- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi WJ,
All of scripture?
No verse in scripture even mentions a trinity.
Just an invention of the human mind which insults God and His Son.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 25 2009,21:16) Yes GM,
I am surprised you have fallen into such confusion.
Bad company affects folks.
Hi brother Nick,
Thanks for you concern for me. Infact I am not fallen into trap of confusion. But I am really feel sad about our no-ending debate on Trinitarianism Vs Non-trinitarianism and preexistence Vs No-preexistence.See for yourself how everyone here is sticking to his own way of understanding by quoting certain scriptures. Everyone of us are finding some scriptures which align with our theology/concept of God and Jesus. The same Bible is quoted by all but no conclusion at all. So what can I say except blaming the Bible for not coming in black and white.
I appreciate all our brothers'(Gene, Kerwin, T8, WJ and others) and sisters'(Mandy, Irene, Kathi) concern here. At times I feel frustrated about all these discussions resulting no edification or conclusion.
Hope things will be alright. I appreciate brother Gene's words on how God will write all His commandments on our hearts thereby we may not depend on written word which is prone to errors as brother Kerwin often quote here.
May God prevail on our debates.
Peace to you
AdamHi GM,
There is no trinity in scripture.
End of story.Other strange gods are more popular than ours.
Little children keep away from idolatry.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 27 2009,16:03) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 27 2009,12:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2009,17:42) Hi bodhitharta Sorry but IMO your post is so full of holes I don't even know where to start.
One thing is very obvious to me though, and that is you do not understand anything about what a Trinitarian believes. No surprise though.
Most do not try to understand or even listen. When they see the word Trinitarian or worshipping Jesus they just shut you off.
Seriously though, you should go learn what a Trinitarian believes. You think it is because we believe Jesus is God. But scripturally it is a lot more than that.
I may say more later, but personally I do not like dealing with people who feel a need to patronize.
Blessings WJ
I apologize if you feel that I have been patronizing but let me just say that I do know what trinitarians believeTrinitarians believe in a triune God a 3 in 1 God
They believe that God is singular and plural
They believe that God consists of 3 “persons”
Each person of this tri-unity is God individually
Each person of the tri-unity is God collectively
This means that individually that Jesus is God (1 God)
The Father is God(2 Gods) and the Holy Spirit is God(3 Gods)but Collectively trinitarians call this 3/1
Also trinitarians believe that The Son is not The Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son
This means that The Son(God) is not The Father(God) or The Holy Spirit(God)
So in the trinity God is not always God acting. What I mean is if I say that Jesus died and you say that Jesus was God if I asked you did the Father Die you would say no the Father(God) did not die. If I say did the Holy Spirit (God) die you would say no the Holy Spirit(God) did not die.
So by every individual action there are 2 negations of God
You get into a position of saying that God didn't do what God did unless there is more than 1 God to do something.
Trinitarians also believe that The Father initiates The Son cooperates and The Holy Spirit Fulfills
According to this belief when God say's “I will do it” He is really saying I will initiate it, Jesus will hand it over for the Holy Spirit to fulfill it.
I really am not trying to be comical about this but doesn't God have Angels who carry out His instructions?
Didn't angels minister to Jesus when he was weak? If you believe that the Holy Spirit is a “person” why did Jesus require angels to mister to him?
Now can you explain to me where I have misunderstood the trinity?
Hi bodhithartaThank you! You just proved my point!
You do not understand “scripturally” what a Trinitarian is or even why.
I suggest that you start at the “Trinity” thread and catch up on some reading.
And then try this…
You might pray and try being honest by having an open mind.
I hope you will.
You see I have been here for over 2 years and have read it all. I also have taken part in a whole lot of the dialogue, and in all that I have heard and read there has been no convincing evidence to cause me to deny the Jesus that saved me.
You guys are funny. You accuse Trinitarians for not talking about the Trinity or hardly ever teaching it in the churches, but then you come along and say that you understand what a Trinitarian is. The understanding you posted above is shallow and flawed.
The Trinitarian view is the best view for the whole council of God by taking in account “all of scripture”.
WJ
You didn't tell me where I misunderstoodYou do believe that Jesus is God
That the Father is God
That the Holy Spirit is GodNow I have said “Is” God 3 times
I have told you that The Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD as testified to by JESUS THE CHRIST
I have also mentioned that The Head of Christ is GOD
I have also said that whatever Jesus is he calls The Father THE MOST HIGH and we are to worship The Most High.You have no point to prove, Believe what Jesus said and Worship The God that Jesus Worships and is obedient to and gives authority to Jesus.
NO ONE GIVES AUTHORITY TO THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD. Is that true or false?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 27 2009,16:03) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 27 2009,12:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2009,17:42) Hi bodhitharta Sorry but IMO your post is so full of holes I don't even know where to start.
One thing is very obvious to me though, and that is you do not understand anything about what a Trinitarian believes. No surprise though.
Most do not try to understand or even listen. When they see the word Trinitarian or worshipping Jesus they just shut you off.
Seriously though, you should go learn what a Trinitarian believes. You think it is because we believe Jesus is God. But scripturally it is a lot more than that.
I may say more later, but personally I do not like dealing with people who feel a need to patronize.
Blessings WJ
I apologize if you feel that I have been patronizing but let me just say that I do know what trinitarians believeTrinitarians believe in a triune God a 3 in 1 God
They believe that God is singular and plural
They believe that God consists of 3 “persons”
Each person of this tri-unity is God individually
Each person of the tri-unity is God collectively
This means that individually that Jesus is God (1 God)
The Father is God(2 Gods) and the Holy Spirit is God(3 Gods)but Collectively trinitarians call this 3/1
Also trinitarians believe that The Son is not The Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son
This means that The Son(God) is not The Father(God) or The Holy Spirit(God)
So in the trinity God is not always God acting. What I mean is if I say that Jesus died and you say that Jesus was God if I asked you did the Father Die you would say no the Father(God) did not die. If I say did the Holy Spirit (God) die you would say no the Holy Spirit(God) did not die.
So by every individual action there are 2 negations of God
You get into a position of saying that God didn't do what God did unless there is more than 1 God to do something.
Trinitarians also believe that The Father initiates The Son cooperates and The Holy Spirit Fulfills
According to this belief when God say's “I will do it” He is really saying I will initiate it, Jesus will hand it over for the Holy Spirit to fulfill it.
I really am not trying to be comical about this but doesn't God have Angels who carry out His instructions?
Didn't angels minister to Jesus when he was weak? If you believe that the Holy Spirit is a “person” why did Jesus require angels to mister to him?
Now can you explain to me where I have misunderstood the trinity?
Hi bodhithartaThank you! You just proved my point!
You do not understand “scripturally” what a Trinitarian is or even why.
I suggest that you start at the “Trinity” thread and catch up on some reading.
And then try this…
You might pray and try being honest by having an open mind.
I hope you will.
You see I have been here for over 2 years and have read it all. I also have taken part in a whole lot of the dialogue, and in all that I have heard and read there has been no convincing evidence to cause me to deny the Jesus that saved me.
You guys are funny. You accuse Trinitarians for not talking about the Trinity or hardly ever teaching it in the churches, but then you come along and say that you understand what a Trinitarian is. The understanding you posted above is shallow and flawed.
The Trinitarian view is the best view for the whole council of God by taking in account “all of scripture”.
WJ
If the second link you gave me is where you received the bulk of your understanding truly I forgive you, you know not what you do. In-fact I forgive you 70 x 7 becaue that site should be taken down completely it is the epitome of INFERENCE.The site butchers scripture misquoting John 17:3 that eternal life is knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ
This is the real John 17:3
John 17:3 (King James Version)
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
See the huge difference and how that deceiver leaves out purposely THE ONLY TRUE GOD
Warning to all those who love God do not look upon this site http://www.eadshome.com/Jesuslessons.htm
They twist the scriptures and to WJ please get away from reading this I must expose it quickly.
LOOK at this:
Jude 5: Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.
The actual scripture
Jude 1:5 (King James Version)
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
This is getting rather evil, WJ was taught that the Father did not even save the Israelites from Egypt he was taught that Jesus did that too
Then this!
Note also that Judges 2:1 declares that the messenger [malak–often translated as “angel”] of the LORD is the one who led the Israelites out of Egypt!
Now they are saying that Jesus is the angel of the lord, so now God is an angel.
WJ, You are being deceived greater than I thought. You are believing in BABBLE.
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 28 2009,10:46) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 27 2009,16:03) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 27 2009,12:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2009,17:42) Hi bodhitharta Sorry but IMO your post is so full of holes I don't even know where to start.
One thing is very obvious to me though, and that is you do not understand anything about what a Trinitarian believes. No surprise though.
Most do not try to understand or even listen. When they see the word Trinitarian or worshipping Jesus they just shut you off.
Seriously though, you should go learn what a Trinitarian believes. You think it is because we believe Jesus is God. But scripturally it is a lot more than that.
I may say more later, but personally I do not like dealing with people who feel a need to patronize.
Blessings WJ
I apologize if you feel that I have been patronizing but let me just say that I do know what trinitarians believeTrinitarians believe in a triune God a 3 in 1 God
They believe that God is singular and plural
They believe that God consists of 3 “persons”
Each person of this tri-unity is God individually
Each person of the tri-unity is God collectively
This means that individually that Jesus is God (1 God)
The Father is God(2 Gods) and the Holy Spirit is God(3 Gods)but Collectively trinitarians call this 3/1
Also trinitarians believe that The Son is not The Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son
This means that The Son(God) is not The Father(God) or The Holy Spirit(God)
So in the trinity God is not always God acting. What I mean is if I say that Jesus died and you say that Jesus was God if I asked you did the Father Die you would say no the Father(God) did not die. If I say did the Holy Spirit (God) die you would say no the Holy Spirit(God) did not die.
So by every individual action there are 2 negations of God
You get into a position of saying that God didn't do what God did unless there is more than 1 God to do something.
Trinitarians also believe that The Father initiates The Son cooperates and The Holy Spirit Fulfills
According to this belief when God say's “I will do it” He is really saying I will initiate it, Jesus will hand it over for the Holy Spirit to fulfill it.
I really am not trying to be comical about this but doesn't God have Angels who carry out His instructions?
Didn't angels minister to Jesus when he was weak? If you believe that the Holy Spirit is a “person” why did Jesus require angels to mister to him?
Now can you explain to me where I have misunderstood the trinity?
Hi bodhithartaThank you! You just proved my point!
You do not understand “scripturally” what a Trinitarian is or even why.
I suggest that you start at the “Trinity” thread and catch up on some reading.
And then try this…
You might pray and try being honest by having an open mind.
I hope you will.
You see I have been here for over 2 years and have read it all. I also have taken part in a whole lot of the dialogue, and in all that I have heard and read there has been no convincing evidence to cause me to deny the Jesus that saved me.
You guys are funny. You accuse Trinitarians for not talking about the Trinity or hardly ever teaching it in the churches, but then you come along and say that you understand what a Trinitarian is. The understanding you posted above is shallow and flawed.
The Trinitarian view is the best view for the whole council of God by taking in account “all of scripture”.
WJ
If the second link you gave me is where you received the bulk of your understanding truly I forgive you, you know not what you do. In-fact I forgive you 70 x 7 becaue that site should be taken down completely it is the epitome of INFERENCE.The site butchers scripture misquoting John 17:3 that eternal life is knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ
This is the real John 17:3
John 17:3 (King James Version)
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
See the huge difference and how that deceiver leaves out purposely THE ONLY TRUE GOD
Warning to all those who love God do not look upon this site http://www.eadshome.com/Jesuslessons.htm
They twist the scriptures and to WJ please get away from reading this I must expose it quickly.
LOOK at this:
Jude 5: Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.
The actual scripture
Jude 1:5 (King James Version)
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
This is getting rather evil, WJ was taught that the Father did not even save the Israelites from Egypt he was taught that Jesus did that too
Then this!
Note also that Judges 2:1 declares that the messenger [malak–often translated as “angel”] of the LORD is the one who led the Israelites out of Egypt!
Now they are saying that Jesus is the angel of the lord, so now God is an angel.
WJ, You are being deceived greater than I thought. You are believing in BABBLE.
Hi bodhithartaLOL. You are further away from the truth than I thought.
Now you want to censor free speech by shutting down the sight.
What Spirit are you of? Could be the same spirit that the disciples had when they wanted to rain down fire from God and destroy the city, and were strongly rebuked?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 28 2009,12:53) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 28 2009,10:46) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 27 2009,16:03) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 27 2009,12:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 26 2009,17:42) Hi bodhitharta Sorry but IMO your post is so full of holes I don't even know where to start.
One thing is very obvious to me though, and that is you do not understand anything about what a Trinitarian believes. No surprise though.
Most do not try to understand or even listen. When they see the word Trinitarian or worshipping Jesus they just shut you off.
Seriously though, you should go learn what a Trinitarian believes. You think it is because we believe Jesus is God. But scripturally it is a lot more than that.
I may say more later, but personally I do not like dealing with people who feel a need to patronize.
Blessings WJ
I apologize if you feel that I have been patronizing but let me just say that I do know what trinitarians believeTrinitarians believe in a triune God a 3 in 1 God
They believe that God is singular and plural
They believe that God consists of 3 “persons”
Each person of this tri-unity is God individually
Each person of the tri-unity is God collectively
This means that individually that Jesus is God (1 God)
The Father is God(2 Gods) and the Holy Spirit is God(3 Gods)but Collectively trinitarians call this 3/1
Also trinitarians believe that The Son is not The Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son
This means that The Son(God) is not The Father(God) or The Holy Spirit(God)
So in the trinity God is not always God acting. What I mean is if I say that Jesus died and you say that Jesus was God if I asked you did the Father Die you would say no the Father(God) did not die. If I say did the Holy Spirit (God) die you would say no the Holy Spirit(God) did not die.
So by every individual action there are 2 negations of God
You get into a position of saying that God didn't do what God did unless there is more than 1 God to do something.
Trinitarians also believe that The Father initiates The Son cooperates and The Holy Spirit Fulfills
According to this belief when God say's “I will do it” He is really saying I will initiate it, Jesus will hand it over for the Holy Spirit to fulfill it.
I really am not trying to be comical about this but doesn't God have Angels who carry out His instructions?
Didn't angels minister to Jesus when he was weak? If you believe that the Holy Spirit is a “person” why did Jesus require angels to mister to him?
Now can you explain to me where I have misunderstood the trinity?
Hi bodhithartaThank you! You just proved my point!
You do not understand “scripturally” what a Trinitarian is or even why.
I suggest that you start at the “Trinity” thread and catch up on some reading.
And then try this…
You might pray and try being honest by having an open mind.
I hope you will.
You see I have been here for over 2 years and have read it all. I also have taken part in a whole lot of the dialogue, and in all that I have heard and read there has been no convincing evidence to cause me to deny the Jesus that saved me.
You guys are funny. You accuse Trinitarians for not talking about the Trinity or hardly ever teaching it in the churches, but then you come along and say that you understand what a Trinitarian is. The understanding you posted above is shallow and flawed.
The Trinitarian view is the best view for the whole council of God by taking in account “all of scripture”.
WJ
If the second link you gave me is where you received the bulk of your understanding truly I forgive you, you know not what you do. In-fact I forgive you 70 x 7 becaue that site should be taken down completely it is the epitome of INFERENCE.The site butchers scripture misquoting John 17:3 that eternal life is knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ
This is the real John 17:3
John 17:3 (King James Version)
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
See the huge difference and how that deceiver leaves out purposely THE ONLY TRUE GOD
Warning to all those who love God do not look upon this site http://www.eadshome.com/Jesuslessons.htm
They twist the scriptures and to WJ please get away from reading this I must expose it quickly.
LOOK at this:
Jude 5: Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.
The actual scripture
Jude 1:5 (King James Version)
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
This is getting rather evil, WJ was taught that the Father did not even save the Israelites from Egypt he was taught that Jesus did that too
Then this!
Note also that Judges 2:1 declares that the messenger [malak–often translated as “angel”] of the LORD is the one who led the Israelites out of Egypt!
Now they are saying that Jesus is the angel of the lord, so now God is an angel.
WJ, You are being deceived greater than I thought. You are believing in BABBLE.
Hi bodhithartaLOL. You are further away from the truth than I thought.
Now you want to censor free speech by shutting down the sight.
What Spirit are you of? Could be the same spirit that the disciples had when they wanted to rain down fire from God and destroy the city, and were strongly rebuked?
WJ
Is Jesus both God and The Angel of the Lord? Yes or No?Hi bodhitharta
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 28 2009,15:21) Is Jesus both God and The Angel of the Lord? Yes or No?
Look up the Hebrew word for Angel, and see what it means.WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 25 2009,19:31) Hi bodhitharta Its pretty bad that you create a whole thread to attack me!
But have at it.
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
The true Gospel is not popular but Christianity blossomed under a different Gospel advanced by the Catholic Church and Rome, as well as the Greek Orthodox church. The majority of the world claims Christianity as its religion it is certainly the “wide” road.
Circular, for they all claim they have the “True Gospel” just as you do.Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
The observation I made about Jesus and simply observing that Jesus is the “Son” of God precludes that God created him and also even if you didn't agree with that the one thing you will not SEE even though it is glaringly obvious is that The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of “God” Not the Son of the Father or the Son of a God but literally The Son of God.
Circular, Fathers don’t create sons, they take part in reproduction. Sons can be natural sons, or adopted sons, or declared sons.Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
But you don't believe that Jesus is the son of God because you believe that Jesus “is God and the Son of God” which means either one of two things.Either God is a family name and it doesn't mean that God is the One above all or it means that there is the Son of God and The Father of God.
There can be no such thing as The Father of God in the truest sense.
Circular, Fathers have identical natures as there sons, Jesus is the “monogenes” the Only Unique Son of God. You should learn what that means. The Father declares Jesus to be his son but also declares Jesus to be God. So get your white out if you would like.Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
This is why I am starting to understand that you really don't understand what it means to be “God”
And I am beginning to think that you do not know him, for he said with his own words…If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and “from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him”. John 14:
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
Someone can be divine and have access to divinity and still not be even close to being God so a person could say Jesus is divine without calling Jesus “God”
There is only “One Divine Being”, sharing divine nature is not the same thing as “Being the One who is Divine! Now show me where scripture says Jesus shares Divine nature, and I will show you where he is God in nature. BTW what does “have access to divinity mean”?
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
Also you seem to decide yourself that when the scripture says Son of God that God in that sense refers to the Father, how is it that God could not be the Holy Spirit in that sense?
Circular, because when you see the word God you automatically think it is the Father.The Lord is that Spirit is he not?
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
Its because you see what you want and not what is writtenAre you looking in a mirror?
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
Let God be a Witness between me and you that I have delivered to you the True Gospel of The Kingdom of God, this is the Gospel that Jesus Christ our lord delivered but you have received another Gospel calling the “Son” what was not told to you by him and not listening to what he said himself that The Father is THE ONLY TRUE GOD and there is no one else besides Him.
Shall I look for fire and brimstone or run to the hills?Get real man, you know nothing of my relationship with God. The Father is my God according to scriptures, and Jesus is my Lord and God according to scriptures and the Holy Spirit is my God according to scriptures. You do believe they are One Spirit do you not? Who lives in you? Is it the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit? Can you tell the difference? It is so hypocritical of professing believers walking around saying God spoke to me one day, and then say Jesus spoke to me another day, and then say the Holy Spirit spoke to them another. Search the scriptures friend for all of these terms are in the scriptures. When you stop saying Jesus and the Spirit stopped talking to you then you can accuse Trinitarians. Unless you can tell me the difference when they speak then you need to get off your high horse and stop accusing Trinitarians for their belief.
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
There is nothing new under the sun. Israel, wanted a King although God was their King so what did he do he gave them a King, Now you have wanted a God besides the One that has always been so you have one. Jesus is your God to the Glory of the Father, so may God forgive you because you know not what you do.
May he forgive you for your patronizing and self exalted, elitist Spirit!Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2009,04:25)
God has sent those to be Judges, Kings, Saviours and now he has sent someone because you wanted even God in the Flesh and so Although God has always been the Judge always been the King and has always been the Saviour because you wanted to have God in the flesh he Christened someone a Son, although God is not Christened and is not flesh as it is written GOD is a SPIRIT so blessed those who have not seen and yet still bel
ieve.You have confused the anointed with the anointer, may God forgive you and I will keep you in my prayers.
Truthfully, I don’t need your prayers. You remind me of the high-minded scribes and Pharisees that hated Jesus and thought they knew so much. Please don’t pray for me to believe as you do.You should follow the disciples example when they…
Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. “They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Matt 28:9
WJ
well done…boditharta, your simplistic reasoning in regard to your definition of “father”, while on the one hand it is definitely self serving, is not much of a service to anyone else… part of the truth is still a lie….
πατήρ [See Stg: ]
patér; gen. patéros contracted patrós, masc. noun. Its etymology is uncertain. A father, spoken generally of men and in a special sense of God. Progenitor, ancestor, father, mentor, or model.
Related words: métēr , mother; pentherá , mother-in-law; pentherós , father-in-law; adelphós , brother; adelphé , sister; anepsiós , a cousin; suggenés , a relative; ékgonos , grandchild, literally a descendant; mámmē , a grandmother; génos , family, stock; oíkos , family.
(I) Generally.
(A) Particularly father, genitor, by whom one is begotten (Matt. 2:22; 19:5; Mark 5:40; Luke 2:48; John 4:53; Heb. 7:10). Pl. hoi patéres, parents, both father and mother (Eph. 6:4; Heb. 11:23). Of one reputed to be a father or stepfather (Luke 2:48).
(B) Of a remote ancestor, forefather, progenitor, or founder of a tribe or people, patriarch. Sing. (Matt. 3:9; Mark 11:10; Luke 1:32, 73; John 4:12; Rom. 4:17, 18). Pl. hoi patéres, fathers, forefathers, ancestors (Matt. 23:30, 32; Luke 6:23, 26; John 7:22; Acts 3:13; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:1; Sept.: Deut. 1:11; 1 Kings 8:21). Figuratively in a spiritual and moral sense (Rom. 4:11, 12, 16, of Abraham; see Sept.: Gen. 17:4, 5).
 Of Satan as the father of wicked and depraved men (John 8:38, 41, 44). He is the model whom sinners resemble, i.e., they have like evil character.
(D) As a title of respect and reverence, in direct address (Luke 16:24, 27, 30); of a teacher as exercising paternal care, authority and affection (Matt. 23:9; 1 Cor. 4:15 [cf. Phil. 2:22; 1 Thess. 2:11]; Sept.: of prophets, 2 Kings 2:12; 6:21; 13:14). Pl. hoi patéres, nom. or voc., fathers, as an honorary title of address used toward older persons (1 John 2:13, 14); also toward magistrates, members of the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:2; 22:1).
(E) Metaphorically with the gen. of a thing; the author, source, beginner of something (John 8:44; Rom. 4:12; Sept.: Job 38:28).
(II) Of God generally as the creator, preserver, governor of all men and things, watching over them with paternal love and care. Thus in the NT God is called Father.
(A) Of the Jews (2 Cor. 6:18 [cf. John 11:52]; Sept.: Isa. 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 31:9).(B) Of Christians and pious persons who are called children of God (Rom. 8:15); thus Jesus in speaking with His disciples calls God Patér humón, “your Father” (a.t. [Matt. 6:4, 6, 8, 15, 18; 10:20, 29; Luke 6:36; 12:30, 32; John 20:17]). With the adjunct, “your Father who is in heaven” (a.t. [Matt. 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1; 7:11; Mark 11:25, 26; Luke 11:2]); ho patér ho ouránios , “the heavenly Father” (a.t. [Matt. 6:14, 26, 32]); ho patér ho epouránios , “the Father, the One above the sky [or heaven]” (a.t. [Matt. 18:35]); ho ex ouranoú patér (ex , from, out of; ouranoú , heaven), “the Father out of heaven” (a.t. [Luke 11:13]). The Apostles, speaking of themselves and other Christians, called God “our Father” (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; 4:20). Used in an absolute sense with the same meaning (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:18; Col. 1:12; James 1:27; 3:9; 1 John 2:1, 15, 16; 3:1 [cf. Ps. 89:26]). See Heb. 12:9, “unto the Father of spirits,” meaning our spiritual Father (in contrast to a human father).
 Specifically, God is called the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect to that particular relation in which Christ is the Son of God. See huiós where the Father and Son are expressly distinguished (Matt. 11:27; 28:19; Mark 13:32; Luke 9:26; 10:22; John 1:14, 18; 3:35; 5:26; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Thess. 1:1; Heb. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 1:3; 2:22; 4:14; 2 John 1:3, 9). Jesus calls God patér mou, “my Father” (a.t. [Matt. 11:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 2:49; John 10:18, 25, 29; Rev. 2:27; 3:5, 21]). Thus ho patér mou ho en ouranoís, “my Father in the heavens” (a.t. [Matt. 7:21; 10:32, 33; 12:50]); ho patér mou ho ouránios, “my heavenly Father” (Matt. 15:13). Used in an absolute sense with the same meaning (Matt. 24:36; Mark 14:36; John 4:21, 23; 6:27, 37, 44ff.; 10:17; 13:1, 3; 14:6; Acts 1:4; Rom. 6:4, cf. Luke 10:21; 22:42; 23:34). The Apostles also speak of God as “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 3:14; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). Used in an absolute sense (1 Cor. 15:24; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 5:20; Col. 3:17; 2 Pet. 1:17; Jude 1:1). In Eph. 1:17 “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,” means “the God, the glorious Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (a.t.).
(D) The Lord Jesus is designated ho huiós , the Son, not only in His incarnation, but in His eternal, infinite, self-existence (John 1:18). The Lord Jesus in His incarnation is never called téknon Theoú (téknon , child; Theoú , of God), child of God, perhaps because téknon is derived from tíktō , to give birth, which is used primarily of women giving birth. It would be preferable to say that the Son was gennáō (, born, begotten, or conceived; used of the procreating act of men). However, this point is not to be pressed as it is only conjectural. Believers are called tékna Theoú (John 1:12; 11:52; Rom. 8:16, 21; 9:8; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2).
(E) Metaphorically followed by the gen. of thing (James 1:17, “from the Father of lights” meaning the author or creator of the heavenly luminaries, but not subject to change like them; Sept.: Job 38:28).
Deriv.: apátōr , literally without father; patralóas , a murderer of fathers; patriá , paternal descent; patriárches , patriarch, progenitor; patrikós , paternal, ancestral; patrís , a fatherland, native country, town, home; patroparádotos , handed down from one's fathers.
Syn.: goneús , a parent; prógonos , an ancestor, forefather.
—Complete Word Study Dictionary, The“patḗr (father).
B. The OT.
1. patḗr and Other Terms for ʾāḇ in the OT. In the OT patḗr is almost always used for ʾāḇ. Other renderings of ʾāḇ yield no significant results, since we either have adjectival phrases, attempts at greater precision, of softenings.
2. ʾāḇ as a Primary Word. ʾāḇ is a primary word connected to no stems, having only one meaning, and with no real synonyms. Suggested relationships to other terms are all questionable (cf. the attempt to read “fear” in Gen. 31:42 as “kinsman” or “ancestor”).
3. ʾāḇ as a Basic Element in the Family Concept. The socio-legal order of family life determines the Hebrew use of “father.” The family is “the father’s house.” Since “house” here can be a structure, an urban culture is the setting. The father’s legal supremacy is in view but the sons’ marriages create a clan and dilute this authority as the house becomes a broader community. In this connection the father may be the “forefather,” as in the phrase “God of the fathers” (Ex. 3:13). Love and pride and loyalty can prolong the sense of belonging to forefathers (cf. the role of Abraham and David, and the use of “fathers” in Luke 1:73; Rom. 4:12).
4. Basic Features of Patriarchy. The family laws of Israel give primacy to the father, especially in matters of property and inheritance. At first matriarchal features may also be seen, but the cultus reinforces patriarchy by expecting certain sacral functions from the male head of the clan and limiting the sacral role of women; cf. Judg. 17:10, where the young man is called “father” because he acts as priest, and the later use of the term “father” for the prophet (2 Kgs.
2:12) or official. Dignity and authority are also accorded to the priest, prophet, and official with the use of the term. The father’s primacy means that the children belong to his clan and that the sons are heirs unless their mother is a “strange woman” (Judg. 11:2). Fathers may sell daughters as bond servants (Ex. 21:7) and may accuse their children (Gen. 38:24; Dt. 21:18ff.) in their respect for higher law. Fathers play a big role in tribal courts, and are so respected that they must not be cursed or struck (Ex. 21:15, 17). Thus there are no instances of patricide in the OT. The commandment (Ex. 20:12) brings out the impulse behind the law, associating the mother with the father and inculcating a positive norm of conduct. Whether parents deserve this respect is not at issue. The term “father” may set up an ideal when applied to priests, prophets, and officials, but physical fathers are to be honored as such, since they are such by divine ordinance. There is something divine about the father, for there is something fatherly in God.
5. The Father of the Gods. The OT makes sparing use of “father” for God. The three main reasons for this are that the OT expresses trust in more intellectual terms, that the important covenant concept does not fit too well with that of father, and that the father motif is more closely related to myth. Israel does call God Father, as may be seen in theophorous names. But the larger notion of a Father of the gods does not appear in the OT. At most one might quote Dt. 32:8-9, although Dt. 4:19 makes it plain that all things are under the Lord’s supreme control. Ps. 82:6-7 refers to “sons of the Most High,” and Pss. 29:1 and 89:6 speak about “heavenly beings” without actually calling them God’s sons. It is only poetically that the gods may be called “sons of God.” Theologically the OT concept of God leaves no place for this mythical conception.
6. Father and Other Terms of Relationship in OT Religion. The idea of God as Father fits in more easily with family than tribal worship, but the community sense of the clan or tribe provides some basis for the wider use of the concept. It is an ancient religious concept that must have been present elsewhere before being adopted by Israel. Behind the idea lies the sense of generation from a single head and an ultimate beginning in God (although with no hint of ancestor worship). The relationship with God is thus construed along the lines of the relationship to the father, with some diminishing of the sense of distance between Creator and creature, yet not so much as when the deity is thought of as mother, brother, or uncle, since less authority attaches to these figures. It should be noted, too, that the blood relationship suggested by the term father is not thought of literally but metaphorically (for the sake of its emotional content), so that the tradition adopts the concept even if it is misconstrued in periods of apostasy (cf. Jer. 2:26-27). References to the divine begetting (Ezek. 23:4; Gen. 6:4) must be seen in the context of Ps. 90, which does not call God the father of nature but presents him plainly as its sovereign Lord (v. 2) and calls believers his servants rather than his children. Dt. 32 undoubtedly calls God the Father of his people (vv. 6, 18-19), but it does so in order to make the reality of fellowship with God as vivid as possible and to bring out its ethical implications.
7. Father as a Theophorous Element in the Proper Names of Israel. The vitality of motifs proper to tribal religions may be seen in a name like Joab (“Yahweh is Father”) or Abijah (“Father is Yahweh”). With or without a “my,” this is a personal confession, but it also carries a collective sense. God as Head of the blood fellowship is Father to each member. One cannot conclude, however, that kinship provides the basis for the development of the concept of God as Father.
8. Father as Metaphor. Israel’s belief in God as Father is not to be seen as grounded in myth, for myth does not nurture piety, and Israel always contests an image of God that is simply a heightened human image. Applied to God, the term Father is finally metaphorical. The first point of comparison is the legal authority of the father. If the idea still meets with some resistance, so that the people are called the children of Israel rather than of Yahweh, the sociological position of the father as the one who is a trustworthy and yet a loving authority (cf: Ps. 103:13; Prov. 3:12) gives it enduring strength. Love is an increasingly important element in the use of the term, as may be seen from Hos. 11:1. It is an important element even in the ideology of kingship (cf. 2 Sam. 7:14-15) and thus results in statements like those of Pss. 89:26 and 2:7. Intrinsic to the concept are the greatness and the loving concern of God.
9. Father as a Concept of Authority. The element of authority may be seen in the fact that the delight of the Father in the son is more commonly expressed than the joy of the son in the Father. Fatherhood implies a duty of obedience (cf. 2 Kgs. 16:7; Dt. 14:1; Jer. 18:6-7; cf. Isa. 64:8). As Creator, God the Father rules and molds his people.
10. The Universalist Trend in the Designation of God as Father. Since God is Creator, an extension of the father concept beyond Israel is logical. The Father of Dt. 32:6 creates rather than begets the people and this carries with it the question whether he creates Israel alone (cf. Jer. 3:19; Mal. 2:10). What finally emerges is that paternal feeling is the true motif in the father concept as applied to God (cf. Ps. 73:15; Jer. 31:18ff.; Isa. 63:15-16). This has a personal as well as a national reference (Pss. 27:10; 68:5), and at last all reserve is overcome and there can be a full declaration of trust in God as Father (Ps. 89:26; Sirach 51:10).
[G. QUELL, V, 959–74]
C. The Father Concept in Later Judaism.
I. The Earthly Father.
1. Piety toward the Father. The rabbis discuss why the father is to be honored first in Ex. 20:12 but the mother in Lev. 19:3 (the LXX and Philo change the order in Leviticus). They think the mother is put first in Leviticus because she advises the child. On the other hand, the father should have more honor because he teaches the law. Rules of proper observance are laid down. Thus fathers should not be contradicted or criticized, and adult children must care for aged parents.
2. Parents as Instruments and Representatives of God. Honoring God comes before honoring parents, and this principle can also give precedence to teachers of the law. Yet parents are instruments of divine generation, and therefore honoring parents is honoring God.
3. The Duties of the Father. The father must teach his children the law by instruction and example. He may punish children, but the rabbis soften the penalties of Ex. 21:15; Lev. 20:9. Philo and Josephus, however, incline to the Roman view of paternal authority and hence to a severer attitude to punishment.
II. The Fathers in Judaism.
1. The Concept. The “fathers” are usually the patriarchs, but the term also embraces the exodus or wilderness generation and outstanding figures of the past. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are “fathers of the world,” and Abraham, the father of nations, is commonly called “our father Abraham.”
2. The Importance of the Fathers. The fathers are the rock whence Israel is hewn. They embody tradition and guarantee covenant grace. Their mediated merits blot out later sin and bring pardon in the judgment. They are effective intercessors. God is thus invoked as “our (my) God and the God of our (my) fathers.”
III. Father as a Title for Teacher.
As a general title of honor, father is a common term for the rabbi. The OT use for the prophet (not the patriarch) is a model for this. The title is often linked with the name of the teacher.
IV. God as Father in Judaism.
In Judaism God is often called Father both collectively and individually. Hellenism strengthens this use, but in Israel the accent is less cosmic and genealogical and more national and theocratic. The religious use incre
ases toward the end of the first century A.D.
1. Distinctions from Greek Cosmology.
a. Not Cosmic Begetter but National Protector. The most important difference from Greek thinking is that in Judaism God is the Father of the covenant people in a personal relationship. The reference is not to begetting as a principle but to fatherhood as an attitude and as action. God is Lord of the world but as Father he cares for his people. The addition of “our,” “your,” “my,” etc. expresses the personal aspect. For the most part Father is used as a predicate and in address to God.
b. Father and Lord. These terms go together in later Judaism. The combination is prefigured in Mal. 1:6; Sirach, etc. Josephus has patḗr kaí despótēs, and “our Father, our King” is a liturgical formula in the synagogue. The conjunction, which Stoicism and Gnosticism also favor, preserves the sense of God’s holiness and thus protects the father concept against mawkish weakening.
2. The Father in the Heavens. From the end of the first century A.D. this is a common phrase in the Palestinian synagogue. Tradition dates back “Israel and her Father in heaven” to c. A.D. 70. Heaven here is not meant to stress God’s remoteness but to distinguish his fatherhood from earthly fatherhood. After A.D. 70 consolation for the loss of political freedom is found by looking to the heavenly Father. The use is collective, but personal versions also occur (“my Father in heaven” etc.). This applies especially but not exclusively in the case of outstanding figures who enjoy an unusually close relationship to God. The phrase “before the Father in heaven” expresses Israel’s attitude in prayer.
3. Invocation of the Father in Prayer. Jewish Hellenistic writings and synagogue liturgies show that God is invoked as Father (cf. Isa. 63:16; 1 Chron. 29:10 LXX). The form “our Father” is common, but “our Father in heaven” is less so.
4. The Relation to Other Synagogue Names for God and the Limitation in the Understanding of God as Father. The rabbis prefer phrases that denote God’s sovereignty, or such terms as the Holy or Merciful One, or substitute terms like the place, the dwelling, or the word. The emphasis is on God’s holiness and power rather than his fatherliness. A living sense of fatherly care is uncommon, and the belief in merit tends to rob the term Father of depth and vitality, since legalism restricts fatherly freedom. The materials of true faith in the Father are all present, but the spirit is still to some extent missing.
D. The NT.
I. Father according to the Synoptic Jesus.
1. Honoring the Earthly Father and Its Limits. Jesus unconditionally affirms the fifth commandment (Mark 10:19) and dismisses the evasions of casuistry (Mark 7:10ff.). He also shows a tender regard for the parent-child relation (Mark 5:40; 9:14ff.; Luke 9:37ff.). Tension arises with Jesus’ call to discipleship, for, like marriage (Gen. 2:24), this sets up a new order (Mark 10:29-30) and demands an eschatological outlook (Matt. 8:21-22), yet does not permit evasion of the commandment. At times the tension may be felt so severely that renunciation of all earthly relationships is entailed (Luke 14:26), although not in the sense of a vow. The Son of Man tears generations apart (Mark 13:12), as in Jewish eschatological expectation. On the positive side, however, the gospel does a reconciling work (Luke 1:17) by healing family disruption and restoring the disobedient.
2. The Religious Use of patḗr.
a. The Presupposition of Patriarchy. Patriarchy is the sociological background of the religious use of patḗr. Ir is unusual to leave father and trade to follow Jesus (Matt. 4:22). The father orders his sons to work in the vineyard (Matt. 21:28). The father holds and controls the family property (Luke 15:11ff.). The younger son sins by seeking advance ownership and selfishly leaving his father’s house; conversion is returning to the father’s fellowship. Being in fellowship with the father is the gift on which all else depends. When Jesus calls God Father, God’s lordship is implied in his fatherhood.
b. Invocation of God as “Abba.” The NT has preserved the Aramaic term used by Jesus, namely, “Abba.” This childish cry is a generalized vocative. An infant sound is confidently applied to God as the simplest term to express his loving attitude. Familiarity is avoided by the setting of the invocation within the kingdom with its demand for submission to God’s holy tole.
c. The Father in the Heavens.
(a) Sources. It seems likely that Matthew preserves the original, longer form of this expression (cf. Mark 11:25). In parallel passages Luke amends it to suit his purpose. Matthew shows that Jesus does not always add “in the heavens,” but he presents a true Father theology in a form which stands close to the Palestinian tradition.
(b) Meaning. Distinguishing heaven from earth, the formula suggests sovereignty but also implies perfect fatherhood. The use of “your” or “our” denotes the status of sonship. In the Lord’s Prayer the first three petitions express the control of earth by heaven under the divine fatherhood. In Matt. 6:1ff. piety is regulated by the Father. In Matt. 23:9 the heavenly Father normatively fixes the meaning of earthly fatherhood. What the formula always implies is the orientation of earth to heaven, or the control of earth by heaven, under the God who is exalted and yet near.
d. My Father and Your Father.
(a) Sources. The use of “my Father” is limited in Mark but more common in material peculiar to Luke and especially Matthew. In Mark “your Father” occurs only in 11:25. It is more common in Matthew.
(b) Distinction. In Mark and Luke, and material common to Matthew and Luke, “your Father” occurs only in directions to the disciples. Yet the phrase always stands in relation to Jesus. The directions receive their force from the presence of the kingdom in the person of Jesus. The truth of fatherhood is the revelation of the Son. Only through him is it a truth for the disciples.
 Christological Confession. Jesus teaches his disciples to pray “our Father,” but his own “my Father” expresses a unique relationship. This may be seen already in Luke 2:49 (cf. 23:34, 46). The use has christological and confessional force in Matt. 16:17; 18:19. The content of this Christology is that the Father reveals himself in the Son, that decision is made relative to him, that the suffering Son is doing the Father’s will, that he grants salvation and assurance of acceptance to his followers, and that future consummation is promised.
e. The Absolute ho patḗr. The absolute use is uncommon but is found in all strata. On the lips of Jesus it usually occurs with “the Son” or “the Son of Man” in apocalyptic contexts. Dan 7, which expresses the sovereignty of the Father and the commission of the Son, may well be the basis.
f. God the Father of All. Jesus relates God’s fatherhood primarily to the privileged nation of Israel, although decision as to Israel’s relation to the Father rests on her encounter with the Son (cf. Matt. 21:28ff.; Luke 15:11ff.). God is the Creator of all (Matt. 5:43ff.) but there is no reference to any general sonship by nature of estate. Disciples encounter the Father in Jesus. Fatherhood is linked to the kingdom and discipleship. It implies the divine lordship.
g. Fatherly Authority and Fatherly Care. The heavenly Father is a model of impartial generosity who expresses his perfection in forgiveness. He combines love with discipline and his greatest gift is his strongest claim (Matt. 6:14-15; Mark 11:25). Disclosure of the Father replaces legalism and controls conduct with a view to his glory (Matt. 5:16). Solicitude accompanies authority. The Father provides for both earthly needs and final salvation. One may rely on his foresight (Matt. 6:8, 32) and fatherly goodness (Matt. 7:9ff.). He extends assistance in persecution (10:29-30) and does not will that any of his little ones should perish either in time or eternity (Matt. 18
:14).
h. Significance for the Disciples.
(a) Christological Form of Belief in the Father. Jesus is totally committed to the Father and his saving purpose and claims no greater power of knowledge than the Father. This comes out in the passion prayer of Mark 14:36 and the disclaimer of knowledge of the date of the parousia (13:32). The Son’s authority is the gift of the Father to be used in the Father’s service. The Father reveals the truth concerning the Son (Matt. 16:17). The fellowship of the kingdom is a household fellowship under the Father as Head.
(b) The Cry of Jubilation. The mystery of the Son is an integral part of this cry. The Son’s fellowship with the Father gives him his authority and knowledge. The truth about Jesus and the Father takes kerygmatic form here in a way which takes us to the root of the unique sense of Jesus’ “my Father.”
 The Christological Message in Luke 15:11ff. The christological message in Luke 15:11ff. is that of the fatherly love that shows mercy meeting true conversion and then seeking to win the elder brother into the circle of blessing. The father’s will involves acceptance of his mercy and the joyous feast represents household rejoicing at the restoration of fellowship. The work of Christ is the work whereby the Father unites the righteous and the unrighteous in a new family fellowship by overcoming the legalism of the former and graciously opening the doors to the latter. This work does not make the cross superfluous, for it comes to completion on the cross, where Jesus forgives the thief and prays for the self-righteous. It is on the cross that Jesus fulfils the truth of fatherhood that dominates his ministry.
i. The Unity of Father, King, and Judge.
(a) Father and Judge. In patriarchy fatherly provision and judicial power come together. The Father’s will is the norm of judgment (Matt. 7:21ff.; 18:23ff.), and the Son judges in the Father’s name (Matt. 25:31ff.).
(b) Father and Ruler. The term “father” includes lordship, but Jesus strengthens this aspect by associating fatherhood and the kingdom. God is seldom called basileús in the Gospels but there can be no questioning his lordship. The kingly rule of God is the fatherly rule of grace. Jesus puts an end to any legalistic restriction of such terms as Lord, King, and Judge. The one name Father absorbs and implies others in expression of a trusting simplicity that overcomes both fear of the divine names and their accumulation.
II. patḗr in John.
1. Usage. In John patḗr is used for God some 115 times. The absolute use predominates. We find “your father” only once (20:17), and “our father” and “father in the heavens” not at all.
2. Concept. John does not relate the idea of begetting to the term “father.” The Father takes precedence (14:28) in authoritative giving (6:32). The Son knows, obeys, recognizes, and honors him in a harmony of love (10:30). The Son’s relation to the Father implies patriarchy. He stays in the Father’s house, owns what the Father owns, and can gain a hearing with the Father (8:35; 16:15). He prepares a place for his disciples as members of his Father’s household (14:2).
3. Revelation. In John the message of the divine fatherhood relates to revelation. God is not primarily the Father of all but the Father of the Son who reveals him, and who is the Son in a unique sense. In Jn. 1:14, 18 the Father is the Giver of revelation and the Son is the Revealer (cf. 4:21, 24). The Son acts on the Father’s commission (5:43). The Father bears witness to him in Scripture (5:37ff.) and gives him as the heavenly bread (6:32). Only as he has always been with the Father can the Son reveal him (1:1, 18). Sending is thus the key. The Father sends the Son to do his work, and it is as he is consecrated and sent that he is manifested as the Son (10:36). “Father” is itself a word of revelation (17:6, 11, 26, 28). It is about the Father that Jesus speaks (16:25). This is no mere verbal concept separate from the saving work of the Son. The work of the Son is the content of witness to the Father (6:41ff.). To know or see the Son is to know or see the Father (14:7ff.). To decide for or against the Son is to decide for or against the Father (8:42). If revelation is the declaration of the Father, the word and work of Jesus fill the term with new and specific content.
4. The Harmony of Father and Son. The union of Father and Son is the core of the message in John. What this means is that the Father loves the Son (3:35). This is no mystical love but is related to the Son’s commissioned work. This love has a pretemporal basis and implies mutual knowing and seeing. It is a “being in” but involves action as the Son says and does what the Father wills (5:19; 7:17-18). The works of the Son are the Father’s works (10:32, 37-38). The word is the Father’s word (14:24). Both works and word attest to both Sender and Sent (10:25). A fellowship of giving produces the act of revelation and comes to fulfilment in the self-giving of the Son as he takes up the cup the Father gives him to drink (18:11) in a union of the Father’s love (10:17) and the Son’s obedience (10:18). Only when the saving work is done does Jesus make his Father in the true sense the Father of the disciples as well (20:17), for he is the only way to the Father (14:6). The Paraclete works out the new relationship as an abiding gift (14:18ff.), and the disciples are brought into a parallel knowing (10:14-15), loving (15:9-10), union (14:20), and sending (17:18).
5. The Conflict for the Truth of the Father. In Jn. 2:16 Jesus accuses the Jews of desecrating the Father’s house, but the real issue is Jesus’ own relation to the Father (5; 6; 8). Opponents treat Jesus as a mere man and thus demand special validation of his mission (6:42). They appeal to God as their Father (8:41) but fail to recognize the Father and the Son (8:45ff.). Their attitudes and actions show that spiritually their father is the devil (8:42). The battle for the truth of fatherhood is repeated in the “convincing” work of the Paraclete (16:8ff., especially v. 10).
6. The Father and Prayer. As suffering intensifies, Jesus increasingly engages in prayer to the Father (11:41-42; 12:27ff.). The unique missionary form of prayer in 11:41-42 states his life’s goal. The prayer of 12:27ff. expresses conflict but seeks God’s glorifying in a fulfilment of mission. Giving by the Father and the glorifying of the Father are the dominant themes in ch. 17. The disciples have direct access to the Father as they appeal to the Son and agree with him (14:13; 16:23). The absolute patḗr is the goal of prayer in worship in the Spirit (4:21ff.). The disciples’ prayer is the fruit of the Son’s completed work of salvation.
III. Father in the Other Apostolic Writings.
1. The Earthly Father. The instructions given to fathers in Col. 3:18ff.; Eph. 5:22ff. combine OT and Jewish-Hellenistic elements but give them added depth with the reference to the Lord. The new relationship of faith is the determinative point. Paternal power must not be abused, but obedience pleases the Lord, and education is to be given in the Lord. In Heb. 12:4ff. discipline is right, but only as it evinces loving concern. In a mixed marriage Paul gives the decisive vote to the believing partner inasmuch as the other partner and the children are consecrated by the superior fact of faith. 1 Tim. 5:1-2 enjoins respect for the elderly as though they were fathers.
2. Men as Fathers in Paul.
a. Abraham. In Rom. 4:1 Abraham is father as a believer, and this means that all believers are his children. What counts is not blood relationship but a genealogy of faith. He is Israel’s father only if she believes as he did.
b. The Apostle. In his relations to the churches Paul thinks in fatherly terms. He refers to birth in 1 Cor. 4:15. Timothy and Titus are children or sons (1 Cor. 4:17; Tit. 1:4; cf. Mark in 1 Pet. 5:13). The father differs from other teachers (1 Cor. 4:15), although he is father only in Christ. A title is not at issue but a living
relationship. Both father and child serve the one gospel (cf. Phil. 2:22). Fatherly actions are described in 1 Th. 2:11ff. If there is any model, it is the rabbinic one, not that of the teacher of wisdom of the mystagogue.
3. God as Father.
a. The Cry “Abba.” Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15; 1 Pet. 1:17 and the use of the Lord’s Prayer confirm the importance of invoking God as Father. The cry “Abba” is not just liturgical; it is a work of the Spirit of adoption. Paul’s doxologies show that a permanent attitude is at stake. The invocation implies the assurance of sonship and inheritance. It marks the end of legalism and servanthood.
b. The Use of patḗr.
(a) theós patḗr. This phrase occurs in blessings, salutations, and final greetings, e.g., Gal. 1:3; Rom. 1:7; Phil. 1:2; Eph. 1:2; 6:23. But it never occurs in Paul without mention of the kýrios. Omission of the article enhances its effect, and reading the epistles promotes its liturgical use. It has the force of a dogmatic formulation in 2 Pet. 1:17 (cf. Ignatius Magnesians 3.1).
(b) theós ho patḗr. This lofty confessional phrase occurs only in 1 Cor. 8:6.
 ho theós kaí patḗr. This is a formula of doxology and thanksgiving in 1 Thessalonians and Galatians. It represents the attitude of prayer in 1 Th. 1:2-3 and is shaped by the implied petition in 3:11. The kaí is preferred when a genitive follows, i.e., “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Here patḗr toú kyríou defines theós, although probably only “Father” relates to Christ. Statements along these lines contain praise in the style of prayer (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). Solemn force is added in 2 Cor. 11:31. ho theós kaí patḗr also occurs in confessional statements in 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 4:5-6, and in an admonition in Eph. 5:20. Distinctive phrases are “Father of mercies” in 2 Cor. 1:3 and “Father of glory” in Eph. 1:17. The latter phrase is in apposition to the unusual “God of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(d) ho patḗr. In Paul the absolute occurs only in Colossians and Ephesians, which polemically adopt Gnostic terms. Col. 1:12-13 links it with ho huiós. Eph. 2:18 shows similarity to John, which also seems to be in conflict with Gnosticism.
(e) patḗr, theós, huiós, kýrios. Paul mostly uses theós but gives it distinctive content. He uses patḗr in prayer and links it to theós. theós denotes God’s power and glory as Creator, patḗr his grace and mercy as Redeemer. In 2 Cor. 1:3 “Father of mercy” interprets theós as the “God of comfort,” while in Eph. 1:17 patḗr is defined in terms of theós as the Father of glory. Paul reserves kýrios for Jesus and he relates huiós to theós rather than patḗr, linking patḗr with kýrios. God, as the Father of Jesus, is also the Father of believers. Statements about the kýrios are more common than those about the huiós because Paul proclaims what is given by the Father and the Lord.
c. Content of the Father Concept.
(a) Fatherhood as Lordship. What is said about the Father relates to doxology, prayer, and confession. Fatherhood means sovereignty. His will controls the work of salvation (Gal. 1:4). We owe all things to his power (Eph. 5:20). His gift is a call to sanctification (2 Cor. 6:14ff.). At the parousia we come before him as Judge (1 Th. 3:13). When redeemed, we are put in his kingdom (Col. 1:12-13). At the end the kingdom will be his (1 Cor. 15:24ff.). That the Father is also Ruler is revealed in the fact that he is Father of the kýrios, who is also Ruler and Judge. The use of Father for God is controlled by the revelation in Christ. Ditheism is not implied, but it is the Lord who makes possible true belief in the Father.
(b) The Gift of Grace through the Father. The Father dispenses cháris, agápē, éleos, paráklēsis, eirḗné (2 Th. 2:16-17; 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). This is an ongoing part of redemption. Blessing fulfils the counsel of salvation (Eph. 1:3). The cry “Abba” relates to the Father as the Giver of salvation. The Spirit makes us children (Rom. 8:14) and gives us access to the Father (Eph. 2:18). Beloved in God the Father (Jude 1), believers are “in” God the Father by faith.
d. Greek Influences.
(a) The Answer to Belief in the Father of All. In 1 Cor. 8:4ff. confession of the Father is opposed to polytheism, tá pánta here is set in the biblical context of creation. God is the author of creation, and through Christ creation and redemption are linked. Paul uses Greek expressions, but he gives them a new sense. In Eph. 2:18ff. the saints, through the Spirit, have rights in God’s household. The Father of us all is above, through, and in all. Here OT and Stoic phrases are mixed, but the Stoic phrases receive new content with the reference to the new unity of the redeemed people. A dynamic unity is brought into focus by belief in the Father.
(b) Exceptions. 1 Pet. 1:3 relates “begetting” to the Father. The point here is that he has effected regeneration. Jms. 1:18 also relates regeneration to the Father, but again with a soteriological reference. “Father of lights” in v. 17 may have the stars in view (cf. Philo), but the phrase is an incidental one. Hebrews uses patḗr sparingly, but calls God the “Father of spirits” in 12:9 in what seems to be a more general cosmological rather than a soteriological use.
patrṓos.
1. This word means “what belongs to the father or is inherited from the father.”
2. In the LXX and Josephus it has the special sense of “what derives from the fathers.” It may thus be used with tradition or with God.
3. Josephus prefers pátrios in this sense, e.g., for customs, tradition, the land, the language, the constitution, and especially the law.
4. In the NT Paul in Acts 22:3 says that he was brought up in the law of the fathers, while in 24:14 he says that he worships the God of our fathers, and in 28:17 he tells the Jews in Rome that he has done nothing against the customs of the fathers.
patriá.
—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged Editionblessings,
kenbodhitharta, you say
Quote The term son points to an origination within a Father now if you understand this you have to concede that Jesus is Originated by His Father, therefore he is the product of his Father. Jesus as a man originated from the Holy Spirit, that is what the bible says. Matthew 1:20 (ESV) But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”
No mention here of the Father. Of course to say that Jesus was born of and from the Holy Spirit is to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. To speak of the Holy Spirit, to speak of the Son, to speak of the Father, is to speak of God.
Secondly, to say that the man Jesus “originated” from the father is to tell only part of the story. Since Jesus does not lie, and He said that He would return to the Father and regain in and share again in the glory that He had with the Father before coming to earth as a man, then manifestly Jesus, in some way, existed before His incarnation. John 17:5 (ESV) And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
And indeed, that is what “incarnation” means… Jesus' preexistent state, whatever that was, was “enfleshed”, “incarnated”, and since there had to be something or better, someone who was in fact incarnated, manifestly, Jesus has to have had existence prior to the incarnation in order to ever be incarnated int he first place. And this is exactly what the Scripture says happened… John 1:14 (ESV) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
If the word became flesh, then obviously the Word, the Son, existed prior to becoming flesh. Really, its all very simple, wouldn't you say?
blessings,
kenboditharta… and by the way… what kind of name is this… it sounds very… eastern Indian… kind of well… buddahish… to coin a word… lol… anyways….
you said
Quote His Father has no originator. You cannot say that Jesus was eternal although you can say he has eternal life, Jesus has not always lived as evidenced in his death. Please do not tell me what I can or cannot say
Again, you make very simplistic errors in your reasoning. Just as a human does not cease to exist just because their body died, it also does not stand to reason that Jesus ceased to exist just because his body died on that Roman cross.You are right that the Father had no originator. You are wrong that just because Jesus the man started to exist that therefore the Son had a beginning… as has always been true, there never was a time when the Son did not exist. And as the eternal Son, for as long as the Father has existed, so too has the Son existed.
blessings,
kenbodi….
you say
Quote The One and Only TRUE GOD whom Jesus Christ declares has always lived without death and will never die, He is the EVERLIVING GOD can you say this about Jesus? Absolutely. There never was a time when the Son did not exist. There. Now I've said it… lol
Better, though, the bible says it Hebrews 13:8 (ESV) Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
as does
John 1:17-18 (ESV) [17] For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. [18] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”
Jesus is God, and as such, never had a beginning. Get this then….: Just because Jesus chose to come to this earth, to take on the form of a servant, it does not necessarily follow that Jesus is a created being. Elementary reasoning really….
Philippians 2:6-8 (ESV) [6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [8] And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
blessings,
kenbodi… you said
Quote Jesus died(Blessings be upon him forever) Now, Jesus is not dead but he died and that is the crux of the entire belief, correct? God has never died even according to your own belief God raised Jesus(whom you call God) from the dead.
Jesus has always existed, did not cease to exist when He died on the Cross, and lives now, and will always live… that is the crux of the belief.
The Bible actually says that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, so you err in not knowing the Scripture.
John 2:19-22 (ESV) [19] Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” [20] The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” [21] But he was speaking about the temple of his body. [22] When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.”
Therefore to say that God will raise Jesus is to affirmt he doctrine of the Trinity, for it itrue that both God and the Son will raise Jesus from the dead.
Secondly, Jesus has to have existence aside from existing as the man Jesus. For if Jesus ceased to exist at the His death on the cross, then he would not have existed in order to raise Himself from the dead. But since Jesus could claim to raise Himself from the dead, he simply had to exist aside from His earthly human body. Simple common sense. Jesus as the Son, is eternal.
blessings,
kenbodi, you say
Quote Jesus says he had the authority to rise from the dead through a command from God, do you believe Jesus needed assistance to raise from the dead? Do not add or subtract form the word of God bodi… this is very dangerous. I know we all paraphrase the bible sometimes, but we must not ever paraphrase in a deceitful way so as to obscure the whole truth of the scriptures. What the bible says is this:
John 2:19-22 (ESV) [19] Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” [20] The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” [21] But he was speaking about the temple of his body. [22] When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.”
In fact, all three members of the Trinity are said to take part in the raising of Jesus from the dead.
Acts 2:24 (ESV) God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
Romans 6:4 (ESV) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
1 Corinthians 6:14 (ESV) And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.
Galatians 1:1-2 (ESV) [1] Paul, an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
Ephesians 1:20 (ESV) that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,
So I thank you for bringing up this issue bodi… once again the doctrine of the Trinity is shown to best take into account the full counsel of God, and best explains how it can be the case that Jesus is said to raise Himself from the dead, that God the Father can be said to raise Him from the dead, and that the Holy Spirit is said to raise Him from the dead.
blessings.
kenken! Rev.3:14 “… These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God.” Ether this Scripture is wrong or you are. I believe the Scripture.
Also in Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. IMO Jesus did exist before He became a man. He was born of the Father, while we originated from the dust of the earth.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and was with God.verse 14 And the Word became flesh and dwell among us…….
Peace and Love Irene
P.S. I have written all of this before, just like Kathi did, so I will not further discuss any of this. IMO it is the truth. Some might not agree and I even can understand that, it took me some time too. In fact I told the guy who told me first, that he was nuts.
bodi… you said
Quote Just because Jesus is Unique in his Sonship it doesn't even make him exclusive, now I will teach you something new Hebrews 11
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
John 3
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Both of these verses use “monogenes” but we know that Abraham already had Ishmael years before Isaac so we know from this usage and knowledge of the story with confirmation of the scriptures that the word is used as in “The promised one” As Isaac was a child of a Promise Just as Christ Jesus was.
Firstly, there is nothing new under the sun… and there have been heresies about the Son for a long time. The basic gist of your “teachings” are old hat….
Secondly, you make a basic philological error, which D. A. Carson calls a root fallacy”, using the very word you focus on, eg mongenes…
“The word μονογενής (monogenēs) is often thought to spring from μόνος (monos, only) plus γεννάω (gennaō, to beget); and hence its meaning is “only begotten.” Even at the etymological level, the γεν (gen)–root is tricky: μονογενής (monogenēs) could as easily spring from μόνος (monos, only) plus γένος (genos, kind or race) to mean “only one of its kind,” “unique,” or the like. If we press on to consider usage, we discover that the Septuagint renders יָחִיד (yamhîd) as “alone” or “only” (e.g., Ps. 22:20 [21:21, LXX, “my precious life” (niv) or “my only soul”]; Ps. 25:16 [24:16, LXX, “for I am lonely and poor”]), without even a hint of “begetting.” True, in the New Testament the word often refers to the relationship of child to parent; but even here, care must be taken. In Hebrews 11:17 Isaac is said to be Abraham’s μονογενής (monogenēs)—which clearly cannot mean “only–begotten son,” since Abraham also sired Ishmael and a fresh packet of progeny by Keturah (Gen. 25:1–2). Issac is, however, Abraham’s unique son, his special and well–beloved son.13 The long and short of the matter is that renderings such as “for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16, niv) are prompted by neither an inordinate love of paraphrasis, nor a perverse desire to deny some cardinal truth, but by linguistics.” (Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed.) (29). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster; Baker Books.)
The fact is, the word used to describe Abraham's son and God's Son do not mean the same thing in their respective contexts. Jesus is God's one and only Son in a very unique way, one that Abraham's son could never be, if for no other reason than the obvious differences between God and Abraham!! lol…. and So Issac could never be “the promised one” in the same sense that Jesus is, again, if for no other reason than it was not Issac who died for our sins, simply because he never could have, but rather it was Jesus who died for our sins, because He was “the promised one” in ways that Issac never could be. Thus the 2 phrases “only begotten son” and “the promised one” serve to exactly prove the error you make, for just because the same phrase is used in more than one case, it does not follow from this that the phrase must therefore be used on both cases in exactly the same way.
Again bodiu… you need to either read some good books on hermeneutics, which would spare you from these basic errors, or at least, they might, or take some classes from persons who have studied hermeneutics. I would be glad to give the names of some good books on the subject, or offer you some links to some good free online courses. Just let me know. Of course, it could be the case that you think you already know everything there is to know about interpreting the bible, and thus think that you need no one to teach you. I hope better for you… I know I have so much to learn… and so I go to the people of God to instruct me and to help me to grow closer to God and to better understand His word. I encourage y6ou to do the same.
blessings,
kenHi E,
You stumble over your theology.
Keep it simple.
God is one.Jesus Christ is the Son of that God.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 29 2009,06:41) Hi E,
You stumble over your theology.
Keep it simple.
God is one.Jesus Christ is the Son of that God.
Excatley Nick I agree.
IreneQuote (Cindy @ April 29 2009,05:54) ken! Rev.3:14 “… These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God.” Ether this Scripture is wrong or you are. I believe the Scripture.
Also in Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. IMO Jesus did exist before He became a man. He was born of the Father, while we originated from the dust of the earth.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and was with God.verse 14 And the Word became flesh and dwell among us…….
Peace and Love Irene
P.S. I have written all of this before, just like Kathi did, so I will not further discuss any of this. IMO it is the truth. Some might not agree and I even can understand that, it took me some time too. In fact I told the guy who told me first, that he was nuts.
Irene!…. re Rev 3:14, the word is not literally “beginning” in the sense of “started to exist”… but is “origin”…
árchō.
Active a. “to rule,” b. “to begin”; middle “to begin.”
C. archḗ in the NT.
1. archḗ as “beginning” is used in the NT a. in the formula “from the beginning,” e.g., of creation (Heb. 1:10), of Christ’s appearing (Luke 1:2), of being a Christian (1 Jn. 2:24), indeterminately of our election (2 Th. 2:13), with the devil as subject (“from all ages,” though not in the sense of eternal, Jn. 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8). 1 John has the phrases “that which was from the beginning” (1:1) and “he who was from the beginning” (2:13-14) for the Logos who has become perceptible to the disciples but is eternally preexistent, since it is God himself who here gives himself to us.
b. “In the beginning” in Jn. 1:1 says this specifically of the Logos; the Logos is before all time, so that no temporal statements can be made about him. Eternal preexistence is plainly implied. Elsewhere “in the beginning” refers to Paul’s first evangelistic work in Phil. 4:15 and the early days of the Jerusalem church in Acts 11:15.
c. tḗn archḗn is used adverbially in Jn. 8:25 for “all the time.”
d. archḗ may also denote the first occurrence in a series, as in Matt. 24:8; Heb. 5:12 (the beginning of Christian instruction); Heb. 3:14 (of the confidence of faith); 2:3 (of Christ’s own preaching of salvation). In the negative the saying that Christ has no beginning (or end) puts him beyond time (Heb. 7:3).
2. archḗ as “power” means a. “dominion” or “power,” e.g., Luke 12:11 for the secular or spiritual authorities, and 20:20 for the power of the Roman procurator (always with exousía except in Jude 6); b. (plural) supraterrestrial forces (cf. Daniel) which seem to be hostile to God (Eph. 1:21), which have an overlord (Eph. 2:2), which govern different spheres, e.g., religious (1 Cor. 8:5), sexual (1 Cor. 6:15ff.), vital (1 Cor. 15:26), and social (cf. Eph. 6), which are spiritual (Eph. 6:12), related to angels (Rom. 8:38), and originally meant to be good (Col. 1:16), which are now confined to the lowest heaven (Eph. 3:10), which have been robbed of their power by the cross (Col. 2:15) and are now subject to Christ (Col. 2:15) their Lord (Col. 2:10, 16), but which still engage in conflict with Christians (Eph. 6:12) even though they cannot finally separate them from God (Rom. 8:38) and will ultimately lose all their influence (1 Cor. 15:24).
3. In Col. 1:18 Christ himself is archḗ as the image of God and the firstborn of all creation “before” all else. As archḗ he is the norm for creation by and for which all things were made (cf. 1:16b). He is also archḗ as the firstborn from the dead. Rev. 3:14 probably calls him archḗ in much the same sense (cf. 21:6; 22:13). Eschatology with its relativizing of history brought some kinship in philosophical usage: Christ on the throne is pre- and posttemporal (→ Aō).
—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged EditionThat is why the NIV translates the verse:
Revelation 3:14 (NIV) “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.”and Revelation 3:14 (NRSV) “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God's creation:
and Revelation 3:14 (NET1) “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write the following: “This is the solemn pronouncement of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator of God’s creation:
Revelation 3:14 (HCSB) “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: “The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God’s creation says:
Secondly, as far as the word “firstborn” goes, while it is used in a literal sense, that of biological origin, it is also used as a title indicating preeminence… look at these passages:
Genesis 48:14 (ESV) And Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands (for Manasseh was the firstborn).
Pretty clear… Mannasseh is the firstborn… right? And Ephraim is the younger of the 2 brothers….
But look at this:
Jeremiah 31:9 (ESV) With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.”
So which is it? Is Ephraim or Mannasseh the firstborn? Does the bible contradict itself? Of course not. This is because the term “firstborn” is used to indicate a place of honor or preeminence, and not just biological birth order. And this way of using the term (“firstborn”) when used of Jesus is that of a title. We know this from the context of the very passage in Colossians that you quote.
Colossians 1:15-18 (ESV) [15] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. [16] For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. [17] And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [18] And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
“5. In Col. 1:15 the “for” clause brings out the meaning, namely, that all things owe their creation to Christ’s mediation. The point, then, is not that Christ is the first creature. This would demand a stress on the -tokos and would also bring birth into conflict with creation. What is stated is Christ’s supremacy over creation as its mediator. The term prōtótokos is used, then, because of its importance as a word for rank. In spite of v. 4 it does not here denote Christ’s special relation to the Father. The twofold use does not necessarily derive from Gnostic ideas of the primal man or the redeemed redeemer. As the mediator of the first creation, Christ is also the mediator of the new creation with his resurrection from the dead (v. 18).
—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged EditionI have written on all of this before as well… but I am willing to discuss this in the future… if you want to… for IMO, this is the truth as well… I have heard this “teaching” before from the Christadelphians and the Jehovah's Witnesses, so it is not new to me either, and indeed, when they told me of this “teaching”, while I did not
think they were “nuts”, I believed them to be seriously mistaken. I believe this is still the case, whether it be you teaching it, or a member of the Christadelphian church, an Arian or Jehovah's Witness….blessings,
Ken
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
