Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
What is it to be the creator of the cosmos? And do a few New Testament passages really teach that Jesus created the cosmos (before he was a man)?
Most interpreters now think so. John 1, 1 Corinthians 8, Hebrews 1, and Colossians 1 are the most often cited, and some hold that the plural pronouns in Genesis 1 also demand, or at least suggest, that the pre-human Jesus was involved in the creation of the universe. In ancient times, many would add that Proverbs 8 also portrays the Son’s involvement in creation.
In this episode, I argue that each of these passages, read in the context of the New and Old Testaments, as discussed in Part 1, should not be read as attributing the Genesis creation to Jesus. They are either not about Jesus, or they are not about the Genesis creation.
In sum, when it comes to this inconsistent triad of claims, I argue that a Christian ought to deny 2, while affirming 1 and 3.
- The Father is the only creator.
- Jesus is the only creator.
- The Father and Jesus are two.
The NT doctrine of creation is the same as the OT doctrine: creation is ascribed to God (aka the Father) alone.
The YouTube version below is recommended:
Links for this episode:
- Part 1
- Higher Ground Church
- podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
- podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John
- Genesis 1:26-27; Psalm 33:6-9; Proverbs 8:27-31; John 1:1-14; Baruch 3:37-4:1; Sirach 24:1-8, 23-25; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 5:17-18; Colossians 1:1-20; Hebrews 1:1-14; Hebrews 2:5, 14-15.
- Slartibartfast
- This week’s thinking music is “Burning the Microwaves” by spinmeister.
For some reason there is no reply button available under your latest comment, so I am using this to address your MAY 11, 2019 @ 2:49 PM comment.
I appreciate your response, but you are not providing a definition for omniscience and therefore, how can we understand what you mean? The passages you cite, John 21:17 and 1 John 3:20, are referencing things of the heart, that is true. But I think you still need to explain how knowing what is in a man’s heart equates to knowing all things in the universe at all times. People know other people’s hearts. You know them because you spend time with them or, as we see in the Bible, God searches and tests people to know them. He observes people throughout their lives. We do the same and say we really know someone.
Also, the use of “all” in the Bible rarely means “all” as in “the totality of everything in every domain.” It is very often used hyperbolically and restricted to the domain of the immediate context. So unless by “omniscience” you just mean knowledge of what is currently in people’s hearts, I don’t think any of what you are pointing to helps build a case for omniscience.
Take for example the passage you cited, John 21:17. The phrase “You know all things, you know that I love you” is a common translation in English but fails to indicate the sense of what is being said. The underlying Greek verb ‘to know’ (oida) is 2s perfect indicative, meaning “you have known.” We might say that if he knew before, then he still knows now, so to say “you know” is valid in English. However, it misses the simple sense of the exchange. A more literal translation would be something like what Young has “Lord, thou hast known all things; thou dost know that I dearly love thee.” (YLT)
What has he known that indicates that he should know that Peter loves him? All things in the universe? No, obviously he has known Peter intimately and for a long time. Peter is not making a statement that Jesus is omniscient, he is referring to the fact that Yeshua should already know that Peter loves him by all that he has already seen from Peter. That’s exactly how normal people would use the same sentence in conversation. Reading some type of omniscience claim into the text here is both unnecessary and unwarranted.
It can be compared to John 16:30 in which the disciples state : “Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.” The context indicates that this has nothing to do with omniscience but that they didn’t understand what Yeshua meant about going away etc. until he spoke plainly to them. Then they realized that he had the answers for their questions and they understood, and thus would not have any need to question him later.
You wrote: But I think you still need to explain how knowing what is in a man’s heart equates to knowing all things in the universe at all times.
Knowledge of fully knowing the hearts of all equates to knowing all things. Notice in Proverbs 15:11 that this knowledge is linked with knowing the fullness of the underworld. Indeed, to know this is to fully know “every place” (Proverbs 15:3). – That is omniscience.
According to Prov. 15:3, how is it that God knows what is happening? It says the eyes of YHWH are watching (tsofot). In other words, just like the rest of Scripture, the authors write that God knows what is happening because He is observing what is happening. He is constantly gaining knowledge of current events. He knows the hearts of men because he knows their behavior and judges their character, just like people do, only far more thoroughly and persistently.
Prov. 15:11 can be understood as “If YHWH can see Sheol and Abaddon (which are hidden from men), how much more can He observe men.”
Again, I don’t think your conclusions follow biblically based premises. The whole of Scripture tells us that God watches, searches, tests, examines etc. people and then reacts according to what people do. He gets hurt, angry, jealous and sometimes He even changes His mind (Jer. 18:8). Sometimes He actually regrets His own action (Gen. 6:7).
I would agree that He has wisdom and knowledge far beyond our comprehension, but that again does not equate to omniscience, which I can only assume you are using in the sense that most Christians do, that is, knowledge of all things in all domains at all times, past, present and future. So if we are basing our beliefs on what the Bible says, then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that God is not omniscient.
Re. Deut. 6:4-5:
1. The passage speaks of loving God, not worship per se. There is a connection of course, but loving and adoring Yeshua does not equate to worshipping him as God.
2. I don’t know anyone who is a believer that, strictly speaking, would suggest that Yeshua is not to be loved, adorned and revered above all beings except God (1 Cor. 15:27-28). But again those need not be equated with worshipping him as though he were God. The Bible is replete with examples of reverence and respect (what we might call worship) for beings who are not God. But notice that in Rev. 19:10 and Rev. 22:9 when John bows to worship an angel he is told “Worship God.” Notice that he is never told to worship Yeshua. In fact, in Revelation Yeshua is never referred to as God. Why is that, if that is who he is?
The biblical evidence that Yeshua is not God is so far greater in number, clarity, and consistency than any notion that Yeshua is God. If Yeshua’s deity is so important, then why is it not plainly stated (i.e. Jesus is G-d) anywhere in the Bible like “YHWH is God” or “YHWH is our God” which are plainly stated over 100 times? Why leave knowing such an earth-shattering and important point up to weak inferences?
Loving God involves worshiping Him.
1. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE): Inside the covenant circle God demands of his people a completely exclusive worship (cf. 6:4) (3:938, Jealous, H. G. L. Peels).
2. Judaism 101: The Shema can also be translated as “The L-rd is our G-d, The L-rd alone,” meaning that no other is our G-d, and we should not pray to any other.
http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm
If the Lord Jesus was the proper recipient of prayer only 1 time in the Bible this would prove He is YHWH. The fact that the Bible teaches that He is is the proper recipient of prayer multiple times further strengthens the fact that He is God.
In answer to your question, the angel did not tell John to worship Jesus because when people worship God they are worshiping Jesus.
In Revelation it is taught that the Lord Jesus is God. One of the ways it does this is that He is often the proper recipient of worship. Notice that the absolute holiness of God is linked with the worship due unto Him (Revelation 15:4). No one else but God should be worshiped because He “alone” is holy. That the Lord Jesus is properly worshiped demonstrates He is absolutely holy (= God).
The one extreme to avoid is Modalism while the other extreme to avoid is Arianism. This is why the Bible teaches both the humanity and Deity of the Lord Jesus. One should not embrace just one while refusing to accept the other.
Marc, first let me say that I appreciate that you are giving thought to these things and engaging in a positive manner.
Regarding your last comment: Okay, I agree with you about modalism. But then if you hold to the Shema meaning YHWH is alone, meaning that no other is our G-d, and you are saying that Yeshua is YHWH, how is that different than modalism?
If it is not modalism, what does it mean for YHWH to pray to Himself, authorize Himself, anoint Himself, and sit at His own right hand? And why does Yeshua seem to speak of YHWH in the third person all the time? BTW, I think Dr. Tuggy has spent quite a bit of time on this and makes a very strong case that such a stance (which Michael Brown seems to also take) is illogical and relies on tons of equivication.
Re: “the angel did not tell John to worship Jesus because when people worship God they are worshiping Jesus.” Okay, that is one possibility. But how does that comport with all the other times that beings worship God without any mention of the same type of worship of Yeshua? In fact, Yeshua tells Satan that ‘You shall worship YHWH your God and serve Him only’ (Matt 4:10). Why didn’t he say you shall worship me? Why does he never tell anyone to worship him?
BTW, as I was alluding to earlier, there are different words in both Hebrew and Greek that are translated as “worship” that are used in situations not involving God. For example, in Gen 19:1, Gen 42:6, 1 Sam 20:41, 1 Sam 24:9, 1 Sam 25:23, 2 Kings 4:37 we see people like Joseph’s brothers bowing (‘hishtachaveh’ the same word as translated ‘worship’ elsewhere) before Joseph, David bowing down to Saul, Abigail bowing down to David, and the Shunammite woman bowing down (aka worshipping) to Elisha and so on. We even see instructions in Psalm 45:11 for a woman to bow (worship) to the King. Yet in these and the large number of similar cases, there is no condemnation for this type of bowing. It is perfectly acceptable and even expected. So how does one differentiate what is bowing to God versus people or angels etc? It seems one can only rely on the identity of who is being bowed to. Thus, because people prostrate themselves before Yeshua does not necessarily make him God any more than anyone else who receives such acts of reverence.
The same issue exists in Greek since proskuneo is the Greek word translating “hishtacaveh” in Hebrew.
Re: God alone is holy. The Greek word in Rev. 15:4 is ‘hosios,’ which is not ‘holy,’ it is ‘pious,’ akin to righteous, and translates words like ‘tzadiq’ and ‘chasid’ in Hebrew. The adjective “holy” in Hebrew is ‘kadosh’ – ‘hagios’ in Greek.
In any case, your premise that God alone is holy is not absolutely true. Have you never read that people are also holy? The conclusion that therefore He alone is to be worshipped does not follow.
Dr. Tuggy, unfortunately I think most Trinitarians will never budge on the doctrine so long as their atonement models (the thing they actually care about!) requires a divine man. For most Trinitarians, a human man simply cannot win eternal salvation for humanity. So until this concern is addressed, there is little that can be done to sway Trinitarians on the Trinity. How do you understand atonement from a Unitarian position? Can a standard evangelical substitutionary doctrine still work with a fully human Jesus?
Alex, sorry to butt in, but just wanted to say that your insight is crucial. I often ask people “Does Jesus ‘need’ to be God?”
Yes, the Lord Jesus needs to be God because the Bible teaches that He is the proper recipient of prayer.
How does offering thanksgiving, praise or even petitioning the man-messiah who sits at the right hand of God mean that the messiah must be God?
1 Kings 8:38-39
whatever prayer…is made…then hear in heaven…for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men. (NASB)
It is because God alone fully knows the hearts of all that any person can come to Him in prayer at anytime, in any language, speaking audibly and/or silently. To have this knowledge is the same thing as saying He is omniscient.
1. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardiogn?st?s (2:183, Heart, T. Sorg).
2. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): The designation of God as ho kardiogn?st?s, “the One who knows the heart,” expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both the NT and OT piety…namely that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiogn?st?s, J. Behm).
Furthermore, prayer is properly due unto God alone.
1. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty one with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).
2. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE): To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P. A. Verhoef).
Hi Marc,
None of what you referred to addresses how the Bible teaches that Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer and that he therefore must be God.
The statement in 1 Kings 8:39 that YHWH “knows the hearts of all the sons of men” does not in any way establish omniscience. People know the hearts of their children, spouses, friends etc. In addition, that passage is Solomon’s prayer to God and the sons of men is referencing the sons of Israel, not all people at all time (see 8:40).
Re: 1 – The same NIDNTT article on “heart” says “God alone can reveal the things hidden in the heart of man (1 Cor. 4:5), examine them (Rom. 8:27) and test them (1 Thess. 2:4). ” If God is omniscient, then why the need to search and test?
Re: 2 – As mentioned above, the way in which the Bible describes how God knows the hearts of men is not because He is omniscient. Omniscience is not a Hebrew paradigm. Thus, the author’s premise is false. However, even if we assume God’s omniscience, Jesus himself declares he lacks omniscience in Matt 24:36. So by that measure he is not God.
Re. your second set of points:
1. Agreed, prayer is addressed to God throughout the Bible and Jesus himself teaches his disciples to pray to the Father, who he calls the only true God. Praying in “Jesus name” for something is a request to God (not Jesus) based on Jesus’ authority. The author’s point in the NIDNTT article on “prayer” is to pray in faith because God has the ability to fulfill that request. He is not making a blanket statement that prayer or requests are only ever made to God. His article actually gives numerous examples and details to the opposite effect.
2. Agreed. But how does this point advance your case?
Only God fully knows the hearts of all. This forms the basis for praying to Him. The fact that Jesus has this same knowledge demonstrates that He is God for (1) this knowledge applies to ”only” God and (2) as properly defined kardiognostes means the same thing as being omniscient. Now if you choose to deny how this word is properly defined that is your choice, but it doesn’t change the meaning of the word.
God will always hear and respond to the prayers of His believers. This doesn’t mean He is unaware of the hearts of others for if He was then He wouldn’t be omniscient.
From our perspective God searches and tests the hearts but He being omniscient always fully knows them.
Matthew 24:36 does not negate the fact that Jesus is omniscient. He received instructions morning by morning as to what to testify about (Isaiah 50:4). This information was not given that day to speak of. Moreover, that the Lord Jesus is praised for “wisdom” in Revelation 5:12 proves His omniscience just as when the Father is praised for “wisdom” in Revelation 7:12 proves His omniscience. If the Lord Jesus is not omniscient (God) then He would not have been praised for possessing this attribute.
Since you referred to the NIDNTT notice when defining “prayer” it reads, “we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty one.”
Thus, by being the proper recipient of prayer the Lord Jesus is “the living God, the almighty one.”
Marc,
You are drawing a number of conclusions that do not follow from your premises and a number your premises are unsupported by the Bible.
Re: “Only God fully knows the hearts of all…The fact that Jesus has this same knowledge demonstrates that He is God” – How does Jesus have this same knowledge? Where are you drawing that conclusion from?
Re: “as properly defined kardiognostes means the same thing as being omniscient.”
Who determined that the proper definition means omniscience?
It simply does not follow that “knowing the heart” = “omniscience.”
1. The author is assuming God is omniscient, but has made no such case for it.
2. The article states “The fact that God sees, tests and searches the hidden depths of the human heart is commonly stated in both the OT and the NT.”
3. Seeing, searching and testing are means of discovery of knowledge, plainly implying lack of such knowledge beforehand. Thus, his application of the word kardiognostes as an adjective for omniscience is completely unfounded and contrary to his own statements.
4. Knowing what is in someone’s heart at a given time does not equate to having all knowledge at all times.
Re: “From our perspective God searches and tests the hearts but He being omniscient always fully knows them.” – How do you know this to be true?
The Bible says different – Deuteronomy 8:2 : “…God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.”
In 2 Chron 6:60, it says : “…render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You will know (imperfect form Hebrew) for You alone have known (perfect form Hebrew) the hearts of the sons of men.”
2 Chronicles 32:31 (NKJ) God withdrew from him, in order to test him, that He might know all that was in his heart.
Re: “Matthew 24:36 does not negate the fact that Jesus is omniscient. He received instructions morning by morning as to what to testify about (Isaiah 50:4). This information was not given that day to speak of.”
1. If omniscience means knowing all possible things at all possible times, then any lack information or information that is new to Jesus proves his lack of omniscience. So no matter when Jesus “received instructions” that fact that he received them indicates he did not know them before and thus he was not omniscient.
2. Hebrews 5:8 says plainly that Jesus learned obedience from the things which he suffered. That means he gained knowledge. Therefore, Jesus cannot be omniscient.
Re: “Moreover, that the Lord Jesus is praised for “wisdom” in Revelation 5:12 proves His omniscience just as when the Father is praised for “wisdom” in Revelation 7:12 proves His omniscience. If the Lord Jesus is not omniscient (God) then He would not have been praised for possessing this attribute.””
1. Rev. 5:12 says “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive…wisdom…” that means he did not have it at all times but that he is now worthy to receive it.
2. How does having wisdom equate to omniscience? The Bible implores people to seek wisdom.
Re: the NIDNTT article – What I was pointing out about that article is that in context the author was not defining the category of recipients of prayer/petition, but was simply saying that we should not forget that when we pray to God that He is able to fulfill those prayers because He has the power to do so. Therefore, his statement does not prove or even attempt to argue that only God can be the recipient of prayer. He is presupposing that the prayer he speaks of is prayer to God, not Jesus by the way, which he distinguishes between in his article. For example, he says: “They (words for cry, shout) are generally used when prayer to God or to Jesus Christ arises from great human need or distress and is therefore a cry for help.”
You wrote: Who determined that the proper definition means omniscience”?
Once a person starts to reject how the words of the Bible are properly defined the conversation is over. For every time you use a word I too can question every one of them. Communication simply breaks down.
Here are two links to help you in your studies:
https://www.christforums.com/topic/14219-the-confusion-of-dale-tuggy-concerning-the-worship-of-jesus-as-god/?tab=comments#comment-70121
https://www.christforums.com/topic/5196-kardiogn%C5%8Dst%C4%93s-does-it-mean-omniscient/?tab=comments#comment-58451
I simply disagreed with your assertion that the the proper definition of kardiognostes is omniscience. That is hardly rejecting how words are defined in the Bible. In fact, it is just the opposite. I am arguing that the Bible defines that word as something far less than omniscient.
Your assertion, on the other hand, is that a defintion from outside the Bible is more correct.
1. How do you (and those writing on these forums) define omniscience?
2. Most importantly, why does God need to be omniscient?
Not only does kardiognostes mean the same as being omniscient when the word is properly defined, the Bible also teaches the same thing as seen in John 21:17 and 1 John 3:20.
Alfred Plummer: ??? ???????? ?????. The ??? is epexegetic; it explains the special character of God’s superiority when the soul stands before the judgment-seat of conscience. He knows all things; on the one hand the light and grace against which we have sinned, on the other the reality of our repentance and our love. It was to this infallible omniscience that S. Peter appealed, in humble distrust of his own feeling and judgment; ‘Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee’ (John 21:17)…We may still appeal to the omniscient God, whose love implanted within us is a sign that we are not condemned and rejected by Him. (1, 2 & 3 John, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges)
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/1-john-3.html#1
You wrote, Rev. 5:12 says “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive…wisdom…” that means he did not have it at all times but that he is now worthy to receive it.
Then according to your approach that would mean that Father did not have “power” at all times but that He is now worthy to receive it (Revelation 4:11).
No, the point was that the passage says that Jesus is worthy to receive… Meaning he has proven to be worthy to sit at the right hand of God from whom he received these things. If he was God, then wouldn’t he have always been worthy?
Rev 7:12 is something different. It is a blessing being bestowed by the crowd. They are not giving God anything but praise for what He already has.
I didn’t cite Revelation 7:12. I cited Revelation 4:11.
Sorry, my mistake, I was responding to your earlier reference to Rev. 7:12.
Rev. 4:11 fits a similar pattern though to Rev. 7:12. It is a blessing to God. He is worthy to receive glory and honor, no confusion there. It also says that He is also worthy to receive power. Though the Greek word “dunamis” which is translated as “power”, can mean power in the sense of strength, it would make for a bizarre understanding. Who can give strength to God? So yes, that may seem odd at first glance.
However, if you look at Deut. 6:5 (part of the Shema), “You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might,” you will see that the Hebrew “me’odecha” = “your might” is translated in the LXX using the Greek word “dunamis.”
Thus, Rev. 4:11, like the Shema, reflects a type of demonstration of love toward God that has been historically understood to mean something like using our wealth or resources to demonstrate love toward God. So in Rev. 4:11 they are simply saying that God is worthy to receive all glory and honor and gifts of love that people can give to Him.
Right after telling us about how the Lord is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), the very next passage (Deuteronomy 6:5) refers to the worship of Him. That Jesus is the proper recipient of worship associates Him as the “one Lord” of Deuteronomy 6:4.
4qmmt
where in the bible that God allows a mere man to hold the book of life and erase the names of the people ?
Hi Stal,
It depends on what you mean by “mere” man.
If by “mere” you mean the definition given by many dictionaries: “being nothing more nor better than…” or how Oxford defines it “Used to emphasize how small or insignificant someone or something is” then of course Yeshua is no “mere” man, because the Bible says he was a unique man exalted to a unique status in the universe, and thus is better than other humans and worthy of receiving reverence from all other humans. That does not make him God, it just means he is unique and has unique authority and is to be respected as such.
Did you have a different definition of “mere” in mind?
So you dont get the point, i change
Where In the bible that God allows a fully human being to hold the book of life and erase the names of the people ?
Ok, assuming you are referring to Rev. 3:5 and Rev. 5, that is the formerly dead, now resurrected human being (non-God) Jesus. So what is your point?
Yes, that’s the heart of the issue. Trinitarians can’t accept a mere man Messiah because accepting such would call into question the viability of every other doctrine important to them. We’ve spent a couple thousand years building our theology on the assumption that Jesus is God–it has penetrated everything. So Trinitarians have a poin–but the point isn’t that there’s a Trinity in scripture, it’s that atonement/salvation as it has been traditionally understood can’t function without a divine man. That’s why I think we need to start with the atonement, offering a more Biblical, more historical, and more apocalyptic understanding of it–one that works under Unitarian constraints.
Yes, that is the giant knot that needs to be unraveled, and when it is, the message of the Bible looks quite a lot different than the sales-pitch of “christianity.”
Enjoy mr. unitarian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lt28H7-mAE
Who is the “him” or the subject in john 1:10-11 ?
Christ or Logos
The Logos. Unlike some, I’m happy to translate “he” and “him” throughout, as God’s word is being personified, just as with God’s wisdom in Proverbs 8, signaled (in my view) by “In the beginning [i.e. at the time of creation]” this word was “with God” in 1:1. Compare Pr 8:22, 30.
Some unitarian says that john 1:10 is a reference to the father
Some says it’s logos
Such different
Sounds different sorry
So is the Logos in john 1:10-11 a “being” or “not being” ?
And this commentary of your unitarian brother is wrong????
….John 1:11 CHANGES SUBJECTS, and although we are to understand that it is still God working, but now through Christ and not through the logos, it seems apparent that the subject changes from the logos to Christ…..
This commentary(of your unitarian brother) says that john 1:11 changes subjects, from logos to christ, so the subject in john 1:11(base on the commentary of your unitarian brother) is christ
In Colossians 1, it is hard to interpret “whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers” as limiting “all things.” If that which is greater (the heavenly host) was created through Christ, it is reasonable to assume that which is lesser (the material world) was also created through Christ. In the immediate context, Paul wrote the gospel “was preached in all creation under heaven” (1:23), referring to the world, not to the new creation. Such a sudden shift from the new creation to the old creation is unlikely. Paul emphasized the heavenly host because Colossian heretics were captive to “the elemental spirits of the world” (2:8), “insisting on asceticism and worship of angels” (2:15).
As for Hebrews 1:2, “the eons” is the literal translation, but it is an example of metonymy: Time is substituted for space. The author uses the same figure of speech elsewhere in the same context: “By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible” (11:3). “The universe was” is literally “the eons were”, but translators recognize the figure of speech.
As for Hebrews 1:10, I am at a loss as to how “In the beginning, O Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands” might refer to the new creation. The verse speaks of the creation “in the beginning.” The author of Hebrews never speaks of a new creation at all. That is a uniquely Pauline concept.
Hi Scott – thanks for these comments. I can see that you’re determined to preserve the more traditional, catholic readings.
“Colossians 1, it is hard to interpret “whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers” as limiting “all things.” If that which is greater (the heavenly host) was created through Christ, it is reasonable to assume that which is lesser (the material world) was also created through Christ.”
It’s not hard at all – in fact, it’s most natural. On my reading too Christ “created” both the seen and the unseen, so that latter comment isn’t to the point.
“In the immediate context, Paul wrote the gospel “was preached in all creation under heaven” (1:23), referring to the world, not to the new creation. Such a sudden shift from the new creation to the old creation is unlikely.”
I’ll have to stand by my point that the whole context of 1:3-23 seems to be in this current era. No, mention of ” the gospel… which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven” does not make the Genesis creation the subject under consideration. To the contrary, we’re still firmly in the gospel-era here – the word “creature” doesn’t shift us back to Genesis, or indicate that we’ve been talking about that original creation all along.
“Paul emphasized the heavenly host because Colossian heretics were captive to “the elemental spirits of the world” (2:8), “insisting on asceticism and worship of angels” (2:15).”
Sure, but that point doesn’t help to decide between our dueling readings.
“As for Hebrews 1:2, “the eons” is the literal translation, but it is an example of metonymy: Time is substituted for space. The author uses the same figure of speech elsewhere in the same context: “By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible” (11:3). “The universe was” is literally “the eons were”, but translators recognize the figure of speech.”
This is a good point – thank you. Maybe the translators are right that this is metonymy. I’m not sure it really matters to the question, though, of whether or not Heb 1 ascribes the Genesis creation to Jesus. If God “in these last days” (v2) not only spoke to us my means of his Son, but also (re-) created the worlds (i.e. realms?) through Jesus – that is OK with me. I mean, if Jesus in some sense created “the ages” that would included the things in those ages.
“As for Hebrews 1:10, I am at a loss as to how “In the beginning, O Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands” might refer to the new creation. The verse speaks of the creation “in the beginning.””
Context is king. Arche need not be the beginning of the created realm. See e.g. Mark 1:1. And the whole context here is these latter days, and more specifically post-exaltation. (From 1:2b on!)
“The author of Hebrews never speaks of a new creation at all. That is a uniquely Pauline concept.”
Well, given the case I’ve made, that’s just begging the question. The context is a time period long past the Genesis creation. And who would anyone think that the author of Hebrews can’t be influenced by Paul?
“Arche need not be the beginning of the created realm. See e.g. Mark 1:1. And the whole context here is these latter days, and more specifically post-exaltation. (From 1:2b on!)”
1:2 is problematic for your interpretation. The author of Hebrews thought of himself as writing “in these last days”, which is a far cry from “in the beginning.” In Mark, “the beginning” refers to the written gospel itself. In Hebrews, “the beginning” refers to the creation of heaven and earth which will pass away. Will the new creation grow old like a garment, be rolled up and changed like a cloak?
“Well, given the case I’ve made, that’s just begging the question.”
I think you are begging the question.
“And who would anyone think that the author of Hebrews can’t be influenced by Paul?”
There is a difference between possibility and proof. Although it is possible Paul might have influenced the author’s general theology, there is no proof the author borrowed the concept of a new creation or thought in those terms.
No, I am not a trinitarian. I am an Arian. I am not wedded to any particular interpretation of Paul. I am merely trying to interpret the passage as naturally as I can.
As I understand it, the “word” in John 1 is identified with the Father as his message, as well as himself. I suppose there is a technical name for this because it is the same with us. We are our words in a certain sense because we are held accountable for our words. If I lie under oath, are my words sent to jail for perjury, or am I personally sent to jail? My words are me, and not me at the same time, in different senses.
The Father’s words are his message and his commandments (“Your word have I hid in my heart…Your word is a lamp to my feet…etc.). They are God in a certain sense, but not in a full metaphysical sense, just as our words are not metaphysically ourselves. Jesus is his Father’s message, or commandments, materialized in flesh, as an example of what God would have us be if we were totally committed to embracing and obeying his message.
Jesus is not literally his Father’s words, for then the Father would be mute, yet he speaks at the baptism and the transfiguration. Jesus is a reflection of his Father’s words, as an image in a mirror, so in a certain sense he is the word of God, just as I can say my image in my mirror is me, even though it is not literally me.
God, the Father of Jesus, speaks creation into existence, and also gave his message, or instructions, to mankind. Jesus is exactly what that message is supposed to be, and he was obedient until the end. All who personally believe in this message become the sons of God (John 1:12).
So, we should not confuse God’s words commanding creation into existence with Jesus as also being God’s literal word. They are related to God, but in different ways. I think the author, John, assumed this was obvious. But some people don’t want it to be obvious, but prefer obfuscation and equivocation.
This is a nice summary – thanks
First, your syllogism is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. In the first premise, “Creator” means “first cause,” but in the second premise it means “intermediate cause.”
Your interpretation of John 1:1 requires patripassianism. If the word is the Father, and the word became flesh, then the Father became flesh. After all, a personified figure of speech cannot be God (or a god) and cannot become flesh. All the ancients understood this.
Hi Scott, thanks for the comments. 1-3 are not an argument – notice there is no conclusion – so there is no concern about a fallacy being committed. It’s an inconsistent triad, and as its author, I say that there is no equivocation in the term “creator.” In monotheism, to be the creator means to be the ultimate source of creation – as you say, the “first cause.” So then, like me, you are denying 2. I’m glad we agree! (As would the many ancient subordinationist unitarians like Origen and Tertullian.) Now it is another matter whether or not the Bible actually teaches Jesus to be the almost-ultimate source of the cosmos…
No, my reading of John 1 does not entail patripassianism or identify the Father and the Son. You’re assuming that “the word” in John 1 must be personally identical to the man Jesus. But as I point out here, the text does not say that. Also as I point out here, with examples, yes there were ample precedents for the non-literal incarnation of something like a divine attribute. I give examples from the Deuterocanonical books. So I urge you to go that far into the argument, if you haven’t already. About “all the ancients” – arguably some of the “dynamic monarchians” and also people like Marcellus and Photinus probably did take something like my reading of John 1 – though this is hard to establish, because we have next to nothing from their hands (Marcellus excepted).
I am not “assuming” the Word must be personally identical to Jesus; I am inferring it from the context.
Although the apocrypha personifies wisdom, it never calls wisdom ???? (theos). The prologue is less indebted to apocryphal wisdom literature than to Philo, who thought of the Logos in one sense as the reason of God but in a different sense as the first creation of God, the great archangel of many names, and the intermediate cause of all things. Philo even called the Logos ???????? ???? (deuteros theos),
a second god. Philo distinguished ???? with the article and ???? without the article, applying the latter to the Logos “by way of figure.” This is the background of the prologue.
Judging from the few fragments of his work which endure, it seems Marcellus denied the Word was called the Son before the incarnation but affirmed the incarnation itself. In fact, Marcellus wrote the Word would revert to his pre-incarnate state in the age to come:
“For the Word took on our flesh not to profit himself, but so that the flesh might obtain immortality through fellowship with the Word. This is clear from the very assertion of the Savior. For concerning the flesh which he had while he was associating with the disciples, he says, ‘Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man return to where he was before? The spirit gives life; the flesh profits nothing’ (Jn 6:61-63). So if he confesses that the flesh is of no profit to him, how is it possible that that which is from the earth and profits nothing will be with the Word in the ages to come as if it were something beneficial to him?” https://www.fourthcentury.com/marcellus-fragment-106/
Maybe I’m missing your point. The original Greek has “…the word was toward the God and God was the word.” The two uses of the word “God” are together, so it would have been redundant to write “the God and the God” since he was referring to the same God, not somebody else.
Being “with” God is a Hebrew way of saying things. God is wisdom and strength, but wisdom and strength are also “with” God (Job 12:12,13,16), and wisdom even speaks (Lk. 11:49). Does this make
wisdom another God-person? No. It is how things are said in Hebrew but sound strange when crossed over into another language and can lead to misunderstandings. It is no different with God’s word, which is with him and is him.
My hand is not all of me, but it is me and goes with me everywhere I go. My words are also me in the same way. If I tell a lie, or yell “fire” in a crowd, it is I who will suffer the consequences be cause my words are identified with me. It is the same with God.
“The two uses of the word ‘God’ are together, so it would have been redundant to write ‘the God and the God’ since he was referring to the same God, not somebody else.”
I do not believe he was referring to the same god. Philo thought of the Word as a second god and influenced John. While the grammar is inconclusive, it supports an indefinite construction.
“Being ‘with’ God is a Hebrew way of saying things. God is wisdom and strength, but wisdom and strength are also ‘with’ God (Job 12:13,16).”
First, those verses assert that wisdom and strength are with God but not that wisdom and strength are God. For a parallel verse, the former must precede the latter. Second, in Job there are two subjects, but in John there is one.
Third, the parallelism in Job between “wisdom and mastery” and “counsel and understanding” identifies wisdom with counsel and mastery with understanding, necessitating personification. Such parallelism is absent in John. Fourth, “wisdom was with X” means “X was wise,” but “the word was with X” means gibberish.
“My hand is not all of me, but it is me and goes with me everywhere I go. My words are also me in the same way.”
Your hand is only you in the loose sense it is a part of your body. Your words are not you even in that loose sense.
If I may intrude for a moment, you guys are on to something very important here.
I think that the more critical point that Kevin is making here, and the more foundational point for your disagreement, is that John should be read in light of Hebrew biblical literary style and reference and relevant culture rather than making inferences from the text based on the notion that John is using Greek philosophical and metaphysical ideas for that purpose. For example, since what we have of John is in Greek text, “logos” is simply the natural word to represent the Hebrew word ??? as the LXX does hundreds of times. It therefore does not follow that the use of “logos” must share any connection to Philo’s logos ideas.
Furthermore, there is no basis for assuming that John’s earliest readers would have made any connection to Philo, as his writings were not accepted among Jews in Galilee or Judea. As the Stanford Encylopedia notes:
“The relation of Philo to the Hebrew exegetical traditions of his time is an important and controversial question. One of the major paradoxes for his posterity is that his work was ignored by Jews and saved by Christians, some of whom thought that he was himself a Christian.”
On the other hand, Kevin is pointing to common Hebrew biblical practice and style that John’s readers would be very familiar with.
For the Jews, the reason to say “the word was with God and the word was God” is to proclaim the source of the word as being from God Himself, not to personify it, but to establish its authority and the chain of authority to Yeshua.
In other words, the word that comes to Yeshua originated in God, as it is His word. God did not receive it from another source and Yeshua received it directly from God. It establishes God’s word as authoritative and then links that authority to Yeshua by describing how that authoritative word became present in this particular man. That is John’s concern, as it is the rest of the gospels – they are trying to convince their readers that Yeshua had the authority directly from God for the claims he was making. Hebrews essentially says the same thing in its opening.
Thus, these are not metaphysical issues but legal authoritative issues that the gospels are trying to argue.
Not what the early Christian’s believed even Jews know God uses Torah to create. God SAYS “and let there be”
One God is Father. But Father has in him eternal Word and Spirit. Trinity.
Is logically consistent. God unoriginate just one x. God* divine not just one
Not so hard to figure out. Too much fuss over counting God* and confusing with God unoriginate.
Marian, it sounds like you hold to a subordinationist unitarian theology. Or perhaps you are a one-self trinitarian, the one self being the Father, and the other “Persons” of the Trinity being somewhat less than selves… It sounds like you’re saying also that a divine being need not be unoriginate. This, arguably, is moving from a monotheistic conception of a god/divine being to some lesser idea. Of course, the ancient subordinationists had the Son and Spirit as two lesser divine beings, the first greater than the second, and God being greater than both – so neither of these was divine to the same degree that God was, for them.
Comments are closed.