Three Persons or Three Gods?

The Trinity doctrine claims that God is three persons, but not three gods (tritheism). God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are supposed to constitute three divine persons, who do not compromise biblical monotheism. For instance, the Athanasian Creed states:

"And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God"

In the same creed, we're also told: "And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons. Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity."

So there are Three Persons rather than three deities, we are assured. Yet the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes:

"By the latter part [of the Athanasian Creed], it follows by the indiscernibility of identicals that no person of the Trinity is identical with any other. And by the earlier part, it seems to follow that there are thus at least three eternal (etc.) things. But it asserts there's only one eternal thing. Hence, the creed seems contradictory, and has been attacked as such (Biddle 1691, i; Nye 1691a, 11; Priestley 1871, 321). Showing where the above argument for inconsistency goes wrong is a major motivation of recent Trinity theories (see sections 1 and 2 of the main entry). In contrast, mysterians hold that it somehow goes wrong, though no one can say quite where.(See section 3 of the main entry.) Finally, some simply reject the creed."

Trinitarians are likely to say that the Trinity doctrine teaches that there are Three divine Persons (three eternal things), but one God (one eternal thing); so it's not contradictory (they might aver) because this claim does not violate the law of non-contradiction. What's under consideration here is that God is claimed to be three in one sense, but one in another sense. Hence, there's supposedly no inconsistency in the claim.

On the other hand, Joseph Priestley and Dr. Magee have viewed the triune God in a different light:

"It must be universally true, that three things to
which the same definition applies can never make only
one thing to which the same definition applies . . .
If, therefore, the three persons agree in this same
circumstance, that they are each of them perfect God,
though they may differ in other respects, and have
peculiar relations to each other and to us, they must
still be three Gods; and to say that they are only one
God is as much a contradiction, as to say that three
men, though they differ from one another as much as
three men do, are not three men, but only one man"
(Joseph Priestley).

"If ideas are attached to the words employed,
Trinitarianism is, in reality, either Tritheism or
Sabellianism" (The Right Reverend Dr. Magee, Bishop of
Raphoe).

Defenders of the Trinity have sometimes tried to refute Priestley's criticism by appealing to three men (distinct from one another and three things in that sense) who have one thing in common: human nature. But just as Peter, James, and John are three men, it would seem that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be three gods--even if each Person is divine. But as we've mentioned on this blog before, the Trinitarian response to Priestley's criticism is usually the divine simplicity doctrine.

Without going down that road now, one point I want to make with this post is that Trinitarians and Non-Trinitarians sometimes talk past one another. A Trinitarian could possibly be uncharitable and refer to Non-Trinitarians as "deceptive" or intellectually dishonest." The truth of the matter, however, is that both groups approach the Trinity doctrine from two different perspectives. I would suggest that one try to understand someone's position before critiquing it; moreover, even where there's disagreement, name-calling does not have to occur.

Witnesses of Jehovah and other Non-Trinitarians do believe that the Trinity trangresses biblical monotheism. We are not necessarily saying that Trinitarians agree with us; in fact, we know they do not.

Adolf Harnack on Early Bible Reading

I will now sum up Adolf Harnack's arguments which are found in his work Bible Reading in the Early Church (New York: GP Putnam's Sons, 1912).

Harnack contends, as does yours truly, that private Bible reading (not private interpretation) was a common practice among ancient Jews. Therefore when the LOGOS became flesh and dwelt among us for a short time, dutifully selecting the Twelve along with other men and women who would constitute his spirit-begotten EKKLHSIA, "the private use of the Holy Scriptures simply continued" (Harnack 32) as suggested by Acts 17:10-11 and Eusebius' account of the layman who petitioned Bishop Melito of Sardis to make him a copy of the Law and Prophets (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV.26.12.) so that he could get to know the soteriological matters pertaining to the Christian faith.

Another insightful passage is likewise found in Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Philadelphians VIII.1-2. There we read:

"I trust in the grace of Jesus Christ, who shall loose
from you every chain; and I exhort you to do nothing
of contention, but according to the discipline of
Christ. Since I have heard certain men say, 'Unless I
find it in the ancients [the OT], I believe it not in
the Gospel.' And when I said unto them that 'It is
written,' they replied, 'That it is set forth
aforetime.' But my archives are Jesus Christ; his
cross and his death, his resurrection, and the faith
which is through him, are inviolable archives, through
which I desire to be justified by means of your
prayers."

Here Ignatius evidently alludes to certain laymen who were well-versed with Holy Writ, especially the OT. While they seemed to be contending with Bishop Ignatius and he thus had to remind them of the significance the Christ Event holds for believers in Jesus, this Ignatian passage almost certainly indicates that private Bible reading was common among the laity in the second century CE. Adding to this testimony in a powerful manner, Polycarp writes to the Philippians (XII.1):

"For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you."

Notice how Tatian also describes his conversion to Christianity. He claims that it was wrought by reading and studying the "barbaric" antiquitous writings of Judaism and Christianity:

"Wherefore, having seen these things, and moreover
also having been admitted to the mysteries, and having
everywhere examined the religious rites performed by
the effeminate and the pathic, and having found among
the Romans their Latiarian Jupiter delighting in human
gore and the blood of slaughtered men, and Artemis not
far from the great city sanctioning acts of the same
kind, and one demon here and another there instigating
to the perpetration of evil, retiring by myself, I
sought how I might be able to discover the truth. And,
while I was giving my most earnest attention to the
matter, I happened to meet with certain barbaric
writings, too old to be compared with the opinions of
the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their
errors; and I was led to put faith in these by the
unpretending east of the language, the inartificial
character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed
of future events, the excellent quality of the
precepts, and the declaration of the government of the
universe as centred in one Being. And, my soul being
taught of God, I discern that the former class of
writings lead to condemnation, but that these put an
end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us
from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand
tyrants, while they give us, not indeed what we had
not before received, but what we had received but were
prevented by error from retaining" (Oratio ad Graecos
XXIX).

Lastly I will cite Justin's charitable exhortation
found in his 1 Apology XLIV:

"But by the agency of the devils, death has been
decreed against those who read the books of Hystaspes,
or of the Sibyl, or of the prophets, that through fear
they may prevent men who read them from receiving the
knowledge of the good, and may retain them in slavery
to themselves; which, however, they could not always
effect. For not only do we fearlessly read them, but,
as you see, bring them for your inspection, knowing
that their contents will be pleasing to all. And if we
persuade even a few, our gain will be very great; for,
as good husbandmen, we shall receive the reward from
the Master."

Questions Addressed to Dualists

I once addressed these words to a friend and colleague who advocates hylomorphic (hylemorphic) dualism:

How do we know that physical organs are only capable of apprehending particulars? What incontrovertible proof do we have that intellects (of the Thomistic caliber) even obtain [exist]? I admit that an intellect qua a power of the soul is logically possible [there's no logical contradiction in the idea itself]. However, I am not convinced that such a faculty is factually possible. So I guess my first line of attack would be to question the existence of the intellect, in the relevant sense we're discussing. Secondly, I would argue that what has been called "intellect" is really nothing more than a higher-order process of the brain: intellection is a biological phenomenon. The brain consequently makes it possible for us to have the facility for grasping what appear to be [abstract] universals.

I have slightly edited some of this message to promote understanding of its contents.

Regards,

Edgar

What Accounts for Mentality?

I've been studying neuroscience and mind theory for almost a decade. It's no secret that I don't believe the soul is immortal; however, when I read Antonio Damasio's work on Descartes, Francis Crick's "Astronishing Hypothesis" and Joseph LeDoux ("Synaptic Self"), I was convinced that mentality has to result from brain activity. In other words, while science cannot provide the knock out punch for the Witness understanding of the soul, the neuroscientific evidence overwhelmingly seems to be on our side. But scientific knowledge is provisional and limited. Therefore, it only takes us so far.

While I've been excited about the harmony between science and how Witnesses understand biblical anthropology, one Witness friend with whom I shared these findings said I should exercise caution: he feels that only Jehovah knows how mentality actually comes about. I respect this friend greatly, but I could not help but wonder what else accounts for mental states, if we're purely physical and don't have souls. In any event, two possibilities seem viable for me at this time:

1) Mental states could supervene on brain states

2) Mental states are identical with brain states

By supervenience, I simply mean a form of "dependence" such that M (mental states) depends on B (brain states), which is another way of saying that differences in B constitute differences in M (and vice versa). Another term for supervenience is property dualism (e.g., contrasting the physical properties of a painting over against its microphysical properties).

As support for the idea that minds could turn out to be continuous with matter, Anthony Appiah writes:

"We have learned about the properties of matter by seeing what can be made of it: we know that it is the kind of thing that magnets can be made out of, because we have found magnetic substances; we know that it is the kind of thing bacteria can be made out of, because we have found bacteria. Why is it especially hard to accept that it is the kind of thing minds can be made out of? Indeed, since the one thing of which each of us surely has the most extensive direct experience is our own mind, shouldn’t we be puzzled, if we are puzzled by anything, by the nature of matter? How can it be, one might want to ask, that a world made of the sorts of things and governed by the sorts of laws that physicists now believe in should give rise to the astonishing range of experiences that each of us has every day?" (Thinking It Through, page 52).

But Kevin Vanhoozer does not want to reduce mental properties to physical properties. He believes we should maintain some type of distinction between the two. Either way, I believe that physical factors completely explain mental states. Jehovah God created us as completely physical beings.

ENTITAS and Barbarousness (Thought for Today)

One definition for the adjective "barbarous" is "characterized by the occurrence of barbarisms" (M-W).

Barbarisms have been defined as:

"the practice or display of barbarian acts, attitudes, or ideas"

"an idea, act, or expression that in form or use offends against contemporary standards of good taste or acceptability"

While I can readily understand what it means for a sentence or paragraph to be "barbarous," I often have trouble comprehending what it means for a word to be less than well-formed or barbarous. John Stuart Mill asserts that the Latin word ENTITAS (from ENS) is barbarous like its English counterpart "entity."

ENTITAS is a neologism based on the present participle of ESSE (the Latin form of the verb "to be"). I'm not sure what makes ENTITAS or "entity" barbarous, but maybe a classicist or linguist can help with this question.

Luke 17:21

Rogers and Rogers point out that ἐντὸς with the genitive can denote "within, in the midst of, among." A similar observation is made in BDAG Greek-English Lexicon; I looked at the entry for ἐντὸς in BDAG and it might pay to read the entire thing. This lexical source indicates that Luke's ἐντὸς ὑμῶν probably is patterned after Isaiah's ἐν σοὶ in 45:14 (LXX). BDAG also provides texts that correspond syntactically with Luke 17:21: the lexicon seems to argue that the verse in question should not be given a psychological interpretation. See pp. 340-341 and the relevant literature listed in BDAG.

Theologian Karl Rahner Explains the Trinity Doctrine

Within the conceptual system of scholastic theology, no real question remains once the Trinitarian doctrine itself has been presupposed(i.e. once the linguistic usage of the New Testament has been taken to conform to that of theology): the word and concept ‘God’ signifies (significat) the Person to whom the divine nature is proper; and so ‘God’ can stand for (supponitur)each of the three Persons who possess this nature, or again ‘God’ can stand for all three Persons together. When, for example,the Logos is called ‘Son of God’, ‘God’ in this predication stands for the Father, in so far as he is one of the divine Persons, for ‘God' can stand for each of the three Persons, while the Father alone has a Son. Or again, in the statement, ‘God creates the world’, according to the conceptual system of Latin theology ‘God’ stands for the divine Person, this time indeed for the three Persons together, in so far as they are one God by reason of the unity of nature and thus one Source of the world by reason of the unity of their operation ad extra. For the theology of the Schools, then, ‘God’ is one with respect to the general concept of personality, if we may so put it, and consequently can stand for each of the three Persons individually and for all three together. Once more we do not of course wish to deny that such a view of the concept and the word ‘God’ is possible, legitimate and in the long run unavoidable. But the question nevertheless remains whether this is also the usage of the New Testament.

See Theological Investigations, page 101

Notes on William Lane Craig's View of God and Time (Grad School Notes)

Pre-Nicenes and Noah

I believe that the ante-Nicene Fathers (as well as the post-Nicenes) generally accepted the historical validity of the Noachian Flood:

"In the ninth generation are born the giants, so called from of old, not dragon footed, as the fables of the Greeks relate, but men of immense bodies, whose bones, of enormous size, are still shown in some places for confirmation. But against these the righteous providence of God brought a flood upon the world, that the earth might be purified from their pollution, and every place might be turned into a sea by the destruction of the wicked. Yet there was then found one righteous man, by name Noah, who, being delivered in an ark with his three sons and their wives, became the colonizer of the world after the subsiding of the waters, with those animals and seeds which he had shut up with him" (1 Clement 29).

In Refutation of all Heresies 26, Hippolytus also
maintains:

"And in Noah's time there occurred a flood throughout the entire world, which neither Egyptians, nor Chaldeans, nor Greeks recollect; for the inundations which took place in the age of Ogyges and Deucalion prevailed only in the localities where these dwelt. There are, then, in the case of these (patriarchs-that is, from Noah to Heber inclusive)-5 generations, and 495 years."

Moreover, in a work of Theophilus, we read:

"But Moses, our prophet and the servant of God, in giving an account of the genesis of the world, related in what manner the flood came upon the earth, telling us, besides, how the details of the flood came about, and relating no fable of Pyrrha nor of Deucalion or Clymenus; nor, forsooth, that only the plains were submerged, and that those only who escaped to the mountains were saved" (To Autolycus 3.18-19).

The quotes that illustrate the beliefs of the ante-Nicenes regarding the Noachian Flood are many. It appears safe to say that the Fathers generally thought it was a historical event. However, this does not mean that the account could not be read on other exegetical levels. For instance, Cyprian argues that anyone who does not have the church for his mother cannot have God for his Father. He then uses the account of Noah to explain the salvific or soteriological role of the church in the outworking of God's eternal purpose through Christ Jesus:

"If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church" (On the Unity of the Church 6).

Augustine of Hippo later employs the biblical narrative of Noah and applies it to the church. He likens the clean and unclean animals taken into the Ark to defiled and undefiled persons in the Christian ecclesia. For Augustine, the church is a corpus permixtum: a body composed of different types of persons until Christ does the separating work. However, Augustine thought the Flood was an historical event as did the ante-Nicenes. Interestingly, Origen's interlocutor Celsus, also charged Christians during his time with distorting Greek flood stories by using the biblical account of Noah.

Translating 1 John 4:2

"Having come in the flesh" represents a fairly literal rendering of the perfect participle in 1 John 4:2.

I notice that J.B. Rotherham also translates the verse:

"Hereby do ye perceive the Spirit of God:--."

W. Hall Harris points out that the Greek expression ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα is literally "confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come."

On perfect participles in general, Daniel B. Wallace makes this observation:

"The perfect participle is almost always antecedent with reference to the main verb. When it is contemporaneous, such is due to either an intensive use of the perfect or to a present force of the perfect in its lexical nuance" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 626).

But notice that John replaces the perfect participle with the present form of the Greek verbal adjective in 2 John 7 (ἐρχόμενον). This syntactical structure makes the translational issue a little more complex; however, the perfect participle no doubt refers to antecedent action in the first Johannine passage (1 John 4:2) whereas the present participle likely has the same reference in 2 John 7.

Robert Alter's Commentary on Genesis 17:10 (Circumcision)

New Book on NWT (written in Italian)

Documentary Hypothesis and the Margins of Scholarship

The Documentary Hypothesis teaches that the Pentateuch arose from four distinct sources known as JEDP (the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomic, and Priestly source). The J document is usually given a 9th century date, the E source is believed to be an 8th century source, whereas D is attributed a 7th century date and P is considered a 6th century source.

"The Documentary Hypothesis claims that the Pentateuch is a composite of four separate, complete, and coherent documents." See http://imp.lss.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/Intro/hypoth.html

One point that interests me for now is how dogmatic that proponents of this view have been or continue to be. Furthermore, the Documentary Hypothesis is a lesson in how certain scholars get pushed to the margins if they do not follow the status quo. Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard relate the story of Franz Delitzsch, who apparently was pushed to the margins of scholarship because he did not accept the Documentary Hypothesis. While I understand the need for the scholarly guild to protect academic biblical studies from "loony" and unsupported ideas, it's somewhat disturbing that scholars have made the Documentary Hypothesis (a very speculative endeavor) a touchstone for who can have a voice in the biblical scholarly world and who cannot. That view strikes me as conformist to the utmost degree.

I am reminded of ancient controversies that used force instead of persuasion to shut "heretics" down; and one can't help but think of Martin Werner, whose views on Christ qua angel were intensely criticized by Wilhelm Michaelis. Werner never recovered from the latter's analysis. See https://www.academia.edu/2202637/Reconsidering_and_Aspect_of_the_Title_Kyrios_in_Light_of_4Q416_2_iii

You can believe what you want to believe in academic biblical studies, so long as your view harmonizes with the prevailing orthodoxy.

Birthdays and Circumcision--Again

1) While it may be tempting to deny that birthdays are rooted in superstition, magic and pagan religious customs--almost everything I read backs this idea. People (in general) evidently began celebrating birthdays in order to keep away bad spirits. Granted, not every culture has the same practices for birthdays or how to observe Christmas (etc). That's an understatement. But I'd like to see an early culture that observed birthdays for non-religious or non-superstitious reasons. I have not found one yet.

2) Ancient Jews and Christians roundly condemned the observance of birthdays at one time. Origen is a famous example: he wrote that not one "saint" (holy person) observed a feast on the day of his birth. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria spoke ill of those who speculated about the Savior's day of birth. See John Davidson, The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of His Original Teachings, page 131. Another patristic writer who spoke against birthdays was Arnobius of Sicca; see Adversus Gentes 7.34. It's also possible that Philo condemned birthdays while we know that Josephus did.

"Nay, indeed, the law does not permit us to make festivals at the birth of our children, and thereby afford occasion of drinking to excess" (Josephus. Translated by W. Whiston. Against Apion, Book II, Chapter 26. Extracted from Josephus Complete Works, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids (MI), 14th printing, 1977, p. 632).

See http://www.cogwriter.com/birthdays.htm

One writer examines both sides of the issue from a Jewish perspective, but it seems that all of his examples to uphold the celebration of birthdays are late, since they date from the 4th cent. CE onward. See http://louisjacobs.org/library/articles/birthday-celebrations.php

3) To my knowledge, wedding rings did not originate from pagan religious sources. I read an article on this point years ago, but would be happy to see additional research on the matter. I choose not to wear a wedding ring anyway, but not for religious reasons. It's a matter of conscience IMO.

4) On circumcision, we have two issues at play. What are its origins and why did God command Abraham to do it? Scholars point out that the issues surrounding circumcision are more complex than the subject may first appear. There's no necessary B-line from Egypt to Israel as far as circumcision is concerned; secondly, it's far from clear that the Egyptians started practicing circumcision because of religion.

In a journal article, "Circumcision in the Ancient Near East," Jack M. Sasson argues that it's very unlikely the Israelites or Phoenicians adopted circumcision from the Egyptians. After reviewing some archaeological evidence from Egypt, he reports: "Thus one can note a basic difference between the Israelites and the Egyptians in the surgical process involved in circumcision. Whereas the Hebrews amputated the prepuce and thus exposed the corona of the penis, the Egyptian practice consisted of a dorsal incision upon the foreskin which liberated the glans penis. The Old Kingdom reliefs at Saqqara clearly demonstrate the results obtained by the Egyptian surgeon." See JBL 85 (1966): 473-76.

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).