The other day, I was reading With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology by James M. Hamilton Jr. and came across his suggestion that Daniel 7 identifies the Son of Man as the Most High. Hamilton seems to base this idea on the similar language found in Daniel 7:13-14, 27, but see Daniel 2:44-45; Revelation 11:15-17.
One question that crossed my mind when reading this claim is whether any ancient or medieval Jew ever read Daniel this way and does any Jewish scholar today? It seems like another Trinitarian leap of logic to me.
Wednesday, December 18, 2024
Daniel 7:13-14, 22, 25-25 and Trinitarian Belief
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
103 comments:
Most base it on “mighty god” from my understanding- but then again I haven’t researched Daniel too much
Hamilton bases his claim strictly on Daniel 7. I will supply a link that discusses his view.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/jesus-christ-son-man/
Use Hamilton as a search term.
It just makes no sense, I mean the "son of man" concept is also in first Enoch, and like in Daniel, it's obviously not the most-High God.
In Daniel 7:13-14, the prophet envisions "one like the Son of Man" coming with the clouds of heaven, receiving dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom. The "Son of Man" figure was traditionally understood by early Christians as a direct reference to Jesus Christ. This interpretation is reinforced by the New Testament, where Jesus frequently refers to Himself as the "Son of Man" (e.g., Matthew 26:64, Revelation 1:7). Justin Martyr argued in his Dialogue with Trypho that this vision pointed unequivocally to Christ, who would establish an eternal kingdom encompassing all nations and peoples. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, connects the "Son of Man" with Jesus' role as the mediator who restores humanity to its original dignity, uniting divine and human natures. The phrase "an everlasting dominion" was also linked by church fathers to the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises, surpassing the temporary nature of the earthly kingdoms symbolized earlier in the chapter by the four beasts.
In Daniel 7:22, the "Ancient of Days" (interpreted as God the Father) renders judgment in favor of the saints, and they take possession of the kingdom. This is often seen as a foreshadowing of the final judgment and the vindication of God's people. Augustine, in City of God, emphasizes that this verse symbolizes the inevitable triumph of the Church over its enemies, both temporal and spiritual. He interprets the saints' possession of the kingdom as the full realization of the church's victory in the eschaton. The Venerable Bede viewed this as a metaphor for Christ's second coming, where the saints would share in His eternal reign.
Verse 7:25 describes the rise of an arrogant ruler who "speaks great words against the Most High," "wears out the saints," and "thinks to change times and laws." This figure has been widely interpreted as a representation of the Antichrist or a similar adversary to God. Hippolytus of Rome, in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, identifies this blasphemous ruler as the Antichrist, who will attempt to usurp divine authority, oppress the faithful, and distort divine ordinances. John Chrysostom saw in this description a warning of the corrupting influence of earthly powers that exalt themselves above God. The "time, times, and half a time" (often interpreted as three and a half years) has been traditionally linked to periods of tribulation, with parallels drawn to Revelation 11:2-3 and 12:6.
The final verses, 7:26-27, portray the judgment of the oppressive power, leading to the establishment of the everlasting kingdom for "the people of the saints of the Most High." Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, emphasizes that this eternal kingdom is inaugurated by Christ but fully realized in the age to come, where justice prevails, and the saints reign with God. Origen, in his commentary, highlights the divine justice depicted here, where evil powers are decisively destroyed, and God's people inherit a perfected creation. The everlasting nature of this kingdom reinforces the Christian hope in the permanence of Christ's reign, contrasted with the temporal nature of human empires.
The traditional Christian interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14, 22, and 25-27 centers on the Messiah's divine authority, the ultimate vindication of the saints, and the certainty of God's judgment over evil. Early church fathers consistently viewed these passages as messianic, finding their fulfillment in Jesus Christ and His eternal kingdom. The imagery of the "Son of Man," the blasphemous adversary, and the eternal dominion of the saints remains central to Christian eschatological thought, resonating with themes of justice, redemption, and hope for an everlasting reign of righteousness. This vision continues to inspire Christians, offering assurance of Christ's ultimate victory and the enduring promise of participation in His kingdom.
(1/5)
(2/5)
In the Jewish tradition, "one like a son of man" (Daniel 7:13-14) is not interpreted as a divine figure but as a representation of the faithful Jewish people or, in some cases, the Messiah in a human capacity. Commentators like Rashi assert that the "son of man" refers to the King Messiah, depicted as a mortal who serves as God's appointed agent to bring justice and peace. Rashi emphasizes the humanity and humility of Israel as opposed to the beastly nature of the preceding kingdoms. Similarly, the Malbim contrasts the earlier kingdoms, portrayed as wild beasts, with the "son of man," symbolizing wisdom, morality, and divine guidance. For Malbim, the heavenly clouds signify a transition from the chaos of the previous empires to a heavenly kingdom characterized by justice and divine law. Ibn Ezra and the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) underline that this dominion represents the ultimate redemption of Israel. The "clouds of heaven" symbolize divine intervention, contingent upon the merit of the Jewish people. According to Rabbi Alexandri in Sanhedrin 98a, the Messiah's arrival is conditional: if Israel merits, it will be miraculous ("with the clouds of heaven"); if not, it will be more mundane ("riding upon a donkey").
Jewish interpretations of Daniel 7:22 emphasize the eventual vindication of the Jewish people. The phrase "Ancient of Days came and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High" is seen as God's ultimate justice being rendered in favor of Israel. Rashi explains this as God granting "revenge" to the holy ones, meaning the defeat of oppressors and the restoration of Israel's sovereignty. The Malbim highlights two pathways to redemption: through Israel's righteousness ("holy ones of the Most High") or through the natural progression of divine timing.
According to the Jewish interpretation Daniel 7:25 describes a figure who blasphemes God, oppresses the saints, and attempts to change "times and laws." Traditional Jewish exegesis identifies this figure with oppressive regimes or ideologies that seek to undermine Jewish religious practice and sovereignty. The Malbim and Rashi interpret the "changing of times and laws" as attempts by foreign rulers—historically, figures like Antiochus IV Epiphanes or later oppressive empires—to abolish Jewish observances and impose their own systems. The timeline "time, times, and half a time" is seen as an enigmatic period, interpreted differently by various scholars, including Saadia Gaon, who ties it to historical eras of Jewish suffering.
Jewish commentators consistently interpret Daniel 7:27as the culmination of divine justice, where the sovereignty of the world is restored to the "people of the holy ones of the Most High." The Metzudat David specifies that this refers to Israel, underscoring that the ultimate kingdom will be characterized by eternal justice and divine service. Ibn Ezra and Joseph ibn Yahya note that this kingdom's everlasting nature signifies a permanent reversal of the chaos wrought by preceding empires. The imagery of "all dominions serving and obeying them" is not about political dominance but about the recognition of divine justice through Israel's restored role as a "light unto the nations."
Where traditional Christian exegesis, especially by Church Fathers like Augustine or Jerome, often identifies the "son of man" as a divine Messiah (interpreted as Jesus), Jewish commentators reject this perspective. Instead, they focus on Israel's collective destiny and the Messianic age as a period of peace and divine justice. The Talmud emphasizes the conditional nature of redemption, an idea absent in Chríistian theology, which often sees the Messiah's role as preordained and universal. Furthermore, the Jewish focus on the collective role of Israel contrasts with the individualized, salvific role assigned to the Messiah in Christianity.
(2/5)
(3/4)
While Jewish sources traditionally interpret the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7:13-14 as a Messianic figure or collective representation of Israel, the text itself contains significant evidence for a transcendent, divine figure. The "Son of Man" coming with the clouds of heaven is a hallmark of divine activity in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1). This imagery suggests that the "Son of Man" is more than a mere human—he operates in the domain of God himself. In Daniel 7:14, the "Son of Man" is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom that will never pass away. Such a description aligns with attributes reserved for God alone, as seen in other biblical texts (e.g., Psalm 145:13, Daniel 4:3). If this figure were merely human, the granting of eternal authority over all nations and peoples would be inconsistent with monotheistic theology unless this individual shares in the divine nature.
The "Son of Man" in Daniel 7:13-14 is not merely a human figure but carries divine connotations. The Son of Man is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom (Daniel 7:14). This authority is universal, transcending political and ethnic boundaries, and everlasting. These characteristics align with divine sovereignty rather than mere human rule. In ancient Jewish thought, riding on clouds is an act associated exclusively with deity. For instance, Yahweh "makes the clouds his chariot" (Psalm 104:3) and "comes with the clouds of heaven" in judgment (Isaiah 19:1). The Son of Man's arrival on the clouds, therefore, points to his divine status. The Aramaic word “pelach” in Daniel 7:14, often translated as "serve," is frequently used in the context of worship given to God (e.g., Daniel 3:12, 18). While some argue it merely implies homage or service, the context of Daniel 7 strongly suggests that the Son of Man receives worship due to his divine status. As James M. Hamilton Jr. notes, the language describing the Son of Man in Daniel 7 closely parallels descriptions of God (the "Ancient of Days") in the same chapter. For example, both are depicted as possessing eternal dominion (cf. Daniel 7:14, 27).
(3/4)
(4/5)
You asked whether any Jewish scholar, ancient or modern, interprets the Son of Man in Daniel 7 as divine. While traditional rabbinic interpretations generally do not view the Messiah as divine, there are indications that some early Jewish thinkers ascribed extraordinary, even transcendent qualities to the Messiah. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), a Jewish apocryphal text, depicts the "Son of Man" as a heavenly figure, preexistent, and sitting on God's throne. While not canonical, this reflects a stream of Second Temple Jewish thought that associated the "Son of Man" with divinity. Some Jewish midrashic sources associate the Messiah with cosmic rule, albeit without equating him fully with God. This reflects an openness to viewing the Messiah as more than merely human. Rabbi Alexandri in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) acknowledges the transcendent nature of the Messiah, associating him with the clouds of heaven in Daniel 7:13. While this does not equate the Messiah with God, it suggests a figure of extraordinary status.
In the Gospels, Jesus frequently refers to himself as the "Son of Man," explicitly connecting himself to Daniel 7. When Jesus is asked if he is the Messiah, he responds: "You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64; cf. Daniel 7:13-14). The high priest understands this as a claim to divine authority, leading to the charge of blasphemy. Jesus attributes divine prerogatives to himself as the Son of Man, including forgiving sins (Mark 2:10), lordship over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), and authority to judge the world (John 5:27). Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 explicitly identify the glorified Christ with Daniel’s "Son of Man," reinforcing his dual identity as both human and divine.
The Trinitarian interpretation does not leap to deity but is grounded in the consistent portrayal of the Son of Man throughout Scripture. The Son of Man in Daniel 7 is uniquely qualified to bridge heaven and earth, being "like a son of man" (human) yet riding on the clouds (divine). This aligns with Jesus' dual nature as fully God and fully man. Daniel 7:27 states that the kingdom will be shared with the "saints of the Most High." However, the Son of Man's unique authority to receive worship (v. 14) sets him apart, indicating that his rule is not merely derivative but intrinsic.
The Trinitarian reading of Daniel 7 is not an arbitrary leap but a careful synthesis of the text's divine imagery, the broader biblical narrative, and Jesus' self-identification. While Jewish and Jehovah's Witness interpretations see the Son of Man as a solely human or representative figure, the Trinitarian perspective recognizes him as the divine Messiah who inaugurates God's eternal kingdom. This interpretation honors the text's original context while acknowledging its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the "Son of Man" who reigns as both Savior and King.
@Anonymous
In Daniel 7:13, the "Son of Man" is described as coming "with the clouds of heaven," a phrase consistently used in the Hebrew Bible to depict divine action (cf. Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1). Nowhere in Scripture is riding the clouds ascribed to anyone other than God. Thus, the "Son of Man" coming with the clouds implies divine status, not mere humanity. Daniel 7:14 attributes to the "Son of Man" an everlasting dominion and universal service (pelach in Aramaic). While “pelach” can mean "serve," in the context of Daniel, it often implies religious devotion: The universal dominion and service accorded to the "Son of Man" align with the characteristics of deity rather than a mere human or angelic being.
The "Son of Man" in the Book of 1 Enoch (37–71), while not canonical, provides valuable insight into Jewish thought during the Second Temple period. The "Son of Man" in 1 Enoch is a heavenly figure who has existed from before the creation of the world (1 Enoch 48:2-6). The "Son of Man" is portrayed as sitting on the throne of glory, sharing in divine judgment (1 Enoch 61:8-9; 69:27). He is described as the agent of salvation and the one who reveals divine mysteries. These attributes go far beyond the capabilities of a mere human or angelic being. While 1 Enoch does not equate the "Son of Man" with the Most High, it presents a figure who shares in divine functions, bridging the human and divine realms. This supports, rather than undermines, the interpretation of the "Son of Man" as divine.
In Daniel 7, the "Son of Man" is distinct from the "Ancient of Days," yet the two are closely related. The "Son of Man" is given dominion and worship, roles reserved for God. This suggests not separation but functional unity with the Ancient of Days. Trinitarian theology explains this relationship as one of distinction within the Godhead. The "Son of Man" reflects the second person of the Trinity—distinct in person yet fully sharing the divine essence.
The "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch exhibits attributes and roles that align with divinity, not merely humanity. While distinct from the Most High, the "Son of Man" participates in divine functions, a concept consistent with Trinitarian theology. Jesus’ self-identification as the "Son of Man" bridges the Jewish expectation of a transcendent Messiah with the Christian belief in his divine and human natures.
@Anonymous
The Trinitarian understanding of the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 is built on several key elements in the text, not on Isaiah 9:6 or the title "Mighty God". As noted earlier, this phrase in Daniel 7:13 is reserved for divine action in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is used exclusively for God, underscoring the divine nature of the "Son of Man." In Daniel 7:14, the "Son of Man" receives eternal dominion and is served by "all peoples, nations, and languages." This worship (pelach in Aramaic) is reserved for God alone in the Book of Daniel (see Daniel 3:28 for how the term is used in a context of divine worship). The "Son of Man" fulfills Jewish expectations of a divine Messiah who will reign eternally, a theme woven throughout Scripture (e.g., Psalm 2, Isaiah 9:6-7). The connection between Daniel 7 and the Trinitarian belief is rooted in these theological and contextual markers, which go far beyond any single title like "Mighty God."
While Isaiah 9:6 does refer to the coming Messiah as "Mighty God" (El Gibbor), this passage is a separate prophetic witness to the divine nature of the Messiah. It complements Daniel 7 by emphasizing the divinity of the one who will rule with justice and peace forever. However, it is not the sole or primary basis for interpreting Daniel 7.
Trinitarians do not isolate Daniel 7 from the broader context of Scripture. Instead, they interpret it as part of a cohesive biblical narrative that reveals the nature of the Messiah. In the New Testament, Jesus frequently refers to himself as the "Son of Man," explicitly linking himself to Daniel 7 (e.g., Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62). Jesus claims divine authority in ways consistent with the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7, such as the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10) and to judge the world (John 5:27). The apostles understood Jesus as the fulfillment of Daniel 7, interpreting his ascension and enthronement as the realization of the "Son of Man" receiving dominion (Acts 1:9-11, Philippians 2:9-11).
The claim that Daniel 7’s connection to Trinitarian belief rests on "Mighty God" from Isaiah 9:6 appears to be based on a misunderstanding. While the title "Mighty God" is indeed significant, the case for the divinity of the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 is much broader, grounded in the text itself and its context within the overarching biblical narrative.
I would encourage anyone exploring this topic to study Daniel 7 closely, alongside Jesus’ claims about himself in the Gospels, to better understand the Trinitarian interpretation. A holistic examination of the text and its theological implications offers a deeper appreciation of how the "Son of Man" points to the divine Messiah, fully God and fully human.
I find the whole "Jesus is God" approach to interpretation rather tedious at this point in my life.
What I find much more interesting is the possibility that Daniel 7 was the starting point for the Two Powers theology that emerged within Judaism, and that the Son of Man may have been Michael:
"I would like to close by putting forward the thesis that it is likely that the 'one like a human being' or the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is the highest angelic figure distinct from God, presumably the archangel Michael. Elevated to a godlike status, this angelic figure becomes the origin and point of departure for the later binitarian figures who will reach their culmination and end point in Metatron." (Peter Schäfer, Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity), p. 24
Catholic scholar John Collins J. agrees that the Son of Man is Michael:
"What then of the figure of the 'one like the son of man'? There are two possible interpretations. He may be a symbolic figure, representing the host collectively, or he may represent their leader, specifically. Since beasts are interpreted as four kings (Dan 7:12) and in view of the prominence of Michael in Daniel 10-12, the latter is the more likely. Of course the leader represents the collective unit in any case. Accordingly it seems most likely that the figure of the one like the son of man represents the archangel, Michael, who receives the kingdom on behalf of his host of holy ones, but also on behalf of his people Israel.69" (The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel, Journal of Biblical Literature , Mar., 1974, Vol. 93, No. 1, Mar., 1974), pp. 50-66
Interestingly, if these two scholars are correct, then JWs are correct in identifying Jesus as Michael.
@Sean Kasabuske
The assertion that the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 is Michael, the archangel, faces significant challenges both from the text of Daniel itself and from its interpretation within the broader biblical canon. Michael is explicitly mentioned in Daniel 10:13, 21 and 12:1 as a protector of Israel, described as "ONE of the chief princeS" and "your prince." While he is a powerful angelic figure, nothing in these passages suggests that Michael is elevated to the status described in Daniel 7:13-14. The "Son of Man" figure in Daniel 7 is depicted as receiving "dominion, glory, and a kingdom" (v. 14), with authority over "all peoples, nations, and languages" who serve him. This universal dominion surpasses Michael’s role as a protector of Israel. Angels, including Michael, are depicted as servants of God (Hebrews 1:14), not as recipients of universal worship or dominion.
The "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 is described as coming "with the clouds of heaven." In the Hebrew Bible, riding the clouds is a divine prerogative (e.g., Psalm 104:3; Isaiah 19:1). Michael, as an angelic being, is never associated with such divine imagery. The Aramaic word “pelach” in Daniel 7:14, translated as "serve" or "worship," is consistently used in Daniel to describe religious devotion to God (e.g., Daniel 3:12, 18). It is inappropriate to apply this level of devotion to an angelic being like Michael.
The concept of "Two Powers in Heaven," as explored by Schäfer and others, is a fascinating area of Jewish thought. However, this theological framework was largely rejected by mainstream Judaism as it evolved into a monotheistic orthodoxy that resisted any perceived duality in the Godhead. Some Second Temple Jewish texts, like 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, explore ideas of a transcendent figure who shares divine authority. These texts often depict a preexistent, exalted being who acts as God’s agent in judgment and redemption, aligning more closely with the Christian understanding of the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 than with the archangel Michael. The "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 is consistent with this trajectory of thought, representing a divine figure who bridges the gap between heaven and earth.
Early Christians identified the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 with Jesus Christ, based on Jesus’ own self-identification (e.g., Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62). Jesus claims authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), lordship over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), and the role of ultimate judge (John 5:27), all prerogatives of the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7. Jesus explicitly connects himself to the "Son of Man" coming on the clouds of heaven, a claim that led to accusations of blasphemy because it implied divine status (Matthew 26:64-65).
While Schäfer and Collins propose intriguing ideas, their interpretations are speculative and lack definitive textual support. The broader biblical narrative, including the New Testament, identifies the "Son of Man" as a figure who transcends angelic status and fulfills divine roles. The "Son of Man" is not merely a representative figure but receives worship and eternal dominion, roles incompatible with Michael’s identity as a created being. Jesus’ self-identification as the "Son of Man" aligns with the divine characteristics attributed to this figure in Daniel 7, affirming his unique role as fully God and fully man.
Sean, I appreciate the points you shared and find them worthy of more study.
Nincsnevem:
1) The Son of Man "receives" or is given "universal dominion" by a superior being, the Ancient of Days. Secondly, according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, the Son will one day hand back this dominion in order hat God (Jehovah the Father) may become all things to all.
2) It's simply not true that pelach has to mean "worship" in Daniel or is only applied to God. As a number of studies point out, it is quite possible that the holy ones of the Most High receive pelach from all peoples (Daniel 7:27). At any rate, biblehub makes this remark:
The Hebrew verb "pelach" primarily conveys the idea of serving or laboring, often in a context of worship or religious service. It is used to describe acts of devotion and service to a deity, indicating a sense of reverence and commitment. The term can also imply the physical act of labor or work, emphasizing diligence and dedication.
3) I emphasize that every prerogative Jesus has/had was given to him by the Father. In the Gospels, none of his prerogatives are said to be intrinsic.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1e3ksbb/the_use_of_douleu%C5%8D_vs_latreu%C5%8D_in_available_lxx/
It is true that in Daniel 7:13-14, the “Son of Man” receives dominion from the Ancient of Days. However, “receiving” dominion does not imply subordination in the sense of ontological inferiority. In Trinitarian theology, the Son's receiving dominion reflects the eternal relationship of the Son to the Father, where the Son proceeds from the Father yet remains fully divine and equal in essence. The Father and the Son are distinct persons but share the same divine nature. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 does not contradict this. When the Son hands over the kingdom to the Father, it is not because He is less divine but because of the unity and harmony within the Godhead. The passage emphasizes the Trinitarian economy, where the Son's mission culminates in the glorification of the Father. It does not imply that the Son ceases to rule or becomes less than God; instead, it reflects the completion of the Son's mediatorial role in redemptive history. The concept of "God being all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28, cf. “Christ is all in all”, Colossians 3:11) does not exclude the Son from divinity. Rather, it underscores the ultimate unity and fulfillment of God's plan, where all creation is fully aligned with His divine will. The Son's submission to the Father here reflects the relational dynamic within the Trinity, not inequality in essence. By the way, I haven't seen the phrase "Jehovah the Father" in the New Testament.
The Aramaic verb “pelach” in Daniel 7:14 is indeed often translated as “serve” or “worship,” but its meaning depends on context. In Daniel, “pelach” is consistently used in a religious or worshipful context, particularly when referring to God. For example in Daniel 3:12, 18, “pelach” describes the worship given to Nebuchadnezzar's idol, explicitly contrasted with the *worship* owed to God alone. In Daniel 6:16, 20, “pelach” is used to describe Daniel’s service to “the living God,” which clearly implies worship and devotion. In Daniel 7:14, the “Son of Man” receives “pelach” from “all peoples, nations, and languages,” a description that strongly suggests universal worship. The universal and eternal nature of this service aligns with divine attributes and is incompatible with mere political homage or service to a created being. Regarding Daniel 7:27, where the saints of the Most High receive the kingdom, the text does not say that the saints themselves receive “pelach.” Instead, it emphasizes that dominion and authority are granted to them, but ultimate service (pelach) is directed to the Most High (or the “Son of Man” as His representative). This interpretation aligns with the broader biblical theme of God’s people sharing in His reign while all worship remains directed toward God. Moreover, the broader biblical and cultural context supports the interpretation of “pelach” as worship in Daniel 7:14. The “Son of Man” is depicted as riding the clouds, a motif uniquely associated with deity in the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Psalm 104:3; Isaiah 19:1). Thus, the “pelach” given to the Son of Man is appropriately understood as worship, reflecting His divine status.
“All prerogatives Jesus has were given by the Father; none are intrinsic.”
Indeed, just like the Council of Florence states:
“Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle.”
But just because the Father is ἀγέννητος, while the Son is γεννητός, does not make the Son less divine, does not make His quiddity different from that of the Father.
The argument centers on variations in the Greek translations of Daniel 7:14, with some manuscripts using “douleuō” (to serve) and others “latreuō” (to offer sacred service). It is suggested that the shift to “latreuō” in later manuscripts was influenced by Trinitarian doctrine. However, this claim relies on unfounded assumptions, that the distinction between douleuō and latreuō is rigid in all contexts, and that the use of “latreuō” in later manuscripts reflects doctrinal bias rather than textual development or interpretive nuance.
While it is true that “latreuō” often refers to worship or service rendered to God alone, “douleuō” can also denote profound devotion and service, including religious contexts. The difference is not as absolute as claimed. For example in some biblical passages, “douleuō” is used to describe service to God (e.g., Romans 12:11). The choice between “douleuō” and “latreuō “in translations of Daniel 7:14 may reflect stylistic preferences or linguistic conventions rather than theological intent.
Daniel 7:14 describes the Son of Man receiving “dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.” The Aramaic word “pelach” is translated as serve, and the context indicates a form of service or worship appropriate only for divine figures. The overarching message of the passage is the universal authority and worship of the Son of Man, aligning with divine prerogatives. The use of “latreuō” in some Greek manuscripts underscores this divine status, but the absence of “latreuō” does not negate it. Instead, the broader context—where the Son of Man is exalted and worshiped—supports the interpretation of the Son of Man as a divine figure.
The Aramaic “pelach” in Daniel 7:14 and 7:27 is used in contexts where service or worship is directed toward a supreme figure. The claim that “latreuō” would be inappropriate for the holy ones in verse 27 does not diminish its appropriateness for the Son of Man in verse 14. In fact the distinction between the service rendered to the Son of Man and the holy ones mirrors the distinction in Revelation 22:3, where “service” is rendered to “the throne of God and of the Lamb.” The Son of Man in Daniel 7:14 is the central figure receiving dominion and worship, while the holy ones in verse 27 participate in his kingdom as recipients of divine grace.
Revelation 22:3 describes the service (latreuō) offered to “the throne of God and of the Lamb.” The use of singular pronouns (e.g., "his servants will serve him") reflects the unity of God and the Lamb, not the exclusion of the Lamb from divine worship. Other passages in Revelation (e.g., 5:13-14) explicitly depict the Lamb receiving worship alongside God, confirming the co-equality of the Son with the Father.
The Son of Man in Daniel 7:14, as identified with Jesus Christ in the New Testament, receives divine worship and authority. The use of “latreuō” in some manuscripts affirms this, but even where “douleuō” is used, the context of universal dominion and worship supports the divine identity of the Son.
Ofcourse Ninc omits to mention certain things that don’t suit his theological agenda - because in all his points he has omitted atleast one important element that a quick google search could tell you
Trinitarians heap presuppositions onto Jewish documents and insist they can be read only the Trinitarian way, but anyone who's read scholarly literature and Jewish commentators knows that these claims simply are not true. Did ancient Jewish readers believe that the Son of Man received worship like God? Is that what Rashi claims? No, it is not. The Son of Man has been interpreted as an angel, Israel or as saints of the Most High. There is more than one way to read Daniel 7.
See https://archive.org/details/danielsvisionofs0000youn/page/n1/mode/2up
While E.J. Young arrives at a conclusion with which I disagree, he shows there is a variety of thought on Daniel 7.
A Jewish understanding of Daniel 7:13-14-https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/chapter-44-one-like-son-man
Unknown, I agree that Nincsnevem's presentation is highly selective. One thing I also find odd about a number of Trinitarian works I've read on Daniel is that they want to discount the Targumic evidence for Daniel 7, but then allow later Greek OG material, which they believe supports Trinitarianism. The usual stuff.
I find it odd too that the Son of God has extrinsic properties whereaas it would seem that omni-properties were/would be intrinsic for God.
The previous variants iv cited apparently don’t count for anything either
“However, this claim relies on unfounded assumptions, that the distinction between douleuō and latreuō is rigid in all contexts, and that the use of “latreuō” in later manuscripts reflects doctrinal bias rather than textual development or interpretive nuance.” - what century is this variant? If it’s 4th or 5th it is def theological motivation - why are ALL the variants that pertain to Christ being a creature suddenly changed in the 4th century? Doesn’t take an Einstein to figure that one out ( just someone who’s not Ninc)
Ninc please I beg you to address that argument on that reddit post - you will get destroyed on that subreddit…
Sending you an email later with a few questions if you don’t mind - get too them when you can.
( rather not have my real name or email address leaked online either if that’s ok - don’t need theological garbage in my inbox )
Edgar Foster
Quite agree- why do you think I challenge Ninc to submit an academic paper for peer review… he won’t, he can’t
He would be obliterated by gene Stafford
It’s like with Patrick’s analysis of Clements writings with the terms first created and first begotten
Suddenly first created has a meaning no reputable dictionary that I can find actually lists..
It’s a Ninc invented meaning stemming from a potential meaning of firstborn
@Edgar Foster
You correctly note that Jewish commentators, such as Rashi, have interpreted the "Son of Man" differently than Christian theologians. Rashi identified the "Son of Man" as representing Israel or the saints of the Most High. Others, like Ibn Ezra or the Talmud, saw this figure as symbolic of collective Israel or an angel. These interpretations reflect Jewish eschatological perspectives, emphasizing Israel's vindication. However, the Christian reading of Daniel 7 is not arbitrary or uninformed by the text. Early Jewish literature, including the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71), portrays the "Son of Man" as a preexistent, divine-like figure who participates in judgment and is exalted alongside God. This demonstrates that some Jewish traditions ascribed extraordinary, even transcendent, attributes to the "Son of Man." These ideas are consistent with the New Testament portrayal of Jesus as the "Son of Man," who uniquely bridges humanity and divinity.
The "Son of Man" in Daniel 7:14 is described as receiving dominion, glory, and a kingdom, with “all peoples, nations, and languages” “serving” him. The Aramaic verb “pelach” (פְּלַח), used here, is significant. As noted earlier, “pelach” denotes religious service or worship in Daniel (e.g., Daniel 3:12, 18, 6:16, 20). The universal scope of this service to the “Son of Man” implies divine prerogatives. Rashi and others interpret this service as acknowledgment of Israel’s role in God’s plan, but such a view does not fully account for the language used in the text. The “Son of Man” does not merely represent Israel; he is given dominion and worship, roles traditionally reserved for God alone. This aligns with the Trinitarian interpretation that sees the "Son of Man" as a divine figure, consistent with Jesus’ self-identification.
You question whether the "Son of God" could possess omni-properties (such as omniscience or omnipotence) intrinsically if they are derived from the Father. This is about the relational dynamic within the Trinity. Trinitarian theology asserts that the Son possesses the same divine essence as the Father, including all omni-properties. The relational distinctions within the Trinity—such as the Son receiving authority from the Father—reflect the economic roles of the divine persons, not inequality in essence: “Whatever the Son is or has, He has FROM the Father, and is the principle from a principle.” In Trinitarian theology, the Son’s submission to the Father is an expression of their eternal relationship, not a denial of the Son’s full divinity.
(1/2)
(2/2)
You criticize the "selective" use of evidence, suggesting that Trinitarians discount the Targumic interpretations of Daniel 7 while favoring Greek material that supports their view. However, this criticism does not account for the full scope of evidence. The Targumic interpretations often reflect a collective understanding of the “Son of Man” as representing Israel. The Jewish interpretations arose in part as a polemic against Christian claims about Jesus. However, earlier Jewish traditions, such as 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra, present the "Son of Man" as a transcendent figure with divine authority. These texts, while not canonical, provide valuable insights into Second Temple Jewish thought and the diversity of interpretations surrounding Daniel 7. The Greek versions of Daniel, including the Old Greek and Theodotion, are not "later material" but ancient translations that preserve alternative readings of the text. The use of “latreuō” (worship) in some manuscripts highlights the divine status of the "Son of Man," consistent with the broader biblical narrative.
You argue that there is "more than one way to read Daniel 7," which is true. Jewish commentators emphasize Israel’s vindication and the Messiah’s human role, while Christians see a divine Messiah. The key question is which interpretation best accounts for the text and its context. The "Son of Man" rides on the clouds, a motif uniquely associated with God in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1). He receives eternal dominion and worship (pelach), roles reserved for God in Daniel and elsewhere. The New Testament explicitly identifies Jesus with the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7, emphasizing his divine authority (e.g., Matthew 26:64, John 5:27). While alternative readings exist, the Trinitarian interpretation coherently synthesizes the text’s divine imagery with Jesus’ claims in the New Testament. It does not impose foreign ideas but draws from the text’s context and broader biblical themes.
@Anonymous
The Aramaic word פְּלַח (pelach) used in Daniel 7:14 and 7:27 can mean “serve” or “worship” in a broad sense, with a particular focus on service rendered to a deity. Greek translators rendered this term with both “douleuō” and “latreuō”, which, while overlapping in meaning, carry nuanced distinctions. “douleuō” often refers to service rendered to a master or superior and may apply to both divine and human relationships. “latreuō” has a narrower sense, often implying cultic worship and service reserved exclusively for God. The alternation between these terms in the Greek texts may not indicate a doctrinal agenda but rather translational variance or interpretive nuance. For example some translators may have opted for “douleuō” for a broader audience who might not recognize the technical cultic implications of “latreuō”. The use of “latreuō” in later manuscripts might reflect an effort to clarify the deity of the “Son of Man” in light of early Christian exegesis but not necessarily doctrinal fabrication. So the variation reflects interpretive flexibility rather than theological manipulation.
You suggest that *any* changes toward “latreuō” in later manuscripts (e.g., Vaticanus, Chester Beatty) *must* reflect a theological agenda due to their proximity to the 4th-century doctrinal debates. However Theodotion’s translation, which predates the 4th century (2nd century CE), already employs “latreuō” for Daniel 7:14. This predates the Nicene debates and undermines the claim of “Trinitarian revisionism.” Variants using “douleuō” persist even in later manuscripts (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus). If the supposed goal was to uniformly impose a Trinitarian reading, why do these manuscripts retain the broader term “douleuō”? Translational variance is a known phenomenon in ancient texts. The Hexapla itself shows that early translators grappled with how best to render terms like “pelach”. So the coexistence of “douleuō” and “latreuō” across manuscripts reflects translation practices and interpretive diversity, not coordinated theological tampering.
The Aramaic term “pelach” indicates divine worship in the context of Daniel 7:14, as the Son of Man is portrayed receiving an eternal, universal kingdom—attributes exclusive to God in Jewish monotheism. The translators’ choice of “latreuō” in some manuscripts aligns with this theological context. Daniel 7:27, which speaks of the saints receiving dominion, employs “douleuō” to distinguish the service rendered to the saints from that rendered to the Son of Man. So the translators recognized the theological distinction between the universal worship due to the "Son of Man" and the service rendered to the saints.
Variants are not unusual in textual transmission, especially for terms with overlapping meanings like “douleuō” and “latreuō”. Theological conclusions about the “Son of Man” were not “dictated” by 4th-century debates but emerged organically from the text of Daniel and its New Testament applications (e.g., Jesus’ use of Danielic imagery in the Gospels). Highlighting variants that align with your position while dismissing others (e.g., Theodotion, Vaticanus) introduces bias into your analysis.
The variation between “douleuō” and “latreuō” in the Greek versions of Daniel 7 reflects translational nuance rather than doctrinal tampering. The early use of “latreuō” in Theodotion demonstrates that Trinitarian interpretations of the “Son of Man” predate the 4th century. Furthermore, the broader biblical and theological context supports the divinity of the “Son of Man,” consistent with the early Christian understanding of Jesus as fully God and fully man. Your assertion that Trinitarian doctrine influenced these texts is speculative and not supported by the full scope of manuscript evidence or early Christian exegesis. Instead, the evidence points to a consistent recognition of the Son of Man’s divine status, rooted in the text of Daniel and affirmed in the New Testament.
Young suggests that the "Son of Man" represents Israel or a collective group, dismissing the interpretation of an individual Messianic figure. Actually, the text emphasizes that the "Son of Man" comes "with the clouds of heaven" (Daniel 7:13), a description typically reserved for divine figures in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalm 104:3; Isaiah 19:1). In contrast, the beasts arise from the chaotic "sea," symbolizing earthly kingdoms. This contrast underscores the divine origin and heavenly nature of the "Son of Man." The "Son of Man" is given a kingdom, dominion, and glory that are universal and eternal (Daniel 7:14). While the saints also receive the kingdom (Daniel 7:27), this is described as derivative—they inherit it through the "Son of Man." The direct language of verse 14 points to an individual figure who is the source of this authority. Jesus directly identifies Himself as the "Son of Man" from Daniel 7 in key eschatological and judicial contexts (e.g., Mark 14:62; Matthew 24:30). His use of this title clearly links the Danielic vision to an individual, Messianic figure, not a collective group.
Young asserts that this passage has no direct connection to Messianic prophecy or Christology. However even in Second Temple Judaism, the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 was often understood as a Messianic figure. Texts like the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 46:1–4) and 4 Ezra 13 interpret the "Son of Man" as a preexistent, heavenly redeemer. These interpretations predate or parallel early Christian usage. Jesus' repeated reference to Himself as the "Son of Man" directly connects to Daniel 7, particularly in contexts of judgment and authority (e.g., Matthew 25:31-32, Mark 14:62). This usage solidifies the Messianic and individual application of the term, as Jesus claims to fulfill this prophecy. The New Testament writers, including John in Revelation (e.g., Revelation 1:13; 14:14), echo Daniel 7's imagery in describing Christ's divine authority and role as Judge. This shows continuity in interpreting the "Son of Man" as a Messianic and divine figure.
Young argues that the use of “like a Son of Man” indicates something less than divine. The phrase "like a Son of Man" (Aramaic: kebar enash) does not diminish the figure's significance. Instead, it highlights both His humanity and His uniqueness. The phrase emphasizes the human-like nature of this figure, contrasting with the bestial representations of earthly kingdoms. However, the context and accompanying descriptions (e.g., coming with the clouds of heaven) elevate this figure beyond mere humanity. The "Son of Man" receives “pelach”, a term used in the Aramaic portions of Daniel to describe service or worship due to deity (e.g., Daniel 3:12, 17-18). This further underscores the divine status of this figure.
While Daniel 7 does not explicitly articulate Trinitarian doctrine, it lays important groundwork for understanding divine plurality within the Godhead. The vision presents two distinct divine figures—the "Ancient of Days" and the "Son of Man." Both are portrayed as sharing divine attributes: the Ancient of Days as the eternal Judge, and the Son of Man as the recipient of eternal dominion and worship. The coexistence and interaction of these two figures in Daniel 7 prefigure the fuller revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament. The "Son of Man" receiving dominion from the Ancient of Days aligns with the New Testament depiction of Christ's exaltation by the Father (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11).
Andrew Steinmann: The Messiah is likened to "a Son of Man," meaning that he is not like a beast, but a human. However, the context also clearly signals that he is much more than a human. In fact, since he possesses an eternal kingdom (7:14), he is God, who alone has a kingdom that does not end (2:44-45; 6:27 [ET 6:26]; 7:27). His divine nature is signaled as soon as he is introduced as one who rides on the clouds (Dan 7:13). He rules as a human and over all humanity since elsewhere in Daniel, phrases like "all peoples, nations, and languages" are used in royal communications from a human king to his human subjects (3:4, 7. 29; 3:31 [ET 4:1]; 6:26 [ET 6:25]; cf. 5:19. Yet the divine vision reveals that "all peoples, nations, and languages will worship him" (7:14). The book of Daniel consistently condemns worship of any person or thing other than the one true God. Thus the portrayal of the Son of Man in 7:13-14 is of a Messiah who is both human and divine. This matches the claims about Jesus in the NT both in respect to the use of this passage and in respect to the two natures in the Christ...Thus the Son of Man receives the same honor and worship that the Most High receives (see Jn 5:22-23). This is an implicit affirmation of the divinity of the Son of Man - God the Son, the second person of the Trinity (Daniel, Concordia Commentary, page 358-359, 384).
Nincsnevem, you have to read Young carefully. He's actually a Trinitarian, but his discussion takes lots of turns.
@Ninc,
I'll let you address your objections to Schäfer's and Collin's views with them. If, after drowning them in an ocean of loquacity you are able to convince them that they are mistaken, then be sure to let us know;-)
Hi Edgar,
Yeah, Trinitarians pile assumption on top of assumption shaped by anachronism.
For example, Daniel 7 says nothing about the “divine nature” of the Son of Man. As Larry Hurtado has pointed out, Jewish talk of God was primarily transactional, and, I would add, relational in character. Viewing the relevant texts in terms of divine ousia is anachronistic.
Many assert that because the Son of Man rides the cloud that this must mean that he’s God, yet that contradicts the text. The Son of Man rides the cloud, not as God, but as the representative of the holy ones, who are human beings. I like to illustrate it this way: The cloud is God’s preferred automobile, and in Daniel 7 God sends his Son on a mission that involves representing the holy ones, and, because of the importance of the mission and because this ride constitutes his Son’s coming of age, God hands him his keys and says: Take my car;-) This says nothing about the Son of Man’s ousia.
Notice what Darrell L. Bock had to say about Jesus’ claim to possess divine authority:
"Jesus’ blasphemy operated on two levels. 1) There was a claim to possess comprehensive authority from the side of God. Though Judaism might contemplate such a position for a Jew, the teacher from Galilee was not among the luminaries for whom such a role might be considered. As a result, his remark would have been seen as a self-claim that was an affront to God’s presence. 2) He also attacked the leadership, by implicitly claiming to be their future judge (or by claiming a vindication by him). This would be seen as a violation of Exod 22:27, where God’s leaders are not to be cursed. A claim that their authority was non-existent and that they would be accounted among the wicked is a total rejection of their authority. To the leadership, this was an affront to God as they were, in their own view, God’s established chosen leadership. Jesus’ claim to possess comprehensive independent authority would serve as the basis of taking Jesus before Rome on a socio-political charge, as well as constituting a religious offense of blasphemy that would be seen as worthy of the pursuit of the death penalty. In the leadership’s view, the socio-political threat to the stability of the Jewish people is an underlying reason why this claim had to be dealt with so comprehensively." (Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65), p. 236
Notice that Jesus’ claim to comprehensive authority from the side of God was a position that Jews might have been willing to contemplate for a Jewish man. The problem wasn’t that they thought that Jesus was thereby claiming to be God, but that “the teacher from Galilee was not among the luminaries for whom such a role might be considered.” Jesus' claim to possess authority from God does not imply anything about his ousia; rather, it implied that he rejected the authority of his accusers.
Part 1 – Serving of the Son of Man
About the question of “worship” of the Son of Man, I think that there are questionable assumptions that come into play, and that Jesus’ rebuke of Satan is often misapplied. To arrive at a correct understanding, which will be more nuanced than many are comfortable with, we need to incorporate the totality of what Scripture says on the matter.
Let’s consider a Greek word often rendered “worshiped” in four verses:
προσεκύνησαν – Matthew 2:11, 14:33, and 28:9
προσεκύνησαν – 1 Chron. 29:20
Notice that the same word was used in all four of these texts.
The action of reverential bowing, namely προσεκύνησαν, is indeed directed to Jesus in the three verses listed in Matthew, yet it is also directed to *both* God and his human king at 1 Chron. 29:20. Moreover, the reverential bowing at 1 Chron. 29:20 was clearly an act of worship. How do we know? Because it was a sort of 'amen!' gesture offered to God at the end of a prayer by the nation in recognition of his universal sovereignty. In my judgment, there is no context in which the nation would bow before God in recognition of his universal sovereignty as an amen gesture in which that act would not have involved worship.
Yet, again, when you look at the worship offered at 1 Chron. 29:20, you see something rather striking: The nation προσεκύνησαν *both* God and the king!
Here's the relevant Greek text:
προσεκυνησαν τω κυριω και τω βασιλει
προσεκυνησαν = “worshipped”
τω = the
κυριω = Lord
και = and
τω = the
βασιλει = King
worshipped the Lord and the King
Part 2 – Serving of the Son of Man
Margaret Barker explains:
"The people worship the LORD and the king. Any possible ambiguity is removed a few lines later when we are told: ‘Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king’ (1 Chron. 29:20, 23). In other words, the Chronicler says that Solomon was worshipped when the assembly worshipped the LORD and the king sat on the throne of the LORD. The form of the words is important: ‘They bowed down to the LORD and to the king.’ There is one verb but two direct objects, for the LORD and the human king…The king was the visible presence of the LORD in the temple ritual and Solomon’s enthronement was his apotheosis." (The High Priest and the Worship of Jesus, in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus), pp. 93-111
In light of such considerations, some scholars have suggested that the form of "worship" that could only be given to God and god alone was that of ritual sacrifice. Scholars James F. McGrath and Kenneth Schenck are representative of this thoughtful view. It is interesting to note that Jesus never received ritual sacrifice, because, according to the biblical salvation paradigm, he IS the sacrifice offered to God, not the God to whom the sacrifice is offered. While I agree with them to a large extent, I think that other actions could also be viewed as inappropriate, depending on the recipient. For example, Jesus rebuked Satan for asking Jesus to worship him. Why would reverentially bowing before Satan be out of the question while reverentially bowing before Solomon was allowed? Clearly, it’s because the reverential bowing before Solomon was done in recognition of his place as the king who sat on God’s own throne. In other words, such bowing before Solomon was an earlier example of the reverential bowing before Jesus, which Paul said is “to the glory of God the Father.”
Some might ask: What about the angel in Revelation who refused "worship"? The answer to that is clear enough to those who are willing to infer what is clearly implied by the available data: The angel didn't sit on God's throne! What Solomon and Jesus had in common was that in their own assigned timelines they would both represent God by sitting on his throne as king. The angel in Revelation did not share that critical function, and therefore rightly refused the "worship" when offered.
Though different words are used in Daniel 7, the paradigm is the same: The serving of the Son of Man is "to the glory of God the Father," and therefore is not inappropriate.
@Sean Kasabuske
In ancient Jewish thought, riding on clouds was a prerogative uniquely associated with Yahweh. For example:
"He makes the clouds his chariot." (Psalm 104:3)
"Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud." (Isaiah 19:1)
The depiction of the "Son of Man" coming "with the clouds of heaven" (Daniel 7:13) is a strikingly divine image. In no other context are non-divine figures described in this way. This is not "borrowing God’s car," as you humorously suggest—it’s an explicit identification of the Son of Man with divine prerogatives. The Son of Man is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom that is eternal and universal (Daniel 7:14). The Aramaic term “pelach,” translated as “serve” or “worship,” is used exclusively in Daniel for religious devotion directed toward God (e.g., Daniel 3:12, 3:18). The text states that "all peoples, nations, and languages" render this service to the Son of Man. This is far beyond what would be appropriate for a mere representative of humanity or an angelic figure—it denotes worship due to deity. While the "holy ones" in Daniel 7:27 receive the kingdom, their role is derivative. The kingdom is shared with them because they are united with the Son of Man, but the Son of Man uniquely receives eternal dominion and worship in verse 14. This hierarchy underscores his divine status.
In Mark 14:62, Jesus declares, “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” This is a direct reference to Daniel 7:13-14. The high priest immediately interprets this as a claim to divinity, accusing Jesus of blasphemy (Mark 14:63-64). If Jesus were merely claiming to be a human agent, there would be no grounds for this reaction. While Bock argues that Jews could theoretically accept the idea of a human agent with divine authority, the issue was the specific individual making the claim. However, Bock does not argue that Jesus' claims are limited to human agency. In fact, Bock affirms that Jesus’ claim to be the eschatological "Son of Man" implies divine prerogatives, such as ultimate judgment and dominion. The charge of blasphemy against Jesus was not simply about his rejection of the religious leaders' authority. The high priest understood that Jesus was claiming equality with God, which is consistent with the broader New Testament portrayal of the Son of Man.
While the concept of “ousia” (essence) was later articulated in Trinitarian theology, it reflects truths present in Scripture. Daniel 7 provides a foundation for understanding the Son of Man's divinity, which is clarified through Jesus’ teaching and the New Testament writings. Trinitarian theology builds on these biblical insights without imposing foreign ideas. You ignore the diversity within Second Temple Jewish thought. For example the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) describe a preexistent "Son of Man" who sits on God’s throne, executes judgment, and is worshiped by all nations. The Fourth Book of Ezra (4 Ezra 13) portrays a messianic figure with transcendent authority. These texts demonstrate that some Jews did contemplate a divine or quasi-divine Messiah, undermining the claim that such an interpretation is purely anachronistic.
The assertion that the Son of Man is merely “a representative of the holy ones” lacks textual and contextual support. The text distinguishes between the Son of Man and the holy ones. The Son of Man receives worship and eternal dominion (Daniel 7:14), while the holy ones receive a shared role in the kingdom (Daniel 7:27). This distinction highlights the Son of Man’s unique status. In John 5:27, Jesus states that the Father has given him "authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man." This authority is universal and ultimate, aligning with the divine role depicted in Daniel 7.
(1/2)
(2/2)
You highlight that the Greek word "προσεκύνησαν" is used in several contexts, including Matthew 2:11, 14:33, 28:9, and 1 Chronicles 29:20. While it's true that this word *can* mean "reverential bowing" or "worship," its meaning is determined by the context in which it appears. In Matthew 2:11, the Magi prostrate themselves before the infant Jesus and offer gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh). This act clearly echoes the Old Testament practices of worship directed to God (cf. Psalm 72:10-11; Isaiah 60:6), emphasizing Jesus' divine kingship. In Matthew 14:33, the disciples worship Jesus after He walks on water and calms the storm, declaring, "Truly you are the Son of God." This acknowledgment transcends mere reverence for an earthly king. In Matthew 28:9, the resurrected Jesus is worshipped by His disciples, further affirming His divine nature.
In contrast, 1 Chronicles 29:20 involves bowing before both God and Solomon, but the shared verb with two objects does not imply equal worship. The act acknowledges Solomon’s role as God’s anointed king, a secondary and derivative authority under God. Solomon was never considered divine. The critical difference is that the acts of worship directed toward Jesus in the New Testament consistently emphasize His divinity, aligning with the revelation of His unique nature as God incarnate. The worship of Solomon, on the other hand, never implied deity.
You attempt to parallel Solomon and Jesus, suggesting both were worshipped because they sat on God’s throne as representatives. While Solomon indeed sat on a symbolic “throne of the LORD” (1 Chron. 29:23), this was a temporary earthly representation of divine authority. Jesus, however, is declared in Scripture to permanently reign as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16), holding eternal authority over all creation. Daniel 7:14 describes the Son of Man being given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, with all peoples, nations, and languages serving (or worshiping) Him. The Aramaic word “pelach” used here is consistently associated with religious service to God in other biblical contexts (e.g., Daniel 7:27). The Son of Man’s role is not merely representative; it is uniquely divine. Jesus’ acceptance of worship in the New Testament further cements this understanding.
Your argument that Jesus does not receive ritual sacrifice because He *is* the sacrifice misses a crucial point. While Jesus is indeed the ultimate sacrificial Lamb of God (John 1:29; Hebrews 9:26), this does not negate His worthiness of worship as God. In Revelation 5:13-14, Jesus (the Lamb) is explicitly worshipped alongside God the Father: "To him who sits on the throne *AND* to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" Here, the Lamb receives the SAME worship as the One on the throne, demonstrating that Jesus shares in the divine identity and is worthy of worship as God.
The distinction between Jesus and the angel in Revelation is far more profound than merely sitting on God’s throne. The angel refuses worship because he is a created being, whereas Jesus accepts worship throughout the New Testament because He is divine (cf. John 1:1, John 20:28). The angel’s refusal underscores the uniqueness of Christ as the rightful recipient of worship.
While all worship ultimately glorifies God the Father (Philippians 2:10-11), this does not diminish the Son’s divine status. The unity of the Father and the Son in essence and will means that worship of the Son inherently glorifies the Father. The act of “proskynesis” (worship or reverence) toward Jesus in the New Testament is not mere homage. It is tied to His divine identity, as seen in Thomas’s declaration, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
“ but the shared verb with two objects does not imply equal worship.” - however in the lxx they are both in dative likely meaning honouring one is honouring the other..
I don’t know how dative and accusative constructions work in Greek.
Your full of trinitarian pre sumptions not a lot of evidence. and you are very selective just look on the most recent post on Jon 1:1…
“ However, this criticism does not account for the full scope of evidence.” - but you using the very dung beetle method you accuse JWs of and asserting your claims even when proven wrong is considering the full scope of evidence
Right tell me Ninc how is saying Isa 44:26 has nothing to do with just false gods , then quoting a writing from Tetullian who in the very same writing says what I have claimed all along.
Quote miner and selective citation aka dung beetle method
You suggest that because the LXX uses dative constructions for both God and Solomon, honoring one means honoring the other equally. While it’s true that dative case indicates indirect objects or beneficiaries of an action, the interpretation depends on context.
1 Chronicles 29:20 (LXX): “And all the assembly blessed the Lord God of their fathers and bowed their heads and did obeisance [προσεκύνησαν] to the Lord and to the king.”
In Greek, both “to the Lord” (τῷ κυρίῳ) and “to the king” (τῷ βασιλεῖ) are in the dative, indicating the recipients of the action. However, proskynesis (προσκυνέω), the act of bowing or doing obeisance, has a wide semantic range. In biblical usage, it often reflects worship when directed toward God, while indicating reverence or homage when directed toward a king or authority figure. The immediate context shows that while both are recipients of homage, the nature of this homage differs:
• The Lord: The assembly is blessing and worshiping Yahweh as the supreme God.
• The King: The assembly is paying homage to Solomon as God’s anointed ruler, not worshiping him as divine.
This distinction is crucial. Honoring a king does not equate to attributing divine status or equal worship to him. Similarly, in the NT, Jesus receives worship (proskynesis) in a divine context (e.g., Matthew 28:9, Revelation 5:13), which is fundamentally different from homage paid to earthly kings.
Trinitarian theology arises directly from the textual and contextual evidence of Scripture. For example Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth. This is affirmed by NT passages such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:10-12, which ascribe creation to Christ. If Christ is a created being, this directly contradicts Isaiah's declaration of Yahweh's solitary role as Creator. The consistent portrayal of Jesus as the recipient of worship and divine prerogatives (e.g., Revelation 5:13-14) underscores his divinity. These texts are not selectively chosen but represent the broader biblical narrative. Trinitarian theology is not "presumption" but the logical synthesis of the Bible’s teachings about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
You accuse me of selectively citing Tertullian while ignoring other parts of his writings. However, let’s clarify the context of his statements. Tertullian explicitly affirms the Son's role in creation as the divine Logos: “All things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made” (Against Marcion 2.19). He acknowledges the relational distinction between the Father and the Son while affirming their unity in divine essence: “He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone... meaning alone with His Son” (Against Praxeas 19).
The point here was that Tertullian does not support the idea that "alone" excludes "only false gods", but allows for the active participation of creatures in the creation, e.g. the JWs’ Michael-Jesus, since according to Tertullian the Son only fits into "alone" because he is "one" with the Father. And indeed: "alone" excludes the creative participation of any existing or potential existing being that is not the true God. Tertullian presents the Son as eternally begotten of the Father, fully divine, and active in creation.
Isaiah 44:24 declares Yahweh as the sole Creator, stating, “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.” You argue that this excludes “only false gods”, not created beings like Michael the Archangel. The emphasis on “alone” and “by myself” leaves no room for the involvement of any other being, created or uncreated. This directly contradicts the idea of Jesus or any other being as an intermediary in creation. John 1:3 harmonizes with Isaiah 44:24 only if Jesus shares in the divine nature as Yahweh. Your attempt to limit Isaiah 44:24 to refuting false gods ignores its broader theological implications, which affirm Yahweh's exclusive role as Creator—a role explicitly attributed to Christ in the NT.
Final thought: If the clause we find at 1 Chron. 29:20 were in Revelation, and Jesus were the king in view, Trinitarians would insist that Jesus there receives the full worship that could only be given to God.
About Isa. 44, Ninc is reading the ancient language through modern, Boolean +/- categories, yet the ancients had other categories.
The late Mike Heiser, himself a Trinitarian, did a nice job showing that "alone...by myself" language was used idiomatically in the ancient world to express, not absolute exclusivity, but incomparability. The personified cities of Nineveh and Babylon both used the same idiom to emphasize, not that they were really the only cities in existence, but that they were incomparable to all other cities.
Anonymous is correct that Isa. 44:24 is refuting the employment of false gods in creation. An architect may *alone* be the creator of a building yet employ brick layers to lay the foundation, etc. The brick layers and plumbers and electricians and painters and carpet layers, etc., aren't the creators of the building, though they had a hand in bringing it from the conceptual stage to its physical realization.
Paul's careful use of Greek prepositions rules out the notion that Jesus is the creator. Swiss Protestant theologian Emil Brunner and German theologian Eduard Lohse both clarified the result of this careful use of prepositions by Paul:
Emil Brunner:
"…the world, it is true, was created through — διὰ — the Son, but not by — ὑπo — the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator.” (The Christian Doctrine of God), p. 308
Eduard Lohse:
"It should be noted that ἐν (in), διὰ (through), and εἰς (for) are used, but not ἐξ (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the preexistent Christ is the mediator of creation." (A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Hermeneia Series), p. 50, footnote 125
Mozart alone created the wonderful composition Eine kleine Nachtmusik, and every orchestra that has performed it since was not the creator, but a tool used to bring it from the conceptual stage to its physical/audible realization. God is Mozart; the Son is His orchestra.
So, the person who became Jesus the Christ was God’s first created heavenly Son before his earthly sojourn, and this gave him special status in God’s heavenly family as his firstborn. This special Son was then used as the instrument, or master worker, through whom God proceeded to bring his creation from its ‘blueprint’ stage to its physical realization. He was subsequently used to bring about God’s ‘new creation’ as well, which seems most appropriate to me. This is biblical ‘high Christology,’ and I can’t help but smile as I look up at it and bask in the warmth of its radiant glow.
@Sean Kasabuske
1 Chronicles 29:20 clearly distinguishes between the nature of reverence given to God and the king. The assembly blessed Yahweh as God in worship, a unique act of devotion. The homage (προσκυνέω) paid to the king recognizes his role as God’s anointed representative, not as divine himself. In biblical usage, προσκυνέω has a wide semantic range, including worship of God and reverence for human authorities. Context determines the nature of the act: Worship directed toward Yahweh acknowledges His divine essence and sovereignty. Homage to Solomon reflects honor due to his God-given kingship but does not attribute divinity to him. If the clause in 1 Chronicles 29:20 appeared in Revelation, context would still govern its interpretation. The worship directed toward Jesus in Revelation is consistently framed within divine contexts (e.g., Revelation 5:13-14, 22:3), emphasizing His deity. In contrast, Solomon’s homage in 1 Chronicles 29:20 acknowledges human kingship under divine authority, not divinity. Revelation portrays Jesus as receiving the same worship (λατρεύω, latreuo) due to God:
Revelation 22:3: "His servants will serve Him (λατρεύω)." The "Him" refers to both God and the Lamb, who share the throne (Revelation 22:1).
Revelation 5:13-14: "To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!"
In these passages the Lamb is worshiped alongside God in a shared divine context, not as a subordinate being. The singular pronouns in Revelation 22:3 ("His servants will serve Him, and they will see His face") affirm the unity of the Father and the Son in receiving worship. This unity in worship reflects their shared divine essence. The Greek term λατρεύω (latreuo), which denotes sacred service exclusive to God, is applied to Jesus. You claim that Jesus only receives reverence akin to human homage. Instead, the worship of Jesus aligns with the highest form of religious devotion, which Scripture reserves for God alone.
Daniel 7:13-14 describes the "Son of Man" as receiving "dominion, glory, and a kingdom", AND universal service/worship from "all peoples, nations, and languages." The Aramaic term פְּלַח (pelach), used in Daniel 7:14, is consistently applied in the OT to worship or service directed toward God (e.g., Daniel 3:12, 3:18, 6:16). The Greek versions of Daniel reflect this. Theodotion’s Greek translation uses λατρεύω, emphasizing divine worship. The Son of Man’s reception of divine worship and eternal dominion aligns with the NT portrayal of Jesus as fully divine (cf. Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62).
The assertion that Trinitarian theology fabricated the divinity of Jesus lacks historical and textual support. The early church’s recognition of Jesus’ divine nature emerged organically from Scriptural exegesis, not external imposition. The use of λατρεύω for Jesus in Theodotion’s 2nd-century translation of Daniel 7:14 predates the Council of Nicaea, undermining claims of doctrinal bias.
The sarcastic claim assumes a false dichotomy. Either Jesus is worshiped exactly like Solomon in 1 Chronicles 29:20 (human homage), or worship of Jesus is illegitimate. However, the NT presents Jesus as uniquely divine, receiving worship that transcends mere homage and reflects His co-equality with the Father (Philippians 2:9-11, John 20:28).
You claim that the phrase “alone... by myself” in Isaiah 44:24 expresses incomparability rather than exclusivity, based on idiomatic parallels in the ancient world (e.g., Nineveh or Babylon as incomparable cities), misrepresents the Hebrew context. While it is true that some idiomatic expressions in ancient languages conveyed incomparability, the context in Isaiah is explicitly monotheistic and polemical against idolatry. The surrounding chapters (Isaiah 40–45) repeatedly emphasize the uniqueness of YHWH as the Creator and the futility of idols. For example, Isaiah 45:18 states, “I am the LORD, and there is no other.”
(1/2)
(2/2)
This context rules out an interpretation that allows for a secondary agent, even in an incomparable sense. The verse directly denies the participation of false gods, agents, or intermediaries in creation. This focus excludes the possibility of another being—angelic or otherwise—sharing in the creative act. Creation is presented as an act unique to YHWH’s divine nature. The Hebrew term לְבַדִּי (lebaddi, “alone”) is coupled with מֵאִתִּי (me'itti, “by myself”), reinforcing the notion of absolute exclusivity. This redundancy strengthens the claim that YHWH acted without assistance or delegation, making the idiomatic comparison to cities irrelevant.
The argument that Christ is merely an instrument or intermediary in creation, based on the use of Greek prepositions (dia, “through”; en, “in”; eis, “for”), fails to account for the broader NT testimony and the nature of divine action. While prepositions like “dia” (through) are used in passages like John 1:3, Col. 1:16, and Heb.1:2, they do not diminish Christ’s role as Creator. Instead, they affirm His active participation within the unity of the Godhead. The emphasis of John 1:3 is total dependence on the Logos for creation, not mere mediation. Colossians 1:16 specifies that all things were created “in Him” (en autō), “through Him” (di’ autou), and “for Him” (eis auton), showing that Christ is both the agent and the purpose of creation. In Hebrews 1:10–12, the Father attributes the creative acts of Ps. 102:25–27, which describe YHWH, to the Son. This explicitly identifies Christ as the Creator, not a secondary instrument. This interpretation aligns with Trinitarian theology, where the persons of the Godhead act in unity.
The claim that Tertullian supports the idea of a subordinate role for the Son in creation misrepresents his theology. In Against Praxeas, Tertullian writes, “He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone, but alone with His Son, EVEN AS HE IS *ONE* WITH HIS SON.” This statement affirms that the Son’s involvement in creation is not as a subordinate agent but as one who shares the divine essence with the Father. Tertullian presents the Logos as fully divine, eternally begotten, and co-creator with the Father. He does not depict the Son as a mere tool or instrument.
The analogy comparing God to an architect and Christ to a builder (orchestra and composer) misunderstands the nature of divine creation. Unlike human collaboration, where different agents contribute distinct roles, creation “ex nihilo” (out of nothing) is an act requiring infinite power and is inherently divine. Ascribing this act to Christ affirms His divinity rather than reducing Him to a subordinate role. Isa. 44:24 explicitly denies the possibility of any intermediary. Any participation in creation implies sharing in the divine essence, as Trinitarian theology affirms for the Son.
The argument that Isa. 44:24 allows for delegation in creation fails to account for the chapter’s broader monotheistic emphasis. Other passages in Isaiah reinforce the exclusivity of YHWH’s creative role. For instance:
Isa. 45:12: “IT IS I WHO made the earth and created mankind upon it. MY OWN HANDS stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.”
Isa. 48:13: “MY OWN HAND laid the foundations of the earth, and MY right hand spread out the heavens.”
The NT applies these descriptions of YHWH’s creative acts to Christ (e.g., Heb. 1:10, Col. 1:16), affirming His divine identity.
The appeal to Brunner and Lohse to argue that Christ is not the Creator conflates their discussions of prepositions with broader theological conclusions. Both theologians emphasize the relational roles within the Trinity rather than denying Christ’s divinity. Their use of “dia” to describe Christ’s role in creation aligns with His active participation as the divine Logos, not as a subordinate creature. The NT’s consistent ascription of creation to Christ outweighs philosophical interpretations of prepositions.
Postscript: Your housebuilding analogy fails because Scripture uses this very example:
"For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything." (Hebrews 3:4)
That verse doesn't demonstrate that my analogy fails; it merely demonstrates that you like to engage in invalid forms of proof-texting.
Invoke your basic reading function and read what I pasted in from Tettulian at the end of this thread..
“ Your attempt to limit Isaiah 44:24 to refuting false gods ignores its broader theological implications” it ignores YOUR theology, not the bibles and not Tettulians
Take notes:
"There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except “alone” from all other gods."
“ ". Indeed, if you only look carefully at the contexts which follow such statements as this, you will find that they nearly always have distinct reference to the makers of idols and the worshippers thereof, with a view to the multitude of false gods being expelled by the unity of the Godhead"”
The Godhead apparently has a son…
It was The Father ALONE who created through the Son...
The father is the creator, not the Son.
“• The Lord: The assembly is blessing and worshiping Yahweh as the supreme God.
• The King: The assembly is paying homage to Solomon as God’s anointed ruler, not worshiping him as divine.” - so it has a different sense in Rev when applied to the beast and it’s image?
I don’t think so - this is your own trinitarian invention - they both receive worship because worshipping the king would be worshipping God.
@Anonymous
In Against Praxeas, Tertullian explicitly affirms the Son's involvement in creation, while maintaining the unity of the Godhead. He writes:
• “By thus attaching the Son to Himself, He becomes His own interpreter in what sense He stretched out the heavens alone, meaning alone with His Son, EVEN AS HE IS ONE WITH HIS SON.”
Tertullian does not separate the Father and the Son in essence or authority but emphasizes their unity. The phrase "alone with His Son" reflects the Trinitarian understanding: the Father creates through the Son, but this does not imply that the Son is a subordinate agent. Instead, it affirms that the Son shares fully in the divine essence and the act of creation. Tertullian further states:
• “The Son is distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart, He is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one.”
This directly refutes the claim that the Son is merely an intermediary. Tertullian teaches that the Son is inseparable from the Father in essence and purpose. He affirms that the Son is fully divine and co-creator, consistent with the broader biblical witness.
• "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." (Isa. 44:24)
The emphasis on "alone" (Hebrew: לְבַדִּי lebaddi) and "by myself" (me’itti) highlights YHWH’s exclusive role as Creator. However, this exclusivity does not exclude the Son or the Spirit because they share the same divine essence as YHWH. The verse asserts monotheism, not a denial of the Trinity. The analogy comparing the construction of a building to creation misrepresents the specific claims of Isa. 44:24 and other relevant biblical texts. Isa. 44:24 does not merely state that God is the "architect" of creation. This passage eliminates the possibility of "helpers" in the act of creation. The emphatic language—“alone” and “by myself”—directly refutes the idea of God employing agents such as bricklayers or electricians in the process of creation. The text leaves no room for anyone else to share in the work of bringing creation into existence. Heb. 3:4 provides a theological principle: God is the ultimate builder of all things. If God alone is the builder, as Isa. 44:24 asserts, then no one else—including false gods, angels, archangels, demiurges, or any kind of subordinate beings—can share in His creative work. This aligns with the scriptural testimony that Christ, as fully divine, participates uniquely in creation.
You argue that the Son is a mere instrument of creation, subordinated to the Father. This claim misunderstands both the biblical text and Trinitarian theology. In John 1:3 the Greek preposition “dia” does not imply that the Son is a passive instrument. Instead, it emphasizes the relational distinction within the Trinity. The Father is the source of creation, but the Son is the agent through whom creation occurs. This does not diminish the Son’s divinity or role as Creator. In Col. 1:16-17 the phrase “eis auton” emphasizes the Son’s sovereignty and ultimate purpose in creation. The text explicitly describes the Son as the Creator, not a mere intermediary.
Heb. 1:10 applies Ps. 102:25-27 to the Son: "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands." This directly identifies the Son as YHWH, the Creator. The language of Ps. 102, which describes YHWH’s eternal sovereignty, is applied unambiguously to the Son. This reinforces the Trinitarian understanding that the Father and Son act in perfect unity as one God. The NT, which repeatedly ascribes creation to the Son. John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17, and Heb. 1:10-12 affirm that the Son is the active Creator. These passages do not depict the Son as a mere tool but as fully divine, sharing in the Father’s creative work.
(1/2)
(2/2)
You mention Revelation and suggest that worshiping the beast or its image parallels worshiping the Lamb and the one who sits on the throne. However, this fails to account for the fundamental distinction in the nature and purpose of the worship described in Revelation.
• Rev. 13:4: “They worshiped (proskynesan) the dragon, because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped (proskynesan) the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?’”
Here, worship is directed toward entities in opposition to God. It is described in a negative sense, showing allegiance to the beast and the dragon as symbols of rebellion against the true God.
• Rev. 5:13-14: "To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever!"
This worship of God and the Lamb is entirely different. It reflects adoration and glorification of the one true God and His divine Son, who share the throne (Rev. 22:1-3). This worship is described positively, as the rightful homage due to God alone. In Rev., worshiping the beast is idolatry, directed toward a false power. Worshiping the Lamb is true worship, as He is united with God’s divine essence. The context clarifies whether worship is valid (divine) or invalid (idolatrous).
Your claim that "worshiping the king would be worshiping God" is not biblically supported in the same way you propose. In 1 Chron. 29:20, two distinct recipients are described:
• Yahweh: Worshiped as the sovereign God.
• Solomon: Revered as the anointed king, but NEVER worshiped as divine.
While kings in Israel were considered God’s anointed representatives, the Bible consistently differentiates between homage to human leaders and worship reserved for God. For example:
• Ps. 2:11-12: "Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son, lest he be angry…"
The homage given to the king (“kiss the son”) is distinct from serving Yahweh with reverence. The "son" is not equated with Yahweh but is His representative.
In Dan. 3:18 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's image, saying, "We will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."
This refusal underscores the biblical principle that worship belongs exclusively to God, even if homage to earthly kings was customary. Even if kings sat on "the throne of the LORD" (1 Chron. 29:23), it did not make them divine. Their authority was always derivative, never ontological. Worshiping God through the king (as His representative) does not mean the king is God. In contrast, Jesus is explicitly worshiped in the NT as divine, not merely as a representative of God (Matt. 14:33, John 20:28, Rev. 5:13-14). While Israelite kings were honored as God’s representatives, the worship of Jesus in the NT is directed at Him as fully divine, sharing God’s nature.
Your comparison to the beast in Revelation fails to account for the distinct use of terms like "pelach" in Daniel and their Greek translations (e.g., latreuo and douleuo). In Dan. 7:14, the "Son of Man" receives dominion, glory, and service/worship from all peoples, nations, and languages. The Aramaic term “pelach” used here consistently denotes worship/service rendered to a deity in other contexts (e.g., Dan. 3:12, 6:16). In Rev. 13:4, the beast receives illegitimate worship (proskynesis), which aligns it with false, idolatrous worship. However, this does not negate the valid, divine worship rendered to the "Son of Man" in Daniel or the Lamb in Revelation. The worship given to the "Son of Man" in Daniel and the Lamb in Revelation is described in contexts of divine authority and eternal dominion, attributes exclusive to God. The worship of the beast, in contrast, is described as idolatry.
Irenaeus of Lyons, in his seminal work Against Heresies (I 22, 1; II 2, 4; IV 20, 1.), strongly refutes the idea that angels or any other beings had a role in the creation of the world. Through a systematic critique of heretical claims, Irenaeus defends the doctrine that God alone, through His Word and Spirit, is the Creator of all things. Drawing from scripture and reason, he dismantles alternative cosmologies and affirms the absolute sovereignty and sufficiency of God in creation.
Irenaeus emphasizes that the creation of the universe was not a collaborative effort involving angels or other beings. He cites scriptural passages such as John 1:3, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made," to underline that all of creation, visible and invisible, was brought into being solely by God. He rejects the notion that angels could have participated in creation, arguing that God, being omnipotent and self-sufficient, requires no assistance. As he asserts:
"God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined... as if He did not possess His own hands."
God's Word (the Son) and Wisdom (the Spirit) were present with Him in the act of creation, not as external helpers but as integral expressions of His divine nature.
Irenaeus counters heretical claims that angels or lesser powers could have created the world, whether in cooperation with or opposition to God. He notes the absurdity of attributing such a monumental act to beings inherently inferior to the Creator. According to Irenaeus, suggesting that angels created the world implies either a deficiency in God’s power or a delegation of His divine prerogatives, both of which are incompatible with the biblical portrayal of God's sovereignty. He uses logic to refute these claims, stating that if angels operated within God’s domain, their actions could not be contrary to His will. If they acted outside His domain, it would imply the existence of a power greater than God, which is impossible.
Irenaeus points out that attributing creation to angels diminishes the grandeur and unity of God's creative act. He argues that God is not like a human craftsman who requires tools or intermediaries. Instead, He "freely and spontaneously" brought all things into existence by His Word and Spirit. This view not only underscores God’s omnipotence but also reinforces the intimate relationship between God and His creation. Furthermore, Irenaeus identifies the heretical teaching of angelic creation as a denial of the centrality of God in salvation history. By detaching creation from God's direct action, heretics undermine the coherence of the biblical narrative, which begins with God’s act of creation and culminates in His redemptive work through Christ.
Irenaeus appeals to scripture, including Genesis 1:1 and Psalm 33:6, to affirm that God alone created the heavens and the earth. He highlights the declaration of the apostles, particularly Paul, who stated, "There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all." By aligning his arguments with scripture, Irenaeus reinforces the authority of the apostolic tradition over speculative theories.
For Irenaeus, the doctrine of God as the sole Creator is foundational to the Christian faith. He asserts that all things—spiritual and material—originate from God, who "bestows harmony on all things, assigning them their own place." By rejecting the involvement of angels or other beings in creation, Irenaeus preserves the unity and majesty of God’s creative act, affirming that only He, through His Word and Spirit, is the Author of all existence. Irenaeus’ defense serves as a cornerstone for orthodox Christian theology, maintaining that creation is not a fragmented or divided act but a testament to the singular power and glory of God.
Once again Ninc is being highly selective in his citations to suit HIS theological agenda while trying to claim it is not only his theology (it quite literally is, Its Ninc trinitarianism - some claims he has made I can find in NO other academic article or journal and until Ninc can explain why he such an expert, I will believe EVERYONE over him.)
For starters while it is true theodotion's translation is before Nicea (as far as I know) it is also known as one of the hyper literal translations - and λατρεύω has a range in meaning as can be seen by other translations.
He omits to mention multiple things including but not limited too:
Tetullians use of the words "one" and "essence"
- use of old refuted "trump card" arguments
(They arent - they are made up by Ninc to suit his agenda... not actaul scholarship else he would know there arguments were abandoned years ago)
i.e Revelations interesting grammatical construction and that the Lamb is only in the midst of throne not on it.
The Lamb is also suddenly God... according to Ninc, not John - else John could have just said "God" like he does else where to imply the Trinity (apparently)
- Rev 22:1 says nothing of God and the Lamb "sharing the throne"
The Lamb is NEVER said to be "On the throne"
- Rev 22:3 the "αὐτῷ " is singular likely referring to God (on the throne)
The verb is plural because the subject of it is plural - However the pronoun is singular meaning it refers to a singular antecedent (since there are 2 possible subjects defined)
Greek verbs and antecedents MUST agree in with regards to number - unless otherwise defined in the context (which is absent here).
So Ninc, you are here being willfully ignorant to suit a theological agenda - not credible scholarship coming from someone who claims to do so.
(Can someone that is NOT Ninc add anything I have missed plz)
Ninc: please cite where a singular pronoun refers to plural subjects in koine Greek, that is CONFIRMED by atleast 3 reputable Greek experts (Who are not trinitarians)
Hint: this is pretty much impossible, because its not how koine Greek works
Suddenly this (theo's) translation is important - but when I pointed out Aquila's translation earlier and other 1 off variants they don't matter.... Why? (people always accuse of what they do themselves)
my guess: mine don't suit a certain theological agenda.
This is while Edgar is ending blogging (which is a huge shame)
I still advocate for Ninc's permanent ban from this blog due to this reason. (He is def never welcome if I ever start one.)
Tertullian does not say the Son is eternally generated.
Secondly, he writes:
For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: My Father is greater than I. In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being a little lower than the angels. Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.
Nincsnevem, do you agree with Against Marcion 2:27 (Tertullian)? He writes:
that Godhead against which you make the participation in human qualities a reproach? Now we believe that Christ did ever act in the name of God the Father; that He actually from the beginning held intercourse with (men); actually communed with patriarchs and prophets; was the Son of the Creator; was His Word; whom God made His Son by emitting Him from His own self, and thenceforth set Him over every dispensation and (administration of) His will, making Him a little lower than the angels, as is written in David. In which lowering of His condition He received from the Father a dispensation in those very respects which you blame as human; from the very beginning learning, even then, (that state of a) man which He was destined in the end to become.
I wonder what Ninc will do once Edgar's blog is closed. S/he is obsessed with JWs and arguing with us, so much so that s/he drowns discussions here in counterarguments, s/he followed Roman to his blog to argue with him, s/he almost certainly *tried* to argue with me on my blog, etc. Poor Ninc may suffer withdrawal symptoms come January!
My recommendation to Ninc: Find a healthier way to spend your copious quantities of free time.
@Anonymous
Theodotion’s translation is indeed literal, which is exactly why it is significant. Literal translations aim to preserve the semantic nuances of the original text, including the use of words like λατρεύω, which in biblical contexts often carries the connotation of worship offered to God alone (cf. Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:8). Its application to the Lamb in Revelation 22:3 is not a casual theological assertion but a linguistic observation grounded in the broader scriptural use of the term. Your claim about alternative meanings for λατρεύω is vague. If you assert that the word has a broader range, it is your responsibility to provide examples where λατρεύω does not refer to divine worship, especially in biblical contexts.
You claim that using Theodotion’s translation is “convenient” (?) for Trinitarian theology while rejecting other sources like Aquila. This misrepresents the methodology. Theodotion is cited because his literal style supports the argument for the divine worship. If Aquila’s translation does not support your position, it may be due to the context and theological agenda behind his translation (e.g., his rejection of Christian interpretations). The selection of sources is not about bias but about the relevance and reliability of the evidence.
You dismiss Tertullian’s use of terms like "one" and "essence" as if they are irrelevant or misleading. This is historically and theologically inaccurate. Tertullian, writing in the 3rd century, is one of the earliest theologians to articulate the concept of God as una substantia, tres personae ("one substance, three persons"). While he does not use the term "Trinity" as it would later develop at Nicaea, his writings clearly prefigure the orthodox doctrine. If you claim his usage is invalid, you must provide historical and linguistic reasons to dismiss his terminology.
You argue that Revelation does not explicitly state that the Lamb is on the throne. This is incorrect for several reasons. Revelation 22:1 and 22:3 describe the throne of God and the Lamb in a way that strongly implies shared authority and dominion. The imagery in Revelation repeatedly presents the Lamb as central to divine worship (cf. Revelation 5:13-14). The text does not present the Lamb as separate from God in status or role. αὐτῷ in Revelation 22:3 is indeed singular, but it does not necessarily exclude the Lamb. The singular pronoun can function inclusively when referring to a collective subject, particularly in contexts where unity is emphasized (as is the case with God and the Lamb). Your assertion that Greek pronouns must always correspond to a single antecedent unless explicitly stated otherwise is overly rigid and inaccurate. Singular pronouns can indeed refer to collective subjects, particularly when the subjects are united in action or identity. For example, in Revelation 22:3, the use of λατρεύουσιν (plural verb) indicates that worship is directed toward both God and the Lamb. The singular pronoun αὐτῷ emphasizes their unity in receiving this worship. This is not an unusual construction in Koine Greek, especially in theological contexts that highlight the unity of divine action.
Resources for you:
* https://tinyurl.com/yzxte57c
* https://t.ly/g9Mir
* https://tinyurl.com/pwd8ue5e
* https://t.ly/23UXK
@Edgar Foster
The claim that Tertullian does not assert the eternal generation of the Son is incorrect. Tertullian indeed discusses the concept of the Son being generated, but his language reflects a pre-Nicene theological vocabulary that was still developing precise terminology. It is anachronistic to equate his phrasing with Arianism, which asserts the Son was a creature who came into existence in time. Tertullian articulates a Trinitarian theology that upholds the distinction and relationship between the Father and the Son, but without diminishing the Son's divine nature or eternity.
While Tertullian speaks of the Son as a "derivation and portion of the whole" (derivatio totius et portio), he does so to underscore the relational distinction between the Father and the Son within the "economia" of salvation, not to imply inferiority in nature or essence. Tertullian’s term "derivatio" must be understood within the context of classical theology. "Derivatio" does not imply creation or temporal beginning but rather an emanation or procession within the Godhead. So the "derivation" language refers to the Son's relational origin, not a diminution of His divine nature. Tertullian explicitly denies any division or inequality in substance.
This aligns with Tertullian's commitment to the indivisibility of the divine substance: "inseparatos ab alterutro patrem et filium et spiritum testor" ("I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other"). The phrase "a quo et minoratus canitur in psalmo, Modicum quid citra angelos" ("of whom it is sung in the psalm, 'a little lower than the angels'") refers not to the Son's eternal nature but to His incarnate state as described in Psalm 8. This reflects His temporary humility in taking on human nature, not a diminution of His divine status.
Tertullian quotes John 14:28 to affirm the relational distinction between the Father and the Son in the economy of salvation. He writes: "Pater enim tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio." ("For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole.") This statement, far from being Arian, reflects a nuanced Trinitarian understanding. The Father is the "source" of the Son within the relational hierarchy of the Godhead (a concept later clarified by the Nicene term "eternally begotten"). However, this "derivation" or "portion" does not compromise the equality of substance (homoousios) between the Father and the Son. Instead, it distinguishes their persons (distinctio) without implying division (separatio) or inequality.
The Arian claim that the Son is a lesser deity or a created being finds no support in Tertullian. Consider the following points from the text: "Non tamen diversitate alium filium a patre sed distributione, nec divisione alium sed distinctione" ("The Son is not different from the Father by diversity, but by distribution; not by division, but by distinction"). This explicitly denies Arian subordinationism. Tertullian upholds that the Father and Son are distinct persons, yet share one indivisible divine substance. This is incompatible with the Arian belief in a created and ontologically subordinate Son.
Tertullian emphasizes the unity of the divine substance: "Inseparatos ab alterutro patrem et filium et spiritum testor" ("I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other"). The inseparability and shared divine essence of the Father, Son, and Spirit exclude any notion of Arianism. The Son is fully God, sharing in the divine essence, while maintaining a personal distinction from the Father.
Tertullian wrote in the context of combating modalism, which conflated the persons of the Trinity into one. His polemic against Praxeas focuses on maintaining the distinctions within the Trinity without dividing the divine essence. The statements you cite reflect this anti-modalist concern, not an endorsement of subordinationism or Arianism.
@Edgar Foster
Tertullian’s statement that God made His Son by "proferendo filium fecit" ("emitting Him as the Son") does not imply a temporal creation. The Latin "proferendo" carries the sense of a relational derivation, consistent with eternal generation in Trinitarian theology, rather than a temporal or created origin. Tertullian is emphasizing that the Son shares the divine essence of the Father. The term "proferendo" aligns with the concept of the Son being of the Father’s substance, eternally begotten, not made or created. This is far removed from Arian Christology, which posits that the Son was created ex nihilo and is ontologically inferior to the Father. The Son’s derivation from the Father is central to Tertullian’s anti-modalist argument: the Son is distinct from the Father as a person but remains inseparable and co-eternal with Him. This is further evidenced by Tertullian’s assertion in Against Praxeas: "Inseparatos ab alterutro patrem et filium" ("The Father and the Son are inseparable from each other").
The phrase "diminuens illum modico citra angelos" ("making Him a little lower than the angels") refers to the incarnation of the Son, not His eternal divine nature. This is explicitly stated in Tertullian’s discussion: "Qua diminutione... ediscens iam inde a primordio, iam inde hominem indutus, id esse quod erat futurus in fine" ("By this lowering, He began even from the beginning to learn that state of man which He was destined in the end to assume"). This “lowering” is a voluntary condescension by the Son in His incarnation, as described in Phil. 2:6-8: though He was in the form of God, He humbled Himself to take on human form. Tertullian affirms this as part of the "sacrament of man’s salvation" ("sacramentum humanae salutis"), emphasizing the salvific purpose of Christ’s humanity, not an ontological subordination within the Godhead. Tertullian distinguishes the roles of the Father and the Son but not their divine nature:
"In cuius auctoritate et nomine ipse erat deus qui videbatur, dei filius" ("In whose authority and name He was the God who appeared, the Son of God").
This passage highlights the Son’s role as the visible manifestation of the invisible Father, consistent with John 1:18: "No one has seen God; the only begotten Son... has made Him known." The Son’s visibility in no way detracts from His divinity but affirms His role in revealing the Father to humanity. The Father’s invisibility is not a mark of superiority, but a functional distinction in the economia of salvation. Tertullian does describe the Son as receiving a dispensation from the Father during the incarnation:
"Dispositus est a patre quae ut humana reprehenditis" ("He received from the Father a dispensation in those very respects which you blame as human").
However, this refers to the Son’s assumed humanity and His role in the economic Trinity, not an inherent subordination of essence. The distinction between the Father and the Son in the economy of salvation is consistent with orthodox Trinitarian theology. The ontological equality of the Son with the Father remains intact, as Tertullian repeatedly asserts their shared divine nature. Tertullian’s summary of Christ’s work undercuts any claim of Arianism:
• "Conversabatur deus humane, ut homo divine agere doceretur" ("God dealt on equal terms with man, that man might learn to act as God").
The Son’s condescension to human form is part of the divine plan to elevate humanity, not an indication of the Son’s inferiority. The humiliation of the incarnation is temporary and functional, rooted in the “sacramentum humanae salutis” ("the sacrament of human salvation"), a concept entirely incompatible with Arian theology, because this explicitly situates the incarnation in the context of a salvific mystery, where God Himself (not a created being) humbles Himself for humanity's benefit. Arian theology, which denies the full divinity of Christ, cannot accommodate this perspective because it would reduce the significance of the incarnation to the work of a creature rather than God Himself.
1) I never accused Tertullian of being an Arian, but for him, the Son is not God to the same degree that the Father is.
2) The passage from Adversus Marcionem is talking about prior to the "Incarnation. You even quoted the part where it speaks of the man he was to become and Tertullian is dealing with OT theophanies. The Son had not yet become flesh then.
3) The text in Adversus Praxean 9 speaks of the Son being inferior to the Father.
While Tertullian's language can appear to subordinate the Son to the Father, his Christology firmly establishes the Son's divinity. Tertullian clearly states that the Son shares the same divine essence (substantia) with the Father. This is evident in Adversus Praxean (Against Praxeas) 2 and 4. However, Tertullian distinguishes the Son’s role in the οἰκονομία (economy or divine arrangement) of salvation, which sometimes results in his language being interpreted as subordinationist. For Tertullian, the Son’s "subordination" is functional and pertains to roles, not to nature or essence. He uses analogies like the sun and its ray, or a root and its branch, to express the unity of substance but the distinction of persons. For example the Sun’s ray comes from the sun but remains part of it. Likewise, the Son is "God of God"—He proceeds from the Father but remains fully divine. Thus, while Tertullian does describe the Son’s obedience and derivation from the Father, he does not deny the Son's full divinity. This is far removed from Arianism, which denies the Son's eternal divine nature.
You are correct that Adversus Marcionem 3.9 discusses the pre-incarnate Word (Logos) and Old Testament theophanies. Tertullian’s explanation here is consistent with his overall Christology. The Logos existed eternally within the Father as His Reason (ratio) but was expressed as the Word (sermo) when God created the world. The Son, in Tertullian's thought, became fully distinct as a person (though not separate in essence) when the Word was "uttered" for the purposes of creation and revelation. In Old Testament theophanies, such as the appearance to Abraham or Moses, Tertullian identifies these manifestations as the pre-incarnate Son. These were not physical appearances in flesh but divine revelations. Tertullian clearly distinguishes these pre-incarnate appearances from the Incarnation, which occurred in the New Testament when the Word became flesh.
The passage in Adversus Praxean 9 that mentions the Son being "inferior" to the Father must be understood in the context of Tertullian's broader theology. Tertullian emphasizes the Son’s role as the mediator and agent of creation. He states, "The Father is greater than I," echoing John 14:28, to highlight the Son's role within the divine economy. However, this "inferiority" pertains to relational hierarchy and mission, not to essence or substance. Tertullian writes in the same text that the Son is fully God, sharing the same divine substance as the Father. The distinction between "greater" and "lesser" does not undermine their essential unity: "The Father is the whole substance, while the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole." This language is not meant to diminish the Son’s divinity but to explain the eternal relational order within the Trinity—Father as the source, Son as the emanation.
Sean
lets be real 90% of what Ninc mentions was pretty much dealt with in the "Stafford era" in the early - late 90s..
Its why no one takes the arguments too seriously...
the trinity doesn't exist - case closed. Ninc can come up with as many excuses as they want, just one verse that says the trinity exists would have been great or the incarnation - not philosophy blended with Christianity (see: "Trinity" in Brittanica and Catholic encyclopedia (so I cant be accused of quote mining))
Jesus being an archangel is revealed in multiple scriptures as they both raise the dead for one.
Jesus being God but only coming with the authority of an archangel is weird - Why not come with Gods authority?
(Vines Dictionary agrees with me - until Ninc proves he is on the same level - Vines auto wins and is far more convincing because actaul linguistical reasons that are not theologically motivated... mostly)
proven by former trinitarians aswell.
Daniel Wallace even said his opinions (he admits that his trinitarian reasoning is his OPINION - take note Ninc) are not to be taken seriously when it comes to his GGBTB book (in the foreward, atleast I think its GGBTB)
King Solomon was said to have built the temple (House of Yaho)
I can guarantee Solomon never laid a finger on a single brick or any cement or anything that went into that temple... the bible explicitly says so.
Solomon is the only the "foundation" or source (chosen by Yaho)
When Yaho said he led alone the Israelites out of Egypt - I gurantee also that never happened it was an Angel and Moses
Yaho is the only the "foundation" or source
When Yaho said he would destroy Judah "himself" and explicitly stated something similar to "with my own hand" did he? nope it was also someone else.
Yaho is the only the "foundation" or source
When I say "only" I mean Yaho didn't raise a single hand himself and have a "hands-on" role in these acts. Yaho is not "only" the foundation that role is important, the point, He didn't do it "himself" physically
Ninc is theologically motivated and will come up with ANY reason to dispute Jehovah's Witnesses, hence all the spam on other peoples blogs - I know of other places because its copy-paste and a reverse google search will reveal so. (The paste links are especially good for locating the footprints - I have found them all over the internet in similar style references, long messages on old archaic arguments)
Ninc I said credible scholars who are not trinitarian..... cant even answer a simple challenge.. pathetic
@Anonymous
"The Trinity doesn’t exist – case closed." - This statement is an assertion, not an argument. The doctrine of the Trinity is drawn from the entirety of Scripture, not from a single proof text. While the word "Trinity" is not explicitly in the Bible, the concept is derived from passages where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are revealed as distinct persons sharing the same divine essence (e.g., Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-3, 14; 2 Corinthians 13:14). Encyclopedia Britannica explicitly states:
"Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Vol. X, p.126)
"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has its ultimate foundation in the special religious experience of the Christians in the first communities." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 4, p.485)
The fact that the explicit terminology of the Trinity developed over centuries does not invalidate its scriptural basis. Historical clarification and theological articulation are not equivalent to invention. For example, the term homoousios (“of the same substance”) was introduced at the Council of Nicaea to counter Arian heresies that denied Christ’s divinity. This does not mean the concept of Christ’s divinity was absent earlier; rather, it formalized what the apostles already believed and taught. Early Christian writers like Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and Tertullian (long before Nicaea) affirmed the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
The claim that Constantine "invented" the Trinity is historically false. Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) to address the Arian controversy but did not dictate its conclusions. Scholars such as Ossius of Cordova influenced the theological discussions, and the bishops overwhelmingly supported the Nicene Creed affirming Christ’s consubstantiality with the Father. Britannica clarifies that Constantine's role was administrative, not theological:
"Constantine presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed, no doubt on Ossius' prompting, the crucial formula... 'of one substance with the Father.'" (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 6, p.386)
The council's affirmation of the Trinity was a response to scriptural truths, not Constantine’s invention. The Trinity doctrine is unique to Christianity and bears no meaningful resemblance to pagan triads. Pagan "trinity-like" structures (e.g., Egyptian gods Osiris, Isis, Horus) represent polytheism, where separate gods have distinct identities and roles. By contrast, the Christian Trinity is monotheistic: one God in three persons sharing the same divine essence. Early Christians, steeped in Jewish monotheism, would reject any resemblance to paganism. The Encyclopedia Britannica highlights the tension early Christians faced in maintaining monotheism while grappling with Christ’s divinity:
"The question as to how to reconcile the encounter with God in this threefold figure with faith in the oneness of God... provided the strongest impetus for a speculative theology." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 4, p.485)
This doctrinal tension demonstrates that the Trinity arose from the unique revelation of Christ, not external influences.
(1/4)
(2/4)
The JWs also selectively quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia's description of the Trinity as being formally defined in the fourth century, implying that it was "invented" at that time. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia explicitly states:
"This the Church teaches is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God came upon earth to deliver to the world."
By omitting this, they obscure the point that the Trinity is viewed as a divinely revealed truth present in Scripture and clarified through theological reflection over time. The Encyclopedia provides detailed Biblical support for the Trinity, including passages like Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:13, which demonstrate the unity and distinction of the three Persons. The JWs ignores these, focusing only on the historical process of doctrinal formulation. The JWs emphasizes the absence of the term Trinity in Scripture, quoting:
"In Scripture, there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together."
They omit the surrounding context, where the Encyclopedia discusses the development of theological vocabulary to express truths already present in Scripture. While quoting "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person," the Watchtower omits the broader explanation that the Old Testament prepares the way for the full revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia explicitly connects passages like Isaiah 9:6 and the concept of Divine Wisdom to the Trinity.
The Catholic Encyclopedia emphasizes the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, presenting robust defenses from Scripture (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, Matthew 28:19). These sections are left out, misleading readers into thinking the source undermines Trinitarian theology.
"Just one verse that says the Trinity exists would have been great." - The demand for a single verse explicitly stating the full doctrine of the Trinity misunderstands how biblical theology is revealed. Many core doctrines—such as the canon of Scripture or the alleged concept of "sola Scriptura"—are not stated in a single verse but are inferred from the whole of Scripture. Or is there a single Bible verse that proves the JWs' two-class salvation doctrine?
(2/4)
(3/4)
"Jesus being an archangel is revealed in multiple scriptures." - This claim is unfounded. No passage identifies Jesus as an archangel. While JWs interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9 to suggest a connection between Jesus and Michael, the Bible consistently presents Jesus as superior to angels (Hebrews 1:5-14, Colossians 1:16, Philippians 2:9-11) Raising the dead, as mentioned, is not unique to Michael. Jesus explicitly states in John 5:21-23 that He gives life as the Father does, asserting divine authority.
"Jesus being God but coming with the authority of an archangel is weird." - This is a straw man argument. Trinitarians do not claim that Jesus operates with the authority of an archangel. Rather, Scripture affirms that Jesus acts with the full authority of God (Matthew, John 10:30, Hebrews 1:3) Christ’s authority is divine, not derived from an angelic office. The suggestion that His actions are comparable to an archangel’s diminishes the biblical portrayal of His divine nature. The ability to raise the dead is attributed to Jesus as an act of divine authority, not as a function of being an archangel. Jesus doesn’t raise the dead through delegated angelic authority but by His divine nature as the Son of God. No archangel ever claims such intrinsic power (John 11:25-26, John 5:21-29). The phrase “to whom he will” demonstrates Jesus’ autonomous authority, which is inconsistent with the role of an archangel, who acts as a servant under God’s command. Archangels, being created beings, cannot impart life. In contrast, Jesus' ability to give life stems from His divine essence.
The phrase “with the voice of an archangel” in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 refers to the manner of Jesus’ return, not His identity. The phrase “with the voice of the archangel” indicates the authoritative and commanding nature of Jesus' return, not a reduction of His divine status. Just as a king might issue proclamations through a herald, the analogy emphasizes Jesus’ commanding presence over angelic forces. Scripture often uses metaphorical language to describe Jesus' authority, for example in Revelation 5:5 Jesus is called the “Lion of the tribe of Judah,” but this doesn’t make Him a literal lion. Similarly, the "voice of an archangel" does not make Jesus an archangel. It describes the majesty and power of His return. Jesus’ authority encompasses the entire cosmos, surpassing that of any archangel (Matthew 28:18). The “voice of an archangel” reflects His command over angels, not His identification as one of them.
The argument that Jesus would "come with God's authority" misunderstands the unity of the Father and the Son within the Trinity. Jesus exercises divine authority in perfect harmony with the Father. His actions are not "lower" but reflect His role in the divine plan of salvation. The Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal, yet distinct in their roles. The Son's role as the Mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5) reflects His divine mission, not a lesser status.
Revelation 12:7 describes Michael leading a heavenly battle, but this does not equate Michael with Jesus, Revelation 19:11-16 explicitly identifies Jesus as divine, distinct from any angelic commander like Michael. The prophecy of the "seed" crushing Satan is fulfilled in Jesus, not Michael. Jesus’ victory is rooted in His role as the divine Redeemer, not as a created angel.
(3/4)
(4/4)
"Vine’s Dictionary agrees with me." - Appeals to Vine’s Expository Dictionary or similar resources are not definitive theological arguments. Vine’s, while a helpful resource, does not represent the breadth of biblical scholarship. Additionally, even if Vine’s supports a particular view, the Bible itself must be the final authority. Claims about prepositions like “dia” (through) in creation passages (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) must be understood in context. The NT consistently affirms Christ’s role as Creator, not a subordinate instrument. Vine’s Dictionary does not assert that Jesus is an archangel. It defines "archangel" as "chief angel," a title applied exclusively to Michael (Jude 9). The phrase “voice of an archangel” in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is recognized as descriptive language, not a literal identification of Jesus as an archangel.
You provide examples where YHWH acted “alone” yet used agents like Moses or angels. However, these examples involve delegation, not creation ex nihilo.
Exodus 3:2-6: God used the angel of the LORD to appear to Moses, but the angel is often understood as a theophany (manifestation of God Himself).
Isaiah 44:24: The language here—"alone" and "by myself"—specifically excludes intermediaries in creation. The Hebrew text (lebaddi, me’itti) emphasizes exclusivity, ruling out delegation or assistance.
Creation is categorically distinct from acts of providence or judgment. Delegation in historical events does not imply delegation in creation, which is a uniquely divine act. In John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:10, Christ is explicitly identified as the Creator, not an instrument.
Comparing Solomon’s temple-building or Moses’ leadership to creation conflates human roles with divine acts. Solomon and Moses were human leaders chosen by God, but they did not possess divine power. In contrast, Jesus is described as the Creator of all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17), a role that requires divine omnipotence. These analogies fail to account for the fundamental difference between God’s creative work and human delegation.
"The Trinity is philosophy blended with Christianity." - This is a common but misguided claim. The doctrine of the Trinity arises from the biblical witness to God’s nature. Early Christians articulated the doctrine in response to challenges, using philosophical terms to clarify, not impose, meaning. Philosophy served as a tool, not a source, for theological reflection. Philosophical language like “substance” and “person” was used to defend these truths against misinterpretations, such as Arianism.
Okay, I have given Nincsnevem a chance to reply. I will only allow responses or rebuttals to Nincsnevem in this thread. So Nincs, no more posts from you in this thread. I think we've heard your perspective loud and clear.
These arguments are selective as always and fail to address anything I said.
Where does the bible say God could not use an agent in creation? 1 verse Ninc nothing else, 1 simple verse.
This is your OPINION not a fact…
And yes the other examples are comparable because God said he did them “alone”
Moses did acts that are exclusively divine.
So I am to believe you over 2 encyclopaedias that say the opposite? Why?
These rule out the that God accomplished creation with the assistance of an archangel:
Isaiah 44:24; 45:12, 48:13
Malachi 2:10
Job 9:8
Hebrews 3:4
I guess David didn't sin against Irish and other humans in view of Psalm 51:4. Funny that Second Temple Judaism allowed for the Logos to be involved in creation without the Logos being conflated with YHWH. According to Hebrews and John, God made the cosmos through the Logos. The former is the builder of all things: the Son helped his Father like a little child might do roofing with his/her Father.
Irish should be Uriah. Blame autocorrect.
I said could not, not did not
Where is the rule that is not your opinion?
Where does the bible say explicitly “God could not use an agent on creation”
Just one verse Ninc - like you want from the witnesses I want the same from you.
Tetullian agrees with me that isa 44:24 only rules out false gods - he’s says this explicitly…
And do you know what the Hebrew word “alone” can mean?
There is room for the actioned to use an agent.
Again we have other examples of God apparently doing stuff “alone”get used an agent.
God lead the Israelites out Egypt “alone” ( same word as isa 44:24 by memory)
Certain verses would rule out an agent… but hey he used an agent.
Elaborating on Edgars comment: same noun (a form of the same noun for clarity) appears in psalm 51:4 - so David only sinned against YHWH, no one else was wronged in this context... no one else at all.. nope
according to Benson:
"Which is not to be understood absolutely, because he had sinned against Bath-sheba and Uriah"
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/psalms/51.htm
according to Tetullian in regard to Isaiah 44:24
"There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except “alone” from all other gods." - the Son or agent not considered a competing God
and yourself have said "agent of creation"
"When read in context" also refute the idea of the context being absolute rather False Gods are in focus (as Tertullian states)
"if you only look carefully at the contexts which follow such statements as this, you will find that they nearly always have distinct reference to the makers of idols and the worshippers thereof, with a view to the multitude of false gods being expelled by the unity of the Godhead, which nevertheless has a Son" - The Godhead has a son? I thought the son was part of said Godhead?
I have previously quoted the entire thing in context... so you cant accuse me of quote mining ( + you have done it yourself)
speaking of context last time you quoted this exact writing you omitted to mention this part and other important parts.... you can never accuse anyone of dung beetle methods or quote mining ever again...
See also Isaiah 63:3
The Bible repeatedly emphasizes God's exclusive role as the Creator, leaving no room for any agent or intermediary, whether created or uncreated, unless that agent shares fully in the divine essence. The key verse, Isaiah 44:24, explicitly states:
• “I am the Lord, who made all things, who ALONE stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth BY MYSELF.”
The Hebrew words LEVADDI (“alone”) and ME’ITTI (“by myself”) exclude all participation, including that of created beings like angels. The verse is categorical, allowing no exceptions. To claim otherwise would contradict the plain meaning of the text. Unlike acts of providence, such as leading Israel out of Egypt, creation “ex nihilo” (out of nothing) is a uniquely divine act that cannot be shared without compromising God's sovereignty.
You wrote: "God said He did things 'alone,' yet used agents like Moses."
The comparison between God’s creative work and His acts of providence is flawed. Acts like leading Israel out of Egypt involve God’s delegation to human agents (e.g., Moses), but these agents never perform acts that belong exclusively to God, such as creation. Even when Moses parted the Red Sea, the Bible attributes the miracle to God's power, not Moses' agency (Exodus 14:21). In contrast, creation is consistently described as God's direct and sole work. For instance:
• Isaiah 45:12: "IT IS I WHO made the earth and created mankind on it. MY OWN HANDS stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts."
• Job 9:8: "He ALONE stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea."
These verses reaffirm that creation is an act God performs directly and without assistance. The attempt to draw a parallel between creation and acts of providence ignores the theological and ontological distinction between the two.
You wrote: "Second Temple Judaism allowed for the Logos to be involved in creation without being conflated with YHWH."
While some Second Temple Jewish texts (e.g., Philo) describe the Logos as an intermediary, these writings are not authoritative Scripture. Moreover, the New Testament identifies the Logos with Jesus and directly attributes creation to Him (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:10). These verses clearly present Jesus as the Creator, not as a mere agent or intermediary but as God Himself in action. This aligns with the monotheistic declarations of the Old Testament, which assert that YHWH alone is the Creator.
"Tertullian agrees with me that Isaiah 44:24 only rules out false gods." - Tertullian's writings, when read in context, do not support the claim that Isaiah 44:24 allows for the participation of a created being in creation. In Against Praxeas, Chapter 19, Tertullian explicitly states:
“He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone, but alone with His Son, even AS HE IS ONE WITH His Son.”
Here, Tertullian affirms the Son's role in creation, but only because the Son shares the divine essence with the Father. He does not depict the Son as a separate or subordinate being but as fully God. To claim that Tertullian’s reference to “false gods” leaves room for a created agent in creation is a misreading. Tertullian’s theology consistently affirms the Son's divinity and unity with the Father.
(1/3)
(2/3)
The passage from Tertullian in Against Praxeas (Chapter 19) does not support the argument that Isaiah 44:24 does not assert absolute exclusivity to the divine role in creation, nor does it align with Jehovah's Witnesses' claims that Jesus is merely a "master worker" or an agent (instrument) of creation subordinate to God. Rather, Tertullian’s text explicitly affirms the Son's divine nature and participation in the Godhead. Tertullian's commentary clarifies that God's "alone" in Isaiah 44:24 does not exclude the Son precisely BECAUSE the Son is not external to God. The Son is the eternal Word (Sermo) and Wisdom (Sophia) of God, coexistent and coeternal with the Father:
• "Erat ergo qui non solum Deum faceret, nisi a ceteris solum."
The translation you provided: “There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except alone from all other gods.” The original Latin text does not specifically mention either “false gods” or “other gods.” “Ceteris” (other, remainder, rest) simply refers to “others” or “all others,” and not specifically to “gods.” A more accurate translation would be:
“There was therefore one who made God not alone, except alone from all others.”
This text is NOT talking about false gods, but simply suggesting that someone (or something) made it possible for the Father to be non-alone, except in the sense that God is separate from all others. This allows for a more open interpretation and does not include the idea of “false gods” or any other specific reference. If you analyze the original Latin text, the insertion of “false gods” may have been more of an interpretive addition, not supported by the literal content of the text. Tertullian asserts that the "aloneness" of God excludes external agents or false gods, but it does not exclude the Son because the Son is intrinsic to God's essence. The Son is not "another god" but one with the Father, as the passage concludes: "cum filio solus, sicut cum filio UNUM" ("with the Son alone, as with the Son ONE").
Tertullian explicitly states that the Son is not a mere tool or separate being but God’s own Wisdom and Power:
• "Sermo autem, virtus et sophia, ipse erit Dei Filius." ("Now this Word, the Power, and the Wisdom, must be the very Son of God.")
The Son is identified as God’s Wisdom (Sophia) and Word (Logos), not as an external instrument but as God's own essence expressed in action. Tertullian emphasizes that creation was accomplished by the Father through the Son, indicating their united activity and shared essence, not a hierarchical separation.
You claim that the phrase "alone" in Isaiah 44:24 demonstrates that God created without a co-equal, consubstantial partner, but Tertullian explicitly denies this interpretation, affirming the unity of the Father and the Son:
• "Proinde et Filii erit vox, Extendi caelum solus, quia sermone caeli confirmati sunt." ("Accordingly, it is also the Son's voice, 'I have stretched out the heavens alone,' because the heavens were established by the Word.")
Tertullian attributes the creative act not only to the Father but also to the Son, stating that the Son ministered to the Father's work while being one with Him. This statement directly contradicts the idea that the Son is an external agent, separate from God's essence. Tertullian repeatedly affirms the Son's co-equality and unity with the Father:
• "Igitur si propterea eundem et Patrem et Filium credendum putaverunt ut unum Deum vindicent, salva est unio eius qui, cum sit unus, habet et Filium." ("Therefore, if they have determined that the Father and the Son must be regarded as one and the same to vindicate the unity of God, the unity of His [Godhead] is preserved intact, for He is one, and yet He has a Son.")
(2/3)
(3/3)
Tertullian argues that the unity of God remains intact precisely BECAUSE the Son shares the same divine essence with the Father. The Son is distinct in person but not in substance, a foundational element of Trinitarian theology. Your interpretation of Isaiah 44:24 as supporting a created or subordinate Son contradicts Tertullian’s explanation. The Son is not an external agent, such as an angel (e.g., Archangel Michael), but God Himself:
• "In ipso tamen et cum illo universa compingebat non ignorante quid faceret." ("In Him, at any rate, and with Him, did [Wisdom] construct the universe, He not being ignorant of what She was making.")
The Son possesses divine knowledge and acts with the Father, which excludes any notion of subordination or external agency.
So Tertullian's Against Praxeas explicitly affirms that the Son is coeternal, coequal, and of the same essence as the Father. The Son is not a subordinate or external agent but is God’s own Wisdom and Word. Isaiah 44:24, when interpreted in its proper context and through Tertullian's explanation, supports the unity of the Father and the Son within the Godhead, aligning perfectly with Trinitarian doctrine and rejecting any notion of the Son as a created being or mere instrument.
"There is room for the action to use an agent." - Isaiah 44:24 explicitly excludes the possibility of any agent or assistant in creation. The repeated emphasis on “alone” and “by myself” rules out any secondary involvement. The notion that God could use a created being in creation contradicts the biblical portrayal of creation as a uniquely divine act. Isaiah 63:3, cited as a parallel, refers to God’s judgment, not creation. While God often uses agents in judgment or historical acts, this is not analogous to creation, which is presented as entirely God’s work.
"David sinned only against God in Psalm 51:4, yet harmed others." - This argument conflates moral responsibility with divine sovereignty. When David says, "Against You, You only, have I sinned," he acknowledges that his sin is ultimately against God, the supreme moral authority. This does not negate the harm done to others (e.g., Bathsheba and Uriah), but it emphasizes that sin, at its core, is a violation of God’s law. The verse does not imply that human sin nullifies God’s exclusivity in creation.
"The Logos acted as a child helping a father in roofing." - The analogy of a child helping a father trivializes the biblical portrayal of creation. The NT consistently attributes creation to Christ as the divine Logos, not as a subordinate or assistant but as God Himself. The use of prepositions like "through" (Greek: dia) in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 indicates Christ’s active role as Creator, not a passive instrument. Hebrews 3:4: "For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything." This verse underscores that God, including Christ, is the ultimate Creator of all things.
In conclusion, the argument that God "could" use an agent in creation is speculative and unsupported by Scripture. Isaiah 44:24 and related passages categorically exclude the participation of any being other than YHWH in creation. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Creator, affirming His divinity and unity with the Father. Attempts to portray Jesus as a created intermediary contradict both the Old and New Testaments, as well as the theological insights of early Church Fathers like Tertullian. The consistent biblical testimony is that creation is a uniquely divine act. Jesus’ role as Creator confirms His full divinity, not as a subordinate agent but as one with the Father in essence and action.
"I guess David didn't sin against [Uriah] and other humans in view of Psalm 51:4."
Right, just as there are so many exceptions to "all" in the Bible that one commentator was moved to ask where "all" EVER means "all without exception," so likewise the "alone...only...no other" language was often idiomatic, used comparatively rather than absolutely exclusively. One might say that "all" and "alone/only/no other" language constituted two sides of the same coin in the ancient world.
Mike Heiser has convincingly argued that such language, though seemingly exclusive, is actually comparative, and used to stress, not absolute exclusivity, but incomparability. He pointed out how the same sort of language is used of both Nineveh and Babylon.
As he put it:
“Phrases such as ‘there is no god besides me’…and ‘besides me there is no other’…do not deny the existence of other [ELOHIM]. This is readily demonstrated by the fact that the phrases occur in passages that presume the division of the nations and their allotment to other gods (e.g. Duet. 4:35, 39 [cp. Duet. 4:19-20] and Duet. 32:29 [cp. Duet. 32:8-9, 43]). This sort of phrasing is also used of Nineveh and Babylon, where the point cannot be non-existence, but incomparability (Zeph. 2:15; Isa. 47:8, 10).” (Monotheism and the Language of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls) p. 98, footnote 46.
Interestingly, we see this function twice in one text:
"Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." ~ Isa. 44:8
So the late Mike Heiser, himself a Trinitarian, acknowledged that texts in which God says that there are “no other gods” are not literally denying the existence of other ELOHIM, but are instead stressing God’s incomparability in relation to other gods, and at Isa. 44:8 that very statement is made in conjunction with God’s declaration that he is the only rock.
Now notice that 1 Sam. 2:2 actually uses comparative language in reference to God as the only Rock:
"...there is no Rock LIKE our God."
The clear sense of the text seems not to be that there is no other rock in existence, but that no other rock is “like our God.” In other words, the existence of other rocks is presupposed, and in relation to them “our God” is incomparable.
If we assume that the biblical idiom corresponds to our modern Boolean +/- or true/false categories, then we are sure to misunderstand a variety of biblical texts, including some that are favorite "proof-texts" for Trinitarians.
Thanks Sean. Great points and Isaiah 51:1 confirms what you said about 1 Samuel 2:2. See also https://www.patheos.com/blogs/leithart/2013/03/abraham-the-rock
Many Trinitarians concede that the doctrine is not as clear cut or as transparent as Nincsnevem claims.
I'm going to close this thread by 12:00 pm tonight, but I must say that reading George Hegel is easier than reading the Trinitarian stuff posted here 😀
The point might have been missed by our resident Trinitarian, but David did sin against humans too, not just God. The psalm is not saying that David only sinned against YHWH.
Crazy autocorrect: Georg Hegel
Something I discovered in 2001.
From Louw-Nida's Greek-English Lexicon:
On page 793 (volume I) under semantic domain 89.120, this source says the following about XWRIS in John 1:3:
"It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1:3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the creation was done 'through the Word.' If one must restructure Jn 1:3, it may be possible to say 'he was involved in everything that was created' or 'he
took part in creating everything.'
I thought this comment was interesting. It buttresses what others have already pointed about the use of the passive voice in Col 1:15-17 vis-à-vis the Firstborn of all creation.
@Sean Kasabuske
David’s statement In Ps. 51:4 highlights the ultimate nature of sin as an offense against God’s holy law. This does not deny harm to others, such as Uriah and Bathsheba, but emphasizes the divine moral authority that makes sin ultimately an affront to God. This analogy is not relevant to creation, as creation is categorically unique as an act of divine omnipotence. Unlike moral acts, which involve multiple agents and spheres of responsibility, creation “ex nihilo” (out of nothing) is an act that requires infinite power and can only originate from God (Isa. 44:24). This divine act is not analogous to human moral responsibility.
Mr. Foster claims that Second Temple Judaism allowed for the Logos to be involved in creation without conflating the Logos with Yahweh. However, Philo’s concept of the Logos, as an intermediary, is not reflective of OT theology. Jewish monotheism during this period emphasized YHWH’s exclusive role as Creator (e.g., Isa. 44:24, Ps. 33:6). The Logos in Christian theology is not an intermediary creature but God’s own Word, fully divine and eternally begotten (John 1:1-3). John’s Gospel identifies the Logos (the Word) as God, emphasizing both distinction of persons and unity of essence (John 1:1). The Logos is not subordinate but acts as the Creator alongside the Father, in perfect unity (John 1:3, Col. 1:16).
Your response, relying on Heiser, argues that Isaiah’s language is idiomatic, stressing incomparability rather than absolute exclusivity. However, the repeated use of "alone" (לְבַדִּי, levaddi) and "by myself" (מֵאִתִּי, me’itti) underscores not merely YHWH’s incomparability but His solitary role in creation. The passage explicitly denies any assistance or delegation in the act of creation, which is unique to God. While some passages use comparative language (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:2: "There is no rock like our God"), Isa. 44:24 is not among them. The phraseology of “alone” and “by myself” precludes participation by any being, created or uncreated, unless that being shares YHWH’s essence. Creation “ex nihilo” is ontologically distinct from acts like judgment or providence. Creative activity requires infinite power, which cannot be delegated to or shared with a finite being. This theological principle aligns with the categorical language of Isa. 44:24. Aquinas argues that creation is an act of God’s infinite power, which cannot be delegated to a finite being (ST I.45.5). The Son, as God, fully participates in creation by virtue of His consubstantiality with the Father.
The response cites Heiser to argue that “alone” and “no other” language in Isa. reflects incomparability rather than exclusivity. While Heiser’s insights into “divine plurality” in Second Temple Judaism are valuable, his argument about comparative language does not apply to Isa. 44:24. The verse explicitly addresses creation, a divine act that cannot involve others without compromising YHWH’s unique sovereignty. Heiser’s acknowledgment of other “elohim” (actually: might ones, spiritual beings [=angels], not “gods” in proper, henotheistic sense) does not negate YHWH’s exclusive role as Creator. Heiser’s broader work on divine plurality does not diminish the exclusivity of YHWH’s creative role or support the idea of the Logos as a subordinate agent. Instead, it underscores the incomparability of YHWH, which the NT applies to the Logos, affirming His deity. Isaiah’s polemic against idolatry (e.g., Isa. 44:8, 44:24) reinforces monotheism by contrasting YHWH with other “elohim” who are not creators.
(1/2)
(2/2)
Comparative statements about Nineveh or Babylon (e.g., Zeph. 2:15) do not parallel Isa. 44:24. The examples of Nineveh and Babylon use idiomatic language to describe their perceived superiority among cities, not acts unique to divinity. These analogies describe political or military superiority, not acts requiring infinite divine power. Creation „ex nihilo” is a divine prerogative that cannot be shared without compromising God’s uniqueness. Isa. 44:24’s “alone” and “by myself” leave no room for secondary involvement, unlike idiomatic expressions in Zeph. 2:15 or Isa. 47:8. The NT (e.g., John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:10) affirms that the Logos is the Creator. If creation were not exclusive to God, these affirmations would contradict Isa. 44:24. The argument conflates idiomatic expressions in non-creative contexts with categorical statements about God’s unique role as Creator.
While Heiser acknowledges the existence of lesser elohim (spiritual beings), he consistently affirms YHWH’s uniqueness in essence and sovereignty. In Isa. 44:24, the context is creation, which Heiser himself would recognize as an act unique to YHWH. The NT’s identification of the Logos as Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:10) aligns with YHWH’s exclusive role, affirming the Logos’ full divinity. Heiser’s broader work on divine plurality does not diminish the exclusivity of YHWH’s creative role or support the idea of the Logos as a subordinate agent. Instead, it underscores the incomparability of YHWH, which the NT applies to the Logos, affirming His divinity.
Your response dismisses the absoluteness of "all" and "alone" language, suggesting that such terms are idiomatic and comparative. However, In John 1:3, "all things" (Greek: panta) explicitly refers to all creation. The context of Colossians 1:16-17 ("things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible") eliminates any exceptions. Isaiah’s repeated assertions of YHWH’s solitary role in creation (e.g., Isa. 45:12, 48:13) reinforce the absoluteness of "alone" and "by myself." Isaiah 44:24 explicitly excludes the possibility of a subordinate agent. The NT identifies the Logos as Creator, affirming His full divinity and consubstantiality with the Father. These statements are not idiomatic but reflect the theological exclusivity of YHWH as Creator.
The analogy of the Son as a child assisting in roofing trivializes the biblical portrayal of creation and misunderstands the nature of divine action. Tertullian explicitly affirms the Son’s full divinity and role as Creator. In Against Praxeas 19, he states that the Father and Son act in perfect unity: “He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone, but alone with His Son, even as He is ONE [UNUM] with His Son.” Trinitarian theology maintains that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons but share one divine essence. This unity ensures that creation is the work of the triune God, not a divided or hierarchical act.
@Edgar Foster
You appeal to Isaiah 51:1 and 1 Samuel 2:2 to suggest that the "Rock" imagery in Scripture demonstrates that exclusivity language about God is only comparative. Isaiah 51:1 uses the term "rock" metaphorically to describe Abraham as the source or foundation of Israel’s lineage: "Look to the rock from which you were cut." This passage is not a theological statement about the nature of God’s exclusivity as Creator or Redeemer. The metaphor is restricted to Abraham's role in salvation history, not divine ontology or worship. This does not parallel Isaiah 44:24, which speaks specifically about creation as a unique divine act.
1 Samuel 2:2 says, "There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God." This statement emphasizes YHWH’s uniqueness and incomparability, not a denial of His exclusivity. The “rock” metaphor in this context conveys strength, reliability, and salvation, attributes ascribed solely to YHWH. Any comparison to created beings or metaphorical rocks misses the theological exclusivity of YHWH as Creator.
The term “rock” in these contexts refers to God's strength, faithfulness, and provision. Although Abraham is metaphorically called a “rock” in Isaiah 51:1, it is in a derivative sense, signifying his role as the progenitor of Israel, not as a divine being. In 1 Samuel 2:2, God is the ultimate "Rock," distinct in holiness and unmatched in His being. The term "rock" applied to Abraham does not challenge the uniqueness of God but reflects how God worked through Abraham as His servant. To equate Abraham’s metaphorical designation with God’s absolute nature is a category error.
Unlike these metaphorical uses, Isaiah 44:24 explicitly addresses CREATION. The verse declares: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself." The use of "alone" (levaddi) and "by myself" (me’itti) excludes any creature, metaphorical or literal, from participation in the act of creation. Comparing this passage to metaphorical uses of "rock" conflates entirely different categories of divine action.
You argue that David sinned against humans too, not just God, and claim that Psalm 51:4 does not exclude others. Psalm 51:4 does not deny the harm David caused to Bathsheba, Uriah, or others. Instead, it acknowledges that all sin is ULTIMATELY an offense against God, who is the source of moral law. The statement emphasizes the vertical dimension of sin while not negating its horizontal consequences. This analogy does not apply to the context of divine creation in Isaiah 44:24. Sin involves multiple moral agents, while creation “ex nihilo” is a uniquely divine act requiring infinite power. There is no parallel between David’s sin and YHWH’s exclusive role as Creator.
@Edgar Foster
You appeal to Louw-Nida’s lexicon to suggest that John 1:3 implies the Logos is involved in creation but not as the Creator. However, the phrase “without Him” (chōris autou) categorically excludes any creation apart from the Logos. The Greek preposition “chōris” here emphasizes the indispensability of the Logos in creation, not subordination. The Logos is not a secondary or passive agent but the divine Word (John 1:1), fully God, actively bringing creation into being. While “chōris” can mean "apart from" or "without," the context of John 1:3 clarifies that it excludes the possibility of anything being created independently of the Logos. Louw-Nida’s commentary, as cited, tries to convey the participatory role of the Word, but the Gospel of John explicitly attributes the totality of creation to the Word. Far from suggesting a limited or secondary role, the phrase “all things were made through him” reflects the instrumentality and divine authority of the Logos.
The passive voice used in Colossians 1:16 ("all things were created") emphasizes God’s action through Christ. It does not imply Christ is subordinate but affirms His role as the Creator: "all things were created in Him, through Him, and for Him." The text explicitly describes Christ as the agent, locus, and purpose of creation, which only God can be. The Son is described as the agent through whom all things were created, whether visible or invisible. The use of the passive does not diminish His role but instead highlights His divine prerogative in bringing all things into being. The preposition “dia” (διὰ), meaning "through," does not imply subordination but indicates the Son’s active involvement as the Creator.
Isaiah 44:24 emphasizes that YHWH created “alone” and “by myself,” precluding the involvement of any created being. This theological exclusivity is reaffirmed by the New Testament’s identification of Jesus (the Logos) as Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:10). The Logos is not an external or subordinate agent but fully God, acting in perfect unity with the Father and the Spirit. The Thomistic understanding of creation underscores that creation “ex nihilo” requires infinite power, which belongs only to God. The Logos’ role in creation affirms His deity, not subordination.
I'm sorry Nincsnevem, but one may assert all day that Christ actively creates, but that is not what the NT teaches. We're supposed to believe that the passive voice suggests that Christ actively does X. Sorry, but that makes little sense to me. If someone says, "Quincy Jones produced some of his best work through James Ingram," would you think that Ingram actively produced music? From some prior things I've written:
ἐκ may also be used to speak about "the efficient cause, or agent from which any action or thing proceeds, is produced, or effected from, or by" (Spiros Zodhiates).
The data would thus indicate that when ἐκ is applied to the Father's activities at 1 Corinthians 8:6, it is describing His creative function, but Christ is the intermediate agent of creation.
In this regard, it would probably be worth one's time to reference the introduction of David Aune's three-volume commentary on Revelation. On p. CLXXIX-CLXXX of his introduction to volume I, Aune details the many uses of ἐκ in Revelation. The examples he gives for this Greek preposition are cases in which it signifies the action of a personal or impersonal agent: Rev. 2:9; 3:18; 8:11; 9:18. In my estimation, 2 Cor. 5:1 could be included as an example in which ἐκ describes a creation of God--a spiritual building in heaven.
As for διά, it seems difficult to construe the preposition as connoting that things were made by Christ in 1 Cor. 8:6 and Heb. 1:2; it is evidently more appropriate to understand διά here as suggestive of intermediate agency:
"Intermediate agency is normally conveyed by διά with the genitive. For example, God delivered the law to Moses by angels (Gal. 3:19) and John sent a message to Christ through his disciples (Matt. 11:2; cf. John 1:3; 3:17)" (Richard A. Young's Grammar, p. 91-92).
Dana-Mantey say that while "διά is occasionally used to express agency, it does not approximate the full strength of ὑπό."
They continue:
"This distinction throws light on Jesus' relation to the creation, implying that Jesus was not the absolute, independent creator, but rather the intermediate agent in creation" (D-M Section 109).
Here is the Isaiah Targum for Isaiah 44:24:
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who prepared you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, /stretched out the heavens by my Memra, I founded the earth by my might,"
@Edgar Foster
You argue that διά with the genitive in 1 Cor. 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2 indicates intermediate agency, reducing Christ’s role to that of a secondary or subordinate cause.
1 Cor. 8:6 states, "yet for us, there is one God, the Father, from whom (ἐξ οὗ) all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom (δι’ οὗ) all things are and through whom we exist." While ἐκ highlights the Father as the ultimate source or origin of creation, διά here denotes the means by which creation came into being. It does not imply subordination but demonstrates unity of purpose and function between the Father and the Son. The distinction is functional, not ontological.
Hebrews 1:2 declares that the Son is the one "through whom [δι’ οὗ] He also created the worlds." This aligns with the consistent NT witness that the Son is the agent of creation (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). The preposition διά does not diminish Christ’s role; instead, it affirms His instrumental function in creation as the divine Logos, fully participating in the creative act.
Richard A. Young and Dana-Mantey’s discussions about διά's nuances are helpful but incomplete without consideration of the theological implications. While διά often conveys intermediate agency in human contexts, its application to Christ’s divine role in creation must be understood within the context of His consubstantiality with the Father. The analogy to human messengers (e.g., John sending a message through disciples) cannot be directly imposed on the divine relationship between the Father and the Son.
You cite Spiros Zodhiates and David Aune to argue that ἐκ denotes the Father as the "efficient cause" of creation, suggesting that Christ’s role is subordinate. However, the complementary use of ἐκ and διά in 1 Cor. 8:6 reveals a harmonious, not hierarchical, relationship. In Trinitarian theology, the Father is often described as the source (ἐκ) of all things, while the Son is the instrumental cause (διά). This division of roles does not imply inequality but reflects the cooperative operations within the Godhead. Both the Father and the Son are fully divine, and their actions in creation are unified and inseparable (John 10:30).
The claim that YHWH created “alone” (Isaiah 44:24) does not conflict with the NT identification of the Logos as Creator. Rather, it emphasizes monotheism, affirming that all acts of creation are the work of the one God. The NT writers consistently identify Jesus as fully participating in this divine creative work (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17), underscoring His deity.
The passive verb in Col. 1:16 does not negate Christ’s active involvement; instead, it highlights that creation is ultimately God’s work, with Christ as the divine agent. The threefold prepositions (ἐν, διά, εἰς) affirm Christ’s central and comprehensive role: all things originate in Him, come into being through Him, and exist for His glory. This description is inconsistent with mere intermediate agency. John 1:3 explicitly states, "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him, nothing came into being that has come into being." The phrase “apart from Him” (χωρὶς αὐτοῦ) categorically excludes any creation independent of the Logos. This precludes the notion of the Logos as a passive or subordinate instrument.
Paul consistently attributes divine attributes and functions to Christ. For example, Phil. 2:6-11 describes Christ as being "in the form of God" and equal with God, yet humbling Himself for the sake of humanity. Col. 2:9 declares, "For in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." These texts affirm Christ’s full divinity and integral role in the Godhead. The distinction between the Father as the source (ἐξ οὗ) and the Son as the means (δι’ οὗ) does not undermine the unity of the Godhead. Instead, it reflects the relational dynamics within the Trinity, where the Father, Son, and Spirit operate inseparably.
Question: what is the difference between using διά with the accusative and genitive?
Nincsnevem, to answer your question, I will quote LSJ and its entry for dia:
B.WITH ACC.:
I.of Place, in same sense as διά c. gen.:
1.through, ἓξ διὰ πτύχας ἦλθε χαλκός Il.
2.throughout, over, ὤικεον δι᾽ ἄκριας Od.; δι᾽ αἰθέρα Soph.
II.of Time, διὰ νύκτα Il.; διὰ ὕπνον during sleep, Mosch.
III.Causal:
1.of Persons, through, by aid of, by means of, νικῆσαι διὰ Ἀθήνην Od.; διά σε by thy fault or service, Soph.: through, by reason of, αὐτὸς δι᾽ αὑτόν for his own sake, Plat.; διὰ τὴν ἐκείνου μέλλησιν Thuc.
2.of things, which express the Cause, Reason, or Purpose, δι᾽ ἐμὴν ἰότητα because of my will, Il.; δι᾽ ἀχθηδόνα for the sake of vexing, Thuc.; διὰ τοῦτο, διὰ ταῦτα therefore; etc.
BDAG would probably reveal something similar.
Edgar, that's consistent with what Emil Brunner and Eduart Lohse had to see (I already posted the quotes), the first of which said that Jesus is never called the creator, while the second explicitly states that the Father is creator while the Son is mediator of creation.
Specifically, I mean, what does it imply that διά is used in the genitive case for the Son, as opposed to the accusative?
I think it shows what the Father does by means of/through the Son. Of communicates intermediary agency like it does with the angels through whom Torah was communicated.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%AC
δῐᾰ́ • (diá) (governs the genitive and accusative)
[with genitive]
(causality)
1. through, by
2. (attested from 1st century BCE) out of (materials from which something is made)
[with accusative]
(causality)
1. thanks to, by aid of
2. because of
3. for the sake of
So what I'm trying to point out is that with the accusative case, there would be more of this "by the help of" auxiliary role, with the genitive case, "by" and "through" are not far apart, and Hebrews 1:10 also uses a specific active voice.
@Edgar Foster
While διά with the genitive often indicates intermediate agency in human contexts, its application to the Son in creation must be understood within the unique framework of Trinitarian theology. The Son’s role is not that of a subordinate or external intermediary, but of an integral participant in the divine creative act. The Father and the Son (along with the Spirit) share one divine essence and act inseparably (John 10:30).
Colossians 1:16 states that “all things were created in Him [ἐν αὐτῷ], through Him [δι’ αὐτοῦ], and for Him [εἰς αὐτόν].” The comprehensive language leaves no room for reducing the Son’s role to that of a mere intermediary. He is described as the agent, locus, and purpose of creation—roles that only God can fulfill.
The use of διά with the genitive in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2 emphasizes the Son’s role as the divine agent of creation. However, prepositions like διά are not ontologically determinative; they describe relational and functional roles rather than implying subordination. The Son is the means through which creation occurs, but He is not a separate or inferior cause.
Your compare Christ’s role to angels delivering the Law (Galatians 3:19). This analogy is inappropriate because angels are created beings distinct from God, whereas the Son is consubstantial with the Father (Colossians 2:9). The Son’s mediatorial role is divine and unique, not analogous to a mere human or angelic intermediary.
The NT writers may have avoided ὑπό for Christ’s role in creation to highlight the relational and Trinitarian nature of God’s work. Using διά emphasizes the Son’s unique role without implying He is a subordinate agent, aligning with the Trinitarian understanding that the Father creates “through” the Son, but the Son is still fully God.
The use of ἐκ for the Father and διά for the Son in 1 Corinthians 8:6 reflects a functional distinction within the Trinity, not an ontological hierarchy. The Father is the ultimate source (ἐκ), but the Son’s role as the means (διά) underscores His full participation in creation. These roles are complementary, not competitive. John 5:19 states that the Son does whatever the Father does. If the Father is the Creator, the Son must also be Creator. The functional distinction in 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not divide the Godhead but reveals the harmonious operation of the Father and the Son in creation.
The NT consistently attributes divine prerogatives to the Son, including creation (Colossians 1:16-17), sustaining the universe (Hebrews 1:3), and being the ultimate end of creation (Colossians 1:16). These roles exceed those of a mere intermediary.
The passive voice in Colossians 1:16 (“all things were created”) highlights God’s sovereignty, not the exclusion of Christ’s active role. The parallel in John 1:3, “All things came into being through Him,” uses an active construction to affirm the Logos’ role in creation. Colossians 1:16 uses three prepositions—ἐν (in), διά (through), and εἰς (for)—to describe Christ’s role in creation. This threefold structure leaves no ambiguity about His divine authority as Creator:
• ἐν (in Him): Creation originates in the Son.
• διά (through Him): Creation is effected through the Son.
• εἰς (for Him): Creation exists for the Son’s glory.
This description cannot be reconciled with the idea of the Son as a mere intermediary.
The phrase “apart from Him [χωρὶς αὐτοῦ] nothing came into being that has come into being” categorically excludes the possibility of any creation independent of the Logos. This affirms His indispensability and divine prerogative in creation. John 1:1 identifies the Logos as God, not a subordinate being. John 1:3 then attributes creation exclusively to the Logos. If the Logos were merely an instrument, this would contradict Isaiah 44:24, which states that YHWH alone created all things. The only solution is that the Logos, as God, is fully Creator.
(1/3)
(2/3)
In Koine Greek, διά with the genitive frequently denotes agency or causation, not mere instrumentality. According to standard Greek lexicons (e.g., BDAG, LSJ), διά in this construction often refers to a direct agent through whom an action is carried out. This usage does not inherently imply subordination or passivity but rather emphasizes the active role of the agent in executing the action. Examples in Scripture:
• Galatians 1:1: "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through (διά) man, but through (διά) Jesus Christ and God the Father."
Here, διά with the genitive emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the active, divine agent in Paul’s apostleship. It does not imply that Christ is a passive instrument.
• Romans 11:36: "For from (ἐξ) Him and through (διά) Him and to (εἰς) Him are all things."
The use of διά in this doxology is consistent with its role in describing Christ as the divine agent of creation, not a mere tool.
Thus, διά with the genitive denotes the role of the Logos as the active divine agent of creation. The use of διά with the genitive in John 1:3 cannot mean a mere instrument because the phrase “apart from Him” (χωρὶς αὐτοῦ) categorically excludes any independent creation. If the Logos were a passive tool, creation could theoretically proceed apart from Him, which the text explicitly denies. Instead, the Logos is presented as indispensable to the act of creation, emphasizing His active and divine role. In John 1:1, the Logos is identified as God (θεός) and as existing "in the beginning" (ἐν ἀρχῇ) with God. The immediate context presents the Logos as fully divine and coeternal with the Father. Therefore, interpreting διά in John 1:3 as implying subordination or instrumentality contradicts the broader Johannine theology.
Instrumentality is more commonly expressed in Greek with ἐν (with) or occasionally with ὑπό (by). For example:
• Luke 4:36: "With (ἐν) authority and power, He commands the unclean spirits."
The use of ἐν indicates the tools or means by which the command is carried out.
• Matthew 11:25: "You have hidden these things from (ὑπό) the wise.
Here, ὑπό denotes an efficient cause, often a more subordinate agent.
διά with the genitive does not function in the same way as ἐν or ὑπό. It focuses on the person or agent as a direct and indispensable participant in the action. The Logos is not a passive medium through which God works but the active cause of creation. Interpreting διά as "tool" or "instrument" is philosophically incoherent in the context of divine creation. Creation “ex nihilo” (out of nothing) is an act that requires infinite power, which no created being, no matter how exalted, can possess. The Logos’ role in creation, as described in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, attributes to Him a function that only God can perform. If the Logos were merely a tool, this would imply a separation between the divine essence and the act of creation, which contradicts both Trinitarian theology and monotheism (Isaiah 44:24).
Isaiah 44:24 declares that YHWH created “alone.” In John 1:3, the Logos is presented as the Creator. This is not a contradiction because the Logos is not external to YHWH but is the divine Word, fully God. διά here emphasizes the unified action of the Father and the Son in creation, not a hierarchical division.
(2/3)
(3/3)
The Isaiah Targum is an Aramaic PARAPHRASE of the Hebrew Bible, providing interpretive expansions often reflecting Jewish theological concerns during the Second Temple period or later. The term "Memra" (Aramaic: מימרא) is frequently used in Targumim to refer to the Word of God, often employed to maintain reverence for God by avoiding direct anthropomorphic descriptions of divine action. The Memra is not a created being but a manifestation of God’s active presence and power. It functions as a conceptual bridge between the transcendent God and His interaction with creation. The Targum uses "Memra" to describe God’s direct acts, such as creating, redeeming, and delivering.
In Trinitarian theology, the "Memra" aligns closely with the Logos (Greek: λόγος) described in John 1:1-3. The Isaiah Targum states that God created the heavens "by my Memra," indicating that the Word (Memra) is God’s means of creation. This is consistent with the New Testament, where John 1:3 declares: "Through Him [the Logos] all things were made." The Targum's use of Memra complements the New Testament revelation rather than contradicting it. Isaiah 44:24 states:
• "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself."
The Targum adds:
• "...who stretched out the heavens by my Memra."
The Father, Son (Logos/Memra), and Holy Spirit act in perfect unity. The Father is the source of creation, the Son (Logos/Memra) is the agent, and the Spirit is the power that sustains creation. This is not a division of labor but a unified act of the one God. The phrase "by myself" in the Hebrew text emphasizes God's sovereignty, ruling out the involvement of INDEPENDENT OR EXTERNAL agents (e.g., false gods, demiurges, anything). It does not exclude the INTERNAL, UNIFIED operations of the Godhead. Isaiah’s declaration that God acted "alone" means no EXTERNAL being assisted Him. The Son, as the Logos, is fully God, and therefore, His role in creation does not contradict but fulfills the meaning of Isaiah 44:24, which excludes any EXTERNAL being from creation. The Son is not external to the Father but is one with Him in essence.
Nincsnevem, I've got BDAG and have read the entry for dis more than once. I don't think that lexicon says that dia is or must be understood as you suggest. Secondly, I don't believe John 1:1 says Jesus is God. Been there and done that, so we're not discussing John 1:1 again. Like Sean, I wish you the best. I raised a child who's on the autism spectrum and worked with autistic students. But I still disagree with your theology.
Thanks again Sean for the links and info.
Two things the Bible never states: 1) God is three personae; 2) The three personae are one essentia/substantia.
Trinitarians likewise have to deny that the tres personae are absolutely identical to the Godhead despite the fact that divine simplicity is assumed by a goodly number of Trinitarians.
@Edgar Foster
The BDAG's entry for διά explains:
διά with genitive:
• “marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby something is accomplished or effected, by, via, through.”
• “marker of personal agency, through, by” “with focus on agency through (the agency of ), by”
Examples like Galatians 1:1 ("...through Jesus Christ...") and Romans 11:36 ("...through Him are all things...") confirm this. In John 1:3, διά emphasizes the Logos as the divine agent by whom creation occurs. This is consistent with your position that the Logos is an active, indispensable agent of creation, not a passive tool. Additionally, John 1:3 declares that apart from the Logos, "nothing came into being that has come into being." This categorically excludes the Logos as a mere instrument because a passive tool could theoretically be replaced or bypassed. The Logos, however, is indispensable in creation, confirming His divine role. If the Son were merely a tool, creation could occur apart from Him. However, John 1:3 explicitly denies this possibility: "Apart from Him, nothing came into being." The Logos is not a separate, subordinate being but fully shares the divine essence and authority of the Creator.
Indeed, the Bible never says "God is three personae" or that "the three personae are one essentia/substantia," (just as it nowhere states that only one hypostasis is fully God) but the biblical evidence strongly supports these concepts, even if the specific terminology of later theology is not used. Divine simplicity teaches that God is not composed of parts; His essence and attributes are identical. The Trinity does not contradict this because the three persons of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are not parts of God but distinct subsistences (hypostases) within the one divine essence (ousia). The Athanasian Creed summarizes this well:
"We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance."
The functional distinctions between the Father, Son, and Spirit (e.g., the Father as source, the Son as mediator, the Spirit as sanctifier) do not imply ontological division but reflect the eternal relationships within the Godhead.
I’ll look up on vines and strongs later
From memory:
One expresses agency ( dia + genitive and normally passive verb)
The other “probably means on account of”
The comparisons are perfectly valid, you only say they are invalid because you don’t like the conclusion.
A.T Robertson even admits Christ isn’t the creator
Who does Tettulian identify saying the statement in isa 44:24 Ninc? The father not the entire Godhead..
The Godhead HAS a son
Oh so now we refer to a Latin text what does the other bit say in Latin that I quoted regarding contexts with idol makers?
The context would still indicate it refers to false gods as that is what Tetullian was just talking about..
Greek can often leave words off when they are self evident - from the context this is self evident via the previous statement.
How is this not selective quoting? You just can’t get over that God used an agent. Philo believed it - but he’s not authoritative” yet he is when it’s convenient for your doctrine.
Dana and Mantey were staunch trinitarians who attacked the WTS on a lot of things for them to admit this is huge… makes you look rather bad.
“ Instrumentality is more commonly expressed in Greek with ἐν (with) or occasionally with ὑπό (by).” - ὑπό is more forceful than dia
Again you go against common scholarly concensus simply because you refuse to accept what Edgar states..
This is also false else we would see upo instead of dia used of angels aswell
Tetullian doesnt literally mean what he says according to you… he means your theology.. hint: he doesn’t
@Anonymous
The use of διά with the genitive case in passages like John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 does indeed express agency, but in the context of Christ's role in creation, it signifies direct and active agency, not passive instrumentality, it does not imply that the Logos was an ontologically subordinate instrument, a mere tool. The NT consistently describes the Logos (the Son) as integral to the act of creation, not as an intermediary outside the divine essence.
• John 1:3 explicitly states: "All things came into being through Him [δι’ αὐτοῦ], and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."
--> The Logos is the direct agent of creation, and the Greek construction excludes any creation independent of Him. The Logos is indispensable, and a mere instrument could theoretically be bypassed, which this text categorically denies. This verse emphasizes the indispensability of the Logos in creation. If the Logos were a mere intermediary or tool, the phrase “apart from Him” would not make sense, as a tool can theoretically be replaced. The Logos’ role here is essential, demonstrating His divine nature and full participation in the creative act.
Col. 1:16-17 uses διά (through) to affirm Christ’s active agency, ἐν (in) to describe His centrality, and εἰς (for) to declare that all creation is directed toward Him. This description cannot apply to a subordinate or created being but only to one who is divine. Moreover, διά in Koine Greek frequently expresses agency when referring to a divine subject. The assertion that διά could mean "on account of" in these contexts is unwarranted; the syntactical and theological contexts explicitly affirm agency, as recognized by standard Greek lexicons like BDAG and LSJ. This verse uses ἐν (in), διά (through), and εἰς (for) to describe Christ's comprehensive role in creation, leaving no room for the Logos to be a secondary or subordinate agent. Instead, the Son is portrayed as the active agent, the locus of creation, and its ultimate purpose. Only God can fulfill such a role.
The claim that the use of διά with the genitive case necessarily diminishes the Logos' divine role reflects a misunderstanding of the relational dynamics within the Trinity. The distinction between the Father as the source (ex ou) and the Son as the means (dia autou) in passages like 1 Cor. 8:6 reflects their relational roles, not an ontological hierarchy. The Church has consistently taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit act inseparably in creation because they share the same divine essence.
While ὑπό (hypo) is often used to denote primary agency, its absence in these contexts does not diminish Christ’s role as Creator. The NT writers avoid ὑπό in describing the Son’s role in creation to emphasize the relational unity and inseparability of the Father and Son. This reinforces, rather than diminishes, the Son’s divine agency. The use of διά with the genitive emphasizes the Son’s active and indispensable role in creation. The Logos is not a passive tool but the divine Word, fully participating in the act of creation.
You wrote: “The comparisons are perfectly valid, you only say they are invalid because you don’t like the conclusion.”
The comparisons are invalid because they conflate acts of creation ex nihilo (a divine prerogative) with acts of providence or mediation (which may involve creatures). For example, in creation, Isa. 44:24 declares that YHWH created "alone" (levaddi) and "by myself" (me'itti), emphasizing the exclusivity of divine action. This cannot involve any created being unless that being shares YHWH’s essence. Acts of providence or judgment, such as God working through Moses or angels, do not involve creation ex nihilo. They are acts of governance within an already created order and are categorically distinct from creation itself. The distinction lies in the nature of the act. Creation requires infinite power and is a direct act of the divine will, whereas acts of providence or mediation involve secondary causes, which are subordinate and dependent on God.
(1/3)
(2/3)
You wrote: “A.T. Robertson even admits Christ isn’t the creator.”
This is a misrepresentation of A.T. Robertson’s position. Robertson, a respected Greek scholar, affirmed the traditional Christian understanding of Christ’s role in creation. In his commentary on John 1:3, he acknowledges that “all things” (τὰ πάντα) is a philosophical phrase that includes the entire universe as in John 1:10; Col. 1:16. It is a bold claim here of creative activity and the preexistence of the Logos (cf. Heb. 1:2f.). Robertson explicitly acknowledges Christ’s preexistence and role as Creator, aligning with orthodox Trinitarian theology. Robertson, in his works strongly supports the biblical teaching that Christ is the Creator. For example, commenting on Col. 1:16, he affirms that Christ is the agent of creation and rejects any notion of Christ as a created being. Any claim to the contrary lacks supporting evidence. Your appeal to Robertson is an example of a red herring fallacy, as Robertson’s scholarly consensus aligns with Trinitarian theology, not Arianism. Any suggestion to the contrary either misunderstands or misrepresents his work.
You wrote: “Who does Tertullian identify saying the statement in Isa. 44:24? The Father, not the entire Godhead.”
Tertullian’s writings affirm the unity of the Father and the Son in creation. In Against Praxeas (Chapter 19), he explicitly states:
• “He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone, but alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son.”
•
Tertullian’s theology is grounded in the understanding that the Father and the Son share the same divine essence and act inseparably. While Isa. 44:24 emphasizes YHWH’s solitary role as Creator, Tertullian interprets this as affirming the exclusivity of divine action, which includes the Son because the Son is consubstantial with the Father. The assertion that Tertullian attributes creation solely to the Father misunderstands his Trinitarian theology, which emphasizes the unity of the Godhead in all divine actions. Tertullian’s writings affirm the Son’s full divinity and role in creation. In Against Praxeas (Chapter 19), he states that the Father and the Son act in perfect unity, emphasizing their shared divine essence:
• “He [the Father] stretched out the heavens alone, but alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son.”
This shows that Tertullian does not separate the Father’s act of creation from the Son. The Son participates in the Father’s creative work because He is consubstantial (of the same essence) with the Father. This statement reflects Tertullian’s Trinitarian theology, which upholds the unity of the Godhead in all divine actions, including creation. To suggest otherwise is to misrepresent his work.
(2/3)
(3/3)
The context of Isa. 44:24 is not limited to refuting false gods but emphasizes YHWH’s unique and solitary role as Creator. The phrases "alone" (levaddi) and "by myself" (me'itti) categorically exclude any participation, whether by false gods, angels, or created beings. This is reinforced by the broader context of Isa. 40–48, which repeatedly affirms YHWH’s absolute sovereignty and exclusivity in creation. The language of "alone" (lebaddi) and "by Myself" (me’itti) in Isa. 44:24 excludes all external agents—whether false gods, angels, or any other beings. Tertullian, in emphasizing the unity of the Father and the Son, does not contradict this exclusivity but affirms that the Son shares in the Father’s divine essence and, therefore, His creative work. The claim that God "used an agent" in creation directly contradicts Isa. 44:24, which denies the involvement of any other being in the act of creation. The NT consistently identifies Christ as the Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:10), affirming His divine nature and unity with the Father. The Logos is not an "agent" in the sense of a subordinate or external tool but is God Himself, fully participating in the divine act of creation. The unity of the Father and the Son ensures that creation is the work of the one God, not a divided or hierarchical act.
Dana and Mantey’s grammatical observations about διά do not undermine Trinitarian theology. Their work emphasizes the relational dynamics within the Godhead, not a denial of Christ’s divinity. The use of διά in passages like John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 reflects Christ’s role as the divine agent of creation, consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of the Father as the source and the Son as the means. Dana and Mantey distinguish between the use of διά in human contexts (where it can imply instrumentality) and its theological use in describing the Logos. In passages like John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, διά does not imply subordination but emphasizes the Son’s role as the divine agent of creation. Their Trinitarian commitment underscores that “dia autou” in John 1:3 affirms the Son's active participation in creation as God, not as a subordinate instrument.
Philo’s concept of the Logos as an intermediary is not authoritative for Christian theology, as it lacks the fullness of revelation found in Christ. The Johannine Logos (John 1:1-3) transcends Philo’s philosophical speculations by affirming the Logos’ full divinity. The Johannine Logos is not merely an intermediary as in Philo’s writings but is fully divine, eternal, and consubstantial with the Father.
Post a Comment