Colossians 3:23--Some Observations

I. Greek: ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε, ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις (Colossians 3:23)

II. Translations: "Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men" (ESV)

"Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men" (NASB)

"Whatever you are doing, work at it whole-souled as for Jehovah, and not for men" (NWT 2013)

II. To Whom These Words Were Addressed:

See Colossians 3:22: οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλίαις, ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας, φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον. (SBLGNT)

III. Potential Literary Background:

It's difficult to say what motivated the counsel found at Colossians 3:23, but F.F. Bruce (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians) makes this suggestion:

Christian slaves are next addressed. Within the context of a household code household slaves are primarily in view, and slaves in a Christian household at that. But the directions given would be applicable to slaves whose duties were not within the household (slaves employed in agriculture or industry, for example), and to slaves of pagan masters. Both in this letter and in Ephesians the injunctions to slaves are more extended than those to masters, and are accompanied by special encouragement. This, it has been suggested, is “a reflection of the social structure of these churches”¹⁹⁹ (the implication being that they contained more slaves than masters). That may well be so. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that “the content of the admonitions would certainly be more readily approved by owners than by slaves.”²⁰⁰

IV.Observations:

John Eadie:

In this verse the common reading is καὶ πᾶν ὅ, τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε, but the better reading is ὃ ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε, ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις—“Whatever ye are in the way of doing, work it heartily as to the Lord, and not to men.” They were, in any task that might be assigned them, to labour at it, to work it out, and that without grumbling or reluctance, not only doing it honestly but cheerfully, as Chrysostom says- μὴ μετὰ δουλικῆς ἀνάγκης. [Ephesians 6:6.] The heathen slave might do everything with a grudge, for he had no interest in his labour, but the believing slave was to act with cordiality, plying his toil with alacrity, for he was serving in all this industry no human master, but the Lord, who had bought him with His precious blood. Let this be the feeling, and there would be no temptation to fall into eye-service, men-pleasing, and duplicity of heart or conduct. The apostle says without reservation—“as to the Lord, and not to men.” There is no necessity to take οὐκ as meaning οὐ μόνον. The immediate object of the service must be man, but the ultimate object is the Lord; the negative, though absolute in form, being relative in sense. Winer, § 55, 1. The service, whatever its nature, or its relation to man, was ever to be felt and viewed as an act of obedience done to Christ. See under Colossians 3:17. In doing it to others, they did it to Him; and to Him, with such claims upon their love and fealty, they could not but give suit and service heartily. As usual, in the parallel place in Ephesians, the thought is given more fully, and the relationship of the slave's labour to Christ is twice noted. Besides, not only was the servant to work as here- ἐκ ψυχῆς—“from the heart,” pointing out his relation to his work, but he is enjoined also to labour- μετ᾿ εὐνοίας-that is, “with good will” to his master.

On the other hand, James Dunn thinks Colossians 3:23 likely echoes Deuteronomy 6:5: compare Mark 12:30. Note how NEB and NJB translate this passage. Dunn writes (The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, pages 255-56):

The motivation will be strengthened by doing the "whatever" for the Lord (Christ), even when it is also to be done for human masters. If there is indeed an echo of Deut. 6:5, we should note again how easily the Christian writer thinks of the Lord to be loved from the whole ψυχή as Christ (see also on 3:22). Here, too, the thematic statement (2:6-7) continues to exert its influence.

Of course, those familiar with the NWT will know that "Jehovah" appears in Col. 3:23 rather than "Lord."

August H. Konkel's Remarks About 1 Kings 8:63

The sacrifices previously described as being without number (v. 5) are here enumerated in terms of oxen and sheep (v. 63). Communal peace offerings introduce the sacrifices and appear to be the central aspect of the dedication. The main function of these offerings is to provide food for the table; these sacrifices are for joyous occasions of celebration.²¹ Worshipers and priests share the peace offerings, providing a bonding of the community and a cele- bration of the covenant (Lev. 7:11–15, 30–36). The blood, fat, and entrails of the peace offering are devoted to God (3:3–5). The quantity of these offerings, plus the burnt offerings and grain offerings given to God, is so great that the great bronze altar does not have sufficient capacity (1 Kings 8:64). The entire court was consecrated for the occasion. Sacrifices were an essential part of the ritual in ancient temple dedications. The central event was the divine possession of the temple (cf. vv. 11–12), which was necessarily accompanied with great celebration and sacrifices for the occasion. The significance of the temple dedication is expressed in the anguage of its own culture. Hurowitz is able to cite numerous parallel examples from Mesopotamian literature.²² Esarhaddon dedicated the Assur temple by placing the god in his eternal dais and offered countless sacrifices. His dignitaries and the people celebrated for three days in the temple courtyard.

Quoted from August H. Konkel, 1 & 2 KINGS: THE NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY.

See Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, 273–77.

Some Thoughts Concerning 2 Kings 4:39

Regarding 2 Kings 4:39, it seems to me that the "wild gourds" were naturally poisonous, not baneful because of a curse.

NLT: One of the young men went out into the field to gather herbs and came back with a pocketful of wild gourds. He shredded them and put them into the pot without realizing they were poisonous. (2 Kings 4:39)

NET translates the last part of 2 Kings 4:39, "not knowing they were harmful."

The NET Bible adds this note: tc The Hebrew text reads, “for they did not know” (יָדָעוּ, yada’u) but some emend the final shureq (וּ, indicating a third plural subject) to holem vav (וֹ, a third masculine singular pronominal suffix on a third singular verb) and read “for he did not know it.” Perhaps it is best to omit the final vav as dittographic (note the vav at the beginning of the next verb form) and read simply, “for he did not know.” See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB),

John Lange offers these comments on 2 Kings 4:39. I will not post what he writes about 2 Kings 4:40, but you might find those comments instructive as well if you choose to read them:

The פַּקֻּעֹת שָׂדֶה are wild cucumbers or gourds (cucumeres agrestes, or, asinini), also called bursting-cucumbers. They have the form of an egg, and a bitter taste. When they are ripe they burst in pieces if pressed on the stem, whence their name (פקע fidit, rupit). When eaten they cause colic and violent purging. The young man took these wild gourds for ordinary ones, which were very much prized as food (Num. 11:5). The Sept. and Vulg. translate by colocynth. Keil also prefers this, because this fruit does not burst when touched, and so could be easily carried home in the garment and cut up; but the root פקע is too distinctly in favor of the bursting-gourd, which did not burst in this instance simply because the specimens collected were not entirely ripe (cf. Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 441 sq.). However, the cucumis colocynthi L., or the poisonous colocynth, also has a remarkably bitter taste—a vine which creeps upon the earth, and has light green leaves (cf. I. c., s. 427).

On the other hand, Iain W. Provan writes:

We do not know whether the mixture is really deadly in a literal sense—that is only what the men who have tasted it say. What is indisputable is that Elisha knows, in his wisdom, what to add to the pot to make everything all right—even though no one else knows what the cook originally put in (v. 39). He has remarkable insight, even into the various properties of plants. It is this that makes him a better cook than his servant—as he was a greater healer in 4:8–37.

See Provan, 1 and 2 Kings.

Expositor's Bible Commentary (Old Testament):

This chapter closes with two incidents relative to Elisha's miraculous help in food matters in the prophetic school at Gilgal. In the first instance, a student who had been sent to gather wild vegetables brought an unknown type to them and cut the gatherings into the stew. Its bitter taste convinced the diners that the stew was poisoned; so immediately they cried out to Elisha. He called for flour to be brought; and when he had stirred it into the pot, the stew was found to be both tasteful and safe. Elisha's faith effected a miraculous cure. As had been the case with Elijah his teacher, Elisha had used flour to demonstrate the concern of God for one's daily provisions (cf. 1Ki 17:14-16).

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and the Rapture

(1) First, let me say that Jehovah's Witnesses believe there are two hopes or eternal destinies for the righteous: some of the righteous will live forever on earth, while others (the 144,000) will reign immortally in heaven. It is my belief that 1 Thess. 4:13-18 refers to those who will dwell in the heavens of God's presence for all eternity.

(2) I understand the Rapture to be an event in which God removes His church from earth to heaven bodily apart from the experience of physical death. Thus, while I certainly profess that certain Christians (i.e., the 144,000) will be snatched up to meet the Lord Jesus Christ in the air, I do not agree that this seizing will be "bodily" (that is, the physical body will not be taken upward); nor does it appear that those taken up to meet Christ will bypass physical death.

(3) 1 Thess. 4:13-18 has reference to the resurrection which occurs during the parousia of Christ. That is why Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to comfort one another with the words found chapter four of that letter. Finally, 1 Cor. 15:35ff indicates that Christians who will reside in heaven forever must undergo the experience of physical death: Jehovah God imparts the heavenly inheritance to certain humans via spiritual resurrection.

Someone asked about those members of the 144,000 who are living when God executes judgment upon this evil age (Gal. 1:4; 2 Thess. 1:6-9). Will they too have to undergo the experience of physical death. It is not wise to be dogmatic here, but the biblical account of Enoch may suggest that God Jehovah will shorten the lives of the 144,000 who are living when Christ reveals himself in all his glory.

Revelation 20:4 (Beheading?)

Revelation 20:4 (ESV): "Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

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

Commentary: "The martyrs in chapter 6 were said to be 'slain' or 'slaughtered.' Here they have been beheaded. They are actual martyrs because in John's visions all faithful Christians have been killed. They are not an elite group that is more 'spiritual' than other believers. The further description of them as those who had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands (v. 4) places the accent not on their martyrdom as such but on the faithfulness that made martyrdom inevitable."

See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Rev/Reign-Martyrs

Albert Barnes: "That were beheaded - The word used here - πελεκίζω pelekizō- occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, 'to axe,' that is, to hew or cut with an axe - from πέλεκυς pelekus 'axe.' Hence it means to behead with an axe. This was a common mode of execution among the Romans, and doubtless many of the Christian martyrs suffered in this manner; but 'it cannot be supposed to have been the intention of the writer to confine the rewards of martyrs to those who suffered in this particular way; for this specific and ignominious method of punishment is designated merely as the symbol of any and every kind of martyrdom'” (Prof. Stuart)."

Logical Possibility, Scripture, and the Virgin Birth

The expression "logical possibility" means that a statement (P) is not self-contradictory such that P and ~P.

It is logically possible (not self-contradictory) that a man could have experienced physical birth through a virgin, which occurred by means of the holy spirit. But would such a man still have been perfect (in the relevant sense) and thus qualified to ransom his life for humanity?

One older Witness publication argued that only the Word/Logos (the preeminent Son of God and first creation) was qualified to ransom humanity and meet Satan's challenge against Jehovah's divine sovereignty. The more I think about perfect humans coming from imperfect ones, it seems complex since Job effectively said clean beings do not emanate from unclean ones (Job 14:4). Psalm 49:7-8 indicates that humans could never provide a heavenly deliverer: the savior had to come from on high. All the "sent" passages in John might also suggest that God provided a divine being in human form to save us and sanctify his name. See Hebrews 10:5-6. At the end of the day, I not only reckon that the virgin birth is logically possible, but I place my faith in God's wondrous miracle.

Douglas J. Moo, Hoti, and Galatians 4:6

Greek: ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, κρᾶζον· Αββα ὁ πατήρ. (SBLGNT)

There is some debate about whether ὅτι in Galatians 4:6 is demonstrative or causal.

NWT: Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!”

HCSB: And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba, Father!”

CEV: Now that we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. And his Spirit tells us that God is our Father.

ESV: And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Tyndale Bible: Be cause ye are sonnes God hath sent the sprete of his sonne in to oure hertes which cryeth Abba father.

While it seems that ὅτι is definitely causal in this case, Douglas J. Moo writes the following (Galatians, Baker Exegetical Series):

The initial ὅτι (hoti, because) is most naturally taken in a causal sense, and this also fits the sequence of Paul’s argument: we have received the adoption as sons, and because we are now sons, we also have the Spirit. The only problem with this interpretation is that the claim that possession of the Spirit proceeds from the status of sonship appears to contradict Paul’s usual sequence, which is just the opposite. Especially important is Rom. 8:14–17, a passage with many obvious similarities to Gal. 4:4–6

Moo quotes the verses in Romans, then he professes:

Further, earlier in Galatians Paul has assumed that the Spirit marks the beginning of Christian experience (3:3). For these reasons, some interpreters suggest that this initial ὅτι might have a “declarative” function and depend on an implied assertion such as “to prove that”; see NAB: “As proof that you are children, God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, ‘Abba, Father!’” (see also Lietzmann 1932: 25; Dunn 1993a: 219; Moule 1959: 147; Rohde 1989: 173). However, this is not the obvious way to understand ὅτι, and it is doubtful if we need to introduce such a reading in order to preserve Pauline consistency. A careful reading of Rom. 8:14–17 shows that Paul is not clearly arguing for a sequence of Spirit—sonship. Having the Spirit means that one is a “son”; but Paul is not clearly saying that the Spirit confers sonship. Nor does Paul’s claim that the Spirit marks the “beginning” of Christian experience (3:3) mean that the Spirit must be absolutely prior to all other Christian blessings. Paul wants to associate the status of sonship with the gift of the Spirit, but claiming that Paul teaches a strict temporal or logical sequence between them would be overreading this text and others (see, e.g., R. Longenecker 1990: 173; Martyn 1997: 391; Schreiner 2010: 272).[18] The “sequence” of sonship and Spirit in various texts in Paul is thus probably dictated more by rhetorical than theological concerns.

In addition to the commentators that Moo invokes, see John Eadie's extended comments on Galatians 4:6.

Some of My Favorite Theology Books

https://www.amazon.com/ideas/amzn1.account.AEPCG3HGI5LDNR2LI6UHVGBP44JQ/3LKN7S1DAZWRC

Jerome's Commentary With Respect to Daniel 3:25

"And they said to the king in reply, 'Truly, O king!' The king answered (the Vulgate omits "the king"): 'Behold, I see four men unbound and walking about in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt, and the appearance of the fourth man (B) is the likeness of a son of God.' " Let me say again, how wise was the fire and how indescribable the power of God! Their bodies had been bound with chains; those chains were burnt up, whereas the bodies themselves were not burnt. As for the appearance of the fourth man, which he asserts to be like that of a son of God, either we must take him to be an angel, as the Septuagint has rendered it, or indeed, as the majority think, the Lord our Savior. Yet I do not know how an ungodly king could have merited a vision of the Son of God. On that |44 reasoning one should follow Symmachus, who has thus interpreted it: "But the appearance of the fourth is like unto the sons," not unto the sons of God but unto gods themselves. We are to think of angels here, who after all are very frequently called gods as well as sons of God. So much for the story itself. But as for its typical significance, this angel or son of God foreshadows our Lord Jesus (p. 512) Christ, who descended into the furnace of hell, in which the souls of both sinners and of the righteous were imprisoned, in order that He might without suffering any scorching by fire or injury to His person deliver those who were held imprisoned by chains of death.

See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm

God Recommends His Own Love (Romans 5:8)

The supreme manifestation of Jehovah's love is Jesus Christ's ransom sacrifice: that ransom provides the basis for Jehovah's vindication and is our sole way to obtain everlasting life (Romans 6:23). Notice what we learn about God's love and our need for the ransom from Romans 5:8, 12:

After reading the verses:

Comment on Rom. 5:8: God sent Christ while we were yet sinners. What an expression of divine love since the Son of God did not die for righteous or good people, but in behalf of sinners.

Romans 5:12 stresses our need for the ransom that Jehovah lovingly provided through Christ: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."

Jehovah made Adam and Eve perfect, but they used their free will to disobey him. The first couple was given just one limiting and reasonable directive: don't eat from the tree that's in the middle of the garden. Nevertheless, they ignored Jehovah and consequently repudiated his sovereignty. Yet how did Adam and Eve's disobedience affect us?

To address that question, please consider Romans 5:13, 14:

After reading the verses:

By virtue of Adam's disobedience, sin ruled as king from Adam down to Moses even prior to the Mosaic law code. However, once Jehovah gave the law to Israel, then sin became manifest because the law code plainly defined sin: it clearly demonstrated that we are sinners and need a redeemer. As Paul wrote in Romans 7:7, I would not have known how to identify sin or covetousness if it had not been for the law of Moses.

To illustrate sin's effect on us, we might compare it to an illness or disease. Nevertheless, while diseases like hemophilia can be transmitted from parents to their children, it is still possible for a child to carry hemophilia genetically without actually having the disease. But that is not the case with sin. If a parent is sinful, then children will be tainted with sin too. Therefore, how can we escape this predicament?

Romans 5:18, 21 explains the way:

What does the expression, "their being declared righteous for life" mean? One scholar writes that when God declares someone righteous, he doesn't cleanse the person inwardly, but rather Jehovah acquits the accused person standing before him. Yes, our situation is comparable to an accused person, who appears before a human judge to receive a sentence of innocent or guilty. We can be thankful that Jehovah lovingly acquits those who exercise faith in the ransom; he declares them guiltless. The result of being declared righteous is "everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 5:21).

As we reflect on God's love for us even while we were sinners, the question naturally arises as to how we can show appreciation for the ransom. Two concrete ways are dedication and baptism along with preaching the good news of God's kingdom. It is also good to ask ourselves in what other ways we might show gratitude to Jehovah for Jesus' ransom sacrifice, for it is by means of the ransom that God especially recommends his love to us.

Philip Comfort's Remarks on Revelation 13:18 (666/616)

This work was published in 2008.

Revelation 13:18 in the Cambridge GNT: Including the Apparatus

Bruce Metzger's and Revelation 13:18 (666/616)--Screenshots

Margaret Barker Comments About Revelation 13:18 (666/616)

Taken from Barker's Revelation of Jesus Christ, pages 233-235. My posting these remarks do not constitute an endorsement of Margaret Barker's position:

Most references to the beast refer only to his mark (14.9; 16.2; 19.20, 20.4), but the introduction of his 'number' is another device to indicate Nero. The name of the beast and 666, the number of its name (13.17), refer to the way that letters were also used as numbers; the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet was used for 1, the third for 3 and so on. Treated thus, a process known as gematria, the Greek name 'Neron Caesar', spelled in Hebrew letters, becomes N (50) + R (200) + W (6) + N (50) + Q (100) + S (60) + R (200), making 666. This spelling of the name is confirmed by an Aramaic document found at Murabba'at, dated 'the second year of the Emperor Nero'. This implies an interpretation of the name by people who understood Hebrew or Aramaic, even though Revelation is now written in Greek. The identification of the beast as Nero has been a commonplace among scholars since it was first suggested a century ago, long before the Murabba'at document confirmed the contemporary spelling of the name Nero. The problem is that this form of gematria is only known elsewhere using Greek letters, not Hebrew. At the end of the second century CE, however, there were some versions of Revelation which had the number of the beast as 616, a further challenge to scholars' ingenuity (Irenaeus, AH 5.30). It could represent the Latin form 'Nero Caesar', the final 'N' of the Greek form being dropped and thus the gematria number being reduced by 50 to 616. Or it could be conventional gematria with the Greek letters of the name 'Gaios Kaisar', and the beast could be Caligula. By the time of Irenaeus, the end of the second century CE, the identification of the beast as Nero was not known (AH 5.28-30), but the fear of Nero had passed into Christian tradition, and there can be no doubt that Nero's evil reign was written into the final interpretation of the beast in the Book of Revelation. The Ascension of Isaiah, whose Christian version was completed towards the end of the first century CE, 'foresees' the reign of Nero:

Beliar will descend, the great angel, the king of this world ... He will descend from his firmament in the form of a man, a king of iniquity,* the murderer of his mother** and he will persecute the plant which the twelve apostles of the Beloved have planted ... By his word he will cause the sun to rise by night, and the moon also he will make to appear at the sixth hour. And he will do everything he wishes in the world; he will act and speak like the Beloved and he will say, 'I am the LORD and before me there was no one' ... And all men in the world will believe in him. They will sacrifice to him and will serve him saying, 'This is the LORD and besides him there is no other' ... And the power of his miracles will be in every city and district and he will set up his image before him in every city. (Asc. Isa. 4.1-12)

The beast, however, had taken many forms before it was identified as Nero. The evil reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-163 BCE) was also a time of the beast, as can be seen from Daniel 7.19-27 which explained that the time of the fourth and last beast had come. When a false rumour arose that Antiochus was dead, civil strife broke out in Judea and Antiochus returned to quell the trouble in Jerusalem (2 Macc. 5). A great slaughter followed, with 40,000 killed and a similar number sold as slaves. He robbed the temple and defiled the sanctuary by entering it and then setting up a pagan altar. Many Jews adopted his pagan ways and sacrificed to idols (1 Macc. 1). The Book of Daniel addressed this situation and interpreted the ancient vision of the Man ascending to heaven as a sign of hope for those troubled times (Dan. 7). There would be an abomination set in the temple, but the saints would triumph. Much of what is said about the beast in Revelation could have been said of Antiochus. Had these fragments of Revelation been discovered for the first time, abandoned in a cave, it would have been easy for scholars to argue for a date in the second century BCE. The beast had the blasphemous name 'Epiphanes', which means 'The Manifest God'; there had been a rumour of his death but he returned to wreak havoc in Jerusalem just as the beast returned 'from the bottomless pit' to wreak havoc in Jerusalem (11.7-8); he blasphemed God's Name and his dwelling, the temple (13.6), and he both took captives and slew with the sword (13.10)

There is more, but see Barker.

In What Sense Did God Possibly Create Darkness? (Isaiah 45:7)

Here are suggestions for reading:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44092130?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Information for this article: "THE CREATION OF DARKNESS AND EVIL (ISAIAH 45:6C-7)"
Tina Dykesteen Nilsen
Revue Biblique (1946-)
Vol. 115, No. 1 (JANVIER 2008), pp. 5-25.

Furthermore, see http://christianthinktank.com/iamwrong1.html

Note the comments made here: https://bible.org/seriespage/13-knowledge-lord-isaiah-4424-4525

Stephen B. Miller's Remarks About Daniel 3:25

What impressed Nebuchadnezzar most of all was that now the three Jews had been joined by a fourth man, and this one looked like “a son of the gods.” Porteous69 and the majority of Jewish scholars have identified this person as an angel. For example, Slotki remarks, “The Talmud asserts that it was the archangel Gabriel (Pes. 118a, b).”70 According to Lacocque, “The expression is used in the inscriptions at Karatepe and Ugarit where it designates the members of the divine court.”71 However, the expression “a son of the gods” ascribes deity to the being, since an offspring of the gods partakes of the divine nature. Young remarks: “The meaning is son of deity, i.e., a Divine Person, one of the race of the gods, a supernatural being.”72 The NRSV's “the appearance of a god” seems to capture the idea well, for the king believed that he had seen no less than a god in the flames with the three Hebrews. The KJV renders this phrase “the Son of God,” an apparent allusion to the second person of the Trinity. Either the NIV or KJV translation is possible grammatically. In biblical Aramaic the plural noun ’ĕlāhîn may be assumed to have the same force as ’ĕlōhîm in biblical Hebrew, which can be rendered as a plural, “gods,” or as a singular, “God,” when denoting the true God, the plural form being an attempt to express the divine fullness and majesty.73 In this context, however, the translation of the NIV and most modern versions is to be preferred, since Nebuchadnezzar was polytheistic and had no conception of the Christian Trinity. Thus the pagan king only meant that the fourth figure in the fire was divine. From the Christian perspective, we know that the preincarnate Christ did appear to individuals in the Old Testament. Most likely the fourth man in the fire was the angel of the Lord, God himself in the person of his Son Jesus Christ, a view held by many expositors (cf. comments on 6: 21–22).74 It is certainly true that when believers go through fiery trials Christ is with them. The three Hebrews experienced literally the promise, “When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze”(Isa 43:2).

Miller, Stephen B. Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture: 18 (The New American Commentary) (Kindle Locations 2197-2218). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Daniel 3:25: "a Son of God"

Daniel 3:25 (ESV) reads: He answered and said, "But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods."

Bob Utley offers these remarks:

"the fourth is like a son of the gods" A considerable amount of speculation has been made about this fourth personage. He is an angel of the Lord (cf. Dan. 3:28 also 6:22). It is humorous to note that when Nebuchadnezzar calls the boys out by name, he makes no mention of that fourth person!

The Anchor Bible Commentary, Daniel 1-9 (by L. F. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella) says for Daniel 3:25: "a divine being. Literally, ―a son of God,‖ rightly understood in vs. 28 as an angel; cf. also vs. 26."

PANTA in Philippians 3:8 and 1 John 2:20

Moisés Silva argues that panta has a relative sense in Philippians 3:8. After all, the context indicates that this Greek adjective is delimited since the "all things" Paul references are objects that he considers to be "refuse" (skybala) or objects that he viewed as loss (ezemiothen). It is clear that Paul is not saying he deemed "all things" in the cosmos to be skybala. One would be doing violence to 3:8 by construing the author's words that way. Rather, panta is not being used in an absolute sense at Philippians 3:8, yet there are other New Testament constructions that make the same point.

Besides 1 John 2:27, we encounter an interesting variant for 1 John 2:20 that appears in the KJV: "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." Concerning this epistolary verse, Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the NT) states:

"If the reading of the bulk of later manuscripts is correct, 'all things' would have to be taken as meaning all things necessary to salvation (v. 27). But it is probably better to accept pantes [rather than the neuter pural accusative panta] as original--'you all know.'"

Earle agrees that neither the variant of 1 John 2:20 nor 1 John 2:27 imply that the holy ones know "all things" or are taught concerning "all things" in an absolute sense. Why, then, should we hastily conclude that the apostles meant Jesus was omniscient simply because they attributed "great knowledge" to him in John 16:30? Compare Proverbs 28:5.

Brief Note on Pronunciation of Scriptural Terms (Somewhat Lighthearted)

"If you don't know how to pronounce a word, say it loud!" (William Strunk, Jr.)

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/pronounce

Those of us engaged in lots of public reading can sometimes either wonder how a certain biblical term is pronounced or we might insist that our way of saying a word is the only right way. I've also spoke with some friends who insist that words should be pronounced like they're read on the WT publications. But while I'm not denigrating the efforts that Witnesses have made to bring us numerous sources and Bible aids, I would humbly submit that pronunciation dogma is not a good thing.

Sure, we want to pronounce words correctly and to the best of our ability. However, there is usually more than one acceptable way to pronounce biblical terms. This post is meant to be lighthearted but educational. So I will conclude with some examples. How do you say Nisan, Jehoshaphat, Sanhedrin, Logos or Salome?

I've checked all of these words and you might have fun checking on their pronunciation as well.

I say "vahy-tuh-min," but you say "vit-uh-min." 😊

John E. Hartley Commentary on Job 38:7

From the New International Commentary on the Old Testament:

In various Near Eastern religions the morning stars were venerated as gods and goddesses. Many of them had an important role in the pantheon, esp. Venus. In this reference they are identifed among the sons of God, or angels, who were created by God for special service. In Gen. 1 the stars were created on the fourth day, but here they existed at the initial stages of creation. This apparent discrepancy indicates that “the morning stars” in this context is primarily a term that forms a synonymous parallelism with “the sons of God,” who, it is assumed, existed prior to the creation of the earth. It is, therefore, used metaphorically to refer to these heavenly creatures independent of the existence of the physical stars.