Greek (NA28): καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ λέγουσαν·
ἄρτι ἐγένετο ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δύναμις
καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν
καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ,
ὅτι ἐβλήθη ὁ κατήγωρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν,
ὁ κατηγορῶν αὐτοὺς ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός.
John now hears a "loud voice" (φωνὴν μεγάλην) in heaven: the voice is not identified, but based on what the voice utters, I would submit that it issues from Christians who have been raised to heaven postmortem (brothers of Christ).
In what sense does salvation and power (ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δύναμις) come to pass? Within the context of this utterance, Satan the Devil and his angels (demons) previously have been expelled from heaven after warring with Michael and his angels (Revelation 12:7-9). The Devil's expulsion causes great joy in heaven and it's a sign that Christ is ruling as Jehovah's appointed king.
G.K. Beale (The Book of Revelation) offers these remarks:
The kingdom formulas in 4:11 and 5:12–13 confirm that here the focus is on Christ’s resurrection, which has launched the initial stage of the kingdom. The introductory ἄρτι (“now”) emphasizes the beginning aspect of fulfillment (this use of ἄρτι is equivalent to the same use of νῦν or νυνί [“now”] by Paul — e.g., Rom. 3:21, 26; 2 Cor. 5:16; 6:2; Eph. 3:5, 10).Therefore, v 10 does not merely anticipate the future kingdom, but celebrates the fact that the kingdom has begun immediately following Christ’s death and resurrection.The second part of v 10 elaborates on how the kingdom has begun, specifically on what it means that Christ’s death and resurrection have resulted in Satan’s expulsion from heaven. This will require detailed comments.I believe that one can extract something useful from Beale's comments but I don't believe it necessarily follows that the salvation and the power came to pass in the first century CE after Christ's death and resurrection. However, the issue of when Christ started to rule goes outside the scope of this blog entry. I find Beale more utile when it comes to his observations about ἄρτι and it's certainly true that Christ's death and resurrection paved the way for the Kingdom of God and his Christ.
Revelation ch.12:10b,11 NIV"For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
ReplyDeletewho accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death."
Certainly this extensive witness under trial by deadly persecution would require many decades. So the idea that this would pertain to the situation immediately following Christ ascension does seem a bit mystifying. But clearly the prince of darkness is expelled from heaven sometime post Christ resurrection.
Good point: the immediate literary context seems to militate against Beale's suggestion. See also Revelation 12:17, which the dragon does after being cast out of heaven.
ReplyDeleteHebrews 1:13; 10:13.
ReplyDeleteἕως
"until"
I've noticed an increase of articles from/about/against Unitarian Christians/Christianity in my feed. My theories as why this might be are 1. Their has been a marked increase in non Trinitarian thinking in academia of late
ReplyDelete2. The algorithm
3. Some combination of the two
Have you noticed anything similar?
Thanks, Terence.
ReplyDeleteServant, I'm not sure why the articles increased in your feed, but I have observed the same trend. Trinitarians is alive and wel, but Unitarians are challenging the Trinity with more fervor than before
Is it that more scholars/academics are adopting nonTrinitarian views or that the few that have always held these views have become more active or both?
ReplyDeleteI think a few are becoming more active. They're not afraid to speak up.
ReplyDeleteregarding the trinity - oh the irony
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JulqQ-cV8GQ - Daniel Wallace acknowledging 1 John 5:7 should NOT be in the bible (trinity proof text)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0cLKtR5kfE&t - this guy tries so hard to defend it, but fails
Thanks anonymous, I've read Wallace's article about 1 John 5:7 and I've posted lots of information here about it. The verse is obviously spurious but still has its defenders.
ReplyDeleteLet's be charitable and grant the trinitarian the KJV'S Rendering of John ch.5:7 does it prove his contention any more that John ch.10:30 though.
ReplyDelete1 John 5:7 (KJV): "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
ReplyDeleteDoes this text prove anything? IMO, presuppositions and interpretation are needed before it even begins to make headway. For example, one has to link the Word with the Son of God, then we need to know in what sense the three are one. Moreover, the Bible does not lay out a clear portrayal of Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) being "three Persons." However, plenty of folks argue from their personal KJV that this verse proves God is triune.
One more observation. The neuter 'one' is employed as at John ch.10:30 and 1Corinthians ch.3:8
DeleteGood point, and I've tried reasoning with Trinitarians that way. Some acknowledge how John uses the neuter form, but most think it doesn't alter their belief
Delete"Most think it does not alter their view" An admission that the trinity is an impersonal abstraction? At the beginning of his book 'the forgotten trinity' James White wonders why there is such a lack of warmth towards the trinity among Christians. Well it's impossible to have a warm relationship with an abstraction. That's why most Trinitarians are de facto Modalists in practice using Jesus as a stand in for the trinity.
DeleteSee https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_332.cfm
ReplyDeleteStewart believes it's a clear statement of the Trinity but he contends that the verse is spurious.
I've been busy with other projects here lately but I would like to post some thoughts on John 10:30 when time permits. This is not to say that Trinitarians have accurate knowledge; however, I want to see how they justify believing the Father and Son are ontologically one while knowing "one" in John 10:30 is neuter.
ReplyDeleteSome more on John's use of the neuter "one"
DeleteJohn ch.17:11NKJV"Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep[d] through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one(hen) as We are."
John Ch.17:22,23NKJV"And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one(hen) just as We are one(hen): 23I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one(hen)and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."
I look forward your take on the matter.
One more:
ReplyDeleteJohn ch.11:51,52 NKJV"Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one(hen) the children of God who were scattered abroad."
Greg Stafford and I think Rolf have written extensively about this (Edgar, Im not sure of your opinions on him)
ReplyDeleteeven the NWT acknowledges when the neuter form of "one" is employed it means "one thing" i.e unity - Whenever this occurs ALL people part of that unity are explicitly stated in the context (John 10:30, being a very good example) Fred Franz obviously knew this aswell.. so did Moffat and Dr Goodspeed and a whole host of others.
For John 10:30 or 1 John 5:7 (from my Greek knowledge) the word "one" would have to be masculine as nouns must agree in gender with the thing they are modifying - so trinitarians cant even establish the word "God" being implied purely based on grammatical rules alone.
Edgar, linking "the Word" to Jesus is hard, Rev is probably the easiest however staunch unitarians will just say it was a name given after Christs resurrection (something I have no answer too yet)
I think Allin made some comments as well on that Edgar if you want a juicy source for a post on John 10:30
ReplyDeleteServant, thanks for providing the other scriptures. I hope to show what Trinitarians have written about this matter soon.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: I have the books by Greg and Rolf. They once did some excellent scholarship but I do not agree with their views of JWs. However, I'm not one to put them down or disparage them personally. On the other hand, I am slow to use their work now.
As you and Servant have noted, the word for "one" (hen) in John 10:30 is grammatically neuter. Trinitarian scholars are aware of this fact too, but they don't let it sway them (for the most part) from reading John 10:30 as a prooftext for the deity of Christ. As for 1 John 5:7, though they know the difficulties of the verse, Trinitarians often still try using the verse as a prooftext.
On the subject of the Word and Jesus, Unitarians can only make that move if they can prove that Jesus and the Word are not identical in John 1:1. If the Word of John 1:1 is the preexistent Christ, then their argument falls flat. Of course, like other matters, all of these isues are contentious.
Thanks for mentioning Allin: I guess his comments about John 10:30 are in his response to BeDuhn? Btw, I've still been reading Allin's work and bookmarking certain parts of it.
"I guess his comments about John 10:30 are in his response to BeDuhn?" - by memory yes they are in that document
ReplyDelete"I've still been reading Allin's work and bookmarking certain parts of it."- thank you once again, hope you get some amusement out of it aswell..
"but they don't let it sway them (for the most part) from reading John 10:30 as a prooftext for the deity of Christ" - thats funny as then every other neuter hen, we should understand the same way.. similar to their Romans 11 argument with the preposition dia - strawman arguments that fall apart very quickly.
Greg I have respect for, Iv had a couple of conversations with him - he seems anti some JW stuff but for the most part defends them still.
Rolf I know almost nothing about - he is a reliable reference for Hebrew though - like Benjamin Kedar
sidenote:
Have you seen the new arguement approaching from some trinitarians about Ho on and how its "exclusively" used of God almighty.. yet we have - John 12:17 & 18:37
Anonymous, I have not heard the latest arguments for Ho on but I wouldn't be surprised if it falls flat when scrutinized closely.
ReplyDeletehere is the exact argument (quoted)
ReplyDelete"well the main word in the greek original language text of the New testament for Θεός Παντοκρατωρ is o ων. Τhat o ων is used for the Son and the Father. You can say God and nit mean God almighty in scripture but when you use ο ων for the Deity in scripture is always for God almighty."
This is most of it anyway, creative argument but establishes nothing..
basically the "I am" argument but slightly better as their are less scriptures to use..
Yep, it does not pan out: https://biblehub.com/greek/o_n_1510.htm
ReplyDeleteJohn 12:17 & 18:37 are the best ones to use I find..
ReplyDelete"ho on" is a relative pronoun - I can list atleast 5 trinitarian scholars who would disagree with this argument