Yeah, we've discussed Beale and he's got little company, except maybe the unitarians. :)
Most of his fellow trinitarians don't even agree with him.
I'm being hyperbolic, but hardly anyone has followed Beale's line of reasoning and I don't see good reason for it either. These guys jump through hoops to avoid the obvious although I will admit that Beale might be on to something.
I was drawn to his explanation because of what he has to say about the garden of Eden along with his other conclusions in his recent works. It resonates quite strongly with my active research.
"This parallel is demonstrated further by recalling that every one of Christ's self-introductions in each of the other letters in Rev 2-3 is either a restatement or development of something in ch. 1."
I have not reveiwed what David Aune writes about Rev. 3:14, but Craig Koester (Anchor Bible Commentary on Revelation) makes a brief aside mregarding Beale's idea:
Revelation uses “creation” (ktisis) and related words (ktizein, ktisma) for the present created order (4:11; 5:13; 10:6) rather than for the new creation (cf. 21:1; Beale). Calling Christ the archē of creation could mean that he is its “origin,” though “ruler” is more likely
[END QUOTE]
The quote about restatement doesn't exactly say that 3:14 is a restatement of 1:5 and I don't see how anyone could prove that connection by the use of philological methods. In fact, philology leads one in the opposite direction. For example, Poythress accepts the new creation interpretation of Beale, but does not think "ruler" is the intended meaning of arche in 3:14.
"Jesus is the beginning and head of the new creation (3:14), the living one, the resurrected Lord (1:18; 2:8). Jesus’ rule is due not only to his divinity but also to his humanity. Jesus fulfills the promise of the Davidic covenant (cf. 2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 17; Psalms 89; 132) as the root of David (Rev. 5:5; cf. Isa. 11:1, 10). As the Davidic king, he will rule the world with an iron rod (Rev. 12:5; cf. Ps. 2:9), and when he comes again he will destroy God’s enemies (Rev. 19:11–21)."
For the NET commentary:- "Others, probably the majority, take the phrase “the originator of God’s creation” to refer to creation in general (cf. Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15, 18)."
Round and Round it goes.
Beale is not the only one who sees all of these references as "new creation". They all have to be dealt with within there own local contexts first.
This is why I have never bought this whole "hymn" idea. All they are trying to do is remove the passages from the local context. Like it is just thrown in there, out of the blue. A curve ball out of context.
You're right that Beale is not alone, but his position has not gained wide assent either. Besides other possible objections, one has to deal with Koester's lexical objection about how John uses ktisis in Revelation and Bauckham points to how John employs arche. To me, that is appealing to the local context.
Almost every commentator also believes his/her observations are "clearly" right. Below, I quote Paige Patterson (NAC on Revelation):
The last expression [in Rev. 3:14], which the NIV translators have rendered "the ruler of God's creation," is "the beginning of the creation of God" in the Authorized Version. The question here is the meaning in this context of the Greek archē, which in some situations can mean beginning or first, and in others, by derivation, ruler. If the Authorized Version translation is accepted and reads "the beginning of the creation of God," then those who embrace an Arian Christology, such as contemporary Mormons, would want to argue that there was a time when the Son was not and that he was the first of the creations of the Father. Clearly enough, however, that is not what is intended in the verse. Even if the verse is translated as the Authorized Version has rendered it, the emphasis is not on the beginning of the Christ but on the beginning of everything else in Christ. Clearly he is God's agent in creation, and this is consistent with what is said by the apostle John, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:3). The NIV translators have avoided the problem altogether by simply rendering archē as ruler and stating that Christ is the ruler of God's creation. Certainly nothing is wrong with the translation or the theology involved in this rendering. Either way the message is the same: Christ is the affirmation of God, the faithful and the true witness, and the One who rules preeminently over all God's creation. He is, in the final analysis, in a position to know and to speak. Beasley-Murray notes that the expression "while echoing Prov 8:22, does so in the sense of the developed Christology which appears in the hymn of Col 1:15–20."
I was talking about the local context of Rev. 3:14. Moreover, I'm not a Trinitarian, but Trinity Delusion does not get everything right either. He has not disproved that the Logos was a person with God the Father; he has not proved that the beginning of Jn. 1:1 does not allude to Gen. 1:1 and so on. But a person is free to believe what he/she wants.
Do you think Trinitarians feel they're reading John 1 according to its local context? Of course, they do think that, just like Trinity Delusion feels he is.
The burden of proof lies with those who claim a "hymn" out of context. Even if a passage has poetic structure does not automatically make it an independent insertion into the text. So he can think he is correct but he is only standing on the shoulders of others who are really standing on nothing of substance.
So please explain how trinity delusion has got it wrong when referring to all the verses upto 1:6 of GJohn. This is all context. What does he need to prove exactly. It is those that ignore verses or disconnect them that have to provide proof.
I don't insist that John 1:1-18 is a hymn: others do that. It is not my position.
Read what Koester writes about Rev. 3:14, which I've already quoted, but it's good to read for yourself. While John might be talking about a new creation in Rev. 21, he apparently does not use ktisis/ktizw to speak of this "new heavens and new earth." Koester thinks Rev. 3:14 is not referencing the new creation.
Trinity Delusion may be referring to the local context, but he's interpreting what the "beginning" is and how the Logos became flesh or was with God. He's not explaining those verses via a blank slate (i.e., with no presuppositions and interpretive leanings).
Just to be clear. I am responding to all your posts & my reference to hymns is in relation to the Pauline letters. I have not personally encountered any serious scholarship that claims GJohn 1 is a hymn.
Is the understanding of "Beginning" in the other Gospels in any way ambiguous? GJohns is. Shouldn't it be read in light of the other gospels first?
As i keep saying what Koester thinks is not my concern but rather the data. He recognizes, as do most that New creation is a theme that runs through the NT. It seems setup in the LXX understandings of the Tanakh.
I believe that new creation is referred too in Jesus own words.
There is mounting evidence that Wisdom literature has relevance to all the gospels in terms of personification.
I don't believe that John necessarily is a hymn, but there is serious scholarship that says otherwise.
The problem I have with what you posted from Koester is that while he says Revelation discusses a new creation, he denies that Rev. 3:4 does; moreover, when Revelation purportedly discusses the new creation, words for "creation" apparently are not used.
I have no problem with wisdom being personified in the Gospels: that doesn't take away from logos being identified with the preexistent and enfleshed Jesus.
The implication from John :8 is supposed to be that "the only/only-begotten god (or Son)" does see the Father since he's in the bosom position and he's able to explain God. Yeah, it's an implication, not an exact statement.
John is so different from the other Gospels that it would be ill-advised to interpret John through the Synoptics. Why not examine how John uses a word before looking to other books?
Because the way GJohn speaks is ambiguous & that is why I keep coming back to GJohn 8:54,55
then - “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
But Jesus said that Abraham had seen him - not the other way around.
The witness to Abraham seeing the future messiah was the father (I am the god of Abraham...) - the two witness rule & at 8:58 the father speaks.
IMO this is a key to understanding the general language but it is still difficult to follow.
The majority of the dialogue in GJohn is the father speaking through Jesus. The fathers words spoken by "the son of man".
I now have a better understanding of GJohn 20:28.
"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
Look at GJohn 6 about eating his flesh and drinking his blood (FLESH).
6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement (Logos); who can listen to it?” - the word became flesh.
All within the misunderstanding motif.
The evident links to lady wisdom in the body of Gjohn have been enlightening.
Which specific word do you suggest that I examine in detail?
The word I had in mind that you examine in the Gospel of John is arche, since we've been talking about it. Stan Porter in his book about the Johannine voice also has an interesting analysis of Logos-language.
You bring up a thought worth pondering about Christ's blood and flesh, but I would not associate "flesh" with the blood in this way. It seems that blood and flesh are linked in the Bible, but also distinguished. The whole expression is supposed to represent "humanity" (the state of being human).
"since he's in the bosom position and he's able to explain God." that does not = seeing god. All it says is that the son of god is able to explain and describe the father. The word became flesh.
A Sample Article: ΚΤΙΖΩ - ΚΤΙΣΙΣ - ΚΤΙΣΜΑ - ΚΤΙΣΤΗΣ, in E. BONS - J. JOOSTEN (eds.), Septuagint Vocabulary. Pre-history, Usage, Reception (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 58), SBL Press, Atlanta (GA) 2011, 173-187.
"A less specific sense of κτίσις is present in some other quotations, e.g. Rev 3:14 (Christ as ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ), Col 1:15 (Christ as the firstborn of all creation), and Heb 9:11 (the greater and perfect tent that is not made with hands, thus it not of this κτίσις)."
" The plural is attested in Herm. Vis. 1:3 (“creatures of God”). Furthermore, the singular κτίσις explicitly refers to humankind (Did. 16:5: ἡ κτίσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων; → κτίσις 4.-5.). The temporal sense (→ κτίσις 4.-5.) only recurs in Barn 15:3. "
One other thing about Rev. 3:14 is the titles that occur along with arche, and what function the verse has in relation to Christ's counsel given to Laodicea.
Yes, but what bearing does the rest have on the introduction? How exactly does creation tie in with this other than the white robes and gold. All part of being acceptable into a new creation.
I normally look at the GNT documents in reverse: ho does the introduction affect later chapters? But with that being said, the problem as Koester has pointed out, is how John uses ktisis and ktizw in Revelation. Not once does he use either term (noun or verb) to speak about the new creation.
The letters and the visions are two propositions. But who is the lord and God, and who is the lamb? Also what from the rest of this writing tells you that the lamb is first created or origin in a temporal sense?
For the Lord and God, see Rev. 4:10-11; 11:15-17; 21:22-23. Notice the contrast between God and the Lamb.
In view of Rev. 5:6-14; 14:1-5; 21:9-14, 27, who do you say the Lamb is?
I don't work with the premise that Revelation has to say explicitly that the Lamb was first created in order to understand Rev. 3:14 that way. No normative hermeneutical rule necessitates that we understand matters that way. However, here's a quick way to possibly deduce that the Lamb is first created:
A) Either the Lamb is God or a creature B) The Lamb is not God C) Therefore, the Lamb is a creature
Here's another thing to consider. Either the Lamb was a man, whom God exalted to his throne or he was an angel who became human, then resumed spirit life thereafter.
You asked for the identity of the Lamb, so that is why I pointed to Rev. 5, 14, and 21. IMO, his identity is clear from Rev. 5 & 14 too. Of course, the 12 apostles were creatures, but my point was that the apostles are symbolic foundations stones of New Jerusalem, which is the Lamb's wife/bride. They also constitute part of the Lamb's bride, and this language sheds further light on who the Lamb is.
Even after their resurrection to immortal and incorruptible life, the apostles remain creatures, but so is the Lamb.
Sorry, but I disagree. For Christians, there is one Lord and Messiah, Christ Jesus. The Bible calls some followers of Christ "anointed." But there is one Messiah: the "anointed" form Christ's body while he is the kephale.
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16 NASB)
1 Cor. 11:3 declares that Christ (Messiah) is the kephale of man.
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it (1 Cor. 12:27 NASB).
1) There's a difference between "an anointed one" and "the anointed one" of God (1 Chronicles 16:22; John 6:69). Just like there is a distinction between "holy ones" (hagioi) and the holy one of God (Contrast Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 2:5, 9 with Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; Acts 3:14).
2) Granted, the Bible speaks of Christians becoming kings/priests and judges, but it does not mean there's more than one Messiah (capital M). Will the authority of the king-priests even come close to matching Christ's authority? Who hands the kingdom back to his God and Father? On whose throne do the anointed sit? See Rev. 4:10-11.
Another translation of the 2000BCE Egyptian text in entirety:-
“Then said Atum: My living daughter is Tefnut. She will exist with her brother Shu. Life (ankh) is his identity, Order/Truth (maat) is her identity, I shall live with my twins, my fledglings, With me in their midst – One of them at my back, One of them in my belly… It is my son who shall live, He whom I begot in my identity, For he has learned how to enliven the one in the egg, in the respective womb, As mankind, that emerged from my Eye – [the Eye] that I sent forth when I was alone with the Waters, in inertness, Not finding a place in which I could stand or sit, Before Heliopolis had been founded, in which I could exist; Before the Lotus has been tied together, on which I could sit” (CT 80.30-50)
The imagery ties in well with Psalms 110:1 & acts 2:30 as the throne of David which comes from the imagery here exodus 20:6. Moses had the word of God too.
I agree with the substance of your comments. Just one small thing: Christ is the prophet greater than Moses.
As for how the Greek article functions, its function is determined contextually. We apparently do have the monadic article in Greek or there are times when the article identifies a singular noun. However, that's not always the case.
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your [a]countrymen, you shall listen to him.
Deut 31
7 Then Moses called to Joshua (Jesus) and said to him in the sight of all Israel, “Be strong and courageous, for you shall go with this people into the land which the Lord has sworn to their fathers to give them, and you shall give it to them as an inheritance. 8 The Lord is the one who goes ahead of you; He will be with you. He will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed.”
Joshua 24:19
19 Then Joshua said to the people, “You will not be able to serve the Lord, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins.
GMat 1
21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus (Joshua), for He will save His people from their sins.”
While Heb. 3:1-6 contrasts servant with son, from another perspective, Christ is both the servant of God and his Son.
Acts 3:13 (NIV)- The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.
Acts 9:20-and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God."
Compare Acts 13:33
We also have the servant of YHWH prophecy in Isa. 53.
v13 note 37 sn His servant. The term servant has messianic connotations given the context of the promise, the note of suffering, and the titles and functions noted in vv. 14-15.
Since you asked about the Israelite patriarchs, I had in mind this note (34):
tc ‡ The repetition of ὁ θεός (ho theos, “God”) before the names of Isaac and Jacob is found in P א C (A D without article) 36 104 1175 lat. The omission of the second and third ὁ θεός is supported by B E Ψ 33 1739 M. The other time that Exod 3:6 is quoted in Acts (7:32) the best witnesses also lack the repeated ὁ θεός, but the three other times this OT passage is quoted in the NT the full form, with the thrice-mentioned θεός, is used (Matt 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37). Scribes would be prone to conform the wording here to the LXX; the longer reading is thus most likely not authentic. NA has the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.
I've also found the Step Bible to be helpful for textual matters.
"An alternate rendering in Acts 3:13 is "son" or "child.""- would still like to know the justification for this starment as I have found no textual variants?
The suggestion that Acts 3:13 can be rendered with "son" or "child" is not based on a textual variant, but rather the meaning of the word (pais) translated "servant."
NABRE says the word can be "rendered" (i.e., translated) with son or child.
Expositor's GT: τὸν παῖδα: “his Servant,” R.V. (margin, “Child”). Vulgate has filium, which all other English versions (except A.V., “Child”) seem to have followed. But the rendering “Servant” is undoubtedly most appropriate, cf. Acts 3:26, and Acts 4:27; Acts 4:30 (employed in the Messianic sense of Isaiah 42:1; Isaiah 52:13; Isaiah 53:11), where the LXX has παῖς, Hebrew עֶבֶד.
85 comments:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yXqKAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT387&lpg=PT387&dq=prov+8:22+rev+3:14&source=bl&ots=yMNiJbgmBo&sig=ACfU3U3cOWKFq897MMwtI2jfs9niCM8rpQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNx4mbm63lAhU1Q0EAHay1B9EQ6AEwCXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=prov%208%3A22%20rev%203%3A14&f=false
Interesting discussion found here.
This author concludes that new creation is the better fit.
Yeah, we've discussed Beale and he's got little company, except maybe the unitarians. :)
Most of his fellow trinitarians don't even agree with him.
I'm being hyperbolic, but hardly anyone has followed Beale's line of reasoning and I don't see good reason for it either. These guys jump through hoops to avoid the obvious although I will admit that Beale might be on to something.
I was drawn to his explanation because of what he has to say about the garden of Eden along with his other conclusions in his recent works. It resonates quite strongly with my active research.
See the comment on 3:14 here: https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/commentary-on-revelation-314-22/
https://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/OladosuT01.pdf
"This parallel is demonstrated further by recalling that every one of Christ's self-introductions in each of the other letters in Rev 2-3 is either a restatement or development of something in ch. 1."
https://www.wts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Best-of-Trueman-Beale.pdf
An observation made by others including myself.
I have done a search and found that many quote Beale on revelation. Has anyone contradicted his conclusion on 3:14?
When a point comes up that others do not like the tendancy is to not bring attention to it unless they have a worthwhile rebuttal.
I have not reveiwed what David Aune writes about Rev. 3:14, but Craig Koester (Anchor Bible Commentary on Revelation) makes a brief aside mregarding Beale's idea:
Revelation uses “creation” (ktisis) and related words (ktizein, ktisma) for the present created order (4:11; 5:13; 10:6) rather than for the new
creation (cf. 21:1; Beale). Calling Christ the archē of creation could mean that he is its “origin,” though “ruler” is more likely
[END QUOTE]
The quote about restatement doesn't exactly say that 3:14 is a restatement of 1:5 and I don't see how anyone could prove that connection by the use of philological methods. In fact, philology leads one in the opposite direction. For example, Poythress accepts the new creation interpretation of Beale, but does not think "ruler" is the intended meaning of arche in 3:14.
https://dailydoseofgreek.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/06/Schreiner-Revelation-ESV-Expository-Commentary-Crossway.pdf
"Jesus is the beginning and head of the new creation (3:14), the living one, the resurrected Lord (1:18; 2:8). Jesus’ rule is due not only to his divinity but also to his humanity. Jesus fulfills the promise of the Davidic covenant (cf. 2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 17; Psalms 89; 132) as the root of David (Rev. 5:5; cf. Isa. 11:1, 10). As the Davidic king, he will rule the world with an iron rod (Rev. 12:5; cf. Ps. 2:9), and when he comes again he will destroy God’s enemies (Rev. 19:11–21)."
pg 538
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z1ErDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT699&lpg=PT699&dq=David+Aune+Rev.+%223:14%22&source=bl&ots=4nE8W1jhLk&sig=ACfU3U1eaENY7LvOs9A_UnbYAo0zHticPg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjG35b5w6_lAhVQasAKHWWuA3U4ChDoATAAegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=rev%203%3A14%201%3A5%20wisdom%20as%20the%20first%20of%20gods&f=false
For the NET commentary:- "Others, probably the majority, take the phrase “the originator of God’s creation” to refer to creation in general (cf. Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15, 18)."
Round and Round it goes.
Beale is not the only one who sees all of these references as "new creation". They all have to be dealt with within there own local contexts first.
This is why I have never bought this whole "hymn" idea. All they are trying to do is remove the passages from the local context. Like it is just thrown in there, out of the blue. A curve ball out of context.
You're right that Beale is not alone, but his position has not gained wide assent either. Besides other possible objections, one has to deal with Koester's lexical objection about how John uses ktisis in Revelation and Bauckham points to how John employs arche. To me, that is appealing to the local context.
Almost every commentator also believes his/her observations are "clearly" right. Below, I quote Paige Patterson (NAC on Revelation):
The last expression [in Rev. 3:14], which the NIV translators have rendered "the ruler of God's creation," is "the beginning of the creation of God" in the Authorized Version. The question here is the meaning in this context of the Greek archē, which in some situations can mean beginning or first, and in others, by derivation, ruler. If the Authorized Version translation is accepted and reads "the beginning of the creation of God," then those who embrace an Arian Christology, such as contemporary Mormons, would want to argue that there was a time when the Son was not and that he was the first of the creations of the Father. Clearly enough, however, that is not what is intended in the verse. Even if the verse is translated as the Authorized Version has rendered it, the emphasis is not on the beginning of the Christ but on the beginning of everything else in Christ. Clearly he is God's agent in creation, and this is consistent with what is said by the apostle John, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:3).
The NIV translators have avoided the problem altogether by simply rendering archē as ruler and stating that Christ is the ruler of God's creation. Certainly nothing is wrong with the translation or the theology involved in this rendering. Either way the message is the same: Christ is the affirmation of God, the faithful and the true witness, and the One who rules preeminently over all God's creation. He is, in the final analysis, in a position to know and to speak. Beasley-Murray notes that the expression "while echoing Prov 8:22, does so in the sense of the developed Christology which appears in the hymn of Col 1:15–20."
Local context:-
https://youtu.be/tTzkF4ZchWE
I was talking about the local context of Rev. 3:14. Moreover, I'm not a Trinitarian, but Trinity Delusion does not get everything right either. He has not disproved that the Logos was a person with God the Father; he has not proved that the beginning of Jn. 1:1 does not allude to Gen. 1:1 and so on. But a person is free to believe what he/she wants.
Do you think Trinitarians feel they're reading John 1 according to its local context? Of course, they do think that, just like Trinity Delusion feels he is.
The burden of proof lies with those who claim a "hymn" out of context. Even if a passage has poetic structure does not automatically make it an independent insertion into the text. So he can think he is correct but he is only standing on the shoulders of others who are really standing on nothing of substance.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rOb0fXM4fAUC&pg=PA192&dq=craig+koester+revelation+%22new+creation%22+%22end+of+all+things%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixuPaFhrHlAhW9RhUIHa4zCQIQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=craig%20koester%20revelation%20%22new%20creation%22%20%22end%20of%20all%20things%22&f=false
So please explain how trinity delusion has got it wrong when referring to all the verses upto 1:6 of GJohn. This is all context. What does he need to prove exactly. It is those that ignore verses or disconnect them that have to provide proof.
I don't insist that John 1:1-18 is a hymn: others do that. It is not my position.
Read what Koester writes about Rev. 3:14, which I've already quoted, but it's good to read for yourself. While John might be talking about a new creation in Rev. 21, he apparently does not use ktisis/ktizw to speak of this "new heavens and new earth." Koester thinks Rev. 3:14 is not referencing the new creation.
I'll write more later about John 1.
Trinity Delusion may be referring to the local context, but he's interpreting what the "beginning" is and how the Logos became flesh or was with God. He's not explaining those verses via a blank slate (i.e., with no presuppositions and interpretive leanings).
Just to be clear. I am responding to all your posts & my reference to hymns is in relation to the Pauline letters. I have not personally encountered any serious scholarship that claims GJohn 1 is a hymn.
Is the understanding of "Beginning" in the other Gospels in any way ambiguous? GJohns is. Shouldn't it be read in light of the other gospels first?
As i keep saying what Koester thinks is not my concern but rather the data. He recognizes, as do most that New creation is a theme that runs through the NT. It seems setup in the LXX understandings of the Tanakh.
I believe that new creation is referred too in Jesus own words.
There is mounting evidence that Wisdom literature has relevance to all the gospels in terms of personification.
https://youtu.be/ueRIdrlZsvs?t=5620
Craig Evans referring to scholarship on Gjohn.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=8VOnBgAAQBAJ&q=wisdom#v=onepage&q=no%20one%20has%20ever%20seen&f=false
Can you see the problem here when this author interprets as "no one else has seen" - what did Jesus just say? Did Jesus say that he had seen?
I don't believe that John necessarily is a hymn, but there is serious scholarship that says otherwise.
The problem I have with what you posted from Koester is that while he says Revelation discusses a new creation, he denies that Rev. 3:4 does; moreover, when Revelation purportedly discusses the new creation, words for "creation" apparently are not used.
I have no problem with wisdom being personified in the Gospels: that doesn't take away from logos being identified with the preexistent and enfleshed Jesus.
The implication from John :8 is supposed to be that "the only/only-begotten god (or Son)" does see the Father since he's in the bosom position and he's able to explain God. Yeah, it's an implication, not an exact statement.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25610219?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.mcmaster.ca/mjtm/4-7.htm
Discussion of the Johannine Prologue as a hymn.
John is so different from the other Gospels that it would be ill-advised to interpret John through the Synoptics. Why not examine how John uses a word before looking to other books?
Because the way GJohn speaks is ambiguous & that is why I keep coming back to GJohn 8:54,55
then - “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
But Jesus said that Abraham had seen him - not the other way around.
The witness to Abraham seeing the future messiah was the father (I am the god of Abraham...) - the two witness rule & at 8:58 the father speaks.
IMO this is a key to understanding the general language but it is still difficult to follow.
The majority of the dialogue in GJohn is the father speaking through Jesus. The fathers words spoken by "the son of man".
I now have a better understanding of GJohn 20:28.
"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
Look at GJohn 6 about eating his flesh and drinking his blood (FLESH).
6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement (Logos); who can listen to it?” - the word became flesh.
All within the misunderstanding motif.
The evident links to lady wisdom in the body of Gjohn have been enlightening.
Which specific word do you suggest that I examine in detail?
Also John 6:35 needs to be interpreted through Matthew 6:11 in the greek.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/27455/in-romans-819-what-is-the-meaning-of-%CE%BA%CF%84%CE%AF%CF%83%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%82
http://artflsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/showrest_?kwic.6.1.21214.0.25.GreekFeb19
The word I had in mind that you examine in the Gospel of John is arche, since we've been talking about it. Stan Porter in his book about the Johannine voice also has an interesting analysis of Logos-language.
You bring up a thought worth pondering about Christ's blood and flesh, but I would not associate "flesh" with the blood in this way. It seems that blood and flesh are linked in the Bible, but also distinguished. The whole expression is supposed to represent "humanity" (the state of being human).
What's the connecting link, linguistically/contextually, between John 6:35 and Matt 6:11?
https://biblehub.com/greek/epiousion_1967.htm
https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=66119
GMat 4:4
and this is where they intersect:- GJohn 6:51
http://blog.adw.org/2012/05/a-hidden-mysterious-and-much-debated-word-in-the-our-father/
"since he's in the bosom position and he's able to explain God." that does not = seeing god. All it says is that the son of god is able to explain and describe the father. The word became flesh.
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zntw.2014.105.issue-1/znw-2014-0007/znw-2014-0007.xml
A Sample Article: ΚΤΙΖΩ - ΚΤΙΣΙΣ - ΚΤΙΣΜΑ - ΚΤΙΣΤΗΣ, in E. BONS - J. JOOSTEN (eds.), Septuagint Vocabulary. Pre-history, Usage, Reception (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 58), SBL Press, Atlanta (GA) 2011, 173-187.
"A less specific sense of κτίσις is present in some other quotations, e.g. Rev 3:14 (Christ as ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ), Col 1:15 (Christ as the firstborn of all creation), and Heb 9:11 (the greater and perfect tent that is not made with hands, thus it not of this κτίσις)."
" The plural is attested in Herm. Vis. 1:3 (“creatures of God”). Furthermore, the singular κτίσις explicitly refers to humankind (Did. 16:5: ἡ κτίσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων; → κτίσις 4.-5.). The temporal sense (→ κτίσις 4.-5.) only recurs in Barn 15:3. "
pg181
https://www.academia.edu/24654971/A_Sample_Article_%CE%9A%CE%A4%CE%99%CE%96%CE%A9_-_%CE%9A%CE%A4%CE%99%CE%A3%CE%99%CE%A3_-_%CE%9A%CE%A4%CE%99%CE%A3%CE%9C%CE%91_-_%CE%9A%CE%A4%CE%99%CE%A3%CE%A4%CE%97%CE%A3_in_E._BONS_-_J._JOOSTEN_eds._Septuagint_Vocabulary._Pre-history_Usage_Reception_Septuagint_and_Cognate_Studies_58_SBL_Press_Atlanta_GA_2011_173-187
In context this can have a specific meaning in light of Rev 1:5 - "creatures" as an idiom for mankind.
https://brill.com/view/title/7487
https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=NewteJPaubIC&q=personification#v=snippet&q=personification&f=false
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/2259/1/Assmann_Solar_Discourse_1994.pdf
See translation on page 113.
One other thing about Rev. 3:14 is the titles that occur along with arche, and what function the verse has in relation to Christ's counsel given to Laodicea.
The letter to Laodicea has some commonality with psalm 110:1. So messianic rulership is still the theme.
www.researchgate.net/publication/290869788_Creation_Imagery_in_Qumran_Hymns_and_Prayers
Messianic rule is the theme of Christ's message to Laodicea? What about the counsel he gives them? That would seem to be the main point.
Yes, but what bearing does the rest have on the introduction? How exactly does creation tie in with this other than the white robes and gold. All part of being acceptable into a new creation.
"Creation as the Liturgical Nexus of the Blessings and Curses in 4QBerakhot"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9IN1DwAAQBAJ&dq=%22Creation+as+the+Liturgical+Nexus+of+the+Blessings+and+Curses+in+4QBerakhot%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s
See page 198 footnote 56.
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Refining
I normally look at the GNT documents in reverse: ho does the introduction affect later chapters? But with that being said, the problem as Koester has pointed out, is how John uses ktisis and ktizw in Revelation. Not once does he use either term (noun or verb) to speak about the new creation.
See Rev. 4:10-11; 5:13; 10:6.
The letters and the visions are two propositions. But who is the lord and God, and who is the lamb? Also what from the rest of this writing tells you that the lamb is first created or origin in a temporal sense?
What do you think the "new creation actually is" and when did it start ?
For the Lord and God, see Rev. 4:10-11; 11:15-17; 21:22-23. Notice the contrast between God and the Lamb.
In view of Rev. 5:6-14; 14:1-5; 21:9-14, 27, who do you say the Lamb is?
I don't work with the premise that Revelation has to say explicitly that the Lamb was first created in order to understand Rev. 3:14 that way. No normative hermeneutical rule necessitates that we understand matters that way. However, here's a quick way to possibly deduce that the Lamb is first created:
A) Either the Lamb is God or a creature
B) The Lamb is not God
C) Therefore, the Lamb is a creature
Here's another thing to consider. Either the Lamb was a man, whom God exalted to his throne or he was an angel who became human, then resumed spirit life thereafter.
Rev 21:14 makes it fairly clear who the lamb is.
The twelve apostles were creatures. But not any more.
You asked for the identity of the Lamb, so that is why I pointed to Rev. 5, 14, and 21. IMO, his identity is clear from Rev. 5 & 14 too. Of course, the 12 apostles were creatures, but my point was that the apostles are symbolic foundations stones of New Jerusalem, which is the Lamb's wife/bride. They also constitute part of the Lamb's bride, and this language sheds further light on who the Lamb is.
Even after their resurrection to immortal and incorruptible life, the apostles remain creatures, but so is the Lamb.
Where does the Bible explicitly speak about the new creation? See 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:14-16; Eph. 2:10-15; 4:24.
Jesus is the origin of Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:12–14.
What about the artificial division of those called anointed and one called Christ? They will all become Christ (Messiah).
Sorry, but I disagree. For Christians, there is one Lord and Messiah, Christ Jesus. The Bible calls some followers of Christ "anointed." But there is one Messiah: the "anointed" form Christ's body while he is the kephale.
Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16 NASB)
1 Cor. 11:3 declares that Christ (Messiah) is the kephale of man.
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it (1 Cor. 12:27 NASB).
Compare Gal. 3:16, 29; Rev. 11:15.
And what about John 1:41?
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/hammashiach_4899.htm
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/A-Kingdom-Of-Priests
GMat 22:19-33.
1) There's a difference between "an anointed one" and "the anointed one" of God (1 Chronicles 16:22; John 6:69). Just like there is a distinction between "holy ones" (hagioi) and the holy one of God (Contrast Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 2:5, 9 with Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; Acts 3:14).
2) Granted, the Bible speaks of Christians becoming kings/priests and judges, but it does not mean there's more than one Messiah (capital M). Will the authority of the king-priests even come close to matching Christ's authority? Who hands the kingdom back to his God and Father? On whose throne do the anointed sit? See Rev. 4:10-11.
Not arguing against an origin or ruler of messiahs.
Does the definite article in Greek denote the only or singular?
Makes me recall the kings who sat upon YHWH's throne. For the concept of an anointed one/messiah, compare Isa. 45:1.
Another translation of the 2000BCE Egyptian text in entirety:-
“Then said Atum: My living daughter is Tefnut.
She will exist with her brother Shu.
Life (ankh) is his identity,
Order/Truth (maat) is her identity,
I shall live with my twins, my fledglings,
With me in their midst –
One of them at my back,
One of them in my belly…
It is my son who shall live,
He whom I begot in my identity,
For he has learned how to enliven the one in the egg, in the respective
womb,
As mankind, that emerged from my Eye –
[the Eye] that I sent forth when I
was alone with the Waters, in inertness,
Not finding a place in which I could stand or sit,
Before Heliopolis had been founded, in which I could exist;
Before the Lotus has been tied together, on which I could sit”
(CT 80.30-50)
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/limshicho_4899.htm
Do the "anointed" sit on the throne? Does the lamb sit on the throne?
John 14:12
For sitting on the throne, see Revelation 3:21; 4:4. Compare Revelation 22:1-5.
The apostles would do greater works in what sense? Not in heaven according to that verse.
The imagery ties in well with Psalms 110:1 & acts 2:30 as the throne of David which comes from the imagery here exodus 20:6. Moses had the word of God too.
I agree with the substance of your comments. Just one small thing: Christ is the prophet greater than Moses.
As for how the Greek article functions, its function is determined contextually. We apparently do have the monadic article in Greek or there are times when the article identifies a singular noun. However, that's not always the case.
https://www.academia.edu/2243755/The_Servant_Motif_and_Moses_in_Hebrews_3_1-6
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/didache-missing-piece-puzzle-early-christianity/
"Jesus servant"
Is Hebrews the response to something?
Didache 9:2f.; 10:2f.
Deut 18
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your [a]countrymen, you shall listen to him.
Deut 31
7 Then Moses called to Joshua (Jesus) and said to him in the sight of all Israel, “Be strong and courageous, for you shall go with this people into the land which the Lord has sworn to their fathers to give them, and you shall give it to them as an inheritance. 8 The Lord is the one who goes ahead of you; He will be with you. He will not fail you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed.”
Joshua 24:19
19 Then Joshua said to the people, “You will not be able to serve the Lord, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins.
GMat 1
21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus (Joshua), for He will save His people from their sins.”
Hebrews 3:3- For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
See Dan. 9:24-27 for a prophecy about the forgiveness of sins.
Zechariah 13:1-In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.
While Heb. 3:1-6 contrasts servant with son, from another perspective, Christ is both the servant of God and his Son.
Acts 3:13 (NIV)- The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.
Acts 9:20-and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God."
Compare Acts 13:33
We also have the servant of YHWH prophecy in Isa. 53.
An alternate rendering in Acts 3:13 is "son" or "child." See Acts 3:26; 4:25-30.
The NABRE suggests the servant language possibly derives from Isa. 52:13-53:12.
Upon which manuscript evidence is the Acts 3:13 reading based:-
Acts 3:13 “the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” vs. “God of Isaac and God of Jacob” vs. “and Isaac and Jacob” (4 words)
Acts 3:26 “from your iniquities” vs. “from iniquities” (only in Vaticanus) (1 word not counted in the totals)
Acts 4:27 “people of Israel” vs. “synagogue of Israel” (Jewish Peshitta of Psalm 2, Hilary, Augustine) (not counted in the totals)
Acts 4:30 “by the hand of you stretching” vs. “by the hand stretching”
See the text critical notes in the NET Bible for Acts 3:13. I was just reading it yesterday.
Vaticanus has weight, even if its' wrong, but I don't attribute as much weight to Hilary/Augustine.
https://netbible.org/bible/Acts+3
v13 note 37
sn His servant. The term servant has messianic connotations given the context of the promise, the note of suffering, and the titles and functions noted in vv. 14-15.
Am I looking at the wrong site or note?
Since you asked about the Israelite patriarchs, I had in mind this note (34):
tc ‡ The repetition of ὁ θεός (ho theos, “God”) before the names of Isaac and Jacob is found in P א C (A D without article) 36 104 1175 lat. The omission of the second and third ὁ θεός is supported by B E Ψ 33 1739 M. The other time that Exod 3:6 is quoted in Acts (7:32) the best witnesses also lack the repeated ὁ θεός, but the three other times this OT passage is quoted in the NT the full form, with the thrice-mentioned θεός, is used (Matt 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37). Scribes would be prone to conform the wording here to the LXX; the longer reading is thus most likely not authentic. NA has the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.
I've also found the Step Bible to be helpful for textual matters.
"An alternate rendering in Acts 3:13 is "son" or "child.""- would still like to know the justification for this starment as I have found no textual variants?
A little more investigation on the Egyptian text. The later Egyptian understanding of maat is very similar to the Greek logos.
The suggestion that Acts 3:13 can be rendered with "son" or "child" is not based on a textual variant, but rather the meaning of the word (pais) translated "servant."
NABRE says the word can be "rendered" (i.e., translated) with son or child.
Expositor's GT: τὸν παῖδα: “his Servant,” R.V. (margin, “Child”). Vulgate has filium, which all other English versions (except A.V., “Child”) seem to have followed. But the rendering “Servant” is undoubtedly most appropriate, cf. Acts 3:26, and Acts 4:27; Acts 4:30 (employed in the Messianic sense of Isaiah 42:1; Isaiah 52:13; Isaiah 53:11), where the LXX has παῖς, Hebrew עֶבֶד.
Yes child is normally the designation for a servant as opposed to a slave (doulos). But there is a gray area of overlap.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z_Oex3IDPSYC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=boy+as+a+designation+for+servant&source=bl&ots=ZFSXcvg4Z6&sig=ACfU3U1GpAH_l5ceVTYU9UBahNROycOX_Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLhbXjyM3lAhVitnEKHTXjAy8Q6AEwGHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=boy%20as%20a%20designation%20for%20servant&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SdqdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=boy+as+a+designation+for+servant&source=bl&ots=TpO_YWXtoa&sig=ACfU3U3l2HFfmtkTOlq2RAdSPO4m3E3RNw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuxJf_0c3lAhXFRxUIHYmaAXY4ChDoATADegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=boy%20as%20a%20designation%20for%20servant&f=false
For the Hebrew equivalent the term "child" seems best avoided.
Post a Comment