Oneness Pentecostals (OPs) have always struggled to explain the duality of activity and consciousness we see portrayed in Scripture between the Father and Son. The Father is doing one thing, while the Son is doing another; the Father knows all things, while the Son knows only what the Father reveals to Him; the Father is prayed to, while the Son prays. How can this distinction of activity and consciousness be explained other than in terms of multiple persons? Admittedly, that would be the most obvious and natural explanation. And yet, because we are persuaded that the Biblical affirmation of monotheism extends both to God’s essence and God’s person, OPs have sought an alternative explanation that is Biblically and philosophically sound.
The standard way of explaining the distinction of activity/consciousness between the Father and Son is to appeal to a duality of natures. The human nature of Jesus is said to do X, while the divine nature of Jesus (the Father) is said to do Y. On this account, Jesus’ prayers can be explained as the human nature praying to the divine nature. What I find interesting about this explanation is that it simply swaps the word “person” for “nature.” What Trinitarians refer to as “two persons,” we refer to as “two natures.” Functionally speaking, the two phrases are equivalent, for both admit the presence and distinction of two metaphysically distinct entities. On the Trinitarian view, there are two metaphysically distinct persons in communion with one another, whereas on the OP view, there are two metaphysically distinct natures in communion with one another. The only substantive difference is that on the Trinitarian view both entities are divine, whereas in the OP view one is divine and one is human.
The problem with the traditional OP explanation is two-fold. First, while OPs have tried to avoid the conclusion that God is “two persons,” they have ultimately turned Jesus into two persons. His human nature is understood as a separate person from the Father; a human person. In Jesus, then, there are two persons: one who is divine, and one who is human. But this is de facto Nestorianism. On this view, God did not truly become man, but merely came to dwell within a human person who is ontologically distinct from the divine person.
Secondly, natures are impersonal, and thus cannot be the source of personal activities such as thought and prayer. A nature just refers to a set of essential capacities demarcating what kind of thing someone or something is. Natures cannot think or act. Natures do not pray or speak; only persons are capable of doing these things, utilizing the capacities of their nature to do so. In attributing some activities to Jesus’ human nature, and others to the divine nature, we have reified natures so as to give them personhood. For OPs, natures have all the attributes and carry out all of the functions of persons, but we dare not call them “persons.” Given the fact that natures are impersonal by definition, the distinction of activity and consciousness between the Father and Son cannot be explained by an appeal to natures. Only persons are capable of doing what we see the Father and Son doing in Scripture. Does this commit us to the Trinitarian view, then?
No. We can make sense of the distinction of activity and consciousness between the Father and Son if we understand the one divine person to be conscious of Himself in two distinct ways: as God in His cosmic mode of existence, and as man in His human mode of existence. On this construal, the divine and human natures are not the locus of activity, but rather the cause of activity. In His cosmic mode of existence, the one divine person functions according to His divine nature, causing/allowing Him to be conscious of Himself and act in a divine manner. But in His incarnate mode of existence, the one divine person functions according to His human nature, causing/allowing Him to be conscious of Himself and act in a human manner. In each case it is the person, not the nature, who acts. The distinction of natures simply allows the one divine person to be conscious of Himself, and act in two distinct modes simultaneously.
November 16, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Very well put! I’ve never met a OP that really believes the Nestorian view. In my estimation when we say Jesus prayed as flesh its an attempt that because of his flesh existence Jesus prayed. Unfortunately I’ve never heard anyone put it quite like you just did. Thanks.
LikeLike
November 16, 2010 at 3:33 pm
cs,
Thanks. Personally, I’ve met plenty of Oneness Nestorians (I think it’s the most popular conception of Jesus). They believe Jesus is two persons, even though they would never use that term (they use “natures” instead). But it’s clear that they believe there are two centers of consciousness operating within Jesus: God and man. Jesus is the man who is distinct from God.
Jason
LikeLike
November 16, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Jason, I agree. I have discussed OP theology for years and Nestorianism is indeed a popular misconception of Christ. I have been discussing this issue lately with a trinitarian friend as well. Great points.
LikeLike
November 16, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Off topic.. sort of. I have been trying make some since of Romans 8:27
Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (nkjv).
My question is this, who is the “HE,” it seems contextually it was speaking of the Holy Spirit, until the “HE” is differentiated from “the Spirit”
Should “the Spirit” be understood, as our spirit (though all translations point to the HS). Vs. 16 does include “our spirit” within the surrounding context.
—–
While I know it would be tempting for a Trinitarian to make this about a distinction of persons, By making a case for a distinction between “He who searches the Hearts” with the “Mind of the Spirit,” it could be argued that this verse equates the “the Spirit” with “God[the father],” and that seems to be why some translation remove the second “he” and replaces it with the Spirit.
What are your thought?
LikeLike
November 16, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Might I suggest that Jesus is Gods Word and when you bend your knee to Jesus you are in Truth bending you knee to Gods Word not the man Jesus. Why do you think the declarations mabe by the Prophets started with “Hear My Word Oh Israel” ?
LikeLike
November 17, 2010 at 4:08 am
CJCook,
I think the context makes it fairly certain that “spirit” is referring to the Holy Spirit.
Jason
LikeLike
November 17, 2010 at 6:53 am
Thanks for this insightful article.
As I see it, the primary fallacy of Trinitarian thinking is its attempt to explain Deity in terms of and from the point-of-view of humanity. (Indeed, as you accurately point out, this fallacy leavens the teachings of certain segments of the OP arena.) What is being forgotten or overlooked by many is the fact that humanity was created in the image of God; yet, man persists in attempting to describe, define and understand His Creator — God, the infinte, eternal invisible Spirit — in wholly human terms. Such a feat is as incredible as it is impossible! We must remember that apart from supernatural enlightenment, we may only view the eternal through the limiting lens of time, and with our finite minds we may now only partly know (“know in part”) the unbounded reality of the infinite Deity.
Thanks again for your sound words! Keep up the good work.
LikeLike
November 17, 2010 at 7:19 am
Thanks Jason–going to have to chew on this for a while….never encountered this explaination for the dual nature of Jesus before. But it does make sense.
LikeLike
November 17, 2010 at 8:45 am
Who is contextually the “He” in your opinion? And is the “He that searches the Hearts” the same as “He makes intercession” or is that He a reference back to “the Spirit.”
Sorry if I am asking a lot of questions, just trying to wrap my head around the verse.
LikeLike
November 17, 2010 at 11:42 am
CJCook,
I understand “he” to be a referent to “God,” who is mentioned later in the same verse.
Jason
LikeLike
November 17, 2010 at 3:00 pm
So would you see it like this…
Now He [God] who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He[God] makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
This is where I am getting confused at, because the grammar does not make since to me, if I read it like that.
Now He [Holy Spirit] who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He [Holy Spirit] makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
That reading cannot be right, because “He” is being distinguished from “the Spirit” unless the spirit, was a reference to our spirit.
Now He [the Holy Spirit] who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit [human spirit] is, because He [the Holy Spirit] makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
It’s times like this I wish I could read Greek, am I just reading it wrong do the English rendering, should it just be…
Now He [God] who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He [the Holy Spirit] makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
That is how some translations translate it, but it doesn’t to fit into the context of the grammar.
LikeLike
November 17, 2010 at 3:54 pm
No, I think the second “he” refers to the Spirit. Clearly our own spirit cannot make intercession for us.
As for the Greek, it doesn’t make it any clearer. The second “he” in the English doesn’t come from a Greek pronoun (which is gendered, and if it was the neuter gender it would prove that it is referring to the Spirit), but from the Greek verb “entugchanei,” and verbs do not have gender. Just like in English, the referent must be understood from the context.
Jason
LikeLike
November 17, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I understand that our Spirit can’t intercede fore us, that why I was trying to figue out if the second “HE” is a reference to the first “HE” or “the Spirit.” It would seem if it was refereing back to the first “HE” that there is a possibility that the Spirit was not talking about the Holy Spirit. I am not trying to explain away the text but make since of its point.
To say the second “HE” refers to “the Spirit” makes it seems like Paul did not finishish his thought when he said
Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is….
Some translations have tried to fix this akwardness by placing a period there then turning the second “he” into The Spirit.
It seems Paul is trying to make a point about the “He who searches the hearts…”
Thanks for your input, I wish the Greek was more clear…
LikeLike
November 20, 2010 at 11:57 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
God Almighty is one being and one essence whom created for himself to work and publish his name and title in a garment of flesh and blood known as Son of God/Son of man. Scripture teach emphatically that God Almighty did not become a man neither does scripture teach that the Son of God/Son of man is still in function which is unscriptural.
Another thing we whom profess to follow the way of Holiness must certify our beliefs, practices, and doctrines by the scriptures alone and not by philosophy, precept of man or by an idea of man but by scripture alone.
May the God of all grace continue to shew unto you all the more perfect way called Holiness and grant you a desire to walk therein. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
November 23, 2010 at 4:15 am
Jason,
Has David Bernard ever responded to the charge of Nestorianism in writing? And if he has, where can I read his response?
LikeLike
November 23, 2010 at 8:46 am
Jason, I just re-read Romans 8:27. I agree. I also wanted to note the OT quotation underlying Paul’s words:
1 Chron. 2:9 NRSV
9 “And you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve him with single mind and willing heart; for the Lord searches every mind, and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will abandon you forever.
http://biblia.com/bible/nrsv/1Ch28.9
The Holy Spirit searches the hearts and so does the “Lord”. IMHO there is no solid reason for over-emphasizing the distinctions as trinitarian theology often does.
LikeLike
November 23, 2010 at 3:43 pm
CarolJean,
I’m not aware of anything off-hand.
Jason
LikeLike
November 23, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Jason,
In the pre-NT wisdom literature (eg, Proverbs, Wisdom, Sirach), wisdom is personified as a divine entity. Add in Teacher of Righteousness/Jesus and you have three divine persons. But recognize the need to hammer these new ideas into monotheism and you get Trinitarianism. Three persons who cannot be one, but who must be one.
Arthur
LikeLike
November 24, 2010 at 9:27 am
Jason,
There is a discussion about this blog post going on at CARM and I would like clarification of your last paragraph. Are you asserting that the divine person has one divine consciousness and one human consciousness and is able to function through both consciousnesses simultaneously and independently? Does consciousness = person? Why or why not?
LikeLike
November 24, 2010 at 11:34 am
Jason, thanks for this article. It reiterates some points from previous articles you’ve written on this topic. This by far is the best explanation I have heard of the theology of God. Certainly it is not the last word on it as our understanding will continue to grow as God sees fit.
From some of the responses, I can see there is still resistance to explore some of these ideas further as people tend to hold to some previous understanding. I would even say there is a little “fear” in rethinking some positions such as trinitarianism or the traditional OP position (Nestorian). There was even one individual on this thread that accused you of being outside the bounds of scripture because you were using “human” means such as philosophy !!
This fear is understandable as many feel their faith is threatened or that they may offend God in some way. I think the exact opposite is true. I believe that the Lord is happy when we explore these questions in order to understand him more, and that our faith will be enhanced as well. We need to get out of denominational-type thinking.
I just want to encourage you to continue to share your thoughts as I believe the Lord is leading you in these things.
Naz
LikeLike
November 29, 2010 at 4:27 pm
CarolJean,
Yes, I am claiming that the one divine person is conscious of Himself in two distinct ways simultaneously: as God (Father), as man (Jesus). As for describing these consciousnesses as “independent,” I would not do so because the word connotes ontological separateness. I think “distinct” captures my thought better as I don’t see these two modes of consciousness as being identical, or separate. They are ontologically connected in virtue of being grounded in the same person, and yet the two modes of consciousness are distinct because they have their source (not sure if this is the best word) in two distinct natures: the divine mode of consciousness has its source in the divine nature, and the human mode of consciousness has its source in the human nature.
No, consciousness does not equal “person.” While persons are conscious beings, and while a single person normally has a single mode of consciousness, I see no reason to think it is metaphysically impossible for a single person to have more than one consciousness. As a matter of historical fact, however, I think God is the only person who possesses more than one consciousness. Why? Because God alone possesses two natures. Persons are conscious of themselves according to their nature. Normally a person only possesses one nature, and thus they are only conscious of themselves in one way. In the incarnation, however, God assumed a second nature (a human nature), and thus He can be conscious of Himself as God, as well as be conscious of Himself as man. I’ll say more on this in a bit.
In response, one might raise the uniqueness objection: “We have no experience of a single person with multiple modes of consciousness, and thus there is no reason to think this is actual or possible.” I would make three points in response. First, just because something is unique does not mean it is not possible/true/real. Other than God, we have no knowledge of or experience with beings who are eternal, omniscient, and omnipotent, but clearly that does not make the existence of a singular being with such properties impossible. God is unique, but God is real.
Second, Trinitarians should be slow to raise this objection given their own unique metaphysical claims about the nature of God. They claim God is three persons in a single being, even though our universal experience is that the number of persons is always equal to the number of beings being considered (so that if there are three persons there are three beings, or conversely if there are three beings there are three persons). So the uniqueness of my metaphysical construal of God’s consciousness no more counts against its veracity anymore than the uniqueness of a tri-personal being counts against the veracity of the Trinity.
Third, it is our universal experience that a single substance/being has a single nature, and yet that observation does not stop both Trinitarians and Oneness adherents from agreeing that God (or in the case of Trinitarians, the 2nd person of the Trinity) alone has two natures. If we can accept the possibility of a single person having two natures even though such is metaphysically unique to God, why reject the possibility of a single person having two modes of consciousness on the grounds that such would be metaphysically unique, particularly given the fact that the latter is grounded in the former? It is the metaphysically unique dual nature of God that causes the metaphysically unique dual consciousness of God. Because God alone possesses two natures, God alone possesses two modes of consciousness.
Lest there be any confusion, I am not claiming that each nature is conscious, but rather that the properties of each nature allow God to be conscious of Himself in two distinct ways. And because He possesses both natures simultaneously, He is able to be conscious of Himself in two distinct ways simultaneously.
Jason
LikeLike
November 29, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Arthur,
Yes, wisdom (and even the logos) was personified as a person, and identified as divine, but wisdom/word was not understood to be a distinct or separate person from God. The key word is personification. It is a poetic device, not an ontological description.
Jason
LikeLike
November 29, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Naz,
Thank you.
Jason
LikeLike
December 2, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Jason,
Is a divine person different from a angelic person? Is an angelic person different from a human person? And what are the differences? Are the differences something that is inherent within each of these persons or is it something other than the person, himself, that is used to make these distinction?
LikeLike
December 2, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Hello Jason,
This is faithdlo (John). Got a quick question for you: it seems that your are intimating that consciousness is a property or attribute of “nature,” not “person,” otherwise we would have to conclude that Jesus was/is two metaphysical persons, right?
Or did I misunderstand you?
Thanks,
John
LikeLike
December 9, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Hello,
Just a thought. When I die and go to heaven I will have two natures or consciousness of two lives. I will have a consciousness of my life on earth and I will also have a consciousness of my new life in heaven. This new life in heaven will be in the Spirit. While my old life on the earth was in the flesh. Jesus on the other hand was living both at the same time when he was on the earth. This is what I believe to be the two natures of Jesus.
Charles
LikeLike
December 17, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Hello Mr. Dulle,
Have you ever considered engaging in a moderated debate over these and other issues pertaining to the Godhead?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 1:23 am
Michael,
Yes, I have, and I do not favor the idea. Theology proper and Christology are so complex, and require so many issues to be clarified that I don’t feel the topic can be adequately addressed in the short time allowed for a debate. I’ve never seen a truly productive debate on the topic. Both sides just try to score points and do a lot of proof-texting without making any real progress. The surface is barely scratched when the buzzer goes off.
Jason
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 1:25 am
CarolJean,
I am wading into deep metaphysical waters here, and perhaps I am in over my head, but here is how I understand it:
A person is an immaterial substance. I think this holds true for every instance of a person, whether we are talking about God, angels, or humans. The kind of person one is, however, is defined by their nature (and by nature I mean the sum total of properties that define the kind of thing the substance is). God has a divine nature (a set of properties unique to deity), and thus God is a divine person. Angels have an angelic nature (a set of properties unique to angelic beings), and thus angels are angelic persons. Humans have a human nature (a set of properties unique to human beings), and thus are human persons. All of us are persons, but the kind of person we are is determined by our nature.
Jason
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 1:34 am
John,
Good question. No, consciousness is a feature of persons. Natures are not conscious. What I am saying is that one person is conscious of Himself in two distinct ways, made possible by the fact that He has two natures. We are, and we are aware of ourselves as whatever we are by nature. Humans are conscious of themselves as humans since they have a human nature. Since God possesses two natures, He is able to be conscious of Himself as both man and God simultaneously. The nature is what makes this possible, but the nature itself is not what is conscious. The person is conscious.
Jason
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 1:37 am
Charles,
What you have described is simply memories. It only takes one mode of consciousness to remember events you experienced on earth and to be cognizant of events in heaven that you experience now (a future “now”). But a consciousness is being aware of yourself. God is aware of Himself as a self in two distinct ways: human, divine. That’s very different from mere memory.
Jason
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 5:37 am
It seems to me that the error of Oneness Pentecostals who attempt to affirm Chalcedon is that they accept the enhypostatic aspect of the Reformed view, but then simultaneously reject the anhypostatic aspect. That is, they affirm that the human nature of Christ is personal, and yet the reject that that personhood belongs to the Son.
Instead of affirm the anhypostatic-enhypostatic view, you and others have posited that in the incarnation the unitarian God came to exist as man while simultaneously existing as God, but that because the human person is human, they are capable of a subject object relationship with God. It is a grave error in that it is double speak. To say that the only personal agent in the Son is the unitarian God, and to say that the Son communicates with that unitarian God is untenable.
Honestly, while I appreciate your attempt to put forth a cogent explanation for the subject object communication, I feel it is a logically impossible endeavor. Also, there seems to be an inconsistency in your own writings (that is, the various articles @ OP.com)so far as whether or not you wish to affirm two persons or not. Perhaps this is due to an evolution of your position?
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Michael,
I would not agree that the human nature of Christ is personal. Natures are abstract entities. Natures need to be instantiated in persons. In the case of Jesus, the human nature was instantiatd in the person of God rather than in an ontologically distinct human person.
All I am claiming is that in the same way the addition of human nature to the divine person allowed Him to exist in two distinct ways (as God, as man), the additional nature He assumed also allowed Him to function in two distinct ways (as God, as man).
I should point out that even a Trinitarian like Garrett DeWeese holds a similar view to me, but applies it to the 2nd person of the Trinity. He writes: “[T]he voluntarily constrained divine mind, restricted to operating through a human nature and a human body, just was a human mind. … The ‘human mind’ of Christ refers to the mode of operation of the mind of the Logos functioning within the constraints of (voluntarily limited by) Jesus’ human nature and the organs of a human body. At the same time, the mind of the Logos, functioning gloriously and perfectly according to the divine nature, never sleeps, never ceases to be omniscient. Bur rather than constituting two minds, we should understand the human mind as sort of a limited subset of the divine mind.” (Garrett J. DeWeese, “One Person, Two Natures: Two Metaphysical Models of the Incarnation,” in Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology, eds. Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2007), 145-6.)
DeWeese has a single person with two modes of consciousness: one divine, one human.
As for an evolution in my thought, it is constantly evolving, but I have never held that there are two ontological persons involved and I can’t think of anything on OP.com that would provide contradictory message in this regard. What I have always maintained is that one person is conscious of Himself in two distinct modes because of the duality of His natures. The modal distinction is so real and thorough, that functionally speaking it is as though the Father and Son are distinct persons, but ontologically speaking both modes of existence/consciousness are grounded in the one and self-same divine person, so it would not be proper to speak of two persons.
Jason
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 4:13 am
So a mind and a will are not axiomatic to a human nature? While we are speaking of an abstract concept, because we speak of humanity there are still certain boundries grounded in the reality of who we are and what we know. A nature constitutes that which makes something what it is, and to be human is to have a human will and a human mind. A constrained divine mine is still a divine mind. Such a concept would preclude the truthfulness of this text (and others):
Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Michael,
Mind and will are features of persons, not natures. Granted, the kind of mind and will one has is determined by their nature, but the function of mind and will belongs to the person.
As for divine and human minds, not only would I disagree with you, but so would Sanders (I won’t quote him again). So this isn’t a Trinity vs. Oneness disagreement per se. Where the disagreement comes is whether one considers mind to be part of nature or person. Since whatever belongs to the nature Jesus must have two of, if mind belongs to nature then Jesus must have two minds (one divine, one human). But surely it is problematic to claim that Jesus has two minds! Christ only has one mind – the divine – but because the divine person/mind is existing and functioning through the attributes inherent to human nature, the divine person/mind is the functional equivalent of everything it means to be a human person/mind. Indeed, to say a person’s mind is “human” is just to refer to its nature. All it means to say that one has a human mind is to say one is a rational being with/of a human nature. Since the divine person/mind possessed human nature, and functioned via human nature, Christ’s mind was truly human in every way. I think the following way of saying it captures my point best: Christ’s one mind is divine in its ontology, but fully human in its functionality/epistemology.
Jason
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Michael,
I wanted to say a bit more about the human mind of Christ. I want to be absolutely clear that I believe Jesus’ mind was human. The question, however, is what makes a mind human. I argue that one’s nature determines the kind of mind one has. God’s mind is divine because He has a divine nature (collection of divine properties). Humans’ minds are human because we have a human nature (collection of human properties).
Normally, a person only possesses one nature, but in the incarnation YHWH brought into union with Himself a second nature—a human nature—so He could personally exist as man via the capacities of the human nature, all the while remaining God (seeing that He retained His divine nature). What makes Jesus fully human, then, is the same thing that makes us fully human: we possess a complete human nature. In the case of Christ, however, the person who possesses the human nature is not a separate person from the divine person, but rather the divine person Himself.
God did not assume a human mind, but rather God’s Mind became “humanized” in virtue of the properties He acquired in His assumption of human nature. Indeed, because persons are defined by their natures, in assuming human nature God became everything it means to be a human person/mind. In other words, a human mind is not something God assumes, but something He becomes in virtue of what He assumed: human nature. Ontologically speaking, Christ’s mind is to be identified with the divine mind, but functionally speaking, because the divine mind exists and functions via the attributes of His human nature in Christ, Christ’s mind is fully human. So while I deny the presence of an ontologically separate human mind in Christ, I affirm the presence of a functional human mind, because the divine soul in Christ has been fully “humanized” by its assumption of human nature, and thus truly became a human mind.
Jason
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Actually, the onus of dispoving the historically accepted notion of a duality of minds is entirely on you and your movement. While you may find it appealing to point to Sanders (someone who has not a few curious theological novelties attached to his name), you must agree that this issue has long been understood and affirmed by the vast amount of Protestantism, save the Lutherans who assert of Theanthropic mind.
While you are certainly within your rights to call a duality of minds within Christ problematic, I’d remind you that we ought not disobey the clear teaching of Scripture on the basis of philosophical convenience. I’d rather put my money on affirming that which clearly jives with Scripture,is patristically affirmed (check out Melito for ex), and historically held by biblical Christianity. In addition, I think you discount the importance of the “union” of those two natures and it’s consequences. Many problems can be easily addressed using the union as an apparatus while affirming His singular personhood (one conscience, etc)
While I find certian points of DeWeese’s position interesting, especially the implications related to the Imago Dei, a limited “independent” subset of the divine mind is still a divine mind and not a human mind. We do not have a limited subset of the divine mind, and therefore neither does the Son. Can you really say that to be like us in all ways, yet without sin supports the notion of a purely divine, albeit limited, in Christ? Apples and oranges, as that which is divine is ontologically separate from that which is human.
Your statement “the disagreement comes is whether one considers mind to be part of nature or person,” seems to implicitly redefine the word nature. This is really a slight of hand in that you assume that nature only refers to the human being and not the human person.
So far as your second comment, it seems to me that you are attempting the benefits of affirming a genuine human mind, while both in your former comment and this one, you affirm a divine mind only. A “humanized” divine mind is still divine, and not human.
So too, a “humanized” divine mind and the existence of a divine monad cannot in any logical way carry on a subject-object relationship, let alone an eternal one as seen in the Scripture. It is this, which ultimately leads to my main problem with your tradition; the denial of the eternality of the Son.
Also, since your communicating with me, how do you reconcile the timing of the incarnation of Phil 2:5-11 given your exegesis as posted on OP.com. While it was a refreshing read from a Oneness Pentecostal, the article seems to condemn the Oneness doctrine of God.
LikeLike
February 10, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Michael, did you think so much of your own statements that you need to post them on a forum as well (Carm)? Silly behavior. I think you mean conscious though not “conscience”. You are under some false delusion that Jason is saying Oneness is Trinitarianism. Of course it doesn’t accept all of the Reformation doctrines of Christ. But, as you point out you don’t even agree with other Trinitarians. Are we to be surprised? The Oneness of God has always referred to One God and One Person.
LikeLike
March 11, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Michael,
I have a million irons in the fire, so I apologize for the delay in responding. I have to make this quick. Other irons are melting!
It comes down to one’s metaphysics and anthropology. If one understands “mind” to be an attribute of nature as the church fathers seem to have thought of it, then one must affirm that Christ has two minds since he has two natures. This does not threaten the singleness of Christ’s person because mind is not identified as the person. But if one understands “mind” to equal a “person” as I do, then to say “mind” resides in nature is to say Christ has two minds, which is to say Christ is two persons. Because I am committed to the singleness of Christ’s person, I conclude that mind does not belong to nature—minds possess natures. If you can provide me good Biblical and philosophical reasons to think mind is a subset of nature or an attribute of a person, I would gladly change my position. But I think the evidence favors the opposite idea.
I am not denying Scripture. I fully affirm that God Himself became man. Jesus is the person of God in human existence, not a separate person from God working in conjunction with the divine person/mind. You say “A ‘humanized’ divine mind is still divine, and not human.” It is divine in identity, but fully human in function. There is no functional difference between Jesus’ mind and our mind. That makes Jesus fully human. If, to be considered human, Jesus had to be ontologically identical to us, then Jesus would have to have a person/consciousness ontologically distinct from the divine person as well since all humans are ontologically distinct persons from God. Nobody would allow for that because they understand that this would undermine the Scripture’s teaching that Jesus is God Himself. I think the same is true of Jesus’ mind since I understand mind to refer to the person.
I disagree that I am redefining nature. I don’t even know how to make sense of your claim that I think nature only belongs to the human person, and not the human person. What’s the distinction you are making? Jesus is one person with two natures. The natures refer to the attributes that make a kind what it is. The person is the conscious, thinking subject.
I don’t see any eternal relationship between Father and Son in Scripture.
You write, “So too, a “humanized” divine mind and the existence of a divine monad cannot in any logical way carry on a subject-object relationship.” Why not? If God is existing in two different ways, and conscious of himself in two distinct ways, why couldn’t there be communication between His two modes of existence? Just saying it is not possible doesn’t make it so.
You say we deny the eternality of the Son. You are either mistaken, or just speaking the obvious, depending on what you mean. If you are trying to say we deny the deity of Christ, then you are mistaken. We believe the personal identity of the Son is YHWH Himself, who is clearly eternal. If you are trying to say we deny that there exists a divine person called “Son” who is eternal and distinct from the Father, then you are right, but that goes without saying. What else would it mean to believe God is a single person like we do? The question is why that would be problematic. Obviously it would be a problem to deny the deity of Christ, but how is it problematic to deny that His deity is an eternally distinct person from the Father? I deal with this a bit more at http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/deitychrist.htm.
I’m not sure what you are referring to in your statement about Phil 2:5-11.
Jason
LikeLike
May 15, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Jason,
“Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I speak to you I do not speak on My own. The Father who lives in Me does His works.”- John 14:10
How would you reconcile this statement against Nestorianism? I was thinking that since the Holy Ghost is the Father of Jesus Christ, Jesus is referring to the Holy Ghost as the Father. The Holy Ghost and the Father God are both spoken of as the Father of Jesus Christ. So if they are separate Persons, which one is Jesus’ real Father? Anyway, Jesus is saying that He is doing this by the anointing of God. Since the Father, who dwells in Him and gives Him life is also the Spirit that anoints Him. Jesus listens to the voice of the Father and teaches and works miracles only by the Spirit of God and never by Himself. I think my understanding is a little rusty but I agree with what you’re saying…
LikeLike
July 11, 2012 at 7:01 pm
If possible, I would like to debate this subject. I am neither Trinitarian, Binitarian, or Oneness. I do not believe Jesus is the Almighty God but is God’s first creation (Prov. 8:22-30, Col. 1:15, Rev. 3:14).
LikeLike
July 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Dylan,
Yes, on its face Jn 14:10 does lend itself toward Nestorianism. When Scripture speaks of God being in Christ, it is not suggesting that God merely occupies “space” in the man Jesus. Other passages indicate that God’s presence in Christ goes beyond a mere indwelling. For example, John says “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). While “in” could be interpreted to mean a moral/functional union, ”become” implies something much greater; i.e. an ontological union. We must understand the former in light of the latter. When Scripture speaks of the Father as being “in Christ,” it is not attempting to explain the metaphysical realities of Christ’s person, but rather the functional reality of the incarnation. It is a simple way of expressing the truth that God was working in and through Christ, because Christ’s humanity was God’s humanity by virtue of the incarnational becoming and hypostatic union. Jesus is God’s existence as a human being.
Jason
LikeLike
July 29, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Jesus is called the firstborn of God because He is the one preeminent over creation. Also, the Word is not wisdom, but the expression of God. You are interpreting the word Logos based on Greek theology. The Word has always been held by the Jews to be God’s expression, not first creation. The Greek behind, “In the beginning was the Word,” is “En arce en ho logos”, which means “In the beginning, the Word was already there.” The Word is also called God in John 1:1 and revealed to be Christ in 1:14. Jesus also claimed to be God several times (John 5:18; John 8:58; John 10:30-33) and was referred to as God by the Apostles and never corrected (John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13; II Peter 1:1). Jesus also flat out claimed to be El Shaddai several times in Revelation (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 2:8; Revelation 21:5-7). Jesus is YHWH Shaddai.
LikeLike
August 5, 2012 at 8:23 am
Dylan,
In regards to Colossians 1:15 –
Colossians 1:15-17 – who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted. (YLT)
Colossians 1:15-17 – ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἄρχαι εἴτε ἐξουσίαι• τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται• καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν,
I hope to present the varying views on this and get down to the basics as to what the “firstborn of all creation” constitutes and what this verse is saying.
Some of the chief views on this verse that I will be analyzing include, but are by no means limited to:
a) Jesus is being identified as God’s first creation (Unitarian/Arian)
b) Jesus is being identified as one holding pre-eminent status because he created everything (Trinitarian/Binitarian and other God-man associated dogmas)
c) Jesus is the firstborn of creation because he became a man (consistent in Oneness view some forms of Trinitarianism)
d) Jesus was exalted to the firstborn of creation and Colossians 1:16-17 is describing how he holds a pre-eminent rank among creation (Radical Unitarian/Socinian)
e) Please notify me about other views on this subject
Cracking down the genitive.
In Colossians 1:15, we see the formula – πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως – which, if interpreted in a strictly literal sense would read as follows:
“firstborn all creation”
The reason why we read “firstborn of all creation” is because this is in genitive form. There are various rules of the genitive.
From – http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/classify-genitive.htm
“J. Genitive of Source – Sometimes the genitive case indicates the source from which the head noun is derived or depends. The word ‘of’ could instead be translated ‘out of’, ‘derived from’, or ‘dependent on’. This use is relatively rare; rather source is often shown with the preposition ejk used with the genitive case.”
Since there is no ἐκ after “firstborn” we can safely strike this.
From – http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/classify-genitive.htm
“C. Possessive Genitive – Showing the ideas of ownership or possession. To see if it is the Genitive of Possession, try substituting the word ‘of’ with ‘belonging to’ or ‘possessed by’. However, this use does not have to indicate actual, physical ownership of some property. It may be a broadly defined type of ownership. This is a very common use of the genitive. A possessive pronoun will often be used in the genitive case to show possession.”
If this is the case used in Colossians 1:15 then Jesus is owned by creation.
Romans 16:16 – Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you. (NKJV)
Matthew 16:18 – And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (NKJV)
From – http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/classify-genitive.htm
“E. Partitive Genitive (“Wholative”) – The genitive substantive (preceded by the article) can indicate the whole of which the head noun is a part. The word ‘of’ can be substituted the words ‘which is a part of’. This use of the genitive requires the head noun to in some way imply or indicate ‘portion’. E.g ‘piece of pie’, ‘some of you’, ‘a tenth of something’, etc. It will often be found with the Greek words ti”, e{kasto”, and ei|”. This is a fairly common use of the genitive in the New Testament.”
If this is the case (which will now be demonstrated) Jesus is the firstborn of creation that he is apart of.
From – http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/classify-genitive.htm
“I. Genitive of Comparison – This use of the genitive almost always comes after an comparative adjective (like ‘more’, ‘less’, ‘greater’, etc.). The customarily used ‘of’ translated with the genitive should instead be translated ‘than’. It is a relatively common use of the genitive case.”
Hence, why we see in the New King James Version…
Colossians 1:15 – He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (NKJV)
But this would not be in perfect harmony with the rest of the context.
Colossians 1:16 – ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἄρχαι εἴτε ἐξουσίαι•
The word ὅτι is not a comparison, it is a causation. He is the firstborn of all creation because of…etc. Therefore, this translation of the genitive is debunked by this Greek authority’s analysis!
In Psalm 89:27, “firstborn” is being used of David in this sense. Thus, “pre-eminent” status is also another variation of what “firstborn” means.
Psalm 89:27 – Also I will make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. (NKJV)
However, David is still part of the group of that which he is pre-eminent over so even if this is the case used in Colossians 1:15, then it still indicates that Jesus is the firstborn as part of the group that he is over. It also would be the first time in the Scriptures in which the genitive is used of “firstborn” in this way.
The following are a list of examples where the pre-eminent one is part of the group that it is pre-eminent over.
Genesis 4:4 – and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, (NRSV)
Exodus 13:13 – But every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a sheep; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. Every firstborn male among your children you shall redeem. (NRSV)
Exodus 13:15 – When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from human firstborn to the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every male that first opens the womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.’ (NRSV)
Numbers 3:41 – But you shall accept the Levites for me—I am the Lord—as substitutes for all the firstborn among the Israelites, and the livestock of the Levites as substitutes for all the firstborn among the livestock of the Israelites. (NRSV)
Numbers 3:45 – Accept the Levites as substitutes for all the firstborn among the Israelites, and the livestock of the Levites as substitutes for their livestock; and the Levites shall be mine. I am the Lord. (NRSV)
Numbers 3:46 – As the price of redemption of the two hundred seventy-three of the firstborn of the Israelites, over and above the number of the Levites, (NRSV)
Numbers 3:50 – from the firstborn of the Israelites he took the money, one
thousand three hundred sixty-five shekels, reckoned by the shekel of the sanctuary; (NRSV)
Numbers 8:16 – For they are unreservedly given to me from among the Israelites; I have taken them for myself, in place of all that open the womb, the firstborn of all the Israelites. (NRSV)
Deuteronomy 12:6 – bringing there your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and your donations, your votive gifts, your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and flocks. (NRSV)
Deuteronomy 12:17 – Nor may you eat within your towns the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, the firstlings of your herds and your flocks, any of your votive gifts that you vow, your freewill offerings, or your donations; (NRSV)
Deuteronomy 14:23 – In the presence of the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose as a dwelling for his name, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, as well as the firstlings of your herd and flock, so that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. (NRSV)
Deuteronomy 15:19 – Every firstling male born of your herd and flock you shall consecrate to the Lord your God; you shall not do work with your firstling ox nor shear the firstling of your flock. (NRSV)
Nehemiah 10:36 – also to bring to the house of our God, to the priests who minister in the house of our God, the firstborn of our sons and of our livestock, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of our herds and of our flocks; (NRSV)
Colossians 1:18 – He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. (NRSV)
Revelation 1:5 – and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, (NRSV)
And thus, this can be translated in either the possessive, partitive or the comparative genitive but is more than likely here translated in the sense of partitive. If it was to be possessive than Jesus would be owned by creation. If it was to be translated in the comparative, it would be the only time. Leaving us with the partitive.
Option (b) is immediately thrown out. Now let’s examine the other positions. I want to have a look at option (d) a little bit first because this would be getting on the right track to analyzing option (a) and option (c).
Option (d) is summed up as follows:
According to this view, Colossians 1:16 is talking about the destruction of all principalities and powers and Christ’s conquering them. There are a lot of things going for it. Christ is made the firstborn heir because he destroys these. It is set up as a seeming perfect scenario but there is one critical thing wrong. Let’s have a look.
Colossians 1:13 – who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; (ASV)
Hebrews 2:13-15 – And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold, I and the children whom God hath given me. Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Colossians 2:15 – having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (ASV)
Ephesians 6:12 – For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual [hosts] of wickedness in the heavenly [places]. (ASV)
Romans 8:38 – For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, (ASV)
1 Corinthians 2:7-8 – but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, [even] the [wisdom] that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory: (ASV)
Ephesians 3:3-10 – how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; [to wit], that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of that grace of God which was given me according to the working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things; to the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly [places] might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, (ASV)
It really isn’t quite a stretch.
Colossians 1:16 – for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; (ASV)
“all things” here in this section is obviously talking about the list that Paul mentioned. “thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers”.
However, it still wouldn’t be accurate.
Colossians 1:16 – ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἄρχαι εἴτε ἐξουσίαι• τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται•
Where ἐκτίσθη is strictly referring to creating, shaping, forming, or making and it would simply not be harmonious with a “destructive” idea here.
So then is it calling him the firstborn of creation in the sense that he was incarnated and became a part of creation (option (c))? But then who was the firstborn of creation before this happened?
Genesis 27:36 – And Esau said, “Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright, and now look, he has taken away my blessing!” And he said, “Have you not reserved a blessing for me?” (NKJV)
Genesis 25:34 – And Jacob gave Esau bread and stew of lentils; then he ate and drank, arose, and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright. (NKJV)
Genesis 27:32 – And his father Isaac said to him, “Who are you?” So he said, “I am your son, your firstborn, Esau.” (NKJV)
Thus, Esau still recognized he was firstborn in that he was born first but also Jacob had the firstborn rights because Esau gave them to him. So is there another firstborn of God’s creation somewhere?
Does this fit in with the context?
Colossians 1:19-20 – For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (NRSV)
At first, this likes a powerful argument. All the fullness of God was pleased to dwell and through him God reconciled humanity back to himself. But it has nothing to do with the firstborn of creation. It is talking about the firstborn of the dead.
Colossians 1:18 – And himself is the head of the body — the assembly — who is a beginning, a first-born out of the dead, that he might become in all [things] — himself — first, (YLT)
The context of Colossians 1:15-17 is talking about created order while the context of Colossians 1:18-20 is talking about Christ as the firstborn of the dead and other firstborn titles he will eventually hold. Therefore, taken in immediate context, firstborn of creation must mean the similar to firstborn of the dead and what Paul’s indication as to what it means for Jesus to be firstborn of the dead. Likewise, firstborn of the dead is dealing with the incarnation. Let’s now examine position (a) and see if this is what Paul is conveying.
Some may argue that Jesus being the image of the invisible God demonstrates that it is referring to the incarnation, however, it seems more likely that it is referring to creation.
Let’s analyze.
Colossians 1:15-17 – who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted. (YLT)
Colossians 1:15-17 – ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἄρχαι εἴτε ἐξουσίαι• τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται• καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν,
Breaking it down we have εἰκὼν, ὅτι, and πρὸ to deal with.
εἰκὼν is in reference to a prototype of which it not merely resembles but from which it is drawn (Helps Word-studies). It is practically a stamp or a model. We see it used in 1 Corinthians 11:7.
1 Corinthians 11:7 – For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (ASV)
1 Corinthians 11:7 – Ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλὴν εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων• ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν.
The Septuagint of Genesis 1:27 reads as follows:
Genesis 1:27 – καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς
Genesis 1:26-27 – Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NASB)
And thus, we see that Christ as the image of God demonstrates that this passage is referring to creation, not incarnation.
Colossians 1:16 – because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, (YLT)
Here we see ὅτι which indicates causation. Why is Jesus the firstborn of all creation? It is because all things were made ἐν or “by instrumentality” of Christ. Some will contend that “all things” is referencing “absolutely everything”. If this was the case, why does Paul go and make a list? When we see “all things” and then a list of things following, there can be no doubt that “all things” is referencing the list. In this case, “all things” is thrones, lordships, principalities, and authorities.
“That panta in use of powers and dominions being spoken of are limited can be seen from the following application: The first man Adam was given dominion over — “all things” — and seeing that God “subjected all things to him, he left nothing that is not subject to him.” And yet, in actuality, not all things in the whole universe was subjected to man, but relative scriptures show what is included in the all that was subjected to man: the earth, the land and its animals. Spirit beings also, being a step higher than man, also have power, as given to them by God. (Genesis 1:26,28; Psalm 8:5-7; Hebrews 2:5-8.)”
http://defending.reslight.net/?p=45
Colossians 1:17 – and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted. (YLT)
Unfortunately, for those that would refer this to rank, πρὸ does not refer to rank but time. And thus, Christ came before all things (thrones, lordships, principalities, and authorities) in time.
As we can see, it is because of this that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation.
What does Paul mean when he says “firstborn of all creation”? It definitely means he thinks that Christ is the first created being.
Colossians 1:15 – He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; (RSV)
Colossians 1:15 – ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
Something overlooked is Paul’s comparison to Jesus’s status over the dead!
Colossians 1:18 – He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. (RSV)
Colossians 1:18 – καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας• ὅς ἐστιν [ἡ] ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων,
And again, Christ’s status as firstborn from the dead makes him apart of those that have died.
So what does Paul mean when he says Jesus is the firstborn from the dead?
1 Corinthians 15:20-23 – But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. (RSV)
Paul is denoting order of all to be raised from the dead to a new life. Christ is the first to be raised from the dead. The first in order or firstborn (πρωτότοκος).
Thus, Paul’s usage with the word πρωτότοκος is to indicate an order. This rule has now been established, so likewise has the genitive been deducted and the various different interpretations analyzed and it all comes down to this.
The rule is that when Paul uses πρωτότοκος, he is implying an order. Something that is first to be in that category. And thus, Paul’s usage of πρωτότοκος in Colossians 1:15 demonstrates Christ to be the firstborn of all creation and hence, the first being created.
Two more verses indicating that firstborn can definitely mean “first in time”.
Matthew 1:25 – and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. (NKJV)
Luke 2:7 – And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. (NKJV)
Written to refute proto-Gnosticism?
Some argue that Paul writes this to refute a proto-Gnostic heresy and that, by necessity, he was demonstrating that Jesus was in fact fully God and fully man since the Gnostics denied the possibility of something that was God could ever be truly a man. However, this form of proto-Gnosticism was more a form of Gnosticism which taught that you needed elements of “secret knowledge” that which you could not acquire from a lay level of understanding. Paul refutes this by demonstrating that Christ is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), was the mystery of God revealed (Colossians 1:27), that in Christ you can find wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3), and that when we look at Christ, we see the fullness (πλήρωμα) of God (Colossians 2:9).
LikeLike
August 5, 2012 at 8:30 am
In regards to Proverbs 8 –
Proverbs 8:22-31 – Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; Then I was by him, [as] a master workman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men. (American Standard Version)
Proverbs 8:22-31 – ‘Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being. The deep was not, when I was born, nor were the springs with their abounding waters. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world. When he fixed the heavens firm, I was there, when he drew a circle on the surface of the deep, when he thickened the clouds above, when the sources of the deep began to swell, when he assigned the sea its boundaries — and the waters will not encroach on the shore — when he traced the foundations of the earth, I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence, at play everywhere on his earth, delighting to be with the children of men. (New Jerusalem Bible)
Proverbs 8:22-31 – “Lord Jehovah created me at the beginning of his creation and from before all of his works.” And before the world he was possessed by me, and from the beginning, before he would establish the Earth. Before the depths would be, I was born, and before there would be waters in the springs. And before the mountains would be established, and before the hills, I was formed in the womb. Before he would make the Earth and the floods and the beginning of the dust of the world When the Heavens were established, I was with him, and when he made a circle over the face of the depths. And when he empowered the clouds from above and when he strengthened the springs of the depths, When he set the law of the Sea and the waters would not disobey his mouth, when he made the foundations of the Earth, I was fashioning with him; he was rejoicing in me everyday, and I have been rejoicing before him always. I have been rejoicing in the world of his Earth and I have been glorying in the sons of man. (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
Proverbs 8:22-31 – “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth, before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man. (English Standard Version)
Proverbs 8:22-31 – The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the sons of men. (Revised Standard Version)
Proverbs 8:22-31 – “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. When there were no watery deeps I was brought forth as with labor pains, when there were no springs heavily charged with water. Before the mountains themselves had been settled down, ahead of the hills, I was brought forth as with labor pains, when as yet he had not made the earth and the open spaces and the first part of the dust masses of the productive land. When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep, when he made firm the cloud masses above, when he caused the fountains of the watery deep to be strong, when he set for the sea his decree that the waters themselves should not pass beyond his order, when he decreed the foundations of the earth, then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men. (New World Translation)
Albert Barnes comments:
“A verse which has played an important part in the history of Christian dogma. Wisdom reveals herself as preceding all creation, stamped upon it all, one with God, yet in some way distinguishable from Him as the object of His love Proverbs 8:30. John declares that all which Wisdom here speaks of herself was true in its highest sense of the Word that became flesh John 1:1-14 : just as Apostles afterward applied Wisd. 7:22-30 to Christ (compare Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3).
Possessed – The word has acquired a special prominence in connection with the Arian controversy. The meaning which it usually bears is that of “getting” Genesis 4:1, “buying” Genesis 47:22, “possessing” Jeremiah 32:15. In this sense one of the oldest divine names was that of “Possessor of heaven and earth” Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:22. But the idea of thus “getting” or “possessing” involved, as a divine act in relation to the universe, the idea of creation, and thus in one or two passages the word might be rendered, though not accurately, by “created” (e. g., Psalm 139:13). It would seem accordingly as if the Greek translators of the Old Testament oscillated between the two meanings; and in this passage we find the various renderings ἔκτισε ektise “created” (Septuagint), and ἐκτήσατο ektēsato “possessed” (Aquila). The text with the former word naturally became one of the stock arguments of the Arians against the eternal co-existence of the Son, and the other translation was as vehemently defended by the orthodox fathers. Athanasius receiving ἔκτισεν ektisen, took it in the sense of appointing, and saw in the Septuagint a declaration that the Father had made the Son the “chief,” the “head,” the “sovereign,” over all creation. There does not seem indeed any ground for the thought of creation either in the meaning of the root, or in the general usage of the word. What is meant in this passage is that we cannot think of God as ever having been without Wisdom. She is “as the beginning of His ways.” So far as the words bear upon Christian dogma, they accord with the words of John 1:1, “the Word was with God.” The next words indeed assert priority to all the works of God, from the first starting point of time.”
Let’s assume Athanasius’s perspective…
So Jesus was not always God? This is an important fact that Trinitarians forget!
If this is simply referring to a point in which the Father makes the Son chief, then the Son was not always the Supreme Ruler of the Universe!
Matthew Henry in his commentary writes:
“Christ, as Wisdom, calls to the sons of men. (1-11) The nature and riches of Wisdom. (12-21) Christ one with the Father, in the creation of the world, and rejoicing in his work for the salvation of man. (22-31) Exhortations to hear Christ’s word. (32-36)”
This is definitely true. The writers of the New Testament always identified Christ as God’s Wisdom or Word.
John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (RSV)
1 Corinthians 1:24 – but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (RSV)
Revelation 19:13 – He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (RSV)
In the Hebrew, חוֹלָ֑לְתִּי which is here (in Proverbs 8:24-25) identified as an act of bringing forth. When we think of an act of bringing forth we think of a creative act.
Hebrews 1:5 – And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (RSV)
Again, we see in the Greek, εἰσαγάγῃ, an act of bringing forth, introducing. A creative act. When something is brought forth into somewhere, it indicates that it was not always there. When Wisdom says it is brought forth here, it is being brought into an area in which it once was not and therefore created!
Coffman writes:
“That the passage most certainly carries the most significant overtones of Jesus Christ himself is undeniable, although it falls short of being a prophecy. It is primarily a personification of Wisdom; and that pinpoints the stupidity of the Arian heresy that tried to challenge the Divinity and Eternal Existence of Christ upon the basis of a personification, a personification that does not pretend to say even one word about Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, Christ is most certainly in it; and there is nothing here that, in any sense, contradicts the New Testament revelation concerning either our Lord Jesus Christ or the acceptance for generations of the teachings of Christian theologians who have applied many of the things written here to Christ.”
Well that’s a little bit stupid. He says that Christ is not in it but then proceeds to say that he is in it. This looks really great on an intelligence quotient level.
Let’s demonstrate that this is being applied to Christ and then we will demonstrate that it is also calling Christ a created being.
Both are active in creation.
1 Corinthians 8:6 – yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (RSV)
Proverbs 8:30 – then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, (RSV)
Both are Wisdom.
1 Corinthians 1:24 – but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (NKJV)
Proverbs 8:1 – Does not wisdom call, does not understanding raise her voice? (RSV)
Both are birthed or begotten.
John 3:16 – For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (NKJV)
Proverbs 8:24-25 – The deep was not, when I was born, nor were the springs with their abounding waters. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; (NJB)
Both are with God before the world was made.
John 17:5 – And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (ASV)
Proverbs 8:30-31 – Then I was by him, [as] a master workman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men. (ASV)
The ultimate question is should קָ֭נָנִי be translated “created”. We know that it can be. But should it?
There is significant reasoning to suspect that it should.
Proverbs 3:19-20 – Jehovah by wisdom did found the earth, He prepared the heavens by understanding. By His knowledge depths have been rent, And clouds do drop dew. (YLT)
If Jehovah made the earth by wisdom, then he had to have acquired it at some point in time. If Jehovah acquired wisdom, then the wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31 cannot be another aspect of Jehovah himself but has to be personified and therefore Christ.
Alan Lenzi writes:
“In both 8:22–31 and 3:19–20 Yahweh is the agent of creation. Indeed, Yahweh is the focus (at least at first in 8:22–31), marked out by the fact that his name appears as the first word in each text. Because of its interest in the origins of Wisdom, 8:22 immediately moves on to elaborate on the second word in 3:19, בְּחָכְמָ֥ה. In 3:19 this word denotes the instrument of God’s creative activity, whereas in 8:22 it identifies the object of God’s activity: Yahweh acquired me, that is, Wisdom. This statement probably reflects a logical step back behind the statement in 3:19. Proverbs 8:21, in essence, speculates, “if God used wisdom in the creation process as is asserted in3:19, then there must have been a time when God acquired wisdom.” Thus, the assertion is made in 8:22 that Yahweh acquired wisdom. This acquisition, the text continues in the rest of v. 22, is to be understood as the first, prerequisite (?) step, apparently, to God’s other creative activity (רֵאשִׁ֣ית דַּרְכֹּ֑ו קֶ֖דֶם מִפְעָלָ֣יו). In addition to this relative priority to the other deeds of Yahweh, the text also emphasizes in vv.22–23 the absolute chronological priority of God’s acquisition of wisdom using the terms מֵאָֽז, מֵ֭עוֹלָם,
מֵרֹ֗אשׁ מִקַּדְמֵי־אָֽרֶץ. This absolute chronological priority may be seen also as a logical extension of 3:19; that is, the text conjectures that if Yahweh were to have acquired wisdom before creation to use during creation, and this was to be understood as his first act, then the acquisition must have occurred in the very remote past. (I will suggest yet another facet to understanding this unparalleled pile of chronological lexemes below.)”
http://pacific.academia.edu/AlanLenzi/Papers/1165945/Proverbs_8_22-31_Three_Perspectives_on_Its_Composition
Proverbs 8:24-25 – In there being no depths, I was brought forth, In there being no fountains heavy [with] waters, Before mountains were sunk, Before heights, I was brought forth. (YLT)
Proverbs 8:24-25 implements the same Hebrew word, חוֹלָ֑לְתִּי, used of David in Psalm 51:5 where the effect bears the notion of David coming into existence.
Psalm 51:5 – Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me. (YLT)
Birth is often times synonymous with creation in the Bible.
Psalm 139:13 – For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. (NKJV)
Job 10:11 – Clothe me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews? (NKJV)
Genesis 4:1 – Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.” (NKJV)
Deuteronomy 32:6 – Do you thus deal with the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you? Has He not made you and established you? (NKJV)
Isaiah 43:1 – And now, thus said Jehovah, Thy Creator, O Jacob, and thy Fashioner, O Israel, Be not afraid, for I have redeemed thee, I have called on thy name — thou [art] Mine. (YLT)
Isaiah 43:7 – Every one who is called by My name, Even for My honour I have created him, I have formed him, yea, I have made him. (YLT)
Isaiah 43:22 – And Me thou hast not called, O Jacob, For thou hast been wearied of me, O Israel, (YLT)
Isaiah 44:2 – Thus says the LORD who made you And formed you from the womb, who will help you, ‘Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen. (NASB)
The Hebrew word וְיֹצֶרְךָ֥ for formed used in Isaiah 43:1 is the same exact word implemented in Isaiah 44:2.
There can be no doubt that if the notion in Proverbs 8:22-31 was to identify that Wisdom was brought forth, then Wisdom must have been created. And if Wisdom is personified here, than it is the pre-existent Christ speaking. The spokesman for Yahweh.
– I am NOT basing my interpretation off of Greek theology.
LikeLike
August 5, 2012 at 8:33 am
For the proper translation of John 1:1 go to the following:
http://seekgodstruth.com/nogjohn1disprovestrin.html
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinitarian-trickery-John-1-1.html
http://defending.reslight.net/?p=6
LikeLike
August 5, 2012 at 8:37 am
In regards to John 5:18 –
In this rebuttal, I am going to play several different tricks on http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john5-18.htm seeing as they think this is irrefutable and am actually going to state that yes, Jesus was claiming equality with God. But does this make him God? And in what sense are the two equal?
This is an argument of fallacious reasoning beyond comprehension where the one making the argument doesn’t even believe their own ideologies half the time.
On their website, http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-subordination-christ.htm they will assert that Christ was most certainly NOT equal in every degree to the Father while he was on earth.
If this doesn’t net them in the loony bin just yet, the Athanasian Creed that they say they reject, actually does in fact agree with their position and, also, does not affirm that Christ and God are equal in every sense.
“Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.” – Athanasian Creed
Here’s an interesting question to ask a Trinitarian – was he God when he said this or was he man when he said this? They have no idea how to respond in the full context of this verse.
He says so plainly…
John 14:28 – Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I.
Does being someone’s equal make you that someone? Not even Trinitarians believe this.
John 5:18 – For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
Trinitarians like http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-subordination-christ.htm believe that the Son is equal to the Father in some degree but not in every degree. If Jesus’s claim to be equal to God in John 5:18 means that Jesus is God then when a Trinitarian asserts that Jesus is equal to the Father, they would have to assert that Jesus is the Father, otherwise, they are inconsistent.
Trinitarians will always state how these contradictions that I point out are really not contradictions at all but rather mysteries of God that no human can understand. My reply to that is – no, they are contradictions, but since God never contradicts himself, then the contradiction is with the theology, not with God. We would hope that Trinitarians can start thinking through some of these things a little bit better and ask themselves about some of the plain statements made by Christ.
So if, in Trinitarian theology, the Father and Son are equal in some sense, then how can a Non-Trinitarian Subordinationist like myself fit this verse into my theology?
Answer: they are equal in what they own.
Matthew 11:27 – All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Matthew 28:18 – And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
John 10:29 – What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.
John 16:15 – All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
1 Corinthians 15:25-28 – For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.
Hebrews 1:2 – but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.
Again, it is these declarations of Jesus’s where things are given to him and not the Jewish mobs that make the Jews angry. As demonstrated again and again, they wanted to kill him because of what was his.
Matthew 21:38 – But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.’
This is why also Jesus was able to consider himself Lord of the Sabbath.
Mark 2:28 – so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.
It is because he had been given authority over it. He had also been made Lord.
Acts 2:36 – Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.
Again, even in the totality of the dialogue, Jesus does not compare himself as God’s equal in every sense but in only what they own.
John 5:19 – Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doeth, these the Son also doeth in like manner.
John 5:22-23 – For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son; that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him.
To honor the Son as the Father is not to honor them as co-equals but rather, as IF Jesus was the Father because he is the Father’s co-regent. This is demonstrated by 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, Philippians 2:9-11, and Revelation 5:13-14. Again, the fact that he has been committed all judgment, demonstrates that he is not the Most High God who had committed all judgment to him. The thought is further harmonized by another analysis.
John 5:26 – For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:
John 5:26 demonstrates that Jesus is not eternal and therefore, God is his life source. Further demonstrating that he is not self-existent, and therefore, created.
This thought ideology is in perfect harmony with…
Colossians 1:13-16 – who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
Again, they are co-regents, equal in what they own, but not equal in nature or in being.
John 5:30 – I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Therefore, they are equal in what they own but not equal in nature or in being. Even a Trinitarian has to surrender at some point and admit that they really do not believe the Father and Son are equal in every which way.
LikeLike
August 5, 2012 at 8:38 am
In regards to John 8:58 –
I am first going to present a list of verses that present Jesus as claiming pre-existence, and demonstrate why this view point is adequate and also as to what the significance of pre-existing before Abraham was to the Jews.
• The United Bible Societies Hebrew New Testament has ani hayiti “I was” not ani hu “I am”.
• George R. Noyes, Unitarian – The New Testament (Boston, 1871). “Before Abraham was born I was already what I am” and (in the 1904 edition) “I was”
• The Twentieth Century New Testament (TCNT) supervised by J. Rendel Harris and Richard Francis Weymouth (Britain, 1900). “I have existed before Abraham was born”
• James Moffatt, The Bible A New Translation (New York, 1935). “I am here – and I was before Abraham!”
• J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed An American Translation (1935) “I existed before Abraham was born!”
• The New World Translation (1950, 1984) “before Abraham came to be, I have been.”“From before Abraham was, I have been”
• J. A. Kleist S.J. and J. L. Lilly C.M., Roman Catholic – The New Testament (Milwaukee, 1956). “I was before Abraham”
• William F. Beck, Lutheran – The New Testament in the Language of Today (St. Louis, 1963). “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born”
• Kenneth N. Taylor, The Living Bible (Wheaton, 1979). “I am from before Abraham was born!”
• The poet Richard Lattimore, The Four Gospels and the Revelation (New York, 1979). “I existed before Abraham was born”
• ed. Stanley L. Morris, The Simple English Bible (1981) “I was alive before Abraham was born”
• C. B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People (Nashville, 1986).
This, incidentally, is another thing that Trinitarians need to work out because:
Jesus was claiming to be a man before he said this.
John 8:40 – But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God: this did not Abraham.
Jesus and God have two different names.
Proverbs 30:4 – Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son’s name? Surely you know!
John 17:11 – “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
John 12:28 – “Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.”
John 5:43 – “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.
Revelation 3:12 – ‘He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore ; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.
(Does God have a God?)
This demonstrates that the name of God belongs solely to the Father and only the Father has the right to distribute it to those enacting as his agents as honorary representation.
Genesis 18:1-3 – And Jehovah appeared unto him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the earth, and said, My lord, if now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Exodus 23:21 – Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him.
Hence, Jesus could not have been claiming God’s name as his own name.
Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but is the servant of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Acts 3:13 – The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied before the face of Pilate, when he had determined to release him.
Jesus said the Father (not the Father, Son, and holy spirit) was the God of the Pharisees.
John 8:54 – Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God;
A self-existent being does not live because of someone else or has life in himself granted/given to him.
John 5:26 – For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself:
John 6:57 – As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.
Jesus was created by God!
Proverbs 8:22 – The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
Colossians 1:15 – He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;
Revelation 3:14 – “And to the angel of the church in La-odice’a write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.
The Greek rendering of eimi:
John 8:58 – εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς• ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.
2 Corinthians 12:11 – Γέγονα ἄφρων, ὑμεῖς με ἠναγκάσατε. ἐγὼ γὰρ ὤφειλον ὑφ’ ὑμῶν συνίστασθαι• οὐδὲν γὰρ ὑστέρησα τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων εἰ καὶ οὐδέν εἰμι.
In the Aramaic Bible, the verse reads
2 Corinthians 12:11 – Behold, I was stupid in my boasting, because you compelled me, for you were indebted to testify for me because I lacked nothing of those Apostles who greatly excelled, even though I was nothing.
Of course, one would often argue how this would be significant to the Jews if Jesus was only claiming mere pre-existence. Well, consider this. If Jesus simply said “Before Abraham was I AM!” how would this be significant? It is almost like saying “Before Abraham was God!” No duh? Did the Jews need to be informed that God existed before Abraham? I don’t think so. Let’s look at the context of the claim.
John 8:53 – Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?”
John 8:56-57 – Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
They are asking Jesus two things here.
1) Whether or not he thinks he is greater than Abraham.
2) How could he see Abraham if he isn’t even fifty years old.
Jesus answers both by simply stating that he pre-existed Abraham.
In Jewish tradition, a claim of pre-existence puts you in greater or superior status to someone.
John 1:30 – This is he of whom I said, “After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’
Jesus is simply greater than Abraham on account that he existed before Abraham. Putting yourself above Abraham is a big no-no.
They also asked him who he claimed to be. Well, who did he claim to be? The Messiah.
John 9:22 – His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.
Like John 10:30, John 8:58 also contains the same exact level of humor when it comes to the Trinitarian approach. Jesus goes from being a man to God to man again. Almighty God does not run away from his creatures.
John 8:59 – So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
LikeLike
August 5, 2012 at 8:40 am
In regards to John 10:30 –
John 10:24-39
Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ‘? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.
Trinitarian argument number 1 examined.
Jesus is quoting texts that originally were spoken by Yahweh.
Psalm 95:7 – For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, And the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice:
They compare this to John 10:27. Again, this does no damage to the argument that the Father (not Jesus) is making Jesus out to be a god.
Jesus was placed in power as shepherd. God spoke by the means of Christ.
Ezekiel 34:20-24 – ‘Therefore thus says the Lord God to them: “Behold, I Myself will judge between the fat and the lean sheep. Because you have pushed with side and shoulder, butted all the weak ones with your horns, and scattered them abroad, therefore I will save My flock, and they shall no longer be a prey; and I will judge between sheep and sheep. I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them–My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and My servant David a prince among them; I, the Lord, have spoken.
Hebrews 1:2 – has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
The second Trinitarian argument is that Jesus has quoted Deuteronomy 32:39.
Deuteronomy 32:39 – ‘Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.
See? Jesus quoted this in John 10:28! Proving he is very God! Only God can give eternal life too!
As will be presented throughout the course, the only correct way of understanding Jesus’s claim in John 10:30 is that he has claimed that the Father (not he) is making him out to be a god.
Response:
There is no reason to believe that God cannot give someone else he chooses authority to give life to others. In fact, Jesus claimed that God DID give him authority to do so!
John 17:2 – as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
The fact of the matter is that Jesus plainly said that the Father had delivered these into his hand.
John 10:29 – My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.
And we know that when Jesus says “greater than all” here, that this is indicative that he too is included in this “all” on account of John 14:28. Trinitarians hit a stumbling block when they come across plain and simple words like “given” and what-not. They have to apply it to a human nature.
John Gill:
“but rather this intends God the Father, from whom Christ, as man and Mediator, derives his authority, and by whom he is let into, and invested with his office, as the shepherd of the sheep; or else the Holy Spirit, who opens the everlasting floors of the hearts of men, of Christ’s sheep, and lets him in unto them.”
In other words, the Trinitarian is basically flip-flopping the argument. He’s claiming God in this verse but in the very next, he is speaking as a man, now he’s claiming to be God again, oh wait, he went back to being a man.
I like their “light” analogy. Is it “on-off-on-off” or is it “particle and wave at the exact same time”?
Clearly, since he is stating that he has these things because his Father gave them to him, he is not making himself out to be God. He is only claiming to be the heir. He is claiming to be the Father’s delegated agent. And hence, the Father is making him out to be a god.
Consider, the very claim to have these things given to him is what is triggering the Jews reaction here. Why? Because they wanted Christ’s inheritance for himself.
Matthew 21:38 – But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’
No son ever makes himself out to be the heir. A son is always appointed heir and hence, it is the father that makes the son out to be the heir. Jesus was appointed heir as already discussed from Hebrews 1:2.
Jesus made himself NOTHING! (The Greek word ἐκένωσεν means literally to make void or nothing)
Philippians 2:7 – but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
Jesus sought not his own glory!
John 8:50 – And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.
Jesus sought not his own will!
John 6:38 – For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
Did Jesus even make himself the Messiah?!?
Acts 2:36 – “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Ποιέω is used of Christ in both Acts 2:36 where God makes Jesus Lord and Christ and in John 10:33 where the Jews accuse him of making himself out to be THE God / A god.
So we have significant evidence that demonstrates that not only was Jesus making himself out to be nothing, but also that God was making him out to be something, giving things to him and placing him in power. The Father was the one making Jesus out to be a god!
Note also that in the parable described in Matthew 21:33-38, is about Jesus being sent by God as the heir.
The Jewish reaction was NOT because they understood Jesus to be claiming to be THE God. The Jewish reaction was because Jesus declared himself to be the HEIR of all things and NOT the self-appointed heir! THEY wanted what had been given to him! The very fact that he was APPOINTED as Heir proves beyond shadow of a doubt that he was stating that the Father was the one making him out to be a god!
Then he proclaimed that the Father and he agreed on this decision to make him heir (John 10:30). He is not claiming consubstantiality.
Regardless of the reason the Jews gave for stoning him, the real reason is given out by Jesus in John 10:32.
John 10:32 – Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
Trinitarian argument number 3 (their weakest of all). The Jews said he was claiming to be God in John 10:33. Therefore, Jesus IS God.
Actually, the wording in John 10:33 is similar to the wording in Acts 28:6 and can also be translated “a god”. As we have already discussed, Jesus presented the real reason they wanted to stone him for in John 10:32. We have also demonstrated that Jesus is simply claiming to be the Heir which is what the Jews are angry about. However, Jesus was not making himself out to be the Heir because it was the Father who had appointed him as the Heir and therefore, it was the Father who was making him out to be a god.
Jesus then cites Psalm 82:6 in his refutation of the Jews but we must understand WHY he states this.
John 10:34-35 – Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ‘? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Psalm 82:6 was originally addressed to the judges of Israel. They were administered the title “god” when they were placed in power over Israel. This is because God had enacted them the right to exercise authority. Jesus is quoting this not as a defense to an alleged claiming to be god but to correct their understanding that HE was the one making himself out to be God / a god.
He goes on in John 10:36.
John 10:36 – do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Only IF Jesus is the Father, could he actually be making himself out to be God / a god because he teaches that the Father SANCTIFIED and SENT him into the world. It is not Jesus who is sanctifying Jesus and sending Jesus into the world! The Father is sanctifying Jesus and sending him into the world demonstrating that Jesus is not making himself out to be The God / a god but rather it is the Father who is making Jesus out to be a god.
Once again, in John 10:39, the Jews went after him. Why? Because the Father had appointed him, and not them to be the heir and they wanted his inheritance (Matthew 21:38).
LikeLike
August 23, 2012 at 1:26 am
Dylan,
I wanted to add some more to my previous answer to your question.
While Jesus is the divine person Himself incarnate, since in the incarnation God chose to limit Himself to the confines of a normal human existence with all the limitations that entails (limitations of knowledge, presence, power, etc), Jesus had to rely on God in the same way we do. In an ironic way, though Jesus is God, He is filled with God. He was anointed with the power of the Holy Spirit to do what He did, and He received revelation from the Father to say what He said.
If I were to couch this in terms of my theological categories, I would say that what we have going on here is a dependence of one mode of God’s existence on the other mode of God’s existence. God-as-man is relying on God-as-God. Put another way, because God in His human mode of existence is functionally limited to the level of an ordinary human being, He must rely on His cosmic/transcendent/divine mode of existence to do and say all that He did.
Jason
LikeLike
September 5, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Jason,
In regards to your last post, I agree with what you are saying but it is so awkward to explain and difficult to grasp.
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 2:48 pm
One thing that needs to be remembered is that the incarnation is a mystery. It’s hard to comprehend, but it is a truth nonetheless.
LikeLike
September 6, 2012 at 3:09 pm
CarolJean, I agree it is a bit awkward to explain and difficult to grasp, but as Dylan pointed out, the incarnation is a very strange event and difficult to understand. We should not find it strange, then, for explanations as to how God could become incarnate and how God-incarnate relates to God-transcendent to be challenging to grasp and explain.
Jason
LikeLike
September 9, 2012 at 10:32 pm
The things of the Spirit of God may only be understood through the Spirit of God. I just put something on Facebook about Nestorianism in the Oneness belief. When God first started giving me insight into the truth of the Apostolic doctrine, I started reading David Bernard’s book (creatively titled “The Oneness of God”) and agreed with most of what he wrote, but his rather Nestorian view of Christ never clicked with my spirit the way you describe the distinction between the Father and Son. God has given me a lot of revelation simply through reading on this blog and the IBS website. Blessed be the Lord YHWH, Jesus Christ the righteous!
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 9, 2012 at 10:34 pm
I would also like to point out that the Trinitarian view of God is harder to grasp than what we teach!
LikeLike
September 17, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Jason, Thanks for all the excellent thoughtful discussions of the nature of God and Christ. I have just recently been reading your material here and on the IBS site. I have found your honest discussion of the problems and challenges to both Oneness and Trinitarian theology very refreshing. I have believed and taught OP theology for many years although I have never been associated with the UPCI, but of course have read much of the UPCI literature of the subject, as well as Trinitarian sources. Like you, I have questioned some of the important details of OP doctrine that I felt did not make sense in light of the Scriptures. Your discussion and criticism of the old “Dual Nature” doctrine is very perceptive and I agree with much of your analysis.
One important issue I would like to point out is mentioned in the back of David Bernard’s classic book, “The Oneness of God,” just cited. Bernard said it this way, “Speaking of God as a person does not do justice to Him. The word person connotes a human being with a human personality—an individual with body, soul, and spirit. Thus, we limit out conception of God if we describe Him as a person. For this reason, this book has never said there is only one person in the Godhead or God is one person. The most we have said is that Jesus Christ is one person, because Jesus was God manifested in flesh as a human person.”
I fully agree, and as Bernard mentioned in the context, especially because God is never called a “person” or “persons” in the Scripture. The words for “person” in both Hebrew and Greek are just like our English word and describe finite humans, never God Himself. And while extra-Biblical terms are, common in theology we must not allow terms to create more problems than they solve, particularly if they lead us down a path of non-Biblical concepts.
I would say that, for example, your efforts to explain the distinctions between God the Father and the man Christ Jesus, while holding to the idea that the God is “one divine person” will always lead you astray. The term, “divine person” is an oxymoron. “Divine” can only refer to the identity and nature of Yahweh, from a Biblical view. “Person” as mentioned above refers to human, and that which is visible and finite. Yahweh, on the other had is an entirely different and totally unique being.
We all agree, even Trinitarians, that the Scripture portrays God and omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, eternal and transcendent above all His Creation. But it appears that we struggle to keep His vastly superior nature in mind when we discuss details of Christology. Misunderstanding and limiting the nature of Almighty God is the critical error of Trinitarians, and the error of all other wrong concepts of the Godhead. This terrible mistake is common to teachers of virtually all the different theories about the nature of God, not just Trinitarian, but also some Oneness, and Socinian, Unitarian, Arian, and all others.
Upon the foundation of 4000 years of OT Bible history, we know God was fully understood as One Divine Being, an invisible Spirit who is capable of doing anything and being anything He wishes to be. This is the concept involved in the word “Yahweh,” God’s personal name: “He is…,” whatever He chooses to be [Exodus 3, in the context of God’s revelation to Moses, “I am Who I am.” Our God is not limited, as many views of theology limits Him. He should not be confined to the idea of a “person” or “three persons,” as He is all-powerful in nature, and infinitely superior to a “person.” He may and He does manifest Himself in innumerable ways throughout His Creation, as an infinite number of “personal theophanies” (person-like) and does so every day.
You said the following above:
“In attributing some activities to Jesus’ human nature, and others to the divine nature, we have reified natures so as to give them personhood. For OPs, natures have all the attributes and carry out all of the functions of persons, but we dare not call them “persons.” Given the fact that natures are impersonal by definition, the distinction of activity and consciousness between the Father and Son cannot be explained by an appeal to natures. Only persons are capable of doing what we see the Father and Son doing in Scripture. Does this commit us to the Trinitarian view, then?
No. We can make sense of the distinction of activity and consciousness between the Father and Son if we understand the one divine person to be conscious of Himself in two distinct ways: as God in His cosmic mode of existence, and as man in His human mode of existence.”
I agree with your analysis of the problem, i.e., “…we have reified natures so as to give them personhood.” Traditional Oneness theology has often led to a functional misunderstanding that , as you said, Christ is “two persons: one who is divine, and one who is human. But this is de facto Nestorianism.”
I must respectfully disagree with your solution, which was “We can make sense of the distinction…between the Father and Son if we understand the one divine person to be conscious of Himself in two distinct ways…”
I don’t think this is the Biblical solution to the problem for the following reasons:
1. By claiming that the “one divine person” has, in Christ, a human mode of existence, you end up denying the substantial humanity of Christ. He becomes personally indistinct from the Father, and his human life is without substance. The answer is to discard the whole idea of “one divine person” and recognize the Yahweh is capable of manifesting himself any way he chooses, and does in countless ways. As the angel said to Mary about the birth of Christ, “… for nothing will be impossible with God!”
We should simply teach that the Logos, the plan and expression of God, “14…became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” And , 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”
We must fully embrace the clear teaching of Scripture that Jesus was fully human: “5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. [1Timothy2]. Therefore we can acknowledge that Christ is a distinct human “person,” distinct from the fullness of God, the Father, and the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. But Jesus is “one with the Father,” as He claimed, and this makes sense if we hold that God is not a “person” or “persons.” We must follow what Scripture says which clearly demonstrates the conception, birth, actual human development, anointing at his baptism, temptation, ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation of the HUMAN BEING JESUS OF NAZARETH. At the same time, we must follow Scripture and acknowledge that he was and is the divine Son of God, and an expression of Yahweh, the one and only God.
LikeLike
September 19, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Dylan, I’m glad to hear how my Christology has helped you in your understanding of Jesus and the Father-Son relationship!
Jason
LikeLike
September 19, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Jason: I appreciate you, Brother, and your replying to my emails! LOL I was also curious if you could elaborate on the textual history of I Timothy 3:16 at some point (should it read as “God was manifest in the flesh…” or “He was manifest in the flesh…”).
To the above poster: I see no problem with referring to God (in His Spirit existence) as a “Person”. I have a problem with referring to Him as a human being, man, or as the Trinitarians say “Persons”. “Person” describes an individual. God is not a human person, but is a divine Person . The Greek word hypostasis (usually translated as “person” in the KJV) means essential nature or essential self. The Aramaic Peshitta (a.k.a. the Syriac), which I’ve been studying quite a bit, uses the word “qnoma” (describing the essential self).
To Trinitarian readers: I find it interesting that hypostasis and qnoma are never used in plural form when describing God. The ancient Trinitarians spoke of the Godhead (grossly misused in Trinitarian theology to the point to where I hardly use the word) as being three hypostases in the theotes (“Godhead”, but more accurately describing the divine nature). Even in the Old Testament, the plural pronoun “Elohim” is used with SINGULAR verbs (a good example of this is in the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:1).
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 1:39 pm
DESERTSAGE,
I’m glad to hear you’ve found my writings helpful.
As for the “old ‘dual nature’ doctrine,” I want to be clear that I do subscribe to the notion that Jesus has two distinct natures. I just don’t ascribe personhood to each nature.
As for Bernard’s quote, I would disagree with him, and by extension, you. I understand the concern, but there is no reason to think that “person” is a concept restricted to human beings, or that “person” connotes bodies. In fact, I would argue that persons are immaterial, rational substances, and have no logical relation to bodies. Humans are embodied persons. See my article at https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-god-a-person/ for a discussion of the use of “person” to describe God.
I also find it interesting that you raise the issue of the fact that Scripture never calls God a “person,” and yet you call God a “being.” Where does Scripture refer to God as a “being?” See my article at http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/nonbibvocab.htm for a discussion of non-Biblical terminology.
As for my explanation that one divine person is conscious of Himself in two distinct ways, I don’t think this denies the substantial humanity of Christ at all. Think about what it means for God to be conscious of Himself as man. This means that God is aware of Himself in a fully human way, indistinguishable from the way any ordinary human person would be aware of Himself. I even go so far as to say that Jesus was only aware of His divine identity by revelation from the Father! You can’t get much more human than that! So I think my Christology presents a full affirmation of Jesus’ human existence.
Jason
LikeLike
September 25, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Dylan,
In regards to 1 Timothy 3:16, I think “who” is the original reading. David Norris agrees with this conclusion as well.
I think the NET Bible’s translator note has the best summary on the issue:
The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 Ï vgms) read θεός (qeos, “God”) for ὅς (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)
Jason
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 1:15 pm
I’ve gotten to where I can hardly stand the KJV because of how people set it on such a pedestal. For the Textus Receptus, I think the Young’s Literal Translation is my favorite, and for the Critical Text, I prefer the NASB. I love literal translations, but they can be just as flawed as dynamic translations. My favorite dynamic Bible translation has to be the New Jerusalem Bible (especially since they use “Yahweh” instead of “LORD” or “Jehovah”).
LikeLike
September 26, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Interestingly, the Peshitta maintains the neuter pronoun in the Syriac.
LikeLike
March 4, 2013 at 8:46 pm
Jason Dulle, You are a trinitarain who does not believe Jesus has human spirit. But pretty Much all trinitarains do not believe Jesus has a human spirit, even though they will calim they do. Mizpeh placed your non-sensical thesis fairytale on Carm and I happened to read it.
LikeLike
March 4, 2013 at 8:52 pm
Apollonarianism is the more serious charge.
LikeLike
March 4, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Jason, two persons is not a problem! The problem is two persons of God which is polytheism! Jesus was not God pretending to be a man like in your doctrine.
LikeLike
March 4, 2013 at 9:08 pm
Jason wrote:”I even go so far as to say that Jesus was only aware of His divine identity by revelation from the Father!”
That is right! You should say that, because that is what scripture teaches. Jesus did not even know the time of his own second coming, but the father Only.(Mark13:32) So that tells me everything had to be revealed to his genuine limited humanity. He was not God pretending to be a man! He was God manifest In flesh. Flesh does not mean a puppet with a divine mind only, and no human spirit. A nature is a copout term to excuse the tough questions!
LikeLike
November 5, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Manuel,
To accuse me of being a Trinitarian shows me how out-of-touch you are with this discussion, and how little you know/understand my views. Anyone familiar with my work knows this is not true.
Two persons is not the problem? That was the error of Nestorius. It is a problem. If Jesus was two persons (one divine, one human) co-dwelling in a single body, then Jesus qua Jesus was not God. That opens up a host of problems, which is why the early church rejected Nestorianism.
You say, “Jesus was not God pretending to be a man like in your doctrine.” Once again, you evidence your lack of familiarity or understanding of my Christology because nothing could be further from the truth. God became a true man in every sense of the word: physically, emotionally, psychologically, functionally, etc.
Jason
LikeLike
November 5, 2013 at 2:25 pm
Jason,I am not out of touch with this discussion whatsoever. Your views are not The Oneness from my youth and have defended. People like Marvin Hicks did a great Job of defending it way before you came along ;now you are going to come up with something new and everyone is supposed to change their view because you have been influenced by some Trinitarian who made you see something else? You are decent at attempting to explain other doctrines but on this one you are way off base!
Two persons is not the problem. Two persons of God Are! Deal with what I actually say Jason. I was making a point! Two persons was not the error of Nestorius either… He was accused of that error by a council and denied that was the fact. Nestorius actually believed in two complete natures in christ. You have no factual basis for this nonsense.
What I said still stands! Do you make any kind of distinction Jason? How do you do that in both criticizing natures and persons? I must assume you have God pretending to be a man.
LikeLike
July 24, 2015 at 2:15 pm
http://www.christiandefense.org/oneness_c.hstoy.htm
LikeLike
July 24, 2015 at 2:42 pm
Dr H. Davis:
If you would like to know about the duality regarding this topic, in easy to explain, easy to understand terms then ask. But what’s with the links? Links are as useless to knowing the invisible you as text quotes, without stating your understanding, in your own words.
Merely regurgitating texts or links to other regurgitators, tells nobody, anything about your philosophy, understanding, questions, rationale, logic discernment. I think this blog demands your thoughts, in your own words, so others can agree, chastize, correct, contradict, applaud or discuss.
Otherwise people never go searching the links you provide, nobody does that; well, almost nobody; there are still those who can’t explain anything themselves and simply quote scripture, in or out of context, nobody can tell; that’s the uncanny futility of forwarding approval by others for something you have no idea how to communicate yourself.
For example when Jesus wanted to explain something he would usually start by saying: “Have you never read where it says………” and then state the text and give the explanation. You ought to follow his example. He in you expressing your self.
LikeLike
October 21, 2016 at 6:39 am
Jason,
When you say Ops “have always struggled to explain the duality of activity and consciousness we see portrayed in Scripture between the Father and Son.”
Can you explain what you mean by “always struggled?” How far back does this struggle go? It seems to imply that the Ops position is fairly recent.
In the article “It doesn’t take two to tango you also wrote of this struggle.
In your article Jesus’ Prayers: It Doesn’t Take Two Persons to Tango, you wrote:
“For Trinitarians, then, finding communication between Jesus and the Father is easily explained as communication between the second and first person of the Godhead. Oneness adherents do not have it so easy. According to Oneness theology God is uni-personal, and thus we are forced to answer a question Trinitarians do not face: Who was Jesus talking to if He is the uni-personal God Himself incarnate? We only have a couple of options. . . .”
Why would finding the communication between Jesus and the Father be so difficult? Are we to assume that the 1st century church had the same difficulties? Most OPs believe their doctrine is the same as what the apostles believe, yet OPs continue to struggle with the simplicities of the Scriptures. You have demonstrated that in order to understand the communication between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, you have to go to great lengths to explain the OP position.
LikeLike