Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In the middle of his discussion about whether Christians can eat food which has been sacrificed to pagan deities, Paul remarks:
…yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom the all and we for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom the all and we through him.
1 Corinthians 8:6
Dr. Burgos argues that in the passage Paul is obviously attributing the Genesis creation both to the Father and to the Son.
I explain why he fails to demonstrate that, and argue that there are two more plausible ways to understand what Paul is saying here.
The keys are realizing that (1) nothing in the context of 1 Corinthians 8 demands that Paul is talking about the Genesis creation in verse 6, (2) “all things ” (Greek: ta panta) typically does not mean the sum total of created things, and (3) clear Genesis creation texts in the New Testament assume that the one creator is God, a.k.a. the Father.
Links for this episode:
- One God and One Lord: A Response to Dale Tuggy & a Consideration of 1 Corinthians 8:6
- podcast 278 – Response to Burgos on Creation and the one God vs. the one Lord – Part 1
- podcast 259 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 2
- podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
- podcast 224 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 1 – God and “God” in the Bible
- podcast 225 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 2 – Old “Lord” vs. New “Lord”
- J. Dan Gill and Anthony Buzzard on Hebrews 1
- Nick Norelli’s blog
- Thedoret of Cyrus
- 1 Corinthians 8:6 (hyper-literal translation); Exodus 20:1-6; Romans 1:18-22; John 14:9; Isaiah 44:6-8; Hebrews 1:1-3; Hebrews 1:8-12; Psalm 45:6-7; Ephesians 3:8-9; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-20; Matthew 16:13-20; Revelation 5:13; John 8:40; 1 Timothy 2:5; Ephesians 4:5-6; Psalm 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28; Acts 17:24-25; Romans 8:31-32; Romans 11:33-36; 1 Corinthians 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 1 Corinthians 12:19; 2 Corinthians 4:14-15; 2 Corinthians 5:17.
- This week’s thinking music consists of the tracks “Fouler l’horizon” and “Le Grand Village” by Komiku.
- The wind sound was recorded by dobroide, and the thunder sounds were by newagesoup.
Trinitarians conflate common nouns with proper nouns. Paul was not contrasting many lords (common noun) with one LORD (proper noun). It would be unreasonable and absurd to think so.
If I say there are many cats in the first room and one cat in the second room, you would assume the two uses of ‘cat’ to be categorically identical. It will be absurd to say that ‘one cat’ refers to the name of a dog in the second room.
Also the context is not of Creation but of Christian living: can Christians eat food offered to idols? In the non-worship context of 1 Cor 8, Yes. In the worship context of 1 Cor 10, No. Paul couldn’t appeal to Creation to justify permission to eat in 1 Cor 8 for he would contradict himself in 1 Cor 10. “all things” in context refers to the all blessings a Christians receives (including food) are from God as the ultimate source and Christ as the ultimate means.
Love how Burgos likes to try and use the Torah when it supports his views–but will likely deny the Torah when it clearly says THIS:
Deut 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
So Paul, the Jewish believer who affirmed his belief in the Torah among Jews changed/added to the words of the Shema? Yeah, no–nice try. Amazing how one can run away with a very crazy belief that 1 Cor 8:6 is a “splitting of the Shema” to insert Jesus when they ignore the rest of the Scriptures and commands.
Otherwise great podcast Dale–you hit all the points I’d rebut him with plus some more proof to back it up. If Burgos is a Calvinist also, then “all” doesn’t mean “all” to him either in specific texts regarding the death of the Messiah to save all mankind. I don’t know if he is though–but if so, that’s another point of inconsistent views.
Even of Paul is speaking about the Genesis creation, he isn’t attributing that creation to both God and the Messiah. He is affirming that God the Father is the only creator, the only source, while the Messiah is the only mediator of God’s creative activity. There is a clear distinction between the Creator and the “tool” by which the creator created.
are johns word that the father is the ONLY TRUE God = categorical denial of others ?
some have argued the following :
Matthew in 24:37 tells us “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
This expresses the knowledge possessed by the Father to the exclusion of everyone else.
The word for word translation from the Greek is “no one knows that hour if not the father alone.”
Had John wanted to express that “only the father is God” he would have said something like
“no one is God if not the Father alone”.
so john does not believe that the FATHER ALONE is God?
Hello,
I would add a few thoughts on this topic.
Firstly, in the last part of Episode 278 Dr. Burgos says, that in 1. Cor. 8 Paul uses all the key points of the Shema. Well if that’s so, than they’re the key points of the first sentence of the Shema. Either way, these points are fundamental for the whole Old Testament (some would argue for the NT too).
Secondly, If Paul is using the Shema as a pattern, than it doesn’t really make sense that he is talking about the creation of the world, because the Shema is not talking about that. It is saying that God is to be loved and afterwards Moses is urging the people not to worship other Gods. If Paul is not speaking about the creation but about worshipping, honoring or acknowledging other gods, than the context of the Shema does fit into the context of 1. Cor. 8.
PS.
Thank you, Dr. Tuggy for this great podcast.
Comments are closed.