Theodore of Mopsuestia on John 6

 "After our Lord had said these things, clearly indicating that the word bread referred to his body because it was to be eaten, the Jews argued again with each other, saying, [6:52] How can this man give us his flesh to eat? When nature itself does not allow this. And they opposed what he was saying as something difficult and sinful as though he were asking them to really eat human flesh." (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John, on 6:52, source)

NT Scholars on John 17:5 as a proof of Jesus' pre-existence

 

One of the most common passages ever used against the Trinity is John 17:3, where Jesus refers to the Father as "the only true God" [τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν]. Trinitarians have often pointed out that only two verses later, Jesus says the following:

"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5)

One escape route for those who wish to find a way out of the clear meaning of the text is to say this is related to the decrees of God, or that Jesus was simply "in the mind of God" for all eternity. While that is certainly true, it is by no means a good grounds for trying to get out off the fact this text clearly teaches Christ's preexistence. Here is what some commentators and scholars have said on this verse: 

"Therefore he can now ("and now") pray for his glorification, a state he then proceeds to describe as "the glory that I had with you before the world was made." These words speak of the preexistent, original glory of the Son with the Father that Jesus, now that as Son he is returning to the house of the Father (cf. 16:28; 14: 1), presently requests of the Father as the glory due to him there. It is the unique glory of the Son "with" the Father, of the Word that was "with God and was God" (1:1), a glory antecedent to the power with which he was clothed as the Son of man by God when he descended from heaven." (Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, pgs. 549-50)

"Now Jesus prays God to glorify Him. He looks for glory in the last place that men would seek it, namely in the cross. And He sees this glory for which He prays as linked with His pre-incarnate  glory with the Father. 21 There is a clear assertion of Christ's pre-existence here (we have already seen such a claim, 1:1; 8:58; 16:28). There is also the claim that He had enjoyed a unique glory with the Father in that pre-existent state.  And now~ as men are about to do their worst to Him, He looks for the Father to glorify Him again in the same way." (Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John, pg. 721, source) 

"If any ambiguity remains concerning Jesus’ identity in 17:3, it vanishes in 17:5, which affirms Jesus’ preexistence with the Father in glory." (Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2 vols, pg. 1054, source)

"παρὰ σεαυτῷ, that is, by causing me to return to the position I enjoyed before the incarnation; cf. παρὰ σοί., and with both cf. 1.1, πρὸς τὸν θεόν. The glory, that is, is the heavenly glory of Christ; the prayer is a prayer for exaltation and ascension. After the crucifixion the Son of man will ascend where he was before (6.62)." (C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary with Notes on the Greek Text, pg. 504)

"What is clear is that Jesus is asking to be returned to the glory that he shared with the Father before the world began, i.e. before creation (cf. notes on 1:1; 8:58)." (D.A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, pg. 557, source)

Some Further Comments on Sola Scriptura, John Chrysostom, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (in response to Dave Armstrong)

Dave Armstrong and I engaged in the combox (link) on my previous post regarding the issues mentioned in the title. He has provided some further material in his original response post to me on his website, so I thought I would address some of the things he said as well as clarify my comments on 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (and obviously 2:15 as well) and what I meant when I spoke of Chrysostom's view of tradition as a way of life, rather than doctrine. DA's words will be in red. My words from the previous article will be in blue. 

Matt made a “Counter-Counter Response”. In this, the gist of his argument was to claim that the “tradition” St. John Chrysostom referred to in the passage I highlighted was only practice and not doctrine. This was his way of trying to escape my argument. He contended:

Here is where I must clarify things. I said that it might be the case that this was Chrysostom's definition of tradition in 2 Thess. 2:15, in light of his comments on 3:6. I did not put it forward as my main argument. I would actually say that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is most likely referring to doctrine (namely, the gospel [cf. 2:14]), being passed down in two different ways: written Scripture and oral preaching in Thessalonica. Here are my original comments in my "Counter-Counter Response" on this issue:

Thus, I am not in any way "contradicting" Sola Scriptura and neither is Chrysostom. I have shown from his commentary on 2 Thess. 3:6 that he views "tradition" more in the sense of a way of life rather than ongoing, infallible, tradition in the way that Roman Catholics think of it today (whether or not this is the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is another issue somewhat). Either that, or Chrysostom is too ambiguous on the meaning of "tradition" for either me or Dave to get anywhere in this discussion. 

Thus, I consider it quite likely that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is indeed referring to Paul's oral preaching of the gospel (and also the preaching of Silas and Timothy [2 Thessalonians 1:1]). But again, this verse is simply showing that there were two different means by which Paul "handed down" the gospel to the Thessalonians: oral preaching and the written Word. It is one body of "tradition" so to speak, which has been handed in these two ways.

Another thing that caught my attention in this verse was Paul's use of a certain Greek preposition in this text:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by (διὰ) our spoken word or by (δι’) our letter."

NT scholar Daniel Wallace lists some of the definitions of διὰ (with the genitive specifically, which is what is in this passage) (his words will be in green)

1. With Genitive

  a. Agency: by, through

  b. Means: through

  c. Spatial: through

  d. Temporal: throughout, during

(Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 369)

This confirms what I said above that "by word of mouth" probably refers to the means which Paul used to "hand down" the gospel to the Thessalonians (v. 14). It is one body of "tradition", two ways of passing it down. 

Once this is recognized, Chrysostom's point is made quite clear. It is a tradition, meaning "the gospel being passed down through both spoken and written word", therefore "seek no farther". 

So, yes, while 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is talking about doctrine, this is referring specifically to the means of passing down the gospel, and John Chrysostom correctly recognized this fact. 

In St. Paul’s epistles (I noted in my first book in 1996), tradition, gospel, and word of God are synonymous concepts. They’re all predominantly oral, not written, and are referred to as being “delivered” and “received”:

1 Corinthians 11:2  . . . maintain the traditions . .  . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15  . . . hold to the traditions . . . .  taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6  . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1  . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9  . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9  . . . we preached to you the gospel of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13  . . . you received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . . (cf. Acts 8:14)

Each of these verses (with the exception of 2 Thessalonians 3:6, and possibly 1 Corinthians 11:2, which I will discuss briefly below) is referring to the gospel, which actually strengthens my argument that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 refers to the two means of the gospel being passed down, which DA essentially indirectly admits when he says that  "tradition, gospel, and word of God are synonymous concepts." Not only that, but this shows that the oral "traditions" were probably later on committed to writing (presumably 2 Thessalonians itself). Surely, Dave would not say that the gospel is not found (explicitly or implicitly) in the Scriptures. 

Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2, there is a bit of a minor debate among the commentaries as to whether this is talking about doctrine or practice (this chapter is where the Apostle Paul discusses the issue of women wearing head coverings, thus this could be an argument for the "practice" interpretation). I think if one were to go with the "practice" interpretation, DA's argument would be fall apart. If one were to say this is talking about doctrine, then again, this is referring to Paul's teaching, not to some sort of ongoing, magisterium, which can define dogmas that are nowhere found in Scripture, like the Bodily Assumption. Speaking of which, I would be curious to know if DA thinks the Apostle Paul taught the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption to the church in Thessalonica (or any church for that matter). It is a thought-provoking question indeed which must be asked if one interprets the "traditions" of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to include the 20th century dogma defined by Rome. 

In short, I think I have addressed DA's main points and have showed (with all due respect to DA, though) that they do not stand up under scrutiny. I appreciate that Dave has taken the time to read my material and response. Hopefully, we can continue to have a respectful and productive discussion on these issues. 

Counter-Counter Response to Dave Armstrong regarding St. John Chrysostom and Sola Scriptura

 

Dave Armstrong has written a reply to my response to him regarding some citations that he used from John Chrysostom as part of an argument against Sola Scriptura. In particular, I thought I would deal with the former of the two quotes (from Chrysostom's homilies on 2 Thessalonians), which Dave Armstrong seemed to build his argument upon. I also will discuss some of the issues regarding the definition of Sola Scriptura that Dave brought up in his response to me. 

First, let's talk about the quote from Chrysostom's commentary on 2 Thessalonians:

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV) 

Now, it should be noted that this quote (again) does not help Dave's case. One issue that must be discussed in the Sola Scriptura debate is whether or not divine revelation has ceased. This quote is insufficient to argue against Sola Scriptura, since it never mentions any sort of infallible magisterium that we must have for interpreting Scripture, much less defining new articles of faith (like the Bodily Assumption of Mary, which some many Catholic apologists have admitted there to be no explicit or direct biblical proof of, such as Robert Sungenis in his debate with James White on the issue [at the 11:58 mark])

Another thing (which was pointed out to me in an article by Turretin Fan, who I know Dave Armstrong is quite familiar with, due to the fact the he is on his list of anti-Catholics) is what Chrysostom means by "tradition" in the first place. Take a look at his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (which also uses the word "tradition"):

Ver. 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly and not after the tradition which they received of us.

That is, it is not we that say these things, but Christ, for that is the meaning of in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; equivalent to through Christ. Showing the fearfulness of the message, he says, through Christ. Christ therefore commanded us in no case to be idle. That you withdraw yourselves, he says, from every brother. Tell me not of the rich, tell me not of the poor, tell me not of the holy. This is disorder. That walks, he says, that is, lives. And not after the tradition which they received from me. Tradition, he says, which is through works. And this he always calls properly tradition. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily 5, source) 

Here, Chrysostom clearly views "tradition" as being a part of the way in which one lives, rather than some sort of new doctrine (like the Bodily Assumption of Mary, as I mentioned above). Thus, the very idea of "tradition" at all in this quote from Chrysostom is primarily with the Apostle Paul. This particular quote does not seem to say anything about an infallible magisterium defining new doctrines (I am not trying to make the argument that these are always out-of-thin air sorts of things when it comes to the Roman Catholic church defining doctrines. Many times, it defines dogmas due to controversy and clarification; the Council of Trent is an obvious example of this.) 

By the way, Dave also cited 2 Thessalonians 3:6 against Sola Scriptura in his book The Catholic Verses on page 37. Thus, he is going against what Chrysostom says here on this verse. 

Now, let's look at the issues regarding the definition of Sola Scriptura, and what is and is not compatible with it (which, in this "dialogue" [as Dave refers to it], should be discussed in light of what Chrysostom said in his homily on 2 Thessalonians). Dave Armstrong's words will be in red. 

The actual definition of sola Scriptura, as held by historic Protestantism is: “Holy Scripture is the only final and infallible and binding authority for the Christian.” Expanding upon that, the converse is also true: “No Church or council or tradition or single figure in Christianity (be he the pope or anyone else) can lay claim to this level of sublime authority in Christianity”.

How does this definition at all contradict what Chrysostom said? Now, Dave would go to the part (as he does later in the article) where Chrysostom spoke of "tradition" as being "worthy of credit", and saying that we should "seek no farther" (bear in mind that this was primarily addressed to the church in Thessalonica). But again, as I pointed out above, Chrysostom's understanding of "tradition" (based off of his commentary on 2 Thess. 3:6 as well as the context of 2 Thess. 2:15 in general) appears to be different from that of Roman Catholic apologists. 

We need to take a step back and first inquire about the meaning of "tradition" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. I find Gordon D. Fee's comments on this passage helpful here:

"That Paul intends the “traditions” in this case to refer to his own teaching is made certain by his twofold reference to its source: “whether by word of mouth,” thus referring to his own teaching when he was among them, “or by letter,” now referring to our 1 Thessalonians." (Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians) 

If Dave provides a counter-counter reply to this article (and I am somewhat certain that he will) , I would be interested in knowing if he agrees with what Gordon D. Fee says here. 

It is certainly true that the Bible alone is inerrant. That is the definition of Sola Scriptura in its most basic form. The point of my previous article was to demonstrate that what Chrysostom said was not in any way in contradiction with Sola Scriptura. Here is what Joel Beeke says in the same article which Dave cites: 

"The Bible’s sufficiency should also not be understood to exclude the use of the church’s helps, such as her many teachers past and present, and the writings produced by them. These are not to be rejected, but welcomed as a means that the Holy Spirit has provided in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11–13). However, they are subordinated to the Bible in such a way that they have authority to direct our faith and obedience only insofar as they faithfully reproduce and apply the teachings of Scripture. The principle of Scripture alone, rightly understood, does not mean the church of any given time or place operates by the Bible alone without reference to the traditions of the church through the ages. Rather, the sola of sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the fountain and touchstone for all authoritative teaching and tradition. This point especially needs to be emphasized in an ahistoric contemporary culture that emphasizes radical individualism and personal liberty. As Peter warns, “No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20)."

Here is a section from the Geneva Confession, which is cited in Beeke's article:

First we affirm that we desire to follow Scripture alone as rule of faith and religion, without mixing with it any other thing which might be devised by the opinion of men apart from the Word of God, and without wishing to accept for our spiritual government any other doctrine than what is conveyed to us by the same Word without addition or diminution, according to the command of our Lord. (https://www.creeds.net/reformed/gnvconf.htm)

Notice that the Geneva Confession rejects opinions of men "apart from the Word of God". This is not the same thing as the "traditions" of 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Thus, I am not in any way "contradicting" Sola Scriptura and neither is Chrysostom. I have shown from his commentary on 2 Thess. 3:6 that he views "tradition" more in the sense of a way of life rather than ongoing, infallible, tradition in the way that Roman Catholics think of it today (whether or not this is the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is another issue somewhat). Either that, or Chrysostom is too ambiguous on the meaning of "tradition" for either me or Dave to get anywhere in this discussion. 

The traditions, which Chrysostom speaks of as being "worthy of credit", are the oral discourses of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, not some infallible magisterium. Gordon D. Fee, a New Testament scholar, agrees with me on this point in his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:15. 

So, based off of Chrysostom's comment on 2 Thessalonians 3:6, "tradition" simply refers to one's way of living, rather than to doctrine. Or, it is indeed referring to doctrine. But the point remains that this isn't referring to anything other than the teaching of Paul in Thessalonica, which Gordon Fee agrees with me upon.

I expect to probably get another response from Dave Armstrong soon, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say regarding these points. 

St. John Chrysostom and Sola Scriptura

 

Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote an article in which he asserts that John Chrysostom taught against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. He gives several quotes from Chrysostom. I will simply list the first two quotes here and then provide a response (Armstrong also gives a quote which is commonly used to support the doctrine of purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc., however that is another topic, so I wanted to deal with the first two here). 

“So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.” Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken. (On Second Thessalonians, Homily IV)

"Not by letters alone did Paul instruct his disciple in his duty, but before by words also which he shows, both in many other passages, as where he says, “whether by word or our Epistle” (2 Thess. ii. 15.), and especially here. Let us not therefore suppose that anything relating to doctrine was spoken imperfectly. For many things he delivered to him without writing. Of these therefore he reminds him, when he says, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me.” (Homily III on 2 Timothy – on 2 Tim 1:13-18)

If one thinks these quotes somehow "debunk" Sola Scriptura, it is quite clear that they did not grasp a clear definition of what Sola Scriptura actually is!

Sola Scriptura simply says that everything that is needed for salvation is contained in the written Word. As Protestants, we recognize the fact that "tradition" is not a dirty word (to use Dave's own language) as long as it is not elevated to or above the authority of the Bible. Not all of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles are contained in the Bible (John 21:25).  That is all that Chrysostom is saying here. This is not an issue at all for those who are committed to Sola Scriptura. 

This common Roman Catholic misunderstanding has been addressed multiple times. Here are some quotes from Protestant scholars and theologians addressing this sort of issue:

"We respond by acknowledging that the Bible can speak positively of “tradition” (paradosis) as authoritative truth that we should receive and pass down to others. Tradition is not inherently evil, but can be a useful vehicle for the truth. If tradition is faithful to God’s Word, it should be followed (1 Cor. 11:2). Those who heard the preaching of the apostles were to pass it along to others (2 Tim. 2:2), for the preaching of the apostles was the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13), just as is their writing (1 Cor. 14:37)." (Joel Beeke, Reformed Systematic Theology: Revelation and God, source) 

"Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture....Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3)." (John MacArthur, "What does Sola Scriptura Mean?",  https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean/, taken from the book Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible) 

" All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:(p) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.7, source) 

All doctrines which are necessary to be believed for salvation are clear and unambiguous in Scripture (doctrines such as The Trinity/the deity of Christ, justification by faith, the bodily resurrection, the inspiration of Scripture, substitutionary atonement, all of which are clear in the Bible). Not all truth is contained in Scripture. Some of Jesus' teachings as well as Paul's teachings are not in the Bible.

For more information on the meaning of tradition in the early church, see Philip Schaff's section in History of the Christian Church, Vol 3, Chapter 9, Section 118. 

"A" Feast or "the" Feast? (A Response to Ijaz Ahmad on the textual variant in John 5:1)

 

Ijaz Ahmad wrote an article on a somewhat well-known textual variant in John 5:1 (though not as well-known as the variants in Mark 16:9-20 or 1 John 5:7). He claimed that this could lead to a questioning of the reliability of the authors of the Gospels, so I thought I would make a response. First, we need some background information:

"After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." (John 5:1 ESV)

NA28 Greek Text:  Μετὰ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ ἀνέβη Ἰησοῦς εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα

The variant here is at the word ἑορτὴ (translated "[a] feast"). Is it anarthrous (lacking the definite article) or is the original reading ἡ ἑορτή (translated "the feast")? That is the background question that needs to be recognized in order for anyone to have a meaningful discussion on this particular textual variant.

I won't quote the entirety of Ijaz's article for the simple reason that if it is established that ἑορτὴ is the original reading of John 5:1, his entire argument falls apart (we will see why later). Ijaz Ahmad's words will be in red, and my response will be in black. 

Can one letter make a difference?

It depends on what the letter is and the context in which it occurs. Sometimes there are simply orthographical differences in manuscripts, which as far as I know, are usually not a big deal (with both the New Testament as well as the Qur'an).  I am very confident that Ijaz is familiar with the one-letter difference in Surah 3:158, between "you will be gathered" and "you will not be gathered". The latter reading is attested by only one manuscript (as far as I know). Now I would not use this as my single argument against the Qur'an, since textual studies on the Qur'an is not a field in which I would call myself an expert in any sort. Since the New Testament is what I believe to be God's inspired Word, its textual history is rightly of more importance to me (as I would assume the Qur'an is for Ijaz). So to answer Ijaz's question briefly, yes, sometimes the difference of a letter can indeed make a difference. However, any rational person knows that this would depend on the context. All of those one-letter case should be taken individually. 

Over the years I have demonstrated various textual issues with the New Testament. One of the more common questions I am frequently asked is to what extent a variant of one letter can impact the reliability or lack thereof, of the New Testament. Today I’d like to answer this question with a simple example.

The letter η (eta) is a defining article.

Consider the case of saying “the boy” and “a boy”, in the case of the letter η (eta) it means “the”, which specifies a noun. The car, the boy, the house all refer to something specific and not something general. Thus, we read from John 5:1 (NIV) –

“Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish festivals.”

The vast majority of modern translations of this verse I could get a hold of all say "a feast". Here is a link to where you can view these translations. 

Some translations render the section in bold as “a feast”, however there is a variant in Codex Sinaiticus which renders the text as “the feast”, thus specifying this feast as not a general feast but as a specific feast. By inserting the letter η (eta) before the noun “feast” (ἑορτὴ), the context of this passages changes entirely. The NET Bible’s commentary explains:

“The textual variants ἑορτή or ἡ ἑορτή (Jeorth or Jh Jeorth, “a feast” or “the feast”) may not appear significant at first, but to read ἑορτή with the article would almost certainly demand a reference to the Jewish Passover.”

There are multiple commentators and scholars which address this particular variant. It is not only the Passover which has been suggested as a possible feast to which "the feast" refer. However, in order to even get into the issue of which feast it might be, one must first establish with reasonable certainty that ἡ ἑορτή is the original reading. Here are what some of the most well-renowned commentaries on John have said regarding this issue:

“After these things” (Μετὰ ταῦτα) is a rather indefinite (though frequent Johannine) chronological marker, and John’s mention of “a Jewish feast” does not clarify matters substantially beyond this; for him, both Passover (6:4) and Tabernacles (7:2) are called “the Jewish feast.” The unidentified feast of 5:1 has been identified with Purim, Pentecost, Tabernacles, or perhaps Rosh Hashanah, since many early manuscripts omit the article. If “the feast” is read, Sukkoth is surely in view; but since no special associations with Sukkoth appear (unlike John 7–9), it is probable that the “feast” is simply an explanation for why Jesus has returned to Jerusalem, since he makes the journey to Jerusalem only for the feasts (cf. also 2:13; 10:22–23; 12:12). That John does not specify the particular festival, however, but merely uses it to locate Jesus in Jerusalem is probably deliberate. The real calendrical issue in this chapter is not an annual feast, but the Sabbath (5:9; as in the parallel 9:14), and Jesus’ claim to divine authority as God’s shaliach to adapt Sabbath rules." (Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.), pgs. 635-36)

"John repeatedly ties his narrative to various Jewish feasts: cf. 2:13 (Passover); 6:4 (Passover); 7:2 (Tabernacles); 10:22 (Dedication); 11:55 (Passover). This is the only one that is not identified more precisely. A variant reading makes it ‘the feast of the Jews,’ which would probably suggest Tabernacles or Passover; but the anarthrous reading is better attested. If Passover is intended, it might be argued that Jesus’ public ministry extended to a period of about three and one-half years; if not, there is no particular reason why two and one-half years would not suffice. Some have strongly advocated Rosh ha-Shanah (the Feast of Trumpets, Lv. 23:23–25); but the strongest defence of this view, that of Guilding (pp. 70–92), depends in part on the inversion of chs. 5 and 6, and on rather late sources for the thesis that the lectionary of Jewish synagogues was full of judgment themes at that time of the year, themes parallel to those in John 5. The view that this unnamed feast is Purim, established in connection with the deliverance the Jews experienced in the time of Esther,  depends on too many speculative connections to be considered plausible. The truth of the matter is that we do not know what feast John has in mind. If the other feasts are named, it is because the context in each case finds Jesus doing or saying something that picks up a theme related to it. By implication, if the feast in John 5 is not named, it is probably because the material in John 5 is not meant to be thematically related to it. Mention of a feast of the Jews in that case becomes little more than an historical marker to explain Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem." (D.A. Carson, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, pgs. 240-241)

"Some time later came a feast which is not further defined in this verse. If this chapter be held to follow chapter 6 it will most certainly refer to the Passover mentioned in 6:4. If not, there seems no way of identifying it with certainty.  John commonly adds "of the Jews" to such a reference for the benefit of his Gentile readers. Jesus followed the practice of the pious men of His day by going up to Jerusalem to observe festivals. Indeed John's indefinite reference to "a feast "may be intended to convey as much (it may imply that it was not only for specific, outstanding feasts that Jesus went up)." (Leon Morris, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John [1971 edition], pg. 299)

In a footnote on the same page (pg. 299), Leon Morris clarifies his stance on this issue more clearly:

"For a discussion of the whole question see Westcott's Additional Note (pp. 204-7). He favors the Feast of Trumpets but few have been found to support him. Most commentators favor Purim or Passover. The theological context of John's treatment of the theme does not help us for the thought of judgment, which is prominent in this chapter, is associated with no less than four of the feasts. Thus we read: "At four times in the year is the world judged: at Passover, through grain; at Pentecost, through the fruits of the tree; on New Year's Day all that come into the world pass before him like legions of soldiers, for it is written, He that fashioneth the hearts of them all, that considereth all their works; and at the Feast (of Tabernacles) they are judged through water" (Mishnah, RH 1 : 2). Some manuscripts have the article, "the feast", notably KCL fl co. If it be accepted the feast will probably be Tabernacles, if. 7 : 2 (though some think the Passover). The article is however omitted by P66, P75, ABDWΘ fl3 al. There seems little doubt that we should read "a feast". But it does not seem possible to identify the feast with any certainty. " (ibid. pg. 299 n.6)

"1. ἑορτή, P66 P75 B D W Θ cur: ἡ ἑορτή, א ω λ 33 sah boh. The agreement of P66 P75 B D W Θ and the old Syriac (sin is not extant at this point) is a strong argument in favour of the reading without the article; so also is the fact that nowhere else in the gospel is ἑορτή anarthrous. It would be natural to assimilate this passage to, e.g., 6.4; 7.2. Moreover, if we translate 'a feast', the rendering corresponds with the fact that neither in this verse nor in the ensuing narrative is there anything to indicate what feast is meant. Those who transpose chapters 5 and 6 (see Introduction, p. 23, and on 6.1) take the feast referred to in this verse to be the Passover which is said in 6:4 to be near, but it is more probable that Passover is mentioned in chapter 6 in order to provide an appropriate setting for the discourse on the Bread of Life. Guilding, who transposes chapters 5 and 6, says that this feast must be either Pentecost or Rosh ha-Shanah, and concludes for the latter (69-72). So too does Lightfoot, referring to H. St J. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, 1921, 80-1 II. It seems however that John here introduces a feast simply in order to account for the presence of Jesus in Jerusalem. The article was added out of the desire to supply further definition and precise information (as were the further supplements contained in isolated MSS.-τῶν ἀζύμων, ἡ σκηνοπηγία). If the article is read, the reference might be to the Passover or to Tabernacles, which was often known as 'the Feast'..." (C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction and Commentary with Notes on the Greek Text, pgs. 250-251)

"Also "a feast" [footnote: At least if one follows most (and the most important) manuscripts.] is very general. If one follows the transposition hypothesis, 5:1 might refer back to 6:4. But the striking reference to "a feast of the Jews" (see the comments on 2:13) does not so much assume a non-Jewish readership as the temporal and material distance that had developed at the time of this Gospel between the Christian church and the situation to which the story takes us. The character of the feast remains obscure throughout the story and all efforts to identify it and to establish a material connection between the feast and the story lack a solid foundation. At stake in what follows is rather the issue of the sabbath (cf. comments on vs. 9b), an issue that was undoubtedly still relevant to the first readers." (Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, pg. 184)

As we have seen, a multitude of monumental Johannine commentators recognize the fact that for one thing, ἑορτή is and has been established with good certainty to be the original reading. It is attested in the best Johannine manuscripts. In general, the gospel of John has good and early textual support:

"Although chance may have played a role in it, what we can be certain about is that the text of the Fourth Gospel is the best attested text from the second and third centuries. This can be said for two reasons. First, due to the volume of manuscripts and the extent of the transmitted text (there is no chapter of the Gospel of which we do not have a testimony prior to the large uncials of the fourth century); second, one codex has preserved practically the entire Fourth Gospel, and another manuscript partially preserves about two thirds of the Gospel. Despite these two factors, our current evidence does not necessarily bring us any closer to the original text than in the case of other books of the New Testament. What the evidence does confirm is the diversification of the text associated with the copying process in early manuscripts. However, the extant manuscripts point to scribes, who in the process of copying, attempted to remain as faithful as possible to the exemplar. If they did not achieve their goal it might have been because (a) the scribes’ intentions of accuracy did not always coincide with the quality of their copying and (b) there was not a uniform criterion on what a faithful copy should be." (Juan Chapa, "The Early Text of John", in The Early Text of the New Testament, edited by Michael J. Kruger and Charles E. Hill, pg. 140)

Here is a comment from Bruce Metzger:

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pg. 207

                                                             

And finally, here is the entry on this variant from the NA28 apparatus:

As you can see, the majority of manuscripts clearly advocate the reading of the anarthrous ἑορτή (without the definite article). However, that manuscripts must be weighed rather than counted is a rather basic principle of NT textual criticism. Juan Chapa in his essay (quoted above) provided a helpful chart of some of the early manuscript witnesses for the Gospel of John:

The Early Text of the New Testament, pg. 141

(I do apologize for the somewhat bad quality of the above image)

This chart shows that p66 is the earliest Greek manuscript which contains John 5:1, and it (p66) attests to the anarthrous reading:

https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace

Ijaz then appealed to Codex Sinaiticus (designated as א) which did indeed contain the definite article. But again, it must be noted that the above cited commentaries and books from NT scholars clearly show that the evidence strongly favors against the presence of the definite article. Not only that, but the earliest manuscript containing John 5:1 also does not have the definite article, thus reading as "a feast". And, as shown above by a few commentators, even if the original reading were "the feast", this wouldn't necessarily refer to the Passover. 

It seemed that Ijaz's main argument was this:

The initial problem is that if this feast refers to the Passover it would mean that Jesus preached for 4 years and not 2 1/2 years....Thus, it would either mean that the timeline presented for Jesus’s ministry according to the Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark and Luke exclude one year of Jesus’s ministry or that the Gospel attributed to John has created an additional 4th year (more than 3 years) which would stand against the testimony of the other Gospels. If the former is true it would mean that the authors of the synoptic Gospels chose to exclude and ignore an entire year’s worth of teaching by Jesus, thereby bringing into question the reliability of their collective testimony. Why would his followers want to exclude an entire year of his public ministry? Surely if he chose to preach at that time it must have been for a reason, therefore on what grounds can an author ignore or prevent other Christians from reading and learning from 25% of Jesus’s ministry?

However, if the latter is true, it would mean that the authors of the Gospel attributed to John created and attributed an additional year of preaching to Jesus’s ministry. This would then indicate that the Gospel attributed to John lies about Jesus and thus brings into question its authenticity, reliability and accuracy.

Again, the above information shows that the foundation of Ijaz's argument collapses once we realize that the anarthrous reading has serious good evidence in its favor, and that scholars have noted that even if the definite article were original, this would necessarily mean that the feast referred to the Passover specifically. As for Irenaeus, his view is not completely decisive in this issue either (the same goes for the commentaries from the 1800s that Ijaz appealed to, a time when manuscripts such as p66 had not yet been discovered). He was not infallible. One example of his ability to err was his view that Jesus lived to around 50 years. 

We could apply the same standard to the variant in Surah 3:158, but again Ijaz would rightly say that there is no good evidence for "they will not be gathered" being the original reading. The same thing goes with this textual variant in the New Testament.

Thus, we have seen that Ijaz's claim is in error because it does not recognize the following points:

- There is not any good evidence for ἡ ἑορτή being the original reading.

- A number of NT scholars such as Bruce Metzger recognize the above point

- As the above commentators have shown (Carson, Keener, Barrett, Morris, etc.), even if ἡ ἑορτή was the original reading, it would not necessarily refer to the Jewish Passover.

Thus, there is not any problem for Bible-believing Christians here whatsoever. I hope that this article brought some more clarity to this issue in order to correct misinformation. 

The meaning of λογίζομαι in Romans 4 (specifically verse 3)

 

Some Roman Catholics insist that “faith counted as righteousness” would mean that faith is counted/regarded  as an “intrinsically righteous act”. They often point to places where logizomai is used to regard something “as it really is”, which they think support the notion of an infused righteousness. 

At face value, logizomai simply means “to reckon”. It is that simple! But the dispute comes in over whether logizomai means to reckon someone/something “as it really is” or to reckon someone/something “as it is not” (which many consider to be the Protestant view). 

I would say that if you were to take into account the business analogy of Paul in verse 4 then the Catholic view collapses.

Robert Gundry, although not a Roman Catholic, does believe that faith is, in essence, what God “counts as righteousness”, similar to the idea of God imputing someone's faith back to them. To those who hold this view, “faith counted as righteousness” means that our faith essentially becomes our righteousness. 

John Piper, in responding to Robert Gundry, makes some helpful comments on this issue:

“Paul's own explanation of Genesis 15:6 which follows in Romans 4:4-6 points away from Garlington's interpretation toward historic “imputation.” He says, “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” Paul immediately takes up the word “counted” from verse 3 and interprets it in a business context where wages are credited to someone's account. It can happen in two ways: if you work, your wages are credited to your account according to debt; if you don't work, but still get “wages” credited to your account, it is according to grace. This does not fit with Garlington's insistence that the words, “it was counted to him as righteousness” must mean “Abraham was regarded as [what he was, namely] righteous, or covenant-keeping.” Rather it implies that Abraham got something credited to him which he did not have.”  (https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/john-piper-responds-to-don-garlington-on-the-imputation-of-righteousness)

In many Greek lexicons they consistently provide multiple definitions for logizomai. Walter Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature provides the following definition (among others) for logizomai:

Notice carefully: the lexicon gives one of the definitions “credit something to someone as something” and then provides instances where this is the meaning. And what do you know? Romans 4:3 and 4:5 are both provided as an instance of where logizomai means “credit something to someone”, which thus puts the common Roman Catholic argument concerning logizomai to bed. 

Other Commentaries:

“Since Gen. 15:6 can be read as God rewarding Abraham for a righteous act, as the NJPS translation suggests (“And because he put his trust in the Lord, He reckoned it to his merit”), Paul must explain how Gen. 15:6 supports his teaching on justification by faith. To do so, he focuses on the meaning of the verb logizomai (to credit), which occurs eight times in the first half of Rom. 4 (4:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11) and three times toward the end of this chapter (4:22, 23, 25). A commercial term used in bookkeeping, its meaning in commercial transactions is “to reckon,” “to calculate,” “to credit” something to another’s account.” (Frank J. Matera, Romans, pg. 110)

Was Abraham justified just because he had the faith to believe that he would be given a son? Or was it also because of all the other things which he had believed previously?… Before this point, Abraham had believed in part but not perfectly. Now, however, all the parts of his earlier faith are gathered together to make a perfect whole, by which he is justified.” (Origen, Commentary on Romans, cited in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Romans) [This quote from Origen is relevant to the discussion of whether Abraham was justified in Genesis 12/Hebrews 11:8]

“For Abraham was declared by God to be righteous, not on account of circumcision, but on account of faith. For before he was circumcised the following statement was made regarding him: 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.' Genesis 15:6 And we, therefore, in the uncircumcision of our flesh, believing God through Christ, and having that circumcision which is of advantage to us who have acquired it— namely, that of the heart— we hope to appear righteous before and well-pleasing to God: since already we have received His testimony through the words of the prophets.)” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 92)

I think all this talk of “counting,reckoning” seems to make us think that logizomai can only mean that. And it certainly does mean that [i.e. counting/reckoning]. However, I would say that in Romans 4, it is possible that “credit” might be a better translation of logizomai in the context in which it is being used here. I do not have a big problem with translating it as “counted”. It just needs to be remembered that counting can have the aspect of “crediting” to it.