[Edited for this blog]
Dear blog readers,
Someone asked me off-list about 1 Tim 6:15-16 and I want to share my thoughts on the passage with the entire group and hopefully get some input.
Most commentaries and lexicons that I have consulted say that Paul (or the writer of this epistle) is talking about God (the Father) when he speaks of the blessed and only Potentate (DUNASTHS). But I currently take the position that 1 Tim 6:15-16 is focusing on the resurrected and glorified Christ--the reasons for my conclusions are listed below:
(1) The immediate context deals with Christ. Paul writes about "the fine public declaration" that Christ made "before Pontius Pilate" (1 Tim 6:13 NWT). 1 Tim 6:14 also references the "manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."
(2) Additionally, the title "King of kings and Lord of lords" is applied to Jesus in the NT (Rev 17:14; 19:16). While similar titles are used of YHWH (Jehovah) in the OT/Tanakh, I'm not sure that the exact title, King of kings and Lord of lords is ever applied to the Father (YHWH).
(3) 1 Tim 6:16 is evidently comparing the happy and only Potentate to those who rule as kings and lords. In contrast to these men, Christ is the "one alone having immortality." However, God the Father is not the only immortal being, since Christ assumed immortality when resurrected by God; moreover, those who share in the first resurrection are also granted the gift of immortal life (Rom 6:9; 1 Cor 15:50-54; Heb 7:16).
(4) According to Acts of the Apostles, Christ dwells in "unapproachable light" since his glorification. The apostle Paul beheld the glory of the resurrected Christ and he was blinded by the unique and awesome spectacle (Acts 26:12-13). Jesus assured his apostles that humans would behold him no more, but his disciples would, because he lives and they live through him (Jn 14:19). How appropriate the words of 1 Tim 6:16 describe the exalted Christ.
Conversely, one might apply the language contained in 1 Tim 6:15-16 to God the Father. One could point to Paul's use of DUNASTHS in this text and look at its use elsewhere in Greek literature. A student of the scriptures could also point to Paul's use of MAKARIOS and MONOS as well. But I think the context and Paul's phraseology favors the interpretation advanced here. Yet I am open to other suggestions.
19 comments:
Cyrus the great:-
"The Great King, King of Kings, King of Anshan, King of Media, King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad, King of the Four Corners of the World"
I think the answer lies somewhere between this historical usage and the language of 1 kings 1:37.
Also the OT uses "king of kings" for those appointed to rule by YHWH.
Jehovah is also called "God of gods, and Lord of lords" (Deut 10:17 KJV) and "a God of gods, and a Lord of kings" by King Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 2:47. Cf. Dan 11:36.
I likewise reason that 1 Timothy refers to the resurrected and exalted Christ in particular when it states that no man has ever seen or can see him. Compare Acts 26:13. It does take the immediate context or other related texts to understand the referent of 1 Tim 6:15-16.
This verse in Timothy seems like slender support to me for the Trinity.
Duncan, I appreciate the example from Cyrus, but I wonder how you think 1 Kings 1:37 might clarify matters. Just curious.
Other scriptures for comparison are Ezra 7:12; Ps 136:3; Ezek 26:7.
Best,
Edgar
1 kings 1:37 lxx may one lord and king be greater than another lord and King. Human appointments and differing levels of authority.
It is a comparison to other Kings, we have to remember, Jesus wasn't seen in human form as a King, so it is referring to his position since his glorification. He is of all called Kings, the King of Kings and Lord of Lord. It is also possible to share his kingship, because the anointed are called kings and priest to our God. Rev.5:9,10. In bible times it was not unusual for the eldest of sons to be a co-ruler with his father. Think Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Others examples as well.
Not strictly true. John 19:19-22.
Hi Sean,
I'm not comfortable with the argument that God and Lord are synonyms. I would ask my interlocutor to demonstrate philologically that kurios and qeos are synonyms. Yes, they may be coreferential at times, but that does not make them necessarily synonymous. Abraham was Sarah's kurios, but not her qeos. Two titles may also be used for the same person, but that doesn't make the titles synonyms.
Good illustration also, Sean.
LXX Psa 136:2 Let us confess to the God of gods, for into the eon is his mercy!
LXX Psa 136:3 Let us confess to the lord of lords, for into the eon is his mercy!
I think that demonstrates your point, also Daniel 2:47 "God of gods and a Lord of kings".
What about Acts 2:36? Jehovah made him Lord.
Hi Sean,
I think you're right. A good case can be made that Ps 110:1 is using "Lord" proleptically. It doesn't mean that he was Lord or Christ in his preexistence.
It also seems hard to understand how 1 Cor 12:3 supports that Jesus is Lord in that he is God. The verse is notorious to exegete, but the point might be that no truly ecstatic utterance in the midst of the congregation like "Jesus is Lord" can occur unless God's spirit inspires such utterances. We must read the verse within its first-century setting.
See James Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus, page 116 and footnote 51 on the same page.
Best regards,
Edgar
Hi Sean,
On the subject of Jesus becoming God's Son, the Bible uses that expression in more than one context. Ps 2:6-7 uses the expression within an enthronement context. The Messiah becomes God's Son insofar as he ascends to the throne by divine appointment. We believe that event occurred in 1914.
But Heb 5:5-6, the words are applied to Christ when God appoints him as a king-priest in the manner of Melchizedek. Paul suggests that the declaration quoted in Hebrews might have been a done deal in the 1st century.
In Acts 13:32, those same words are applied to his resurrection. So it has been argued that the Messiah becomes Son to Jehovah at different times and in different senses.
In the case of Mt 28:18, the authority spoken of there may differ from the event we read about in Rev 12:10ff. I can agree with your reasoning in the last paragraph too.
Best regards,
Edgar
We have an example of the anointed being "sons" of God, but yet that filial relationship with Jehovah enters another phase when the anointed are glorified. See Romans 8:23.
Dear sir,I am not near the scholar of your other posters but I will add my two cents to this subject. It seems to me there was shift in power and authority between Jesus' death on the cross and His resurrection. God, the Father, was Lord of the old covenant but Jesus is Lord of the new covenant. I don't need to look any further than Philippians 2:6-12. Jesus laid aside His Godhood to come to earth as a man. Only a man could redeem mankind from sin. But the scriptures tell us God highly exalted Jesus at His resurrection, giving Him the name above every other name, that at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow. The word, God, must apply to the Father, which means the Father transferred His power and authority onto Jesus. You guys have left out the word, only, in your discussion. Paul called Jesus "the blessed only Potentate." The word, Potentate, means ruler, which suggests God the Father and the Holy Spirit transferred all their power onto Jesus, just as Jesus said, "All power in heaven and earth has been given to me." This also explains why Jude would call Jesus the only wise God. Each of the Godhood plays a role. Jesus and the Holy Spirit perfectly supported the Father in the establishment of the old covenant but the Holy Spirit and the Father are serving in supporting roles to Jesus in the new covenant. Jesus literally is the only ruler under the new covenant because the Father and Holy Spirit have stepped aside. The Father was so impressed with the depth Of Jesus' humility and suffering on the cross, He stripped Himself of His Godhood to convey all power onto Jesus. I will invite you to visit my webpage, tonguesfriendorfoe.weebly.com, and check out my blog page.
Post a Comment