The One Who Sends Is Greater than the One Who Is Sent

“I’m sure too. At the same time, though, as parthenogenesis of a male
offspring is not known to happen for mammals, God must have tweaked
Mary’s ovum a bit.”

Sure, but he would have tweaked it so as to cause the the *human being* he wanted to be born to become that human being. He wouldn’t have tweaked it so that the human Son was *literally* “Son of God”. I’m not sure what that would even mean or involve.

“What is pure invention, OTOH, is that some “pre-existing spirit being”
would have been “incarnated” in the man Jesus. David has repeatedly
invited Sean to “put for an effort to make it intelligible”. Sean never
even tried to make the effort. :(”

I’ve actually responded to David on that matter to the extent that I’m able. What part of my response could you not understand?

~Sean

Sean: “Sure, but he would have tweaked it so as to cause the the *human being* he wanted to be born to become that human being. He wouldn’t have
tweaked it so that the human Son was *literally* “Son of God”. I’m not
sure what that would even mean or involve.”

“Miguel”:

Quote:
Let’s check. So …
…
Sean finds it perfectly understandable that God “would have tweaked it
[Mary’s ovum] so as to cause the *human being* he wanted to be born to
become that human being” AND that, somehow, some “pre-existing spirit
being”, created by God “in the beginning” would have been united to (or
turned into?) that *human being* …

BUT

… Sean is “not sure what … would even mean or involve” for God to impress His logos on a human ovum, so that the resulting man is His son, “generated, not created”.

Methinks Sean should read the Gospels again (Luke and John, in particular), and read them better.”

Sean: So I have two points to offer in response:

1. I don’t see a counterargument there, so I’ll assume that you also find your view impossible to delineate logically. No surprise there.

2. Since you have no valid argument to offer, you’ve resorted to a weak “You-Too” response. The problem is that even your “You-Too” “argument” doesn’t word, because it’s based on a category error.

My belief that a spirit being *became* a human being doesn’t involve a category error, because in my view, the human Jesus wasn’t also a divine or spirit being while he was a human being.

Your view seems to simply be unintelligible. Your view is comparable to saying that a male cat can *literally* be “Son of” a human being if one just tweaks a little DNA. I don’t think that works.

So, back to the question you seem ill-disposed to answer: How does God’s tweaking human DNA to get the human he wants cause that human to *literally* be “Son of God”?

~Sean

“Miguel”: So which is it? [1] Was that ‘pre-existing spirit being’, created by God ‘in the beginning’ (temporarily?) united to that *human being*? [2] Was
that ‘pre-existing spirit being’, created by God ‘in the beginning’
(temporarily?) turned into that *human being*?”

Sean: Aside from the “temporarily” part, I’ve already answered that question. A spirit being *became* a human being, not “was united to” a human being, but *became* a human being.

I had asked:

“How does God’s tweaking human DNA to get the human he wants thereby cause that human being to *literally* be ‘Son of God’?”

You responded:

“I have repeatedly explained that: in the virgin conception, God’s action
on the female ovum provides the functional equivalent of male DNA.”

That doesn’t explain how a man is “Son of God”; it merely explains how God could ensure that the man he wanted to be born was in fact the *man* who was ultimately born.

The *literal* “child” of a cat, is a cat; the *literal* “child” of a dog, is a dog; the *literal* child of a human is a human; and the *literal* child of a god is a god (by nature, granting the assumption, for the sake of argument, that a god can even bare a child, whatever that might mean).

How does God’s tweaking human DNA to ensure that the *human* he wants to be born of a woman is in fact that *human*, make that human the *literal* Son of God once he’s born? I’m looking for an answer that doesn’t involve a category error, if such an answer can even be given.

~Sean

“That [God’s action on the female ovum provides the functional
equivalent of male DNA] doesn’t explain how a man is “Son of God””

“It does, because NOT ONLY does the equivalent of the male DNA originate
directly from God, but it is modeled on something essential to God: His logos.”

But the “equivalent of the male DNA” is still human male DNA, not divine male DNA, which I would assume doesn’t exist.

Also, the following statement doesn’t have any obvious meaning:

“[Jesus DNA is] modeled on something essential to God: His logos.”

What does that mean? It sounds like it involves another category error.

~Sean

“Mary, apparently, accepted without arguing the angel’s words, when he
said to her “the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore [??? ???] the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35)”

Well, the question isn’t whether Jesus was “called” the Son of God, the question is whether this language is meant literally or figuratively/idiomatically. Since a “literal” Son of God would have to have come about via an act of literal procreation, it seems to me that he is “Son” figuratively, i.e. “Son of God” is another way of saying “Messiah”.

~Sean

“Suit yourself. The author of Hebrews was not so finicky, when he simply spoke of Jesus as “son” (uios)”

The author of Hebrews didn’t say that Jesus was “literally” God’s Son.

~Sean

“If it’s meant to be a joke (but it doesn’t seem to be …) it’s a poor joke.”

Nah, you just don’t comprehend the problem you’re view is faced with, and I’m trying to help, but there’s only so much I can do.

I suspect that the owner if this site understands why Jesus couldn’t be God’s *literal* Son, as identifying category errors is part of his specialty.

~Sean

“Sean fills his mouth (as he is wont to do repeatedly, lately), with some
alleged ‘category error’, and, as he cannot argue by himself, he hides
behind the skirt … er kilt of the ‘owner if this site’.”

Not a very mature way to respond to my observation that you don’t understand the issue adequately, but this is pretty much what I expect from you. Egomaniacs always bite when their views are shown to be flawed.

~Sean

“But how can someone with his own “category problems” about an alleged
“pre-existent spirit being” becoming a human male, someone who, so as
to exorcise the word *literal* (or *literally*), has to repeat it – and
double-star it – as many as 6 (six!) times in a single paragraph, how
can he read in an unprejudiced way the obvious text of the NT, rather
than swear by the absolute validity of the Aristotelian
metaphysical-biological principle “like begets like”, as though it was
some sort of inflexible dogma applying even to God Himself?…No chance”

Once again I don’t see anything resembling an argument there, so I’ll assume that you are simply incapable of providing any sort of sound reasoning to try and establish that like begets unlike.

The irony in your twisted fundamentalist approach is that it is probably just such an approach that led to Trinitarianism. I don’t think that belief in preexistence was the problem; I think the problem was and still is the *way* certain fundamentalist types, including yourself, choose to interpret Scripture. You draw bizarre, impossible conclusions because you choose to read a book that’s bloated with symbolic language as though it were a medical book describing how to perform knee surgery.

The very verse that is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1 (Psalm 2:7) has the appellation “Son” applied to a king because of his *royal* sonship, not because of *literal* sonship, and Hebrews 1 is itself about Jesus’ *royal* status as the king whose throne will never parish.

~Sean

“Let’s make it fool-proof, for the sake of the dumb ones,”

So three points in response:

(1) When you have to resort to calling other people names, it doesn’t make them look bad, it makes you look bad.

(2) It also reveals the weakness of your position, because a compelling argument doesn’t have to be bolstered by personal insults.

(3) You assert that there is overwhelming evidence that the man Jesus was also divine in some undefined and apparently undefinable sense that supposedly constitutes him as *literal* Son of God, yet everything you’ve presented so far as “evidence” is underwhelming at best.

For example, it was you who suggested that my understanding that Jesus was a non-literal Son is “grotesque”, and you used Hebrews 1 to support that, er, colorful description, yet in calling Jesus “Son” the author of Hebrews was himself applying a reference to Jesus that was originally used of one who was not in fact a *literal* Son. If your view were correct then the author of Hebrews would have been pretty sloppy in picking references to apply to Jesus.

The irony with your position is that if the author of Hebrews were here contributing to this topic, he would almost certainly recoil at your view, which he would probably find to be truly grotesque. In light of the thought categories of the time, for someone to suggest that Jesus was *literally* Son of God would have ipso facto meant that he was suggesting that God took human form and had coitus with Mary. Not only would that have been viewed as a rejection of the biblical birth narratives, but it would have been a most repulsive idea to the Jews, yet it’s what probably would have come to a 1st century mind when hearing the declaration that Jesus was thought to be God’s *literal* Son.

~Sean

Miquel,

I agree with Sean’s point. The noun LOGOS is never used to mean an “attribute” and it doesn’t make any sense that an “attribute” is (or became) an human being.

Miguel,

According to Revelation 19:13, the term O LOGOS was part of a “name” by which Jesus Christ was “called.” I’m not sure why you have difficulty with text.

Regardless of whether you want to believe that O LOGOS means “attribute”, you shouldn’t be dismissive of other ways the term was used by the apostles. If there was any evidence that O LOGOS could mean “attribute” in the apostolic usage, I would have to accept it as well.

Greg,

You said:

“Sean Garrigan – With all due respect, what Miguel shared re
SoG/incarnation of the Word is really basic. I am at loss why you would
not have known this in light of your proffered expertise earlier.”

I love it when people begin with “With all due respect” and then proceed to show you no respect at all. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you’re talking about?

My issue with “Miguel’s” view is not that it’s complicated, but that it’s unintelligible (and surely impossible). The owner of this site, who is a professional logician, happens to agree with me on that score, BTW.

To assert that Jesus is the *literal* incarnation of an attribute of God is to utter pure gibberish. His position certainly isn’t “basic” as he’s pretty much the only person who promotes it, at least in my experience. Even he has admitted that it’s a minority view, and that’s an understatement!

Oh, and when did I proffer “expertise” and about what? I’ve been around long enough to realize that there are questions even the youngest and most confident scholar can’t answer.

~Sean

“Leaving all respect aside (I’m afraid) Sean repeatedly shows that he desperately needs to seek shelter underneeth the skirt … er behind the kilt of the “owner of this site” … ;)”

First, you always leave respect aside, so I’m not sure why you’d take the time to clarify that you’ve chosen to continue with that pattern.

Second, I don’t need to seek shelter under anyone’s skirt. Anyone with some training in philosophy and logic can see that you’re promoting gibberish. I simply thought that, since the critical problem for your view is a logical one, and since the owner of this site happens to be a professional logician, maybe, just maybe that might inspire some much needed reflection on your part. One would think that you might find Dale’s view, which is born from expertise, to be worthy of consideration, but then you aren’t the type who’d be likely to embrace an opportunity to stand corrected.

~Sean

“That’s not true. You have obviously ignored the paragraph in my
previous comment where, to get you out of your perplexity at Greg’s
comment (‘what Miguel shared re SoG/incarnation of the Word is really
basic’), I have summed up (with all due respect …) your understanding
of the expression ‘Son of God’ as purely honorific, and your (non)
understanding of ? ????? ???? ??????? as some ‘pre-existing spirit
being’ that would have become the man Jesus. (Embarrassed some?)”

Why should I be embarrassed? You make a deliberate effort to be as difficult and obnoxious as possible at virtually all times, and saying “with all due respect” doesn’t mean you have in fact shown “all due respect”. I would think you’d know the difference..

“Second, I don’t need to seek shelter under anyone’s skirt …

“Not only once, but even twice you have invoked the ‘owner of this site’, a
‘professional logician’. And you have done that certainly NOT so ‘that
might inspire some much needed reflection on your [MdS’] part’, BUT with
the obvious and repeated hope that he would come into the arena as your
‘logical and categorical champion’.”

You must have forgotten that Dale has already agreed with me on this blog that your view is unintelligible. I really don’t need him to repeat himself. As for your assertion that I’m a liar, well, I guess that’s another example of you showing “all due respect”.

~Sean

Hi Sean

Are you going to make me have to go back and read through this ponderous dialogue to then dissect and edit my own statement…:-).

re: Proffering Expertise – yes, please read your responses to Rivers re Agency as fulfillment of the role of sonship in 1C speak (or something like that) – you worked him over pretty hard…!

re: Logos as Attribute – I agree with both you and Rivers that the Logos is NOT an attribute of God (silly thought actually – but I am not sure Miguel actually said that or not – and don’t want to find out). In general, Logos simply means “an expression” of whoever. However, I have noticed, at the urging of certain colleagues, that Logos occasionally is used in a pre-communicative sense as to one’s internal expression, i.e. thought/plan.

Does that make sense to you?

Best,

Greg

Miguel

Acknowledged that I did not follow.

I am wondering what is wrong with Logos simply being used in its standard sense of “expression” as we see in Gen1 and Ps33:6?

I am wondering what is wrong with the Holy Spirit being the Spirit of God analogous to the human spirit as Paul formally taught in ICor2:11?

I am uncertain how I could justify either of these primary concepts being metaphorically spoken as the “arms of God”.

Greg

Miquel,

LOGOS doesn’t mean “thought” or “plan.” It means a spoken “saying” or “message.”

In Psalms 33, the context shows that “the word of the Lord” (33:6) is what what “the Lord spoke” (33:9) in order to cause things to happen.

Miquel,

Yes, LOGOS has about 15 different lexical definitions. However, the only definition that matters is the one that is consistent with the usage of the term by a particular writer. It’s fallacious to simply appeal to “so many different meanings” without paying attention to context.

Since the writer of the 4th Gospel always used the noun LOGOS to simply mean a spoken “saying” or “message” (over 40 times), there is no reason to think that he intended any other meaning. The writer never used LOGOS to mean a “thought” or a “plan.”

Another thing you don’t seem to understand is that a spoken “word” (LOGOS, noun) is not the same as the process of having a “thought” (DOKEW, verb). That is why there are two different terms for these concepts in the language.

One can have a “thought” (DOKEW) without ever expressing it verbally and thus it never becomes a LOGOS. This is why LOGOS is often associated with “hearing” in scripture, but “thinking” is not.

Miquel,

I think you’re misrepresenting what I’ve said about LOGOS in the Prologue. Here are some replies for clarification.

1. Yes, you are right (quoting me). Sound exegesis requires that the primary definition of a word be predicated upon how a particular writer uses the term. Lexical definitions do not determine meaning.

2. The evidence that Jesus Christ was “called” by the “name” of O LOGOS is found in Revelation 19:13 and not the Prologue.

3. You are simply unfamiliar with how the different words for “thinking” and “saying” function in the semantics of biblical Greek. Thus, you continue to attempt to force LOGOS to connote a “thought” or “attribute” which it never does.

Miquel,

1. What you call the “spectrum of various meanings” in a lexical source doesn’t matter when the apostolic writers only used a particular word a certain way. It’s a fallacy to suppose that any “definition” of a word in a lexicon is applicable to every use of a term.

2. Regardless of whether you label “the word” as an “appellative” in Revelation 19:13, the same could be true of its occurrence in John 1:1, 14. Thus, your insistence on this argument establishes nothing in your favor. Moreover, your own “LOGOS = divine attribute” idea has no exegetical support whatsoever.

3. Can you cite any example of where LOGOS is directly associated by Jesus or the apostles with “thought” or “thinking”? If you cannot, then your comment on this point is nothing more than condescending rhetoric (again).

Miquel,

1. Again, you are misrepresenting what we’ve discussed numerous times before. LOGOS should be translated “word” in John 1:1, 14 because that is what it means. The word that is translated “name” in Revelation 19:13 is not the term LOGOS.

2. Your statement here follows from the misrepresentation earlier in your comment. I don’t know of anyone who would translate LOGOS as “name” in John 1:1, 14. Here’s the way I think John 1:1 and John 1:14 should be translated:

“in the beginning was the word (LOGOS), and the word (LOGOS) was toward God, and the word (LOGOS) was God” (John 1:1)

“the word (LOGOS) was flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14)

Come on MS this is easy – the sayer is God… Gen1, Ps33:6, Heb1:3, etc.

I will acknowledge that 90% of the time Logos would be best translated “spoken word” or “expression” – however there are occasions when the inner thought or plan (as a type of inner thought) seems best suited for the context. I seem to think it occasional has a more diverse meaning.

Miquel,

According to the writer of the 4th Gospel, “the word (LOGOS) of life” was what the apostles “heard” and “saw” and “touched” (1 John 1:1). This happened in “the beginning” (John 1:1) when “the word” came to dwell among them (John 1:14). Thus, LOGOS refers to the “message” they heard from Jesus Christ himself (1 John 1:5).

Thus, there is no LOGOS (“word”) apart from the proclamation of Jesus Christ himself. As the writer of Hebrews said, “in the last days, God spoke in a son” (Hebrews 1:2).

Miguel,
I agree. That is why there is no LOGOS apart from when “God spoke in a son.” The writer of the 4th Gospel said that “the word (LOGOS) was flesh” (John 1:14) and that they had “heard” and “seen” and “touched” the LOGOS (1 John 1:1).

Another consideration in these texts is that there is no mention of any “divine attributed became a human being.” Thus, it seems foolish for you to continue your condescending and critical behavior toward others here when you have nothing whatsoever to substantiate your own definition of LOGOS.

Miguel,

1. A human being cannot literally be a “spoken saying/message.” This is why we recognize that LOGOS is being applied to Jesus Christ as the human “son” through whom the “message” is spoken (1 John 1:1-5). As a person, Jesus Christ was later “called” by the “name” of “the word (LOGOS) of God” (Revelation 19:13).

2. To translate EGENETO as “became” in John 1:14 is misleading to an English reader. I understand that your preference for “became flesh” serves your own purposes, but there’s nothing in the grammar or the context that requires EGENETO to be translated “became” in that particular text. Using “was” is a better translation (as in John 1:6) because it makes better sense in English.

3. More accurately, we should say “Jesus Christ was the human being (flesh) speaking word (LOGOS) of life” (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1).

Miquel,

The “quotes” are only for emphasis. You are the only one who gets “scared” of them.

1. I think you’re confusing the translation of LOGOS with its potential application as a metaphor. For example, when we interpret “the lamb of God” (John 1:29, 36) we understand that it is being applied to Jesus Christ. However, it is still correct to translate AMNOS as “lamb” just like we would in a context where it literally refers to a farm animal.

2. Your appeal to the “Hebrew language” is fallacious and has nothing to do with translating John 1:14 which is written in very simple Greek prose. If you can present some substantial evidence for your “essential divine attribute turned into a human being” idea, I’m still willing to consider it. Condescending remarks and personal attacks don’t constitute “evidence.”

3. I agree with you that Jesus Christ was a “son” and that he was not a “mere prophet.”

Greg,

Similar to the situation with the use of MORFH in Philippians 2:6, it’s imperative to properly translate, and correctly interpret the meaning of, the noun, LOGOS.

If you think it means “expression”, then you need to define what category of “expression” you are talking about and where you see that the term LOGOS was used by the writer of the 4th Gospel to identify that kind of “expression.” It isn’t sufficient to simply state that “LOGOS means the expression [of God].”

MS and I go back and forth about the meaning of LOGOS because it is critical to establish the meaning of the term before we can translate it, and interpret how the writer is using it in any particular context.

Greg,

Thanks again for your thoughtful replies. Here are some further comments:

1. If you say “LOGOS almost always means expression”, then you need to define what category of “expression” you are talking about. Otherwise, you are inadvertently undermining the meaning of the word by making it indefinite. What do you mean by “expression”? Did God express himself by making a funny face or a hand gesture? Or, did He express Himself by speaking or writing?

2. I don’t agree that we should “start with Genesis 1” because the 4th Gospel was written 2,000 years later by a different person. The only way to determine what LOGOS means in the 4th Gospel is to examine the 40+ times the writer himself used the word in his writings. That is a huge sampling of linguistic evidence to work with.

3. You’re begging the “heritage” question. The Jews and Greeks had dozens of ideas about LOGOS. On what basis are you going to distinguish how the writer of the 4th Gospel understood the word other than from his own writings? You and I are both Americans and Christians … do we have the same view of LOGOS because of our “heritage”?

4. We agree on this … preexistence is a nonsensical term only applicable in the context of the Incarnation doctrine. I don’t think the concept is biblical in any sense (literally or notionally).

Hi Greg,

1. I agree that LOGOS is related to “verbal” expression. That is very simple and consistent with all the uses by the writer of the 4th Gospel. However, LOGOS is a “noun” to we have to be careful not to confuse it with the action of “speaking.” Throughout the 4th Gospel, LOGOS always refers to “what” (content, message) is spoken, but doesn’t mean “speaking.”

2. I’m thinking that you take “all things” in John 1:3 to be referring to the Genesis creation because you take “in the beginning” and “word” in John 1:1-2 to be referring to the time of Genesis. I read it differently because the writer of the 4th Gospel used “all things” several other times to refer to what was revealed by Jesus himself during the time of his public ministry (e.g. John 4:25; John 15:15; John 16:15). The writer also spoke of “the beginning” as the time when Jesus began his public ministry (John 8:42; John 15:27; John 16:4) and “word” almost always refers to something that Jesus said during his public ministry.

3. From a forensic standpoint, I think we should stick to the simplicity of your thought in #1. If LOGOS simply means “what” is expressed (verbally), then why introduce “other logos theories” that complicated the matter and introduce speculation about uncorroborated external influences? If one can make sense of LOGOS in it’s basic definition, why look for any other meaning?

4. Yes, pre-incarnate would be a better term. Of course, it still only works within the limited context of the theological doctrine of the Incarnation. Nobody speaks of anything as “pre-incarnate” unless they are referring to the human Jesus existing in some other non-human form prior to his birth.

Even if we said “I’m going to flesh out one of my ideas”, we wouldn’t refer to the “idea” as “pre-incarnate.” Likewise, when God spoke of knowing Jeremiah before he was born (Jeremiah 1:5), theologians don’t say that Jeremiah was actually somehow “pre-incarnate.”

Greg,

1-2. What I’m presenting is the exegetical evidence for an inter-textual interpretation of the language in the 4th Gospel. This is a fresh approach that many Biblical Unitarians haven’t considered. I think it provides a much simpler, yet more exegetically sound, approach to providing a coherent and comprehensive explanation of the Prologue that doesn’t require any notion of “incarnation” or “preexistence.”

3. Thanks for clarifying about LOGOS. I was concerned that you were making the common mistake of thinking that a term like LOGOS can take on multiple definitions (in a particular context) or that any lexical definition can simply be applied to any usage of the word to suit one’s personal preference.

4. No problem. I agree.

Greg,

OK, but notice that there are two different terms used by the writer to express that Isaiah “spoke” (verb, LEGW) and the content (noun, LOGOS) of what he said. This shows that LOGOS is used of the “message” and not the action of speaking.

Thus, I think we have to be careful to understand that the use of LOGOS in the Prologue is because the writer is directing the readers’ attention to “what” was heard. He also seems to identify what was “heard” with the one (Jesus Christ) from whom they heard it (John 1:14; 1 John 1:1-2).

That is one reason I think it’s likely that “in the beginning” (John 1:1) and “from the beginning” (1 John 1:1) refer to the time when the apostles heard “the word of life” from Jesus himself. Hence, there was no LOGOS (as it was related to Jesus) before the time of his public ministry.

Greg,

Can you please clarify your previous question? Are you referring to “the sense of making” in John 1:3?

Thank you.

Hi Greg,

I think you’re begging the question because you’re assuming that your reading of John 1:1-3 is the “natural” way that anyone would read it.

However, since we don’t have anyone from the apostolic era to tell us what the “natural” reading might have been, we can only consider various exegetical options in order to determine what is the most likely meaning intended by the ancient author.

I also try to maintain a grammatical-historical approach to reading the biblical text. But, that method still leaves many passages open to a certain amount of interpretation. That is why there are a number of different translations and readings of John 1:1-3 that are offered by those who use the same hermeneutic.

Miguel,

If the writer of the 4th Gospel was trying to convey what happened “in the beginning” to the time of the Genesis creation in the Prologue, there’s no reason to think that he would have applied “the word” and “God” and “the light” and “the darkness” and “the world” to the human Jesus and the things that happened during his public ministry (John 1:4-18).

From a forensic standpoint, it’s naive to think that the application of the “in the beginning” allusion to the Genesis language (John 1:1-2) should be separated (in time reference) from all of the other allusions to the Genesis language. There is too much evidence showing that “the beginning” was used throughout the John books simply to refer to when the disciples first hear Jesus speaking the gospel (e.g. John 8:42; John 15:27; John 16:4, and numerous texts is the John letters).

Miguel,

The reason I cited uses of “the beginning” in John 6:64, John 8:25, John 15:27, and John 16:4 is to show evidence for when the writer himself (and Jesus) identified “the beginning.” This usage needs to be taken into consideration when determining possibilities for interpreting “the beginning” in John 1:1.

Just because “in the beginning” is similar to the LXX version of Genesis 1:1, it doesn’t logically follow that the two different contexts are referring to the same events. The context of the Prologue doesn’t specifically refer to anything that happened in Genesis 1, so we have to keep interpretive options open. There are many other examples of OT language being applied to the human Jesus and his public ministry in the 4th Gospel (e.g. lamb, temple, bread).

I think a stronger intertextual case can be made for understanding “in the beginning” as referring to the time when Jesus began his public ministry because of the historical details in the ensuing context of the Prologue (John 1:6-18) as well as the way all of the allusions to the Genesis 1 language (word, God, light, darkness, world) are applied to the human Jesus and what was taking place during the time since he began his public ministry throughout the rest of the 4th Gospel.

Miguel,
if your opinion of John 1:3 was “obvious” then there wouldn’t be other options. There’s nothing in the context of the Prologue that describes anything that happened in Genesis 1. The Prologue is about what resulted from what happened as a result of the public ministry of Jesus Christ (John 1:10-12, 17).

So, according to Rivers, does John 1:1 refer to

a. Jesus at the beginning of his mission?

b. the resurrected Jesus?

(Just one, please …)

Wow! So John 1:1 is the … Prologue to the … Prologue!

Greg,

I think the entire context of Prologue mitigates against the popular interpretation of John 1:3 as referring to the time of the Genesis creation. There is certainly an allusion to some of the terms used in Genesis 1, but it doesn’t follow that those words are describing the same events.

The Prologue describes what was taking place during the time of John the baptizer (John 1:6) and Jesus Christ (John 1:9-18) and merely applies some of the Genesis language to things taking place at that time. For example, John the baptizer could not have “testified about the light … coming into the world” during the days of the Genesis creation.

Rather, the writer is saying that John the baptizer “testified” (i.e. spoke) about “the light” (i.e. the human Jesus) who was “coming into the world” (i.e. being manifested to Israel) at the time that Jesus came to dwell with his disciples (John 1:14, 31) and to be glorified (John 1:18).

Hi Greg,

1. I think “the beginning” refers to the time when Jesus was living with his disciples from the time of John’s baptism to the ascension (Acts 1:20-22). This is when the apostles “heard” and “saw” and “touched” the LOGOS (1 John 1:1). Jesus also spoke of being with his disciples “from the beginning” (John 15:27; John 16:4) and speaking to the Jews “from the beginning” (John 8:25).

2. Some other texts to consider are Mark 1:1, Luke 1:2-3, and Acts 1:20-22 which speak of things “beginning” with the eyewitness testimony of the apostles during the time when Jesus Christ was with them after they were baptized by John.

3. I don’t have a problem with simplifying it to “Jesus was the [verbal] expression (LOGOS) of God” as in Hebrews 1:1. However, this would not be convincing to most people who are accustomed to reading the post-apostolic concepts of “preexistence” and “incarnation” into the language in the Prologue. That is why it’s necessary to offer a lot of exegetical and intertextual evidence to substantiate a different reading.

Greg,

Please let me point out something about the translation of John 1:3-4 that suggest a clarification as to what is the meaning of “all things came into being through him.” Here are two options for you to consider:

1. JOHN … [1:3] “all things came into being through him, and apart from him, nothing came into being that has come into being. [1:4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (NASB)

2. JOHN … [1:3] “all things came [about] through him, and apart from him nothing came [about]. [1:4] What has come [about] is life, and the life was the light of men.”

In the second translation, you’ll notice that the redundancy of [1:3] is alleviated because the clause which says “that which has come about” can be taken (punctuated) as the beginning of [1:4] instead of the end of [1:3]. This also accounts for the change of the verb form (“has come about”) also found in that third “came about” clause.

If this translation is correct, then it is the “all things” pertaining to “eternal life” which was manifested in the “flesh” of Jesus Christ (John 1:14; John 6:51). The writer understood that Jesus came to give “eternal life” to those who believed in him (John 6:27; John 6:54; John 10:28; John 17:2).

Greg,

Yes, you’re right. Sorry I omitted the “in him” in the second translation … “what has come [about] in him was life, and the life was the light of men.”

Rivers, MS,

Here is a straight-forward, often seen text throughout scripture –
10 Then the WORD of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.”

The Logos of Jehovah – came – the Logos is seen as separate from God – yet it is God. The Logos is the content of God’s mind – which, typically, is expressed. Samuel received the Logos of God – the expression of God’s mind. Jesus IS the Logos of God. The level of achievement of this man Jesus is such that He IS the Logos of God – according to the call and work of God in Him.

This seems so basic to me that I do not understand why anyone would see anything different – though they might express/describe it somewhat different – but same concept. Why would we ever abandon these foundational conceptions – the river of contextual reality – that these men worked with as expressed in the OT? These men always worked with the OT as their source.

BTW – perhaps more importantly – where is such passion that we spend all night crying out to Jehavoh instead of the 5 minute pitiful milquetoast utterance that is we pass off as a pray….
Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

Happy Sabbath…:-)

I fully agree on pretty much everything you said – the main point is the word is expressed content!! Actually we could translate “message” in many instances – but the point is the content. What I am focused on is sort of the surrounding contextualization to most fully grasp the sense of usage such that John’s various statements including Jesus as the ultimate expression of God.

See this sentence in my above post –

The Logos is the content of God’s mind – which, typically, is expressed.

I do note there are occasional usages that do not include expression.

Greg,

Yes, the “content” Is the main point. However, when LOGOS is used, it signifies that the content was spoken by someone. The apostles didn’t use LOGOS to mean an unspoken “thought” or “plan.” That is why the term is usually associated with “hearing” and “speaking” in the various contexts.

I think this is a very important nuance that must be taken into account. When the writer of the 4th Gospel said “the word was flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) is means that the LOGOS they heard was from the “one coming after” John the baptizer (John 1:15). This puts the LOGOS in its proper historical context.

Greg,

Please find those “instances of LOGOS when there does not appear to be a verbal expression” and let’s consider them. If they have any bearing on the interpretation of LOGOS in the 4th Gospel, then we should take them into account.

Greg,

Sounds good. I’m glad we agree on that point.

Miguel,

Good point. Hebrews 1:1-2 is another reason we know that the apostles didn’t believe the there was any LOGOS before “the last days” when God “spoke in a son” who was the human Jesus “appointed heir of all things.”

Miguel,

The biblical evidence shows that LOGOS is never used of “God’s thought before speaking.” LOGOS always refers to something that has already been “spoken.” You’ll never understand the meaning of LOGOS until you start paying attention to how the term was used by the apostles.

The writer of the 4th Gospel explained that “the word (LOGOS) of life” is what they HEARD and SAW and TOUCHED while they had fellowship with the human Jesus (1 John 1:1-5). This language cannot be referring to “God’s mind before He spoke.”

LOGOS is a noun. It is not an adjective or a verb signifying an “attribute.”

LOGOS is also not one of the words for “wisdom” (SOFIA) or “plan” (BOULH) or “thinking” (DOKEW) that the apostles use elsewhere.

Hopefully we both agree with Jesus Christ…:-)

When it says “the word of the Lord came [ to Samuel – 1 Samuel 15:10]”, we have to ask the critical question … “how did it come to Samuel”? (…) We also know that the apostles understood that “the word” came through
the “prophets” (Hebrews 1:1) and the “angels” during the time of the
Hebrew scriptures (Hebrews 2:2).

Rivers must be seriously confused: Samuel WAS a prophet. The “word of the Lord” simply came to him (see 1 Samuel 3).

There’s no reason to insist that this language [“the word of the Lord came to Samuel” – 1 Samuel 15:10] means that something just popped into Samuel’s head.

And why not, bearing in mind that Samuel WAS a prophet? What would be different from Samuel’s situation at 1 Samuel 15:10 and Abraham’s situation at Genesis 15:1?

Miguel,

1. No, LOGOS is not a “thought.” Words are spoken, not thoughts. That is why both Greek and English has different terms to designate thinking and speaking.

2. The problem with you notion that LOGOS is a “thought” that is also “non-personal” is that it isn’t consistent with the way that the “thoughts” of both God and a man were understood to be personal (e.g. Isaiah 55:11; Proverbs 23:7; 1 Corinthians 2:11)

Miguel,

1. The LOGOS refers to the content of “what” was spoken. For example, the people “heard” what (LOGOS) Jesus was saying (John 7:40). What Isaiah said what (LOGOS) was fulfilled (John 12:48). Pilate was afraid of what (LOGOS) he heard from the Jews (John 19:12-13).

2. I’m sorry if I misunderstood the intent of your comment about “pre-incarnate.”

3. The main objection I have to your view of LOGOS is that it isn’t based upon the way LOGOS is used by the writer of the 4th Gospel. God is certainly related to the DBR (“word”) revealed in the Hebrew scriptures but that isn’t the specific LOGOS (“word”) that the writer of the 4th Gospel is associating with Jesus Christ.

Miguel,

LOGOS is the spoken “message.” Your misapplication of “Distinction Without A Difference” is another indication that you don’t understand the semantics of biblical Greek or how languages work in general.

LOGOS is associated with “hearing” throughout he John books because spoken words are “heard.” People do not literally “hear” someone else’s “mind.” Something in the “mind” cannot be known without a verbal (or written) expression. In biblical Greek, LOGOS refers specifically to what has been expressed verbally. There is no LOGOS without the verbal expression.

This is why the writer of the 4th Gospel explained that the disciples “heard” and “saw” and “touched” what was “concerning the word (LOGOS) of life” (1 John 1:1, 3 ). He is talking about what was actually “manifested” to them (1 John 1:2) and what the “message” that they were “announcing” (1 John 1:3, 5).

John 1:14 refers to the means (i.e. a man of flesh) through whom the spoken LOGOS originated. The LOGOS didn’t come to the disciples until after John the baptizer identified who spoke it (John 1:15). There’s nothing in this context to suggest that “God’s mind (or an attribute) turned into an human being at birth.

Miguel,

The immediate “context” of John 1:14 is the surrounding verses that I cited. That is understood by everyone. Your “food” analogy makes no sense here.

Instead of using a bad analogy, please indicate where you think the context of John 1:14 suggests anything about the time of the birth of Jesus Christ. Otherwise, your attempt to connect “the word was flesh and dwelt among us” with Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18-23 has no exegetical merit.

… please indicate where you think the context of John 1:14 suggests anything about the time of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Why should we limit ourselves consider John 1:15 as the “context” that helps unterstand John 1:14? Just to please Rivers? Amusing.

The “context” is the entirety of the Prologue (John1:1-18) where, as in any proper prologue, the author summarizes the events preceding the narration that he is going to develop, and the general goal of his endeavor: first ? ????? “in the beginning”, ?? ????, even before creation (1:1-2), then the role of ????? in creation, then the ????? becoming a human being in/as Jesus. Different interpretations …

BTW, the chili powder analogy obviously irked you: you haven’t obviously even got any sense of humor.

BBTW, you prefer not to contront the obvious evidence of the many oscillations you have had
on ?????: a. first, ????? “should be translated ‘word’ in John 1:1, 14 because that is what it means”; b. second, ????? “is being applied to Jesus Christ as the human “son” through whom the “message” is spoken”; c. third ????? in John 1:1,14 “as a metaphor”. Dithering some?

The “quotes” are only for emphasis.

That is NOT their full definition:

[American Heritage® Dictionary] Quotation marks used to emphasize a word or phrase or to indicate its special status, especially to express doubt about its validity or to criticize its use.
[Collins English Dictionary] quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it should not be taken literally or automatically accepted as true

I think you’re confusing the translation of LOGOS with its potential application as a metaphor.

Gasp! Rivers is changing tack again. Are you now suggesting (after a. ????? “should be translated ‘word’ in John 1:1, 14 because
that is what it means”, b. ????? “is being applied to Jesus Christ
as the human “son” through whom the “message” is spoken”) c. ????? in John 1:1,14 “as a metaphor”? If so, why didn’t you say so clearly a long, long time ago?

Your appeal to the “Hebrew language” is fallacious and has nothing to do with translating John 1:14 which is written in very simple Greek prose.

Yours is a pathetic attempt to divagate. The question, here, is NOT about the meaning of ?????, BUT about the proper translation of ???????. Sorry to break it to you: the ONLY proper translation of ??????? at John 1:14 is “became”.

Jesus Christ was a “son” and that he was not a “mere prophet.”

This leaves unsolved the problem of the essential difference between Jesus being a “son”, vs being a “mere prophet”. Why coudn’t one who was a “mere prophet” receive God’s “heritage”?

The same term EGENETO is translated a half dozen different ways just in the 18 verses of the Prologue alone.

It is interesting that Rivers claims that ??????? “is translated a half dozen different ways just in the 18 verses of the Prologue alone” (actually, there are 6 occurences of ???????, precisely, altogether). Interesting, because, if that is the case, Rivers would have very little ground for insisting (as he constantly does), that ??????? means (and therefore should be translated) with “was” both in John 1:6 and in John 1:14.

In fact, the case is relatively simple: in a nutshell, ???????? EITHER is used absolutely, meaning “come into being” (as opposed to simple being, ?????), OR is used with a Predicate (or Complement) and, in that case it means, “come into a certain state” (or become), specified by the Predicate (noun, or adjective). This being premised, let’s look in detail at the 6 occurrences of ??????? in John 1:1-18.

v. 3 (twice) ??????? means “came to be”, “came in existence”;
v. 6 ???????, referred to JtB, is used absolutely, and means “came to be”, “there came”, even “there was”;
v. 10: same as v.3;
v. 14 ???????, referred to the ?????, is accompanied by the Predicate ????, which specifies what ? ????? “became”. So, “the word became flesh”, or, in more normal English “the word became a human being”;
v. 17: same as v.3 and v.10.

… your only intent is to be argumentative and condescending.

Even if they get over your head, I always provide arguments.

Damn that Rivers for wanting to eat his cake…!!!

Hi Greg,

“re: Proffering Expertise – yes, please read your responses to Rivers
re Agency as fulfillment of the role of sonship in 1C speak (or
something like that) – you worked him over pretty hard…!”

I don’t think I was hard on Rivers. All I did was point out that he doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about vis a vis the agency paradigm and its applicability to Christology. He claims that this is some sort of refuge for Unitarians, yet its applicability is appreciated by all, including many Trinitarians.

To argue that even slaves could be “agents” and therefore the concept is not relevant to Christology does show a serious lack of adequate reflection and understanding on the matter.

“re: Logos as Attribute – I agree with both you and Rivers that the Logos is
NOT an attribute of God (silly thought actually – but I am not sure
Miguel actually said that or not – and don’t want to find out).”

Well, that’s good to know:-)

~Sean

John 1:14 is not specifically referring to Jesus Christ as “the son of God.”

Thanks for confirming (at last and unambiguously) my understanding of your position.

When the writer said “the word was [BIAS ALERT] flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), he was referring to what John the baptizer had testified about “the one coming after me” (John 1:15). The details of John’s testimony this “man” (Jesus) are given in John 1:26-36.

This is against common sense and obvious reading. Besides, John 1:14 comes before John 1:15 and, of course, John 1:26-36.

If you compare John 1:14-15 with John 1:29-30, it’s evident that they are referring to the same thing.

That is true ONLY about 1:15 vs 1:30. The rest is your peculiar “interpretation”.

There is so much “interpretation” and projection on your part, that it is difficult to indicate all your twists. Let’s try.

1. In the text, John 1:14 comes before (not “before”) 1:15, and it makes perfect sense that it is in that order. First, the logos became a human being (“flesh”) and came to live (“pitched his tent”) among us humans (John 1:14 – that his disciples are involved at this stage of the text is your invention and projection). Second, after about 30 years of obscure life, John the Baptist announced Jesus’ public appearance, when Jesus went at the Jordan, and JtB proclaimed that Jesus was greater than himself (John 1:29, anticipated in the Prologue at 1:15).

2. That John 1:1-18 is a true and proper prologue to the whole gospel is confirmed by the presence of the key words logos and monogen?s, both referring to the unique relationship between Jesus and God, that the Gospel of John illustrates throughout.

3. By putting in the same box (personal) “preexistence” and “divine attributes”, you are, as usual, muddying waters.

Gasp! All I can say is, enjoy your “many exegetical fallacies”.

Some detail.

1. I find your use of the adjective “presumptuous” quite amusing: it is a typical word used by mafia bosses of those who dare challenge them. You are speaking of the GoJ as though it was written in a pneumatic vacuum, where notions like the virgin birth and the late start of Jesus’ “public career” never entered. But, hey, enjoy what “makes perfectly good sen[se]” to you!

2. Except that you had previously explicitly denied that John was a prologue in the obvious sense of the word, and that you interpret in your peculiar and idiosyncratic way both key words.

3. You certainly are muddying waters, because “pre-existence” is advocated by those who affirm that Jesus, before his human life, was a “heavenly spirit being”, which has absolutely nothing to do with the logos being an essential, eternal attribute of God.

Hi Greg,

You asked:

“re: Sonship = Messiahship…What texts would you use to substantiate this?”

Time constraints necessitate a very brief response today, which means I can’t develop any sort of detailed argument, but, for example, Peter said:

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matt 16:16)

And the high priest asked:

“I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

Such texts don’t mean “You are the Christ AND ALSO the Son of God”, they mean “You are the Christ ALSO KNOWN AS the Son of God”. Such synonymous usage may have stemmed from the OT declaration that the human King, who prefigured the ultimate Messianic King, was “son of God” (Psalm 2:7).

~Sean

“In light of this, I wonder then – was the virgin birth story really
necessary?? Could Jesus have been the Son of God despite being a
completely natural man with human father as well as mother? It does
seem to bet he case – in fact the writer to the Hebrews touches on this.
Thus, was the virgin birth narratives simply add-ons for good measure?
I have wondered about this in light of the lack of reference in other
NT text (though I may well be missing something here since I have never
fully studied this subject – and, admittedly, don’t intend to…:-)”

That’s a very good question, and one’s approach will probably influence one’s answer.

There’s the hyper-fundamentalist “Moody Bible College” approach (if you will), which would likely involve arguing that every statement or nearly every statement in the Bible is literally true, except perhaps where it is thought that stories should be understood symbolically, in which case the meaning the symbolic language was meant to convey is true. With this approach one could take all four gospels and artfully weave them together into one and call it a multi-authored biography. The differences in the stories with the distinctive emphases would be thought of as the result of different points of focus. All four representations of Jesus’ life are literally true, and the differences in the story-lines emerged because of focusing in on different hues on the canvass which is the veridical picture of Jesus’ life. Broadly speaking, everyone from this group would say that Jesus did not have a human father, and that Mary became pregnant as a result of a miraculous event.

There’s the somewhat more liberal approach, represented by folks like Richard B. Hays. This is a scholarly approach that seeks to employ the methods and accept the findings of the historical-critical methodology(ies) while remaining ‘in the fold’ of believers, as it were. Folks who adopt this approach would say that the four gospels don’t give us the history of Jesus’ life as we moderns understand it, i.e. they don’t represent what we would see if we were to watch the life of Jesus on historical videotape. Rather, they are literary attempts to reflect the multi-hued identity/character of Jesus in light of the profound impact he made on the lives of his followers, as this was passed down in the Church’s memory. (This is an attempt to unpack what Hays has dedicated an entire course to, and so if this description doesn’t do it absolute justice, may he forgive any lacunae that emerge from necessary concision.) Many from this group would also say that Jesus did not have a human father, and that Mary became pregnant as a result of a miraculous event.

Then there’s the hyper-liberal group, who sometimes refer to themselves in a rather self-congratulatory way as “progressives”. In my experience — which is very limited and which I don’t profess to be broadly representative — these folks are primarily concerned with the virtues of their own personal “way” of reading Scripture, and of identifying how and why it should and shouldn’t be applied in light of our times, in light of modern scientific findings, and our social, cultural, and political milieu, etc. With this group beliefs are all over the map, because folks in this category have replaced the authority of Scripture with the authority of their opinions, which are shaped, as all opinions always have been and always will be, by the sociocultural influences of the age in which they live. Folks from this group may or may not feel that there’s any reason or benefit in accepting the birth narratives or the notion that Jesus did not have a human father.

These are the three primary categories that I’ve encountered in my readings and interactions with scholars and Bible teachers, and one could probably delineate six categories rather than three, depending on how broadly one were to speak when describing the body of religious and scholarly opinion. There are certainly points in which all three can overlap, and the first two will overlap more with each other than the first and the last, just as the last two will overlap more with each other than the first and the last.

I have more in common with the first two groups than the third, and I accept what the birth narratives are telling us: Jesus did not have a human father.

~Sean

Miguel

I may have missed something but I am not certain you answered my original question.

Why isn’t God’s creation of Jesus in Mary by His spirit sufficient to render Jesus properly being call the Son of God? Why do we need to get any more complex than this?

BTW – the notion of a 3rd or 4th person, while creative, seems to suffer immeasurably in light of the consistent picture of two persons – God – and His Son, the Messiah – that we have repeatedly, clearly and formally throughout scripture – most vividly seen throughout Revelation and wrapping up with Rev 21 with the Lamb as the temple and God as the light.

Rivers

I can see a reading of this text which finds that John – and, by extension, Jesus – may have considered Jesus (Himself) equal to God in some sense. This raises the obvious question – in what sense?

The following discussion by Jesus seems a perfect clarification/annotation of the sense of “equality of God” – in fact, rather hard to avoid that this is the very purpose of this text. This sense is clear – God is both far greater – but has given Jesus the position and function of God. Admittedly, this may bring us back a bit to the concept of “agency” and, as Sean noted, “agency embedded with the concept of Son-ness”. I am open to all of that.

What I am not open to – based on these texts – is an ontological (essential) equivalency – since that conception is nowhere to be found here.

Rivers – I will buy that – that is a really strong theme in Heb – see Heb 1:2 I think it is – and other texts re Son in Heb, etc.

Rivers

How would you understand God making the ages through the Son? Heb 1:2/3?

I appreciate your other thoughts – and conceptions. I am uncertain, in light of Rev13:8, IPet1:20, Eph1:4, etc. feeding into Jn17:3, Jn8:58 why we would abandon or need to mature beyond the conception of a pre-existing Messiah in a notional status?

Greg

In spite of all Rivers’ lexical acumen, it is perfectly satisfactory to read the Greek words ai?n and kosmos for what they normally mean, viz. respectively “age” and “world”, in the obvious cosmic sense.

… there still needs to be interpretation.

If you say that you agree (or is it “agree”?), then the only interpretation (or “interpretation”?) is that “it is perfectly satisfactory to read the Greek words ai?n and kosmos for what they normally mean, viz. respectively ‘age’ and ‘world’, in the obvious cosmic sense”.

AIWNAS is plural in Hebrews 1:3 and Hebrews 11:3. Thus, a more literal translation would be “ages” especially when it is referring to many generations of people living throughout past “ages” (Hebrews 11).

Of course. I wrote the word ai?n in its Nominative Singular form, as is standard scholarly practice.

KOSMOS doesn’t appear in Hebrews 1:3.

You have forgotten that, in the very same comment, you also cited John 1:10, where kosmos (“world”) appears, in its Nominative Singular and also Dative forms, as many as three (3) times.

So it is confirmed that when you wrote, I agree, you actually meant, I “agree”, with the usual mental reserve. And you are clearly losing your composure.

Oh, BTW, two bonus tracks:

Who [the Son], being the radiance of his [God’s] glory, and the expression of his [God’s] real being, and sustaining all things by the word of his [God’s] power, having accomplished the cleansing of sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in the highest.

[The logos] was in the world, and the world came into being through it [the logos], and the world did not know it [the logos].

1. After discarding person, nature, essence and substance, I found that “real being” was the most appropriate. Why, how would Rivers have translated it? He hasn’t, yet, AFAIK …

2. Word of God?

The word UPOSTASIS in Hebrews 1:3 simply means “confidence” or “assurance.”

Can Rivers be so kind as to provide not just his translation for the Greek word ?????????, but for the entire verse Hebrews 1:3? That should be interesting.

BTW, with reference to John 1:10, I see no objections, on Rivers’ part, to the translation of ? ????? with “Word of God”. Good.

The word ?????????, etymologically and literally, means, “support”, “base”, “what lies underneath”. In this sense, it is an exact parallel of the Latin word substantia. So, translations like “confidence” or “assurance” are, at best, secondary and interpretative.

And that “the glorification of Jesus Christ enables him to rule with the confidence and the power of God the Father” sounds appropriate … for Bush Jr. vs Bush Sr. …

To translate ????????? as “confidence” seems singularly out of place.

Indeed. I try to avoid metaphysics, that’s why I chose “real being”, that seems to me somewhat more concrete than “essence”.

Sean,

You are committing the same exegetical fallacy as Miquel when you appeal to “etymology” without any usage to validate it. Thus, your methodology is what is “out of place.”

The correct translation of UPOSTASIS in Hebrews 1:3 is “confidence” (or “assurance”) based upon the way the writer of Hebrews used the term elsewhere (Hebrews 3:14; Hebrews 11:1) and the way it was used by Paul (2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Corinthians 11:17).

Sean,

There are two things to keep in mind. First, translators makes decisions (and sometimes mistakes). Second, publishers (who fund translation committees and print Bibles) have expectations. Give some thought to the implications of these two things.

Also, regardless of whether you agree with a particular translation or not, it’s a basic matter of doing sound exegesis that the “etymology” of a word should never should be given priority over usage and context. Thus, your appeal to the “etymology” of UPOSTASIS is irrelevant when the evidence shows that it was only used one particular way by the apostolic writers.

The “skilled translators” that you refer to are the ones who translate UPOSTASIS “confidence” or “assurance” in all the other occurrences in scripture. Thus, my suggestions about Hebrews 1:3 are consistent with the normal usage of the word in the apostolic corpus.

Greg,
Thanks again. Every one should consider the evidence for himself and make up his own mind. It’s not my responsibility to convince anyone. We should all be doing our best to reiterate (and understand) what the apostles were teaching.

Miquel,

Using “foundation” to translate UPOSTASIS in Hebrews 3:14 or Hebrews 11:1 is incorrect because nobody speaks of “the beginning of a foundation” or “the foundation of things hoped for.” The term “foundation” doesn’t go with “evidence” in Hebrews 11:1 either.

Moreover, the word “foundation” wouldn’t work where UPOSTASIS is used in Hebrews 1:3, or 2 Corinthians 9:4 or 2 Corinthians 11:7. All of these uses need to be taken into account when determining the meaning of the word.

Miquel,
1. It doesn’t take an “authority” to understand that your arbitrary choice of “foundation” is the wrong translation of UPOSTASIS. The writer used QELEMIOS when he meant “foundation” and the words are not used interchangeably.

2. There’s no evidence in scripture that UPOSTASIS (“confidence”) and QELEMIOS (“foundation”) are ever used interchangeably. Thus, your “exclusion” statement is irrelevant.

3. Your erroneous “foundation” definition of UPOSTASIS makes no sense of Hebrews 1:3 which is another indication that it is wrong. The evidence shows that the writer of Hebrews use QEMELIOS when he meant “foundation” (Hebrews 1:10; 4:3; 6:1; 9:26).

Miquel,
The translation of Hebrews 1:3 that I suggested is very accurate (based upon the way XARAKTHR and UPOSTASIS are used in scripture). It also makes good sense in English. The context of Hebrews 1 is all about Jesus Christ receiving the authority and power of God to rule His creation.

Miquel,

In the context of Hebrews 1, it is totally appropriate to translate UPOSTASIS as “confidence” (or “assurance”) because it refers to Jesus Christ being “appointed heir of all thing” in the previous verse (Hebrews 1:2). Thus, it is talking about an inherited authority and power (and not the essence or nature of anything). The follow verse also indicates that Jesus attained this status after his death and resurrection (Hebrews 1:4).

The problem with your “expression of God’s real being” translation is that the Greek words don’t mean that. XARAKTHR doesn’t mean “expression” and UPOSTASIS doesn’t mean “real being.” You continue to remain ignorant of the meaning of the words because you don’t pay attention to how the biblical writers used them.

I don’t agree with your misunderstanding of “the form of God” in Philippians 2:6 and thus there is no difficulty for me. Jesus didn’t have “the form of God” until after he was exalted (Philippians 2:9-11). The “radiance of God’s glory” in Hebrew 1:3 is probably referring to “the glorified body” that Jesus attained after his ascension (Philippians 3:21).

Miguel,

All translators have to make choices and it’s understandable that any of us would prefer a rendering that we think is consistent with our perception of the writer’s literary and theological intention. That’s just common sense. There isn’t anything particularly “candid” about it.

Hopefully, we try to be as objective as possible, but there is always flexibility. That is why there are so many different translations and interpretations among us.

Miquel,

It’s fallacious to appeal to the “etymology” of a word because only the usage matters when doing translation and interpretation. The term UPOSTASIS means only “confidence” or “assurance” whenever the apostles used it. Thus, it should be translated that way in Hebrews 1:3.

For what it is worth I think the Col1:15ff passages would be relevant to this discussion – esp. as to the limitations of the word “ALL” specifically denoted in the context.

A key issue is the preposition “DIA” – esp. in contrast with “EK” (“EK” is NEVER used of Jesus – an interesting – and very rare – consistency in scripture.

E.A.

Agreed. But, having “one authority” wouldn’t have any implications for the Father, son, and holy spirit being of the same essence or nature. For example, God being the “head” of Jesus Christ and Jesus being the “head” of every man doesn’t make “God” and “man” the same substance or nature. The “head” (like “name”) refers to authority without any ontological implications.

This is why I don’t think Matthew 28:19-20 is a good text to use when trying to prove the Trinity doctrine. The passage makes perfectly good sense if the three are operating as “one authority” and it is impossible to prove that this cannot be a plausible interpretation of the language.

E.A.,

I think you make some valid points here. Of course, we agree that the Father and the son are separate “persons.” However, I’m not sure that Matthew 28:19-20 is sufficient to prove anything about holy spirit being a third “person” because we have other evidence to take into consideration.

Holy spirit is said to do things that a person does (e.g. speak), but it is also said to be like impersonal things (e.g. poured out, power, wind) which are things not attributed to the Father or the son. The spirit is also said to be “of God” and “of Christ” (possessives) but they are not described as possessions of the spirit.

E.A.,

Jesus referred to holy spirit as “power” in Acts 1:8. He was also referring to a “baptism” (Matthew 3:11) by means of “pouring” (Acts 2:17). These things are not descriptive of what happens with a personal being.

I agree that holy spirit is “the spirit of God” and “the spirit of Christ.” My point was that there is no “the Father of spirit” or “the son of spirit” language in scripture that expresses the same kind of possession in relation to all three.

Spirit is a term (in both Hebrew and Greek) that is both associated with a “person” and with impersonal “things”. Thus, it is not a word that is used the same way as “Father” or “son.” Moreover, “spirit” is neither a familial title (like father or son) nor is it identified with a personal name (like a father or a son).

These things all mitigate against the idea that “holy spirit” can simply be categorized as a “person.” I think there needs to be a more comprehensive explanation of the evidence.

E.A.,

I’m not trying to suggest that understanding “spirit” or “holy spirit” is easy. You certainly are presenting evidence (of “personal” descriptions) that must be taken into consideration. I’m just pointing out the other ways that the biblical writers spoke of “spirit” that is different than how they spoke of persons.

I think another thing that needs to be taken into account is that “spirit” is also associated with persons in a way that doesn’t require the understanding that the “spirit” is another person (in and of itself).

For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:11, Paul makes a comparison between “the spirit of a man” and “the spirit of God” (both referring to the “thoughts” of the persons). In this case, nobody would suggest that “spirit of a man” is a different person from the man himself. Why then should we take “the spirit of God” to be a separate person?

These thoughts are characteristic of “spirit”, but they are only “personal” in the sense that they belong to someone who is a person.

Matt13,

I really appreciated your list of the Father as Jesus’ God because it effectively refutes docetism.

Yes. I totally agree that Christ was and is human. He bled and died. He has flesh and bones. But he is not only human. He is truly God as well.

Thomas answered and said to HIM [JESUS]: My Lord and my God (John 20:28)

HEB. 1:8
UNTO THE SON,
YOUR THRONE, O GOD IS FOR EVER AND EVER

John,

I agree with the typology. The king in Ps. 45 is the type of Christ. The king represents God that is why he had the title ‘God.’ This is only God-ness by title and function but not in essence.

Moses was God as well in Exodus 7:11.But again, this only God-ness by title and function and not in essence.

Hebrews 1:8 was calling Jesus ‘God’ in the strictest sense of the word because he was God by nature based on the immediate context (verse 3): “…the exact imprint of his nature” (ESV).

Hi John,

“The unknown author of Hebrews was introducing , in Chapter 1, an introduction to Christ’s arrival , in these last days, and then surmising that in his risen state Christ must now be “higher than the angels'”

I think you are seeing something that you want to see here.

Heb 1 v 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Why were the angels commanded to worship Jesus when he was still a baby and not yet exalted according to the unitarian scheme of things?

God bless,

Paul

Hi Paul!
At the time Christ was born Jews considered angels to be ‘superior’ to humans.
The writer was surmising that in his elevated state that Jesus was now ‘higher than the angels’
You will notice that the word used to describe ‘worship’ in Hebrews 1 v 6is ‘proskynesatosan’ which is derived from the Greek verb ‘ proskueno’.
This means worship in the sense of ‘bowing before’ or ‘doing obesience before a superior’
The same word is used to describe the ‘worship’ of the three wise men after Jesus’ birth.
Notice that the scripture did NOT use the verb ‘latreou’
God Bless
John

Paul,

If the Jews didn’t worship the angels, why would Apostle John have “fallen down to worship” the angel who delivered the Revelation visions to him (Revelation 22:8)? Why would the angel have needed to defer the worship to the risen Christ?

Miquel,

John might have made a “mistake” by attempting to worship the angel at the time of his Revelation (as we agree), but it doesn’t logically follow that it would have been wrong to do so before the exaltation of Jesus Christ. Thus, I don’t think your answer is sufficient.

There are a number of examples of angels being worshipped by the Patriarchs and the Jews understood that their Law was “a religion (worship) of angels” (Colossians 2:18) and regarded them as “majesties” (Jude 1:8) and rulers (Hebrews 2:5).

Miquel,

Your answers aren’t consistent with the evidence in scripture. Let me give you a couple of examples.

1. You claim that Galatians 1:8 would mean that somebody worshipping an angel would be “accursed” but then we later find that John had no hesitation to worship the angel in Revelation 22:8. Thus, I don’t think your application of Galatians 1:8 is appropriate here.

2. If you concede that “the worship of angels” was being practiced by the Jews (Colossians 2:18), then there’s nothing in that context to suggest that it was only happening at the time Paul wrote to the Colossians since the rest of the Mosaic precepts were being practiced long before that time. On what basis would “worship of angels” be distinctly a Colossians issue?

3. There would have been nothing “illogical” about worshiping angels prior to the glorification of Jesus Christ because the world of creation was “subject to the angels” (Hebrews 2:5). It is “the world to come” that is subject to Jesus Christ after he is glorified (John 17:5).

Miquel,

Genesis 18:1-2 is an example of where Abraham “bowed down” in the presence of the angelic visitors.

Miquel,

It doesn’t matter “how many” because YHVH and ALHYM were used interchangeably. The Hebrew language in Genesis 18-19 allows for either YHVH or ALHYM to include any number of the angelic visitors.

This is why YHVH “appears” and there are “three men” that Abraham sees. This is one of the reasons that ALHYM is plural in Hebrews.

Miguel,

Again, you are making several fallacious arguments based upon “grammar” that are not consistent with the way the words are used in the context of these passages. In Genesis 18:1-2, when YHWH appears, Abraham sees “three men” who are later identified as “angels” (Genesis 19:1).

The apostles understood that “no man has ever seen God [the Father] at any time” (John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16). The only way YHVH manifested himself is in the form of angelic visitors.

Miquel,

Both YHVH and ALHYM were sometimes used of “angels” in scripture because the Patriarchs didn’t have contact with God in any other form. That is why so much anthropomorphic language is also used to describe YHVH in the Hebrew scriptures.

Adam was said to be “made in the image and likeness of God (ALHYM)” because he bore the physical resemblance to the angelic “men” who visited the Patriarchs (e.g. Genesis 18:1-2; Genesis 32:24-28). Likewise, God is described in human terms because that is the only way the ancient Hebrews had known him (John 1:18).

Miguel,

The Hebrew word translated “image” in Genesis 1:26 always means the physical shape of something throughout the Hebrew scriptures. The term never means “reason, freedom, or will.” That interpretation simply demonstrates ignorance of the Hebrew vocabulary.

If you look at the way Paul himself interpreted Genesis 1:26, it’s evident that he understood that “the image of God” (male) was distinct from “the glory of the man” (female). He alluded to this distinction in order to substantiate the fact that men and women were to have a different appearance (predicated upon the order of creation and nature, 1 Corinthians 11:8-16).

The reason that Adam (males) have the physical shape of ALHYM (“God”) is because that is the way human males were created after the likeness of the angels who “appeared” as “men” (Genesis 18:1-2). There cannot be an “image” of a God who is “unseen” (John 1:18). Thus, the “image” must refer to the shape of the ALHYM that were visible (i.e. angelic visitors).

Miquel,

1. The meaning of the term “image” in Psalms 39:6 is a “shadow.” A shadow is in the physical shape of something. The meaning of the term “image” in Psalms 37:20 is the physical “form” of a person standing over a bed. Please read the passages instead of merely quoting citations from an online concordance.

2. 1 Corinthians 11:8-16 is an inspired apostolic commentary on Genesis 1:26. Please read the passage instead of hastily dismissing it.

3. Heavenly angels (ALHYM) often appear as “men” in scripture. This is why it is reasonable to consider that “let us make Adam in our image” (Genesis 1:26) refers to the male physical form that looks like the angelic form. An “unseen” God cannot have an “image” (John 1:18).

Miquel,

Even if you argue that TsLM (“image”) refers to someone seen in the dream, the word is still referring to the physical form seen in the dream. It is the word “dream” earlier in the passage that conveys the “mental” idea and not the term TsLM.

For example, if I have a dream about an elephant, and I awake thinking about the “form” of the elephant I saw in the dream, it is not the “dream” itself that determines the form of the elephant. The word “form” refers to the physical shape of the elephant seen in the dream, and the word “dream” refers to the mental experience.

I shouldn’t need to explain that 1 Corinthians 11:8-16 is a commentary on Genesis 1:26 because it’s evident throughout the text. Please read it sometime. It gives a lot of insight into how the apostle understood the creation of male and female and the involvement of the angels.

The historical accounts in Genesis tell us that the angelic messengers “appeared” as “men” (Genesis 18:1-2). That is the evidence we have to work with throughout scripture. I don’t think there’s any need to speculate about what “the image of God” was. The Hebrew term TsLM (“image”) meant “physical shape” and the ALHYM later appeared in the same “male” form as Adam was made (Genesis 18:1-2).

Miquel,

1. The problem with your theory about “reason, freedom, will” is that the Hebrew word “image” has nothing to do with those concepts. Moreover, there is no evidence that “ruling” in Genesis 1:26 is connected to “reason, freedom, or will” either. Redefining terms and ignoring the relationship of the words in the context is simply doing bad exegesis.

2. The only “spiritual quality” that Adam received was “the breath of the spirit of life” (Genesis 2:7). However, that didn’t distinguish him from any of the animals who all have the same “spirit” that humans do (Genesis 7:15; Ecclesiastes 12:7).

3. The evidence in scripture shows that even though angels are called “spirits” (Hebrews 1:13), they also appear and function with corporeal male bodies (Genesis 18-19). Thus, I think you’re dismissing a lot of evidence when you insist that they are only “spiritual beings.”

Miquel,

All I’m saying is that when you propose that TsLM (“image”) means capacity for “reason, freedom, will” and that this is supposedly why Adam was to “rule” over the animals, there must be some exegetical evidence that your definition of the terms is plausible.

Anyone doing sound critical exegesis is going to ask the same questions about the unsubstantiated assumptions you are making to arrive at your claims about the meaning of the passage. Since you can’t even show a single use of TsLM that means “reason, freedom, will” in Hebrew, there’s no evidence that any of your conclusions about the meaning of the text have any foundation.

Hi Paul
Read the first 2 verses of Matthew 2.-
“where is the newborn king of the Jews..”?
The Magi believed that an ‘earthly’ king had been born – and Herod was (quite rightly). ‘greatly troubled’
Note that the word used for worship was ‘proskueno.
“prostrating before” , ‘obesience’
The NAB Bible uses the words “we have come to do him homage”
Blessings
John

Hi John,

you said, “The question is ‘in what sense”?
Christ was offered ‘proskueno’ as were a myriad of other persons..”

But proskueno in spirit and in truth can only be offered to God himself. Or are you claiming that it is right for us to give God worship that we could give to creatures also? Surely this is an offence to God to do so. We should not give to God the lowest common deniminator of worship because we have the light to give him the highest worship and this is his will as Jesus said.

As Christians we have sufficient truth in the bible to worship God fully in spirit and in truth. The magi were not able to do this in the same way as we do because they did not have the same light of the NT revelation as we do.

As I see it latreuo is any type of spiritual service given to God. This would include but not exclude proskeuno. Latreuo would seem to be broader in scope than proskeuno.

Unitarians are trying, but in my view they fail to make a case to make these concepts exclusive to each other.

God bless,

Paul

Paul
Rivers has answered the question adequately but I would like to add –
“Worship” takes many forms , whether it be bowing down to a magistrate, prostrating oneself to a king or paying homage… or worshipping the Lord God Almighty.
So what’s the difference?
The difference lies in the INTENTION of the worshipper..
Only the person worshipping can really tell us that is going on in his mind and we therefore resort to CONTEXT to try and ascertain what is going on.
Scholarly bibles try to distinguish between the different types of ‘worship’ , thus, in the NAB Bible you will see that the Maji ‘paid homage ‘ to the infant Christ. (KJV = worship’)
Christ was never worshipped as God – and in Revelation Christ is seen to have rejected this type of worship. See Chapter 22v 9.
God Bless
John

Hi Sean,
A most useful analysis!
Thank you !
I particularly appreciate your thoughts on Larry Hurtado’s thesis.
I must admit that I tend to give little thought to his ‘gymnastics’ – he just keeps seeing what he wants to see!
The ultimate rationalist!
God Bless
John

Paul
Sorry, forgot to mention that the wise men were worshipping Christ as ‘ the King of the Jews”
Blessings
John

“Why were the angels commanded to worship Jesus…”

I think that your KJV-onlyism is the problem, here, frankly. Angels and men can pay homage (proskuneo) to a king without any notion that the king is God.

~Sean

Dear Matt,
A most informative post!
What are your thoughts on who the “Sons of God’ might be, given the OT setting?
Humans?
Davidic Kings?
Any thoughts on the difference between verse 7 and the OT text ?
God Bless you
John

Matt13,

There is no controversy at all.

The Greek word ????? has more than one meaning. It can mean either ‘appearance’ or ‘nature’ or ‘status’ depending on the context it is used.

Both Philippians 2:6 and Philippians 2:7 have ????? in them.

Philippians 2:6 who, being in the ????? of God

Philippians 2:7 having taken the ????? of a slave

The Greek word ????? in these texts can possess all the meanings it has.

Christ has the appearance of God (Rev. 1:13-17)
Christ has the status of God (Matthew 18:18,Philippians 2:9)
Christ has the nature of God (Colossians 2:9;Hebrews 1:3)

In 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Paul talked about idols as gods. In Galatians 4:8, Paul said that they are ‘not gods by nature’ (?????). Christians can ‘participate’ (take part) in the divine nature (?????) in 2 Peter 1:4 but the Lord Jesus Christ is the exact imprint of his (God’s) nature (?????????) in Hebrews 1:3.

Rivers,

When it says “the fullness of deity in a body” (Colossians 2:9) it is referring to the “church” as “the body” (and not the nature or physical form of the human Jesus). If you read the following verse, it says that Jesus is the “head” (Colossians 2:10)

What do you mean by ‘deity’ (????????) in Colossians 2:9?

If the adverb ‘bodily’ in Colossians 2:9 means the ‘church’ ,then, do you mean that ‘in Christ dwells all the fullness of deity in the church’?

Rivers,

I agree.

The church (i.e. the body) IS the fullness of God.~ Ephesians 1:22-23

church = body
body = fullness of God

Christ is the “head” of this “body” (Ephesians 1:22).

However, Colossians 2:9 says something different.

In Him [JESUS] is dwelling all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

The adverb ‘bodily’ (?????????) tells us how the divine essence dwells in Jesus Christ.

“This is a real embarassment for all those who, with the excuse of
rejecting the “trinity” and/or the “pre-existence”, deny the full
divinity of Jesus Christ, alongside his full humanity.”

I don’t see why it would be an embarrassment for anyone, personally. God can dwell in a literal temple, or on a mountain, or in a man. That doesn’t make the temple, the mountain, or the man “fully divine”.

~Sean

Hi E.A.
You quote Colossians 2 v 9 “In Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily’
Yes and the following verse (10) states
“.. and you (believers) share this fullness with him”
Blessings
John

Hi E.A.
There are translational variations.
Consult Strongs Greek Ref 4137.
“Pleroo’ – to fill, to fulfil, to completely fill
Now look specifically at ‘pepleromenoi’
There are 3 occurances in the NT
Romans 15v14
‘filled with goodness”
Philippians 1 v 11
‘being filled with fruits’
Colossians 2 v 10
Well, we have some options!
The NAB which I trust says “you share this fullness in Him..”
NIV “You have been brought to fullness’
ESV “you are complete”
ESV ” You have been filled with Him..”
Are you suggesting that there is some other type of fullness?
I think not!
God Bless You
John
Surely plain language indicates that the fullness which dwells in Christ also fills or dwells in believers?

Rivers,

Colossians 2:9 in him [JESUS]dwells all the fullness (pleroma) of the Godhead bodily

Colossians 2:10 and (kai) you [the church, Christ’s body] have been filled (pleroma) by Him [JESUS], who is the head [of you i.e. the church, Christ’s body] over every ruler and authority.

The texts clearly have different contexts. The former talks about Christ being full of the divine essence (theotetos) while the latter talks about the church being full of Christ.

Rivers,

I’m talking about the immediate contexts of the texts in question.The former talks about Christ being full of the divine essence (theotetos) while the latter talks about the church being full of Christ.

Rivers,

Colossians 2:8-10 (KJV)
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

It’s explicit that in Christ [ not in Christians] dwells all the fullness (not just some) of God’s nature bodily.

2 Peter 1:4 (KJV)
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

2 Peter 1:4 is explicit that Christians [not Christ] partakes (take part) in the divine nature.

E.A.

I agree, but Paul ALWAYS uses the term “in Christ” as a figurative reference to Christians being a part of “the body of Christ” (i.e. the church). There is no reason to make “in Christ” mean anything different in Colossians 2:9 especially when Jesus is said to be the figurative “head” in Colossians 2:10.

Yes, all believers will “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). However, if you look at the context, this is speaking of the resurrection “power” that was yet to be attained through the “promise” of eternal life (which was not yet fulfilled). Even Jesus Christ was “not yet glorified” while he was on earth (John 7:39).

At most, 2 Peter 1:4 would be referring to the holy spirit “power” (Acts 1:8) which is the “guarantee” of future participation in the immortality of God (Romans 8:11; Ephesians 1:12-13).

E.A.

There is no word “godhead” anywhere in biblical Greek. Moreover, you are proposing an interpretation of Colossians 2:9 that is contrary to the way Paul used the term “in Christ” in every other occurrence.

You are also ignoring the following verse (context) which says that Jesus Christ is the “head” of the body (Colossians 2:10). Christ as “head” is always used by Paul with reference to the “church” as the “body.” Jesus as the “head” of his own physical body makes no sense.

2 Peter 1:4 (QEIOS, adjective) is not using the same word as Colossians 2:9 (QEOTHS, noun) and I don’t know why you would want to connect these two passages because it proves too much. I don’t know any Trinitarians or deity of Christ fanatics who would want to suggest that “the fullness of the Godhead” indwells the physical body of every Christian.

Yes, there are other biblicial unitarians who might accept your interpretation of Colossians 2:9 because they are not interpreting the language correctly either. But, I can only answer for myself.

Rivers,

In biblical Greek, theotetos means ‘the state of being God.’ In English, the word ‘Godhead’ (God-ness) faithfully translates the Greek.

Colossians 2:9 says that in Christ does tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

In Colossians 2:10, the Christians (…and YOU…) are filled with Christ who is the head over all rule and authority.

Colossians 2:9 is about Christ being entirely filled with theotetos
Colossians 2 :10 is about Christians being filled with christos

Why do you disagree that in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily?

The way you understand Colossians 2:9 is completely out of context. What is your basis in your insistence that Colossians 2:9 does not talk about the divine identity and divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Rivers,

Paul used the word ‘body'(Gk. Soma) in his letter to the Colosisians with different meanings:

Col. 1:18,24 body — figuratively (the church)
Col. 1:22 body of flesh– literally ( Physical body)
Col. 2:9 bodily — literally ( physical body )
Colossians 2:11 body of flesh of sin –metaphorically (whole mass of sin condition)
Col. 2:17 — figuratively ( corpus)

There is already an antecedent for regarding soma(tikos) as Christ’s physical body in the Colossian epistle ( cf. Col. 1:22; Col.2:9). Remember that the original writings do not contain chapter and verses divisions.

The folowing are the scholars who support the consensus view of theotoes, Lightfoot, (“The totality of the divine powers and attributes”), Trench (“all the fullness of absolute Godhead…He was, and is, absolute and perfect God”), Bengal (“not merely the Divine attributes, but the Divine Nature itself”), Moule (“as strong as possible; Deity, not only Divinity”), Reymond (“the being of the very essence of deity”), Warfield (“the very deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness”), and Thayer (“deity, that is the state of being God, Godhead”).

Note that Thayer himself is a unitarian!

Rivers,

1. Paul exactly portray that the subject is the receiver of the codition.

In him (Christ) dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (ASV)

In whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily? The answer is ‘Christ.’

Therefore, the body refers to the physical body of Christ himself.

Colossians 1:22 body of flesh ( literal)

Colossians 2:11 body of flesh (figurative)

If Paul could use ?????? ??? ?????? both literally and figuratively in the same epistle, why won’t it be used with soma?

Colossians 1:18/ Colossians 2:9 / Colossians 2:17

2. I think that you’re the one who’s ignoring the context:

Ephesians 1:23 The body IS the fullness of Christ (who is all and in all).

Colossians 2:9 The Godhead is (all the) fullness of Christ (dwelling in Him).

Colossians 2:10 is clear that Christians are full of Christ (who is head of all rule and authority)

That is, Colossians 2:10 (not Colossians 2:9) coheres with Ephesians 1:23.

It would be very nonsensical to interpret Colossians 2:9 to speak of the church as the subject.

3. In Him is dwelling all the fullness of the Godhead

In Christ Jesus dwells the entire/ complete state/condition of being God

in what manner does it dwell? Paul says ‘ somatikos.’ (bodily or in a body adv.)

Colossians 2:9 is clearly speaking of the incarnate Deity. Colossians 2:9 is telling us that Jesus Christ is God himself subsisting in a human body.

4. It’s not just a mere opinion but an educated research and in fact, the consensus on what ‘theotetos’ means in Colossians 2:9.

The folowing are the scholars who support the consensus view of theotoes, Lightfoot, (“The totality of the divine powers and attributes”), Trench (“all the fullness of absolute Godhead…He was, and is, absolute and perfect God”), Bengal (“not merely the Divine attributes, but the Divine Nature itself”), Moule (“as strong as possible; Deity, not only Divinity”), Reymond (“the being of the very essence of deity”), Warfield (“the very deity of God, that which makes God God, in all its completeness”), and Thayer (“deity, that is the state of being God, Godhead”).

Rivers,

Colossians 2:9 does not talk about the church, the body of Jesus Christ. Rather, the evidence points to the nature and identity of Jesus Christ as God in a body.

Yes. Christ is not the head of his own body. Neither Colossians 2:9 nor Colossians 2:10 says anything like that.In Colossians 2:10, the pronoun ‘you’ (the church), being ‘filled’ (of Christ) , who is the ‘head’ of it.

It’s as if you’re saying that the church in Colossians 2:9 is the ‘fullness of God’when in fact both Colossians 2:10 and Ephesians 1:23 speak of the church as the ‘fullness of Christ’ and ‘filled of Christ.’

Those certain ‘scholars’ have contributed to biblical hermeneutics; their works are useful for biblical exegesis.Consider Thayer (a Unitarian) who is not bias. He knew that theotetos denotes ‘the state of being God, Godhead.’

The text reads “In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” How do you read Colossians 2:9? Could you paraphrase it?

Rivers,

Thank you. It’s now clear what your POV is.

It’s now clear how your view misses the substance of the text.

You easily dismiss the word ‘Godhead’ , ‘the Deity’ in the text.

theotetos and theiotes are not only different in spelling but in meaning as well.

Earlier in the epistle, Christ is said to be prior in all things, that is, Christ was there before all creation began because in, through and by Him all things were created (Colossians 1:15-17). Indeed, such a protological role and condition exalt Jesus above all creation. His supremacy over the church is tackled as well (Colossians 1:18-19).

Paul viewed Christ as the source of all wisdom and knowledge indicating that true gnosis is found in Him (Colossians 2:3).

In Colossians 2:8-9, Paul underscores Christ’s supremacy even more because not only Christ is the origin of all things whether creation or redemption or knowledge but also the one in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead.

Bottom line: Christ’s supremacy is what makes him all sufficient.

See for yourself how Paul evinced Christ’s supreme being and power:

Col. 1:16-17 Christ is above all things.
Col. 1:18-19 Christ is above new creation.
Col. 2:3 Christ has all wisdom/knowledge
Col. 2:9 Christ has all the fullness of the Godhead
Col. 2:10 Christ is above all authority and rule

So, you see, everything points to Christ. Paul’s aim is to exalt Christ against every form of belief and practice that put Christ on the level with angelic intermediaries.

Truly, the church is Christ’s body but your opinion on Colossians 2:9 is shallow at best. You have not considered the overall context of the text in question. That’s what makes ???????? semantically stronger in upholding High Christology.

Rivers,

Certainly, Colossians 1:15-17 talk about the Genesis creation, that Jesus Christ preceded all things, that ‘the Son of his love’ was before all creation for all things were created in, by and for Him.

The whole point of the Colossian epistle is to exalt Christ in both status and role, essence and nature. Christ is above all creation.There are no creature-intermediary that is equal to Christ.

You fail to take into account that ???????? should be understood in light of that preeminence which Christ alone has. How could someone function as God if that someone is not God by nature? Sure, an emissary could but Christ is not merely an agent but himself, fully God.

“In Him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9 ASV).

Furthermore, Colossians 2:8 would be compromised if you would insist that Colossians 2:9 talked about the church. The subject of Colossians 2:9 is the antecedent of Colossians 2:8. It wasn’t until Colossians 2:10 when the church was tackled as being filled with Christ. The chruch is Christo-centric as Colossians 2:8-10 show. Other than that would be an eisegesis.

Indeed, your interpretation that the church is the ‘fulness of the Godhead’ holds no water.

Rivers,

Paul touches the resurrection of Christ in Colossians 1:18-19. You can’t interpret Colossians 1:15-17 in light of the resurrection or else, are you suggesting that the angels are “new creation” just like the “believers”?

The ‘fulness of the Godhead’ is certainly not about the one new man i.e. the church. The church is the ‘fulness of Christ’ ( Ephesians 1:23) and Christ has all the fullness of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9).

Rivers,

1. It wasn’t until verse 18 when Paul started to introduce the body of Christ as the church. The inclusion of both creation and redemption in the scope of God’s activity through Christ was a direct influence of Wisdom Theology that was prevalent in first century Judaism.

2. Colossians 2:9 is speaking of The Godhead dwelling in Christ BODILY.

The interpretation that the Lord Jesus is both God and Man in Colossians 2:9 is cogent.

In HIM(one singly person) dwells all the fullness of DEITY (divine) BODILY (human). ~ Colossians 2:9 (ESV)

For IN HIM(Jesus Christ)dwells ALL the fullness of The Godhead IN BODILY form.

“Colossians 2:9 does not talk about the church, the body of Jesus Christ.
Rather, the evidence points to the nature and identity of Jesus Christ
as God in a body.”

If God can dwell on a mountain or in a temple, then why can’t he dwell in a man?

~Sean

E.A.
You are going against so many other scriptures in which believers are said to partake of the divine nature!
See 2 Peter 1 v 4 “He has bestowed upon us great and precious promises .. so that through Him you might share the divine nature”
Similar statements in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.
Your ‘disconnect’ between Colossians 2 verse 9 and v 10
is really ‘clutching at straws’
God Bless You
John

Rivers,

Col 2:9 for in him [JESUS] dwells all the fullness (pleroma) of the Godhead bodily..

Col 2:10 and you have been filled (pleroma) by him [JESUS], who is the head of all ruler and power.

Different texts with its own context.The former tells us that Christ is full of the divine essence while the latter speaks of the church being full of Christ.

John,

I’m a biblical unitarian and not a Trinitarian. However, I think that non-Trinitarians who insist that “Jesus never claimed equality with God” are dismissing the evidence (because they don’t understand the sense in which Jesus was equal with God).

The writer of the 4th Gospel tells us in John 5:18 that Jesus was “making HIMSELF equal with God.” The writer uses the words “he” and “himself” in this text refer to Jesus, and not his accusers. It is the writer who attributes both “breaking the Sabbath” and “making himself equal with God” to Jesus, and not the Jews.

The other problem you have is that Jesus was condemned for claiming to be “the son of God” (John 19:7) and not “a god.” The claim to be “the son of God” is also what Jesus is defending against the Jews in John 10:30-38. Thus, I don’t think your “a god” argument is relevant to the reason Jesus quoted Psalms 82 in that context. The reason he was quoting that text was to distinguish his own superiority as “son of God” from all others who were sent before him who received the word of God.

John,
Did you mean to say you “disagree” with me? 🙂

Hi John,
All those are good observations and the biblical writers did report that the Jewish rulers took offense to those things (Matthew 9:11; Luke 7:34).

Jaco,

Thank you. Hebrews 1:3 is another example of a mistranslation of a simple Greek word (UPOSTASIS) that causes a lot of unnecessary debate about nothing that was ever intended by the writer.

Yes, I think John 5:18 is a truthful comment by the writer of the 4th Gospel himself (and not the Jews). Thus, the issue is what “sense” in which Jesus was “claiming equality with God” and not that he wasn’t doing it. Likewise, we need to discern “why” he could break the Sabbath (as Lord) and not focus on dismissing the evidence that he was doing it.

As I’ve noted before, the thing that makes a “father” and a “son” equals is that they “own everything” together (Galatians 4:1-3). Thus, from the son’s perspective, the “equality” he claimed to have with God the Father was predicated upon the familial relationship that entitled him to inherit everything belonging to God himself. The Jews correctly understood the “inheritance” issue, and that is why they wanted to kill “the son” (Matthew 21:31-39).

Hi E.A.
I agree that the purpose of the early verses of 1 Corinthians was to distinguish the ‘false gods’ from the one true God.
I also agree with your words ‘the one God in 1 Colossians 8 v6 is the Father only. Christ is not the ‘one God’ according to the text. Rather, Jesus Christ is ‘one’ with the one God.”
I disagree with the conclusion you draw “the unity they have is ontological unity’
Perhaps you are drawing on John 10v30?
In this verse the Greek word used is ‘hen’ which frequently means functional unity In fact in an earlier verse Christ had uttered (addressing onlookers) the words “that you and I may be one (hen) just as I and the Father are one” . Having a common purpose as in 1 Corinthians 3v8.”the one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose” (hen)
We see the same construction in Philippians Chapter 2 v2 “united in heart”(NAB) (hen).
God Bless
John

Hi E.A.
You say-
“notice that the word ‘theois’ only occurred twice in the NT -Gal 4v8 and 1 Cor 8v5 brought us to the conclusion that the oneness of the Father with Jesus Christ is ontological”
It certainly did not lead me to that conclusion!
The word ‘theoi does not occurs TWICE in the NT.
It occurs ONCE in Galations 4 v 8
See Strongs G 2316
You say-
“Galatians 4 v 8 says that gods are ‘not Gods by nature’
The Greek word translated as ‘nature’ in this verse appears FIVE times in the NT
Per Strongs Greek concordance.
Romans 2 v 14
Galatians 2 v 15
Galatians 4 v 8 (as discussed)
Ephesians 2 v 3
James 3 v 7
On reading these verses you will note that ‘nature’ on some occasions is referring to ‘the nature’ of Jews’,’ the nature of children ‘
E.A. – I feel that you are grasping wildly to support an error.
God Bless you
John