ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ(1 Corinthians 8:6, NA28)
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν,
καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ.
ἐκ may also be used to speak about "the efficient cause, or agent from which any action or thing proceeds, is produced, or effected from, or by" (Spiros Zodhiates).
The data would thus indicate that when ἐκ is applied to the Father's activities at 1 Cor. 8:6, it is describing His creative function, but Christ is the intermediate agent of creation.
In this regard, it would probably be worth one's time to reference the introduction of David Aune's three-volume commentary on Revelation. On p. CLXXIX-CLXXX of his introduction to volume I, Aune details the many uses of ἐκ in Revelation. The examples he gives for this Greek preposition are cases in which it signifies the action of a personal or impersonal agent: Rev. 2:9; 3:18; 8:11; 9:18. In my estimation, 2 Cor. 5:1 could be included as an example in which ἐκ describes a creation of God--a spiritual building in heaven.
As for διά, it seems difficult to construe the preposition as connoting that things were made by Christ in 1 Cor. 8:6 and Heb. 1:2; it is evidently more appropriate to understand διά here as suggestive of intermediate agency:
"Intermediate agency is normally conveyed by διά with the genitive. For example, God delivered the law to Moses by angels (Gal. 3:19) and John sent a message to Christ through his disciples (Matt. 11:2; cf. John 1:3; 3:17)" (Richard A. Young's Grammar, p. 91-92).
Dana-Mantey say that while "διά is occasionally used to express agency, it does not approximate the full strength of ὑπό."
They continue:
"This distinction throws light on Jesus' relation to the creation, implying that Jesus was not the absolute, independent creator, but rather the intermediate agent in creation" (D-M Section 109).
29 comments:
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/9551/David%2520Horrell%2520JSNT%25202010.doc?sequence=2
"2 Corinthians 5 also contains one of the only two references in the Bible to the phrase ‘new creation’, the other also found in Paul, in Gal 6.15 – both occurrences being elliptical and terse. There are two key questions for our purposes: one is whether the phrase has a cosmic or only an anthropological reference; the second is whether the hope for a new creation implies that the present creation is devalued as merely a temporary and soon-to-pass sphere of existence, the preservation of which thus makes little theological sense.
Contemporary scholarship has given contrasting answers to the first question with some, notably Moyer Hubbard (2002), arguing that Paul’s focus is on the Spirit-wrought transformation of the individual convert. Others, like Ulrich Mell and most recently Tony Jackson, have argued, more convincingly in my view, that ‘new creation’ signals an all-encompassing eschatological transformation – of ‘the individual, the community and the cosmos… inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Christ’ (Jackson 2009: 2-3). As Mell rightly notes, the ‘from now on’ (a)po_ tou= nu=n) of 2 Cor 5.16 is not conversion terminology but eschatological terminology; a new world has been brought into existence in Christ. In this new world, as Romans 8 also makes clear, human and non-human are together bound up; the whole creation is included in this thoroughly cosmic transformation."
Perhaps Murphy sees things a similar way.
https://www.uncp.edu/profile/t-ryan-jackson-phd
I would like to read his PHD thesis.
Isn't the contrast in 8:4 telling us that Christ is a genuine idol?
CF. Colossians 1:15
Yes, Jackson's thesis looks interesting.
No, I don't believe that Christ is a genuine idol. The word for idol is not applied to Christ: he is called the "image" of God, and there's a difference between idols and images. Not all images are idols. See also 2 Cor. 4:4-6.
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/plato_philosopher-sophist/1921/pb_LCL123.445.xml
"And in the midst of our perplexity about that, we were overwhelmed by a still greater dizziness when the doctrine appeared which challenges everybody and asserts that neither likeness nor image nor appearance exists at all, because falsehood never exists anywhere in any way."
Plato is a totally different "animal" from the apostle Paul. But we once had a WT article which pointed out that the temple of Solomon (and presumably the second temple) contained images like cherubs or plants, but God never approved Israel's use of idols. Pictures taken with cameras are images, but we don't understand them to be idols unless someone goes crazy with selfies.
Plato apparently believed in the whole 2 distinct worlds (intelligible and sensible) and he thought (according to the Republic) that we have tripartite souls capable of apprehending intelligible objects. For Plato, the material/sensible realm is filled with "images" which are imperfectly patterned after otherworldly Forms (eidoi).
Plato lumps the terms together as not being too different. how an image is approached is not my point.
Even the roman governors in there respective districts had statues of themselves that were even painted in pigments to look extremely lifelike. However, there is no evidence that the monument to Pilate was ever worshiped.
Each Idol is an image.
So going from many gods to one god we also go from many images to one image.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e9/91/aa/e991aa87f28265421248ea5a0c8d678c--ancient-ruins-ancient-art.jpg
From Pompei
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Lf0cDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=isaiah+65:17+lxx+%22new+creation%22&source=bl&ots=LSMLcW2FBa&sig=ACfU3U3JIjdVIRqJDzRrGIZEORnuI59BcA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEl7zQuOflAhUvShUIHStrAy4Q6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaiah%2065%3A17%20lxx%20%22new%20creation%22&f=false
Words like "image" are used in a technical way by Plato like eidos is. We can learn something from his usage, but this point cannot be forgotten: the world is full of "natural" images on his view.
As I said earlier, not all images are idols. I was addressing your comment about Jesus being a genuine idol versus calling him "the image"
An idol might be an image, but clearly, not all images are idols. Christ might be an/the image but I don't know any Christian who considers him to be an idol.
I think the new creation is often misunderstood by these commentators. The language appears twice in the GNT. However, they take a few references and build a huge conceptual edifice greatly abstracted from the original Pauline passages.
IMO the phrase "new creation" in not even required.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-28.htm
"Renewal".
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=v0RaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22new+creation%22+dss&source=bl&ots=QkKe3vXt7Q&sig=ACfU3U1_0ABImxXceG3UkQuotgNJwGkk7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz55bdzOflAhWORMAKHdjIBxgQ6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22new%20creation%22%20dss&f=false
Because of the language used in 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:14-16, I see the new creation being distinct from what Matthew discusses. It's not a major point of concern for me right now in terms of doctrine/belief, but my concern is more terminological. Jackson brings in the Hebrew Bible to analyze "new creation," but I see different issues between Paul and Isaiah. In any event, new creation should be reserved specifically for those "in/in union with Christ." The Israel of God.
And that is who the Pauline letters were written for.
I think that rev 20:9 is going to need to be addressed at some point.
Platos tes ges - hagion.
Have you read the WT references for Rev. 20:9? What point stands out to you?
In conjunction with Rev 5:10 - ἐπὶ.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/revelation-510-answering-dr-robert.html
I have no problem with the translation but rather the implication. Who are the ἁγίων ?
The Revelation Climax book offers remarks on this verse, but undoubtedly, τῶν ἁγίων refers to the same group that is discussed in Rev. 20:4-6. It is associated with the "beloved city" in 20:9. The holy ones don't have to live on earth in order to be attacked. Besides, 20:9 refers to τὴν παρεμβολὴν τῶν ἁγίων
See the comments on Rev. 20:8-9 here: https://www.academia.edu/7147967/REVELATION--Exegetical_notes_based_on_the_Greek_text
Katebe pyr ek you ouranou ?
This passage combines allusions to the Gog and Magog oracle in Ezek 38– 39, where God judges Gog by sending torrential rains, hailstones, fire, and brimstone down upon Gog and his host (Ezek 38: 22; 39: 6), with the punitive miracles performed twice by Elijah in which fire fell from heaven and consumed the troops sent by Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:9– 12; here the phrase “fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty” occurs twice). These phrases are verbally similar to Rev 20:9 in the LXX 4 Kgdms 1: 10, 12, 14, καὶ κατέβη πῦρ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατέφαγεν αὐτὸν καὶ τοῦς πεντήκοντα αὐτοῦ, “then fire came down from heaven and devoured him and his fifty.”
Aune, Dr. David; Aune, Dr. David. Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 1242). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Aune, Dr. David; Aune, Dr. David. Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 1242). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Also, (Sib. Or 2.196– 205; 3.84– 87, 543; 4.175– 78; 5.274, 377– 78; 7.119– 25; 8.225– 26), e.g., Sib Or 3.53– 54 (tr. Collins, OTP 1: 363),
Aune, Dr. David; Aune, Dr. David. Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 1242). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Rev 13:13 is also of note.
Rev. 13:13 is a good one. See also 1 Chronicles 21:26; Lamentations 1:13; Luke 9:54.
"There is very little knowledge of the actual contents of the original Sibylline Books. The texts which are presented here are forgeries, probably composed between the second to sixth century C.E. They purport to predict events which were already history or mythological history at the time of composition, as well as vague all-purpose predictions, especially woe for various cities and countries such as Rome and Assyria. They are an odd pastiche of Hellenistic and Roman Pagan mythology, including Homer and Hesiod; Jewish legends such as the Garden of Eden, Noah and the Tower of Babel; thinly veiled references to historical figures such as Alexander the Great and Cleopatra, as well as a long list of Roman Emperors; and last but not least, Gnostic and early Christian homilies and eschatological writings, all in no particular order. There may be actual residue of the original Sibylline books wedged in here and there, but this is dubious."
Lactantius and other "fathers" made use of the Sib Oracles, but it's likely they're not genuine. However, that doesn't mean we can't draw philological conclusions from these documents or learn historical lessons. I believe that's why David Aune cites them.
Post a Comment