O'Collins Discussing Richard of St. Victor and the Trinity

This material is taken from The Tripersonal God (pages 143-144) by Gerald O'Collins:

"The divine persons are three incommunicable existents [for Richard of St. Victor]. The Father exists but is not the Son or the Spirit; the Son exists but is not the Father or the Spirit; the Spirit exists but is not the Father or the Son . . . We saw earlier how Richard of St. Victor pushed the analogy of love when expounding the tripersonal God in the light of St. John's lapidary confession: 'God is love' (1 Jn 4:8, 16). Self-love is not the truest and highest form of love. As gift and exchange, love is plural and requires fellowship with others. To be perfect, the human dialogue of mutual love must be open and, in fact, shared with a third person; the love of two persons is thus fused by a third. This version of love at its highest and best, if true of human beings, must be true also of God and in an infinitely greater way."

Comments: Richard of St Victor's argument seems to labor under the notion that the "God" mentioned in 1 Jn 4:8, 16 is the triune God. Maybe this interpretation of the Johannine scripture is not required, but it seems like this is how Richard and Augustine before him construe it. Secondly, the context of 1 Jn 4:8, 16 makes it clear that God the Father is being discussed and not the triune God. Thirdly, and I don't mean to be flippant here, but three is a crowd, IMO. How O'Collins can bring in the idea of three persons somehow completing or exalting love to its figurative apex is beyond me. Why stop with three divine persons other than because of special pleading?

"This Means My Body and My Blood" (Matthew 26:26-28)

(1) Matthew 26:26-28 reads in part:

TOUTO ESTIN TO SWMA MOU . . . TOUTO GAR ESTIN TO hAIMA MOU (NA 27 Greek text).

ESTIN is present indicative active 3rd-person singular of EIMI. More importantly for our purposes here, as BDAG Greek-English Lexicon notes, EIMI or ESTI(N) is sometimes used in explanations "to show how [something] is to be understood is a representation of, is the equivalent of; EIMI here, too, serves as copula; we usually translate mean, so in the formula TOUT' ESTIN this or that means, that is to say . . ."

We observe this usage elsewhere in Matthew. Compare Mt. 13:19, 22, 38. Matthew 26:26-28 thus could be construed, "This means my body . . . For this means my blood." I.e., the bread and wine are symbols of the Lord's body and blood.

(2) Paul employs similar language (ESTIN) with regard to the Lord's Evening Meal. See 1 Cor 11:23-26. Yet, we in no way are implying that the Lord's Evening Meal is merely the consumption of wheat and wine. In our religious paradigm, the bread and wine symbolize precious and inestimable realities: the body and blood of Christ Jesus. Ergo, anyone despising the elements or partaking of them lightly or without awareness of their significance risks incurring the fear-inspiring anger of God. I emphasize this point again. The Memorial of Christ's death is a time to remember what Christ has done in our behalf. It is a time to thank God and His Son for the precious blood that was shed upon the STAUROS of Christ. Symbol does not = denigration of Jesus' death.

(3) One may only speculate that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Then, again, he could have spoken Hebrew and he likely knew Greek. The important factor for me is that the Gospel account was ultimately written in Greek, although Matthew may have originally been written in Hebrew. Paul also utilizes ESTIN as does Matthew. It is pretty difficult to base one's decision on an Aramaic substratum that may or may not be the Vorlage of the Matthean text. Neither the physical presence or mystical view seem likely interpretations of what happened on the night that Christ delivered himself up for the world of humankind. Are we to believe that Christ, while dining with his followers, was physically present in the bread he himself broke and handed to his disciples? Was he somehow mystically united with the apostles on the fateful night of Nisan 14? I seriously doubt it since he was physically present with them at that time. Whether you agree with my construal of ESTIN in Mt 26:26-28, BDAG shows that it is certainly a possible reading of the text. Zwingli and other Reformers also preferred this interpretation to the views that you have advanced in this email.

I also recommend consulting Paul Anderson's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel for an interesting and informative take on sacramental theology in the Gospel of John.

Other Ways of Looking at Revelation 3:14 (Commentators)

Henry Alford: the beginning of the creation of God (= πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ref. Col., where see note, as also Bleek on the Hebrews, vol. ii. 1, p. 43 note. In Him the whole creation of God is begun and conditioned: He is its source and primary fountain-head. The mere word ἀρχή would admit the meaning that Christ is the first created being: see Genesis 49:3; Deuteronomy 21:17; and Proverbs 8:22. And so the Arians here take it, and some who have followed them: e. g. Castalio,” chef d’œuvre:” “omnium Dei operum excellentissimum atque primum:” and so Ewald and Züllig. But every consideration of the requirements of the context, and of the Person of Christ as set forth to us in this book, is against any such view. Others, as Calov., Bengel, Whitby, al., make ἀρχή = ἄρχων, which is impossible: as it is also to interpret κτίσεως of the new spiritual creation, the church, as Ribera, Corn.-a-lap., Grot., Wetst., al. There can be little doubt that ἀρχή is to be taken in that pregnant sense in which we have it, e. g., in Wisd. 12:16, ἡ γὰρ ἰσχύς σου δικαιοσύνης ἀρχή,—ib. 14:27, ἡ γὰρ τῶν … εἰδώλων θρησκεία παντὸς ἀρχὴ κακοῦ καὶ αἰτία καὶ πέρας ἐστίν: and in the Gospel of Nicodemus, p. ii. cap. vii. Tischdf. Ev. Apoc. p. 307, where Satan is said to be ἀρχὴ τοῦ θανάτου καὶ ῥίζα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, viz. the incipient cause. So Andr., Areth. in Catena (ἡ προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία τῆς κτίσεως), Lyra, Vitr., Wolf, Stern, Hengst., De Wette, Ebrard, Düsterd., al. The latter asks the questions, “How could Christ write if it were only this present Epistle, if he were himself a creature? How could every creature in heaven and earth adore him, if he were one of themselves (cf. ch. 19:10)? We need only think of the appellation of our Lord as the Α and Ω (ch. 22:13: cf. 1:8) in its necessary fulness of import, and we shall see that in the Α lies the necessity of his being the ἀρχή of the Creation, as in the Ω that of his coming to bring the visible creation to an end”)

William Burkitt: The other title given to Christ, is the beginning of the creation of God; that is, the beginner of the creation of God, the original and first cause, by which all the creatures of God had their beginning. Christ is not only principium principatun [sic], but principium principians; not the passive beginning, or he that first created, but the active beginning, or he by whom the creation was begun, both the old and new creation.

Peter Pett's Commentary: He is ‘the beginning of the creation of God’. As its beginning He is its source, the firstborn before the whole of creation (Colossians 1:15). But equally important is the fact that He is also the beginning of the new creation (Revelation 21:1 with Revelation 1:7). In that there is a land of riches beyond anything they have ever dreamed of. Thus all things belong to Him and are in His hands.

Expositor's Greek Testament: The resemblance of ἡ ἀρχή κ. τ. λ., to a passage in Colossians is noteworthy as occurring in an open letter to the neighbouring church of Laodicea (Philonic passages in Grill, pp. 106–110). Here the phrase denotes “the active source or principle of God’s universe or Creation” ( ἀρχή, as in Greek philosophy and Jewish wisdom-literature, = αἰτία origin), which is practically Paul’s idea and that of John 1:3 (“the Logos idea without the name Logos,” Beyschlag). This title of “incipient cause” implies a position of priority to everything created; he is the first in the sense that he is neither creator (a prerogative of God in the Apocalypse), nor created, but creative. It forms the most explicit allusion to the pre-existence of Jesus in the Apocalypse, where he is usually regarded as a divine being whose heavenly power and position are the outcome of his earthly suffering and resurrection: John ascribes to him here (not at Revelation 12:5, as Baldensperger, 85, thinks) that pre-existence which, in more or less vital forms, had been predicated of the messiah in Jewish apocalyptic (cf. En. xlviii.). This pre-existence of messiah is an extension of the principle of determinism; God foreordained the salvation itself as well as its historical hour. See the Egyptian hymn: “He is the primeval one, and existed when as yet nothing existed; whatever is, He made it after He was. He is the father of beginnings.… God is the truth, He lives by Truth, He lives upon Truth, He is the king of Truth.” The evidence for the pre-existence of messiah in Jewish Christian literature is examined by Dr. G. A. Barton, Journ. Bibl. Lit. 1902, pp. 78–91. Cf. Introd. § 6.

Sources: Alford, Henry. Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary.

Burkitt, William. "Commentary on Revelation 3:14". Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wbc/revelation-3.html. 1700-1703.

Pett, Peter. "Commentary on Revelation 3:14". "Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible ". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/revelation-3.html. 2013.

Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on Revelation 3:14". The Expositor's Greek Testament. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/revelation-3.html. 1897-1910.

Hebrews 1:3 (Translate as "substance"?)

ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, (Hebrews 1:3 WH)

ASV: "who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"

The rendering "substance" is possibly not the best way to translate ὑπόστασις in the passage above. BDAG Greek-English Lexicon gives this observation for ὑπόστασις in Heb. 1:3:

"the essential or basic structure/nature of an entity, substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality . . ."
BDAG glosses Heb. 1:3 this way:

"a(n) exact representation of (God's) real being (i.e. as one who is in charge of the universe)"

NET Bible has:

"The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence"

Commentator William L. Lane seems to prefer "nature" as a rendering of ὑπόστασις in Heb. 1:3.

David Ripley Worley has written an interesting monograph about this subject--God’s Faithfulness to Promise: The Hortatory Use of Commissive Language in Hebrews (2019). See https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=acu_library_books

He writes (page 65)

It is not necessary in the first place to translate ὑπόστασις with the meaning it has elsewhere in Hebrews (1:3; 3:14); ὑπόστασις is polysemic and the sense appropriate in 11:l is constrained by the immediate context (‘syntagmatic relationship’).31 A leading question for us is whether πίστις and ὑπόστασις share a related sense (‘paradigmatic relationship’) as do πίστις and ἔλεγχος, and if so, whether such a related sense is appropriate in the immediate context. To answer our question we must turn to the use of ὑπόστασις in the papyri.32

A number of commentators insist that Heb. 1:3 uses ὑπόστασις philosophically or with a philosophical sense. One problem is that most read this word through a fourth-century prism.

Nazarene Commentary on Revelation 3:14

I wanted to make one last observation concerning Rev. 3:14, for now. Duncan can reply if he'd like:

Lupieri and Revelation 3:14 (Beginning of the Creation)

The Lord's Thigh

See Genesis 24:2, 9; 49:10; Psalm 45:3; Revelation 19:16. Compare Isaiah 63:1-6.

The Greek term that's rendered "thigh" is μηρός. See Rogers and Rogers, page 647.

Thigh could refer to the "bodily nature" that the Logos assumes (Edmondo Lupieri, A Commentary on the Apocalypse of John, 306). Names, attributes and dedications were traditionally inscribed on the legs or garments of those who worshiped gods in the Hellenistic sanctuary (idem., 307). The term could be alluding to military gear (ibid.).

For more on Greek statues with names on the thigh, see Aune, Revelation, 52C:1062.

Grant Osborne:

Fourth, the rider on the white horse (19:16) has a name written ἐπὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν μηρὸν αὐτοῦ (epi to himation kai epi ton mēron autou, on his garment at his thigh), which could refer to two places, but most agree (e.g., Beckwith, Ladd, Mounce, Beale) that it is “on his robe, namely [epexegetical καί] his thigh.” In other words, the name is written on that part of his tunic that covered his thigh, the place where his sword would rest and where it would be conspicuous on a mounted warrior.

Osborne also mentions Charles.

John I. Durham Remarks on Exodus 20:20

Exodus 20:20 (KJV): "And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not."

John Durham: This awesome firsthand experience of the Presence of Yahweh and the speaking of Yahweh, Moses continues, is for the further purpose that Israel might have reverence () for Yahweh always before them as a constant preoccupation of mind and so might not sin. Having reverence for Yahweh is a basic emphasis of Israel’s teaching tradition (Becker, Gottesfurcht, 125–209; Stähli, "fürchten,” THAT 1:774– 78); Wolff (Int 26 [1972] 158–73) has claimed this “Fear of God” as “the most prominent theme of the Elohist.” What is meant by such “reverence” or “fear” is a respect for Yahweh/Elohim that will give a constant emphasis to his way for living and relationship, and so avoid the missing of the way () that is sin.

Source: Durham, Dr. John I. Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 492). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.

NET Bible Footnote 50 for Exodus 20:20: tn The suffix on the noun is an objective genitive, referring to the fear that the people would have of God (GKC 439 §135.m).

William Tyndale's Prologue "Upon the Gospel of John" (Screenshot)

Stanley Porter Assesses Westcott and Hort

Here's Stanley Porter's remarks about Westcott-Hort (See Porter's How We Got the New Testament):

Almost since the advent of modern textual criticism and efforts to establish the Greek text of the New Testament—that is, from the mid-nineteenth century to the present—there has been recognition of the possibility of changes to manuscripts that would indicate the theological and other contexts in which these texts were being copied. Thus, although Westcott and Hort, who published the first eclectic text based on early majuscule (capital letter) manuscripts from the fourth century, especially Codex Sinaiticus (01 ℵ),²⁶ asserted that “there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes,”²⁷ a claim that they subsequently attempted to defend,²⁸ this claim was scrutinized by a succession of textual scholars. This scrutiny came from at least two quarters. Westcott and Hort’s opponents who defended the Textus Receptus, a text based on the Greek text published first by Erasmus in the sixteenth century on the basis of several late minuscule (lowercase writing) manuscripts,²⁹ accused the transcribers of the early majuscule manuscripts, for example, of deleting the two longer endings of Mark’s Gospel (e.g., Mark 16:9–20, the longest, but usually referred to as the long ending) and of questioning the authenticity of the pericope of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11).³⁰ Those who defended the kind of text advocated by Westcott and Hort also registered concern for due recognition of later theological and other textual changes.

NT Wright Comments Pertaining to Colossians 1:15-16

Parsing Gospel of John 1:10

SBLGNT: Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

1) Ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν- ἦν is imperfect indicative active 3rd person singular. Translate here "he was"; some prefer "it."

Bengel's Gnomon of the NT: ἐν τῷ κόσμῷ ἦν, He was in the world) The evangelist adds this, lest any one should so understand the expression, coming into the world, as if the Light had not been previously in the world at all. Three times in this verse world is repeated; three times it is said of the human race, as in the previous verse, but not to the exclusion of the other creatures, at least in the first place.

2) καὶ ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω.

Westcott writes:

John Calvin:

The masculine pronoun αὐτόν, him, refers to the neuter term τὸ φῶς, the light, which proves that αὐτοῦ also must be taken as masculine. This grammatical anomaly arises from the fact that the apostle has now in view the light in so far as it had personally appeared in Jesus. This is, likewise, the reason why he substitutes the word ἔγνω knew, for κατέλαβε laid hold of (John 1:5), although the idea is fundamentally the same. One lays hold of a principle, one recognizes a person.

Adela and John Collins on Revelation 3:14

"As the Gospel of John does, Revelation associates Christ with wisdom (3:14) and with the word of God (19:13). These terms are used quite differently, however, in Revelation. The risen Jesus is associated with wisdom in 3:14 as 'the beginning of the creation of God.' This epithet clearly implies preexistence, but nothing in the work requires the inference that he is eternal. Rather, the implication seems to be that he is God's first creature." (King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins), p. 211

[Supplied by a friend.]

Compare the entry in BDAG for arche.

One Perspective on Exodus 34:29ff (Moses' Horns?)

"Spending an extended period of time in the Lord's presence has a telling effect on Moses: 'his face was radiant' (v.29). The verb qaìran (lit., 'he radiated') is sometimes related to the noun qeren ('horn'). The Vulgate confused these two, which thus led to the representation in medieval art of Moses wearing two horns! Moses’ radiant countenance is referred to three times (vv.29, 30, 35; cf. W. F. Albright, 'The Natural Face of Moses in Light of Ugaritic,' BASOR 94 [1944]: 32 – 35; J. Morgenstern, 'Moses with the Shining Face,' HUCA 2 [1925]: 1:27)."

Quote taken from THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMMENTARY: Genesis – Leviticus Genesis — Copyright © 2008 by John H. Sailhamer Exodus — Copyright © 2008 by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Leviticus — Copyright © 2008 by Richard S. Hess.

Published by Zondervan.

One Important Book to read About Philippians 2:6ff

You readers may want to check out the book entitled Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2; edited by Ralph P. Martin and Brian J. Dodd. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.

This work contains one essay by James Dunn, in which he argues that Philippians 2 does not focus on the preexistent Christ. This essay is followed by L.D. Hurst's study which contends that Paul does advocate the preexistence of Christ in Phil 2:6-8. Both of these studies, I believe, should be read in the light of C.A. Wannamaker's article ("Philippians 2:6-11: Son of God or Adamic Christology." NTS, Vol. 33, 1987, 179-193), which is referenced in my chapter on the
kenosis of Christ. See E. Foster, Christology and the Trinity.

Hebrews 1:2--"These Last Days"

The next verse of the Hebrews encomium reads: ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας.

One translation: “in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages” (YLT). What is the referent or timing of “these last days” (ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων)? Goodspeed thinks that the author of Hebrews “conceives himself to be living at the end of an epoch” in the first century and he is anticipating the Messiah's yet future appearance. DeSilva also writes that ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων in Hebrews 1:2 “signals the arrival of the end time.” Furthermore, the expression “last days” is used in Scripture with eschatological overtones that signify the “end of the days.” Note how Numbers 24:14; Jeremiah 23:20; 25:19; Daniel 10:14; Acts 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 9:26; James 5:3; 1 Peter 1:5, 20 utilize this expression. The writer evidently wants to say that the “last days” in this context arrives by means of God speaking through his enfleshed Son (John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16). The account is building up a cumulative argument for the preeminence or superiority of Christ. See Moffatt, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 4.

Sources: Edgar Johnson Goodspeed, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New York: Macmillan, 1908), 31.

David Arthur DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 85.

Hebrews 1:1--Syntax and Rhetoric

Greek text (Hebrews 1:1): πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.

The passage has been rendered: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets” (KJV). The nominal phrase ὁ θεὸς is the subject. The alliterative construction πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως is “a familiar literary figure” whose matter-of-fact sense could be understood as “in many parts and in many ways.” Bruce also opts for the translation, “at various days and in many ways” which preserves the alliteration found in the original text. The five-fold use of the phoneme π principally accentuates the rhetorical figure of Hebrews 1:1; the overall effect of the construction is to emphasize how ὁ θεὸς speaks to the forefathers of Israel. It is through the prophets (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις).

See Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 44.

Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1993), 91. Cf. Hebrews 5:8; 13:14.

2 Peter 2:7 (Witherington Discusses "Righteous Lot")

In 2 Peter 2:7 Lot is called “righteous,” and here again certain popular Jewish traditions may be in mind, not in the Old Testament (cf. Wis 10:6; 19:17).¹⁷³ In any event, he was righteous by comparison to his contemporaries in Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot is portrayed here as one who was oppressed by all the wicked and especially the sexual sinning around him. One suggestion is that Lot is called “righteous” here due to his being hospitable.¹⁷⁴

Source: Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume II.

1 Corinthians 4:6: Not Going Beyond the Things Written

I humbly submit that 1 Cor. 4:6 is speaking of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) when it warns us "not to go beyond the things written (GEGRAPTAI-perfect passive indicative 3rd singular). Now I would like to share what others have said about the subject.

"MH hUPER hA GEGRAPTAI (an idiom, literally 'not above what is written') to act sensibly in not violating written rules and traditions--'to act sensibly in keeping with rules, to observe rules properly.' hINA EN hHMIN MAQHTE TO MH hA GEGRAPTAI 'so that you may learn from us what it means to live according to the rules' or 'the saying means, Observe the rules' 1 Cor. 4:6" (Louw-Nida 89.95).

"The use of GEGRAPTAI, it is written, in the perf. tense refers absolutely to what is found written in Holy Scripture and denotes legislative act or enactment. In the sphere of revelation the written records hold this authoritative position, and GEGRAPTAI always implies an appeal to the indisputable and legal authority of the passage quoted (Matt. 4:4, 6, 7, 10; 11:10). It is completed by such as in the Law (Luke 2:23; 10:26); in the book of the words of Isaiah (Luke 3:4); in the prophets (John 6:45)" (Zodhiates).

"GEGRAPTAI (abundantly attested as a legal expr.: Dssm, B 109f, NB 77f [BS 112ff, 249f] . . .)" (BAGD 166).

"GEGRAPTAI . . . is a formula introducing quotations fr. the OT (cf. Jos., C. Ap. 1 154) Mt 4:4, 6f, 10; 21:13; Mk 11:17; 14:27; Lk 4:8; 19:46 . . . 1 Cor. 1:19" (BAGD 166).

Revelation 1:1 and Signifying

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," (ESV)

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:" (KJV)

"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John" (NWT 2013)

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to point out unto his servants the things which must needs come to pass with speed,—and he shewed them by signs, sending through his messenger, unto his servant John;" (Rotherham EB)

See the NET footnote for Rev. 1:1.

Regarding Rev. 1:1: for σημαίνω, BDAG Greek-English Lexicon has

(1) to make known, report, communicate

(2) to intimate someth[ing] respecting the future, indicate, suggest, intimate

(3) to provide an explanation for someth[ing] that is enigmatic, mean, signify.

Rev. 1:1 is categorized under (1) in this lexicon.

Grant R. Osborne's Remarks Concerning Rev. 1:1b:

The process of revelation is further described with ἐσήμανεν (esēmanen, made it known), the third term in 1:1 (with “revelation” and “show”) with the connotation of “revealing” God’s message. This term has a special purpose, for it is the verb cognate of the Johannine term σημεῖον (sēmeion, sign) and yields the idea of “making known” by means of symbols. This is particularly apropos in light of the predominant symbolism of the book. It is questionable whether Christ (in keeping with the centrality of Christ in 1:1) or God is the subject of “made known” (if ἐσήμανεν parallels δεῖξαι above). While the latter is possible grammatically, Christ is the one who “shows” the revelation to the church and therefore the likely one who “signifies” it to John. The means by which these symbolic truths are to be communicated is “through his angel,” and, as stated above in the introduction, angelic mediation is one of the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. Even a brief perusal of this book proves the extent to which angels feature in the action.

See Osborne, Revelation, Baker Books, 2002 (Ebook published in 2012).

These comments from G.K. Beale equally illuminate Rev. 1:1:

The roots of this verse are in Dan. 2:28-30, 45-47, where in the Greek translations of the OT the verb “revealed” appears five times, the verb “show” (“signify,” “communicate,” Greek sēmainō [only in OG]) twice and the phrase “what must come to pass” three times.

Two Themes in the Book of Hebrews

Two things that stand out to me in reading Hebrews lately are 1)Jesus' role as mediator; 2) the writer's focus on godly fear.

The Greek word μεσίτης (mesitēs) occurs six times in the GNT; out of those occurrences, Hebrews refers to Jesus as mediator of the new covenant three times:

νῦν δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται. (Hebrews 8:6)

Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν, ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβάσεων τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν λάβωσιν οἱ κεκλημένοι τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας. (Hebrews 9:15)

καὶ διαθήκης νέας μεσίτῃ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ αἵματι ῥαντισμοῦ κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι παρὰ τὸν Ἅβελ. (Hebrews 12:24)

Why does the author of Hebrews not only use μεσίτης but also explicitly identify Jesus as mediator of the new covenant, unlike 1 Tim. 2:5, which just calls Jesus the mediator with the implicit understanding that Christ mediates the new covenant?

Secondly comes the notion of godly fear:

ὃς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας, (Hebrews 5:7)

Πίστει χρηματισθεὶς Νῶε περὶ τῶν μηδέπω βλεπομένων εὐλαβηθεὶς κατεσκεύασεν κιβωτὸν εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ, δι' ἧς κατέκρινεν τὸν κόσμον, καὶ τῆς κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνης ἐγένετο κληρονόμος. (Hebrews 11:7)

Διὸ βασιλείαν ἀσάλευτον παραλαμβάνοντες ἔχωμεν χάριν, δι' ἧς λατρεύωμεν εὐαρέστως τῷ θεῷ μετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους, (Hebrews 12:28)

See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/09/cowardice-fear-and-awe-of-divine-words.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42614281?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Cyrus Cylinder (Image and Link)

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

See also https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=327188&partId=1

Some Notes for 2 Kings 2:23ff

2 Kings 2:23-25 (ESV): He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. 25 From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

Iain W. Provan writes (1 and 2 Kings):
Some youths: The Hb. is neʿārîm qeṭannîm, “children.” The use of naʿar alone would allow the NIV’s translation (cf. the additional note to 1 Kgs. 20:14), but the appearance of qāṭān, “small, young,” precludes it. The NIV in fact translates naʿar qāṭān in 1 Kgs. 3:7 and 11:17 (correctly) as “little child” and “boy” respectively (cf. also na‘arâ qeṭannâ, “young girl,” in 2 Kgs. 5:2). The translator has apparently had more difficulty than the authors here in coming to terms with the idea that young persons as well as old should be subject to divine judgment for their sins. Whether there is something more specific to the taunt you baldhead is not clear. It is possible that some prophets, like later Christian monks, shaved their heads as a mark of their vocation. We certainly cannot cite verses like Lev. 21:5 (addressed to priests) and Deut. 14:1 (concerning actions “for the dead”), as some commentators have recently done, against this possibility

NET Bible: tn The word נַעַר (naʿar), here translated “boy,” can refer to a broad age range, including infants as well as young men. But the qualifying term “young” (or “small”) suggests these youths were relatively young. The phrase in question (“young boy”) occurs elsewhere in 1 Sam 20:35; 1 Kgs 3:7 (used by Solomon in an hyperbolic manner); 11:17; 2 Kgs 5:14; and Isa 11:6.

Donald J. Wiseman (1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary) pushes back against the usual criticism of the Elisha account. An extended quote from his work is merited:

It does, however, show the continuing opposition to a true prophet in Bethel, the chief centre of pagan calf-worship. The main objection lies in the curse … in the name of the LORD (v. 24). In the Deuteronomic doctrine of retributive justice (Deut. 7:10) this was a requirement against anyone mocking a prophet, an act which was the equivalent of belittling God himself (Deut. 18:19; Lev. 24:10–16). The word for jeered (NIV, REB, JB) occurs in Habakkuk 1:10; cf. ‘insult’ in Jeremiah 20:8. To deride God’s representative (cf. 2 Chr. 36:16) as God himself (Gal. 6:7) or his city (Ezra 22:5) inevitably incurs judgment. The youths (rather than ‘little children’, AV, or ‘small boy’, JB, for the Hebrew nĕ’ārîm is used of servants or persons in early life of marriageable age, cf. Absalom in 2 Sam. 14:21; 18:5) may have challenged Elisha to demonstrate that he was really the equivalent of Elijah by ascending (Go on up, ‘get along with you’, REB) and mocked him as a baldhead. Baldness, contrary to popular mythology, is not a sign of inferiority or infertility, for Elisha was still young, as opposed to the hairy Elijah (1:8), though long hair may have been thought a sign of strength (2 Sam. 14:26). ⁵⁰ He may have suffered from early loss of hair (alopecia). There is no external evidence that a tonsure was then a mark of a prophet. The youths may well represent Bethel as the headquarters of idolatry and the main seat of Baal worship in Israel at this time. Bears are attested in the hill ranges until mediaeval times. The forty-two may represent an organized mob attacking the prophet rather than signify a number for the ill fated (cf. 2 Kgs 10:14; Rev. 11:2; 13:5).

Job 14:14 (KJV and NWT 2013)

A man has asked me why Job 14:14 (KJV) reads, "If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come." Yet NWT 2013 says, "If a man dies, can he live again? I will wait all the days of my compulsory service Until my relief comes."

So the issue for him is "change" versus "relief." Byington renders the passage: "If a man dies will he come to life? I would wait all the time I had to serve till my relief came;"

He also uses "relief" as opposed to "change."

NET Bible: "If a man dies, will he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait until my release comes."

Footnote: tn The construction is the same as that found in the last verse: a temporal preposition עַד (ʿad) followed by the infinitive construct followed by the subjective genitive “release/relief.” Due, in part, to the same verb (חָלַף, khalaf) having the meaning “sprout again” in v. 7, some take “renewal” as the meaning here (J. E. Hartley, Alden, NIV, ESV).

Robert Alter (Hebrew Bible): "If a man dies will he live? All my hard service days I shall hope until my vanishing comes"

Alter's Comment on 14:14: until my vanishing comes. Some understand ḥalifati as “my relief,” but the primary sense of the verbal root is to be gone or slip away, with “change” as a secondary sense. Perhaps the poet is playing on both meanings of the term. See the comment on 10:17.

Comment on Job 10:17 in Alter: vanishings and hard service are mine. This entire clause is one of the notable puzzles in Job. The second of the two nouns is the same word used at the beginning of chapter 7 (and rendered there, because of the immediate context, as “fixed service”). The first noun, ḥalifot, derives from a verb that means “to slip away,” “to vanish,” or “to change.” What Job may be saying is that his existence has become durance vile (“hard service”) in which everything he would cling to slips between his fingers (“vanishings”).

Theological Oration 5.IX (Gregory Nazianzen)

What then, say they, is there lacking to the Spirit which prevents His being a Son, for if there were not something lacking He would be a Son? We assert that there is nothing lacking—for God has no deficiency. But the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of their Names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and the One Three in properties; so that neither is the Unity a Sabellian one, nor does the Trinity countenance the present evil distinction.

Gregory Nazianzen's dates are circa 329-390 CE: he is one of the so-called Cappadocian Fathers.

Johannine Papyri Link

Generally helpful resource:

http://catholic-resources.org/John/Papyri.html

Ancient Judaism and the Creation of All Things

Granted, the Bible as we know it was not complete even in the 5th century BCE, but the Jews still possessed, wrote, and collated holy writings before then. I've also tried going back as far as possible in the history of scriptural interpretation. Whether it is the DSS or LXX, writers consistently understand bara at Gen. 1:1 as "create" although other meanings might be affixed to different verses.

Maimonides, Rashi, Philo, and Nahmanides could only work backward, but these men--particularly the rabbis--were doing interpretation within a protracted stream of thought: they were interpreting in accord with received tradition.

"Love of God" (1 John 5:3)--Some Comments

Greek: αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν, καὶ αἱ ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν, (WH)

NKJV: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome."

Does ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ refer to our love for God or his love for us? Here, the phrase likely means "our love for God." Contrast the usage with 1 John 4:9-11.

Begin quote from preceptaustin:

Wuest - The word (barus) speaks of that which is burdensome, severe, stern, violent, cruel, unsparing. Love for God makes the keeping of His commandments a delight rather than a burden. (Word Studies)

BDAG adds that barus alludes to "a source of difficulty or trouble because of demands made" as in Paul's letters (2Cor 10:10). Barus can pertain "to being important because of unusual significance. In positive affirmation of certain legal directives weighty, important (Herodian 2, 14, 3; Jos., Ant. 19, 362 of administrative responsibilities) and the more important provisions of the law (Mt 23:23) or serious charges (Acts 25:7)." BDAG adds that barus can pertain "to being of unbearable temperament, fierce, cruel, savage" (Acts 20:29).

See https://www.preceptaustin.org/1_john_53_commentary

Compare Job 6:3; Psalm 68:19; Galatians 6:2.

Quote from W. Hall Harris III:

The force of the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ (tou qeou, “of God”) in 5:3. Once again the genitive could be understood as objective, subjective, or both.642 Here an objective sense is more likely (believers’ love for God) because in the previous verse it is clear that God is the object of believers’ love.

From Stephen Smalley:

αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, “for this is love for God.” For the construction of the demonstrative αὕτη (“this”), followed later in the sentence by ἵνα (“that”), see 3:11; John 17:3 (cf. also 4:21). The context (note 4:2b) demands that in the phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (literally, “the love of God”) the genitive should be construed in a primarily objective sense (meaning, as in our translation, “love for God”).

Smalley, Dr. Stephen S. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 8765-8769). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Genesis 1:1 and Nahmanides

http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/GenRamban.html

Maimonides is known as Rambam in Jewish circles (standing for Rabbi Ben Moses Maimonides). Another rabbi named Nahmanides is called Ramban instead: his approximate dates are 1194-1270 CE.

The link above shows that Nahmanides also understood bara to mean "create (ex nihilo)" in Gen. 1:1; of course, he employs plenty of mystical/philosophical elements in his reading of the text. That point aside, I am just focusing on what bara possibly means for Nahmanides in the relevant text.

See https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Genesis.1.1?lang=bi

Youngblood, Moses, and Speaking with God God "Face to Face" (Screenshot)

Short Note on the Contingent Universe

I believe that the universe is contingent. One thing you need to ask yourself is whether the universe necessarily exists. Is its non-existence a logical possibility? Is it possible that the cosmos did not exist at one time? If the answer is "yes" then the universe is not metaphysically necessary, but it is contingent. So then, one could reason:

1) If it is possible that the universe did not exist at one time, then the universe is contingent. (If p, then q)
2) It is possible that the universe did not exist at one time. (p)
3) Therefore, the universe is contingent. (therefore, q)

This argument is logically valid.

Paul Ellingworth's Commentary Regarding Hebrews 1:5

I apologize that some of the characters became unintelligible because this file is an epub format:

On (b), angels are called sons of God collectively, not only in the MT (Jb. 2:1; 38:7) but even in the LXX (Gn. 6:2, 4; Dt. 32:43; Pss. 29[LXX 28]:1; 89[LXX 88]:7). The tendency to translate "sons" as "angels" is found both in the LXX (see especially the addition to Dt. 32:43; - Heb. 1:6) and in Philo (Gig. 6f.; Deus Imm. 1.2.3; Quaest. in Gn. 1.92; cf. Jos. Ant. 1.73). In such contexts, "angels" reflects the interpretation of "sons" in hellenistic settings in which Jewish monotheism needed to be protected. At an earlier stage in the Hebrew tradition, the concept of an assembly of divine beings, subordinate to Yahweh, may have been influential (Cooke 1964). In Dn. 3:92 MT 3:25), where the LXX has oµoutu. ayye)ov 9eov, Theodotion reproduces the MT more closely with oµoia vt4 eEov. Even if the writer of Hebrews was using a Theodotionic Vorlage, his argument would not be ruined by this text, since it is a simile and not a divine declaration. More difficult is Ps. 82(LXX 81):6, where the existence of pagan gods is assumed (cf. v. 1), and an unidentified speaker declares, in language similar to that of Ps. 2:7:

ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ῾Υψίστου πάντες

Since the first line is quoted in Jn. 10:34, it is possible that the writer of Hebrews would have considered it. If so, he probably understood it ironically, as the context suggests. His argument may thus be considered valid within its own terms of reference: the OT contains no statement about any individual (τίνι) angel in which God on any occasion (ποτε) declared him to be his Son.

James D.G. Dunn on Galatians 3:19

Violence in the Bible?

I've been reading plenty of resources about biblical violence here lately, and my desire is to post some works that deal with the issue. At the outset, I would like to point out that just because Scripture describes violent acts, that doesn't mean violent acts are prescribed or approved by God. Nevertheless, we have to deal with instances where YHWH commands Israel to annihilate the Amalekites. Furthermore, lots of blood is spilled by the heavenly armies in Revelation and people become bird food. Yet the psalmist writes that Jehovah's soul hates the one who loves violence. More to come.

See https://oxfordre.com/religion/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-154

The Deictic/Anaphoric Use of Greek Articles

Greek articles can be used deictically or anaphorically, but NT Greek tends to use demonstratives to signify "this" and "that" as we find with Acts 2:32-36. Additionally, it seems that the articles in Jn. 20:29-30 are not anaphoric.

The target audience most certainly affects the writing of texts, just like it does with our multiple genres and media sources today. But we must have some precedents on which to base our judgments: we need examples of some kind to justify our grammatical claims. Furthermore, I would question what basis we have for thinking that one of the NT writers used the article demonstratively/anaphorically to communicate unique ideas with the recipients of his letter.

I emphasize that the article can be used demonstratively/anaphorically; however, we normally have good reason for thinking that a certain use of the article is anaphoric or not.

See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D4%3Achapter%3D40%3Asection%3D73

Logic Websites (Intro Concepts)

The last time I checked, all of these links worked. I hope they assist those interested in the rudiments of formal logic.

https://www.csm.ornl.gov/~sheldon/ds/sec1.2.html

https://www.logicmatters.net/ifl/answers-to-exercises/

https://www.cs.odu.edu/~toida/nerzic/content/questions/unit8q.html

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/

https://www.google.com/search?q=no+man+is+an+island+predicate+logic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab

https://forallxremix.org/supporting-materials/links/

https://www.wwnorton.com/college/phil/logic3/ch14/Hw14a.htm

Richard Longenecker and Romans 12:2--"But be transformed"

Yet even more important than this negative injunction for believers in Jesus not to live their lives according to the ways of thinking and the practices of the people of “this present age,” Paul exhorts all his hearers and readers of that day — as well as all of us today who profess to be Christians — as follows: “But be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε [the form of the verb here being passive] τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός). This remarkable “metamorphosis” that Paul speaks of here is not some pattern of external decorum or form of outward expression that believers in Jesus are to accept by way of a makeover of their lives and practices. Rather, it is a complete inner change of thought, will, and desires that Christians are to allow God by means of the ministry of his Holy Spirit to bring about in their lives, resulting in a recognizable external change of actions and conduct. It is a metamorphosis of a person’s inner being such as Paul evidently had in mind earlier in 8:12-13 when he wrote: “Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation — but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” It is, in fact, the renewal of a believer’s mind that is brought about by God’s Spirit, as also expressed in such later Pauline passages as Eph 4:23 (Christians are “to be made new” in their thoughts and attitudes); Col 3:10 (the believer’s “new self” is “being renewed [by God’s Holy Spirit] in knowledge in the image of its Creator”); and Titus 3:5 (God has “saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit”). The result of this inner renewal of the believer’s mind, which is brought about by the work of God’s Spirit, is this: “Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing, and perfect will.” This statement of result is grammatically introduced by Paul’s use of the preposition εἰς (“into,” “unto”) with the articular infinitive τὸ δοκιμάζειν (“to prove by testing” or “approve”) — with such a use of εἰς with an articular infinitive signaling the idea of purpose or result (literally translated “in order to”).

Quoted From: The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Richard N. Longenecker, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, GRAND RAPIDS, MI.

Scriptures About Christians Ruling as Kings-Priests/Judges (GNT)

Revelation 1:5; 5:9-10; 20:4-6; 1 Corinthians 4:8-10; 6:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:10-12; Romans 8:14-17

Contra Irenaeum--Part II (The Antichrist)

During the second and third century, there was a "continuing preoccupation with the figure of the Antichrist" (Pelikan 1:127 [1971]). Apocalyptic themes were rife among both the polemicists and apologists of the ancient ecclesia. Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Irenaeus all wrote about the Antichrist and applied the Biblical description of the Antichrist and other eschatological passages to their time:

"Irenaeus saw in Antichrist the recapitulation of every error and idolatry since the deluge; and, in accordance with the prophecies of both the Old and New Testament, as interpreted by the apostolic tradition of 'men who saw John face to face,' he believed that Antichrist would be a member of the tribe of Dan" (Pelikan 1:128 [1971] Cf. Also Haer. 5.30.1-2.

Was Irenaeus correct in his assessment of the Biblical Antichrist? I now ask you what exactly was his Biblical proof for such an assertion?

What about his view of apostolic succession? Irenaeus has been quoted as saying that "obedience is due to those presbyters who, as we have shown, are in the succession after the Apostles, having received, according to the will of the Father, certain charisma of truth" (Haer. 4.26.2).

W.H.C. Frend relates: "Irenaeus based this [apostolic succession] less on mechanical succession than on the fact that the Spirit had been present in the apostles and continued in these elders" (Frend 249-250 [1984]). Irenaeus further reports that the Church in Rome was especially prestigious, for Paul and Peter had preached there and the later elders of Rome were alleged successors of these preeminent apostles:

"Chief among these [elders who were apostolic successors] in authority and prestige was the church at Rome, in which the apostolic tradition shared by all the churches everywhere had been preserved," (Haer. 5.20.1).

Was Irenaeus adhering to the ipsissima verba of the Bible when he taught the validity of apostolic succession? Nowhere does the Bible say that Rome was/is the most prestigious Christian congregation; nor does the Bible support apostolic succession. We may also point out that Irenaeus is not on Scriptural ground when he contends that Peter went to Rome in order to preach; again, this statement cannot be proved from the Scriptures. The Bible simply reports that Peter preached in Babylon (1 Peter 5:13). N.B.: This is not a symbolic allusion to Rome. Even a cursory examination of how the word "Babylon" is used in Scripture will put this erroneous notion to rest. It is therefore apparent that Irenaeus is shown to be mistaken in at least some of his teachings. For more details on this subject, and the church politics that Irenaeus was involved in, see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels. She provides evidence that the monarchical model espoused by both Ignatius and Irenaeus possibly was influenced more by politics than the Bible.

Revelation 2:20 Variants

Greek: ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι ἀφεῖς τὴν [a]γυναῖκα Ἰεζάβελ, ἡ [b]λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν, καὶ διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ τοὺς ἐμοὺς δούλους πορνεῦσαι καὶ φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα. (SBLGNT)

[a] ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 2:20 γυναῖκα WH Treg NIV ] + σοῦ RP
[b] ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 2:20 λέγουσα WH Treg NIV ] λέγει RP


“The textual question may be summarily treated. Two uncial manuscripts (A and 046 == Q, of the 10th century) and many cursives and versions insert σοῦ [sou] [your] after τὴν γυναῖκα [tēn gynaika] [the woman/wife]. The decisive weight of textual authority however appears against this (א, C, etc.), and the addition is readily explained by dittography.”—Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989), 117.

NET Bible: tc The ms evidence for γυναῖκα (gunaika, “woman”) alone includes {א C P 1611 2053 pc lat}. The ms evidence for the addition of “your” (σου, sou) includes A 1006 2351 M pc sy. With the pronoun, the text reads “your wife, Jezebel” instead of “that woman, Jezebel.” In Revelation, A C are the most important mss, along with א P (which only reads in portions of chapters 9-17) 1006 1611 2053; in this instance, the external evidence slightly favors the shorter reading. But internally, it gains strength. The longer reading implies the idea that the angel in 2:18 is the bishop or leader of the church in Thyatira. The pronoun “your” (σου) is used four times in vv. 19-20 and may have been the cause for the scribe copying it again. Further, once the monarchical episcopate was in vogue (beginning in the 2nd century) scribes might have been prone to add “your” here.

Pronouncing Pneuma

I would not say that it's wrong to pronounce πνεῦμα without the 'p,' (i.e., "neuma"); it's more a matter of linguistic convention and illustrates how phonemes come to be pronounced in another language. A variety of English dictionaries include pneuma--you can see their pronunciation schemes here:

https://www.onelook.com/?w=pneuma&ls=a

For example, Merriam-Webster has ˈnü-mə for pneuma. Other works give comparable ways of pronouncing the word.

However, when it comes to the Greek, William Mounce writes:

Remember, in Greek there are no silent consonants, so the pi is pronounced; unlike in English where, for example, the "p" is not pronounced in the word, "pneumatic."

See https://www.billmounce.com/greekvocabulary/%CF%80%CE%BD%CE%B5%E1%BF%A6%CE%BC%CE%B1

Either way, I'm not going to castigate or flog anyone who pronounces pneuma without the labial voiceless plosive.

Contra Irenaeum: Christological Recapitulation and Other Doctrines--Part I

While I do not condemn Irenaeus of Lyons ex toto, it is my impression that his teachings are skewed to some extent by the subtle philosophical inclinations that one encounters within his unique brand of "Christian" didache. For while Irenaeus supposedly bases his teaching on the Bible, he equally uses philosophical concepts as part of his theologia: one instance of this Tendenz is his theory of recapitulation (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις or recirculatio). See https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/recapitulation-christ

Irenaeus bases his recapitulation idea on Eph. 1:9-10. Charles Ryrie explains his teaching in this way:

"Christ recapitulated in Himself all the stages of life including what belongs to us as sinners. His obedience substituted for Adam's disobedience, and this should affect a transformation in our life" (Ryrie, Basic Theology, 308 [1986]).

How does Ryrie view the recapitulation doctrine of Irenaeus? Under a section titled "Theories of the Atonement," Ryrie lists Irenaeus' idea as one "theory" among many, then he states:

"As one would expect, various views of the Atonement, both true and false, have been propagated throughout church history. A study of these, even in a summary manner, should do two things: it should help prevent one falling into the same errors others have made, and it should help one to state the truth more precisely because of errors that have been made" (Ryrie, 308 [1986]).

So Ryrie, while not condemning Irenaeus as a false prophet, does seem to affirm that his recapitulation theory is possibly erroneous or mistaken: it does not seem to communicate the truth of Scripture as precisely as one might desire. Yet why does Irenaean recapitulation theory fail to put across the full truth of God's Word concerning Christ's substitutionary act?

If one carefully scrutinizes Irenaeus' recapitulation theory, it quickly becomes apparent that there is a philosophical aura surrounding this idea. For while Irenaeus ostensibly employs Eph. 1:9-10 to buttress his atonement theory, he simultaneously utilizes Aristotle's famed concepts of potentiality and actuality as well. In other words, Irenaeus professes that humans were created with a certain God-given potentiality. But since Adam and Eve did not actualize their God-given potentiality, Christ came to actualize what Adam did not, and what the first human couple's progeny could not actualize. Irenaean theology is thus framed in hylomorphic/Aristotelian terms--not strict Pauline language. Nevertheless, it is not just the language that constitutes a problem; the very philosophical concepts that Irenaeus puts to work in this regard are problematic.

In view of how Christ supposedly actualized his God-given potential, Irenaeus avers, all humans should effect a spiritual transformation in their own lives (Cf. Iren. Haer. 2.22.4; 3.18.1-7; 5.16.2-3). The difficulty with this view, however, is that it skews the Biblical picture of humanity's fall; it also obscures the substitutionary gift of Christ Jesus. Moreover, while the recapitulation theory may not be totally erroneous, it still fails to "state the truth . . . precisely" (Ryrie). This is but one example of Irenaeus' theological misgivings, yet this is not the only scriptural faux pas that he commits. My next post will deal with Irenaeus and the Antichrist.

Trinitarian Parlance and Divine Personhood (Building on John 1:1)

A problem that Trinitarian theology has not addressed (satisfactorily) involves how it is possible to speak of the Son and holy spirit as Persons. To be sure, theologians attempt to cut the Gordian knot of this troublesome antinomy. Nevertheless, not one thinker has satisfactorily explained how Persons who are not Persons in the Cartesian sense (cogito ergo sum) can subsist with (pros) one another and enjoy meaningful communion and love one another. For instance, Robert Bowman (following earlier thinkers) suggests that "person" is analogical language when the term references God. But this explanation does not explain how one analogical divine Person can be with another analogical Person, then love and send that "analogical" person.

1 Timothy 6:9 (Determined to be Rich)

1 Timothy 6:9 (Greek): οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν ἐμπίπτουσιν εἰς πειρασμὸν καὶ παγίδα καὶ ἐπιθυμίας πολλὰς ἀνοήτους καὶ βλαβεράς, αἵτινες βυθίζουσι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰς ὄλεθρον καὶ ἀπώλειαν·

My Comments: πλουτεῖν is the present active infinitive of πλουτέω--translate "to be rich." Note also the way that Paul juxtaposes πλουτεῖν in 1 Timothy 6:9 and 1 Tim. 6:18 (be rich in good deeds); furthermore, the latter verse is addressed to those who are financially rich in this system of things.

From Zerwick and Grosvenor:

Theos in John 1:1c (Yet Again)

It seems clear that the LOGOS cannot be the same QEOS that he is with (John 1:1b). Therefore, the preverbal anarthrous PN in 1:1c should be rendered "a god" since QEOS is a count noun and serves as an instantiation of the class, QEOI. We again encounter one of the major problems for Trinitarian theology, namely, explaining the Trinitarian relations within the Godhead.

Asserting that PROS implies being with or toward or even in close communion with someone else, certain scholars have tried to explain John 1:1 by resorting to a priori categories of person and substance. However, John McKenzie has pointed out that John the apostle did not differentiate between the divine substance and three Persons who are sharers in that divine substance. John simply used QEOS to describe the Being whom he identified as the only true God (John 17:3). This Being is distinct from the man who was called Jesus Christ on earth, and He is also set apart from the LOGOS who was with the only true God before the world existed (John 17:5). Granted, John used QEOS of the LOGOS in 1:1c, but it does not seem that he was trying to equate the Word with Almighty God (John 14:28; 20:17).

G.R. Beasley-Murray contends that PROS TON QEON means: "in the presence of God" or "in the fellowship of God." B.M Newman and E.A. Nida reject an "in the presence of God" understanding and opt for the notion of "a kind of interactive reciprocality between the Word and God."

Contextual and Extended (Principled) Applications

I found the WT article about contextual and extended (principled) applications. It's in the 8/15/1972 issue, see page 498ff.

Here is a quote provided from that article that's within the confines of "fair use law" in the USA:

A Scripture text may be quoted or cited and applied in a way that appears to contradict an application made in an earlier instance. In some cases this may be due to greater light of understanding, correcting a former view. In other cases you may be helped by considering whether the application is “contextual,” that is, whether the scripture is being discussed in the light of the context and setting. Or perhaps it is an “extended” application, that is, the principle of the text may be applied to some other circumstance.
An example of a text from which the principle is often forcefully applied is Hebrews 12:9, which reads: “We used to have fathers who were of our flesh to discipline us, and we used to give them respect. Shall we not much more subject ourselves to the Father of our spiritual life and live?”
The writer is here speaking of the “spiritual life” of the spirit-begotten brothers of Jesus Christ, who have heavenly hopes. (Heb. 12:22-24, 28) But the principle set out in this text may also be applied to the “other sheep,” who are prospective children of God, with hope of everlasting life on earth. (John 10:16; Rom. 8:21) These, too, have a “spiritual life,” inasmuch as they are living according to the direction of God’s Word and spirit alongside the spirit-begotten ones. They are not living ‘fleshly lives,’ lives devoted to pursuing “the works of the flesh.”—Rom. 7:5; 8:5-8; Gal. 5:19-21; compare 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Please see the WT for further information.

One example I discussed recently is 1 Cor. 10:21. According to the context, the table and cup of the Lord are references to the Lord's evening meal (supper), but the verse may have a wider application outside of that original context. Cf. the 7/1/1959 WT, page 410.

The Authority of Scripture in Antiquity

Justin Martyr tried appealing to Scripture as his utmost authority:

"If I undertook, said I, "to prove this by doctrines and arguments of man, you should not bear with me. But if I frequently quote Scripture passages, and so many of them, referring to this point, and ask you to comprehend them, you are hard-hearted in the recognition of the mind and will of God" (Dialogue with Trypho 68).

The fourth-century apologist Lucius Lactantius expressed matters in the following way:

"Of so much greater antiquity are the prophets found to be than the Greek writers. And I bring forward all these things, that they may perceive their error who endeavour to refute Holy Scripture, as though it were new and recently composed, being ignorant from what fountain the origin of our holy religion flowed. But if any one, having put together arid examined the times, shall duly lay the foundation of learning, and fully ascertain the truth, he will also lay aside his error when he has gained the knowledge of the truth" (The Divine Institutes 4.4.5).

From Clement of Rome:

"Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them. There you will not find that the righteous were cast off by men who themselves
were holy. The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the wicked. They were cast into prison, but only by the unholy; they were stoned, but only by transgressors; they were slain, but only by the accursed, and such as had conceived an unrighteous envy against them" (1 Clement XLV).

Perfect Passive Participles in Latin

Ancient Latin works sometimes contain perfect passive participles. Such verbal adjectives are employed:

1) Adjectivally (e.g., Laudamus glorificatum Deum)

2) Substantivally (e.g., Scimus adjutos a Petro)

3) As the equivalent of an adverbial clause (e.g., Puer, a diacano monitus, ecclesiam intravit)

All of the examples above come from ecclesiastical Latin.

See https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Primer_of_Ecclesiastical_Latin.html?id=rqoXOW6LmVMC

Lacugna, and the Immanent/Economic Trinity

The common and longstanding distinction between the divine "immanence" and "economy" is thoroughly explained in Catherine Lacugna's God for Us. She explains the etymology and historical usages of both terms in the first portion of her work.

For now, I'll just say that the technical terms which Trinitarian literature often employs to delineate the tripersonal godhead are quoad se and quoad nos. The first Latin expression refers to God as he is immanently or with respect to his divine substance; on the other hand, quoad nos pertains to God in relation to us. That is to say, the divine economy pertains to how God acts historically since, by "orthodox" standards, he is timeless respecting the divine substance ad intra.

Another expression that one comes across in theological literature is Heilsgeschichte, a German term which refers to "salvation history." Salvation history is synonymous with the word "economy." However, one German theologian named Karl Rahner (in)famously contends that the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity and vice versa--this axiom is known as Rahner's rule.

Kallistos Ware and Jesus' Kenosis

"And this self-emptying is a self-fulfillment: kenosis is plerosis. God is never so strong as when he is most weak" (The Orthodox Way, 82).

Gar in Hebrews 3:4-NWT

Greek: πᾶς γὰρ οἶκος κατασκευάζεται ὑπό τινος, ὁ δὲ πάντα κατασκευάσας θεός.

NASB: "For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God."

AMP Bible: "For [of course] every house is built and furnished by someone, but the Builder of all things and the Furnisher [of the entire equipment of all things] is God."

GNT: Every house, of course, is built by someone—and God is the one who has built all things.

NWT 2013: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."

CEV: "Of course, every house is built by someone, and God is really the one who built everything."

CEV handles γὰρ like NWT does, unlike most translations which render γὰρ with "for."

But see Slater's comments for γὰρ ὦν here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0072:entry=ga/r

Compare https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/the-many-faces-%CE%B3%CE%AC%CF%81-1-cor-14-23

J.D. Denniston's study on Greek particles is a must-read for the subject of γὰρ.

See https://www.scribd.com/doc/241812244/Denniston-The-Greek-Particles-2ed-1954-pdf

Ambrosiaster Remarks About 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (in Latin)

ipse enim Christus dominus voluntate patris quasi primus angelus {dei} cum exercitu caelesti, sicut continetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis apostoli, descendet de caelo ad gerendum bellum nomine dei contra Antichristum. quo extincto iussu eius resurgent mortui. hoc est ergo in tuba dei descendere, nomine dei bellum gerere. est enim, ut ipse dixit ad Hiesum filium Nave, dux et princeps exercitus domini, propter quod archangelus dicitur.

Aune and Soards Explain 1 Corinthians 12:10

Commenting on 1 Cor. 12:10, David Aune writes:

"The term 'spirits' in the phrase might more appropriately be understood as 'prophetic utterances' or 'revelations of the Spirit,' on analogy with the use of the term 'spirit' (pneuma) in 2 Thess 2:2, 1 John 4:1; and particularly 1 Cor 14:12" (Prophecy in Early Christianity, page 220).

This understanding is actually an example of Greek semantics 101, but NWT critics somehow neglect to learn this datum. But let us continue.

Regarding 1 Cor. 12:10, Marion Soards informs us that this verse "has generated considerable discussion among interpreters" (1 Corinthians, page 260). He cites the view of Gordon Fee, who thinks that pneuma in 1 Cor. 12:10 refers to a Christian "making inspired assessments of inspired utterances." Soards concludes that Fee's suggestion is "exegetically grounded and judicious" (260). The view of both men coincides with the one propounded by NWT vis-à-vis 1 Cor. 12:10 and 1 Jn. 4:1. [Fee also seems to think that PNEUMA refers to 'false teaching' in 1 Tim. 4:1 and when "misleading spirits" are mentioned in that Pauline passage.]

STEP Bible Textual Notes for Revelation 20:5

Revelation of John 20:5

οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη.] (Byz) (ς) WH

omit] ‭א 2030 2053 2062 2377 al syrph Victorinus-Pettau Beatus


οἱ] A 1611 itgig WH NR CEI Riv TILC NM

καὶ οἱ] 046 051 1006 1841 1854 2050 (2329) Byz itar vgmss syrh copbo

οἱ δὲ] pc ς ND Dio Nv


νεκρῶν] A Byz ς WH

ἀνθρώπων] pc


ἔζησαν ἄχρι] A Byz WH

ἀνέζησαν ἄχρι] pc

ἀνέζησαν ἕως] pc ς

See https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp|reference=Rev.20.5&options=GNHVU

1 Timothy 5:22-23--Laying on of Hands and Wine

1 Timothy 5:22 (ESV): "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure."

The laying on of hands usually refers to the act of appointing persons to an office (like the office of presbyter). Scholars call 1 and 2 Timothy, the Pastoral Letters for a reason. Furthermore, commentaries usually point out that 1 Tim. 5:23 was echoed in other writings of the Greco-Roman world--it was apparently a common maxim for the time.

REV Commentary: "The laying on of hands describes the implementing of a leadership position in the Church; this verse falls in the context of eldership and moral requirements for leaders (see commentary on 1 Tim 5:24)."

REV Commentary for 1 Tim. 5:23: "Timothy had apparently tried to set a good example to the Ephesians by not drinking wine at all, in spite of the ill effects it had on him. Paul corrects him, and tells him to go back to drinking some wine. This should be a good lesson for leaders. It often happens that leaders want so badly for their congregation to live righteous lives that they abstain from things that never needed to be abstained from in the first place, but so many people were being abusive that the leader thought abstinence was the best course. While there are situations in which that is the case, it is usually better to teach people to obey God, which includes moderation in most things, and allow them to be responsible before the Lord for their own lives. It is often better to set the example that moderation is both godly and possible than to simply abstain."

1 John 2:2-3 and αὐτός

Greek: καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν.

ESV Translation: "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments."

NET Bible: "Now by this we know that we have come to know God: if we keep his commandments."

NET Note:

tn Grk “know him.” (1) Many take the third person pronoun αὐτον (auton) to refer to Jesus Christ, since he is mentioned in 2:1 and the pronoun αὐτός (autos) at the beginning of 2:2 clearly refers to him. But (2) it is more likely that God is the referent here, since (a) the assurance the author is discussing here is assurance that one has come to know God (all the claims of the opponents in 1:5-2:11 concern knowing and having fellowship with the God who is light); (b) when Jesus Christ is explicitly mentioned as an example to follow in 1 John 2:6, the pronoun ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) is used to distinguish this from previous references with αὐτός; (c) the καί (kai) which begins 2:3 is parallel to the καί which begins 1:5, suggesting that the author is now returning to the discussion of God who is light, a theme introduced in 1:5. The author will now discuss how a Christian may have assurance that he or she has come to know the God who is light.

I previously argued that αὐτός refers to Jesus Christ in 1 John 2:2-3. More specifically, αὐτόν and αὐτοῦ appear in 2:3. So what do other scholars write about the referent of the pronoun for 1 John 2:3?

Robertson's Word Pictures: Know we that we know him (γινοσκομεν οτι εγνωκαμεν αυτον — ginoskomen hoti egnōkamen auton). “Know we that we have come to know and still know him,” εγνωκαμεν — egnōkamen the perfect active indicative of γινωσκω — ginōskō The Gnostics boasted of their superior knowledge of Christ, and John here challenges their boast by an appeal to experimental knowledge of Christ which is shown by keeping his (αυτου — autou Christ‘s) commandments, thoroughly Johannine phrase (12 times in the Gospel, 6 in this Epistle, 6 in the Apocalypse).

Colin G. Kruse Pillar (NT Commentary):

The second question that needs to be answered is, To whom does the author refer when he speaks about knowing ‘him’? Is he referring to God the Father, or to Jesus Christ, his Son? To answer this question we need to look to the wider context. In 1:5–7 the author makes analogous statements. He writes: ‘God is light. . . . If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in darkness, we lie and do not put the truth into practice. But if we walk in the light … the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin.’ The author’s main concern here is with bogus claims to have fellowship with God. Jesus Christ, the Son, is introduced in a secondary way, as the one whose blood cleanses the sins of those who walk in the light as God is in the light. If we allow this pattern to guide us in the interpretation of 2:3, we will understand ‘him’ in this verse to denote God the Father. Such an approach is supported by the fact that later in this same chapter the author deals with the false claims of those who say they know God while holding inadequate opinions about his Son (cf., e.g., 2:22–23).
The third question to be answered is, What does the author mean by ‘his commands’? He uses the word ‘command’ (entolē) 14 times in 1 John. Sometimes it is found in singular form, other times in plural form. When he uses the singular form, it always refers explicitly to Christ’s command that his followers should love one another (2:7 [3x], 8; 3:23 [2x]; 4:21). The plural form occurs where there is no explicit reference to Jesus’ command (2:3, 4; 3:22, 24; 5:2, 3 [2x]), though in all but two of these references the context indicates clearly that Jesus’ love command is in mind. The exceptions are 2:3, 4, where the evidence that people know God is that they keep his commandments and walk as Jesus walked. At first sight this could be taken to refer to God’s law, especially the Ten Commandments, which Jesus observed during his incarnate life.42 But there is no hint elsewhere in the letter that the author is concerned about obedience to the Mosaic law.
And in 3:21–23 he speaks about God answering believers’ prayers because they obey his commands, and then continues: ‘and this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he has commanded us’ (3:23). God’s commands are that we believe in Christ and do what he commands, and this letter highlights Jesus’ command to love one another. It may be best, therefore, to interpret the reference to ‘his commands’ in this verse in that light also.
The thrust of 2:3, therefore, is that it is those who, like the readers, believe in Jesus Christ, God’s Son, and obey his command to love one another who truly know God. The secessionists who claim to know God but do not keep his command by implication do not know God.

ICC New Testament Commentary Regarding John 14:28

ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν. To this sentence theologians devoted close attention in the fourth century, but it would be out of place in a commentary on the Fourth Gospel to review the Arian controversy. It suffices to note that the filial relationship, upon which so much stress is laid in Jn., implies of itself that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. There is no question here of theological subtleties about what a later age called the “subordination” of the Son, or of any distinction between His οὐσία and that of the Father. But, for Jn., the Father sent the Son (see on 3:17), and gave Him all things (see on 3:35). Cf. Mark 13:32, Php 2:6, 1 Corinthians 15:27, for other phrases which suggest that ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν is a necessary condition of the Incarnation. It is the same Person that says “I and my Father are one thing” (10:30), who speaks of Himself as “a man who hath told you the truth which I have heard from God” (8:40).1 See on 5:18, 32.

Table of Jehovah: A Brief Look at 1 Corinthians 10:21

1 Corinthians 10:21 (RNWT): "You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of 'the table of Jehovah' and the table of demons."

Strictly speaking, what is "the cup of Jehovah?" What is the table of Jehovah?

When considering the context of 10:21, it becomes immediately obvious that Paul specifically is focusing on the Lord's evening meal (Lord's supper). He is encouraging the 1st century Corinthians not to partake of the bread and wine at the Lord's evening meal while in an unclean state: don't partake of bread and wine while living immorally or worshiping idols. Idolatry seems to be the main idea behind "the table of demons." An anointed Christian cannot partake from both tables.

See 1 Cor. 10:16-21.

From Robertson's Word Pictures: Ye cannot (ου δυναστε — ou dunasthe). Morally impossible to drink the Lord‘s cup and the cup of demons, to partake of the Lord‘s table and the table of demons.

Of the table of the Lord (τραπεζης Κυριου — trapezēs Kuriou). No articles, but definite idea. Τραπεζα — Trapeza is from τετρα — tetra (four) and πεζα — peza (a foot), four-footed. Here table means, as often, what is on the table. See Luke 22:30 where Jesus says “at my table” (επι της τραπεζης μου — epi tēs trapezēs mou), referring to the spiritual feast hereafter. Here the reference is plainly to the Lord‘s Supper (Κυριακον δειπνον — Kuriakon deipnon 1 Corinthians 11:20). See allusions in O.T. to use of the table in heathen idol feasts (Isaiah 65:11; Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 16:18.; Ezekiel 23:41). The altar of burnt-offering is called the table of the Lord in Malachi 1:7 (Vincent).

Vincent's Word Studies:

The cup of devils

Representing the heathen feast. The special reference may be either to the drinking-cup, or to that used for pouring libations.

The Lord's table

Representing the Lord's Supper. See 1 Corinthians 11:20sqq. The Greeks and Romans, on extraordinary occasions, placed images of the gods reclining on couches, with tables and food beside them, as if really partakers of the things offered in sacrifice. Diodorus, describing the temple of Bel at Babylon, mentions a large table of beaten gold, forty feet by fifteen, standing before the colossal statues of three deities. Upon it were two drinking-cups. See, also, the story of “Bel and the Dragon,” vv. 10-15. The sacredness of the table in heathen worship is apparent from the manner in which it is combined with the altar in solemn formulae; as ara et mensa. Allusions to the table or to food and drink-offerings in honor of heathen deities occur in the Old Testament: Isaiah 65:11; Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 16:18, Ezekiel 16:19; Ezekiel 23:41. In Malachi 1:7, the altar of burnt-offering is called “the table of the Lord.”

Ephesians 6:10-17 and The Divine Panoply (Adaptation of a Talk)

All of Jehovah's people are engaged in a spiritual battle (Eph. 6:11-12). How can we win the fight against Satan and his demons? It is only by wearing the complete suit of armor from God.

Read Ephesians 6:11-13

We're locked in a struggle with "wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places." The apostle Paul describes our fight as one that involves hand-to-hand combat. Our fight is also spiritual rather than literal, but our enemies are no less real and deadly.

Young Christians have a difficult time in this battle because they seem vulnerable or may lack experience. However, the only way that any of us can win the struggle is by putting on the complete suit of armor from God (the divine panoply).

Part of this armor is mentioned in Ephesians 6:14-15 (Read)

Some essential components of our spiritual armor are truth, righteousness, and the good news of peace.

The truths we learn from God’s Word are compared to a belt that protects us from false teachings; God's righteous standards are like a breastplate that guards our figurative hearts (Proverbs 4:23). Moreover, as we acquire a clear understanding of the truths in God’s Word, we're able to defend those truths when we encounter opposers.​ Finally, preaching the good news of peace safeguards our feet as we courageously witness to others like Jesus and the apostles did.

Ephesians 6:16-17 discusses two other parts of our spiritual armor (Read)

What are the wicked one's burning arrows? They could include lies told by Satan that are meant to discourage us or make us slow down in our ministry: Satan tries to make Jehovah's people feel worthless. However, our faith can be like a protective shield if we do personal Bible study, prepare for the meetings, and heartily participate in them. Jehovah will then become real to us, not merely an abstract force.

In addition to the shield of faith, we need hope, our figurative helmet of salvation (1 Thessalonians 5:8). Hope keeps us focused on God’s promises and helps us see problems in the right perspective. But if we want our “helmet” to be effective, we must wear it on our head, not carry it in our hands.

Our final part of spiritual armor is the sword of God's spirit. Our ultimate goal is to become skilled at using God's word: some Christians have developed a list of verses to remember and share with others. Familiarity with the Bible helps us become adept at using it to defend truth and expose false teachings.

Can you identify each part of the armor from God?

Meditation question: Is my suit of armor complete?

1 John 2:28-29 (Who Is the Intended Referent?)

One of my interlocutors says:

Dear Edgar,

I have always felt comfortable taking both 1 John 2:28 and 2:29 of Christ. The work of the Father and the Son are a unity (2:22-24); so there is no difficulty for me in moving to the Father in 3:1.

I replied:

"1 John 2:25b-The antecedent of AUTOS is TWi PATRI (Note that this antecedent is the closest of two possible antecedents. The Father clearly seems to be in view also in light of Tit. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:1; 5:11-12, 20).

2:27-AUTOU refers to the Father."

Addendum: 1 John 2:28-AUTWi in 2:28 is not so clear: John appears to be switching referents here, and S.M. Baugh implies that AUTOS in this passage applies to the Son. A confusing aspect of this passage is that up to this point, John's discourse revolves around the Father. But his use of the Greek term PAROUSIA seems to indicate Christ Jesus is under discussion.

1 John 2:29-This passage is equally ambiguous, but seems to reference God the Father (EX AUTOU GEGENNHTAI).

Smalley writes:

We conclude that while the context and theology of v 29 suggest strongly that the subject of the first part of the sentence is Jesus, and that God is in mind throughout the second half, there is perhaps a measure of deliberate ambivalence in both instances. The Johannine emphasis on the completeness of God’s self-disclosure in Jesus (cf. John 1:18) means that the writer of 1 John could describe both the Son and the Father not only as “righteous,” but also as the author of regeneration (cf. Westcott, 83).

Smalley, Dr. Stephen S. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4818-4821). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Smalley and D.E. Hiebert both cite Westcott as one scholar, who thinks the pronouns of vv. 28-29 refer to Christ. However, Hiebert observes:

This identification is less certain if verse 29 is accepted as beginning a new division. An obvious difficulty with this identification is that the New Testament nowhere explicitly speaks of believers as "born of Christ." In this letter they are referred to as "born of God" (3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4), and in John 3:8 as "born of the Spirit," but nowhere as "born of Christ." In 1 John 3:1-2 believers are expressly called "children of God." Bultmann suggested that there is a sudden change in the meaning of the pronoun in this verse, from Jesus to God.3 Marshall holds that the statement "He is righteous" refers to Christ but that the words "born of Him" refer to God the Father. "It was probably so self-evident to him and his readers that spiritual birth was from the Father that he was not conscious of gliding from one antecedent for autou? [check] (Christ, 2:28-29a) to another (God, 2:29b)."4 But such a shift of meaning in the pronominal designation within one sentence is not obvious. More probable is the view that both pronouns refer to God the Father. But this uncertainty as to the intended identity of his pronouns is characteristic of John. As Westcott remarks, "The true solution of the difficulty seems to be that when St John thinks of God in relation to men he never thinks of Him apart from Christ (comp. c. v. 20). And again he never thinks of Christ in His human nature without adding the thought of His divine nature."5

Trinitarians must always try to connect the Father and Son in some type of metaphysical unity. I disagree with Westcott's overall approach to the issue, but John's first epistle does contain many tricky pronominal references.

Did Jude Quote from Enoch Or from Other Non-Canonical Works?

Some of the books I've checked seem to argue that Jude possibly quotes from/alludes to 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses (verse 9) in his letter.

The work An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo points out that Jude "refers" to these non-canonical works. But Carson and Moo propose that Jude does not view either book as Scripture, although vs. 14 says Enoch "prophesied" about the Lord's coming. They believe: "Jude's reference to these texts implies nothing about his view of the books in which they are found" (694). Even if Jude reckons that some of the information in either Enoch or the Assumption is true, that does not mean he considers everything in either work to be true. He may be just using a familiar source (695).

In De Principiis III.2.1, Origen of Alexandria writes:

"We have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human race, inciting and instigating men to sin. And in the first place, in the book of Genesis, the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that the serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of Adam and Eve’s transgression."

Origen believes that Jude invoked The Ascension of Moses/Assumption of Moses when he mentioned the Devil having a dispute with Michael over the body of Moses. He may be correct or incorrect, but in either case, Jude's potential use of any non-canonical works should not make us doubt the book's inspired status. As as F.F. Bruce notes about Paul's use of Aratus in Acts 17, the apostle's intent differs greatly from the pantheistic sentiments of Aratus. The employment of an uninspired source does not indicate approval of the source's entire contents.

Galatians 5:19-21 (Zerwick-Grosvenor Notes)

Greek: φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, 20 εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, 21 φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις, ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. (SBLGNT)

Brief Note About the Difference Between Word and Concept

Another example of the difference between word and concept (Wort und Begriff) is "friend" as used in the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures. Only Abraham is called Jehovah's "friend" (lover), but other men and women clearly had a friendship with God (including Job), even if the Bible never utilizes the designation "friend" for them. See 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23.

Of course, the Bible speaks of Jehovah loving Solomon and other humans in a broad sense (2 Samuel 12:24; Nehemiah 13:26), but just one person is identified as God's friend.

E.A. Speiser's Commentary Remarks for Genesis 31:42ff

the Awesome One of Isaac. The appellative (Heb. pahad) remains obscure. It may have here its customary sense of “fear,” in which case some reference to the Ordeal of Isaac (xxii) may be implicit; or it might be an altogether different term; cf. A. Alt, Der Gott der Vater, 1929, pp. 27 ff.

From Speiser, Anchor Bible Commentary on Genesis, page 247.