Saturday, August 8, 2026

William David Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry on Genesis 16:5

  

Genesis 16:5

 

In what happens next we can again find a parallel in documents of the period that describe the marriage customs of a society in Abram’s part of the world. There are provisions in the Code of Hammurabi for the situation where a priestess, who was free to marry but not to give birth, gives her husband a slave girl to provide him with a son. In this case, if the slave woman attempts to claim equality with her mistress, her mistress may reduce her again to being a slave.

 

Sarai said to Abram: Sarai does not punish her former slave girl until she has claimed her legal rights, which she does now as she speaks to her husband.

 

May the wrong done to me be on you! The wrong or “injustice” refers to the superior attitude Hagar has taken in regard to Sarai. Sarai is saying something equivalent to “I have been treated unjustly, and it is your fault” or, as Speiser translates, “This outrage against me is your fault.” tev has “It is your fault that Hagar despises me,” and gives an alternative rendering in a footnote: “May you suffer for the wrong done against me.” As head of the household Abram has the power and authority to set relationships right between these two women. But so far he apparently has failed to do so. Sarai is now appealing to Abram’s legal responsibility to act.

In translation this construction must often be reworded to say, for example, “I have been wronged and it is your fault,” “It is your fault that Hagar has treated me wrongly,” or “I have been treated unfairly by Hagar, and you are responsible for it.”

 

I gave my maid to your embrace translates the idiomatic phrase “I gave … into your bosom,” which Speiser says is not “a fanciful expression, but a recognized legal phraseology.” For expressions relating a man’s wife to his bosom, see Deut 13:6; 28:54. tev renders the expression “I gave her to you,” with the purpose of the action being understood from the context. frcl, neb, reb, njb say “into your arms,” gecl says “I turned over my slave girl to you,” and spcl “I myself gave her to you for a wife.” Since the context makes clear the purpose for which Sarai gave Hagar to Abram, it may not be necessary to say more than “I gave my maid to you” or “I let my maid be a wife for you.” However, it is important to understand and convey the feelings of Sarai, who is grieved that she has acted in the proper legal way, but that things have turned out wrong for her. One translation goes on in Sarai’s words, after she has accused Abram of being the cause of the trouble, “It’s true that I myself gave you my working girl. But now.…” Another takes a more angry tone: “I gave you my working girl, and what happened? When she found that baby, she started to look down on me.”

 

When she saw she had conceived: see verse 4.

 

She looked on me with contempt: see verse 4.

 

May the Lord judge between you and me! completes the speech by Sarai that began at the beginning of the verse. Sarai demands a legal decision. Her case is not between her and her maid but between her and her husband, Abram. Since Hagar became Abram’s “wife” her conduct is the legal responsibility of Abram. Sarai appeals to the Lord to judge who is at fault—Sarai who gave Hagar to her husband, or Abram who has not corrected Hagar’s misconduct in relation to Sarai. Sarai’s demand that the Lord judge is a formula found many times in the Old Testament. See for examples Gen 31:53; Exo 5:21; 1 Sam 24:12, 15. This expression is sometimes rendered “I ask the Lord to decide this affair between you and me,” “I call on the Lord to say who is right in this matter between us,” or idiomatically “I ask the Lord to cut the words between us.” One translation that may serve as a good model says “Well God has to find out who is right out of us two.” (William David Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry, A Handbook on Genesis [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1998], 352-53)

 

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 104: Jacob Vidrine on the Transfiguration of Brigham Young

 

Episode 104: Jacob Vidrine on the Transfiguration of Brigham Young






Friday, August 7, 2026

E. A. Speiser on Genesis 16:5

  

5. This outrage. Literally “my injustice” in objective construction: the injustice done to me; the possessive is adequately reflected by “this,” as happens so often in interchanging possessive and defined forms, cf. “the boys”: “my men,” 14:24. For Heb. ḥāmās “lawlessness, injustice,” cf. 6:11; it is a strictly legal term, which trad. “violence” fails to show adequately. The same force is reflected in the Akk. verb ḫabālum “to deprive someone of his legal rights,” adjective ḫablum “wronged.” The Code of Hammurabi states explicitly that a slave girl who was elevated to the status of concubine must not claim equality with her mistress (par. 146). Sarah is thus invoking her legal rights, and she holds her husband responsible (literally “it is against you”) for the offense.

 

I myself put my maid in your lap. This is not just a fanciful expression, but recognized legal phraseology. For the identical usage, cf. the old Sum.-Akk. dictionary of legal expressions known as ana ittišu (B. Landsberger, MSL I, 1937): “he placed his daughter in [the other’s] lap,” Tablet 3, column iv, line 34. (E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes [AYB 1; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 117-18)

 

Excerpts from Chapter 4, Reading 18 of Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names

  

522. Regarding the first, one must know that angel translates as messenger.

 

Now [an angel] conformed to the divine goodness is said to announce “the divine goodness” inasmuch as in angels “in a secondary way” by “participation” there exists “that which” is enunciated about God not by participation, but “by the cause”; just as if I were to say that illuminated air announces the brightness of the sun, inasmuch as in a secondary way and participatively [the brightness] is in the air, and in a primary way and causally it is in the sun. And because that which something has participatively and in a secondary way is an “image” of that which has in it a primary way and causally, and the act of an image is to manifest that of which it is the image, consequently he infers a certain definition of a good angel: the manifestation of the divine “light” which is hidden from us on account of its excellence and simplicity. (Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names, The Book of Blessed Dionysius, Chapter 4, Reading 18 [trans. Michael Augros; Scholastic Tradition in English Translation; Merrimack, N.H.: Thomas More College Press, 2021], 233)

 

 

527. Next, when he says [213] “But are they . ..,” he excludes an objection; and first, he gives it: for someone might say that “because” the angels “Punish” sinners, “they” are “evil.” And Matthew 13 [verses 41-42, 49-50] expressly says that they punish sinners, because they will cast out all scandals from the kingdom. Therefore, there is a question: whether they are evil in the fact that they punish.

 

Second, he shows that they cannot be called evil on account of this, because by the same argument those who chastise bad people by punishing them would be “evil,” such as judges and teachers; “and” likewise it would follow that certain priests “who” exclude “the unclean,” that is, a sinner, “from the divine mysteries,” by excommunicating him, would be evil, which is against the Apostle, who commands this in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5.

 

But because to multiply its awkward consequences is not to revolve [an objection], third, he resolves all the foregoing matters. And he says that “to be punished” “is not evil” simply and in itself, but it is in itself good, since it is just, but it is evil in some respect, inasmuch as it removes something good from someone. “But to become” a sinner, that is evil simply; and so he who punishes a sinner is not evil, but he who sins is evil. For the same reason, it is not evil in itself to be excluded “from holy things” “with” justice, but it is in itself evil that someone be tarnished by sin and abandon sanctity and by his become “unworthy of” divine things, which are in themselves “undefiled.” And he does not sin who excommunicates, but he sins who does something from which he becomes deserving of excommunication. (Thomas Aquinas, An Exposition of The Divine Names, The Book of Blessed Dionysius, Chapter 4, Reading 18 [trans. Michael Augros; Scholastic Tradition in English Translation; Merrimack, N.H.: Thomas More College Press, 2021], 235)

 

Charles A. Callis, “Book of Mormon Prophecies Fulfilled” (1945)

  

The Book of Mormon prophecies were uttered centuries before the events occurred, and the events that fulfilled the prophecies were of such a character that no human foresight or judgment “unaided by divine inspiration or revelation could have foretold them.”

 

Let us begin by citing the following prophecy uttered between 600 and 592 B.C.:

 

“Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands.” (I Nephi 13:30.)

 

“The Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land.” (I Nephi 22:7.)

 

This was spoken between 588 and 570 B.C.

 

The Nephite prophet in vision, saw by an excellent spirit that the United States would be founded by the Almighty and become a mighty nation of acknowledged preeminence in the world.

 

The Lord has not in modern times forgotten the prophecies of His servants, nor His own promises concerning this mighty nation. True to its inspired destiny the mission our unconquerable republic is battling mightily to preserve “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

 

. . .

 

The Nephite prophet, speaking some time between 559 and 545 B.C. said:

 

“For after the book of which I have spoken shall come forth, and be written unto the Gentiles, and sealed up against unto the Lord, there shall be many which shall believe the words which are written.” (II Nephi 30:3.)

 

Since the organization of the Church in 1830, countless thousands have, with joy and gladness of heart, obeyed the Gospel; they have sincerely and earnestly avowed a belief in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and accepted it as one of the authoritative guides in faith and doctrine.

 

“And it shall come to pass that the Jews which are scattered also shall begin to believe in Christ.” (II Nephi 30:7.)

 

This prophecy was uttered six hundred years before the birth of the Savior.

 

It is estimated by careful statisticians that upwards of 224,000 Jews during the nineteenth century entered the Christian churches of Europe and America.

 

. . .

 

It has been the ardent hope and faith of the prophets of God that the Jews, not only by degrees, but as a nation, shall accept Jesus Christ as their Messiah and Redeemer.

 

We are justified in laying stress upon the fact that what the prophets foretold has to the present time been fulfilled.

 

“And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.” (II Nephi 28:10. This was said between B.C. 559 and 545.)

 

From the day that the blood of righteous Abel was shed, many men and women who have thought differently from their neighbors concerning religious belief have had to lay down their lives as proof of the sincerity of their convictions.

 

The innocent blood of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that of his brother, Hyrum Smith, testifies to the fulfillment of this prophecy. They sealed their testimony with their blood.

 

In the path of expulsion from homes, milestones changed into headstones. The great souls who were victims of unlawful and cruel deeds died for the word of God. They could not bend their conscience. Their blood cries from the ground up to heaven “through every blue gate of the sky.” Yes, this prophecy has been fulfilled in blood and tears.

 

. . .

 

“And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.” (II Nephi 29:3. Between B.C. 559 and 545.)

 

Every missionary can bear testimony to the fulfillment of this prophecy made upwards of five centuries before Christ. To those who opposed the Book of Mormon it was the last word. But the claims of the Book of Mormon cannot be dismissed so lightly. (Charles A. Callis, “Book of Mormon Prophecies Fulfilled,” in Fundamentals of Religion: A Series of Radio Addresses [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1945], 102-103, 107, 108-10)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Charles A. Callis (1865-1947) on Isaiah 2 Being a Prophecy Concerning the Two Future Capitals in the Kindom of God

  

Jesus Christ will rule the earth in truth and love. He will sanctify it and prepare it for celestial glory. Throughout the Millennium there will be two capitals in the kingdom of God,--Jerusalem in Palestine and Zion in America.

 

Then the words of the prophet shall be fulfilled. “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:2.) (Charles A. Callis, Fundamentals of Religion: A Series of Radio Addresses [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1945], 49)

 

A. H. C. Van Eijk (1971) on Clement of Alexandria's Eucharistic Theology

  

We have to face, however, another problem concerning the interpretation of these texts. Catholic scholars have seized upon them to make Clement a witness of the doctrine of the Real Presence and transubstantiation, whereas their protestant colleagues claimed them as supporting their conception of a symbolic or spiritualistic presence. The latter view undoubtedly finds a strong support in Clement's own terminology. It could be, however, that this is asking the wrong question; it does not take into account, or rather it ignores, the context of Clement's language. His preoccupation is not with the precise nature of the Lord's presence in the Eucharist, as seems to be that of his interpreters; if this were so, Clement's terminology would urge us to admit a similar (real or symbolic) presence of the Logos in milk (e.g. 49,3) or honey (51,1). In fact, what he wants to show is that one and the same Logos is in many ways allegorically described (πολλαχῶς ἀλληγορεῖται ὁ λόγος, 47,2). He is more interested in the communion with the Logos, i.e. the res sacramenti, than in the visible, sacramental means by which this happens. If we consider the Logos as food (a common idea in Clement, and, indeed, in Alexandrian theology, since Philo), it does not really matter, whether this food is described as bread, wine, or milk, and honey. It is the communion with the divine Logos on which Clement's concern seems to turn. This also accounts for the allusive character of his exegesis of John 6,53 in 42,2–43,3, which must be particularly disconcerting for the advocates of a “massive” realism. We should by no means say, therefore, that 42,4–43,3 gives only an allegorical interpretation of John 6,53 (the real one being the eucharistic), or that his exegesis has no bearing on the Eucharist, but only on “doctrine” (Batifol's opinion). That this does no justice to Clement's theology, is particularly evident from a passage in which he comments Mk. 14,25:

 

“‘Take, drink, this is my blood’. He allegorically calls (ἀλληγορεῖ) the blood of the vine (cf. Ped. 2,19,3) the Word, ‘shed for many, for the remission of sins’, a holy stream of gladness.” (Ped. 2,32,2)

 

The “holy stream of gladness” (εὐφροσύνης) undoubtedly refers to the Eucharist, εὐφροσύνη being often used in this context. We see, then, that Clement uses also the word ἀλληγορεῖν when speaking of the Eucharist. Moreover, we notice that he replaces αἷμα by λόγος as subject of ἐκχεόμενον: here again, the Logos seems all-important. A better understanding of the allegory as theological method would keep us from making such statements as the above; it would appear, that Clement ignores the distinction between allegory, and typology or symbolism. All such terms as ἀλληγορία, τύπος, εἰκών, παραβολή, αἴνιγμα, σύμβολον are equivalent. A more detailed study of this method would show, that it has its reason in the hidden character of the Truth, which is only accessible to those who are initiated. This hidden-ness is an essential characteristic of the whole revelation.

 

To conclude, in this (6th) chapter of the first Book of Clement's Pedagogue (esp. from 33 onwards), many allegories or symbols are used to signify one and the same res, i.e. the Logos; milk, or honey are as much a symbol of the Logos as bread, or wine. So it has no sense here to ask questions about the real presence in bread and wine; these questions prove themselves inadequate.

 

At the end of this discussion of Ped. 1,25–52 let us list the points on which some passages of this section can be usefully compared with some sayings of Ev.Phil.:

 

(1) The elements of the Eucharist are in both writings bread and the mixed cup.

 

(2) Though these elements are not explicitly mentioned, Ev.Phil. 23 and Ped. 1,42,3–43,3 refer in a rather allusive way to the Eucharist. In both passages John 6,53 is quoted, though more literally in Ev.Phil.; for both Clement and the author of Ev.Phil. the ultimate reality “behind” the images of flesh and blood are Logos and Pneuma; but whereas the former speaks of a κρᾶσις of Logos and Pneuma in the Lord, and of a κρᾶσις of these both with man, the latter expresses this “communion” in terms of Valentinian mythology; according to this myth Soter and Sophia (or Achamoth), i.e. in Ménard's interpretation Logos and Pneuma from say. 23, are united in a συζυγία, of which the συζυγία of the pneumatic man and his angel is a part. Ped. 1,39,1 shows that John 6,51 ff was also used by the gnostics fought by Clement.

 

(3) If we take Ev.Phil. 23 (104,31–105,3) as a description of the effect of the Eucharist, it seems that both here and in Ped. 1,43,1 this effect is seen as a stripping off the flesh and as a putting on Christ, i.e. Logos and Pneuma.

 

(4) Neither Clement nor the author of Ev.Phil. excludes the body from the salutary effect of the Eucharist.

 

(5) Finally, the resemblance between the two writings is not only verbal, there is also a similarity of thought-pattern which becomes particularly evident in the exegesis of John 6,53. For both Clement and Ev.Phil. words or names, and all (other) symbols refer to a deeper, or rather, the ultimate reality “behind” them. For both the words of the Scripture and the sacramental liturgy of the Church give access to the eschatological reality, this is only disclosed (in these symbols) for one who has γνῶσις. Both seem more interested in this eschatological reality itself (what we have called the res sacramenti), than in the symbols because of the provisory, and according to Ev.Phil., even deceiving, character of the latter. Both agree, that “Truth”, “Pleroma”, “God” can only be known and only reveal themselves by means of symbols, images and allegories, and that only the gnostic succeeds in reaching the eschatological res. In short, Clement shares with Ev.Phil., the same pattern of symbolic, even sacramental thinking. The main difference seems to lie in the fact that for Ev.Phil. the sacraments are the mirror by means of which the gnostic (re-)discovers his true self. (A. H. C. Van Eijk, “The Gospel of Philip and Clement of Alexandria: Gnostic and Ecclesiastical Theology on the Resurrection and the Eucharist,” Vigiliae Christianae 25 [1971]: 116-19)

 

Peter-Ben Smit (2011) on Baptismal Being Regenerative and Producing the Mark of Divine Sonship on the Soul in the Theology of Irenaeus

  

Baptism as Regeneration (Including the Forgiveness of Sins)

 

Irenaeus can describe the effect of baptism also as the forgiveness of sins and regeneration to new life  and, together with a description of baptism as a ‘seal’, these are also the main designations he uses.  The latter of the two effects of baptism appears to be the overarching one, as the forgiveness of sins is part of the regeneration to a new life, as becomes clear, for example, from fragment 34 of the lost works of Irenaeus, where Naaman’s ‘baptism’ in the Jordan is interpreted along these lines. The new life or new birth received at baptism can be seen as the counterpart to the ‘Adamic birth,’ made possible through Christ, the new Adam.  Irenaeus understands this rebirth in terms of becoming a child of God (see D 3) and considers it to be the work of the creative Word of God: the Son of God makes human beings into children of God. 32 In its fullness, however, baptismal regeneration consists of being born into (εἰς) the Father, through (διά) the Son in (ἐν) the Holy Spirit (D 7), as part of a Trinitarian economy of salvation. 33 In this way, the faithful once more come to occupy their place as creatures of God, regaining the image of God.

 

In fact, it can well be said that Irenaeus integrates his view of baptism fully into his soteriological paradigm of the recapitulation (see e.g. AH 4.33:4, 5.1:3, D 33), which encompasses both the past as well as the future destination of humankind/creation. The forgiveness of sins is not only an integral part of Christ’s salvific work as such, but it also becomes a reality for the individual believer through the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism, which is in itself the beginning of the ‘re-creation’ of a person (see AH 3.17:1-2, 5.12:2). The rebirth of the faithful at baptism gives them back both the imago and the similitudo Dei, which had been lost because of the fall (see AH 5.6:1, cf. 3.23:1-5, 3.18:2). (Peter-Ben Smit, “The Reception of the Truth at Baptism and the Church as Epistemological Principle in the Work of Irenaeus of Lyons,” Ecclesiology 7 [2011]: 362-63)

 

 

Being Marked with the Image of Christ

 

As has just been shown, for Irenaeus baptism with water and baptism in the Spirit are the two components of the process of regeneration taking place at baptism as a whole. Of these components, one particular aspect of the Spirit’s work in baptism needs some further attention at this point, as the way in which the Spirit’s action is described may well have a bearing on the way Irenaeus views the reception of the rule of truth at baptism. In AH 3.17:3, Irenaeus describes the effect of the baptism by the Spirit as follows:

 

Quapropter necessarius nobis est ros Dei ut non comburamur neque infructuosi effi ciamur, et ubi accusatorem habemus illic habeamus et Paraclitum, commendante domino Spiritui sancto suum hominem qui inciderat in latrones, cui misertus est et ligavit vulnera eius, dans duo denaria regalia ut, per Spiritum ‘imaginem et inscriptionem’ patris et fi lii accipientes, fructifi cemus creditum nobis denarium, multiplicatum domino adnumerantes. (AH 3.17:3)

 

Whereas Houssiau is right in pointing out that this imagery is not the same as that of the sealing with the Spirit (the notion of the seal is simply absent here),  the reference to receiving by the Spirit the image and the superscription of the Son (i.e. as if on a coin), certainly bears some resemblance to the concept of being sealed with the faith (see D 3, 100, cf. 25). The ways in which both images are used both involve reception, change in ‘image,’ and in both cases the same three items are involved in either the sealing or the giving of the coin: the three main points of the faith, Father, Son and Spirit. It is therefore plausible to suggest that receiving the seal of faith or the image and superscription of Father and Son as if on a coin should be seen as referring to the reception of the rule of truth/the faith as outlined above: being illuminated by receiving the true ‘first principles’ or ‘hypothesis’, and thus being restored to the image of Christ. (Peter-Ben Smit, “The Reception of the Truth at Baptism and the Church as Epistemological Principle in the Work of Irenaeus of Lyons,” Ecclesiology 7 [2011]: 366-67)

 

Harry A. Whittaker (Christadelphian) on the Reason for Jesus's Fear in the Garden of Gethsemane

  

Various explanations suggest themselves, only to be dismissed as inadequate or manifestly untrue. It may be stated categorically that Jesus was not moved to this prayer by any dread of physical suffering. Crucifixion was probably the vilest form of torture and death that the wit of man had devised up to that time. The searing pain of nails in hands and feet, the apparently endless hours of agony as the wracked and tortured body hung in indescribable wretchedness and misery, the parching thirst, the unutterable hopelessness and longing for death—all these factors, each of which it is almost impossible for the modern reader to appreciate, contributed to make crucifixion a prospect from which the strongest of men would quail. But Jesus was no physical coward. He who could sleep quietly and wake calmly in a small storm-stricken boat when experienced fishermen cried out in their terror, he who could go forth coolly facing the fierce incalculable antics of two uncontrollable maniacs, he who could wither his adversaries with a quiet penetrating question even when the death-dealing missiles were poised in their hands, he was not afraid of crucifixion. Else were he a craven breaker of his own commandment: “Fear them not therefore”, and the disciple would be greater than his Master.

 

With far greater likelihood and with much stronger support in Scripture, the suggestion has been put that Jesus shrank, not from the suffering of the Cross, but from its shame. For assuredly crucifixion was regarded in those days not with the awe and reverence with which the death of Christ has since invested it, but with loathing, abhorrence and contempt. Crucifixion was the death of a felon or a runaway slave. It was for all the world as though in these days some Christadelphian of tried integrity and proven piety should be publicly charged with (say) the foul crime of the callous neglect and brutal ill-treatment of his children or with one of the beastly sexual offences such as the salacious Sunday newspapers delight to retail to the lascivious minds of their readers.

 

Such, frequently, are the associations of crucifixion in Scripture. “Crucifying the Son of God afresh” means “putting him to an open shame” (Heb. 6:6). “Cursed of God was every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). To the Jews, a crucified Christ was a stumbling block, to the Greeks foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23). And Heb. 12:2 states plainly that when Jesus endured the cross, he did so despising the shame of it. (Harry A. Whittaker, “Gethsemane,” The Christadelphian 87, no. 1029 [March 1950]: 72-73)

 

Thursday, August 6, 2026

James Swetnam on Hebrews 2:16

  

Hebrews 2:16

 

The second key verse in the passage in 2:10-18 also has a crux: the word επιλαμβανεται. Earlier exegetes held that the word can only mean “to seize, take hold of”, and claimed that the present tense underscores the permanence of the union between Jesus and those whose nature he has laid hold of. These exegetes asserted, against those who claim that επιλαμβανεται means “to help” because of this meaning in Heb 8:9, that the meaning there is dependent on the word χειρ which επιλαμβανεται governs.

 

In opposition to these exegetes are the majority of exegetes today, who maintain that επιλαμβανεται means “to help” and who point to the word βοηθησαι in 2:18 as justification for seeing in επιλαμβανεται a synonym: “For of course it is not angels he is helping (επιλαμβανεται ); it is the seed of Abraham he is helping (επιλαμβανεται )”. They stress the present tense of the verb as grounds for not accepting the meaning “to take hold of”. They claim that reference to the Incarnation involves a repetition of the reference to the Incarnation at v. 14.

 

In brief: for επιλαμβανεται in 2:16 one can adopt the normal meaning of “to take hold of” and struggle to explain the present tense, or adopt the normal meaning of the present tense and struggle to explain the meaning of επιλαμβανεται .

 

επιλαμβανεται does not refer to the Incarnation. The Incarnation is mentioned in v. 14; further, the present tense disqualifies this interpretation. On the other hand, there is no valid reason for abandoning the normal meaning of επιλαμβανεται . The present tense signifies that the action in question is contemporaneous with the recipients of the letter, and the meaning of the verb—“to seize, take hold of” indicates what is happening. Jesus is taking hold of the seed of Abraham now, at the time of writing and at the time of the reception of the epistle. In v. 18 the act of “taking hold of” is among those considered as an act of helping, but in itself it is more specific. Just what this action is remains to be determined more precisely.

 

This, then, is the verse which supplies the common denominator for what precedes and for what follows.

 

What precedes is a presentation of the fact that the Incarnation (v. 14a) together with a twofold purpose (vv. 14b-15): through death 1) to destroy the dominion of the devil and 2) free those who had lived in slavery to the fear of death. V. 16 seems to refer to both purposes under the common aspect of death. The seed of Abraham, then, is composed of those who had lived under the dominion of the devil and who had lived in slavery to the fear of death. But they are also the “children”, for in v. 14 a motive for the Incarnation is said to be the sharing by Jesus in the blood and flesh of his “children”. Putting all these complicated data together with the interpretation already advanced in vv. 10-14 results in the following view: The “seed of Abraham” was already in existence before the Incarnation. It was composed of the human beings (not angels) whom Jesus was to call “brothers” (v. 11b) and “children” (v. 13b). They were brothers because, like him, they were spiritual children of Abraham, facing death with trust. But they also faced death with fear because Abraham’s comportment at the Aqedah, while giving a model of trust to imitate, had not brought salvation. The origin of salvation came only with the advent of Jesus (v. 10). In v. 16 Jesus is pictured as being superior to the seed of Abraham because the seed of Abraham is here being considered as his children, i.e., the beneficiaries of his salvation. His “taking hold of” the seed of Abraham is the way the salvation is being brought to bear so that there is no more fear: trust after the example of Abraham is being complemented with salvation which comes from Jesus.

 

There remains the analysis of vv. 17-18 and their relation to v. 16. Jesus’ taking hold of the seed of Abraham is said to be the reason why (οθεν) he had to become like “the brothers” “in all things”. The latter phrase, given the context, suggests that Jesus had to die, death being regarded in the context as the point at issue (cf. vv. 10 [δια παθηματων] and v. 14 [δια του θανατου]). Death, in turn, enables Jesus to become a merciful and faithful high priest for the things of God and for expiating the sins of the people (v. 17). This sequence in which death comes before Jesus’ becoming high priest indicates that the activity of Jesus as high priest is conceived of as taking place after his death and, from the context, it seems to be looked upon as involving the way in which he is “taking hold” of the seed of Abraham. V. 18 describes this activity: “For because of the fact that he has sudffered under test he is able to help those who are being tested”. The notion of “testing” in the epistle, apart from a citation from Ps 95:9 at 3:9 and a doubtful instance at 11:37, is used only of Abraham at the Aqedah (11:17)., Jesus at his death (2:18, 4:15), and the addressees (2:18). What seems to lie behind this usage is a view of Jesus’ death as related to the Aqedah so Jesus was tested at his death. Further, the recipients of the letter are being tested just as Jesus and Abraham were. Since Abraham’s test at the Aqedah was a trial of his trust in God in the face of death, it would seem to follow that Jesus was tested at his death by having his trust in God put to trial, and the recipients would seem to be in the same situation.

 

Thus, an analysis of the context of vv. 15-18 suggests that not only is the “seed of Abraham” a central concept, as in vv. 10-13, but that this seed consists of those who, like Abraham, have trust in God in the face of death. (James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah [Analecta Biblica 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981], 134-37)

 

 

The Richmond Dispatch (May 7, 1861) Reproducing Predictions of a Then-Forthcoming Civil War from the British Press

The following is a reproduction of various UK-based newspapers predicting the U.S. Civil War in 1861, as republished in Richmond Dispatch (May 7, 1861), Logos Bible Software edition. The War itself started on April 12, 1861:

 

 

The British press on American Affairs.

 

The American Revolution.

 

[From the London Times, 19th.]

 

It needs no comment of ours to impress the public with the great importance of the news from America. We are anxious to speak with caution on this subject, and not cause alarm which may possibly prove to have been unnecessary. Therefore we would rather let the telegraphic summary from Queenstown speak for itself. The steamer left New York on the 6th, and on the day previous the signs of an approaching conflict, which had been visible for some weeks before became so marked that a panic took place in Wall street. In what may be called the two chief cities of the rival Federations, the belief that war was at hand prevailed equally. In New York there was as we have said, a panic on the Stock Exchange, while from Charleston the telegraph announced that the dreaded moment had arrived, and a rupture would at once take place. It was even feared that military operations had begun on the part of the Southerners. No news had been received from Fort Pickens for several days, and this had led to the belief that the communication had been cut off by the Southern troops. From Charleston it was announced that Major Anderson had been called upon to evacuate Fort Sumter within forty-eight hours, the alternative being that the place would be bombarded. The belief at Washington was that the Government there was as determined as that of the secessionists. Every man had been ordered on duty; frigate, with two first-class merchant steamers, would sail at once with sealed orders, but we learn from a private source that there were still doubts as to whether they were intended to relieve Fort Pickens, or to proceed to St. Domingo.

 

Such is the momentous intelligence which we publish to-day. We may here, however, repeat the hope so often expressed on this side of the ocean, that if the two sections of the late Union be destined to separation, the change may be accomplished without the spilling of blood. It may, perhaps, be too late to indulge in such wishes, yet we will not give up all hope that even at the last hour moderate counsels may have prevailed, and that this fratricidal war has been checked in the outset. But, supposing that the worst has happened, and, either through the naval operations of the United States or an attack on the Federal forts by their rivals, hostilities have begun, it is plain that a conflict of no common kind must follow. The Confederate States, though without a navy, and consequently forced, for the most part, to remain on the defensive, will be an enemy not easy to deal with. True, they are not so powerful in men or resources as they anticipated some months ago. The fidelity of the border States to the Union has been a great disappointment to the Montgomery politicians and their ambitious President. The Border States, particularly Kentucky and Tennessee, contain a population which, for military purposes, surpasses, perhaps, any in the Union.--The fine race which inhabits these regions would prove formidable enemies to the Government at Washington if they had resolved on seceding. Then there would have been the accession of a large white population without any great admixture of Negroes, and further more considerable wealth, which in the present state of the Southern Exchequer would have been very acceptable. But, though for the present, at least, the Border States stand fast by the Union, yet the South shows a bold front. The seven seceding States, being in earnest and fighting for their independence, have raised an army which the other twenty-seven have not yet succeeded in matching.--According to all accounts, the Southern levies are large, well-disciplined, and in high spirits. For weeks it has been difficult to keep the Charleston regiments from attacking Fort Sumter, and at Pensacola we find that Fort Pickens was hard pressed by a considerable force. The iron foundries in Virginia were turning out guns to be used against the Government which owns the allegiance of Virginia itself. ‘"Troops, provisions and ammunition were flowing in to the Confederate army,"’ was the intelligence received a few days since. It seems clear that, if peace be preserved, it will not be by any yielding on the part of the Secessionists.

 

It would be a great political error, not to say a crime, if the Republican President should plunge the New World into war in order to show his attachment to his party or his consistency with his former principles. When Mr. Buchanan published his unhappy message — a document to which it is probably owing that South Carolina was followed into secession by six other States--the Republican party, and indeed opinion generally throughout the North, was so much inflamed against the President that Mr. Lincoln found or fancied it necessary to repudiate these sentiments. Incautiously giving utterance to his own opinions wherever he came on his journey from the West, he arrived at Washington pledged not only to keep but to retake the forts belonging to the Union in the seceded States, and to refuse any recognition of Southern independence. The collection of the duties at the Southern ports was also made a part of the new President's programme. How difficult it has been found to carry out all this, is evident from the long delay which has taken place. Before Mr. Buchanan left office Major Anderson was in extreme danger; no time was to be lost in relieving Fort Pickens and the Confederate States themselves were lowering their tariff and letting in the productions of Europe at a rate which would make every idler in the Border States take to smuggling at once. It was though that the moment Mr. Lincoln was installed a resolution would be taken. But this was not to be. For a full month the President and his Cabinet have been debating what is to be done, and only on the 5th of April is it announced that the policy of coercion has triumphed.

 

The delay seems all the more to be regretted since confidence among men of business had been almost restored. There was up to nearly the last day of March a feeling that the worst was over, and that, however lamentable might be the disruption of the Republic, there would not be added to this misfortune the still greater calamity of civil war. The absorbing interest in military and political matters was passing away, and business was resuming its usual course. What will be the result of a collision between the two Governments is more than any one can predict. The vision of privateers at sea and partisan bands along the frontier must be so terrible to Americans that it is possible the public feeling of the people may restrain the acts of their rulers. But, should this quarrel begin and continue until both sides are roused into animosity, the war, though short, may be as savage as any that has been carried on even by the Spanish race. The Americans are in the highest degree excitable and vindictive; the ferocity which they carry into their domestic conflicts would be increased largely when one side fancied itself to be resisting tyrants and the other punishing traitors. But we had rather not speculate on so great a calamity as such a war would be. We would rather hope that the good sense of the Americans and the peaceful counsels of this country may bring about a reconciliation before the dispute has been too far envenomed. As long as the two sections of the Union refrain from hostilities, it would be the height of arrogance and folly to interfere; but when the soil and seas of the New World are likely to be stained with blood, foreign nations may surely remonstrate in the cause of humanity.

 

The South never to be Subdued by arms.

 

[From the Liverpool Times, 20th.]

 

The latest accounts from America are ominous in the extreme, and it is greatly to be feared that the North and South will, after all, come to blows. We had hoped a different result, and we hope so still, but it is useless to disguise the feeling which prevails not less in New York than in Charleston, that a deadly collision is impending — a fratricidal war imminent. For this melancholy state of things people in Europe were not prepared. The tone of the new President's inaugural address pointed to war, but his subsequent conduct has been at variance with this belief, and hopes were entertained that, as the South could not be again seduced into the Union, she would not be coerced. We may receive, at any hour or any day, intelligence that the deadly conflict has begun, and once commenced, there is no telling how long it may continue, or where it may end.

 

America, in this hour of her fate, can be said to owe little to the judgment of her Presidents — the last or the present. Mr. Buchanan's ill-omened message to Congress, at the end of his term, was a direct incentive to the breaking up of the Federal compact; and now we have the pacific policy which followed Mr. Lincoln's accession to office cast aside, and a policy of force substituted which may end in the destruction of thousands of lives and the flowing of rivers of blood. Matters had proceeded to such a pass that a pacific solution of the difficulty was the only reasonable and proper one. It may be that the accounts which have reached us are exaggerated and unreliable; but when the business men of New York look on civil war as imminent, and when the capital of the South is moved by a similar belief, we, in England, have no alternative but to accept the probability, however much we may deplore it.

 

As war, then, between the two Republics seems to be regarded as certain, the question that remains to be asked is, What will the principals gain by it? It is evident that President Lincoln has neither an army nor a navy at hand to make the South submit, and it is equally certain that the South is even more anxious than the North to test it by a trial of strength. The old Government has certainly one alternative to which it may resort; but it is so terrible in conception, and would prove so malignant in practice, that we will do Mr. Lincoln the justice of expressing our disbelief in his ever having recourse to it. The South is so strong on its own ground, that no amount of Federal force which can be brought into the field, within any reasonable period, would stand a chance of success. * * *

 

If civil war has really commenced between the North and the South, we hope that the representatives of England and France at Washington have been instructed by their respective Governments to tender their aid as mediators before the struggle has roused all the fierce passions which, if continued for any length of time, are certain to be called into play.--Both nations wish well to the American people, both are alike interested in the general prosperity of the country in every latitude; and both are impelled towards it by the strongest sympathy that can animate friendly nations. This seems to us the last resource before the sword is drawn and the scabbard thrown away, and probably the suggestion would meet the approval of that large class in both extremes of the country which must look with horror and dismay at the prospect of men and brothers cutting each other's throats under circumstances so fearfully provocative of vengeance.

 

A Manchester View.

 

[From the Guardian, 20th.]

 

With a people less shrewd and practiced than the Americans — and less addicted, we will add to extravagance in their language and demonstrations — it would abundantly support the inference that the next mail might be expected to bring us news of the actual commencement of civil war. We are far, however, from abandoning the hope that conciliatory councils will prevail even at the eleventh hour. There is obviously no reason for a contest now, which did not exist with at least equal force during the whole of last month — nay, the enterprise of attempting to force the seceding States to return to their allegiance is far less justifiable now than it would have been at the beginning of Mr. Lincoln's administration, because it has become by the lapse of time infinitely more difficult. Whether it is believed that some desirable impression may be produced on the popular mind by adopting a menacing attitude at this moment, or whether, as some people have supposed, a design altogether unconnected with domestic politics is masked under the naval and military preparations ostensibly made against the secessionists, we cling to any interpretation of the new turn of affairs rather than that the unnatural conflict which it seems to threaten is really about to take place.

 

To predict the course and result of the struggle, if it be regarded as inevitable, is impossible. The disparity of force appears at first sight very great; but, besides that the Southerners have little or nothing to do but to maintain themselves on the defensive, it is to be considered that very important changes in the respective positions of the combatants might follow very quickly on the outbreak of war. The most conspicuous failure in the expectations of the founders of the Southern Confederation has been met with in the fact that what are called the Border States have hitherto remained firm to the Union. What effect, however, is likely to be produced on their disposition by hostilities, the first blow being struck by the Government at Washington? That they could remain wholly disengaged in the contest for any length of time, would appear to be forbidden by their geographical position, and by the extent to which their own interests would be involved.

 

Could they, however, be expected to take part with the North, seeing that the war waged by that power must be in manifest danger of assuming the character of a crusade against the institution of slavery wherever it is to be found? It is much more likely that they would be driven, by a sense of the paramount necessity of protecting their own property, into the arms of the party whose blandishments they have hitherto resisted.--The New York Herald already declares that every demonstration of public feeling in Virginia goes to show that the secession movement is making repid strides in that State, under the prevalence of a belief that no compromise or concession is to be expected from the North. It may be hoped that the undesirableness of doing anything to promote this conclusion will concur with other considerations to make President Lincoln hesitate before he enters on a contest in which he may have to cope with more enemies than are arrayed against him at the outset.

 

 Further Reading:


Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies


Notes Based on the Work of Eric A. Barrios on Aegean Mercenaries in Judah

  

The presence of Aegean mercenaries operating in the eastern Mediterranean can be traced back to the latter New Kingdom period in Egypt (18th–20th Dynasties, 13th–11th c. BCE). Inscriptions from the period of the Eighteenth Dynasty mention the Sherden serving in the Egyptian military. Several of the letters from El Amarna acknowledge Sherden people who live under the suzerainty of Rib-Hadda of Byblos, ultimately under Egyptian control. Inscriptions of Ramesses II include the Sherden as troops in his army during the battle of Qadesh. Likewise, inscriptions from the reigns of Merenptah (19th Dynasty) and Ramesses III (20th Dynasty) include Sherden among their troops. The Sherden also constitute part of the ‘Sea Peoples’, a coalition of Aegean people groups that would invade Egypt and the Levant around 1200 BCE. Although the process by which Egypt hired the Sherden is unclear, the evidence of trade networks in the Mediterranean indicates a relationship between Egypt and the Aegean. Furthermore, in payment for their service, Egypt gave land within its own borders to the Sherden. This continues to be a standard form of payment for mercenary service in later periods.

 

While there is little extra-biblical evidence of an Aegean mercenary presence in the Levant during Iron Age I (ca. 1200–1000 BCE) and IIA (ca. 1000–925 BCE), a gradual increase of Aegean mercenaries occurs later in Iron Age II (~ 8th c. BCE). Several historical factors contributed to the increase of Aegean mercenaries in the Levant during this period. One of the casualties of the Great Collapse of 1200 BC was the disintegration of the Mycenaean palace system. Around the same time, Aegean people groups began to migrate east, settling in Anatolia, Cyprus, and the Levant. With the collapse of Mycenaean power, as well as the breakdown of the other major powers of the Near East, the Aegean people groups experienced new freedom to engage in maritime trade relations directly with the smaller states of the Levant. (Eric A. Barrios, Foreign Soldiers in Judah’s Military: Biblical Attitudes in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 204; Leiden: Brill, 2026], 74-76)

 

 

Pottery at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu

 

Approximately 426 pieces of pottery were discovered at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu in a fairly even distribution. As stated above, there was only one phase of settlement at Meṣad Ḥashavyahu, and every room of the fortress contained an assortment of both East Greek and local pottery. In his publication of the entire pottery assemblage, Fantalkin calculates that the ratio of pottery is approximately 53.04% local, 46.96% imported. The imported finds are mostly East Greek and Western Anatolian, with a small number of Egyptian finds.

 

The pottery that is identified as East Greek includes Ionian cups, Greek cooking pots, Greek lamps, several Wild Goat Style oinochoai, and painted bowls and sherds containing Aegean style art. Naveh, following the work of Cook, identifies the Greek art as belonging to the Middle Wild Goat Style, which is usually dated to 630–600 BCE.

 

Two features of the pottery are of particular interest. First, the quantity of East Greek ware is noticeably higher than is usually found at Judean sites. The high quantity of Greek ware led Naveh and others to regard the site as containing an Aegean presence, either mercenaries or merchants. Several characteristics of the pottery suggest that it was intended for daily use, likely by mercenaries, rather than to be traded by merchants. The pottery is primarily utilitarian, and there is not a high concentration of luxury ware that would be in demand for trade. For example, Dion argues that the assortment of cooking dishes, which lack any artistic pretensions, is a decisive argument that they were brought by their natural users and not for the sake of trade.60 Furthermore, as Fantalkin observes, the relative lack of East Greek ware in Judah, as well as the location of Meṣad Ḥashavyahu away from a densely populated area, further discredit any identification of the fort as a trading outpost. Similar pottery occurs at other sites in the coastal plain, such as Ashkelon, but the pottery does not make its way inland in large quantity, as would be expected of merchant activity.

 

A second important feature concerns the presence of a large quantity of Greek cooking pots. The remains of 33 imported cooking pots were found at the site, in contrast to only 15 local cooking pots. As Fantalkin argues, this style cooking pot would not be used for trade:

 

Imported cooking-pots, for example, are open vessels unsuitable for transporting products commercially. They are also relatively coarse and it is difficult to imagine that they had any intrinsic commercial value (such as fine wares). As a result, their presence at the site is most probably indicative of the foreign ethnic groups that actually brought them.

 

Therefore, the used cooking pots are evidence of an Aegean presence at the site. The utilitarian nature of the pottery, which does not leave the site, along with the historical context of imminent warfare and the status of the site as a fortress, suggests that the Aegean residents of Meṣad Ḥashavyahu were mercenaries. (Eric A. Barrios, Foreign Soldiers in Judah’s Military: Biblical Attitudes in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 204; Leiden: Brill, 2026], 88-90)

 

 

The “Baal” Name

 

Another important ostracon from Meṣad Ḥashavyahu contains a reconstructed name that bears a Canaanite theophoric element. The ostracon is difficult to read. Although there are several unclear words in line 2, the following words on the ostraca were deciphered:

 

צבעל [

… כסף… [

 

1) ---]aṣbʿal

2) ---] … silver …

 

In his initial publication, Naveh interpreted the unclear letters and reconstructed the text to read, “Netaṣbaʿal … weighed four (shekels of) silver, 4 after the king’s weight, as a donation.”78 Based on this translation, Naveh interprets the name “Netaṣbaʿal” to mean “Baʿal who destroys.” This interpretation has come under criticism, though. Lemaire has proposed the reading ʿnybʿl, which he translates “Baal has responded.” Dobbs-Allsopp rejects both Naveh’s and Lemaire’s readings and proposes the reading ʿṣbʿal, another personal name. Although the letters before the theophoric element are unclear, scholars at least agree that this is a name with the theophoric element Baʿal. Names containing the element Baʿal are common in Canaanite and Phoenician, and they appear among Israelite names in earlier periods. Due to this ambiguity, Naveh notes that the nationality of the figure is uncertain. A second ambiguity is that the fragmented condition of the ostracon makes it unclear whether the name is a father’s name (i.e., “son of …”) or the proper name of the individual.

 

Some scholars have concluded that this text is evidence that Phoenician mercenaries also occupied the fort. In turn, they suggest that the fort contained an assortment of mercenaries, including Judeans. Due to the fragmented and laconic nature of the text, the conclusion that this person is a Phoenician mercenary is overstated. Furthermore, regarding the veracity of this conclusion, I would draw attention to the character of the text itself. Naveh’s reading of the text is that it records a donation of 4 shekels of silver by a man named Netaṣbaʿal. Although the text contains very little information, it appears to describe a type of economic transaction. The location of the text’s discovery is important, as well. The text was unearthed at the gate of the fortress, along with several other texts bearing similar information. Ultimately, there is nothing in the text to imply that the person involved is a mercenary/soldier, or that he even occupied the fortress. It seems more likely that, like the “Reaper’s Letter”, this ostracon was delivered to the fortress or recorded a transaction that occurred at or near the fortress, and then the ostracon was retained by an administrator. (Ibid., 94-95)

 

Wednesday, August 5, 2026

James Swetnam on Jesus as "Word" in Hebrews 4:12-13

  

Excursus: Jesus as “Word” (Hebrews 4:12-13)

 

Almost all contemporary exegetes and most exegetes of the recent part hold the word λογος in Heb 4:12 means the voice of God or his revelation or his message or his teaching, not Jesus as the Word analogous to the Johannine sense. But the latter meaning seems more plausible when one pays closer attention the contrast which is being made between the λογος of v. 12 and Joshua (v. 8: ‘Ιησους). Joshua was unsuccessful in his attempt to introduce the people into God’s Rest, but the λογος of God is effective because it is sharper than any two-edged knife. The point is the comparison is the contrast between the ineffectual circumcision carried out by Joshua and the effective circumcision achieved by Jesus: v. 12 is a description of a circumcision of the heart which truly ushers the people into God’s Rest, i.e., eternal life.

 

This interpretation is more consistent with the use of ζων elsewhere the epistle, (Elsewhere in the epistle ζων is used for God himself [3:12, 9:14, 10:31, 12:22] for Christ [7:25, 10:20], and for human life [2:15, 7:8, 9:17, 10:38, 12:9] but never for non-personal life) and explains how the power of the λογος of words can be extolled in the context of an exhortation of the recipients to hear the word represented by Ps 95.

 

The λογος of v. 13 can be understood in the same sense as in v. 12, but in v. 13, Jesus is regarded as the λογος who in his risen state abides with God. The use of προς parallels its use in Jn 1:1 and 1 Jn 1:2. This interpretation explains why the author can continue in vv. 14-16 with a discussion of Jesus in heaven who is priest and dispenser of mercy.

 

This use of the imagery of a “two-edged knife” to illustrate the power of a word is found in the “Words of Ahiqar”, a collection of sayings originating in Mesopotamia from before the fifth century B.C. and enjoying widespread use in the whole Middle East up into Christian times. The resemblance with Heb 4:12 is so striking that there is probably a dependence on the part of Hebrews is not on the “Words of Ahiqar”, then on a common tradition. (James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah [Analecta Biblica 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981], 151-52)

 

Tuesday, August 4, 2026

James Swetnam on the Use of Genesis 22 in 1 Maccabees 2:52 and James 2:21-23

  

1 Maccabees 2:52

 

1 Maccabees was probably written shortly before 100 B.C. in Jerusalem. The theme of the book, which was probably written in Hebrew, is the struggle of the Maccabees to achieve freedom for their religion and for their people. The Greek translation followed quickly on the Hebrew original.

 

The example of Abraham is invoked at 1 Mc 2:52 in a speech by Mattathias, leader of the Maccabean revolt (2:49-68). In contrast to 2 Maccabees, the heroes of 1 Maccabees are very much the masters of their fate, and this is reflected in the vigorous style of Mattathias’ speech. The list of examples of great men in the past is used to encourage Mattathias’ listeners to observe the Law. Each of the great men does or is something and is thereupon rewarded in some way. The implication is clear: if Mattathias’ listeners are true to the Law they will be rewarded which success in their struggle against the Gentiles (vv. 50-51 and 67-78).

 

In 1 Maccabees just as in Sirach Abraham is said to emerge “faithful” (πιστος) from his trial at the Aqedah. But a new element enters in through the linking of this faithfulness of Abraham on the occasion of the Aqedah with the statement of his justification found at Gn 15:6 “ . . . he believed the Lord, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness”. In the original context in Genesis the statement is associated with Abraham’s belief in God’s promise of progeny (Gn 15:4-5). Abraham “believes”, i.e., places his trust in God’s word with regard to a future intervention of God in his designs of salvation. The “righteousness” refers to Abraham’s acting according to norms appropriate for the community, i.e., observing the covenant and the commandments. And the word “reckoned” (λογιζεσθαι) seems to have cultic overtones. 1 Maccabees takes the phrase and so relates it to the Aqedah that the declaration of righteousness is made to result from Abraham’s act of faith in being willing to perform the sacrifice. But the “[being] faithful (πιστοσ) in 1 Maccabees is not exactly the same as the “[being] faithful” (πιστος) of Sirach: in Sirach it has the connotation of fidelity to an order and is proposed as an example of obedience; in 1 Maccabees it has the connotation of confidence in God and his future intervention and is proposed as an example of trust.

 

This interpretation of Abraham’s “faithfulness” in 1 Mc 2:52 is supported by 1 Mc 2:59. There Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael are said to have “believed” (πιστευσαντες) and as a result were “saved” (εσωθησαν) from the fire. Their belief is an act of trust in God and his future intervention.

 

There is another important aspect of the treatment of the Aqedah in 1 Maccabees: Abraham’s faith at the Aqedah is considered as being rewarded with the quality of righteousness. The structure of the entire list indicates this, for each hero and his work of virtue is granted a rewarded. This use of Gn 15:6 with regard to faith is in contrast with its meaning with regard to faith in its original context in Genesis. In its original context in Genesis Gn 15:6 seems to regard faith as simply a reaction to the initiative of God by which God’s plan for Abraham is accepted. The pronouncement of justification is a recognition of this acceptance as being in accordance with a recognized norm. In 1 Maccabees Abraham’s faith is a “work” to be rewarded, practically in so many words (cf. v. 51: μνησθητε τα εργα των πατερων). (James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah [Analecta Biblica 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981], 36-37)

 

 

On the use of the Aqedah in Jas 2:21-23:

 

The Aqedah is the key element used by the author to show that “faith apart from works is barren” (v. 20) and is supported by the example of Rahab who was “justified by works” when she saved the messengers (v. 25). V. 21 mentions only works in connection with the Aqedah, but v. 22 indicates that the Aqedah implies faith. In view of the stress on Abraham’s faith in the Aqedah tradition in Judaism this presupposition is intelligible. And it is significant that precisely this example was chosen, for the Aqedah is the greatest trial of Abraham’s faith. V. 22 has faith being active through works (faith is considered as dominant) and then being completed by works (works are considered as dominant) to indicate that each has an essential place in Abraham’s justification (v. 21). In v. 23 the phrase “the scripture was fulfilled” refers to the words “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Gn 15:6). The Aqedah is thus being regarded as the natural concomitant of the phrase from Gn 15:6. The author adduces no proof of why this is so, but simply presupposes its truth, just as at v. 22 he presupposes that the Aqedah implies faith.

 

The reason why the Aqedah can be supposed to be the fulfilment of Gn 15:6 seems to lie in the fact that there was probably a traditional connection between the two. This connection seems to be preserved at 1 Mc 2:52 where Abraham’s faith at the Aqedah is linked with Gn 15:6 and is regarded as meaning the reward of righteousness. In Jas 2:23 Abraham’s faith is also linked with the Aqedah and the phrase “it was reckoned to him as righteousness”: the offering of Isaac is a work of faith meriting a reward. The final phrase of v. 23 spells out this attribution of righteousness in terms of another tradition about Abraham: “and he was called the friend of God”.

 

The context indicates how the relation of faith and works is here being understood. V. 18 has a believer who lives without works defending the possibility of living with either faith or works but not both. The rejoinder is that works imply faith, i.e., it is impossible to separate the two if they are properly conceived. The example in v. 19 of demons believing in the unity of God shows the fallacy of separating faith from works. And as a clinching argument the Aqedah is introduced in v. 20 as the definitive proof that faith without works is barren: Gn 15:6 is incomplete without Gn 22. (James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah [Analecta Biblica 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981], 81-82)

 

On the issue of Rom 4, Swetnam noted the following:

 

Rom 4 has often been compared with Jas 2:21-23 and not without reason, for in Rom 4 as in Jas 2:21-23, Gn 15:6 plays a prominent part (it is cited at Rom 4:3.9.22-24) in a context which suggests the appropriateness of an allusion to the Aqedah. Paul does not mention the Aqedah explicitly in Rom 4, but not simply because he fails to honor the traditional relation between Gn 15:6 and the Aqedah which James uses for his own purpose. Paul deliberately sets up another relation involving Gn 15:6 by the use of gezerah shawah at Rom 4:7-8 (the common element is the verb λογιζομαι) he links Gn 15:6 and Ps 32:1-2 to show that man’s blessedness lies outside man’s control. (The point Paul is making in the chapter is that God’s graciousness is the cause of man’s justification, not works) The Aqedah clearly had too many associations as an example of faith demanding a reward, and rather than make the qualification needed to use it in a sense acceptable for his purpose as James had done, Paul simply avoids it. For such qualifications would have weakened the stress Paul was placing on the transcendent role of God’s graciousness. Thus it seems appropriate to say not that Paul is alluding to the Aqedah in Rom 4 but that Paul is deliberately not alluding to the Aqedah in Rom 4. (James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah [Analecta Biblica 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981], 82-83)

 

Monday, August 3, 2026

"Are The New Hymns LDS Enough? (Tier Ranking Hymns)"

I have been rather disappointed by most (not all) of the new hymns. There is even a subversive attempt to downplay baptismal regeneration in one of them. However, there are some gems, such as Come, Thou Font of Every Blessing.


My friend, Jasmin Rappleye, has a very good video discussing these hymns and even has a tier ranking for some of them:


Are The New Hymns LDS Enough? (Tier Ranking Hymns)




I must take exception, however, with Jasmin only giving a "B" ranking to My Shepherd Will Provide My Need. That is "S" tier ranking. Indeed, as some of my friends know, I have been battling serious health issues this year, and to be on the safe side, have made funeral arrangemnets (e.g., ensuring I am buried, not cremated). As I cannot have the Introit to Mozart's Requiem in D as the opening hymn, that will be the opening hymn if worse comes to worst (alongside "Oh My Father" and "The Spirit of God"; and maybe at the graveside itself, "I Need Thee Every Hour" and/or "I Believe in Christ").


Of course, I am still hoping for the Church to announce the Canaanite original to Psalm 29 becocoming part of the new hymnal . . . 

James T. South (1993) on the Curse/Death Phenomenon in Acts 5:1-11 and 1 Corinthians 11:30

While rejecting the theme for 1 Cor 5:5, James T. South contends that the curse/death phenomenon is found in Acts 5:1-11 and 1 Cor 11:30:

 

Acts 5.1-11 relates the incident in which Ananias and his wife Sapphira, two members of the church in Jerusalem just after its establishment, were both struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit by keeping back some of the proceeds from the sale of property while claiming to give it all. . . . in 1 Cor 11.30 Paul explains that due to the Corinthians' aberrant observance of the Lord's Supper, πολλοι ασθενεις και αρρωστοι και κοιμωνται ικανοι. The verb κοιμαω (to sleep) is apparently here a euphemism for physical death, as in 15.18. So the concept of physical death as punishment for sin was not at all foreign to Paul's thinking. . . . in both texts people receive a capital punishment for spiritual offences. (James T. South, “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1-8,” New Testament Studies 39, no. 4 [October 1993]: 543, 547-48)

 

James T. South (1993): Paul Referenced a Now-Lost Epistle in 1 Corinthians 5:9

  

Paul had written an earlier letter to the Corinthians (εγραψα υμιν εν τη επιστολη) in which he had instructed them to avoid immoral people. They had misunderstood him to mean that they should avoid non-Christian moral offenders. Paul corrects their misconception in w. 9—13 and explains that it is those who claim to be Christians (τις αδελφος ονομαζομενος) and yet commit such offences whom they must avoid. He urges them not to associate with ('be mingled together with' - συναναμιγνυσθαι) these people in vv.. 9-11 and then cites a decretal formula which occurs frequently in Deut. (James T. South, “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1-8,” New Testament Studies 39, no. 4 [October 1993]: 554)

 

James Swetnam on the Intercessory Work of Christ in Hebrews 2:17-18

On Heb 2:17:  


The expression εις το ιλασκεσθαι refers to the activity of the exalted Jesus. The preposition εις indicates a purpose of longer range, in contrast to the use of ινα with the subjunctive. The present tense of ιλασκεσθαι suggests that the activity of expiating is continuing. (James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah [Analecta Biblica 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981], 174)

 

On Heb 2:18: 


The expiation of 2:17 seems to be the same as the intercession of 2:18, but looked at from a different perspective. Expiation looks at removal of sin from the standpoint of fidelity to God, while intercession looks at removal of sin from the standpoint of mercy to the people (cf. the phrase υπερ αυτων in 7:25, the phrase υπερ ημων in 9:24, and the dative ημιν in 4:13). (Ibid., 176)

 

Strack and Billerbeck on 1 Corinthians 5:5

  

5:5: To hand over to Satan the man so conditioned, for the destruction of the flesh.

 

παραδοῦναι = מָסַר, Aram. מְסַר, “to hand over, deliver.” — Satan comes into view as the one who executes the penal judgments of God; see § Matt 4:1 B, #3, C and the excursus “Ancient Jewish Demonology,” #6.

 

a. Exodus Rabbah 21 (84A): R. Hama b. Hanina (ca. 260) said, “When the Israelites went out of Egypt, the angel Sammael (= Satan) stood there to accuse them.” R. Hama b. Hanina (ca. 260) explained this in the name of his father (R. Hanina b. Hama [ca. 225]): “A parable. Like a shepherd who took his small livestock across a river. A wolf came to attack the small livestock. The shepherd, who had experience, what did he do? He took a large ram and handed it over מסרו to the wolf. He said, ‘He may wrestle with this one until we have crossed over the river, and then I will get it.’ So, when the Israelites went out of Egypt, the angel Sammael stood there to accuse them. He said before God, ‘Lord of the world, up until now they have committed idolatry, and you will split the sea for them?’ What did God do? He handed Job over מסר to him, Job who was among pharaoh’s counselors; for it says of him, ‘He has an upright and righteous man’ (Job 1:1). God said to Sammael, ‘May he be in your hand!’ God said (to himself), ‘While he occupies himself with Job, the Israelites will have gone down into the sea and come up again (reversed in the text: go up to the sea and down), and then I will save Job.’ This is what Job said, ‘I was carefree שליו when he smashed me’ (Job 16:12). Job said, ‘ “I was his שֶׁלּוֹ in the world when he smashed me and grabbed my neck and shattered me” (Job 16:12), in order to make me a target for the sake of his people; as it says, “And made me a target for his benefit” (Job 16:12). It further says, “God handed me over יַסְגִּירֵנִי (Tg.: ימסרנני) to the evildoer” (Job 16:11), gave me up מסרני into the hand of Satan, and lest the Israelites come out from the court as godless, he cast הרטה me into his hand; see, “He cast me ירטני into the hand of evildoers” (Job 16:11).’ In that hour God said to Moses, ‘Moses, look, I have handed Job over מסרתי to Satan; what do you have to do now? “Tell the children of Israel to go forth” (Exod 14:15).’ ” (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, 2022], 3:415-16)

 

Hans Conzelmann on "the destruction of the flesh" in 1 Corinthians 5:5 Being a Reference to Physical Death

  

What is the effect and purpose of consigning the man to Satan, the Destroyer? It is clear that the δύναμις, “power,” of the Lord is made effectual by calling upon his name. πνεῦμα, “spirit,” is now, in contrast to v 3, the power which represents the Lord himself. The destruction of the flesh can hardly mean anything else but death (cf. 11:30). The shocking idea is to be understood in the first instance within the context of contemporary history: the view of curse and ban as entertained by the whole ancient and Jewish world. Here it is not a case of mere exclusion from the church, but of a dynamistic ceremony. The holiness of the church is conceived in metaphysical categories. Yet the point does not lie in the physical aspect of the working of a supernatural power, but in the fact that the accursed man is thrust out of the body of Christ into the realm of wrath. This is plain from the purpose of the ceremony, the saving of the πνεῦμα. This is an enigmatic statement. Does the baptized man possess a character indelebilis? Or is the intention precisely that the Spirit should be taken from him? (Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, [Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975], 97-98, emphasis in bold added)

 

Blog Archive