Hengstenberg on Revelation 16:5

Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1802-1869), Hengstenberg on John, Revelation, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel & Psalms, at Revelation 16:5-7, wrote:

Revelation 16:5. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, who is and who was, the godly, because thou hast judged thus. Revelation 16:6. For blood of saints and prophets have they shed, and blood hast thou given them to drink; they are worthy! Revelation 16:7. And I heard the altar say, Yea, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments. ... In the address to God: “who is and who was, the godly,” (the text, which Luther followed, improperly prefixes, Lord, and instead of “the godly,” has “ and holy,” or “godly,”) those attributes of God are particularly specified, which were manifested by his judgments, and from which these judgments flowed. In regard to the expressions, “who is and who was,” comp. on ch. Revelation 11:17. In that passage the addition, “and who comes,” could not be made, because the Lord had there already fully come. Here we have still not reached the last end; four vials are yet to follow. But still, “who comes,” would not be properly suitable here, and there was no reason for resuming it now again, after it had already been laid aside at ch. Revelation 11:17. Here respect is not had, as in ch. Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8, Revelation 4:8, to what the Lord is going to do in the future; but what he has done, is brought into view. Here it was only in a fitting way indicated, that the old God proved by deed, that he still lived.

As there the emphasis lies on the “who comes,” so here it lies on the “who is;” q.d. Thou, who by thy deeds hast shewn that as thou hast been, so thou also art. The godly, as an epithet is applied to God, in reference to his regard for the moral order of the world, which admits of nothing alien to him, nothing opposed to him or rising above him, but only what is conformable to his own essential nature (comp. on ch. Revelation 15:4).

Hengstenberg, born in Prussia and a professor of the University at Berlin, corrects the addition "Lord" and treats hosios as vocative (i.e. "the Godly") rather than merely adjectival (i.e. "righteous ... and holy," or "righteous ... and godly").

Hengstenberg explains why "the coming one" is no longer used at this point Revelation 16:5, with the same rationale as at Revelation 11:17, and even more so because John's perspective is no longer of God as the one who will come, but as God who has come. 

Hengstenberg provides additional relevant discussion at Revelation 1:4:

From Him who is, and who was, and who comes. These words are a description of the name of Jehovah. I have showed in my Beitr. II. p 230, ss, that this name, properly Jahveh (for the vowels belong to Adonai, which the Jews pronounce instead of it) has the meaning of the Being, absolute existence. [Note: According to Delitzsch, in his Bibl. Proph. Theologie, p. 120, the name signifies the becoming, or going to be (der Werdende.) But this view is at once disposed of by the passage before us, as it would cut off “the who is and who was,” and leave only “the who comes.” So also by the original passage, Exodus 3:3-16, since it cannot explain the Ehjeh ascher Ehjeh and point out its essential identity with the mere Ehjeh. The name by this explanation is merely evacuated. The becoming swims in the air, if it does not rest for its basis on the being. The becoming of God, too, is a thought quite foreign to the whole of Scripture, and has passed over into theology from the modern philosophy. God comes, indeed, but he does not become.] The idea of pure, absolute, unchangeable existence, it was there remarked, as expressed of Jehovah, is a quite practical one; that which God is comes into consideration only as conditioning what he is for his people. This appears at once from Exodus 3:13-16. The people, in asking for his name, were to find in that a pledge and security for what was to be performed by God, for his wonderful help in the most distressing circumstances, not what should satisfy their metaphysical curiosity. The name Jehovah comprises in itself the fulness of all consolation, and the treasures thereof are here brought up from their depths and placed before the eyes of believers, the prophet’s companions in tribulation. On the rock of the pure, unchangeable, absolute Being of God dash all the despairing thoughts of those who can call this God their own, as also all the proud thoughts of the world which has him for its enemy. “I am a worm and no man” can be said in calm repose by such as can only look with an untroubled soul into this unfathomable mystery. As pure, and absolute, and unchangeable Being, God is; he exists in the fulness of that omnipotence which he makes subservient to the good of the church at the present time; he works, though in the depths of concealment, for her welfare, however circumstances may seem to indicate the contrary, and the world may triumph over the church lying in apparent helplessness on the ground, and bleeding with a thousand wounds He was; for he has given evidence of his being in the past by deeds of omnipotent love, as when he led the children of Israel out of the Egyptian house of bondage. He comes; for he will appear for the judgment of the world and for the salvation of his church, when the two shall be made to change places,—those ascending the throne who lay in the dust, and those who formerly occupied the throne thrust down to the ground. The stress should here be put upon the last clause, “he who comes.” [Note: The proof that the ὁ ἐρχόμενος is not synonymous with ὁ ἐσόμενος, as has been often affirmed, and still again by De Wette, is to be found in my Beitr., p. 239. I there pointed to the relation of the former expression to the ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν in Revelation 1:7, to the ἔρχομαι ταχύ in 22:7, 20, ii. 5, iii. 3, &c., where the view of God’s suffering and persecuted people is directed to the coming of God and Christ. Also to the dropping of the ὁ ἐρχόμενος in ch. 11:17, after the was and is, because the future of God’s kingdom had become present, the coming had come.] In ch. Revelation 4:8 the four living creatures constantly cry out, “Holy, holy, holy, is God, the Lord, the Almighty, who was, and who is, and who comes:” as much as to say, who, as by giving matter-of-fact demonstration of his Being in the past and present, he has proved himself to be the was and is, so will he also come to establish his kingdom over the whole earth. The inversion there (who was and is, instead of, who is and was here) shews that the expression “who is” here does not indicate the whole nature of God,—does not express, like the name Jehovah, his eternal, absolute Being, but is limited to the living efficacious tokens of his Being at the present time, for which the manifestations of his Being during the past afford a pledge. To the same result, also, we are led by the simple fact that along with the “who is” we have here on either side the two expressions “who was” and “who comes.” In the original it is literally: from who is, and was, and comes. There was no room for flexion, because thereby the unconditional application of the three designations to the Lord would have been darkened, and also because the Greek has no participle preterite.  

I find it especially interesting that Hengstenberg denies that "who is" here indicates the whole nature of God and says that the inversion in Revelation 4:8 "proves" that it is not equivalent to Jehovah. I'm not sure that he's convinced me so easily.

Hengstenberg's response to Delitzsch is particularly apt: "The becoming of God, too, is a thought quite foreign to the whole of Scripture, and has passed over into theology from the modern philosophy. God comes, indeed, but he does not become."  The idea of God as the "shall being one" may be something Plato would accept, but it is not something that Scripture teaches.

Hengstenberg is also wise to point out that "ὁ ἐρχόμενος is not synonymous with ὁ ἐσόμενος," despite the oft conflation.  The periphrastic use of "come" lends itself to such an understanding, but it is more natural to take "the coming one" to refer to the role of coming in judgment, rather than as suggesting something remains future in God.

Some Less Relevant Commentary on Revelation 16:5

From my earlier survey (link thereto), here are a few commentaries that have at least a little bearing on the Revelation 16:5 debate.

• J. Hampton Keathley III (d. 2002), taught at Moody Bible Institute (link)
• The reference in Revelation 16:5; "who are and who were" refers to the eternal essence of God. As the Eternal One, one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. God is long-suffering but eventually God’s holiness must act and His judgment against sin will be delayed no longer.
• Dr. Manly Luscombe (b. 1950, Doctorate in Biblical Studies, Harvard) (link)
• 5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying: “You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things.
• A. The angel declares that the judgment of God is righteous. God is Just. I made some extended comments on this matter in the notes in chapter 15.
• B. When God judges the wicked, all the saints will agree that the judgment was the only thing that a Righteous and Holy God could do. If God did not judge them in this way, He would not be a Holy and Just God.
• Schaff's Popular Commentary (Philip Schaff d. 1893, worked on the American Bible Revision Committee) (link)
• Revelation 16:5-6. And I heard the angel of the waters saying, Thou art righteous, which art, and which wast, the Holy One. No episode of this kind had intervened at the close of the third trumpet. But at the highest stage of judgment it is fitting that even those who suffer from it should answer that it is right. The answer is given by the ‘angel of the waters,’ not the angel ‘who was set over the waters,’ and surely not the angel who now poured out his bowl upon the waters, but the waters themselves speaking by their angel, and responding to the fact that the judgment which they have incurred is just. The ascription of praise is to God as ‘righteous,’ and it will be observed that He is described in three particulars; first, ‘which art,’ secondly, ‘which wast,’ thirdly, ‘the Holy One.’ ‘Which art to come’ can be no longer used, for God is come (comp. chap. Revelation 11:17). The particular method of judgment is also commended. It is again the lex talionis; those who had poured out blood shall drink blood.
• Schaff at 11:17
• Revelation 11:17. Contains the first part of their song of praise and thanksgiving. In reading, a comma is to be placed after the word Lord, which presents us with the name of Him who has thus triumphed, and brought the troubles of His Church to an end. The name ‘Lord’ is then followed by three appellations as at chap. Revelation 4:8, first. God; secondly, the Almighty; thirdly, which art and which wast, the third clause usually belonging to this last appellative, ‘which is to come,’ being left out because no longer needed: the Lord is come. This part of the song of praise deals with the general statement that the Lord has taken to Him His great power. That power had indeed been always His, but for a time He had permitted His enemies to contend against it. He is to permit this no longer.
• James Burton Coffman (d. 2006, Church of Christ minister)(link)
• Righteous art thou, who art and who wast … We might have expected the phrase "and who is to come" until it is remembered that this vision reveals the state of things when the coming of Christ has already begun.
• Thou Holy One, because thou didst thus judge … This with the next two verses is a kind of parenthesis to show that such terrible judgments are in no sense to be construed as unbecoming or out of character in the one true and living God who gave his Son for our redemption. No! These judgments are exactly what the God of love should do. "The pouring out of the bowls is not a series of arbitrary actions, but a solemn judgment."
• Albert Barnes (d. 1870,  studied at Princeton Theological Seminary)(link) 
• Which art, and wast, and shalt be - That is, who art eternal - existing now; who hast existed in all past time; and who will exist ever onward. See the notes on Revelation 1:8. The reason why this attribute of God is here referred to, seems to be that the mind of the angel adverts to it in the changes and desolations that were occurring around him. In such overturnings among people - such revolutions of kingdoms - such desolations of war - the mind naturally turns to one who is unchanging; to one whose throne is from everlasting to everlasting.
• Barnes at 1:4
• from him which is, and which was, and which is to come - From him who is everlasting - embracing all duration, past, present, and to come. No expression could more strikingly denote eternity than this. He now exists; he has existed in the past; he will exist in the future. There is an evident allusion here to the name Yahweh, the name by which the true God is appropriately designated in the Scriptures. That name יהוה Yahweh, from היה haayah, to be, to exist, seems to have been adopted because it denotes existence, or being, and as denoting simply one who exists; and has reference merely to the fact of existence. The word has no variation of form, and has no reference to time, and would embrace all time: that is, it is as true at one time as another that he exists. Such a word would not be inappropriately paraphrased by the phrase “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” or who is to be; and there can be no doubt that John referred to him here as being himself the eternal and uncreated existence, and as the great and original fountain of all being.
• They who desire to find a full discussion in regard to the origin of the name Yahweh, may consult an article by Prof. Tholuck, in the “Biblical Repository,” vol. iv., pp. 89-108. It is remarkable that there are some passages in pagan inscriptions and writings which bear a very strong resemblance to the language used here by John respecting God. Thus, Plutarch (De Isa. et Osir., p. 354.), speaking of a temple of Isis, at Sais, in Egypt, says, “It bore this inscription - ‘I am all that was, and is, and shall be, and my vail no mortal can remove’“ - Ἐγώ εἰμι πᾶν τὸ γεγονός, καὶ ὅν, καὶ ἐσόμενον καὶ τὸν ἐμὸν πέπλον οὐδείς τω θνητὸς ἀνεκάλυψεν Egō eimi pan to gegonos, kai hon, kai esomenon kai ton emon peplon oudeis tō thnētos anekalupsen. So Orpheus (in Auctor. Lib. de Mundo), “Jupiter is the head, Jupiter is the middle, and all things are made by Jupiter.” So in Pausanias (Phocic. 12), “Jupiter was; Jupiter is; Jupiter shall be.” The reference in the phrase before us is to God as such, or to God considered as the Father.
• John Nelson Darby (d. 1882, a Plymouth Brethren Founder)(link)
• 16:5 one, (l-19) Hosios . see Note b, ch. 15.4.
• Darby at 15:4
• 15:4 holy; (b-16) Hosios , not hagios . It is used for mercy, grace, and of Christ, as the One in whom all gracious qualities are concentrated. (Psalms 89:1 ,Psalms 89:2 ,Psalms 89:19 .) In men it means piety and uprightness. Chesed is so translated in the Old Testament. It is in general the sum of qualities which suit and form the divine character in man, as opposed to the human will. what God gives as consistent with himself, his character, and promise. The 'sure mercies ' of David is expressed by this word in the LXX, Isaiah 55:3 ; Acts 13:34 . God alone possesses the qualities which entitle him to worship as a pious man would understand it. Hosios is used in this general way for 'holy.' see Note i, Hebrews 7:26 . homage (c-24) See Note h, ch. 3.9. righteousnesses (d-29) See Note, ch. 19.8.
• Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary (Albert Garner and J.C. Howes) (link)
• 2) "Thou art righteous, 0 Lord, which art," (dikaios ei ho on ho hosios) "righteous art thou, the one who is the holy one," 0 Lord, as in Revelation 15:3.
• 3) "And wast and shalt be," (kai ho en) "and existed (was) and shall ever be;” the eternal God, the Master or Lord of all forever, Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8; Revelation 11:17.

The significance of Keathley's observation is that indeed God's eternity is conveyed without the need for the addition of a future tense verb.  

Similarly, I found it interesting that Luscombe sees God as "Righteous and Holy" or "Holy and Just" here despite using the KJV wording of the text, which replaces "holy" with "and shall be."

Schaff's observation about why "is to come" is not present in Revelation 11:17 and 16:5 is similar to Beza's own analysis (link) at Revelation 16:5.  The reason why that description of God is not present in those passages is that by those places, He has come in judgment.  This, of course, ought to lead one to recognize that "the coming one" is not a periphrastic way of saying "who shall be".  Coffman's observation is the same.

Barnes, following Beza, has the future tense verb at Revelation 16:5 and gets the same idea of God's eternality.  Barnes also erroneously treats "is to come" as a periphrastic way of expressing God's future existence.  

Darby's note is of interest because it, quite correctly (and long before the work of Nelson and Peels) focuses on the significance of the use of hosios, not hagios, in Revelation 15:4 and 16:5, and its connection to Chesed in the Old Testament. I would slightly disagree with his way of getting to how God is hosios, because it is better to see God as being the only one possessing the true quality of hesed/hosios in his covenantal dealings with his people.

Garner and Howes have an odd blend of readings in their note.  Their first English does not match their first transliterated Greek, and their transliterated Greek while it matches their second English does not match any Greek text, because it omits "the having-been one". In bullet 3, again their English and Greek do not align.   

Survey of Revelation Commentaries

The "Study Light" website provides numerous commentary resources.  There is a range of orthodoxy and quality amongst the resources.  So, I provide the links below merely for reference for those interested, not by way of any kind of recommendation.  Additionally, given that there are already over 80 works that in some way discuss Revelation 16 (usually specifically including verse 5), I thought it would be wise to catalogue those resources I've reviewed in preparation for my planned debate on Revelation 16:5.  God willing in future posts, I will in some way interact with those resources that in some way have a bearing on the specific textual issues that pertain to that debate.  For this post, I merely categorize the resources, according to whether they are:

• essentially irrelevant: resources in this category range from resources that provide no commentary or even quotation of Revelation 16:5, to those that provide some commentary or a quotation of Revelation 16:5, but that fall short of providing comments that would appear to have any impact on the debate.  I'm not saying that these works are irrelevant in general -- some of them, such as Poole's Annotations, are excellent resources -- just not relevant to my debate on Revelation 16:5.
• minor relevance: resources in this category have some kind of comments or statements that, while they do not go directly to the heart of the issue, have at least some bearing on the debate (usually in terms of the internal evidence)
• significant: resources in this category provide some kind of interesting or highly relevant observation
• most significant: resources in this category in some way directly address the textual issue.  These were, of course, the resources I was looking for in my search.  

Naturally, the "Study Light" website, while extensive, is not complete.  There doubtless are commentaries that are not found on this site, including some of the most recent and most scholarly by contemporary standards.  So, exclusion from the list below means nothing other than that on January 21, 2025, the website did not list the resource (or that I, in my haste, somehow overlooked it). 

Essentially Irrelevant

• Foy Wallace (link)
• Larkin (link)(link to actual book)
• Koenig (link)
• Box (link)
• D.S. Clark (link)
• Hampton (link)
• Knollys (link)
• Smith (link)
• Ironside (link)
• Brown (link)
• Norris (link)
• "Restoration" (link)
• Kelly (link)
• Newell (link)
• Zerr (link)
• "Concordant" (link)
• Orchard (link)
• Barclay (link)
• Edwards (link)
• Godbey (link)
• "Bible Study New Testament" (link)
• "People's New Testament" (link)
• Burkitt (link)
• Clarke (link)
• Bridgeway (link)
• Bell (link)
• Smith (link)
• Dummelow (link)
• Dr. Constable (link)
• Ellicott (link)
• Expositor's Dictionary of Texts (link)
• Hole (link)
• F. B. Meyer (link)
• Gaebelein (link)
• Gann (link)
• Morgan (link)
• Everett (link)
• Geneva Study Bible (link)
• Haydock (link)
• Gray (link)
• Seiss (link)
• Sutcliffe (link)
• Trapp (link)
• King (link)
• Kretzmann (link)
• Lange (link)
• Grant (link)
• Wells of Living Water (link)
• Henry "Complete" (link) and "Concise" (link)
• Poole "Annotations" (link)
• Pett (link)
• Peake (link)
• "Preacher's Homiletical Commentary" (link)
• Hawker's "Poor Man" (link)
• Benson (link)(Interesting as an example of the danger of interpreting Revelation using the newspaper)
• Scofield (link)
• The Biblical Illustrator (link)
• Coke (link)
• The Expositor's Bible Commentary (link)
• Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (link)
• Wesley (link)
• Whedon (link)

Minor Relevance (My analysis of the "minor relevance" commentaries as a group)

• Keathley (link)
• Luscombe (link)
• Schaff's Popular Commentary (link)
• Coffman (link)
• Barnes (link) 
• Darby (link)
• Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary (link)

Significant 

• Hengstenberg (link)(my analysis here)
• Utley (link)(my analysis here)
• Alford (link)(my analysis here)
• Robertson's Word Pictures (link)(my analysis here)

Most Significant

• Bengel (link)(my analysis here)
• Scott (link)(my analysis here)
• Cambridge Greek Testament (link)(my analysis here)
• Meyer (link)(my analysis here)
• Vincent's Word Studies (link)(my analysis here)
• Bullinger (link)(my brief analysis here)
• Gill (link)(my analysis here)
• Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (link)(link to "unabridged" version)(my analysis here)
• The Pulpit Commentary (link)(my analysis here)

God willing, I plan to summarize and discuss the most relevant material from these last three categories of resources, either for a future blog post or video (or both).

Responding to Nick Sayers' Interview with AVBibleThumperMinistries on the alleged significance of the three "I AM" statements in Exodus 3:14

 Approximately from 1:54:31 to 1:56:50 in "Interviewing Nick Sayers @RevolutionDebates on The Perfection of The KJV!!!" Nick Sayers states:

They claim to us, “oh you're you're following no manuscripts in this place.”  Like, say, one example: Revelation 16:5. They always bring this up.  Oh, Revelation 16:5 - when it has “shall be – “Oh, that's a conjectural emendation. That was just made up out of thin air.” Sort of thing.  What they don't tell you is when it says “the one who is, and was, and shall be,” that's actually the etymology of the name of Jehovah: the past, the present, and the future. When you read in Exodus 3, verses 14 to 15, it has three I AMs there. One's the past, One's the present, One's the future. And then the next verse says, “My name is Jehovah.”  So, the building blocks for the name of Jehovah is: the past, the present, and the future – the one who is, and was, and shall be. So, when it says that -- some scribe wrote “holy” on it because it's the holiest name of God according to the Jews. Many times they don't even pronounce this name and so they've written “holy” on a lot of these manuscripts, which is a type of – it's a name and so they put a “Sacra” on it which means “holy.” So, it’s a nomin sacra.  So, understanding that, we do have some very good internal evidence for some of these things that — people have been saying for years that, “oh this is a conjectural emendation.” James White will make a big fuss about this, but they don't tell you it's the name of Jehovah there in the Book of Revelation, in Revelation 16:5, and that changes everything. Why would they have “holy” written there? Well, it's a holy name.  Jews didn't want anyone to say this. I mean they even say God with a g dash d.  You know what I mean. If they’re seeing the etymology of Jehovah with the three I AMs there, that's like – that's radioactive to them. And so they're going to write “holy” there. And, so that's why you see these type of things. It’s a name. It’s a full name of the name of Jehovah. So, of course it's going to have the three elements: the past, the present, and the future. It appears four other times in the Book of Revelation as the one who was, and is, and is to come; but the purest form is the one who was, and is, and shall be. And they wrote holy over it. 

First, let's look at Scripture.

Exodus 3:13-16 

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations. 16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and [seen] that which is done to you in Egypt:

This argument from the "three I AMs" may not be original to Nick (I don't recall whether he cites anyone for this idea), but it does not seem to be either translationally or exegetically sound.

It is true that the phrase "I AM" appears three times in the English of Exodus 3:14 in the KJV.  The Hebrew of the verse says:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם׃

Most English translations render this Hebrew word (in all three places) as "I AM." Certainly, Nick's preferred English translation, which he normally argues was perfectly translated, likewise uses "I AM" in all three places.  Some render this word as "shall be."  Some commentators (such as Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), p. 64 or Robert A. Snyder), argue that the Hebrew word אֶהְיֶה could be variously understood as past, present, or future.  Snyder writes:

With regard to translation, “I AM WHO I AM” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) has nine possibilities, due to three translations for the verb (“I was” or “I am” or “I will be”) and three translations for the relative pronoun (“who” or “what” or “that”).

Similarly, Hamilton writes:

Nevertheless, at the next page, Hamilton concludes:

Likewise, Snyder connects Exodus 3:14 with the Gospel "I am" statements:

The Gospel of John proclaims Jesus as the fulfillment of the divine name of Exodus. As in Exodus, where “He will always be whatever his people need him to be in any given moment, in any given place,” because truly God is both “I-will-be-what-I-will-be” and “I-will-be-what-I-need-to-be-for-you,”[62] so also in John, Jesus is both the absolute “I am” and the predicate “I am your every need.” Jesus is God’s memorial-name forever and our very strong tower. Hallelujah!

Neither of these gentlemen, however, suggest that somehow the three instances of אֶהְיֶה in Exodus 3:14 should be understood respectively as past, present, and future.

Additionally, while versification does lasso in a third instance of "I AM," in God's own explanation of His name, He only uses אֶהְיֶה twice, namely: "אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה" - "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" - "I AM THAT I AM," in the KJV.  Moreover, when God tells Moses what Moses should tell the people, God simply states: "אֶהְיֶה" (ehyeh), a single time.

• When God expands that in the next verse, He says: 
• "LORD (i.e. YHWH) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," 
• "יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב"
• "YHWH elohei avoteichem elohei avraham elohei yitzchak velohei ya'akov"

Thus, God explains says Moses should refer to Him as YHWH, and describe him as the "elohei avoteichem" (God of your fathers), namely the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.  Elohim is used four times and the Tetragrammaton is used once, but even the triple use of Elohim is not about past, present, and future, but about identifying the three principle patriarchs of the people of Israel.

As for the assertion that "some scribe wrote 'holy' on it," this assertion lacks merit.  There is precedence for substitutions of Adonai for YHWH in Hebrew or κύριος (kurios - Lord).  The KJV itself follows this practice in most places in the Old Testament, including in Exodus 3:15.  There is also precedent for abbreviating words like κύριος as ΚΣ (kappa sigma, with a line over them).  This latter practice is also known as nomina sacra abbreviation.  However, characteristic of nomina sacra abbreviations is the omission of letters and the use of the overline.  What Sayers has proposed is a substitution without any precedent.

The reference to the similar expressions in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:17 is a sword with two edges for Sayers.  In none of these places do we find manuscripts reflecting a similar scribal practice as Sayers has proposed occurred here.  Sayers' assertion that this is the "purest form" is - again - a claim without precedent.  It's not a "form" used anywhere in Scripture, nor is it a form used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, nor in the other Jewish writings before the New Testament.  

Additionally, Revelation 11:17 does not help Sayers, as it does not even include the "coming one" found in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8, and necessary for Sayers to view this as some kind of "triadic declaration." 

Codex Vaticanus Says What?!

Matt 27:49b contains an unusual textual variant that is found in manuscripts 01, 03, 04, 019, 67, 1780, 2586, 2680, 2766.  In at least two of these (1780 and 2766) a later corrector tried to remove the variant reading.  The variant reading is the addition of the following: "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα"  (67, 1780, 2586, and 2680 have αιμα και υδωρ rather than the reverse). The literal meaning of the Greek is "another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood" (or blood and water, if you change the order of the words).

We know that Jesus' side was pierced with spear from John 19:34, which states:

ἀλλ᾽ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

The issue that arises is that in John's account, this takes place after Jesus was already dead, whereas at Matthew 27:49b, the event appears to come right before Jesus dies.  This would create a synoptic problem.

Unfortunately, some King James Version advocates have started to make claims like this (link to start of quotation): "There are really hard readings in Vaticanus, where Jesus didn't die on the cross. He died from a spear in Vaticanus."

It's hard to take this kind of claim seriously.  Even assuming that the variant reading of Matthew 27:49b were original, the text would only seem to imply that Jesus was killed by the spear thrust while on the cross.  Moreover, the blood and water (or water and blood) was an indication that Jesus was already dead when he speared.

Moreover, each of 01, 03, 019, 2680, and 2766 (namely all of the manuscripts that have the variant at Matthew 27:49b and have John 19:34 transcribed in INTF in any form) have "αλλ εις των στρατιωτων λογχη αυτου την πλευραν ενυξεν και εξηλθεν ευθυς αιμα και υδωρ" (or something very similar) at John 19:34.

So, while Vaticanus (aka 01) has an unusual variant at Matthew 27:49b, Vaticanus in John 19:34 affirms that the spear thrust was after Jesus' death.  Indeed, none of the witnesses to this unusual variant alter John 19:34.  Manuscript 04 (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus) lacks John 18:36–20:25.  Manuscript 67 lacks John 6:65 to 21:25).  I have not determined why 1780 and 2586 are not transcribed at John 19:34.  Both manuscripts are available online. 

Other KJV advocates have made similar claims.  Peter S. Ruckman, "The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars?" p. 275 (endnote at p. 438 - caps and italics are Ruckman's): 

Who really "slew" Christ? Com'on? Never mind what some deceived dunce thinks is a "problem" in the AV  text. Who killed Jesus Christ? His death is attributed (by Stephen) to the Jews (Acts 7:52). Simon Peter blames it on the Jews (Acts 3:15). On some level they must have slain him, for Paul says the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 2:15; but fact it, I mean like a full-grown, adult male, the Romans tried Him, the Romans whipped Him, the Romans nailed him, and the Romans stuck the spear in his side after he was dead--INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT SINAITICUS (א) AND VATICANUS (B) have the Roman soldier piercing Christ's side WHILE HE IS STILL ALIVE?[EN12]

(There are those two "great" uncials that White says are "vilified." Go sit on a tack, kid).

[12. Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 33-34 and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, p. 80.]

Rather than address Ruckman's assertions, better to go to his source for this particular matter, Burgon.

Burgon writes (The Revision Revised ..., pp. 33-34):

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of א B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that heretical depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. That (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, 'This came from Tatian's Diatessaron ; and that from Marcion's mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.' The piercing of our Saviour's side, transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former, — which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (alone among Editors) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this, ' the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge of B,' — this 'sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,' [fn1] — has been actually foisted into the margin of the Revised Version of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work ? For whose benefit is the information volunteered that ' many ancient authorities ' are thus grossly interpolated ?

[FN1 Scrivener, Plain Introd. p. 472.]

Burgon further writes (The Last Twelve Verses ..., p. 80:

2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or of א, or of both, has clearly been interpolated. There does not exist in the whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our Redeemer’s side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and Cod. א, where it is introduced at the end of  ver. 49,— in defiance of reason as well as of authority [fn t] “This interpolation” (remarks Mr. Scrivener) “which would represent the Saviour as pierced while yet living, is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false [fn u].”

[FN t "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!]

[FN u Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xlvii.]

The characterization of the text appearing in Matthew being "transfer" or being "transplanted" is an erroneous characterization, when the same manuscripts maintain John's reading in John.  On the other hand, one can understand why Burgon, agreeing with Scrivener that the reading is "unquestionably false," would be upset that it would be listed in the margin.

Likewise, James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

When Snapp says, "In real life, if the Alexandrian variant in Matthew 27:49 were adopted, you can kiss the doctrine of inerrancy good-bye," one wonders what Snapp is thinking.  Even if it were original, one could easily resolve the apparent conflict without discarding the doctrine of inerrancy.  There are more challenging synoptic problems than this.  

Burgon goes on to write at length on the variant in The Last Twelve Verses... at Appendix (H)(p. 313-18).  I won't reproduce the entirety of the Appendix, but suffice to say that Burgon goes on to mention that Matthaei explains this as possibly an interpolation based on Lectionary practice (TLTV, p. 313). However, Burgon goes on to explain that based on finding a manuscript that has the variant reading in a marginal reading and ascribes it to Tatian, Burgon is convinced and suggests that Tatian's Diatessaron is the source of this parallel corruption.

If Burgon were correct in assigning this corruption to Tatian's harmony of the gospels, known as the Diatessaron, then this is a Syrian reading.  I'm not convinced it was Tatian's harmony that is the source of this issue, but it does seem to be a kind of parallel corruption caused by a lectionary, harmony, or similar source that combined Matthew and John's material and led an early scribe to insert the material, presumably from memory. Metzger's Textual Commentary, p. 59, concurs that it is likely an insertion from memory. On the other hand, Philip W. Comfort's NT Text and Translation Commentary p. 87 thinks the omission in later manuscripts is the result of tampering with the text and suggests that the text should be included, at most with single brackets rather than the double brackets proposed by WH.

It is certainly difficult to explain the reading as being a memory of John 19:34 for reasons that Comfort identifies.  However, that does not rule out the reading as a memory of a gospel harmony or summary for catechetical or liturgical purposes.

*** 

Updated January 19, 2025:

Nick Sayers was kind of enough to send comments regarding this blog post:

Nick wrote: 

I was mentioning that he did die on the cross but not from the effects of the cross but from a stab wound, but I didn't mention that in every place. 

Nick then provided a link to his recent video: (Final) Examining: Cultish - Part 2: Answering KJVO With Wes Huff‬ by Nick Sayers Are We Cultists? 

I offer the following cleaned-up transcription:

1:52:05-43

sometimes it's just these scribes were just bad: having Jesus die from being stabbed in Codex Vaticanus and not dying on the cross -- not dying from you know the crucifixion but dying from being stabbed -- is -- it's bizarre -- it's strange but I don't actually think that the devil was there behind the Scribe. I think the Scribe just made an error, inserted something in there that made that so, and then you're just left with this dumb manuscript that has this dumb reading in it. That's all.

While I appreciate the nuance that Nick is offering here, he's still wrong because Codex Vaticanus does not say that the spear thrust was the cause of death, nor that it was the cause of death to the exclusion of being crucified.  Moreover, even if something accelerated death on the cross, the person was still considered to have been crucified (recall that the thieves' legs were broken to hasten their death).  And we know that Jesus died unusually quickly for a crucified person, even if the variant reading is not original. 

Even if the variant were original, and even assuming that the variant were to be understood as recording an event chronologically in order, Jesus still cries and gives up the ghost in verse 50, thereby surviving for at least a short while.

Recall:

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Mark 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Notice that there are some differences amongst these accounts, but they are not contradictions.

More specifically:

Matthew

• Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 44)
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 45)
• Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness (vss. 46-47)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 48)
• Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 50)
• Centurion sees Jesus die and the earthquake (vs. 54)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate commands it (vs. 58)
• (No test of death or request for confirmation of death)

Mark

• Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 32) 
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 33)
• Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness ( vs. 34)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
• Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 37)
• Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 39)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 43)
• Pilate questions whether Jesus is dead so soon (vs. 44)
• Centurion confirms (vs. 45)

Luke

• Co-crucified malefactors mentioned (vs. 33)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
• One malefactor mocks, the other believes (vss. 39-43)
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 44)
• Jesus cries "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and gives up the ghost (vs. 46)
• Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 46)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 52) (Pilate's response is not provided, but impliedly request is granted)

John

• Malefactors mentioned (vs. 18)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 28-30)
• Jesus says "It is finished" and gives up the ghost (vs. 30)
• Pilate orders legs to be broken to make the crucifixion faster (vs. 31)
• Soldier sees Jesus is already dead (vs. 33)
• Soldier pierces Jesus' side (vs. 34)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate grants (vs. 38)

As you can see, these are not four photocopies of one another.  Was Jesus given/offered vinegar before the darkness or after the darkness?  Pilate's involvement is also differently described in each.  What was the last sound from Jesus' lips? 

I certainly concur with those who say that including the variant at Matthew 27:49b creates a synoptic challenge, but it is no greater than the challenge of the vinegar or of Pilate's involvement.  There are two resolutions:

• Matthew was not recording the spear thrust in chronological order of the overall narrative, but rather as a section on the soldiers' actions (i.e. one soldier offered Jesus vinegar, another speared him).
• John is not implying that spearing took place when the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, but instead that the effects of the previous spearing were visible, both water and blood having exuded from the wound.

Likewise, Matthew's account does not mention any posthumous test of death, just that the centurion saw it (link).  Mark mentions that Pilate asked the centurion whether Jesus was already dead and that the centurion confirmed it, but does not describe any further test (link). 

Nick also linked to a second point in the same video.  My cleaned-up transcript of that section reads:

3:06:06-22

If you've got a reading like in Vaticanus that says Jesus died from being stabbed, not that he died from the effects of being on the cross like all the other Bibles say, then that's just wrong.

I reiterate my points above.  Additionally, Vaticanus is not all alone in this reading, as also set forth above.

Nick also pointed to his first video in the response to Cultish:

16:20-43

Now for me, I see Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as just as bad as this. They're old documents but they're very corrupted. Say with Vaticanus, Jesus doesn't die on the cross. He dies by getting a spear in his side: that's how he dies. So - but they don't put that in the modern Bibles do they!

And a second place in the same video:

3:47:32-49

When Vaticanus says that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he died from a spear wound, or he didn't die from the cross, he died from a spear wound, couldn't that be someone putting some sort of bizarre weird thing into the text 

A couple of thoughts:

First, I think Nick is right that no major English translations have adopted the reading in this variant as the main text.  On the other hand, I believe the quotations above demonstrate that the RV mentioned the variant in the margin.  It was something that definitely angered Burgon.

Second, Vaticanus does not say that Jesus didn't die from the cross.

Third, the text itself of the variant is not some "bizarre weird thing" - it is quite similar to what is found in John's gospel.

Nick added: "Burgon would have been annoyed at the footnote because he was saying unnecessary marginal notes in the RV like 616 were causing doubt and not faith."  I think I've addressed this above. 

Nick also raised the good point that Codex Alexandrinus is Byzantine in the gospels, which has led me to remove a sentence from the post above. 

Thanks to Nick for his interaction with the post.

Seven Sages and Revelation 16:5

The Precepts of the Seven Sages (or "Sentences of the Seven Sages" or "Injunctions of the Seven Sages") is a collection of concise wisdom.  There are nearly 150 statements in list, and seems to cover various moral and ethical rules in the form of maxims or gnomic commands.  They are thought to originate around the 5th century before Christ (although the TLG suggests as early as the 6th or 7th century BC).  

Of particular interest to me are two of the rules: 

• Ὅσια κρῖνε. 
• Κρῖνε δίκαια.

These are of interest because of Revelation 16:5, which states:

• Καὶ ἤκουσα τοῦ ἀγγέλου τῶν ὑδάτων λέγοντος· δίκαιος εἶ, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν, ὁ ὅσιος, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔκρινας, 

You may notice that Revelation 16:5 mentions a form of the verb "judge" (κρίνω) in linked connection with both ὅσιος (traditionally translated "holy") and δίκαιος (traditionally translated "righteous").  The seven sages rules include commands to judge ὅσια and δίκαια.  

This serves to demonstrate, in a very minor way, the semantic propriety of the reading that is found in nearly all of the Greek manuscripts of Revelation, over against any naysayers, particularly those who are simply using the traditional English translations of the terms, without regard to the nuances of the Greek.

The text of the precepts with a very amateur and provisional translation is as follows (also see the links provided above for other translations)(this section may be in need of serious correction, which I will make if/when I identify the needed corrections):
 

Greek	English
ΣΩΣΙΑΔΟΥ	Sosiades
ΤΩΝ ΕΠΤΑ ΣΟΦΩΝ ΥΠΟΘΗΚΑΙ.	The Precepts of the Seven Sages
—Ἕπου θεῷ.	Follow God.
—Νόμῳ πείθου.	Obey the law.
—Θεοὺς σέβου.	Honor the gods.
—Γονεῖς αἰδοῦ.	Respect your parents.
—Ἡττῶ ὑπὲρ δικαίου.	Yield for justice.
—Γνῶθι μαθών.	Learn, then understand.
—Ἀκούσας νόει.	Understand after listening.
—Σαυτὸν ἴσθι.	Know yourself.
—Γαμεῖν μέλλων καιρὸν γνῶθι.	When about to marry, know the proper time.
—Φρόνει θνητά.	Think mortal thoughts.
—Ξένος ὢν ἴσθι.	When you are a stranger, act as one.
—Ἑστίαν τίμα.	Honor the hearth.
—Ἄρχε σαυτοῦ.	Govern yourself.
—Φίλοις βοήθει.	Help your friends.
—Θυμοῦ κράτει.	Master your temper.
—Φρόνησιν ἄσκει.	Cultivate wisdom.
—Πρόνοιαν τίμα.	Value foresight.
—Ὅρκῳ μὴ χρῶ.	Do not use oaths.
—Φιλίαν ἀγάπα.	Love friendship.
—Παιδείας ἀντέχου.	Hold fast to education.
—Δόξαν δίωκε.	Pursue glory.
—Σοφίαν ζήλου.	Strive for wisdom.
—Καλὸν εὖ λέγε.	Speak well of the good.
—Ψέγε μηδένα.	Blame no one.
—Ἐπαίνει ἀρετήν.	Praise virtue.
—Πρᾶττε δίκαια.	Practice justice.
—Φίλοις εὐνόει.	Be kind to your friends.
—Ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνου.	Defend yourself against enemies.
—Εὐγένειαν ἄσκει.	Cultivate nobility.
—Κακίας ἀπέχου.	Shun wickedness.
—Κοινὸς γίνου.	Be common to all.
—Ἴδια φύλασσε.	Guard what is yours.
—Ἀλλοτρίων ἀπέχου.	Avoid what belongs to others.
—Εὔφημος ἴσθι.	Be of good speech.
—Ἄκουε πάντα.	Listen to everything.
—Φίλῳ χαρίζου.	Be gracious to your friend.
—Μηδὲν ἄγαν.	Nothing in excess.
—Χρόνου φείδου.	Spare time.
—Ὅρα τὸ μέλλον.	Consider the future.
—Ὕβριν μίσει.	Hate hubris.
—Ἱκέτας αἰδοῦ.	Show respect to supplicants.
—Πᾶσιν ἅρμοζε.	Adapt to all.
—Υἱοὺς παίδευε.	Educate your sons.
—Ἔχων χαρίζου.	Be generous when you have.
—Δόλον φοβοῦ.	Fear deceit.
—Εὐλόγει πάντας.	Speak well of everyone.
—Φιλόσοφος γίνου.	Become a philosopher.
—Ὅσια κρῖνε.	Judge what is holy.
—Γνοὺς πρᾶττε.	Act after knowing.
—Φόνου ἀπέχου.	Avoid murder.
—Εὔχου δυνατά.	Pray for possible things.
—Σοφοῖς χρῶ.	Associate with the wise.
—Ἦθος δοκίμαζε.	Examine character.
—Λαβὼν ἀπόδος.	Repay what you receive.
—Ὑφορῶ μηδένα.	Look down on no one.
—Τέχνῃ χρῶ.	Use skill.
—Ὃ μέλλεις, δός.	Give what you intend to.
—Εὐεργεσίας τίμα.	Honor acts of kindness.
—Φθόνει μηδενί.	Envy no one.
—Φυλακῇ πρόσεχε.	Be mindful of guarding.
—Ἐλπίδα αἴνει.	Praise hope.
—Διαβολὴν μίσει.	Hate slander.
—Δικαίως κτῶ.	Acquire justly.
—Ἀγαθοὺς τίμα.	Honor the good.
—Κριτὴν γνῶθι.	Recognize a judge.
—Γάμους κράτει.	Control marriage.
—Τύχην νόμιζε.	Respect fortune.
—Ἐγγύην φεῦγε.	Avoid guarantees.
—Πᾶσι διαλέγου.	Converse with everyone.
—Ὁμοίοις χρῶ.	Use like-minded people.
—Δαπανῶν ἄρχου.	Manage your expenses.
—Κτώμενος ἥδου.	Rejoice in acquiring.
—Αἰσχύνην σέβου.	Respect modesty.
—Χάριν ἐκτέλει.	Fulfill gratitude.
—Εὐτυχίαν εὔχου.	Pray for success.
—Τύχην στέργε.	Embrace fortune.
—Ἀκούων ὅρα.	Be watchful while hearing.
—Ἐργάζου κτητά.	Work for what is attainable.
—Ἔριν μίσει.	Hate strife.
—Ὄνειδος ἔχθαιρε.	Detest disgrace.
—Γλῶσσαν ἴσχε.	Restrain your tongue.
—Ὕβριν ἀμύνου.	Defend against arrogance.
—Κρῖνε δίκαια.	Judge fairly.
—Χρῶ χρήμασιν.	Use your resources wisely.
—Ἀδωροδόκητος δοκίμαζε.	Test without bribes.
—Αἰτιῶ παρόντα.	Hold accountable the present.
—Λέγε εἰδώς.	Speak with knowledge.
—Βίας μὴ ἔχου.	Do not practice violence.
—Ἀλύπως βίου.	Live without pain.
—Ὁμίλει πρᾴως.	Associate gently.
—Πέρας ἐπιτέλει μὴ ἀποδειλιῶν.	Complete your tasks without hesitation.
—Φιλοφρόνει πᾶσιν.	Be kind to all.
—Υἱοῖς μὴ καταρῶ.	Do not curse your sons.
—Γλώττης ἄρχε.	Control your tongue.
—Σαυτὸν εὖ ποίει.	Take care of yourself.
—Εὐπροσήγορος γίνου.	Be approachable.
—Ἀποκρίνου ἐν καιρῷ.	Respond at the right time.
—Πόνει μετὰ δικαίου.	Labor with justice.
—Πρᾶττε ἀμετανοήτως.	Act without regret.
—Ἁμαρτάνων μετανόει.	Repent if you err.
—Ὀφθαλμοῦ κράτει.	Control your eyes.
—Βουλεύου χρόνῳ.	Deliberate with time.
—Ἐπιτέλει συντόμως.	Accomplish quickly.
—Φιλίαν φύλασσε.	Preserve friendship.
—Εὐγνώμων γίνου.	Be grateful.
—Ὁμόνοιαν δίωκε.	Strive for unity.
—Ἄῤῥητον μὴ λέγε.	Do not say the unspeakable.
—Τὸ κρατοῦν φοβοῦ.	Fear authority.
—Τὸ συμφέρον θηρῶ.	Seek what is beneficial.
—Καιρὸν προσδέχου.	Await the right time.
—Ἔχθρας διάλυε.	Dissolve hostilities.
—Γῆρας προσδέχου.	Welcome old age.
—Ἐπὶ ῥώμῃ μὴ καυχῶ.	Do not boast in strength.
—Εὐφημίαν ἄσκει.	Cultivate good reputation.
—Ἀπέχθειαν φεῦγε.	Avoid hatred.
—Πλούτει δικαίως.	Prosper justly.
—Δόξαν μὴ λεῖπε.	Do not forsake glory.
—Κακίαν μίσει.	Hate evil.
—Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε.	Do not tire in learning.
—Κινδύνευε φρονίμως.	Risk wisely.
—Ἡδόμενος μὴ λεῖπε.	Do not cease enjoying.
—Χρησμοὺς θαύμαζε.	Marvel at prophecies.
—Οὓς τρέφεις, ἀγάπα.	Love those you nurture.
—Ἀπόντι μὴ μάχου.	Do not fight with the absent.
—Πρεσβύτερον αἰδοῦ.	Respect the elder.
—Νεώτερον δίδασκε.	Teach the younger.
—Πλούτῳ ἀπίστει.	Do not trust in wealth.
—Σαυτὸν αἰδοῦ.	Respect yourself.
—Μὴ ἄρχε ὑβρίζειν.	Do not begin with arrogance.
—Προγόνους στεφάνου.	Crown your ancestors.
—Θνῆσκε ὑπὲρ πατρίδος.	Die for your country.
—Τῷ βίῳ μὴ μάχου.	Do not oppose life.
—Ἐπὶ νεκρῷ μὴ γέλα.	Do not mock the dead.
—Ἀτυχοῦντι συνάχθου.	Join with the unfortunate.
—Χαρίζου ἀβλαβῶς.	Be gracious without harm.
—Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ.	Do not grieve over everything.
—Ἐξ εὐγενῶν γέννα.	Marry from noble stock.
—Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενί.	Promise nothing at all.
—Φθιμένους μὴ ἀδίκει.	Do not wrong the deceased.
—Εὖ πάσχε ὡς θνητός.	Endure well as a mortal.
—Τύχῃ μὴ πίστευε.	Do not trust in fortune.
—Παῖς ὢν κόσμιος ἴσθι, ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής, μέσος δίκαιος, πρεσβύτερος εὔλογος.	As a child, be orderly; as a youth, temperate; as an adult, just; as an elder, wise.
—Τελεύτα ἀλύπως.	End life without pain.
—Πλήθει ἄρεσκε.	Please the majority.
—Μὴ λάλει πρὸς ἡδονήν.	Do not speak for pleasure.
—Ὁμολογίαις ἔμμενε.	Keep your agreements.
—Θυσίας πρόσφερε κατὰ δύναμιν.	Offer sacrifices according to your ability.
—Σαυτῷ μὴ μάχου.	Do not fight with yourself.
—Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ.	Do not grieve over everything.
—Τῷ βίῳ μὴ ἄχθου.	Do not burden yourself with life.
—Μὴ φιλαίτιος ἴσθι.	Do not be contentious.
—Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενὶ τὸ παράπαν.	Promise nothing at all.
—Χρόνου φείδου.	Spare time.
—Ἐνδαπανώμενος καὶ ἐφ’ ἃ μὴ δεῖ, ὀλίγος ἔσῃ ἐφ’ ἃ δεῖ.	If you waste on unnecessary things, you will lack for necessary ones.

Eternal Fire and Sodom

John Gill in commenting on Jude 7, and the punishment of "πυρὸς αἰωνίου" (eternal fire) that came upon Sodom, mentioned Philo.  Philo, in his work, "On Abraham," comments on Sodom and its punishment, thus: 

XXVI(133) "The country of the Sodomites was a district of the land of Canaan, which the Syrians afterwards called Palestine, a country full of innumerable iniquities, and especially of gluttony and debauchery, and all the great and numerous pleasures of other kinds which have been built up by men as a fortress, on which account it had been already condemned by the Judge of the whole world. "

...

XXVII. (137) But God, having taken pity on mankind, as being a Saviour and full of love for mankind, increased, as far as possible, the natural desire of men and women for a connexion together, for the sake of producing children, and detesting the unnatural and unlawful commerce of the people of Sodom, he extinguished it, and destroyed those who were inclined to these things, and that not by any ordinary chastisement, but he inflicted on them an astonishing novelty, and unheard of rarity of vengeance; (138) for, on a sudden, he commanded the sky to become overclouded and to pour forth a mighty shower, not of rain but of fire; and as the flame poured down, with a resistless and unceasing violence, the fields were burnt up, and the meadows, and all the dense groves, and the thick marshes, and the impenetrable thickets; the plain too was consumed, and all the crop of wheat, and of everything else that was sown; and all the trees of the mountain district were burnt up, the trunks and the very roots being consumed. (139) And the folds for the cattle, and the houses of the men, and the walls, and all that was in any building, whether of private or public property, were all burnt. And in one day these populous cities became the tomb of their inhabitants, and the vast edifices of stone and timber became thin dust and ashes. (140) And when the flames had consumed everything that was visible and that existed on the face of the earth, they proceeded to burn even the earth itself, penetrating into its lowest recesses, and destroying all the vivifying powers which existed within it so as to produce a complete and everlasting barrenness, so that it should never again be able to bear fruit, or to put forth any verdure; and to this very day it is scorched up. For the fire of the lightning is what is most difficult to extinguish, and creeps on pervading everything, and smouldering. (141) And a most evident proof of this is to be found in what is seen to this day: for the smoke which is still emitted, and the sulphur which men dig up there, are a proof of the calamity which befell that country; while a most conspicuous proof of the ancient fertility of the land is left in one city, and in the land around it. For the city is very populous, and the land is fertile in grass and in corn, and in every kind of fruit, as a constant evidence of the punishment which was inflicted by the divine will on the rest of the country.

Even today, the "Ein Gedi hot springs" and "Ma'in Hot Springs" are near the Dead Sea.  I'm not sure whether Philo had in mind volcanic activity, or the steam of hot springs, or what exactly he had in mind, but his point is failure obvious: he believed that the fire that burned Sodom was still burning.  Given that Philo was roughly contemporaneous with Jude (probably 25 years older or so), it is not at all a stretch to assume that Jude was using the perceived endless burning of Sodom as an illustration of the punishment that awakes the wicked.

The Wrong Standard of Error - Continued

Listening to Steve Schwenke, I came across an argument that echoed Jack McElroy's claim (rebutted here) that the King James translators made choices, not errors. Specifically, in his January 5, 2023, video ("Response to Mark Ward's Avoiding Ruckmanism"), Steve Schwenke states:

45:40-50:00

Why should I acknowledge that there are errors if there are none? Why should I acknowledge that? This is again an attempt to bully and intimidate people: 'You don't want to be a Ruckmanite do you?' Well I don't know about you I don't want to be a Martiniite. I don't want to follow this guy, I'd rather follow Ruckman than that guy.  I'm just saying you know there's vile and then there's vile.  Strange choice of bedfellows. 'Publicly acknowledge that there are errors.' Okay. What is an error? What is an error? Now I've been discussing and debating this with people for for the last 30 years and the people who have said that there are errors in the King James Bible have not really shown an error.  An error would have to be one of three things: that there is absolutely no manuscript support for a particular reading whatsoever, that there is absolutely no precedent set for the way that it was translated, or that there's absolutely no possible way for any given passage or reading to be translated the way that it was.  That would constitute an error. The errors that have been shown to me - so-called errors - are a preferential choice of a different reading. Meaning, instead of taking the Texas receptus they took the critical text. That does not constitute an error, that constitutes a preferential choice. Another so-called error is that they didn't like the way the King James translators translated a passage. Even though there may have been maybe precedent for the way that they translated it, they didn't like the way it was translated - that's a preference, that's a choice, that is not an error. Or, they didn't like the way that they defined a term. In other words, as in English some words have multiple definitions, so it is in Greek and in Hebrew: many words have multiple different ways that they can be translated and many of these so-called errors are basically choosing a different option. Instead of definition one, they choose definition five. That's not an error, that's a preferential choice. So in my 30 years of discussing this with people, I have yet to find anyone who actually can give an error - an actual error.  Now many people would say that - for instance - "1 John 5:7 is an error. It was added to the text." And this is one place where there is not a lot of manuscript support for that reading: 1 John 5:7.  But there is sufficient - and there is sufficient historical evidence to suggest that it was part of the text. And I'm not going to delve into all of the nitty-gritty details of it. And again this comes back to Faith: are we going to use rationalism are we going to use faith? There is sufficient reason for us to believe that it that it had a good probability of being part of the text and the uh the arguments used against it -- there's sufficient reasoning -- there is not enough evidence for me to say 'oh, the King James Bible translators made an error.' There is sufficient evidence to support the reading. Not liking the wording or syntax does not constitute an error. Not choosing an alternative definition does not constitute an error. And choosing an alternative reading from a different source does not constitute error. So no, I do not publicly acknowledge that there are errors in the King James, other than what we would call scribal errors. Yes, printing errors where a word is misspelled or something of that nature. That is the human hand. But we're talking about the translation itself and the translation itself is without error. 

First, if Steve is going to use this standard of "error" he's going to have to say that there are no errors in any of the modern versions (aside from printers' errors or errors that the KJV itself makes).  They too are making preferential choices.

Second, Steve should realize that a preferential choice can still be an error.  Look at the examples in the histories recorded in the Bible where people made preferential choices and those choices were errors. 

Third, the KJV at Revelation 16:5 is an example of the first category of error that Steve identifies.  This is a case where there is not just slim manuscript support, but no manuscript support.   

Fourth, the KJV at Hebrews 10:23 translates ἐλπίδος as "faith" instead of "hope," which seems to meet the "unprecedented" standard.

Fifth, the KJV at 1 John 5:7 has extremely limited manuscript support. If the insertion of the three heavenly witnesses is not an "error" because the manuscript support is sufficient, than it should be acknowledged that the phrase "και εσμεν" (and so we are!) in 1 John 3:1 is not an error in those modern versions that include it.  More paradoxically, if the support for the insertion is sufficient, then the support for the omission of 1 John 5:7 must be even more sufficient!  So, both leaving out the heavenly witnesses is not an error and including the heavenly witnesses must not be an error, by this bizarre standard of what is an error.

My suspicion is that this mischaracterization of what constitutes an error comes from a common source, presumably a well known advocate for the King James translation.