A podcast listener recently emailed me to ask (emphases added):
I won’t hide that I’m a happy Trinitarian and yet that I’m thoroughly enjoying your podcast since it provokes my theology and forces me to actually think about why I believe what I believe. This is a healthy check I think.
I am puzzled though about why the numerical issue is so important. If Jesus isn’t God, it won’t be because 3 cannot be 1 but rather because he never claims to be so when we study the Scriptures (which I’m happy to explore). Is there something I missed about this “numerical issue” that is critical to understanding the Trinity (or lack thereof)? I can remember the example of that philosopher a few months back that argued that God was necessarily three. While it’s easy to agree to such reasoning as a trinitarian, I wouldn’t take it to the bank since it is not a scriptural approach (I still think the philosophical aspect of that approach to Trinity is interesting though).
So could you clarify why this numerical issue is so important to you?
Thanks for your question, R., and thanks for listening. Let me first say that I don’t think it is very important to point out that “3 cannot be 1” – that is, that God (or anything) can’t be three in one way and also only one in that same way. I’ve discussed this before as “the standard opening move” in defending the catholic Trinity formulas. I think it is correct, so far as it goes, which is not very far.
Of course, some trinitarians never get this far. They hold, e.g. that the Trinity implies these three claims. (I use “x is y” to mean that x is numerically identical to y, that x and y are one and the same entity – 1 and 2 here do not merely mean that each has the quality or essence of being divine.)
- The Father is God.
- The Son is God.
- The Father isn’t the Son.
If you think “the Trinity doctrine” implies these three, then you think it is demonstrably false. It is impossible that all of 1-3 be true. Briefly, it is self-evident that things numerically identical to the same thing must be identical to one another (so 1 and 2 imply Father = Son, the contradictory of 3). If you don’t see this, let’s discuss this more in the comments below. (I call this understanding of the Trinity “Popular LT” in this old paper, pp. 11-13.)
All analytic theologians, with the possible exception of a few positive mysterians, are avoiding this interpretation of the catholic Trinity formulas. I don’t go around like some unitarians claiming that “the Trinity” is obviously incoherent – because some interpretations of the catholic Trinity language are arguably coherent (self-consistent), or are at least not obviously incoherent. (The above “Popular LT” is an exception.) My reasons for being unitarian are fundamentally biblical. Although, it did make me stop and think and re-examine the NT when I realized how deep the disagreements run in the trinitarian camp. I saw that the supposed consensus was vague and largely verbal, and that it only dated back to the late 300s.
Anyway, you are surely correct that the main issue between trinitarians and unitarians is not whether or not the Trinity is self-contradictory, but rather whether the scriptures in some sense teach it. Yet, these two issues are related. If some claim is obviously contradictory, then it seems uncharitable to attribute it to any biblical author, much less to God. e.g. We would consider this to be an implausible interpretation of God’s character, say, as presented in Genesis: God is perfectly good, and also, God is somewhat bad. Or about Mary: she was a life-long virgin, yet she made babies (Jesus’s brothers and sisters) in the usual way with Joseph. Yeah, authors can be confused, but we are obligated to try hard to read them as unconfused; this is how we expect others to read or listen to us.
Now I don’t know about other parts of the world, but American evangelicals typically confuse the Trinity together with the idea that “Jesus is God” or “the deity of Christ.” But these two theories – the Trinity and the two natures of Jesus – are not the same. The first came more than two centuries after the second! But American evangelicals – with an exception of some with strong seminar training – understand “the deity of Christ” to mean or imply that Jesus = God – that Jesus just is God and vice-versa, that they are numerically one. 
But this, on evangelical assumptions, or on any Christian’s assumptions (unitarian or trinitarian, Catholic or Protestant, etc.), can’t be true, and must be false. I explain why here (paper). I also explain the points pretty fully in this paper (podcast version). As you can see, I’ve been harping on this point for several years now. But it’s not a theoretical point, in the sense that I’m pushing a pet theory. Rather, it is a patent confusion, which is widely recognized as such by analytic theologians, but which is nonetheless common in the tradition. It’s like thinking that a triangle can have four sides. Once someone explains to you why it is a mistake, one should move on, not take comfort in the fact that others are so confused.
Ridiculously, some evangelical apologists interpret the NT as teaching both that Jesus is numerically identical to God, and that Jesus is numerically distinct from God. But that’s foolish and uncharitable as a reading of the NT. It’s merely projecting one’s confusion onto texts that can (and so, should) be read self-consistently. They think this is humble, but it is no more humble than saying that the Bible teaches that Elijah just is, and (in the same sense) is not John the Baptist. A person who is very sophisticated in epistemology can resist this, but in my view, they shouldn’t.
Did I answer your questions?
@Dale,
The Father and the Son have the same nature ( John 10:30).
The reason why the Son is con-substantial with His own Father is because he is the only begotten from the Father ( John 1:14,18).
What the OP discussed is about Jesus being identified as numerically equivalent with “God.”
Jesus = God
God = Jesus
Well, this is not how it works in the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Trinity is the teaching that the three distinct persons are ontologically equal.
Father = God by nature
Son = God by nature
Holy Spirit = God by nature
Jesus “is” God ( by nature) but God (Trinity) “is” not Jesus.
This is much the same with John 1:1c.
The Word was God –> The Word was God by nature ( not by identity). The Greek THEOS used here is qualitative in sense.
Do not confuse the persons! Do not divide the essence! Glory to the Trinity whose name is one!
Rose,
Forgive me for jumping in but after having read your post, I cannot help but probe your assumptions.
1) Where in John 10:30 does it say that the Son and the Father share the same nature? Is not the context about the function of the Son, and it being like that of the Father?
2) I know that within the Trinitarian doctrine(s), Jesus can be said to be God but God cannot be said to be Jesus. Would you say the same of the Father? the Father = God, but God does not equal the Father. Right? If you agree, how come Paul writes: “there is for us one God — the Father”. For Paul both “the Father = God” and “God = the Father” were true. In trinitarianism, this isn’t true since the Father is not the triune God. Right?
3) In regards to John 1:1c. I agree that QEOS should be understood qualitatively (even though I do not think you can say it is merely talking about nature/substance rather than class). But why are you treating God as if it was a mass noun? Qualitative claims are done using the indefinite article in English: the word was a god (or: “the word was divine” which is short for “the word was (a) divine (being/person)”. In the English language, “god” can either function as a count noun or a proper noun. When you say “the Word is God” either you are using God as if it was a mass noun. That would be like me saying “I am cat”. That is not grammatical English; or you are using it as a proper name (and thus the meaning would be definitive, which in turn would lead to modalism.)
See how John uses QEOS of Jesus. In John 10:33, his opponents think he is making himself out to be “a god” (note the parallel between a man and a god in v. 33). In his defense he cites Psalm 82. Now, if Jesus was not claiming to be QEOS as the QEOI in Psalm 82, is he not deceptive in his use of the Psalm as his defence?
Pär Stenberg
FACT #1
Jesus used Psalm 82 in his defense because he’s trying to point out that if mere mortals can be called QEOS , then, how much more is he who is in very nature, God?
Jesus said,” I give them eternal life…my hand…my Father’s hand…I and my Father are one ” ( John 10:28-30). The oneness of the Father and the Son in the context is in terms of ability and hence, of ontology (nature) not of function.
Your ability is the reason you function.
On the other hand, function is what you do.
FACT #2
We cannot interpret a Biblical text divorced from its context.
“Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” 1 Corinthians 8:6 (NASB)
The context of the text ascribes the title ‘one God’ to the Father relative to the function he had.
The one God through whom are all things is the Father.
The Father is the one God through whom are all things.
On the other hand, what Trinitarians only affirm in the ascription of QEOS to the Trinity is merely and only the divine titles per se without antecedents of function. Rather, the qualitative nature of the word is what’s functioning.
God is not the Father
The Father is God
God is not Jesus
Jesus is God
God is not the Holy Spirit.
he Holy Spirit is God
Fact # 3
The English word ‘god’ functions as a ‘proper noun’ in John 1:1c because it is in the ‘nominative case’ as it is in the Greek.This very grammatical function shows how indispensable it is to translate John 1:1c’s QEOS into English as ‘God.’
The Word = God (as to its essence).
In other words, the title ‘God’ (Greek: QEOS not QEIOS) tells us something about the Word. It specifically tells us what the Word is.That’s what ‘qualitative sense’ means.It defines the subject in terms of its nature.
What we mean is that the Word , by being in very nature, God, cannot be called ‘a god.’
Premise 1: The true God is only one being.
Premise 2: The Word is God in his very being.
Conclusion: The Word can’t be a ‘god’ in any sense but rather, he must have been fully and truly ‘God’ in the strictest sense of the word.
There are no gods by nature, as the Apostle Paul puts it:
“However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.” Galatians 4:8 (NASB)
Rose,
Allow me to disagree, strongly. 🙂
I love your boldness in writing ”FACT” in regards to your claims. I truly see my old self you. I used the same arguments, argued in the same fashion and shared your zeal.
It’s not that all non-trinitarians are ignorant of what Trinitarians believe. It’s just that we do not find said categories in the Bible.They do not naturally pop-out when reading through the text exegetically.
When I was a Trinitarian, I was so sure that the reason all those silly Arians and Unitarians do not believe the Trinity is because they truly do not understand it. “No, you are mixing categories!” “Yes, of course God is one… in his BEING but not in person”. “Ah, but this text is talking about God in his nature only”. But when I saw how artifical all my categories were, and when I saw no proof that the Biblical authors thought in those terms, I had to abandon the system. There were of course other factors (like how the Trinity logically has five YHWH: YHWH the Father, YHWH the Son, YHWH the Spirit, YHWH the Triune God and YHWH the Divine Nature). Allow me to recomend a website to you: http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity.html Look through what he writes on those texts which you are sure teach the deity of Christ. I do not fully agree with this person, but he was fundamental in bringing me out of Trinitarianism.
Now having said that, on to “FACT 1”. Yes, John 10:34 is an example of a fortiori claim by Jesus, but not in the way you think. He is saying that if those people where called gods, then how much more does he have the right, as God’s own word, to be called god? YHWH does not belong to the category of gods in Psalm 82, so if Jesus is saying ”since these people where called god, then I have the right to be called YHWH” he is deceptively switching categories. But as we see in v. 36 he says that he makes himself out to be ”a son of God”, which is a throw-back to Psalm 82 as well, showing us that he has not switched categories. Rather he claims to rightfully belong in the category of God’s agents which can be called QEOS.
If Jesus had been switching categories, then he might as well have used a text where God is calling someone a king and then say ”if he could be called king, then I can be called YHWH the God of Israel.” The non-sequitur would be as great.
Next up, ”The oneness of the Father and the Son in the context is in terms of ability and hence, of ontology (nature) not of function.” I ask you to read what you wrote once more, and just ponder how odd your statement is.
If I give someone the authority to do my job so that he does the same functions, are we ontologically equal? Of course not. But we can be said to be one, in that we work together in completing the task set before us. (1 Cor 3:8) When God grants a prophet to know the future, does this ability make him in part ontologically God? When God makes Moses ”(a) god before Pharaoh” was not this a functional representative of YHWH?”
Next up: “FACT 2”
You claim that 1 Cor 8:6 was used devoid of its context. You then make the claim that ”through whom all things are” is an obligatory clause modifying ”God” which you have not proved, since in the Greek it most naturally reads as a non-obligatory clause. Furthermore, the clause is most likely in apposition to ”the Father” rather than finding its antecedent in ”God”. If you wish to argue for a more remote antecedent, then the burden of proof in on you. Further still, verse 6 is in response to the other gods and lords in the world, not ”other gods who are claimed to be the ones through who all things came to be” which would seem to have been the issue for Paul’s statement to make sense “Yes, they claim that is the case but we only have one God through whom all things came to be”. The issue was not over if these QEOI were creators and if the KYRIOI were the mediators through which creation came about.
Also, the parallel passage in Ephesians 4:6 makes it clear that there is one God and he is the Father. If you for some reason make the following clause ”the one who is over all, through all and in all” to be obligatory, then you are implying that Christians have more then one Father (there is one God and Father and then there is another one, you know, the God and Father in whom are all things… etc). Text echoes Malachi 2:10 which states: ”Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? ” Not the lack of delimiting adjectival-clauses.
Ultimately, I am amazed beyond words that you can look at a text like 1 Cor 8:6 and say: ”God is not the Father”. This has made me cringe internally from everlasting to everlast.
Before moving on, let me preemptively attack a two common objections:
1) “If only the Father is God according to 1 Cor 8:6, then the Father apparently is not Lord since only Jesus would be the one Lord”.
Answer: Yes. The Father is *not* the same type of Lord that Jesus is. Jesus’ Lordship is of a secondary nature in that this Lord has a god over it: “the God and Father of our Lord” (Eph 1:3; 7). God is not the Lord of Psalm 110, the Messiah is.
2) “Paul is using the Shema and dividing it up between the Father and the Son. Thus Lord when used of Jesus is the tetragrammaton substitute for YHWH”.
Answer: Nope. Never mind how odd this claim really is (There is one God, the Father and one YHWH, Jesus — and, Hear O Israel, Jesus our Father, Jesus is one.) It is obvious that Jesus title “Lord” does not reflect the divine name. Look at how the tetragrammaton subsitute is used in the LXX: it functions as a proper name and does therefore not take possessive pronouns. Now, look how KYRIOS is used of Jesus; it functions as a title and takes possessive pronouns (“our Lord”). This is a indication that the Lordship of Jesus is connected to the “messianic my Lord” of Psalm 110. Further, in 1 Cor 16:22, we get a glimpse into the Aramaic speaking churches and Jesus is here called
“Maranatha”. So we see that even among the semitic speaking churches Jesus was not called using the divine name, and Marana uses suffixes unlike a proper name (“our Lord”). So when Jacob is said to be the brother of the Lord, this means “brother of the messianic Lord from Psalm 110” not “the brother of YHWH”. In addition, look at v. 5 in 1 Cor 8. The many gods and many lords. Should these Lords be viewed as “many YHWH”? Of course not, then neither should Lord in v. 6 for the parallel to fit.
”FACT 3”:
You wrote: ”The English word ‘god’ functions as a ‘proper noun’ in John 1:1c because it is in the ‘nominative case’ as it is in the Greek..This very grammatical function shows how indispensable it is to translate John 1:1c’s QEOS into English as ‘God.’ ” Do you have any formal training in Greek? Because this does not make any sense what so ever. Granted, even though I have formal training in Greek and work as a teacher of English, I am not a grammar expert, so please prove me wrong.
Then you write: ”The Word = God (as to its essence).” which further shows you do not fully understand the issue. If QEOS is used as a proper name it is definite and thus not qualitative. Then the text is essentially saying ”and the Word was the Father” which would result in modalism.
If you strive for a qualitative understanding, then you should use the common noun form, which comes into English using the indefinite article. For example, if I want to emphasize the ”nature” or ”class trait” of a cat, I write: ”This is a cat” not ”This is the cat” nor ”This is cat”. The same goes for John 1. If I want to emphasize that the Logos is to his nature divine, I will render it into ”He is (a) divine (person)” (or ”a god”). This short form form adjectives is use all the time ”Tim is nice” — ”Tim is (a) nice (person).”
”In other words, the title ‘God’ (Greek: QEOS not QEIOS) tells us something about the Word. It specifically tells us what the Word is. That’s what ‘qualitative sense’ means. It defines the subject in terms of its nature.” You cannot make such a statement based on grammar alone (see BeDuhn’s, Truth in Translation). The qualitative could just as easily tell you about what class or group an individual belongs to. To make a sharp distinction between the two goes beyond what grammar allows you to do. Now, in light of John 10, it is clear that Jesus makes himself out to belong (supremely) to the QEOI-group.
Moreover, the reading ”a god” is supported by how the Logos was viewed as a second god (hO DEUTEROS QEOS) by Philo. Another Logos-theologian, Justin Martyr, called the Logos hETEROS QEOS. When reading our first exegetical commentary on John, which is written by Origen, we may conclude that he would fall into the ”a god”-camp as well: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm (chapter 10)
Lastly, your syllogism.
Premise 1: The true God is only one being.
Premise 2: The Word is God in his very being.
Conclusion: The Word can’t be a ‘god’ in any sense but rather, he must have been fully and truly ‘God’ in the strictest sense of the word.
Premise 2 is faulty in my view. Also, the conclusion ”the Word can’t be a ‘god’ in any sense” does not follow.
Now, here is a syllogism for you:
Premise 1: There is only one true God
Premise 2: The one true God is triune
Premise 3: The Father is not triune
Conclusion: The Father is not the one true God
When your conclusion is at odds with Jesus (Joh 17:3), I suggest you reconsider your position. 🙂 Like I did. When the ”Father” becomes a person within God and not equal to the one God, you have a problem. Jesus’ God was one person and his God was our God (20:17), and in Jesus I see the one God (John 20:28, a fulfillment of John 14:9-11, and 12:43-45.)
Also, if possible stop importing anachronistic phrases such as ”very nature God” and making a distinction between person and being, which you will not find in the Gospel of John. Your (mis)use of Galatians 4 will not help you either, since Paul is not John.
There are some gods that are not gods by nature
Therefore, there are no gods by nature
This is just as invalid as:
There are some gods that are not gods by nature
Therefore, only YHWH is God by nature
Also, I would highly advice you against reading back later developed Christological vocabulary ”nature” and ”essence” into Paul. The way you think about nature, is not what Paul is talking about.
I see that you have other erroneous claims in other comments (e.g. Philippians 2:6) and I would like to adress these but I’ll try to avoid doing so lest I butt into conversations not meant for me. If you reply to this post, I will do my best to respond when (if?) time allows.
Per, just imagine a split Shema substituted (Greek):
Akoue Israel, Iesou o Pater hemon, Iesou eis estin.
According to Wright et al., this is what the Shema became…
As a huge fan of Wright (he is by far my favourite scholar), I cannot help but be saddened and surprised that he stills holds to this view. Even Dunn himself subscribes to it! 🙁
Actually, I heard that Dunn has done an about face on that view, but I can’t remember where this is discussed. He was a some convention and gave a lecture indicating that he no longer thinks the Schema is “split” at 1 Cor. 8. The blogger who discussed indicated that N.T. Wright was in the audience and did not look pleased.
Such joyful news! 🙂 Now I can at last be reconciled with Dunn and I will even let his Theology of Paul the Apostle back into my shelf of books of glory (but not next to Wright’s books lest they fight) 😀 It seems my weekend will be dedicated to tracking down the statement.
Thanks for the link to your blog. I’ve recently written an exegetical assignment on John 1 so I will be glad to look further into the qualitative issue.
I’ll try to find it too. As I recall it was on a blog, and the person who submitted the entry attended the meeting during which Dunn spoke.
I’ve FINALLY found where Dunn’s about face was discussed. Andrew Perriman discusses it on his blog, here:
http://www.postost.net/2011/09/jimmy-dunn-one-god-one-lord-shema
It is thanks to Jaco that I found it, as Perriman’s site is linked in one of Jaco’s articles, and once I went to the site I remembered that it was there that I saw the quote. Thanks, Jaco:-)
To partially quote Perriman:
“During a lively dialogue with Larry Hurtado at the British New Testament Society conference this morning Jimmy Dunn put forward his well known view that there is a significant functional differentiation—even subordination—between Jesus and God in the New Testament that should not be obscured in our efforts to safeguard a high christology…
…One particular comment stuck out. Dunn remarked that he used to favour the view that in 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul incorporates Jesus as Lord into the shema, effectively identifying Jesus with God or making him equal to God.
[“]…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. (1 Cor. 8:6)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deut. 6:4)[“]
He has since changed his mind. He thinks now that while the first part of Paul’s statement is a reference to the shema and, therefore, a classic affirmation of Jewish monotheism, the second part—“for us there is… one Lord, Jesus Christ”—brings into focus Psalm 110:1:
[“]The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'[”]
This seems to me very plausible. The consistent story elsewhere in Paul is that Jesus is given lordship—given the name kyrios—as a result of his faithful obedience in suffering, and that this status will have future consequences with regard to the nations and to the final enemy death (cf. Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Phil. 2:6-11).
So in 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul is not saying that Jesus must be assimilated into an essential Jewish monotheism. Rather he is setting out the fundamental “Christian” response to the challenge of the dominant pagan culture: for us as heirs of Jewish monotheism there is one God, but this one God has given
authority over the enemies of his people to the one who suffered, died
and was raised from the dead. It is through him—not from him, as Dunn stressed—that these communities of new creation now exist. So I would say that the two part confession reflects the fact that this new creation has come into existence under conditions of eschatological conflict.”
~Sean
Also see:
http://www.postost.net/2013/05/shema-important-understanding-one-god-one-lord
While Perriman makes a good case for Dunn’s about-face, I couldn’t help but grin at the following:
“Creation is “from” God but it is “through” Jesus, and “through whom we
exist” suggests an eschatological orientation: it is through Jesus’ faithful obedience that a new creation reality as been brought about. The distinction between “from” and “through” weighs heavily against directly equating Jesus with YHWH in this passage, but the association of Jesus with the “word” and “wisdom” of God certainly points in the direction of Jesus’ unique participation in the creative action of God. Whether action can then be translated into identity, as Bauckham argues, is another matter. If we step back far enough—say two to three hundred years—I think it probably can.”
I wonder how we are to understand this, in Perriman’s view? Is he saying that Paul wasn’t including Jesus in the Schema in 1 Cor 8:6, but that he ultimately does so anyway by implication, because by highlighting their shared “action” of creation, Jesus should probably be identified as God, which is ipso facto to identity him as YHWH?
He is while he isn’t yet he isn’t while he is? Pretty clear, yes?
~Sean
I love NT Wright, one of the few Scholars and Theologians who have maintained a conservative view of scripture, and a conservative view on marriage, and at the same time brought to light the communitarian economic and social implications of the scriptures in challenging the pervasive capitalist ethic of today, when it comes to challenging orthodoxy … NT Wright is an Anglican, a former bishop, he almost has to make his scholarship fit with the Creeds, he very often uses Words like “radically” and “mysteriously” when fitting it in. I mean when I read his “splitting the shema” argument it didn’t suprise me as much as sadden me. That being said, I thank god for People like NT Wright.
You’ve made many good points, Par. This one should be emphasized more:
“The many gods and many lords. Should these Lords be viewed as “many
YHWH”? Of course not, then neither should Lord in v. 6 for the parallel
to fit.”
Quite so, and there’s nothing in context to suggest that Paul was employing a double entendre, which he would have to be employing for the popular trinitarian interpretation to fit.
You’ve also made excellent points about the Greek at John 1:1c. Interestingly, there is no other singular bounded noun in John’s Gospel that is not definite and deemed “qualitative” but not rendered into English as an indefinite noun. I address the problems with the popular theory on my blog, here:
http://kazesland.blogspot.com/2015/01/and-word-was-god-qualitatively-part-1.html
http://kazesland.blogspot.com/2015/01/and-word-was-god-qualitatively-part-2_18.html
There’s at least one more part coming that will deal with the claims of P.B. Harner, who made one assertion that’s foundational to his theory, but demonstrably and very easily refuted, i.e. the assertion that the Evangelist would have placed the PN after the verb if he meant the noun to be taken indefinitely. Simply ridiculous, as you’ll see at the second link, above.
~Sean
Biblically speaking, the zeal that I have is supported.
…contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints… Jude 1:3
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 1 Peter 3:15
I am not sure how Unitarians convinced you the way they did not do to me but I want you to know that, based on the knowledge you have concerning the Trinity, I could surmise that you have questions on the Trinity that instead of finding answers in the Bible you ended up in finding answers with the Unitarians.
Here’s my refutation to your Unitarian Theology which you have embraced. I would also as well as elucidate the Trinity to you so that you might know that what you have left wasn’t because of unbiblical nature but because of lack of biblical training on it.
ON THE FIVE YAHWEH’S
The word “God” or the name “YHWH” are used to the Trinity either personally due to their nature or collectively due to their consubstantiality (sameness in nature) — Matthew 28:19, John 10:28-30.
In Greek, theos can mean “God’s nature” as in John 1:1c because it is grammatically “qualitative in sense.”
ON PSALM 82 AND JOHN 10
Yes. I do agree that in Psalm 82 YHWH isn’t in the category of the mortals who functions as ‘gods.’ The reason is that the inclusion of YHWH in the ‘great assembly of gods’ would show Polytheism. The exclusion of YHWH in that category shows his transcendence and unique nature that no one in that council share.
Jesus was using Psalm 82 to prove his case against the accusation of the Jews that he blasphemes by claiming to be God in an ontological sense.This is evident in the words of Jesus in John 10:28-30 which alludes Deuteronomy 32:39.
Based on the immediate contexts of both texts (i.e. Psalm 82 & John 10:28-39), the paradigm to follow are shown below:
Psalm 82
YHWH = nature: very God
Humans = function: gods
John 10:28-39
Jesus = nature: very God
Jews = function: gods
Take note that there is an overlap because Jesus claimed two things:
1) Ontological equality with the Father – John 10:28-30 ( Deuteronomy 32:29)
2) Functional subordination with the Father – John 10:34-36 ( Psalm 82:6).
Both claims have an Old Testament Scripture backround.
and yes, there are two categories here as there are two claims side by side each both in context.
1) category of divine nature –> John 10:28-30 + Deuteronomy 32:39
2) category of divine function –> John 10:34-36 + Psalm 82:6
Therefore, the paradigm to follow in John 10:28-30 would be:
Jesus = function and nature: very God
Jews = function: gods
ON THE DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED
Ephesians 4:6 reads: “one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” This verse did not say “God is the Father.” Rather, it only and merely says this:
We have one God of all, who is over all, and through all and in all.
We have one Father of all, who is over all, and through all and in all.
There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things. That’s what the text says in its entirety.
There is not one verse in the Bible that says verbatim: “God is the Father” just as there is no verse in the Bible that says: ” God is the Father, Son and Spirit.” Our theological beliefs are based on conceptual frameworks whether we like it or not.
The fact is that we must not interpret the texts out of its context.
YOU SAID:
“If I give someone the authority to do my job so that he does the same functions, are we ontologically equal? Of course not.”
If you give someone the authority to do your job then you’re ontologically equal with that someone. You know why? Because both of you are humans. Unless you are giving the authority to do your job to angels, then, of course you are ontologically different with them.
YOU SAID:
“When God grants a prophet to know the future, does this ability make him in part ontologically God?”
Well, in this case the prophet isn’t innately having the ability to know the future. Therefore, he is not ontologically God. You know why? God’s nature has no parts. God’s nature is spiritual ( John 4:24). It means that God’s nature is indivisible.
Take a look at Christ. He is not half-god, half-man (demi-god) but rather, he has in Him “all the completeness of the Godhead” ( Colossians 2:9 NLT). What that means is that Jesus is fully and truly God.He is innately very God.
I see that from your very words, you are confusing ontology with function and authority.
Let me remind you that ontology (nature) is about your ability to do something. It is what you are.It is what consists your being.
On the other hand, function is what you do.
Authority is the right to act or the permission to do something.
YOU SAID:
When God makes Moses ”(a) god before Pharaoh” was not this a functional representative of YHWH?”
This time you got it right! Yes. God made Moses a god before Pharoh.In fact, Aaron is made his Prophet! This situation shows that it is possible for God to make someone God by function NOT God by nature.
ON THE SHEMA AND 1 CORINTHIANS 8:6
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.
ON JOHN 1:1C
Philo and Justin Martyr said that the LOGOS is DEUTEROS THEOS.Praise God because these people were not the ones who wrote the New Testament!
John the Apostle of Jesus the Messiah wrote:
QEOSEENHOLOGOS
The Word was God
The Greek word QEOS is a noun. Specifically, a qualitative noun.
The lack of the definite article in the Greek does not mean that it should be translated with an indefinite article in English.
John 1:18a reads: no one has ever seen God
Yet in all Greek Manuscripts, the word QEOS lacks the definite article.Should it read like this:
No one has ever seen a god
This is absurd.
————————————————————————————————
I recommend you this for more info’s on John 1:1c: http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
ON THE SYLLOGISMS
Again, may I remind you that a text without a context is a pretext.
John 17:3 The Father is ‘the only true God.’ Yes. I agree, but in what sense?
Is the Father the only true God in the sense of having the title “true God” ?
This cannot be true because Jesus Christ is called “the True God” in 1 John 5:20.
Is the Father the only true God in the sense of having the innate nature of being true God?
This cannot be true because Jesus Christ is very God by nature based on Colossians 2:9.
In what sense ,then, is the Father the only true God?
Jesus made it plainly clear in the context of the text in question.
The Father is the only true God in the sense of authority NOT int he sense of ability (nature).
since you have GIVEN HIM AUTHORITY over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. ~ John 17:2
In John 17:2, the Son was ONLY given authority NOT ability to give eternal life.
Read it yourself:
since you have GIVEN him (authority) over all flesh, to GIVE (eternal life) to all whom you have given him. ~ John 17:2
Note that throughput the priestly prayer of Jesus, his functional subordination is clearly evident. Only twice was it shown that he is ontologically equal with the Father in John 17 ( verses 1-2, 5,).
Therefore, the syllogism should be like this:
Premise 1: There is only true God
Premise 2: The only true God is triune
Premise 3: The Father is not triune
Conclusion: The Father is not the only true God by nature.
It always makes sense when a text is interpreted in context. Isn’t it?
ON GALATIANS 4:8
Paul and John were from the same body, the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12). There is one church for there is one body. There is one faith (Ephesians 4:5)
I Pray for you to come into the knowledge of truth.
In God the Son,
Rose Brown
You said:
“Also, I would highly advice you against reading back later developed Christological vocabulary ”nature” and ”essence” into Paul. The way you think about nature, is not what Paul is talking about.”
Well, UPOSTASIS and OUSIA are terms that are used by Christians centuries after the first century. Those Greek terms are deemed to be useful in explaining the doctrine of the Trinity to people in their contemporary society.
But take note that this evolution of term usages does not affect the concept it tries to elucidate.Rather, it has its continued roots way back from the Scriptures itself.
The first century records have PROSOPON, PHYSIS, DYNAMIS, DOXA,ONOMA,MORFEY and UPOSTASIS in explaining the doctrine of the Triune God.
The way the New Testament writers talk about God is simply elaborated in a specific context of society Christians had settled in to preach the Gospel.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19
A couple Things, the “oneness” of the father and the son, is used in John for the “oneness” of the apostles, and the “oneness” of the apostles With the father and the son. (John 17:20-24), the exact same Language of oneness is used for the apostles With the father and son, if that’s the Logic one is going to use, then you don’t have a Trinity, you have a fifteenity.
And you’re right we cannot divorce it from it’s context, read the Whole of Chapter 10, how does Jesus respond when he is accused of making himself God …
vrs 34-38 “34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law,[d] ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand[e] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.””
His argument is that the judges were called “Gods” he Calls himself “gods son” (not even god) and rather than focusing on that they should look at his Works.
That’s a denial of the charge, Jesus answered the charge, they were wrong in charfing him With making himself “God.” As for the last verse look at John 14:20 … if you want to use that as an argument for the Trinity “The father in me and I am in the father” then if you’re going to be consistant, you won’t have a Trinity, you’d have a fifteenity.
You’re going to have to define what you mean by “nature,” nature and being are not the same thing …. Both me and you are by nature human, so we share the nature of humanness, but we are 2 different human beings, we are also 2 different human persons.
Qualitative doesn’t mean it’s describing it’s “nature”, it’s a qualifier, i.e. telling us something about something, so it could be function, it could be an attribute or it could be nature. Who’s to say the judges in Psalms 82 were not “theoi” by nature also …
Jesus is called God, the point Jesus makes by quoting Psalms 82 is that being called “gods son” or even “god” doesn’t make one Yahweh.
Premise 1: Yes I agree
Premise 2: Um no, not unless you define what you mean by “in his very being.”
Jesus has a God, on Earth and after his ascension … this is Clear in many many scriptures, Pauls letters, Peters, John and so on, Jesus submits himself to God post Ascension.
Not to the father notice, but to God.
Your Whole argument Depends on misreading Jesus when he says that everything he does is from the father, Jesus’ point is that he’s completely obedient to the father, and his Message is from the father, and everything he is is from God.
If you want to argue that me and the father are one=ontological sameness, then we have a fifteenity to deal With … but the fact is the context makes it Clear, it isn’t ontological sameness.
Hi Roman
You may have noticed that when Christ says that he and the Father are ‘one’ he uses the Greek word ‘hen’
‘Hen’ is a neuter word used to signify ‘one in purpose’ or ‘one in agreement’
See 1 Corinthians 3v8 Philippians 2v2 etc
If Christ wanted to signify numerical oneness He would have used the word ‘heis’ -a masculine word.
“in the stadium only ONE runner wins the race” -heis
If you will look at the KJV Bible at 1 John 5 verses 7 and 8 you will observe Trinitarian duplicity at work In verse 7 ‘hen’ is used to signify ‘ are one’
In verse 8 ‘hen’ is used to mean’ agree in one’
I’m sure you are aware that verse 7 was a fraudulent insertion and has been removed from most modern bibles
Blessings
John
The gloss in 1 John 5:7 is just it, a gloss. It fits the context of the text that is why it is supplied. Notice that verse 9 talks about the ‘testimony’ or ‘witness’ of God himself.The text , if retained, does not harm anything at all. It does not even talk about a con-substantial ( same in nature) Trinity but rather, only a Trinity as witness.
Here we agree
https://nomoschristou.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/on-the-comma-johanneum/
After all the comments, I’m still wondering how we get to the conclusion that Jesus ever talks about “ontological” unity, oneness, being, etc. This just does not even come up in the writings of the Bible at all.
Rose, your arguments’ refutations may not be fully understood, so let me expand them so that others can also benefit:
It goes from “I and the Father are one” to “you’re making yourself (a) God” to “what’s wrong with saying I’m God’s son?”
God’s son specifically for Jesus is used throughout the New Testaments as the Messiah. The Messiah who was to come was to be given power and authority above all nations, and so that’s where the one poster is coming from.
Also, notice that those being God’s representatives as “gods” are judges. Notice that they are *also* called “sons of God” in the same sentence, which is omitted from the citation Jesus made:
“I have said ‘you are gods’, and you are all sons of the Most High”. As Pär put it, they’re equivalent. Like in elsewhere in the Old Testament, where the gods of the nations are called “sons of God”, also equated with what we call angels. For instance, Nebuchadnezzar said that the angel “looked like a son of God”, even though normally we would expect him to say something like, “looked like a god”. Certainly, Nebuchadnezzar didn’t believe in YHWH, but his highest god was probably Marduk. Did he mean a son of Marduk, or was he rather just saying that the man looked like a god, but the writers put “son of God” for a preservation of a single God?
So, we have angels in various places called elohim (in Hebrew, gods), whereas they are also called in some places “bene elohim” (in Hebrew, sons of God) or in Daniel, in Aramaic, “bar elahin” (son of God).
If a god has children, what are those children? Gods. Therefore, God’s son is a “god”, and God’s children are “gods”, which is why writers like Athanasius and other Trinitarians over the years have gone along with the doctrine of divinization.
So, if Jesus makes himself the Christ, the son of God, then he makes himself a god, or perhaps “God” in a representative sense, which could make sense, since the similarity or “oneness” to God here is the ability to give life, even as it is the similarity in John 1, the Word giving life and therefore being “God”.
Whether or not this is because Jesus is a judge, a god, like the judges in Psalm 82 who were gods, is not always discussed, yet this is exactly what Jesus is talking about, being able to raise men up to eternal life, being their judge.
Also, with what I said at the beginning about waiting for an explanation as to how Jesus’ statement makes him God, we have your outline of men being functional “gods”. Yet, the reason Jesus is “one” with the Father there is because a functionality concerning judgment, that he is able to raise men up at the last day. How does this have anything to do with ontology, when Jesus makes it plain that this is because of the words he speaks from the Father, that the Father told him to say?
in Him,
-Jon 🙂
Jon,
Good points. I agree that the ontological assumptions that many people make about the use of words like “son” and “equal” are unsubstantiated. Rather, they were used in a relational sense. A “father” always precedes a “son”, and is therefore greater than his sons (John 10:29; John 14:28).
John the baptizer alluded to the same thing when he spoke of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and said “the man coming after has a higher rank than me, for he existed before me” (John 1:15, 27-30).
Jesus became “the firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18) when he was raised before all others. The rest of the “sons of God” were not going to be revealed until the resurrection at the end of the age (Romans 8:23).
Additionally, from a biblical standpoint, “Son” wasn’t used of Jesus to connote ontological equality with the Father, but to connote obedience instead. (This is one reason why I think folks should be more open to the subjective genitive view of Pistis Christou). Many expositors have noted that at this time in history, to be a son was first and foremost to be obedient to your father. A fine discussion of this can be found in Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel, by Margaret Davies, pages 129-132. As John Ziesler has pointed out:
“Such ascriptions did not mean that the nation or the king or the righteous man was genetically related to God. Israel rejected any idea of that. Rather, being Son of God meant obedient service to God on the one hand, and divine commissioning and endorsement on the other. In our society we tend to forget that the first thing about a son was that he obeyed his father; therefore calling Jesus Christ Son of God meant first of all that he did what God wanted. He was the obedient one?…?Paul’s use of the title reflects Jewish rather than pagan background.” (Pauline Christianity), pp. 41, 42
I would argue that the Evangelist’s use of the title was in essential harmony with that of Paul.
~Sean
Hi Sean,
I agree. In fact, the “obedience” of Jesus Christ as a “son” is explicitly related to his qualification to receive the status of “heir” so that he could share the throne of his Father (Galatians 4:1-2; Hebrews 5:7-9; Revelation 3:21).
Rivers,
I’d say furthermore that Jesus’ obedience is what pleased God, and the Son of God, the Messiah, is called God’s Son specifically in regards to God not taking His love away from him. (1 Chronicles 17:10-14) This very verse is specifically why they kept calling Jesus “the Christ, the Son of the Living God”, and why the unbelieving Pharisees also called the Christ “the Son of the Blessed One”. It’s because the specific Messiah to come (as there were various messiahs, such as Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon) was to be beloved by God, being God’s Son, and as such, being made God’s firstborn (Psalm 89:26-29), which is the heir and the ruler.
Jesus claimed that God would show His love for Jesus in that Jesus would come back to life after he died, (John 10:17) and Peter claims that Jesus being raised from the dead makes Jesus out to be that Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).
Hi Jonathan,
I think you make some interesting points. I especially like what you’ve shown from 1 Chronicles 17:10-14.
What I would add to your comment is that I think the whole concept of Jesus Christ being “the only begotten son” (John 1:18) was a reference to his resurrection (Acts 13:34; Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 5:5). That is when God the Father “declared him to be the son of God with power by the resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1:3-4). The resurrection is what made Jesus Christ “the firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18).
I think the reason the apostles referred to Jesus Christ as “the only begotten son” when they spoke of him after the resurrection is because he had become the only man worthy of eternal life and the first to rise from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). In this sense, he was entitled to be the “heir” of all things that belonged to God the Father (Galatians 4:1-2; Hebrews 1:3-4) in “the world to come” (Hebrews 2:5). The rest of the “sons of God” were not going to be revealed until the Parousia (Romans 8:23).
Rivers,
So are you understanding “only-begotten” to mean uniquely-born?
For me, I understand it to be one-of-a-kind, i.e. God’s beloved. (Hebrews 11:17)
Hi Jonathan,
I don’t think the apostles understood MONOGENHS (only begotten, only child) to be referring to the birth of Jesus Christ (or Isaac) at all. The apostles understood MONOGENHS to be referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ in fulfillment of Psalm 2:7 (see Acts 13:33-34; Hebrews 1:5; John 1:18). Jesus was “declared to be the son of God with power by the resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1:3-4).
At the time the apostles were writing the Gospels and the letters, Jesus Christ was unique in that he was the only man “born of the spirit” (John 1:33; John 3:3-6) and having immortality (2 Timothy 1:10). That is what qualified him to be “the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18). All the other “sons of God” would not be “adopted” or “revealed” until the end of the age when they also attained immortality (Romans 8:11, 23).
With regard to Hebrews 11:17, Isaac was not a “one of a kind son” (since Abraham had other sons). Rather, he was MONOGENHS because he was the one chosen to be the heir of the promise (Hebrews 11:18; Romans 9:7).
Rivers,
Yeah, I don’t think that it has to do with his birth either. At the same time, I hadn’t put it together like that. I think that only-begotten can insinuate being the heir, but I think it has more to do with being beloved by God because of the context. For instance, in John 1:14, his glory is as an only-begotten, full of grace and truth. So to me, that’s saying to be only-begotten is him being full of grace and truth, or being unique in that way. I think that John 1:18, having followed John 1:17, could be either/or, but being that it’s him, only-begotten, having revealed the Father, then I think that it has more to do with him being beloved. Another example is John 3:16, where he’s depicted in light of Isaac whereas God is depicted like Abraham: Abraham gave up the only-begotten that he loved, and God gave up the only-begotten that He loved.
To me, it seems to fit better that way, although I believe and agree with everything else that you said.
When I said “one of a kind”, I meant unique. That’s why I brought up Hebrews 11:17 – I knew that Abraham first had Ishmael, so Isaac was not the firstborn in regards to being the first one born, and neither was he only-begotten meaning “the only one begotten”. Isaac was the son Abraham loved, and it’s not to say that Ishmael wasn’t loved, but I think what’s going on here is it’s like saying of Jesus to God and of Isaac to Abraham, they are their “special little guy” or however you might put it.
With Jesus, this is related to his obedience and all that was in him in fullness, I think, being that him being full of grace and truth is related to that which God loved about him, the prize being him raised from the dead and given the kingdom. This is how I think both that Jesus is made out to be both Lord and Christ upon his resurrection, but also how the apostle comes to that conclusion.
See what I mean?
Hi Jonathan,
I think our views are similar, but I would take the “glory” to be referring to the power that Jesus Christ manifested (John 2:11) which demonstrated that he was receiving “glorification” from God the Father (John 8:54). I’m not sure that “grace and truth” are the same as ” the glory” in John 1:14. It seems like “grace and truth” were associated more with his message (John 1:16-17; John 8:23; John 16:13; John 17:17).
If the “begotten” was specifically referring to the fulfillment of Psalms 2:7 on the day of his resurrection (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 5:5), then it could be that the “glory” was connected to the resurrection in the sense that the apostles understood (afterwards) that his miraculous power from God foreshadowed the ultimate glorification he would received when he was finally exalted (John 17:5; Philippians 2:9-11; Philippians 3:21).
On your last paragraph:
Perhaps then that the glory they beheld was the vision on the mountain, when Jesus was depicted as glorified.
As far as the glory goes, I think it’s connected to grace and truth in that Jesus was glorified for his fullness of grace and truth. We have that fullness because he laid down his life. The fullness of grace and truth was in him as a unique son, but as far as the glory of God while on the earth, I can also relate that to John 11:40 and such passages as those. I think that the glory of God there, or the glory of Jesus, are the things which God glories in doing, or which brings praise to Him.
So, I could see the glory as pertaining to the resurrection in that he was both glorified for his service and was resurrected, and also that it is the thing that he is praised for. After all, we see Jesus being worshiped in heaven for the reason that he laid down his life, and not for the reason that he is God, as those on the other side of the fence would try to assert.
I think that both the works he did on earth and his resurrection were a result of God being pleased with him, and so I could see them both as being considered his glory. So, that’s how I relate him being an only-begotten son back to the resurrection: not because of him being born and that’s why he’s called the only-begotten son, not anymore than because of his natural birth in Luke 1; but because God loves him, and it’s for this reason that He both brings him into the world and raises him from the dead, both puts works in his hands and then the whole world.
Hi Jonathan,
I’m skeptical about “the vision on the mountain” interpretation of “the glory” in John 1:14 simply because we don’t know who wrote the 4th Gospel and there were only three apostles present on the mountain to see the vision (Matthew 17:1-5).
I’m not sure I understand how you are defining “grace and truth” and relating it to “glory.” There seems to be more evidence that “the glory” was about miraculous power (John 2:11) and exaltation (John 17:5). It was also a physical characteristic of the resurrection body of Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:21). All these things would be characteristic of the resurrection itself.
I completely agree that Jesus Christ was worshipped on account of his exaltation and not because he was composed of a divine nature.
Maybe the difference we are seeing here is that you think of “glory” as sacrificial “obedience” whereas I see “glory” as the power. In other words, I don’t think Jesus was telling people to believe in him because of his moral “works” but because he had the power to “work” signs and wonders (John 6:28; John 9:3; John 14:11-12) which evidenced the heavenly origin of his ministry (John 3:1).
Hey Rivers,
I don’t think that the vision on the mountain was what John meant, but I was just being rhetorical.
As far as grace and truth in relation to glory, I am saying that he was glorified on account of His obedience, which was the outworking of truth in his inward parts. I was relating grace and truth more to him being God’s son, and not to the glory itself. I was saying however that he was glorified because of God’s love for him, and God was pleased with him because of his obedience, which was a result of what was in his heart. The kingdom and the glorification are given on account of a “job well done” I guess you could say — Jesus’ own parable of the talents.
As far as glory in general, I think of the glory of God as that which brings glory to God, and the glory of Jesus as that which brings glory to Jesus. What I mean is, Jesus being obedient is to the glory of God (Philippians 2:11); and Jesus doing miracles glorifies Jesus, being that he is approved of God, and glorified God Who sent him; and Jesus’ exaltation glorifies both God and Jesus. I think that that is a fulfillment of Zechariah 4:6, that it’s brought about by God’s Spirit.
I think we feel the same about the principal things, but I was just relating “grace and truth” in the sentence to “only-begotten son”. For me, the verse reads in this nuance:
“And we saw his glory as of an only-begotten son with a father, full of grace and truth.”
To me, it’s saying that being an only-begotten of a father is him being full of grace and truth, which is why those becoming sons receive of his fullness (of grace and truth — by the Spirit – John 3) and this is why it says right before that, “the Law came by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ”. The reason also why I relate the two is because in the prophecy, the very reason why he is a son to God is because God doesn’t take his love away from him, and the evidence in the prophecy is that God gives him the kingdom and set him over His house and kingdom forever. This of course can only happen if you live forever, but besides all that, we know that this was because God was pleased with him.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do think that this was after his resurrection. Also, I *DO* think that this “glory” spoken of in John 1:14 is his exaltation, the glory that he spoke of in John 17! I don’t think, as Trinitarians, that it means “the glory of being God that he was always displaying while being a human being”. I do think, as I think that you think, that it’s the glory of being at the Father’s right hand and being set over His house and kingdom forever, thus being a glory as of an only-begotten with a father.
All I meant was that I don’t think that he’s call God’s Son *because* he was raised from the dead, but he was called God’s Son because he was the Messiah, and the Messiah would be raised up by God for His love for him. I think that the resurrection and the giving of these things is a result of God’s love, so I think I am just removing those two things we both relate together by just one more step, that’s all.
So, in a nutshell, I think we basically believe the same thing, except I think the reason he is called God’s son is because God loves him, rather than because of the resurrection, which was a result of God loving him. (John 10:17) I think that this is the reason that God announces that Jesus is His beloved son when he is anointed, and why this happens when Jesus, though having not sinned, submits to a baptism (foreshadowing his baptism of death) and says, “we must fulfill all righteousness”.
According to James 1:18, the begotten Christians are a kind of first fruits of God’s creatures.
This shows that Colossians 1:15 cannot refer to Christ as the only begotten, the firstborn of every creature through the resurrection.
James 1:18 ( KJV)
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Colossians 1:15 (KJV)
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
Colossians 1:18 is clearly about the resurrection but Colossians 1:15 has its own context and it does not refer to the resurrection but rather, it does refer to the proto-logical role of the Son.
“A text without a context is a pretext.”
To James 1:18:
1 Corinthians 15:20,
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.
Boom! There goes that theory. 😉
A text without a context is just a pretext.
RESURRECTION
The context of 1 Corinthians 15:20 and Colossians 1:18 is about the resurrection.It’s about Christ being the first one to be immortalized. Other dead saints will be immortalized too and it will happen in the second coming (1 Corinthians 15:42).
1 Corinthians 15:20 (KJV)
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept (i.e. dead creatures).
Colossians 1:18 (KJV)
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead (creatures); that in all things he might have the preeminence.
PREEMINENCE
James 1:18 ( KJV)
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his (living) creatures.
James 1:18 is not about the resurrection because if it is, then, it would contradict 1 Corinthians 15:20. Rather, it is about the sonship of the followers of Christ. The first century disciples of Christ were all made up the infant church.They were the pioneers, so to speak.
Colossians 1:15 (KJV)
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every (living) creature.
Colossians 1:15 is not about the resurrection because its context is about the protological role of Christ as the agent of the original creation ( verse 16). The fact is that verse 16 cannot refer to the new creation because only humans and not angels will be saved.”For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham”(Hebrews 2:16 NASB).
Because you were replying to Rivers (I think), it looked like you were saying Jesus was not firstborn from among the dead at all, but only firstborn in the sense of being heir. However, we can see it demonstrated that it is through his resurrection that he becomes firstborn, both in the one way and then the other.
Jonathan,
I agree that both “firstborn” and “heir” go together. Paul said that Jesus Christ became “the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18) and then we see that he also was “appointed heir of all things” after the resurrection (Hebrews 1:2-4).
Although He was a Son, He “learned” (what?) “obedience” (to obey) from the things which He SUFFERED. ~ Hebrews 5:8
Jesus , in his pre-incarnate state , obeys the Father ( but without any experience of suffering for God is impassible). It’s only in the incarnate state wherein Jesus experienced to obey with suffering. The way he lived on earth to obey his Father is an “experiential learning” because as God, Jesus never knew how it is to obey with suffering. In fact, even God the Father does not know what is suffering — by experience!
The glory of God is the character of his very essence.God is light by His very nature ( 1 John 1:5).These are realities in God’s very being as holy.
The Seraphs in heaven cries out daily thrice Holy to God who is full of glory ( Isaiah 6:1-3).Jesus Christ radiates God’s own glory ( Hebrews 1:3).
Micah 5:2 is telling us that the Messiah is “from everlasting” the same the LORD God of Israel is (Psalm 90:2 + Micah 5:2 Hebrew, LXX , KJV ).
The love of God for Jesus is love that has no ending or beginning or as John puts it ” before the foundation of the world” (John 5:20 + John 10:17 +John 17:24).This kind of love exists because God is a social being ( Genesis 1:26-37 + Genesis 2:18).
Rose,
Don’t you think you’re going a little over the edge with your extrapolation of Hebrews 5:8? What does it follow? Hebrews 5:7. What does that say? That Jesus begged not to die (as we see in the Gospel accounts), and he got eternal life because of his obedience. The obedience that Jesus learned is to give his all — his entire life for the love of God. Yeah, you know, maybe it could theoretically work, what you’re saying; that doesn’t mean it’s what the author is either talking about or even hinting at. As such, what you said is not convincing.
About 1 John 1:5 as related to God’s “very nature”:
If that’s the case, then certainly us being “partakers of the divine nature” makes us truly become filled with God’s nature — if you see it in the way you want to take it. I just want us to be consistent, that’s all. Jesus is the true light from the Father, God the Father is light, and we are lights. The Father is the father of lights, and we are His offspring. But what is that light? The light is the life of men. We could go on, but the point is that if we want to make Jesus’ glory mean he’s God, we have some other things to deal with in regards to us also being glorified together with him in order to maintain consistency.
In Hebrews 1:3, the being the radiance of God’s glory is very specific in the context, and it has to do with revealing God, speaking God’s word. God’s glory is what He glories in. If it’s actual, literal light, then Jesus would have had to be made of light, and he wasn’t. He was in the vision lightened up before them, glorified when Moses and Elijah told him that he must die. However, the glory of God is that which God does, which adds to His renown. The renown or credit is the glory, e.g., “I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images”.
Examples:
-Proverbs 25:2
-John 11:4
-Romans 3:23
-Romans 4:20
-1 Corinthians 10:31
-1 Corinthians 11:7
-Philippians 2:11
This is why Paul said, “for God Who said, ‘let light shine out of darkness’ has caused His light to shine in our hearts to reveal the glory of God in the face (or person) of Jesus Christ”. Yes, so we see the Father by Jesus, but this is nothing new. Since Jesus did and said all that the Father commanded him, he was the master of glory. Jesus even says that God glorifies Jesus because He Himself is glorified in doing so. Every good and perfect gift comes down from above.
The one encircled in Isaiah 6 is shown to be the Father in Revelation 1:4 and 4:8 (and other relevant passages). Again, this shows that Jesus radiates the Father’s glory in this passage, not his own glory “as God”, or however it might be said, which is what seems to be insinuated, correct me if I’m wrong.
Micah 5:2 does not say that the Messiah is from everlasting. That’s a common misrepresentation. It says that there is one who will “come forth to rule” from Bethlehem, one whose “goings forth” are from everlasting. The “goings forth” are not the origins, but the goings forth to rule. It’s right there in the context. 1 Peter 1:20 echoes the proper interpretation.
The love in John 17:24 is what rewards Jesus with the glory Jesus talks about in John 17:5. This glory is in John 17:1,2, which is granting Jesus authority over all nations. This is the prize for him laying down his life, and so this love is God’s being pleased with Jesus. This is exactly 1:1 congruent with the prophecy of 1 Chronicles 17. This is also precisely what’s being spoken of in Micah 5:2, which is God’s ordination, and not the Messiah’s “personal existence”.
Don’t we have grace because God loved us? (John 3:16) So, if that’s the case, then how do we have grace in Jesus Christ before the world began, if indeed God did not love us before the world began? (2 Timothy 1:9) It seems consistent with 1 Corinthians 2:7.
Now, you said that this kind of love (an eternal kind of love) exists because God is a social being. That sounds a little circular, but I don’t want to go into it, because it seems far from what the Bible is conveying.
God bless!
@Sean,
Be reminded that a text without a context is a pretext.
Galatians 4:1-8 (NIV)
What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when WE ( disciples of Jesus not Jesus himself) were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son ( Jesus ), born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons( by adoption v. 5), God sent THE SPIRIT OF HIS SON into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who BY NATURE ARE NOT GODS.
Galatians 4:1-8 shows that Christians and Christ are different. The former as sons by adoption while Jesus is son by nature ( sent by God , has an innate Holy Spirit) .The text even speaks of deities who weren’t gods by nature.Clearly, the concept of essence and nature is evident in the first century N.T. church.
FYI, Jesus is sitting on His Father’s throne because he inherited the Tetragrammaton ( Philippians 2:9 + Hebrews 1:4) as well as because he was highly exalted by God his own Father (Philippians 2:9 + Hebrews 7:26). All of these are natural consequences of His humility not something merited as a reward (Matthew 23:12 + Philippians 2:6-7,9).
The new creatures were such by grace through faith ( Ephesians 2:8-9). It is their faith which overcomes that is why they sit on then throne ( 1 John 5:4;Revelation 3:21).
How would you explain that Jesus calling God His own Father makes him equal with God? What kind of equality does a son have with his father? Is it nature or function? essence or authority?
Rose Brown,
Jesus in John 5:18 was making himself equal to “a god” (or equal to God functionally, but making himself a “god”, as in John 10). Not only does the language permit it, but it goes along with what he also says in John 10.
Reality: the Jews only knew what they were told, much like everyone else. Unless the Jews were told this, they didn’t “know” anything.
Now, Jesus then explains in response that a son only does what his father tells him, and can only do what his father shows him. So, Jesus is saying that he’s God’s son because he does what God shows him, i.e. whatever God tells him to do. This also agrees with John 10, where Jesus was making himself “a god” by saying he can keep the sheep (which is judgment by His word, read all of John), doing something that the Father does. So, since Jesus is consistently claiming that he only does what God shows him to do (or that God does the works in him), it only makes sense that he is saying that he is like God, from God, and “coming down” from God. In the same way, the Jews retaliate angrily saying that God is their only father. Yet, Jesus tells them that their father is the devil for the reason that they do the works of the devil. Jesus said that they would love him if God was their father, since he came from God. The Apostles, however, loved Jesus, and Jesus said to them, “you have one Father: God”.
Since “god”s are those like God, doing the things of God, then it’s no surprise that the judges and angels are called both “gods” and “sons of God”. Jesus makes this defense in John 10, asking, if he is sanctified and sent by the Father, is it wrong for him to say that he’s God’s son?
In John 10, citing the Psalm, Jesus is like the Father in judgment. In John 5, on towards verse 30, Jesus explains the same thing going on.
See? So, it’s function and authority. Where does “essence” fit in, unless that essence itself is the function and authority?
How could a creature be equal to God functionally?
God cannot make a creature a God like Him.No one is like the LORD among the gods. Get it?
Here’s the Scripture:
“Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?” Exodus 15:11 (ESV)
Whoever possesses divine function in all its actuality, then, by very implication, is God in all his essential disposition.
Angels, Prophets ,and the Apostles can be given ‘ability’ to do what God can do through the ‘activity’ of the Holy Spirit in them but Jesus can do what God can do through the ‘authority’ of God the Father by all the fullness of the Godhead (i.e. innate nature of God) that dwells in Jesus Christ bodily.
Functional Subordination not ontological subordination is the subordination within the Trinity.
“Who is like you…doing wonders?”
Yeah, I’m still waiting to see someone who does wonders like God. Any wonders that any man does, like Peter or Paul (JESUS INCLUDED) accredit such things to God.
You talk about authority as though that were an essential attribute. It’s not, trust me. I have been raised in authority before, and that didn’t make me a superior being to my former contemporaries.
In Jeremiah, God says that He can do whatever He wants with any of the creation for the very reason that He created it. Jesus, however, has authority because the Father, Who said that He gives it to anyone He wishes (this is “YHWH” in the Old Testament speaking here) gave it to Jesus, His beloved son.
Actually, you said angels, prophets, and apostles can be given the ability through the activity of the Holy Spirit. What do you think gave Jesus the ability? Any works of power from before Jesus was anointed? I think not. Furthermore, Jesus claims in Luke 4 that it’s because of the Spirit of the LORD upon him that he preaches the Gospel, citing Isaiah. To compare with that, John 3 says that Jesus speaks all the words of God (the Gospel) because He gives the Spirit without limit. Concerning the works again, in Acts, Peter says that he went around doing good because “God was with him”.
One person recently posted in reply to me somewhere else that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Jesus. Great, so the very point they tried to use to prove Jesus is God proves that he’s not, since there is no authority that Jesus was not given. See how that works? Because it was given to him, that subtracts Jesus from that equation. An example of this is when Jesus told the man his sins were forgiven, then proved it by healing him. Then they “praised God Who had given such authority to men”.
Lastly, if the ??????? (fullness) of Godhead in Colossians 2:9 is “innate nature of God”, then what are believers ???????????? (filled) with in Colossians 2:10?
Only literal sons have the nature of their fathers. God didn’t literally give birth to a literal son. “Son,” when used of Jesus was synonymous with “Messiah,” and “Messiah” doesn’t connote ontological equality with God.
I would recommend that you spend more time studying Jewish culture from a historical perspective, and put down the writings of the pop-apologists. They’re not helping you. They’re leaving you with scratches on your record, making it impossible for your to sing a complete song in tune.
One thing that you’ll come to realize by taking a historical approach is that for a man to respond to the charges at John 5 by saying “the Son can do nothing by himself” was essentially to say “I don’t claim to be equal with God.” That’s how a 1st century Jew would have understood his reply. That’s why Jesus’ opponents weren’t able to fulfill their designs against him in John 5, because Jesus’ answer in the subsequent verses refuted their charge and left them gnashing their stymied teeth
In Jewish Culture, one’s genealogy is obviously about heredity. It is specifically in relation to a father to his son:
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; Matthew 1:2 (KJV)
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (NASB)
who being the effulgence of his glory, and **the very image of his substance**, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Hebrews 1:3 (ASV)
Christ is begotten from God the Father. To beget is to produce someone to have one’s nature.The begetter is eternal that is why he who is begotten is eternal. The same way with us humans, a human begetter is not eternal that is why the begotten offspring is not eternal.
Consider John 5:26, it says that the Father gave the Son the very same life he has ( “life-in-himself”). This giving is not as if I gave a plate of pasta to you or that I handed over a book to you. It is clear from the context of the text that what is meant here is “begetting” because a father who gives the same kind of life he has to his offspring is ,by very definition , a begetting.
A human father gives life to his offspring by begetting. A father begets while a mother conceives and gives birth to an offspring.
That is a reason why throughout John 5, Jesus is functionally equal with His own Father, it is because of their ontological oneness ( verses 18 & 26). Notice that Jesus and the Father works simultaneously (verse 17) and that whatever the Father does the Son also does likewise ( verse 19) .The fact that he is not equal (subordinate) to the Father in authority is shown in His words ” I myself can do nothing of my own accord.”
The fact is that Jesus can only do what His Father can do ( verse 19) shows that Jesus is omnipotent because whatever the Father can do all things.
Rose,
The word EGENTO (translated “became”) in John 1:14 does not mean “born” and is not the word used in the genealogies to refer to anyone’s birth. The word used for “born” in biblical Greek is the verb GENNAW.
John 1:14 is talking about the time when Jesus Christ “came” (EGENETO) to dwell among his disciples (as a man of flesh, 1 John 1:1-2) in the same way that John the baptizer “came” (EGENETO) as a “man” preaching the gospel to the people (John 1:6).
EGENTO means that something “happened” or was “realized” (John 1:17) It does not mean that someone is “born.”
The Greek word EGENETO can also denote ” to come into existence.”
John 1:3 uses EGENETO. It says that nothing has come into existence apart from the LOGOS. It is through/by means of the LOGOS that all things has come into existence.
This is the sense in John 1:14 that is why all translations in English reads “became” not “came.”
Rose,
EGENETO does not mean “came into existence” in John 1:3.
EGENETO means that the “all things” about what God the Father was doing (John 4:26; John 5:20; John 15:15) were “realized” (EGENETO, John 1:17) through the the word (LOGOS) that was spoken by Jesus Christ (John 2:22; John 5:24; John 14:14; John 17:14).
John 1:3 is speaking of the time of the public ministry of Jesus Christ when he “explained” the unseen God the Father to the people (John 1:18) and grace and truth were “realized” (EGENETO, John 1:17) through his ministry.
John wasn’t “realized” in John 1:6. Isn’t it?
Your theology is very strange. Weird at its best.
I have yet to read a translation which reads REALIZED in John 1:3
Hi Rose,
The verb GINOMAI is translated a half dozen different ways just in the Prologue. The only point I was making is that “came into existence” (EGENETO) in John 1:3 is not a good (or necessary) translation based upon how the writer used the word elsewhere.
In John 1:6, he used EGENETO to refer to the appearing of John the baptizer to testify about Jesus Christ and in John 1:17 he used it to speak of “grace and truth” being “realized” through the ministry of Jesus.
None of the uses of GINOMA in the 4th Gospel require that the subject “came into existence” during the time of Genesis. The verb was simply used to express the idea that something “happens” or “takes place.” That is why it is not translated “create.”
As I’ve said before, only God can convert a Trinitarian.
Jesus calling God His own Father makes Him equal with God ( John 5:18). The only equality that Jesus and God have in terms of equality is ontology ( nature) because the relation of Jesus to God is as a true son to his own father.
The fact is that the equality here cannot be functional due to the fact that no sons are above their fathers but under their fathers ( John 10:29;John 14:28).
Colossians 1:18 is referring to the resurrection but John 1:1-3 is referring to the reality before time began.
BE EXALTED ABOVE THE HEAVENS, O GOD; Psalm 57:5 (NASB)
For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled,
separated from sinners and EXALTED ABOVE
THE HEAVENS; Hebrews 7:26 (NASB)
It’s not merely a unity of intent and purpose, it’s not merely a unity of mind. The unity of the Father and the Son in the immediate context of John 10:30 shows the ability of the Son to give life and to preserve that life in the sheep of him and his Father by their hands. They have one powerful hand.
The Jews of the day knew that only YHWH has the attributes of giving life and only YHWH has a powerful hand.
There is no god besides me…who gives life…my hand.
~ Deuteronomy 32:39 (LXX)
The point here is that John 10:28-30 speaks of both the Father and the Son having the same hand. Only God has God’s hands
Jesus said: I give them eternal life…my hand…my Father’s hand….I and my Father are one.
~ John 10:28-30
Hi Rose
I think it was Erasmus who exposed the fraudulent insertion of what came to be called 1 John 5v7 in the King James Version – this has now been removed in most modern bibles.
What was once 1 John 5v8 is now 1 John 5v7 .
At one time the fraudulent insertion was hailed as the only scripture which directly referred to a trinity.
Please look up the KJV Bible verse -then go to the’ Scripture4all site’ in the internet…access it by Googling ‘Greek Interlinear Bible”
You will note the duplicitous selective translation of ‘one’.
But we expect this when it comes to the Trinity.!
Best Wishes
John
About 1 John 5:7, of coarse, anyone who brings up that verse in defense of the Trinity, gives themself away almost right away.
As for Hen, I don’t know if it’s that simple that we can say it means “one in purpose” all the time, I mean it’s a very generic Word, it means literally the number one, the same With Heis.
I think it’s Dangerous to try and define very common Words narrowly and thus try and make arugments from them, Language simply isn’t used that way.
Hi Roman
I accept what you say about words which have multiple meanings -one has always to consider context.
The ‘closest’ verse to John 10v30 is “That you and I may be one just as I and the Father are one” (hen) John 17 v 22.
Is Christ calling his audience God?
We all tend to see what we want to see – as any illusionist will tell one..Trinitarians tend to do so more than others.!!
Blessings
John
Oh, I completely agree, the trinitarian exegesis doesn’t work at all for John 10:30 or John 17:22.
@Roman,
FACT #1
What is the oneness of the believers with the Father and the Son in John 17?
According to the immediate context, the oneness of the believers with the Father and the Son is the oneness in terms of love.
What is the oneness of the believers with the Father and the Son in John 17?
According to the immediate context, the oneness of the believers with the Father and the Son is the oneness in terms of love.
John 17:11,22-24 11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they MAY BE ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE…
22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may BE ONE EVEN AS WE ARE ONE, 23I IN THEM AND YOU IN ME, that they may BECOME PERFECTLY ONE, so that the world may know that you sent me and LOVED THEM EVEN AS YOU LOVED ME. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because YOU LOVED ME before the foundation of the world.
Even the greater context shows that the mutual indwelling is based on love and not on nature.
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and HE THAT DWELLETH IN LOVE DWELLETH IN GOD, AND GOD IN HIM. 1 John 4:16
Jesus answered him, “IF ANYONE LOVES ME, he will keep my word, and MY FATHER WILL LOVE HIM, AND WE WILL COME TO HIM AND MAKE OUR HOME WITH HIM.” John 14:23
FACT # 2
Jesus did not say verbatim that he’s God’s Son in the moment before his accusation of blasphemy ( John 10:28-33). Rather, what he’d said earlier that made the Jews accused Him of blasphemy is simply these:
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all;no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus claimed to be God in an ontological sense. The Jews understood Jesus’ words in John 10:28-30 which are undoubtedly alluding to Deuteronomy 32:39.
According to Deuteronomy 32:39, the LORD is claiming that he alone is the God who gives life and has a powerful hand.
Jesus’ words in John 10:28-30 would ensue an only natural response to the Jews and that’s to verdict him with a blasphemy of the highest order.
Notice that the reaction of the Jews to Jesus’ words was so clear. The Jews said “HOTI HO ANTHROPON ON POEIS SEAUTON THEON” (“because you, being a human, makes yourself God”). The phrase HO ANTHROPON shows that the Jews did know that Jesus wasn’t claiming to be ‘a god’ but rather, they knew that Jesus was claiming to be God in the strictest sense of the word. What this means is that the Jews did not understand Jesus’ words in John 10:28-30 as “appointing himself with divine authority” but rather, Jesus’ words in John 10:28-30 could only mean one thing: Jesus is claiming to be God ontologically the same way his Father is.
Jesus used Psalm 82 in his defense because he’s trying to point out that if mere mortals can be called QEOS , then, how much more is he who is in very nature, God?
Jesus said,” I give them eternal life…my hand…my Father’s hand…I and my Father are one ” ( John 10:28-30). The oneness of the Father and the Son in the context is in terms of ability and hence, of ontology (nature) not of function.
Your ability is the reason you function.
On the other hand, function is what you do.
Psalm 82 tells us about the LORD God judging the ‘gods’ –rulers– (i.e. people with divine authority) among God’s people.In verse 6, God himself said that the rulers are gods (by title not by nature) and his sons (by title not by nature) but nevertheless, they are mere mortals ( because they weren’t by nature gods).
Psalm 82
God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I SAID, ‘YOU ARE “GODS”;
YOU AREALL SONS OF THE MOST HIGH.’
7 BUT YOU WILL DIE LIKE MERE MORTALS;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
FACT # 3
Remember that a text without a context is a pretext!
Do you not believe that (((I am in the Father))) and [[the Father is in me]]? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but [[the Father who dwells in me does his works.]] John 14:10 (ESV)
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, [[the Son can do nothing of his own accord]],but (((only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise))).John 5:19
[[The Father dwelling in Jesus does the work of the Father.]]
(((The Son dwelling in the Father does the work of the Son.)))
Just a minor point:
“The Jews said “HOTI HO ANTHROPON ON POEIS SEAUTON THEON” (“because you, being a human, makes yourself God”). The phrase HO ANTHROPON shows that the Jews did know that Jesus wasn’t claiming to be ‘a god’ but rather, they knew that Jesus was claiming to be God in the strictest sense of the word”
HO ANTROPOS is not in the text. If anything note the parallelism that arises between a man and a god.
hOTI SY ANQRWPOS WN POIEIS SEAUTON QEON
For you, although being a man
Make yourself a god
You need to establish why you see QEOS as definite here, especially in light of Jesus QEOI-defense.
QEOS is definite in John 10:33 because the immediate context shows that Jesus wasn’t claiming to be ‘a god’ but rather, he was claiming to be ‘God’ in the strictest sense of the word.
Begging the question
brb shabbat
Definitely not. If QEOS is definite there then Jesus offers a non sequitur. See:
http://kazesland.blogspot.com/2012/06/charge-against-jesus-at-john-1031.html
Sean Garrigan
In Psalm 82 YHWH isn’t in the category of the mortals who functions as ‘gods.’ The reason is that the inclusion of YHWH in the ‘great assembly of gods’ would show Polytheism. The exclusion of YHWH in that category shows his transcendence and unique nature that no one in that council share.
Jesus was using Psalm 82 to prove his case against the accusation of the Jews that he blasphemes by claiming to be God in an ontological sense.This is evident in the words of Jesus in John 10:28-30 which alludes Deuteronomy 32:39.
Based on the immediate contexts of both texts (i.e. Psalm 82 & John 10:28-39), the paradigm to follow are shown below:
Psalm 82
YHWH = nature: very God
Humans = function: gods
John 10:28-39
Jesus = nature: very God
Jews = function: gods
Take note that there is an overlap because Jesus claimed two things:
1) Ontological equality with the Father – John 10:28-30 ( Deuteronomy 32:29)
2) Functional subordination with the Father – John 10:34-36 ( Psalm 82:6).
Both claims have an Old Testament Scripture backround.
and yes, there are two categories here as there are two claims side by side each both in context.
1) category of divine nature –> John 10:28-30 + Deuteronomy 32:39
2) category of divine function –> John 10:34-36 + Psalm 82:6
Therefore, the paradigm to follow in John 10:28-30 would be:
Jesus = function and nature: very God
Jews = function: gods
Sorry, Rose, but that just doesn’t make sense in light of the flow of the dialogue, which I discussed, but which you failed to address.
I’ll simply recommend that you re-read the argument on my blog and, as hard as it may be for you, try to keep an open mind and think about what’s being argued. Your view simply isn’t possible in light of Jesus’ response.
~Sean
It’s not merely a unity of intent and purpose, it’s not merely a unity of mind. The unity of the Father and the Son in the immediate context of John 10:30 shows the ability of the Son to give life and to preserve that life in the sheep of him and his Father by their hands. They have one powerful hand.
The Jews of the day knew that only YHWH has the attributes of giving life and only YHWH has a powerful hand.
There is no god besides me…who gives life…my hand.
~ Deuteronomy 32:39 (LXX)
Jesus said: I give them eternal life…my hand…my Father’s hand….I and my Father are one.
~ John 10:28-30
Do you believe this?
Rose,
I would suggest that you set aside the pop-Trinitarian apologetic writings that you’ve apparently been reading and expand your research a bit, because many if not most conservative and liberal theologians would disagree with your impossible interpretation of John 10.
“most commentators understand the saying of the Johannine Jesus as
referring to the unity of action between Father and Son.” (James F. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology), p. 119, ftn. 11.
“An ambassador whose demands were contested might quite naturally say: `I and my sovereign are one’; not meaning thereby to claim royal dignity, but only to assert that what he did his sovereign did, that his signature carried his sovereign’s guarantee, and that his pledges would be fulfilled by all the resources of his sovereign. So here, as God’s representative, Jesus introduces the Father’s power as the final guarantee, and claims that in this respect He and the Father are one.” (Marcus Dods, D.D., The Gospel of St. John, from The Expositor’s Greek Testament), p. 793,794
“One translates the Greek neuter hen. This verse was much quoted in the Aryan [sic] controversy by the orthodox in support of the doctrine that Christ was of one substance with the Father. The expression seems however mainly to imply that the Father and the Son are united in will and purpose. Jesus prays in xvii. II that His followers may all be one (hen), i.e. united in purpose, as He and His Father are united.” (R.V.G. Tasker, John, part of the Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series), p. 136.
“Jesus’ reply is so typical a piece of Jewish argumentation that it rings with authenticity. He directs them to Ps. 82:6, and his argument is: If Scripture (which you will not question) calls men commissioned by God to act for him ‘gods’, one whom the Father has made his consecrated ambassador to the world can hardly be accused of blasphemy for calling himself ‘God’s son’. If human leaders have been called gods, how much more may one greater than they make a lesser claim? to be not God but God’s son.” (A.M. Hunter, The Gospel According to John, from the series, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible), pp. 107,108
“The people’s rulers were regarded as the representatives of God Himself; so of the King (Ps. 45:6 and cf. Exod. 4:16). The argument may be paraphrased thus: If those who were consecrated to their office by the saying of God which I have quoted (or perhaps more generally, If those who in the past have been the organs of the divine word) where actually called ‘gods’ ?and they must have been so called, for Scripture says so ?surely the consecrated ambassador of the Father may without blasphemy call himself ‘God’s Son.’ (G.H.C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John, part of the series, The Moffatt New Testament Commentary), pp. 241-243
“When Jesus said: “I and the Father are one,” he was not moving in the world of philosophy and metaphysics and abstractions; he was moving in the world of personal relationships. No one can really understand what a phrase like “a unity of essence” means; but any one can understand what a unity of heart means. Jesus’ unity with God came from the twin facts of perfect love and perfect obedience. He was one with God because he loved and obeyed him perfectly; and he came to this world to make us what he is…
…Jesus claimed two things for himself. (a) He was consecrated by God to a special task. (b) He said that God had despatched him into the world. The word used is the one which would be used for sending a messenger or an ambassador or an army. So Jesus said: ‘In the old days it was possible for scripture to speak of judges as gods, because they were commissioned by God to bring his truth and justice into the world. Now I have been set apart for a special task; I have been despatched into the world by God; how can you then object if I call myself the Son of God? I am only doing what scripture does.” (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible, found on The Bible Library CD-ROM, ad. loc. cit.)
~Sean
I am still not sure that claiming to be God’s son is a lesser claim than being a god. It seems more natural to me that John uses the two terms synonymously as they are in Psalm 82:6
I think that would depend on what one means by ‘god’ in this context. Jesus’ claim to be God’s Son was a claim to be the Messiah, and as such he would only be “a god” in a functional sense. The crucial point, however, isn’t whether this is an example of arguing from the greater to the lesser or from the lesser to the greater. Rather, the heart of the matter is that Jesus was “only doing what Scripture does” (Barclay), and Scripture did not represent the gods of Ps. 82 as equals or as rivals to YHWH, but as those commissioned to carry out God’s will.
Sean, trying to discuss Biblical matter with Rose Brown is a hopeless case. It is as good as having a discussion with a prerecorded CD. It is impossible simply because with lady does not value either logic or evidence. Lost case.
Jaco,
I think she has difficulty recognizing the assumptions that underlie her conclusions about the Trinity doctrine and understanding why it is necessary to establish those assumptions. This makes it very challenging to try to engage her argumentation beyond a Sunday School level.
Hey Jaco,
For many years now I’ve considered trinitarianism to be inherently circular, and this intuition was given greater clarity when I began studying presuppositional apologetics (e.g. Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame).
Greg Bahnsen, who was a student of Cornelius Van Til and a proponent of Van Til’s presuppositional approach to apologetics, would ask the atheist how the uniformity of nature and inductive principle comport with the atheistic worldview. His contention was that things like the rules of logic, the inductive principle, the uniformity of nature, math, science, etc., don’t make any sense in a worldview which holds that there is no god but only “matter in mindless motion.” For the presuppositionalist, the coup de grace to atheism is that without God you couldn’t prove anything at all, because there would be no reason to expect nature to be uniform, or for the rules of logic to be real, etc. We couldn’t even trust our own minds in an athiest’s universe. Reasoning itself only make sense if God exists.
That argument (the Transcendental Argument for God, or “TAG”) can be quite compelling. However, something un-compelling but very similar seems to go on in the minds of Trinitarian apologists (albeit subconsciously). The problem is that their Christology is presuppositional in nature, but they don’t realize it. This makes discussions with our Trinitarian friends challenging, because they believe that their approach is like that of a William Lane Craig when they’re really Christological Van Till-ians in disguise.
This, I believe, is why these arguments over what this or that text may be saying are always fruitless. Jesus’ begotten-ness, his sonship, his kingship, his authority, his priesthood, his miracles, his status as savior, his death, resurrection, and exaltation, etc, don’t make sense to a Trinitarian apart from the Trinitarian worldview. The nature of the belief makes it impossible for them to accept an alternative view of Christ, possibly from even understanding it at all.
I should add that non-Trinitarians seem to suffer from similar interpretation-shaping and blind-spot-inducing presuppositions, and so conversations between members of these groups can be equally frustrating. Indeed, in my experience conversations between non-Trinitarians can sometimes be even more frustrating, because we enter them with a certain expectation of common ground, but end up engaging in a dialogue that is no less stymied in the end. If it weren’t for the grace of God all would be blind!
It’s not merely a unity of intent and purpose, it’s not merely a unity of mind. The unity of the Father and the Son in the immediate context of John 10:30 shows the ability of the Son to give life and to preserve that life in the sheep of him and his Father by their hands. They have one powerful hand.
The Jews of the day knew that only YHWH has the attributes of giving life and only YHWH has a powerful hand.
There is no god besides me…who gives life…my hand.
~ Deuteronomy 32:39 (LXX)
Jesus said: I give them eternal life…my hand…my Father’s hand….I and my Father are one.
~ John 10:28-30
I’m sorry, these are not scriptural categories that you can just parse up however you want.
Polytheism and monotheism and henotheosm are also not biblical terms.
Jesus DOES NOT allude to Deuteronomy 32:39, and it’s Clear in the Language. He clearly quotes Pslams 82 though, and at no point does he ever make any hint of an argument having to do With distinction between function/nature or title or whatever, the argument has nothing to do With that.
John 10, argues NO such thing With functional and ontological Things, Jesus ALWAYS subordinates himself to the father in John, why are they in his hands? Because God gives them to him, why does he say what he says? Because God told him, why does he do wonderful Works? Because the father Works through him.
I’m sorry there simply is no distinction being made, if there was a distinction being made it would have said so, and no Jesus was not claiming to be God by “nature,” that wasn’t even a part of any argument, he went straight to his Works claiming that it showed he was “from God” and did the Works of his father.
It’s not merely a unity of intent and purpose, it’s not merely a unity of mind.
I don’t think so.
The unity of the Father and the Son in the immediate context of John 10:30 shows the ability of the Son to give life and to preserve that life in the sheep of him and his Father by their hands. They have one powerful hand.
The Jews of the day knew that only YHWH has the attributes of giving life and only YHWH has a powerful hand.
There is no god besides me…who gives life…my hand.
~ Deuteronomy 32:39 (LXX)
The point here is that John 10:28-30 speaks of both the Father and the Son having the same hand. Only God has God’s hands!
Jesus said: I give them eternal life…my hand…my Father’s hand….I and my Father are one.
~ John 10:28-30
I think your album has a scratch on it.
WIth John 17, Just because love and oneness are talked about in the same narrative, doesn’t mean that the former is defining the latter. Look at the scripture, Jesus is asking God that the apostles be one just as him and the father are one so that the world will know that Jesus was sent by god and loved him. That doesn’t mean that the “oneness” is defined by that love.
But if we’re going to talk about context, lets look at John 10.
No one can snatch the sheep out of Jesus’ hand, he gives them eternal life … why? Because it’s actually the FATHER who has given the sheep to him, and no one can snatch it out of the Fathers hand (since he’s God), and God has sent Jesus, and thus he and the father are One …
What’s the Clear Logic here? Its the same Logic used all throughout John, Jesus is sent by God, everything he does is from God, everything he says is from God, God loves him and he loves God, the Logic is my desciples are given to me by God, thus you are safe, becuase I do the Works of the father, me and the father are one.
This is the Logic of John 17, John 14, and it fits perfectly With John 10.
Now you go to Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, even I, am he;
there is no god besides me.
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
and no one can deliver from my hand.
There is NO Connection to John 10, none at all, God is saying in Deuteronomy, that no one can save from Gods wrath or his descision, there is absolutely 0 Connection.
Deuteronomy uses eXeleitai (delivered) in the LXX, John uses arpasei (snatch), had John been making Reference to Deuteronomy 32:39, he would have used the same wording.
I don’t know why you think the Jewish opponants in John 10 have a good case? All throughout John Jesus’ Jewish opponants get it wrong, they dont’ understand Jesus, they take Things too literally, they don’t get the point, yet here they understand all the subtleties according to you … why?
I mean just in verse 6 it says
“6 Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.”
It is NOT same function, Jesus’ desciples are safe in his hands BECAUSE it is God who has given them to him.
This sort of trinitarian argument is just terrible exegesis, in Hebrews it says that Moses delivered the Israelites from Egypt, in the Old Testament countless times it says Yahweh delivered the Israelites form Egypt … can you then say “aha, this means Moses is Yahweh” … NO, of coarse not, Moses was used by God to do God’s purpose. That’s Jesus’s point. THey are safe in his hand, they get life through him, because ultimately it was the father who gave them to him, it’s Not Jesus in his own strength, it’s the father.
Now, had the opponants been correct, he would now have responded the way he did.
You seem to be making a distinction between those who are called “gods” by title and by nature, but Jesus NEVER said anything Close to that, he never said anything about “nature” vrs “title” had he wanted to say that he could have said that, what he did say is this.
“Is it not written in your law,[d] ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand[e] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
He made no distinction between title and nature, they were called gods, I am sanctified and I do God’s will, and I Call myself God’s son, instead of focusing on what I Call myself, look at my Works.
The Language in John 10, is the same as John 17, and the concepts are the same in 14, so there is no reason to think that the ideas expressed in John 10 are completely different, the oneness in 17 is shared With the apostles, and the Reader of John would automatically think of the times Jesus is said to be one With the father, which is CLEARLY not ontological oneness, but rather one in purpose and will.
It’s not merely a unity of intent and purpose, it’s not merely a unity of mind. The unity of the Father and the Son in the immediate context of John 10:30 shows the ability of the Son to give life and to preserve that life in the sheep of him and his Father by their hands. They have one powerful hand.
The Jews of the day knew that only YHWH has the attributes of giving life and only YHWH has a powerful hand.
There is no god besides me…who gives life…my hand.
~ Deuteronomy 32:39 (LXX)
The point here is that John 10:28-30 speaks of both the Father and the Son having the same hand. Only God has God’s hands.Duh!
Jesus said: I give them eternal life…my hand…my Father’s hand….I and my Father are one.
~ John 10:28-30
2 little Things,
I think the formula of
1. The Father is God
2. The son is God
3 The Father is not the Son
Isn’t necessarily self-contradictory depending on how you define “God” or how you use that Word, so for example,
1. Agesipolis III was king of Sparta from 219-210 BCE
2. Lycurgus was was king of Sparta from 219-210 BCE
3. Agesipolis III was not Lycurgus at any point int ime.
Obviously this is an empirical fact and can be true because “king of Sparta” is the name of a title, or a position. Frankly many times I hear Trinitarians talk about the “Godhead” it seems they almost use it in a similar way. Or they have the “person” and “being” distinction. The problem is they’ll go on to talk about “God” functionally as a person, not a title. This seems like an obvious point, and I’m sure you’ve considered it, but I actually don’t know if interpreting “God” as a title or sorts or a position, would break With orthodox Trinitarian theology … would it?
The other thing
is about exegesis. If you have a scripture that might plausibly be interpreted one way, but one interpretation requires one to interpret other scriptures in a way that conflicts With their Natural Reading, or requires one to posit understandings of theology or whatever in a way completely alien to the context or background of the writer, and to posit that without any textual evidence in the text, or in a way that conflicts With the actual Natural Reading of the text itself, the person wanting to interpret it that way as opposed to a more Natural Reading, that fits within the background and context of the writer, that doesn’t require one to have an un-natural Reading of other texts, has a giant burden of proof. When it comes to the Trinity, all to often the type of exegesis required is the much more un-natural type that posits a ton of alien and not textually supported theories and is forced to isogete other scriptures.
Comments are closed.