Category: Biblical and Textual Issues

2024 Philippines Pastors Conference: Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura)

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

We will be ministering again in Baguio, Philippines. There we will hold the annual First Love Pastors Conference and participate in hosting the local Christian radio station.  

Because so many Christians in the Philippines lack basic essential theological teaching, they are targets for prominent non-Christian cults and world religions. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (2020) almost 80% of professing Christians are Roman Catholic, followed by Islam with 6,981,710 persons (6.4%), and then, the anti-Trinitarian cult, Iglesia ni Cristo (‘Church of Christ’[1]), which has nearly 3 million members, which makes them the largest aboriginal so-called Protestant church in the country.

 

Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura)

The subject matter of this Conference will be on Scripture – the inspiration, sufficiency, authority, and Scripture as the sole authoritative infallible rule of faith for the church—the NT is the final and complete revelation to the church, thus, a closed canon.         

Scripture alone is an important and necessary topic for all Christians, esp. pastors. Again, the dominating religion in the Philippines is Catholicism, which teaches that “Scripture” is contained in both the written Word and so-called “Tradition” (i.e., the general consensus of early church Fathers on particular doctrines). The official Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that God’s infallible Word, “Does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence” (CCC, paragraph 82).

Opposing Rome’s and her salvation by faith + works, the Protestant concept salvation is summarized in the five Solae (or Sola’s): solus Christus (through Christ alone), sola Gratia (by grace alone), sola Fide (through faith alone), sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone), and soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”). It is important to realize that the Reformers did not invent the five Solae. Rather, the concept of the five Solae was reactionary to Rome’s denial of all of them. Contra Rome’s rejection of sola Scriptura, the Reformers loudly proclaimed that the church’s sole infallible authoritative rule of faith for issues of faith and practices that involve doctrine was Scripture.

 

Main topics: the inspiration, sufficiency, authority, and canonicity of the NT.

 

Inspiration: The entire content of divine revelation (Scripture alone) is God breathed out. 2 Peter 2:20-21: 20 “Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, 21 for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” 2 Timothy 3:16: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed [theopneustos, from Theos, ‘God’ + pneuma, ‘breath’] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be equipped, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

The phrase, “All Scripture is God-breathed” seems to refer to, not a canonical list of books, but rather, the nature of Scripture—as inspired by God. 

Sufficiency. Because the content of both the OT and NT is “God breathed out,” it is sufficient in and of itself to thoroughly equip the one devoted to God “for every good work,” says Paul. Everything necessary for our salvation is contained in the biblical content. Hence, the Scripture is the only infallible standard upon which to test all things determining truth from falsity.   

Authority. Again, inspired Scripture is the sole authoritative infallible rule of faith for the church. In the Temptation narrative (Matt. 4:1-11), Jesus’ answers the devil from the authority of Scripture (Jesus cited five passages from the OT).[2]

Canonicity (viz., the NT canon). This will my primary area of address “Canon,” (Greek, kanōn, Latin, canon). Originally, meant “reed,” then, measuring rod or rule (cf. Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:16 [TR]). Later it was used to mean standard or norm to denote the list of authoritative OT and NT books. Athanasius first used it to refer to the 27 books of the NT in Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter in A.D. 367. The main criterion of canonicity of the NT books for the early church was apostolicity. Namely, a book had to be written by a first century eye-witness apostle (Matthew, John, James, Peter, Jude, Paul) or by one who had apostolic authority—one who was closely associated and/or called by an eyewitness apostle (Mark, Luke, the author of Hebrews).   

 

In the first four centuries, there were many books being circulated, many of which were falsely ascribed by NT characters or apostles (e.g., “Gospel” – of Thomas, of Peter, of Barnabas, of Philip, of Mary, of Jude et al. and many of these forgeries were called “Acts” – of Paul, of Peter, of Pilate et al. Even more, some were called “Apocalypse” – of Paul, of James, and many more. Most of these were Gnostic in content.

Although others were edifying to be read in churches, they were not canonical (e.g., Didache, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas et al.). In regards to the NT (before official recognition of the 27 books), it was necessary for the Christian church to establish and distinguish the books that were “apostolic,” that is, canonical. This was especially needed for teaching in the church, proper evangelism and missionary purposes. Although there were additional criteria; again, the primary criterion of the NT canon was apostolicity. The canon is a list of authoritative books. Opposing Rome’s idea that canon is an “authoritative list of books”—, which implies an “ultimate authority” (as in the Roman Catholic Church) that created and oversaw the NT canon. 

 

Regarding the official recognition of the NT canon, subsequent to Athanasius’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter in A.D. 367, there were two regional Councils (or Synods) that affirmed (not invented) the 27 NT books as Canon: The Council of Hippo, A.D. 393 and The Third Council of Carthage A.D. 397. First, we must understand that these Councils never made a claim of infallible authority as Rome does. Rather, these Councils merely discovered and codified that which was already recognized by the people of God before them. Consider this, presently (extant), there are thousands of NT quotations contained in early church documents, such as Ecumenical Councils and their resulting Creeds, Confessions, church Fathers, etc. In fact, before the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), there are about 36,000 NT quotations in the literature of the early church Fathers.

 

Canon within a Canon

However, long before Athanasius and the two regional Councils, we find an authoritative, yet partial, NT Canon within the NT. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul refers to Luke’s Gospel as graphē (Scripture): “For Scripture says, ‘you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing’ [Deut. 25:4] and ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages.’” Both citations are under the phrase, “Scripture says.” But the latter phrase is only found in Luke 10:7. Since Luke also wrote Acts, then, Acts would also be “Scripture.” In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter refers to Paul’s “letters” as “Scripture.” Moreover, in 2 Peter 3:2-3, it seems Peter was dependent on Jude (cf. 1:7; or the converse). So then, most of the NT was canonized, that is, established as “Scripture” by the NT authors in the first century.

Lastly, as the NT record shows, immediately after the NT letters were written, they were, collected (cf. Rev. 1:11); circulated (cf. Col. 4:16; 2 Pet. 3:15-16), and read-quoted in the original first century churches (cf. 1 Thess. 5:27: “I charge you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren”; cf. Rev. 1:3). The first century church enjoyed and recognized the apostolic teachings, contained in the letters, which were sufficient for the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, faith and practice.      

 

The Canon is Closed

 It is closed theologically. As said, every NT book was written by an apostle (or one with apostolic authority). Subsequent to the OT canon, it was these writings alone that were Theopneustos (“God breathed”- 2 Tim. 3:16; cf.  2 Pet. 1:19-21). The Apostolic Age ended with the death of the apostles (cf. Acts 1:22)—upon which the church was once for all time built (Eph. 2:20)—with Christ as the corner stone. Thus, God’s ‘last day’ revelation is complete (Heb. 1:2).

It is closed historically. There is no evidence that anyone possessed the special gift of apostolicity after the death of the apostles (cf. Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3-4); nor is there any evidence that a letter that was authentically apostolic was not included or missing from the canon of the NT. The early church drew a sharp distinction between apostolic writings and the writings of others.

It is closed providentially. God’s providence secured that His infallible Word would be complete. God promised that His Word would endure forever. Since God orchestrates all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11), the NT canon is really a matter of God’s providence. That a historical selection process undertaken by fallible human beings and fallible institutions, originally established the canon – is no reason to reject the role of the providence of God in the formation of the canon.

 

Evangelize & Teach Pastors = Reach ALL People 

The ultimate goal of these annual pastor conferences, is to evangelize and teach the pastors. Evangelize, in the sense of increasing their biblical understanding of the gospel. For the same reason, Paul stated to the Roman Christians: “I am eager also to preach the gospel to you.” All pastors should be eager to preach the gospel to their people—ensuring the gospel presentation is accurate. When the pastors are theologically equipped on essential doctrines of the Christian faith, they will equip their people to boldly defend and positively affirm the Christian faith to the saved (Rom. 1:15) and the unsaved (Rom. 1:16), and in the Philippines, particularly to the groups that so aggressively attack it (viz., Rome and Iglesia ni Cristo).      

 

Christian Radio in the Philippines

 In between the conferences, we spend hours hosting Christian radio. Before we came several years ago, the station was merely playing country Christian music. Although music can be calming—the people need biblical teaching. On the radio shows, we provide teaching on essential issues, apologetics and biblical Q&A. In a country dominated by Roman Catholics and hard-hitting unitarian groups, the Christians here really need help.   

April 15-30th – Please pray for God’s mercy and favor in ministering to the pastors and the people in the Philippines at the conferences and hosting the radio shows – affirming the sola Scriptura- that salvation is through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone—all to and for the glory of God alone.

 

              

For more information on theological, apologetic, and evangelistic subjects, visit our YouTube page, 

 We thank you graciously for your continual support both financially and prayerfully especially during this unprecedented time. Rest in His Sovereign Grace during this time and always!

 

Notes 

[1] Not to be confused with the Stone-Campbell Movement, known as the Church of Christ, which emerged in America in the nineteenth century.   

[2][2] Matt. 4:4 (Deut. 8:3); 4:6 (Ps 91:11-12); 4:7 (Deut. 6:16); 4:10 (Deut. 6:13). 

God the Holy Spirit

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The Holy Spirit

1) Is called God and Lord in a religious context.  

2 Is identified as YHWH.

3) Possesses the divine attributes.

4) Accomplishes divine works.

5) Was worshiped as God; that is, in the same way as that of the Father (and Son).

6) Possesses personal attributes and characteristics affirming His personhood.

7) Is a distinct person from the Father and the Son.

 

Biblical Data

 1) Just as the Son is, the Holy Spirit is referred to as God and Lord in a religious context.

The biblical authors were strict monotheists (i.e., believing in one God), they present the Holy Spirit as truly God distinct from God the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is called Theos (“God”). In Acts 5:3-4, the personhood of the Holy Spirit is unquestionably seen by the fact that only a self-aware “person” can be lied to—one cannot lie to a rock or electricity.

In verse 4, the person of the Holy Spirit, to whom Ananias lied, is called Theos (“God”). After Peter harshly asked Ananias, “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” Peter then explained in the next verse, “You [Ananias] have not lied to men but to God.” Also, in the narrative (5:9), the Holy Spirit is called, “the Spirit of the Lord.” The OT, the phrase, “the Spirit of the Lord [YHWH]” occurs two-dozen times. “The Spirit of YHWH” was indeed God. The Holy Spirit is called Kurios (“Lord”) in a religious context (2 Thess. 3:5). As mentioned above, the NT authors cited OT passages referring to YHWH and applied them to the Holy Spirit. The person of the Holy Spirit is referred to as both God and Lord in a religious context, thus, ontologically (in essence).

 

2) The Holy Spirit is identified as YHWH.

In the OT, the Spirit of God was in fact God.  David rhetorically asks YHWH, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?” (Ps. 139:7). The Hebrew parallelism here indicates that David sees YHWH’s Spirit as the very presence of YHWH. Further, throughout the OT, the “Spirit” (or “Spirit of YHWH/God”) shares the same attributes as YHWH. For example, He is presented as the Creator (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30); He abides with believers (Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10-11); He gives wisdom, understanding, and knowledge to men (Exod. 31:3).

Also, as with the Son, the NT authors cite OT passages referring to YHWH and apply them to the Holy Spirit (Acts 28:25-27, Heb. 3:7; 10:15; also cf. Acts 5:9 with Deut. 6:16).

3) The Holy Spirit possesses divine attributes.

As God, the Holy Spirit possesses the specific attributes that only God has. The author of Hebrews indicates that the Holy Spirit is eternal: “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. 9:14). The author of Hebrews refers to the Spirit as pneumatos aiōniou, lit., “Spirit eternal.” The same adjective (aiōniou, “eternal”) is used of God in Rom. 16:26: Theou aiōniou, “God eternal.” Thus, the person of the Holy Spirit is the eternal God—for only God is eternal.

4) The Holy Spirit accomplishes divine works.

For example, Holy Spirit is the agent of Mary’s pregnancy (Matt. 1:18); He regenerates a spiritually dead man (John 3:5; Titus 3:5); He dwells in/with the believer (1 Cor. 3:16); distributes spiritual gifts according to His own will (1 Cor. 12:11); seals believers for redemption (Eph. 1:13); and sanctifies believers and works in their life (Thess. 2:13). Only because the Holy Spirit is God, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is He able to complete these acts. Moreover, Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:10 that the Holy Spirit “searches all things even the depths of God.” The Greek term translated “searches” is erauna (from ereunaō). This verb carries the idea of “logical investigation” (BDAG). The tense indicates that the “searching” is continuous and active—He is always searching, knowing all things at all times. In verse 11, the Holy Spirit is said to know the thoughts of God. Only God can know the thoughts of God.

5) The Holy Spirit was worshiped as God.

In Matt. 28:19, Jesus commands all new converts to be baptized into the name (i.e., “power, authority”) of the triune God. Water baptism signifies the unification or identification with whom the participant is being baptized—the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Another kind of religious worship is direct prayer. In Matt. 9:38, Jesus instructs His disciples to “beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.” First, the fact that Jesus refers to “Lord of the harvest” in the third person (“His”, not “My” harvest) indicates that the “Lord of the harvest” is not Himself. Second, as seen, the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” several times in the NT in a religious context. Third, there is no contextual reason to believe that the “Lord of the harvest” is the Father. And finally, in Acts 13:1-4, the Holy Spirit sends out the laborers (“Barnabas and Saul”) to the missionary (harvest) field. As God, the Holy Spirit was worshiped and honored in the same sense as that of the Father and Christ.

                   

6) The Holy Spirit possesses personal attributes and characteristics affirming His personhood.

As seen, groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) reject the personhood of the Holy Spirit equating Him to an impersonal force like electricity. However, the personhood of the Holy Spirit is biblically demonstrated and defined by the Holy Spirit’s use of personal pronouns and first person verbs of Himself and the personal attributes that the Holy Spirit possesses. The same biblical data that supports the personhood of God the Father is applied to the Holy Spirit.

– Personal pronouns and first person verbs. In the NT, personal pronouns are applied to the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10:19-20, for example, the Holy Spirit identifies Himself, not merely as “God’s activity,” but rather as egō (“I”), that is, a self-aware person:

19 “While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I [egō] have sent them Myself.”

Note Acts 13:2, “While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set Barnabas and Saul apart for Me for the work to which I have called them.’” Here the Holy Spirit not only issues personal commands, but refers to Himself as moi (“Me,” from egō) and uses the first person verb proskeklēmai (“I have called them”)—in the NT, this verb is only used of persons. not forces, nor modes, nor manifestations.

– Personal attributes and characteristics. It would be a fallacy of equivocation to equate person with people, as many anti-trinitarians do. Those who do so misunderstand the meaning of both terms. For example, angels fall under the category of “person,” but they are not “people.” Likewise, the Holy Spirit can be called and ontologically categorized as “person,” though He is not in the ontological class of “people” (same with the Father). So, all people are persons, but not all persons are people. Hence, God the Father, Satan, demons, angels, and the Holy Spirit are persons, but they are not people.

The Holy Spirit possesses many personal characteristics (as with the Father and Son) denoting that the Holy Spirit is a self-aware subject or Ego (i.e., person) cognizant of His own existence, which is clearly demonstrated by the specific personal characteristics or attributes He possesses:

He can be blasphemed (Mark 3:29, 30).

He can be lied to (Acts 5:3).

He intercedes or prays on the behalf of the believer (Rom. 8:26).

He issues commands (Acts 13:2, 4; 16:6).

He is intelligent in that He investigates and searches (1 Cor. 2:10-11; Rom. 8:27).

He has a will (1 Cor. 12:9-11).

He could be grieved (Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30).

He testifies (Neh. 9:30; John 15:26; Heb. 10:15) and teaches (John 14:26).

 

Only cognizant persons can exercise and engage in intelligent communication (Acts 10:19-20; 13:2, 4). Scripture presents many clear examples of the Holy Spirit intelligently communicating to others (as shown above). Even the anti-trinitarian JWs, in the Watchtower’s Awake magazine, distinguish a personification from a person as they rightfully define a person: “Is the Devil a personification or a person….? Can an unintelligent person carry on a conversation with a person? … only an intelligent person can.”[1]

The Apostle Paul, in his Trinitarian benediction, comforts the saints in Corinth with these words: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14). Only self-aware persons can experience true koinōnia (“fellowship”). This same koinōnia, believers have with the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3). Moreover, as a distinct person, the Holy Spirit gives love: “Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me” (Rom. 15:30).

Love is something that the Holy Spirit possesses and gives. As with true personal fellowship, only persons can possess, give, and experience love. Hence, abstract things such as natures, modes, manifestations, electricity, etc. have not the ontological capability to accomplish these things—only persons do. Thus, He is a person, not a mere influence.

7) The Holy Spirit is a distinct person from God the Father and the Son.

As with the Son, the Holy Spirit is frequently juxtaposed with the Father and the Son (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18). The Son personally relates to the Father and to the person of the Holy Spirit, and the reverse is altogether true of the Father and the Holy Spirit relating to each other. In John 14:16, Jesus said, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon] Helper [better trans., “Advocate”] that He may be with you forever.”

Scripture presents that the Holy Spirit is a self-aware person or self. He possesses personal attributes and personal pronouns are applied to Him. The same evidence that confirms the personhood of the Father confirms the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Scripture clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God in the fullest and truest sense. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit should be worshiped as God. He is distinct from the Father and the Son. He is the eternal almighty God, who regenerates sinners and glorifies the Father and the Son—He is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

NOTES

[1] Awake!, 8 December 1973, 27.

Homosexuality 21st Century

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, NET). 

In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. DOMA defined marriage as between a man and a woman. It barred federal recognition of same-sex marriage by restricting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman. However, December 13th of this year, the 117th United States Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act and it was signed into law by President Joe Biden, which repealed the DOMA.

There was a time when this country stood unmovable against biblical offenses such as homosexuality and abortion—even enacting laws against such practices.  What we use to call an abomination and see as evil are now celebrated and recognized as a “cultural norm.” For example, before 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, now we expect the unregenerate to embrace, promote and even applaud homosexuality and other ungodly practices. However, when professing Christians, due to passivity or ignorance, accept a homosexual lifestyle as biblically permissible- that is a travesty.

God is love, true, but “God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.” (Ps. 7:11, NKJV).[1] God takes a dim view at those who say, “Jesus is Lord,” then dishonor Him by their practice and acceptance of egregious sins—Scripture is crystal-clear on the subject.

What is alarming is the growing community of pro-homosexual “professing” Christians. To make the Bible conform to their philosophy, lifestyle and carnal practices, they patently misinterpret passages and pretext biblical narratives. For example, explaining that Leviticus 18 and 20, which condemns the practice of homosexuality merely refers to temple prostitution. They espouse that David loved Jonathan in a homosexual way, saying Jesus never condemned homosexuality and that God loves all men unconditionally, etc. Or, asserting that in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 (although most have never even read these passages), Paul only condemned prostitutes and pederasts, and not monogamous male-to-male relationships, etc. Although claiming to be in the faith, they naturally disagree with the definitive biblical prohibitions against homosexuality and are extremely tolerant of it.


The Biblical Prohibition

The Bible has much to say on the topic starting in the OT Law, example: 

Lev. 18:22: “You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination”

Lev. 20:13: “If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. . . .”

In spite of the clarity of these passages, liberal theologians and pro-homosexual advocates attempt to downplay these OT precepts by limiting the homosexual prohibition to a cultural meaning (e.g., referring to temple prostitution). However, if the prohibitions were speaking only against temple prostitution, why then are only male to males mentioned? Why would not the law include both men women? Or state plainly anything about “temple prostitution?”

Also, contextually the prohibition against homosexual acts are sandwiched between the other laws concerning sexual behavior, such as prohibiting sex with an uncle, aunt, animals, etc. Clearly, the prohibition is not confined to such a limitation as temple prostitution. Now, the law does indeed speak explicitly against temple prostitution, but not in Leviticus, rather we find that context in Deut. 23:17-18. The fact is, the passages in Leviticus are not vague commandments against prostitution, but specific injunctions against homosexuality in all forms—as severely as its condemnation in the NT as well.

 

But what of David and Jonathan in 2 Sam 1:26?

“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women” (ESV).

First, note verse 23, where the same term (as a verb) is used to describe the love between a Saul and Jonathan. In verse 26, the phrase “surpassing the love” is from the Hebrew noun, ahabah. Both this noun and the verb (aheb) are similar to the English word, “love”—in which context determines the meaning. As in verse 23, frequently, the verb is used to denote the love of the father for his son. For example, Abraham’s love for Isaac (Gen. 22:2; also see Gen. 37:3,4; 44:20; Prov. 13:24 et al.). Even more, the term could also denote the love with which women love their husband and children. 

Second, the flawed pro-homosexual interpretation neglects to take into account the Middle Eastern concept of a man’s relationship to his wife. In the Middle East, a man’s primary kinship is with other men, not with his wife. For example, during dinner time, the wife and daughters would set up the table, however, when it was time to eat, the man and his sons, and, if any friends were invited, they would all eat together while the women would leave and eat separately or after the men. This is still a common practice in the 21th century.

Third, it is an established fact that throughout the ancient world, the friendship between a man and a man was esteemed higher than the relationship between a man and a wife. So, it is completely natural within this culture that David’s “love” for his closest and best friend Jonathan, “surpassed that of women.”  

New Testament

The NT provides the same categorical condemnation against the sin of homosexuality as in the OT—primarily, in Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9; and 1 Tim. 1:10. Before we examine these texts, an argument that liberals and skeptics like to propose should first be mentioned. They point out that Jesus himself nowhere condemned homosexuality, so it must be permitted. It is ridiculous to assume that Jesus covered every single doctrine and repeated every single commandment contained in the OT in a period of three years. In point of fact, many doctrines, He left up to His apostles to teach; hence, many things that Jesus said and did are not recorded in the NT, “if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).        

But, Jesus did indeed condemn homosexuality. In Matt. 19:3-6, Jesus teaches that “from the beginning,” God defined marriage as the union between male and female, as does Paul in Eph. 5 citing the same Adam and Eve reference that Jesus did.

 

ROMANS 1:18-32

Paul’s entire thesis here is dealing with the constant suppressing of truth by pagans and its consequences (viz. God’s wrath “continuing” to be on them; cf. v. 18). Paul uses an argument from nature (creation) to show that they are without excuse—for “For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. . . .” (v. 25, NET).

Because of this, “God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones” (v. 26, ibid.). The phrase, “the natural sexual relations” is a literal translation of the Greek phrase tēn phusikēn chrēsin—phusikēn (“nature”) and chrēsin (“use,” i.e., sexual use/function). This, Paul says, is para phusin (“against nature, unnatural”).[2]

Homosexual men likewise, says Paul, “abandoned” tēn phusikēn chrēsin [‘the natural sexual function’] with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error” (NET).  Alluding to Lev. 18 and 20, Paul sees homosexuality as not only unnatural, (viz., “contrary to nature,” ESV), but as having the same consequence as stated in the OT: “those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32). “Professing” Christians who practice and/or approve of homosexual relationships cannot remove the contextual significances of Rom. 1:18-32.    

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10:

9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners [malakoi] practicing homosexuals [arsenokoitai], 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God” (NET; note v. 11: “Some of you once lived this way”).

 

1 TIMOTHY 1:9-10:

9 “for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitais], enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” (ESV).

The two key Greek terms in both 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim.1:10 are malakos (only 1 Cor. 6:9, “passive homosexual partners, effeminate”) and arsenokoitēs (“homosexual” or more literally, “sodomite” [NKJV] or “men who have sex with men” [NIV]). And both terms are plural (malakoi, arsenokoitais/ arsenokoitai). Malakos (“soft”) appears in four places in the NT. In every place, the term refers to “soft garment/clothing” (cf. Matt. 11:8) except in 1 Cor. 6:9, where contextually it refers to the “soft” passive (effeminate) partner in a homosexual relationship.

Whereas arsenokoitēs is a Greek term that Paul actually made up (only appearing in these two passages). Apparently, the source of Paul’s usage of his compound term, arsenokoitēs (from arsēn, “a male” and koitē, “a mat/bed” with the idea of intercourse) comes from the LXX (i.e., Greek trans. the OT) of Lev. 18:22 (“with a male [from arsēn] you shall not lie in bed/intercourse [from koitē] [as with] of a woman”). Same terms and semantic in Lev. 20:13.  

This shows unequivocally the apostle’s intended meaning of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10- “both of them have committed a detestable act [toebah]; they shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:13). As with a number of other languages, Greek distinguishes the “active dominate” (arsenokoitēs) and the “passive effeminate” (malakos) roles in a homosexual relationship. For example, BDAG (Walter Bauer’s, Greek Lexicon of the NT, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker), defines Paul’s term as “one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity.”   

To pretext and thus circumvent the obvious meaning in these passages, liberals and pro-homosexual “professing” Christians make eisegetical leaps – arguing that arsenokoitēs narrowly refers to “promiscuous homosexuality,” pederasty, and/or prostitution, etc., and not a monogamous loving relationship between two of the same sex. They also remove malakos from its contextual import in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-10. Naturally, they do so to justify their own lifestyle and/or personal philosophy—making the Bible say what they want it to say.

Although arsenokoitēs can refer to prostitution, abuse, pederasty, etc., the lexical-semantic of arsenokoitēs (again, Paul’s unique term) in 1 Cor. 6:9 and in 1 Tim. 1:10, condemns homosexuality in all forms, as does Rom. 1:18-32; Lev. 18:22; and 20:13.

 

In closing, homosexuality, in our day is just as depraved and abominable to the Lord as it was when the “Old and New Testament” were being written. It is without a doubt our “calling “to speak out as believers against this growing, fertile and depraved LGBT Mob Cult of our century and send them packing.

May God bless our courage in the face of this egregious sin against Him!

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Notes 

[1] All biblical citations are taken from the NASB (2020) unless otherwise indicated.

[2] From para with the accusative (“against”) and phusin (from phusis, “inherent nature,” cf. Gal. 4:8; Eph. 2:3).

 

The Gospel of the Son

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

Biblically speaking, the gospel (good news) is the substitutionary and sacrificial work of Christ—not the work of man in his response, faith, repentance, good behavior, etc. Besides passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, which we will deal with shortly, Paul makes this point clear in Romans 1:1, 3, “The gospel of God . . . concerning His Son.” So, the gospel in and of itself has nothing to do with man, but everything to do with the atoning work of Jesus Christ, God the Son. We must not confuse the work of Christ, which is the gospel—the good news of Jesus’ cross work—with the response of faith in Christ, repentance, obedience, etc. Salvation is solus Christus (through Christ alone), thus, Hs work being the very ground or cause of justification, and faith being the very alone instrument.

The gospel then is comprised of all essential theology of the Christian faith since it involves the person, nature, and finish work of Christ. Simply, the gospel is the atoning work of God the Son, in incarnation, death, and resurrection. And trusting Him alone for salvation (Rom. 10:9, 13; 1 Cor. 15:3-4 [see discussion below on this passage]; 2 Tim. 2:8).      

 

In expanded detail, the essential doctrines of the Christian faith include:      

 

  • The person of the Son is truly God and truly man, the two natured person—being distinct from the Father who sent Him (John 1:1, 14, 18; 5:17-18; 20:28; 1 Cor. 2:8; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6-8; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:3; 1 John 4:2-3; 5:20; Rev. 1:7-8).  

 

  • The sending of the Son to earth from the Father out of heaven (John 3:13, 16-18; 6:38; 16:28).

 

  • A literal descendant of David, born of a virgin (2 Tim. 2:8[1]; Matt. 1:18; Rom. 9:5; Gal. 4:4).

 

  • The perpetual (ongoing, permanent) incarnation of the Son—the Word became flesh (John 1:1, 14; 2 Tim. 2:8; 1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7).

 

  • The Son’s substitutionary (vicarious) atoning sinless life (preceptive obedience) and cross work (penal obedience) as the very ground of justification, which removed the sin-guilt and God’s wrath due to us for our sins (Gen. 15:6; Isa. 53:11; Mark 10:45; John 6:37-39; Rom. 5:6, 8, esp. v. 10; 8:32; 1 John 2:2, 4:10).

 

  • Salvation (justification), then, is through faith alone “apart from works” (Acts 10:36, 43; Rom. 4:4:4-8; 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9).

 

  • Jesus’ real death and physical resurrection (John 2:19-21; 19:30; Acts 1:11; 17:31; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Titus 2:13).

 

  • His accession to the Father (John 6:62; 16:10, 28; 20:17; Acts 1:10-11; Heb. 10:12-13).

 

  • His (physical) second coming (Acts 1:10-11; Titus 2:13-14; 1 John 2:28).

 

  • The concept of the Trinity—namely, one true eternal God revealed in three distinct persons (see chap. 3 above).   

The person (unipersonal, i.e., distinct from the Father, and Holy Spirit), nature (truly God truly man) and finished completed work (justification through faith alone) are necessary and indispensable to the Christian faith. They also imply other important doctrines such “total inability,” that is, in man’s unconverted spiritual state he cannot (no ability) please or come to Christ (John 6:44; 8:43-44, 47; Rom. 3:10-18) due to the inherent sin-guilt (imputed sin) of all men resulting from the first sin in the Garden. These doctrines constitute the key ultimate test in which distinguishes genuine Christianity from false non-Christian (atheistic) religious cults and world religions.

All must be affirmed in a basic sense, and none can be denied. Further, one cannot affirm some of these, but not the others. For example, Roman Catholicism (as discussed below) officially embraces the Trinity, deity of Christ, the incarnation, virgin birth, and Jesus’ resurrection. However, because Roman Catholic doctrine rejects that the alone work of Christ is the absolute and sufficient means and ground of justification, Rome falls outside of Christian orthodoxy (cf. Gal. 1:6, 8)—hence, non-Christian.

Thus, it is not the Jesus of biblical revelation that Rome embraces, rather a different Jesus and a “different gospel.” Therefore, all things pertaining to the gospel are “essential” theology. Whereas secondary theology is any doctrine that is not essential to one’s salvation—namely, any doctrine that does not fundamentally deny or distort the nature and/or finished work of Christ (e.g., the OT Law, spiritual, gifts, method of water baptism, eschatology [i.e., end-time teachings], etc.). Again, the sufficiency of the gospel is the work of the Christ. and justification through faith alone is the only recognized gospel.    

[1] “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant [spermatos] of David, according to my gospel.” 

John 1:29: “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

The mission of John the Baptist was to proclaim the need for spiritual repentance and the coming Messiah. John the Baptist was the one about which Isaiah prophesied in Isa. 40:3: “A voice cries out, “In the wilderness clear a way for LORD [YHWH]; construct in the desert a road for our God.…” (cf. John 1:23). According to Christ, John the Baptist was the Elijah that was to come prophesied in Mal. 4:5-6 (cf. Matt. 11:14).[1] And John the one who baptized Jesus as recorded in John 1:29-34; Matt. 3:13-17: Mark 1:9-11; and Luke 3:21, 22.

John’s gospel account provides some theological details not found in the synoptics. In John 1:29, we read that Jesus came to John to baptized: “On the next day, John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’”

 Using a “lamb” for sacrifice was very familiar to the Jews:

  1. Used as a sacrifice at the Passover (Exod. 12:12:1-36).
  2. Lamb was “led to the slaughter” (Isa. 53:7).
  3. A Lamb was used in daily sacrifices (Lev. 14:12-21).

 

Thus, John sees Christ as the Lamb signifying the final and sole infallible “ultimate sacrifice,” which takes away the sin of the world. This concept is found throughout the Apostle John’s writing. This is especially seen in Rev. 5:6-14:  

6  “And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slaughtered. . . . 8 When He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. . . . 9 And they *sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are You to take the scroll and to break its seals; for You were slaughtered, and You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation. . . . 11 Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders. . . . 12 saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to receive power, wealth, wisdom, might, honor, glory, and blessing.’ 13 And I heard every created thing which is in heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth, or on the sea, and all the things in them, saying, ‘To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing, the honor, the glory, and the dominion forever and ever.’ 14 . . . And the elders fell down and worshiped.

A symbolic “Lamb” is frequently used in reference to Christ in two primary ways: As a suffering servant and as a sacrifice.   

  1. The Lamb as the suffering servant. As mentioned, the symbolism is seen and derived from Isa. 53:7: “He was oppressed and afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers. So He did not open His mouth.” Note, this text (Isa. 53:7) is specifically applied to Jesus in Acts 8:32. Also, all the servant-songs occur in the latter section of Isaiah (40-55). The NT links John the Baptist (John 1:23) with the first part of this section of Isaiah (40:3). Jesus is related to the suffering servant in other places in John’s Gospel (John 12:38 and Isa. 53:1).

 

  1. The Lamb as the Passover sacrificial lamb. In the OT, the Passover lamb is actually a real animal. John uses the Passover symbolism of Christ repeatedly in his literature, especially in relationship to the sacrificial death of Christ. Note the following:

I. Jesus was condemned at noon on the Day of Preparation, which was the day before Passover (John 19:14). Thus, Jesus was going to die at the very time the priests would be slaying the lambs in the Temple.

II. Exod. 12:22 indicates that hyssop was used to smear blood on the doorposts in the Passover procedure. Whereas in John 19:29, hyssop was used to give Jesus the wine on a sponge.

III. Exod. 12:46 indicates that the bones of the Passover lamb were not to be broken. Whereas in John 19:36, Jesus’ bones were not broken, which was a fulfillment of Scripture (Ps. 22:16-17).

 

So, in John’s gospel we see both, the Lamb as the suffering servant and as a sacrifice. We see this same reference in Heb. 10:10-14:

10 “By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ephapax [‘once for all time’]. 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES ARE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified”—

Thus, His work was perfectly completed, that is, finished for all time (Tetelestai, John 19:30). As Paul writes in 1 Cor. 5:7: “… For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.”

 

Back to our text, John 1:29: “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” It is in this context that Christ – “Removes, takes away the sin of the world.” 

The term “takes away” (NASB) is from the Greek verb, airō, which carries the basic meaning of “to raise from the ground, take up, lift up.” Note the following exegetical points:

  1. Grammatical. The verb here is a present tense participle and it’s articular (i.e., has the article, “the”)— ho airōn, literally, “the One taking away.” The present tense action, indicates a literal non-figurative taking away, raising up, removal of sin by the atoning sacrifice of Christ—not He will take away the sin, but rather He is the one taking away the sin—which is then applied to the sinner at faith. The atonement and thus, the removal of sin and the wrath due to us because of sin is a definite action completed at the cross.

 

  1. Lexical. The first century Koinē Greek meaning of the verb in this passage is “to bear away what has been raised, carry off; to move from its place. . . . to remove the guilt and punishment of sin by expiation, or to cause that sin be neither imputed nor punished” (Thayer)[2]; to “carry away, remove (to move from one place to another)” (BDAG).[3] Additionally, the verb appears ninety-seven times in the Greek NT (NA28). In every single place, the verb denotes a literal removing or taking something away. Only in one place (1 Cor. 6:15) is it used figuratively.

 

Therefore, due to the meaning and tense of the verb, one cannot legitimately impose a universal meaning upon the term “world” (kosmos). The present tense action of the verb (an actual “taking away”), and John’s own soteriology (cf. John 1:13; 3:15-17; 6:37-39, 10:15; 1 John 2:1-2) would prevent this pretext.   

Universalists and Inclusivists. Because of the semantic import and tense of the verb, Universalists and Inclusivists will appeal John 1:29 to teach that all men in “the world” will be saved regardless if they believe in Christ or not. They will interpret the verb airō (“takes away”) here properly (i.e., a literal, not hypothetical, removal of sin); yet improperly interpret the term “world” to mean “all men” inclusively, without exception. Thus, the Universalistic/Inclusivistic depends on an unbiblical pretext assuming that the term “world” carries a universal meaning here—namely, every single person universally will have their sin taken away.                                 

However, note the hermeneutical (interpretative technique) error they make: Both Universalists and Inclusivists do not consider the various meanings of the term kosmos (“world”) how it was normally used in a first century significance. Many times, it was used to denote the world of the Jews and Gentiles. For example, many first century Jews assumed that salvation was for them alone—God’s “chosen” people. So, in John 3:16, Jesus used “world” as a “corrective” to this false notion to Nicodemus, thus, in this sense, ‘For God so loved the Jews, and even the Gentles.’

In the NT, kosmos (“world”) carries a wide range of meanings, depending on the context. Similarly, the Greek adjective pas (“all, every”), can mean “all” or “every” inclusively (e.g., Rom. 3:23; Col. 1:17-17), but others times, it can also mean all kinds, or as many as (Matt. 4:24; or Acts 22:25: “[Ananias to Paul] ‘For you will be a witness for Him to ALL [pas] people of what you have seen and heard.”

Thus, “all” in the sense of all in the region, or “all” kinds of people (kings, rulers, Jews, Gentiles, men women, slaves, free etc.), and not every single person in the world. Kosmos is also similar. In the NT, kosmos has at least eight clearly defined separate meanings defined by its surrounding context: 

  1. Used to signify every single person, Rom. 3:19. 
  1. Used to signify non-believers, John 1:10; 15:18; Rom. 3:6. 
  1. Used signify only believers, John 1:29; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19. 
  1. Used to signify Gentiles in contrast to Jews, Rom. 11:12. 
  1. 5. Used to signify the world system, John 12:31. 
  1. Used to signify the earth, John 13:1; Eph. 1:4. 
  1. Used to signify the universe as a whole, Acts 17:24: “God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth.”
  2. Used to signify the known world (not everyone inclusively)—Jews and Gentiles, Rom. 1:8: “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.” 

So here in John 1:29, in light of the verb’s meaning as a literal non-figurative sin being “taking away,” removed by the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and the verb being in the present, not future tense, the “world” would be the world of believers. By the blood of Christ, He purchased and removed the sin of men from “every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Rev. 5:9). The world of believers is shown love through the giving of the Son so that they will have eternal life through faith in Him.

Thus, John’s statement here defines the efficacy and intent of the Son’s atoning cross work. “Behold, the Lamb of God, the One taking away the sin of the world,..” both Jews and Gentles—the good news of the gospel!

Notes

[1] Also cf. Matt. 17:11-13; Mark 9:11-13; Luke 1:16-17.

[2] Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

[3] Walter Bauer’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed., ed. and rev. by Frederick W. Danker (BDAG).

 

 Subscribe to our YouTube PageHD Youtube Logo & Subscribe Button With Bell Icon PNG

 

John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

“I and the Father are one.”

Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (Egō kia ho Patēr hen esmen), lit., “I and the Father one thing We are”).     

Also see our YouTube presentation:  John 10 30: “I and the Father one thing We are” – not one person.

 

Both historically and currently, Christians have pointed to this passage to show that Jesus indeed claimed equality with God the Father. As with Jesus’ other undeniable claims to be truly God (Matt. 12:6; John 5:17-18; 8:58-59 et al; Rev. 1:7-8, 17; 2:8; 22:13; etc.).

If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16). It was after Jesus made these familiar and exclusively divine claims that He stated, “I and the Father are one.” Again, not mere unity, rather, unity in ontological coequality. So, it is easy to understand the response of the Jews wanting to kill Him for blasphemy: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God [poieis seauton Theon]” (vv. 31, 33). If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16).

John 10:30 also provides a clear refutation to the Oneness view (as discussed below), which erroneously asserts that Jesus is the Father (the same person). Ironically, Oneness advocates actually use John 10:30 as a so-called proof text to try and show God as unipersonal. Although throughout chapter 10, Jesus and the Father are clearly differentiated as two persons (vv. 15, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 [twice], 37, 38 [twice]).

Note the following points regarding John 10:30, which clearly refute Oneness theology:     

  • Content. In chap. 10, Jesus distinguishes Himself from the Father twelve times (and throughout John’s literature).  
  • The Son’s affirmation of ontological Deity (YHWH, Deut. 32:39) in distinction from the Father. 
  •  Grammar. Two subjects, PN neuter adjective, and plural verb.

 

  1. Not one person within conservative recognized Christian scholarship agrees with a Oneness interpretation. Neither historically nor contemporaneously has any Christian writer interpreted John 10:30 in a modalistic (Oneness) way. Rather, all standard scholarly sources (patristics, commentaries, grammars, lexicons et al), interpret the passage in the plain intended way, within the defining context: The person of the Son claiming co-equality with the distinct person of the Father.
  1. Plain reading. Jesus simply says, “I and the Father ARE one.” Only by pretexting can one read something into this text beyond the simple plain reading. Note also throughout chapter 10, Jesus and the Father are clearly differentiated as two persons twelve times (vv. 15, 17, 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 [twice], 37, 38 [twice]; also cf. John 1:b, 18; 6:38; 17:5; 1 John 1:1-2; Rev. 5:13-14 et al.                             
  1. Grammar. Egō kia ho Patēr hen esmen (lit., “I and the Father one thing We are”). First, Jesus (“I”) and the Father are the two subjects of the sentence (both in the nominative [subject] case). Second, the adjective hen (“one”) is neuter in gender, literally, “one thing.” This contextually indicates that the “one” is in unity of essence, not one in person. If Jesus wanted to identify Himself as the same person as the Father, He certainly could have used the masculine heis to indicate this (e.g., John 12:4; Rom. 3:10; 1 Tim. 2:5 et al.). While the subjects of the sentence are Jesus and the Father, the neuter adjective hen (“one thing”) is the predicate nominative of the sentence and it precedes the plural verb esmen (“are”), as discussed below.

Grammatically, a predicate nominative describes or tells us something more about the subject(s). Here, it’s describing the two subjects (Jesus and the Father) as being one in essential or ontological unity (viz., the category to which the subjects belong; cf. Wallace, GGBB, 40). The same neuter adjective is used in John 17:21, where Jesus prays to the Father that His disciples “may be one [hen]” even as Jesus and the Father are one, also signifying unity (not person). However, especially in light of the previous passages, in verse 30, the neuter adjective denotes ontological unity (coequality), which Jesus expressed—hence, “The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him” (v. 31).

  1. The plural verb esmen (“are”). Again, in sharp contrast to the false Oneness interpretation (viz., that Jesus is the Father), the Greek contains the plural verb esmen (“I and the Father are one”), and not a singular verb such as eimi (“am”) or estin (“is”) in which case, the passage would read: “I and the Father am/is one.” Robertson (Word Pictures, 5:186) comments on the specific application of the neuter hen in John 10:30: “One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal. 3:28), but one essence or nature.”
  1. Jesus’ claim to deity is not merely found in verse 30. But rather, the passages leading up to verse 30 undeniably prove His claim. In verses 27-29, Jesus claims that He is the Shepherd that gives His sheep eternal life and no one can snatch them from His nor His Father’s hand. Note the same words of YHWH in the LXX of Deut. 32:39:
  •  Deut. 32:39 (LXX): “And there is no one who can deliver ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν Μου [ek tōn cheirōn Mou, ‘out of the hands of Me’].” 
  •  John 10:28: “they will never perish; and no one will snatch them ἐκ τῆς χειρός Μου [ek tēs cheiros Mou, ‘out of the hand of Me’].” 
  •  John 10:29: “no one is able to snatch them ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ Πατρός [ek tēs cheiros tou Patros, ‘out of the hand of the Father’].”

 

The Jews were well acquainted with Deut. 32:39: “And there is no one who can save anyone from My hand” and Psalm 95:7: “For He is our God, and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.” The Jews knew that only YHWH could make these claims of having sheep in His hand and giving them eternal life (cf. also Isa. 43:11). It was after Jesus made these familiar and exclusively divine claims that He stated, “I and the Father are one.” Again, not mere unity, rather, unity in ontological coequality. So, it is easy to understand the response of the Jews wanting to kill Him for blasphemy: “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God [ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν]” (v. 33).[1]

If Jesus were only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere unity, then Jesus’ claim would not have warranted blasphemy (Lev. 24:16).- 

“I and the Father one thing We are are” – not one person.

 NOTES 

[1] As in John 5:18, in John 10:33, the second person reflexive pronoun seauton (“Yourself”) indicates that the Jews understood that Jesus’ claims in John 10, which culminated in verse 30 (“I and the Father are one”) were by and for Himself—namely, He Himself made Himself “out to God.” used to highlight the participation of the subject in the verbal action, as direct object, indirect object, intensifier, etc. subject acts upon himself or herself; several grams functions as a direct object. 

Mark 13:32: Is the Son Ignorant of His Return?

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

 

Mark 32:32: “But of that day or hour no knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone”

(Note Matt. 24:36 (NET):  “But as for that day and hour no one knows it – not even the angels in heaven– except the Father alone” (NET). Because of the textual variant (which has some merit, e.g., א1‎ L W f1 33 ÏL W f1 33 Ï1 L W f1 33 Ï), which omits “οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός” (“nor the Son”), some translations follow, as the above.      

 

Unitarians, esp. Muslims and JWs use this passage (among others) to show Jesus is not God. 

First, throughout the OT and NT, Christ is presented as ontologically truly God and truly man (Exod. 3:6, 14; Isa. 9:6; Dan. 7:13-14; Mark 14:61-64;  John 1:1, 18; 5:17-18; 8:58; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 10:9-13; Phil. 2:6-11; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:6, 10-12; 2 Pet 1:1; Rev. 1:7-8; 22:13). His claim to be God were unambiguous (Mark. 14:61-64; John 5:17-18; 8:24, 58 et al.; 10:30; Rev. 1:7-8; 22:13; etc.).       

 

So was Jesus ignorant of His Return?  

 

Two main views 

VIEW 1- Incarnation- Consistent with the Son’s Emptying and Humiliation – –  But what about the Holy Spirit?   

VIEW 2.  Revolves around the Hebrew Hiphil Stem: Verbs that denote Action-  taken in a Causative or Declarative sense.- – This view was used some early church fathers- – and it erases any notion of Ignorance.

 

View 1, is possible, but problematic. That “Christ chose not to know certain things” is an acceptable answer that is consistent with the humiliation of the Lord in His incarnation. However,  the last phrase in the parallel passage (Matt. 24:36) is unambiguous: “… except the Father alone.” If the Father alone, then, what of non-incarnate Holy Spirit” 

View 2 is a more probable explanation of His so-called ignorance that is and was used by some early church fathers. It has to do with the verb oiden (“knows”). Instead of ignorance (Jesus not “knowing”), we see the verb oiden (perfect form of eidō) in a “preeminent sense” in that, the verb oiden takes the force of the Hebrew stem hiphil. Verbs with the hiphil has a causative or declarative sense. Thus as here: “I make known, cause, promulgate, declare.”  

In 1 Cor. 2:2, the same verb is used in this sense, where Paul states: “I determined ‘to know’ (eidenai from eidō) nothing among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified,” that is, I cause or determined to make known, nothing among you, but Jesus Christ.

Similar phrase in Matt. 20:23— Jesus said to the Sons of Zebedee, James and John: “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”- “Is not mine to give” signifies, “is not in my authority to give”—

So in light of the verb oiden (“to know”) taking the force of the Hebrew stem hiphil (as in 1 Cor. 2:2), the literal sense may be: “But of that day and that hour none can cause or declare to you to KNOW (that is, none has authority) to cause to make known— not the angels, neither the Son, but, preeminently, the Father alone—He will reveal or declare it. 

 

“To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen” (Rom. 9:5, NET).

 

 

 

“In Him”: Paul’s ἐν + the Dative Formula

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

“In Him, “In Christ,” “In the Lord ”

1 Cor. 1:30: “But it is due to Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption.”  

Rom. 8:1: “Therefore there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

2 Cor. 5:17, 21: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, this person is a new creation; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Eph. 1:4: “just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.”

 

The ἐν (“in”) + the dative construction was a favorite linguistic formula of the Apostle Paul

For example, dative of sphere (i.e., locative, “in the realm/sphere of”); instrumental dative (i.e., dative of means/instrument, “by means [instrumentally] of”), and a couple other semantic views have also been posited. Wallace (GGBB) points out, that the dative expressing sphere is a frequent usage especially with ἐν + the dative, as in Eph. 1:4, “Just as He chose us in Him [ἐν αὐτῷ] before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love.”

However, it seems that the predominant meaning (i.e., of scholarly opinion, e.g., Lightfoot, TDNT, NIGTC et al.) of Paul’s ἐν + the dative formula, when referring to Christ (or other persons in the Trinity), denotes “in union with Christ,” that is, being identified and unified with Him in His life, death, and resurrection.

Consistent to Paul’s Adam-Christ antithesis, which is well exampled in such passages as 1 Cor. 15:22, where Paul’s ἐν + the dative formula denotes “in union with”: “For as in [union with] ADAM [ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ] all die, so also in [union with] CHRIST [ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ] all will be made alive.” Turner sees that “Adam is a representative man ‘in’ whom all mankind was viewed. . . . But the instances with en are predicated of Christ or the Gospel and mean ‘in the sphere of’” (cf. Matt. 3:11; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 12:13). 

Many other passages in Paul’s literature, which involve the ἐν + the dative formula, denote union or identification with Christ in contrast to condemnation, sin, law, flesh, etc. For example, Romans 6:11: “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God IN CHRIST [ἐν Χριστῷ]; 8:1: “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST [ἐν Χριστῷ] Jesus.”

In this sense, men walk in two territories either “in Christ” or “in Adam, in the flesh.” Union and identification with one or the other. Being “in Christ,” therefore, is tantamount to being in union with Him. Lightfoot observes, “ἐν Χριστῷ, i.e., by virtue of our incorporation in, our union with, Christ.” Thus, as the old man is ἐν Ἀδὰμ (“in Adam”) and the Jew, ἐν νόμῳ (“in the Law”) the believer are ἐν Χριστῷ (in Christ). So Eadie rightly says, “Believers were looked upon as being in Christ their federal Head, when they were elected.”

Further, note the contrast of being ἐν σαρκὶ (“in [the] flesh”) and being “in Christ/“in the Spirit” with emphasis on the indwelling of the Spirit in Rom. 8:9: “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

Thus, being ἐν Χριστῷ is set in contrast to being ἐν Ἀδὰμ (“in Adam”) in 1 Cor. 15:22 and being found ἐν Χριστῷ (“In Christ”) is set in contrast to being ἐν νόμῳ (“in the Law”) in Phil. 3:6-9.

 

Conclusion

The ἐν + the dative formula (esp. Paul’s near exclusive use of ἐν Χριστῷ) undeniably expresses the love that God the Father has for believers, which is shown by His electing them to the adoption of sons placing them in union with His Son (Eph. 1:4-5). Paul’s ἐν + the dative formula linguistically denotes “in union with Christ,” that is, being identified and unified with Him in His life, death, and resurrection. Naturally, Paul can say, “Therefore I, the prisoner ἐν Κυρίῳ [‘in the Lord,’ not, ‘of the Lord’]” (Eph. 4:1). Paul also uses this signifying formula to denote the unbreakable union believers have with the Father and the Spirit—viz. union and identification with the triune God.      

Notes

[1] Ἐν αὐτῷ, ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐν Κυρίῳ.

Jesus’ Ἐγώ εἰμι, Egō Eimi (“I Am”) Declarations- John 8:58

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Ἐγώ εἰμι, Egō Eimi (“I Am”)

Matt. 14:27: “But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, ‘Take courage, it is I [egō eimi, ‘I am’]; do not be afraid’” (NASB et seq.).  

Mark 6:50: Same Greek phrase as in Matt. 14:27: ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε, egō eimi, mē phobeisthe (lit. “I am, do not be afraid”).  

John 6:20: Same Greek phrase as in Matt. 14:27 and Mark 6:50.    

John 8:24: “…for unless you believe that I am [egō eimi], you will die in your sins.”

John 8:28: “So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [egō eimi]. . . .”

John 8:58: “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am [egō eimi].”

John 13:19: “From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it does happen, you may believe that I am He [egō eimi].”

John 18:5, 6 (repeat by narrator), 8: 5 “They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He said to them, ‘I am He’ [egō eimi]. And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. 6 Now then, when He said to them, ‘I am He’ [egō eimi], they drew back and fell to the ground. . . . 8 Jesus answered, ‘I told you that I am He; [egō eimi] so if you are seeking Me, let these men go on their way.’” Note, in 13:19 and 18:5, 6, 8, the pronoun “He” was added by translators – indicated by italicization.

 Jesus’ unpredicated ἐγώ εἰμι, egō eimi (“I am”) Jesus’ unpredicated[1] egō eimi (“I am”) claims are some of the clearest affirmations of the Son’s deity and eternality. As mentioned below, in the OT, this title was a reoccurring claim of YHWH alone denoting His eternal existence (Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4). So of course, virtually all unitarian groups  (esp. Muslims, Oneness advocates, and JWs) deny this truth of the distinct person of the Son, Jesus Christ as being coequal coeternal and coexistent with God the Father (and the Holy Spirit).

However, as pointed out repeatedly, even if one rejects Jesus’ “I am” claims as claims of deity, the deity of Christ, the Son of God, are well established in the content of John’s literature (John 1:1, 3, 10, 18; 3:13; 5:17-18; 6:20; 9:38; 10:27-30; 17:5; 20:28; 1 John 1:1-2; 5:20; Rev. 1:7-8, 17; 2:8; 5:13-14; 22:13).        

In John 8:24, Jesus declared, “. . . for if you should not believe that ‘I am’ [egō eimi] you will perish in your sins” (lit. trans.). Some standard translations add either a predicated clause or the pronoun “He” after the “I am” phrase (cf. KJV, NIV, AMP[2] et al.). However, all extant NT Greek manuscripts containing John 8:24 have no stated predicated clause or predicate such as “He” after the Greek phrase egō eimi. This is true of all Jesus’ egō eimi affirmations.[3]

Additionally, there is clear textual and contextual justification to support that Jesus’ claims of being the unpredicated “I am” and thus, true God and true man. Any added predicate is merely a decision made by the Bible translator. Although the unpredicated divine declaration, “I am,” in John 8:58 is accepted universally as a divine claim among most biblical scholarship (esp. in light of v. 59), not all scholars agree that 8:24 is a divine claim, which is reflected in various translations.

Some translations, however, see the “I am” claim in 8:24 in the same sense as in John 8:58—namely, an unpredicated divine title, such as the NASB 2020 ed. Also note, the ISV 2008 ed. reading: “That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you’ll die in your sins” (caps. theirs); and the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2010 ed.: “I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for unless you shall believe that I AM THE LIVING GOD, you shall die in your sins” (caps theirs). In fact, this translation translates every one of Jesus’ egō eimi phrases as, “I AM THE LIVING GOD.” So Vincent sees 8:24, 28, 58; and 13:19 as a “solemn expression of’ Jesus’ ‘absolute divine being’” (Word Studies).   

It should also be noted that these particular occurrences of Jesus’ “I am” claims are not syntactically the same as other claims, which include the phrase “I am,” such as, “I am the door,” “I am the shepherd,” “I am the bread,” etc., which all contain a clear and stated predicate contra the several unpredicated “I am” statements of Christ. Thus, the burden of proof would rest on the one attempting to show otherwise.

Sometimes, JWs appeal to John 9:9 where the blind man uttered, “I am” (egō eimi). However, the clause is neither syntactically nor contextually equivalent to the unpredicated egō eimi statements of Christ in the gospels. – See our article on John 9:9 and the JWs – also see The NWT and John 8:58

 

The Egō Eimi OT Septuagint (LXX) Background

Many associate Jesus’ egō eimi (“I am”) declarations with God’s declaration to Moses in Exod. 3:14: “God said to Moses, ‘I am that I am.’”[4] Although, the phrase in the Greek LXX of Exod. 3:14 (egō eimi ho ōn, “I am the One”) is not syntactically equivalent to Jesus’ unpredicated egō eimi claims, it does denote the same semantic: YHWH’s eternal existence.[5]     

Notwithstanding, there are places in the OT, where YHWH alone claimed to be the unpredicated egō eimi, which were syntactically equivalent to that of Jesus’ egō eimi claims— clearly denoting His eternal existence (Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4, from the Hebrew, ani hu). Further, in Isa. 41:4, YHWH’s claim of being the “I am” is joined with His claim to be “the first, and with the last” (cf. 44:6; 48:12). While in the NT, only Christ claimed to be “the first and the last” (Rev. 1:17, 2:8; 22:13). Hence, when Jesus claimed to be the unpredicated egō eimi, in John 8:58, for example, which was sandwiched between other divine implications and syntactical features,[6] the Jews, against the backdrop of the LXX, clearly recognized the semantic force of what Christ was claiming: “They picked up stones to kill Him” (John 8:59).

This was a legal stoning according to Jewish law (Lev. 24:16). In fact, the Jews understood and responded in the same way (wanting to kill Christ), when Jesus made other unique claims of deity—as in Mark 14:61-64- claim: Son of God and Son of Man, “coming with the clouds of heaven”; John 5:17-18– claim: Son of God, “making Himself equal with God”; John 10:26-33- claim: giving eternal life to the His sheep, being essentially one (hen) with the Father, and being the Son of God.

 Marked Progression. Christ’s claims of being the “I am” were not isolated. In John 8, in which most of Jesus’ “I am” claims were recorded, there are many additional claims of Christ as to His preexistence and deity (cf. 8:12, 19 [esp. the “I am” clams in vv. 24, 28, 58], 40, 51), which led up to His crowning claim of being the absolute, “I am,” that is, I am the Eternal One who spoke to Moses in the burning bush. It is when we examine all the “I am” statements do we see the consequence of His claim. Thus, contextually, Jesus’ “I am” claims were unambiguous claims of being the eternal God, the YHWH of Deut. 32:39 et al. And the Jews knew this—for they wanted to kill Him for blasphemy (John 8:59)!  

 

Conclusion

The unambiguous claims of Christ to be ontologically equal with God, God in the flesh, and yet distinct from the Father are abounding both in the OT (esp. as the angel of the LORD) and in the NT (e.g., Exod. 3:6, 14; Matt. 12:6; 14:27-33; Mark 6:50; 14:61-64; John 8:24, 58 et al.; 3:13; 5:17-18; 10:26-30; 17:5; Rev. 1:8, 17; 2:8; 5:13-14; 22:13 et al.)    

However, as pointed out repeatedly, Even if one rejects Jesus’ “I am” claims as claims of deity, the deity of the Son of God are well established in the content of John’s literature (John 1:1, 3, 10, 18; 5:17-18; 8:24, 54 et.; 9:38; 6:20; 10:27-30; 17:5; 20:28; 1 John 1:1-2; 5:20; Rev. 1:7-8, 17; 2:8; 5:13-14; 22:13 et al.).  When Jesus declared He was the “I am” at John 18:5, 6 (repeated by the narrator), and verse 8, we read that the “fearless” Romans soldiers “fell to the ground.” What would cause Roman soldiers to fall to the ground? So powerful were Jesus’ divine pronouncements that it caused His enemies to shudder to the ground.  

Believing that the person of the Son, Jesus Christ, is truly God and that His cross work is the very ground of justification (apart from works), is essential for salvation.

  

“You will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you’ll die in your sins” (John 8:24, ISV).

Notes 

[1] Unpredicted, i.e., no supplied predicate modifying the subject, “I am.”      

[2] However, in Mark 6:50; John 6:20, the Amplified trans. reads: “Take courage! It is I (I AM)! Stop being afraid.”

[3] Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20; 8:24; 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8.

[4] Hebrew, ehyeh aser ehyeh.  

[5]. In Exod. 3, the angel of the LORD (viz., the preincarnate Son) appeared to Moses and spoke to him from the burning bush (v. 2). He had identified Himself to Moses as YHWH and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (vv. 4, 6). In response to Moses’s question regarding His “name” (v. 13), verse 14 of the LXX reads: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, ‘I am the Being’” (Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, egō eimi ho ōn). As mentioned, this phrase is not an exact syntactical parallel to Jesus’ unpredicated egō eimi claims (John 8:24, 28, 58 et al.), but the semantic consequence is the same—namely, expressing eternal existence. Also note, the articular participle ho ōn (“the one being, existing”) follows the egō eimi phrase in Exod. 3:14. The present tense participle ōn (from eimi, “I am, exist”)—linguistically denotes, “existing, being, subsisting” (context and grammatical features determine its durational aspect). Thus, with the article, “the One who is always, timelessly existing.” So the egō eimi phrase is intensified by the subsequent articular participle: “I am the One being, timelessly existing.”   

In warranted contexts, the articular participle can denote timeless, eternal existence. It is used of God the Father in Rev. 1:4 and the Son in 1:8 (and Father or Son in 4:8). However, aside from Rev. 1:8, the articular participle is applied specifically to the Son at John 1:18: “… the one and only God who is [ho ōn, lit., ‘the One who is always, timelessly existing’] in the bosom of the Father. . . .”); 3:13 (M, TR); 6:46; and Rom. 9:5. In these passages, the articular participle denotes the Son’s timeless existence. Regarding John 1:18, Robert Reymond remarks, “The present participle ὁ ὢν [ho ōn] . . . indicates a continuing state of being: ‘who is continually in the bosom of the Father’” (Systematic Theology, 1998, 303). So Vincent sees the articular participle in John 1:18 as “a ‘timeless present’ expressing the inherent and eternal relation of the Son to the Father.” The anarthrous participle ōn (“being, subsisting”) can also carry this linguistic force. Robertson observes the participle in Heb. 1:3 [hos ōn, “who is”] as denoting “Absolute and timeless existence (present active participle of eimi) in contrast [as pointed out above] with γενόμενος [genomenos] in verse 4 like ἦν [ēn] in John 1:1 (in contrast with ἐγένετο [egeneto] in 1:14) and like ὑπάρχων [huparchōn] and γενόμενος [genomenos] in Php 2:6f” (Robertson, Word Pictures). Therefore, although the phrase in the LXX of Exod. 3:14 (egō eimi ho ōn) is not an exact syntactical equivalent to John 24, 28, 58 et al., it is semantically equivalent YHWH claim of eternal existence. Whereas the exact syntactical parallel (i.e., the unpredicated egō eimi) is found in the LXX of Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4—, which are exclusively applied to YHWH.

[6] To laser light His eternal existence as God, in John 8:58 for example, Jesus asserted a sharp verbal contrast between Abraham, who had a beginning denoted by the aorist verb, genesthai (“was born.” from ginomai, “to come to be”), and His eternal existence denoted by the present indicative verb, eimi (“am,” as in egō eimi, “I am”). Thus, a “came to be” vs. “I am always being” contrast. The same verbal contrast can be seen in the prologue of John, where the imperfect verb ēn (“was,” from eimi) denoting the Word’s unoriginate eternal existence, which is exclusively applied to the Word in verses 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10. This verb is contrasted with the aorist egeneto (“became”) which is also from ginomai, which refers to all things that came into existence or had a starting point (e.g., the creation, vv. 3, and 10; John the Baptist, in v. 6). It is not until verse 14 that egeneto is applied to the Word (pertaining to His incarnation): Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto, “And the Word became [ginomai] flesh.” The same verbal contrast (Christ as eternal vs. created things) is found in Hebrews  1:3-4, where the present tense participle ōn (“always being”) is set in contrast with the aorist epoiēsen (“He made”) in verse 2 and participle ōn being in contrast with the aorist genomenos (“having become”—referring to the incarnation) in verse 4.

And the same in Philippians 2:6-7 where the present participle huparchōn (“existing/always subsisting”) in verse 6 is set in contrast with the aorist verbs, ekenōsen (“emptied”) labōn (“by taking”), genomenos (“having been made”) and heuretheis (“having been found”) verses 7 and 8. In each case, there is an outstanding contrast between the eternal preincarnate Son and all things created. See also 2 Corinthians 8:9 where we find a syntactical parallel with Philippians 2:6-7—viz., participle vs. aorist. Participles— ōn, “rich being” (2 Cor. 8:9) – huparchōn, “in the nature of God being (Phil. 2:6). Aorist indicatives— eptōcheusen, “He became poor” (2 Cor. 8:9) – ekenōsen, “emptied Himself” (Phil. 2:7). Hence, Paul in 2 Corinthians 8:9, “that You, through His poverty [i.e., His incarnation], might become rich” (in glory and righteousness). Also, the same linguistic contrast is found in the LXX of Psalm 90:2 (89:2)—namely, the aorist ginomai is set in contrast with present indicative eimi:

Before the mountains existed [or “were born,” genēthēnai, the aorist of ginomai], and [before] the earth and the world were formed [plasthēnai, the aorist infinitive of plassō], even from age to age, You are [ei, the second person present indicative of eimi].     

 

The Christology of Ignatius

Posted on by Edward Dalcour

Patristics (early church Fathers) are not a valid hermeneutic to interpret the content of the NT. However, we do know that contained in the vast quantity of pre-Nicaea literature, the early fathers did hold consistently and decisively (within the limitations of their cultural vernacular and doctrinal expressions), the Christological essentials of the apostolic teaching particularly regarding monotheism and Jesus Christ as God incarnate within a trinitarian concept. We also we find significant theological descriptions as to Son’s atoning cross work.  

For example, note a few of many remarkable theological terms and phrases that the apostolic Father, Ignatius bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 107) applies to Christ in his “genuine” letters:


Ἀγέννητος (agennētos, “There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn [ἀγέννητος], God in man, true life,” Ephesians 7:2). Ἀγέννητος was technical term meaning unbegotten, unborn, unoriginated (Kelly, BDAG, Liddell et al.) distinguishing God (here, the incarnate God) from creatures.    


Ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Ho gar theos hēmōn Iēsous Christos, “For our God, Jesus Christ,” Romans 3.3). Ignatius frequently referred to Christ as θεὸς (theos, “the/our God”) or similar phrases, and does so in distinction to the Father (e.g., Rom. prologue; Eph. 18; Polycarp 8.3 et al.). Further, contra the erroneous claims of Oneness advocates, there is no place in the Greek of Ignatius’s genuine letters where grammatically he says Jesus is the Father; rather Ignatius always differentiates Jesus from the Father—as two distinct divine persons.

Letter to the Magnesians 6: “Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time and in the end was revealed” – Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς πρὸ αἰώνων παρὰ πατρὶ ἦν καὶ ἐν τέλει ἐφάνη (Iēsou Christou, hos pro aiōnōn para patri ēn, “Jesus Christ, who before the ages was with the Father,” 

In affirming the preexistence of the person of the Son, in distinction to the Father, in Magnesians 6, note the syntactical similarity to John 17:5: The same verb tense, same prepositions, the same context of eternal preexistence of the person of the Son, and the distinction between the Father and God the Son:      

1. Same verb tense – imperfect denoting a past ongoing action (no starting point):

  • John 17:5: “with the glory, which I had [or ‘shared,’ εἶχον, eichon] with You.”
  • Magnesians 6: “Jesus Christ, who before the ages was [ἦν, ēn] with the Father.” In John 1:1, the same imperfect verb (ἦν) is used denoting the same thing! “In the beginning was [ἦν] the Word, and the Word was [ἦν] with God, and the Word [ἦν] God.”  

 

2. The same prepositions[ πρὸ (“before”) – indicating eternal preexistence and παρὰ (“with, alongside of”) followed by the dative case – indicating association with and distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son:

 A. παρὰ + the dative case. The Father and the Son are differentiated as two persons.

  • John 17:5: “And now You, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself [παρὰ σεαυτῷ, para seautō] . . . with the glory, which I had with You [παρὰ σοί, para soi].”
  • Magnesians 6: “Jesus Christ who before the ages was with the Father [παρὰ Πατρὶ para Patri].”

 

B. πρὸ – “before.” Both John and Ignatius use the same preposition πρὸ (“before”) indicting the actual preexistence of the person of the Son:

  • John 17:5: “with the Father before [πρὸ] the world was.”
  • Magnesians 6: “Jesus Christ, who before the ages [pro aiōnōn] was with the Father.”  

Thus, both John 17:5 and Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians clearly and grammatically affirm the same thing: the person of the divine Son eternally preexisted with (distinct from) the person of the Father.

 

ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ (en haimati theou, “by the blood of God”; “being imitators of God, and having your hearts kindled in the blood of God, you have perfectly fulfilled your congenial work,” Ephesians 1.1). This most interesting phrase resembles Paul’s statement in Acts 20:28: “the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.”  

Although the phrase in Acts 20:28 (διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, lit., “with the blood of His own”) could be translated as “with the blood of His own Son” (possessive genitive, NET, CEV), Ignatius’s meaning is unambiguous (pre-Nestorian). In his Intro to the same letter (Ephesians), he refers to Jesus Christ as τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν (“our God”). Thus, for Ignatius, the “by the blood of God” would be the blood of the incarnate God, Jesus Christ.            

Many more statements of Ignatius could be cited. Although Ignatius, along with other important apostolic Fathers (and subsequent ones), lacked modern articulation of doctrinal words and phrases, Ignatius did indeed clearly hold to an essential Christology, where salvation is through the blood of incarnate God the Son, preexisting before the ages, παρὰ πατρὶ (“with the Father”).