Didymus the Blind (313-398) on Genesis 3:15

  

I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will watch for your head, and you will watch for his heel (v. 15). When a naïve person associates with a villain, he suffers no little harm; the villain makes an approach and suggests what is harmful, and the naïve soul accepts it as something beneficial. A separation between them is therefore advisable, and a state of enmity and absence of communication, so that the naïve person is “wise” in response to the saving exhortation and says of the devil, “We are not ignorant of his designs.” We frequently witness, for example, a woman’s friendship with a man arising with naïveté, and from this deception such people proceed to shameful behavior; so our anxiety is the result not of a hatred of the peace that is the fruit of the Spirit, but of a dissipation of that peace against which the Savior said he came to bring a sword, “I have come to bring not peace but a sword”⁵² that divides and separates those longing for something helpful from those endeavoring to harm them. So in his goodness God plants enmity in those with whom peace and union are at war; when some in ignorance of (232) evil fall foul of it and learn that it is ruinous and damaging, they reap no little benefit. (Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Genesis [trans. Robert C. Hills; The Fathers of the Church 132; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016], 97)

 

 

Now, it is logical that he puts enmity between one seed and the other, and between the serpent and her. And since reference is not being made to a material serpent, its seed is not to be taken as something material, either, but as people bearing its stamp, form, and genesis, or thoughts that are at variance with the truth, and teachings foreign to it. Likewise, the seed of the woman is to be taken as virtuous people issuing from her, as she is a type of the Church, or the tenets of divine teaching, against which the malice of the adversary directs his endeavors. Now, in the Gospels as well there is a difference between seed and “child”: when the Jews said, “We are seed of Abraham,” the Savior conceded that, but denied their being children of Abraham when he said, “If you are children of Abraham, do what Abraham did”—in other words, whereas the one who is a child is also seed, it is out of the question for a seed to become a child if aborted and not brought to term. This could also be taken anagogically; many people who made a beginning in the faith met with shipwreck, like Hymenaeus and Alexander, and were stillborn children. (Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Genesis [trans. Robert C. Hills; The Fathers of the Church 132; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016], 97-98)

 

David Altschuler (Metzudat David) (1687-1769) Interpreting שׁמשׁתיך in Isaiah 54:12 (= 3 Nephi 22:12) as "windows"

  

Metzudat David on Isaiah 54:12:1

ושמתי כדכד שמשתיך. מחיצות החלונות שהשמש זורחת דרך בם אשימם מאבן כדכד הבהיר ביותר:

(English: And I will set kadkod as your suns (or: your brightness). The partitions of the windows, through which the sunlight shines — I will make them of kadkod, the brightest of stones) (source)

 

Isaac Abarbanel (1437-1508) Interpreting שׁמשׁתיך in Isaiah 54:12 (= 3 Nephi 22:12) as "windows"

  

עניה סוערה וכו' עד הוי כל צמא לכו למים: הכתובים האלה אפשר לפרשם באחד מב' פנים. הא', שהמה קשורים למעלה רוצה לומר אחרי שהדבר כן שנשבעתי מקצף עליך ומגער בך עוד כל ימי הארץ את עניה סוערה בצרות וצער הגלות ושבגלות לא נוחמה דעי נא וראי שתהיה מעלתך אחר גאולתך כל כך שאפילו אבניך יהיו מיושבות על נופך שיהיה לך במקום סיד וכן אשים יסודך ספירים (יב) ושמתי כדכוד שמשותיך רוצה לומר החלונות שהשמש נכנס בהם שדרך בני אדם לעשותם מזכוכית צבועה אני אעשה אותם מכדכוד שהיא אבן זכה ובהירה, וכן שעריך יהיו מאבני אקדח שהיא אבן מזהירה כאש הקודחת, וכל גבולך יהיה לאבני חפץ, וכל זה משל לרוב הגדולה והעושר והכבוד (יג) עוד יעדם בטובות הנפשיות באומרו וכל בניך למודי ה' רוצה לומר שלא יצטרכו למלמד וכמאמר הנביא ירמיהו (ירמיה לא, לז) ולא ילמדו עוד איש את רעהו ואיש את אחיו לאמר דעו את ה' כי כולם ידעו אותי למקטנם ועד גדולם, וזכר א"כ שלימותם בארץ ראשונה, בעושר וכבוד. שנית, בחכמה שתמלא הארץ דעה את ה'. שלישית, שירבה השלום ביניהם וזהו ורב שלום בניך כי השלום נמשך מהחכמה והידיעה כמו שפירשתי למעלה. (source)

 

עיניה סוערה’ etc., up to ‘הוי כל צמא לכו למים.’ These verses can be interpreted in one of two ways.

 

The first: that they are connected to what precedes — this is to say, after the matter is such that ‘I swore in My wrath against you and I have reproved you all the days of the earth’ — your [afflicted] state will be tossed with troubles and the anguish of exile, and in exile there is no consolation.

 

Know and see that your exaltation after your redemption will be so great that even your stones will be set upon your outskirts and will be for you instead of lime; and likewise I will make your foundation sapphires. (12)

 

And I will make kd’khud shemeshoteich — that is to say, the windows through which the sun comes in — which people are accustomed to make of painted glass, I will make them of kd’khud, which is a clear and shining stone.

 

And likewise your gates shall be of stones of akdach — which is a shining stone like glowing fire — and all your border [lines] shall be of pleasant stones. All this is a parable for great increase, wealth and honor. (13)

 

Further: their destiny is in spiritual goods, as it says ‘and all your children shall be taught of the LORD’ — meaning they will not need a teacher; and as the prophet Jeremiah says (Jer. 31:34), ‘No man shall teach his neighbor, and no man his brother, saying “Know the LORD”; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them.’ And note, therefore, their completeness in the land as before, in wealth and honor.

 

Secondly: in the wisdom whereby the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the LORD.

 

Thirdly: that peace shall increase among them — and this is ‘and the abundance of peace upon thy children,’ for peace derives from wisdom and knowledge, as I have explained above.

 

Henry Hospers (1930) Defending "Windows" as a Correct Translation for שׁמשׁתיך in Isaiah 54:12 (= 3 Nephi 22:12)

  

The word for windows in the Hebrew is shemashoth, and literally means suns. Jewish scholars, like Kimchi and Abarnabel have translated windows. King James and the Dutch Bible have made windows familiar. The Septuagint has parapets. Later commentators have translated the word battlements and pinnacles, connecting the thought expressed in these words with the literal word suns by reason of the sun- beam-shape or their reflection of the sun. We decide, however, on the old translation, because it is most natural, being more in harmony with the nature of the entire picture which is that of a beautiful palace, the windows of which may very properly be conceived of as suns in as much as they are the lights of the edifice. We also speak of window-lights. Hence we translate: And I make thy windows rubies. (Henry Hospers, “Windows of Ruby [An Exegetical Study of Isaiah 54:12],” address delivered at the opening of the Western Theological Seminary, September 17, 1930, repr. The Theolog 3, no. 2 [October 1930]: 27)

 

David Kimhi (Radak) Interpreting שׁמשׁתיך in Isaiah 54:12 (= 3 Nephi 22:12) as "windows"

  

Radak on Isaiah 54:12:2

שמשותיך. החלונות שתכנס בהם השמש אפשר כי פנות החלונות יהיו אבן כדכד או אפשר אויר החלונות יבנה בכדכד כמו שעושין אותו בזכוכית צבועה במיני צבעונים וכשיכה ניצוץ השמש עליהם יהיה המראה יפה מבפנים: (source)

 

Your suns. The windows through which the sun will enter — perhaps the window-jambs (or corners) will be of kadkod stone, or perhaps the window-panes will be built of kadkod, as they make it in glass painted in various colours; and when the sun’s spark strikes them the view from inside will be beautiful.

 

Ibn Ezra Interpreting שׁמשׁתיך in Isaiah 54:12 (= 3 Nephi 22:12) as "windows"

  

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 54:12:2

ושמשתיך And thy windows. It is derived from שמש sun. It signifies the apertures, which are closed with glass in stately palaces. (source)

 

J. Duncan M. Derrett translating שׁמשׁתיך in Isaiah 54:12 (= 3 Nephi 22:12) as "windows"

  

Isaiah 54, 11-12: 'O thou afflicted ... behold, I will arrange thy stones ('ăvānayik) in pûk (? ruby [so LXX], or stibium [a cosmetic]), and lay thy foundation with sapphires (or lapis lazuli). And I will make thy battlements (or windows) of rubies (or red jasper), and thy gates of carbuncles (or garnets); and all thy boundary stones of precious stones (e.g. marble, or jewels: 'abnēy hēpheṣ, cf. Sirach 45, 11; 50, 9 [Heb.]).’ (J. Duncan M. Derrett, “’Thou Art the Stone, and Upon This Stone . . .’,” The Downside Review 106, no. 365 [October 1988]: 279)

 

Anonymous, Better Times Coming; Or, More on Prophecy (1863) Identifying the "Ancient of Days" with the Jews

  

The people out of whom these give governments are formed, are, first, the Babylonian, the loin; second, the Medes and Persians, the bear; third, the Greeks, the leopard; fourth, the Roman, the beast with iron teeth, and when this bast broke in pieces and devoured, it was heathen; but when it had a horn in its head, which spake very great things, it was Ecclesiastic, and the supreme Roman government was directed by Ecclesiastics; the fifth government, the jews,--here designed the Ancient of Days. . . . The prophet must have been very well acquainted with his own people, the Ancient of Days, therefore he asks no question about them; . . . To him who came with the clouds, there was given dominion and glory, and a kingdom which shall never be destroyed. It is not said that dominion was taken away from the Ancient of Days; the Ancient of Days is the bride. He that came with the clouds, is the bridegroom. But, observe, the Ancient of Days took the dominion, not only of the fourth beast, but of all the beasts (see verses 26 & 27).

 

“These great beasts which are four, are four kinds, which shall arise out of the earth” (verse 17th). No other kings but these four shall ever have universal dominion, excepting the Jews, the Ancient of Days, and they must be heavenly, compared with the four; the four are all fighting kings.

 

. . .

 

Verse 21.—“I beheld, and the same (Ecclesastical) horn made war with the saints.”

 

This war is not a fighting, stamping war, such as a military beast would make, but such a war as the learned [Romish] Ecclesiastics would make, when, they have the civil power to do their dirty work for them, for the horn makes this war sitting, speaking, and prevailing against them. The horn prevailed against the saints, until the Jews (the Ancient of Days) came.

 

. . .

 

“And the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.”

 

This is an unmistakable evidence that the coming of the Jews, the Ancient of Days, was before the coming of the time when the (modern) saints possessed the kingdom. (Anonymous, Better Times Coming; Or, More on Prophecy [London: Henry James Tresidder, 1863], 40-41, 44, 45, 46)

 

 

It is not said that from the taking away the daily sacrifice there shall be 1,290 days, but from the setting up the abomination there shall be 1,290 days, and until the end of which the Jews (the Ancient of Days) shall not sit, after which there shall be 1335 days of mercy and truth. Amen. (Anonymous, Better Times Coming; Or, More on Prophecy [London: Henry James Tresidder, 1863], 98)

 

Commentaries on Micah 5:14 (= 3 Nephi 21:18)

  

In verses 13 and 14 the Lord condemns the objects used in pagan worship. Three specific types of object are mentioned, idols and sacred stone pillars in verse 13, and images of the goddess Asherah in verse 14. Idols were images carved out of wood or stone. Their use was forbidden in the Ten Commandments (Exo 20:4). Sacred stone pillars were frequently used in Canaanite fertility religion to represent the male deity, and images of the goddess Asherah were wooden poles which represented the female deity.

 

The people of Israel had been told to break down the pillars (Exo 23:24) and to cut down the images of Asherah (Exo 34:13), but they had never destroyed all of them. These objects were not only symbols used in pagan worship, but they also showed that the people of Israel had rejected their own God. In order to make the nation pure again it was necessary to remove all such evil things. Since the people had not done so, the Lord says that he himself will do it. It is unlikely, of course that many languages will have terms which exactly fit all of these different kinds of idols, but translators should at least be able to describe them as images, stone pillars, and wooden poles which the pagan peoples worshiped. (David J. Clark and Norm Mundhenk, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Micah [UBS Handbook Series; London: United Bible Societies, 1982), 221)

 

 

Finally in this religious indictment, sentence is passed on other cultic objects which misrepresented Yahwism and dragged it down to the level of pagan religions. The Asherim were symbols of the mother-goddess Asherah, the wife of El, who was head of the Canaanite pantheon. Over a century earlier Elijah had eradicated her cult in the Northern Kingdom along with that of the Tyrian Baal, both propagated with missionary zeal by the Phoenician Jezebel, daughter of the priest-king of Tyre (1 K. 18:19). Driven out as a separate religion, the cult of Asherah crept back insidiously to become a syncretistic part of Israel’s own religion and presumably to provide Yahweh with a consort on the pattern of Canaanite fertility religion. Whether her representation took the form of a sacred tree, real or stylized as a pole, or an image in more human likeness is not clear. But it was made of wood and fixed in the ground; hence the reference to rooting out or uprooting is appropriate. Hezekiah chopped down an Asherah according to 2 K. 18:4, presumably one he found in the Jerusalem temple. (Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obediah, Jonah, and Micah [The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976], 359)

 

 

[14] The verb “uproot” (nātaš) also appears in Amos 9:15, “I will plant them upon their land, and they shall never again be plucked up out of the land”; later it will have a more prominent use in the Deuteronomic tradition and thus in Jeremiah, where it is just as often used of God “uprooting” Israel from the land in the Babylonian exile (Deut 29:28 [27 mt]; 1 Kgs 14:15; Jer 1:10; and the reverse in Jer 24:6; 31:28, 40).

 

The object of uprooting, however, is a much more vexed and difficult term. Scholars are divided as to which occasions appear to be neutral, as simply a sacred pole or object, and which occasions may be specific references to objects associated with the Canaanite goddess Asherah. The debate warmed considerably with the discovery of the pieces of pithoi (Gk. for “water jugs”) at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd (in the Sinai desert), where a drawing and statement suggest ʾăšērâ as a female consort to YHWH. But others just as strongly argue that it is simply a reference to a sacred object, a “pole,” in honor of YHWH and not connected to the accompanying drawings that seem to portray a male image and a female image, presumably deities to accompany the prayer written in the clay piece.

 

One of the problems is the inconsistency of the use of the term ʾăšērâ. For example, Deut 16:21 speaks of something wooden placed next to an altar dedicated to YHWH, while Judg 3:7 speaks of two proper names for deities in Canaanite practice: Baal and Asherah (cf. 1 Kgs 18:19; 2 Kgs 23:4). Yet again Judg 6:25, reminding us of Deut 16:21, speaks of a “sacred pole” next to an altar dedicated to Baal (cf. Judg 6:28, 30). During Josiah’s reform, we find a description of the removal of “the asherah” (2 Kgs 23:6 njps), interpreted in the nrsv as “the image of Asherah.” In the very next verse, there is a reference to making “veils” apparently dedicated “to” Asherah. Most of these references are in the Historical Books, with few references in the Prophets to this term (“sacred poles” in nrsv: Isa 17:8; 27:9; Jer 17:2; Mic 5:14 [13]).

 

Jeremiah (44:17–19, 25) mentions “the queen of heaven,” and this is widely held to be Asherah, even though she is not named in this important chapter. We are left with the general assumption that there was a Canaanite deity named Asherah whose symbol seems to have been a wooden pole or “tree” erected adjacent to an altar—either an altar for Baal or, in a practice forbidden in the Deuteronomic law, an altar for YHWH.

 

The verb “to destroy” (šāmad) has volatile overtones in the Hebrew text. As a term of exaggerated hyperbole, it naturally has strong associations with military narratives. In fact, however, it is used mainly in two contexts: ritual contexts in reference to the destruction of pagan sites (often of “high places,” as in Lev 26:30; Num 33:52; Hos 10:8) and military “destruction.”

 

When used for military destruction, it can be used both of nations “destroyed” by God (or under God’s supervision: Deut 2:12, 21, 23; 7:23; 9:3; Amos 2:9) and of Israel about to be “destroyed” (Deut 4:26; 7:4; 9:8, 14, 19, 20, 25; Ps 106:23; see the “curses” in Deut 28:20, 24, 45, 48, 51, 61). Not surprisingly, it appears along with “ban/cursed to destruction” in narratives of the “conquest” (Josh 7:12; 11:20). In the Historical Books, kings talk of “destroying” rivals (1 Kgs 16:12; 2 Kgs 10:17). Taking the cue mostly from the Deuteronomic traditions, then, the prophets take up this verb of destruction mostly as threats to the Israelite people themselves (the “broom of destruction” in Isa 14:23; Ezek 25:7) or to others (Jer 48:8, 42). The concept of “total destruction” of enemies begins to enter into the later vocabulary of apocalyptic as well, beginning with the late prophets (Hag 2:22; Zech 12:9). Although the notion of specifically “destroying cities” is not as common, there are two references that seem similar enough to perhaps have been inspired by Micah’s use of the phrase here: Jer 4:7 and Ezek 35:4. (Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Micah: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015], 184-85)

 

 

Dan Jones's Patriarchal Blessing

The following is the transcription of Dan Jones’s blessing after arriving in his native Wales for his missionary work. It reveals early Latter-day Saint beliefs concerning the Millennium and other issues:

 

 

Patriarch

 

A Blessing by Wm Draper Senr. upon the head of Dan Son of Thomas & Ruth Jones Born Aug. 16th 18 — Flintshire Co. North Wales —

 

 Dearly Beloved Brother I lay my hands upon thy head & by the Power of the holy Priesthood one in the name & Stead of Jesus Christ Bless thee with a Patriarchs Blessing — And say unto thee Dear Brother that inasmuch as thou hast Obeyed the Gospel & Done a great Work thou Shalt be Blest with Every grace & no good thing shall be withold from thee — Thou shalt — do a greater works than thou hast yet Done yea thou shalt bring Thousands into the Kingdom who will Rejoice in thy Works. And shall Bless in thy Crown in Mansions Prepared for them thy Fathers Kingdom Thou Shalt be Blest with Health Thy Last Days shall be thy best Days Thou shalt have a numerous Posterity they shall be great on the Earth, and thy name shall be held in High Estimation Among the Saints — if thou Dine [Dine? Divine? unclear] Shalt not be Compelled to quit this Life but — Shalt be Caught up to meet the Lord & remain till the Earth is Cleansed Descend with Him again Reign on the Earth 1000 Years & be crowned with glory in the Celestial Kingdom of thy God. Thou art of the Seed of Abraham and Blood of Ephraim. I ask God the Eternal Father in the name & Stead of Jesus Christ to Seal all these Blessings upon thee for I — Seal the them upon thee by the Power and Authority of the Holy Priesthood And Seal thee up unto Eternal life in the name of Jesus Christ Even so Amen

 

[signature] H.J. Davies Rec.

 

Alistair Scott May on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 vs. Eternal Security

  

5.4. The Function of 6:9–11

 

5.4.1. Who are the ἄδικοι?

 

This leads us into 6:9–11. Taken alone these verses serve to rearticulate the group dichotomy, with its ethical and eschatological boundary (reiterating 5:7b–8 and 6:2–3). They serve both to remind the believers that at their baptism they were called out of one lifestyle, and corresponding fate, to another, and to point out the present difference between ingroup and outgroup in regard to eschatology and ethics. In the context of the surrounding ethical discussion (5:1–7:40) it is easy to see how such a reminder serves to underline the command to adopt a different mode of behaviour (the imperative for Christian ethics), and to regulate interaction with outgroup members (part of the content of Christian ethics).

 

However, many commentators seem to pay too little attention to the function of this passage in the specific context of 6:1–8, often preferring to concentrate on the origin of the vice list, or the theology of baptism, or the details of the sins themselves. Our interest here is specifically in its contextual function. The natural question here is: who are the ἄδικοι to whom Paul refers? There seem to be two, perhaps not mutually exclusive, ways of answering that question, which will lead us to two, perhaps not mutually exclusive, ways of viewing the function of the passage.

 

First we may take ἄδικοι as a reference back to the ἄδικοι of 6:1 to whom Paul, at the outset, forbade believers to have recourse for judgment. If taken this way, the passage serves as a closing rationale for the avoidance of litigation before outsiders. After a digression to suggest even disputes settled internally are undesirable (6:7–8), Paul returns to the initial point of his attack—the transgressing of the group boundary by setting up outsiders as judges. The rationale for avoiding pagan judges is precisely the status that they have as members of the ἄδικοι group: outside judges lack the positive eschatological fate of the believers; they will not ‘inherit the kingdom’. Thus just as the eschatological role of judging the world gave believers a competency to be judges of βιωτικά among fellow believers in the present (6:2–3), so the fact that unbelievers do not inherit the kingdom underlies their eschatological difference and thus their incompetence to be judges between believers. But Paul now additionally brings in the ethical boundary marker to underline the negative status of outsiders and to stress the differential between them and believers. He does so by pointing out that believers, as those who are ‘washed, justified and sanctified’, are set apart from both the ethical identity and the eschatological fate of the ἄδικοι. The terms chosen verbally echo the group designations: ἁγιάζω—made a ἅγιος; δικαιόω—unmade an ἄδικος. This introduction of the ethical boundary marker was prefigured in the group designations that Paul selected in 6:1. ἄδικος/ἅγιος carries the same sinner/sanctified dualism as 6:9–11. Thus the group boundary underlies the proscribed inter-group behaviour (using pagan judges). Only believers have been made δίκαιος, the basic quality required for judging.

 

Secondly we may take ἄδικοι with reference to those who commit ἀδικία mentioned in the previous verse, and thus the whole as a warning against this type of behaviour.¹⁸ Thus Paul continues with the thought of 6:8 rather than returning to 6:1–6. Paul now engages in a clever play with concepts and words where ἀδικέω ἄδικος and δικαιόω (6:8, 9, 11) are used to stress both group status and corresponding behaviour differences.

 

The three verbs used to indicate the change of status are most revealing. Paul states ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε, terms almost impossible to translate into English without losing their function and semantic connections with other terms in the passage. Despite attempts to understand a theological significance in the choice and order of these verbs, they are best understood as being selected for the particular context.²² Although all three are conversion metaphors, all carry specifically ethical overtones. They are emphasizing the change of status which, in Paul’s mind, is not here primarily eschatological (from those who will not inherit, to those who will inherit), but ethical (from being numbered among those indicated by the vice list, to being a new people set apart). Additionally, the last two terms are particularly remarkable. ἡγιάσθητε relates to the status of being a ἅγιος, and ἐδικαιώθητε to no longer being an ἄδικος. Hence Paul reminds the Corinthians that their identity as either an ἄδικος or ἅγιος is formed in behavioural change. This at the very least should warn us against reading ἄδικος and ἅγιος as static designations of identity or standing before God (unjustified/saints), which merely carry ethical imperatives. Rather these terms function as much as behaviour labels as do πόρνος, λοίδορος and so on. Thus if one commits ἀδικία one cannot be said to be ἡγιάσθῆναι, or ἐδικαιωθῆναι, and one may be said to be an ἄδικος and not a ἅγιος. Here is a grave warning to those engaging in such activity.

 

5.4.2. The Perseverance of the ἅγιοι

 

As Gundry Volf states: ‘no doubt … Paul intends vv. 9–11 to exercise a reforming influence on his readers’ conduct’. Paul links their behaviour to the status, ethical and eschatological, of the outside world from which they have been delivered. In doing so he shows how inappropriate it is. The question is: is Paul merely reminding them that they have been delivered from this status of vice and disinheritance, and that as such their behaviour is inappropriate and constitutes a defeat (an imperative flowing from a certain indicative)? Or is he warning them that there is a real danger that those (believers) who practise ἀδικία may actually revert to the status and fate of the ἄδικοι?

 

Gundry Volf objects to the notion that Paul is motivating the believers by hinting at the possible loss of salvation, for a number of reasons. First, that this would have Paul, in the same passage, asserting that believers will judge the world (6:2), and putting that eschatological role in doubt. The eschatological superiority presupposes the triumph of the believer. This objection, however, does not hold up. Eschatological judgment is explicitly a property of the ἅγιοι which does not in itself preclude the notion that one could cease to be a ἅγιος.

 

Gundry Volf’s second objection is that Paul does not actually say that the Corinthians are in danger of losing their eschatological inheritance, but that the ἄδικοι will not inherit the kingdom.

The designation ἄδικοι belongs to conventional terminology used in vice lists (cf., e.g., Luke 18:11), where it denotes unbelievers. In keeping with this conventional usage, in the present context οἱ ἄδικοι is synonymous with οἱ ἀπιστοι … The view that Paul warns the Corinthians indirectly not to become ἄδικοι, however, requires the term to change meanings in the context: whereas it refers strictly to unbelievers at 6:1, at 6:6 [sic] it would have to mean ‘wrongdoers including believers’. Since such a change in meaning is doubtful, the Corinthians could be included in οἱ ἄδικοι only if they are not Christians at all but actually ἀπιστοι.

 

There are a number of problems here. As we have seen, οἱ ἄδικοι is not ‘conventional terminology’ for unbelievers! It is not Paul’s usual term for outsiders, appearing uniquely in 6:1 and 6:9. Gundry Volf claims that it is used in vice lists, but the example she cites of Lk. 18:11 is in fact the only time it appears in a vice list in the entire New Testament, and here it appears to mean ‘swindler or cheat’ rather than unbeliever.²⁷ She may be right to criticize Barrett who suggests that ἄδικοι functions here in a ‘strictly moral sense’. It is most certainly a group designation as well (as in 6:1). But it is not clear that it functions any less as a moral designation than other vice labels that denote the outgroup (πόρνοι, πλεονέκται, εἰδωλάτραι, λοίδοροι, μέθυσοι).

 

The problem is with reading 6:1 as merely a static theological designation (ungodly, unjustified) and failing to see that it is also an ethical behavioural designation. If 6:1 is read with an ethical inference, then there is no need to postulate a change in meaning at 6:9, in order to see a threat that those who ἀδικεῖτε may become ἄδικοι. The view that such a warning would mean that ἄδικοι would have to mean ‘wrongdoers including believers’ misses the point, for the point is precisely that, if one becomes an ἄδικος by sharing in their ethics and thus their fate, by definition one would not be a believer.

 

Gundry Volf concedes that 6:9 may possibly be a warning. However, she argues that Paul would be threatening ‘some Corinthians whose conduct makes him suspect false profession of faith’. The problem with this is that if, on basis of their behaviour, Paul believes some in the community may not truly be πιστοί, why does he not either call them to faith, or for the community to expel them (as with the immoral man)? But rather, Paul threatens such individuals in order to ensure a change in behaviour. This suggests that Paul does not only see wrong behaviour as revealing ‘false profession’, but is warning that wrong behaviour endangers one’s status as insider, and that a timely change in behaviour may avert this danger. If there is a warning here, it is to those believers who ἀδικεῖτε, calling them to desist lest they share the fate and status of the ἄδικοι.

 

There is, if read as a warning, a certain parallelism between ch. 5 and ch. 6. He who committed πορνεία was redefined as a πόρνος and thus no true ἀδελφός. Now he who commits ἀδικία is in danger of being redefined as an ἄδικος and thus no true ἅγιος. There is however a significant difference. The man committing πορνεία is a πόρνος thus an outsider, not to be rebuked but excluded, while those committing ἀδικία are warned, as those who are at present still members of the community. (Alistair Scott May, The Body of the Lord: Sex and Identity in 1 Corinthians 5-7 [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 278; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 87-91)

 

Paula Fredriksen on the the Old Testament Teaching the Ontological Existence of Other Gods

  

Eventually, ancient Jews generated myths domesticating these other superhuman powers as errant angels or as rather dim political subordinates. Those Jews (and, later, gentile Christians) of sufficient (pagan) philosophical education might argue for these powers’ ontological contingency on the One God. In biblical narrative, however, these other divine forces are often simply there. (Paula Fredriksen, “Philo, Herod, Paul, and the Many Gods of Ancient Jewish ‘Monotheism’,” Harvard Theological Review 115, no. 1 [February 2022]: 5)

 

 

A small sampling: Exod 12:12 “On all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments”; 15:11, “Who is like you among the gods?”; 18:12, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all [other] gods.” Ps 97:7, “All the gods bow down to him.” Deut 32:43, “Worship him, all you gods.” Ps 82:2, “In the midst of the gods he gives judgment.” Mic 4:5, “All the peoples walk, each in the name of its god; but we will walk in the name of the Lord our god forever and ever.” Jer 43:12, God captures the gods of Egypt; 46:25, he brings punishments upon these gods; 49:3, he sends the Ammonite god into exile. Isa 8:19 and 1 Sam 28:19 also refer to the dead as “gods.” (Ibid., 5 n. 11)

 

Jo-Ann Bradley on Jesus's Establishment of an Eschatological Family in Mark 3

  

 In the first instance, Mary comes with Jesus’ siblings to restrain Jesus because he is gaining a bad reputation. According to Mark, some people think that Jesus is out of his mind (Mark 3:21) and the religious leaders think that he is possessed by Beelzebul (Mark 3:22). In Mark’s gospel, this is the context for Jesus’ saying that whoever does the will of God is Jesus’ relation (Mark 3:35), with the clear implication that such a person is not anyone in Jesus’ family of origin. This is incongruous with a birth story like the one Luke tells, and Luke reorders the elements of this event: the family still visit Jesus and Jesus still revises the definition of family, but the motivation for the family visit is not stated (Luke 8:19–21), and the accusation that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebul appears in a very different context (Luke 11:15). The implication is that Jesus’ family of origin could be included among those who hear and do the word of God. (Jo-Ann Bradley, “What is Mary Doing in Acts? Confessional Narratives and the Synoptic Tradition,” in Rediscovering the Marys: Maria, Mariamne, Miriam, ed. Mary Ann Beavis and Ally Kateusz [Library of New Testament Studies; London: T&T Clark, 2020], 49-50)

 

William H. C. Propp on the Godlen Calf in Exodus 32:4 (cf. 1 Kings 12:28): The Surface Interpretation is that the Calf Represents Yahweh Himself

In the context of giving an overview of the various interpretations of the golden calf of Exo 32:4, William H. C. Propp noted that the thesis the calf (cf. the calves of 1 Kgs 12:28) represent Yahweh himself:

 

Each of the calves represents Yahweh himself. This is the surface interpretation of Exod 32:4, 8 = 1 Kgs 12:28. The worship leader points to the image and proclaims, “These are/see your Deity/gods who took you up from the land of Egypt” (on the plural, see NOTES to 32:1, “deity … they,” 4 “These are your Deity”). Micah’s image, which some identify as a calf, is also said to be “for Yahweh” (Judg 17:3). Num 23:22; 24:8 acclaims Yahweh as “God (ʾēl), who takes them/him from Egypt, he has indeed (?) wild-ox prongs (tôʿāpōt rəʾēm).” That is, the god of the Exodus has bovine horns. Finally, on a Samaria ostracon we find a personal name ʿglyw (AHI 3.041), which may mean “Yahweh is the Calf” (Koenen 1994) (but it could also mean “Yahweh’s Calf”). (William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 2A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 582)

 

Strack and Billerbeck on Hebrews 11:37

  

11:37: (Others) were sawed apart.

 

So according to the tradition, particularly the prophet Isaiah.

 

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10.28C.37: Manasseh ran after Isaiah and wanted to kill him; but he fled before him. He fled to a cedar that swallowed him up with the exception of the tassels of his overcoat. Then someone came and reported it to Manasseh. He said to them, “Go and saw apart the cedar!” They sawed the cedar apart and blood was seen flowing. And Yahweh was not willing to forgive this, and so Manasseh has no share in the future (= in the future world). — See further legendary material in Mart. Isa. 5:2–14; b. Yebam. 49B. ‖ Babylonian Talmud Yebamot 49B and Sanhedrin 103B are also general: Manasseh killed Isaiah. (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2021], 3:867-68)

 

Notes on the Use of LXX Psalm 40:6 (Hebrew 40:7) in Hebrews 10

  

σῶμα, according to LXX Ps 40:6, whereas the base text, Ps 40:7, has אָזְנַיִם “ears.” Presumably, σῶμα in the LXX is simply a corruption from ὠτία “ears.” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2021], 3:862)

 

 

■ 5b–7 In the citation of Ps 40(39):7–9 dependence on the LXX is quite clear, because the second clause of vs. 5 differs strikingly from the MT. The Hebrew reads “ears hast thou dug for me” (אזנים כרית לי). The LXX rendering, “you fashioned a body for me,” is probably an interpretive paraphrase for the obscure Hebrew phrase. Hebrews diverges from the LXX in two particulars. In vs. 6, instead of “you did not seek” Hebrews reads “you were not pleased” (οὐκ εὐδόκησας), perhaps under the influence of other texts from the Psalms. The correction may have been made for the sake of consistency, since through the Law God did require sacrifices (9:19–22), if only as a shadow of what was truly pleasing. The conclusion of the citation is considerably shortened and rearranged from the LXX: “I wished to do your will, my God” (τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου, ὁ θεός μου, ἐβουλήθην). The major alteration at this point, the omission of the final verb, effects a closer connection between the speaker’s coming and the expressed intent to do God’s will, a connection that will be emphasized in the exegesis of the psalm in vs. 9.

 

The original psalm falls into two halves. In the first (vss. 1–11), the psalmist praises Yahweh for his benefactions and affirms his own desire to do God’s will, embodied in God’s Law (vs. 9). In the second (vss. 12–17), the psalmist describes his condition of need and prays for divine assistance. It is only one portion of the first half of the text that interests our author. In these verses the psalmist contrasts the conventional sacrifices of the temple cult with his own willing service. The list of conventional sacrifices alludes to the whole cultic system. “Sacrifice” (θυσίαν), like the Hebrew term it translates (זבח), is a general designation of any animal sacrifice. “Offering” (προσφορά), which only appears in this chapter of Hebrews, is also relatively rare in the LXX. In this psalm it translates מנחה, the term for the meal offering. “Holocaust” (ὁλοκαύτωμα) is the standard technical designation for the עלה or burnt offering. The phrase “sacrifice for sin” (περὶ ἁμαρτίας) is the usual technical translation for חטאת.

 

In contrast with these sacrifices stand the expressions for the psalmist’s personal response. The vivid image of hollowing out the ears, in the Hebrew original, suggests the willing obedience that stands ready to hear and execute God’s command. That attitude is expressed in non-figurative terms in the final verse cited here.⁸⁴ Hebrews exploits this contrast of sacrifice and willing obedience, yet the interpretive translation in the LXX of “body” for “ears” also serves the purpose of the argument. For Christ’s conformity to the divine will is clearly an act that involves his body (vs. 10).

 

In the second and less metaphorical expression of the psalmist’s willingness to do God’s bidding (vs. 7) there appears a difficult parenthetical remark. In the Hebrew, the “scroll of the book” (במגלת ספר) probably refers to the law, and in particular to the “law of the king.” The psalmist, in the person of the king, accepts the responsibility for complying with the injunctions that were “written for me” (כתוב עלי). The Greek rendering of the first phrase (ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου) is a simple equivalent of the Hebrew. Patristic commentators found a special significance in the term κεφαλίς and referred it to specific pericopes of the Old Testament. It refers primarily to the knob on the rod around which a scroll is wound, and is used frequently in the LXX simply of the scroll itself.⁸⁹ Although our author does not provide an explanation of the phrase, he may have understood it in a special christological sense, where the book is the whole of the Old Testament’s prophetic work which in many and diverse ways bears testimony to Christ and his mission (Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989], 274-75)

 

 

(a) MT and LXX. (i) The MT of 40:6b has “ears you dug for me,” which apparently means that the psalmist was given the power to listen attentively. There is evidence of a LXX tradition (La^G Ga) that also read “ears” (ōtia), but the best LXX MSS (א B A) read “body” (sōma). The reading “body” could have originated with Hebrews and later have been transferred to the LXX (Jobes, “Rhetorical”), although MS evidence makes this unlikely. If “ears” appeared in the earliest LXX version, “body” might have arisen as a misreading in MSS that did not separate between words, so that ĒTHELESASŌTIA was read as ĒTHELESASŌMA (Bleek). Alternatively, if “body” was the earliest LXX reading, the translator may have taken the Hebrew wording as an instance of a part standing for the whole: digging or hollowing out the ears is part of the total work of forming a human body (F. F. Bruce). Later, “body” in the LXX would have been changed to “ears” to conform to the MT in the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Origen. The MS evidence favors the latter alternative. In any case Hebrews relies on a LXX text that read “body” (Schröger, Verfasser, 172–74). (ii) The MT reads “scroll of the book” (megillot sēfer), which is rendered in the LXX and Hebrews as “the head of the book” (kephalis bibliou).

 

(b) LXX and Hebrews, (i) Instead of saying that God did not ask for sacrifices, Hebrews says that God was not “pleased” with them, perhaps echoing Ps 51:16, 19 (Attridge). (ii) Hebrews omits the LXX’s “I wish,” perhaps to show that Christ did not merely “wish” to do God’s will, but came “to do” it. Other textual differences (Ellingworth, Epistle, 500–501) are insignificant. (Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 36; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 432-33)

 

Refuting Jeff Durbin on Sola Scriptura

 

Refuting Jeff Durbin on Sola Scriptura

Discussion with a Reformed Baptist from England

 

Discussion with a Reformed Baptist from England

Paul Ellingworth on the Use of εὑρίσκω (to find/obtain) in the Middle Voice in Hebrews 9:12

  

The result of Christ’s sacrifice is immediately stated. He has obtained eternal deliverance; for himself, as the middle εὑράμενος implies, but also for worshippers generally, as v. 14b will make clear. The direct and indirect results will be fused in the summary statement of v. 27. Since the participle εὑράμενος does not primarily indicate tense, “exegesis has to decide between antecedent and coincident” or even subsequent “action” (MHT 1.132; cf. Moule 1952.100n.1). Reference to the future effects of Christ’s sacrifice is probably implied, especially if v. 14 is taken as a fuller restatement of the present verse; but it is probably safer to understand εὑράμενος itself as referring to coincident action, as in NRSV “thus obtaining eternal redemption” (so Attridge, following Spicq 2.256, Lane; as against NIV “having obtained,” cf. NJB). On the form εὑράμενος (D² minn. εὑρόμενος), see MHT 1.51; 2.213. Αἰώνιος → 5:9; MHT 2.157. (Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999], 452-53)

 

Jewish/Rabbinic Parallels to Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29

  

The idea that repentance could become an impossibility in certain circumstances was also common in the ancient synagogue. This was assumed to be the case α. for someone who recklessly sins in the confidence of later repentance;^a β. for someone who knows God’s power and nevertheless rises up against God;^b γ. for someone who initially stubbornly refuses repentance;^c δ. for someone who is fully immersed in sin,^d and ε. for someone who misleads the multitude to sin.^e

 

a. See m. Yoma 8.9 at § Matt 4:17 A, #3, n. e; see ʾAbot R. Nat. 39. 40 and b. Yoma 86B in a baraita at § Matt 4:17, A, #3, n. e. Also see Sir 5:4–7 (Hebrew): “Do not say, ‘I have sinned, and what has happened to me?’ For God is longsuffering. Do not say, ‘Yahweh is merciful, and he will wipe out all my guilt!’ Do not trust in forgiveness in order to add guilt upon guilt, so that you say, ‘His mercy is great; he will forgive the multitude of my sins.’ For mercy and wrath is with him, and his anger rests on the godless. Do not tarry to turn to him, and do not put it off day after day; for suddenly his wrath will go out, and on the day of vengeance you will perish.”

 

b. Jerusalem Talmud Ḥagigah 2.77B.49: (R. Meir [ca. 150] said to his teacher, the apostate R. Elisha b. Abbuyah [ca. 120],) “You possess all this wisdom, and you will not turn (in repentance)?” He answered him, “I cannot!” He said to him, “Why?” He said to him, “Once I rode on my horse on a Day of Atonement, which fell on a Sabbath, past the holy of holies and heard a voice from heaven, which came out from the holy of holies and called out, ‘Turn back, children, except for Elisha b. Abbuyah; for he knew my power and rose up against me!’ ” — The same is found in Midr. Ruth 3:13 (135A); Midr. Eccl. 7:8 (34A).

 

c. See Exod. Rab. 13 (75C) at § Rom 9:18. ‖ See Exod. Rab. 11 (74C) at § Matt 4:17 A, #3, n. e, end. ‖ Exodus Rabbah 11 toward the end: “Yet Yahweh hardened pharaoh’s heart” (Exod 9:12). When God saw that he did not go into himself because of the first five plagues, God said, “From this point on, even if he wants to go into himself, I will harden his heart, in order to collect the full penalty from him, ‘as Yahweh had spoken to Moses’ (Exod 9:12); for so it is written, ‘I will harden pharaoh’s heart’ (so Exod 4:21 is cited).”

 

d. Midrash Psalm 1 § 22 (12B): R. Phineas (b. Hama, ca. 360) said, “He who has completely fallen victim to sin cannot (penitently) go into himself and there will never be forgiveness for him.”

 

e. See m. ʾAbot 5.18 at § Rom 5:15 A, #3. ‖ Tosefta Yoma 5.11 (191): Whoever misleads the multitude to sin, to him the opportunity is not given (by God) to repent, lest his students go down to Sheol (gehenna), while he obtains the future world; for it says, “A person who is weighed down by human blood (has human souls on his conscience) flees to the grave; he will not be upheld” (Prov 28:17) (namely by heaven, by him being given the opportunity to repent, Rashi on Prov 28:17). — Similar statements are found in ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 (10B) and b. Yoma 87A.23. (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2021], 3:802-3)

 

John I. Durham on Exodus 32:4 and the Golden Calf

  

The widespread presence of bull images in ANE worship has been thoroughly confirmed by Eissfeldt (ZAW 58 [1940–41] 199–215; cf. also Wainwright, JEA 19 [1933] 42–52), and attempts have been made to connect the golden calf with the lunar cult of the god Sîn, brought by the patriarchal fathers from Haran and possibly even reflected in the name “Sinai” (Bailey, HUCA 42 [1971] 103–15; cf. also J. Lewy, HUCA 19 [1945–46] 405–89, and Key, JBL 84 [1965] 20–26), and also with the Egyptian representation of Amon-Re as a bull, “the ‘Bull, chief of all the gods’ ” (Ostwalt, EvQ 45 [1973] 17–19). One scholar (Sasson, VT 18 [1968] 383–87) has even made an imaginative though implausible suggestion that the golden calf is to be understood as a symbol of the “continued, reassuring presence” of the absent Moses (cf. also the proposal of Brichto, HUCA 54 [1983] 41–44). These theories go beyond what the text will allow, not least because the entire composite of Exod 32–34 turns on the fact that the making and worship of the golden calf are an unacceptable idolatry that threatens the destruction of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel. The probability that the calf was a symbol of divinity widely used among Israel’s neighbors of course makes Israel’s idolatry even worse.

 

The apparent acceptance of the golden calf by Israel as their gods “who brought them up from the land of Egypt,” is taken by Faur (JQR 69 [1978] 11–12) as a part of a ritual of consecration by which the people hoped to have God “identify with” the calf and “make his glory dwell among them.” The evidence for such a ritual in the OT is very skimpy (Faur builds his case, for the most part, on Egyptian and Babylonian texts—9–10, nn. 51–54). (John I. Durham, Exodus [Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987], 420-21)

 

Matthew L. Bowen, "Upon All the Nations" (2025) and Notes on Variants between the Text of Isaiah in the KJV and the Book of Mormon

The Interpreter Foundation just published a new article:

 

Matthew L. Bowen, “’Upon All the Nations”: The gôyim in Nephi’s Rendition of Isaiah 2 (2 Nephi 12) in Literary Context,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 67 (2025): 201-28.

 

Matt discusses some variants between the text of Isaiah in the KJV and the Book of Mormon, such as the following:

 

2 Nephi 12:5 (= Isa 2:5):

 

A lengthy textual variant in 2 Nephi 12:5 further establishes the connection between the prophecy of Isaiah 2 and Jesus Christ. Nephi’s text contains the additional invitation and declaration: “yea, come, for ye have all gone astray, every one to his wicked ways.” This additional sentence constitutes a startling intertextual link to the Suffering Servant Song of Isaiah 53, Isaiah’s great poem on the Messiah’s atonement: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). Sin and apostasy are so universal among the nations that they require an atonement that is also universal or “infinite and eternal” (see Alma 34:10, 14). The common solution for “all” humankind is to repent and come unto Jesus Christ. (p. 210)

 

2 Nephi 12:16 (= Isa 2:16) and the addition of “upon all the ships of the sea” and the issue about tricola:

 

The phrase “upon all the ships of the sea” may well represent an ancient variant preserved on the brass plates. The Septuagint variant kai epi pan ploion thalassēs (“and upon every ship of the sea”) alone makes this highly plausible. Another possible solution—and still better than casting about for a modern source —is that the phrase “upon all the ships of the sea” is Nephi’s own universalizing addition to the text, which also appears to be true of the addition of the clauses in 2 Nephi 12:14, “and upon all the nations which are lifted up, and upon every people.” The clause, “upon all the ships of the sea,” like these other clauses, emphasizes the universality of the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord will come upon all the ships of the sea, including those of Tarshish. If Nephi was writing, as he says, “that they [his people and all who would receive his record] may know the judgments of God, that they come upon all nations, according to the word which he hath spoken” (2 Nephi 25:3), such additions would closely align with one of Nephi’s most significant stated purposes in writing. In sum, “upon all the ships of the sea” could have been on the brass plates, but it is also possible that it, along with the other textual additions in 2 Nephi 12–24, originates with Nephi himself

 

The Masoretic text of Isaiah 2:17 and Nephi’s text in 2 Nephi 12:17 are both structured as a tricolon: “And the loftiness of man [ʾādām] shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men [ʾănāšîm] shall be made low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.” This presence of the tricolon here means that it need not be regarded as irregular elsewhere in this text. The use of the matching terms ʾādām (“man”) and ʾănāšîm (“men”), as in the Masoretic text, again stresses the universality of the coming day of the Lord and contrasts the reduction of human selfi-mportance with the Lord’s glory. In terms of Nephi’s message, these are the same “men” for whom he said that his people might “rejoice” and to whom they might liken Isaiah’s words (2 Nephi 11:8). (pp. 213-14)

 

2 Nephi 19:1 (= Isa 9:1) and the addition of “Red” before “Sea”:

 

It is worth considering the relationship between “Red Sea” in Nephi’s text and a latter-day or eschatological fulfillment of Nephi’s prophecy.

 

When foreign armies—the armies of “the nations,” like Assyria and Babylonia—invaded Israel and Judah, they typically came from the northeast. It was much more difficult to invade by crossing the deserts from the eastern direction. These armies came from the northeast from the direction of the King’s Highway, which subsequently becomes “the way of the Red Sea” in the land “beyond Jordan” (see figure 1). For Nephi, the phrase “the way of the Red Sea” seems to have located the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 9 in the vicinity of where Moses raised up the brazen serpent: “And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way” (Numbers 21:4). Did Nephi identify the location where Moses lifted a serpent-seraph upon a nēs (Numbers 21:5–9) as the first place where the Lord “lift[ed] up” an “ensign” (nēs) to “the nations?” A comparison between 2 Nephi 25:20 and Isaiah 11:10, 12 suggests that Nephi saw a conceptual relationship between these texts, especially given his idiosyncratic use of nations to describe the tribes of Israel in 2 Nephi 25:20. Jesus’s own disciples saw his Galilean ministry as a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 9 (see Matthew 4:14–16). For Nephi, the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6–7/2 Nephi 19:6–7 would be in the “day of the Lord”:

 

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of government and peace there is no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this.

 

The prophetic promises in verse 7 particularly require conditions that will be brought about by the day of the Lord upon the nations. (pp. 217-18)

 

Figure 1 (ibid., 217):

John Granger Cook translating ουτον νομιζειν θεον from Constra Celsum as "consider him a God"

 Translation of Celsus’s complaint from Contra Celsum by Origen:

 

How could we consider him to be a god (τουτον νομιζειν θεον) who, among other things (as people heard), did not make a display of any of the things he promised, and when we had proved him guilty, passed sentence on him, and decided he should be punished (Matt 26:57-66), he was taken while hiding and shamefully running away (Matt 26:47-56)—delivered up (προυδοθη) by those whom he called disciples (Matt 26:48-50)? However, it was not possible, if he were a god, either to escape or to be led away bound, and even least of all if he was considered to be a savior, son, and messenger of the greatest God to be abandoned and betrayed by his companions who had intimately shared everything with him and regarded him as teacher.

--2.9

 

Although Chadwick translates τουτον νομιζειν θεον (“consider him god”) with “regard him as God” here, I think the Jew’s syncretistic perspective justifies the translation above. (John Granger Cook, “Celsus,” in The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries, ed. Chris Keith [London: T&T Clark, 2020], 3:12)

 

Rosser Powitzky on Isaiah 53:6

  

Isaiah 53:6 is another passage that, when reading through the lens of penal substitution, can sound like sins are imputed to Christ. The ESV, for example, says: “[God] has laid on [Christ] the iniquity of us all” (ESV). The Hebrew word used by Isaiah, however, is paga: [God] paga [Christ] the iniquity of us all.” If Isaiah or another Hebrew author wanted to communicate imputation or transference, they would have used the Hebrew word for imputation (chashab–e.g., Lev 17:4, Gen 15:6). Chashab, however, is never used in Isaiah 53 or in any text involving kaphar. Rather than imputation, intercession is the primary meaning of the root verb paga. Paga is in its Hifil perfect form in Isa 53:6 (see also Is 59:16; Jer 15:11; 36:25), which describes the Lord as causing His Servant to “make intercession” for the iniquities of the people. Intercession is the primary connotation of paga in Isaiah 53:12 as well. “Nasa [took away] the sin of many” in v12 is paralleled by the second phrase “interceded [paga] for the transgressors,” which does not communicate that the servant was imputed with sins. IT denotes a priestly ministry of removing sin through the intercession of God’s messiah. The ESV and NASB both interpret paga as Christ “interceding for transgressors” in v12. This same interpretation should be rendered for paga in v6. (Rosser Powitzky, Clean: How the Jewish Roots of Atonement Unlock the Meaning of Christ’s Sacrifice [2025], 84-85)

 

 

The Greek LXX translates this verse as “God gave [or delivered] him up (paredoken) for the sins of us all,” which is intercessory in language, void of any mention of sin imputation. This verb paredoken is also used by Paul: “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up [paredoken] for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” (Rom 8:32) (Ibid., 85 n. 77)

 

Rosser Powitzky on the use of ἀναφέρω in Hebrews 9:28 and 1 Peter 2:24

  

The author of Hebrews says that Christ was offered to “anaphero the sins of many” (Heb 9:28). Some versions (e.g., NASB, ESV) translate anaphero as “carry” or “bear” in this passage (NIV and NLT say “take away”). If you have been taught that sins are imputed to sin offerings (so they can be punished), this will sound like sin imputation to you. However, if you look at this concept from an ancient Jewish perspective, imputation of sin would not be how anaphero (and nasa) is understood. The clause that parallels this phrase describes Christ as “putting sin away” (Heb 9:26), not as Christ receiving sins so as to be punished. Anaphero does not mean imputation, which is a different word in the Greek ellogeó—see Rom 5:12, Philemon 1:18). Furthermore, anaphero does not mean to “carry” or “bear” in most of its other New Testament uses: Jesus took his disciples up to the mountain (MT 17:1), Jesus was taken up to Heaven (Lk 24:51), the high priest would offer up sacrifices (Heb 7:27), Christ offered up Himself (Heb 7:27). Abraham offered up Isaac (Jms 2:21), and we are to offer up a sacrifice of praise to God (Heb 13:15; 1 Pt 2:5).

 

The phrase “anaphero sin in His body” in 1 Peter 2:24 is in the context of Peter exalting Christ as an example for oppressed Christians to follow (1 Pt 2:18-25). Peter highlights Christ’s willingness to “take up” the sins and injustice of His crucifixion in His flesh without retaliation to encourage Christian slaves who are enduring a similar “grief and suffering wrongfully” (v19). Peter urges them to patiently endure their “harsh” masters (v18) just Christ endured His oppressors. . . . Christ humbly endured the injustice of the cross and entrusted Himself to the Father so that those who follow in His footsteps might likewise “die to sin [retaliation] and live for righteousness” (1 Pt 2:24). There is healing for those who patiently endure suffering and entrust themselves to the one who judges righteously the way Jesus did (cf. 1 Pt 4:19; Rom 12:14-21). (Rosser Powitzky, Clean: How the Jewish Roots of Atonement Unlock the Meaning of Christ’s Sacrifice [2025], 83, 84)

 

Notes on John 6:64 and "from the beginning" (εξ αρχης)

  

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning (εξ αρχης ) who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (John 6:64)

 

 

From the very beginning (JB “from the outset”; NEB “all along”) has reference either to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry or to the time of his calling the disciples; it does not refer to the beginning mentioned in 1:1. The same phrase is used in 16:4 and is translated at the beginning. From the very beginning may be rendered “from the day that he began to teach” or “all the time starting with the day he began to teach.” (Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of John [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1993], 214)

 

 

from the start. Literally “from the beginning.” This is not the beginning mentioned in 1:1 where the pre-existence of the Word is involved, but the beginning of the ministry or of the disciples’ call (see 16:4). Once again, as in 6:6, this is an editorial attempt to prevent any misconception which might imply that Jesus had made a mistake. Celsus used the example of the choice of Judas to argue that Jesus did not have divine knowledge (Origen Celsus ii 11; GCS 2:138). (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I-XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 29; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 297)

 

The only other instance of εξ αρχης in the New Testament:

 

But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning (εξ αρχης), because I was with you. (John 16:5)

 

Instances of εξ αρχης (from the beginning) in the Greek Pseudepigrapha:

 

The archangel said, “Lord Almighty, he says thus, and I refrain from laying hands on him, because from the beginning (εξ αρχης) he is your friend, and has done all things pleasing in your sight. (Testament of Abraham (A) 15:14)

 

“But I beseech you, Lord, command the remembrance of the death of Abraham to enter into his own hart, and bid not me tell I him, for it is great abruptness to say, ‘Leave the world,’ and especially to leave one’s own body, for you created him from the beginning (εξ αρχης) to have pity on the souls of all men.” (Testament of Abraham (B) 4:11-13)

 

“And in them the Lord will be known in the end, because they will illumine those pursued by the serpent in darkness as from the beginning (εξ αρχης).” (Lives of the Prophets 12:14)

 

Instances of εξ αρχης in the LXX (translation used: Lexham English Septuagint [2d ed.]):

 

And now, Lord God, the King, the God of Abraham, spare your people, because they look upon us for destruction, and they desired to destroy your inheritance from the beginning (εξ αρχης). (Εsther C:8)

 

The ambassadors of the Judeans came to us as our friends and allies, renewing the ancient (εξ αρχης) friendship and alliance, sending from Simon, the high priest, and the people of the Judeans. (1 Maccabees 15:17)

 

Who has best so unlawfully with injurious treatments those who from the beginning (εξ αρχης) differed from all the nations with goodwill toward us in every way, and who have often accepted the worst of human dangers? (3 Maccabees 6:26)

 

He made humanity from the beginning (εξ αρχης) and left him in the hand of his counsel. (Sirach 15:14)

 

Therefore, I was determined from the beginning (εξ αρχης) and planned it and left it in writing. (Sirach 39:32)

 

And the rulers of Tanis will be foolish; as for the wise counselors of the king, their counsel will be foolish. How will you say to the king, “We are sons of intelligent people, sons of the king from the beginning (εξ αρχης).” (Isa 19:11)

 

Will you not know? Will you not hear? Has it not been announced to you from the beginning (εξ αρχης)? (Isa 40:21)

 

For who will announce the things from the beginning (εξ αρχης), that we might know them, and the former things, that we might say that it is true? There is no one who foretells or who listens to your words? (Isa 41:26)

 

All the nations have been gathered together, and rulers will be gathered from among them. Who will announce these things? Or who will announce the things to you from the beginning (εξ αρχης)? Let them bring their witnesses and let them be vindicated and let them hear and speak truthfully. (Isa 43:9)

 

 

Instances of εξ αρχης in the Apostolic Fathers (Translation used: Holmes Translation of the Apostolic Fathers):

 

Seeing, then, that we have a share in many great and glorious deeds, let us hasten on to the goal of peace, which has been handed down to us from the beginning (εξ αρχης); let us fix our eyes upon the Father and Maker of the whole world and hold fast to his magnificent and excellent gifts and benefits of peace. (1 Clement 19:2)

 

Therefore let us leave behind the worthless speculation of the crowd and their false teachings and let us return to the word delivered to us from the beginning (εξ αρχης); let us be self-controlled with respect to prayer and persevere in fasting, earnestly asking the all-seeing God to lead us not into temptation, because, as the Lord said, “the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Polycarp to the Philippians 7:2)

 

“But it will be built in the name of the Lord.” So pay attention, in order that the Lord’s temple may be built gloriously. How? Learn By receiving the forgiveness of sins and setting our hope on the Name, we became new, created again from the beginning (εξ αρχης). Consequently, God truly dwells in our dwelling place—that is, in us. (Epistle of Barnabas 16:8)

 

Come, then, clear your mind of all its prejudices and cast aside the custom that deceives you, and become a new person, as it were, from the beginning (εξ αρχης), as if you were about to hear a new message, even as you yourself admit. See not only with your eyes but also with your intellect what substance or what form those happen to have whom you call and regard as gods. (Epistle to Diognetus 2:1)

 

Now as long as he kept it a secret and guarded his wise design he seemed to neglect and to be unconcerned about us, but when he revealed it through his beloved child and made known the things prepared from the beginning (εξ αρχης), he gave us everything at once, both to share in his benefits and to see and understand things that none of us ever would have expected. (Epistle to Diognetus 2:1 8:10-11)

 

 

Strack and Billerbeck on Jewish/Rabbinic Parallels to Hebrews 4:12

  

4:12: The word of God is … sharper than any two-edged sword.

 

See Tg. Song. 3:8 and Midr. Ps. 45 § 6 (136A) at § Eph 6:17 B. ‖ Pesiqta 102B: “A two-edged sword חֶרֶב פִּיפִיּוֹת in their (the pious’) hand” (Ps 149:6). R. Judah (ca. 150) … said, “This refers to the written and the oral Torah.” — In Midr. Song. 1:2 (83A), R. Nehemiah (ca. 150) is the author. ‖ Babylonian Talmud Berakot 5A: R. Isaac (ca. 300) said, “He who reads the Shema (of the evening) on his bed is like one who has a sword with two edges חרב של שתי פיפיות in his hand; as it says, ‘Raising praises to God in their mouth and a two-edged sword in their hand’ (Ps 149:6).” ‖ Midrash Song of Songs 1:2 (83A): R. Samuel (so read!) b. Nahman (ca. 260) said, “The words of the Torah are like a weapon: as a weapon remains (as assistance) for its owner in the hour of the battle, so the words of the Torah remain for the one who occupies himself earnestly with them.” R. Hanina b. Aha (ca. 330) proved this from the following, “ ‘Raising praises to God in their mouth and a two-edged sword in their hand’ (Ps 149:6). As a sword consumes on two sides, so the Torah gives life in this and in the future world.” — The last saying is attributed in Pesiq. 102B to R. Nehemiah (ca. 150). ‖ See further Midr. Ps. 149 § 5 (271A); Gen. Rab. 21 (14C). (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2021], 3:800)

 

Strack and Billerbeck on Psalm 45:7

  

Psalm 45:7f. according to the base text: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness (uprightness) is the scepter of your kingship. You have loved righteousness and hated godlessness. Therefore, God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy before your companions (= more than your companions).” — In rabbinic literature, Psalm 45 is interpreted to refer to the sons of Korah, to Moses, to Aaron, and to Solomon; see the explanations in Midr. Ps. 45. Alongside this we find the messianic interpretation, which is represented mainly in the targum.

 

Targum Psalm 45:3ff.: “Your beauty, O king, Messiah, is more excellent than that of the (other) children of men. The spirit of prophecy is laid upon your lips; therefore Yahweh has blessed you forever. Gird your sword about your hips, O hero, to kill kings together with rulers, your majesty and your glory. And your glory will be great; therefore you will have fortune to ride along on royal steeds (another reading: to sit on the royal throne) for the sake of faithfulness and truth and gentleness and righteousness, and Yahweh will teach you, to perform deeds that awaken fear with your right hand. Your projectiles are drawn to kill masses, to topple nations under you and the children of your bow (= your arrows) are sent into the heart of the enemies of the king. The throne of your glory, Yahweh, remains for all eternity. A scepter of righteousness תְּרִצְתָא (uprightness) is the scepter of your (the Messiah’s) kingship. Since you have loved righteousness and hated godlessness, Yahweh, your God, has anointed you with the oil of joy more than your companions. All your garments are fragrant with myrrh, aloe, and cassia; from palaces that are covered with ivory, string music delights you (others: that are covered with ivory from the land of Armenia, you are delighted). The provinces of your kingdom will come to greet your face and to honor you, while the book of the Torah will lie at your right side (read דמעתד instead of דמעתר), which is written with pure gold of Ophir. Hear, community of Israel, the Torah of his mouth and look at this wondrous works and incline your ear to the words of the Torah and do not forget the wicked deeds of the godless of your people and the house of idols which your father’s house served. Then the king will long for your beauty, for he is your Lord and you will bow before him. And the inhabitants of the city of Tyre will come with gifts and seek your face, to your sanctuary the richest of the nations will come. Everything beautiful and desirable among the goods of the provinces (and) among the treasures of kings that had been stored up, will be presented to the (Israelite) priests, whose garments are interwoven with pure gold. In embroidered garments they will present their offerings before the eternal king, and the rest of their companions who are dispersed among the nations will be brought to you with joy in Jerusalem. With joy they will be brought and with songs of praise, and they will go up into the temple of the eternal king. In place of your fathers there will be for you the righteous, your sons; you will appoint them as princes in all the earth. In that time you will say, ‘We will remember your name from generation to generation. Therefore the nations that have become proselytes will praise your name for all eternity.’ ” ‖ Genesis Rabbah 99 (63B): “The scepter will not depart from Judah” (Gen 49:10); this refers to the throne of kingship (as it says,) “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever, a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingship” (Ps 45:7). When? (When the following is fulfilled:) “Nor the ruler’s staff from his feet” (Gen 49:10); when that one comes, to whom the kingship is due (i.e., Shiloh = the Messiah), of whom it is written: “The crown of arrogance will be trampled with feet …” (Isa 28:3). ‖ In the course of R. Eliezer (ca. 90) and his colleagues treating the question whether one will wear weapons in the messianic age, the former had answered the question in the affirmative on the basis that the weapons would then serve as an adornment. Then it says further in b. Šabb. 63A: Abbayye († 338/39) said to Rab Dimi (ca. 320) or, as others say, to Rab Avayya—others say that Rab Joseph († 333) said to Rab Dimi or, as others say, to Rab Avayya—still others say that Abbayye said to Rab Joseph, “What was the scriptural basis for R. Eliezer, so that he said that they (the weapons) would be items of adornment? Because it is written, ‘Gird your sword around your hips, O hero, your highness and your glory’ (Ps 45:4).” ‖ See b. ʿAbod. Zar. 65B (read 65A) at § Rom 1:26 B, #2. This is followed by: Rab Pappi (ca. 360) said, “He should have answered him with this passage of Scripture. ‘Daughters of kings are among your honored ladies; your wife stands at your right hand in gold jewelry of Ophir’ (Ps 45:10).” — Since the conversation of Bar Shishak with Rab refers to the days of the Messiah, Rab Pappi would also have related Ps 45:10 to this time. (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2021], 3:790-91)