1 Timothy 5:22-23--Laying on of Hands and Wine

1 Timothy 5:22 (ESV): "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure."

The laying on of hands usually refers to the act of appointing persons to an office (like the office of presbyter). Scholars call 1 and 2 Timothy, the Pastoral Letters for a reason. Furthermore, commentaries usually point out that 1 Tim. 5:23 was echoed in other writings of the Greco-Roman world--it was apparently a common maxim for the time.

REV Commentary: "The laying on of hands describes the implementing of a leadership position in the Church; this verse falls in the context of eldership and moral requirements for leaders (see commentary on 1 Tim 5:24)."

REV Commentary for 1 Tim. 5:23: "Timothy had apparently tried to set a good example to the Ephesians by not drinking wine at all, in spite of the ill effects it had on him. Paul corrects him, and tells him to go back to drinking some wine. This should be a good lesson for leaders. It often happens that leaders want so badly for their congregation to live righteous lives that they abstain from things that never needed to be abstained from in the first place, but so many people were being abusive that the leader thought abstinence was the best course. While there are situations in which that is the case, it is usually better to teach people to obey God, which includes moderation in most things, and allow them to be responsible before the Lord for their own lives. It is often better to set the example that moderation is both godly and possible than to simply abstain."

1 John 2:2-3 and αὐτός

Greek: καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν.

ESV Translation: "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments."

NET Bible: "Now by this we know that we have come to know God: if we keep his commandments."

NET Note:

tn Grk “know him.” (1) Many take the third person pronoun αὐτον (auton) to refer to Jesus Christ, since he is mentioned in 2:1 and the pronoun αὐτός (autos) at the beginning of 2:2 clearly refers to him. But (2) it is more likely that God is the referent here, since (a) the assurance the author is discussing here is assurance that one has come to know God (all the claims of the opponents in 1:5-2:11 concern knowing and having fellowship with the God who is light); (b) when Jesus Christ is explicitly mentioned as an example to follow in 1 John 2:6, the pronoun ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) is used to distinguish this from previous references with αὐτός; (c) the καί (kai) which begins 2:3 is parallel to the καί which begins 1:5, suggesting that the author is now returning to the discussion of God who is light, a theme introduced in 1:5. The author will now discuss how a Christian may have assurance that he or she has come to know the God who is light.

I previously argued that αὐτός refers to Jesus Christ in 1 John 2:2-3. More specifically, αὐτόν and αὐτοῦ appear in 2:3. So what do other scholars write about the referent of the pronoun for 1 John 2:3?

Robertson's Word Pictures: Know we that we know him (γινοσκομεν οτι εγνωκαμεν αυτον — ginoskomen hoti egnōkamen auton). “Know we that we have come to know and still know him,” εγνωκαμεν — egnōkamen the perfect active indicative of γινωσκω — ginōskō The Gnostics boasted of their superior knowledge of Christ, and John here challenges their boast by an appeal to experimental knowledge of Christ which is shown by keeping his (αυτου — autou Christ‘s) commandments, thoroughly Johannine phrase (12 times in the Gospel, 6 in this Epistle, 6 in the Apocalypse).

Colin G. Kruse Pillar (NT Commentary):

The second question that needs to be answered is, To whom does the author refer when he speaks about knowing ‘him’? Is he referring to God the Father, or to Jesus Christ, his Son? To answer this question we need to look to the wider context. In 1:5–7 the author makes analogous statements. He writes: ‘God is light. . . . If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in darkness, we lie and do not put the truth into practice. But if we walk in the light … the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin.’ The author’s main concern here is with bogus claims to have fellowship with God. Jesus Christ, the Son, is introduced in a secondary way, as the one whose blood cleanses the sins of those who walk in the light as God is in the light. If we allow this pattern to guide us in the interpretation of 2:3, we will understand ‘him’ in this verse to denote God the Father. Such an approach is supported by the fact that later in this same chapter the author deals with the false claims of those who say they know God while holding inadequate opinions about his Son (cf., e.g., 2:22–23).
The third question to be answered is, What does the author mean by ‘his commands’? He uses the word ‘command’ (entolē) 14 times in 1 John. Sometimes it is found in singular form, other times in plural form. When he uses the singular form, it always refers explicitly to Christ’s command that his followers should love one another (2:7 [3x], 8; 3:23 [2x]; 4:21). The plural form occurs where there is no explicit reference to Jesus’ command (2:3, 4; 3:22, 24; 5:2, 3 [2x]), though in all but two of these references the context indicates clearly that Jesus’ love command is in mind. The exceptions are 2:3, 4, where the evidence that people know God is that they keep his commandments and walk as Jesus walked. At first sight this could be taken to refer to God’s law, especially the Ten Commandments, which Jesus observed during his incarnate life.42 But there is no hint elsewhere in the letter that the author is concerned about obedience to the Mosaic law.
And in 3:21–23 he speaks about God answering believers’ prayers because they obey his commands, and then continues: ‘and this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he has commanded us’ (3:23). God’s commands are that we believe in Christ and do what he commands, and this letter highlights Jesus’ command to love one another. It may be best, therefore, to interpret the reference to ‘his commands’ in this verse in that light also.
The thrust of 2:3, therefore, is that it is those who, like the readers, believe in Jesus Christ, God’s Son, and obey his command to love one another who truly know God. The secessionists who claim to know God but do not keep his command by implication do not know God.

ICC New Testament Commentary Regarding John 14:28

ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν. To this sentence theologians devoted close attention in the fourth century, but it would be out of place in a commentary on the Fourth Gospel to review the Arian controversy. It suffices to note that the filial relationship, upon which so much stress is laid in Jn., implies of itself that the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. There is no question here of theological subtleties about what a later age called the “subordination” of the Son, or of any distinction between His οὐσία and that of the Father. But, for Jn., the Father sent the Son (see on 3:17), and gave Him all things (see on 3:35). Cf. Mark 13:32, Php 2:6, 1 Corinthians 15:27, for other phrases which suggest that ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν is a necessary condition of the Incarnation. It is the same Person that says “I and my Father are one thing” (10:30), who speaks of Himself as “a man who hath told you the truth which I have heard from God” (8:40).1 See on 5:18, 32.

Table of Jehovah: A Brief Look at 1 Corinthians 10:21

1 Corinthians 10:21 (RNWT): "You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of 'the table of Jehovah' and the table of demons."

Strictly speaking, what is "the cup of Jehovah?" What is the table of Jehovah?

When considering the context of 10:21, it becomes immediately obvious that Paul specifically is focusing on the Lord's evening meal (Lord's supper). He is encouraging the 1st century Corinthians not to partake of the bread and wine at the Lord's evening meal while in an unclean state: don't partake of bread and wine while living immorally or worshiping idols. Idolatry seems to be the main idea behind "the table of demons." An anointed Christian cannot partake from both tables.

See 1 Cor. 10:16-21.

From Robertson's Word Pictures: Ye cannot (ου δυναστε — ou dunasthe). Morally impossible to drink the Lord‘s cup and the cup of demons, to partake of the Lord‘s table and the table of demons.

Of the table of the Lord (τραπεζης Κυριου — trapezēs Kuriou). No articles, but definite idea. Τραπεζα — Trapeza is from τετρα — tetra (four) and πεζα — peza (a foot), four-footed. Here table means, as often, what is on the table. See Luke 22:30 where Jesus says “at my table” (επι της τραπεζης μου — epi tēs trapezēs mou), referring to the spiritual feast hereafter. Here the reference is plainly to the Lord‘s Supper (Κυριακον δειπνον — Kuriakon deipnon 1 Corinthians 11:20). See allusions in O.T. to use of the table in heathen idol feasts (Isaiah 65:11; Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 16:18.; Ezekiel 23:41). The altar of burnt-offering is called the table of the Lord in Malachi 1:7 (Vincent).

Vincent's Word Studies:

The cup of devils

Representing the heathen feast. The special reference may be either to the drinking-cup, or to that used for pouring libations.

The Lord's table

Representing the Lord's Supper. See 1 Corinthians 11:20sqq. The Greeks and Romans, on extraordinary occasions, placed images of the gods reclining on couches, with tables and food beside them, as if really partakers of the things offered in sacrifice. Diodorus, describing the temple of Bel at Babylon, mentions a large table of beaten gold, forty feet by fifteen, standing before the colossal statues of three deities. Upon it were two drinking-cups. See, also, the story of “Bel and the Dragon,” vv. 10-15. The sacredness of the table in heathen worship is apparent from the manner in which it is combined with the altar in solemn formulae; as ara et mensa. Allusions to the table or to food and drink-offerings in honor of heathen deities occur in the Old Testament: Isaiah 65:11; Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 16:18, Ezekiel 16:19; Ezekiel 23:41. In Malachi 1:7, the altar of burnt-offering is called “the table of the Lord.”

Ephesians 6:10-17 and The Divine Panoply (Adaptation of a Talk)

All of Jehovah's people are engaged in a spiritual battle (Eph. 6:11-12). How can we win the fight against Satan and his demons? It is only by wearing the complete suit of armor from God.

Read Ephesians 6:11-13

We're locked in a struggle with "wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places." The apostle Paul describes our fight as one that involves hand-to-hand combat. Our fight is also spiritual rather than literal, but our enemies are no less real and deadly.

Young Christians have a difficult time in this battle because they seem vulnerable or may lack experience. However, the only way that any of us can win the struggle is by putting on the complete suit of armor from God (the divine panoply).

Part of this armor is mentioned in Ephesians 6:14-15 (Read)

Some essential components of our spiritual armor are truth, righteousness, and the good news of peace.

The truths we learn from God’s Word are compared to a belt that protects us from false teachings; God's righteous standards are like a breastplate that guards our figurative hearts (Proverbs 4:23). Moreover, as we acquire a clear understanding of the truths in God’s Word, we're able to defend those truths when we encounter opposers.​ Finally, preaching the good news of peace safeguards our feet as we courageously witness to others like Jesus and the apostles did.

Ephesians 6:16-17 discusses two other parts of our spiritual armor (Read)

What are the wicked one's burning arrows? They could include lies told by Satan that are meant to discourage us or make us slow down in our ministry: Satan tries to make Jehovah's people feel worthless. However, our faith can be like a protective shield if we do personal Bible study, prepare for the meetings, and heartily participate in them. Jehovah will then become real to us, not merely an abstract force.

In addition to the shield of faith, we need hope, our figurative helmet of salvation (1 Thessalonians 5:8). Hope keeps us focused on God’s promises and helps us see problems in the right perspective. But if we want our “helmet” to be effective, we must wear it on our head, not carry it in our hands.

Our final part of spiritual armor is the sword of God's spirit. Our ultimate goal is to become skilled at using God's word: some Christians have developed a list of verses to remember and share with others. Familiarity with the Bible helps us become adept at using it to defend truth and expose false teachings.

Can you identify each part of the armor from God?

Meditation question: Is my suit of armor complete?

1 John 2:28-29 (Who Is the Intended Referent?)

One of my interlocutors says:

Dear Edgar,

I have always felt comfortable taking both 1 John 2:28 and 2:29 of Christ. The work of the Father and the Son are a unity (2:22-24); so there is no difficulty for me in moving to the Father in 3:1.

I replied:

"1 John 2:25b-The antecedent of AUTOS is TWi PATRI (Note that this antecedent is the closest of two possible antecedents. The Father clearly seems to be in view also in light of Tit. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:1; 5:11-12, 20).

2:27-AUTOU refers to the Father."

Addendum: 1 John 2:28-AUTWi in 2:28 is not so clear: John appears to be switching referents here, and S.M. Baugh implies that AUTOS in this passage applies to the Son. A confusing aspect of this passage is that up to this point, John's discourse revolves around the Father. But his use of the Greek term PAROUSIA seems to indicate Christ Jesus is under discussion.

1 John 2:29-This passage is equally ambiguous, but seems to reference God the Father (EX AUTOU GEGENNHTAI).

Smalley writes:

We conclude that while the context and theology of v 29 suggest strongly that the subject of the first part of the sentence is Jesus, and that God is in mind throughout the second half, there is perhaps a measure of deliberate ambivalence in both instances. The Johannine emphasis on the completeness of God’s self-disclosure in Jesus (cf. John 1:18) means that the writer of 1 John could describe both the Son and the Father not only as “righteous,” but also as the author of regeneration (cf. Westcott, 83).

Smalley, Dr. Stephen S. 1, 2, and 3 John, Volume 51: Revised (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4818-4821). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Smalley and D.E. Hiebert both cite Westcott as one scholar, who thinks the pronouns of vv. 28-29 refer to Christ. However, Hiebert observes:

This identification is less certain if verse 29 is accepted as beginning a new division. An obvious difficulty with this identification is that the New Testament nowhere explicitly speaks of believers as "born of Christ." In this letter they are referred to as "born of God" (3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4), and in John 3:8 as "born of the Spirit," but nowhere as "born of Christ." In 1 John 3:1-2 believers are expressly called "children of God." Bultmann suggested that there is a sudden change in the meaning of the pronoun in this verse, from Jesus to God.3 Marshall holds that the statement "He is righteous" refers to Christ but that the words "born of Him" refer to God the Father. "It was probably so self-evident to him and his readers that spiritual birth was from the Father that he was not conscious of gliding from one antecedent for autou? [check] (Christ, 2:28-29a) to another (God, 2:29b)."4 But such a shift of meaning in the pronominal designation within one sentence is not obvious. More probable is the view that both pronouns refer to God the Father. But this uncertainty as to the intended identity of his pronouns is characteristic of John. As Westcott remarks, "The true solution of the difficulty seems to be that when St John thinks of God in relation to men he never thinks of Him apart from Christ (comp. c. v. 20). And again he never thinks of Christ in His human nature without adding the thought of His divine nature."5

Trinitarians must always try to connect the Father and Son in some type of metaphysical unity. I disagree with Westcott's overall approach to the issue, but John's first epistle does contain many tricky pronominal references.

Did Jude Quote from Enoch Or from Other Non-Canonical Works?

Some of the books I've checked seem to argue that Jude possibly quotes from/alludes to 1 Enoch and The Assumption of Moses (verse 9) in his letter.

The work An Introduction to the New Testament by D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo points out that Jude "refers" to these non-canonical works. But Carson and Moo propose that Jude does not view either book as Scripture, although vs. 14 says Enoch "prophesied" about the Lord's coming. They believe: "Jude's reference to these texts implies nothing about his view of the books in which they are found" (694). Even if Jude reckons that some of the information in either Enoch or the Assumption is true, that does not mean he considers everything in either work to be true. He may be just using a familiar source (695).

In De Principiis III.2.1, Origen of Alexandria writes:

"We have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human race, inciting and instigating men to sin. And in the first place, in the book of Genesis, the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that the serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of Adam and Eve’s transgression."

Origen believes that Jude invoked The Ascension of Moses/Assumption of Moses when he mentioned the Devil having a dispute with Michael over the body of Moses. He may be correct or incorrect, but in either case, Jude's potential use of any non-canonical works should not make us doubt the book's inspired status. As as F.F. Bruce notes about Paul's use of Aratus in Acts 17, the apostle's intent differs greatly from the pantheistic sentiments of Aratus. The employment of an uninspired source does not indicate approval of the source's entire contents.

Galatians 5:19-21 (Zerwick-Grosvenor Notes)

Greek: φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, 20 εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, 21 φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις, ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. (SBLGNT)

Brief Note About the Difference Between Word and Concept

Another example of the difference between word and concept (Wort und Begriff) is "friend" as used in the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures. Only Abraham is called Jehovah's "friend" (lover), but other men and women clearly had a friendship with God (including Job), even if the Bible never utilizes the designation "friend" for them. See 2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23.

Of course, the Bible speaks of Jehovah loving Solomon and other humans in a broad sense (2 Samuel 12:24; Nehemiah 13:26), but just one person is identified as God's friend.

E.A. Speiser's Commentary Remarks for Genesis 31:42ff

the Awesome One of Isaac. The appellative (Heb. pahad) remains obscure. It may have here its customary sense of “fear,” in which case some reference to the Ordeal of Isaac (xxii) may be implicit; or it might be an altogether different term; cf. A. Alt, Der Gott der Vater, 1929, pp. 27 ff.

From Speiser, Anchor Bible Commentary on Genesis, page 247.

Craig Keener's Thoughts for Matthew 4:8-10 (Pages 86-7)

For the third temptation, the devil took Jesus “to a very high mountain” (v. 8). Again, this is visionary, so we should not expect to be able to identify a specific mountain in or near Israel. Nevertheless, “high” mountains do figure significantly in Jewish traditions (see Isa 40:9; Ezek 17:23; 20:40; 40:2; Bar 5:7). Two passages from intertestamental writings could be especially pertinent. The patriarch Levi describes a dream: “And I beheld a high mountain, and I was upon it” (T. Levi 2:5). A vision is explained to Enoch: “This high mountain which you have seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is his throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when he shall come down to visit the earth with goodness” (1 Enoch 25:3).
The devil showed Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor” (v. 8). Taking Jesus up to a high mountain, that he may see “all the kingdoms of the world,” may allude to Deut 34:1–4, where God showed Moses the length and breadth of the Promised Land. But the parallel is inexact, for the devil shows Jesus the kingdoms of the world, not the land of Israel, and offers to give them to him, not withhold them. We should understand these kingdoms as Gentile kingdoms, some of which have oppressed Israel and some, like the Roman Empire, that still do. The devil promises to give “all these” to Jesus. This is a dream offer for a would-be messianic leader of Israel itching to throw off the Gentile yoke. The language of the devil’s offer, “all these I will give you,” parallels the Testament of Job, in which the devil gains authority over all that Job owns (T. Job 8:1–3; 16:2).

Introduction to Ephesians (Adaptation of a Talk)

1) What is the sacred secret (τὸ μυστήριον)?

2) What is Jehovah's administration (οἰκονομίαν)?

3) How can each of us promote unity in Jehovah's organization today?

Eph. 1:8-9, the sacred secret involves the messianic kingdom ruled by Jesus Christ and his 144,000 co-rulers.

Mark 4:11 links the sacred secret with God's kingdom when Jesus there exclaims to his disciples: “To you the sacred secret of the kingdom of God has been given.”​

Compare Ephesians 3:4-6.

In a similar manner, Jehovah's sacred secret and his administration are intimately related. Continuing with Eph. 1:10, we read that Jehovah purposed . . . (read Eph. 1:10)

So what is this administration? It is God's arrangement for unifying all his intelligent creatures, both the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. This administration will carry out its objective in two stages. The first stage prepares the sacred congregation of anointed ones for life in heaven under Jesus Christ as their spiritual Head. This stage began at Pentecost 33 C.E. when Jehovah started to gather those who would rule with Christ in heaven. (Acts 2:1-4) Since the anointed have been declared righteous for life on the basis of Christ’s ransom sacrifice, they heartily accept their standing as “God’s children.”​—Rom. 3:23, 24; 5:1; 8:15-17.

The second stage of Jehovah's administration prepares those who will dwell in Paradise on earth under Christ’s Messianic Kingdom. The “great crowd” comprise the initial part of this group. (Rev. 7:9, 13-17; 21:1-5)

During the Thousand Year Reign, they will be joined by billions of resurrected ones. (Rev. 20:12, 13) Imagine how the resurrection will further demonstrate our unity! At the end of the thousand years, the “things on the earth” will be subjected to a final test. Those proving faithful will be adopted as earthly “children of God.”​—Rom. 8:21; Rev. 20:7, 8.

Both stages of God’s administration are concurrently developing today​—the heavenly and earthly parts.

Galatians 2:11-14 ( Adaptation of a Talk)

What lessons can we learn from Paul's inspired letter to the Galatians?

Read Galatians 2:11-13.

Did you notice why Peter refused to associate with his gentile brothers when circumcised Christians were around? Peter trembled at men, thereby giving way to the snare mentioned in Prov. 29:25. Despite his firsthand knowledge of Jehovah’s thinking on the matter, Peter feared the opinion of circumcised Jewish brothers from Jerusalem (men from James). So Paul resisted him face-to-face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην). What possibly accounted for Peter's fear of the men from James?

Ronald Y.K. Fung offers this suggestion:

Peter's "fear" may have been no more than a genuine concern lest he, who was head of the "home mission" work of the Jerusalem church (cf. 2:7), should appear to be (and be reported as) apostatizing from Judaism and thus prove a stumbling-block to those whom he was seeking to evangelize. But the actual term used ("he was afraid"; phoboumenos) suggests a rather stronger emotional reaction and makes it plausible that there was more to the message from James than was suggested above: if that message had also appealed to Peter's concern for the physical safety of the Jewish Christian churches in Judea, which were already in considerable jeopardy from nonChristian Jews (cf. 5:11; 6:12) as a result of the increasing rumors of Jewish Christian fraternizing with uncircumcised Gentiles in Antioch and Galatia, this would provide further explanation for Peter's behavior.

Whatever caused Peter's fear, Paul felt the need to correct Peter because he avoided the non-Jewish brothers when the circumcised brothers were around. How would Peter respond to Paul's strong counsel?

Please notice Galatians 2:14

Although Peter demonstrated the fear of man sometimes, he never forsook Jehovah or Jesus. For example, Peter publicly denied his Master, not just once, but three times. (Luke 22:54-62) Later, Simon Peter treated gentile Christians as if they were somehow less than circumcised Jewish Christians. But the apostle Paul did not tolerate such class distinctions in the congregation (compare James 2:1-4). Before Peter's conduct could spoil the brotherhood, Paul summoned up the necessary boldness to counsel Peter directly, that is, face-to-face--and he counseled Peter in front of all the brothers at Antioch. (Gal. 2:11-14)

How did Peter respond to Paul's strong rebuke? Did he take offense and decide to quit being a Christian?

We know that Peter seriously considered Paul’s counsel, applied it, and kept running in the race for life. See Proverbs 19:20. May we imitate his fine example.

Physis and Nature

I thought you might enjoy this tidbit from Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon. The information can be found under semantic domain 58.8:

"φύσις,εως f: the nature of something as the result of its natural development or condition--'nature.' τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς 'beings who by nature are not gods' Ga 4.8; θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως 'sharers in the divine nature' 2 Pe 1.4.

For languages in which there is really no ready equivalent to the lexical term 'nature,' it may be possible to render the expression in Ga 4.8 as 'beings who are really not gods,' and in 2 Pe 1.4 one may translate 'to share in what God is like' or 'to be like God in certain ways.'"

What the Word "Subsistence" Means in Trinitarian Lingo

I would say that "subsistencies" within a Trinitarian context means "divine persons." For a number of Trinitarians, subsistencies are persons and persons are subsistencies (a convertible proposition)--the denotation "person" for
subsistentia is a familiar one to those who have studied Latin theology.

In this regard, I notice that the Iconoclastic Council of 754 professes:

"They [the Nestorians] fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity."

The same council declared:

"If anyone shall not confess, according to the tradition of the Apostles and Fathers, in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost one godhead, nature and substance, will and operation, virtue and dominion, kingdom and power in three subsistencies, that is in their most glorious Persons, let him be anathema."

Another source (The Belgic Confession, Article 8) provides this understanding of the tripersonal deity:

Nevertheless, this [triune] distinction does not divide God into three, since Scripture teaches us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each has a distinct subsistence distinguished by characteristics—yet in such a way that these three persons are only one God.

It is evident then that the Father is not the Son and that the Son is not the Father, and that likewise the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.

We close with these observations from Calvin:

"But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence, - a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God. When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.13.6).

Species of Dualism: Substance Versus Hylemorphic Dualism

I believe that dualism is false, but to be fair, not all dualistic thought belongs to the same genus. There are various species of dualism such as substance dualism, emergent dualism, and property dualism. Edward Feser even speaks of hylomorphism in dualistic terms, calling it "hylemorphic dualism" (also spelled hylomorphic). So what is the difference between substance dualism and the other dualistic variants?

The most famous advocate of substance dualism has to be Rene Descartes (1596-1650 CE), a French philosopher known as "the father of modern philosophy." Cogito, ergo sum is likewise forever anchored to our memory of Descartes. That famous dictum sheds light on one aspect of Cartesian dualism (substance dualism). Why is that the case? Because Descartes proposes two substances that exhaust creaturely reality: res extensa and res cogitans.

Res extensa refers to extended substance (which is unthinking and exemplified by material substances), and res cogitans refers to thinking substance (soul or mind). In classical thought, a substance is a thing that bears properties, but cannot be borne as a property itself. For example, a table is capable of bearing properties that might include color, molecularity, being made of wood, having legs, and it bears the property of extension. On the other hand, res cogitans is non-extended, mental, incorporeal, and rational. Descartes contends that God creates both res extensa and res cogitans; however, God himself is transcendent and uncreated substance--the supreme being.

In contrast to substance dualism, hylomorphism submits that material objects constitute matter and form unities: for example, the matter of a tree is united with the form of treeness to comprise one hylomorphic compound. By "matter" (hyle), Aristotle possibly signifies the "stuff" out of which a material object is composed; on the other hand, "form" (morphe) denotes what an object is. It signifies the essence or substance of a material object. A tree is material or physical, but its treeness presumably is not. In any event, hylemorphic dualism is not the same as substance dualism.

See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/03/variant-kinds-of-dualism-kevin-corcoran.html

Compare https://www.newdualism.org/papers/D.Oderberg/HylemorphicDualism2.htm

Some Thoughts on Proverbs 9:10

James Moffatt's OT: "To know the Deity is what knowledge means."

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible: "The beginning of wisdom, is the reverence of Yahweh, and, the knowledge of the Holy, is understanding"

Roland Murphy and Elizabeth Huwiler: Verse 10 is a key statement for understanding verses 7–12. Holy One is literally the plural (of majesty) as in 30:3b. Knowledge of the Holy One is a definition of fear of the LORD. As always, knowledge is practical, active, and reverent.

Jewish Encyclopedia Entry for "Fear of God": "The Hebrew equivalent of "religion." It is the mainspring of religion, morality, and wisdom, and is productive of material prosperity and well-being. Who fears God will refrain from doing the things that would be displeasing to Him, the things that would make himself unworthy of God's regard."

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6045-fear-of-god

Luke T. Johnson's Remarks About Luke 17:21

The kingdom of God is among you: This saying is unique to Luke and has been interpreted in several ways. The critical problem is the understanding of entos hymon. Some read this as "within you" as though the rule of God were a spiritual awareness. This fits the sense of the Greek adverb (cf. e.g., Matt 23:26), but it does not do as well with the plural pronoun "you," or the narrative context of Luke, in which such a statement to the Pharisees would be unthinkable. The present translation follows the majority opinion that the adverb entos with the plural pronoun should have the sense of "among you." This makes good sense of the narrative context: Jesus tells the Pharisees that the kingdom is forming around the prophet even in their midst, yet they cannot see it for what it is.

Source: Luke T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (Sacra Pagina Series), page 263.

Cindy L. Westfall Explains the Aorist Qua Default "Tense"

Victor Hamilton on Exodus 34:27-28

If Moses is the writer referred to in v. 27, the Lord must be the subject referred to in v. 28b. There are several reasons for this (Moberly 1983: 103). First, in “he was there . . . he ate . . . he drank . . . he wrote,” one might expect that because the first three subjects of the verb are Moses, then more than likely Moses is also the subject of the fourth “he.” This is not necessarily so. Hebrew can shift the subject of third-person verb within the same sentence without clearly indicating so, such as we observed in 34:5 (see comments there). Second, making the Lord the subject of the verb in v. 28b makes the claim of that verse consistent with 34:1 (and with Deut. 10:4). Otherwise, there is a blatant inconsistency between the identity of the writer of the Decalogue in 34:1 and 34:28b. Third, in v. 27 the Lord tells Moses to write down “these words” (2x), while v. 28 uses other phraseology, “the words of the covenant—the Ten Words.” If Moses is the writer in v. 28b, then one would expect the language to echo v. 27, that is, “And he [Moses] wrote these words.” Fourth, the note in v. 28a (Moses’s forty-day fast) would more than likely have followed v. 28b rather than preceded it, if Moses were the writer in v. 27 and 28b. Why break up two references to the same author’s scribal activities through this parenthetical remark?

See Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary.