Anthony Buzzard: That Jesus Should be Worshiped Does not Imply that He is God

Matt1:20- KJV- “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost( Spirit) “There is only ONE way Mary could have “conceived” and that is by egg and sperm.

Marg

Touché! 😉

Reason I quote these people is to show how double-minded they SOMETIMES are.

…etymologically the Greek adjective monogenes is related to ginomai, “to become”, not gennao, “to beget”. Some evangelical theologians have concluded that because the actual term begetting to speak of Christ’s eternal generation has LITTLE BIBLICAL SUPPORT IT SHOULD BE ABANDONED.

So Grudem, Systematic Theology, appendix 6 only in post 2000 printings, 1233-34; John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: Foundations of an Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001), 489-92; Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 324-30; Donal McLeod, The Person of Christ (Westmont, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998), 71-74, 131-35.

However, Frame, The Doctrine of God, 711-12 and Letham, The Holy Trinity, 384-89, argue for accepting the term begotten to differentiate the Father and the Son. Kevin N. Giles, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity, p 240.

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

Marg & Andy

Note the non-sensical back and forth Vine’s makes due to its Christological bias:

Gennao [beget]: It is used of the act of God in the birth of Christ, Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5, quoted from Psalm 2:7, none of which indicate that Christ became the Son of God at His birth.

So it is used in reference to his birth YET does not mean Jesus is Son of God through his birth?!! :/

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.

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

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

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…

… 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.”

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.

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

… 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.”

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Are you willing to give up God the Son and go with the Son of God?

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 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…

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

Marg

I DO realize that “the word is NOT Jesus until Jesus is alive.” That is obvious.

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?

Marg

Thanks, your first sentence is right. The word became a HE when Jesus began to exist. You then contradict yourself by giving us a HIM before Jesus is alive.

As long as you realize that the word is not JESUS until Jesus is alive…OK.

The promise of Messiah in the OT never ever says that the Messiah is other than human and a descendant of David.
He is to be the prophet like Moses. If not, you must provide an OT prophecy which designates the Messiah as originally not a human!

1 Jn 4:1 makes the test of truth belief in the human Messiah, not a preexisting angel or God the Son! This is THE subject in the NT since we are to believe in the Messiah & not a fictititious non-human Messiah.

God did not speak in a SON in the OT times, Heb.1. You are contradicting this statement.

I’m glad to see your name, Jaco. I have always enjoyed your contributions to any discussion – whether I agreed with you or not!

No, I have not read the book by Dunn. Can you give me a clue? or a link to a review? or something?

Once the word is in the world it is a “he”!

That’s all I need to know, Anthony. The word became a man. So the transition from “it” to “he” was marked by the birth of Jesus.

From that point on, he (the word) was in the world; and even though the world came into existence through HIM (the word), the world did not know HIM (the agent responsible for its existence).

And that means that Hebrews 1:10-12 makes perfect sense, on the basis of the law of agency. There is no need for Xavier to withdraw his previous (legitimate) observation that the words regarding the earth and the heavens in the O.T. ALWAYS refer to the Genesis creation.

One other thing. The synoptics all quote Jesus as saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away.”

Those words seem appropriate ONLY from the one who is the logos.

It seems ironic that John is the one who puts in the cautionary note. He quotes Jesus as saying, “My words are not my own.” He was not God; but his words were God’s words. They shall never pass away.

The whole thing is so very consistent, if you let it mean what is says, and stop trying to make everything fit a theory that hangs from a particular use of one particular Greek word.

Marg

Why do you keep writing Word and not word? You are adding to Scripture.

The word “beget” is applied to the beginning of the life of the Son! Luke 1:35 and Matt 1:18, 20. 1 Jn 5:18 (not KJV) gives the same “begotten” for the origin of the Son. This is not hard at all.

Acts 13:33 refers obviously to the “raising up” of the Son at his birth. As you know top expositors like Vine, Robertson and Bruce and others see this clearly. Why make BEGET mean other than what it means “to cause to come into existence”?

That is not true of the resurrection FROM THE DEAD of Jesus. Acts 13:34 speaks of the resurrection BY CONTRAST (de). Not so hard.

Anthony

Thank you, Anthony. That agrees with what I believe. I woud only add that in the Word was LIFE. And the living Word existed before the birth of Christ.

So the Word became a man, whose name was Jesus. He was in the world (of men), and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him.

There is no problem, then, with 1 Corinthians 8:6. There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things come.

Same with Colossians 1:16. All things were created through him (last clause).

Same with Hebrews 1:2. It was through the Son that God made the ages. But it wasn’t until the end of those ages that the Son appeared to put away sins by the sacrifice of himself (ch. 9:26-27).

The identification of the Word with the Son should not be a problem, even if NEITHER word be understood as a “person” until revealed as a man. The man, most definitely, was a person. We can agree on THAT.

Can we agree, then, that the meaning of Psalm 2:7 and of Acts 13:33 can be understood according to their CONTEXT, and that Paul quoted the Psalm in reference to Christ’s resurrection?

Marg

Thank you for you kind words. I am always hard on myself and it’s incredibly embarrassing to have made such an elementary mistake.

I take no credit for apologising – that was the only honest thing to do and one thing I think everyone involved in this discussion wants is honesty.

Andy

Anthony

Thank you for the correction – you are of course quite right that I mixed things up. Marg, I apologise for this as I made it in my reply to you…

Andy

Xavier

I actually replied to this question (asked by you, not Anthony) in my post of 24th May in this thread. I wrote “I know Koine Greek, but have not received formal training in it. It has been an interest of mine for 30+ years.”

I’m not in a position to answer why some translations in the past translated personal pronouns as ‘it’. Unfortunately, they are not around to answer for their decisions either.

Andy.

Xavier- do those first European translations translate the same pronoun as “it” in verses 10-12?

That is not a rhetorical question. I don’t know, and I really would like to. Can you give me a link to one of those translations?

Anthony

John 1 deals with HO LOGOS. 1 John 1 deals with TOU LOGOU TAYN ZOAYN. Given this difference it can’t simply be assumed that the two passages, whilst clearly related, are synonymous. I would not translate one in the terms used by the other.

Marg

The personal pronouns of John 1 are masculine and cannot be translated as ‘it’. They have to be ‘he’. The demonstrative pronoun HOUTOS is more flexible – and can refer to persons or things. The big question for John 1:1 is whether HO LOGOS is a thing or a person and how it is PROS TON THEON (with, towards, or even face to face with, God).

Anthony

Of course there is some interpretation in translation. Otherwise, we could just pick definitions from lexicons and come up with really weird expressions. However “All translation is an interpretation!” is probably putting it too loosely.

Maybe ‘this one’ is too interpretative. My main objection to ‘this word’ is that it feels rather wooden in English.

Andy

Psalm 2 is really the focal point of this whole discussion, so let’s look at it in detail.

The first two verses are quoted by Peter in Acts 4:25 – “Why did the heathens rage …? The kings of the earth stood up and the rulers were assembled … against the Lord and his Anointed.”

Then he explains the connection: “… Herod and Pontius Pilate, with nations and the peoples of Israel, were assembled together against your holy child Jesus, whom you anointed …”

Psalm 2 goes on, “He who sits in the heavens will laugh.” Why? Because their defiance is futile. God’s verdict is clear: “I have set my king (my anointed) on Zion, my holy mount.”

And then the anointed king speaks: “… YHWH … said to me, ‘You are my son. Today I have begotten you.'”

The speaker is not a fetus. It is the king who has been set on Mount Zion who claims that Today YHWH has become his father.

Judging from the evidence so far, that claim is false.

Andy

I thought so…thanks 😉

Marg & Andy

Let me try this again…where in the Bible is beget a reference to resurrection from the dead?

Andy

Is beget ever used in the Bible in reference to a resurrection from the dead?

Marg

The word translated “raised” CAN be used in reference to resurrection but only when it is used in this context. Thus, in Acts 13.33, God is said to have “raised up” His Son onto the scene and not from the dead. We know this fact from the use by the writer of Ps 2.7, which is in reference to a “begetting” always associated with birth and not death!

Thus, in Acts 13.33, God is said to have “raised up” His Son onto the scene and not from the dead. We know this fact from the use by the writer of Ps 2.7, which is in reference to a “begetting” always associated with birth and not death!

If not can you show us where this is not the case? I.e. beget used in reference to resurrection from the dead.

Are you suggesting that vv. 29 to 33 are NOT about the resurrection? Let’s look at it again.

It begins with “God RAISED him from the dead.” That leaves no doubt about what Paul means by “RAISING”.
Then he tells us about those who are WITNESSES of the fact that God raised him.
That is the basis for the “good news”. God has fulfilled his promise to the fathers by RAISING Jesus.

Verse 34 continues with the same theme. God RAISED Jesus from the dead, fulfilling prophecies that Paul’s Jewish listeners knew. So the theme of resurrection is introduced in verse 29, and continues to the end of v. 37.

To make one single verse mean something altogether different from the rest – even though it uses exactly the same word – seems ridiculous.

Thank you for responding, Anthony. I hope I am allowed to test your statements, though.

Acts 13.33 speaks of the coming into existence of the Son; v. 34 his resurrection from the dead.

Let’s take a look at the context (vv. 26-33).
Paul is speaking in the synagogue to his fellow Jews. The story is sequential. The rulers of the Jews and Pilate condemned and crucified Jesus – and in doing so fulfilled the scriptures (e.g. Psalm 2).
But THEN (vv. 30-33, NRSV):

God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, and they are now his witnesses to the people. And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.’

This entire section – and not just v. 34 – deals with the resurrection of Christ. So the quotation from Psalm 2:7 is explicitly connected with Christ’s resurrection, and not to his birth. Look again:
“God raised him from the dead …[God has fulilled his promise] by raising Jesus, AS IT IS WRITTEN, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”
And that fits the pattern of Psalm 2 perfectly.
So what is the justification for saying that v. 33 changes the subject and refers to Christ’s birth?

Anthony

I’m travelling today and tomorrow, so I won’t be able to post fully until the weekend. I’m sorry that I misread your previous post. – I simply missed the 1 in front of John and thought we were still discussing john’s gospel. I hope you will accept that this was an honest mistake. And, of course, I withdraw my statement that you had mistranslated HOUTOS in John 1.

I will consider the other points you, Xavier and Marg have posted over the weekend and try to respond early next week.

Andy

PS: “…elsewhere John uses para tini to express the proximity of one person to another (Jn. 1.39; 4.40; 8.38; 14.17, 23, 25; 19.25; cf. 14.23; note also meta tinos in Jn. 3.22, 25 f. etc.) or the nearness of the Son to the Father (Jn 8.38; 17.5), never pros tina.” Ibid., Brown, NIDNT, p 1205.

I learned a lot about what governs the precise meaning of para from a prolonged debate on John 17:5. I’m looking forward to learning about pros.

I have to admit, I was disappointed with Anthony’s statement that “We have convinced MANY, I am happy to tell you …” Convincing many proves very little about the quality of your evidence. I’m sure examples will come to mind.

In fact, Anthony’s claim that

Ps 2.7 clinches the fact that the Son was brought into existence in time

has twice been challenged, on the basis of statements by Peter and John (in Acts 4:25-26) and Paul
(in ch. 13:32-33). He still has offered no response.

To those two scriptures can be added Hebrews 1:5, where Psalm 2:7 is quoted in parallel with God’s promise to be a father to Solomon when he became king (2 Samuel 7:14). The New Testament application of Psalm 2:7 is consistent. It never refers to the beginning of anyone’s existence.

In fact, if you read the Psalm itself you will recognize that it has to do with a proclamation of Yahweh when he installs his King on Mount Zion. Nothing in the Psalm suggests anybody’s birth.

In other words, the MANY that are convinced by such evidence must be people who do not heed Paul’s injunction to “test all things”.

Andy

Widen your investigation. Read Ray Browns’ Birth Narratives. Begotten, brought into existence, WILL BE the Son of God. Brown is careful to point out that “to be called” is synonymous with “being”. Brown candidly says that Luke 1.35 is an embarrassment to Orthodoxy. For them the virginal birth does not bring into existence the Son. Luke knows NOTHING about preexistence. This is clear to ALL great commentary.

We have convinced MANY, I am happy to tell you and of course we are not inventing nothing new. Read 1 John 1.1-3 and allow the writer to correct the popular misunderstanding of John 1.1. It was the word of eternal life WHICH (not WHO) was with the Father.

Your Jesus is not an authentic human being, just dressed up as one.

Scripture? I quoted Phil 2 & John 1. I think they are scriptures 🙂

Mormonism? Don’t know much about their beliefs. I’m certainly not basing anything I post on what they may teach…

Andy

Thanks for John 1:1, Andy. I am convinced by the CONTEXT (vv. 1-18) that the Word has to mean more than a plan.
The Word became flesh. (That COULD refer to a plan, of course.)
The Word dwelt among us. (Well – maybe. It’s a bit of a stretch …)
The World was made by it/him but the world did not know it/him.
Now “plan” no longer makes any sense. If the plan came into effect only when Jesus was born, then THAT plan could hardly have made the world.

The idea that the plan was in the world, and the world that the plan had made didn’t recognize it, is ludicrous, it seems to me.

However, IF all things were actually made by (dia) the Word, who then became flesh, and lived in the world he/it had made, then it is worth noting that the world (kosmos = world of men) didn’t recognize its maker.

However, to those who received that Word, and believed on his name, to them he gave the power to become the children of God.

I think that fits the context. And it fits Revelation 19:13, which ALSO has to be explained away.

That’s the problem. There are too many passages that cannot be allowed to mean what they say, because they do not fit a theory.

Marg

That God miraculously caused a fetus to be born without male human sperm, I have no doubt.

Agreed. Hence his being called the 2nd adam, human being!

God caused that human body to exist.

Where does it ever say that? So Jesus was just an empty body shell inhabited by the Son?

Marg

The Lord’s question, leading to the statement that stumped the Pharisees, suggests that he WAS older than his ancestor David (Mt. 22:41-46).

The passage is about the lordship the Messiah has over his “father” David and has nothing to do with chronology.

Again – there is no disagreement between the synoptics and John.

Matthew & Luke talk about the genesis and “coming into existence” of the Son [Mat 1.1, 18-20; Luke 1.35]. Yet, your reading the Son into John 1.1? Sounds like disagreement to me.

If not…could you tell me how one can be said to have 2 origins? 2 coming into existences? 2 begettings?

Andy

Please read the Birth Narratives of Brown.

To be called SON of God is exactly synonymous with to BE the Son. Just look it up.
What do you think dio kai means??

The Messiah cannot be older than his ancestor David!!
Anthony

Andy

Unless we start reading a lot into the English word begotten, the terms ‘been conceived’ and ‘been begotten’ are virtually synonymous.

Begetting in the womb is the activity of the Father. Mothers “conceive” and Fathers “beget”. I hope you can read Brown’s Birth of the Messiah p 290-291:

The child BEGOTTEN in her.

Note also what Brown says:

Luke 1.35 has EMBARRASED many Orthodox theologians. Since in preexistence [Orthodox] 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 Christology. Conception is CAUSALY related to Divine Sonship for [Luke]…

As we shall see, there is NO EVIDENCE that Luke thought of the Incanrantion of a preexistent.

…whether Jesus existed prior to his birth or not has no real bearing on what Gabriel says.

First of all you are not dealing with the kai following dio, “therefore PRECISELY/INDEED”. When a person comes into existence he cannot already be in existence. This would be sheer NON-SENSE.

Many top commentaries on Luke fully agree with me. There is no preexistent Son anywhere in Luke or Acts. So why make the Gospel of John contradict them?

What I appreciate most about Clarke’s book is that, if you skip the comments, you are reading the New Testament. It’s value (to me) is that ALL the passages relating to each part can be read together, and I don’t have to look them all up separately in a concordance. I am using it as a reference book, rather than as a commentary. And I value it highly.

I think we all agree that making known God’s provision of salvation through the work of his Son is more important than refuting the idea of a tri-une God. Besides, there are trinitarians who make the “good news” very clear – Dallas Willard being one of them.
In fact, it was through such a group that I was first led to recognize my utter helplessness to please God on my own, and trust the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ. (As Hebrews 7-10 makes so wonderfully clear.)

So I think we do not necessarily have to refute trinitarianism in order to present the gospel. If we stick with what the Bible actually says, a tri-une God will never surface anyway.

On the other hand, I love the Bible, and I want to learn what it says about God and his Son and his Spirit. It must be worth learning, or it wouldn’t be there.

By the way, Andy, thank you for the note re Mat. 12:8. I understand the two grammatical reasons you give for translating it as “the son of man is a lord of the sabbath”. I accept that.
[I can’t think of any other man who could say that, but I agree it is not worth quibbling about.]

Hi Marg

Thanks for the link. – the second one works 🙂

I think Dale mentioned this book in one if his recent interview videos and he self publishes it on lulu.com

Another one to add to my ever growing ‘to read’ list.

One book I stumbled upon and actually got around to reading is ‘Should Christianity Abandon the Doctrine of Trinity?’ (http://www.amazon.com/Should-Christianity-Abandon-Doctrine-Trinity/dp/1581129408) where the author examines all the trinity proof texts.

I cannot comment on his comments on OT Hebrew, but his NT Greek seems sound enough.

I have to admit I sometimes tire of reading such books, I guess it’s because I don’t want to spend all my time disproving something I don’t believe in anyway. Like Anthony, I think the ‘Great Commission’ (nice phrase, BTW) is more important, although that usually involves refuting the trinity…

Andy

Andy – if you haven’t read Samuel Clarke’s book on the trinity, it is worth reading. He lists all the verses in the New Testament that have any bearing on the subject of God, his Son and his Spirit. I think it is tremendous.

Dale has an interesting post on Clarke here (I hope the link works):

https://trinities.org/blog/archives/2739

Hi Anthony

I’m aware of your books, but haven’t read them (yet). Time is always the one thing that I don’t have enough of…

I’ve read Patrick Navas’ book on the Trinity – ‘Divine Truth or Human Tradition?’. I found it very interesting. I have never been a trinitarian, but I was interested to see his approach and his even-handed argumentation. It’s a wordy book, but the words seemed, in the main, good to me.

I do OK for fellowship. I have a number of like-minded friends and a very supportive wife, which always helps!

Andy

Sorry Xavier, my misunderstanding.

Andy

Hi Anthony

I don’t disagree. There is no issue at all in calling Jesus god or a god – as Xavier puts it a ‘secondary’ god, one created by God and who worships God as his creator.

My background probably causes me to be seeking proofs at an almost forensic level. I used to play chess at tournament level and now work in I.T. so I’m drawn to logic and proofs rather than probabilities and possibilities. I accept this is both a strength and a weakness…

My ‘defensiveness’ about using Heb 1:8 to ‘prove’ Jesus is a god is that I know that a reasonable counter argument exists. Yes,I understand that it’s disputed by many, although most of the disputes are from trinitarians, trying to rescue a cherished proof text. The arguments for and against the possible translations don’t have enough weight to prove or disprove anything (IMHO) but rather leave the question in stasis with two reasonable explanations, neither of which in themselves is decisive.

Ironically, I think, if I read the info in your site correctly, that the proof texts I would use to state that Jesus is a god would probably meet with a measure of disagreement from you 🙂 So we arrive at similar conclusions via different routes with some of the details differing.

in any case, I think we both agree that Jesus is saviour and lord, to be held in the highest esteem as one who performed the awe inspiring act of sacrificing himself for the likes of someone like me. But all this honour is, in the end, to the glory of God the Father, the creator of Jesus and the ultimate cause of everything.

Perhaps we can move on to discuss something else? 🙂

Andy

Andy

I fully agree.

Great. We’ll agree to disagree. 😉

Andy

The Greek, read most naturally, says “Your throne O God,” and just ask the rabbis about the Hebrew.
They had no difficulty with the Messiah being “elohim,” King Messiah.

“God is your throne” is most unnatural and unnecessary I think.

Moffatt’s translation, Goodspeed’s ‘An American Translation’ and Byington’s ‘The Bible in Living English’ all use the ‘God is your throne’ translation in the main text. The New Revised Standard Version and Today’s English Version both state in their footnotes that it is an acceptable alternative to ‘Your throne, O God’.

We both know that the NUMBER of translations that suuport version x as to those who support version y is of no use in determining its correctness. Translators bring in their own theologies and sometimes biases into the translation process.

Regardless of the opinions of scholars, anyone who can read Greek will see that their are two possibilities here. And that’s all I’m pointing out. The grammar allows for both translations and there are no grammatical indications as to which one is more likely. The NET Bible’s comments are interpretational and not grammatical.

The Tyndale Commentary states “The opening words, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, cause a problem, for they can be taken either as a direct address to the Son in which case the implication cannot be avoided that the Son is being described as God, or less probably the words can be understood to mean ‘The throne of your God’, or ‘God is your throne’, in which case the implication that the Son is God is avoided”

They don’t give any evidence as to why they think the alternative is less probable.

The Expositor’s Greek New Testament Commentary states: “It does not matter, therefore, whether we translate “Thy throne is God” or “Thy throne, O God,” for the point here to be affirmed is not that the Messiah is Divine, but that He has a throne and everlasting dominion. Westcott adopts the rendering “God is thy throne,” and compares Ps. 71:3; Isa. 26:4; Ps. 90:1, 91:1, 2; Deut. 33:27. He thinks it scarcely possible that “God” can be addressed to the King.”

Finally, Robertson’s Word Pictures states: “O God. This quotation (the fifth) is from Psa. 45:7f. A Hebrew nuptial ode for a king treated here as Messianic. It is not certain whether [ho theos] is here the vocative … or [ho theos] is nominative (subject or predicate) with [estin] (is). “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” Either makes good sense.”

When a grammarian of Archibald Robertson’s status says a translation makes good sense, it also makes good sense to accept it…

Andy

Andy

Xavier

It’s not a suggestion that the Greek could be translated as ‘God is your throne’. It’s a fact. The Greek ‘ho theos’ is in the nominative and this expression is the usual way that the NT writiers refer to God when they speak of God the Father. But viewing ‘ho theos’ as being a nominative expression requires the translation ‘God is your throne’. Viewing it as a vocative allows for the ‘Your throne, O God’. As I have said before, there is nothing to choose, grammatically, between them. One professor of Biblical languages concluded that the theology of the translator is the deciding factor…

The NET Bible is trinitarian in its outlook. One of its main contributors is Daniel Wallace. Do I really need to say more? Their note casts doubt on the possibility of the translation on theological grounds. Grammatically, this ‘alternative’ translation is 100% viable and appears as such in not a few translations.

Marg

The verses you quote seem correctly translated to me, although Matt 12:8 would possibly be better as “the son of man is a lord of the sabbath’ as the Greek word ‘kurios’ lacks the Greek article and there are no other definitizing aspects in that verse. But let’s not quibble about it!

You are, of course, reading some things into these verses to say that Jesus was above temptation. Counter arguments could be presented, and I’m sure some will 🙂

Andy

Xavier, Andy answered the question about the textual difference between the Masoretic text and the LXX. In detail.

The fact remains that “Lord” is credited with founding the heavens and the earth (past tense – not future).

I believe the article you refer to, Xavier, is the one we both read two years ago. Enough has been said about that.

Andy – I have been enjoying the gospel by Matthew, and have listed some passages where Matthew quotes Jesus as saying things that suggest something more than a mortal man struggling against temptation. If these passages are incorrectly translated, I would appreciate help. My knowledge of Greek grammar is limited.

For example:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5: 17)
[Isn’t that a risky claim for a man who is still resisting temptation?]

“Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, etc.?’ And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you …’” (ch. 7:22, 23) [How can he be so sure?]

Over and over again in Matthew 5:21-48 he says, “You have heard that … But I say to you that …”

Then there is ch. 9:13 – “…for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” And ch. 18:11 – “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” [Come from where?]

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” (ch. 10:37)

“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. ” (ch. 16:25)

“For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” (ch. 12:8) [!!!]

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall in no wise pass away. (ch. 23:35)
[Who does he think he is?]

Then there is Matthew 10: 32-33, and ch. 11:27-29, and ch. 13: 41, and ch. 16:18 and ch. 16:27, and ch. 19: 27-28, and ch. 23:44 – ALL of them expressing supreme self-confidence, entirely inappropriate for a mortal man who is still capable of sinning.

Xavier wrote:

“Heb 1.8 says: “But of the Son HE [GOD] says…”

God goes on to call the Son “god” [v.8] and “lord” [v.10]. There are 2 figures here. Now the debate is in what way is the Son “god” and “lord”.”

——–

It’s worth pointing out that the Greek of Heb 1:8 is ambiguous. It could be translated as ‘Your throne, O God’, using the vocative function or it could be translated as “God is your throne”, using the standard nominative form of the verse. Grammatically, there is nothing to choose between these possibilities.

Placing a lot of weight on such a verse would, therefore, be unwise. I am aware that the majority of Bible translations prefer the ‘Your throne, O God’ variant, but not all do. Of course, this is also a so called Trinitarian ‘proof text’ and most Bibles translators are Trinitarian, so it’s no surprise that this variant has the majority vote, as it were.

Andy

Skylar

In short, I’m not convinced that the Romans were absolutely oblivious to the practices and beliefs of their subjects during the time Pliny was writing.

Possible but highly unlikely whether or not the Roman authorities would bother to question Christians regarding their liturgies. If anything those who were interested in the early Christian sects ended up converting or being sympathetic to their cause [see the NT references to the early Church’s interaction with Roman authorities].

My opinion from the historical evidence and what little we have in the way of secondary evidence when it comes to these interactions is that the Roman authorities acted on mostly hearsay and gossip. Just look at the first cases of Jewish-Christian persecutions at the time of Nero when they were used as scapegoats for the great Roman fire of the 60s. All the Romans cared about was whether or not people were into the Imperal cult of the day.

I have read post #7 with care, Xavier, but I cannot find a single thing to explain why you no longer believe the following:

I’m just still having trouble understanding how or in what way the Messiah is said “in the beginning [to have] laid the foundation of the heavens and the earth”, when this is clearly referring to the Genesis 1.1 creation that appears in every OT reference [Ps 102.25-27; 104.2; Job 9.8; 26.7; 38:4-7; Isa 42.5; 44.24; 45.18; Jer 10.12; 51.12; Zech 12.1]
…Like I stated above, in every one of its OT usage, this phrase is always used [it seems] for the Genesis creation. Whilst I appreciate the interpretation, it sounds like a long shot to me. Too many acrobatics to explain this one verse out of its Biblical context.

However, I will accept the fact that you can’t refute your own argument, and will not mention it again.

Xavier, one thing you have not done yet is refute your own very strong argument that the making of the heavens and the earth ALWAYS, in the OT, refers to the Genesis creation. What made you change your mind on that?
Because if (as you suggest) the Greek translators deliberately changed the meaning of the passage so that “the Lord” refers to the Messiah, then the passage in Hebrews is a point in favor of Trinitarianism.
In fact, that’s what you will find in many Trinitarian commentaries.

I think we have discussed enough passages which definitely imply the pre-existence of Christ that those who are seriously committed to what the Bible teaches (rather than an official creed of some kind) will acknowledge that the case is sound.

It has been suggested that the Synoptics do not support this view. So I have been going through the gospel by Matthew, noting passages that harmonize with it. They are not “proof” texts – but they suggest someone that does NOT fit the idea of a human on earth, struggling against temptation.

There are quite a few of them. Check it out.

Xavier,

After having some time to think about your response (briefly, that the Romans could have simply been wrong), I think that it is too simplistic of an explanation. Let me give a couple of reasons why.

1. If Pliny is telling the truth within the same letter that I quoted above about how he actually questioned Christians before he had them executed if they failed to renounce their faith, then it seems plausible to think that the Roman officials at some point would have found out that the Christians weren’t worshiping Christ as God. After all, Christians were being condemned for sacrilege. However, to be fair, such trials do not seem to have taken place that often and Pliny really only asked them “Are you a Christian?” multiple times, not “What do you believe?”
2. Romans knew the difference between the worship of a deity and the honoring of a hero. One would not be condemned for sacrilege because one honored a hero, but because he refused to accept God’s other than his own. I would contend that if Jesus as the Son of God was understood to be a perfect human being and not God incarnate, then Christianity would be closer to hero veneration and so would not have been condemned for sacrilege.
3. The Roman Empire is well known for having spread far and wide because it incorporated gods of other nations into its own pantheon. Yet it did not do so when Christians appeared in the first century, even under what Roman authors considered to be a “golden age” of liberty and civil justice under Trajan.

In short, I’m not convinced that the Romans were absolutely oblivious to the practices and beliefs of their subjects during the time Pliny was writing. It’s possible that they could have been though; after all, communication was not as well-done before the time of Trajan and maybe Romans (like Nero) didn’t really care what their subjects believed precisely. I’m open to these ideas, but from what I know so far this doesn’t seem as plausible to me.

We all know that gennao means to “procreate” of the Father and to “bear” of the mother. Would you please explain why Thayer’s Lexicon translates there “begotten” and not “conceived” in Mat 1.20. While the RV in 1881 tells us in the margin that the Greek word means “begotten”. Would you please cite OTHER occurrences in scripture where gennao, speaking of what happens IN THE MOTHER, means “conceive” rather than “beget”.

You have just explained away the precise language of Gabriel. He says, “For this reason PRECISELY the one begotten/born WILL BE the Son of God”. You are contradicting this by saying that THAT is not the reason for his being the Son of God because he was ALREADY the Son of God. Nobody said anything about EVERY TINY DETAIL. But the exact reason for calling Jesus the Son of God is given in a simple sentence.

Now tell us about the silent Son of God in the OT times? Heb 1.1-2.

Thanks for the information about the earlier Septuagint, Andy. I wasn’t aware of it. That would explain a lot.

In any case, there is no reason to think that the translators deliberately changed the meaning of Psalm 102 to something they knew was NOT in the Hebrew text.

As for the meaning of verse 25, I appreciate Xavier’s comment in 2010, in which he points out that everywhere in the OT, such references to the heavens and the earth always refer to the Genesis creation.

In other words, the Psalmist is speaking to Yahweh, and he is talking about the physical creation of the universe.

But the principle of agency solves the problem. Yahweh created the heavens and the earth; but he did it through the agency of his Son.

I am not entirely convinced that the worship of Jesus as God was developed over time, or that the disciples would have understood that Jesus was the Son of God and not God. I have recently been studying the letters of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan and in one he says something quite interesting:

“All these [Christians who later rejected Christ] as well worshipped [sic] your [Trajan’s] statue and images of the gods, and blasphemed Christ. They maintained, however, that all that their guilt or error involved was that they were accustomed to assemble at dawn on a fixed day, to sing a hymn antiphonally to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by an oath . . . ” (10.96, Oxford World Classic’s Edition: Complete Letters)

Customarily, Pliny said that he executed Christians who remained obdurate–that is, those who refused to worship the Roman gods. Pliny writes to the Empire between 97 and 112 AD. I just found this interesting because only about 60 years after Christ, and perhaps within the same decade of the writing of the Gospel of John, Pliny says that Christians worshiped and sang to Christ as God.

Any thoughts?

Marg

I would add to the last clause of your last post that the oldest fragments of the LXX contained the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters. I have seen it said, but cannot verify it for certain, that only copies of the LXX dated after 150AD have kyrios instead of YHWH.

So, the translators of the LXX seem not to be to blame for the two lords problem of the LXX of Psalm 2.

Bruce Metzger, in his book on the translations of the Bible into other languages, points out that after Rome destroyed Jerusalem, the Jews stopped using the LXX and even declared some sort of day of mourning over it. Metzger then states that the LXX became known as the Christian’s Bible.

This is only speculation, but I wonder if, as the early church become corrupted and adopted the Trinity from pagan religions and Greek philosophy, that THEY removed the Tetragrammaton from the LXX, in order to cement their position. I would emphasise that this is mere speculation… But someone took it out and, somehow, I doubt the Jews would have done so…

Andy

Anthony

Re Matt 1:20 the BDAG Lexicon specifically states “that which is conceived in her is of the Spirit Mt 1:20”. The overall entry that contains this statement is “become the parent of, beget ? by procreation…”

I know we both believe that this was no ordinary event. The question is whether Mary became pregnant with a brand new life or became pregnant with a pre existent life that had been miraculously placed in her womb. In either case, Jesus’ life as a human started at that point. Webster’s dictionary defines beget as “to procreate as the father : sire”. Interesting that both the BDAG and Webster use the word procreate.

As I said before, the Angel used the usual Greek word to describe Mary’s condition, but clearly this was no normal begetting and that the Greek word and its English counterparts do not adequately cover all the details. I think it is a mistake to read anything deeply doctrinal into the Angel’s words to Mary. He wasn’t explaining every little detail to her. He just told her that she was going to get pregnant without a human father being involved and that God, somehow, miraculously, caused the pregnancy by means of holy spirit.

With regard to Jn 8:58, let me emphasise that I’m talking about translation, you are talking interpretation. You interpret it as “‘I am’ means in John ‘I am the Messiah'”

Well, maybe it does, but let’s look at the context of John 8:58 to see if that is what it means here.

V57: the Jews say “You are only 50. How can you have seen Abraham?”. According to your interpretation, Jesus replies “I am the Messiah”. Do you think that it in any way represents even an attempt to answer their question?

But there is more, because Jesus said more than merely “I am”. What happens if we put your interpretation into the full sentence that Jesus spoke?

“truly I tell you, before Abraham was born I am (the Messiah)”

What is that supposed to mean? And how does that answer the Jews’ question? What is more, it’s a nonsense sentence in English because it violates English grammar in two ways. First, it uses an English present tense in a past tense context. Second, it dangles the verb at the end if the sentence.

The challenge for any translation and interpretation of Jn 8:58 is to retain the cohesion between the ego eimi and the ‘before Abraham was born’ parts of the sentence. The ‘traditional translation’ simply ignores the ‘before’ clause, ignores the Greek grammar, ignores English grammar and ignores the question that prompted Jesus’ reply. I would add that the Greek ‘be’ verb is one of the most frequently used verbs, just as it is in English. It’s a huge claim to say that whenever Jesus says ego eimi he always means he is the Messiah.

Once again I would add that I am NOT a trinitarian. I don’t believe a mysterious Godhead composed of several gods/persons/things etc. I believe in one God, the Father and that Jesus Christ was created by that one God. In think the main area where we seem disagree is ‘when’ that creation took place. I have backed my position up with Scriptures such as Philippians 2 and John 8:58 and have taken the time to explain, in considerable detail, the underlying Greek Grammar and that it supports my position.

Most of the objections to this position have been in the form of unsubstantiated assertions. I am happy with the case that I have made.

Marg

if you read the verse IN CONTEXT you will see that the Pharisees MISSED what Jesus was saying, and turned their question around so that it had to do with his having seen Abraham. That’s the question Jesus was answering.

Jesus saus Abraham saw his “DAY”, not his PERSON. Big difference.

When did you change your mind, Xavier?

I thought I had answered you but here it goes again.

Hebrews quotes Ps 102, a Messianic/eschatological Psalm looking to “future generation not yet CREATED” [v.18]. It is not looking back to Genesis, even though the phrase “in the beginning you laid the foundation of the heavens and earth…” is similar to that of the original Creation.

Furthermore, Hebrews quotes from the Greek version (LXX) and not the Hebrew version (MT) which speaks of a second “lord” who is addressed by God.

The apostles obviously thought that Psalm 2:7 referred to Christ’s RESURRECTION – not to his conception or his birth.

Scholarship is divided on this interpretation of Ps 2.7 and those who hold your view find it problematic, to say the least. Of note is their admission that the “eternal generation” doctrine was a later creation:

The designation of this relationship by words with a temporal notion [“this day have I begotten you”, Ps 2.7] has TROUBLED theologians, who have proffered various explanations.

Origen understood this as referring to the Son’s relationship within the Trinity and was the first to propose the concept of eternal generation. The Son is said to be eternally begotten by the Father…(Act 13:33; Rom 1:4; Heb 1:5; 5:5). The WordStudy Dictionary

Xavier, if you read the verse IN CONTEXT you will see that the Pharisees MISSED what Jesus was saying, and turned their question around so that it had to do with his having seen Abraham. That’s the question Jesus was answering.

If you are free to ignore the question and make Jesus answer something the Jews did NOT ask, then you can make it mean anything at all.

By the way, Xavier, you may have forgotten, but you have already said (in the KR thread on “Agency in the Scriptures,” Comment #8):

The problem for me is that there’s really no precedent for interpreting “in the beginning you laid the foundation of the heavens and earth…” as referring to the Messianic age.

Like I stated above, in every one of its OT usage, this phrase is always used [it seems] for the Genesis creation. Whilst I appreciate the interpretation, it sounds like a long shot to me. Too many acrobatics to explain this one verse out of its Biblical context.

When did you change your mind, Xavier?

By the way, John, you can see that Trinitarians have no monopoly on verbal gymnastics.

Andy

It is reading a lot into this passage to limit this supernatural event to also meaning that Jesus’ life had to begin at time.

So Jesus’ sonship is somehow figurative/metaphorical and not an actual, human birth? Sounds like the way Muslim interpret the virgin birth to me.

Marg

I tend to take literally anything that makes good literal sense.

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.

So the past tense is meant to be taken literally.

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 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.

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”.

Jesus was NOT claiming the name of God. But he WAS claiming that he existed before Abraham was born.

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.

My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though YOU DO NOT KNOW HIM, I know him. John 8.54-55

“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).

Marg

All of the above suggest that one can exist without a body.

Your too wooded/literal reading of those passages is troubling to say the least Marg. :/

Andy

Yes, I do think Jesus had a literal pre-existence. Jn 8:58, correctly translated, says exactly that.

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?

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 don’t think Jesus was or is or has ever been part of a ‘Godhead’ or part of a Trinity or God

Okay it sounded like you were for LITERAL preexistence.

So what is your Christology composed of?

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

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:

(ii) Even Abraham foresaw my coming as Messiah.-(even though I only came later.)

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.

john

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.

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. 😛

I’m sure there are scriptures that say as much – but I can’t give you a reference right now.

How about Mat 25.34; Rom 8.29; Eph 1.4-5, 11; 1Pe 1.2; 1Cor 2.7; 2Tim 1.9?

As ever, context trumps bad arguments…

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 you do not believe that I am (ego eimi), you will die in your sins.

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,

I am (ego eimi) the light of the world. The one following me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.

.
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,

When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you shall know that I am (ego eimi), and from myself I do nothing, but as the Father taught me, those things I say …

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?”

Before Abraham was born, I am (ego eimi)

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.

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

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

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

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

john

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.?

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
Many thanks -that makes perfect sense!
Sorry to labour the point!
Blessings
John

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

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

Marg

KNOWING whom I am worshipping will prevent me from addressing him by the wrong name, without any need for a “code”.

But that is a “code”, a structure of worship you’re following. Nothing wrong with that. 😉

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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

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…

Andy /Xavier
I feel very foolish asking this – but in what way are Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1 connected?
I use the NAB Bible so will refer to that.

(A) In Psalm 45
(i) We are told that this is a Psalm for a royal wedding (Israelite King to Princess of Tyre)
(ii) The name ‘god’ in verse 7 is in the lower case
(iii) In verse 8 we are told that this ‘god’ has a ‘God’ who has anointed him
(iv) This ‘god’ has lovely wives -or as the Good News Bible puts it ‘honourable women’

(B) In Hebrews Chapter 1
‘god’ has been ‘elevated’ to UPPER CASE.

The ‘unknown’ writer of Hebrews is applying verses 7&8 in Psalm 45 to Christ (Hebrews 1vv8&9)
but clearly this “God’ has a ‘God’.(v9)

How does one make sense of this?

Thank you
Every Blessing
John

Xavier

My explanation is this – true religious worship in the OT is offered to YHWH. Any instance of religious proskuneo offered to anybody/anything else is false worship. Do you have an example from the OT where ‘true’ religious worship is offered to someone other that YHWH?

I know Koine Greek, but have not received formal training in it. It has been an interest of mine for 30+ years. I’m still learning – since the 1990’s the idea of Greek Verbal Aspect has come to the forefront and it has some definite implications for many verses. In most cases using it it clarifies the meaning but sometimes it subtly changes it. I’ve started working on my own NT translation, but I have limited time to devote to it. But when considering almost any NT verse, I tend to open the NA27 Greek text first and look at translations later…

I have no knowledge of Hebrew, although I have enough tools (software, lexicons and grammars) to do word studies and check meanings and grammatical constructions. However, most of the ‘disputed’ translations are in the NT, most of those revolve around trinity ‘proof texts’.

Re Heb 1:6, I think John has given a decent answer. Again I would add that proskuneo is used here and so something along the lines of “and let God’s angels prostrate themselves to him” (this is from memory, I would want to check the Greek text before finalising the translation) would be lexically and grammatically sound. Therefore it’s not a clear cut command for us to offer religious worship to the Son.

An interesting verse to compare is 2 Kings 2:15 in the LXX, where people bow down to Elisha. Guess which word the LXX uses for ‘bow down’…

Andy

When I asked Dale to demonstrate one scripture that explicitly commands/authorises worship of/to the son, he offered Phil 2:10, which I hope I have shown above is not as clear cut as modern, trinitarian, translations would like their readers to think.

What about Heb 1.6?

Xavier – good question. Answer is they *might* look different. IOW I might prostrate myself before God when praying and that would be an act of religious proskuneo. But I might also worship God by silently offering praise to him whilst out for a walk. Still religious proskuneo but not outwardly visible to onlookers.

Liddell & Scott list, under their religious proskuneo entry “to make obeisance to the gods, fall down and worship, worship, adore”. The second entry then speaks of “the Oriental practice of prostrating before kings and superiors”

So there is a connection between both definitions, in that one MIGHT involve prostration. The second definition always involves prostration.

What seems to be the sticking point in these posts is that the two definitions are being treated as though they are interchangeable or somehow synonymous. As I said in one of my first posts, they are not. The two definitions, whilst having things in common, are mutually exclusive – where a sentence includes proskuneo it means worship offered to a god, possibly including prostration OR prostration before a person recognised as a superior.

Most translators, when seeing proskuneo offered to an ordinary person, render it as prostration, ‘fell at his feet’ or obeisance. And when they see proskuneo offered to The God/Ho Theos/The Father they, quite rightly, use the word worship.

The problems comes when the object of proskuneo is Jesus. Then the translator has to choose one of the two meanings and, from the grammar and the lexical entry, they could pick either. So we have to consider the Bible as a whole. Obviously, throughout the OT only YHWH properly receives worship. There are indicators in the NT where I think Jesus speaks in line with the OT position, such as Jn 4:23, which Dale disputes is inferring what I think it’s inferring. However, the Revelation 19 scriptures command John to ‘worship God’, when he mistakenly offers worship to the angel. I think this has a bearing on understanding who is worshipped in Rev 5:14. The angel could have told John to worship God and/or the Lamb. But he doesn’t. Could that be significant?

When I asked Dale to demonstrate one scripture that explicitly commands/authorises worship of/to the son, he offered Phil 2:10, which I hope I have shown above is not as clear cut as modern, trinitarian, translations would like their readers to think. At the very least, it can easily be interpreted as not meaning that Jesus is the object of worship, when a consistent, accurate translation is used. Rotherham’s, the ASV and Young’s Literal Translation, among others, all translate Phil 2:10 as ‘in the name of Jesus’ in case anyone thinks I’m going off into unchartered territory here.

If I were making a translation of the NT I would ensure I consistently distinguished between the two forms of proskuneo. When God or The Father is the object of proskuneo I would translate it as ‘worship’. When the object of proskuneo is not God the Father I would stick with prostration or a synonym of prostration.

For Rev 5:14 I would use worship because the preceding verb piptow means to fall down and might seem superfluous if the proskuneo on offer meant prostration. Then again, there are some bible examples of redundant expressions, especially in the OT, so I suppose one could say of Rev 5:14 ‘the elders fell down and prostrated themselves’, but that seems wooden to me. As I stated before, the object of devotion is not stated in Rev 5:14, and I don’t accept as a valid argument that the ‘natural’ assumption it includes the lamb is conclusive. The verse is open to interpretation and I have stated my case above…

Sorry, the Greek text didn’t submit properly. ?? ?? ??????? should be EN TOW ONOMATI

Anthony

You said

“Proskuneo means worship and is offered to God and some other human beings, including Jesus.”

This is where we differ, and your statement either overlooks or ignores the fact that lexicons give two or three distinct meanings to proskuneo. But I’ve explained that in my earlier posts to this thread…

“No need to quibble over the words.”

I don’t view myself as quibbling over words – I’m just pointing out a simple fact – proskuneo means more than one thing and to munge all of its distinct meanings into one word – worship – is incorrect.

Dale – I will post an answer to your last post sometime this week…

I would add to my previous post that I fully acknowledge that, taken on its own, the verse can easily be interpreted as as worship directed to both God and the Lamb. I am pointing out that the verse does not say who is the object of worship here, neither the English translation nor the original Greek makes any definite indication.

Grammatically, in the original Greek, one could (I hasten to add that I would not) argue that the four living creatures were the object of worship, as they are mentioned immediately before the elders offering worship. We ‘know’ that would be a wrong interpretation, not because of the Greek but because of the context of the Scriptures.

In the same vein, we can interpret that the Lamb is here offered worship, but we cannot prove it from this verse and the context of Scripture as a whole casts doubt on this interpretation. As I stated above, this verse could also be interpreted as the elders offering religious proskuneo to The Father alone, and that certainly would be in harmony with scripture as a whole.

I am happy to concede that this verse could be interpreted either way, but it comes close to begging the question to cite this verse as PROOF that God has commanded us to offer religious worship to the Son. That conclusion would be stronger than the evidence in this verse and the absence of other verses explicitly supporting this conclusion AND the presence of other verses (in Revelation 19 and the rest of Scripture) that contradict this conclusion cast enough doubts in my mind to say that the case has not been proven.

Andy

Thanks. The real issue is understaing WHO THE OBJECT of the worship is. If you are to be involved in worshipping the Lamb, it is clear that you do not worship him as God but as the Messiah. It is rather FORCED to insist that in Rev 5.14 the “prostation” there is ONLY to God and not to the Lamb also. Since in v.13 “praise and honor, glory and might” are offered BOTH to God and to the Lamb. How UNNANTURAL then to create a distinction in v.14.

The main point: God has commanded worship of His own Son. Not because THAT Son is God himself but because God requires honor to be given to the Son as to the Father.

Dale

My position re Rev 5 was in my previous post, paragraph 2… To summarise it, no I don’t think the verse explicitly states who the worship is given to – see above for the fuller viewpoint.

Re John 4:23, true he does not explicitly say that ONLY the Father is to be worshipped, but there is a lot implicit in the statement “the TRUE worshippers will worship the Father…” (i.e false worshippers worship someone else). I am aware that negative inference can sometime be fallacious, but in the absence of Jesus or the Father making the statement “it’s ok to religiously offer proskuneo to the Son…” I for one would hesitate to do so…

Similarly with Matt 4 – to complete your Philippians quote – “in the name of Jesus every knee should bend (prostration, proskuneo) … to the glory of God the Father” – it’s clear to me that Paul had in mind worship directed to God in the name of Jesus…

You said “Back to Matt 4, why not say:Jesus correctly quotes to Satan the divine policy then in force. But after his resurrection and ascension, it is clear that Jesus deserves not only honor as Messiah and God’s Son, but also religious worship” I would answer that whether Jesus deserves it or not the deciding factor, but rather whether God has actually now authorised religious worship of the Son. Obviously there are no clear cut verses (i.e. ones that don’t permit another explanation) that explicitly give this authorisation, or there would be no need to debate this.

If there were instances of Jesus being given and accepting latrueo then, again, there would be no need for any debate. But only proskuneo is offered to and accepted by Jesus.

You said: “Suppose you lived in a Kingdom where it was the law of the law that one would always bow to the King, and never to anyone else. This goes on for quite some time. Then one day the King announces that you must also bow to his son, the prince (and future king, one presumes).

Would you object, on the grounds that one should only bow to the King?”

In that case there would be no objection… Now all we need is a verse that actually announces that regarding Jesus and I will do it 🙂

I’ll keep my head on, if I may. I’m planning on using it some more… 🙂

Andy

Andy

they are in the false religious sense, but proskuneo in and of itself does not distinguish between false and true religious worship.

I think you just answered your own question here…FALSE worship, be it religious or not, is not VALID. Therefore, this particular argument IS from silence. :p

And yes, great last points you made. TOTALLY AGREE!!!

Dale

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.

Is there any difference between “religious” & “cultic” worship? If not, how does this statement support the NT language findings of NT Greek scholars like Dunn:

Cultic worship or service (latreuein, latreia) as such is never offered to Christ…bearing in mind that the latreuein word group is the nearest expression for the offering of ‘cultic worship’… Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, pp. 15, 27.

[Bold mine.]