[30] Few passages have played a more important role in the formulation of christological confessions than the statement "J and the Father are one." Patristic commentators found this verse a bulwark against views that discounted the essential unity of the Father and Son (e.g., Arianism) or that emphasized their unity to the point of denying their distinction (e.g., Monarchianism).278 In its immediate context, the statement "I and the Father are one" emphasizes the unity of the saving work of Jesus and God.279 Calvin boldly asserted, "The ancients misused this passage to prove that Christ is homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father. Christ is not discussing the unity of substance, but the concord He has with the Father; so that what Christ does will be confirmed by His Father's power" (1 :273). Jesus and his Father are one in their work: specifically, in guarding the sheep. What the Father does, the Son does, and the Son does the work ofthe Father. Herein lies their unity: the Father never works apart from the Son or at odds with the Son; and the Son never works against or apart from the Father's purposes. The point is nearly identical to one Jesus had made earlier when charged with making himselfequal to God (John 5:18): the Father has given the Son his own prerogatives to grant life and to judge; therefore the Son does the Father's work, and the Father does his work through the Son. In other words, Jesus and the Father "are one." The charge that Jesus "makes himself equal to God" (5: 18) or that he "makes himself God" (10:33) could be restated, "You make yourself one with God" (10:30).John characterizes the identity of Jesus in the same way that the Old Testament defines the identity of God as God by emphasizing the kind of work that
278. Father and Son are "one" (hen, neuter), that is, "one thing" (unum). not "one person" (unus, Tertullian, Prax. 22); the plural verb "are" also indicates two persons (Origen, Dial. 124).279. Cf. 1 Cor 3:8, "The one who plants and the one who waters are one" (hen eisin).[page 234] John 10:22-42
each does. When the Old Testament speaks of God's uniqueness, it underscoresespecially God's identity as creator and sovereign. The powers to give life and to judge, the powers ofthe Creator and Sovereign, are the very powers of God. Thus, to speak of the Word as active in creation (John 1: 1-3), or of the Son's power to give life (1:1-3; 5:25-27), to exercise judgment (5:26-27), or to save from death (as is the case here) is in fact to characterize Jesus in terms of the distinctive works that characterize the one God (cf. comments on John 1:3). Jesus does not simply do works that are like the Father's works; he does the Father's works (vv. 37-38) because the Father is in him (v. 38). The christological scandal of John is not that Jesus has made himself equal or one with God, but that God has chosen to make himself one with Jesus.
"I and the Father are one" expresses one particular facet of the comprehensive unity of the being, revelation, and work of the Father and Son. As Augustine put it, "What Christ does with the Father, the Father does; and what the Father does with Christ, Christ does. Neither does the Father do anything apart, without the Son; nor the Son apart, without the Father: inseparable love, inseparable unity, inseparable majesty, inseparable power" (Tract. Ev. Jo. 5.3). Later in John the unity of the Father and Son is described in categories that do not immediately refer to works or deeds. Jesus prays that the disciples may be "one, as we are one" (17:11, osin hen kathas hemeis; 17:22, osin hen kalhas hemeis hen). While such unity includes the unity of will and mission, it is not limited to that: the emphasis falls on the mutual or reciprocal indwelling of Father and Son (10:38; 14:1, 11).
Source: M.M. Thompson. John: A Commentary. NTL Series. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015.
80 comments:
Here is Jesus defence from the charge of blasphemy" John ch.10:32-36NIV"but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’ d ? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? "
If Jesus honestly believed that it was necessary to his audience salvation that they believe him to be the most high God in the flesh this is an odd statement to make. And I can't help but notice that the "third member of the trinity" gets no mention as is mostly the case in these types of prooftext.
A while back, you asked how Trinitarians handle the occurrence of the neuter word, hen, at John 10:30. As you can see, it does not deter some from believing that the Father and Son are one God. Thompson even quotes Calvin, who seemed to have read the verse differently although he was a devout Trinitarian. In my estimation, I think the ante-Nicene fathers likewise read the passage as Calvin suggested it should be read. At the end of the day, it's not a good proof-text for the Trinity.
By saying that the Father and Son are one God are they saying that each is the same God as the one that the bible calls the most high? Because that sounds like modalism.
Trinitarians usually view modalism as heresy, so if they speak of three modes of being for the tres personae, they attempt to parse what those terms mean. I have some papers written by Trinitarians about this subject, but the fundamental claim they seem to be making is that each divine person of the Trinity is fully God, but each person is distinct from the other person. Here is what Professor Owen Thomas (an Episcopalian) said about the Trinity:
The result of the analysis of the biblical testimony in the light of the tradition of the church is that the distinctions Father, Son and Spirit do not refer to persons in the modern sense [i.e., as separate centers of consciousness] or parts of God; each refers to the whole of the Godhead. They do not refer to aspects, qualities, or attributes of God, because all of these apply equally to each of the "persons." They do not refer to functions or types of activity of God, because each of the "persons" is involved in each activity of God. They are not simply ways in which God is revealed or ways in which we experience God but rather essential or immanent distinctions in the godhead. The names Father, Son and Holy Spirit refer to modes of being of God, distinctions in the way in which God is God, distinctions in the form, pattern, order, or structure of all of God's activities.
Quote taken from Thomas' work Introduction to Theology. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1994. Page 71.
In other words trying to eat their cake and have it too. If each person of the trinity is numerically identical to the most high God then obviously everything that is true of the most high God must also be true of each person. So if most high God is triune then anyone who is numerically identical to the most high God must be triune. If the most high God is the Father then anyone who is numerically identical to the most high God must be the Father and do on. The fact that this reasoning cannot be taken to its logical end without self-contradictory results marks it as invalid
I think the way most try to get around that problem is by not accepting the premise that each divine person is absolutely identical with the Godhead (i.e. God). For example, see https://philarchive.org/archive/OWETSO-11
The abstract for this paper declares:
Classical Trinitarians claim that Jesus—the Son of God—is truly
God and that there is only one God and the Father is God, the Spirit is God,
and the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. However, if the identity
statement that ‘the Son is God’ is understood in the sense of numerical
identity, logical incoherence seems immanent. Yet, if the identity statement
is understood according to an ‘is’ of predication then it lacks accuracy and
permits polytheism. Therefore, we argue that there is another sense of ‘is’
needed in trinitarian discourse that will allow the Christian to avoid logical incoherence while still fully affirming all that is meant to be affirmed in the confession ‘Jesus is God.’ We suggest a sense of ‘is’ that meets this need.
The neuter should deter them though, as the same word is used of the disiples being one with Jesus, which in reality would make them God too + the use of Kathos
Rewriting the dictionary? The thing is when they're debating all this nuance goes out the window doesn't it e.g they'll claim that Jesus is JEHOVAH,well I'm sorry but JEHOVAH is the identity of the most high God.
Psalm ch.83:18KJV"That men may know that thou, whose name ALONE is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."
Also the N.T makes it clear that the God and Father of Jesus is the most high God and certainly a God in his own right.
Acts ch.3:13KJV"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. "
Anonymous, it unfortunately does not deter them. Thompson wrote an entire commentary on John's Gospel, and she has a footnote about the neuter form in John 10:30. She likewise comments on John 17:20-22, but still concludes that Jesus is Almighty God.
Servant: yes, they do contend that Jesus is Jehovah, but he's Jehovah God the Son, not Jehovah the Father. Again, they have various strategies for getting around the problems you mention. Okay, they don't work, but let me know when you're able to pin one of them down with scripture and logic :-)
Seriously some will see it and Jehovah will take away the veil as they turn to him. Sorry, but most will not budge an inch; at least that has been my experience.
That's why I emphasised the word ALONE in the passage. Is JEHOVAH the son the most high God? Because the passage clearly indicates that only the most high God rightly bears the name JEHOVAH so logically anyone not numerically identical to the most high God cannot be the JEHOVAH of the bible. But yes,the trinity doctrine causes brain damage,so JEHOVAH'S favour on our planting and watering is an absolute necessity.
Admittedly they don't budge but there are tragic flaws either way they want to frame it.
I pinned one guy down on this subject, but admittedly they didn't know Greek and I had some idea (thanks to Beduhns book at the time)
Servant, I'm not saying this ultimately work, but God/Most High God is not a person technically but a nature. Then they say each person bears some relation to the nature and to one another. So any one person is only Jehovah to the extent that he bears a relation to God and to another person of the Godhead. Hence, their illustration of a triangle. In summary, a divine person is only Jehovah for Trinitarians to the extent that he bears some relation to the divine nature.
Kudos Unknown. It can be done, but it's difficult
"but God/Most High God is not a person technically but a nature. " - interesting, if God was a nature as they put it, why does John and Exodus place so much emphasis on no one ever seeing God? John then parralels this with "no one has ever seen the Father"
"So any one person is only Jehovah to the extent that he bears a relation to God and to another person of the Godhead." - and so do we according to second Peter... never had a trinitarian explain this one away to me
"a divine person is only Jehovah for Trinitarians to the extent that he bears some relation to the divine nature." - so anyone who is "one" with God and has the divine nature is God... that would be quite a list of people then..
again my argument to Deut 6:4 (one they like to paralel) is simply when unity is is meant (as they imply Deut means) then ALL ones part of the unity are mentioned, I know this because of the exact parallels they use where there is more than one subject, whereas Deut only has one
even llooking at the paralells mentioned in your blog post the verses in John 1 corin 3:18 etc all have more than one subject
also another thing why is it just the Father and son - where is the holy spirit in the equation (ever)
a question Bowman either cant or doesn't want to answer..
I know some variations on the doctrine say the holy spirit is more divine than the Father and son to get around the blasphemy clause (which makes no sense to me) however that would put it at odds with this - infact even Wallaces study (antesedents) makes the whole doctrine questionable with biblical grammar at best
None of the angles in our putative triangle would be a triangle it is own tight would it ,any JEHOVAH who is not numerically identical to the most high God would not be the JEHOVAH of the bible.
And they would still have to deal with the NT which makes it clear that the God and Father of Jesus is a/the God in his own right act see ch.3:13 that's akin to turning one of the angles in our triangle into a triangle and claiming that the figure nevertheless remained a single triangle
Every time I listen to a Trinitarian (especially a qualified expert on the subject)attempt to defend the self-contradictory incoherence that is the trinity doctrine I am reminded of this scripture : Isaiah ch.28:20NIV"The bed is too short to stretch out on,
the blanket too narrow to wrap around you." The word picture evoked here just perfectly describes the dilemma Trinitarian apologists face.
Unknown, I will briefly say Trinitarians insist that the divine persons are one with the divine nature in a special way. To put it simply, all of the divine persons are supposed to have all omni-properties or all of the properties that make a person, God.
Servant, good points indeed, esp. about the triangle. I would just point to the article link I posted where the Trinitarian rejects numerical identity and modifies the is of prediction to try getting around the difficulty you pose. Does it work. I don't think so.
That makes a person God? I thought the most high God was not a person? And is being triune an essential quality of the deity? How can a non-triune "person" be considered fully God if impersonal triunity is an essential quality of the one deity? The scriptures clearly state that there is a single most high God who is entitled to exclusive devotion meaning that no one not identical to him/it is entitled to the same level of devotion in the construct that is the trinity who/what would be numerically identical to this God who is entitled to exclusive devotion?
My earlier comment should have said "is of predication" not prediction.
For Trinitarians (most anyway) the Most High God is three persons,not just one. However, I have seen those who are Eastern Orthodox argue that the Father is the one God and the other two persons are God in virtue of their relationship with the Father. But that is more an eastern than western view. Did I mention that the Trinity is not understood in just one way? :-)
The Godhead is supposedly triune but not the persons. Going back to the triangle, it has three angles, but the angles themselves are not triadic. What's true of a car as a whole is not exactly true of its parts.
From what I've read, Trinitarians don''t want to claim that any of the three persons are numerically identical to the Godhead, but the triune Godhead itself would be entitled to exclusive devotion. I'm going to quote an article from Christianity.com to let Trinitarians speak in their own words:
[Begin quote]
However, let's stick closer to home and simply reprint Article B—The True God from the Calvary Memorial Church Articles of Faith.
We believe in one living and true God who is the Creator of heaven and earth; who is eternal, almighty, unchangeable, infinitely powerful, wise, just, and holy.
We believe that the one God eternally exists in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that these three are one God, co-equal and co-eternal, having precisely the same nature and attributes, and worthy of precisely the same worship, confidence, and obedience. Matthew 3:16, 17; Matthew 28:19, 20; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3, 4; II Corinthians 13:14.
[End quote]
See https://www.christianity.com/wiki/god/god-in-three-persons-a-doctrine-we-barely-understand-11634405.html
Even he concedes the Trinity is a sacred mystery and the word "precisely" is interesting here.
From the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:
"The apostles met Jesus and saw that he was God, and they experienced the reality of the Holy Spirit coming at Pentecost. They knew that God was Triune, so their teaching was built on that reality. They worshipped God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The writings of the NT help us to understand more of what it means to say that God is Triune."
Well that statement just makes my point doesn't it if none of the three persons are entitled to exclusive devotion and worse still are subordinate to an impersonal construct then none of them meet the biblical standard of deity which is characterised by both exclusivity and supremacy. Similarly with our triangle it would be as absurd to claim that each angle is fully triangular as it is to claim full divinity for subordinates of the deity.
From the Athanasian Creed:
"Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).
Sorry if I'm muddling things up but one issue is that the churches normally don't use the term exclusive devotion, but the use worship or an equivalent term. And what I got from the quotes is that they believe each person or the Godhead as a whole should be worshiped or receive exclusive devotion. They usually reject subordinationism although many accept a form of subordination in the Trinity. Another debate they have among themselves.
Again, I'm going to be tied up this afternoon with other responsibilities. I will approve comments later on. Thanks all.
If one is receiving the same level of devotion as others who are not numerically identical to oneself one is manifestly not receiving exclusive devotion. Bible makes it clear that there is but one who is entitled worship/devotion and that any not numerically identical to him must not receive any of the worship he alone is entitled to. So if trinitarians are admitting that none of members of their trinity is numerically identical to the most high God then they stand condemned by their own bibles when they urge that these receive the worship that only the most high God is entitled to. Also none of the quotes addressed the fact that the Father is specifically called the God of Jesus and the God of Israel In the N.T
Acts ch 3:13NIV"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. "
1) Okay, the Trinitarian might claim that the Father is not numerically identical with the Son since they are not the same person, but the Trinity does teach (usually) that the tres personae are the same God. So they would theoretically be receiving the same worship if someone worshiped the triune God or any person of the Godhead.
2) They're positing an identity relation between the persons and the divine essence/nature, but it's not numerical identity.
3) Another complexity of the Trinity is the kenosis Christi, which they might use to counter Acts 3:13 among other texts.
Well that is violation of plain logic isn't it if one numerically identical to the most high God then one is logically numerically identical to every person/thing who/which is also numerically identical to the most high God so this is more self-contradictory nonsense.
2) my point exactly and the Father is definitely numerically identical JEHOVAH most high according NT so they just can't have it both ways if the Son is also numerically identical to JEHOVAH most high then he must logically be numerically identical to his God and Father.
3)So he is still lower than the angels even after glorification? But this fudge can't help them here because we are dealing with identity The God and Father of Jesus is numerically identical to the One God of Israel if Jesus is also numerically identical to the one God of Israel then logically
He must also be numerically identical to his God and Father.
Bible's discourse on the most high God is primarily identitarian hence the importance of the divine name it appears 7,000+ times in the text i.e more times than the next five most mention names combined.
A biblical definition full deity would necessarily incorporate exclusivity and supremacy ,as defined by the dictionary. No member of Christendom trinity can sensibly claim either.
What I see them doing is throwing out numerical identity to avoid some of these difficulties, but that approach has its own problems. I would like for you to run the argument above by a Trinitarian and see what he says. I got a feeling he's going to hedge one way or the other.
Dr. Michael Rea wrote a paper about the Trinity and relative identity. Here is how it begins:
The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that there are exactly three divine
Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but only one God. The philosophical
problem raised by this doctrine is well known. On the one hand, the doc-
trine seems clearly to imply that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are numerically distinct. How else could they be three Persons rather than one? On the other hand, it seems to imply that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are identical.
If each Person is divine, how else could there be exactly one God? But
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be both distinct and identical. Thus, the
doctrine appears to be incoherent.
In the contemporary literature, there are two main strategies for solving
the problem: the Relative Identity (RI) strategy, and the Social Trinitarian
(ST) strategy.1 Both of these strategies solve the problem by affirming the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while denying their absolute identi-
ty either with God or with one another. According to the RI strategy (which
will be explained more fully below), the divine Persons stand in various rel-
ativized relations of sameness and distinctness. They are, for example, the
same God as one another, but they are not the same Person. They are, we
might say, God-identical but Person-distinct. Peter Geach has argued for reasons independent of the problem of the Trinity that there is no such thing as absolute identity, that all well-formed identity statements are at least implicitly relativized, and that there is no in-principle obstacle to there being x, y,F, and G such that x is the same F as y but not the same G.
There is no such thing as an absolute Identity? I'm sure many trinitarians and philosophers in general would kick against that notion. So the same(numerically identical) person can be counted as more than a single witness to a given incident?
I would love to be in the audience in that courtroom as they attempt explain that to the presiding Judge.
I find that a hard pill to swallow too. If there is no absolute identity, how would that affect the principle of indiscernibles?
That is why I quoted the Isaiah ch.28:20 scripture. Every attempt to resolve the philosophical tensions in the trinity doctrine comes at the cost of an entirely new(and usually worse) set of philosophical tensions.
I find it interesting the use of "Kathos" where Jesus said his disciples and him are "one" some like to make the claim "We honor the Father just as (Kathos) you honor the son" so if Kathos here means exactly the same way i.e worship. then in John where Jesus uses the SAME word (Im pretty sure) should mean he and his disiples and in unity just as he and his Father are, so if the "one" makes Jesus, God then it makes the disiples, God - if it doesn't make the disciples, God then it doesn't make Jesus, God
And also you know, where's the holy spirit ever said to be "one" with the Father or son?
There is probably at least as much Trinitarian style "evidence" that Moses is part of the polypersonal Godhead as there is that Jesus is such. To take one example:
James ch.4:12NIV"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?"
Here the scriptures plainly declare that JEHOVAH is the only lawgiver, therefore as per Trinitarian logic any person who is declared to be the giver of JEHOVAH'S law must either be JEHOVAH most high or an eternal person subsisting within the being of JEHOVAH,
Well we have it on no less an authority than the Lord Jesus Christ himself that Moses is indeed the giver of JEHOVAH'S Law: John ch.7:19"Did not Moses give you the law, ..."
Kathos is used in John 17 too, but for an example of how Trinitarians read those verses, see https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/17-21.htm
I did not link to John 17:22 on that site, but it's easy to advance to that verse.
Good point from John 7:19. I'm working on a brief post that touches on similar issues.
Looking forward to it.
I may be misunderstanding here but that is very different to their interpretation of the same word in John 5:23
(https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/john-523-that-all-may-honor-son-just-as.html)
Also note they try to seperate the oneness of Jesus and his disiples (& God) from Jesus' oneness with his Father.
Anonymous, they're going to read any of these verses in a way that putatively upholds their beliefs. Here's another example of a Trinitarian commentator remarking on John 5:23.
James B. Coffman: "No stronger statement of the deity of Christ appears in Scripture. How is God honored? By the soul's purest adoration and worship. That is the way Christ should be honored. These words are equivalent to Jesus' saying, 'I am God and am entitled to all the honor belonging to the Father?'"
Reading a little much into kathos? I think so.
As you note above, they're not consistent when it comes to the way they explain John 10:30 versus their explanation of John 17:21-22. However, to John Calvin's credit, he explained John 10:30 differently.
From the Expositor's Bible Commentary (John and Acts). This is the comment for John 17:21:
At this point, the burden of the prayer is for unity. Jesus had already stressed the need for mutual love that would bind them together for their common task. Now, foreseeing the addition of many more who would increase the diversity of temperaments, backgrounds, and interests, he made a special plea that all might be one. The standard is not an institutional but a personal unity: "Just as you are in me and I am in you.... that they may be one as we are one" (vv.21-22). He was not calling for uniformity, since he and the Father are distinct from each other and have different functions; nor was he calling for agreement in external opinion. He predicated that the unity would be one of nature; for he and the Father, while distinguishable in person, are one being.
They are so weird with this "one" business and "begotten" or they just cite people like origen who states many contradictive things.
Don't know where else to post this without reviving 10 year old threads:
would I be right in this theory?
Firstborn ek = subject is equal to/part of that group (Romans 8:29)
Firstborn [genitive] = subject is "superior"/ part of that group (Col 1:15)
Anonymous, if I'm looking at Romans 8:29 correctly, it has ἐν. For ἐκ, see John 17:15; 1 Cor. 8:6; Philippians 3:5.
Those are two ways to understand Colossians 1:15, that the firstborn of creation is either superior to the group or part of the group. It depends on how one construes the genitive.
I would label both as part of the group no matter what - Just one is superior to others in the group in some way
I'm suspicious of the genitive of subordination: it seems like an ad hoc category to me and I once asked Dr. Carl Conrad what he thought of the category. Please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/genitive-of-subordination-question-i.html
You'll find his answer there.
Trinitarians will always understand the genitive of subordination to mean that Christ is not part of creation. I would be surprised if any saw him as being part of the group without qualification. These issues become highly theological and somewhat circular.
I wont post about this here again as this is totally offtopic
Sorry I don't think you get what I mean, I realise what trinitarians think - "genitive of subordination" is something that's an exception to the group, My theory is simply that the genitive in Romans 8:29 means Jesus is equal to the brothers yet also A MEMBER of that group. In Col 1:15 however the subject is in someway superior to the group but not an exception to that group.
I'm theorising based on this comment here:
"you ignore the fact that in a genitive construction with Firstborn, the person is always part of the group, see other examples in the NT"
First: nope, there is a construction to classify the group mentioned after, like "firstborn among many brothers" (en pollois adelphois, Romans 8:29). And in the OT the nation of Israel is called "my firstborn" (Exodus 4:22), and according to Numbers 23:9, Israel shall not be counted among the nations. In the Talmud the Jews also call YHWH as Bekorah, which means the same: Firstborn. The Firstborn is the title of the Son here, meaning pre-eminent heir. This is also acknowledged fact in WTS publications. For example "the firstborn of the dead" (Rev 1:5) doesn't mean He is the first person ever died - obviously He wasn't. "Firstborn" is like saying a title, like "king". Someone being a king of a country, doesn't mean he is a country himself. Colossians 1:15 simply means that He owns, enjoys the position of the Heir, the ruler in relation to the whole of creation. The direct continuation clearly explains this when he adds: because in him all things were created, not "all other" as the NWT falsifies it. This interpretation would not even be contrary to WTS theology, only then would the "one-liner" "proof verse" fail.
I see your point and agree, but all I'm saying is that you may be right that Christ is over the group in Colossians 1:15 plus a member of the group. However, if one construes the grammar there as a genitive of subordination, it might be difficult to make a case for that view. However, the partitive genitive or another understanding of the grammar might be more amenable to what you're suggesting. Put another way, grammar only takes us so far.
Amos ch.3:2CEV"Of all nations on earth, you are the only one I have chosen. That's why I will punish you because of your sins."
Acts ch.17:26 NIV"And he made from one man every nation of mankind (including Israel)to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, "
And while it's true that Jesus was not the first to die he was dead he see revelation ch.1:17
Also.
As for the direct continuation of Colossians ch.1:15 the use of the preposition en suggest that he was the instrument employed by the source of the information and energy in the creation not that source himself. The bible routinely uses the word all with the implication of sensible exceptions.
I probably shouldn't go reading trinitarian dogma tbh, I get caught up in proving them wrong (not outloud) - Ill leave that too the more experienced.
All it ends up being is accusation hurled at the WTS for misquoting or something else..
To further illustrate that the bible frequently uses the word all with sensible exceptions:
1Corinthians ch.15:22ESV"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. "
No one argues that because ALL are resurrected through Christ that this fact necessarily implies that he himself was not resurrected. And of course Christ death was not attributable to his inheriting Adam's son. So your argument re: Colossians ch.1:15 is a non sequitur.
Servant,
Yes, en indicates that Christ is the agent of creation, not the creator, and the other prepositions used enforce this idea plus Paul uses passives to describe Christ's role. And I like the point you made from 1 Cor. 15:22. No serious commentator excludes Christ from the class of resurrected ones just because all are made alive in Christ.
But with the firstborn issue, I read a paper two days ago (or so) where the writer again made the claim that Christ is firstborn does not mean he's part of creation. I try to be patient with Trinitarians, but it's hard to see how they're going to change their way of interpreting Colossians 1:15.
Here's an example of how Trinitarians reason on Colossians 1:15. Taken from the Anchor Bible commentary on Colossians:
Prōtótokos (first-born) occurs in extra-biblical Greek only rarely, in contrast to its active form prōtotókos (bearing for the first time). In the LXX, however, the word occurs frequently (ca. 130 times). “These latter references are still older than the earliest references for extra-biblical examples of prōtótokos.”1 There, it is used in reference to humans and animals (Ex 13:2 and elsewhere). While in statements such as Ex 13:2; Num 8:16; 18:17; Deut 15:19, the components of “first” and “to bear” are inherent in the concept of “first-born,” in other instances
they recede almost completely (cf. for example LXX Ex 4:22; Ps 88[89]:28; Sir 36:11). Neither the notion of procreation, nor birth, nor temporal priority is present; rather, “first-born” designates a position of preference or predominance. The concept then carries the meaning of “chosen” or “beloved.” This use corresponds to the frequently used extra-biblical word prōtogonos, which also means “first-born” and can also designate the first one in priority.2 Cf. Comment III.
Sometimes one does feel like our Lord when the religious leaders of the time reacted in the same way to his preaching
John ch.9:41NIV"Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
He just so desperately wanted to help them,but because of their false pride they could not bring themselves to accept his help.
Like all words there are literal and figurative uses . To serve as a figure however there ought to be some clear correspondence with the analog from which the figure is derived. There are other analogs from which a figure denoting prominence can be drawn. But what we see in the bible is that in addition to prominence ,kinship with the implied set is always a factor when using prototokos as a figure. If trinitarians want to argue for a lone acception at Colossians ch.1:15 they are going to have to do better than their usual non sequiturs
Yes, how similar to our times.
I don't want to get too bogged down with the firstborn issue because this is a separate thread and it's been done to death. But the Anchor Bible commentary (like other works) is trying to make an argument for firstborn not meaning "first" or "born" in some contexts by appeal to LXX examples, by invocation of semantic change in Greek words, and a lot of what they say is driven by the TDNT entry written by Michaelis. The position is theologically motivated, but they attempt to justify it by appeal to semantics. In short, they believe this is not the only example of firstborn being used to signify prominence, preeminence, or superiority.
Not that I agree, but just trying to lay out their position.
I see what they're saying but it's the non sequitur the wisest man would still be a man, the strongest horse would still be a horse ,the swiftest eagle would still be an eagle the foremost creature would still be a creature. We have seen prototokos used figuratively in the scriptures yet we have never seen that figure exclude the figurative prototokos from the set of which he is figuratively prototokos not one single time.
https://nealmatt.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/colossians-115-firstborn-of-all-creation/
This writer tries to interact with what Wallace, Witnesses and others have said about Colossians 1:15. I've read numerous commentaries and scholarly articles on this subject. It seems to me that they either take the firstborn is figurative route or Trinitarians argue that the context of Col. 1:15 shows that Christ created all things, so he cannot be part of those things. How does one break that vicious circle?
I usually start with Jesus' actual role in creation and work from there unless my interlocutor insists otherwise
Well, you know the arguments they use to make Jesus the Creator instead of the created one. I've even seen some try to hinge Jesus' deity on the causal hoti in Colossians 1:15-16. But it's like they ignore Paul's careful statement about Jesus' role in creation.
Well have to don't they? The whole house of cards comes down otherwise. But I have to say the arguments around John ch.1:1-3 and Colossians ch.1:15,16 often seem more like Modalist arguments than Trinitarian arguments , often in discussions with Trinitarians I'd feel the need to remind them of their own stated position.
Incidentally I checked your link and it seems that our friend agrees that Jesus is part of the creation dispute also being the creator (because the kenosis)
However the apostle Paul appears to suggest that creator and creature are mutually exclusive categories
Romans ch.1:25ESV"because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."
I found it interesting that the writer at that link is a Trinitarian but he accepts a partitive reading of Col. 1:15, if I recall correctly.
Trinitarians usually do insist that the Creator and creature divide is sacrosanct: as you say based on Romans 1:25, the categories are mutually exclusive. So he's not your everyday Trinitarian.
a review of the comment from the individual I posted above.
I may be wrong here but everything that is called Firstborn ALWAYS has a beginning.
pre-emininene does NOT eliminate possibility for being of the said category infact most of he time they are
Romans 8:29 is actually selective quoting on this individuals part as they fail to reference Rev 1:5 where the modifying preposition is not present..
Doing further digging this same individual tries to get others on Rev 3:14, even going as far as saying the LXX Job 40:19 could mean "ruler" or "originator" - I ignore this based on Johns strong adherence to usage defined in Micah 5:2
He's arguing essentially that one can become a creature without being created. Which seems like a bit of an assault on the lexicon in my humble opinion.
But on an unrelated note:
Jude v.5ESV"So I want to remind you, though you already know these things, that JESUS first rescued the nation of Israel from Egypt, but later he destroyed those who did not remain faithful. "
Apparently this rendering has much to be said for it in the way of manuscript support. Any thoughts?
speaking of accusations, most of these seem to be somewhat false claims but anyhow: https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/protestanti.htm
Unknown, the reasoning that the firstborn is always part of the group seems compelling to me. I've searched for good Trinitarian replies to that line of reasoning, but their replies are indirect at best or based on late usages of the term "firstborn." I've also seen the Job 40:19 argument before and Rev. 3:14 is a highly contentious text.
Servant, that reading for Jude 5 is well attested, but Bruce Metzger nd the UBS committee seem highly skeptical of the variant. He explains why in his textual commentary. I'm inclined to find the reading a dubious one as well. But please see the NET discission here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude+5&version=NET
Job ch.40:19NIV"It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword."
Let's hope that no one is using this text to argue that the behemoth is not in fact one of JEHOVAH'S Works,but you never know with trinitarians.
That would be a stretch, servant, even for Trinitarians.
Thomas R. Schreiner (NA Commentary on I and II Peter, Jude):
The reading Iesous is supported by A, B, 33, 81, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2344. P72 has the reading, theos xristos, which is certainly a corruption. Some scholars support kurios (Bauckham, Relatives of Jesus, 308–9; Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude, 75–76), especially on internal grounds (Aleph Ysy, C*, 630, 1505, etc.). See the discussion in TCGNT 657, where the committee is itself divided. Supporting Iesous are Wikgren, 148–49; Osburn, “The Text of Jude 5,” 111–15; C. Bigg, The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901), 328; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 49.
I see Wycliffe (among others)has "he" in place of Lord or Jesus would he have been aware of these manuscripts?
Doubtless a corruption but a very early one .
This should surprise no one though in view of the fact that Jude's epistle is a caution about the prevalence of false teachers
The apostle John as well warns about the prevalence of false apostles
Revelation ch.2:2ESV"“‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false."
Wycliffe translated from the Latin Vulgate, so that likely shaped his renderings. I doubt that he had ready access to lots of Greek MSS
Apparently the Vulgate also uses the rendering "Jesus"
I checked an online Wycliffe bible and it has Jesus at Jude 5.
You're right my mistake.
And now that I think about it "He" would be Jesus because of verse 4 even if it was the case
Jude ch.1:5RSVCE"Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe."
I Think mixed up Wycliffe's translation with this one or one similar to it.
It's understandable, especially with all of these different translations.
To stir the pot even further:
Acts ch.13:33ESV"this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,
“‘You are my Son,
TODAY I have begotten you.’"
The resurrection is a creative act.
Note that the re-creation of JEHOVAH'S Son in time is considered a Begetting of him . So the argument that any creation in time would disqualify Jesus from the title of only begotten Son is shown to be on shaky ground.
Post a Comment