Billiardball said : “ I did not claim to have a unique or special understanding of Paul. “
Billiardsball, I apologize if I misunderstood your many, many claims. However, In post # 26, to underscore credibility, you claimed : “as a Messianic Jew, I know Paul's words “ (in the context of claiming that you understood Paul’s teachings on “other gods”). If you meant you memorized Pauls words rather than understood Pauls words you should have explained this. You claimed a background in history claiming : “ I have more than a passing acquaintance with pre- and post-exilic thought.” (#26), in #83 you introduced your circumcision as evidence you understood Judaism (how circumcision at a “prominent synagogue” gave you understanding, you didn’t explain). You claimed to have lived “ancient Jewish ways” (#102), you claim to have a year of “ancient greek studies” and a “Bachelor’s degree in religion.”
While YOUR point in making these claims is to create credibility underlying your theories, MY point has been that it is NOT enough to simply have a background in greek or history or to "be circumcised", but one must USE the scholastic historical principles one has learned. IF you are going to claim scholarship, then you must USE the tools and the training you claim to have.
IF you are going to claim to know ancient greek and ancient Judeo-Christianity, AND, you are going to create theological theories regarding historical themes, then you have no right to become angry or offended when asked to use greek and historical principles in support of your theories. Supporting your theories using these tools IS part and parcel with religious scholasticism.
You claimed that Ephesians 1:13-14 supports your theory that once one believes in Jesus and accepts him as their savior, they are then “saved” (though you haven’t yet defined “saved”) and will automatically go to heaven, regardless of how despicable and immoral their subsequent lives become; regardless of defying and rejecting the God who then forces them to BE saved. “I'm going to Heaven as the recipient of salvation even if I decide I want to go to Hell later. “ (Billiardsball, post # 196).
If you are going to create such a theory, and attempt to use Ephesians 1:13-14 to support your theory, then you have no right to be frustrated or angry if others want to examine these verses to see if they actually DO support your theory, or if you are misunderstanding and misusing scriptures to support an incorrect notion.
To have it pointed out that you do not understand these verses, or and are miss-using biblical text to create your theory is NOT a “bad thing” or a thing to become angry about. You should feel some satisfaction in discovery of the truth rather than become angry to be confronted by this discovery. The next scholastic step is to examine the text to see what meaning it might have rather than to sidestep the problem it creates for your theory and try to mine another bit of biblical text to see if it has anything good to say for your theory.
This is what I mean by trying to avoid “lazy scholarship” and avoiding “drive-by interpretation” regarding biblical text and this criticism applies to ANYONE, if they do this things (myself included.
Having said this, we are still left with the questions I asked in post #204”, unanswered. On second look; using your background in greek and history, what did these words in Ephesians 1:13-14 actually mean to the individuals at the time they were spoken and in their historical context?
For example : you used αρραβων as “a deposit guaranteeing”.
However, your greek should tell you that this is not a verb but a noun and your “Jewishness” should remind you that this word is a Hebraism, ערבנ and since the vowels are tsere, patach, cholem vav respectively, then the word is pronounced “arabon” in both Hebrew and greek. In Hebrew the word is a “pledge” and in this context, it is a pledge made as part of a covenant between two (or more) individuals. It carried this same meaning over, into the greek usage.
In earliest koine, it referred to “earnest money” given in business agreements. For example, in the Papyri P Par 58.14 (of ii b.c.), a woman was selling a cow and received 1000 drachmas as “αραβωνα” (the word was spelt both with one “r” or two “r’s”). Demonstrating similar usage, P Lond 143.13 (97 a.d.) has a receipt of 160 drachmas as the remainder of an amount of 200 drachmas as earnest money. P Fay 91.14 (99 a.d.) has “…16 drachmae of silver as unexceptional earnest-money…” ( …αργυριου δραχ[μας] δεκα εξ αρραβονα αναποριφον…”) P Oxy II. 299.2f (of late i a.d.) gave us a note “...regarding Lampon, the mouse-catcher. I paid him for you as earnest money S drachmae in order that he may catch the mice while they are with young…” (... Λαμπωνι μυοθηρευτη εδωκα αυτω δια σου αραβωνα (δραχμας) η ινα μυοθηρευσει εντοκα,...) .
Many, many, many examples of this useage are seen in the earliest Papyri containing everyday koine greek. In P Grenf 11. 67.17ff (of 237 a.d.) certain dancing girls received a certain number of drachmas in preparation for their dance in a village festival. “…υπερ αραβων ος [τη τ]ιμη ελλογουμεν[ο]υ,...” / “…by way of earnest-money to be reckoned in the price.”
In all such cases, the vernacular usage implies that a part is given in advance of full bestowal later. However, the implication is that IF the party given earnest money does NOT fulfill their part of the business deal, they are NOT guaranteed full payment.
This is also true of the words when later used as “the betrothed bride” in modern greek. (a strange linguistic “hold over” from the ancient custom of purchasing a wife…). “ ν αρροβωνα” is still the word used for “the engagement ring”. In all cases, even that of marriage, this concept of earnest as a partial guarantee was retracted if one partner in a covenant or business deal did not remain true to the covenant, or did not fulfill their obligation to the other. Thus, Mary, the mother of Jesus, who was “betrothed” to Joseph, was in danger of being “put away” by Joseph when it was presumed she had not remained faithful to Joseph DESPITE her betrothal.
Your use of this word to indicate an absolute guarantee of salvation is simply incorrect usage of this term and would not have had your meaning to the ancients who actually used the term and were the ones who gave it it’s meaning.
The same points can be made regarding your use of either verb or noun forms of “sealing” or “to seal” (σφραγιζω / σφραγις, etc).
There are many, many, many examples from early Papyri, demonstrating the normal usage of these terms. In P Oxy VI 932.6 (late ii a.d.) a merchant said “…αν ερχη αφες αρταβας εξ ις τους σακκους σφραγισας λαχανοσπερμου ινα προχισροι ωσι…” / “….if you come, take out six artabae of vegetable-seed, sealing it in the sacks in order that they may be ready…” (moulton).
As the linguist Deissmann explained, when Paul uses καρπον σφραγιζεσθαι in Roman 15:25, one is to understand that the Apostle is using the term to mean that all the proper steps had been taken regarding the collection. “If the fruit is sealed; then everything is in order : the sealing is the last thing that must be done prior to delivery.” (Deissmann). In P Hib I. 39:15 (265 b.c.) , a Papyrus give an example of a government transport of corn with instructions that the shipmaster should write a receipt and “ ...δειγμα σφραγισας[θ]ω, “let him seal a sample,”. This is a sealing that guarantees the corn that arrives was in the same condition as when it left. If the condition of the corn changed; became contaminated or rotten; then the original business deal would not have necessarily been honored. The buyer wanted to buy good corn, not contaminated corn. We have multiple examples of grapes and other fruit being sealed for similar reasons.
There are multiple examples of sealing things, such as letters, for reasons of security during transition. The verb passes into another sense as a method of distinguishing an item. For example, in P Tebt ii. 419.5 (iii a.d.) one is instructed to “…send the *** to be branded…” / ...πεμψον την ονον οπως σπραγισθη...”. It came to be used as a method of authenticating, or confirming. In Chrest I. 89.5 the term is used for an animal which was “certified” for sacrifice.
The “sealed rolls” attached to the Elephantine Papyri shows us how this term was used as a “protection against falsification” (in the case of documents). Again, the underlying use was to make sure that a document was not changed or corrupted during it’s transport from one stage of place or time or person and delivered into another place or time or person.
It makes perfect sense then, that the early Christians would have borrowed this very common business term and used it in reference to baptism.
For example, the apostolic Father (i.e. a Christian document written when an apostle could either have been living or the author could have known an apostle) Epistle of Barnabas refers to the relationship of the atonement of Jesus and baptism (i.e. “the cross and the water”), teaching, “For this is what he means: blessed are those who having set their hope on the cross, descended into the water” . And it was done in that order. First faith and commitment to Christ, then the “seal” of baptism.
Thus, an apostolic Father second Clement questions his Christian readers as to “what assurance do we have of entering the kingdom of God if we fail to keep our baptism [covenant] pure and undefiled? Or who will be our advocate, if we are not found to have holy and righteous works.” He asks his fellow Christians : “What do you think? What will be done to the one who cheats in the heavenly contest? For concerning those who have not kept the seal [i.e. baptismal covenant] he says : “their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be a spectacle for all flesh.” “So, then, while we are yet on earth, let us repent….”
In this term, borrowed from business, if one partner to an agreement did not live up to their side of the agreement, the other partner had not obligation to perform his other part of an agreement. This modern theory of "easy believism" that does away with repentance, does not fit into any of these Christian worldviews.
Even the attempt of your modern theory to use of the concept of inheritance and the lawful heir / Κληρονομος as having a firm, unbreakable “guarantee” without ability to opt out of the guaranteed inheritance would have been quite foreign to the early Christian context.
Early Greek κοινη papyri provides example after example of individuals who reject an inheritance of property that they rightfully could have inherited. P Oxy I. 179 a.d., A certain Apia writes to the governor regarding the property that would come to her from her father who was dangerously ill – “… I have no intention of entering on his inheritance,…
On the surface, this seems illogical to reject any property offered as an inheritance, but Apia explains why she and others rejected certain inheritances. She said : I am obliged to send you notice, that you may give instructions about the next step to be taken, in order to free me from responsibility after his death”.
In the inscriptions the one thing most often emphasized is the obligation of the κληρονομος (the "lawful heir") to fulfill certain conditions devolving upon him in the inheritance. Frequently enough, the obligations were severe enough that heirs rejected their inheritances.
And the reason they did so is explained in an inscription (BGU) from 135 a.d. which says : ”... it is clearly stated in the Imperial laws that those who have inherited nothing from deceased persons cannot be held responsible for their debts or the claims made against them.”
This insistence on and setting of “conditions” being attached to inheritance was common to the inscrr. For example, the word as associated with the responsibilities of inheritance is illustrated from the Macedonian inscrr by Ferguson Legal Terms, p. 56 : Ει δεο κληρονομος ο εμος παραπεμψη τι, δωσει τω ταμειω δεναρια ψν. “ “But if my heir neglect anything he shall pay to the treasurer a fine of 750 denarii. “ (One inheritance requires the heir to visit the tomb of the father yearly.)
Perhaps, in the case, of Apia, the inheritance came with debt that was worth more than the inheritance. Perhaps it was a small inheritance that carried with it an obligation to do something she did not want to do.
A truly remarkable characteristic about Jesus is that his inheritance came with profoundly heavy and deep and difficult obligations which he accepted, knowing beforehand of their terrible nature.
The gospel concept that “every man might become an heir by complying with the conditions of the promise given to Abraham” was not new. I think Moulton was correct when he said that “When the apostle Paul intimates that only those who fulfill the conditions of inheritance are truly heirs, he is making use of a well-known principle.”
My point is that your new religious Christian theories do not fit into the early Christian worldviews, and, to simply change the meanings of their words and then plug these corrupted meanings into your theory is NOT a historically accurate theory and, though it has the fascade of being historical, it is not authentic nor historical at all.
Instead of simply becoming angry (which is counterproductive), why don't you consider what it means if the early christians and their religion were correct and your modern theories are incorrect?
Just for a moment, be at peace and consider what the difference is, if the early christians were correct in their interpretations?
Clear
δρτζτζειω
