From Participles To Pretension: How Not To Read Greek

          Feodor struts onto the stage of theology like a peacock with borrowed feathers, parading ignorance as insight:

          https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/12/simple-koine-greek-lessons-for-jesse.html

          “The angel Gabriel doesn’t say ‘Hail, Mary.’ Gabriel says, ‘Chaíre, kecharitōménē!’ ‘Greetings, you‑who‑have‑been‑fully‑graced‑forever.’”

          This proposed translation is overstated and romanticized. Chaíre simply means “Greetings” or “Rejoice,” a common salutation in Greek letters and encounters. The participle kecharitōménē is indeed perfect passive, but it is not functioning as a pronoun or imperative. It describes Mary as one who “has been favored” and remains in that state. The perfect tense indicates a completed action with present relevance, not eternal permanence. Most modern translations render this as “favored one” or “highly favored.” The rendering “fully‑graced forever” imports theological conclusions into grammar that does not demand them.

          “The verb turned into a pronoun, kecharitōménē, is in the perfect imperative passive form. Meaning an action received that permanently characterizes the receiver.”

          This claim is simply false. It describes Mary as one who has received grace with continuing effect, not as the object of a command. This is confirmed by the STEP Bible (Tyndale House, Cambridge):

          “Function: Verb; Tense: Perfect; Voice: Passive; Mood: Participle; Case: Vocative; Number: Singular; Gender: Feminine — i.e. an action that was done to a female person or thing that is being addressed (e.g., ‘O woman that was done good’).”

          "...passive to be visited with free favor, be an object of gracious visitation, to give graciously Lk. 1:28

          Kecharitōménē comes from a verb, but in Luke 1:28 it is not used like a normal verb or a command. Instead, it works more like an adjective or title, directly addressing Mary as “favored one.” That is why it is incorrect to call it an imperative or a pronoun.

          This excerpt from the NET Bible is also worth adding here:

          "The address, “favored one” (a perfect participle, Grk “Oh one who is favored”) points to Mary as the recipient of God’s grace, not a bestower of it. She is a model saint in this passage, one who willingly receives God’s benefits. The Vulgate rendering “full of grace” suggests something more of Mary as a bestower of grace, but does not make sense here contextually."

          The text affirms that Mary remains in the state of having been graced. This is why later theology could build on the participle to argue for enduring grace, but Luke himself is simply describing her present condition.

          “Mary is not just full of grace or blessing. She was the recipient (passive) of a command, (imperative) completed action (perfect) that was permanent. She is always fully‑graced, fully‑blessed one.”

          This conclusion is based on a grammatical error. Gabriel is not issuing a command. He is describing Mary’s state. The participle indicates that she has received grace, but it does not establish eternal sinlessness or perpetual fullness of grace. The Latin Vulgate’s gratia plena (“full of grace”) is interpretive, not a strict translation. The Greek supports “favored one,” not the doctrine of perpetual grace. The theological leap from participle to eternal ontological status is unwarranted.

          “Because Mary, by faith, humility, and in righteousness, agreed with God to bear God. She is the faithful Theotokos.”

          Mary’s consent is indeed portrayed as faithful, but the incarnation is God’s sovereign act. Luke emphasizes divine initiative (“The Holy Spirit will come upon you”), not human righteousness as the decisive factor. The title Theotokos (“God‑bearer”) was affirmed centuries later at the Council of Ephesus (431 CE). It is not a biblical designation in Luke. To apply it here is anachronistic, importing later doctrinal language into the text. Exegesis asks what the text meant in its own time; doctrine asks how the church later articulated faith. Mary’s faith is exemplary, but the text does not elevate her to a unique ontological role beyond being chosen and favored.

          “The Greek word for ‘daily’ isn’t there in the Lord’s Prayer. Not even close. The Greek word, which doesn’t appear anywhere in all of Greek literature ‑ ALL of Ancient Greek literature ‑ but is in both Matthew and Luke, is… epiousion.”

           Early Christian writers debated this issue. Jerome himself translated it differently in Matthew (“supersubstantial”) and Luke (“daily”), showing the ambiguity. The church fathers held varied views, often embracing multiple layers of meaning. Origen considered "bread necessary for existence" the most likely meaning in a literal sense, but also explored a spiritual interpretation of the "bread of the coming age." John Chrysostom favored the sense of "bread for today" or simply sufficient for subsistence. Many Greek and Latin fathers, such as Augustine and Cyril of Jerusalem, saw a reference to the eucharist in the "supersubstantial" interpretation.

          The term epiousion is unusual, but its rarity does not justify abandoning the plain sense of the Lord’s Prayer. Ancient Greek often contains hapax legomena whose meaning is clarified by immediate context rather than speculative theology, and here the petition naturally emphasizes dependence on God’s provision. Compound words do not always yield their meaning by simply combining their parts, though the components often guide the possible sense. In this case, the prefix epi can mean “for” or “toward,” while ousia often referred to “substance” in the practical sense of livelihood or resources. Taken together, the word conveys “bread sufficient for life.” In Matthew and Luke, the request for bread follows petitions for God’s kingdom and will, situating it within the realm of daily reliance. To insist that “daily” is “not even close” overstates the case, since the semantic range of the components readily supports the traditional rendering. Eucharistic or metaphysical interpretations are later theological overlays, not demanded by grammar or narrative context. The New English Translation has this excerpt on Matthew 6:11:

          "Or “Give us bread today for the coming day,” or “Give us today the bread we need for today.” The term ἐπιούσιος (epiousios) does not occur outside of early Christian literature (other occurrences are in Luke 11:3 and Didache 8:2), so its meaning is difficult to determine. Various suggestions include “daily,” “the coming day,” and “for existence.” See BDAG 376-77 s.v.; L&N 67:183, 206."

          The STEP Bible also concurs with the NET Bible:

          "what recurs on a day to day basis, daily, This word occurs nowhere else in Greek literature except in the context of the Lord's prayer. Guesses include, necessary for today, necessary for tomorrow, daily, sufficient."

          The same above cited source also contains an excerpt from the Liddell, Scott, Jones dictionary:

          "ἐπιούσιος, ον, either, sufficient for the coming (and so current) day, (ἐπιοῦσα (i.e. ἡμέρα)), or, for the day (ἐπὶ τὴν οὖσαν (i.e. ἡμέραν)), ἄρτος NT.Matthew.6.11 [NT]; τὰ ἐ. uncertain meaning."

          “The prefix epi: above, beyond, or super (like epic), and the noun, ousia, as in the Nicene description of the Trinity: three person’s of one ousia, substance or being.”

          The prefix epi- is not limited to the sense of “above” or “super. ” In Greek usage it frequently means “for,” “upon,” or “toward,” depending on context. To restrict its meaning to “super” is selective. Likewise, the noun ousia can indeed carry the philosophical sense of “substance” or “essence,” as in Aristotle and later Nicene theology, but in everyday Greek it often referred to “property,” “resources,” or “means of livelihood.” Taken together, epiousion most naturally conveys “bread for sustenance” or “bread for the coming day.” Reading it as “super‑substantial bread” imports later metaphysical categories into a prayer originally concerned with dependence on God’s provision.

          It is true that Aristotle and other philosophers used ousia in metaphysical senses long before Christianity, and those meanings later shaped theological debates. But the evangelists were not writing with Aristotelian metaphysics in mind. They were preserving a prayer of reliance upon God, not constructing a philosophical treatise. The Nicene fathers, centuries later, drew on philosophical categories to articulate doctrine, but that development should not be retrojected into Matthew and Luke.

          The fact that both Matthew and Luke chose to preserve the rare word epiousion from their shared source tradition is significant. They did not replace it with the ordinary Greek word for “daily,” suggesting that the unusual form carried a nuance beyond the commonplace. That very ambiguity explains why interpreters have continued to debate its meaning. Thus, the evangelists’ choice of wording highlights ongoing dependence on God’s provision, encompassing both material and spiritual dimensions. The ambiguity itself is arguably part of the richness of the prayer.

From Strange Fire To Strange Bread: Sacrifice Misapplied

Introduction:

Numbers 15:3–10 repeatedly describes sacrifices as producing “a pleasing aroma to the Lord.” This refrain underscores a consistent biblical theme: God accepts offerings because they express covenant loyalty, not because their substance is altered. Catholic eucharistic theology, however, asserts that in the eucharist the bread and wine undergo transubstantiation, becoming the Body and Blood of Christ in their essence. This raises a fundamental question: does Catholic doctrine reflect the biblical categories of sacrifice, or does it introduce philosophical concepts foreign to Scripture?

The Patter Of The Old Testament:

Throughout the Torah, sacrifices are symbolic acts of obedience within a covenant relationship. The “pleasing aroma” is anthropomorphic language for divine acceptance, not metaphysical transformation. Grain remains grain, oil remains oil, and animal flesh remains flesh. The efficacy of the sacrifice lies in the worshiper’s faithfulness, not in any ontological change in the offering.

The prophets reinforce this repeatedly. Hosea declares, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6), and Isaiah condemns ritual divorced from obedience (Isaiah 1:11–17). The Old Testament’s sacrificial system is therefore relational and covenantal, not metaphysical. Even when sacrifices have ritual effects—purification, atonement, consecration—the text never suggests that the elements themselves change in essence. Their meaning is symbolic, not ontological.

This establishes a clear pattern: biblical sacrifices function through covenant fidelity, not through transformation of substance.

Catholic Eucharistic Claims:

Catholic theology departs sharply from this pattern. The Council of Trent teaches that “a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ” (Session XIII, Canon II). The Catechism affirms that Christ’s presence begins at consecration and endures as long as the “species” remain (CCC 1377). This doctrine of transubstantiation asserts a metaphysical change in the elements themselves, even though their outward properties remain unchanged.

Catholic theologians argue that Old Testament sacrifices were shadows pointing to Christ, and that the eucharist is their fulfillment. But fulfillment does not require a shift from symbolic covenant categories to Aristotelian metaphysics. The Catholic position introduces a type of change, substantial, invisible, philosophical, that has no precedent in the biblical sacrificial system.

Aristotelian Metaphysics Vs. Biblical Covenant Categories:

Transubstantiation relies explicitly on Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents. In this framework, the “substance” of bread and wine is said to change into Christ’s body and blood while the “accidents” remain. These categories are philosophical constructs developed centuries after the biblical texts were written.

By contrast, Scripture evaluates sacrifices in covenantal terms: obedience, loyalty, remembrance, and relational fidelity. Numbers 15 emphasizes that offerings are accepted because they symbolize devotion, not because their essence is altered. The prophets repeatedly stress that God desires faithfulness, not ritual manipulation.

The discontinuity is therefore not merely one of degree but of kind. Catholic theology shifts the discussion from covenantal symbolism to metaphysical transformation, an interpretive move foreign to the biblical authors.

The Direct Critique:

Numbers 15 challenges Catholic eucharistic theology by demonstrating that God accepts symbolic offerings without requiring ontological change. If covenant faithfulness is sufficient to make sacrifices “pleasing,” then the eucharist can be understood in continuity with this pattern, as a symbolic memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, not a metaphysical transformation of elements.

The biblical text never hints at transubstantiation. It consistently emphasizes relational obedience rather than philosophical alteration. Catholic theology, by insisting on a metaphysical change, imposes Aristotelian categories onto Scripture and creates a discontinuity that Scripture itself does not support.

Catholic Typology And Its Limits:

Catholic theologians appeal to typology, claiming that Old Testament sacrifices prefigure Christ’s perfect sacrifice, which the eucharist makes present. But typology explains meaning, not metaphysics. It does not justify introducing philosophical categories absent from the biblical witness.

A fulfillment can deepen significance without altering the fundamental category of the act. If Old Testament sacrifices were symbolic memorials expressing covenant loyalty, then the eucharist, as their fulfillment, could remain symbolic while possessing greater theological depth. Nothing in typology requires a metaphysical transformation of elements.

Thus, the typological argument does not bridge the gap between biblical symbolism and Catholic ontology. It simply assumes the very metaphysical shift it needs to prove.

Conclusion:

Numbers 15 presents a serious challenge to Catholic eucharistic theology. The passage highlights symbolic acceptance grounded in covenant fidelity, not metaphysical change. Catholic doctrine, by insisting on transubstantiation, introduces philosophical categories foreign to Scripture and breaks continuity with the biblical sacrificial pattern.

The eucharist, understood through biblical categories, functions as a memorial meal pleasing to God because of faith and obedience, not because bread and wine undergo an invisible ontological transformation. Numbers 15 therefore supports a symbolic interpretation of the eucharist and exposes transubstantiation as an extrabiblical construct rather than a faithful continuation of the biblical sacrificial tradition.

Arrogance At His Own Ignorance: Feodor's Masterful Butchering Of Divine Justice

          A wannabe biblical scholar and theologian who calls himself Feodor has decided to go on a rant to tell us what divine justice means: 

          https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/12/jesse-cannot-answer-whether-he-thinks.html

          He begins his piece with this fundamental premise:

          “God is eternal.”

          This is true in classical Christian theology, but Feodor uses it as a premise to argue that all attributes must be eternally expressed. Eternity means God exists outside of time, not that His attributes are constantly exercised in relation to creation. For example, God is eternally merciful, but mercy is only exercised when creatures exist who need mercy. Eternity refers to God’s nature, not His activity toward creation.

          “God is eternally active such that His being is always manifesting Truth, Goodness, and Beauty.”

          This collapses God’s immanent life (His inner being) into His economic activity (His relation to creation). God’s eternal activity is self‑sufficient within the Trinity; Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit eternally manifest truth, goodness, and beauty in their communion. But this does not mean those attributes must be manifest in creation at all times. Creation is contingent, not necessary, so God’s attributes are not dependent on it.

          “There is no change or quit in God, and therefore no change or quit in His attributes.”

          Divine immutability means God’s essence does not change, but it does not mean that His attributes are always exercised in the same way. Justice is eternally part of God’s nature, but its expression can vary: retributive when punishing sin, distributive when rewarding righteousness, restorative when healing creation. Feodor wrongly equates immutability with uniform activity.

          “Therefore, if Jesse maintains that God’s Justice is retributive — reactive to wrongdoing — then he logically assumes that wrongdoing is eternal.”

          This is a false inference. Retributive justice requires wrongdoing to exist, but only in history, not eternity. Wrongdoing can be finite, yet justice remains eternal because it also includes reward and preservation of order. Justice does not vanish when wrongdoing ends. It simply shifts its mode of expression.

          “But that violates the scriptural and orthodox representation that through Christ’s sacrifice, eternal redemption or eternal redemption & eternal damnation will be accomplished once for all eternity.”

          Redemption presupposes wrongdoing, but does not make wrongdoing eternal. Christ’s sacrifice is the decisive act of justice in history, satisfying retributive justice once for all. Justice continues eternally in vindication of the righteous and preservation of harmony. The biblical text affirms both retribution (Romans 6:23) and restoration (Revelation 21:4).

          “So what happens to an eternal God’s eternal attribute of Justice if wrongdoing has been stopped by perfection of retributive justice?”

          Justice does not “stop.” It is broader than punishment. It also means reward, vindication, and maintenance of order. Once wrongdoing ends, justice is eternally expressed in the perfect distribution of goods and the eternal flourishing of the redeemed. Its mode shifts from punishment to reward and preservation of order.

          “And for that matter, was this attribute just dormant before creation? Only to be wakened up by the eating of an apple? Or prior to that the rebellion of angel?”

          Dormancy is a category mistake. Attributes exist eternally in God’s essence, but their exercise toward creatures begins when creatures exist. Justice was eternally part of God’s nature, but its relational expression began with creation. This is consistent with attributes like mercy or patience, which are eternally possessed but exercised in time.

          “This notion violates the necessity that any attribute of God is eternally expressed. In God, being and act are the same.”

          Feodor confuses “eternally possessed” with “eternally expressed.” God’s attributes are eternally real in His essence, but their expression depends on whether there is an object to receive them. For example, God was eternally Creator in potency, but creation itself began in time. Being and act are the same in God, but not all acts are directed toward creation eternally.

          “Therefore the Church Fathers and orthodox theology has ever understood the eternal Justice of God to be expressed as perfect orderliness according to Truth, Goodness, and Beauty.”

          This is one strand of patristic thought, but not exhaustive. Augustine and Aquinas, for example, emphasized retributive justice as part of God’s eternal nature, exercised in time, while also affirming distributive and restorative dimensions. Athanasius spoke of justice in terms of God’s restorative work through the incarnation, healing the corruption of sin. Chrysostom highlighted God’s retributive justice in his homilies, warning of divine punishment for persistent wickedness. Gregory of Nyssa described justice as the divine ordering that both rewards virtue and corrects vice. To reduce justice merely to “orderliness” flattens its richness, since Scripture and tradition consistently portray justice as multifaceted: punitive in judgment, distributive in reward, and restorative in bringing creation back into harmony with divine truth, goodness, and beauty.

          “And as Truth is perfect with God, always and everywhere perfectly accomplished and accomplishing always and everywhere… there cannot be wrongdoing.”

          Wrongdoing clearly exists in history, so the claim “there cannot be wrongdoing” contradicts both the Bible and reality. Eternity in God does not erase temporal realities. It transcends them. Wrongdoing is real in time, even if it is ultimately overcome in eternity.

          “The choosing of wrongdoing upsets and corrupts the perfect order, the Truth and Goodness and Beauty of everything God creates. The attributes creatures are given in being made in the image and likeness of God are marred, and so correction is necessary to bring everything back into perfection.”

          Agreed, but correction itself is an act of justice. This shows justice is not only distributive, but also retributive and restorative. Feodor's own logic admits justice must respond to wrongdoing, contradicting its earlier denial. If correction is necessary, then wrongdoing is real. If wrongdoing is real, then justice must punish and restore. Consequently, justice cannot merely be reduced to distributive harmony.

          "Christian faith professes that this correction has been fully accomplished (among a host of other accomplishments) by Christ’s sacrifice and will be fully realized at the end of history, the Judgment.”

          Yes, but Christ’s sacrifice itself is an act of retributive justice. Wrongdoing is punished in Christ, satisfying divine justice. To deny retribution is to deny the substitutionary nature of the cross, which is central to orthodox theology.

          “Thereupon, the eternal God’s eternal attribute of Justice — the perfect and appropriate distribution of perfect goods to everything — will be eternally and perfectly cooperated with by Free and perfected creatures.”

          True as a description of the eschaton, but this does not negate the necessity of retributive justice in history. Justice has multiple modes: retributive (punishment of sin), distributive (reward of righteousness), restorative (bringing creation back to order). Limiting it to distributive harmony is reductionist.

          “This is the only logical and faithful sense making of the eternal God’s eternal attribute of Justice.”

          This exclusivist claim ignores centuries of theological nuance. Justice in Christian theology is multifaceted: retributive, distributive, and restorative. To say only one interpretation is “logical and faithful” dismisses the richness of orthodox tradition and oversimplifies divine justice.

Eyes On God Alone: Jehoshaphat As A Witness To Sola Fide

          In 2 Chronicles 20, Judah faces a crisis that strips away every human resource. A vast army approaches, and King Jehoshaphat leads the people in prayer. His words are stark: “We are powerless against this great horde that is coming against us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you.” (2 Chronicles 20:12) This confession is not a tactical maneuver or a rhetorical flourish. It is the raw acknowledgment of helplessness. Judah admits that they have no strength to resist, no wisdom to devise a plan, no strategy to secure survival. Their only hope is to look to God.

          This moment dramatizes the essence of faith alone. It is not faith supplemented by human effort, nor faith combined with wisdom or strength. It is faith in isolation, faith stripped of every possible human contribution. The people’s eyes are fixed on God because there is nowhere else to look. In this way, the passage presses the “sola” in Sola Fide. It is not simply that works cannot justify, but that all human resources, moral, intellectual, physical, collapse under the weight of the crisis. What remains is faith alone in God.

          The theological significance of this cry is profound. Justification and salvation are often discussed in terms of moral inability before God, but here the imagery is existential. Judah is powerless not only in righteousness but in existence itself. Their survival depends entirely on divine intervention. This reinforces the truth that justification cannot be grounded in human achievement. If salvation in battle rests solely on God’s deliverance, then salvation before God’s judgment rests solely on His mercy. In both cases, faith is the posture that receives what human effort cannot secure.

          Jehoshaphat’s reforms in chapter 19 highlight his devotion to God, but the narrative shifts in chapter 20 to emphasize something deeper: when the great horde approaches, his prior obedience cannot serve as the basis of deliverance. The king does not appeal to his reforms or courage. Instead, he confesses utter helplessness and fixes his eyes on the Lord. This moment underscores that salvation rests not on human strength or righteousness, but on God’s mercy alone. In the face of overwhelming crisis, faith becomes the sole posture by which Judah receives divine intervention.

          His prayer also anticipates the gospel’s declaration that justification before God is by grace through faith. The people are not saved because they fought bravely or planned wisely, but because they trusted wholly in God’s action. Their confession of helplessness magnifies the sufficiency of divine mercy. Faith is not one resource among many. It is the only resource when all else fails. This is why the passage resonates so deeply with the doctrine of Sola Fide. It shows that faith is not merely the first step in salvation, but the only step possible when human strength collapses.

          The timeless witness of 2 Chronicles 20:12 is that our standing before God rests not on our power, wisdom, or righteousness, but on His mercy alone. The cry “our eyes are on you” captures the posture of justification. It is the gaze of faith, the surrender of self-reliance, the acknowledgment that salvation belongs to God. In this way, Jehoshaphat’s prayer becomes a living testimony to the truth that justification has never been by works, but always by faith alone.

Job As A Witness To Justification By Faith Alone

          “How can a man be in the right before God? If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times.” (Job 9:2–3)

          Job’s cry emerges from the raw confrontation between human frailty and divine perfection. In the midst of his suffering, he wrestles with the question of justice: if God were to summon him to court, what defense could he possibly offer? His conclusion is stark. Yet beneath his words lies more than despair. Job is not only crushed by personal loss, but overwhelmed by the sheer majesty of God’s holiness, a holiness that exposes the limits of human wisdom and the futility of self‑vindication. His lament is sharpened by the awareness that divine justice is not subject to human negotiation or persuasion. No argument, no evidence, no plea can alter the verdict when measured against absolute righteousness.

          Job speaks as an individual standing alone before the Judge of all. The imagery is legal. Job envisions the courtroom of heaven, where every human attempt at righteousness collapses under cross‑examination. Even the most upright person could not withstand a thousand questions from God. The verdict is inevitable: no one can be justified by works. This anticipates Paul’s sweeping indictment in Romans 3: “None is righteous, no, not one.” Job’s despair is not merely personal. It is a theological axiom: justification by works is impossible.

          If the courtroom is unwinnable by merit, then the only hope is mercy received by faith. Job’s inability to answer “once in a thousand times” magnifies the necessity of trusting in God’s compassion rather than human achievement. Works may exist, but they cannot justify. Claims of human goodness collapse under the weight of divine scrutiny. Only faith in God’s mercy secures our standing before Him.

          Job’s words need not be dismissed as despair or incomplete revelation. Rather, they expose a universal truth: when human righteousness is measured against divine perfection, it is found wanting. The point is not that grace makes human effort sufficient, but that grace alone provides the standing that we lack. Job’s cry anticipates the necessity of a mediator who secures righteousness on our behalf, not by enabling us to answer “one in a thousand times,” but by answering perfectly in our place. Job’s confession magnifies the hope of salvation, showing that the only path to justification is mercy received through faith, not the fragile scaffolding of human achievement.

          Job’s cry in chapter 9 is not an isolated lament, but a timeless testimony. He stands as a witness to the truth that justification has never been by works, but always by faith in God’s mercy. His voice joins the chorus of Scripture, from Abraham’s belief counted as righteousness to Paul’s declaration that we are justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Job reminds us that before the Judge of all, our only plea is grace, our only defense is faith, and our only hope is Christ.

          Job’s cry in chapter 9 is not an isolated lament, but a timeless testimony. He bears witness to the truth that justification has never rested on human works, but always on faith in God’s mercy. His voice joins the chorus of Scripture, from Abraham’s belief counted as righteousness to Paul’s declaration that we are justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Even when Job later defends his integrity and God commends him, the deeper truth remains: human righteousness may be real, yet it cannot secure our standing before divine holiness. Job’s integrity silences false accusations, but his ultimate hope rests in God’s mercy. In this way, his story anticipates the gospel’s central claim, that our only plea is grace, our only defense is faith, and our only hope is Christ.

Radiant Communion With God

          “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.” (2 Peter 1:3-4, ESV)

          The words of 2 Peter 1:3–4 invite us into one of the most profound mysteries of Christian thought: that human beings are called to become “partakers of the divine nature.” This phrase, nestled within the apostle’s exhortation, is not a casual metaphor but a daring theological claim. It suggests that the life of God, infinite and uncreated, can be shared with finite creatures. The text insists that this participation is granted through divine power, not human achievement, and that it is mediated by knowledge of Christ and the promises given to those who follow him. To partake of the divine nature is to be drawn into communion with God’s own life, escaping the corruption of the world and being transformed into something more radiant, more whole, more real.

          In its historical context, this language would have resonated with both Jewish and Hellenistic audiences. The Jewish tradition already spoke of humanity as created in the image of God, destined to reflect divine glory. The Hellenistic world, meanwhile, was filled with philosophical aspirations to become “like the gods” through virtue and contemplation. Peter’s words take up these cultural threads but weave them into a distinctly Christian tapestry: it is not by human striving alone but by God’s gracious initiative that such transformation occurs. Early Christian thinkers, especially in the Eastern tradition, developed this idea into the doctrine of theosis, the belief that salvation is not merely forgiveness of sins but a real participation in God’s life. Athanasius famously summarized it: “God became man so that man might become god.” This was not blasphemy, but a recognition that Christ’s incarnation opened the door for humanity to be lifted into divine communion.

          Mystically, the notion of becoming partakers of the divine nature points to a reality beyond ordinary perception. It is not simply moral improvement or spiritual enlightenment, but a transfiguration of being. To share in God’s nature is to be suffused with divine light, to have one’s desires purified until they align with eternal love, to experience union that transcends individuality without erasing it. Mystics across centuries have described this as being “deified,” not in the sense of becoming identical with God, but of being permeated by God’s energies, like iron glowing with the fire that heats it. The human soul, in this vision, becomes transparent to divine presence, a living icon of eternity.

          Speculatively, one might imagine this transformation as a kind of mystical evolution. Not in the technological sense of altering DNA or uploading consciousness, but in the spiritual sense of humanity awakening to its hidden potential. Perhaps to partake of the divine nature is to discover dimensions of existence that lie beyond time and space, to perceive reality not as fragmented but as a seamless whole. In such a vision, the boundaries between human and divine blur, not by erasing difference, but by deepening communion. The divine nature is not absorbed into us, nor we into it, but we are drawn into a dance of participation, where finite beings are upheld by infinite love. It is as if the cosmos itself is a ladder, and each rung of ascent brings us closer to the source of all being, until we find ourselves radiant with the very glory that called us into existence.

          To become partakers of the divine nature, then, is to embrace a destiny that is both mystical and transformative. It is to live in the tension between corruption and glory, between mortality and immortality, and to trust that through Christ we are being drawn into the eternal life of God. This is not a promise of escape from the world but of its transfiguration, where even the ordinary becomes luminous with divine presence. In the end, the mystery of 2 Peter is not about becoming gods in our own right, but about being united with the God who shares his life so generously that we, too, may shine with his eternal light.

The Language Of Faith

Faith is not a doctrine recited or a ritual performed. It is a rhythm that moves quietly through life. It is the language of persistence when the path is unclear, the whisper of courage when fear presses close, the steady pulse of hope that refuses to be extinguished.

Faith speaks in the ordinary: in the way someone keeps walking despite exhaustion, in the way forgiveness is offered when bitterness would be easier, in the way trust is extended even when disappointment has been familiar. It is not bound to sacred spaces, but woven into the fabric of daily existence.

Faith is a language of paradox. It is both silence and song, both question and answer. It thrives in uncertainty, yet insists on meaning. It is the unseen grammar of resilience, shaping how we endure loss, how we celebrate joy, how we imagine futures not yet visible.

Faith does not demand eloquence. It can be clumsy, hesitant, even wordless. Yet it communicates through gestures: a hand held, a promise kept, a hope carried forward. It is less about what is said than about what is lived.

Faith is the language of those who believe that light can break into darkness, that love can outlast despair, that tomorrow can hold more than today. It is not confined to creeds or institutions. It is the quiet insistence that life has meaning beyond what can be measured.

The Covenant And Israel’s National Identity

"The one distinguishing feature of the state that eventually emerged as 'Israel' seems to have been its concept of statehood. Under the old regime of Canaan, political power had always gone hand in hand with possession of a city, which in turn meant that real power always resided in the hands of just a few privileged people. But the kind of state that developed under the influence of the covenant from Mount Sanai was underwritten by a different understanding of human society, in which class structure had no part to play. For a nation whose corporate identity was forged out of the story of a group of people who had been slaves, it was difficult to justify any one individual claiming a position of personal superiority, for in the beginning they had all been nobodies, and the only thing that made them a nation was the undeserved generosity of God. Israelite national identity was always firmly based on their understanding of the nature of God, and this was to have far-reaching consequences not only during the formative period of their history, but also throughout their entire existence as a nation. It meant that all elements of their population were of equal importance, and their ultimate responsibility was not to some centralized power structure, but to God alone."

John Drane, Introducing the Bible, p. 66

Daniel 9:18 Is An Overlooked Witness To Sola Fide

          Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 takes place during the Babylonian exile, a period when Israel was living under foreign rule because of its repeated disobedience to God’s covenant. Historically, this was a time of deep national shame and helplessness. The temple lay in ruins, the people were scattered, and there was no visible sign of Israel’s former glory. Against this backdrop, Daniel turns to God not with claims of righteousness or merit, but with a confession of failure and a plea for mercy. His words reflect the desperation of a people who know they cannot save themselves.

          In verse 18, Daniel says plainly: “We do not present our pleas before you because of our righteousness, but because of your great mercy.” This is the heart of his prayer. He acknowledges that Israel has no bargaining chips, no moral credit to offer. Their only hope is God’s compassion. In simple terms, Daniel is saying: “We don’t deserve this, but we’re asking because You are merciful.” That posture is what later Christian theology would call faith, a reliance on God’s character rather than human achievement.

          Exegetically, the verse is powerful because it strips away any notion of works‑based righteousness. Daniel does not appeal to Israel’s history, their covenant identity, or even his own personal faithfulness. Instead, he grounds the entire prayer in God’s mercy. This anticipates the New Testament’s teaching that justification is by grace through faith, not by works of the Law. Paul’s declaration in Romans 3:28, that a person is justified by faith apart from works, finds a clear Old Testament echo here.

          The surrounding context strengthens the implications of Sola Fide here: Israel’s failure to keep the commandments only magnifies the necessity of mercy. Obedience collapses under the weight of sin and cannot serve as the ground of acceptance. Daniel’s appeal makes clear that when righteousness fails, faith alone in God’s mercy remains. This is not a denial of covenantal obedience, but a declaration that obedience cannot justify. Only mercy, received by faith, secures standing before God, and Daniel 9:18 stands as one of the clearest Old Testament witnesses to that truth.

          Daniel’s confession in verse 9 reinforces the same reality: “To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him.” Here again, the collapse of obedience is acknowledged, and the futility of appealing to covenantal performance is exposed. Mercy and forgiveness are God’s possession, not Israel’s achievement, and they are accessed not through works but through faith. The rebellion of the people only magnifies the necessity of trusting in God’s compassion, showing that justification rests not on human righteousness, but on divine mercy received by faith alone.

          Though passages like Genesis 15:6 and Habakkuk 2:4 are often cited in discussions of Sola Fide, Daniel 9:18 is rarely mentioned. Yet it deserves attention as one of the clearest Old Testament statements that human righteousness cannot serve as the basis for approaching God. In plain words, Daniel reminds us that salvation has always been about mercy, not merit. His prayer is a timeless witness to the truth that our standing before God rests on His grace alone, received by faith.

Counting Bodies, Losing Credibility: Volf’s Thesis Refuted

          Some essays collapse under the weight of their own errors and exaggerations. Miroslav Volf’s piece on the history of Christian violence is one of them. Here is the original text for those interested in reading the whole piece for themselves: 

          https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-04/body-counts

          Miroslav Volf’s essay on Christian violence rests on a foundation of shaky statistics and sweeping generalizations. His reliance on Naveed Sheikh’s Body Count is particularly troubling. The classification of Nazi genocides as “Christian” is not only historically inaccurate but methodologically unsound. Nazism was explicitly hostile to Christianity, suppressing churches, persecuting clergy, and promoting “Positive Christianity” as a distorted substitute stripped of biblical ethics. Its ideology replaced Christian moral teaching with racial paganism and pseudo-scientific mythology. To lump Nazi atrocities into the Christian ledger is as misguided as calling Stalin’s purges “Christian” simply because they occurred in lands once shaped by Christian culture.

          Equally problematic is Volf’s framing of modern conflicts as “Christian wars.” The United States, though majority-Christian, is a secular republic whose wars are driven by geopolitics, not theology. To describe Iraq or Afghanistan as “Christian wars” is a distortion that erases the complex motives of statecraft and reduces them to religious caricature. Coalition forces include atheists, Jews, Muslims, and others, yet Volf insists on branding these conflicts as Christian. This rhetorical sleight of hand ignores the fact that the Christian just war tradition has often condemned such interventions, showing that Christianity provides moral tools to critique violence rather than justify it. To blame Christianity for wars waged by secular states is to confuse cultural demographics with theological causation.

          Volf’s historical selectivity further undermines his credibility. He highlights Christian violence while downplaying Islamic conquests, Mongol massacres, and the genocides of atheistic regimes in the twentieth century. The Mongols alone killed tens of millions, dwarfing many European conflicts, yet their atrocities are not attributed to “Mongol religion.” Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot together murdered more than any Christian empire, yet their crimes are conveniently excluded from the comparison. This cherry-picking of evidence creates a distorted narrative in which Christianity appears uniquely violent, when in fact violence is a universal human phenomenon. Historians typically classify violence by political, ethnic, or ideological causes, not by religion alone. To single out Christianity is not historical analysis but ideological targeting.

          His romanticized contrast between Nicholas of Cusa’s dialogue and Piccolomini’s crusade is another example of oversimplification. Volf claims dialogue “won” and explains Western ascendency, but this is historical fantasy. Western dominance was built on a complex interplay of Renaissance humanism, scientific revolution, industrialization, capitalism, and military power. Dialogue with Islam did not prevent centuries of conflict, from the sieges of Vienna to Barbary piracy. To suggest that “ideas, not guns” explain Western success is to ignore the obvious role of naval supremacy, industrialized warfare, and colonial expansion. Dialogue mattered, but it was hardly the decisive factor.

          Finally, the essay’s one-sidedness is glaring. Volf emphasizes Christian failures while ignoring Christianity’s transformative contributions. The abolition of slavery, the rise of universities, the nurturing of science, and the birth of humanitarian movements were all profoundly shaped by Christian thought and activism. Moreover, the Christian just war tradition has influenced secular international law, including the principles behind the Geneva Conventions. To present Christianity only as a source of violence is not balance but caricature. It is a polemical indictment masquerading as historical reflection.