1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 2⁴⁸ 13⁷ . . . 15²⁹ . . . Jn 5⁶ 8⁵⁸ . . . ”

Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that ἐγὼ εἰμί (e·goʹ ei·miʹ) is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression ʼaniʹ huʼ, “I am he,” which is used by God. However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man.—See 1Ch 21:17 ftn.

Further attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Ex 3:14 (LXX) which reads: ᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (E·goʹ ei·mi ho on), which means “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One.” This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression in Ex 3:14 is different from the expression in Joh 8:58. (See Ex 3:14 ftn.) Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures it is not possible to make an identification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.—See 1Pe 2:3 ftn; App 6A, 6E.

Ps 58:4b, 5a—“Deaf like the cobra that stops up its ear, that will not listen to the voice of charmers.”

In The New York Times, January 10, 1954, § 4, p. 9, under the title “Are Snakes ‘Charmed’ by Music?” the following report on Ps 58:4, 5 is found: “Dr. David I. Macht, research pharmacologist of the Mount Sinai Hospital in Baltimore [U.S.A.], is one of the world’s leading authorities on cobra snake venom. (Cobra venom is an accepted medication, in blood disorders, for instance.) Dr. Macht reported that in working with cobras and cobra venom he became acquainted with a number of Hindu physicians, well educated, and from different parts of India. All agreed that cobras respond to some musical tones, from musical pipes or fifes. Some forms of music excite the animals more than other forms, the physicians reported. Indian children, playing in the dark in the countryside, are even warned not to sing lest their sounds attract cobras, he said. Dr. Macht commented that Shakespeare, who repeatedly referred to serpents as deaf . . . merely repeated a common misunderstanding. On the other hand Dr. Macht said, the psalmist was right who implied conversely, in Psalm 58, Verse 5, that serpents can hear . . . . Contrary to the claims of some naturalists, Dr. Macht said, snakes are ‘charmed’ by sounds, not by movements of the charmer.”

Likewise, in an article published in the German zoological magazine Grzimeks Tier, Sielmanns Tierwelt (Grzimek’s Animal, Sielmann’s Animal World), July 1981, pp. 34, 35, the author tells of a cobra that lived on his estate in Sri Lanka in a termite hill. He asked a snake charmer to catch the wild snake and get it to dance. The author reports: “After I had assured my guest that there really was a cobra living there, he sat down in front of the termite hill and began to play his pipe. After a long time—I no longer believed anything would happen—the cobra raised its head several centimeters out of a hole. Before the snake could open its mouth the charmer hurried over and grabbed its head between his thumb and two fingers.” The Indian thereupon actually got the snake to dance.

Therefore, there is evidence that the cobra does “listen to the voice of charmers.”

Mt 8:29—“What have we to do with you, Son of God?”

This question of the demons to Jesus is an ancient idiomatic form of question that is found in the Hebrew Scriptures in eight places, namely, in Jos 22:24; Jg 11:12; 2Sa 16:10; 19:22; 1Ki 17:18; 2Ki 3:13; 2Ch 35:21; Ho 14:8. In the Christian Greek Scriptures as well as in the Syriac version a literal translation is made of the ancient Hebrew expression, and it occurs six times, namely, in Mt 8:29; Mr 1:24; 5:7; Lu 4:34; 8:28; Joh 2:4. Literally translated, the question in Mt 8:29 reads: “What is there to us [or, to me] and to you?” and means, “What is there in common between us [or, me] and you?” “What do we [or, I] and you have in common?” Or, as rendered above, “What have we to do with you?”

In every case in the Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, it is a repellent form of question, indicating objection to the thing suggested, proposed or suspected. This is supported by the positive form of putting the matter in Ezr 4:3 (1 Esdras 5:67, LXX): “You have nothing to do with us in building a house to our God.” Literally, “It does not pertain to you and to us to build a house to our God.” The same form of expression in the imperative mood is the request made to Pilate by his wife concerning Jesus, who was up before her husband for trial, in Mt 27:19: “Have nothing to do with that righteous man.” Literally: “Let there be nothing between you and that righteous man.”

Couched in that very common form, Jesus’ question to his mother in Joh 2:4 cannot be excluded from the one category. It bears all the features of repellency or resistance to his mother in proposing his course for him. So in his case we have rendered it the same as in all other cases of the like question: “What have I to do with you, woman? My hour has not yet come.” Other translators render it more strongly: “Do not try to direct me. It is not yet time for me to act.” (An American Translation) “Trouble me not, woman; my hour has not yet come.”—The Four Gospels, by C. C. Torrey, based on Aramaic.

Mt 28:1—“After the sabbath”

Gr., Ὀψὲ . . . σαββάτων (o·pseʹ. . . sab·baʹton)

J. H. Thayer, in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, fourth ed., Edinburgh (1901), p. 471, says: “ὀψὲ σαββάτων, the sabbath having just passed, after the sabbath, i.e. at the early dawn of the first day of the week—(an interpretation absolutely demanded by the added specification τῇ ἐπιφωσκ κτλ [tei e·pi·pho·sk(ouʹ sei) . . . , “when it was growing light” etc.]), Mt. xxviii. 1.” Also, Zorell^Gr, column 969, says: “post [after]: ὀψὲ σαββάτων Mt 28:1 ‘post sabbatum’ [‘after the sabbath’].” Moreover, Bauer, p. 601, says under ὀψέ: “after ὀψὲ σαββάτων after the Sabbath Mt 28:1.”

Heb 9:16—Gr., διαθήκη (di·a·theʹke)

The word di·a·theʹke occurs 33 times in the Greek text, namely, in Mt 26:28; Mr 14:24; Lu 1:72; Lu 22:20; Ac 3:25; Ac 7:8; Ro 9:4; Ro 11:27; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6, 14; Ga 3:15, 17; Ga 4:24; Eph 2:12; Heb 7:22; Heb 8:6, 8, 9, 9, 10; Heb 9:4, 4, 15, 15, 16, 17, 20; Heb 10:16, 29; Heb 12:24; Heb 13:20; Re 11:19. The New World Translation renders the Greek word di·a·theʹke as “covenant” in these 33 places.

The word di·a·theʹke occurs in quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures seven times, namely, in Ro 11:27 (from Isa 59:21); Heb 8:8 (from Jer 31:31), Heb 8:9 (twice, from Jer 31:32), Heb 8:10 (from Jer 31:33); Heb 9:20 (from Ex 24:8); Heb 10:16 (from Jer 31:33). In these seven quoted texts the Hebrew word in M is ברית (berithʹ, “covenant”), and the Greek word in LXX is διαθήκη (di·a·theʹke).

Although the obvious meaning of di·a·theʹke in the Christian Greek Scriptures is in the ancient Hebrew sense of “covenant,” many modern translators render di·a·theʹke in Heb 9:16, 17 as “will” or “testament.” They thus indicate that the writer of the book of Hebrews intended a change of meaning for this Greek word.

However, the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by John McClintock and James Strong, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1981 reprint, Vol. II, p. 544, states: “The Sept. having rendered בְּרִית (which never means will or testament, but always covenant or agreement) by διαθήκη consistently throughout the O. T., the N. T. writers, in adopting that word, may naturally be supposed to intend to convey to their readers, most of them familiar with the Greek O. T., the same idea. . . . In the confessedly difficult passage, Heb. ix, 16, 17, the word διαθήκη has been thought by many commentators absolutely to require the meaning of will or testament. On the other side, however, it may be alleged that, in addition to what has just been said as to the usual meaning of the word in the N. T., the word occurs twice in the context, where its meaning must necessarily be the same as the translation of בְּרִית, and in the unquestionable sense of covenant (comp. διαθήκη καινή [di·a·theʹke kai·neʹ, “new covenant”], Heb. ix, 15, with the same expression in viii, 8; and διαθήκη, ix, 16, 17, with ver. 20, and Exod. xxiv, 8).”

Likewise, B. F. Westcott, coeditor of the Westcott and Hort Greek text, in his work, The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1892, p. 300, wrote the following:

“The Biblical evidence then, so far as it is clear, is wholly in favour of the sense of ‘covenant,’ with the necessary limitation of the sense of the word in connexion with a Divine covenant. When we pass to the consideration of the sense of διαθήκη in c. ix. 15 ff. one preliminary remark offers itself. The connexion of vv. 15—18 is most close: v. 16 ὅπου γάρ [hoʹpou gar, “For where”]. . . : v. 18 ὅθεν οὐδέ [hoʹthen ou·deʹ, “Consequently neither”]. . . .

“This connexion makes it most difficult to suppose that the key-word (διαθήκη) is used in different senses in the course of the verses, and especially that the characteristic of a particular kind of διαθήκη, essentially different from the πρώτη διαθήκη [proʹte di·a·theʹke, “former covenant”] of vv. 15, 18, should be brought forward in v. 16. For it is impossible to maintain that the sacrifices with which the Old Covenant was inaugurated could be explained on the supposition