Sin, Evil, and Sirach (Miryam T. Brand)

Ode to Thanatos (Based on Revelation 6:8)

Been about three years since Thanatos made visit

it would be understating things to say he left exquisite

damage o'er round

as hoofs of his infernal steed

laid deep tracks in the ground.


Twas an awful, ghastly ride bringing tears and pain

but 'though Thanatos is gone, his casualties remain.

"Coming down out of heaven from God" (Research Revelation 21:2)--In Progress

Revelation 21:2 (WH 1881): καὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινὴν εἶδον καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἡτοιμασμένην ὡς νύμφην κεκοσμημένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς.

SBLGNT: καὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν Ἰερουσαλὴμ καινὴν εἶδον καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἡτοιμασμένην ὡς νύμφην κεκοσμημένην τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς.

ESV: "And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

NWT 2013: "I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

NET Bible: "And I saw the holy city—the new Jerusalem—descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband."

I primarily want to focus on καταβαίνουσαν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ

Compare Revelation 3:12; 21:10b. David Aune thinks that "heaven" is a circumlocution for God, and considers ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ to be "superfluous" (Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C in World Biblical Commentary Series).

Very Brief Note Regarding Genesis 22:15-16

ESV: "And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, 'By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,'"

ASV: "And the angel of Jehovah called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,"

Besides demonstrating the notion of agency when it comes to speech by Jehovah, these verses also illustrate how malak, which can be rendered "angel" or "messenger," may refer to a human or spirit messenger (angel). Compare Gen. 22:11.

Surely it was a spirit creature (an angel) who called out to Abraham--notice that he called a first and second time from/out of heaven.

The Johannine Prologue and Wisdom Literature (Darrell L. Bock and Benjamin I. Simpson)

I am not a Trinitarian and this quote is not taken from a biblical commentary, but from an academic work nonetheless. I have also provided this quote in conformity with U.S. fair use law.

For John, the prologue has a literary function. As we will see, John introduces several themes with the prologue, providing the reader with the narrator’s omniscient vantage point. Alan Culpepper states, “The reader is immediately given all that is needed to understand the story. . . . Like the narrator, therefore, the reader knows more than any of the characters who interact with Jesus.”4 The theme of the Word has rich background that is important to John’s choice of this term, because it compares and contrasts well with four themes of the OT and Judaism: the creative Word of God, Wisdom, Torah, and the memra of the Jewish targums.5 John’s concept of the Word incarnate is unique and represents a significant development from this Jewish backdrop, but his audience did possess some understanding of the imagery that John used, allowing them to appreciate both the nature of the claim and the comparison. The creative Word of God is seen in OT texts such as Isa. 55:11, where the Word comes from above and yields fruit like a sown seed. The Word was present at the creation, the means by which things came into being (Gen. 1; Ps. 33:6). The Word is like a lamp that guides a person’s way on a path (Ps. 119:105). God’s word contains the authority of judgment (Ps. 147:15, 18). So the Word is God’s “effective speech,” a revelation of who he is and what he does, along with being the mediating means by which his purpose is performed. As the spoken word reveals the thoughts of the mind in tangible ways, so the Word expresses and reveals God in both word and act.

Written by Darrell L. Bock and Benjamin I. Simpson. Quote from Jesus According to Scripture, published by Baker Academic.

Psalm 119:70--NWT 1984 vs. 2013, and Byington

I discussed this verse with a Bible study the other day; so I wanted to look deeper into the passage.

Psalm 119:70 (NWT 1984): "Their heart has become unfeeling just like fat. I, for my part, have been fond of your own law."

NWT 2013: "Their heart is insensitive, But I am fond of your law."

Byington Bible in Living English: "Their hearts are fatty as tallow; I take my pleasure in your instructions."

ESV: "their heart is unfeeling like fat, but I delight in your law."

NET Bible: "Their hearts are calloused, but I find delight in your law."

John Goldingay (Baker Commentary on the OT Wisdom and Psalms): "The line parallels and looks behind the assertion in v. 69a and contrasts the psalmist’s *heart or mind (v. 69b) and that of the *willful. It begins with another vivid ṭ word: this heart or mind is thick (ṭāpaš) with fat, as if encased with suet like the stomach, preventing the truth getting through to heart or mind, stopping it from understanding anything outside itself. The second colon restates the contrast, in collocating *delight and Yhwh’s *teaching."

EGF: This verse (Psalm 119:70) is speaking about the "presumptuous" or "willful" (Goldingay): they are relentlessly headstrong, according to Goldingay. One is reminded of 2 Timothy 3:4.

J.V. Dahms, Wisdom Literature and the Son's Generation

From the article, "The Generation of the Son" by John V. Dahms which appears in JETS 32:4 (December 1989) p. 493-501--

The Son is said to be the “Word (Logos)” of God in John 1:1, 14 (cf. 1 John 1:1; Rev 19:13). As is commonly recognized, this designation owes much to Genesis 1 (with its repeated “God said”) and to the Jewish personification of the dynamic word of the Lord (cf. Ps 33:6; Isa 55:11; Wis 9:1; 18:14 ff.; Jewish targums; Philo).4 And there is a sense in which speech is generated by the speaker (cf. Isa 55:11: “My word … that goes forth from my mouth”).5
But can we say that the designation of the Son as the Word of God implies the generation of the Son? May it not be that to say so is to read more into the description than is warranted? Perhaps so. Nonetheless the designation is more or less suggestive of divine generation, to say nothing of the description of the Word as monogenēs, a term we shall consider shortly.

Footnote 4:

This is not to deny that a debt is also owed to the conception of the divine Wisdom in Proverbs, Wisdom and Sirach and to the conception of the Logos in Greek philosophy.

Genesis 15:9--What About That Bird?

ESV: "He said to him, 'Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.'"

NWT 2013: "He replied to him: 'Take for me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.'"

Brenton LXX: "And he said to him, Take for me an heifer in her third year, and a she-goat in her third year, and a ram in his third year, and a dove and a pigeon."

Robert Alter translates Gen. 15:9: "a young pigeon"

Also see http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=15&verse=9

Those translations decidely indicate that a pigeon is being brought/taken for sacrifice, not divided from its young.

Furthermore, a dove/pigeon is mentioned within sacrificial contexts many times (Lev. 1:3, 14; 5:7, 11; 9:3).

Therefore, E.A. Speiser (Genesis, page 113) writes concerning Gen. 15:9:

"Lastly, turtledoves and pigeons are cited repeatedly among the ritual provisions of Leviticus; see especially xiv 22; hence the above 'young pigeons' to render a Heb. noun that normally means 'young bird(s).'"

Nahum Sarna: "a young bird Hebrew gozal appears again only in Deuteronomy 32:11 as the young of an eagle. Here it probably is a pigeon since this bird is usually paired with the turtledove.15"

Footnote 15 above from Sarna: "Cf. Gen. R. 44:17, Targ. Onk., LXX: 'a pigeon.' For parallel tor, cf. Lev. 1:14; 5:7, 11; etc.

You might also find something worth reading here: https://www.academia.edu/25960731/COVENANT_MAKING_IN_GENESIS_15_9-18_IN_THE_CONTEXT_OF_ARCHEOLOGY_AND_YORUBA_WORLD_VIEW_-_Olugbenga_Olagunju

See also Christopher Begg, “The Birds in Genesis 15, 9-10,” BN 36 (1987): 7-11.

BN stands for Biblischen Notizen.

Godet on GJohn 1:10ff (Grammatical Gender)

Notes from Tim Weldon's Book About Duns Scotus (Pages 43-53)

When I used to lecture about John Duns Scotus by using Tim Weldon's book, I would use these notes. They seem fragmented, but I could follow them with ease (normally):

1) Scotus' argument for the existence of God (Pages 43-44)

a) essentially and accidentally-ordered causes (vertical represents hic et nunc, but horizontal signifies ad infinitum)

Triple primacy-efficient cause, final cause, and in preeminence. These three are coextensive.

2) Faith seeking understanding (page 44). "Fides quaerens intellectum."

3) Love and time-page 47 (Quid est tempus?)

What is love? (Quid est amor?)

4) Faculty of will (voluntas)

5) Plato and three parts of the soul (47-48)

Is it possible to have a rational will?

6) Contrast A. Schopenhauer-p. 49 of Weldon (blind striving)

Cf. F. Nietzsche-p. 50-51 (compare Scotus)

See pp. 52-3 of Weldon.

Tower of Babel (Modified Talk Notes)

According to some counts, more than 6,800 languages exist, and they each have their own unique grammatical features. However, for at least 17 centuries, people spoke just one language. So what happened? And is it possible for any language to unite humankind?

Read Genesis 11:1-4

The popular cause to be advanced by the tower and city construction was, not the exaltation of God’s name, but that the builders might “make a celebrated name” for themselves. The ziggurat towers uncovered not only in the ruins of ancient Babylon but elsewhere in Mesopotamia would seem to confirm the essentially religious nature of the original tower, whatever its form or style.

Whereas the Hebrew name given the city, Babel, means “Confusion,” the Sumerian name (Ka-dingir-ra) and the Akkadian name (Bab-ilu) both mean “Gate of God.” Thus the remaining inhabitants of the city altered the form of its name to avoid the original condemnatory sense, but the new or substitute form still identified the city with religion.

The Genesis account describes the uniting of some part of the post-Flood human family in a project that opposed God’s will as stated to Noah and his sons. (Ge 9:1) Instead of spreading out and ‘filling the earth,’ they decided to centralize human society, concentrating their residence on a site in what became known as the Plains of Shinar in Mesopotamia. Evidently this was also to become a religious center, with a religious tower.​

Notice Jehovah God's response to this presumptuous project:

Read Gen. 11:6-9

The confusion of their language would also hinder or slow down future progress in a wrong direction, a God-defying direction, since it would limit mankind’s ability to combine its intellectual and physical powers in ambitious schemes and also make it difficult to draw upon the accumulated knowledge of the different language groups formed​—knowledge, not from God, but gained through human experience and research. (Compare Ec 7:29; De 32:5.) So, while the confusion of Babel introduced a major divisive factor into human society, the confusion of human speech actually benefited human society by slowing down the attainment of dangerous and hurtful goals. (Ge 11:5-9; compare Isa 8:9, 10.) One only has to consider certain developments in our own times, resulting from accumulated secular knowledge and man’s misuse thereof, to realize that what God foresaw long ago would develop if the effort at Babel were allowed to go unhindered.

Discuss picture, and Zeph. 3:9; Rom. 12:2.

Genesis 19:24 Comments

KJV: "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;"

Nahum Sarna (Genesis, page 138): ":the LORD . . . the LORD The repetition, like the phrase 'out of heaven,' dramatizes the conviction that what occurred was not a meaningless accident of nature but a purposeful event, the expression of God’s direct intervention in human affairs in order to redress the balance of justice."

Septuagint (LXX), The German Bible Society: καὶ κύριος ἔβρεξεν ἐπὶ Σοδομα καὶ Γομορρα θεῖον καὶ πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

Brenton Septuagint: "And the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven."

NET Bible: "Then the Lord rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. It was sent down from the sky by the Lord."

NET Note: Heb “from the Lord from the heavens.” The words “It was sent down” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons. sn The text explicitly states that the sulfur and fire that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah was sent down from the sky by the Lord. What exactly this was, and how it happened, can only be left to intelligent speculation, but see J. P. Harland, “The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain,” BA 6 (1943): 41-54.

Claus Westermann Translation: "when Yahweh rained brimstone and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah, from Yahweh in the heavens"

Targum Jonathan on Genesis: "Behold, then, there are now sent down upon them sulphur and fire from before the Word of the Lord from Heaven."

John Calvin Commentary:

And it was not the will of God that those cities should be simply swallowed up by an earthquake; but in order to render the example of his judgment the more conspicuous, he hurled fire and brimstone upon them out of heaven. To this point belongs what Moses says, that the Lord rained fire from the Lord. The repetition is emphatical, because the Lord did not then cause it to rain, in the ordinary course of nature; but, as if with a stretched out hand, he openly fulminated in a manner to which he was not accustomed, for the purpose of making it sufficiently plain, that this rain of fire and brimstone was produced by no natural causes. It is indeed true, that the air is never agitated by chance; and that God is to be acknowledged as the Author of even the least shower of rain; and it is impossible to excuse the profane subtlety of Aristotle, who, when he disputes so acutely concerning second causes, in his Book on Meteors, buries God himself in profound silence. Moses, however, here expressly commends to us the extraordinary work of God; in order that we may know that Sodom was not destroyed without a manifest miracle. The proof which the ancients have endeavored to derive, from this testimony, for the Deity of Christ, is by no means conclusive: and they are angry, in my judgment, without cause, who severely censure the Jews, because they do not admit this kind of evidence. I confess, indeed, that God always acts by the hand of his Son, and have no doubt that the Son presided over an example of vengeance so memorable; but I say, they reason inconclusively, who hence elicit a plurality of Persons, whereas the design of Moses was to raise the minds of the readers to a more lively contemplation of the hand of God.

Victor Hamilton Transalation: "Then Yahweh deluged Sodom and Gomorrah with sulphurous fire from Yahweh in heaven."

Hamilton Remarks: "The actual description of the catastrophe is limited to two verses, 24 and 25. To be more precise, v. 24 relates the event and v. 25 relates the consequences. The repetition of the tetragrammaton at the end of the verse should not be dismissed as a doublet or a gloss. The twofold use of the tetragrammaton reinforces the fact that the disaster that struck Sodom and its environs was not a freak of nature. Rather, it was sent deliberately by Yahweh himself. The verse adds further that the disaster was sent from Yahweh in heaven. Throughout chs. 18-19 Yahweh has been pictured as moving to and fro on the earth. He rests under a tree near Mamre and has a meal. He engages in conversation with Abraham. His angelic entourage are overnight guests of Lot. Now suddenly Yahweh, from his heavenly position, unleashes a catastrophe on Sodom."

John 13:33--"My Little Children"

Jesus emphasized love on the night before his death in his "farewell discourse." He loved his own to the end (John 13:1), and taught his disciples a new commandment, namely, to love one another as he loved them (John 13:34-35). Compare 1 John 3:16.

In John 13:33, the Son of God uttered some interesting words:

Greek: Τεκνία, ἔτι μικρὸν μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμί· ζητήσετέ με, καὶ καθὼς εἶπον τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὅτι Ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν, καὶ ὑμῖν λέγω ἄρτι.

ESV: Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’

I now post comments pertaining to this fateful verse:

J. Ramsey Michaels (NICNT):

Only here in the entire Gospel does he address them as “Children,”⁴⁷ that is, as actual small children, not simply offspring. This is perhaps a corollary of their characterization earlier as “his own” (v. 2), whom he loved. The affectionate address softens the bad news, that “yet a short time I am with you,” that “You will seek me,” and that “Where I am going you cannot come.”

Craig Keener (The Gospel of John, Baker Academic):

Jesus addresses his disciples as “children” in 13:33 (cf. παιδία in 21:5), which figures in the Jesus tradition[238] as well as being a standard title for disciples in John’s circle (1 John 2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21; παιδία in 2:14, 18). This title should not be thought to betray a confusion between the roles of Father and Son; apart from its application to Jesus, one would not even need to assume divine implications in Jesus being their implied “father” here.[239] Fictive kinship terminology based on active rather than genetic relationship was common (e.g., Phaedrus 3.15.18), and “father” was a title of great respect.[240] Ancients employed such fictive kinship terminology in an honorary manner, sometimes in direct address (e.g., 2 Kgs 5:13; 13:14; Diodorus Siculus 21.12.5); for example, they employed titles such as “father of the Jews” (2 Macc 14:37), “fathers of the world” for the first-century schools of Hillel and Shammai (Gen. Rab. 12:14),[241] “father of his country” or of the state for the emperor,[242] “fathers” for Roman senators,[243] for triumphant generals,[244] for other societal leaders or benefactors,[245] for rescuers in battle (Polybius 6.39.6–7), and for older mentors.[246] “Father” could apply to any respected elders;[247] thus, for example, the honorary title “father of a synagogue.”[248] Age by itself was grounds for respect,[249] so from the earliest period younger persons could address older men respectfully as fathers,[250] and older men could address younger men as sons,[251] as could leaders their followers (e.g., Virgil Aen. 1.157). One could address even an older stranger as “father” (cf. 1 Tim 5:1–2).[252]

After quoting numerous references, Keener concludes:

Thus Jesus’ use of the title “children” for his disciples is more the language of a teacher and mentor than of a surrogate for the Father (cf. 16:27); the author of 1 John employs the same language (1 John 2:1, 12–13, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21; 3 John 4), and presumably elders in his community would do the same (1 John 2:13– 14; 2 John 1, 4, 13).

Compare the NWT 2013 study notes for John 13:33.

Robert H. Mounce writes:

As noted, the expression “my [little] children” reveals a special tenderness, and if the experience in the upper room is taken as a Passover meal, this designation would be especially suitable, since on that occasion parents explained to their children the meaning of the Hebrews’ deliverance from Egypt (Ex 12:26–27; 13:8).

Mounce, Robert H. John (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6851-6854). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

The War to End All Wars (Amended Version of a Talk)

Jehovah is the God of peace, but during the war of Armageddon, he will become an awe-inspiring warrior: Jehovah and his Son will conduct the war to end all wars. One reason that God becomes a warrior at times is because of unrighteous conditions on the earth. If peace will ever fill the earth, the wicked must not be here (Psalm 37:10, 11). Proverbs 21:18 proclaims that the wicked serve as a ransom for the righteous. Destroying the wicked is a last resort for Jehovah since he desires that all people attain to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), but yet not all people choose to repent.

For us to learn more about the war to end all wars, let us read Revelation 19:11, 14-16.

In vision, the apostle John saw the glorified Jesus Christ riding on a white horse and along with him were angels also seated on white horses. This vision signifies the righteous and just warfare that Jesus Christ will wage on Jehovah's behalf. Earlier, John depicted Christ riding a white horse in Revelation 6:2-8: this figurative ride of the Lord will end with the conquest of his enemies (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

Notice how this point is emphasized in Revelation 19:19-20.

John now sees the seven-headed, ten-horned wild beast from the sea, which represents Satan’s political organization, being destroyed, and along with the beast goes the false prophet, the seventh world power. In what sense are they thrown into the lake of fire while still alive? Is this a literal lake of fire? No, especially since the wild beast and the false prophet are not literal animals. Rather, the lake of fire depicts complete and final destruction, a place of no return. Remember that death and Hades, as well as the Devil himself, later will be hurled into the same figurative lake (Revelation 20:10-15). The very idea of eternal torment is something detestable to Jehovah (Jeremiah 7:31).

Not only will the religious and political elements of Satan's system be destroyed, but so will all humans who oppose God’s sovereignty.

Read Revelation 19:21

All others who were not directly part of government but who were nevertheless an irreformable part of this corrupt world of mankind are likewise “killed off with the long sword of the one seated on the horse.” Jesus will pronounce them deserving of death. Will these people have a resurrection since Revelation does not say they're cast into the lake of fire?

Nowhere are we told that those executed by Jehovah’s Judge at that time are to be resurrected. As Jesus himself stated, all those who are not “sheep” go off “into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels,” that is, “into everlasting cutting-off.” (Matthew 25:33, 41, 46) These events culminate in “the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.”

Discuss Picture

The Isthmian Games and 1 Corinthians 9:24ff

Philippians 2:6-7--The Son Did Not Consider A Snatching

The inspired apostle Paul writes: ouch harpagmon egesato to einai isa theo. What is the significance of this construction? The Greek noun harpagmos is derived from the verb harpazo. Harpazo can denote the act of stripping, spoiling, snatching, seizing with force or robbing someone. Greek writers also employ the signifier to describe "an open act of violence in contrast to cunning and secret thieving" (Zodhiates 892). Moreover, harpazo carries the sense of a forcible seizure, a snatching away or taking to oneself (see Dunn’s observations in Dodd and Martin 77). Early Christian writers employ harpazo at Mt. 11:12; 13:19; Acts 8:38; 2 Cor. 12:2, 4; 1 Thess. 4:17, Rev. 12:5. The sense of the word in Phil. 2:6 is not so much retaining as it is that of forceful seizure:

Once we recognize that for Paul Christ did not possess equality with God in an absolute sense, for the very reason that he was the Son of God, the meaning of the problematic expression ouch harpagmon hegesato becomes clear. Every interpretation that assumes the essential equality of Christ with God is excluded. In spite of certain difficulties, the sense of ouch harpagmon hegesato must lie in the direction of res rapienda: the Son of God did not think equality with God something to be grasped. (Wannamaker 188)

Attributing a passive sense to harpagmos appears to be unwarranted (Hawthorne 84-85). Exploring this issue further before coming to any definite conclusions, however, we will now note the exegesis of Moises Silva:

The ambiguous phrase in v. 6, [ouch harpagmon hegesato], has created a literature far more extensive than it probably deserves. In particular, one is impressed by the futility of trying to reach a decision regarding Jesus' preexistence and deity on the basis of whether harpagmon has an active meaning or a passive meaning . . . if one opts for the passive idea, is the nuance positive ("windfall, advantage") or negative ("booty, prize")? Further, if it carries a negative nuance, we must decide whether it speaks of a thing already possessed, which one is tempted to hold on to . . . or a thing not possessed, which one may be tempted to snatch. (Silva 117)

Ultimately, Silva concludes that a sense of retaining may be the most likely meaning of harpagmos in Phil. 2:6. But he is forced to admit that such a conclusion is uncertain and not central to the "hymn" of Philippians 2:6-11 (117). Furthermore, Silva acknowledges that the few instances of harpagmos outside of Christian literature are all active and not passive (as is the case with harpagma). Consulting Abbott-Smith also reveals: "there is certainly a presumption in favour of the active meaning here" in Phil. 2:6 since the apostle does not use the LXX form harpagma. Paul thus speaks of an act of seizing: not of a thing seized or a thing retained (Abbott-Smith 60).

Textual Variants for Matthew 6:13 (STEP Bible Apparatus Criticus)

τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ] ‭א (B τὴν δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ) 57 (1646 copsa copbo ethro? ethpp? (itk itl vgst Tertullian Cyprian (Eusebius) Aphraates βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ) (Gregory-Nyssa) (Didymus1/2) Macarius/Symeon Augustine5/7 δικαιοσύνην τοῦ θεοῦ) Speculum WH (NR Riv) NM

τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ] E G K L N W Δ Θ Π Σ Φ 0233* (0233c omit αὐτοῦ) f1 f13 22 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1365 1392 1424 1505 1546 2148 2174 Byz Lect ita itaur itb itc itf itff1 itg1 ith vgcl vgww syrc syrp syrh syrpal copmae arm (ethpp) geo1 geoA slav Clement1/3 Serapion (Hilary) Basil (Didymus1/2) Evagrius Chrysostom1/12 Chromatius Marcus Eremita Augustine2/7 Cyril Theodoret John-Damascus ς (NA [τοῦ θεοῦ]) CEI ND Dio Nv TILC

τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ] 301* 366 373 726 1272* 1590* l858 (Clement2/3 omit αὐτοῦ) Chrysostom1/12

τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ] 119 245 482 l184 l187 geoB Diatessaronsyr Chrysostom4/12 Jerome

τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν] Justin Chrysostom7/12

The Hebrew Word ra: Evil in the Hebrew Bible

John Lange Comments for Esther 7:6 ("wicked Haman")

Esther 7:6. Esther still hesitates to name Haman, but at last brings the predicate into prominence: The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman.—She does not say: “The evil-disposed person,” viz. of whom she is speaking, but without the article, אִישׁ צַר, in order to make as strikingly prominent as possible the conception of the man so inimical. Haman trembled; for נִבְעַת means more than that he was simply alarmed (comp. 1 Chron. 21:30; Dan. 8:17, and בִּעוּתִּים, Ps. 88:17; Job 6:4).

Latin Vulgate: dixit Hester hostis et inimicus noster pessimus iste est Aman quod ille audiens ilico obstipuit vultum regis ac reginae ferre non sustinens

Sirach 15:14 and Free Will

Greek: αὐτὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησεν ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ἐν χειρὶ διαβουλίου αὐτοῦ.

Translation of Sirach 15:14: "God in the beginning created human beings and made them subject to their own free choice." (15:14 NABRE)

Brenton LXX: "He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel"

In Thomas Aquinas' Summa Thelogica (Summa Theologiae), I.83.1, we find these words in the sed contra part of the question:

"On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 15:14): 'God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel'; and the gloss adds: 'That is of his free-will.'"

Then as part of Aquinas' response, he argues:

But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.

Aquinas uses the term "free will/free-will" in a technical manner, but suffice to say that he interprets Sirach 15:14 as support for the concept. Much has been written about this passage. However, the salient issue for now is how we might understand Sirach 15:14, and to what extent it teaches free will.

Further Reading: https://www.academia.edu/40987000/_Book_Section_Determinism_in_Ben_Sira_Notions_of_Time_in_Deuterocanonical_and_Cognate_Literature._Edited_by_Stefan_Fischer._DCLS._Berlin_De_Gruyter_2021._In_Preparation

Notes on Slavery in the Ancient World

Speaking about slavery in the ancient world: "A slave was property. The slaveowner's rights over his slave-property were total, covering the person as well as the labour of the slave" (Peter Garnsey, Ideas of Slavery, 1).

Albert Bell observes that the treatment of a slave in antiquity depended on the individual master. For instance, while Pliny says that he treated his slaves in a humane manner, Seneca castigated other Roman masters for the cruel treatment they regularly meted out to their slaves. The writings of Juvenal and Martial also indicate that slaves were generally not accorded humane treatment in the New Testament world. Nevertheless, it seems that Stoicism and Christianity did cause the Romans to recognize the humanity of their slaves: these movements altered their view and behavior toward slaves.

The Stoic philosopher named Epictetus was born a slave, but he was set free after Emperor Domitian banished philosophers from the Italian peninsula. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epictetus/

Revelation 2:7 (Paradise of God)

Greek: Ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Translation (ASV): He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God.

Ian Paul (Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary): Just as the opening appellation of Jesus draws from some aspect of the vision in Revelation 1, so these final promises anticipate some aspect of the vision of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21–22, positioning these messages as suspended between ‘what is’ and ‘what is to come’. The tree of life is an image that Revelation 22:2 draws from Genesis 2:9 and suggests a tree whose fruit gives life when eaten. The term paradise originates from the Persian idea of a walled garden in the king’s palace, but ‘paradise of God’ is consistently used in the Greek Old Testament to refer to ‘the garden of God’ in Genesis 2, reinforcing the link between the New Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden. One of the things achieved by the victory of Jesus, in which his followers are to participate, is the restoration of the good creation of God before the entrance of disobedience into the world.

Jurgen Roloff: According to John, the circle of those who overcome is by no means confined to martyrs, it includes others even though the reality of such overcoming is not clearly expressed in their lives. The content of the promise to those who overcome is portrayed with the image that points to the concluding vision of the book (22:2) and becomes comes completely understandable only in its framework: they may eat of the tree of life in paradise, which returns at the end time (Gen. 2:9; 3:22); thus, they share in the abundance of the salvation of the consummation.

Revelation (Continental Commentary Series) (Kindle Locations 758-761). Kindle Edition.

Genesis 3:5 and Elohim (NABRE)

One Catholic Bible translates Genesis 3:5 this way:

"God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.”

Footnote: Like gods, who know: or “like God who knows.”

Maimonides (Rambam) writes:

"Some years ago a learned man asked me a question of great importance; the problem and the solution which we gave in our reply deserve the closest attention. Before, however, entering upon this problem and its solution I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, 'and ye shall be like Elohim' (Gen. iii. 5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the sentence 'and ye shall be like princes.' Having pointed out the homonymity of the term "Elohim" we return to the question under consideration" (Guide for the Perplexed I.2).

Friedländer tr. [1904], http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp012.htm

Bruce Waltke Remarks on Genesis 3:5:

like God, knowing. The Hebrew word for “knowing” is yōḏēʿa, a masculine plural participle. The meaning is ambiguous. On the one hand, the plural can be used as an honorific form for God, in which the given translation is legitimate.⁴⁸ On the other hand, it can be a countable plural, in which case the translation should be “you will be like divine beings, knowers of good and evil.” The latter meaning is more probable, since, after they eat of the forbidden fruit, the text says unambiguously, “They have become like one of us, knowers of good and evil” (lit., Gen. 3:22). In any case, the serpent makes God appear to be restricting them from full humanity.

Nahum Sarna (JPS Commentary on Genesis, page 25):

like divine beings Hebrew ’elohim is a comprehensive term for supernatural beings and is often employed for angels.3 Any possible ambiguity inherent in the use of the same word for “God” and for “divine beings” is here removed by the plural form of the verb “know” (yode‘ei) and by verse 22 (“one of us”). As tractate Soferim 4:5(4) points out, “the first ’elohim [in this verse] is sacred, the second non—sacred.”

Robert Alter Translation:
"For God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will become as gods knowing good and evil."

John Durham Remarks for Exodus 33:18

Here is one perspective concerning Exodus 33:18:

The request of Moses to see the glory of Yahweh is effectively a request that Yahweh demonstrate the reality of his promise to be present, indeed that he prove his Presence once again, as he did before the solemnization of the covenant that has since been shattered. “glory” in this context is very close to a synonym for “face, Presence,” as the ensuing narrative shows. Neither term is intended to suggest “human features,” as Eichrodt (Theology of the OT 2:29– 40; cf. also Davies, “Glory,” IDB 2:401– 2; Westermann, Wort-Gebot-Glaube, 227– 49 and “,” THAT 1:801– 12) has shown.

Durham, Dr. John I. Exodus, Volume 3 (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 503). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.

It's worth reading Durham's comments in their entirety.

Elohim (Anchor Bible Dictionary)

The post below is taken from the ABD. It is part of the entry for Elohim; we believe this blog entry conforms to United States Fair Use of Material for Scholarly or Educational purposes.

Social and Cultural Context of the Apostle Paul

The apostle Paul lived in the Greco-Roman milieu: he spoke and wrote in Greek while being a Roman citizen (Acts 22:28). Furthermore, Paul was a "Hebrew of Hebrews," belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (circumcised the eighth day), and he was trained at the feet of the Jewish rabbi, Gamaliel (Philippians 3:4-6; Acts 22:3). Paul's status as a Roman citizen, his upbringing as a Jew in a 1st century Greco-Roman world ultimately shaped his personality, writing style and way of communicating. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jehovah God also imparted special wisdom to this man by means of the holy spirit. As Peter wrote, "just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom that was given to him" (2 Peter 3:15 LEB), that is, the wisdom was granted to him by God.

Like other people, Paul had his own idiolect and spoke and wrote according to a particular sociolect. All of these factors must be taken into account when reading Paul or any other Bible writer.

Ken Schenck's YouTube Channel (1 John 5:16)

Ken Schenck has a project where he goes through the whole Bible in 10 years. I don't endorse everything he states or agree with him in all respects, but I find Ken's videos generally enlightening and sometimes humorous. Here is a video about 1 John 5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpZBbcvx0Qc&list=WL&index=98&t=0s

1 Corinthians 11:1--Imitate Paul as He Imitates Christ

Greek: μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ.

μιμηταί-nom. pl. sing. μιμητής (imitator, one who mimics with another) and the obj. gen. shows who should be copied. μιμηταί comes from the verb μιμέομαι, which means to imitate, to mimic. The nominal ending identifies the agent (doer) of an act (Rogers and Rogers).

Comparison Texts:

1 Corinthians 4:16-παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε.

Philippians 3:17-Συνμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτω περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς·

See Ephesians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2:14; Hebrews 6:12.

Harold Hoehner (Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary):

The word μιμητής is a word used in classical times that means an “imitator, copier,”[1] as an actor who “impersonates”[2] or, in the bad sense, an “imposter.”[3] A word from the same root can mean a counterfeit. A good counterfeit is as close to the original as possible. The noun is not used in the LXX but the verb is found four times (Wis 4:2; 15:9; 4 Macc 9:23; 13:9) where people are called to imitate others but never called to imitate God. In the NT it occurs six times always in conjunction with γίνομαι, “to become,” and all uses are in Paul’s writings except one. Paul asks the believers to be imitators of him (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:7, 9 [verb form]) as he is an imitator of Christ, and it is also used of believers imitating other believers (1 Thess 2:14; Heb 6:12).[4] Therefore, it suggests an imitation of a good role model. Only in this context Paul enjoins the believers to become imitators of God.[5] The genitive is an objective genitive. They are to become imitators of the God who in 4:32 dealt graciously in Christ by likewise acting graciously.

Panim--Dual Noun in Hebrew

Most Hebrew dictionaries or commentaries I've checked don't say why panim ("face" or "faces") is dual (some call it plural, but dual is more specific). Here's something I found in one book:

"This particular word always occurs in the plural, perhaps indicative of the fact that the face is a combination of a number of features. As we shall see below, the face identifies the person and reflects the attitude and sentiments of the person. As such, panim can be a substitute for the self or the feelings of the self."

(Quoted from Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, page 727)


Besides Genesis 1:2, other examples of panim are Genesis 2:6; Exodus 33:11, 19-20; Deut. 5:4 and Psalm 139:7.

Here is also the NET Bible translation note for Exodus 33:23:

tn The plural “my backs” is according to Gesenius an extension plural (compare “face,” a dual in Hebrew). The word denotes a locality in general, but that is composed of numerous parts (see GKC 397 §124.b). W. C. Kaiser says that since God is a spirit, the meaning of this word could just as easily be rendered “after effects” of his presence (“Exodus,” EBC 2:484). As S. R. Driver says, though, while this may indicate just the “afterglow” that he leaves behind him, it was enough to suggest what the full brilliancy of his presence must be (Exodus, 363; see also Job 26:14).

Demas' Love for this Aion (2 Timothy 4:10)

Five Reasons Not to Celebrate Christmas

I have to speak out about Christmas sometimes. Why not celebrate Christmas?

1. We don't know the exact day that Jesus was born (the Bible does not say).
2. These days, in the West, Christmas is mostly about crass commercialism. At least companies like Amazon and Walmart are happy. :)
3. Christmas has accrued numerous myths that parents often tell their children (e.g., Santa and his reindeer. Don't forget the elves.).
4. Christmas is ultimately pagan rather than being Christian.
5. Jesus likely never celebrated his birthday; nor did his early followers or apostles. Remember those two birthdays celebrated in the Bible? Things didn't go so well.

Does Revelation 20:4 Contain an Inceptive Aorist?

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

I would humbly suggest that ἔζησαν in Revelation 20:4 is probably an occurrence of the inceptive aorist, but I would say that the "inceptive" is how the aorist is being used, not necessarily a grammatical feature of the aorist. See Wallace, GGBB, page 558ff.

It seems that the future was not used inceptively by ancient Greek writers/speakers. The aorist is imperfective aspect, but its Aktionsart will depend on lexical, grammatical and contextual features (i.e. its affected meaning). See http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-05/msg00196.html

Another possibility is that Rev. 20:4 contains a constative aorist, which would depict activity in toto. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-greek-aorist-and-its-diverse-uses.html

Anthony Thiselton's Remarks on 1 Corinthians 9:27--"Shadowboxing?"

I also like how Paul employs a mixed metaphor in 1 Cor. 9:27 by using both racing and boxing imagery.

Twenty Important Books

These are five books that I consider to be important. They are not my five favorite books of all time, and they're not what I consider to be the five greatest works of all time. These are just books that I've enjoyed reading in the past and I now commend them to you.

1. The Divine Comedy (Dante)
2. Divine Institutes (Lactantius)
3. Against Praxeas (Tertullian)
4. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms (Richard A. Lanham)
5. Rhetoric (Aristotle)
6. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor)
7. Intermediate New Testament Greek (Richard A. Young)
8. Early Jewish Hermeneutics and Hebrews 1:5-13 (Herbert Bateman IV)
9. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (C.F.D. Moule)
10. A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin (John F. Collins)
11. De Oratore (Cicero)
12. Antigone (Sophocles)
13. Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity (W.L. Craig)
14. God and the New Physics (Paul Davies)
15. Summa Theologica (Thomas Aquinas)
16. An Introduction to Logic (Richard Arthur)
17. Dogmatics-Volume I (Emil Brunner)
18. A History of Christianity (Paul Johnson)
19. The Christian Tradition-5 Volumes (Jaroslav Pelikan)
20. A Greek Grammar (Herbert W. Smyth)

Honorable Mention: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG)-Frederick William Danker (editor)

Introduction to Revelation (Modified Talk)

Play video that introduces Revelation

Revelation 1:20 (Read)

The “stars” represent the anointed overseers and, by extension, all the overseers in the seven congregations. Jesus can direct the “stars” in his hand as he deems appropriate. (Rev. 1:16, 20) So as Head of the Christian congregation, Jesus fully oversees all elder bodies. If an elder genuinely needs correction, Jesus will administer such discipline in His own time and way. (Rev. 1:14; 3:19-20)

In the meantime, we maintain proper respect for those appointed by holy spirit: “Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.”​ (Heb. 13:17)

Hebrews 13:7-We can also imitate the faith of those taking the lead among us, and avoid being overly critical of them.

Revelation 2:1-2 (read)

This passage reveals that Christ sees not just general trends but concrete situations in his ecclesia. In some verses of Revelation, Jesus Christ mentions individuals, but in each instance, he gives appropriate commendation or counsel as the need may be. Notice the contrast between his words to Philadelphia and Thyatira.

Regardless of what transpires among the figurative lampstands, we can be confident that Jehovah actively leads his people by means of his Son, the head of God's spirit-directed congregation.

Greek Homophones?

It's comparable to some American English dialects in which Ben, bin, and been sound alike. Or "pen" and "pin."

1 Corinthians 8:1

Greek: Περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, οἴδαμεν ὅτι πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν. ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ. (SBLGNT)

ESV: "Now concerning[a] food offered to idols: we know that 'all of us possess knowledge.' This 'knowledge' puffs up, but love builds up.

NWT 2013: "Now concerning food offered to idols: We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."

Comment: We recently had one Governing Body member comment on this verse in the December broadcast for Jehovah's Witnesses. It reminded me of previous remarks I had encountered concerning the verse, specifically, that Paul was potentially discussing supposed knowledge instead of genuine knowledge. We might say so-called knowledge or "knowledge" in quotation marks. It's similar to what some have argued for 1 Cor. 8:5 and its use of "gods" and "lords."

Joseph Fitzmyer (Anchor Bible Commentary):

Isaiah 11:3-5 (Minor and Major Fulfillments)--Based on a Talk

Bible prophecies have minor and major fulfillments: they are fulfilled in spiritual/physical or in lesser and greater senses. Isaiah 11 illustrates this principle since the prophecy applies to ancient Israelites, to our modern spiritual paradise, and to the coming earthly paradise.

Read Isaiah 11:3-5:

And he will find delight in the fear of Jehovah. He will not judge by what appears to his eyes, Nor reprove simply according to what his ears hear. He will judge the lowly with fairness, And with uprightness he will give reproof in behalf of the meek ones of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth And put the wicked to death with the breath of his lips. Righteousness will be the belt around his waist, And faithfulness the belt of his hips.

Isaiah chapter 11 is a messianic prophecy. It speaks about the glorious reign of Jesus Christ. Notice what kind of judge that Christ will be in the earthly paradise. Unlike human judges today, Jesus is impartial: he does not judge based on outward appearances or external factors. Rather, Christ judges the “secret person of the heart” (1 Peter 3:4). In this way, he sets an example for Christian elders, who must judge numerous matters in the congregation today. Christ gives reproof (correction) “with uprightness,” which serves as a model for how elders should offer counsel to erring sheep. Counsel should be given with mildness, and for the overall benefit of Jehovah’s people (Galatians 6:1).

Genesis 18:22 and 19:27

A proposed emendation of Genesis 18:22 is that "Jehovah/YHWH stood before Abraham." Yet such a reading would contradict Gen. 19:27 and be problematic (seemingly) from a theological perspective.

Genesis 18:22 only contradicts Gen. 19:27 if the Masoretic text suggestion is accepted, but we have good reason to think the reading is fanciful. Robert Alter pans the suggestion, if memory serves me correctly, and the Targum Onkelos clearly says Abraham kept ministering/praying before YHWH. Textually, we also don't have reason to accept an emendation. So no emendation--no contradiction.

Victor P. Hamilton (The Book of Genesis 18-50, page 24)

See https://www.jstor.org/stable/43725136

Bill Mounce's Review of The Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge

https://www.crossway.org/articles/bill-mounce-reviews-the-greek-new-testament-produced-at-tyndale-house-cambridge/?fbclid=IwAR0kVRpoV0qdwcdygEGH-2PGGvAkYfBPa4jA7xzdpbzP8KjG4Ej_Za6vQMw

2 Corinthians 5:14--What Kind of Genitive?

What kind of genitive do we have in 2 Corinthians 5:14?

Greek: ἡ γὰρ ἀγάπη τοῦ χριστοῦ συνέχει ἡμᾶς, κρίναντας τοῦτο ὅτι εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν· ἄρα οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον·

Grammarians usually set forth 3 possibilities for 2 Corinthians 5:14: subjective, objective, and plenary genitive. I personally take the verse to be saying that our love for Christ compels us (i.e., objective genitive), but we cannot be dogmatic.

George H. Guthrie (Baker Exegetical Series): Most commentators interpret τοῦ Χριστοῦ (tou Christou) as a subjective[1] rather than an objective[2] genitive, reading the phrase to refer to “the love Christ has for us,” rather than “our love for Christ,” and this seems to be the best interpretation on at least two primary grounds. First, the immediate context emphasizes Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross for his people. Later in this verse, Paul confesses “that Christ died for all,” and in the next verse, “he died on behalf of all,” and that act of giving himself in death for the benefit of “all” certainly constitutes Christ’s expression of love. Second, in Paul’s writings, when a personal use of the genitive follows on the heels of the word ἀγάπη (agapē), as it does here, the construction speaks of the person “having or showing love, not the one receiving it” (Harris 2005: 418).[3]

A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures) also suggest that 2 Cor. 5:14 contains a subjective genitive.

NET Bible: tn The phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Jh agaph tou Cristou, “the love of Christ”) could be translated as either objective genitive (“our love for Christ”) or subjective genitive (“Christ’s love for us”). Either is grammatically possible, but with the reference to Christ’s death for all in the following clauses, a subjective genitive (“Christ’s love for us”) is more likely.

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible: Love of Christ constraineth us ... Did Paul here refer to his own love of Christ, or to Christ's love of him? "It matters little whether this be interpreted as a subjective genitive, `Christ's love to men,' or as an objective genitive, `our love to Christ'; the two suppose and interfuse each other."[23]

Henry Alford GNT: Christ’s love (not, love to Christ, as Œc(6), Beza, al.,—but Christ’s love to men, subjective, as most Commentators; as shewn in His Death, which is the greatest proof of love, see Romans 5:6-8. Meyer remarks that the gen. of the person after ἀγάπη is with Paul always subjective,—Romans 5:5; Romans 5:8; Romans 8:35; Romans 8:39; ch. 2 Corinthians 8:24; 2 Corinthians 13:13; Ephesians 2:4; Philippians 1:9 al. (but see his own note on 2 Thessalonians 3:5, where he maintains the objective sense), whereas with John it is not always so, 1 John 5:3. Paul usually expresses love of, i.e. towards, by εἰς, Colossians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 3:12)

Expositor's GT also understands the genitive to be subjective.

IVP NT Commentary: A further reason for preaching the gospel is found in verse 14: For Christ's love compels us. Conviction (4:14), fear (5:11) and now love motivate Paul to pursue his call. The text is literally, "the love of Christ." The genitive can be objective, "our love for Christ," or subjective, "Christ's love for us." Although we might instinctively incline toward the former, the latter is preferred by most modern translations. This is because Paul goes on in verses 14-15 to speak of Christ dying on our behalf--the ultimate demonstration of love. The basic sense of synecho (to compel) is to hold something together so that it does not fall apart. From this we get the meanings to "hold fast" (that is, to not allow to slip through one's fingers) and to "surround" or "hem in" (that is, to not let escape; Köster 1971:883). The idea is that Christ's love completely controls and dominates Paul so that he has no option but to preach. The hymn writer George Matheson knew of this kind of constraining love when he penned the words "O love that wilt not let me go, I rest my weary soul in Thee; / I give Thee back the life I owe, That in Thine ocean deptes its flow may richer, fuller be."

See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/2Cor/Christs-Love-Compels-Service

Mark A. Seifrid (Pillar NT Commentary): Paul is not speaking here of his love for Christ, but of the love of Christ that encompasses all human beings, including Paul himself (v. 16). This love of Christ overpowers the apostle and determines his life and actions.

1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 (Universal Salvation?)

In 1 Tim 2:4, we read:

ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν.

Augustine of Hippo interpreted the "all" of 1 Tim. 2:4 as the predestined or elect. He believed that God wills for all the elect to be saved and he thus argued that "The passage did not say 'that there is no man whose salvation [God] does not desire, but that no one is saved unless God desires it.'" However, as Jaroslav Pelikan brings to our attention, this attempt to exegete 1 Tim. 2:4 is still attended by a number of logical and exegetical difficulties. Moreover, it does not answer the question, "Can we imagine without grieveous blasphemy that he [God] does not desire all men in general, but only some rather than all to be saved? Those who perish, perish against his will." See
Pelikan's Christian Tradition (1:321-327).

In the final analysis, if 2 Pet. 3:9 does not suggest universal salvation, then why should 1 Tim. 2:4. In 2 Pet. 3:9, we have:

οὐ βραδύνει Κύριος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ὥς τινες βραδυτῆτα ἡγοῦνται, ἀλλὰ μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ὑμᾶς, μὴ βουλόμενός τινας ἀπολέσθαι ἀλλὰ πάντας εἰς μετάνοιαν χωρῆσαι.

According to Peter, God does not desire (μὴ βουλόμενός) any to be destroyed, but wills that all (πάντας) repent. In 1 Tim. 2:4, God wills (πάντας) that all should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of the truth. Even if we understand the "all" in 1 Tim. 2:4 as a reference to "all humans"without exception, how does it prove "universal salvation" if God wills that all men repent or be saved, but they still "perish against his will?"

Lastly, I'd like to offer some quotes on this topic from a few scholarly sources.

"And to say that God wants (not 'wills,' and therefore it must come to pass) all people to be saved, implies neither that all (meaning everybody) will be saved (against [1 Tim.] 3:6; 4:2; or 4:10, e.g.) nor that God's will is somehow frustrated since all, indeed, are not saved. The concern is simply with the universal scope of the gospel over against some form of heretical exclusivism or narrowness" (Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, page 64).

"God is, so far as His inclination or will is concerned, 'the Saviour of all men,' but actually, so far as we can affirm with certainty, 'of them that believe' (1 Tim 4:10)" (Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. 4:104).

There are some formal or functional differences between βούλομαι and θέλω, but the two words appear to have possessed similar meanings in the first century (BDAG 182).

Colossians 2:9: A Parsing Sample by Cranford

Quoting from the work from which this sample parsing was taken:

Parsing of the Greek Text

The parsing of the Greek text below is based upon the system of Greek grammar analysis set forth in Appendix 2 of Lorin L. Cranford, Learning Biblical Koine Greek, 4th rev. edition (Boiling Springs, NC: C&L Publications, 2002). Some assessments may be subject to reevaluation. Please call attention to any errors by sending an email to GWU@cranfordville.com.

2 Corinthians 12:3-4 ("Unutterable Utterances"?)

Greek: ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι.

Richard Lenski calls ἄρρητα ῥήματα an "oxymoron," rendering the phrase as "unutterable utterances."

ESV: and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

KJV: How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

NWT 2013: who was caught away into paradise and heard words that cannot be spoken and that are not lawful for a man to say.

Rogers and Rogers: ἄρρητος verbal adj., unspeakable, unutterable. The word was often used of divine secrets not intended for human beings (Windisch; Barrett). ῤῆμα word. ἐξὸν pres. act. part. nom. n. sing. ἔξεστιν it is allowed. The word is to be taken in connection w. ἀνθρώπῳ (s. v. 2); “which it is not lawful for a man to speak” (Plummer).

Zerwick and Grosvenor:

Revelation 5:10--"shall reign" or "reign"?

ESV: and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

J.B. Phillips: "and we shall reign on the earth.”

Weymouth NT: "And they reign over the earth."

Grant Osborne (Baker Exegetical Commentary): 5:10. βασιλεύσουσιν: There are three readings for “they shall reign” here. The first plural βασιλεύσομεν is based on inferior readings (2432 idem et al.) and is unlikely. The other two have nearly equal manuscript support. The future βασιλεύσουσιν is supported by א P 1 94 1828 1854 et al., and the present βασιλεύουσιν is supported by A 046 1006 1611 et al. It is a difficult decision, because the present would probably be futuristic, “they are going to reign”; hence, it would have nearly identical force to the future. Due to the superiority of A and the others in 5:9, I tentatively side with the futuristic present here. Moreover, it is the most difficult reading, that is, a present force does not make sense, and so later scribes changed it to a future tense to make the future reign of the believers more evident.

Robert Mounce: Textual evidence is rather evenly divided between “they reign” (ASV) and “they will reign” (NIV), although the latter is favored both by the Nestle text (27th ed.) and the UBS text (3rd ed.). It seems unlikely that John is here referring to a present spiritual reign of believers.³⁶ The hymn of praise is not a cryptic reference to Christians as the true kings in spite of the apparent rule of the Caesars. The promise is that the church is to share in the eschatological reign of Christ and all that it will involve (2:26–27; 20:4; 22:5).

Mounce, Footnote 36: Even if βασιλεύουσιν is read instead of βασιλεύσουσιν, the reference is probably future, the verb serving as a futuristic present and imparting a tone of assurance (Moulton, Grammar, 3rd ed., 1.120). Krodel prefers the reading βασιλεύουσιν and concludes, “In short, the present tense, ‘they reign,’ also includes the future” (167).

Jon Morales: Christ, Shepherd of the Nations The Nations as Narrative Character and Audience in John's Apocalypse:

Craig Koester (Anchor Bible Commentary):

J.H. Moulton and the Greek Present of Past Action

Larry Hurtado (1943-2019)

https://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2019/11/larry-hurtado-1943-2019.html

Thanks to Duncan for letting me know about the death of Larry Hurtado. Jim Davila provides a nice discussion of his work in the link above and illustrates the great loss that has about in NT studies. Despite theological differences with Hurtado, I express my condolences to Larry's friends and family.

What a comfort it can be to know that God "cares for us" (1 Peter 5:7).

Gesenius and the Objective Genitive in Hebrew

Gesenius on the objective genitive.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gesenius%27_Hebrew_Grammar/128._The_Indication_of_the_Genitive_Relation_by_means_of_the_Construct_State

Use the key term "objective genitive."

See also https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/the-grammar-of-leviticus-18-22/

Notice what's said about the construct state and the fear of God. Compare Genesis 20:11; 22:12.

Lydia (Acts 16:14)--Jehovah Opened Her Heart

Expositor's GT on Acts 16:14:

διήνοιξεν τὴν καρδίαν, cf. Acts 17:3, Ephesians 1:18; in LXX, cf. Hosea 2:15 (17), 2 Maccabees 1:4. The verb is frequent in St. Luke, Luke 24:31-32; Luke 24:45, and in Acts 2:23 quotation, Acts 7:56; Acts 17:3; only once elsewhere in N.T., Mark 7:34. “To open is the part of God, to pay attention that of the woman,” Chrysostom: ὥστε καὶ θεῖον καὶ ἀνθρώπινον ἦν.— τοῖς λ. ὑπὸ τοῦ π.: C. and H. see an indication of St. Luke’s own modesty: “we spake” in Acts 16:13, but now only Paul is mentioned.

Rogers and Rogers Exegetical Key:

διήνοιξεν aor. ind. act. διανοίγω to open. Prep. in compound suggests, “to open up wide or completely,” like a folding door (RWP). “To open the heart” indicates that the Lord caused her to understand (BAGD; EDNT) or that He caused her to have an open mind w. a willingness to learn and evaluate fairly (LN, 1:332).

Zerwick-Grosvenor Grammatical Analysis:

Translating Galatians 1:13 (Aktionsart Issues)

How might we translate Galatians 1:13? I could be mistaken here, but it seems that the conative or tendential Aktionsart (kind of action) of the verb, EPORQOUN, probably results from its lexical, grammatical and contextual features (Wallace GGBB, 499). It is what Wallace calls the "affected meaning" of the verb. So as I understand conativity or durativity (etc.), these features are not determined by the translator or outside observer, but by context or lexico-grammatical factors.

Speaking to some of these issues, Donald Mastronarde (Introduction to Attic Greek, 114) has this to say about the imperfect indicative:

"The Greek imperfect indicative refers to action in the past which is incomplete (hence the name from the Latin for 'unfinished'), in progress, or repeated or customary. It corresponds to the English past progressive (I was sending), verb phrases with used to (I used to send), and in some contexts the English simple past (I sent)."

James Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery classify EDIWKON and EPORQOUN in Galatians 1:13 as examples of the Greek descriptive imperfect, meaning that the verbs describe what has taken place at some time in the past. However, they note that EPORQOUN "could also be interpreted as a tendential imperfect" (Syntax of NT Greek, 91).

Compare the tendential imperfect HNAGKAZON at Acts 26:11. In the final analysis, I agree that it is a judgment call in translating Galatians 1:13, but it seems to me that Paul did not lay waste or destroy the congregation. Rather, he tried to lay waste God's congregation.

Here are the rest of my notes on Galatians 1:13. These comments are not designed to be dogmatic but just represent one of my inquiries:

Galatians 1:13 (NWT, 1984) reads: "You, of course, heard about my conduct formerly in Judaism, that to the point of excess I kept on persecuting the congregation of God and devastating it."

Other translations read similarly, but NKJV says: "For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it."

On the other hand, NASB translates the passage: "For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it"

Notice that the latter portions of NKJV and NASB have "tried to destroy it" instead of "devastating it."

The reason for rendering Galatians 1:13 in this way evidently lies in the fact that EPORQOUN (a form of PORQEW) apparently is an "imperfect conative" (Zerwick); hence, "tried to destroy/make havoc of."

Walter W. Wessel (in Mounce's grammar) states that EPORQOUN in Galatians 1:13 is a tendential imperfect, expressing attempted action (BBG, 176). Paul did not really devastate the congregation of God, but only attempted to do so. Moreover, EDIWKON appears to express repeated action in the past (customary action), which explains the NASB's "used to persecute . . . "

Ralph Earle also writes: "The imperfect tense would suggest that Paul 'was ravaging' the Church and trying to destroy it, but that he did not completely succeed" (Word Meanings in the NT, 271).

Hans D. Betz, Galatians, page 67--Hermeneia Series:

112 Bauer's tr. uses the imperfect de conatu: "I tried to destroy." So also BDR, § 326. Cf. the same term Gal 1:23; Acts 9:21, in the same.context. The term is common as a description of political oppression. See 4 Macc 4:23; 11:4; Philo Flacc. 54; Josephus BJ 4.405; Ant. 10.135. For passages see also LSJ, s.v., and Philippe- H. Menoud, "Le sens du verbe Porqein," in Apophoreta, Festschrift fur E. Haenchen (BZNW 30; Berlin: Topelmann, 1964) 178-86. G reads ἐπολέμουν ("I attacked") instead, perhaps an influence of the Latin expugnabam.

Douglas Moo, Galatians, page 100:

With a ὅτι (hoti, that), Paul elaborates on the specifics of that “former way of life in Judaism.” First, he was “intensely persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy it” (καθ᾿ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ
καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν, kath’ hyperbolēn ediōkon tēn ekklēsian tou theou kai eporthoun autēn). Both verbs are in the imperfect tense, the former because it is a durative idea—“I was persecuting”—and the second because it is conative—“I tried to destroy” (Wallace 1996: 551).

1 John Introduction (Modified Talk)

Play video that introduces 1 John.

Why is it so important to avoid loving the world or the things in the world?

Read 1 John 2:15-16

Some might reason that not everything in Satan's world is wrong. However, the world and its many attractions can easily distract us from serving Jehovah. Furthermore, nothing in the world is usually made to help us develop a close relationship with Jehovah; therefore, if we develop a love for things in the world, although such things may not be wrong in themselves, we are still on a dangerous course. (1 Timothy 6:9, 10)

Yet much of the world's content is corrupting and spiritually defiling. For example, think of how movies or television programs that glorify violence, materialism or sexual immorality might affect us. And what if we associate with people whose main goals are improving their lifestyle or cultivating business opportunities?

Could they possibly affect our spirituality, and cause us to put material concerns ahead of Jehovah's interests?

(Matthew 6:24; 1 Corinthians 15:33.)

1 John 2:17 provides another reason to avoid loving the world. (Read)

Satan makes his system appear to be lasting and real. However, this world is temporary. It is passing away and so is its desire: nothing in Satan's world is permanent. If we remember that fact, we'll avoid being seduced by the Devil’s enticements.

Jeremiah 17:9 Comments

"The heart is treacherous and desperate"

Comments from J.A. Thompson (NICOT)

This segment has links with the preceding verses. The word heart (lēḇ) occurs in both vv. 9 and 10. The human heart is deceitful (v. 9) but Yahweh knows it (v. 10). Verse 9 was possibly a well-known proverb. So also was the first half of v. 11, and the mention of requiting each man according to his ways (v. 10) links with unjustly (lōʾ ḇəmišpāṭ) in v. 11. The three verses are thus linked together in thought. Underlying them all is a guarantee to Jeremiah that Yahweh knows all, assesses (ḇōḥēn, v. 10) all, and judges all. If the fruit of Jeremiah’s deed is good, he is in Yahweh’s safe care.
9–10 The heart of man (lēḇ) in the psychology of OT times refers frequently to the mind, the source of a man’s thinking and action.⁵ It is here described as deceitful above all.⁶ A picturesque translation is “The heart is rougher than anything and incurable; who understands it?”⁷ It is certainly a mystery to mankind, who does not understand (yāḏaʾ) it. Yahweh, however, “explores” or searches (ḥāqar] the human heart.

Hetty Lallemann (Tyndale OTC):

Again this is a ‘wisdom saying’, using a rhetorical question to describe the general nature of human beings. However, it fits in a prophetic context, since it emphasizes that no-one is without sin, and this applies to the prophet’s own time. This prophetic message of warning is in the context of analysing the nation’s situation. The people are 'incurably ill’ (see also 15:18). Only God knows what is really in people’s hearts, minds and thoughts, what are their deepest emotions. He gives them what they deserve. Judgment was deserved in Jeremiah’s day, and God also knew what his enemies had plotted against him (17:14–18). The word for [examine the] mind is literally ‘kidneys’ (see comment on 11:20).

See https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268046?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Jesus Christ as the Intermediate Agent of Creation

I wrote the following a long time ago. That's why BDAG is not mentioned in the post; now edited on 11/9/2019.

ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν,
καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ.

(1 Corinthians 8:6, NA28)

ἐκ may also be used to speak about "the efficient cause, or agent from which any action or thing proceeds, is produced, or effected from, or by" (Spiros Zodhiates).

The data would thus indicate that when ἐκ is applied to the Father's activities at 1 Cor. 8:6, it is describing His creative function, but Christ is the intermediate agent of creation.

In this regard, it would probably be worth one's time to reference the introduction of David Aune's three-volume commentary on Revelation. On p. CLXXIX-CLXXX of his introduction to volume I, Aune details the many uses of ἐκ in Revelation. The examples he gives for this Greek preposition are cases in which it signifies the action of a personal or impersonal agent: Rev. 2:9; 3:18; 8:11; 9:18. In my estimation, 2 Cor. 5:1 could be included as an example in which ἐκ describes a creation of God--a spiritual building in heaven.

As for διά, it seems difficult to construe the preposition as connoting that things were made by Christ in 1 Cor. 8:6 and Heb. 1:2; it is evidently more appropriate to understand διά here as suggestive of intermediate agency:

"Intermediate agency is normally conveyed by διά with the genitive. For example, God delivered the law to Moses by angels (Gal. 3:19) and John sent a message to Christ through his disciples (Matt. 11:2; cf. John 1:3; 3:17)" (Richard A. Young's Grammar, p. 91-92).

Dana-Mantey say that while "διά is occasionally used to express agency, it does not approximate the full strength of ὑπό."

They continue:

"This distinction throws light on Jesus' relation to the creation, implying that Jesus was not the absolute, independent creator, but rather the intermediate agent in creation" (D-M Section 109).

Anchor Bible Dictionary (Function and Appearance of Angels)

1. Functions and Appearance of Angels. The general function of the angel as the agent of God's will is widely attested. Retellings of OT narratives (especially Jubilees and Pseudo-Philo) tend to introduce angels where they did not occur in the OT, oftentimes as performing some act which the OT attributes directly to God (e.g., Jub. 38:10; 10:22–23; 14:20; 19:3; 32:21; 41:24; 48:2; Ps-Philo 11:5; 15:5; 19:12, 16; 61:5). In the book of Tobit the belief in a protecting angel (cf. Gen 24:7) is dramatized with all the ironic and humorous potential of the situation richly realized (HBD, 791–803). Angels help and protect the pious and bring their prayers before God (Dan 3:25, 28; 1 En. 100:5; 1QM 13:10; T. Jud. 3:10; T. Dan. 6:5; T. Naph. 8:4; T. Jos. 6:7; T. Benj. 6:1; Ps-Philo 38:3; 59:4; 3 Macc.6:18–19; Vita 21). Angels also decree and execute punishment in accordance with God's will (Dan 4:13–26; T. Naph. 8:6; 1 Enoch 56). An angelic scribe keeps records which are opened at the time of judgment (Dan 7:10; 1 En. 89:61–77; 90:14–20; 2 En. 19:5; Ap. Zeph. 3; 7).
The angel as teacher and mediator of revelation is a well-attested motif, even in nonapocalyptic texts (Joseph and Asenath 14–15; Jub. 1:27–29; 10:10–14 [cf. 1 Enoch 8]; T. Reu. 5:3; T. Levi 9:6; T. Iss. 2:1; T. Jos. 6:6). In apocalyptic writings, the angelic revealer, heavenly guide, and interpreter of mysteries and visions becomes a standard feature (e.g., Daniel 7–12; 1 Enoch 17–36; Apocalypse of Abraham 10–18; 4 Ezra 3–14). The appearance of the angel often evokes an acute emotional reaction from the person who sees it (Dan 10:7–9; 2 En. 1:3–8; Ap. Ab. 11:2–6).

One Volume Edition

C.F.D. Moule (Colossians 1:16)

John P. Heil (Colossians 1:15)

John C. Murray and the Homoousion of Nicaea

These comments by John C. Murray (S.J.) are taken from his book The Problem of God (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1964. Page 50):

"The homoousion represents a limit in the understanding of the faith. As there is no stopping short of it on peril of archaist imprecision in the faith, so there is no going beyond it on peril of futurist adulteration of the faith. The homoousion is a limit in another sense. The three data of faith that it synthesizes are data of mystery that the one God the Father is Pantokrator, that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son, is Pantokrator, and that the Son is from the Father and other than Father. The homoousion resolves the seeming contradiction. If, as the homoousion asserts, the Son is all that the Father is, except for the Name of Father, then the Son is Pantokrator as the Father is, but he is not the Father. But here intelligence has reached its limit. The problem is solved, to the limits of solution. The mystery remains intact, adorable."

I emphasize that these views are posted to facilitate understanding of opposing stances. I am not a Trinitarian.

Revelation 3:14 (Jurgen Roloff)

The message formula (II) consists of three parts. The first. "Amen," is the same Old Testament designation of God in Isa. 65:16, which appeared in the Greek form in 3:7. Like God himself, Jesus is absolutely truthful and dependable; he keeps his word. The two parts that follow refer back to 1:5 and simultaneously to the situation of the church. Jesus, "the faithful and true witness," who sealed his service with his life, finds such readiness to testify absent in Laodicea. His participation in creation is presented more sharply with the phrase "origin [or beginning] of God's creation" than in 1:4, where there was more emphasis on the majesty of Jesus Christ over history. Surely it is no accident that the tone sounded here resembles one found in Colossians (Col. 1:15-20). Apparently, Revelation also wishes to counter strongly the separation of Christ from the created world, which is represented by Gnosticism.

Jurgen Roloff. Revelation (Continental Commentary Series) (Kindle Locations 986-991). Kindle Edition.

Kallistos Ware on What the Incarnation Means

The following snippet is taken from The Orthodox Way written by Bishop Kallistos Ware. I post this information in order to facilitate understanding between Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians. The language found in Trinitarian creeds is very difficult to fathom at first blush,m but it is my hope that the comments posted here will disambiguate the Trinity doctrine for non-Trinitarians:

"We are not to think of him [Jesus Christ] as 'half-in-half.' Jesus Christ is not fifty per cent [sic] God and fifty per cent man, but one hundred per cent God and one hundred per cent man. In the epigrammatic phrase of St Leo the Great, he is TOTUS IN SUIS, TOTUS IN NOSTRIS, 'complete in what is his own, complete in what is ours'" (page 73).

Introduction to 1 Peter (Modified Talk)

The Greek word translated "holy" appears 8 times in Peter's first inspired letter (1 Pet. 1:12, 15-16; 2:5, 9; 3:5). Therefore, 1 Peter clearly emphasizes our need to be holy. For example, notice 1 Pet. 1:14-16.

To be holy means to be clean or set apart for Jehovah's service. Holiness is not a choice, but an obligation: we must be holy in all our conduct as Jehovah our heavenly Father is holy. Yet how can we imitate God's holiness since we're imperfect, but he is not?

Although we're imperfect sinners, we manifest holiness by obediently preaching the kingdom good news and setting an example in our daily conduct (Philippians 2:15). However, when we unintentionally commit sin, we exemplify holiness by showing true remorse and shunning "practices that dishonor Jehovah.​" How fitting the prayer in Ps. 79:9:

Help us, O God of our salvation,

For the sake of your glorious name;

Rescue us and forgive our sins for the sake of your name. (Psalm 79:9)

Our worship cannot be clean if we do things that Jehovah hates, such as actions that are immoral, violent, or connected with demonism. (Romans 6:12-14; 8:13) However, it would also displease Jehovah if we allowed ourselves to be entertained by such things. Do we exercise caution when watching TV, listening to music or reading books?

The Bible encourages us to be morally, spiritually and physically clean. 1 Peter is one inspired source that exhorts us to be holy as Jehovah is holy.

Tatian the Assyrian and Romans 1:20

"Our God did not begin to be in time: He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the beginning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works" (Tatianus Syriacus, Address to the Greeks 4).

For the Greek Migne edition of Tatian's Oratio (Address), see http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0112-0185__Tatianus_Syriacus__Oratio_Adversus_Graecos_(MPG_006_0803-0888)__GM.pdf.html

Richard Bauckham and Revelation 3:14 (Screenshot)

I admonish the readers that just because I post some writer's work does not mean I endorse everything the author says or believes.

Galaxie Subscription

I recently subscribed to the Galaxie database in order to download Bibliotheca Sacra articles. It might be something I do for six months or for a year. While my time is currently tight, if I can help anyone with articles from time to time, please let me know.

Best,
Edgar