"John 1:3 and Hebrews1:10" - Example of Agency

Exodus 7:17-20 KJV

17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.

18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink of the water of the river.

19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.

20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.

John Gill

"behold, I will smite with the rod that is in my hand - which though in the hand of Moses, yet he being his ambassador, and representing him, is said to be in the hand of the Lord; and with this he threatens to smite."

Pulpit

"Behold, I will smite - God here speaks of the acts of Moses and Aaron as his own acts, and of their hands as his hand, because they were mere instruments through which he worked."

See: "John 1:3" The Messiah as the Agent and Instrument of the Creation

Interacting with Arthur Daniels Jr. on "John 8:58"

David's comments on Trinitarian apologist Arthur Daniels Jr's appearance on the Healing X Outreach podcast, including his call into the show.

Click: Interacting with Arthur Daniels Jr. on John 8:58

John 1:18 and the Coptic "p.noute"

One of my Trinitarian friend used this text to show that the writer was equating the Son with God because he was called "p.noute" in the Sahidic Coptic. Did the Coptic writer really believe the Son is God the same as the Father ? Let's find out.

Based on the grammatical rules, the definite article "The" is used to talk about specific or known things. These are usually things that have been mentioned before or that the listener is familiar with. And the indefinite "A" (or "an") is used to talk about things which are not specific. These are usually things that haven't been mentioned before or that the listener is unfamiliar with.

Let's say I tell you: "I went to see a doctor last week."
Explanation: I went to see some doctor. I didn't mention him before, and you are not familiar with him. Another option is that it is not important who he is. So I use the word "a".

Then I say: "The doctor said I should get more rest."
Now you already know which doctor I am referring to. I am referring to the doctor I went to see. So I use the word "the."

Another example: 

Luke 2:9-10 (WEB)

9 Behold, an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 The angel said to them, “Don’t be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be to all the people.

We know Greek does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which will become "the" in English. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in English with "a" or "an." We are not "adding a word" when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but may say "Snoopy is a dog."

For example, in John 1:1c, the clause we are investigating, ho logos is "the word," as all translations accurately have it. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word."[*]

So in Luke we have "an" angel who appeared to them. But why is it in the next verse the writer used the definite article? Obviously, because this is the angel mentioned in v.9. Similarly, at John 1:18, the Coptic has "the G/god, the only Son," i.e. the god previously mentioned at John 1:1c, who is the Son of God.

[The angel who appeared to them is not the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament. Some Christians thought this angel is the malakh of the OT, because this angel was called "the angel." According to them, when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. We know the angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself as God, and exercises the responsibilities of God.]

* See: BeDuhn's book: Truth In Translation

For more studies: Does Coptic John 1:1 contradict Coptic John1:18 ?

"Colossians 2:9" and the CARM

I found that Matt Slick used Colossians 2:9 to support the doctrine that Jesus was God in flesh because it states that the fullness of the "deity" dwells in him, (B.B. Warfield) “that which makes God, God.” According to him Jesus was God in the flesh and this term(i.e. theotes) is proving he is the second person of the Tri-unity.[1] According to Thayer's Lexicon, the Greek word θεότης means "deity, i.e. the state of being God." The BAGD Lexicon defines this term "divine nature, deity, divinity" (pg. 358). And Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon also defines the·o′tes in basically the same way it does thei·o′tes, as meaning “divinity, divine nature.” p. 792 [2] 

In the preceding chapter, Paul says: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him.” (Col 1:19) Thus, all the fullness dwells in Christ because it “pleased the Father” (KJ, Dy), because it was “by God’s own choice.” (NE) So the fullness of “divinity” that dwells in Christ is his as a result of a decision made by the Father.

Is the "fullness" in this verse the same "fullness" mentioned in Colossians 2:9? Methodist commentator Adam Clarke believes so. Commenting on Colossians 1:19, he remarks:

"The πληρωμα, or fullness, must refer here to the divine nature dwelling in Jesus Christ."

 Scholar A. T. Robertson says:

All the fulness (pan to pleroma). The same idea as in Col 2:9 pan to pleroma tes theotetos(all the fulness of the Godhead). “A recognized technical term in theology, denoting the totality of the Divine powers and attributes” (Lightfoot)

Greg Stafford makes a point:

The Scriptures will not sustain the view that Almighty God's powers and attributes are something contingent upon the "will" or "decree" of another. Such is the case, however, with the fullness belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ. God "chose" (Goodspeed),"decided" (Beck), "willed" (Moffatt) to have all His attributes displayed in the person of His Son.

Stafford continues:

However, it is actually uncommon in reading through different commentaries and articles that discuss issues connected with 1:19 and 2:9 to find a scholar who tries to disconnect what is said in the two passages. This is likely because they do not see the problem involved in the use of eudokeo (the verb translated 'to please'). [3]

If Christ were God the same as the Father, he would have all the fullness of deity of his own right, not because of a decision taken by someone else. It would make no sense to say that Jesus is God, but it was the Father's decision that all the fullness of deity dwelt in him. And if he never ceased being God, he would always have the fullness of deity. Of course, regardless of whether we understand Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 to be talking about the same thing, Colossians 1:19 presents great difficulties for Trinitarians. Whatever the plerotes mentioned in that verse is, how come Christ received it? And what was his position before receiving it? How does that affect his supposed equality with God? 

Milton makes this comment:

"These passages most clearly evince that Christ has received his fullness from God, in the sense in which we shall receive our fullness from Christ. It is of no weight in proving that Christ is of the same essence with God." —John Milton, On Christian Doctrine. [4]

_______________________________________________________________


1. Matt Slick is a President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.  Matt earned his Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA in 1988.  He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA, in 1991.  He now resides in the Boise, Idaho area with his family.  He is ordained.  Matt started CARM in October of 1995 to respond to the many false teachings of the cults on the Internet. See: Colossians 2:9 and the CARM

2. Thayer's Lexicon and Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon

3. Bible Translation and Study pages 69-70; Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, pages 158-60.

4. Milton entitled his book, A Treatise on Christian Doctrine: Compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone. In its preface, he wrote: “Most authors who have dealt with this subject . . . have relegated to the margin, with brief reference to chapter and verse, the scriptural texts upon which all that they teach is utterly dependent. I, on the other hand, have striven to cram my pages even to overflowing, with quotations drawn from all parts of the Bible.” True to Milton’s word, On Christian Doctrine alludes to or quotes the Scriptures over 9,000 times.

Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible

Israel’s view of God and his relationship to other divine beings in the He- brew Bible has long been the subject of scholarly debate. The dominant critical consensus since the late nineteenth century holds that Israel’s faith evolved from polytheism or henotheism to monotheism. Passages in the Hebrew Bible that assume the existence of other gods are compared to other passages that put forth the declaration that “there are no other gods besides” the God of Israel as proof of this view. Other scholars who reject this evolutionary paradigm tend to assume passages evincing divine plu- rality actually speak of human beings, or that the other gods are merely idols. This view insists that “monotheism” must mean that the existence of other gods is denied. Both views are problematic and fall short of doing justice to the full description of Israel’s view of God and the heavenly host in the Hebrew Bible. This article overviews the difficulties of each view and offers a coherent alternative.

See: Michael S. Heiser: Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism?

"There are many gods but there is only one God" - Impossible ?

Is the faith of The Torah monotheistic or henotheistic? The question rests on a severe anachronism, in that many or most ancient cultures in contact with Israelite culture did not have a conceptualization of 'monotheism' or 'henotheism' until well after the biblical books were written. Just to illustrate this, the Greek word 'atheism' was used to describe the Jewish people, because from a Greco-Roman perspective the Jews did not worship the gods of the state religion.1

Within the Hebrew Bible, the family of Hebrew and Aramaic words often translated as 'God' with a capital-G are used for YHWH, foreign gods (e.g. gods of Egypt, Baal, Chemosh, Dagon), angels (e.g. Psalm 8.5, where 'elohim' was understood as referring to 'angels' in the LXX, Syriac OT, and NT). In one case, the spirit of a dead prophet is even perceived as an 'elohim', even though the context makes it clear the speaker does not have a deity in mind (1 Samuel 28.13).

Many of the occasions we find 'god' applied to other entities do not deny the existence of such 'gods', only that they were inferior or subordinate to YHWH. For example, in Exodus 12:12 YHWH claims he will 'execute judgment on all the gods of Egypt'. Psalm 82 portrays God as sitting in judgment amidst a heavenly council of gods. YHWH is called 'the god of gods' on more than one occasion, an idiom that means 'the greatest god'.2

What this shows is that the common modern definition of the word 'god' (an omnipotent, omniscient supernatural entity) does not correspond very well to the ancient near eastern concept of 'god' as we find that word-family used, at least in the Hebrew scriptures.

The issue to look for, however, is not whether the authors of the biblical books believed in the existence of other gods or not, but what qualities they ascribed to YHWH that distinguished him from those other 'gods' as they used the term. If we understand that broader usage of the word 'god' in the ancient Jewish culture, this can help us understand the meaning of the aforementioned passages in Deuteronomy.

Michael Heiser argues that within an ancient understanding, both YHWH and the angels are 'gods', but the qualitative difference was that YHWH is the sole, almighty uncreated god, which is what qualifies him alone for worship, while all other gods (also called 'sons of God' or 'angels', the latter just designating their roles as YHWH's messengers) are his creations, and thus unworthy of worship.3

So while 'there are indeed many gods', the various biblical authors believed YHWH was utterly supreme and unique, and all other gods (whether they existed or not) were inherently inferior.4

_____________________________________________________________

1 Cassius Dio, Roman History 67.14.2.

2 Compare the expressions: holy of holies (i.e. most holy), song of songs (greatest song), king of kings (supreme king), etc.

3 Micheal Heiser is a scholar in the fields of biblical studies and the ancient Near East. He is the Academic Editor of Logos Bible Software. Mike earned the M.A. and Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2004. He has also earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania (major fields: Ancient Israel and Egyptology). See "The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature." 

4 This, for example, is why Paul, as a Jew from the Second Temple period, could say 'there are indeed many gods', but immediately turn around and say 'but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist'. (1 Corinthians 8:5,6)

John 20:28 and the Bishop of Mopsuestia

Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (350-428) 

"he was an early Christian theologian, the most eminent representative of the so-called school of Antioch. .... he was held in great respect, and took part in several synods, with a reputation for orthodoxy that was never questioned." This respected Bishop of Mopsuestia was a very early trinitarian and a friend of John Chrysostom and of Cyril of Alexandria. - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol. 22, p. 58.

This very early trinitarian wrote (probably in the late 300's A. D.) that Thomas' statement at John 20:28 "was an exclamation of astonishment directed to God." - p. 535, Vol. 3,Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament (John), 1983, Hendrickson Publ.

Some have also taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT. 

Winer , as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183 

Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966
Fortna finds a problem with the high Christology of v.28 and the more primitive messianism of v.31. (see The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 197, 198 

Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine."

I do not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although in customary Johannine and NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124

 John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: 

"The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as 'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503. 

"The Sharpest Rule" vs."The Sharper Rule"

We have all heard about Granville Sharp's rule and its application or non-application of it in Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and in other texts which may or may not call Jesus "God (god)" directly.

A recent book has been published by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace on the subject defending "Sharp's Rule", or what he calls, the "Sharper Rule." 

In response, Greg Stafford of Elihubooks has issued a review and critique of Dr. Wallace's past and present works on this issue. In his book he defends his view about the subject and introduces a new exception to "Sharp's Rule."

              vs.

Christology and the Trinity: An Exploration (Volume 1)

Dr. Edgar Foster produced a small book,Christology and the Trinity: An Exploration (Volume 1) in 1997 dealing with the issue of the trinity. It is available in www.amazon.com. You can also read it online, click here.

 

"Polytheism and The Trinity"

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a metaphysics developed to counter the charge of polytheism. Three individuals – one takes them to be individuals – are mentioned in certain New Testament passages, such as “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:13).

If the “Father” and the “Son” and the “Holy Spirit” are each God, then it appears each is a separate God – i.e. polytheism. The doctrine of the Trinity holds that such an appearance is misleading.

Perhaps the first Trinitarian metaphysics is developed by Tertullian in the early third century. “These three are one substance, not one person.” In the fourth century Nicene Creed, Jesus is said to be “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, … begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” The doctrine of the Trinity is illustrated in the late medieval “Shield of the Trinity”:

Although the Trinity is sometimes said to be a “mystery,” it is actually understandable – odd, perhaps, but understandable.

There is one God, but it – and I deliberately use the impersonal pronoun – is the substance which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share, and which is presumably shared by no other being. To avoid polytheism, the term “God” must refer not to an individual but to the substance underlying the three persons of the Trinity, which we can call “God-stuff”.

“God,” taken as referring to God-stuff, turns out to be a mass noun, like “clay” or “water”. The claim that there is but one God is on a (metaphysical) par with such odd-sounding claims as: there is but one clay, there is but one water, etc.

The doctrine of the Trinity befuddles because it flouts our ordinary ways of counting (individuating). Suppose I have a lump of clay – assume it to be all the clay there is – and make three minimal sculptures from it, a sphere, a cube, and a pyramid, and place them on a table. How many things are on the table? The natural answer is three. Someone who gave the answer “one” – as in one clay – would have some explaining to do.

Of course, someone might think that substance is more fundamental (because more permanent) than things; that clay is more fundamental than the objects into which it is temporarily formed. And thinking this, a person might have grounds for answering “one” to the preceding question, How many things are on the table?

But you have to be consistent about this. You can’t consistently answer “three” to the question of how many things are on the table, and “one” to the question of how many Gods are in heaven. Or if you do, you might reasonably be accused of doing so merely to avoid the charge of polytheism.

[Note: Mormonism is sometimes accused of being a polytheism. There are several reasons for this, but one is the claim of “deification” – that men may aspire to participate in the divine nature. If “God” is God-stuff, then – why not? – beings other than the three permanent members of the Trinity can become “of one substance” with them. This blocks the charge of polytheism, but in turn requires some further doctrine of transubstantiation.]

By: Bob Yanal, a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Wayne State University, Detroit.