The Potential Sources for Justin Martyr's Logos Concept

We might be inclined to believe that the Fourth Gospel primarily supplied the contextual literary background for Justin Martyr's Logos notion. However, Peter R. Forster has argued that the scholarly world is uncertain whether Justin depended on the Fourth Gospel at all. He argues that Justin's ideas of the Logos are informed by "Stoic and Platonic terms, with Stoic monism to a degree softening Platonic dualism." There appears to be a number of ideas at work in Justin: the Stoic Logos combined with the Platonic World-Soul possibly informed by late Judaic notions of the Word or Hokhmah/Sophia.

See Peter R. Forster, “Divine Passibility and the Early Christian Doctrine of God,” in The Power and Weakness of God: Impassibility and Orthodoxy, edited by Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Edinburgh: Rutherford House Books, 1990), 29.

Galatians 4:8-11 (Holidays)

One reader of this blog has made some remarks on Galatians 4:8ff regarding the applicability of those verses today. Granted, Paul was originally chastising the Galatians for keeping Jewish feast days and practicing circumcision, Jehovah's Witnesses still make the argument that the apostolic words apply in an a fortiori sense. If the Galatians should not have been observing Jewish festivals which were once commanded by God through Moses, then how much more should they and we eschew festivals/holidays that have pagan religious connections.

Some might feel that holidays are a matter of conscience. But how can the observance of days rooted in pagan religion be a matter of conscience for the Christian believer? 2 Corinthians 6 teaches followers of Christ to flee from idolatry and [spiritually] unclean things. The best evidence we have from historical sources is that the ancient Jews and the early Christians did not observe holidays rooted in pagan religion. Augustus Neander and others have documented these points.

Birthdays and Circumcision

This blog is intended to be a safe place for my fellow brothers/sisters. I like taking a scholarly approach to biblical studies, so I'm not afraid of opposing viewpoints. But I will not willingly dialogue with a Witness who does not agree with the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses or with someone, who although identifying himself/herself as a brother/sister, refuses to accept the exousia of Jehovah God's ecclesia. None of the foregoing means that I'm afraid to talk with someone who disagrees with my religious views.

Now I recently posted something about disfellowshipping which led to a side conversation about birthdays and circumcision. I'm not going to spend lots of time addressing these issues, but I will make a few brief comments in this blog entry.

1) Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate holidays or birthdays. Some object to this belief by saying that birthdays no longer have the associations they once did, where people once celebrated birthdays for reasons that involved superstition and magic. Granted, most people observing birthdays today might not be celebrating them for reasons that involve superstition. However, if someone wants to be a Christian that pleases God or he/she wants to live a life governed by Scripture, that person will consider what ancient Judaism and Christianity both thought respecting birthdays.

The evidence suggests that neither Jews nor Christians observed birthdays in times of antiquity. Besides their association with magic or superstition, there were other unsavory elements of birthdays that kept members of Judaism and Christianity from observing birthdays. We must also ask why someone would want to celebrate a birthday since the day of death is better than the day of one's birth. Most importantly, we have no divine sanction, no exhortation--not even a hint from God--concerning the approval of birthdays.

I would add that we cannot detach past associations from these days either. That would be like trying to remove the negative connotations from American slavery; something that's very hard to do.

2) I should clarify my earlier statement. Circumcision did predate Abraham by quite some time; but my point about circumcision was why the descendants of Abraham practiced it. I was not focusing on other cultures that might have had circumcision rites.

Abraham's fleshly progeny did not practice circumcision because the ancient Egyptians did. Rather, circumcision represented an agreement between God and Abraham. When the Jews observed the practice, they were following the dictates that had been given to their forefather (Lev 12:1ff). The children of Israel were not trying to imitate pagan practices when they circumcised newborn Jewish males.

3) As for baptism, it's irrelevant who might have practiced baptism before Jews or Christians did. The question is why Jewish or Christian baptism was practiced and what influenced the Judeo-Christian baptism. What evidence is there that the Jews baptized people because of pagan influence? As for Christianity, it's clear that early followers of Jesus were baptizing new disciples because their Master had engaged in the practice. Christian baptism is not a result of some pagan influence.

4) Finally, some want to quote Romans 14:5 "One person considers some days to be more sacred than others, while another person considers all days to be the same. Each person must have their own convictions."

Yet we must consider this verse within its appropriate context. It has nothing to do with approving birthdays or pagan holidays, but is likely a reference to feasts that were once commemorated under the Law of Moses. We cannot strip a verse out of context just to support our pet ideas.

Those who like to quote Romans 14:5 should also recall the words of Galatians 4:9-11: "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain" (NASB).

Dialogue on 1 Corinthians 5:1-13: Eating with A Sinner

I must admit that a reference to the Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 is a possibility (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23ff). However, my analysis of this account rules out that conclusion for the following reasons.

1 Corinthians 5:1 describes the sin of a Christian brother in Corinth. He is cohabiting with his father's wife (living in an incestuous relationship); even worse, the older men of Corinth--representing the EKKLESIA--are tolerating this immoral conduct. Paul laments that the Corinthians are "puffed up" rather than mourning over the abhorrent deeds of the immoral brother in their midst.

In 1 Cor. 5:3-5, the "apostle to the nations" recommends that the one practicing sin be "delivered up to the adversary." This act is done in order to destroy the sinful "flesh" and preserve the spirit of the believer "in the day of the Lord."

Next, Paul continues to expound on the reason that the sinning believer must be turned over to the Devil. By allowing this one to remain in the midst of the congregation, the EKKLESIA will suffer corruption: it will not be able to rightly observe the antitypical passover: "for even our Paschal Lamb, Christ, was sacrificed" (Emphatic Diaglott). Therefore, the congregation of God must take the action prescribed in 1 Cor. 5:9-13. What is the thrust of this counsel? What action is the EKKLESIA urged to take?

1 Cor. 5:11 says: "NUNI DE EGRAYA hUMIN MH SUNANAMIGNUSQAI EAN TIS ADELFOS ONOMAZOMENOS hH PORNOS . . ."

The phrase that really catches my attention here is NUNI DE EGRAYA hUMIN
MH SUNANAMIGNUSQAI.

This part of the verse indicates that Paul is not simply talking about ceasing to share "the meal" with a brother who practices sin--although clearly the EKKLHIA should take this action as well.

The present infinitive middle SUNANAMIGNUSQAI tells me that all association should cease with this person (not just the Lord's evening meal). Elsewhere we are told, "do not receive him into your house nor wish him success" (2 John 10, 11). If you want to discuss the applicability/inapplicability of 2 John 2:7, we can examine that verse too. In sum, I would say that 1 Cor. 5:11 is talking about general association (i.e., "don't even eat lunch with this man"!).

Kathleen Callow makes this point concerning 1 Cor. 5:6-8:

"In this unit Paul urges the expulsion (EKKAQARATE, v. 7a) in the light of the effect of evil on their fellowship as a whole, and of their own status as AZOUMOI--a purified community" (See Linguistics and NT Interpretation, edited by D.A. Black, page 202).

Robertson's Word Pictures supplies this note on 1 Cor. 5:11:

"With such a one, no, not to eat (τωι τοιουτωι μηδε συνεστιειν — tōi toioutōi mēde sunesthiein). Associative instrumental case of τοιουτωι — toioutōi after συνεστιειν — sunesthiein 'not even to eat with such a one.' Social contacts with such 'a brother' are forbidden."

Exegeting Psalm 74:14 (Reply to Coogan)

"You crushed the heads of Leviathan, gave him as food to the sharks" (Psalm 74:14 NAB).

I have long been familiar with Hermann Gunkel's work, but it's only been recently that I learned about his influential effect on how OT exegetes construe Ps 74:14. Rashi and others applied the verse to the Exodus; Leviathan was interpreted as Egypt or the Pharaoh himself instead of some mythological creature battling with Elohim at the initio creationis. But since Gunkel, it has been popular to understand Leviathan as a mythical sea monster. But the context of Psalm 74 causes me to believe the Exodus is the dominating motif of this song. Furthermore, note how other writers use "Leviathan" to describe Egypt (Isa 27:1; 30:7; cf. Isa 51:9-10).

Below I include some thoughts from John Trapp's (1601-1669) Complete Commentary on the Bible:

"Ver. 14. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan] i.e. Of Pharaoh himself. See Isaiah 26:1 [SIC], Ezekiel 29:3. Egypt is situated between two seas; and a great part of it overflowed by the river Nile. Pharaoh, therefore, is fitly compared to the master fish, and his captains to crocodiles.

And gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness] i.e. To the birds and wild beasts, who fed upon the dead carcases of the Egyptians cast upon the shore; the Israelites having first taken the spoil of them, whereby they were provided of many necessaries for their voyage toward Canaan."

Exegeting Psalm 74:12-13 (Coogan)

"Yet God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst break the sea in pieces by Thy strength; Thou didst shatter the heads of the sea-monsters in the waters" (Psalm 74:12-13).

Michael Coogan wants to apply this passage to the creation account of Genesis 1:1, and so does the NAB:

"Comparable Canaanite literature describes the storm-god’s victory over all-encompassing Sea and its allies (dragons and Leviathan) and the subsequent peaceful arrangement of the universe, sometimes through the placement of paired cosmic elements (day and night, sun and moon), cf. Ps 89:12–13. The Psalm apparently equates the enemies attacking the Temple with the destructive cosmic forces already tamed by God. Why then are those forces now raging untamed against your own people?" (NAB Notes on Psalm 74:12-17).

But the context suggests that the psalmist is recounting the Exodus drama at the Red Sea. That was my intuition when I first read the passage and I've since found that a medieval rabbi named Rashi--who is big in exegetical circles--also applies these verses to the Exodus (not to the creation account). There's plenty of material written on Psalm 74, but I found that Spurgeon's "Treasury of David" likewise views this psalm in the light of Israel's deliverance from Pharaoh in the Red Sea:

"Working salvation in the midst of the earth. From the most remote period of Israel's history the Lord had worked out for her many salvations; especially at the Red Sea, the very heart of the world was astonished by his wonders of deliverance" (Treasure of David).

Joseph Benson makes similar points about these passages:

"Thou didst divide the sea, &c. — 'The first part of this verse alludes to that marvellous act of omnipotence which divided the Red sea for Israel to pass over; the second part to the return of its waves upon the heads of the Egyptians, who, like so many sea-monsters, opening their mouths to devour the people of God, were overwhelmed, and perished in the mighty waters.' — Horne. Thou brakest the heads of the dragons — The crocodiles, meaning Pharaoh’s mighty men, who were like these beasts in strength and cruelty. Thou brakest the heads — That is, the head of Pharaoh himself. He says heads, because of the several princes who were and acted under his influence. Dr. Waterland renders the first word, which we translate dragons, crocodiles, and the latter, the crocodile, meaning Pharaoh" (Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments).

Dialogues with Michael Coogan (Genesis 1:2)

Michael Coogan (The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures) makes another claim about the opening verses of Genesis, particularly, Genesis 1:2. He maintains that the word usually translated "deep" in that passage does not have the definite article in Hebrew, therefore, it should be rendered without the definite article in English.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" (Gen 1:2 NIV).

The Hebrew term that is rendered "the deep" is תְּהוֹם (tehom) which is also translated "the great deep" in Gen 7:11 (KJV), etc. Robert Alter also uses the definite article at Gen 1:2 in his translation: "and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters"

Many other examples could be given where a noun does not have the article in Hebrew or Greek, but it's still definite rather than indefinite or qualitative. A famous example we have from the LXX Greek text is Gen 1:1 which employs the anarthrous noun for "beginning" but should be understood as definite "the beginning."

Dialogues With Michael Coogan (Genesis 1:1)

Scholar Michael Coogan insists that the rendering "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is grammatically incorrect, according to the original Hebrew reading of Genesis 1:1. He makes this claim in his introductory work to the Old Testament. While the respected translator and scholar Robert Alter departs from the traditional reading of Gen 1:1 and prefers to translate 1:1 with "When God began to create heaven and earth"--one thing I've learned about translation is that one must be careful about stating something in absolute terms that can be understood in more than one way.

For instance, notice what the NET Bible states about Genesis 1:1, which explains why many Bibles do stick with the traditional reading of 1:1:

The translation assumes that the form translated “beginning” is in the absolute state rather than the construct (“in the beginning of,” or “when God created”). In other words, the clause in v. 1 is a main clause, v. 2 has three clauses that are descriptive and supply background information, and v. 3 begins the narrative sequence proper. The referent of the word “beginning” has to be defined from the context since there is no beginning or ending with God.

[END QUOTE]

See the NET Bible for a discussion of some issues that affect the translation of Gen 1:1. But my point is that Coogan too strongly maintains that the reading found in KJV and other Bibles is grammatically incorrect based on the original Hebrew when he should have noted that it's a viable option, even if he disagrees with how others have elected to construe the Hebrew text.

ONOMA in Philippians 2:9-11 (Moulton-Milligan)

Moulton and Milligan express their view of ONOMA (Philippians 2) when writing:

"By a usage similar to that of the Heb. SHEM, ONOMA comes in the NT to denote the character, fame, authority of the person indicated (cf. Phil. 2:9f, Heb 1:4). With this may be compared the use of the word as a title of dignity or rank, as in P Oxy I.58.6 (A.D. 288) where complaint is made of the number of officials who have devised 'offices' for themselves--ONOMATA hEAUTOIS EXEURONTES, and provision is made that, on the appointment of a single trustworthy superintendent, the remaining 'offices' shall cease-14f. TA DE LOIPA ONOMATA PAUSHTAI."

See the entry for ONOMA in M-M.

2 Peter 2:1--Redemption and the Redemptive Agent

The difference between Acts 20:28 and other passages that speak of Christians being redeemed or purchased seems quite striking. While some scholars may wish to attribute the putative disparity to Luke's individual view of God's salvific activity through Christ, it appears that the GNT as a whole does make a vital distinction between God's divine act of redemption and the redemptive agent, Jesus Christ.

For instance, while Luke employs περιεποιήσατο in Acts 20:28 ( a morphological form that occurs once in the GNT), other verses from the Pauline and Johannine literature use a form of ἀγοράζω:

ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς· δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν (1 Cor 6:20).

τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε· μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων (1 Cor 7:23).

1 Cor 7:22 relates that "anyone in the Lord" is also "a slave of Christ," indicating that the one who purchased or redeemed the Corinthians is Christ. (Notice Paul's discussion regarding πορνεία in 1 Cor 6:19-20 as well.)

2 Pt 2:1 employs τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην and it could fittingly refer to Christ since Peter writes elsewhere that Christians were "redeemed" (ἐλυτρώθητε) from vain conduct by means of Christ's precious blood (1 Pt 1:18-19). Compare Luke 24:21; Titus 2:14.

Finally, the Lamb bought (ἠγόρασας) persons for God out of every tribe and nation (Revelation 5:9). Maybe Rev 14:3 primarily has Christ's role in mind then, when it reports that the 144,000 have been purchased from the earth:

οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.

I therefore conclude that Christ could well be the δεσπότης spoken of in 2 Pt 2:1 and Jd 4. What is more, Luke may have intended to highlight God's preeminent role in the divine act of salvation. God sent His Son to redeem obedient humankind (Gal 4:4-5); He thus purchased us by using the Lamb to redeem persons of faith (Gal 3:13).

Answering Questions from Someone Wanting to Know More About God

Has science solved the problem of why something exists rather than nothing?

1) Gottfried Leibniz famously asked why is there something rather than nothing. I know that certain scientists have tried to answer this metaphysical question, although I'm not sure that science can satisfactorily reply to Leibniz. I respect the place of science in rational discussions. However, why something exists when it's possible that nothing might have existed is a question that seems to exceed the purview of science. We must also remember that "nothing" is being used by Leibniz in a metaphysical rather than scientific sense.

2) Is light-speed still the cosmic speed limit? The notion of things going faster than light seems to have been refuted for now. And the second video link you included is less than clear about what "nothing" means. In other words, the term "nothing" can be defined within a quantum context or it can be fleshed out metaphysically. To make the discussion fair, a term needs to be used monosemically as opposed to being used equivocally.


3) I personally do not believe that free will is an illusion. It's somewhat of a mystery how free will exists, but one could argue for free will by appealing to moral responsibility and counterfactual freedom. Peter van Inwagen has written extensively on incompatibilist free will. Nancey Murphy also provides evidence that free will may possibly arise from an initially deterministic system. Think about the robot in "I, Robot" that learns how to wink; maybe free volition can be produced in a similar way from a system (the brain) that's supposed to be wholly deterministic.

John 1:14 and Temple Theology: Why the Resistance?

Lately, I've been asking myself why I'm so resistant to seeing temple theology in John 1:14. The claimed allusion is a viable possibility to me--but it's more of an inference (IMO) than a result of solid exegesis. Alford (et al) presents a strong historico-exegetical case for making a connection between 1:14 and the shekinah presence of YHWH. However, to jump from there to the idea that Christ is YHWH appears to be rather hasty or premature. There are also lines of evidence that suggest one should not think the Shekinah presence of God is at play in 1:14 of the Fourth Gospel.

A.T. Robertson certainly sees an allusion to the Shekinah in John 1:14:

"First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of SKHNOW, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (SKHNOS or SKHNH), in N.T. only here and [Revelation] 12:12; 13:6; 21:3. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son."

And there are plenty of other recent studies affirming the same idea. On the other hand, Benny Thettayil refers to a number of studies that might refute the common interpretation of John 1:14. See his work In Spirit and Truth: An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, pages 369ff. He evidently accepts the common understanding of the text but does review evidence to the contrary.

Temple theology could be present in 1:14. I just believe the evidence (at this time) cuts both ways.

Apanthsis and 1 Thessalonians 4:17

Here is a little more information about 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and what it potentially teaches us about life in the heavens for all eternity.

C. A. Wannamaker remarks concerning this significant textual unit:

"Since they are to be taken up into the air to meet Jesus this can only refer to their being led to heaven with Jesus"(The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1990. Page 176).

(1) As I pointed out in an earlier post, there is no apodictic or even compelling evidence that demonstrates ἀπάντησις is a terminus technicus used to delineate the action of meeting and subsequently accompanying a dignitary. There was once a custom of engaging in such actions; however, proof for the custom being practiced is not necessarily evidence for a terminus technicus. Notice that the LXX (Exodus 19:17) applies ἀπάντησις to the Israelites "meeting" with God at Sinai.

(2) The GNT use of ἀπαντάω/ἀπάντησις could have been influenced by LXX usage more so than Hellenistic lingual usage. We simply do not know with any degree of certainty as Joseph Plevnik writes: "The term PAROUSIA was hence used in the technical sense neither by the apostle nor in Hellenistic or Roman sources" ("1 Thessalonians 4,17: The Bringing in of the Lord or the Bringing in of the Faithful?" Biblica, Vol. 80 [1999]: 537-546).

(3) We are told that the virgins in a Matthean parable 'go out to meet'(EXHLQON EIS hUPANTHSIN TOU NUMFIOU) the bridegroom. See Matt 25:1. Matt 25:7 even adds: IDOU hO NUMFIOS EXERXESQE EIS APANTHSIN. Later Matthew writes that the bridegroom arrives (HLQEN) and the discreet or wise virgins go in with him to the marriage feast (KAI hAI hETOIMOI EISHLQON MET' AUTOU EIS TOUS GAMOUS KAI EKLEISQH hH QURA). See Matt 25:10.

We must remember that Jesus is relating a parable and some of the details cannot be pressed too far. Therefore, while Matthew does say that the bridegroom arrives and that the imprudent virgins seek to get in the door of the wedding feast after it has been shut, we have no reason to believe that the wedding feast is celebrated on the earth. One piece of information that is withheld from the reader is the general setting of this parable. Where is the wedding feast celebrated? Is it at the bridegroom's house or at the house of Christ's bride? Do the virgins accompany the bridegroom back to his residence or does he feast at the bride's house? See John 14:1-3.

Blog Posts on Melito (Links)

I enjoyed reading these posts. Please visit these blogs:

http://matt13weedhacker.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-anf-tampering-by-later.html
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/james-whites-misuse-of-melito-of-sardis.html

You'll find insightful remarks made about Melito of Sardis

Does John 1:14 Allude to the Shekinah?

I contend it's less than self-evident that John is referring to the Shekinah glory or some other manifestation of divine glory in the Fourth Gospel's Prologue (specifically, 1:14). While some commentators have tried to demonstrate an allusion to the Shekinah in the Johannine Prologue by relying on the Greek word ἐσκήνωσεν, BDAG Greek-English Lexicon simply notes that there may possibly be an allusion to the Shekinah in John 1:14.

However one chooses to understand the apostolic words in John's famed Prologue, the theme of Messiah's glory is admittedly a prominent one throughout the Fourth Gospel: "This beginning of his signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him"(John 2:11 WEB).

There is no doubt that Jesus displayed glory during his earthly existence, but this glory was derived as John 1:14 makes clear: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth" (ASV).

Irenaeus of Lyons correspondingly writes: "But what John really does say is this: 'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.'" (See AH 1.8.5)

In fact, even prior to the Logos becoming flesh, he subsisted in a position of glory alongside the Father; but John does not necessarily say that the glory of the Son WAS the glory of the Father or vice versa.

Regarding the glory of the Messiah, the book Insight on the Scriptures (Published by the WTBTS) states: "Concerning Jesus' first miracle, the Bible says that 'he made his glory manifest.' (John 2:11) Glory here refers to an impressive evidence of miraculous power identifying Jesus as the promised Messiah. (Compare Joh 11:40-44.)"

As for John 17:5, Insight makes the following observation: "Jesus used the term [glory] to refer to the exalted state that he enjoyed in heaven before coming to earth" (Cf. Insight, 1:964).

The Insight book teaches us that the term glory must be defined in harmony with its literary context. It obviously does not mean the same thing in all contexts.

A number of commentators want to see allusions to the Shekinah glory in John 1:14. From this concept, it's often inferred that Christ is equal (consubstantial) with the Father. For example, Clarke's Commentary makes the following claim:

"And dwelt among us - Και εσκηνωσεν εν ἡμιν, And tabernacled among us: the human nature which he took of the virgin, being as the shrine, house, or temple, in which his immaculate Deity condescended to dwell. The word is probably an allusion to the Divine Shechinah in the Jewish temple; and as God has represented the whole Gospel dispensation by the types and ceremonies of the old covenant, so the Shechinah in the tabernacle and temple pointed out this manifestation of God in the flesh. The word is thus used by the Jewish writers: it signifies with them a manifestation of the Divine Shechinah."

But there might be other ways to explain a Shekinah allusion.

A) One could view John 1:14 as an implicative account that points to the prophet greater than Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15). Such an interpretation can be substantiated by considering the apostolic words recorded at John 1:17. Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:7-18; Acts 3:19-26.

B1) Another OT text that may be pertinent here is Exodus 23:20-26. It could point to Christ serving as the Angel (MAL'AK) of YHWH, that personal agent who carries out duties as the Leader of God's people through the spirit of YHWH. Personally, I do not believe that the Angel of YHWH is identical with YHWH since Zechariah 1:12, 13 makes a distinction between God and His angel. In that fateful passage, the angel poses a question to YHWH and God replies with comforting words. While one could argue that the angel simply functions as a mediating agent in this account (with no ontological implications), I do not think that this explanation tells the whole story. David L. Petersen (in his commentary on Zechariah) points out that the angel's words have a penetrating quality to them: "How long will you be without mercy for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah that have felt your anger these seventy years?"

B2)The text indicates that the Angel really is perplexed over the current state of Judah. He does not know what YHWH knows and so poses the aforesaid question to Him. The angel sees that seventy years have passed by and the whole earth is tranquil while God's people still appear to be experiencing the heat of divine anger. "How long," he wonders. By uttering these words, God's angel sounds forth a lamenting request that has been echoed by God's people throughout human history. If he is the preexistent Christ, then the biblical evidence would suggest that the Lord Jesus Christ is perhaps not consubstantial with the Father.

More on Jeremiah 51:41 (Paronomasia)

"O how She′shach has been captured, How the Praise of the whole earth has been seized! How Babylon has become an object of horror among the nations!" (Jeremiah 51:41, Revised NWT, 2013)

NWT footnote states: "This appears to be a cryptographic name for Babel (Babylon)."

“See how Babylon has been captured! See how the pride of the whole earth has been taken!
See what an object of horror Babylon has become among the nations!" (Jeremiah 51:41, NET Bible)

"Heb 'Sheshach.' For an explanation of the usage of this name for Babylon see the study note on Jer 25:26 and that on 51:1 for a similar phenomenon. Babylon is here called 'the pride of the whole earth' because it was renowned for its size, its fortifications, and its beautiful buildings" (Footnote in NET Bible).

Jeremiah 51:41 and Paronomasia (Beitzel)

"How is Sheshach taken? and how is the praise of the whole earth surprised? how is Babylon become an astonishment among the nations?" (Jeremiah 51:41 KJV)

Barry J. Beitzel writes:

"Atbash. Atbash is an oratorical device according to which letters of one or more words, counted from the beginning of the alphabet, are exchanged for corresponding letters counted from the end of the alphabet (e.g.' = t, b = s, etc.). Embedded in Jeremiah's grim oracle of doom directed against Babylon and the king of Babylon (chaps. 50-1) is the enigmatic Sheshak (51:41). Enigmatic, that is, until one recognizes that the letters which comprise the word ssk are actually atbash for bbl, 'Babylon' (cf. 25:26). In this same chapter (v 1), Jeremiah describes the inhabitants of Babylon by means of the otherwise mysterious lb qmywhich, through atbash, becomes ks'dym, 'Chaldeans,' known to have been contemporary inhabitants of the great city."

Atbash is a form of paronomasia. See Beitzel, "Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia." Trinity Journal 1 NS (1980): 5-20.

We read the following in John Calvin's commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations:

"But he calls Babylon here Sheshach, as in Jeremiah 25. Some think it to be there the proper name of a man, and others regard it as the name of a celebrated city in Chaldea. But we see that what they assert is groundless; for this passage puts an end to all controversy, for in the first clause he mentions Sheshach, and in the second, Babylon. That passage also in Jeremiah 25 cannot refer to anything else except to Babylon; for the Prophet said, 'Drink shall all nations of God's cup of fury, and after them the king of Sheshach,' that is, when God has chastised all nations, at length the king of Babylon shall have his turn. But in this place the Prophet clearly shows that Sheshach can be nothing else than Babylon. The name is indeed formed by inverting the alphabet."

"Storing Up Earthly Treasures" and Greek Aspect

“Stop storing up for yourselves treasures on the earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal. Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break in and steal" (Matthew 6:19-20 Revised NWT).

A friend once asked me if this verse describes a punctiliar event or a durative (ongoing) one. Should Jesus' followers "store up treasures in heaven" once or do it continually?

My answer: θησαυρίζετε is present imperative active 2nd person plural.

Our current knowledge of aspect and Aktionsart leads me to believe that context (or cotext) must determine whether Jesus' words should be understood as denoting continuous action--durative or progressive--over against believing that he had in mind singular or punctiliar action.

It seems likely that Jesus meant the Christian activity of storing up treasures is an ongoing process and not a one-time event. Not only does the present "tense" suggest this understanding, but verses such as Mt 6:33-34 buttress this view.

In conclusion, relational markers in the text must elucidate a speaker's intended meaning along with the morphological forms of Greek verbs.

The Simplest Explanation of Biblical Greek Is the Best One

Ockham's Razor (the law of parsimony) is a handy tool that can be used in many academic fields. Sorry that it can't be used to literally shave anything away.

But to illustrate how the famed "law of parsimony" works, consider some explanations that have been given for the kind of Greek we find in the New Testament. There was a time when some thought that the form of Greek encountered in Matthew or Revelation was "Holy Ghost Greek." That is, a special type of Greek produced by the Spirit of God. But that position eventually softened and it was then claimed that the Greek of the NT is special (unique) because it contains Hebrew-Aramaic idioms throughout the text.

We now know that the simplest explanation for NT Greek--this is where Ockham's razor comes into play--is that Matthew-Revelation was written in Koine Greek (the common Greek of the day) and not some SUI GENERIS dialect unknown to the Hellenes: the simplest explanation is probably the most likely and best one. However, we don't have to speculate what type of Greek the NT writers used; there is strong textual evidence from the first century era. On page 10 of their well-known grammar, Dana and Mantey inform us that the NT writers employed "the language of the masses," as might be expected.

We have numerous Greek inscriptions and papyri that add weight to this conclusion. We don't need some extravagant hypothesis to explain NT Greek. Ockham's Razor wisely teaches us that all other things being equal (CETERIS PARIBUS), the simplest explanation is normally the best one (don't multiply entities unnecessarily).

Brief Commentary on Daniel 9:24 (Most Holy)

"Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy" (Daniel 9:24 NIV).

"There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies" (NWT, 1984).

It's interesting, but not all that consequential exegetically speaking, that NIV treats the Hebrew for "everlasting" as an attributive. But the NWT construes the same term predicatively ("for times indefinite"). The NET Bible favors the reading, "perpetual righteousness" in its text (also treating the Hebrew attributively). Darby's translation and Young's Literal Translation arrange the construction with syntax resembling NWT (1984).

Of course, those familiar with NWT also understand why OLAM is rendered "times indefinite" rather than "everlasting" or something to that effect. Yet the revised NWT (2013) has taken a different approach to translating this Hebrew word.

One Biblical website offers these insights on Daniel 9:24:

"Everlasting (05769) (OLAM) means forever, eternity, i.e., pertaining to an unlimited duration of time, usually with a focus on the future.

The Amplified Bible serves as a 'mini' commentary adding that the seventy sevens will...

bring in everlasting righteousness (permanent moral and spiritual rectitude in every area and relation)"

[END QUOTE]