Soteriology in the Letter of James

(1) James no doubt has eternal or eschatological
salvation in mind when he uses σῶσαι in 2:14. Note
how this disciple of Christ refers to salvation
elsewhere in his letter:

"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of
naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted
word, which is able to save [σῶσαι] your souls" (James
1:21 KJV).

"There is one lawgiver, who is able to save [σῶσαι]
and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?"
(James 4:12 KJV).

"Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner
from the error of his way shall save [σώσει] a soul
from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins" (James
5:20 KJV).

(2) In 2:14, James is not contending that faith is
unable to save humans. To the contrary, he is arguing
that a certain type of faith (ἡ πίστις), viz., faith
divorced from godly works, cannot save the man or
woman professing to have such "faith."

(3) James does not teach that Christians are still
subject to the Law of Moses. In context, he is making
the point that those who were under the Law could
easily become offenders against the entire Law, if
they transgressed in one point. James shows in
2:12 that Christians are not subject to the ancient
Law of Moses, but are going to be judged "by the law
of a free people" (NWT). He probably appeals to
the Law, however, because those reading or hearing the
epistle read were familiar with Jewish precepts and
statutes. Furthermore, James wanted his audience to know that
there is judgment under "the law of a free people."
Yet "Mercy exults triumphantly over judgement."

James 3:17 and ADIAKRITOS, ANUPOKRITOS

"ADIAKRITOS, ON: pertaining to not being prejudiced -
'impartial, free from prejudice.' hH DE ANWQEN SOFIA
PRWTON MEN hAGNH ESTIN . . . ADIAKRITOS, ANUPOKRITOS
'but the wisdom from above is first of all pure . . .
free from prejudice and hypocrisy' Jas 3:17"
(Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon 88.242).

"ANUPOKRITOS . . . pert. to being without pretense,
genuine, sincere, lit. 'without play-acting' AGAPH
(ApcSed 1:4) Ro 12:9; 2 Cor 6:6. FILADELFIA 1 Pt 1:22
PISTIS 1 Ti 1:5; 2 Ti 1:5, SOFIA Js 3:17. DELG s.v.
KRINW. M-M. TW. Spicq" (BDAG Greek-English Lexicon, page 91).

Did Any Human Enter Heaven Prior to Jesus

Reading Hebrews makes me seriously doubt that any
human ascended to heaven before the Risen Christ did.
When writing to first-century Christians living in
Jerusalem and Judea, the author of Hebrews speaks of
"the hope set before us" (Heb. 6:18). This hope is
apparently the hope of eternal, immortal, and
incorruptible life that anointed Christians will enjoy
in the heavens of God's presence for all eternity (2
Cor. 1:21-22; 5:1-2; 1 Thess. 4:13-18).

This hope (says the author) serves as "an anchor for
the soul, both sure and firm" since it has entered
within the curtain where a PRODROMOS has advanced in
behalf of his people, whence he serves as "a high
priest according to the manner of Melchizedek" (Heb.
6:19-20).

The literary context of Heb. 6:19-20 shows that the
writer is contrasting the tabernacle in the wilderness
with God's "true tent" (THS SKHNHS THS ALHQINHS)
constructed by Godself, not humans (Heb. 8:1-2). The true
tent is evidently God's antitypical tabernacle that
contains, among other things, a greater Most Holy,
which is heaven itself (Heb. 9:24). Jesus entered into
this holy place to appear before the Person of God for
us. (The "us" in Heb. 9:24 refers to anointed
Christians, although others likewise benefit from the
high-priestly services of Jesus Christ.) He passed
beyond the curtain (his flesh) by virtue of being raised a
life-giving spirit and subsequently ascending to his
Father, the One who is greater than the Son (Jn. 14:28;
Heb. 4:14; 10:19-20).

As forerunner, Jesus was not simply the first human to
ascend into the heavens of the heavens: he opened the
way for others to see God and be like Him (1 Jn.
3:1-3). Heb. 6:19-20 therefore appears to serve as one
text that indicates humans did not ascend to the
heavens of God's presence prior to Christ's death.

Furthermore, Heb. 9:8 relates: "Thus the holy
spirit makes it plain that the way into the
[antitypical] holy place [i.e., heaven] had not yet
been made manifest while the first tent was standing."

The way into the antitypical Most Holy (sanctum sanctorum)
was not made manifest until Christ became
flesh, suffered, died, was resurrected and
subsequently passed through the heavens.

Michael Coogan's View of Yahweh's (Jehovah's) Tent

Coogan (134) believes ancient Israelites thought that YHWH lived in a tent (tabernacle or sanctuary) even in heaven--this idea supposedly is presumed in the Tanakh:

"That Yahweh's heavenly home was a tent is therefore presumed and is consistent with the relationship of Yahweh to the Canaanite high god El (see pages 88-90), who lived in a tent; the same word for 'dwelling' is used for the heavenly homes of the gods in Ugaritic, which are also called tents. At the same time, P appropriately incorporates a tent-shrine into its description of the fully developed worship of Yahweh that began at Sinai, during the journey from Egypt to Canaan: a movable shrine for a people on the move."

See Exodus 29:42-43; Numbers 7:89.

Granted, Ps. 15:1 rhetorically queries, "Jehovah, who doth sojourn in Thy tent? Who doth dwell in Thy holy hill?" (YLT)

But should this language be taken literally or pressed too far such that God is portrayed as matter-of-factly dwelling in a heavenly shrine with finite boundaries? Or does Coogan mean that we should imagine a heavenly dwelling that does not have earthly limitations?

In either case, I believe what we have in the dwelling texts is metaphorical speech, for the most part. There was a sense in which YHWH dwelled in the tabernacle and later, the temple. But I don't think one can infer that Jehovah lives in a heavenly sanctuary (literally) based on the biblical data. TDNT, volume VII argues that most (if not all) references about God's heavenly dwelling/skhnh are figurative or poetic.

Source: Coogan, Michael David. The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Revisiting Genesis 1:2 with a Touch of Von Rad, Et Al.

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְהֹ֑ום וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃ (LC)

"The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" (ESV).

"And the Spirit of God" could be rendered "the spirit of God" or "a divine wind."

Von Rad believes ruach elohim here is best rendered "storm of God," with the construction being understood as a reference to a "terrible storm" (i.e., to be construed as a superlative).

In terms of translational possibilities, Kenneth A. Matthews says that ruach elohim could mean "the wind of God" in Gen. 1:2 although he is doubtful of this understanding.

NRSV: "the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."

Footnote from NRSV: "Or while the spirit of God or while a mighty wind"

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible states: "but, the Spirit of God, was brooding on the face of the waters"

Byington's Bible in Living English: "the earth was a blank chaos, and there was darkness over the surface of the deep; and God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters."

Rashi: "and the spirit of God was hovering: The Throne of Glory was suspended in the air and hovered over the face of the water with the breath of the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He and with His word, like a dove, which hovers over the nest, acoveter in Old French, to cover, hover over."

Targum of Jonathan: "And the earth was vacancy and desolation, solitary of the sons of men, and void of every animal; and darkness was upon the face of the abyss, and the Spirit of mercies from before the Lord breathed upon the face of the waters."

See http://targum.info/pj/pjgen1-6.htm

Catholic NABRE: "and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters"

Part of the Ftn for 1:2 in the NABRE: "A mighty wind: literally, 'spirit or breath [ruah] of God'; cf. Gn 8:1."

Compare Gen. 3:8; Ps. 104:30; Acts 2:1-4; Heb. 1:7; Ezek. 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 43:5; John 3:8.

Revelation 21:16-17 and Ezekiel's Prophecy

"The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width. And he measured the city with his rod, 12,000 stadia. Its length and width and height are equal" (Revelation 21:16, ESV).

καὶ ἡ πόλις τετράγωνος κεῖται, καὶ τὸ μῆκος αὐτῆς ὅσον τὸ πλάτος. καὶ ἐμέτρησεν τὴν πόλιν τῷ καλάμῳ ἐπὶ σταδίων δώδεκα χιλιάδων· τὸ μῆκος καὶ τὸ πλάτος καὶ τὸ ὕψος αὐτῆς ἴσα ἐστίν (WH 1881).

καὶ ἐμέτρησεν τὸ τεῖχος αὐτῆς ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τεσσάρων πηχῶν, μέτρον ἀνθρώπου, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγγέλου (Revelation 21:17, WH 1881).

"He also measured its wall, 144 cubits by human measurement, which is also an angel's measurement" (ESV).

Comparison Verses:

"He measured it on the four sides. It had a wall around it, 500 cubits long and 500 cubits broad, to make a separation between the holy and the common" (Ezekiel 42:20, ESV)

"and these shall be its measurements: the north side 4,500 cubits, the south side 4,500, the east side 4,500, and the west side 4,500" (Ezekiel 48:16, ESV).

"And the city shall have open land: on the north 250 cubits, on the south 250, on the east 250, and on the west 250" (Ezekiel 48:17, ESV)

1 Kings 6:20

How Are Questions Signaled by Greek Writers?

Queries in Greek are indicated by the occurrence of
interrogative pronouns and adverbs. Aristotle's τί ἐστιν
("What is it?") is a famous metaphysical
question. One can also ask τίς ἐστιν ("Who is it?) in
Greek as well (1 John 2:22). Other interrogatives are ποῖος ("What
sort?"), πόσος ("How much?"), ποῦ ("Where?") and πόθεν
("From where?"). There are more interrogatives, but I
think you get the idea.

For other NT examples, see Mt 6:31; Lk 3:10. However, it is
important to keep in mind that not all interrogative
sentences contain interrogative pronouns or adverbs
like τί, τίς or ποῦ (compare Jn 19:15). A book that
might help in this area is Brooks and Winbery's
Syntax of NT Greek. See pp. 115, 119, 125ff, 158ff.

"When no other indicator is present, whether the
sentence is a question or not must be determined by
the context" (Brooks and Winbery, p. 158).

God's Name Within the Context of Exodus 3:14 (Comments by George Caird)

"Of all these many excursions into etymology by far the most
important is the derivation of the divine name YHWH from the
verb 'to be'; 'I AM; that is who I am. Tell them that I AM has sent
you to them' (Exod. 3:14). It is possible that the original narrator
meant the verbs to be taken as futures, and that 'I will be as I
will be' was a promise of the presence of God as and when he chose
to be present; for the same verb occurs two verses earlier in the
form 'I will be with you'. This line of thought leads us directly to
the child whose name is Immanuel (Isa. 7:14), to the application of
that name to Jesus (Matt 1:23), and to the promise with which
Matthew's Gospel ends, 'I am with you always, to the end of time'
(28:20). But that is not the way in which the translators of the
Septuagint understood the revelation of the divine name. They
translated it by hO WN, 'he who exists', and so made it possible for
later writers, beginning with the author of the Wisdom of Solomon
(13:1), to make a synthesis between the theology of the Old
Testament and the philosophy of the Greeks" (George Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, pp. 45-46).

Some Thoughts on the Holy Spirit

Systematic theology may generally teach the Trinity doctrine, but does that mean the holy spirit (Holy Spirit) is called God in Scripture?

Edmund Fortman:

"The spirit of Yahweh was often described in personal
terms. The spirit was grieved, guided men, instructed
them, caused them to rest (Ps 143:10; Neh 9:20; Is
63:10, 14). But it seems quite clear that the Jews
never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there
any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held
this view. A few scholars today maintain, however,
that even though the spirit is usually presented as an
impersonal divine force, there is an underlying
assumption that the spirit was a conscious agent,
which 'provided a climate in which plurality with the
Godhead was conceivable'" (The Triune God, p. 6).

Acts 5:3-4 is not exactly what I would call an
"explicit" identification of the holy Spirit with God.
Granted, Peter does seemingly parallel the holy spirit
and God in these passages. But, again, we must read
texts in their historical context to avoid
skewing their semantic or pragmatic sense. John B.
Polhill, as he is wont to do, provides a nice
explanation:

"Ultimately, he [Ananias] had lied to God. Not that he
had not betrayed the community. Not that he had not
lied to the Spirit. Rather, to betray the community is
to lie to the Spirit that fills the community, and to
falsify the Spirit of God is an affront to God
himself" (Acts, p. 158).

Notice that Polhill does not say the holy spirit is
being called "God" in Acts 5:3-4.

David Hill adds:

"We may have here [in Acts 5] an illustration of
Luke's understanding of the 'sin against the Spirit'
(Luke 12:10) as speech or action against the
constitutive factor of the Church's life" (Greek Words
and Hebrew Meanings, p. 258).

Recall that Matthew also calls the spirit, God's
finger. This too would clearly explain why the spirit of
God is so closely identified with God in Acts 5:3-4,
although it is not called QEOS in this account. Karl
Rahner states:

"QEOS [in the NT] is still never used of the Spirit"
(Theological Investigations, 1:138, 143).

Trinitarian scholar Thomas F. Torrance
supplies this account of the Trinity:

"This does not imply that the New Testament presents
us with explicit teaching about the Holy Trinity, far
less with a ready-made formal doctrine of the Trinity,
but rather that it exhibits a coherent witness to
God's trinitarian self-revelation imprinted upon its
theological content in an implicit conceptual form
evident in a whole complex of implicit references and
indications in the gospels and epistles" (Christian
Doctrine, p. 49).

John 20:28 In Brief

While talking with a Trinitarian this morning, who raised John 20:28 for the nth time as proof of Christ's deity, I thought of a disjunctive syllogism just for fun.

1) Either John 20:28 is a nominative for a vocative or it is a nominative of exclamation.
2) John 20:28 is not a nominative for a vocative.
3) Therefore, John 20:28 is a nominative of exclamation.

The argument is formally valid since disjunctive syllogisms assume the form: either p or q; not p or not q (deny one of the disjuncts); therefore, p or q (affirm one of the disjuncts).

Now the Trinitarian view is not disproved so easily, but I know more than one Witness who has vigrously argued that 20:28 is not a nominative for a vocative. The reasons have been discussed ad nauseam et ad infinitum, but maybe we need to discuss the reasons again.

God, Negative Emotions Or the Lack Thereof (Divine impassibility)

(1) According to Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon by F.E. Peters, the abstract nominal APAQEIA when used by ancient Greek philosophers usually means "unaffected, without pathe." This same source (under the entry PAQOS) also points out that PAQOS "is beclouded by a multiplicity of connotations." The term possibly denotes: event, suffering, emotion, experience, or attribute. While context must function as a determinative factor in this matter, I believe that the ancient church Fathers often used PAQOS or equivalent terms to reference emotions simpliciter. I do not think they were simply claiming that God does not have emotions in a negative manner or that He does not exemplify merely so-called negative emotions.

Augustine of Hippo and Gregory of Nyssa as well as Clement of Alexandria indicate that (metaphysically speaking) God does possess or have emotions at all. But it is the medievals such as Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury who formulate this teaching in the strongest possible terms . In the Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas is quite emphatic in saying that God has no emotions whatsoever from a metaphysical standpoint. For, says Thomas, if God is immutable and simple, then there can be no movement in God. He is strictly and solely impassible. Furthermore, if God is simple, then He does not have attributes but is His attributes or objective properties. Thomas thus reasons that a simple (uncompounded) or immutable deity cannot have emotions.

(2) Is it important to ascertain whether God has emotions or not? I think so. For one reason, the Bible often speaks of God as a being who has emotions. How are we to understand these passages? As metaphors, analogies or can we interpret or understand some of them as univocal utterances, so that there is a one-to-one correspondence (qualitatively speaking) between our AGAPH and God's AGAPH, even if there is a difference with respect to the degree of love that God has or is. Additionally, is it not much easier to draw close to a God who has emotions over against developing a relationship with a God who does not? See James 4:8. Finally, only a God with authentic emotions can suffer. I submit that a suffering deity is the only type of God that can help us to make sense of all the cosmic suffering and evil that has and now obtains.

(3) If God transcends emotion, then I don't understand how He can still have negative emotions. He may have something better, but that "something better" would certainly not be what we call "passion" or emotion.

2 Peter 2:4--Tartarus

2 Peter 2:4 (WH): εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ σειροῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους

I believe that we have to be careful about inferring that the Bible writers directly took language or concepts from non-Jewish literature. For example, does ταρταρόω in 2 Pet 2:4 derive from a non-Jewish source? Should we immediately draw parallel lines between Greek mythology and 2 Peter? That would be a fundamental mistake in my opinion. For example, would it be correct to infer that πλήρωμα in Col 1:19 was directly borrowed from the Gnostics? That would be highly unlikely. I reckon that a similar case could be made for 2 Pet 2:4. Petrine scholars have noted that Tartarus language occurs in Jewish literature (1 Enoch and other works of the Second Temple period): so it's possible that 2 Peter uses language well understood by Jews and Greeks in the 1st century CE. See http://www.augsburgfortress.org/media/downloads/9780800699789Chapter5.pdf

Compare the remarks of Richard Bauckham here: http://www.dougvandorn.com/Bauckham%20Commentary%20and%20Two%20Doug%20Appendices.pdf

Even if 2 Peter 2:4 uses the verb ταρταρώσας, in no way does the usage imply that all the mythic associations of Tartarus should be read into the passage. Tartarus apparently occurs in the LXX too.

James 3:17: "Reasonableness"

"EPIEIKHS: the word is meant as a contrast to unfair, unreasonable argument, cf. Pss. of Sol. 5:14.-EUPEIQHS: this word, again, implies a contrast to the unbending attitude of self-centered controversialists; it does not occur elsewhere in the N.T" (The Expositor's Greek Testament, 4:456).

"EU-PEIQHS obedient, here [in Js 3:17] obedient to reason, reasonable" (A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, M. Zerwick, page 698).

"In total contrast to the demonic 'wisdom' is the wisdom that comes from heaven . . . considerate [EPIEIKHS] (Phil. 4:5; 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 3:2), which points to a noncombative spirit; and submissive [EUPEIQHS], which indicates a tractable or teachable spirit, a person who will gladly be corrected or learn a new truth" (Peter H. Davids, James [New International Biblical Commentary], page 90).

Seeing God "Face to Face" and Biblical Metaphors

It is hard to deny the overt metaphorical cast of Scripture: ignoring metaphorical tropes leads to textual misunderstandings. Besides apprehending biblical tropes, however, one also needs to be attentive to the idioms found in Scripture. Idiom in this context means that the whole of an utterance is greater than its individual parts.

For example, the words "face to face" (Numbers 12:8) hardly denote that Moses saw God in a sensuous manner. Maimonides and others think the verse refers to an intellectual encounter with God. I would also suggest that we're dealing with possible metaphor when encountering the face to face language and it is certainly idiomatic. But the Bible becomes clearer if we go with the flow of metaphors by coming to understand the conceptual structures contained therein.

There are some who claim that the Israelites saw God with their physical eyes (sensuously) as reported in Exodus 24:9-11. Others assert that Moses not only conversed with God face to face, but he supposedly beheld God too. However, what Numbers 12:8 really states is that YHWH spoke to Moses like one person speaks to another (= "face to face" or mouth to mouth). The language is idiomatic and probably figurative.

Thomas Aquinas writes concerning this account:

"As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27), it is stated in Exodus that 'the Lord spoke to Moses face to face'; and shortly afterwards we read, 'Show me Thy glory. Therefore He perceived what he saw and he desired what he saw not.' Hence he did not see the very Essence of God; and consequently he was not taught by Him immediately. Accordingly when Scripture states that 'He spoke to him face to face,' this is to be understood as expressing the opinion of the people, who thought that Moses was speaking with God mouth to mouth, when God spoke and appeared to him, by means of a subordinate creature, i.e. an angel and a cloud. Again we may say that this vision 'face to face' means some kind of sublime and familiar contemplation, inferior to the vision of the Divine Essence" (ST I-II. Quest. 98. Art. 3, Reply to Obj. 2).

Maimonides makes this profession about the face to face idiom: "All this refers to intellectual apprehension and in no way to the eye's seeing" (Guide of the Perplexed 1.4).

Herman Bavinck Discusses How the Triune God Is Progressively Revealed to Humankind

"The Trinity in the revelation of God points back to the Trinity in His existence.

This revelation did not happen in a single moment. It was not presented and perfected in a single point of time. Rather, this revelation has a long history, spread out over the centuries. It began at the creation, continued after the fall in the promises and deeds of grace which accrued to Israel, and reached its apex in the person and work of Christ, in the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, and the establishment of the church. It maintains itself now throughout the centuries, and over against all opposition, in the ineradicable witness of Scripture and in the rock-firm confession of the church. Because the revelation has had this long history, there is progress and development also in the confession of God's triune existence. God undergoes no change, remaining always the same. But in the progress of revelation, He makes Himself always clearer and more glorious to people and to angels. As His revelation continues, our knowledge grows."

See https://www.the-highway.com/trinity_Bavinck.html

Spiritual Death Understood as Metaphor

The language employed at Ephesians 2:1,
5 and elsewhere appears to be metaphorical and what
determines the metaphoricity of a particular term,
phrase or sentence is complex. A metaphor may be
judged as such based on semantic or pragmatic factors
(two distinct linguistic features). The figure of
spiritual death is a common one in Scripture and
classical literature. Both TDNT and BDAG have
informative entries on the significance of the Greek
word NEKROS and its meaning in the text under
consideration. For instance, BDAG associates the
term (on one hand) with moral or spiritual
deficiency that renders one (in effect) dead. See Lk
15:24, 32; Rev 3:1. However, another use of this
metaphor may be more related to spiritual obtuseness.
Cf. Mt 8:22; Lk 9:60. TDNT likewise contains references to
the Fathers. See TDNT 4:892-894.

I guess my point is that the signification of
"spiritual death" could reside in the particular Greek
term if a linguistic community had decided that NEKROS
would have the lexical value "spiritual death" in a
given context, C. That is what I mean by semantics.
Conversely, an individual speaker might intend to
communicate the notion "spiritual death" when uttering the adjective NEKROS, etc. That would be a pragmatic usage which
could be understood by appealing to the context of
utterance. Either way, it does not seem that the
meaning for spiritual death is strictly tied to verbal tense;
nor is the metaphor necessarily restricted to meaning "as good as dead because of being in line for destruction," although I
think that is a possible way one might read the text.

Philippians 4:6-7 Discussion and Notes

μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε, ἀλλ’ ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν. καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. (NA28)

The verse begins with a strong contrast: about nothing worry, but in everything by prayer and supplication . . .

Meyer identifies μηδὲν as the accusatival object of μεριμνᾶτε and it seems evident that Paul emphatically prefixes μηδὲν, thus drawing attention to "nothing." ἐν παντὶ is also meant to be a contrast with the opening words (Meyer). Furthermore, maybe we should understand ἐν παντὶ to signify "in every case or affair" (Meyer). ESV also renders ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ "in everything by prayer," NET has "in every situation, through prayer" and HCSB renders the words, "in everything, through prayer . . ."

With the phrase, ἐν παντὶ, παντὶ is a substantival adjective and the prepositional object of ἐν.

See https://www.academia.edu/6805317/_Pauls_Use_of_Adjectives_in_Philippians_

Should we make a sharp distinction between τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει?

According to John Eadie:

The form which the presentation of such requests was to assume was τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει—“by prayer and supplication.” The datives express the manner or means, for the one involves the other, by which the action enjoined in γνωριζέσθω was to be performed. Bernhardy, p. 100. The two nouns are not synonymous, and mean something more than Storr's sociis precibus. See under Ephesians 6:18 for the peculiar distinction. The repetition of the article gives each of the nouns a special independence. Winer, § 19, 5, (a). By the use of the first noun they are bidden tell their wants to God in religious feeling and form; and by the second they are counselled to make them known in earnest and direct petition, in every case as the circumstances might require.

Along with supplications (earnest beseeching), add μετὰ εὐχαριστίας.

Gerald F. Hawthorne construes τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν to signify that prayer is a uniquely intimate way of approaching God: "Let God know what is troubling you" (Word Commentary on Philippians, page 183. Volume 43, 1983 edition).

From the Expositor's Greek Testament:

αἴτημα is found three times in N.T. It emphasises the object asked for (see an important discussion by Ezra Abbot in N. Amer. Review, 1872, p. 171 ff.). “Prayer is a wish referred to God, and the possibility of such reference, save in matters of mere indifference, is the test of the purity of the wish” (Green, Two Sermons, p. 44).—πρὸς τ. Θεόν. “In the presence of God.” A delicate and suggestive way of hinting that God’s presence is always there, that it is the atmosphere surrounding them. Anxious foreboding is out of place in a Father’s presence. Requests are always in place with Him. With this phrase Cf. Romans 16:26.

καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ: The ICC Commentary says καὶ here is "consecutive." Hence, translate "and so."

There is scholarly debate concerning the nature of divine peace. Is it internal or external? Furthermore, Paul probably has the Hebrew shalom in mind when he uses the noun phrase ἡ εἰρήνη. τοῦ θεοῦ is possibly a subjective genitive.

ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν (vs. 7)

Eadie offers this explanation: "The participle here [ἡ ὑπερέχουσα] governs the accusative, and not, as is common with verbs of its class, the genitive, Kühner, § 539; or Jelf, § 504, Obser. 2."

Gerhard von Rad and Genesis 1:2

Genesis 1:2 (NASB): "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

The Hebrew term that is rendered "the deep" is תְּהוֹם (tehom), which is also translated "the great deep" in Gen. 7:11 (KJV) since it's coupled with the adjective רָב. Theologians/Bible scholars often interpret Gen 1:1-2 as a polemical answer to the Babylonian myth of Tiamat and Marduk. Gerhard von Rad apparently buys into this idea too. However, the Babylonian narrative is set within a polytheistic context unlike Genesis. But even more devastating to the Tiamat theory is the linguistic evidence against it.

For instance, scholar Victor Hamilton interacts with the claims regarding tehom and Tiamat, and I believe he shows it's uncertain that these words are cognate. In fact, there are reasons to believe otherwise. From what I've read, Mitchell Dahood (a late and esteemed philologist) seriously questioned the supposed linguistic connection between tehom and Tiamat.

For Dahood's exact quote, see https://books.google.com/books?id=lotBnvqdmeQC&pg=PA96&dq=dahood+tehom&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJ566Ks6LVAhWJdSYKHcW9AjQQ6AEIQzAF#v=onepage&q=dahood%20tehom&f=false

It is page 96, footnote 34. Dahood spoke of the "unsustainable connection" between these words. So the objections I've found to associating tehom with Tiamat seem devastating.

Dahood writes that the linguistic correspondence between tehom and thm (Ugaritic) is "much more likely" than a connection between tehom/Tiamat. Yet the Akkadian term related to tehom is also evidently cognate. According to biblehub, there are 36 occurrences of tehom in the Hebrew Bible, I think.

For now, I reject the Tiamat connection (linguistic association) with tehom; there is too much evidence against it. The myth that Tiamat is cognate with tehom began spreading after Hermann Gunkel (a German OT scholar) began to perpetuate the idea. Linguistically, it is nigh impossible to prove: weigh the evidence and arguments carefully, then you decide.

Gerhard von Rad and Genesis 1:1

As a side note, von Rad's first name is the German equivalent (version) of my middle name (my nomen). I go by Edgar in professional circles, but old friends, my family, and my wife call me "Gerard."

On page 46 of his Genesis commentary, von Rad concedes that Gen. 1:1 could be understood--from a grammatico-syntactic perspective--as an introductory clause to 1:2 or 1:3. However, he insists that 1:1 must be understood as an independent sentence from a theological perspective. So it ought to be rendered: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Hence, we learn God freely and in accord with his omnipotent volition determined that the cosmos would have "a beginning of its subsequent existence" (46).

Additionally, von Rad contends that bara signifies "the divine creative activity," which has no analogy in creation (47). He believes the word is intentionally used to denote creatio ex nihilo or divine effortlessness--creation without the use of any preexistent material unlike Plato's Demiurge in his famous work, Timaeus. That deity creates sensible objects by means of recalcitrant matter, but YHWH creates ex nihilo. There is apparently no creative struggle delineated in the opening verses of Genesis. Yet does von Rad go too far when claiming that bara unequivocally denotes creatio ex nihilo? Maybe he does in the light of 2 Maccabees 7:28 and Heb. 11:3. On the other hand, he is likely correct that bara rules out the divine employment of already existent material.

Kenneth A. Matthews provides a more nuanced view in his New American Commentary on Genesis. See pages 136-142.

Collection of Scriptures That Discuss Seeing God "Face to Face"

Genesis 32:30-Jacob wrestles with an angel, who is also identified as Elohim by the prophet Hosea (12:3).

Exodus 33:19, 20-Moses is told that no one can see the face of YHWH (Jehovah) and live.

Numbers 12:8-"Mouth unto mouth I speak with him, and by an appearance, and not in riddles; and the form of Jehovah he beholdeth attentively; and wherefore have ye not been afraid to speak against My servant -- against Moses?'" (YLT)

"With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (ESV)

NIV says, "With him I speak face to face . . ."

Deuteronomy 5:4-"Jehovah spake with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire" (ASV)

Deuteronomy 34:10-"And there hath not arisen a prophet any more in Israel like Moses, whom Jehovah hath known face unto face" (YLT)

1 Corinthians 13:12-"For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known" (NET).

Compare 3 John 14.

See 2 Cor. 3:18. Also with 2 Cor. 4:6, "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God" (ESV) is manifested ἐν προσώπῳ Χριστοῦ.

Revelation 22:3-4-"And there will no longer be any curse, and the throne of God and the Lamb will be in the city. His servants will worship him, and they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads" (NET Bible).