✪ natural man = ψυχικος man. sensual (Jas. 3:15) = ψυχικη
✪ "“Hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord” (1 Cor 5:5, NIV). So reads Paul’s command to the Christians about the man who was having an affair with his stepmother. The NIV margin notes that “sinful nature” (literally, “flesh”) could also be translated “body.” Commentators are divided as to whether Paul envisions simple excommunication or actual death here, though the former seems more probable. But either way, this command seems harsh by modern standards, particularly in the majority of our congregations that exercise little or no formal church discipline of any kind. An understanding of the preposition εις can shed some light on this verse. The NIV reads as if there were two equally balanced purposes behind Paul’s command: one punitive and one remedial. But the Greek prefaces the first with an εις and the second with the conjunction ἵνα. Εις can denote either result or purpose; ἵνα far more commonly denotes purpose. Paul’s change of language is likely deliberate—to point out that his purpose in discipline is entirely rehabilitative, even if one of the results of his action is temporary exclusion and ostracism of the persistently rebellious sinner. Or in Gordon Fee’s words, “What the grammar suggests, then, is that the ‘destruction of the flesh’ is the anticipated result of the man’s being put back out into Satan’s domain, while the express purpose of the action is his redemption.”" Ref-0085, p. 55.
✪ "If ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι (en heni pneumati) is given instrumental force, then in this passage alone we read that the Holy Spirit baptizes us into one body, where as in the other New Testament passages(Mat. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5 [in connection with Acts 2]) we learn that Jesus baptizes his followers in or with the Holy Spirit. On this basis, some try to distinguish two separate works of grace." Ref-0698, p. 46n49.
✪ "The reason an understanding of 1Cor. 12:8-10 is so significant is that in 1Cor. 13:8, a gift from each section of the first delineation in 1Cor. 12:8-10: gnōsis from the first section, prophēteiai from the second section, and glōssai from the third section. Why does Paul refer to these three gifts in that context?" Donald G. McDougall, "Cessationism in 1_Cor_13:8-12", Ref-0164, 14/2 (Fall 2003) 177-213, p. 184. "Since tongues appears here between two other arguably revelatory gifts, since interpreted tongues brought the body of Christ an edifying word from God, and since 1Cor. 13:8-12 focuses to a great degree upon God's revelation to His church, Paul here groups these three gifts because they are all to some degree revelatory in content. Carson suggests that maybe the distinction here is that tongues, as distinct from prophecy and knowledge, is not included in what one might term “inscripturated” revelation . . . Might not the inclusion of all three in one group and the exclusion of tongues in the list of gifts that are “rendered inoperative,” result from such a distinction?" Donald G. McDougall, "Cessationism in 1_Cor_13:8-12", Ref-0164, 14/2 (Fall 2003) 177-213, p. 184.
✪ "Though the use of teleios [in Eph. 4:1-16] may not be determinative of its meaning in 1 Cor 13:10-11, it is certainly corroborative. The Ephesians passage has the same author and the same subject matter -- although with a distinctly different emphasis. Paul refers to the purpose of the gifts and states that a reason for the gifts is that the church might attain to the status of ἄνδρα τέλειον (andra teleion, “a mature man”) (Eph. 4:13), in order that they might no longer be nēpioi (Eph. 4:14) “tossed here and there by waves” (Eph 4:14, NASB). Note that teleion and nēpioi stand in contrast to one another, and teleion clearly refers to maturity." Donald G. McDougall, "Cessationism in 1_Cor_13:8-12", Ref-0164, 14/2 (Fall 2003) 177-213, p. 205. "On the basis of Paul's use of teleios throughout his epistles and more specifically elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, it is evident that 1 Cor 13:10 uses to teleion in contrast with nēpios as a reference to “maturity” and not to “completeness” or the presence of the Lord, although the latter is clearly in view in 1Cor. 13:12. Although to teleion does not refer to the completion of the canon, the overall emphasis on divine revelation in this passage and the reference to three revelatory gifts shows that the revelatory process is a major theme. By the time the church becomes mature, the revelatory process reflected in the three gifts will come to an end by God's intervention. Thus tongues -- a supernatural manifestation of the use of earthly languages -- will end prior to or at the time of this maturation. . . . At the maturation of the church (whenever that happens) all revelatory gifts will have come to an end according to this passage." Donald G. McDougall, "Cessationism in 1_Cor_13:8-12", Ref-0164, 14/2 (Fall 2003) 177-213, pp. 212-213. "At least seven interpretations have been suggested for the meaning of τέλειος (“the perfect”) in verse 10: The completion of the canon (Merrill Unger, Joseph Dillow, Myron Houghton), the maturity of the Church at the end of the apostolic age (Robert Thomas), at the time the believer dies and is face to face with the Lord (Thomas R. Edgar), at the Rapture (Stanley D. Toussaint), at the Second Advent of Christ (Charles C. Ryrie in the Ryrie Study Bible, but he seems to suggest the canon view in Balancing the Christian Life, the eternal state (John F. MacArthur, Jr.) and the eschaton in general (Gordon D. Fee)." Robert Dean, Jr., "Three Arguments for the Cessation of Tongues", Ref-0055, Vol. 9 No. 26, March 2005, 63:86, p. 73. Against the notion that the perfect could not refer to completion of the canon, see Paul - writing called scripture.
✪ "In a mirror a person looks at himself, not at someone else or God. In the comparison, face to face must describe looking into something that accurately and clearly reflects oneself. When the believer gazes into the completed canon of Scripture, he sees himself as he truly is." Robert Dean, Jr., "Three Arguments for the Cessation of Tongues", Ref-0055, Vol. 9 No. 26, March 2005, 63:86, p. 77.
✪ "It seems certain, however, that this second-century Theodotion was preceded in his work of revision by a person of the 1st cent b.c. or 1st cent a.d., styled “Ur-Theodotion” by modern scholarship. The reason for this postulate is the appearance of “Theodotionic” readings in writings antedating the time of the activity of the second-century Theodotion. Some of these readings are found in the NT (cf. the quotation in 1 Cor. 15:54 of Isa. 25:8, which corresponds exactly to that of Theodotion)." S. K. Soderlund, Ref-0008, p. 4:404.
✪ "The phrase ‘is come in the flesh’ is not found in many of the ancient Greek texts and therefore is not contained in the Critical Text and many contemporary English versions. Once more, in Polycarp's [letter to the] Philippians we read: ‘For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan.’ (Philippians 7:1)." [Polycarp wrote this circa 150 AD] "Some have suggested that Polycarp was not citing 1 John 4:3 but instead was citing 2 John 1:7. J.B. Lightfoot and others have listed this citation of Polycarp as coming from 1 John 4:3, and the Greek of Polycarp matches better with the Greek in 1 John 4:3 than in does with the Greek in 2 John 1:7." Ref-0086, p. 12. "1 John and Polycarp use the perfect tense, 2 John uses the present tense. . . Clearly Polycarp was citing 1 John 4:3, which matches the Traditional Text." Ref-0086, p. 48.
✪ "the conclusive fact remains: there is no MS authority for the retention of 1 John 5:7." Ref-1363, p. 472.
✪ "Regardless of the translation of the phrase eis tina ē poion kairon (either "what person or time" or "what time or circumstances"), the passage still does not support the view that the prophets failed to understand that they wrote of Messiah. Kaiser states that according to 1 Pet 1:10-12, the prophets were aware of five facts in their prophecies: They knew they were predicting that: (1) the Messiah would come; (2) the Messiah would suffer; (3) the Messiah would be glorified (in kingly splendor); (4) the order of events 2 and 3 was that the suffering came first, and then the glorious period followed; and (5) this message had been revealed to the prophets not only for their own day, but also for a future generation such as the church of Peter's audience (v. 12)." Ref-1272, p. 89.
✪ "A very interesting place where the LXX agrees with the tiqqune sopherim is in 1 Samuel 3:13, where the AV translates the MT, “His sons made themselves vile.” The verb QALAL simply means “to curse.” As the text now stands it is followed by the word LAHEM, “to them,” and literally reads, “His sons cursed to them.” Now QALAL takes a plain accusative, not a dative, and this anomaly in the text is explained by the Masoretes’ note that the text originally read “cursed God.” He was the object of the cursing or blasphemy of Eli’s sons, a statement that the Sopherim wished to soften out of deference to Eli as the priest of God. By removing two letters they created an impossible reading which left the full wickedness of Hophni and Phinehas out of the text, to be remembered through the Masoretic tradition and the witness of the LXX, and through the grammatical difficulty of the reading they created." Ref-1363, p. 477.
✪ "Here, by consulting Hatch and Redpath's A Concordance to the Septuagint . . . or by using one of the sophisticated computer concordances to trace Hebrew equivalents for Greek words . . . you can find at once that βουκόλια is how the LXX frequently translated the Hebrew בָּקָר, cattle. Now just two more steps. First you compare בָּחוּר and בָּקָר. The words are the same except for the middle consonant, ח or ק. The shureq vowel (וּ), though written with waw, is only a vowel and represents a vocalization decision by copyists long after 1 Samuel was first written. . . . What original word would account for both בָּחוֹר and בָּקָר? Your answer is: בָּקָר, “cattle.” The ח of בּחוֹר is probably the miscopy. Second, you confirm this decision by analyzing the immediate context. After “male slaves” and “female slaves” (a logical pair), “young men” and “donkeys” would hardly go together. But “cattle” and “donkeys,” another logical pair, certainly would." Ref-0749, p. 39.
✪ "Unfortunately, the date of Solomon’s reign cannot help us to fix dates for events before the reign of David because of a severe disruption in the text of 1 Sam 13:1. . . . Apparently there was a serious disruption in the transmission of the text of 1 Sam 13:1. This disruption must have occurred early in the history of the transmission of the text, since none of the ancient versions offers any help in restoring the lost numbers. Clearly, from the account of Saul’s reign in 1 Samuel, he reigned more than two years." Ref-1307, p. 45 "As is well known, the text of 1 Sam 13:1 which reports the length of Saul’s reign is defective . . . Fortunately, two other sources indicate that Saul ruled for forty years. The first is Acts 13:21 where Paul states that Saul ruled forty years. Josephus’ Antiquities (6:294 [6.13.5]) also attributes a forty-year reign to Saul." Ref-1307, pp. 105-106
✪ ". . . it is virtually certain that in 1 S. 14:41 the LXX preserves the authentic passage missing in the MT through scribal error." S. K. Soderlund, Ref-0008, p. 4:401.
✪ "We read when David was in the cave, that every one who was in distress, was gathered unto him (1S. 22:1). This doubtless was written as typifying Jesus Christ, and the referring of those who were in fear and distress unto him. The expression of flying for refuge, by which coming to Christ is signified, implies, that before they come, they are in fear of some evil." Ref-1289, p. 58.
✪ Gill believes this indicates that the apparition was not truly the inerrant prophet: "yet this was not true, if he meant it of all the sons of Saul, as the expression seems to suggest; for there were Ishbosheth, and his two sons by Rizpah, which survived him; nor was it true of Saul and his sons that they were cut off, and that they died the next day; for the battle was not fought till several days after this, see 1S. 28:23; if it should be said, that "tomorrow" signifies some future time, and not strictly the next day, this shows the ambiguity of the expression used, and the insignificance of it to the present purpose; for who knew not that Saul and his sons would die some time or another?" Ref-0904, 1S._28:19.
✪ "Caligula reigned from March 13, AD 37 to January 24, AD 41, so Josephus would have been about three years of age when Caligula’s edict about the statue went forth. The story about the decree, and the following events, would therefore have been well known as part of Josephus’s upbringing. The incident would probably have been in Paul’s mind when he received the revelation about the “man of sin” mentioned in 2 Thess 2:3–4, written about eleven years after Caligula’s death. Paul would have seen Caligula, with his pretentions to godhood, as a prefiguration of this end-time figure." Rodger Young, Caligula’s Statue for the Jerusalem Temple and its Relation to the Chronology of Herod the Great, JETS 62.4 (2019): 759-775, 762. See 20200525124231.pdf.
✪ "They" vs. "you" (of verse 15) because the church is gone?
✪ slanderer = diabalos (1228), false accuser
✪ ". . . the error [of equating the ‘old covenant’ with the ‘old testament’] has been included in the NKJV's translation of 2 Corinthians 3:14: "But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament [should be old covenant], because the veil is taken away in Christ."" Paul Henebury.
✪ "Or take μετασχηματιζω in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, translated by the word “transform.” Each occurrence is in the direct middle voice. . . . The Greek verb means “to transform one's self,” but it means more than that. It refers to the action of changing one's outward expression by assuming an outward expression which does not come from within, and is not representative of one's inner nature, while at the time there is no change in one' sinner nature. It is an outward change of that which inwardly remains the same. . . . Satan originally was an angel of light, and the enswathement of light that that clothed his person come from his inner nature. This is μορφόομαι. But he fell into sin and gave outward expression of the darkness of his totally depraved nature. This is also μορφόομαι. But he saw that he could not deceive and attract the human race in that way. So he changed his outward expression to that of an angel of light by assuming from the outside an expression of light, that expression not coming from nor being representative of his sin-darkened nature. This is μετασχηματιζˊζω. The word “masquerade” would be an approximation of the total content of this word. But even that does not translate the word in its fullness." Ref-0946, pp. 86-87.
✪ "First of all, people that are Arminian, that believe you can lose your salvation believe this verse means test to see if you’re a Christian because, you know, you could have had salvation one day and lost it the next day. And the Calvinist camp, Reformed camp, loves this verse because to them it means if you’re really a Christian you’re going to persevere in works so to determine if you’re really one of those persevering Christians, because if you’re not a persevering Christian you’re not a Christian (in their minds) so the test is to determine if you’re really saved to begin with. . . . So both camps, Arminianism and Calvinism are applying this to justification, the first tense of your salvation. And I am convinced the more I’ve studied this that that’s not what Paul is saying at all; it looks that way if you cherry pick it and remove it from its context but when you look at the whole context it becomes very clear that Paul is not saying examine yourselves to figure out if you’ve been justified; he’s saying examine yourself to see if you’re growing in Christ the way you should. So he’s not applying this at all to the first tense of salvation; he’s applying this to the second tense of salvation. I have nine reasons why I think that’s true, . . . " -- Andy Woods, 20161124190944.pdf.
✪ "Leah Bronner, though, has shown that all these miracles could have originated in conscious opposition to similar claims by worshippers of the Canaanite god Baal. Thus in the case of the floating axe-head [2K. 6:6], Elisha is demonstrating his power over the river, as he does elsewhere in parting the waters of the Jordan, and showing that it is Yahweh and not Baal who rules the waves." Ref-1282, p. 132
✪ "The Babylonian Chronicles date the siege and the deportation of King Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) of Judah from the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar. . . . However the Hebrew account seems to conflict with the Babylonian record as it declares that the second deportation which brought Jehoiachin to Babylon . . . occurred in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2K. 24:10-12). The “discrepancy” resolves itself when it is seen that the Hebrews count the accession year of foreign monarchs as their first year of reigning. Thus Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year by Babylonian dating becomes his 8th by Hebrew reckoning." Ref-0186, p. 132.
✪ "One final example of a correction of the Sopherim will suffice. 2 Samuel 12:14 records Nathan’s charge against David: “By this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.” According to Rashi, one of the greatest of the Masoretic doctors, the original reading was much harsher, for the object of the verb was “the Lord,” not “the enemies of the Lord.” That the Masoretic tradition here is authentic is shown by the fact that the verb cannot mean “cause to blaspheme,” but simply “to blaspheme.” Now, David did not blaspheme the Lord’s enemies, as a literal translation of the text as it stands would demand. What Nathan said to him was, “Thou hast blasphemed [reproached, reviled, or contemned] the Lord.” This agrees with David’s own confession in Psalm 51:4, “Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned.”" Ref-1363, p. 478.
✪ "Many of the modern translations have followed the Syriac version and read “after four days” even though every extant Hebrew manuscript reads “forty”. Admittedly, two of the Hebrew manuscripts have the novel, yet obviously erroneous rendering “forty days” rather than “forty years”. However, as it is impossible that Absalom could have won the hearts of all Israel in so short a time, all scholarship has conceded that this is a corrupted reading of the text. . . . Possible solutions: the forty years are: 1. Not forty into David's reign for this incident did not occur at the end of David's life. 2S. 21:1 makes clear that a minimum of 4 years remained unto David . . . 2. Not Absalom's age. We have already shown that Absalom's “potential” age at David's death would have been 70 - 33 = 37 years old (or 39 max). As we have also shown that the rebellion and death of Absalom took place at least 4 years prior to David's decease, Absalom's life span cannot exceed 37 - 4 = 33 years (or 39 - 4 = 35). 3. Not David's age, Were David 40, Absalom would be only about 7 years old . . . 4. Not the number of years Absalom was at the gate winning the hearts of Israel for he did not live that long. . . . the answer is number five -- other! . . . When had David won over and bonded unto himself the hearts of the men of Israel? Forty years earlier when he slew the Philistine giant, Goliath . . ." Ref-0186, p. 105.
✪ "Another text where the tiqqune sopherim should be recognized is 2 Samuel 16:12. Here translators have had a difficult time. The AV abandons the Hebrew text and follows the LXX, but notes the Masoretic qere in the margin. The RSV and the NEB also follow the LXX. The RV follows the Hebrew kethib in its translation and notes the LXX reading in the margin. All is clear, however, when we realize that to remove an anthropomorphism, the scribes transposed two letters to make the word B‘YNW, “with His eye,” into B‘WNY, “on my iniquity.” The text simply says, “It may be that the Lord will behold with His eye, and that the Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day.”" Ref-1363, p. 478.
✪ Elhanen killed the brother of Goliath as is clarified in 1Chr. 20:5.
✪ "It is somewhat surprising that many scholars (most notably, R. Bultmann) have embraced 2Th. 1:12 as an explicit affirmation of Christ's deity. Only by detaching κυριου from ʽΙησου Χριστου could one apply Sharp's rule to this construction." Ref-0129, p. 276 note 55.
✪ "The rendering of the verb ενεστηκεν in [2Th. 2:2b] as ‘is present’ rather than as ‘has come’ or ‘will come’ is very important, because it is the key to interpreting the difficult verse immediately following. English verions have, for the most part, consistently mistranslated this verb. . . Only three versions consulted render the verb correctly. Darby renders, ‘the day of the Lord is present,’ Weymouth has, ‘the day of the Lord is now here,’ and the NRSV gives, ‘the day of the Lord is already here.’ Either of these captures the intensive force of the perfect tense ενεστεκεν. That the perfect tense of ενιστημι (enistemi) means ‘is present’ cannot be doubted seriously in light of its usage elsewhere in the NT (Rom. 8:38; 1Cor. 3:22; 7:26; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 9:9)." -- 20160206095825.pdf, Thomas, Robert L., ‘Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul's Thessalonian Epistles,’ Ref-0164, Vol. 13 No. 2, Fall 2002, pp. 209-214. "The perfect tense ‘views action as a finished product’ and ‘signifies action as complete from the point of view of present time.’ In light of this, James Everett Frame has asserted that the verb does not mean ‘is coming,’ ‘is at hand,’ or ‘is near.’ Instead, it means ‘has come,’ ‘is on hand,’ or ‘is present.’ Thus, the Thessalonian believers had been told that the Day of the Lord had already come and they were in it." Ref-0220, p. 64. "If the context warrants, as this one certainly does, a present [tense] idea is legitimate and even preferable: “If the apostasy does not come first and the man of lawlessness is not revealed, the Day of the Lord is not present. That is a proverbial truth you can count on.” . . . Transferring these grammatical findings back to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, we arrive at the following sense: “The day of the Lord is not present unless first in sequence within that day there comes the apostasy and, following this apostasy's beginning, the revealing of the man of lawlessness.” Rather than the two events preceding the Day of the Lord as has so often been suggested, these are happenings that compose the earlier stages of that day after it has begun. By observing the nonoccurrence of these, the readers could rest assured that the day whose early stages are so characterized was not currently present for them." Ref-0231, pp. 73-75.
✪ "The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either “departure” or “departing.” They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608). This supports the notion that the word truly means “departure.” In fact, Jerome's Latin translation, known as the Vulgate from around the time of A.D. 400, renders apostasia with the “word discessia, meaning ‘departure.’” Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of “departure”? Theodore Beza, the Swiss reformer was the first to translate apostasia and create a new word, rather than translate it as others had done. The translators of the King James Version were the first to introduce the new rendering of apostasia as “falling away.” Most English translators have followed the KJV and Beza in departing from translating apostasia as “departure.” No good reason was ever given. . . . Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar from Moody Bible Institute, added the following contextual support to taking apostasia as a physical departure: “But the hee apostasia of which Paul is speaking precedes the revelation of Antichrist in his true identity, and is to katechon--that which holds back his revelation (2Th. 2:6). The hee apostasia, therefore, cannot be either a general apostasy in Christendom which does precede the coming of Antichrist, nor can it be the particular apostasy which is the result of his activities in making himself the alone object of worship. Furthermore, that which holds back his revelation (2Th. 2:3) is vitally connected with hoo katechoon (2Th. 2:7), He who holds back the same event. The latter is, in my opinion, the Holy Spirit and His activities in the Church. All of which means that I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that the hee apostasia (2Th. 2:3) refers to the Rapture of the Church which precedes the Day of the Lord, and holds back the revelation of the Man of Sin who ushers in the world-aspect of that period.”" Thomas Ice, "Is the Rapture in 2 Thessalonians_2:3?", Ref-0181, March 2004, p. 4. "The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either “departure” or “departing.” They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608)." -- Thomas Ice, Is the Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3?, [http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-TheRapturein2Thessal.pdf] accessed 20111108. See also 20160203161843.pdf Robert Thomas offers the following translation of the passage which attempts to capture the subtlety of the relation of "first" to the events described: "The day of the Lord is not present unless first in sequence within that day the apostasy comes, and following the apostasy’s beginning, the revealing of the man of lawlessness occurs." -- 20160206095825.pdf, Robert L. Thomas, Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul's Thessalonian Epistles, Ref-0164 Vol. 13 No. 2, Fall 2002, 192-214, pp. 212-213. He goes on explain: "Rather than the two events preceding the day of the Lord as has so often been suggested, these are happenings that comprise conspicuous stages within that day after it has begun. By observing the non-occurrence of these, the Thessalonian readers could rest assured that the day whose leading events will be so characterized was not yet present. Assigning these criteria to 2 Thess 2:3 frees Paul from the accusation of contradicting himself. In 1 Thess 5:2 he wrote that the day of the Lord will come as a thief. If that day has precursors as 2 Thess 2:3 is often alleged to teach, it could hardly come as a thief. Thieves come without advance notice or precursors. Neither does the day of the Lord have any prior signals before it arrives." -- 20160206095825.pdf, Robert L. Thomas, Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul's Thessalonian Epistles, Ref-0164 Vol. 13 No. 2, Fall 2002, 192-214, p. 213. The rendering of the NET Bible appears to support this concept: "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." Ref-0014, 2Th. 2:3.
✪ See [Ref-1307, 342-345] for a chronological timeline of events in Acts.
✪ "Not one translation reflects the article before the word prayer in any sense. “The prayer” (Acts 1:14) may be specific prayer for the promise referred to in verse 4. In the Greek, “prayer” has the article." David Olander, Ref-1217, p. 144.
✪ "On the day of Pentecost, only the eleven disciples spoke in tongues, not the one hundred twenty who had temporarily gathered at Peter's request to select a replacement disciple for Judas. It is highly unlikely that so many would have remained together in the small upper room apartment. Further, the nearest antecedent for the third person plural reference “they” of Acts 2:1 is in the final plural phrase of Acts 1:23, “the eleven apostles.” Thus only the eleven were gathered in one place when the Church was born." Robert Dean, Jr., "Three Arguments for the Cessation of Tongues", Ref-0055, Vol. 9 No. 26, March 2005, 63:86, p. 84.
✪ "Unbelieving Jews were gathered in Jerusalem from many different regions for the second annual pilgrimage feast, Pentecost. Although sixteen regions are mentioned (Acts 2:9-11), careful study of the languages involved indicate that probably no more than eight or none had extant languages. The regions of Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia had been conquered by the Greeks in the fourth century B.C. and had been speaking Greek as the lingua franca of their region. it is doubtful if any of their ancient dialects had survived into the first century AD." Robert Dean, Jr., "Three Arguments for the Cessation of Tongues", Ref-0055, Vol. 9 No. 26, March 2005, 63:86, p. 84.
✪ "The words boulē (counsel) and prognōsis (foreknowledge) are in a construction called Granville Sharps rule, where two nouns are in the same case, connected by kai (and), the first noun preceded by the article, the second noun without the article. The rule states that in this construction the second noun refers to the same thing to which the first noun does, and is a further description of it. That means that boulē and prognōsis refer to the same thing, the act of selecting the One out of the Persons of the Godhead who would be the Lamb slain as the Sacrifice for sin. The word prognōsis therefore means more here than mere previous knowledge, even though that knowledge be part of the omniscience of God. It partakes of the nature of boulē and is part and parcel of the same act. It means “foreordination.” The a.v., translators have so rendered it in I Peter 1:20 where they speak of Christ as “the Lamb who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world.” The word should also be so translated in Romans 8:29 and 11:2 in connection with Israel as the people foreordained of God, and in I Peter 1:2, with relation to the saints being foreordained, as well as in our present verse, where the translation should read, “for whom He did foreordain.” It speaks of the sovereign act of God foreordaining certain from among mankind to be saved. It is only fair that the author inform the reader that Vincent, Denney, Robertson, and Alford all translate prognōsis by the word “foreknowledge” and understand it to refer to the prescience of God, as Vincent puts it, not to the idea of pre-election." Ref-0815, Rom. 8:29. Wuest also applies the Granville-Sharp rule to show that “foreknowledge” refers to “determinate counsel” in Ref-0946, p. 22.
✪ "The phrase “times of refreshing” looks ahead to the promised eschatological Davidic kingdom on this earth. However, not everyone agrees with this interpretation. Actually five views are held. First, some say it looks at present-day spiritual blessings, and the coming of Christ takes places in a person's heart when that person trusts in Him. Second, others say Peter was stating that the times of refreshing will be fulfilled in the present age. Third, others say the times of refreshing refer to blessings for present-day believers but that the sending of the Messiah refers to the second coming of Christ when He will bring great spiritual blessings. A fourth view is that the times of refreshing refer to present-day blessings whereas the sending of the Messiah is yet future when the Old Testament prophecies regarding a literal earthly kingdom will fulfilled. A number of writers take a fifth position, maintain that the times of refreshing and the sending of Jesus are both eschatological and refer to the coming of the promised Davidic kingdom. A number of important factors support this view. . . .The noun ἀναψύξεως, translated “refreshing,” is a New Testament hapax legomenon. It is used in Greek literature in various forms to refer to “cooling by blowing, refreshing, relieving, resting.” It occurs in the Septuagint only in Exodus (Eng., Ex. 8:15; LXX, Ex. 8:11), where it refers to relief from the plague of frogs." Stanley D. Toussaint and Jay Q. Quine, No, Not Yet: The Contingency of God's Promised Kingdom, Ref-0200, Vol. 164 No. 654 April-June 2007, 131:147, pp. 143-144.
✪ "When Gamaliel, in Acts 5:37, speaks of Judas the Galilaean who led a rising in the days of the taxking, we turn to the pages of Josephus, and find the story of this rising both in his War (ii.8) and in the Antiquities (xviii.1)." Ref-0239, p. 106.
✪ "The famine that affected the Roman world, and more particulary Palestine, under Claudius (Acts 11:28) is assigned by Josephus (Ant. xx.5.2) to the Judean procuratorship of Tiberius Julius Alexander, i.e., between A.D. 45 and 48." F. F. Bruce, "Acts of the Apostles", Ref-0008, p. 1:42b
✪ "The famine-relief visit of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem (Acts 11:30; 12:25) is probably to be dated some little time after Herod Agrippa's death [A.D. 44]." F. F. Bruce, "Acts of the Apostles", Ref-0008, p. 1:42b
✪ "In his Ecclesiastical History (ii. 9) Eusebius preserves a tradition, which was first found in Clement of Alexandria, that the officer who was attached to James and commissioned with guarding him, was so impressed with the apostle's witness, that before James was martyred, this officer confessed Christ as Saviour and was beheaded with the apostle." Ref-0309. "Question 24: In Acts 12, Herod Agrippa has James beheaded and plans to kill Peter. We know that earlier Stephen was stoned. Isn’t it true that under the law, only the Romans could order an execution? Was Herod acting outside the law? Answer: Herod Agrippa was a Roman officer. He was designated as king by the Roman government, and therefore that title is used of him in Acts 12:1. He was viewed as ruling the land as a Roman, not as a Jew. This is comparable to his grandfather’s status: Herod the Great was an Idumean, not a Jew, and he too had been given authority by the Romans to rule the land. Herod Agrippa was ruling the land in place of any procurators during the period of A.D. 40-44. Just like his grandfather, he had the Roman authority to execute. The fact that he used this authority can be seen in Acts 12." -- Arnold Fructenbaum, Answers: Question 24, [http://arielb.org/archives/912].
✪ "“Herod the king” of Acts 12:1 was the elder Herod Agrippa, who received the royal title from the Emperor Gaius in A.D. 37 and had Judea added to his kingdom by Claudius in A.D. 41; he died in A.D. 44 (Josephus Ant. xix.8.2; BJ ii.11.6). The implication of Acts 12 is that his death took place not long after Peter's imprisonment and escape." F. F. Bruce, "Acts of the Apostles", Ref-0008, p. 1:42b "(343) Now, when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival, a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. (344) On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; (345) and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another (though not for his good), that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.” But, as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner.” (349) But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king’s recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. (350) And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign; . . . " Ref-0026, 19.343-351.
✪ "For Paul's Ephesian ministry we have no [historical] pointer of comparable precision; the most likely explanation, however, of the strange plural “there are proconsuls” in Acts 19:38 is that it reflects the interregnum in the governorship of the province of Asia which followed the assassination of Junius Silanus late in A.D. 54 (Tacitus Ann. xiii.2)." F. F. Bruce, "Acts of the Apostles", Ref-0008, p. 1:43a
✪ "an allusion to the Seven Sisters; and Orion". Jonathan F. Henry, "Origin of the Constellations at Babel", Ref-0785, Volume 12 Number 35 March 2008, 5:20, p. 15.
✪ "The feminine plural suffix ("their broken places") [in Amos 9:11] refers to the two kingdoms that had been divided since the days of Rehoboam. God will unite the nation once again under their messianic king. The masculine singular suffix ("his ruins") refers to David (not his booth, which is feminine). Since David is dead, Kaiser points out that this "must refer to that 'second David,' mentioned in Hosea 3:5. God will raise up from the ashes of 'destruction' the new David, even Christ the Messiah." The feminine suffix ("build it") refers to the fallen booth, the Davidic dynasty that will be restored under the Messiah." Ref-1272, p. 55.
✪ "The four Books, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah are one work, on one subject, by one author, containing one connected, continuous narrative throughout, to which the Book of Esther is a picture, an illustration or an appendix, related to the Book of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah in precisely the same way as the Book of Ruth is related to Judges 1-16." Ref-1299, p. 234.
✪ "Supercilious works purporting to teach a “biblical” truth can instead undermine a layperson's trust in the Scripture, especially when those “how to” type of books fail. For example, does anyone really believe that Dan 1:8–13 is properly extrapolated into a comprehensive weight loss and healthy eating paradigm as Rick Warren does?" -- Dennis M. Swanson, Inerrancy and the Local Church: What Does the Debate Mean to the People in the Pews?, 2015061701.pdf, p. 54.
✪ vegetables: "[t]he word is ZeRo'IM from ZaRa which means ‘to sow.’ Probably grain such as barley or wheat." Ref-0045, p. 19.
✪ "But the angel of the Lord came down into the oven together with Azarias and his fellows, and smote the flame of the fire out of the oven; 27 And made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them." Song of the Three Youths, 13:26-27, Ref-0306. "“The Song of the Three Holy Children,” and was added after the 23rd verse of Daniel, chap. 3. It pretends to give the song that the three Hebrew young men sang as they walked unhurt in the fiery furnace, and is of value as preserving the character of Jewish piety in the days we have been considering." Ref-1126, p. 100.
✪ ". . . near the end of Daniel 7:1, the awkward phrase “he related the sum of the words” is completely absent from 4QDanb, the only scroll that preserves this verse." Ref-0790, p. 484. "Daniel dates two of his visions to Belshazzar’s reign. Dan 7 comes from Belshazzar’s first year , 550n (or possibly 553n). Dan 8 dates to Belshazzar’s third year, 548n (or possibly 551n)." Ref-1307, p. 175
✪ "Daniel . . . calls Cyaxeres Ahasuerus . . . " Ref-1507, p. 166.
✪ ". . .nowhere in Holy Writ is קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים (‘a most holy’) applied to the Church or to a person. . . Each of the 39 occurrences of קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים pertains to the Tabernacle, Temple (specifically the Holy of Holies), or the things of the Temple. . . A reasonable deduction from that fact is ‘a most holy’ is the Temple. The allusion is not likely to be the Holy of Holies proper because that term almost always has the article with it." Charles H. Ray, A Study of Daniel 9:24 - 27, Part II, Ref-0055, Vol. 5 No. 16, December 2001, p. 309. "How is that the Messianic Kingdom will fulfill all prophecies, since there are things concerning the time beyond the Kingdom, the Eternal State? . . . the Eternal State is New Testament revelation; no Old Testament prophet ever saw beyond the Kingdom into the Eternal Order. From the perspective of the Old Testament and in light of he fact that no prophet ever saw beyond the Messianic Kingdom, when Daniel speaks about the sealing up of vision and prophecy with the Kingdom, he means that insofar as Old Testament prophecy is concerned, everything will indeed be fulfilled." Ref-0219, pp. 193-194. [But what about Isa. 25:8 which prophesied the abolition of death -- a condition of the eternal state?]
✪ "That by this ‘anointed one’ Christ is meant (and not perhaps Cyrus, or according to 2 Macc. 4:34, the high priest Onias, murdered in B.C. 172) was the interpretation of the ancient church and of such later expositors as Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and Keil." Ref-0197, p. 159n2. "As already noted, this noun in Daniel 9:25-26 does not refer to a high priest because the designation מָשִׁיַה for a high priest was not used beyond the Mosaic period, and whenever it was used it was always clarified by juxtaposition with the word “priest” in the articular expression הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיַה. Some appeal to Isaiah 45:1 to support their contention that the Persian king Cyrus is the מָשִׁיַה of Daniel 9:25. But this seems improbable because the term מָשִׁיַה in Isaiah 45:1 is clarified by the juxtaposition of Cyrus’s name with the term מָשִׁיַה (לִמְשִׁיחוֹ לְכוֹרֶשׁ). This shows that this foreign king is described by God as His anointed one. However, such clarification is noticeably absent in Daniel 9:25. In Daniel 9:25-26 מָשִׁיַה is used in a unique way. Only here does מָשִׁיַה occur without the article and without any qualifying noun or pronoun. The more formal designation for the king of Israel was “the Lord’s anointed” or sometimes “My anointed” (1S. 2:35), “Your anointed” (Ps. 132:10), or “His anointed” (1S. 12:3). In Daniel 9:25, however, the one in view is designated מָשִׁיַה נָגִיד, an expression that occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. The expression is doubly unique. The noun נָגִיד, which occurs forty-three times in the Old Testament, has a wide semantic range. The word basically means “leader, ruler, prince,” and is used most frequently for various kings of Israel (for Saul in 1S. 9:16 and David in 2S. 5:2). Several times נָגִיד is used of a priest (e.g., 1Chr. 9:20), twice for foreign rulers (Ps. 76:12; Eze. 28:2), once of nobles (Job 29:10, in the plural), and a few times of military commanders (1Chr. 13:1) and tribal heads (1Chr. 27:16). Yet only rarely does the term occur in the prophets. However, in Isaiah 55:4 the term נָגִיד is used in a prophetic reference to the Messiah, “Behold, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader [נָגִיד] and commander for the peoples.” Hence both the term נָגִיד and מָשִׁיַה are capable of referring to the Messiah, the promised Son of David. The question, however, is how מָשִׁיַה נָגִיד should be understood in Daniel 9:25. Is there anything in the preceding context that would be a suitable reference to the Messiah? . . . A suitable candidate in a previous chapter in Daniel makes perfect sense, namely, “One like a Son of Man” to whom is “give dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him” (Dan. 7:13-14). Daniel 9 is also linked to chapter 7 by references in both chapters to a “week” and to the Antichrist. . . . This link, then, serves to support contextually the argument that the מָשִׁיַה of 9:25 is the “Son of Man” of 7:13, namely, the Messiah." J. Paul Tanner, Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2 Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 663 July-September 2009, 319:335, pp. 323-324. "McComiskey (following the argument commonly used by critical scholars) objects to [the identification of the מָשִׁיַה as Jesus] because of a punctuation marker known as an ʿaṯnāḥ in the Masoretic text. That mark (=) is placed between the words “seven weeks” . . . and “sixty two weeks” . . . McComiskey says this means that the מָשִׁיַה נָגִיד appears after seven weeks (of years) from the issuing of the “decree [דָבָר] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem,” not after sixty-nine weeks (seven and sixty-two) weeks). . . . The NRSV reflects this understanding of the ʿaṯnāḥ in its translation. “Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in troubled time.” This translation, however, is not convincing. First, in their original form the Hebrew manuscripts did not have vowel points or accentuation markers. These were added by Jewish scribes known as Masoretes many centuries after the time of Jesus' crucifixion. . . . about A.D. 600-700 . . . Thus there is nothing inspired about the accentuation markers, and they are certainly subject to debate. The primary Greek version of Daniel (which was accepted by the early church fathers) was the text of Theodotion. Although there is some dispute as to the identity of Theodotion and when this text originated, the point is that this Greek text reflects no bifurcation of the verse between the two temporal references. Beckwith highlights the significance of these early translations that preceded the imposition of Masoretic punctuation. “In the Septuagint, in Theodotion, in Symmachus and in the Peshitta the 7 and 62 weeks are treated as a single period, at the end of which the anointed one comes. The same is true even of Acquila’s translation, though Aquila’s rabbinical education was unimpeachable.” Even Jerome, who know Hebrew and lived in Palestine in the latter part of the fourth century A.D. where he certainly would have know of the best manuscripts of that day, made no indication in his Latin Vulgate translation of separating the seven and sixty-two weeks. He translated מָשִׁיַה נָגִיד quite literally as christum ducem (“Christ, a leader”). Because of the heated polemics between Christians and Jews over the centuries, some might even claim that Jewish scribes purposely inserted the ʿaṯnāḥ in verse 25 in order to refute the Christian claim that Jesus is the predicted Messiah. Yet this theory can never be proved or disproved. Beyond these points, however, some clarification is needed about the purpose and accuracy of the Masoretic use of the ʿaṯnāḥ. It is sometimes mistakenly assumed that the ʿaṯnāḥ served always as a disjunctive accent, marking a major break between clauses. Although it certainly has this use, that was not its only function. . . . In an excellent analysis of the Hebrew ʿaṯnāḥ Owusu-Antwi remarks, “It is a distinguishing feature that the Hebrew verse is divided into two parts termed ‘dichotomy,’ for the purposes of chanting. The ʿaṯnāḥ is generally employed to mark the caesura of the dichotomy. Although ʿaṯnāḥ is the principle divider within the verse, the accentuators did not hesitate to make strict rules for logical (or syntactical) division give way, when they wished to express emphasis, or otherwise give effect to the reading.” Owusu-Antwi suggests several more ways in which the ʿaṯnāḥ is used. . . . In some cases the ʿaṯnāḥ has been wrongly placed. . . . In verse 25 the presence of the ‘aṯnāḥ between the “seven weeks” and “sixty-two weeks” should not be the governing factor for understanding this verse." J. Paul Tanner, Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2 Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 663 July-September 2009, 319:335, pp. 325-238. "Verse 24 cites six things God will accomplish in the seventy weeks. . . . If these purposes of God are fulfilled in any way by Christ, then this would reinforce the messianic interpretation of the passage. . . . Even if some of the six purposes for the seventy weeks (Dan. 9:24) could be understood in a nonmessianic way, one stands out as clearly messianic . . . “to bring in everlasting righteousness.” The words “everlasting righteousness” do not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament. Of course the noun צֶדֶק (“righteousness”) and its cognate forms occur scores of times. . . . Of interest is the fact that this word is used numerous times in Isaiah. Many verses state that the Messiah will transform the nation in righteousness [Isa. 1:26; 11:4-5; 16:5; 62:1-2]. . . . When Daniel wrote that one of the purposes for the seventy weeks is “to bring in everlasting righteousness” (Dan. 9:24), this would have been freighted with meaning for the Jews, for they were looking forward to what the Messiah, Son of David, would accomplish for Israel as a nation and for the world. His kingdom will be a kingdom characterized by righteousness under His righteous rule. . . . Obviously the seventy weeks cannot have been fulfilled in the Maccabean period when Antiochus terrorized the nation, because God did not then “bring in everlasting righteousness.”" J. Paul Tanner, Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2 Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 663 July-September 2009, 319:335, pp. 329-331. "Another point to note is that the מָשִׁיַה in verse 26 is the same figure as the מָשִׁיַה נָגִיד in verse 25. These are the only two anarthrous constructions of מָשִׁיַה in the Old Testament, and the difference between them can be easily explained by noting that once the author introduced him as מָשִׁיַה נָגִיד in verse 25, he simply needed to refer to him by the more abbreviated designation מָשִׁיַה in the following verse. With such close proximity of the references one would not expect two different individuals to be referred to." J. Paul Tanner, Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2 Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 663 July-September 2009, 319:335, p. pp. 333-334. "Earlier rabbis apparently had understood the term mashiach in [Dan. 9:25] literally as the Messiah. However, later rabbis (Rashi, Yossipon, ch. 47) interpreted the term figuratively as “one who is anointed [with oil],” “an anointed ruler.” Thus, no historical figure could be precisely determined, and the rabbis offered various candidates: Cyrus, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, a high priest (e.g.,, Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak) or a descendant of Herod (Agrippa II)." J. Randall Price, Daniel's Seventy Weeks, Rabbinic Interpretation, Ref-0114, 78-80, p. 80.
✪ ". . . where the Hebrew bible reads “one in the likeness of the sons of men,” but pap6QDan most likely agrees with the Septuagint's “something in the likeness of a human hand.”" Ref-0790, p. 484.
✪ "In the passage of time, it was natural that there would be intermarriage for political reasons between Egypt and Syria, and such is pictured in verse 6. The participants were the king of the south Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.) and his daughter, Berenice, who was married to Antiochus II Theos (261-246 B.C.) about 252 B.C." Ref-0005, p. 258.
✪ "Verse 9 as translated in the King James Version seems to imply that the king of the south returns to his own land. A better translation, however, would indicate that he, Seleucus Callinicus, is the subject of the verb shall come into his kingdom and refers to the fact that Seleucus several years after the Egyptian invasion was able to mount a return attack on Egypt about 20 B.C. Seleucus, however, was defeated completely and was forced to ‘return into his own land.’ " Ref-0005, p. 260.
✪ "On Antiochus’ further troubles, his war with Rome, his defeat, his sacrilegious pillaging of the temple of Jupiter-Belus (187 B.C.), and his death by the hands of the mob, when according to Daniel’s words, “He stumbled and fell, and was not found,” we need not here dwell, as it is with the Jews we are immediately concerned." Ref-1126, p. 29.
✪ "Seleucus Philopater followed his father as king of Syria, but died by the treachery of his treasurer, Heliodorus, 175 B.C. This Seleucus is the “raiser of taxes” spoken of in Dan. 11; his father’s war with Rome having made it necessary to purchase peace at a great price." Ref-1126, p. 29.
✪ "While it is often claimed that there is no indication of a change of time frame or subject in Daniel 11:36, two good factors indicate that the king of verse 36 is not the same as the king of the north in verses 21-35. First, verse 35 ends with the notice that the persecution of Antiochus will refine God's people for “the time of the end.” It is reasonable to think that the prophecy will immediately begin a discussion of the time of the end, in keeping with the catch-concept organizing principle seen elsewhere in prophecy. . . . Second, verse 36 introduces the king in a unique way. He is simply referred to as “the king.” No Hellenistic king in this chapter before verse 36 is referred to simply as “the king,” even when having been recently mentioned (cf. v. 25). Alexander is “a mighty king” (v. 3). Various Seleucid kings are always “the king of the north” (vv. 6-8, 11, 13, 15), and various Ptolemaic kings are always “the king of the south” (vv. 5-6, 9, 11, 14, 25 [twice]). The king of the north and south together are called “the two kings” (v. 27)." Andrew E. Steinmann, Is the Antichrist in Daniel_11?, Ref-0200, 162 (April-June 2005): 195-209, p. 203.
✪ "Traditional Christian exegesis has interpreted Daniel 11:36-45 differently, tending to read these verses as a prophecy about an eschatological king, often identified as the Antichrist (to use a New Testament term). This was the position of several church fathers, including Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Theodoret, and Jerome.2 Luther also adopted this interpretation, and contemporary evangelical scholars often advocate it. It views the end of Daniel 11 not as inaccurate prophecy but as prophecy that is yet to be fulfilled. It is part of the larger teaching of Scripture concerning the events leading up to Jesus’ second advent. [2] Jerome saw some application to the Antichrist starting at Dan. 11:21, but he said verses 36-45 refer exclusively to the Antichrist. See Jerome's commentary on 11:21-45 in Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949, reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1998), 306-17. Hippolytus and Theodoret understood Dan. 11:36 as the beginning of the prophecy about the Antichrist, but Chrysostom applied the whole chapter to the Antichrist (see Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, 466-70)." Andrew E. Steinmann, Is the Antichrist in Daniel_11?, Ref-0200, 162 (April-June 2005): 195-209, pp. 195-196. "Yet one faces several problems in seeking to identify the king of Dan. 11:36-45 with Antiochus. First, no historical facts suggest that Antiochus exalted and magnified “himself about every god” (v. 36), or showed “no regard for the gods of his fathers” (v. 37), or honored “a god whom his fathers did not know” (v. 38). While Antiochus had his coins inscribed “King Antiochus, God Manifest,” these coins also bore the likeness of Zeus on the reverse, while other coins he issued depicted Apollo. Moreover, Antiochus was known for his devotion to the Greek gods in general, and in Jerusalem he erected a statue of Olympian Zeus and ordered that sacrifices be made to it. He also promoted worship of Dionysius in Jerusalem (2 Macc. 6:7). Greek historian Polybius, a contemporary of Antiochus, reported that in 166 B.C. Antiochus held a festival at Daphne where he honored “all gods or spirits worshiped by people.” In addition Apollo was honored on the festival's coinage." Andrew E. Steinmann, Is the Antichrist in Daniel_11?, Ref-0200, 162 (April-June 2005): 195-209, p. 201. "Before the rise of modern higher criticism there was a long-standing interpretive tradition among both Jews and Christians that the king described in verses 36-45 differs from the one prophesied in previous verses. The consensus of such diverse figures as Chrysostom, Hippolytus, Theodoret, Jerome, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Luther, and Calvin was that one should not see these verses as a description of Antiochus." Andrew E. Steinmann, Is the Antichrist in Daniel_11?, Ref-0200, 162 (April-June 2005): 195-209, p. 209. "The strongest magnifying glass fails to reveal the slightest sign of such a remarkable “break.” On the contrary, the several clauses of the prophecy at this point (see verses 35–36) are directly connected together by the particle “and.” If, therefore, the reader, in passing from verse 34 to verse 35 (or, as some say, from verse 35 to verse 36) is carried in the twinkling of an eye across a period of more than two thousand years, there is not a thing in the text to apprise him thereof, or even to suggest such an extraordinary thing. Where those who assert it obtain their information is a deep mystery to us." Ref-0896, p. 45. "that remarkable character, who was a usurper upon the throne of David when Christ, the true King, was born. The proof which enables us to identify “the king” of Daniel 11:36–39 with Herod the Great and his dynasty, is so convincing that we feel warranted in saying that the prophecy could not possibly mean anyone else." Ref-0896, p. 53. "The words “above every god” may be taken to mean every ruler and authority in Israel, just as “God of gods” means the Supreme Authority above all authorities. Herod did successfully aspire to the lordship over every authority in the land, whether priests or rulers. He assumed to appoint whom he would to the office of high priest. He put his own brother-in-law, Aristobulus, Mariamne's brother, in that office, and shortly after had him murdered (Ant. XV 3, 5)." Ref-0896, p. 55. "Herod also uttered great things against the God of gods. This, we believe, refers specially (though not exclusively) to his decree for the slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem, the express purpose of which was to get rid of Immanuel, God come in the flesh to be the Ruler of His people, and to be “Prince of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5)." Ref-0896, p. 55. "Now Herod, though supposedly of Idumean (i.e. Edomite) origin, was virtually a Jew; for all the remaining Idumeans, who had come into Judea several centuries previous, had been amalgamated with the Jews. In addressing the people Herod habitually used the expression “our fathers” (Ant. Bk. XV Ch. 11, See. 1). So fully was Herod regarded as a Jew, that the Herodians even held him to be the Messiah. Therefore, in introducing the worship of Caesar, Herod conspicuously failed to “regard the God of his fathers.” Moreover, in this connection, it should not be forgotten that Esau was Jacob's twin brother, and hence that the God of the fathers of the Edomites was the same as the God of the fathers of the Jews." Ref-0896, p. 55.
✪ Word is elohim and could also be translated in the singular as is common elsewhere. "The very fact that the plural form for the word ‘god’ is used in a context where the singular is found in the majority of cases makes this a reference to heathen deities and not a reference to the God of Israel. . . . In Christian translations -- such as the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Amplified Old Testament, the New American Standard, the New International Version, among others -- have all translated the phrase to read the gods of his fathers. . . . the New Scofield Reference Bible, itself based on the King James Version, has done a great service by rendering this passage to read in the plural form. This is true of the official Orthodox Jewish commentary in the Socino Commentary on the Old Testament, as well as the prominent Christian commentary in the Kiel and Delitzsch Commentary." Ref-0219, p. 211. "The king will not favor “the God of his fathers” (Dan. 11:37). This phrase (with “his” and with other pronouns) occurs forty-five times in the Old Testament and is always a description of Yahweh.13 Therefore this king will come from among the people of God. Some interpreters see this as an indication that the Antichrist will be Jewish. However, this phrase is a religious identification, not an ethnic one. It indicates that the eschatological king will come from those whose ancestral tradition is to worship the true God. [13] Exodus 3:13, 15-16; 4:5; Deuteronomy 1:11, 21; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1; 26:7; 27:3; 29:24; Joshua 18:3; Judges 2:12; 2 Kings 21:22; 1 Chronicles 5:25; 12;18; 29:20; 2 Chronicles 7:22; 11:16; 13:12, 18; 14:3; 15:12; 19:4; 20:6, 33; 21:10; 24:18, 24; 28:6, 9, 25; 29:5; 30:7, 19, 22; 33:12; 34:32-33; 36:15; Ezra 7:27; 8:28; 10:11; Daniel 11:37. Only Daniel 11:37; 1 Chronicles 5:25; 12:18; and 2 Chronicles 20:33 do not explicitly identify “the God of the fathers” as Yahweh." Andrew E. Steinmann, Is the Antichrist in Daniel_11?, Ref-0200, 162 (April-June 2005): 195-209, p. 207. "But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist. First, then, it is requisite that the Gospel should be preached among all nations, as the Lord said, and then he will come to refute the impious Jews. For the Lord said to them: I am come in My Father’s name and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. And the apostle says, Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved, for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. The Jews accordingly did not receive the Lord Jesus Christ who was the Son of God and God, but receive the impostor who calls himself God. For that he will assume the name of God, the angel teaches Daniel, saying these words, Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers. And the apostle says: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition: who opposeth and exalleth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God; in the temple of God he said; not our temple, but the old Jewish temple. For he will come not to us but to the Jews: not for Christ or the things of Christ: wherefore he is called Antichrist." John Damascene, "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", Ref-0573, p. 98.
✪ "Herod's career affords a most striking fulfillment of this verse. The expression, “god of forces, or fortresses,” is so unusual that it furnishes a most satisfactory means of identification; for it applies to the Caesars as to none others in history, seeing that the Roman emperors claimed for themselves divine honors, and that it was by “forces,” or “fortifications,” that they extended and maintained their power, and enforced the worship they demanded. This honor Herod paid to them, and after the most extravagant fashion; and he did it, of course, in order to make himself secure, that is to say, “for his own establishment,” as the text of verse 38 may be rendered." Ref-0896, p. 56.
✪ "A more translation of this verse would be: He shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas at the glorious holy mountain." Ref-0219, p. 245. "Indeed we do not see how any fulfillment could be more complete and literal than that which is given us in Matthew’s Gospel of the words “But tidings out of the east shall trouble him.” For it is written that “When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold there came wise men FROM THE EAST to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born king of the Jews? for we have seen His star IN THE EAST, and are come to worship Him. When Herod heard these things he was TROUBLED, and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:1–3). So here we have the exact thing prophesied, namely, “tidings out of the east” which “troubled him.”" Ref-0896, p. 61.
✪ "Verse 2 may be rendered as follows: ‘Many from among the sleepers. . . these shall be unto everlasting life; but those [the rest of the sleepers who do not awake at this time] shall be unto shame. [So Tregelles reads the passage, and A. R. Fausset says the Jewish commentators support him (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary on the Bible [New York: Geo. H. Doran, no date], in loc.).]" Ref-0183, p. 196. "Tregelles ably comments on this passage. . . ‘Two of the Rabbis who commented on this prophet were, Saadiah Haggaon (in the tenth century of our era), and Aben Ezra (in the twelfth); the latter of these was a writer of peculiar abilities and accuracy of mind. He explains the verse in the following manner: . . . its interpretation is, those who shall awake shall be unto everlasting life, and those who shall not awake shall be unto shame unto everlasting contempt. . .’" S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in The Book of Daniel, pp. 165-66, cited by Ref-0050, pp. 399-400. "And many from among the sleepers of the dust of the earth shall awake; these shall be unto everlasting life; but those [the rest of the sleepers] shall be unto shame and everlasting contempt." S. P. Tregelles, Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel, p. 159, words in brackets supplied by Tregelles. "The true rendering of Dan. xii.1-3 , in connection with the context, is ‘And (at that time) Many (of thy people) shall awake (or be separated) out from among the sleepers in the earth-dust. These (who awake) shall be unto life everlasting, but those (who do not awake at that time) shall be unto shame and contempt everlasting.’ So, the most renowned Hebrew Doctors render it, and the best Christian exegetes." Ref-0734, p. 266. "So Cocceius, the best Hebraist of his day. “No universal resurrection is taught here. These who are unto eternal life are distinguished from those who are unto eternal shame and contempt. The former awak at the time specified [Dan. 11:45-12:1]. To Carry the verb ‘awake’ into the second member of the verse is to add to Scripture which I dare not do.” (On Daniel 12:2.) So Saadias the prince of Hebrew scholars, the two Kimchis, Abarbanel, Bechai and Maimonides." Ref-0734, p 268n. "Many of those who sleep in the dusty earth will awaken; these for everlasting life and these for shame, for everlasting abhorrence." Ref-0196.
✪ "Their sufferings had been fearful to contemplate in the awful years referred to above. Whichever party won, they [the Jews] lost. Whoever prospered, they were robbed. But in those days of terror and nights of anguish, who can doubt that “many were purified and made white” who otherwise would have been living in ease and careless indifference toward God?" Ref-1126, p. 29.
✪ "Daniel 12 does not explain the significance of these two sets of days, but the fact that the Bible refers to them seems to indicate that they will end on the dates of important events. . . . the 1,290 days may end on the day that will conclude the judgment to take place after the Second Coming of Christ [Mat. 25:31-46] . . . perhaps the 1,335 days will end on the day that will begin the Millennial Kingdom. . . . it may take another 45 days to form the governmental structure necessary to operate the kingdom." Ref-0220, pp. 57-58. "The blessing is that those who survive until the 75th day of the interval will enter the Messianic Kingdom." Ref-0219, p. 367. "It is to be noted that the two measures of time here given, 1290 days and 1335 days, both fall within the period of three years and a part, given in verse 7 as the full measure of the time of the end. This tends still further to confirm the view that by “a time, times, and a part” is meant three full rounds of the annual feasts of the Jews, and part of a fourth." Ref-0896, p. 69. "The first approach of the Roman armies under Cestius is described by Josephus in his book of Wars, II 17, 10. This was in the month corresponding to our November, AD 66. The taking away of the daily sacrifice was in the month Panemus, corresponding to the Hebrew Tammuz, and our July, AD 70 (Hartwell Horne's Chronological Table). Thus the measure of time between the two events was three years, and part of a fourth. But more than this: the measure 1290 days is exactly 43 great months (30 days each, according to the Hebrew method of reckoning), and inasmuch as their practice was to reckon by even weeks, months, and years the fulfillment of this part of the prophecy is seen in the fact that it is just 43 even months between the two events, ignoring the parts of the two months in which the events severally occurred." Ref-0896, p. 70. "In verse 12 those are pronounced “blessed,” or happy, who survive a further period of 45 days, and thus come to the 1335 days. In correspondence with this is the recorded fact that, about a month and a half after the daily sacrifice failed, the siege was ended by Titus' getting sudden and unexpected possession of the upper city, the last stronghold of the besieged. This last action took place, according to Josephus, the seventh day of the Hebrew month Elul, answering to our September; so that the further duration of the siege after the failure of the daily sacrifice was approximately one month and a half (Wars, VI 8, 4, 5)." Ref-0896, p. 70.
✪ "The large ‘ayin and dāleṯ in Deu. 6:4 probably call attention to an important passage or warn that the reading must be precise. In a case such as this, one would expect that the first and last words of the passage would be the ones to be enlarged. It has been suggested by some that since this would have resulted in the enlargement of a šîn and a dāleṯ and would bring to mind the word שֵׁר meaning “demon,” that it was decided to enlarge the last letter of the first word instead. This brings to mind the word עֵד meaning “witness” or “testimony.”" Ref-0841, p. 4.
✪ "Deuteronomy 28:27 mentions hemorrhoids in the kethîv (written) text, but it was later considered an impolite term, so the marginal qerē (read text) changed it to tumors. Usually the KJV translators would go with the qerē, but here they chose to use the written text and translated it emerod, the older English form of hemorrhoids." Ref-0684, p. 95.
✪ See faith - gift of God. "in Eph. 2:8 the KJV reads ‘for by grace are ye saved,’ while many modern translations (e.g., RSV, NASB) have ‘for by grace you have been saved.’ The perfect paraphrastic construction is most likely intensive, however. The KJV translators, though not having nearly as good a grasp on Greek as modern translators, seem to have had a better grasp on English. They apparently recognized that to translate Eph. 2:8 with an English perfect would say nothing about the state resulting from the act of being saved." Ref-0129, p. 575. Regarding the neuter demonstrative And this τουτο not of yourselves. . . Does it refer to grace in χαριτι? Faith πιστεως? Note that the demonstrative τουτο is neuter in gender whereas the other two nouns are feminine in gender. Although a neuter demonstrative can refer to a feminine, it is a relatively rare construction. Most likely, τουτο refers to the entire statement that precedes: by grace you have been saved through faith. "The one verse which seems to teach that saving faith is the gift of God is Ephesians 2:8 . But a careful study of this verse and its context shows clearly that it is salvation which is the gift of God. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary gives this explanation: The word that refers not to grace or to faith, but to the whole act of salvation. This is also the interpretation of Calvin, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Eadie, and others. The Greek text favors this meaning because the relative pronoun that τουτο is neuter while the word faith πιστις is feminine. In addition the whole context, especially verse 9 [Eph. 2:9], makes clear that the issue is salvation by grace opposed to the ever-present error of salvation by works. The same conclusion is reached by the grammarian J. Harold Greenlee. Sir Robert Anderson’s footnote on Ephesians 2:8 is well stated: Eph 2:8 . ‘The gift of God’ here is salvation by grace through faith . Not the faith itself. ‘This is precluded,’ as Alford remarks, ‘by the manifestly parallel clauses ‘not of yourself,’ and ‘not of works,’ the latter of which would be irrelevant as asserted of faith. It is still more definitely precluded, he might have added, by the character of the passage." Roy L. Aldrich, "The Gift of God", Ref-0200, Vol. 122, July 1965, p. 249.
✪ "In Ephesians 4:11, the words “pastors” and “teachers” are in the construction with which we have been dealing [the Granville-Sharp rule]. We are required to understand, therefore, that the two designations refer to the same individual." Ref-0946, pp. 23-24.
✪ The three main verbs, “put off,” “be renewed,” and “put on,” are all infinitives, not imperatives. See Anthony A. Hoekema, "The Reformed Perspective", Ref-0238, p. 80.
✪ "to pigeonhole, without comment, ὀργιζεσθε in Eph. 4:26 as a conditional imperative is a tacit assumption that such imperatives can be joined by kai to another imperative with a different semantic force; but there is no undisputed instances of this in the NT." Ref-0129, p. 2.
✪ ". . .there is a break between verse 20 and verse 21 in most English versions, and the Greek participle in verse 21 (?submitting yourselves to one another’) is translated as an imperative (?Submit yourselves to one another’). This seems to miss Paul's point completely. If he had wanted to make a break at verse 21, it would have been the simplest thing in the word to write an imperative. Instead, he writes a durative participle that is just like the participles that precede it, so that we should connect this last participle with the preceding context. Mutual submission (v. 21) is simply the result of being filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 18)." Ref-0133, p. 37.
✪ "So Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to hsi feet; and she said, ‘You caused my bridegroom's bloodshed!’ So he released him; then she said, ‘A bridegroom's bloodshed was becasue of circumcision.’" Ref-0196.
✪ "The ancestry of Moses' family in Exodus 6:16-20 is modestly abridged (just as Ezra, with similar humility, demonstrably abbreviates his own family line in Ezra 7:1-5, leaving out five known generations of his priestly forebears; cf. 1 Chron. 6:3-15)." Brenton Minge, "‘Short’ sojourn comes up short?", Ref-0784, 21(3) 2007, p. 63. "By holding to the long chronology, Brenton Minge has to resort to explaining away the detailed chronology and genealogy of Moses. Exodus 6:14-20 and Numbers 26:57-60 when taken together clearly indicate a literal four generation line from Moses to Jacob. It is to be noted that in the Exodus passage the ages of individuals are noted. Chronologies with ages and dates are literal and unbroken. Only those chronologies where no dates or ages are given have omissions in them." Mike Viccary, "Mike Viccary replies", Ref-0784, 21(3) 2007, p. 64.
✪ "The sixth year of the exile of Jehoiachin was 592/591 . . . the sixth month is Elul (Aug/Sept) and in 592 the fifth day of Elul was Sept 17." Ref-0840, p. 265.
✪ "And who were these men? They were the priesthood of the nation, represented here by the presidents of the twenty-four courses with the high priest at their head!" Ref-0183, p. 122.
✪ "The ninth year of the exile of Jehoiachin was 589/588 . . . the tenth month is Tebeth (Dec/Jan), and in 588 the tenth day of Tebeth was Jan 15. The identical date is recorded in identical words in 2K. 25:1 but in terms of the reign of Zedekiah (where the regnal years are Tishri years), and the result is the same." Ref-0840, p. 265.
✪ "The phrase in the day that you were created is one of several reasons why Ezekiel could not be speaking of the literal king of Tyre, but he is speaking of someone else. The prince of Tyre or the literal human king of Tyre was born, not created." Ref-0219, p. 558.
✪ "In fact Eze. 40:1 speaks of what seems to be an exact anniversary . . . of the inauguration of the exile and date it “at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month.” This must mean the tenth day of Nisan in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, which was on Apr 22, 597 and was a little more than a month after the fall of Jerusalem on Mar 16." Ref-0840, p. 257. "Ezekiel 40:l is often viewed by commentators as a mere chronological note that can be passed over quickly before taking up the formidable task of interpreting the last nine chapters of Ezekiel's book.Yet a careful analysis of this verse, when combined with some knowledge of the various events and institutions to which the verse makes explicit or implicit reference, shows that it is rich in information that sheds light on the events and institutions to which it refers. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the five pieces of chronological data given in the verse provide useful correctives to several ideas that have gained widespread currency in biblical and historical interpretation, while at the same time allowing us to replace those ideas with counterparts that are more in keeping not only with the information in this verse, but also with the teaching of other Scriptures that deal with these matters. It will be shown that this one verse, used in conjunction with a small amount of external historical data, contradicts the following seven wrong ideas: [1] The idea that Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 586 B.c. [2] The idea that Ezekiel reckoned the calendar year to start in Nisan. [3] The idea that Judah used Nisan years for the reign length of kings. [4] The idea that Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, was always on the First of Tishri. [5] The idea that Jubilees were never observed in the history of Israel. [6] The idea that the Exodus occurred in the thirteenth century B.C. [7] One more idea that will be explained later, having to do with literary sources in the Scripture." Rodger C. Young, "Ezekiel 40:1 As a Corrective for Seven Wrong Ideas in Biblical Interpretation," Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2, 265-283, 265.
✪ "it must be noted that during Old Testament days, non-Jews were not barred from participation in the worship of Jehovah. Foreigners or non-Jews were allowed to present their offerings in the house of the Lord (cf. Lev. 17:10,12; Num. 15:14). In this text of Ezekiel, however, the prophet is dealing with the sacrilegious and unauthorized practice of foreigners officiating in the sanctuary. Although such infringements were probably winked at before (cf. Eze. 44:7), the prophet now predicts that the practice would be strictly banned in the millennial temple (Eze. 44:9)." Ref-0207, p. 298.
✪ Has 430 interpretations - The New International Commentary on Galatians - Herman Ridderbos.
✪ "It is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a basic but often neglected hermeneutic principle. It is this: in the absence of compelling exegetical and theological consideration we should avoid the rare grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense. . . . An extremely rare use has been made to replace the common usage, even in spite of the fact that the common and frequent usage makes perfectly good sense in Galatians 6:16." S. Lewis Johnson, "Paul and the ‘Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study," in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 187.
✪ "For Brodie the finished form of the [Genesis] text comes from a relatively late period. In fact he says the sources of Genesis include, among others, the Old Testament prophets (appendix 2) and Homers Odyssey (appendix 3)." Robert B. Chisholm Jr., review of Genesis as Dialogue: A literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary, by Thomas L. Brodie. Ref-0200 vol. 162 no. 648, October-December 2005 424:436, p. 496. "Rashi, a medieval Jewish commentator (1040-1105) believed that the first word of Genesis 1:1 in the Hebrew text, berēʿšîṯ (In the beginning) was in what is called in Hebrew the “construct state.” He would, therefore, have translated Genesis 1:1 in this manner: “In the beginning of God's creating of the heaven and the earth.” He felt that it was impossible that Genesis should be giving the actual order of creation, because if so, Genesis 1:2 has the Spirit of God hovering over the waters before the text says anything specifically about the creation of the waters. The answer to this problem, however, lies in the fact that the waters over which the Spirit of God was hovering on the first part of the first day of creation were doubtless included in the general term “earth.” Thus when God created the “earth” in Genesis 1:1 “waters” were a part of that. In his translation of Genesis 1:1 as a dependent clause . . . Rashi is followed not only by Abraham Ibn Ezra, also a medieval Jewish commentator, and the translators of the recent New Jewish Version (1962), but also by several evangelical scholars including Merrill Unger. This view would require the changing of the Masoretic vowel pointing, and a complete extrusion of creatio ex nihilo from the Genesis account of creation. . . . For over 2000 years since the translation of the Hebrew Torah into the Greek for the Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt, all official Jewish translations until the New Jewish Version have rendered Genesis 1:1 as an independent clause." Ref-0819, pp. 17-18. "Normally, a word in the absolute state has the article. Had this been the case in Genesis 1:1, one might have expected to find the word bārē’šîṯ instead of berē’šîṯ. But the article is missing in this instance, and its absence has precipitated a good deal of discussion. One thing is certain: a noun in the construct state cannot take the article, so if berē’šîṯ is in the construct, its form is just what we would expect." Ref-0819, pp. 152-153. "One of the most obvious arguments for the absolute state of berē’šîṯ in Genesis 1:1 is the wording of some of the ancient translations (and transliterations). Their testimony is worthy of notice since they were prepared by men much nearer both in time and in linguistic understanding to the writing of the Old Testament. Those who are so cavalier in their dismissal of the traditional rendering might well remember that the translation “In the beginning God created” has the support of such ancient versions as the “LXX, Vulgate, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Targum Onkelos.” The Septuagint (LXX), for example, reads en archē ho theos epoiēsen the translation of which is indisputably, “In the beginning God made.”" Ref-0819, p. 155.
✪ "Due to the doctrinal implications of this issue [“us”], a number of solutions have been presented through the ages. For the sake of this discussion, seven primary views will be introduced. . . ." Bryan Murphy, The Trinity in Creation, Ref-0164 24/2 (Fall 2013) [2013121101.pdf], 167-177, p. 173. "[The angelic view] should be rejected on the basis of the following objections: (1) There is no reference here, or elsewhere, to man being made in the image of angels (contra Delitzsch). This alone makes “our image” very unlikely as a reference to anyone other than God Himself. If the “our image” is singularly referring to God, the “Let us make” must be equally limited to God. (2) There are no direct references to angels or the angelic host in the creation narrative (i.e., Gen. 1:1–2:3; or even in Gen. 2:4–25). The nearest reference is in Gen. 3:24 and it is too remote to be readily associated with the plurality and the context of Gen. 1:26 with any level of certainty. (3) The return in Gen. 1:27 to the grammatical pattern of Elohim coupled with a singular verb form, further compels one to the conclusion that God alone both acts and is addressed in the creation of man. The restatement in Gen. 2:7 further affirms God's singular involvement in man's creation. (4) Even outside the immediate context of the creation narrative, the Bible makes it clear that God consulted no one and involved no one in the acts of creation (cf. Isa 40:12–14)." Bryan Murphy, The Trinity in Creation, Ref-0164 24/2 (Fall 2013), 167-177, p. 174. ". . . the best answer seems to this writer to be that the plural pronoun is in fact a clear reference to a plurality of persons within the Godhead that later revelation will both confirm and define as a Trinity. The grammar demands a plurality to be involved in the actual creation of man. The context necessarily limits this to God. The rest of Scripture reveals a Trinity of per-sons within the Godhead." Bryan Murphy, The Trinity in Creation, Ref-0164 24/2 (Fall 2013), 167-177, p. 176. "So, is there biblical evidence to support the doctrine of the Trinity in the Genesis 1 narrative? As has been demonstrated, the plural form Elohim does not argue for an early Trinitarian revelation. The best way to understand this form in the Genesis narrative is to take it as a plural of majesty due to the consistent use of singular predicators. However, the plurals of Gen. 1:26 coupled with the return to the consistent use of Elohim in conjunction with singular verbs does attest to a plurality of persons within the singular Godhead. Progressive revelation reveals this plurality as Trinitarian—namely, Father, Son, and Spirit." Bryan Murphy, The Trinity in Creation, Ref-0164 24/2 (Fall 2013), 167-177, p. 177.
✪ "Genesis employs the prepositional phrase בְּיוֹם seven times outside of Genesis 2:4. In each of these instances, one can or must stranslate it as the adverbe “when” as opposed to the prepositional phrase “in the day”. However, in twelve of the thirteen uses of the similar prepositional phrase בַּיּוֹם, it requires a translation of “on X day” (where X is either an ordinal number or demonstrative pronoun). Five of the occurrences of בָּיוֹם occur in the same collocation as Genesis 2;4, namely, בָּיוֹם followed by an infinitive construct. In these instances this construction functions in a manner analogous to the infinitive construct with proclitic בּ (b) denoting the time of action, therefore logically it should be translated as “when”." David G. Graves, “. . . when Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens” -- a proposal for the right translation of בָּיוֹם in Genesis 2:4, Ref-0784, 23(3) 2009, 119:122, p. 122.
✪ "וַתֹּאמֶר ק’נִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת־יְהו’ה "I have gotten a man: Jehovah." Few Bible translators really understand what Eve is saying here, which is why our English translations do not read as given above. Eve has clearly understood from God’s words in Genesis 3:15 that the serpent will be defeated by a God-Man. She obviously thinks that Cain is Jehovah. Her basic theology is correct: Messiah would be both man and God. Her mistake is in her application of that theology. She has assumed that Cain, her first child, was the promised God-Man. That she quickly realized her mistake is evident at the birth of Cain’s brother whom she names Abel, meaning “vanity.” It is interesting to see how different scholars have dealt with this verse at different times. Most English translations read, “I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah.” The words “with the help of” were added by the translators to avoid giving a reading which was unacceptable to them. But the Hebrew does literally read, “I have gotten a man: Jehovah.” This is actually the same construction as the Hebrew for the immediately preceding words, “and she bare: Cain.” The common English translation is not based on the Hebrew text but on the Greek Septuagint which reads “through God.” This was followed by the Latin Vulgate which also reads “through God.” The Jerusalem Targum, an Aramaic translation, reads, “I have gotten a man: the angel of Jehovah.” The rabbis gave a reading here which is much closer to the original Hebrew text. The Targum Pseudo—Jonathan reads, “I have gotten for a man the angel of the Lord.” Another Aramaic translation is the Targum Onqelos which says “from before the Lord.” These Aramaic translations and paraphrases are seeing what the Hebrew is saying and the supernatural implications of it. In Christian theology the Angel of Jehovah is seen as the second person of the triune God (something which is discussed later under “Other Lines Of Evidence”) but, of course, that was not the view of the Jewish translators of the Targumim. The Midrash Rabbah (on Genesis, 22:2), the rabbinic commentary, says of Genesis 4:1 “with the help of the Lord.” ‘Rabbi Ishmael asked Rabbi Akiba, “Since you have served Nahum of Gimzo for 22 years and he taught that every ach and rach is a limitation but every et and gam is an extension, tell me what is the purpose of the et here.” He replied, “if it is said ‘I have gotten a man: the Lord’ it would have been difficult to interpret, hence et ‘with the help of the Lord’ is required.” ’ The footnote on page 181 of this Midrash says “it might imply that she had begotten the Lord.” The rabbis clearly understood the implications of the construction and so had to make the necessary adjustments in their translation. The Peshitta says, “I have gotten a man to the Lord.” A leading rabbi known as Saadia Gaon read it “from with the Lord.” Rashi translates it as “with the Lord” and Nachmanides translates it as “unto the Lord for the service of the Lord.” Here again attempts are made to get around the obvious." Ref-0011, 15-16.
✪ "A summary of the new minority interpretation of the passage is as follows: Genesis 4:6–8 presents two harrowing scenes in which Yahweh's intervening grace is ignored by Cain in his anger and dejection over an unacceptable sacrifice. Yahweh has provided a male animal in Cain's doorway which waits in obedient sub-mission for the offender to slay it for the purposes of atoning for his sin. Rather than correct his conduct before Yahweh by sacrificing the animal, Cain took no action whatsoever. Rather, at some point after speaking with his brother Abel about an unknown topic in the field, he violently attacked him and ruthlessly killed him." -- Christ Burnett, A Sin Offering Lying in the Doorway? A Minority Interpretation of Genesis 4:6-8, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 45-55, pp. 54-55. See 20160522181858.pdf
✪ "For instance, is Genesis inconsistent when it says that Noah took animals into the Ark by twos in one place and in seven pairs in another? The answer is right in the text (“by twos” is the mode of entry of all animals; seven pairs refers to the number of clean animals--i.e. six additional pairs of the clean ones)." Daniel Davidson and Bret Kendall, Correctly (or incorrectly?) divining the Word, Ref-0784 27(2) 2013, 15-18, p. 17. "The biblical creation model includes the destruction of air-breathing, land-based life in Noah’s Flood, with only a pair of each kind of animals, or with some animals in seven pairs, surviving on the Ark." Don Batten, Natural Section, Ref-1370, loc. 557.
✪ "In [Gen. 9:27 Noah] declares, “May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem.” It is suggested by many ancient and modern commentators that the “him” should be “Him,” a direct reference to God. In other words, Noah was promising that God would dwell in the tents of Shem, the chief ancestor of the Semitic, or Hebrew people. . . . Exodus 25-40 records the fulfillment of Noah’s prophetic promise in a tangible way. We read how God instructed Israel to build its tabernacle, a dwelling place for God’s glory." Ref-1383, pp. 23-24.
✪ "By the statement in Gen. 11:10, that "Shem, a hundred years old, begat Arphaxad two years after the flood," the chronological date already given of Noah's age at the birth of his sons (Gen. 5:32) and at the commencement of the flood (Gen. 7:11) are made still more definite. As the expression "after the flood" refers to the commencement of the flood (Gen. 9:28), and according to Gen. 7:11 the flood began in the second month, or near the beginning of the six hundredth year of Noah's life, though the year 600 is given in Gen. 7:6 in round numbers, it is not necessary to assume, as some do, in order to reconcile the difference between our verse and Gen. 5:32, that the number 500 in Gen. 5:32 stands as a round number for 502. On the other hand, there can be no objection to such an assumption. The different statements may be easily reconciled by placing the birth of Shem at the end of the five hundredth year of Noah's life, and the birth of Arphaxad at the end of the hundredth year of that of Shem; in which case Shem would be just 99 years old when the flood began, and would be fully 100 years old "two years after the flood," that is to say, in the second year from the commencement of the flood, when he begat Arphaxad. In this case the "two years after the flood" are not to be added to the sum-total of the chronological data, but are included in it." Ref-0175, Gen. 11:10. Translations which understand Gen. 10:21 as indicating that Japheth is the eldest son include: KJV, NKJV, NIV. Those which take Shem as elders include: ESV, NASB, NET, HCSB, TNK.
✪ I will bless [piel = intensely] those [plural] who bless [piel = intensely] you, And I will curse [to snare, bind] him [singular] who curses [to slight, make little] you.
✪ "Yet Abram died having never possessed any part of the Land, except for a few wells and a burial cave which he had to purchase with good money. In order for God to fulfill His promise to Abram, two things have to occur. Abram must be resurrected, and the Land must be restored to Israel." Ref-0219, p. 427.
✪ "[In Gen 22:17] the HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NET Bible all translate the third person singular pronoun here as “their.” The KJV and ESV translate the singular pronoun accurately as “his.”" Ref-1272, p. 143.
✪ "It should be noted that the promise is not merely to Isaac's descendants, but to Isaac himself, requiring Isaac's future resurrection and possession of the Land." Ref-0219, p. 429.
✪ "the possession of the Land is not a promise to the seed only, but to the individual Jacob as well. For this reason Jacob must also be resurrected and possess the Land." Ref-0219, p. 430.
✪ "An interesting example of the last category [of emendations] is in Genesis 36:24, where Anah found water (or hot springs) in the wilderness. This reading is in the Masoretic text and the Vulgate, but the KJV follows the Talmud (and Luther) which interprets it as mules. The Septuagint reads a proper name here, “Jamin,” and the Targum reads “mighty men.” Apparently even in ancient times there was a problem as to the word's meaning." Ref-0684, p. 98.
✪ ruach Elohim - not "divine spirit"
✪ "And the expression, “he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as a lion’s whelp,” refers to the three days’ sleep (death, couching) of Christ; . . ." Ref-0541, Hippolytus Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Ref-0541, p. 206. "And Jacob says, “Who shall rouse him up?” And that is just what David and Paul both refer to, as when Paul says, “and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead.”" Ref-0541, Hippolytus Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Ref-0541, p. 206.
✪ "“Binding his ass to a vine:” that means that He unites His people of the circumcision with His own calling (vocation). For He was the vine. “And his ass’s colt to the vine-tendril:” that denotes the people of the Gentiles, as He calls the circumcision and the uncircumcision unto one faith." Ref-0541, Hippolytus Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Ref-0541, p. 206.
✪ "And in saying, “And his teeth (shall be) whiter than milk,” he referred to the commandments that proceed from the holy mouth of Christ, and which are pure (purify) as milk." Ref-0541, Hippolytus Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Ref-0541, p. 218.
✪ "[Habakkuk 2] awaits a remote fulfillment for five reasons. First, if chapter 2 pertains to the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the interpreter has a difficult time identifying the “remnant” who plunder the Babylonians (v. 8). . . . Second, a remote eschatological setting best suits verse 14 (“the earth will become filled with the knowledge of the glory of Yahweh as water covers the sea”). The only other use of this expression in Scripture occurs in Isaiah's portrayal of the messianic kingdom (Isa 11:9). . . . Third, the taunt song's preamble implies a distant fulfillment: “the vision is yet for the appointed time; it hastens toward the goal and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; for it will certainly come, it will not delay” (Hab 2:3). Here Yahweh goes out of His way to ensure Habakkuk and his audience that the prediction will eventually receive its fulfillment—just not any time soon. Fourth, verse 20 (“Be silent before Him, all the earth”) coincides with similar eschatological excerpts that depict global silence. These excerpts include Zeph 1:7 (“Be silent before the Sovereign Yahweh, because the Day of Yahweh is near”), and the previously discussed passages of Isa 14:7 (“The whole earth is at rest and is quiet”) and Zechariah 2:13 (“Be silent before Yahweh, all humans”). Such global silence lacks any parallels in the non-eschatological portions of Scripture." -- Mark A. Hassler, Isaiah 14 and Habakkuk 2: Two Taunt Songs Against the Same Tyrant, Ref-0164 (26:2) Fall 2015 (20151123152934.pdf), 221-229, p. 227.
✪ ". . . in the excellent commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, we are told, regarding the opening verses, “The aorist tense, used both of God's speaking by the prophets (λαλήσας [lalēsas]) and also of his speaking by Christ (ἐλάλησεν (elalēsen]), indicates that God has finished speaking in both cases.”5 The conclusions, arguably, is theologically correct; but it is not proved by this argument." Ref-0698, p. 70.
✪ "The NT appeals to Hab 2:3–4 three times (Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Heb 10:37–38). If we regard the proud one of Hab 2:4 as an end-time individual, the possibility exists that “he who is coming” (Heb 10:37) refers to that very individual. Indeed, both texts stress his imminence. It seems that for the writer of Hebrews, this man serves as the quintessential example of an unrighteous person who does not live by faith." -- Mark A. Hassler, Isaiah 14 and Habakkuk 2: Two Taunt Songs Against the Same Tyrant, Ref-0164 (26:2) Fall 2015 (20151123152934.pdf), 221-229, p. 228.
✪ "That there were two kingdoms in the north at this time in addition to Judah in the south is testified to in Hosea 5:5 where the prophet declared, “Therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity; Judah also shall fall with them” (KJV). Pekah began as a rival of Menahem in 752 B.C., the same year that Menahem began in Samaria. He had twelve years of overlap that paralleled the ten years of Menahem (2 Kings 15:17) and the two years of Pekahiah (2 Kings 15:23), and he also had eight years of sole reign from 740, the second and last year of Pekahiah, to 732. His twenty years terminated in 732 when he was slain by Hoshea." Ref-0839, p. 63. But see Ref-0186, pp. 181-184 where Thiele's concept of two kingdoms in the north is thoroughly refuted. Jones remarks, concerning Isa. 7:1-9, "Who can honestly read these verses and not see that Israel and Ephraim are being used interchangeable and synonymously?" Ref-0186, p. 184.
✪ ". . . Ahaz, with false piety, refuses to test God [Isa. 7:12]. The disingenuous nature of his response is plain in that this is a kin who had so little regard for the Lord that he practiced idolatry, even offering his own son as a child sacrifice to Molech (2 Kgs 16:3; 2 Chr 28:3)." Ref-1272, p. 140.
✪ For a brilliant exegetical defense of the traditional Christian interpretation of this text, see Dr. E. J. Young's Studies in Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954) pp. 143-198, cited by Ref-0183, p. 163n3. (I’ve since read this and didn’t find it all that valuable. See Ref-1413, pp. 143-198.) "Additional light concerning this situation is found in Isaiah 7-8. Ahaz was terrified because the purpose of Pekah and Rezin was to replace him on the throne of Judah by “the son of Tabeel” (Isa. 7:5-6). . . . The Lord, however, told Ahaz through Isaiah that this effort would not succeed and that He would give him a sign concerning it. A child would be born who would not be old enough to discern evil from good (Isa. 7:16) or to “say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother’ ” before the land of the two kings Ahaz fared would be devastated . . . The child was to be called “Immanuel” (7:14). This was the second son of Isaiah, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (“speed the spoil, hasten the prey”), who was to be a prototype of Christ . . . The invasion would occur before the child had reached the age of two. It was between the years 735 to 732 that this took place." Ref-0839, pp. 133-134. See Ref-1272 for a more accurate interpretation which understands the child to be Shear-Jashub (Isa. 7:3) who accompanied Isaiah to see Ahab. The name Immanuel applies only to the Christ child which is a separate prophecy concerning virgin birth which does not concern either of Isaiah’s children. "The historical setting [of Isaiah 7:14] was a threat against Judah around the year 734 BC. At that time, Rezin, king of Syria (Aram) and Pekah, king of the northern kingdom of Israel, formed an anti-Assyrian alliance. They in turn wanted Ahaz, king of Judah, to join their alliance. When he refused, they decided to make war against Ahaz to force the issue (7:1). The northern alliance against Ahaz caused great fear in the royal family of David (7:2) because the goal was not just to conquer Judah but also to “set p the son of Tabeel as king” in the place of Ahaz (7:6). Their plan would place a more pliable king on the throne and also put an end to the Davidic house. This thread provides a significant detail in understanding the passage." Ref-1272, p. 148. "A close reading of the text will disclose not just one prophecy here but two -- a long term prediction addressed to the house of David (Isa. 7:13-15) and a short-term prediction addressed to Ahaz (Isa. 7:16-25). . . . Since the northern alliance was threatening to replace Ahaz with the son of Tabeel, the entire house of David was being endangered. Were Syria and Israel to succeed, the messianic promise of a future son of David who would have an eternal house, kingdom, and throne (2 Sam 7:16) would be demolished. This provides the need for a long-term sign of hope that despite the menace to the house of David, the Messiah would be born, with the sign of His coming being His virgin birth. . . . When addressing Ahaz alone, the singular was used. However in 7:13-14, Isaiah used the second person plural. This is not an obvious change in the English Bible, but in v. 13 the imperative verb “listen” is plural, the expression “is it not enough for you” is plural, and “Will you also try” is plural. Then in v. 14 “you” is plural. The reason for the shift is that God was clearly fed up with this wicked and sanctimonious king, so he addressed the royal house he represented. Moreover, it was not only Ahaz that was being threatened but the entire house of David. . . . The prophet returned to using the second-person singular pronoun in 7:16 (“the land of the two kings you [sg.] dread”). In 7:1011 he used the singular to address King Ahaz. Then, when addressing the house of David with the prophecy of Messiah, he shifted to the plural. But in 7:16, he addressed King Ahaz, using the singular pronoun once again and giving him a clear prophecy: before Shear-Jashub would be able to discern good from evil, the northern confederacy attacking Judah would fail. Within two years, Tiglath-Pileser defeated both Israel and Syria, just as the prophet had predicted. Having completed his long-term prophecy, Isaiah gave a short-term prophecy. In doing so, he followed a frequent pattern in his book. He consistently did this so his readership could have confidence in the distant prediction by observing the fulfillment of the near one." Ref-1272, p. 140, 158. "Some might object that the careful reading available to Matthew [Isa. 7:14] was not understandable to Ahaz, who might be considered “the original audience” of this prophecy. This objection fails to understand the nature of the Bible as a text. While Ahaz did receive this prophecy in a particular time and place, all we have is a textual record of that event in the composition known as the book of Isaiah. Thus, Ahaz is not the original audience of the book of Isaiah but a character in the inspired narrative written in the book. The audience of the book is eighth century BC Judah, to whom a careful reading of the visible compositional strategies were available. They could read it in context with Isaiah 9 and 11 just as any reader of the book of Isaiah can after the house of David had found its fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth." Ref-1272, p. 161n37. "Most Bible scholars hold one of three views on the virgin in Isaiah 7:14–16: (1) The boy of whom Isaiah wrote was conceived shortly after Isaiah spoke this message. A young woman, a virgin, married and then had a baby. Before he would be old enough to tell the difference between good and evil the northern Aram-Israel alliance would be destroyed. According to this view the woman was a virgin when Isaiah spoke his prophecy but was not when the boy was born because he was conceived by sexual relations with her husband. Some say this child was born to Isaiah (8:3–4). They point out that 8:1–4 corresponds in a number of ways to 7:14–17. But this view must be rejected because (a) Isaiah’s wife already had a child (Shear-Jashub, v. 3) and so was not a virgin, and (b) the second child born to Isaiah’s wife was not named Immanuel (8:3). In this view Ahaz would have known this woman, and hearing of the child’s birth and his name Immanuel he would understand that Isaiah’s prophecies were correct. (2) A second view sees the predicted birth as exclusively messianic and the virgin as Mary, Jesus’ mother. It is argued that in Isaiah 7:14 the virgin is said to be with child (lit., “the virgin is or will be pregnant”). It is also argued that Matthew, stressing the fact that Joseph and Mary’s marriage was not consummated till after Jesus’ birth (Matt. 1:18, 25), affirmed that Jesus’ birth fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy (Matt. 1:21–23). Proponents of this view point out that since Isaiah spoke this prophecy to the house of David (Isa. 7:13) and not just to Ahaz himself, the sign was given not just to the king but to the entire kingly line and the entire nation. However, if the fulfillment did not occur until Joseph and Mary’s day, how does the prophecy relate to Isaiah’s point that the Aram-Israel confederacy would soon be defeated? And how does the birth of the Lord Jesus relate to the eating of curds and honey (v. 15) and to the breaking of the alliance before the boy was old enough to know good and evil? (v. 16) Proponents of this view answer that the time is similar: the two years of Jesus’ babyhood (before He would know between right and wrong) point to the same time segment, two years, within which the Aram-Israel threat would be gone. (3) A third view, a combination of the first two, sees the prophecy as directed primarily to Ahaz regarding the breaking of the alliance. The ‘almâh was a virgin when Isaiah spoke his message, but then she would marry and have a baby. When the Aram-Israel alliance was broken the boy would still be young. Centuries later the Holy Spirit led Matthew to quote Isaiah 7:14 as a statement that was also true of a virgin birth (i.e., a birth to a woman who was still a virgin). This is the first of many prophecies about the Messiah given by Isaiah. (See the chart “Messianic Prophecies in the Book of Isaiah.”) The sign must have had some significance for the historical situation in which it was given. The sign involved not only the birth and the boy’s name (Immanuel, “God [is] with us,” would assure the people of God’s presence), but also a designated length of time: before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings … will be laid waste. Within about three years (nine months for the pregnancy and two or three years until the boy would know the difference between good and evil) the alliance would be broken. It was broken in 732 B.C. when Tiglath-Pileser III destroyed Damascus." Martin, J. A., Ref-0038, Isa. 7:14. "In the year 734, the year in which the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was uttered, Tiglath-pileser III was at war with Philistia." Ref-1413, p. 146. "The translators of the LXX, therefore, very wisely rendered the word by the Greek παρθένος, a feminine noun meaning virgin. In Revelation 14:4 the word is used as masculine, παρθένοι, to denote those who have not defiled themselves with women." Ref-1413, p. 177n20.
✪ "The non-Messianic sign was of Isaiah’s small child, Shear-jashub, whom the prophet carried in his arms (Isa. 7:3) and who would have relevance to the unbelieving Ahaz and the immediate problem at hand. . . . As Shear-jashub (Isa. 7:3, 16), Isaiah’s first son, was given as a sign of deliverance to Judah, so Mahershalal-hash-baz, the second son, was the sign of the destruction of Judah’s foes." Ref-1274, pp. 1163-1164 "So who is the child in [Isa. 7:16]? In light of Isaiah being directed to bring his own son to the confrontation with the king at the conduit of the upper pool [Isa. 7:3], it makes most sense to identify the lad as Shear-Jashub. Otherwise there would be no purpose for God directing Isaiah to bring the boy. Thus having promised the virgin birth of the Messiah (Isa. 7:13-15), the prophet then points to the very small boy that he has brought along and says, “But before this lad (using the article with a demonstrative force) knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.” In this way, Shear-Jashub functioned as a sign to the king. Appropriately, Isaiah could tell Judah in the very next chapter, “Here I am with the children the Lord has given me to be signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of Hosts who dwells on Mount Zion” (Isa. 8:18)." Ref-1272, pp. 157-158.
✪ ". . . the Masoretic Text inserts accents which divide the titles [of Isaiah 9:6, English text] resulting in this translation: "The Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, calls his name eternal father, prince of peace." According to this translation, the first two couplets are names that refer to God himself, and the second two refer to the child that was born. The point of this reading appears to be to negate any thought of considering the child whose birth is described as deity. Additionally, the Masoretic Text reading is decidedly different from the New Testament rendering in Luke 1:32-33." Ref-1272, p. 43.
✪ "Four reasons support the notion that chapter 14 awaits a yet future fulfillment. First, the Israelite restoration of verses 1–4 lacks a past historical match. According to the prophet, the Israelites govern their captors, experience rest when they return to the promised land, and flee harsh slavery in Babylonia. Gentiles accompany the Israelites to the land, and the recently liberated believers taunt their recently fallen oppressor, the king of Babylon. As Motyer succinctly states, “What actually happened at the return from Babylon (539 BC) in no way fulfilled this.” Similarly, Heater contends that readers fail to “take the language seriously” if they assign the fulfillment to antiquity: The return of the Jews under Zerubbabel was rather pathetic in comparison to Isaiah's description. Only a relatively small number of Jews returned. They were living among the ruins of Jerusalem, and their efforts to rebuild the temple were met with staunch resistance by the Gentiles (whereas 14:2 says the Gentiles will be servants). The language of the passage forces the interpreter who is trying to take the language seriously to see a future for Israel that far exceeds what happened when Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem. . . . Second, no ancient ruler fits the profile in Isaiah 14. . . . On target is Oswalt's remark. He states, “the attempt to identify a precise historical figure is probably futile. . . . None of the kings of the Neo-Babylonian empire (e.g., Nebuchadrezzar or Nabonidus) fits, nor do any of the Assyrian kings of Isaiah's day (Sargon II or Sennacherib).” Third, no generation to date has ever experienced the global rest, quiet, and exhilaration that Isa 14:7–8 articulates. . . . Fourth, Isaiah 14 corresponds to other eschatological prophecies. For instance, the prophecy involving Babylon in Zech 2:6–13 shares multiple affinities with Isa 14:1–7. These include the following: The Babylonians subdue slaves who eventually plunder her; Yahweh chooses Israel; Gentiles unite with Jews; and the world is silent and rejoices. In Zechariah, Yahweh urges believers to flee Babylon before it is too late (2:6–7). . . . In light of these four factors, the eschatological option remains the best choice. . . . As for the NT implications, one could make a case that Babylon's global dictator (Isa 14:4, 8–11, 15–17, 19–21) refers to the end-time beast of Revelation. Isaiah's oracle allows for the possibility that this man returns from Sheol to mortal life (v. 19) which amazes unbelievers (v. 16) in accord with John's revelation (Rev 11:7; 13:3, 12, 14; 17:8, 11)." -- Mark A. Hassler, Isaiah 14 and Habakkuk 2: Two Taunt Songs Against the Same Tyrant, Ref-0164 (26:2) Fall 2015 (20151123152934.pdf), 221-229, pp. 223-226.
✪ "In a modern archaeological discovery, an ink inscription on a clay jar found at Arad, to be dated at the beginning of the sixth century B.C., mentions the third day of the month of Tsakh. This makes it possible to think that this month name occurs in Isa. 18:4 where the phrase כחם צח, formerly translated “like clear heat” (RSV), may now be rendered, “like the heat of the month of Tsakh.”" Ref-0840, p. 27.
✪ "[Ben Sira interpreted] Isaiah’s “Servant” as an individual rather than a corporate entity, he considered it part of the messianic task “to restore the tribes of Israel” (48:10) which Isaiah had said was part of the Servant’s task in Isa 49:6." Douglas E. Fox, Ben Sira on TO Canon Again: The Date of Daniel, Ref-0845 49:2, Fall 1987, 335:350, p. 341.
✪ "Interestingly, while it is clear throughout the chapter [Isaiah 53] that the Servant is to be distinguished from the Lord, there is also evidence that he is himself accorded divine status. The Hebrew expression underlying the phrase ‘raised and lifted up’, used of the Servant in Isa. 52:13, appears in only three other places in the Old Testament. All of them are in Isaiah (6:1; 33:10; 57:15), and in every case they refer to the Lord. Thus ‘Yahweh’s own lips declared that the Servant was to be identified with Yahweh himself’ (Groves, ‘Atonement in Isaiah 53’, p. 81; cf. p. 80)." Ref-1291, p. 59n57.
✪ "The Hebrew noun שִׁמוֹעָה means “the thing heard,” therefore “news, message.” With the pronominal suffix, an ambiguity is created: the text may speak of a report that is either given . . . or received . . . In the Greek text [Septuagint], on the other hand, only the former interpretation seems possible, . . ." Ref-0838, p. 219.
✪ ". . . what do we find when we turn to the scrolls? I went to the Great Isaiah Scroll in Jerusalem and I discovered there is a different reading. Not, “He shall see of the travail of his soul.” Instead, there’s a new word there, “Out of the travail of his soul he will see light.” That is explosive. In that verse we do not only have Good Friday, we have Easter Sunday. Hope, life, resurrection -- there it is in the Great Isaiah Scroll." John D. Barry, The Great Isaiah Scroll and the Original Bible: An Interview with Dr. Peter Flint, Ref-0066, Vol. 23 No. 4 (2010), 110-112, p. 111.
✪ Evidences that the spirit spoken of here is God’s Holy Spirit rather than the spirit within man (e.g., MacArthur Study Bible) include: 1) The theme of the passage concerns spiritual adultery (idolatry); 2) James refers his Jewish readers (the twelve tribes, Jas. 1:1) to the OT Scriptures which a strong theme concerning God’s jealousy in relation to spiritual adultery (Jer. 2:2; Ex. 20:5; Ex. 34:14; Deu. 4:23-24; 5:9; 6:14-15; Jos. 24:19-20); 3) the Spirit is said to "dwell in us" - which is never used in relation to our own spirit who resides in us from creation but only ever used of foreign spirits, both God’s Spirit (John 14:17; Rom. 8:9,11; 1Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:22; 2Ti. 1:14) and demon spirits (Mat. 12:45; Luke 11:26; Rev. 18:2). It is also worth considering that some teachers, such as John MacArthur, who favor Lordship salvation must find the spirit to be the human spirit because if otherwise, then these are carnal Christians (true believers who are acting as adulterers and enemies of God) which is counter to Lordship salvation teaching.
✪ "The chronology of the book of Judges has always presented a challenge. Many have noted that simply adding up the various years of the judges and foreign oppressions as listed in the book yields 410 years, and this does not include the time for the deaths of Joshua and the elders who served with him (Judg 2:7-8). From the end of Joshua’s conquest in 1400 B.C. to the beginning of David’s reign (1009 B.C.) there are only 389 years. This appears to allow inadequate time for the events in Judges to have taken place, much less account for the death of Joshua and the elders, the judgeships of Eli and Samuel, and the reign of Saul. . . . For those who believe that the book of Judges does present accurate historical information, the chronological quagmire is compounded by the book itself, which seems to treat many of the judges’ reigns as consecutive rather than overlapping, as when it is said that one judge died and another arose “after him” . . . Can simply following the information in the book itself unravel the chronology of the book of Judges? Several scholars have proposed that it can and that one can establish a relative chronology of the judges. Furthermore, with the help of information from the books of Kings and Samuel as well as Josephus’ Antiquities, one can establish an absolute chronology. . . . [there] are six cycles of judges. . . . Each of these cycles recounts the exploits of one major judge who may be followed by one or more minor judges, whose acts are only briefly summarized. . . . This raises the possibility that two types of chronological overlap may be present in judges. There may be overlap among judges, especially within a cycle. Alternatively, two or more cycles may overlap." Ref-1307, pp. 89-93
✪ "While some commentators believe that Jephthah’s daughter was an actual human sacrifice [Jdg. 11:34-40], others maintain that she was given by Jephthah to lifelong service in the tabernacle. Thus, she was never to marry and went with her friends to mourn her virginity. If this is the case, then perhaps it indicates that serving in the temple was restricted to virgins." Ref-1272, pp. 153-154. ". . . the vow and sacrifice of Jephthah is consistent with the culture of the Ancient Near East, particularly the Transjordan. Furthermore, his actions were typical of the syncretistic religious climate, wherein there was a blending or corruption of Yahwism as it came into contact with the surrounding pagan cultures. Moreover, this act was indicative of the henotheism that permeated the era of the Judges, in that YHWH was their national God but other gods were not fully abandoned. This corruption is strongly condemned in Judges 2:10-3:6. . . . Henotheism, an early form of monotheism, refers to the worship of a single deity while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities." John Roskoski, Jephthah’s Vow: A Corruption of Yahwism in the Era of the Judges, Ref-0066, Vol. 25 No. 1 Winter 2012, 23-28, p. 23. ". . . It would seem likely, . . . that Jephthah’s sacrifice could be considered an aberration for an Israelite, especially a Charismatic Leader. Therefore, we must look for a religious entity whose influence was strong enough to corrupt the Yahwism of Jephthah. The most likely candidate was Molech, a god of the Ammonites." John Roskoski, Jephthah’s Vow: A Corruption of Yahwism in the Era of the Judges, Ref-0066, Vol. 25 No. 1 Winter 2012, 23-28, p. 24. "As a virgin, she is dying childless. Childlessness was considered a cursed state and a reason for sorrow and grief (Gen. 30:1; 1S. 1:6; Isa. 4:1). Jephthah’s vow relegated her to such a state. . . . Though distasteful, Jephthah’s vow and actions were verifiable products of the era of the Judges. They represent a syncretism, or corruption, of Yahwist theology. They illustrate the henotheism of Israel, which the Judges fought and the biblical authors condemned." John Roskoski, Jephthah’s Vow: A Corruption of Yahwism in the Era of the Judges, Ref-0066, Vol. 25 No. 1 Winter 2012, 23-28, p. 28.
✪ "This verse [Judges 18:30] records the establishment of the first pagan priesthood in Israel. The consonantal text's original reading indicated that mšh (Moshe or Moses) was the grandfather of Jonathan, the founder of this pagan priesthood. The Masoretes inserted the raised letter נ (n or nun making the word read mnšh (Měnaššeh). According to Tov, the suspended nun was a correction of "an earlier reading which ascribed the erecting of the idol in Dan to one of the descendants of Moses . . . . The addition can therefore be understood as a deliberate change of content."" Ref-1272, p. 37.
✪ "You can see from a quick comparison that either the Levite or the old man can be referred to as simply הָאִישׁ (“the man”). Who then is the actual grammatical referent for . . . “the man” . . . in v. 25? . . . Second, you note that in vv. 22-25 it is clearly established that the owner of the house was in conversation with the rapists, but there is no indication that the Levite was. You then decide, rightly, that . . . “the man” . . . can have as its grammatical referent the old man, not the Levite." Ref-0749, pp. 52-53.
✪ "Jeremiah names the kings of Judah, Egypt, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon, the isles of the sea, Arabia, Zimri, and all the kings of Elam, all the kings of the Medes, all the kings of the north and the king of Sheshach. God says then: . . . and that after seventy years, he would also punish the king of Babylon (Jer. 25:12). In numbering the countries which would suffer, Jeremiah omits the Assyrians since they had already been conquered, and names the kings of Elam or Persia, and Sheshach or Susiana, as distinct from those of the Medes and Chaldeans. Therefore, Persia was not yet subdued by the Medes, nor the king of Susiana by the Chaldeans. By the punishment of the king of Babylon, he means the conquest of Babylon by the Medes. By the punishment of the Medes, he seems to mean the conquest of the Medes by Cyrus." Ref-1507, p. 108.
✪ "Jeremiah’s reference to the defeat of Hophra (Jer. 44:30) is made credible by extra-biblical sources. [J. K. Hoffmeier, “A New Insight on Pharaoh Apries from Herodotus, Diodorus and Jeremiah 46:17,” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 11 (1981): 165-70.]" Ref-1521, p. 100.
✪ "Jer. 52:28—30 gives the number of captives taken by Nebuchadnezzar in his seventh, eighteenth, and twenty-third years. There is one thing certain about the counting of captives—the captives themselves are in no position to do it. Every king and pharaoh must have had an official assigned to this task, so that the number of those vanquished could be recorded on a stela or in the annals glorifying the king’s exploits. Thus the list of captives in Jer. 52:28—30 could not have originated in a Judean record—it came from the official records of Nebuchadnezzar. The years of the monarch would therefore be the Nisan, accession years used in Babylon. This is an independent verification of the use of non-accession years when Jeremiah and the author of the last two chapters of 2 Kings referred to Nebuchadnezzar: the seventh (accession) year of Jer. 52:28 corresponds to the eighth (non-accession) year of 2K. 24:12, and the eighteenth (accession) year of Jer. 52:29 corresponds to the nineteenth (non-accession) year of 2K. 25:8. These are not mistakes, as some have assumed. They are a valuable clue that the synchronisms to Nebuchadnezzar in 2 Kings were to be taken in a non-accession sense. . . . The 52nd chapter . . . is not from the pen of Jeremiah (Jer 51:64)." Ref-1321, pp. 36-37.
✪ "Some four years after Jerusalem’s fall Babylon was still subduing Judah. Jer. 52:30 reports that on 582 B.C. the Babylonian official Nebuzaradan took more captives from Judah to Babylon." Ref-1307, p. 172
✪ "The prophecy in this chapter is thought by some to relate to the latter times of the world, when God shall finally deliver his people from all their adversaries; and it must be confessed that the figures employed are so lofty as to render it impossible to restrain the whole of their import to any events prior to the commencement of the Christian era." Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
✪ "The judgment threatened here probably was fulfilled, at least in part, in the fourth century b.c. Allen explains, “The people of Sidon were sold into slavery by Antiochus III in 345 b.c., while the citizens of Tyre and Gaza were enslaved by Alexander in 332 b.c.” (The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, p. 114)." -- Robert Chisholm, Ref-0038.
✪ See Greek grammar - predicate nominative. "As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article [preceding θεος in και θεος ην ʽο λογος] is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. . . Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in και θεος ην ʽο λογος." Ref-0085, p. 29. "As to θεος in its anarthrous use, he would not translate “the Word was a god.” and for the reason that the context does not teach polytheism, and because the absence of the article here qualifies. Therefore, the quality or character of Deity is emphasized. The translation would be, “The Word as to His essence was Deity.”" Ref-0946, p. 16. "[Stoicism] was founded by Zeno (c. 335-265 B.C.), a Phoenician, whose outlook has been summarized as “Live according to nature.” He assumed that the natural world consists in two forms: (1) the outward and visible, and (2) the breath or spirit (logos) which permeates reality. Everything came into being and finds its meaning through the logos, which involves reason, the active universal principle. The Stoics assumed a cyclical character of the natural order. Happiness and virtue are found by living in harmony with htis order, submitting to the logos." Ref-1200, p. 115.
✪ "It is clear that the Evangelist’s thought in these verses is immersed in the background of the Old Testament, particularly Exodus 33-34. Köstenberger’s helpful chart highlights connections between the two.
Israel finds grace in Yahweh’s sight (Ex. 33:14); Disciples receive “grace” (John 1:16).
No one can see Yahwey’s face and live (Ex. 33:20); No one has seen God at any time (John 1:18).
Yahwey’s glory passes by Moses (Ex. 33:23; 34:6-7); The disciples beheld the Word’s glory (John 1:14).
Yahweh abounds in loving-kindness and truth (Ex. 34:6); Jesus is full of grace and truth (John 1:14,17).
Yahweh dwelt in a tent (Ex. 33:7); The Word “tented” among the disciples (John 1:14).
Moses was given the Law (Ex. 34:27-28); The Law was given through Moses (John 1:17).
Moses, the mediator between Yahweh and Israel (Ex. 34:32-35); Jesus, the Mediator between God and man (John 1:17-18)." Stephen S. Kim, The Literary and Theological Significance of the Johannine Prologue, Ref-0200 Volume 166 Number 664, October-December 2009, 421:435, p. 433.
✪ "To fully understand why Nicodemus posed the question as he did, it is necessary to understand that in Pharisaic Judaism, there were six different ways of being born again. Nicodemus qualified for four of the six ways. The two ways for which he was not qualified were: 1. When Gentiles converted to Judaism, they were said to be born again. Since Nicodemus was not a Gentile, he could not qualify in this manner. 2. When a man was crowned king, he was said to be born again. Nothing is said about Nicodemus having been of the House of David, and hence, he was not of royal lineage. But there were four other ways to be born again, and Nicodemus qualified for all four. 1. First, when a Jewish boy became bar mitzvahed at the age of 13, he was said to be born again. At that age, he subjected himself to the Mosaic Law and became responsible for his own sins. Since Nicodemus was beyond the age of 13, he had already experienced his bar mitzvah. 2. A second way was by marriage, for when a Jew married, he was said to be born again. Although nothing is said about Nicodemus’s wife, it has been clearly stated that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. One of the rules for becoming a member of the Sanhedrin was that one must be married, and so we know from this that Nicodemus was married. 3. A third way that a Jew could be born again was to be ordained as a rabbi. Since Nicodemus was a Pharisee, he had been ordained as a rabbi and thus had been born again in a third way. 4. The final way to be born again in Judaism was to become the head of a rabbinical school. In verse 10, Jesus said to Nicodemus that he was “the teacher of Israel.” The one who was the head of rabbinical school was always referred to as the teacher of Israel. Hence, Nicodemus was also the head of a rabbinical school. The point, then, is this: Nicodemus had undergone every process available in Judaism to be born again. There was no other way available in Judaism, and so the only way he could see being born again at his age was to re-enter his mother’s womb and start the process all over again." Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Nicodemus & Yeshua: Jewish salvation God’s way, Ref-0067, Fall 2009, p. 6.
✪ "Another example in Greek is the word anōthen in John 3:7 when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus. The word can mean either “from above” or “again.” Thus, some English translations say “born from above” (New Jerusalem Bible) and others say “born again” (NASB, NIV, NLT)." Ref-1162, p. 181.
✪ Red letters? May be commentary by John
✪ The background to Jesus’ statement comparing the bondservant with the true son probably alludes to the case of Ishmael and Isaac.
✪ "St. John mentions expressly three Passovers at which the Lord was present; and if the feast of John 5:1 be a Passover, the question is at an end. It is now generally admitted that that feast was either Purim or Passover, and Hengstenberg’s proofs in favour of the latter are overwhelming. The feast of Purim had no Divine sanction. It was instituted by the decree of Esther, Queen of Persia, in the 13th year of Xerxes (b.c. 473), and it was rather a social and political than a religious feast, the service in the synagogue being quite secondary to the excessive eating and drinking which marked the day. It is doubtful whether our Lord would have observed such a feast at all; but that, contrary to the usual practice, He would have specially gone up to Jerusalem to celebrate it, is altogether incredible." Ref-0762, p. 97n10. "Between the beginning of the Galilean ministry and the Feeding of the 5000 John records Jesus going to Jerusalem for a Feast (John 5:1). This cannot be the Passover, since in all the other passages in John Passover is always explicitly called Passover when it is first mentioned . . . Since Jesus made a special trip to Jerusalem for this event, it was most likely one of the other two pilgrim feasts--Pentecost or Tabernacles. While either of these is possible, the Feast of Tabernacles appears more likely to be the one mentioned here. In both the OT and NT this pilgrim festival is the more often mentioned of the two." Ref-1307, p. 259
✪ "The oriental background here is that of the Roman baths, where the Roman would perform a complete ablution (λούω). But by the time he reached his home, his feet would be dusty, and he would have his slave wash (νίπτω them. He stayed bathed until he reached home, and did not need λούειν but only νίπτειν. So, the believer is λελουμένος, completely washed from his sins at Calvary, but as he walks through this life, sin at times enters his experience. He not go back to the cross to be bathed (λούω) all over again in the fountain filled with blood, for he stays bathed until he reaches heaven. but he needs to confess that sin, and be washed (νίπτω) from the defilement which that sin brought into his life." Ref-0946, pp. 75-76.
✪ "Grapes were allowed to grow along the ground, where their clusters were propped to prevent them from being ruined, or they were elevated onto poles or trellises. The trellising of vines assisted in maximizing the exposure to the sun for maximal fruit production and for minimal exposure to the damp ground with its disease-producing effects upon both leaves and fruit. It also assisted in increasing the flow of air through the branches and fruit clusters to minimize moisture retention all over the surface of the plant itself, further discouraging the promulgation of disease on plant tissue. The pruning of the plants occurred at two primary times of the year: the spring and fall. Spring pruning removed succulent water sprouts (shoots) from the fruiting branches, and it removed dead and diseased wood from any place on the vine. It also removed adventitious succulent sprouts (suckers) from the trunk of the vine. The spring pruning excised succulent material primarily composed of water, and such did not led itself well to burning, being void of woody brush. The spring pruning did not remove the branches that were unfruitful because these were needed to grow and mature to be of sufficient girth and strength to produce fruit the following year. At the end of the growing season and after the harvest in the fall, the vines were severely pruned and all leaves were removed to induce dormancy in preparation for surviving the winter period. The sever pruning in the fall produced a significant amount of excised woody material that would readily burn. Such wood was of no fruit-bearing value because it existed at a time of the year that made it useless since it could no longer bear fruit. It could no longer bear fruit because winter was imminent and dormancy must be induced. The wood of the vine was not inherently unfruitful or "evil;" it simply existed at a time inn which it could not be productive. . . . Therefore, in the spring when the vine is undergoing its less-intense pruning--consisting of primarily removing succulent vegetative growth--non-fruit bearing branches are allowed to remain so they can mature over the growing season into a fruiting branch in the future. Such branches are appropriately encouraged by the vinedresser and not removed by the vinedresser. . . . Many commentators discuss only one pruning and incorrectly assume that all non-fruit bearing branches are removed and burned at that time." John A. Tucker, The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 - Part II, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 49-70, pp. 49-52 "As a consequence of a misguided understanding of the viticultural practices of the day (and this author believers a certain systematic theological predisposition), many have determined that αἰρει must mean "remove or take away," as in judgment, contrary to the viticulturally precise "lift up," as in stimulation and encouragement. . . . The situation only reemphasizes the acute importance in accurately recognizing the context and culture in translating words that can have different connotations.. Arthur W. Pink also noted this problem. Again a difficulty has been needlessly created here by the English rendering of the Greek verb. "Airo" is frequently translated in the A.V. "lifted up." For example: "And they lifted up their voices (Luke 17:13, so also in Acts 4:24), "And Jesus lifted up his eyes" (John 11:41). "Lifted up his hand" (Rev. 10:5), etc. In none of these places could the verb be rendered "taken away." Therefore, we are satisfied that it would be more accurate and more in accord with "the analogy of faith" to translate, "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he lifteth up"--from trailing on the ground." John A. Tucker, The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 - Part II, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 49-70, pp. 52-53 "The two Greek verbs described two different activities that were done simultaneously in the springtime. Jesus was not combining two different Greek words in one sentence to describe the same viticultural activity, that is, the removal of both non-fruiting branches (αἰρει, "takes away") and the removal of suckers (καθαἰρει, "prunes"). He was not combining two incongruent activities in one sentence, which occurred in two separate seasons, one in the spring and one in the fall of the year. Instead, He was speaking of activities there were occurring even then in their vineyards, such as spring training and spring trimming, at the very time in which He was speaking to the disciples." John A. Tucker, The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 - Part II, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 49-70, p. 53 "It is apparent that believers can exist apart from "remaining" or "abiding" with Christ. If not, how else can one explain passages concerning the grieving and quenching of the Holy Spirit? If believers always remain and abide with Christ, what is the point of disciplinary restoration (church discipline) if there is no need to restore? Why were the epistles replete with admonitions to obey and prohibitions to ungodly thinking and its progeny (viz. ungodly conduct)? It is because believers do choose not to remain and, in that condition are useless for fruitbearing for they will not exhibit Christ=likeness and cannot glorify the Father." John A. Tucker, The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 - Part II, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 49-70, p. 59 "Perhaps another way to look at this passage is to paraphrase it as follows: If anyone will not abide, remain or adhere steadfastly to Me, he will be just as useless as the end-of-season branches that are cut off, withered, gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. They are useless to me for fruit-bearing and he who will not abide in Me is also useless for fruit-bearing." John A. Tucker, The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 - Part II, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 49-70, p. 65 "It is exegetically more propitious to only interpret verse six as a straightforward rendering of what actually occurs in the post-harvest vineyard where excised branches are recognized to be incapable of fruitbearing and are considered useless." John A. Tucker, The Inevitability of Fruitbearing: An Exegesis of John 15:6 - Part II, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 49-70, p. 67
✪ "An important example of fusion was noted by Jerome when he translated the OT from Hebrew into Latin. When translating Lev. 16:8 he saw that the word LaAZAZeL was in fact two words LaEZ AZAL, meaning simply “for the goat of sending away.” The AV has rightly followed this analysis of the words, with the translation “for the scapegoat.” Some modern versions maintain the fused form of the Hebrew consonants and translate “for Azazel,”* making this a proper name which, according to some commentators, signifies the devil. By recognizing that we have a case of fusion in the text we avoid all the confusion that follows any attempt to understand azazel as a proper name." Ref-1363, pp. 450-451.
✪ "Scripture reading [in the synagogue] focused on the Pentateuch but included the Prophets as well, Readings of the Law were organized in a way that assured consecutive coverage of the whole of the Mosaic books in a three-year cycle. In the land of Israel several members of a congregation, usually three, five, or seven, were invited to take part in the reading, each having to read at least three verses. In Diaspora synagogues the reading was done by only one person. Both in Israel and abroad, one person alone could read from the Prophets; he was free to select the passage (see Luke 4:17). The readings were accompanied by a targum, a translation-interpretation which included both a free rendering of the text into another language and a brief explanation of it. In the land of Israel the interpretation was in Aramaic, elsewhere in the vernacular, for example Greek. The Torah was interpreted verse by verse, the Prophets in larger units." Ref-1200, p. 142.
✪ "In the case of the reanimation of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-17), it is interesting that Jesus speaks to the mother before approaching the bier. This corresponds exactly to the custom in Galilee (the province in which Nain is located), at least as attested in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 153a). There the women in Galilean funeral processions are said to have walked in front of the casket, while in the better-know province of Judea, they walked behind it. It would have been quite easy for the foreigner Luke to have erred on this detail unless he was relying on accurate historical sources." Ref-1282, pp. 134-135
✪ "Sleeping in bed with his children? It seems strange to us living in America today in multiple-bedroom houses, but in the time of Christ, the main room served both as the living and sleeping areas. Understandably, it would have been a great inconvenience to get out of bed and possibly wake his wife and children to get his friend the loaves of bread." Greg Gulbrandsen, Parables from the Taybeh House, Ref-0066, 20:24, p. 20.
✪ "For most of us, the loss of a single coin would not necessitate the need to light a lamp or sweep the floor. At worst, we might need to move a piece of furniture or two. But what of a house from the time of Jesus? As can be seen, the floor is dirt. A lost coin would be difficult to find without the assistance of both a lamp and a broom." Greg Gulbrandsen, Parables from the Taybeh House, Ref-0066, 20:24, p. 21.
✪ "Of all the above translations, only one had the article. This speaks volumes and should be very significant to any student of the Word. The rendering would be ‘will he find the faith on the earth?’ This would indicate ‘the faith’ as an embodiment of truth rather than just faith in general. . . In the rapture, all believers leave the planet and meet Him in the air. ‘The faith’ literally leaves and there is total apostasy. Luke 18:18 is referring to the second coming which has absolutely nothing to do with the rapture. When Christ returns to the earth at the second coming the world will be in complete apostasy. There will be those who have turned to Christ for salvation, but there will not be the embodiment of truth as there was during the church age." David Olander, Ref-1217, pp. 147-148.
✪ "Here ‘the psalms’ might denote not only the contents of the Psalter but also the whole of the third division -- the Writings -- of which the Psalter was the first book. We cannot be sure of this. . ." Ref-0073, p. 32. "A key passage that suggests this order can be found in the Halakhic Letter from Qumran (4QMMT): “And we have also written to you so that you may have discernment in the book of Moses and in the books of the Prophets and in Dav[id].” (It is interesting to note that Jesus uses almost the same terminology in Luke 24:44 . . . " Ref-0790, p. xvii.
✪ See Christopher W. Skinner, "“Whom He Also Named Apostles”: A Textual Problem in Mark 3:14", Ref-0200, 161 (July-September 2004):322-329.
✪ ". . . the majority of those who saw the miracle [of the feeding of the 4,000] saw it as a miracle only; but it is rather striking that in Mark Jesus helps His disciples to understand the real significance of the multiplication of the bread in the passage (Mark 8:19-21) which comes only a few verses before the declaration of Peter at Caesarea Philippi . . . Between these words and the incident at Caesarea Philippi comes, significantly enough, the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida who received his sight gradually, first seeing men as trees walking, and then seeing things clearly (Mark 8:22ff.) -- a parable of the disciples, who had hitherto perceived His Messiahship dimly, but were now, through their spokesman Peter, to declare outright, ‘You are the Messiah.’" Ref-0239, p. 71. "Our Lord's action here is most significant, Having abandoned Bethsaida to judgment Mt 11:12-24. He would neither heal in that village, nor permit further testimony to be borne there Mr 8:26. The probation of Bethsaida as a community was ended, but He would still show mercy to individuals. Cf Re 3:20." C. I. Scofield, Scofield Study Bible.
✪ "Even in Christ's own genealogy, after the flesh, three entire generations of kings are known to have been omitted, possibly because of their association with Ahab's house (cf. Matt. 1:7-8, 1Chron. 3:11-12)." Brenton Minge, "‘Short’ sojourn comes up short?", Ref-0784, 21(3) 2007, p. 63.
✪ "When [Matthew] comes to the listing of Jesus he says, “. . . and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Mat. 1:16). To whom do the italicized words “of whom” refer? Joseph as father? Mary as mother? Both Joseph and Mary as parents? It is possible for the English words “of whom” to mean any of these. However, behind the English words “of whom” stands the Greek relative pronoun ης. The feminine gender of the relative pronoun points specifically to Mary as the one from whom Jesus Christ was born. The genealogy regularly emphasizes the male who fathers a child, but here “meticulous Matthew” delivers a precise statement of the relationship of Jesus Christ to Joseph and Mary. While the genealogy establishes that Joseph is the legal father of Jesus, Matthew emphasizes that Mary is the biological parent “of whom” Jesus was born. Further, the passive voice of the verb ἐγεννήθη (“was born”) -- the only passive among the forty occurrences of γεννάω in the genealogy -- prepares for Matthew's emphasis upon divine action in the conception and birth of Jesus (Mat. 1:18-25)." Ref-0085, p. 108.
✪ Matthew’s citation of Hosea is not random but strategic and picks up on how Hosea used the exodus. In context, Hosea 11:1 uses the Exodus to show how God’s love in the first exodus will drive a second one (Hos 11:11) led by Messiah who functions like a new Moses (Hos 1:11 [Heb., 2:2]; 3:5). Matthew picks up on this point perfectly. He depicts Jesus as the One who will lead that new exodus for He, like Moses, was delivered from a king who desired to kill Israel’s children (Matt 2:13). Abner Chou, A Hermeneutical Evaluation of the Christocentric Hermeneutic, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 2, Fall 2016, 113-139, pp. 129-130. "Here is how Matthew’s Hosea citation fits into the larger contrast between Christ and Israel developed throughout the early chapters of his gospel. Both Israel and Christ were called from Egypt as a child (Hos 11:1; Matt 2:15). Israel was disobedient as a child (Hos 11:2-5). Christ was not. Both Israel and Christ were baptized (Exod 14; 1 Cor 10:1-2). Israel disobeyed God within three days after the Red Sea baptism (Exod 15: 22-26). On the other hand, the Father said of Christ following His baptism “This is my Son whom I love; with Him I am well pleased” (Matt 3:17). Both Israel and Christ went into the wilderness to be tempted. Israel was tempted 40 years (Exod-Num) and Christ was tempted 40 days (Matt 4:1-11). Israel failed her temptations and Christ successfully endured His. Both Israel and Christ received God’s Law. Israel went to Sinai to receive God’s law (Exod 19) and Christ went to a mountainside and explained God’s New Covenant Law (Matt 5-7). Israel broke the law before Moses could carry the tablets down from the mountain (Exod 32). On the other hand, Christ said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt 5:17). Both Israel (Exod 4:22-23) and Christ were called to worship God. Israel failed to worship Yahweh following her emancipation from Egypt instead opting to worship Baals (Hosea 11:1-5). On the other hand, Christ reserved worship only for God following His departure from Egypt (Matt 4:10)." Andy Woods, THE USE OF HOSEA 11:1 IN MATTHEW 2:15, [http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/11/11.pdf] Also see Andy’s remarks under hermeneutics - sensus plenior. "Not only does Matthew reach back to Hosea 11 in order to build an analogy between Christ and Israel, but he may also be similarly reaching backward in order to build an analogy between Christ and Moses in order to further clarify Christ’s identity. Many have observed the parallel between Christ’s life as portrayed in the early chapters of Matthew and the life of Moses. The infant lives of both Jesus and Moses were both miraculously spared from plots involving the annihilation of all the infant males within the vicinity. Just as Moses escaped from Egypt in the midst of persecution and later returned to Egypt, Jesus escaped to Egypt in the midst of persecution and later returned from Egypt.99 Davies notes that Moses was the key figure in the Exodus from Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea (which was a baptism according to 1 Corinthians 10:1-2), the journey through the wilderness, and the reception of the Law. Davies notes that in a similar fashion Matthew portrayed Jesus as the central figure following the same pattern. Jesus also left Egypt (Matt 2:15), was baptized in water (Matt 3), was tempted in the wilderness (Matt 4), and inaugurated the New Covenant Law (Matt 5-7). Thus, the Hosea 11:1 citation in Matthew 2:15 regarding the Exodus form Egypt helps build the parallel between Jesus and Moses. By quoting Hosea 11:1, Matthew may be seeking to establish yet another parallel between Jesus and Moses." Andy Woods, THE USE OF HOSEA 11:1 IN MATTHEW 2:15, [http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/11/11.pdf]
✪ "The wise men told him when they first saw the star, so he decided to kill all the children under two years of age (Mat. 2:16). According to their culture, when a child is born, he is already one year old, so he ordered the killing of all children under one year of age, according to our culture." Todd S. Beall, Noah’s FLood: Just another Pagan Myth?, Ref-0066, Vol. 28 No. 4 (Fall 2015), 98-102, p. 105.
✪ ". . . in the story of Jesus’ baptism, only Matthew quotes Jesus as saying to John, ‘Let it be so for now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness’ (Matt. 3:15). Most redaction critics assume this statement to be Matthew’s own unhistorical addition to mark’s version of the baptism (Mark 1:9-11). But Ignatius also knows this saying of Jesus; in his epistle to Smyrna he writes that Jesus was ‘baptized by John in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him’ (Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 1:1). So if Ignatius did not know the final form of Matthew’s Gospel, then Matthew could not have invented this saying." Ref-1282, p. 262
✪ "When Satan says to Jesus, ‘If you are the Son of God’ (Matt. 4:6; italics added), he is casting doubt upon God’s verdict on the matter, declared by the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism: ‘This is my Son’ (Matt. 3:17)." Ref-1291, p. 134.
✪ ". . . I have learned that εἰς τὸ ο῎ρος (eis to oros) in Matthew 5:1 probably does not mean Jesus went “up a montain” or “to a mountain” or “onto a mountainside,” but simply “into the hill country”; and interestingly πεδινός in Luke 6:17, usually rendered “plain,” commonly refers to a plateau in mountainous regions." Ref-0698, p. 43. (This may be true, but the comparison of Jesus’ sermon with the Law of Moses and Deuteronomy 18:15 argue for understanding Jesus’ sermon as being “on a mount.”)
✪ "in Mat. 5:28, ‘everyone who looks at a woman’ (πας ὁ βλεπων γυναικα) with lust in his heart does not mean ‘continually looking’ or ‘habitually looking,’ any more than four verses later ‘everyone who divorces his wife’ (πας ὁ ἀπολυων την γυναικα αὐτου) means ‘repeatedly divorces’!" Ref-0129, p. 616.
✪ "Take the adjective ponhrou' in Matthew 6:13, for example. The King James Version (as well as more than one modern translation) translates this as “but deliver us us from evil.” But the adjective has an article modifying it τοῦ, indicating that it is to be taken substantivally: “the evil one.” And there is no little theological difference between the two. The Father does not always keep his children out of danger, disasters, or the ugliness of the world. In short, he does not always deliver us from evil. But he does deliver us from the evil one. This text is not teaching that God will make our life a rose garden, but that he will protect us from the evil one, the devil himself (cf. John 10:28-30; 17:15)." Daniel B. Wallace, Ref-0085, p. 63.
✪ "As modern Bible translations stand, then, Mark (Mark 5:1 cf. Luke 8:26) is simply giving a Graecized spelling of the name of the city and Matthew (Mat. 8:28) the name of the province." Ref-1282, p. 192
✪ See Ref-0520.
✪ "It is wrong to construe this as a statement of absolute scientific fact and thereby impute error to Jesus and/or the gospel writers. To illustrate another feature of the Kingdom, Jesus was simply resorting to a generally acknowledged characteristic of Palestinian agriculture in that day. That sees smaller than the mustard seed are know in other times and places is no obstacle to biblical inerrancy. In the circumstances in which it was used, Jesus’ statement was completely accurate." Ref-1381, p. 85.
✪ "He tells them there are two bodies, two elect peoples, who are inexpressibly precious in His sight, and that through them He will manifest the inexhaustible riches of His grace and glory--and that, in the two realms of His dominion--on the earth and in heaven. Two distinct elect companies, one the “treasure” hid in the field, symbolizing the literal nation of Israel; the other, the one “pearl,” symbolizing the one body which has a heavenly calling, destiny, citizenship, and inheritance. The order of these two parables is this: “To the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Therefore, the hidden treasure in the field, the symbol of Israel, is given before the pearl, which is the figure of the Church." Ref-0520.
✪ "What was the town to which Jesus and the disciples returned after feeding the four thousand: Magadan (Matt. 15:39) or Dalmanutha (Mark 8:10)? Probably Magdala! Magadan seems just to be a variant form of the name. The village was originally known, in Hebrew, as migdal nunya (fish tower). Abbreviate the four syllables by removing the first and one gets dalnunya, easily Graecized to Dalmanutha. " Ref-1282, p. 192
✪ "there is. . . a still more specific connection between the crimes, such as the murder of Abel, and the responsibility of the generation which rejected the Messianic King. For the establishment of His Kingdom on earth would, according to Old Testament prophecy, put an end to all such crimes of violence and injustice. . . Viewed from this standpoint, Israel's sin in rejecting the Messianic King becomes a gigantic crime against all humanity. . . not only the crimes of the past. . . but also the crimes of the future." Ref-0183, p. 359. "Zechariah here is not the writing prophet by the same name, but a man who is listed in our English Bibles in the book of 2 Chronicles. Chronicles was actually the last book of the Hebrew Bible. Genesis was the first book of the Hebrew Bible. Thus, Christ was basically saying, “From A to Z,” such as we mean when we say, “From Genesis to Revelation.” This was the Jewish way of saying, “From beginning to end.”" Andy Woods, We Must Not Get the Wrong Idea--about the Big Idea, [https://dispensationalpublishing.com/we-must-not-get-the-wrong-idea-about-the-big-idea/] accessed 20170831.
✪ "Although these verses are very similar to those recorded in Mark 13:9-13 and Luke 21:12-19, the differences show that Matthew is not dealing with the same thing. Luke clearly stated that the events he was describing came before the sign of the end of the age, when ‘nation shall rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.’ However, in the Matthew account, the passage begins with the word Then, pointing out that the Messiah is now describing what will come after the event of nation raising up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. While the words seem to be similar, these similarities do not prove sameness. Mark and Luke described events that will happen to the Apostles before the sign of the [the end of the age], while Matthew dealt with events of the first half of the Tribulation that would come after the sign" Ref-0219, p. 639.
✪ "Why not in winter? After all, it seldom snows in Israel anyway. The reason for this prayer is that the Jews will be escaping toward the mountains in the east. Most of the escape routes will force them to use wadis, which are dry water beds that only fill up with flash floods when it rains during the winter months. . . . When it does rain, many of these wadis become filled instantly and very dangerous to cross." Ref-0219, p. 262.
✪ "the two verbs translated ‘had shortened’ and ‘hath shortened’ in the Mark passage and the verb translated ‘should be shortened’ in the Matthew passage are all in the aorist tense and indicative mood with the augment. Aorist tense verbs have no time significance except when they are in the indicative mood with the augment. That firm is used to express past time. A number of scholars have concluded that since the two verbs in Mark 13:20 are in that form, they are expression action in the past . . . Ezra P. Gould stated, ‘The [aorist] tenses put this action in the past -- if the Lord had not shortened the time, no flesh would have been saved. The language is proleptic, stating the event as it already existed in the Divine decree.’ . . . The second verb translated ‘shortened’ in Matthew 24:22 is a different tense (fuure) than the others, but that does not nullify this conclusion. That verb simply indicates that in the future God will actually cause to happen what He determined in eternity past and prophesied in the Old Testament." Ref-0220, pp. 51,54.
✪ Oida means "knowing in the sense of giving careful attention to and planning." In the sense of responsibility.
✪ "The contrast here is not between two types of believers, but between believers and unbelievers. The believers (wise virgins) have oil, a symbol of the Holy Spirit, while the unbelievers (foolish virgins) take no oil with them. Thus the foolish ones are excluded from the marriage feast (the Messianic Kingdom), for them the Lord knew not, while the wise virgins went in with him to the marriage feast." Ref-0219, p. 378.
✪ "In Mat. 27:9 a verse from Zechariah is cited as coming from Jeremiah. The Jewish tradition was that the spirit of Jeremiah was in Zechariah and such a method of citation would not offend their historical sense." Ref-0015, p. 203.
✪ "[T]he critical or technical application of hermeneutical principles to a biblical text in the original languages with a view to the exposition or declaration of its meaning." Robert L. Thomas, Introduction to Exegesis (Sun Valley, Calif.: author, 1987), pp. 15-16. Cited in Ref-0110, p. 147. "Exegesis can now be defined as the skillful application of sound hermeneutical principles to the biblical text in the original language with a view to understanding and declaring he author's intended meaning both to the immediate and subsequent audiences." John MacArthur Jr., The Mandate of Biblical Inerrancy: Expository Preaching, Ref-0110, p. 29. "Exegesis, then, is the application of hermeneutical principles to decide what a text says and means in its own historical, theological, contextual, literary, and cultural setting. The meaning thus obtained will be in agreement with other related Scriptures." James E. Rosscup, Hermeneutics and Expository Preaching, Ref-0110, p. 120. "The word ‘explain’ comes from the word ἐξηγέομαι and from this word comes the word exegesis. “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (John 1:18)." Dave Olander, Ref-1217, p. 133. "Article IX: We deny that the message of Scripture derives from, or is dictated by, the interpreter's understanding. Thus we deny that the "horizons" of the biblical writer and the interpreter may rightly "fuse" in such a way that what the text communicates to the interpreter is not ultimately controlled by the expressed meaning of the Scripture." -- J. I. Packer, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, 20160104143017.pdf, p. 3.
✪ "By the king he means metaphorically Antichrist, as also another prophet saith: “And this man shall be the peace from me, when the Assyrian shall come up into your land, and when he shall tread in your mountains.”" Ref-0541, Hippolytus Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, Ref-0541, p. 216.
✪ "The first chapter of Nehemiah states that tidings were brought to Nehemiah by Hanani and certain men of Judah concerning the Jews which had returned out of captivity, and concerning Jerusalem (Neh. 1:2). Those brethren had reported that the returned captives were in great reproach, and that “the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned by fire” (v. 3). This message was clearly occasioned bya fresh damage, recently done by the “adversaries” of the Jews, to the walls and gates of the rebuilt city. It was news to Nehemiah; for it caused him to weep, to mourn, to fast, and to pray (v. 4). The wording of the record makes it impossible to suppose that the damage reported by the messengers, who were just come from Judah, was that which has been perpetrated by Nebuchadnezzar more than a hundred years previously." Ref-1298, p. 92.
✪ "Israel would spend almost an entire year in the Wilderness of Sinai at the base of Mount Sinai, leaving on 20 Ziv the next year (Num. 10:11)." Ref-1307, p. 84
✪ For a chart illustrating the relationships between the fathers (of the first return) and the sons (of the second return), see Ref-1299, pp. 247-248.
✪ ". . . the discovery of the text of Numbers 6:24-26 (the high-priestly benediction) inscribed on a silver amulet from a tomb at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem and dated to the seventh century B.C. (long before the return from the Exile) argues against [the assumption that Deuteronomy was written after the exile]." Ref-0818, p. 92.
✪ See Tsitsith. "Compare also Targum Pseudo-Jon. on Nu. 16:2, where the peculiar colour of the Tsitsith is represented as the cause of the controversy between Moses and Korah. But see the version of this story in Jer. Sanh. 10, 27d, end)." Ref-0021, footnote 5, 192.
✪ The reason for the large final nûn in this verse is lost to antiquity. Ref-0841, p. 4.
✪ "The King James Version correctly translated verse 16 literally as, “from the fruit of her hands [palms] she plants a vineyard.” . . . Although the word פְּרִי can be interpreted as results . . . when fruit is associated with a body part, such as “fruit of the worb,” “fruit of his mouth” (Pr. 12:14; 13:2; 18:20), or “fruit of her palms/hands” (Pr. 31:16,31), it means what that body part apportions. The context itself interprets the ‘fruti of her hands” as synonymous with her works . . . (Pr. 10:31, KJV). To be consistent, verse 16 demonstrates that her planting a vineyard is from the “own work” of her hands, and not from her own earnings. . . . Indeed, in the 965 times that לָקַח is used in the Old Testament, only in Proverbs 31:16 is it translated “buys.”" Marcia Hornok, The proverbs 31 Wife: What Determines Virtue?, Ref-0785 Vol. 17 No. 51 Summer/Fall 2013, 143-160, pp. 147-149.
✪ See Gregory V. Trull, "An Exegesis of Psalm 16:10", Ref-0200, 161 (July-September 2004):304-321.
✪ Mephiboseth responding to David?
✪ The TNIV reads: The righteous may have many troubles, but the Lord delivers them from them all; He protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken. The TNIV obscures the Messianic implications of this prophecy as understood by John (John 19:33-36).
✪ "Signund Mowinckel and other scholars prefer the LXX, which reads [at Ps.110:3], “from the womb of the dawn, I have begotten you,” a translation based on the same Hebrew consonants but with different vowel pointings (yělidtîkā). Additionally, Bentzen has suggested that the corruption of the MT resulted from deliberate scribal efforts to obfuscate the meaning and its plain allusion to Ps. 2:7." Ref-1272, p. 175. "A final but significant innertextual link between the two psalms is derived from the variant reading for [Ps. 110:3]. There, God declares to the King, “from the womb of the dawn, I have begotten You [yelidtîkā],” the same word used in God’s oracle to the King in [Ps. 2:7]: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you [yelidtîkā].” Although Psalms 2 and 110 are clearly linked in the New Testament (Heb. 1:3-5,13; 5:5-6), the phrases about the Begotten One were not associated (as far as we know) until Justin Martyr in the second century." Ref-1272, p. 181.
✪ "This [Rev. 1:4 ἀπο ὁ ων και ὁ ην και ὁ ἐρχομενος] is the first and worst grammatical solecism in Revelation, but many more are to follow. . . If intentional, the question of what the author intends. Few scholars would disagree with Charles’ [R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John] assessment: ‘The Seer has deliverately violated the rules of grammar in order to preserve the divine name inviolate from the change which it would necessarily have undergone if declined. Hence the divine name is here in the nominative.’. . . The Seer is no doubt alluding to Ex. 3:14 in the LXX (ἐγω εἰμι ὁ ων - ‘I am who I am’), a text well familiar to early Gentile Christians." Ref-0129, p. 63.
✪ The pagan mystery cults at Babylon had transferred to Pergamos after the death of Belshazzar, and later moved to Rome. Ref-0033, p. 240.
✪ Which shall come modifies hour and not trial showing that it is the hour which is the the focus. Ref-0126, p. 288. All members of the body of Christ are in one of two groups at the time of the rapture: (1) the “rapture generation” which is alive; (2) all other believers in Christ who died prior to the rapture. The former group are kept from the hour by being taken in the rapture; the latter group are kept from the hour by death. Both groups are resurrected together.
✪ "Further compounding the problem, the recent third edition of Bauer's "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" makes a startling change under its definition for ἀρχή. The earlier second edition cites Revelation 3:14 under the meaning “the first cause” with the following note: “but the meaning beginning -- first created is linguistically possible.” In the third edition, however, the alternative meaning for ἀρχή in this verse is changed from “linguistically possible” to “linguistically probable” without amending any of the cited evidence. . . . The most probably interpretation ofἡ ἀρχῆ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ is “supreme Authority over the creation of God,” encompassing both the original and new creations. . . . As in the Septuagint the majority of th eoccurrences of ἀρχή in the New Testament are protemporal, with the governmental sense in the second place. Of significance is the fact that there are no clear uses of ἀρχῆ as causal. . . . While it is wrong to determine the meaning of a word in a particular context based on statistical probability alone, the data from the nuances of ἀρχῆ in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the apostolic fathers show an overwhelming tendency to employ ἀρχη as a protemporal or a governmental indicator. . . . Based on these syntactical issues the most natural rendering of the phrase would be “the supreme Authority over the creation of God,” taking τῆς κτίσεως as a genitive of subordination andτοῦ θεοῦ as source or producer, an interpretation that avoids the objections against the former options. . . . The constellation of evidences presented in this article strongly suggests that viewing ἀρχῆ in Revelation 3:14 as governmental is most probable, whereas causal, propartial, or prosequential interpretations are improbable. This view fits the theme and theology of the Apocalypse itself (Christ as Ruler over the present and future ages); it harmonizes with the New Testament doctrine of the agency of Christ in creation (by and through the Son, but from the Father); it adopts a legitimate nuance of ἀρχῆ when referring to persons; it harmonizes with the most probable understanding of κτίσις (the created universe rather than the act of creating); it best explains the syntactical functions of the noun ἀρχῆ, and the two genitives (τῆς κτίσεως as a genitive of subordination and τοῦ θεοῦ as a genitive of source); and it best accounts for the subsequent reference in Revelation 3:21-22 to Christ being granted authority to rule by the Father. . . . Regarding the recent assertion by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker that the meaning “first created” for ἀρχῆ in Revelation 3:14 is linguistically probable, in light of the evidence and arguments presented in this article the entry should be amended to “linguistically improbable.”" Michael J. Svigel, “Christ as Ἀρχῆ in Revelation_3:14,” Ref-0200, vol. 161 no. 642 (April-June 2004), xxx-yyy, pp. 215, 218, 222, 223, 225, 231.
✪ "Some critics and expositors have rejected this ἡμᾶς (us), for the reason that it is omitted in the Codex Alexandrinus, and in the Ethiopic version; though the latter is not much more than a loose paraphrase. The Codex Sinaiticus, however, which was discovered in 1860, and which is of equal antiquity and authority with the Codex Alexandrinus, contains it. The Codex Basilianus, in the Vatican, contains it. The Latin, Coptic or Memphitic, and Armenian, which are of great value, contain it. And so do all other MSS. and versions. And to discredit it simply and only because it does not appear in that one single Codex of Alexandria, is most unreasonable and unjust to the weight of authority for its retention." Ref-0035, p. 108*. "Revelation 5:9 is a passage where UBS/Nestle-Aland has gone out on a limb -- and they know it. This is reflected in their original evaluation of this as a C rating. . . . this paper shows that UBS/Nestle-Aland are joined by only two other critical Greek editions (Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort). This does not inspire confidence in their reading of verse 9. . . . only one Greek manuscript out of all the manuscripts on Revelation supports the reading preferred by the UBS/Nestle-Aland text." Ref-0782, p. 4."Revelation 5:9 has content that is appropriate to humans (the elders), while verse 10 is appropriate for angelic singers (the cherubs). John did not explain the arrangement of singers, but his words allow for an antiphonal arrangement." Ref-0782, p. 8. "Internal arguments leave Alexandrinus under a cloud. The fact that τῷ αἵματί σου is at the top of the next makes it impossible to rule out the possibility that the scribe simply had a memory lapse as he finished once column and started another." Ref-0782, p. 12.
✪ "In Constantine's time, the era of widespread persecutions was ended, the blood of the martyrs was avenged (fulfilling the prophecy of the sixth [fifth?] seal in Revelation 6), and the greater part of "the known world" was brought into the church. By identifying Constantine's rule with the opening of the sixth seal, Edwards also advanced the prophetic timetable beyond that of many interpreters, leaving fewer prophecies to be fulfilled before the final triumph." Ref-1348, p. 198.
✪ fallen is perfect tense, having fallen -- at a time prior to John seeing.
✪ "Like almost all Protestants, [Jonathan Edwards] saw the Church of Rome as the Antichrist that would be defeated in the last epoch of human history before the millennium. Guided by other expositors, he had made literal calculations from biblical prophecies and worked out a scheme for when these events were likely to take place. One conventional Protestant interpretation of prophesies concerning "the beast" in Daniel and the Apocalypse, for example, was that Antichrist or the papacy would be defeated 1,260 years after the rise of the papacy. Edwards followed those who said that A.D. 606 marked the Pope's ascendancy, so that meant the decisive blow against papal power was likely to occur around 1886." Ref-1348, pp. 88-89. "Edwards was sure that the defeat of the Antichrist, the pivotal event in this triumph, would be 1,260 years after the rise of the papacy, but he told his parishioners that we could not be sure what date marked that rise, only that it was after A.D. 479, or else its defeat would have happened already. He also believed that the kingdom of Antichrist would be destroyed before the year 2000, by which time the earth would be 6,000 years old and an era of millennial rest would be due." Ref-1348, pp. 198-199.
✪ strength . . . and power in the NKJV is better rendered as power . . . and authority as the NASB. The phrase is δύναμις . . . καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία. Ἐξουσία here is "Authority, absolute power, warrant . . . authority and commission." Ref-0334, p 278.
✪ All texts except the TR end with the phrase, καὶ ἡ φωνὴ ἥν ἤκουσα ὡς κιθαρῳδῶν κιθαριζόντων ἐν ταῖς κιθάραις αῦτῶν, and the voice (sound) which I heard as harpists while harping on the harps of them. The voice, or sound was as harps. This may not speak specifically of harpists as the KJV and NKJV assume. Also, voice and sound in this verse both are φωνὴ and the choice to utilize sound vs. voice is somewhat arbitrary. It may be a singular voice, or the sound (of a multitude).
✪ "The Reformation . . . was the beginning of the defeat of the Antichrist of Rome. When Revelation 14 depicted an angel "having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to very nation and kindred and tongue and people, saying with a loud voice, 'Fear God and give him the glory,'" Edwards commented, "this is doubtless at the Reformation."" Ref-1348, p. 90.
✪ those who have the victory is τοὺς νικῶντας, "the overcoming ones". These are the overcomers!
✪ "Almost immediately after David Brainerd's funeral, he began a new section of his notebook on the “Apocalypse,” entitled “An Account of Events Probably Fulfilling the Sixth Vial on the River Euphrates, the News of which was Received since October 16, 1747.” Part of his argument . . . was that the rise of the Antichrist (the papacy), from which 1,260 years were to be calculated to its overthrow, need not be one date (such as A.D. 756) but could refer to a series of events. Hence God's work in overthrowing the papacy would also be a series of events already in process and need not be delayed. So even if the millennium itself were not at hand, the dramatic events leading to the coming of that kingdom might be. Particularly, if this calculation was correct, it would mean they were currently living in the time of the pouring out of the sixth (of seven) vials of God's wrath, which was to dry up the great river Euphrates (Rev. 16:12). That, he believed, could be interpreted as the drying up of the “incomes and supplies” of Babylon, i.e., the Roman papacy." Ref-1348, p. 337.
✪ According to Rev. 15:8, only God is in the temple at this juncture so the loud voice is likely His.
✪ "In the last verse of Revelation 16, in connection with the pouring out of the final and seventh vial on apostate Babylon, the vision revealed that "there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent." Edwards' gloss was: "by this hail seems chiefly to be meant such strong reasons and forcible arguments and demonstrations, that nothing will withstand them, and [they] will irresistibly beat down and immediately batter to pieces the kingdom of Antichrist, and kill men as to popery, as at one blow, as if they were dashed to pieces by stones from heaven." Although it might take more than a hundred years (if the decisive blow were to be struck around 1866) for these arguments to have their accumulated devastating effects, that was not long in an era when theological works had life spans of many centuries." Ref-1348, p. 90.
✪ “Also” in the NKJV text (Rev. 17:10, Rev. 17:9 NASB) is not found in any Greek text. It simply says “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. They are (εισιν) seven kings.”
✪ Who had not worshiped (NKJV) is και οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν: and all the ones who not they worshiped. The KJV and NKJV give the impression that this is a further description of those who were beheaded. Not so. This is a second category who refused worship and were killed, but not by being beheaded. "The real bearing of Rev. 20:4 is most comprehensive; for three classes are included. “And I saw thrones; and they sat upon them, and [instead of being judged according to their works] judgment was given to them.” These are the saints of the O.T. as well as the church caught up to meet the Lord at His coming (1 Cor. 15:23, 51, 52; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17; 2 Thess. 2:1), and seen glorified above from Rev. 4 onward. Secondly, the early martyrs of the Apocalyptic time, Rev. 6:9-11. Thirdly, those later and more severely persecuted by the Beast and the False Prophet before the Lord appears in glory. These two are distinguished in the subsequent clause, as “the souls of those beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus and on account of the word of God” ; and “those that did not worship the beast or his image, and received not the mark on their forehead and hand.”" -- 20160114123340.pdf, p. 4. "I must remark that two modes of understanding of this verse [Revelation 20:4-6, 12] have been proposed, both of which I think are untenable. I have been reading carefully through Albert Barnes. He gives it, as his opinion, that the first resurrection here spoken of is a resurrection of principles, —a resurrection of the patience, the undaunted courage, the holy boldness and constancy of the ancient martyrs. He says these great principles have been forgotten, and, as it were, buried; and that during the spiritual reign of Christ which is to come, these great principles will have a resurrection. Now I appeal to you, would you, in reading that passage, think this to be the meaning? Would any man believe that to be its meaning, if he had not some thesis to defend? The fact is, we sometimes read Scripture, thinking of what it ought to say, rather that what it does say. I do not hesitate to affirm that any simple-minded person, who was intent upon discovering the mind of the Spirit, and not upon finding a method by which the words could be compelled to express his own mind, would say that the resurrection of principles, or the resurrection of doctrines, does not give the fair meaning of the words here stated. . . It is —we have no doubt whatever— a literal resurrection of the saints of God, and not of principles nor of doctrines. But another interpretation has been proposed. I once had the misfortune to listen to an excellent friend of mine who was preaching upon this text, and I must confess, I did not attend with very great patience to his exposition. He said it meant blessed and holy is he who has been born again, who has been regenerated, and so has had a resurrection from dead works by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. All the while he was preaching, I could not help wishing that I could propose to him the difficulty, how he would make this metaphorical interpretation agree with the literal fact, that the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were finished? For if the first resurrection here spoken of is a metaphorical, or spiritual, or typical resurrection, why the next where it speaks of the resurrection of the dead must be spiritual, and mystical, and metaphorical too. . . The fact is, in reading this passage with an unbiased judgment, having no purpose whatever to serve, having no theory to defend, —and I confess I have none, for I know very little about mysteries to come,— I could not help seeing there are two literal resurrections here spoken of, one of the spirits of the just, and the other of the bodies of the wicked; one of the saints who sleep in Jesus, whom God shall bring with him, and another of those who live and die impenitent, who perish in their sins." -- Dennis Swanson, Charles H. Spurgeon and Eschatology: Did He Have a Discernible millennial Position?, p. 32. [http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.php]. See 20161124144019.pdf. ". . . amillennialists argue that the first resurrection is not physical but spiritual, referring to either (a) the regeneration of the believer or (b) the believer's entrance into heaven at the point of death." -- Matt Weymeyer, The First Resurrection in Revelation 20, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 3-32, p. 3. See 20160522181858.pdf ". . . amillennialists reject this idea of two physical resurrections separated by a thousand years, insisting instead that the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection that takes place throughout the present age. More specifically, amillennialists interpret the first resurrection as either (a) the regeneration of believers at the point of conversion or (b) the entrance of believers into life in heaven at the point of death. In doing so, amillennialists argue for a single, physical resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked when Jesus returns at the end of the age." -- Matt Weymeyer, The First Resurrection in Revelation 20, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 3-32, p. 4. See 20160522181858.pdf "The issue here is not merely the repetition of the same form of the same verb, but also the way in which these two verbs are connected. When John writes, in effect, “Some of the dead εζησαν (v. 4b), but the rest of the dead did not εζησαν until later (v. 5a),” he makes it clear that the verb refers to the same act or experience in both uses. Therefore, whatever happened to one group also happened to the other—if one resurrection is physical, the other must be physical as well." -- Matt Weymeyer, The First Resurrection in Revelation 20, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 3-32, p. 7. See 20160522181858.pdf "More specifically, amillennialists interpret the first resurrection as either (a) the regeneration of believers at the point of conversion or (b) the entrance of believers into life in heaven at the point of death." -- Matt Weymeyer, The First Resurrection in Revelation 20, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 3-32, p. 11. See 20160522181858.pdf ". . . according to the amillennial view that the first resurrection equals regeneration, believers are regenerated throughout the thousand years (i.e., the present age) so that the entrance of these saints into this millennial reign is distributed throughout the millennium. In this scenario, those saints who are saved during the church age do not reign for the entirety of the thousand years—as John says they will—and some of them do not begin their reign until the millennium is almost over." -- Matt Weymeyer, The First Resurrection in Revelation 20, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 3-32, p. 22. See 20160522181858.pdf "According to the straightforward reading of Revelation 20:4, this view introduces “the absurdity of having souls being regenerated after they've been beheaded for their faithfulness to Christ!”" -- Matt Weymeyer, The First Resurrection in Revelation 20, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 3-32, p. 23. See 20160522181858.pdf "Sydney Page observes, “Like all attempts to relate the first resurrection to the intermediate state, it faces the objection that the translation of the soul of the believer to heaven at death is not spoken of as a resurrection anywhere else in the NT.”" -- Matt Weymeyer, The First Resurrection in Revelation 20, Ref-0164, Volume 27 Number 1, Spring 2016, 3-32, p. 28. See 20160522181858.pdf
✪ "The New Living Translation (NLT) adds the word “whole” to its translation of Rom 4:13 (“God's promise to give the whole earth to Abraham…”), but “whole” is not found in the Greek text of Rom 4:13." -- Nelson S. Hsieh, Abraham as 'Heir of the World': Does Romans_4:13 Expand the Old Testament Abrahamic Land Promises?, 2015061701.pdf, p. 104. "If Paul had quoted from OT passages that promised an inheritance of the land of Israel (e.g. Gen 12:7; 13:15; 17:8), then “heir of world” in verse 13 would refer to inheriting land. But Paul quotes from OT passages that promised worldwide descendants (Gen 15:5; 17:5). Thus, “heir of the world” describes the fact that Abraham, though initially childless, would eventually inherit the world in the sense of becoming the father of innumerable persons from all the nations of the world." -- Nelson S. Hsieh, Abraham as 'Heir of the World': Does Romans_4:13 Expand the Old Testament Abrahamic Land Promises?, 2015061701.pdf, p. 108. "This understanding of Rom 4:13 is appropriately called the “inheritance of many nations” view. Abraham is not inheriting land, but inheriting people—namely, his innumerable spiritual descendants from all the nations of the world. According to this view, Rom 4:13 has nothing to do with the OT land promises and thus neither affirms nor expands the OT land promises. It is about the worldwide nature of Abra-ham's descendants; it is not about the worldwide nature of Abraham's land promise. Thus, Rom 4:13 simply has nothing to say about the land promise." -- Nelson S. Hsieh, Abraham as 'Heir of the World': Does Romans_4:13 Expand the Old Testament Abrahamic Land Promises?, 2015061701.pdf, p. 110.
✪ "While the word “sin” is a general term and can refer to internal sin and external sin, it can refer to the sin nature and the acts of sin externally, the words transgression and trespass have a more limited meaning. The point is this: You cannot transgress or trespass a specific commandment until the commandmentis given. In other words, no one could be guilty of breaking the Mosaic Law until the Mosaic Law was given. Until then, they could be in violation of other aspects of God's law like God's moral law but could not be guilty of violating the Mosaic Law. . . . With the Mosaic Law, it was forbidden for a brother and sister to have sexual intercourse and to marry. . . Once these commandments were given, to violate those commandments would be transgression and trespassing. . . . That was not true of those who did these things prior to he giving of the laws. It should be obvious that children of Adam and Eve, who were brothers and sisters, married each other." Arnold Fruchtenbaum, "Fruit from the Frucht," Ref-0067, Spring 2004, p. 4.
✪ "Does . . . [Romans 6:1] refer to acts of sin or the evil nature? A glance at the Greek text will show that the word “sin” is preceded by the article. The article identifies the sin referred to as a particular kind defined by the context. It points to the sin spoken of in 5:21, and indicates that Paul is still speaking of the same sin." Ref-0946, p. 21.
✪ "One can make a lexical argument that Paul is continuing to reference the Fall narrative (Genesis 3) in this passage. There are several words which occur both in the Fall narrative and in this passage. The word (καρπός, fruit) occurs both in Genesis 3:2–3, 6 LXX and in Romans 6:21–22. The word translated ‘ashamed’ occurs in Genesis 2:25 (αισχύομαι) and Romans 6:21 (ἐπαισχύνομαι). The verb translated to die (ἀπθνῃˊσκω) occurs in Genesis 3:3-4 LXX, and the related noun translated ‘death’ (θάνατος) occurs in Romans 6:21 and 23. The fact that in both Genesis 3 and Romans 6, fruit leads to shame and death is more significant than the mere presence of the same constellation of terms. . . . Also, this passage highlights the consequences of taking a ‘dynamic equivalence’ translation too far, because it may obscure parallels the author intends to bring to mind. For instance, the NIV translates karpos as ‘benefit’, erasing the idea of ‘fruit’ from the passage and making it much harder to see any parallel to Genesis." Lita Cosner, The fruit of sin vs the fruit of sanctification: a Pauline allusion to Genesis 3 in Romans 6, Ref-0784, 30(2) 2016, 4-5, pp. 4-5.
✪ "This chapter speaks neither of the experience of a Christian after his conversion (as Augustine, Jerome, the Reformers explain), nor of Paul's experience under the Law before his conversion (so, e.g. Neander). Much rather Paul speaks of himself as he would be if he were considered as ‘in himself’ (ver. 25, autos, ego, that is ‘I, of myself, standing in my own strength,’ apart from the Holy Spirit). In Romans 7 he is always ‘in himself,’ but in Romans 8 always ‘in Christ’. Thus these two chapters do not treat of two successive experiences but of two conditions, two ways of considering the matter. Even a regenerate Christian can (abnormally indeed) sometimes (or often) be in Romans 7 as to his experience, while, as to his standing, he is always in Romans 8, and should certainly walk constantly in Romans 8." Ref-0197, p. 129.
✪ by one man (NKJV) is better understood as by one seminal emission (εξ ενος κοιτην) according to Ref-0203, p. 440. The emphasis is on the absolutely matching origin of the two sons and God's electing purposes in accordance with this fact. Both Jacob and Esau were from the same mother, the same father, and even the same act of sexual union. ". . . “identical twins” or “ monozygotic” (from “one egg”). These children share the exact same genes and hence are always the same sex and have same eye color. They are identical in every biological characteristic that is caused by the genes. . . . “fraternal twins” or “dizygotic” (from “two eggs”). In this case, both eggs from the mother are fertilized by different sperms. They can be different gender and have different genetically determined characteristics (e.g., eye color). They would share the same basic degree of genetic similarities as any two siblings born to the same parents." Michael A. Grisanti, Cultural and Medical Myths about Homosexuality, Ref-0164, Vol. 19 No. 2 Fall 2008, 175:202, pp. 178-179.
✪ "Covenantal interpreters usually balk over making ‘Israel’ in Rom. 11:26 refer to Jews in distinction with Gentiles, even though no one has objected to this national, ethnic identification in the previous ten references to ‘Israel’ in Romans." Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., "Kingdom Promises as Spiritual and National," Ref-0199, p. 301. "Three major views of the identity of “all Israel” in Rom. 11:26 have concluded that “all Israel” refers to the church, to the elect remnant of believing Jews during the present age, and to the ethnic nation of Israel. Romans 11:28 is an often neglected verse that helps in determining which of the views is correct because the pronoun “they” in v. 28 refers to the same people as the “all Israel” of v. 26. Since context requires that the pronoun “you” in v. 28 refers to Gentiles, the “enemies” and the “they” of v. 28 must be ethnic Jews, thereby eliminating the possibility of “all Israel” being the church. The two clauses in v. 28 describe what is true of ethnic Israel at the same time, not one condition prior to Israel's salvation and another subsequent to that salvation. That eliminates the view that “all Israel” depicts an elect remnant of believing Jews, because they could hardly be enemies according to the gospel after becoming believers." Matt Waymeyer, "The Dual Status of Israel in Romans_11:28", Ref-0164, Vol. 16 No. 1, (Spring 2005), 57:71, p. 57. "Rather for Augustine, in Romans 11, Some Jews have believed in Christ, and they are the remnant of the natural olive and fulfillment of the divine promises to historical Israel. . . . The “Israel” that will ultimately be saved are the predestined elect, drawn into a unity out of the Jews and Gentiles. . . . Judaism is simply relegated to the latter [non-elect] category, and its status in salvation-history assigned to the pre-Christian past. [Peter Corday, Principles of Patristic Exegesis: Romans 9-11 in Origin, John Chrysostom, and Augustine (New York: E. Mellen Press, 1983), 171, 333]" Ref-1263, p. 5. "But consider Matt Waymeyer's persuasive point that "they" in Rom 11:28 (:they are enemies . . . they are loved") being unbelieving national Israel, is identical to the national "them" in v. 27 ("this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins"), which is identical to "Jacob" and to national or "all Israel" in v. 26, and so is not a mere remnant." Ref-1263, p. 94 "With respect to the grammatical shift in Paul's citation of Isaiah 59:20 in vs. 26, Steve Sullivan summarizes scholarly opinion: Paul supports his statement that “all Israel will be saved” by citing the conflation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9. For the most part Paul quotes each text in the form that is identical with the LXX Isaiah. The major textual dispute, which has brought out the most comments, is the apparent change from ἕνεκεν Σιών (LXX) to ἐκ Σιών in Romans 9:26. Though it is not possible to know exactly how or where Paul obtains the phrase, he uses this phrase and citation to accomplish his point in the argument of Romans 11. Wagner seems to be correct when he said, “Rather than focus on the Lord's victorious return to Zion, as does LXX Isaiah 59:20, Paul's quotation depicts the Lord's coming in person from a restored Zion to bring deliverance to his people who are scattered among the nations.” This eschatological deliverance, which uses the phrase ἐκ Σιών is found in passages like Isaiah 2:3-4, Micah 4:2-3, Joel 4:16 (LXX/MT; 3:16 [Eng]), Psalm 13:7 (LXX; 14:7 [Eng/MT]) and 109:2-3 (LXX; 110:2-3 [Eng/MT]). This kind of deliverance is found in the context of the citations in the Old Testament that Paul cites in Romans 11:26-27." Ref-1356, pp. 56-57.
✪ "In order to obtain children Naomi's sons married Moabite women (common values). But the Mosaic Covenant was specific regarding marriage to non-Israelites, which was not only specifically prohibited but was also considered so unthinkable that it, like the move to Moab, was a judgment of God." Charles P. Baylis, "Naomi in the Book of Ruth in Light of the Mosaic Covenant," Ref-0200, Vol. 161 No. 644, October-December 2004, 413:431, p. 421.
✪ "God, as the giver and remover of life (Ruth 4:13), removed the sons. “If then, you walk with hostility against Me and are unwilling to obey Me . . . I will bereave you of your children” (Lev. 26:21-22)." Charles P. Baylis, "Naomi in the Book of Ruth in Light of the Mosaic Covenant," Ref-0200, Vol. 161 No. 644, October-December 2004, 413:431, p. 421.
✪ "At the level of common values, an Israelite might consider moving to another more fruitful country, but knowing that the famine was controlled by Yahweh (Ruth 1:6) would necessitate a response based on the Mosaic Covenant. If disobedience was the cause of the famine, then a return to covenant loyalty was required (Deu. 30:1-2), but if a test was involved, then the Israelites were to trust in Yahweh to provide (8:1-20)." Charles P. Baylis, "Naomi in the Book of Ruth in Light of the Mosaic Covenant," Ref-0200, Vol. 161 No. 644, October-December 2004, 413:431, p. 420.
✪ "The clause “Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes” (Ruth 3:3) is similar to David's situation where he “washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes” after he ceased mourning publicly for his dying child (2S. 12:20). Also when Joab wanted the woman of Tekoa to appear like a long term mourner, he said, “Please pretend to be a mourner, and put on mourning garments now, and do not anoint yourself with oil, but be like a woman who has been mourning for the dead many days” (14:2)." Charles P. Baylis, "Naomi in the Book of Ruth in Light of the Mosaic Covenant," Ref-0200, Vol. 161 No. 644, October-December 2004, 413:431, p. 421.
✪ "The word in Hebrew is lun and not shachav, and that is significant because shachav does carry sexual connotations but lun does not. So, by the use of this verb, all ambiguity is removed concerning the sexual implication between the two." Arnold Fruchtenbaum, "Fruit from the Frucht," Ref-0067, Winter 2004, p. 6.
✪ "Despite the differences, the parallels between Sos. 3:1-5 and Sos. 5:2-8 are self-evident . . . 1. She is in bed at night (3:1a; 5:2a); 2. He is nowhere to be found (3:1b), he is at her door, which he asks her to open (5:3-5); 3. She arises from her bed to seek him (3:2a), she arises from her bed to open for him (5:6a); 4. She seeks him but cannot find him (3:2b; 5:6b); 5. The night watchmen find her (3:3; 5:7a); 6. She finds her lover and takes him home (3:4), the night watchmen assault her and take her cloak (5:7c); 7. She adjures the daughters of Jerusalem (3:5; 5:8)." Gordon H. Johnston, The Enigmatic Genre and Structure of the Song of Songs, Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 663, July-September 2009, 289:306, p. X.
✪ "Another set of parallel panels occurs in the poetic depictions of Solomon’s royal palanquin (3:6-11) and the man’s handsome physique (5:9-16). Both share an identical threefold structure: (1) an introductory question (3:6; 5:9), (2) an answer in the form of a descriptive praise (wasf) poem (3:7-10; 5:10-16a); and (3) a concluding address to the daughters of Jerusalem (3:11; 5:16b)." Gordon H. Johnston, The Enigmatic Genre and Structure of the Song of Songs, Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 663, July-September 2009, 289:306, p. 303.
✪ "The fifth set of parallel panels includes the two anatomical descriptions (wasf) songs in 4:1-7 and 6:4-10. Both open with his praise of here beauty . . . Each continues with a listing of anatomical features in identical order: eyes, hair, teeth, (lips), cheeks .. . . The metaphorical descriptions of thee of these four features of her anatomy are identical." Gordon H. Johnston, The Enigmatic Genre and Structure of the Song of Songs, Ref-0200, Vol. 166 No. 663, July-September 2009, 289:306, p. 304.
✪ "He gave the exact date: “In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius [October 27, 520 B.C.]”" David M. Levy, "Called to Repentance", Ref-0057, March/April 2004, p. 24.
✪ "We have now reached the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 520. The years of Darius are not reckoned on the Jewish and Assyrian method, from the 1st of Nisan, and not on the Egyptian method of Ptolemy's Canon, from the variable New Year's Day of the vague Egyptian year, but on the Aryan or English method, from the day of his accession, which was somewhere on or about the 25th day of the 9th month of the year B.C. 521. Hence the 10th, 11th, and 12th months of the 2nd year of Darius precede the remaining months of the year, and the true beginning of the prophecies of Zechariah is Zech. 1:7, as anyone who reads the verse will see, whilst Zech. 1:1-6 is really later, and has been placed before Zech. 1:1 by mistake, because it was wrongly supposed that the 8th month of the year preceded the 11th month. A comparison of all the dates of the reign of Darius will show this." Ref-1299, p. 240. "It is difficult to understand why the fact that Zechariah was the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo, should be repeated in Zech. 1:7, if this verse were not originally the first verse of his Book of prophecy, the present arrangement being that of some critic who thought that the 8th month must necessarily precede the 11th month of the 2nd year of Darius." Ref-1299, p. 249.
✪ The terms for red, sorrel, and white are all plural forms: red ones, sorrel ones, white ones.
✪ "The words my house (v. 8) are a metonymy for the “land, Temple, and people of Israel.” In his conquest of the Middle East, Alexander's marauding forces passed Jerusalem on the way to Egypt and returned via the same route without ever invading the city. Jerusalem's deliverance can be attributed directly to God's divine protection The Lord promised to encamp around the city, and He did (2:5). Ancient historian Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (11.8.5-6), recorded how Jerusalem, humanly speaking, survived." David M. Levy, The Grecian Conqueror, Ref-0057 September/October 2005, p. 33.
✪ "Two [rabbis] have interpreted this verse. One said: ‘This is the mourning over the Messiah,’ and the other said: ‘This is the mourning over the Evil Inclination . . . (Y. Suk. 55b) . . . R. Dos says: ‘[They will mourn] over the Messiah who will be slain,. . . (B. Suk. 52a)’" Ref-0012, p. 167.
✪ "Broadly speaking, two major theories have emerged, one which places the events in the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty and the fifteenth century B.C., and one which places the events in the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty and the thirteenth century B.C." Ref-0840, p. 225. "Setting aside extreme views the principal positions are whether there was: (1) an early exodus (15th century B.C.) with the entire 430 years spent in Egypt (the “long sojourn” position); (2) a late date for the Exodus (13th century B.C.; Rameses II's dynasty), again placing the 430 years as spent in Egypt; and (3) an early exodus (15th century B.C.) with but 215 of the 430 years of sojourn spent in Egypt (“short sojourn” position). Thus two major questions must be settled in a Scripture honoring manner. Was the Exodus during the 15th or the 13th centuries B.C. and was the duration of the sojourn in Egypt 430 years or less? . . . Regarding the question as to whether the Exodus was a 15th (early date) or 13th century (late date) B.C. episode, the Biblical evidence unmistakably places the event in the 15th. Moreover, those who defend the late date such as Albright and Rowley placing the Exodus at B.C. 1290 and 1225 respectively, do so by rejecting the 480 years of 1K. 6:1, deeming it completely unreliable." Ref-0186, p. 49.
✪ In Acts 19:13, the Jewish exorcists use of Jesus’ name would seem to be mimicking what they had heard by Paul.
✪ "An experienced Judge with an intelligent jury -- any tribunal, indeed, accustomed to sift and weigh conflicting testimony -- would be better fitted to deal with it [the Daniel controversy] than a company of all the philologists of Christendom. The philologist's proper place is in the witness-chair. He can supply but a part, and that by no means the most important part, of the necessary evidence. And if a single well-ascertained fact be inconsistent with his theories, the fact must prevail. But this the specialist is proverbially slow to recognized. He is always apt to exaggerate the importance of his own testimony, and to betray impatience when evidence of another kind is allowed legitimate weight. And nowhere is this tendency more marked than among the critics." Ref-0745, p. ix. "In his History of the Criminal Law, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen declares that, as no kind of evidence more demands the test of cross-examination than that of experts, their proper place is the witness chair and not the judgment seat." Ref-0745, p. 51. "But the dictum, so familiar with the lawyer, would not be forgotten, that the testimony which least deserves credit is that of skilled witnesses, for the judgment of such men becomes warped by their habit of regarding a subject from one point of view only." Ref-0745, p. 96. Anderson refers to the "proverbial disability of experts in dealing with a mass of apparently conflicting evidence." Ref-0762, Preface to 5th Edition. "As one astute historian has recently reminded us, "objectivity is not neutrality." Even the fairest observers have biases and blind spots. They have (and they ought to have) interests. The best way to deal with these universal phenomena is to acknowledge one's point of view rather than posing as a neutral observer. That way readers can take an author's viewpoint into account, discount it if they wish, and learn from it to the extent they can. At the same time authors who are self-conscious about their points of view can use such self-knowledge to limit unintended or unfair warping of the evidence to fit their perspectives." Ref-1348, p. 5.
✪ "Although not a biblical word, expiation may be defined as the act of bearing a penalty for sin." Ref-0104, p. 154. "Expiation is an ornate term that means that God has removed sin; they have been removed from the believer. . . . (Isa. 53:12; Heb. 9:26,28; Rev. 1:5)." Gary E. Gilley, The Significance of Christ's Crosswork, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 7-26, p. 21