The Trinity: Boundary Conditions
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. Acts 17:31 NASB
Appointed – Perhaps Paul really didn’t mean what his words seem to say. After all, how could God appoint a man as judge of the world? Perhaps what Paul says in Romans 1:4 (“who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,”) is just as confused. Paul uses the same verb (horizo) in both verses, translated “appoint” and “declare.” It certainly seems as if Paul is saying that Yeshua was proclaimed and designated Messiah, proved by the resurrection.
How are we to resolve this problem? The paradigm of the Trinity motivates theologians to echo Schmidt’s reply: “In the light of Acts 10:42 and 17:31what Christ is now declared or appointed to be is to be equated with what he already is from all eternity by divine ordination (hence the addition of a pro-in some readings of Rom. 1:4).”[1] Ah, I see. Since we already believe that Yeshua existed from all eternity as God, then what Paul is saying isn’t really that Yeshua was appointed or declared Messiah. What Paul is really saying is that Yeshua was already God and now we are just noticing that what He already was is being confirmed once again.
There are only a few small problems. First, this interpretation assumes that Paul is a Trinitarian. That would imply Paul embraced a doctrine that stood in opposition to the accepted Pharisaic view of monotheism. It’s hard to imagine that Paul would later claim to be a Pharisee if he actually believed in the Trinity.
Secondly, this does not explain Paul’s choice of the Greek word aner (man). Notice that the NASB capitalizes the word in its translation. But that is also a Trinitarian assumption. Every letter of the Greek text of Romans was written in capitals. The translators decided what to capitalize and what not to capitalize. And the word aner is always used to designate a human male. If Paul wanted to say that Yeshua was merely being acknowledged as God in the flesh, would he use a word that signifies only human males?
Finally, in order to reconcile this verse with the doctrine of the Trinity, we have to say that what the verse plainly says is not what the verse really means. But who is the authority on the meaning of this verse? The author or the translator/theologian? The choice of the verb horizo is Paul’s. He is the only one who decides what he meant. He chooses a verb that is essentially about limitation and only figuratively about appointing or declaring. What are we to make of this? Perhaps we need to start with Pamela Eisenbaum’s observation that Paul was not a Christian.[2]
Topical Index: Trinity, horizo, declare, appoint, aner, man, Acts 17:31, Romans 1:4
[1] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (728). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[2]Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (HarperOne), 2009.
Paul, (or Rabbi Sha’ul) was a Pharisee. Paul was pedigreed. Top of the food chain. A triple Phd by today’s standards. And Paul (formerly known as Saul) persecuted (he was present at the stoning of Stephen) this new “religion” in order to (hopefully) nip it in the bud.
But God. But God had other plans for Paul. And Paul, on the road to Damascus met SomeOne. SomeOne who said, “Saul.. Saul.. – why do you persecute Me?”(Acts 9.4) – and after this (crisis event) Paul was struck blind.
You see.. God had other plans for Paul. He was one of the chosen ones. A man God decided to use for His own purposes. He was to be “set apart” by God and for God. And did God use Paul? What happened to Paul (formerly known as Saul?)
Was there any change (hello) in his behavior? Paul (himself) wrote these words: “if any man be in Christ, he (or she) is a new creation..” One, in which there is neither Jew nor Greek- male nor female but a new creature (or creation) *in Christ*
What else did Paul write in his letters..- addressed to who? to the “saints” which are at Ephesus? Who are these people? these “saints?”
And what did Paul mean by “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified”
And again.. ~ “May I never boast except in the cross of our LORD Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
And again.. “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God ”
And again, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost..”
Yes, Paul (himself) was a “new man” with a changed heart. A new man with a new message: Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ (the Messiah) is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.
“That they might be saved?” Israel is lost? What is this “gospel?”- this “good news?” How is a man, “any man” – not only Israel, but each individual saved? How may any man be “born from Above?”
Sirs, – what must I do to be saved? – “and they said unto him.. (??)”
(Acts 16:30-31)
IS HIS FULLNESS STILL HIDING?
“the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning
of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things
through Jesus Christ.” Eph 3:9
“to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge;
that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” Eph 3:19
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all
principality and power.” Col 2: 9-10
Are we to park our faith at the curb, while we lean on
our own understanding?
Are we?
Of course we are not to “park” at the curb. But notice that you quoted a text from Colossians that already includes the assumption of the Trinity (“Godhead”), not warranted by the actual word, and that there is nothing Trinitarian about the citation from Ephesians (‘all things created THROUGH the Messiah” is perfectly understandable as a functionally assigned role), and knowledge of the Messiah does not mean that we can’t even think about it. It just means that there are some things we are not privileged to know.
So far it seems to me that we have raised significant issues from Trinitarian positions. I am not suggesting that the the Messiah isn’t divine. I am just saying that the DOCTRINE has lots of textual and logical problems. It also seems curious to me that no early Church father suggested the idea and certainly no Jewish rabbi seems to have suggested the idea in spite of the argument over TWO (not THREE) divine beings.
Perhaps the best line is one of CAUTION. Now, that doesn’t mean that Christians can’t embrace this doctrine. After all, it is (by most theologians account) THE CENTRAL DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINE of the Christian faith. But embracing it as a Christian might just remove one from embracing the oneness of YHVH in the Tanakh. That would not be something new for most Christians who already have distorted views of the role of Israel and the place of the Tanakh, but it certainly raises issues for me.
Skip,
You said a mouthful: ‘there are some things we are
not privileged to know.”
Agreed. Enter in our faith.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen.” Heb 11:1
So we walk by faith, not by sight. Like Abraham.
He believed God! By faith! Directly!
The same faith we believe. From the same Word
that is written . . . directly to us.
Where, by the way, in that written Word do you find it
not God’s “warranted” Word?
Your choice of words raised my eyebrow.
I’m a little slow today. I would like to respond to your last comment, but I can’t find that place where I say that the written Word is NOT warranted? Maybe you can help.
Not knowing any better (and I reserve the privilege to be changed from this glory today to a better one tomorrow), but I have yet to be stirred, here.
I know there were many nefarious reasons that those councils and huddles and synods and whatever you want to call them were held, many of them for political reasons, many of them so as to find a way to be more inclusive of, well, pagans, as well as exclusive of Jews, BUT, if Jesus Christ left us on this earth with a Body, however twisted and lost and broken it may have been, and still is, then are not His purposes still to hold in it, no matter what men may purpose? Is He, or is He not, still in control?
And I still am getting the impression that we are attempting, for whatever honest reasons to get the truth straight (and yes, we must put forth all effort to do it, for all positions have consequences), to try to argue this whole thing from a Trinitarian point of view, which automatically is going to doom it to disaster, for, to the extent that there may be weakness in that view, is to the exact extent there will be corresponding weakness in any conclusion we are going to be left with at the end of no matter how long a day.
What do I mean? The Trinity attempt to portray the Godhead (and I don’t think there is a sincere believer on this planet that thinks we have any earthly way to actually understand God much at all) is a statement, essentially, about three THINGS, is it not?
So, do you, Skip, or do many of us here, even, really think that trying to think about, or to explain, God from a statement about THINGS is going to really get us there? Or even get us away from there? And if you, or any of us, don’t really think that, then WHY are we trying to go to such earnest, goodhearted effort to refute the NUMBER OF THINGS, if the Godhead is not really a thing thing?
Is the Godhead a function? Then let’s talk about function. C.S. Lewis (sorry to keep borrowing him here, but he did do such a great job of plowing a fairly straight furrow on this topic) stated that you can explain the crooked from the straight, but you cannot explain the straight from the crooked. So it seems to me that if we first posit what we are trying to do UP FRONT, then state a series of findings that can hold true, and THEN, at that point, if there still is a straw man left in the field, we will have something to approach him WITH. But, actually, I have usually found that if we honor the truth first, as best as we can know it, there won’t be anything left of the other stuff. It will have folded its tents, like Arabs, and silently stolen away.
I think falsity can only hide if we have not done the truth due diligence already, but then, that is just me, and I am rather simple.
As I said some time ago, the paradigm is a CHOICE. If you CHOOSE to embrace it, then it will do its best to make sense of all the data. But that doesn’t mean it’s the ONLY paradigm. It just means that it is functioning to explain things according to your CHOICE. When there are competing paradigms that adequately explain the “facts” (no paradigm will be able to definitively explain all the facts it seems), the the interpretive scheme becomes a matter of “faith,” if you will. It is not as simply as what is true and what is false. It is a matter of how you SEE the world, and that is never simple. If it were only a matter of SIMPLE LOGIC, we would all rationally believe the same thing.
This text doesn’t say that Yeshua “was proclaimed and designated Messiah, proved by the resurrection.” It says that God appointed a Man. God proved it by raising this Man from the dead.
Neither does Rom 1:4 necessarily prove your point. There are other interpretations of that text. The NET Bible has this note:
“Appointed the Son-of-God-in-power. Most translations render the Greek participle ὁρισθέντος (horisthentos, from ὁρίζω, horizo) “declared” or “designated” in order to avoid the possible interpretation that Jesus was appointed the Son of God by the resurrection. However, the Greek term ὁρίζω is used eight times in the NT, and it always has the meaning “to determine, appoint.” Paul is not saying that Jesus was appointed the “Son of God by the resurrection” but “Son-of-God-in-power by the resurrection,” as indicated by the hyphenation. He was born in weakness in human flesh (with respect to the flesh, v. Rom 1:3) and he was raised with power. This is similar to Mat 28:18 where Jesus told his disciples after the resurrection, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” – end of quote.
This explanation counteracts your second point as well. Paul used the word aner (man) because he wanted to emphasize the fact that it was a human, just like us, that will judge the world. Paul is not trying to prove whether Yeshua is divine or not in this text.
I have listened to many of your lectures, so I am not sure which one it is, but in one of them, you said that Yeshua did not reveal Himself as Messiah until He had accomplished the work and He could prove that He was Messiah. I believe you made the point that in Hebraic thinking you first have to apprentice and proof that you have what it takes to be for example a physician, before you are called a physician. Just because you finished University doesn’t make you a physician.
So in the same vein, only at the time of the resurrection was He shown to be the judge of the world. The resurrection is furnishing the proof that He will be.
It seems to me that you think that if you can disprove the Trinity, you have disproved the deity of Yeshua [I mean Him being HaShem]. Trinitarianism is just an outflow if you will from Binitarianism. Christians had to deal with texts in the Apostolic Scriptures that seem to refer to the Holy Spirit as God. And since they already believed in Binitarianism, Trinitarianism was nothing but a logic conclusion.
Daniel Boyarin said this: (see link to PDF below – The Gospel of the Memra pg 249) “It is at least possible that the beginning of Trinitarian reflection was precisely in non-Christian Jewish accounts of the second and visible God, variously, the Logos (Memra), Wisdom, or even perhaps the Son of God.”
My point is that even if you could prove that Trinitarianism is unbiblical, you won’t have necessarily proven that Binitarianism is unbiblical and therefore that Yeshua is not HaShem.
Let me quote a book you once recommended: Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels. Pg 80.
“This piece of beautiful religious poetry [Similitudes of Enoch] forms an absolutely pivotal text for illuminating the Christology of the Gospels – as well as for demonstrating the essential Jewishness of that phenomenon. First of all, we find here the doctrine of the preexistence of the Son of Man. He was named even before the universe came into being. Second, the Son of Man will be worshipped on earth: “All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship before him, and they will glorify and bless and sing hymns to the name of the Lord of Spirits.” Third, and perhaps most important of all, in v. 10 he is named as the Anointed One, which is precisely the Messiah (Hebrew mashiah) or Christ (Greek Christos). It seems quite clear, therefore, that many of the religious ideas that were held about the Christ who was identified as Jesus were already present in the Judaism from which both the Enoch circle and the circles around Jesus emerged.” – end of quote.
Can I recommend one paper from him? It’s only 46 pages long, but pivotal in this discussion: The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John.
http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Boyarin/BoyarinArticles/108%20Gospel%20of%20the%20Memra%20(2001).pdf
This is how he summarizes the paper:
“The structure of the Prologue, then, as it is revealed in accordance with this mode of interpretation, moves from the pre-existent Logos which is not (yet) Christ and which could, and I believe did, subsist among many circles among first-century loudaioi, to the incarnation of the Logos in the man, also Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ. Far from a supersessionist move from the particularist Torah to the universal Logos (as Epp would have it), the movement of the narrative is from a universal Jewish Logos theology to the particularism of Christology-and I put no pejorative force in that whatsoever. Of course, for the Evangelist, the Incarnation supplements the Torah-that much is explicit-but, for John, it is only because the Logos Ensarkos is a better teacher, a better exegete than the Logos Asarkos – ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο – that the Incarnation takes place.” – end of quote.
The last sentence brings me to the NET Bible note on ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο of John 1:18.
“Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (Joh 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, Joh 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, Joh 1:1) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exo 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in Joh 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.” – end of quote.
In my humble opinion, the work of Daniel Boyarin has clearly shown that during the Second Temple Period the idea was common that there Two Powers within the Godhead. One of them was the Logos, a hypostatized version of HaShem. John applies this idea to Yeshua.
In support of the Logos theology, this is what Boyarin writes on pg 252:
“Were we to find such notions among non-Christian Jews in Philo alone, we could regard him, as he often is regarded, as a sport, a mutant, or even a voice crying in the wilderness. However, there were other Jews, and, moreover, not only Greek-speaking ones, who manifested a version of Logos theology. Notions of the second god as personified word or wisdom of God were present among Semitic-speaking Jews as well. This point is important because it further disturbs the dichotomies that have been promulgated between Hellenistic and Rabbinic (by which is usually meant “authentic” “really real”) Judaisms.” – end of quote.
When I put this all together, I cannot escape from the conclusion that John clearly saw Yeshua as the Logos, the hypostatized version of HaShem. And this second Power had a will of His own in Second Temple literature. So no Modalism. [see Alan Segal – Two Powers on this]
If you want to say that Yeshua is not HaShem, but some kind of divine being Skip, you need to show what He was, what does it entail for Him to be divine? Did He have pre-existence or not? Was He the Logos Asarkos that became the Logos Ensarkos or not? And if He is not, please explain to us what you think the Prologue of John is all about.
Once again, I so appreciate your carefully articulated objections. It is such a blessing to the community to be able to debate both sides. Dialogue!! The best solution to theological boredom. But I am back where I started. If you decide to read the text in support of the Trinity, you will (amazingly) find what you are looking for. But if you decide not to read the text in support of the Trinity, you will also find what you are looking for. Conclusion: the argument is NOT about the text. It is about the paradigm embraced BEFORE you get to the text. The real investigation is about what the paradigm does to influence the interpretation of the text.
Here are some questions (along with yours) that need to be answered:
1. Can we confidently assert that Paul embraced a Trinitarian doctrine and yet continued to claim that he was in good standing with the Pharisees and observant of all the traditions of the elders?
2. If the Trinity is absolutely essential to the Christian view of the Scriptures, but nevertheless represents a radical departure from accepted orthodox Judaism, why is there no definitive teaching about it, even from Yeshua himself? Why is it determined only by hints and suggestions when the other major tenets are so clear?
3. Can we imagine that thousands of Jews “converted” from radical monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4) in the first century and yet the early church fathers were more or less unaware of this transition to “three persons in one being” doctrine?
4. Why didn’t orthodox Judaism embrace this idea after the Second Temple period debate?
5. Does Scripture DEMAND a Trinitarian point of view in order to make sense? [If you should be inclined to answer positively, then you will have to explain why Jews seem to have substantial committed relationships with YHVH but do NOT embrace a Trinitarian view]
Finally, I think we have exhausted my ability to continue with this for awhile. Time to get on with other things, things that perhaps will lead us gently back to the experience of the presence of YHVH regardless of our theological paradigms of choice. So I am signing off. Too much more to do.
“5. Does Scripture DEMAND a Trinitarian point of view in order to make sense? ” Yes. Until you resolve the epistemological problem of universals/particulars, you don’t have any knowledge. And the Trinitarian view provides the answer to that particular issue. If it doesn’t perhaps you’ll provide another answer to that issue and show how knowledge is possible. 😉
This reminds me of a legendary (and true) story about George Moore. Logical positivists were arguing about the existence of the external world. How could we really know that the external world exists? After all, all we really “know” is our own thought (in a kind of Cartesian way). Moore held up his hand. “This is my hand,” he said, and sat down.
Do we really, really think that unless we can solve the problem of universals and particulars WE CANNOT KNOW anything at all? Do we really think that knowledge ISN’T POSSIBLE without a solution to this question? So, I suppose that all those people who simply go about their days according to what they perceive and do really don’t know anything at all, right? I guess the only people who really know anything are the Trinitarians, and Rushdooney (of course). 😉
“Do we really, really think that unless we can solve the problem of universals and particulars WE CANNOT KNOW anything at all?” You can’t even tell the difference between a dog and a cat without universals. Nor can you know if murder is wrong (a particular) without a universal moral standard. Or are you suggesting a universe of brute factuality?
Ian, you are such a Platonist. Me, on the other hand, I like the later Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Husserl. Lived experience, not the world of Forms. I am sure we would have a good laugh together if I ever get Down Under. Martin Heidegger, Identity and Difference. “The problem of identity has been a basic philosophical issue since Parmenides.”
Platonist? Nah, that’s the way God made the universe, with particulars and universals. But I look forward to your trip down under. I hope you will be able to distinguish me in the crowd and differentiate me from the kangaroos and all the other wild ones. If you get that far, we could have a good conversation. 😉
I am not sure it was so “radical”. I mean the idea of a God presenting his essence via issuing forth in multiple personages. I know there are other ancient Jewish documents, but this is one: 2. In the Zohar the following statements about God are made: “How can they (the three) be One? Are they verily One, because we call them One?” “How Three can be One, can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.”46/43/verse 22 Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai instructed his son as follows: “Come and see the mystery of the word hw:hoyÒ, Yehovah: there are three steps, each existing by itself; nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other.”47/65 He later indicated in another passage that these three steps as revealed in Elohim !yhiloa> (God) are three substantive beings or three divine persons united in one.
Skip,
In your first comment to me, you said about my quoting
Col 2:9-10, that it included the assumption of the Trinity
(“Godhead”) that was “not warranted by the actual word”…
Thank you, Skip for taking this on — indeed, it has been exhausting for us as well if we are truly wresting with our Christian doctrinal beliefs. Some among us read the same references but come to different conclusions because of inherent paradigms. With some of the very long posts it becomes evident that the one who posts is generally unwilling to look at anything from another perspective.
We all wear our doctrinal beliefs and assumptions like a suit of clothes; they define us in so many ways. But what if I’m wearing the wrong outfit? What if everything I’ve believed was wrong? Am I willing to entertain that question? Or am I threatened by the very thought?
What I do know is that I am not willing to risk continued belief in what may be a false doctrine simply because I am unwilling to question it. My heart is to learn to worship God as HE wants to be worshiped — all paradigms aside. So if my quest takes me into the territory of anathema, I know that He will redirect my steps as long as serving Him in truth and love is my continued intent. And for THAT reason, I AM willing to lay everything I think I know on the sacrificial altar. Far better to get it burned up now, rather than later.
Hi Suzanne,
” With some of the very long posts it becomes evident that the one who posts is generally unwilling to look at anything from another perspective.”
A mind set in concrete is difficult to break down, perhaps that is what is referred to as stubbornness, or stiffneck-ness? If one is unwilling to relearn from a different perspective, particularly so from tran-slay-tions that arose from doctrinal agendas, try as you might, it could be in vain, though Skip is diligently working at this, to bring forth another paradigm for us to consider.
“We all wear our doctrinal beliefs and assumptions like a suit of clothes; they define us in so many ways. But what if I’m wearing the wrong outfit?”
This brought to my mind the parable of the Wedding where a guest was improperly attired and was thrown out!
Shalom to you.
“If it were only a matter of SIMPLE LOGIC, we would all rationally believe the same thing.” AMEN!!!
A conversation worth having, especially since it is one big reason for Jews rejecting Yeshua as the Messiah. Recognizing the textual wiggle room for this doctrine, while drawing together on the beauty of the Torah – has the power to dissolve previously uncrossable boundaries.
I’m not for watering down truth, but I am intrigued at how some like Keith Johnson and Nehemiah Gordon are able to work together so collaboratively.
Dialogue. “Help me understand how you see this,” rather than “You’re wrong about that belief. Let me show you.”
Hi Gabe,
I have listened to many of their Torah Pearls and adventures together. Keith is working hard to bring Nehemiah to recognise Who the Meshiach is, at the same time drawing from Nehemiah’s historical and Hebraic knowledge. They complement each other by learning from each others’ perspectives, they enjoy each others’ company. That is inspiring.
Shalom.
QUESTION: How did the unclean spirits know to make the following claims about Yahshua?
Yahshua, thou Son of Elohim Matt. 8:29
the Holy One of Elohim Mark 1:24
the Son of Elohim Mark 3:11
Yahshua, the Son of the Most High El Mark 5:7
the Messiah, the Son of Elohim Luke 4:41
But yet when “He came to His own, His own did not receive Him.” John 1:11
I think today as when He spoke to His taught ones, Yahshua is still asking the question: “And you, who do you say I am?”
Thank you, Skip, and all the rest who have provided such lively discussion on the Trinity doctrine. And, to a lesser degree, on the usefulness–or not–of the paradigms we have chosen.
For 40 years I have tried to live a Torah-observant life. Much I do not know, but this I do know–YHVH is my God, and I am His, and Yeshua, the Son of God, is my Savior and Lord.
One of the most important things I have learned from Skip and from other scholars is the history of replacement theology. I had never even heard of the term before now. I did not even know that it was part of my worldview until I looked closely. So much has resulted from the widely held view that the Church has replaced Israel as recipient of Biblical promises, and that the Church is the final arbiter of truth: doctrinal creeds, definitions of heresy, neglect of Jewish insight and tradition, and at its extreme, anti-Semitism.
It’s been a joy to find people who are trying to live in harmony with all the scriptures, not just the New Testament. And it’s been a joy to learn new things and do some remodeling of my paradigm. I think we would all do well to read again the 5 questions Skip has posted in the comments section. It’s one thing to have strongly held beliefs about a subject. It’s another to look ahead and see the ramifications of those beliefs.
I am new here but I thank you all for your thoughtful comments.
If I may add some myself, by definition, doesn’t a son have to be a creation of a father? But nevertheless I can understand that as the only Son of the Father, who has given all power and authority to that Son, that He is equal to the Father except that He remains a creation of, and still obedient to, the Father. This is plainly spelled out in 1 Cor. 15:27.
But why did the Father need a Son and a Spirit? I believe the Father is too big for us to comprehend.
An alien from outer space, named Thomas, landed on a farm in America and said to the farmer, “Show me this place and take me to the owner. The farmer took him to the President. The President said, “I am not the owner and I cannot show you each of the 350 million of them, nor the millions of square miles they own, nor their awesome will and might, but I have been chosen by them to represent them in all things. I serve them, even onto death, but beware, while I can do nothing of myself, the vast power of their Spirit has been entrusted in me.”
The problem of Romans 1:4 is both its historical context and Hebraic reference. As Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. wrote Romans is not a compendium of Christian doctrine(P. Melanchthon), Paul’s last will and testament(G. Bornkamm), or even a summary of Paul’s doctrine. It does address his his teachings on the church, the Eucharist, the resurrection, or eschatology. It is an essay-letter presenting his reflections on salvation history after the conflict with the Judaizing crisis had ended.
Therefore the phrase “set up as the Son of God with power:”
{My BIBLIOGRAPHY: Achtemeier, P. J., Romans (Interpretation; Atlanta, 1985). Althaus, P., Der Brief an die Romer (NTD 6; 9th ed.; Gottingen, 1959). Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (BNTC; London, 1971). Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Episatle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh, 1975, 1979); Romans: A Shorter Commentary (GR, 1980). Huby, J., Epitre aux Romains (rev. ed., S. Lyonnet; VS 10; Paris, 1957). Kasemann, E., Commentary on Romans (GR, 1980). Kertelge, K., The Epistle to the Romans (NTSR 12; NY, 1972). Kuss, O., Der Romerbrief (3 parts, never finished; Regensburg, 1963-78). Lagrange, M.-J., Epitre aux Romains (EBib; Paris, 1950). Leenhardt, F., The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1961). Lietzmann, H., An die Romer (HNT 8; Tubingen, 1928). Lyonnet, S., Epitre aux Romains (SBJ; Paris, 1954) 43-132; Quaestiones in epistulam ad Romanos (2 vols.; Rome, 1962). Michel, O., Der Brief an die Romer (MeyerK 4; Gottingen, 1966). Pesch, R., Romerbrief (NEchtB 6; Wurzburg, 1985). Robinson, J. A. T., Wrestling with Romans (Phl, 1979). Sanday, W. and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 5th ed.; Edinburgh, 1902). Schlatter, A., Gottes Gerechtigkeit (2d ed.; Stuttgart, 1952). Schlier, H., Der Romerbrief: Kommentar (HTKNT 6; Frieburg, 1977). Schmidt, H. W., Der Brief des Paulus an die Romer (THK 6; Berlin, 1962). Taylor, V., The Epistle to the Romans (SB; Paris, 1975). Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Romer (3 vols.; EKKNT 6; Neukirchen, 1978-82). Zeller, D., Die Brief an die Romer (RNT; Regensburg, 1985). DBSup 10. 739-863. IDBSup 752-54. Kummel, INT 305-20. Wik-ZSchm, ENT 449-62.}
3 problems are involved in interpreting this phrase:
(1) What does the aor. ptc. horisthentos mean?
(2) What does en dynamei modify?
(3) What is the sense of “Son of God”?
First of all predestined is to be rejected as the meaning of horisthentos (Vulgate, Augustine, Pelagius) since horizein “limit, define” is different than proorizein “predetermine”. Chrysotom and other Gk writers equate ptc. as “manifested, displayed” but unless the Hebrew is identified and referenced this is barely adequate. It assumes a later discussion on the natures of Yeshua. Most commentators use “appointed, installed, set up” (Acts 10:42; 17:31). Some authors take the position that the phrase “en dynamei” is an adverb modifier of ptc., “decisively, declared” (Goodspeed, Sanday-Headlam) or “by a mighty act” (New English Bible Oxford Cambridge version). The position of the phrase opposes such interpretation. Paul’s contrast demands that Yeshua was both descended from David’s line and implies his unique relationship to Hashem revealed as an eternal covenant act of life. Ergo the resurrection did not make Yeshua the Mashiach. It is an assumed relationship Paul describes in Hebrews – Not deeming equality with Hashem something to be grasped at, Mashiach emptied himself taking on the form of a slave submitting even to death. The resurrection therefore is the witness to the faithfulness of Hashem to His promise given to Abraham at the alter of Isaac’s sacrifice:
טז וַיֹּאמֶר, בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נְאֻם-יְהוָה: כִּי, יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ, אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידֶךָ.
יז כִּי-בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ, וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְכַחוֹל, אֲשֶׁר עַל-שְׂפַת הַיָּם; וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ, אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו.
יח וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ, עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלִי.
The significance of these words in Hebrew can not be understated. In swearing an oath by his own name Hashem is putting himself under a conditional self curse for the failings and disobedience of Abraham and his seed. This is a covenant revelation to Abraham. Hashem is the both the covenant and the blessing he swears – the bonds of kinship created by covenant. Thus the self-emptying or kenosis of Hashem is fulfilled in Adonai Yeshua Moshiach – the unique relationship that Yeshua embodies and Paul assumes. We are now temples of Hashem filled with his covenant presence. We image Yeshua Mashiach who is the pattern of our image and likeness of Hashem. That is the sense Paul intends in his grammar.
It does (not) address his teachings on the church, … the post inserted typographical errors in my presentation somehow.
Silly not to say it in my post but the blessing that Abraham and his descendents is sworn to receive for his obedience to Hashem is the equality Yeshua is restored to after the resurrection – what John also calls the power to become sons of god, i.e the eternal power to obey the will of Hashem. (True obedience.)
Skip I still have that nagging question.
If there was no need for the son to be essentially different from the rest of mankind then what need is there for the virgin birth?
Wait. He is essentially different from the rest of mankind. He is the only begotten of the Father. He is the chose bearer of the Father’s purpose. he is the Messiah. He is the agent by which God created all that is. That makes him very different indeed. Now, what was your concern?
I suppose the concern is in the word essence.
I also have questioned the systematic theory of the doctrine and how it all works for some time now. I don’t consider it a defining doctrine that determines whether someone is a believer in Yeshua Messiah or not. I have come to believe something similar to you. There is The Father the son and the holy spirit.
But there appears to be something of the essence of Yeshua as begotten of the holy spirit which proceeds from the Father, that gives me pause when we talk about him not being of the same essence as the Father.
Just still sorting it out and probably will be for the rest of my life.
P.S. Wish we were in Sandpoint. Say hi to Kelli for me. Shabbat Shalom