Light Giver 11

The verb ἁγιασθήτω is the third person singular aorist passive imperative of ἁγιάζω (“to sanctify,” “to make holy”). It does not mean “keep holy,” which would imply the preservation of a pre-existing state. Rather, the aorist passive imperative form expresses a petition that sanctification be brought about, not maintained. Thus, in the phrase ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου (“Hallowed be Thy name,” Matt. 6:9), the prayer is not asserting that God’s name is already sanctified/holy and ought to remain so, but rather that it come to be holy.

The Rising of the Sun

This word has been heavily debated by scholars simply because of the philosophical/metaphysical implications of the grammatical compound. There is a simple meaning, according to its components, but not one any biblical scholar was willing to accept in theological discourse. 

The term ἐπουσία, though formally straightforward as a compound of ἐπί- ("upon" or "in addition") and οὐσία ("essence" or "being"), has attracted disproportionate interpretive attention due to its latent philosophical and metaphysical potential. While the composite suggests a plausible surface meaning—that which is upon or beyond being—its implications have proven problematic for theological frameworks that resist any notion of intermediary or supervenient being beyond or beside a singular divine essence. Consequently, biblical and patristic scholars were reluctant to adopt the term in its literal or speculative fullness, biased to interpretive routes that maintain doctrinal coherence over lexical possibility. This reluctance underscores a broader tension in ancient metaphysical language: that linguistic derivation does not constrain conceptual interpretation, especially when dealing with terms at the intersection of grammar, ontology, and revelation.

If ἐπουσία is interpreted analogically within a framework of ontological emanation—where being radiates or "beams forth" akin to the sun's light—its prefix ἐπί-, denoting superposition or addition, could signify a plenitudinous extension of essence, not merely spatially, but existentially. Such a concept aligns with metaphysical models wherein existence is not linear or segmented but unfolds as a totality, analogous to perceiving a clock not as a sequence but as an integrated whole. In this sense, ἐπουσία might connote a form of omni-existence—a mode of being in which all times, places, and essences co-inhere without contradiction or division. This reading, while resonant with late Neoplatonic or mystical systems, remains rooted in a conceptual analysis of being as non-successive and non-localized, rather than in any strictly theological dogma.

What?

To put it in simpler terms, the basic meaning of this compound word has caused a lot of debate among scholars because it brings up deep and tricky questions about what it means to exist or to be. One could think about a kind of existence that is beyond normal time and space—like the way the sun shines everywhere in all directions or how a clock can be seen as a whole, not just ticking seconds one after another.

But because these ideas are so complicated and don’t fit easily into any religious beliefs—especially in any Biblical tradition (or early church writings)—most scholars didn’t want to accept the word’s full meaning. Instead, they preferred to distort it in ways that fit better with their religious teachings.

In other words, even though the word seems simple when you look at its parts, the big ideas it suggests made certain people nervous, so they avoided using it the way it naturally might be used.

The best translation of χρῆσόν μοι is generally rendered as “use me” or “employ me.” This rendering follows from the fact that χρῆσόν is the aorist imperative of χράω—a verb that, in its primary sense, means “to use” or “to employ.”

Who borrows food?

While there is a related semantic branch (attested in forms such as κίχρημι) that can convey the idea of “lending” or “borrowing,” the imperative form χρῆσόν belongs to the paradigm of χράω rather than to that of κίχρημι. Thus, unless the context specifically indicates the specialized “lending” usage, “use me” remains the most accurate and natural translation. The idea of "lending bread" is semantically out of place.

In summary, χρῆσόν μοι is best translated as “use me” in contexts where one is inviting someone to make use of one’s abilities, services, or presence.

The term ἀναίδεια (or ἀναιδεία) is uniformly pejorative in Classical Greek, denoting shamelessness, impudence, or insolence, i.e., the absence of αἰδώς (modesty, reverence).

It appears as a moral vice in authors such as Sophocles (El. 607), Euripides (Med. 472), and Plato (Phaedr. 254d), and is even personified as Ἀναίδεια, the allegorical counterpart to Αἰδώς (Xen. Symp. 8.35).

In legal contexts, it may also signify implacability or pitilessness (cf. the ἀναιδείας λίθος, Paus. 1.28.5).

The idea of a "rhetorically softened sense" akin to bold persistence, is hardly attested in Greek thought or literature, but is assumed (due to bias) to be the case in the one use of it in Luke 11:8.

Syntax:

• ἐκβάλλειν — present active infinitive of ἐκβάλλω (to cast out, expel)

• με — accusative singular of ἐγώ (me)

• τὰ δαιμόνια — nominative or accusative plural neuter of τὸ δαιμόνιον (demon, spirit, divinity)

In the phrase ἐκβάλλειν με τὰ δαιμόνια, there would seem to be confusion over subject and object roles:

• The construction implies: "to cast me out the demons/divinities," which is normally ungrammatical, semantically incoherent.

• If τὰ δαιμόνια is the subject (i.e., the demons are casting me out), we must use a finite verb (e.g., ἐκβάλλουσι με τὰ δαιμόνια) or restructure accordingly.

• If the intention is to say "to cast out the demons from me", then με should be in the genitive of separation or governed by a preposition.

Since both are in the accusative, the word δαιμόνια only fits in its neutral sense (divinity/divine power), otherwise we must change words, as every translation seems to have done by replacing the infinitive (to cast out) with a 1st person (I cast out). 

(See Logeion on the word.)

Ishtar of Nineveh (Akkadian: Ištar Nīnuwā)

Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna) was the Mesopotamian goddess of love, war, fertility, and sexuality. She was venerated throughout Mesopotamia, but particularly in Nineveh, where she was worshiped under the title Ishtar of Nineveh, distinguishing her from Ishtar of Arbela and others. The temple of Ishtar in Nineveh was one of the city's most important religious centers and likely central to its identity—possibly even influencing the etymology of the city's name.

The term πλεῖον (neuter of the comparative adjective πλείων, from πολύς) may function either partitive or comparative, depending on syntactic context.

When followed by a genitive, it typically means “more of” (e.g., πλεῖον τούτου – "more of this"); when followed by ἤ or a clause expressing comparison, it signifies “more than” (e.g., πλεῖον ἢ δεῖ – "more than is necessary"). The grammatical construction determines the nuance of the comparison.

This led to confusion for translators who were certain that this must be speaking somehow of the comparison, "greater than Solomon."

Greek ἁρπαγῆς = violent, forceful seizure. Consider how certain historical biases might avoid this word and its inherent meaning. This it not the normal word used for "robbers" (λῃστής) which occurs 15 times in the NT. This word is specific to violent, forceful taking.

Etymology and Core Sense:

• ἁρπαγή comes from ἁρπάζω (to seize, snatch, carry off by force).

• Its primary meaning is “violent taking,” which can be:

  • of persons (abduction, including of women for marriage or violation),

  • of property (plunder, robbery),

  • or metaphorical (moral rapacity or greed).

In early Greek usage, especially in myth, rape was understood as abduction, often with implied or actual sexual violation, though the texts may not always depict or describe the sexual act explicitly.

Examples:

• The “Rape” of Helen (ἁρπαγὴ Ἑλένης):
  Her abduction by Paris is called a ἁρπαγή in Herodotus and Euripides.

• Aeschylus, Agamemnon 534:
  ὀφλὼν ἁρπαγῆς δίκην — “having incurred the penalty for rape”
  → Here, ἁρπαγή clearly denotes sexual violation, framed as a legal charge.

• Herodotus 1.2:
  αἰτεῖν δίκας τῆς ἁρπαγῆς — “to demand justice for the seizure”
  → In reference to abducted women (Io, Europa, Medea), this implies sexual violation and/or marriage by force.

Fragment 4 of Solon’s poetry, which is part of his body of work as an ancient Athenian statesman and poet contains one of the first explicit uses of this word in a legal context. Solon is known for his reforms in the 6th century BCE, and many of his works, particularly his poems, deal with laws, morality, and justice.

The specific fragment Sol. 4.13 is part of his “Elegies”, where Solon addresses moral issues, the rule of law, and the behavior of citizens in Athens. It is generally considered to deal with the importance of justice and punishment for wrongdoing, although it does not necessarily have a modern equivalent in terms of written legal codes, but reflects Solon’s thoughts on ethics and crime.

In Solon 4.13, the line ὀφλὼν ἁρπαγῆς δίκην suggests that someone who has committed the crime of ἁρπαγή (rape or abduction) should be judged and held accountable, which is in line with Solon’s reforms that sought to codify moral and legal behavior. The word ἁρπαγή here has its broader meaning of violent taking, including both rape and abduction, emphasizing that such an offense should not be tolerated and that justice must be served.

The concept of rape or abduction of women as a serious offense certainly existed at least 600 years BCE, and Solon's writings reflect this. In his laws and moral teachings, he addresses the abduction of women, which could include both literal kidnapping and rape. The term ἁρπαγή (often translated as seizure, pillage, or abduction) in Solon 4.13 is indicative of a broader moral and legal framework in which actions like rape or forced abduction were condemned and punishable.

It is significant that by this time, in ancient Greece, the rape or abduction of women was seen not only as a personal violation but also as an offense that threatened the social and legal order. Solon, as a legislator, was concerned with the proper conduct of citizens and with upholding justice, which included dealing with crimes against women, including their abduction or sexual violation.

While the specific terminology for rape (as we understand it today) wasn't yet as clearly defined in ancient Greek law, the moral and legal concept of sexual violence and abduction was well-established by the 6th century BCE, and Solon’s code contributed to the evolution of legal principles surrounding such crimes.

In fact, even in earlier texts, like Homer’s epics (8th century BCE), the abduction of women—such as the abduction of Helen by Paris in the Iliad—was central to the plot and framed as a serious violation of social and familial order. However, it is in the 6th century with lawmakers like Solon that we start to see a more formalized, legal treatment of such crimes.

(cf. Logeion LSJ, Bailley, DGE)

First Seat of Authority

The word "cathedral" derive from the Greek word καθέδρα (kathédra), which means "seat" or "chair".

The evolution of the word goes like this:

1. καθέδρα in Ancient Greek: It originally referred to a seat, often of authority, such as the seat of a judge or a ruler. It came from the verb καθίζω, meaning "to sit."

2. Latin: "cathedrālis": In Latin, the term cathedrālis meant "pertaining to a seat" or "of a bishop's seat." A cathedrālis ecclesia referred specifically to the church that housed the bishop’s official seat (the cathedra).

3. English "cathedral": This Latin term cathedrālis was borrowed into English as cathedral, which refers to the principal church of a diocese, where the bishop’s seat (the cathedra) is located.

Thus, the word "cathedral" directly stems from the concept of the bishop’s seat in the church, symbolizing the authority of the bishop over the diocese.

The term cathedratio refers to the enthronement or installation of a bishop, particularly the act of placing a bishop in his cathedra (seat) within his cathedral. The word cathedratio is derived from cathedra, the Latin word for seat or chair, which specifically refers to the seat of authority in a church, signifying the bishop’s office and jurisdiction over a particular diocese.

Historical Context:

The act of cathedratio involves the formal ceremony where a bishop is consecrated and then enthroned in his cathedra, signifying the commencement of his duties as the leader of the local church. This ritual can be seen as the bishop being given the authority to teach, rule, and guide his flock. The cathedra is not merely a physical seat; it symbolizes the bishop's spiritual authority and role in overseeing the diocese.

In the "Inventio Amundensis", a medieval text, the term is used to describe the enthronement or installation of St. Peter in his episcopal seat. The phrase "habetur in paruris historia B. Petri, que incipit ab ejus vocacione de navi et desinit in ejus ~one" roughly translates to something like: "It is contained in the small history of St. Peter, which begins with his calling from the ship and ends with his enthronement." The reference to vocatio de navi (his calling from the ship) ties into the biblical account of Peter's calling by the Christ, while cathedratio (enthronement) signifies the completion of his spiritual journey to becoming the first pope and bishop.

Symbolic Significance:

• Cathedra as a symbol: The bishop's cathedra represents his role as the authoritative teacher and leader of the Church. It is often placed in the cathedral as a symbol of the bishop's jurisdiction over the diocese.

• Enthronement: The enthronement of a bishop is a public acknowledgment of his authority and spiritual responsibility, which also marks the beginning of his service.