurring respecting his deity. It's still difficult for me to understand how this event/action transpired without any change occurring to a divine person, which by definition would represent an alteration to his deity. If C (a change) happens to a human person (P), then C happens to his humanity (H). I have read assertions that no change occurred in the case of the Logos. However, I've yet to see a developed and plausible account that justifies the assertions.

2. Barnes writes that the language in John 1:14 could not mean that the divine nature of the Logos was changed into human nature because that simply could not be the case. In this part of the text, I do not detect a reason for his denial that the divine nature of the Logos was changed into human nature other than John 1:14 simply could not mean that. I'm not arguing for that strong conclusion anyway. Mine is weaker; it's that the divine nature of the Logos as understood by Trinitarians had to experience some type of change if the Logos truly became human or assumed humanity with his divinity.

3. Barnes seems to give the passage a figurative interpretation. He insists that "it could be said" the Word became human although it appears to really denote that the Word became so "intimately united" to Jesus of Nazareth that one could declare that the Logos became human. I believe Barnes is trying to avoid positing real change (ontologically) in the Word. But he is forced to rework the language of the Gospel writer to make it fit the concept of assumption; yet Barnes still uses "became" although he might be using the verb in a qualified sense (with scare quotes).

4. Finally, to say that "S became P" in the relevant sense I'm discussing (e.g., "John became a doctor" or "Paul became a Christian") normally involves some type of actual change. I see no good reason to make an exception in this case unless one wants to argue that the change is metaphorical.

John 9:38: "he worshiped him"?

G.R. Beasley-Murray writes: "PROSEKUNHSEN [in Jn. 9:38] is commonly translated 'he worshiped him' (so KJV, RSV, JB, NIV, etc.), but this is 'doubtful'" (Murray, John, 159). He later goes on to say that the honor which the healed man ascribes to Jesus in Jn. 9:38 was beyond the honor due to other men but short of that "due to God Almighty." I have no problem with this observation. Where I am suspicious of Murray's interpretation of Jn. 9:38 is when he insists that the man in 9:38 attributed honor to Jesus as "the Redeemer from God" (Murray 160). Notice that Murray capitalizes the word "Redeemer." Why? Is this an implicit attribution of Deity to Christ? While it is no secret that Murray is a trinitarian, I wonder just what he means by this statement. If he is implying that the blind man gave honor to Jesus as DEUS REVELATUS qua DEUS REVELATUS--then I definitively reject this aspect of his explanation. But he seems to be making the claim that the PROSKUNEW Jesus received in Jn 9:38 should not be fully equated with the worship that Almighty God's worshipers render to Him.

Another Johannine commentator named Schnackenburg also implies that while the formerly blind man does not express "formal adoration" to Jesus, he does grant adoration to "the God-sent bringer of salvation which itself gives honor and adoration to God. It shows the man's advance from his Jewish faith to Christian faith." Depending on what Schnackenburg means here, I can accept his contention. But if his words tacitly express trinitarian concepts, then I unequivocally and without reservation reject this part of Schnackenburg's exegesis.

Is There A Third Person Reference in Revelation 22:6? (William Milligan)

The person introduced with the words He said unto me is not indeed named, but there can be little doubt that he is the angel spoken of in the Prologue as sent to "signify" the revelation that was to follow.[586] Again, when the Seer is overwhelmed with what he has seen, and may be said to have almost feared that it was too wonderful for belief, the angel assures him that it was all faithful and true. A similar declaration had been made at chap. xix. 9 by the voice which there "came forth from the throne,"[587] and likewise at chap. xxi. 5 by Him "that sitteth on the throne." The angel therefore who now speaks, like the angel of the Prologue, has the authority of this Divine Being for what he says. It is true that in the following words, which seem to come from the same speaker, the angel must thus be understood to refer to himself in the third person, and not, as we might have expected, in the first,—The Lord sent His angel, not The Lord sent me. But, to say nothing of the fact that such a method of address is met with in the prophetic style of the Old Testament, it appears to be characteristic of St. John in other passages of his writings. More particularly we mark it in the narrative in the fourth Gospel of the death of Jesus on the Cross: "And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may believe."[588]

Milligan, William. The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 4947-4958). Kindle Edition.

Arrabon: "Earnest-Money" (A Discussion)

Interlocutor: I'm sorry, Edgar, but the earnest money is a pledge that the rest of the money will follow. BAGD says it "is a payment which obligates the contracting party to make further payments."

Edgar: I don't read BDAG or BAGD in the way that you suggest. First, the comment about the down payment obligating the contracting party is a reference to how ARRABWN was used in literal business transactions, not how it was employed figuratively or metaphorically. When a term is utilized metaphorically, it means (according to a number of metaphor theorists) that one conceptual domain overlaps another conceptual domain (A overlaps B). Additionally, metaphors usually focus on certain aspects of a particular conceptual domain. Thus, if Christ is called the "head" of the Christian congregation and his followers are portrayed as his "body," this means that the writer making use of the SWMA metaphor has certain characteristics of the conceptual domain "SWMA" in mind (as it applies to a literal body) when he refers the Greek word to a figurative body (SWMA) such as Christ's bride.

Edgar: My point here is that one cannot legitimately read Paul's "body" metaphor and then begin reading foci into the Pauline trope or metaphor. Rather, one needs to examine the context of the metaphor and in the case of the NT, look and see what other parts of an epistle or the NT have to say that may shed light on the metaphor in question. In short, there is nothing written in Paul's letters to imply that once God "seals" one of His worshipers, the said worshipers are guaranteed to receive other figurative payments. I don't read BDAG that way and neither does Ralph Earle. I recommend you consult his Word Meanings in the NT. As an interesting aside, ARRABWN can also refer to a wedding ring, according to the Greek papyri and it is also evidently used this way in Modern Greek.

Addendum: I should have said that ARRABWN signifies an engagement ring in Modern Greek, not in the ancient papyri.

Martin M. Culy Remarks on 1 John 5:19a

1 John 5:19--A Few Observations

Greek: οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμέν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται. (WH)

Most people seem to focus on 1 John 5:19b without giving much attention to part a. However, what did the apostle mean by ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμέν?

Here's some food for thought:

NET Bible: tn The preposition ἐκ (ek) here indicates both source and possession: Christians are “from” God in the sense that they are begotten by him, and they belong to him. For a similar use of the preposition compare the phrases ἐκ τοῦ πατρός (ek tou patros) and ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (ek tou kosmou) in 1 John 2:16.

7/15/1986 WT: Since anointed ones have evidence that they are spiritual sons of Jehovah, they can say, “We know we originate with God.” The fact that they have faith in Christ and do not practice sin proves that they are God's children on whom Satan has not been able to “fasten his hold.”

Stephen Smalley (Word Commentary Series): The writer now expresses in specific terms what he has enunciated as a general principle in v 18. “We know that we derive from God,” he says, whereas “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” This is the second use of οἴδαμεν (“we know”) in this subsection (vv 18–20), and for the second time it is used with reference to the confidence which may be experienced by the believer (in v 20, at its third appearance, the verb occurs in relation to Jesus). The first part of v 19 echoes v 18a, and the second part picks up the thought of v 18b (cf. Haas, Handbook, 128).

Smalley Continued: For the expression ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμεν (literally, “we are of God”) see v 18; also 2:16; 3:9–10; 4:1–4, 6, 7; 5:1, 4; 3 John 11. The opposite is to belong to the devil (ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου, literally, “of the devil”), as in 3:8.

Smalley, Dr. Stephen S. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 9810-9815). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Smalley, Dr. Stephen S. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 9822-9824). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Witherington Discusses Bad Language

Ben Witherington wrote an interesting blog post about "mature" or "adult" language. See https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2019/02/25/about-mature-or-adult-language/#comment-4360436403

I agree with Witherington when he expresses dismay at people referring to profanity as "mature language." No, as he says, profanity and crude lingo "is juvenile, immature, it's the kind of language teenagers use to seem like they are all grown up (and they aren't)."

Something else to consider (noted in Witherington's blog post) is that what we say could be a reflection of our thinking and of what we regularly assimilate: garbage in, garbage out. Ephesians 4:29-32 provides fitting counsel on speech that's pleasing to Jehovah. Compare Eph. 5:1-5.

In Eph. 5:12, Paul stated: "For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret." (NIV)

So it's not only profanity that Christians must avoid; even mentioning (in sordid detail) what the nations secretly do might be shameful. A Christian is obligated to speak in a way that befits God's holy people: it is possible that Paul knew about the Greek comic Aristophanes or the Latin poet, Martial. He likely would have found their writings to be crude and unholy--especially the writings of Martial.

Harold W. Hoehner makes this observation about Eph. 5:12:

The infinitive λέγειν normally is translated “to speak” but this rendering seems clumsy here. Rather, the translation “to mention” would heighten the ascensive idea of the conjunction. Kreitzer suggests that those things too shameful to mention may have to do with the ritual obscene language associated with the mother-goddess Demeter.[69] Although this could be the case, there is nothing in the text to suggest such a specific reference. It is more likely that Paul has in mind useless deeds in which believers are not to participate. But if these works are so bad that it is shameful to even mention them, why expose them? Exposing such things not only reveals unfruitful works but teaches believers two important lessons. First, it reveals the ugliness of the deeds done in secret. Second, it impresses on them the importance of producing the fruit of light, the works of goodness, righteousness, and truth (v. 9). Deeds of darkness cannot be allowed, therefore, to spread and encompass the community of believers

See Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary.

John Eadie quotes Herodotus 1.138 when explaining Eph. 5:3, ποιέειν οὐκ ἔξεστι, ταῦτα οὐδὲ λέγειν ἔξεστιν.

See https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jec/ephesians-5.html

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D138%3Asection%3D1

William Ockham the Nominalist?

I once read a book about William Ockham (Occam) rather quickly--it's written by Matthew C. Menges (O.F.M., Ph.D.) and the book is quite detailed. One important point struck me in this work:

"Nor can we say that Ockham is a nominalist, if nominalism means a denial of universal concepts, for he surely holds them. His universal knowledge is founded ultimately on intuition, cognitio in se, and so it is knowledge of reality. But we do not know God immediately, or in se" (The Concept of Univocity Regarding the Predication of God and Creature According to William Ockham, page 175).

So do you think we should avoid describing Ockham as a nominalist? I guess it depends on how one defines nominalism.

Anthony Kenny concurs with Menges: he calls Ockham a terminist.

Translating 1 Corinthians 11:20: Deipnon-Part II

Greek: Συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν,

Admittedly, most translations usually render 1 Cor. 11:20 as "Lord's supper," but does this mean "evening meal" is a mistranslation or wrong? What I've found is that "Lord's supper" or some variant thereof is largely governed by tradition.

The context of 1 Cor. 11:20 lends itself to the translation "evening meal." For instance, 1 Cor. 11:23 states:

"For I received from the Lord that same thing that I handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was to be arrested, took bread" (Byington)

Paul explicitly writes that Jesus instituted his deipnon at night, and we know that Christ likely introduced this meal after Passover, which occurred that night of Nisan 14 even though another proposed date is Nisan 15. In any case, the evidence suggests a nocturnal observance of the Lord's deipnon. Are there other indications that "evening meal" is not a mistranslation?

"The common noun, deipnon, was used for the main daily meal, usually taken in the evening; see Luke 14:12 (cf. Luke, 1047). It could also denote a festal meal or banquet (Luke 14:16, 24)." (Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 434).

John 13:2, 4 speaks of the deipnon held by the Lord, and this observance occurred at night. Compare John 13:30. See George L. Parsenios, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature, 117.

Parsenios writes: "John's Last Supper scene is roughly modeled on the symposium format. It is a deipnon followed by a communal gathering" (page 123).

For information on how writers use deipnon in the Septuagint, see https://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?lemma=%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%80%CE%BD%CE%BF%CE%BD&diacritics=off

Also see https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/deipnon-e313040

Stanley Porter and P.Egerton 2 (Dating the Gospel of John)

This quote comes from Stanley E. Porter; it is part of a longer discussion in his book John, His Gospel, and Jesus: in Pursuit of the Johannine Voice:

As almost every scholar who works with ancient manuscripts admits, the dating of manuscripts is extremely difficult when all one has is undated manuscripts for comparison. Nevertheless, the development of a timeline or trajectory is necessary. The evidence that I have analyzed above indicates that the order of writing of the manuscripts discussed above was as follows: the canonical Gospel of John, probably 70-90, which would ensure that there was enough time for it to be circulated, copied, and transmitted to Egypt, where it was then used and copied further; then P.Rylands Greek 457 around 100-120, although the absence of the nomina sacra, if they were introduced around 100, may possibly push the date even earlier; and then P.Egerton 2 copied sometime from the mid to late second cen- tury, perhaps around 170.

For more on P.Egerton 2, see http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Egerton_Papyrus_2

Translating 1 Corinthians 11:20: Deipnon--Part I

Greek: συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν,

ESV: "When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat."

ASV: "When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s supper:"

Authorized KJV: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper."

NWT 2013: "When you come together in one place, it is not really to eat the Lord's Evening Meal."

Bill Mounce on δεῖπνον:


Definition:
pr. a meal; supper, the principal meal taken in the evening, Lk. 14:12; Jn. 13:2, 4; meton. food, 1 Cor. 11:21; a feast, banquet, Mt. 23:6; Mk. 6:21; 12:39

See https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/deipnon

Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary: Noun: δεῖπνον (deipnon), GK 1270 (S 1173), 16x. deipnon means “supper, feast, banquet” and refers to the main meal in biblical times, eaten in the evening. This is clear from Lk 14:12, where a separate term is used for a “luncheon,” a meal eaten earlier in the day. deipnon can also refer to a more formal meal or eating occasion, a “banquet.”

The NWT has been criticized for "overtranslating" 1 Cor. 11:20, 25, but is this criticism justified in the light of what δεῖπνον probably means in these verses?

Bowman invokes Anthony Thiselton to undermine the rendering "Evening Meal" as we find in NWT. Thiselton explains that δεῖπνον doesn't necessarily specify the meal's timing, whether it's evening or morning. Let's quote Bowman verbatim as he uses Thiselton:

Thiselton comments that deipnon “usually designates the main meal of the day in the Graeco-Roman world. Like the English dinner, it usually denotes an evening meal in formal circles, but as in the case of the English phrase ‘Christmas dinner’ the emphasis concerns the major event rather than the specific timing. It need not always be an evening meal, although in practice it usually was” (Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 863-64). Thus, the rendering “evening meal” in the New World Translation at 1 Corinthians 11:20, 25 is an overtranslation that makes the timing of the meal specific in a way that the Greek wording does not (cf. Mark 6:21; 12:39; Luke 14:12-24; 17:8; Rev. 3:20).

It's a fair point that δεῖπνον does not always signify the evening meal, but it usually did. How do we know when δεῖπνον refers to an evening meal? A good indicator is context. For example, one might render the word as "banquet" in Rev. 19:9. See https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Revelation/chapter19/9

On the other hand, it's a bit strong to say 1 Cor. 11:20, 25 NWT "is an overtranslation." The translation "evening meal" falls squarely within the semantic domain of δεῖπνον; besides, Thiselton also professes that δεῖπνον normally did happen in the evening. Yet there's other reasons that Bowman's statement is misguided. However, to answer his challenge in this blog post, the timing of the meal is dictated by context and there are good reasons for understanding δεῖπνον as an "evening meal" in 1 Cor. 11:20, 25.

God As Spirit in Ancient Judaism? (John 4:24)

One Christian disciple recorded Jesus the Jew proclaiming that God is spirit: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24, ESV)

Is there an equivalent speech act uttered about YHWH (Jehovah) in the Hebrew Bible? What about Isaiah 31:3 (ESV)?

"The Egyptians are man, and not God, and their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the Lord stretches out his hand,
the helper will stumble, and he who is helped will fall, and they will all perish together."

Notice the contrast made between humans and God, who is spirit. Admittedly, ancient Judaism likely did not make a sharp distinction between outward worship and inward spirituality, especially as we witness some people doing today: ("I'm spiritual, but I'm not religious"). Yet, neither was Jesus criticizing all Jewish rituals when he spoke the words at John 4:24, but he was suggesting that in the future, God's people would not chiefly focus on ritualistic externals nor would they emphasize a specific earthly city like Jerusalem. Why would this change occur? Because God is a spirit.

C.K. Barrett writes (The Gospel According to St. John, page 238): There is little corresponding teaching in the Old Testament (cf. however Isa. 31.3: The Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh ( . . . basar), and not spirit (. . . ruah); significantly this contrast does not appear in the LXX): Spirit in the Old Testament is regularly not an order of being over against matter, but life-giving, creative activity, and there are passages (e.g. 7.38f.) where John uses the word in this sense.

Jesus was not condemning all outward expressions of worship: he was a son of the commandment, a devout Jew, and God's shaliach. The Lord knew that the Mosaic Law prescribed certain rituals, so he would not have called the entire Jewish system into question. But Jesus did call first-century Jews to repentance; furthermore, by Jesus' time, there was not one form of Judaism being practiced but many "Judaisms" as Jacob Neusner observed. First-century Judaism (to borrow a phrase) had a "dizzying diversity" of beliefs and practices.

So what did Jesus mean at John 4:23-24 when he proclaimed that God's true worshipers would worship him in spirit and in truth? Here is one suggestion given by Barrett (page 239):

It is impossible to separate the two notions (note that neither in v. 24 nor in v. 23 is EN repeated before ALHQEIA). EN PNEUMATI [dative-gk.] draws attention to the supernatural life that Christians enjoy, and EN ALHQEIA [dative-gk.] to the single basis of this supernatural life in Christ through whom God's will is faithfully fulfilled. That true worship is set over against idolatry, and over against a cult restricted to one sanctuary, is not more than incidental.

EGF:

John 3:6, Grammar, and Spiritual Rebirth

Greek: τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς σάρξ ἐστιν, καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστιν.

πνεῦμά is surely a noun, but I don't see how it could refer to "class" as opposed to quality in John 3:6 (see Wallace, GGBB, ). It's true that πνεῦμά potentially functions as a mass noun in certain contexts and as a count nouns in others. The phrase "mass noun" here refers to a nominal or substantive that names "undifferentiated stuff" such as sand, wood or bread although writers employ άρτος (Gk. for "bread") as a count noun in the GNT.

On the other hand, the phrase "count noun" refers to a nominal or substantive that names "differentiated stuff" such as books, beer (in certain contexts) or cats and dogs.

Finally, Trinitarians normally define the adnominal "qualitative" so that it imputes to a divine entity, G, the entire complex (set of properties) that are personally instantiated or exemplified by the God of Scripture--as they understand that deity.

It seems that those born from God's spirit or by means of the spirit of God are "spiritual" in the sense described by John 3:6. That is, God's spirit of holiness evidently reorients the bearing, disposition, dominant inclination or variegated propensities of those who are either "born again" or "born from above." See 1 John 3:9.

J. Ramsey Michaels (John in the New International Biblical Commentary series) suggests that Jesus is contrasting two distinct spheres of existence (i.e., "spirit" and "flesh") in John 3:6. However one construes the text, it seems that πνεῦμά is not a count noun in the verse, but likely a mass noun. Compare John 1:14.

Job 31:1--Tremper Longman III Commentary

"Job begins his speech by disavowing lust, specifically of a young woman. The OT does condemn lust through the tenth commandment (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21), which includes the provision not to covet a neighbor’s wife. However, the OT does not specifically say that a man, even a married man, cannot desire an unmarried woman. After all, he could marry her. This observation leads some to suggest that Job is not disavowing leering at a human virgin, but at the divine virgin, Asherah.[684] I find this view unlikely, however. Idolatry is not seen as an issue in Job. He is never accused of idolatry. Besides, if we are right that Job is an Edomite (and not a Canaanite or Israelite), then Asherah, a Canaanite goddess, would not be a temptation. The best explanation is that Job is being extremely careful in his morality."

See Longman III, Job, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012, page 336.

ISBN: 978-1-4412-3865-8

EGF: Compare Matthew 5:28. See Job 31:9-10. I do not accept the idea that Job was an Edomite, but a thorough discussion of the issue can be found in David J.A. Clines. See https://books.google.com/books?id=Rl8qDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT213&lpg=PT213&dq=job+not+an+edomite&source=bl&ots=q2_VmH78Bg&sig=ACfU3U2mbEkgobcTadMCobjid9OhhSzEeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9reWT3tjhAhXCmeAKHRQ8BqU4FBDoATAFegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=job%20not%20an%20edomite&f=false

Papal Infallibility: A Past Discussion

Dear Faulkner [original name changed],

I asked a question about Cyprian and Stephen that you either never answered or took a great amount of time to answer. So I submit my query again and I also refer you to the work Papal Infallibility (London: Faith Press, 1932) written by G.C. Coulton. In particular, see pages 14ff. Coulton provides evidence from the primary documents (Cyprian's Epistles) that neither Cyprian nor the majority of the African bishops in Carthage during his time knew anything about the Pope having universal ecclesiatical jurisdiction and furthermore these men also took issue with Pope Stephen's infallible "decision" concerning baptism.

I know that we're not yet finished with our protracted debate about the Bible canon, etc. But I have a burning question that just couldn't wait.

Recently I have been reading about the history of the Latin church under bishop Cyprian. I'm sure you're well aware of his struggle with bishop Stephen, and his disagreement with this overseer. I wonder, how do you feel about this episode? Why did Cyprian not feel a need to submit to the [supposed] pontiff of Rome, if all the "venerable fathers" have believed in papal supremacy throughout the ages of the EKKLHSIA?

In his book The Validity of Papal Claims, F.N. Oxenham explains the dispute on pp. 77-80. His remarks are worthy of note here:

"Stephen is said to have been the first Pope who claimed privileges of rule distinctly as successor of St. Peter, and therefore the reception which his claim met with is an important piece of evidence, more especially as the person chiefly concerned in rejecting that claim was so great a man as Cyprian of Carthage. Stephen did not indeed to assert the fully developed papal claims as they are asserted now; he was not, apparently, aware that he was 'infallible,' but he made an effort towards being supreme" (Oxenham 77-78).

The Purpose of 1 Corinthians 10:8

Our midweek meeting included a discussion of 1 Cor. 10:8, which mentions 23,000 dying because they committed fornication (sexual immorality). One thing that stands out concerning 1 Cor. 10:8 is that it reports 23,000 died, but the account from which it draws gives a different number: 24,000.

Putting this point aside for a moment, the question asked in our congregation this week was why Paul used this Hebrew Bible account in the first place. Why did he even mention this account? 1 Cor. 10:11 indicates that what happened to the ancient Israelites is a warning example for Christians, then and now. In fact, the organization points to the licentious conduct of the 1st century Corinthians as one reason for Paul's counsel. Is there another reason why Paul might have alluded to Numbers 25:9?

What about the fornication that was occurring in the Corinthian congregation. After all, there was a man, who had an incestuous relationship with his father's wife (apparently his stepmother), and Paul gives strong counsel regarding fornication in 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 18-20. Compare 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Cor. 12:21.

So there could be different reasons why Paul cited the instance of 23,000 dying in one day. More than a few proposals have been set forth to explain the seeming discrepancy, but one lesson we may still take away from Paul's words is the utter necessity of avoiding, eschewing, and repudiating sexual immorality.

Does the New Testament Support the Idea of Deaconesses? (1 Timothy 3:11)

I've always found Charles Ryrie's discussion of Rom. 16:1-2 in Basic Theology (pp. 419-420) to be helpful. Here are some gleanings from his work.

(1) The GUNAIKAS could be women "leaders" in the EKKLHSIA or simply wives of "deacons" or ministerial servants. Personally, I do not think that Paul had to explicitly qualify GUNAIKAS in order for us to know he had wives in mind and not women servants of the congregation since GUNH is used without qualification elsewhere in the NT to describe a married woman. Examples include Mt. 5:28, 31f; 1 Cor. 5:1; 7:2ff. BDAG has more examples.

(2) The women in 1 Tim. 3:11 are introduced by the word hWSAUTWS indicating that they too might hold positions in the EKKLHSIA. But this could merely be a way of transitioning the discussion in view of how the apostle employs hWSAUTWS in other places (Tit. 2:1-10).

(3) "A Greek word for deaconess does exist, but this is not used in the New Testament." (Ryrie)

(4) Also from Ryrie: "If verse 11 [1 Tim.] introduces a new office (that of deaconess), then why did not Paul finish listing the qualifications for deacons before introducing it? Instead, he continues with the list of qualifications for deacons in verses 12-13. This may indicate that he was referring to the deacon's wives in verse 11, rather than to a separate office in the church."

(5) Finally, Pliny wrote to Emperor Trajan, mentioning two Christian female MINISTRAE in the year 112 CE. It is not clear, however, whether these women were church assistants or not. No deaconess is mentioned in "any literature" until the third century. At that time, we find a reference in a document entitled Didascalia.

Theodoret of Cyrus on Daniel 4:13

So I continued looking in the vision of the night on my bed and, lo, a holy eir descended from heaven (v. 13). By eir he refers to the watcher, the meaning in Greek. By watcher he means an angel,110 thus bringing out its bodiless form: what is clad in a body is subject to sleeping, whereas what is rid of a body is superior to the need for sleeping. So he means, I saw an angel, bodiless in nature, who descended from heaven.

Footnote 110: It is not that Theodoret goes behind his text to cite the Hebrew form ir: he finds it thus in Theodotion. This is the only use of the word in the Old Testament in reference to an angel, though it is (according to Alexander Di Lella, “Daniel,” NJBC, 413) frequently so used in Jewish apocryphal works and at Qumran.

Physical Versus Spiritual Man (Person)--Outline for a Talk

A physical man/person is fleshly-minded, more concerned with prestige and worldly pursuits rather than spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Such individuals practice works of the flesh mentioned at Galatians 5:19-21. Unfortunately, a number of Christians in the early Corinthian congregation gave way to fleshly-mindedness by promoting divisions, taking their brothers and sisters to court or they self-indulgently lived for food, drink, and sex (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6:1-10).

Conversely, what qualities characterize a spiritual person? See 1 Cor. 2:15-16.

Instead of being fleshly-minded, a spiritual man/person is God-oriented, that is, inclined toward God. Spiritual persons try to acquire Jehovah's thinking on matters; they strive to imitate him (Eph. 5:1-2) and reflect the fruitage of the spirit listed at Galatians 5:22-23. You know these qualities by heart, no doubt. Yet how are we doing when it comes to personal application?

Another way to be a spiritual person is by having the mind of Christ, that is, possessing the same mental disposition that Jesus had (1 Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:5).

Personal question: How can we live as spiritual persons each day of our lives?

Three areas include our use of technology, the field ministry, and how we manifest the spirit's fruitage.

There is much that we can learn about being spiritual persons as we study Paul's first inspired letter to the Corinthians.

Acts 8:1 (Aspects of the Passage)

Greek: Σαῦλος δὲ ἦν συνευδοκῶν τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ. Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ διωγμὸς μέγας ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὴν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις· πάντες δὲ διεσπάρησαν κατὰ τὰς χώρας τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Σαμαρίας πλὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων. (WH)

Translations: "Saul agreed with putting him to death. On that day a severe persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the land of Judea and Samaria." (HCSB)

"And Saul was consenting unto his death. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." (ASV)

"And Saul agreed completely with killing him. Now on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were forced to scatter throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria." (NET)

"Saul, for his part, approved of his murder. On that day great persecution arose against the congregation that was in Jerusalem; all except the apostles were scattered throughout the regions of Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a." (NWT 2013)

See 1 Maccabees 11:24.

Craig Keener Comments for Acts 8:1: The “great persecution” (διωγμὸς μέγας) that came on the church may recall Stephen’s recent claim that his accusers’ predecessors “persecuted” (ἐδίωξαν) the prophets (Acts 7:52; cf. Luke 11:49); it also fulfills Jesus’s prediction (Luke 11:49; 21:12, διώξουσιν).[16] It prepares the way for the next occurrence of a cognate term, describing Saul’s own activity (Acts 9:4–5; cf. 22:4, 7–8; 26:11, 14–15); Luke must introduce the idea here to explain the scattering of believers and their message (8:4; picked up in 11:19), which provides the backdrop for Philip’s mission (8:5). Saul’s “approval” (8:1a) belongs with the preceding paragraph, continuing the thought of 7:58, as mentioned above.[17] Saul’s “approval” of Stephen’s execution (8:1; 22:20)[18] was no less culpable than that of those who stood in continuity with the prophets’ murderers in Luke 11:48 (the only other Lukan reference, to which Luke may allude by using this term; cf. Rom 1:32; 1 Clem. 35.6).[19] Paul clearly did more than approve during the rest of the persecution, however, and he probably participated in Stephen’s death as more than simply an onlooker. He likely belonged to the synagogue faction that opposed Stephen (Acts 6:9; 9:11). Clothing was placed at his feet (7:58), possibly (though not certainly) suggesting his authority (4:35, 37; 5:1), and he quickly emerges as the movement’s leader (8:3).

Robertson's Word Picture in the New Testament: A great persecution (διωγμος μεγας). It was at first persecution from the Sadducees, but this attack on Stephen was from the Pharisees so that both parties are now united in a general persecution that deserves the adjective "great." See on Mt 13:21 for the old word διωγμος from διωκω, to chase, hunt, pursue, persecute.

Updated Version of KEFALH Discussion (1 Corinthians 11:3)

There is still a burning question in New Testament studies about the potential signification of KEFALH qua a scriptural metaphor. Some prominent lexical suggestions offered by those professionals who analyze ancient Greek texts have been "source," "ruler" or "authority over" (1 Corinthians 11:3). See Peter Cotterell and Max Turner's Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1989), 141-145; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998). Translating KEFALH as "source" often results in attempts to mitigate any notion of hierarchy for a number of possible reasons. But what is most important to me involves what the data suggest from the GNT and other relevant sources. Turner and Cotterell review GNT examples such as Colossians 2:19; 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23. They subsequently write: "Now contextually it is by no means certain that Col 2:19 presents Christ as the origin, rather than as the Lord of the Church, but clearly it would considerably weaken the thesis if the sense 'source' was part of the lexical meaning of the Greek word KEFALH ('head'); that is, if it were one of its established senses" (141). But is "source" one of the established senses for KEFALH? After discussing LXX and Classical examples where the word is employed by ancient writers, Turner and Cotterell conclude:

"In other words, as far as we can tell, 'source' or 'origin' was not a conventional sense of the word KEFALH in Paul's time. This does not preclude the possibility that Paul himself began to use the word in such a way, but we would need very strong evidence to support such a view, and in our judgment nothing like such strength of evidence is forthcoming" (145).

While, as Cotterell and Turner show, there does not appear to be enough evidence to decide in favor of "source" being one of the lexical senses for KEFALH in Paul's time, we do have synchronic attestation for the meaning "ruler" or "authority over." Paul apparently used KEFALH in this way, when he penned these inspired words to the Ephesians: KAI PANTA hUPETAXEN hUPO TOUS PODAS AUTOU KAI AUTON EDWKEN KEFALHN hUPER PANTA THi EKKLHSIAi (Eph. 1:22).

Now the primary text under consideration is 1 Cor. 11:3: QELW DE hUMAS EIDENAI hOTI PANTOS ANDROS hH KEFALH hO XRISTOS ESTIN KEFALH DE GUNAIKOS hO ANHR KEFALH DE TOU XRISTOU hO QEOS. According to this passage, every man has a head which is Christ, and every woman also has a "head" which is the man. Christ himself has a "head," who is almighty God; the operative term here is KEFALH with the meaning "head."

In order to appreciate the full significance of 1 Cor. 11:3, I think it is imperative to construe KEFALH in the appropriate manner. Louw-Nida point out that the semantic domains for KEFALH respectively are (1) the literal head of the body;(2a) a superior;(2b) units;(2c) the "head" cornerstone;(2d) to "have one's head covered";(2e) "to lie down to rest";(2f) to "have courage."(2g) to denote "responsibility."(2h) to "cause to be ashamed."[The aforementioned divisions are mine, even though the categories represent those delineated by Louw-Nida. For a further examination of this issue, consult L-N Vol. II, p. 141 under "KEFALH."]

My purpose in listing the respective semantic domains from L-N is to point out that we must not confuse usage (1) with usage (2a) although the two fields obviously are parasitic upon one another. In other words, I would contend that Paul is describing the superiority of God over Christ as opposed to suggesting that he describes an anthropological relationship between God and Christ. At least, that is how I see it. L-N is normally a reliable source when it comes to how Greek writers use terms in a particular context. It says a lot when we note that this lexicon makes the aforesaid comments about 1 Cor. 11:3.

Two other texts that we might bring up, however, are Eph. 5:23 and Col. 1:18:

hOTI ANHR ESTIN KEFALH THS GUNAIKOS hWS KAI hO XRISTOSKEFALH THS EKKLHSIAS AUTOS SWTHR TOU SWMATOS (Eph5:23).

KAI AUTOS ESTIN hH KEFALH TOU SWMATOS THS EKKLHSIAShOS ESTIN hH ARXH PRWTOTOKOS EK TWN NEKRWN hINAGENHTAI EN PASIN AUTOS PRWTEUWN (Col 1:18).

In the first passage, it seems that KEFALH is qualified by AUTOS SWTHR TOU SWMATOS. Paul apparently professes that Christ is the KEFALH ("head") of the Christian EKKLHSIA by virtue of his God-given soteriological function (SWTHR TOU SWMATOS). That is, he serves as KEFALH by virtue of being the Savior of God's congregation (Acts 5:31). Now if I am construing the syntactical and semantic relationships properly here, then KEFALH possibly denotes "source" (Gordon Fee) in Eph. 5:23, although I personally would not want to rule out the notion of supremacy in light of Eph. 5:21-22: "Be in subjection to one another in fear of the Christ. Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord . . ."

Nevertheless, Col. 1:18 is more comprehensible when one construes KEFALH as "has authority over." Richard B. Hays adds: "Even if Paul is thinking here primarily of man as the source of woman rather than authority over woman, this still serves as warrant for a claim about his ontological preeminence over her, as vv. 7-9 show" (Richard Hays, 1 Corinthians, page 184). I am not sure about Hay's "ontological preeminence" language since I think it is based on potentially questionable presuppositions about ontology in general. Nevertheless, Hays shows what appears to be unavoidable from a "natural" reading of the text. Paul is saying that men have some type of preeminence over women and it also follows that God is preeminent over Christ, although Hays wants to argue that God does not have any "ontological preeminence" over Christ later in his discussion.

Having stated the foregoing, I want to provide some evidence that KEFALH in 1 Cor 11:3 does signify superiority of rank. BDAG says that the term, when employed metaphorically,may denote:(1) A being of high status (Iren. 1, 5, 3; Hippol.Ref. 7, 23, 3).(a) "in the case of living beings, to denote superiorrank." Marion Soards (1 Corinthians in the NIBC Series) discusses the views of G. Fee and N. Watson, who both argue that KEFALH means "source" in 1 Cor 11:3. But Soards then supplies the following caveat on page 229 of his commentary:

"Nevertheless, the interpretive debate is not settled. J. A. Fitzmeyer ('Another Look at KEFALH in 1 Corinthians 11:3,' NTS 35 [1989], pp. 503-11) examines the LXX and Philo alongside Paul to argue 'head' could be understood as 'authority over' another person; also J. A. Fitzmeyer, 'KEFALH in 1 Corinthians 11:3,' Int 47 (1993), pp. 52-59. In a creative interpretive essay, S. E. McGinn ('EXOUSIAN EXEIN EPI THS KEFALHS: 1 Cor 11:10 and the Ecclesial Authority Woman,' List 31 [1996], pp. 91-104) argues that the charismatic gift of prophecy gave the women who were endowed with this gift an authority over their heads--the men--because of the Spirit's presence and power at work in their contributions to the congregation's worship."D. A. Carson also reports the following in Exegetical Fallacies (2nd Edition): "Although some of the New Testament metaphorical uses of KEFALH . . . could be taken to mean 'source,' all other factors being equal, in no case is that the required meaning; and in every instance the notion of 'headship' implying authority fits equally well or better. The relevant lexica are full of examples, all culled from the ancient texts, in which KEFALH . . . connotes 'authority'" (pp. 37-38).

Galatians 5:19-21 ("Wild Parties")--Various Commentators

Greek: φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις, ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν.

ESV: Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Tom Schreiner's Comments:

Two words are used to designate a dissolute lifestyle where one remains unconstrained by moral norms: “drunkenness” (μέθαι) and “carousing” (κῶμοι). We find a similar pairing in Rom 13:13, and 1 Pet 4:3 is also similar to what we find in Galatians. Those who give themselves over to revelry and wild parties demonstrate that they are still under the control of the old Adam rather than living in the new age inaugurated by Jesus Christ. The phrase “things like these” indicates that the vice list is partial and does not represent an exhaustive list of sins.

Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:

With the final two words of the list, Paul returns to sins characteristic of the Gentile world of his day. “Drunkenness” (μέθαι, methai) may refer simply to inebriation, but as BDAG (625) notes, the proximity of this word with κῶμοι (kōmoi, orgies) both here and in Rom. 13:13 may suggest the more specific nuance of “drinking bout” (the plural has a singular sense). This last word (κῶμοι) originally referred to a festal procession in honor of a Greek god and then came to be used more broadly for a feast or banquet. In Biblical Greek, however, the word always has the negative sense of “excessive feasting,” always involving too much drinking and often sexual liberties. A text from 2 Maccabees describing the activities of Greeks who desecrated the Jerusalem temple gives a sense of the word: “For the temple was filled with debauchery and reveling [κώμων] by the Gentiles, who dallied with prostitutes and had intercourse with women within the sacred precincts, and besides brought in things for sacrifice that were unfit” (2 - (2 -Macc. 6:4; see also Wis. 14:23; Rom. 13:13; 1 Pet. 4:3). The plural form is again used, with “wild parties” (NLT) perhaps catching the idea fairly well (NIV and ESV “orgies” is too specifically sexual). Peter uses this word, along with two others that Paul lists in this context, to describe the pagan lifestyle characteristic of Gentiles before conversion: “For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery [ἀσέλγεια], lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing [κώμοις] and detestable idolatry [εἰδωλολατρίαις]” (1 Pet. 4:3).

Ronald Y.K. Fung (Galatians):

Kōmoi is variously rendered as “carousings” (NASB), “revellings” (AV) and “orgies” (NEB). Kōmos (singular) is a natural companion of “drunkenness” (cf. Rom. 13:13), a characteristic feature of the pagan way of life (1 Pet. 4:3), and a concrete example of putting “pleasure in the place of God” (so NEB, 2 Tim. 3:4, Gk. philēdonos). This catalog of vices is prefaced by hatina (“the kind of”) and followed by kai ta homoia (“and the like”) both of which show that the enumeration is representative and not exhaustive.⁹⁸ Many sins mentioned elsewhere in Paul’s letters⁹⁹ are missing from this list. Of the fifteen items mentioned, the first three and the last two (groups [a] and [d]) are sins committed in the sphere of the body, but the rest (groups [b] and [c]) “might well be committed by disembodied spirits,” thus showing that “the deeds of the flesh” are not necessarily physical or sensual, but embrace spiritual vices as well.

Thomas R. Schreiner on φαρμακεία (Galatians 5:20)

Sorcery or magic (φαρμακεία) is regularly condemned in Jewish literature (Exod 7:11, 22; 8:14; Isa 47:9, 12; Rev 18:23; cf. Wis 12:4; 18:13), for instead of trusting in God, people try to manipulate circumstances to bring
about the end they desire. Sorcery, then, turns one from trust in the living God to dependence on other sources.

See Galatians in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary Series on the New Testament.

2 Kings 2:1, 11 (LXX)--Screenshot

James Baikie and Bible Reading in the Middle Ages

James Baikie's work is entitled The English Bible and Its Story (London: Seeley, 1928). I tried to find out about his personal details and simply could not take the time to do a major search, but I trust he was not a friend of the RCC. However, he himself does write in the Preface of his monograph: "While the point of view from which the book is written is frankly Protestant, I have endeavored throughout to avoid a merely partisan presentation of the facts, and to give credit where it is due to men who, like Erasmus, found themselves unable to go all the way with the Reformers, as well as to the merits of such champions of the Roman Church as the translators of the Rheims and the Douai version."

He indicates that it's difficult to take the "There was no demand for a vernacular copy of Holy Writ during the middle ages" argument seriously. Baikie appears to think the claim does not hold water, and rightly so it seems, for history suggests that several men and women were clamoring to read God's Holy Word in the 1500s. But they were forbidden to read the Scriptures under pain of heresy. Owning a Bible resulted in the torture or death of not a few lay members--both men and women. Simply possessing a Bible likely was viewed as a crime by the Church. Catholic historian Paul Johnson relates the following account:

"Access to the Bible, whether in the original or in any other tongue, had never been an issue in the East. In the West, the clergy had begun to assert an exclusive interpretive, indeed custodial, right to the Bible as early as the ninth century; and from about 1080 there had been frequent instances of the Pope, councils and bishops forbidding not only vernacular translations but any reading at all, by laymen, of the Bible taken as a whole. In some ways this was the most scandalous aspect of the Medieval Latin Church. From the Waldensians onwards, attempts to scrutinize the Bible became proof presumptive of heresy--a man or a woman might burn for it alone--and, conversely, the heterodox were increasingly convinced that the Bible was incompatible with papal and clerical claims" (A History of Christianity 273).

Baikie also recounts the story of eight persons who were arrested in Leicester for reading the Bible (page 140). Three of them recanted of their "heresy" and were ordered to do penance; their names were Roger Dexter, William Smith and Alice (ibid.). They were charged with the "heinous crime of reading the Gospel in their own tongue" but were absolved after doing penance (ibid). Dexter, Smith and Alice desired to read the Bible in their own language but religious authorities thought otherwise.

The English Bible and Its Story provides evidence of other men and women who fervently desired to read the Bible, but they could not afford a copy or were not allowed to possess one. Hence, these individuals memorized Scripture despite the threat of death. Baikie lists Thomas Chase, who was charged with merely reciting the Epistle of James and Luke as well as Agnes Ashford, who taught Chase part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Subsequently, the Church not only refused to let Ashford teach any man; she also was not permitted to teach her own children portions of Holy Writ (Baikie 144).

1 Corinthians 1:9-10 and Style

Greek: πιστὸς ὁ θεός, δι’ οὗ ἐκλήθητε εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες καὶ μὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑμῖν σχίσματα, ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμῃ. (NA28)

Notice how the apostle writes here. At first, the syntax is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, then τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in v. 10. What is the significance of this contrasting word order?

Firstly, let's review what Joseph Fitzmyer's Anchor Bible Commentary (p. 134) states regarding 1 Cor. 1:9:

through whom you have been called into companionship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. The prep. dia denotes the source, not the mediation, of assurance that comes from God (BDR §223.3). Soards (1 Cor, 30), however, strangely understands di’ hou, “through whom,” to refer “to the Lord Jesus Christ through whom God acts in relation to humanity.” That might be a good Pauline idea, but that is not what the text says. The rel. pronoun in the prep. phrase di’ hou has God as its antecedent, and the relation to Christ is expressed by eis koinonian. Rather than di’ hou, mss D, F, G, read rather hyph’ hou, “by whom,” followed by the RSV.

I think Fitzmyer somewhat misunderstands Marion Soards' point. Quite frankly, he does not claim that "through whom" (δι’ οὗ) refers to Christ in 1 Cor. 1:19. His exact words are:

The NIV obscures both Paul’s pattern of speech and the essence of his thought. The loss of precision in language is unfortunate, for Paul’s statement contains the unusual idea that God is the agent through whom the Corinthians were called. In every other instance that Paul uses the phrase “through whom” (Gk. di’ hou), he is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ as the one through whom God acts in relation to humanity—cf. Rom. 1:5; 5:2, 11; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 6:14 (this last reference is ambiguous and may mean “through which” in reference to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ).

[END QUOTE]

So when read in context, it becomes clear that Soards is not asserting that "through whom" refers to Jesus in 1 Cor. 1:9. Rather, Soards is talking about other verses where such language is used.

The question still remains as to why Paul uses the syntax of vss. 9-10. It seems to me that the syntax is used for rhetorical effect and it illustrates different ways that Christ could be referenced by 1st century writers, namely, as "Jesus Christ our Lord" or "our Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Baruch 51:7-11 (Like unto angels and equal to stars)

But those who have been saved by their works and to whom the Torah has been now a hope and understanding an expec­tation and wisdom a confidence shall wonders appear in their time. 8 For they shall behold the world which is now invisible to them and they shall behold the time which is now hidden from them: 9 And time shall no longer age them. 10 For in the heights of that world shall they dwell and they shall be made like unto the angels and be made equal to the stars, And they shall be changed into every form they desire, from beauty into loveliness, and from light into the splendour of glory. 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.

https://www.cepher.net/2-baruch-51.aspx