Arbaʿīn is similar to asfalīn (37/98), or aqdamūn (26/76) and aqrabīn (2/180).

5/26 He said, “Then indeed it is a restriction upon them arbaʿīn sanat, they will be confounded [yatīhūna] in the earth.  So do not pattern upon the defiantly disobedient community.

It seems being confounded [yatīhūna] is the opposite of arbaʿīn sanat.  This would indicate arbaʿīn has something to do with clarity, assuredness or security – meanings found in entries under the root.

2/51 And when We promised Musa arbaʿīn laylat, then you took the ʿij’la from after him, you were wrongdoers.

7/142 And We promised Musa thalāthīn laylat and fulfilled it with engagement/living [ʿashrin]. So was fulfilled the appointment of his Lord of arbaʿīn laylat.  And said Musa to his brother Harun, “Replace me in my community, and make amends and do not follow the way of the corrupters.”

See 4/19 where a similar form to ʿashrin is used to mean living in tranquillity [ʿāshirū].  If arbaʿīn laylat indicates a condition of security and stability for Musa, then it could be that thalāthīn laylat represents a period not so stable or secure.  A similar vibe is seen in 46/15:

And We have enjoined on the humankind [insān] with his parents iḥ’sān.  Carried him his mother in hardship and gave birth to him in hardship.  And carrying of him and educating him [fiṣāluhu] was thalāthūn shahr until, when he reached his greater strength and reached arbaʿīn sanat…

Arbaʿīn is paired with maturity/greater strength [ashudda] and is reached after a period of thalāthūn, which is associated with carrying a burden.

- Watered or rained upon
- God restored him from a state of poverty to wealth or competence or sufficiency; recovered him from his embarrassment or difficulty, or from a state of perdition or destruction
- Remained, dwelt in a place of abundance
- He paused, and acted, or behaved, with deliberation or in a leisurely manner, and withheld himself
- Someone of restraint and moderation
- To behave in a gentle manner so as to get the better of the reason
- To aid someone with your hand
- He had power, or ability, for it, to do it, or to bear or endure it
- He was, or became, strong for journeying
- Of middling stature, between tall and short
- In their right, or good state, or condition, and occupied in their former, or first, affair, or business, or concern
- He is over the affairs of his people, meaning he is the head, or chief, of his people

tathlīthun
- signifies the making a thing three by addition or multiplication or division.
- the making a thing triangular or trilateral
- the making  a thing to be a third part
- the making the electuary, or confection, of aromatics, or perfume, that is called muthallath

For example, Paul uses the terms Κηφας (Cephas) (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14) and Πετρος (Peter) (Gal. 2:7, 2:8) to refer to the same individual, Simon Peter (this coreferentiality is itself an interesting fact, perhaps worthy of another study). These two terms, Κηφας and Πετρος are coreferential because they have the same referent, Peter the Apostle.

The question, then, is this: are διαθηκη (covenant) and ἐπαγγελια (promise) coreferential in Galatians?

A brief examination of Galatians is interesting: in spite of the fact that one of the primary points in Galatians is precisely the Abrahamic Covenant and its relationship to the New Covenant, it is surprising to note that the actual term διαθηκη (covenant) occurs only twice in the singular, both uses occurring as Paul is making the same point (the only plural use will not be examined, but see Gal. 4:24 for the plural):

ἀδελφοι, κατα ἀνθρωπον λεγω· ὁμως ἀνθρωπου κεκυρωμενην διαθηκην οὐδεις ἀθετει ἠ ἐπιδιατασσεται. τῳ δε ̓Αβρααμ ἐρρεθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελιαι και τῳ σπερματι αὐτου. οὐ λεγει· και τοις σπερμασιν, ὡς ἐπι πολλων ἀλλ̓ ὡς ἐπ̓ ἑνος· και τῳ σπερματι σου, ὁς ἐστιν Χριστος. τουτο δε λεγω· διαθηκην προκεκρυωμενην ὑπο του θεου ὁ μετα τετρακοσια και τριακοντα ἐτη γεγονως νομος οὐκ ἀκουροι εἰς το καταργησαι την ἐπαγγελιαν.

(Brothers, let me speak in human terms: even when a man-made covenant is ratified, no one subtracts from it or adds to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his descendant. It does not say: ‘and to descendants’, as if it were given to many, but as it was given to one: ‘and to your descendant’, which is Christ. This is what I am saying: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not nullify a covenant previously ratified by God so as to negate the promise.)

Here it looks as if Paul’s latter use of διαθηκη (covenant) refers specifically to the Abrahamic Covenant. The plural of ἐπαγγελια (promise) in the first part of these verses refers to the many promises given to Abraham, but the singular refers the the one-sided nature of the Abrahamic Covenant: God promised to Abraham apart from the Law, so the Law does not affect the promise. What promise? This is likely referring to the promise of Genesis 22:18: “And in your descendant/seed, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”

And this singular use seems to be consistent throughout Galatians 3 and 4. Furthermore, Paul refers to the “promise of the Spirit” and the “blessing of Abraham” in Galatians 3:14. I am inclined to believe that these also are coreferential:

Χριστος ἡμας ἐξηρορασεν ἐκ της καταρας του νομου γενομενος ὑπερ ἡμων καταρα· ὁτι γεγραπται· ἐπικαταρατος πας ὁ κρεμαμενος ἐπι ξυλου, ἱνα εἰς τα ἐ̓θνη ἡ εὐλογια του ̓Αβρααμ γενηται ἐν Χριστῳ ̓Ιησου, ἱνα την ἐπαγγελιαν του πνευματος λαβωμεν δια της πιστεως.

(Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us–for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree’–so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the nations in Jesus Christ, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through this faith.)

The fact that Paul begins his entire discussion about this “promise” with the phrase “the blessing of Abraham” is also interesting. Paul begins his point using the verbal cognate of “blessing,” εὐλογειν (bless), claiming that those who are ἐκ πιστεως (of faith) are blessed (εὐλογουνται) with Abraham (Gal. 3:8-9); thus, the “blessing” is specifically said to coexist in Abraham by faith in the same way it is applied to the New Covenant believer. The blessing, “in your descendant/seed, all the nations will be blessed”, if it is coreferential with the “promise”, it means that the “promise of the Spirit” is also found in the selfsame blessing, though it isn’t explicitly described as the “promise of the Spirit” until far after Abraham’s day (cf. Joel 2:28; Isaiah 44:3; Ezekiel 36:27). Thus, while the letter provides little evidence based upon the explicit term διαθηκη that Paul’s point is focused upon the Abrahamic Covenant, the singular term ἐπαγγελια and the term εὐλογια and εὐλογειν occur quite frequently in the center of this epistle, about twelve times in the space of two chapters.

The terms, in my opinion, are coreferential in Galatians: the singular διαθηκη, the singular εὐλογια and its verbal cognate εὐλογειν, and the singular ἐπαγγελια. They are all referring in some way to God’s promise/covenant/blessing that He would bless all the nations in Abraham’s descendent, namely, Jesus Christ.

This should not, however, be confused with synonymy; that is, they do not all mean the same thing, even while they all refer to the same thing. Paul’s use of διαθηκη (covenant) calls us to understand that God’s statement to Abraham was contractual, unbreakable. Paul’s use of ἐπαγγελια (promise) calls us to understand that God’s statement was given as a true promise, not conditioned upon the Mosaic Law, but given to those who are, like Abraham, ἐκ πιστεως (of faith). Paul’s use of εὐλογια calls us to understand the beneficence of God, who lavishly provides this promise out of His goodness and in spite of our inability, even giving us the life through the Holy Spirit that the Law could never give (Gal. 3:21).

̓Ιησους Χριστος (Jesus Christ)

Genitive Phrase: Matt. 1:1, 1:18; Mark 1:1; Acts 2:38, 3:6, 4:10, 8:12, 10:48, 16:18; with πιστις: Rom. 3:22, 16:25; *2 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:12, 2:16, 3:22; Phil. 1:19, 2:21; Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:7, 1:13, 3:21; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 1:1(x2); Rev. 1:1, 1:2

Subject: Acts 9:34, 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 3:1; Phil. 2:11; Pred. Nominative: 1 Cor. 3:11; Object: ̓Ιησουν Χριστον: 1 Cor. 2:2; 2 Cor. 4:5; 2 Tim. 2:8; Heb. 13:8; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7

With ἀπο: Rev. 1:5

With δια: John 1:17; Acts 10:36; Rom. 1:8, 2:16, 5:21, Gal. 1:1, Rom. 7:25, 16:27; Eph. 1:5; Phil. 1:11; Titus 3:6; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 2:5, 4:11; Jude 1:25

With παρα: 2 John 1:3

Appositional: with κυριος: Acts 11:17, 15:26, 28:31; Rom. 1:7 5:1, 5:11, 13:14, 15:6, 15:30; 1 Cor. 1:2, 1:3, 1:7, *1 Cor. 1:8, 1:10, 6:11, 8:6, 15:57; 2 Cor. 1:2, 1:3, 8:9, 2 Cor. 13:13; Gal. 1:3, 6:14, 6:18; Eph. 1:2, 1:3, 1:17, 5:20, 6:23, 6:24; Phil. 1:2, 3:20, 4:23; Col. 1:3; 1 Thess. 1:1, 1:3, 5:9, 5:23; 2 Thess. 1:1, 1:2, 1:12, 2:1, 2:14, 2:16, 3:6, 3:12, 3:18; 1 Tim. 6:3, 6:14; Phm 1:3, 1:25; Jas. 1:1, 2:1; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2 Pet. 1:8, 1:14, 1:16; Jude 1:4, 1:17, 1:21; with υἱος: Rom. 1:4; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 John 1:3, 3:23, 5:20; with ἀνθρωπος: Rom. 5:15; with εἱς: Rom. 5:17; with σωτηρ: Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:18; with παρακλητος: 1 John 2:1; with ὁ ἐλθων: 1 John 5:6

Χριστος ̓Ιησους (Christ Jesus)

Genitive Phrase: Rom. 1:1, 1:6, 15:16; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1, 2:20, *3:1; Phil. 1:1, 1:6, 1:8, 3:8; Col. 1:1, *4:12; 1 Tim. 1:1, 4:6, 5:21, 6:13; 2 Tim. 1:1, 2:3, 4:1; Phm 1:1, 1:9

Subject:: *Rom. 8:34; 1 Tim. 1:15, 1:16; Object: Acts 3:20, 5:42, *8:11; Gal. 4:14; Eph. 2:6; Indirect Object: 1 Tim. 2:12

Subject-Complement relationship (εἰμι, εἰναι) Acts 17:3, 18:5, 18:28

With ἀπο: 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4 (always preceded by θεου πατρος και, i.e. “from God the Father and”)

With ὑπο: *Phil. 3:12

With εἰς: Acts 24:24; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 2:16

With κατα: Rom 15:5

Appositional: with ἀνθρωπος: 1 Tim. 2:5; with σωτηρ: 2 Tim. 1:10

With ἐν: Rom. 3:24, 6:11, 6:23, 8:1, 8:2, 8:39, 15:17, 16:3; 1 Cor. 1:2, 1:4, 1:30, 4:15, 15:31, 16:24; Gal. 2:4, 3:14, 3:26, 3:28, 5:6; Eph. 1:1, 2:6, 2:7, 2:10, 2:13, 3:6, 3:11, 3:21; Phil. 1:1, 1:26, 2:5, 3:3, 3:14, 4:7, 4:19, 4:21; Col. 1:4; 1 Thess. 2:14, 5:18; 1 Tim. 1:14, 3:13; 2 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:9, 1:13, 2:1; 2:10, 3:12, 3:15; Phm. 1:23

____________

Some observations include:

(1) There is a tendency with certain phrases to place one or the other in the first position. Thus, for example, when the term is placed in apposition with κυριος as the first term, the phrase is invariably “the Lord Jesus Christ”, and never “the Lord Christ Jesus”.

(2) On the other hand, the tendency when the phrase is used with the preposition ἐν is to have it in the order “Christ Jesus”. At the end of my study of this subject, I hypothesize that this is due to the truncated declension of the personal name ̓Ιησους, which does not take the dative case form. Thus, they said “in Christ Jesus” because the case system promoted this tendency, and not because of an intrinsic desire by the author to highlight Jesus’ messianic status. An authormay have been highlighting this, but we cannot determine this with the preposition ἐν: it must, rather, be determined by other contextual factors.

(3) A quick count of these uses is suggestive: the term “Jesus Christ” is used 131 times; the term “Christ Jesus”–without the preposition ἐν– is used 45 times. A count of only the preposition ἐν with the term yields 48 occurrences, more than any other occurrence of “Christ Jesus” combined. If one were to consider every category that does not need a dative case form (i.e., every other use outside of ἐν), one must conclude that the “unmarked” expression was “Jesus Christ”, while the “marked” expression was “Christ Jesus”. This is not to say that the former could not be marked–such as when an author chose to highlight Jesus’ humanity–but that we should not assume that an author was highlighting this unless there is further contextual warrant than word order alone. Furthermore, ἐν + “Christ Jesus” cannot be considered the “marked” form, as stated in (2) above without further contextual warrant.

(4) Some authors tend toward fronting one term or the other. For example, 1 Timothy always uses the phrase “Christ Jesus” except when observation (1) above applies. Thus, even when an author wants to direct the reader’s attention to Jesus’ messianic status, as evidenced by Paul’s nearly invariable fronting of “Christ” to “Jesus” in his first letter to Timothy, there is still the tendency to use the stock phrase.

(5) As far as I am aware, no translation has taken some of these observations into account in their translational work, particularly point (2) above. What I am saying is that we should not necessarily translate ἐν Χριστῳ ̓Ιησου as “in Christ Jesus” without asking ourselves if the author wanted to highlight Jesus’ messianic status in the passage. Because of point (3) above, we should, rather, assume that the better translation is “in Jesus Christ” unless there is a good reason to front the term Christ.

Whether or not δουλος should be consistently rendered slave every time is not quite the point of my post. It seems to me that the term is likely a semi-technical term that a Greek audience would have naturally associated with the institution of slavery in some sense, but I have yet to study the issue from this angle; for this reason, I tend to agree with MacArthur, Harris, and the HCSB, though we do need to be nuanced with the way we present these issues. The problem with language, as anyone who has studied lexical semantics in any depth can attest, is that precise synonomy between languages rarely exists, and even our word slave carries connotations that do not overlap precisely with those of δουλος. I hardly think, however, that the term was translated servant in some English translations to perpetrate an intentionally disingenuous motive, as MacArthur seems to argue (or at least, this is his selling point for his book).

To the point: Paul uses δουλος in Galatians four times; I would like to examine three of these:

Gal. 1:10: ̓Αρτι γαρ ἀνρθωπους πειθω ἠ τον θεον; ἠ ζητω ἀνθρωποις ἀρεσκειν; εἰ ἐτι ἀνθρωποις ἠρσεκον, Χριστου δουλος οὐκ ἀν ἠμην. (For am I now seeking the approval of people or of God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still out to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ)

Gal. 3:28: Οὐκ ἐνι ̓Ιουδαιος οὐδε ̔Ελλην, οὐκ ἐνι δουλος οὐδε ἐλευθερος, οὐκ ἐνι ἀρσεν και θηλυ· παντες γαρ ὑμεις εἱς ἐστε ἐν Χριστω ̓Ιησου. (There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male and female: for you are all one in Jesus Christ)

Gal. 4:7: ̔Ωστε οὐκετι εἰ δουλος ἀλλα υἱος· εἰ δε υἱος, και κληρονομος δια θεου. (So then, you are no longer a slave but a child, and if [you are] a child, then [you are] an heir through God)

How do we reconcile these things? Paul says at the beginning of his epistle that he is (and by extension, we are) a δουλος of Christ. Then, in the middle of his epistle, he claims that (1) there are no slaves, and (2) that you are not (and by extension Paul is not) a δουλος, but a child (i.e., a son or daughter). Paul even helps us define our terms by providing the antonyms of δουλος in Gal. 3:28 and 4:7, a very helpful aid to interpretation!

I would answer this in two ways: the difference between Galatians 1:10 and 3:28 is the difference of referent, and the difference between Galatians 1:10 and 4:7 is that of sense.

The difference between 1:10 and 3:28 is that Paul is speaking in the former about Christ’s ownership of us (he bought us; cf. Gal. 3:13; 4:5), and in the latter about God’s new program and His administration in the present age (the old hierarchies are done away in God’s present program). Thus, the referent in 1:10 is to that of a δουλος who is owned by Christ, and the referent in 3:28 is that of a δουλος who is owned by an earthly master.

And again, there is a difference in sense between 1:10 and 4:7: the sense of δουλος in 1:10 is to the fact of ownership, and the sense of 4:7 is to the fact of relationship. That is, Paul, and we, are no less δουλοι of Christ in terms of ownership, even in 4:7 — Jesus bought us ought of our slavery to the “elementary principles” and, in that sense, “owns us” (Gal. 4:3-6). However, Paul says the sense of this relationship is less that of a slave to a master than that of a son to a father: even while we are still owned by Him as slaves (Gal. 1:10) He calls us children, inheritors of promise, something to which the semantic range of δουλος simply does not normally apply.

We are, therefore, both slaves (in the sense that Christ bought us and owns us) and sons and daughters (in the sense that we slaves have also been adopted and thus are inheritors of the promise).

Perhaps we can cautiously oversimplify it this way:

(1) Christians are δουλοι of Christ ontologically.

(2) There are no longer any differences between physical δουλοι and ἐλευθεροι (freemen) soteriologically or perhaps ecclesiologically.

(3) Christians are not δουλοι but υἱοι (sons and daughters) relationally.

Do we need new terms for these things, such as the slave-child and the Master-Father?