After my meeting with Brian the other day (which initially sparked this thought), I was thinking the about names that begin with אב (ab) in the Hebrew scriptures. Some of the more popular names are Abram/Abraham and Absalom. Hebrew names have meaning. In this case, Abram is “exalted father,” Abraham is “father of a multitude,” and Absalom is “my father is peace.”
Absalom is really the shortened form of the name Abishalom; the shortened Absalom drops the י (Hebrew yod). Among many other names, a few that have the yod are Abimelech (אבימלך), Abinadab (אבינדב), Abiezer (אביעזר). They mean “my father is king,” “my father is noble,” and “my father is help,” respectively. The addition of the yod functions as a possessive suffix (אבי = “my father”).
When אבי is not used as part of a name, the yod functions as a construct marker connecting two words (generally understood in the sense X of Y, such as אבי כנען [=”father of Canaan” {Gen 9:18}]). My initial observations have found אבי to stand alone, with a pronominal suffix, or joined to another word with a maqqef when it is in the construct form.
This leads me to Isaiah 9:6[9:5 MT]. The word translated in the KJV as “eternal everlasting Father” has אבי as part of it. I think, however, that this translation is misleading. First, the word in question אביעד looks just like other names with אבי in it—indeed, it is said to be a name earlier in the verse. Second, the word “Father” is not modified by an adjective. Third, Accordance 8 parses this as a construct form, translated as “Father of eternity,” which does not necessarily identify the son to be born as the eternally-existent Father. It seems that the translation “eternal/everlasting Father” comes from the Latin Vulgate (fortis Pater), rather than from the Hebrew text.
I propose that instead of “eternal/everlasting Father,” אביעד should be understood as “my Father is eternal” (I doubt this is something new with me, but I do not have any Old Testament commentaries to check). I do not see ‘abi’ad as two words in construct form, but instead a name formed by the joining of two words, as Abiathar, Abimelech, Abigail, and hosts of other names beginning with ab– are. Understanding אביעד as “my Father is eternal” accords well with the way we understand other אבי compound names. It also works well theologically where the Son is always differentiated from the Father (the Son is not the Father), and reveals who the Father is (by the name “my Father is eternal”).
Nice thought, in connection with our Trinitarian revelation.
Fr. Robert,
Thank you. As I study the Scriptures more I can definitely see more Trinitarian thought than anything else.
John,
You have given us such new insight “My Father is eternal”, beautiful! And it is textual. Yes, the longer I am allowed to read and study the Text, I am ever more Trinitarian!
O Glorious Immensity
And One eternal Trinity,
Father and Comforter and Word,
Of all that is, unconquered Lord.
Wow, I have never thought of this. It seems plausible as does “father of eternity”. “Eternal Father” makes the least sense of the construct.
Fr. Robert: Beautiful prayer! Where is that from?
Brian: Yes, I think “father of eternity” is plausible as well, but I’m inclined to believe that this a compound name based on the lack of spacing. From the verses I looked at, abi in construct form either stood alone, with a pronominal suffix, or maqqef’ed to another word. Whenever abi was used as a name (again, based on what I’ve looked at), it was always joined to the other compound. I could be wrong as I didn’t look at everything in detail. I think one thing that would pose a problem to the construct form of abi is that there isn’t any spacing between the words (and manuscripts as early as the Dead Sea scrolls already had spacing); this would only stand if the construct form is separated from the other word in every occurrence. I’m completely open to “father of eternity,” but at this point my probing into the texts doesn’t allow me to go that way. The translation “eternal Father” might have had a different sense than THE Father for the people during the time of the translation of the KJV (or for the translators of the Vulgate), but it still makes the least sense, especially for us aspiring translators today. 🙂
Oneness Pentecostal jumping in here with a couple observations and comment, mainly on the last sentences of your post, pertaining to the Trinity…
Since Scripture is not of any privet interpretation, myself and other Oneness people must be willing to look at all the possibilities that modern translation(s) can give us and not shirk from said translations, especially if they are truly plausible, even if we lose “zinger” verse for our theology…
I would also like to note that there are no “Oneness” translations of the Bible, so the fact that it has not been translated as “my father is eternal” before, nether by Trinitarians nor Jews (both having reasons to differentiate the “Child” from the Father) does seem to indicate something… not that that necessarily means you are wrong in your translation.
ok, those were just observations, here is my comment:
“My father is eternal” is very much inline with Oneness theology. Of course the Father is eternal! The Child, the begotten Son, the humanity is not!
Joseph,
Thank you for your comment and observations. I appreciate your recognition to look at all possibilities of translations with openness and of the fact that there are no Oneness translations of the Bible. It might be helpful to note that when the translators of the New King James Version were beginning their work, they met with the Urshan that was general superintendent at that time in the 80s. I don’t know what they discussed (whether it was doctrinal or not) or if anything from the conversation with Urshan made it into the NKJV, but it’s good to know for the Oneness movement that the the translators at least were willing to talk with the leading Oneness representative at that time.
You’re right that no major, valid English translation has taken the understanding I’ve proposed. You’re also right that it doesn’t mean I’m wrong either. We do find some translations taking “father of eternity,” which I discuss with Brian a couple of comments above. For our discussion here in the comments, I assume you would like to take the proposed translation above as valid.
Assuming my understanding of Isaiah 9:6 is valid, then the more pronounced differentiation between the Son and the Father goes against any Oneness theology that I know of (that is, the Son is ultimately the Father somehow). I’m unsure of how you understand Oneness theology so I don’t really know how inline it is or not.
I did not say the Son is not the Father, but rather that the newly born Child (“unto us a Child is born”), the Begotten Son, the humanity that was born in Bethlehem, was not eternal.. it was just born! Never would i dream (nor most likely would you either) of saying that the flesh of Christ was divine.
Oneness theology does not negate that the Eternal God is the father of that Child. We simply refuse to make a distinction between the divinity that “Fathered” Jesus, and Jesus’ Divinity. Neither do we not make a distinction (as far as being distinct Persons) between the Father and the Holy Ghost, which according to Luke 1:35 is the Father of Jesus… I do not see how another possible reference to the fact that Jesus’ Father is eternal takes away from anything I or any other oneness person believes.
The most amazing thing in that passage of Scripture is the claim that a child that was to be born was also the “Mighty God”!
Mat 1:20 was supposed to be my reference to the Holy Spirit being the Father of Jesus… I’m a little tired (I should be in bed..) and used Luke since i read that passage yesterday.
Also the word divinty in the line “We simply refuse to make a distinction between the divinity that “Fathered” Jesus, and Jesus’ Divinity” my not have been the best wording… let me restate that. We simply refuse to make any distinction between the Divine Person that “Fathered” Jesus, and Jesus’ Divinity. I’m going to partially quote Heb 1:1-3 tell me if i do it injustice. Long ago…God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son… He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature… ESV
(emphasis and brackets added)
Joseph,
I know you did not say the Son is not the Father, but since you mention that now, do you believe the Son is the Father? Regarding the humanity of Christ, neither Oneness nor Trinitarian would say that it is eternal. So I think we’re good there.
Trinitarians wouldn’t deny that the Eternal God is the Father of the Child either. Neither would a Trinitarian say that “divinity . . . ‘Fathered’ Jesus.” Divinity doesn’t father anything—divinity cannot do anything in and of itself. I think this is why it is so hard for Oneness and Trinitarians to understand each other. Oneness tend to take adjectives and make them do things only persons do.
Regarding Luke 1:35, there is no reference to the Holy Ghost being “the Father of Jesus.” The New Testament is clear that the Father is the father of the Son and the Son the son of the Father. We don’t find anywhere that the Holy Ghost is called the Father of Jesus because He’s not—only the Father is the Father of the Son. Not to bunny trail this too much from Isaiah 9:6, but there is a clear distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, particularly where the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit.
As I’m sure you also know, Trinitarians also believe the coming Child was the Mighty God. My point is that the distinction between the Father and the Son goes against the logical working out of Oneness dogma, which makes the Son the Father somehow.
see my comments on my own comments… which i posted before this last comment of yours… wow can i use the word comment again?
Joseph,
I understand about the tiredness and all the misreading and misthinking that comes from that. I myself am tired as well. Thanks for giving your corrections.
I’m still not sure how Matthew 1:20 makes the Holy Spirit “the Father of Jesus.” The phrase “conceived of the Holy Spirit” doesn’t = the Holy Spirit is Jesus’ Father. I have to admit that I don’t know what you mean by the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus. Do you believe that Mary and the Holy Spirit pro-created or that there was artificial insemination?
Your revised statement sounds like something a Trinitarian could agree with: both the divine person that “Fathered” Jesus and Jesus have the same divinity. The way you have it is still ambiguous. The point-blank questions would be: do you believe that there is only one Father and that the Father was manifested in the flesh to become known as the Son? Do you believe that after the incarnation of this Father that the Father still existed in heaven unincarnate?
If you’re trying to argue against an Arian and support your statement that the Divine Person who “Fathered” Jesus and Jesus share the same divinity, then your partial quotation of Hebrews 1:1-3 does not do it injustice.
I’m really glad that we all could agree on those points. The issue, however, is larger than that and could be addressed by those questions above. That would be part of what my post speaks to.
Haha, that’s quite a comment coming from your comment on yours and my comments.
Let me try to answer the questions you posed.
Q. Do you believe that Mary and the Holy Spirit pro-created or that there was artificial insemination?
A. first i would like to admitted i think the question is possibly beyond my ability to answer (I make no claim to having all the answers)… that being said here I go.
Jesus is of the offspring of women (Gen 3:15), that women being Mary. He is a descended of David through that woman again indicating Mary is His biological mother. I would never say God had a sexual relationship with Mary, which is what i take your use of Pro-create to mean. So yes Artificial insemination is a more appropriate term. Here is how is goes from my perspective: The Holy Ghost(Spirit), which is the title of God when he works inside a human body, reaches in Mary and causes a cell (egg) of hers to become fused with all that He (God) is, thus causing conception. Im going to leave that for now.
Q. do you believe that there is only one Father and that the Father was manifested in the flesh to become known as the Son? Do you believe that after the incarnation of this Father that the Father still existed in heaven unincarnate?
A. One Father? yes definitely. I only believe in one “PERSON” in the Godhead.
That one “person” or better said the totality of who God is was manifest in the flesh. So yes the Father (that very Spirit that moved on the waters in creation, that Spirit that Spoke to Abraham, that told Moses “I AM that I AM”) was manifest in the flesh. The scriptures name this manifestation the Son of God & Son of Man.
As far as “unincarnate” which i’m going call Spirit, God not only existed as Spirit in heaven he was also filling the whole universe, was working in and through John the Baptizer and holding all things together and much more. God was not restricted, by a human body, from being what He always was. Col 1:15 clearly states that the fullness of God was in Christ, yet we all must admit God had not stopped all his other activities throughout the universe and packed (nor compacted) himself away into that body.
i am going to bed, i will read this tomorrow and see whether i stated things correctly…
John, I appreciate your work and attempts to translate the Scriptures. You are blessed to be able to study them as you do. I think we can literally say “father of eternity” here. However as you know from your basic hermeneutic class days that a literal translation is not always faithful to the actual meaning of the text. Are there any translations that hold to this rendering you offer (e.g. Father of eternity)?
I wonder because it seems you are isolating parts of the text here since “eternity” is in the genitive and the possessive sense cannot be denied (see similar constructions in Hab. 3:6, “everlasting mountains” or 1 Chron. 29:2). I believe the Hebrew construction here is also the way to write “everlasting father”. The rendering by the NRSV seems to reflect this as well:
6 For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. http://ref.ly/Is9.6
John – Brian – Nick, etc.: What part of the Father do we see in Jesus or in what way do you see the Father in the life of Jesus?
John,
That wee quote is from a hymn taken from the mozarabic breviary, with the emphasis on divine soverignty in the Trinity.
This subject of the Trinity needs to be seen in light the Ecumenical Councils. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out gradually over a period of three centuries, or more. And Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch was the first (known) to apply the term “Trinity” to the Godhead in about A.D. 170. Then of course Tertullian’s Latin, trinitas – “tres personae, una substantia” (three persons, one substance). But in fact a similar view had been published by Origen a few years earlier in the East. But the final orthodox form and statement was in fact from Constantinople, in 381. I say this as an Anglican, though both Catholic & Reformed myself.
In the historical end, of course, Monarchianism was declared and made heresy by the Church. And this became known as “Modalism”. We must somehow beware as we seek to counter any gnostic dualism, and overreact with a few in which three persons are simply diverse modes of a single substance. As Aquinas says that “we must beware of two opposite errors, and proceed cautiosly between them – namley, the error of Arius . . . and the error of Sabellius.” BTW, Dante pairs them in Paradiso, 13.127-30.
Let me here also recommend J.N.D. Kelly’s classic book: Early Christian Doctrines, on this most profound subject. A must read!
that was *view* about modes, etc.
James,
I am not sure what you mean by “part of the Father”. The Son is one with the Father and he perfectly images/reflects/displays the characteristics of the Father to the world because he shares those characteristics. His actions are one with the Father. He does what he sees the Father do. Again, contrary to what you may think of Trinitarianism, we believe in a strict monotheism. When the Son acts he continues actions caused by the Father.
The major difference in our interpretation is not these issues. Where we cannot agree with OP’s is primarily (1) the Son is the “incarnation” of the Father. This language is not used anywhere in Scripture. The Son is the incarnation of the Word. The Son is always one with the Father, but distinct. (2) The Son did not exist prior to the incarnation in any meaningful way that is distinct from the Father. Since OP’s see Father-Son language as based in the incarnation sayings like the “Word was with God” quickly get interpreted to mean something like “in the mind of God” or “in God’s plans” or whatever. When God creates all things through Jesus for Jesus in the beginning all kinds of interpretations are tossed out in order to say something other than the Father created through the Son in the beginning. When Christ empties himself in Phil 2. something like “the Father became man” is the interpretation.
This is where we disagree. We do not disagree that the Son and Father are one with each other fully sharing in what it means to be God. We do not disagree that the Son is the image of the Father.
Joseph,
If you’re going to go with artificial insemination, then you’re implying that the Holy Spirit had some sort of DNA that combined with Mary’s DNA to make Jesus. Although you don’t explicitly say that, if words have any meaning, then that’s the eventual end of saying “artificial insemination.”
When you say you have one person in the Godhead (the Father), and this one person becomes manifest in the flesh (incarnate), and continues to remain Spirit (not incarnate), you ultimately end up with one person being both incarnate and non-incarnate at the same time. The contradiction aside, you have the Son being the Father (Son = Father incarnate). So here’s where we come to one of the points of this post: Assuming the Son comes with the name “my Father is eternal,” you have a distinction between the Son and the Father, but it’s not on the basis of natures as you have done earlier (there is in fact no mention of natures in this text). This is in contrast to an equation of the Son as the Father as the KJV and some other translations seem to do.
James,
I appreciate your input here and the beneficial dialogue you bring. There is one translation which has “Father of Eternity” and that would be Young’s Literal Translation. The Douay-Rheims translates it as “the Father of the world to come.” Wycliff’s translation also translates it as the DR.
Your observation about “Everlasting Father” in the NRSV is correct. It seems that the Bibles that follow from the KJV (such as RSV, ASB, and their revised editions) all follow the KJV here. Interestingly, the NLT does also, but my feeling is that the NLT is continuing off the Living Bible in this verse. The Jewish Publications Society (JPS) Tanakh also has “The Eternal Father,” although the JPS uses this and all the other names in something of a poetic sentence, so there’s the possibility that they aren’t calling the son-to-be-born the eternally-existent Father.
I don’t stop at “father of eternity” but instead see the name here as a complete sentence (“my father is eternal”), just like the other names beginning with abi—you can see my reasons above. This position of mine disconnects the coming child with the person of the Father, and further introduces distinction between the Father and Son.
Fr. Robert,
Thanks for those resources. I’ve seen Kelly’s volumes on Christian history but was unaware of his book on the doctrines.
I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity can be drawn solely from Scriptures, although it finds its clearest expression in the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds. I find it interesting that in the Arian debates no one ever questioned whether the Son was distinct from the Father. Rather, the debate was about whether this distinct Son was God.
By the way, I think your middle ground position of being both Catholic and Reformed is pretty cool. 🙂
James,
I defer to Brian on your question because I think the same was as him on this matter. I would like to add that we see the Father loving the Son and the Son loving the Father. That, of course, requires two persons—but that aside, I see the essence of relationship (namely, love) when I look at Father and Son interacting. This interaction is the basis of our lives as the body of Christ: each member giving of her/his self to the others. Let me also add that it is hard to see this in Oneness because it seems that it comes down to this one person ultimately loving His very own self.
JohnDave,
That reminds me of the argument of the early church that for God to be “Love” there must be some sense of a relationship prior to even Creation. I know this is not accepted by OP apologist, and I don’t think it is a “first-rate” arguement, but I do think it is a valuable thought once someone already accepts basic tenants of Trinitarian dogma.
John,
I agree with you about the nature of the Trinity of God being drawn from the Holy Scripture first. The Creeds are always an out-flow of the life and debate of the Church Body itself. But I think you would perhaps agree too, that the doctrine/teaching of the Trinity was a real development. Certainly always there in the NT Scripture (and Old), but nonetheless a NT revelation fully. Some of the early Fathers (before) Nicaea 1, seem to have the most profound simplicity about the Trinity. I am a Tertullian guy myself. If you have not read, Tertullian, first theologian of the West, by Eric Osborn. It is a real treat! It is even now in paperback from Cambridge.
Thanks for your kind words. I am always seeking a “Biblical” theology first. I am also just one from my own tradition, though Anglican, both Catholic & Reformed. With that old reality of the “Evangelical” centre place also. I am just an old school type Anglican really. BTW, I am 60, almost 61..lol. Yes, my youth is past. But I am young at heart at least! lol
I am enjoying too, your work on the Text. I will chime in perhaps when I have better time?
Yours,
I’m having a busy day, so im going to respond to the first part of your reply now, and the rest tonight.
I believe that every human that is, was , and will ever be is directly descended from the DNA of Adam. God created Eve from part of Adam, from a rib bone, and i see no reason why he would have had to supply any more DNA for the creation of the Man Christ Jesus. I do believe there was something “inseminated” into or preferably fused with Marys DNA, the Mighty God.
That we can ever truly describe in its totality and perfect terminology the process by which our Lord was conceived in the womb of the then virgin Mary in my opinion is not going to happen this side of heaven…
Fr. Robert: I’m looking forward to any thoughts you have. Yes, I agree that the doctrine and teaching of the Trinity developed, but that it was drawn from the Scriptures. Thanks for that Tertullian reference. I’m going to check my library to see if we have a copy. I don’t know much about Anglicans, but if you are representative of a larger whole, then I must say that I appreciate the Anglican church.
Joseph: When I speak of insemination, I’m using the normal definition of the word, which is the only relevant definition here:
insemination
-verb (used with object)
1. to inject semen into (the female reproductive tract); impregnate.
From what I can tell, you don’t believe this is true. If this is so, then I’m unsure why you would want to say that the Holy Spirit is the father of the child in Mary’s womb. I don’t deny the Son had a Father—the Son, in fact, had and still has a very real father. Contrary to a “creation of the Man Christ Jesus,” I believe the birth of Jesus is the result of an incarnation. The eternally-existent Son existed eternally with the Father (the Father was always the Father because He always had a Son) and was incarnated into our likeness, not created. Does that make sense?
I agree with you about trying to describe the mystery. However, what I’m trying to get at is the issue of whether the Holy Spirit fathered the incarnate Jesus. I await the rest of your reply.
Brian,
I agree. Even if we forget the eternal love between Father and Son before creation, and take the view of the Father and Son interaction as the Son is incarnate, the Trinitarian position makes more sense biblically than the Oneness model.
>I am not sure what you mean by “part of the Father”. The Son is one with the Father and he perfectly images/reflects/displays the characteristics of the Father to the world because he shares those characteristics. His actions are one with the Father. He does what he sees the Father do. Again, contrary to what you may think of Trinitarianism, we believe in a strict monotheism. When the Son acts he continues actions caused by the Father.
Brian, by “part” I mean to say closer to my “or” which was “in what way do you see the Father in the life of Jesus?” In other words, when we study and read about the life of Jesus where do we see the Father and how do we see the Father manifested? I don’t believe this runs into Nestorianism at all. We do realize that Nestorianism is what it is but what Trinitarians fail to realize, IMHO, is that we are not saying what Nestorianism says which amounts to two separate persons. I also suggest that most criticisms laid against Oneness adherents can be reversed in almost any instance to present a possible conundrum for the Trinitarian as well.
I enjoy Fr. Roberts comments although I am not Trinitarian. For example, he quoted Aquinas: “we must beware of two opposite errors, and proceed cautiously between them – namely, the error of Arius . . . and the error of Sabellius.” I don’t believe that Oneness Pentecostal theology proper is Arian or Sabellian. I do know it is closer to being Sabellian but not conclusively as I noted in another thread.
Here: https://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/is-trinitarian-oneness-dialog-profitable/#comments
I agree with your statements as well. For example, I agree with the LEB here:
Although* God spoke long ago in many partsa and in many ways to the fathers by the prophets, 2 in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world,b 3 who is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, sustaining all things by the word of his power. When he* had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become by so much better than the angels, by as much as he has inherited a more excellent name than theirs. Heb. 1-3 LEB http://ref.ly/He1
Jesus was the expression of God’s essence, the self-revelation of the Father. The person of God who had become man. Christ as the “express image” of His person, the person of God, is another way of saying that Jesus represents God exactly. Jesus is the “impression of His substance”. He is what God chose for man to see Him as. It means imprint (NRSV) or stamp. Moulton and Milligan suggest its use comes from a “tool for engraving” or “an exact reproduction”. It originally referred to the tool made for engraving but later referred to what was actally engraved or stamped.
The Greek word translated “person” is hypostasis. Although rendered as “person,” I think it is more properly understood as “substance” (See Moulton-Milligan) or “essence of being”. The etymology of this word has to do with something that underlies. It is that which underlies, supports, or makes up something. In this context, we are talking about what underlies, or makes up God, i.e. God’s subsistence.
Jesus is not just a representation of God, but is the very visible impression or imprint of God’s invisible substance and essence. He is God’s very nature expressed in humanity. It is consistently taught, in the New Testament, that Christ is the visible form of the invisible God.
The writer of Hebrews also says that Jesus is the image of God’s hypostasis (KJV person; NIV being; NRSV being Grk hypostasis). In context, of these opening texts, the God who spoke to us by His Son is the Father of the Son (1:1-2, 5). Hebrews is declaring Jesus to be the image of the God the Father’s subsistence.
I would further say then, that there is no mention of the Son having His own hypostasis, or any references to plural hypostasis. I believe the whole of Scripture testifies of this as well. I conclude then that Jesus is the image of the invisible subsistence or person (KJV) or being (NRSV) of God.
>The major difference in our interpretation is not these issues. Where we cannot agree with OP’s is primarily (1) the Son is the “incarnation” of the Father. This language is not used anywhere in Scripture. The Son is the incarnation of the Word. The Son is always one with the Father, but distinct. (2)
Brian, I think we have real problem here and further points to a tension within Trinitarianism IMHO. For example, even Rahner admits that any person of the Trinity could become Incarnate – if not then co-equality is a mere charade. The point is to prove that He did not and that is where I see the argument. The language of the “God the Son” becoming Incarnate as the second person, nor the Trinity itself, is “used anywhere in Scripture.” You and I would agree however that what the Scriptures teach us is binding.
>The Son did not exist prior to the incarnation in any meaningful way that is distinct from the Father.
Brian, I don’t think this is altogether true. I understand your point here but would suggest that the Word of God is as distinct from Himself in a meaningful way just as the Church and the Lame were with God before the foundation of the worlds. To what degree we carry the distinction is the issue where you would suggest a person but I would suggest the Word to be with God as much as His Life is with Him as well (1 John 1). This is a distinction and this is meaningful since it is serves a purpose.
>Since OP’s see Father-Son language as based in the incarnation sayings like the “Word was with God” quickly get interpreted to mean something like “in the mind of God” or “in God’s plans” or whatever. When God creates all things through Jesus for Jesus in the beginning all kinds of interpretations are tossed out in order to say something other than the Father created through the Son in the beginning. When Christ empties himself in Phil 2. something like “the Father became man” is the interpretation.
Brian, interpreting the Carmen Christi as referring to Christ becoming a man is not limited to OP’s.
>I defer to Brian on your question because I think the same was as him on this matter. I would like to add that we see the Father loving the Son and the Son loving the Father. That, of course, requires two persons—but that aside, I see the essence of relationship (namely, love) when I look at Father and Son interacting. This interaction is the basis of our lives as the body of Christ: each member giving of her/his self to the others. Let me also add that it is hard to see this in Oneness because it seems that it comes down to this one person ultimately loving His very own self.
John, I see this as well but I do not see it presenting a genuine problem of Oneness theology. I think the argument for the Trinity based upon the love and community proves too much. For example, I do not think we can stress one attribute of God beyond another in order that we do not violate another one of His attributes, e.g. absolute, holiness. We do not say that God loves Himself but neither should we suggest that God needs anything either. God the Father genuinely loves the Son of God and this cannot be denied. How and in what way this love is appropriated is another discussion. I am posting from the office today and will have limited time for posting.
James,
I appreciate the response. Now I see the exact opposite: the interaction between Father and Son presents a genuine problem for Oneness theology. Here is why, using your statement:
God the Father [person] genuinely loves the Son of God [person] and this cannot be denied.
From the Trinitarian standpoint this makes complete sense. From the Oneness standpoint there are a couple of options to choose from, neither of which make any sense. From my best reading of your and others’ explanations of Oneness, you have the very basic premise of one Father [person] who exists in the incarnation and who exists outside of the incarnation simultaneously, yet it’s still one person. What’s hard to comprehend from my view is that you speak of two persons above because love requires two persons.
Notice that I’m not stressing love above other attributes. I’m only saying that in the interaction between Father and Son, you cannot maintain one divine person incarnate and not-incarnate and not end up having the one divine person love His very own self. Does that make it more clear where I’m coming from?
James,
(1) While I am more than willing to allow you to disassociate yourself with Nestorianism there are two things we need to address: (a) Why does it matter to you to be orthodox on this issue? This is essentially creed-language and you have already disavowed any authority of the creeds. Why be concerned about lining up with later Christological confessions while denouncing earlier theology-proper confessions. I am unsure of your motivation. (b) You need to read the description given by Joseph above. He claims it is the Oneness position. He echos what Bernard has written and what most UPCI pastors taught when I was in those circles. It is essentially Nestorian for all intents and purposes. Do you disagree with his presentation?
(2) As regards language regarding the Son having his own hypostasis this hardly matters. Again, we must use language to explain what the Scriptures say. We cannot merely parrot this Scriptures. The moment we explain something we must use words that capture the imagery. No one claims the creeds use the biblical language all the time. We claim it explains the biblical language. The argument you are making is as old as the Arian’s saying that all they said was what the Scriptures say. The problem with that is it was simply false. Likewise, OP’s must explain Scripture and so must Trinitarians. The question is not, “Are you quoting the Scripture?” The question is, “Are you rightly explaining the Scripture?”
(3) The Son and the Father have always been in unity for all time. The Word/Son was the means by which the Father created the earth. The Word/Son has always shared in the glory of the Father. The Father sent the Son and the Son chose to go. When we examine the biblical language we see two important things: (a) A very, very close unity between Jesus and the Father. (b) Language that preserves a distinction. So, again, as I said above, we can speak of Jesus as one with the Father, the one who reveals the Father, the one who shares the glory of the Father, the one whom through the Father created the world, the image of the Father, and so forth and so one. What we cannot say is Jesus = Father.
(4) Let me suggest that we toss Rahner out of this discussion. I have not read him. He has not influenced my Trinitarian doctrine one iota. I cannot defend him nor deny him. As I said before, let us explore the Greek Fathers like Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, and so forth. That is the source of the Trinitarian language with which I am most comfortable. In the perspective of these mentioned the Father could not have been incarnate because the Father is the source, the unbegotten. The Son radiates from the Father, the begotten. Yes, this is vague language, and it struggles to use human words to explain an eternal being, but you are running after the wrong thing if you think Rahner’s simplistic explanation is something that worries the rest of us Trinitarians.
(5) Finally, I think you walk on very, very dangerous ground when you compare the preexistence of Christ to that of the church. To place Jesus as merely foreknown being is about as close to heretical as it comes. If Jesus was simply in the mind of God what makes the Word distinct? Why mention him being with God and sharing in what it means to be God “in the beginning”? If we follow your wording we can suggest that I was there in the beginning and you were there in the beginning!
If preexistence = foreknowledge Christ could not speak of the glory that he shared with the Father (note: not as the Father) in the beginning. He could not be spoken of as the conduit for Creation. (Again, he is the instrument of the Father in the act of Creation. He is spoken of as relating to the Father this way at Creation. Paul uses language that assumes he was participating in the act of God in the beginning while being described as distinct. Paul is clear that there is a relationship with God that goes back to the beginning but he never blurs the lines).
Let me add one very important historical note. As early Christology developed I see no signs that there was any idea that the Messiah would be YHWH in any significant way. We do see signs of the Messiah maybe being a divine “mediating” figure like an arch-angel and so forth. The leap made by the early church was that the mediator actually shared in what it meant to be God in some way. On the contrary, OP’s seem to suggest that the leap was that there would be a distinction! I think OP Christology ignores both what the Scriptures say and the Jewish concepts that provided the language of the early church when speaking of some sort of divine Messiah that would represent the God of Israel while at the same time sharing in what it meant to be the God of Israel.
JohnDave,
This is a very good point. Even if our talk of “God as Love” from the beginning in the Augustinian sense has weaknesses it is much stronger post-incarnation. If God is a uni-personal being and the Love is between God-transcendent and God-incarnate this is nothing more than self-love and we must ask in what real sense is this love at all. If it is because Christ is human then we still find ourselves slipping very close to Nestorian language which ground the Father-Son relationship back in “Deity-Humanity”.
>From the Trinitarian standpoint this makes complete sense. From the Oneness standpoint there are a couple of options to choose from, neither of which make any sense. From my best reading of your and others’ explanations of Oneness, you have the very basic premise of one Father [person] who exists in the incarnation and who exists outside of the incarnation simultaneously, yet it’s still one person. What’s hard to comprehend from my view is that you speak of two persons above because love requires two persons.
John, I appreciate the reply. Thanks for taking the time. I am puzzled about how this will play out for your view so maybe I should just ask a question first. Ontologically speaking, Is love a choice for God? Or is it what He is? His essence? From there I think I will know how to better respond. Personally, I feel it is what He is or His essence and if this is the case their can be no contingency that would cause God to need love but we would see His love reflected in His sacrificial nature towards Creation.
>Notice that I’m not stressing love above other attributes. I’m only saying that in the interaction between Father and Son, you cannot maintain one divine person incarnate and not-incarnate and not end up having the one divine person love His very own self. Does that make it more clear where I’m coming from?
Yes, I understand your point but one must assume the Trinity to in order to suggest love between the persons of the Trinity. IMHO the love argument is a non-sequitur.
The NT clearly illustrates the love that God the Father has for His Son, Jesus Christ (e. g., John 10:17; 17:24), but this is love shared between the eternal God and the man Christ Jesus, not two eternal persons within God. If not, then how does the The love discussed in those passages are usually in the context of the Incarnation. Importing this relationship back into the eternal Godhead is only possible if we have already assumed the Trinity.
It does not in any way prove that God is triune in fact I think it could be used to prove Tritheism much easier. I believe both the Trinitarian and the Oneness must agree that the eternal Spirit of God loved the man Christ Jesus without regard for whether His spirit was the second person in the Godhead or the singular Spirit of a unipersonal God. There is no biblical reference to the Father loving the Spirit, the Spirit loving the Father, the Son loving the Spirit, or the Spirit loving the Son therefore the love argument for me really does not work.
James,
I know this response was intended for JohnDave, but let me just point out it is this very language that leads to the pressing question: How is this not essentially Nestorian? The problem is not the Father loving a human. The problem is when you speak this way you must, by default, have deity loving a human in some way where Jesus can exist in some sense that his two natures are not fully unified. If this is the case you’ve slipped into Nestorian language.
>(1) While I am more than willing to allow you to disassociate yourself with Nestorianism there are two things we need to address: (a) Why does it matter to you to be orthodox on this issue? This is essentially creed-language and you have already disavowed any authority of the creeds. Why be concerned about lining up with later Christological confessions while denouncing earlier theology-proper confessions. I am unsure of your motivation. (b) You need to read the description given by Joseph above. He claims it is the Oneness position. He echos what Bernard has written and what most UPCI pastors taught when I was in those circles. It is essentially Nestorian for all intents and purposes. Do you disagree with his presentation?
Brian, I have not read all the posts on this thread. I am not claiming a need for historical credo orthodoxy. I am suggesting however that Oneness believers do not believe that the human side is a person and the divine side is a person. Are there issues in how they express it? Of course. You can use Nestorius for ages if you would like but it is probably about as effective as me accusing you of being Tritheistic.
>(2) As regards language regarding the Son having his own hypostasis this hardly matters. Again, we must use language to explain what the Scriptures say. We cannot merely parrot this Scriptures. The moment we explain something we must use words that capture the imagery. No one claims the creeds use the biblical language all the time. We claim it explains the biblical language. The argument you are making is as old as the Arian’s saying that all they said was what the Scriptures say. The problem with that is it was simply false. Likewise, OP’s must explain Scripture and so must Trinitarians. The question is not, “Are you quoting the Scripture?” The question is, “Are you rightly explaining the Scripture?”
Brian, I agree.
>(3) The Son and the Father have always been in unity for all time. The Word/Son was the means by which the Father created the earth. The Word/Son has always shared in the glory of the Father. The Father sent the Son and the Son chose to go. When we examine the biblical language we see two important things: (a) A very, very close unity between Jesus and the Father. (b) Language that preserves a distinction. So, again, as I said above, we can speak of Jesus as one with the Father, the one who reveals the Father, the one who shares the glory of the Father, the one whom through the Father created the world, the image of the Father, and so forth and so one. What we cannot say is Jesus = Father.
Brian, I do not say Jesus is the Father as some do nor is Jesus = Father correct or what I am saying. You noted “language that preserves a distinction” and I agree yet a distinction does not prove a person and therefore I agree. I do not say Jesus is the Father because “is” refers to state of being and the state of the Father’s being was not identical to that of the Son since one is transcendant and the other existed in time/existentially.
>(4) Let me suggest that we toss Rahner out of this discussion. I have not read him. He has not influenced my Trinitarian doctrine one iota. I cannot defend him nor deny him. As I said before, let us explore the Greek Fathers like Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, and so forth. That is the source of the Trinitarian language with which I am most comfortable. In the perspective of these mentioned the Father could not have been incarnate because the Father is the source, the unbegotten. The Son radiates from the Father, the begotten. Yes, this is vague language, and it struggles to use human words to explain an eternal being, but you are running after the wrong thing if you think Rahner’s simplistic explanation is something that worries the rest of us Trinitarians.
Brian, I think I’ll keep Rahner but I would encourage you to read him. I think Fr. Robert has tried to point this out to you a couple times but the Trinity has been evolving. Therefore, the language has changed. Indeed, “person” or persona is not even used as it once was. IMO you reveal the faux pas of the Trinity. If the Father “could not” become Incarnate as you just stated then you have a genuine monad and an inequality between the first and second person at the very least.
>(5) Finally, I think you walk on very, very dangerous ground when you compare the preexistence of Christ to that of the church. To place Jesus as merely foreknown being is about as close to heretical as it comes. If Jesus was simply in the mind of God what makes the Word distinct? Why mention him being with God and sharing in what it means to be God “in the beginning”? If we follow your wording we can suggest that I was there in the beginning and you were there in the beginning!
Brian, I apologize if this offends you but these are analogies from Scripture and the grammar is the same. pros is in the accusative in both instances. You said:
“To place Jesus as merely foreknown being is about as close to heretical as it comes.”
In terms of heresy this is about as clear as they come. For example, if Jesus is one being then is the Father and the Holy Spirit also beings? That would be three beings Brian. You will say no but your use of “being” here projects the wrong meaning that you want to convey about the Trinity.
Why mention the “life” being with God in 1 John 1? I mean, we should ask John right? lol If we follow your logic of the logos pros theos then having me and you back there as actual persons, even individuals, should be no problem either. Alas, the Son nor us was there as another conscious person. You must make the Word be the Son in order to make it a second person yet this is pre-Incarnational language and will not work.
See my comments to John as well.
Just a few scripture’s to see here… Rom. 15:30 / Col. 1:8. The Spirit is the love and the lover of God, both for the Father, and for the Son. He is that bond (communion/fellowship) or “person” of love. If I can use some Eastern theology/thought here, “the mutual dwelling of persons”. See also Eph. 2: 18. But the Holy Spirit is the love/lover. (Col. 1:8) We need to see the great “mystery” of God here. We never gonna get our mere cognitive mind around this mystery of the Triune God!
>I know this response was intended for JohnDave, but let me just point out it is this very language that leads to the pressing question: How is this not essentially Nestorian? The problem is not the Father loving a human. The problem is when you speak this way you must, by default, have deity loving a human in some way where Jesus can exist in some sense that his two natures are not fully unified. If this is the case you’ve slipped into Nestorian language.
Brian, was the human and divine natures of Christ unified prior to the Incarnation?
>Just a few scripture’s to see here… Rom. 15:30 / Col. 1:8. The Spirit is the love and the lover of God, both for the Father, and for the Son. He is that bond (communion/fellowship) or “person” of love. If I can use some Eastern theology/thought here, “the mutual dwelling of persons”. See also Eph. 2: 18. But the Holy Spirit is the love/lover. (Col. 1:8) We need to see the great “mystery” of God here. We never gonna get our mere cognitive mind around this mystery of the Triune God!
Fr. Robert, is love in the essence of God?
James,
Your question is misleading. It doesn’t matter. The question is Christological. Since the Word became flesh is there any sense in which we can divide the natures? Yes, there was a time when the Word existed independent of human nature but since the human nature has been added to the person of the Son is there any sense in which we can separate it again?
James,
Yes certainly, as you made reference in ontology. But, God is also more in His essence, (1 Tim. 1:17)
(Gotta run mates to see me old doctor, bad back I have!)
Brian, I mean no offense. I was trying to form the question appropriately. To your question “is there any sense in which we can separate it again?” – no. I think my point is made then. We cannot separate them post-Incarnation but this does not mean they were unified (e.g. hypostatic union) prior to the Incarnation. Although this debate is considered by some to be a defeat Walter Martin clearly conceded that we cannot refer to the Word as Son before the Incarnation in the Ankerberg debate. Sabin demonstrated later that Beisener had even contradicted his previous written material on the Trinity. You are not Martin or Beisener. No, you are Brian. But I believe you reveal a similar tension in Trinitarian theology.
I believe Jesus will be The One sitting upon the One Throne often spoke of in John’s Apocalypse. He is God’s image creature, the way in which we see God and know Him in an existential sense or at least perceived by our consciousness.
If love is of the essence of God then God, in His essence, has a contingency inherent in each person of the Trinity. Therefore, there are three centers of consciousness’ where each person of the Trinity is contingent upon the love of the other. I believe God has eternally loved humanity, the Church and the Son of God. The love that Christ exhibited best demonstrates the genuine love of God. It was self-giving, sacrificial, for others. It does not NEED reciprocation or demand it active among a community of eternal persons–it is unconditional love. The Trinity does not prove God is love nor does love prove God is a Trinity. Here is another question for anyone who would not mind answering.
Brian, John, Fr. Robert, Nick, et al. –
Did God have power, wisdom, or knowledge before He created?
James,
As soon as you speak of Jesus as a representative of what it means to represent God we are on the same page. We both maintain a strict monotheism. At times we may even use language that is closer to the other than I would use with a social Trinitarian.
It may be that “Son” is not used of the Word without the incarnation. The early fathers didn’t have a problem with this because the idea of an eternal dependence exists so that thought of Father and “Son” prior to the incarnation is not problematic. It is like saying God, Word, Spirit. The idea is oneness and shared existence while maintaining extinction. I think on this you would agree, but where we part ways is I see this as an “eternal” distinction.
Another reason I don’t have a problem speaking of the Son prior to the incarnation is the same God-Word relationship that the NT describes as Father-Son exists prior to the incarnation. If using “Son” is too difficult for some because they can’t think of the Word as “Son” unless the incarnation is involved this doesn’t bother me too much. On the other hand since the Word is the Son and the same persons are involved in what it means to be God from all eternity it seems redundant to switch between Word and Son when trying to describe pre and post incarnation.
Even Paul has no problem in Colossians using language about the Son that places him at the Creation of all things. For Paul the identity never changed. The one known as Jesus has always been with the Father.
If I am unclear I am suggesting that love is essence, it is not a choice. It is what God is, the way He is.
James,
God is described as having power, wisdom, and knowledge but not as knowledge. Love is a ontological characteristic of God. That being said power, wisdom, and knowledge don’t need other personal objects to function. Love does.
Again, as I said, this is a second tier argument for the Trinity. It is useful in explaining the nature of the Trinity once other premise are accepted. I don’t expect it to be useful to you because I know the paradigm from which you approach the subject and as a former adherent I know there is no room for the idea of an eternal relationality between Father, Son, and Spirit.
Brian, good points. I feel like the argument simply attempts to make our existence parallel with that of God’s ontological existence. Eeeek. This type of methodology is rejected when we discuss the subordination of Christ (which btw is used to prove the threeness of the Trinity). I feel the concept of an intermediate agency is Platonic and not acceptable. This is also the direction I feel the Trinity took when they were trying to explain how Jesus is God. I have tried to look at both sides of this issue and will continue to do so in order to be faithful to the Scriptures. I believe that God, Himself, came to atone for the sin of all humanity.
>God is described as having power, wisdom, and knowledge but not as knowledge. Love is a ontological characteristic of God. That being said power, wisdom, and knowledge don’t need other personal objects to function. Love does.
Brian, then where is God’s power, wisdom and knowledge? The Platonic option would be to suggest it is something outside the essence of God. This also points back to my comments on the intermediate agency. No, they do not need personal objects to function but God was powerful enough, wise enough and knowledgeable enough to create, ex nihlo, before He created.
If God loves himself I don’t see this as self-centered in the same way it is for humans. God is jealous and a judge yet these are things we are commanded not to be. Similarly, if God has love toward Himself, it is not any more self centered for for Him to be the righteous judge alone. As I suggested earlier we cannot parallel our existence to his ontological nature.
James,
While the mediator being concept can go in a very negative direction as it did in early Jewish/Christian Gnosticism, it is not possible to deny that it was in place in Second Temple Judaism and it provided the language for early Christology. Jesus as the Wisdom of God borrows from STJ concepts of God created the world through his Wisdom. John’s “Word was with God” may build on developing Logos-mediator concepts in Judaism at the time. This is the beginning point of Christology that goes back toward seeing Jesus as somehow one with God, not the other way around.
I am not sure what is meant by “where” is God’s power, wisdom, knowledge. I would say Paul would say Jesus encapsulates the power, wisdom, and knowledge of God.
Wow! So much has gone on since I was last here. I’ll have to wade through things slowly. Here’s my first response.
James,
Thanks for the continuing dialogue. I can tell you put much thought and effort into your responses, which is more than I can say for many other Oneness Pentecostals I’ve discussed with.
First, the question of ontology versus choice has nothing to do with what I’m trying to discuss with you. The point I’m drawing out is that biblical love requires an object other than oneself. Second, I’m not assuming the Trinity here as I’m talking about the Father and the incarnate Son, so there is nothing non-sequitor. Let me try to make my point again, with another of your statements:
. . . this is love shared between the eternal God [person] and the man Christ Jesus [person] . . .
Trinitarians don’t doubt that there are two persons in view here; we can even state it explicitly, without contradiction, and without incoherency: the Father [person] loves the Son incarnate [person]. According to what I can tell from what you’ve presented, your one divine person is either loving His own self, or you have created another person.
James, I hope you can see that this isn’t about philosophical details of the Triune God—it’s about how Oneness has a hard time maintaining one divine person. The love shared between Father and Son incarnate is problematic for the Oneness position.
Even Paul has no problem in Colossians using language about the Son that places him at the Creation of all things. For Paul the identity never changed. The one known as Jesus has always been with the Father.
Brian,
Excellent point. The Son isn’t the Son because of flesh—He’s the Son because that’s His identity.
John & Brian,
Exactlly, if we will centre on Christ, the Son.. HE will always take us biblically into the Father’s heart! But note too, the Spirit also takes us to both the Father & the Son! (Eph. 2:18 / John 1: 14;18 ; 16: 13-15)
Fr. Robert,
Thank you for bringing up the Holy Spirit. Pneumatology is one of my neglected areas and I’m glad to have those like you and Brian to make me more aware of the Spirit’s work.
John,
The NT high water mark is that the Holy Spirit is the great personification (revealed) of the love of God, which we see between the Father and the Son. And He, the Holy Spirit is the great gift of God, from the Father, thru the Son. This might be the great teaching and doctrine of the Risen Christ (John 14-15-16), looking forward to the Ascension itself.
Thanks for scratching where I was itching.
However, it seems to me that this interp requires “My Father is eternity,” not “My Father is eternal.” ‘ad is a noun, not an adjective. Since “My Father is eternity” seems unacceptable, right now I am inclined to stay with the interp “Father of perpetuity” or “Father of eternity,” and understand it as Hebrews 1:2. The Lord Jesus created the ages of eternity.
Enoch Bethany,
Thanks for pointing out that `ad can be and in this case is a noun. I had never seen that before. However, I think that understanding ‘abi`ad as “My Father is eternity” still works here, given that names have meaning, and it seems this ‘abi`ad is acting as a name (in the biblical sense), much like Abigail et al. I think taking ‘abi`ad as “My Father is eternity” fits with the theological implications of the New Testament and certainly lessens the way that modalists could use Isaiah 9:6.