God Raised Jesus from the Dead

March 29, 2026 2 Comments

By whose power did Jesus rise from the dead?

A central tenet of Christianity—if not the central tenet—is the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. But who actually did the resurrecting? Upon quick reflection of Scripture, one might immediately answer that it was God Who raised Christ from the dead (Acts 2:24; Rom 4:24, e.g.).  This is certainly true, and one could simply conclude with that answer.

Yet historic, orthodox Christianity declares Jesus to be God—as one ‘Person’ of the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (see Matt 28:19, e.g.).  So, do we have Scriptural evidence that Jesus raised Himself from the dead?

But this question suggests an even broader query: Did the Trinity resurrect Jesus from the dead?

As noted above, there are verses—numerous passages—naming “God” as agent in the resurrection of Jesus. In the book of Acts alone there are quite a few: 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 32–33, 37. Turning to Paul’s epistles we find more: Rom 4:20; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14, e.g.

As to the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity, Galatians 1:1 explicitly names God the Father as raising Jesus. The larger context of Ephesians 1:17–20 makes it clear that Paul refers to the Father as raising Christ. And when read in its full context (1 Thess 1:1–10), 1 Thessalonians 1:10 strongly implies that it was the Father Who resurrected Jesus.

The Holy Spirit appears a bit more difficult to establish in Christ’s raising. Romans 1:4 refers to the “Spirit of Holiness” in regards to the Resurrection. Is this the Holy Spirit? Romans 8:11 is less opaque, but perhaps not exactly crystal clear. The larger context, though, favors that the Holy Spirit is in view. The “Spirit of life” in 8:2 implies the Holy Spirit as referent. Verses 4–9 juxtapose Spirit with flesh, which then strongly implies the Holy Spirit (see Galatians 5:16–26). This segues into verse 11 in which we find “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus…Who dwells in you”. The latter (“Who dwells in you”), when taken together with all that precedes it, firmly substantiates the Holy Spirit as referent.

Now we turn to the Son. Is there Scripture indicating Jesus raised Himself? To answer this question, a brief review of English grammar, specifically what is known as voice, might prove helpful.

English sentences are expressed as either in the active voice or the passive voice. In active voice expressions, the subject performs the action of the verb: Alfredo scored the winning goal. In passive voice expressions, the subject is the recipient of the action: The winning goal was scored by Alfredo. The focus here is on the result rather than the agent performing the action.

Now we return to the Son, Jesus Christ. In chapter 2 of John’s Gospel we find Jesus in the Temple (hieron), more specifically the outer court (John 2:14). After fashioning a make-shift whip, Jesus angrily drives out the money changers, then He scatters their coins and overturns their tables (John 2:15). In response, “the Judeans” (hoi Ioudaioi, aka “the Jews”) demand Jesus provide a sign to prove His authority to do such things (John 2:18). Jesus answers, “Demolish this Temple (naos),1 and in three days I will raise it” (John 2:19). The confused Judeans exclaim, “Forty-six years this Temple (naos) was under construction, and yet you, in three days, will raise it?!” (John 2:20). John the Gospel writer, as narrator, explains that Jesus used “Temple” (naos) to refer to His body (2:21). John further explains that when Jesus “was raised from the dead”, His disciples remembered what He had said (2:19) and believed Him (2:22).

With the narrator’s explanation, we well understand that Jesus was referring to raising Himself from the dead in 2:19. This is in the active voice, indicating Jesus as agent performing this action. In other words, the text indicates Jesus’ claim that He would be the agent in His own resurrection.

Yet, in his explanation, John uses the passive voice: Jesus “was raised from the dead”. But this only indicates that John the narrator was more interested in the fact that Jesus had arisen from the dead than in the agent doing the raising. In other words, the passive voice used here cannot be seen as in any way contradicting the active voice used earlier (2:19, 20).2 The passages can be easily harmonized. Jesus claimed He would resurrect Himself. And, in retrospect, Jesus’ disciples understood that He did indeed raise Himself on Resurrection Sunday (2:22).

This is restated later in John’s Gospel. In 10:17 Jesus says, “…I lay down My life, in order to take it up again.” He continues, “No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down on My own; I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again (10:18).” So, Jesus not only willingly placed Himself into the murderous hands of His adversaries, He resurrected Himself from their deadly deed. Jesus, in His Deity as God the Son, raised Himself from the dead.

So, yes indeed, God raised Jesus from the dead. The Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—resurrected Christ.

__________________________

1 In John, the Greek hieron (see 2:14) is used here such that it refers to the outer court of the Temple, even though the term can refer to the entire Temple complex. The inner court of the Temple contains what is known as the naos, “sanctuary”, in distinction from the remainder of the complex. But sometimes the latter term is used such that naos = Temple complex, probably as synecdoche. Also, naos (and not hieron) is used figuratively in the NT to refer to the human body as the temple of God/the Holy Spirit (1Cor 6:19). Jesus plays on this ambiguity here. The Judeans repeat Jesus’ use of naos in place of hieron in their response to Him in 2:20, thereby accepting it (probably assuming synecdoche), yet they misunderstand Jesus’ intended meaning. In so doing, ironically, they miss the fact that Jesus was providing the sign they had asked for!

2 In online engagements, I personally have had interlocutors make this absurd claim. Retrospectively rephrasing the event in the passive voice hardly negates the original active voice statement!

Filed under Christian Apologetics, Christology, Gospel, Greek Language studies, Jesus Christ, Passion, Resurrection, Scripture, The Cross Tagged with , , , , ,

What is Going On with the Blog Stats?

February 22, 2026 11 Comments

For some reason the CrossWise blog traffic has been in the stratosphere this past week. Traffic had been incrementally climbing during February, but it really took off on the 15th.

To put this in perspective, during the blog’s heyday, the highest number of visits per day was in the high three digits. But the 15th appears to have been the highest to date at 953 views. Yet on the 16th, the very next day, the total number of views was a whopping 3,330! That’s quite a leap!

But the numbers have been exponentially climbing since then. Yesterday the 21st produced a staggering 16,785 views! Below is a snapshot of the past week, ending with the 21st:

This one day total of 16,785 is about 1.5 times the historically highest monthly view count!

Yesterday’s top performing blog article was the conclusion to a rather technical series, titled The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 6, Conclusion. This blog garnered 1,698 views yesterday. Next in rank—at 1,533 views—was the very first CrossWise article published (September 17, 2010): Bill Johnson’s ‘Born Again’ Jesus, Part I.

To put this in better context, the snapshot below shows the past 12 weeks:

Note that the 993 total of week February 2–8 is about 30% of the one day total of 3,330 of the 16th! Crazy!

If any reader can clue me in to the reason(s) for the increase in traffic, I would very much appreciate it.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

Christmas: The Birth of the Co-Creator

December 24, 2025 18 Comments

In view of the 1700th anniversary of the Nicene Creed, I thought I would prepare this blog post. But why during the Christmas season? In part, to answer the question posed in the title of the Christmas carol “What Child Is This?” in a way not specifically identified in that song.

The first section of the Nicene Creed describes the “one God the Father Almighty (Παντοκράτορα)” as the Maker (ποιητής) of all things visible and invisible. Thus, God the Father is the Creator (“Maker”) of all things. Among other places in Scripture, this is found in Revelation 4:11, in which the One sitting on the throne (4:2), the One worshipers call “the Lord God, the Almighty (Παντοκράτωρ)” (4:8), is the One of Whom these worshipers assert, “You created all things (ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα)” (4:11).

But that’s not all there is to this.

The second section of the Creed provides a rather expansive description of the “one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. Included is this statement: “…through Whom all things came to be” (δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο). With the exception of the verb (ἐγένετο, “came to be”), this is verbatim from 1Corinthians 8:6 (“through Whom all things”, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα). The verb seems likely to be sourced from John 1:3: “all things through Him came to be (πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο)”. Thus, it appears likely the committee at Nicaea combined 1 Corinthians 8:6 and John 1:3 here.

So, according to the Creed, all things came to be through the “one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. Thus, “God the Father Almighty” made all things, while all things came to be through the “one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God”.

1Corinthians 8:6 also describes the function of the “one God the Father” in creation. The Father is specifically described as the One “from Whom all things are” (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα [εἰμί]1). And, the Son is described as the One “through Whom all things are” (δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα [εἰμί]). The different prepositions indicate the different yet coordinating functions of each One in creation.2

This motif of Christ as Agent of creation is also found in Colossians 1:16. It is “in Him” (ἐν αὐτῷ) that “all things were created” (ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα), and “all things” (τὰ πάντα) “through Him and for Him have been created” (δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται).

Jesus Christ, the One Whose birth we celebrate on December 25th each year—the One we envision as the babe in the manger—is co-creator, Agent of creation!

____________________________________________

1 This clause and its corresponding one in reference to the “one Lord Jesus Christ” are verbless, so the verb must be supplied from 8:5.

2 Richard Bauckham, in Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), notes (p 27) that Paul here has reformulated the Shema (Deut 6:4). He further remarks: “Paul is including the Lord Jesus Christ in the unique divine identity. He is redefining monotheism as christological monotheism” (p 28).

Filed under Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christology, Devotional, Gospel, Greek Language studies, Incarnation, Jesus Christ Tagged with , , , , ,

Following Rome?

September 30, 2025 3 Comments

Is the West trotting off into the sunset? Can we be a beacon of light amidst the fog of unbridled cultural decadence?

Filed under Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Eschatology, New Age, New World Order, Philosophy, Pop Culture, spiritual warfare Tagged with , , , ,

The Uglification of Society

September 1, 2025 2 Comments

Is beauty a moralizing force? I think it is. While secular in nature, this vlog should stimulate Christian reflection and conversation.

Filed under Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Eschatology, Pop Culture Tagged with , , , , ,

No Pre-Tribulation Rapture

July 12, 2025 9 Comments

There will be no pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ (PTR) for Christians. To those who believe the ‘rapture’ will precede a lengthy tribulation period (usually understood to be seven years), I challenge you to provide full, coherent biblical support for this doctrine.

Now, of course there will be a ‘rapture’ event. The first letter to the Thessalonians makes this clear (1 Thess 4:13–17). But the text does not state that this will occur prior to some future period of (great) tribulation. On the contrary, this text implies that the ‘rapture’ will occur shortly before the very end of things:

4:13 Now brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping, so that you will not grieve as the rest—those who have no hope. 14 For since we believe Jesus died and rose again, in this way also God will bring those who have fallen asleep through Jesus along with Him [Jesus]. 15 For this we say to you, by word of the Lord: We who are alive, those remaining until the Coming [Parousia] of the Lord, will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 Because He, the Lord, will descend from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we who are alive, those remaining, shall be caught up [harpazō, ‘raptured’] together along with them, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall be forever with the Lord.1

Let’s reason through this. Given that Paul here teaches that the resurrection of the dead in Christ will precede the ‘rapture’ of those still alive at Jesus’ Second Coming (Parousia), the logical implication is that there will be no further resurrection or ‘rapture’ of Christians to follow. In other words, we should not expect another resurrection of the dead or ‘rapture’ to come after these two events.

Yet, proponents of the pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ (PTR) doctrine2 typically understand the book of Revelation to speak of “tribulation saints”—those who come to Christian faith during the (great) tribulation, which is to follow the earlier PTR event.3 But this necessarily implies a second raising of dead “tribulation saints” and/or a second ‘rapture’ of those “tribulation saints” still alive at a ‘second’ Second Coming when the Lord comes to wage war against His adversaries (Rev 19:11–21). Scripture does not support such a thing. So then, what becomes of these “tribulation saints” under this PTR view?

Logically, it is much better to conceive the raising of the dead and the ‘rapture’ of those still alive in 1 Thess 4:13–18 as occurring after the final (great) tribulation period.  This concurs with Matthew’s recording of Jesus’ words on the Mount of Olives (Matt 24:15–31). As 24:21 states: “For then shall be great tribulation [thlipsis megalē] such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, and not ever, no, never shall be.” Following Matthew’s further description of the great tribulation, some fantastical cosmic events (24:29) foreshadow Christ’s return

24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the sky, and all the tribes/people of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels/messengers with a great trumpet, and He will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.”

Certainly this gathering together of “His elect” refers to the same event described in 1 Thess 4:15–17. And this all easily harmonizes with Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians:

15:51 Take note! I tell you a mystery: Not all will sleep, but all will be changed— 52 in an instant, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

All three passages—1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, Matthew 24:30–31, and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52—describe a trumpet blast in conjunction with the end times gathering of Christians. Surely, these passages are describing the same trumpet.

Applying Occam’s razor, the raising of the dead in Christ and the ‘rapture’ of those saints still alive at Jesus’ Second Coming occurs after the great tribulation. Of course, God’s children will not suffer the wrath (orgē) of God (1 Thess 5:9), as God’s enemies certainly will. But this does not mean Christians will not suffer persecution—even unto death—at the hands of God’s enemies. This was precisely the issue in the Thessalonian ekklēsia (1 Thess 4:13–15; 2 Thess 1:5–7).

“But the one who endures to the end, this one shall be saved” (Matt 24:13).

_________________________________

1 My translation, as are all here.

2 See Got Questions: When is the Rapture going to occur in relation to the Tribulation?

3 See Got Questions: What are tribulation saints?

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Eschatology, Faith, Rapture, Resurrection, Salvation, Scripture Tagged with , , , ,

The Calf is Jesus!

June 8, 2025 Leave a comment

While searching for something else entirely, I came across an item of interest to me. It was discovered in the Epistle of Barnabas, a text dated between AD 70 (post-destruction of Jewish Temple) and 135.

The Epistle of Barnabas is attributed to Barnabas, the companion of the Apostle Paul. This treatise is part of a body of works known as The Apostolic Fathers.

The statement that piqued my interest was the calf is Jesus (bolded below). To better understand its meaning in context, two prior sections (verses) are included. The citation below is from the J. B. Lightfoot translation, since it is in the public domain.

Barnabas 7:11

But what meaneth it, that they place the wool in the midst of the thorns? It is a type of Jesus set forth for the Church, since whosoever should desire to take away the scarlet wool it behoved him to suffer many things owing to the terrible nature of the thorn, and through affliction to win the mastery over it. Thus, He saith, they that desire to see Me, and to attain unto My kingdom, must lay hold on Me through tribulation and affliction.

Barnabas 8:1

But what think ye meaneth the type, where the commandment is given to Israel that those men, whose sins are full grown, offer an heifer and slaughter and burn it, and then that the children take up the ashes, and cast them into vessels, and twist the scarlet wool on a tree (see here again is the type of the cross and the scarlet wool), and the hyssop, and that this done the children should sprinkle the people one by one, that they may be purified from their sins?

Barnabas 8:2

Understand ye how in all plainness it is spoken unto you; the calf is Jesus, the men that offer it, being sinners, are they that offered Him for the slaughter. After this it is no more men (who offer); the glory is no more for sinners.

The larger context plainly reveals the meaning.

My specific interest here is in the Greek text translated the calf is Jesus. In Greek it is a convertible proposition: A = B and B = A. In other words, the subject nominative (SN), “the calf”, and predicate nominative (PN), “Jesus”, are interchangeable. That is, if the PN were placed first and the SN last, the meaning would be unchanged. In the above context, there is one particular calf being referred to and, of course, only one Jesus. So, “Jesus is the calf” has the same meaning as “the calf is Jesus” in this context.

But that’s not all that’s going on here.

Below is the Greek:

ὁ μόσχος ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐστίν
ho moschos ho Iēsous estin
the calf the Jesus is

Since each noun (nominative) includes the Greek article ὁ (ho), either one could be the subject. To determine which is the subject, we look for the known entity.1 The larger context seems to reveal “the calf” as the subject.2 Furthermore, in cases where both nominatives (ὁ μόσχος and ὁ Ἰησοῦς here) have the Greek article (where both are articular) “word order may be the deciding factor”.3 Therefore, “the calf” is most likely the subject nominative.

Observe that ὁ Ἰησοῦς (ho Iēsous), “Jesus”, precedes the copula, aka copulative verb (CV) ἐστίν (estin), “is”. This placement provides emphasis: The calf is Jesus.

To recap, the Greek phrase above is a convertible proposition (A = B and B = A).4 It contains a copulative verb (CV)—a ‘to be’ verb—in this case ἐστίν, “is”.5  If we were to switch the subject nominative (SN) with the predicate nominative (PN), the meaning would remain the same. However, the ordering of the sentence in Greek is SN_PN_CV here. Note that a PN is typically placed after the CV (ἐστίν ὁ Ἰησοῦς); so, because the PN here (“Jesus”) precedes the CV (“is”), the PN is emphatic. The best translation, therefore, is the calf is Jesus.6

The calf is Jesus!

___________________________

1 See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), p 42.

2 This is my own analysis, extrapolating from Wallace above (and pp 44–45). That is, Wallace almost solely discusses grammatical particulars in deciding which should be the subject, but he is cautious in affirming that context may imply one over the other when both nominatives are articular (or cases with an articular noun and a proper name). To my way of thinking, the “known entity” by definition would appear to be—at least tentatively—the one the reader would perceive to be the subject due to its focus in the context. In this particular case, the focus appears to be on the heifer (“the calf” being a young heifer) as sacrifice, which would make it the most likely candidate for the subject.

3 Wallace, Grammar, p 44.

4 See Wallace, Grammar, pp 41,

5 Other verbs such as become, appear, seem, look, sound, smell, taste, feel, and get are sometimes included as CVs, though some might consider these “semi-copulas” or “pseudo-copulas” instead.

6 Had the Greek read ὁ μόσχος ἐστίν ὁ Ἰησοῦς instead, the translation would be the calf is Jesus (no emphasis).

Filed under Apostolic Fathers, Christian Culture, Early Christianity, Greek Language studies, Jesus Christ, Passion Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Did the Centurion Declare Jesus ‘the Son of God’?

May 10, 2025 9 Comments

For the purposes of this post, we are concerned only with Matthew 27:54 (not the parallel passages in Mark 15:39 and Luke 23:47). This will limit the scope and keep this post as concise as possible.

To paraphrase the question posed in the title: Upon witnessing the events at Jesus’ crucifixion, did the centurion make a Christian proclamation? The answer hinges, in part, on how the exegete interprets the specific syntax in this verse. Word order in the Greek makes this a bit ambiguous:

θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος
theou huios ēn houtos
of-God Son was this

To begin the process of disambiguation (clarification), we start by finding the subject. The pronoun οὗτος, “this” is clearly the subject.1 Because it is placed after the verb (ἦν, “was”), it is emphatic: this.2 The verb ἦν, “was” is a linking verb, also known as a copular or copulative verb (CV).3

Continuing backwards, υἱός, “son” is a noun, and so it is the predicate nominative (PN). Because it is placed before the verb (PN_CV), it is emphatic: son.4 The genitive (possessive) θεοῦ, “of-God” (or “God’s”) is typically placed behind the word it modifies, yet here it precedes the noun, thus marking it emphatic: of God.5 The tentative translation, then, is “This was son of God.”

So all except the verb have emphasis! But that’s not all there is to this sentence.

When the PN precedes the CV (PN_CV) and is without the Greek article ὁ (ho),”the” (-art), this particular construction (-artPN_CV) may be functioning in one of three ways: definite (“the son of God”), indefinite (“a son of God”) or qualitative (something akin to ‘in nature son of God’). These three exegetical possibilities must be kept top of mind before interpreting further.

To assist in narrowing these three exegetical possibilities, we might consider what the centurion could have said instead.6 That is, we could investigate other possible ways of phrasing this.

Had the centurion wanted to mark this indefinite, he could have placed θεοῦ υἱὸς behind the verb (CV_PN): ἦν οὗτος θεοῦ υἱὸς.7 This would then much more likely say “This was a son of God.

Had the centurion wanted to mark this definite, he could have simply added the Greek article ὁ (+art) to υἱός (+artPN_CV), which would then unambiguously read “This was the Son of God”. Alternatively, he could have placed θεοῦ υἱὸς after the verb and added the article ὁ to υἱός (CV_+artPN).8 This would unambiguously say “This was the Son of God”.

But since the above options were not taken, we are probably on firm ground to assume “Son of God” should be understood qualitatively. This, then, would focus on Jesus’ sonship.9 However, this is rather difficult to properly translate into English.

At any rate, from there we must consider historical context. The centurion was a Greek Roman and, accordingly, steeped in the polytheism of his day. Understood through this lens, he may have meant something like: “Surely, this individual had the qualities of a son of God!”

Yet his words appear to indicate he was not only taking note of the all the events occurring but also listening to Jesus’ mockers, some of whom specifically used the phrase “the Son of God” (27:39–44).10 With all this in mind, it is certainly possible the centurion, led by the Spirit, did make a Christian proclamation. To further support this, Harner and (separately) Wallace recognize that this specific syntactical structure tends toward qualitativeness and to a lesser extent definiteness; however, some can even be qualitative with a further nuance of definiteness.11 This could possibly make the centurion’s proclamation something akin to:

“Surely, this individual had the qualities of the Son of God!”

It could even be: “Surely, this individual had the qualities of God’s Son!”

________________________________________

1 Finite verbs encode person and number and so contain a built in subject. In this case, the verb ἦν is third person singular (he, she, it), and we have the subject explicitly expressed as the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος.

2 If the subject is expressed, as here, the usual placement is before the verb; so, placing it behind the verb indicates emphasis. Cf. Donald A Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC, Vol. 33B (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995), p 848.

3 In English, “helping verbs” are sometimes used with participles in verb conjugations (“was going”, was trying”). This is not the verb’s usage here, though Greek does sometimes use such periphrastic constructions.

4  See Hagner, Matthew 14–28, p 848; cf. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), p 1220.

5 See Hagner, Matthew 14–28, p 424. Here Hagner compares the similar syntactical structure in 14:33.

6 Or what Matthew could have recorded the centurion as saying. The exegesis here might depend on the interpreter’s specific position on Scripture. While orthodoxy requires a belief in the inspiration of Scripture (that God superintended all Scripture), the individual may be somewhere on a continuum between very rigid or more flexible on what this entails. Are these words the words of the centurion verbatim? Or might the NT writer mean to convey the basic message of the events but portray them in a particular way to bring forth a particular emphasis (e.g., Christological)? See Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019), esp. pp 123, 306, 350–351.

7 See Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): p 76.

8 Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 76–77.

9 Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 80–81.

10 The formulations vary a bit.

11 See Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 80–81, 82–83, 87. Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), p 263, particularly Chart 27: The Semantic Range of Anarthrous Predicate Nominatives.

Filed under Bible, Christology, Greek Language studies, Jesus Christ, Passion, Scripture Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Redemption

April 17, 2025 5 Comments

Let us always, every day of every week, remember the truths behind Holy Week. Let us always remember the high price paid for our redemption.

Redemption

From the hands it came down
From the side it came down
From the feet it came down
And ran to the ground
Between heaven and hell
A teardrop fell
In the deep crimson dew
The tree of life grew

And the blood gave life
To the branches of the tree
And the blood was the price
That set the captives free
And the numbers that came
Through the fire and the flood
Clung to the tree
And were redeemed by the blood

From the tree streamed a light
That started the fight
‘Round the tree grew a vine
On whose fruit I could dine
My old friend Lucifer came
Fought to keep me in chains
But I saw through the tricks
Of six-sixty-six

And the blood gave life
To the branches of the tree
And the blood was the price
That set the captives free
And the numbers that came
Through the fire and the flood
Clung to the tree
And were redeemed by the blood

From his hands it came down
From his side it came down
From the feet it came down
And ran to the ground
And a small inner voice
Said you do have a choice
The vine engrafted me
And I clung to the tree

————-

Written by John R. Cash
Published by Song of Cash, Inc. (ASCAP)
© 1994 American Recordings /℗ 1994 American Recordings. 2100 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90404

Filed under Christian Culture, Christian living, Jesus Christ, Passion, Pop Culture, Record Review, The Cross Tagged with , , , , , ,

Different Landscapes

March 31, 2025 4 Comments

In my former ignorance, I used to think all Classical music performances of the same composition must necessarily sound the same. The score is literally black and white! That is, the notation is black notes on a white page. Each musician must be sufficiently trained to know how to read the score, and I used to think the score contained all the information in order to play it exactly as the composer intended.

But in my shortsightedness I neglected to consider the tempo or the dynamics (loud vs. soft). Using a solo piano piece as an example, one musician might tickle the ivories a bit faster than another. A different pianist might strike the keys harder or softer than another. In other words, one’s interpretation of the score may differ from another’s.

By analogy, one might read the black and white pages of Scripture and arrive at a different interpretation than another, sometimes depending on denominational slant. Upon reading Scripture, one might arrive at Calvinism, another, Arminianism. One might see premillennialism, another, amillennialism, or even postmillennialism. The same pages of Scripture, but different interpretations.

Just like there are ‘grey areas’ in interpreting a musical score, there are ‘grey areas’ in interpreting some parts of Scripture. May we all accept that there is room for such differences in secondary doctrines. And may we be willing to be challenged and even open to change our views upon challenge.

The idea for this post came after listening to different renditions of neo-Classical composer John Cage’s “In a Landscape” for solo piano. Never a fan of Cage’s music before, I was quite taken upon my first hearing of “Landscape”, for it struck me as a particularly moving though introspective piece. I quickly sought out other renditions and was taken by the differing interpretations of it. Each musician lends a bit of his or her own personality and taste.

This one by Ulrich Löffler is very much ‘by the book’, note-by-note:

But this one, by Alexei Lubimov, takes liberties with both tempo and dynamics. That is, Lubimov speeds up some parts, while slowing others, allowing time itself to ‘breathe’ a bit. And he strikes the keys softer at some points, while going harder at others. Note also how his hands dance over the keyboard—how his hands undulate as they descend to strike the keys then rise above them as the notes decay. An artist in more than one way!

Sarah Rothenberg takes it just a bit slower than most, creating a more mystical “Landscape”:

Herbert Henck’s tempo is so slow and his touch so delicate that, when compared to other renditions, he nearly transforms the piece into something else entirely:

Takahiro Yoshikawa’s tempo is the same as Löffler’s above, but his touch is lighter, though his occasional harder strikes are more pronounced than Löffler’s, thereby bringing out a bit more dynamics. Comparatively, I prefer Yoshikawa’s approach:

But my personal favorite is Lubimov’s studio version on the ECM New Series release Der Bote (titled after the Valentin Silvestrov piece that closes the album). Here Lubimov’s pace is a bit slower than the one above, yet he takes nearly as much liberty with both tempo and dynamics:

For me, it’s just right. For now anyway. Until I hear a different interpretation…

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Pop Culture, Record Review Tagged with , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started