Heiser's methodology

I'm going to venture some observations about Michael Heiser's methodology in reference to the nephilim. I say "venture" because I'm not deeply read on his position. 

1. In fairness to Heiser, his interpretation of Gen 6 is certainly the mainstream view in OT scholarship. And it's a traditional Jewish interpretation. It might be the dominant Jewish interpretation, although that depends on how representative the Intertestamental literature which survived happens to be. 

2. As I've noted before, while this is the mainstream view in OT scholarship, that's somewhat misleading. Many OT scholars think Gen 6 reflects a mythological outlook. They don't think the Bible is divine revelation. They think it's merely ancient religious literature, on the same level as ancient Near Eastern mythology or Greco-Roman mythology. 

They don't think their interpretation of Gen 6 has to be realistic. But Christians do think our interpretations of Scripture need to be realistic, albeit in the sense of supernatural realism. 

3. I consider the Intertestamental literature on the nephilim to be exegetically worthless. Gen 6:1-4 is very intriguing. Part of what makes it so intriguing is that it's terse and enigmatic. So that fuels pious speculation. An urge to fill in the gaps.

The Enochian literature, and other suchlike, reflects the same mentality as the apocryphal infancy Gospels. And it has the same exegetical value as the apocryphal infancy Gospels. It's just a load of pious nonsense. No reputable scholar would use the apocryphal infancy Gospels to interpret the canonical Gospels. They wouldn't use that later, fanciful material to interpret the canonical Gospels. But the Enochian stuff operates at the same level. Fictional filler. Thriller filler. 

The only way to legitimately justify the angelic interpretation of Gen 6 is either by direct exegesis of Gen 6 or via the NT. If you can do it that way, then you've got a case. But the Enochian stuff isn't suitable background material, any more than the apocryphal infancy Gospels are suitable background material for the canonical Gospels. 

4. Heiser also appeals to linguistic usage in the Intertestamental literature and Dead Sea Scrolls. There he's on firmer ground, as a general principle. NT usage draws from a well of preexisting usage, where words and phrases have established associations and connotations that may carry over into NT usage. But that needs to be isolated from the wholesale usage grand Enochian narratives as a frame of reference. 

The art of Bible translation

https://academic.oup.com/jts/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jts/flaa022/5781875?guestAccessKey=e588044b-38a8-4dc0-b335-7737baab40f7

1. I'm ambivalent about this. I suppose that's inevitable since translations involve necessary, unavoidable compromises. Sometimes the inability to capture the original in the receptor language. Sometimes a tradeoff. A choice where you'd like to do two things at once, but you can't.

2. In general, I dislike the modern practice of substituting bland abstract synonyms for concrete metaphors.

But there may be exceptions to that if the original metaphor has incongruous connotations in the receptor language. For instance, Bill Mounce says divine "long-suffering" in Hebrew is literally God has a "long nose". It would be a mistake to carry that over into English because it generates an unintentionally comical and irreverent impression.

3. That said, I remain unconvinced that the job of a translator is to preserve as much as possible the original syntax. It seems to me that the basic job of an English translator is to render the Greek and Hebrew into idiomatic English. Not just because that's stylistically superior, but as a rule, is a more accurate way to convey the original meaning.

4. However, there's a lot to be said for preserving as much of the original "flavor" as possible. For instance, it would be subversive to translate the rugged Old English of Beowulf into the courtly, elegant English of Alexander Pope. 

5. Finally, we don't have to choose. You can have a default translation like the ESV or early version of the NIV, but supplement that with other versions.

Even if you have a working knowledge of NT Greek or OT Hebrew, reading competent translations will aid your understanding of the original, since these are produced by scholars who specialize in Greek and Hebrew and struggle to grasp and capture the nuances of the original. 

Greek lexicography and the death of Judas

It's common to allege that Matthew and Acts present contradictory accounts regarding the death of Judas. One issue is the meaning of πρηνής, ές in Greek. Two related observations:

1. Some words in ancient Greek are much better attested in our extant Greek sources than others. This means a number of Greek words had additional means which weren't preserved in our extant sources.

2. On a related note, our extant source of ancient Greek are random and unrepresentative. They depend on what scribes wanted to copy. They oversample of literary Greek. As a result, there's lots of Greek slang or Greek words with slang definitions  (in addition to literary definitions) because the spoken language is poorly preserved. 

So that's something we must make allowance for in debates over inerrancy and harmonization.

Peter Williams on the death of Judas

Read the whole thread:

https://twitter.com/DrPJWilliams/status/1189664253877374979

Greco-patristic exegesis

I've discussed this before:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-greek-fathers.html

but I'd like to make some additional observations:

i) It's not like reading the Greek Fathers is a shortcut to NT exegesis. After all, you have to know Greek to read the Greek Fathers in the original no less than the NT. Indeed, some of the Greek Fathers write in more advanced Greek than the NT. 

ii) In addition, the NT contains a number of Greek words with Hebrew meanings. Greek words used as synonyms for OT theological jargon. In that situation, the words are Greek, but they have connotations that carry over from Hebrew usage. 

Not only is a native command of Greek not advantageous in that situation, but it's downright disadvantageous. It can blind church fathers to what the words mean because they're using the wrong conceptual and linguistic frame of reference. Using their knowledge of extrabiblical Greek. By contrast, even if Greek is a second language for a NT scholar, he may be more sensitive to the fact that the word is a translation of a technical term in the Hebrew OT, and retains the sense of the original Hebrew. 

Is there a gift of celibacy?

1. There's an entrenched tradition that I assume originates in Roman Catholicism and carries over into Protestant theology, according to which some Christian men and women have a "gift of celibacy". The prooftext is 1 Cor 7:7. Perhaps that's correct, but there's the danger that when we think we know what a passage means, we stop asking questions. Or rather, we think there are no questions to ask. 

Indeed, it's customary to posit a gift of celibacy and leave it at that, with very little explanation of what a gift of celibacy actually amounts to. They don't bother to delve into that. Has anyone ever actually met a Christian with the "gift of celibacy"? Or is that an idealized abstraction based on the received interpretation? 

One thing a gift of celibacy might mean is that some Christian men (and women) lack any heterosexual libido. Or, if not quite devoid, have a very low libido. As if the man suffered from a severe testosterone deficit. 

Is that what Paul means? Possibly. That, however, would be highly abnormal, and I wonder if Paul is saying that physical abnormality qualifies some men for full-time ministry. Seems odd that something that unnatural and anomalous would be a prerequisite for full-time ministry. 

Is it the supernatural equivalent of chemical castration? Possibly. However, Scripture doesn't generally treat an unnatural misfortune as a necessary qualification for serving God. 

In addition, the human sex drive isn't just physical but psychological. It includes memory, imagination, anticipation, and longing for a special kind of companionship (spouse and kids). Is there a gift of celibacy that erases all that from the psychological makeup of some Christians? Did Paul think he was a freak? 

2. The traditional interpretation hinges on a single word–charisma–which is usually rendered "gift". Is that reliable? In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses charisma as an umbrella term to cover a variety of phenomena. Are such disparate examples reducible to a one core idea? Is he using the same word for stylistic unity? Should we define the examples by the word or define the word by the examples?

3. Rom 11:29 provides an instructive comparison. When Paul refers to "gifts" and "calling", are those meant to be distinct concepts, or do they function as rough synonyms? That passage is assumed to refer back to Rom 9:4-5. What's the allocation? Are some of those items gifts while other items are vocations? Are all those items both gifts and vocations? 

If we distinguish between the meaning of words and the meaning of concepts, the concept of a divinely impose duty captures the basic idea. Israel had (has?) a divine calling, with corresponding obligations. The ideas of gift and calling merge in mission or commission. 

4. Rather than approaching the question from a philological standpoint, suppose we approach it from a biographical standpoint. We know from Acts and Galatians that God singled out Paul to perform a particular mission. A mission which will entail great personal hardship and sacrifice. Similar in that respect to the vocation of OT prophets who had a thankless ministry. 

5. In addition, Paul discusses the Christian obligation, as circumstances demand, to forswear what's in your best self-interest for the benefit and common good of others. All told, I'm inclined to think that what Paul is talking about is not a "gift of celibacy" but the fact that on occasion, celibacy is an onerous necessity. Sexually, they are wired the same way as normal men and women, but God has put them in a situation where they are obligated to tough it out, despite the personal strain. Again, that's comparable to the sacrificial mission of some OT prophets. 

A note on biblical inerrancy

I'd like to float a suggestion regarded a neglected, potential solution to some apparent biblical discrepancies or contradictions. The Bible is bilingual (with some Aramaic thrown in for good measure). In the NT, speakers like Paul alternate between Greek and Aramaic, depending on the audience. Although Jesus probably did most of his public teaching in Aramaic, he may have switched to Greek on some occasions. But the NT itself is written in Greek.

Take a sample sentence like:

Jeremy gave a spirited speech

Suppose we paraphrase that using different synonyms for "spirit":

Jeremy a vigorous speech

Jeremy gave a tipsy speech

Jeremy was possessed when he spoke

The ghost of Jeremy spoke

Now these four different renderings are discrepant. They don't mean the same thing. Yet all of them are true to the meaning of the original wording. Put another way, the synonyms are inconsistent with each other, but consistent with "spirit".

Although that's a paraphrase rather a translation in the strict sense, a paraphrase is a kind of translation, not into a different language, but rendering the original in different words. So it illustrates the basic principle.

In theory, Bible writings could quote the same underlying statement in different translations. The translations might be discrepant, yet each would accurately render the original statement. So the "contradiction" would be superficial. Each would be correct renderings. 

I haven't bothered to run through a series of examples. At the moment I'm just offering this suggestion for consideration, where applicable. 

The beginning

Where it [arche] is used in the temporal sense of the point at which something begins, this point can be thought of as included in the temporal process or as prior, external to, and unaffected by it, i.e., as the origin or principium. In the former case the arche corresponds to the telos (Heb 3:14; 7:3); in the latter case, arche carries the sense of pre-temporality and eternity. 

This leads us to a series of primarily Johannine texts in which arche is used with reference to the essence and existence of Jesus in the sense of before all time and creation, first of all John 1:1,2 (en arche); 1 John 1:1)…The context formed by the chronological hymn of Col 1:15-20 clearly shows that ho esetin (he) arche (v18) does not intend to incorporate Christ into the cosmos and the creation, but rather to designate him as the principle standing outside all time, as the origin of the cosmos and creation. The same is true of the self designation of Jesus as he arch kai to telos in Rev 22:13 with the parallel statement to Alpha kai to Omega, ho protos kai ho eschatos (cf. 2:8). These epithets apply equally to God (1:8; 21:6) and signify not a temporal and worldly being, but rather the One existing before all time and into eternity. (On this formula [he arch kai to telos], which has a prehistory in Deutero-Isaiah, the Greeks, Philo, and the rabbis. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (T&T Clark 1990), 1:161-162.

Silence in church

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-reading-of-1-corinthians-1433b-34a.html

Does regeneration precede faith?

Soteriology 101

ORDO SALUTIS: Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

After quoting Tit 3:5, Leighton Flowers says:

regeneration is the washing or cleansing of our hearts from sin. It is not some supernatural, inner working that irresistibly causes people to believe truth.

1. Flowers seems to have a penchant for semantic fallacies. His implicit argument appears to be that because an English translation uses "regeneration" in a different sense than how it's used in Reformed theology, this text disproves Reformed theology. 

Stop to consider what a fallacious inference that is. "Regeneration" is a English word based on a Latin derivative. It's used in some English translations to render the Greek original. 

In Reformed theology, "regeneration" is a technical term. The fact that an English translation employs the same word in a less specialized sense than Reformed usage is beside the point. Flowers is trading on the connotations of an English word, but Paul didn't write in English. 

2. Paul is using the metaphor of rebirth. Metaphors tend to be open-textured. What they mean in a sentence is context-dependent. 

3. The fact that Paul may be using the metaphor in Tit 3:5 in a different sense than Reformed theology doesn't contradict Reformed theology. Rather, Paul isn't speaking to that issue one way or the other. Silence is not a denial. 

4. As commentators like Marshall and Towner explain, Tit 3:5 attributes the entire result to the prior intervention of the Spirit. If anything, that's a monergistic prooftext. The Spirit is the agent of spiritual rebirth and renewal. 

5. That said, it's striking that Flowers quoted v5 but ignores v3:

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another (Tit 3:3).

Compare that to other Pauline passages:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts (Eph 2:1-3).

17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed (Eph 4:17-19).

How can people in a state of psychological bondage be receptive to the Gospel? Given their psychological condition (dead in sin, enslaved to passion, under occult bondage), they will be ill-disposed to accept the message. So what overcomes their antagonism? 

After quoting Acts 15:8-9, Leighton says:

God knew their heart and bore witness of what He knew. He did not determine it. And the heart is cleansed by faith. The heart isn't cleansed or washed (regenerated) to cause faith. 

1. The text is alluding to the evangelization of Cornelius, not unconverted sinners generally. Cornelius was an intellectual convert to Judaism. He worshipped Yahweh. He wasn't a pagan. This isn't starting from scratch. 

He's in the same boat as believing Jews who need to make a transition to the new covenant. Jews who need to learn about the Redeemer in the person of Jesus.

2. What does the gift of the Spirit mean in Acts? Does it denote regeneration? Were the Eleven unregenerate prior to Pentecost? In some contexts, it confers a kind of spiritual empowerment–resulting in visible miracles. 

The scope of the gift might vary according to the recipient. If the recipient is a believing Jew or Godfearer, the gift may confer charismata. If, on the other hand, the recipient is a raw pagan, then the invention of the Spirit may need to go back a step to do something more radical. 

Wilted Flowers

I don't normally read Leighton Flowers because he's a hack. Ironically, I think it's unfair to assess freewill theism by spokesmen like Flowers. However, a Facebook notification directed me to a post of his. He begins by quoting Rom 5:2 as follows:

Christ through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

He then says Calvinists tacitly reword the verse as follows:

Christ through whom we have gained access by grace into this faith in which we now stand. 

Several issues:

i) Flowers is too lazy to present an actual argument. It's not my job to make his argument for him. But for discussion purposes, let's try to tease out the implicit argument. This seems to be what he's thinking: according to Calvinism, even faith is the product of God's grace. On that view, grace precedes faith. 

Flowers imagines that Rom 5:2 contradicts that understanding because it reverses the order: faith precedes grace. According to Calvinism, grace is the gateway to faith. According to Flowers, faith is the gateway to grace. Assuming that's the thrust of what Flowers has in mind:

i) His argument hinges on the syntactical relationship between faith and grace in Rom 5:2. There is, however, a text-critical issue. As a recent commentator has noted:

"By faith" is disputed among the major manuscripts, and probably does not belong in the original text–although this is probably a reasonable scribal hypothesis regarding Paul's belief. S. Porter, The Letter to the Romans (Sheffield 2015), 115. 

So Leighton's entire argument hinges on the presence of a word which may well be a  scribal interpolation. It's at least as likely if not more likely that Paul never used that word in 5:2. 

ii) In addition, Flowers commits a few related semantic fallacies. He acts as though "grace" has the same sense every time Paul uses the word. In addition, he acts as though the mere use of that Greek word carries the entire concept of grace in Pauline theology. By the same token, he acts as though the truth of Reformed theology depends on words having the same meaning in systematics and dogmatics that they have in biblical usage. So his semantic fallacy is several layers deep. 

iii) In context, Paul seems to be using "grace" as a synonym for a justified state. And that's consistent with Reformed theology. According to Calvinism, justification is contingent on faith. 

In Reformed theology, "grace" has multiple phases. The fact that one stage of saving grace is subsequent to faith doesn't mean there can't be prior stages of grace. In Reformed theology, the concept of grace encompasses salvation from start to finish, viz. election, redemption, regeneration, saving faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, glorification. The fact that some stages of grace are post-conversion doesn't militate against pre-conversion stages of grace. 

Equality with God

I find this article rather odd:

https://bible.org/article/meaning-harpagmos-philippians-26-overlooked-datum-functional-inequality-within-godhead

1. Burk fails to directly interact with Hoover's classic seminal essay. Hoover argued that harpogmos doesn't have an isolated sense in this context. Rather, the overall meaning is generated by an idiomatic phrase: verb+noun. As one commentator summarizes the argument:

Hoover has demonstrated the mistake of focusing on the word harpagmos itself rather than on the combination of that word with hegomai…Hoover states that in all instances examined, the "idiomatic expression refers to something already present and at one's disposal," M. Silva, Philippians (Baker 2005), 103-04. Cf. G. Fee, Philippians (Eerdmans 1995), 205-08; P.T. O'Brien, Philippians (Eerdmans 1991), 214-16. Burke's interpretation seems to be a throwback to Lightfoot's defective analysis.

2. The Son's coequality with the Father is already implicit in the "plot"–which reflects the V-shape curve of Classical comedy. Beginning high, followed by downward motion, followed by resumption or restoration of original exalted status.

3. There may well be a subtext to Burk's interpretation. It reflects the strategy of grounding male headship in the ontological Trinity. But hasn't Burk recanted eternal functional subordination? If so, doesn't he need to revise his argument? 

Whoever

This is strikingly confused:

https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/does-john-3-16-say-whoever

i) John doesn't say God loves the world. John didn't write in English. We've been conditioned by a traditional rendering, but that's prejudicial.

ii) John says God loves the kosmos. So the question is what kosmos means in Johannine usage. 

iii) Yes, pas is indefinite, but that's not independent of the sentence in which it functions. Pas is qualified by "those who believe". So the combination makes it definite. Not "everyone" in general, but everyone who believes. 

iv) There's a danger that when people read the Greek NT, they're not reading it from a Greek perspective. They're not getting inside the Greek. Rather, they're superimposing their knowledge of an English translation back onto the Greek. Not translating from Greek to English, but substituting English connotations for Greek words. 

Questions on the Trinity

An anonymous author asked me to comment on his post:

http://readytoreason.com/a-few-questions-for-triablogue/

Before I ask my questions, allow me to clarify my position: I hold to what you refer to as “Nicene subordinationism,” which you call both “inherently unstable” and “a gateway drug to unitarianism.” As is probably quite clear, I subscribe to the Nicene Creed as adopted in 325. I’ve included Philip Schaff’s version of this creed in the sidebar of this site. My position is that of both Bp. George Bull and Samuel Clarke, though more-so that of Bp. Bull. 

Since Clarke was unitarian, I don't see how that's consistent with Nicene theology. 

Concerning your position, I would maintain that it is at times semi-modalistic, at times polytheistic, and (when considered as a whole)...

i) Since the author doesn't explain in what respect he finds my position to be by turns polytheistic and semi-modalistic, there's nothing for me to respond to on that front. In fairness, he didn't ask me about that. If he had, he might have provided more context.

ii) As I've often noted, discussions of the Trinity routinely suffer from a bias or prejudice by treating unity (the one God) as more fundamental than plurality (the three persons). However, I don't consider tritheism to be worse than unitarianism (or modalism). Both are equally erroneous. 

…at all times contrary to the understanding of the primitive body of believers. 

Is that code language for Nicene fathers/bishops? If so, my position is contrary to their position inasmuch as I reject the paradigm of eternal generation/procession. 

Out of a desire to have a proper dialogue, I will refer to your position as simply “trinitarian” rather than “neo-trinitarian,” which I think is a more proper description of your view.

I understand that most trinitarians (eg. B. B. Warfield, John Frame, John Feinberg, and Paul Helm) would assert that, in objection to their doctrine of the Trinity being polytheistic, that there is but one “essence” or “being” of God. Or, as James White says, “God is one what, and three whos.”

1. In Cyril of Alexandria’s letter to John of Antioch, he states that Christ is “of the same substance with his Father according to His Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity.” If Christ being of the same substance or essence with us does not necessitate that there is but one human, how does His being of the same substance or essence with the Father necessitate that there is but one God?¹

i) Actually, I agree that consubstantiality is a necessary but insufficient condition for divine unicity. That amounts to generic unity rather than numerical identity.

ii) It isn't necessary for me to philosophically refute the charge that my view of the Trinity is tritheistic. The primary criterion is exegetical rather than philosophical. Even if my position had a tritheistic appearance, that's not a defeater or heretical if the NT theism has a tritheistic appearance. We must stay faithful to the revelatory witness whether or not we can tie up the loose ends into a nice little bow. 

iii) Moreover, the objection rebounds against Nicene theology. Grounding the unity of the Godhead in the Father as the fons deitas falls short of numerical identity. A shared essence is consistent with multiple instances or separate beings. So the Nicene alternative is subject to a similar objection. 

iv) Finally, on occasions when I do use models and analogies to illustrate how one God can be three persons, I don't rely on consubstantiality. 

2. When trinitarians use the word “God,” it often signifies the Trinity (all three persons) or the “essence/being” of God. Can you point me to one passage of scripture where the word “God” signifies a complex notion of more than one person at once. Put more succinctly, can you provide any place in the scripture where the word “God” signifies all three persons (the Trinity) in one singular usage of the word? And, if you say that this is not your predominate usage, that you prefer to use the term “God” to refer to the essence or being of God, can you provide me anywhere in scripture where the word “God” is used to signify such a concept?

3. If when you say “God” you mean three persons, how is it right to refer to them as a “he”? If when you say “God” you mean the essence or being of God, how is it right to refer to it as a “he”? Are either of these ways of using the term “God” supported in scripture?

i) I reject how that frames the issue. It's not primarily a question of how a particular word is used, but the concept of God in Scripture, which has a much broader database than occurrences of the word “God”. Not beginning with a word to map onto a concept but beginning with a concept to map onto one or more words–that's my methodology. 

ii) When speaking popularly, I can use "God" both collectively (the Trinity) and individually (the Father as God, the son as God, the Spirit as God). When speaking with greater technical or philosophical precision, I say the persons are "divine"–as well as the nature or essence. 

iii) As I've also noted, there are different kinds of nouns: proper, common, abstract, concrete. The same noun can have four different connotations in that respect. 

iv) I don't use “he” for the divine essence because that's confusing. As a general matter, we don't customarily use singular masculine pronouns to denote a nature, substance, essence. To take a comparison, we don't refer to the attribute of omniscience as “he”, or the attribute of omnipotence as “he”.

v) As a matter of linguistic convention, I might refer to the Trinity as “it” rather than “he” since that's a common way (in standard English usage) of denoting collectives, even in the case of personal collectives. Conversely, I might refer to the “Godhead” as “they”. But this concerns surface grammar. It doesn't carry a lot of theological freight (or ontological commitment).

vi) I usually avoid “being” in Trinitarian discussions because that's ambiguous. 

Isaiah 7:14

Virgin Birth (Isa. 7:14)

Wegner states, "There is little doubt that Isa. 7:14 and its reuse in Matt. 1:23 is one of the most difficult problems for modern scholars."⁶⁷ This stems from a growing amount of evangelicals who question whether Isaiah 7:14 prophesies about a virgin birth. To be clear, these scholars acknowledges that Jesus was certainly born of a virgin as Matthew states (1:23). However, did Isaiah intend for that idea originally? Is there any movement from Old Testament to New Testament in this case?

Arguments against a messianic interpretation of the text appeal to three major pieces of evidence. First, the historical setting of Isaiah 7 seems to demand Isaiah's sign relate to the current circumstances. Isaiah 7 opens discussing how Ephraim and Aram are placing political and military pressure upon the southern kingdom (vv. 1-2).⁶⁸ The discussion of the sign responds to that situation (vv. 3-14). This suggests it deals with something in the present and not future. Second, the wording of the sign implies this. Isaiah relates Immanuel's birth with the collapse of the kings of Ephraim and Aram (v. 15). That seems to say the sign relates to the current crisis.⁶⁹ Third, later development of the sign in Isaiah seems to support this interpretation. In the very next chapter, Isaiah describes the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in terms quite similar to [the] birth Immanuel (Isa. 8:4; cf. Isa. 7:16). Maher-shalal-hash-baz explicitly deals with the current situation of Ephraim and Aram (Isa. 8:4-8). That appears to confirm Isaiah intended the sign be fulfilled int he current time. Immanuel is a sign of the enemy's destruction and thereby Judah's deliverance.⁷⁰

These arguments are admittedly compelling and make it seem that this is simply all the text discusses. However, several factors show there may be more involved. Like other prophets, Isaiah's mentality in this text does not merely focus on the present but the future:

1. The context of Isaiah 7 shows Isaiah's redemptive historical awareness. Isaiah 7 is not the first chapter of the book. The previous chapters have set up important concepts and issues Isaiah 7 addresses. This revolves around how God will send Israel into exile because of their sin (5:26-30) but will reverse this in the end with a glorious kingdom (2:1-4; 4:2-6). Isaiah's call reiterates this paradigm. His job is to proclaim Israel's condemnation (Isa. 6:8-12) so that in the end, they will be made holy (Isa. 6:13).⁷¹ Isaiah's mission is one that connects present with the eschatological. Isaiah 7 is not in a vacuum. Its context suggests the present situation discussed relates to something greater.

2. The immediate context exhibits this very perspective. Isaiah meets Ahaz with his son, Shear-Jashub, whose name means "the remnant will return" (7:3).⁷² The language is used earlier in Isaiah (cf. 1:26, 27; 4:3) showing the situation in Isaiah 7 is not just about the present but God's greater agenda of exile and restoration.⁷³ Likewise, Isaiah's use of the "house of David" evidences Isaiah believed the current situation was a threat not only to Ahaz but the entire Davidic dynasty (7:2).⁷⁴ Interestingly enough, the threat against the Davidic dynasty is the immediate context and concern of the sign (7:13). Again, the immediate context of Isaiah 7 does not merely describe a historical situation but one situated in a larger plan. Isaiah is not just speaking to the present situation.

3. The grammar of the sign indicates this. As discussed, some have interpreted Isaiah 7:14-15 to say the child is a sign that the northern kingdom and Aram will be defeated. The language makes mention of the present situation for sure. However, that is not precisely what Isaiah says. Notice, the wording states the son will eat curds and honey (v. 15) because (כִּי) before the child is old enough to choose between good and evil, the kings' lands will be desolate (v. 16). Technically, the resolution of the conflict with Ephraim and Aram is not the content or purpose of the sign but rather the reason the sign occurs the way it does.⁷⁵ It answers the question "why does Immanuel eat curds and honey, the food of poverty?" (cf. 7:22), as opposed to "what is the significance of Isaiah's sign?" Hence, to say Immanuel is a sign for Israel's present deliverance is not grammatically correct. Rather, the present circumstances will cause the tragic circumstances surrounding Immanuel's birth and childhood. Again, the present connect with the future.⁷⁶

4. Understanding this helps make sense of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8. As discussed, some scholars parallel Maher-shalal-hash-baz with Immanuel. Indeed, in Isaiah 8:4, Maher-shalal-hash-baz signifies the upcoming desolation of Ephraim and Aram as predicted in Isaiah 7:16. That is the child's prophetic purpose. However, we just observed such desolation is not the purpose of the sign of Immanuel. In Isaiah 7:16, the desolation of those kingdoms explains why Immanuel will be born in poverty and not what Immanuel is all about. Accordingly, Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Immanuel do not share the same purpose. They relate, but are not the same sign. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the sign that the harsh circumstances surrounding the Messiah's birth will take place. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is near the prophecy that confirms one in the more distant future (Immanuel's birth in exile). Kidner's observation (reiterated by Motyer) sums this up nicely:

   The sign of Immanuel . . . although it concerned ultimate events, did imply a pledge for the immediate future in that however soon Immanuel were born, the present threat would have passed before he would even be aware of it. But the time of his birth was undisclosed; hence the new sign is given to deal only with the contemporary scence.⁷⁷

5. The rest of Isaiah 8 further supports that Immanuel is not Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Isaiah's wife does not name the child contrary to what is prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Isa. 8:3; Luke 1:31). Isaiah also records how Immanuel will ultimately triumph over Judah's enemies and end exile (Isa. 8:10). Based upon this, Immanuel seems to be different than Maher-shalal-hash-baz. After all, the latter never delivers Judah from its enemies. Thus, Isaiah differentiates Immanuel from Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

6. Isaiah 8 also affirms the logic we observed in Isaiah 7:14-16. It describes how the Assyrian invasion will desolate Aram and Ephraim. However, it also discusses how the invasion will flood Judah, the "land of Immanuel" (8:5-8). If Immanuel is a sign that Israel's enemies will be destroyed resulting in Judah's salvation, why does Isaiah 8 state the opposite result occurs? Instead, the description in Isaiah 8 fits with what I have suggested above. Isaiah 7 prophesies Immanuel would live in poverty because of the present circumstances. Isaiah 8 states the desolation of the Judah's enemies would lead to Judah's own desolation and so Immanuel will be born in exilic conditions.

7. The rest of Isaiah 8-11 reinforces a messianic perspective to Isaiah 7:14. At the end of Isaiah 8, the prophet describes how Israel and its king will collapse in darkness (8:21-22).⁷⁸ However, from that darkness a light will come (9:1-2 [Heb., 8:23-9:1]) based upon the birth of a child (v. 6 [Heb., v. 5]) who bears the authority of God upon his shoulders. This messianic individual in Isaiah 9:6 (Heb., v. 5) corresponds with Isaiah 7:14.⁷⁹ Both record the birth and naming of a child associated with God's presence ("God with us" versus "Mighty God"). Both discuss how a child is born in exile and trial. Both texts ensure the security of the Davidic dynasty by virtue of the child's birth. With such parallels, Isaiah arguably equates his prophecy in 7:14 with the messianic figure in 9:6 (Heb., 9:5). This reinforces a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 11 also reiterates this. That chapter introduces a child-deliverer (Isa. 11:2) whose dominion is at the culmination of history (11:9-12).⁸⁰ With that, Isaiah 11 repeats the same pattern of a royal child born who secures ultimate deliverance and reign. The similarities and pattern argue that Isaiah tied all of these texts together. Isaiah shows how the Son born of a virgin in exile (Isa. 7:14) is the Son/Child who will conquer the exile (9:6 [Heb., v. 5]) and ultimately restore the world (11:1-12). Again, later texts reinforce Isaiah 7:14 is not just about the present but the future.

These factors illustrate what we have observed in this chapter. Isaiah did know complex theological concepts like the Messiah. His writing develops that idea (Isa. 9:6 [Heb., v. 5]; 11:2) which clarifies the nature of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah also did not strictly write about his current situation but had in mind how the present relates to the future. Hence, he talks about how the current crisis relates to the sign of the ultimate deliverance and security for the Davidic dynasty (Immanuel). He writes with greater complexity than we might originally anticipate.

One factor remains. Intertextuality not only helps us to see Isaiah's directionality but also his theological depth. This relates to the sign itself, the virgin birth. One might ask how the sign of a young woman (rightly assumed to be a virgin) giving birth participates in Isaiah's theological agenda.⁸¹ Scholars have consistently wondered about this reality.⁸² Intertextuality can aid in this discussion. The phrase "conceive and give birth" (יֹלֶ֣דֶ + הָרָה֙) is actually a formula reiterated in the canon. The formula applies to individuals including Eve (Gen. 4:1), Hagar (16:11), Sarah (21:2), Jochebed (Ex. 2:2), the mother of Samson (Judg. 13:5), and Hannah (1 Sam. 1:20).⁸³ Ruth is a close parallel (4:10).⁸⁴ The births are often miraculous because God overcomes barrenness (Judg. 13:5; 1 Sam. 1:20) or provides protection from harm (Gen. 16:11). Accordingly, the sons born are important individuals in God's plan.

The significance of the virgin birth seems to be an argument of lesser to greater. A virgin birth exceeds any other miraculous births. Consequently, the virgin-born Son is the most significant individual in redemptive history. He surpasses Isaac, Moses, Samson, or Samuel. In the context of Isaiah 7:14, the birth of this ultimate individual secures the Davidic dynasty and the restoration of a remnant (cf. Shear-Jashub, 7:3). He will be born in exile to end it. Hence, God will use this child in extraordinary ways to fulfill his plan and display his majesty. The child is truly "God with us" (7:14).

Therefore, Isaiah does not write better than he knows. He is aware his words will have bearing upon the future and the Messiah. His intertextual use of terms also shows why his prophecy is theologically significant. His appeal to the virgin birth showcases the Messiah as the most crucial individual for all time. In this way, Isaiah is a prophet-theologian who writes better than we give him credit for.

[Footnotes]

67. Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 467.
68. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 195-96.
69. Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 468-70; Walton, "Isaiah 7:14," 295-98.
70. Hamilton, "Virgin Will Conceive," 228-39. Hamilton summarizes these arguments well.
71. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 178.
72. Isaiah had already used the term "return" (שׁ֖וּב) in a pun on exile. On one hand, a remnant will return (1:26, 27), but the reason they return is because they refused to repent (6:10) and so God must judge them (1:25, 6:13).
73. Contrary to some (e.g., Walton) who argue that Isaiah 7:13-14 falls under a new section historically, there appears to be no real gap in the narrative. Furthermore, even assuming a historical discontinuity between the events, Isaiah enforces a literary continuity by placing the world "also" (גַּם) in the text. This adverb inherently places the information in Isaiah 7:13ff in parallel with the context above. The distribution of "house of David" also attests to this cohesion.
74. Isaiah describes how the present threat is a threat to the house of David (7:2), then addresses Ahaz directly (vv. 3-12), but then later addresses the house of David (v. 13). A change of pronouns accompany the change in titles. God addresses Ahaz in the singular but the Davidic household in the plural. These grammatical shifts argue that the different titles are not meant to be purely stylistic or synonymous. Isaiah addresses two different groups: Ahaz and the rest of the Davidic dynasty.
75. To make verse 16 the content of the sign, one would have to take the particle כִּ֣י ("for") as content ("that"), as opposed to causal or explanatory ("for" or "because"). However, two factors make this unlikely. First, to make verse 16 the content of the sign in verse 14 is unnatural since the verses are quite far apart. Second, technically the particle modifies the verbs in verse 15. The boy will eat curds and honey because the land will be forsaken. Thus, to claim that the sign is one of the destruction of the land is mistaken grammatically.
76. An additional grammatical observation supports this assertion. "Young woman" and "conceive" are in a predicate adjective construction. Conceive (or be pregnant) directly modifies the young woman in her current status. Just as the "man is good" means that the man in his current description as a man is good, so the virgin woman will get pregnant as a virgin. This counters the suggestion that while עַלְמָ֗ה may imply virginity, the young woman in Isaiah's day would marry, become pregnant, and then deliver a child. This too backs the notion that Isaiah had in mind a miraculous conception and birth par excellence. Contra Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 472. Wegner permits Isaiah 7:14 to influence the discussion which is circular reasoning. He suggests, based upon Ugaritic literature (particularly, the Nikkal poem), that glmt cannot include the semantic idea of virgin (471). In dealing with the Nikkal poem, it appears in the context that there is a prayer involved. Hence, the imperfect tld (to give birth) is not past-referring but rather denotes a request. See Vawter, "The Ugaritic Use of GLMT," 321; Goetze, "Nikkal Poem," 353-60. If this is the case, then his reasoning from Ugaritic is less effective.
77. Kidner, "Isaiah," 639; Motyer, Isaiah, 90.
78. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 239.
79. Ibid.; Motyer, Isaiah, 102-5.
80. Oswalt, Isaiah 1-39, 239. Oswalt states "But this person will also be a child, and it is inescapable that the childish aspect of the deliverer is important to Isaiah, for it appears again in 11:6, 8 (as it is, of course, implied in 7:3, 14; 8:1-4, 8, 18)." See also Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament, 158-64; Motyer, Isaiah, 101-2.
81. Space does not permit an adequate lexicographical analysis of עַלְמָ֗ה, as opposed to בְּתוּלָה. However, the idea of a young woman who is marriageable and thereby presumably a virgin is defensible. See Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 471-72. Wegner critiques Walton's construal of the evidence for a helpful discussion. I disagree with Wegner's methodology of including Isaiah 7:14 in the discussion. If Isaiah 7:14 is the verse in question, bringing it as evidence of a certain lexical definition is circular reasoning. See also Feinberg, "The Virgin Birth in the Old Testament and Isaiah 7:14," 251-58; Niessen, "The Virginity of the עַלְמָ֗ה in Isaiah 7:14," 133-41. Two passages also raise attention to this issue, including Isaiah 54:4 where the term is used supposedly with a barren woman as well as Proverbs 30:19-20 where an adulterous woman is in the context. Reading Isaiah 54:4 as synonymous parallelism is misleading. Lexically if עַלְמָ֗ה refers to youthfulness, we are dealing with antithetical or merismatic parallelism. In the latter case, it demonstrates that Israel has been shameful in the context of her youthfulness as well as her adulthood. Seeing both other prophetic appeals to Israel's youthfulness as a sexual promiscuous woman (cf. Hos. 1-2) as well as the immediate context, which talks how God will be the faithful husband and make her glorious (Isa. 54:5-12). Zion's perversity as the shame of her youthfulness reinforces the notion of virginity rather than counters it. Similarly, if one takes Proverbs 30:19-20 as the adulterous woman perverting the purity of relationship between man and עַלְמָ֗ה, then it implies the chastity/purity of the עַלְמָ֗ה. That too harmonizes with the notion of implied virginity in the term.
82. Wegner, "How Many Virgin Births?" 467; Walton, "Isaiah 7:14," 297; Oswalt Isaiah 1-39, 210-11.
83. Genesis 16:11 uses a weqatal construction, instead of a participle found in Judges 13:5 and Isaiah 7:14. The use of weqatal probably accommodates Hagar's current pregnant state whereas the participle instans refers to a future event (i.e., that both conception and birth are future). See GKC §112.d (332); IBHS §32.2.4 (535); 37.6f (628). The implication in both Judges 13:5 and Isaiah 7:14 is that the women were not pregnant but would become so in their barren state or in their state as an עַלְמָ֗ה.
84. occurs in three hundred sixty verses without . Hence, the "conceive and give birth" formula is not just colloquial but a subset of communicating unique births.

(Chou, Abner. The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers: Learning to Interpret Scripture from the Prophets and Apostles, pp 113-19.)

Whoever believes...in him

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2018/05/02/a-brief-reply-to-arminian-brian-abasciano-on-john-316/

Abasciano's decoy

https://www.jamesagibson.com/2018/04/24/the-irrelevance-of-whoever-in-john-316-and-what-really-matters-a-response-to-brian-abasciano/

Is Calvinism tautologous?

I'd like to make a few brief comments on Brian Abasciano's post:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-whoever-reads-john-316-can-know-that-whoever-is-really-there/

1. My own position, which is documented by Greek lexicographers, is that, especially in Johannine usage, kosmos has an ethical connotation, denoting the hostile world-order, alienated from God. So it doesn't necessarily mean "everybody", and there are many verses where it can't mean "everybody". 

2. By the same token, kosmos doesn't have a default meaning of "everybody". Rather, the word means more than one thing, and the sense is context-dependent.

3. There's a lot more to the argument of Anderson, Bignon, and Gibson than how to render pas ho pisteuon. Is Abascino trying to misleading Arminians by banking on the fact that most of them will blindly accept his summary of the argument rather than consulting the original presentations by Bignon, Gibson, and Anderson?

4. One issue is a stock distinction between sense and reference. For instance, "Peter" 

i) means rocky 

ii) refers to Simon bar-Jonah

Sense and reference are separable, for even if "Peter" always has one and the same meaning, it doesn't always have one and the same referent. Millions of men have the name Peter–not to mention fictional characters by that name. That doesn't make them reincarnations of Simon bar-Jonah. The same word can have a single intension but multiple extensions. 

5. Hence, it's quite possible for komos to refer to the elect even though it doesn't mean the elect. That's not some ad hoc Calvinistic distinction, but an elementary distinction in lexical semantics. 

6. To my knowledge, Mounce and Wallace aren't considered cutting edge. There are more up-to-date Greek grammars (e.g. Stanley Porter). 

The dictionary fallacy

Apostate Dale Tuggy attempted a response to my (then) latest post:

http://trinities.org/blog/steve-hays-vs-lexicons-and-deep-thoughts-on-ot-binitarianism/

No, there’s nothing “slanted” about the question. OT monotheism is as clear as can be – the one true God there, the only creator, is YHWH. 

To ask whether the Spirit of God is additional to God is prejudicial because Trinitarians don't think God is one thing while the Spirit is another thing additional to God. Tuggy has already cast the issue in terms that treat a unitarian conception as the basis of comparison, such that anything over and above it must be tacked on to that. 

A pointless exercise, I think, because basic reading comprehension very quickly delivers the monotheism I mentioned above. 

i) Tuggy doesn't like it when I call his bluff. But he's the one who objects to filtering Scripture through catholic/Nicene categories. He constantly labors to shoehorn my position into a catholic/Nicene paradigm, even though I dissent from some planks of Nicene theology. For instance, I share the position of Warfield and Helm (among others) in rejecting eternal generation/procession.

Indeed, Tuggy recently went a step further in suspending the NT from consideration when reading the OT. So I'm just taking his hermeneutical methodology to a logical conclusion. For the sake of argument, let's approach the OT in a vacuum. As if we were reading the text for the first time, starting at Genesis. As if we had no knowledge of historical theology. 

ii) From that standpoint, monotheism is not a given. And, indeed, there are OT scholars who think the OT preserves divergent theologies with traces of polytheism, viz. P. Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Baker 2005), 97-102. They think the OT teaches henotheism rather than monotheism. 

Is that my own position? No. But I'm responding to Tuggy on his own grounds. 

This is a pop apologetics junk argument. No, that elohim often has a singular meaning, despite its plural structure, is shown by its use with singular verbs and singular personal pronouns. When it was used to mean “gods” instead of “God,” the accompanying words would be plural. Not confusing, really, any more than is our word “pants.” Thus, there’s not even a semblance of a hint here of “plurality within God.” That’s merely projected onto the texts.

i) Let's see:

Many scholars from various positions in biblical studies argue that the original mythic character of Genesis can still be seen in the "cleansed" text. For example, it is often argued that the plurality of the name of God (elohim) in Genesis 1 suggests an original polytheism that only later evolved into an argument monotheism. Similar claims are made about another key word from the creation account [tehom]. J. Currid, Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament (Zondervan 2013), 35. 

ii) Another example is Gen 6:4, which many scholars think is a residual reflection of pagan tales about gods fathering demigods by sexual intercourse with mortal women, viz. I. Provan, Discovering Genesis: Content, Interpretation, Reception (Eerdmans 2015), 110-12; N. Sarna, Genesis (JPS 1989), 45; B. Arnold, Genesis (Cambridge 2009), 90.

Are those my own positions? No. But the point is that you don't have to be a Trinitarian to reject Tuggy's unitarian reading of the OT. Many OT scholars reject Tuggy's interpretation because they think the OT is theologically diverse. 

Most commenters now think that this is the divine council, the elohim (deities) – we would say angels – which attend God.

Yes, but there are problems with that:

i) Are human creatures made in the image of angelic creatures?

ii) OT scholars typically think the "divine council" has its origin in the Canaanite/Ugaritic pantheon. For instance:

It reflects an originally polytheistic account insufficiently sanitized. J. Collins, Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic. literary, and Theological Commentary (P&R 2006), 59. [Collins rejects that option]

This is the Israelite version of the polytheistic assemblies of the pantheon–monotheized and depaganized. N. Sarna, Genesis (JPS 1989), 12. 

iii) Deut 32:8-9 is a Pentateuch prooftext for the divine council. Many scholars think that's a domesticated version of the Canaanite pantheon, in which there's a high god or presiding god above a second tier of lower gods who function as national/patron deities. On that interpretation, Elyon is the high god while Yahweh is one of the lesser, territorial divinities. Cf. J. McConville, Deuteronomy (IVP 2002), 448,54; D. Block, Deuteronomy (Zondervan 2012), 753; The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Theology (Baker 2000), chap. 1. 

Is that my own position? No. I'm just responding to Tuggy on his own grounds. Given the polytheistic background of the divine council interpretation, that's a highly ironic interpretation for a unitarian to champion! 

Nope, not two characters! That’s not how an ancient reader would take Genesis 1:2. He would assume that in some sense God has a body, and then like us, he also has a spirit – the unseen power, the source of life or the inner being. There is no self-to-self interaction here, e.g. conversation or interpersonal cooperation, or other signs to indicate that elohim is one self and his “spirit” or breath is another.

i) If, according to Tuggy, the ruach is the soul to Elohim's body, then the ruach is the seat of divine personality.

ii) And, yes, the combination of v2 and v26 does imply a collaborative audience.  

I don’t think most ancient readers would make a clear distinction between creatures and minor deities. These latter typically derive from other deities, and ultimately from the high God.

Which ignores the context of my statement. Initially, a reader won't draw that distinction. But as he reads further into the OT text, that distinction will become more evident. 

Oy. That silly, Athanasian “on the divine side” rhetoric – a classic weasel phrase. I need to do a whole post on that some time. For now: notice why he adopts this odd phrase here – by talking abstractly about “the divine side,” this leaves it as an open question whether or not this “spirit” is the same self as God, or a self in addition to God. Convenient! But supposedly, he’s arguing that in the OT, one might well think that the spirit of God is a someone in his own right, a self in addition to God.

To be on the divine side is not to be on the mundane side. Not to be a creature. 

Notice the obvious usage that he leaves out in this list – “spirit” as the inner part or aspect of a human person, often standing in for the person himself, so that what, e.g. your spirit feels is just what you feel.

Which, by analogy, makes the Spirit of God entirely divine. That's Tuggy's dilemma. 

What, pray tell, does it mean to say that OT theology is “binitarian”? Serious question. I assume, by analogy with “trinitarian,” that it means that there are two “Persons” in the OT (the Father and the Spirit?) which share an ousia. In my book What is the Trinity? chapter 7, I discuss nine things which “same ousia” might mean. Until our would-be apologist specifies which he means, we don’t even have an intelligible view here, which we might look into the OT to try to find. He’s just got traditional catholic language, and he’s hoping that the OT somehow gets one part way there. But “where” is “there”? I mean, what sort of ousia-sharing does he have in mind? I really don’t know. But then, none of us is in a position to see whether or not this is to be found taught or presupposed or even hinted at in the OT. Past experience has taught me that Steve Hays is proudly and defiantly confused on this topic; he has no one interpretation of the traditional catholic Trinity language, as best as I can tell. 

i) Defending traditional catholic Trinity language was never my aim. I take the position of theologians like Warfield, Frame, Feinberg, and Helm regarding the autotheistic nature of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

ii) I do agree with the Nicene creed that the Son (and Spirit) are consubstantial with the Father. 

iii) I didn't use traditional catholic language. I used David Cline's characterization of "duality in the godhead". Clines is a renown OT scholar, and quite liberal. 

No, it is a proper name. Evidently, our would-be apologist is reasoning backwards here – if God is tripersonal, he ought not have a proper name, which would suggest that he’s a single person. 

I said nothing to indicate that God can't have a proper name because he's tripersonal. I didn't reason backwards from the Trinity to the conclusion that Yahweh is not a proper name. 

But, this is not what the scholars say. He may be assuming here that a proper name can’t have a meaning, but of course, many OT and NT names do have meanings, e.g. Immanuel, Joshua/Jesus.

I made no such assumption. Tuggy has a lively imagination. 

“Lexicons? Who needs ’em?”

Bizarre free-wheeling here. Kids, if you’re going to do apologetics, do you homework first. Don’t just pop off and try to one-up the other guy. It’s no good to insist that God can’t have a proper name, when the reference books say that in the OT he does! That second sentence – is that supposed to be the reason for the first? If so, it is a wild non sequitur. Just because God can’t have a true peer, it doesn’t follow that he can’t have a proper name. Nor does it follow that other beings make be like him in kind, though not full peers – e.g. men, angels.

A lesson for would-be apologists here; don’t pounce on your opponent so fast that you can’t take time to look things up in standard reference sources. Both your misinformation and your lack of self control reflect poorly on the cause you think you’re serving.

i) To begin with, Tuggy commits what William Vallicella dubs "the Dictionary Fallacy: thinking that certain philosophical questions can be answered by consulting dictionaries. 

ii) As far as what scholars say, there's no consensus on "Yahweh". There are OT scholars who think God's answer to Moses is evasive. They think God refuses to provide a name because that gives people control over a deity. 

iii) In general, divine names for the one true Deity are appellatives rather than proper names. 

iv) In addition:

The answer Moses receives is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a name. It is an assertion of authority, a confession of an essential reality, and thus an entirely appropriate response to the question Moses poses. J. Durham, Exodus (Word 1987), 38. 

The answer in v14…set against the pagan context of the question, rejects the very idea of a name for God. He is not like Amun or Ptah; he cannot be assigned a place and identity in the cosmos as one of the gods. In the most ultimate sense, he has no name…To ask his "name" is to miss the point completely, because he is not one of the gods at all…It is not God's name in the way that Seth, Horus, Thoth, or Bastet identify and define individual Egyptian gods…As the angel of YHWH said to Manoah, "Why do you ask my name? It is too wonderful" (Judg 13:18). D. Garrett, A Commentary on Exodus (Kregel 2014), 207-208. 

Simply put, monotheism has no need, possibly no room, for a name–a proper name–for Deity. Proper names are labels by which individual or particular members of a class are differentiated one from another. If Deity is a class with but one member, then the common name or noun for that class is sufficient…Our capitalization of God or Deity owes then to the respect for the concept of singleness of deity, and to an inherited convention for the differentiation of the One and Only God of Scripture from the many gods that (exist(ed) only in the minds of pagans…In monotheism a proper name for Deity is in a sense blasphemous, allowing as it may for the existence of other deities by other names. H. Brichto, The Names of God: Poetic Readings in Biblical Beginnings (Oxford 1998), 31,33.

It's amusing to see the inverse ratio between Tuggy's confidence and competence. He accuses me of making unscholarly, uninformed claims, yet throughout his reply he exposes his utter ignorance of the relevant literature, while I can easily back up my claims–as in fact I've done in this rejoinder. Tuggy falls into the classic trap of simultaneously overestimating himself and underestimating his critics.