Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries: Important Words

This post is an extension of Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries. Here we look at the color-coded words plus “Almighty” in the 381 Nicene Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [pantokratōr], Maker [poitēs] of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

And (we believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ—the sole-kin/kind [monogenēs] Son of God, begotten [gennaō] of the Father before all ages [aiōn], Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten [gennaō] not made [poieō], coessential [homo-ousia] with the Father—through whom all things came to be; Who, for us men [anthrōpos] and for our salvation, descended from heaven—enfleshed by the Holy Spirit, and of the virgin Mary—and became man [en-anthrōpos] . . .

Comparing Paired Words

Following are the color-coded terms from the Creed and reasons for their highlighting here.

God, the Father is the ultimate “Maker” (Poitēs) of all things, while the Son is the agent through Whom all things came to be. Accordingly, the Son is not “made” (poieō) but “begotten” (gennaō) instead, which means He is not a creature.

The Son is also “begotten” (gennaō) of the Father before all “ages” (aiōn), meaning ‘pre-time’. It is difficult to speak of ‘a time before time’ without using some sort of temporal category (before all ages); but the implication here is the Son was “begotten” in the eternal realm, as opposed to the temporal realm, thereby establishing His eternality. In other words, since time and space are an integral part of creation—and we have established the Son is “not made”—speaking in terms of Him ‘predating’ all “ages” is to express that an intrinsic trait of the Son is eternality.

The use of “before all ages” with “begotten” serves as a means by which to describe what is implied of the Word (ho Logos) in John 1:1–2: In the beginning was the Word. In the beginning the Word [‘already’] was. Stated more succinctly, ‘Before’ the creation event, the Son ‘alreadywas with God.

The Son of God became man (en-anthrōpos) when He was “enfleshed” (“became flesh”—John 1:14) “for us men (anthrōpos) and for our salvation”. The Son of God willingly condescended to take the form of man in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to become a sacrifice for us—a Divine mystery for the sake of humanity.

Who is ‘Almighty’?

God is “Almighty”. Jesus is God (the God-man). But can we say Jesus is “Almighty”?

The use of “Almighty” (Pantokratōr) in the very beginning of the Creed prompts this question.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [pantokratōr], Maker [poitēs] of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

This word “Almighty” is specifically applied to God the Father, but not to the Son. So, would it be proper to ascribe this same title to Jesus?

Pantokratōr (“Almighty”) is only found ten times in the New Testament. Nine occur in Revelation (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). The remaining one is in 2Cor 6:18, where it is sourced from the Old Testament (“LORD [YHWH], Almighty”). In Revelation most all instances are in the form “Lord God, Almighty”, except two as “God, Almighty” (16:14; 19:15) and one as “Lord God . . . Almighty” (1:8). This latter one is of special interest here. In the ellipsis is the same verbiage as Revelation 1:4: the One Who is, Who was, and Who is coming, which denotes a Divine Title (or Name)1 and is clearly a reference to God the Father in this context.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “Who is, Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty.”2

Moreover, the next occurrence of “Almighty” (4:8) also contains this same Divine Title (Name). Therefore, it would appear that the referent in 1:8 is also God the Father. This seems especially so given that the remaining instances of “Almighty” in Revelation all refer to the Father. And if we accept the implications of the language in in the 381 Nicene Creed (“one God, the Father Almighty”), then we should definitively conclude that 1:8 be understood as words of God the Father.

Yet in many ‘Red Letter’ Bible versions, these words are attributed to Jesus. These include: Amplified Bible, BRG Bible, 1599 Geneva Bible, International Children’s Bible, International Standard Version, Legacy Standard Bible, Modern English Version, New American Standard Bible, New American Standard Bible 1995, New Century Version, New International Version 1984, New King James Version, New Life Version, and the World English Bible.3 I contend these versions are in error, unless some strong evidence can be adduced to support such an interpretation.

Now, we must note that contained in Revelation 1:8 is the Title “the Alpha and the Omega” (cf. 21:6), which Jesus applies to Himself in 22:13. Moreover, Jesus also applies “the Beginning and the End” to Himself in 22:13, and this same Title is used by “the One Who sits on the Throne” (God the Father) in 21:6. In other words, there is quite a bit of overlap in the Titles of the Book of Revelation.

But then again, the Title (Name) the One Who is, Who was, and Who is coming is only ever applied to the Father.

Yet perhaps I’m missing a more solid connection to support attributing the words of Revelation 1:8 to Jesus? Thoughts or challenges?

________________________

1 See Not Declining the Divine Name?

2 It is possible the quotation ends just before says the Lord God: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, the One Who is, Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty. But this has no bearing on the issue at hand.

3 These are all found on BibleGateway, except the New International Version 1984, which I have a printed copy of. Following are among those Red Letter versions which do not use red lettering for Revelation 1:8: Christian Standard Bible, Common English Bible, English Standard Version, English Standard Version UK, Holman Christian Standard Bible, The Living Bible, New International Version, New International Version UK, and New Living Translation.

22 Responses to Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries: Important Words

  1. Thank you for continuing this series! I was curious did you do a study to see how often Pantokratōr was used in the LXX? I am out right now and while I have the Logos app, I can’t really do a word study at the moment. I was just wondering if the use of Almighty was in any way to tied to the OT’s understanding of Almighty?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Craig says:

      Sorry for my delay, Mandy; I posted this as I was walking out the door. And I was gone longer than anticipated.

      I decided not to study the occurrences in the LXX, as there are 171 of them (Swetes)! But mainly I think we can fairly well deduce the answer given: (a) its use elsewhere in the NT, and (b) its application in the Nicene Creed specifically to the Father.

      But to further complicate matters, the similar Greek word Sabaōth is found twice in the NT–once as OT citation (Romans 9:29), the other non-specific (James 5:4), with another 62 found in the LXX.

      I am curious as to the rationale behind those translating Rev 1:8 as the words of Jesus. In my NIV1984 Study Bible note it simply states:

      the Alpha and the Omega. The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. God is the beginning and the end (see 21:6). His sovereignty rules over all human history. In 22:13 Jesus applies this same title to himself. Almighty. Nine of the 12 occurrences of this term are in Revelation (here; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). The other three are in Ro 9:29; 2Co. 6:18; Jas 5:4.

      [And note that the Romans and the James references are NOT to Pantokratōr but to Sabaōth instead.]

      I think it telling that the NIV translators reversed this decision on newer versions.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Jim says:

    Hi Craig. Rev 1:4 seems to indicate that the Father, the Almighty, is distinct from Jesus Christ in verse 5, whilst still being the one who ‘is to come’. There is an ascending order of authority in the introductory verses underscoring what John is recounting in Revelation that culminates in verse 8. It seems reasonable to attribute verse 8 to the Father.

    This could have been the early church’s understanding that the finale of human history is summed up in 1 Cor 15:24 that in the Son handing back all that he had been authorised to do by the Father, to redeem humankind and do away with death forever, was as good as the Father coming back to fellowship with the resurrected as per Rev 22.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Jim says:

    Regarding the creedal statement of the Son being begotten before all ages implying eternality of existence is an area we should tread carefully.

    Firstly, the creeds, like all post-scripture writings are man-made vs God-breathed. That’s not to say they don’t contain truth, but we have to still weigh them against scripture and the contexts in which they were written. The creeds were the finalised declarations (until the next iteration) of doctrinal wrestling contests, often with strong religio-political debate and at times used to reinforce power and control. Whatever is not done in love is a clanging gong.

    Secondly, if the Son was begotten in pre-(our) time, then there’s no commencement or conclusion to his being begotten. He’s being begotten eternally. I would argue that ‘before the ages’ is the same as ‘before the foundations of the world’. The Gen 1 account starts with a chaotic singularity, from which the Father co-creates the ordered world through the agency of the Son. Hence, all things are made through, by and for him (the pre-incarnate Jesus).

    But, there’s not sufficient scriptural evidence to say the Son had to exist prior to Gen 1:1. The Father is fully and completely represented in the Son within time precisely because he is his agent to interact with mankind in time. Isn’t that why Jesus knew the order of things in John 14:28?

    None of that, in my understanding, denigrates the apex divinity of the Son or his incarnated self. Angels can be regarded by man as divine, but Heb 1:5 makes a clear distinction. No creature was begotten by the Father, only the Son, so he has the Father’s unique ’Almighty DNA’ as it were.

    Just some rehashed thoughts from our previous conversations on this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Craig says:

      See the first part of this series, Staying Within Proper Theological Boundaries. I scrutinize the Creed and make a comment regarding it via Oliver Crisp. Note how the Creed uses 1Cor 8:6 as its base text.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Craig says:

      Re your there’s not sufficient scriptural evidence to say the Son had to exist prior to Gen 1:1: Given your interpretation of what I’ll call a ‘pre-creation’, this implies something physical, which, as I recall, I used the term ‘play-doh’ to describe it. This necessarily takes up space, which means it must exist in time. Thus, if the Son (preincarnate Jesus) was the agent through which ‘all things came-to-be’, then the Son must ‘pre-date’ any sort of created thing. This is especially so, given the use of the stronger verb ktizō in Colossians 1:16 (cf. Rev 4:11), the verse implied in the Creed, and the verse you reference implicitly in your 6:27 PM comment.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Jim says:

    I’ll go back for another read. Thanks! Good posts by the way and hope you’re keeping well.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Jim says:

    But then we have to make sense of the previous verse Col 1:15 that he had a begetting as the Father’s first act after the ‘primordial globe’. Taking away powerful trinitarian pre-suppositions, the ‘spirit’ or ruach (breath) could be better described as the Father poised to speak, hovering in thought.

    I read Col 1:15-17 as pre-incarnate authority and v18 as incarnate. He created all that he is ruler over both visible and invisible. To me, it doesn’t have to include existing before what the Father brought into being (time and space) to correlate with Col 1 (cf Prov 8:22-22, 30) which is about the order he created with the Father.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Craig says:

      I’d have to do more than just a cursory exegesis, but from what I see Col 1:15 is a continuation of the thoughts in 13-14. Verse 15 actually begins with the relative pronoun “Who” instead of “He”, but most versions are trying to shorten Paul’s LONG sentence(s). See NASB here, in which this section begins at verse 13 (though I’d not begin a new paragraph at 15 as the NASB does): https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+1&version=NASB.

      The first part of verse 15 can be read as incarnational (the image–the “visible”–of the invisible God). Moreover, the word prōtotokos can mean “supreme” (or “premier”, or something to that effect) instead of “firstborn”–see the NLT (of all translations!). So, the latter part of verse 15 can be read incarnationally or pre-incarnationally, thus beautifully seguing into verse 16.

      In other words, a case can be made that 13-15 speak of the Incarnate Christ (though the latter part ambiguous). Thus 13-14 are pre-incarnate, while 15 provides a segue to the pre-incarnate. Then verse 18 reverts back to incarnational. If so, Paul brackets the incarnational around the pre-incarnational.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Jim says:

    Yep I take your point. To consider, Paul could have been referencing in v15 OT Christophanies as well as the pre and post-resurrected Jesus. In terms of visibility. Not altogether clear, although v18 is definitely post-resurrection physicality.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.