Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul says,
…yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Is this statement by Paul a gift to unitarians (who hold that the one God is the Father, but not Jesus), or does he here imply that Jesus and the one God, the creator, are one and the same?
In this episode we look more deeply at this latter interpretation, and investigate two arguments offered by Dr. Richard Bauckham and others. They are:
- If Paul meant the one Lord to be someone other than (not numerically identical to) the one God, then he would be asserting two gods, and so denying monotheism.
- Paul is not here denying monotheism.
- Therefore, Paul doesn’t mean the one Lord here to be someone other than (not numerically identical to) the one God – which is to say that he means the one Lord and the one God to be numerically identical. In other words, the one Lord is the one God himself.
And,
- Jesus created the cosmos.
- Only God created the cosmos.
- Therefore, Jesus is God.
He we begin to evaluate these arguments, and consider this interpretation in light of other things Paul says about God and Jesus.
Sources quoted in this episode:
- Bowman and Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ.
- Chapter 6 of Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the God of Israel.
- “The Apostle Paul a Unitarian” in Sixteen American Unitarian Tracts.
- The Racovian Catechism.
Was Paul identifying the Lord Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6 as the ??? ?????? of Deuteronomy 6:4?
1 Corinthians 8:6 is based on two Old Testament texts: Malachi 2:11-12 (LXX) and Deuteronomy 6:4 (LXX).
Malachi 2:11-12 (LXX) speaks of “one God” and “one Father”as the self-same “Lord” of Israel.
Deuteronomy 6:4 (LXX) speaks of “one Lord” as the self-same “God” of Israel.
Without the New Testament revelation of plurality of persons in one Godhead, these texts would only mean that the one Father God of Israel is the one Lord of Israel himself. This is mere Jewish monotheism. But upon the advent of the NT, it was revealed that plurality of persons exist in one Godhead (Matthew 28:19).This is the Christian Monotheism for it was Christ who reveals this truth in His very person and in His very works.The integrity and substance of the OT texts remained the same in this revealed truth. Notice how Paul showed it out:
The Father = one God
Deuteronomy 6:4 – God is the Lord.
The Messiah = one Lord
Malachi 2:11-12 – The Lord is God.
In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul is drawing a contrast between the false gods and the Father and Christ.
The false gods in 1 Corinthians 8:5 are “not gods by nature” ( Galatians 4:8) while Jesus who is in God’s identity as one LORD, is wholly and very God both in His nature and identity (Colossians 2:9).
Conclusion:
The Apostle Paul regarded Jesus as fully and truly God both in identity and in nature. He wrote, ” In Him [Jesus] is dwelling all the fullness of deity[Greek: THEOTETOS] bodily” ( Colossians 2:9). He identified Jesus with God’s identity as “one LORD” in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He did so without turning away from His monotheistic faith but rather, upon doing so, monotheism is preserved because the unity of God is now, having been revealed by the Spirit, a unity of the divine nature which is non-subsisting to false gods as it is written, ” …not gods by nature” ( Galatians 4:8) and which is ever-subsisting only in the three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as it is written,” …in the name of the Father, and of the Son,and of the Holy Spirit” ( Matthew 28:19). Indeed, this theology is a shift from Jewish monotheism to Christian monotheism.
“Was Paul identifying the Lord Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6 as the ??? ?????? of Deuteronomy 6:4?”
Hi Rose,
Thanks for the comment. I explain the problems with this in this episode and elsewhere. First, it ignores the in-between meaning of ho kurios in the NT which is based on the second “Lord” in Psalm 110:1. It’s neither God nor merely “Sir”, but it is the one who God has exalted to his right hand. Second, in this very context, it is clear that Paul assumes them to be two, as all things are from God, but through Jesus. We can’t think Paul is this confused, to think that a thing at one time differs from itself. Third, by using the phrase “the Father” in a subordinate clause, Paul says who he thinks the one God is. What could be more clear. That’s why this has always been among unitarians’ favorite texts. It’s kind of amazing that Bauckham and Wright have convinced so many that Paul is here making a gigantic theological change in a trinitarian way, in passing (!), as it were “inserting Jesus into the Shema.”
” But upon the advent of the NT, it was revealed that plurality of persons exist in one Godhead” Rose, this simply wasn’t revealed in the NT. Unless you think it took around three centuries for people to draw the obvious (?!) implication that God is tripersonal. That idea enters the catholic tradition in the latter half of the 300s. So, it is wildly implausible that God revealed it in the first century wholly unsuccessfully, but somehow they finally god it much later. God is competent to succeed in his self-revelation. Why do I say unsuccessful? Because catholic Christians in the first three centuries identified the one God as none other than the Father. Examine the texts for yourself: https://trinities.org/blog/?s=trinitarian+or+unitarian They do think that in various ways Jesus is “divine,” but they are clear that he is other than and lesser than the one true God.
God bless,
Dale
Mario,
Here is some of the evidence of how the writer of the 4th Gospel used PROS to speak of moving “toward” someone, and META to speak of actually being “with” someone. The difference in the implication of these prepositions is the key to understanding John 1:1.
The use of PROS TON THEON suggests that John 1:1-3 is a resurrection text and not a preexistence text.
“Nicodemus came to (PROS) Jesus by night and said … no man can do such miracles unless God is with (/META) him” (John 3:2)
“And the Jews came to (PROS) John … he that was with (META) you beyond the Jordan … he baptizes and all men come to (PROS) him” (John 3:26)
“Jesus said, now I am with (META) you, and then I go to (PROS) Him that sent me” (John 7:33)
“He who sent me, is with (META) me” (John 8:29)
“Jesus said … he is the one talking with (META) you” (John 9:37)
“The Pharisees who were with (META) him” (John 9:40)
“Thomas said … let us go and die with (META) Jesus” (John 11:16)
“The Jews were with (META) here in the house” (John 11:31)
“Jesus stayed with (META) the disciples (John 11:54)
“The people were with (META) Jesus when he raised Lazarus” (John 12:17)
“If I don’t wash your feet, you have no part with (META) me” (John 13:8)
“I have been so long with (META) you Philip” (John 14:9)
“I am not alone because the Father is with (META) me” (John 16:32)
“Judas was standing there with (META) them” (John 18:5)
“Jesus would depart out of the word to (PROS) the Father” (John 13:1)
“Jesus … was going to (PROS TON THEON) God” (John 13:3)
“Nobody comes to (PROS) the Father, except through Jesus” (John 14:5)
“You will do greater works becuase I go to (PROS) the Father (John 14:12)
“You should rejoice that I am going to (PROS) the Father” (John 14:28)
“Becuase I go to (PROS) the Father, you will no longer see me” (John 16:10)
“I am leaving he world and going to (PROS) the Father” (John 16:28)
“I ascend to (PROS) my Father” (John 20:17)
Mario,
Continued from previous comment …
The “PROS + Acc + EIMI = with” is a bogus grammatical argument that isn’t even worth addressing. It is always the context that determines meaning and not fabricated grammatical rules that are used to manipulate the interpretation of one particular text.
As I noted earlier, PROS TON THEON can certainly be translated as “with God.” However, the implication of the use of the preposition PROS means that the individual (Jesus) moved into the position of being “with God.” That is why he is “in the bosom of the Father” later in the context (John 1:18).
By the way, it is misleading for you to assert that “all” translations have “with God.” For example, the CLT has “toward God” (as do a number of interlinear translations).
Mario,
Pardon my brief reply here, but I’m leaving the office soon.
1. There ae several reasons that “in the beginning” should not be taken to refer to the time of Genesis 1:1 in the context of the 4th Gospel.
First, the context of John 1 (including the Prologue) has nothing to do with any of the historical circumstances of the Creation story, but is speaking of the time when John the baptizer was testifying about he identify of Jesus Christ and the apostles began to follow them.
Second, the terms “beginning” and “word” should be taken to refer to what was transpiring as a result of the ministry of Jesus (just like “light” and “darkness” and “world” in this context). There’s no reason to think that the writer was using the allusions to the Creation language to refer to two different periods of time. For example, John the baptizer could not have been “testifying about the light” during the time of Genesis.
Third, the writer of the 4th Gospel refers to “the beginning” many times throughout his books and almost always it refers to the time of Jesus’ public ministry. He even has Jesus himself using it this way (e.g. John 15:27; John 16:4). Thus, there is no reason to think that John 1:1-3 is any exception (especially considering the context of the Prologue).
Fourth, there is other evidence that the “beginning” was a term used by the other apostolic writers to refer to the time when John and Jesus began preaching the gospel (e.g. Mark 1:1; Luke 1:2-3; Acts 1:21-22). Thus, it certainly doesn’t have to be taken as a reference to time of Genesis 1:1 when it is speaking of John the baptizer and Jesus Christ.
Rivers,
you seem to have made some progress. You acknowledge that ho logos tou theou (“The Word of God” – Rev 19:13), like all the many others (“Lion of the tribe of Judah”, “The Alpha and the Omega”, “Lamb”, etc.), is (NOT a name BUT) an appellative (= “descriptive epithet”).
Like the other appellatives, ho logos tou theou is founded on something that Jesus has done and/or that has been said about him elsewhere in the scripture.
Where is the Greek word ho logos tou theou used in the Scripture is a way that is NOT trivial (“spoken saying or message”), BUT used in such a significant way that it may constitute an appellative of Jesus? Well, we know the answer to that: John 1:1 (3 times), John 1:14, 1 John 1:1.
In your rejoinder, you insist on your objections to my “interpretation of LOGOS (‘word’) and PROS TON THEON (‘with God’) in John 1:1-3”. Let’s examine the Greek text:
en archê ên ho logos kai ho logos ên pros ton theon kai theos ên ho logos
houtos ên en archê pros ton theon
panta di aoutou egeneto kai chôris autou egeneto oude hen ho gegonen
You say that en archê “cannot be referring to the time of Genesis 1:1 in that context” [Rivers]. WHY?
You say that, in the expression pros ton theon “the use of the preposition PROS implies that Jesus Christ moved ‘toward’ the Father in order to be ‘with God’”.
I have already argued that, in the construction einai + pros + ACC, pros simply means “with” (as, BTW, you find in ALL English translations …).
As you are obviously not familiar with this Greek construction, you may want to consider this other example, from the NT …
pros ymas de tychon katamenô “and perhaps I will stay with you” (1 Cor 16:6)
… where pros + ACC, following a verb expressing station (NOT motion), simply means “with”.
You say that “[t]he writer of the 4th Gospel always used PROS to indicate direction ‘toward’ someone or something”. The Prologue to the GoJ has much in common with the Prologue with the First Letter of John. You may want to consider this:
… tên zôên tên aiônion êtis ên pros ton patera … (1 John 1 :2)
I would encourage you to seriously reconsider your “certainties” 🙂
Mario,
I agree, and I’m glad you recognize that a number of “appellatives” were given to Jesus Christ, including LOGOS (“word”) in Revelation 19:13.
Thus, it is plausible to consider that LOGOS in John 1:1-3, 14 was also being used in that way (just like John the baptizer used “lamb” in John 1:29, 36). This is what I’ve been trying to suggest to you.
Unfortunately, your interpretation of LOGOS (“word”) and PROS TON THEON (“with God”) in John 1:1-3 is not consistent with the context or the implications of the grammar. First, “the beginning” in John 1:1-3 cannot be referring to the time of Genesis 1:1 in that context. Second, the use of the preposition PROS implies that Jesus Christ moved “toward” the Father in order to be “with God.”
The writer of the 4th Gospel always used PROS to indicate direction “toward” someone or something. He never used it to speak of someone or something being “together with” someone else. When the writer expressed the idea of being “together with” someone, he always used the preposition META.
I would encourage you to take some time to actually research how these pronouns were used by the Johannine writer and their implications. They are each used dozens of times and it is very easy to demonstrate that your idea that “the LOGOS means the eternal attribute of God that was with Him when he created the universe” is totally inconsistent with how the writer of the 4th Gospel used his own language.
Rivers,
you didn’t even want to consider Revelation 19:13, until you realized that, funnily enough, it was the ONLY verse that seems to support your “theory”.
Jesus, in Revelation, is called with many (NOT names BUT) appellatives (= “descriptive epithets”).
Just to mention a few:
“Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev 5:5), because God had revealed that the Messianic Ruler would be like a lion, an offspring of Judah (Gen 49:9-10; Ps 60:7)
“The Alpha and the Omega” (Rev 22:13) because, similar to the Lord God, the Creator, “the one seated on the throne” (Rev 1:8; 21:6) he is Lord of the New Creation.
“Lamb” (about 30 times) because Jesus conquered by offering himself up as the perfect sacrificial victim. (“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” – Rev 5:12)
“The Word of God” (Rev 19:13) makes no exception: Jesus is so called because he is the perfect expression of God’s Word, the very same Word that was always “with God” (pros ton theon) and through which (di autou) everything was created.
The exegetical and hermeneutical problem is entirely yours … 🙂
Mario,
It’s no “theory” that LOGOS was a “name” give to Jesus Christ himself. It is a fact (Revelation 19:13). I’m beginning to wonder if you believe the scriptures at all, or if you are just being antagonistic. Perhaps Abel’s previous comment is well taken.
Abel,
you ain’t been “tracking” me closely enough. Check at Dale’s post “Who was born on the first Christmas?” and, if you like, you can take issue with my comments there. 🙂
Rivers,
I take good note that you won’t (can’t) admit your fallacy, so all you can do is divagate … and keep on peddling your “theory” of the logos as “nickname” of Jesus Christ.
Mario
I have been tracking your writings for a coupla months now – and think that you a really just a reactionary with no beliuefs of his own. ! I challenge you to come out in the open! What do you believe in,? Where do you worship ?
It is easy to scorn others!
Happy new year
Abel
Mario,
There’s nothing “clumsy” about analyzing the way that a particular biblical writer used a particular word (e.g. body) , or a particular group of words together (e.g. body, church, fullness, God) in order to understand the meaning he was intended to convey with those words (or how they are used together). That is part of doing sound exegesis.
Your theory that the adverb SWMATIKOS (bodily) has some theological significance in Colossians 2:9 that sets it apart from the meaning of the noun SWMA (body) also used with “church” and “fullness” and “God” in Colossians 1:18 and Ephesians 1:22-23 seems highly unlikely (especially since the authority of Jesus Christ is the subject in the context of all three passages).
If you think you can demonstrate why the adverb is anything more than a manner of speaking in Colossians 2:9, then please develop an argument from the grammar and the context that makes it seem plausible. Simply scoffing at things you don’t agree with is hardly persuasive. You should be able to do better than that. 🙂
@ Rivers
[December 27, 2014 at 11:18 am]
You clumsily (or craftily?) mistake the example (which I gave just as an “interesting fact”) for the logical fallacy (yours), that remains.
Your “argument” runs like this:
[Premise] Paul repeatedly refers to the Church as the “body of Christ”.
[(Fake) “consequence”] Whenever Paul refers to the “body of Christ”, he “need only refer” to the Church.
Sorry, you should simply admit your fallacy … 🙁 🙂 😉
[December 27, 2014 at 11:26 am]
So, interpreting logos, every time you cannot reduce it to “spoken saying or message” as some sort of “nickname” given by the apostles to Jesus would be “sound, critical exegesis”? C’mon, you have become immune to the sense of ridiculous … 🙁 🙂 😉
John,
Good points.
Unfortunately, I don’t think some people understand that when they keep using the term “nature” they are forcing a concept into many of these passages that is not derived in any way from the actual words that the apostles used in the texts.
It’s like people claiming that LOGOS means “attribute” or “wisdom” or “plan” or “purpose” when the corresponding Greek words are found nowhere in the context of the Prologue. In doing sound, critical exegesis, we have to give preference to the limitations of the biblical vocabulary and allow the apostolic usage of the words illumine us to the meaning that they intended.
Mario,
It’s both an exegetical and a logical fallacy for you to suggest that, because Paul used the adverbial form of SWMA in Colossians 2:9, that he must have meant something different than when he used the noun form of SWMA.
For example, if I say “I did a lot of harm to his body (noun)” or “I did him a lot of bodily (adverb) harm.”, the meaning is the same. Likewise, there is no reason that SWMA (body) and SWMATIKOS cannot have the same meaning.
It’s more likely that since Paul is addressing the same topics in both the contexts of Colossians 1-2 and Ephesians 1, that he is speaking of the “church” as “the body” and “the fulness of God” in both passages. That is why I appealed to the different places where Paul used those terms together when dicussing the same topic.
Rivers,
Colossians 2:9 (even “the context of Colossians 2:6-15”) does NOT say, or imply, or suggest that Paul was speaking about the “church”, let alone being “the body of Christ”. You are obviously under the impression of Ephesians 1:22-23, which are two of the many verses where Paul says (or implies, or suggests) that the Church is the “body of Christ” (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 10:17; 12:27, Ephesians 4:12; 5:23; Colossians 1:24, perhaps more).
It is a logical fallacy that, because Paul repeatedly refers to the Church as the “body of Christ” (an obvious metaphor), whenever he refers to the “body of Christ”, he “need only refer” to the Church.
It is an interesting fact that, whenever Paul refers to the Church as the “body of Christ”, he invariably uses the noun sôma. Only in Colossians 2:9, Paul uses the adverb sômatikôs (“bodily”).
Rose
You have turned a simple scripture into a morass of confusion!
The truth is so simple-
Corinthians 8 vs 4-6
There is no God BUT ONE
There is but ONE GOD THE FATHER
John 20 v17
I am going to MY FATHER and your Father
to MY GOD and your God
Christ has a Father who is His God – and also our God and Father
Ephesians 1 v 7
“The GOD AND FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ”
Who did Christ worship and pray to? His FATHER
Who did Christ tell us to pray to? Our Father
You discuss the issue of ‘ nature’ and ‘identity’ without knowing what you are talking about.
WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD THAN THE ONE JESUS SERVED AND WORSHIPPED!
Blessings
John
Rose,
When Paul referred to “the fulness of God in a body” (Colossians 2:9), he was talking about the “chuch” being “the body of Christ.” It doesn’t have anything do with the ontological nature of Jesus himself. The following verse tells us that Paul was speaking about Jesus Christ “ruling over all authority” (Colossians 2:10).
This is also evident in Ephesians 1:22-23 where Paul said “God gave Christ to be head over all things to THE CHURCH, which is HIS BODY, the FULLNESS of God that fills all in all.” This is just a different way of working the same thing he said in Colossians 2:9-10.
In the context of Colossians 2:6-15, the point Paul is making is that the Law should have no authority over those who are members of the body of Christ where Jesus is the triumphant ruler who has “disarmed” the authorities that were established under the Law (Colossians 2:15). There is no discussion of the ontological “nature” of Jesus himself going on at all.
@Dale,
1 Corinthians 8:6 is based on two OT texts: Malachi 2:11-12 (LXX) and Deuteronomy 6:4 (LXX).
Malachi 2:11-12 (LXX) speaks of “one God” and “one Father”as the self-same “Lord” of Israel.
Deuteronomy 6:4 (LXX) speaks of “one Lord” as the self-same “God” of Israel.
Without the NT revelation of plurality of persons in one Godhead, these texts would only mean that the one Father God of Israel is the one Lord of Israel himself. This is mere Jewish monotheism. But upon the advent of the NT, it was revealed that plurality of persons exist in one Godhead (Matthew 28:19).This is the Christian Monotheism for it was Christ who reveals this truth in His very person and in His very works.The integrity and substance of the OT texts remained the same in this revealed truth. Notice how Paul showed it out:
The Father = one God
Deuteronomy 6:4 – God is the Lord.
The Messiah = one Lord
Malachi 2:11-12 – The Lord is God.
In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul is drawing a contrast between the false gods and the Father and Christ.
The false gods in 1 Corinthians 8:5 are “not gods by nature” ( Galatians 4:8) while Jesus who is in God’s identity as one LORD, is wholly and very God both in His nature and identity (Colossians 2:9).
Conclusion:
The Apostle Paul regarded Jesus as fully and truly God both in identity and in nature. He wrote, ” In Him [Jesus] is dwelling all the fullness of deity[Greek: THEOTETOS] bodily” ( Colossians 2:9). He identified Jesus with God’s identity as “one LORD” in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He did so without turning away from His monotheistic faith but rather, upon doing so, monotheism is preserved because the unity of God is now, having been revealed by the Spirit, a unity of the divine nature which is non-subsisting to false gods as it is written, ” …not gods by nature” ( Galatians 4:8) and which is ever-subsisting only in the three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as it is written,” …in the name of the Father, and of the Son,and of the Holy Spirit” ( Matthew 28:19). Indeed, this theology is a shift from Jewish monotheism to Christian monotheism.
Comments are closed.