I believe that Christian materialism is consonant with Bible verses such as Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4; 1 Peter 3:20.
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Monday, February 05, 2024
Nancey Murphy's Theological Anthropology Stated Briefly
I believe that Christian materialism is consonant with Bible verses such as Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4; 1 Peter 3:20.
Thursday, February 01, 2024
Words of the Month (February 2024)
1) Anastrophe (English)-"Anastrophe is a rhetorical term for the inversion of conventional word order. It is often used to emphasize one or more of the reversed words." See https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-anastrophe-rhetoric-1689094 Some sources call anastrophe a form of hyperbaton. Examples: Magna cum laude, Summa cum laude; "This love feel I, that feel no love in this" (Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare). One other example from the Roman poet Virgil is Ītaliam contrā, which = contrā Ītaliam. See https://hands-up-education.org/aen1notes2/index.html
Other examples might include Latin constructions, stimulo parentali and emendatione observata.
2) Anadiplosis (English)-"repetition of the last word or words of one clause or line of verse, at the beginning of the next (Ex.: 'He gave his life; his life was all he could give.')"
See https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/anadiplosis
3) Epistemic (English)-"Wherever it is used, epistemic traces back to the knowledge of the Greeks. It comes from epistēmē, Greek for 'knowledge.' That Greek word is from the verb epistanai, meaning 'to know or understand,' a word formed from the prefix epi- (meaning 'upon"'or 'attached to') and histanai (meaning 'to cause to stand')." See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemic
Wednesday, January 31, 2024
Peter Nagel and the Deity of Christ
Peter Nagel has written some interesting articles about Christ's "deity." I'm not sure what his religious background is, but I think he teaches at the Stellenbosch University in South Africa. If you read nothing else by Nagel, see "Problematising the Divinity of Jesus: Why Jesus Is Not θεός." Peter Nagel. Neotestamentica, Volume 53, Number 3, 2019, pp. 557-584 (Article).
Monday, January 29, 2024
Open Access Book About Ancient Greek
I have not read this entire book yet, but thought some might find this useful. It's open access: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0264
Sunday, January 28, 2024
Brief Notes from John Lyons, "Language, Meaning and Context" (Pages 172-174)
Background to This Book: The linguist Sir John Lyons lived between 23 May 1932 – 12 March 2020 and he was a Fellow of the British Academy. His concentration was semantics: his peers considered him to be a "major semanticist" (Clark and Kempson). Out of the major work he did, one important study was Language, Meaning and Context, published in 1981. This book was written to outline and critique the status quo of semantics at the time. Since the field of linguistics has a significant impact on theology and speech act theory plays a role in contemporary theology, I want to comment briefly on this subject with help from the book by Lyons.
On page 172, Lyons makes it clear that he does not truly like the terminology, "speech acts," so when he analyzes John Austin's inchoate theory of performative utterances, Lyons introduces personally-crafted distinctions while adhering somewhat closely to Austin's terminology the best that he can. Austin's famed work was How to Do Things With Words published in 1962. He lectured at Oxford and set forth thought-provoking ideas, but Austin did not leave an organized manuscript that his peers could publish. The lack of a suitable manuscript led to the imprecise articulation of his speech act theory, which John Searle later studied, propagated, and then offered his own ideas.
On page 174, Lyons relates that Austin's theory was born in the midst of verificationist controversies: that is, some philosophers and linguists suggested that theological, metaphysical, moral, and aesthetic statements are emotive rather than communicators of truth or falsity. This would include statements like "Murder is wrong" and "Joe is a better singer than Barry." Austin criticized the verificationists and came up with his own counterexamples like "I promise to pay you five pounds on Tuesday." This statement is neither true nor false, but evidently obligates the one uttering the words to keep his/her promise or to act in a certain way. Hence, the terminology, "speech acts" (performative utterances). Linguists commonly articulate this theory in terms of the categories, locution, illocution, and perlocution. Kevin Vanhoozer has utilized speech act theory to explicate his theological thought. I also recommend Lyons' book if one wants to learn more about speech act theory, deixis/indexicality, semantics in general, Gricean implicature theory and much more.
Sources: Lyons, John (1981). Language, Meaning and Context. Fontana.
https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2738/19-Memoirs-19-Lyons.pdf
Friday, January 26, 2024
1 Peter 4:8-"Have Intense Love"
HCSB: "Above all, maintain an intense love for each other, since love covers a multitude of sins."
Peter Achtemeier (page 294) explains that the opening of verse 8 here likely reflects the language of verse 7, which mentions the "end of all things." Hence, πρὸ πάντων probably is a rhetorical turn of phrase that draws the reader's attention back to the previous verse, but more importantly, it emphasizes the importance and surpassing value of love--especially given the times.
Peter focuses on love for the Christian community (τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς) but this does not mean a Christian can't love those outside of the local or universal ecclesia: Jesus taught that the second greatest command is to love one's neighbor and this does not seem to be limited to one's Christian brother or sister.
Achtemeier connects 1 Peter 4:8 with 1 Peter 1:22, which uses the adverbial expression "love one another intensely." By employing the words, ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, Peter refers to the act of loving one's spiritual siblings fervently. Ceslas Spicq thinks Peter is referring to intensive love that Christians should have for one another. WT publications often have pointed to the meaning "outstretched" for the adjective ἐκτενῆ in 1 Peter 4:8 and the definition "outstretchedly" for 1 Peter 1:22. The act of stretching out fabric has been utilized to illustrate this concept.
BDAG Entry: ἐκτενής, ές ⟦ektenḗs⟧ (Aeschyl.; Polyb. 22, 5, 4; ins [s. on ἐκτένεια]; PTebt 24, 45; 3 Macc 3:10; 5:29; Philo; Just., D. 107, 2 ἐκτενοῦς ὀλολυγμοῦ) pert. to being persevering, with implication that one does not waver in one’s display of interest or devotion, eager, earnest, comp. ἐκτενέστερος (IGR IV, 293 II, 38) Ac 12:5 v.l. ἐκτενῆ τὴν δέησιν ποιεῖσθαι make earnest supplication 1 Cl 59:2 (UPZ 110, 46 [164 b.c.] τὴν ἐκτενεστάτην ποιήσασθαι πρόνοιαν). ἐκτενῆ ὑπὸ πάντων προσευχὴν γενέσθαι AcPl Ha 6, 6f. τὴν ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχειν keep affection constant 1 Pt 4:8. μετ’ ἐκτενοῦς ἐπιεικείας w. constant gentleness 1 Cl 58:2; 62:2.—DELG s.v. τανυ- etc. E p. 1092. M-M. TW. Spicq.
Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the New Testament): Fervent This English adjective is defined as: “Having or showing great emotion or warmth” (American Heritage Dictionary, 485). But the Greek word here, ektenēs (only here in NT) has a somewhat different connotation. It comes from the verb ekteinō, “stretch out”; so it literally means “stretched out.” C. E. B. Cranfield says that it “suggests rather the taut muscle of strenuous and
Reference: Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Hermeneia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
Eliphaz Was Not A Source of Comfort (Modified Talk)
You probably remember that one of the so-called comforters who came to visit Job was named Eliphaz. Yet did he provide the comfort that Job so badly needed?
Turn with me to Job 15:14-16
(After reading)
Eliphaz insisted that no matter what human servants of Jehovah do, they just can't please him. He claimed that not even the angels or the heavens are pure in Jehovah's eyes--how much less is man! In this way, Eliphaz blamed Job for the calamities he suffered and even worse, he put Jehovah in a bad light.
Today, we have to avoid the trap into which Eliphaz fell. Jehovah's servants must be on guard against thinking that God expects too much from us, and we surely would not want to try encouraging a depressed brother or sister by giving him/her the impression that Jehovah is never pleased with wholehearted service given to him.
Another way that Eliphaz failed to give proper counsel is found in Job 15:20
(After reading)
Did you notice what Eliphaz implied about Job? He indicated that the reason for Job's suffering was his wickedness? How discouraging such counsel must have been. Eliphaz and Job's other friends were supposed to be comforting him, but instead, Eliphaz offered only hurtful words. What a lesson we learn about the need for weighing our words carefully and not speaking thoughtlessly as Proverbs 12:18 warns. Yes, thoughtless words can injure like a sword.
In Job 16:1-2, we see the results that came from the discouraging words of Eliphaz.
Job referred to Eliphaz and the other two men who came with him as "troublesome comforters." Instead of making Job feel better, Eliphaz made him feel worse and he did not speak the truth about Jehovah. Suffering hardship does not necessarily mean that we have displeased God: even righteous people can expect to have tribulation in their life (Psalm 34:14).
While Eliphaz spoke words that did not upbuild or encourage, we on the other hand can speak consoling words to the depressed (1 Thessalonians 5:14). We can offer consolation by sincerely commending others and remind our brothers and sisters of how Jehovah drew them through his Son, so he must love them (John 6:44-45). Jehovah cares for those who are brokenhearted or crushed in spirit and it's good to let our brothers know that he does. In this way, we allow our words to be like soothing ointment that brings comfort in times of distress and we avoid the mistake of Eliphaz.
Sunday, January 21, 2024
Romans 10:13--Jehovah or Jesus?
Someone has asked me whether Romans 10:13 references Jehovah or does it apply to Jesus, thus identifying him as Jehovah (the Son). The verse is contentious: numerous theologians and Bible commentators take the position that Romans 10:13 is a proof-text for the Trinity doctrine or Deity of Christ. Therefore, I will quote two commentators on this passage:
Joseph Fitzmyer (Romans, page 593): "13. 'For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' Paul quotes Joel 3:5 (2:32F) according to the LXX, which corresponds to the MT and where sothesetai renders Hebrew yimmalet. In the original context the prophet speaks of the awesome day of the Lord, when deliverance and survival will come to those who invoke Yahweh. Paul applies the title to his Kyrios. In the OT those who 'call upon the name of the Lord' denoted sincere and pious Israelites; in the NT it is transferred to Christians ( 1 Cor 1 :2). Verses 12-13 thus become an eloquent witness to the early church's worship of Christ as Kyrios. The adj. pas with which the quotation begins echoes that introduced by Paul into the quotation in [Romans] 10:11."
James D.G. Dunn (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, pages 104-105 ): "One striking example is the passage just cited - Romans 10.9-13. The passage concludes by quoting Joel 2.32:29 'for everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved' (Rom. 10.13 ). Now in Joel 2.32 'the Lord' is obviously Yahweh. But equally obviously in Romans 10.9-13 'the Lord' is the Lord confessed with the lips -'Jesus is Lord.' The salvation of which Joel spoke is promised to those who confess Jesus as Lord. He is the Lord upon whose name those who believe in Jesus call. As already pointed out in Chapter 1, the fact that Paul thought of his readership in these terms is confirmed by his description of believers in the opening of his first letter to the Corinthians, as 'all those who in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 1.2). The calling of which Joel spoke is a calling on God to exercise his saving power on behalf of the remnant of Israel. So the fact that Paul refers the same verse to the exalted Jesus presumably means for Paul either that Jesus is Yahweh,30 or, more likely, that Yahweh has bestowed his own unique saving power on the Lord who sits on his right side,31 or that the exalted Jesus is himself the embodiment as well as the executive of that saving power."
Friday, January 19, 2024
Obversion of Categorical Statements in Logic
Example:
Statement 1) "All Athenians are Greeks."
The obversion of statement 1) is "No Athenians are non-Greeks."
In this case, we have obverted a universal affirmative (A statement) by changing its quality to a negative and "Greeks" (the predicate term) has been replaced with its complement term ("non-Greeks").
A statements are universal affirmatives
E statements are universal negatives
I statements are particular affirmatives
O statements are particular negatives (i.e., "some S are not P" or "some S is not P")
Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" (A Discussion)-Part XIIII-Perfect and Pluperfect Indicatives
Greek: ὅτε οὖν ἔλαβεν τὸ ὄξος ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Τετέλεσται, καὶ κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα.
Translators tend to render Τετέλεσται with "it is finished": this verb is the perfect passive form of τελέω. Merkle poses these questions concerning Jesus' words: "Is Jesus looking back over his life and making a claim about how he has fulfilled all that was prophesied about him? Or is Jesus looking ahead to the present blessings that would come as a result of his death and resurrection?"
I would add, does the perfect form of the verb used in John 19:30 shed any light on these queries?
The perfect tense-form depicts completed action and the present result of the action: Merkle reminds us that the perfect's verbal aspect is stative--signifying a state of affairs brought about by an action completed in the past. However, Richard A. Young maintains:
"The perfect is normally interpreted as expressing a completed act with continuing results. There are problems with this definition if time is not a function of form, for completed acts are always past. Contextually the perfect may refer to something past (Matt. 19:8), present (Matt. 27:43), possibly future (Matt. 20:23; John 5:24; Jas. 5:2-3), omnitemporal (Rom. 7:2), or timeless (John 3:18). It seems better to view the perfect and pluperfect as members of the stative aspect in which the speaker conceives the verbal idea as a condition or state of affairs" (Intermediate NT Greek, p. 126).So Young takes a position that mirrors Stanley Porter: he wants to construe Greek verbs as timeless in se at least to some extent, but he reckons that Greek verbs get their temporality from the context of usage (usus loquendi). This is a controversial point that does not need to be nor probably will be settled anytime soon and the point won't detain us here. For further references, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/07/benjamin-merkles-exegetical-gems_8.html
Getting back to Merkle's analysis, he encourages one reading Greek to focus on whether the perfect (in context) is making the action or the state of affairs it's depicting more prominent. It will usually be one or the other.
Like other tense-forms, Greek writers/speakers employ the perfect in various ways: consummative, intensive, dramatic, gnomic, etc. As for the pluperfect, it depicts: "a past state that was caused by a previous action." In other words, writers use the pluperfect to describe an event that preceded another occurrence (normally described with the aorist). Merkle's example is Matthew 7:25: καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθαν οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέπεσαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν, τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν.
The verbs in the text are aorists while the verb τεθεμελίωτο is pluperfect. What is the significance of the pluperfect here?
"The aspectual significance of the pluperfect emphasizes the resulting (past) state of a previous action or event. The pluperfect is not common, occurring only eighty-six times in the NT, and is found only in the indicative."
What about John 19:30? What can we possibly glean from the perfect form occurring there?
The two options Merkle lays out for Τετέλεσται are that it could be a consummative perfect or an intensive perfect. In other words, when Jesus uttered the word, was he looking backwards at the action/actions that brought about his current state or was he emphasizing the current state brought about by past action/actions? Merkle chooses the first option (the consummative perfect). He gives four reasons why, but he concedes that Τετέλεσται might be emphasizing the current state, that is, be an intensive perfect.
The footnotes in this chapter contain useful information and Merkle concludes with a quote:
“This one Greek word is the final statement of God, declaring that everything he wanted to accomplish has been completed to perfection in the person and work of his Son” (Klink, John, 811).
Edward W. Klink III thinks: “The nature of the completed action is magnified by the verb’s perfect tense, which describes a past action with continuingly present-tense force.” John, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 811.
This quote is taken from one of Merkle's notes.
Wednesday, January 17, 2024
De + the Ablative Case (Brief Remarks About Latin)
De + the ablative is a standard construction in Latin and it frequently occurs among the ante/post-Nicene Fathers. I teach students about de re and de dicto utterances; many of the ecclesiastical works in Latin also have de + the ablative constructions. For instance, De Trinitate by Augustine of Hippo, Novatian of Rome and Hilary of Poitiers, also De Civitate Dei by Augustine and so forth. Other familiar constructs are de facto and de jure.
De + patre can be rendered "of, about, concerning or regarding the Father." Basil Gildersleeve calls this usage, an ablative of object (section 417.5), which he distinguishes from the ablative of reference ("according to"). Another source classifies de + the ablative as a figurative use of de since the preposition is used elsewhere to reference a literal place (e.g., dē caelō dēmissus). See https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/uses-prepositions#rfn3
There is also a good explanation here: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DD%3Aentry+group%3D3%3Aentry%3Dde2
Lewis and Short explain that de + the ablative eventually came to replace the genitive and its object: they write that de along with the ablative is able to "indicate the thing with reference to which any thing is done, with respect to, concerning."
Tuesday, January 16, 2024
Hebrews and the Holy Places/Holy Place (Greek Texts)
Hebrews 8:2-τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργὸς καὶ τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος.
9:1-Εἶχε μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ πρώτη δικαιώματα λατρείας τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν.
9:2-σκηνὴ γὰρ κατεσκευάσθη ἡ πρώτη ἐν ᾗ ἥ τε λυχνία καὶ ἡ τράπεζα καὶ ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων, ἥτις λέγεται Ἅγια·
9:8-τοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν,
9:12-οὐδὲ δι' αἵματος τράγων καὶ μόσχων διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, εἰσῆλθεν ἐφάπαξ εἰς τὰ ἅγια, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος.
9:24-οὐ γὰρ εἰς χειροποίητα εἰσῆλθεν ἅγια Χριστός, ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν, ἀλλ' εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν οὐρανόν, νῦν ἐμφανισθῆναι τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν·
9:25-οὐδ' ἵνα πολλάκις προσφέρῃ ἑαυτόν, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια κατ' ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ,
10:19-Ἔχοντες οὖν, ἀδελφοί, παρρησίαν εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ αἵματι Ἰησοῦ,
13:11-ὧν γὰρ εἰσφέρεται ζῴων τὸ αἷμα περὶ ἁμαρτίας εἰς τὰ ἅγια διὰ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, τούτων τὰ σώματα κατακαίεται ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς·
Wednesday, January 10, 2024
Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" (A Discussion)-Part XIII-Aorist Indicatives
Merkle begins by referencing the famed article by Frank Stagg on "The Abused Aorist" (published in JBL 1972). Stagg's goal was to refute suggestions that the aorist verbal form is inherently or necessarily punctiliar (Merkle 71). Rather, any punctiliarity associated with the aorist comes from "the lexical meaning of the verb and the context."
See Easley. https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/07/aorist-verbs-vis-vis-present-tense.html
Merkle illustrates this point by invoking Ephesians 4:20: ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν
The verb there (ἐμάθετε) is aorist indicative 2nd person plural and it's negated by οὐχ ("you did not learn"). HCSB: "But that is not how you learned about the Messiah"
With this verse in mind, Merkle asks the following questions:
"In using the aorist form, is Paul indicating that this verb should be viewed as a onetime action or a single event such as conversion? Or can the verb communicate a summary statement that would allow an undetermined period of time?"
Before answering these questions, Merkle supplies an overview of Greek aorist indicatives. This verbal tense-form is the most frequently used in the New Testament: the aorist portrays action as a whole without respect "to its progress or duration." It is the default tense for narratives, and this tense-form occurs with a past reference 80% of the time. To find out more about various uses of the aorist (e.g., ingressive, constative, etc.), see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-greek-aorist-and-its-diverse-uses.html
Getting back to the chapter's focus, Merkle addresses whether ἐμάθετε in his estimation is punctiliar or could allow for an extended period of time. He begins by reviewing and assessing the stance of Ernest Best, who argues that the aorist verb in Ephesians 4:20 is punctiliar: he thinks it refers to the time when the Ephesians became Christians. However, as we read the next verse, two other verbs come into play: ἠκούσατε and ἐδιδάχθητε. Both of these verbs are aorist ("heard" and "were taught"), so how should we construe them? Moreover, what impact do they have on Ephesians 4:20?
Best applies ἠκούσατε to "the time of conversion" and ἐδιδάχθητε to "a past period of teaching" since he reckons the verb does not appropriately fit with the depiction of ongoing action. This commentator concludes: “The two verbs of hearing and being taught may refer to the same event of becoming a Christian looked at from distinct angles." The bottom line is that Best believes the aorist verbs in Ephesians 4:20-21 depict punctiliar rather than ongoing action.
On the other hand, Harold Hoehner insists that ἐμάθετε is inceptive, portraying the action at its initial stage. This would mean that the verb in this context points to "the time of conversion. Gentiles and Jews who had previously opposed God, heard Christ preached and received him. This then is the beginning point of their ‘learning Christ’" (Merkle quoting Hoehner).
While Hoehner doesn't agree in toto with Best, Merkle appears to be less than satisfied with either explanation. He invokes Wallace, Thielman, and Lincoln to make a case for construing ἐμάθετε as a constative aorist. He quotes Wallace, who writes that a constative aorist "describes the action in summary fashion, without focusing on the beginning or end of the action specifically."
Therefore, Merkle concludes that the aorist in Ephesians 4:20 delineates action as a whole: it is not punctiliar or depicting a one-time action. Another scholar invoked is William J. Larkin. To quote Merkle, "Thus Larkin is certainly correct in writing, 'A point in time event like conversion reads too much into the aorist tense."
The next chapter in his book is about perfect and pluperfect indicatives.
Monday, January 08, 2024
Revelation 21:4 ("He will wipe away every tear")
ἐξαλείψει is the future active indicative 3rd singular of ἐξαλείφω.
Denotations for ἐξαλείφω: "to cause to disappear by wiping" or "wipe away" (both from BDAG).
Louw-Nida (Semantic Domain 47.18): "to remove a liquid by wiping off - ‘to wipe away.’"
EGF: It is possible that Revelation 7:17; 21:4 allude to Isaiah 25:8 although there are potential difficulties with trying to link these verses in terms of how John words them. Nevertheless, it seems clear that God is the subject of the verb "wipe away." See Dave Mathewson. A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1-22.5. LNTS. T&T Clark, 2003. Pages 57-58.
Saturday, January 06, 2024
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit (Paul Davies and Whether the Cosmos is a Brute Fact or Not)
It seems that just as every house must have a builder and every supernova explosion likely must have an antecedently sufficient cause, so all things must issue forth from an omnipotent and intelligent cause (Hebrews 3:4). At any rate, it's difficult to believe that the cosmos is a result of chance or some accident.
To give some food for thought, I share this quote from physicist Paul Davies' text The Mind of God (page 16):
"I belong to a group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must,
it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition. Furthermore, I have come to the point of view that mind--i.e., conscious awareness of the world--is not a meaningless and incidental quirk of nature, but an absolutely fundamental facet of reality. That is not to say that we are the purpose for which the universe exists. Far from it. I do, however, believe that we human beings are built into the scheme of things in a very basic way" (Italicized word appears in the original).
Friday, January 05, 2024
Robert Alter Discusses the Literary and Syntactical Features of Genesis 2
"Now, after the grand choreography of resonant parallel utterances of the cosmogony, the style changes sharply. Instead of the symmetry of parataxis, hypotaxis is initially prominent: the second account begins with elaborate syntactical subordination in a long complex sentence that uncoils all the way from the second part of [Genesis] verse 4 to the end of verse 7" (Robert Alter, Genesis, comments on Genesis 2:4).
Genesis 2:7 in Alter's work now calls God "YHWH Elohim" rather than Elohim simpliciter.
"Elijah, Yahweh, and Baal" (by H. Gunkel)--For Sale
Please see https://www.ebay.com/itm/386573942099
Some of the Best Books About Greek Ever!
1. N. Marinone. All the Greek Verbs. 2016. 1st ed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
2. Herbert Weir Smyth. Greek Grammar. 1956. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3. A.T. Robertson. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman Press. ISBN: 9780805413083, 0805413081.
4. M. G. Balme, Gilbert Lawall, and James Morwood. Athenaze : An Introduction to Ancient Greek Book I-II. 2015 Third ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. James Hope Moulton, W. F. Howard and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 vols. 1908–1976. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
6. Donald J. Mastronarde. Introduction to Attic Greek. 1993. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
7. James Morwood. The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek. 2002. Oxford; New York. Oxford University Press.
8. Albert Rijksbaron. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek : An Introduction. 2006. 3rd ed. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
9. William D. Mounce. Morphology of Biblical Greek. 1994. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
10. James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery. A Morphology of New Testament Greek: A Review and Reference Grammar. 1994. Lanham: University Press of America.
11. BDAG-Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2000. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Joint Association of Classical Teachers Greek Course. Reading Greek. 2007. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Hardy Hansen and Gerald M. Quinn. Greek: An Intensive Course. 1992. 2nd Revised Edition. 1992. Fordham University Press.
14. J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 1999. 2nd Ed. 2 Volume Set. United Bible Societies.
Wednesday, January 03, 2024
Put Faith in Jehovah Your God! (Modified Talk)
What does it mean to put faith in Jehovah God? What benefits can we expect by placing our faith in the living God?
King Jehoshaphat and the people of ancient Judah provide answers to these questions.
They simultaneously faced three menacing groups of enemies: the Moabites, Ammonites, and the Ammonim. This "large crowd" (2 Chronicles 20:1-2) threatened Judah and King Jehoshaphat. How would they handle this threat? Please turn to 2 Chronicles 20:12-13.
Did you notice the attitude of Jehoshaphat when these forces came against him? He immediately turned to Jehovah in prayer.
There were men, little ones and wives standing before Jehovah at that time. Nevertheless, whether young or old, they strove to follow Jehovah’s
direction, and he protected them from their enemies.
One way that Jehovah came to their aid was by raising up a Levite, Jahaziel. He spoke encouraging words to King Jehoshaphat and the people of Judah. Please turn with me to 2 Chronicles 20:17 to find out more about this Levite.
Jehovah comforted his people by providing them with clear direction: the battle was not theirs, but Jehovah's. Their faith in him was rewarded, but the people of Judah must have wondered what would happen next since they were instructed to go out against their enemies without using weapons. Yet their comfort would be in the fact that Jehovah promised to be with them.
If we turn to 2 Chronicles 20:21-22, we see Jehovah's response to the Judeans' faith. (Read).
Jahaziel told God's people to "stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah."
That is not how armies normally fight battles, but those
instructions did not come from a human: they originated with Jehovah. Therefore, with
full trust in his God, Jehoshaphat implicitly followed divine instructions. When the king and his
people went out to meet the enemy, he placed unarmed singers at the front of his troops,
not the most skilled soldiers. Jehovah did not
let Jehoshaphat down; He soundly defeated the Moabites, Ammonites, and the people from the region of Seir by making them strike one another down. Jehoshaphat and the people of Judah were rewarded for their faith in Jehovah.
Discuss picture
Conclusion:
When Gog of Magog attacks Jehovah’s people during the great tribulation, those
who put faith in Jehovah and who trust those whom he is using to take
the lead will have nothing to fear (2 Chron. 20:20). Their faith in Jehovah God will be rewarded with an imperishable gift--everlasting life.
Plan for the Next Month or Two
Greetings all,
My plan for the next month is to finish my discussion of Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" and to discuss another book or two for Jan-February. I appreciate all who read this blog, whether you agree with my posts or not. Thank you.
Monday, January 01, 2024
Origen of Alexandria and Birthdays (Comm. on Matthew 10.22)
Origen writes about birthdays in a couple of places of which I'm aware: here is one place:
For Herod having laid hold on John bound him and put him in prison, not daring to slay him outright and to take away the prophetic word from the people; but the wife of the king of Trachonitis — which is a kind of evil opinion and wicked teaching — gave birth to a daughter of the same name, whose movements, seemingly harmonious, pleasing Herod, who was fond of matters connected with birthdays, came the cause of there being no longer a prophetic head among the people. And up to this point I think that the movements of the people of the Jews, which seem to be according to the law, were nothing else than the movements of the daughter of Herodias; but the dancing of Herodias was opposed to that holy dancing with which those who have not danced will be reproached when they hear the words, We piped unto you, and you did not dance. And on birthdays, when the lawless word reigns over them, they dance so that their movements please that word. Some one of those before us has observed what is written in Genesis about the birthday of Pharaoh, and has told that the worthless man who loves things connected with birth keeps birthday festivals; and we, taking this suggestion from him, find in no Scripture that a birthday was kept by a righteous man. For Herod was more unjust than that famous Pharaoh; for by the latter on his birthday feast a chief baker is killed; (Genesis 40:20) but by the former, John, than whom no one greater has risen among those born of women, (Matthew 11:11) in regard to whom the Saviour says, But for what purpose did ye go out? To see a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
Words of the Month (January 2024)
2) Oxymoron (English)-According to Google's Generative AI: "An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines contradictory words to create a new meaning. For example, 'old news,' 'deafening silence,' or 'organized chaos' are all oxymorons."
Oxford Languages: "a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).
3) חָרַף (Hebrew)-transliterated, the word is charaph. Michael V. Fox translates charaph as "insults" in Proverbs 27:11. William McKane (in his Proverbs commentary) uses the verbs "denigrate" and vilify" to communicate the idea behind the Hebrew. Another way to translate it would be "reproach" or "taunt."
Saturday, December 30, 2023
Samuel Clarke: Causality versus Design
Naturalists might argue that things in the cosmos have a cause, but were not designed. Yes, that's possible logically but how probable is it that all things in the cosmos and the cosmos itself were not designed? Again, it's logically possible that Biltmore House was not made by intelligent designers or that it did not have human builders, but how likely is it?
Friday, December 29, 2023
Beards (A Reflection Written Some Years Ago, But Now Edited Somewhat)
Thirdly in this matter of beards, consider the example of Joseph: "Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon: and he shaved himself, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh" (Gen 41:14 Geneva Study Bible).
Pharaoh immediately sent for Joseph. As quickly as possible he was fetched from the prison; and after shaving the hair of his head and beard, and changing his clothes, as the customs of Egypt required (see Hengst. Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 30), he went in to the king (Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament).Joseph shaved although there was nothing inherently wrong with his beard: he adapted to the customs of Egypt that did not conflict with God's laws. It's interesting to think about how Paul handled the issue of wearing a beard; he was a Jew (a Benjaminite) and Roman citizen who lived in a Hellenistic milieu as a follower of Christ. Hence, Paul wrote that he became all things to all men (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). At the end of the day, we know that ancient Israelite men were commanded not to destroy "the edges" of their beard (Leviticus 19:27). Hence, Jesus likely had a beard and Paul probably would have worn one as a Jew. Whether someone chooses to wear or not wear a beard today is a matter of choice like many other areas of life in Christianity. As Paul wrote about eating meat once sacrificed to idols, "If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?" (1 Corinthians 10:30)
See the surrounding context of 1 Corinthians 10:30.
Monday, December 25, 2023
How the First English Bible Originated (Vos on Wycliffe)
Sunday, December 24, 2023
Some Reasons Not to Celebrate Christmas
1. Jesus was not born on December 25 and his DOB is not made known by his early disciples. See https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/christ-is-born
2. Christmas propagates a number of untruths (falsehoods) like Santa Claus, a man who travels around the world in one night leaving gifts for all the good children as he rides a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. Furthermore, Santa supposedly plummets own the chimney to deliver toys, if you have one. See Ephesians 4:25; John 4:23-24.
Is it always wrong to tell a story or fable to one's child? No it is not, but the Santa Claus myth is told as though it were truly happening and it might be told for years before a child begins to see the falsity of it or is capable of knowing it's false. There is nothing wrong with telling a story but it's better told when both parties understand that the story should not be taken at face value or thought to be true.
3. The promotion of commercialism. The term "commercialism" here refers to "emphasis on the maximizing of profit" (Oxford Languages).We need commerce in this world, in some form or fashion, but we don't need commercialism in this sense of the word. Is there anything with a business making a profit? No there is not: if a merchant does not run a profitable business, then he/she will not have a business for long. Yet when it comes to Christmas, people are often forced by guilt to buy things they cannot afford and go into needless and painful debt, thereby becoming slaves to the lender (Proverbs 22:7).
4. Jesus never commanded his disciples to observe his birthday: such a command is not to be found in the Bible at all (compare John 14:15).
5. Early Jews and Christians did not celebrate birthdays--the day of death was considered better than the day of one's birth (Ecclesiastes 7:1).
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/02/birthdays-and-circumcision-again.html
6. Christmas usually promotes greed and covetousness. The norm is that children mostly focus on what they can get, and so do adults. Poor people tend to feel bad when they can't get their child that much-coveted gift which all the kids want while uber-rich couples buy each other brand new matching trucks valued at $60,000 bucks apiece or more. Of course, there is nothing wrong with buying gifts for a loved one and we should not be jealous of others, but I find commercials that tout this idea of purchasing each other highly expensive gifts for the holidays (the birth of Jesus at that!) to be rather perverse. With all of the problems and suffering taking place in the world, those who have the means to help others are encouraged to buy expensive vehicles on the Lord's supposed birthday? Makes a lot of sense to me.
Latin and the Allative Case
Also from lexico.com concerning "allative":
Mid 19th century; earliest use found in Quarterly Journal Education. From post-classical Latin allativus, designating the case expressing motion to or toward (1826 or earlier; earlier in sense ‘for bringing’) from classical Latin allāt-, past participial stem of afferre to bring to + -īvus.It seems that Latin might not have the allative case or lost it over time, but the language possibly found ways to communicate similar ideas through merged cases. Early Greek apparently made use of the allative case, which is an extension of the locative case. I guess the difference is that motion towards an object is indicated by the case ending with the allative whereas the five-case system in Greek doesn't always do this explicitly.
I also read section 427 in Allen and Greenough: it's provides some help. A & G give these examples inter alia for how Latin indicates motion to or toward an object:
bellī, mīlitiae, and domī; terrā marīque is another good one.
Friday, December 22, 2023
One Evidence for Divine Creation: A Drop of Water
According to Michael Padilla, there are 2 sextillion atoms of oxygen and twice the number of hydrogen atoms in a drop of water. We can represent 2 sextillion exponentially as 2 x 10^21. That is 2 times 10 to the 21st power. Amazing!
Looked at from another perspective, there are 1.67 sextillion molecules in a drop of water, which on average is 0.05 mL. Did this composition merely happen by chance?
Revelation 10:6 (KJV): "And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer."
Compare Ecclesiastes 3:11.
Tuesday, December 19, 2023
2 Timothy 3:1 ("difficult times"?)
Greek (SBLGNT): Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί·
(LEB): "But know this, that in the last days difficult times will come,"
The NWT uses "critical times," so why the difference?
BDAG Entry: χαλεπός, ή, όν ⟦chalepós⟧ (s. next entry; Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX, TestSol, Philo; Jos., Ant. 4, 1 βίος, 13, 422 νόσος; Just., D. 1, 5; Tat.; comp. χαλεπώτερα Just., A II, 2, 6) pert. to being troublesome, hard, difficult καιροὶ χ. hard times, times of stress 2 Ti 3:1. Of words that are hard to bear and penetrate deeply (Hes., Works 332; Dio Chrys. 49 [66], 19) Hv 1, 4, 2 (w. σκληρός). Of pers. (Od. 1, 198; Chion, Ep. 15, 1f; SIG 780, 31; EpArist 289; Jos., Ant. 15, 98) hard to deal with, violent, dangerous Mt 8:28. Of animals (Pla., Pol. 274b; Ps.-X., Cyneg. 10, 23; Dio Chrys. 5, 5) B 4:5 (comp.). In the sense bad, evil (Cebes 6, 2 of the πόμα of Ἀπάτη) τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῆς πονηρίας χ. ἐστι the deeds of the angel of wickedness are evil Hm 6, 2, 10.—Subst. τὰ χ. (that which is) evil (X., Mem. 2, 1, 23; POxy 1242, 36) MPol 11:1 (opp. τὰ δίκαια). ἀρχὴ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλαργυρία everything that is acrimonious begins with love of money Pol 4:1 (cp. 1 Ti 6:10).—B. 651. DELG. M-M. Spicq.
Spicq observes: When applied to things, chalepos can mean simply “difficult, hard,”1but sometimes it also takes on the nuance of “regrettable” (2Macc 4:4), “grievous” (Wis 3:19), “severe” (Plutarch, De sera 4), and “cruel” (Wis 19:13; 4Macc 7:24). It is used fairly often for dangerous circumstances,2 which is precisely the case in 2Tim 3:1, which announces the onset of the last days: there will be kairoi chalepoi, dangerous or perilous times for the faith and the existence of the church, harmful for Christians, with a nuance of violence and aggressiveness3 that befits calamities.4
The whole entry is worth reading.
William Mounce (WB Commentary on the Pastorals):
Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε, ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί, “But take note of this, that in the last days there will be stressful times.” In an attempt to place Timothy and his conflict at Ephesus in historical perspective, Paul reminds Timothy that he is living in the last days. In vv 2– 5 Paul will describe in detail what χαλεποί, “stressful,” involves, and in vv 6–9 he will apply this description of “moral decadence” (Guthrie, 156) to Timothy’s opponents.
Mounce thinks 2 Timothy 3:1-5 delineates Timothy's current situation rather than the future: I tend to disagree. See his commentary for the grammatical arguments made in favor of a then present understanding. For a different analysis, see Raymond F. Collins. I &II Timothy and Titus in the NTL series.
Monday, December 18, 2023
Anselm of Canterbury and the Preservation of God's Word
See https://afterall.net/quotes/anselm-of-canterbury-on-scripture/
Compare Isaiah 40:8.
Friday, December 15, 2023
Moderating the Next Few Days
I will be busy for the next 3 days. Will try to approve posts the best I can. Thanks.
Wednesday, December 13, 2023
"If a man dies, shall he live again?"--Job and the Resurrection (Modified Talk)
This definition ties in well with the title of our Treasures talk this week: If a man dies, can he live again?
That question, which comes from the book of Job, is a rhetorical question. As we know, rhetorical questions makes us think and they usually have a presupposed answer which is either yes or no. So what about the question, if a man dies, can he live again?
If we consider this question from the human angle, let's see what answer we get from Job 14:1,2, 4, 10. (Read)
Human life is temporary and uncertain like a shadow and it's filled with trouble; humans are powerless to prevent death and once a person dies, no mortal can restore his or her life.
The elixir of immortality: some alchemists in the past tried to produce elixirs that would produce immortality and the Chinese Taoists believed that they could change the body’s chemistry by means of meditation, breathing exercises, special dieting and thus produce human immortality or invulnerability. However, in harmony with the words of Job, none of these things worked. The miraculous fountain of life keeps eluding humanity's grasp, but does this mean that death is permanent as the Collins Dictionary says?
Looking at Job 14:7-9, we find a brighter prospect. (Read)
Maybe Job had the vibrant olive tree in mind when he spoke so assuredly about the dead coming back to life again. Job knew that Jehovah is the God who raises the dead (2 Cor. 1:9). However, not only will Jehovah raise the dead, Job 14:14-15 tells us something else about our God.
After reading
If a man dies, can he live again? Jehovah loves and deeply appreciates his loyal ones: he has a special yearning to raise them from the dead.
The Hebrew word rendered "a yearning" is “unquestionably one of the strongest words to express the emotion of longing desires,” says one scholar. Yes, not only does Jehovah remember his worshippers but he longs to raise them from the dead.
As we think about our picture for tonight and meditation question, I believe we all can give a vibrant "yes" to the rhetorical question that Job posed. Jehovah will call the dead through his Son and the dead will answer by rising to life again.
Tuesday, December 12, 2023
WoundedEgo Banned
Duns Scotus and the Will
Hannah Arendt translates this Latin sentence: "It is in the power of our will to nill and to will, which are contraries, with respect to the same object."
Doctor Subtilis evidently advocates counterfactual freedom here. Is it possible that while a rational subject wills or nills in relation to one object, the contrary option remains possible such that one could have willed otherwise?
The language of contraries reminds me of logic's square of opposition where two statements (a universal affirmative and a universal negative) cannot both be true but they can both be false. E.g., "All whales are marine mammals" (universal affirmative) versus "No whales are marine mammals" (universal negative). Therefore, it's fitting for Scotus to juxtapose nilling and willing as contraries with respect to the same object.
See the discussion in John Duns Scotus 1265-1965 on page 88 (note 22), edited by John K. Ryan and Bernardine M. Bonansea (CUA Press, Mar 2, 2018).
Note 22 states in part: Oxon., II, d. 25, q. un., n. 6; XIII, p. 201a: "In potestate voluntatis nostrae est habere nolle et velle, quae sunt contraria respectu unius obiecti"; Ord., I, d. I, n. 149 II, p. 100: "In potestate voluntatis est non tantum sic et sic velIe, sed etiam velle et non velle, quia libertas eius est ad agendum vel non agendum."
Monday, December 11, 2023
Is Wine a Gift from God? (Psalm 104:15)
Regarding alcohol: Psalm 104:15 exclaims that God created wine to make the heart of man rejoice. Paul also told Timothy to take a "little wine" for his stomach and frequent cases of illness, and Jesus both turned water into wine and imbibed moderately himself from time to time (1 Tim 5:21). He was accused of being a glutton and winebibber, which wouldn't make much sense unless he ate food of some kind and drank wine to some degree. Of course the charges were false, but teetotalers normally don't get accused of being winebibbers unless there is some ulterior motive for making the charge or it could just be a mistaken view of the individual suffering the calumny.
John Chrysostom once observed:
"Drunkenness then surely does not arise from wine, but from intemperance. Wine is bestowed upon us for no other purpose than for bodily health; but this purpose also is thwarted by immoderate use."
Sunday, December 10, 2023
Ecclesiastes 3:11-"eternity in their hearts"
Robert Alter (The Hebrew Bible: A Translation): "Everything He has done aptly in its time. Eternity, too, He has put in their heart, without man’s grasping at all what it is God has done from beginning to end."
Alter's Footnote: "The Hebrew ʿolam means 'eternity' in the biblical language, though some interpreters argue that here it has the sense of 'world' that it carries in rabbinic Hebrew—that is, God has planted in the human heart the love of the world. It seems more likely that the intended meaning is: man is conscious of the idea of eternity (Qohelet as philosopher surely is), but that is the source of further frustration, for he is incapable of grasping 'what it is God has done from beginning to end.' Other interpreters reverse the second and third consonants of ʿolam to yield ʿamal, 'toil.' "
See also https://www.academia.edu/3770261/A_Reexamination_of_Eternity_in_Ecclesiastes_3_11
Saturday, December 09, 2023
Philippians 2:6 in the Amplified Bible
Sorry, but there is great overreach in this verse by the Amplified Bible. While this passage is a highly contentious verse in NT scholarship, rendering morphe as "unchanging essence" does not seem warranted here at all and the bracketed "amplification" isn't any better.
P. M. Casey writes:
"On a strict definition of 'incarnation,' Philippians 2:6-11 does not qualify because Jesus was not fully divine, in the view of the original author" (From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God [Cambridge, UK and Louisville, KY: James Clarke and Westminster/John Knox, 1991], 112-114).
While the NIV translates Phil. 2:6, "Who being in very nature God," Carolyn Osiek believes that this translation is not wholly faithful to the Greek text. Contra the NIV, she does not think 2:6 teaches the absolute Deity of Christ (See Osiek 2000:60ff).
C.A. Wannamaker's article on Phil. 2:6ff contains the following observation:
"In this passage Paul maintains that Christ's universal sovereignty derives from the Father and that ultimately the Son shall be subject to the Father when he returns his present sovereignty to God. The subordinationist character of 1 Cor. 15:24-28 demonstrates quite clearly that Paul did not believe in Christ's absolute equality with God" (Wannamaker 187-188).
Observations from Wannamaker's article are found in my Christology and Trinity book, which can be purchased on amazon.com.
See C.A. Wannamaker (NT Studies, Vol. 33, 1987, pp. 179-193).
The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible treats the Greek this way: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped."
The Catholic NABRE reads similarly and contains this footnote on Phil. 2:6:
"[2:6] Either a reference to Christ’s preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though…in the form of God (Gn 1:26–27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Gn 3:5–6."
In any event, the Catholic Bibles I've consulted don't translate the Greek phrase, morphe theou as "in very nature God"
Wednesday, December 06, 2023
Places Where Tertullian of Carthage Refers to God the Father As "Creator"
The context shows that he is referring to the Father.
Adv Prax 19: "But this very declaration of His they will hastily pervert into an argument of His singleness. I have, says He, stretched out the heaven alone. Undoubtedly alone as regards all other powers; and He thus gives a premonitory evidence against the conjectures of the heretics, who maintain that the world was constructed by various angels and powers, who also make the Creator Himself to have been either an angel or some subordinate agent sent to form external things, such as the constituent parts of the world, but who was at the same time ignorant of the divine purpose. If, now, it is in this sense that He stretches out the heavens alone, how is it that these heretics assume their position so perversely, as to render inadmissible the singleness of that Wisdom which says, When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him? (Proverbs 8:27) — even though the apostle asks, Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor? (Romans 11:34) meaning, of course, to except that wisdom which was present with Him. (Proverbs 8:30) In Him, at any rate, and with Him, did (Wisdom) construct the universe, He not being ignorant of what she was making. Except Wisdom, however, is a phrase of the same sense exactly as except the Son, who is Christ, the Wisdom and Power of God, (1 Corinthians 1:24) according to the apostle, who only knows the mind of the Father. For who knows the things that be in God, except the Spirit which is in Him? (1 Corinthians 2:11) Not, observe, without Him. There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except alone from all other gods. But (if we are to follow the heretics), the Gospel itself will have to be rejected, because it tells us that all things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made. (John 1:3) And if I am not mistaken, there is also another passage in which it is written: By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His Spirit. Now this Word, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, must be the very Son of God. So that, if (He did) all things by the Son, He must have stretched out the heavens by the Son, and so not have stretched them out alone, except in the sense in which He is alone (and apart) from all other gods."
Adv Herm 22: "He confirms (by that silence our assertion) that they were produced out of nothing. In the beginning, then, God made the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. (John 1:3) But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. (Revelation 22:18-19)"
Tuesday, December 05, 2023
Ezekiel 41:11 and the Temple Vision
Ezekiel's temple vision is one of the most fascinating accounts in the Bible to me--it raises numerous questions and there is so much to learn from the vision. I've often tried to envision just what the prophet saw although our Pure Worship publication supplied some help.
NET: "There were entrances from the side chambers toward the open area, one entrance toward the north, and another entrance toward the south; the width of the open area was 8¾ feet[a] all around."
Ftn: tn Heb “5 cubits” (i.e., 2.625 meters).
The NA Commentary on Ezekiel (Lamar E. Cooper, Sr.) makes these remarks: "The base extended away from the building for five cubits on every side (v. 11). Behind the temple was another building seventy by ninety cubits with a wall five cubits thick (v. 12). The exact function of this building is unknown (see Figs. 2 and 3),42 although it has been associated with the parbar (“court”) of 1 Chr 26:18, which probably was an open area. This open area may have been in front of the building, or it may refer to the open area of the large room inside the building, whose purpose is unclear."
Monday, December 04, 2023
2 Corinthians 1:9-'the God who raises up the dead"
In 2 Corinthians 1:8, after a discussion about Jehovah being the God of all comfort and the Father of tender mercies (1:3-4), the inspired apostle then recounts how that he and his co-workers faced perilous danger when they first entered Asia Minor. It sounds like Paul and his fellow laborers nearly died, but this happened with God's permission. Yet why did he allow them to hover over the abyss of death?
In order that their trust might be ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς νεκρούς
What does this part of the verse signify? Here are some possibilities.
Alfred Plummer (2 Corinthians in the ICC Series, page 19):

Ben Witherington III (2 Corinthians): "There is some question as to how we should translate apokrima in 1:9. The word occurs nowhere else in the NT. In secular Greek it refers to a decree, verdict, or decision that settles a matter.4 Here we are told that it was a decree or verdict of death. But Paul says that he has received this verdict within himself, which leads to the suggestion that he is talking about some sort of illness. He knows that there is no cure, short of resurrection, for the terminal illness by which all, as fallen creatures, die. He believes in a God who raises the dead and so is able to talk of hope beyond and triumphing over death, not of a hope that seeks somehow to bypass death. Paul acquired this death sentence in himself (cf. the 'thorn in the flesh' in 12:7) so that he would not trust in his own strength but in God who raises the dead. But Paul has received a stay of execution. He has been rescued from imminent danger in Asia (1:8, 10), and he believes that ultimately God will rescue him, and so he fixes his hope on God. In v. 11 he speaks of the partnership he and the Corinthians have. They can both pray and give thanks for one another."
Despite making different things their focus, both commentators agree that Paul is referencing the God who raises up the dead. That precious resurrection gives us hope and keeps Christians steadfast especially when enduring severe trial.
Saturday, December 02, 2023
Greek Information of the Day: Intensive Particles (Quote From Blackwelder)
The most common intensive particle in the New Testament is men. Its original function was “emphatic confirmation of single words, usually the weightiest word in the sentence.”[137] It may be translated surely, indeed, in truth, and the like. Sometimes men has a concessive force (e.g., II Cor. 11:4, “For if indeed he that comes proclaims another Jesus”), and there are instances where it implies contrast. “Its most common usage is to help differentiate the word or clause with which it occurs from that which follows.”
Blackwelder, Boyce W. Light from the Greek New Testament (Kindle Locations 2612-2623). Reformation Publishers. Prestonsburg, KY. Kindle Edition.
Friday, December 01, 2023
Words of the Month (December 2023)
Definition given by AI: "Agglutination is a linguistic term that refers to languages where words are made up of easily distinguishable units, or morphemes. The meaning of a word in an agglutinative language can be understood by breaking it down into its base word and word endings"
Compare the Turkish word ev-ler-du ( evlerdu = from the houses). Here, the word contains a stem and two further morphemes.
See http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Morphology/AgglutinatingIncorporatingAndInfixingLanguages
2. Anomalous monism (English)-Collins Dictionary gives this definition: "the philosophical doctrine that although all mental states consist merely in states of the brain, there exist no regular correspondences between classes of mental and physical states, and so no psychophysical laws"
This terminology was first proffered by Donald Davidson in 1970: anomalous monism implies that mental states or events are reducible to physical states or events.
3. σοφία (Greek)-A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Abbott-Smith) defines the word thus: "[in LXX chiefly for chokmah] skill, intelligence, wisdom, ranging from knowledge of the arts and matters of daily life to mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense"
See the entry for sophia to access the entire definition given in A-S; compare BDAG.
Thursday, November 30, 2023
Remain Humble and Modest Before Jehovah (Modified Talk)
Jehovah picked Saul as the first human king of Israel, yet how did he react to this divine selection? Let's notice Saul's reaction in 1 Samuel 9:21 (read)
Was Saul humble and modest at the outset? Yes, since he referred to his family as insignificant and the smallest tribe in Israel. Saul displayed lowliness of mind, and he was aware of his limitations. 1 Samuel 10:20-22 confirms this point. (read)
When Saul was officially selected, where was he? He was "hiding himself among the luggage." Why did he do this? Saul was humble and modest at first: he did not assume more responsibility despite being chosen by Jehovah through the prophet Samuel. However, did Saul remain humble and modest? He did not but later displayed presumptuous and undue pride. This ancient king is a warning example for us today: he illustrates how we must always work on being humble and modest.
However, as long as Saul relied on Jehovah, he kept a proper estimation of himself. For example, he did not act rashly when others unfairly criticized him. Let's read 1 Samuel 10:27.
Who criticized Saul. The scripture says it was "worthless men." How did Saul react to their unjust criticisms? He refused to answer or respond in kind. 1 Samuel 11:12-13 further illustrates how Saul viewed criticism.
So did Saul take undue criticism to heart? No, he did not, and the reason why is because he was humble and modest. Saul refused to punish Israelites who spoke out against his kingship even though he could have felt justified in defending his God-given position, and when he defeated the Ammonites, to whom did he direct the credit? Saul gave credit to Jehovah. What humility he first displayed.
One other way that Saul showed humility and modesty is mentioned in 1 Samuel 11:5-7 (read)
Saul followed the leadings of Jehovah's spirit. Did you notice the courage he displayed because the spirit of Jehovah empowered Saul and he humbly followed the spirit's leadings? What a good start that Saul had; he should have continued to show humility and modesty.
[picture and discussion]
Humility will help us view our privileges and abilities as gifts from Jehovah. (Romans 12:3, 16; 1Corinthians 4:7) Also, if we are humble, we will continue to rely on Jehovah for guidance.
May we start and then remain humble and modest before Jehovah.
Friday, November 24, 2023
Sketching Infinity: The Makings of a Book?
I may never write a book on infinity, but these are some of my meditations in sketch form:
A Relatively Short History of Infinity (Greek Thought)
1) Etymology and background of the word/concept "infinity" in Greek
2) intensive infinity
3) extensive infinity
4) negative infinity
5) potential infinity
6) actual infinity
7) conceptual problems
8) an infinite God
9) transfinite math
10) infinite sets
11) an infinite past?
https://www.google.com/search?q=types+of+infinity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab http://factmyth.com/factoids/there-are-different-types-of-infinity/
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003
Thursday, November 23, 2023
Scriptures for Encouragement and Support
1) Isaiah 33:24; 35:1-5; 41:10-13; 43:1-7; 59:1.
2) Psalm 23:1-6; 34:19; 41:1-3; 56:8; 68:19; 145:14, 18; Job 14:13-14.
3) Matthew 11:28-30; Revelation 21:3-5; Deuteronomy 31:6; Hebrews 13:4-6;
4) 2 Corinthians 1:1-9; 4:7-10, 16-18; 7:4-7; 12:9-10.
5) Philippians 4:6-9; 1 Chronicles 7:20-22; 1 Peter 5:6-7; James 5:11.
Matthew 6:9-15--Is Calling It the "Model Prayer" Wrong?
Some places on the Internet where Matthew 6:9-15 is called the "model prayer":
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-15&version=NKJV
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/model-prayer
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A9-13&version=HCSB
https://www.newcovenantgj.org/the-model-prayer/
https://bible.org/seriespage/3-paternoster-model-prayer-matthew-69-15
Numerous examples here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34&q=matthew+6+%22model+prayer%22&btnG=
Wednesday, November 22, 2023
Acts 1:3 and the The Hapax Legomenon, "Infallible Proofs"
Louw-Nida: " 'by many convincing proofs he showed himself alive after his death' Ac. 1:3. In a number of languages 'convincing proof' is rendered as 'that which causes one to know for sure' or 'with certainty' " (Semantic Domain 28.45).
BDAG Greek-English Lexicon: τεκμήριον, ου, τό ⟦tekmḗrion⟧ (Aeschyl., Hdt., Thu.+) that which causes someth. to be known in a convincing and decisive manner, proof (demonstrative proof: Aristot., An. Pr. 70b, 2; Rh. 1357b 4; 1402b 19; Diod S 17, 51, 3 τεκμήρια τῆς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γενέσεως; SIG 867, 37 μέγιστον τεκμήριον w. ref. to Artemis; 685, 84; PGiss 39, 9) ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις by many convincing proofs Ac 1:3 (DMealand, ZNW 80, ’89, 134f [Hell. reff.]; cp. Jos., Ant. 5, 39 διὰ πολλῶν τεκμηρίων.— τεκ. used w. παραστῆσαι Jos., Ant. 17, 128. Cp. Libanius, Or. 18, 13 τὸ τῆς φύσεως βασιλικὸν πολλοῖς καὶ μεγάλοις τεκμηρίοις ἐμηνύετο=his regal nature was attested by many exceptional signs).—DELG. M-M.
Herodotus writes:
[2.13.1] "This, too, that the priests told me about Egypt, is a strong proof : when Moeris was king, if the river rose as much as thirteen feet, it watered all of Egypt below Memphis. Moeris had not been dead nine hundred years when I heard this from the priests. But now, if the river does not rise at least twenty-six or twenty-five feet, the land is not flooded."
[The Histories, 2.13.1] ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ τόδε μοι μέγα τεκμήριον περὶ τῆς χώρης ταύτης οἱ ἱρέες, ὡς ἐπὶ Μοίριος βασιλέος, ὅκως ἔλθοι ὁ ποταμὸς ἐπὶ ὀκτὼ πήχεας τὸ ἐλάχιστον, ἄρδεσκε Αἴγυπτον τὴν ἔνερθε Μέμφιος: καὶ Μοίρι οὔκω ἦν ἔτεα εἰνακόσια τετελευτηκότι ὅτε τῶν ἱρέων ταῦτα ἐγὼ ἤκουον. νῦν δὲ εἰ μὴ ἐπ᾽ ἑκκαίδεκα ἢ πεντεκαίδεκα πήχεας ἀναβῇ τὸ ἐλάχιστον ὁ ποταμός, οὐκ ὑπερβαίνει ἐς τὴν χώρην.
Additionally, Sophocles pens these words in one of his plays:
Clytemnestra states:
"No, not in vain; how can you say 'in vain' when you have brought me sure proofs of his death?" (Soph. Electra 774)
Greek: οὔτοι μάτην γε: πῶς γὰρ ἂν μάτην λέγοις, εἴ μοι θανόντος πίστ᾽ ἔχων τεκμήρια
προσῆλθες
Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the New Testament, page 97) commenting on Acts 1:3: "Infallible Proofs--This is one word in Greek, tekmeriois--a strong term (only here in the NT). J. R. Lumby says, 'A tekmerion is such an evidence as to remove all doubt.' "
In the final analysis, Earle cites "convincing proofs" (NASB, NIV) as a suitable rendering for tekmeriois.
The Amplified Bible prefers "unquestionable evidence" and another possibility is
"indubitable proof." The word's semantic range allow for this rendering. In the context of Acts 1:3, "unquestionable" or "indubitable" seems to be a good choice. The apostles are being shown signs that will make them suitable witnesses of Christ throughout the earth (Acts 1:8). Surely they would have needed strong proof to be convinced and to persuade others.
Another consideration here is the Classical usage of tekmerion. When consulting LSJ, I found that tekmerion was variously defined as "sure proof" or "strong proof" as well as "evidence." The word seems to have strong connotations of evidence that is undeniable.
The Cambridge Greek Lexicon: τεκμήριον ου η.
1 sure sign or principle, criterion (for adopting a particular course of action) A.
2 piece of evidence seen or heard, sign, evidence, proof (of sthg.) Hdt. Trag. Men.
3 evidence from facts or logic, evidence, proof (of sthg.)
Hdt. Trag. Th. Ar. Att.orats. +
4 evidence which constitutes proof in a logical argument, necessary sign Arist.
Tuesday, November 21, 2023
Proverbial Sayings in the Epistles of Paul?
This may be an off the wall question, but I've often wondered if the apostle Paul used sayings that were rooted in Roman proverbs or common maxims. After all, we know that everyday proverbs from the ancient world are found in his writings (see 1 Corinthians 15:33; 1 Timothy 6:9-10), but when I read classical Latin, there are times when the language reminds me of Paul's letters. E.g., "me miseram" ("wretched woman that I am!"). Compare Romans 7:24 (Vulgate): "infelix ego homo" or "O frustra, inquit, mihi suscepti labores!" which can be translated "O that in vain, he said, my labors have been undertaken." Think of how Paul refers to "toiling in vain."
Monday, November 20, 2023
What's In a Word? Trying to Define An Oft-Used Term
D.A. Black maintains: "The WORD has yet to be given a satisfactory universal definition. People sometimes assume that a word is recognizable because it represents a 'whole thought' or a 'complete thing.' But this view is clearly wrong when one looks at the lack of correspondence between words from different languages."
He then goes on to illustrate this point by referring to the "best-known definition" of "word" that was put forth by Leonard Bloomfield, namely, "a minimal free form." But Black insists that even this definition is not that helpful when we are dealing with non-English languages. He then makes a distinction between the spoken and written word (See his work Linguistics for Students of NT Greek, pp. 57-58).
However one may choose to define "word," when studying Greek, it is good to remember that we want to advance beyond words to sentences, phrases, clauses, paragraphs and whole discourses. In this way, one can begin to get the sense of the words.
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
1 Peter 1:8 (Parsing, Syntax and Semantics)
"Whom having not seen, you love: in whom also now though you see him not, you believe and, believing, shall rejoice with joy unspeakable and glorified" (1 Peter 1:8 New Advent Translation)
It's an okay translation, but the rendering would be more idiomatic if the NAT constructed the English syntax differently. I believe the translation strives to mirror the original Greek structure/order. Nevertheless, I want to parse some of the words in 1 Peter 1:8 to see what points we can learn from Peter's correspondence with first-century Christians living in Asia Minor.
ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε-We begin with an accusative singular form of the relative pronoun ὅς: translate "Whom" as NAT does or use "him." This pronoun is the direct object of ἀγαπᾶτε and it's apparently the object of the aorist participle (P.J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, page 102): the pronominal term ὃν refers to the Lord Jesus in 1 Peter 1:7.
Contrariwise, I like how the ESV, NWT and other translations add the idea of concession for this part by using "Although" or "Though." That is a good way of handling οὐκ + the aorist active participle. Furthermore, the action delineated by ἰδόντες is likely antecedent to the action delineated by ἀγαπᾶτε.
Why is οὐκ and not μὴ employed with ἰδόντες here? See Achtemeier, page 103.
Despite not having seen Jesus, these first-century followers of Christ still believed in the Son of God and rejoiced with ineffable joy over their faith in him. In the last part of 1 Peter 1:8, NAT translates "with joy unspeakable and glorified." The Greek is χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ
χαρᾷ is dative singular feminine of χαρά; ἀνεκλαλήτῳ is equally dative singular feminine of ἀνεκλάλητος. Finally, δεδοξασμένῃ is perfect passive participle dative singular feminine of δοξάζω.
ἀνεκλάλητος-"ineffable, unspeakable, inexpressible"
δοξάζω-"glorify, praise, honor" (Mounce)
These Christians could say regarding Jesus, "though we never personally met you, we believe in and love you."
Monday, November 13, 2023
1 Corinthians 15:53 in the NLT
This rendering is a stretch in my opinion. The text does not actually say that mortal bodies will be changed to immortal bodies. Rather, mortality itself (a mortal body) is replaced with immortality itself. What immortality means should be ascertained from the context, not read into the passage. Secondly, if Paul said that immortality would be "put on" then how does this proclamation affect the belief in immortal souls? What an interesting biblical chapter.
I'm not denying the Pauline teaching that Christians will undergo a change from humiliated bodies to glorified bodies, which Phil 3:20-21 explicitly states and Corinthians certain indicates. But what terms, syntax or concepts in the text lead us to the NLT translation of 1 Cor 15:53?
Friday, November 10, 2023
Greek Word of the Day: συντάσσω
See Herodotus, "The Histories" 7.78.
BDAG Entry: συντάσσω ⟦suntássō⟧ fut. 3sg. συντάξει LXX; 1 aor. συνέταξα, mid. συνεταξάμην (Sus 14 Theod.; Papias [2:16]); pf. συντέταχα Job 38:12. Pass.: 2 aor. ptc. gen. συνταγέντος Da 11:23; pf. 3 sg. συντέτακται LXX (Hdt. et al.; TestSol 22:11 B; TestAbr B 5 p. 109, 19f [Stone p. 66]; Jos., Ant. 3, 213; 7, 305 al.; Just., Tat.) 1 to direct that someth. be done in an explicit fashion, order, direct, prescribe (X., Cyr. 8, 6, 8; Polyb. 3, 50, 9; ins [e.g. IAndrosIsis, Kyme 14 of origins of paths for sun and moon], pap, LXX) τινί ( for) someone (PEdg 10 [=Sb 6716], 2 [258/257 b.c.] Ἀμύντου μοι συντάσσοντος) Mt 21:6 (προστάσσω v.l., cp. 1:24); 26:19; 27:10 (cp. Ex 37:20; 40:19; Num 27:11 al.; RPesch, Eine ATliche Ausführungsformel im Mt, BZ 10, ’66, 220–45). 2 to arrange various parts in an organized manner, organize Ματθαῖος … Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λογία συνετάξατο M … . organized the sayings in Hebrew (i.e., some form of Aramaic) Papias (2:16).—M-M.
Sunday, November 05, 2023
The Latin Pluperfect Passive Indicative and the Latin Vulgate
porto, portare, portavi, portatus ("carry").
Examples of the pluperfect passive indicative:
1) portatus eram ("I had been carried")-1st person singular
2) portati eramus ("We had been carried")-1st person plural
I've been looking for a scriptural example of the pluperfect passive indicative, and there may be one or more, but I've noticed that the Vulgate tends to translate Greek pluperfects with Latin participles or a form of the perfect.
If you ever look into Latin pluperfects, it's good to know that some books call them, past perfects.
Thursday, November 02, 2023
Dwell With Them According to Knowledge (1 Peter 3:7)
ESV: "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."
There are two things in 1 Peter 3:7 that constitute the foci of this blog entry:
1) How is it possible for a Christian husband to dwell with his wife, κατὰ γνῶσιν?
2) What things might "hinder" a husband's prayers?
Craig Keener and other commentators locate this Bible passage within the context of the so-called Haustafeln ("household codes"). In 1 Peter 2:13-25, the apostle gives counsel to slaves, he provides counsel for how Christians should comport themselves in the midst of secular rulers, then one finds guidance for husbands and wives in 1 Peter 3:1-7. See Keener, 1 Peter: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.
But how should one construe the language, Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν?
Charles Bigg explains the construction this way (The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, 154): " 'According to knowledge,' like wise and sensible men who understand the due gradations of honour. The Pauline sense of γνῶσις, in which it signifies the understanding of spiritual mysteries, is quite foreign to St. Peter. In the following words we observe the same elegant classicism as in i. 19."
Moreover, the Greek qualifies how a husband should live with his wife "according to knowledge," when it adds: ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν.
From the commentary quoted earlier that's written by Bigg, one learns that Peter apparently encourages husbands to show "consideration, wise guidance, marital helpfulness" (154). It seems that showing honor is part of dwelling with one's wife according to knowledge.
On the other hand, a husband's prayers could be hindered in two fundamental ways: 1) Maybe a man would not feel up to approaching God because of failing to give his wife due honor; 2) God might possibly not want to hear the prayers of a man, who does not show proper consideration for his wife. See Lamentations 3:44.
In the Sacra Pagina commentary by D.P. Senior for Peter's first epistle and some other letters, we read:
"The passive form of the infinitive implies that God is the one who would not hear the prayers of a husband who treats his wife without respect."
The passive infinitive appears in the part that gives the admonition, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι.

