Think of Wirkensgesetze in terms of "causal connections." Causal connections describe a relation (r) between an event (A) and another event (B) where event A might be a baseball hitting the window and event B is the window breaking.
2. πρωτότοκος (Greek)-Louw-Nida offers this comment on the word as used in the GNT, particularly at Colossians 1:15.
See Semantic Domain 13.79. There, this lexicon notes that the word may denote: "pertaining to existing prior to something else - ‘existing first, existing before." It states that the construction in Colossians 1:15 could be translated "existing before all creation" or "existing before anything was created." Col 1.15, an occurrence which is taken to be a figurative use of "firstborn." Moreover, Louw-Nida professes that the word possibly means "superior in status" in Colossians (see 10.39-43; 87.47).
Christopher Beetham offers this perspective on prototokos and related concepts (Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, page 127):
The word is clearly connected to the ideas of primacy in rank and authority to rule. The reason for the title stems in part also from the idea that the Word or Wisdom existed before the rest of creation,62 as the firstborn of a family would exist before other siblings. This latter concept of temporal priority, as we observed, was the central concern of Prov 8:22–31. According to Philo, the Word/Wisdom is the agent “through whom the universe came into existence.”63 It is “antecedent to all that has come into existence,” the “rudder” by which God “guides all things on their course,” and the “instrument” that “God employed” “when He was fashioning the world” (cf. Col 1:16–17a).
100 comments:
Edgar,
2)πρωτότοκος... a corollary thought...
I have seen criticism for the NWT's employment of "by means of" to translate the Greek εν (in) of verse 16 and in other places. The accusation is that JWs read Christ's agency back into the text, whereas literally rendering εν as "in" or "by" would make Christ the source of the action, and by implication, co-eternal or JHVH etc. Have you heard of this or similar ideas?
Interestingly the footnote in ESV provides the alternative rendering, in agreement with NWT.
I've been dying to ask you this for a while. Btw, love these words of the month.
Thanks Terence. I will just say that "literal translations" are not always the best or so literal. Bill Mounce has written a good article dealing with that issue: the truth is that Greek prepositions, just like other words, can have a range of meaning. For example, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/02/petr-pokorny-on-colossians-116.html
Compare https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/04/in-god-him-or-other-such-expressions.html
@Terence
The "en" here is instrumental. Like when Jesus got rid of demons "en" Beelzebub.
Since I have read that solution in several Bible translations, I would like to ask you whether πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως can be resolved from a strictly linguistic point of view as "He was born before every creation"? So, can the compound word πρωτό and τοκος be split into "born before"?
@Edgar & Dages. Thanks both!
The mistaken assumption of the reader that leads to great confusion is the assumption that the "creation" refers to Genesis 1. No, it is referring to the New Creation:
[Col 1:15-17 NASB95] [15] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. [16] For by Him all things were created, [both] in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. [17] He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
It is not about making chairs and crowns but rather instituting the Kingdom of God's beloved son.
WoundedEgo:
There are three basic views posited for this verse:
1) It refers to the creation in Genesis
2) It refers to the new creation
3) It refers to both creation in Genesis and the new creation
Why limit these words to the new creation? Nothing in 1:15-17 necessitates the new creation interpretation.
1) If we say it refers to Genesis 1, then it is patently false, because Adam was the first created in the Genesis 1 creation.
2) The word rendered "created" (ktizw) refers to something being "founded" or "established," not "created." "Thrones and dominions" are not things you "create," but rather immaterial authority structures. You know, like in "the Kingdom of God's Dear Son."
3) See #1.
1) There were numerous things created before Adam in Genesis, including the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). The heavens and the earth had to be created before Adam: they couldn't have been made afterwards or else Adam couldn't have been made.
2) Ktizw has a semantic range, and it can mean "to create." The thrones and dominions can also refer to the structures of angels (immaterial spirit beings). In biblical language, even institutions can be "created," not just established or ordained. See 1 Peter 2:13-14.
See https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/ktizo
Note Matthew 19:4 among other verses that have the meaning of creation. Compare Colossians 3:10; Revelation 4:11.
NET Bible note for Colossians 1:16-tn BDAG 579 s.v. κυριότης 3 suggests “bearers of the ruling powers, dominions” here.
NET uses "created" in 1:16.
There are two words in this verse we're concerned with:
[Mat 19:4 CSB] [4] "Haven't you read," he replied, "that he who created (κτίσας) [them] in the beginning made (ἐποίησεν) them male and female,
[Mat 19:4 MGNT] [4] ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι ὁ κτίσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς
As I read it, the one who founded, formed them male and female.
Re:
[Col 3:10 NASB95] [10] and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--
Is the New Self a physical creation? Or is he talking about the one who conformed to a true knowledge of God, through his χαρακτήρ of himself?:
[2Co 5:16-18 NASB95] [16] Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know [Him in this way] no longer. [17] Therefore if anyone is in Christ, [he is] a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. [18] Now all [these] things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
I could quote lexicon after lexicon to show that ktizw most likely means create and I think the NT examples bear out this meaning. Why prefer "founded" in Matt. 19:4-6? The Hebrew Bible uses bara and asah in Genesis 1.
The new self is not physical, but a creation can be spiritual like we find in 2 Corinthians 5:17.
A thesis on Colossians 1:15:
https://www.academia.edu/29768610/Is_there_Scriptural_Legitimacy_for_Jehovah_s_Witnesses_Christology_of_the_Firstborn_as_the_First_of_God_s_Created_Beings
[Rom 1:3-4 NASB95] [3] concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, [4] who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
[Rom 8:29 NASB95] [29] For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
[Col 1:15, 18 NASB95] [15] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ... [18] He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
[Heb 12:23 NASB95] [23] to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of [the] righteous made perfect,
[Rev 1:5 NASB95] [5] and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood--
[1Co 15:47 NKJV] [47] The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man [is] the Lord from heaven.
As Beduhn and many scholars have said the range a word can have can be narrow but also quite wide.
for example the prep "ek" - one user is insistent this prep would be used to show the one labelled Firstborn of creation is part of the group, however that is entirely untrue, when we take one look at usages in a lexicon.
John in Rev 1:5 uses a similar phrase to Paul "The Firstborn of the dead" - whether one admits it or not, this PROVES the meaning is the same... if its not the same, what does John mean? surely he doesn't think Jesus was never part of the dead..
Paul certainly didn't think Jesus was part of the dead at the time he was writing Col - yet that's what some would have us believe - seriously try a lexicon.
While the words may imply "the one born first" in English - as demonstrated in other places. The range it can have in the NT is huge.
Col 1:15 should probably be taken as both meanings. As using "First-created" as some proclaim would destroy the "rhyme" with Firstborn on the dead, just three verses later.. surely those who make that argument also realise how goofy "First-created of [all] creation" sounds.
Not to mention the constant use of "created" and "Birth" as parallels - Both "born/ installed" and "created" are at one point or another used of inanimate objects.
Too those who say it shouldn't be translated any other way - take a lesson in Greek and in translation in general, then go and translate something literally. This being even more important in the presence of an idiom.
On occasion in Bible translation an entirely different word needs to be employed to convey the intended meaning as the Greek makes no sense to an English speaker - NWT appendix has an excellent example, to say this example is a mistranslation is not only foolish, but ignores the point of translation.
"John in Rev 1:5 uses a similar phrase to Paul "The Firstborn of the dead" - whether one admits it or not, this PROVES the meaning is the same..."
No, that Jesus both called "prōtotokos tōn nekrōn" and "prōtotokos EK tōn nekrōn", that does NOT prove that these two expressions mean the same thing, especially not that "prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs" is automatically would be a partitive construction, and to mean the same thing as "prōtotokos *ek pasēs ktiseōs", even without putting the "ek".
Jesus is both above the dead, and at the same time He himself actually died, this is declared, but that He was created is nowhere declared.
"the constant use of "created" and "Birth" as parallels"
Sou forget that in Hebrews 1:5 it is explicitly revealed that as the Son originates of the Father, no one else does, so his generation from the Father is qualitatively different from the way the creatures came to be.
So, the fact that in the figurative, literary style of wisdom literature the two are "paralleled", you cannot draw the conclusion that the two are the same, because as we can see, the NT consistently differentiates, distinguishes and delimits the birth/begetting of the Son, from the creating/making of the creatures, both in terms of terminology and content.
" that does NOT prove that these two expressions mean the same thing,"
- I ask how? your grasping at straws - every trinitarian scholar I have read proclaims these mean the same thing..
"that Jesus both called "prōtotokos tōn nekrōn" and "prōtotokos EK tōn nekrōn", that does NOT prove that these two expressions mean the same thing" - your failure to provide sufficient reason is itself giving weight to yet another dishonest argument, just a theological one.
Again you claim many things, very few which you can actually back with convincing evidence.
infact Acts 26:23 explicitly says Jesus was the first to rise from the dead (NIV)
and again you still haven't addresses my examples
"prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs" is automatically would be a partitive construction" - find me an exception then.. you still haven't provided, if there is no other example of an exception (which there isn't) then what are the odds that this is the one? infact in light of me proclaiming both meanings for both, I would say your pretty screwed in this argument.
Too claim these One means both yet the other doesn't because one is explicitly stated yet the other is implied with temporal terms, destroys Pauls explicit contrast between the two.
- I question whether you understand the term "implication". The NT does a lot of it, you yourself demonstrate this.
" the NT consistently differentiates, distinguishes and delimits the birth/begetting of the Son, from the creating/making of the creatures, both in terms of terminology and content"
- but it doesn't say "eternal generation" or even imply it- infact with how often you make this claim, I question your research as I can find multiple places, where the support for this is not only lacking, but also down right dishonest.
your use of Heb 1:5 will be addressed at some point, but for now we will add another point to our counter (#16)
Because Jesus is both sovereign of the dead and one of them, it does not logically or linguistically follow that the firstborn of creation is one of the creatures. If it were not declared about Jesus that he died, and there was no "ek" form, then the "firstborn of the dead" would not be one of the dead either. What kind of exception should I show, when this is the title of the Son alone?
In ancient Greek, the genitive of the whole usually (not always) stands before or after the word denoting the part: "τῶν Θρᾳκῶν πελτασταί" = targeteers of the Thracians", which at least linguistically makes it less improbable that it is partitive, since here it is not πάσης κτίσεως πρωτότοκος. Paul does not class πρωτότοκος Himself in πᾶσα κτίσις; for the expression used in the 16. verse is not τὰ ἄλλα or τὰ λοιπά, but τὰ πάντα ἐκτίσθη.
"but it doesn't say "eternal generation" or even imply it"
With this you have bypassed this answer: from this verse it is clear that the Son's orign of the Father is completely different, in a way that no one else is, since "today I have begotten you" cannot be said about anyone else. So it cannot be the same as the creation of the creatures.
But yes, it also turns out that this is "eternal generation", when it is said that the generation "happened" "today" for the Father, and "today" for God is eternity. Furthermore, verse 2 also reveals that this must have happened before all the ages, we know from John that it already existed in the beginning, so it did not come into being at some point of time.
Have you read this? https://www.academia.edu/29768610/Is_there_Scriptural_Legitimacy_for_Jehovah_s_Witnesses_Christology_of_the_Firstborn_as_the_First_of_God_s_Created_Beings
So in summary, in Colossians 1:15, the FIRSTBORN does not literally mean being the first, foremost part of a line or sequence, but RANK, a lordly title, that he has the RIGHTS of birthright over all creation, without of course being a creature himself.
By the way, the term "all creation" occurs in the same epistle at 1:23, where it is said that the gospel of Jesus Christ was "preached in *all creation* that is under the heaven", by definition Christ does not belong here either into the "all creation", since the gospel obviously did not have to be preached to him.
And the fact that the genitive can also be "genitive of supremacy" is a good example of Christ is called "the head OF the church" (Ephesians 5:23, kephalē *tēs* ekklēsias), and at the same time the same epistle calls him "the head OVER all things for the church" (Eph 1:22, kephalē *HYPER* panta tē ekklēsia), therefore, it does not follow from the genitive structure that He needs to belong to the given group or category.
The word "ktisis" can also mean "created world" (kosmos, olam), and in this case it already departs from your interpretation. After all, whoever is the firstborn of the entire created world is not necessarily a creature - if only because of the abstract nature of the concept.
But the immediate context also speaks against your position. Colossians 1:16 says: "For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things are through him and to him they were created looking."
With the word "because" Paul's thought is connected to the words "the firstborn of all creation (or: the whole creation)" from the previous verse. Jesus is therefore the firstborn of all creation in the sense that they were created in him, through him and for him. The birthright here has an irrefutable relation to the primacy in dignity, namely not within the circle of creatures, but above them. After all, how could He be a creature by whom all things were created?
you know perfectly well what Im asking, now are you going to answer or what?
"Because Jesus is both sovereign of the dead and one of them, it does not logically or linguistically" - you missed the entire point... are you trying to waste my time?
"then the "firstborn of the dead" would not be one of the dead either. " - you know how to BS your way out of holes don't you... I can think of about 5 flaws in this argument off the top of my head... + This is your opinion, its not fact, again this shows theological motivation rather than honest arguments.
"Paul does not class πρωτότοκος Himself in πᾶσα κτίσις; for the expression used in the 16. verse is not τὰ ἄλλα or τὰ λοιπά, but τὰ πάντα ἐκτίσθη." - cite me an instance when Paul does this in any writing (the syntax you mention)
"Have you read this?" - yes - like all your sources, it is an entirely misleading argument.
But Christ belongs to the Church (according to most religions) and is the head of it... so is part of the group.
"how could He be a creature by whom all things were created?" - trinitarians have tried this trick for ages, it doesn't work.. because "all" can have exceptions just one reason.
secondly you assume God didnt use a creature because of Isa 44:24... yet that would be exactly what is implied - not my fault you refuse to accept the context..
"it is clear that the Son's orign of the Father is completely different, in a way that no one else is, since "today I have begotten you" cannot be said about anyone else."
- this is not only applied to "The son"...
" Furthermore, verse 2 also reveals that this must have happened before all the ages " - you think this "ages" argument is a trump card, howveer its really not - due to other usages in teh NT, so you can stop using it now.. try a dictionary.
NO ONE (catholics, protestants etc) agrees with you on this argument, so I will not accept it.
"By the way, the term "all creation" occurs in the same epistle at 1:23, where it is said that the gospel of Jesus Christ was "preached in *all creation* that is under the heaven"" - is Heaven not a creation anymore?
Greetings, I know these conversations can sometimes get heated, but I would appreciate us not using euphemisms like BS in our discussions. I can't edit your comments and would rather not anyway. Have a good morning.
Nincsnevem, I can't address all of your claims now due to work, but two things I spot in your remarks:
1) When did God tell Christ that he had begotten him? Was it before creation or after his resurrection/exaltation? What does the context suggest?
2) I find the genitive of supremacy or genitive of subordination (Daniel Wallace) to be a suspect category.
I only respond to substantive statements.
"... "all" can have exceptions just one reason."
A simple "can" is not enough for you, especially since John 1:3 also states this too, clearly distinguishing the Logos that already existed "in the beginning" from those who came into being. There is an exception only if it turns out from anywhere that there is an exception, but there is no such statement in the Bible that the Son belongs to the ranks of creatures or that he was created.
"you assume God didn't use a creature because of Isa 44:24..."
I do not merely "assume", but accept at face value the divine statement that God alone created, which is supported not only by this verse, but Isaiah 45:12, 48:13, Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6, Neh 9:6 too. The Holy Scriptures do not merely ascribe to the Son some "kind of cooperation" in the creation, but also teach that he is the creator (cf. Hebrews 1:10) of all creatures (which according to them he does not belong to), and creation is only a divine ability, and even a creature cannot even be made a means of creation.
God is the source of creation in a unique way, because God does not cooperate in the work of creation with any means, partner or material. God's creative activity is exclusive. The way God creates, no one and nothing can. God's creative ability is an incommunicable quality for the creature. In order for someone to be able to create, that is, to call something that exists out of non-existence, one must be God (cf. Hebrews 3:4).
"yet that would be exactly what is implied"
Where is it implied that God creates through the cooperation of an archangel? Where is it stated that the Son was created, or that he is an archangel?
"- this is not only applied to "The son"..."
What do you think it means, "To whom else would God have ever said?", if not that the same cannot be said of anyone else? And where does the Bible say about anyone else, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"?
"you think this "ages" argument is a trump card, however its really not"
Not only that, and even the Arian creeds admitted that:
"He who has begotten the only-begotten Son before aeonian times (χρωνων αἰωνίων), through whom also he made the aeons and everything..." (Profession of Faith of Arius)
"And if anybody teaches contrary to the sound, right faith of the Scriptures, alleging that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema." (Dedication Creed)
"who before all ages and before all beginning and before all conceivable time and before all comprehensible substance (οὐσίας) was begotten impassibly from God through whom the ages were set up and all things came into existence" (Homoious Creed of Nike)
""By the way, the term "all creation" occurs in the same epistle at 1:23, where it is said that the gospel of Jesus Christ was "preached in *all creation* that is under the heaven"" - is Heaven not a creation anymore?"
No one claimed this, but if "all creation" in Colossians 1 refers to those to whom the gospel was preached, then your argument that the Son would fit into the ranks of "all creatures" is even less valid.
@Edgar Foster
The Epistle to the Hebrews was of course written after the resurrection/exaltation of Christ, however, 1:5, which speaks of the begetting of the Son, obviously refers to the pre-existent Son. Origen rightly noted:
"None of these testimonies, however, sets forth distinctly the Saviour’s exalted birth; but when the words are addressed to Him, “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,” this is spoken to Him by God, with whom all time is to-day, for there is no evening with God, as I consider, and there is no morning, nothing but time that stretches out, along with His unbeginning and unseen life. The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten, and thus the beginning of His birth is not found, as neither is the day of it."
Augustine likewise:
"Thy years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come in order that all separate moments may come to pass. All thy years stand together as one, since they are abiding. Nor do thy years past exclude the years to come because thy years do not pass away. All these years of ours shall be with thee, when all of them shall have ceased to be. Thy years are but a day, and thy day is not recurrent, but always today. Thy “today” yields not to tomorrow and does not follow yesterday. Thy “today” is eternity. Therefore, thou didst generate the Coeternal, to whom thou didst say, “This day I have begotten thee.” Thou madest all time and before all times thou art, and there was never a time when there was no time." (Confessions 14, Ch. XIII)
1) Christ is never called "Creator" in the Bible, but we read that God created through or by means of Christ.
2) Hebrews 1:10 must be read in the light of Hebrews 1:2: God made the cosmos through his Son. Nothing said in the OT prevents God from creating through his Son. I've read scholars who are familiar with Jewish thought articulate this very point and they were not JWs.
3) God alone is the Creator, but he can use an agent to share in his creative activity. Note also Matthew 19:4-6. Does Jesus take credit for creating things in that verse?
Nincsnevem, I am not convinced that 1:5 applies to the preexistent Son. The context of 1:5 indicates it refers to the resurrected and exalted Son. Secondly, see Hebrews 5:4-5, 9-10.
"Christ is never called "Creator" in the Bible, but we read that God created through or by means of Christ."
It is stated that: “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" (Hebrews 1:10)
"Hebrews 1:10 must be read in the light of Hebrews 1:2"
Or just the other way around, Hebrews 1:10 makes it clear that "dia" and "en" do not just mean some passive, secondary contribution to creation, and this is just the usual formula contained in early Christian creeds: "FROM the Father, by/through the Son, IN the Holy Spirit". So it's a kind of chain, a cycle.
"Nothing said in the OT prevents God from creating through his Son."
Indeed, the verses quoted above (and the pure logic) "only" rule out creating through a created archangel.
"God alone is the Creator, but he can use an agent to share in his creative activity."
Creation is an exclusively divine ability that cannot be shared secondarily with creatures. And God says that He "alone" created (as well as: "who was with me?", "with my own hands", "by himself"), exactly means "exclusively only me alone, without anyone else's contribution or any kind of involvement." Have you read this: https://t.ly/Haod-
If God created by actually doing it through an "agent", who is not one God with him, then he did not create "alone". If I build my house through an "agent", then I did not build my house "alone". And the Scripture itself uses the analogy of building a house for creation: Hebrews 3:4.
"Note also Matthew 19:4-6. Does Jesus take credit for creating things in that verse?"
He did not deny that he would "belong" to God, and of course he was also a man due to his Incarnation, so he could speak like a man.
"I am not convinced that 1:5 applies to the preexistent Son. The context of 1:5 indicates it refers to the resurrected and exalted Son."
So the Son, whom the NT repeatedly declared to be born/begotten of the Father, was begotten after his resurrection and exaltation? Then 1:10 also happened after his resurrection and exaltation?
Hebrews 1 speaks partly of the supremacy which he already possessed from the beginning (meaning his deity), since he is the only one begotten of the Father, and on the other hand of the glory which he received only after his resurrection and ascension. The two are not sharply separated in the text, for example in verse 10 it is about the creation of the world, it was obviously before those mentioned in the verses 3-4: "made purification of sins", etc.
"see Hebrews 5:4-5, 9-10."
These are not the closer context of Hebrews 1, and are about Christ's role as the high priest, which refer to his human nature, nothing to do with the begetting of the pre-existent Son from the Father.
I stand by my statement that Hebrews 1:10 does not call Jesus, "Creator." It does take words/a verse originally said or applied to YHWH and it the passage applies those words to God's Son, whom HE appointed heir and through whom HE created all things.
The AB Commentary written by G.W. Buchanan points out that Heb. 1:10 does not necessarily prove that Jesus is Almighty God (God the Son). See pages 21-22, but here is part of what Buchanan writes:
Like other scholars of his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut 32:43, in which the object of worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was Israel, the author of Hebrews
applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6). Since the term "first-born" could be applied either to Israel (Exod 4:22) or to the Messiah, the author made the shift. By the same logic, since "the Lord" was a title of respect used both for God and for kings, such as Jesus, he may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of God in contrast to the temporal nature of the angels. If this were the case, then Jesus would also have been thought of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the
heaven and earth as well as the ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not
mean that Jesus was believed to be God or was addressed as God.
For an exegesis of Hebrews that deals with the "today" issues, see Kenneth Schenck's piece here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267903
He documents others who write about the matter.
Not that I agree entirely with this article, but he gets a number of things right IMO about Hebrews 1: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/59/59-4/JETS_59-4_717-29_Rhee.pdf
"Where is it implied that God creates through the cooperation of an archangel?"
dia + genitve meaning agency, see other NT examples
The passive verb used of Christ "90%" of the time.
again if we switch certain element of col 1:16 we get not christ as the creator, but the mention of "God" before that. - this is clear to anyone who knows Greek.
Hebrews 1:10 does not work the way you think it does.. its one active vs about 6 (maybe more) passives - I can think of a paralel with moses giving the law - doesnt mean Moses originated the law. It was God.
"And where does the Bible say about anyone else"
Hebrews 1:5 quotes from Psalm 2:7, Which is clearly applied to a Human king (or someone thats not Jesus) - similar with John 10:34/Ps 82:6 - where its reapplied..
" but Isaiah 45:12, 48:13, Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6, Neh 9:6 too" - But who else is in focus? thats the important question you must address.
There is something in all of these which indicate who this was addressed too and how general the statement is.
you forget also this most likely is a Hebrew idoim of some sort.
"but if "all creation" in Colossians 1 refers to those to whom the gospel was preached, then your argument that the Son would fit into the ranks of "all creatures" is even less valid." - you forget "all" here has an obvious exception.. because it wasnt preached to "all creation" as heaven is a creation yet is exempt from this "all". + It would not have to be preached to Christ as he already knew it (same with the Apostles in some sense)
"Or just the other way around" - why the other way? The majority of the creation clauses apply a passive to christ not an active - The one active is the odd one out - you have the burden of proof here.
" the verses quoted above (and the pure logic)"
- yes ommiting important information, nice!
"Creation is an exclusively divine ability that cannot be shared secondarily with creatures." - Bible doesnt say this, this is an opinion.
you clearly dont know the range the Hebrew word can have. a dictionary lists about 7 uses.. some not literally what the word implies
I have another example for you - that could destory this argument where God says he did something "alone" but used agents.. but ill keep it in reserve for now.
"the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah." - this is done many times... If the pslam where Hebrews 1:8 is quoted from establishes Jesus as God, it also does for the King originally addressed.
"which refer to his human nature" - a flaw in this whole 2 nature argument is simply it can used as a "get out of jail free card"
However there a real flaw in it, which I will mention if the flawed argument continues to be used.
"What kind of exception should I show, when this is the title of the Son alone?"
- Where Firstborn in a genitive construction is not part of the specified group. your reluctance to answer is telling.
Firstborn of Death is itself a disease
Firstborn of the sons of israel is infact a son of Israel
Firstborn of the Kings (David) is a king
(note these are not descendants of the group, but are still part of the group)
Firstborn of the Dead was at one point part of the specified group (Jesus is not a descendant of the dead or [the] brothers, but is still part of the group)
if you look up Ek in a dictionary and look at the meaning you will soon see it has very little significance if its present or not in these constructions. (see Bible hub)
Firstborn out of the dead (Col 1:18) & Firstborn of the dead (Rev 1:5) mean the same thing... until proven otherwise.. I can cite hundreds of commentaries/ dictionaries that agree with me. So far for your claim you have cited nothing..
"In ancient Greek, the genitive of the whole usually (not always) stands before or after the word denoting the part: "τῶν Θρᾳκῶν πελτασταί" = targeteers of the Thracians"," - misleading claim as too my knowledge this sort of construction is never used.
"If it were not declared about Jesus that he died, and there was no "ek" form, then the "firstborn of the dead" would not be one of the dead either" - according to John you are just plain wrong, John makes no significant claim to mean something different to what Paul wrote.
Just like with Rev 3:14 being a call-back to Prov 8:22, I would say its highly likely. As many Bibles I can find are cross referencing these 2 scriptures (your double accusative argument doesn't hold up either)
"first begotten of the dead] Explained by St Paul in Colossians 1:18, where He is called “the First-born” (the word is the same) “from the dead.” The sense of “first-born” or “first-begotten” is “first to enter life,” without any fanciful image of death as the womb of earth. The thought in Romans 1:4 is similar."
Cam Bible for schools and Collages
see Romans 1:4
see these (I have more): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/1-5.htm
a similar expression is used (ek is not used): https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-20.htm#lexicon
You have to prove that ek makes a significant difference - Where even Greek experts I have read are comparing these two without even mentioning the slight variance in construction.
Edgar can elaborate/ correct if he wishes.
http://jehovah.to/exe/discussion/prwtotokos_lexical.htm
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/11/question-from-omar-regarding-colossians.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/05/colossians-115-18-ek.html
@Anonymous
""Where is it implied that God creates through the cooperation of an archangel?" dia + genitve meaning agency, see other NT examples"
However, the quoted statements (and logic) preclude some kind of creation "agent" from being a created archangel. So the statements attributing creation to the Son, the quoted statements attributing creation exclusively to God, do not exclude the Son's contribution to creation, only that of WTS Miachel Jesus.
"The passive verb used of Christ "90%" of the time."
So what? A single statement is enough to make it clear that the Son's participation in creation is not only of a passive, secondary, "agent" nature. Or how many times does God have to say something for you to believe? Furthermore, in the Nicene Creed it says: "by whom all things were made".
"Hebrews 1:10 does not work the way you think it does.."
Yes, it doesn't mean what it means because it goes against your Arian theology.
"its one active vs about 6 (maybe more) passives"
Since when is there such an exegetical established rule that this must be decided by such a calculation? I think the more complete statement explains the less complete one.
"I can think of a parallel with Moses giving the law - doesn't mean Moses originated the law. It was God."
However, the Scriptures do not apply the exact same statement and attributes to Moses as to Yahweh, so the example failed.
""And where does the Bible say about anyone else" Hebrews 1:5 quotes from Psalm 2:7, Which is clearly applied to a Human king (or someone thats not Jesus)"
And you say this in light of the fact that Hebrews 1 begins the listed statements with the rhetorical question "to whom would God have ever said?" This means exactly that these statements, in this sense, cannot be applied to anyone other than what is stated there. Or then where is the birth of the pre-existent Logos?
"" but Isaiah 45:12, 48:13, Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6, Neh 9:6 too" - But who else is in focus?"
The statements are specific and you can't obscure their meaning by pointing as an excuse for any kind of "focus". God says that He "alone" created (as well as: "who was with me?", "with my own hands", "by himself"), exactly means "exclusively only me alone, without anyone else's contribution or any kind of involvement."
he fact that it only excludes the involvement of false gods is not supported by anything. Let's imagine a dialogue.
A teacher suspects that the student did not write the submitted paper himself, but that his parents helped him. So the teacher asks:
- Are you sure you wrote this yourself? Didn't your mom help with that?
- No, I wrote it myself alone!
In the meantime, it would turn out that his father actually wrote it, the student would be caught lying, and then he would object that the question was "only" whether his mother helped him. Yes, but you didn't just claim that your mom didn't, you also specifically said that you did it "yourself alone".
@Anonymous
"you forget "all" here has an obvious exception..because it wasn't preached to "all creation" as heaven is a creation yet is exempt from this "all"."
Obviously, but in this case, your argument that the Firstborn must necessarily be part of "all creation" is on even weaker, because according to you, it is not absolutely "all creation" in Colossians 1. If the "all creation" here does not literally mean the whole creation, but only those to whom the gospel was preached, then for this reason alone the Son does not belong to the "whole creation" in verse 15. So, in addition to the alleged "creation" of the Son, another "proof" must be sought.
""Or just the other way around" - why the other way? The majority of the creation clauses apply a passive to Christ not an active"
Because the exegetical norm is not that we take as a basis the one of which there is more, but that the more complete statement explains the less complete one.
""Creation is an exclusively divine ability that cannot be shared secondarily with creatures." - Bible doesn't say this, this is an opinion."
But exactly what it says this, your "out of the jail" card citing the "focus" has no basis. Creation demands omnipotence, infinity, which a creature cannot possess. This is what the classification of miracles is all about, what miracles angels (including fallen angels) are capable of, and what miracles only God can do.
""the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah." - this is done many times..."
However, when the apostle applies it to the Son, he reinterprets the Psalm, and often not according to the Hebrew text, but quotes it freely, often according to the LXX, which reads differently.
"which refer to his human nature" - a flaw in this whole 2 nature argument is simply it can be used as a "get out of jail free card""
Because don't you think the man Jesus Christ is the mediating high priest?
"""What kind of exception should I show, when this is the title of the Son alone?" - Where Firstborn in a genitive construction is not part of the specified group.""
I don't need to show such an example, so that there is no such established "rule" that the expression "firstborn of X" is automatically partitive. The examples you give do not prove any such "rule", either grammatically, logically or exegetically. The expression "something of something" becomes partitive only IF
1) or from the expression itself (e.g. the best student in the class, the most beautiful part of the city, etc.)
2) or else it is specifically stated in some form that it is included in the genitive of the whole. Neither case exists here.
"Firstborn out of the dead (Col 1:18) & Firstborn of the dead (Rev 1:5) mean the same thing..."
It does not mean the same thing, and especially it does not follow that "firstborn of all creation" automatically means the same as "firstborn out/among all creation".
Let's take an example: "coach of the team", it does not follow from this expression that the person designated in this way is also a player of the team. However, in principle, someone can also be a player and coach too, so he can be called "the coach of the team" and "the coach from the team" at the same time, since in this case both statements are true. It does not follow that the "coach of the coach" is always a player.
In the same way: since Jesus really died (this is stated several times in the Bible), he can be called by both names at the same time, since both formulas are true for him, but nowhere is it stated that he was created.
""In ancient Greek, the genitive of the whole usually (not always) stands before or after the word denoting the part: "τῶν Θρᾳκῶν πελτασταί" = targeteers of the Thracians"," - misleading claim as too my knowledge this sort of construction is never used."
The formula does exist, and it is a linguistic device that would push the matter in the direction of the partitive, it is similar to how in English: "the creation's firstborn" VS "fristborn of the creation", the former refers more to the partitive than the latter. Paul also uses this formula, but if he wants to be even more specific, he uses "ek".
"John makes no significant claim to mean something different to what Paul wrote."
John does not say anything that the two mean the same thing, but in this case his expression says MORE than Paul's.
"Just like with Rev 3:14 being a call-back to Prov 8:22, I would say its highly likely."
You just admitted that Proverbs 8:22 is double accusative, which excludes the fact that it is about the creation of 'Chokhmah', but rather that Yahweh made (installed) the 'Chokhmah' (to be) his 'arche' (like in Rev. 1:6). So this cannot be used to prove the alleged creation of the Son, besides the fact that it is not literally the Son, and is anyway a figurativee speech found in wisdom literature.
And the principle of creation is not the first creature, but the one from whom creation flows, emanates. The creation does not start WITH (the creation of) the 'arkhe', but starts FROM/OF the 'arkhe'.
You can find the answer to the first link here:
* https://t.ly/7P-jl
* https://shorturl.at/ivLS1
* https://t.ly/TNe-1
* https://t.ly/w3sg7
*https://t.ly/6FZhr
Your second link is self-goal, the third one gives no new arguments.
@Edgar Foster
"Hebrews 1:10 does not call Jesus, "Creator."
In so far as the statement "you've built this all" does not say "you are the builder". Formally no, but practically yes.
"It does take words/a verse originally said or applied to YHWH and it the passage applies those words to God's Son"
Exactly, and it proves that the Son is also Yahweh, and not an archangel outside of Yahweh, since such a statement that "you created everything" would be blasphemy to apply to a creature. And here the term "applied" is not only to be interpreted titularly, but is actually true.
"whom HE appointed heir and through whom HE created all things."
All of this is true, except that this verse makes it clear that describing the Son's contribution to creation with the words "en" and "dia" does not mean something of a second-degree "agent" nature.
"The AB Commentary written by G.W. Buchanan points out that Heb. 1:10 does not necessarily prove that Jesus is Almighty God (God the Son)"
Apart from the Almighty God, of whom else could it truly be said that "you created everything"?
"the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah."
Indeed, many times OT statements were applied to the Son by the apostles in a different sense than it is in the original context, but it is true for all of these that they say more, not less, about the Son.
"Jesus would also have been thought of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and earth as well as the ages (1:2, 10)."
Demiurge....and our theology comes from Platonism?
I once debated with a Muslim who is well versed in JW theology, we discussed which is more manageable for a Muslim, Trinitarian Christianity or the JW one? He said it's clearly the former, because at least it makes a strict distinction between God and non-god, creator and creatures, and doesn't include partly divine "demigods" like in JW theology. Here, at least, someone is either a real God almighty or not "god" at all. OT statements exclude partly divine "gods", demiurges at all, cf. Isaiah 45:5, Deuteronomy 32:39.
"For an exegesis of Hebrews that deals with the "today" issues, see Kenneth Schenck's piece here"
Hebrews 1 does not deal with the sacrifice, nor with Jesus' high priesthood (this topic will come up later), but rather with the essential supremacy of the Son over "all angels".
And it turns out that the Son is inherently superior compared to the angels, because the answer to all the rhetorical questions is negative, none of the attributes listed there can be said of any angel, thus including Michael.
Since we know that the Son was born/begotten of the Father before all the aion-s in his divine pre-existence, and born as a man of Mary, Hebrews 1:5 cannot refer to anything other than the begetting of the pre-existent Logos from God the Father, unless He was born a third time. His exaltation after his resurrection is nowhere described in Scripture with 'gennao'.
You're using todays culture, not the mind of the bible writers.. two different things.
" A single statement is enough to make it clear that the Son's participation in creation is not only of a passive, secondary, "agent" nature." - not really... because changing the subject to an object & the verb from passive to active in Col 1:16, We get not Christ as the creator but the one mentioned previously. + everything Edgar has said.
You insist just one statement is enough, is it? its contridictory to EVERTHING else written + linguistical evidence we posess.
In addition "However, the Scriptures do not apply the exact same statement and attributes to Moses as to Yahweh" - However it does, because it makes the passive significant for us to know that the construction used of Christ is a mediatory role. As most if not all scholars point out (including trinitarians & catholics)
You can choose to deny it if you like, but you are in the minority here.
""to whom would God have ever said?" " - this statement never appears in the bible, you are modifying to suit your own ends. It was clearly said to someone who wasnt Jesus.
The statement is more narrow and explicitly mentions "Angels"
"This means exactly that these statements, in this sense, cannot be applied to anyone other than what is stated there." - try as you may, it was directed at Jesus and someone else, so the statement in not exclusive to Jesus.
This logic of yours works both ways..
"then where is the birth of the pre-existent Logos?" - Answered that many times. The bible answers this as well, the question becomes are you going to accept what Atha did and that the scripture applied to Jesus and could support doctrine or go against the very creed our using to support your arguments.
Atha's "One statement" trying to apply proverbs 8 to Jesus' days on earth is enough.
When did the angels come into existance? because it wasnt in Gen 1:1. according to Job, it was before the world.
If you want to mess this around aswell thats fine.
" because it goes against your Arian theology." - really? none of us here are Arian because as Edgar said what we know is from their enemies.. How can we be "Arian" if not all the wriitngs were destroyed?
I dont claim to be Arian, I dont think any Witness does.. so you can stop with the baseless accusations now.
""by whom all things were made"." - however this is old english and actaully misleading as many critics and scholars point out. If we take a look at any bible you will notice the majority of the time it is rendered "through" (even when the Object is the source)
In old English you can something "by" someone else (check older dictionaries)
"The statements are specific and you can't obscure their meaning by pointing as an excuse for any kind of "focus"."
- clearly you havent read your bible in the last day or so as I can cite numerous instances, where the writers are focused on one specific thing and omit everything around it.
In most of those contexts the thing in focus is people, So when we limit the statement down to just the context and the constrasts yes it was YHWH who did it on his own.
However a quick look at another example in De.32:12 compare Ex.32:32-34 + 1Sam.9:16; 13:13-14; 2Sam;5:1-2
will show you to be being misleading once again.
also if your definition is correct, why does the dicitonary on Biblehub list multiple meanings and why does one dictionary list a meaning as "acting independently"?
not as what you would have us believe.
a similar statement is made: Ezek 36:33, 36
I dont think YHWH laid a single brick or foundation of any of whats written here.
Daniel 4:30 is another.
"The fact that it only excludes the involvement of false gods is not supported by anything."
well mere verses before and after support this.. because thats who God at the time was challenging.. notice he wasnt challenging everything and everyone? Just the false Gods.
These show that even an "alone"
statement is not nessacarily indicative of solo execution + Christ is never described as being the creator, he always says "he" referring to someone else (even if this is his human nature it would do nothing more than confuse the Readers/ Listeners if they believed he was God)
"You're using today's culture, not the mind of the bible writers.. two different things."
And this is what you say, who professes a completely ahistorical and anachronistic view of the church and wants to "restore" the alleged "original" Christianity from scratch, ignoring ancient extra-biblical sources and the original theological environment.
"" A single statement is enough to make it clear that the Son's participation in creation is not only of a passive, secondary, "agent" nature." - not really... because changing the subject to an object & the verb from passive to active in Col 1:16, We get not Christ as the creator but the one mentioned previously"
This does not change the role of the Son as creator, it only illuminates it from a different point of view, and when we want to derive doctrinal truth, we take the fuller statement as a basis. The circumscription "dia" is nothing other than what is expressed by the principle of Perichoresis, which is also found in ancient Christian sources: ex Patre - per Filium - in Spiritus.
"You insist just one statement is enough, is it? its contradictory to EVERYTHING else written + linguistical evidence we possess."
Unless this is not a contradiction, but only a circumscription of the same theological truth from several aspects, in several ways, the meaning of which is adjusted by the fuller statement. And the "linguistic evidence" here should be read as what you put together in the "dung beetle" way.
"the construction used of Christ is a mediatory role."
According to Paul, the mediator is "the man Jesus Christ", and obviously it is not the man Jesus who participated in the creation.
"It was clearly said to someone who wasn't Jesus."
What kind of specific person is said to be born of the Father "today"? Especially in the sense that the apostle applies to the Son in Hebrews 1? That psalm is not a specific statement about a specific person, but a messianic psalm.
"The statement is more narrow and explicitly mentions "Angels""
Because if you can't say that about angels who are higher than humans, then you can say that about people, you're clever.
"Atha's "One statement" trying to apply proverbs 8 to Jesus' days on earth is enough."
I have said many times that "apply" does not mean literal identification, and in any case neither I nor any Catholic is bound by the arguments used by any specific church father. There are countless ways of approaching Proverbs 8, mine is e.g. that
- 'Chokmah' is not literally the Son, so it cannot be used to support the doctrine
- the more correct translation of 'qanani' is 'ektesato'
- the entire text is fairly figurative speech, which is common in wisdom literature, so it cannot be used to support the doctrine
- the double accusative structure does not refer to brining into existence of 'Chokmak', but to her installation/appointment to be the 'arkhe' of Yahweh
"When did the angels come into existence? because it wasn't in Gen 1:1. according to Job, it was before the world."
Job is also part of wisdom literature, and it is also a rather figurative speech. Genesis 1:1 speaks of the creation of "the heavens" (and thus the angels too) in the beginning. For your sake, I looked it up directly on jw.org, they do not claim that the angels "were" already "in the beginning", they only claim that "the angels were created long before man's appearance" (Insight on the Scriptures ), therefore the WTS does not practically claim more than they were created before the "sixth day" of creation. In Genesis 1:1, "heavens" means the invisible, spiritual world and its "inhabitants", "earth" is not this planet or globe, but the material, visible world.
"" because it goes against your Arian theology." - really? none of us here are Arian because"
Arian does not mean that you are in exact dogmatic or historical continuity with Arius, but that you are fundamentally on the same platform with him in terms of high Christology.
"as Edgar said what we know is from their enemies.. How can we be "Arian" if not all the writings were destroyed?"
Compared to that, many Arian sources and creeds are available:
* https://www.fourthcentury.com/documents-of-the-early-arian-controversy/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_creeds
"I don't claim to be Arian, I don't think any Witness does.. "
You don't have to call yourself that for the name to be appropriate in terms of content.
Cf. https://shorturl.at/pL136
"""by whom all things were made"." - however this is old english and actaully misleading"
You do know that the Nicene Creed was not written in Old English, but in Ancient Greek? And there it says: δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, or in Latin: per quem omnia facta sunt. Otherwise, these simply mean "by" as well, your juxtaposition between the two terms is artificial. English "through" simply means "by means of" in this case.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%AC#Preposition
As in any language, there's definitely a lot of overlap between/among/in/with Greek prepositions. And no preposition in one language will have an exact translation in another language with all its subtleties and nuances. So, you can't really be too dogmatic about the implications of one prepositions over another.
"that even an "alone" statement is not nessacarily indicative of solo execution"
But not only the phrase "alone" is declared, but much more specific phrases: "who was with me?", "with my own hands", "by himself". OT statements exclude partly divine "gods", demiurges, secondary creators at all, cf. Isaiah 45:5, Deuteronomy 32:39.
"Christ is never described as being the creator, he always says "he" referring to someone else"
Except when Hebrews 1:10 is spoken, and of course John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, which are not about secondary co-creative "agent" at all.
"even if this is his human nature it would do nothing more than confuse the Readers/ Listeners if they believed he was God"
Compared to that, Jesus never denied that he was equal to God when his accusers claimed this, he only pointed out their inconsistency, with a Jewish "a forterior" argument.
'Dia' also used of the Father (Hebrews 2:10; Romans 11:36, and Galatians 1:1, where it is used of both). Hence, as Godet remarks, it "does not lower the Word to the rank of a simple instrument," but merely implies a different relation to creation on the part of the Father and the Son. So there is no inferiority implied by ‘through,’ as if the Son were a mere instrument, is shewn by 1 Corinthians 1:9, where the same construction is used of the Father, ‘through Whom ye were called, &c.’ Compary Colossians 1:16 with Romans 11:36.
The discussion about angels from Hebrews 1 seems off on the wrong foot. Given the context, the word translated "angels" should actually read "messengers," because the messengers are human beings, such as Moses and the prophets:
[My translation of Heb 1:1-4] [1] God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers by means of the prophets in many portions and in many ways, [2] in these last days of these has spoken to us by means of a son, whom He appointed heir of all these things, by means of whom also he determined the ages. [3] And he is the reflector of God's radiance and the impression of God's nature, and manages everything by the means of giving orders by means of God's power. When He had been purified of his sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, [4] having become as much better than the messengers, as he inherited a more excellent title than they have.
Read that way, the passage coheres.
@WoundedEgo
You are right in that the Greek word 'aggelos' has a more general meaning (messenger, envoy), but the text makes it clear that in Hebrews 1:4-14 it is really about angels:
- it's about the heavenly states
- verse 6 is an OT quote, in the LXX "sons of God" (υἱοὶ θεοῦ) worship him, although in Hebrew it says "angels of God" (מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים - mal'akhey Elohim)
- v14. he calls them "ministering spirits"
[Heb 1:6 NASB95] [6] And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."
He appears to be, as he usually does, quoting his very corrupt LXX:
Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people. Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX
This is how it reads in the Hebrew:
[Deu 32:43 NASB95] [43] "Rejoice, O nations, [with] His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land [and] His people."
And this is how it reads in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
43 Rejoice, you nations heavens, with his people,
and bow down to him, all gods,
for he will avenge the blood of his servants sons.
He will take vengeance on his adversaries,
And avenge those who hate him,
and will make atonement for his land and for his people.
Alternatively, he might be looking at the apocryphal Book of Odes:
[Odes 2:43] Rejoice, heavens, at once with him, and let all the angels of God worship him! Rejoice, nations, with his people, and let all the sons of God prevail for him! For the blood of his sons he will avenge, and he will avenge and repay justice to the enemy. And to those who hate him, he will render justice, and the Lord will cleanse the land of his people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Odes_(Bible)
@Nincsnevem:
EF: Hebrews 1:10 does not call Jesus, "Creator."
Nincsnevem: In so far as the statement "you've built this all" does not say "you are the builder". Formally no, but practically yes.
EF: You're reading more into the text that is warranted. It doesn't exactly state that Christ "made everything" simpliciter et simpliciter: the writer attributes the words in Psalms to the Son. You waive aside the fact at God appointed the Son to be heir and to be the agent of creation. Without the Father's appointment, the Son would not have such authority.
Hebrews 1:10 (Catholic NABRE): “At the beginning, O Lord, you established the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.
I don't see "all" or "everything" in the verse.
Nincsnevem: Exactly, and it proves that the Son is also Yahweh, and not an archangel outside of Yahweh, since such a statement that "you created everything" would be blasphemy to apply to a creature. And here the term "applied" is not only to be interpreted titularly, but is actually true.
EF: But it doesn't say "you created everything": that is your paraphrastic rewording of the verse.
Greek (SBLGNT): καί· Σὺ κατ’ ἀρχάς, κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν οἱ οὐρανοί·
EF: "whom HE appointed heir and through whom HE created all things."
Nincsnevem: All of this is true, except that this verse makes it clear that describing the Son's contribution to creation with the words "en" and "dia" does not mean something of a second-degree "agent" nature.
EF: Whether it's second degree agency is another question, but there's no doubt that the Son is portrayed as his Father's agent in Hebrews 1:2. By virtue of that agency and only by virtue of God's appointment, the words in 1:10 fittingly apply to the Son.
"The AB Commentary written by G.W. Buchanan points out that Heb. 1:10 does not necessarily prove that Jesus is Almighty God (God the Son)"
Nincnevem: Apart from the Almighty God, of whom else could it truly be said that "you created everything"?
EF: You keep making that claim about Hebrews 1:10. Am I missing something because the words (and presumably the thought) are not there? All I see in Hebrews 1 is that God created the universe "through" the Son. The Father is Creator.
Foster quoting Buchanan: "the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah."
Nincsnevem: Indeed, many times OT statements were applied to the Son by the apostles in a different sense than it is in the original context, but it is true for all of these that they say more, not less, about the Son.
EF: That doesn't equate to teaching that the Son is Almighty God or ontologically one with his Father.
On the demiurge point, that was from Buchanan, not me. Just because I quote someone doesn't mean I agree with everything the person writes. I would not call Jesus/the preexistent Christ a "demiurge."
"For an exegesis of Hebrews that deals with the "today" issues, see Kenneth Schenck's piece here"
Nincsnevem: Hebrews 1 does not deal with the sacrifice, nor with Jesus' high priesthood (this topic will come up later), but rather with the essential supremacy of the Son over "all angels". And it turns out that the Son is inherently superior compared to the angels, because the answer to all the rhetorical questions is negative, none of the attributes listed there can be said of any angel, thus including Michael.
Hebrews 1 doesn't deal with Christ's sacrifice? See Hebrews 1:3. Making purification for sins could likewise be a priestly act along with being a sacrifice. Compare Hebrews 10:12-13. All of the material in Heb. 1:5-14 must be read through the prism of 1:4, which you seem to ignore, and some have suggested that the shaliach principle could be at work in Hebrews.
Nincsnevem, I know you will not consider yourself bound to what some of the early Fathers wrote, but I found this interpretation by Theodoret of Cyrus to be germane for the "today" issue. From his commentary on Psalms:
To be sure, God the Word had the name “only-begotten Son” before the ages as connatural with his condition, yet while still possessing the title of the
Son as God, he also receives it as human being. Hence in the present psalm he added the words, The Lord said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” Now, no one who believes the teaching of the divine Spirit would apply this verse to the divinity of Christ the Lord.19 In fact, let us listen in this regard to the God of all speaking through David, “From the womb before the morning star I begot you.”20 So as man he both receives this
verse, and as man hears what follows.
From Jerome's Isaiah Commentary. Note how he explains Isaiah 44:24. Yes, I know he's no ancient JW, but I see the tendency among church Fathers to apply Isa. 44:24 to the Father, then qualify it to include the Son:
Alone does not mean that the Son is excluded from the stretching forth of the heavens—for “all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made” [John 1:3]—but that, as we have said repeatedly, the idols are being excluded by this statement. For
also in the Proverbs of Solomon it is said under the persona of Christ, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God [cf. 1 Cor 1:24], “When he prepared the heaven, I was with him” [Prov 8:27]. For “he himself spoke, and they were made, he commanded, and they were created” [cf. Ps 148:5]; and “by the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by the breath of his
mouth all their power” [Ps 33:6].663 We are saying this repeatedly so that no occasion of blaspheming Christ is left to the heretics.664 In the establishing of the earth as well, when he made firm its foundations, there was none with God, except him who was in him.
Note too that Jerome says this verse excludes the idols (false gods)
One more perspective from John Chrysostom on Hebrews 1:5:
For to which of the Angels said He at any time, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You. And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son? For these things indeed are spoken with reference also to the flesh: I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son — while this, You are My Son, this day have I begotten You, expresses nothing else than from [the time] that God is. For as He is said to be, from the time present (for this befits Him more than any other), so also the [word] Today seems to me to be spoken here with reference to the flesh. For when He has taken hold of it, thenceforth he speaks out all boldly. For indeed the flesh partakes of the high things, just as the Godhead of the lowly. For He who disdained not to become man, and did not decline the reality, how should He have declined the expressions?
@Edgar Foster
"you laid the foundations / established... are the work of your hands" = you created, simply in more poetic form
"the earth and the heavens" = 'ha-shamayim ve-ha’aretz' in Jewish context simply means means ‘the world' (olam, kosmos), so all the creation, cf Gen. 1:1.
So you may call this "paraphrastic rewording", but it is simply the correspondence of poetic phrasing. And this is not just some titular "attribution", but a concrete statement.
"Without the Father's appointment, the Son would not have such authority."
If you mean that if there were no Father, then there could be no Son (although this is a conceptual impossibility, since God is a necessary being), then this is trivially true. If you mean that the Son is not necessarily begotten of the Father, and that his deity and role in the creation are accidental free decisions of the Father, then no.
"All I see in Hebrews 1 is that God created the universe "through" the Son. The Father is Creator"
And it should be seen that according to verse 10, this certain "dia" is not some second-degree, contingent, accidental, "demiurge"-like role, so the Son is just as much a creator as the Father. If there are no demiurges, one is either fully Creator, or not at all.
By the way, this whole artificial distinction and even juxtaposition of "by" and "through" is linguistically unfounded, and it also just shows how wrong it is exegetically, that after you have translated the text into English, you are already thinking in English. This distinction does not exist in Greek ("dia"), Latin ("per", cf. "por" in Spanish), and is not so sharp in the Germanic languages either.
It's like the "von" + Dative, and "durch" + Accusative in German. "Durch" corresponds to the English "through", only the latter can be used for an impersonal agent, but if it's used in the case of a personal agens, it does not mean that the contribution of the person marked in this way is secondary, accidental or inferior either.
"That doesn't equate to teaching that the Son is Almighty God or ontologically one with his Father."
Since anyone who is not God almighty cannot play any kind of role in creation (since creation is an absolute, first-class miracle that only God is capable of, and a predicative quality that cannot be communicated to a creature), this is only possible if the Son is one God with the Father. Of course, we already know this, that the Son possessed the fullness of the Deity/Godhead, so what would be lacking from the Son to be as much God as the Father?
"I would not call Jesus/the preexistent Christ a "demiurge.""
Maybe you don't call Him so, but in JW theology this secondary creative "agent", partly divine archangel is practically exactly a demiurge.
"Hebrews 1 does not deal with Christ's sacrifice? See Hebrews 1:3."
It is only briefly mentioned, but the main theme of chapter 1 is not this, but the supremacy of the Son in contrast with all the angels. Christ's high priestly role will be explained in detail in the rest of Hebrews.
By the way, the church father most often cited by JWs is Origen, in this regard, why don't you consider his interpretation of this ("today I have begotten you")?
"Note too that Jerome says this verse excludes the idols (false gods)"
Do you think that Jerome did not rule out the participation of demiurges in creation, rather than only false gods who did not exist anyway? These OT statements were meant to condemn the monolatric-henotistic tendencies that were still lurking at the time, in which not only the existence of other false gods, but also no place for alleged demiurges.
For example:
"Der Brief wurde mir VOM (von + dem) Briefträger zugestellt." = The letter was delivered to me BY the postman = The postman delivered the letter to me.
"Der Brief wurde mir DURCH den Briefträger zugestellt." = literally the letter was delivered to me "through" (=by the means of) the postman.
There is only a slight difference between the two sentences, but the end result is the same, that it was the postman who handed over the letter to me.
I'm going to submit my reply as a post due to its length. I will include links that address the dia, by and through distinction.
Yes, slight difference in German, but Dr. Carl Conrad's remarks show the complexity of matters in Greek respecting dia: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-03/0370.html
We have to take note of the context for its usage too.
One thing different about your German examples is that the NT speaks about God doing things by means of/through his Son unlike the postal worker, who does the act him/herself.
"Th wall was painted by John" versus "Abraham acquired a wife for his son through his servant" or "by means of his servant."
"According to Paul, the mediator is "the man Jesus Christ", and obviously it is not the man Jesus who participated in the creation." - 2 different contexts.
"That psalm is not a specific statement about a specific person, but a messianic psalm." - youll have to prove that..
"'Chokmah' is not literally the Son, so it cannot be used to support the doctrine" - yet I have seen you use it 3 times to support the Sons eternity.. Why are you being a hypocrite?
"the double accusative structure does not refer to brining into existence of 'Chokmak', but to her installation/appointment to be the 'arkhe' of Yahweh" - EVERY [honest] bible/ Sept disagrees with this... alot of creation clauses use double accusatives.
see NET footnote for Prov 8:22, where they admit that "coming into existance" is the most likely meaning.
And again if Wisdom is "God" why is it declaring it was before the world - If the audience knew this then there would be little point as no similar statement is made of the Father or Spirit. + they knew God was before the world... thats self evident.
Poetic languages generally uses synonyms that mean the same thing or convey the same idea - not to the contrary.
You bind yourself to Atha, so now suddenly when it disagrees with your doctrine you throw it out... yeah ok - you forget also that Jesus explicitly identifies himself with Wisdom (3- 4 Times).
"the more correct translation of 'qanani' is 'ektesato'" - scholars disagree, The meaning seems to imply something the subject did not posess before (see Sept for translation)
" the entire text is fairly figurative speech, which is common in wisdom literature, so it cannot be used to support the doctrine" - again you have used it 3 times. Figurative language does not ignore the fact that the words used convey the very basic element of the no-poetic thing.
Your discounting these because it disagrees with your theology not on reasonable grounds.
(I thought BH commentators were dishonest, but you take the cake)
"For your sake, I looked it up directly on jw.org, they do not claim that the angels "were" already "in the beginning", they only claim that "the angels were created long before man's appearance" (Insight on the Scriptures )"
- I would say considering Job's statements and the surrounding contexts that they were likely present before the world.
You did me no favor Im aware of the JW stance on angels, but I dont agree with it generally.
"You don't have to call yourself that for the name to be appropriate in terms of content." - I can use the same rhetoric on you, but you wont accept that..
"You do know that the Nicene Creed was not written in Old English, but in Ancient Greek? " - I do, read my statement again - I said "by him" is misleading in modern english as thats an old english translation, ask another person on here if they understood what I meant - you appear to be the only one who didnt.
"'Dia' also used of the Father " - yes but with Jesus we have someone explicitly doing an action throught the son, but as even Vines acknowledges it can mean source - I have already covered this, Do you read?
We have multiple examples of agency in the bible where we have one doing something through the other.
"Jesus never denied that he was equal to God when his accusers claimed this, he only pointed out their inconsistency, with a Jewish "a forterior" argument." - But his opposeers said he was equal to God, they jumped to that conclusion. He wouldnt need to deny it..
I do not think that Psalm 2 is a messianic psalm that needs to be proven, and especially not that the OT quotations in the NT are very often put into a new context and reinterpreted by the author. So it is enough for me to say that in the sense that Hebrews 1 states this about the Son, it is not stated about anyone else. Even the most ancient Christian self-consciousness interpreted it this way, including Tertullian and Origen, whom otherwise you especially like to quote.
""'Chokmah' is not literally the Son, so it cannot be used to support the doctrine" - yet I have seen you use it 3 times to support the Sons eternity."
I do not believe in the eternity of the Son based on any kind of interpretation of Proverbs 8, but if you refer to it, I point out that you are shooting yourself in the foot with it. This is called an argument based on the *assumption* of the opponent's position, it does not mean actually accepting it.
""the double accusative structure does not refer to brining into existence of 'Chokmak', but to her installation/appointment to be the 'arkhe' of Yahweh" - EVERY [honest] bible/ Sept disagrees with this..."
In many languages, including Hebrew, double accusatives can bring about a shift in meaning, especially when used with certain verbs. The direct object becomes the recipient of the action, and the secondary object becomes the result or product of the action. So, in the case of Proverbs 8:22, if we read the verb "create" with a double accusative, it could indeed suggest that Wisdom was not so much "created" in the sense of being brought into existence, but rather "ordained ", "constituted", "installed" or "appointed" to a specific role or function as the "arche" of God's (creative) works.
The double accusative structure nuances that "creation" towards a more specific role, designation, or function. This can provide a safeguard against any theological implications that Wisdom (often equated with Christ in Christian interpretations) was a creation in the traditional sense. Symmachus' translation seems to capture this nuance very well, indicating a specialized role or function rather than just existence. Revelation 1:6 (in the Greek New Testament) features a construction similar to what we were discussing.
""And He has *made* us a kingdom, priests..."
It isn't just that they were created here, but they were appointed or designated for a specific role or function, which is in line with the nuance of "ordain" or "appoint" that we discussed earlier.
NETBible also argues for the double accusative structure ("AS the beginning of his works"), and you already admitted in the other topic that this does not prove that 'Chokmah' is the first fruit.
"Poetic languages generally use synonyms that mean the same thing or convey the same idea - not to the contrary."
Figurative speech is known for the fact that it does not express doctrinal precision.
"You bind yourself to Atha, so now suddenly when it disagrees with your doctrine you throw it out..."
You should read about the Catholic understanding of the apostolic tradition, hint: it's not that the individual church fathers are infallible, especially not in terms of their argumentation techniques, or reasonings, but that they are reliable witnesses of the apostolic tradition if their testimony is consistent.
"you forget also that Jesus explicitly identifies himself with Wisdom (3- 4 Times)."
It was not Jesus, but rather the apostle Paul who said similar things, in any case this does not mean a literal identification, but a typological application. Or perhaps all the statements about 'Chokmah' from the OT wisdom literature should be applied to Christ? Or just that one specific verse?
""the more correct translation of 'qanani' is 'ektesato'" - scholars disagree"
For sure not the "scholars" as collective mind (borg), but some do, some don't, in any case this uncertainty is just enough to rule out to be as a proof. Who said that Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus translated badly? Maybe they were idiots or "apostate" Trinitarian Christians?
"Your discounting these because it disagrees with your theology not on reasonable grounds."
The quoted verse does not conflict with my theology, at most with your interpretation you keep insinsting.
"I would say considering Job's statements and the surrounding contexts that they were likely present before the world."
At most, it turns out that they were before this globe, but not before the physical universe, which is trivially true, considering that according to natural science, the planet Earth is much later than the universe too. Job does not claim that angels existed before the creation of "the heavens". Hint: 'erets' in Genesis 1:1 means the physical world, not the this planet.
"Im aware of the JW stance on angels, but I dont agree with it generally."
Well, yes, it's a comfortable position, you don't have to stand anywhere, if it's convenient, you can move away. In any case, it is ironic that the most vehement apologist of the JW's specific doctrines are not JWs themselves, including you, Stafford and Furuli.
""You don't have to call yourself that for the name to be appropriate in terms of content." - I can use the same rhetoric on you, but you wont accept that.."
I am a Catholic, my faith is in accordance with the teachings of the Church, but what other adjective could you give me?
"I said "by him" is misleading in modern English as that is an old English translation"
I don't care about the English translation, because when we analyze a text in theological-philosophical-doctrinal depths, we follow the logic of the original language.
"We have multiple examples of agency in the Bible where we have one doing something through the other."
But here the question was not this, but what makes the formula 'para tou Patros - dia tou Huiou - en to Pneumati' (ex Patre - per Filium - in Spiritus) mean a second-class, inferior role in the creation for the Son.
""Jesus never denied that he was equal to God when his accusers claimed this, he only pointed out their inconsistency, with a Jewish "a forterior" argument." - But his opposers said he was equal to God, they jumped to that conclusion . He wouldn't need to deny it."
Precisely if one responds to such an accusation not with a denial, but with an "a forterior" argument, then he does not deny the content of the accusation, but only points to its illegitimacy to regard as wrongful.
https://www.academia.edu/38053636/The_Firstborn_of_Every_Creature
https://www.academia.edu/5614052/Searching_for_Divine_Wisdom_Proverbs_8_22_31_in_Its_Interpretive_Context
https://www.academia.edu/33067809/Exegesis_on_Colossians_1_15_20_Jesus_Christ_Is_Not_a_Created_Being_He_Is_Eternal_God
https://www.academia.edu/24332130/Colossians_1_15_20_The_Wisdom_of_Christological_Monotheism
"I do not think that Psalm 2 is a messianic psalm that needs to be proven, and especially not that the OT quotations in the NT are very often put into a new context and reinterpreted by the author. " -
1) your simply using Edgars argument.. you didnt hold this position before then..
2) I said you'll have to prove its not applied to a human king, not that its not a messianic psalm..
Hebrews 1:8 is also quoted from Psalms - Where it is most certainly applied to a human king..
"what other adjective could you give me?" - theologically motivated
"I do not believe in the eternity of the Son based on any kind of interpretation of Proverbs 8," - Why have you cited it 3 times on this very blog to support that position then? (along with other scriptures)
"Or just that one specific verse?" - its the only one the church fathers used and you say they are so accurate, ask them why they didnt apply all of them to jesus..
"it isn't just that they were created here, but they were appointed or designated for a specific role or function" - yeah and JW believe the son was created for a specific purpose (to my knowledge)
Most creation accounts involve a double accusative, maybe you missed this.
" Revelation 1:6 (in the Greek New Testament) features a construction similar to what we were discussing." - Rev 1:6 is slightly different to Prov 8 and cannot be used.
"Figurative speech is known for the fact that it does not express doctrinal precision." - prove it.. I can cite numerous poetic things used to support doctrinal position.
"but that they are reliable witnesses of the apostolic tradition if their testimony is consistent." - thats what you think..
'
"Or perhaps all the statements about 'Chokmah' from the OT wisdom literature should be applied to Christ? Or just that one specific verse?" - you ever actaully delved into the difference between Proverbs 8 and the rest of Proverbs itself?
and again the church fathers literally stated Jesus was wisdom.. you can try and defuse this all you like... you fail to actaully prove your position.
"Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus translated badly?" - you forgot one thing... they were all Greek philosophers.. not surprising.
"The quoted verse does not conflict with my theology" - doesnt it? from where Im standing it does.
Who is thought to be the source of creation?
(Who did creation come "out of" not "through")
"I don't care about the English translation" - well you show you do in other places..
and you should, Languages evolve over time, words change in meaning, what "by" meant when the King James was translated is NOT what "by" means now.
(this is easy to verify with a dictionary)
"t is ironic that the most vehement apologist of the JW's specific doctrines are not JWs themselves, including you, Stafford and Furuli."
- you miss I was never a JW, the other 2 were, and so what?
Who cares, what I choose to do has nothing to do with you anyway.. I stick up for what I think is right - especially when ones are disrespectful to a group that I think have high morals and values.. So you can stop the "irony" statements because I could point out things about you being catholic and going against christian values.
(Do I need to point out what the catholics have been caught out for?)
Its ironic you are an attorney (allegedly) and defend people who you have never had any inolvment with before..
(slightly different - But still works)
" he does not deny the content of the accusation" - are you sure? I can cite a similar instance where someone was addressed as God but didnt deny it. (David) does that make David God? or solomon?
How long are you going to cite misleading sources? All of these have been debunked by people (cited on this very blog infact).
"your simply using Edgars argument.. you didn't hold this position before then.."
Regardless of him, I already knew that the OT quotations were reinterpreted by NT authors many times, a classic example is Isaiah's 'almah' vs. Matthew's 'parthenos'. Look for other examples: https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm
Furthermore, I don't believe in the "genetic fallacy", it doesn't matter who says it, but what arguments are used to support it.
"I said you'll have to prove its not applied to a human king, not that its not a messianic psalm.."
Why should I prove this? Is there an introduction on the header of Psalm 2, such as "A psalm of David" or something similar?
Furthermore, this would not prove that the quotation is used in the same sense in Hebrews 1 as in Psalms 2.
Furthermore, the second half of Hebrews 1:5 is a quote from 2 Samuel 7:14, I guess you also don't think that it is understood here in the same sense as there.
"Hebrews 1:8 is also quoted from Psalms - Where it is most certainly applied to a human king.."
In the same way: it does not have to be understood in the psalm in the same sense as Hebrews 1:8, and especially the translation does not have to be tied to the Hebrew psalter text (which is also ambiguous). There are many examples of the nominative-for-vocative 'ὁ θεός' in the NT.
""I do not believe in the eternity of the Son based on any kind of interpretation of Proverbs 8," - Why have you cited it 3 times on this very blog to support that position then? (along with other scriptures)"
Not because I accept your point of view in this regard, but for the sake of the premise, I will go into the train of thought and thus show that it can be backfired on you.
""Or just that one specific verse?" - its the only one the church fathers used"
This is not true, the Church Fathers used countless other poetic texts, etc. and applied them to the Son, but this is still not a literal identification, but a typological application. Then that writing interpretation method was pushed into the background, because typology is quite a slippery field.
"and you say they are so accurate"
I did not say that they are "so accurate", but that they are reliable witnesses of the apostolic faith, as a whole.
""it isn't just that they were created here, but they were appointed or designated for a specific role or function" - yeah and JW believe..."
If you look it up, Revelation 1:6 is not about Christ, and I pointed out the similarity in grammatical structure (double accusative, to make someone [into/to be] something).
"the son was created for a specific purpose (to my knowledge)"
I'm still waiting to see where does the Bible declare that the Son was created. By the way, according to JW logic, when the Michael-Logos was created, God did not even know that his redemption would be necessary, since he did not yet know that people would sin. On the other hand, cf. Romans 3:25.
"Most creation accounts involve a double accusative, maybe you missed this."
No, to "create", "to make" someone into something (in this case, to be the ('arkhe') means the same as appointing, installing, inducting, constituting the 'Chohmah' as (to be) the head/principle/arche of creation.
"Rev 1:6 is slightly different to Prov 8 and cannot be used."
No, the linguistic structure is the same: to make someone into something.
Proverbs 8:22 in the LXX, the verb κτίζω is used with a double accusative "to make somebody something", e.g., "to make/set somebody free" (cf. Aeschylus "Choephori" 1060), that is to say, cause somebody's getting free. In this last meaning the adequate literal translation of the Septuagint will be: "Lord caused/made me (brought me forth) to be the beginning of His ways towards His deeds", for there is not an "ἐν ἄρχῃ" in the text, but a double accusative ("[ἔκτισεν] με ἀρχήν"), like in the abovementioned quote from Aeschylus ("ἐλεύθερόν σε [κτίσει]"). Therefore, the translation "He created me in the beginning of his ways" is totally misleading, while "He caused/made me to be the beginning/principle" is grammatically more plausible with the double accusative construction.
"the church fathers literally stated Jesus was wisdom.. "
No, they never said that the person of the Son/Logos is *literally* the same as the 'Chokmah' of Proverbs 8, but simply a typological application was made.
""Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus translated badly?" - you forgot one thing... they were all Greek philosophers.. not surprising."
Another genetic fallacy, but not by any means: simply they were all Jews who revised the translation errors of the LXX, e.g. the translation of the Book of Daniel in the LXX is a very poor production, and therefore Theodotion's translation has completely taken its place in Greek-speaking Christianity.
"Who is thought to be the source of creation? (Who did creation come "out of" not "through")"
This was not the question here, but whether "dia" suggests an inferior, demiurge-like role, the answer is no.
""I don't care about the English translation" - well you show you do in other places.. and you should, Languages evolve over time, words change in meaning, what "by" meant when the King James was translated is NOT what "by" means now. (this is easy to verify with a dictionary)"
Since when have I relied on any English translation, especially the KJV? I always go back to the original languages when I'm looking for the exact meaning of the text.
By the way, find out in the dictionary that in Greek there is no separate preposition for "through" and "by" (which is also not that sharp a difference, it is often interchangeable), both are simply 'dia', in Latin it is 'per'.
"you miss I was never a JW, the other 2 were, and so what?"
In the Epistle of James you will find the answer to why this is problematic, the other issue is called authenticity.
"especially when ones are disrespectful to a group that I think have high morals and values.. "
I was never "disrespectful" to the people belonging to the JW denomination, and I didn't say anything about their morals and values (you better look up what Donatism is and why it is a heresy to Catholics), I only criticized the theology of WTS.
"you being catholic and going against christian values."
Oh, so you are the one who searches the reins and hearts, that you know it so well?
"(Do I need to point out what the catholics have been caught out for?)"
You must be thinking of this: https://youtu.be/m5siHd1P5zk
"Its ironic you are an attorney (allegedly) and defend people who you have never had any involvement with before.."
Do you know that 'parakletos' also means attorney in Greek? :) By the way, I will tell you a secret, the attorney's job is to represent his client's rightful interests and support them with professional legal arguments, he does not have to identify with his point of view.
""he does not deny the content of the accusation" - are you sure?"
Show me that when the Jews accused Jesus of "making himself equal with God," he DENIED this interpretation of them.
"I can cite a similar instance where someone was addressed as God but didn't deny it."
It was never said about them that they "made themselves equal with God", and about Moses it was said that like "I made you appear *to* the Pharaoh as God". So this does not mean such an identification like the NT claims about Jesus. Especially if you take into account that the Hebrew 'elohim' is a word with a more general meaning than 'theos' in Greek, which the Greeks only used for proper gods.
"Regardless of him, I already knew that the OT quotations were reinterpreted by NT authors many times" - thats not the impression you gave previously..
" I don't believe in the "genetic fallacy", it doesn't matter who says it, but what arguments are used to support it." - answer what I said, not what I didnt.
"Why should I prove this?" - you make the claim.. no one else here did.
Why do you avoid proving anything?
if your so confident your right, you should have no issues.. backing everything up explicitly, just like you want us too.
I have proven my side enough (no matter whether you accept it or not).
" I guess you also don't think that it is understood here in the same sense as there." - What contextual reasons does it give that it isnt the same sense?
Gods "role" doesnt change..
"Is there an introduction on the header of Psalm 2, such as "A psalm of David" or something similar?" - invalid, not even going to bother.
ever noticed David and others being prophecy for Jesus, they can be "identified" with the messiah.
"There are many examples of the nominative-for-vocative 'ὁ θεός' in the NT." - either translation of Hebrews 1:8 makes sense as demonstrated in other places. Where God is the source (or throne) of someones authority.
Trinitarians by the masses admit this. again you are in the minority.
"I will go into the train of thought and thus show that it can be backfired on you." - I dont want the train of thought, I want the answer..
"This is not true" - isolate my answer from its context much? read again. I said its the only verse(s) from Proverbs they apply to Jesus
sinc e I have to be so specific Proverbs 8:22 -31 (There may be references - where 32 onwards is used. idk)
" that writing interpretation method was pushed into the background, because typology is quite a slippery field." - yet another blatent lie. (atleast from what I have read.)
and again prove its typology, The explicit identifcation by Paul (& another) is quite telling.
There is no reason to believe Paul mean't Jesus means The Wisdom and power of God
(or any other word you want to insert)
+ alot idenitfy him and say "is" where "is" is the only word that makes sense.
"Revelation 1:6 is not about Christ, and I pointed out the similarity in grammatical structure" - I know, but it works for me aswell.
Those things were "created" for a specific purpose. But they still at one time did not exist.
The same word that is used in Prov 8 is tranlated multiple times as "born" "created" etc.
your typology argument is just to get out from the basic truth.
We will ignore this last paragraph considering Im still waiting on about 5 answers from you. And you isolate my answer from its context...
Romans 3:25 - says nothing of any of what you claim.
+
I did say "(to my knowledge)" I may be wrong, and that should imply I dont know alot about their stance.
I also learn't recently that in MSS P46 Firstborn of the dead doesnt have "ek" in it..
proving it means the same as Rev 1:5 . (P46 isnt the only manuscript either) I imagine there is also a variation on Rom 8:29, though i cannot verify this atm.
Nincsnevem, the scenario/position you set forth for Proverbs 8:22 with the double accusative is possible, but it doesn't shut the doors on the translation "created." See Christopher Beetham, Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians, pages 115-119. There is more than one way to read the double accusative like most things in Hebrew and Greek grammar.
Are you assuming greek priority in your argument? Should we instead be looking at the Masoretic, and the DSS if it is available?
WoundedEgo, I know the Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syriac texts have been considered thus far.
So have you determined/agreed upon which text you are expounding?
My initial reply was in response to Nincsnevem, who argued from more than one text and language against the "created" translation for Proverbs 8:22. The way I understand it, the double accusative is not restricted to one text or biblical language.
The more I study Proverbs 8:22, the question that enters my mind is which Hebrew grammarian ever claimed that the double accusative/predicate accusative changes the meaning of qanah in the passage? Show me one that makes any such a claim.
Besides the evidence I cited from one of the top Proverbs scholars in the world (Michael V. Fox), I quoted others who do not discount "created" as a lively possibility for Proverbs 8:22. Even Bruce Waltke who argues against "created" and seems to prefer "begot" does not take the stand that Nincsnevem does. One source I consulted reminded me that Athanasius evidently accepted "created" as a potential meaning in Proverbs 8:22 but he applied it to the human nature of Christ rather than his divine nature. For this and other reasons, I think this double accusative argument goes nowhere fast.
""Why should I prove this?" - you make the claim.."
Nope, you claimed that Psalm 2 was literally about a Jewish king. About whom? About David? About Solomon? This is not what the text says, but even if it is, as Mr. Foster said: "It's not the only time that a verse is reappropriated by the ancient Christian ecclesia."
So the fact that it means something in Psalms 2 does not prove that it does not mean something else in Hebrews 1:5.
"What contextual reasons does it give that it isn't the same sense?"
Among other things, the theme of Hebrews 1 is the superiority of the Son over "all angels". A human king is by definition below the angels, so all the sense of the statements that Hebrews 1 attributes to the Son cannot be applied to anyone else. As a consequence, a meaning should be attributed to what was said there, which is qualitatively different and superior than it could be applied to anyone else.
"ever noticed David and others being prophecy for Jesus, they can be "identified" with the messiah."
The Messianic kingdom is prefigured by the Davidic kingdom, but by definition it is much superior than it.
""There are many examples of the nominative-for-vocative 'ὁ θεός' in the NT." - either translation of Hebrews 1:8 makes sense"
If it also "makes sense", does not prove that it should be preferred. By the way, why are you fighting against the Son being called 'theos' here, if there are a number of Bible verses where you acknowledge that this is the case? Why isn't it sufficient to explain it away as usual that "yes, but "theos" does not mean a real God, but only a lowercase god", etc.?
"God is the source (or throne) of someone's authority."
The Father is the source (arkhe) of deity in Nicene theology too, but this does not mean that the deity of the Son is inferior.
""I will go into the train of thought and thus show that it can be backfired on you." - I don't want the train of thought, I want the answer.."
You got the answer: I did not accept the interpretation that the 'Chokmah' of Proverbs 8, literally the Son, I merely shot your own argument back at you, according to which his eternity can be proven on the basis of that description. This is called conditional (for the sake of the assumption) acceptance of the point of view of the debate partner.
"I said its the only verse(s) from Proverbs they apply to Jesus"
Perhaps you know this so well that you have read all the works of every church father? By the way, this is not true either, just an example: Proverbs 30:4.
"" that writing interpretation method was pushed into the background, because typology is quite a slippery field." - yet another blatant lie. "
Lie? Again, I can only ask you to be more nuanced. By the way, it is perfectly true, the allegorizing-typologizing method of biblical interpretation went out of fashion after antiquity, precisely because it led to absurd things.
A classic example of this was the argumentation of the Donatists, who deduced that the true faith must be "in the south" (meaning: in the Roman province of Africa). They based this on a line from the Song of Songs: Indica mihi, quem diligit anima mea, ubi pascas, ubi cubes in meridie? (Literally: Tell me, beloved of my soul, where do you graze, where do you rest at noon?) The Donatists first split the sentence, interpreting the "in meridie" separately and changed its meaning from the time of day to a cardinal direction. According to them, this line meant: "Tell me, beloved of my soul, where do you graze, where do you rest? In the south." This alteration was entirely arbitrary and lacked any philological and biblical-historical foundation. Cf. Aug. epist. 93,24–25
"and again prove its typology, The explicit identification by Paul (& another) is quite telling."
Come on: what kind of "explicit identification" are you talking about? Since when did Jesus being called Wisdom mean that the 'Chokmah' of Proverbs 8 is *literally* the Son?
"and again prove its typology, The explicit identification by Paul (& another) is quite telling."
Come on: what kind of "explicit identification" are you talking about? Since when did Jesus being called wisdom mean that the 'Chokmah' of Proverbs 8 is literally the Son?
"Say to wisdom, You are my sister" (Provebs 7:4), if Jesus is called Wisdom by Paul, does it follow that Jesus is a sister?
"alot idenitfy him and say "is" where "is" is the only word that makes sense."
"Is" very often does not mean that "literally is", but that he is applying it now for the sake of sermon.
"Those things were "created" for a specific purpose. But they still at one time did not exist."
It seems you still haven't understood the example. Of course, these are creatures and existed in time, but we don't know that from this statement. The point was that the double accusative of "making/creating someone (to be, as) something" does not denote bringing into existence, but installation, appointment.
"I also learn't recently that in MSS P46 Firstborn of the dead doesn't have "ek" in it.."
So what then? Do you know how many examples of copyist's mistakes there are in the Scriptures, when they forget a word?
"proving it means the same as Rev 1:5"
This proves nothing of the sort. I have said many times that it is both true for the Son that he is supreme to the dead and that he is also one of them, so it is legitimate to call him both ways. This does not mean that the two terms are equivalent. However, nowhere is it stated that the Son was created or that he was one of the creatures.
Proverbs 8:22
LXX: kúrios éktisé me arkhḕn hodō̃n autoũ eis érga autoũ
Philo: ho theòs ektḗsató me prōtístēn tō̃n heautoũ érgōn, kaì prò toũ aiō̃nos ethemelíōsé me
Aquila: kúrios éktḗsató me kephálaion tṓn ódṓn autou árkhḗthen katergasmátōn aútoǘ
Symmachus: kúrios éktḗsató me arkhḗn ódṓn aútoǘ pro tḗs ergasías aútoǘ
Theodotion: Kúrios éktḗsató me arkhḗn ódoǘ aútoǘ, pro tḗs érgasías aútoǘ apó tóte
You should compare how is the verb 'qanah' translated in the Book of Proverbs 1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8.
So now the point is not so much the translation, but the meaning, that's what I'm talking about now.
Cf. the epistle of Dionysius of Rome 'Against the Sabellians': https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0713.htm
So the Greek-speaking ancient Christians also didn't have problem with it, since this ' éktisé ' here of the LXX still not the same as ' epoíēse ', which was the term condemned by the Nicene Creed ("gennēthénta prò pántōn tō̃n aiṓnōn", "gennēthénta ou poiēthénta"). Pope Dionysius explained that 'éktisé' has many shades and meanings in the Greek language, does not mean what Arianism asserts.
By the way, none of the parties in the Arian controversy raised the question whether translation of the LXX here is correct, since at that time Origen was no longer, and Jerome was not yet alive. The discussion was in Greek and about the nuance of the meaning of the verb "ktizo", which is already extensive in Greek. Check this: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_crebegot.html
Athanasius receiving 'éktisé', took it in the sense of appointing, and saw in the Septuagint a declaration that the Father had made the Son the "chief," the "head," the "sovereign," over all creation. There does not seem indeed any ground for the thought of creation either in the meaning of the root, or in the general usage of the word. What is meant in this passage is that we cannot think of God as ever having been without Wisdom.
So the Fathers uderstood 'éktisé' of the LXX by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum; Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum).
So the verb "ktizein" is used by Athanasius, and its meaning was disputed by the Arians. In classical Greek usage, "ktizein" meant: to cultivate the land, make it habitable, found to establish.
Of course, biblical terms, especially in Hebrew, have many nuances of meaning, and even if you translate "qanah" as "ktizo" in Greek or "create" in English, even then this cannot be justified in the sense of "bara", "poiéō", "creatio ex nihilo", "bring into existence in time", which the Arians asserted.
The concept of personified Wisdom (in Proverbs 14:1, the personification is merely a literary device) developed in Israel after the Babylonian exile when polytheism no longer posed a serious threat to monotheism.
While in Job 29 and in Baruch 3:9-4:4 wisdom appears as a thing, a desirable value, in the more recent first part of Proverbs (1:20-33; 3:16-19; chapters 8-9) it is personified. Here (8:22-31), the Wisdom speaks of her own origin (verses 22-26) and active participation in the act of creation (verses 27-30), and her role among humans, namely leading them to God (verses 31, 35-36). Ben Sira later expands this teaching: Sirach 1:1-10 is reminiscent of Job 28, but Sirach 4:11-19; 14:20-15:10 and especially 24:1-9 go beyond Proverbs 8.
But in all these texts, where Wisdom – in other places the Word or the Spirit – gains a personal character, it's hard to determine what is a poetic device, what is born from religious imagination, and what should be considered a new revelation.
Finally, Wisdom 7:22-8:1 gives the impression that Wisdom (a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty – 7:25) has a part in the divine nature, but the abstract expressions used to describe it could just as well refer to God's attributes as to a separate person.
The doctrine thus laid out in the OT is decisively developed further in the NT by being applied to the person of Christ. Jesus is called the wisdom of God. From this, it's understandable why, since Justin Martyr, many in the Christian tradition saw the Wisdom of the OT as the prefiguration, type for Christ.
"the fact that it means something in Psalms 2 does not prove that it does not mean something else in Hebrews 1:5."
- read my last responce properly.
"This is not what the text says" - you fail to realise there are others (quotes) that are similar in nature..
your claim about God being 3 persons is also not said in the text.
If this works one way it works the other.
"does not prove that it should be preferred" - No, Barclay and Robertson both state "either makes good sense" - I agree with this position, again calling someone "God" does not automatically make them the God (e.g David, Satan, Moses etc)
"why are you fighting against the Son being called 'theos' here, if there are a number of Bible verses where you acknowledge that this is the case? " - see above responce & that should be self evident from other places where even angels are called "gods"
(another source you cite admits this: the author of the blog "Answering Islam")
"The Father is the source (arkhe) of deity in Nicene theology too" - you miss the point here completely
(sign of theological motivation)
God is also the source of David's rulership.
(Arkhe NO WHERE in the NT (or LXX*) means "source")
please cite the Greek text of a statement like this.. again I dont trust your claims
*both closer to the time of the Jesus and The apostles than the church fathers writings (which MAY well have been tampered with, according to multiple sources) and is ABOUT 30 years removed from the inspired writings
(this is only from one source and admittedly this source is unreliable, I do not have the resources to fact check this at this point in time.)
" I did not accept the interpretation that the 'Chokmah' of Proverbs 8, literally the Son" - then you go against Paul, and the other 2 people, Who lived at the same time as Jesus who identify him as such.
(compare Luke 11:49, Matt 23:34)
and you still havent answered my question why you in turn cited it, if you dont believe it works with your beliefs.
you go against the very people you are citing who understood Jesus as The "Wisdom" in Proverbs.
One of the very sources you have previously cited even accepts that this is somewhat the case. (Robert Bowman Jr, tho admittedly not fully)
typology is not identification, no - But I have some 6 different places where poetic language and literal language literally mean the same thing - However you just made this argument to hate on JW's (I can find no one who agrees with you on this.) - which is not very Christian coming from a professed Catholic..
and again I raise if this doesnt "apply" to the Son, why do alot of Bibles cross-ref Prov with John 1:1-3, 1 Corin 8:6, Hebrews 1:2, Gen 1:1 etc? (even Catholic Bibles)
If it isnt an identification with the son, but can apply to the son, why cant it be used to support "doctrine"?
Because most of the church fathers used it (including Atha) and John & Paul reflect it strangely closely in their writings.
(One scholar admits "its too close to dismiss they are not in some way linked" - paraphrase)
"Perhaps you know this so well that you have read all the works of every church father?" - ok dude.. you can stop the rubbish now, read my statements in context or don't reply at all. you omitted something very important, a small disclaimer where I admitted to what you just accused me of..
to quote myself:
"(There may be references - where 32 onwards is used. idk)" - by "onwards" I meant anywhere else in Proverbs. Bad way to say it admittedly
If you don't believe me irdc
Don't reply to things that are not said.
I think you are more a troll... no one is this unaware of what others write. You are either being willfully ignorant or trying to annoy people.. and not looking for constructive conversation.
https://www.academia.edu/68620683/The_Interpretation_of_Wisdom_in_Proverbs_8_A
I have tried to be a bird on the wall for this argument, and haven't followed it very closely, so I may misunderstand the point(s) of contention. If so, I apologize in advance.
It seems you are both trying to defend a different meaning of the Hebrew by analyzing the Greek translation? If so, is that approach warranted? Because the Hebrew reads "obtained." A completely different word with a completely different meaning that ktizw. Does the Hebrew matter?
I was interested to see that Athanasius agrees with my take on ktizw, that it is NOT about making things, like chairs, but rather about creating institutions, and then populating them.
Nincsnevem, see also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/06/qanah-proverbs-822-and-bara.html
Plus don't forget how the Syriac translation of Prov. 8:22 handles the qanah and consider what the Targums say.
WoundedEgo, I've read two scholarly works over the last 24 hours which state that qanah (the Hebrew verb) in Prov. 8:22 is either "polyvalent" and could be rendered "created" or acquired" and another source claims that the verb is ambiguous and might convey the meanings, "created" and "begot."
"your claim about God being 3 persons is also not said in the text."
No one claimed that when the Bible say, for example, "the God and his Son", then the word "God" means the entire Trinity. This is a typical use of words, which stems from the fact that the Father is the principle of the Godhead, therefore the name "God" can be attributed to him par excellence, but it doesn't make the Son no less God.
""does not prove that it should be preferred" - No, Barclay and Robertson both state "either makes good sense" - I agree with this position"
It is also easy to imagine that the apostle deliberately worded it in such a way that it could be understood in both ways, thus reinterpreting the psalm text.
"calling someone "God" does not automatically make them the God (e.g David, Satan, Moses etc)"
However, the apostles never called either man or angels "theos", so this OT wording does not occur in the NT, so there is nothing to suggest that the Son would be God only insofar as, for example, the psalmist called the human judges "elohim" in derision.
By the way, we know the true Deity of the Son not only from the fact that the NT calls him "theos", but also from the totality of the statements made about him, which makes it obvious that this objection is not valid.
"But if anyone divides, saying that God [Christ's] Father, and God His Son, and God the Holy Spirit are gods, and does not thus say God on account of the one divinity and power which we believe and know (to be) the Father's, and the Son's, and the Holy Spirit's, but taking away the Son or the Holy Spirit, thus believes that the Father alone is called God, or in this manner believes God one, he is a heretic in every respect, nay rather a Jew, because the name of gods was attached and given both to angels and to all the saints from God, but of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit because of their one and equal divinity, not the name of gods, but of God is declared and revealed to us, in order that we may believe, because we are baptized only in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit and not in the names of archangels or angels, as heretics, or Jews, or even demented pagans." (Council of Rome, 382)
"Arkhe NO WHERE in the NT (or LXX*) means "source""
I'll wait for you to find out what is the appropriate term for "source" then in ancient Greek :-) By the way, you can also translate it as "orign" or "(first) principle".
The 'arkhe' is not that the creation begins WITH, but that which creation begins FROM.
You claim that the LXX is "closer to the time of the Jesus and The apostles than the church fathers writings"
This is a mistake, the LXX ca. BC It was made around 250, while the very first church fathers were only a few generations after the apostles.
"is ABOUT 30 years removed from the inspired writings"
Actually, there is a difference of hundreds of years between the Masoretic text and the chronology of the LXX: https://t.ly/EqFtn
Question, which one is the original? Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls partially confirmed the same reading as the LXX.
... which of course undermines the JWs' end time calculations even more.
"" I did not accept the interpretation that the 'Chokmah' of Proverbs 8, literally the Son" - then you go against Paul, and the other 2 people, Who lived at the same time as Jesus who identify him as such."
No, I am at most against your *interpretation* that Paul's calling Jesus the wisdom of God is equivalent to *literally* identifying him with the personified wisdom of Proverbs 8, so that the term "qanani" there has doctrinal significance about the nature of the Son's generation.
See: https://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Bowman_Prov8.htm
"typology is not identification, no"
Really not, and you should notice that "is" does not necessarily mean a literal identification, but very often just a typological application for the apostles.
"you just made this argument to hate on JW's [...] which is not very Christian coming from a professed Catholic."
On what basis do you claim that I hate anyone, in this case the JWs? I do not have any emotional predisposition towards people of any religion, at most I criticize the theology of the WTS denomination, but I do the same with the teachings of other religions.
" if this doesn't "apply" to the Son, why do alot of Bibles cross-ref "
I don't have a problem with the ""application"", but with the literal identification, anyway, the cross-reference indicated by the translators does not prove literal identity. In the Denzinger (which is the official summary of Catholic teachings) Proverbs 8:22 is referenced only once, in connection with the letter of Dionysius of Rome.
"If it isn't an identification with the son, but can apply to the son, why can't it be used to support "doctrine"?"
Because the application only means that the figurative speech presented there shows some parallel with the description of Christ, not that it is literally about him. Or do you think Christ is a sister crying out in the street?
The fact that the church fathers (e.g. Athanasius) dealt with this does not mean that this is a binding or at all likely interpretation. Athanasius went in for the sake of refuting the Arian party's argumentation, but it is Athanasius's teachings, not his interpretive methodology, that are considered true.
In the same way: Origen also had a series of confusing typologies and allegorical interpretations of the Bible, which we do not follow.
@Edgar Foster
Proverbs 25:1 adds that some of these Solomonic proverbs were collected by scribes of King Hezekiah, who reigned from 715 to 686 B.C. But there is also a good chance that the book in its final form compiled after the Babylonian captivity, so linguistically I don't think that we should look at what 'qanah' meant in the Ugaratic language, which became extinct in the 12th century BC. I think it's a kind of etymological fallacy. This verb 'qanah' occurs countless times in the Book of Proverbs, why should it mean something different in that one verse than in the other places?
Especially since all Jewish translators except the LXX interpreted it as 'ektesato', and the Peshitta certainly rendered it so based on the authority of the LXX, which was believed to be an inspired translation in the Eastern Church.
https://www.academia.edu/28189296/Identity_and_Role_of_Wisdom_in_Gods_Creative_Act_Proverbs_8
Bruce Waltke thinks the term can more precisely be understood as “to beget,” “to bring forth.”
"[A] literal, polytheistic interpretation involving the LORD with a sexual partner in begetting Wisdom is unthinkable in this book. The metaphor “brought me forth” signifies that Solomon’s inspired wisdom comes from God’s essential being; it is a revelation that has an organic connection with God’s very nature and being, unlike the rest of creation that came into existence outside of him and independent from his being. Moreover, since this wisdom existed before creation and its origins are distinct from it, wisdom is neither accessible to humanity nor can it be subdued by human beings, but it must be revealed to people and accepted by them."
Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1-15. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004, p. 409.
Were they JW scholarly sources?
No, one book is by Johann Cook, the other is the New Interpreter's Bible.
Nincsnevem, my comments about qanah have all pertained to how the Hebrew can be understood, not just how Ugaritic might relate to the verb. But there is good evidence that Ugaritic has links with numerous Hebrew words. However, I'm not relying on that connection. Hence, there is no etymological fallacy here.
It is not unprecedented for a word to mean something different given a variant context. It happens all of the time in biblical writings and secular literature. For example, GJohn uses sarx but not with the exact sense in every usage. One just has to consult a lexicon to see how often this phenomenon occurs.
The Targumim agree with the LXX, Syriac, and let's not forget about how Proverbs 8:22 was understood during the Amoraic period and in the Midrash.
My comments about Waltke related to what he argues the word might signify: I did not go into how he interprets the language, which is a separate matter.
Regarding Hebrews 1:8
http://livingwater-spain.com/heb1_8en.pdf
It seems ironic to be hanging the definition of God and his Son upon the thin string of two very ancient words, in two different dead dialects, when the authors of the text were very careless about the provenance of the passages that they cite.
Proverbs 8 is not among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Philo: "πρωτίστην (first) τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἔργων (of his works)," "πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος (before the age). In Philo's version, the word "πρωτίστην" (protístēn) derives from the Greek adjective "πρῶτος" (prôtos), which means "first." The suffix "-ίστην" can add emphasis or make the adjective superlative in nature. In this context, "πρωτίστην" could be translated as "foremost" or "very first," signifying a place of prime importance or preeminence. So, in Philo's translation, by using "πρωτίστην τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἔργων" (protístēn tôn heautou érgōn), he is emphasizing that this entity (often interpreted as Wisdom) was not just the "first" but the "foremost" or "preeminent" of God's works. This translation choice underscores the significance and special status of Wisdom in the divine order of creation.
* * *
Symmachus:
έκτήσατό (ektesato): Means "acquired" or "possessed". This is in alignment with the Hebrew "קנני (Qananí)".
αρχήν (archén): "Beginning" or "origin". Matches the Hebrew "ראשית (Re'shít)".
οδών (odón): This is "ways" or "paths", consistent with "דרכו (Derekó)" in Hebrew.
αότοΰ (aotou): "His", which is reflexive and refers back to the Lord.
προ (pro): "Before", which aligns with the Hebrew sentiment of "קדם (Qéde'm)" which can mean "before" or "earlier".
τής εργασίας (tés ergasías): "of the work". It's a nuanced translation of "מפעליו (Mifálayv)", which directly is "His works" or "His deeds".
* * *
Theodotion:
έκτήσατό (ektísato): "Acquired" or "possessed", the same as in Symmachus’ translation and consistent with the original Hebrew.
αρχήν (archén): "Beginning", identical to Symmachus' translation.
όδοΰ (odou): Singular form for "way" or "path", a slight difference from Symmachus.
αύτοΰ (autou): "His", reflexive and refers back to the Lord.
προ (pro): "Before".
τής έργασίας (tés ergasías): "of the work", same as Symmachus.
άπό τότε (ápo tóte): "From then", adding an element of time not explicitly present in the Hebrew but implying antiquity or a time from the past.
Both Symmachus and Theodotion aim to capture the sense of God possessing or acquiring wisdom from the beginning or before all else. Their translations are largely similar, with only slight variations. Theodotion's inclusion of "άπό τότε" adds an emphasis on the ancient nature of this acquiring, underscoring the timeless and pre-existing nature of wisdom in relation to God's works.
"It is also easy to imagine that the apostle deliberately worded it in such a way that it could be understood in both ways, thus reinterpreting the psalm text." - If this is so "easy to imagine"
"do you think Christ is a sister crying out in the street?"
Do you think God is a literal Rock
I can list hundreds of things that switch gender when perosnified, your argument doesnt stick.
"By the way, we know the true Deity of the Son not only from the fact that the NT calls him "theos", " - ALL those examples are not recognized, or are unclear as to teh meaning.
"On what basis do you claim that I hate anyone, in this case the JWs?" - Do I need to provide a list? how unaware are you of your own actions?
"I'll wait for you to find out what is the appropriate term for "source" then in ancient Greek :-)" - I mean, I can, however thats besides the point - In the NT and LXX it def isnt arkhe (especially by John, who has a consistant pattern)
I would welcome correction from Edgar if im wrong here: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/pege
This word ^
interesting study: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf
or the prep "ek" used to mean "origin" alot.
"In the Denzinger (which is the official summary of Catholic teachings) Proverbs 8:22 is referenced only once, in connection with the letter of Dionysius of Rome." - idrc, you didnt answer my question.
"Because the application only means that the figurative speech presented there shows some parallel with the description of Christ"
- Ill answer this when I return, I have family matters to deal with.
"However, the apostles never called either man or angels "theos", so this OT wording does not occur in the NT, so there is nothing to suggest that the Son would be God only insofar as, for example, the psalmist called the human judges "elohim" in derision."
- nice try, Im afraid that doesnt work..
John 10:33 is applied to Jesus' opposers who are called "gods"
and just because it doesnt occur specifically in teh NT doesnt mean it cant be used (again trying to twist, what others, including catholics accept.)
"The idea of creation is closely connected with the idea of acquisition as being one form of it ; whereas the idea of possession without acquisition stands sharply apart,"
(CHRIST AS THE APXH OF CREATION. (Prov. viii 22, Col. i I5:-I8, Rev. iii I4.) - 164)
""It is also easy to imagine that the apostle deliberately worded it in such a way that it could be understood in both ways, thus reinterpreting the psalm text." - If this is so "easy to imagine""
Yes, the apostle reinterpreted the psalm quote in such a way that it means also a vocative on purpose, thus confessing the deity of the Son. Read: https://www.livingwater-spain.com/heb1_8en.pdf
""do you think Christ is a sister crying out in the street?"
Do you think God is a literal Rock"
Oh, so you accept every description of Wisdom in the book of Proverbs as referring to Christ? Read at least the first 9 chapters (compiled during the Second Temple period) to see the absurd conclusions it leads to.
"I can list hundreds of things that switch gender when perosnified, your argument doesn't stick."
It is not only the different gender that is the problem, but the whole description of wisdom in the Proverbs is clear that it is not a literal person, but a desirable quality that people are advised to acquire. For the sake of poetic speech, he is personified, but this is not a specific person, but a literary catch.
""do you think Christ is a sister crying out in the street?"
Do you think God is a literal Rock"
Oh, so you accept every description of Wisdom in the book of Proverbs as referring to Christ? Read at least the first 9 chapters (compiled during the Second Temple period) to see the absurd conclusions it leads to.
"I can list hundreds of things that switch gender when perosnified, your argument doesn't stick."
It is not only the different gender that is the problem, but the whole description of wisdom is clear that it is not a literal person, but a desirable quality that people are advised to acquire. For the sake of poetic speech, he is personified, but this is not a specific person, but a literary catch.
""By the way, we know the true Deity of the Son not only from the fact that the NT calls him "theos", " - ALL those examples are not recognized, or are unclear as to teh meaning."
Come on, there are countless descriptions in the NT that cannot be applied to creatures or angels.
"I'll wait for you to find out what is the appropriate term for "source" then in ancient Greek :-)"
My question was about which noun (substantive, rather than preposition) means in ancient Greek means the abstract concept of "source" / "orign" then, if according to you 'arkhe' CANNOT mean that.
"In the NT and LXX it def isn't arkhe (especially by John, who has a consistent pattern)"
Yes, you refer to some kind of alleged "rule" again, but at the same time you confirm that although the verb 'qanah' occurs 20 times in Proverbs with the meaning of "to acquire", it cannot mean the same thing in 8:22...
"In the NT and LXX it def isn't arkhe (especially by John, who has a consistent pattern)"
Yes, you refer to some kind of alleged "rule" again, but at the same time you confirm that even though the verb 'qanah' occurs 20 times in Proverbs with the meaning of "to acquire", it cannot mean the same thing in 8:22...
Anyway, I attribute the meaning of "principle" to it. Have you read this? https://justpaste.it/bv4ep
""the apostles never called either man or angels "theos", so this OT wording does not occur in the NT, so there is nothing to suggest that the Son would be God only insofar as, for example, the psalmist called the human judges "elohim" in derision."
- nice try, I'm afraid that doesn't work.."
And so it is: if you think that being called "god" is such a general thing, which is legitimate for all persons who act in the name of God and represent God, then why are the apostles or angels not called "gods" in the New Testament? Or why don't JWs call the members of the WTS Governing Body "gods" in this sense?
"John 10:33 is applied to Jesus' opposers who are called "gods""
John the Evangelist here narrates in Greek, recalling a conversation that originally took place in Aramaic, where Jesus referred to Psalm 82. However, there's no indication that he claimed he is "god" only in the sense referred to in that Psalm. The "gods" mentioned in Psalm 82 are none other than mere human judges who received this title because they executed God's judgment in their jurisdiction. But they didn't establish the world, they weren't eternally in the Father's bosom, they didn't exist "in the form of God", they weren't "only-begotten gods", and so on. Only Jesus possessed this form of the beginning.
The sarcastic "divinity" of mortal judges and Moses' divinity over Pharaoh should not be used as a loophole for you to bring Jesus, the 'monogenes' God, down to their level, depriving him of the fullness of deity! When will you finally refer to the devil as a god (of this world) and drag Jesus down to his level?
The "You are gods" reference, in my opinion, misses the mark. The original text of the Psalm has a completely different meaning. Jesus was defending his own deity, and only said about the original text that they were called gods. Whether the phrase in the Psalm was originally sarcastic, analogical (not literal), or conveyed another meaning, he did not specify.
Psalm 82 doesn't speak of "born/begotten gods" but of earthly judges who bore the name of God solely because of this function. They judge falsely, don't understand, walk in darkness, and eventually die. They are not gods, but humans. When Jesus referenced this scripture, he only claimed that calling a person a "god" isn't unprecedented, so he shouldn't be stoned just for that. But he didn't claim that his deity was the same as the poetic "divinity" of the judges mentioned in the Psalm.
The weak point of this argument is that the Bible doesn't speak well of false gods: it condemns them, calls them mortal, and mocks them. However, Jesus is never spoken of in a derogatory manner; he's deemed worthy of divine honor, called the beloved of the Father, etc. Therefore, he's indeed the true God.
There's a vast difference between the divinity of the so-called gods and the common nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I am certainly not willing to deify man in the latter sense. There are scriptures where man is called god or gods: "I will make you a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron will be your prophet", "You are gods", "Yahweh judges among the gods". These passages don't talk about possessing the same nature but about a kind of conferred dignity. This is evident in how Yahweh portrays foreign gods as nothing compared to Himself: they didn't create the world, they're not rocks, and so on. Similarly, He calls the judged "gods" mortal and reproaches them in the Psalm. The concept of divinity I rely on here necessarily includes worshipability and creation. In this sense, however, man is not God (and never will be), while the Son is (and always has been).
"just because it doesn't occur specifically in teh NT doesn't mean it cant be used"
But yes, since this proves that in the theological context of the NT, it can only be said in the positive sense of "THEOS", who is actually God.
About "arkhe" in Revelation 3:14
https://www.livingwater-spain.com/rev_3_14.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/5388696/_How_The_Peshitta_of_Proverbs_Uses_the_Septuagint_Journal_of_Northwest_Semitic_Languages_39_2013_37_52
Dear "Anonymous",
this is for you:
https://docdro.id/YjyzrLz
https://justpaste.it/apztr
Post a Comment