Some Trinitarians try to make a distinction between the plural "sons" that allegedly denotes an "office" or function, and the singular "Son" which allegedly signifies Jesus' "nature." However, the person who offered this suggestion insisted that the "nature" of the sons mentioned in Ephesians 2:2 was being delineated. He then reversed his position and claimed that the plural use only describes an office or function (i.e., it is not ontological).
However, the distinction does not seem to hold water when we actually take the time to look at actual examples of the construction "sons of" in the relevant texts or literature. hUIOI (plural) most certainly does not refer to an office in Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
2 comments:
Hi Edgar,
What these folks unaccountably miss is that literal sons share the nature of their parents specifically because they were brought into being via a literal act of pro-creation that involves the passing on of genes. But no one believes that God played Zeus for an evening and copulated with Mary to make her pregnant with the human/divine Son Jesus, just as no Jew at that time in their culture would have conceived of God as a sort of Spirit hermaphrodite who gave literal birth to a heavenly 'Son' thereby passing on 'spirit genes' (or however that's to be said).
I will never understand this desperate longing to find God's ontology in Jesus.
BTW, if I live long enough and have enough of my wits left (and enough money), I've been thinking about going back to college to get a masters degree in theology/divinity once I retire from full time work (if that ever happens). My reason is because I'd like to write a masters thesis on what Larry Hurtado calls "The Emerging Consensus". There are so many critical problems with the "emerging consensus" that someone needs to try and help get it back on track, as it's veered in an impossible direction.
To see what I mean, see:
Crispin Fletcher-Louis’s critique can be found, here (start with this one):
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/60=2009/1%20Fletcher-Louis.pdf
Adela Yarbro-Collins offers critical analysis Hurtado’s thesis, here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=4QIwvdHdrUkC&pg=PA55&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
She also touches on problems with both Hurtado’s and Bauckham’s theses in the book she co-authored with her husband, John J. Collins: “King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature” (Highly recommended)
William Horbury offers critical analysis, here:
http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/2/531.extract
Paula Fredricksen offers critical analysis, here:
http://www.bu.edu/religion/files/pdf/Lord-Jesus-Christ-devotion-to-Jesus-in-Early-Christiantiy.pdf
Paul Rainbow offers critical analysis, here:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561199?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
James D.G. Dunn offers critical analysis, here:
http://www.amazon.com/Parting-Ways-Christianity-Significance-Character/dp/0334029996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465047439&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Parting+of+the+Ways%2C+dunn
Maurice Casey offers critical analysis, here:
http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/27/1/83.full.pdf
And both last and least, I pointed out that there’s a Mûmakil in Hurtado’s room, here:
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/on-the-problem-of-expectation/
Crispin Fletcher-Louis's critique is the most thorough and ultimately the most deadly to Hurtado's thesis, but after waxing brilliant throughout most of the article, he ends up proposing a thesis that's just as problematic: The existence of "pre-Christian binitarianism". I suspect that, after the dust of scholarly vetting has settled, Fletcher-Louis's thesis will ultimately join Hurtado's in the grave, making room for a much more plausible historical reconstruction:-)
~Kaz
Hi Kaz,
Looks like you're making a good start. I hope that you realize your goal one day of earning the Master's degree. It's doable and fun to obtain if you're in a supportive program. Thanks for sharing.
All the best,
Edgar
Post a Comment