I first encountered this type of theological reasoning when reading the works of Charles Ryrie. It seemed "fishy" to me then and it appears highly suspect now. Can anyone provide solid lexical data that buttresses the claim that the phrase "Son/son of God = possessing the nature of God?
For instance, the Bible calls angels "sons of God," but do they possess the nature of deity, as this nomenclature is defined by Trinitarians?
Secondly, BDB Hebrew-English Lexicon supplies an example where the expression "son of" most certainly does not mean "possessing the nature of X." Take the idiom, "sons of the prophets" (1 Kings 20:35). Are we to assume that it denotes: "possessing the nature of a prophet"? Not according to BDB. Moreover, the phrase "son of a messenger" most clearly does not mean "possessing the nature of a messenger." That is why I am requesting those who take this stand to produce lexical evidence that supports this claim.
Another pertinent example is Ephesians 2:2. The Greek there reads: TOIS hUIOIS THS APEIQEIAS. This linguistic formula or construction does not signify: "possessing the nature of disobedience." It could simply refer to "disobedient [ones]" or "disobedient sons."
"hUIOI THS AP. Hebr. those given to disobedience" (Zerwick's A Grammatical Analysis of the GNT, p. 581).
For more details, see sections 42-44 of Zerwick's Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples.
NET Bible Footnote: "sn Sons of disobedience is a Semitic idiom that means 'people characterized by disobedience.' However, it also contains a subtle allusion to vv. 4-10: Some of those sons of disobedience have become sons of God."
Some argue that the expression "Son of Man" supports the notion that "Son of God" = "possessing the nature of God." Again, it appears that theology and not lexical semantics is controlling this discussion. Why should the title "Son of Man" have to mean "possessing the nature of a man"? As the Complete Word Study: Old Testament points out, the OT nomenclature "son of man" simply denotes "a man" or "an individual." One could also understand the terminology to connote a "mortal being of flesh." But "Son of Man" (in some contexts) also has "Messianic overtones" (Daniel 7:13-14). That is the way in which the Gospels primarily make use of the title or formula. Son of Man identifies Christ as the Messiah without needing to cart in a "possessing the nature of X" theory.
57 comments:
From Duncan:
Job_38:7 Psa_89:6
Mat_5:9 Rom_8:19 Gal_3:26
[Moderator note: I believe he meant for these verses to be placed under this entry-EGF]
Excelente estudio
Hello Edgar,
very interesting question, which I discussed a bit earlier with friends from my congregation. We spoke about the different creeds (apostolic, athanasian, nicene-constantinopelian) and one of the question was about the nature of Jesus. I would say yes, Jesus has the nature of deity, actually he was called "a god" in John 1:1ff, within he has a divine nature.
According the other examples you give, I would even agree, that the angels have a divine nature. But I am not sure, if this understanding corresponds with the nomenclature as it is defined by Trinitarians.
Your example from Ephesians 2:2 makes me ask: why is it in your opinion wrong to say: "possessing the nature of disobedience"? Isn't that exactly what Paul wanted to say? And the same goes for "Son of Man" - sure was Jesus when he lived on earth in the nature of a human, a man. Or did I misunderstand your point?
Bernd
Hello Bernd,
Good questions. One problem is how one defines nature. Trinitarians and most philosophers/theologians define "nature" as the essence (set of properties) of x. So in their view, if God's Son has the divine nature, then he has the Father's properties like omniscience and omnipotence. So most theologians would not say that the angels possess the divine nature.
While it may be true to say that the sons of disobedience have the Nature of disobedience, it does not seem that's what Paul meant to say. Besides the "sons of the prophets" example, think about the sons of light or sons of the night example. Are we meant to understand sons of light to mean, possessing the Nature of light?
See also Luke 3:38. Adam is son of God, but it's because Jehovah created him or gave him life.
One more text is Matthew 9:15, the sons of the bridechamber.
Yes, Edgar, I can see the difficulty now. (Sorry for coming back so late)
Another example came into my mind, which was used in the brochure "Guidance of God" (1999, p.20 - addressed to Muslims). It discusses the term in the light of islamic view and gives some examples from Arabic (son of the language, son of the road etc.), which shows the figurative use of it.
Noteworthy is the fact, that today's Arabic is still very close to the old Hebrew (which coined IMO together with Aramaic as daily language the thinking and way of expressing thoughts of the early Christians - more then Greek).
I think that is the main point: where ends a literal meaning and where starts a figure of speech.
For example, the revision of the NWT renders the old "sons of Israel" now as "Israelites", I think this expression had a more or less literal meaning, if we interpret "sons" as male and female descendants.
Even the term "son of God" for Adam is figurative to understand. So at the end of the day, I would say, that the term "son" in connection to "nature" has no deeper meaning. With other words, we can say Jesus is a god, but not because he is named "son", but because he is named "god".
Bernd (I hope I was able to express my thoughts in an understandable way)
Thank you, Bernd. I appreciate your interaction, and you communciated your thoughts intelligbly.
It's an interesting point you make about Arabic and ancient Aramaic. There's been a lot of scholarship in recent years on Aramaic and the possible role it played among ancient Jews. Did it supplant Hebrew as a regularly used language? How did it coexist with Koine Greek? Those are all good questions that are now being reviewed by scholars.
I'm still processing some of the changes you mention in NWT. Sons of Israel did communicate "males" IMO, but maybe that was not the intent. I would just like to add that many commentaries do say that "sons of disobedience" means those possessing the nature off disobedience; however, I'm trying to examine the matter lexically rather than theologically. It just seems that theology has often driven the understanding that "son of" = having the nature of X.
Hi Edgar,
I posted about this on Bowman's forum years ago. You can read my argument, here:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/evangelicals_and_jws/conversations/messages/20166
Here's a memory test for you: You provided one of the references I quote years ago. Can you remember which one? ;-)
~Kaz
Omar: Muchas gracias, mi amigo.
Kaz: I'll read your post, but I probably won't remember the source you're talking about. My hippocampus is gradually degenerating. :)
Very thorough and well-researched post, Kaz. I'm reminded of Geza Vermes:
"To a Greek speaker in Alexandria, Antioch or Athens
at the turn of the eras, the concept hUIOS QEOU, son
of God, would have brought to mind either one of the
many offspring of the Olympian deities, or possibly a
deified Egyptian-Ptolemaic king, or the divine emperor
of Rome, descendant of the apotheosized Julius Caesar.
But to a Jew, the corresponding Hebrew or Aramaic
phrase would have applied to none of these. For him,
son of God could refer, in an ascending order, to any
of the children of Israel; or to a good Jew; or to a
charismatic holy Jew; or to the king of Israel; or in
particular to the royal Messiah; and finally, in a
different sense, to an angelic or heavenly being. In
other words, 'son of God' was always understood
metaphorically in Jewish circles. In Jewish sources,
its use never implies participation by the person
so-named in the divine nature. It may in consequence
safely be assumed that if the medium in which
Christian theology developed had been Hebrew and not
Greek, it would not have produced an incarnation
doctrine as this is traditionally understood" (Jesus
in His Jewish Context, page 66).
Hi Edgar,
I had forgotten how long-winded I was when I wrote that post! I'm so sorry for putting you through that! :-)
I like the quote by Vermes, which sums things up well. I contacted him shortly before he died because Larry Hurtado wouldn't let me interact with him on Hurtado's blog (Hurtado can be a bit of a control freak). We had a brief but nice exchange, and he liked my take on Philippians 2:6, though he insisted that no Jew could have even uttered the words "equal with God" in relation to another, whether positively or negatively, I inferred. He certainly seemed to like my take (i.e. our take) better than Hurtado's, as Hurtado is in the Wright-ian camp vis a vis this verse, and I would agree with Vermes that Wright's interpretation is hardly likely.
Anyway, the quote that I got from you was the one by Walter Kasper, from his book "Jesus the Christ", p. 164:-)
~Kaz
Hi Kaz,
No problem on the length of your post. It was fun reading it. I also thank you for including the narrative concerning Vermes and your interaction with him. I respect Hurtado and Wright, but think they're often beholden to the party line of orthodoxy. Wright if brilliant; however, I believe he's wrong in how he understands Phil. 2:6. Maybe I can blog about that verse this summer, if something else does not prevent me from addressing that issue.
I do remember the quote from Kasper. His book was instrumental when I wrote my dissertation. Plenty of good stuff in his book too.
Best regards,
Edgar
Hello edgar ,Do you speack spanish??
Hello Omar, unfortunately I do not. Just a few phrases.
That Jesus is the Son of Man does demonstrate He is God. Being the Son of Man He is the proper recipient of 'pelach' (Dan. 7:13-14). One of the ways of rendering 'pelach' (Daniel 6:16) is by prayer (Daniel 6:10). Since God alone is the proper recipient of prayer demonstrates the Lord Jesus is God.
FR, don't know who misinformed you, but pelach does not mean "prayer" in Daniel 7 but rather to serve or pay reverence to. See also Daniel 7:27.
Did you see Daniel 6:10 and Daniel 6:16?
I'm quite familiar with the account. Please see https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6399.htm
Prayer (Daniel 6:10) is a component of rendering pelach (Daniel 6:16).
Since the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of pelach (Daniel 7:14) demonstrates He is the proper recipient of prayer.
I'm very familiar with that.
Now you ought to come to agreement with what Daniel 6:10 and Daniel 6:16 teaches. See my previous comments.
Yes, prayer is part of pelach and so are other things like obedience to the Torah and offering praise. However, pelach does not strictly denote prayer, but reverent service. Hence, even if pelach is given to the Son of Man, that does not necessarily mean that he is God: we cannot infer that the nations giving pelach to the Son necessarily pray to him. You also overlook Daniel 7:27, where it's possible that pelach is given to the holy ones of the Supreme One.
Since pelach encompasses prayer proves the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer - as with everything else pelach includes.
I didn't overlook Daniel 7:27.
Robert Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski point out that concerning the pronoun in our English Bible versions the "dispute arises from the Hebrew use of "serve and obey" with no pronoun following; thus the translators supply a pronoun to make for more idiomatic English. The Hebrew text refers earlier in the sentence, however, to "his kingdom" (malkutē), and both Greek versions of Daniel have "him" (autō), not "them," at the end of the verse. In the immediate context the antecedent for "his" and "him" would be "the Most High." Thus, Daniel 7:27 confirms that "service" (pelach) properly goes to God alone" (Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, page 303, footnote 6).
Sorry, but you're reaching. Someone can render pelach to a deity without offering prayer. See how Daniel uses the word in Dan. 3:12-18. Furthermore, Dan. 6:16, 20 say that Daniel gave pelach continually to his God, butr he only prayed 3 times a day.
According to the Cambridge Bible
27. of the kingdoms under the whole heaven] not merely the kingdom ruled by the ‘little horn,’ but all the kingdoms of the earth, will be given then to the saints of the Most High. ‘Under the whole heaven,’ as Deuteronomy 2:25; Deuteronomy 4:19; cf. Job 28:24; Job 37:3; Job 41:11.
its kingdom is, &c., … shall serve and obey it] The pronouns, as the context shews, must refer to ‘people,’ not to ‘the Most High.’ In this verse, even more distinctly than in Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:22, the universal and never-ending dominion, which in Daniel 7:14 is given to the ‘one like unto a son of man,’ seems to be conferred upon the people of the saints. For the same idea, adapted to a N.T. standpoint, cf. Revelation 5:10 b, Revelation 11:15, Revelation 12:10, Revelation 22:5; also Revelation 20:4; Revelation 20:6.
Its usage is like https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.18.7?lang=bi&aliyot=0
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/vaiyishtachu_7812.htm
That does not mean worship of deity either.
Sorry, but you are in denial of the facts. Pelach can be offered at a particular time without rendering prayer. However, it would include it at other times.
The Cambridge Bible does not because it cannot place the pronoun in Daniel 7:27. It's not there. And for you to rely on evidence that is not there, but simply guesswork simply reveals the deficiency of your position. The Hebrew does not contain it, nor does the LXX. You dodged this evidence.
Duncan,
That's not the same word.
FR, that is correct, it is one of the Hebrew equivalents. The difficulty is separating modem ideas of worship from ancient ideas of service.
That is why I listed is usage and translation/interpretation. Did Moses worship his father in law? In a modern sense, no, but in the ancient sense, yes.
Obeisance to god gets called worship but obeisance to a man does not, but that has nothing to do with the term in its original context and culture.
FR, compare Deut. 28:47–48
The Hebrew word can be properly rendered unto others. However, in the Bible pelach cannot.
FR, that's just your assertion because that's the way you would like it to be, however, examine a large spread of bible translations and you will see that many place "serve" in those verses. Also look at how the Peshitta use the word when translating the Torah. As I understand from the literature I have read there is also some questions about one particular verse, as to whether it is referring to god or the people of god? So claiming special usage for the bible also has it's problems.
FR, there is a useful survey here https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1e65qnp/daniel_7/?rdt=49241
You do know that the OT was not inspired in English, right?
FR, Your point being? This particular issue is with Aramaic, we have extra biblical usages of the word in Aramaic from Persia, do you think the bible exists in a vacuum? If you think it was written by David in Persia then why would you even suppose a special usage?
I am going by how God chose to use 'pelach' within the Bible. Not one example within what God inspired proves otherwise.
I'll have to remember that for all the other words in the bible that are only used once and the contexts are not so clear.
Your choice, but 'pelach' is used more than just once.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1e7h0oq/correct_translation_of_daniel_727/
FR, you already posted the Bowman quote, so I'm not approving it again. But you'll have to do better than Bowman and Komoszewski: they are not the final authorities on this subject.
Edgar,
I am well aware of that. Perhaps this time the evidence from it won't get ignored.
It is worth noting that Stephen referred to Jesus as "the Son of Man" (Acts 7:56; cf. Daniel 7:13) and would later pray to Him (Acts 7:59-60; cf. Daniel 7:14).
JPS 2023 - https://www.sefaria.org/Daniel.7.27?ven=THE_JPS_TANAKH:_Gender-Sensitive_Edition&lang=bi&with=Translations&lang2=en
No pronoun there in Hebrew.
"Hebrew" ?
From the Anchor Bible Commentary-the note for Daniel 7:27:
"all the kingdoms under the heavens. Literally, ―the kingdoms under all the heavens.‖ Their royal rule. Literally, ―its kingship‖; the pronominal suffix of malkûtēh refers to ʿam, ―people,‖
of the preceding sentence"
Aramaic. And in the LXX the pronoun is singular. Earlier in the sentence reference is made to "His kingdom."
Sad that the denial of what 'pelach' means and how it is understood elsewhere in the Bible leads some to cling to such ambiguity in this passage when the evidence is against them.
If there is any ambiguity it is in the nature of the Aramaic language and that is what we have and most probably what it was originally penned in. We have DD SS to back that up so I am not to concerned about a 3rd to 4th century CE greek interpretation. You know, the one that Jews said had been tampered with.
They can claim that. Other Jews also claimed other erroneous things (Matthew 28:11-15).
But thanks for mentioning 'ambiguity'. That is the point of one of my previous posts as to why not to cling to this passage and base one's doctrine on simply because prayer to Jesus is rejected.
The ambiguity is contextual and one should never make blanket statements or claims. It's a case by case basis.
Which agrees with what I previously asserted.
Now I'd like to know why any Unitarian would deny the Lord Jesus is God seeing that He is the proper recipient of prayer in Acts 7:59-60.
I am not playing moving target games, we are discussing the Aramaic portions of Daniel.
https://biblehub.com/greek/epikaloumenon_1941.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/proseuchesthe_4336.htm
And the best that has been offered is an ambiguous text concerning pelach (Daniel 7:27) used to try to overthrow all the others in which pelach is used.
That's the level of desperation Unitarians resort to.
From a linguistic and grammatical perspective, there is ambiguity in Daniel 7, but Trinitarians expect us to believe that a religion which rejects the Trinity to this day meant for readers to conclude that the Son of Man is God/YHWH. I've seen no good evidence to conclude that one must understand the Danielic SOM to be the Most High. You try to lean on pelach but overlook the fact that it could be construed as douloo instead of latreuo.
Therefore, clinging to an ambiguity when all the other texts that contain this word make it clear that worship is involved - having either to do with the worship properly to God or improperly to idols.
Pelach is the inspired Aramaic word that God used in Daniel 7:14. And one of the ways pelach is rendered is by prayer (Daniel 6:10, 16). In fact, this also applies with latreuo. One of the ways latreuo is rendered is by prayer (Luke 2:37). Thanks for mentioning this Greek word.
Here are Rashi''s comments on the passage: https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Daniel.7.14.2?lang=bi
Post a Comment