From Wikipedia:Edmondo F. Lupieri (born 10 November 1950 in Turin) is an Italian New Testament scholar. He currently is living in the United States and serves as the John Cardinal Cody Endowed Chair[1] at Loyola University Chicago.
We can argue theology all day - What people cant argue is Johns consistant usage of the acc form arkhon for "Ruler" along with the parralel in Job (LXX)
If the beginning of Genesis 1:1 refers to everything and Genesis 1:2ff refers to only the material creation, then it seems to be that the "beginning" would be absolute beginning of everything, if CHrist is that, then he is the beginning of creation absolutely, meaning he is part of creation. Since it is the the creation of God, and it involves everything, of which he is the begining, (though not the first cause).
If however Genesis 1 is not refering to the creation of everything but just the physical universe Christ's status is underdetermined, since Christ might be the one through whom Christ creates not everything, but just that which Gensis 1 is concerned with, which opens the possibility that Christ pre-exists his role as the "beginning," perhaps eternally.
I think Revelation has a concept of creation ex nihilo (Rev 4.11), so I think that the former is probably correct.
i'm not sure if, as some what to posit, that arche here could mean something like origin, since it seems the genetive "of God" would make God the origin. John uses the term first born, the first and the last, ect, of Christ (in reference to ressurection), so a sequential sense makes sense to me.
I also think this passage makes more sense if one takes in the Jewish/middle Platonic theories of mediation into account.
See GK Beale "Johns use of the old Testament in Revelation" in his section on Rev 3.14
Thanks for the Beale recc. I do have that work and will check out that part. I'm sure you've also read the BDAG entry for arche, and I posted the Cambridge Greek entry here too.
The point about Jewish/middle Platonic theories of mediation is an interesting way of looking at Rev. 3:14. I've studied Gen. 1:1-3 quite a bit over the last few years. There is a lot of exegetical wrangling over those verses, but one suggestion is that "the heavens and earth" is a merism for the cosmos ("entire ordered universe"). But would that include the spirit realm?
See the NET note on Genesis 1:1: it summarizes many of the views for this verse. There are similar complexities with beginning in John 1:1.
It does seem that the creation account in Genesis is not meant to be understood as exhaustive, later scriptures do add colour and detail lacking the account. Job ch.38:4-7 and proverbs 8:22-30 Colossians ch.1:15-17
The bible is well known for its ellipsis, For example look at the Resurrection accounts where John (Im pretty sure) is the odd one listing 4 people in Jesus' tomb while the others only list 2. Does that mean John is innaccurate? not at all - We do this sort of thing in modern day English
(bad example) "Santa has left presents" - Do we always mention all the details? No we omit such because it is so well known
We can argue all day what information the bible writers SHOULD have included - I personally think they took many liberty's, especially in the NT (John & Paul) - assuming people would understand what was meant
I personally agree with Edgar and Servant - the "Us" in Genesis would match perfectly with all the scriptures that list the Angels and Jesus present.. "Us" could mean many people not just 3 (proves nothing, the pronoun argument is for another day) Just because something is not explicitly mentioned, does not mean it doesn't exist (within reason)
For Genesis 1:1, for me the big issue is whether or not it is continuous with Genesis 1:2 or whether it is a stand alone statement. I.e. "In the beginning" or "when in the beginning ect ect." The former implies creation ex nihilo, the latter assumes some kind of prior non-YHWH reality, if, by the time we get to the first century, people were interpreting Genesis 1:1 ex nihilo, or of they were assuming it's the latter, that ought to make a difference for exegesis, I personally thinkg John believed in ex-nihilo materially, but I do think that would be relevant in interpreting when "beginning" refers too.
Genesis ch.1:1NIV"1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Only the physical heavens and earth are explicitly mentioned here but obviously this does not preclude the possibility of a prior superphysical creation. The word creation in scripture never implies creation ex nihilo. The creation is a partial actualization of JEHOVAH'S infinite potential the fruit divine technology not magic e.g genesis ch.1:27NIV"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them." We know from Genesis ch.2 that neither the first man nor his spouse were created "ex nihilo" Isaiah ch.40:26NIV"Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing." The claim of creation ex nihilo falsifies the first cause argument.
10 comments:
From Wikipedia:Edmondo F. Lupieri (born 10 November 1950 in Turin) is an Italian New Testament scholar. He currently is living in the United States and serves as the John Cardinal Cody Endowed Chair[1] at Loyola University Chicago.
Thanks for the added info.
We can argue theology all day - What people cant argue is Johns consistant usage of the acc form arkhon for "Ruler" along with the parralel in Job (LXX)
If the beginning of Genesis 1:1 refers to everything and Genesis 1:2ff refers to only the material creation, then it seems to be that the "beginning" would be absolute beginning of everything, if CHrist is that, then he is the beginning of creation absolutely, meaning he is part of creation. Since it is the the creation of God, and it involves everything, of which he is the begining, (though not the first cause).
If however Genesis 1 is not refering to the creation of everything but just the physical universe Christ's status is underdetermined, since Christ might be the one through whom Christ creates not everything, but just that which Gensis 1 is concerned with, which opens the possibility that Christ pre-exists his role as the "beginning," perhaps eternally.
I think Revelation has a concept of creation ex nihilo (Rev 4.11), so I think that the former is probably correct.
i'm not sure if, as some what to posit, that arche here could mean something like origin, since it seems the genetive "of God" would make God the origin. John uses the term first born, the first and the last, ect, of Christ (in reference to ressurection), so a sequential sense makes sense to me.
I also think this passage makes more sense if one takes in the Jewish/middle Platonic theories of mediation into account.
See GK Beale "Johns use of the old Testament in Revelation" in his section on Rev 3.14
Thanks for the Beale recc. I do have that work and will check out that part. I'm sure you've also read the BDAG entry for arche, and I posted the Cambridge Greek entry here too.
The point about Jewish/middle Platonic theories of mediation is an interesting way of looking at Rev. 3:14. I've studied Gen. 1:1-3 quite a bit over the last few years. There is a lot of exegetical wrangling over those verses, but one suggestion is that "the heavens and earth" is a merism for the cosmos ("entire ordered universe"). But would that include the spirit realm?
See the NET note on Genesis 1:1: it summarizes many of the views for this verse. There are similar complexities with beginning in John 1:1.
It does seem that the creation account in Genesis is not meant to be understood as exhaustive, later scriptures do add colour and detail lacking the account. Job ch.38:4-7 and proverbs 8:22-30 Colossians ch.1:15-17
The bible is well known for its ellipsis, For example look at the Resurrection accounts where John (Im pretty sure) is the odd one listing 4 people in Jesus' tomb while the others only list 2. Does that mean John is innaccurate? not at all - We do this sort of thing in modern day English
(bad example)
"Santa has left presents" - Do we always mention all the details? No we omit such because it is so well known
We can argue all day what information the bible writers SHOULD have included - I personally think they took many liberty's, especially in the NT (John & Paul) - assuming people would understand what was meant
I personally agree with Edgar and Servant - the "Us" in Genesis would match perfectly with all the scriptures that list the Angels and Jesus present.. "Us" could mean many people not just 3 (proves nothing, the pronoun argument is for another day)
Just because something is not explicitly mentioned, does not mean it doesn't exist (within reason)
For Genesis 1:1, for me the big issue is whether or not it is continuous with Genesis 1:2 or whether it is a stand alone statement. I.e. "In the beginning" or "when in the beginning ect ect." The former implies creation ex nihilo, the latter assumes some kind of prior non-YHWH reality, if, by the time we get to the first century, people were interpreting Genesis 1:1 ex nihilo, or of they were assuming it's the latter, that ought to make a difference for exegesis, I personally thinkg John believed in ex-nihilo materially, but I do think that would be relevant in interpreting when "beginning" refers too.
"Beginning" would logically equal creative works - as in when the creation process started
I know nothing of ex mihito - so cant really comment
Genesis ch.1:1NIV"1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Only the physical heavens and earth are explicitly mentioned here but obviously this does not preclude the possibility of a prior superphysical creation.
The word creation in scripture never implies creation ex nihilo. The creation is a partial actualization of JEHOVAH'S infinite potential the fruit divine technology not magic
e.g genesis ch.1:27NIV"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."
We know from Genesis ch.2 that neither the first man nor his spouse were created "ex nihilo"
Isaiah ch.40:26NIV"Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing."
The claim of creation ex nihilo falsifies the first cause argument.
Post a Comment