In Romans 8:35 and 8:39, is it "Christ’s love" and "God’s love"? Or, "love for Christ" and "love for God"?

In Romans 8:35 and 8:39, is it “Christ’s love” and “God’s love” [subjective/objective]? Or, “love for Christ” and “love for God”? I can see it both ways but I think the context is about endurance and Paul is saying that nothing would be able to separate the saints from their love for God and his Christ. Here is the context which I modified from “love of” to “love for”:

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT):

Rom 8:35  Who shall separate us from the love for Christ? shall
tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or
peril, or sword?  Rom 8:36  As it is written, For thy sake we are
killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37  Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through
him that loved us [God].  Rom 8:38  For I am persuaded, that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor
things present, nor things to come,  Rom 8:39  Nor height, nor depth,
nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love for
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If it is “love for God” then the definite article refers to the love “shed abroad” in the believers’ hearts:


Rom 5:3 And not only so , but we also boast in the tribulations,
knowing that the tribulation doth work endurance; Rom 5:4 and the
endurance, experience; and the experience, hope; Rom 5:5 and the
hope doth not make ashamed, because the love of God hath been poured
forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit that hath been given to

Rom 8:28 And we have known that to those loving God all things do
work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose;

Why is the observation that "it was good" missing on the second day?

The account of the first six days of creation as found in Genesis 1 is highly stylized, though with variations. For instance, each day ends, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the (n)th day.”

One variation that jumps out pertains to the statement, “And God saw that it was good.” This phrase is present on each of the first six days, except that it is peculiarly absent on the second day. I do note that on the third day this statement appears twice, with its first appearance being after what feels like a continuation of the separation of waters begun on the second day. It’s absence is conspicuous enough, though, that it feels intentional on the part of the author. But what was the author trying to convey here? Why omit this otherwise repeated refrain?

Does πολιτείας imply citizenship status with Israel?

ὅτι ἦτε ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας
τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες καὶ
ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

(Eph. 2:12 TR)

Paul makes a statement that “once” the Gentiles, apart from Christ, have no “citizenship” in Israel, and are “strangers from the covenants of promise”-the benefits of citizenship.

Furthermore, in vs 19, he says,

“ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι ἀλλὰ συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων καὶ
οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ”
implying, that such rights of citizenship are given in Christ.

Is this an accurate rendering of πολιτείας? Or is Paul simply making a rhetorical comparison, which the syntax allows him to do?


Does Revelation 22:5 contradict 1 Corinthians 15:28?

It appears that “so that God may be all in all” is saying “so that God alone will rule and God will rule alone”:

1Co 15:28 ISV But when everything has been put under him, then the
Son himself will also become subject t…

Is “son of Barachiah” a scribal addition in Matthew 23:35?

The apparently confused identification of “Zechariah the son of Barachiah” in Matthew 23:35 is well known.*

Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah (Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου), whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (Matt 23:34-35, ESV)

(Mention of his paternity is omitted from the parallel account in Luke.) I noticed that the ESV has a text-critical footnote, “Some manuscripts omit the son of Barachiah.” It would obviously be a big deal if there were indeed a substantial possibility that the phrase was a scribal addition. The UBS4 apparatus does not even include a variant here. The NA28 does: ⸋ ℵ* — indicating that the original Codex Sinaiticus omits the phrase. Given the complete lack of mention in UBS apparatus, I’m guessing this is not a plausible reading (ESV’s choice to footnote notwithstanding), although Sinaiticus is obviously not trivial.

  • Is there a substantial possibility that this reading (omitting υἱοῦ Βαραχίου) is original?

  • If it is not original, is there a good explanation for why Sinaiticus omitted it? In particular, was there early recognition of this text as problematic?

  • Given the weight normally afforded to Sinaiticus (although I don’t know about the text of Matthew in particular), is there an evident reason why this variant seemed to the UBS editors so improbable as to not warrant inclusion in the apparatus?

*Somehow I can’t seem to find a question here about this. The basic problem is that Zechariah son of Barachiah most naturally refers to the 6th C. prophet (Zech 1:1) (LXX: Ζαχαριας ὁ τοῦ Βαραχιου; MT is vocalized Berekyah), but he was not, as far as tradition knows, murdered in the temple. The Zechariah of 2 Chr 24:20 was murdered in the temple, but he is called Αζαριας (Azarias) in the LXX, and the name of his father recorded by the Chronicler was Jehoiada (Ιωδαε). The relative merits of the various available solutions may be relevant for answers to this question.

Are there Inconsistent translations of Revelation 13:10?

KJV has for Revelation 13:10

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that
killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the
patience and the faith of the saints.

The passage has a justice/retribution
moral similar to that of Mt 26:52.

In NIV the moral is instead about suffering patiently and
accepting one’s fate.

If anyone is to go into captivity,
into captivity they will go.
If anyone is to be killed with the sword,
with the sword they will be killed.

Two other translations (Vulgate and NEG1979) have a “mixed”
meaning: capturing has the patience reading, and killing has
the retributive reading.

Qui in captivitatem in captivitatem vadit qui in gladio occiderit
oportet eum gladio occidi hic est patientia et fidessanctorum

Si quelqu’un est destiné à la captivité, il ira en captivité; si
quelqu’un tue par l’épée, il faut qu’il soit tué par l’épée. C’est ici
la persévérance et la foi des saints.

Is the original Greek ambiguous about the proper meaning, or are
the translators just taking liberties?

Who or what will the saints reign over in Revelation?

Thoughout Revelation, it is said that “they [the saints] will reign.”

For example:

Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection.
The second death has no power over them, but they will be priest…

What was written on the stone tablets?

The wikipedia page, and most other depictions of the tablets are that they are of the ten commandments. When I read Exodus, it seems at least to me a little less clear as to what exactly was written, i.e. they have the law and the commandment.

(Ex. 24:12) Now the LORD said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction.”

(Ex. 31:18) When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.

Which makes it seem to me that perhaps not just Exodus 19:1–9 was on the tablets, but perhaps all the “laws”, i.e. 20:1-17 and maybe even 20:22–23:33 were written on the tablets.

So my question is what was written on the tablets? Is there evidence that makes it clear what exactly was written on the tablets? (i.e. internal evidence within Exodus or the Torah, the hebrew language, etc..)

There does appear to be at least some Jewish schools of thought that believe this verse implies more than just the ten commandments were on the tablets:

Teachings and commandments. הַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה (ha-Torah v’ha-mitzvah). The expression seems too large for the Decalogue, hence Rashi explains that God’s inscription on the tablets comprised all 613 mitzvot of tradition. The 19th-century scholar Meir Lev ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim) took this phrase as the title of his popular Torah commentary. [Torah][1]

There does also appear to be some debate that weight of stone would limit the size, and hence the number of words that could fit on a tablet.

[1]: Torah: a modern commentary