Slight Absence

Greetings to all readers!

I haven't blogged much lately because of a minor illness. But I'm recovering now and should post something by this weekend. Hope everyone is doing well.

All the best,

Edgar

Lactantius on the "Brightness" of Divine Truth

Hello all,

This is taken from Divine Institutes 1.5.1 (Numbering based on Anthony Bowen and Peter Garnsey's Translation):

"the effect of the actual truth is too strong for even a blind man not to see divine brightness when it forces itself on his eyes."

Regards,

Edgar

Revelation 6:14-17 and Variant Readings

This passage could potentially be used by a Trinitarian and likely has been utilized to prop up the idea that Christ is Almighty God. It reads:

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great Day of His wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?" (21st Century KJV)

Notice the use of "His" in 6:17. But other translations contain the following lectio:

for the great day of their wrath is come; and who is able to stand? (ASV)

Either way, the verse does little to support Trinitarianism.

The NET Bible provides these remarks:

Most mss (A Ï bo) change the pronoun “their” to "his" (αὐτοῦ, autou) in order to bring the text in line with the mention of the one seated on the throne in the immediately preceding verse, and to remove the ambiguity about whose wrath is in view here. The reading αὐτῶν (autwn, "their") is well supported by א C 1611 1854 2053 2329 2344 pc latt sy. On both internal and external grounds, it should be regarded as original.

Two Ways to Argue for God's Existence

1) Logical evidence is limited in what it can prove regarding the existence of God. One reason is because of our limited experience with the material world and God.

Examples of logical arguments for God's existence are the ontological (Anselm of Canterbury and Descartes), cosmological (Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas) and teleological arguments. My favorite line of reasoning for God's existence is the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam argument says that everything which begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause. Now the cause of the universe is either personal or impersonal. But, based on what we know about how complex entities come into existence, it is plausible to believe that the universal cause of all things is personal.

2) Scientific arguments for God revolve around the universe's structure, its laws and constants. There are four basic physical forces that operate in the cosmos: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. It has been observed that if electromagnetism were significantly weaker, then electrons would not be combine with atoms to form molecules. Furthermore, if the four basic forces were not fine-tuned as they appear to be, life as we know it would not be possible.

3) One argument that I've used recently with atheists has been the moral argument for God's existence, which was developed quite effectively by Immanuel Kant and suggested by Fyodor Dostoevski. The gist of this argument is that one must believe in God to make sense of morals or ethics. If God does not exist, or if we do not at least believe in God, then there is no foundation for absolute morality. It's also hard to make sense of similar morals that exist in diverse cultures, if God does not exist.

Thomas F. Torrance on Divine "Father" Terminology

Torrance indicates that "Father" (a divine epithet for the Christian deity or first person of the tripersonal Godhead) is a relation rather than a description of God's essence or substance. He then continues:

"Hence Gregory Nazianzen like Athanasius insisted that they [the terms 'Father' and 'Son'] must be treated as referring imagelessly, that is in a diaphanous or 'see through' way, to the Father and the Son without the intrusion of creaturely forms or sensual images into God. Thus we may not think of God as having gender nor
think of the Father as begetting the Son or the Son as begotten after the analogy of generation or giving birth with which we are familiar among creaturely beings."

Quote taken from Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 158.

See Nazianzen's Orationes 29.16; 31.7, 31ff.

How to Arrive at the Truth Without an Infallible Body of Humans

How can we know (with a high degree of certainty) whether our understanding of the Scriptures is correct? I propose a threefold answer.

(1) Rely on what the Scriptures themselves say.

In Acts 17:10-12, Luke records that the Jews in Beroea were "more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica" because they not only received the apostolic witness eagerly, but they also "carefully examined the Scriptures daily" to verify the evangelical message of Paul and Silas.

Louw-Nida observe that the Greek term (ANAKRINW) can denote: "to try to learn the nature of truth of something by the process of careful study, evaluation and judgment--to examine carefully, to investigate, to study thoroughly" (See Semantic Domain 27.44). John B. Pohill also writes: "This was no cursory investigation either, no weekly Sabbath service, as at Thessalonica. They met daily to search the Scriptures" (Pohill 363). And what was the result? POLLOI MEN OUN EX AUTWN EPISTEUSAN.

Question: If we cannot reach a certain understanding of the Scriptures by consulting them and thoroughly studying them, then how did the Beroeans become believers through this method? Why didn't they need an infallible human authority to teach them the truth?

My next case example is Apollos. Luke says that this man "thoroughly proved the Jews to be wrong publicly, while he demonstrated by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (Acts 18:24-28).

Question: If sharing Scripture with a person who subscribes to a different interpretation only results in "biblical ping-pong," then how did Apollos prove the Jews to be wrong publicly? How did he "demonstrate" (EPIDEIKNUS) by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah if we can't prove anything by comparing Scripture?

(2)Though I believe the previously mentioned examples clearly show the fallacy of thinking that one cannot arrive at the true understanding of Scripture by consulting and comparing Scripture, as I mentioned hitherto, discussing Scripture is not the only way to attain truth. If we want to really understand God's will as set forth in Scripture, we must also offer ebullient and sincere prayers. The psalmist earnestly supplicated God: "Teach me to do as is acceptable to you, because you are my God. Your spirit is good; let it lead me over level ground" (Ps. 143:10 Byington). See also Ps. 43:3.

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ also taught us the way to comprehend Scripture. He encouraged humans to 'keep on asking, seeking and knocking' because "everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened" (Matt. 7:7-11 NWT). So diligent prayer is a second requisite for authenticating one's understanding of Scripture. But there is yet a third way.

(3) The Primitive EKKLHSIA also relied upon apostolic teaching and the older men and apostles in Jerusalem to accurately understand Scripture (Acts 2:40ff; 15:1ff). Today I believe one must be in frequent association with the organization God is using to fully perceive the Divine written Revelation. So, far from believing that studying Scripture is enough, I contend that the way to guarantee one's view of Scripture is correct is by employing the three methods I have delineated above. Study, meditate, pray and find the true Christian EKKHLSIA.

The Meaning of Aktionsart (K. L. McKay and Stanley Porter)

Here is part of an old dialogue written to a friend:

Keep in mind that different grammarians or linguists use the term Aktionsart in bewildering and disparate ways. But older grammars often employ Aktionsart as a reference to action that is delineated by the verbal stem.

Stanley Porter points out that K. Brugmann (in 1885) was the first writer who employed the German term Aktionsart to describe: "the kind of action indicated objectively by the verb" (Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the NT, Stanley Porter, 29). So when I talk about "kind of action" in this context, I mean action in terms of completed, durative, ingressive or conative (inchoative) activities that are objectively signaled by the respective verb stem (root + affix) or in some other fashion.

For example, K.L. McKay (when discussing the conative and inceptive use of the Greek present "tense") provides an example from Jn 10:32:

DIA POION AUTWN ERGON EME LIQAZETE: "for which of these deeds are you trying to stone me?"

McKay thinks that the present verb LIQAZETE in this passage, "has the effect of so emphasizing the incompleteness of the activity that the most natural English equivalent is try to do" in this case.

So in Jn 10:32 we evidently have an example of the conative present. Certain scholars would argue that the conative "kind of action" is signaled by the verbal stem (Aktionsart). Others would contend that we know LIQAZETE is conative present (imperfective aspect) in view of contextual features that mark the action of the verb (still referring to Aktionsart). I hope the example from Jn 10:32 helps you to see how Aktionsart is applied by graammarians and linguists.

Addressing Stuckenbruck's Treatment of Greek Pronouns

Loren T. Stuckenbruck, in Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (Tubingen: JCB Mohr, 1995),lists a number of biblical passages in which the singular Greek pronoun or third person singular verbs seem problematic.

He apparently concludes that the Lamb is being worshiped alongside God in a "monotheistic framework" when we encounter such usages. But I am not so sure the examples that he provides support his point. Let us examine Revelation 11:15 as a case example:

"The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and HE will rule as king forever."

Grammatically, John's use of BASILEUSEI ("will rule") could refer to God or Christ. Stuckenbruck thinks that it refers to both the Messiah and the Lord Almighty (Jehovah) as a unit. But grammar does not necessitate that we read the text in a Trinitarian manner. Furthermore, the context suggests that it is YHWH (the Father), who will rule as King forever and ever (Rev 11:16-17).

Even if one objects to the NWT's use of the Tetragrammaton in Rev 11:16-17, the surrounding verses still manifestly indicate that KURIE, hO QEOS or hO PANTOKRATWR takes up HIS great power and begins to rule as King through His Messiah, who clearly is not the Lord in this context.

Porter's "Three Planes of Discourse"

Stanley Porter is famous for the work he's done on Greek aspect. His Idioms of the Greek New Testament outlines the "three planes of discourse." I summarize Porter's discussion below; the full treatment of aspect prominence can be found in Idioms. I include the relevant bibliographical information at the conclusion of this post.

1. The aorist is supposedly the background tense: it's analogous to a bookshelf since the aorist "forms the basis for discourse" or it structures narratives and sketches background events.

2. Porter reckons that the present is the foreground tense. It is analogous to one shelf rather than the whole bookshelf. Present tense verbs evidently introduce significant characters within narratival material and they make "appropriate climactic references" to particular circumstances.

3. Finally, the perfect is the frontground tense. It's comparable to a book. This tense introduces elements of a narrative in "an even more discrete, defined, contoured and complex way." See how the perfect functions in Matthew 4:2 (epeinasen).

Robertson thinks that the aorist verb in Matthew 4:2 functions ingressively.

Stanley Porter. Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 23ff.

The Didache, Fasting and Prayer

Taken from Didache 8:

But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever.

Pray this three times each day.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Comparing the Tenses of Matt 24:45-47 and Lk 12:41-44

Matthew 24:45 uses the Greek verb κατέστησεν to describe Jesus' appointment of the faithful and discreet slave. But καταστήσει appears in Luke 12:42.

So the Apostle Matthew employs the aorist indicative tense while Luke conscripts the future καταστήσει. Why is there a difference in tenses between the two Gospels? Is the difference substantive?

Regarding the aorist, modern studies in New Testament Greek now tell us that the aorist does not necessarily signify that an action is performed once for all time. The punctiliar nature of an act is derived from the context of a verse and not the aorist tense alone. The aorist is an example of what grammarians and linguists call, perfective aspect. What this means is that the writer (in this case, Matthew) evidently visualizes and subsequently presents the action described by the verb (aorist form) as an undivided whole, without much concern for the progression of the action or its telicity.

A reader can discern whether an action delineated by the aorist is punctiliar or otherwise by taking note of contextual or other linguistic features (also known as affected vs. unaffected meaning). As a side point, some grammarians classify the aorist as external rather than perfective aspect.

Daniel B. Wallace ("Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics," page 501) also classifies the future tense as perfective or "external" (his terminology) aspect. If this is the case, then it would apparently mean that there is no theological significance in Luke employing the future instead of the aorist form of the verb. I think the result is the same, regardless of which morphological formation the writer used. Both writers portray Jesus as appointing the faithful and discreet slave, then augmenting his authority once the Master arrives (see Luke 12:44).

Notes on the Aorist Participle (Luke 10:18)

Edited on 8/10/18.

Ernest De Witt Burton writes regarding aorist participles on page 67 of his syntax (section 146):

"The Aorist Participle used as an integral part of the object of a verb of perception represents the action which it denotes as a simple event without defining its time. The action may be one which is directly perceived and hence coincident in time with that of the principal verb, or it may be one which is ascertained or learned, and hence antecedent to the action of the principal verb. In the latter case it takes the place of a clause of indirect discourse having its verb in the Aorist Indicative.

Acts 9:12; καὶ εἶδεν ἄνδρα . . . Ἁνανίαν ὀνόματι εἰσελθόντα καὶ ἐπιθέντα αὐτῷ χεῖρας, and he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay hands upon him. See also Luke 10:18; Acts 10:3; 11:3; 26:13; 2 Pet. 1:18.

Luke 4:23; ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα, whatever things we have heard to have been done."

The foregoing is what Burton says verbatim.

Looking at the NWT 1984 rendering, "I began to behold Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven," it seems that NWT construes Ἐθεώρουν (1st person singular imperfect indicative active) ingressively: this strategy is fine since K.L. McKay writes in A Syntax of the Verb in NT Greek (pages 29-30):

"The imperfective aspect presents an activity as going on, in process, without reference to its completion. This may consist of a single activity in process at the time of reference, or a series of repetitions of an action, whether consecutively by one agent or distributively by a number of agents, regarded as parts of a wider whole activity. According to its context an activity in process may imply a notion of attempting, continuing, setting about, beginning or the like, and a variety of English translations may be needed to represent one Greek form."

See Mt 5:2.

As for the "already fallen" rendering of πεσόντα, it appears that the NWT simply construes the aorist participle as denoting antecedent action (i.e., Jesus began to see an event that had already occurred [began to occur] before he started to perceive it) by using the English past participle "fallen" coupled with the adverbial "already."

I must admit that after reading Stanley Porter's works and consulting Buist Fanning, my understanding of aorist participles has shifted somewhat. If you care to read Porter's dense monograph on aspect, see Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the NT, With Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989). Frankly I think he provides one of the most "scientific" accounts of aorist participles. Having said the foregoing, I believe the NWT rendering is not problematic from a translational standpoint.

As an update to this old post, I must point out that Porter has been thoroughly criticized by Chrys Caragounis. The latter scholar argues (somewhat convincingly) that Porter has misrepresented how Greeks understand tense and aspect.

Evangelical Change in Outlook Regarding the Trinity Doctrine?

Theologian Kevin Giles contends that Evangelicals have altered their view of the Trinity doctrine based on certain cultural presuppositions. He maintains that a Christian's reading of the Bible or his/her formulation of doctrine is always historically conditioned. Giles therefore insists orthodox Christians have traditionally believed that the three Persons of the Godhead are all ontologically and functionally equal (i.e. not subordinate with respect to the AD INTRA or AD EXTRA works of the Trinity). However, after the suffrage movement or the advent of the birth control pill (INTER ALIA), Evangelicals began to claim that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father, yet equal to Him as respects the one nature that they either share with the Father or are with Him (according to the SIMPLCITAS DEI doctrine).

The analogy used to support such thinking (Giles points out) was the husband and wife relationship, which he believes is theologically innovative: it is not rooted in historical Trinitarian orthodoxy. The upshot of his analysis is that Evangelicals tend to read the Bible or formulate doctrine through particular cultural lenses. Just as they changed their views on the social, familial or ecclesiastical role of women, so many professed Christians (whether Evangelical or Catholic) have altered their beliefs on slavery and the Trinity doctrine.

See The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downer's Grove: IVP, 2002).

Raymond E. Brown and John 20:17

"The traditional exegesis, repeated even by such penetrating scholars as Loisy, Bernard, Hoskyns, and Lightfoot, is that Jesus says 'your Father' and 'my Father,' rather than 'our Father,' because he wants to keep distinct his special relationship to the Father . . . from that of his followers (adopted sons). Catharinet, art. cit., has proved just the opposite. To understand the 'my Father and your Father, my God and your God' pattern, one should recall Ruth 1:16. Urged by Naomi to stay behind in Moab, Ruth insists that, even though not an Israelite, she will come to Israel with Naomi; for from this moment, 'Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.' Similarly the statement of the Johannine Jesus is one of identification and not of disjunction. Jesus is ascending to his Father who will now become the Father of his disciples (Anchor Bible, Gospel According to John XIII-XXI, Raymond Brown, p. 1016-1017).

My Review of Edward Feser's work The Last Superstition (Abbreviated)

Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Feser for producing a work that effectively (for the most part) dismantles the fragile straw house of ideas that has been constructed by the so-called "new atheists" (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens). Feser employs wit, mental acuity and reason to refute the claims made by Dawkins and company. I have enjoyed reading his work, although like any other book, it has strong points and weaknesses. In reviewing this publication, I have pointed out what I perceive to be strengths or weaknesses.

1. The discussion on nominalism versus realism (theory of universals) was one of the best parts of Feser's book. While I do not agree with his depiction of nominalism in toto, I believe that the discussion is relatively simple. The author's illustration of realism which involves the example of a rubber ball was excellent. Since I teach undergraduates, I really appreciated his approach and how it helps one to understand the Aristotelian or Platonic claims regarding universals. See pages 57-62 for Feser's treatment of Aristotelian hylomorphism along with a discussion of both moderate and extreme realism.

2. Feser also critiques the Humean "attack" on causation/causality (pages 105-110). David Hume (1711-1776) argues that he is able to conceive a thing (a bowling ball, for example) coming into existence without a cause. However, Feser addresses this "argument" by noting that Hume is conflating or confusing the verb "conceive" with the verb "imagine." But the two actions delineated by the respective verbs "conceive" and "imagine" clearly are not the same acts. It is conceptually possible to grasp the concept of a "chiliagon" (a thousand-sided figure) but that does not mean it is conceptually possible to form a distinct mental image of a chiliagon. Hume's argument suggests that he fails to understand this important distinction.

3. The Last Superstition continuously exploits the notion of Aristotelian final causality. The final cause is the telos (i.e. end, result, goal, function or purpose) of a thing. One might say that an oak tree is the final cause of an acorn or that the final cause of a human embryo is a full grown adult. Aristotle believed that most everything in our natural world has a final cause: trees, humans, animals, and artificial objects all have a telos. Thomas Aquinas thus used Aristotle's thought on causes to build a case for the existence of God via unaided natural reason. See pages 114-119 of Feser's work.

4. Having mentioned some positive things about Feser's work, please allow me to include some critical feedback in this portion of my review. Feser has a wry sense of humor. Sometimes his jokes hit the mark and sometimes they do not. There are paragraphs in this book wherein the sarcasm and cockiness just drips like water. Some of the remarks are indeed amusing. Moreover, Dawkins and company probably deserve the sarcasm directed at them. Nevertheless, I would have loved to see less sarcasm, less of a smart-alecky tone and more seriousness pertaining to the task at hand.

5. Feser might also have stayed on task a little more rather than being diverted by political issues or didactic moralizing about contemporary moral topics. The arguments that he makes, for example, against abortion do not contribute directly to his general thesis, although I concur with his take on the issue.

6. Finally, Feser responds to the new atheists on the subject of mind. He contends that universals must exist and if they do in fact exist, then our thoughts about triangularity or squareness (two universals) must be immaterial. After making these observations, Feser maintains that neuroscientific findings cannot rightly be used to refute this Aristotelian and Thomist concept since Aquinas is not doing science (understood in the modern sense of the word) but metaphysics when he insists that universals especially qua concepts and the mind cannot be material things. I do not agree when Feser says that the findings of neuroscience (for instance) should not count against Aristotelian metaphysical demonstrations. Nor does it seem that one must construe mental concepts as immaterial, based on what neuroscience and reflections from modern philosophy of mind have yielded. The findings of neuroscience (like other forms of human knowledge) are provisional. But accounts regarding consciousness being a higher-level brain process have already been developed by philosophers and neuroscientists.

See http://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356106647&sr=1-1&keywords=the+last+superstition

Gospel of Mark's Rhetorical Style

The Gospel of Mark is generally portrayed as being plain or uncultivated and even ungrammatical at points. In his NIB commentary on Mark, Larry Hurtado observes:

"To begin with basics, Mark's account is heavily narrative, conveying the feeling of fast-paced action. His Greek style is simple and unsophisticated, using many simple sentences connected by the word for 'and.' A comparison of events found in Mark and in the other Gospels will show that his version often seems wordy and less well constructed" (page 11).

However, Hurtado offers this qualification of his opening statements regarding the literary style of Mark:

"Yet, Mark did employ certain techniques that demonstrate some skill and literary intent. As we shall see, he sometimes quotes, but more frequently alludes to, the OT and seems to have expected his readers to be sufficiently familiar with it to appreciate these allusions" (ibid.).

(1) According to Hurtado, Mark's Gospel is "heavily narrative" and fast-paced. Therefore, we would expect certain literary devices or discourse markers to be present in Mark and they are. Indeed, one feature of the Gospel of Mark that is striking is the writer's continual use of the Greek EUQUS. It is no wonder that A. T. Robertson (A Grammar of the Greek NT) writes:

"broken and parenthetic clauses are frequent (cf. 7:19 KAQARIZWN); at times he is pleonastic (2:20 TOTE EN EKEINH TH hHMERA); he uses EUQUS (W. H.) 41 times; he is emotional and vivid, as shown by descriptive adjectives, questions and exclamations (cf. 1:24; 2:7); the intermingling of tenses (9:33ff., EPHRWTA . . . LEGIE . . . EIPEN) is not due to ignorance of Greek or to artificiality, as Swete well says, but to 'a keen sense of the reality and living interest of facts; there are 151 historic presents in the W. H. text against 78 in Matthew and 4 in Luke; there is frequent and discriminating use of prepositions (2:1, 2, 10, 13); the connective is usually KAI rather than DE, seldom OUN; there is little artistic effect, but much simplicity and great vividness of detail; the vernacular KOINH is dominant with little literary
influence, though EIPEN, PAIDIOQEN and OYIA are held so by Norden" (pp. 118-119).

(2) It has often been said that Mark's account of Jesus' life contains ungrammatical constructions. But one scholar, who challenges this charge, is David A. Black. Black faces this oft-mentioned criticism of Mark by utilizing the tools of discourse analysis and descriptive linguistics. Black's essay can be found in Linguistics and NT Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1992.

The name of Black's study is "Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and Markan Grammar: Some Methodological Considerations" on pp. 90-98 of the above referenced publication, which he edits along with Katharine Barnwell and Stephen Levinsohn.

Discourse analysis refers to the inspection of macrostructures (i.e. phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and entire compositions) as opposed to lexemes or individual units of sound-meaning (otherwise known as words). Richard A. Young points out that discourse analysis examines genre, structure, cohesion, propositions, relations, prominence, and setting as well.

Discourse analysis is a top-down approach to communicative situations. It probes context (the socio-political and religious climate or Sitz im Leben), the co-text (literary context of a text) and the text itself rather than simply focusing on the potential significations of sound-forms.

In any event, Black avails himself of discourse analytical principles and a descriptivist approach (linguistically) to refute the charge that Mark's Greek is ungrammatical at times. I highly recommend his essay along with Robertson's big grammar which contains information on each NT book and its style. Moreover, Nigel Turner has penned a book on style that also deserves consideration.

Revelation 22:3 and Daniel 7:27

George W. Buchanan contends that the singular third person pronoun in Rev 22:3 (AUTWi) could refer to God or to the Lamb: he does not argue that the pronoun must refer to both referents or antecedents.

One line of reasoning that indicates God receives LATREIA, writes Buchanan, is the fact that the hOI DOULOI could potentially be priests of God, and then they would be rendering LATREIA to the God whom they serve as priests and "slaves" (Rev 1:5-6).

On the other hand, Buchanan continues, Dan 7:27 (LXX) shows that the present nations and governments will one day become "subject to the saints and, of course, also to their leader, the Son of Man, who is here [Rev 22:3] called the Lamb" (Buchanan 612ff).

Buchanan thus seems to argue that strictly speaking the "saints" (holy ones) of the Most High actually receive the honor and obedience mentioned at Dan 7:27; but it seems that he wants to suggest that by the nations subjecting themselves to the holy ones, they also by default render homage to the leader of the holy ones. In this regard, Buchanan may be correct. But this line of reasoning does not seem to demonstrate that the Son of Man is the one who receives LATREIA in Rev 22:3. LATREIA is evidently not mentioned in Dan 7:27.

As Buchanan continues, however, it becomes clear that he is not claiming that the Messiah technically is worshiped or is ever ontologically on par with the Divine One. He appeals to his notion of forensic agency in which one has a principal and a legal agent to establish this point.

The legal agent may receive deference that is really directed toward the principal. But this fact does not indicate that the legal agent is equal (ontologically) to the principal. The concept of legal agency may well illustrates the relationship between the Father and the son of God. At any rate, it is clear that Buchanan is in no way arguing that the Lamb receives worship as the Father receives worship (LATREIA). But as we have also established hitherto, God is the most likely referent of AUTWi in Rev 22:3. He is the one whose face will be seen by those who are part of the first resurrection (1 Jn 3:1-3; Rev 20:4-6). God likely is the object of priestly LATREIA.

As a side note: Edward J Young (The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary) writes that the antecedent of the pronoun in the latter part of Dan 7:27 "is people, not Most High."

Louis Hartman and Alexander Di Lella (Anchor Bible Commentary on Daniel) also note that the pronominal suffix of MALKUTEH refers to 'AM ('people') and not to the Most High. It thus seems possible that both the Hebrew text and the LXX say the "holy ones" are obeyed in Dan 7:27.

Source: Buchanan's Mellen Series Commentary on Revelation

Regards,
Edgar

Does Revelation 20:9 Necessarily Rule Out the Heavenly Hope?

In his 3-volume commentary on Revelation, David Aune delineates the hermeneutical possibilities for the Greek expression τὴν παρεμβολὴν τὼν ἁγίων in Revelation 20:9a. They are

1) The heavenly city.
2) The encampment of the people of God which is identical with "the beloved city."
3) The encampment of the people of God stationed outside the city in expectation of the impending attack.
4) The martyrs with Christ in Jerusalem (Revelation 14:1-5).
5) An army of angels (perhaps the force mentioned in Revelation 19:14) that is "bivouacked" in Jerusalem's vicinity. In fact, Eichhorn renders the phrase with the Latin wording "castra angelorum" (cf. 2 Kings 6:17; 1QM 7:6 and 19:1).

Number 1) is taken from the commentary on Revelation by R. H. Charles. He argues that the heavenly city descends to the earth, but as I've noted previously, his interpretation is not necessarily the correct one. The heavenly city could be under attack insofar as its representatives are being assailed. Jesus taught that if you harm his brothers, you hurt him. Remember the words, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me"?

Number 5) might also be a viable possibility.

The Etymological Significance of the Preposition DIA

Romans 11:36 has DIA + the genitive which can be translated either as "through" or "by." Either translation is able to communicate the notion of intermediate agency, I would say. Colossians 1:16 is also DIA + genitive and Hebrews 2:10 is DIA + the genitive case (DI' hOU). What will determine how one renders the construction should be context or translator preference. But, as I see it, nothing is wrong with communicating agency with "through" or "by." BDAG shows that DIA may be used as a "marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby someth. is accomplished or effected, by, via, through" (page 224); DIA can also be a "marker of pers. agency, through, by" (BDAG, 225).

In John 1:3, 10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16, DIA is used of "Christ as intermediary in the creation of the world" (BDAG, 225).

I examined a number of grammars that I own and one helpful resource I found was A.T. Robertson's A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. On p. 580, Robertson quotes Delbruck who has "nothing to say" about the origin of DIA. Nevertheless, Robertson proceeds to offer a number of illuminating comments on this Greek preposition, wherein he notes that "there is no doubt about DIA being kin to DUO, DIS. (cf. Sanskrit DVIS, Greek DIS, b = v or U); German ZWEI; English two (fem. and neut.), twain (masc.), twi-ce, twi-light, be-tween, two-fold, etc."

A Discussion on 1 Peter 3:19

[Edgar]
Paul J. Achtemeier has a very thorough discussion on 1 Pet. 3:19 in his commentary on Peter's First Epistle that you can find in the Hermeneia series. He carefully reviews the explanations that have been posited vis-a'-vis 1 Pet. 3:19 and he then writes: "There is a clear Jewish tradition, however, in which the angelic beings of Gen. 6:1-6, whose disobedience caused the flood, were subsequently imprisoned" (Achtemeier 256). He adds: "That it is this tradition which underlies the reference to 'spirits' in our verse seems therefore likely to be the case" (256).

So while Achtemeier is not really dogmatic about the identity of the spirits in 1 Pet. 3:19--he does suggest that the view which I have advanced is probably the least problematic approach.

[Harry]
My questions to you would be, what is the point of introducing angels at 3:19, and what was Jesus accomplishing by going to a special group of angels already in prison?

[Edgar]
According to the discourse structure or context of 1 Pet. 3:19, there are a number of good reasons why Peter introduced the wicked spirits or angels in his discussion. Keep in mind that Peter is trying to show his brothers and sisters why they should suffer for the sake of righteousness (1 Pet. 3:16,17). In 3:18, he employs the example of Christ as a (the) model for all Christian believers. Since Christ suffered and subsequently died for our sins, though he was and is righteous, and since his ignominious and painful death opened the way for humans to approach God with a clean conscience, since he was also put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit and in this state (as the NWT says) he went and assured the angels of their doom--we too should suffer as Christ did and desist from sins, while asking God for a good conscience by being baptized in water through the resurrection of Christ from the dead (1 Pet. 3:18-4:1, 2). So the example of the fallen angels helps us to see the consequences of apostatizing from God. The mention of these rebellious spirits also impresses on us the fact that the waters of baptism (the antitype of the flood) can either serve as a salvific step to those who avail themselves of this godly provision. But baptism will not profit those who refuse to be immersed through the resurrection of Christ. Achtemeier thus suggests that Peter employs the story about the angels so that "Christians can face their future with confidence, despite whatever suffering that future may portend, because Christ has triumphed over the most powerful forces of the universe. The salvation Christ promises is therefore sure, and confidence in that Lord can sustain Christians until the final judgment, whose coming is sure and whose advent will rescue Christians from their tormented lives" (Achtemeier 246).

[Edgar continued]
As I will show later, KHRUSSW does not always refer to proclaiming the Gospel.

[Harry]
I said that it does so when Jesus is used with it, that is when he is the
one doing it in the NT. I did not say that it always referred to
proclaiming the Gospel.

[Edgar]
In your message dated 00-11-26 17:15:20 EST, you wrote: "i think of Jesus' preaching as positive because the Greek word kerussw, when used with Jesus in the NT, always has a positive connotation of a preaching of the Gospel."

But please notice that Jesus himself evidently used the word KHRUGMA to describe the message that Jonah preached to the men of Nineveh (Matt. 12:41; Lk. 11:32). The LXX also has KHRUSSW at Jonah 1:2 in delineating Jonah's message of doom. Achtemeier concludes that KHRUSSW "does not automatically mean that the content of the proclamation is forgiveness or salvation" (262).

Another work states: "In 1 Peter 3:19 there is no reference to evangelizing, but to the act of Christ, after his resurrection, in proclaiming His victory to fallen spirits"(Zodhiates, Complete Word Study: NT, page 928).