(click for image credit)
Sir Anthony Buzzard is the author of a number of books, including the 2007 Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian.
Interesting title, no?
Some Christians will think it true but trivial.
Others, against the evidence, assert it to be false.
Others will urge that he is implicitly but not explicitly a trinitarian, i.e. that his beliefs entailed it, though he did not believe it.
I agree with with Buzzard, though, that it is both true and important. According to the gospels, Jesus’ beliefs included the numerical identity of the one true God with his heavenly Father, and we should assume him to be self-consistent on this subject, so he did not also think that the one true God is numerically identical to this: Father+Son+Spirit. (Things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other.)
But isn’t Jesus worshiped in the New Testament? And doesn’t that show that he is God himself?
No – I agree with the substance of this recent video by Buzzard:
and this one:
I would add that in Revelation 5, the “worship” offered to both God and to Jesus is plainly fully religious worship, and not some other, lesser sort of honoring.
My recent public presentation was on a similar theme. Stay tuned for videos of the conference and screencast versions.
Print 
PDF
john
Andy was asking for specific verses where God the Father commands “worship” to His Son. I pointed to those verses.
As for how can “god” have a “God”? Here are a couple of commentaries that might further help you:
Hi Xavier
I’m afraid I’ll have to answer your post 49 in two posts. It’s getting late here in the UK and I have a busy day at work tomorrow.
Tonight I will give a small answer re 1 Chron 29:20. It’s small because Hebrew is not an area where I would claim much knowledge or expertise. Looking at the verse there are two hebrew verbs: The first simply means to bow low and the second, HWH, has also the basic meaning of prostration, in very much the same sense as proskuneo in Greek, if I am reading the rather long entry in the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament correctly.
It certainly is used in the OT for prostration before man: 2 Sam 1:2, 1 Sam 24:8 and Gen 18:2 (where the ‘men’ turned out to be Angels)’. This lexicon comments that the LXX renders the hebrew verb with, guess what, proskuneo! So we are basically, as I read it, in the same boat here – we have a word that is sometimes directed to God as worship and sometimes directed to men as prostration. What does it mean when it is directed at BOTH God and men simultaneously!?
Hmmm. A lot of things come into play when interpreting the Bible. Dale and others trained in logic/philosophy would look to settling matters with valid arguments leading to sound conclusions. I won’t argue with that approach – it strikes me as ideal. However, the Bible wasn’t written by people trained in such ways nor who were, necessarily, trying to ‘prove’ anything in the way of logical debate. Especially in the OT, which was essentially written by Jews, for Jews, at least at the time of writing. A lot gets assumed. A lot of verses depend on other verses to really grasp what they mean. We have to take the background, culture and, especially, the religious context into account.
I don’t think I need to quote OT passages that expressly forbade worshipping anyone other than YHWH. It’s in the Ten Commandments and repeated throughout the OT. In that context, what was going on in 1 Chron 29:20 was either idolatrous worship of David, which usually would lead to rather swift and terminal consequences, or was prostration in the honouring a superior sense. That’s how I read it, given the context. Before anyone shouts ‘but you can’t prove it!’ I fully admit I can’t. But the Hebrew word is ambiguous, just as proskuneo is ambiguous. So, in the end, we interpret these passages, hopefully in a way that harmonises with scripture as a whole.
I have very few Hebrew Bibles that are translated by Jews for the Jewish community, but one I do have is Tanakh The Holy Scriptures which, according to the blurb, was translated by academic scholars and Rabbis representing the three largest branches of organised Judaism in America. Such a description sounds scholarly… Anyway, they render the verse:
“all the assembly blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed their heads low to the LORD and the king.”
Certainly, they don’t see the verse as offering religious worship to David and, if I read my Hebrew resources properly, their translation is grammatically sound.
I will answer regarding Psalm 45/Hebrews 1 over the weekend. I have made a detailed study of these verses, especially the Greek of Hebrews, but it will take some time to marshal the data into something cogent enough to be posted…
To add to my previous post I will quote two commentaries that comment on the Chronicles verse:
“II. THE OBJECT OF WORSHIP: to whom worship is due. The congregation of Israel “worshipped the Lord, and the king.” Yet the homage offered to David was civil, not religious; and there could have been no danger of confusing the one with the other.”
The Pulpit Commentary: 1 Chronicles. 2004 (H. D. M. Spence-Jones, Ed.) (448). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
“The Assembly’s Praise to God (29:20–22a). David’s prayer becomes a catalyst of praise among the people as he turns to them and prompts them to give praise. They immediately responded both aurally (“praised”) and physically (“bowed low and knelt”), signaling not only their praise to God but also their submission to the Lord. Interestingly, they also KNELT before “the king,” a reference most likely to David, which reflects the belief that the king was vice-regent of the Divine King, Yahweh (Ps 2).”
Boda, M. J. (2010). Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Volume 5a: 1-2 Chronicles (221). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
I’ve capitalised KNELT to show that this commentary did not consider this to be worship…
Regrettably, the Expositor’s Bible Commentary and the Tyndale Commentary do not comment on this verse with regard to David being ‘worshipped’/'bowed down to’.
Will post re Hebrews 1/Psalm 45 over the weekend…
Xavier/Andy
Xavier
Thank’s -what you say makes sense!
A common view is that Hebrews 1v8 confirms that Christ=God and I have always had difficulty with this!
Andy
Look forward to your dissertation.!! Thanks
I must say that I think that on the subject of ‘worship’ your views are converging – and you are getting closer to a defendable position.
Thanks so much!
Every Blessing
John
john
Hebrews writers quotes from Ps 45 in reference to the Son of God who is called “god” in the same representational sense that Moses [Ex 4.16; 7.1] or the judges [Ps 82.6] were called “gods”.
I agree that Hebrews 1:8 cannot be equating Christ with God, since it is HIS God who gives him that position (v. 9).
I was unfamiliar with the word latreuo until you pointed it out, Xavier, so I looked up all the passages containing the word. I agree that it refers primarily to ritual service – which seems like a good translation. Worship would hardly fit in passages like John 16:2, Hebrews 8:5 & 13:10, for instance.
According to my dictionary, “worship” comes from an old English word that means worthy. Which brings us to Revelation 5.
“Who is worthy to take the scroll …?” is the question in verse 2.
No one [in the entire universe] is found worthy (v. 4).
But a Lamb appears in the midst of the creatures surrounding the throne. He takes the scroll; and the living creatures and elders fall down (epesan) before him saying, “Worthy you are to receive the book, because you were slain, and redeemed us to God by your blood …” (9)
That is followed by thousands of thousands of angels, saying, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.” [I feel like singing that.]
Then EVERY creature joins in (v. 13) saying,
And the elders fall down (epesan) and worship the one who lives for ever and ever.
[That’s the “living Father,” and it's because of him that the Lamb ALSO lives (John 6:57).]
So I can relax. In giving equal honor to the Father and the Son, I am fulfilling the will of God (John 5:23). No need to worry about protocol.
What delights me is that this makes it possible for men as diverse in their theology as Dallas Willard, Samuel Clarke and Anthony Buzzard to be “one” in worshipping God and the Lamb together: at the same time, with the same words.
Marg
Don’t exactly know what you mean here but there is a protocol to follow when it comes when it comes to worshipping the Son and the Father. One is Deity and the other isn’t.
As Sir Anthony has already pointed out, we should be aware of WHOM we are worshipping. God and his Son are not identical.
However, the words of every creature in Rev. 5:13 are being addressed to both equally, fulfilling the Father’s intention that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.
To the one sitting on the throne AND to the Lamb [be] the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might, for ever and ever.
So I don’t have to worry about protocol (assuming that I don’t do something silly like addressing the Lamb as the Lord God Almighty. I can worship both at the same time, with words that apply to both.
That is what every creature in Revelation 5 is doing. I intend to do the same.
Marg
Hi John
This is in response to your post 50 regarding Psalm 45/Heb 1.
I have a copy of the NAB complete with their notes, so I can let them answer your first question: why they put god in lower case. Their note states:
“O god: the king, in courtly language, is called “god”, i.e. more than human, representing God to the people.”
That is their explanation. Does it answer your other questions? That this god has: a God, wives… I guess so…
However, althiugh the NAB’s translation is echoed in many others, not all Bibles translate the verse this way.
Tanakh, an English OT translation produced by Jewish scholars and rabbis, translates it this way:
“Your ?divine throne? is everlasting;
your royal scepter is a scepter of equity.”
They cross reference this to 1 Chron 29:23, which they translate as “Solomon successfully took over the throne of the Lord as king instead of his father David”. The NAB and ESV give very similar translations. My Hebrew interlinear confirms that ‘Lord’ is here YHWH and so we could translate this as Yahweh’s throne…
Going back to Psalm 45, some other English translations also render the verse “God is your throne” (Byington (NEB), Jerusalem Bible and others).
I don’t have sufficient Hebrew to say which is the better translation, but there is no doubt that the alternatives make the contextual verses simple to understand. The idea of ‘God is your throne’ is that the King’s power, rule and authority came from and depended on God.
Coming to Hebrews 1:6, which is a direct quote from Ps 45, the Greek states:
HO THRONOS SOU HO THEOS
Literally this is: the throne your the god.
The expression ‘the throne’ and ‘the god’ are in the nominative case, ‘your’ is in the genitive, possessive case.
IF we translate this as a regular Greek expression we could try “the throne is your God” or “God is your throne”, as either God or throne, by being in the nominative, is the subject of the sentence. Obviously, the first possibility is nonsense. Only the second makes sense. The TEV, NET and NRSV translations mention this as a possible translation in their footnotes
BUT, there is a third possibility. Sometimes, Greek uses the nominative as a way of expressing the vocative case, the case of direct address. Hence, the translation “your throne, O God”. Grammatically, this is acceptable and perfectly possible. There is, in fact, no way to tell from the grammar whether the writer intended to use the nominative or the nominative-as-vocative from the words he wrote. This is a genuinely ambiguous expression. But we can try to determine which intention was more likely.
If the writer wanted to write ‘God is your throne’ he had no choice but to write the verse as it is written. Varying the word order would alter nothing. He would have no choice but to live with the ambiguity.
If he wanted to write “your throne, O God” he could have written the verse as it stood, and live with the ambiguity. Or he could have used the Greek Vocative case proper, in which case he would not write HO THEOS but simply THEE, which is God in the vocative case and this excludes any possibility of ambiguity.
What governs the choice between using the vocative or the nominative-as-vocative? Frankly, the writer’s style or even whim. There isn’t any compelling reason to choose one over the other, although by the time the LXX was written, the vocative was being used less often. However, Jesus’ words at Mtt 27:46 address God in the vocative, so it is used in the NT.
Therefore, it seems that both Psalm 45 and Heb 1 can legitimately be translated either way and *might* therefore address both the king of Israel and Jesus as God. Or they might not. The evidence is insufficient to state with any certainty what the Psalmist and the writer Hebrews intended to mean, and we don’t have the luxury of being able to ask them. The Psalm as a whole reads easier, to my mind, with the ‘God is your throne’ translation. It can also be stated that an unqualified HO THEOS is usually used in the NT exclusively for God the Father. But this is circumstantial evidence at best. What can be stated with certainty is that if the writer of Hebrews wanted to say ‘Your throne, O God’ with no ambiguity he could have used the vocative case, but he didn’t do that.
—-
I think I will sum up my position here.
The question is whether Christians should worship Jesus in the sense of religious/cultic worship. There is no question that Jesus should be held in high esteem, honoured and prostrated to as a superior. The offering of proskuneo to Jesus leaves us in no doubt about that.
What evidence is there that Christians are commanded to offer Jesus worship in the religious sense? Dale offered Phil 2:10, but I have argued that the translation of that verse in the ESV, and others, is dubious, to say the least. A more accurate translation shifts the worship away from Jesus and directs it to God.
Rev 5 has been cited, but it does not say who the elders offered worship to. Sir Anthony has argued that it was God and Jesus, because that seems the natural way to understand the verse. I agree that the verse could be understood that way, but it’s hardly conclusive proof or a compelling argument. The fact remains that this verse does not state who the worship is offered to and, therefore, whatever conclusion we draw will be an interpretation.
We’ve also seen that the Hebrew and Greek words discussed here are, with the exception of latreuo, ambiguous. They are used both of men and of God. Therefore, their use in connection with Jesus is not proof that religious worship was offered to him. Had latreuo been offered to Jesus there would be no need for any debate. But it never is.
It is my firm belief that the Bible forms an harmonious whole, and when individual verses are inconclusive, they are best understood, interpreted if you will, in harmony with the scriptures that are clear and conclusive.
The Bible talks rather a lot about worship and the OT position is often stated in no uncertain terms. The second commandment states “You shall have no other gods before? me.” ESV
The third commandment condemns worshipping idol gods. Deut 6:13-15 states, in part, “You shall not go after other gods”.
These thoughts are repeated throughout the OT, and when the Jews departed from the exclusive worship of Yahweh, there were consequences. When I read Judges through to the end of Chronicles I see the same pattern over and over again. The Jews worship other gods. Yahweh’s anger is expressed. People die, get deported and get told to repent (not necessarily in that order).
This establishes, for me, an obvious pattern, a framework for interpreting the less clear scriptures such as the ones we are discussing.
In the NT, Jesus repeats the OT position in Matt 4 and his words at John 4 to the samaritan woman are in the same vein. Ok, his words don’t explicitly exclude worshipping him in John 4, but does that really amount to much? Are we really going to construct a theology based on what Jesus didn’t say?
Personally, I would want the evidence for offering Jesus religious worship to be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. But there are no such texts commanding religious worship of the Son. Therefore, after considering the evidence presented by Anthony and Dale, much of which, quite frankly, seems no stronger than that offered by Trinitarians (ambiguous scriptures, ambiguous words, poor translations etc) I would conclude that the case for the religious worship of Jesus has not been proven.
In my opinion, actually KNOWING whom I am worshipping will prevent me from addressing him by the wrong name, without any need for a “code”.
In any case, I am free to worship God and his Son together – using words that apply to both. That’s good enough for me.
Marg
But that is a “code”, a structure of worship you’re following. Nothing wrong with that.
Andy ,Xavier
You have both ‘gone the second mile’ on my behalf – for which I thank you!
Would you both accept Hebrews 1 as ‘typological’ – as opposed to being a literal dialogue.? I have always found the latter idea difficult.
Andy,
You have gone to great lengths to state your case – and I found your words persuasive.
I too believe that the Bible forms a harmoneous whole -while individual verses remain inconclusive. The only thing one can do in these circumstances is to interpret the ‘less clear’ scriptures by reference to clear text.
Regarding the form of worship which should be accorded to The Lord Jesus Christ and The One Supreme God – the linguistics seem to offer no hard and fast rules.
There has got to be some sort of ‘hierarchy’ in the heavenly realm with the one doing the resurrecting, anointing and elevation, being ‘higher ‘ than the one being elevated etc.
It is interesting that the form of worship accorded Almighty God (Revelation 15) ,by Moses and The Lamb is ‘proskueno’- so one must conclude that there are no ‘hard and fast rules’ here. I would have expected ‘laterou’.
I have found the following to be useful (as a non-literalist)
(i) Rev Samuel Clark’s ‘rule’ that if one thinks one has found a scripture that makes Christ and God one person – one will find a verse, in the immediate vicinity that shows them to be two persons
(e.g. John Chapter 20 verses 28 and 31)
(ii) The truth resides at a ‘higher level’ and too literalist an approach will often obscure it.
Thanks for your sage advice’
Every Blessing
John
John
Thank you for your kind words, but I would not describe myself as giving ‘sage’ advice. I’m still a learner – happy to share what I know, happy to learn from others. I admit to being quite stringent in my desire for ‘proof’ before I believe anything, yet I am aware that the Bible also calls for an element of faith and trust and that absolute proof is not always available.
I’ve been reading Dale’s posts for quite some time now but have only just started to post – I have seen too many sites where apologists lambaste ‘dissenters’ and I have no desire to keep the company, or debate with, such people.
I have found that here, we have a forum for rigorous, dynamic discussion, with, so far, no aggressive nastiness. In the end we may go our separate ways agreeing to disagree, but hopefully we learn from these exchanges and, most importantly, question *ourselves* about the soundness of our beliefs. If we cannot do that, then we are truly stuck, IMHO
I am taking the weekend off from posting (finally good weather in southern England!) but will consider your questions next week. I am also mindful that I don’t want to use Dales diskspace and bandwidth as my own personal soapbox. This is his site and I would like to thank him for not rejecting my lengthy posts. I can be reached at andy at andys kosmos dot com (remove the spaces etc)…
Best wishes
Andy
john
What do you mean? Letter simply opens up with the exaltation of the Son of God.
Hi Xavier
Sorry if I was obscure in my question. I was attempting to ask – ,” is the author of Hebrews talking about a literal dialogue between God and the resurrected Christ -or is this a form of typology- i.e.THE SORT OFf dialogue which the newly resurrected Christ had with the Father when he entered heaven.?
The words used look to me like a sort of ‘cut-and-paste’ job -taking verses from the OT and applying them in a typological sense.
The latter would make more sense to me – but I’m not an expert!
Many thanks
Every Blessing
John
john
Its just a cleverly constructed ARGUMENT using proof texts from the Hebrew scriptures to proof that the Son is MUCH GREATER than God’s holy angels. Therefore, he has been designated “Lord” of the New Creation.
Xavier
Many thanks -that makes perfect sense!
Sorry to labour the point!
Blessings
John
Xavier
While looking through the material on ‘worship’ I came accross some more thoughts from Hebrews- this time Hebrews 2 verses 7 and 9.
The idea that Jesus was ‘made a little lower than the angels’ must have some implications for the concept of a pre-existent Christ who was present at the creation of the universe.?
Blessings
John
john
You mean humanity as a whole? Since that is WHO the writer of Hebrews is INITIALLY referring to by qutoing Ps 8.4-6. The text is extended to the HUMAN Messiah. If he somehow preexisted his birth so did the whole of humanity which the writers are clearly referring to.
Xavier
Very good point!!
Blessings
John
John
Re Hebrews 2:7-9, I suspect this has more to do with the hierarchy you spoke of in a previous post, rather than the chronological order of creation. In the original Greek, the usual word for creation is not present in this passage. The word translated ‘made lower’ is in the Greek aorist tense – a tense that has a simple verbal aspect. The aorist is used to just describe what is, or was, or will be, without any indication of how or when it happened. The ‘when’ part comes from the context and, in the aorist, is usually, but not exclusively, in the past, as it is here.
So the Psalm is stating that, when God made man, his rank was lower than the angels. Jesus was also made lower than the angels. Whether he had a pre-existence or not is not stated in this passage. Other passages, of course, could be discussed regarding that question.
Re your other post – where proskuneo is used where we expect latreuo, it always has to be borne in mind that proskuneo can mean religious worship and so can properly be used to describe worship of God.
I’m sure we’d all like the scriptures to have no ambiguity and every I dotted and every T crossed, but we have to work with what we’ve got and interpret the evidence when absolute proof is not present.
Andy
Andy
Considering who Jesus was, how was he made lower than God’s holy angels? And was this a state that lasted throughout his earthly life UNTIL his resurrection from the dead? Where it seems he has NOW been exalted to a position ABOVE those holy angels he hereto was under.
Xavier
I can see 2 interpretations. The first is direct creation- when Mary conceived him miraculously, he was made a little lower than the Angels, simply because he was a human and therefore lower than the angels.
Secondly, it could be tied to Phil 2 – a pre-existent Jesus emptied himself to be born as a human, thus becoming lower than the angels.
The grammar if Hebrews 2 supports either interpretation as the expression ‘made lower’ doesn’t give any details how it happened. I don’t see that if option 2 is selected that it would mean that all humankind had to go through this process, btw. The end result is that mankind just is lower than the angels in the universal hierarchy. By whatever means Jesus arrived as a man, he was made lower than the angels.
My preference is for option 2, but that’s probably the topic for another setof discussions.
Andy
Andy
I’m sure you have been perplexed by the ‘gymnastics’ which are employed to ‘explain’ Philippians 2?
Trinitarians say ‘He’ emptied himself -but fail to explain what He emptied himself of..etc.
If it was His attributes would not this make “Him’ a different ‘person’ etc.
And in verse 9 we are told that “God has exalted Him”
It simply does not make sense!!
A pastor friend preached a sermon in the United Kingdom last year – and I am pursuaded that he is ‘spot on’. In fact people that I explain it to are immediately convinced
It goes like this
(i) The First Adam, who was made in Gods likeness , sought equality with God (Genesis 3v5) and that was the first sin.
(ii) The second Adam, who again was made in the image of God, did not seek equality with God and humbled himself and became obedient- even unto death on the cross. For which God has exalted him.!
Isn’t it as simple as that?
Trinitarians claim that this scripture was evidence of an early emergence of Trinitarian thinking.
The ‘truth’ is , I am sure, a great deal simpler!
Every Blessing
John
John – I agree with your post and your reasoning.
Often the key argument is over the Greek word harpagmos, which is disputed by Trinitarians, who say it means ‘using to advantage’ or ‘retaining’ and they make a lot of arguments about it.
The Greek word, according to all the studies I’ve done means, in reality, robbery (or worse), and all its related words, when used in the NT and contemporary literature, always carry the thought of robbery, violent snatching etc. The Greek mythological birds – the harpies – were named using this word and our English word ‘harpoon’ is related to it.
The phrase that convinces me that it cannot mean ‘retain’ or ‘using to advantage’ is that God exalted Jesus to a higher position. If Jesus had equality with God how could be exalted above that and in what way would his new name be higher than what he had before? As ever, context trumps bad arguments…
Andy
I like the way you express the two options, Andy. And if the Son was made lower than the angels SO THAT “he might taste death for every [son],” as v. 9 explains, then the second option is more likely.
That same idea flows through the whole chapter, I think. “Since … the children were partakers of flesh and blood, in like manner he shared the same things [flesh and blood] …” What for? “SO THAT through death he might annul the one who had the power of death,” and so on.
But chapter 1 gives the necessary introduction to the idea of a pre-existent Son. It was through the Son that God made [past tense] the ages (v. 2); and now, at the COMPLETION of those ages, “he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (ch. 9:26).
That makes the rest of chapter 1 a carefully constructed argument, in which the Son is clearly identified as someone other than Yahweh (see vv. 8-9), before quoting a Psalm which is clearly directed TO Yahweh.
Yahweh created the heavens and the earth; but he did it through the agency of his Son.
John
Just in case I wasn’t clear, harpagmos relates to the expression about Christ not seeking to snatch/steal equality with God, which the 2010 NIV translates something along the lines of “make use of his equality with God” (I’m paraphrasing here as I cant remember it exactly and don’t have it to hand), as tho he had equality, but gave it up.
Marg
Agreed.
Andy
Andy
Then in what other way can Jesus POSSIBLY be human? A pre-human human?
Note that the subject of Phil 2.5-11 is the earthly “Messiah Jesus” [v.4]. It would be a stretch if Paul were talking about some OTHER preexistent being.
Amen, Andy! You have just identified the most useful tool there is for understanding a passage.
And yes, John’s explanation of Phillipians 2 satisfies all the conditions.
What I find frustrating is that bad interpretations can sometimes detract from the message that is really there. That is true of Philippians 2. It is also true of John 8:58, where Jesus says, “Before Abraham was born, I am.”
The claim that he was calling himself by the name of God can be proven wrong in several ways; but the easiest way is by the context. Jesus uses those same words (ego eimi) five times in the chapter, and in three of them the phrase stands alone.
The whole section from v. 12 to the end is a conversation which, according to Eidersheim, is a typical rabbinical argument. I won’t go into it – you can do that on your own – but look at verse 24:
If that was claiming the name of God, you would expect an uproar, wouldn’t you? But there wasn’t one. Instead, the Jews said, “Who ARE you, then?” They could see he was claiming to be someone or something, but they didn’t know what.
His answer was, Just what I’ve been teling you all along. He had said, earlier in this very conversation,
.
An amazing claim, and an amazing promise. Especially for one who had not yet been raised from the dead. The Jews rejected it.
He claimed that he was sent from God, and pointed to the signs and miracles that God did through him as evidence that he was telling the truth. They weren’t listening.
Then, in verse 28, he said,
You will know then that I am what I claim to be – the sent one of God – and that I do nothing on my own initiative. How could anyone imagine God saying THAT?
That’s enough to prove that he was not claiming the name of God. But then comes verse 58, and the immediate context is important. The conversation goes like this, breaking in at verse 51:
“If any man keep my word, he will never see death.”
“Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?”
“Your father Abraham leaped for joy that he should see my day, and he saw, and rejoiced.”
[We understand this to be prophetic on Abraham's part, but the Jews missed the point, and turned the sentnce around. So they asked ...]
“You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
He isn’t talking about the name of God. He is talking about his existence, prior to the birth of Abraham. Before Abraham existed, he already was.
Marg
As you will have observed ‘ego eimi’ can also mean “I am he’ -which is why the blind man at the pool at Bethesda uttered those words.
Most people think Christ was saying “I am he-the long awaited Messiah.”
In the case of John 8 v58 “ego eimi’ can be interpreted two ways-
(i) I pre-existed as a person
(ii) Even Abraham foresaw my coming as Messiah.-(even though I only came later.)
I think what Xavier was saying was that the whole of creation -including humanity- pre-existed in God’s mind . That means that even you and I were in that great plan. I’m sure there are scriptures that say as much – but I can’t give you a reference right now.
Best wishes
Every Blessing
John
john
Yes. The Bible speaks about foreknowledge, foreknown, predestined [1Pe 1.20; Acts 2.23; Rev 13.8] and NOT preexistence. Especially of the LITERAL kind. That borders on the Mormon in my view.
How about Mat 25.34; Rom 8.29; Eph 1.4-5, 11; 1Pe 1.2; 1Cor 2.7; 2Tim 1.9?
With regard to Phil 2 there are a number of things that need to be considered:
The passage says, in effect:
Consider Christ Jesus, who WAS in God’s form (Greek morphe), did not consider (Greek haygeomai: think, or regard) seizing equality with God. Instead, he emptied himself and took on the form (morphe) of a slave, becoming a human. He then submits to death and is then exalted by God, etc.
Two things need to be understood here: the Greek word morphe and that there is a timeline in this passage. The basic meaning of morphe is “form, outward appearance, shape” and many explanations have been made to discern its meaning in this passage.
Without going into that, as it would take too long, the timeline is this: We consider the Messiah Jesus. At some point in the past he was in the morphe of God. Whilst in that morphe, he rejects the notion of grasping equality with God but goes in the opposite direction. He empties himself and takes on human morphe. AT THIS POINT, I would say, he becomes a little lower than the angels. Then he dies. Then he is exalted.
Therefore, his path to humanity was different to ours. He starts in one form, changes to another and is then exalted.
It is interesting that Marg has raised that old favourite of Trinitarians, John 8:58, where she rightly concludes that the ego eimi (I am) statement is to do with existence.
It’s worth noting that although ego eimi is in the Greek present tense, the Greek present tense does not correspond exactly to the English present tense. This can be seen from John 14:9 where the present tense ego eimi is translated as have been: “Jesus said to him, “Have I been (eimi) with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip”
Why is translated that way? A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature by Blass, Debrunner and Funk, often referred to as the BDF, in section 322, has an entry called the Perfective Present. Basically, when a present tense verb occurs with an expression of past time, the verb takes on the aspect of the past continuing to the present. The BDF specifically indicates that John 8:58 is in this category. Several other Greek Grammars, including Smyth, Winer and Young have a similar category (named slightly differently) with some also indicating that Jn 8:58 fits into this category.
In Jn 8:58 the expression of past time is “before Abraham was born” and so eimi is modified to the past and should be translated something along the lines of “I have been/existed since before Abraham was born”, with word order that reads like normal English.
This has definite implications for the meaning, does it not? Jesus is not saying ‘I was alive before Abraham and here I am again’, as though he had had a resurrection. No, he is saying I have been alive, continuously, from some unspecified time prior to Abraham being born and I am still alive today.
The above statement nicely harmonises with the Phil 2 timeline, does it not?
I would also add that it does not matter who else may espouse such a view. What matters is whether it is true or false…
Andy
I am aware of the verses where ego eimi means “I am (he)”. John 18:5,6 (another Trinitarian proof text) is a good example.
A couple of days ago I downloaded (from the Septuagint as well as in the Greek NT) all the passages containing the phrase ego eimi. It took a couple of hours to look them all up, but it is an interesting study. The phrase can mean several slightly different things, depending on the context.
That’s the point. The CONTEXT of John 8:58 makes “I am he-the long awaited Messiah” just as unlikely an interpretation as that of the Trinitarians – who probably outnumber the people who disagree with them.
Let’s look at your second option:
There is no doubt that Abraham foresaw Christ’s coming.That fits the words of Jesus in v. 56. But that isn’t what the Jews were asking about. They didn’t ask, “You are not yet fifty years old, and has Abraham seen you?”
They asked, “You are not yet fifty years old, and HAVE YOU SEEN ABRAHAM?”
That’s the question he answered. His age (their question implied) made it impossible for him to have seen Abraham. His answer was, in essence, “My age has nothing to do with it. Before Abraham was born, I already am.”
This is only one of many passages that imply, either directly or indirectly, that Christ did not begin to exist when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. We have already looked at some of them. There are others.
Andy
Note that many translate v.6 with the PRESENT tense: “Who, BEING/EXISTING IN the form of God”. So I wouldn’t use the “timeline” argument that many read into the passage. Paul is clearly speaking about the EARTHLY Messiah and not his preexistant form.
Be that as it may, do you hold to a Kenotic or non-Kenotic theology of the passage? As you know many trinitarians believe that Messiah LITERALLY emptied himself of Deity, hence making the Godhead somehow mutable/changeable.
Marg
It all depends if you translate ego eimi as an existential or as a copula, with the implied complement ‘he’, as in ‘I am he’. If it’s existential, it’s I am, I was, I have been and so forth, depending on the context… It can be existential or copula in any given passage. It can’t be both, so the translator has to choose.
Xavier
Sorry, I’m more versed in Greek than in the ‘ologies’, so I don’t know anything of the Kenotic point of view. Certainly, I don’t think Jesus was or is or has ever been part of a ‘Godhead’ or part of a Trinity or God, so whatever he emptied himself of it was not of being God in some way. ‘Divine’ of course is a pretty vague term – Bibles such as Moffatt translate John 1:1 as “the word was divine”, treating the anarthrous theos as being qualitative (as per Harner’s article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (can’t remember the date – I have a copy of it at home)). But that still leaves the reader to go figure what it means to be ‘divine’…
With regard to the tense of Greek verbs and their correspondence to English verbs we need to tread carefully. I belong to the school of thought that believes the Greek verb names to be very poorly named, as they, with the exception of the aorist, give the impression of a one to one relationship with their English counterparts. It has been widely recognised that in the non indicative Greek moods (such as the Imperative and the Subjunctive), that Greek verbs do not contain a time element. Over the last 25 years or so, Grammarians such as Fanning and Porter (and others) have concluded that Greek verbs in the Indicative mood also contain no time element – the ‘tenses’ describe how an action occurred from the writer’s standpoint and the context supplies the time element.
Very few translations pay much attention to this and it results in what I call lame translations – not inaccurate per se, but often lacking in the real flavour of the Greek words.
Andy
Thank you for that, Andy. I can live without the “ologies,” but I am grateful for any Greek grammar that I can get.
The key, though, is the context. To the question, Are you Jesus of Nazareth?” the answer “I am he” makes perfect sense. But it seems to me that the question the Jews asked in John 8:57 required could not be answered that way.
Check it out:
“You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham??”
“Before Abraham was born, I am he.” [I am WHO? Nothing in the context fits.]
BUT
“You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham??”
“Before Abraham was born, I already was.” [That answers the question.]
In any case, I think that’s the way the Jews understood it. They had heard him say ego eimi more than once without any violent reaction. But now, he was claiming to have existed before Abraham, and they immediately tried to stone him.
Andy
Okay it sounded like you were for LITERAL preexistence.
So what is your Christology composed of?
All
It’s interesting that the scripture (2 Philippians) talks about being ‘in the form of God’ – i.e. NOT” God.”
What did he empty himself of? Surely that’s as easy as my ‘Second Adam” hypothesis… he was a human and emptied himself of that impeditemt that separates us from God – Ego!
Blessings
John
John,
Interesting comment. But you do still have to account for the timeline. He was in the form of God and emptied himself into the form of man.
Xavier
I, like everyone else, think my ‘Christology’ is what the Bible says
I don’t formally ascribe to any ‘ology’ but try to piece it together thru scripture and always check the Greek rather than rely on any particular translation.
Yes, I do think Jesus had a literal pre-existence. Jn 8:58, correctly translated, says exactly that.
Andy
Andy
I find it difficult to distinguish between Hebrew words like ‘dumuth’ and ‘tselem’ – and the Greek words ‘elkom ‘ ‘homousin’ and ‘morphen’.
People I have spoken to bring in ‘special pleading’ for some of these words – but I’m not convinced!
Blessings
John
Andy
So the being who originated [Mat 1.1, 18] and comes into existence [Mat 1.20; Luke 1.35] in the womb of Mary was who?
I have just been looking for other passages which suggest that a human can exist apart from a body. Here are a few.
Luke 23: 42-43 Then [the dying thief] said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” [Both would be dead that day. Both would be in Paradise, without a body.]
2 Corinthians 12: 2-4. I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven– whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows.
And I know that such a person– whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows—
was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. [Body or no body, he was caught up into Paradise – wherever that is.]
2 Corinthians 5: 6, 8. So we are always confident; even though we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord–
Yes, we do have confidence, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
Philippians 1: 23, 24. I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better;
but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you.
…….
All of the above suggest that one can exist without a body.
In other words, the beginning of the body that God “prepared” for his Son (when Christ came into the world) was not necessarily the beginning of that Son’s existence.
Marg
Your too wooded/literal reading of those passages is troubling to say the least Marg. :/
Hi Marg,
Apologies that I’ve been a bit sporadic with my posting…
Lk 23: surprised to see you use this one in that way. We can be confident from Matt 12:40, Acts 2:31, John 20:17 that wherever Jesus was later that day, it was not paradise and it caertainly wasn’t heaven. Where he actually was depends on your understanding of “hell” in that passage. Also we see that the thief did not anticipate an immediate reward “when thou comest”, which is consistent with Jesus’ teaching (a man went into a far country…) and Paul’s (e.g. II Tim 4:1,8). Thus we must conclude that the comma belongs after “today”, not before. Compare Acts 20:26, 26:2.
I believe Paul is clear in e.g the II Tim passage above, and I Cor 15 and elsewhere that he believes in the resurrection of the dead, not a disembodied existence immediately following death. Our understanding of statements about departing the body must be compatible with this.
Been meaning to reply to you on “all things” in I Cor 8:6 also. I can see why you see the literal creation as an attractive context to imagine for Paul’s argument, and you’re right that if it were the context it would be a good argument against the other “gods”… But since creation is nowhere in the context we are required to supply it ourselves which is unconvincing to me. All we have is this “all” word, which refers to a set of things which are derived from God, through Christ, and (as you rightly point out) to which these other “gods” have made no contribution. Is there another passage that can help us understand this formula? I believe so: Heb 2:10. There, it seems clear to me that the “all” are the “many sons” being brought to glory, an invitation FROM God made possible THROUGH Christ. Does this work in I Cor? Very well I’d say, and without importing anything into the context. In v1 “all” means ”all those who are in Christ”. It’s this same group of people who are “in” the Father “through” Christ (Jn 17:21), and Paul brings it specifically to his readers by restating with the pronoun “we” – so “we” have nothing to worry about in respect of MEAT OFFERED TO idols. Our relationship with God is secured through Christ, not what we eat which may or nay not have been “blessed” by one of the “lords” of the “idols”. It’s the meat that’s in question, not the “gods” themselves – see v1, where Paul assumes his audience has already rejected the pantheon.
I believe this understanding of I Cor 8:6 is supported by the context, without importing or imposing concepts or having to imagine what the argument *might* be, and which is consistent with similar passages elsewhere.
Andy – you’ll have noticed that “ego eimi” is used a lot by Christ in the Gospels, esp. John. I’d be interested in your view of the relationship between this and the Name of God as revealed in Ex 3:14, if any?
Finally a small point on Phil 2 – it’s been suggested repeatedly that Christ went from “form of God” to “form of man”. This is NOT what it says. The two forms are of God and of a servant. He was born as a man (I.e. was human like Adam). v8 makes it clear he was ALREADY human when he humbled himself in this way.
One has to question Paul’s argument – which is “be humble, follow Christ’s example in this” – if rather than being born a human Christ was in fact a pre-existent divine being. How can we be expected to follow such an example?
God bless,
M
“humbled himself in this way” – I.e. by rejectiing the first Adam’s folly in grasping at equality with God, despite being in the form of God (“he that hath seen me hath seen the Father”; “the express image of his person” cp Genesis “in the image of God”) and instead taking the appearance of a servant (e.g. Washing disciples’ feet, ultimately submitting to the death of the cross).
Matt – Are you sugggesting that the Corinthians were familiar with the letter to the Hebrews?
The fact is, nothing of the kind is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8. So what in the context demands such a limitation?
If you limit the “all things” to what the Corinthians cannot see and have no reason to know, and leave everything they CAN see and DO know for the idols to claim, then you are making Paul’s argument a joke. Because all things come FROM God THROUGH the one Lord, idols are worthless, and eating food that has been offered to them does not constitute idolatry. But LOVE should govern all our actions, as Paul states in his conclusion.
So far as I know, Jesus never added “today” to the solemn introduction, “Truly, truly I say to you.” However, we can allow that possibility, and put Luke 23 aside as inconclusive.
Xavier – I tend to take literally anything that makes good literal sense. If I make a mistake, I am willing to change my mind. But only on the basis of evidence.
What about the evidence of Hebrews 1:2? It was through the Son that God made (past tense) the ages; and chapter 9 tells us that at the COMPLETION of those ages, Christ came to offer himself as a sacrifice for sin. So the past tense is meant to be taken literally.
The same is true of verses 10-12. The only attempt I have seen to make “the heavens and the earth” something other than the physical creation didn’t satisfy YOU, Xavier, and doesn’t satisfy me. But for me, the principle of AGENCY explains perfectly why it is addressed to the Son, and there is no contradiction. How do YOU explain it?
John 8:58 fits the pattern. Jesus was NOT claiming the name of God. But he WAS claiming that he existed before Abraham was born.
That is the only meaning that fits the CONTEXT, and that is why the Jews immediately tried to stone him.
Yes, I take his words literally. I take his words in John 17:3 literally, too, even though a confirmed Trinitarian does not. I see no need to be intimidated by dogmatic “ologies” of ANY kind. But I am definitely willing to look at EVIDENCE.
Marg
Sure but you have to stay within the Hebraic teaching regarding humans and where they come from. Adam was created from the earth, he was not some disembodied angel-type being who took on a body. There is just no evidence for that sort of thing UNTIL you come to the pagan-Gnostic, Greco-Roman view.
Fair enough but how do you ever reconcile this interpretation with the LITERAL sense in which the Gospels describe the origin [Mat 1.1, 18] and coming into existence of the Son [Mat 1.20; Luke 1.35]?
The writer of Hebrews is quoting from Psalm 102 which looks FORWARD to a “future generation…a people not yet CREATED” [v.18]. Nothing to do with the Genesis creation. But again, if we read it the way you’re suggesting it would not harmonize with the rest of scripture which clearly places God as the SOLE CREATOR of “the heavens and earth”.
If you read the verse IN CONTEXT, Jesus is talking about Abraham seeing the Messianic age [v.56] . A Gospel plan that was certainly foreknown by the patriarchs. If Jesus had wanted to say that he somehow preexisted his birth he well could have said it and not left it to speculation.
Its always interesting to me how most readers side with the Pharisees who are clearly wrong in this instance.
Marg
No, I don’t think there is any connection between John 8:58 and Ex 3:14. Arguments for and against this have been made many times. All I will say is that my Hebrew sources suggest ‘I AM that I AM’ to be a poor translation of Ex 3:14 and the link between these verses is an imaginary one born of poor translation of both passages.
Xavier
Matt 1:1 the Greek word GENESIS can also mean ‘an account of someone’s life, history’. The ESV thus translates it ‘The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ’
Matt 1:18 The same Greek word has , according to the BDAG lexicon ‘special ref. to circumstances under which the birth took place’ and is translated by the ESV and others simply as ‘birth’.
Therefore, there are other, linguistically correct, alternatives to ‘origin’.
Matt 1:20 the meaning of the Greek word GENNAO means ‘has been conceived’.
In Luke 1:35 this same word, in the participle, means ‘one to be born’
In context, the angel is explaining to Mary that she is going to become pregnant supernaturally and to Joseph how she became pregnant. The angel uses the obvious word for it, as there is no specific Greek word that captures the full idea, and then explains that this is a supernatural event. It is reading a lot into this passage to limit this supernatural event to also meaning that Jesus’ life had to begin at time. The angel is explaining to Mary and Joseph, in human terms, the situation that they face. It’s a stretch to say all the details are included.
As I stated earlier, Jesus did make a specific claim to pre-existence. John 8:58, properly translated, says exactly that – that he had been in continuous existence since before Abraham was born.
Andy
So Jesus’ sonship is somehow figurative/metaphorical and not an actual, human birth? Sounds like the way Muslim interpret the virgin birth to me.