David J. Downs on Ignatius' Theology of the Then-Present Operation of the Holy Spirit

  

Ignatius does not speak of the Spirit with the same regularity with which he discusses the activity and identity of the Son, however. The bishop of Antioch sometimes draws together the work of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as in Eph. 9.1, where readers are imaged as “stones of a temple, prepared for the building of God the Father, lifted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit.” And the Spirit is involved in Jesus’ birth (Eph. 18.2), in teaching the prophets (Magn. 9.2), in establishing the bishop, presbyters, and deacons (Phld. Inscr.), in exposing things hidden (Phld. 7.1), and in empowering Ignatius’s prophetic speech (Phld. 7.2). (David J. Downs, “The Pauline Concept of Union with Christ in Ignatius of Antioch,” in The Apostolic Fathers and Paul, ed. Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite [Paulin and Patristic Scholars in Debate 2; London: T&T Clark, 2017], 150)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Jonathon Lookadoo on Ignatius, To the Philadelphians 7.1-2 and Ignatius Receiving Revelation from "the Spirit" (το πνευμα)

 

William R. Schoedel in Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians 7:1-2

William Tabbernee on Tertullian's Theology of Marriage and the Eschaton

  

Marriage and the “Age of the Paraclete”

 

One of Tertullian’s most obviously New Prophecy-infuenced books is his De monogamia (On Marriage), written ca. 210/11. Earlier, Tertullian merely preferred his wife to remain unmarried after his death (Ad. ux. 1.7.4) but permitted remarriage—as long as it was “in the Lord” (Ad ux. 2.1.2–4; 2.2.3–5; cf. 1 Cor 7:28–29). Following his involvement with the New Prophecy movement, however, he came to take a strong position against remarriage. This more stringent view was based on the logia of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla on the topic (De iei. 1.3; Adv. Marc. 1.29.4; cf. Fr. Ecst., ap. Praedestinatus, De haer. 1.26; Fr., Apollonius, ap. Eusebius, H.E. 5.18.2). These “sayings,” in the opinion of Tertullian, conveyed the latest revelation of the Holy Spirit (Paraclete) on the subject.

 

Through the New Prophecy, the “Montanists” believed, a new “era” or “dispensation” had been inaugurated (De virg. vel. 1.3–7). The “age of the Paraclete” superseded that of “the Father” and even that “of the Son,” clarifying, once and for all, what God’s will was on matters such as permanent monogamy. During earlier eras, God had been prepared to be more lax, allowing polygamy among the Hebrew patriarchs and remarriage (under certain conditions) for Christians. None of this, however, was what God had intended for humanity in the beginning (Gen. 2:24). In the present era, the Paraclete had come to restore the ethical precepts to their original intention, even if this appeared to be a change in what had been allowed previously.

 

Tertullian’s very first extant explicit reference to his own acceptance of the New Prophecy and the Montanist view of the role of the Paraclete is made in the context of his discussion of marriage and remarriage in book 1 of the final edition of the Adversus Marcionem:

 

Now if at this present time a limit of marrying is being imposed, as for example, among us, a spiritual reckoning decreed by the Paraclete is defended, prescribing a single matrimony in the faith, it will be his to tighten the limit who had formerly loosened it. (Adv. Marc. 1.29.4)

 

The kind of monogamy mandated by the discipline revealed by the Paraclete for Christians living in the present age is not merely the opposite of bigamy or polygamy. It is also the opposite of digamy. Remarriage, even if allowed legally after the death of one’s spouse, is forbidden by the Paraclete’s new method of spiritual counting. Whether a person had multiple spouses concurrently or successively is irrelevant. The number is wrong because it is more than one! Remarriage is “adultery-in-series” (De mon. 4.3; cf. De exh. cast. 4.5–6); it is a “species of fornication” (De exh. cast. 9.1).

 

“The World to Come”

 

In making his Montanist-influenced case against remarriage after the death of one’s spouse, Tertullian makes some interesting observations in the De monogamia concerning life in the world to come. He reiterates his earlier view that there will be no resumption of sexual relations between husband and wife in the afterlife (De mon. 10.7, cf. Ad ux. 1.1.2–6). This, however, is no reason, argues Tertullian, for people not to remain bound to their departed spouses. In fact, because of their belief in the resurrection of the dead, they should pray that the souls of their beloved departed may have refreshment in their intermediate state and look forward to their future reunion (De mon. 10.5–8).

 

Tertullian has no doubt that, in the world to come, husbands and wives will recognize each other, have a spiritual (rather than physical) relationship, and have their memories intact (De mon. 10.8). Being in the presence of God does not exclude being in the presence of each other. Husbands and wives will not be separated by God in the world to come, just as God (as recently revealed by the Paraclete) demands that they not be separated during their life on earth (De mon. 10.9). The kind of “mansion” received in the afterlife (cf. John 14:2) depends upon the “wages” earned in this life (10.9). (William Tabbernee, “The World to Come: Tertullian’s Christian Eschatology,” in Tertullian & Paul, ed. Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite [Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate 1; New York: Bloomsbury, 2013], 270-71)

 

Ulrich Luz on Matthew 19:28

  

The “throne of glory” may mean the throne of God on which the Son of Man will sit. Together with the Son of Man the twelve apostles will “judge” Israel on their thrones. That κρίνω could mean “to rule” is a philological fiction that is clearly false, even though it has enjoyed near-universal acceptance since H. Grotius,⁷¹ who may have been the first to suggest it. That the evangelist is not interested in the concept of judgment in any detail is clear from the fact that in 25:31 he can recall our verse even though there it is not the twelve apostles but the “least of the brothers” who are present at the judgment of the Son of Man, and it is not the twelve tribes of Israel but “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) who are judged. Our context is not interested in what may have been a polemical element in earlier stages of the tradition—viz., that it is Israel and not the Gentiles that the twelve judge. In the Matthean context the logion is simply a word of promise. In view of what they have to give up in the present, the twelve are promised an incredible exaltation that is out of all proportion to their present sacrifice. The “hundredfold” of v. 29 is but a natural extension of this promise. (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20: A Commentary on Matthew 8-20 [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2001], 517)

 

Walther Zimmerli on God Depicting Himself as Having Two Wives in Ezekiel 23:1-4

  

The narrative of the two unfaithful women, which is first told to the prophet (son of man) as a personal communication from Yahweh, without any command to preach, begins as in ch. 16 with a prologue, which tells their previous history. In terse sentences this hurries on to the mention of the marriage between Yahweh and the women (ותהיינה לי 23:4 corresponds to ותהיי לי 16:8) and registers the birth of sons and daughters by which the marriage receives its confirmatory seal. Whereas 16:9–14 describes in some detail the honor that it means to belong to Yahweh, to which the mention of the beginnings in Egypt might have given rise (cf. Hos 11:1; 13:4), any such description of Yahweh’s gracious gift is completely lacking here. (Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, 2 vols. [trans. Ronald E. Clements; Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979], 1:483)

 

Ralph W. Klein and Andrew E. Steinmann on Deuteronomy 17:17 Not Being a Blanket Condemnation of Polygamy

Commenting on Joash, who is described as having done right before God, receiving two wives from Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:2-3), Ralph W. Klein commented as follows:

 

3 Jehoiada procured for him two wives, and he fathered sons and daughters: Jehoiada, who had served as foster father to Joash while he was hidden in the temple for six years, and who had engineered the plot that put Joash on the throne and executed Queen Athaliah, continued to be a father figure to Joash by arranging for two of his marriages. One of these wives was possibly Jehoaddan, the mother of Joash’s successor Amaziah (2 Chr 25:1), although it is not impossible that Joash had more than two wives. Two wives are clearly less than the many wives prohibited in Deut 17:17, or the fourteen wives that Abijah had (2 Chr 13:21). Joash’s sons and daughters are a sign of his being under blessing. This verse is an addition by the Chronicler. Dillard (188) attributes it to the source the Chronicler cites in v. 27, but the generic character of this information makes that an unnecessary option, in my opinion. (Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles: A Commentary [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 338, emphasis in bold added)

 

 Another (conservative Protestant) commentator also noted that:

Since it was common in the Ancient Near East for kings to practise polygamy, Deuteronomy 17:17 limits the king to a few wives, not many: ‘He must not acquire many wives for himself so that his heart won’t go astray’ (csb). Solomon was an example of a king who broke this law and whose heart did turn away from God (1 Kgs 11:1–8). (Andrew E. Steinmann, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary [The Tyndale Commentary Series 1; London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2019], 178-79, emphasis in bold added)

 

Note the following from Taylor Halverson’s article, “Deuteronomy 17:14–20 as Criteria for Book of Mormon Kingship,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 24 (2017): 2-3 n. 4, where he quotes a certain troublemaker:

 

Robert Boylan noted for Deuteronomy 17:16–17 that “the Hebrew verb *RBH has the nuance of growing exponentially, not just lineally, with respect to something (cf. the same form of the verb used in Deuteronomy 17:16–17 in Exodus 1:10, 12; Deuteronomy 8:13[x2]; Psalms 49:17; Proverbs 29:16; Isaiah 40:29; 55:7; Dan 11:39; Hosea 12:2). As one lexicon puts it, the hi. רָבָה most often means make numerous or multiply. These forms especially portray the abundance of God’s giving and the fullness of his mercy: in the promise to multiply the patriarchs into a great nation (Genesis 17:2, 20; 22:17; 26:4; 48:4; Exodus 32:13; Leviticus 26:9; Deuteronomy 1:10; 7:13), in the multiplication of signs and wonders to his glory and the destruction of Egypt (Exodus 7:3), and in his gracious redemption (Psalms 78:38; Isaiah 55:7). Conversely, Israel and all humanity stand before God continually multiplying sin, wickedness, and rebellion (Genesis 3:16; Ezra 10:13; Ezekiel 16:25, 26, 29). The remedy for the human malady is not found in multiplying possessions (as the Hebrew kings attempted, cf. Deuteronomy 17:16–17). Rather, God must wash and cleanse the sinner thoroughly (ָרָבה, niv wash away all; Psalms 51:2 [4]). Then the sinner may understand, along with the poet David, how God stoops down to make the righteous great (ָרָבה, 2 Samuel 22:36 || Psalms 18:35 [36]). The hi. ָרָבה can also mean many or increase, like the many gardens of Israel divinely destroyed by blight and mildew (Amos 4:9; NIV reads the proposed emendation הֶחֱרַבְתִּי, “many times I struck”), or the increase that comes from saving money little by little (Proverbs 13:11). Here ָרָבה is to be understood as a gradual or steady increase, or larger sums compared to multitudes. See further הַרְבֵּה. The hi. ־ְל + ָרָבה + inf can mean do something frequently, copiously, continually. For example, Hannah prayed continually to the Lord for a son (1 Samuel 1:12; NIV kept on), the woman of Tekoa begged David to prevent continued killing of her family (2 Samuel 14:11; NIV adding to the destruction), King Manasseh provoked God’s wrath with the continual practice of evil (2 Kgs 21:6 || 2 Chronicles 33:6), as did Amon his son (2 Chronicles 33:23) and all the people of Judah (36:14). Even as the Leviathan (#4293) does not “keep begging” for mercy (Job 41:3 [40:27]), so the Lord has stopped listening to the continual prayers of his people (Isaiah 1:15). Yet if the wicked repent, stop doing wrong, and learn to do right, God will copiously pardon (Isaiah 55:7; NIV freely pardon) — just as he has done continually throughout Israelite history (Psalms 78:38; NIV time after time he restrained his anger).’ VanGemeren, W. (Ed.). (1997). New international dictionary of Old Testament theology & exegesis (Vol. 3, pp. 1038–1039). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.”

 

It should be obvious that Deut 17:17 is not against plural marriage per se, but an exponential increase (“many”) wives (as well as chariots and gold).

 

On Deut 17:17 and Jacob 2, see:

Polygamy, Deuteronomy 17:17, and Jacob 2:24 cf. (Rashi on Deuteronomy 17:17 and the King Having Plural Wives)

2 Samuel 21:6 as a Possible Reference to Crucifixion

  

impale. There is no scholarly consensus on the exact form of execution, except that it obviously involves exhibiting the corpses. Some understand it as a king of crucifixion. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:404)

 

 

6 The exact meaning of the hiph form of the verb יקע is uncertain, and this problem is reflected by the differing translations both ancient and modern. G may suggest crucifixion in the sun (similarly Tg. and Vg) while Syr. thinks of a sacrifice. The same variety is also attested by the modem versions: “hang them” (rsv, RAV), “hurl them down” (neb), “dismember them” (nab), etc. (A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel [Word Biblical Commentary 11; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989], 249)

 

 

The meaning of the verb translated hang is uncertain. In the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel, it seems to mean “dislocated” (rsv “put out of joint”; Gen 32:25). In Jer 6:8 it is translated “alienated.” And in Ezek 23:17–18 the meaning appears to be “turned away from.” Holladay gives the meaning for the form of the verb here as “be exposed with broken limbs.” In the present context it has been translated in a variety of ways, including “impale” (njps, Fox, and nrsv), “hurl … down” (reb), “dismember” (nab and njb), “crucify” (Knox), and “be killed” (niv), as well as the traditional understanding, “hang” (rsv, tev, Goldman, and others). The idea of being impaled or fastened onto a stake after having been run through by it may be the best translation of a very uncertain term. (Roger L. Omanson and John Ellington, A Handbook on Second Book of Samuel [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 2001], 1092)

 

Here is the Aramaic of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets for 2 Sam 21:6:

 

 יִתיַהבוּן לַנָא שִבעָה גֻברִין מִבְנֹוהִי וְנִצלֹובִנוּן קֳדָם יְיָ בְגִבעְתָא דְשָאוּל בְחִירָא דַיְיָ וַאְמַר מַלכָא אְנָא אַתֵין׃

 

Here is an English translation:

 

6. let there be given to us seven men from his sons and let us hang them before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the Lord.” And the king said: “I will give (them).” (Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets [trans. Daniel J. Harrington and Anthony J. Saldarini; The Aramaic Bible 10; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1990], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Randall P. Spackman on Joseph Smith's Comment that it was "1800 years since the Savior laid down his life" on April 6, 1833

In History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834]: 284, set during April 1833, we read:

 

The day was spent in a very agreeable manner, in giving and receiving knowledge which appertained to this last kingdom. It being just 1800 years since the Savior laid down his life that men might have everlasting life, and only three years since the church had come out of the wilderness preparatory for the last dispensation, they had great reason to rejoice;

 

Commenting on this, Randall P. Spackman wrote:

 

 . . . Ludlow also asserted that Joseph Smith “believed the Savior was crucified on Arpil 6 in the thirty-third year of our present calendar (April 6, A.D. 33)” because on April 6, 1833 C.E., a group of Latter-day Saints met with Joseph Smith and he later record that “[t]he day was spent in a very agreeable manner in giving and receiving knowledge which appertained to this last kingdom—it being just 1800 years since the Savior laid down his life . . .” (Ludlow 1978: 151). April 6, 1833 C.E. was the Saturday following Good Friday, so it would have been natural for the Latter-day Saints to remember the Savior’s crucifixion during their meeting. While Joseph Smith may have had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Dionysian year counting system, he new that the Book of Mormon did not describe the lifetime of Jesus as exactly 33 Gregorian years (see 3 Nephi 8:5). Ludlow’s interpretation, while well intentioned, reads far too much into Joseph Smith’s natural and general statement. (Randall P. Spackman, Introduction to Book of Mormon Chronology: The Principal Prophecies, Calendars, and Dates [FARMS Preliminary Papers; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1993], 72-73)