INTRODUCTION Back in 22:20, Solomon writes that he has written “excellent things” to his son. Waltke, following other commentators, suggests that the word for “excellent” is better understood as a number, thirty. Thus, Solomon asks rhetorically, “Have I not written to . . . . Continue Reading »
Jones again, commenting on the different treatment of Jews and Christians by the Roman government: “The Jews were a race who practised the traditional worship of their ancestors, and had at an early date, while still a political unit, obtained from Rome legal recognition of their peculiar . . . . Continue Reading »
A.H.M. Jones notes that most of the considerable religious fervor of the third and fourth centuries was devoted to other-worldly, escapist religion. That makes the triumphalism of Constantine’s Christian faith all the most striking. Constantine regularly expresses the belief that service to . . . . Continue Reading »
Proctor again, summarizing a 1938 article on “Science and the Social Order” from Robert Merton: “the ideal of ‘pure science’ serves a dual function in modern society. On the one hand, the exaltation of pure science represents ‘a defense against the invasion of . . . . Continue Reading »
Proctor yet again, describing the division of political economy into separate disciplines of sociology and economics in the nineteenth century: “Social theory in the eyes of the young sociologists might strive to become scientific, but to do so it must abandon its craft or practical-political . . . . Continue Reading »
Proctor again, speaking of Renaissance science: “In the science of the moderns, there arises a curious reversal of the order of art and nature. Art becomes the standard against which nature is judged. Francis Bacon’s ‘nature in distress’ - nature distraught by experiment - . . . . Continue Reading »
The drive for purity in knowledge is an ancient one. Robert Proctor ( Value-Free Science? ) sees this impulse in Plato and Aristotle. For the former, knowledge is pure “in the degree to which it makes no appeal to practical arts. Thus Plato criticized Eudoxus, Archytas, and Menaechmus for . . . . Continue Reading »
CK Barrett argues in his John commentary that the anarthrous theos of John 1:1 (emphasized by Arians everywhere and at all times) shows that “the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have been implied that no divine being existed . . . . Continue Reading »
After Genesis 15, the next time the “word of God came . . . saying” is in Samuel. The word of God comes to Samuel, saying that Saul is rejected (1 Samuel 15:10), and again comes to Nathan to deliver the promise to David (2 Samuel 7:4). The connection of Genesis 15 and 2 Samuel 7 is . . . . Continue Reading »
“The Word was God,” says John. Where’d he get that? Genesis 15:1 is the first place where Scripture uses the phrase “word of Yahweh” ( dabar-YHWH ), and already here the use of the phrase hints that the dabar is a person. The word of Yahweh “came” to Abram . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
