Ezekiel 41:11 and the Temple Vision

Hebrew (Leningrad Codex): וּפֶ֤תַח הַצֵּלָע֙ לַמֻּנָּ֔ח פֶּ֤תַח אֶחָד֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ הַצָּפֹ֔ון וּפֶ֥תַח אֶחָ֖ד לַדָּרֹ֑ום וְרֹ֙חַב֙ מְקֹ֣ום הַמֻּנָּ֔ח חָמֵ֥שׁ אַמֹּ֖ות סָבִ֥יב ׀ סָבִֽיב׃

Ezekiel's temple vision is one of the most fascinating accounts in the Bible to me--it raises numerous questions and there is so much to learn from the vision. I've often tried to envision just what the prophet saw although our Pure Worship publication supplied some help.

NET: "There were entrances from the side chambers toward the open area, one entrance toward the north, and another entrance toward the south; the width of the open area was 8¾ feet[a] all around."

Ftn: tn Heb “5 cubits” (i.e., 2.625 meters).

The NA Commentary on Ezekiel (Lamar E. Cooper, Sr.) makes these remarks:  "The base extended away from the building for five cubits on every side (v. 11). Behind the temple was another building seventy by ninety cubits with a wall five cubits thick (v. 12). The exact function of this building is unknown (see Figs. 2 and 3),42 although it has been associated with the parbar (“court”) of 1 Chr 26:18, which probably was an open area. This open area may have been in front of the building, or it may refer to the open area of the large room inside the building, whose purpose is unclear."

2 Corinthians 1:9-'the God who raises up the dead"

Greek (NA28)-2 Corinthians 1:9: ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τὸ ἀπόκριμα τοῦ θανάτου ἐσχήκαμεν, ἵνα μὴ πεποιθότες ὦμεν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς νεκρούς·

In 2 Corinthians 1:8, after a discussion about Jehovah being the God of all comfort and the Father of tender mercies (1:3-4), the inspired apostle then recounts how that he and his co-workers faced perilous danger when they first entered Asia Minor. It sounds like Paul and his fellow laborers nearly died, but this happened with God's permission. Yet why did he allow them to hover over the abyss of death?

In order that their trust might be ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ἐγείροντι τοὺς νεκρούς

What does this part of the verse signify? Here are some possibilities.

Alfred Plummer (2 Corinthians in the ICC Series, page 19):



Ben Witherington III (2 Corinthians): "There is some question as to how we should translate apokrima in 1:9. The word occurs nowhere else in the NT. In secular Greek it refers to a decree, verdict, or decision that settles a matter.4 Here we are told that it was a decree or verdict of death. But Paul says that he has received this verdict within himself, which leads to the suggestion that he is talking about some sort of illness. He knows that there is no cure, short of resurrection, for the terminal illness by which all, as fallen creatures, die. He believes in a God who raises the dead and so is able to talk of hope beyond and triumphing over death, not of a hope that seeks somehow to bypass death. Paul acquired this death sentence in himself (cf. the 'thorn in the flesh' in 12:7) so that he would not trust in his own strength but in God who raises the dead. But Paul has received a stay of execution. He has been rescued from imminent danger in Asia (1:8, 10), and he believes that ultimately God will rescue him, and so he fixes his hope on God. In v. 11 he speaks of the partnership he and the Corinthians have. They can both pray and give thanks for one another."

Despite making different things their focus, both commentators agree that Paul is referencing the God who raises up the dead. That precious resurrection gives us hope and keeps Christians steadfast especially when enduring severe trial. 

Greek Information of the Day: Intensive Particles (Quote From Blackwelder)

Note the strong inferential force of dē with the aorist imperative denoting urgency in I Corinthians 6:20, “For you were bought with a price: now [or indeed, really, by all means therefore] glorify God in your body.” Findlay points out that the command to glorify God in, not with, the body, makes it the temple wherein each man serves as priest.[135] “Paul’s argument stands four-square for the dignity of the body as the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit united to the Lord Jesus.”[136]
The most common intensive particle in the New Testament is men. Its original function was “emphatic confirmation of single words, usually the weightiest word in the sentence.”[137] It may be translated surely, indeed, in truth, and the like. Sometimes men has a concessive force (e.g., II Cor. 11:4, “For if indeed he that comes proclaims another Jesus”), and there are instances where it implies contrast. “Its most common usage is to help differentiate the word or clause with which it occurs from that which follows.”

Blackwelder, Boyce W. Light from the Greek New Testament (Kindle Locations 2612-2623). Reformation Publishers. Prestonsburg, KY. Kindle Edition.

Words of the Month (December 2023)

1. The English word "agglutination" may denote the "Combination in which root words are united with little or no change of form or loss of meaning" (Webster Dictionary, 1913).

Definition given by AI: "Agglutination is a linguistic term that refers to languages where words are made up of easily distinguishable units, or morphemes. The meaning of a word in an agglutinative language can be understood by breaking it down into its base word and word endings"

Compare the Turkish word ev-ler-du ( evlerdu = from the houses). Here, the word contains a stem and two further morphemes.

See http://www.ello.uos.de/field.php/Morphology/AgglutinatingIncorporatingAndInfixingLanguages

2. Anomalous monism (English)-Collins Dictionary gives this definition: "the philosophical doctrine that although all mental states consist merely in states of the brain, there exist no regular correspondences between classes of mental and physical states, and so no psychophysical laws"

This terminology was first proffered by Donald Davidson in 1970: anomalous monism implies that mental states or events are reducible to physical states or events.

3. σοφία (Greek)-A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Abbott-Smith) defines the word thus: "[in LXX chiefly for chokmah] skill, intelligence, wisdom, ranging from knowledge of the arts and matters of daily life to mental excellence in its highest and fullest sense"

See the entry for sophia to access the entire definition given in A-S; compare BDAG.

Remain Humble and Modest Before Jehovah (Modified Talk)

There is one indispensable quality that all servants of Jehovah need--that is humility. In addition to humility, we also need to be modest or aware of our limitations. King Saul was initially humble and modest, but did he remain that way?

Jehovah picked Saul as the first human king of Israel, yet how did he react to this divine selection? Let's notice Saul's reaction in 1 Samuel 9:21 (read)

Was Saul humble and modest at the outset? Yes, since he referred to his family as insignificant and the smallest tribe in Israel. Saul displayed lowliness of mind, and he was aware of his limitations. 1 Samuel 10:20-22 confirms this point. (read)

When Saul was officially selected, where was he? He was "hiding himself among the luggage." Why did he do this? Saul was humble and modest at first: he did not assume more responsibility despite being chosen by Jehovah through the prophet Samuel. However, did Saul remain humble and modest? He did not but later displayed presumptuous and undue pride. This ancient king is a warning example for us today: he illustrates how we must always work on being humble and modest.

However, as long as Saul relied on Jehovah, he kept a proper estimation of himself. For example, he did not act rashly when others unfairly criticized him. Let's read 1 Samuel 10:27.

Who criticized Saul. The scripture says it was "worthless men." How did Saul react to their unjust criticisms? He refused to answer or respond in kind. 1 Samuel 11:12-13 further illustrates how Saul viewed criticism.

So did Saul take undue criticism to heart? No, he did not, and the reason why is because he was humble and modest. Saul refused to punish Israelites who spoke out against his kingship even though he could have felt justified in defending his God-given position, and when he defeated the Ammonites, to whom did he direct the credit? Saul gave credit to Jehovah. What humility he first displayed.

One other way that Saul showed humility and modesty is mentioned in 1 Samuel 11:5-7 (read)

Saul followed the leadings of Jehovah's spirit. Did you notice the courage he displayed because the spirit of Jehovah empowered Saul and he humbly followed the spirit's leadings? What a good start that Saul had; he should have continued to show humility and modesty.

[picture and discussion]

Humility will help us view our privileges and abilities as gifts from Jehovah. (Romans 12:3, 16; 1Corinthians 4:7) Also, if we are humble, we will continue to rely on Jehovah for guidance.

May we start and then remain humble and modest before Jehovah.

Sketching Infinity: The Makings of a Book?

I may never write a book on infinity, but these are some of my meditations in sketch form:

A Relatively Short History of Infinity (Greek Thought)

1) Etymology and background of the word/concept "infinity" in Greek

2) intensive infinity

3) extensive infinity

4) negative infinity

5) potential infinity

6) actual infinity

7) conceptual problems

8) an infinite God

9) transfinite math

10) infinite sets

11) an infinite past?

https://www.google.com/search?q=types+of+infinity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab http://factmyth.com/factoids/there-are-different-types-of-infinity/

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003

Scriptures for Encouragement and Support

1) Isaiah 33:24; 35:1-5; 41:10-13; 43:1-7; 59:1.

2)  Psalm 23:1-6; 34:19; 41:1-3; 56:8; 68:19; 145:14, 18; Job 14:13-14.

3) Matthew 11:28-30; Revelation 21:3-5; Deuteronomy 31:6; Hebrews 13:4-6;

4) 2 Corinthians 1:1-9; 4:7-10, 16-18; 7:4-7; 12:9-10.

5) Philippians 4:6-9; 1 Chronicles 7:20-22; 1 Peter 5:6-7; James 5:11.

Matthew 6:9-15--Is Calling It the "Model Prayer" Wrong?

Some places on the Internet where Matthew 6:9-15 is called the "model prayer":

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A5-15&version=NKJV

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/model-prayer

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A9-13&version=HCSB

https://www.newcovenantgj.org/the-model-prayer/

https://bible.org/seriespage/3-paternoster-model-prayer-matthew-69-15

Numerous examples here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34&q=matthew+6+%22model+prayer%22&btnG=

Acts 1:3 and the The Hapax Legomenon, "Infallible Proofs"

Acts 1:3-Greek (NA28): Οἷς καὶ παρέστησεν ἑαυτὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν αὐτὸν ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις, δι’ ἡμερῶν τεσσεράκοντα ὀπτανόμενος αὐτοῖς καὶ λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ·

Louw-Nida: " 'by many convincing proofs he showed himself alive after his death' Ac. 1:3. In a number of languages 'convincing proof' is rendered as 'that which causes one to know for sure' or 'with certainty' " (Semantic Domain 28.45).

BDAG Greek-English Lexicon: τεκμήριον, ου, τό ⟦tekmḗrion⟧ (Aeschyl., Hdt., Thu.+) that which causes someth. to be known in a convincing and decisive manner, proof (demonstrative proof: Aristot., An. Pr. 70b, 2; Rh. 1357b 4; 1402b 19; Diod S 17, 51, 3 τεκμήρια τῆς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γενέσεως; SIG 867, 37 μέγιστον τεκμήριον w. ref. to Artemis; 685, 84; PGiss 39, 9) ἐν πολλοῖς τεκμηρίοις by many convincing proofs Ac 1:3 (DMealand, ZNW 80, ’89, 134f [Hell. reff.]; cp. Jos., Ant. 5, 39 διὰ πολλῶν τεκμηρίων.— τεκ. used w. παραστῆσαι Jos., Ant. 17, 128. Cp. Libanius, Or. 18, 13 τὸ τῆς φύσεως βασιλικὸν πολλοῖς καὶ μεγάλοις τεκμηρίοις ἐμηνύετο=his regal nature was attested by many exceptional signs).—DELG. M-M.

Herodotus writes:

[2.13.1] "This, too, that the priests told me about Egypt, is a strong proof : when Moeris was king, if the river rose as much as thirteen feet, it watered all of Egypt below Memphis. Moeris had not been dead nine hundred years when I heard this from the priests. But now, if the river does not rise at least twenty-six or twenty-five feet, the land is not flooded."

[The Histories, 2.13.1] ἔλεγον δὲ καὶ τόδε μοι μέγα τεκμήριον περὶ τῆς χώρης ταύτης οἱ ἱρέες, ὡς ἐπὶ Μοίριος βασιλέος, ὅκως ἔλθοι ὁ ποταμὸς ἐπὶ ὀκτὼ πήχεας τὸ ἐλάχιστον, ἄρδεσκε Αἴγυπτον τὴν ἔνερθε Μέμφιος: καὶ Μοίρι οὔκω ἦν ἔτεα εἰνακόσια τετελευτηκότι ὅτε τῶν ἱρέων ταῦτα ἐγὼ ἤκουον. νῦν δὲ εἰ μὴ ἐπ᾽ ἑκκαίδεκα ἢ πεντεκαίδεκα πήχεας ἀναβῇ τὸ ἐλάχιστον ὁ ποταμός, οὐκ ὑπερβαίνει ἐς τὴν χώρην.

Additionally, Sophocles pens these words in one of his plays:

Clytemnestra states:

"No, not in vain; how can you say 'in vain' when you have brought me sure proofs of his death?" (Soph. Electra 774)

Greek: οὔτοι μάτην γε: πῶς γὰρ ἂν μάτην λέγοις, εἴ μοι θανόντος πίστ᾽ ἔχων τεκμήρια
προσῆλθες

Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the New Testament, page 97) commenting on Acts 1:3: "Infallible Proofs--This is one word in Greek, tekmeriois--a strong term (only here in the NT). J. R. Lumby says, 'A tekmerion is such an evidence as to remove all doubt.' "

In the final analysis, Earle cites "convincing proofs" (NASB, NIV) as a suitable rendering for tekmeriois.

The Amplified Bible prefers "unquestionable evidence" and another possibility is
"indubitable proof." The word's semantic range allow for this rendering. In the context of Acts 1:3, "unquestionable" or "indubitable" seems to be a good choice. The apostles are being shown signs that will make them suitable witnesses of Christ throughout the earth (Acts 1:8). Surely they would have needed strong proof to be convinced and to persuade others.

Another consideration here is the Classical usage of tekmerion. When consulting LSJ, I found that tekmerion was variously defined as "sure proof" or "strong proof" as well as "evidence." The word seems to have strong connotations of evidence that is undeniable. 

The Cambridge Greek Lexicon: τεκμήριον ου η.

1 sure sign or principle, criterion (for adopting a particular course of action) A.

2 piece of evidence seen or heard, sign, evidence, proof (of sthg.) Hdt. Trag. Men.

3 evidence from facts or logic, evidence, proof (of sthg.)

Hdt. Trag. Th. Ar. Att.orats. +

4 evidence which constitutes proof in a logical argument, necessary sign Arist.

Proverbial Sayings in the Epistles of Paul?

I wrote these thoughts some years ago, but I've since found reason to believe that my question could be answered in the affirmative now. 

This may be an off the wall question, but I've often wondered if the apostle Paul used sayings that were rooted in Roman proverbs or common maxims. After all, we know that everyday proverbs from the ancient world are found in his writings (see 1 Corinthians 15:33; 1 Timothy 6:9-10), but when I read classical Latin, there are times when the language reminds me of Paul's letters. E.g., "me miseram" ("wretched woman that I am!"). Compare Romans 7:24 (Vulgate): "infelix ego homo" or "O frustra, inquit, mihi suscepti labores!" which can be translated "O that in vain, he said, my labors have been undertaken." Think of how Paul refers to "toiling in vain."

What's In a Word? Trying to Define An Oft-Used Term

Linguists try to discern what a "word" is. For instance, George Yule thinks that we're probably better off talking about "linguistic forms" or lingual elements rather than words: he suggests that "word" is a slippery concept (See Yule, The Study of Language).

D.A. Black maintains: "The WORD has yet to be given a satisfactory universal definition. People sometimes assume that a word is recognizable because it represents a 'whole thought' or a 'complete thing.' But this view is clearly wrong when one looks at the lack of correspondence between words from different languages."

He then goes on to illustrate this point by referring to the "best-known definition" of "word" that was put forth by Leonard Bloomfield, namely, "a minimal free form." But Black insists that even this definition is not that helpful when we are dealing with non-English languages. He then makes a distinction between the spoken and written word (See his work Linguistics for Students of NT Greek, pp. 57-58).

However one may choose to define "word," when studying Greek, it is good to remember that we want to advance beyond words to sentences, phrases, clauses, paragraphs and whole discourses. In this way, one can begin to get the sense of the words. 

1 Peter 1:8 (Parsing, Syntax and Semantics)

Greek: ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε, εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλλιᾶτε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ,

"Whom having not seen, you love: in whom also now though you see him not, you believe and, believing, shall rejoice with joy unspeakable and glorified" (1 Peter 1:8 New Advent Translation)

It's an okay translation, but the rendering would be more idiomatic if the NAT constructed the English syntax differently. I believe the translation strives to mirror the original Greek structure/order. Nevertheless, I want to parse some of the words in 1 Peter 1:8 to see what points we can learn from Peter's correspondence with first-century Christians living in Asia Minor.

ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε-We begin with an accusative singular form of the relative pronoun ὅς: translate "Whom" as NAT does or use "him." This pronoun is the direct object of ἀγαπᾶτε and it's apparently the object of the aorist participle (P.J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, page 102): the pronominal term ὃν refers to the Lord Jesus in 1 Peter 1:7.

Contrariwise, I like how the ESV, NWT and other translations add the idea of concession for this part by using "Although" or "Though." That is a good way of handling οὐκ + the aorist active participle. Furthermore, the action delineated by ἰδόντες is likely antecedent to the action delineated by ἀγαπᾶτε.

Why is οὐκ and not μὴ employed with ἰδόντες here? See Achtemeier, page 103. 

Despite not having seen Jesus, these first-century followers of Christ still believed in the Son of God and rejoiced with ineffable joy over their faith in him. In the last part of 1 Peter 1:8, NAT translates "with joy unspeakable and glorified." The Greek is χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ

χαρᾷ is dative singular feminine of χαρά; ἀνεκλαλήτῳ is equally dative singular feminine of ἀνεκλάλητος. Finally, δεδοξασμένῃ is perfect passive participle dative singular feminine of δοξάζω.

ἀνεκλάλητος-"ineffable, unspeakable, inexpressible"

δοξάζω-"glorify, praise, honor" (Mounce)

These Christians could say regarding Jesus, "though we never personally met you, we believe in and love you."



 

1 Corinthians 15:53 in the NLT

"For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies" (1 Corinthians 15:53 NLT).

This rendering is a stretch in my opinion. The text does not actually say that mortal bodies will be changed to immortal bodies. Rather, mortality itself (a mortal body) is replaced with immortality itself. What immortality means should be ascertained from the context, not read into the passage. Secondly, if Paul said that immortality would be "put on" then how does this proclamation affect the belief in immortal souls? What an interesting biblical chapter.

I'm not denying the Pauline teaching that Christians will undergo a change from humiliated bodies to glorified bodies, which Phil 3:20-21 explicitly states and Corinthians certain indicates. But what terms, syntax or concepts in the text lead us to the NLT translation of 1 Cor 15:53?

Greek Word of the Day: συντάσσω

Greek word of the day: συντάσσω. Some definitions for this word are "to put in order together, to draw up, to put in array" (LSJ).

See Herodotus, "The Histories" 7.78.

BDAG Entry:  συντάσσω ⟦suntássō⟧ fut. 3sg. συντάξει LXX; 1 aor. συνέταξα, mid. συνεταξάμην (Sus 14 Theod.; Papias [2:16]); pf. συντέταχα Job 38:12. Pass.: 2 aor. ptc. gen. συνταγέντος Da 11:23; pf. 3 sg. συντέτακται LXX (Hdt. et al.; TestSol 22:11 B; TestAbr B 5 p. 109, 19f [Stone p. 66]; Jos., Ant. 3, 213; 7, 305 al.; Just., Tat.) 1 to direct that someth. be done in an explicit fashion, order, direct, prescribe (X., Cyr. 8, 6, 8; Polyb. 3, 50, 9; ins [e.g. IAndrosIsis, Kyme 14 of origins of paths for sun and moon], pap, LXX) τινί ( for) someone (PEdg 10 [=Sb 6716], 2 [258/257 b.c.] Ἀμύντου μοι συντάσσοντος) Mt 21:6 (προστάσσω v.l., cp. 1:24); 26:19; 27:10 (cp. Ex 37:20; 40:19; Num 27:11 al.; RPesch, Eine ATliche Ausführungsformel im Mt, BZ 10, ’66, 220–45). 2 to arrange various parts in an organized manner, organize Ματθαῖος … Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λογία συνετάξατο M … . organized the sayings in Hebrew (i.e., some form of Aramaic) Papias (2:16).—M-M.

The Latin Pluperfect Passive Indicative and the Latin Vulgate

Latin forms the pluperfect passive indicative by compounding the perfect passive participle with the imperfect tense of sum (the "to be" verb). Here are the principal parts of the verb, porto:

porto, portare, portavi, portatus ("carry").

Examples of the pluperfect passive indicative:

1) portatus eram ("I had been carried")-1st person singular
2) portati eramus ("We had been carried")-1st person plural

I've been looking for a scriptural example of the pluperfect passive indicative, and there may be one or more, but I've noticed that the Vulgate tends to translate Greek pluperfects with Latin participles or a form of the perfect. 

If you ever look into Latin pluperfects, it's good to know that some books call them, past perfects.

Dwell With Them According to Knowledge (1 Peter 3:7)

Greek: Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν, ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν, ὡς καὶ συγκληρονόμοις χάριτος ζωῆς, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν.

ESV: "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

There are two things in 1 Peter 3:7 that constitute the foci of this blog entry:

1) How is it possible for a Christian husband to dwell with his wife, κατὰ γνῶσιν?

2) What things might "hinder" a husband's prayers?

Craig Keener and other commentators locate this Bible passage within the context of the so-called Haustafeln ("household codes"). In 1 Peter 2:13-25, the apostle gives counsel to slaves, he provides counsel for how Christians should comport themselves in the midst of secular rulers, then one finds guidance for husbands and wives in 1 Peter 3:1-7. See Keener, 1 Peter: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021.

But how should one construe the language, Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν?

Charles Bigg explains the construction this way (The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, 154): " 'According to knowledge,' like wise and sensible men who understand the due gradations of honour. The Pauline sense of γνῶσις, in which it signifies the understanding of spiritual mysteries, is quite foreign to St. Peter. In the following words we observe the same elegant classicism as in i. 19."

Moreover, the Greek qualifies how a husband should live with his wife "according to knowledge," when it adds: ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν.

From the commentary quoted earlier that's written by Bigg, one learns that Peter apparently encourages husbands to show "consideration, wise guidance, marital helpfulness" (154). It seems that showing honor is part of dwelling with one's wife according to knowledge.

On the other hand, a husband's prayers could be hindered in two fundamental ways: 1) Maybe a man would not feel up to approaching God because of failing to give his wife due honor; 2) God might possibly not want to hear the prayers of a man, who does not show proper consideration for his wife. See Lamentations 3:44.

In the Sacra Pagina commentary by D.P. Senior for Peter's first epistle and some other letters, we read:

"The passive form of the infinitive implies that God is the one who would not hear the prayers of a husband who treats his wife without respect."

The passive infinitive appears in the part that gives the admonition, εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι.

Words of the Month (November 2023)

1. Luke 4:16 in the Latin Vulgate reads: et venit Nazareth ubi erat nutritus et intravit secundum consuetudinem suam die sabbati in synagogam et surrexit legere

I was curious about the word, nutritus, which one translation renders "brought up." The morphological form nutritus in Latin is a participle singular perfect passive masculine nominative of nutrior, which is a deponent verb.

According to the Dictionary of the Vulgate NT (page 80), the word in Luke 4:16 (Vg) could mean "nurse, rear" in this context.

2. "Isotropic" denotes "exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with the same values when measured along axes in all directions."

— isot·ro·py \ī-ˈsä-trə-pē\ noun
Origin of ISOTROPIC
International Scientific Vocabulary
First Known Use: 1856
From Merriam-Webster Online 

The universe is said to be isotropic.

3. Black box functionalism-"The mind is a black box, to be explained solely in terms of inputs and outputs. The internal workings of the mind, the black box, that transform the input into the output are internal, hidden from our view, and they are of no concern to the theory. Mental phenomena, such as pain, are reducible to the abstract information-processing functions of a black box. (Input-output plus internal information processing)."

See https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/users/philosophy/courses/100/eb9mich00n.htm#:~:text=Black%20Box%20functionalism%20(e.g.%20David,no%20concern%20to%20the%20theory.

How Jehovah Helps Materially Poor Ones (Modified Talk)

Poor ones or servants of Jehovah never have reason to be anxious because Jehovah sustained poor ones in ancient Israel and he continues to uphold the poor today (Galatians 2:10). However, in what ways does God help the poor among his servants today? Not to say that Jehovah ignores the poor of the world, but this entry will discuss God's relationship with his servants.

Firstly, Jehovah has taught his poor servants to have a balanced view of money. If we turn to Luke 12:15, notice how Jesus said we should view money.

After reading: did you notice the warning that Jesus gave? He said, "guard against every sort of greed"

Money is a protection;  while it makes a good servant, it is a poor master (Ecclesiastes 7:12). We preserve a balanced view of money by avoiding greediness and materialism (an inordinate desire for the things money can buy). As Paul writes in 1 Timothy 6:8, "So, having food and clothing, we will be content with these things."

Job 34:19 mentions a second way that Jehovah helps his materially poor servants (Read).

Jehovah has taught the poor to have respect for themselves, even if they are poor. He is not partial: Jehovah does not favor the rich over the poor. Is this not a comforting thought for servants of Jehovah, who have limited means? The poor and the rich are both creations of Jehovah. They are the work of his hands.

Secondly, Jehovah teaches the poor to work hard and avoid harmful habits. Proverbs 14:23 stresses the importance of hard work. Many people today feel that hard work is not for them: they refuse to do anything they consider to be menial or beneath them. Furthermore, it is easy to develop harmful habits like overdrinking or drug abuse. These practices can waste valuable resources and harm our health. Yet what does God's Word teach about such practices?

See Proverbs 20:1 about drunkenness and overdrinking and 2 Corinthians 7:1 can be applied to smoking and the use of illegal drugs: cleanse yourself of every defilement of flesh and spirit.

Another way that Jehovah helps the poor is by bringing them into a loving brotherhood. Read and apply John 13:35.

1 John 3:17-18 teaches Christians to help brothers and sisters in need: we can offer practical assistance like food and help with clothing. We should love in deed and truth, not just in word. The love we show for the poor is an expression of Jehovah's love and concern for the afflicted (Proverbs 19:17).

A final benefit to the poor is that Jehovah gives them hope. See Isaiah 65:21-23.

Conclusion

No matter how desperate our situation might become, we do not need to be anxious. (Isaiah 30:15; Philippians 4:6-7) Jehovah will care for our material needs as long as we continue to seek his Kingdom first.​—Matthew 6:31-33

King David, "a man according to" Jehovah's Heart

King Saul was told: "Jehovah hath sought for Himself a man according to His own heart, and Jehovah chargeth him for leader over His people, for thou hast not kept that which Jehovah commanded thee'" (1 Samuel 13:14, YLT).

King David was that person according to God's own heart. Additionally, he served YHWH (Jehovah) with a complete heart, one that was fully devoted to him. Yet if David was this kind of person, we may wonder how he could commit adultery with Bathsheba, hide the indiscretion, then have Uriah killed. How could a person so highly favored by God and devoted to him commit such unspeakable acts?

David clearly dropped his guard: he erred and acted detestably toward the Law of Jehovah (2 Samuel 12:9-10). Maybe he relied too much on himself or became confident in his own strength (compare 1 Corinthians 10:12). Whatever happened, the king was humble, penitent--yes, genuinely sorry for his errors when Jehovah's prophet brought it to his attention (2 Samuel 12:13). God looked beyond what David did, took into account his repentance, and reckoned David as righteous despite these sins. That divine forgiveness undoubtedly felt like water to one traveling in a parched desert (Acts 3:19). How this account emphasizes the richness of God's mercy and extent of his loyal love.

Louis Berkhof and the Knowledge of God (How to Know God)--Pros and Cons

Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) relates that the medieval Scholastics generally framed questions about God's Being in three primary ways, namely, An sit Deus? Quid sit Deus? and Qualis sit Deus? It is not important to concern ourselves with the first question since this post will assume that God exists. However, the second and third queries have more to do with our present discussion of theological language and religious episteme. (See Berkhof's Systematic Theology.)

Regarding the second and third questions, Berkhof explains that we apparently cannot fully understand God's innermost constitution (his quidditas), for it is impossible to fathom the Almighty as Zophar avers in the book of Job (Job 11:7-9). In this regard, Berkhof avers:

"Apart from the revelation of God in His attributes [Qualis sit Deus?], we have no knowledge of the Being of God whatsoever. But insofar as God reveals Himself in His attributes, we also have some knowledge of His Divine Being, though even so our knowledge is subject to human limitations" (Berkhof 43).

Berkhof appears to say that we can know God in the sense of qualis, but we cannot know God's quidditas, much less "comprehend" it. He then alludes to Martin Luther's distinction between Deus Revelatus who remains Deus Absconditus per essentiam and then Berkhof observes that Calvin believed the act of speculating on God's quiddity is futile, but we can have some knowledge of God's qualities or attributes. The systematic theologian concludes:

"While he [Calvin] feels that God cannot be known to perfection, he does not deny that we can know something of His Being or nature. But this knowledge cannot be obtained by a priori methods, but only in an a posteriori manner through the attributes, which he regards as real determinations of the nature of God. They convey to us at least some knowledge of what God is, but especially of what He is in relation to us" (43-44).

I have related Berkhof's comments and observations extensively, so I will not comment much further on the matter, but his account seems fairly clear and might even align with some things in the Bible. In other words, we humans evidently have some knowledge of God's attributes by virtue of His divine self-disclosure. However, if we are attuned to God's attributes, albeit imperfectly, then why can't we know "what God is" to a certain degree? Not utterly fathoming the Almighty is perfectly understandable, but to know nothing concerning God's whatness or quidditas seems highly problematic from a biblical standpoint.

Additionally, this view is seemingly at loggerheads with a divine revelation model that posits God disclosing himself in the act of special revelation. I admittedly need to do more work on God's simplicity and the implications that attend this doctrine. Nevertheless, I am not comfortable with equating God's essence and existence nor do I think that God and his attributes are all the same (i.e., that God is justice or mercy or that he is equivalent with patience). It seems that there is at least a "formal distinction" (distinctio formalis) between God and his attributes, then thinkers like Berkhof talk about the difference between God's communicable and incommunicable attributes..