The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 6, Conclusion
May 22, 2016 786 Comments
[This is part 6 of a multi-part article. See part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5.]
Comparison with John 1:1c and 1:14a
Comparing 5:27b with other theologically similar anarthrous PN-CV constructions in John’s Gospel, specifically 1:1c and 1:14a, may reinforce the stance adopted here.
In the verse which begins John’s Gospel the author describes the same subject – ὁ λόγος (ho logos), the Word – using the same verb in the same tense-form (ἦν, ēn; was, existed) in three separate clauses with three different nuances: existence, association, and essence, respectively.123 This threefold repetition of subject-verb exemplifies merely one portrayal of John’s predilection for poetic expression. While it’s the third clause with the same syntactical construction as 5:27b, it will prove helpful to briefly investigate the first two as well.
The first clause (1:1a), Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, translates In the beginning was the Word or, better, In the beginning the Word existed. In its immediate context, taking into consideration verses 2-3, this declares the Word’s pre-existence with respect to creation, i.e., the Word’s eternality. The second clause (1:1b), καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, is best rendered and the Word was with God. This second clause, when taken in conjunction with the first, describes the eternal relationship between the Word and (the) God, logically indicating that (the) God is other than, and in distinction from, the Word. While the direct object τὸν θεόν, (the) God, could be understood as the Trinitarian Godhead, for our purposes here we assume the referent is God the Father.124
This brings us to the third clause, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, which is an anarthrous PN-CV-SN construction. Most English translations render it and the Word was God. While the PN could be deemed either definite or qualitative, an indefinite rendering (a god) is rejected from the outset for rather obvious exegetical and theological reasons.125
Colwell deems the usage in 1:1c definite by asserting the converse of his own rule; i.e., he presupposes definiteness unless “the context demands” indefiniteness or qualitativeness:
The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (20:28).126
Moreover, Colwell wishes to impose definiteness on 1:1c because of the definite, articular use of theos in another context (20:28)127 – precisely the same reasoning he used in 5:27b. But, as we noted earlier, definite usage in one context does not necessitate definiteness in another. In fact, if definiteness is pressed too hard, taking 1:1b in conjunction with 1:1c, modalism may obtain; i.e., the Word was God the Father.128
A better solution is to view the PN in 1:1c as (primarily) qualitative.129 Westcott understands 1:1c as qualitative, describing the divine nature of the Word, with 5:27b its converse, depicting the Word’s human nature:
The predicate (θεός) stands emphatically first . . . It is necessarily without the article (θεός, not ὁ θεός), inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare for the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ 5:27.130
Harner, Dixon and Wallace view 1:1c as qualitative, as well.131 In addition, Barrett understands theos in 1c as describing the nature of the Word, hence, qualitativeness.132 Beasley-Murray seems to imply qualitative-definiteness in this context.133 Bruce also seems to imply qualitative-definiteness in 1c.134
The predominant English rendering and the Word was God seems fine, as long as the reader understands that it describes the essence of the Word. Harner thinks it could be translated and the Word has the same nature as God.135 We prefer And the Word was by nature God.
Next we’ll discuss John 1:14a: Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. Here we have the subject nominative (ὁ λόγος) preceding the anarthrous PN-CV construction (σὰρξ ἐγένετο, sarx egeneto; “flesh became”). This is probably best rendered [And] the Word became flesh.
The analysis of the anarthrous PN-CV construction in 1:14a is more straightforward than either 1:1c or 5:27b. It is clearly not indefinite, as we wouldn’t say the Word became a flesh.136 In a similar way, it would be difficult to state that the Word became the flesh, as this would mean that the Word took on a particular flesh, in which case a form of adoptionism would be implied: the divine Word ‘adopted’ a particular person, Jesus.137 No; the Word assumed another nature (human) when He became flesh, not another person, and this assumption of human nature resulted in the divine-human Person of Christ Jesus. Hence, a qualitative understanding is the only possibility: [And] the Word became flesh – flesh consistent with that of every other human.
Wallace states that many commentaries prior to Colwell’s ‘rule’ noted a parallel between 1:1c and 1:14a because of the common anarthrous PN-CV constructions, with both clauses construed as qualitative.138 Westcott is but one example.139 In addition, as noted above, Westcott sees 5:27b as the converse of 1:1c. Hence, these three qualitative PN-CV constructions can be viewed as forming a triad. The Word was by nature God (1:1c). Then, the divine Word became flesh, assuming flesh common to all humanity (1:14a), thus becoming the divine-human Person of Jesus. This Jesus, the divine Son of God the Father (5:19-26), declared that the reason He was given authority to judge is because He is (also) human (5:27b). In other words, though maintaining all the attributes of Deity (1:1c), the enfleshed Word is also human (1:14a), concurrently possessing all the qualities and characteristics consistent with being human, and it is the fact that the Word possesses human nature, in conjunction with His intrinsic divine nature, that enables Him to be Judge of all humankind (5:27b).
His incarnational humanity would remain a part of His Person – even after His “glorification,” which commenced at His death on the cross – as He, the divine yet human God-man, will be the future eschatological Judge of all humankind (5:28-30). So, to reiterate, since the eternal Word is by nature God (1:1c), He possesses the divine capacity to judge humanity; however, it is only because He became flesh (1:14c) and is, hence, human that He cannot be seen as anything but a fair judge of humanity (5:27b) both during His earthly ministry (5:24-25) and at the eschaton (5:28-30). For, like humankind, He suffered in His temptations (Heb 2:17-18; cf. Heb 5:2) and was tempted in all ways (Heb 4:15a-b); yet, unlike humanity, He remained unblemished, without sin (Heb 4:15c).
A contrarian may argue that John the Gospel writer could simply have used the adjectival forms (θεῖος, theios = divine; ἀνθρώπινος, anthrōpinos = human) instead of the nominal to make his intention clear in 1:1c and 5:27b. However, using adjectives would have lessened the explanatory force, making these passages a bit ambiguous. Was the Word simply another god, i.e. possessing the quality of divinity (1:1c), alongside God the Father? Was Jesus merely human (5:27b)? Moreover, these forms are infrequently used in the NT generally and, more importantly, completely absent in the Johannine corpus.140 Furthermore, it seems that the anarthrous PN-CV construction lends itself well to accentuating a particular quality of the subject nominative. First, this is via the non-use of the article in the predicate nominative, which allows for a qualitative understanding, yet with an underlying definiteness. Secondly, by placing the PN ahead of the CV – a linguistic device called fronting – the PN is necessarily emphasized.141 And the Gospel writer seems to have specifically intended this dual function in these contexts, just as he does predominately in the rest of his Gospel.
Conclusion
We have argued that John the Gospel writer, in making son of man anarthrous in 5:27b, wished to provide a distinction between this context and all other occurrences of the arthrous the Son of Man, while yet alluding to the latter.
It was shown that in the LXX the son of man idiom is always anarthrous, with the intended meaning mankind/humanity, or, human. In the NT, the arthrous form is apparently a term specifically coined by Jesus, though it is used predominantly as a third person reference by Him. Following Hurtado, we find that the articular ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου does not characterize or define “the Son of Man;” instead the individual contexts refer to the Person of Jesus Christ. Moreover, “the Son of Man” does not refer solely to Jesus’ human nature, and, therefore, the term cannot be said to denote His humanity as opposed to His divinity.
A point of connection was found in the context of the anarthrous υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου in John 5:27b, specifically in regards to judgment, with both Rev 1:13 and 14:14, each of these verses in the Apocalypse alluding to the figure like a son of man in Daniel 7:13. It was argued that in John 5:27b the Gospel writer also intended an allusion to Daniel 7:13-14, by both the use of the anarthrous huios anthrōpou and the larger context (which also points to Daniel 12:1-2). This point of contact is argued as specifically evocative of the eschatological human-like figure in Daniel, making it clear that Jesus is the one spoken of by the Prophet.
Colwell’s ‘rule’ was found to be largely unhelpful in exegeting 5:27b. However, the specific syntactical construction Colwell investigated, with the anarthrous predicate nominative preceding its copulative verb – which Wallace helpfully terms “Colwell’s Construction” – was shown to be primarily qualitative in the Gospel According to John. John 5:27b was argued as having a qualitative force and an underlying definiteness.
This same construction is found in 1:1c and 1:14a, and along with 5:27b, these verses form a sort of triad. In 1:1c the eternal Word was (ἦν, en) {by nature} God. In 1:14a the divine Word became (ἐγένετο, egeneto) flesh, taking on human nature; in 5:27b the Son of God is (ἐστίν) human, the abiding result of the former: the preexistent, eternal divine Son dwells in human form among humankind. Jesus fully participates in humanity because He is fully human; however, He is not merely human, as He’s the Son of God. His incarnational humanity remains into the eschaton where He will be eschatological judge (5:28-30). For it is because the eternal Word is by nature God (1:1c) that He possesses the divine capacity to judge mankind; however, it is only because He became flesh (1:14c) and is, hence, human (5:27b) that he cannot be seen as anything but a fair judge of humanity.
It is the Word’s pre-incarnational, eternal intrinsic divinity (1:1c) coupled with his incarnational humanity (1:14a) that makes Him the perfect Judge (5:27b) for humankind (5:24-25; 5:28-30):
And he (the Father) has given Him (Jesus, the Son of God) authority to judge because He is (also) human.
In this view, the reason that the Son of God is given authority to judge is because He is also human. This provides the basis for which He can be a fair judge of all, saved and unsaved, at the eschaton.
123 See Westcott, Gospel According to St. John, V1, p 2; cf. Brown, John I-XXI, p 4.
124 Thompson, God of Gospel of John, p 57, observes that there are 108 occurrences of θεός (God) in the fourth Gospel, as compared to “Father” which appears 120 times. God is first explicitly referenced as the Father of the μονογενὴς (monogenēs) Son in 1:14 (μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός), when considered in its full context to include 1:18 (μονογενὴς θεός/υἱός). The large majority of times in John’s Gospel “Father” is in a context of relationship with Jesus as his Son, and what the Father does through the Son (pp 57-58, 69-72). This leaves open the possibility that θεός in 1b refers to the entire Godhead rather than merely the Father.
David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me, p 79, understands the Trinity as the referent, more clearly differentiating the Trinitarian Godhead from the Logos as God (1c) in its micro-context by paraphrasing the verse: In the beginning the Word existed, and the Word was with the Deity [τὸν θεόν], and the Word was Deity [θεός] (emphasis in original). (Here Black seems to construe the PN of 1:1c as qualitative-definite (pp 77, 79).) Carson, Gospel According to John, pp 116-118, also asserts 1b as a referent to the Trinitarian Godhead.
On the other hand, Brown, John I-XXI, notes that in contexts in which at least two members of the Trinity are expressed ho theos is “frequently used for God the Father” (p 5). Moreover, in 57 of 58 appearances of ὁ θεός in John the referent is God the Father (See Dixon, p 36). While Thompson, God of Gospel of John, observes that “God” is not used as a referent for the incarnate Word in the Gospel according to John, but that “God” is used for the preincarnate Word (1:1c) as well as the glorified Jesus (20:28), the author, though not explicit, strongly implies that τὸν θεόν in 1:1b denotes the Father (pp 233, 234).
Many modern commentaries assert the referent as the Father, e.g., Brown, John I-XXI, p 5, 24; Keener, Gospel of John: One, pp 369-374; Kostenberger, John, pp 27-29. Ridderbos, Gospel of John, implies 1b as a referent to the Father, as he states that 1:1 “is explained, at the deepest level, by the absoluteness of the historic self-disclosure of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God” (p 35). Martin Hengel, “The Prologue of the Gospel of John as the Gateway to Christological Truth” (in Bauckham, Mosser, Gospel of John and Christian Theology) sees John 1:1 as corresponding with 10:30: “I and the Father are one” (pp 272-273); cf. Paul N. Anderson, “On Guessing Points and Naming Stars” (in Bauckham, Mosser, Gospel of John and Christian Theology) who, similarly, equates 1:1 with 10:30 (p 314). In addition, one may infer that Barrett, Gospel According to St. John, p 156, understands 1b as a reference to God the Father; Bruce, Gospel & Epistles of John, pp 30-31, also appears to imply the Father as the referent for 1b.
Moreover, a sampling of Patristic literature indicates a strong belief that τὸν θεόν in 1b is in reference to the Father: Elowsky, Ancient Christian Commentary: John 1-10, pp 8, 9, 10, 11, 12-15. This includes Hilary of Poitiers, Origen, Augustine, Tertullian, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Methodius.
125 See Wallace, Grammar, pp 266-267. Also, as noted earlier, an indefinite rendering of an anarthrous PN-CV is “the most poorly attested” of the three choices (Wallace, Grammar, p 267).
126 Colwell, “Definite Rule,” p 21. Emphasis added.
127 In the lone use of ho theos as a reference to the Son (20:28), this is in conjunction with a possessive pronoun, which may well make the presence of the article insignificant (see Wallace, Grammar, p 239), though this does not negate the fact that the usage here is definite.
128 See Wallace, Grammar, p 268.
129 Wallace, Grammar, notes that commentators before Colwell viewed the usage here as qualitative (p 268 n30).
130 Westcott, Gospel According to St. John, V1, p 6; bold added for emphasis. See quote at note 119 above for Westcott on 5:27b.
131 Harner, pp 84-87; Dixon, pp 35-40; Wallace, Grammar, p 269.
132 Barrett, Gospel According to St. John, p 156.
133 Beasley-Murray, John, pp 10-11.
134 Bruce, Gospel & Epistles of John, pp 30-31.
135 Harner, p 87.
136 See Wallace, Grammar, p 264.
137 See Oliver D. Crisp, Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp 34-71.
138 See Wallace, Grammar, p 264.
139 Westcott, Gospel According to St. John, V1, p 19.
140 Θεῖος is only used in Acts 17:29; 2 Pet 1:3, 1:4 (Titus 1:9 in a variant), ἀνθρώπινος in Acts 17:25; Rom 6:19; 1 Cor 2:13, 4:13, 10:13; James 3:7; 1 Pet 2:13.
141 In Koine Greek, most usually, the verb is placed first in a sentence, and by placing the PN in front of the verb the PN is emphasized. For fronting see Martin M. Culy, I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Baylor Handbook of the Greek New Testament series, Martin M. Culy, gen. ed. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004)), “Placing a constituent earlier in the sentence than its default order, most commonly in a pre-verbal position” (p 170). Cf. Wallace, Grammar, p 269, nt 32.
CrossWise 
Pingback: The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 1 | CrossWise
Pingback: The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 2 | CrossWise
Pingback: The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 3 | CrossWise
Pingback: The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 4 | CrossWise
Pingback: The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 5 | CrossWise
Good to see you “back in the saddle”, Craig!
LikeLike
Really, I’m just finishing up what I started.
LikeLike
Darren,
Since your comment did not apply to this particular blog topic, I moved it here.
LikeLike
In preparing and making an online exchange, I’ve found an additional way to explain John 1:1. Specifically, I’ve found a way to better explain why “a god” will not do, plus a better way to explain why the context is best understood as qualitative with underlying definiteness. I may later incorporate this into the article:
So, what then of 1:1? Context will assist us. The first clause, in its larger context to include verse 3, points to the Word’s preexistence with respect to creation, since He is the agent of creation. This implies that the Word is uncreated.
The second clause describes the Word’s relationship with God [the Father]: and the Word was with God. Taking the first two clauses together we could paraphrase: In the beginning the Word existed with God. Taken as a whole, and including verse 3, this implies the Word’s eternality – the Word exists in relationship with God [the Father], preexisting creation, and is the vehicle through which creation came about. Thus, considering the context, theos here is best seen as qualitative: The Word exhibits the quality and nature of God [the Father]. In other words, though the Word is a separate entity, He possesses the same nature and quality of the Father. There is no implication that this is in some diminished sense, though we must investigate further.
But, is the Word “a god”? Clearly, polytheism in not congruent with Christianity; however, is the Word “a god” in the diminished sense akin to a human ruler (cf. Psalm 82:6; John 10:34)? This is where the larger context of John’s Gospel provides the answer. All Jesus’ (Word-become-flesh) personal references to God as “My Father” was universally understood by His opponents as a claim that He was equal to God (5:17-18; 7:28-30; 10: 29-33, 37-39). Therefore, exegetically, it seems best to understand this as qualitative, though with an underlying definiteness, as opposed to indefiniteness: and the Word was by nature God.
LikeLike
I read recently that the phrase ‘Son of Man’ to the Jewish teachers of Jesus’s day would have inferred divinity; a status equal with God the creator of mankind.
Footnote #124 was interesting in that the Trinity is the assumed given – the scientific equivalent of a constant – and the rest of the argument is framed around that constant. So much of what is written about the Trinity is in the same category as the Big Bang ie that’s the scientific majority view so let all other physics fit to that model, even if we can’t account for holes in the theory and have to stipulate, for example, undiscovered dark matter exists.
What science has in its favour here is that it is prepared to be proved wrong and move on. But in the Christian praxis, if it can be shown that something like the orthodox Trinity is a false premise, or at least on very shaky ground, all hell breaks loose!
Two more observations: I believe one of, if not the most important question facing any person is the one Jesus asked in Matt 16:13-20 ‘Who do you say that I am?’ If we get that right we won’t be lead into a false gospel by following a false Christ (2 Cor 11, Gal 1&3) that has no power to offer eternal life. The problem here is that the Trinity comes into play. Is Jesus the Son of God or God the Son? Is there a difference? Does it matter? I think it matters very much. Peter didn’t seem fazed though because he knew who God (Yahweh) was – the one God as proclaimed by Jesus in Mark 12:29 quoting Deut 6 – and he also knew that Jesus was totally divine yet not Yahweh.
The second consideration, especially when reading John, is John’s constant battle against early gnostic heresies that were creeping in to church thinking. This comes through in his letters particularly. I think that the gnostic high god and the lower creative demiurge is a satanic distortion of how the early Christians conceived of God the Father (when he became the father is an interesting question to investigate – in pre-creation timelessness or when Jesus was physically incarnated through Mary, or both), and Jesus the creative Word, Logos and Wisdom (Prov 8) who came from God. Satan’s tactics are often to come in with a close to truth statement, enough to sucker in the target, and then drag them into deeper deceptions. Gnosticism sounds bizarre compared to Trinitarianism, but was it not actually closer to the early church’s understanding as taught by the apostles than we give it credit?
Thanks for the comprehensive study by the way Craig.
LikeLike
Jim,
Thanks for your comments. Can you tell me where you read “Son of Man” was inferred as divinity? If you have not read through the previous parts to this article, you
’llwould have missed my discussion of the “son of man” idiom in the OT, in which it consistently means merely a human. When Jesus used it as a self-reference, He always used the article, “the”, making it distinctive.As for the Trinity being a given in Christian literature, and in my own article, yes, that’s true; but, it’s not without prior study for myself, and, presumably, those whose material I sourced.
You wrote:
Here I’ll differ with you, if I’m understanding you – correct me if I’m not. Mark 12:29 quotes the Shema, no doubt; but, one mustn’t necessarily read this as Jesus excluding Himself from being God (Yahweh), i.e. part of the Godhead. Note Paul’s words in 1 Cor 8:4-6, most especially verse 6, which has been described as Paul’s reformulation of the Shema. That Jesus (“the Son”) is the agent of creation is found in Col 1:16 and Heb 1:3, which then helps us with John 1:3. That is, “the Word” of John 1:3 – the pronoun of that verse a reference to “the Word” of John 1:1 – is the preexistence of Jesus, which 1:14 and the intervening context illustrate.
You wrote: when he [God the Father] became the father is an interesting question to investigate – in pre-creation timelessness or when Jesus was physically incarnated through Mary, or both)… I’ll agree with that!
Regarding the Johannine writings and Gnosticism, my belief is that John’s Gospel was written specifically as both a polemic against proto-Gnosticism and as in line with the writings of the OT. Using logos was a masterful way of reaching both Jews and Greeks and either of these groups who were influenced by Platonism (or Hellenism).
LikeLike
I should add that I am on a journey of exploration here and on no agenda to convince, argue corners, or defend positions dogmatically, just ask questions and seriously consider the most convincing answers through the scriptures, even if they challenge centuries of tradition and accepted mainstream orthodoxy. This community is generally in the same boat, isn’t it?
LikeLike
I’m in the process of addressing things in your first comment here; but, I’ll address this latter one quickly. My position on the Trinity is, at the moment, fixed. That said, I don’t mind you posting your thoughts here, as I don’t see the harm. As long as one commenting doesn’t violate my policy related to commenting, all is fine. But, do expect me to challenge non-Trinitarian views, or other views I think at odds with how I understand Scripture.
LikeLike
That’s all fine Craig and it’s good to see you open to fielding views that don’t align with every element of your SoF. In working through the whole Trinity thing, as well as cessationism vs continuationism and the like, challenge is all part of the process for me.
Very often Christians can appear light years apart, but if we only defined our key terms clearly, there would far less angst. We’d actually recognise we are closer than we often think. That said, a first century glossary of terms and definitions would have been really handy! There are probably many doctrines based on certain modern/conventional understandings of a word that in English is, for instance, body, soul, spirit, or hell. To the original writers, however, our conclusions and subsequent doctrinal views may not be entirely what was originally intended.
LikeLike
Re: your most recent comment: And it’s one of the reasons I’m self-studying Koine Greek. I want to at least know what the Greek actually reads; however, that doesn’t necessarily always help us with 1st century understandings of the associated terms. Thankfully, there are lexicologists who’ve done a lot of the background work, making things both a bit easier for the rest of us and more accurate than works of even just a decade or two earlier.
LikeLike
Craig, to answer your question from the 7.07pm comment, I recall it was a John Piper sermon but can’t find the exact link right now. http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/bar-enosh explains that bar enos, translated son of man in Dan 7:13-14, could also be read as son of weakness. Whilst fully God, he presented himself to humanity as Paul describes in Phil 2 – divinity subordinated to the weakness of human flesh, even to death – but his true status as one of divine nature is not invalidated by the term.
Jesus tied together Son of God and Son of Man in Matt 26:63-64 knowing full well that the Pharisees would recognise Dan 7:13-14 in his words. He was basically telling them he was the fulfilment of that prophecy. You say as much in Part 2. So, as a favourite title that Jesus used, Son of Man was probably as much about his divinity as it was about his humanity.
Regarding the Shema, it is true that Jesus doesn’t necessarily rule himself out of being God (Yahweh), but to me that’s something of a supposition. On many occasions Jesus creates clear space between himself and the Father (I don’t think him saying he and the Father are one is a clincher – I am one with my wife, but I’m not her).
The key here, I think, is that ‘Godhead’ and ‘Trinity’ get conflated and used interchangeably. To me, Jesus seems to see himself as part of the Godhead, but not the one God. Coming from the Father, being of divine nature, yet not God is how I read Paul when he declares repeatedly in the opening of many letters ‘from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’.
LikeLike
Jim,
One very important aspect that seems to be missed quite a bit when considering the “son of man” in Dan 7:13 is that it is prefaced with “like”: one like a son of man. This makes perfect sense when describing the glorified Messiah. In any case, the author of that piece conceded that “son of weakness” does not preclude an understanding that this figure would be human.
At present, do you consider your views in line with what we understand Arius’ to be; or, do you consider yourself semi-Arian?
Perhaps a resolution to your current understanding of Jesus is a consideration of these two points:
(1) If an entity is not only not created but shares in the divine nature of the Uncreated, and is an instrument in creation, being the Agent of the Creator, then said entity cannot be a part of creation. What should we call said entity? Can we call said entity semi-divine? If not, and we conclude that said entity is truly divine – as it seems you are concluding – then we have two gods, with one seemingly subordinate to the other.
(2) In considering the tentative conclusion of (1), a solution could be to view the Jesus of the Incarnation as taking on a unique existence, thereby making Him truly subordinate incarnationally, though it doesn’t necessarily follow that He’d have to be truly subordinate in His preincarnate state as “the Word.” That is, a situation in which two entities have different roles does not necessarily mean the entities are ontologically different. So, “the Word” in His preincarnate state could well be ontologically equal to ho theos as identified in John 1:1b (and the Word was with God), but functionally subordinate with respect to the act of creating (in some sense); and, when this “Word” becomes flesh, His role changes temporally such that He, as human, must obey God, yet He never ceases to be “the Word” (He must continue upholding/sustaining the cosmos per Col 1:17; Heb 1:3), as He’s just taken on a new mode of existence incarnationally. At the Ascension He no longer has this subordinate role He had incarnationally, temporally; and, he regains “the Glory He had” (John 17:5).
In regards to your second paragraph, read part 3 carefully. I follow Hurtado in that the term “the Son of Man” itself says nothing
says nothingabout Jesus; it’s the context that says something about Jesus. In other words, Jesus’ favorite self-expression is not meant to mean something in and of itself, it’s the things He says in these contexts that explain the Person of Christ.When Jesus used the two terms (I don’t call “the Son of Man” a title as no one ascribed that to Him) in Matthew 26:63-64 He didn’t necessarily intend to equate the two terms. Jesus’ response to Caiphas could also be thought of as Jesus saying “so you say it is”, or something like that – that He was being a bit sarcastic, knowing this is not what Caiphas actually believed. Then, using the particularized the Son of Man was simply His way of letting him know that He was indeed that figure of Dan 7:13.
LikeLike
Craig, I’m not sure I identify my understanding of Jesus and the Godhead simply in terms like Arian, semi-Arian, Sabellian etc. I can’t hold to any form of Oneness modalism – there’s too much scripture separating the Father and Jesus both before, during and after the incarnation.
Although not an SDA myself, some of their expressions come close to how the bible strongly suggests is the true nature of God and Jesus. But Arianism does come close too.
So, in sum, I am currently persuaded that there is one, true, most high and almighty God – Yahweh, the Father, eternal, without beginning or end, uncreated. There is the essential monotheistic element.
In similar vein to Heb 7:9-10, Jesus is the eternal Son of God in that he came from God in pre-creation timelessness and, therefore, has always been ‘in’ the Father. However, his Person had a beginning (Prov 8) before creation since he was agent by which all things came in to being, and all things are held together by him (Col 1:16-17). Since his begetting from God took place outside our human temporal reference, it’s almost moot to argue whether he is eternal or finite.
He is of the same substance as God but ontologically separate. He has to be of the same substance in order to complete his task on the cross of cancelling the penalty for sin. A mere man could never achieve that, only the truly divine. An excellent type of the nature of God and Jesus is in the creation of Adam and Eve. God declared they should be made in their (God and Jesus) image. Adam was formed first and then Eve drawn from his body and fashioned differently but of the same substance and order. For me it’s a picture of God and Jesus that goes deeper than just gender. Jesus from God as Eve was from Adam.
Lastly, the Spirit is mentioned at the point of creation and is sent when Jesus returns to the Father, but we have taken Greek masculine nouns and made a third ‘Person’ where none is required. The Spirit of God is no different in essence to the hand, finger, anointing, power, breath, fire, dove, water of God. In other words, where God chooses to manifest, we call that his Spirit. But it’s still God, not another divine being. Jesus saying to the disciples to wait in Jerusalem to be clothed with power from on high, is a parallel statement to the one when he declares the Father and he will come to live in believers. Their presence in us is the power and called the Spirit, the seal of eternal life. ‘Another helper’ is Jesus comforting the disciples while explaining he must physically depart; however, a helper for their walk with God, that is not Jesus in the flesh but Jesus and the Father as an immaterial presence, will be on the inside of them, helping. This is a new creation, never made previously, to be fulfilled in its highest form after our resurrection on Christ’s return.
I don’t know if all that has a name from antiquity. It may be close to some ‘heretical’ declarations of faith, but not in every aspect is it Arian or semi-Arian. I think it just makes more sense from scripture than the all but inexplicable Trinity doctrine that Athanasius espoused in 325, which was solidified in 381.
LikeLike
Jim,
You’ve obviously given the matter some serious consideration, so my response will, rightly, consider your response in its entirety. Until I have a bit more time this evening, I’ll state two things briefly.
First, since you affirm the Word as a pre-creation, you must somehow account for the abode of the Word. To be more specific, if we assume that “creation” means all created things, and that this would include the entire cosmos, the solar system and all the space surrounding each and every planet, star, etc., then we must affirm that time itself is a part of creation. Science has proven that space and time are inextricably connected. Given this, wouldn’t the Word necessarily be eternal? And, going further, with no time/space/matter in which to exist, where would the Word live?
Secondly, as you know, all words in Greek have gender; however, the gender does not always seem to correspond to what we might think in terms of male, female, or neuter. To my mind, this indicates that we cannot stress that the Holy Spirit is neuter in the Greek, as, by necessity, since pneuma is neuter, “Holy Spirit” (“holy” is merely adjectival) is recorded in Scripture as neuter. Yet the Holy Spirit is described as having the ability to be grieved. Moreover, Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, i.e. God.
Going back to Jesus, check out 1 Corinthians 10:4 in which Christ is the “rock” of Exodus. Similarly, check out this article: https://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/who-led-the-exodus-a-text-critical-study-in-jude-5-2/
LikeLike
One other thing to consider. In the NT there are quite few quotations of OT Scriptures in which Jesus is referent, though YHWH was the original referent. One such example is Mark 1:3, which is a quote of Isaiah 40:3. LORD here in Mark is obviously Jesus, whereas in Isaiah it’s Yahweh.
LikeLike
Jim,
I hope you’ve had a chance to reflect on my two recent comments in response to you. For me, these point to why the Trinitarian formulation makes sense, as long as one understands just what that entails.
For now, let’s set aside the Holy Spirit and concentrate on the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son. I’m concerned that you refer to the Father and Son implicitly as separate divine beings in your statement But it’s [Holy Spirit’s] still God, not another divine being, thus implying some sort of polytheism.
I find that many do not have a firm grasp on the Trinitarian doctrine – exactly how it’s defined. I’m not saying that you are necessarily in that boat; but, I think it may be beneficial for me to explain it. Compounding misunderstandings today are modern conceptions of what constitutes a person, as well as what is called Social Trinitarianism, which devolves into tritheism the way I read every account of it.
As to the distinction between the ‘Persons’ in the Trinitarian formulation and a human person, here’s a decent delineation by Gerald O’Collins (The Tripersonal God [New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1999] p 178; bold added for emphasis). Prior to O’Collins’ words below, the author noted the difference in what person (Greek prosōpon; Latin persona) meant at the time of the Trinitarian formulation, which had evolved from the mask one wore in theatrical performance to the role of the one wearing the mask. This is in stark contrast to the individualist connotation of “person” in the current vernacular, which is imposed onto the Trinity.
For the moment, disregard the Holy Spirit and read this with a mind of seeing how the following explains the relationship between Father and Son:
It’s important to note the meaning underlying the term homoousias, as used in Nicea and at Constantinople (381). Setting aside the prefix homo which can be easily understood, on the latter part, ousias, understanding that this is a form of the verb to be will go a long way toward understanding the intent of those formulating the Trinitarian doctrine.
In the Nicene Creed the Son is homoousion with the Father, one essence/being with the Father. The word is defining the divine nature. The divine ‘Persons’ subsist IN that essence/being – ‘Persons’ understood within the framework provided by O’Collins above. Yet, the essence / being has one single consciousness and one single will, as we would expect of any person. To think of each member of the Trinity as having His own will and consciousness, as Social Trinitarians do, is to devolve into tritheism – three gods.
You’re probably aware that YHWH is a verb. In the LXX (Septuagint), the rabbis translated Exodus 3:14 into the Greek as Egō eimi ho ōn…ho ōn, which twice uses the Greek verb to be, with the latter part reiterated by YHWH (“say ho ōn has sent me to you”). It can be translated a number of ways:
I AM WHO I AM…WHO IAM
I AM THE ONE WHO IS…THE ONE WHO IS
I AM THE ONE WHO EXISTS…THE ONE WHO EXISTS
or as Brenton’s has it: I AM THE BEING…THE BEING
I think this idea undergirds the Trinitarian formulation.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments Craig, no doubt sandwiched in to a whole pile of pre-Christmas busyness. I’ll just respond simply and without much detail, mainly due to similar competing priorities right now!
I can’t really speculate on the abode of the Word, or a pre-incarnate Jesus, given the paucity of scripture on the pre-creation environment. I haven’t seen the movie Arrival yet, but SPOILER it does use a twist on the nature of time which could be applied before our curved space-linear time came into existence. Therefore, Jesus can be both ‘eternal’ since he came from the eternal, infinite God, but still have a beginning (Alpha) point in pre-time. It all gets a bit esoteric, I’ll admit, but being of the same substance as God would be a distinct advantage.
Just to touch on the Ananias reference to God and the Holy Spirit, the same parallelism is used in Ps 139:7. Presence and Spirit are synonyms just as in the Acts passage, and are to be read as a reference to God.
Lastly, and I would like more time to do your last post justice, what I read to my thinking was modalism conveyed in Trinitarian verbiage. The words sound like they explain a non-tritheistic God, but to all intents say that God expresses himself in at least two modes – as Father and Son. To think otherwise, at least in my mind, requires significant cognitive dissonance given that we are talking about a singular God, not comprising three individual Persons, but having three essences. All so that the monotheistic tag remains intact.
I think that Jesus can be divine, and not the one God, be Lord of all creation, and worshipped as such and not be polytheistic. Trying to have one God but accommodate other manifestations of his interaction with man is at the root of the Trinity, with the resulting mental gymnastics that, for most (if not all), have to follow. And I still wrestle with it.
LikeLike
Quickly here: I don’t think you’re far off in thinking of Father and Son as two modes; however, unlike Sabellianism, the idea is that both modes of existence are present simultaneously, not successively as in modalism. Also, think of the divine essence/being as strictly One with two (three including the Holy Spirit) ‘masks’, so to speak. One Divine Being, with one consciousness, mind and will, but individuated by the ‘masks’ of the Father and the Son (and Holy Spirit).
In any case, I ask you to consider the Scriptural evidence of Mark 1:3 using Jesus as “LORD”, where the original OT source, Isaiah 40:3, explicitly uses YHWH in the Hebrew. And that’s only one example.
LikeLike
I agree Craig that, for Mark, Is 40:3 was fulfilled by Jesus. He was Emanuel, God with us. Paul says the same in Col 2:9 – the fullness of the Deity was found in Christ. However, is the only conclusion from Mark’s use of kurios (Lord) that Jesus was/is God the Father, YHWH? Mark says later in 11:9 that the people were shouting, ‘blessed is he (Jesus) that comes in the name of the Lord (Kurios – God). So, when Mark uses kurios, he could be meaning that where Jesus is, there God is, but still fall short of indicating conclusively that Jesus was God YHWH.
The same can be said for Titus 2:13 which seems to portray Jesus as God. There is enough flexibility, however, in the Greek grammar (Granville Sharp rule) to separate the two and stay within the bounds of Pauline literature (see Titus 1:1 for example) that the coming of Jesus, our saviour, will be with the glory of God (Luke 9:26).
Jesus is unique being formed from God for the purpose of representing the fullness of the Father to his creation. He is worshipped and glorified rightly. In adoration we may well exclaim what Thomas did and say, ‘My Lord and my God.’ Later, Jesus also said, ‘I go to your God and my God.’ How do we dovetail these statements that seem at odds? Either Jesus is God in Son mode, or he’s not God but still divine. The next question is whether the latter constitutes a binity or polytheism. Personally, I am comfortable (for now) that it doesn’t.
LikeLike
Regarding Mark 1:3 / Isaiah 40:3 you wrote: [I]s the only conclusion from Mark’s use of kurios (Lord) that Jesus was/is God the Father, YHWH? That’s not the conclusion I would draw. Rather, YHWH is plural (the ousia of the Trinitarian formulation) including the Father and the Son (and Holy Spirit); and, in the case of Mark 1:3 the Son is the referent (and the Deity of the Son subsists in the same ousia as the Father and the Spirit). In other words, in Isaiah 40:3 YHWH refers to the Trinity.
As regards Mark 11:9, keep in mind this is the crowd’s interpretation as recorded by Mark; so, I don’t think we can use this verse to explain 1:3 or vice versa. But, even then, I’d think that the proper interpretation is that Jesus Christ came in the name of the Trinity, and He Himself, as the Divine-human incarnation, is part of that Trinity. In other words, that Jesus came in the name of YHWH is not meant to construe that Jesus is not YHWH, as being of the same ousia.
Regarding Titus 2:13, from what I’ve deduced Granville Sharp ‘rule’ is not helpful; that is, it works sometimes, and sometimes it doesn’t and shouldn’t be understood as hard, fast rule. According to Stanley Porter (I forget the article) Sharp was attempting to ‘prove’ the Trinitarian doctrine using his own rule as hypothesis, and Wallace in his grammar follows same. Bottom line, I think appealing to Granville Sharp is unhelpful (Colwell’s ‘rule’ even less so). That said, I think the syntax and context (going into verse 14) well supports that Paul is speaking of one entity, not two. The NIGTC of George W. Knight III details the three main views on this passage, concluding that one ‘Person’ is in view here, discarding the others on the basis of syntax and context. Of course, not all will agree, and some worthy exegetes do.
Of all the NT books, John’s Gospel is the one that especially indicates the Deity of Christ, Deity on par with the Father. Briefly, 2:19 (19-21) indicates that Jesus raised Himself from the dead (yes, in concert with “God” and “the Father”, as many NT references state); and 10:17-18 is further proof. The article I’m trying to put together (if I sit down and do it!) will go into more detail. Also, throughout this Gospel belief is key to eternal life – but belief in whom? Note the interchangeability in the following statements: that one who “believes Him Who sent Me [the Father who sent the Son] has eternal life” (5:24; cf. 6:40); those who “believe in His [the logos’/light’s] name, He gave the right to become children of God” (1:12; and note Jesus’ claim of being “the light of the world/life” in 8:12; cf. 12:36, 12:46); “everyone who believes in Him [the Son of Man] may have eternal life” (3:15; and cf. 9:35-41, 11:25-27); and “these [accounts of the signs] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:31).
Essentially:
As regards 2:9, note its close proximity in the flow of the argument with 1:19. The way I interpret this, 1:19 should be understood: “For God [the Trinity] was pleased…” Since you recognize that the Son had been upholding/sustaining the cosmos during His incarnation, you must recognize that His Divinity, His Divine nature, was not confined to the Person of Christ; that is, Jesus was most certainly limited in physical space to His body, yet in His Divine nature He was omnipresent. That’s the essence of the hypostatic union.
Commenting on your last paragraph: When Thomas made his statement, he was clearly affirming that Jesus is God (not, as some have opined, making an exclamation, which would have been using God’s name in vain, blasphemy). Jesus statement in John 20:17 should be understood incarnationally, as His human person stating that He – now eternally the Divine/human God-man – going to His God, who is also “My Father” in a particularized sense. That is, Jesus is “God” and “divine”(returning to My Father) and, using your words “God in Son mode” (returning to…My God and your God).
You concluded with The next question is whether the latter constitutes a binity or polytheism. Personally, I am comfortable (for now) that it doesn’t. I’d be much more comfortable had you concluded your view as constituting a binity! Otherwise, what is it? We agree that God is wholly other than man; and, it seems we agree the Jesus is wholly other than man. Moreover, your view certainly posits Jesus as ontologically much closer to the Father than to us. I don’t construe your definition of Jesus as ‘semi-divine’, as it seems you’ve explained Him as fully Divine. So what is it?
LikeLike
Hi Craig, sorry, but I don’t know why you’ve concluded that the Isaiah 40:3 use of Yehovah indicates a plural and therefore the Trinity. That seems like back-casting or reverse-engineering the prophecy. In other words, the Mark 1:3 use has Jesus in mind in its fulfilment, but Isaiah had God the Father in mind. Since it’s both, it must mean that Yehovah is trinitarian in translation. Is that your line of reasoning?
Not saying it is, but Isaiah had no trinity in mind when writing. Nor did any OT author. Trying to demonstrate the trinity from the OT is difficult. The Jewish concept was one God, often in a sea of multi/mini gods worshipped by their neighbouring pagans. So Yehovah would have been singular, although elohiym used in the same verse is often taken as a plural, but not always with the definite article. No doubt you’re familiar with elohiym.
So, with the ousia mixed in it appears to support a trinity but then so would any reference to God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit if we came with that mindset. If they are substantially identical but functionally discrete we may as well just use one word. Alternatively, if the function is the Father, or Jesus, or the Spirit, then that would be clear in scripture, but when they are used those names are generally read as form not function. I still have to conclude modalism in the case of ousia, being of the same substance, even if it’s simultaneous modalism (which is a bit of a mental stretch).
I come back to the idea that Jesus can be of the same divine constitution or nature as God, be uncreated, of a unique order, and still not be the one God. He is not God any more than I am not my father. He is the Son and very often sets himself apart from the Father in subordination terms, but also declares his oneness and total connection with the Father. We don’t have to conclude a Trinity (or Binity). They stand as they do without any diminishing of Jesus, whilst maintaining mono-theism in its purest form.
LikeLike
Jim,
Regarding your first paragraph, you are correct about my reasoning. There must be some sort of way to harmonize the two passages, given that it’s a direct quotation. I’m sure we agree that it’s a prophecy of John the Baptist; yet, how do we account for the ‘switch’ from YHWH to Jesus? I’ve been in discussions with some in the ‘Hebrew Roots movement’ who claim that Jesus is the promised Messiah, though merely a man acting as God’s agent. I fail to see how a mere man can act in the place of God, though. That’s not to mention the many other problems that come with this view.
In calling Himself YHWH in Exodus 3:14, He didn’t deny that He was/is ‘complex in His unity’; i.e., He wasn’t declaring Himself as a monotheistic God specifically over against Trinitarian monotheism. Whether Isaiah or any of the OT prophets understood that is not germane. For example, if you ask any orthodox Jew if YHWH had any ‘help’ in creation – that is, of course, “the Word” – s/he will look at you incredulously: “Of course not!” Yet the NT discloses this. And that’s why I see 1 Cor 8:6 as a reformulated Shema, though not contradicting Deut 6:4.
Take a look at Genesis 18. The Scripture plainly states that YHWH [“LORD” in English versions] appeared to Abraham and YHWH speaks, yet Abraham sees three men, for whom he provides hospitality. Abraham shows obeisance to and worships these three men, but addresses either the men or YHWH (or are they one and the same?) as “my Lord” (singular).
Yes, I’m familiar with the Elohim argument, but it quickly goes nowhere as the sole means by which to prove either side – monotheism or Trinitarianism.
You wrote: If they are substantially identical but functionally discrete we may as well just use one word. We cannot do that, as God has revealed Himself as more than one “mode of being”, to use Moltmann’s preferred term (which I like much better than ‘Person’). Again, don’t think of Sabellianism, or modalism, since Trinitarianism is much different, recognizing different prosopon, “masks”, so to speak, at the same time. Distinctions between the “modes of being” are in virtue of their differing relationships and roles. The Father sent the Son. The Son is the One sent. The Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Son sends the Spirit.
You wrote: He [Jesus] is not God any more than I am not my father. You are not the same person as your father, but you have shared genetics, making you ontologically of the same substance: human flesh. Similarly, Jesus is the Son. Is He of the same essence of the Father (homoousion) or a similar essence (homooision – the teaching of Arius)? Since he’s the Father’s Son He must be of the same essence, right?
LikeLike
I agree Craig, that Jesus has to be of the same essence as God, otherwise we get into a world of confusion about how we are saved, who does the saving, and not least how the ‘stripes’ of a mortal human could achieve any healing at all. Importantly though, how do you define ‘essence’?
To change tack slightly, perhaps I can ask another question. Why is the Trinity as a doctrinal concept so important to uphold? And, leading on, what soteriological, ecclesiological and eschatological implications are there if we do not adhere to a trinitarian perspective? As long as Jesus is not diminished from divine Sonship, how does trinitarianism work best as an understanding of God? (Yes, that’s three questions!)
The gnostic distortion of early church theology indicates to me that the (Jewish) apostles and church fathers were not, in general, trinitarians. Gnosticism came as a mockery of their view point, that the demiurge was somehow capricious and introduced evil into the world. Satanic deflection if ever there was one.
We might need to ‘draw stumps’ soon and resume after the seasonal fun! But this interchange has been very useful.
LikeLike
“Essence” is a translation of ousia, which is a noun derived from a participle of to be, exist. Think of it as ontology.
I really do think the Trinity is borne out in Scripture, when the entire corpus is taken into account. The ramifications for non-adherence to the Trinity will depend on the specific beliefs of the individual. In any case, it’s a BIG question (and yours is 3 in 1)! The way I understand your third question, it’s answered with my first statement in this paragraph.
Regarding Gnosticism, I think John’s Gospel was, in part, a polemic, an apologetic against proto-gnosticism. This, I think, is, among other things, why He stressed the Deity of Christ and mentioned the Spirit along with the Father and Son. That is, I think an early form of Gnosticism (springing from the mystery religions) adopted and perverted Christianity to its own ends. John using ho logos (which the Greeks understood as “reason”) was one of his polemics, and, further, stating that the logos was agent in creation destroyed the Gnostic notion that the inferior demiurge was creator. Moreover, this idea would counter the
semi-divine redeemeridea of gnosis as redeemer. This all presupposes that the Gospel of John was written late in the 1st century, ca. 95 or so.LikeLike
Glad you found the interchange useful!
LikeLike
5 minutes before the Christmas morning service….just been reading Eph 1 – 2:10 and tried to conceptualise what Paul was communicating in Trinity terms and I simply couldn’t rationalise the passage or understand it coherently in that context. What was clear was that God is the Father and God of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:3, 17), and that God and Jesus have very discrete roles and persona. If, for example, Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father (1:20), he has to be observably separate, even in heaven. Even if ‘right hand’ means place or position of power rather than physical location, modalism, or ‘masks’ just doesn’t stack up.
Things to ponder while chewing on the turkey. Have a blessed Christmas!
LikeLike
The very fact that God the Father is both God and Father to Jesus points to an ‘other than’ relationship and even being, doesn’t it? Yet there are other passages that make it seem like they share the same ontology, [ADDED:] or at least the same ‘genetics’ [/ADDED], though differing in relationship and role. It’s for this very reason that Trinitarians posit an economic Trinity (in the economy of salvation) as well as an ontological (or immanent) Trinity; that is, the Trinity has different roles and relationship relative to salvific function, as well as different roles in abstraction from interaction with humanity. In other words, the immanent/ontological Trinity is the outworking of the Trinity in and of itself; whereas, there’s an obvious difference in how the Trinity functions during the Son’s incarnation, due to the fact that He’s now constrained by human flesh, and living as a human. This changes the Son’s relation/roles incarnationally but not immanently/ontologically. “The Word” had always sustained/upheld the cosmos before the incarnation, during His earthly ministry as Word-made-flesh, as well as post-earthly life.
In the Apocalypse/Revelation there are passages indicating the Lamb in the middle/center of the Throne (Rev 5:6; 7:17), also we find similar verbiage attributed to each – compare 1:8; 21:6 to 22:12-13, e.g.
LikeLike
I’d have to look into how the Holy Spirit became entrenched in creedal history as a ‘Person’ to create a trinity (or tri-theistic unity perhaps). The scriptures (notwithstanding trinitarian bias in interpretation from the KJV) only truly indicate that when the label Spirit is used it broadly means God (Jehovah), but in his manifest form as power, anointing, wisdom, and active working in and through a person. The fact that a trinitarian centrepiece was an accepted part of pagan mythology and religions may have influenced early doctrinaires seeking to ‘Christianise’ those elements, certainly ex-Greek philosophers such as Origen.
If it can be shown that the Spirit is, honestly, God and not a third Person, we have a Binity, and if the answer to your opening sentence is ‘Yes’, which I believe we agree on, then we have, in practical terms, a unitarian Godhead. What I guess I’m trying to thrash out is: if Jesus is of the same essence/ontology/genetics, if he is divine in being, if he is worthy of worship, if he is the creative power behind the universe, if he is effectively on a par with God the Father, if he is all these things, does that mean he has to be God? If not, and Jesus is all these things, does that mean we can’t have mono-theism? Can mono-theism exist (because the Lord our God is one God) in a plurality of divine beings ie if there is a hierarchy?
For me this last question is key because if there is scriptural latitude for two divine beings, one of whom is the Lord God Almighty, the other his Son, Jesus our Lord and Saviour, then a Trinity (both immanent and ontological) becomes moot.
It seemed to me the economic trinity is a convenient adjunct to buttress the ontological version in that we can apportion roles or functions to each with respect to human salvation, but there are more than three functions performed by God in the whole salvation process – healing, the mind, resurrection of the entire person, overcoming death, freedom from sin, a new creation now, societal affects, the church body. God is all in all of these things. Jesus enables them and their presence in us is outworked in good deeds and spiritual gifts/fruits.
Overall, a Nicene Trinity adds nothing to that concept of God and Jesus, but simply mixes and muddies what, I think, is scriptural clarity on the one true God, and his (divine natured) Son reaching into humanity in a form we’ve called Spirit (or breath, pneuma, ruach – the invisible wind of God evidenced in the physical). In sum, if something appears simple in the bible, its probably for a reason. When man creates philosophical frameworks that aren’t simple, and trying to explain the classic Trinity falls in to that category, we have to questions its validity.
LikeLike
From my perspective, I’ve no difficulty envisioning God as One who is difficult to describe, given our limited intelligence and His obvious omniscience. In fact, I’d say I’m more comfortable with God being indescribable than easily defined. You wrote: Can mono-theism exist (because the Lord our God is one God) in a plurality of divine beings ie if there is a hierarchy? Why does a plurality of ‘Person’s indicate a hierarchy (in the ontological Trinity)? The only thing differentiating the divine ‘Persons’ are their roles and relative relationships. The divine nature, consciousness, and will is shared. No hierarchy, just a subordination of role: the Father sent the Son, the Son is the One sent, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Son sends the Spirit from the Father.
And, I must state again, Father created all things through the Son (John 1:3, I Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2). We’ve not addressed the Holy Spirit just yet; but, given that He’s sent by the Son from the Father, He can be grieved and lied to (Ananias and Saphira), I’d say that’s a start.
LikeLike
The wall my head is hitting is that Trinitarianism wants to have its mono-theistic cake and then eat from three portions; each portion having a name, role, function, discrete ‘personality’, yet each slice be the entire cake. The cake has three slices. To keep with the analogy, the cake has to be made of the same ingredients for each slice to be congruent with classic Trinitarianism, but one slice is not the whole cake as Trinitarianism would have us believe. Further the slices cannot comprise different ingredients and support Trinitarianism. You’d have three cakes then.
Water as ice, liquid and steam doesn’t help either. They’re all water but if different forms or modes, so we swing back to modalism which has been written off as non-compliant heresy. I think that God has equipped us to conceive of him as described in the bible – in the singular, but accompanied by another unique Person: his Logos Son. Surely, a plurality can only be true to God being one, yet having another divine agent active in human history, if it is hierarchical. Functional subordination but relational equality means either modalism or tri/poly-theism, if we’re being intellectually honest. Both are not congruent with standard Trinitarianism.
As an aside, when you write about who raised Jesus, Craig, will you touch on what constitutes death, who died, and what happened after Jesus died, which are all vital components of the meta-narrative?
LikeLike
I can understand the difficulty; however, I’m more uncomfortable with overt polytheism (bitheism), which is how I view your stance. The “one slice” you reference is not how the Trinitarian formula is to be construed. Given that they all share the same ‘essence’, nature, including consciousness, will, and mind, their differentiation comes about primarily incarnationally. Since you’ve no issue with Jesus’ “divine” state, it shouldn’t be difficult coming to at least a binitarian understanding.
You’re correct, no analogy will work.
You wrote: Functional subordination but relational equality means either modalism or tri/poly-theism, if we’re being intellectually honest. Both are not congruent with standard Trinitarianism. In your first sentence, I don’t see your conclusion as necessarily following your initial clause. And, how is it incongruent with standard Trinitarianism?
As regards this article I’m writing (that I’ve made no progress on this weekend, though I intended to), I won’t be able to incorporate most of those elements, as it will unduly lengthen it, thereby detracting from my purpose as a Trinitarian apologetic piece.
LikeLike
Equally though Craig, your understanding is gusting toward Sabellianism, using the mask instead of mode explanation.
To me, functional subordination by three separate God Personalities leans more towards tri-theism since one being can’t subordinate facets of his character or essence. It could also be seen as modalism though if one mode was consistently presented by God as having an ‘inferior’ role or function, such as the Son to the Father. Both are not regarded as meeting the tenets of Trinitarian orthodoxy.
I think I’ll quieten down and let you finish your next piece.
LikeLike
Jim,
Skimming the wikipedia article, it seems to do a decent job of describing Sabellianism. Check it out; it references the three “masks” idea as being true Trinitarianism. Sabellianism is different in that the three modes are successive, never more than one mode at a time.
Functional subordination need not entail tritheism: if there’s one will shared by all, then the wills cannot be in conflict with each other, potentially causing a situation like “I don’t want to do that, you do it” sort of thing. That would be tritheism. Possessing one will, yet dispensing an individual task to one ‘Person’, “mask”, via the shared will does not mean one is truly subordinate to the other. While the Son may seem to be subordinate to the Father, given that the Son was sent to be crucified, e.g., one could argue that the Son’s specific role here is the more important.
As to the resurrection of Jesus promoting strict monotheism as opposed to Trinitarianism, that does not necessarily follow. That is, if it can be shown that the Son raised Himself – and Scripture does bear this out – then it promotes something much different than strict monotheism, specifically that more than one ‘Person’ raised Jesus. Keep in mind that Trinitarianism should be called monotheistic Trinitarianism in keeping with the insistence that it is a doctrine of one God in three ‘Persons’, modes, “masks”.
LikeLike
That said, I think the raising of Jesus makes an excellent case for a singular, unitarian God as long as we are clear about the nature of Jesus and the death he was raised from.
LikeLike
Having done a similarly quick job of reading about Nestorianism, Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon (451), and other early church Trinitarian dispute settlements, it is very clear that if a view was not that of the Pope/Emperor of the day you were variously excommunicated, anathematised, cast out, ignored, mortally wounded or sacked from senior leadership. In simple terms, there was huge pressure to conform to the very uninspired opinions of the evolving chief clergy and rulers.
My point is that rather than reverse-engineer ‘orthodox’ monotheistic Trinitarianism whose root and soil is as I described above, back in to scripture (which is the predominant methodology, I would argue), let a biblically authentic view of the nature of God and Jesus emerge.
Also, it seems that you hold a Trinitarian perspective that is both modalistic and Personified. ‘True’ Nicene Christian orthodox Trinitarianism declares the co-substantial, same essence, identical ‘consciousness’ of three eternal Persons of God – Father, Son and Spirit. If you mix in modes or masks to the lexicon it becomes confusing whether you’re espousing a view that (like mine probably) would be regarded by most mainstream denominations as unorthodox, even heresy.
Just 2c on the resurrection. You’re right that there are verses that say God raised Jesus, Jesus said he would raise up ‘this temple’ (his body), and the Spirit (who) raised Jesus (is in us). But, in similar vein to 1 Thess 5:23, I don’t think this creates a solid basis for an ontological conclusion for the Trinity’s reality any more than Paul meant for his verse to be a summation of the nature of man. If the Spirit is God’s manifest presence and power, then the Father would have been exerting his presence and power in the tomb at the moment of resurrection.
I’m sure Jesus saw all his miracles as evidence he came from God. So when he declared that he would raise himself from the grave (not hell or some flaming pit) he was saying that this most mighty of miracles would be the greatest evidence of his Father that he would perform, but not take any glory away from the source – God. Jesus stated that ‘he did’ many miracles, but it was by the Father’s enabling. So it was with his resurrection. Jesus ‘did’ raise himself, but with the power that came from the Father.
I firmly see the NT describing Jesus as having all the fullness of God available to him but in his choice to clothe that power in human weakness, his human side died on the cross, which when combined with his subordinated Godliness, meant that death would have continued to reign over Jesus had he not been raised. For me, this is the extraordinary thing about the resurrection, that Jesus took our punishment, and that punishment is eternal death. But because he rose, by the power of the Father, he became a never before seen example of our future hope.
Sorry Craig, I’m distracting you again!
LikeLike
Jim,
I’ll respond briefly. First, as regards my own Trinitarian view, I may demur from using “person”, but that’s because it has so many different meanings today, most (all?) of which fail to capture the meaning of prosōpon, which was used in the formulation. The way I understand it (and I do plan on doing more research on this matter), the term refers to the role of the person wearing the mask in Greek drama. With this basic sense, it seems to capture the idea of three co-essential ‘Beings’ all sharing the same consciousness, mind and will, individuated by their relative relations and roles. In my opinion, calling Them “Persons” conveys that they are just like you and me = tritheism. Worse is that many websites which speak on the Trinity claim that each ‘Person’ has their own consciousness, mind and will, clearly devolving into tritheism.
I like Moltmann’s “modes of being”, but, as you note, it sounds too much like modalism. However, I think that, explained properly, a charge of Sabellianism can be avoided. In any case, it’s all about carefully choosing words when trying to put pen to paper on this subject.
Again, briefly, with regard only to Jesus being raised/raising Himself from the dead, there are two verses in John’s Gospel that make it clear He would raise Himself by His own power. The first is John 2:19, in which He claims quite boldly that He’d ‘raise this temple’, with the narrator noting that He was speaking of His body. The verb is in the active voice and Jesus Himself is the subject, making this unambiguously clear that He would raise His own body. John 10:17-18 states the same basic thing, with Jesus as subject and the associated verb in the active voice. There’s more, but that’s a start. In any case, I’m sure we’d agree that only God can raise from the dead, and we have many verses confirming that fact. Extrapolating further, those Scripture which state explicitly that God raised Jesus from the dead can and should be understood that God includes Jesus; and when the other verses which state that the Father raised Jesus are factored in, then we understand the Father is to be included as well. Hence, both God the Father and God the Son (God incarnate as Jesus) raised Jesus.
Point to ponder: The Father has “life (zōē) in Himself”, and He granted the Son to have this same “life (zōē) in Himself” (John 5:26); Jesus claimed He had the authority/power to lay down His psyche and take it up again (John 10:17).
LikeLike
I’d better hold off significant comment going down the resurrection path until your piece comes out Craig, but just quickly on the second half of your response above. If the conclusion that A) Jesus said he would raise himself; B) only God can raise from the dead; C) Jesus was raised; therefore D) Jesus is God, is true, then who died? Jesus had to suffer a real death to take the full punishment. I don’t believe just his humanity died but his Godhood remained ‘alive’. Death has to mean death. If we take it that the cross was just a means for Jesus to transition from one form of existence to another, we’ve lost the proper meaning of death. But God can’t die, so what happened?
I’ll suggest that it was the unique Son of God (not God the Son) who fully died, allowing his whole divine man to be extinguished and lie in a tomb for three days before new life from the Father flooded him. Yes he had ‘authority’ from God to do so, and he also knew that he had the full backing of the Father to choose when to die and when to receive the Father’s zoe life unto resurrection. This aspect has to be fully explored to put Jesus’s resurrection into its true context.
LikeLike
Jesus’ psyche died (see the LXX of Genesis 2:7), yet his “life (zōē) in Himself”, His divine life, lived on, as Deity doesn’t die. But, yes, He experienced a real death – in His psyche. I’ll put it in John the Gospel writer’s terms: The Word lived on; however, the flesh (sarx) part of Word-made-flesh (John 1:14) perished on the cross. The Incarnation should be viewed as a new mode of existence for the Word such that He is forever in hypostatic union with flesh He took on. However, with the death of sarx and the subsequent resurrection and glorification, the Word is now Word-made-flesh-glorified (or some nomenclature like that).
Given that an unblemished animal could alleviate the sins of Israel for a year, why couldn’t a sinless man alleviate the sins of all humanity for all time?
I’d say you are expounding well beyond the context. I’m trying to stick with the John’s words as much as possible.
LikeLike
The most significant of the various ways in which zoe, or abundant, life can be seen is life after the resurrection, but that couldn’t have applied in its fullness before Jesus was raised. I think I’m staying well within the context here. Indeed, psuche in the Greek is rendered nephesh mostly in the Aramaic (including Gen 2:7), and that simply refers to a creature that has God-breathed life in the generic sense.
Consequently, Jesus didn’t have a psuche that could die because he was a psuche/nephesh, often called soul in English. His soul can’t die and leave something else alive – Jesus was all soul and entirely died. The true context here is captured by Paul in Phil 2:8 where he states Jesus became obedient to death, in exactly the same way that every other human was obliged to be obedient to death. There is no waking from death until resurrection, so when Jesus was raised after 3 days, Paul could proclaim the victory to come – that death has no sting, and is swallowed up in Christ’s return when he resurrects believers.
It’s important to state here that I’m not saying the divinity of Jesus ‘died’ in some sense, he simply subordinated his deity to the weakness of human flesh – even death on a cross. If, as Paul declares in 1 Cor 15, Christ did not rise we may as well eat drink for tomorrow we die – in other words, Paul says enjoy life to the max, because if Christ has not been raised there’s nothing next, just eternal death.
LikeLike
Given that the Word is the vehicle through which all creation came (John 1:1; I Cor 8:4; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2), and that the Word had been (prior to incarnation), was (during His earthly life) and is currently sustaining/upholding creation (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3), this zōē life must have always been to the full – to include the time that Jesus was on the cross, and between the cross and resurrection. John 10:17 states Jesus would lay down His psyche, only to take it up again; it states nothing about his zōē. If Jesus was fully man – as Christian orthodoxy claims, which makes sense if He is to be our sin substitute – His human life must be the same as any other. Hence, He should follow the pattern of Gen 2:7 in which, upon receipt of the “breath of life” a human becomes a living psyche (psyche zōsan). Therefore, when Jesus laid down his psyche life, His humanity died while His zōē lived on; and, when His zōē (in concert with the Father {and Holy Spirit}) took up His psyche again, this seems best understood that the “breath of life” came back into His lifeless body such that He again became a living psyche (psyche zōsan), only this time the body itself was changed, glorified. Jesus died a real death; God the Son did not. His humanity perished and rose again; His divine nature (zōē in Himself) remained alive.
LikeLike
The death of Jesus, if treated in Trinitarian terms gets contorted in order to fit conventional Trinity concepts; that God can’t die, so Jesus has to have a part that gets destroyed by death, and a part that is God that can’t die. But that enforced, and unscriptural dare I say, theme runs counter to the hypostatic union whereby Jesus is fully God and man, inseparable, without division, one person.
If, as I have posited, we put the Trinity idea aside and settle on one God, his Son and their manifest presence, there is no tension when confronted with the death of Jesus. A Trinity hasn’t become a Binity for 3 days; God hasn’t died; the One who holds together all things has not left the scene. The Son of God, divine co-creator of the universe has amazingly stooped to become a man and veil his all encompassing power, even allowing himself, the author of life, to be subjected to death for a short period, to truly taste man’s ultimate fate. Satan thought he had the victory, so powerful is the force of death on mankind, He knew Jesus had voluntarily subjected himself to the prospect of needing to be resurrected, but what a victory was bought when the most creative power beyond all previous actions by God was unleashed!
God was still in all things, the universe still functioned during that bridge from Christ’s old life in the flesh to new life in resurrection power as a firstfruit leader for all who believe. The Son was back in the glorious state he had permitted to be smothered, but not extinguished, by death.
LikeLike
There was never a separation of the hypostatic union. God is spirit, not corporeal; so, there’s no trouble envisioning God’s incorporeal Person, the Word, living, while Jesus’ body lay dead in the tomb, with the Word all the while sustaining the cosmos. And the Trinity is not ever reduced to a Binity – for a time the divine nature of the 2nd ‘Person’ of the Trinity was in hypostatic union with His dead human nature.
LikeLike
A sinless man did alleviate the sins of all humanity for all time because he was, in a real sense, the only scape goat that the High Priest (here, God the Father) could lay his hands on, and God was pleased to impart on to Jesus man’s sin (Isaiah 53:10-11),
LikeLike
Jim,
Regarding your most recent comment, you may want to look more closely at Hebrews 2:17 (and preceding, to get full context), as well as consider that Mark 1:3 (and its parallels) quotes Isaiah 40:3 in which the original referent for LORD is YHWH, yet in the NT that referent is clearly Jesus Christ. Also, do a word search for “redeem” in Isaiah and find all the contexts which point to the Redeemer, some of which are exclusively YHWH. Note especially 44:6 in which YHWH states “I am the First and I am the Last, And there is no God besides Me” while comparing that to Revelation 22:12-13 (“the First and the Last”). Is the latter the Son or YHWH? Who is the One granted authority/power to judge all (John 5:21-30)?
LikeLike
Hi Craig, re 7.01 am, I’m not sure I understand your use of psuche life and zoe life as ‘entities’ almost to be taken up or laid down. Are you saying that zoe life is, by its nature, the life that God and Jesus have always possessed, or is it what they impart to man? I agree wholeheartedly with your description that the humanity of Jesus died but not his hypostatic divinity. I think we’re on the same page but you’ve said it more succinctly than I did.
It’s important to note, though, that Jesus still did not usurp or overthrow his human death for the sake of letting his divine side reign in the circumstance of his passion, death, and burial. After all, he could have avoided death altogether, or chosen to take up his life immediately after dying on the cross. That he didn’t, I think, was not only to fulfil prophetic scripture (the sign of Jonah), but to demonstrate that he was prepared to really place our humanity ahead of his divinity.
Just leading on, at the point of Jesus’s resurrection, you said that he became a living psuche again, but I’m not sure that’s the case despite going on the say that his body was in a new, glorified state. I think we need to understand what’s really happening and the difference between psuche and zoe life.
God creates a living soul or psuche by giving that creature breath, and that breath oxygenates blood, in which also is the ‘life’ (Lev 17:11). When, as believers, the Spirit (God and Jesus) comes to live in a Christ follower, then zoe life is imparted. This life is of a different, non-physical order, which we can enjoy a taste of (Romans 8:2, 6, 10 for example) and culminates at our resurrection and the gift of eternal (zoe) life. Since we know our old psuche life of flesh, breath and blood can’t inherit (experience) eternal life (1 Cor 15:50), zoe resurrection life must bring a new order of the means of animation. That means is God himself through what we’ve termed the Spirit (Rom 8:11).
Jesus presents his physical resurrected body to his disciples, but is not a psuche with blood (‘see I am not a ghost, but have flesh and bones’) but the fullness of a zoe that they see. And that is the blessed hope of every believer.
LikeLike
I suppose I shouldn’t have extrapolated as much as I had (Jesus becoming a living psyche again), as Scripture doesn’t spell that out. However, my point in using “zōē life” here is to reference my original comments about John 5:26 – the life Jesus had in Himself, as granted by the Father. This is in distinction from any other human, implying His divinity. It’s for that reason that I think John 10:17 makes it a point to indicate Jesus would lay down his psyche, then take it up again. To potentially add confusion, zōē is used in reference to the believer.
Upon belief, the Christian gains zōē aiōnios, eternal life (John 5:24). Comparatively, Christ already had unbounded eternality in His divine nature (as “the Word”). As for the body we receive, we’ll have to look to I Corinthians 15:42ff.
Jesus’ body lying lifeless for three days was, as I’ve read somewhere, for the purpose that the understanding was that on the third day a dead body would already be decaying, and that it was presumed to be no way for the individual to come back to life. This is why Jesus waited as long as He did to bring Lazarus back to life.
I’m not comprehending your seeming explaining away of Mark 1:3 (and parallels) and its direct quotation of Isaiah 40:3 with YHWH as the initial referent and Jesus Mark’s referent. While this may not make it a slam-dunk that Jesus is YHWH, Isaiah 44:6’s “the First and the Last”, and Jesus’ own “the First and the Last” in Revelation 22:12-13, point to them being the same Being – God.
Also, the way I read Hebrews 8-10 (and 2:17), Jesus was both sacrificial lamb, the scape goat, and High Priest on the cross.
LikeLike
Craig, I had a look at ‘redeem’ in Isaiah, and understand the interchangeability of various verses that reference God in the OT and Jesus in the NT. I’m not sure though how that affects the scape goat as a type of sin impartation that Jesus underwent. God certainly redeems mankind, through the sacrificial offering of Jesus who became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21).
LikeLike
As you say, Jesus was a multiplicity of OT types and shadows. Just backing up one paragraph, my intent is not to explain away the cross-references between Yahweh and Jesus in, for example, Is 40:3 and Mark 1:3, but simply not to treat them as case closers. I think that the way prophets from Mark’s distant past saw God’s future redemptive plan was through a fairly broad lens, a scattering of Messianic scriptures, but with YHWH firmly at the centre. With Jesus being God’s means of reaching into mankind and changing its course, Mark takes those scriptures and sees what the original writer (in the example it’s Isaiah) was alluding to. I just don’t think we need be too prescriptive, or Trinitarian, over what was foreseen centuries earlier as it was played out through Jesus. At least the disciples saw Jesus as the fulfilment of God’s prophetic voice (eventually), whereas the Pharisees never got it.
LikeLike
Jim,
It’s when the totality of Scripture is considered that the Trinity emerges. In reading through Revelation, we find a number of passages in which Jesus self-describes, or is described by John the Revelator, in language used of YHWH. My NIV 1984 uses red letters for 1:8, in which pantokratōr, “God Almighty” is used. I’m not so sure this is correct; however, compare that to 22:12-16 in which the two have “Alpha and Omega” in common, and see Isaiah 44:6 in which “the First and the Last” is used of YHWH (as in Rev 22:13 for Jesus), and note the use of this last phrase of Jesus Himself in 1:18. See all other uses of “God Almighty” in Rev: 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7,14; 19:6,15. Compare the contexts of those to other words of Jesus in the Apocalypse. Pay special note to “the Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb” of 15:3-4, in which “God Almighty” and “King of the ages” is used. And check out the Rider on the white horse of 19:11:16 – the “King of kings and Lord of Lords”, then compare to 17:14. In the OT “Lord of lords” is applied strictly to YHWH in Deut 10:17 (and note this is immediately following the Shema) as well as Psalm 136:3 (see v. 1 for YHWH). There is just too much overlapping of titles to dismiss Jesus as anything but (inclusive of) YHWH!
I recently had an exchange with a Jew who views Jesus as strictly a man, though the Messiah, who understands the NT as mere commentary on the OT, who understood Isaiah 44:6’s “the First and the Last” as pertaining strictly to YHWH, though claiming “the Alpha and the Omega” was OK for Jesus (aren’t these the same in meaning?!); and when I brought her to Rev 22:12-13 cognitive dissonance ensued, with her resorting to supposed changes by Christians of the NT in order to deify the Messiah.
LikeLike
I understand how the overlap in Godly titles appears to lend strong support Jesus being YHWH, or inclusive of him, but their separation and fundamental difference, is also strongly articulated.
See Rev 1:4-6 for example;
‘Grace and peace to you from him (God) who is, and who was, and who is to come,…..and from Jesus Christ. ….To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to….serve his (Jesus) God and Father…’ How this dichotomy is resolved is what the church has wrestled with down the centuries. As we know all too well, the various Councils from 325 over the next 150 years or so settled on Trinitarianism. Is that truly justified is the challenge?
The totality of scripture has to be contextualised properly first, and that context is predominantly Jewish; initially pre-Semite, then pre-Mosaic Law Abrahamic, Mosaic, second temple, and post the destruction of Jerusalem and the consequent diaspora. The apostles were Jews, the first believers were Jews or converts to Judaism. Whilst a good quantity of Greek philosophy became mixed in to Jewish thinking during the inter-Testamental period, the general Jewish consensus was not Trinitarian, but strictly mono-theistic, and this applied to new followers of the Way, the sect of the Nazarene. However, neo-Platonism had a strong and prevasive influence on the evolving pro-Trinity corpus as Christian doctrines were formulated after the 1st C.
The Trinity only emerges from scripture if it’s read back in, but I suggest that it wasn’t the original writers’ intent to convey that understanding of God. The Trinity wasn’t a mystery to be revealed in later times. The mystery (Rom 16:25) that was revealed was God’s plan for a church that broke the single nation mould; that there was union with God through Christ for all tribes and tongues.
If Christ was the full representation of God YHWH, who came with his full authority, then he had/has the God-given right to assume all the titles and descriptors afforded to God in the OT, but he can still be a separate divine being and not a ‘mask’ or mode of YHWH. Mono-theism isn’t shattered by this concept which, I would suggest, is a far stronger motif through the scriptures than a Trinitarian one.
As to your Jewish commenter, there might be cognitive dissonance if she was trying to manage how Jesus could hold a title given to God and still not be God (Rev 21:6 also says God is the Alpha and Omega), but conversely the same thing happens when you try to meld God and Jesus when faced with so many verses about their discrete persons. A good way for her to reduce CD would have been to see Jesus, the Messiah, as YHWH’s redeeming emissary to man with the full legal authority and capability to execute the entirety of God’s will on earth, uniquely sinless, miraculously conceived, a perfect sacrifice. To those around him he was, to all intents and purposes, God on earth – Immanuel. He took the titles and crowns, and displayed God’s power. Eventually, he will fulfil what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:24-28 – God has put all things under Christ and, once death is defeated, Christ gives it all back to God. If Christ was God YHWH, this (and many other verses like it) make little sense.
LikeLike
The appeal to Messiah as shaliach, agent, with Jesus then taking on all the same titles of YHWH, to my mind, smacks in the face of logic. If I were to give you full agency, you would be able to do things ‘in my name’, yet you would sign any document “as agent”. You could not call yourself “Craig”, as we are distinctly different individuals. Wouldn’t the same apply to Jesus?
Even more troubling, in the scenario I just supplied, we are both humans, homo sapiens (sapiens); yet what you’re proposing is that the One all-powerful God gives a lesser Being (though ‘divine’ in some sense) all His titles. How can there be two “‘Lords’ of lords”? If One is the Lord of lords, the other cannot be at the same time! Unless…
LikeLike
Amongst many things, Jesus was a heir to all the things of God, and since he was regarded as having been slain since the formation of the world (Rev 13:8), he could access this inheritance. This was certainly true during his earthly ministry, although veiled in human flesh, and why he could be Lord of Lords and the Alpha and Omega, alongside YHWH.
The parable of the wicked husbandmen illustrates this well (eg Mark 12:1-12). Jesus, the Son of God, is sent to Israel, after a long line of prophets, and ends up being killed by Israel’s spiritual leaders.
As to agent, Paul certainly saw Jesus as performing the intermediary role of an agent in 1 Tim 2:5, as does the writer of Hebrews in 9:15.
LikeLike
After I posted my most recent comment, I was going to follow up: Yes, Jesus certainly is in the role of agent, but that’s not all that He is. Since Hebrews describes Him acting as High Priest, sacrificial lamb and scape goat, He must be more. He is the final Prophet (Heb 1:1), King, Lord (Phil 2:11). The inheritance was for the incarnational Son upon the completion of His earthly ministry; but, the God the Son had always been Lord of Lords.
An agent must be of the same ontology to represent another – just imagine, say, a dog representing a human (no jokes, please!). It cannot be. Yet Jesus could represent God the Father because He was (/is) ontologically the same, as “the Word”. In other words, in His divine nature He was the same as the Father, though in His human, of course, He wasn’t. So, He was the agent of YHWH (as “the Word”), and the ‘agent’ of humanity, dying in our place (as the human Jesus Christ).
LikeLike
Well, a donkey did represent the wisdom of God to Balaam!
I don’t think identical ontology has to connect agent and the one sending. To use a parallel analogy, if I am to represent the President to another nation, I don’t have to be a national president myself. But when I say to that nation that I come with all the backing and status of the President, (to the Hebrew mind) I will be treated as if I am the President himself in word and deed.
That said, I do think there is sufficient biblical evidence to say Jesus was uniquely of the same substance as YHWH, whatever a non-corporeal, everlasting, omniscient being is made from! He just had a start point to his eternality in becoming God’s Son, just as we will at the point of our resurrection.
LikeLike
Yes, God spoke through Balaam’s donkey. But that donkey never claimed to actually be God – I should say it never claimed the actual name of YHWH.
Your analogy is not parallel. A human presidential envoy still shares the same (human) ontology with the President s/he represents. Your position is that a semi-Divine person (at least in some sense less Divine than YHWH) representing a fully Divine YHWH. I don’t think that can be.
If Jesus had a starting point in eternity, then I’ll have to ascribe to you the words that had been ascribed to Arius: there was a time when the Son was not.
LikeLike
The donkey and the President were only supposed to say that identical ontology isn’t a prerequisite of being an agent, or acting on behalf of another. Yes, the President analogy is more function that substance, but still valid, I think, for illustrative purposes of how the Hebrew saw agency.
As my last para stated, and it is the position I have consistently held, Jesus was both God’s agent and of the same ‘God stuff’, but that doesn’t necessarily have to mean he IS YHWH. Nor did he say as much. Lastly, if that was Arius’s position, it’s not a showstopper. Many individuals and denominations hold to positions with which I variously agree and disagree. If the Logos Son had a point pre-time that he commenced being with the Father, that harmonises with scripture perfectly easily.
Happy new year Craig, and God’s prosperity and peace in 2017.
LikeLike
I’ll have to comment later, as the comment I typed was inadvertently lost, and I’m too frustrated and tired to do it all over again!
LikeLike
So, part of this trinity debate is the term ‘eternally begotten’ of the Father. It sounds something of an oxymoron in that if someone is begotten they should have a start point from the one from whom they are beget; if not then they can’t be regarding as begotten in the proper sense. How can one rationalise Jesus being eternally begotten? If he’s uncreated and without beginning and has been always with the Father, the only way in which he is begotten is through his incarnation. But eternally begotten clearly must mean prior to the incarnation.
I can’t see how Jesus can be begotten, as held in scripture and the creeds, and not have a start point to his person as the Son. After all, we are given eternal life at our resurrection (supposing we’re in the Lamb’s book of life), but that doesn’t mean we existed in eternity past as well. We will have a commencement of our eternality/everlastingness.
If he did have a beginning, does that affect the Trinity in any real way, other than to suggest perhaps that Jesus could be a separate divine being and not YHWH? The answer may be within one of your other threads. I have been gradually wading through some of them and seen answers or references made 3-6 years ago to points we’ve brought up recently.
LikeLike
As far as I know, I’ve not addressed the “eternally begotten” doctrine. But, here’s how to understand it.
Looking at it philosophically (and considering that creation includes both time and space, which means these do not predate creation), the eternal realm is “timeless” in the sense that it is not like the temporal realm; that is, we should conceive of God’s consciousness as encompassing all things past, present and yet future. Eternity, then, has no past, or future. The present? I suppose it all depends on how to view the “present” in eternity, but it seems that one could say that the present is always present, which consists also of the past and future.
Within a framework such as this, God always existed. The Father always existed. The Son always existed. Therefore, in the doctrine of eternally begotten-ness of the Son, we can’t look at as if the Son came “after” the Father, since “after” is a ‘time’ word.
The difference between any human and God the Son is that we are created, which means we have a beginning point, a point after the advent of creation itself. Adam predates all other humans. However, once we enter the eternal realm, we become eternal beings. From a temporal perspective, we have a beginning point in the eternal realm; however, from the eternal perspective time is not applicable, so it’s improper to conceive that we somehow enter eternity “later” than the Father and/or the Son.
“Eternity past” is really an oxymoron, but we use it as a concession, as way to describe pre-creation.
Questions such as “why didn’t God create the cosmos sooner” or “why didn’t God create the cosmos later” are nonsense questions.
We mustn’t compare eternal things to temporal things; therefore, it’s best not to compare the Divine Father-Son relationship from an earthly, temporal, human perspective.
LikeLike
Thanks for the quick response Craig. You could argue, then, that the Trinity, which seems to be wrapped up in the concept of eternity, is a man-made philosophical grappling by finite minds of something that we can’t begin to comprehend. If so, the Trinity shouldn’t be a non-negotiable salvation perspective, as seems to be the case with so many denominations (and individuals).
As an aside, have you made the assumption that the laws of physics as we currently know them did not apply before this universe was created? If so, is there a reference for such a conclusion? Also is it assumed that time as it currently exists could not have similarly existed pre-Genesis 1:1, or even in a different form given possible different physics? My point being that Jesus could still be begotten in a temporal sense before man’s creation with a commencement of his Person after having come forth from the Father.
If 1000 years are as a day to God, and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, surely time is a framework that is and always has been part of their existence. I’m just revisiting what I wrote earlier and think I should adjust my previous statements about pre-creation ‘timelessness’ which could well come from faulty reasoning.
Lastly, just because we get to live forever, I don’t think that we can say that time has no meaning and that it’s ”improper to conceive that we somehow enter eternity ‘later’ than the Father and/or Son.” As physical beings in glorified bodies, we won’t be ‘outside’ of time suddenly. We simply won’t decay and die.
LikeLike
Jim,
Regarding laws of physics, you could consult a physicist for his/her take on whether the laws of physics apply pre-Big Bang. I did. Time, like space, is understood as a construct of creation.
You wrote: If 1000 years are as a day to God, and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, surely time is a framework that is and always has been part of their existence. I’m not sure your conclusion must necessarily follow. In fact, I’d say the opposite is more likely. It seems to me that this is a way of articulating the idea that God is not affected by time. Rhetorical question: If God were affected by time, would He age?
You wrote: As physical beings in glorified bodies, we won’t be ‘outside’ of time suddenly. We simply won’t decay and die. You are free to believe what you like, but Paul calls these resurrection bodies pneumatikos, “spiritual”, as opposed to psychikos, “natural”. Furthermore, you are free to believe whether or not belief in Trinitarianism is a salvation issue or not.
LikeLike
A physicist might help, although even the best get all vague and mystical if you go back far enough towards the point of creation. Since I don’t hold to the Big Bang, I wouldn’t get many to chip in on the question of whether time existed before biblical creation (not that I know a cosmological physicist). I just conclude in my pop scientist way that if God is an existential being, he must be present in some form which implies an environment, which could facilitate time. I quite like the Gap Theory but, ignoring it, we still have something chaotic from which God created order and, therefore, scope to have pre-creation physics and time.
If I can answer your rhetorical question: He is the Ancient of Days, so yes he ages, but is not affected by the passing of time would be my suggestion.
Your last sentences are certainly true. There is freedom to believe anything, but whether that anything is true is what we’re after. So what do you conclude from ‘pneumatikos’ and ‘psuchikos’ (1 Cor 15:44)? Simply that they are immaterial and material? How about they delineate more clearly what animates each body. The post-resurrection pneumatikos example is Jesus who went to considerable lengths to demonstrate his solidness after being raised, particularly as walls and locked doors were no barrier. He is our firstfruit and at his his return we shall be like him. Paul would definitely have declared the resurrected Jesus to be a pneumatikos body.
The point Paul is making in that passage is how they are animated and vivified. The order, he says a bit later, was the psuchikos through Adam, then the pneumatikos through Christ, whose image we shall bear (v49). The first is alive by natural means: breath, blood etc; the second by the power of the Spirit, or God himself, not reliant on the old order of providing life. Physicality, though, does not appear to change. A pneumatikos body will still occupy a small volume of space.
LikeLike
You’ll have to ponder the question “Who made time and space before creation?” If God must ‘live somewhere’, who made this place in which He exists?
Could “Ancient of Days” be an anthropomorphic statement?
As regards Jesus’ body between the empty tomb and Ascension, why is it that John the Revelator didn’t recognize Jesus in Revelation 1:12-16, and why is that description so different from his earthly post-resurrection one?
LikeLike
Craig, those kinds of questions in your first paragraph require a good deal of supposition and nothing conclusive comes from scripture. If God is the creator of all things, he would be the author of his own pre-creation environment, whatever that looked like. I think that there could even have been some other series of creative moments before ours, but we’re not told of much prior to our commencement in history. We almost get back to the point of asking how God came to exist; questions which cross over into the pointless. All that said, there is nothing that negates space and time existing before lots of ‘stuff’ came into existence. The very fact God was pre-creation could easily mean time (or a form of) was present.
I would think that John was as dazzled by the presence of Jesus as Isaiah was in the throne room of God. Besides, Jesus was not recognised by either Mary or the disciples going to Emmaus in his resurrected body, so could ‘veil’ his identity if he chose. The difference between the two environments (one heavenly the other on earth) would, I suspect, have had some bearing on how Jesus presented himself.
LikeLike
You may have missed what I was trying to convey in asking those questions in the first paragraph: If God must exist ‘somewhere’, who made this somewhere in which He must exist? Sure, we could suppose that God made some thing/s precreation of our cosmos, but He’d hardly be able to create his own ‘space’ within which He Himself must exist. This isn’t the chicken and egg thing.
The analogy comparing Isaiah and God with John and Jesus is not parallel. John had already seen Jesus; no one can see God (and live).
LikeLike
OK, put another way, rather than God being the ‘author of his own pre-creation environment’ (my words) a better perspective might be ‘where ever God is so a fabric of space-time is’. In other words, cosmologically, God has always held all things together, given them rules and laws by which to operate, and that could have been the state of things before our universe was made. That’s not postulating pantheism, however. He is to be worshipped, not his creation.
I wasn’t making a parallel analogy Craig, simply stating that both John and Isaiah were present before an awesome presence of Jesus and God and both fell down. John did note the voice came from one like a son of man, but did not immediately recognise the figure as Jesus. Even in his earthly resurrected guise, Jesus was difficult to recognise as John 21 makes clear. I think that when heavenly beings appear to man, generally they do not present in a style that had a heavenly glory surrounding them. We are, after all, supposed to entertain strangers, who may actually be angelic (Heb 13:2) unbeknownst to us.
When you say no-one can see God (YHWH?) and live, how, if Jesus is YHWH, can he be seen? Surely that’s a good reason for Jesus not to be YHWH. Notwithstanding, both Jacob and Moses said they saw God face to face and lived. I think that seeing God and not living is more about relationship than an immutable law. There are a good number of instances when priests and others tried to tamper with God’s instruments (Uzzah and the ark of the Presence, for example) and died from God’s wrath. They were not in same relationship place as a few OT figures, and certainly not as we are in our connection with the Father through Christ. 1 John 4:12 only says no-one has seen God; nothing about dying if we do.
LikeLike
Jim,
I dunno. It seems that God would have to be in some sense coextensive with this “pre-creation environment” in which He must exist. In other words, it would be very difficult to escape pantheism.
Scripture states that no one can see God (John 1:18) and live (Ex. 33:20). Yet, the narrator of John’s Gospel makes it clear that Jesus is the one who “exegeted” the Father (1:18) and that Jesus “does what He sees His Father doing” (5:19). Hence, to harmonize, Jesus had to be God in order to see the Father; yet, in His flesh body (1:14) His glory was ‘veiled’ (Phil 2:6-8), such that He could claim that “anyone who has seen Me, has seen the Father” (John 14:9) in a sense.
As to Moses, you must read the whole context of Exodus 33, to include verse 20. As for Jacob, it’s clear that this was some sort of manifestation of God – a ‘veiling’ of some sort – rather than him actually seeing God.
1 John 4:12 uses the perfect tense-form of the verb, just like John 1:18. The perfect is best understood as a stative form, and this state persists: No one sees God ever… (see Stanley Porter’s works on aspect – and those who follow him – as I note in a lengthy series on (verbal) aspect): . It doesn’t seem proper to cite 1 John 4:12 without considering both John 1:18 and Exodus 33:20.
LikeLike
Pantheists do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic God as such, and I don’t think that a pre-creation environment infers pantheism. God is all in all, but still Personal. Before Gen 1:1 do you envisage a timeless nothing or void that God ‘occupies’ or sustains? I’m trying to grasp your alternative.
I’m not sure I fully go with your reasoning in the second paragraph. You seem to indicate that the same ‘rule’ of not seeing God and living would apply to Jesus. Jesus as the Son of God, could would be able to see what the Father was doing without being YHWH (not that this implies actually seeing, but simply knowing what the Father’s nature was about and putting it into action through love, the forgiveness of sins and the miraculous). That appears to me to be more the thrust of ‘seeing’.
Perhaps no-one can see the fullness of God and not be so totally overwhelmed that our human functioning would ‘fuse’. Jesus, in his humanity as well as divinity is perfectly placed to be the essential mediator between God and man.
LikeLike
Yes, pantheists view creation as God. In any case, it seems that your position necessarily makes God = “precreation”, where “precreation” is the necessary ‘place’ in which God exists. In other words, I see two options: (1) the two have always existed, which would make them “equally” eternal, or, in your view, they came into being at the same “time”; (2) this “precreation” ‘preceded’ God, which cannot be, of course.
You asked, Before Gen 1:1 do you envisage a timeless nothing or void that God ‘occupies’ or sustains? God doesn’t ‘occupy’ or sustain anything precreation, as there is, yes, a timeless nothingness. God simply IS, not needing a ‘place’ to exist. And, as such, once creation was made, He has the ability to interact with it without being in any way affected by it; yet, He also lives ‘above’, ‘beyond’, or ‘outside’ His creation “where” He always exists.
You wrote: You seem to indicate that the same ‘rule’ of not seeing God and living would apply to Jesus. Absolutely! If Jesus is fully man – which I affirm – He cannot see God; however, since He’s also fully God, He has the ability to see the Father. Jesus is the only human with this ability [ADDED:] in virtue of His divine nature.
LikeLike
I see my position that God = pre-creation as no more or less than God = creation. He isn’t the sum of his creation – not that you’re putting that forward – but clearly more than that. The only point to framing what pre-creation may have consisted of (rather than timeless nothing) was that time could well have existed and, therefore, Jesus could have come forth and had a commencement to his ‘begotteness’ at a particular point.
Yes God IS, but does that have to imply him being beyond place, space or time? If God IS, then those aspects also ARE. I don’t think God needs a space to exist necessarily (despite multiple references to thrones and courts), but I believe that’s how he presents himself throughout the human experience of him, so why would he be any different in pre-human ‘history’. Yes, he could be beyond our concept of time and be an inter-dimensional or multi-dimensional being, but since we will live with him in the final outworking (Rev 21-22), I think he is far closer to anthropomorphic mankind than we might think. Imago dei.
LikeLike
But, the way you must frame your stance appears much more convoluted than the historical one – that God simply exists eternally, beyond any concept of time/space. To repeat what I’d said before, I don’t think we must equate Jesus’ ‘begotten-ness’ with our own begetting as humans.
LikeLike
I agree God exists eternally, Craig, but what I am also saying is that an existential God consisting of ‘spirit’, who is love, who is the author and sustainer of life has to, by virtue of existing, set his being and his qualities in a space/time reference otherwise the term ‘exist’ has no meaning. That’s not convoluted, but simply doesn’t assume God’s dislocation beyond or ‘above’ space and time.
To me it appears your view of God means that, apart from the incarnation, Jesus can’t have been begotten in any meaningful sense of the word (ie come into being at a point in time), yet the bible and established creeds say he was. Johnson gets a tough deal for subtly redefining a term, or playing two meanings off against each other simultaneously, so shouldn’t orthodox historical perspectives beware the same trap?
LikeLike
Setting aside creation, why does an existential God consisting of “spirit” have to ‘exist’ in some sort of ‘precreation time’?
I don’t disagree with the Nicene Creed. It states, with the italicized portion added from Niceno-Constantinople:
At the bottom are these words: “[But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]”
An eternal, Divine “begetting” is not the same as a human, temporal “begetting”. An eternal, Divine “begetting”, means that the Father doesn’t precede the Son in any temporal sense, i.e., that the Son is not “after” the Father in any temporal sense. There is no before or after in the eternal realm. To think that the Son is “after” the Father in some temporal sense is to make the implicit claim that “there was a time when [the Son] was not”.
LikeLike
I think that here lies a significant impasse – that God’s begetting is different to our begetting. Yet I don’t know why because the scriptures paint as clear a picture, and speak in as plain a language as is required to understand God and Jesus. When you scratch beneath the man-made creedal surface of the Trinity, intellectual contortions are necessary to ignore tri-theism but maintain three individuals of the Godhead. Similar CD is encountered when we speak of divine begetting not resulting in the Son coming from the Father at some stage ‘down the track’ ie that he had a beginning. Begot means begot, came from, was parented by etc. both incarnationally and as the pre-creation Logos.
Bringing eternality into the meaning and redefining it to state that Jesus was begotten but also eternally with the Father is really a sop to the Trinity conundrum. By calling into question the eternal Sonship of Jesus it means we start to unpick the Trinity, and therein lies a fundamental point of resistance.
I would go with pretty much all of the Nicene quote above. It makes clear Jesus’s divine nature and gives clear daylight to him not being the Father. So far, so scriptural. Then the footnote. Some of it is sound guidance, such as the condemnation of Jesus as a created being in the sense that he is then on a par with the angels. But to say that there was never a time when he was not is forced into the open to conform to trinitarianism. A wrong conclusion from honest motives, no doubt.
The overwhelming weight of scripture sides with Jesus the ‘God’-man being separate and subordinate to YHWH, whilst coming from him and having his nature, essence, substance. The few scatterings that seem to suggest he is also God (and I include the OT references to YHWH applied to Jesus in the NT) should not sway things, but here we are. I could not see a jury who had never heard of the Judeo-Christian faith finding in favour of the Trinity if presented with both sides of the biblical argument.
I’d go so far as to say that 1st C proto-gnosticism was the enemy’s lie and subtle twisting of the truth that, when blended with neo-Platonic philosophy, over the next 200 years became what the major church denominations hold so doctrinally dear today. If the Trinity’s roots are tainted, then no matter how pretty and established the fruit, it won’t take us closer to God.
LikeLike
Jim,
The creedal formula doesn’t mean that “intellectual contortions are necessary to ignore tri-theism”. The formulation is phrased the way it is in order to conform to monotheism, as per the Shema. Your bitheistic alternative violates the Shema, no matter how much you claim it doesn’t; that is, you have one god (the Son) who is subordinate to and lesser than the other (the Father), even though – paradoxically – they are of the same essence, nature. Unless you amend your stance to agree with functional subordinationism but total equality, which I’m OK with.
Something I don’t think you’re adequately considering is God’s transcendence. Since we agree that God is creator (through the Son), then He must transcend the creation He made. Certainly, we wouldn’t think that God had, in effect, boxed Himself into His own creation!
You wrote: The few scatterings that seem to suggest he is also God (and I include the OT references to YHWH applied to Jesus in the NT) should not sway things… If someone were to bake some brownies with a few drops of arsenic, would it still be just be brownies and nothing more?
LikeLike
What you’re saying Craig, is that there is no place, biblical or otherwise, for a ‘community of divinity’. If my view is bitheistic and, therefore violates the Shema, then logically, there is no being, other than YHWH God, who is divine or God-like in nature. Yet the bible tells us God is spirit and also that angels are ministering spirits in Heb 1:14. So, is God made from a more elite form of spirit, or is he of the same kind (spirit genus), but recognised as the Most High and All mighty God amongst a multiplicity of divine beings? For you to have an unviolated Shema, there is only God (singular), but because of other divine ‘entities’ in scripture, the Trinity, or Tri-unity, has to be formulated to counter this. It’s an awkward fit at best, compromised and unbiblical.
I realise this starts to become very much like the Divine Council of the Mormons, but that’s not to say the concept should be written off wholesale. If there is a single, Most High, eternal, uncreated, transcendent God, monotheism is intact. If he is stated as three equal Persons, thri-theism becomes a serious obstacle to overcome. But if there is a family ‘order’, or hierarchy of divine beings, ‘gods’, non-humans, angels, that includes the Logos, that would fit the Shema and here is where I think we are most scripturally accurate.
Jesus is the only one of the line that is not YHWH who is begotten (not made as are the angels), has all authority in heaven and earth given to him alone by YHWH (but is not transcendent above it), is the head of the church, the first born among those to be resurrected, co-creator and sustainer of all things, is God’s Son. Importantly, we haven’t required bitheism or a binity to be a necessary part of the construct. Monotheism and the Shema are intact, Jesus is who he consistently said he was, the Son of the Most High God and the pathway to him; we can all sleep well at night.
BTW, I was doing some associated reading and came across Michael Servetus. What a horrendous end for a man who was at the forefront of medicine, cartography, pharmacy, language, theology and so much more. His dialogue with Calvin was his undoing, but his non-trinitarian views were well thought out and have been labelled as both Arian and modalism, although probably not quite either.
Not sure about your brownies, but I’ll pass if that’s OK 🙂
LikeLike
The Trinity doctrine is in the creedal formulations precisely because it is Biblical! Even men have spirits (pneuma), so it’s obvious that Jesus’ phrase “God is spirit” was not meant to be exclusive. The main issue with your stance is that you affirm that Jesus and the Father share the same essence, nature, which means they are the same ‘genus’, so to speak; and, given that, you cannot rightfully claim a distinction between the two. Again, I wouldn’t have an issue if you adhered to a functional subordination of the Son to the Father.
In case you didn’t understand the brownies analogy, if Jesus shares in ‘some’ of the essence of the Father [“the few scatterings that seem to suggest he is also God”], then He must share in it in its entirety.
LikeLike
There is considerable weight of evidence that the Trinity doctrine is not found explicit in the bible, and was a creedal compromise that supported the most influential theologian of the day, Athanasius, who himself (and his doctrines) were discarded and embraced alternately with Arius’s for a good while, all depending on the Emperor’s highly uninspired whim. If that’s not a flimsy basis for a supposedly foundational doctrine, what is? Mix in some strong influences from Greek philosophy and gnostic mysticism, and you have a doctrine that did not tally with the apostolic view of God and Jesus.
Coming back to the comment I made very early on Craig, about certain terms that carry modern understandings which may not have been what the original writer intended. The way we use ‘pneuma’ as ‘spirit’ and turn it into an entity personal to every person is, I think, incorrect (you wrote, ‘men have spirits’). I’m not so sure people have spirits, any more than they have a soul. God-given breath (pneuma) + a body (soma) = a living soul (psuche). As James says in 2:26, the soma without pneuma is dead.
This does not apply to beings that are said to be spirits, although there could well be something that the writer is conveying in that we can’t see them any more than we can see breath or movement of air. However, the spirit beings clearly can choose to appear in our physical domain as well, as plentiful appearances of the ‘angel of the Lord’ and the like attest to. The same word has separate meanings when used for man or angelic/demonic/divine entities, or the manifestation of God (usually translated with a capital S).
I don’t know why you state that if Jesus and YHWH share the same nature or essence they become indistinguishable. This not the case with any other creatures. Identical twins are distinguishable. The functional subordination of Jesus to the Father is because there is an ontological subordination. A perfectly scriptural position.
So with the brownies, are you saying that if Jesus has even a few drops of YHWH in him he’s YHWH? So the brownie with poison in it is just called poison and not a brownie? Is that it?
LikeLike
Jim,
At some point we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Given that YHWH shares His glory with no one, and yet Jesus has, as you concede, “some” indications of being God, why won’t you accept that He is fully God? The Scriptural evidence here is much more vast than you’re willing to concede, and I’ve brought up quite a bit. To my brownie analogy: if you can see that Jesus has at least some divine attributes, or at least divinity ascribed to Him in some ways (poison), then isn’t He divine (poinsonous)? Brownies sans poison are, well, just brownies; however, with the poison added, they are now brownies + poison, not just merely brownies. Jesus is man, but not merely man, sharing in the same divine attributes as the Father. OK, it’s a far from perfect analogy, but I thought the point would have been made.
While I’ve not done a complete study on spirit, pneuma, as regards men, Jesus Himself was “moved in spirit” (John 11:33) and “troubled in spirit” (John 13:21). Jesus “gave up His spirit” (“gave up His breath”?; Matthew 27:50); however, it is also said that He exepneusen, (~ “out-spirited”?) “breathed His last” (Mark 15:37), and into the Father’s hands He did paratithemai to pneuma mou “commit my spirit”, after which He exepneusen, “breathed His last”. There seems to be some correlation between the pnoēn zōēs, “breath of life” (Gen 2:7, LXX) that animates all living things and pneuma in man.
Going back to your assertion that the Trinity was a “creedal compromise”, without attempting to trace that history, let’s look at some more Scripture. To me, that’s where the rubber meets the road.
In John 10:25-30 Jesus responds to “the Jews” who wanted to know whether He was the Christ:
Note the parallelism of vv. 28 and 29 – whose hand are the sheep in? Who gives the sheep eternal life? The Greek of v. 30 is peculiar: egō kai ho patēr hen esmen. Word-for-word in order: I and the Father one are. The first peculiarity is that “I” precedes “the Father”, when convention would have it the other way. Jesus is making this emphatic by placing “I” before “Father”: I and the Father are one. The two, Father and Son, of course, comprise the subject nominative. The predicate nominative preceding the copulative verb illustrates the very thing I’ve been pointing out in this six-part blog post: it makes “one” qualitative. And when we add the fact that “one” is neuter rather than masculine, it solidifies a qualitative over personal understanding. So, against modalism, we have two persons (Father and Son) who are one qualitatively (and the verb “are” is 1st person plural). Given the parallelism of 28-29 and qualitativeness in 30, this is best understood that Father and Son are “one” ontologically – against Arianism, with which your position most readily aligns.
With a consideration that Jesus ascribes the same titles to Himself as YHWH does in the OT, such as, e.g., “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17,22:13; cf. Isaiah 44:6), the best solution is the Trinitarian one (not that we’ve discussed the Holy Spirit, of course).
LikeLike
Agreeing to disagree is fine and, ultimately, seems to be the only option in debates where the ‘evidence’ is claimed by both sides, and no knockout blow can be landed. Disagreeing and calling out heresy, then each being vilified, ostracised, insulted and the entire debate descending in to a very un-Christian spectacle is succour to the enemy. If seen as part of the spiritual journey, they can be positive exercises in refining our knowledge of God.
I suppose I go down the path of understanding a scripture like ‘I and the Father are one’ in the light of many others where Jesus says he and his Father and God are clearly two different beings, even if they can both save, forgive sins, heal the sick, raise the dead, create the universe etc. Yes they are one in quality (but not necessarily equality) and capability, but still two as the bible makes very obvious. The Trinity (adding in the ‘person’ of the Spirit of God) takes the seeming problem of the one true God having another one true God alongside him, thereby creating bitheism, and then applying a relatively marginal quantity of scriptural evidence to infer that Jesus is God YHWH, the Holy Spirit is God YHWH, the Father is God YHWH, but each are not the other and the three are actually still one God YHWH. God created us as rational beings, to be able to think logically, yet decides to present himself as a mysterious, illogical, contradictory being of conjoined triplets? I just don’t buy it Craig, especially given the uninspired sticky fingerprints of man all over this doctrine; one that is not made plain in the bible.
Modalism or tri-theism – take your pick. To me, that’s the clear and uncomplicated outworking of what the Trinity doctrine tries to disguise. I am quite happy with a divine hierarchy which, to me, seems to be the clear and uncomplicated outworking of the biblical span of God’s interaction with man.
Moreover, if we apply trinitarian logic that Jesus was of the quality and ontology as God, therefore is God, why then can’t the Manifest Sons of God proponents take verses such as Rom 8:15 – ”The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” ” or Gal 4:6 – ”Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” ” and use them to say we are like Jesus, therefore like God? In the brownie sense. Wasn’t that satan’s first lie – that we could be like God?
I’m not in that camp, but can see that MSoG will use those verses as fair game given Trinity thinking to claim we are mini-Christs, deities even. If the spirit of Christ in us means we are adopted as sons (children) into God so that we can call him the Aramaic familiar term Abba (or Pops), are we not of the same ‘stuff’ as Jesus, sin removed, Spirit filled, one with the Father? Goodness, we’re almost God incarnate they might quietly conclude!
Again, I don’t hold to this conclusion because I don’t hold to trinitarian (or brownie) thinking. It would appear that the logic lines necessary to make the Trinity ‘work’ also apply to making MSoG, and BJ and all that crowd, believe what they believe. Trinitarianism actually plays into the hands of those this blog is challenging in their Christ-view.
LikeLike
I’m OK with agreeing to disagree, but, as I mentioned in my previous comment, I don’t think you’ve yet adequately answered both “I and the Father are one” and the fact that both YHWH and Jesus claimed to be “the First and the Last”. You keep claiming that the Father (YHWH) and Jesus (the Son) are two separate beings – Trinitarians claim they’re two distinct “Persons” – yet you don’t address how both can simultaneously be “the First and the Last”. Trinitarians address this issue. You claim the Trinity is an uninspired doctrine of men, yet historic Christianity has affirmed that the mere presence of Holy Spirit-filled men at the proceedings which led to the formulation of the various creeds meant a Holy Spirit-led outcome. Who’s to say who’s right on that? I’d think it more likely the councils’ outcomes were God-led.
As to whether or not a departure from Trinitarianism is to be called heresy, that is part of the early creeds, to include Chalcedon. On the latter, a denial that Jesus is “fully God” is considered anathema. If you wish to reduce it to just a “part of the spiritual journey”, that’s your prerogative; but, how, then, can you dismiss Mormonism or the Jehovah’s Witnesses as part of Christianity – or even those Messianic Jews who claim Jesus is the Messiah, but that he had no divinity at all, being a man, though the Chosen One? You may adhere to your own doctrine of “divine hierarchy”, but, again, how can you criticize the Mormons? Wouldn’t their view be just as valid?
Your assertion that the Trinitarian view is more apt to lead to MSoG than your view is a non sequitur. According to your view, you affirm that Jesus is the Son of God, but that He is not YHWH, not God – a claim MSoG adherents wouldn’t take exception to (note the “sons” in the acronym), given that you claim Jesus is of the same substance, nature as God. Since your view is closer to Mormonism than historic, orthodox Christianity, and MSoG has many points of contact with Mormonism, MSoG adherents would have no trouble with your stance. MSoG-adherents get their doctrine by perverting Scripture, not by accepting Trinitarianism…or not. A favorite to distort is the KJV/NKJV of Romans 8:19, in which the words “the manifestation of the sons of God” are found explicitly. Those who, like Bill Johnson, wish to pervert Scripture will do so, no matter what else undergirds their theology.
You wrote: God created us as rational beings, to be able to think logically, yet decides [contrarily, in your view] to present himself as a mysterious, illogical, contradictory… OK, then riddle me this: How logical and non-contradictory is it for a man (Jesus) to share the same nature as YHWH? How can an individual with human nature at one and the same time share the same ontology as God?
LikeLike
Last one first. Jesus the Son/Logos of God has clearly taken different forms from initially being begotten into being by God as the Logos – with God from before creation, being the one through whom all things were made and are sustained. To being incarnated miraculously through Mary, of a unique divine hypostasis of God nature and human. To being resurrected as, again, a unique individual and returning to the Father in this new form, in which he will return to earth. It is possible that Jesus as Logos was identical to Jesus after his ascension, but scripture lends itself to a kind of ‘heavenly evolution’ of the Son. One where he takes on the mantle of humanity, not assumed previously, to identify with and redeem us, and set the path for an eternal future when we become like him.
So in a very real sense, Jesus is the firstfruit of man’s future, in that he blazes the trail of human and God merged in each individual believer, but without us BEING YHWH. This is the fullness of our resurrected state. The fine detail of how this outcome is achieved by God, I can’t comment on, so that remains a riddle, but not the higher order effect as described in the NT.
LikeLike
On quick reading of the first paragraph, I don’t find anything to disagree with (though I’d say ‘begotten into being as the Son/Logos’, which I think you imply), though I’d demur from your “It is possible that Jesus as Logos was identical to Jesus after his ascension…”
As to the second, are you suggesting we become, in effect, like Jesus in a sense, being a combination of humanity and divinity?
In any case, my overarching point in my last paragraph, is that the Incarnation itself is a logical contradiction. How can an individual be 100% man, yet 100% Divine (even accounting for your sense of seemingly less Divinity than the Father)?
LikeLike
Your first point next Craig. I and the Father are one. Contextually, Jesus is responding to the Jewish leaders asking for even plainer indication that he is the Messiah. He rebukes their lack of faith saying they are not his sheep (followers). He then reinforces his Messiahship by saying that God has given Jesus those who follow him; that nothing can deny them eternal life while they hear his voice; satan has no hold on them; all because Jesus and the Father are one.
This is in similar vein to having listed his separateness but closeness to God in John 10:15, 18, 25, 29, 32, 36, 37, and he repeats v30 in v38. Oneness is used elsewhere (John 17:11, 21, 22 for instance, or 1 Cor 3:8) to convey being one in spirit, or living with common purpose, all having the love nature of God, rather than teaching an ontological oneness.
So, whilst the grammar can be used to tease out a qualitative nature to ‘hen’, that still doesn’t, to me at least, appear to lend much weight to Jesus being YHWH. But, if it does, then I come back to my point that MSoGites (your third para) can use plentiful reference of God/Christ in us leading to a qualitative and therefore ontological deification of man. I know you or I would not support that conclusion, but it comes with the same logic as I think you’re espousing for John 10:30.
Further, Jesus declares in Matt 28, that all authority has been given to him (by the Father). This chimes with an alternate translation of John 10:29 which is, ‘What my Father has given me is greater than all.’ It’s difficult to think that YHWH gives himself all authority; conversely, why didn’t Jesus say, ‘I have all authority in heaven and earth’?
Lastly, as to your second para (sorry I’m bouncing around here), I could take various Mormon Christological doctrines to task, but just because they are most clear on a Divine Council shouldn’t mean that if they believe one thing that isn’t clearly scriptural, then doctrines that do make sense are thrown out. The Catholics have some seriously shaky aspects to their doctrines and creeds, but also some excellent contributions to man’s knowledge of God.
We have to be careful taking the creeds almost at the level of the inspired canon. They aren’t, they are open to challenge and error. The Cappadocian Fathers who championed the Trinity, for instance, had considerable Hellenist philosophical backgrounds, as well as being influenced by Origen, who was highly enamoured by neoplatonism and whose writings, arguably, contributed to gnosticism flourishing in the 3rd and 4thC.
LikeLike
So, yes in John 10:29, “the Father is greater than all”; and in Philippians 2:9, Jesus inherits “the name above every name.” Whose name would that be?
And, again, whose hand are the sheep in in John 10:28-29?
Just because ‘oneness’ is used in other contexts in one way, doesn’t mean we impose that meaning upon John 10:30. A word only has meaning within its own specific grammatical context.
You have to keep in mind that, incarnationally, the Son had a different role than before He took on flesh. He was not Divine-human before the Incarnation – only Divine. He came to die; that was His purpose.
I’ve never said the creeds are at the level of inspired canon, though I can see how you could have inferred it from what I wrote. Canon is primary, however, given that the Councils were convened specifically to counter errant teachings, not to actually establish doctrine, I’d think the Holy Spirit superintended the sessions which contained (presumably) Holy Spirit-filled men.
LikeLike
Who decided that, for instance, Arius’s teachings were errant? For many years, they were in vogue and supported at the highest church levels. Was it those whose theology was cast and viewed through the lens of neoplatonism and rampant Hellenism? Paul was at pains to downplay the ‘wisdom’ of the day, so prevalent amongst Greek thinkers and their philosophies which can hold believers captive through hollow deceit (Col 2:8). I think it’s entirely credible, given that the Chalcedon council also ranked cities and their Christian importance, along with a host of ‘canonical’ decrees, that they weren’t entirely under the Holy Spirit’s influence, together with a good deal of denouncing, reinstating, judicial hearings and trials in the years leading up to the 4th Ecumenical Council.
You wrote, ‘How can an individual be 100% man, yet 100% Divine?’ Not sure if you’re connecting the apparent illogical nature of the question to the similarly ‘illogical’ nature of the Trinity, in that, how can 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? I don’t think I’m going to checkmate myself by answering. Phil 2:6-8 says it best. Here, Paul understands the total divinity + total humanity of Christ by effectively saying that Jesus had all the power and glory of God (as the Son/Logos), but chose to veil it in human flesh, appearing in the form or nature of a man, with a man’s appearance, in his likeness. When we become believers, Paul uses an image of treasure in jars of clay, and this isn’t an inaccurate description of Jesus. You could say we are 100% treasure (new creations) in 100% fragile clay. His divine God-nature treasure was obscured within all the limitations of a man, albeit not a regular man. Jesus was not conceived in the conventional manner given that Mary was fertilised by God and not Joseph.
All told, I think being fully 100% of God as the Logos/Son, in the likeness of a man that appeared 100% regular human is not so illogical. He wasn’t simply a normal man anointed by the Spirit, or a divine being that simply presented how a person would look like. Born of flesh, conceived by unique means, he humbled himself to the ultimate fate of man, one that he could not undertake as the Logos, death. Then God would elevate him to the highest place, as Lord of all, to the Father’s glory. Does this hypostasis lend support to the Trinity doctrine? I think not, but the two could be conflated I suppose.
LikeLike
Prior to Arius, Tertullian, and even Iraeneus before him, were espousing the Trinity. The thought goes back further, to Polycarp.
Re Chalcedon: I’ll concede that the canons were not inspired. However, importantly, those were issues not directly associated with Christology or Theology.
I point to the logical incongruity with respect to the Incarnation precisely to make the point that the Trinity is the much the same in that respect. I have no trouble envisioning God’s being as something beyond our ken. In fact, how can we actually fathom a God who created all things as not somehow indescribable?
You wrote: His divine God-nature treasure was obscured within all the limitations of a man, albeit not a regular man…he humbled himself to the ultimate fate of man, one that he could not undertake as the Logos, death. Do you believe Jesus, as Logos-become-flesh, retained all the powers He had as the Logos, or were those powers diminished or even non-existent during the Incarnation?
LikeLike
Phil 2:9 has to be seen in the context of 1 Cor 15:27. Paul says here that God has put ‘everything’ under Jesus, not including God himself. Likewise in Phil 2:9, every knee in heaven and on earth will bow, except for God the Father (not stated but implied). Paul is recognising that Jesus was and is God’s ‘vice-regent’ – installed to the highest place of all things and peoples that exist under God.
The hands in John 10:28-9 are both Jesus’s (into whose hand the sheep are given by God), and God’s (from whom the sheep are given). That doesn’t imply or suggest Jesus and God are one and the same. As the Messiah of God, whatever God has given to Jesus can be said, quite accurately in Hebraic custom, to be God’s and Jesus’s, including names and titles, such as the First and Last.
Jesus is properly the Alpha and Omega of all that God has given him authority over within creation; God is also fully the Alpha and Omega, including Jesus and all things transcendent not under Jesus’s authority (whatever they may be).
LikeLike
First of all, Phil 2:9 must be viewed in its own context, most especially 2:6. The first part of this hymn (assuming it was a hymn) is especially difficult to exegete; however, one thing is for certain: the word theos, God, is used of Jesus. The NASB, which is notorious for using a literal translation (as literal as possible), renders it who, although He existed in the form of God…. The word “though” is added to make it into a clause in English. It reads word-for-word: who in form of God exists. That last word is masculine singular, a present active participle, in the subject nominative case. It clearly defines Jesus as “God”.
Regarding 1 Cor 15:27, it too must be placed in its entire context.
It was not uncommon for Paul to truncate God the Father to “God”; and he does that here. I’ve kept all the singular pronouns in, placing the referent in brackets:See the distinction? All along the pronoun references were either to “the God and Father” or to “Christ”; yet once Christ has put everything under His own feet, the verbiage changes “the Son Himself” and “One”, with the result that “God may be all in all”. I see this as the Logos’/Son’s function as Christ/Messiah being over so that now He is properly only “the Son” (Logos), since the necessity for God’s interaction incarnationally has ended. In other words, it’s now “God the Father” and “God the Son”. This is why the term “One” is used rather than the pronoun “He/Him” as was used all along: The “One” refers to the Trinitarian Godhead, the “all in all”.
This “Hebraic custom” to which you refer was anachronistically developed as an apologetic against Christianity, against the Christian doctrine that Jesus was/is Divine, God. Can you show me one instance pre-Christ in which an agent (shaliach) in Jewish literature referred to himself using the identical name as the one for whom he was agent? Claiming to “come in the name of __________” is one thing; however, to actually claim that name as if it were his own – nope.
I must ask you directly: Did you see me commenting on Skip Moen’s blog and then come over here?
LikeLike
Jim,
In looking more closely at the Greek in 1 Cor 15:25-2
78, I’m not confident I’ve got this right. So scratch that part. However, there must be something to those last two clauses – the change from “Christ” to “the Son Himself” and concluding with “so that God may be all in all.”LikeLike
Craig, you might find this explanation useful regarding how the Cappadocians influenced the current Trinity concepts. It gave me some insights I wasn’t previously aware of, especially with respect to the Greek.
http://oodegr.co/english/dogmatiki1/D2b.htm#platwn
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. You can perhaps see why I’m reluctant to use the word “person” to refer to the Members of the Trinity.
LikeLike
Craig, negative on the other blog. I’ve been reading the Johnson stuff for a while here.
LikeLike
What prompted you to read the Johnson material?
LikeLike
Ever since one of our early churches, and its para-church organisation, got swept along with Toronto 20+ years ago, I have been keeping close tabs on where the charismatic end of the spectrum is at through discernment websites and blogs such as yours.
That brand of Christianity seems like it has the spiritual gravitational pull of a black hole, and that isn’t a bad analogy. Once you’re beyond the event horizon of one of those churches, you can’t see back out into ‘normal’ Christian space.
LikeLike
Not a bad analogy. However, thankfully, it’s not impossible to return, as some have professed here.
LikeLike
Since you mentioned it, I had a quick look at a couple of Trinity threads on Skip Moen’s site. His promised piece on who Jesus actually is, rather than what he can’t be, will be useful.
I can’t see, unless you have a low view of sin and a high view of man, how Jesus can be simply a man ‘infilled’ by God, if that’s his stance. There is so much in the scriptures that points to his pre-incarnational existence. I also see the balance of evidence that he is not YHWH, but has almost all of his qualities, nature and ‘essence’ having come from him a point in the past.
Further, I can live with Jesus being part of the Godhead, if that term is used to describe the apex of divinity – an exclusive cohort of the most High God, YHWH the Father, and his Son, the Logos who is given all authority to rule his universe (albeit death is yet to come under his reign). I think that latter part would cause some problems for Moen, as it does trinitarians. So I mostly fall between the two camps, it seems.
LikeLike
His Christological views are governed by the following: In his opinion no 1st century Jew would have considered the Messiah Divine (there’s only one YHWH, and He’s the Father), so any NT text which appears to imply or state preexistence, e.g., is shoehorned into a “Jesus is a man” ideology. From my perspective, this renders texts like Col 2:9 superfluous – if Jesus is merely a man with the “fullness of the Deity” dwelling in him, how is that any different from any other Holy Spirit filled man? Or, do others have a diminished Holy Spirit indwelling, less than the “fullness”?
LikeLike
From what I understand, there was no all encompassing, definitive or absolute default setting as far as the Messiah for 1st century Judaism. A plethora of opinions existed. In any case, even if there was, Jesus came to present a Messiah that would blow that opinion on Messiahship out of the water. Given he fulfilled all scripture, obviously in relation to all things prophetically Messianic, Moen saying no Jew would have considered the Messiah divine is putting the opinion of 1st C Jews as having higher standing than NT revelation. They may well have thought the Messiah would be a human of the line of David who would set up his earthly kingdom by earthly means. The problem is that Jesus was evidently the Jewish (and Gentile) Messiah whose time was an essential prequel to him ushering in God’s kingdom on his return to earth in glory, and they never saw it, not they had it right!
LikeLike
It looked like you were quite busy over on the other side! Exhausting 🙂
LikeLike
It was! But, for me, engaging is the best way for me to comprehend another’s stance. So, it was a good learning experience, though very frustrating at times. I think I made some inroads with folks whose conceptions were very self-contradictory.
LikeLike
Craig, back to 8 Jan 7.26am, I don’t see the same logical incongruity in the incarnation of Jesus as there is in the Trinity doctrine. I think I explained the 100% divinity/deity of Christ clothed within 100% humanity, but they weren’t separate individuals of the Godhead combined, as Trinitarianism promotes. The heavenly Logos/Son infused, or merged if you will, the man Yeshuah. In fact, I think there’s a good case that his Messiahship, or Anointing, was from his being the Logos within Yeshuah of Nazareth ie from conception. But, unlike the Trinity, the higher ‘essence’ or Godly personality, is subject to the natural man’s limitations. The unique conception of Jesus brought this 100% + 100%, unlike a simple spiritual ‘possession’ of something natural.
The Trinity doctrine speaks of ontological equivalence, of separate divine beings as one, and of one substance. Without calling this construct of the one God modalism or tri-theism requires way more cognitive dissonance than the incarnation – for me anyhow. I have a strong sense that scripture doesn’t require CD to unveil a mystery. Once the mind of Christ is working in us, and we see the majority of scriptures on God don’t paint a trinitarian picture, the few that might should be interpreted in the light of the plain and clear ones.
In my early years as a believer, I never questioned the Trinity because I never did any real study. It was assumed knowledge and not discussed. Now I reason, not as a spiritual child, but as a man, and that has brought much deeper understanding of God’s word, often upturning previously accepted doctrines (tithing, heaven, hell, the trinity, professional clergy to name but five).
LikeLike
Glad to see you affirm that Jesus (Word-made-flesh) retained all the divine attributes of the preexistent Word. Of course, I don’t have an issue with the Incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth being 100% God and 100% man; but, from a secular viewpoint, doesn’t it seem self-contradictory to ascribe omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence to a finite being? Like you, I don’t experience CD with that, nor do I experience CD when considering the Trinity.
You wrote: Now I reason, not as a spiritual child, but as a man, and that has brought much deeper understanding of God’s word… Perhaps you didn’t intend to be condescending, but that’s the way it came off.
LikeLike
I meant to add that, yes, I do believe Jesus retained all the powers he had as the Logos/Son. He chose to keep the divine largely hidden, except through his authoritative teaching and miraculous deeds. Even though he could have summoned an army of angels to rescue him, or just gone ‘Superman’, he remained within his frail human frame’s limitations at the critical moments.
LikeLike
Same day, re your 8.12am post, I would rather zero in on the word ‘form’ than God. Really, it doesn’t say Jesus was ‘God’, but he existed in the ‘form of God’. If he was all God YHWH, shouldn’t he, by logical extension of this passage, be all man? Or, what does ‘form’ of a man mean? I suggest that Paul knew that the Son of God was a form of theos, but still not the Father.
I don’t read 1 Cor 15:28 the way you do, Craig. I think it makes more sense that the Son is handing over his now pure and sin/death-free universe to God (the Father) having been given all authority and responsibility to restore it through his Christ role. There’s no need for ‘God the Son’ reference, which isn’t there, nor is the word ‘one’ in my NIV. If God is all in all, it’s simply because Jesus has handed over what he was given by the Father, who now has the reins, solely and in full. Nothing implicitly trinitarian there.
LikeLike
The word “form” (morphē) is in parallel. He was and is in the form of God, yet took on the form of man. The way I understand this is by addition – and it seems you do as well – Jesus was “in the form of God” preincarnation, as the Word, and by adding “the form of man”, He becomes the unique God-man. We agree that in the Incarnation Jesus retained all His Divinity, and we seem to agree that He was (is) 100% man (your 5:29am post). But aren’t you contradicting yourself with your words “shouldn’t he, by logical extension of this passage, be all man?” If you’re implying that He’s not merely man, but also God, I’ll agree. Assuming so, I don’t think it follows that, from your stance here, “Paul knew that the Son of God was a form of theos, but still not the Father”, given that you don’t call the Son theos anywhere else. Doesn’t theos most everywhere else in Pauline literature mean simply “God”, and many references specifically God the Father? Isn’t that what you’ve been arguing?
Coming at this from a different angle, “form of God” means simply what it says: He was in the form of God. Then, with kenosis, metaphorical self-emptying, He takes on the form of (100%) man – in addition to his morphē theou, His preexistence as “the Word” – without diminishing His morphē theou, though veiling His morphē theou under flesh. I think this is what you’re saying, in essence. So, the $64,000 question is why does Paul use theos here, the same word used of the Father?
LikeLike
I’d like to quote historian (and Christian) Larry Hurtado, from Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003):
The pages following further explain the historical situation of the time (70-170) – a climate in which devotion to Jesus was as akin to devotion to YHWH, and NT references to the OT were used as justification for this, such as 1 Cor 15:1-7 (v. 4: “according to the Scriptures”), as well as, of course the NT itself.
LikeLike
The ‘logical extension’ of ‘form’ was just taking what you wrote saying the ‘form’ of God meant that Jesus was God and applying that to man – as in Jesus would be fully man. Since we agree on his incarnational nature, it’s moot anyway.
I was being no more condescending than Paul at the end of 1 Cor 13, or the last verses of Heb 5. As an immature believer, I only consumed or wanted easy to chew, sweet food, like a child. I wasn’t suggesting trinitarian doctrine is childlike or such, so any condescension was certainly unintentional, Craig.
LikeLike
OK, got it; thanks for clarifying.
But, I must ask again: Why is it that Paul uses “form of theos” here? Given that “form of God” and “form of man” are in parallel, and that “form of man” = having the same, identical nature as man, then wouldn’t “form of God” mean that Jesus has the same, identical nature as God – i.e. that Jesus is God?
LikeLike
Pauline use of theos doesn’t exclusively mean God YHWH. 1 Cor 8:5 for example uses the plural of theos for ‘so-called gods’. Notwithstanding its use for human rulers as well in John 10:34-36 the definitive authority on this question is probably Murray J Harris and ‘Jesus as God: The New Testament use of theos in reference to Jesus’.
From his detailed analysis it’s pretty safe to say from the use of theos, Jesus was divine, had Godly qualities and God-like status. In other words he was a deity, full and proper. The next question which is captured in your Larry Hurtado quote is ‘so what does this mean for the Godhead?’ The question wrestled with over the next 400 years resulting in orthodox trinitarianism.
My response is still ‘What prevents a hierarchy of the divine? Why does the acceptance of orders of spiritual beings create a polytheistic environment that is totally anathema to who God really is and our Christian belief in and worship of him?
Indeed going back to 1 Cor 8, Paul makes clear that there may appear to be many other gods and lords but in verse 6 he crystallises his belief that they are as nothing to the one God YHWH AND one Lord Jesus Christ. That to me is Paul’s emphatic understanding of the Godhead and we should take it at face value.
LikeLike
Yes, and Luke records Paul on Aeropagus, using theos in a number of ways. One important way is in 17:24 in which Paul talks about “the God who made the world and everything in it”. Who was that exactly? 1 Corinthians 8:6 says there’s one God “from whom all things came”, and one Lord “through whom all things came”. Yet, in Colossians 1:16 all things were created by (en) Him [the Son], through (dia) Him [the Son], and for (eis) Him [the Son]. While one can challenge the first and the third translations, the fact that Paul used three different prepositions relating to creation must mean there’s a distinction in meaning between en and eis, and these must be different than dia (through).
To answer your question in your third paragraph, I don’t see how you can escape polytheism, no matter how you try to nuance your stance. If there is more than one theos then there’s more than one God – or some other explanation such as the Trinity. Moreover, if you look later in Paul’s first Corinthian letter you’ll find the Trinity pretty much spelled out – 12:4-6:
LikeLike
I didn’t mention John 10, so I’ll address that. Those addressed as theos were acting as God’s agent. But, we know these were clearly men and not in any sense divine in the way YHWH is divine. Yet, the context we’re looking at in the Philippian epistle clearly means divine in an equivalent sense to YHWH.
LikeLike
Batman and Robin. The Lone Ranger and Tonto. We know who the boss is. We know who his able assistant is. There is one boss and one sidekick. Without getting irreverent they are one in mind, mission, capability, substance but distinguishable. There is only one Batman and one Lone Ranger. I think it’s pretty clear why this debate has existed for nearly 2000 years.
Tell me Craig why this simple analogy is a biblical fail. Why is it polytheism when we know there are a multitude of ‘divine’ or spiritual beings, but only one is the Most High? That’s the other $64k question.
LikeLike
The other spiritual beings are never called theos. Moreover, it seems that some of the angels decided to turn from and rebel against theos, with haSatan becoming the king of the abyss. This then, leaves only God the Father and the Son in your divine hierarchy.
Even still, your Batman/Robin and Lone Ranger/Tonto analogies are not parallel, as these guys share the same ontology – human nature – with the only difference their relative roles, with one subordinate to the other functionally.
LikeLike
Absolutely other spiritual beings were not called theos, and this is what I was thinking about on the cycle home from work. We wouldn’t worship, or give glory and honour to the archangel Michael, or Gabriel, mighty though they are, or the seraphim and cherubim, or the angels, but we would to a unique spiritual being, chief over all, brought forth from YHWH’S own Person, the Logos, Jesus. Rev 5:11-14 is very clear that Jesus is worthy of all praise and honour because of both who he is and what he’s done. Back up to verses 8-10 and we see why: He was the only one who was slain because only his blood (as an earthly man) could and did atone for man’s sin and purchased a kingdom of persons FOR God to be priests to serve God, not Jesus. He alone is worthy of our worship because he bought a kingdom of people for his Father. No wonder God YHWH elevated him to the place above all other names, principalities and powers. There is not a hint of trinitarianism, let alone binitarianism, in Rev 5. God is God over all and he has a family of saved humans with which to fellowship given eternal life through his one and only Son.
So, in line with the Batman analogy, they are one in substance, mission and purpose, and I’m saying the Father and Jesus are the same in substance, mission and purpose, but Batman is not Robin is not Batman. We still credit all the success of the pair to Batman, without forgetting the fundamentally important role Robin played. No-one else could have enabled Batman’s mission to be accomplished other than Robin. The only added extra this analogy doesn’t express that the Godhead possesses is that Jesus came from the Father without being created. Robin wasn’t taken from Batman’s being, as it were. Michael was created, the angels were created, satan was created, Jesus was begotten or formed from an eternal source as a Son, not as a high-ranking spiritual being as the JWs would have, for instance.
This is the only other alternative to a trinitarian solution to the scriptures, as I see it. It’s either, Jesus is God, therefore he has to be God YHWH to keep with mono-theism, but we have to make him discrete enough to marry with all the scripture that portrays him as a separate entity etc. Or, we hold to what I see as a much purer, honest expression which is there is one God YHWH, and his Logos Son, a divine and wholly unique Person whose sacrifice cancelled the debt of sin in man and qualified him for eternal life. This means he is worthy of honour, worship and praise, but is not the Most High God. Mission still accomplished.
Some questions I was considering on the ride were along the lines of: Does God YHWH have to sacrifice himself (as the Son) to blot out man’s sin? Could this be done by a separate uniquely divine being? If we have two beings of ‘God’ status, so what? Does that model contravene mono-theism, if mono-theism is defined properly? How did God see his Son – as himself, or as an individual in which he was pleased to give the task of creating an abode for him. God’s plan has always been somewhere to dwell. Eden, a tent, a temple, our hearts, then joined with the eternal company of believers in person. The trinity does not sit comfortably as the answer to these questions.
LikeLike
Craig, Rev 3:12. Four times (normally three is enough to emphasise a point) Jesus, as the speaker to the church of Philadelphia, references HIS God. And this is the Jesus who is resurrected and standing in glory at the right hand of the Father, enthroned above all things, yet still speaking of YHWH as his God.
Verse 21 provides an excellent insight into the sameness but separateness of Jesus and God the Father. Jesus sat down with HIS Father on God’s throne, not that he saw himself AS God, but because God had elevated him to his level. He didn’t usurp God’s rightful throne, nor assume equality, but accepted the position of being ‘beside’ God because of his unique redemptive journey from Logos to suffering servant to mighty King and ruler of all via a man’s death, still under God’s hand though.
Amazingly, Jesus, in like fashion, invites believers who overcome to sit beside him on his throne, and this is very much echoed in Eph 2:6 by Paul who declares we are seated with him in the heavenly realms. My question is: How does trinitarianism complement, or add Godly perspective and understanding to, the plain meaning of these scriptures?
LikeLike
Q: Does God YHWH have to sacrifice himself (as the Son) to blot out man’s sin? Could this be done by a separate uniquely divine being? A: God can do whatever He wants, of course. I think we’ll agree that only a perfect man can make atonement. Since no mere man is perfect, no man can make a once-for-all atonement. God alone is perfect – even the angels are not, as haSatan exemplifies – so, God sending Himself in the ‘Person’ of the Son is the way God chose to do it. Beyond that, I don’t wish to speculate.
Q: If we have two beings of ‘God’ status, so what? Does that model contravene mono-theism, if mono-theism is defined properly? A: I’m not sure what exactly you’re asking here. The term monotheism means one God, of course. Looking at your first question from a Trinitarian stance, with “being” equivalent to ousia (this term is derived from the verb ‘to be’), then I’d call polytheism.
Q: How did God see his Son – as himself, or as an individual in which he was pleased to give the task of creating an abode for him. A: I think it depends (and you’ve framed your question specifically non-Trinitarian, I see). Incarnationally, the Father was pleased to give the Son a number of things; but, I’m not sure what you mean regarding “creating an abode for him”. How the relationship is between Father and Son in an immanent sense, i.e. ontologically, we have very little information.
As for redeemed men sitting on the Throne, first we must look at the individual texts which speak of redeemed men on the Throne, including Matthew 19:28, in which there are twelve thrones. I can’t say I know what this all means.
As regards the fourfold use of “My God” in Rev 3:12, one must also consider those verses which speak of Jesus as, e.g., “the First and the Last” – equivalent words for YHWH in the OT. There’s no doubt Jesus, as a man, refers to the Father as God; there’s also no doubt that He self-references or is referenced in terms equating Himself with God. On the latter, I include those in which He is in the middle/midst of the Throne, such as Rev 7:17, as well as Rev 22:1. That’s not to mention the neuter hen as pre-verbal predicate nominative in John 10:30.
LikeLike
First Q – saying ‘God chose to do it’ because he ‘can do whatever he wants’ is true but unsatisfactory. If God sent himself in the person of his Son, I’d call modalism.
Second Q – mono-theism expresses the worship of one God, but if there is another who is almost identical but not the Most High God, how is that poly-theism? The Shema is intact because of a single pinnacle God at the apex of divinity, but mono-theism doesn’t have to be an exclusive club of one entity. An ontologically limited example is a company that has one President (God), a CEO (Jesus), and multiple VP (archangels and angels). It’s not poly-theism proper because I’m not suggesting we worship this god for the weather, and this one for battles, and another for fertility, or a fourth for good luck and fate etc. To my mind, that’s what the Shema is steering us away from – Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman and other pagan multi-god or pantheistic religious systems.
Third Q – God has always been seeking a dwelling. He created man to dwell with them, but we screwed it up and got banished, resulting in personal fellowship being replaced by sacrifice and legalism initially, before Jesus came to do away with that means of connecting with God. The eventual fullness is in Rev 21-22.
The point in Rev 3 though Craig, is that Jesus is in his glorified being, and not his earthly manhood, yet still calls YHWH his God.
LikeLike
Q1: If YHWH = ousia = being, then the collective consciousness of YHWH sent the Son (as opposed to the Father, e.g.), which is not modalism.
Q2: It’s your “almost identical but not the Most High God” and “mono-theism doesn’t have to be an exclusive club of one entity” that I have trouble with. If Father and Son are ontologically the same, but are yet different individuals, then we have one God (theos) and one lesser God (theos) = polytheism – no matter if we don’t worship one as fertility god and the other as weather god, e.g. That’s the only way I can see this. The angels are not ontologically the same, so they are merely different entities.
Q3: But the dwelling was not exclusively for the Father as opposed to the Son, and Col 1:16 seems to suggest creation was for (eis) the Son. Maybe I’m missing your point.
I understood what you were saying re: Rev 3; but, how does that square with Jesus proclaiming Himself to be “the First and the Last”, an exclusive title YHWH ascribes to Himself in the OT? In other words, Jesus claims to have a God, but He also claims to be YHWH; somehow we have to harmonize these. A solution is the Trinitarian one: Incarnationally – and the Incarnation continues, as the Word is forever in hypostatic union with the human nature, though now with glorified body – He has a God, just like all men; yet in His Deity He is God/YHWH. I may not have stated this as carefully as I should, but I think you get the gist.
LikeLike
Regarding Q1: My parenthetical remark is not meant to exclude the usual Trinitarian statement that the Father sent the Son; the Son is the one sent. My overall statement is just another way of looking at the same thing. That is, we must be mindful that the Trinity has only one mind, one will, one consciousness – otherwise we’d have tritheism. When we say ‘the Father sent the Son’, we do not mean that the Father and the Son each have an individual mind/will, and that the Son decided to be the one sent in subjection to the Father. That would be subordinationism.
LikeLike
We’ll keep coming back to circle around the same buoys Craig. If the Trinity is three entities with only one mind, will and consciousness, then that’s actually one entity. Or they’re modes of the one entity. Or they’re three entities, and therefore have different wills, minds and consciousnesses.
If theos can be used for ALL things Godly or godly, or like godly, why does it equal polytheism if God is called theos somewhere and Jesus somewhere else, as well as elohim, Jehovah, etc. It seems various words are used, often interchangeably, for the varying types of divinity, spiritual being and ontologically different referents. There is no one rule to rule them all.
I provided how I see the Alpha and Omega earlier. God is the be all and end all of everything. Jesus is the be all and end all of what God has placed under him and given him authority over. To me, that seems very clear and scripturally accurate. A Trinity is not required to meet this framework.
LikeLike
Jim,
Though you may think of it is an either/or of modalism/tritheism, I don’t see it that way, and I’ve not presented it that way. It’s one being, three ‘Person’s, each distinguished from the others by their relative relationships and individual roles (each His own prosōpon).
As to your second paragraph, please show me how theos “can be used for ALL things Godly or godly” – I’m not sure I understand you here. In any case, we must keep in mind that unless a noun is strictly monadic – that it can only ever mean one specific thing – then context must determine meaning, as words do not have only one static meaning. In Linguistics it is argued that meaning can only be derived at, at minimum, the clausal level, though sometimes one must look to the sentence, paragraph, full document, or even the entire works by one author. I don’t think you’re arguing that the use of theos in Psalm 82:6/John 10:35, makes men into ‘gods’, in some literal sense of Deity.
The word “Elohim” gets really knotty, so I don’t think it helps either of us. The plural has been argued as being an intensive singular.
I don’t find your explanation for “the Alpha and the Omega” adequate. I specifically used “the First and the Last”, and Isaiah 44:6 makes it abundantly clear that this refers to YHWH, who claims to be the One God.
LikeLike
I subscribe to Academia, and just received this article on the eternal generation of the Son:
https://www.academia.edu/29716725/_Common_Places_Pro-Nicene_Theology_Eternal_Generation?auto=download&campaign=weekly_digest
LikeLike
The point with Theos was that it can be used for a variety of subjects from God YHWH to Jesus to men with high ranking responsibilities. The context will naturally inform you but because YHWH is called Theos and then Jesus is too, that doesn’t necessarily lead to Jesus being God. I suggest Theos is as knotty as Elohim when it comes to nouns of God and other divine or spiritual entities.
As to alpha and omega, I can’t really do much more. Sorry. It makes sense to me as I explained previously.
I thought the article was excellent. Two considerations came to mind. The first was that the paper made no attempt to support the term eternal generation. It was very clear that Jesus was begotten from God and one could only assume that this occurred at some juncture during God’s existence. If so (and I know we touched on this earlier Craig) the eternality should be the continued eternal nature of Jesus from being begotten. This wasn’t altogether clear.
The second observation is that if you weren’t a trinitarian the article would not even indirectly lead you to reach a trinitarian conclusion. It didn’t even come across as binitarian although that would have been reasonable. I got a distinct affirmation of the unique and perfect harmonious closeness between the Father and his Son, but not their ‘trinitarian’ oneness. That was perhaps assumed, but read it without that assumption and it is very lightly expressed if at all. That I found very appealing and could actually amen pretty much everything bar the somewhat misleading title.
LikeLike
Jim,
The NT usage of theos is not nearly as convoluted as Elohim is in the OT.
This discussion regarding Jesus being theos = being God came up in the context of Philippians 2, specifically in 2:6’s form of God. When mere men were called theos the context was agency; Philippians, on the other hand, is quite different. When Paul is putting form of God in parallel with form of man, how would this indicate that Jesus is ‘not quite’ YHWH? Paul’s no doubt equating Jesus with being = to man; so, it makes sense that theos = God YHWH in this context.
Regarding your 2nd paragraph, you’ve not attempted to specifically explain how to harmonized Isaiah 44:6, in which “the First and the Last” is clear and exclusive reference to YHWH (cf. Rev 1:8 “Alpha and Omega” {with “Lord Almighty” = YHWH in OT} with Rev 22:13 “Alpha and Omega” {as Jesus}), yet Jesus ascribes this title to Himself in Rev 1:17 and 22:13. Quite simply, if YHWH = “the First and the Last” and Jesus = “the First and the Last”, then YHWH = Jesus & Jesus = YHWH.
LikeLike
Jim,
Regarding the eternal generation article, did you click on and read the hyperlinks “divine simplicity” and “inseparable operations“? Also did you take note of the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph: “The doctrine itself can be stated plainly: The Son is from the Father, and God has always been this way and did not become this way.” It clearly puts “the Son” and “the Father” as encompassing God (though the Holy Spirit is not excluded, the HS is just not discussed in this context).
LikeLike
I did click the hyperlinks Craig. Neither actually addressed eternal generation per se. It was mentioned but only in passing as an assumed aspect. I have to say that there is a lot of quoting the Cappadocian fathers but not a lot of using scripture other than in isolated context to support a point being made. The level of philosophical lexicon and comprehension is almost out of reach of the lay believer (me included). Dare I say it this what the Catholic Church did taking the Christian faith beyond the intellectual and practical reach of the early medieval person.
LikeLike
John 5:26 is the main verse for this, but one also must consider John 1:3 in conjunction with Col 1:16 and Heb 1:2, in which the latter two speak of “the Son” as the agent of creation. Given that “the Son” has “life in Himself” given by the Father and that “the Son” is the agent of creation, then the relationship of Father and Son is eternal (pre-creation). The ‘begotten-ness’ of the Son in the Trinitarian formula is the way of speaking of these Scriptural truths – of the paternal/filial relationship of Father/Son without implying that the Father precedes the Son in some fashion.
LikeLike
I’ve just lost a block of text. I won’t go back in blow by blow, but essentially John 5:26 says that God granted Jesus life in himself. The one granting is usually greater than the one receiving, but life in himself does not create a case that God and the Son are co-eternal. The lives in themselves are different and specific to their roles and divine nature. The divine simplicity article also seems to be at pains to say that the Father and Jesus are modes of God as if God is the collective noun for the three persons that are distinct, but in the next breath denounce any modalism. I think the Oneness Pentecostals would have good grounds to cry foul given such a forced reading.
I also wanted to provide some quotes from both articles that illustrated how on one hand the ‘sublime and unknowable ineffable essence of God’ (or similar) was to be the backdrop to the essay and then go into dogmatic detail about his very sublime and unknowable ineffable essence. Such contrary notions litter the Pro-Nicene articles and other trinitarian writing, and it is difficult to frame a counter argument when faced with ‘we can’t comprehend the depths of God’s nature’ on one hand and on the other ‘here is the nature of God in complex and (generally non-scriptural) opaque philosophical terms’. Can you see the undergirding problem here Craig?
LikeLike
To be more specific, Scriptural, John 5:26 states that the Father granted the Son [of God] – and not, as you state, “God granted Jesus” – to have “life in Himself”, just as the Father has “life in Himself”. Sure, I can understand one construing that Grantor is “greater” than Grantee; but, then, what does it mean to have “life in Himself” and how can one’s “life in Himself” be more or less than another’s “life in Himself”?
The article on divine simplicity, simply states that the three ‘Persons’ of the Trinity are “three personal modes of subsisting of the simple divine essence”. That’s not modalism; that’s historic orthodoxy. The key word there is subsisting.
I didn’t and don’t see the issue as you explain it in your 2nd paragraph.
LikeLike
I think Heb 3:2-6 is important in explaining what I am driving at in my opening two sentences.
He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. 3 Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. 4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. 5 “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,”bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.
LikeLike
Hebrews 3:6 concludes with “But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house…” (NIV 1984) – the key word being “Christ”, i.e. the incarnational Son. Moreover, importantly, the article (ho) is not prefacing “son” (huios) here, though, of course, we know the text is speaking of Christ. The English definite article is used in a few of the English translations, though most use the indefinite article “a”, following the non-use of the Greek article in the Greek text.
LikeLike
I would say that the life in Jesus was granted by God because it has boundaries and limits just as explained in 1 Cor 15:27. In fact his life is framed back up in verse 22. As Heb 3:4 says, God is the builder (life giver) of everything, over and above what is created through the Son as per Col 1:16.
So the Son has a role under God’s direction and authority, so does Jesus the Son of God as the incarnational Christ. Whatever is granted by the giver is to the level set and if God gave the Son life in himself it clearly wasn’t to the limitless level possessed by God and the life in himself. Otherwise the verse wouldn’t have discriminated between them.
LikeLike
Isn’t the context around John 5:26 that God has given Jesus authority to judge who is given and who is denied eternal life? Surely that is the life ‘in himself’ that is granted Jesus to give. And Jesus says as much in verses 27 and 30 that he only exacts the judgement he hears from God. John doesn’t seem to suggest that the life that is in God the Father and that which is in Jesus is one and the same, therefore implying the Father and Jesus are also one and the same.
LikeLike
Jim,
This verse is part of the immediate context of the subject verse of this very post: John 5:27. Please read the first portion of part 4, through to the first five paragraphs, including the blockquote (a quote from Raymond Brown). It is precisely because the Son of God has “life in Himself” that He is Himself Divine, and it is because He is Divine that He has the capacity to judge all humanity, and, as I argue in this post, it is because the Son of God is also human – as opposed to the Son of God being also the Son of Man – that the Father has has given Him authority to judge. As God the Son He has the Divine capacity to judge, but it’s because He is also man, that is, being in the form of man, the Son of God has the understanding of what it truly means to be a man, and thus can be a fair judge of humanity. As I wrote near the end of part 4:
And, as in my concluding remarks here in part 6:
LikeLike
The following from bible.org gets to the nub of the issue for me. From this web page https://bible.org/seriespage/3-son-god-begotten-not-made we read:
”Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father [Jim AGREES]. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well [Jim AGREES]. If he is eternally God [Jim DISAGREES. The previous line does not support that conclusion], then there was never a time he was literally begotten [Jim DISAGREES. You can be eternal from a point in time]–which is why we know the language is figurative [Jim – do we?] to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son.” [Jim DISAGREES. A false conclusion from an illogical premise].
I have added where i am at one with this argument, and not so, in square brackets. There are leaps in logic such as eternality equating to a never coming into being, which is not a normal or scripturally aligned outcome. Nor does being of like nature/substance/essence make him to be the Father. Again, a trinitarian jump which doesn’t come from the previous line. Nowhere is ‘God the Son’ referenced in the bible – only the Son of God. Merging the two conflates very separate ideas. Only one is scriptural, so the other term has to be disregarded.
LikeLike
I’ll refine what the author wrote and expound upon it, the brackets { } indicating where I’ve changed the text:
I’ll stop there. Note that he wrote in the parenthetical portion “using the figure from human language“. It’s an analogy using anthropomorphism. You are taking it too literally. Moreover, unbounded eternality is considered a divine attribute; whereas, the eternality of created humans is bounded in time from the point of entrance into eternal life, yet unbounded once entering the eternal realm. Since “the Word”, aka “the Son” is uncreated and is the agent of creation (John 1:1-3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2), and creation includes time itself, then the Son ‘predates’ time and His eternality is unbounded. If the Son has unbounded eternality (If he is an eternal Being, a fully eternal Being), then the Son of God must be God; however, since God the Father is clearly separate from the Son of God, then, the Son of God cannot be the same ‘Person’ as God the Father. That is, since bitheism is clearly not Scriptural, the Son of God must be a separate ‘Person’ from God the Father, yet somehow still be God. Hence, the trinitarian doctrine was formulated to explain this same nature/substance/essence of God the Father and the Son of God yet the distinct ‘Personhood’ of each.
LikeLike
I understood the ‘human language’ to be a reference to natural begotteness that clearly couldn’t begin to describe the non-incarnational or pre-creation begetting of the Son. Obviously, there is no anthropomorphism in the incarnation of the Logos/Son as Yeshuah, albeit his conception was not of the natural order, but rather divinely brought forth.
I’m not sure how eternality can be bounded or unbounded. YHWH is regarded as being without boundaries, but if the Son has been begotten from eternity ‘past’ ie of identical infinite ‘duration’ or existence as YHWH, it makes being begotten a nonsense. There is no begetting if there has been God the Father and God the Son from eternity to eternity. Either they are two Gods existing in parallel, or one God who interacts with his creation modally. Or, as I have suggested several times, the Son was indeed begotten from (not by) YHWH, and thus there was a ‘time’ when he was not. He was generated from YHWH. In a non-divine yet illustrative way, so was Eve brought forth from Adam; similarly, the church was brought forth from Christ, yet can still be regarded as being in Christ, and Christ in it.
Continuing with the definition of eternal, you wrote, ”the eternality of created humans is bounded in time from the point of entrance into eternal life, yet unbounded once entering the eternal realm.” I assume you mean that there is a point in time (the return of Jesus) when the gift of eternal life is given to believers, alive and resurrected. However, in what capacity does that eternality then become unbounded? How are you envisaging that realm? Revelation makes it clear that time will continue, with God and the Lamb co-existing with believers and those pre-Christ people of faith on a new earth. That doesn’t seem unbounded.
Craig, you say time was part of the creation, but since we don’t know what pre-creation looked like, that is an assumption. Time (or at least a version of it that YHWH and the Son recognised) may well have existed. As I see it, for a being to ‘be’ in a non-time ‘environment’ is an oxymoron.
Lastly, to avoid any call of polytheism, we probably need to have a look at the biblical case for a divine council, and assess whether there is a case for YHWH the Almighty, Most High God, who is the one God (not in a trinitarian concept, but more as ‘God alone’). Ruling the created order under YHWH’s given authority is the Son, unique having been generated from the Father and his emissary to mankind, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and the only means of bridging the chasm between God and man. Under them, other spiritual ‘sons of God’, seraphim, archangels etc who are permitted to attend the heavenly court. Some of the OT verses in support of such a framework are quite compelling and, importantly, Hebraic (and NT) monotheism remains intact. Implicit is the idea that the Logos can be both divine and from YHWH, but not be him in his totality, otherwise YHWH couldn’t be ‘God alone’.
LikeLike
Jim,
It seems like we are mostly rehashing the same stuff. Also, we are getting into eschatological aspects that go well beyond this particular post – things which are debatable and which I’d rather not continue on about. Clearly, you are working from a philosophical construct regarding the relationship between the eternal and the temporal that is different from mine. Hence, we are not going to agree, and continued discussion along these lines will be fruitless.
Regarding the monogenēs issue, Wikipedia has a pretty good article.
You wrote: …Revelation makes it clear that time will continue, with God and the Lamb co-existing with believers and those pre-Christ people of faith on a new earth. That doesn’t seem unbounded. This is where we go into debatable eschatological territory. However, there’s one thing Scripture makes clear: the new heaven, new earth, and God’s children continue on, as Revelation 22:5 states, “for ever and ever” (eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn = more literally to the ages of the ages).
LikeLike
Hi Craig, I have no problem with our eternal futures being ‘to the ages of the ages’, it’s just that when you wrote we will possess unbounded vs. bounded eternality, I wasn’t sure if I read you correctly. Especially since you wrote that unbounded (meaning existed in eternity past?) was a divine attribute thus connected with the eternal generation of the son, yet resurrected man will also possess this characteristic. I’m still not sure whether that’s your understanding on unbounded eternality.
As to debatable eschatology, I’m also not sure why my last change of tack is off topic or goes well beyond the post. Surely Jesus’s qualifications as an eschatological judge would provide enough overlap to continue the debate. And looking back over our dialogue, debate it truly is. The trinity doctrine provides, if anything, debatable material, particularly in many of its creedal expressions. Notwithstanding that, our philosophical differences, and revisiting old arguments, this has been great for me to thrash out my ideas. Your responses have been very patient and gracious, as well as highly information rich, for which I’ve been grateful. Thank you for letting me engage on your blog and for your time and efforts in replying to my comments.
LikeLike
Jim,
Thanks for your kind words about our exchange here. I always benefit from engaging with others’ perspectives.
I see now what you mean re: bounded vs. unbounded eternality. What I meant to convey is that created beings are bounded ‘on one side’, so to speak – the point of entrance into the eternal realm – yet unbounded ‘on the other side’ in which we live “to the ages of the ages”. To state another way by comparison: Deity has unbounded eternality (the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega), while humans are bounded on one end (entrance into the eternal realm), though unbounded eternally ‘on the other end’.
What I mean by debatable eschatology is the understanding of the relationship between time and eternity, time and (pre-)creation, and how that can affect eschatological thought.
LikeLike
Divine Council – thoughts?
LikeLike
The way you laid it out above, I cannot subscribe to it.
Even if I try to adapt such a concept to the “One God” Himself (as opposed to including seraphim and archangels), from a Trinitarian perspective, it sounds more like tritheism. Moreover, I don’t see how we can include lesser beings in such a ‘divine council’, as if God is going to seek advice from His own creation.
LikeLike
Fair enough. But there are examples of God changing his mind, or being dissuaded from a certain course of action, through interaction with humans. Job 1 is also a classic picture of a non-Earth divine council.
As the sovereign creator of the universe it doesn’t preclude being collegiate about some things. Moreover, the Hebrew elohim allows for a plurality of heavenly/divine beings.
Personally, I don’t know why you ‘cannot subscribe to it’. Tritheism is exactly what you get if you retrofit the divine council concept into trinitarianism, but really monotheism is the logical outcome of a hierarchical order of beings overseen by Yahweh (Jesus being notable since he was not created by YHWH but formed from him).
You’d think the term ‘Most High God’ infers YHWH at the pinnacle of all divine, supernatural and heavenly/non-Earthbound beings.
LikeLike
Could God’s change of mind be the result of individuals’ change of heart?
The Hebrew elohim is not a fixed term, with only one distinct meaning, yes. But, this does not necessarily mean we can impose a “plurality of heavenly/divine beings” as one of its definitions. There’s a large chasm between the Creator and the created.
If, as per Christian orthodoxy, YHWH is a plurality of One, then tritheism does not obtain. It may be beyond our ability to comprehend, but no more so than an uncreated man, i.e. the divine-human Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
So, essentially you appear to be saying that because the trinity is beyond our ability to comprehend (‘a plurality of One’ requires a fair degree of cognitive dissonance to most folks minds), but yet it’s Christian orthodoxy, we must adhere to the ultimately unexplainable and ignore the alternative scriptural and logical evidence for a God above all gods, co-ruler with a Son of his substance and nature but not him. ‘Greetings from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’, says Paul many times.
I would argue that God makes himself very clear throughout the bible, and there are very few if any mysteries that have not been revealed to us who harbour the mind of Christ. The trinity is not of his making, but it is man’s uninspired construct to avoid the charge of polytheism whilst maintaining the deity of Jesus. It’s a false charge. However, if we accuse Johnson and other word of faith proponents of stating their ‘revelations’ as coming from God, then an incomprehensible trinity is surely in the same category.
Jesus the Son of God is still the only divine-natured human. He is no lesser in substance to YHWH, but his existence can still accommodate the one Most High God on behalf of whom he rules the universe that he created with YHWH. OT Judaism was very comfortable with a ‘two powers in heaven’ construct, but they still adhered to the Shema.
LikeLike
However, if we accuse Johnson and other word of faith proponents of stating their ‘revelations’ as [not] coming from God, then an incomprehensible trinity is surely in the same category.
That’s a false equivalency.
If “two powers in heaven” is consistent with the Shema, then why wouldn’t the Trinity be? And, why is the doctrine of the Trinity more dissonant than the two natures of Jesus?
LikeLike
Thanks for the missing ‘not’ Craig! I’m not sure why it’s false equivalence. It’s not a stretch to say that the progenitor of the trinity, Athanasius, could have been regarded as the Johnson of his day. The Arian position was, as I understand, the accepted view of Jesus. Athanasius’s opinion became gradually entrenched in church doctrine through the Councils which resulted in the trinity becoming orthodoxy. But it’s as scripturally flimsy as any of the WoF ‘revelations’ of who God is and how he works.
The trinity is different from the two powers view. A trinitarian perspective would see that as bitheism probably and so the concepts don’t align. Conversely the two powers idea doesn’t view them as one being, which is how trinitarianism expresses multiple deities.
LikeLike
The Shema states that YHWH is ONE. If “two powers”, i.e. bitheism, can be construed as ONE, then the Trinity is not much of a stretch. I suggest you read Larry Hurtado’s work. His books show how Jesus was accorded worship on par with YHWH/God, and Hurtado argues that this is a development of the Shema, in view of Jesus’ earthly life and salvific role. I’ll agree with you to some extent, in that the Trinity doctrine was not firmly entrenched until later, but this does not mean that the Trinity is not borne out in Scripture. Just because a particular truth is not fully articulated until a later time does not negate the inherent legitimacy of said truth.
Irenaeus is, arguably, one of the first to state a Trinitarian position. If one doesn’t accept that, then one must accept that Tertullian articulated it only a short time later–well before Athanasius and the Arian controversy. A careful reading of the Gospel of John refutes your notion that an Arian-like position (I’m trying to avoid anachronism here) was “the accepted view of Jesus”.
To compare Athanasius with Johnson does not help your cause, in my opinion. The two are miles apart.
LikeLike
The point of the Johnson Athanasius comparison was not doctrine so much as the minority view, if it gets high level acceptance from the dominant denomination of the day, becomes orthodox. If Athanasius espoused Johnson’s kenotic understanding of Jesus, and that became Christianity’s perspective we wouldn’t be challenging his biblical interpretation.
LikeLike
Craig, re June 14 7:52, I can only present the argument for a Divine Council in the barest of detail, Dr Michael Heiser can provide the full monty. Plenty of you tube lectures, and all very scholarly. The only aspect I don’t go along with is his understanding that the medium of Endor actually brought up a disembodied Samuel in front of Saul, and his acquiescence of a disembodied afterlife. Since the OT uses ‘elohim’ to refer to this spiritual encounter, he includes disembodied people in a group of entities that have the term elohim used for them. However, the overwhelming biblical commentary is that the dead know nothing, are in silence, at rest, sleeping, not praising or conscious of their surroundings etc. So it wasn’t Samuel (although Saul was desperate to believe it was), but a familiar spirit using the medium. Anyway, that’s another conversation altogether. See if Heiser can present you the case for YHWH as head of a hierarchy comprising divine creatures, and monotheism remain intact.
LikeLike
Jim,
I just cannot see how you can have one God (the Father) who is head of a hierarchy of lesser divine beings without bi- or tri-theism resulting. If a Being is “divine”, this implies being ‘other-than’ creation, and if non-creation, I don’t see how there can be gradations in divinity. Ya either is or ya isn’t.
LikeLike
The key is getting back to the original Aramaic/Hebrew words used to refer to YHWH and other supernatural or spirit beings and then think about their meaning from an original author and reader perspective. The average OT (and indeed, Messianic NT) Jew would have had known that certain uses of elohim (or theos) meant either YHWH or another ‘sub-deity’ depending on the context.
They were comfortable (and so should we be) with a Most High God (monotheism) sitting in absolute authority over lesser ‘gods’. Unfortunately, when Western Christians brought up with a large measure of Greek dualism in their theology are confronted by the letters G O and D it results in caged thinking the like of which would not have been duplicated in ancient Jewish thought.
LikeLike
Sure 1st century Jews were comfortable with YHWH as having absolute authority over “lesser ‘gods'”, the latter understood as rulers who acted in YHWH’s stead. This is a far cry from one God who is hierarchically superior to the NT’s depiction of the Son.
For me, the following is unassailable as implicitly decrying Christ’s absolute ontological equality with the Father. In Revelation 1:8 we have the Lord God (kyrios ho theos), aka ho pantokratōr speaking, the latter of which is an exclusive designation for YHWH in the LXX. Is the speaker here the Father or the Son? I think it’s the Father, even though my red letter NIV 1984 indicates it’s the Son. Thus, there’s not universal agreement on the speaker. If it’s the Father, then John the Revelator is being consistent with OT designations for YHWH; if it’s the Son, then we have the Son being called the same thing YHWH was called in the OT. Pantokratōr is found ten times in the NT: 2 Cor. 6:18 (LXX quote of 2 Sam 7:14/1 Chronicles 7:13); Rev. 1:8, 4:8 (LXX quote), 11:17, 15:3 (LXX quote), 16:7, 16:14, 19:6, 19:15, and 21:22.
Even if we assume the speaker in Rev 1:8 is the Father—as well as the referent in all the others—we find evidence pointing to the Son’s ontological equality with the Father in 1:8, when compared with other texts. 1:8 describes Himself as “the Alpha and the Omega”, and Jesus describes Himself using the same exact language in 22:13. Moreover, in 22:13 Christ calls Himself “the First and the Last”, which is synonymous with “the Alpha and the Omega”; however, more importantly, “the First and the Last” is a specific designation of YHWH in Isaiah 41:4, 44:6 and 48:12. In addition, “He Who was seated on the Throne” in 21:5 calls Himself “the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End” in 21:6; “the Beginning and the End” was also spoken by Christ in 22:13. So, either the Father and Son are the same (Sabellianism), or we have monotheistic Trinitarianism (with the Holy Spirit factored in, of course).
The best counter I’ve received is that this is an example of shaliach, or “agency”—Christ is acting as agent of the Father, though He’s ontologically different. I find this position fatally flawed. I certainly understand that an agent has been given the rights, privileges and “powers” of the principal; however, he cannot actually BE the other
positionperson to the extent that he’s called by the same titles, etc. The principals set forth in agency define the relationship between the principal and the agent, and in no way can the agent legally be called the same name as the principle. The agent merely acts on the principal’s behalf.Moreover, from what I’ve seen, there’s not sufficient proof that this idea of shaliach predates Christ. In other words, it’s possible that this idea was brought forth as an anachronistic apologetic against the revelation of the NT Scriptures and the resulting codification of the Trinity doctrine.
LikeLike
Before I forget, happy 4th of July – you are in the US right?
LikeLike
Thanks! Yes, I’m in the US. The same to you.
LikeLike
I recall our earlier conversation covering the nature of divine agency and the idea that Jesus, as Yahweh’s emissary on earth, represented the totality of God in and through himself. He could, therefore, lay rightful claim to all the OT testament prophecies about YHWH saving a people, and the titles that were used in reference to YHWH, but presented to the Jews in Christ.
Notwithstanding, Rev 1 is chock full of this same apparent ambiguity that trinitarianism tries to resolve. To me the heart of trinitarianism is to force an absolute construct in answer to the dichotomy created by overlapping, cross-merging and shared YHWH-Jesus nomenclature. It’s a bit like the ‘now, but not yet’ tension of our salvation through Christ – we are saved at the point of faith in Jesus’s death and resurrection, we are being saved, transformed by the renewing of our minds evidenced through good actions, and we will be saved to eternal life at Christ’s return and our subsequent resurrection.
In Rev 1, the first verse makes it clear that God and the now resurrected, enthroned and gloriously reinstated Christ are two separate entities: ‘The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him…’ In verse 4, the benediction, John describes God YHWH as one ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come,’ and does so in verse 8. Verse 6 underlines as heavily as scripture gets that YHWH is our God, whom we will serve, and also Jesus’s God and Father. Trinitarianism is nowhere close to being espoused by John in this opening chapter. So verse 8 is the Lord God Almighty, who is also the First and Last and Alpha and Omega. I’m sure you know, Craig, that these are terms used figuratively, and three different ways for emphasis, that to a Jew would have captured the all-encompassing nature of YHWH and underscored the qualitative nature of Jesus too.
In Rev 22:13, for example, Jesus applies these YHWH descriptors to himself, not, as I see it, to indicate he is YHWH, but to reinforce his credentials as the author and source of eternal life partly in response to remaining Jewish scepticism on one hand and Hellenistic proto-gnosticism on the other. In other words that Jesus was higher than the demiurge, as well as the fulfilment of OT prophecy that only knew YHWH (but glimpsed Christ from afar as Abraham did – John 8:56).
Paul recognised this tension of OT references to Christ that were clearly YHWH speaking about himself. That’s why I think he is at pains to say that everything is made through Christ and for him to rule over (Col 1:15-19) but 1 Cor 15:27 ensures that there is clear delineation between YHWH and Jesus in this order by declaring YHWH’s absolute supremacy that he enacts or delivers through Christ.
This all reinforces the deity and ‘from God-ness’ of Christ who was with (but still not) the Father from before the first creative act (John 17:5). He is from God, uniquely from his Father’s own being he came forth (not created) in pre-history, with a mandate to become a man and hold in another tension being 100% God within a totally human frame. I don’t see the need for trinitarianism, which is really seeking to resolve the apparent problem of monotheism being destroyed through two entities comprising the same God substance.
Yet that is what scripture declares and praises time and again. The most High God, supreme, in total control, above all things, not ranked but the entirety of everything, and his Son, of the same substance, formed for a purpose, for relationship, given universal authority, worthy of all honour, praise, worship and adoration, the giver of eternal life, who became a servant of frail, rebellious humanity, died and rose to give us a hope that death is not the final act. He is also the First over creation, the first-born of those resurrected, and the Last, the closer of history on his return, finally completing his mission of reconciliation between YHWH and man.
In the scriptural tension of YHWH and Jesus’s separateness yet oneness, the trinity becomes a pointless and constraining construct foisted on the early church by mindsets that were thinking in very different paradigms from the OT Hebrew writers.
LikeLike
Jim,
First of all, can you provide any sort of historical proof for your ‘two powers’ idea—that there’s some sort of literature pre-Christ which mentions YHWH and some lesser, yet still divine entity? How is the ‘two powers’ congruent with the Shema in the OT or other pre-NT literature?
Next, I don’t think you’re fully considering the tension between the eternal Word and the Christ of the Incarnation and the Incarnation’s effects on the relationship between the Word-become-flesh and God the Father vs. the pre-Incarnate Word’s relationship with God the Father (not to mention the relationship between the post-earthly Incarnational Word-become-flesh and God the Father!). The eternal Word predates creation (John 1:1), yet later this Word “became flesh” (John 1:14)—i.e., the eternal Word ‘became’ creation in His humanity while retaining His Deity. Much hinges on the definition of monogenēs (1:14,18), and I’m convinced “only begotten” is incorrect (Isaac was Abraham’s monogenēs, even though Ishmael was also Abraham’s son).
I’m sorry, but I see no correlation between the ‘now, but not yet’ tension and the YHWH-Jesus nomenclature overlap. They are completely different things. Jude even goes so far as claiming that it was Jesus who “delivered His people out of Egypt” (Jude 5—see ESV, NLT, and NET Bible, as well as NA28/UBS5 Greek text—and see my article here)!
LikeLike
That’s an in depth study on Jude 5 – wow! Even if the ESV, NLT and a few others say Jesus was the Lord that delivered the Israelites, it could appear to be more evidence for Jesus being the theophany power acting on YHWH’s behalf. The name is the same, but the person behind the name is not God the Father. That would fit the variable translations.
Historical proof for the two powers concept is widely available, although I haven’t time to provide a concise version right now. More later I hope Craig.
LikeLike
Do you see any correlation between Jude 5 and Exodus 23:20-23 in that if Jude understood the Lord who led the Israelites from Egypt as Jesus, he could have been referencing this passage in Exodus? Here, God tells the Israelites that they are to obey his assigned ‘angel, ‘for My name is in Him’ (NKJV). I’m not suggesting Jesus is an angel like Michael as the JWs do, but that the language used in Exodus is interpreted by Jude as the Lord (Jesus).
LikeLike
Angel in Ex 23:20 and 23 i: mălʼâk, mal-awk’; from an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically, of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher):—ambassador, angel, king, messenger.מֲלְאָךְ
LikeLike
Jim,
Regarding the Jude 5 article, see footnote 35’s mention of Tommy Wasserman’s work on Jude, which I was unable to procure at a reasonable price for the purposes of the article, then see Wasserman’s comment on the article itself. My point is that I wasn’t as thorough as I’d have liked, but I just couldn’t acquire that book. His book wouldn’t have changed my conclusion, but it would have strengthened some of the analysis.
An important part of the analysis of my article is the author of Jude’s Christological adaptation of contemporaneous Jewish pseudepigraphical, apocalyptic literature, which I note in the following selection (bold added):
This militates against your position.
I don’t see a correlation between Jude 5 and Exodus 23:20-23, because the context of Jude is specifically about delivering God’s people out of Egypt, and this had already happened by this time (see Exodus 20:2).
LikeLike
Craig, last night I listened to this podcast from Trinities interviewing Dr Heiser. Very interesting and they touched on the Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael monogenes, as well as Jude 5 in some detail. You’d enjoy it.
LikeLike
OK, I see where the “two Powers” idea can be derived. However, the key here in Exodus is we consistently have YHWH/LORD as the One who delivered Israel out of Egypt; moreover, Jesus is never termed an “angel of the Lord”, and the Incarnation–of YHWH (as opposed to a ‘lesser power’, aka “angel of the Lord”), per Heiser–is a far cry from an “angel of the Lord” manifestation. In addition, while the “angel of the Lord” was never, as far as I know, called YHWH, there are OT quotations in the NT in which the original referent is YHWH while the NT referent is Jesus. Furthermore, one can argue for more than two powers–that is, three powers–on the basis of Genesis 18.
LikeLike
Craig, you wrote, ‘I don’t see a correlation between Jude 5 and Exodus 23:20-23, because the context of Jude is specifically about delivering God’s people out of Egypt, and this had already happened by this time (see Exodus 20:2).’
I think there is a relevant connection here, more so than Ex 20:2. True, in Ex 20, YHWH declares he was the one who led Israel out of Egypt. That would make the ‘Lord’ (kyrios) in Jude 5 YHWH and not Jesus on first inspection due to the ‘leading out of Israel’ context, wouldn’t it? However, I don’t think that’s the point Jude is making. The point is in verses 4-19 where he refers to a litany of historic apostasy that is still evident in Jude’s day.
So I read the context to be the destruction of the apostates and unbelievers in verse 5. Therefore, the if kyrios in Jude 5 is to refer to Jesus, the agent of destruction is the same kyrios, which leads us back to Ex 23:20-24. This angel of the Lord has YHWH’s name in him and so acts as his agent to bless those who are obedient and destroy those who aren’t.
Using names, as Heiser states, is fraught with overlap and multiple applications with the same word being used for a variety of human and spiritual entities. For instance, if kyrios is used to imply Jesus in Jude 5, how does that square with kyrios in Matthew 1 and 2 regarding the angel of the Lord (kyrios), when Jesus is already on the scene?
LikeLike
Go to Numbers 14, in which you’ll find that it’s YHWH/LORD who destroyed the disbelievers/grumblers, not the angel of the LORD. Jude 5, therefore, refers to both the deliverance out of Egypt and the destruction of the disbelievers, and the referent is Jesus, whether one adopts Iesous or kyrios as the text in Jude 5, and Jesus/Lord is equated with YHWH–just as Jesus is equated with YHWH in those other NT passages quoting the LXX in which the original referent is YHWH while the NT referent is Jesus.
Yes, the same word can be mean different things depending on context–this is true of most any word. My opinion, for example, is that when kyrios is used by the disciples to refer to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, they are not intending this as a term of Deity, as if it’s interchangeable with theos. It’s more akin to “master” or “teacher”.
However, YHWH is reserved for GOD only. Sure, in Ex 23:20-23 YHWH placed His ‘name’ “in” the angel, but then certainly Gabriel spoke in GOD’s name in Luke 1:23-37, for example. Each was acting as agent for God, but neither can be construed as GOD. This is in contrast to what I’ve stated in the first paragraph above.
LikeLike
Let me ask this of trinitarianism: what is the early church doctrinal problem or scriptural issue that the orthodox trinitarian construct of God/Godhead solves?
My assumptions ahead of an answer are:
OT prophetic, apocalyptic language and a Hebraic mindset sets the framework for the church’s initial doctrinal positions on YHWH, and Jesus.
Gentile, predominantly Greek, cosmological understandings were at odds with this.
Creedal formulas evolved, ebbed and flowed according to increasing influence from church and civil leadership rather than any Godly inspiration.
LikeLike
Briefly, before I head off to bed: Nicea and Constantinople sought to make explicit what was implicit in the NT/OT revelation regarding GOD, due to the threat of Arianism. (Each Ecumenical Council was convened because of a threat to doctrinal integrity.) The Trinity was already spoken of–though not using that specific word–by Origen and Tertullian, and, arguably, Irenaeus, perhaps others before him.
LikeLike
Thanks Craig. The notion of an orthodox trinity being implicit in the canon of OT and NT scripture is difficult to believe given there was no agreed position on early church writings until much later (2nd Council of Trullan in 692, or even the RC position on biblical canon at the Council of Trent in 1546). Neither, I suggest was a trinitarian concept of God even considered during the 1st C church from their understanding of the OT.
So, really the early Christian church relied on the teaching of regional senior clerics and bishops to guide them. You only have to do a surface skim of the the first 350 years of doctrinal wrestling to see what a multiplicity of opinion existed. Councils were enforced and certain bishops exiled, then brought back into favour according to the Emperor of the day’s views. Hardly solid ground for the current orthodox trinitarian position.
Many a long dispute existed over whether homoousios and homoiousios was the correct description of Jesus. Consequently, I find it interesting when a particular view emerges and finally wins the day such that the previously accepted notions of God are deemed heterodox and heretical. Given that scripture is not black and white with neat perimeter lines when it comes to God, Jesus, the Spirit, angels, demons, false gods, satan, the apocalypse, etc it is frankly dangerous to declare something like the trinitarian ‘three persons, one God’ as absolute truth when, as you stated above, the concept is an inference at best if canonical writing.
There are far more convincing arguments from scripture for alternative, dare I say more ancient and Hebraically authentic, concepts of YHWH and his Son.
LikeLike
Re your July 4 10:14pm post and the seeming discrepancy between who did the destroying ie Numbers 14 = YHWH, Jude 5 = (potentially) Jesus, Ex 23 = angel of the Lord. That’s the point that Heiser, Segal et al are making. The same event is recorded as being done by YHWH, but also not YHWH. To our conditioned, mostly Platonic Western minds there is a conflict, and it needs resolving. This is why I believe the trinity doctrine was an answer to a question that wouldn’t have been asked by second temple Judaism, or the first believers. It was clearly being asked by later Greco-Roman Christian leaders who wanted clear (extra-biblical) descriptors for the natures of God the Father and Jesus, whilst maintaining certain non-negotiables such as monotheism and God-level divinity in each (or all three ‘God elements’ if the Spirit is included). If you go in with such firm precursors, and include the Holy Spirit as another ‘person’, the trinity concept is what you’ll most likely come up with.
But, as Heiser argues convincingly, and in a measured and thoroughly scholarly manner, de-Greece the entering arguments and you are closer to a form of semi-Arian binitarianism that would have been almost identical to Paul and the apostles concept of the Most High God and his son Jesus Christ. Just because we can see Jesus in the OT and at times have him as the referent for OT YHWH verses doesn’t actually add to the trinitarian cause. It merely reinforces the idea that God is the ultimate source or author of whatever (life, destruction, blessing), and Jesus acts as the means of delivery, and is viewed and known by man as effectively YHWH, but they also recognise he’s not YHWH.
Perhaps through a trinitarian lens what I’ve just written makes perfect trinitarian sense as well. I don’t know – is that the case for you?
LikeLike
Jim,
As for the Ecumenical Councils, while the Trinity was only very subtly implied at Nicea (325) due to its bare mention of the Holy Spirit, it was very strongly implied at Constantinople 381. The two are placed side-by-side for easy comparison here. Both make the statement that the Son is homoousion tō Patri, of one substance with the Father. In the later Council are the following words for the Holy Spirit:
Only God gives life and is to be “worshiped and glorified”.
You wrote: Many a long dispute existed over whether homoousios and homoiousios was the correct description of Jesus.
This was, as far as I can see a late 3rd century / 4th century argument, with Athanasius the primary spokesman on the former and Arius championing the latter. While it’s true that a Council was convened to settle the issue, the truth of the matter is borne out in Scripture. There are a multitude of Scriptures claiming Christ’s Deity implicitly—see Raymond Brown’s article here in which he answers the question of Christ’s Deity in the 1965 article (though I don’t agree with everything in that article)—it is John 10:30 in context in conjunction with 5:17-19ff that solidifies it. Quoting Brown on 10:30 (his “Notes” section):
Now, keep this in mind as we see his comments accompanying 5:17-18 (bold added):
In this current article on CrossWise, I took Brown’s thoughts a bit further in part 4. Going to Brown, in his commentary specifically on 5:19, Brown states: …All of this is summed up in 10:30: “The Father and I are one.” As Giblet, “Trinité,” points out, a Johannine passage like vs. 19 ultimately led Christian theologians to an understanding that the Father and the Son possess one nature, one principle of operation (p 218).
You wrote: …it is frankly dangerous to declare something like the trinitarian ‘three persons, one God’ as absolute truth when, as you stated above, the concept is an inference at best if canonical writing.
No, I did not state that “the concept is an inference at best” in Scripture. What I wrote was “Nicea and Constantinople sought to make explicit what was implicit in the NT/OT revelation regarding GOD…”. It is strongly implied, though there’s no statement like “Jesus is God” or “Jesus and the Father are of the same substance”, etc. However, when Scripture is viewed as a whole, the Trinitarian doctrine emerges.
You wrote: Re your July 4 10:14pm post and the seeming discrepancy between who did the destroying ie Numbers 14 = YHWH, Jude 5 = (potentially) Jesus, Ex 23 = angel of the Lord. That’s the point that Heiser, Segal et al are making. The same event is recorded as being done by YHWH, but also not YHWH.
The context of Jude 5 makes it clear that referent is Jesus, whether one adopts iesous or kyrios as the Greek. The first part of verse 5 speaks of delivering out of Egypt, which is something Ex 23’s angel of the Lord did not do. Hence, when the entirety of verse 5 is considered Jesus = YHWH. That’s not to mention all the other evidence I’ve supplied ad nauseum above.
You’ve made your beliefs known. I’ve allowed you to engage. But, now we’re pretty much rehashing the same stuff. My stance is that Jesus is portrayed as YHWH, not “not YHWH”, i.e. an “angel of the Lord”. An “angel of the Lord” is a messenger, an agent. Jesus Christ is much more than a mere agent.
LikeLike
Yep, you’ve shown me some good latitude here, and thank you again. Just so that you’re clear, I’m not arguing against Jude 5 being a likely reference to Jesus, or that Jesus is just a messenger, or agent (although he is presents those roles). Nor do I view the pre-incarnational Jesus as anything other than uniquely of or from YHWH. For me, Jude reinforces the dual manner in which God interacts with humanity, both directly and through Jesus. This is borne out by man recording these events in scripture and using a range of descriptors, titles and words, sometimes consistently, and at other times more ambiguously.
If the span of scripture is reviewed, it appears to me (and this is where we part ways, I suspect) that there are two entities engaging with man – one YHWH, the Most High God, and his son, a necessarily discrete person, incarnated for one purpose.
The bottom line seems to be that you have as much difficulty conceiving of Jesus being a YHWH-level deity and not calling polytheism as I do the trinity and not calling modalism (or polytheism). I guess that’s why they had Councils! 🙂
LikeLike
Craig, whilst your article dealt with the son of man title in Dan 7:13 and Matt 26:64, could you please explain those passages from a Trinitarian perspective. They seem to indicate a very clear separation between son of man (one like a human being ie Jesus) and the Ancient of Days (ie the Father YHWH). Jesus identifies himself to Caiaphas as the same person being introduced to Daniel’s vision of the heavenly court presided over by YHWH.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking, so I’ll respond as best I can.
Before considering Matt 26:64, I must ask: Are you sure the Ancient of Days is “the Father YHWH”? Compare the description of Dan 7:9 to Rev 1:14 (hair white like wool). Or is Dan 7:9 an anthropomorphic description of YHWH (and yet distinct from the one “like a son of man” in Rev 1:14)?
But, on the other hand, Dan 7:13 illustrates “one like a son of man” (Jesus, the Son) approaching the Ancient of Days, implying a distinction between the two. But, then again, in Dan 7:22 who is this Ancient of Days who “came, and judgment was pronounced”?
LikeLike
Is the Ancient of Day YHWH? Highly likely but not absolutely cut and dried. The description is very similar to Ezekiel 1 which would be a good candidate for an encounter with YHWH. Whether hair as white as wool is an anthropomorphic clincher for the same person is probably moot. I’ve not researched it, but I would think it would have been a well-known Judaic descriptor for one who was very elderly, senior in command and wise in nature, much like the way our legal system uses white wool wigs for lawyers and judges. Just a supposition.
Either way, the interesting thing for me is that these two verses and the others in Dan 7 and Rev 1 all indicate a separateness yet sameness. Two beings who are all but interchangeable (all but, yet not quite, at least not as far as OT Jewish concepts expressed); YHWH and Jesus, so similar, yet discrete. Trinitarianism is a not unreasonable outworking as 2nd and 3rd C Christianity developed its doctrines from this kind of established thinking. However, I would suggest that Athanathius and others who solidified the trinity doctrine departed from what was, and had been for centuries, a scripturally grounded and accepted understanding of the Most High God and man’s pre-incarnate Messiah.
LikeLike
Jim,
I do think the Ancient of Days is YHWH, though I would demur from your more specific “the Father YHWH” designation. By that I mean I wouldn’t limit “YHWH” to only the Father.
I don’t see the “separateness yet sameness” as really any different than Jesus as Son during His earthly ministry as compared with His Father.
LikeLike
I agree with you Craig. Jesus was equally qualified to be referred to as YHWH, yet his incursions into OT life were still discerned by Jews as not those of the Most High God/Father. And so we circle back to making sure monotheism remains intact in view of two intertwined deity figures. I think the OT view of two powers or highest ‘level’ deities, the higher of which is the focus of the Shema (maintaining monotheism) is simply easier to understand and also more scripturally honest than the average explanation of the trinity, even going back to the 4th C creeds.
It’s almost as though the orthodox trinity was a doctrine that tried to keep the essence of what had been handed down by the Jewish belief system as it transitioned into Christianity, but also create some clear blue water as it vigorously decoupled from Judaism. At the same time Platonic-based gnosticism was on the rise with a concept of a god and his creative demiurge introducing evil into the world. Again, an unacceptable heresy. Therefore, what became established in response was the trinity doctrine we know, but is it really the right answer? I have to conclude that all the evidence says no.
LikeLike
I’m not convinced this “two powers” idea was part of Jewish thought before Christ. I’d need some sort of proof to agree with your assertion. I’m inclined to think it was a post-Resurrection reaction as a means by which to accommodate the ‘revised’ Shema of 1 Corinthians 8:6. The (first) Book of Enoch is not proof, as it is clear that the book had numerous additions/revisions and likely more than one author. The Similitudes portion—the one which speaks of the “son of man”—is considered a post-Christian addition.
While I do believe that Gnosticism—all types of “Christian” or “Jewish” Gnosticism—was a reaction to Christianity, I don’t think it was necessary to establish some sort of competitive doctrine, i.e. the Trinity, as a means by which to counter it. Gnostics posited a false dichotomy between the Jehovah of the OT and the Father of the NT, Jehovah being the demiurge, while the Father is the true God. Yet the NT illustrates that the Son is the vehicle by which God (the Father) created all things. This by itself is antithetical to all forms of Gnosticism.
LikeLike
My understanding, albeit pretty limited, is that ancient rabbinic teaching and therefore common Jewish understanding was of two deities and one Most High God. This then came into direct competition with early NT church preaching about Jesus and YHWH and, consequently, branded a heresy by 1st C Jewish scholars. Essentially, they probably tried to keep Judaism from being subsumed into Christianity despite having had centuries of knowledge regarding two deities, but without the revelation (bar a few such as Abraham, David and other prophets) that the second deity had been incarnated only decades earlier.
As to gnosticism, it’s difficult to tie that philosophical stream to any set construct of ideas. The highest order supreme being sits aloof as the lower deity creates his world with in-built error. I’ve not read Jehovah getting a name check in gnosticism however.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’ve not ever heard of this “two powers” idea being as early as your claim, so I remain doubtful. It seems that the Shema taken with the first and second commandments would rule out such an idea.
I agree that gnosticism cannot be distilled into one single set of ideas. Perhaps it’s best to divide up the strands into periods: Platonism (c. 310–90 BC), Middle Platonism (c. 90 BC – AD 300) and Neoplatonism (AD 300+). It’s the (roughly) Middle and later periods which take NT and OT texts, incorporating them into their theologies.
LikeLike
For a brief synopsis on the thought of Jehovah as the ‘evil creator’, see here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04707b.htm
LikeLike
To quote ‘twopowersinheavendotcom’:
Twenty-five years ago, rabbinical scholar Alan Segal produced what is still the major work on the idea of two powers in heaven in Jewish thought. Segal argued that the two powers idea was not deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century C.E. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.E.). Segal was able to establish that the idea’s antecedents were in the Hebrew Bible, specifically passages like Dan 7:9ff., Exo 23:20-23, and Exo 15:3. However, he was unable to discern any coherent religious framework from which these passages and others were conceptually derived. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of the two powers in heaven were evil. Segal speculated that the divine warrior imagery of the broader ancient near east likely had some relationship.
In my dissertation (UW-Madison, 2004) I argued that Segal’s instincts were correct. My own work bridges the gap between his book and the Hebrew Bible understood in its Canaanite religious context. I suggest that the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion, albeit with some modification. For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent—occupying both “slots” as it were at the head of the divine council. The binitarian portrayal of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible was motivated by this belief. The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form. The two Yahwehs at times appear together in the text, at times being distinguished, at other times not.
Early Judaism understood this portrayal and its rationale. There was no sense of a violation of monotheism since either figure was indeed Yahweh. There was no second distinct god running the affairs of the cosmos. During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea. This explains why these Jews, the first converts to following Jesus the Christ, could simultaneously worship the God of Israel and Jesus, and yet refuse to acknowledge any other god. Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh. In response, as Segal’s work demonstrated, Judaism pronounced the two powers teaching a heresy sometime in the second century A.D.
Dr Michael Heiser
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this. I think if you read Heiser carefully here he is agreeing with Segal, which I’ll provide via a blog post by Larry Hurtado on Segal’s work, along with his responses to comments on the thread: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/two-powers-in-heaven-is-back/. The comments section references Heiser, and Hurtado responds.
LikeLike
I’ll take a look – thanks Craig. Not sure if I’ve suggested this paper before but you might be interested in ‘Two Powers and Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism’ (McGrath and Truex, Butler University, 2004). Easily downloadable in pdf. They quote a good deal of Segal’s work, but also reference Hurtado quite frequently too.
LikeLike
Seems Hurtado is fairly sympathetic even complimentary towards Heiser. To me, what they both understand is that there is whole divine and cosmological comprehension active in ancient Jewish and Middle East societies, 1st C early church apostles and fathers, and 4th C creedal advocates that (strangely enough) aren’t anything like the same as ours today. That fact alone should make us tread so carefully with respect to our doctrines.
LikeLike
Jim,
My point in hyperlinking to Hurtado’s blog post is to illustrate the following:
In using the term “Jewish Christians” Hurtado implies that this {#(1)} occurred post-Easter, which means that this two powers idea was a reaction to Christianity rather than a doctrine which preceded it.
There’s no doubt the 4th century creeds are a doctrinal development; however, they are based on Scripture. Prior to this time, not much ink had been given to the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind that all Councils were convened in response to heretical notions (or, if you like, doctrinal disputes).
LikeLike
Let me also add the following, from Hurtado’s comment to Dante Aligheri:
Once again, this implies that the “two powers” idea was Christian, i.e. post-Easter, development, which was distinct from and absent in all 2nd Temple Jewish practice.
LikeLike
Conversely though, there seems to be plenty of scholarly and scriptural evidence that ‘two powers in heaven, but a single focus of worship’ was the standard operating practice BC. It was only when Jesus opened the eyes of the disciples (the road to Emmaus being a classic example) to who he was with respect to OT scripture that it began to dawn on them that the ‘second power’ was Jesus, and therefore totally worthy of worship, as had YHWH been down the centuries.
LikeLike
Jim,
Here, show this to your son: William Parker’s IN ORDER TO SURVIVE // “Criminals In The White House” (Note that this was recorded in the Obama era). This is “inside/outside” jazz (it goes very “outside”/free at times). I came across this yesterday, and I’ve already listened to it three times.
Ten years ago I saw a show with the bassist, drummer, alto sax player and trumpeter. The best show I’d ever seen. I could watch the drummer, Hamid Drake, all night, as he plays complicated rhythms and polyrhythms seemingly effortlessly. This is the first I’d heard of this pianist. Great stuff!
LikeLike
I will – thanks Craig. I watched the first 3 mins and it’s pretty crazy. He’ll love it!
LikeLike
No, it gets ‘crazy’ after that!
This is probably more palatable–a duo of drums and vibraphone (I always loved the sound of the vibes): Pasquale Mirra meets Hamid Drake. The first 1:48 is the intro. After that the ‘groove’ begins.
LikeLike
Hey all. It has been a while since I have visited this blog. I like to check in every once in awhile to see what is going on here.
I read only the first 10-20 comments on this article, so I only read part if the discussion here, so I may not have a complete understanding of the discussion, but it seems that there is a discussion going on over whether or not Jesus is YHWH.
No one seems to be questioning that the Father is YHWH (I actually did get into a discussion with someone who did not believe that the Father was YHWH). I think that most people who study the Bible believe that the Father is YHWH.
However, there are quite a few people who are not sure whether Jesus is, or who outright deny that Jesus is YHWH. The same could be said for the Holy Spirit. There are people who deny that the Holy Spirit is YHWH.
To me, the whole thing boils down to this:
1.) Is YHWH the one and only true God?
2.) YHWH declares over and over again in the OT that He alone is God.
3.) The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all identified as God.
4.) Thus, all of God = YHWH
The Father = YHWH
Jesus = YHWH
The Holy Spirit = YHWH
The whole Triune God can be called YHWH, and you would be correct.
The Father can be called YHWH, and you would be correct.
Jesus can be called YHWH, and you would be correct.
The Holy Spirit can be called YHWH, and you would be correct.
This is the only logical conclusion that makes sense to my brain. Otherwise you would either have more than one true god (YHWH and something else), or you have no distinction in Persons, and Jesus would be the Father, and Jesus would be the Holy Spirit, which makes no sense in Scripture.
LikeLike
Arwen4CJ
You get no arguments from me!
A good many of the consistent commenters of yore are either silent or no longer reading. Glad you still ‘peek’ in.
LikeLike
I read how you said you were talking to Jews about the Trinity. I talked to a Jewish person online several years ago who was from Israel, and he had no knowledge of Christianity or Christian theology. I mentioned the Holy Spirit in a conversation, and he immediately knew that the Holy Spirit was God from Genesis.
We got into some really good discussions. I told him about Jesus, and he was very interested. He was even more interested when I told him that we used his whole Bible as Scripture too, and that I too knew of Genesis, and knew what he was talking about with the Holy Spirit being identified as God in Genesis.
LikeLike
From what I understand, most Jews identify the “Holy Spirit” as God’s Spirit, i.e., not as a separate “Person” (in the Trinitarian sense), but as an aspect of God.
LikeLike
Hmmm…. The guy I mentioned seemed to believe the Holy Spirit was actually God, but probably did not have a defined idea about how this was. He believed the Holy Spirit was God Himself, but probably had not thought about Him being a separate “Person” from the “Father.” It was like an undefined way of thinking of the Holy Spirit as God…
Either way, at least it is a start to thinking about God as more than one Person. This guy was open to the idea that the Messiah was God as well, and that Jesus was the Messiah. He was really impressed by the things Jesus did and said, when I gave him a link to an online copy of the Bible.
LikeLike
Hey Jim….if you are still around, what do you think of the NASB translation of Zechariah 12:10?
“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”
LikeLike
I’m reading through some of the other comments now, and, Jim, you brought up Jude 1:5 as part of your argument for why Jesus isn’t YHWH. However, my study Bible has a note on “the Lord” in that verse which states that two early manuscripts have “Jesus” there instead of “Lord.”
I think it is important here to note that it is two early manuscripts rather than two later manuscripts. What if those two early manuscripts were the correct ones…they would have been closer to the actual original than later manuscripts. Perhaps people copying manuscripts later thought that it would be too difficult for people to believe that it was Jesus in that passage, or they wanted to make it consistent, or they simply wanted to refer to Jesus as “the Lord” instead of using Jesus’ name.
If the oldest copies actually say “Jesus” there, then it strongly suggests that Jesus is YHWH.
LikeLike
Arwen4CJ,
I wrote an article on Jude 5. I thought I’d included a link to it in the ensuing discussion. In any case, the newest Greek critical text (NA28/UBS5) places Ιησους (Jesus) in the text, and many modern versions have changed the translation to “Jesus”.
LikeLike
Thanks, Craig. Interesting. I hadn’t heard that. I guess I have “older” modern translations now. I had heard, though, that the original NASB translation used “Jesus” there, but mine is the 1995 translation, which uses “Lord” there.
Maybe in their next update they will include/already have included “Jesus” again and put “Lord in the footnotes.
LikeLike
Sadly, I have to add that what Jim is exposing actually seems to be the majority viewpoint in many mainline denominations today (that view or a total deny of Jesus’ deity). From my interactions with non-Trinitarians, many of them seem to think that Jim’s view is what Trinitarian belief is.
I think if a poll were to be conducted in many mainline churches, the result would be a large portion of the people would be in agreement with Jim.
Many people seem to misunderstand what the Trinity is, and they end up with some sort of Big and little gods viewpoint. I saw this in my introduction to theology class and also in my church history class. Even my pastor made a comment that he was confused whether or not YHWH was the whole Trinity or just the Father.
The result is some strangeness in mainline denominations where the official position of the denomination/church is orthodox, yet most people don’t understand what the orthodox viewpoint is. People believe that God the Father is YHWH, and that Jesus is somehow a separate god, but can still be worshipped.
I’m not sure why this belief is so rampant. I’ve mentioned this before, but I have heard several people make a comment that Jesus wasn’t God until after His resurrection. I’m not sure how people can be okay with that, worshipping something other than YHWH, in their belief systems. I guess it doesn’t bother people to worship more than one god, or to have more than one god in their theology.
There is a tendency, too, in some non-denominational and charismatic settings to swing the other way — and have a Jesus Only belief system. A belief system where they believe that Jesus is all of YHWH, thus denying the Father and the Holy Spirit as separate Persons within YHWH.
Then there are people like Johnson who have a more gnostic/mystical/New Age view.
LikeLike
The ‘Jesus-only’ belief is the heresy of Sabellianism, aka modalism–that God is only either Father, Son or Spirit at one time. The NT is the period of the Son, whereas now is the time of the Spirit–according to some adherents.
LikeLike
Craig,
There seems to be some variation in the whole Jesus Only beliefs — at least of the people I have talked with online who adhere to it. Yes, it is the heresy of Sabellianism/modalism.
Of those that I have talked with who believed in it, they put a strong emphasis on their belief that Jesus IS the Father, and that Jesus IS the Holy Spirit, which directly contradicts trinitarian belief, especially the Athanasian Creed.
While some of them might say now is the time of the Spirit, I have never hard any of them say this. Rather, I have heard them say that the Holy Spirit is named Jesus, as is the Father. (In other words, the Holy Spirit and the Father are simply names for different roles that Jesus has taken on throughout time).
I have heard them say that when Jesus prays to the Father, the human part of Jesus is praying to His divine self, which makes no sense to me. They claim that the Father is the name of Jesus’ divine self.
This is probably a different variant of the ancient variety of modalism, but it is modalism nonetheless.
LikeLike
Arwen, I would view Zech 12:10 in the same way that Ps 110;1 is understood by Christians reading the Jewish texts for examples of a plurality in the Godhead, or YHWH. I just don’t buy the trinity method of squaring the circle where scripture points to two deity figures but also monotheism.
My experience is that generally people hold to your articulation of the trinity rather than my more binitarian version. In fact, the view taking hold more strongly is a mystical understanding espoused by WP Young, Rob Bell, Richard Rohr and others of a ‘divine dance’ or flow concept. That a constant flow of emptying and filling is occurring between the members of the trinity. It’s firmly wedded to New Ageism, but that’s probably a key part of the attraction.
LikeLike
Jim,
You are describing the so-called Social Trinity model, and I’ve seen this espoused in scholarly circles as well. And, while I don’t think all adherents to this model come at it from the New Age angle, I think most do. I’ve even seen a feminist, anti-capitalist model of the Social Trinity. That one takes some mental gymnastics!
I was going to write an article on the Social Trinity, but, like many others, it’s been sidetracked…
LikeLike
Jim,
Thanks for responding. The reason I specifically asked about Zechariah 12:10 is because it is Yahweh speaking, and yet He uses two pronouns to refer to Himself — “Me” and “He.” Also the “Me” there seems to be referring to Jesus, since Jesus, not the Father, was pierced.
Okay, so if you acknowledge that there can be purity in the Godhead, or YHWH, what makes it difficult for you to buy the Trinitarian understanding of God? In your understanding, why can’t Jesus be YHWH along with the Father? Why must Jesus be some separate deity?
I cannot see how Scripture can point to two deity figures without both figures being YHWH. Otherwise it can’t be monotheism because you would end up with two gods — YHWH and something that isn’t YHWH.
For my counseling degree, I didn’t get too much into different theories of the Trinity. I heard of the Social Trinity, but I didn’t really have to engage with the idea too much. I am not really comfortable with humans trying to define just exactly how the Trinity works, as I feel like there is too much room for error. People can get way off when they make theories that go beyond what we find in Scripture. What can be defined from Scripture using logic is fine — we have do some of that — but when we start making up theories about how the Persons of the Trinity interact with one another, when that isn’t clearly defined in Scripture, can really lead people astray.
Mysticism itself is very dangerous. It leaves people open to heavy deception. I don’t know too much about any of the people you mentioned, although I have heard of Rob Bell. I know he wrote a couple popular books, but I did not read them. I know he is popular in some Christian circles.
Do you know if those individuals are popular in hyper-charismatic circles, such as at Bill Johnson’s church?
LikeLike
After googling Richard Rohr, I found this quote by him:
“Question of the Day:
What is the difference between Jesus and the Christ?
To understand Jesus in a whole new way, we must first know that Christ is not his last name, but his transformed identity after the Resurrection — which takes humanity and all of creation along in its sweet path. Jesus became the Christ, which existed from the moment of the Big Bang and included us in this divine identity. This is pretty amazing stuff, unappreciated by most Christians, it seems.
That’s why Paul will create the new term “the body of Christ,” which clearly includes all of us. So think of the good Jesus, who has to die to what seems like him–so that he can rise as the Christ. It is not a “bad” man who must die on the cross, but a good man (“false self”) — so that he can be a much larger man (“True Self”). Jesus dies, Christ rises. The false self is not the bad self; it is just not the true self. It is inadequate, and thus needy and small, symbolized by Jesus’ human body, which he let go of.”
My reaction:
This is definitely New Age and reminds me of some things that Johnson’s theology suggests.
LikeLike
yep.
LikeLike
I hope the side-tracks are still productive though, Craig.
As to your last line Arwen, I’m not aware they have much participation in ‘charismania’, but I get a sense that such expressions will coalesce and gravitate since both the mystical and charismatic focus clearly on the experiential as the cornerstone of their ‘gospel’.
The reason I am not convinced about trinitarianism is similar to why I’m not convinced about biblical evidence for a pre-tribulation rapture or manifest sons of God doctrines – these come from very late interpretations of certain scriptures along thematic lines, such as eschatology. The trinity was, in my opinion, an early example of Platonic decoupling from long-held Jewish expression of YHWH in which a single Most High God was accompanied, and ‘operated’ through a co-substantial vice-regent, the latter who we know as Jesus of Nazareth. They were quite happy worshipping God in this form, still calling it monotheism, but it seems to omit the mental gymnastics and conflicting statements required by orthodox trinitarianism.
LikeLike
Jim,
While I don’t have ADD, it seems recently I’ve been acting like it. I can’t seem to finish writing projects. I’ve not even finished the most recent article. Part of the issue is trying to figure out a way to define the Greek perfect verb tense in a way that isn’t too confusing.
Then there are other things going on. I’ve also spent a good deal of time researching the current socio-political climate. It’s a mess. And, I’m convinced it’s all because of New Age-y thinking and New World Order agendas. Common sense, logic, and common decency all seem to be in short supply. But, that’s a whole ‘nuther topic not for this thread…
LikeLike
Jim,
I know that theologically liberal “Christianity” has gone in the mystical direction. John Shelby Spong and other scholars like him have embraced New Thought theology. Spong spoke at a Unity Church event in which he said that he hoped that New Thought would be the future of Christianity, and he praised Mary Baker Eddy for her “Keys to the Scriptures.”
And, yeah, the hyper-charismatics are very much into the experiential. They base their truth on whether or not something feels good, whether or not they feel God’s presence, etc.
As for pre-tribulation — I don’t necessarily buy into it because I don’t see enough evidence for it in Scripture. I see how some Scripture passages could be interpreted to include it. At the same time, I don’t see anything in Scripture that would go against it. It’s simply not something that I really think much about. What I concentrate on is what is in Scripture — and that is that Jesus will return someday, there will be a resurrection, and there will be a final judgment. Any more than what Scripture teaches is to risk emphasizing a non-essential. Whether a person believes in the pre-tribulation is not a salvation issue, and it says nothing about a person’s orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians believe in it, and orthodox Christians do not believe in it.
However, like you, I do reject Manifest Sons of God doctrine. However, I do this for a different reason. I reject it because it clearly goes against Scripture.
While tradition can help in determining whether or not something is sound, it is not the main basis for which I think we should evaluate teachings. Rather, the measure that should be used is Scripture itself. We have to go to where the evidence leads in Scripture itself. Forget whether or not something is human tradition for a moment. We can’t let that bias our opinion.
Scripture itself points to a Trinitarian view of God. Sure, there is no word called “trinity” found anywhere in the Bible. However, the concept, I believe, is Scriptural. Any other interpretation leads to going against several Bible passages.
Isaiah 44:6-8 NASB
6 “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
‘I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
7 ‘Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’”
Here, YHWH says that He is the King of Israel and his Redeemer. He also refers to Himself as the first and the last. Then He says that there is no God besides Him. That would rule out there being a YHWH and something like YHWH but that wasn’t YHWH. He further says that there is no God besides Him again, and that there is no other Rock.
Isaiah 44:24 (NASB)
24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
“I, the LORD, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone,
Here YHWH says that He is the maker of all things, and that He stretched out the heavens by Himself, and spreading out the earth all alone. To me, this suggests that nothing that was not YHWH created things. He created things all by Himself. Since we know from John and other books that Jesus created all things, then this must mean that Jesus is YHWH too.
Isaiah 45:5-7 (NASB)
“I am the LORD, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun
That there is no one besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other,
7 The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.
Once again YHWH says that there is no other. Besides Him there is no God.
YHWH repeats this elsewhere in Isiah 45. Then we get to this part of Isaiah 45….
Isaiah 45:21-25 (NASB)
21 “Declare and set forth your case;
Indeed, let them consult together.
Who has announced this from of old?
Who has long since declared it?
Is it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A righteous God and a Savior;
There is none except Me.
22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth;
For I am God, and there is no other.
23 “I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.
24 “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.’
Men will come to Him,
And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame.
25 “In the LORD all the offspring of Israel
Will be justified and will glory.”
YHWH once again declares that there is no god except Him. Furthermore, to Him He says that every knee will bow, and every tongue will swear allegiance. Plus…in YHWH all the offspring of Israel will be justified and will glory….
To me, this strongly points to Jesus….not only that, but this is very similar to a passage in Philippians….
I don’t see how a vice regent is Scriptural, regardless of whether or not some ancient Jews subscribed to that belief. YHWH says that He alone is God. There can be no big god and little god here. Scripture just doesn’t allow for that unless passages like the ones I quoted above are interpreted in such a way as to avoid a Trinitarian conclusion.
LikeLike
Arwen, Craig and I discussed Isaiah and references to being the First and Last and also Jesus declaring the same about himself in Rev 1. I think we would both agree that Jesus is the total expression of God towards man and within the universe (Col 1:15-19). In other words, he was the point of connection between God and man – for atonement, reconciliation, our first fruit blessed hope of resurrection, and many more. In much the same way, God connected with man in OT times through the pre-incarnate and Son formed from God in eternity past (John 17:5), who is referred to variously as YHWH, Adonai, elohim, angel of the Lord, captain of the Lord’s armies. By vice-regent I mean there is this clear scriptural sense that the Son of God/Son of Man was YHWH’s instrument to engage with humanity.
They co-rule the universe and preside over a divine council comprising different orders of spirit beings. Job 1 is a good picture of the council, but there are numerous others. Jesus the eternal Son could be seen as equal to YHWH, and therefore lay claim to all his names and titles, but chooses to be subordinate in so many instances, not least when describing himself while on earth. Paul sums all this up perfectly in so many introductions to his letters. Eg 1 Cor 1:3 – ‘Grace and peace to you from God our Father (monotheism intact) and the Lord Jesus Christ’ (co-deity and means by which we connect with the Father as in 1 Cor 1:9). He doesn’t hint at trinitarianism.
So I do find it bemusing when people appeal to scripture for trinitarian proofs when scripture actually articulates a very obvious and transparent non-trinitarian perspective if read at face value. Trinitarianism is only arrived at if we take a plurality of divinity (Father and Jesus) but try to frame that in singular God terms like the Father is God, Jesus is God and the HS is God, but the Father isn’t Jesus or the HS, Jesus isn’t the Father or HS, and the HS isn’t the Father or Jesus. It descends into modalism or simply called a ‘mystery’ which we’re not supposed to understand.
I actually believe God made himself very understandable and straightforward to grasp. If you want to do some extra research look up Michael Heiser’s stuff on the Divine Council, and Alan Segal’s work on Two Powers in Heaven and park your current understanding briefly. The reason I like these constructs is that they have a strong foundation in Hebrew thought and writings, and don’t pander to Greek philosophical leanings which so influenced the doctrinal councils in the 2-4th centuries. Bottom line, Arwen, is that where we are today with Bethel and whacked out New Age ‘christian’ mysticism is due in large part to the gnostic neo-Platonic roots of the eternal soul theories, knowledge as a means to ‘ascend’ and trinitarianism leading to ‘divine dances’. Those roots, in my opinion, go back to Nicea.
BTW, Rohr is really out there isn’t he? But I watched Rob Bell interview him and they were best buddies!
LikeLike
Jim,
I’d already shown below, via a link to Hurtado’s blog, that Segal’s ‘Two Powers’ in Jewish writings was a post-Easter thing. That is, it was an obvious reaction to Christianity. And, as Arwen notes, Trinitarianism mustn’t lead to a ‘divine dance’. Social Trinitarianism is, though not solely, mostly a New Age–which is Neo-Gnostic–imposition on the Trinity.
LikeLike
Jim,
Now, of course concluding that there is only one God (YHWH) is only the first part of coming to the conclusion that Scripture points to YHWH being triune. However, this conclusion (that there is only one God) is essential, otherwise people could draw a tritheism viewpoint, which would violate all the above Scriptures, and many more.
Not only do we see that YHWH is the one and only God, but we also see that there is a plurality within YHWH, which you already know, and you already agree is in Scripture. Some of the passages quoted earlier show this. In the OT, this is as far as you can really go….because that is as far as YHWH had revealed Himself to people.
Some Jews may have been able to see that there were more than one Persons who were God, and that the Messiah would actually be YHWH. Some Jews may have seen that the Holy Spirit was YHWH. Some of them may or may not have understood these as different Persons within YHWH. If so, then the Holy Spirit would have revealed it to these individuals because it isn’t clearly defined in the OT.
For that reason, I find it hard to understand why you want to base all your views about YHWH off of an OT understanding of theology that may or may not have actually existed. There could have been a theology based off of the OT that some Jews held to that somehow ignored the passages from Isaiah and other places in the Bible, and thought that there was YHWH and another god that was close to Him. However, that is a flimsy thing to base doctrine upon.
When Jesus came into the world as a human (and yet still fully YHWH), He was able to reveal more of God to us. From the NT, the plurality within YHWH can be further defined. Jesus was on earth, and He prayed to the Father and spoke about the Father. The Father is YHWH, but Jesus is as well. The Holy Spirit made equal with the Father and Jesus because of how Jesus talks about Him. If the Father and Jesus are both YHWH, then so must the Holy Spirit be.
Read through John 14:16-16:15. Look how Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit. From these passages, the Holy Spirit is obviously not the Father, and He isn’t Jesus. However, He is a Person. He does things that only a “Someone” can do.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are discussed throughout the NT and treated as YHWH, yet the Persons are not each other.
I really see the Trinity as the only doctrine that can be formed with all this information. That’s just where the evidence leads, and so I accept it as truth.
LikeLike
Jim,
Thanks for your reply. However, I think you missed the point of why I quoted from Isaiah. I wasn’t going the First and Last route. Yes, there is a correlation between that and Revelation chapter 1 and other places in Revelation were there is the “First and Last” and “Beginning and End” and “Alpha and Omega.” However, that wasn’t where I was trying to go by including that line in the passage above.
I included those passages because they seemed to go against the YHWH and something close to being YHWH argument. YHWH says He ALONE is God, and that there is no god except for Him.
If passages that refer to the Father as God make the Father YHWH, then what about passages that call the Son God, such as 2 Peter 1:1 (NASB)?
1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
and
Titus 2:11-14 (NASB)
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
and
Romans 9:1-5 (NASB)
9 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
I agree that the pre-incarnate Christ was YHWH’s instrument by which to communicate with people in the OT times…but not merely as an instrument, but as YHWH Himself. That is the point that we seem to differ on. I believe that Jesus is YHWH, and you believe Him to be something close to YHWH, even equal to YHWH, but not YHWH Himself.
I can see the Persons of YHWH ruling over angels and whatnot as some sort of Council, but yet, there is still a distinction between YHWH and all created things. I cannot, however, see a divine Council as consisting of YHWH (as being only the Father) and something close to YHWH, but not YHWH ruling over it.
I think you are understanding modalism differently. What you described is not modalism. Modalism requires that there only be one in the Godhead, and that this one in the Godhead takes on different roles. As an example, the modalists I have talked with claim that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are just different names for roles that Jesus has taken on. They do not believe in the Person of the Father or the Person of the Son, or the Person of the Holy Spirit.
So…modalists might say that when the Son was praying to the Father, that was the human Jesus (the Son) praying to HIs divine self (the Father). They might say that the Holy Spirit is the name for Jesus’ power at work today. Some modalists would say that it was the Father who died on the cross. There are probably different varieties of modalism, but they all would deny that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate Persons.
In trinitarian belief, while the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all YHWH, (the same God), there is a plurality within Him. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate Persons. As such, all three are in existence at the same time, all three can interact with each other. They are not three different gods, but they are not each other.
Do you see the difference?
I understand that you want to avoid Greek thought. Unfortunately, I don’t think we can completely avoid it. It is part of our culture. It was part of the culture of the NT. I agree that we should avoid concepts if they are not founded on/supported from Scripture. At the same time, we shouldn’t reject something just because it has some Greek influence, as long as the doctrine is founded in Scripture.
I read an article written by a pastor who was raised Jewish. He talked about how unfortunate it was that Greek thought is so prevalent within Christianity. He thinks things would be a lot simpler if we used more Jewish thought. He talked about how Jews accepted truth in blocks rather than how the Greeks had linear thinking. By the way, he is a trinitarian.
It is unfair to blame the social dance on the doctrine of the Trinity. Belief in the Trinity in no way requires that conclusion. It’s like anything else — any belief can be corrupted. Not everything that originates or has any connection to Greek thought is bad or wrong, necessarily.
I’ll look into Michael Heiser and Alan Segal.
I am no fan of Rob Bell. It’s unfortunate that some of these individuals have gotten together to collaborate on false doctrines. Yeah, Rohr seems pretty far out there.
LikeLike
Jim,
I just did a little googling of both Hurtado and Segal. From what I could find of them, I cannot agree with the Divine Council idea at all. I cannot agree with there being more than one God in the universe, though I do believe that there are angels and demons. I cannot deny that Jesus is YHWH, as is the Father.
As for Segal, when I looked him up, it is clear that he was Jewish, and I cannot find that he ever came to faith in Jesus. Maybe he did and I didn’t see it, but I couldn’t find it. The fact that he comes at Christianity and Christian beliefs from a non-Christian perspective says to me that we shouldn’t take his findings or thoughts over Scripture itself. I’m not saying that we cannot learn from non-Christians, or that nothing he said was of value. I believe it is important and valuable to consider what non-Christians think of Jesus and Christianity, but we should not base our Christian theology upon it. Our theology should come from Scripture.
As such, I will say that the Two Powers theory is interesting, but I cannot buy into it as truth. I cannot buy into any doctrine that denies that Jesus is YHWH in the same way that the Father is YHWH. Otherwise you end up with more than one god.
LikeLike
Arwen, thanks for taking the time to dig into some of my references and writing thoughtful posts about your trinitarian position
Dan 7:9-14 is an interesting passage, and one that Craig has done a good deal of study into. You can read his conclusions, but my take is that it portrays both a divine council session and a clear separation between YHWH and the Lord or Son of Man (Jesus). That said, please don’t understand me as thinking pre-incarnate Jesus as a created being. He came from the Father, from the being of the Most High God, in pre-creation past. But there are verses that indicate there was a ‘time’ when he was not, rather than the eternal sonship doctrine.
If he is of the same divine nature as YHWH, you would likely say he is YHWH. I would say, he could claim to be but doesn’t, but that man would say he is the total representation of YHWH, and so can be taken as such. I’m not sure if you can see the difference. Two persons, one in nature and authority over creation. One the Most High, one the Lord Jesus Christ. Call it binitarianism if you this gusts too closely into two gods.
I see the Holy Spirit as a description, almost a verb not a proper noun, of YHWH’s and Jesus’s interaction with the world. Jesus said that he and the Father would come to dwell in believers.
LikeLike
The personification of the Holy Spirit is, in my view, an unnecessarily linear extension of the way the Greek is translated, our one-dimensional understanding of pneuma, and essentially just a way of describing God’s manifestation in and through believers. A person is not held in view by the NT writers overall.
LikeLike
Jim,
And thank you for sharing your views with me here as well.
I can see why you interpret Daniel 7:9-14 the way that you do. Taken the passage by itself, it seems as though the Ancient of Days (YHWH) is separate from the Son of Man. However, it seems to me that the Son of Man here is understood to be YHWH as well, since when Jesus used a reference to that passage at His trial, the high priest condemned Jesus for blasphemy.
The passage doesn’t say anything against the Trinity — it does not deny the Messiah’s deity. Depending on what translation you use, you could say that it actually supports it. (The NIV says let all the nations worship Him instead of serve Him, which would imply that the Messiah would have to be YHWH as well).
What the passage doesn’t say, though, is that there are other gods besides YHWH. It talks about YHWH holding court, but that doesn’t mean it is a court with other/lesser gods. It could simply be a court in heaven where angels are present. There is no reason to say that they are gods.
Doctrine should never be reached based on examining just one passage. We have to look at Scripture as a whole to see where the evidence leads. Elsewhere in the Bible Jesus is called God. Since YHWH is the one and only God, Jesus has to be YHWH.
Therefore, what we have going on in Daniel 7:9-14 is a case of the plurality within YHWH. The Father is clearly identified here as YHWH, but this does not mean that the pre-incarnate Jesus cannot be YHWH as well.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that Jesus is a lesser god who is ruled over by the Father (who you believe to be the only Person who is YHWH). Jesus is a lesser god, who is close to YHWH’s level, but who isn’t YHWH Himself. You will even concede that Jesus is a god who is on the same level as YHWH and who rules with YHWH, and that together Jesus and YHWH rule over a council of lesser gods. Do I understand your position correctly?
The difference for me is whether or not Jesus is YHWH. There is a big difference between being YHWH and being close to being YHWH, but not YHWH. If there is a Most High and a non-Most High, this amounts to there being more than one god. This goes back to whether or not YHWH is the one and only God. What you conclude about this influences how you view the Son.
We are both in agreement that there are at least two Persons here — the Father and the Son, and that there is a difference between the Father and the Son (in other words, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father). We’re also both in agreement that the Father is YHWH.
Where we differ, though is over how many gods are in the universe, and who exactly Jesus is. We differ in whether or not Jesus IS YHWH (and in whether or not the Holy Spirit is a Person and is YHWH).
My next question would be – how does a verb lead people into truth? How does a verb comfort people? How doers a verb convict people of sin and lead them into righteousness?
LikeLike
Any reference to other gods comes from Elohim which of course is used at times for the Most High God as well as lesser spirit entities.
As far as the Holy Spirit goes, a doing function seems more suitable than an anthropomorphic one. When Jesus says i will send another counsellor I don’t think he means another person but rather himself in non physical form.
Holy Spirit = Spirit of God = Spirit of Christ = the action of God in and through a believer.
LikeLike
Arwen, I was reading Is 42 during a lull in church proceedings today (as you do!) and verse 8 is interesting when contrasted with John 17:5 when Jesus is praying to the Father asking for the glory he had with him since before the creation. If, according to Is 42:8, YHWH yields none of his glory to another, those verses would play into a ‘Jesus is YHWH’ case nicely.
That said, if we take all the scripture that describe YHWH and another who is of YHWH-level divinity, but not him, does that necessarily mean two Gods? Difficult though it is to fully paint the entire canvass of God, a kind of ‘conjoined’ Father Son YHWH fits best to my thinking. Identifiably different, but still the essential sameness. That might seem like semantics to you and be another way of looking at what you believe to be the trinity to be (but as a binity). The unifying nature is clear from the interchangeable terms, but the many references to two persons, such as Dan 7, and the role Jesus played in creation and his continued sustainment of it all point to being a divine being.
Is that markedly different to where you’re coming from, the personhood of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding? There is a strong case to the breath, spirit, ruach, pneuma of God entering Adam to create physical life, to the breath, future resurrection life and transforming presence of God that enters a brand new believer who becomes a new creation. Neither require a third ‘person’ of God.
LikeLike
Im assuming your perspective of 3 persons but one YHWH (the name of the Godhead?) is that they are individual entities but all one identical God nature or substance. Would that be close? Seems to be orthodox trinitarianism. I would agree that YHWH the Most High God (you’d think there would be a hierarchy of gods to be the highest) is so close in nature to the Son that was formed from him that, to all intents, they are indistinguishable. When the prophets wrote about them, they used names and titles that could be for both. To them they were equal in magnificence and worthy of honour and praise, however, they still didn’t get confused about the binitarian implications and maintained their monotheistic stance by focussing on YHWH the Father.
I think this is where we part company because I would also see Jesus as deferring his right to equality and stepping aside to let YHWH the Father be the God to satisfy monotheism. I would suggest that what Jesus did in becoming a man described in Phil 2 was a copy of his spiritual subordinate role as the Son, as Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 15 that God put everything under Christ’s feet except for God himself. This would have applied both before and after his incarnation.
Personally, I think YHWH and Jesus were and are quite content to be known as possessing divine equality yet functional, hierarchical and personal separation; nor would they be concerned that being ‘one God’ was somehow now void. Wasn’t the Shema a warning and guidance for the Israelites to avoid the multitude of ANE gods? My point being that we might have become over-focussed on maintaining monotheism within an obvious divine plurality thus coming up with the somewhat awkward and frankly convoluted Anathasian trinity doctrine when no such ‘solution’ was ever necessary.
LikeLike
Jim,
Thank you for your continued thoughtful engagement in this discussion.
Yes, I understand that the word “Elohim” can be used for multiple things and beings, including for God Himself. However, I am convinced that there are no other real gods besides YHWH.
You wrote:
“As far as the Holy Spirit goes, a doing function seems more suitable than an anthropomorphic one. When Jesus says i will send another counsellor I don’t think he means another person but rather himself in non physical form.
Holy Spirit = Spirit of God = Spirit of Christ = the action of God in and through a believer.”
My response:
Interesting thoughts. However, I have never heard someone use the word “another” to mean themselves. I think we are getting a step closer to each other. If you had said YHWH Himself in the Person of the Holy Spirit, I could agree with part of what you said.
The use of “another” there tells me that Jesus isn’t talking about Himself.
It also would make no sense for Jesus to say in Matthew 28 to “baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” if each of these three were not Persons. If the Holy Spirit were not a Person, then why mention the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and the Son?
I will add more later.
LikeLike
Now, going back to what you said Holy Spirit = the action of God in and through a believer…
How does that fit with Jesus’ words in the following passages:
John 14:16-17 (NASB)
16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
Whom the world cannot receive
does not see Him or know Him
He abides with
John 14:25-26 (NASB)
25 “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
Whom the Father will send
He will teach you all things
And bring to your remembrance all that I said to you
John 14:26-27 (NASB)
26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, 27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
the Helper comes
Whom I will send to you
Who proceeds from the Father
He will testify about Me
John 16:5-15 (NASB)
5 “But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
The Helper will not come to you
I will send Him to you
When He comes
Will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement
He will guide you into all the truth
He will not speak on His own initiative
Whatever He hears, He will speak
He will disclose to you what is to come
He will glorify Me
He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you
All of these things that I listed below the passages are things that only a Person can do. An action cannot do these things. It also seems clear to me that Jesus is not talking about Himself.
LikeLike
Jim,
In our discussion we purposely constrained it to Jesus, leaving out the Holy Spirit. But Arwen implicitly brings up a point—one I was going to bring up a while back—about the Holy Spirit. In John 14:16 Jesus speaks of ἄλλον παράκλητον, allov paraklēton, another paraclete, thus implying Jesus Himself is also a paraclete. That’s two paracletes. This 2nd paraclete is also defined as the Holy Spirit. Yet the Holy Spirit is also called ‘Christ’s Spirit’ and ‘God’s Spirit’. Moreover, the Holy Spirit can be grieved, according to Ephesians 4:30:
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption
In Greek this verse renders this entity τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τοῦ θεοῦ, to pneuma to hagion tou theou, the Holy Spirit of God (accusative), while in Eph 1:13, He is referred to as τῷ πνεύματι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας τῷ ἁγίῳ, tō̧ pneumati tēs epaggelias tō̧ hagiō̧, the Holy Spirit of promise, or the promised Holy Spirit (dative). Interestingly, while the usual pattern is to place “Holy” after “Spirit”, Eph 1:13 places “[the] promised”, or, more literally, “of [the] promise” in between the two, which makes it emphatic: the Holy Spirit of promise, or the promised Holy Spirit. The Spirit is a deposit (Eph 1:14), sealing us (2 Cor 1:22) for the day of redemption (Eph 4:30). This is apparently part of the reason some Modalists erroneously understand three dispensations of God: the OT was of the Father, Christ’s earthly life was of the Son, and we are currently in the age of the Spirit.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Arwen, I was reading Is 42 during a lull in church proceedings today (as you do!) and verse 8 is interesting when contrasted with John 17:5 when Jesus is praying to the Father asking for the glory he had with him since before the creation. If, according to Is 42:8, YHWH yields none of his glory to another, those verses would play into a ‘Jesus is YHWH’ case nicely.”
My response:
Awesome. Yes, exactly!!! I did not bring that link up because I had already given you a lot of passages. But, yes, I had noticed that before as well. I’m glad that you noticed this 🙂 I think you are definitely understanding my interpretation of these passages. (Another one would be comparing Isaiah 43:11-13 with John 10:25-30).
You wrote:
“That said, if we take all the scripture that describe YHWH and another who is of YHWH-level divinity, but not him, does that necessarily mean two Gods? Difficult though it is to fully paint the entire canvass of God, a kind of ‘conjoined’ Father Son YHWH fits best to my thinking. Identifiably different, but still the essential sameness. That might seem like semantics to you and be another way of looking at what you believe to be the trinity to be (but as a binity). The unifying nature is clear from the interchangeable terms, but the many references to two persons, such as Dan 7, and the role Jesus played in creation and his continued sustainment of it all point to being a divine being.
Is that markedly different to where you’re coming from, the personhood of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding? There is a strong case to the breath, spirit, ruach, pneuma of God entering Adam to create physical life, to the breath, future resurrection life and transforming presence of God that enters a brand new believer who becomes a new creation. Neither require a third ‘person’ of God.”
My response:
If you have YHWH and something else that isn’t YHWH, then yes, it would be two Gods.
If you can believe that both the Father and the Son are YHWH, and have two Persons, then yes, we are getting closer to agreement!
Yes, these concepts are not easy, and we will never fully understand God until we are face to face with HIm. All we can do is study Scripture, pray, and try our best to understand what God has revealed to us about Himself through Scripture, and by the Holy Spirit.
I think we are closer in agreement now, but I’m not entirely certain we are exactly on the same page. I’m not sure if you are still seeing Jesus as something other than YHWH, or if you are still working through this, trying to define what Scripture points to.
It’s okay if you are still working through it. I have really enjoyed our discussion so far, and I think we are both learning. This is the kind of discussion that I wish all Christians would have with one another. It helps us understand what we believe better, or helps us understand where we stand on different doctrines, and I think ultimately makes us and the church stronger. This, I believe, is what the Christian community is supposed to do for one another (well, one of many things).
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Im assuming your perspective of 3 persons but one YHWH (the name of the Godhead?) is that they are individual entities but all one identical God nature or substance. Would that be close? Seems to be orthodox trinitarianism. I would agree that YHWH the Most High God (you’d think there would be a hierarchy of gods to be the highest) is so close in nature to the Son that was formed from him that, to all intents, they are indistinguishable. When the prophets wrote about them, they used names and titles that could be for both. To them they were equal in magnificence and worthy of honour and praise, however, they still didn’t get confused about the binitarian implications and maintained their monotheistic stance by focussing on YHWH the Father.
I think this is where we part company because I would also see Jesus as deferring his right to equality and stepping aside to let YHWH the Father be the God to satisfy monotheism. I would suggest that what Jesus did in becoming a man described in Phil 2 was a copy of his spiritual subordinate role as the Son, as Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 15 that God put everything under Christ’s feet except for God himself. This would have applied both before and after his incarnation.
Personally, I think YHWH and Jesus were and are quite content to be known as possessing divine equality yet functional, hierarchical and personal separation; nor would they be concerned that being ‘one God’ was somehow now void. Wasn’t the Shema a warning and guidance for the Israelites to avoid the multitude of ANE gods? My point being that we might have become over-focussed on maintaining monotheism within an obvious divine plurality thus coming up with the somewhat awkward and frankly convoluted Anathasian trinity doctrine when no such ‘solution’ was ever necessary.”
My response:
I really appreciate how deeply you have been thinking about this, trying to get to the truth. I appreciate that you also have been trying to understand my viewpoint, and that you have been asking excellent questions and that you have been very honest about what your beliefs are. I also appreciate how respectful you have been the entire time.
If I understand your question above correctly, I think you are close to understanding what I believe as long as you are not seeing the Persons as 3 different gods, and as long as YHWH is the one and only true God.
I understand what you are saying with the Most High title. When I read that, it looks to me like a supremacy title over all of creation, like how Colossians speaks of Jesus. YHWH is above everything that is created. I guess you could say that I see it as a term of respect. I have never thought of it being part of some rank over gods. I see it kind of like “Your Majesty” or “Your Highness.” I don’t know if that makes sense to you. I guess to get the full meaning of it, we would have to look at the historical and cultural context of the term “Most High” as it was used in biblical times.
But again, because of passages like the ones I have already shared, I don’t see how YHWH leaves room for the existence of other gods in the universe.
It still seems like you are able to acknowledge that the Father and Son share a lot in common, but that you do not see the Son as fully YHWH. It seems that you are seeing the Son as almost like YHWH still. I think we are moving closer in agreeing, but I still see this as a major difference between us.
Jesus has a lot of humility, and there are times when He does defer (I’m not exactly sure that is the right word) to the Father. This is getting into how the different Persons in the Trinity interact with one another, and it gets into the territory of a lot of speculation and possibly going outside of Scripture to explain it. I will say, though, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are co-equal.
It’s clear that you still see YHWH as being only the Father.
It isn’t just the Shema that declares that YHWH is the only God, as we have seen from passages in Isaiah and as it states elsewhere in the Bible. YHWH clearly did not want HIs people worshiping other gods. He is God, and He did not want His people to turn away to false gods. He loved them. No where in the Bible does YHWH allow/approve of people worshiping any other God but Him. He is worthy of worship because He is the one true God. To worship any other god would be to rebel against YHWH. The 10 Commandments reinforce this, as did Jesus with His most important commandment answer (which actually included the Shema). Therefore, it must be a fundamental truth.
LikeLike
Thank you Arwen for the positive response and appreciation of the discussion. Like Craig you have been very patient and fully explanatory in unpacking your point of view. I have enjoyed engaging with honest respectful Christians here. You’re right – it should be the norm even when we have a good deal of daylight between scriptural comprehension. However, perhaps the gap is closing.
One question initially is how do you define YHWH? Is this term used for the trinitarian Godhead or singular Father? I think it’s important to understand exactly how you conceive of the Tetragrammaton. I have read that the word translated ‘one’ in the Deut Shema can also be seen as unique. Of course, one as in unity does suit a trinitarian perspective, but on the cycle home today I was wondering why God would provide a limited or veiled expression of himself that would only be revealed 400 years after Jesus. That seems an odd way of interacting with humanity whereas before God was pretty unambiguous. He was high and lifted up, magnificent and awesome in appearance as described (as best they could) by Isaiah and Ezekiel. Why then would he obscure the three Persons of himself or only offer fleeting and implied glimpses?
I’m not convinced yet that Jesus has to actually be YHWH in order to avoid being a second God. I think monotheism stays intact if Jesus is of the order of the Father or YHWH. If God creates the universe through Jesus, Jesus sustains all things, and he is the means that man can reconnect with the Father as well as having authority over all things given to him by YHWH, to most of us he is pretty indistinguishable from YHWH. Like a prince who is given the keys to the kingdom by the King; the prince would be regarded by the people as effectively having the same power and ‘glory’ as the King, but they would still pay ultimate homage to the King. We’ve been here before so are probably circling back for little gain.
As to the existence of other gods, perhaps it’s best to stick to the original Elohim or spirit beings. If God and Jesus are of a unique divine spirit consistency, there must be other angels, demons, cherubim etc that are still spirit but not of the divine order of YHWH and Jesus Christ. Hence there are other non material powers that wereregarded as gods, small g, by the ancient near east peoples.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“One question initially is how do you define YHWH? Is this term used for the trinitarian Godhead or singular Father? I think it’s important to understand exactly how you conceive of the Tetragrammaton. I have read that the word translated ‘one’ in the Deut Shema can also be seen as unique. Of course, one as in unity does suit a trinitarian perspective, but on the cycle home today I was wondering why God would provide a limited or veiled expression of himself that would only be revealed 400 years after Jesus. That seems an odd way of interacting with humanity whereas before God was pretty unambiguous. He was high and lifted up, magnificent and awesome in appearance as described (as best they could) by Isaiah and Ezekiel. Why then would he obscure the three Persons of himself or only offer fleeting and implied glimpses?”
My response:
You asked me how I define YHWH. I will do my best to answer that. I have tried to spell it out earlier, but I am probably not the best at explaining things so that they make sense to other people.
I understand YHWH to be the one and only God in the universe, the God of the Bible, the Creator of all things, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, the only One worthy of worship, and the I AM of the OT. I also believe that He is triune. I am sorry if I have not made this clear — but, yes, I believe YHWH to be the whole trinitarian Godhead, not just the Father.
I agree — I think it is extremely important to understand exactly how a person understands the Tetragrammaton.
Yes, I have read that the word translated as “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 can be seen as unique as well. Several of the study Bibles that I have have noted that. I have also read about the “one” as unity understanding as well. Neither understanding would go against the Trinity, and the “one” as unity does definitely support the Trinity.
It is very hard for us humans to understand God. We can’t fully. All we can do is understand what God has revealed about Himself in Scripture. When we are a young child, God doesn’t give us a complete adult understanding of Himself. We learn about Him throughout our life. We have to grow in relationship with Him. Why doesn’t God give us a complete and total understanding of Him as soon as we hear about Him? Maybe it would be too much for us to handle. Maybe it is because God wants us to discover things about Him as we grow in relationship with HIm. I don’t know…we can only guess. I think the same can be said for humanity as a whole — God revealed more and more about Himself to us throughout time.
As for the Trinity being revealed 400 years after Jesus — I think that isn’t necessarily accurate. Sure, that is when Councils were defining terms better, but that does not mean that the concept wasn’t something that was there beforehand. As you know, I believe that Scripture itself points to it. I see it as something that is in Scripture, which people later articulated better. The concept behind the Trinity wasn’t suddenly knew 400 years after Jesus. It has its basis in Scripture.
As to your last question above — I don’t know why God has chosen to reveal Himself to humans in the way that He has. Your question is similar in my mind to atheists that say that they won’t believe in God unless God yells from the sky that He exists, or unless they hear from Him in some other audible way “I exist.” Perhaps to God, He has made Himself clear enough in the Scriptures already.
You wrote:
“I’m not convinced yet that Jesus has to actually be YHWH in order to avoid being a second God. I think monotheism stays intact if Jesus is of the order of the Father or YHWH. If God creates the universe through Jesus, Jesus sustains all things, and he is the means that man can reconnect with the Father as well as having authority over all things given to him by YHWH, to most of us he is pretty indistinguishable from YHWH. Like a prince who is given the keys to the kingdom by the King; the prince would be regarded by the people as effectively having the same power and ‘glory’ as the King, but they would still pay ultimate homage to the King. We’ve been here before so are probably circling back for little gain.”
My response:
This is the big point at which we differ. I think we have different understandings of what one God means. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you believe as long as people give ultimate homage to the Big God, there can be other little gods that are underneath Him, or almost equal to Him.
Do I understand you right?
LikeLike
Jim,
I am just curious — you said that you went to church. What type of church is it?
LikeLike
It’s a pretty conventional non-denominational ex-AOG Christian church. I’ll get back later regarding your comments on the Holy Spirit but I’m a bit time compressed and can’t get WWW at work 😬
LikeLike
Jim,
No problem. Take your time.
I was wondering about your church because I was wondering whether or not your church shared your views, or whether you were the only one there that believed that.
LikeLike
Just to briefly return to multiple gods over whom YHWH reigns, one example is Psalm 86:8 – ‘Among the gods there is none like you, Lord.’ Again, it’s important that we understand what words and terms mean, and quite often the same word is applied across a range of meanings according to the scriptural context.
Nevertheless, I think there was a real comprehension among the Jews that the Most High God of Israel was unique in nature, power and authority over a hierarchy of elohim, or gods. That would have been Jesus’s understanding too, so to run counter to that cosmological view would be to view God and his universe through a lens of our own making.
LikeLike
Here’s a study (not mine I’ll add) that is interesting in the ‘is the Holy Spirit the third person of the trinity’ discussion. I’d like to write out each verse, but for brevity I’ll put a subject or theme up with the verse that points to Jesus and a verse that points to the Holy Spirit on the same theme. To some that might appear rock solid evidence for a trinity. To me it says that Jesus (the incarnation) became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor 15:45), which says to me: ‘the Lord is the Spirit’ (2 Cor 3:17) ie Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, not two entities or personae of God.
Jesus – John 15:4, 1 John 2:24 Abide Spirit – John 14:17
1 John 2:1 Advocate John 14:16, 15:26
Eph 3:17, Gal 2:20 Dwell Rom 8:11, 1 Cor 3:16
John 5:21 Life 2 Cor 3:6
Rom 8:34 Intercedes Rom 8:26
and so on through joy, peace, power, sanctification, strengthening, teaching, all done by Jesus and all done by the Spirit. At the simplest level of common sense, if God is spirit, then he is the Holy Spirit. To have another Spirit fails the plain meaning test.
It comes back to my point above about how we conceive of a singular word – pneuma, ruach, spirit – and narrow the meaning in a way foreign to the thinking of the original writers, or to God himself. Sometimes it’s an entity, sometimes the principle of life, breath, wind, inner feelings, mind, emotions, invisible qualities. The trinity is really a dogmatic and very Greek answer to a very Hebrew notion of God. Consequently, I believe it misses the mark by a good margin.
LikeLike
Jim,
Quickly, but that fails to address the distinction I brought up @ 2017/08/13 at 1:05 pm, that Jesus was going to send “another paraclete”, thus implying He Himself is a paraclete. That’s two paracletes.
LikeLike
Craig, that depends whether the Greek word for ‘another’ is qualitative (another version of Jesus in spiritual, non-material form), or quantitative (another in addition to Jesus making two). I think the former makes sense in the broad scheme of all the references stating ‘Holy Spirit’ or ‘Spirit’ is how the writers referred to the visible effect of the invisible Jesus and Father now dwelling in a believer (rather than the OT temporal anointing for roles and tasks).
LikeLike
Jesus Himself was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was led by the Holy Spirit to His temptation in the wilderness, and He was “full of the Holy Spirit” in Luke 10:21. Moreover, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41), Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:67), and then there’s Simeon (Luke 2:25-26)–all while Jesus was either in Mary’s womb or incarnate.
LikeLike
Craig, all those instances of being filled or anointed by the Holy Spirit were just the same as they experienced throughout OT times – God equipping them with his power and wisdom for a specific act or prophecy (Hebrews 1:1-3). That still doesn’t require a third person. The same for the conception and infilling of Jesus. If an action attributed to the Spirit is simply seen as YHWH at work, as I believe should be the case, then all the scripture that interchange Spirit with God and/or Jesus make good sense.
LikeLike
Jim,
But you’re still not addressing the fact that during Jesus’ ministry there was an entity specifically called “the Holy Spirit”, yet Jesus claimed He’d send “another paraclete”, which He also called “the Holy Spirit”.
LikeLike
Who raised Jesus’ dead body?
Now, one may contend that “Spirit of Holiness” is only found here and, therefore, may not refer to the Holy Spirit. However, four of the five commentaries I consulted were very clear opining that this is a reference to the Holy Spirit, one of them being James D. G. Dunn, who is seen as more of a liberal. Two of them claimed it was closer to the Semitic form rather than the LXX (Dunn and Thomas Schreiner), i.e, ruach qodesh.
Romans 8:9-11 is an important passage in this regard. 8:11: “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” [NASB]. Who is “Him” in “Spirit of Him” and “He” in “He who raised Christ”? Earlier in 1:4 Paul said it was the “Spirit of Holiness” who raised Christ. Is this one a different ‘entity’–“God”, “the Father”, “Jesus”? Yet, in 8:9 Paul speaks of the indwelling Spirit as “Spirit of God”, “Spirit of Christ”; so, again, Who is the referent in 8:11?
LikeLike
Hey Jim,
I’ve been wanting to respond to you all day, but I’ve been busy. I finally have time to send you a response, although I’m not sure if I’ll have time to say everything I want to say tonight. Whatever I don’t say today, I will write to you tomorrow about.
I looked at Psalm 86:8, and I am not convinced that the “gods” there are real gods. When I read it, I interpret it as saying “among the gods that other people worship in the world, there is no God like You.” I can see how you are interpreting it as saying that there are other real gods — but if that is what it is saying here, then that would contradict other Scripture which says that God is the only God.
That’s why I think that the Psalmist is talking about false gods, and saying that God is greater than any of the false gods that other people worship. If this is the meaning, then it would fit with the Isaiah passages where God says that all the other gods are no gods, basically.
Yes, I agree that context is important to interpretation.
You wrote:
“Nevertheless, I think there was a real comprehension among the Jews that the Most High God of Israel was unique in nature, power and authority over a hierarchy of elohim, or gods. That would have been Jesus’s understanding too, so to run counter to that cosmological view would be to view God and his universe through a lens of our own making.”
My response:
If that were the general understanding of the Jews, I would think that this would be emphasized in the Bible. I would think there would be a lot of Scriptural evidence for it, and I would think that some of that belief would be carried over by at least some of the orthodox Jews today.
If Jesus understood that God was the most high god over a lot of little gods, then why didn’t Jesus ever mention any of these little gods? Why didn’t He teach about this hierarchy? And how do the passages from Isaiah where God says He is the one and only God support this view?
LikeLike
You know, your thoughts of Jesus and the Holy Spirit is the reason that Jesus Only/Oneness Pentecostals believe that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. They do the same with the Father to show why they believe that Jesus is the Father as well.
Forget about the word “trinity” if it throws you off. Let us just stick to the concept behind it and Scripture. Is the concept at all found in the Jewish Scriptures? I believe that it is.
When we are talking about sent ones…..this actually occurs here in Isaiah 48:12-16 (NASB)
12 “Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13 “Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14 “Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 “Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
There are three Persons who are YHWH in this passage. There have to be, or this passage makes no sense. YHWH is speaking, and yet He says that God sent Him….and He sent Him with His Spirit. That seems very similar to what Jesus said in John where we were discussing the Holy Spirit.
I agree with Craig’s August 17, 2017 at 2:41 pm comment — those things must be considered when thinking about the Holy Spirit and Jesus.
One other thing — at Jesus’ baptism, the Holy Spirit landed on Jesus like a dove. If Jesus is the Holy Spirit, and not another Person, then how did that happen?
LikeLike
Jim,
What about the actions that I specified before about what Jesus said the Holy Spirit would do, things that only a Person can do? Those things cannot simply be YHWH at work — because they show that the Holy Spirit is doing something, implying that the Holy Spirit is not simply a name for YHWH at work.
And, again, how does it explain Jesus listing the Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19?
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Why list the Holy Spirit at all if the Holy Spirit is simply YHWH at work. Why should we be baptized in the Holy Spirit? Why is the Holy Spirit listed here — it sounds like the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son.
And how can the Holy Spirit be sent if the Holy Spirit is just YHWH at work? You can only send a Person….
LikeLike
Craig and arwen I’ll have more time this weekend to describe my answers better. Until then thanks again for your thoughtful posts. My iron is definitely being sharpened here.
LikeLike
Jim,
Sounds good. I just want to say something real quick — yes, I do believe that the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is important. However, establishing that Jesus is YHWH is even more important to me, so I definitely would like to get back to that eventually.
For now, though, since we are discussing the Holy Spirit, I think we should continue with the questions/issues that Craig and I raised, as well as your explanations, Jim 🙂
Let’s see where this goes.
LikeLike
Arwen re your 6:14pm post. Elohim translated gods is not referring to false gods in the sense of statues or carved idols, if that is what you meant. Gods in this context would have been a reference to the many spiritual entities that the ancient near east would have been familiar with, whether they originated as fallen angels, nephilim derivatives, other order deities, as well as human rulers. So I think the context is important when YHWH says there is no other God besides me. He is saying I’m the real deal, not these other imitations.
Jesus didn’t need to go into this kind of detail with his audience because he knew they had that awareness already. He mentioned satan and his angels, he understood the story of Job and would have known the divine council opening scene, as would the listening Jews. God is simply saying that he is the only spiritual entity worthy of worship, and the only source of true life and therefore the highest.
LikeLike
Craig your 6:31pm comment says that the Holy Spirit is an entity, and was in operation during the time of Jesus implying a separateness. The only time scripture refers to the Spirit was pre-birth, at his baptism and when he breathed on his disciples saying receive the Holy Spirit. I’ll roll in Arwen’s last line in the 6:34pm post regarding his baptism. If Jesus was fully God and fully man, then acquiring the Holy Spirit would have been something we’d call surplus to requirement. This was a demonstration by YHWH that Jesus was a King and priest, hence the OT anointing by God in visible form signified by a dove alighting and the words from God. I don’t think Jesus needed to be anointed but this was evidence of his continual claim to be the Son of God. Being led to the desert by the Spirit doesn’t require another person of God to do the leading, any more than it would us; it’s a phrase indicating Jesus was moved by God to spend time in the desert communing with the Father.
LikeLike
There’s also Simeon (Luke 2:25-27), who was “full” and “moved” by the Spirit to see Jesus as a baby.
Then there’s my post @ 8:39 last night regarding the raising of Jesus’ dead body.
LikeLike
Back to your 8:39pm post Craig, and the opening verses of Romans are interesting. Firstly Paul says that God spoke through the prophets, yet Peter in 1 Peter 1:11 states that they spoke through the Spirit of Christ and then in 2 Peter 1:21 he says the prophets were carried along by the Holy Spirit. To me that indicates not trinitarianism but parallelism. Paul and Peter recognised the Word at work and the Father too imparting an invisible breath (pneuma or spirit) from themselves into certain men of old to prophesy.
It’s much the same when the writers are expressing who raised Jesus. Romans 1:4 doesn’t closely link the Spirit of holiness with Jesus resurrection but God’s manifest power was clearly present at the time of resurrection ie the Spirit, but not a separate entity necessarily. Jesus could also claim to have raised himself. His words in John that you cited could be taken as words of prophecy spoken by God much as many prophetic utterances come across as God speaking in the first person. Further, Jesus death was a voluntary submission to a state of being that was summed up in Phil 2:5-8. He chose to allow his God-ness to be subject to death for a short period. After three days he released himself under the power of God from that state by rising from the dead. So in a sense he did raise himself from the dead, but also his prophecies about that event could be taken as God speaking through Jesus in the first person.
LikeLike
Jim,
But, then why does Scripture make the distinctions I laid out in my 8:39 comment?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to convey regarding the John verses about Jesus raising Himself. You agree that Jesus is divine in some sense, that He and the Father form a binity. The issue here is the Holy Spirit’s role in the raising of Jesus’ body. When one considers the Scriptures Arwen and I brought up, they cannot be seen in isolation; that is, they must be considered together. There’s still Jesus’ words about the Spirit in the Upper Room discourse, in which He sends the Spirit, ‘another paraclete’ besides Himself, from the Father. This paraclete “testifies about Me (Jesus)”. Why would Jesus speak about Himself–if the Spirit is really just another manifestation of Jesus post-Ascension–unless the Spirit is not really another manifestation of Himself.
LikeLike
Arwen, I’m definitely not a oneness type. I don’t equate Jesus with the Holy Spirit, but I do think they get conflated and the common use of parallelism in Jewish writing and thinking plays a significant part in making our mostly linear Greek minds translate that into concluding a trinity is at work.
LikeLike
Arwen your 6:45pm post talks of actions a person would do, so when Jesus reference the Holy Spirit he must mean a separate entity of God. Not if Jesus is thinking in terms of him and the Father dwelling a believer by an invisible ‘presence’ that he calls the Holy Spirit. It’s bizarre to my mind that one of three portions of the Godhead is never referred to by any name, just a generic term, never prayed to, never referenced in the same way as the Father by Jesus. Why would God who is spirit have another spirit?
Matt 28:19 is no more a description of the Godhead than 1 Thess 5:23 is a description of man. It looks all too formulaic rather like the Johannine comma. Is that a trinitarian translators insert? Certainly the disciples baptised in Jesus name only throughout Acts.
LikeLike
Jim,
No doubt the Johannine Comma is a later addition. However, there’s scant evidence that the ‘Trinitarian formula’ in Matthew 28:19 is some later addition. If you think that’s the case, then it’s incumbent upon you to provide proof.
LikeLike
Jim,
If you are calling angels and demons little gods, I understand — but they aren’t actual true gods. They are simply another order of creation…they are still created beings. Have humans ever worshiped angels or demons as gods? Sure. That doesn’t mean that they are real gods in the same way that YHWH is god. They are false gods. They might have spiritual power, but they are in no way equal to YHWH, nor are they gods in any true sense. The same can be said of Satan. Satan is just a created being — not a real god. People can worship him as a god, but that doesn’t make him a real god.
So…if you are calling these things gods — then I think we are in closer agreement. I just do not believe them to be real gods. I still believe that YHWH alone is the only true God. It seems that you may agree with that…I’m not clear on whether or not you do. Can you help clarify this for me please?
And if YHWH is the one and only true God, then do you agree that Jesus IS YHWH as well? This is the essential part.
It seems that you do believe that the Holy Spirit IS YHWH, even if you don’t believe in His Personhood. I’ll ask to make sure — do you believe that the Holy Spirit is YHWH?
LikeLike
So the referent in Rom 8:11 Craig is God (YHWH). The Spirit (breath, presence, power) of God, who raised him from the dead.
LikeLike
Luke 24:47 has a similar version to Matt 28:19 and only states ‘in his name’.
“With one word and voice He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152)
Professor Carl Clemen:
Professor Carl Clemen goes further and writes in his footnote:
(3) Professor of the New Testament Rudolf K. Bultmann:
(4) Dr David Wenham:
LikeLike
So, Eusebius paraphrased it. This is not unusual.
Most scholars concede that Mark 16:9-20 is a later edition, and not original. Hence, it’s fallacious to say that Matthew 28 is “an echo of Mk 16:15”.
As to Clemen’s 2nd quote, it’s an argument from silence. The earliest extant manuscripts we have of Matthew 28 contain the triadic formula.
Sorry, Bultmann’s quote is cut off to where I cannot figure the point he’s trying to make. You’ll probably have to retype it out.
Wenham’s assertion is pure speculation.
Soon I’m going to be out of pocket for a bit and unable to release comments. So, this will provide ‘each side’ a chance to ponder all the goings-on here…
LikeLike
Arwen, yes I believe the Holy Spirit is YHWH…..and Jesus Christ, but not a separate, distinct person of the Godhead.
Yes, I believe YHWH is the only true God. All other ‘gods’ or elohim are still spiritual entities, but of a lesser ‘order’ being created.
LikeLike
Sorry, I missed one question. I believe the Logos was co-substantial with YHWH, having been formed from him, and in becoming Jesus Christ is still of the deity order of YHWH.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Arwen, I’m definitely not a oneness type. I don’t equate Jesus with the Holy Spirit, but I do think they get conflated and the common use of parallelism in Jewish writing and thinking plays a significant part in making our mostly linear Greek minds translate that into concluding a trinity is at work.
Arwen your 6:45pm post talks of actions a person would do, so when Jesus reference the Holy Spirit he must mean a separate entity of God. Not if Jesus is thinking in terms of him and the Father dwelling a believer by an invisible ‘presence’ that he calls the Holy Spirit. It’s bizarre to my mind that one of three portions of the Godhead is never referred to by any name, just a generic term, never prayed to, never referenced in the same way as the Father by Jesus. Why would God who is spirit have another spirit?
Matt 28:19 is no more a description of the Godhead than 1 Thess 5:23 is a description of man. It looks all too formulaic rather like the Johannine comma. Is that a trinitarian translators insert? Certainly the disciples baptised in Jesus name only throughout Acts.”
My response:
I think that we might be moving a little closer to an understanding here. It seems to me that we agree, then, that the Holy Spirit is not Jesus, but that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are definitely connected in some way….very closely connected, so that they are inseparable, and yet, there is still a distinction between them. It’s something we struggle to describe because we can’t quite conceive of it in our minds.
Would you say that the above paragraph is accurate to how you think of Jesus and the Holy Spirit?
You could say that The Father is a generic term as well. Jesus did refer to the Holy Spirit — He even said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He mentioned the Holy Spirit several times in His ministry, and He always spoke of Him as if He were a Person and part of the identity of YHWH….just by how Jesus spoke about Him.
The Word was spirit before He took on human flesh, too. It’s just how God exists. I have heard non-Trinitarians suggest that Matthew 28:19-20 may not be authentic to the text, but from what I can see, that is just speculation. Some of these same people suggest that John 1 and any verse that talks about Jesus’ deity was added in later as well. None of my Bibles that I have have Matthew 28 in brackets, or any note that says that it isn’t in the oldest Greek texts. There are notes on the second ending of Mark, and in 1 John where there is doubt that text was authentic.
Even if Matthew 28:19 were not authentic, that still leaves all the verses in John that say that the Holy Spirit was sent. That still leaves all the verses where Jesus talked about the Holy Spirit, and treated Him like He was YHWH.
As for the claim that the disciples baptized only in Jesus’ name….that is yet another point that the Oneness Pentecostals use to try to prove that Jesus is the Father, and that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. In Acts, I’m not convinced that they were literally baptized only in Jesus’ name. Like, “I baptize you in the name of Jesus.”
I’ll look into this more, and let you know what I find.
LikeLike
Jim,
Okay — so…..some of your most recent comments (and in some earlier), you seem to think that YHWH is the name of an order of gods, the highest order of Gods.
Or, like in some other of your comments, do you believe that YHWH is the one and only true God in the universe?
Please help me understand this so that I know exactly what you’re talking about.
If you think the first, then I completely disagree with you. If you think the second, then I agree with you….but I need to check to make sure that we are on the same page…that we mean the same thing when we say that Jesus is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWH.
LikeLike
Jim,
I looked checked the study notes in my most theologically liberal study Bible, and it does not say anything about Matthew 28:19 being added in later. In fact, it suggests the opposite. It suggests that this was important to the church that Matthew was part of, and it made a reference to The Didache.
I don’t know if you have ever heard of The Didache, but it is a very early Christian catechism writing, which most scholars date back to the 1st century. It includes instructions for baptism, which say that a person should be baptized “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
That’s quite strong evidence that Matthew 28:19 is authentic to the Bible, and that people, in fact, did use that baptismal formula in the early church.
LikeLike
I didn’t quite understand your comment about not being able to release posts due to being out of pocket Craig.
Regarding Matt 28:19, I merely asked whether it was a trinitarian flourish added later. It wouldn’t be the first somewhat clunky profession of trinitarianism to be regarded so. Since baptism took place in the name of Jesus, according to Acts, either the early church disobeyed the command or took it that Jesus covered all the God bases, which does play to oneness despite my not supporting that view.
To your 8:22am post Arwen. I don’t think of YHWH as on order or class of Elohim/gods. He stands supreme and alone, most High, uncreated, unlike everything else in the universe bar Jesus.
LikeLike
Jim,
I have to manually release comments on this blog. Since I was going to be away (out of pocket), I was going to be unable to release any comments.
LikeLike
If the Holy Spirit is a person and part of the Godhead why is this entity never referred to in NT greetings? It’s always ‘from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ or similar. Could this be because the early church never thought in strict trinitarian terms, or even implied ones? The bottom line is that despite the personification style references to an invisible Jesus and the Father coming to inhabit believers in their inner man by Jesus in John, there is too much counter evidence that the Holy Spirit of God and/or Jesus simply does not feature in scripture as a person or entity. There is no picture of him in Revelation in heaven or the new earth, no prayers offered to him, nothing that prompts me to consider this term pneuma or ruach as other than a description of God or Christ doing something that is visible to the human senses.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Regarding Matt 28:19, I merely asked whether it was a trinitarian flourish added later. It wouldn’t be the first somewhat clunky profession of trinitarianism to be regarded so. Since baptism took place in the name of Jesus, according to Acts, either the early church disobeyed the command or took it that Jesus covered all the God bases, which does play to oneness despite my not supporting that view.”
My response:
Good question, Jim. The answer has to be based on the oldest copies of the New Testament that are available, as well as other writings in church history. We can’t just speculate and make assumptions based on how we think it should be.
As evidence from The Didache and other early Christian writings, at least some of the baptisms were done as Matthew 28:19 outlines. In fact, The Didache gives instructions that this SHOULD be how people are baptized.
Now, “baptized in Jesus’ name” does not literally have to have meant that they were not baptized via Matthew 28:19. There is no Scripture that gives the exact words used. By saying they were baptized in Jesus’ name, it could have meant with the authority of Jesus. It also could have been a phrase that was used to distinguish Christian baptism from Jewish baptism like John the Baptist’s baptism, or a phrase used to say that the person professed faith in Jesus. It could also have meant that some people did literally baptize in “Jesus’ name,” although, again, there is evidence that some early Christians thought using the formula in Matthew 28:19 to be important.
Jim….I’m still confused by exactly what you believe. In an earlier post you told me you agreed that Jesus is YHWH. However you wrote this in your recent post:
“To your 8:22am post Arwen. I don’t think of YHWH as on order or class of Elohim/gods. He stands supreme and alone, most High, uncreated, unlike everything else in the universe bar Jesus.”
My response:
It still sounds like you believe Jesus to not be YHWH here, since you don’t seem to be including Him in YHWH.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
If the Holy Spirit is a person and part of the Godhead why is this entity never referred to in NT greetings? It’s always ‘from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ or similar. Could this be because the early church never thought in strict trinitarian terms, or even implied ones? The bottom line is that despite the personification style references to an invisible Jesus and the Father coming to inhabit believers in their inner man by Jesus in John, there is too much counter evidence that the Holy Spirit of God and/or Jesus simply does not feature in scripture as a person or entity. There is no picture of him in Revelation in heaven or the new earth, no prayers offered to him, nothing that prompts me to consider this term pneuma or ruach as other than a description of God or Christ doing something that is visible to the human senses.
My response:
Because the Holy Spirit always points to Jesus. It is true that the early church had not fully worked out the doctrine of the Trinity. If they thought in blocks or chunks of knowledge, then they didn’t specifically have to spell out everything. They just accepted that there was one God (YHWH), and the Father was YHWH, Jesus was YHWH, and the Holy Spirit was YHWH.
You still haven’t dealt with the idea that the Holy Spirit was sent.
LikeLike
Arwen, it will be very difficult to deal with every point brought up and challenge each verse from a trinitarian and my semi-binitarian perspective. There are seemingly game set and match verses and concepts on both sides depending how we fit them together to form the broad span of God’s word. I deal with the idea of the Holy Spirit being sent by taking Jesus words in John 16 that he has to go back to the Father so that The spirit of truth can come in his place. That Spirit is Jesus and the Father. Jesus is the way the truth and the Life.
This chapter is not as clear cut a trinitarian proof text as one might think. Jesus says in John 16:25 that he has been speaking figuratively ie he has been deliberately indirect in his message. I don’t envisage, and I don’t think the early Jewish church did either, that there were two persons of YHWH in heaven waiting for Jesus to ascend so the other spirit of God could be released.
I think we have to be careful about trusting in post-canonical theorising or conceptualising. I believe that the 1st C church had a full understanding of Jesus and the Father as well as what and how to be saved unto resurrection. What comes through loud and clear is a separateness yet sameness between God and the Son of God and their working in mankind through their pneuma, breath, transformational presence, invisible influence etc.
LikeLike
I’d better provide another perspective which influences how I view the trinity. Craig, this is a bit off topic, so apologies. I hold to a view of man that is not body, soul and spirit. So I don’t think of spirit when referring to man as being a thing, certainly not a thing that exists after the body’s death. I believe the bible demonstrates that we are a body animated by breath, pneuma, spirit and that means we are a soul. The entirety of who we are is called a soul. Take breath, pneuma, spirit away (as God does after he has gifted it to us for a span of time) and you have a body without life. We are whole beings and nothing sentient or sensory from our previous existence continues after death.
Consequently, whilst I know that certain pneuma contexts are about spiritual beings, or creatures invisible to our human perception, that influences my view of God’s spirit more as his thoughts, life giving power, wisdom, inner being essentially, but as always context is king when figuring out what is meant by any particular pneuma, ruach or spirit term in scripture. Hope that helps.
LikeLike
Arwen4CJ,
I partially disagree with Jim, and you can see a discussion on the interrelationship between body, soul, and spirit [EDIT; italicized phrase added:] in John’s Gospel, in my (not-yet-finished) article in the following link. Be sure to view footnote 46 (some other footnotes are important, as well):
LikeLike
O—o
YHWH/the Father conjoined [should be a solid connection not pecked] with the Logos/Jesus Christ
Make of that totally simplistic picture what you will, but it captures what I believe the bible says about God.
View it is one God, and see it as two separate ones, but that’s what scripture seems to declare.
LikeLike
Jim,
I think the word “trinity” throws you off because of the Greek connotations that you associate with it, and I think that “Person” language may be throwing you off as well because of connotations that you have with that word.
Ignoring those two words, and just going by a general concept — it seems like you agree that YHWH is the one and only God, and that the Father is YHWH and the Holy Spirit is YHWH. If I understand your views on Jesus correctly, it sounds like you believe that Jesus appears to be YHWH in Scripture, but actually isn’t, but is somehow connected to YHWH and very closely associated with YHWH? Is that accurate to your belief?
As far as the body, soul, spirit thing goes — I’m going to stay away from that topic. It’s not something I feel comfortable getting into. The piece there that I do think is important is whether or not there will be a physical resurrection of the dead at Jesus’ Second coming.
I’ve heard people state that they believe that people sleep until the resurrection, and it will be like they wake up as if nothing had ever happened between dying and the resurrection. I have heard other people argue that when a person dies, their soul will go to heaven — and at the resurrection, their soul and body are reunited. I can see how people can arrive at both of these conclusions.
So Jim….let me ask you — do you believe in the resurrection of the dead (the resurrection at Jesus’ second coming)?
You wrote:
“I think we have to be careful about trusting in post-canonical theorising or conceptualising. I believe that the 1st C church had a full understanding of Jesus and the Father as well as what and how to be saved unto resurrection. What comes through loud and clear is a separateness yet sameness between God and the Son of God and their working in mankind through their pneuma, breath, transformational presence, invisible influence etc.”
My response:
I agree that things that are not Scripture do not have the same weight as Scripture, but that does not mean that they are of no value, or that we should not consider the contents for historical reasons.
If we want to talk about church history, and be accurate, we should consider historical sources outside of the Bible to help us better understand the practices of the early church. This is a much more solid way of analyzing it then just make assumptions based upon how we want it to have been.
So….when we are talking about the historical practice of baptism (how it was actually done in the early church), a good source would be an actual catechism written within the first century. That shows what at least some of the Christians did at the time. It is historical record. It doesn’t mean that all Christians baptized in that manner. What it does show is that at least SOME of them did. It also shows that the phrasing of Matthew 28:19 was not foreign to the first century.
This isn’t simply theorizing, since it is based on actual historical evidence. To say that Matthew 28:19 was probably added in later would be theorizing because there is absolutely no evidence to support that viewpoint.
I think we are closer in agreement than we were — but it is how we conceptualize this sameness but separateness between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that we differ on.
LikeLike
Leaving aside the veracity of Matt 28:19 as a genuine text, let alone a practical instruction, the verse itself still does not speak to three co-equal Persons of God as articulated in orthodox trinitarian creeds from the 4th C and beyond. The verse has become a baptismal statement, but that of itself proves nothing other than there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. I believe in all three, but my concept is not trinitarian. So, yes Arwen, your last paragraph above is true.
As to the resurrection, I believe in the exact words Jesus spoke in John 6, that he will raise up his own on the last day, which will occur at his return. It will be a physical resurrection of our bodies, preceded by a resting in peace (for those in Christ), albeit that it will seem like an instantaneous transition from death to resurrection to the one who died.
LikeLike
Craig,
Can you please help out with the Greek for Matthew 28:19? Is “name” singular there? And is the word “the” in front of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Greek?
If so, then it seems to me that since all three are listed together as they are — under the same name, yet are distinct — then it seems to me that it is suggesting that God is both one (one God) and three (three — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).
Would that be a correct conclusion using Greek scholarship?
Jim,
Is it that you are biased against the term Trinity, so you feel that there is no way you could agree with the doctrine? You’ve said a couple times that you consider the doctrine to be Greek in origin, so you reject it.
Aside from your belief that it is an entirely Greek concept, what are the theological/Scriptural ideas that you take issue with?
From everything you have said so far, I think you could accept the doctrine if you allowed yourself to. You are close to accepting it, but you are stopping short at the Personhood of the Holy Spirit (although you at times seem to accept even that — as you acknowledged in your most current post — Matthew 28:19 shows that there is a Father, there is a Son, and there is a Holy Spirit), and at times you agree that Jesus is YHWH, though you seem to be going to the idea that Jesus just appears to be YHWH in Scripture, but is actually separate from YHWH in reality.
I think that if you could bring yourself to allow for the one God (YHWH) to ACTUALLY BE three (rather than just appear to be), then you could accept the concept behind the Trinity. You could accept that the one God YHWH is three Persons.
I am relieved to hear that you do believe in the resurrection of the dead. Your belief about that does not differ from some people I have heard expressing that view, and I think it is a legitimate Christian viewpoint (as I also think the belief that souls go to heaven as soon as they die is a legitimate Christian viewpoint.)
LikeLike
I’ve looked at this before, and I’m reviewing it again now. I need to study the Oneness view over against the Trinitarian view. At play here is the so-called Granville Sharp rule (actually ‘rules’). But, yes “name” is singular and the article (“the” in the genitive/possessive, which is best translated “of the”) is present before all: Father, Son and Spirit. (Some call it “definite article”, but there is no indefinite article in Greek, therefore “article” is correct–it doesn’t always denote definiteness anyway. See first part of this series we are commenting on.)
LikeLike
Craig,
Thanks for your Greek expertise 🙂
LikeLike
The Granville Sharp rule may just complicate things, but you can see its application here: http://www.velocity.net/~edju70/web/Trinity7
“In the name of” should be thought of as “in/by the authority of”, and given that it’s in the singular, and that we have Father, Son, and Spirit all preceded by the article (“of the”), a Trinitarian understanding is the best rendering.
To be fair, I’ll cite a lengthy selection from the more liberal scholar Donald Hagner in his Word Biblical Commentary (Matthew 14-28 [Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995], pp 887-888)—some brackets added for clarity (and, Jim, note last sentence):
Moreover, again, to be fair, we do not have any papyri, i.e., the earliest extant manuscripts of this section of Matthew are from the 4th century. On the other hand, an argument from silence (Eusebius’ notwithstanding) is not a good argument; and, as noted, there are no known textual variances on this passage pertinent to this discussion.
LikeLike
Well it’s a good thing I have editorial ‘powers’ as the host/moderator, since I’d really bungled the tags on that comment. I had to type out the selection from the book, and there were quite a few italicized portions. Plus I could not get the link to work as a hyperlink–I tried 4 times. That’s not to mention a few grammatical and spelling errors I found…
LikeLike
Craig,
Thanks again for all of your hard work. So….there are some liberal scholars that do think that it might have been added in later, as I thought there were.
It seems there is no way to prove for sure what the original passage said, so the passage is not rock solid pointing to Trinitarianism, but if authentic (which we have no real evidence that it isn’t–we won’t have any evidence unless there is an older copy of Matthew found that does not contain it), then it provides strong evidence for a trinitarian understanding of God…
LikeLike
Jim,
I guess what I’m asking you is why is it important to you to identify yourself as a non-Trinitarian?
LikeLike
Arwen, I do appreciate you taking the time and effort to understand my perspective. Online discussions can descend very quickly into sniping and create division, whereas you and Craig have been patient, seeking to get the full picture.
Researching the trinity as well as the nature of man, heaven, hell, salvation, gifts of the spirit amongst other more minor topics of Christian doctrine over the past 10 years have drawn me back to one underlying reason why most Christians basic statements of faith (and generally they’re not that well thought out) come from Catholic or Protestant creeds that have become orthodox after marinating for centuries in Greek dualistic, philosophical thinking. Generally.
Satan’s tactic from the very beginning has been to coat God’s truth with a seemingly attractive lie that once swallowed sets in train a deviation from that truth. The forbidden fruit seemed good to Eve and Adam, pleasing to their senses and they wanted to be like God, so in they jumped. As Jesus pointed out regarding the Pharisees, it only takes a little leaven and the entire loaf is affected. So it is with Greek philosophy and the permeating influence it had on early Christian thought culminating in the 4th and 5th C councils and creeds.
It’s that dualism, the desire for a compartmentalism of man into parts that die and parts that survive, thereby evading the sting of death and negating a solid rationale for resurrection as the path to eternal life, that feeds into stovepiped thinking about God from a Platonic worldview. In broad terms, the church migrated steadily and purposefully away from Jewish thinking and scriptural perspectives. What I have concluded is that the trinity concept of God is not what the average OT or messianic 1st C Jew would have understood. Whilst we can squeeze that line of thought from hints or derive implications of trinitarianism, the concept largely has to be reversed engineered back in. Eisegesis in other words.
The entire subject is taken to be almost forbidden ground to question and in some circles is a salvation issue. Where the deity of Christ is in doubt, then I would agree that a wrong Jesus equals a wrong gospel that is powerless to save. So, overall, I see orthodox trinitarianism as compromised, post-canonical, and the fruit of a philosophical seed planted over 1500 years ago to decouple the church from a proper understanding of God and Jesus.
LikeLike
I recognise that what I’ve written comes over as pretty harsh – that the trinity doctrine is a ploy of satan to trick Christianity into adhering to a skewed view of God. Perhaps it is too strong worded and perhaps we’re actually closer than it appears in our understanding of the Godhead.
I have heard the case for the trinity explained by saying God made man in his image which is why he is a tripartite being, reflecting God’s trinitarian nature. Problem there, for me, is that I see man as a whole being, much as I see God monotheistically. There are other elements to man’s nature, his inner person, but that does not mean he has other ‘things’ (soul or spirit) as part of him.
The way I see man and woman made in God’s image, in one sense, is that Eve was taken from Adam and created to be his partner, flesh of his flesh. This, to me illustrates the Father Son relationship in that the Logos was begotten or formed from the Father, from YHWH, as a perfect representation of him, Spirit of his Spirit, but as discernibly separate as woman is from man.
Thank you both again for the interaction.
LikeLike
While I’ve heard of the tripartite man being a model of the Trinity, I’ve never bought into the idea. Not the same–even if one believes in tripartite man.
LikeLike
Jim,
I will respond to your post later. I just want to ask a question for clarification first.
It sounds to me like you are equating Greek thought (and everything that came out of Greek thoughts) with the leaven that Jesus spoke of. That, or everything associated with Greek thinking is sinful.
Do I understand you correctly?
LikeLike
It is pretty tenuous Craig. Arwen, I am equating a seemingly small correction or innocuous idea, even point of clarification, which, if an error, is like the leaven of the Pharisees. Their legalism could not be mixed with the purity of the Kingdom Jesus was preaching.
What did the Greeks ever do for us? Well apart from philosophy, rote learning, and school classes, and medicine, and the Olympics, and weddings, and kleftico, oh, and yoghurt, Nothing. Seriously, their desire for ‘wisdom’, gnosis, was the wind that blew early Christianity on to the rocks that became Catholicism, frankly.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’m not sure it’s so cut and dried.
LikeLike
No, it never is, but big hand, small map, probably not far from the evolutionary path to solidified doctrine.
LikeLike
Jim,
Regarding whether or not man is made up of parts, what do you make of Paul’s vision, specifically 2 Cor 12:2-4, particularly verses 2-3 regarding in vs out of they body? Similarly, what do you make of Revelation 4:2?
LikeLike
Craig, I read the 2 Cor 12 verses to be paraphrased as: ‘whether I was actually there (in paradise) in person or it was just a vision given to my mind’. I suspect strongly it was the latter, but Paul is at pains to not get carried away with either.
Rev 4:2 pictures a scene in heaven and like all of Revelation consists of visions and allegorical imagery. Whether John is there in person or ‘in the spirit’ ie praying and witnessing these scenes in his mind, is not the point. The point is to inform the reader about something.
LikeLike
Jim,
I don’t think it can be quite that simplistic. Compare 2 Cor 12:2 with verse 3–“in or out” of body (2) vs “in” or “apart from the body” (3). Perhaps more compelling, in Revelation, John the Revelator was approached by an angel, then he began to see things, such as someone “like a son of man” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet… (1:13ff). While apparently already in a vision, in Rev 4:2 things change: At once I was in the Spirit…
LikeLike
Jim,
Thank you for the clarification.
You wrote:
“Arwen, I do appreciate you taking the time and effort to understand my perspective. Online discussions can descend very quickly into sniping and create division, whereas you and Craig have been patient, seeking to get the full picture.”
My response:
Without trying to understand one another, how can there be any real discussion? That’s why it is important to me to try to understand your perspective. I want us to have a real conversation. I don’t want to guess at what you believe, or make assumptions about what you believe.
Yes, sometimes online discussions can get pretty nasty, and I am very grateful that we have been able to keep the conversation at an adult level. That’s one of several things that I have appreciated about you in our discussions.
You wrote:
“Researching the trinity as well as the nature of man, heaven, hell, salvation, gifts of the spirit amongst other more minor topics of Christian doctrine over the past 10 years have drawn me back to one underlying reason why most Christians basic statements of faith (and generally they’re not that well thought out) come from Catholic or Protestant creeds that have become orthodox after marinating for centuries in Greek dualistic, philosophical thinking. Generally.”
My response:
What I would suggest here would be to look at the beliefs laid out in the creeds and determine which beliefs you think are not Scriptural. I’m willing to discuss the creeds with you as well. I see nothing in any of these creeds that goes against Scripture, and I’d be interested to see what points you think do.
There is no doubt that creeds like the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian creed, and the Athanasian Creed define what orthodox Christianity is in most Christian circles. The basis for evaluating these creeds should be Scripture, and not whether something had anything to do with Greek Christianity or not. So…let’s look at these items from Scripture.
Since the creeds I listed are thought of as the standard for Christian orthodoxy by the majority of Christians, then it makes perfect sense that Christian groups and churches would incorporate them into their own individual statements of faith.
I think you are correct, though, that some people do not think about the beliefs contained in the creeds. Others might use the creeds deceptively, knowing that some Christians will look at a statement of faith to decide whether or not a church/organization is orthodox, even though it really isn’t — or it changes the meaning of the items in the creed in such a way that the organization/church appears to uphold the creed.
So, again…the standard for any doctrine needs to be Scripture itself, not philosophy, not the culture the people who wrote it came from, or any other factor. It must be taught by Scripture itself. Nothing else matters. We should affirm or deny a belief solely on Scripture. Everything stands or falls on that.
You wrote:
“Satan’s tactic from the very beginning has been to coat God’s truth with a seemingly attractive lie that once swallowed sets in train a deviation from that truth. The forbidden fruit seemed good to Eve and Adam, pleasing to their senses and they wanted to be like God, so in they jumped. As Jesus pointed out regarding the Pharisees, it only takes a little leaven and the entire loaf is affected. So it is with Greek philosophy and the permeating influence it had on early Christian thought culminating in the 4th and 5th C councils and creeds.”
My response:
Yes, and we can be tricked into believing that something that is true is really a lie, or the other way around. None of us are above being deceived, and we can all be deceived in different areas. We might be right about one thing, but believed something else wrong.
Now, here is my take on Greek culture — not everything that came from Greece or Greek thinking is necessarily bad. There are some good things as well. Greek culture has had an impact on humanity and human history, and it continues to do so. It’s simply part of our story as humans. We can’t escape from it. Ancient Greece was very influential in its day. It was kind of like the America of its day.
I do like my country, but I recognize that not everything that America has done has been good, and not all of our influence on the rest of the world has been good. That doesn’t mean that the rest of the world should dismiss us with one broad brush. I think the same should be said of ancient Greece.
When I was in graduate school, my NT professor made the comment that we couldn’t understand any of Paul’s writing without studying Greek thought and Greek culture. I didn’t really agree with him on that, although I know that Paul was influenced by Greek culture, as that was the scholarly culture of the day.
There is no doubt that Greek culture had an influence on the early church. That doesn’t mean that it is bad, or necessarily anti-God, or pulled people away from God. There are some traditions that are in the church today that I am not sure are exactly Scriptural, but at the same time they do not go against Scripture or what God has revealed about Himself.
I guess, what I’m saying here is that not everything is black and white on this subject. As long as a belief or ritual is not anti-biblical, and it does not pull someone away from God, then I think it is okay. There are some Christian topics that are not discussed in the Bible, and yet Christians have been doing things in certain way for years.
There is something else to consider — some people may only be able to reached through things like Greek philosophy because it is an interest to them. As long as this philosophy draws them near to the real God (and not away), then I think it would be good for them. That same philosophy might repel another person, and cause them to grow farther away from God.
You wrote:
“It’s that dualism, the desire for a compartmentalism of man into parts that die and parts that survive, thereby evading the sting of death and negating a solid rationale for resurrection as the path to eternal life, that feeds into stovepiped thinking about God from a Platonic worldview. In broad terms, the church migrated steadily and purposefully away from Jewish thinking and scriptural perspectives. What I have concluded is that the trinity concept of God is not what the average OT or messianic 1st C Jew would have understood. Whilst we can squeeze that line of thought from hints or derive implications of trinitarianism, the concept largely has to be reversed engineered back in. Eisegesis in other words.”
My response:
Okay, now you are getting into a specific kind of Greek belief that IS anti-biblical. All of these individual beliefs that you listed above don’t necessarily lead to that conclusion. For example, someone might believe in the compartmentalism of humans, but yet deny all of those other beliefs.
As I said before, I really have no opinion on the compartmentalism of humans. I freely admit that I don’t know the answer to that, and I am content to leave it in God’s hands. What I do know to be true, though, is that at Jesus’ second coming there WILL be a bodily resurrection. Every speculation beyond that is to go outside of the bounds of Scripture. A person can be an orthodox Christian and stand on either side of the “what happens immediately after we die” question.
So…you need to take into consideration that not all people who subscribe to some of the “Greek” beliefs will come to the conclusion that we can evade the sting of death and disbelieve in the bodily resurrection of the dead. In fact, if anyone does believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead, then they are not an orthodox Christian (remember that the creeds do soundly affirm the resurrection of the dead).
Now, just as with Greek thinking, not all Jewish thinking is necessarily biblical. There are Jewish beliefs and teachings that I think do go against Scripture, and are wrong. In this case, I am talking about some of the Jewish mysticism, which is actually closely related to Gnosticism.
I do think it would have been better for the church if they had kept more Jewish thinking, and not been as hostile to some of the Jewish, biblical traditions. I think it could help us Christians understand God and our faith better if we considered Jewish thinking, etc.
Jim, it is impossible to say what the average 1st century Jew would have thought. We can make guesses and speculations, but all we have is the Bible and early Christian writings. All of the original apostles were Jewish, as was Jesus, of course. From the evidence that we have within the Bible, as well as church history — I have to conclude that they believed in one God, and believed simultaneously that that one God was three — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They could do this using Jewish thought without needing to use Greek thought. From these basic beliefs, the doctrine of the Trinity became better spelled out by Christians later on.
A person could accept that there is one God, but that that one God is Three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), without having to define all terms or explain exactly how it was. They could simply accept it as what Scripture teaches, and not get into any of the Greek thought that later contributed to the defined doctrine of the Trinity — if they wanted to.
In other words, what I am saying is that I don’t think the Greek definitions that were used to define the doctrine of the Trinity are needed to just believing what I believe the Bible is teaching. Nor do I believe that defining things exactly was required by the first century church. They could just accept it without the need to explain how or why.
You wrote:
“The entire subject is taken to be almost forbidden ground to question and in some circles is a salvation issue. Where the deity of Christ is in doubt, then I would agree that a wrong Jesus equals a wrong gospel that is powerless to save. So, overall, I see orthodox trinitarianism as compromised, post-canonical, and the fruit of a philosophical seed planted over 1500 years ago to decouple the church from a proper understanding of God and Jesus.”
My response:
Since you brought this up, I wanted to mention that I came across a verse in the Bible on my own that makes me question whether or not it IS a salvational issue to believe that Jesus is YHWH, which is why I really wanted to discuss it with you. Craig knows about this because I e-mailed him a few days ago asking for his thoughts.
The verse is John 8:24 (NASB)
24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
Now, I think Jesus is calling Himself YHWH here, (saying that unless you believe that Jesus is YHWH, you will die in your sins), but I see how it could also be a reference to Him being the Messiah (that unless you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, you will die in your sins), or both — if being the Messiah necessarily also implied that He was YHWH, which I think is very possible. From the NT, it often seems to me like people in Jesus’ day believed that the Messiah was YHWH — just by how they respond to Jesus when He claims to be the Messiah.
So…if people are thinking of the above verse, I understand why they consider it to be a salvational issue.
Now…I don’t think that questioning anything should be forbidden in any church. If we can’t question things, then how can we grow stronger in our faith? If someone has questioned something, prayed about it, and decided that they agree with the viewpoint, then they would come out all the stronger. They would know why they believed something, and they would actually believe it. I think it is unhealthy for a church not to allow for people to question things, and to take the time to just talk.
But, yes, a wrong Jesus is a wrong gospel.
Okay — so when you think about trinitarianism, you are thinking about the full, well defined doctrine. Would you be against a general belief system in one God, yet that one God is three, as I said above…if nothing was defined or explained…just a simple belief. Would you feel that that belief system would be compromised?
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“I recognise that what I’ve written comes over as pretty harsh – that the trinity doctrine is a ploy of satan to trick Christianity into adhering to a skewed view of God. Perhaps it is too strong worded and perhaps we’re actually closer than it appears in our understanding of the Godhead.”
My response:
Yes, it is rather harsh — what would Satan get out of tricking Christians to believe in the Trinity? It wouldn’t cause anyone to turn to Satan, and it wouldn’t draw them away from God. So….what would Satan gain from such an action?
Again, are you just talking here about the final well thought out, defined doctrine of the trinity when you say “trinity” there, or do you also include the very basic belief in one God, who is also three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit0?
You wrote:
“I have heard the case for the trinity explained by saying God made man in his image which is why he is a tripartite being, reflecting God’s trinitarian nature. Problem there, for me, is that I see man as a whole being, much as I see God monotheistically. There are other elements to man’s nature, his inner person, but that does not mean he has other ‘things’ (soul or spirit) as part of him.”
My response:
Yeah, I have heard that explanation as well, though I have tried to avoid that here, as I don’t necessarily agree with the ideas behind that explanation. I once had an online friend who held strongly to that viewpoint, and he and I were talking to a Jehovah’s Witness about the trinity. He used that argument with the Jehovah’s Witness. I wasn’t convinced that that was actually how things are.
So, know that it is not a requirement of Trinitarian belief to think that way. Some Trinitarians do think like that, but not all do.
You wrote:
“Thank you both again for the interaction.”
My response:
And thank you for yours.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“It is pretty tenuous Craig. Arwen, I am equating a seemingly small correction or innocuous idea, even point of clarification, which, if an error, is like the leaven of the Pharisees. Their legalism could not be mixed with the purity of the Kingdom Jesus was preaching.
What did the Greeks ever do for us? Well apart from philosophy, rote learning, and school classes, and medicine, and the Olympics, and weddings, and kleftico, oh, and yoghurt, Nothing. Seriously, their desire for ‘wisdom’, gnosis, was the wind that blew early Christianity on to the rocks that became Catholicism, frankly.”
My response:
Not all Greeks were into gnosticism, and not all Greek thought leads to gnosticism. Gnosticism should be rejected not because it is a Greek thought, but because it goes against Scripture, and it pulls people away from the true God, and it is a false gospel. It teaches a false Jesus and a false salvation.
Aside from the Catholic mystics, the Catholic Church does not teach gnosticism. I do not agree with all Roman Catholic doctrine, or their interpretation of all of the Scripture, but I do feel I need to defend them on the charge of gnosticism. Could it have embraced some gnostic concepts? Possibly — but it does not teach gnosticism.
LikeLike
Arwen, sorry, I didn’t mean that Catholicism embraced or taught gnosticism. Paul said the Greeks valued wisdom, or philosophical solutions to the meaning of life. Gnosis or knowledge comes from that path but, certainly, not many Greeks were gnostic as a result of pursuing knowledge.
My reference to Catholicism was that the later creeds formed the doctrinal foundations that grew into what was the formative Roman Catholic church. I don’t link that to gnostic influence as such, although it has been on the margins of Catholicism, and still is as Richard Rohr demonstrates.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’m not so sure that it’s that “gnosticism has been on the margins of Catholicism”. I think it more likely that Rohr is influenced by the modern day ‘incarnation’ of gnosticism in the New Age version. I just went to his website and saw this quote:
This denies the Catholic doctrine of original sin. And it sounds more like Cynthia Bourgeault’s idea of “sin”, which is, of course, New Age.
LikeLike
Funnily, the very next quote I saw as I was going to click away from the site is this:
While the first quote was implicit in its denial of original sin, but here Rohr is more explicit.
LikeLike
‘Again, are you just talking here about the final well thought out, defined doctrine of the trinity when you say “trinity” there, or do you also include the very basic belief in one God, who is also three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?’
The reason I have difficulty with the trinity description of God is that it is all but impossible for it to be well thought out. To me, even what you call the very basic belief defies a logical understanding, unless modalism is the result. So, trinity whether basic or detailed is a conundrum that I don’t think is the intent of scripture.
LikeLike
Arwen,
As to John 8:24, Jesus identifies himself as both I AM and the Son of Man (v28). I read all the surrounding references he makes to himself and the Father as a clear separation of person – he wasn’t being vague or ambiguous. I think Jesus wanted the Jews to believe he was from God and sufficiently close to God (his son) to lay claim to God’s I AM WHO I AM name.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’m still studying this section in conjunction with commentary. 8:28 also uses the Divine Name like 8:24: “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM.” In the Greek, there is no predicate following “I AM”, so many translations follow it with “He”, or assume Jesus meant “the one I claim to be”, or something to that effect; therefore, the predicate is filled in accordingly. We must be careful not to dichotomize “the Son of Man” and “the Son of God” here–not saying that you are, necessarily.
As to the separateness of Father and Son, of course you know that Trinitarians see this a necessary aspect of the Incarnation; however, for Jesus’ to claim the Divine Name is for Him to make a claim of Deity. God is One per the Shema.
LikeLike
Craig, ektos ‘out of’ is used in 2 Cor 12:2&3 so should be translated the same, not ‘out’ in one verse and ‘apart’ in another. I don’t think Paul is advocating an ‘out of body experience’, just a vision.
LikeLike
Jim,
Regarding 2 Corinthians 12, the NA28 has chōris (“without”) in verse 3, not ektos. There’s a textual variant, yes, with some manuscripts containing ektos, but this hardly makes sense in the context–why would Paul repeat himself?
LikeLike
Jim,
I see, so it isn’t just the Greek thought association that causes you to reject the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is the very idea of there being one God, who is three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) because you consider it to be illogical…therefore it must be wrong?
But isn’t that in and of itself using Greek type thinking?
Modalism is illogical (from Scripture) because it assumes that the Jesus is the Father, and Jesus obviously prayed to the Father — so then they have to say that the human part of Jesus was praying to the divine part of Jesus, etc.
Yes, the creeds did form the background theology of the Catholic Church. However, they also added to the Catholic beliefs — what was defined as Catholic doctrine– over the years. Still, as Craig said, New Age/gnostic beliefs goes against traditional Catholic teaching.
To embrace the New Age teachings of Richard Rohr and Fox and others like them is to depart from real Catholic teaching.
LikeLike
You wrote:
“As to John 8:24, Jesus identifies himself as both I AM and the Son of Man (v28). I read all the surrounding references he makes to himself and the Father as a clear separation of person – he wasn’t being vague or ambiguous. I think Jesus wanted the Jews to believe he was from God and sufficiently close to God (his son) to lay claim to God’s I AM WHO I AM name.”
My response:
Thanks for your take on the verse. From your response of “he makes himself and the Father as a clear separation of person,” we are agreed on that part. It is the modalists who think that Jesus and the Father are the same person. Trinitarians fully agree that Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons. At the same time, the two Persons are the same God, YHWH. So…there is a distinction, and yet a unity/sameness at the same time.
I think we can agree that there is a distinction, yet a unity/sameness at the same time. However, we are coming to different conclusions about what this means.
LikeLike
Craig, it is likely that Paul repeats himself in 2 Cor 12 to create emphasis. It’s a pretty common narrative technique if you want to underline something important.
LikeLike
The earliest manuscript, p46, a papyrus, one of the oldest for the NT, has chōris (“without”) in verse 3.
LikeLike
Jim,
But you’ve still addressed my rebuttal to Revelation 4 @ 2017/08/20 at 2:58 pm.
LikeLike
So, Arwen, when you say that there is very clear separation in the persons of the Father and the Son, that they are distinct but the same God, I wonder what image you have of God. How do you conceive of this singularity consisting of three in a non-tritheistic way? Other than accepting it as a mystery we’re not supposed to understand, how do you rationalise a coherent picture of God that is portrayed by that triangular diagram with the word God at the centre and Father, Son and Spirit on the three corners connected by ‘is not’ along each external line and ‘is’ on each internal connection with the word ‘God’. Let’s be honest, it’s either tritheism or modalism. There is no other way that diagram can work. It’s a contradiction in terms and a verbal illusion.
1 Tim 2:5 sums up NT teaching perfectly – ‘For there is one God and also one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.’ He was also the Logos, begotten from before creation, a deity alongside YHWH, but that never meant two gods to the NT writers and early church. Neither did they think of God’s invisible presence as another Person complementing the two. I think that’s simply how the lexicon of the day referenced non-material activity – pneuma. It was God at work, and he could be grieved or blasphemed or trampled on.
I’m just doing some reading on the founder of the trinity, Anathasius, without whom this doctrine would not have gained the creedal centrality it did in the 4th C church, and his primary tutor Origen. At first blush, it looks like a heavy dose of Neo-platonic thinking slanted both their understanding of scripture.
LikeLike
Is it really not yet 5 am with you!
LikeLike
It’s just before 6am now.
LikeLike
I’m not entirely sure what the change or shift in John’s perspective is from his initial one in Rev 4:2 Craig. My NASB has a note against that verse that says it could read ‘in spirit’. To me that means ” ‘from within me’ or ‘to my inner being’ I saw……”
LikeLike
Jim,
My reply to you was delayed, as we lost electricity for a few hours (so I’ve been playing ‘catch up’ for a bit). Yes, in Rev 4:2, it is literally “in spirit”, but “the” is supplied for better English. But this then seems to help make my point. If it were the Holy Spirit, then the article would have been used in the Greek (“in the Spirit”). Since the context lacks the article, it seems best to understand it as the human spirit (“in [the] spirit”). So, how do we account for the fact that John the Revelator had already been seeing a vision, yet the text signals some sort of change in which he was “in [the] spirit” before entering Heaven?
As regards 2 Cor. 12:3, I will say I find it curious that Metzger’s Textual Commentary on (some) textual variants omits this particular variant in the (current) 2nd edition (same with Omanson’s commentary and Philip Comfort’s), while it is listed in the 1st. As it happens, I bought a used copy of the first edition before I was aware there was a 2nd. The first edition reads:
To be fair, there are more manuscripts reflecting the other reading, but that’s not unusual for an error to get replicated down the line. It’s not difficult to imagine a copyist losing his place in the text and using εκτος from verse 2 in error, and subsequent copyists faithfully copying his error.
LikeLike
I should add Origen influenced Anathasius posthumously.
LikeLike
Interesting that the Catholic newadvent.org has this on Arius:
The heresy, of course, had its supposedly philosophic basis, which has been ascribed by authors, ancient and modern, to the most opposite sources. St. Epiphanius characterizes it as a king of revived Aristoteleanism (Haer., lxvii and lxxvi); and the same view is practically held by Socrates (Church History II.35), Theodoret (Haer. Fab., IV, iii), and St. Basil (Against Eunomius I.9). On the other hand, a theologian as broadly read as Petavius (De Trin., I, viii, 2) has no hesitation in deriving it from Platonism; Newman in turn (Arians of the Fourth Cent., 4 ed., 109) sees in it the influence of Jewish prejudices rationalized by the aid of Aristotelean ideas; while Robertson (Sel. Writ. and Let. of Ath. Proleg., 27) observes that the “common theology”, which was invariably opposed to it, “borrowed its philosophical principles and method from the Platonists.”
Looks as though the old Platonists cop it from both sides!
LikeLike
Jim,
You claim that Athanasius was the founder of the Trinity. What about Tertullian? As far as I know, Tertullian is thought to be the “founder” in that he was the first to really articulate a more defined doctrine of the Trinity. It is true that Athanasius was the main apologist against Arius’ view, but he didn’t invent the concept. He defined it further, and helped people understand the view better.
You wrote:
“So, Arwen, when you say that there is very clear separation in the persons of the Father and the Son, that they are distinct but the same God, I wonder what image you have of God. How do you conceive of this singularity consisting of three in a non-tritheistic way? Other than accepting it as a mystery we’re not supposed to understand, how do you rationalise a coherent picture of God that is portrayed by that triangular diagram with the word God at the centre and Father, Son and Spirit on the three corners connected by ‘is not’ along each external line and ‘is’ on each internal connection with the word ‘God’. Let’s be honest, it’s either tritheism or modalism. There is no other way that diagram can work. It’s a contradiction in terms and a verbal illusion.”
My response:
Let’s use that diagram to help distinguish the three viewpoints — trinitarianism, tritheism, and modalism.
In the trinity diagram where it says “is God” replace that with “is YHWH,” and that should help to clarify how I understand how God can be one and yet three.
If they were three gods, they would not all be the one God, YHWH. Instead, they would each be “a god” or “A God.” (tritheism) It would be YHWH and other Gods — YHWH and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They would not be of the same essence or being. Instead, each would be their own essence and being.
As for the modalist view, you would change the diagram to delete the word “not” from each of the lines, so that it would say the Father is the Son, the Father is the Holy Spirit, the Son is the Father, the Son is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Son. This would make for no distinction between the three. They would all be the same as each other.
Do you see how the Trinitarian view is distinguished from both tritheism and modalism? Do you see how the other two viewpoints are distinguished from each other?
This is important, because if you can’t see the distinction of the three views, then we’re not talking about the same thing when we say “trinity,” and we are talking past each other.
You wrote:
“1 Tim 2:5 sums up NT teaching perfectly – ‘For there is one God and also one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.’ He was also the Logos, begotten from before creation, a deity alongside YHWH, but that never meant two gods to the NT writers and early church. Neither did they think of God’s invisible presence as another Person complementing the two. I think that’s simply how the lexicon of the day referenced non-material activity – pneuma. It was God at work, and he could be grieved or blasphemed or trampled on.”
My response:
How could the view of YHWH and a deity alongside of YHWH not be two gods?
LikeLike
Jim,
What sources are you using for your information on the trinity? It seems that whatever source it is has misspelled a name……
You have used the spelling “Anathasius,” but I am pretty sure you mean “Athanasius.” This means that there are either two correct spellings, some legitimate sources spelling it both ways, or there is an error in some of the sources….
LikeLike
You’re right Arwen. I have transposed the ‘th’ and ‘n’.
”How could the view of YHWH and a deity alongside of YHWH not be two gods?” It depends whether you’re concerned that such a view contravenes Jesus declaring the Shema and monotheism is consequently broken. Some would argue that it can still be intact.
LikeLike
Jim,
So did you understand what I wrote about how trinitarianism differs from both tritheism and modalism?
Thanks. Good to know that you meant “Athanasius.” It’s a mistake that a few others have made as well, as when I did a google search, a lot of search results came up when I searched for the spelling you had used.
Yes, I think that having YHWH and a deity alongside of Him (someone who isn’t Him) would make two gods. But, like you said, other people have a different view.
LikeLike
Arwen, I’ll answer your last question initially. ”How could the view of YHWH and a deity alongside of YHWH not be two gods?” If one is content to see Jesus/Logos as YHWH material, but distinct from him, you can still adhere to the Shema and believe God/YHWH is the Most High and Almighty One. It’s just that you would also hold to the view that his Son is of, or from him, but not him. That’s because you are happy with a cosmological view that understands the existence of many elohim, or ‘mighty ones’, amongst whom the Father stands supreme, and Jesus is pretty much shoulder to shoulder.
LikeLike
Here is a paste of most of the Athanasian creed translated from Latin:
First up is the need to believe in the trinity, not because of any implied deity issues regarding Jesus, but for its own sake, in order to be saved. I would argue strongly that claim is not scripturally sound. In fact it’s downright wrong.
Next, I quoted this section because your interpretation of the Trinity diagram to differentiate trinitarianism, tritheism and modalism confused me due to the substitution of YHWH for God/Deus. The diagram has Father on one triangle apex and God in the middle, but did your version dispense with Father and just have YHWH in the middle vice God? It seemed to in the tritheism para.
Despite that, I got your line of reasoning, but then you finished by saying that trinitarianism is proved (not your words) because it wasn’t either tritheism or modalism. The problem to me though is that statement still doesn’t make sense of the claim illustrated in the diagram. It’s having your cake but ignoring the ingredients in a way. It’s saying it’s not modalism or tritheism when it actually is. To conclude trinitarianism is saying,’ yes, I know it looks like either tritheism or modalism, but it’s not. It’s trinitarinaism because of the ‘is’ ‘is not’ connectors.” Those connectors, however, don’t make the case, they simply illustrate the declaration of the trinity, which remains illogical. Sorry, but I just don’t get it. And I honestly don’t think God would reveal himself in a way that requires a good degree of cognitive dissonance.
LikeLike
Jim, you wrote, in part, It’s saying it’s not modalism or tritheism when it actually is. To conclude trinitarianism is saying,’ yes, I know it looks like either tritheism or modalism, but it’s not. It’s trinitarinaism because of the ‘is’ ‘is not’ connectors.” Those connectors, however, don’t make the case, they simply illustrate the declaration of the trinity, which remains illogical.
Look at this precursor to the Trinity, with “Ieve” in the middle understood as YHWH and the circles representing Father, Son and Spirit. For your purposes, think of this as sort of like your “many elohim” in place of YHWH, and within that framework the “is” and “is not” distinctions. Now you still may claim that this image appears tritheistic when construed as the Trinity, but you cannot escape the same charge of polytheism in your particular view of, in essence, many Elohim.
LikeLike
Or, perhaps I should call your view bitheism (YHWH +
not-quite-YHWH-but-subordinate-YHWH) + other less-than-YHWHs = “many elohim”LikeLike
From wikipedia – ‘Elohim’:
Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים ’ĕlōhîm) is one of the names of God in the Hebrew Bible and worshipped as part of the Western monotheistic tradition; the term is also used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to groups of other gods.
Are you saying, Craig, that there is only one spiritual entity? YHWH. Also, isn’t polytheism the systematic worship of multiple deities? It’s not about the existence of multiple deities/elohim.
LikeLike
In the definition of Elohim are two: 1) a name for God; 2) groups of other gods. The way I see your conception of God, you’ve conflated the two.
I’m saying there’s only one God, YHWH, with which I think we agree. I’m not so sure that polytheism must entail the worship of the different gods, as such. I think belief in many gods is the primary definition, with worship of these gods not necessarily a constituent part of the definition.
LikeLike
”perhaps I should call your view bitheism”
I’d prefer functional binity.
LikeLike
I understand what you’re putting forth as a “functional binity” within a larger group of Elohim, but my contention is that when you subsume YHWH and functionally-subordinate-YHWH (which is really bitheism, as the two are separate entities) under “many Elohim” this grouping entails a sort of polytheism in which two members are to be worshiped while the others are not. That is, your grouping of Gods and gods together is by the definition provided for Elohim polytheism. I understand that you’d not actually call the other Elohim “gods” in a pagan sense, but that’s what it amounts to the way I see it.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“First up is the need to believe in the trinity, not because of any implied deity issues regarding Jesus, but for its own sake, in order to be saved. I would argue strongly that claim is not scripturally sound. In fact it’s downright wrong.
Next, I quoted this section because your interpretation of the Trinity diagram to differentiate trinitarianism, tritheism and modalism confused me due to the substitution of YHWH for God/Deus. The diagram has Father on one triangle apex and God in the middle, but did your version dispense with Father and just have YHWH in the middle vice God? It seemed to in the tritheism para.
Despite that, I got your line of reasoning, but then you finished by saying that trinitarianism is proved (not your words) because it wasn’t either tritheism or modalism. The problem to me though is that statement still doesn’t make sense of the claim illustrated in the diagram. It’s having your cake but ignoring the ingredients in a way. It’s saying it’s not modalism or tritheism when it actually is. To conclude trinitarianism is saying,’ yes, I know it looks like either tritheism or modalism, but it’s not. It’s trinitarinaism because of the ‘is’ ‘is not’ connectors.” Those connectors, however, don’t make the case, they simply illustrate the declaration of the trinity, which remains illogical. Sorry, but I just don’t get it. And I honestly don’t think God would reveal himself in a way that requires a good degree of cognitive dissonance.”
My response:
I’ve tried to say this before, but I think it is hard for you to understand what I’m saying because you are interpreting “Father” and “YHWH” through your own lens, thus blurring what I’m trying to say.
In my belief, YHWH and Father are not synonyms. In other words, I don’t believe that only the Father is YHWH, or and I don’t believe that the Father is all of YHWH. I also don’t believe that only the Father is God, and I don’t believe that the Father is all of God. I think this is where the confusion is coming for you.
Now, the trinity diagram that you and I are referring to is a diagram that was made to show what the Athanasian Creed is saying about God.
The reason that I substituted YHWH for the word God is because the writers of the creed understood that there is only one God, and that would be YHWH. I did the substitution because the word “God” can be confusing to people, and to make clearer that it wasn’t “a god” in the middle to help distinguish trinitarian belief from tritheism. (To make sure that you saw that we are talking about the same God, YHWH, rather than individual gods.)
Maybe you are not quite understanding the diagram, so let me see if I can explain it.
So, the circle in the middle says “God.” (Ignore this middle circle for now).
There are three other circles which say “The Father,” “The Son,” and the “Holy Spirit.” These are on the outside. They are the points to the equilateral triangle. These three are the Persons.
The lines connecting the points on the triangle are labeled as “is not.”
So what is this part of the diagram saying? It is showing the relationship between the points to one another. They are all labeled as “Is Not.”
What this is saying is that The Father IS NOT the Son. The Father IS NOT the Holy Spirit. (remember, you are following these lines to see that these points are not synonymous). Each point is distinct.
So, going around the triangle, we see that The Son IS NOT the Father, and The Son IS NOT the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit IS NOT the Father, and The Holy Spirit IS NOT the Son.
These outer lines are meant to show that the each of the points (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are distinct from one another.
Does that make sense to you?
Modalism would remove the word “Not” from each of the connections, which would result in saying The Father is the Son, The Father is the Holy Spirit; The Son is the Father, The Son is the Holy Spirit; The Holy Spirit is the Father, The Holy Spirit is the Son.
This view eliminates all of the distinctions between the points, making each point synonymous with each of the other points.
Tritheism, for this part of it, would keep all the outer lines and labels the same as it is for trinitarianism.
Does everything that I’ve said in this post make sense to you? I’m not going to move on to explaining the middle circle until the outer part makes sense. Otherwise, you will continue to be confused.
Do you understand how modalism is different from both trinitarianism and tritheism on the outer part of the triangle?
LikeLike
Please note that my previous post is only talking about the OUTER part of the triangle. (In other words, it is not talking about the inner “God” circle with the lines leading to it). We will talk about the inner part of the triangle once I’m sure that we are in agreement on what the outer part of the diagram is saying.
Please also note that I am not asking you to agree with my beliefs. I am simply trying to help you understand what the diagram means so that we can continue our discussion.
LikeLike
Jim,
One more thing — I think if we were to make a drawing of your own beliefs involving the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even your beliefs would agree with the outer part of the diagram, as you believe that there is a distinction between all three points, although with the Holy Spirit it might be different, as you sometimes have stated you believe there is a distinction, and at other times you have said that the Holy Spirit is the Father and Son….
So, at least with the Father and Son, you would agree that the two are not each other….that there is a distinction.
The Holy Spirit is a bit more complicated in your belief system, so I’m not quite sure how you would want to express that according to your belief system.
LikeLike
Well a bit less complicated, so my diagram would simply be a straight line between the Father and Jesus with ‘is not’ written. The complicated part is the God depiction. Probably a line saying ‘is’ from the Father to a circle in which is the Most High God. Another ‘is’ line from Jesus to a circle saying ‘the Son of God Most High’.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’ve thought of a way to make the middle part more understandable to you (I hope), and I’ve also thought of a way to make the middle represent your view, and also that of tritheism in a clearer way, but I’m going to wait to post any of that until after you’ve responded to my posts from yesterday. I don’t want to overwhelm you, and I want to make sure that you understand the outer part first. (Otherwise you won’t be able to understand the inner part).
I did want to address a couple things briefly first. Earlier you had written this:
“The problem to me though is that statement still doesn’t make sense of the claim illustrated in the diagram. It’s having your cake but ignoring the ingredients in a way. It’s saying it’s not modalism or tritheism when it actually is. To conclude trinitarianism is saying,’ yes, I know it looks like either tritheism or modalism, but it’s not. It’s trinitarinaism because of the ‘is’ ‘is not’ connectors.” Those connectors, however, don’t make the case, they simply illustrate the declaration of the trinity, which remains illogical. Sorry, but I just don’t get it. And I honestly don’t think God would reveal himself in a way that requires a good degree of cognitive dissonance.”
My response:
Cognitive dissonance can work both ways. It can also be at work when trying to understand a viewpoint that you yourself do not hold, unless you are actually able to put your viewpoints on the shelf for a moment, and try to understand it from a different viewpoint. Again, this doesn’t mean that you have to agree with the other person’s viewpoint or conclusions, but you do have to truly understand them. I know that you are trying hard to understand our viewpoint, but I think your own viewpoint and understanding keeps blocking you from understanding.
For example, Craig and I have told you several times that we believe that there is only one God, YHWH, and that YHWH is not only the Father, and yet it is something that you keep thinking that we believe because that is what you believe. Our view on YHWH here is essential to our beliefs, without it, you are NOT going to be able to understand what we actually believe. In other words, it is the key. Hopefully my next post will clarify this for you in illustration.
Secondly, it is true that trinitarianism is in between modalism and tritheism. You have it exactly right that without the “is not” and “Is” connector words, it would be either of those beliefs. That is because trinitarianism holds a perfect tension between the conclusion of both of those belief systems — you go too far on either of those extremes, and you wind up with modalism or tritheism. That is why both the inner and the outer connectors are essential.
As you have seen, the outer connectors are the same for both trinitarianism and tritheism. The same is not true for modalism. It’s these outer connectors that make the difference between trinitarianism and modalism.
The connector words for the outer circle are not just words that someone put down to avoid sounding like modalism. Rather, they stand for our actual beliefs that the three points are NOT each other.
To illustrate that the words matter, let me ask you this:
Does it matter to you whether there is a distinction between the Father and the Son?
From our conversations, I know that the distinction does matter. Therefore, the phrases “the Father is not the Son,” and “the Son is not the Father” matter to your belief system too. It is the same with us. To remove those words (“is not”) would be to misrepresent what we believe about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
In the same way, if we removed the “is not” from your belief system, it would misrepresent what you believed about the Father and the Son as well.
LikeLike
Jim,
“Well a bit less complicated, so my diagram would simply be a straight line between the Father and Jesus with ‘is not’ written. The complicated part is the God depiction. Probably a line saying ‘is’ from the Father to a circle in which is the Most High God. Another ‘is’ line from Jesus to a circle saying ‘the Son of God Most High’.”
Excellent – you wrote your reply as I was just writing mine, and I didn’t see it until after I had posted my previous post.
What you said about your beliefs is exactly how I was thinking of depicting your beliefs wiith the center as well. I think you are understanding how this diagram is working now.
Are you okay with moving on to the center of the diagram then?
LikeLike
Given your most recent reply (August 25, 2017 at 6:22 am), it sounds to me like you are definitely ready to move onto the middle. You clearly understand that the center of the diagram is about deity, and is not one of the points.
Therefore, even though you did not say that you understood the outer lines explicitly, you implicitly did because you showed me that you did agree that in your beliefs, there would be a line from the Father to the Son that says “is not.”
Also, you clearly understand what the lines in the middle are meant to reflect, as you illustrated those lines exactly as I would have done for your beliefs. You even made two circles in the center to illustrate your beliefs, which is what I would have done for your beliefs as well, and labeled them the way that I would have.
So, yes, for trinitarian belief, there is one circle in the middle. This label, and this label alone, I would suggest changing the label to “the one and only God, YHWH.” That is for clarification so that you trinitarian beliefs are easier to see. (the label in the diagram “God” is correct as well, though, because for trinitarians, there is only one God, YHWH, so God here is understood to be deity. The creed explicitly says there is one God, and that is this center part of the diagram.)
The connecting lines in the center each go from each point, the result being “the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH.” The “is” on the connectors here is essential.
Modalism, for the center, would look the same as it is for trinitarianism.
For tritheism, you could depict it in two ways. The first way that I suggested earlier would be to change the center label to read “a god,” but I thought of a better way. The other way to illustrate tritheism would be to have THREE circles in the middle instead of one. You could label them “God 1,” “God 2,” and “God 3.” Then, there would be a line from the Father to God 1, a line from the Son to God 2, and a line from the Holy Spirit to God 3. Each connecting line to the center would say “is.” This would be a better way of depicting tritheism because it would show how many gods there were in the center.
And for yours, I would have two circles just as you had, with the lines just as you depicted.
For all of these belief systems (including yours), you have to keep in mind that both sets of lines (the inner and outer lines) are true at the same time.
Now, do you see the difference between the different belief systems?
(Modalism, trinitarianism, and tritheism)?
LikeLike
Oh, I just realized that one of my previous posts might be misunderstood, so let me clarify…
When I was talking about the tension between two viewpoints, what I meant was the tension between the belief in one God and the belief in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit being distinct from one another.
If you go too far in one direction, without holding the other belief in exact tension, you will end up with either modalism or tritheism, depending on which way you are leaning. This is why both beliefs (belief in one God, and belief in the distinction of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are essential.
LikeLike
Craig, if I can respond to your 24 Aug 7:06 and 7:21 posts first. I’m not sure we totally align with respect to the term gods. I don’t think I’m conflating the use of the word Elohim because I think I’ve stated that its translation is context dependent. It can mean God YHWH or god (small ‘g’ due to the referent being a lower order spiritual entity, or even senior public human figures and kings.
What I think you and Arwen agree on is that YHWH is the ‘composite’ of Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit. What I’m saying is that YHWH is the Name of the God Most High also called God Almighty and his Son is Logos/Jesus Christ who is of his nature and not a created being in the sense that other ‘gods’ were made from whatever ‘spirit’ material consists of. I believe that ANE Jews and NT believers understood that this wasn’t bitheism, although I do recognise that it seems that way to you.
I’m still not sure that while you state that there is one God, YHWH, do you acknowledge other entities that the bible calls Elohim or gods; so called mighty ones that mankind has encountered and refers to as, angels, higher beings, or gods. I’m not talking Eric von Daniken aliens or such, but Angels, nephilim, spiritual beings that are created and under the authority of Jesus and God Most High / YHWH. Can you just clarify that part please.
LikeLike
Jim,
As regards Elohim, you’ve made the comment before that you believe in a sort of divine council consisting of YHWH (Father and Son) and, as I recall, something along the lines of “lower order spiritual entities”. This is where I think you’re conflating the meanings.
As I see it, any acceptance of binitarianism was as a post-Resurrection reaction to Jesus’ Messiahship–a Messiahship only fully understood post-Easter. ANE Jews added this to their monotheism. Hurtado indicates that the worship of Christ–worship on par with YHWH–was a development of monotheism. It was reactive. In other words, until Jesus Jews were strict monotheists, worshiping YHWH, understood as One single entity, not made up of any ‘parts’.
Jewish Messianic expectations was of a man who would be anointed by God to lead them out of captivity by political means (revolt). This did not include any sort of divinity on the part of the Messiah. Jesus changed all that retroactively.
As far as what Elohim means in other non-YHWH contexts see “Occurrences of Elohim that don’t mean God” section here (be sure to exclude the meanings for “El” in the bottom half of that same box).
LikeLike
Arwen, I need to go through your very detailed posts a couple of times. Thank you for taking so much time and trouble. It’s not that I don’t understand the trinitarian principle. After all, I came from that church doctrinal environment and have only been questioning its validity fairly recently. I totally get the diagram and what it sets out. I’m just not convinced it portrays what the bible honestly declares in a straightforward fashion. 1 Cor 14:33 – God is not the author of confusion but of peace….
LikeLike
Before moving on, I’d like your take on why the trinity doctrine is the only true way of describing God or YHWH. Is it that monotheism has to stay intact? A singular God entity whereby there are no others. But then having to accommodate a Son who is the mediator between God and mankind who has to be of the order or nature of supreme deity. If Jesus in his incarnation, fully divine and fully man, could say he was going to his God and their (disciples) God and, on multiple occasions, referenced his separateness and subordination to the Most High and All Mighty God, who is man to tamper with that explanation?
LikeLike
Jesus said He was going to His God, but He also called God “His own Father”, which the Jews understood as equating Himself with God (John 5:17-18). While Jesus also spoke as one Person, He sometimes spoke as if He were human, and at other times as if He were God (John 8:58, as merely one example).
LikeLike
Didn’t the prophets speak as if it were God’s actual voice speaking? There were only a few occasions that the audible voice of God was heard. We are all familiar with a person speaking God’s words in the first person singular. We would simply regard that as ‘speaking by the Spirit of God’. We wouldn’t regard that speaker as YHWH, nor would we include ourselves as part of YHWH despite being permitted to call out ‘Abba, Father’ in prayer.
LikeLike
Yes, the OT prophets spoke as God’s mouthpiece, as His agent. When the prophet spoke ‘as God’, he did so by quoting Him–not as if he were, in fact, God Himself. Speaking in one’s stead is very different from actually being that person.
But Jesus made divine claims of Himself. No other prophet did that.
LikeLike
Elohim is one of a collection of Hebrew words and terms for Lord, Master, God, Almighty etc I understand. Each also have contextual translations and not absolute definitions. I’m not sure that’s conflating matters, just alternating meaning according to context.
I do think there is good evidence for a divine council. Jesus and Paul make reference to principalities, powers, the kingdom of the power of the air, divine beings with certain responsibilities, all of which took oversight by God.
I also think that there is sufficient scriptural and cultural evidence of a two powers divine construct through the OT that was only fully revealed in the NT by Jesus Christ. These compelling themes run counter to a trinitarian understanding of the Godhead. So, we see that YHWH was without beginning. Before the creation of the universe he begat or formed the Logos, with whom he co-founded all things, seen and unseen. The Logos incarnated became Jesus who was the Christ who, post death and resurrection, was elevated to a place of at least equal his previous glory and honour with all things placed under his authority, with the exception of God himself. Scripture would support such a narrative very clearly.
LikeLike
But Elohim either means God/YHWH or it means something else. It doesn’t mean both God/YHWH and something else.
Yes, there may well be a ‘divine council’, if that’s what you’d like to call it (by what you’d just described); however, the term Elohim means either God/YHWH or it has some other meaning–not YHWH + divine council.
LikeLike
The framework I described above would fit with Jeus making both divine claims and still refer to YHWH as his God.
LikeLike
If we start getting into separating Jesus talking sometimes as a man and sometimes as God, it all gets very convoluted. Not that you’re saying as much, but I don’t think he was referring to ‘his God’ from his human side, and his divine nature from his God side. But that was the implication. I think Jesus knew his identity clearly and always referenced himself as the Son and not as equal with the Father.
LikeLike
I and the Father are One (John 10:30). I Am (John 8:58, etc.). I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Shall I go on?
LikeLike
August 24 6:40am. Definition of elohim according to Wikipedia. Depending on the context, it means God/YHWH or plural lower gods/mighty ones/spirit beings/human lords. It doesn’t mean those things simultaneously clearly.
LikeLike
I think we’ve covered the names used by Jesus of himself that are found in OT verses about YHWH. If Jesus had been given ALL authority on heaven and earth, that’s tantamount to being the Most High God, but he knew he wasn’t because all these things will be handed back to the Father on the last day once death is defeated 1 Cor 15. He still laid claim to the titles since he was from God and returned to God, and was of God, just not God.
I’ve been on the road a good time today so will pack up for the night. Looking forward to the overnight posts!
LikeLike
Jim, you wrote …if Jesus had been given ALL authority on heaven and earth, that’s tantamount to being the Most High God, but he knew he wasn’t because all these things will be handed back to the Father on the last day once death is defeated 1 Cor 15. He still laid claim to the titles since he was from God and returned to God, and was of God, just not God.
Yes, being given ALL authority on heaven and earth is tantamount to being the Most High God. And since Jesus clearly was not the Father, then both most constitute the Most High God. I say this in view of the fact that there cannot be possibly be two ‘I AMs’, yet both Jesus made this claim and YHWH made this claim (Exodus 3:14). The Son is a ‘separate “Person” from the Father, yet both are YHWH.
But, then again, someone–obviously the Father–bestowed this authority to the Son. And the Son will give all things back to the Father at the eschaton. However, we must circle back to Jesus’ claims of being YHWH (yet NOT the Father) either explicitly (“I AM”) or implicitly (“I and the Father are One [in essence/being]”), etc.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“What I think you and Arwen agree on is that YHWH is the ‘composite’ of Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit. What I’m saying is that YHWH is the Name of the God Most High also called God Almighty and his Son is Logos/Jesus Christ who is of his nature and not a created being in the sense that other ‘gods’ were made from whatever ‘spirit’ material consists of. I believe that ANE Jews and NT believers understood that this wasn’t bitheism, although I do recognise that it seems that way to you.
I’m still not sure that while you state that there is one God, YHWH, do you acknowledge other entities that the bible calls Elohim or gods; so called mighty ones that mankind has encountered and refers to as, angels, higher beings, or gods. I’m not talking Eric von Daniken aliens or such, but Angels, nephilim, spiritual beings that are created and under the authority of Jesus and God Most High / YHWH. Can you just clarify that part please.”
My response:
I think that you do understand what Craig and I believe about YHWH a lot better now.
I agree that the point of disagreement between you and us is over who all is YHWH, as well as who exactly Jesus is.
Jehovah Witnesses have a similar understanding to you, but they have some differences with you as well (for example, they believe that Jesus was the angel Michael). They, too, believe that the Father alone is YHWH (well, they prefer the name Jehovah of course), and refer to Him as Almighty God. They call Jesus Mighty God.
The problem with there being an “Almighty God” and separate “Mighty God” is not only would that amount to two different Gods, but there are some passages in Revelation that seem like Jesus is sometimes referred to as Almighty God along with the Father. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where the title “Almighty God” is defined as only the Father. I don’t see anywhere in Scripture that allows for an “Almighty God” and a separate “Mighty God.”
For my part, I do believe that there are spiritual entities such as angels and demons. However, I do not believe that these are real gods in any way. They are a completely different order of creation from that of humans, and they have different functions. I would NOT include these as being equal to YHWH or even factoring into the trinity diagram at all. They are not gods. Some of them might be worshiped by people as gods because those people have been deceived into thinking that some demons are gods. These angels and demons are created beings.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Arwen, I need to go through your very detailed posts a couple of times. Thank you for taking so much time and trouble. It’s not that I don’t understand the trinitarian principle. After all, I came from that church doctrinal environment and have only been questioning its validity fairly recently. I totally get the diagram and what it sets out. I’m just not convinced it portrays what the bible honestly declares in a straightforward fashion. 1 Cor 14:33 – God is not the author of confusion but of peace….”
My response:
Sure, no problem. Go through my post as often and for as long as you need. I don’t want those posts glossed over, and I want to make sure that you understand what I said. Please don’t feel rushed.
No problem. To me, this is a really important topic, and since we are discussing the Trinity, I want to make sure that we understand one another.
The reason why I thought you were not quite understanding the trinity is because of some of your previous posts. I think you understood some of the basic ideas, and yet it seemed as though you didn’t understand some of the most important trinitarian beliefs. It isn’t an easy doctrine to understand, and it has been misrepresented by people over a long period of time as well, and our culture has changed over the hundreds of years since the doctrine was defined in the church. It’s not as accepted as it once was in some of the more theologically liberal churches.
Yes, I understand that you came from a church environment that believed in the trinity. Most Christians today do come from a background that officially believes it, even if their pastor or particular congregation does not. I think for the average person who attends church, most people do not actually understand what the doctrine of the trinity teaches. This may be because they don’t care, it was never explained to them, or they never thought about it themselves, or some combination of those reasons.
However, you are taking the time to question the view, and to really think about these issues. I’ve thought about them deeply as well. I learned a lot about it when I was put into a situation where I was talking to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals about my beliefs. I had to figure out what the doctrine taught, whether I agreed with it, and then how to distinguish it from various people I met online and in person, and finally, how to explain my beliefs to them and help them know how my beliefs contrasted with theirs.
Although I went through confirmation class in my church, I never understood the doctrine. I suspect that it was never taught to me in confirmation. However, it might have been. I was really young when I went through — I was in 6th grade. My class was huge, and we had students that were anywhere from 6th grade to seniors in high school in my class because we had not had a confirmation class at my church in quite a few years. The senior pastor at the time taught it, and he was pretty old. He was close to retirement age, and he didn’t really seem to like children much. On top of that, we had some kids in my class who really misbehaved. They would distract the rest of the kids in the class by making fun of the actors and actresses in the confirmation videos that we would watch. I don’t remember any doctrine being discussed. From what I remember of it, it seemed to be just how to be a good church member, what church committees did, etc. Again, my view might have been skewed because of my young age and the other factors that happened in class. I did not get much out of confirmation class.
In the Sunday school classes that I attended, we never really learned much about church doctrines either. We learned about the Bible stories, many of them being Old Testament stories, but we never discussed anything theological about them. We just learned the stories of our faith. In junior high and high school, we discussed some topics, but not really doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity never came up in class. Neither did the deity of Christ.
Now, some of the adult classes have discussed doctrines, but not many other adults take the classes that are offered. Usually it is the same few people who take classes. I didn’t really attend these adult classes until after I had graduated from college because I was not at home while in college. The adult classes that I’ve taken happened after I had already determined what I believed.
The point of all of this is to say that I think a lot of people who attend churches may never have actually been exposed to the doctrine, so they don’t really know what it is. I am glad that you are taking the time to understand it, and to really consider what it is that you believe. It is pretty meaningless for a person to say they affirm a doctrine when they don’t know what it is, and have never thought about it.
It seemed to me like you were confused about the diagram because you said you were confused when I said to substitute YHWH for God in the center. You made a comment about questioning that I had eliminated the Father from the diagram. You also said you didn’t what I was saying about the diagram, and you couldn’t really tell how trinitarian belief differed from modalism or tritheism.
That is fair if you do not think that the diagram portrays what Scripture says about God in a straightforward way. I was just asking you to understand it from a trinitarian perspective since you asked me how I interpreted the diagram.
As for 1 Corinthians 14:33, I have heard that verse used like how you use it against the Trinity, (God not being the author of confusion), but I think that is taking the verse out of its context and misapplying it.
Paul had been speaking of spiritual gifts in that whole section of the letter. He had just been explaining the purpose of the spiritual gifts, including that of tongues. He saying that if there were people speaking aloud in tongues, it should just be a small number, and that each must have an interpretation. This is to clear up confusion and bring order to the service.
As for prophets, Paul was saying that only one should speak at a time, and again, it should be a small number of people who give prophecies per service. Another thing — these prophecies that were spoken of needed to be judged by other prophets.
All of these instructions were given to provide order to the service so that it would not descend into total chaos and confusion. It’s within this context that verse 33 should be interpreted in. It isn’t talking about church doctrine, or the nature of God, or anything like that.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that true doctrine cannot be confusing to people. In fact, in 2 Peter 3:15-17 it seems that some people were confused by Paul’s letters and distorted his teachings. This didn’t mean that Paul’s teachings should be condemned or incorrect because they brought confusion to some people.
The test for any doctrine is not whether or not some people can be confused by it. The test is whether or not it is what Scripture teaches.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Before moving on, I’d like your take on why the trinity doctrine is the only true way of describing God or YHWH. Is it that monotheism has to stay intact? A singular God entity whereby there are no others. But then having to accommodate a Son who is the mediator between God and mankind who has to be of the order or nature of supreme deity. If Jesus in his incarnation, fully divine and fully man, could say he was going to his God and their (disciples) God and, on multiple occasions, referenced his separateness and subordination to the Most High and All Mighty God, who is man to tamper with that explanation?”
My response:
The simple, short answer is because it is what I am convinced that Scripture teaches.
Now, for a longer answer, some of which is going to be a repeat of what we’ve talked about before–
YHWH Himself declared that He was the one and only God. There is no god besides Him. Passages such as the ones from Isaiah that we discussed previously. as well as the Shema, and various other passages throughout the Bible attest to there being only one God.
Therefore, yes, monotheism must stay intact with YHWH being the one and only God. Any other viewpoint would violate all the Scriptures that say that YHWH is the one and only God.
I have more to add here, but I need to go right now. I will be back later to finish this.
LikeLike
Continuing from my previous post…
Scripture also shows that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. If there is one God (since that is what Scripture teaches), and the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are clearly not the same person as each other, then the only conclusion can be that the one God is triune.
It’s the only view that I can see that is fully supported by all Scripture passages — those that speak of there being one God, and those that speak of the Persons as being distinct, and those that speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each being God.
Any other viewpoint would end up violating Scriptures in at least one of the categories (there being only one God, the Persons each being God, and the Persons being distinct from one another.)
Now, let’s take the last section of your post:
“A singular God entity whereby there are no others. But then having to accommodate a Son who is the mediator between God and mankind who has to be of the order or nature of supreme deity. If Jesus in his incarnation, fully divine and fully man, could say he was going to his God and their (disciples) God and, on multiple occasions, referenced his separateness and subordination to the Most High and All Mighty God, who is man to tamper with that explanation?”
My response:
Remember that in the trinity diagram, the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH, and the whole triune God is YHWH.
So, it is correct to refer to the Father is God, just as it would be correct to refer to either of the other two Persons as God. Since YHWH is all one God, then I see no problem with Jesus referring to one of the other Persons as God. It would still be true, and it would not violate trinitarian belief.
Jesus did refer to the Father as God, but He also referred to Himself as God. To be sinless, as a human (of course He was also fully God), He had to worship the Father as God. He had to refer to the Father as His God. Being a perfect human requires this.
Again, I see no problem with Jesus referring the disciples to worship the Father, but He also accepted the worship of them as well. He also claimed to be YHWH several times, though of course, He never claimed to be the Father.
LikeLike
The problem with appealing to scripture as a basis on which to build the trinity doctrine is that there is a significantly larger body of the bible that speaks of other ‘gods’ (spiritual entities, non-YHWH god-like creatures with powers beyond normal human capabilities), such as Ex 18:11, Job 1. There are also plenty of examples of thrones in heaven, a figure clearly meant to be YHWH accompanied by a secondary divine person, and theophanies various, culminating in ‘all the fullness of God’ poured into Jesus to represent him perfectly on Earth – Emanuel, God with us (John 14:10). Yet in the same monologue, Jesus stated,John 14:28, the Father, who was working in and through him, was greater than him.
Regarding Jesus claiming to be YHWH or God, I think that there is a good deal of supposition in that. The John 8:58 passage – Before Abraham was born, I am – is not so much a declaration he is YHWH, it was to state that in another way what he said in John 3:13, 31 that he had been sent from their God YHWH, from a pre-existence in heaven. So John 8:58 is simply Jesus saying, ‘before Abraham was ever alive, I existed’, using the sacred haShem means of stating his existence. That the Jews had turned God’s words to Moses of him being the true and living God into a sacred name that could not be written or uttered was of no consequence to Jesus, nor should it be to us.
Another example is Rev 5:7 of separateness and sameness. In verse 6, Jesus/Lamb is standing in the centre of the throne on which YHWH/God is sitting indicating all-supremacy. but still under God. The heavenly beings recognise the role Jesus has played through his death and resurrection of bringing a kingdom of believers to serve God (there seems to be no mention in Revelation’s heavenly scenes of the person of the Holy Spirit).
I honestly think we’re circling round the same points. I truly appreciate both your engagements and desire for clarity. I’m not shutting down the conversation by any means, but don’t want you to feel you’re wasting your time either. Whilst we probably understand each other, there is a last 10% that cognitively ‘clicks’ for both in our views on the nature of God and Jesus. This morning as I sing in church, I know I can worship and thank Jesus for his unsurpassing sacrifice, give glory and honour to God/YHWH for who he is, supreme and above all things, creator through Jesus of everything seen and unseen, and see evidence of his life in each of us by his wisdom, mind, breath, word, spirit. I can do that without holding a trinitarian perspective of YHWH. I’m also happy you are drawn closer to him by your trinitarian understanding.
That said, I am very aware that the two views are pretty widely separated and neither of us wants to following after a wrong gospel that ultimately will be in vain for the purpose of qualifying us for eternal life. So, perhaps it really is a matter of life and death after all….
LikeLike
Jim, you wrote (in part): So John 8:58 is simply Jesus saying, ‘before Abraham was ever alive, I existed’, using the sacred haShem means of stating his existence.
Take a closer look at the context. In verse 56 Jesus mentions to the Jews that their father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing His (Jesus’) day. Upon hearing this, the Jews ask, “You are not yet fifty years old yet you have seen Abraham!?”. This indicates that they understood Jesus was making the incredulous claim of being a contemporary of Abraham. To this, Jesus said, “Before Abraham [was born], I AM!”. (The verb for “was born” is absent in quite a few manuscripts, but this fact doesn’t change the thrust of the statement.) Using the sacred haShem was seen as blasphemy (Lev 24:16)–an offense for which stoning to death was punishment–as evidenced by their response in verse 59.
Now look carefully at Genesis 18. In the first verse YHWH appeared to Abraham, yet in 18:2 it’s stated that Abraham saw three men. Each time the ‘three men’ speak to Abraham (18:5, 9) they speak as one; however, in 18:10, 13-14 it’s YHWH speaking. Are the ‘three men’ the Trinity?
On another note, regarding whether or not the human body has ‘parts’, see Romans 8:16: The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. Certainly the second “spirit” must be our human spirit. 8:10 could solidify this (that human bodies have parts), however it contains an ambiguity–to de pneuma zōē dia dikaiosynēn, which translates as literally as possible as the but spirit life through righteousness (de, “but”, is always placed post-positively–i.e., second in any clause–thereby separating to and pneuma). The clause lacks a verb (not rare in the NT), and both “spirit” and “life” are nominatives. (This is sufficiently different from tou pneumatos tēs zōēs, “the Spirit of life” in 8:2, with tēs zōēs genitives [singular].) Translations are split, with some rendering this “but the Spirit is life”, and others “but the spirit is alive”. The latter would help to solidify my belief that humans have ‘parts’ (see footnote 46 in my most recent article).
LikeLike
Jim,
Before I answer your post (which will have to be tomorrow), I need some clarification.
So you believe that everything that is called an Elohim in the Bible is an actual God (deity) … a lesser deity and subject to YHWH and Jesus? (Since you believe Jesus is a second God).
LikeLike
Craig, the three men could well have been the Logos as a theophany and two angels. Gen 19 opens up with two angels who were part of the original visiting party in Gen 18. In the latter parts of the chapter the word Adonai is rendered Lord, rather than it being YHWH. I’m not sure what you would conclude from the various forms of Lord/LORD. So Jesus had every right to talk about what Abraham had said to him. If it was Jesus, also referred to as YHWH here, could that not be a qualitative reference to the Logos? That would not have to mean two persons in one YHWH, but two persons with the qualities of YHWH, with one being the Most High God.
I would read Romans 8:16 as something like: ‘The in-dwelling mind of God and Christ confirms to our innermost being that we are God’s children’. It’s not so much an anthropological declaration. I don’t tend to see us as having a ‘dead’ spirit that needs resurrecting or enlivening. God is the giver of physical and (eventually) resurrection life. Spirit parts, especially ones that survive death, are a Platonic construct, but not found in Hebrew scripture, or within NT understanding.
LikeLike
Jim,
There are a lot of curious features to the 18th chapter of Genesis. Note that in verse 3 Abraham addresses all three as “my Adonai”, for it was “they” who answered Abraham in verse 5. In v. 22 “the men” went to Sodom, yet “Abraham was still standing before YHWH”. Abraham addressed YHWH, then the verses following indicate Abraham is addressing “Adonai”, yet in verse 33 once YHWH had finished speaking with him, Abraham returned home. This indicates that Adonai and YHWH refer to the same entity. But, upon arriving in Sodom (Gen 19), we find that it’s “two angels” rather than three, or even two, men.
LikeLike
Arwen, I read the term elohim in context, which can vary between the singular Almighty God to plural ‘gods’. By ‘gods’ I think the understanding in scripture is of lower order created deities that are not of human composition, although angels mating with humans would have produced a stream of deviant humanity that was eradicated by the flood. Elohim can mean a variety of things besides just gods such as mighty ones or rulers.
Just to be absolutely precise, I don’t regard Jesus as a ‘second God’. He is formed from the ‘stuff’ of God/YHWH, had a beginning and is God’s vice-regent ruling on behalf of the Most High. It’s not like Dr Seuss’s Thing 1 and Thing 2! There is God and the Son of God, separate but intimately connected.
LikeLike
Arwen, this morning, singing some great worship songs in church, I was thinking as well about all the references to God, and how you and Craig would picture who you are singing or praying to. If YHWH is essentially the Godhead, three in one, who is it that you’re recognising when all that’s written in the lyrics is ‘God’?
Would you say, for instance, ‘Thank you YHWH for dying on the cross to cleanse me of my sin’? Or YHWH (Jesus), or just Jesus? We haven’t really looked at the ‘did God die on the cross’ line of reasoning as yet. I have my take on that, and it’s pretty straightforward for a non-trinitarian.
And if YHWH is three in one, can he be two in one while the other is ‘out’, as might be taken during the incarnation? in fact, how does the idea of ‘persons’ even work within an omni-present being? How does one omni-present spirit being (the Father) differentiate himself from another co-substantial spirit being (the Holy Spirit)? Mashed potato + mashed potato = mashed potato, not 2 x mashed potato surely.
LikeLike
Jim,
I suppose it would depend on the full context of the lyrics.
You asked, Would you say, for instance, ‘Thank you YHWH for dying on the cross to cleanse me of my sin’? Sure.
Or YHWH (Jesus), or just Jesus? I would usually say “Jesus”, but “YHWH” is OK. However, Trinitarians (most) recognize that God really didn’t die on the Cross in a strict sense. God cannot die. This is how/why Jesus raised Himself from the dead. This points to the mystery of the hypostatic union (1 Timothy 3:16, e.g.).
You also asked, in fact, how does the idea of ‘persons’ even work within an omni-present being? I can’t say I can explain this satisfactorily, however I accept this is how Scripture pictures the Godhead–three in One, a Trinity.
LikeLike
Arwen, you wrote: ‘Therefore, yes, monotheism must stay intact with YHWH being the one and only God. Any other viewpoint would violate all the Scriptures that say that YHWH is the one and only God.’ You also wrote: ‘the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH, and the whole triune God is YHWH’. So you are saying that the triple Godhead is YHWH, but the individual Godhead Persons are also YHWH ie the Godhead (which is a plurality).
So the logic here, if I’ve got it right, is that each individual person of the Godhead YHWH, is also the triune plurality that is the Godhead YHWH. Is that your understanding?
LikeLike
Jim,
AsThe way you’ve laid out your question to Arwen4CJ in your first paragraph @ 5:02 am is my interpretation of the Godhead, as well.You asked, So the logic here, if I’ve got it right, is that each individual person of the Godhead YHWH, is also the triune plurality that is the Godhead YHWH. Is that your understanding? As Dr. Michael Brown stated (from memory), YHWH is complex in His unity, a multiplicity-in-unity.
YHWH (the Godhead) has one will, not three, as the latter would be tritheism (this is the problem I see inherent in all ‘Social Trinitarianism’–it either outright states or implies three wills). By this one divine will, no “Person” of the Godhead can be at odds with another.
LikeLike
‘God cannot die’. We all agree that an everlasting entity cannot cease to exist. But Jesus had to ‘taste death’ (Heb 2:9) in a very real way in order to accomplish his ultimate mission. I believe the clue here is not that Jesus went to a Paradise immediately after his death in some non-material spirit form (in fact he declared he would be buried for three days as the sign of Jonah). In Phil 2:5-9 Paul states that Jesus through his servant nature permitted his divinity to be subject to physical death. A real death that only resurrection could counter. The Son of God actually submitted himself to the Son of Man within the hypostatic union in an act of the most incredible humility.
As Paul knew only too well (1 Cor 15), no resurrection by Jesus, no resurrection for us. He was subject to a death that would have continued into infinity had not the power of God intervened, and so we have that same hope after our death.
LikeLike
Craig, Dr Brown has summed things up nicely – to paraphrase, it’s all too complex and mysterious to truly wrap our heads around. To me that’s the last stop on the trinitarian train journey. If, say, Jesus is YHWH, and YHWH is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then Jesus, is also the Father and the Holy Spirit. Correct?
I don’t see much, if any solid evidence that this is what God CLEARLY communicated about himself in scripture.
LikeLike
Jim, you wrote, If, say, Jesus is YHWH, and YHWH is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then Jesus, is also the Father and the Holy Spirit. Correct? No, the “Persons” of the Trinity are not ‘confused’ with one another; there are distinctions in “Persons”. What you’ve presented here is modalism.
The Father did not die on the Cross (that would be Patripassianism). The Father sent the Son; the Son died on the Cross (‘in His humanity’). The Holy Spirit was sent
byto us by the Son from the Father (John 15:26).LikeLike
There is no confusion, Craig. What I have presented is what it appears trinitarianism boils down to as written on this thread. It really is modalism from one angle or tritheism from another. Saying it’s not can’t make it trinitarianism. Have we reached an impasse? It’s like stalemate in chess.
LikeLike
Jim,
I meant the term “confusion” in the manner in which Chalcedon uses it–a mixing together. Not that you are confused. I think you understand the issues quite well.
As Arwen4CJ has articulated, Trinitarianism holds things in tension–not unlike the hypostatic union–go too far one way and you get modalism, go too far another and there’s tritheism.
Have we reached an impasse? I suppose that depends. I think you leave a lot of questions unanswered. Speaking just about Father and Son, there are just too many Scriptures declaring the Son as YHWH. Either there are two(+) YHWHs…or something else…
LikeLike
In G. K. Beale’s commentary on the Apocalypse (The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC; Accordance electronic ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999]) are words explaining chapters 21 and 22 (and others), which are pertinent to the discussion here [bold added]:
LikeLike
That is interesting Craig. I’d have to go back to the end of revelation and see whether it looks as though Jesus is subsumed back into the Father from whom he was begotten or formed. It may indicate that his purpose was complete once man had been fully reconciled to God and to exist separately was not necessary. I’ll take a look.
I’ve tried to answer all your questions. Inevitably there will be some I haven’t done to others satisfaction. I’m not sure I or you could answer all our outstanding issues on this topic. Happy to keep trying and exploring along the way.
LikeLike
Jim,
As you may be aware, there is what is called the Economic Trinity and the Ontological Trinity. The former defines how God has revealed Himself by how He relates to His creation, the latter to who God is in Himself. The following article gives a brief overview of the Economic Trinity [Important caveats: the author claims the Son has a separate will from the Father. This is not considered orthodox. Most affirm that the Son has two wills–one divine and one human–as per the Third Council of Constantinople, 680-681 AD. The Son’s divine will is the same will as the Father and the Holy Spirit. I’ve written to the author, and I cannot get him to see this. Oh well]:
https://carm.org/ontological-and-economic-trinity
I provide this background, because I think it possible that the Ontological Trinity does not really have such sharp divisions in “Persons” as the Economic Trinity. Frankly, we just don’t know, as Scripture only goes so far in this. Any sort of discussion of God’s ontology apart from how He reveals Himself in creation is necessarily speculative. This is especially so, if we grant that time as we know it is a necessary construct of creation, while our own conception of eternity is, again, necessarily speculative.
LikeLike
Having read revelation it indicates that the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb still exist as discernible entities after the new heavens and earth are created. But that’s still not absolute and could be read that God is the sole source of light and goodness now.
I read the CARM article too and the economic trinity reads like a non-trinitarian’s list of proof texts!
LikeLike
Did you get to his “Objections Answered” part at the bottom?
LikeLike
Jim,
I’m sorry I wasn’t able to make any posts today. I’ve been really, really busy all day, and just have not had any time to respond to anything. I will try to do so tomorrow.
LikeLike
Arwen, no worries. Don’t rush.
Craig, I did, but will review them. Can’t recall exact detail just now.
LikeLike
So having re-read the objections answered it left me simply confused over different wills but one will, and all working in harmony, with the four scenarios just rehashes of the same challenge. It’s strange that some Christians are quite happy to take allegorical eschatological scriptures from, say, Revelation as literal, yet not take at face value verses such as John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 2:5, and James 2:19. These are unequivocal, non-trinitarian declarations that don’t require the massaging of phrases such as the CARM article does, for example, “Since God is a Trinity of persons, where does it say in Scripture that God (implying a single person) can only have one will?” Well, where does it say in scripture God is a trinity? It doesn’t but with some cross-referencing you could achieve that conclusion by inferences.
With respect to wills, a separate person, separate will is far cleaner and more honest interpretation. However, if you have already assumed trinitarianism cannot be tampered with, these contra-logical twists have to be made to accommodate multiple wills, but one God. The other natural conclusion from seeing the very evident passages about wills and mission is that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. It’s stunningly apparent, but to call it heresy is simply to prevent trinitarianism unravelling. Wayne Grudem wrote a thoughtful piece called ‘Biblical evidence for the eternal submission of the Son to the Father’. 1 Cor 15:27-28 sums up Pauls theology on this succinctly.
It plays into my conception of the trinity because I see scripture conveying a Father who has a Son, who has his name and is of his nature (there is a very clear human equivalence), but the Father will always be the highest authority as the only one who can bestow or delegate full authority. He does so to Jesus placing all things under him except himself. A co-equal unity of three entities or persons can’t do that. There are serious logical fault lines running through trinitarianism that break apart under scrutiny.
LikeLike
Jim,
I suppose I should not have used the CARM site, since Slick construes Christ as having one will. He’s also bought into the Social Trinity idea, with each “Person” having an individual will, but all in harmony, which strikes of tritheism.
I have Grudem’s Systematic Theology, and I don’t recall him teaching subordinationism. His sections on the Trinity and Christology were fine, as I read them. Submission does not necessarily entail subordination.
You mention John 17:3, a favorite of unitarians, but what about 17:5? God shares His glory with no other (Isa 42:8).
LikeLike
1 Cor 11:3 gives a clear picture of the order of things – ‘But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.’
Paul confirms the Genesis creation of man in vs 7-8 that Adam came first and Eve from him. I’ve said it before, but I see strong parallels between God begetting Jesus in pre-creation ‘times’ and Eve taken from Adam. When man and woman marry they are regarded as one flesh, almost a reversal of the creation account. So God/YHWH and Logos/Jesus could be seen the same way – one spirit rather than flesh, but two distinct entities, united but with an order of authority in that oneness.
That’s not binitarianism nor is it bitheism if all honour and worship is given to the highest authority (monotheistic) but the highest authority confers it also on the subordinate one.
LikeLike
1 Cor 11:3 is for the marriage relationship. There is no marriage in heaven. See the picture of “the Lamb” and God sharing the Throne I presented yesterday.
I don’t think you can equate God taking Eve from Adam’s rib with the Son as God’s monogenēs Son. Different things altogether.
LikeLike
You’re right Craig about submission being different to subordination, and Grudem makes that clear sticking firmly with submission. Definitions are essential here.
Is 42:8 should be seen in the context of its last line ‘nor my praise to graven images’. In other words YHWH was stating in a different form commandments 1 and 2. That’s not to say that he couldn’t or didn’t give Jesus glory. He came from glory and was reinstated to God’s right hand, a position of the highest honour. God wasn’t jealous of Jesus clearly, but just because he did give Jesus glory doesn’t mean that Jesus had to be him since he gives it to no other as per Is 42:8. He gives it to no idol.
LikeLike
Jim, you wrote (in part): God wasn’t jealous of Jesus clearly, but just because he did give Jesus glory doesn’t mean that Jesus had to be him since he gives it to no other as per Is 42:8. He gives it to no idol.
There are two different phrases in Isa 42:8: ‘no glory to another’ and ‘no praise to idols’. These are two different things, not the latter constraining the former. In your view God the Father is a superior entity to the Son of God (YHWH vs. ‘almost-YHWH’), yet the Father God gives no glory to another. This is a problem for your theology.
LikeLike
Yep, I recognise that the marriage analogy isn’t a direct read across. Obviously YHWH isn’t married to Jesus, nor is Jesus the product of God and a ‘queen of heaven’ as many pagan worship structures expressed.
But since YHWH and Jesus had a conversation before man’s creation and decided to make us in their image, there is scope for the parallel manner of Jesus and Eve respectively coming into being. Just to be clear, Jesus is begotten of YHWH’s highest divine spirit, and Eve of the flesh. Not saying it’s a perfect picture, but I think it works to a good degree.
LikeLike
Aren’t you overly constraining 1 Cor 11:3 by limiting it to the marriage relationship? It’s broader than that, but speaks to a marriage as well.
LikeLike
As I’m working on something else, I was thinking of Ephesians 5 and hastily replied with that in mind.
But I still don’t see 1 Cor 11:3 as somehow analogous to the Father’s relationship with the Son.
LikeLike
‘No glory to another’ and ‘no praise to graven images’ is parallelism. It is a reflection of God steering his people from their desire to depart from worshipping him, and he certainly doesn’t ascribe any praise or value to their focus of worship. I don’t see how that affects non-trinitarianism. Why is it a problem?
LikeLike
You have one God (the Father), and He will not share His glory with anything else. Why would He share it with ‘almost-YHWH’?
LikeLike
Wouldn’t ‘God is the head of Christ’ be analogous to the Father’s relationship to the Son?
LikeLike
Wouldn’t ‘God is the head of Christ’ be analogous to the Father’s relationship to the Son? That would be subordinationism, not submission.
LikeLike
Given the many passages clearly stating the glory and honour bestowed upon Jesus by the Father, he very much does give glory to another. Is 42:8 has to be read in the context I’ve described. It’s about false worship and not a trinitarian support text by inferring that Jesus does get glory therefore he must be YHWH. God does give glory through creation and other direct means as Paul describes in 1 Cor 15 at length.
God is the head of Christ because Christ submits to him. That doesn’t mean he is subordinate in essence or deity. Grudem makes this point well. It’s a good article but at 26 pages not a coffee cup skim.
LikeLike
One must keep in mind that “Word” is not the same as “Word-made-flesh”. Word was the agent of creation; Word-made-flesh was not. In the same way Word has a different relationship with the Father than Word-made-flesh has with the Father. The difference is the Incarnation. Being “fully man” (as per Chalcedon) brings restraints that Word did and does not have.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“The problem with appealing to scripture as a basis on which to build the trinity doctrine is that there is a significantly larger body of the bible that speaks of other ‘gods’ (spiritual entities, non-YHWH god-like creatures with powers beyond normal human capabilities), such as Ex 18:11, Job 1. There are also plenty of examples of thrones in heaven, a figure clearly meant to be YHWH accompanied by a secondary divine person, and theophanies various, culminating in ‘all the fullness of God’ poured into Jesus to represent him perfectly on Earth – Emanuel, God with us (John 14:10). Yet in the same monologue, Jesus stated,John 14:28, the Father, who was working in and through him, was greater than him.”
My response:
Clearly none of the biblical writers considered any other “Elohim” to be a true God except for YHWH. It is clear that that is how the Jews of the time, and Jews today interpret those passages from Isaiah, as well as other Scripture (there is no God in the universe except for YHWH).
If they considered the other “Elohim” to be actual true gods, then the Hebrew religion that became Judaism would be polytheistic, or at the very least, be henotheistic, and so would have Christianity. Neither Judaism nor Christianity would be monotheistic religions were your interpretation of Elohim the intention of the biblical authors.
You wrote:
“Regarding Jesus claiming to be YHWH or God, I think that there is a good deal of supposition in that. The John 8:58 passage – Before Abraham was born, I am – is not so much a declaration he is YHWH, it was to state that in another way what he said in John 3:13, 31 that he had been sent from their God YHWH, from a pre-existence in heaven. So John 8:58 is simply Jesus saying, ‘before Abraham was ever alive, I existed’, using the sacred haShem means of stating his existence. That the Jews had turned God’s words to Moses of him being the true and living God into a sacred name that could not be written or uttered was of no consequence to Jesus, nor should it be to us.’
My response:
I know that some people do not interpret John 8:58 to be a claim by Jesus to be YHWH. However, many more people think that it is a claim by Jesus to be YHWH. It is clear from the context of that verse that this is what the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming about Himself. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have wanted to stone Him for blasphemy, and they would not have considered His statements to be equating Himself with God.
If Jesus were not YHWH, it would have been sinful for Him to make such comments, and also ones like in Matthew 10:37 (NASB):
“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
Why do I say this? Because Jesus is asking them to put Him as their first love. To love Him before family. Only YHWH should have this place in people’s hearts.
You wrote:
“Another example is Rev 5:7 of separateness and sameness. In verse 6, Jesus/Lamb is standing in the centre of the throne on which YHWH/God is sitting indicating all-supremacy. but still under God. The heavenly beings recognise the role Jesus has played through his death and resurrection of bringing a kingdom of believers to serve God (there seems to be no mention in Revelation’s heavenly scenes of the person of the Holy Spirit).”
My response:
The book of Revelation is filled with symbolism. When people read Revelation, they should not take every single statement in the book as if it is literal, especially when it describes God. While we should definitely use things in Revelation to help understand God, the descriptions of God’s appearance, the throne, etc. can be very symbolic and may not be literal. That being said, I would not accept or reject the Trinity solely on the basis of what Revelation says.
There are parallels to the description of God and phrases used to describe God that are found elsewhere in the Bible. These descriptions can be used to show that they applied to YHWH in the OT. We also know that Jesus is going to come back, and that all things will be restored. We know that there will be judgments and that there will be apostasy and a false prophet and an Anti-Christ. We can also see how people respond to God in heaven in Revelation.
But since you brought Revelation up, there is a passage in Revelation that shows that the Father and Son are both worshiped together as God in heaven.
Revelation 5:11-14 (NASB)
11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice,
“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”
13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,
“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
14 And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.
As for the Holy Spirit, there is a mention of the Holy Spirit in the book of Revelation. Consider Revelation 22:12-21 (NASB). I suggest reading that whole passage, but I am not going to post the whole thing here. I am only going to post what I consider to be the most relevant parts to our discussion:
12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
This is almost a direct quote from Isaiah….
Isaiah 40:10 (I suggest reading Isaiah 40:9-11 in context)
Behold, the Lord GOD will come with might, With His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His reward is with Him And His recompense before Him.
In context you can see that this is referring to God, which could only be YHWH. It is not talking about an almost YHWH being.
Isaiah 62:11
Behold, the LORD has proclaimed to the end of the earth, Say to the daughter of Zion, “Lo, your salvation comes; Behold His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him.”
Then look at verse 16:
16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
The speaker of verse 12 is identified as Jesus, which makes Him YHWH.
Verse 17:
17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
Here both the Holy Spirit and Jesus are mentioned, yet it is very similar to what YHWH says of Himself in another Isaiah passage, which would make both the Holy Spirit and Jesus YHWH.
Read Isaiah 55
Finally, verse 20:
20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
From these verses it is obvious that it is Jesus who is the one that is mentioned as coming throughout all the book of Revelation.
You wrote:
“I honestly think we’re circling round the same points. I truly appreciate both your engagements and desire for clarity. I’m not shutting down the conversation by any means, but don’t want you to feel you’re wasting your time either. Whilst we probably understand each other, there is a last 10% that cognitively ‘clicks’ for both in our views on the nature of God and Jesus. This morning as I sing in church, I know I can worship and thank Jesus for his unsurpassing sacrifice, give glory and honour to God/YHWH for who he is, supreme and above all things, creator through Jesus of everything seen and unseen, and see evidence of his life in each of us by his wisdom, mind, breath, word, spirit. I can do that without holding a trinitarian perspective of YHWH. I’m also happy you are drawn closer to him by your trinitarian understanding.
That said, I am very aware that the two views are pretty widely separated and neither of us wants to following after a wrong gospel that ultimately will be in vain for the purpose of qualifying us for eternal life. So, perhaps it really is a matter of life and death after all….”
My response:
It could very well be that there is not much further to discuss. I will read over your more recent posts and respond to them. However, I do think we are probably reaching a limit to our discussion on the Trinity. I would like to hear your thoughts on other topics, though….you said that the Trinity was not the only doctrine that you had questioned and revised your opinion on. You mentioned salvation as another one. As the doctrine of salvation is another important topic, I would like to hear your thoughts on this once we finish up our Trinity discussion.
I appreciate your continued engagement in this discussion as well.
Yes, as we have discussed further, especially when we discussed the Trinity diagram, it became apparent to me that we were not moving closer in our views. We do still have very different understandings of Jesus which are not minor. I agree — I do not want to follow a wrong gospel, and it could truly be a matter of life and death.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Craig, the three men could well have been the Logos as a theophany and two angels. Gen 19 opens up with two angels who were part of the original visiting party in Gen 18. In the latter parts of the chapter the word Adonai is rendered Lord, rather than it being YHWH. I’m not sure what you would conclude from the various forms of Lord/LORD. So Jesus had every right to talk about what Abraham had said to him. If it was Jesus, also referred to as YHWH here, could that not be a qualitative reference to the Logos? That would not have to mean two persons in one YHWH, but two persons with the qualities of YHWH, with one being the Most High God.”
My response:
I have read over Genesis 18 and 19, and it appears as though Abraham sometimes addresses all three men, and sometimes one or two as YHWH.
Pay special attention to Genesis 19:24 (NASB)
Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven,
This verse makes no sense unless YHWH is at least two Persons.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Arwen, I read the term elohim in context, which can vary between the singular Almighty God to plural ‘gods’. By ‘gods’ I think the understanding in scripture is of lower order created deities that are not of human composition, although angels mating with humans would have produced a stream of deviant humanity that was eradicated by the flood. Elohim can mean a variety of things besides just gods such as mighty ones or rulers.
Just to be absolutely precise, I don’t regard Jesus as a ‘second God’. He is formed from the ‘stuff’ of God/YHWH, had a beginning and is God’s vice-regent ruling on behalf of the Most High. It’s not like Dr Seuss’s Thing 1 and Thing 2! There is God and the Son of God, separate but intimately connected.”
My response:
If Jesus is not actually YHWH, then that would make Him a second God. You can’t have YHWH and an almost YHWH and not have two Gods. Jesus only had a beginning in the sense of Him taking on flesh. The Word has no beginning or end.
See Hebrews 7:1-4
7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
4 Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.
From this, I believe that Melchizedek was the pre-incarnate Jesus. But regardless of whether or not you agree with me on that, the passage says that the Son of God has no beginning or end of days.
LikeLike
Arwen4CJ,
I agree with you regarding Hebrews 7. Clearly the individual has “no beginning or end of days”.
LikeLike
Jim,
Also consider Micah 5:2 (NASB)
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”
You wrote:
“Arwen, this morning, singing some great worship songs in church, I was thinking as well about all the references to God, and how you and Craig would picture who you are singing or praying to. If YHWH is essentially the Godhead, three in one, who is it that you’re recognising when all that’s written in the lyrics is ‘God’?”
Would you say, for instance, ‘Thank you YHWH for dying on the cross to cleanse me of my sin’? Or YHWH (Jesus), or just Jesus? We haven’t really looked at the ‘did God die on the cross’ line of reasoning as yet. I have my take on that, and it’s pretty straightforward for a non-trinitarian.”
My response:
That is a good question, and one that I have actually thought about when singing worship songs, especially contemporary worship songs.
It would depend on the actual lyrics. If the lyrics were talking about things that Jesus did — such as dying on the cross and rising from the dead, I would think of Jesus when singing that song. Otherwise, I tend to think of the 3-in-1 when worshiping God. Since YHWH is all one God, it doesn’t matter so much to me to address any one of the Persons in worship. I worship God as a whole.
If the song is addressed to one of the Persons, then obviously I think of that Person. Otherwise, again, I think of worshiping God as a whole. Some songs are actually explicitly trinitarian (“How Great is Our God,” by Chris Tomlin, “All Creatures of Our God and King,” “Holy, Holy, Holy,” “He is Yahweh,” by Dean Salyn, “Holy God,” by Brian Doerksn, “Father, Spirit, Jesus,” by Casting Crowns etc.)
Actually, if you read the lyrics to all of those songs, you will have a better understanding of what it means to worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity. You will see that we are not worshiping three gods.
Just to be very clear, it is only Jesus who died on the cross, not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and not the whole Trinity. So, because Jesus is YHWH, you can say “thank you, YHWH,” for dying on the cross, as long as you only had the Person of Jesus in mind when you said that. You could also say, “thank You, Jesus, for dying on the cross for me.” The second way would be much more common.
You wrote:
“And if YHWH is three in one, can he be two in one while the other is ‘out’, as might be taken during the incarnation? in fact, how does the idea of ‘persons’ even work within an omni-present being? How does one omni-present spirit being (the Father) differentiate himself from another co-substantial spirit being (the Holy Spirit)? Mashed potato + mashed potato = mashed potato, not 2 x mashed potato surely.”
My response:
Jesus never stopped being YHWH while on earth. He wasn’t “taken out,” during the incarnation. (That is essentially what Bill Johnson teaches, and there are several articles that Craig has written on that topic, which he could point you to).
As far as how the Trinity works internally, that is not something that Scripture really deals with, and I am satisfied with not knowing the details of it. Anything that we humans would come up with would be prone to error, as God has not revealed exactly how He works to us. Read Isaiah 55 where God says His ways our higher than our ways. He is beyond human comprehension, so I couldn’t begin to guess what goes on within the Trinity.
LikeLike
Jim,
“So you are saying that the triple Godhead is YHWH, but the individual Godhead Persons are also YHWH ie the Godhead (which is a plurality).
So the logic here, if I’ve got it right, is that each individual person of the Godhead YHWH, is also the triune plurality that is the Godhead YHWH. Is that your understanding?”
My response:
I don’t quite understand what you are asking here. I don’t understand your question well enough to give a “yes” or “no” answer.
I am leaning towards, “no,” though, as I think you are asking if I think the individual Persons can be the rest of the Godhead (the other two Persons), but I’m not quite sure that is what you are asking for sure. Can you please clarify?
If that is what you are asking, the answer is a definite “no.” As I have stated before, and if you look at the trinity diagram that we discussed earlier:
the Father is NOT the Son
the Father is NOT the Holy Spirit
the Son is NOT the Father
the Son is NOT the Holy Spirit
the Holy Spirit is NOT the Father
the Holy Spirit is NOT the Son
When I said that each Person could be referred to YHWH, I meant that they were each the one God, YHWH. In other words, you can do this:
Call the Father YHWH
Call the Son YHWH
Call the Holy Spirit YHWH
Call all three YHWH
He is one God in three Persons. However, the Persons are not each other.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“‘God cannot die’. We all agree that an everlasting entity cannot cease to exist. But Jesus had to ‘taste death’ (Heb 2:9) in a very real way in order to accomplish his ultimate mission. I believe the clue here is not that Jesus went to a Paradise immediately after his death in some non-material spirit form (in fact he declared he would be buried for three days as the sign of Jonah). In Phil 2:5-9 Paul states that Jesus through his servant nature permitted his divinity to be subject to physical death. A real death that only resurrection could counter. The Son of God actually submitted himself to the Son of Man within the hypostatic union in an act of the most incredible humility.
As Paul knew only too well (1 Cor 15), no resurrection by Jesus, no resurrection for us. He was subject to a death that would have continued into infinity had not the power of God intervened, and so we have that same hope after our death.”
My response:
Oh, I see — you are applying your interpretation of what happens after death to Jesus, and then to the nature of both His resurrection and ours…..
I don’t agree with you that Jesus had to permit His divinity to die or it couldn’t have been a real resurrection. As God, Jesus’ divinity could not die. Jesus clearly had something that lived on after death.
Since Jesus was both fully human and fully God, He had a human body that was subject to death. As a human, He fully experienced physical death. He didn’t pretend to be dead. His body died.
In the same way, His resurrection was a real physical resurrection. He received a glorified body, the same type that believers will receive at His second coming.
You referred to Philippians 2:5-9 in support of your belief, so let’s look at it:
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
That passage doesn’t say anything about Jesus’ divinity dying. If you are referring to the “emptied Himself’ part, then Craig has a couple articles on that topic, which he can refer you to. In short, this passage is talking about Jesus’ humility. It doesn’t mean Jesus ever gave up His divinity, or that His divinity ever died.
It does say that He died on the cross, but it doesn’t say that His divinity died. His physical body died. He experienced human death.
As, I think Craig has pointed out, all three Persons raised Jesus from the dead. For a verse that shows that Jesus did….
John 2:18-22 (NASB)
18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Craig, Dr Brown has summed things up nicely – to paraphrase, it’s all too complex and mysterious to truly wrap our heads around. To me that’s the last stop on the trinitarian train journey. If, say, Jesus is YHWH, and YHWH is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then Jesus, is also the Father and the Holy Spirit. Correct?
I don’t see much, if any solid evidence that this is what God CLEARLY communicated about himself in scripture.”
My response:
Incorrect. Look at the Trinity diagram that we spent a couple of days discussing, and see my post from August 28, 2017 at 9:14 am.
That’s because you still don’t quite understand what it is you are arguing against (the Trinity). We are agreed that Scripture, as a whole, does not support modalism (the belief that Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Holy Spirit, the Father is Jesus, the Father is the Holy Spirit, Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Holy Spirit).
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“There is no confusion, Craig. What I have presented is what it appears trinitarianism boils down to as written on this thread. It really is modalism from one angle or tritheism from another. Saying it’s not can’t make it trinitarianism. Have we reached an impasse? It’s like stalemate in chess.”
My response:
Remember our discussion about the diagrams. All the the outer “is not” and the inner “is” words are important. If you don’t think the words matter, then consider the diagram of your beliefs.
Does it matter to you you whether or not the Father is the Son? If it does, then those words are essential to your beliefs.
Does it matter to you whether or not the Father is the Most High God? If it does, than the “is” there is essential to your beliefs.
Without those words, you would have another belief system. The same is true for ours. You never answered my question on whether or not you could see the differences between trinitarianism and tritheism, and trinitarianism and modalism in the different diagrams that I described. From your recent posts on here, I don’t think that you can see the difference between trinitarianism and the other belief systems.
I don’t know how else I can explain the differences.
Consider the lyrics of the trinitarian songs that i mentioned. Hopefully that will help to clarify the viewpoint. Otherwise, I think we will have reached an impasse because you when we say “trinity” you are thinking about either modalism or tritheism.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“You’re right Craig about submission being different to subordination, and Grudem makes that clear sticking firmly with submission. Definitions are essential here.
Is 42:8 should be seen in the context of its last line ‘nor my praise to graven images’. In other words YHWH was stating in a different form commandments 1 and 2. That’s not to say that he couldn’t or didn’t give Jesus glory. He came from glory and was reinstated to God’s right hand, a position of the highest honour. God wasn’t jealous of Jesus clearly, but just because he did give Jesus glory doesn’t mean that Jesus had to be him since he gives it to no other as per Is 42:8. He gives it to no idol.”
The type of glory that YHWH has is a kind that He will not yield to another. It isn’t just idols here, but it is any other god.
For Jesus to share in the same kind of glory that the Father has, this means that both have the the same type of glory — the glory of YHWH. Jesus had the same type of glory with the Father before the world began.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comprehensive replies. I’ll be quite selective in my responses only because I’d like to zero in on some specific points.
I think we’re at cross-purposes regarding how we perceive the term ‘gods’. As I stated previously both ‘elohim’ and our English word ‘god’ can be applied several ways. Pagan religions referred to a god of the sun, or goddess of love, or god in everything, but that didn’t mean there was an actual deity figure. Likewise, the worship of gods represented by statues does not mean the statues had a real entity as their inspiration.
However, that’s not to say there weren’t ‘mighty ones’ or spirit beings, or nephilim, or non-flesh creations that when they interacted with man came to be regarded as ‘gods’ or deity figures. I think our myths and legends are based in that kind of ancient interaction. Finally, the bible is clear that there is only a single Most High God, who was the God of Israel and unlike the pantheon of ‘gods’ in the worship systems of other nations..
LikeLike
I was at an Alpha evening tonight helping in the group discussion. It was the one about why the bible is so vital to read. We closed with a verse, and the person leading read out Jude v25 – ‘to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.’
I realised that the verse did not lead me to think of the Father and the Son as part of a triunity. In fact it summed up my position and the constant theme of NT letters and gospels, that God does all that he does, and is all that he is THROUGH Jesus Christ. So a new Jewish believer in Christ can still adhere to his Jewish monotheism and worship YHWH, but now he recognises that he can connect with the God of Israel and his fathers through the person of YHWH’s Son, Jesus.
This is where I believe trinitarianism tries to provide an answer to the preservation of monotheism that would not have accorded with the early Christian Hebrew mind. They would have been, and so should we be today, perfectly happy relating to the one God, but through his divine Son and their Lord. They understood that Melchizedek was a theophany of Jesus (and yes it says he was without father and mother, and had no end of days [resurrected] and no beginning of days [not birthed in ‘time’ but begotten in ‘pre-time’]), and pre-existed his incarnation, that he was from God – the man of heaven – and of a unique divinity along with YHWH. That did not seem to trouble their monotheism.
LikeLike
Jim,
What you write about Jude 1:25 works for your theology, but only in isolation. One has to factor in those “I AM” statements (John 8:58, e.g.) and Jesus’ other statements understood as claims of being YHWH. John 5:17-18 is one of the latter. I’ve experienced Messianic Jews and other unitarians claim that the reason “the Jews” wanted to stone Jesus here is because He was making an implicit Messiah claim, while “the Jews” rejected His Messiahship; however, that belies the context in which their issue is described as Jesus’ claim that “God is his own Father” thereby “making Himself equal with God”. Clearly, they didn’t understand a ‘YHWH + almost-YHWH’ type of “monotheism”.
LikeLike
This mindset would have been at work in their new understanding of Gen 19:24, that there is one LORD working through one Lord.
On to your post August 28 at 9:42am. I do not believe Jesus’s divine ‘side’ or nature died. If I gave that impression, that’s my poor articulation. I used Phil 2 to show that in not letting divinity be something to be accessed or utilised in becoming a man, when he died he still allowed his divinity to remain submitted to his flesh – the ultimate act of humility. The hypostatic union had not been broken by him being in the grave. In his God-ness, he could have transfigured himself at any stage and not suffered death, but he withheld that right so that the resurrection could take its course. Divinity can’t die, but it remained ‘encased’ in dead flesh for three days, until that flesh was transformed into an eternal body that fully reflected his divine status. One that we will inherit on his return. I hope that’s a bit clearer.
I have read the articles by Craig on kenosis and agree with his conclusions.
You asked if I properly understood the difference between trinitarianism, tritheism and modalism. I think I do, but maybe I didn’t phrase things convincingly. I do get the diagram, I just don’t see the diagram coming from scripture in a clear-cut way.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on Is 42:8. To me it is a contextually clear reference to false gods/idols, not that any worship given is to YHWH only, and since Jesus is worshipped he must be YHWH. I come back to the point about Jewish Christian monotheism, and worship of Christ evident in Rev 5 would not have compromised Is 42:8. In Eph where Paul writes that we are seated with Christ in heavenly places doesn’t mean we are Christ any more than the Lamb occupying the Father’s throne means Christ is the Father, but it’s more about the position of honour than exampling a singular God in two or three persons.
Finally, on something of a practical note, how could Jesus Christ be the Son of God if there was no begetting (ie eternal sonship), or when is a son equal to his father – equality is normally reserved for, say, twin brothers, or marriage – or why would YHWH need to be three Persons at all to accomplish his goal of reconciling man to himself? I kind of get the last point, which is more the social and sacrificial aspect, but even so.
I would be happy to switch subject material, but Craig would have to write an article on it first to be fair! I have become quite comfortable in my ‘non-eternal concious torment but conditional eternal life’ (aka annihilationism) skin of late, so perhaps that’s one for discussion.
LikeLike
But Craig, if the Jewish leaders understood a ‘two powers in heaven’ concept within their monotheism ie that the Shema was given to Moses by the ‘higher’ power, then their interpretation of Jesus’s words that he was the second power would have been equality by divine status.
I think we need to get away from the YHWH almost-YHWH idea. There is no such concept. There are two persons, both have at times been named the same because the singular Most High and Almighty God works through his Son. Their co-divine natures mean there aren’t two Gods.
LikeLike
Jim, you wrote:
I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean. Are you saying that Moses on Mt. Sinai was the ‘lower power’? If so, did this ‘lower power’ change to Jesus in the NT; i.e., is the ‘lower power’ different persons at different times?
You also wrote:
If there are two persons, as you say, then by your own objections against the Trinity, you are espousing bitheism if both are YHWH; however, if you’re saying that Jesus is acting as agent of the Father in His capacity as the ‘lower power’, then you are having your cake and eating it too.
LikeLike
Jude 25 works in concert with all the other ‘one God and one Lord’ verses.
LikeLike
Jim,
Just to clarify…
In the Genesis 19 verse that I quoted earlier, I might have forgotten to capitalize LORD in both places. (When I copy and paste from Bible Gateway, it removes the LORD in the small caps, so I have to manually fix it.)
Let me quote that verse again. Genesis 19:24
24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven
It isn’t the LORD rained….from the Lord….it is LORD and LORD, so YHWH in both places, not just the first place. That was the point of my quoting that verse. Check that verse in all the Bible translations that you have.
I realize that elohim can be translated into English several ways. I acknowledged that before. I also acknowledge the existence of other spiritual beings besides God, but they are not real gods. Just because the word elohim can be translated into English for both angels and God does not make those beings lesser gods.
As for the ending of Jude 25, yes, it acknowledges that the Father is God, and I can see how that fits with your theology just by itself. But what about the verses that call Jesus God and Savior?
Anyway, I understand why you believe what you do, and I do think we are at an impasse now on the topic of the trinity. I think we discussed just about everything that we could, and there is still a lack of understanding, so I’m not sure that discussing it further would do a lot of good. I will leave that up to you and Craig, though.
As for Alpha, I went through that course several years ago. I know that it teaches a trinitarian understanding of God. In fact, they sold some books that were written by the guy who started Alpha — the guy who spoke on the videos when I took the course, Nicky Gumbel. There’s a book that I bought at the time to help with apologetics called “Searching Issues,” by Nicky Gumbel. The last chapter in that book is titled “Is the Trinity Unbiblical, Unbelievable, and Irrelevant?”
I haven’t read that book or that chapter in a long time, but maybe that book would be worth picking up. You could read that chapter and see if he can clarify the trinity for you in a way that I cannot. It might also help you to ask questions about it to your alpha group and see what other people think.
Since you are in Alpha, that is an excellent place for people to talk about their faith, and for you to ask questions of other Christians, and for them to ask you questions. That might be a better way to dialog about your what happens when we die thoughts rather than on here. I’m willing to discuss it, and I’m sure Craig is, too. However, with Alpha, you get to talk to people you know in real life, and the discussion might be more effective face to face. Just my thoughts…
My only caution with Alpha is how they handle gifts of the Holy Spirit, which I don’t think you have gotten to yet. I just checked my old Alpha manual to see what the order of the lessons was in. Just be really cautious of how they encourage people to prophecy over each other. The way the particular church that ran the course handled it when I took it, I don’t think was biblical. They wanted everyone to try to see if they had any impression of anything or any vision, and then share it aloud with the whole group, and then they asked if those things applied to anyone.
The problem with that is that they didn’t check the prophecies first, and they allowed everyone present to give the prophecies, without first assuring that the people were believers. The same was true of the Holy Spirit weekend when they had the leaders give “words” to those present. Nothing was tested first.
Other than that, I think Alpha is really good at helping people build up small group relationships with other Christians. It’s a good place for Christian discussions, for non-Christians, Christians, and everyone. Just pray before any of the Holy Spirit sessions.
I have not argued against the eternal Sonship of Jesus, but we clearly understand what that means in different ways. I think we also have a difference of understanding in what “begotten” means, as we do “eternal.”
I don’t see the Trinity as something that God “needs,” but rather simply how He exists.
All right, well, I think I am going to have to drop out of this discussion soon because I feel like we aren’t getting anywhere new with our discussion. Again, I’m going to leave that up to you and Craig, though, and I’m willing to discuss further. I just question how productive it will be, even for just trying to reach an understanding of each other’s viewpoints.
I truly have appreciated the time and effort that you and Craig have put into this discussion, and I think it has been very good. I think we did understand each other a little better, and we have strengthened our own beliefs more, and we have each grown in our faith. Just let me know what you want to do with this discussion.
If you’d like to part ways on this discussion, then I’m glad to have met you online, and I hope that all goes well for you in the future. Nice talking to you. Otherwise, if you would like to continue, then let us continue to talk. 🙂
LikeLike
One thing I do want to point out in regard to “eternal” is the title that YHWH uses for Himself that we have talked about before:
The First and Last
The Alpha and the Omega
The Beginning and the End
I think these titles for YHWH show that He is eternal. He has always existed and He always will exist, but that could just be my interpretation of the title.
LikeLike
Arwen4CJ,
I agree that these indicate eternality.
LikeLike
You could argue that being before all things and existing after all things could mean eternality; or, you could argue that God is stating his existence is before all things and will last after all things without implied eternality but simply saying he is greater than all that exists. I don’t think it’s absolute. To me Alpha is a start point and Omega is an end point. The purpose of the phrase is to indicate the full span of all things.
LikeLike
Jim, you wrote (in part): To me Alpha is a start point and Omega is an end point. The purpose of the phrase is to indicate the full span of all things.
However, given that God was there at the Alpha/start point, then He necessarily predated this point as the Creator, and if He will be at the end point (eschaton), He must necessarily extend beyond it. The point of the statement is not to frame the beginning and end points of creation, but to indicate that God YHWH is present at both. This implies eternality, the latter understood as not a succession of events, as if time is a subsection of eternity, but as a state of Being that just IS.
LikeLike
Craig, Moses was not the second power, that would be the Logos, then Jesus Christ.
And thank you Arwen for patiently engaging in an informative and positive way. It was good and may lead to more chats.
LikeLike
Jim,
Before going further, I want to be sure I understand you. Are you saying that the Logos and Jesus Christ are the same Person–the first the name of Him preincarnate, the other HIs name during the Incarnation?
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“You could argue that being before all things and existing after all things could mean eternality; or, you could argue that God is stating his existence is before all things and will last after all things without implied eternality but simply saying he is greater than all that exists. I don’t think it’s absolute. To me Alpha is a start point and Omega is an end point. The purpose of the phrase is to indicate the full span of all things.”
My response:
Yes, I think it means those things as well, but I also think it is more — as in eternally existing forever. I think the title encompasses a lot, just as the name “I AM” does.
You wrote:
“And thank you Arwen for patiently engaging in an informative and positive way. It was good and may lead to more chats.”
My response:
My pleasure. Yes, it may lead to more chats 🙂
LikeLike
Craig, I do see the Logos as the pre-incarnate Son who, on earth, was Jesus Christ – Jeshua haMashiach and who after his resurrection returned to heaven in his bodily resurrected form.
LikeLike
Jim,
OK then, we agree that Word and Word-made-flesh are one and the same. With that clarified, are you calling Jesus as Logos/Word the ‘lower power’, and, if so, was both Word and Word-made-flesh ‘lower power’?
LikeLike
Just a (possible) final thought. I think the major difference in our viewpoints is that you would regard God (I assume) as Father, Son and Spirit, each and all = YHWH. I see the Father as God, accompanied by his Son, who co-shares the I AMs, Alpha and Omegas and YHWH names but is still not called the Most High God. Their co-presence is the pneuma of God.
Not a binity (only one being is Almighty), nor bitheism (both of the same divinity ‘order’). Want a slice? 🙂
LikeLike
Jim,
As you present it, the best way I can put it in shorthand is ‘YHWH + almost-YHWH’. I don’t see any other way around it. At times ‘almost YHWH’ acts as agent of YHWH, and, hence, is called divine names. I’ve discussed this with others who affirm that Jesus as Messiah (but not divine) is strictly an agent for YHWH in that role, but then see the very first quote in part 4 of this series, which I’ll cite here:
ADDED: In John 5:17-18 “the Jews” wanted to stone Jesus because He ‘made Himself equal with God’ in His claim of being God’s Son. To this, Jesus makes even more astounding claims, such as having a role in life/resurrection from the dead and death in 5:19-30.
LikeLike
I think the key thought here Craig is that God YHWH works through the Logos and then Jesus. So all of God and his capabilities are expressed in Christ without monotheism being compromised.
LikeLike
Jim,
But how does that work in John 1:1? In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was pros (with/towards/facing) God, and the Logos was God (or a G/god?).
More importantly, the theology you posit still admits a YHWH plus a not-YHWH-but-almost (one acting as agent), with the latter making claims as if He were YHWH (John 8:58, e.g.), and it doesn’t adequately account for Jesus’ explicit claim that the Father judges no one (5:22).
LikeLike
The aspect in John 5:22 whereby Jesus says that the Father judges no-one has to be set in the context of Heb 12:23 and Gen 18:25. God as the Most High is the judge of all the earth. So when Jesus seems to contradict that truth it’s because he knows that the role of judge has been delegated or transferred or committed to him. This is captured in Acts 17:31. Jesus is appointed, by God the Father, as humanity’s judge.
So the buck stops with with God Almighty but the act of judging is conducted by the Son. That does not imply or suggest a trinity at work but does strongly support what I have been saying that God is working all things through Christ.
LikeLike
For the moment let’s assume, what you state here @ 6:49 pm is correct. How do you explain John 1:1; and, at the same time, how do you account for Jesus claiming the divine name–a name reserved strictly for YHWH? As to the latter, asserting that Jesus is agent of YHWH is a deficient answer, as no other agent of YHWH claimed the divine name (of course). And, using the analogy of agency as it pertains to power of attorney, if I were to give you, Jim, power of attorney over my affairs, you still cannot sign my name as if you were literally me; you’d have to sign “as agent”.
LikeLike
How do you explain John 1:1 Craig? Does it reinforce a trinitarian perspective? I can read it and say that if someone is with another they are separate entities (v2), not persons within a melded homogeneous being. John 1:1-2 states that the Logos was a deity on a par with Theos/God (the Father). It doesn’t say he was him, nor I believe does John think he’s just invented two Gods either.
Your power of attorney and agent analogy is a good one, and legally my signature after hand over of that power is as if it is yours (obviously once you’re deemed unable to make a decision which is where this analogy breaks down for God and Jesus). Jesus was God’s representative or agent, his emissary on earth, and was also his son, therefore of the nature of his Father. Consequently, when he presented himself in situations he had full delegated authority to sign as YHWH. A messenger who held an envelope with the royal seal had the full backing of the king to enforce the message, all the more if that messenger was the king’s son.
So, Jesus could sign as if he were God, just as the lawyer would take my future decisions as yours if you had given me power of attorney over your affairs. If I was also called Craig, it makes the overlap even greater.
LikeLike
Jim,
Please re-read this particular article (part 6) that we are commenting on for my analysis of John 1:1. I’ll reduce it down a bit: The Logos was with God the Father (1b), and the Logos was “God” (1c) in a qualitative sense; if the Logos were defined as God in an absolute sense in this context (adding the article in front of “God” in 1c), modalism would obtain (God the Father is the Logos), which is self-contradictory in context (that would indicate that the Logos is with God the Father, yet Logos is God the Father). They (God the Father and Logos) are no doubt separate entities, yet the Logos is “God” (1c).
Yes, your signature as agent is just as valid as the principle’s; but, you cannot sign (forge) the principle’s name (see here). That’s the difference. Moreover, you cannot claim to be or otherwise impersonate the principle in an agency-principle relationship. Possessing delegated authority as agent is not the same as claiming to be the principle. Authority to act on behalf of the principle is as far as the agent-principle relationship goes. So, accordingly, Jesus’ claim to be YHWH (John 8:58) goes beyond agency. And while Jesus certainly receives delegated authority in John 5:19-30, that
doesn’t make Himindicates He’s not the same “Person” as God the Father; however, by claiming to have the authority to do the things only YHWH can do while simultaneously making a claim that He is Himself YHWH is an indication that the Son is YHWH, rather than merely an agent of YHWH. Hence, the most logical conclusion is that Jesus/Logos/the Son is YHWH but not the same “Person” as God the Father YHWH.LikeLike
Craig,isn’t the same Greek in John 8:58 used in, for example, Mark 13:6 – ‘Many will come in my name claiming ”I am he” ‘, or John 14:6 – ‘I am the way, the truth and the life’? As an aside, in the John verse, if Jesus knew he was YHWH from John 8:58, then 14:6 saying no-one can come to the Father except by Jesus is a somewhat obtuse comment at best if trinitarianism (which Jesus must have comprehended if true) was the case. He clearly segregated himself from the Father in a way trinitarianism doesn’t address.
Back to ego eimi, We’ve already been here, but John 8:58 is Jesus reinforcing his divine pre-incarnate credentials with the Pharisees. Before Abraham was born, I existed is a perfectly adequate translation. He didn’t say, ‘I AM THAT I AM.’ His use was a strong hint towards divinity but not actually being the God of Israel in a monotheistic sense. The words translated I AM are only a title, but the entity behind the words is simply ‘the Being’, or ‘the One who has always existed’. This cutting from an in-depth article on John 8:58 might explain it better (here:
”Note that the words ego eimi (I am – εγω ειμι) in Exodus 3:14 need a predicate. That is, it needs to say what you are. It cannot just say, “I am nothing.” And so we find that God said, “I am the being – εγω ειμι ο ων.” And yes, ego eimi is found in John 8:58 but it is not the substance of emphasis, “ho ohn – ο ων” is. So the divine name is actually “ho ohn – ο ων”, not “ego eimi – εγω ειμι.” This is further proven by the end of verse 14 which says “(ho ohn – ο ων) has sent me to you.” (ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας.) It does not say “(ego eimi – εγω ειμι) has sent me to you.” (εγω ειμι απεσταλκεν με προς υμας.) It literally says “the being has sent me to you,” not the “I am has sent me to you.” The words are different in either language and there is no connection. No matter how it is translated into English, “ho ohn” is not the same as “ego eimi.”
So the Greek has Exodus 3:14 using ho ohn for the divine name, but the same Greek has Jesus saying ego eimi to the Jews in John 8:58. The divine memorial name is not ego eimi (ἐγώ εἰμι) which Jesus said. It is however, ho ohn (ὁ ὢν), which Jesus did not say. As you can see, there is no connection between “I AM” in Exodus and “I am” in John. In no way does John 8:58 equate Jesus to God except by biased inference based on weak translation and bad grammar.”
LikeLike
To put this as succinctly as possible: The author doesn’t know Greek very well, nor does the author take into account the various usages of egō eimi in both the NT and the OT. In general, I need anyone who comments to provide a source for direct quotations or I can be in violation of copyright/fair use. Please provide source for this, or I will have to delete the quote.
LikeLike
You wrote: ‘They (God the Father and Logos) are no doubt separate entities, yet the Logos is “God” (1c).’
That wouldn’t confirm or deny trinitarianism if you’re saying being God is qualitative in nature ie ‘of the stuff of God the Father’. My point all along has been that such a premise doesn’t lead you to trinitarianism (or binitarianism or bitheism). Since I don’t believe John 8:58 is a solid case for Jesus calling himself YHWH (not whether the Pharisees said he was claiming to be the one God), then divine agency is much more likely.
Jesus wouldn’t have been forging God’s signature as it were, but he did have all authority given to him, so could give life, forgive sins and do all the things God could do because he was fully authorised by God Almighty. He was stating that he was the Logos, and the Jews recognised such a claim was tantamount to claiming to be God, which was blasphemy and worthy of death to them.
LikeLike
The quote comes from http://www.trinitytruth.org/meaningofIamjohn858.html
It seems to be a SDA-oriented site
LikeLike
Jim,
First, take a look at the Hebrew in this handy transliteration and translation here: http://biblehub.com/lexicon/exodus/3-14.htm
You’ll see that eh·yeh translates as “I AM”, and it is used three times: “I AM THAT I AM…I AM”. Greek grammar does not allow egō eimi to be used as the Hebrew does (egō eimi THAT egō eimi), so Egō eimi ho ōn is the best way to render “I AM THAT I AM”.
“The Being” is a very wooden translation for ho ōn, but it’s best rendered “THE ONE WHO IS” or “HE WHO IS”, though context will decide. This construction is used throughout the NT (and OT in the LXX); in John it’s found in 1:18 (“[the one] who is in the bosom of the Father”), in the N/KJV of 3:13 (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ho ōn en tō ouranō = “[the one] who is in heaven”), 6:46 (“the one who is from God”), 8:47 (first clause), and others.
So, the bottom line is that context is the determiner. In John 8:58 context does indeed indicate that Jesus was using the divine name, I AM. Clearly, they understood that not only did Jesus make a claim of predating Abraham, but that He was making a divine claim, as evidenced by their desire to stone him. Divine agency is not part of this context–the climax of the passage. Given that John 8:58 is a clear statement of divine identity, your position is unsustainable.
LikeLike
Craig, divine identity is something I totally concur with. I just don’t take the extra step of saying that two divine beings claiming the ‘name’ (description is better) YHWH means bi or trinitarianism. Their God nature means equality but they are still two beings although not two different Gods. One is Most High and Almighty. The other has all the Most High’s power and authority delegated to him. That’s the clear teaching of scripture. I’m happy not to call that theology anything lest it diminishes or skews thinking and understanding.
LikeLike
Jim,
OK, we agree that both Father and Son are YHWH. We also agree that they’re not two different Gods, as that would not be monotheism. Yet, if YHWH is the Most High, and the Father is YHWH and the Son is YHWH, then either we have two claiming to be Most High, or we have something else. In other words, Jesus’ claim of being YHWH is tantamount to a claim of being Most High, as well (same with First and the Last, Alpha and the Omega, Beginning and End, etc.).
LikeLike
So from Ex 3:14 I suggest God (Elohim) is providing Moses with an added dimension or facet of himself framed as I AM ie I exist in a way all the other surrounding ‘elohim’ don’t.
As the son of God, Jesus could legitimately apply the I AM discriminator, since he was of the same divine nature, and still not compromise the monotheistic Jewish faith.
LikeLike
Now you’re conflating the various usages of Elohim once again. That’s an exegetical fallacy called illegitimate totality transfer.
LikeLike
Not only that, but makes nonsense of the passage: The Elohim consisting of God (I AM) and the others, said to Moses “I AM THAT I AM…I AM”–how can only part of a subject speak (I AM) when the entire subject is expressed initially (Elohim consisting of I AM and the others)?
LikeLike
Just to clarify, I understand I AM as describing a state of being not the ‘name’ of an individual entity as we perceive name.
LikeLike
Just to clarify, I understand I AM as describing a state of being not the ‘name’ of an individual entity as we perceive name.
Yet, Exodus 3:14 clearly calls Himself by this, and there are other OT passages which do the same. It is not merely a state of being, it’s a name. The Jews recognized it as such.
LikeLike
Sorry Craig. You’ll have to explain where the conflation exists. The verse start with Elohim. God is expanding Moses’ understanding of who he is in a polytheistic society.
LikeLike
Sorry Craig. You’ll have to explain where the conflation exists. The verse start with Elohim. God is expanding Moses’ understanding of who he is in a polytheistic society.
Each individual context determines meaning of a given word (though double meanings can be intended for rhetorical value). In Exodus 3:14, clearly Elohim means God YHWH. If what you’re saying is the context is merely clarifying or expanding something about YHWH, then OK. But, this doesn’t negate the fact that I AM is understood to be the (ONE) divine name in Palestinian Judaism–a name claimed by Jesus in John 8:58.
LikeLike
Jim,
Let me begin this with an apology. Yesterday was very stressful for me, and I was in severe sleep debt, the latter especially impacting my cognitive skills. These two factors provided frustration as I tried to figure out your 2017/08/31 at 6:24 pm comment, reflected in my 6:29 and 6:32 comments.
Regarding the Alpha Course, I have similar reservations with it, knowing it’s roots. I brought this up to a local church, and the church defended it, suggesting I take the course to see. I did. It was not bad, except the “Holy Spirit weekend” is just plain wrong, as you make reference to. The church did not go overboard on the HS weekend, but it just seemed odd. There were other minor things I disagreed with (this church’s rendition of it–though instructions indicate that the format is to be adhered to in full), but they bettered the raw material in some ways. I think someone should take the basic idea and rework it.
LikeLike
Arwen4CJ, sorry, I don’t know if you’re still tracking this conversation, but I didn’t respond with respect to Alpha. I have been a Christian for 25 years and done several Alpha courses in a variety of roles. Whilst I am no cessationist, I also don’t adhere to gifts of the Holy Spirit being accessible to all, whenever we want a la Bill Johnson et al. So that clashes with the Alpha ethos.
Further, I don’t believe that the scriptural explanation by Paul in 1 Cor regarding tongues is something that happens after a separate ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’ as Alpha teaches. We are in-filled at the point of initial faith and subsequently on a daily basis with all that we need to live a God-focussed life (2 Peter 1:3-4 and Eph 1:3). Biblical tongues are human languages, not ecstatic utterances whereby we babble out a noise not knowing what it means, and therefore not edify the listeners. Paul specifically warns the Corinthian church to bring right order to their meetings so that foreign languages spoken are translated for everyone’s benefit, either by the speaker or someone else.
That doesn’t align with Alpha teaching either, so I tread carefully at these sessions. Thanks for the warnings though. I do find I have to bite my tongue at times, but the overall direction Alpha takes is commendable.
LikeLike
Arwen, your Aug, 29 at 9.32 am post about Gen 19:24, prompted a bit of research and I found a couple of alternative takes from some Jewish-based sources. Firstly, rather than the verse describing a YHWH in heaven and another YHWH on earth, it could be read as:
‘Then YHWH rained on Sodom [comma or pause] and on Gomorrah fire and brimstone from YHWH out of heaven’. So the second YHWH is just reiterating that Gomorrah’s punishment came from the same source as Sodom’s.
Alternatively, it could be understood as, ‘Then YHWH rained on Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from YHWH [emphasis – yes, it was truly an act of divine retribution, not from an evil source] out of heaven’.
Or we could have two simultaneous presentations of YHWH. But as I said earlier to Craig, the name that the Jews made sacred (almost deified) to me is more a description of divine being, and an elevation above polytheism, than identifying an individual entity.
LikeLike
Just reading the original post again, Craig, and it would seem that you’re not advocating a trinitarian perspective much at all. I realise that wasn’t the purpose of your study, but it comes over as almost a case for Father and Son as two separate co-substantial divine entities.
I have read that John 1:1 can be most purely translated as: ‘In (a) beginning was the saying, and the saying was within the God and God was the saying.’ So, it’s not a huge stretch that the first act by God is to speak forth what was within him (analogous to Heb 7:10) which was light, and that light was the first saying of God and therefore the Logos. I know the Genesis account calls the light ‘day’, but this was pre-sun, so not a solar day.
This could feasibly connect to John 1:4-9, 9:4-5 and Rev 21:23 and 22:5. Being within God he would have shared in his glory from before creation (John 17:5), and then Prov 8 personifies (albeit earlier in the feminine form) wisdom, or the Logos, coming forth from God before the founding of the earth proper. Without getting too mystical about it, perhaps the female wisdom connection to the Logos is a nod to Eve being brought from within Adam just as the Logos was within the Father originally too.
LikeLike
Yes, the purpose of the study was very narrowly focused on identifying “son of man” in John 5:27; everything else was peripheral at best.
I don’t know where you read this about John 1:1, but two points of grammar prove it wrong. First pros is never translated “within”. See, e.g., this chart, which indicates the spacial application of the various Greek prepositions, noting that pros cannot mean “within”. The only one that would be definitive for that translation is en, though there are a few others which could possibly work (meta, peri). Secondly, the third clause has two nominatives, and it’s not uncommon to the have the subject switched with the predicate. To determine if this is so, the one with the article preceding it would be the subject. In Greek, word order is somewhat flexible, and when a word is “fronted”–placed first when it should be placed later in the sentence–it is usually seen as emphatic (see the Westcott quote). The ‘standard’ word order is verb-subject[-object]. Hence, the third clause should be rendered and the Word was God, with “God” understood as meant in a qualitative sense. That is, like I wrote, something to the effect of “and the Word was by nature God“.
As far as logos translated “saying”, this doesn’t work. If the saying is merely some metaphysical aspect of God, then “saying” is not a person. Some unitarians advocate for this position, but stating that the “saying” became flesh, doesn’t fit the overall context. Was John the Baptist (6-8) speaking about a person or an aspect of God (see especially v. 12)?
LikeLike
Thanks for the comments on the variant of John 1:1. It did lead me to think about some ‘what ifs’ as a result, but I’d have to can them if it couldn’t honestly come from the original Greek.
No need for an apology. I hope whatever caused the stress is alleviated soon and that you enjoy fresh peace. PM me if you want to share more that can be prayed about specifically.
LikeLike
Jim,
Regarding egō eimi (I AM), the LXX of Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah—chapters 40-66) are replete with this, expanding on Exodus 3:14. While there are a number of individual verses exhibiting “I AM”, I’ll focus on just two.
Isaiah 45:18: Look at this in the Hebrew, specifically the first clause and last part (disregard the parenthetical remarks in the middle to keep this simple). Notice YHWH twice. In the LXX these are rendered:
Ohutōs legei kyrios… Egō eimi, kai ouk estin eti
Thus says LORD…I AM, and not is yet.
Translation: “Thus says the LORD…I AM, and there is no other”. The latter part reflects an idiom. Importantly, YHWH is rendered two different ways, but most importantly, as egō eimi. Also, of note is that the first clause is in reference to creation.
The very next verse, 45:19: Again, first look at the Hebrew, beginning with “YHWH”. Here’s the LXX version:
egō eimi egō eimi kyrios lalōn dikaiosynēn kai anaggellōn alētheian
I am —- I AM — LORD speaking righteousness and declaring truth.
I’ll leave the above not further ‘translated’, as it is intelligible as is.
As I was finishing up my own research on this, I went to the ‘net and found this by James White, which is pertinent. The following quote confirmed that I was on the right track:
In addition, as I was trying to relocate something else related, I came across the wiki page for egō eimi—very biased and inaccurate!
LikeLike
Isaiah 45:19: ‘I am —- I AM — LORD speaking righteousness and declaring truth’ is a really good example of how God uses the references to his name to expound on his character and nature. I think this is the key attribute when it comes to the YHWHs, I AMs, and Alpha and Omegas that intersect the persons of the Father and Jesus.
The same appears in Ex 34:6-7: ‘The LORD (YHWH), the LORD (YHWH), the compassionate and gracious God etc..’ This is where I think that the various Names can apply to both the Father and Jesus Christ, but without a trinitarian ‘next step’ that coalesces their persons into a single Godhead.
Basically, Jesus has all the fullness of YHWH in him, the entire character of the Most High God is his, so the Names that indicate nature and character of God are justifiably his also. That doesn’t mean he is part of a trinity, but I can certainly see how you could arrive at a trinitarian conclusion when faced with Jesus using the ‘I will be’ name describing his pre-existence, and John interchanging Alpha and Omega. Jesus had the same divine nature, character and essence as his Father.
LikeLike
Have you considered logical implications of the following Craig? If during his incarnation Jesus is self-aware enough to know he is the Son of God, to make references to his divinity, to use ‘I am’ and not challenge the Pharisees who accuse him of equality with God YHWH, why does he go to such lengths to separate himself from the Father? He clearly doesn’t conceive of a classic trinitarian Godhead. If a trinitarian Godhead existed, Jesus would have been fully cognisant in a way that was only articulated centuries later. He wouldn’t have had a muted version of the trinity that only became clear through the uninspired deliberations of the 4th and 5th C councils.
To say to his disciples he was returning to his Father and their Father, his God and their God (John 20:17), or from Paul in Eph 1:17, it would be apparent Jesus knew his place in the divine order, but also knew he and his Father were one in mission, character, and capability to forgive sin, save unto eternal life and judge. These attributes had, after all, been conferred on him by Almighty God. I suggest orthodox trinitarianism has ignored this inconvenient truth.
LikeLike
Jim,
The 4th and 5th century Ecumenical Councils weren’t making up doctrine out of whole cloth. They were putting into formula the various truths found in Scripture. This was in reaction to the disparate alternate teachings of the time, such as modalism and Arianism. With these competing doctrines, it was necessary to put into more succinct words the truths borne out in Scripture.
I think the best way to begin a search for the truth is to first focus on Christology. Since Christ Jesus is clearly human and apparently divine—the latter evidenced by Jesus ‘equating Himself with God’ (John 5:16-17) and the use of divine monikers by Jesus Himself (John 8:58, Revelation 22:13, e.g.) and others—Jesus’ unique status must be considered alongside the Father’s obvious Deity as YHWH. If Jesus is YHWH on earth, yet He is communicating with God the Father YHWH ‘in heaven’, then there appears to be (at least) two YHWHs—which would contravene monotheism and violate the Shema. How is that to be reconciled? The hypostatic union is the most logical conclusion to this sort of duality you and I both perceive in the Scriptures.
The Chalcedonian Definition sought to make sense of the seemingly self-contradictory statements “I and the Father are one” alongside “the Father is greater than I” and “My Father and your Father, My God and your God”. Chalcedon made sense of the apparent dichotomy of Jesus’ claims of possessing divine prerogatives along with His obvious humanity as evidenced by, e.g., His prayers to the Father.
The disputed clause “who is in heaven” in John 3:13, found in the N/KJV, is an indication of the sort of thing that could tilt more definitively Jesus’ divine status as YHWH. Was this clause a later addition (note placed in the margin that found its way into the text eventually?) in light of the doctrinal conflicts arising in the 3rd century and later, or is it original to the text? David Alan Black argues for its originality, over against the scholarly consensus. I’ve long wanted to do my own analysis, which is what prompted me to begin studying Koine Greek in earnest (most especially the so-called “perfect tense”, as found in anabainō, ascend in the first clause of 3:13, which could bolster Black’s view—or not). But that’s, as of yet, one of those unfinished projects…
LikeLike
‘I think the best way to begin a search for the truth is to first focus on Christology.’
And you don’t get any higher Christology than the Johannine contribution to the NT.
I’d be interested in any study on John 3:13. I’ve simply taken it as a declaration of divinity by Jesus, but with the sub-text that heaven was not designed for regular humanity, which ties in with Peter’s preach in Acts 2:34. To me this supports a conditional immortality view of salvation. Raised to eternal life, not the ‘die and go to heaven’ type.
LikeLike
I think Acts 2:34 just means that at the time David spoke those words he had not and was not ‘ascended’ into heaven.
I must ask: Who are the saints in Revelation who must patiently endure to the end of all things? And who are the 24 elders?
Did you look at Black’s paper on John 3:13? I’ve been studying that off and on for a few years. To understand, I had to delve into textual criticism (and some of what he stated there is out of date–it was written in 1985). One unresolved issue is that the early church material has itself not really been subject to proper textual criticism, so one must keep this in mind. That is, these documents are subsidiary to Scriptural evidence.
If you look at page 61 of Black’s article, you’ll see a number of texts he cites which feature “(the one) who is…”. I consulted this as I posted my earlier comment regarding this (though I had to look each one up for context, and to determine where the clause was in each verse). Frankly, John 1:18 (“who is in the bosom of the Father”) is very comparable to the disputed final clause in 3:13 in meaning (“who is in heaven”).
LikeLike
I will take a look at Black’s paper, but I’ve not had the chance yet. Yes, there are options with respect to Acts 2:34. The Messianic Psalm 110 is clearly in focus, and Peter’s ultimate point is in verse 36 when he declares the Jesus they had crucified is both Lord and the Jewish Messiah.
We have spoken about souls under the altar and other heavenly visions in Revelation, Craig. Arwen intimated earlier that to extract pure doctrine from Revelation is risky – it is just so allegorical. Therefore, I weigh the clear aspects of scripture against the less so (as I’m sure you do), and let the clear interpret the opaque. Consequently, I regard the biblical expression of life after death as through resurrection, not a disembodied afterlife that leads to eventual resurrection.
One for another day perhaps. I wouldn’t want to go off track.
LikeLike
Paul could lend credence to Black’s interpretation in Eph ch 2 where he writes about us being seated in heavenly places. I think that is more our status in Christ than a reality of simultaneous existence. In Eph ch 4:9-10 he states that Jesus descended from heaven having ascended there post-resurrection. This lends itself to a more simple view of John 3:13 in that Jesus was explaining to Nicodemas that he was the Son of Man from heaven and qualified to teach on spiritual matters.
An all powerful, knowing and present Jesus on earth is difficult to conceive given his lack of knowledge regarding when he would return in glory, and also make Phil 2 somewhat nugatory in that his human form voluntarily masked his God-given authority over all creation. It’s gusting towards modalism again for me. We have two separate entities, one doing the will of the other in submission to his highest authority, but Black is saying that someone utterly indistinguishable from God was speaking with Nicodemas because he was all the omnis. I don’t think even John’s Christology went that far.
LikeLike
I think Eph 4:-10 is merely making a logical conclusion to the statement in 8, in which he “ascended” post-resurrection after he had descended into to “the lower, earthly regions” (tēs gēs), which implies Sheol, the Jewish understanding of the place of the dead–not hell, or, worse, the furnace of fire, as some think. This comports with Jesus’ statement about the “sign of Jonah”–the three days in the belly of a great fish.
I think what Black is getting it is what is known as the extra Calvinisticum (not that one has to be a Calvinist to adhere to this doctrine)–Calvin’s idea that while Jesus was on earth necessarily constrained in His human body (limited in presence), like all humans, He was yet omnipresent in His divine nature. I consider this necessary in order for Christ to continuously sustain the cosmos (Col 1:17; cf. Heb 1:3). This is considered orthodox Christology. Omnipresence, by its definition is not constrained by any physical boundary. And just like Jesus was obviously not everywhere at once in His physical body, He was not all-knowing incarnationally.
LikeLike
Hello Jim,
I am following the conversation still, just not checking in as often as I had been.
I noticed something interesting today in church this morning. I don’t know if the church you attend follows a lectionary (or, if it does, whether or not it would be the same), but my pastor chose to preach on the Old Testament passage appointed for today. Can you guess what it was? Exodus 3:1-15.
Verse 15 caught my eye in a way that I had not quite noticed before. Let me quote verses 14 and 15…
Exodus 3:14-15 (NASB)
14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.
The part that caught my attention was when God said that I AM is HIs name forever, and that it His name for all generations.
So…..anyone who applied the very name of God to Himself, HIs name forever to all generations….that suggests to me that no one except Him could apply it to themselves legitimately. He wouldn’t let a representative use His very Name and Identity.
For John to imply that Jesus was implying the name I AM to Himself, and it is clear that this was John’s intention in his gospel, then Jesus has to be YHWH in the same way that the Father is YHWH. If Jesus were not actually YHWH, He wouldn’t have applied this name to Himself.
I have heard some people argue that it was actually the pre-incarnate Jesus speaking to Moses out of the burning bush because Jesus is God’s revelation to humanity. I don’t think that this can be proven that it was specifically the Word speaking here, and my pastor did not get near that idea at all. I just remembered reading it somewhere.
Ok. I just wanted to make sure that some of the practices in Alpha in regard to the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts may not be biblical. I’m glad that you saw an issue there, too, and that having been through the course before, you already knew to be cautious. I am not a cessationist either.
Right — I don’t agree with the whole “baptism in the Holy Spirit” idea as being a separate, second baptism. The Vineyards that I went to for awhile did not teach a “baptism in the Spirit,” and so with their Alpha course, they did not teach it like that either. They do believe in a constant filling of the Holy Spirit, which they say happens multiple times, and nothing distinctive about it. (They don’t look for tongues or any gift to accompany it.)
Perhaps this is one way that the people who taught the Alpha Course I went through differed from maybe what the actual instruction booklet teaches. They just taught that tongues and other spiritual gifts are gifts that can be given by the Holy Spirit at any time. No “baptism in the Holy Spirit” was mentioned.
Now, they did believe in a couple different kinds of tongues. The first kind was known human languages. The second kind was a special language between that person and God. Although they acknowledged that people can sing in tongues, they never did what many other charismatic groups do — have people pray aloud in tongues altogether. They don’t believe in doing that, as it would go against the teachings in 1 Corinthians, so we didn’t do any speaking aloud of tongues during Alpha. However, some people might have when praying for a person one on one, but they definitely did not emphasize it. I think it was more rare when someone spoke in tongues in one-on-one prayer with someone. I don’t think I heard anyone speak in tongues all of the Holy Spirit weekend.
Because my experience differed from yours in regard to tongues and a teaching about the baptism in the Holy Spirit, I am assuming that churches teach these parts of the Alpha Course differently from one another, or at the very least, put different emphasis on different things.
Yeah, I agree — Alpha in general is positive, and I like what it is trying to do.
Thanks for researching Genesis 19:24. Those are interesting viewpoints, and could be possible interpretations. I still think it is showing that there are at least two who are YHWH because of the verses that came earlier regarding YHWH’s visit to Abraham just before this –the meeting that you and Craig have discussed already.
Yes, God’s name is a description of divine being, but it cannot be seen as merely an elevation above polytheism. God claimed that this was His name, and thus, it seems that this is tied to His very identity.
Moses asked who he should say sent him. That is a question of identity. The answer that God gave him was meant to clarify exactly who he was speaking to. In other words, I see in Exodus 3 a definite identification of an individual entity, Himself. I see the name I AM as both a description His state of being, and as identifying who He is. This is even more clear when I look at the I AM statements from Isaiah.
I see similarities between YHWH’s claim in Isaiah and Jesus’ claims in John. I find it difficult to see the I AM statements in John in any other way other than Jesus claiming the divine name and applying it to Himself, indicating that He is YHWH in the same way that the Father is YHWH.
LikeLike
Glad you’re still tracking this thread Arwen. Interestingly the divine being Moses encounters at the burning bush in Ex 3 is called the Angel of the Lord. This is verified by Stephen in Acts 7:30, 35. This angel, says Stephen, was operating on behalf of God. As I’m sure you know angel simply means messenger. In the Ex 3 passage, the angel, LORD and God are used interchangeably it seems.
What does that say to you? To me it appears that another entity, not God, is also a YHWH-named figure. Is this the Logos? Quite probably. Does that naming convention support a trinitarian perspective of God? Perhaps, but I’m more inclined to see it as the name of a state of being exhibited by two entities: the Father and Jesus Christ. That’s almost binitarianism but not quite.
LikeLike
I see yet another way of understanding Exodus 3. First, a messenger/angel of the LORD appeared manifested as a burning bush. This message (the burning bush) was a theophany, providing the means by which to get Moses’ attention. Once the bush provided this purpose, YHWH spoke to Moses from within this theophanic burning bush.
In other words, the angelos of the LORD is to be restricted to the manifestation of the burning bush, and this messenger of the LORD is to be distinguished from YHWH Himself, Who is the One Who conversed with Moses in this exchange. It wasn’t the angelos of the LORD who spoke, it was YHWH. The bush itself did not speak, it was YHWH ‘within’ the burning bush Who spoke.
The angelos of the LORD = the burning bush itself
YHWH = the One Who conversed with Moses within the theophanic vision of the burning bush
LikeLike
So, I guess a key question is: was there some kind of proto-bi/trinitarianism in the OT that was evident but, either, was not recognised as such so wouldn’t have impinged upon a monotheistic worship system, or was recognised and still allowed monotheism because of the entities not being each other but both being YHWH?
Actually, even the Oneness modalists could get in on this particular construct. But Ex 3 does beg the question whether or not we have multiple entities all legitimately called God/YHWH/Lord, and where the haShem says the God of Israel is one (in number, but could well be ‘unique’ too).
But if the NT is the full revelation of what was obscured and hidden in the OT, surely that revelation is about God and his Messiah. That would be two very distinct entities both of YHWH name status. So for monotheism to remain intact they either coalesce into a Godhead called YHWH, or early Christians recognised the Father as the God of monotheism, and also the Lord through whom he operated, without thinking in terms of two separate Gods,or in binitarian terms.
LikeLike
Jim,
I actually have heard, though I don’t know for sure that it is the correct interpretation, and I don’t know that all scholars would agree with this…..
But I have heard someone claim that the “angel of the LORD” is just another name for God — more specifically, the pre-incarnate Jesus. They argue that it isn’t really an actual angel — it is just God. There are sometimes passages that switch between calling YHWH “YHWH’ or calling Him and angel of YHWH. It seems that these individuals are reading the passage, and from the context, they can tell that it is actually YHWH rather than any angel. (Perhaps “angel of the LORD” could be an expression that people used when they were actually talking about God.
It seems to me from context that this isn’t an angel, but is actually God. Moses took off his shoes and turned away from him — like he did not want to look at God, and YHWH here is treated as God.
If you take the angel as messenger idea literally — then couldn’t it be possible for one Person of YHWH to be a messenger for another Person of YHWH.
I need to dig up that website article of the guy who spoke at Christmas Conference because he had a whole website showing why he believed that this messenger was pre-incarnate Jesus and fully YHWH.
After doing a search, I remembered the name of the guy’s website, but it no longer is in existence.
Either way, it seems to me that the divine name applied to both the Father and Jesus, and as such, both are YHWH.
So then, it is only our understanding of how this is that is difficult for us to understand. I believe the best way to account for this and to describe it is through the Trinity. There are still sometimes (even in your two most recent posts) where you have described your beliefs, and I see them as almost being compatible with the Trinity, without your wanting to use the label “trinity.”
I re-read the chapter that Nicky Gumbel wrote on the trinity, after recommending it to you, and he has a big quote in there from C.S. Lewis. Basically, the argument goes like this — God is a unique Being, and there is no one like God, and we humans can’t conceive of what God is truly like. We express what we can from the truths of Scripture that we know, but we can only go so far.
He compared this to if we were living in a one dimensional world where we only saw lines, or if we lived in a two dimensional world where we only saw flat objects, etc. This argument reminds me of a book that my intro to calculus teacher from high school had us read called “Flatland.” The same principles apply.
The book is about a character that is a square, and he is taken to point land, and he sees how they differ from his flatland (where there are only two dimensions that he knows about), then he is taken to a 3-d world where he reflects that in his flatland, the 3rd dimension does exist — it’s there — they just have no means of describing it. It affects their world a bit, but they never notice it.
C.S, Lewis suggests that this kind of thing could be like how it is with God. We only see maybe a side of him (if we use the analogy of the shapes), thinking that each Person or side of God is a separate square, but in reality He could be a like a cube — we just don’t have the means of conceiving Him as He truly is.
So — for us, we acknowledge what we find in Scripture — the Father is YHWH, Jesus is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH, yet there is only one God.
We should not thinking of God like we see a person. God may not look like what a human being looks like. He is different from us — so how he exists in a triune way is something that we cannot truly fully grasp. Our responsibility is not to explain how this is exactly, but just to simply accept what He has revealed about Himself to humanity.
I think it is difficult for you to see Almighty God as being more than just the Father, so sometimes it seems that you are confused when Craig and I talk about our beliefs. It does seem, however, especially in your recent posts, that you are understanding us a lot better, and we are moving into a sort of understanding here. I think you understand our beliefs much better now than you did before. I also think that your own view about God is more open, and you are willing to modify your belief towards where Scripture leads.
LikeLike
That is possible, Craig. I saved the article from the guy who wrote it, just in case his website ever went down. Since it has gone down, I’m glad I did.
I don’t remember the man’s name, and none of the documents I saved have his name on them. I do want to offer a word of caution in regard to his articles — I am not sure how reliable what he said was. When I did the search for his ministry today online, I came across some questionable articles on other topics that people had mentioned here and there.
That doesn’t mean that what he said about Jesus is definitely wrong. I can send it to you, if you are interested. It is a Word document. Let me know.
LikeLike
Sure.
LikeLike
Jim, if you want the article, I can send it to Craig, and he can send it to you in e-mail (if you want). E-mail is the only way it can be sent because it is no longer on the Internet.
LikeLike
Thanks Arwen. I would probably have the same conclusions as this author but by all means send it on if you can.
The research I’ve done on this pre-incarnation theophany or christophany is that it would most likely be the Logos given all the attributes and divine titles afforded the ‘angel’ of the Lord. All the instances are of a person engaging with variou OT figures. Again I’m still working through the implications with respect to the nature of God and Jesus.
LikeLike
Jim,
I can send the document to you at the email address you use as a WordPress login. Will that work?
LikeLike
The C S Lewis comment is an interesting one. I’m not entirely convinced God is so above our imagination that it’s like a line trying to conceive of a 3 dimensional object. He seems to be made of a unique substance we call pneuma or spirit. I’m not sure if it’s the same ‘type’ of spirit that the angels are made from, but that’s possible. Overall there is a mystery but also a good deal of clear cut revelation.
LikeLike
Should do, thank you.
LikeLike
I sent it. Did you receive it?
LikeLike
Jim,
If you liked how that article was written, he wrote another article about Jesus appearing throughout the Old Testament. If you want that one, let me know, and I can send it to Craig.
He also has an Alpha/Omega/Beginning/End/First/Last argument that is similar to what Craig and I have already discussed with you. I can also send that one to you.
The author of these articles was a Jehovah’s Witness who was reading through the book of Colossians one day, and realized that JW doctrine was wrong. He saw Jesus’ full deity in Colossians, so then he started a ministry in defending Jesus’ deity, and helping people to witness to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
It was also from him that I first learned about Oneness Pentecostals. He had some material about talking to Oneness Pentecostals as well.
Just let me know. I will send these articles to Craig, and he can pass them along to you as well.
I will write a little more later.
LikeLike
Jim,
I do think that you will like how the author of those articles reaches his conclusions. He starts with the same messenger of the LORD idea that you do, but his conclusions end up to be Trinitarian. It definitely will be interesting for you to read his stuff. He uses the same theophany language that you do, so he has likely read some of the same sources as you.
In his Jesus in the OT article he also suggests that the pre-incarnate Jesus interacted with OT figures.
The line/square/cube argument is meant to provide an analogy to how difficult it is for us humans to think about God. When I read Flatland, before I knew about C.S. Lewis’ thoughts on this, I wondered if that was how it was with us and God — that maybe there was a God dimension that we interact with, but yet are not able to really conceive of it, and that we could not see God for how He truly was.
I agree that God is spirit. The angels are spiritual beings, but they are created. God is uncreated, and because of this, I think that whatever “spirit stuff” God is, it is unique to Him. This is speculation, as God did not say anything about His own makeup, other than that He is spirit.
Craig, did you want me to go ahead and send you the Jesus in the OT article as well as the First/Last Alpha/Omega Beginning/End article?
LikeLike
Sure, you may send those as well.
LikeLike
Received fine thanks Craig. Appreciate your time Arwen too.
LikeLike
No problem. I sent Craig the rest of the guy’s documents that I had, so if you are interested in any of those, just let him know.
LikeLike
So I read the first article which made a good case for the pre-incarnate Christ to have been those manifestations called the Angel of the Lord, as well as YHWH. I have no real issue with all that. I do, however, take issue with his point under the heading ‘Applications’ #1. There is no scriptural indication that we fall into a damnable heresy if we don’t take John 8:24 as a trinitarian verse that the Logos being referred to as YHWH equals the trinity as stated in the orthodox creeds (I assume that’s what he means).
What I am interested in is that monotheism and by default trinitarianism relies on the Shema and God being one in a numerical sense, but I think there must be more to it than that. The fact that man had to wait several centuries, even millenia, between creation and Moses encounter on Mount Horeb for God to announce his ‘name’, or probably more accurately define his character and nature through a particular phrase, indicates there was no direct or significant threat or opposition to worshipping him up to then.
Clearly, by the time Moses was about to lead the Israelites from Egypt confirming to them the ‘one’ true God amongst the plethora of alternative pagan non-deities required divine intervention, hence the burning bush. That there are two entities at work here and in multiple other OT passages does not necessarily play into a trinitarian perspective whereby the two entities have to be seen as ‘one’ God or YHWH.
I truly believe the biblical course in all this is neither unitarian, trinitarian, binitarian, or bitheistic. It is one Most High and his supreme vice-regent, co-creator, ‘sent one’, Messiah, earthly representative, sacrificial Lamb, divine-sharing yet begotten at a point in pre-(human) time, eternally submissive Son.
LikeLike
Jim,
And YHWH took even longer to reveal His plan of salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ–even though besides YHWH there is no savior. Should we say that God did not save until Jesus?
The way I understand the author’s point regarding John 8:24 is that one must believe that Jesus is YHWH, for, if not, “you will indeed die in your sins”. We agree that God the Father is YHWH, and here Jesus claims to be YHWH as well.
Oneness PentecostalsModalists, who affirm only one YHWH at one time, use this verse to claim that the NT is the time in which Jesus was YHWH, indicating that they understand this verse as Jesus pronouncing His unqualified Deity. Of course, the author also accepts the Holy Spirit as part of the Godhead, so he necessarily concludes a belief in Trinitarianism must be understood along with John 8:24.LikeLike
Do you agree with your last line, Craig? It’s a statement, but is it your understanding of salvation? No belief in God as trinity equals ‘dead in your sins’ and therefore destruction?
‘Should we say that God did not save until Jesus?’ I would say God doesn’t save until Jesus returns and, even then, there will be no global judgement until the great white throne prophecy is fulfilled well after his return. God saves through Christ.
LikeLike
Jim,
I won’t be dogmatic on that issue. Let me explain, though I’m not sure I’ll capture all the necessary nuances. In the context of John 8:24, the text clearly uses egō eimi with nothing following, i.e., “I AM”. Those translations that add a clause are filling in the predicate from the larger context. This is because it is clear that the Pharisees did not construe Jesus as claiming the divine name in this context. However, in my view, the Gospel of John doesn’t always use the very words of Jesus; i.e. the Gospel writer is using His own rhetorical skills to effect a double meaning at times (just like born again/from above in John 3), yet he captures the essence of Jesus’ words through the power of the Holy Spirit. So, is John 8:24 a case of double meaning; or, are we to understand it strictly as the way most translations fill in the predicate from the context (“the one I claim to be”)? When one considers Jesus’ explicit “I AM” statement in John 8:58, I think the evidence tilts to a dual meaning, though one could certainly argue a single meaning without Jesus making a divine claim.
But what does that mean, then? At most, it means that one must believe that Jesus is YHWH to be saved. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this context. Yet, according to historically orthodox Christian doctrine, as established from the Ecumenical Creeds, if one doesn’t believe in the Trinity, one is considered a heretic and unsaved. This places, e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons outside Christian orthodoxy. With all this in mind, I think the decision is yours to make.
LikeLike
Jim,
Let’s look again at the context of 8:24, expanding it out just a bit. As the writer of that Word doc shows, 8:28 has another egō eimi statement:
Like v 24, the “I am” here is likely used for rhetorical effect—a possible implicit double meaning. The deeper meaning is lost on the Pharisees, but not on the astute reader—the reader who read and understood the implications in John’s prologue (1:1-18). “Lift up” is a euphemism for the Cross, of course. This ties v 28 in with v 24’s “die in your sins”.
But, can we be sure that John intends “I AM” in both verses? Perhaps not unequivocally, but enlarging our scope of enquiry may provide more evidence. In 8:12 Jesus makes His second “I AM” + predicate declaration in John’s Gospel (the first is 6:35: “I AM the bread of life”): “I AM the Light of the world”, which He calls “the Light of life” (cf. 1:4,9,13). To this (8:13) the Pharisees claim his self-testimony is invalid, as, of course, 2 or 3 witnesses are required. In response—and this is key here—Jesus states, “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true/valid…” Jesus’ testimony about Himself is never a testimony of one. It always comes as two, to include the Father—the One Who sent Him.
And when one factors in 8:58—the indisputable “I AM” statement—this tilts the scales even further. From this, I conclude that Jesus, the Son of God, is YHWH. As I’d noted before, to claim agency (vice regency) is deficient, as an agent/vice regent cannot claim to BE the principal—he’s always the agent for the principle.
On another note, there’s room for disagreement with the author regarding his claim that Rev 1:8 is a statement of the Son. The identity of the speaker is not 100% certain, though it’s clearly either the Father or the Son. My NIV 1984 red letter edition has this verse in red text. But I’m not so sure. I think it’s the Father.
LikeLike
Jim,
I asked Craig’s opinion on John 8:24 a couple weeks ago in private — in regard to that very issue — whether or not it seemed that John 8:24 made belief in Jesus as YHWH essential to salvation. I asked him to examine the Greek there, and the Greek in several Isaiah passages, etc. I asked him this privately through an e-mail message.
I hadn’t read the Eads ministries stuff in a long time, but I did remember that he made several arguments and use words similar to what you use, and that he covered topics that we were talking about. I hadn’t remembered that he considered John 8:24 to be a salvation issue.
But, yes, it is really important that you come to your own conclusion, as there is a possibility that it is a salvation issue.
LikeLike
I had a pretty long post which the iPad just dumped. Basically, what I was saying was that God called Abram from his polytheistic life in Ur to faith in the one, true God. He didn’t provide an I AM name for Abram. Fast forward to Moses, and God knows that the Israelites are being constantly seduced by foreign ‘gods’. Consequently, God chooses that point to reveal his nature by declaring to Moses the God who will bring them out of slavery. That God was the I AM, the one who exists, the one who will be what he will be; in other words, a real, living entity unlike all the other idols and lesser non-gods or false worship systems. Not only that, but he is alone and unique in that standing of being above all.
However, despite God saying to the Israelites this is who their God is, and to remember that ‘name’ or description, they became enraptured by the name I AM/YHWH/Yahweh, to the level that that they couldn’t even pronounce the name without fear of blaspheming. They turned the name into an idol essentially. So, when we read ego eimi in John’s gospel, we shouldn’t get too wrapped up in Jesus trying to imply he was YHWH, or the God of the Pharisees. He never hinted at that and always declared that he was sent by the Father, did nothing without the Father’s leading and was separate from the Father, albeit that he was with him in a pre-incarnate time as described clearly in 8:58.
That verse is really about his pre-incarnate credentials, not a statement of being YHWH, although it would have been recognised as claiming a divine status. Being the Son and saying he was with the Father before Abraham lived meant that he had the same YHWH qualities because he shared the Father’s unique divine nature, but he still wasn’t shipwrecking monotheism. The Jews knew about the Angel of the Lord, about a second entity or power that could act the same as YHWH ie judge, forgive, save, create ex nihilo, destroy; the rock in the desert that gave water, one who was the full representation of God in his engagement with man.but still not the Most High. The Jews simply hadn’t seen that the Messiah, who was supposed to come from David was Jesus, despite his miracles, references to his divine nature, teaching on Ps 110:1, pre-existence as the OT theophanies.
So I’m not very dogmatic on the few absolute ‘I am’ references being a direct read across by John that Jesus is YHWH. He was qualitatively of the nature as YHWH, but being the Son, he knew all his power had been conferred on him by the Father, all authority given to him and not acquired by dint of being the Son or YHWH in nature/substance. That meant that monotheism still stays intact, and doesn’t split the Father and Son in to two Gods since they share the same unique divine state of being. God the Father was uncreated, the Logos was brought forth, as Jesus states in John 8, not in an incarnational way, although that fits too, but before the founding of the earth..In becoming the Son of God, he knew he was not God the Son, that much is transparent. So any desire for co-equality, co-eternity, co-everything of Jesus with YHWH, is our trying not to compromise our idea of monotheism, but actually misunderstanding what monotheism meant to the OT Jews and the new converts to Jesus.
LikeLike
I’ll have to compose a fuller response a bit later. Sorry your post got lost—hate it when that happens. Many times I’ll compose in MS Word first, saving as I go. I’ve had too many well-thought out comments disappear for various reasons.
LikeLike
Jim,
If you are writing this mostly on an iPad, you can type it up on Pages and save it, just as you would with Microsoft Word. (You might have to download Pages from the app store. It comes on most iPads, but apparently doesn’t always come on iPhones. Not sure why that is.)
I have Pages on both my computer and iPad. I also have Word on my computer, as well as TextEdit. I usually use my computer to type up responses on here.
LikeLike
Jim,
I think it all boils down to John’s intention when writing the Gospel. It seems to me that he, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was clearly presenting Jesus as YHWH in his Gospel. If you look at the book of John as a whole, Jesus is being presented as the I AM of the OT.
This is made clear starting in John 1:1. Almost everything in the whole Gospel always points back to this.
If he were making a case of a God Most High and a vice regent, then this would have been explicitly stated.
I do not see any legitimate, real gods besides God.
If your belief is correct, then why don’t any of the three main branches of Judaism today teach the Two Powers concept? Why is there no evidence of this thinking contained in any early Christian writing?
In my view, this Most High God/vice regent / two powers concept exists to avoid the doctrine of the Trinity.
Regardless, if you have a Most High God and a Vice Regent — that makes two gods. It doesn’t matter if one comes from the other, as long as you insist that they are not both the Most High God. It doesn’t matter if you say that they are both made of “YHWH stuff.” You still end up with two gods because you have a “Most High” and a “vice regent.”
The only way to avoid having two gods is to either have a true Trinity, or to have modalism.
LikeLike
The only way to avoid having two gods is to either have a true Trinity, or to have modalism..
And this is what we’ve been discussing, just as they have been down the centuries. What did the OT revelation of God, and the pre-incarnate Christ look like and how did they flow into the NT incarnation and beyond?
Cognitive perceptions are important here, because I don’t see scripture being absolutely black and white on this subject. It’s something of a jigsaw and then step well back to see the big picture.
I regard my position as carrying good substance and, therefore, don’t necessarily agree with your statement Arwen, but totally understand why you say it. I have said similar.
Thanks for the posting advice. Craig, normally your Leave a Reply box holds the content in the event of a crash (iPad power failure in my case), but didn’t seem to this time. It gave me a chance to reflect on what I wanted to say though.
LikeLike
Because a name to a Jew, or anyone from the ancient near east, stated more about the person’s family, location, status and key history or features, I think we should understand YHWH in the same context. The list is endless: from Adam meaning red or soil, Abram and Sarai having their names changed by God all the way to Jeshua – the God who saves, names indicate nature, character and are far more than a mere label or identifier.
So even if Jesus aligned himself with YHWH by including subtle references to the Jewish holy name for God, that indicates more about his nature than actually being part of a whole called YHWH who comprises two other divine entities, also called YHWH. He could be separate and in submission to YHWH, the Most High, but of the same nature. That meant he was recognised by the early Jewish monotheistic believers as Lord but not God, although they knew he was of God-stuff and unique in nature. Being of the same ‘stuff’ as God and having all authority conferred on him by God gave him an equality with God from man’s perspective although it was never claimed by Jesus himself who always saw himself beneath God.
So there weren’t two Gods to the early Christian church since they were of the same unique divine nature, but they knew one was God and the other their and our Lord, God’s Son.
LikeLike
Jim,
That doesn’t account for verses like John 1:1, which do call Jesus God explicitly. (Note that the biblical writers obviously didn’t believe that Jesus was the Father. The only way that this works is if God is at least two Persons because the biblical writers believed in only one God.)
2 Peter 1:1 (NASB)
1Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Titus 2:11-14 (NASB)
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Romans 9:1-5 (NASB)
9 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
LikeLike
One more thing — I heard that the phrase “Jesus is Lord” was meant to contrast with the phrase “Caesar is Lord.” I heard that such a phrase was supposed to imply deity.
LikeLike
John 1:1 has other viable translations that don’t state the Word was God (the trinitarian entity).
Why would 2 Peter 1 open with a different greeting to every other letter that discriminated between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ? If Greek has no commas, one could just as reasonably write that verse, ‘…of our God, and Saviour Jesus Christ.’
Likewise for Titus 2, same logical flow should be read, not with a trinitarian slant. Paul has never said that Jesus was God in any other letter, so it would be odd to assume he held such a view from this reading in Titus. Indeed, Paul makes it clear in 1 Thess 4:14-16 that God will accompany Jesus in some form or guise when Jesus returns to earth, and he says the same in Titus 2:13.
Romans 9:5 has to be seen in the light of 1 Cor 15:28. Whilst Jesus is over all, that is because it has been delegated to him by God to whom Jesus will present all things once death is finally defeated. The ‘God’ at the end doesn’t have to refer to the preceding Christ, but could easily be a short doxology.
Finally, Arwen, even if Jesus is Lord implies deity (that obviously out ranks Caesar’s non-deity) that doesn’t equate him to God the Father or part of a YHWH Godhead. I have always maintained the deity of Jesus, both as incarnated, and either side.
LikeLike
Jim,
To which “valid” translations do you refer regarding John 1:1?
LikeLike
Craig, perhaps ‘translations’ is too strong. Let’s say emphasis or conclusions. I won’t go down the JW claim that ‘there is no definite article in front of the second theos, so it must mean a god.’
But I do find it compelling that the translation which reads:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. En archē ēn ho Lógos, kaì ho Lógos ēn pròs tòn Theón, kaì Theòs ēn ho Lógos. In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word,
would mean the emphasis on the second God would be more about the Godly essence and nature of the Word than stating that the Word was one of two or three persons of God because of monotheism.
Therefore, I would take John 1:1 to mean something like: In the beginning was THE Logos, and the Logos was with THE God (note two separate entities), and the Logos had those unique divine qualities of THE God (so by implication was not a second God, but THE God was the God of Jewish monotheism).
LikeLike
There are two problems with this understanding. The first one is that theos has the article preceding it, indicating that it is the subject nominative rather than the predicate nominative, and “fronting” logos as it does (placing it first in this clause) puts emphasis on it. Secondly, there is another Greek word which would have been more appropriate for your rendition: theios (Divine), the adjectival form of theos.
I don’t have time to address any of your more recent comments.
LikeLike
I have no doubt there are problems Craig. Problems abound on all sides of various translations, whether it be the text of the original, or inflections and nuances that invite debate. Language is never fixed; meanings shift; we have stovepiped thinking that can’t totally represent that of the writer. For example, this comes from http://www.ntgreek.org on John 1:1:
I think my conclusion fits neatly without being particularly forced. If NT Christology is viewed through the lens of one God and one Lord, as is so often the explicit case, the somewhat contentious verses (and there aren’t many) can still fall into line, rather than be taken as support for an implied trinity.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’m surprised the copy you made of those sentences make it onto the site, but it’s very cumbersome to read it by scrolling over. Could you copy it into Word, pasting it as “keep text only”, then copying it here? I think I got the gist of it, as I saw a a reference to Colwell’s rule. But that’s precisely what I’ve
donediscussed in the article on which we’re commenting! See part 5 for the problems with Colwell’s rule.Regarding the text of John 1:1, there are no known variants, and there are clearly three individual clauses. The first two usually pose no issues. It’s the third one that has occasioned debate.
LikeLike
OK, I was able to fix your comment. I’ll respond further specifically on that quote in a bit.
LikeLike
Now, that I read and digested the author’s quote in its entirety, his findings agree with what I wrote here–
acexcepting the sentence “According to normal Greek usage (Colwell’s Rule), the word ‘God’ should not have a definite article” which is not untrue, but potentially misleading. If it had the article (there’s no indefinite article in Greek, so it’s more properly without the qualifier “definite”, especially since the article does not always indicate definiteness), then this would be a fully convertible A = B / B = A proposition, such that the logos and God [the Father] would be the same entity, which would be self-contradictory in this context. In other words, logos could not have the article preceding it here.Using the adjectival form, theios, would be too weak (“and the Word was ‘Godly'” — or something to that effect). However, placing theos in the emphatic position (first in the clause) is a device to emphasis Deity, while the lack of article is to not identify the logos with God the Father in the second clause.
Again, for your interpretation to work–the logos as an entity inferior to God the Father–then theios would have been more proper. As it stands, the Word was in/by nature God is the best understanding of the Greek.
LikeLike
Thanks for massaging the quote. I’m not very expert in posting techniques.
So, we agree the Word was of the same nature or divine essence as God, but wasn’t him. Same essence doesn’t have to mean ontological equality though. And even if you thought it did, we come to the central perspective that drives the final conclusion of a trinity or not: what do we understand or, more accurately, what did 1st C Judaism understand by monotheism in respect of their eyes being opened to Jesus as messiah and Lord? Did they now have to reinterpret their understanding of the God of the fathers into a binitarian or trinitarian construct?
I suggest scripture teaches that they did not need a new lens and, on evidence, they were comfortable with the same tension the ancient Jews were in that God was singular and alone, but invested his power and authority THROUGH another – the Logos (at times called the Angel of the
Lord), then Jesus Christ. That tension holds in place two beings that aren’t part of a whole Godhead, but neither are they two gods.
LikeLike
Jim,
You must keep in mind that the Greek is still best translated in its most literal sense as and the Word was God, with the bold indicating emphasis. This should be thought of as somewhat akin to the following: An archaeological dig yields some bones, and these bones are determined to be human. With this, we understand that the bones found in the archaeological dig are common to all humanity. They bear the same essence of, all the same characteristics as, any other human. In the same way, the Word “was God”–the Word is of the essence as, bearing the same characteristics of, the One God. In fact, as we’ve discussed, the term used in the later formulations is ousia, or essence; i.e., the Father and Son share the same ontology. Ousia is a particle of the verb “to be”, which is ‘woodenly’ translated as being; so, according to the 3rd through 5th century formulations, Father and Son are of the same “being”.
Moreover, John 1:1 should not be viewed in a vacuum; it must be understood within the larger context of John’s Gospel. In John 20:28 is Thomas’ confession “My Lord and My God!”–a statement that Jesus does not correct, implicitly affirming it.
And as Hurtado illustrates, Jesus’ receiving worship in accordance with Deity was a novel development. This was certainly controversial among the more ‘traditional’ Jews.
LikeLike
Jim,
How do you interpret the following verse:
2 Peter 2:11 (NASB)
11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.
Do you interpret that as meaning: “our Lord, and Savior Jesus Christ?”
or
“Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
LikeLike
Arwen, keeping Peter’s letter in context, I would suggest that 2 Pet 1:11 is fine if ‘Lord and Saviour’ is treated as all one phrase. In verse 2 of the same chapter, God and Jesus are clearly differentiated so there is no reason to combine the two terms in verse 1. In verses 8 and 14 he writes Lord Jesus Christ, but simply adds the additional descriptor saviour in verse 11. Contextually, I wouldn’t separate Lord and Saviour into two, but would in verse 1 because that’s what follows in verse 2.
LikeLike
Craig, you’re right that John 1:1 shouldn’t be viewed in a vacuum. It should be placed within the whole gospel. That context, however, is not unambiguously in favour of a trinitarian solution. But let’s take that a stage further and put John’s gospel in the context of the three other gospels and broader NT letters. If the highest possible Christology, that Jesus is God or within a YHWH Godhead, then that has to come through clearly in the Synoptics too. I’m not convinced it does.
When Jesus says, ‘Why do you call me good? There is no one good but God’, he’s not saying he is fallen or sinful in any sense, but he is putting clear blue water between himself and God the Father. Remember, this is the same Jesus in the verse you quoted from John 20:28. There is an apparent inconsistency between those verses, but not if we don’t read too much in to his silence after Thomas’s exclamation. Peter, in fact, said he was the Son of the living (I AM) God, the Messiah and gained Jesus’s very real approval of the summary.
LikeLike
Mark 10:18 hardly is an indication that Jesus is denying His Deity. In fact, it could be quite the contrary: The rich young man recognizes that Jesus is “good”, addresses Him as “good teacher”, and Jesus subtly asks him why he makes this observation, understanding that He Himself is God in the flesh. This doesn’t mean that Jesus thought of Himself as God the Father, as Christians understand that Jesus is God the Son, in distinction from the Father. So, depending on how one construes this verse, there’s no inconsistency at all.
As regards Peter’s confession, this only strengthens the Trinitarian case, as Peter calls Jesus the (very) Son of the living God; i.e., Peter is affirming a familial relationship between Jesus and God the Father, thus implying the two have the same ontology. This is the very issue with which “the Jews” in John 5:17-18 took umbrage with Jesus–Jesus calling God the Father His own Father.
LikeLike
Jim,
In addition to the earlier verse, could you tell me how you would interpret 2 Peter 3:17-18 (NASB)
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Same question as before:
Do you interpret it as saying “grace and knowledge of our Lord, and Savior Jesus Christ”
or
“grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ”
LikeLike
Craig, it’s difficult to see how Peter’s declaration is a hone run for trinitarianism. Again I’m not calling any deity of Jesus into question.
Arwen, yes the same applies to the second Peter verse – Lord goes with saviour but that doesn’t make the case for God and saviour connecting with respect to Jesus. The word flow and context won’t permit that with any certainty.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’m currently formulating a comment regarding 2 Peter, so hold any further thoughts.
LikeLike
Jim,Regarding “I AM”/divine name statements in general, one cannot anachronistically claim that since this ‘name’ wasn’t evident until Exodus 3:14, then its meaning is not relevant for God as a means by which to be identified as God. As I illustrated earlier, Isaiah expanded on its usage, and John has sourced it from there.[I inadvertently copied a portion of a comment I’d not finished! So disregard.]Jim,
Regarding 2 Peter, here’s the (transliterated) Greek of 2 Peter 1:1:
tou *theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou
of the God of ours and Savior Jesus Christ
of our [the] God and Savior Jesus Christ
According to (one of) Granville Sharp’s rule, when there is only one article (tou–in the genitive/possessive case) preceding a singular noun-kai-singular noun phrase as we have here, then the nouns refer to one entity. If “God” and “Savior” were meant to be separate entities, tou would also be placed in between kai and sōtēros. Therefore, the only possible translation is “of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”.
The asterisk above is to denote a textual variant in which kyriou, “Lord”, is in place of theou in a few manuscripts. This is obviously because some scribes felt that “God” was too strong here. However, the manuscript evidence so favors “God” that even Metzger’s first edition doesn’t mention it, let alone the second. In Comfort’s commentary he notes that “God” has “excellent support: p72 B C Majority Text”. The contrary evidence (the evidence for “Lord”) includes one ‘major’ Alexandrian manuscript, א (aleph, first letter in Hebrew), but this is countered by two other Alexandrian manuscripts, the first two listed in the previous quote of Comfort. He adds:
Note the parenthetical statement about Titus 2:13. This is one of the verses Arwen referenced above. So, this same rule applies in the case of Titus, as well. This, when coupled with John 1:1 and John 20:28 is compelling evidence that Jesus was called “God” without qualification. When the “I AM” statements are factored in, we have even more evidence for the Trinitarian position.
LikeLike
Jim, (Craig publish this whenever you want — before or after your commment you are writing).
what about the sentence structure in 2:11 and 3:18 causes you to think Lord goes with Savior?
LikeLike
Arwen,
I was going to note the very thing you address, pointing to the Greek and how the verses compare to 1:1.
Jim,
Note the presence of only one article in the formulation:
These are all the same (except for hēmōn in 2:20), all having the same format as 1:1.
LikeLike
Craig,
Thanks for the Greek comparisons. I was looking at other verses in 2 peter, and I saw that both these verses were structured the same way in English, and since they were in the same letter, I thought they were good comparisons in English. I was going to ask you about the Greek.
LikeLike
I discovered this when I was talking to a Jehovah’s Witness online. I brought up 2 Peter 1:1, and his interpretation of the verse was the same as Jim’s here.
I then decided to see what other people thought about both that verse and about those other two verses from 2 Peter. I went on ICQ or AIM and pulled random people, asking them how they interpreted the verses, and why they interpreted them that way.
100% of the people said that “Lord and Savior” should be seen as two titles describing Jesus in 2 Peter 1:11 and in 2 Peter 3:18. This was even true of atheists.
However, responses were quite varied on 2 Peter 1:1. Most of the people could not look at that verse from a grammar perspective. As soon as the word “God” is used in a sentence, people start interpreting the verse theologically, ignoring all grammar rules. I was only able to get one person to look at the verse from a perspective of grammar rules, and to answer me according to grammar, and that person was Jewish, and he lived in Israel, and he didn’t know anything about Jesus. He had basically never even heard of Jesus, thus he had no theological bias when he read the sentence.
Those who were trinitarian Christians viewed it as “God and Savior,” but there reasoning was not because of grammar, but rather, because of theology. I know this because I asked them why they believed that, and they gave a theological response, even when I specifically asked for an explanation from grammar.
Those who were non-Trinitarian Christians, or those who did not believe in God, or those who had some other belief system involving the idea of God, said that “God and Savior” should not be together, and explained it from their theological perspective. I asked them specifically for grammar rules, and they couldn’t do it either.
It’s like the word “God” so influences people’s thinking, especially when this word relates to Jesus, that it’s really difficult for people to have clear thinking either way.
The Jewish man said it should be “God and Savior,” both being titles, from an English grammar perspective.
LikeLike
If, due to a Greek grammarian ‘rule’ (but as we know, language is not absolute, nor rules enshrined in perpetuity), I was to say: OK, 2 Pet 1:1 says that Jesus is God (YHWH), therefore a trinitarian concept of God must follow, I would be wrestling through so many passages and verses that clearly discriminate between God the Father and Jesus (ie not different ‘persons’ from the same ‘God’, but actually different entities in the real sense); that don’t intimate they are part of a co-equal Godhead; that do say we have one God and one Lord. I now have a far greater problem making sense of 1 Pet 1;2, 3, 21, 2:5, 3:15, 18, 22, 4:11. That’s from a quick skim of his first letter. Then what do you do with 1 John 1:3 – ‘And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.’
There are no verses that say ‘God the Son’, because he isn’t.
The appeal to grammar is fine, but it is a thin one compared to the sheer body of evidence that says that God is God and Jesus in his Son, and the natural unforced reading of scripture concludes the two are not one God.
LikeLike
Jim,
Scripturally, Jesus is God’s Son whether considered from an eternal perspective, or from an earthly, human perspective. Some of those verses differentiating God the Father and the Son are clearly the latter. One cannot just disregard the evidence indicating that Jesus is in fact God, theos without qualification. These must be explained in some way. Your YHWH for God the Father and something near to YHWH for the Son just doesn’t match select Scriptures.
Your claim that the appeal to grammar in this case is a “thin one” does not pass muster. I’ve illustrated how the writer of 2 Peter uses this same exact format three other times. I’m not sure how much clearer the evidence can be.
You wrote: There are no verses that say ‘God the Son’, because he isn’t. That’s very dogmatic. And a statement such as this places the burden of proof on the one making the claim.
LikeLike
Jim,
I hadn’t consulted any commentaries in my previous comments on 2 Peter, so I thought I’d check a couple. And since you mentioned 2 Peter 1:2, I thought I’d point out the grammar there, as well. One commentary claims “there appears to be an intended parallelism between 1:1 and 1:2”. As I see the evidence, I disagree, as, among other things: (a) there are two articles in v. 2, and (b) hēmōn precedes kai in v. 1, while it follows kai in v. 2—and is placed at the very end of the clause . I’ve bolded the articles:
We see that 1:2 has an article before kai and an article after kai, conforming to the usual grammatical practice when separate entities are intended. Thus, “God” and “Jesus our Lord” are distinct in this context. Logically, given the differentiation, “God” here in v. 2 is God the Father.
The presence of two articles in v. 2 further confirms the earlier grammatical argument in v. 1.
The other commentary consulted wasn’t as firm on the “rule”, but shared my conclusion via a comparison with 1:11, 2:20 and 3:18 (as well as 3:2).
LikeLike
Jim,
I’ve learned that people are passionate about what they believe, and even those whom I agree with can be biased when reading Scripture. I’m sure that we are all biased when reading certain passages. That is why I was making an appeal to grammar here. If we are talking about the very meaning of Scripture, we need to consider what the author’s intention was, whether or not we agree with what that would mean.
In my little experiment, I found that the very word “God” biased people on all sides. Everyone interprets that word to coincide with their own beliefs about God. Almost everyone refused to view the verse objectively, from just a point of grammar.
As hard as we try not to, we do bring our own biases when we read Scripture, especially if it concerns the terms “God” or “Jesus.”
The structure in 2 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:11, and 2 Peter 3:18 is the same — both in English, and according to Craig, in Greek. 2 Peter 2:20 is slightly different in the English with the structure, but it is similar (it doesn’t have the word “our” in the NASB there. Instead it has the word “the.”)
Because of this, it is only logical that you interpret all these verses the same way because they should all follow the exact same grammar rules. If the other verses should be read as “our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,” then 2 Peter 1:1 should be read as “the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
If 2 Peter 1:1 were to be read as “the righteousness of our God, and Savior Jesus Christ”, then the verses with the same structure should be read as “Lord, and Savior.” (You would still have to play around with the wording in English to make this meaning closer to being grammatically correct with your interpretation.)
LikeLike
In Romans 9:1-5, if indeed the “God” in verse 5 is not a reference to Jesus, but is instead a doxology to the Father, where would you say the doxology starts?
In other words, where in that passage does it switch from talking about Jesus to talking about the Father?
LikeLike
I’m possibly struggling to articulate my position clearly enough. What little I have read on the grammar rule and those three verses in particular use the rule to try and undermine any argument against the deity of Jesus. My perspective has never to deny that deity. If, as you both put forward, whether by Greek grammar or independent research, conclude that a Greek word for god is applicable to Jesus, then that’s all good. Perhaps Peter, John and Paul wanted to ensure that in all the writing about God the Father being separate to Jesus Christ his son (both pre-incarnation and as a divine man) that his deity was not forgotten.
The focal point from my side has been that the deity of Christ and his separateness from the Father can be accommodated fully, indeed are in a vast swathe of scripture, but instead of them being a single YHWH they are still separate beings, but not two Gods. I think that because you equate that conclusion with polytheism, and therefore a contravention of the monotheism handed on to Christianity from Judaism, trinitarianism is the correct answer to the problem of two deities.
There is little support in commentaries for my position. Either you believe in a trinity it seems, or the non-deity of Jesus. But there is middle ground that was actually where OT worship existed, if you allow some of those ‘difficult’ scriptures about God presiding over his divine council, and a co-power, that was not him, who operated on his behalf.
I could probably find a source that could refute the Granville Sharp rule as applicable to 2 Peter 1:1, but that would not gain much traction or serve any real purpose. There will be some Unitarian website that has catered for this argument, and so there is no knock out punch landed. If there is conflict in scripture, I’ve always read it as a different perspective of the same principle or another angle on something. So, if the grammar rule is all good and Peter did want to say Jesus was theou then fine, but due to competing scriptures that keep the Father as one being and Jesus as another, I am compelled to look at 2 Peter 1:1 that his deity was being endorsed, not that he was God as we read God the Father as God.
LikeLike
I believe you meant 2 Peter 1:1 in your most recent comment. If so, I’ll correct it.
In any case, one doesn’t have to apply the Granville Sharp rule on 1:1, as one can just compare the parallel passages of 1:11, 2:20 and 3:18, as well as contrast it with the two occurrences of the article in 1:2. Recognizing that each individual writer, and even perhaps each individual book, has its own grammatical peculiarities, I think that comparing and contrasting within the given book is the best way to make a determination.
LikeLike
Yes, 2 Peter 1:1 is what I meant Craig.
LikeLike
Without arguing against the rule, which is supported at great length at http://www.bible.org, others have noted that there are many instances of two nouns connected by kai that are very obviously different things. The problem is that the rule is countered by those who want to disprove the deity of the incarnated Christ. I’m not.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’ve read some of the material against Granville Sharp. Many of them misapply it. This is because there are exceptions, as it does not apply to plural or proper nouns, etc. But, since I’d already known that unitarians have attempted to counter it, in 2 Peter I pointed to the author’s practice elsewhere in the epistle (or “testament” as Bauckham calls it) to bolster the point.
LikeLike
Jim,
I think our differences boil down to you contending for two deities (your language via your most recent posts) and our contention for one deity who is triune.
LikeLike
Just backing up to your 7:27pm post Craig, and I see the grammatical argument, but it fails the plain English test. The sensible version would be as per the KJV which has an ‘and’ between God and Jesus ensuring that the result is two beings in both verse 1 and again in 2. I can see little or no precedent in scripture, or any literature, whereby the writer would use the same two proper nouns and in one sentence write them as if they were a single entity, yet in the very next mean two individual ones. That would be frankly bizarre and not in keeping with scriptural form or flow, regardless of the grammar and any ‘rules’.
Reading from the Blue Letter Bible with Strong’s numbering, the fairly trinitarian leaning KJV gives the same form to both verses and does not suggest in verse 1 that God is Jesus. The referent in the opening 11 verses of 2 Peter 1 is Jesus as Lord, not God. As is usual in all NT letters, God gets the initial mention in the greeting, then Jesus, more often as Lord. To think Peter would introduce this alternative perspective is simply not coherent. Further why would Peter refer to Jesus as God in his opening line, then ‘only’ as Lord thereafter, never repeating the same high reference to Jesus? As a writer and leader of the brand new body of believers wouldn’t you want to underline equality with God the Father at every possible opportunity? Ultimately, shouldn’t the verse at odds with all the others come in to line with the consistent teaching of the hundreds of verses stating Jesus as our Lord, and the Father as our God? Which, by the way, isn’t undermining the deity of Jesus, the son of God.
LikeLike
Jim,
One of the keys in translation here is the placement of hēmōn (“of our”) in the relevant verses. Contrast its placement in verse 1 with 2. Notice that it precedes kai (“and”) in the former (as it does in 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18) but follows kai in the latter. This indicates that “of our” should precede “and” in translation in v. 1. Conversely, given its location in v. 2, “of our” should follow “and”. While 1:1 is unique in its use of “God”, this comports with the doxology (3:18), which, unusually, does not contain a reference to the Father. This points to the high Christology of the entire letter/testament.
Hence, I think the KJV is wrong in 1:1.
LikeLike
I note that the opening to 2 Peter, if seen as you describe according to the GS rule, is at odds with his first letter in that the first 3 verses of 1 Peter very clearly differentiate Jesus from the Father and make no reference to him being God.
Arwen, I wanted to answer your question re Romans 9:5. I’d have to read that verse in the light of pretty much every other Pauline verse about God and Jesus in which he keeps them separate entities. His theology comes over strongly as one God (the Father), and one Lord (Jesus Christ). To read this as a sudden departure from that consistent approach is to squeeze a meaning where there is little in support. He writes about Jesus being given authority over all creation from God, but never broaches Jesus AS God. Even if here Paul wanted to say the Messiah was God, it would be on the Jewish understanding that the one sent by God has all the rights and privileges to be referred to as if he were God despite not actually being the Most High. Or this could have been a reference to divinity, but not in a trinitarian sense since such meaning simply isn’t conveyed in Paul’s letters.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote: I note that the opening to 2 Peter, if seen as you describe according to the GS rule, is at odds with his first letter in that the first 3 verses of 1 Peter very clearly differentiate Jesus from the Father and make no reference to him being God.
First of all, each book of the Bible has its own purposes, so why should we think 2 Peter must conform to 1 Peter? Also, note that I don’t rely solely on GS but on grammar usage throughout 2 Peter. Also, notice another thing in 2 Peter: In 3:10 is a reference to the “day of the Lord”, yet in 3:12 this same “day” is called “day of God”. This once again points to the high Christology of 2 Peter.
You also wrote (to Arwen): Even if here [Romans 9:5] Paul wanted to say the Messiah was God, it would be on the Jewish understanding that the one sent by God has all the rights and privileges to be referred to as if he were God despite not actually being the Most High.
Why must Jesus’ being referred to as “God” be predicated on “the Jewish understanding that the one sent by God has all the rights and privileges to be referred to as if he were God despite not actually being the Most High”? You are imposing your own bias onto the text.
LikeLike
Craig, why isn’t 2 Thess 1:12 treated the same as 2 Peter 1:1 when they have the same grammatical construction? Paul should be saying what it appears in some translations Peter is stating but, in the NASB at least, God and Jesus are separate.
LikeLike
Jim,
There are other differences in the relative contexts of 2 Thess 1:12 and 2 Peter 1:1. One consideration is that Paul omits the article before “Lord” (whether followed by “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ” or not) elsewhere in this letter (e.g., 3:4, 12). Also, in the former, the article-noun-kai-noun construction is further governed by an article encompassing the entire phrase: “According to the grace”. This indicates that “grace” is to be construed as a collective on what follows.
So, while it’s possible that the article-noun-kai-noun phrase is to be understood as one entity (“of our God and Lord Jesus Christ”), this is mitigated by Paul’s nonuse of the article before “Lord”—hence, it could be understood as if the article were there, and there are really two separate entities here. In either case, the fact that “according to the grace” governs what follows, it’s not unusual, to quote F. F. Bruce (who quotes another): “that one article in the singular rightly in Greek designates even distinct persons, if the object be to express their union in a common category (as here in ‘grace’), ought to be known not only to scholars in general, but familiarity to all students of the later body of revelation in its original tongue” (Kelly 99-100).
LikeLike
I’m more inclined to think that the bias I’m imposing is reflective of Paul’s very Hebraic worldview and meshing of OT scripture with the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ.
You’ll have to forgive my lack of Greek sentence structure and consequent translation when at 5:53am you made emphasis of the placement of ‘hemon’. Does the order of Greek words in the original consistently match the resulting English, or does the translation make the most sensible deliberation? Clearly there must be some rule and order, but they do seem ‘jump around’.
LikeLike
Jim, let me answer: Does the order of Greek words in the original consistently match the resulting English, or does the translation make the most sensible deliberation? Clearly there must be some rule and order, but they do seem ‘jump around’.
It isn’t easy, as Greek affords much flexibility, though there are ‘rules’. The word kai is a coordinating conjunction, and usually what comes before it remains in that clause, and what follows remains part of that particular clause. This is excepted when there’s one article used before an article-noun-kai-noun phrase, as any word that is associated with the article in such a construction would then go with the entire phrase.
But, keep in mind, I’m hardly what I’d call proficient in Greek.
LikeLike
Perhaps to better answer the question, the order is sometimes necessarily changed, as languages rarely can be translated from one to another word-for-word. The NASB is probably the most word-for-word, but it can be choppy as a result. Usually the KJV is considered a ‘literal’ translation, but like all translations, none are perfect. Other translations are more of a dynamic equivalence. See the wiki article here for the differences between the two goals in translation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence
LikeLike
Jim,
If we are going to bring our own bias into our interpretation of Scripture, there is not really much we can discuss regarding the verses. We all have our own theological biases, and it is almost impossible not to bring them into our interpretation when we read scripture. That is not to say we should not discuss Scripture with others (we should), but we need to do so keeping in mind that there can be biases — both in our own interpretation and in the other person’s. We need to be able to recognize this.
We also need to try to be as unbiased as possible, which is difficult.
I know almost nothing about Koine Greek (or any kind of Greek), so I have to rely on those who do know it.
You asked about 2 Thesselians 1:12. I don’t know how this verse appears in Greek, but in English the sentence structure is different in the NASB from the 2 Peter verses we were discussing. In the English, verse 12 ends with “the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
The word “the” is in front of Lord, making the interpretation different. Theologically, I would have no problem if the structure were the same as in 2 Peter 1:1, as the interpretation would be the same as in 2 Peter. However, having “the” where it is in English changes the meaning.
Since I don’t know the Greek, I can’t say if “the” is supposed to be there. However, since it is in the English, I have no problem saying that two persons are being discussed here. As you should know, trinitarians do not have an issue with the Father being a different person from the Son.
As for Romans 9:1-5, I looked at these verses in a few different translations. Admittedly, some translators put a period after Jesus, and then made the glory to God part a separate sentence (the Revised Standard Version). However, most of the newer translations interpret the passage the same as the NASB (including the New Revised Standard Version and the Common English Bible.)
Again, I don’t know the Greek, so I don’t know what the passage looks like, or why the RSV phrased it like they did, while the NASB, NRSV, Common English Bible, NIV, and others phrased it as they did.
In my opinion, writing it how the NASB did seems to make more sense. Paul’s declaration builds up to Christ, and attaching the “Who is God over all, forever praised” to Christ seems to finish off his Christ theme.
LikeLike
Arwen4CJ,
The Greek in the final section of 2 Thess 1:12 conforms to the format of 2 Peter 1:1. Here’s the Greek; I’ve bolded the articles:
2 Peter 1:1:——————— tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou
——————————— of [the] God of ours and Savior Jesus Christ
——————————— of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
2 Thess 1:12: kata tēn charin tou theou hēmōn kai kyriou Iēsou Christou
——— According to the grace of [the] God of ours and Lord Jesus Christ
——— According to the grace of our God and (the) Lord Jesus Christ
or
——— According to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ
See my comment at 7:08 am.
LikeLike
Craig,
If that is true, and the Greek is exactly the same construction, then it appears that any of the verses from 2 Peter and this one from 2 Thessalonians can be translated legitimately either way?
And if so, then it seems that it is up to the translators to determine which should be the English translation?
If this is truly the case, then they cannot be used as strongly in our arguments for the Deity of Christ. This doesn’t do anything to diminish Jesus’ deity. It just means that we can’t use the verses to prove that Jesus is YHWH. Too bad 😦
Thanks for checking, though.
The English remains the same, but since these were originally written in Greek and are translations, the translators could put a bias on the translation, whichever they would be more inclined to believe.
LikeLike
Arwen4CJ,
No, there’s a difference–the article that precedes “grace” in 2 Thess 1:12, which precedes the entirety of what follows (there’s not another article preceding the phrase in 2 Peter 1:1). Even so, let’s say for the moment that the article-noun-kai-noun phrase can be rendered either way. Then, it would come down to the individual author’s usage. Clearly in 2 Peter, 1:1 is paralleled by 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18 (and 3:2), and, more importantly, contrasted by 1:2, with the latter’s usage of two articles (article-noun-kai-article-noun). In addition, 1:1 and 3:18 form an inclusio, bracketing everything in between, illustrating the high Christology of 2 Peter. The doxology (3:18) does not include any reference to the Father–just like 1:1. Other strong evidence is that the first pronoun in verse 1:3 is the singular “His”. Given that the preceding referent was clearly “Jesus our Lord”, then “His divine…” refers to Jesus.
2 Peter 1:1 seems pretty solid, but 2 Thess 1:12 could be either way–as one or two entities–because of the presence of the extra article preceding the entire phrase, including “kai” and what follows. At least this is how I understand the grammar.
LikeLike
Craig,
Thanks for the clarification. Good to know.
At least 2 Peter can still be used then 🙂
As to 2 Thessalonians 1:12 — I had never heard it translated in the same way as 2 Peter 1:1, but there is a note in the NIV that it could be translated that way.
LikeLike
I have Bible study software (Accordance), which has the Greek text (with parsing, etc.), loads of study helps, commentaries, etc. I forgot about one of them, and I was delighted that when I checked it, the author’s conclusions align with my own [ADDED:] regarding 2 Peter 1:1. That gives me confidence in my Greek skills and exegetical abilities. I don’t say this to brag, but I was very happy to see the author note the inclusio of 1:1 and 3:18—something the other commentaries did not specifically note. I’ll highlight some important portions that I’d already noted above, though almost all I’d previously mentioned:
Among the many fantastic features of the software (e.g., I can copy Greek as Greek text, OR as transliteration by right clicking) is an option to “copy as citation”, which yields the above reference for the quote. Very handy!
LikeLike
Arwen, re your comment about bringing our biases into commentary. I agree entirely. It is harder to convince one another if we view scripture through a particular lens rather than let it speak for itself.
This seems to be the case when considering the mere handful of verses where God and Jesus are mentioned in a phrase in which Jesus could be read as God. These half dozen or so verses are only translated as such by means of a Greek grammarian nuance that still is not absolute or immutable. This reading of these verses goes against the clear declaratiion of hundreds of others. How can we take a clear eyed perspective if the tiny minority informs the vast majority which describe a separation of Jesus from God (the Father)? If this were the case it would have been trumpeted consistently from the rooftops of NT gospels and letters.
LikeLike
In trawling through the various pros and cons websites for the GS rule and the verses under scrutiny, there was an uncited comment that the GS rule wouldn’t necessarily have applied if the author knew that what he was writing was so well understood that the second article can be omitted in distinguishing the subjects. Again, that was not backed by direct references.
Whilst an appeal to grammar to make a case for Jesus being God (in the triune sense) is valid, the overwhelming weight of clear evidence should inform the ambiguous minority, as a general exegetical rule. That evidence is not that Jesus isn’t divine as the Logos/Son, but that he is not God (the Father). In the face of such persistent messaging throughout OT and NT scripture, shouldn’t the GS ‘rule’ be overlooked as a grammatical coincidence?
Moreover, we have to assume that the writers (Peter and Paul) were fully aware of the subtleties at play in the Greek. I’ve not counted, but someone wrote that Paul uses theos (or derivatives) over 500 times to refer exclusively to the Father. It seems more than odd that he would deviate just twice from that to use the same word for Jesus.
LikeLike
Jim,
You are overlooking the fact that I (and other exegetes) have not relied solely on GS in 2 Peter, but upon the grammatical idiosyncrasies of the author. Moreover, you are not considering the grammatical idiosyncrasies of the author (I think it’s Paul) of 2 Thessalonians, which is different than 2 Peter’s. On top of that, you are discarding that “LORD” was used of YHWH in the OT, and this same designation is used of Jesus in the NT. In addition, there’s the evidence in Revelation that Jesus is called some of the same things YHWH is called in the OT (and repeated in the NT): First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. There’s also the “Rock” as Christ in Exodus, as Paul states in 1 Cor 10:3-5, and Jude 1:5 that has “Jesus” as the One Who delivered out of Egypt according to the Critical Text (and even the textual variant “Lord” is used of Jesus in the NT, so either way…). Then there’s the two Scriptures in John indicating that Jesus would raise Himself from the dead (John 2:19, 10:17-18).
The bottom line is that your version requires a lot of explaining away of all these verses–at the expense of monotheism. Moreover, your “two powers” claim does not have historical backing (except anachronistically).
LikeLike
So regarding LORD in the OT and Lord in the NT, are you saying that the same Greek word kyrios is used for both in the Septuagint? Although the original Aramaic and Greek get translated at times into the same English word, that doesn’t mean they are thinking of the same person.
I can’t see how those OT theophanies or Christophanies move one closer to a trinitarian concept of God. I read them as God’s emissary or agent enacting his will on Earth. It’s not that these verses need ‘explaining away’, simply viewed in a different light, any more than the vast swathe of scripture that supports a monotheistic God and his separate Son need explaining away by trinitarians. They are what they are and stand on their own merit.
LikeLike
So regarding LORD in the OT and Lord in the NT, are you saying that the same Greek word kyrios is used for both in the Septuagint? Yes. Most often YHWH is translated kyrios, “LORD” in the OT.
LikeLike
Jim,
At times I feel like you are still not clear about what Trinitarians believe regarding the Father and Jesus.
It is true that sometimes the NT authors only used the term “God” when they meant the Father. However, this is not always the case. They also applied it to the Son (even though you believe that these instances should be ignored). The term is also used of the Holy Spirit in the NT. I also believe there are instances when it means the whole triune God. So — context of the passages determines which Person (or whether it might be applicable to all 3). Again, I think most occurrences of it in the NT seem to apply to just the Father, but definitely not all of them.
Therefore, a biblical reader should not automatically assume that when the NT uses the word “God” that it is always referring to the Father. In other words, the term “God” is not always synonymous with the Father.
I don’t believe that the Bible ever calls Jesus the Father. The only people who would disagree with this would be modalists. You and I are in agreement that Jesus isn’t the Father. I do not believe that 2 Peter 1:1 is trying to identify Jesus as the Father, and neither is John 1:1 or any other passage that talks about the Deity of Jesus.
What I do believe, however, is that Jesus is God — the very same God as the Father. Jesus is YHWH, just as the Father is YHWH, and just as the Holy Spirit is YHWH. One God in three Persons.
So…know that Craig and I are not arguing that Jesus is the Father. When we see the title “God,” being applied to Jesus, we are not thinking “that means He is the Father.” We are thinking, “that means He is YHWH.”
Does that make sense?
LikeLike
I noticed that in the NT, when it quotes the OT, it always uses “Lord,” where YHWH is in the original OT. (By the way, Jim, the NT authors sometimes use some of these verses to refer to Jesus. By doing so, the authors intended to equate Jesus with YHWH.)
Since the name “YHWH” is not in the NT anywhere, all of the “Lord” instances are “Lord” in lowercase.
LikeLike
(I should add that the NASB, when quoting OT passages, sometimes has the whole quote in capitals, but most translations don’t seem to do that. Either way, the “LORD” appears the same case as the surrounding text when being quoted in the NT.)
LikeLike
Let’s look at the Greek in 2 Peter more closely. Asterisks denote places in which relevant variants exist:
1:1: –tou *theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou [variant “Lord” for “God”]
Our God and Savior Jesus Christ
1:11: tou kyriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou
2:20: tou kyriou [*hēmōn] kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou [variant adding hēmōn, “our”]
3:18: tou kyriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
3:2 –*tou kyriou kai sōtēros
The Lord and Savior [variant adding “our”= “our Lord and Savior”]
In every one of the above there’s one article governing what follows—one entity, not two. Let’s look at some more to illustrate the author’s (non-)uses of the article in front of “Lord” (kyriou; kyrios):
1:8: –tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou
1:14: ho kyrios hēmōn Iēsous Christos
1:16: tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou
Our Lord Jesus Christ
2:9: –kyrios [no article]
2:11: kyriou [no article]
3:8: –kyriō̧ [no article]
3:9: –*kyrios [no article, but has variants with an article]
We can readily see that “our Lord (and Savior) Jesus Christ” is a consistent idiom in this epistle, and each time there’s only one article. But what about those other occurrences of “Lord” without the article? See below.
Here’s the lone verse which has an article both before kai and an article after kai which reference “God” and/or “Lord”, indicating two separate entities, most likely:
1:2: tou theou kai Iēsou tou kyriou hēmōn
Of God and of Jesus our Lord
Here are all other pertinent verses:
1:17: theou patros [“God [the] Father” = no article, but variant with it]
1:21: theou [no article]
2:4: –ho theos [“(The) God”]
2:9: –kyrios [no article]
2:11: kyriou [no article]
3:5: –tō̧ tou theou logō̧ [“the W/word of God”, “[the] God’s W/word” = 2 articles]
3:7: –tō̧ autō̧ logō̧ [“the same W/word”]
3:8: –kyriō̧ [no article]
3:9: – *kyrios [no article, but has variants w/article]
3:10: *hēmera kyriou [“[the] Day of (the) Lord”; no article, but has variant w/article for “day”]
3:12: tēs tou *theou hēmeras [“the Day of God”; two articles; variant “Lord” for “God”]
3:15: tou kyriou hēmōn makrothymian [“Our Lord’s patience”]
In 1:17 we find an explicit reference to God (the) Father—the only occurrence in the entire epistle—though 1:2 seems to be the Father implicitly. The referent in 1:21 cannot be definitively determined (Father?, Trinity?).
Chapter 2 presents something very interesting. 2:4 has a reference to “(the) God”, with the article. In verses 5 through 7, the pronouns clearly refer back to verse 4’s “(the) God”. The subject briefly switches to Lot in verse 8, but this is translated—rightly, I think—as a parenthetical comment in some versions. Verse 9 brings the subject to “Lord” with no article. But, verse 9 is part of a very long ‘if…then’ statement, which began in verse 4: “For if God [ho theos] did not…then (the) Lord [kyrios] knows…”. Are these referring to the same entity or are there two different entities? If the same, then who: the Father, Jesus, or the Trinity?
Then there’s chapter 3. Verses 8, 9 and 10 all contain “Lord”, without the article—though 9 has some variant readings which include it. Interestingly, in verse 10 the variants with the article are only for “day”, not “Lord”. But verse 12 has both articles: “the day of (the) God”, though there are variants replacing “God” with “Lord” (i.e., “the day of the Lord”). In 3:15, “patience” clearly refers back to 3:9 in which “Lord” is without the article, though “Lord” has the article in verse 15. So who’s the referent for “Lord” in chapter 3?
LikeLike
This all great stuff. I am learning a huge amount just researching around each of the developments as this conversation unfolds. Again, thanks to both for sticking with this.
So, earlier I looked at Titus 2:13 in a new way – admittedly through an English translation, and I don’t know how the Greek would stack up. From my NIV (but the same comes through in the NASB and others), if you back up to the beginning of the verse Paul states that ‘we wait for the blessed hope’. He then describes what that blessed hope is: the appearing of Jesus Christ, which is entirely consistent with the Pauline corpus in that Paul awaits the return of Christ and bodily transformation or resurrection (2 Cor 5:1-10 is a good example).
Prior to writing ‘Jesus Christ’, Paul describes what his appearing actually is like – ‘the glory of our great God and Saviour’. This then places the emphasis not on Jesus being the great God and Saviour, but on his return being (to) the glory of the great God and Saviour. Consequently, two entities are in view, not one. This aligns with Paul’s tone in 1:3 of his letter to Titus, even though in 3:6 he recognises that salvation comes THROUGH Christ, which accords with Jesus also being labelled as our saviour elsewhere.
LikeLike
Jim,
I must ask why you’ve not first addressed the curious wording of 2 Peter, given the Greek I’d laid out in my previous comment.
In any case, when you go back to the very beginning of Titus—and I’m just looking at an NIV translation right now—you find in verse 1 a reference to Paul as a servant of “God” (the Father?, the Trinity?), and an apostle of Jesus Christ. “God’s elect” is reference to Who: the Father, or the Trinity? Verse 2 references “God” again, but no further qualifier, so we still don’t know. In verse 3 we do find a qualifier in “God our Savior”, yet in verse 4 we find a clear reference to two separate entities: “God the Father” and “Christ Jesus our Savior”. Here’s the Greek:
apo theou patros kai Christou Iēsou tou sōtēros hēmōn
from God Father and Christ Jesus the Savior our
From God (the) Father and Christ Jesus our Savior
So, Who’s the Savior?
Here’s the Greek of 2:13:
prosdechomenoi tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian
Waiting for the blessed hope and appearing
tēs doxēs tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou
of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ
of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ
Though hēmōn, “our”, most naturally goes with “Savior”, given that the article (tou) only appears with “God” (theou), the best way to render this entire genitival phrase is by placing “our” in front of “great”. But, is this really correct? The answer lies in the flow of the continuing sentence. Here’s the Greek of verse 14:
hos edōken heauton hyper hēmōn, hina lytrōsētai hēmas apo pasēs anomias
Who gave Himself ————– to us, to redeem —– us from all lawlessness
Who gave Himself to us, in order to redeem us from all lawlessness
kai katharisȩ̄ heautō̧ ——– laon periousion, zēlōtēn kalōn ergōn
and to purify for Himself a people special, zealous for good work
Clearly verse 14 is a dependent clause—a part of what precedes it. And verse 13 is also a dependent clause. This long sentence begins in verse 11 with “For the grace of God has appeared”—the independent clause, the ‘meat’ of the long sentence:
So, “the grace of God” has already appeared—this is clearly Christ’s first coming. Verse 13 speaks of the yet-to-occur second coming of Christ—the One Who previously gave Himself to us at His first coming. The subject is Jesus Christ, the “grace of God”, and this subject carries all the way through.
Jim, your argumentation mirrors point b) on page 556 of this article, though the author notes that c)—the position taken by me here in [EDITED, as I placed hyperlink in wrong spot!] this comment—is “the most obvious meaning of the Greek”.
LikeLike
Arwen, you said: ‘At times I feel like you are still not clear about what Trinitarians believe regarding the Father and Jesus.’
I’m not convinced many trinitarians could articulate their understanding of the trinity too clearly either. You and Craig seem to have a highly refined understanding, but I wouldn’t say many others I know could be half as clear. That said, I still have some blurred edges with regards to grasping some aspects especially regarding what I see as a non-biblical ‘Godhead’. A Godhead has to exist to avoid tritheism, but it isn’t referenced explicitly or even hinted at. And then we get on to the matter of persons and masks, which is exactly the same lexicon used by the Wikipedia page on modalism. Not to mention the issue of separate persons, but one unified will, not three wills. If there is one will, what’s the point of three persons?
LikeLike
If there is one will, what’s the point of three persons?
Because that’s how God has revealed Himself in Scripture.
LikeLike
Craig, it seems clear that the referent in ch 3 is Jesus.
To go back to 1:1-2, it’s odd to me at any rate that Peter would write God in verse 1 and mean Jesus, then God in the next breath and mean the Father without some other indication he understood God was a triune Godhead. Since verse 2 has two entities in view that must be that theos is the Father here. But he wouldn’t be saying that theos in verse 1 is the Father if what you’re saying is correct from the Greek that theos is Jesus. I don’t believe Peter is thinking in Godhead or trinitarian terms here, so what does the first theos really intend to convey?
Just like kyrios has a range of meanings from master, to leader, to divine being, to Jesus, to God the Father, to the Greek NT translation of YHWH, so theos in verse 1 is not so much to state that Jesus was God (as in Godhead), but rather he shared the one God’s divine nature or essence. So Peter wasn’t making a ‘Jesus is God’ statement for two reasons: 1) he never conveyed a Godhead understanding in his writing and 2) he clearly separated theos (the Father) from Jesus in the very next verse. Consequently, it seems more logical to think of the first theos as qualitative rather than part of a Godhead, or even the Father (which would be modalism).
LikeLike
Jim,
Re: 6:57 am, a qualitative understanding for theos in 2 Peter 1:1 is not valid because “God” is prefaced by the article.
LikeLike
Which reminds me, how can the trinity be three entities whereby each individual person of the Godhead doesn’t comprise a third of the Godhead, but are each the totality of the Godhead (if I have that right)? If each is the entire Godhead then we don’t have three persons.
LikeLike
You’re essentially correct with regard to the Godhead as each “Member” being the totality of God, for to claim each one being 1/3 of the Godhead would be tritheism.
This is why I most often put “Persons” in quotation marks. It’s not a very helpful word, given current meaning, but it’s the best we have.
LikeLike
I only launched off with Titus because it was fairly fresh. Your Greek exposition is very detailed Craig and you are clearly no beginner at the sentence structure and analysis. Since Paul never hints at Jesus being God (as a trinity Godhead if the Father isn’t directly referenced) I can’t marry your reasoning and see this verse in total isolation as Jesus being God. There has to be another perspective, even if the Greek analysis favours an alternate view, that should be attributable to grammatical idiosyncrasies or personal bias rather than squeeze a meaning found nowhere else in Paul’s letters.
As to the curious wording in 2 Peter, if we could tie down what he meant by each iteration of kyrios that would help but we only have a best assumed conclusion from the context. The meta narrative of that context has to be classic Jewish monotheism, but with the knowledge that Peter knew Jesus was the Messiah, the son of God, which had been revealed to him by Jesus’ Father, the Most High God (Matt 16:16-17). Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t think the Messiah was supposed to be the One God of Israel YHWH, but his representative, albeit his son and therefore uniquely divine.
LikeLike
There’s also Paul in Romans 9:5 (see pages 559-60 in previously mentioned link).
I’ll have to defer more detailed comments for later, as I need to be working.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t think the Messiah was supposed to be the One God of Israel YHWH, but his representative, albeit his son and therefore uniquely divine. Jewish understand of Messiahship varied widely, to include a mere man who would be a political leader. But to address your statement as if it were a question: Could this be a case of both/and rather than either/or?
LikeLike
Jim,
What about the verses in the NT where it is quoting the OT, and YHWH is in the OT, yet the very is applied to Jesus in the NT?
Examples:
Matthew 3:3 (NASB)
3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight!’”
Isaiah 40:3 (NASB)
3 A voice is calling,
“Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
LikeLike
Jim,
Also remember that YHWH said that He alone is Savior.
See Isaiah 43:11-12 (NASB)
11 “I, even I, am the LORD,
And there is no savior besides Me.
12 “It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,
And there was no strange god among you;
So you are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“And I am God.
Hosea 13:4-5 (NASB)
4 Yet I have been the LORD your God
Since the land of Egypt;
And you were not to know any god except Me,
For there is no savior besides Me.
5 I cared for you in the wilderness,
In the land of drought.
Also, see Isaiah 45 which I quoted in a previous comment.
So, if indeed Jesus is Savior, which the NT declares, He must also be YHWH.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“I’m not convinced many trinitarians could articulate their understanding of the trinity too clearly either. You and Craig seem to have a highly refined understanding, but I wouldn’t say many others I know could be half as clear. That said, I still have some blurred edges with regards to grasping some aspects especially regarding what I see as a non-biblical ‘Godhead’. A Godhead has to exist to avoid tritheism, but it isn’t referenced explicitly or even hinted at. And then we get on to the matter of persons and masks, which is exactly the same lexicon used by the Wikipedia page on modalism. Not to mention the issue of separate persons, but one unified will, not three wills. If there is one will, what’s the point of three persons?”
My response:
You are correct that many who would consider themselves trinitarian may not be able to articulate what they believe very well. I think I mentioned this earlier, but I will say it again.
I think that this could be for several reasons:
1.) Some people just don’t care very much about theology. They may only care about the basics — they know that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and they somehow realize that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God. They just simply accept that that is what Scripture says.
2.) It may be because they never have studied the doctrine, or thought deeply about it. They may have never had to defend it, so they have not had to articulate their beliefs.
3.) They may never have actually had someone explain it to them properly. If people just go to church, or go to church every once in awhile, and never took a Bible study, they may just not know what the doctrine is. They may have a vague idea what it is, or they may not know much about it at all. Their pastors may not even touch the subject. (If these individuals even go to church at all.)
4.) Some who claim to be trinitarian, may not even be trinitarian — simply because they don’t know what the doctrine actually teaches. Some may, in reality, be modalists or tritheists or even unitarians. They just think they are trinitarian because their church claims to believe in the trinity.
I would say that the vast majority of people who attend (or are members but don’t attend, or even people who are not members, don’t attend, but still label themselves Christian) mainline denominations probably fall into one or more of these categories. This is not true of everyone who attends mainline churches, but that’s what I notice in my own church.
In non-denominational churches and Baptist churches, more people are probably able to articulate doctrines, but they may not have thought about the doctrines. They may just be repeating what they learned. Some non-denominational churches don’t care about theology, though.
So, yeah, there is definitely a problem with people (including those who claim to believe in the Trinity) not knowing what the doctrine is.
As for the Godhead — I have heard someone say that in Colossians 2:9 where it says “the fullness of Deity” actually means Godhead. Since I don’t know Greek, I don’t know if this is true. We’ll have to wait on Craig for this.
(And anyway, I don’t think we discussed Colossians 2:9 yet, which we should).
I’m not sure that you are thinking about the term “Godhead” correctly. It seems to me that you are thinking of the term as how the Mormons use it. See the following link:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Godhead.html
If you think of the term as how it is defined in the got questions link, then it has nothing to do with how many Persons there are who are God. Rather, it is talking about divinity/deity. Godhead is not a term that people use much today.
I do know that the Mormons use it to define their own “divine council” of three deities.
LikeLike
Since I left a very lengthy comment on another blog regarding Colossians 2:9—and I saved it in MS Word—I can easily rework it here. The NASB rendition is about as “literal” as one can get. I’d render it For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily, which amounts to almost the same, as I definitely think “the” should precede the English translation of “Deity”, since the article (tēs) precedes it. It could even be rendered—without linguistic gymnastics—dwells all the Deity’s fullness bodily. Here’s the Greek:
hoti en autō̧ katoikei pan to plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs
For/Because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily.
Or
For in Him dwells all the Deity’s fullness bodily.
“In Him” is emphatic because it is ‘fronted’ (indirect object ahead of verb), and the genitive/possessive tēs theotētos qualifies “fullness”.
So, the $64,000 question is this: Does this verse establish the Deity of Christ on par with YHVH? In exegeting this verse, I’d say yes—even, if not especially, taking into account the cognates of the word in question.
First, we must address the fact that theotētos is found only here in Scripture. This can hinder a proper rendering. However, the term is found in contemporaneous literature, as evidenced by the entry in BDAG; and, the definition is the same as the NASB rendering “Deity”: the state of being god, divine character/nature, deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for θεός.
Among other works, this Greek term is found in the Jewish apocalyptic text Apocalypse of Sedrach (2:4)—I have this work, so I can verify its usage. In addition, BDAG notes it was used by Lucian of Samasota (2nd century), a Christian satirist, though I have no text to verify his usage. Admittedly, that’s not a lot of evidence; however, the presence and usage of it in Apoc Sed seems pretty significant, does it not?
Yet, just in its immediate context, is very strong evidence for the unqualified, undiminished Deity of Christ on par with YHVH. The words translated “all” and “fullness” (full, complete) are not in any way ambiguous; and these words function to qualify theotētos. If we were to assume that theotētos means “deity” in some diminished sense, then wouldn’t it be oxymoron-ish for Paul to claim that Jesus had this in all the fullness? Assuming for a moment a diminished sense of deity, this would be akin to describing Christ here as possessing ‘all the fullness of almost-deity’.
Now I’ll address the cognates. As for theiotes, quality or characteristic of deity seems the best way to translate it. This word is found in Romans 1:20 (“His invisible attributes/qualities”). The term is also found in the LXX, specifically in Wisdom of Solomon 18:9, and in that context it means the same thing (“the divine law” or “the law of the Divine”), as a reference to the Almighty.
Regarding theios, in the NT it is found only in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pet 1:3, 1:4. In all three verses the referent is clearly God. Much more interesting is its occurrence in the LXX—eye-opening for me. Of the 33 occurrences only 6 are found in what Protestants or Torah observers would view as the OT. The remainder are in: 3 Maccabees (ca. 217BC – 70AD—one time), 4 Maccabees (ca. 63BC – 70AD—a whopping 25 times!), and Sirach, aka Book of Ecclesiasticus, aka Ben Sira (ca. 2nd century BC—once). Every single time the reference is YHVH, though one may quibble over 4 Mac 17:11, which refers to martyrdom for the sake of YHVH: “Truly divine was the contest in which they were engaged.” In addition, theios is found in Apoc Sed (14:6), Sibylline Oracles (5, 249), Testament of Solomon, Josephus’ Antiquities (bk. 1, 185; bk. 2, 275; bk. 6, 222; bk. 8, 107, 408, etc.), 1 Clement 40:1—all in reference to YHVH. These were listed under BDAG’s 1st definition: pert[aining] to that which belongs to the nature or status of deity, divine.
However, there’s a 2nd definition in BDAG: of persons who stand in close relation to, or reflect characteristics of, a deity, including esp[ecially] helpfulness to one’s constituencies, divine. This one includes a much smaller list: Test of Sol (referring to Solomon), Josephus (two ref. to Moses; one to Isaiah), and Philo (ref.to Moses). On these, the contexts make it clear who the referent is. Yet, note that all these individuals were not just closely involved with a (lower case “d”) “divine” entity, but The Divine.
But, we must come full circle and note that theios was never used in the NT to reference anyone other than God.
Bottom line: In view of the evidence as laid out here, if there’s any ambiguity at all, it’s mighty slim.
LikeLike
I’ve actually heard that some Jews in Jesus’ day did believe that the Messiah would be God Himself, but I don’t have any source to give you to verify. It is just comments that I heard people make in Bible Study, as well as something I read in some books that I have read — but I can’t tell you which ones or which pages it is located on.
I know that the Jewish understanding now is that it is only a human political leader, but this may be in reaction to people believe that Jesus was the Messiah at the time of Jesus and shortly afterward.
It does seem in the Bible itself that some people did consider the Messiah to be YHWH, as some of Jesus’ claims to be the Messiah were counted as blasphemous.
So, yeah, I think the views were probably varied, and some people thought of it as only a political thing, and some people probably thought of it as being both a political and religious thing, and yet more people probably saw it as all three — political, religious, and divine.
LikeLike
Mormons, by the way, are not Trinitarians, even though they sometimes claim to be. They are tritheists.
LikeLike
Thanks, Craig. Do you know much about the term “Godhead” as it is applied to this verse? The article I found on got questions notes that the KJV uses Godhead for the word that the NASB translates as Deity, suggesting that Godhead is a word that was used in KJV times to mean the same thing.
That would make everything you just said (“the state of being god, divine character/nature, deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for θεός.”) be the definition of “Godhead.”
LikeLike
I’d say that “Godhead” is more a trinitarian term imposed on this verse by the KJV. Not that that’s untrue, but I’d rather keep the terms as literal as possible. However, since the Greek term in question reflects more the ‘essence’ of God, I suppose it’s OK. I just don’t like appending ‘head’ as a suffix to God. It seems, uh, wrongheaded to me. Too anthropomorphic sounding.
LikeLike
Craig,
Thanks. I thought I had seen Jews talk about the Godhead as well, so I don’t think it is limited to just a trinitarian viewpoint.
I just looked it up in the dictionary. It is a middle English word that means “Godhood.” It has nothing to do with the Trinity on its own.
Trinitarians use it to talk about God, as is natural, but it is a misunderstanding of the word to use it only in a Trinitarian sense.
So…the word has nothing to do with “head.” Anyway, I agree, it is better to use better terms, as “Godhead” isn’t used by most people today, and people can get confused by the term — especially because of how the Mormons use it.
Jim brought it up in his recent comments (you or I might have brought it up earlier in the discussion — I can’t remember), but I just wanted to clarify the term because I felt like it was being used wrongly in the discussion.
LikeLike
As such, I think we should use the term “the Deity” instead of “the Godhead.” The meaning will be more accurate to today’s language.
LikeLike
Just before I start my day and have limited access to contribute for a while, the ‘what about the verse in ……. that says…..about YHWH which is then applied in the NT in….. and refers to Jesus’ lines of argument, I think, misses the point. I think the point at its most basic level is whether the single God of the OT reveals himself through another in the NT such that the new revelation is triune rather than remaining a singular entity who operates salvation, forgiveness, healing, restoration through another, who can be viewed as being on a par with God, but still not him.
The Angel of the Lord scriptures declare that this being should be obeyed ‘because my Name is in him’. This is a mirror of Col 2:9 in that there is nothing that God left out of himself, or his essence from Jesus (I’ll have to look at it again, but I did read that fulness was a knock back to gnosticism and their pleroma concept if I recall correctly).
So, just because we have God working in and through Jesus doesn’t imply or lead one to trinitarianism if you can continue the thread that began in the ancient near east of a Most High and his divine son/agent/delegated authority into the NT, which is what can be easily comprehended through the gospels and letters.
LikeLike
Jim,
The NT revelation should be the lens by which the OT is viewed, not the other way around.
The way you interpret “because my name is in him” is far short of ‘His name is (also) YHWH’ implied in the NT (as we’ve been illustrating), which is also far short of “in Him dwells the fullness of the Deity bodily”. The former describes agency, the latter essence. Big difference.
You’ve apparently overlooked the distinction I detailed between theotētos (in Col 2:9) and theiotēs in my previous comment. The former describes essence, the latter qualities. For your interpretation to work, the latter would have been better.
Let me quote Peter O’Brien in his Word Biblical Commentary (WBC) on Colossians (Colossians, Philemon, [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1982]:
I guess what I should state here is that Christ is an agent of God, yes. But, He’s not merely an agent of God; He is also God Himself.
LikeLike
Jim,
My study Bible gives the following as a study note for Colossians 2:9
“See note on 1:19. The declaration that the very essence of deity was present in totality in Jesus’ human body was a direct refutation of Gnostic teaching.”
LikeLike
Mine has the same note. I’ve been slowly constructing a reply, and that was part of it.
LikeLike
I am having trouble with my iPad crashing when trying to give a response. Been happening for about half an hour or so
LikeLike
For 1:19, the note is
“Fullness. Part of the technical vocabulary of some Gnostic philosophies. In these systems it meant the sum of the supernatural forces controlling the fate of people. For Paul “fullness” meant the totality of God with all His powers and attributes.”
LikeLike
if verses that are applied to YHWH in the OT are then applied to Jesus in the NT, (with YHWH in the OT), then it gives a strong indication that the NT author thinks of Jesus as YHWH.
YHWH says He alone is Israel’s Savior and Redeemer. There is no “other” that He mentions. In fact, He says there is no other. YHWH doesn’t say, something close to Me, but not me will be your Savior and Redeemer, too.
I will wait to see what Craig writes in regard to Colossians 2:9 before saying anything else about fullness of the Deity in bodily form.
LikeLike
I will say, though, that “the Deity” explicitly shows that Paul believed in one God….
LikeLike
Yes, that would exclude tritheism/polytheism (the article governing “Deity” is singular).
LikeLike
Jim,
I decided to look up your two powers in heaven teaching again, and I came across the Logos Bible software guy’s website (one of the two men you have talked about before), and he uses his beliefs in support of the Trinity, not against it. He doesn’t seem to believe what you do….
So you are applying his two powers teaching in a way that he didn’t intend….
If one of the people you are getting your theology from believes in the Trinity, why are you holding to the non-trinitarian beliefs so strongly?
LikeLike
Winding back to 3:17pm and 3:32pm, it seems we agree that the reason Paul uses the term ‘fullness’ is to counter an early gnostic influence.
However, at 3:44pm Arwen, I don’t see the connection between YHWH in the OT being referenced in the New in Jesus, therefore Jesus is YHWH. We may have covered this earlier, but I read YHWH as almost entirely referring to the one God, who we call the Father. So, for Jesus to take the mantle of scriptures about YHWH and embody them during his incarnation, your conclusion is that he must be YHWH, but that necessitates an implicit triune Godhead into which Jesus is subsumed.
This is further rationalised by God stating he ‘alone’ in Israel’s saviour, and that there is no ‘other’. With a trinitarian perspective, that must mean Jesus and the Father are part of a unified Godhead. However, that ignores the true essence of what God means by being ‘alone’ or that there is no ‘other’. I remember writing that Isaiah 42:8 about God giving his glory to another was in reference to false god and idols. He would, did and will give his glory to another – the Logos/Son/Jesus Christ. John 17:5 is clear that Jesus shared in God’s glory. The point I made earlier about Titus 2:13 was that two entities were in view because the return of Christ will express the glory of our great God and saviour. God does confer his glory on another.
The reason that can happen is not that the Father and Jesus are part of a trinity, but because they are of full deity status, unique in all the universe – God uncreated, the Logos/Son brought forth from God, begotten not made as the creed goes. So, God is ‘alone’ in that he shares his glory and universal mastery with no other lesser ‘gods’, spirit beings and idols, nor does he confer any recognition on them by passing on his glory to them. BUT, there is One that is with him and who does share in that glory. One who is of the same unique divine substance, essence, nature, who has all things delegated to him by God, and can receive worship, honour and glory, who is the means of salvation and reconciliation between man and God, who can be called by a name of God, if it be necessary, and who stands alongside God. These attributes are not trinitarian, but could be accused of being bitheistic. I get that. However, I believe the scriptures most clearly fit this perspective explicitly, and I would rather wrestle with possible bitheism than simply avoid the accusation through an biblically unmentioned triunity.
Yes, Arwen, Michael Heiser is a trinitarian, which is slightly surprising on the face of it, but perhaps his fairly unorthodox writings are given some extra credulity and appeal to a broader span of Christian reader if he sticks with it. I don’t think what he’s putting forward adds weight to a trinitarian stance, but that’s his call. Then again, he might unpack the trinity differently from you.
LikeLike
Jim,
Jesus isn’t the Father in trinitarian beliefs!!!!
I don’t know how to explain that to you because you keep going back to this.
YHWH isn’t just the Father. Even the Logos Software guy that you get your two powers in heaven theory from states there is more than one Person who is YHWH.
LikeLike
Arwen, re Sep 12 7:55am, you wrote: ‘So, if indeed Jesus is Savior, which the NT declares, He must also be YHWH..’
But if God is saviour as we read in those verses, and God is working his salvation through Jesus Christ, that logic doesn’t apply. What God is saying is that he is the author and giver of salvation (let’s call salvation eternal life), but has delegated the outworking of that salvation and authority to bring that resurrection life to mankind in the person of Jesus. The one receiving the authority to act is not the same as the one who gives it.
LikeLike
But if God is saviour as we read in those verses, and God is working his salvation through Jesus Christ, that logic doesn’t apply.
Sure it does. According to Chalcedonian orthodoxy, Jesus is dual-natured: Divine and human. Jesus’ Divine nature works through His divine/human Person. So, God (Jesus’ Divine nature in concert with the Father and Spirit) works through Jesus’.
LikeLike
Jim,
I misread your previous comment, and thought you were saying we believed Jesus was the Father.
Ok. So, since Michael Heiser is a trinitarian, and it is obvious from his blog posts that he believes that the Father and Jesus are both YHWH, then where are you getting that only the Father is YHWH from? And where are you getting the Most High vs. almost most high but not most high from?
In essence, why are you denying that Jesus is fully YHWH, when Michael Heiser, whom you are pulling some of your theology from, doesn’t? He fully affirms that Jesus IS YHWH.
I assume that you know that whenever YHWH appears in the OT in the Hebrew, most English translations render it LORD. So, if a verse in the OT uses LORD, but a verse in the NT quotes it and then applies it to Jesus, that strongly suggests that they are viewing Jesus as YHWH.
As you know, trinitarian belief says that all three Persons are YHWH. So, how we interpret YHWH is essential. I think this is the point of our disagreement. You see this as just the Father. Trinitarians don’t.
My conclusion is, yes, Jesus must be YHWH, but since He obviously isn’t the Father, the one true God, YHWH must be triune.
LikeLike
Arwen, I know that Jesus isn’t the Father but the way scripture is being presented creates that impression using your logic path. If Heiser is coming from a trinitarian angle, then he would be stating there is more than one person who are YHWH.
I am trying to get my head around the way you read a verse in the OT from YHWH (here I am not thinking YHWH = Trinity/Godhead, I am thinking YHWH = the monotheistic Father). Then you quote a NT valid verse that indicates Jesus understands he is the fulfilment or embodiment of that OT verse, therefore he is YHWH (here I am thinking that the trinitarian is concluding Jesus and whoever was the OT YHWH [the Father] are part of a trinity since Jesus can’t be the Father so a trinity is the inevitable out working). But my conclusion is that they are still separate entities, and because God has imparted his fullness into Jesus, Jesus sees no issue with the Lord label pointing back to the OT YHWH.
LikeLike
Craig re your 8:44pm Sep 12, who are we to say in God’s view someone with his Name in them has any less authority and divine status that one who has the fullness of the deity in them. With respect to Col 2:9, there is a good clue as to what the context is in 2:9 from 1:19. Here we read that it was the Father’s good pleasure to have the fullness dwell in him (Christ). Sounds a bit like God speaking after Jesus’s baptism – this is my son in whom I am well pleased. That fullness of deity was given by God to the incarnated Logos, and the sole function of those verses, especially 2:9 is to reinforce that Jesus was not just a man while on earth, but wholly divine as well in the hypostatic union. If we believe anything else we are antichrist so John says in his first letter.
This is not, however, a trinitarian proof verse in that the deity was given by God the Father and did not infer equality with God. The deity that was the Logos was fully within Jesus as God’s son, and there is no indication by Paul that this fullness equates to being God in a trinitarian sense.
LikeLike
who are we to say in God’s view someone with his Name in them has any less authority and divine status that one who has the fullness of the deity in them.
In the former, the individual has been bestowed this authority (agency), whereas in the latter Jesus Himself has the authority inherently (not bestowed) because He is Divine. He is Word-made-flesh (as opposed to flesh in which God deposited Himself, e.g.).
LikeLike
I don’t know if you read my posts that I wrote yesterday regarding the word Godhead. While the word is valid, and can be used to discuss the Trinity (so long as you keep in mind the actual meaning of the word), I feel like it would be more beneficial to use a term that is in modern day English– Deity.
That way we can hopefully avoid some possible misunderstandings that the word Godhead might provide. However, if you still prefer to use Godhead, I would be ok with it.
How does a triune Deity ignore the essence of what God means when He says alone? It is still Him alone. Nothing and no one that is not Him is Savior and God.
Back to Colossians 2:9. The verse says all the fullness of the Deity, not a deity. It isn’t talking about a status of Deity.
I can’t find anywhere in Scripture where there is another God that is equal to YHWH. He says there is no other.
You imply that you think Heisser is only a trinitarian so that people will read his work. This would assume he has no actual belief in the trinity. I don’t know him, and I only read one of his blog posts, but I got from his post that he very strongly believes in the trinity. He is even offering a class on the trinity, using his ideas to teach the trinity to help people evangelize to Jewish people. That doesn’t sound like someone who believes in the trinity in name only.
LikeLike
Craig, re 6:58am, so if I am driving a particular car, and you are driving an identical car, does that mean we are the same driver? What was written earlier was effectively: God saves, Jesus saves, therefore Jesus is God. Jesus can still be Jesus and not be God but have the authority given him by God to save. As I see it that’s exactly how the bible explains salvation.
LikeLike
I Understand that’s your interpretation, but it’s at the expense of quite a few Scriptures which imply that Jesus is Himself (also) YHWH.
LikeLike
And your understanding is essentially one of agency: Jesus is agent of God the Father. As I’ve explained more than once, that explanation falls short.
LikeLike
If there are at least two Persons who are YHWH, which is what Craig and I have been saying all along, and Heiser agrees with this as well, which he does, then both the author of salvation (the Father) and the one delegated to do the saving are Savior. Both are YHWH. Both are the one God, and both are legitimately Savior.
If, however, only the Father is YHWH, then we have a problem. We have someone who isn’t YHWH taking part in salvation.
You wrote:
“If Heiser is coming for a trinitarian angle, then he would be stating there is more than one person who is YHWH.”
My response:
Yes. That is exactly it. That is what I have been trying to say throughout this whole discussion.
I am concluding that both Jesus and the Father (and the Holy Spirit as well) is the YHWH of the OT.
LikeLike
Imply and state can be a long way apart. Yes, you have recognised the agency aspect. I think it can be a lot stronger than you conceive. The best known bible verse sums it up: ‘God sent…’
LikeLike
All apostles are, by definition, “sent”. But, Jesus is no mere apostle.
LikeLike
Moreover, Jesus is explicitly called “God”, theos, more than once. YHWH is theos. Theos is YHWH.
LikeLike
In fact John 3:17 is better. Not only does Jesus state he was sent, but clearly understands that the salvation of man by God was to be through him.
LikeLike
Trinitarians affirm that the Son was “sent”. But, again, He was not merely “sent” as an agent.
LikeLike
Jim,
Trinitarians hold in tension some verses that seem to (or overtly do) apply to Jesus’ humanity along with those that more logically apply to His Divinity.
LikeLike
We discussed the sent idea earlier when we were talking about the Holy Spirit. We have no problem with either the Son or the Holy Spirit being sent.
LikeLike
From your 7:35am post Arwen I would have to read more of Heiser’s material to gauge where he’s coming from. I’ve just started his Unseen Realm book, so we’ll see. I’m sure he doesn’t have a trinitarian belief as a flag of convenience to sell books and didn’t mean to give that impression.
I simply can’t see a YHWH in OT scripture who is the Father, Son and Spirit and then you say that the Father is the author of salvation and the Son the delegated one to execute the Father’s will to save mankind, yet they are still both equally YHWH. There is a clear demarcation between person, function and almost nature in that concept.
I think, but don’t know for sure, that Heiser recognises two divine powers, both can legitimately be called YHWH because they are the divine beings that exist, unlike competing ‘powers’ or ‘gods’. There is a Most High ‘power’ to fulfil monotheism, but the Logos/Son does not constitute a second God, and is still distinguishable. If that’s his position, I’ll let you know. If he’s classic orthodox, I’ll let you know.
LikeLike
I simply can’t see a YHWH in OT scripture who is the Father, Son and Spirit…
Could it be that the delineation is not explicit in the OT, yet made more explicit in the NT?
LikeLike
The only tension that requires holding in my view of God and Jesus is a call of bitheism. The key is whether or not God views two entities, one of whom came from within the other, as two Gods. I suggest he doesn’t since the only alternative is a bi/trinitarian YHWH/godhead/deity which is at odds with too much of the bible.
LikeLike
Jim,
If you take your quasi-bitheistic position and tweak it a bit, you can arrive at binitarianism (which would be a bridge to Trinitarianism). It is quite obvious that Jesus lived as a human. No controversy there. Yet the Word is clearly theos (John 1:1), and Thomas called Jesus, the Word-made-flesh, theos. Then when we factor in other verses which strongly imply Jesus was/is YHWH/theos (those ascribing soteriological function, those using names YHWH used in the OT for Himself, etc.), though also agent of YHWH/theos, we can see the divine-human Person emerge.
LikeLike
I can see how it might be a relatively small step to binitarianism. Wasn’t the Word theos in nature, rather than the theos? As I have stated multiple times, Jesus was the Logos incarnated. That Logos was not in tri- or bi-unity with God Almighty, despite there being occasional hints at that, but not consistent or substantive enough to warrant trinitarianism as the defining concept of God.
LikeLike
Wasn’t the Word theos in nature, rather than the theos?
You appear to be missing the nuance in John 1:1. By Greek grammar the Word could not have been called ‘the theos’, as that would have made the clause a fully convertible A = B / B = A clause, i.e. the Word would have been the same entity as “the theos”, from the 2nd clause. Thus, the Gospel writer chose the best way to convey the needed distinction. Had the writer meant to convey strictly divine qualities at the expense of divine essence, the word theios (the adjectival form of theos) would have been used.
LikeLike
Jim,
If you follow my argumentation on John 5:27 in this series on which we’re commenting, you’ll see the link between John 5:27 and 1:1–the former for Jesus’ full human nature, the latter for His full Divine nature. See Westcott’s statement @ comment referenced by footnote 130.
LikeLike
Jim,
I used the “author of salvation” vs. “delegation” language because you used it. I was trying to show that both could be YHWH…that isn’t necessarily the language I would use myself. I do have to say that I have read something like that before from my denomination’s take on the song “Mighty to Save” by Hillsong United. They took issue with the lyrics in that song when it calls Jesus the author of salvation. They suggested that that title only belong to the Father. They took issue with the lyrics of many contemporary songs– some of their comments I found completely ridiculous. (One such example is that they flagged “How Great is Our God” as being racist because it uses the words dark and light.). Needless to say, I didn’t take their evaluation on songs seriously.
At any rate, I have heard the author of salvation being applied to only the Father before. I am not sure I agree with making such great a distinction between what the Persons do….certainly not enough to flag a song as having bad theology because of it.
Anyway, you are correct that having such a distinction seems to emphasize the differences, and that is why I am a bit uncomfortable with drawing such a line.
From the evidence in Scripture, all three Persons play a role in salvation.
LikeLike
Anyway, here is the blog post written by Heiser:
https://blog.logos.com/2014/04/god-jesus-and-judaism-an-old-testament-bridge-to-faith/
From the blog post, it seems that he is thinking what I thought when I first read your words “two powers theory”. — that it was talking about Persons who are both fully YHWH.
Yes, please do let us know what you think once you have read his book.
I guess the question for you, Jim, is if Jesus came out of the Father, as you are thinking, would Jesus be YHWH, too, or would He no longer be YHWH (and would therefore be something else). Please don’t take this to mean that I am agreeing with this…I am just applying your beliefs here and asking a question.
LikeLike
Jim,
I too have felt you have made statements that just fell short of binatarianism as well. That is why sometimes I would say I felt that our beliefs were moving closer. Other times you make comments that are clearly more bitheistic.
When you have been close to binatarinism I have asked you what prevents you from believing that Jesus is YHWH.
LikeLike
Jim,
What would it take for you to believe that a trinitarian view of God would be warranted from Scripture?
LikeLike
Jim,
from what you have said, it sounds like you would prefer to be a bitheist, just to avoid coming to a trinitarian belief. Is that accurate? And if so, what makes the bitheist viewpoint more biblically sound than trinitarism?
LikeLike
Arwen, I don’t see myself as a bitheist nor would I want to be binitarian or be trinitarian. I know it sounds pious, but I am trying to be simply biblical, as much as you can be when we can argue the toss over grammar or nuances or implied conclusions from two or more angles.
It’s not easy and I realise we all appear dogmatic probably to an outsider looking in on this conversation. I am also keenly aware that it’s my relationship with God and Jesus that expresses their love for me and through me that is what the world yearns for, not totally wrapped up doctrine.
That said, Paul wrote to Timothy and told him to guard his doctrine well, to understand and nurture his knowledge of the gospel and the scriptures that supported it, so I don’t see this as wasted effort at all.
What it would take to shift position would be a fresh revelation by the Spirit of God using verses that align and meaning that is plain that God was a triune being, that could be regarded monotheistically but act through three entities or persons. If I get that paradigm shift, then I would be ‘bumped’ into a new perspective. I pray that we pray for one another and each continue to display love, respect and patience with those on line and in our lives.
From what I have read here, I have no reason to think otherwise that this is already the case in your lives.
LikeLike
Jim,
Good. I think everyone here wants to be biblical. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation. We are on the same page, then, with our goals.
I do admire your desire to guard your doctrine and make sure everything lines up with Scripture. I desire to do the same thing.
I do agree that the only way you will be able to shift your position on the trinity would be if the Holy Spirit were to reveal the doctrine to you.
Yes, I hope that we do pray for one another, and I hope that we are able to show God’s love to all that we meet as well.
I think we are in agreement on these things.
LikeLike
Craig at the risk of rehashing the entire reason for your original study into John 5:27, if Jesus is fully God/YHWH whilst being fully human, wouldn’t his being YHWH in the flesh negate any requirement to be given anything from the Father? In the subject verse it is the capacity to judge on God’s behalf, but we’ve mentioned salvation and other attributes before. If Jesus was indeed God/YHWH there is no conferring or delegating to be done. Yet you’ve previously written that you accept him being sent and acting as an agent for the Father. Can you explain (perhaps again) how one who is fully YHWH, even in incarnated form, needs any conferring of power or authority from YHWH without appealing to his humanity. Two entities can engage in such a delegation or conferral however.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. Most of the things given were given incarnationally, i.e., given because the Word is now Word-made-flesh, the same “Person” but in a different mode of existence. The purpose of the incarnation was salvation.
LikeLike
‘mode of existence’ is perhaps a potentially confusing phrase given this conversation.
It would seem most things were given incarnationally, but my point was that if Jesus is fully YHWH in human form then nothing need have been given. He would have need of no thing from another.
That said, if we take Col 1:16-17, Christ was given authority over the created universe from the very beginning, indeed it exists through him and for him. And while the purpose of the incarnation was his sacrificial atonement and resurrection for the purpose of salvation, he was also slain from the creation of the world (Rev 13:8), so he has always been the means of salvation and pathway of reconciliation back to God.
So my second point is that there has been a conferral of authority by God to Logos/Christ from the very beginning of the universe as we know it, not simply incarnationally.
LikeLike
I’m working on a lengthy comment that will address some of your concerns, while deducing the series on which we’re commenting.
I’m not so sure we can use the term “Christ” pre-incarnationally. Yes, Paul uses it in his theological argument in Colossians, but, I think Paul’s point is to stress pre-existence generally. Strictly speaking, Christ is Jesus, and Jesus’ existence does not predate the Incarnation, His human birth. And Rev 13:8 is not stating that the incarnated Jesus was crucified before His actual incarnation. The latter is best understood as a decision made ahead of time and/or that eternity can not be viewed through a temporal lens. Also, there’s grammatical ambiguity in Rev 13:8; see the different translations here.
LikeLike
Let me try to deduce the grammatical argument and the theological arguments set out in this article. First the grammatical, which serves the theological: In Greek, word order is flexible; and in cases in which a copulative verb (CV) is used, there’s some peculiarities noted regarding the
presenceabsence of the article when the predicate nominative (PN) precedes the CV. To unpack this: the most used CVs—aka, linking verbs—are be and become. In English, the sentence The Christ is Jesus is a rough example of the format in question. In Greek, the Christ would be the subject nominative (SN), while Jesus would be the PN (in English, the subject complement). So using our example:The Christ is Jesus
SN-CV-PN
As we can readily see, one can flip the two sides of the sentence, yet it would still say (mostly) the same thing: Jesus is the Christ. In Greek, this would be either Ho Christos estin [ho] Iēsous, or, flipping subject and predicate, [Ho] Iēsous estin ho Christos. But, there’s one further variation (though this can change meaning):
Christos estin [ho] Iēsous
To fit the format we’re interested in, the surrounding context must clearly indicate that Iēsous is (and has been) the subject, while Christos hadn’t been mentioned yet with reference to the subject, Iēsous. Assuming that’s the case in our example, Christos would actually be the PN. Placing the PN first gives it emphasis. Moreover, note that it’s without the article, ho. The thing is, there’s no real consensus regarding all the possible uses of the article, but that fact will detract from the main point here. In our current example, it’s possible to understand the sentence one of three ways:
Jesus is the Christ.
Jesus is a Christ.
Jesus is Christ. (in a qualitative, yet definite way)
But, context should determine the correct way to interpret it. Beginning with John 5:27, we find the format of the final clause PN-[SN]-CV. In Greek, finite verbs express person and number, so if the subject was previously expressed it doesn’t need to be restated either in its noun (the Son of God) or pronoun (He) form. So, what we have is:
hoti huios anthrōpou estin
Because son of man [He] is.
PN-[SN]-CV
Translating this to better English, there are three possibilities:
Because He is the Son of Man
Because He is a son of man
Because He is son of man (in a qualitative, yet definite way)
Contrary to most modern Bible versions, I don’t think the first one is correct (and I’m not alone). Stating that ‘the Son of God was given authority to judge because He is the Son of Man’ seems a bit superfluous. I also don’t think a son of man (a human) works, as that would seem to imply any human could judge. So, with Westcott and others, I think a qualitative understanding is the best: The Son of God was given authority to judge by the Father because He is (also) human. God is our Savior and Judge, but Jesus was uniquely qualified for these roles because He was both God and human. The former provides the authority (only God can judge, and God alone is Savior), the latter provides the means by which He could empathize with the struggle of any human. Jesus’ authority was conferred incarnationally, but it was His inherently as God, i.e., the Word. Which brings us back to John 1:1:
kai theos ēn ho logos
PN-CV-SN
and God was the Logos
And the Logos was [the] God
And the Logos was a God
And the Logos was God (in a qualitative, yet definite way)
The first and second options do not work. As noted, the first one would make result in modalism. The second option would make the Logos a second G/god = bitheism. The third option makes the most sense theologically. This latter option means that the Logos is qualitatively and essentially the same as ho theos from the second clause, yet distinct in some way. Similarly, in 5:27 a qualitative understanding means that the Son of God is human qualitatively and essentially like any other human, yet distinct—just like those of us commenting here share the same humanity, are part of the same class, yet we’re distinct from one another. Applying this to 1:1, the Logos is Deity just like ho theos (the Father) from the second clause is Deity, yet they are distinct. Since bitheism is not congruent with monotheism, some other explanation must lie behind this distinction.
A similar construction is found in 1:14:
Kai ho logos sarx egeneto
SN-PN-CV
the the Logos flesh became
And the Logos became the flesh
And the Logos became a flesh
And the Logos became flesh (in a qualitative, yet definite way)
Once again, the qualitative option is the best.
These examples illustrate that placing the PN without an article before the CV is the best way to render some contexts in which definiteness would be too strong.
LikeLike
Arwen, you wrote, ‘If Jesus came out of the Father, as you are thinking, would Jesus be YHWH, too, or would He no longer be YHWH….?’
I see Gen 2:23 as a faint reflection of Jesus being brought forth or begotten from the Father. Adam declares Eve is ‘bones of my bones, and flesh of my flesh’. In other words, here is someone just like me, but not me. As Eve was to Adam, so Jesus is to the Father. Not relationally, but in terms of origins. Just as man and woman are human or of mankind, so Logos/Christ is of God or YHWH kind. As the Logos he is also one who is ‘I am’ or one who exists or who will be. But that doesn’t make him the same entity any more than a man and a woman are the same.
But the mystery of marriage from Eph 5:31-32 is that a man and a woman become one flesh. This resonates with what Jesus states in John when he declares that he and the Father are one. He’s not saying one being or entity, but one in union and purpose. But Paul goes further and says that this oneness is like Christ and the church. And Jesus says the same thing in John 17:23. Jesus is in us and we are united with him, but we are not actually Jesus. We represent him and are empowered by him through his spirit but no one would say we are properly ontologically Jesus Christ.
So it is with Jesus and God. Of the same unique divine substance, but two entities co-operating close enough to merit being called the same divine name but as separated as a man and a woman (who funnily take one name on marriage).
LikeLike
Jim,
If I understand you right, you are saying that you believe YHWH to be a class of beings, which only the Father and Son are members of? Do I have that right? Almost like a species?
If so, that doesn’t quite seem to fit with the OT, because YHWH is presented as a being in the OT, not as a class of Beings.
Still, you are just short of a trinitarian conclusion. You still don’t believe that the Father and Son are the very same God/Deity. With what you just stated, you would still have two gods because YHWH would be a class of beings rather than one Being/God.
I understand the argument about Jesus and the Father being one in the same way that a husband and wife are one, as the Mormons use the same argument. However, I don’t see that view as being accurate to the rest of Scripture. For one, it would make more than one God. For another, when Jesus says “I and the Father are one,” it reminds me of a passage in Isaiah that YHWH spoke of Himself. In making those statements about Himself, He seems to be implying that He Is YHWH, though of course He isn’t the Father.
So….with your thinking, yes, YHWH is either a class of beings, in which there is more than one member (the result would be polytheism), or YHWH is one Being who is triune. Other Scripture passages rule out polytheism…..which leaves a trinitarian understanding….
LikeLike
Thank you for the concise summary Craig.
Arwen, yes that does appear to be what I am saying. God actually says that inasmuch as he elevates himself and sets himself in a supreme deity ‘class’ above all others through the I AM name. His Logos is included also, and Jesus Christ was elevated to the position previously occupied by the Logos after his resurrection. You’re correct Craig, we have to be careful talking of a pre-incarnational Christ.
Ultimately, trinitarianism is an implied conclusion of the nature of God driven by an understanding of monotheism that can’t accommodate one being in this divine ‘order’ as the Almighty Most High and another his son. They have to be one ‘overarching’ God called YHWH.
My reading of explicit scripture is that we are called to work through that apparent roadblock, just as the ancient Jews did, and recognise, just as the new Christians did, that Jesus was the Logos/Son and was more than a pure man, but live in the tension of his separation and uniqueness from the Father. Monotheism is how God defines it, not man.
If your concept of YHWH can process the ‘species’ language, then the Father, Son and Spirit as members of that isn’t so far from trinitarianism really as long as monotheism is represented at the top species level. If monotheism has to entail a single entity, then there is a problem. What I am suggesting scripture clearly states is that God is more recognisable as my construct rather than a single being comprising three Persons.
LikeLike
Monotheism is how God defines it, not man. Yes, and as the Shema states: “Hear O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Yet Jesus is called Lord in the NT at times in which YHWH would be used in the OT.
I don’t think “‘species’ language” (species and sub-species?) captures the essence of Scripture in this regard. If you follow my understanding of John 1:1, 1:14, and 5:27, you’ll see that the anarthrous (lacking the article) PN describes a member of a particular class which/who is yet numerically distinct from others in that class. This precludes a species / sub-species distinction.
To take a bit of a side-step: With my more concise argument laid out, would you agree with my conclusion regarding 5:27? Certainly, my view is in the minority, as a cursory look at English translations bears out (Young’s Literal Translation is the only one that could be construed as in agreement).
LikeLike
Jim,
Ok. Now I think we have a clearer understanding of each other’s viewpoint. The difference is still how many gods there actually are, and who/what YHWH is.
It seems that we are in an agreement now that both the Father and Son are YHWH.
However, now the question is whether YHWH is the name for a class of beings, or if it is the name of one Being… If it is the name of one Being, then YHWH has to be triune. There is no other way to conceive of YHWH, and still have one Being, as we are in agreement that Jesus is not the Father. (This rules out modalism as a possibility.)
So….if YHWH is the name for a class of beings, we would have more than one God in the YHWH class. This would be at least bitheism, but would be open to more….it is polytheistic.
LikeLike
Jim,
I want to make sure I am clear here….
While I understand the species language, it isn’t what I believe about God, nor is it a trinitarian understanding of God. Rather, it is more a Mormon viewpoint.
LikeLike
I should also note…
I heard that Mormons believe that Elohim and Yahweh are two different gods. If I remember correctly, they think Elohim is the Father, and Yahweh is the Son. So the name of their class of Gods would not be YHWH. I know they use the term Godhead, but maybe they have another name, too.
Of course they also believe that good Mormon men get to become gods too when they die, and they get to be a God of their own planet. So, in the Mormon system there is really an infinite number of gods in the universe.
LikeLike
What about good Mormon women? One of them may be this planet’s namesake:
Planet Claire has pink air
all the trees are red
no one ever dies there
no one has a head
LikeLike
I can assure you both that my background and current research sources for this conversation are not in the slightest Mormon or JW.
Having dipped into the Biblical Unitarian website, that quickly deviates into the Word being an idea or thought of God so no pre-incarnational Jesus and then him as a created entity. So I gave them a good avoiding too.
More on your recent posts later
LikeLike
Having engaged with some Unitarians I’m well familiar with the notion of the Word as an idea/thought/memra of God. It doesn’t work exegetically in context (1:1-1:14).
LikeLike
Craig, just on your piece at 8:53am Sept 14. You wrote: ‘The former provides the authority (only God can judge, and God alone is Savior), the latter provides the means by which He could empathize with the struggle of any human. Jesus’ authority was conferred incarnationally, but it was His inherently as God, i.e., the Word. Which brings us back to John 1:1’
Your argument is based on an assumption not inferred by John 5:27 (or many others frankly) that Jesus was inherently God YHWH. As stated earlier, how does a being who is YHWH require any conferring or delegation simply because he is in human form? If you stand by your logic and comments regarding Col 2:9, then Jesus having the fullness of the Deity (which you’ve taken to mean YHWH) should only reinforce that if he is YHWH in the flesh then there cannot be any delegation. The very definition of delegation or conferral is authority being passed from one who is higher to one who is lower.
Besides, who is doing the conferring to Jesus? Is it YHWH the trinity, or the Father? A linked question: who do you imagine is interacting with, say Moses, when the speaker is YHWH? Is it the trinity, or the Father, or the Logos? Why, then, is the Father referenced all through the NT if a trinity is the actual monotheistic God?
A bit further down you wrote, ‘and God was the Logos’, but then gave three alternatives which had the Logos first. We know that ‘theos’ has several meanings or nuanced emphasis. It is mostly used for God (are you taking NT theos to most often mean the Father or the trinity?), but can refer to things divine. Ruach and pneuma have various meanings, as do kyrios and adonai, as does echad (one), all dependent on context primarily, and the nuances can come from the grammar.
So, why couldn’t John 1:1c read: ‘and deity/divine was the Logos/Word’ as per the order you began with? If the Logos was with The God (trinity or Father?) in 1:1b it would make perfect sense to state he was of the same divine order, but still maintain separation. We come back to the less than ideal lexicon of species, or class. Of course, these terms aren’t fully appropriate, nor are they found in scripture (neither is trinity or triune), but they do convey what God (the Father) intended to message to the Israelites through Moses that he was above all others; in a class of his own, alone in the sense of deity, not necessarily numerically.
LikeLike
Jim,
Quickly, the aspect of all this you are missing is the Word as the Incarnate Word. It is incarnationally that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. If we can agree that the salvific role entails not just Deity but also humanity, then Jesus in His human role must submit to God, i.e., the Father, as He cannot submit to Himself, which would be oxymoronish. And, I’m [EDITED: added:] NOT reading 5:27 back into 1:1, the two confirm one another (as does 1:14). In 1:1, the Word cannot be the same entity as ho theos, as that would be contradictory in that context (1:1c would contradict 1:1b). Thus, a distinction is necessary; but, polytheism (bitheism) cannot be the answer, as that clearly violates monotheism.
LikeLike
Besides, who is doing the conferring to Jesus? Is it YHWH the trinity, or the Father? A linked question: who do you imagine is interacting with, say Moses, when the speaker is YHWH? Is it the trinity, or the Father, or the Logos? Why, then, is the Father referenced all through the NT if a trinity is the actual monotheistic God?
The Father is clearly the One Jesus is deferring to, but the Father is Himself YHWH. Scripture does not provide any delineation as to Who is interacting with Moses on Sinai. The Father is not the only one referenced throughout the NT; and those references which simply state ho theos may well be the Trinitarian Godhead.
A bit further down you wrote, ‘and God was the Logos’, but then gave three alternatives which had the Logos first. We know that ‘theos’ has several meanings or nuanced emphasis. It is mostly used for God (are you taking NT theos to most often mean the Father or the trinity?), but can refer to things divine. Ruach and pneuma have various meanings, as do kyrios and adonai, as does echad (one), all dependent on context primarily, and the nuances can come from the grammar.
The Logos is first in that clause because it is with the article, whereas theos lacks the article. That’s the way to determine the SN from the PN in Greek grammar. This is the most important aspect of grammar to understand in our subject verse. If the article were present on both sides, or understood as actually being present on both sides, then “[the] God” would BE “the Word”; so, contextually, that does not work. (See my footnote here to see how Walter Martin misapplied Colwell’s Rule–he’s partly correct, but partly wrong.) Yes, most logically ho theos in 1:1b is the Father (see my lengthy footnote on why). In 1:1c, theos can only mean those three choices I listed, and since “[the] God” is contradictory in context, then we’re left with one of the two others.
If we understand 1:1c’s theos as only ruach or pneuma, then we’d have the ruach/pneuma becoming flesh; so, that does not work in context.
LikeLike
Let me simplify the statement in footnote 100. Many Christian exegetes, in their zeal to prove [semi-]Arians wrong in their interpretation in John 1:1c as “and the Word was a god”, go too far, asserting strict definiteness by misapplying Colwell’s Rule to it. This results in something akin to: “and the Word was [the] God [ho theos]”, which implies Sabellianism, aka modalism–that the Word and [the] God are the same entity. This is why qualitativeness is the best understanding.
LikeLike
Arwen, re your 3:33pm post. Why would there be multiple Gods in a YHWH class of deity if it consisted of the Father as the eternal and uncreated Most High one who begat or formed from within himself a Son of the same deity class or level? Back to the human analogy, despite what the world would say, there are two genders that are both human. This is a bit like a trinitarian’s belief that Jesus is YHWH, the Father is YHWH, but Jesus isn’t the Father. To you it makes sense but to the independent mind there is cognitive dissonance required. Maybe you’re thinking the same of my idea of the Father and Son co-referred to at times as YHWH or LORD but remaining distinct entities. Two entities is two Gods. Not if the qualifying characteristic of being called YHWH is either eternal God, or his begotten Logos.
If I can fold in Craig’s comment about the Shema at 3:10pm, there is room for more alternatives than simply taking ‘one’ as a numerical form. By the way Craig, I should have said that I have never had issue with your conclusions about John 5:27 and the humanity and divinity of Jesus giving him the right to judge on the Father’s behalf. I can’t envisage a trinitarian overlay to that truth due to the very different entities involved and the delegation to judge, but that wasn’t your point.
To embellish my comment about ‘one’ in the Shema, I’d only be quoting tracts from ‘Echad in the Shema’ found on http://www.hebrew-streams.org. You may as well read it in its entirety because he makes a case for one = uniqueness, not necessarily a numerical singularity. Hebrews 1 is interesting here because the writer sums up how God connected with man in OT times, which was through the prophets, including delivering the Shema, but that now he has a different means, which is through Jesus Christ. All the conferral verses endorse the credentials Jesus has to act on God’s behalf to save and judge, but Hebrews 1 sets a very non-trinitarian scene. In verse 3, we read about Jesus being the radiance of God’s glory (the Father), which puts in mind our discussion about Titus 2:13 regarding Jesus being the glory of the great God and saviour (my perspective).
The point in all this is that God declared himself to be one, but that can include a divine class aspect, especially when we see scenes such as in Dan 7 with the ancient of days and one like a son of man (or a man-like divine being) who can be seated with God, and take the scroll (Rev 5), who is of the supreme divine ‘class’ with the Father, to whom he is in submission (some could argue subordinate). If God declares himself to be alone in divine status and includes the Logos and then the risen Christ in that qualifying divinity, then that’s the paradigm of God we should adopt. One which is upheld constantly and consistently in the bible. Not shy away from the clear and obvious for fear that we cannot maintain a monotheism of our own making.
LikeLike
…there is room for more alternatives than simply taking ‘one’ as a numerical form. And this is precisely what monotheistic Trinitarianism does! Quoting from former Muslim Sam Shamoun, who cites Dr. Michael Brown, a Hebrew scholar:
LikeLike
I now recall the phrase Dr. Brown used in reference to echad and the Trinity: God is complex in His unity.
LikeLike
Let me quote this from Paul Sumner on Hebrew Streams:
I don’t think anyone has said that echad only means “compound unity”. As with most words, I’m assuming it has a range of meanings that can include “compound unity” depending on context.
Fr. Raymond E. Brown, who is fairly critical generally, states flatly that Hebrews 1:8-9 affirms Jesus’ deity as theos (see pp 562-563). But before we can discuss Hebrews at any length, you must fully understand the grammar of John 1:1.
LikeLike
Two random thoughts:
1. The B-52s were a bizarre outfit. I think they ripped off the Peter Gunn theme on that song.
2. Someone needs to publish this thread
LikeLike
I think the B-52s adeptly amalgamated various pop and rock influences. But, yep, the guitar is pretty much Henry Mancini’s “Peter Gunn” theme.
LikeLike
Jim,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that I thought you were getting any of your theology from either Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or from any other source other than the ones you have stated regarding the two powers/divine council theories.
I was simply noting that there were some similarities between what you stated and Mormon theology. I also wanted to note the differences as well. I know you are not a Mormon, and I know you don’t agree with their theology.
I mentioned the Mormons because they are a well known tritheist (really polytheist) group. I thought looking at some of the similarities might help to illustrate what a theology looked like that held to believing in several gods within the same class of beings.
LikeLike
Jim,
Ok….thanks for the Hebrew Streams website. Is this your website, or is it a website that you have found that agrees with your theology, or is it a website that was influential in forming your theology?
I took a brief look at it. I will look more at it later. I see that the site talks about the divine council idea, and that it has your answer to Thomas’ my Lord and my God” declaration.
LikeLike
I actually find Hebrews chapter 1 to be very trinitarian, especially because of the OT quotes that are applied to Jesus. We can get into those later. I am going to be very busy today. Unfortunately, that means I can’t get into some of the passages I would like to, or address the things you pointed out. Those will have to wait until Sunday, probably. 😦
I will post when I can.
LikeLike
The Word having the qualitative nature of the Most High (Father) God is fine by me Craig. To me, that doesn’t mean they are the same, or comprise the same being though.
So, it might be useful to summarise whether we’re any closer to a shared understanding of the nature of God and Jesus. I’ll put down next what I believe is the biblical expression of God. My creed or statement of faith, if you like.
LikeLike
Jim,
I you are fine with “the Word” sharing in the same qualitative nature as the Father (ho theos), and we can agree that you and I share the same nature/essence of being fully human, then can you see that “the Word” being the same qualitatively as the Father implies being in the same class of Deity? You and I are certainly equal in essence/nature as humans, so how can ho theos and “the Word” be inequal in essence/nature?
LikeLike
Before the founding of the current physical universe, there was God (the Father before he was the Father). Pre-existant, with no stated origin, declared to be from everlasting to everlasting.
Here’s how I picture Gen 1 and it tying in to John 1 and 1 John 1. Gen 1:1 is a standalone summary of creation. Gen 1:2 then describes what the start state was like. We don’t know anything about how the earth was laid waste, but the first thing we see God (the Father) do is speak out a Word, and the Logos comes forth as Light. I consider the light to be more than just our conventional ‘day’. See John 1:4-9, 2 Cor 4:6, Isaiah 9:2, 2 Pet 1:19, Rev 22:16 (star of the day or morning). The day as we know it receiving light from the sun did not get made until day 4, so this ‘Light’ was something else, something spiritual that was of God’s unique divine character and constituency. The Logos then continued to create things and order from the chaos with God’s authority as per Col 1. John 17:5 is still good because the Father and Logos enjoyed mutual shared glory before the chaos was founded into order. I have a sense that God created something before Gen 1:2 ex nihilo that was taken on by the Logos who formed or made (but not ex nihilo?) all things that we see today.
So, we have in existence two divine beings, one above all, the other of him who is above all, who is given the mandate to engage with their human creation. Humanity refers to this representative of God as the Angel of the Lord, Captain of the Lord’s armies, even YHWH since his powers are those of the Most High.
When it is time for the OT prophecies about God coming to reside with man (Emmanuel) to be fulfilled, it would be the Logos, the fullness of his Father, who would be born to Mary after being impregnated by the power of God. He was fully divine as the Logos, but had the weakness of human flesh to contend with. He was without sin from his unique conception, and also walked a sinless life. In other words, he countered Adam’s choice to sin, but not doing so. This Jesus was the Messiah (Christ) who died as a perfect sin offering to cancel our debt before God. He submitted his divinity to death, which meant that whilst his divinity didn’t ‘die’, he fully humbled himself to human fate after death, which prior to his resurrection was permanent non-existence (the definition of death and opposite of life).
He rose and was the first born from the dead (Col 1:18), and was given back the highest place in heaven and over earth (but beneath God). The Logos became incarnated as Jesus who returned to heaven in his new resurrected body to continue alongside the Father. Both qualify to be known as YHWH without becoming a single entity. Then we have the eschatological stuff, which is another section.
LikeLike
‘how can ho theos and “the Word” be inequal in essence/nature?’
If the Word is begotten from the Father they are equal in divine nature. To your trinitarian understanding that means these two entities have to be regarded as one God because otherwise monotheism would be invalidated. Correct?
I’ve made it plain that monotheism can remain valid because the point of monotheism is to set apart those two entities in the supreme I AM WHO I AM YHWH divinity level from all others. If you want another layer of monistic deity, God the Father is first, or highest, among equals. I think these are two sides of the mono coin.
LikeLike
With respect to Hebrews 1:8-9 Craig, I’m sure there’s plenty in the Greek, but on reading the NASB, I can see the first reference to God in verse 8 being God the Father. This introductory line leads into verse 9 which says that ‘God, your (Jesus’s) God, has anointed you (Jesus)’.
Would that be fair?
LikeLike
I’m too tired this evening to address your earlier comments, but I’ll briefly respond here re: Hebrews 1:8-9. If you go back to the controlling statement, verse 5, you’ll see the referent is “God”, who speaks of “my Son” (verse 5, then 6 and 8 flow from that), which means the quotation of Psalm 45 is applied to the Son: “Your throne, O God [the Son]…”. Verse 9’s “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness” must refer to the Son (incarnationally), as well. With that background, I’d agree with your ‘God, your (Jesus’s) God, has anointed you (Jesus)’.
LikeLike
Just a quick comment…I can’t comment long right now. I have a very busy day:(
Anyway, I interpret Hebrews 1:8-9 differently than you guys. I interpret verse 8 as everything from verse 8-12 applying to the Son because the Father is speaking about the Son.
I see “Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You” as saying “therefore God (Jesus), Your God (the Father) ……
In other words, I see it as the Father calling Jesus God there.
I see verse 8 as “Your throne, O God (Jesus), is forever and ever.
In verse 10, I interpret “Lord” to be Jesus.
I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I have always read it like that in the NIV, NRSV, and the NASB because I always took it as the Father making a declaration about the Son, contrasting Him with angels, and affirming His full Deity.
LikeLike
In other words I see the Father saying saying those things to the Son and about the Son.
LikeLike
Arwen4CJ,
I agree that v. 8 (and vv. 5-7) is to contrast the Son with the angels, showing His exalted status over them, and v. 8 asserts the Son’s full Deity. I also agree that “Lord” in v. 10 refers to Jesus. A footnote in Peter O’Brien’s Pillar NT Commentary captures this issue here:
LikeLike
Chapter 4 called ‘God Alone’ from Michael Heiser’s ‘The Unseen Realm’ contains this interesting section that I read for the first time this evening:
‘Greek scholars later discovered that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao (beget, bear), but rather from the noun genos (class, kind). The term literally means ‘one of a kind’.’
Given previous comments around YHWH being a class or order of the divine, and Jesus being unique within that order having been brought forth from God, it makes for a more supportive case.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m aware that monogenēs is better translated “unique”, as in one of a kind. I’ve been trying to find a reference I have on this, but, so far, to no avail. In any case, this same term is also used for Isaac, though we know that Abraham also sired Ishmael.
LikeLike
Before I run out the door for a bit, I checked for the total NT occurrences of monogenēs. Five reference the Son–all by John–(John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18; 1 John 4:9), one is a reference to Isaac (Heb 11:7), while Luke uses the term to reference a child of three different individuals (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38).
LikeLike
Craig,
How is Psalm 102:25 translated in the Septuagint? The OT passage in the NASB doesn’t have LORD in it, so I was wondering how it is translated in the Septuagint. Thanks.
LikeLike
See my correction @ 12:00 pm
In the LXX “Lord” (kyrie–vocative form) is used in verse 25
verse 24, and a pronoun for it is used in verse 25. The Masoretic Text has “God” (El). This page provides a pretty useful LXX translation with Masoretic Text (MT) equivalent:http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/psalms/psalm_102.htm
The Psalms are very confusing to cross-reference because the LXX numbers are not the same as the MT numbers. Here the author of the site uses Christian Bible numbering as the base, which is why the site has the LXX translation on the left.
In actuality, Psalm 102 as we know it is 102 in the MT, though it’s 103 in the LXX–very confusing. The Christian Bible conforms to the numbering of the MT.LikeLike
Arwen4CJ,
I need to correct my response to you. With fresher eyes, I looked at this again–as something didn’t sit right with me on my initial analysis. Here’s the skinny. The NASB is translating from the MT. In the MT “God” is in 102:24, while a pronoun is used in 102:25. Now here’s the confusing part. As I noted, the LXX doesn’t match up numerically with the MT. Psalm 102 in the MT is 101 in the LXX; AND the verse numberings are also off. The parallel to MT 102:25 is LXX 101:26. I didn’t initially want to mention that the verse numberings are also off–not just the chapters–because it leads to even more confusion; but, since I had the incorrect chapter in my earlier comment , I thought I should explain it better. (Coincidentally, 103:24, the verse I checked, has the same kyrie–instead of going back one Psalm chapter and forward one verse, I went forward one chapter and back one verse!)
So, let me now correct my statement: The LXX of Psalm 102:25 (101:26) uses “Lord” (kyrie–vocative form). In the MT Psalm 102:24 uses “God” (El), while 102:25 substitutes a pronoun for “God”. Hence, Hebrews 1:8 more closely follows the LXX, though there is a bit of conflation with the MT.
Now, here’s something interesting. The vocative “O LORD” (kyrie) is used in verses 102:1, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22 (LXX 101:2, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23) as a translation for YHWH from the MT. As noted, the MT has “God” (El [or Eli]) in 102:24 (and a pronoun for “God” in 102:25). El (Eli) is a shortened form of Elohim, which, as we know, is plural. The important thing to note is that there is a switch from YHWH to El(i) here in 102:24 (and pronoun for it in v. 25), while the LXX continues to use the vocative form of “LORD” in 102:25. In other words, the LXX translates El(i) (“O God”) as kyrie (“O LORD”) here. Whatever one wishes to make of this switch in the Psalm, it is clear the “O LORD” in Hebrews 1:10 retains the vocative form from the LXX, and the clear referent in Hebrews 1:10 is the Son.
LikeLike
Craig,
Thanks!!! I had wondered about this before, and I figured that the author of Hebrews was probably quoting from the LXX, but I wanted to verify, and I also wanted to know whether or not the Lord in that verse was treated as YHWH in the LXX. You have answered that question for me 🙂
It sounds like since the author of Hebrews was mainly basing it on the LXX, that it seems he was strongly implying that the Son also is YHWH, just as I had thought.
One more question for you….one of my professors from graduate school had mentioned that he liked reading the LXX because he thought Greek was easier to learn than Hebrew. Anyway, he said that Genesis 1 and John 1 open the exact same way in the LXX. (He was talking about the words “In the beginning.”)
If this is true, and the “in the beginning” is the same, that would mean that the Word was there before the creation of the light that Jim mentioned as being when he thought the Word came out of the Father….
What is your take on “in the beginning” in the LXX and then in John 1?
LikeLike
Yes, Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 begin identically: En archȩ̄, In [the] beginning. It is obvious that John wanted to copy Genesis here, as he places the dative/indirect object “in the beginning” before the verb, just like Genesis 1:1. Also, while I don’t have the time to devote to this just yet, John 1:3 negates Jim’s reading, as it states through Him [the Word] all things were made/came into being…. The subject is clearly the Word here, as it is from verse 1 through verse 4. And there are no exclusions; this is a clear “all things”.
LikeLike
Craig,
Thanks again 🙂 Right “all things” would include the first “light” in Genesis. It would also include everything before that first light.
LikeLike
BTW, I’ll agree with your prof: Greek seems easier to learn than Hebrew. Hebrew reads right to left, rather than left to right, which, for me is the first hurdle–well actually the first hurdle are the characters. Even though I have Hebrew (the MT) in my software, and it has a parsing feature just like it does for the Greek, I’ve not really tried to learn it. I just use the “copy as” function to copy as transliteration, and go from there. I still haven’t mastered Greek, and I sure don’t have the time or inclination to learn the Hebrew.
LikeLike
That’s why the JW New World Translation Bible inserts the word “other” into John 1:3
LikeLike
Craig, back on 23 Dec at 7:59am, you wrote, ‘Essentially:
Believing in the name of the logos/light, believing in the name of the Messiah/the Son of God, provides eternal life’
On at least a couple of occasions in that post you wrote ‘logos/light’. My rendering of the creation account would harmonise with your apparent understanding of logos and light, especially with the way John uses light to characterise the Logos.
Given the Greek translation of the OT and the Greek writing of John coincide regarding Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 warrants no more specific conclusion than ‘the Logos through delegated power and authority, was at the forefront of bringing this earth and its creatures into being. This obviously divine co-creator then became flesh.’ That’s the essence of John’s opening verses. When he came to exist is moot to John, so I think it’s a long bow to draw to use the LXX to close the door on when the Logos came to exist.
I recognise that if you can prove the eternality of the Logos such that there was never a time that he wasn’t, it plays into orthodox trinitarianism. However, that isn’t sufficiently clear from the two opening verses mentioned. There is much debate on the nature and meaning of the Hebrew in Gen 1, and absolutes are hard to arrive at. My suggestion accords if we take ‘wisdom’ in Prov 8 as another allegory of the Logos, like the light of day 1, God’s first words, and John 17:5 with Jesus stating his glorious presence as things began to be created, and Heb 1:10, since ‘founding’ is parting of water, exposing of land, and all that happened after the first day.
Also, I recognise that the trinitarian understanding, generally, of YHWH is the triune deity (Godhead), so verses from the OT that use YHWH that are applied to Jesus appear to make a case for the trinity. So, Arwen, you were referencing Ps 102 (101) and have brought several from Isaiah too, which we’ve considered. I believe that these have been discussed and my take away is different from yours. Trinitarians resolve the problem of two entities both, on occasions, referred to as YHWH, through a trinity construct. I don’t and am happy the biblical writers don’t either.
LikeLike
Jim,
Yes, I did that, for I was summarizing John 1:1-13 [edited to “13” instead of “3”], in order to keep track of the subject all the way through those verses. But, Genesis 1 is a different story. In 1:3 is the first mention of “light”, and in verse 4 it states that the light was “good”. This pattern is repeated: God ‘spoke’ creation (so to speak–no pun intended). This implies that God ‘spoke’ the “light” in verse 3, which means that in your schema God created “light”, i.e. the Word.
Moreover, it’s logical to assume that John used the very same words in John 1:1 as that in Gen 1:1 in order to establish “the Word”‘s pre-existence with respect to creation–since the Word was the agent of creation. This is especially so since John repeats “in the beginning” at the end of verse 2, just before the words of verse 3. In addition, the entity in Gen 1:1, Elohim, remains the same throughout this first chapter, into the second.
LikeLike
I should have continued my previous comment. Given that Elohim (which is a plural noun) is the entity listed all the way Gen 1, and that “light” was ‘spoken’ in verse 3, wouldn’t it make sense that if Elohim were to use this “light” as the agent of creation He’d change the subject to Elohim and ‘light’ (or Elohim ‘through light’)? Also, the word used for “light” remains the same throughout the chapter. Contextually, it just makes more sense if “light” is part of the creation of Elohim, along with everything else enumerated in Gen 1. And, since John makes it clear that “the Word” was the agent of creation, thus implying that the Father is the Creator, Gen 1 can be easily harmonized such that Elohim is a plural entity encompassing both the Father and “the Word” (and the Spirit–Gen 1:2).
LikeLike
Again, I should have continued. This is especially logical given that in Gen 1:26 Elohim says, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our own likeness.”
LikeLike
Besides, the Gen 1:1 ‘in the beginning’ is simply a summary of the next detailed account. John’s ‘in the beginning’ takes the opening words from Gensis as emphasis that Jesus pre-incarnate was there with God during that creation, not necessarily that he was with God before the formless earth came to exist.
LikeLike
Arwen, I don’t see the word ‘other’ in the NWT of John 1:3.
All things can mean all THINGS, tangible stuff, creations from day 2 onwards. The Light wasn’t a thing.
LikeLike
In fairness, this recent position on Light is different from what Craig and I were discussing on the eternality of the Son (or not, in my case), several hundred posts ago. I was suggesting that the Logos could have been brought forth from God (who could then be known as the Father), at some point in time pre-creation ie in timeless past (as we conceive it). We discussed the nature of time in that ‘environment’, but since there is little to no scripture on that period (bar some conjecture over a Gen 1:1-2 gap theory) it was largely inconclusive being open to personal interpretation.
LikeLike
Ok, this application of light and Logos before the first day is complete is something I’m working through, so your ‘red teaming’ of it is handy. We know Elohim can be singular despite being a plural word, and just like the translation Lord, can be applied to different entities, even in the same sentence.
I don’t think, in all this I’ve asked what you’re understanding is of the Logos/Word, and why that term is used for the co-creator. If God spoke, it would have been a ‘word’. He would have brought if forth, from within himself so that it became external to himself. If we agree that this word had substance and was another entity, not just an emanation or idea of God, then being light at that point would flow nicely with associated scripture, even though the same word is used for conventional light made by the sun and stars from later in the creative sequence.
Why would the first light be ‘good’, other than a reference to the Logos being the source of all goodness?
LikeLike
Jim,
You are right…the Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t change John 1:3. I thought that they had because that is what they did to Colossians 1:13-20. They inserted the word “other” a bunch of times in that passage to make it agree with their theology. I thought that they had done the same thing to John 1:3 to make it match. I’m actually surprised that they didn’t, but I am glad they didn’t change that. Maybe some of them will be able to see the truth about Jesus in John 1:3.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/colossians/1/
In their older versions of NWT, they had put “other” in brackets in Colossians 1. In this newest edition, they removed the brackets to make it appear as if the word “other” was actually part of the Greek text, instead of being inserted by them.
But Colossians 1:13-20 carries the same idea as John 1:3 — nothing was created without Jesus.
When I think about God creating — I think of Him creating everything — yes, things like animals and angels, and plants, and rocks, and planets and stars, etc. but also the very elements, all the laws of science, even time itself. This would include light. Everything that has come into being, both visible and invisible. In that sense, light can be a thing.
By using the exact same phrase as Genesis 1:1, I think John meant the exact same “in the beginning” as Genesis’ “in the beginning.” If so, this would have been before anything was created.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Also, I recognise that the trinitarian understanding, generally, of YHWH is the triune deity (Godhead), so verses from the OT that use YHWH that are applied to Jesus appear to make a case for the trinity. So, Arwen, you were referencing Ps 102 (101) and have brought several from Isaiah too, which we’ve considered. I believe that these have been discussed and my take away is different from yours. Trinitarians resolve the problem of two entities both, on occasions, referred to as YHWH, through a trinity construct. I don’t and am happy the biblical writers don’t either.”
My response:
Yes, I think that the OT is valuable for showing that Jesus is YHWH. After all, it was the OT that the Jews in Jesus’ day had, and it was the OT that was Scripture to the writers of the NT. They obviously felt that it was important to show who Jesus was from the Hebrew Scriptures. Because of this, I think we can have a richer understanding of the NT by seeing how the NT writers applied OT verses. We also get a richer understanding of what these authors were saying about Jesus, and about God in general.
The OT is Scripture just as much as the NT is Scripture. The OT gives support for the NT. The NT helps us understand the OT in a way that those who lived before Jesus couldn’t. The OT holds all of the promises that are fulfilled in the NT.
LikeLike
At the back of my bible is a short concordance. A very quick word study on light and darkness is quite revealing. There are clear point of connection with Christ and, by default, the Logos. Rev 22:5 would indicate the same kind of light that came into being during day 1, will be the light that the new heavens and earth will enjoy – direct from God and the Lamb (Rev 22:3) ie the original divine partnership.
LikeLike
If you read on to verse 23 of that passage from Colossians, Arwen, it is clear that this is the central message of Paul’s gospel. It makes very clear the divinity of the Son, who is now Christ, but you wouldn’t assume a trinitarian theology from reading it. There is definite separation between God and his Son the Christ.
LikeLike
Jim,
Of course there’s a very definite split between God the Father and the Son in the NT. This is due to the Incarnation. This is the point that you keep overlooking. When the Word became incarnate as the Word-made-flesh, His physical body necessarily created a physical distinction between the two. But, what was the Word like pre-incarnation? Keep in mind that God is spirit, devoid of matter. Was the Word a separate spirit entity alongside God the Father, i.e., two Gods? Since that would be a clear violation of monotheism, we could hardly draw that conclusion.
As regards “light”, individual context must determine meaning. You implied that the references to “light” in Gen 1 do not all refer to the Word, so you understand that not all Scripture refers to the Word. Let’s go back to Gen 1 for the moment:
In this context, the only logical explanation is that “light” refers to physical light, as in daylight, in each of its usages.
As regards Colossians, Arwen4CJ’s point is that Col 1:13-20 is a parallel passage to John 1:1-3, with each establishing the Son’s role as agent of creation. These also establish the Son’s pre-existence with respect to creation–logically, He must if He were creator! But, again, we must keep in mind that ‘God is spirit’. If, as Paul states, in the Son all things (creation) hold together (Col 1:17; cf. Heb 1:3), then this would include the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. This means He’d have to perform this while in His physical body. No problem, as ‘God is spirit’, which means He is not constrained to His physical body, thus affording Him the capacity to sustain the cosmos while in His physical body.
LikeLike
Jim,
I’m not saying that light is not associated with Jesus. Jesus called Himself the Light of the World. John’s Gospel talks about the contrast between light and darkness, etc. When Jesus was transfigured, He was very bright. Yes, in Revelation, light comes from the Father and Jesus.
However, I am not convinced that any of that is the light that was mentioned in Genesισ on day 1
Jim, what do you mean by telling me to read Colossians 1:23, and then saying “this is the central message of Paul’s gospel.” What is the “this” you are referring to? Your light argument? Or the JW mistranslation of Colossians 1:13-20 in which they insert “other” a bunch of times when it isn’t in the original?
LikeLike
If you are saying that “Jesus created all other things” is central to Paul’s teaching, then why didn’t Paul write “other” if that is really what he meant. As it stands in every other Bible translation (other than the NWT), Colossians 1:13-20 agrees with John 1.
The NWT also changed John 1:1 to make it fit with their beliefs about Jesus.
LikeLike
Jim,
Do you see why inserting the word “other” in Colossians 1:13-20 changes the meaning?
If not, carefully compare the NWT link I posted earlier with this one:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+1&version=NASB
LikeLike
‘Of course there’s a very definite split between God the Father and the Son in the NT. This is due to the Incarnation.’ It’s also very clear from the references regarding his pre-incarnation. Yes, being a human is very different from being of the same spirit nature as the Father, but that separation existed before he was made flesh.
‘Keep in mind that God is spirit, devoid of matter. Was the Word a separate spirit entity alongside God the Father, i.e., two Gods? Since that would be a clear violation of monotheism, we could hardly draw that conclusion.’ Spirit can present as matter as we read in Abraham’s encounter with the three men, or Jacob wrestling with a man. God is the invisible God, but that doesn’t mean being spirit is devoid of matter – it’s just we can’t naturally sense it. We’ve discussed two Gods, but one name = monotheism. There wasn’t a settled definition of monotheism during much of ancient Judaism. God (class of divinity) alone.
‘the only logical explanation is that “light” refers to physical light, as in daylight in each of its usages.’ Logically, if light is produced but without matter being consumed and energy released as waves, some in the visible spectrum, then there has to be another source. That source is likely to have been something ‘good’, that brought life. Jesus was the light of the world (Is 9:2) when incarnated, but it’s fair to say, back at the point of creation too.
‘He is not constrained to His physical body, thus affording Him the capacity to sustain the cosmos while in His physical body.’ I’m not sure we have to read that much into what Christ was ‘doing’ in sustaining the universe. If he’s not actually constraining himself, then Phil 2:5-9 doesn’t make sense. He limited his powers whilst in human flesh, through humbleness and servant heartedness. It’s not like he has to keep the atomic plates spinning. He set in train the laws of physics to do the sustaining, but he was the orchestrator of those laws, therefore he does sustain all things.
You seem to be saying that God is (a) spirit, Jesus is (a) spirit, and the spirit is (a) spirit, so we have three identical spirits that are indistinguishable, so are really one spirit. I don’t think that comes through in scripture clearly, if at all.
LikeLike
Jim,
Interestingly, John 4:24 conforms to the same format as discussed in this blog post, though the clause is verbless—not unusual in the NT:
pneuma ho theos
Spirit [is] God
God is a spirit
God is the spirit
God is spirit
It appears John likes to use this format to convey qualitativeness, as that is the best understanding of this clause. God is spirit. God exists as spirit, in spirit form. God is a spirit Being.
John 1:1b in conjunction with 1:1c, and in concert with John 1:18, provides excellent support for non-separateness, and thereby supports Trinitarianism.
John 1:1b: and the Word was pros God. I’d earlier shown an illustration which indicated that pros means toward in a spatial sense; so, it has the idea of ‘facing’ in a static sense. Hold that thought. In 1:1c we have and the Word was God (by nature/essence). In 1:18 we have something I don’t think I’d mentioned in this thread:
monogenēs └theos┘ ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros
unique God who is into the bosom of the Father
With the discovery of two—not one, but two—early papyri (p66, p75), the rather odd [ho] monogenēs theos, “[the] unique God”, extant in two other important Alexandrian manuscripts, seemed to indicate that this should be the correct reading over against “unique Son”. All the Alexandrian manuscripts predate all other types of manuscripts (Byzantine, e.g.). The only difference in this Alexandrian mss is that the article is absent on three, though one of those has the article with a scribal correction deleting it. In any case, with the adjective monogenēs the article is probably not needed. Yet, this evidence for “unique God” is very strong, but the downside is that this reading is only extant in one text-type, and there are many other mss with “unique Son”. [ADDED: there is some debate, but there are only about a handful at most of text-types–didn’t want to add confusion to this issue.] However, it’s not difficult to envision a scribe thinking “God” is just to strong here, therefore ‘correcting’ his copy, and this ‘correction’ perpetuated down the line. This makes it difficult to know exactly what is in the ‘original’ text.
So, is it “unique God”—to match John 1:1c—or is it “unique Son”? In 3:16 and 3:18 “unique Son” is set over against His being sent by the Father, but 1:18 is different. Here’s my translation, rendering it more literally than most (it’s not too far from NASB):
Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote; monogenēs theos, ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros, ekeinos exēgēsato
God no one sees ever; unique God, the One Who is into the bosom of the Father, that One has exegeted Him
If the article were present before theon (the accusative form of theos), then I’d argue that this would indicate the Father; but, without the article it may be best to assume God in general, i.e., the Trinity. So, if it’s the Trinitarian God that no one ever sees, then I’d think the One being ‘exegeted’ would be the same—the Trinity.
Taking just the very first clause/sentence, we have “No one sees God ever”. This is a true statement (see Exodus 33:20) in and of itself. Has anyone seen the Word? No; but, some have seen the Word-made-flesh. Yes, there’ve been manifestations of God, but these were not literal appearances of God, for God is not a physical Being.
Moving to the latter part of the verse: who is into the bosom of the Father. The word I tentatively translated here as “into” can also be translated in. So, which is it? A similar phrase is found in John 13:23, with “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in which John uses the more usual word for “in”, en tō̧ kolpō̧, “in the bosom”. Thus, I think a distinction is intended.
Besides bosom, chest, or breast as a definition for kolpon (kolpos), BDAG has two others, which I’ll list to illustrate the word’s semantic range:
–the fold of a garment
–a part of the sea that indents a shoreline, bay
Some exegetes have pointed out that John 1:18’s “who is in[to] the bosom of the Father” is paralleled with the disputed clause in 3:13, “who is in heaven”. I think this is very possible. Interestingly, this same Greek word eis, “in[to]”, is used in the first clause of 3:13 “no one ‘ascended’ in[to] heaven”. I think John quite purposefully used eis instead of en here in service of some larger theological point.
I’ll address more of your recent comment later.
LikeLike
Arwen, yes, plenty of ‘others’ in the NWT. Do you read being the ‘firstborn of all creation’ to be a reference to the incarnation or the Logos coming into existence?
My point regarding Col 1:23 was that Paul states that the previous verses about Jesus were his gospel, so the nature of Jesus was central to his preaching. My concern is that we are still in different camps regarding that nature and so in possible danger of believing in vain.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Arwen, yes, plenty of ‘others’ in the NWT. Do you read being the ‘firstborn of all creation’ to be a reference to the incarnation or the Logos coming into existence?”
My response:
Neither. I see “firstborn of all creation” as signifying Jesus’ supremacy over all of creation. The firstborn son was always given supremacy over things in the family in biblical times. So, calling Jesus “firstborn of all creation” shows His supremacy over creation. If you read the rest of that passage, it continues to talk about how Jesus is supreme over all things that were created.
Verse 18 defines this further. He Himself will come to have first place in everything. That is the very definition of supremacy.
Does that make sense?
You wrote:
“My point regarding Col 1:23 was that Paul states that the previous verses about Jesus were his gospel, so the nature of Jesus was central to his preaching. My concern is that we are still in different camps regarding that nature and so in possible danger of believing in vain.”
My response:
Ok. I see your point, and I agree. The nature of Jesus was central to Paul’s preaching. And I also agree that I think we are still in different camps regarding that nature and so in possible danger of believing in vain.
Who is Jesus is foundational, and it has a bearing on our understanding of the gospel message.
I am glad that we are both taking this issue seriously, and considering it from a salvation perspective.
LikeLike
Yes, I see your point re firstborn and that makes sense too. The analogy doesn’t play too well with the eternality of the Son, though. If Jesus is supreme over all creation in the ANE familial context, that could infer he had to have been created first and then everything else by him and, clearly, after him. I think we both agree that the Logos was not a creature in the way angels and humans are products of creation, but it does lend weight to the Logos being formed or commencing his existence by being brought forth from God.
Craig, thanks for expounding on the Greek in John 1:18. It seems to boil down to the choice of manuscript selected for the final translation. John uses unique Son on other occasions such as 3:16, 18 and 1 John 4:9, so 1:18 is out of kilter with other verses about monogenes.
LikeLike
Jim,
As regards Colossians 1:15, there are two definitions for prōtotokos, “first born”. The first one is the literal meaning ‘pertaining to first born’. The second one is: to having special status associated with a firstborn. The second one is the best choice for Col 1:15, for elsewhere Christ is referred to as the heir of all things. This is especially so as one can see how Paul contrasts the usage of this term with a second usage in 1:18 in which Christ is, in a metaphorical sense, the “firstborn of/from the dead”.
On the usage in 1:15, then, this does not alleviate an eternal understanding, with the preincarnate Christ having no temporal beginning. In fact, the Scriptures which state that Christ is agent of creation, specify that this includes “all things”, implying that He, Himself is uncreated, for He certainly didn’t created Himself!
Time itself is a construct of creation, for space requires time, and both are part of the space-time continuum. So, to say, as it is alleged Arius said, something to the effect of “there was a time when the Son was not” is to totally misunderstand the meaning of eternality.
As for John 1:18 and monogenēs theos, I thought I’d laid out the case in a very logical way, by including kolpos, then juxtaposing with the other usages of monogenēs as ‘one and only Son’ in 3:16, 18. What I didn’t explicitly state is that 1:1 and 1:18 can be seen as forming an inclusio, with “and the Word was God (by nature/essence)” in apposition to monogenēs theos. I also didn’t mention that monogenēs is used in 1:14 as monogenous para patros, “unique from/with the Father”. The word “Son” (huios) is not used in 1:14; in fact, it’s not used at all the prologue (1:1-18)—see NASB, for example.
LikeLike
In the ongoing comments here we’ve not discussed the importance of the nomina sacra (Latin for “sacred names”). This is the practice of contracting certain words and then placing an overline atop the resultant contractions, out of reverence for the referent, in Christian writings, Scripture especially. This article does a good job in explaining its importance for our discussion here (though, frustratingly, his nomina sacra don’t show properly).
Until the 10th century Greek manuscripts were written in majuscule (like our capital letters). Later manuscripts were written in miniscule, akin to our cursive style, and also more like our lower case letters (though with capitalization of the first letter at times). This means that during of the first half of millennium following Christ the nomina sacra were all in majuscule. This has a direct bearing on some textual variants. Following are the two choices for John 1:18. This is followed by the full designation (these are in the nominative case, i.e. with a sigma at the end), first in majuscule, then miniscule (for comparison), then English transliteration:
Θ͞C = ΘΕΟC = θεος = theos = God
Υ͞C = ΥΙΟC = υιος = huios = Son
Since I’ve no way of knowing how much Greek knowledge the reader has, I’ll explain a few things. The theta, the first character for “God”, is “th”—two English letters for one Greek. The first letter in “Son” is the upsilon, and when it’s found as the first letter of a word it is accented such that, in pronunciation, it is preceded by an English “h” sound—though there’s no “h” in Greek—which is why the “h” is used in English transliteration. Note that the upsilon looks like the English “Y” in majuscule, but “u” in miniscule. (The sigma in majuscule was later written Σ instead of what is called lunar C found above.)
I explain all this to illustrate that one could make the argument that the texual variant for monogenēs theos/huios is merely the difference of one character—a mistake a scribe could have easily made. However, the theta is very different than the upsilon, this difference easily discerned by looking at the wikipedia article on the nomina sacra, with its snippet of a 4th century manuscript of John 1:35-37 showing “God” and “Jesus” in the genitive case, with an upsilon as second letter (uncontracted, these would ΘΕΟU and ΥΙΟU, respectively). Note the difference between the theta and upsilon in “God” (Θ͞Υ). It’s hard to imagine a scribe confusing these two letters (Θ vs. Y). More likely, the change was made by the scribe because of presumed error in the scribe’s exemplar (the copy from which he was copying). It makes much more sense that a scribe would change “God” (Θ͞C) to “Son” (Y͞C) in conformity with John 3:16 and 18, as opposed to changing “Son” to “God”. Thus monogenēs theos is more likely the original text—especially when considering the fact that the earliest extant manuscripts contain this reading.
LikeLike
Jim,
You wrote:
“Yes, I see your point re firstborn and that makes sense too. The analogy doesn’t play too well with the eternality of the Son, though. If Jesus is supreme over all creation in the ANE familial context, that could infer he had to have been created first and then everything else by him and, clearly, after him. I think we both agree that the Logos was not a creature in the way angels and humans are products of creation, but it does lend weight to the Logos being formed or commencing his existence by being brought forth from God.”
My response:
Craig did a much better job of expressing what I meant in his 6:09 am post. There’s not really anything I can add to what he said.
I will just reaffirm that the context of the passage prevents a Jesus was the first creation outlook. If all things were created through Him, and nothing that has been made was made without Him, then that shows that Jesus is not a created being.
LikeLike
My attention has been divided over the past few weeks, as I’ve been researching the events of last month’s Charlottesville, VA “Unite the Right” rally. I certainly don’t align with any sort of ‘white supremacy’ (yes, I’m white); however, I’m a strong advocate for free speech.
It’s not my intention to derail this thread. I just wanted to provide a brief explanation. I wouldn’t have mentioned it here, but, after Trump put his signature to Senate Joint Resolution 49, which is based on the events at Charlottesville (see this blog post for possible ramifications), I put together a two-part comment on Constance Cumbey’s blog (easiest way to find the comments is to search “fields”), illustrating that the car used in the attack is NOT the one owned by James A. Fields, the individual alleged to have perpetrated this attack. Fields’ car is very dark—looks black—while the car in the C-ville attack was grey with a black hood stripe.
LikeLike
No problem, Craig. Thanks for sharing. What do you think is going on with the two cars?
LikeLike
I don’t like to speculate too much, but here are the facts:
1) Fields’ car is a black Dodge Challenger with Ohio license plate GVF 1111
2) Attack car is a grey Dodge Challenger with black hood stripes with (Ohio?) license plate GVF 1111
3) Fields’ was purportedly arrested as the alleged driver of the attack car
Some have called the events of C-ville, VA a false flag.
I’ve noted some other inconsistencies and oddities with regard to this event, though I’ve yet to comment on them. I may do so on Cumbey’s blog.
LikeLike
I just noticed that the grey Challenger at the arrest scene has some decorative black trim which is absent from any other photo/video of the attack car! As I was tentatively surmising, but now have confirmed, there was more than one grey car at C-ville! See comments @ 9:36 and 9:45 PM on Cumbey’s blog (currently the last two comments).
LikeLike
Craig,
OK. So you think that the car may have been planted there in order to have an excuse to limit free speech, calling it hate, with the possible intent to limit or change the Christian faith?
Do I understand the possible implications of having a planted car there?
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
I’m just doing some research around Gen 1:1-4 I’m quite liking the possibility that verse 1 is either a very brief executive summary, or states the creation of a heavens and earth that, from verse 2, had become all but destroyed, dark and empty – the opposite of God. I’m drawn to the idea that there’s a reason that, after an initial creation something happened such as an angelic war that caused creation to require a reboot.
Now, if this is plausible, and there are some disparate scriptures that would support this scenario, the Word would have been with God at the point of original verse 1 creation. I’m thinking this is plausible since the creation account pays no attention to the occupants of the heavens, namely the angelic host. Quite a startling omission unless it had already taken place before creation 2.0 occurred. Job 38:4-7 indicates that the order from chaos days of Gen 1 were witnessed by the ‘sons of God’, so they were made very early, possibly prior to the earth becoming formless.
However, I am disappointed slightly in that I thought there was a good deal of coherence in the idea that the pneuma (breath) of God was poised on the waters and then Elohim spoke. Since you can’t speak without breathing out, the breath was the Word who was spoken out of God to become light. That light must have been a form of glory from the Word’s goodness, and we know God dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16). From that point on the ‘all things’ take shape, but that includes invisible (spirit) things (Col 1:16) which don’t get a mention in the Gen 1 account. Paul does provide some context to ‘all things’ in Col 1:16 by describing them as thrones, powers, rulers and authorities. In other words, he’s not so much concerned with creation ex nihilo, but the supreme position Christ holds over the current ‘all things’ of creation (which means world or universe).
But if indeed this passage is supposed to reference the 6 day Gen 1 creation account, then its lack of invisible things leads me back to wondering whether the casting out of Lucifer, and angels who rebelled leading to a war in heaven that wreaked havoc on earth between verses 1 and 2 is more plausible.
As you can see, I’m pretty betwixt and between! Notwithstanding, I am looking at this without eternality of the Word in mind (despite elohim having a plural angle), and trying to imagine a likely ‘bringing forth’ point.
Last point regarding time, if the world was formless and then the Word came into existence, we have a temporal environment. However, it’s invalid to place a human concept of time on pre-creation to arrive at an eternal conclusion for the Word. Before our linear universe existed, God could have been wholly alone with no reference, but the bringing forth of the Word may have created a form of time at that moment.
LikeLike
Jim,
You are certainly attempting to take Genesis and the other verses very literally. I have nothing really to say to any of that, as that is all speculation. The Bible, unfortunately, does not go into more detail about the things you wrote, so all a human can do is guess.
My only caution to you is to be careful that you don’t form a doctrine out of the speculation. You have interesting ideas, but be careful not to put them on par with Scripture.
Thanks for considering Genesis 1 and thinking about the possible implications. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, Craig. I really don’t know much about Greek, so this helps.
LikeLike
Thanks Craig. I had only noted the point about early text being written in what we would call capitalisation of the letters The extrapolation of that fact was not something I have really studied. What I am currently wading through is a pretty dense set of topical themes from http://inters.org/interdisciplinary-encyclopedia which is authored and sponsored by Roman Catholic academia and packed with interesting insights. The one on Jesus Christ, Incarnation and Logos was a good start point, but there’s creation, anthropology and much more.
As you’d expect, it baselines from a solid trinitarian perspective but I’m getting a deeper sense of the majestic role the Logos plays in displaying the Father. This section on Jesus provides some excellent historical usage of the Greek word ‘logos’ as a well understood philosophical term of the day, and why John would have chosen it in his opening narrative.
An aspect I keep stopping to think on is Jesus as the full image or icon of God and how that is captured in his statement to Philip in John 14:8-10. So am I tip-toeing towards binitarianism? I feel all this is much like what Lee Strobel must have gone through, and the better for it! Just popping out to see if Nibiru is inbound. Don’t want to miss the bus 🙂
LikeLike
Good deal! Without yet looking at the link, from what I’ve read, the logos concept was well-known in Greek philosophy, as well as, of course, Judaism. It is for this reason that John the Gospel writer, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used this motif.
As regards Nibiru, you may find this post of interest: https://claudemariottini.com/2017/09/22/numerology-and-the-end-of-the-world/
LikeLike
Ah, you’re still in Sep 22. These ‘prophetic’ predictions need to say the hour as well as the date, and then the time zone reference point. Take note rapture prophets.
LikeLike
“Prophet” David Meade is backtracking…
LikeLike
There will be a lot of post-23 Sep fudging from those hard date setters. It’s all very Harold Camping. The ‘unique’ astronomical sun, moon, stars alignment today has occurred on at least 4 other occasions in the last millennia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/21/nibiru-nonsense-planet-x-armageddon-nasa-fake-news-theories/
All that aside, I have no problem with these events being brought into scriptural focus with a ‘signs of the times’ health warning. They could well be indicators of on-going global shaking that will be physical, fiscal and spiritual over the next few years. In the meantime, our job is to be salt and light, cities on hills,
LikeLike
Jim,
Good for you in your investigating. I’m not familiar with the sources that you are using, but it sounds fairly solid, and I respect your continued studying 🙂
Yes, perhaps what you are finding is similar to Lee Stroebel.
Jim, where are you from?
I had to look up this end times Sept. 23 stuff to see what people were even talking about. Isn’t the stuff in Revelation that talks about a mother giving birth to a baby just a reference to Jesus’ birth, which has already happened? I’m not convinced that it was literally a picture that was meant to be in the stars.
Anyway, before the end comes, the Anti-Christ has to appear. Since that has not happened yet (the Anti-Christ might be alive, and even in position somewhere, but if so, he has not been revealed to the world yet), then the end can’t come. Therefore, today can’t be the end of the world.
LikeLike
Since I’ve been discussing variants, I thought it might be helpful to include the following. From the Daily Dose of Greek–sent daily, except Sundays, to your inbox if you sign up–is Dr. David Hutchison, Associate Professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, discussing the variants in Matthew 6:9-13, known as “the Lord’s Prayer”, specifically verse 13:
http://dailydoseofgreek.com/extended-exegetical-discussions/textual-variants-model-prayer/
If you follow along carefully, and perhaps view this a few times, you can gain a better idea on the criteria used in this discipline. It may seem overwhelming at first, but, trust me, one can self-learn this with diligent study.
He references the Metzger volume, but a better volume for the layperson is Omanson’s adaptation of Metzger, which I reviewed on this blog (and other places). Re-reading my review (I cringe a bit, as it could use a bit more punctuation and clarity–my writing has improved over the years), I’d forgotten that I’d linked to an online copy of the important early manuscript Sinaiticus. I have saved at John 1, conveniently, so that one can review what I’d written here in the comments recently.
On the left side is the actual manuscript (in the continuously running majuscule). On the right top is this text transcribed, properly spaced as you’d find in Greek New Testaments. One can either click on the manuscript OR on the transcription, and this shows the correlation between the two in red squares. Very helpful! As one can see, the manuscript contains nomina sacra in John 1:1. If you scroll down to verse 6 of the transcription and click on θ͞υ you’ll see the corresponding Θ͞Υ in the manuscript. If you click/highlight θ͞c in John 1:18, you’ll see the corresponding Θ͞C in the manuscript. Sinaiticus is one of the early manuscripts including “God” instead of “Son” (which would be Υ͞C instead) in 1:18.
LikeLike
Is Metzger the Bruce Metzger who was on the translation committee for the RSV and the NRSV?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
Sorry to drag things off the Greco-linguistic wagon briefly, but there was an interesting passage of scripture at church this morning – Acts 12:7-17. Quite apart from the point the speaker was making, I noted the following:
Verse 7 – An angel of the Lord appeared
Verse 11 – Peter realises it wasn’t a vision and ‘the Lord sent his angel’
Verse 17 – ‘the Lord had brought him out of prison’
Here, there is very similar sequence of a divine being (an angel) interacting with man (Peter) and the act attributed to ‘the Lord’ that we see on many occasions during OT interactions. More often, in those instances the divine being is called the Lord (or LORD)?
Peter knew the angel wasn’t Christ; he didn’t worship it for one thing, and would have been reprimanded if he had as John was in Rev 19:10. But Peter still attributed the act to Christ. Isn’t it fair, then, to transpose this logic into the OT? When we see God carrying out his actions, whether that be creating the universe or destroying Sodom, it is through the Logos/Son, who is declared by God/YHWH as the one ‘in whom is my name’; ie ”It’s me YHWH presenting myself to you as a mighty ‘angel’, captain of heavenly armies, son of God/Man.” Naturally, that being is regarded by the humans interacting with it as God/YHWH.
So, my point is: we can have a presentation of God ‘through’ another – the Logos – and still be correct in calling the Logos YHWH when necessary. Does that require a trinity construct if YHWH doesn’t see the Logos as anyone other than himself, and not a second YHWH, which is what we can conclude from the passage in Acts?
LikeLike
I should have added that I’m trying not to suggest that the appearance of said divine being is a mode of God.
LikeLike
An angel (messenger) of the Lord acts as agent for the Lord; Jesus IS LORD. An angel/messenger comes in the the name of the LORD; conversely, if one ‘believes in [the Word-made-flesh’s] name, He [Himself] gives the right to become children of God’ (John 1:12), and ‘these [miraculous signs] are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His [own] name’ (John 20:31).
LikeLike
Hey, I just came across someone who described an old heresy that I had never heard of called “Ebionism.” The person stated that these individuals believed that Jesus was only fully human, and not divine at all.
The person also stated this: “Ebionism viewed Jesus as a normal human being who was simply empowered by God.”
That sounds a lot like Bill Johnson’s theology to me.
LikeLike
The Ebionites were an early Jewish sect (some possibly also adhering to a proto-gnosticism), accepting Jesus as Messiah, but denying His deity. From what can be discerned from those who wrote apologetics against the Ebionites, they discarded most of the NT, cherry picking the rest. This is because all their writings have not survived (likely destroyed by Christians). Apparently, they especially didn’t like Paul’s works, as they were staunch legalists.
I recently had an online discussion with a guy who claimed that the Ebionites–as per his take that they were Gnostics, to further his own agenda–were the first true Christians.
LikeLike
Jim,
I interpret that passage in Acts as God rescuing Peter from jail — he did it through the angel, yes. However, Peter clearly did not think that the angel was God. He never addresses him as God. There is no indication in the passage that we are to think that the angel is God.
I don’t think this is necessarily the same thing as occurred in the OT. For one thing, sometimes “the angel of the LORD” in the OT is actually God Himself. We use context to determine that. The context of the Acts passage does not indicate that we should think of the angel as God Himself.
In the NT, Jesus is portrayed as YHWH in the flesh, not as only a mere messenger.
LikeLike
Thanks, Craig.
I wonder if their Christology is similar to Johnson’s though. If they really did think he was an empowered human…
The other stuff seems completely unrelated to Johnson’s theology.
LikeLike
Johnson’s Christology is more akin to 2nd century Gnosticism, which was not yet developed in the 1st (though perhaps in the very late part of the 1st). According to 2nd century Gnosticism Jesus was a man like any other but one who received the gnosis (secret knowledge) to such an extent that he overcame his flesh (all matter is evil, according to Gnostics, while all spirit is benevolent) thereby achieving godhood. This gnosis was activated by an “anointing” (according to the Gnostic The Gospel of Philip it was the “chrism”–though it’s chrisma that is the Greek word for anointing, this word found only three times in Scripture: twice in 1 John 2:20 and once in 1 John 2:27). Thus, he became the model for others to do same. One could say that he is our savior in this regard, our “Messiah” or “Christ”. This is the same basic christology undergirding the modern New Age / New Spirituality. See part IIIa of the Bill Johnson New Age Christ series. I think you already know this stuff, but I’m stating for any other reader.
All that to say that it is possible that some Ebionites in the latter part of the 1st century (possibly) and into the 2nd adhered to a christology like other Gnostics–if the Ebionites actually existed that late.
LikeLike
I’m not saying Jesus was a ‘mere’ messenger. He was certainly a messenger but with the authority and enabling of being the unique ‘fullness of the Deity’. His message was the kingdom of God is near, as demonstrated by the miraculous. Yes, he did have life in himself because it was given him by the Father to impart. If he was the trinitarian YHWH, it would have been innately part of his cognisant being, but we don’t see that in scripture.
But, as we read in the OT, God presents himself in the person of theophanies, or Christophanies. These are seemingly angelic in both name (the angel of the Lord) and nature (a message or guidance for Israel/individuals), but that being is tied to the Logos, who himself is closely connected to the Father as Son.
So the beauty of all this, including Peter’s encounter in Acts 12, is that the divine messenger is considered by the human as if it was the sender. In Peter’s case, the Lord rescued him, through the angel (Lord being Jesus Christ). In Moses case, it was THE Angel (the Logos/Son) of the LORD (God the Father) speaking from the bush.
Context states whether the representative of God is Logos or a ‘regular’ angel or archangel, but I’m still unconvinced a three-in-one model of God is the essence of the bible. Much clearer is the one interfacing between God and man is regarded as divine. Only in the case of the Logos is that fully true. You only have to read on in Acts 12 to see that Herod was praised for uttering ‘divine’ words. That he was struck down with a nasty sounding disease was not because he was praised, but that he failed to acknowledge the giver of his position of authority (a la Nebuchanezer). Jesus offered up constant praise to the Father in contrast, due to being given full authority over the existing universe.
LikeLike
Jim, you wrote, If he [Christ] was the trinitarian YHWH, it would have been innately part of his cognisant being, but we don’t see that in scripture. If Jesus were 100% man, then, no, He wouldn’t be entirely cognizant of His trinitarian Being. The limitations of humanity inhibited His knowledge. Just like Christ wasn’t omnipresent (in his physical body) during His earthly ministry, Christ wasn’t omniscient (nor omnipotent) either.
LikeLike
Craig,
Yes, I am familiar with Johnson’s Christology as it relates to Gnositicism, as stated in your earlier articles. It is good to bring that back up as well, as some people may not have read those articles.
The only reason I asked about the Ebionites and their Christology was because I saw someone make a comment about them that reminded me of Johnson saying that Jesus was only a man who became Christed at his baptism, and he did everything as a man empowered by God.
I was thinking that if that were accurate to what the Ebionites actually believed, then that would be another parallel to another ancient heresy. No false teaching is really new, as it is often repackaged in new packaging.
LikeLike
True. “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
LikeLike
Craig, the conclusion to your study reads:
‘It is the Word’s pre-incarnational, eternal intrinsic divinity (1:1c) coupled with his incarnational humanity (1:14a) that makes Him the perfect Judge (5:27b) for humankind (5:24-25; 5:28-30)’
Consequently I’m confused by your comment that because of the incarnation, the state of divinity enfleshed, omniscience and omnipresence are suppressed or nullified. If he was YHWH and all things were still sustained by him during his incarnation, then Jesus can’t have exhibited ‘lesser’ Godly characteristics.
LikeLike
The two-natures doctrine–hypostatic union–as defined at Chalcedon provides clarity. Within the humanity (human nature portion, so to speak) of Jesus, His divine traits are suppressed; however, the Word’s eternal divine traits are used to the full extra carnem, i.e., outside the body. This is due to the very essence of Deity as spirit (John 4:24). This provides the means by which Word-made-flesh could continue to sustain the cosmos while walking the earth. Jesus’ divine glory was cloaked under the veil of His flesh, for no one can see the [ADDED:] full glory of God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). See Kenosis, Christology, and Bill Johnson, Part I.
The final, eschatological judgment will be done while Jesus is in his post-ascension state, of course. To be clear, the Incarnation does not cease at the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry, for He continues His existence as Word-made-flesh in perpetuity, only now in His glorified flesh.
LikeLike
Craig,
I have been in a discussion with someone on another forum who is a oneness proponent, but he is to a Oneness Pentecostal, so he has put his own spin on his beliefs.
He believes that the Father became Jesus, and he is insistent upon there only being one Person who is YHWH. He upholds Jesus’ deity because he believes Jesus is the Father, and the Father is Jesus.
We got into a discussion about John 1:1-3, and several other verses. I brought up the same points that I’ve brought up here in our discussion. He’s surprised me by interpreting some passages that show Jesus’ deity in a Unitarian way. (I guess, to avoid acknowledging that there are two Persons who are YHWH.)
Anyway, he insists that John 1:1-3 isn’t talking about Jesus, but is instead talking about Jesus’ message. He then brought up what Jesus said regarding heaven and earth passing away, but that His words will remain. He is insisting that “words” in that verse is the same thing as “Word” in John 1.
Could you please check the Greek for me in the following passages:
Mark 13:31
Luke 21:33
Matthew 24:35
LikeLike
I would have asked that question via e-mail, but yahoo seems to be having problems again, and I’m not sure that you would get my message, or that I would get your response.
LikeLike
I’ll have to look at this later this evening.
LikeLike
Actually, this one is easy, as all three are identical, and there’s no textual variant in any:
hoi de logoi mou
“De” is always placed in a post-positive position, i.e., it’s always second in the clause. So, it translates:
hoi de logoi mou
The [plural] but words of mine
But my words
Grammatically, this person has no grounds. Any English translation should render this as essentially what I have above.
LikeLike
Craig,
Thanks. And the word used for “Word” in John 1:1 is Logos, right?
LikeLike
Yes; logos (in John 1) is the singular, logoi is the plural version of the same word.
LikeLike
I should say that I’m specifying here, in part, because there’s another word for “word”, or “saying”–rhema.
LikeLike
I need to write out how John 1:1 is in Greek to show him the difference between John 1:1 and the other verses.
LikeLike
John 1:1:
En archȩ̄ ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos
In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14:
Kai ho logos sarx egeneto
and the Word flesh became
And the Word became flesh
LikeLike
Check out this site:
https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-bible/john/1.html
LikeLike
I used to use the Studylight site a long time ago, but I see they’ve improved their interlinear. You’ll have to get used to their abbreviated system of parsing (identifying parts of speech). For example, logos is identified as “N-NMS”, which means Noun, Nominative Masculine Singular. If you look at any of the three verses you wanted me to look up, you’ll find logoi identified as “N-NMP”, which means Noun, Nominative Masculine Plural. Additionally, if you click on the words you’ll get the Thayer definition. Thayer is an old Lexicon, now out of date on some words, but OK in this instance.
LikeLike
Thanks, Craig.
LikeLike
Thank you so much!!!! Much appreciated!!!!
LikeLike
Thanks, Craig. Unfortunately, the guy is still insisting that Jesus is not the Word — but instead Jesus’ message to his own life, as evidenced by Jesus’ words offering comfort to him throughout his life.
His reasoning is that since his experience has taught him that Jesus’ words = the Word in John 1, then that has to be what it means. Context doesn’t matter. What matters is personally experiencing Jesus in his life.
LikeLike
After looking online for a bit, it seems that the guy’s view about the Word being God’s message to a person in their Christian life is actually right in line with some theologically liberal views. He was probably, then, telling me what he’s learned from his pastors throughout the years. That’s why he doesn’t view the Word as Jesus!
His church probably doesn’t teach the doctrine of the Trinity because his church is probably much more theologically liberal than mine. (He is in the same denomination as me.). Left up to himself and a liberal interpretation of Scripture, he has accepted a Oneness view of God. (Jesus is the Father.)
LikeLike
So, how does he square that with “the Father is greater than I”, and Jesus’ cry, “not my will but yours be done”?
LikeLike
Good questions. I haven’t asked him yet. I’m trying to get him to understand the trinitarian viewpoint. He didn’t know that it existed at all. He thought that you could either see the situation as their being three gods, or you could have his viewpoint.
LikeLike
Hi Craig and Arwen, between other forums and various topics, you seem pretty occupied, and I’ll be taking a short sabbatical from Crosswise which I’m sure you’ll find handy 🙂 . The reason is that while looking up some info on the hypostatic union in the last couple of days, I stumbled across this forum http://answersinrevelation.org/forums/index.php?p=/discussion/56/the-divinity-of-jesus-christ/p1
This thread will take some time to wade through, so I will probably lie low until I have further commentary. The main contributor, and forum owner I think, is Tim Warner who teaches at a church in Tampa. Just looking at his stance on the things we’ve been discussing it’s clear he expresses a 95+% alignment with my understanding of scripture, and does so with a considerable reference to the Greek.
The more I read, the more I recognise examples and aspects that he uses which I have already written without any prior reading of his material. So, for me its interesting that my views and lens through which I read the bible are shared, and down to a fine level of detail. He would be a proponent of the ante-Nicene Apostles’ creed on God, which is explicitly non-trinitarian. But it’s clear he has a pre-millenial, conditional immortality leaning, which I would hold to, and seems to advocate for an ancient Jewish comprehension of monotheism that I have been trying to articulate, namely that those called YHWH (the Father and Logos/Son) are of the highest ‘kind’ of divinity, which means we can move past the two Gods conundrum. So, I’ll post some conclusions as and when, and will pop back to see if you have raised any points too.
LikeLike
I don’t see how the Apostle’s Creed is “explicitly non-trinitarian”. At best (worst?) one might say that it’s ‘only implicitly trinitarian’, for by explicitly mentioning Father, Son and Holy Spirit it implies a relationship of some sort between the three.
[He] seems to advocate for an ancient Jewish comprehension of monotheism that I have been trying to articulate, namely that those called YHWH (the Father and Logos/Son) are of the highest ‘kind’ of divinity, which means we can move past the two Gods conundrum. Sorry, but this sounds like either binitarianism or bitheism, depending on how it’s articulated. The term monogenēs, which is used in the Apostle’s Creed, is made up of the two words monos, “one”, and genēs, “kind”, i.e., ‘one in kind’. ‘Same kind’ does not imply one being lesser than another, it means both are the same essence.
LikeLike
For our purposes, here’s the important part of the Apostle’s Creed:
Καὶ (εἰς) Ἰησοῦν Χριστòν, υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τòν μονογενῆ, τòν κύριον ἡμῶν
kai [eis] Iēsoun christen, huion autou ton monogenē, ton kurion hēmōn
And [(I believe) in] Jesus Christ, Son his the monogenē, our Lord
And [(I believe) in] Jesus Christ, His monogenēs Son, our Lord
First of all, the point is ‘belief in’ all three entities mentioned (Father, Son, Spirit). Secondly, I purposely left monogenēs untranslated, as I think the idea here is ‘same essence’, since the term is most literally ‘one genus’. In addition, while we can readily understand “Jesus Christ” and “our Lord” as being appositives, we should also see the middle part as yet another appositive; however, ton monogenē can be construed—as it is above and in other translations of the Apostle’s Creed—as ‘limiting’ huion autou. In other words, we’re not taking these as appositives, we’re conjoining them as one clause/phrase, with the latter part seen as further describing the former, which can be stated rather clumsily as His ‘unique in kind’ Son. But, we could understand these as appositives: “His Son, the monogenēs”, i.e., “His Son, the ‘unique of the same kind’”.
This matches the definition found in BDAG: pert[aining] to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth[ing] that is the only example of its category.
This term is used of Isaac in Hebrews 11:7, so it cannot mean “only begotten”. TheBDAG defines its usage there as: pert[aining] to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only.
LikeLike
But if you weren’t trinitarian which, as a 1st C Christian convert from Judaism would be the case, then the Apostles Creed would not lead you down that theological path. There is no hint of three YHWH ‘persons’ being identified as a single YHWH. You can’t even claim an as unyet codified trinitarianism. It’s very clearly Father, separate unique Son and Lord and their pneuma. Any proto-trinitarianism has to be read back in.
LikeLike
It’s difficult for me to place myself in a first century context, removing all biases, for sure. However, the Apostles Creed looks to be akin to one long run-on sentence, with the first ‘sentence’ including the Father conjoined to the next portion about the Son. If you look at the Greek at Wikipedia you’ll see that the 2nd line begins with kai (and), with eis (in) in parentheses following. Thus, it’s belief in the Father…and (in) Jesus Christ…”. Below the section on Christ it begins with “I believe in the Holy Spirit…”, which indicates that the Creed understood all three as important and likely ‘separate’ entities, though with some semblance of equality (certainly all were/are higher in status than mere humans). Then, taking Scripture, beginning with Matthew 28:19-20, it’s not difficult to envision a Trinitarian thought, it least in embryonic form, since no one would accept bi- or tritheism.
Please keep in mind that the fact that Trinitarianism was not a fully understood and fully formed doctrine until some years after Christ’s ascension does not necessarily negate its truthfulness. As an analogy, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun was not established as such until much later.
LikeLike
‘Please keep in mind that the fact that Trinitarianism was not a fully understood and fully formed doctrine until some years after Christ’s ascension does not necessarily negate its truthfulness. As an analogy, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun was not established as such until much later.’
I think this is where any doctrine that has evolved from the straightforward scripture needs to be looked at honestly in the light of biblical imperatives regarding the closed canon such as Ecc 12:10-12 and Rev 22:18-19. While the first is about the Wisdom writings and the second about John’s Apocalypse there is a principle which we both agree should be applied, and which the likes of Bethel Church appear to wilfully ignore, This principle is sola scripture and not the extra-biblical ‘revelations’ of man that are so prevalent, and which are set up on a par with scripture, from the Word of Faith proponents especially.
You might not argue that a doctrine settled some centuries after Jesus and the Apostles lived and taught falls in to this classification, but given the concept is never directly or explicitly referred to or even derived in a general sense through the gospels or letters, it does beg the question.
LikeLike
I’ll agree with the overall tenor of your comment, except this: “or even derived in a general sense through the gospels or letters”. Taking just Matthew, there’s 23:37-38, which implies Christ’s prexistence, the sin against the Holy Spirit (12:31-32), and the Great Commission (28:19-20) in which, taken collectively, the Trinity can be “derived in a general sense”.
LikeLike
Three entities might be derived in a general sense, but the Matt 12 section also references the Spirit of God, so that doesn’t imply a separate third entity per se. The end of Matt 28 doesn’t infer any orthodox trinitarian stance as mandated in the 5-6th C councils and creeds. Moreover, the pre-existence of Jesus is no indicator of trinitarianism either when taken at face value. These scriptures might validate a pre-held view of a ‘triune’ God, but wouldn’t lead you to that conclusion if not previously held.
LikeLike
Matthew 12:18 also refers to “My Spirit” in its quotation of Isa 42, but this does not preclude “the Holy Spirit” from being a separate entity within a triune Godhead. That is, it’s clear that “My Spirit”, “Spirit of God”, “the Spirit”, and “the Holy Spirit” are speaking of the same entity, and with the specific phraseology of 28:19, it’s clear there’s a distinction between “God” and “the Holy Spirit”. And by the grammar of 28:19, there are three separate entities in which one is to baptize, governed by one verb and prepositional phrase. We are to baptize “in the name [not “names”] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”–one ‘name’, three collective ‘entities’. Since only monotheism is congruent with the OT, then 28:19 must somehow conform to that. Hence, an incipient Trinitarianism is evident.
LikeLike
I think you could be confused whether ‘in the name’ is a reference to God’s name rather than being a phrase indicating authority to baptise. ‘He who comes in the name of the Lord’ is not about someone who has a particular name but one who represents him with full authority. The disciples baptised using just the name of Jesus, but did it with the authority of apostles, God’s sent ones.
With respect to God’s spirit, the most common context is that God has anointed or is working in and through someone by placing his unique and holy breath in/on them to accomplish that deed (OT), or be sealed unto eternal life (NT), with the associated giftings as dispensed by God to various believers. That does not require an entity or Person, but is simply an expression of God as he works in people. Just as physical breath is sent forth from the person, so spiritual breath (pneuma) is delivered by God into those that believe in him through his Son.
LikeLike
I agree that “in the name of ” is a another way of saying “in the authority of”, but that doesn’t change the construction of the Greek. In either case, it’s a collective singular which is expressed. Think of it as akin to, e.g., Group A, consisting of Smith, Villarreal, and Andropov. If I instruct you to ‘do this in the manner of Smith, Villarreal, and Andropov’, you’ll understand that I’m instructing you to do this the same way in which Group A does it. I could just as well have stated, “do this in the manner of Group A” to the same effect. Likewise, Matthew could have stated, “baptize in the name of God”; however, it’s likely that “God” was not well-known as consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Baptizing in the name of Jesus is tantamount to baptizing in the name of God, since Jesus Himself IS God.
You’ve given two different functions of the Spirit. Yet one must explain the specific phraseology “do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by/in whom you are sealed” (Eph 4:30), if the Spirit is merely a circumlocution for an aspect God, as you are intimating.
LikeLike
But in Matt 28, the writer isn’t conveying three separate names of a singular God. Trinitarianism is not in view here despite the Greek collective singular.
Why does Eph 4:30 need explaining as if Paul is assuming that one can only ‘grieve’ a person since it’s a felt emotion? If the Spirit is the outpouring on to and in to individual believers through the unseen indwelling of the Father and Son, then grieving can still occur. As many verses attest to, that is the definition of the sent Spirit.
LikeLike
Re: Matt 28, why do you baptize:
(eis to onoma tou patros kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos)
(in the name of the Father and the Son and the Spirit Holy)
in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
If “the Holy Spirit” is merely a circumlocution for God the Father’s Spirit (He is also called “Spirit of Christ”, as you acknowledge), then why is He mentioned in this sentence along with the Father, indicating He is a separate entity? And, more to the point, why are all three mentioned, as if they all carry equal weight?
Ephesians 4:30 must not be seen in isolation, but in conjunction other verses such as Matt 28:19.
LikeLike
As Arwen quoted earlier regarding Michael Heiser’s trinitarian stance, here is an interesting quote from Heiser’s ‘The Unseen Realm’, p294, under the sub-heading ‘Jesus and the Spirit’:
”….Jesus is the second Yahweh, the embodied Yahweh of the Old Testament. But Jesus is not the ‘Father’ Yahweh. He therefore is but isn’t Yahweh.”
Interestingly, in connection with Eph 4:30, that paragraph ends with a footnote, which I’ll quote:
”There are seeds of this in the Old Testament as well, where the distinction between the Spirit and God is blurred just as the distinction between the Angel and God is blurred. For example, in Isa 63:7-11, an account of the wilderness wanderings, Yahweh is mentioned (v.7) along with the Angel of his presence (v.9). Yahweh was the savior of Israel (v.8), but so was the Angel (v.9); thus the writer interchanges the two. In verse 10 the Israelites are said to have ‘rebelled against’ (Hebrew: marah) and ‘grieved’ (Hebrew: atsab) the Holy Spirit. Psa 78:40-41 is a parallel passage to Isa 63:7-11, but that passage has the rebellion and grieving (the Hebrew words are the same) directed against ‘the Holy One of Israel’, a well-known title for God. Taken together, the two passages interchange Yahweh, the Angel, and the Spirit.”
I conclude that we are being shown a God who demonstrates his presence through his embodied Logos/Son/Angel(OT) with unseen attributes referred to as the Spirit.
LikeLike
I don’t subscribe to Heiser’s beliefs, so I’m not defending him. I don’t think he’s correct here.
LikeLike
I agree Craig that we need to take a swathe of other scriptures into account regarding, in this case, the Holy Spirit. So when you read Is 63:11b-12a:
‘Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of them,
12 Who caused His glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses,’
do you think of an entity, or Hebrew parallelism? Other translations have ‘power’ instead of ‘glorious arm’. Or what about Jesus explaining spiritual birth to Nicodemus in John 3:8? Here Jesus clearly compares the Spirit’s effects with those of the wind in that what is invisible produces tangible results in our physical environment.
So the Spirit of God is him working in invisible power to produce an effect rather than being someTHING with a discernible and distinctive personality. The list in Matt 28:19 is not a breakdown of the YHWH trinity any more than 1 Thess 5:23 is an ingredient list of what makes up humans, much as some would like it to be.
The original apostolic view of God is really pretty straightforward and Heiser captures the flow from Old to New as well as any. You may not ‘subscribe’ to his conclusions but they are borne of scholarly multi-sourced review taking the original language into direct account. He doesn’t represent JW, Mormonism or Christadelphians but provides what is highly likely to have been the first Christians view of God and Jesus.
The Athanasian view is as distorted as the Arian perspective, but both have a good measure of truth. That truth is the dichotomy that each try to explain in very stovepiped fashion. Athanasius view of God is to the early church’s as refined sugar is to honey or cane. It is refined way beyond its original value and means of goodness such that it may taste similar but is basically not of benefit.
The dichotomy of Jesus being YHWH but not YHWH, which comes through clearly from the OT to the incarnation, has been attempted to be resolved by both Arius and Athanasius, both of whom are unsuccessful. The reality is in between, in that place of seeming compromise and ambiguity that the early church was content to reside. Their Jewish heritage meant that they knew about the Most High God and his embodied or physical representative who engaged with man. Only after divine revelation from Jesus (such as on the road to Emmaus) did they understand that he was the OT Angel of the Lord, the architect of the universe, the one like a Son of Man from Daniel and of YHWH divinity, but not the actual God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
They could worship him as Lord but still knew that God the Father stood higher and separate from his Son, whom they had known during his earthly tabernacle. Trying to resolve this seemingly bitheistic problem was not in the thinking of the 1-2nd C church. Only when future theologians wrestled with the dichotomy did narrower processing and creedal explanation become enshrined and codified. This has led us astray in my opinion, forcing scripture into representing what isn’t there.
If you don’t think Heiser is correct there has to be a reason why not. He puts forward a solid argument, that stands up to scrutiny, but concludes that the post-Nicene view of God as Athanasius devised is not the God of the bible, and I think that deserves credit and a robust response.
LikeLike
I don’t think I need to robustly challenge Heiser any more than I need to critique any number of counter views. If Heiser is satisfied with his view and you are satisfied with Heiser, then it is what it is.
Your comparison with Gnosticism is far from an adequate analogy, as Gnosticism posits a dichotomy between YHWH of the OT and the Father of the new; and, moreover, works from a strong spirit is good/flesh is evil dualism that is not present is Scripture (what, Satan is good?!).
And you can’t claim Trinitarianism as the fault for Bill Johnson’s ilk. Johnson’s Christology is Gnostic, New Age.
LikeLike
Another consideration is the way satan comes in as an angel of light to distort the truth by sowing a small seed of error and letting that pervade the whole, much as Jesus described the effect of the teaching of the Phairsees in comparing them with leaven in a loaf.
The enemy’s tactic is not to come up with an entirely new perspective to draw people away from God but just nudge them off course sufficiently that no alarm bells are raised but long term change and damage will eventually occur.
Gnosticism is a good example of this. Infiltrating the early church along with a good dose of Neo-Platonism, it portrays an aloof God and his capricious Demiurge who created the world and all that’s in it. This distortion of the truth (that a divine co-regent from God did the creating as we read in John) led to excessive mysticism invading the church and a multitude of error compounding upon error.
That same error moved through a misperception of God down the centuries to land up on our door step as the very thing much of this website is dedicated to exposing – the elevation of man to the status of Jesus and/or the demotion of Jesus to man’s level. If Jesus is the trinitarian God, then, according to Word of Faith logic, we are in God and Christ is in us, therefore we are equipped as Jesus was and can assume deity status. We can do fully what Jesus did says Bill Johnson because of this enabling. An enabling borne of a trinitarian three in one in us doctrine.
But the reality is that despite being the body of Christ and seated with him and being transformed into his likeness from glory to glory, we are not him. None of us are actually Jesus simply because we believe in him and he invisibly lives in us. We are separate entities: human and the divine Son, yet still joined and in harmonious unity.
Trinitarianism has fomented the very thing that produces doctrinal conclusions such as Bethel’s. I don’t believe those outworkings would be as powerful if we knew that God was over all, Jesus was his means of reconciling humanity to himself, they move by their power or pneuma within believers and will restore all things including our bodies at Jesus’s return. Believers are adopted under the fatherhood of God, called brothers by Jesus even though he was brought forth or emanated from the Father in pre-creation past. What an honour, but we wouldn’t call ourselves YHWH despite that being a valid end state if honest trinitarian logic is applied.
LikeLike
The significant connection between a trinitarian God construct and Word of Faith doctrines is that through the three that are one theology they believe we can be as God when we are in Christ. It leads directly to the deification of man, which is something Bill Johnson seems pretty comfortable espousing.
LikeLike
That’s not true. Gnosticism, which is the real root of WoF, does not presuppose a Trinity, it presupposes inherent Divinity in all men that just needs to be recognized and awoken. At that point, one is to work on achieving ‘full’ Deification. Hence, Jesus was just a man who attained Godhood, and, as Johnson states, “Jesus is our model”. WoF is panentheistic: God is outside the universe and God is inside all matter, or, in some versions, just inside humans. The goal is to break free of matter in order to (re)attain Divinity.
Word of Faith is a rejection of the Trinity.
LikeLike
I’m sure those in the WoF churches would adhere to pretty much orthodox trinitarianism.
To return to a theme a short while ago, I was reading this passage today from 2 Cor 4:4-6 and recalled the conversation about light being spoken into being by God on the first day and connections with the Logos/Son/Christ being light:
”4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving [c]so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants [d]for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” (NASB)
My NIV has a footnote referencing Gen 1:3 in verse 6. It is inescapable that here Paul is making a connection between the light made on day 1 and Christ. As you know, Johannine Christology picks up on this theme strongly too. It’s really not a stretch to say that this Logos/Light was brought forth from God before all the material substance of the universe and who then created the worlds that are visible and invisible.
LikeLike
Jim,
Regarding the WoF, actually your assertion is not correct. If you listen/read carefully, you’ll find that it’s all about “the anointing”. Jesus received “the anointing”, and it’s only in virtue of “the anointing” that He could do any miraculous works (As Johnson quotes “the Son can do nothing…”–taking John 5:19 out of context). And we are to do same. Sure, they’ll claim Jesus is “God”, but they make statements as Johnson does: He emptied Himself of divinity… In other words, they equivocate.
Yes, there’s a connection between 2 Cor 4:6 and Gen 1:3, but it’s clearly not a literal one. You wrote: It’s really not a stretch to say that this Logos/Light was brought forth from God before all the material substance of the universe and who then created the worlds that are visible and invisible. I won’t disagree with your statement on its face–unless you’re implying that Logos/Light is a created being.
LikeLike
When you say the connection is not ‘literal’, it depends what you mean. There is plenty of scripture that isn’t literal but we’re supposed to understand the non-literal connection nevertheless and make broader conclusions than the simple verses in isolation.
Again, meaning or definition is everything. When you write ‘created being’, are you doing so in the context of the universal creation, or another ‘form’ of creation, such as an emanation or a being brought forth from within God’s own being?
LikeLike
I wrote my “created being” statement to oppose the idea that the Son was created pre-creation.
As to 2 Cor 4:6 and its relation to Gen 1:3, I’ll let David Garland speak:
–David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC 29; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 216-218.
LikeLike
You didn’t make clear though what you mean by created. If, by ‘not created pre-creation’, you’re inferring that there was never a time the Logos wasn’t, then ‘creation’ per se becomes a moot point. Scripture however would indicate very emphatically that the Logos was brought forth from God incarnationally but also prior to the commencement of Genesis 1 creation.
I don’t think the commentary you quoted is very helpful. He seems confused as to the application of Paul’s reference to light. Initially he contextualises it within Gen 1:3, he then cuts to Paul’s conversion and brings in Isa 9. He doesn’t appear to have a settled view himself. I would suggest Paul knew the Gen 1:3 light was his glory displayed in the face of Christ who is the image of God. So that glorious light is most likely to have been the Logos in Paul’s view.
LikeLike
My position is that there was never a “time” the logos was not–we cannot speak about time in pre-creation, as time is only necessary in space, the latter a part of creation. Pre-creation was strictly eternity, “eternity past” as some would call it, absent any other good designation. As the agent of creation (John 1:3), the logos must predate creation. Because the logos “was God” (John 1:1c), logos is uncreated, and since time does not predate creation, we cannot place a temporal ‘time’ of the logos’ “generation”. At the incarnation the eternal Word/logos was “made flesh”, and this Word-become-flesh is the person of Jesus Christ.
OK, let me unpack 2 Cor 4:6 a bit. First, I’ll provide the most literal translation from the Greek text (I think the article, “the”, is important after “for”): For the God Who said, “out of darkness light will shine,” is the One Who shone in our hearts for the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face[/person] of Christ
For the God, Who said, “out of darkness light will shine”: This establishes the God in Whom Paul is speaking. Of course it’s the God of the OT (2 Cor 3:14), and when seen with the 2nd part of this statement, Paul is illustrating the continuity of old with the new, while simultaneously juxtaposing the old covenant with the new, this new covenant found in the face/person (prosōpon) of Christ. Paul is using a bit of double entendre here in that prosōpon is obviously meant to be compared to Moses (3:7; cf. 3:18—same word is used here), yet, at the same time, the word can mean “person”, which seems to me the best translation, if we have to pick one; however, knowing that the double meaning is important, and since most English readers wouldn’t see it otherwise, it’s probably best to render it “face”.
And just like God made light to alleviate darkness, God brought His Son who enlightens believers with the Gospel, and it is this light shining (the Gospel—4:4) in believers (jars of clay—4:7) that is to “persuade men” (5:11), for “now is the day of salvation” (6:2). Christ is the vehicle providing this light which is shining in the hearts of believers. No doubt John picks up on this motif in John 1.
Christ is the “image of God” and is also the “light”, which is the gospel (4:4-5), and this to be compared to the latter part of 4:6’s “the glory of God in the person/face of Christ”.
In Genesis 1:3, the most ‘literal’ translation (LXX—I looked at the Hebrew as well, which seems the same to me) would be: And God said, “Become light!”, and light came to be. The first verb is in the imperative—a command—so the exclamation point I think is appropriate (see ISV translation, e.g.). Continuing to verse 4: And God saw that the light was good; so, God separated the light from the darkness. The last part is more like ‘God put a separation upon the middle of (the) light and upon the middle of (the) darkness’.
That’s my 2.5 cents.
LikeLike
Sorry to revisit old ground, but back around Sep 9 we were discussing 2 Pet 1:1 and how you thought the verse lent support to God and Jesus as one entity.
Well, having taken another look here tonight: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_peter/1-1.htm there are a couple of other options. Given that all letter greetings clearly indicate a separation of God and Jesus, this one reading differently would be at odds with that general flow.
From the interlinear we could conclude that we have obtained a faith through the God of us and (separately) the saviour Jesus Christ. Or, we have obtained a faith through the God of us and (also the God of) Jesus Christ. The Father is referred to several times by Jesus and the writers as his God.
Either way, such a reading conforms with the theme of other letters’ welcome and does not infer God and Jesus are the one being in 2 Peter 1.
LikeLike
Notice the one article (tou) preceding “God of us and Savior Jesus Christ”. This indicates one entity. Tilting even more strongly this way is that hēmōn (“our”) precedes the kai (“and”). The grammar argues against your position. Moreover, just because Paul’s letters made a distinction in some way between “God” and “Christ Jesus”, does not mean that Peter must.
LikeLike
Except that, Craig, Peter was clearly a fan of Paul judging by 2 Pet 3:15-16 and wouldn’t contravene the consistent theological thrust contained in every letter introduction. In fact Peter seemed to clearly partition God and Jesus in his opening to 2 Peter as I think I have mentioned previously.
So although you can dismiss the alternative readings by appealing to grammar, I think this is a time that grammar cannot have total primacy in making sense of 1 Pet 1:1 in order to keep the consistency so evident in the early church’s articulation of one God and one Lord.
LikeLike
The two are not in opposition. Both affirm Christ’s deity.
LikeLike
Typo. I meant 2 Pet 1:1. You’re right. The two aren’t in opposition. Both affirm and confirm the deity of Christ but I don’t think a trinitarian understanding is where either are coming from. That much is clear from their letter salutations.
LikeLike
And look at 1 Peter’s salutation. It also doesn’t conform to Pauline usage. But more importantly, note that after beginning with “Jesus Christ”, Peter calls believers “God’s elect”, then goes on to state this was based on the “foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ by the sprinkling by His blood”. Does that not sound Trinitarian?
LikeLike
No, Craig, it sounds the very opposite of trinitarian; God the Father foreknew who would respond to his breath that sanctifies believers, who are called to obey Jesus. This non-trinitarian construct is confirmed by 1 Pet 1:3 – ‘Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!’
LikeLike
Jim,
“God” in “God’s elect” in verse 1 should be construed as YHWH plural, this ‘foreknowledge’ having occurred pre-creation (see Rev 13:8; 17:8). Verse 2 provides the soteriological (salvific) function of each member of the Trinity in the economy of salvation. Verse 3 juxtaposes “God the Father” with “Lord Jesus Christ”, as per the more usual formula. During the Incarnation, the Father was also Jesus’ ‘God and Father’, though God was “His own Father” (John 5:18) in a particular sense that is far above other humans (“I and the Father are one”). Some contexts speak ‘from below’, Christologically. Others speak ‘from above’, such as 2 Peter 1:1 (and Titus 2:13, John 1:1, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:15-20).
LikeLike
Craig, there is no obvious reason to construe ‘God’ in God’s elect’ as a plural YHWH. To do so is to simply make the next verse appear like an unpackaging of the plurality. If salvific function is in view here then God the Father’s role is ‘foreknowledge’. We know that’s not the case.
Indeed, the KJV doesn’t have ‘God’s elect’. It reads: Peter, G4074 an apostle G652 of Jesus G2424 Christ, G5547 to the strangers G3927 scattered G1290 throughout Pontus, G4195 Galatia, G1053 Cappadocia, G2587 Asia, G773 and G2532 Bithynia, G978
Elect G1588 according G2596 to the foreknowledge G4268 of God G2316 the Father, G3962 through G1722 sanctification G38 of the Spirit, G4151 unto G1519 obedience G5218 and G2532 sprinkling G4473 of the blood G129 of Jesus G2424 Christ: G5547 Grace G5485 unto you, G5213 and G2532 peace, G1515 be multiplied. G4129 (taken from Blueletterbible).
LikeLike
You wrote: ‘During the Incarnation, the Father was also Jesus’ ‘God and Father’, though God was “His own Father.” ‘ So despite saying that Jesus was still the entirety of the triune God whilst incarnated (Chalcedon), you make the distinction of separateness during his time in the flesh. It’s having your triune cake and eating it, surely. The two positions cannot co-exist.
If Jesus was the fullness ie all of God whilst on earth, why (more importantly, how) would we be faced with clear-cut verses stating God the Father (the triune God) is Jesus’s (the triune God) Father and God? Both Peter and Paul make this statement that the Father is Jesus’s God and do so post-resurrection, not looking back to the Logos made flesh period.
During his time on earth, Jesus the Logos enfleshed, was as aware of his divine status as he was aware of his pre-existence as the Logos. He didn’t communicate a different perspective of himself whilst on earth – that would be logically inconsistent. He knew he was from heaven, he knew he had been with his Father (and God), he knew he would return after his resurrection. If he had thought of himself as a different entity prior to being born to Mary, he would have said as much. We don’t get that messaging from Jesus. The son has always been the son. Any equality with God the Father is the same equality as the father declared over the elder son in the parable of the two sons in Luke 15:31 (I’m not equating the elder son with Jesus directly, simply using it as an example of a father operating as if the son has all he owns).
LikeLike
Jim,
This is a basic Chalcedonian understanding. God doesn’t sleep, yet Jesus slept. Man isn’t such that “in Him uphold all things” (Col 1:17) / and man cannot “sustain all things by [God’s] powerful word” (Heb 1:3). Jesus was “truly human”, yet Word-made-flesh was “truly God”. Jesus, as a man, worshiped God, yet as Deity He did not ‘worship Himself’, though incarnationally He remained obedient to the task.
There’s debate on the extent of Jesus’ self-awareness of exactly who He is while Incarnate. There’s lots of philosophical discussion on it. One well-known doctrine is the so-called extra calvinisticum, or “Calvinistic extra”, the basic position being that since God is spirit (by nature), then God in Jesus was not constrained by Jesus’ physical body. It is this understanding that permitted “the Son” to uphold/sustain the cosmos during Jesus’ earthly life. Just like we wouldn’t think the Holy Spirit is constrained by the individual Christians who are “sealed” (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13-14), the divine nature of Jesus was not constrained by His earthly body.
LikeLike
I’d like to pick up on your mention of Rev 13:8 and 17:8 regarding ‘pre-creation’. I don’t think that’s the correct chronological perception of what’s being said. This feeds directly into the definition of when the Logos enacts the things of creation and what we should take from those references in the old and new testament writings (such as John 1 and Col 1). I think the Greek and the various contexts make a sound case for the Logos coming from God as the initial Light during day 1, from whom all things* then became both created and ordered (kosmos – world).
I want to take some space to explain in more detail, so I need to collect my thoughts and get back to you on that aspect. Basically, I think that the scriptures clearly state the Logos is God-level divinity, is handed the creator’s role by God the Father, but I am somewhat shifting my stance on the Logos existing in ‘pre-creation’ (needs defining) timelessness, but without him being a created entity. More to follow soon I hope.
This is important – things are tangible objects or non-material systems/powers created from the pre-day 1 chaos and disorder.
LikeLike
‘Jesus, as a man, worshiped God, yet as Deity He did not ‘worship Himself’’
Doesn’t that duality go against the Chalcedonic grain? That council decreed that in Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, his two natures were neither confound nor divided. Surely his divinity came through in his thinking and speech. We’ve identified passages where Jesus makes claims only a divine, Godly being could make. But, he still calls God his Father. There has to be consistency otherwise we chop about not knowing whether this statement is from the man and this one from the Logos.
No. Jesus knew his status as the son of God, the Logos made human, and knew his position with respect to God the Father.
LikeLike
Just as Jesus necessarily “grew in wisdom” due to His maturing from boyhood to adult, His self-understanding of His Divine mission increased. To what extent, we only have Scripture to lead us.
In Jesus’ divine nature He is omniscient; in His human nature He has limited knowledge. Surely the former communicated to the latter, but only to the extent necessary for His ministry. This is just like the Word being omnipotent in upholding/sustaining the cosmos, while the Word-made-flesh is limited in power. I admit to being taken aback a while ago when I read one writer stating that he felt certain he could have beaten Jesus in one-on-one basketball.
LikeLike
Craig, I’ve been considering a number of interconnected issues with respect to the pre-incarnate Jesus (Logos) and when his being monogenetically begotten (understood as both ‘unique’ and ‘having come from’) might have occurred, with particular reference to creation as well. The primary texts I am using are Prov 8:22-30, John 1:1-14, John 17:5, Col 1:15-20, Heb 1:1-12, and 1 John 1:1-2. There are others I have no doubt. From the get-go, the Logos existing before becoming flesh and dwelling amongst man as Jesus is not in question. What I hope to show is that I think there are very clear scriptural indicators that the Logos was brought forth from God during the period that would be called day one after God had originally made the formless and uninhabitable earth. Therefore, he wasn’t in some timeless past, nor did he have eternality from that concept of (non) time.
Genesis opens with: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters’ (NIV). It doesn’t matter if the first sentence is the briefest of summaries, or it states what God did initially, the essential thing is that the initial act of creation was far from the finished article, which is described in 1:2. A quick word study of ‘tohu wa bohu in v2, which is usually translated ‘formless and empty’ more properly conveys the picture that the earth had a form and substance, but simply wasn’t ready for habitation. It was not yet fit for purpose. Isa 45:18 (and Jer 4:23) reflects this, ‘For this is what the LORD says, he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited – he says: I am the LORD, and there is no other’.‘
What seems evident throughout a study of when and what was founded at the beginning, and who did the founding links is that there are two creative acts with respect to the earth. The first is by God (the not-yet Father) who brings into being a dark, watery mass that cannot sustain life held within the ‘heavens’, so essentially newly created empty space-time. He then hands over the rest of the creative process to his Word or Logos who had to be brought forth from him. In Prov 8, Wisdom is speaking in the first person singular and appears to be recounting the creation account which was witnessed first hand. There is plenty of scholarly support to Wisdom being a metaphor or personification of the Word, so what creation was Wisdom a part of? Given the references to hills, fields, land, watercourses, seas, clouds and mountains it would not have been the initial formless, void creation. Indeed, in Prov 8:31 we read, ‘Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men.’ (KJV)
While it appears that Wisdom/Logos is simply witnessing and delighting in God’s creation, we know from the NT (Col 1 and Heb 1) that the Logos was doing the creating. How can this be resolved? I believe the Word was humbly glorifying the Giver of the authority that was being exercised through the Logos in the same way Paul knew that all the power and strength exhibited in and through him came from Christ (1 Cor 1:24, 2 Cor 12:10, Gal 2:20). His message is ‘yet not I’, just as Wisdom was saying ‘yet not I’ despite actually undertaking all creative activities. He deferred and gave glory to the equipper, empowerer and ultimate authority, being the Most High God. So, Prov 8 and Wisdom is congruent with a Logos brought forth to carry on the creation by ordering the uninhabitable ‘clay’, since Wisdom declares that she was there before and during the ordering and filling of the void, but that doesn’t necessitate existence before the tohu wa bohu earth.
From the NT perspective, that same secondary creation was the focus of the verses I referenced above. For instance, in Col 1 (quite apart from more references to Gen 1:3 light and darkness in v12-13) in v16 it would be easy to read ‘all things’ to include the initial formless earth and conclude that the Logos was in existence beforehand. But the ‘things’ are qualified later in the verse as being ‘thrones, dominions, principalities or powers’. So while there is some indication that Paul means objects, the primary emphasis in these verses is preeminence over powers. In verse 17, Jesus is ‘before’ everything, not chronologically but in authority; he is above all things is a better rendering. So Paul is stating that Jesus brought about all material and spiritual rulers, and in so doing is above them all. Verse 17 has the Greek word ‘synistemi’ that is translated ‘consist’ in the KJV and ‘hold together’ in the NIV. The meaning has roots in disparate parts being united or put together, in other words creating order from chaos, rather than an on-going sustainment of the universe by Jesus while in his incarnation. That’s not really what’s happening from Col 1:17. It’s more focussed on him who has been given a mandate from God to bring about life and orderliness. Heb 1:3 also mentions sustaining, but most uses of ‘phero’ are ‘bring’, ‘bring forth’ or ‘carry’. Given the context is all things again, it should be seen in terms of Paul’s ‘all things’ ie principalities and powers. This is backed up by the use of aion in verse 2 which is more usefully translated age, so rather than ‘universe’ (NIV) in material terms, God’s Son brought forth this age and all the systems and rulers within it.
This is reinforced in verses such as you mentioned in Rev 13:8 and 17:8, as well as John 1. In Rev we read ‘from the founding (or foundation) of the world’. So what is being founded and who is doing the founding? The ‘world’ is from Gr ‘kosmos’ which has a particular emphasis, especially in Johannine literature, of being the inhabitants of earth, the fallen nature of those peoples, and the concept of order and harmonious aggregation or constitution. Again, this can’t refer to the tohu wa bohu earth, but was the result of the Logos being given the creative reins by God the Father to bring into being a ‘kosmos’ fit for life in all its variety. John 1:10 states that although the kosmos was made through him (Jesus), it didn’t recognise him. So John is not talking about the lump of original matter. This again harks back to Paul’s declaration that all visible and invisible powers came from the Logos/Son, but the human visible ones did not recognise him for who he really was – the Son of God.
Therefore, the founding of the world is the point at which the Logos, brought into being from God, starts to make order from that which was uninhabitable, not the creation of the original watery ‘clay’ sphere. That was made by God, along with the space-time volume, and effectively given to the Word to form the kosmos. Finally to John 17:5, 24 when Jesus speaks of the glory he had before the world (kosmos) began or came to be. As long as the Logos was brought forth before the ordering of the unformed earth, then his words are being correctly understood. Here we circle back to 2 Cor 4:6 that the glory God had was shared by bringing forth the Logos, which is paralleled in Gen 1:3 when God spoke a Word and Light came into being. We know from 1 John 1:5 that God is light, so if the Logos is also his light, now displayed in the face of Christ, we have a joined up picture of unformed creation, light, then order.
In sum, there is strong evidence for the Word/Logos/Son to have been the light that God spoke into being from within himself. Darkness was pushed back. Having then given the Word full authority over the uninhabitable and empty earth and surrounding space, the kosmos came into being during the Genesis days of creation. One final point is when the invisible powers and thrones were created. Some have put forward a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 believing that the spiritual beings must have been made before the earth, which became a formless waste after a spiritual battle. This is all supposition. In Job 38:6b-7 we read: ‘or who laid its cornerstone – while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?’ The morning stars and sons of God are spirit beings who were witnessing the Logos creating the kosmos. Therefore, rather than being created between Gen 1:1 (as if that was the creation before this one), the angels and spiritual entities were made during day one by the Logos and proceeded to rejoice at the subsequent ordering and filling of the earth. That they don’t get a direct mention in Genesis is more to do with the narrative being about man’s history rather than the invisible realm’s.
LikeLike
Jim,
I won’t have time to fully read your comment until a bit later, so I’ll reserve any comment for now.
LikeLike
Jim,
I followed your argument, as I’d read something similar regarding Genesis, and I was familiar with some of the argumentation for Wisdom/Word from online conversations elsewhere. And, while I commend you for putting a lot of thought and effort into this, I cannot ultimately agree.
You wrote: What seems evident throughout a study of when and what was founded at the beginning, and who did the founding links is that there are two creative acts with respect to the earth. The first is by God (the not-yet Father) who brings into being a dark, watery mass that cannot sustain life held within the ‘heavens’, so essentially newly created empty space-time. He then hands over the rest of the creative process to his Word or Logos who had to be brought forth from him.
At this particular juncture, I don’t disagree with you until your “(the not-yet Father)”, though I do see your reasoning. One must understand Wisdom literature as poetic, of course, and I think we should be careful in making literal inferences. I remain unconvinced that Logos = Wisdom. I do think the Wisdom literature provides a backdrop for John 1, but not its basis.
You wrote: …But the ‘things’ are qualified later in the verse as being ‘thrones, dominions, principalities or powers’.
Since I just engaged with someone else on this very issue, let me just copy and paste what I wrote: Here’s how I view the light/darkness dichotomy in Paul’s epistle to the Colossians. There were apparently some false teachers espousing various doctrines centered around exalted beings, most probably angels. Thus, after Paul’s usual introduction and thanksgiving/prayer, he notes that believers are “in the kingdom of light” (1:12), having been rescued out of darkness (1:13). He uses this to preface his instruction to stay in the light and eschew the darkness, as some apparently had fallen into the latter.
After describing Christ’s supremacy over creation, stating that in Him all things were created (1:15-16a), He then specifically includes all powers and authorities, etc.—since He’d already rescued the Colossians from the powers of darkness (1:13) and this is used in pursuit of his larger point. He speaks of the sufficiency of the Gospel (1:21-23), before speaking of the “mystery” in Christ (1:25-27, 2:2-3), and this is set over against the false teachings he then speaks about (2:8), going back to what is entailed in Christ, culminating in another restatement of “disarming the powers and authorities” (2:9-15). Following this, Paul instructs them to not listen to those teaching abstinence from various things, in apparent pursuit of asceticism and the worship of angels (2:16-23), which were probably part of pagan “mystery” religions. And instead of falling for these “rulers”, let Christ ‘rule’ in your heart (3:15).
1:15-17 is an A-B-A form, with the B a subsection of the two As. Christ was able to rescue us from darkness to the kingdom of light, because He is Supreme over all (1:18), “whether things in earth or in heaven” (1:20) [reversing “things in heaven and on earth” in 1:16). Christ is firstborn [preeminent] over all creation (1:15, 17a), as agent of all creation (1:16e-f), and Christ is [later] firstborn among the dead (1:18) having been raised from the dead (2:12).
You wrote: … Verse 17 has the Greek word ‘synistemi’ that is translated ‘consist’ in the KJV and ‘hold together’ in the NIV. The meaning has roots in disparate parts being united or put together, in other words creating order from chaos, rather than an on-going sustainment of the universe by Jesus while in his incarnation…
You are both over- and under- reading this. On the former, the “roots” cannot be over-read into the context; this is to fall prey to the etymological fallacy. On the latter, the verb tense is in the perfect, which means a state of continuous sustaining/holding together—irrespective of the origination of the thing being sustained. Even Thayer’s lexicon—which is very out of date, though fine in this instance—defines the meaning in Col 1:17 as “to cohere, hold together”.
You wrote: Heb 1:3 also mentions sustaining, but most uses of ‘phero’ are ‘bring’, ‘bring forth’ or ‘carry’. Given the context is all things again, it should be seen in terms of Paul’s ‘all things’ ie principalities and powers. This is backed up by the use of aion in verse 2 which is more usefully translated age, so rather than ‘universe’ (NIV) in material terms, God’s Son brought forth this age and all the systems and rulers within it.
I’d already shown the outline of Colossians above, which doesn’t back up your limited “systems and rulers” to my mind. More importantly, one cannot necessarily import context from one text to another. The word pherōn is in reference to ta panta, “(the) all [things]” (1:2), which, yes, harkens back to aiōnas, “ages” (plural); and, while “ages” is ambiguous, “all things” seems to help define it. So, this is essentially parallel with Col 1:16-17: The Son is “upholding” (present tense = continuous action) “all things” (Heb 1:3) / the Son is “sustaining/cohering” (perfect tense = state of sustaining) “all things” (Col 1:17). But, can we be sure of what “all things” is?
Look at 1 Cor 8:6: There is one Father God from Whom came ta panta, and one Lord Jesus Christ through (dia) Whom ta panta came, and through (dia) whom we live. However, does this establish “all things”? Paul is comparing “so-called gods” to God, the God from Whom all things came. The idea seems to be that God precedes any kind of “god” or idol. So, this context is not decisive.
Let’s go now to John 1:1-3. We agree that verses 1-2 establish the Word’s relationship with God the Father “in the beginning”. When is “the beginning”? In 1:3 we find the now familiar panta (though without the article, which may not be of consequence) and dia. The verb used is ginomai, “to become”; so, “through Him all things come to be”. You could argue that this is sufficiently ambiguous.
In Colossians 1:16 the word for “was created” is ktizō. While this word means either created from nothing, or renewed, the latter doesn’t seem to fit this context. This same word is used in Rev 4:11, ho theos ho ta panta ktisas, “God, the One Who created all things”. Similarly, in Eph 3:9, apokekrymmenou apo tōn aiōnōn en tō̧ theō̧ tō̧ ta panta ktisanti, “hidden from the ages by/in (the) God, the One Who created all things”. Do none of these contexts point to creation before it was “formless and empty”. Do we have no verse in the NT that makes the claim that God created ex nihilo?
You wrote: …The ‘world’ is from Gr ‘kosmos’ which has a particular emphasis, especially in Johannine literature, of being the inhabitants of earth, the fallen nature of those peoples, and the concept of order and harmonious aggregation or constitution…
The word kosmos does not mean the above strictly in Johannine literature. As I’ve been studying John’s prologue this past week or so, I was immediately brought to John 1:10, in which this word is thrice used. It doesn’t mean the same each time, which is illustrated in the next verse by the grammar (I’ll save the specifics until I write about this, as I plan to do a series on John’s prologue). The second kosmos in 1:10 is paralleled with the second “His own”, with the former looking back to panta of 1:3 and the “His” in the latter referencing the pronoun “this One”, i.e., “the Word” of 1:3. In other words, He came to the entire kosmos (1:10), panta (1:3), in which He was agent of its coming-to-be, but the kosmos of people did not receive Him.
The verb used in John 17:5 is not came-to-be or began but is/exists (eimi). This is hard to render into English, but it’s an infinitive in the present. Very clumsily it’s like “had with you before the cosmos [came] to exist/be” (‘prior to the cosmos’ existence’). John could have used a different form of this same verb, ēn, “was”, which would have helped strengthen your case. As it is, it strengthens mine.
The bottom line is that I don’t see all this as enough evidence to posit a point in ‘time’ for the Son’s ‘generation’.
LikeLike
Thank you for taking the time to post a comprehensive response, Craig. I look forward to your piece on John 1.
LikeLike
One of the best discussions on the background or basis for John’s prologue is in Craig Keener’s commentary on John’s Gospel. Although not complete–some pages are omitted–if you go to Amazon and search “Craig Keener John”, you’ll find his commentary. Click on the “LOOK INSIDE!” feature and scroll to page 338 or thereabouts.
LikeLike
Jim,
Here’s part of Keener’s Commentary on John:
LikeLike
Thanks for the pointer, Craig. I note this from the Conclusion on page 363: ‘John’s choice of the Logos (embracing also Wisdom and Torah) to articulate his Christology was brilliant: no concept better articulated an entity that was both divine yet distinct from the Father.’
I couldn’t have summarised it better and that perspective has been mine all along. Perhaps we move in to more trinitarian territory later. I’ll read on.
LikeLike
Make no mistake, Keener is Trinitarian (over against Arianism–see my quotation at 7:45 am). The key is understanding that his acceptance of Wisdom and Torah are as backdrops, not as perfect analogies.
LikeLike
Pingback: Probing the Prologue in The Gospel According to John: John 1:1-2 | CrossWise
I’ve been reviewing a few creeds, Craig, and the Nicene Creeds. I would assume the 325 version is something of a struggle for trinitarians, and indeed intersects with the conversation in John 1:3-5. I’ll emphasise the possible bones of contention in caps.
‘We believe in one God, the FATHER, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is SEEN AND UNSEEN (vice the Logos cf Col 1). We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN of the Father (no mention of the Logos as opposed to Jesus of Nazareth)’
It does appear a bit confused with respect to the Logos, who created what and when, and has enough clear blue water between the Father and the one God and the Son to lead to further amendments and finally the Athanasian Creed.
The point being, how far does ‘truth’ need revising?
LikeLike
Jim,
But, you’re only quoting part of the Creed, and not looking to the Greek. The translation is amiss in at least one spot. Let me correct (in italics) the translation while putting the Greek in parentheses:
The Creed is not speaking of Jesus’ ‘begetting’ at all—it all pertains to “the Son of God”, aka the Logos. It doesn’t specify “visible and invisible” for the Son, but that’s implied in “both in heaven and on earth”, that is, those two statements are to be seen as parallel here. The 381 Creed moved “heaven and earth” to the Father, simultaneously shortening the statement for the Son, indicating the fact that they are co-Creators.
That’s not to say it couldn’t use and didn’t receive some tweaking in later Creeds.
LikeLike
The late Dr. Larry Hurtado really provided assistance in the making of my post here. Correctly determining “the Son of Man” was key. Here’s an older video on the subject:
My position, then, is Daniel’s description of one “like a son of man” was actually a prophecy about Jesus as “the Son of Man”. In other words, Daniel perceived Him as somewhat different than “a son of man”, therefore he used like a son of man. In other words, it’s not as though Jesus adapted the Jewish “son of man” (i.e. “human”) in a peculiar manner, He was stating this in prophetic fulfillment of Daniel’s “like” verbiage. That is, Jesus was much more than “a son of man”.
LikeLike
Craig, given your very thorough study into this topic, I wondered what your thoughts were about this short thread on the same subject. It uses a different focus on a Greek word in the text, and the posters have different views (one is the site owner). I thought I’d ask you which side you tended to support.
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/forum.html#/discussion/434/the-son-of-man-in-john-5-27-28
LikeLike
Jim,
Since the subject is about judgment, and the verbiage seems to echo Daniel 7:13, I think John’s point is that the Judge will be God AS God-man. Though I do see John as implicitly writing against Cerinthianism (and other unorthodox doctrines dividing His Deity from His humanity, and vice versa), I don’t we should read that into here. Thus, I think Chrysostom is wrong in this regard.
As for the grammar itself, though the OP’s (and Chrysostom’s) view seems plausible, I don’t think it fits the flow.
Interestingly, I’d been working on a post centering on Acts 17, but I’ve not had a chance to finalize it given the demands of work-related things. I’m hoping I’ll have some time this coming weekend to refocus on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person