Do you think that you preexisted your conception?
Me neither.
True, there are cultures which presuppose this. But most of the human race, including ancient Jews, assumes that getting parented involves getting brought into existence some time between the sexual union and birth. You, the younger human being, exist because of what your parents did. This, I suggest, is the default human assumption. You exist because of them.
Abe and Sarah did what married folk do. Because of this (with some sort of miraculous fertility assist from God) Isaac came to exist. When? Opinions vary as to the exact time, but certainly before birth, and no earlier than union of sperm and egg – that’s what most of us think.
So Matthew and Luke don’t mention any pre-human existence for Jesus. They do assert that he’s the human son of Mary who was “begotten” – seemingly, conceived (as most translations have it) by the power of God. And as Buzzard emphasizes, for this reason, the angel says, the child will be called the Son of God.
What? Isn’t he called that because he has the divine nature, because he is one essence with the Father? Well, that’s not what it says. Would Luke have said it somewhere if he’d believed it? We would think so. So, this is a problem for the theological heirs of the fourth century catholic “fathers”. But it is not, on the face of it, a problem for humanitarian unitarians.
The elephants in the room, of course, are Paul and John 1 – don’t they assert Jesus’ pre-human-existence? And wasn’t there a consistent apostolic message? Some theologians happily jettison this latter assumption, by the way. But as long as we expect the New Testament to be self-consistent, at least on important things, then one wants Matthew and Luke to fit with John and Paul.
Sir Anthony has done plenty of thinking about John and Paul. But we will not settle the dispute between subordinationist and humanitarian unitarians here. I think that the former are justified in thinking that their christology is strictly consistent with the letter of the text. They can say that John and Paul simply teach more than Matthew and Luke, concerning the temporal extent of Jesus’ life, and his being God’s instrument of creation. It would be mighty strange, though, if Matthew and Luke believed in the pre-human existence of Jesus, but tell the back-story in the ways that they do.
Next time – what is a human being anyway?
JimSpace (November 15, 2012 at 10:47 am) wrote:
Contrary to a common misinterpretation, Jesus is NOT telling the Pharisees that, as the Psalmist is presenting David referring in prophetic vision to the future Messiah as “my lord”, then the Messiah must be God! Those who mistakenly affirm this should learn something about the original Hebrew text of Psalm 110:1, cited at Matthew 22:44:
So, to infer from the phrase, “Here is the LORD’s proclamation to my lord”, that the (first) “LORD” and the (second) “lord” are equal, and therefore, as the “LORD” is YHWH God, also “my lord” is YHWH God is NOT ONLY not supported by the Hebrew text, BUT simply WRONG.
By referring to the Messiah as ‘adoni, “my lord”, King David was recognizing that the future Messiah (who would be his descendant, without by this implying that he would be from his “sperma”) would have been superior to himself.
In conclusion, Matthew 22:41-46 certainly is a teaching and a direct challenge to the misconceptions of the Pharisees. Jesus was saying to the Pharisees how obtuse was their “literalistic” understanding of the Messiah as “seedof David”.
Oh BTW, we know from Matthew’s Gospel that “While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit” (Matt 1:18), so Joseph was ONLY the “putative” (viz. presumed) father of Jesus.
Matthew’s Genealogy (Matt 1:1-17) is obviously NOT an attestation of Jesus’ literal Davidic descent.
JimSpace
How about that he has been made David’s superior i.e., his “lord Messiah”?
Hi, I believe there is a case for Christ’s pre-human existence in the account at Matthew 22:41-6. There Jesus cleverly used Psalm 110:1. In verse 45 Jesus asks: “If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?””
Jesus’ argument appears to be either that he has a pre-human existence, or that the Christ does not come from David and he was exposing their error.
However, Matthew’s gospel stresses that Jesus is the son of David and therefore has the genealogical prerequisite to be the Christ! Matthew uses the phrase “son of David” nine times, more than the other gospels (Mark has it two times and Luke three times, John, zero). In fact, Matthew’s messianic genealogy with its formula of three fourteen generations only works if you count David twice!
Thus, it seems rather obvious (to me at least) that Matthew used Jesus’ argument to implicitly teach that Jesus had a pre-human existence, since he stressed more than the other gospels that the Christ comes from David.
John
Yes, Jesus taught many doctrines including that of love.
Xavier
Maybe – but it is scripture stripped down to a few essentials.
Very few good men will disagree with what I have written .
Desideratus Erasmus postulated ” Get consensus by defining as little as possible, then bring out the potentially divisive issues and discuss them one by one – but always in a spirit of brotherly love.
If you cannot get agreement, put them aside till more knowledgible and wiser men are around, then try again…but always in a spirit of brotherly love.
I was brought up in an ‘exclusive’ sect – maybe that’s why I strive to be as ‘inclusive’ as possible.
The striving for certainty is accompanied by a lot of fear -and as Christ said repeatedly “Fear not”!
Blessings
John
John
Great, sounds like its all doctrine to me. ; )
Hi Xavier
(i) Christs humanity – absolutely
(ii) Christ told us that He came to fulfil the law… and that salvation was by Gods good grace.
Gods’ grace and favour is given to those who live as He would wish us to live
(iii) Doctrine is mans attempt to merge moral precepts with ones interpretation of the scriptures.
The problem is that there are many possible permutations and as a result many outcomes.
The problem is that doctrine is at the root of all division – and this division must displease God immensely.
Several authors have suggested that ‘certainty’ tends to make us mortals behave in a way which is the
antithesis of Christs way -hence the dangerous fundamentalism which exists in this world.
(iv) Christ has taught us that Gods Holy Spirit , which dwells within us, can be called upon to help us
to overcome our human imperfections.
Every Blessing
John
John
Can we first agree Jesus was a man? Albeit a “perfected” one, of course.
Can we also agree that he brought a Law all of his own as well? Albeit a God-inspired one of course.
Can we also agree that “Doctrine” extends to the ethical/moral Christian teachings? That in a way have been and continue to be hijacked by so-called “atheists” and secularists.
Our “experience” is that current human imperfection cannot bring about true change. Can we agree on that?
Hi Xavier
The point he was trying to make is that man-made constructs are divisive and that Christ was telling us about a way of life that is pleasing to God.
All other things whether it be our millenial views, or pre-existence views pale into insignificance..
What’s worse, man-made structures are divisive – and used to instill fear in people. Just look at all the division, fear, hatred on the “Christian’ web-sites. Is this pleasing to God?
Doctrine in a sense becomes ‘the Law’… so where there is much doctrine there is little love, and where there is much love there is little doctrine.
At least that’s my experience.
Every Blessing
John
John
Should’ve asked your friend if he believed what he was saying was “Doctrine” to him. 😛
Hi!
I recently spoke to a very “Godly’ man who worships at our church.
He was very much a ‘closed book’ and shuns theological debate.
When I was persistent with him he said bluntly
” Literalism is illusory and leads to tyranny
Doctrine is man-made and at the core of all division
All we can do is live as God would have us live – with Christ as our exemplar”
Not much more to say!
Every Blessing
John
Marg
So Jesus is the second man but not 2nd adam?
You know there’s an old saying Marg, facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, inclinations or passions they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
adios
Thank you.
The word in Luke 1:35 is not “created”. That has been dealt with by at least two people who know more Greek than I do, so I will leave it at that.
You did not give a reference for this. That’s because there isn’t one. But I suspect you know that already.
Just for emphasis: Paul did NOT!!! refer to Christ as “the second Adam”.
However, he DID refer to him as the LAST Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). His lordship is eternal, so there will not be another Adam, exercising lordship.
But then, in v. 47, Paul said:
He is the second man – the first of a whole new race of men who will be spiritual, as he is (v. 48).
And now, unless something new (and valid) is introduced, I am leaving this thread.
Marg
Every time you assign a LITERAL per-human existence to Jesus you question his humanity.
According to the angel Gabriel the Son was created via God’s spirit (Luke 1.35).
Paul REFERS to Jesus as the 2nd Adam. Please carefully read the scriptures I have continually cited.
You are simply IGNORING the arguments you can’t answer, Xavier.
Christ’s real humanity has never been in question. But you can’t handle the DIFFERENCES between Adam and Christ, so you keep repeating what you cannot prove. And – just in case you missed them – I will repeat what you have neither acknowledged nor refuted:
NO passage says that Jesus was CREATED.
Jesus is NOT called the “second Adam”.
But Jaco is right. Unless something new can be added to the discussion, future repetition is useless, and should be ignored. On BOTH sides.
Marg
Your repeating yourself. Jesus is not a MERE anything just like the first adam was not a MERE human being…they were both sinless, first-time creations by God.
It is really troubling how people continue to deny this in light of the real humanity Jesus is said to CURRENTLY have up in heaven, where he has been allowed to sit next to the Almighty Himself and from which he will be sent to judge the living and the dead [Acts 17.31].
In the first place, Xavier, what you said was “lordship over all creation”. My point was that Adam was NOT!! given “lordship over ALL CREATION”.
The eternal character of Christ’s lordship is an added factor in my problem with Christ being a mere CREATED being, which he is NEVER said to be.
In the second place, as has already been pointed out, he is NOT called “the second Adam”.
Marg
First, I wasnt talking about eternal but simply your point about “lordship” which was given to the 1st Adam (Gen 2.26-28).
Second, there is nothing MERE about the 2nd Adam. What your spouting, knowingly or not, is the age old straw man trini argument.
But tell us in what way is Jesus the 2nd Adam then if he was not a creation like the 1st?
Sorry, Xavier. My point in #6 was that Adam was NOT given lordship over ALL creation. Check it out and see. But the Son of God WAS. Even the angels were commanded to worship him.
What’s more, his lordship is eternal as well as absolute, which Adam’s was not.
That is why I have a small problem thinking of Jesus as merely a man.
As for the comparison between Jesus and Adam, I can only repeat what has already been pointed out:
Adam was CREATED. We are told that 6 times in Genesis and once in the NT. But we are NEVER told that Jesus was created. Instead, we are told that, unlike the first man, the second man was the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47).
If you believe that the Bible is unreliable, none of that will mean anything to you. But it means something to me. It is part of the cumulative evidence that Jesus is, and always was, the only-begotten Son of the living God.
It fits the evidence of John 1:10 and John 8:57.
It fits the saying of Jesus recorded in all three of the synoptics, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall in no wise pass away.” That is something no other human could say.
It fits the evidence of Hebrews 1:2 and 1 Cor. 8:6 and Colossians 1.
Granted, you may object that all these passages are meant to be figurative and not literal; but that leaves in jeopardy ALL the words of the NT. Who gets to decide what is literal and what is figurative? Was the resurrection of Jesus figurative? Some people think so. I don’t.
ON THE OTHER HAND, what Jesus wants is loving, loyal, obedient disciples. We may not all understand abstract things the same way, but obedience to his commands is necessary if we are to be called disciples of the Messiah. What group we belong to is not the deciding factor.
The one thing I react to strongly is the idea that anyone who does not agree with some particular theory – trinitarian or otherwise – is not a Christian.
Marg
Sorry you lost me. Perhaps it’s my fault so let me ask again: why do you seem to have a problem with God creating another Adam in order to function as ruler of the age to come?
Not ALL creation, Xavier. Not so.
Marg
Sorry to butt in but I must ask, in lieu of the above, why is it a problem for you to accept that like the 1st CREATED adam, the 2nd adam has been given “lordship over all creation”?
Thanks, Abel. Actually, I was ashamed of my angry response as soon as I submitted it. So I am once again grateful for the power of the blood of Christ to cleanse from all sin.
I agree with you that the message of the gospel is easy to understand, so long as the New Testament can be trusted. But if it can’t, then Christianity is based on nothing. And yes, I DID pay attention to what you said. In fact, I responded to it.
I, too, would not be negatively affected IF the New Testament did not teach the idea of pre-existence. But it is not difficult to see several passages – not just one, and many that are perfectly clear without any “microanalysis” – which would lead me to believe that Christ did not begin to exist when he was born. In fact, several have already been discussed at length.
So I believe it to be so, even though the contrary would NOT change my appreciation of the gospel. It would just make me wonder how Jesus could make the statements he does, and how his total lordship over all creation (to which his God has appointed him) squares up with the idea of a created being.
Anyway, I apologize for a bad attitude. In my experience, doctrine has LESS to do with people’s disillusionment with Christianity than what they see in those who claim to be Christians.
For example: Dallas Willard is a tri-unitarian. I am not. But his teaching regarding a disciple of Christ is wonderful; and I believe if I consistently/em> lived that way, nobody would leave a congregation on my account, just because of a difference in doctrine.
So I, too, embrace the words of St Francis: ‘go out and preach the gospel, and if necceeasy (sic) use words’.
abel
I think Jesus’ teachings make that painfully clear [Luke 12.51]. But if we can’t even understand who this man, Jesus, was [God, god, angel, “being”] then how will we ever understand what he taught?
Xavier
Good point!
The resason I came to this site (Trinities) was to try to get the ‘person ‘ of Christ right in my mind, I am not too interested in other aspects of doctrine.(e.g. ones millenial views)
This MAN always deflected attention from himself towards The Father – and in all cases The Father is God.
While I maintain an open mind on the subject of Christs pre-existence, I have no doubts about Christs humanity. or that he is the Messiah. There is an abundance of clearly written scripture which supports this view.
I am quite keen to reduce things to a few basics on which good men can agree. ‘Doctrine ‘seems to be at the root of all arguments/division and I have had bitter experience of this!
Best Wishes
Abel
Abel
I think scripture warns against beleiving in any other Jesus than the one it describes. And that is the Messiah, Son of God/son of man who, BY DEFINITION, was and remains a human being. If we don’t have THAT Jesus then you might be in trouble.
Marg
I’m pleased with the sense of peace you have found within your stated approach.
Problem is you have not paid the slightest attention to any of the points I have raised!
The basic principles of the Gospel are remarkably simple and do not require one to be a rocket scientist to understand. You are absolutely correct in saying that some young Christians are discovering the joy of forgiveness in Christ . I have noted how Christianity is growing in the native communities in Canada and Australia but stagnating in the ‘colonist’ populations
That is not to say that the latter are not seeking God and truth- they just find it difficult to accept literality, dogma and doctrine.
One tends to start missing the point by delving into issues which require one to ‘micro-analyse’ words and scriptures which I believe are not necessarily reliable.
We need a new Reformation to sort things out.
As St Francis said ‘go out and preach the gospel, and if necceeasy use words’.
That sums it up.!
Kind Regards
Abel.
My problem with the “river of truth” flowing through the Bible is that everyone gets to decide what the truth is BEFORE reading the Bible. You just make your own template of what the truth SHOULD be, and where the Bible fits your template, you find “truth”.
But if the Bible is really as unreliable as you are suggesting, then ANY doctrine teased out of it is just as unreliable as any other.
That reminds me. Raymond Brown questions the virgin birth. If Matthew and Luke cannot be taken literally, then he SHOULD question it. I presume you agree with him. I think Anthony does not.
For my own part, I have found that if I take literally anything in the Bible that makes SENSE literally, I find it to be surprisingly coherent and consistent. That is why I read it and study it, in spite of the translational warts, which can be resolved by checking the text. And that is why young Christians I know are delighting in the joy of forgiveness and cleansing that is found in Christ – God’s agent in redemption as well as in creation.
That is also why those same young Christians are spending time and resources and energy in an effort to make that glorious message known.
In fact, a few of them are right now in a native community that ASKED them to come, striving to present Christ crucified and risen from the dead, able to save to the uttermost all that come to God through him. They take that seriously. And literally. And joyfully.
And that is why I will now leave you with your own little “river of truth,” taken from your own “brain”. I find it just as scripturally unsupportable as that of tri-unitarianism.
Xvier
That makes perfect sense to me.
The question of pre-existence is the one thing that leaves me completely perplexed.
If I were a literalist I could find reasons to believe in Christs pre-existence – but I am not and I am still skeptical about the matter .
The question of para + dative might leave one to conclude that Christ was ‘alongside’ God (physically) in early times
Another correspondent noted that the picture of God as a mighty King. seated on a throne with a seat on his right side does not ‘square’ with this incredible creature who dwells in unapproachable light.
Once again the question of ‘literalism’ comes in. Does anyone today have this anthro-morphical view of God? I know very few and they tend to be older or less educated people.-or just ‘dyed in the wool ‘literalists (This is not intended to be arrogant or disrespectful but it reflects the reality I know).
I mentioned this issue to my previous pastor who has moved to another country and he asked me “does the question of pre-existence have any impact on your faith”? – to which I replied in the negative.
I await the consensus of ‘wiser heads” !!
Best Wishes
Abel
Abel
You can Google “Gnostic Redeemer Myth”. It’s something begun by the Tubingen boys in Germany back in the mid-late 1800s.
Basically the premise is the same as what you previously wrote, Gnostic themes like the aeons, Demiurge etc., was added as an element of Christology to explain how Jesus “came down from heaven” and “took on flesh”.
So how do you define the biblical teaching of preexistence?
The Baptist Union of Australia decided some time ago-to permit ‘free thinking’ on the subject of literalism.
Most of my friends are NOT literalist but even then, they behave in a ‘schizophrenic’ way when dealing with doctrine. Consider
(i) I know that not every word in the Bible is to be literally construed
(ii) BUT I try to micro- analyse words and phrases when trying to justify my doctrine
No wonder we have so many confused people running around – and no wonder young people take one look at the whole mess and leave the church!
It can be ‘fixed’ if people were more honest- and less fearful!
Every Blessing
John
Xavier
I’d be interested to hear the Gnostic version!
Marg
You are skeptical of my ‘non-literal’ approach but you still have to explain how one can be literalist in view of the history of the bible.
The Catholic Bible Society has gone to great lengths to ‘get close to the truth’-
consider the Preface to Johns Gospel contained in the NAB Bible.
It says, in part
” Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept that the Gospel as it now stands was written by one person.
Chapter 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed. It exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work.
The Prologue 1, 1-18 apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted as a preface to the gospel.
Within the gospel itself there are other inconsistencies e.g. the two endings to Jesus’ discourse in the upper room ( 14,31 18, 1)
To solve these problems scholars have proposed various re-arrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were produced by a subsequent editing in which homogenous material was added to a shorter original.
Other didfficulties for eyewittness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology, and certain elements of its literary style ….” And so on…
There are other difficulties.
The footnote to John Chapter 8 verses 1 -11 states that these verses are not found in any Greek or Aramaic text – but they were found in Western type insertions in later Latin translations.
My ‘literalist’ friends respond to such reasoning by wailing “well then what do we believe “?
The answer is of course, one has to use ones brain!
The truth is there – it flows like a river through the scriptures. But never forget , these scriptures were NOT written by the Lord God Almighty, They were written by men who wrote what they thought.
Our problem is compounded by phenomena such as text selection and doctrinal tampering.
It’s not easy!!
Best Wishes
Abel
Abel
Very much agree. It becomes “difficult” once we start mixing the cultures and reading one onto the other.
Are you familiar with the Gnostic redeemer myth?
Abel: I agree that the Father is the creator – nothing in the Bible contradicts that at all – but I can’t find it in Psalm 45. Did you mean some other passage?
I also know that the Father is the only savior. Isaiah 43:11 makes that clear. So does Hosea 13:4 – “You know no god but me, and besides me there is no savior” (RSV).
That statement is both true and absolute. But it is equally true that God SENT saviors for Israel. Like Moses and Joshua and many others.
There is no contradiction. God is savior alone; but he saves through the agents that he sends.And his first and primary agent is his Son, whose work of salvation is eternal.
I am aware of all the translation problems you mention, Abel, but I am ALSO aware that none of those problems has any serious effect on the message of the Bible. In fact, if my opinion of the Bible were as low as yours seems to be, I don’t think I would bother reading it.
Jaco – Getting back to your suggestion re Mt. 5:18, I suggest again that the CONTEXT eliminates any possibility that Moses could have said what Jesus said – as recorded in all three of the synoptic gospels (Mt 24:35; Mk 13:31; Lk 21:33):
Or, as it appears in an interlinear Greek NT, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but my words in no way will pass away.”
Moses could not have said that. But the words are entirely appropriate from the man of whom it is said,
Hi Xavier
This is all very difficult!
I have no doubts that the creator is The Father, and that this is confirmed by Psalm 45.
The great problem is that some Greek philosophical reasoning crept into Christian circles – which postulated that ”spirit ‘could not create matter’ so it reasoned that God created an intermediary through which matter might be created.
That is why we get these strange thoughs that God created the universe THROUGH Christ- and these are reflected in some scriptures..
When added to the erroneous thought that”the Word’ was a person you get the current mess.
This is why one gets the confusion regarding John 1 “the Word was WITH God and the word WAS
God.” This is easily explained if the Word is not a person.!
It is interesting that the early Reformation Bibles (Tyndale, Geneva ,Bishops The Great) all use the words
“IT was with God in the beginning.
And so the gymnastics begin !
If one is a “Bible literalist’ one can get pretty uppity about such things but the literalists have to consider a few thoughts pretty carefull before they get too dogmatic
–
(i) The Latin Vulgte Bible existed until about 1515 when it was replaced by the Erasmus Bible which was translated directly by reference to original Greek MS
It contained some 3 000 differences with the Vulgate -some minor and some major. People were burnt at the stake for challenging the Vulgate!
(ii) The Reformation gave rise to a number of well-known Bibles but they were all eclipsed by the discovery of new ms which stimulated a great deal of revision.
(iii) The KJV Bible appeared in 1611 and has ben popular since then. It was based somewhat on the famous Textus Receptus – which has been widely discredited.
(iv) Since the Second World War many attempts have been made to make the scriptures more reflective of original texts. The RSV, the NAB etc.
Interestingly the preface to the RSV uses words to the effect that the KJV contained so many errors that revision was considered essential.
So, from the revision of the Christian era, Bibles have been shown to contain error.
No-one doubts that the Bible CONTAINS God’s word. Truth flows ;like a river’ through the scriptures but as Erasmus pointed out, certainty proves an illusive goal. He certainly knew!
Best Wishes
Abel
abel
Thank you. Now the question is whether this “lord” & “god” is the Creator Himself. And if so, that would make 2 Creators.
Nothing about agency here since God says that this one “laid the foundations of the heavens and the earth”. That is, if you believe this passage is referring to the Genesis creation and not some FUTURE, “world to come, of which we are speaking” [Heb 2.5].
What say you?
Jaco – I have finished reading Deuteronomy and would like to respond now to your comment re Moses:
blockquote>Why do you think could Jesus say this of the Law of Moses:
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Was it because Moses was the word? Or was it because Moses was also God’s true prophet and that Moses’ words were God’s eternal words?
The qualifying clause is, “till all be fulfilled”.
Moses was certainly God’s true prophet; but the rest of Matthew 5 will show that there is a considerable difference between the words of Moses and the words of Jesus. For example:
V. 38 – “You have heard … an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21:26-36). [The Jerusalem Bible note suggests that this was to “prevent excessive revenge”.]
But Jesus teaches NO revenge. “Do not resist evil”, he says. On the contrary, “If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.” And it is heartening to see that Peter heard and understood. (See 1 Peter 3:8-10)
V. 31 – “It was also said, whoever puts away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you …”
Chapter 19:3-9 records an occasion when Pharisees asked him about this matter, and his answer there is revealing. When he told them that divorce and remarriage constitute adultery, they asked, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put her away?” (Deuteronomy 24:1).
He answered, “Because of your hard-heartedness Moses allowed you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.” And he gives God’s intention for a man and his wife, right from the beginning.
So at least SOME of Moses’ words were not meant to be eternal in their application, at least. That includes the levitical offerings, which take up a lot of the words of Moses. They had a purpose to fulfill, but when that purpose was achieved, they became inoperative, as several NT scriptures declare.
I think I am justified in concluding that Moses’ words do not belong in the same class as the words of Jesus. He alone can say,
And I repeat: Such a statement seems absolutely appropriate from the man who was the word, become flesh.
Thank you, Abel. Good point. God is speaking to his Son – the god who was his agent in the creation of the heavens and the earth. So the quotation makes perfect sense.
John – I haven’t forgotten your suggestion re 1 Corinthians 10:4.
1 Cor. 10:1-4 has to do with the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt and their wanderings in the desert. So I have been reading about that exodus, looking for some intimation of a promise of a messiah which would spiritual food and drink to the people.
I have finished reading Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and half of Deuteronomy. I stopped at Deuteronomy 18:15, because that is the first place where a promise of a future leader is mentioned.
There is no hint of a Messiah other than Moses until the END of their journeyings. Then Moses tells them that God has promised to raise up a prophet like himself. In the short run, that would be Joshua. In the long run, it looks forward to the Messiah whose reign will never end.
So I don’t see the rock = Christ to be a promise for the future.
On the other hand, there are some marvellous types of Christ in that story. The passover is the outstanding one, and we today understand that “Christ, our passover, has been sacrificed for us.” Then there is the brazen serpent, a type of Christ “lifted up” for the salvation of those who believe in him (John 3).
So it is possible to understand the “spiritual rock that followed them” to be seen in those things that “saved” them on their way, but had their ultimate fulfilment in Christ.
So I will leave 1 Corinthians 10:4 in the ambiguous category. It doesn’t really affect the fact that Hebrews 1:1 deals with speech to MEN, whereas the passages which clearly imply Chirst’s pre-existence go back a lot farther than that.
I am now reading the rest of Deuteronomy, because I am interested in Jaco’s suggestion in Comment 26. It is a reasonable suggestion, and I need to read all of the words of Moses to see whether the comparison is accurate.
Hi Marg & Xavier
You make a very valid point Xavier .
In Hebrews it is God talking to someone other than himself.
The person being addressed is a “god’ who has a God
Psalm 45 verses 7 & 8 reflect this accurately.
Surely Hebrews is no more than a ‘cut and paste’ job! A summary of snippets from Psalms 2, 45, 102 & 110.
Best Wishes
Abel
Marg
Heb 1.10 reads…
Ps 102.25 reads…
See the difference? In Hebrews God is talking to someone ELSE whom He calls “lord”. In Ps 102 it is the one praying talking to God.
Deal with it.
Those are not “facts” Xavier.
As you admitted twice in the KR blog, the words regarding the heavens and the earth (Psalm 102) ALWAYS refer to the Genesis creation in the OT.
Hebrews 2:5 does NOT change the meaning of Ps. 102, and seems to be introduced for the sole purpose of making the quotation fit a particular theory. Which is the kind of thing Trinitarians do.
I think Jaco is right. There is no point in repeating the same old things, when there is nothing new to add.
Jaco DID introduce something new (and plausible) with his suggestion about Moses, and I am now testing it by studying the last four books of the Pentateuch. Maybe he’s right. But I want to find out. I am not stuck with a pre-determined conclusion that takes precedence over what the scriptures actually say.
Marg
Not so much about that but about irrefutable facts. For example, you continue to ignore the fact that the writer of Hebrews is quoting the Septuagint and not the Masoretic at v. 10.
In Ps 102.23-25 the LXX reads:
Add to this that if you continue reading it is about a future, “world to come” of which the writer speaks (Heb. 2:5).
You are yet to deal with these facts of the text.
Marg
The principle of Agency has nothing to do with HOW MANY People created all things. God ALONE spoke and all things came to exist. There was NO ONE ELSE beside Him. You keep presuming that God created through His preexistent Son, called the Word. This position is scripturally untenable.
Xavier, I wish you would go back to the KR blog and read the articles on AGENCY. Those articles were a tremendous help to me, and I am grateful for them. You seem to have forgotten that something done by an agent can just as correctly be said to be done by the principle.
So YHWH says,”I alone am Savior, and there is none beside me”. But then we are told “I SENT them saviors.” And now he has appointed his Son to be the Savior of the world.
But it is still true that God alone saves. He saves through his agents – even an agent like Cyrus. What Cyrus did – as God’s “messiah” – was what God himself did, THROUGH Cyrus.
The article quoted YHWH as saying, “I will stretch out my rod over the waters of Egypt and they shall be turned into blood.” But the hand that actually held the rod was the hand of God’s AGENT, Aaron.
There are dozens of examples; and once that principle is clearly understood and properly applied, a whole lot of problems disappear. Such as the problem of Hebrews 1:10-12.
I don’t want to go into each of those passages in detail again – passages like 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2 and John 8:57 – but maybe it’s necessary.
John 1:1-14, however, can rest in peace.
And if we are now agreeing to disagree, I can handle that, too. But I am free to respond to Harriet’s comments, nevertheless.
Marg
God’s “AGENT” was not another Person beside him, Marg, it was God’s OWN creative “word” or “command”; as the writer of Hebrews put it:
If this was not the case this and the other NT writers could very well have said so. i.e., the entire universe was formed through God’s AGENT, the Word.
So no, I do not agree with your understanding of preexistence.
Wonderful, Xavier. We agree. The word became a man, and it was through HIM that the world was made (v. 10). But the world did not recognize HIM as the agent through whom the world came into existence,even though he WAS that agent.
That’s what verse 10 says. It agrees with Samuel Clarke’s view, it agrees with many passages in the NT, and it is contradicted by none.
“We nowhere in the OT find the Messianic King as Jehovah appearing in Person…” is, I believe, a non sequitor. It has nothing to do with the subject of God’s AGENT. It is simply an argument against tri-unism, which we all agree is not in the Bible.
So I am going to drop the subject as settled. I have nothing new to add.
Marg
Agreed. The word BECAME a man, a person, and not before. Just like Jesus is NOW also said to be the wisdom, glory, image of God etc.
The point is that these THINGS were not distinct, seperate Persons apart from God the Father.
Thanks, Xavier. I can appreciate your input, but no matter how many ways a word can be used elsewhere, the CONTEXT is the determining factor.
I have already discussed the context of John 1:10, so I won’t repeat it. It is simply a fact that the word through which all things came into existence became a man, and that man was called “the word of God”.
That is what the text says, and I believe what the text says, UNTIL it can be clearly shown that it says something else.
Marg
Previous to Jesus “the word” is not a “Name” associated with a Person distinct from God. The “word” is simply God’s word, an expression of His creative power:
Furthermore, “what characterizes the use of logos in the NT is not some NEW MEANING for the word beyond what is found in the Septuagint but its reference to the divine revelation of God, specifically the divine revelation of God through Jesus Christ and his messengers.
In many cases the “word of God” is simply the Christian message, the gospel. The apostles and preachers are said to “speak the word of God” (Acts 4:31), to “proclaim the word of God” (Acts 13:5), or to “teach the word of God”(Acts 18:11)…
Since this word of revelation is brought by Christ, the “word of the Lord,” “the word of Christ,” or the “words” of Jesus can be used in the same sense as the “word of God” (John 5:24; 12:48; 18:32; Acts 8:25; 12:24; 13:44, 48-49; Col. 3:16).
Logos is often qualified by other genitive phrases (“the word of the kingdom” [Matt. 13:19]; “the word of salvation” [Acts 13:26]; “the word of reconciliation [2 Cor. 5:19]; “the word of the cross” [1 Cor. 1:18]; “the word of righteousness” [Heb. 5:13]). But logos is also often used with no qualifying genitive to refer simply to the Christian message as such (Matt. 13:20-23; Mark 2:2; Luke 8:12-13; Acts 6:4; Gal. 6:6; Jas. 1:21).” Anchor Bible, vol. 4, “Logos”.
Hope this helps if your seriously “ready to think through the alternatives”. ; )
I’ll think that over, Jaco. I freely admit that evidence which seems solid may not be so, and I am ready to think through the alternatives.
Nevertheless, it was THROUGH the word that all things came into existence. Whatever is meant by the name word (applied to Jesus in Revelation 19:13), that word was the agent through which all things came into being.
I can recognize metaphors, Jaco. But metaphors do not make a statement of fact null and void. And the whole context clearly equates the word, having become flesh, with the one who can give those who believe in him the authority to become the children of God.
It was through HIM that the world was brought into existence. That is stated explicitly.
So at the moment, I don’t think your explanation succeeds in changing the obvious meaning of the passage, any more than Trinitarians succeed in their efforts to change the obvious meaning of John 17:3.
I am grateful to Dale for printing Samuel Clarke’s The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. The more I see of contrary theories, the more convinced I am that Clarke’s view shows the greatest respect for the Scriptures. I appreciate that, because the Bible is dear to me.
Your references to the law are worth looking into carefully, Jaco, and thank you for mentioning it. Looking at ALL the evidence can only lead to enlightenment.
Hi, Marg
Well, GJohn is a difficult document. It uses concepts and language difficult for us to understand if the genre and theological scheme is not properly understood. And to selectively identify Jesus to various things such as God’s word and light and manna, etc. is faulty interpretation. Either all of these are literal or all of these must be metaphorical. Literal preexistence in Jesus’ case, in my mind, would be as erroneous as literal preexistence implied in “you were elected before the founding of the world…”
I think you’re stretching it. Why do you think could Jesus say this of the Law of Moses:
Was it because Moses was the word? Or was it because Moses was also God’s true prophet and that Moses’ words were God’s eternal words?
I see no reason to think of Jesus’ words any differently…John 7:16, 17
Thanks
Right, Jaco. I agree that there is no use in going on and on about something without having anything new to add. So I hope I won’t hear again the claim that Psalm 2:7 refers to a LITERAL conception.
As for John 1:10, I can leave it to the readers to decide which explanation is more in keeping with the text. I think it means just what it says.
To be honest, Jaco, I am reluctant to pass off unwelcome passages as being metaphorical, when the simplest meaning makes the most sense.
It reminds me of Trinitarians who try to dismiss the obvious meaning of John 17:3 in much the same way.
One thing that has NOT been addressed, though, is the statement of Jesus that is quoted in all three of the synoptics. I think that gives me the right to repeat the quotation, and explain more fully why it seems to go so well with the literal meaning of John 1:1-14.
Adam was God’s CREATED son. That word is used of him seven different times.
If Adam had made the statement quoted above, it would have been ludicrous. It would have been presumptuous. And – as we know – it would have proved to be a downright lie.
If Jesus was a created being like Adam (the word “created” is never used of him, by the way) then the same criteria apply. Such a statement, coming from a created being like Adam, would have been presumptuous and blameworthy.
However, coming from one whose name was “the word of God,” it was exactly true, and it was certain to be fulfilled.
It seems that Matthew, Mark and Luke were all aware of that.
Thanks, Marg. I think we all need to tone down from time to time. I just see no use in going on and on about something without having anything new to add.
Re. your comment on John 1:10, I have this to say: When I say, “the President studied politics at Harvard” does that mean by necessity that the President had been President all along while studying politics? In other words, does the sentence above prohibit me from using the reference (President) anaphorically (meaning pointing backwards)?
John 1 also speaks of Jesus being the Light, with obvious reminds us of the light created by God back in Genesis. Does that force me to believe in the 1:1 identification of Jesus with the light in Genesis? Or does that allow me to understand the significance of Jesus’ enlightening ministry to be no less transformative than the light in Genesis chapter 1? I mean, do you recognise the extent to which this metaphor is used in John?
Thanks,
Jaco
Thanks, Jaco. I was ashamed of my sarcastic remark as soon as it was submitted – especially after quoting Isaiah 66:2. That is the attitude I do desire, even though I fail to reach it.
I apologize, and commit myself again to be a disciple of Christ, who was humble and lowly in heart.
As for the issue here, it has to do with biblical evidence for the pre-existence of the Son of God.
The evidence of John 1:10 is sound.
All things came into existence through the word .
That same word became flesh – became a man.
So the man was the same word through which all things came into existence.
He (not it) was in the world.
The world was brought into existence through him (not it).
But the world did not know him.
BUT to as many as received him, to them he gave the authority to become the sons of God, even to those who believed on his name.
What name did they believe in?
Revelation 19:13 gives me scriptural justification for believing ONE of his names to be the word of God. It all fits together, if you look at it all.
This is not the only passage that strongly implies pre-existence, as you well know, Jaco.
And there are others that harmonize perfectly with it, even though they are not “proof texts”. For example, no one has yet explained why Matthew, Mark and Luke all quote Jesus as saying,
That statement does not sound good from a created man, such as Adam was. But it fits perfectly with the word through whom all things came into existence, and who became a man.
By the way, I wish that all who take part in public blogs would resolve to make courtesy their habit. I do try, in spite of my lapses.
I’ve known you to be a reasonable person, not sarcastic or argumentative…
And, for the record, I don’t think GJohn helps your theology at all, since Jesus’ historical past is at issue here, not his theological significance.
Harriet, what’s with your questions in post #16? Why bother to determine those answers if you wouldn’t bother answering them out of a first century Hebraic perspective? I mean, who was Jesus in a parallel universe? Who cares? Your questions are equally irrelevant, I think.
Sorry, Harriet. I should have indicated that I was answering your comment. I didn’t realize that Anthony had just repeated his “proof-texts” yet again.
I see what you are driving at. But I don’t do those things, so I feel no urge to explain them.
We do sing “Holy, holy, holy”; but when we do, I sing:
“God and the Lamb be praised eternally” (which I can justify from Revelation 5) insted of:
“God in three Persons, blessed Trinity” (for which I can find no justification at all).
I don’t know why my “brethring” didn’t excommunicate me long ago; but, in fact, we get along remarkably well. They have compassion on my ignorance, and have compassion on theirs.
But I feel sorry for those whose minds are closed.
The passage that comes often to my mind is Isaiah 66:2 – “This is the one whom I eesteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and who trembles at my word.” I want to aim for that.
To be honest, your metatheological issue is out of my depth. I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher. But talk to me about the words of the Bible itself, and I will do my best to follow you. That I find nourishing.
Marg
You are right, the word becomes a HE only in Jn 1:10. But there is no difficulty with the word beget. It can of course be used figuratively: ‘you can beget a quarrel’. It is used of teachers and their students, and it is used massive of the begetting activity of a father and of a mother bearing a child.
Thus, in Matt. 1:20, the Greek says “what is begotten IN her”. There is no example of gennao in the womb to mean “conceive”. Can you find one?
No text says that the word was begotten!! It is the Son who was begotten Ps . 2:7 predicted it and so did Isa 9:6 and then we find it coming to pass in Luke 1 and Matt 1. And also and most significantly in Ii Jn 5:18 (not KJV).
All the writers knew when God’s Son came into existence. It was a special creation of God parallel to the creation of Adam who is also called God’s son.
Hope this sums it up.
I’ve just read a very interesting article on Christology here: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S003441250800975X comparing the Christology problem to the Tib//Tibbles issue.
However, at this point I’m interested in the metatheological issue: what is a Christological doctrine, or account of the Trinity, supposed to do? And I’m not convinced that either of these accounts, or theology in general, is supposed to spell out what’s in the Bible. Because, there really isn’t much theology in the Bible. According to my metatheology, as I understand it now and would be interested in discussion, the purpose of theology is to provide a rational and explanation for church practice: for the religious noises we make, our gestures and our rituals.
We make religious noises about “Father, Son and Holy Ghost”; we sing hymns like “Holy, Holy, Holy” and “I Bind unto Myself This Day”; we cross ourselves to the name of the Trinity, etc. The aim of theology as I see it is to explain and justify these churchy practices in order to promote the interests of the institutional church, in particular liturgical churches.
So, why not?
It will take me a while to absorb all you say, Harriet (I’m not a philosopher), but I appreciate your willingness to interact.
Our aims differ. My aim is simply to understand what the Bible actually says. So we are not going to agree on titles like “the 2nd Person of the Trinity”.
But we can explore areas where we CAN agree, just the same. And one area of agreement is that the word did not begin to exist when Jesus was born.
Buzzard’s admission regarding John 1:10 has been a huge help. The word may be an “it” in the first five verses, but the pronoun in verse 10 is “he”. So:
The word was in the world (after becoming a man).
That world was brought into existence through him (as expressed in verse 2).
But the world that he was in did not recognize him.
This is one of the many passages that STRONGLY imply the pre-existence – not of the man Jesus – but of the Messiah.
So I can accept your suggestion – with some reservations about the wording – that
That allows for the ambiguity inherent on the word “begotten,” as indicated in several dictionaries and lexicons – including those approved by Buzzard.
WHAT pre-existed: the 2nd Person of the Trinity or Christ? What if I hold that the Trinitarian Person was pre-existent but became a human at some time in the late 1st century BC so that, in effect, Christ is a proper temporal part of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Does this make me an adoptionist?
Or what if I hold that Christ is an image of God, a representation such that I can point at him and say, “That’s God” in the way that I can point to a picture of Obama and say “that’s the President.” That’s pretty thin, but it does I think license orthodox religious talk because there’s an ambiguity: talking about Jesus we can say that he didn’t exist before his conception or birth or somewhere in between; using Jesus as a referential device to pick out the 2nd Person of the Trinity we can say “this was begotten of the Father before all worlds,” so pre-existed.
I have a metatheological worry behind this. It seems to me that this account makes the talk come out right: we can affirm that Christ (referring to the 2nd Person of the Trinity) was “begotten of his Father before all worlds” whereas Jesus wasn’t. Does it make the talk come out right? Even if so, do we want more than something that will make the talk come out right? If so what and why?
“God did not speak in a SON in the OT times, Heb.1.”
This has been stated more than once, and was addressed in an earlier thread (Dale Tuggy interviewed by J. Dan Gill), and nobody made any comments regarding it.
However, the statement has been made yet again (comment 8) – so maybe a summary of the original comment can be tolerated. If there is something wrong with it, somebody should be able to point it out.
“Heb 1:2 makes the point that God did NOT speak in a SON in the OT.”
Agreed: verse 1 implies exactly that. God spoke to men (the fathers) by means of men (prophets). Now, in the end of the ages, he has spoken to men (us) in a man (his Son).
But men do not comprise the whole of creation. We don’t even comprise much of the universe, and that is the only part of creation that we know anything about.
Nevertheless, God was revealing his thoughts long before there were any men to “speak” to. For example:
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth … when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God sang for joy?” (Job 38:4-8).
Answer: Nowhere. There wasn’t a single man there. But there was an audience that could appreciate the expression of God’s mind in the “all things” that were created through the “the word”.
So Hebrews 1:1 has no bearing at all on how long the Son has existed.
Marg
Thanks, but look at the difference “with yourself” and “with you”; “inheritance prepared for you” is very NT
Jesus is asking for the reward promised to him, and he has not got it when speaking.
Rewards are para theo, laid up with God. You will find an example in Isa also, “My reward is with you” ie stored up with you.
If Jesus was alive before the Genesis creation that destroys the clear accounts of his origin in Matt.
I think one cannot have it both ways.
John – I appreciate your attitude. Thank you.
I really don’t know what it means to be in God’s presence. On the other hand, I believe that Jesus is THERE, right now, whatever it means. Do we agree on that?
Also, the two clauses in John 17:5 are parallel, it seems to me.
[By the way, I am trying very hard to be swayed ONLY by the text. If I don’t succeed, it isn’t for lack of trying.]
The two clauses are:
glorify me WITH YOU (a request for the future)
with glory that I had (past tense) WITH YOU before the world began.
The grammar I have already discussed. I think it means he is asking for the same proximity to God that he enjoyed previously.
If that is the correct interpretation, then his request was answered. He is presently at the right hand of God – whatever that means. (No; I don’t think God has a material hand.)
And he is enjoying the glory that he earned as a perfect, submissive man, to be sure.
I think he is ALSO enjoying the glory he had originally – as God’s agent in creation, among other things.
By the way, Dale, I like the Jerusalem Bible, too.
Marg
Thanks, I disagree ENTIRELY on their listing!
Firstly, this contradicts the whole of the OT doctrine of Messiah as Son of David!
Secondly, it contradicts Luke/Acts and Matt!
Thirdly, you have avoided the obvious fact that glory is PROMISED as a FUTURE blessing which one “has” already [Jn 17:22, 24].
Incarnation of a previously existing Angel or God the Son is quite different from Matt. 1:20 and the origin of the real SON.
First settle on Matt 1:20 and proceed! And Luke 1:35.
Marg
You make some valid points regarding ‘para+dative’ and a friend has recently sent me some material which further reinforces your position.
The latter specifically rejects Thaylers Lexicon insofar as its treatment of the allegorical use of ‘para+ dative’ is concerned.
If I were a ‘literalist’ I would say ‘well that’s that’ and end my search.
But I cannot be convinced of literalism.
The writers of the scriptures were writing for a relatively unsophisticated audience – and generally described events in terms of the world they knew.
“God’ was seen as a ‘super-man’ – or some sort of mighty King. .. complete with flowing beard!
Honoured guests were offered a seat at this beings right hand..
However these analogies do not ‘fit’ with this awesome being who lives in unapproachable light!!!
So what does being ‘with God’ mean?
Does he have a right hand? A left Hand? wings? Does he wield a mighty sword.?
I may be wrong, but I think NOT.
Best Wishes
John
Marg – I think you need to argue against our reading of John 17:5 (also v. 24), which is that Jesus is speaking of what has been pre-destined. This sort of idiom is well attested in the NT.
My favorite study Bible, oddly enough, the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Study Bible, has this comment on 17:5:
“Either the glory he enjoyed as the pre-incarnate Son, or else the glory predestined for him from eternity by the Father…” (p. 1783)
In their view, the text alone does not settle the matter! I think this is right – other considerations will sway us.
The grammatical sense of John 17:5 was discussed in detail elsewhere (Biddle: many gods but one God), but here is a condensed version.
The “dictionaries” are two lexicons – Thayer’s and Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich.
Both lexicons agree that para with the dative denotes nearness – either literally or figuratively. Then they give many examples of each to demonstrate the difference between the two. For example (copied from BAG):
A. Used literally:
John 19:25 – there stood by (para) the cross of Jesus his mother …
Acts 9:43 & 10:6 – Peter is lodged with (para) Simon, the tanner
John 1:39(40) – they saw where he stayed and abode with (para) him that day.
Luke 11:37 – A Pharisee asked Jesus if he would come and dine with (para) him.
John 8:38 – … what I have seen with (para) my Father, that I speak
John 17:5 – … glory I had with (para) you before the world was.
…
You will notice that John 8:38 and 17:5 fit the pattern and are included in the list. They are examples of the literal use of para.
B. Used figuratively:
1 Corinthians 3:19 – The wisdom of this world is foolishness with (para) God.
Galatians 3:11 – … by the law is no one justified before (para) God.
Luke 1:30 – … you have found favor with (para) God …
Luke 1:37 – … nothing is impossible with (para) God.
Romans 2:11 – There is no respect of persons with (para) God.
……..
Conclusion: When para is used figuratively, the context leaves no doubt. But when a person is said to be WITH (para plus dative) another person, it refers to literal nearness.
Therefore, when Jesus spoke of the glory he had with (para) the Father before the world was, he was talking about being in the actual presence of God (John 17:5), before the world began.
John 8:37 uses para in the same way.
Marg, thanks.
But what dictionary today enables you to say that in John 17:5 the reference is to Jesus being alive before he was born?
You must show that the commentators are WRONG, when they point out in that very same chapter, glory is said to have been given to believers who were not even alive!
In that very chapter you see the use of a perfect tense to describe a glory GIVEN in promise! i.e., Stored up with God (para theo).
You have not commented on Matt 6:1 which speaks of us HAVING a reward now, when the meaning is that reward is stored up with God now ready to be revealed in the future.
All this is not so hard.
The glory stored up with God will be conferred in the future as will all rewards.
My point is that if one has accepted the easy account of the BEGETTING coming into existence (that is a word which anyone can verify) in Matt 1:18, 20 and Luke 1:35.
My desire is to harmonize John with those accounts! Matt, Luke, Acts and 1 Peter say nothing at all about the amazing idea that the Son was alive before he came into existence!
Heb 1:2 makes the point that God did NOT speak in a SON in the OT.
So will you consider accepting the idea that the writer knew that God not speak in a Son in the OT times, because the Son was not there yet?!
“Why did Augustine and Calvin’s theologian who loved the Trinity NOT agree that Jn 17:5 have anything to do with preexistence of the Son?”
Probably because they didn’t have any of the authorities you have cited.
We today have no such excuse. We have lexicons that can give both the meaning of Greek words and the rules that govern them, as well as a convincing number of examples in the NT to back up what they are saying.
The examples regarding the use of the preposition para have already been posted in a previous thread. But perhaps they need to be posted again.
By the way, if you are citing Calvin and Augustine as authorities, I hope you will forgive me if I prefer Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich.
Marg
Why did Augustine and Calvin’s theologian who loved the Trinity NOT agree that Jn 17:5 have anything to do with preexistence of the Son?
This should make us think.
The problem is the danger making John contradict Matthew! This I think indicts the Bible as not a source for unity. Why not just grant that to “have” something in the past in Hebrew idiom can easily mean to have it promised to you?
You find that very phenomenon right in the context in Jn 17:22, 24!
Dale has nicely affirmed for us that Luke 1:35 gives the basis for sonship. And it would be unwise either to make Luke contradict himself! Nowhere in Acts or Luke could you ever ever glean that Luke thought Jesus came into the womb from another world!
Why not let John agree with Luke?
Dale
My premise is that John and Paul did not contradict Matt and Luke! We are happily agreed on Matt and Luke.
The Bible is a very poor source for a united testimony if we then say that John and Paul contradicted the others!
It will not do to say that Paul and John “teach more than Matthew and Luke.” Contradicting is not teaching more!
I grant that many translations bias John and Paul terribly in some passages. But the Greek read, as many unitarians have, is not so hard. Also full allowance for Hebrew not contemporary English idiom.
J.A.T. Robinson, Dunn Kuschel and others have done good work here. In earlier years John Wilson in his Concessions of Trinitarians went through all the problem verses.
A person who is alive and conscious before he comes into existence, is not really human since his origin is angelic or something else.
Dale
Yes, based on the biblical usage of the phrase “all things”, especially in reference to doxologies.
I did not plan to comment until the series is complete, but I want to answer the question at the beginning of this post. No; I do NOT believe I existed before I was conceived.
Mormons (I have noticed) teach a pre-existence that they do not remember. A pre-existence that cannot be remembered is – to my mind – not worth considering.
But Jesus made statements that indicate he DID remember such an existence. John 8:57 has already been discussed at length. Briefly: in answer to the Jews’ question, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus answered, “Before Abraham was born, I am.” And that caused the Jews to try to stone him.
Then there is John 17:5, also discussed at length in a previous thread.
There are also hints in Matthew, Mark and Luke that Jesus was something more than meets the eye. All three record the statement by Jesus that “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away.”
That is not EVIDENCE of pre-existence, but it is certainly in HARMONY with it. His words would not pass away because they were God’s words – not his own. How many people can say that their words will never pass away?
And then there is his summation of the law: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength.” Did he love the Lord his God that totally? Did he fulfill the law, according to his own standards?
He must have. He said he came to fulfill the law. He must have fulfilled it, or he would not have been the sinlesss Saviour that God could raise from the dead.
And obviously, he knew he would.
By the way, Dale, do you take it for granted that Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews?
Hi – I’m not sure I’m following you. You’re thinking that the “all things” must include things at all times, including future things? I think the author is just speaking loosely – God made the heavens and the earth and all that fills them. But I don’t think he needs to be saying that *in the same sense* God made future things, things which do not yet exist…
Yes, I agree that the NT talks of predestined things as already having been “in heaven”… I’m not going to get into Paul or John right here though. I think folks should look at what Sir Anthony has written on those things.
Dale
Here’s a verse that might be one of the keys to unlocking the preexistence/predestination teaching one finds in the Bible:
How can “all things” exist without having been created yet? Only in the “will” or mind or plans of God can they be said to have existed without creation taking place first.
Comments are closed.