Stephen Boyce on the Use of Apocalypstic Texts in 1 Clement 34:3

  

1 Clement 34:3 Ἰδοὺ ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς (Rev. 22:12; Isa. 40:10) αὐτοῦ πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ (Isa. 62:11) ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ (Rev. 22:12) κατὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ (Isa. 40:10; Rev. 22:12)

 

"Behold, the Lord comes, and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.”

 

Ἰδού, ἔρχομαι ταχύ, καὶ ὁ μισθός μου μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ ὡς τὸ ἔργον ἔσται αὐτοῦ (Rev. 22:12 NA28)

 

ἰδοὺ κύριος μετὰ ἰσχύος ἔρχεται καὶ ὁ βραχίων μετὰ κυριείας ἰδοὺ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ (Isa. 40:10 LXX)

 

ἰδοὺ γὰρ κύριος ἐποίησεν ἀκουστὸν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς εἴπατε τῇ θυγατρὶ Σιων ἰδού σοι ὁ σωτὴρ παραγίνεται ἔχων τὸν ἑαυτοῦ μισθὸν καὶ τὸ ἔργον πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ (Isa. 62:11 LXX)

 

Agreement: The wording of 1 Clement 34:3 resists attribution to any single biblical source, and the textual comparisons make clear that Clement is intentionally weaving together multiple scriptural traditions. The phraseology draws simultaneously from Isaiah 40:10, Isaiah 62:11, and Revelation 22:12 in a manner that cannot be explained by coincidence or by dependence on only one of these texts.

 

From Revelation 22:12, Clement shares the distinctive eschatological formulation of the Lord’s coming with recompense, particularly the clauses concerning reward (ὁ μισθός) and the rendering to each person according to works (ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ… κατὰ τὸ ἔργον). These elements are especially striking because the syntactical construction and eschatological framing align more closely with Revelation than with Isaiah alone.

 

At the same time, Clement preserves Isaianic language that Revelation itself adapts. The expression “before his face” (πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ) reflects Isaiah 62:11 rather than Revelation’s μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, while the broader conceptual framework of divine recompense coming visibly and authoritatively belongs to Isaiah 40:10. Clement’s wording therefore reflects not merely Isaiah independently, nor Revelation independently, but a convergence of both streams.

 

This is significant because Revelation 22:12 itself represents an adaption of Isaianic eschatological language. Clement’s citation appears to stand at the intersection of these traditions, suggesting either familiarity with Revelation’s formulation or access to a shared eschatological tradition already shaped by Revelation’s language. The alignment of multiple distinctive phrases across these texts makes accidental overlap implausible.

 

Equally important is Clement’s eschatological posture. He clearly presents the Lord’s coming and judgment as future events rather than realities already fulfilled. This observation directly challenges Preterist reconstructions that locate the composition and fulfillment of Revelation prior to 70 AD. If 1 Clement is rightly dated to the late first century, as is widely held, and if Clement is drawing upon Revelation-like language while still anticipating future fulfillment, then Revelation must either be contemporaneous with Clement or earlier but not understood as fulfilled.

 

Finally, the historical context strengthens this conclusion. Rome’s central position within the Christian network and its established lines of communication with the churches of Asia Minor make it entirely plausible that an early form of Revelation could have reached Clement within a short period after its circulation. Clement’s composite citation thus provides indirect but meaningful evidence for the early reception and authoritative use of Revelation in the Roman church.

 

In sum, the textual data support the conclusion that 1 Clement 34:3 is a deliberate conflation of Isaiah and Revelation, reflecting both continuity with prophetic tradition and engagement with emerging New Testament apocalyptic theology. (Stephen Boyce, “The Use of Scripture in Early Christian Writings: A Textual Analysis of 1 Clement, Polycarp, the Didache, and Ignatius” [PhD Dissertation; Louisiana Baptist University and Seminary, 2021], 65-68)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 103: Brian Hales on the Seer Stone Controversy

 

Episode 103: Brian Hales on the Seer Stone Controversy

Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) on Matthew 16:18

  

. . . And when Christ said to Peter “Thou art Peter and upon this rock,” etc., we understand the word, rock, as a reference to Christ in him he [Peter] had confesses his belief. And if the word, rock [petram], is to be understood as a reference to Peter’s role as the foundation stone of the church, according to Jerome the other apostles were also foundation stones of the church. When these things are discussed in the next to the last book of the Apocalypse no one doubts that it refers to the apostles when it speaks of the twelve foundation stones of the city of Jerusalem. And if Christ said to Peter “Feed my sheep,” it is clear that this feeding is by word and example. Similarly according to St. Augustine’s gloss on the same passage, the same command was given to all [when Christ said] “Going into the whole world” in the last chapter of Matthew and Mark. Nothing else is said to Peter which implies any power. Therefore we are correct in saying that all the apostles are equal to Peter in power. (Nicholas of Cusa, The Catholic Concordance, Book II, paragraph 115 [trans. ed. Paul E. Sigmund; Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 90)

 

 

Indeed we say that all the apostles are equal in the grace of the apostolate just as in the grace of the priesthood all priests are equal, but we say that Peter was first among the apostles by virtue of a superabundance of grace. Augustine says in his last sermon [on the Gospel of] John, that because of abundant grace Peter was both the first apostle and on account of his primacy among the apostles also represented the church as a symbol of the whole. And the sacred writings describe the primacy with which Peter was endowed with a superabundance of grace by Christ, in the first chapter of John were Christ says, “Thou shalt be called Cephas,” which is interpreted Peter. Augustine in his seventh sermon comments on this passage as follows: “He made a great change when he changed Simon’s name to Peter. But Peter is now from rock [petra] and the rock is the church. Therefore the name of Peter symbolized the church.” Observe that according to the interpretation of the great and learned Augustine, the change in name was important. When Christ said, “Thou art Peter,” he used the present tense, where he had said earlier—in the future tense—“Thou shalt be called Cephas.” He did not say then, “Thou art named or called Peter” but “Thou art Peter.” From this it is evident that the promise of Christ that Simon would in the future be called Cephas was a promise of a real primacy. Hence when Augustine says that Peter had the primacy among the apostles he can not be interpreted as speaking of the time of his conversion or his recognition of the Messiah, as the name Peter is interpreted (according to Bede, incorrectly) to mean “the one who recognizes” by writers such as Alexander of Hales commenting on John. He adds on the same point that his brother, Andrew, who told him earlier that he had found the Messiah had already preceded him in that recognition, as we read in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. Therefore Augustine himself understands the primacy among the others in the church as necessarily referring to the rulership and eminence which Peter received after the college of the apostles had been created when Christ said, “Thou art Peter.” (Nicholas of Cusa, The Catholic Concordance, Book II, paragraph 251 [trans. ed. Paul E. Sigmund; Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 194-95)

 

John B. Whitley on the use of לוּחַ in the text of Ezekiel 37:16 of Targum Jonathan

  

The Targum of Jonathan takes a slightly different path toward a similar end. It distributes (and slightly expands) its translation of the Hebrew term עץ among four occurrences of Aramaic לוח (tablet) and six occurrences of שבט, whose meaning here requires further discussion. The translation לוח is used when עץ is the object that Ezekiel physically holds in his hands where שבט is used when עץ is part of the inscription on the sticks/tablets. The translation שבט is significant precisely because of its ambiguity: it can mean both “tribe” and “rod,” and there is good reason to believe that its use here is intended to play on both of these meanings. In connection with the meaning “rod,” שבט seems to encode an additional play on the more precise nuances of “scepter” and “shepherd’s staff,” as has been observed with the use of the Greek ῥάβδος in the LXX above. This aspect of the play enhances the connection between the sign act in vv. 16–19 and the messianic content of vv. 21–28. In connection with the meaning “tribe,” it may be noted that שבט is used to translate ושבטי ישראל (and the tribes of Israel) in v. 19, and in the six instances in which it translates Hebrew עץ it always precedes the name of a traditional tribal designation (Judah, Joseph, Ephraim). Thus, in Tg. Jon., each use of שבט fully comprehends the meaning “scepter / shepherd’s staff / tribe” so that the symbolic unification of the tablets signifies both the restoration of the monarchy and the uniting of the tribes. One difference from the LXX here is that Tg. Jon. attempts to improve the coherence of this passage by modifying the content of the inscriptions on the tablets whereas, in the LXX, it is the description of the physical sticks as ῥάβδοι that gives the act messianic importance.

 

One additional modification in Tg. Jon. is worthy of note and is comparable to the LXX’s attempt to improve this passage. As we have seen above, the MT in v. 19 retains the symbolic imagery of the sticks in its first interpretation of the sign act, and the LXX seeks to make this verse more of a true interpretation by translating two instances of עץ in this verse with φυλή (tribe). The LXX does not, however, see this change through entirely since it also retains mention of the tribes becoming one “stick” (ῥάβδος). The Targum of Jonathan carries this change through more thoroughly by emending “and I will make them one stick” in the MT to “and I will make them one people.”

 

Thus, it appears that the additions that were added by TS^R caused the later translators of the LXX and Tg. Jon. to make v. 19 more of a first interpretation of vv. 16–17, to ponder the meaning of עץ in this passage, and to search for an explanation for how the symbolism in vv. 16–19 relates to the messianic content of vv. 21–28. Both adopted the same basic tactic of expanding the connotations of the stick imagery in a way that relates to both the messianic shepherd and Davidic ruler images later in this passage, although they went about this in different ways. The trajectory of interpretive revision begun in TS^R, therefore, was continued and strengthened in these later versions. (John B. Whitley, “The Literary Expansion of Ezekiel’s ‘Two Sticks’ Sign Act (Ezekiel 37:15-28),” Harvard Theological Review 108, no. 2 [April 2015]: 322-23)

 

 

Jaco Gericke on Genesis 20:13

  

EXPLICIT REFERENCES TO DIVINE CAUSATION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

 

In a sense, the theory of DCP is completely inferential. That is, biblical Hebrew has no direct equivalent for the English word “cause.” The concept of causation, however, can presumably be inferred, first of all from what is understood to be a correct interpretation of functions within Hebrew grammar. Here the verbal system is said to contain forms indicative of causation (e.g. especially in certain types of pi‘el, pu‘al and hip‘il formations). This is why English translations have a few instances where the word “cause” occurs in the rendition. For example, a simple word search in the RSV with “cause” as the only extension and pertaining to divine agency shows only a number of cases. These occur across a variety of sources and shows complex causation in all instances, for example:

 

(i) And when God (Hebrew: “gods”) caused me to wander from my father’s house . . . (Gen 20:13)

 

. . .

 

Besides interpretations of grammar, also lengthier depictions of YHWH as causal agent as well as theological propositions implicating YHWH in the actualisation of certain states of affairs seem to constitute the other side of the textual data from which causation has been inferred. In addition, textual representations of the working of both human and divine characters in tandem are held to warrant the inference of a duality in causation, especially if these two agencies are the only ones that are kept in view, and internally undifferentiated at that. (Jaco Gericke, “Rethinking the ‘Dual Causality Principle’ in Old Testament Research—A Philosophical Perspective,” Old Testament Essays 28, no. 1 [2015]:93, 94, emphasis added; other texts are quoted in Deut 28:27; 2 Kgs 19:7; 21:8; Ezek 36:27; Psa 88:18; 106:46)

 

Peter Stravinskas: "Fewer than a dozen" texts have been Infallibilty Interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church

  

Father Raymond Brown, writing in the Jerome Biblical Commentary (the best single guide available for Scripture study), categorically asserts that “the Church has the power to determine infallibly the meaning of Scripture in matters of faith and morals”; however, he immediately goes on to note that this never involves technicalities like authorship or dating of a book. In point of fact, the Church exercises great restraint in offering authoritative interpretations of individual pericopes (texts); fewer than a dozen such instances can be pointed to in her two-thousand-year history, most of them at the Council of Trent. (Peter M. J. Stravinskas, The Catholic Church and the Bible [rev ed.; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996], 15, emphasis in bold added)

 

Keil and Delitzsch on the Conditional Nature of the Prophecy in Judges 13:2-7

  

Judg. 13:2–7. Whilst the Israelites were given into the hands of the Philistines on account of their sins, and were also severely oppressed in Gilead on the part of the Ammonites, the angel of the Lord appeared to the wife of Manoah, a Danite from Zorea, i.e., Sur’a, on the western slope of the mountains of Judah (see at Josh. 15:33). Mishpachath Dani (the family of the Danites) is used interchangeably with shebet Dani (the tribe of the Danites: see Judg. 18:2, 11, and 18:1, 30), which may be explained on this ground, that according to Num. 26:42, 43, all the Danites formed but one family, viz., the family of the Shuhamites. The angel of the Lord announced to this woman, who was barren, “Thou wilt conceive and bear a son. And now beware, drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean: for, behold, thou wilt conceive and bear a son, and no razor shall come upon his head; for a vowed man of God (Nazir) will the boy be from his mother’s womb,” i.e., his whole life long, “to the day of his death,” as the angel expressly affirmed, according to v. 7. The three prohibitions which the angel of the Lord imposed upon the woman were the three things which distinguished the condition of a Nazarite (see at Num. 6:1–8, and the explanation given there of the Nazarite vow). The only other thing mentioned in the Mosaic law is the warning against defilement from contact with the dead, which does not seem to have been enforced in the case of Samson. When the angel added still further, “And he (the Nazarite) will begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines,” he no doubt intended to show that his power to effect this deliverance would be closely connected with his condition as a Nazarite. The promised son was to be a Nazarite all his life long, because he was to begin to deliver Israel out of the power of his foes. And in order that he might be so, his mother was to share in the renunciations of the Nazarite vow during the time of her pregnancy. Whilst the appearance of the angel of the Lord contained the practical pledge that the Lord still acknowledged His people, though He had given them into the hands of their enemies; the message of the angel contained this lesson and warning for Israel, that it could only obtain deliverance from its foes by seeking after a life of consecration to the Lord, such as the Nazarites pursued, so as to realize the idea of the priestly character to which Israel had been called as the people of Jehovah, by abstinence from the deliciae carnis, and everything that was unclean, as being emanations of sin, and also by a complete self-surrender to the Lord (see Pentateuch, p. 674). (Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), 2:292-93)