And I'm belaboring this point, because, you know, honestly,
I'm a little tired of hearing it. To be blunt about it.
But, you know, it's when you read certain commentators, and they're all;
"there's just nothing to this idea, this is silly." Really?
Yes, there are humans in view, but there are also supernatural entities in view.
These things are married in Daniel 10. And they're married elsewhere.
That's the only point. In other words, you shouldn't exclude supernatural powers.
And I think in 1 Corinthians 2, this is specifically what's going on here.
Now, as I mentioned before, I'm going to show you some pushback on this idea.
This is the kind of thing you're going to read in some commentaries. I mean,
other commentators I could quote to validate what I'm saying here.
But I want to go to Gordon Fee's commentary, make it a little larger.
Because I think in view Fee's good reputation as a scholar,
to me, this is a real oversight.
He says here «As to the first question, there has been a growing consensus
over many years that the “rulers” are demonic powers.»
So he admits that the consensus would be on my side.
«Or at least that by these words Paul wants the Corinthians to see
demonic powers as lying behind the activity of the earthly rulers.»
at the very least, okay?
«This oft-repeated assertion needs finally to be laid to rest since the
linguistic evidence, the context, and Pauline theology all argue against it.»
I'm arguing they all argue for it.
And I'll show you why in a moment here that he's wrong.
«Given the evidence of v. 8, the "rulers" here at least include
those responsible for the crucifixion.»
Again, nobody's denying that.
What we're saying is don't exclude the spiritual powers and that makes more sense
in 1 Corinthians 2, and in other passages it can be both.
So it sounds impressive, you know,
«the linguistic evidence, the context, and Pauline theology all argue against it.»
Sounds really impressive. And of course, the wording is categorical.
Would it be great if the word in 1 Corinthians 2 did appear in the plural
referring to supernatural beings, somewhere else?
Well, here we have BDAG. This is the leading lexicon of the New Testament,
New Testament Greek, árchōn, archontōn.
And right here, we have «transcended figures. Evil spirits.»
with a whole bunch of citations of literature outside the New Testament,
both earlier and contemporary.
So where's the disconnection here? I would go further though.
And say, of this passage, would it also be great to find a clear example
of árchōn in the plural that pointed to supernatural rulers in Greek material
from the Second Temple Jewish literature that's familiar to New Testament writers?
Wouldn't that be awesome? Well, lo and behold, here we have the Book of Enoch.
1 Enoch 6:7. And we have the reference to «these are the names of their
[archontōn] of their leaders.» And I think I have, yeah, there's Enoch in English.
So, these are the names of their leaders. And then you have a list of the watchers.
These are the Genesis 6 characters, the sons of God, the fallen sons of God
in Enoch's retelling of the story, right there it is; archontōn.
They are archontōn these are definitely supernatural beings, they're not people.
And at the end, «these are their archai».
This is the other word in the other Corinthians passage, and in Ephesians,
«these are their archai of thens». Okay, these are their chiefs of tens.
These guys right here, there are archai, and there are archontōn.
Now, I don't know how Fee miss this,
but the linguistic evidence is on my side. Okay, let's be clear about that.
His argument does not hold water. Would it be even better to know that archontōn
was used in Septuagint manuscripts in Daniel 10. Let's take it another step further,
which is directly related to the Deuteronomy 32 worldview?
Oh, that would be awesome.
Here's a quote from Unseen Realm. And I'm going to read this and then
I'm going to cite another authority, David Aune, at the end here.
«While archōn (along with the rest of Paul’s vocabulary)
is found in the New Testament and elsewhere for human rulers, it makes little sense
for Paul to see irony in the fact that humans didn’t know God’s mystery-plan
[I mean, how would they?] involved the death and resurrection.»
You would think since it's God's plan that somebody in the heavenlies would know?
Okay, that his enemies might know, but they didn't.
That's the irony, that God successfully kept them in the dark.
«As Aune notes, the term archontes used as a designation for angelic beings
first occurs in the LXX Dan 10:13, and seven times in Theod. Dan
[those are different manuscripts of the Septuagint] in Dan 10:13, 20–21.»
Let's just click out here to the Septuagint.
Now we're reading here, the Lexham English Septuagint.
Here we have, I want to it click on the word "commanders"
There it is; Archonton. It's Daniel 10:13. Same word that we're finding in Paul.
Again, this isn't really hard to find, and the alternate texts, same thing,
árchōn, archontōn, árchontes, this is Daniel 10:13.
In those great texts of Daniel, chapter 10, the Prince of Persia, Prince of Greece.
And I'm belaboring this point, because, honestly, I'm a little tired of hearing it.
To be blunt about it. But when you read certain commentators,
and they're all; "there's just nothing to this idea, this is silly." Really?
Really you have it in contemporary literature,
Septuagint, second temple texts.
That was a translation of the Old Testament done the Second Temple period,
You got Enoch, and you've got other references too in BDAG and other Greek literature.
Lastly, I'll say it again, wouldn’t it further be great if this word was from the same root
as another related word (archē) that was used in the plural (archai)
for evil supernatural beings?
Again, we already looked at this right there it is archai. My point to Fee and others is,
you know, that this notion that well, it never occurs in the plural,
and these terms aren't mixed. And these are this is grasping at straws.
The terms don't need to... it doesn't matter if it's singular or plural,
both happens. The plural as Paul uses is found in Enoch
and of course in Daniel in the Septuagint. So this whole notion of his argument,
"the linguistic evidence," this is just like generic rulership,
or human rulership is not well founded.