(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
I DO realize that “the word is NOT Jesus until Jesus is alive.” That is obvious.
But verse 10 is quite clear: HE (the word) was now in the world. The world did not recognize HIM, even though HE was the one through whom the world had come into being.
I do thank you,Anthony, for pointing out the absence of the upper case letter in word. I won’t use it again. In fact, I was surprised to see the capitalization used by John when describing the rider on the white horse in Revelation 19. “His name is called, The word of the God.” [I don't know why the article is capitalized and the noun not, but it is interesting.]
Thanks, Xavier, for the info from Dunn. I don’t mind the idea of personification. My problem lies with the words of John 1:10, which deals with “the word” after it was undeniably a he.
And he is explicitly said to have brought the world into existence.
Marg
This is great! Where you go wrong is saying that Jesus created the world! He did not. He is the person whom God had in mind from the beginning of creation. He is what wisdom became not what a fictitious “GOD the Son became”.
The word is a HE as soon as the Messiah comes into existence and Luke and Matt tell us when that was!
Are you willing to give up God the Son and go with the Son of God?
Andy
You are right “this word” is the right translation!! That avoids adding what is not there. This ONE is wrong since it imports a person other than God.
Check this out from a German about the disaster which happened when GOD the Son was invented:
Heinz Zahrnt, The Historical Jesus, 29-30:
Marg
(Hope I get this one right)
When the NT was written it was written in uncial script – that is, entirely in capital letters. There were no spaces between words, no punctuation marks, etc.
Over time, copyists transformed this into ‘usual’ script and added spaces between words, punctuation, accents, breathing marks and so on. The translator does not have to accept these indicators. The apparatus of the NA27 Greek text shows which translations use which punctuation scheme and so forth.
John, therefore, did not capitalise anything and the translator needs to capitalise words in accordance with proper English grammar and his understanding of the Greek text.
The ESV translates Rev 19:13 as ‘and the name by which he is called is The Word of God’
As this is clearly a name, the ESV’s capitalisation seems justified.
The ESV translates John 1:1 as ‘?In the beginning was ?the Word’.
Here the translators show that they understand ‘The Word’ to be either a name or a title. As Anthony said earlier, they have worked a little interpretation into their translation. Then again, to translate it as ‘the word’ also has a tiny bit of interpretation in it – that the translator does not think it is a title or name, or if they do, they are not wiling to reveal their stance on it yet.
Of course, if we understand ‘the word’ as being God’s design, then we could argue that ‘The Word’ is the title of that design, just as Anova Road Map is the title of my company’s grand design for its Anova product.
Anthony’s own translation of John 1:1 is ‘In the beginning there was God’s Grand Design, the declaration of His Intention and Purpose, and that declaration was with God as His project, and it was fully expressive of God Himself.’ (http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/John.htm)
If capitalising the word ‘Word’ is adding to scripture, then I hesitate to say what this is…
Andy
Anthony
I quite like some translations that render HOUTOS as ‘the same was with God’, etc. to me it expresses the thought a little more smoothly.
Of course, in English ‘one’ can refer to a person or a thing, but I agree most readers would equate ‘one’ with person and so it is interpreting the text, if only a little.
Anthony, you may rest assured that I no more believe in God the Son than you do. As I once said in a discourse, ‘the Bible says Son of God not God the Son – Trinitarianism seems to me to be a form of dyslexia’. A bit flippant, I know, but I was a lot younger then and took things less seriously. Maybe I still should
You may be pleased to learn I received my copy of Brown yesterday (actually, several of his works) and have started to go through them. Not a trivial task, as they are not exactly short stories! But I am, of course, focussing on his commentary in the salient verses of our discussion. More to follow – but I will try not to post in haste and make a fool of myself again.
Andy
Thanks for the comments.
I think the closest one can get to stating that Jesus was the word is to do it with an anaphorical understanding. In other words, if John says, Jesus was the brazen serpent he is doing it referring to the historical Jesus and seeing significance in the brazen serpent anaphorically or “backward-pointing” of earlier times. It is NOT a historically factual statement it is a metaphorical statement containing significance and meaning. The same with saying, Jesus “was the manna” or that Jesus “was the rock” in 1 Corinthians 10. It points back to earlier events, and meaning or significance is seen in those. No ontological 1-to-1 identification is intended or implied. Once this conceptual connection is made, the lights will go on…
Andy
Thanks, but your languages skills seem a bit shaky. I am being a bit unfair probably, and forgive.
You say “this ONE” can refer to a thing, but in that context (you admit) it really could not! The point is that logos is not a person until IT like wisdom becomes a Man. This is very Hebrew and natural in that Jewish environment.
Try this, please and embrace the real Messiah:
Anthony, “God the Son” is not in the Bible and is not in my vocabulary. It never has been. You will not find it in ANYTHING that I have written. I don’t have to give it up.
So what is the basis of your question?
Jaco, John didn’t say that Jesus was the brazen serpent. He quotes Jesus as saying, “AS Moses lifted up the serpent … even so must the son be lifted up.”
However, “the word became flesh” sounds like a simple statment of fact. As Anthony has already pointed out, that was the transition between the word as “it” to the word as “he”.
That literal fact is borne out by the context. Notice that the same thing is stated about the word BEFORE “it” became flesh as is said about the word AFTER “it” became flesh and therefore is “he”. Notice:
All things came into existence through the word (v. 2). And …
… the world came into existence through him (v. 10).
The parallel is too striking to ignore. The world that came into existence through HIM is part of the all things that came into existence through “it”. “It” and “he” are one and the same, so far as being the agent of God’s creation is concerned.
Besides, it fits all the other verses which either imply or state explicitly that “he” (the word) did not begin to exist at the birth of Jesus.
Let’s be clear about this: the pre-existence of Christ does NOT mean that God is tri-une. The word of God does NOT mean “God the word,” and “Son of God” does NOT mean “God the Son,” and the “mother of Jesus” does NOT mean “Jesus the mother.”
So let’s deal with what the scriptures actually say, and avoid frivolous questions.
Thanks Anthony
A point that seems to come up a lot in these posts (to me and to Marg) is that if the word is pre-existent then 1) it is pre-existent as ‘God the Son’ and 2) that Jesus could not be ‘fully man’
In other words, it would be the Trinitarian concept about the Incarnation of a ‘God Man’.
I’m certainly not arguing for that, and I don’t think Marg is either.
I have a question about your statement: “He is the person whom God had in mind from the beginning of creation”. This could be interpreted as meaning that God planned mankind’s need for redemption from the start… Is that what you mean?
Andy
Anthony
As you suggested, I have been reading Raymond Brown. Naturally, I have not (yet) read all 700+ pages of his Birth Narratives, but have focussed on the verses that we have been discussing.
Here are a few things I have found. (The capitalization is mine in these quotes.)
Regarding the discussion of Luke 1, Brown writes: “this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians, since in pre-existence christology a conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring about the existence of God’s Son. Luke is SEEMINGLY UNAWARE of such a christology; conception is causally related to divine sonship for him.” (p291)
You wrote, however: “Luke knows NOTHING about pre-existence”.
Notice that Brown is much more guarded than you. Luke is ‘seemingly unaware’, which does not exclude the possibility that he was aware, but chose not to specify those details.
Indeed, it would be committing a logical fallacy to conclude absolutely that Luke knew nothing about pre-existence. As a simple example, Luke does not mention the wedding feast in Cana, nor Jesus’ miracle of turning water into wine. Does it follow that Luke knew nothing of it? Does it follow that John contradicts Luke because he mentions it?
The most that you can deduce from Luke’s not mentioning something is that he *might* have been unaware of it *or* that he chose not to mention it.
Brown is well aware of this logic – when commenting on the paucity of scriptures outside of Matthew and Luke that refer to the virgin conception & birth, he writes:
“I would say that it is perfectly proper to speak of the silence of the rest of the NT about the virginal conception because not a single one of the “implicit references” has any compelling force. On the other hand, one would MISINTERPRET this silence if one concluded from it that no other author of the NT (outside of Matthew and Luke) knew of the virginal conception, or that the historicity of the virginal conception is thus disproved. We have no way of knowing how widespread in NT times was a belief in the virginal conception.” (p521)
This same line of argument can be made with regard to preexistence, can it not?
Brown also writes “I insisted in ‘The Birth of the Messiah’ that conception from/through/of the Spirit of Matt (and Luke) was a notion of Jesus’ sonship very different from John’s notion of a preexistent divine Son ever at the Father’s side … The Prologues to John and Hebrews are scarcely Gentile theology, and WHY IS THE JOINING OF PREEXISTENCE AND CONCEPTION CHRISTOLOGY NOT TO BE CONSIDERED A PERCEPTIVE THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT?” (p602)
Do you see how Brown sees, rather than a contradiction between Luke and John, that John develops and enhances Luke’s narrative? Do you see how Brown does not reject preexistence?
I would add that I do not necessarily agree with everything Brown writes. As I read his book in context, I see that he is often looking at things from the standpoint of historical (higher) criticism of the scriptures, a viewpoint I do not share. That being so, I wonder why you put such weight on his writings – especially as I have shown, and will further show, that he does not provide you with unqualified support for your position.
You again stress that GENNAO in Luke 1:35 means ‘begotten’ and state that beget means ‘cause to come into existence’. But Brown doesn’t agree with you. He writes of Luke 1:35: “the child to be born. This translates to genn?menon, a neuter passive participle, present tense, of gennan, “to beget (as a father), to bear (as a mother)”; see the NOTES on this verb in Matt 1:16, 20 and footnote 23 in § 5. In itself, the translation “the one begotten” is equally possible, and certainly the aorist passive participle has the meaning “begotten” in Matt 1:20. BUT THE SITUATION IN LUKE IS QUITE DIFFERENT from the situation envisaged by Matthew where Joseph is worried about the paternity of the child. Everything in Luke is from the viewpoint of the virgin mother, and paternity is not even mentioned. CONSEQUENTLY THE VERB SEEMS TO MEAN “BORN” HERE.” (p291)
Getting away from Brown, the BDAG lexicon gives GENNAO these meanings:
1) become parent of, beget
a. By procreation
b. by exercising the role of a parental figure
2) to give birth to, bear
3) to cause something to happen
It lists Luke 1:35 under definition 2.
The English definition of beget is “to cause to come into existence by procreation” (Webster’s dictionary) and is, therefore, a much narrower term than GENNAO. You seem insistent of applying an even narrower definition (‘cause to come into existence’) to the GENNAO of these verses.
As Marg puts it, you are hanging an awful lot on the definition of one word, and your definition, both of the English and the Greek, is artificially narrowed.
In addition to Brown you quote Robertson, Vine and Bruce and ask if we can compete with them. These scholars are all Trinitarians who accept a pre-existent Jesus! For example, Robertson, in his ‘Word Pictures’ has at least 20 entries supporting the Trinity and 5 that mention Jesus being preexistent. You would not hesitate to ‘compete’ with Robertson where he supports the Trinity, would you?
What all this demonstrates is that appeals to authority and, especially, selective appeals to authority can only carry so much weight, unless that authority is accepted by all parties as absolutely correct.
Anyway, I wont labour this point any further – but I hope you will agree that I have read at least some of Brown. You probably wont agree with the conclusions I have draw, and that is fine with me.
Andy
Andy,
I think Anthony is very capable of answering your interesting questions. If I can add a few observations of my own (not having read Brown’s book).
If you’d asked me that question, I’d say, yes. I know it does not gel well with modern redemption theological schemes, but that is precisely what is implied. Something else you might not know, is that according to ancient Judaism, not only the Messiah but also things such as Torah, Gehenna, etc. notionally preexisted with God. You could ask the question, did God plan mankind’s need for Torah or the eventual fate of sinful mankind because these constructs were present with God before creation? The ancients believed so.
This is modest academic lingo, Andy. You’ll find that scholars denying the Trinity in the Bible use just as modest language in their volumes. There are various genres of academic writing and some are less expressive than others. This modesty does not weaken the compelling arguments they give either for or against a position.
No, not necessarily. Arguing from silence is only invalid if the silence is inconclusive and insignificant. Now significance can be very presuppositional. But such presuppositional notions are very valid if one logically expects with high probability the presence of something under certain circumstances and find its absence peculiar. For instance, if there were something like a progressive revelation in God’s self-disclosure to the point of approximating the Trinity doctrine, it would be logical to expect elaborations, even controversy and outrage – among Jews and converted Christians alike – and even some systematic explanation of the concept; especially since something much more authentic to the ancient world as Jesus’ “ransom sacrifice” received such attention by many a bible writer. Something logically expected, even circumstantially insisted upon, is strikingly absent, weakening the notion of a first-century proto-Trinity doctrine considerably. The same can be said about the striking absence of the idea of preexistence in sources dealing precisely with hard-core history of the Messiah, even his birth and divine origin. One would expect much, much more on this, especially since both writers go into so much detail around the circumstances, events, significances, etc. The absence of this idea tends to push for a negative conclusion. No other writer goes into the details of his birth, the historical events, etc., hence no compelling need for anyone to really mention what would be included in such discussions, namely Jesus’ personal preexistence. So no, topically the absence of Jesus’ virginal birth in other discussions is to be expected.
I think you’re misunderstanding this. A theological development is different from a historical development. There are many distinct theological lines developed in John and this is because John has a specific crowd, refuting certain rival influences and a Philonic epistemological frame he is using in writing about Jesus and salvation. If John’s intentions were different and due to theological significances elaborated on Jesus’ life and meaning, the error would therefore be to assume factual historical reporting at every instance, and absence of theological metaphor. Brown understands the difference, as do Dunn and others.
How does the fine distinction in nuance (between a father begetting and a mother bearing) change what is implicitly assumed with being born, namely coming into existence? This is a false distinction and has no bearing on the issue at all. Secondly, as any student of Cognitive Linguistics would recognise, there are prototypical meanings to words and from these prototypical “centres” related meanings and applications “radiate.” In other words, if a word has a prototypical meaning as well as a metaphorical or colloquial meaning, something implicit to this word links the marginal meanings to the prototypical one. Furthermore, if a word has a marginal or derived use or application, it would be a fundamental error to use this derived meaning and superimpose it onto the prototypical word and change some aspect of that word in turn. So, whatever weakness you find in the idea of “coming into existence” of GENNAO as used derivatively in some instances cannot be used to change what is implicitly intended in its prototypical meaning.
I won’t agree with you here either. If a trinitarian denies what would otherwise be ideal evidence for his position, then that is significant. No one scholar has everything right and this in itself does not render appealing to authority erroneous in principle. Vine’s errors are clear, thanks to scholars who can and do compete with him. It is therefore no error to challenge their mistakes, but to do so in an informed and as objectively as possible manner.
Hopefully you will not settle for this modernist anachronistic approaches to the notion of preexistence. Hopefully you’ll continue to try and understand the mindset of the ancient Jew as expressed in language we tend to misunderstand these days.
Jaco
Andy
The lamb was slain from the beginning so provision was made for sin. But that is a separate point: The word is NOT God the SON. The word is God’s word! If you say God the Son (and knowing that the Father is God), God hears you speaking of two Gods! I think the universe groans!
1300 times GOD means the Father in the NT!!! Does that not put your mind at ease?
You are unaware of the understatements! Why is orthodox embarrassed by Luke!? Please explain why Brown says they are.
Gennao means to cause to come into existence. It is the causative of ginomai. Please now consult the New International Dictionary of NT Theology (ed Colin Brown) to confirm what I say here.
Gennao can refer to the birth from a woman– we all know that.In Matt. 1:18 the event is IN the womb and thus beget is right.
Please comment on why the RV pointed this out in the margin in 1881. Why did they point this out?
Look under Gennao for this easy info in NIDNTTh. I hope to introduce you to the right literature.
Anthony
Marg
“God the Son” is not in the Bible and is not in my vocabulary. It never has been. You will not find it in ANYTHING that I have written. I don’t have to give it up.
So what is the basis of your question?
Yes, that is it and that is enough! Is God impressed with all the hairsplitting when we should all know that God cannot die (you agree) and an immortal holy angel cannot die.
The translations in John push the Trinity as you know.
It seems we are now agreed about IT and he.
We are socinians in Christology. There is no Son of God until the Son of God comes into existence.
Jesus is human and really Deut. 18:15-18 should have convinced us all long long ago.
Anthony
Anthony, since you are the only one who is using the title “God the Son,” I wish you would follow your own advice and give it up.
Jaco, conception and birth occur at different times. That makes two different beginnings, separated in time, and is hardly just a “fine distinction in nuance”. It means that the “beginning of existence” must have occurred on two different days. In other words, the word gennao won’t support the weight that is hanging on it.
Besides that, when the king in Psalm 2 proclaims the Lord’s decree, “You are my son, today I have begotten you,” he is NEITHER a newly fertilized egg NOR a new-born baby. He is God’s Messiah, whom God has set on Mount Zion. The Jews who consider it part of the coronation ceremony are justified in doing so.
The account is chronological and easy to understand. It also fits what God said to David about Solomon. It has to do with God’s relationship to the one on the throne (the idea of agency again); and that is why it is associated with Christ’s resurrection in Acts 13 and again in Hebrews 1.
Marg,
I know conception and birth occur at different times, Marg. But if I want to relate the bringing into existence of someone to the father or the bringing into existence to the mother, I am perfectly justified by using the word GENNAO to convey the prototypical idea of bringing into existence. From a modern biological point of view there should be no difference, I KNOW, but that is not how concepts are necessarily formulated. The ancients’ understanding of GENNAO was from a cultural, not a scientific perspective and that is where you and Andy tend to commit your mistakes in your arguments. From a linguistic perspective, GENNAO does have a fine distinction in nuance when its usage related to a father’s role is compared to that of the mother and the distinction does not obliterate the central notion of bringing into existence as you so strongly argue for.
Having said that, and IF the Acts 13 passage applies GENNAO to the resurrection alone, this derived, metaphorical usage does not change the central notion of coming into existence in the prototypical understanding of the word GENNAO. Beginning of something, of a new relationship, of a new kind of existence is a derived notion of “beginning to exist” in its prototypical meaning.
I think a good book to read, just to get the feel of cultural concepts as they are expressed in language is The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man by Frankfurt et al.
Marg
We know you are not a Trini!
You believe it seems in an angel who became a man. Alas, holy angel cannot die, nor can God. So you have a non-dying ‘Savior’.
Not so good!
Anthony
Just for the record, I do NOT believe that an angel became a man.
I am glad to repeat once again (because it is worth repeating) that Samuel Clarke’s The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity gives the most comprehensive list of passages relating to God, his Son and his Spirit that I have ever read, and the conclusions he based on the evidence holds up.
It is also worth noting (as Dale mentioned in another thread) that this is the doctrine taught by the early fathers. Then came Arius, then came the Trinity, then came …
As for dying, Hebrews tells us quite explicitly that the REASON the Son became a man was so he could offer himself as a sacrifice. I won’t go into those passages again, but no one has yet refuted them.
Finally, what I find most distasteful about BOTH trinitarians AND socinians is the tendency on the part of both to make belief in their theory a necessary condition for salvation. The Athanasian creed tells me I am eternally damned if I don’t believe every word of it. You tell me I have a non-dying Saviour, implying that my Saviour is no Saviour at all. I am a non-Christian, either way.
I am not impressed.
Thank you. The beginning of a new kind of existence is certainly evident in Psalm 2:7, and (I believe) in the New Testament quotations thereof in Acts and Hebrews.
In other words, Psalm 2:7 definitely does NOT clinch the fact that Jesus began to exist when he was conceived or when he was born or both.
In fact, just such a new kind of existence is seen in the fact that “the word became flesh”. He was now a man, living in the world that had come into existence THROUGH him.
The same principle can be seen in Hebrews 2. The Son became a partaker of flesh and blood – a new kind of existence – so that THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him that had the power of death (vv. 14-16).
Chapter 9:26 tells us the same thing in different words. If more than one sacrifice for sin had been necessary, he would have to suffer many times since the world began; “but now once at the end of the ages he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
That’s wonderful.
Marg,
You are superimposing aspects of a derived meaning back onto the prototypical meaning. That is your error. Just because spiritual death takes place while a person is still actually alive does not mean that death in itself is not truly dying at all. You are committing an equivalent mistake. You are also giving literal meaning to a highly theological account in the Johannine prologue. John was not writing the Matthew birth narrative and Matthew was not concerned over the Philonic significance of Jesus in God’s purpose. You’re confusing the two very distinct genres. That would be the same as archaeologists taking Plato’s Timaeus seriously in searching for Atlantis. A literalist approach given to a highly metaphorical genre.
There is no temporality or a transformatory aspect associated with the “partaking” in Heb. 2:14. The same word, meteschiken is used in Heb. 7:13. Jesus never belonged to any other tribe that his “partaking” of the non-priestly tribe of Judah should mean that he temporarily assumed tribal affiliation with Judah. No, he “sprang from” or has risen out of Judah, firmly belonging to that tribe. The same can and should be said about his “partaking” of humanity. Not in a temporal sense, but in a qualitative sense of fully belonging to or being a member of the class of humanity. That is how far it goes.
Anthony can speak for himself, but I don’t know him to be judgmental in any way. The mortality issue of angels compared to Jesus is incidental and is not meant to have a bearing on your salvation because an angelic Messiah would not be able to die. You might have given Anthony’s message a meaning he most probably did not intend it to have. My theology can be classified as “Socinian” and I don’t judge your salvation. Neither do Socinians have a central authority deciding on the salvation of others as the Calvinists and Athanasians and others do. So I take exception to your statement above.
Take care,
Jaco
All (as this is relevant to many of the posts that have occurred since my last post)
Jaco, just in case you have not read this whole thread, I am not a trinitarian. I dont think Jesus is part of a Godhead or anything like that. I believe he was created by God. The question is *when*.
Anthony recommended I look at the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, which is a book I have owned for quite a whole, but have not made much use of.
In its entry on Birth, Beget, Bear, Become, Miscarriage, Regeneration, Well-born, which covers GENNAO and related words, it comments on Psalm 2:7 and Acts 13:33 it states “Strikingly, the NT does not apply Ps. 2:7 to the birth narratives of Jesus. Wherever Ps. 2 is quoted in the NT, a physical, sexual begetting is utterly precluded. Acts 13:33 applies the words “this day have I begotten thee” to the resurrection of Jesus.”
Anthony is right, this book does contain a definition of GENNAO as “come into being” but the context of that definition is “In the secular world of NT times genna? has the meaning of come into being as well as produce in a metaphorical or vague general sense”. Of course, in the ‘secular world’ divinely begotten children were, well, not exactly a regular occurrence, so all this seems to prove is that they used it for normal begetting.
The book goes on to say “The actual meaning of genna? must be determined by the context in both its active and passive forms, as it is used both of the father and the mother as in cl. Gk. (cf. Matt. 1:3, 5f.; 2:1, 4; 19:12; Lk. 1:13; Jn. 9:34; 16:21; Gal. 4:23). It is, however, used in a figurative or extended sense as follows:
1. Various passages apply the term to God himself who is said to have begotten someone.”
I see that Anthony has accurately, but selectively, quoted this book to make it seem that their definition matches his in the case of the conception of Jesus. But a fuller quotation shows that this is not the case. Indeed, looking at its entry on God I find it says ‘According to the developed christology of Jn. 1:1, he existed already before his earthly existence as the divine Word (logos) with God.’
Anyway, we can quote authorities for the next 10 years not really prove anything. They are, after all, just people. Fallible people at that.
Jaco mentioned getting into the mindset of the 1st Century Bible writers. I fully agree. When we look at Matthew and Luke we see that they both provide an extensive genealogy of Jesus. Why? Because they were trying to establish that Jesus met the criteria for being the Christ: in the line of Abraham, in the line of Judah and in the line of David. Their concern was to prove that Jesus met the credentials. Their focus, therefore, was on his ancestry *at the time* of his conception/birth/begetting as a human. They just use the normal word for it, one which the NIDNTT acknowledges is used in a figurative or extended sense when the father is God and not a man. They don’t mention a preexistence because it has no bearing on establishing Jesus’ Messianic credentials as far as his family tree is concerned. Why would they add an extra detail which would cloud the issue they were trying to prove – that Jesus fulfilled the requirements for beng the Messiah?
Going back to scripture, one good test of a teaching/theory is to fit it into passages and see if it holds water. Let’s look at Phil 2 which says, according to the NAB:
5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
?6? Who, though he was in the form of God, did not REGARD equality with God something to be grasped. 7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; ?and found human in appearance, 8? he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death,
Does this fit that prior to being emptied and coming in human likeness, Jesus was actually God’s plan? Should this be understood in the terms of God planning Jesus’ appearance on earth?
The word I want to look at is REGARD – Greek haygeomai. The definition of it is “to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard” (BDAG). The Greek word is in the aorist third person singular middle voice indicative. The middle voice means that this regarding was done by Jesus/the plan internally (with respect to himself), and the context shows this was prior to becoming Jesus the man.
Problem: plans do not think for themselves. They don’t consider grasping/retaining/exploiting (pick your preferred translation of harpagmos as it doesn’t matter for the point I am making) equality with God because plans are an it – they have no consciousness and are entirely in the hands of the designer…
So, I don’t see how this verse can relate to God’s Grand Design, but if it doesn’t then how is Jesus existing in the form of God prior to becoming a man? Or, maybe we should just take the verse at face value.
Just to clarify: ‘form of God’ does not have to mean Jesus == God or Jesus is God the Son…
Andy
Andy
You misread the dictionary. Gennao is the CAUSAL FORM of gennomai in the NT as well as secular Greek. You can discover this easily by looking at the many occurences of gennao in the chronology lists. It is self-evident!
The dictionary is of the NT and its meanings apply to NT words.
In Phil 2 you are assuming preexistence. Paul is describing “the man Messiah Jesus” [v.5] a historical figure who was in the image/form of God. There is no need to have the word “existing” hoping that this will lead you to “preexisting”. Jesus WAS in the form of God just as Adam WAS the image of God.
If you would kindly read my 2 books this would safe me alot of repition.
Thanks,
Anthony
Thanks Anthony
I have quoted the dictionary verbatim and I will leave it for the readers of this site to see if I have misread it.
Same for Phil 2, where you say Paul view Jesus as an historical figure in God’s Form/image. The following verses say he then empties himself, takes a slave’s form and comes in human likeness. Again, I will leave it for the readers to judge for themselves if yours is a good explanation.
One thing I do agree with you, from one of you previous, posts – it’s enough. This thread had dragged on for a long time and I think the time has come for me to move on to other things.
Best wishes to all
Andy
Marg
You are an Arian, then. Can you tell us about what the Son of God was doing in the OT, when God did not speak in a Son (Heb 1).
The early fathers like J Martyr believed in a preexistinng Son, brought into existence.
Later this developed into eternal generation and Trinity.
Thank you, Andy, for reading the dictionary Anthony recommended and for quoting it verbatim. That is the only way that readers can judge what the book actually says.
But I don’t believe that the Son was created. I’m willing to be shown, but I cannot find a single passage that suggests such a thing. Can you?
Instead, I find evidence that God’s Son (like his word) always was. God always had a means of expressing himself, and that is what both word and son imply. If the son was created at some point in time, or if the word was created at some point in time, then for an infinitely long period of time God had no way of expressing his mind.
Hebrews 7:1-3 gives biblical support to this view.
Melchizedec was a man. But the record makes him LIKE the Son of God. His name means “king of righteousness”. His title means “king of peace”. Also, he was “priest of God most high,” and that is what the author is trying to establish: Christ is our great high priest, after the order of Melchizedec, and not after the levitical priesthood.
We recognize the list that follows as figurative and not literal. It lists things that are ABSENT from the record, things that made Melchizedec LIKE the Son of God, of whom they are literally true.
Notice: he was
1. without father (so far as the record is concerned)
2. without mother
3. without genealogy (no connection with the levitical priesthood)
4. without beginning of days (that goes with having no father or mother)
5. without end of life.
This is not a “proof text,” but it certainly supports Clarke’s view of the Son of God, the monogenes of the Father.
Marg
Howbout…
Compare the above with Gal 4.4; Rom 1.3 [Phil 2.7] and “note the deliberate and unusual use of ginomai to express the beginning of existence, not just birth” [Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, p 147].
This biblical phrase “only-begotten” [monogenes] also speaks to the fact that the Son of God was procreated at a point in time. Also note the technical words used to describe “the holy child to be born”. The first is the word tikto, variously translated “to bring forth, give birth”. This word is related to another that is often used in reference to the Son, prototokos [“firstborn”] as well as gennao [“cause to exist”] and used synonymously with ginomai [“come into existence”].
Similarly to the Word Study Dictionary comments above regarding the word gennao, Matthew’s use of words “with a temporal notion” [i.e. genesis] has long “troubled theologians”.
So if the Son is eternal where is he to be found in the Hebrew scriptures? He is neither seen nor heard from:
Andy
You have missed the point entirely! The dictionary is a dictionary of NT theology.
You are desperate!
Yes, of course gennao means what it means in secular Greek also! How can you have missed the point that NIDNTth. gives you the biblical meaning of gennao? Please don’t wear us all out with something which is perfectly easy and obvious.
This is a very easy word and in the NT and LXX it means “to cause to come into existence”; “to give existence to”!
I hope that is now clear to you.
You can start looking at gennao in Matt 1 and after 40 occurrences you will get the easy idea!
Gennao, I repeat, is the causative of ginomai, to become. ie “to CAUSE to be”; “cause to come into existence, cause to exist.”
You will learn then that in Matt 1:18, 20 and Luke 1:35 the meaning is that the SON was caused to come into existence! Your Jesus was already in existence and thus could not come into existence!
Raymond Brown quotes with the favor the idea that these verses are “embarrassing” for orthodoxy. I trust that they are embarrassing for you!
Anthony
And here is where your argument goes full-circle. If you claim that Jesus’ preexistence was a historical event, you’ll need the support of historical accounts to do so. If these historical accounts go back to Adam in genealogy and focus on God’s role in all of this, and something as central to your Christology as preexistence is strikingly absent, then its absence should lean toward a very negative conclusion. What you’re doing here, however, is ASSUMING preexistence and explaining why the historical accounts saw that as insignificant. On what basis do you ASSUME preexistence? Probably on John’s testimony. And here you also show double standards. If you are so critical of historical accounts such as that of Luke and Matthew, why the same critical approach toward GJohn, particularly since John’s literary genre was NOT so much concerned over the history as it was over the theological significance of Christ? Inconsistent and ad hoc argumentation here and circular reasoning.
No, and no one is arguing for this position here. The Philippian hymn belongs solely to the human life of Jesus on earth and beyond. Pre-human existence is not assumed or discussed there.
Which context shows this???
This hymn speaks of Jesus’ being human on earth as God’s royal emissary. As such, he had all the rights of a royal heir, but he had a commission to fulfill according to God’s, not his will. Instead of grasping at equality with God as Adam did, Jesus yielded to his fate. He did so while being in God’s image/form. He assumed the image and appearance of a commoner, an outcast, even a slave. This he did until his death after which he was highly exalted. If you read the Song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 52 and 53, you’ll see the striking parallels.
Jaco
I have added emphasis to this in the hope that someone will actually read it.
You admitted a mistake and learned from it, Andy. That is to your credit.
And no; you are not the one who is desperate.
Thanks Marg
In case this got missed, I went on to say that the same dictionary also stated, in the same entry,
“The actual meaning of gennaa must be determined by the context in both its active and passive forms, as it is used both of the father and the mother as in cl. Gk. (cf. Matt. 1:3, 5f.; 2:1, 4; 19:12; Lk. 1:13; Jn. 9:34; 16:21; Gal. 4:23). It is, however, used in a figurative or extended sense as follows:
1. Various passages apply the term to God himself who is said to have begotten someone.”
Anyway, I stated in my previous post:
“One thing I do agree with you (Anthony), from one of you previous, posts – it’s enough. This thread had dragged on for a long time and I think the time has come for me to move on to other things.”
That is still my intention – since that post I have been called ‘desperate’ and accused of having ‘double standards’, which is hardly a tone in keeping with 2 Tim 2:24, 25, so I stand by my decision to withdraw from this thread.
I will leave it the readers on this site to see if I have misread/misquoted the above verbatim quote from the NIDNTT.
Marg, you asked “But I don’t believe that the Son was created. I’m willing to be shown, but I cannot find a single passage that suggests such a thing. Can you?”. I don’t know if this was directed at me in particular, but if you want to chat with me about it you can reach me on discussion at andyskosmos dot com.
Andy
It’s a pity that such discussions should be derailed by such strong emotional expressions. Everything else is then interpreted emotionally and offense is quickly taken. Just for the record, even if a word is used METAPHORICALLY, there is no reason to interpret the PROTOTYPICAL word according to unrelated aspects around its extended use. The metaphorical use of GENNAO is therefore as irrelevant to its prototypical meaning as “spiritual death” is to the consciousness of a person in the case of “physical death.”
Good discussions nevertheless…
Andy – I , too, am dropping this thread. But there is one detail I want to clarify for the sake of Xavier, who is still pressing the gennao button. The word in question is the word CREATED.
That word is used six times in Genesis in connection with the creation of Adam/man (3 times in ch. 1:27 and 3 more in 5:1-2). It is used again in 1 Cor. 11:9.
This word (Heb. bara) does not appear often in the OT, and its meaning is clear. There was not a single man anywhere until Adam was created. He was the first man (anthropos) and the first Adam (lord, under God, of the whole earth).
The word CREATED is never used of the Son of God. (I expect that statement to be tested. If anyone can show that it is false, I will admit I made a mistake.)
So in what sense is Jesus the LAST Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)?
I believe it has to do with the stewardship that God gave to Adam. He was made lord of all.
There have been many Adams since then – authority figures who have exercised lordship over all or part of the world. But the Messiah is the last “Adam”. Because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, his reign is both absolute and eternal (Hebrews 1:8; 1 Cor. 15:24-28).
The whole context should be read, of course; but v. 47 speaks of the second man (anthropos), and this second man is the lord out of heaven (as opposed to the first man, who was from the earth).
This second man is not the last man. Because of his work, there is forming a whole new race of men – those who are his own: forgiven, reconciled to God, and predestined to be conformed to the image of God’s Son (Romans 8:29). He is the second man – the first of many. But he is the last Adam, and that is a promise that is just exploding with hope.
I’ll check your website, Andy. Thanks.
Thanks Marg
There’s nothing on the website, yet. I was trying to write an email address that spam-bots won’t pick up.
Andy
If I have accused you of any of those things please quote me. We all know that genna is used in a figurative sense. Where you misstated the facts is this: you tried to show the gennao in the Bible does not mean the coming n existence of a person. That is its PRIMARY meaning n secular Greek as well as in the NT.
It is I submit, DESPERATE to try to tell us that the dictionary does of include the iliac use of gennao. It does.
THat said, will you please explain what is meant by the begetig of the Son in Mat 1.20?
Please do not tell us that gennao also means to bear of the woman.
My straight question to you: when Was the Sn begotten? And whe was he begotten in 1 John 5.20?
Hi Anthony
Your post 26 says “You are desperate!”…
We covered Matt 1;20 way back in this thread, where I quoted the BDAG lexicon as stating “that which is conceived in her is of the Spirit Mt 1:20. They cite Diodorus Siculus 17, 77, 3, ed. [LDindorf,] FVogel, CFischer [1866ff,] 1888ff; COldfather 1933ff as the basis of this.
This variant of GENNAO – aor passive participle sing nom neuter only occurs once in the NT and not at all in the LXX, which is probably why they look at other uses of it. I don’t have Diodorus Siculus so I cannot check this any further.
Other works that agree with the BDAG include Runge: Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, NET Bible, KJV, TNIV, RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, NAB, Jewish New Testament and others. I know you disagree with them, but I’m just citing these as some evidence that the BDAG’s suggestion is not isolated and unsupported.
If I gave the impression that I claimed the dictionary (NIDNTT) does not include the iliac use of gennao, I apologise. I agree it does. I was simply pointing out that it did not just state this and say nothing else – some of the other things it stated I quoted in previous posts.
Anyway, can we drop this? I have great respect for you as a man who has had the courage to speak up against the Trinity. I have been all over your site and find that our beliefs probably overlap a lot more than this thread may give the impression. I am not a Trinitarian. I believe Jesus was 100% human when he came to the earth – as human as we are, but without sin.
We have a difference over whether he existed before being conceived as a human and I can understand that this might give the impression that I believe in some kind of ‘incarnation’ of a ‘God-Man’. I don’t. My Messiah is 100% human.
But like I said – I think we have both spent enough time on this. I appreciate that your time is precious to you and that the calls on your time may be many and demanding and, therefore, I appreciate the time you have sacrificed on behalf of this thread.
Best wishes
Andy
Just in case you are interested, Andy, my email address is mlcoll@mymts.net.
That goes for anyone else who is interested in a one-on-one conversation. I think a lot of things get lost in a thread like this.
Marg
Thanks.
A teacher of the Bible has the duty to teach! I would like to persuade you that the Messiah came into existence in Mary.
You seem not to understand the word gennao which means to cause to exist, cause to be. Your Jesus was alive before Mary. How then did the Son come into existence in Mary?
The NT makes a huge fuss about believing that Jesus is the Messiah and the Messiah is a prophet like Moses, the Man Messiah Jesus.
A visitor from outside does not fit this criterion.
Andy
Hi, You avoided the evidence of the meaning of gennao in NIDNTTh! This is really very simple. Perhaps you stand in awe of the TDNT, the standard work on NT words as you know. Here is what they say (vol 1 under GENNAO):
Will you please accept this easy fact?
Now tell us please when was the Son begotten according to Matt. 1:20 and I Jn 5:18?
The Father is called “the one who begat” in 1 Jn 5:1. To what event does this point? We want to know when the Son was brought into existence?
The word gennao means, as ALL the dictionaries say, “to cause to exist,” “to bring into existence”
So then when was the Son brought into existence?
Please be direct and clear for us all.,
Anthony
Marg & Andy
Note the non-sensical back and forth Vine’s makes due to its Christological bias:
So it is used in reference to his birth YET does not mean Jesus is Son of God through his birth?!! :/
From Anthony (previous page):
From Xavier:
No comment necessary.
Marg
Touché!
Reason I quote these people is to show how double-minded they SOMETIMES are.
The above quthor, Giles, has just published a new book defending the eternal generation doctrine against his fellow Evangelicals:
http://books.google.com/books?id=lo42zEOKobwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
[...] Sir Anthony Buzzard has argued that the New Testament teaches exactly that, and explicitly so. There’s been a boiling discussion of this argument by our intrepid commenters on this post. [...]