Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider 239 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Mondo1
    Mondo1

    I'm surprised that you are surprised that I would use this argument, as it is a known trend within the New Testament. For example, though specifically commenting no the book of Hebrews, the words of G.W. Buchanan come to mind: "Like other scholars of his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah." ( Buchanan, George Wesley. The Anchor Bible, Vol36, To The Hebrews. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.) 22. )

    To determine if it is an out of context quote, one would look both at the context of the use within the New Testament, to determine if they understood it as refering to the same thing as the context in which it was originally quoted, and also the context of the original quote, to determine if it was a prophecy that, for example, was Messianic in nature.

    As an example, Hebrews 1:5 quotes from 2 Samuel 7:14. 2 Samuel spoke of Solomon and "when he sins," a text that could not in its entirety refer to Christ, who did not sin. The author of Hebrews merely found the words in question to be appropriate for Jesus in light of the events that transpired, and so the language was borrowed, without at all indicating that the context of 2 Samuel had anything to do with Jesus Christ.

    Similarly then, I have no problem with the concept of "the first and the last" being language that was borrowed from Isaiah in the sense of 2 Samuel 7, however, as the use was of him as "the one who became dead and is alive forevermore," I do not see a connection with the context of the original passage, and I do not think such a link is justified.

    For Christ as "the living one," the language strikes me as entirely appropriate of the resurrected Christ. Now in possession of immortality via the resurrection, which would be the point of that statement (for again, that is what is being delt with in context), how could this not be said of him?

    Mondo

  • Kenneson
    Kenneson

    How could Prov. 8:22 be referring to the creation of wisdom? Was there ever a time that God was lacking in wisdom?

  • Mondo1
    Mondo1

    Kenneson,

    Well the LXX literally reads "created" which is also proper in the Hebrew. So it says what it says, but contextually we are dealing not with the attribute of Wisdom (which is to say that God is wise and so he has wisdom) but with personified Wisdom, and one way things are personified is by a person in whom the characteristic is displayed. When a person personifies an attribute it is normal for the person to be identified as the attribute.

    Mondo

  • Kenneson
    Kenneson

    If the attribute wisdom is personified as a person, why does the NWT use "it" at Prov. 1:20 and 8:1-3, whereas some other translations use "she" (sophia)? See Prov. 7:4 Likewise, Folly is depicted as a woman in Prov. 9:13 Whom, then, does folly personify? And, since the NWT also refers to the Holy Spirit as "it," why, in that case, is "it" not personified as a person?

  • Mondo1
    Mondo1

    Kenneson,

    I couldn't tell you why the NWT translators chose the neuter pronoun over the feminine. The reason the feminine is used is because of grammatical gender, where the Hebrew noun is a feminine noun, thus demanding the Hebrew feminine pronoun. I couldn't tell you, but it really doesn't matter either. The NWT is just a translation. For 9:13, I couldn't figure out what you were refering to. Here is the verse:

    Proverbs 9:13 A foolish woman is noisy; she is thoughtless, and she knows not what.

    Mondo

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Mondo:
    I've been reading your posts with interest, and it appears (to me) that you've based your theology around your understanding of Widsom, as found in Proverbs.

    This thread seems to have about run it's course, so let me ask you for some reflective thinking: If Wisdom refered to the Holy Spirit instead of the Son, how might that affect your theology?

  • Kenneson
    Kenneson

    Mondo1,

    As I see it, wisdom is contrasted with Folly. See Prov. 9:10-13. Both are feminine. (Prov. 7:4) The NIV Study Bible and other translations, for instance, titles Chapter 9: "Invitations of Wisdom and of Folly" and in verse 13 refers to the woman Folly. I, too, am interested in your reply to Little Toe's question.

  • Death to the Pixies
    Death to the Pixies

    Just a thought. but the Evangelical denial of The Son/Logos=Wisdom in my opinion can be overturned by simply pointing to two lines of evidence:

    1.)The Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews directly quote from Jewish Wisdom lit., as Hebrews 1:3 explicitly alludes to WIsdom of Solomon at 7:25. Here the language is unambiguously applied to Christ. Col. 1 (discussed earlier) uses this as a Christological back-drop, in his pre-human state nonetheless.

    2.) The Early Church almost entirely makes this simple connection. (Justin, Origen..etc..etc) The same people who played key roles in making what is now Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy- made this connection. There is little historical inconsistency in this interpretation.

    Those who wish to overturn it by showing different ways in which wisdom is used (and it is used in many different ways) and spoken of, have a hard time dealing with the history.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Do ya mean those self-same authors who made the simple connection that Christ was Divine?

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    DTTP wrote:

    The Early Church almost entirely makes this simple connection. (Justin, Origen..etc..etc) The same people who played key roles in making what is now Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy- made this connection.

    LT wrote:

    Do ya mean those self-same authors who made the simple connection that Christ was Divine?

    To add to LTs point:

    Origen said: "Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

    And DTTP brings up Justin, like many jws do, because they believe Justin was "anti-trinitarian". First of all, the trinity-doctrine hadn`t been developed at the time of Justin Martyr (ca. 110- 165 AD), so it is impossible to know if the wording of the Nicea-declaration 200 years later would have been acceptable to Justin Martyr. Anyway, while it is true that Justin talks about the Father and the Son in a way that makes it look like he is making a clear separation between the two, he wrote "Dialogue with Trypho to the jew", in which he almost exclusively writes about Jesus in God-terms! Whatever you believe Justin meant/believed, there was not a doubt in his mind that the Jesus Christ was divine (one way or the other).

    "The Word of Wisdom who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word and Wisdom and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter ..." (Ch.61)

    "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped as God and as Christ." (Ch.63)

    "Here Trypho [the Jew] said, ‘Let Him be recognized as Lord and Christ and God as the Scriptures declare by you of the Gentiles, who have from His name been all called Christians; but we who are servants of God that made this same [Christ] do not require to confess or worship Him.’" (Ch.64)

    And then there are all the others...:

    Ignatius of Antioch

    "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

    "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.,18:2).

    "[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

    Aristides

    "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

    Tatian the Syrian

    "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

    Melito of Sardis

    "It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).

    Irenaeus

    "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

    "Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).

    Clement of Alexandria

    "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

    "Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).

    Tertullian
    "The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

    "That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).


    Hippolytus

    "Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

    Hippolytus of Rome

    "For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).

    Novatian

    "If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).

    Cyprian of Carthage

    "One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).

    Gregory the Wonderworker

    "There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

    Arnobius

    "‘Well, then,’ some raging, angry, and excited man will say, ‘is that Christ your God?’ ‘God indeed,’ we shall answer, ‘and God of the hidden powers’" (Against the Pagans 1:42 [A.D. 305]).

    Lactantius

    "He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man" (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).

    "We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father" (ibid., 4:28–29).

    ...personally, I think Novatian summed it up best (see above). The jws biggest mistake, is that they believe that Jesus Christ was viewed in the way they view him, from the very beginning! It simply isn`t true! The christians, from the very first century, viewed Jesus Christ as God, in the very least, as "God to them!"! The jws can of course claim that the christians of the first, second, third (etc, until the 19th century when the baptists started screwing everything up) were wrong in their view on Christ, but they shouldn`t claim that the view on Jesus Christ was something that it was not! That is to rewrite history, and shame on them for that!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit