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 , , , ,

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 , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , ,

Wes Huff Criticized for Ignorance of 19th Century Patron Saint of KJV Advocates

February 2, 2025 3 Comments

As Wes Huff’s popularity increases, efforts appear to be increasing for ‘gotcha’ moments at his expense. Yet, some of those opposing Huff end up looking foolish instead. In our example below, one such individual pokes fun at Huff’s ignorance of Dean Burgon, a champion to some KJV (and/or Textus Receptus) advocates.

Anglican theologian and scholar John William Burgon became Dean of Chichester Cathedral (Sussex, England) in 1876, remaining so until his death in 1888. Burgon was known for his outspokenness against both Westcott and Hort and Codex Vaticanus (known as B or 03).

For me, it is quite understandable that Huff was unaware of Burgon. I had only heard of him through online engagement with KJV advocates over the years.

Below is the short ‘gotcha’ video:

In reading through the comments under the video, the vlogger revealed his position to be that the Textus Receptus (TR), the Greek text underlying the KJV, is the true Word of God. Therein lies the rub: Burgon advocated for the Majority Text (MT), not the TR.

Just as the name implies, the MT represents the majority of readings found in all extant manuscripts. Comparatively, while the TR aligns with the MT many times, in some cases the TR is at variance with it. In such cases, Burgon’s position is that the TR should be updated to conform to the MT.

The Achilles heel of TR advocates is what is known as the Johannine Comma (Comma Johanneum), which is not part of the MT. It is found in 1 John 5:7–8 in the KJV. Specialists almost universally deem this text unoriginal. The “comma” is reflected in the red portion below, in KJV 1611 English translation:

7 For there are three that beare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that beare witnesse in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.

Answering a specific question from another (nateamend7029) who commented under his video, the vlogger (receivedtext) affirms the Johannine Comma: “Yes, as a TR advocate, I accept the ‘comma’ as authentic.” But Burgon did not. In his book The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (digital copy free online), Burgon states that the words in the Johannine Comma “are not to be regarded as genuine, the fact that they are away from almost every known Codex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph [ED: original text] of the Evangelist” (p 30 [p 15 in original]).

For the record, below is the fuller clip of Wes Huff. In it, Huff goes on to explain how the MT does not necessarily reflect the original text. A bit later, Huff is asked some specific questions related to the KJV/TR advocate position. Unsurprisingly, the first question is about the Johannine Comma (@ 21:10).

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Scripture, Textual Criticism Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Dan McClellan Overstates Response to Wes Huff’s Statement on Book of Enoch

January 22, 2025 5 Comments

Wes Huff made an absolute statement regarding the Book of Enoch (aka 1 Enoch), and Dan McClellan responded to it. But McClellan overstates his own case at various points in his response.

Below I will take snippets from McClellan’s vlog (further below) and respond.

First he quotes Wes Huff:

The Book of First Enoch is interesting…It tells us a lot about what Jews, particularly in the time around Jesus, thought about things like angels and demons. There’s this apocalyptic flavor to it…

Interrupting Huff, McClellan states:

Another way to put this would be to point out that the Book of First Enoch and the Enochic narratives and traditions directly influence the way the New Testament and early Christianity understood angels and demons, Satan, Heaven, Hell, and the eschaton.

How can McClellan speak in such absolutes here? Is he absolutely certain that 1 Enoch (and “Enochic narratives and traditions”) directly influenced New Testament (NT) writings? Could it not be that the NT had points of agreement with 1 Enoch specifically because these beliefs were commonly held in first century Jewish milieu?

1 Enoch is part of a body of works known as the Pseudepigrapha, meaning works that are falsely attributed. The Biblical Enoch of Genesis in the Pentateuch did not actually write 1 Enoch. And, for the record, some of the other pseudepigraphical works contain themes McClellan notes above.

McClellan jumps back to quoting Huff where he left off:

We do know that the Jews of Jesus’s time did not consider it Scripture.

Here’s where Huff makes a statement very difficult to prove. Given the nature of the Pseudepigrapha, I’d say he is correct, though. But McClellan criticizes it:

…There are no data that one can marshall to demonstrate that the Jews of Jesus’s time did not believe it was Scripture.

No data? Well, one could point to the Septuagint, aka LXX. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Jewish Tanakh (“Old Testament” to Christians) by Jews, begun ca. 250 BC and completed 132 BC. The LXX also includes works known as the Apocrypha in Protestant tradition. Incidentally, some of the Apocrypha contain themes McClellan notes above, such as angels, demons, and the eschaton.

It is commonly accepted that 1 Enoch is a composite work, with portions thought to be written in the pre-Maccabean period, perhaps even as early as 300–200 BC. Other portions were either simply written later or were later emendations of earlier written portions. So, we might ask: Why weren’t early portions of 1 Enoch included in the LXX, given that the latter was a very inclusive Jewish work (considering its inclusion of the Apocrypha)?

Now, we must admit this is pretty flimsy ‘evidence’ to support 1 Enoch as not inspired Scripture, but I only use it to show that McClellan’s absolute claim that there are “no data” is about as supportable as Huff’s claim above.

But McClellan is not yet finished:

The data that we do have that is suggestive of the status of First Enoch suggest that it was considered Scripture, at least by some folks. For instance, at Qumran [ED: where Dead Sea Scrolls were found] we find 11 copies of some version of the Book of First Enoch just in cave 4 alone. That is more copies than we have of the Minor Prophets, of Samuel, of Kings, of Jeremiah, of any of the other books apart from, the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and the Psalms, so it was incredibly important at Qumran. Jubilees is also incredibly important at Qumran; 14 copies of that were found there…

So there were 14 copies of the Apocryphal Book of Jubilees—which is in the LXX—at Qumran, but the LXX doesn’t include 1 Enoch?

But note that just because the sectarian and physically separatist Jewish community at Qumran might have considered 1 Enoch important in some sense does not mean that the Qumranians considered it Scripture.

Interestingly, even though there are fewer copies of the Minor Prophets than 1 Enoch, Qumran had a separate commentary on Habakkuk (known as Habakkuk Pesher, aka 1QpHab). Now, if there were extant a ‘1 Enoch Pesher’ like the Qumranian Habakkuk Pesher, McClellan would have a leg to stand on.

Continuing with McClellan:

And then we have in the NT the letter of Jude where First Enoch is directly cited and quoted as prophecy…

Let’s stop right there. First of all, while Jude 1:14 quotes from 1 Enoch, it is not “directly cited” as McClellan claims. So, is Jude roughly translating the Aramaic or is he roughly sourcing the Greek? It does not really matter, for the important thing is how Jude phrases it. We will look at the Greek.

The 6th century Greek manuscript known as Codex Panopolitanus includes portions of chapters 1–32 of I Enoch. In this manuscript the 3rd person singular present middle indicative ἔρχεται (erchetai), “(He) comes” is found in 1:9 (see this online interlinear here). The implied referent for the 3rd person singular is θεός (theos), “God” from 1:4. Yet, Jude records the verb with the explicit reference Κύριος (Kyrios), “Lord” instead. More specifically, Jude exchanges the present verb form for the aorist, and he places “Lord” in an emphatic position, after the verb: ἦλθεν Κύριος (ēlthen Kyrios), “the Lord comes”.

So, the author of Jude has changed “God” to “Lord” here for apparent Christological reasons. That is, in Jude’s epistle, the author refers to “God” (θεός), meaning the Father (1:1, 4, 21, 25), as distinct from “Lord” (Κύριος), meaning Jesus Christ (1:4, 17, 21, 25). This data indicates that “Lord” in 1:14 must refer to Jesus. Therefore, Jude has taken the 1 Enoch reference for the Jewish unitarian “God” and replaced it with “Lord” in order to change the referent to Jesus Christ and thereby support Trinitarianism. In doing so, Jude has changed the ‘prophecy’.

Jude had done a very similar thing in Jude 1:5, where the author records “Jesus” as leading the Exodus (see NLT, ESV, NET, Berean Study Bible, Douay-Rheims).

Now we will rewind a bit and start this section over again:

And then we have in the NT the letter of Jude where First Enoch is directly cited and quoted as prophecy. So, let’s take a look at this passage. Verse 13 is talking about the disobedient angels for whom the deepest darkness has been reserved forever. Verse 14: It was also about these that Enoch in the Seventh Generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “See the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” So not only is this directly quoting first Enoch—and Enoch is influential on the rest of Jude’s letter, by the way—there are other references to the Enochic tradition. This is explicitly described as prophecy; this is prophetic literature. What is Scripture if not prophetic literature?

As noted earlier, the ‘Enoch’ of 1 Enoch is not the Biblical Enoch. The pseudonymous writer(s) of 1 Enoch simply cast the Biblical Enoch into the text as part of the not-unusual manner of some first century Jewish writings. The ‘Enoch’ of 1 Enoch is simply echoing themes found in the recognized Jewish canon (Isaiah 40:10; 66:15; Zech 14:1–5; Dan 7:9–14, etc.). So, this is not a ‘prophecy’ in any real sense. Jude simply appropriates the words of ‘Enoch’ for his own rhetorical purposes.

[Editorial Addendum/Insertion: I am aware that my position on this is at variance with the large majority of Christian commentators and scholars. But, in my considered opinion as a self-studying layman, this appears to be the best way to account for Jude’s use of “Enoch…prophesied” here. Clearly, this isn’t the Enoch of the Pentateuch/Torah; so, in no way can this be considered as through the very mouth of that Enoch. With this in mind, how can a pseudonymous writer’s words be in any way considered authoritative? That is, why should we trust the words of one who presents himself as another? Moreover, how can we rightly extract merely one verse and call it both prophetic and authoritative, while scrapping the rest? One might argue that this ‘prophecy’ should be understood as akin to Caiaphas’ words as prophecy in John 11:51, but the issue of pseudonymity here yet remains. Also, Caiaphas’ words are recorded within a work already deemed authoritative. Taking in all the foregoing, I conclude that by indirectly and partially citing 1 Enoch 1:9, the essence of which was already in the recognized Jewish canon and cultural milieu, and then reframing it Christologically (adding “Lord” as subject nominative), Jude points to the pseudepigraphical work without deeming the verse or the book authoritative. In any event, I may refine my position as I ponder it further.]

Jude does a similar thing in Jude 1:9 in which he sources the pseudepigraphical Assumption of Moses (aka Testament of Moses).

None of this makes either Assumption of Moses or 1 Enoch inspired Scripture.

Then it’s back to Huff:

We do know that the Jews considered it a valuable piece of literature, like other valuable pieces of literature. But I think just because Jude quotes it doesn’t…then necessitate that it IS Scripture any more than when Paul quotes…Greco-Roman philosophers that he thinks those are Scripture.

Then it’s back to McClellan in response:

This is a bit misleading because Paul never says that any of those philosophers prophesied. But, what the author of the letter of Jude quotes from First Enoch is explicitly described as a prophecy—as something that the author was inspired to prophesy.

Dead horse beaten. We explained this above. Wes Huff is correct here.

Then, McClellan drones on ad nauseum.

The bottom line is that Wes Huff said something that in all fairness should have been tempered a bit and Dan McClellan capitalized on this to get on his soapbox. Everybody has to make a living, I suppose.

[See also: Who Led the Exodus? – A Text Critical Study in Jude 5.]

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Dan McClellan, Early Christianity, Greek Language studies, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Tagged with , , , , , ,

Book Review: 2 Corinthians: A Handbook on the Greek Text, by Fredrick J. Long

January 13, 2025 3 Comments

[Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament series, Martin M. Culy, Gen. Ed.; 2015, Baylor University Press, Waco, TX, 299 pages]

Fredrick J. Long’s contribution to the rightfully-lauded BHGNT series offers some unique features, beyond the standard formatting in these volumes.

Long_2Cor

Like the others in this series, Long begins the commentary proper by providing his own English translation of a subsection, which is then followed by the first full verse (or verses) of that subsection in Greek (no transliterations), which is then followed by full parsings for each word (or phrase) in that verse. This methodology continues to the next verse(s), and so forth.

Where Long differentiates his volume is that after the parsings for each individual subsection, he draws out “Emphatic and Prominent Features” from that subsection. Here he is influenced by works of Stephen H. Levinsohn, Steven E. Runge, Stanley E. Porter, and others. His initial inspiration in this regard arrived when Eugene Nida visited his campus while he was a student (p xvii). Nida’s insights encouraged Long to find and attempt to categorize various emphatic constructions. In the Introduction, the author provides some examples of emphasis and prominence, and then reveals his working methodology (pp xxiii–xliii). Long is hopeful that readers will see how the examples supplied throughout 2 Corinthians can assist in understanding “how biblical writers communicated what was most important to them” (p xliii). In other words, the student can take the knowledge gained in Long’s volume here and apply the same principles to other NT writings.

The short subsection 11:1–4 will provide a brief example (see pp 100–101). This subsection uses asyndeton (a, “not”; syn, “with”; detos, “binding” = no conjunction) to mark the new thought. Paul begins with the unusual participle Ὄφελον (“I wish”), which functions as a metacomment (a sort of preface) serving to further differentiate this section of the epistle from what immediately precedes. This participle forms part of periphrastic with ἀνείχεσθέ (2nd person plural middle indicative, “bear”, “put up”, “be patient”, “tolerate”). Paul uses a form of this same verb ἀνέχω at the end of this verse to ‘correct’ his first usage (via ἀλλά + ascensive καί = “but even/indeed”), by using its imperatival form ἀνέχεσθέ: “I wish that you would bear with me…but indeed bear with me!” In addition, ἀνέχω is used yet again in verse 4, thereby forming an inclusio, demarcating this subsection. In its final usage, the verb contrasts contextually with verse 1.

That is, in 11:1 Paul first wishes, then instructs the Corinthians to bear with him; in 11:4 Paul reproves them, since καλῶς ἀνέχεσθε, “you [the Corinthians] beautifully bear with” the false teachers! The overall sense is, ‘Put up with me since you have well been putting up with those false teachers!’ Paul uses these devices to great rhetorical effect. Long details even more ways the Apostle uses emphasis and prominence in this subsection.

The author’s very detailed outline (pp xix–xxiv) makes it easy to see the individual micro-structures within the larger whole. And it reinforces the important role emphasis and prominence play in conveying the Apostle Paul’s intents and purposes throughout this epistle.

Long’s efforts here go a long way to assist the NT student in exegeting this rather difficult epistle. Well done, I say!

(Note: While the cover and spine both read II Corinthians, the title page and the Baylor University Press listing read 2 Corinthians.)

Filed under Bible, Book Review, Book Review - Christian Orthodoxy, Christian Culture, Greek Language studies, Scripture Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Does Romans 16:20 Identify Eden’s Serpent as Satan?

December 30, 2024 12 Comments

And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet – Romans 16:20a

Does Romans 16:20 refer to the serpent in the Garden of Eden?

As we know, the New Testament (NT) writers oftentimes quote from or allude to passages from the Old Testament (OT). The OT was written in Hebrew (some Aramaic). This Hebrew text was also translated into Greek. The Greek translation is known as the Septuagint, or LXX. In some verses the LXX differs from the Hebrew. Some of these differences are very minor, others more substantial. Some NT quotes or allusions to the OT can be traced to the LXX, others to the Hebrew text.

The title of this post mirrors that of a video by Dan McClellan. In his video (starting at 1:00 below), McClellan makes the following claim regarding Romans 16:20: “…Paul was not reading the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15; he was reading the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint…” Was McClellan peeking over Paul’s shoulder? He cannot possibly know what Paul was ‘reading’ or what was in Paul’s mind when the Apostle wrote Romans 16:20.

This video is a follow up and response to one of his earlier videos (“Revelation’s Satan is not Eden’s serpent”) in which he claims—among other things1— “there’s no connection between the snake from the Garden of Eden and Satan anywhere at all in the Bible.” McClellan’s further claim is that such an idea is a later Christian reflection, “after the entire Bible had been completed”.

Now, he is right in pointing out that the LXX translation of Genesis 3:15 differs from the Hebrew (at 1:03–1:29).2 But McClellan must make a case for his unqualified claim that Paul absolutely did not allude to the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15 in Romans 16:20. Bald assertions, claims with no substantiation, will not suffice. Some sort of proof is required.

In any case, other evidence opposes McClellan’s dogmatic claims. For example, there are times in the Romans letter when Paul’s words are demonstrably closer to the OT Hebrew than the LXX. Seifrid observes that Romans 8 contains a number of verses in which references and allusions more closely follow the Hebrew.3 In the same way, couldn’t Paul have alluded to the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15 in Romans 16:20?4

That’s not to say Paul is definitely referring to the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15 in Romans 16:20. Yet, McClellan makes the following admission in his video (0:32–0:52):

…the curse on the serpent that is found in Genesis 3:15, where God tells the serpent regarding the offspring of the woman he will crush your head and you will bruise his heel, this sounds an awful lot like Paul’s promise that the God of peace will crush Satan’s head under your feet….5

Yes, I agree “this sounds an awful lot like Paul’s promise” here. For McClellan to then dismiss this possibility on the insupportable grounds that Paul was supposedly ‘reading’ the LXX instead of the Hebrew reveals his bias.

In the rest of his video this self-described “scholar of the Bible and religion” attempts to bolster his case through sleight of hand, going a bit off-track. (‘It can’t be that, because it’s this.’) But instead he drives himself into a Biblical cul-de-sac. Yes, the OT and NT employ the military metaphor of ‘trampling underfoot’ in various places, but this hardly negates the possibility that Paul identifies Satan as Eden’s serpent in Romans 16:20. Surely a writer can refer or allude to more than one Scripture and/or theme in the same passage (cf. Hebrews 1:5–14). One does not necessarily preclude the other.6

More than this, the larger context of Romans 16:20 supports a thematic, if not verbal, allusion to Genesis 3. Just as the serpent deceived Eve (Gen 3:13) through shrewd speech (Gen 3:1–5), the false teachers Paul describes (16:17–18) deceive “through their smooth talk and flattery” (16:18). But Paul wants his disciples “to be wise (sophos) in what is good, and innocent in what is evil” (16:19), which alludes to Gen 3:5 (“knowing good and evil”) and 3:6 (“the tree was desirable to make wise” [haśkı̂l]).7

The final verse in the doxology continues the allusion to Genesis 3: “the only wise (sophos) God” (16:27).8 The “wise” in 16:27 seems to be intended to recall 16:19. And Paul may intend to connect 16:27 with 1:22 (“wise [sophos] in their own eyes”), which, in turn, likely alludes to Genesis 3:6.9

All in all, the ‘Eden’s serpent as Satan’ position seems pretty solid in Romans 16. There are both verbal connections (16:19b–20a, 27) and thematic connections. It even seems possible that the Greek koilia (most literally, “belly”, also translated “appetite[s]”) in 16:18 is meant to allude to Eve’s desire to partake and subsequently eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Paul employs this same theme in 2 Corinthians 11. The Apostle begins in 11:3 by explicitly referencing Genesis 3: “as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning”. The verb for “deceived” here, exapataō, is the same one used to describe the false teachers in Romans 16:18, who “deceive the hearts of the naïve/unsuspecting.”10

Paul uses the Genesis 3 reference in 2 Corinthians 11:3 to compare to the “super-apostles”, who proclaim ‘another Jesus’, have a ‘different spirit’, and/or have a ‘different gospel’. The Apostle Paul goes on to describe them as “false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.” Paul then connects them to Satan: “And no wonder! For Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” By using the same verb (metaschēmatizō) in both verses, Paul co-relates the false apostles and Satan.11 The Apostle’s conclusion ties it all together:

Therefore, it is no big surprise if his [Satan’s] ministers masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end shall be according to their works.

Thus, Paul connects the serpent in Eden with the false apostles. He then connects these false apostles to Satan, referring to them as ministers of Satan. So, at a minimum, Paul sees the serpent as Satan’s instrument, as representing Satan. Or, more likely, Paul envisions Eden’s serpent as Satan himself.

If we read 2 Corinthians 11 with Romans 16 in mind—and vice versa—the connection between the serpent in Eden and Satan becomes much clearer. In doing so, it is no stretch to see the two as the same being or as strongly correlative in some way.

With the preceding Biblical evidence—from some of the earliest NT writings—McClellan’s ‘Romans 16:20 does not identify Eden’s serpent as Satan’ claim is shown to lack footing. And his larger adversarial claim that “there’s no connection between the snake from the Garden of Eden and Satan anywhere at all in the Bible” is trampled underfoot.

____________________________

1 Essentially, McClellan claims that Eden’s serpent is not the same as Leviathan and it is Leviathan that John the Revelator refers to. It is beyond the scope of this article to address this particular claim.

2 We must note that most, if not all, English OT versions translate from the Hebrew in Genesis 3:15.

3 Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans”, in G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), pp 634, 635.

4 There are a number of commentaries asserting or opining probable or possible allusion to Genesis 3:15 here: F. F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL; InterVarsity Press, 1985), p 277; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1988), p 905; James R. Edwards, Romans, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series 6 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), p 360;  John D. Harvey, Romans, EGGNT (Nashville, TN, B&H Academic, 2017), p 390; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), p 541; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), pp 804–805; Seifrid, “Romans”, p 692; John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good New for the World, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p 401

5 Note that Romans 16:20 does not include “head” (κεφαλή) in any commonly known Greek text, yet McClellan uses it in his rendition.

6 All sources listed at note 4 above make this dual reference to Genesis 3:15 and the military metaphor (the latter only implicitly in Dunn and Seifrid, for they focus more on eschatology).

7 See Seifrid, “Romans”, p 692. The author does not make a connection to either the LXX or the Hebrew word for “wise” here, but, to my untrained/self-trained eyes, the Hebrew haśkı̂l is better translated sophos, than the LXX’s katanoeō (“consider”, “understand”). In other words, I think Paul translated from the Hebrew rather than the LXX here.

8 See Seifrid, “Romans”, p 693.

9 See Seifrid, “Romans”, p 692.

10 We should note that exapataō, is a compound form (ex + apataō) of the verb for “deceive” (apataō) found in the LXX of Genesis 3:13.

11 Frederick J. Long, 2 Corinthians, BHGNT (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2015), p 209.

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Dan McClellan, false teaching, Greek Language studies, Pop Culture, Septuagint Tagged with , , , , , ,

Book Review: Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon

December 26, 2024 Leave a comment

[Wesley J. Perschbacher, Ed. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, 1990, Hendrickson, Peabody, MA, 495 pages]

Here is a resource for novice and seasoned Greek New Testament (GNT) students alike.

PerschbacherWhile reading your GNT, have you ever come across a word you did not recognize and could not figure out its lexical (‘dictionary’) form? In most Greek-English lexicons, the student must first determine a word’s lexical form, in order to find the word in question and its meaning. If the student is unable to determine the word’s lexical form, then s/he is at a dead end. But no such obstacle confronts those who have Perschbacher’s book within grasp. The student does not need to know the lexical form.

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon alphabetically lists every form of every word found in the GNT. And these are all parsed (e.g.: nominative plural feminine noun). Furthermore, those words that are spelled the same yet are parsed differently due to function in a particular context have separate entries. And each of these entries contains a NT reference (when examples are available). Plus, each entry has a corresponding Strong’s number. This is especially helpful for laypersons.

Perschbacher2

In the sample, note how there are two listings for ἃ. The first is for the nominative plural neuter relative pronoun. In braces { } is the NT reference Colossians 2:17. The second listing is the accusative plural neuter relative pronoun, with a reference to Colossians 2:18. To the right see ὅς, which is the lexical form (nominative singular masculine relative pronoun), followed by its Strong’s number in parentheses (3739).

This lexicon even lists word forms found only in the Textus Receptus or Majority Text.

Within the first 46 pages is an explanatory Table of Features (p ix), as well as paradigms for declensions and conjugations (pp xiii–lv). Some of the latter might be considered a bit out of step with modern scholarship. But this is a minor quibble.

The main reason to acquire this book is for its convenience in listing all forms of GNT words in alphabetical order. The student may want another, more comprehensive lexicon—one that provides more definitions and applications for a given word— to use alongside Perschbacher’s book; but, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon can certainly stand on its own.

For me, this book is 5 out of 5 stars. I bought my used copy years ago. It is the tenth printing from June 2008 with sewn binding.

Filed under Bible, Book Review, Book Review - Christian Orthodoxy, Christian Culture, Christian living, Greek Language studies, Scripture Tagged with , , , , , ,

Beginning Anew: Arvo Pärt’s Tabula Rasa

December 24, 2024 4 Comments

Time and timelessness are connected. This instant and eternity are struggling within us. And this is the cause of all our contradictions, our obstinacy, our narrow-mindedness, our faith and our grief.1

At conception, each is born into time, temporality. Each is then, from a Christian perspective, on a journey toward eternity, timelessness.2 The question is which of the two eternal destinations one will reach.

Between spiritual re-birth and physical death Christians internally battle. The Apostle Paul speaks about this (Romans 7:14–8:17; Galatians 5:16–26). And this is apparently what Arvo Pärt refers to above.

tabularasa

The above quote is from the liner notes to Pärt’s full-length album titled Tabula Rasa on ECM Records.3 The term is from the Latin, meaning “blank slate”.4 This release features one of the first performances (November, 1977) of the title track “Tabula Rasa”. Reportedly, when ECM Records label founder Manfred Eicher heard a performance of this piece on the radio while driving, he was moved to pull off the road, in order to listen to it undistracted.5 After this experience, Eicher sought out the composer—previously unknown to him at the time—resulting in the 1984 album Tabula Rasa. This release inaugurated a new series for the label, appropriately called ECM New Series.

This album release came after Pärt had undergone a compositional rebirth following a period of silent reflection. The composer called his new style tintinnabulation. And this album release coincided with a particularly productive period, in which Pärt had been composing with Scripture or liturgical texts incorporated into the music. These works include the human voice singing the texts and/or use the words as subtexts guiding the music’s notations. Yet, notably, all the pieces on Tabula Rasa are without words or subtexts underlying. However, as one writer remarks, “…even the instrumental works bear a whiff of church incense.”6

Though I cannot recall when I first bought and heard this album, I think it was around its initial release in 1984. I say that because I was particularly fond of the ECM label’s output and was collecting a large part of it. I do recall, however, the effect it had on me. I’d never heard anything like it. I was only somewhat familiar with Classical music at the time, but I knew this was something different, something special. The listening experience felt “spiritual”, though I was not a believer at the time. And it didn’t hurt that the liner notes include numerous references to Christianity—though mostly, not exclusively, to Eastern Orthodoxy (Pärt is Eastern Orthodox).

The record begins with a version of “Fratres” (“brothers”). This one is scored for violin and piano. It starts with somewhat feverish violin bowing, which gives way to very spare piano accompanied by light violin plucking. It then segues into some soft yet elegiac violin with piano punctuations. This repeats with some variations. You can hear it here.

The next piece is “Cantus in Memory of Benjamin Britten”. Pärt had been working on a not-yet-named piece when he received news of composer Britten’s death (December 4, 1976). Pärt had only recently discovered Britten’s work: “I began to appreciate the unusual purity of his music.”7 The three orchestral bells opening the piece evoke the beckoning of a church service. As the piece concludes, all instruments coalesce on “the low A minor chord”8, with the sound of the bell continuing its decay after all others have ceased (listen here).

Side one (yes, I first bought and still have the original LP) concludes with another version of “Fratres”. This one is scored for 4, 8, or 12 cellos. Here we have 12, with some light percussion. Though obviously related to the version beginning this album, this feels like a completely different work. You can read more about it and listen to this version at this link.

Next and last is the crème de la crème, the title piece. On the original LP release, it encompasses all of side two, clocking in at over 26 minutes. “Tabula Rasa” consists of two distinct movements: “Ludus” (“game” or “play”) is the first, “Silentium” (“Silence”) the second. And one is quite different from the other, providing a striking contrast. Perhaps this is to musically signify catharsis/release. The work features two solo violins, chamber orchestra, and prepared piano (to sound more percussive). Pärt’s friend, Classical composer (polystylist) Alfred Schnittke plays the prepared piano. Listen to it here in its entirety.

The piece opens with the two soloists playing in unison, but each striking and holding a different note. After a very brief silence, the chamber orchestra softly begins and the piece progresses toward a crescendo. This is followed by a decrescendo and subsequent silence. Seven variations of this theme follow before it reaches its climax. Silence follows in order to implicitly introduce the second movement.

Schnittke’s prepared piano opens “Silentium”. First violinist Gidon Kremer refers to the piece as a “declaration of silence”. It is written such that some instruments are played faster rhythmically, others slower. Somewhat paradoxically, it is the bass violin (double bass) that plays the fastest, while the first violin is slowest.9

It is the second movement that requires utmost concentration from the musician. The main focus of the piece consists in the need to listen to the silence and find its colours, delve into every single note and approach the music in a completely selfless, humble way.10

At the end of the piece, only the bass violin remains. In its solitude it grows ever quieter, acquiescing to the increasing scarcity of musical notation on the page. Until it ceases altogether. Absolute silence.

________________________________________

1 Arvo Pärt, as quoted from Wolfgang Sandner’s liner notes in Pärt’s album recording Tabula Rasa, ECM Records GmbH, ECM New Series, 1984.

2 Some, such as Aristotle, believe the eternal realm is never-ending time instead of timelessness.

3 See note 1.

4 Note that in the West, the term is mostly understood in the Aristotelian sense that the soul is born pure and empty of all experiences.

5 See Peter C. Bouteneff, Arvo Pärt: Out of Silence (Yonkers, NY: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2015), p 45.

6 Arthur Lebow, “Arvo Pärt: The Sound of Spirit”, The New York Times Magazine, October 13, 2010, as cited in Bouteneff, Out of Silence, p 32.

7 Pärt, as quoted from Sandner’s liner notes (see note 1).

8 From the notes under “Short description” accompanying the sound link of the piece found at the close of the corresponding sentence/paragraph in the main body.

9 Taken from the “Short description” in the sound link above.

10 As quoted from the above “Short description”.

Filed under Bible, Christian Culture, Christian living, Devotional, Personal Testimony, Pop Culture, Record Review, Scripture Tagged with , , , , , ,

2024 Brings Surge in Bible Sales

December 7, 2024 Leave a comment

Though overall sales of printed books increased a slim 1% over the previous year, 2024 Bible sales have surged a whopping 22% over 2023 purchases. According to research (see here and here, e.g.), many of these are first-time buyers. I will take that as good news!

The increase, in part, appears to be fueled by new Bible versions.

Let’s pray this leads to Christian conversions—that at least some will be led to true Christianity, a saving faith through Jesus Christ. A Merry Christmas indeed!

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Faith, Gospel, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Pop Culture, Salvation Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started