Ibn Ezra on Daniel 8:14

  

ויאמר, עד ערב בקר - עוד אפרשנו. ונצדק קדש - שישוב קדש לצדק, בעבור שיאמר כמראה גבר אמר גבריאל. (source)

 

 

“And he said, ‘Until evening-morning’—I will explain it further.

 

‘And the sanctuary shall be justified’—that is, the sanctuary shall return to righteousness, because Gabriel said, ‘like the appearance of a man.’”

 

R. C. H. Lenski (Lutheran) on Luke 9 :50 (cf. Mark 9:40)

  

50) We see how Jesus understood John, namely that he wanted to know whether hindering the man was right and in the interest of Jesus or not. Jesus tells him that it is not right and adds the proof. As a rule (R. 851–2), the command to stop an action already begun is expressed by the present imperative with μή whereas the command not to begin an action has the ingressive aorist subjunctive with μή. It does so here: μή κωλύετε = “stop preventing him.” And the reason (γάρ) is that “he who is not against you is for you,” ὑπέρ, in your favor. As far as the pronoun “you” is concerned, for which Mark 9:40 has “we,” this refers to them as disciples of Jesus and thus involves Jesus just as much as “we” does.

 

We should, of course, consider this terse dictum in its connection and not in a mere abstract way. It applies to men like the one under discussion. It does not apply to men who are merely indifferent to Jesus and are thus not actively against him. Such indifference and coldness as a response to Jesus and his revelation (name) would be “against” him and his disciples in a decided way. To be lukewarm and neither hot nor cold is fatal. Thus, not to be against the disciples of Jesus means, indeed, to be for them, at least to some degree. Whoever appreciates Jesus and his name (revelation) enough to drop all opposition to him and to his disciples is, to say the least, on a fair road to becoming his enthusiastic follower.

 

This shows agreement with the dictum that is voiced in Matt. 12:30: “He that is not with me (μετά) is against me (κατά).” Both dicta state the same thing, but do so in opposite ways. One states who are for Jesus, the other who are against him. Both imply that neutrality in regard to him is impossible. Whoever comes in contact with Jesus and develops no hostility toward him and his is already to a degree won for him and will soon confess this; but whoever comes in contact with Jesus and forms no attachment for him is already to a degree against him and will soon reveal this. The two dicta thus belong together, each makes the other clearer. (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 550-51, emphasis in bold added)

 

Robert Alter on Proverbs 15:26, 28, and 33

  

Prov 15:26:

 

but the sayings of the pure are sweet. The Hebrew of the received text reads “and the sweet sayings are pure,” wetehorim ʾimrey-noʿam. This translation adopts the reading of the Septuagint, which appears to reflect a Hebrew text that showed weʾimrey tehorim yinʿamu. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:400)

 

 

Prov 15:28:

 

utters truth. The Masoretic Text reads “utters to answer,” but the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Targum all seem to reflect a Hebrew text that read ʾemunim, “truth,” “true things,” “trustworthiness,” instead of la’anot. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:401)

 

 

Prov 15:33:

 

wisdom’s foundation. The Masoretic Text has musar ḥokhmah, “the reproof of wisdom,” which is conceivable but odd. This translation adopts a small, widely proposed emendation, musad, “foundation,” for musar. This would bring the verset in line with several statements in Proverbs that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:401)

 

Robert Alter on Proverbs 14:34

  

want. Following scholarly consensus and the Septuagint, this translation replaces the Masoretic ḥesed, “kindness,” with ḥeser, “want.” The difference between the Hebrew graphemes for d and r is quite small. The phrase “leads to” has been added in the translation for clarification of the Hebrew, which has no verb. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:398; such reflects a difference between ר r and ד d)

 

Logos (Australian-Based Christadelphian Publishers) Imputing Some Degree of Divine Inspiration to John Thomas in Writing Eureka

Some Christadelphians have imputed some level of inspiration to John Thomas. In the Logos (as in the Christadelphian publishers in Australia, not the Bible software company), we read the following in an appendix to volume 1 of Eureka, John Thomas’s 3-volume commentary on the book of Revelation:

 

With many Christadelphians, we believe that though Eureka is not inspired as the Scriptures are inspired, its author was divinely guided in the interpretation set forth. That does not mean that we necessarily endorse every detail of it; but it does mean that by and large, we accept it as the true meaning of the Revelation. We are convinced that an unbiased examination of the evidence will demonstrate the soundness of what is therein set forth. (“Appendix: Why the Apocalypse Should Be studied: A Blessing or a Curse?,” in John Thomas, Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse, electronic ed. (West Beach, South Australia: Logos Publications, 1997), Logos Bible Software edition)

 

One Christadelphian apologist, Duncan Heaster, characterized the Logos organization as a “John Thomas-worshipping group” (“Christadelphian History and Current Issues,” 48:10 mark)

 

This is not new. Robert Roberts once wrote the following:

 

To the charge of holding “that the knowledge of Scripture, in the writings of Dr. Thomas, has reached a finality,” we plead guilty. If we were ignorant or unfamiliar with the Scriptures, or were like those who, when they attempt to write or speak, have to look at them through the telescope of dictionaries, concordances, and such like, we should not have ground sufficient to entertain this conviction; but our acquaintance with them in daily intercourse for twenty-one years, enables us to be confident on the point. Our reading has not been confined fined to the Scriptures, or to the writings of Dr. Thomas. We have read what others have to say. We have, therefore, all the materials to form a judgment; and our judgment is distinctly to the effect imputed—that, in the writings of Dr. Thomas, the truth is developed as a finality, and that they are a depot of the Christian doctrine. In this sense we are “committed to Dr. Thomas.” (Robert Roberts, “Mere-Manism, &c,” The Christadelphian 11, no. 123 [September 1874]: 408-9)

 

Further Reading:

Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues

Francisco Marín-Sola Proving a Thomistic Interpretation of Luke 22:42 and Matthew 26:39

  

AN OBJECTION. - Someone might come up with the Gospel text: “Not my will, but thine, be done”, and “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt” to object that there was no need of any theological conclusion, in the proper sense of the term, to define the dogma of the two wills in Christ. We must here note three things:

 

First, the Church Fathers differ in their interpretation of these texts. The term will can be taken in three different senses: (a) the rational or free will (voluntas rationis)·, (b) a necessary or natural tendency (voluntas naturae)·, (c) the sensory inclination or appetite (volunas sensualitatis). If it is true that many of the Fathers have understood these texts in the first sense, it is no less true that others have interpreted them in the second and third senses. St. Thomas himself employs the three interpretations. The interpretation commonly given to these texts seems obvious to us because we know beforehand that Our Lord was a perfect man. Without such previous knowledge this intepretation would not have any rigorously demonstrative value.

 

Secondly, whatever be the meaning of these texts (even if all three should be admitted), it is beyond doubt that the councils, the popes, and many theologians of the first rank expressly attest - as we have seen - that the dogma of the two wills of Christ has been defined by the Church because it was deduced from another fundamental dogma, viz. the dogma of the two perfect natures. To any true Thomist it is obvious that this dogma has been deduced through a conclusion in the proper sense of the term.

 

Thirdly, - and principally, - the Church has defined not only that there are two wills in Christ, but also that there are in him two operations, two intellects, and even two knowledges. Now, the latter cannot be formally seen in the text “Not my will, but thine, be done” nor in any other Gospel text; it can be seen only by way of a strict conclusion from the dogma perfect man. Thus St. Thomas: “Nothing natural was wanting in Christ who assumed the whole [integral or perfect] nature, as has been said above. And therefore the position of those who deny that there existed in Christ two knowledges or two wisdoms was condemned in the sixth Synod.” “Thus inasmuch as from the fact that someone asserts one single action in Christ, it follows that there is in him one single nature and one single will, therefore this position was condemned as heretical in the sixth Synod. ”

 

Thus it is unquestionable that reasoning, including the reasoning made up of a premise of faith and a premise of reason, has always been the human instrument employed by the Church under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, to come to know and to define the dogma of the two wills, two intellects, two knowledges, and two operations in Jesus Christ. (Francisco Marín-Sola, The Homogeneous Evolution of Catholic Dogma [trans. Antonio T. Piñon; Manila, Philippines: Santo Tomas University Press, 1988], 369-71)

 

Baptism as an αναμνησις of the Passion of Christ in Methodius of Olympus (d. 311), Banquet of the Ten Virgins

Lampe, in his Patristic Greek Lexicon, has the following under “αναμνησις”:

 

d. of baptism as similar recalling of Passion εἰς … πλῆθος αὐξανομένης καθʼ ἡμέραν τῆς ἐκκλησίας διὰ τὴν σύνερξιν καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τοῦ λόγου συγκαταβαίνοντος ἡμῖν καὶ νῦν ἔτι καὶ ἐξισταμένου κατὰ τὴν ἀ. τοῦ πάθους Meth.symp.3.8(p.35.22; M.18.73b) (“Ἀνάμνησις,” in A Patristic Greek Lexicon ed. G. W. H. Lampe [Oxford: At The Clarendon Press, 1961], 113)

 

For fuller context, here is a transcription from Methodius’s work (taken from Migne, PG 18:72-75):

 

Προγεγύμνασται γὰρ μετὰ συστάσεων οὐκ εὐκαταφρονήτων ἐκ τῆς Γραφῆς, ὡς ἄρα ὁ πρωτόπλαστος οἰκείως εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεσθαι δύναται τὸν Χριστόν, οὐκέτι τύπος ὢν καὶ ἀπείκασμα μόνον καὶ εἰκὼν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο σοφία γεγονὼς καὶ Λόγος. Δίκην γὰρ ὕδατος ὁ ἄνθρωπος συγκερασθεὶς τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ τῇ ζωῇ τοῦτο γέγονεν, ὅπερ ἦν αὐτὸ τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐγκατασκῆψαν ἄκρατον φῶς.

 

Ὅθεν δ’ Ἀπόστολος εὐθυβόλως εἰς Χριστὸν ἀνηκόντισε τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδάμ. Οὕτως γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν συμφωνῆσαι γεγονέναι· ἧς δὴ χάριν, καταλείψας τὸν Πατέρα τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, κατήλθεν ὁ Λόγος προσκολληθησόμενος τῇ γυναικί· καὶ ὕπνωσε τὴν ἔκστασιν τοῦ πάθους, ἑκουσίως ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ἀποθανών, «ὅπως αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ παραστήσῃ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν ἔνδοξον καὶ ἄμωμον, καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ» πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν τοῦ νοητοῦ καὶ μακαρίου σπέρματος, ὃ σπείρει μὲν αὐτὸς ὑπηχῶν καὶ καταφυτεύων ἐν τῷ βάθει τοῦ νοός, ὑποδέχεται δὲ καὶ μορφοῖ δίκην γυναικὸς ἡ Ἐκκλησία εἰς τὸ γεννᾶν τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ ἐκτρέφειν.

 

Ταύτῃ γὰρ καὶ τὸ «Αὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε» πληροῦται προσηκόντως, εἰς μέγεθος καὶ κάλλος καὶ πλῆθος καθ’ ἡμέραν αὐξανομένης αὐτῆς διὰ τὴν σύνερξιν καὶ κοινωνίαν τοῦ Λόγου, συγκαταβαίνοντος ἡμῖν καὶ νῦν καὶ ἐξισταμένου κατὰ τὴν ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ πάθους. Οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἄλλως ἡ Ἐκκλησία συλλαβεῖν τοὺς πιστεύοντας καὶ ἀναγεννῆσαι διὰ λουτροῦ τῆς παλιγγενεσίας δύνατο, ἐὰν μὴ καὶ δι’ αὐτοὺς ὁ Χριστὸς κενώσας ἑαυτόν, ἵνα χωρηθῇ κατὰ τὴν ἀνακεφαλαίωσιν, ὡς ἔφην, τοῦ πάθους, πάλιν ἀποθάνῃ καταβὰς ἐξ οὐρανῶν καὶ προσκολληθεὶς τῇ ἑαυτοῦ γυναικί, τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, παράσχοι τῆς πλευρᾶς ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δύναμίν τινα, ὅπως αὐξηθῶσιν οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ οἰκοδομηθέντες ἅπαντες, οἱ γεγεννημένοι διὰ τοῦ λουτροῦ, ἐκ τῶν ὀστῶν καὶ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς ἁγιωσύνης αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῆς δόξης προσειληφότες. Ὀστὰ γὰρ καὶ σάρκα σοφίας ὁ λέγων εἶναι σύνεσιν καὶ ἀρετήν ὀρθότατα λέγει· πλευρὰν δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ παράκλητον, ἀφ’ οὗ λαμβάνοντες εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν ἀναγεννῶνται προσηκόντως οἱ πεφωτισμένοι.

 

Ἀδύνατον δὲ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Ἁγίου μετασχεῖν τινα καὶ μέλος καταλεχθῆναι Χριστοῦ, ἐὰν μὴ πρότερον καὶ ἐπὶ τούτου συγκατελθὼν ὁ Λόγος ἔκστη κοιμηθείς, ἵνα τὴν ἀνανέωσιν καὶ τὸν ἀνακαινισμόν, συνεξαναστὰς τοῦ ὕπνου τοῦ κεκοιμημένου, καὶ αὐτὸ μεταλαβεῖν δυνηθῇ, Πνεύματος ἀναπλασθείς. Τοῦτο γὰρ κυρίως ἂν ἡ πλευρὰ λέγοιτο τοῦ Λόγου, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ ἑπτάμορφον κατὰ τὸν προφήτην, ἀφ’ οὗ λαμβάνων ὁ Θεὸς μετὰ τὴν ἔκστασιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃ δὴ ἔστι μετὰ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν καὶ τὸ πάθος, τὴν «βοηθὸν» αὐτῷ κατασκευάζει, λέγω δὴ τὴν ἠρμοσμένην αὐτῷ καὶ νενυμφευμένην ψυχήν.

 

Ἔστι γὰρ ὅτε πολλαχῶς αὐτὸ τὸ ἄθροισμα καὶ τὸ στίφος τῶν πεπιστευκότων Ἐκκλησίαν οὕτως ὀνομάζουσιν αἱ Γραφαί, τῶν τελειοτέρων κατὰ προκοπὴν εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ σῶμα τὸ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀναγομένων. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ κρείττονες καὶ τρανότερον σπάσαντες ἤδη τὴν ἀλήθειαν, οὗτοι διὰ τὴν τελείαν κάθαραν καὶ πίστιν ἀποστερωθέντες τῶν τῆς σαρκὸς ἀτοπημάτων, Ἐκκλησία γίνονται καὶ «βοηθὸς» τοῦ Χριστοῦ, «παρθένος» ὥσπερ, κατὰ τὸν Ἀπόστολον, αὐτῷ καθηρμοσμένοι τε καὶ νενυμφευμένοι, ἵνα, τὴν καθαρὰν τῆς διδασκαλίας ὑποδεξάμενοι καὶ γόνιμον σποράν, συνεργήσωσι βοηθοῦντες τῷ κηρύγματι πρὸς τὴν τῶν λοιπῶν σωτηρίαν. Οἱ δὲ ἀτελεῖς ἔτι καὶ ἀπαρχόμενοι τῶν μαθημάτων εἰς σωτηρίαν ὠδίνωνται καὶ μορφοῦνται, ὥσπερ ὑπὸ μητράσι πρὸς τῶν τελειοτέρων, ἔστ’ ἂν ἀποκυηθέντες ἀναγεννηθῶσιν εἰς μέγεθος καὶ κάλλος ἀρετῆς· καὶ πάλιν αὖ κατὰ προκοπὴν Ἐκκλησία καὶ οὗτοι γεγονότες, εἰς ἕτερον τόκον ὑπουργήσωσι τέκνων καὶ ἀνατροφήν, μήτρας δίκην, ἐν τῷ δοχείῳ τῆς ψυχῆς, τὸ θέλημα τελεσφορήσαντες ἀλώβητον τοῦ Λόγου.

 

For this has already been prepared by scriptural arguments that are not to be lightly dismissed: namely, that the first-formed man can properly be referred to Christ, so that he is no longer merely a type, a likeness, and an image of the Only-begotten, but has become Wisdom itself and the Word. For man, mixed as it were like water with Wisdom and Life, became what was itself that pure light which had shone into him.

 

From this the Apostle pointed directly to Christ in what he said about Adam. For in this way, most especially, the Church could be said to have come from his bones and his flesh. For this reason the Word left the Father in heaven and came down to be joined to the woman; and He slept the ecstasy of suffering, dying willingly for her, “in order that He might present to Himself the Church glorious and without blemish, having cleansed her by the bath,” for the reception of the spiritual and blessed seed, which He Himself sows, sounding it forth and planting it in the depths of the mind. The Church receives it and shapes it, like a woman, so as to bear and nurture virtue.

 

And in this way the command, “Increase and multiply,” is duly fulfilled, as she grows every day in greatness, beauty, and abundance through her union and fellowship with the Word, who still now comes down to us and is “present” in the remembrance of the Passion. For the Church could not otherwise conceive believers and bring them forth again through the bath of regeneration unless Christ also, for their sake, had emptied Himself so that, in the recapitulation—as I said—of the Passion, He might die again, descending from heaven and joining Himself to His own wife, the Church, and thus allow a power to be taken from His side, so that all those built up in Him, those born through the bath, might increase from His bones and flesh, that is, from the holiness and glory taken from Him. For one who says that “bones” and “flesh” are wisdom means understanding and virtue, and says quite rightly that the “rib” is the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, from whom those who receive it are regenerated unto incorruptibility. But no one can partake of the Holy Spirit and be numbered among Christ’s members unless first the Word has come down upon him and, falling into that “ecstasy,” has slept, so that, rising together with the sleeper from his sleep, he may also be able to share in renewal and re-creation, being filled with the Spirit. For this, properly speaking, is what the rib of the Word would be called: the Spirit of truth, the sevenfold Spirit according to the prophet, from whom God, after the ecstasy of Christ—that is, after His becoming man and His Passion—fashioned for Him the “helper,” that is, the soul fitted to Him and wedded to Him.

 

For the gathered body and throng of believers is also often called “the Church” in Scripture, as the more advanced are gradually led into one person and one body of the Church. Those who are better and have already more clearly grasped the truth, being stripped through complete purification and faith of the distortions of the flesh, become the Church and the “helper” of Christ, like a “virgin,” in the Apostle’s sense, joined and wedded to Him, so that, having received the pure teaching and fruitful seed, they cooperate by helping the preaching toward the salvation of others. But those who are still imperfect and only beginning their instruction in salvation are in labor and are being formed, as though by mothers, by the more perfect, until, once brought to birth, they are reborn into the greatness and beauty of virtue; and then, having become Church again in their turn through progress, they serve in another generation of children and in their nurture, like a womb, bringing to completion in the vessel of the soul the will of the Word, intact and unharmed.

 

The editors of this work have the following note:

 

Οὐκέτι τύπος ὤν. De Christo satis intelligitur, etsi nulla substantiarum confusione, sed solum τῷ καθ ' ὑπόστασιν. De Adamo vero, idque necdum gratiam per Christum consecuto, sed Dei sola libe- ralitate, qui unus ipse ejus ordinis auctor exstiterit, quomodo non Christi figura ac repræsentatio, sed hoc ipsum quod Λόγος in ipsum adveniens ac ipse revera Christus exstiterit, ac velut hoc illi peculiare sit ; hincque adeo ad Christum quasi per identitatem referatur, vel aliter quam sancti reliqui, accidentario dono gratiae, qua dill quodammodo efficmur, divino in nobis semine in deitatem aucti secundum tenuem quamdam imitationem , unam ipsam contra unionem hypostaticam hominis possibilem, non video ut Methodius ex Scriptura habuerit, aut suadere possit. ᾿Ανάμνησις (id est commemoratio) mortis Christi ejusque passionis ipsa et in baptismo, in quo in ejus mortem intingimur, seu illam adumbramus : in Eucharistia vero augustius, in qua nostri Adæ ἔκστασις el sopor totus mystice peragitur, ac num per κοινωνίαν peculiarius Methodius indicare voluerit? in qua utique mortem Domini, ipsa ejus sumptione ( quæ pridem baptismo comes erat) commemoranus, vel, ut Paulus loquitur, annuntiamus. (PG 18:71-72 n. 51)

 

 

Οὐκέτι τύπος ὤν. This can be understood sufficiently of Christ, even though there is no confusion of substances, but only τῷ καθ ’ ὑπόστασιν. But with respect to Adam—who had not yet obtained grace through Christ, but only the generosity of God, who alone was the author of that order—how, I ask, is he not a figure and representation of Christ? Rather, how is it that this very thing itself, namely that the Λόγος coming into him and himself truly becoming Christ, and as it were this being peculiar to him, is therefore referred to Christ almost by identity; whereas with the other saints, by an incidental gift of grace, we are made in a certain manner divine, increased in divinity by the divine seed within us according to some slight imitation? I do not see from Scripture that Methodius had this, or that he can prove it. ᾿Ανάμνησις (that is, commemoration) of Christ’s death and passion exists in baptism itself, in which we are dipped into his death, or represent it; but it exists more solemnly in the Eucharist, in which the ἔκστασις and total sleep of our Adam are mystically enacted. And did Methodius perhaps wish to indicate something more particularly through κοινωνία? In that sacrament we certainly commemorate the Lord’s death by the very act of receiving him, as baptism once was its companion; or, as Paul says, we proclaim it.