Call Upon The Name
to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: 1 Corinthians 1:2 NASB
I wrote the original investigation of 1 Corinthians 1:2 on August 22, 2010. Since that time I have completely changed my thinking about the Trinity (as you probably know). Recently a reader asked me to clarify the Today’s Word edition written eight years ago. That prompted me to write this corrected one. I will designate my current thoughts and corrections with brackets. Amazing how we change. Perhaps the true character of development for me is that I allow myself to rethink what I once believed.
Call upon ihe name – In the Greek text this phrase is epikaloumenois to onoma. But Paul isn’t thinking in Greek. He is recalling a technical Hebraic phrase from Genesis. “In those days men began to call on the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:26). The Hebrew expression (likro beshem YHVH) is an expression of ownership. It is not simply a request for divine assistance. In ancient cultures, no god would grant favor to someone who did not first offer worship. So when men began to call on the name YHVH, they were in effect designating that YHVH was their God. They were His servants. Certainly this is what Paul has in mind when he uses the same phrase (in Greek) that appears at the beginning of the Torah.
But notice the change, a change that no orthodox Jew, especially a Pharisee, would ever suggest unless something startling had happened. [Paul uses this technical phrase to designate the role of the Messiah, Yeshua. He writes that those who are in the assembly of YHVH can call upon the name of Yeshua who is “Lord.” In the past, I read this as an endorsement that Yeshua was YHVH, but now I see that all that Paul really says is that Yeshua is the lord of the ekklesia. This does not demand that Yeshua is YHVH. It acknowledges that Yeshua is the head of the assembly that worships YHVH. If we recognize that the Messiah is the authorized agent of YHVH, then we don’t have an implicit Trinitarian statement. We have a statement about the role of the Jewish Messiah. The use of kyrios does not require a Trinitarian explanation although Trinitarian proponents read it that way. The Trinitarian explanation is read into the statement, just as I once read it, but it doesn’t have to be. The problem is that in our time “Lord,” especially with the capital letter added by the translators, implies “God.” This is an equivocation on the actual meaning of the term. In fact, since Paul maintains that he never stopped being a Torah-observant Pharisee and a follower of the elders and traditions, it’s difficult to image that he used the term kyrios here for anything other than the Messiah as authorized agent and lord of the assembly.]
[Today] most of us don’t find [anything] particularly shocking [about the Trinitarian explanation of this verse]. Our heritage has been saturated with the [claim] that Jesus is God. We aren’t the least bit disturbed by the religious scandal that Paul’s statement would have caused [for orthodox Jews]. But that’s because we don’t live in Corinth in the first century and we don’t attend a first century Jewish synagogue. We aren’t being absorbed into a first century Jewish culture. But everyone in Paul’s reading audience would have recognized just how heretical [a Trinitarian claim] would be. And Paul was no intellectual slouch. He had the highest pedigree possible. He was a brilliant Torah scholar. If he [claimed] that Yeshua is God, [he would have scandalized everything he held to be true of Torah, his tradition as a Pharisee and his religious affiliation. But there is no scandal if Paul claims that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah because the Jews believed the Messiah would be a man uniquely chosen by YHVH to play this special role.]
What difference does this make to us today? [Western believers, even Messianic believers, often claim that] Yeshua is God. Why should we get excited about this verse? Perhaps we need to step back into the first century in pagan Corinth in order to capture the incredible truth of Paul’s statement. We can call on his name, Yeshua HaMashiach, and know that we are declaring God’s ownership over us. God is no longer mysterious, invisible, intangible, transcendental. [Yeshua as Messiah has revealed YHVH to us in human form.] He has called us friends. He [speaks as] God speaking to us. And He rescues us. Maybe we need to experience a bit of that excitement again. It’s not just a name, is it? [The Messiah brings YHVH as close to me as a brother, as dear to me as my best friend, and as comforting to me as a loving father.]
[Concluding note: As I look back on what I wrote 8 years ago, I see how powerfully I was affected by paradigmatic thinking. I grew up in the church. I was taught a particular way of reading the Bible. I never questioned it, until I discovered that the same verses could be read another way, just as legitimately. That meant I needed to examine the paradigm, not just the verses, and that has become my mission. It’s challenging and, quite frankly, scary, since it forces me to rethink what I once believed. But now I am not sure there is any other path for me. The truth will win in the end.]
Topical Index: call upon the name, Genesis 4:26, shem, onoma, 1 Corinthians 1:2
“In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him, and apart from Him nothing was made that has come into being.” [Joh 1:1-3]
Does this not say that, in the beginning, Yeshua the Messiah was the Word, was with God, and was God, and that he was the Creator and every thing was made through him? If that is a wrong translation and/or a wrong interpretation, I will thank you to please explain.
You might try the site Biblical Unitarian, Jerry, and if you want to go deeper, Keegan Chandler’s book The God of Jesus. I have found these resources in particular to be useful. Greg Deuble wrote a less scholarly but still informative book, They Never Told Me This in Church. ?
By the way, I never received TW today and had to go to Skip’s site to read it. Am I alone in this?
Same with me John
Me, also.
Still waiting.
Same thing: I never get fresh e-mails. But I had problems with my credit card and sent a e-mail to Skip and he responded, which had “Recent Post’s” on and I now call up that “old” e-mail which has the latest “Recent Post” onit. so in some way I’m always up to date
30 min. after posting the above.—– Wa La, I’ve got a NEW e-mail–now current
Years ago my nephew asked me “I don’t understand how there can be 2 laudable Holy figures. How can I worship 2 deities? My response was 1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord. My nephew also asked “if our religion has one God, then who is greater? My response John 14:28-29 … for the Father is greater than I. As for “oneness” see this as agreement, connection, no separate agendas. Last but not least when I am sharing with other Believers about the “in the beginning … the ‘word’ being flesh I suggest they see this as “message.” In the beginning was intent, purpose … this purposed message of the invisible became flesh so that humans can see and relate, know more intimately. Colossians 1:15 … he is the image of the invisible God. Heb 1:1-3 … the exact representation. John 17:3 … this is eternal life that they may know You, the only true God and know Jesus as the Messiah. To believe in The Messiah is to accept and embrace Gods plan to restore all things. The Messiah is a promise made and kept. John 19:4 … I have glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given me to do. The Messiah revealed, represented… an unseen world to a seeing people.
Jerry and Lisa, here is a past post from Dr. Moen that may help shine a little more light on his reasoning: https://skipmoen.com/2016/09/from-genesis-to-proverbs-to-john-2/
Jerry and Lisa: “Does this not say….” ? From my vantage point and with respect I would have to say no it does not say that. The author John could easily have said “In the beginning Yeshua was the Word, was with God and was God, and that he was the Creator…” but he did not. Why? Why did John not simply say Yeshua is God? Instead John talks about the Word for many verses. I do not think he is simply being poetic. The “Word/Word of the Lord” reference had specific meaning to the first century Jews because that phrase pops us many, many times in the Aramaic Targums that were read every week along with Torah passage. The Targums use that term “Word/Word of the Lord” when an anthropomorphism is in play. It is AS IF God Himself became a man…as the “Word” now takes on flesh in verse 14 of John 1. Peter in his sermon in Acts 3:22 quotes Deut. 18:15 “LORD God will raise up for you a prophet like me (Moses) to him you shall give heed to everything he says. We learn in Deut. 18:18 that God says He “will put My words in his mouth”. Peter could have simply told the group what I heard a pastor say once “God sent Himself”. I don’t think so! Yeshua in my opinion is the AGENT of God who speaks the very words of God in fulfillment of Scripture. Just my two cents worth.
HSB,
Respectfully, I’ll have to disagree with you here. First of all, there is no historic evidence to substantiate that the Aramaic Targums referencing “Memra/Word of the Lord” were extant in the 1st century. Moreover, when Memra of Adonai is used in the Targums, these are mostly circumlocutions for the Divine Name. In other words, instead of saying “God did…” they substitute “The Memra of Adonai did…” Yet, in John 1 we have two distinctly separate entities in God (as ton theon, accusative of ho theos) and the Word (ho logos), as the Word was “with” (pros) God. The preposition used (pros) means going towards something/someone in its dynamic sense, or facing (face-to-face) and relationship, implying communion when used in a static sense. Applicable here is the static sense.
I’d begun a series of John’s prologue, in which I carefully exegeted 1:1-5 (so far—maybe one day I’ll find the time to finish). You can find it here:
notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com/2017/10/28/probing-the-prologue-in-the-gospel-according-to-john-john-11-2/
See especially footnotes 9 and 10 (in which I cite Chang’s work) and the context in the body to which they refer.
According to historic Christian orthodoxy, there’s a distinction between “the Word” and “Jesus” (Yeshua). “The Word” was with God in the beginning. Jesus/Yeshua certainly was not, as Yeshua is “the word become flesh”, i.e. at a point in time Yeshua came into existence.
In the beginning was the Word
The Word became flesh in/as the historic Person of Yeshua
Thus, “the Word” precedes Word-made-flesh, and it would be technically incorrect to substitute Yeshua for “the Word” in John 1:1. However, other Scripture refers to Yeshua having an existence of some sort prior to His earthly birth (1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:15-17, Heb 1:2-3; cf. John 1:3). And Word-made-flesh still exists, and will return at the eschaton.
Yeshua is certainly the agent of God—the agent of God par excellence. But He’s much more than that. I go into a bit of detail about this near the end of the article I reference just above.
Craig: There are a lot of sources that indicate the targums were read in synagogues in the first century. After the return from captivity in Babylon the nation spoke mostly Aramaic as the common language. Targum pieces were found in the Dead Sea scroll caches. I think you dismiss the Memra connection too quickly. In the five books of Moses in the Torah there are a scant 7 references to “word of the LORD” (NIV) yet I found 264 of these in the targums. You indicate these are mostly circumlocutions for the divine name. In other words, instead of saying “God did…”they substitute “The Memra of Adonai did…” yet I found the name of God (YHVH) appears 1756 times in these same five books of Moses. So the targums actually used the substitution only 15% of the times. Why would that be? In my study I found that the targums make the substitution whenever God does something human-like (e.g. planting, walking, blessing, shutting, scattering, helping) We know God is Spirit and does not have a body with arms, legs, ears ) To underscore this very point the targums refer to Word of the Lord/Word/Memra. In my opinion it is a direct clue to the hearer that an action is being described AS IF God was human… but He is not! I believe the first century Jews hearing or reading John’s gospel would have immediately known this. John 1:14 indicates, NOT that God became a man when he took on human flesh, but rather that it is AS IF God had become human. The reference “the Word became flesh” would have alerted the audience to this exact meaning… Sad in my opinion that the discounting of the Memra and the adoption of Greek meaning of Logos completely obscures this point… Unfortunate that Barrett calls this association with Memra to be a “blind alley” in your note 10 at the website. But I do enjoy the discussion.
HSB,
Thanks for the interaction. Before addressing some of what you wrote, I need to correct something I misstated: There is no historic evidence to substantiate that the Aramaic Targums referencing “Memra/Word of the Lord” as anthropomorphisms were extant in the 1st century. Footnote 10 more correctly states it. In other words, though the Targums were in evidence in the 1st century, it is unsubstantiated that the instances of “Memra/Word of the Lord” as anthropomorphisms were evident at that time.
With respect, your comment regarding the frequency of “YHWH” in the Pentateuch as compared to the number of “Memra/Word of the Lord” expressions in the Targums confuses my point. Of the times “Memra/Word of the Lord” is used in the Targums, most of these instances are circumlocutions for the divine name, with a much smaller percentage of these instances as anthropomorphisms instead (and the latter are not evident in the 1st century, i.e., it was later that the Targums used this expression as anthropomorphisms).
But the more important point is that the grammar in 1:1 does not support such an interpretation. The context specifically identifies to separate entities/persons: ho logos was with ho theos. Then the entity ho logos “became flesh” in the Person of Jesus. And Jesus had ongoing communion with God (ho theos), His Father.
Craig, I wanted to say thank you for the links to your website and all your exhaustive exegesis to be found on it (and the work of other responders there, too).
I wondered if everybody is getting stuck on the Greek insistence that form precedes function. Modalism certainly does, in that it insists that only singular form determines function in sequential TIME, but doesn’t Sabellianism do the same, except in sequential MODE? Gnosticism is an extreme version of a God form with another god form (demiurge) functioning the same way as the first God form.
All of these heresies are based on the idea that form determines function. There can be no action without a pre-existing Actor(s). There can be no Person(s) that can be called God without a previous definition (ideal form) defining what a God is (or is not). Therefore, all Person(s) claiming to be God have to fit the God criteria outlined by the ideal form for God. Any non-conformers need not apply. Also, all Person(s) claiming to be God MUST be limited to the criteria that necessitates that Godness; God cannot act in a way outside the form of Godliness, as defined by that ideal, of course.
I have noticed that all the above heresies agreed on a similar definition (ideal) of what constituted God (shouldn’t we start getting suspicious along about here?), but, to carry it further, so do the Monotheists, Binetarians(?) and the Trinitarians! They are all arguing about the exact same God definition (ideal form). Shouldn’t a bell be ringing somewhere about right now??? I mean, the trouble all the heretics as well as the mainliners (depending on where you are standing, of course) seem to be having is on exactly HOW God can (or cannot) fit THE CRITERIA as outlined by that identical ideal form. I don’t know about anybody else, but my bell is ringing off its little hook!
I watched a good drama once about a person who, because of trauma, was hallucinating another person. The therapist helping him gave him a pointer. She told him that in every hallucination there will be a fatal flaw: something about it will not match up with reality; something about the hallucination will be IDENTICAL with itself, for hallucinations, apparently, are static fixations (as opposed to changeable reality). Well, he noticed that in every scenario, not only did the person never age, but they always had the same bare, bleeding feet. He concluded that he needed help.
I want to ask; what part of this argument does not seem to match the God of the Bible? (Hint; this is similar to asking what part of the modern church service match first century ekklesias or synagogues, either.)
Don’t they all hinge on God as a noun (ideal form)?
I love that you, Craig, careful exegete that you are, hang out around here! Thanks for being you. It’s always fun.
Laurita,
I don’t have much time for continued engagement, but I will try to answer you here. I have a book titled God is a Verb: Kabbalah and the Practice of Mystical Judaism by Rabbi David A. Cooper (New York: Riverhead, 1997). One notes right out of the box that the very title uses a noun to describe God, but it could be argued that we’re dealing with the limits of language here. The author goes on to state that “God” should not be conceived as a thing, a noun. Let me quote him a bit here:
I would not disagree with the first sentence above, as this is congruent with Christian orthodoxy. Yet, despite the author’s protestations, he does go on to conceptualize Ein Sof in this book—even in the brief passage above. And even the definition “Endlessness” is an adjective functioning as a noun! Moreover, “God” is called some of the things the author states “It” should never be called in the Tanakh. And, as an aside, since “Ein Sof” is not in the Scriptures, one could criticize the use of this term much like some had criticized some of the early Christian councils for using terminology absent in the NT.
What I’m getting at is that even if we were to describe YHWH strictly by His functions, we would still be describing a noun.
Modalism and Sabellianism were denounced as heretical by orthodox Christianity because they clearly violate Scripture. Yes, it’s likely that proponents began with an understanding of “One” in the Shema. But so did Trinitarians (and, I presume, Binatarians). The 64 million dollar question is: How does one—or, better yet, how does Scripture—define “One”?
“The 64 million dollar question is: How does one—or, better yet, how does Scripture—define “One”?”
YES!!! We are singing in harmony! Let’s start over right there! That is the question!
Love how you got there, too. Whatcha wanna bet “One” is not a noun, either?
“One” in the Shema, echad, is an adjective. Is this a statement of ontology? I just don’t know we can say for sure. Assuming it is, Dr. Michael Brown says that YHWH is “complex in His unity”.
One thing I’m sure of is that the passage does not adequately translate (from the Hebrew or LXX) to “the Lord, our God, the Lord is ONE LORD”, as Anthony Buzzard states. There is no extra “LORD” at the end. That is his paradigm speaking.
Thank you, Craig! It is precisely what we are missing in that translation that I have become curious about. You have helped in my desire to “not add or detract from the word of God”.
I am watching the series “The Human Longevity Project” in which it has been stated that we only use about 18,000 of our own genes to code for proteins, etc – which is about half of what, say, rice or earthworms do. The rest of the genes we need to digest, breathe – even think – we are dependent upon the shared genetics of a couple of hundred million OTHER organisms living in and around us for. If we dip below a certain level of “complexity”, we lose the ability to live.
We are “made in the image of God”.
I’m not sure what to make of that. I’m reminded of the near collapse of bee colonies in the US (North America?). I feel pretty certain that pesticides and GMOs are the culprits.
What it means is that our bodies are not unique in human terms, DNA speaking. We have farmed out virtually all the coding for our function to other life forms. It is estimated that @ 17% of our hard coding is provided by retroviruses. For example, the placenta is built, as a ‘foreign’ substance, by means of a probable retrovirus ‘hacking’ of the genetics. We are utterly dependent upon outsourcing to the genetics of other organisms for virtually all of our basic functions. If they are impaired, or unbalanced with other organisms, or MURDERED, ‘we’ are crippled in that area. We may even get shut down if the backup systems aren’t able to kick in. The rest of our biome understands with clarity that their interests are tied up with our survival. What I think we may be a little slow on is our understanding that our survival is tied up with their interests.
The same goes with the macrobiome. We need all that genetic and other info too. As the bees go, so do we. Survival intertwined. Hey, I even need YOU for me to be me! Thank you for being you and being there – and the rest of y’all, too.
Craig: thanks for the response. I noticed you stressed the “with” in bold. In 1 John 1:2 there is a parallel passage to the gospel. This time it is “life” which is with the Father and made manifest. The translations I checked refer to life as “it” (NIV, ESV, Berean Study, KJV, Christian Standard, Cont. Eng Version, Holman, ISV, Jubilee 2000, KJ2000, AKJV. Webster’s). The other translations also refer to life impersonally as “which” (NASB, Aramaic for English, NAS, ASV, Douay Rheims, Darby. ERV, Weymouth NT, WEB, Young’s Literal) NO translations referred to life as “He/who”, rather “It/which” and yet life is “with the Father” just like Word was in John 1. (I did not include the New Living Bible since it is a paraphrase). So it seems to me that Word could be the action of God in a similar fashion to life (and light for that matter). We know that John informs us that God is light (He illuminates), Word (He speaks), Life (He animates) as well as love. None of these require a separate “person” status in my opinion.
HSB,
I want you to know that I’ve not ignored or missed your comment. It’s a good question, deserving a comprehensive response. I just don’t have much time of late, though I have been researching a proper answer off and on this week (providing a good diversion for me). There isn’t an easy answer, as this preface to 1 John is about the most difficult passage to exegete in the entire Johannine literature! That said, I hope to have a response this weekend.
Craig: I respect your scholarship! take your time and respond when you can. Thanks!
HSB,
The short answer to part of your question—not that I can definitively speak for the translators—is that “it” appears to be viewed as an English pronoun for “life”, in accordance with English convention. I have a 1984 NIV Study Bible—which uses “it” here—yet the note on 1:2, specifically The life . . . the eternal life, reads:
So, which is it? Is “life” standing in as a personal designation (or personification), or is it impersonal as in “eternal life”? In at least one manner, the Greek supports a both/and understanding, which I’ll explain below.
Though the 1 John preface and the John 1 prologue share some similarities, at best they are near-parallel. They vary at more points than they agree, to the extent that I’d say (along with many commentaries) 1 John echoes and alludes to the prologue. The contexts and works as a whole have different emphases.
That a person is referenced in John’s prologue is borne out in 1:10-12. Verse 12 is best rendered: “to those who believe in him…believe in his name”—and cf. John 3:15, 16, 18, 36 which have the Son as the referent for the one in whom to believe. In John 1 those believing in him (logos / life / light) receive the privilege of becoming children of God. In John 3 belief in Him brings “eternal life” (zōēn aiōnion).
I mentioned that 1 John is a very difficult passage to exegete (it is “more remarkable for energy than for lucidity” quipped one writer). Young’s well-illustrates that 1-4 is one long sentence (the other translations opt to break it into shorter sentences by repeating the main verb and rearranging syntax). The main verb (and indirect object) is not found until verse 3 (verse 2 is a ‘parenthesis’), with the direct object a series of “that which” clauses. For some clarity, I’ll translate by putting the subject-verb-indirect object first, my translation revealing something I’d remarked before—all translation involves a bit of interpretation:
The bolded “which/who” is the translation for a relative pronoun in the feminine to match the gender of “life” (ho zōē ho aiōnios—note each are preceded by an article). Quick inspection reveals that most versions translate this Greek pronoun as the impersonal “which” or “that”, as you note above. I’ll come back to this.
All the “that which” occurrences are relative pronouns in the neuter. Each refers to the sense referenced by the verb in the given clause. Some of these are personal (“see”, “touch”), while others seem to refer to a message (“hear”, “proclaim”). All five (four in v. 1 and one in v. 3) function as the direct object of “we proclaim”. But, the ultimate referent of “that which” is ambiguous.
In fact, the phrase “concerning the Word of life” is syntactically odd in this context. But its most obvious function is to identify the referent of “that which”. Yet “W/word” (logos) is masculine. And “life” is feminine, as noted above. But there are a few instances in the NT in which a neuter pronoun has a masculine noun as its antecedent. On the other hand, it is “life” that is further explained in the parenthetical comment, not “word”. It is this latter fact, coupled with the neuter “that which” that inclines me to believe that the ambiguity found in this phrase, as well as the disparity between the gender of the nouns here and the neuter pronouns, is actually cleverly purposeful amphiboly, aka multivalence, meaning a grammatical ambiguity in which two readings are both possible and correct—both should be understood as authorial intent.
[continued]
[continuing]
The Greek at the end of verse 1 is peri tou logou tēs zōēs, which is word-for-word: concerning the word of the life. Both “the word” and “the life” are in the genitive. In this construction “the life” can be interpreted as an objective genitive: “word of life”. This is found in Phil 2:16 as a way to refer to the Gospel message (but, notably, without the articles). In the Johannine literature, most occurrences of logos refers to a message, John 1 notwithstanding. Because of this, a few commentaries construe an impersonal “word of life” here, over against a personal “Word”. However, in the final analysis, most see both/and. More on this below.
Yet, the Greek can also be, concerning the Word, the Life, with the two genitives in apposition, i.e., as another name/title for the other (like, “Smith, the CEO”). Of the twelve commentaries I consulted only one noted this option [in part because some had already denied a personal reference for “word”], though dismissed it for this context (this resource referred to another work that does think this is authorial intent here, but I don’t have it to refer to). Understanding the two genitives in apposition seems to me to make the most sense out of the parenthetical comment, in which the focus is on “the Life”. Most commentaries understand “word of life” and “the Life” together as intending to encompass the Person and work of Christ, yet, in my estimation, they don’t adequately account for it in their interpretations of the grammar.
Some state that the neuter pronoun is referring to the masculine “word” in “word of life” and/or that the pronoun is neuter because the intention is to refer to the entirety of Christ’s mission. But, I dunno. I think understanding this as multivalent better accounts for the grammar and context: In part because we have both a masculine and a feminine noun in apposition, and in part because “life” can be—and should be understood to be—an objective genitive (“word of life”) there is a neuter pronoun used, and this better supports the local context which seems to be about the word proclaimed by the Word and about the Life, aka the Word”. See the first clause of verse 5: “This is the message we have heard from him”.
Now I’ll circle back to the crux of your question, which centers on the preposition pros, “with”. The phrase pros ton patera, “with the Father” alludes to and is near-parallel with “with God” in John 1, certainly. No matter how one understands the Greek, the context clearly states that “L/life”, modified by “E/eternal”, was “with the Father”. In dynamic contexts, pros indicates movement towards, and this idea is behind its usage in static contexts. If an object is pros a person, then it is facing, “towards”. When two persons are involved, the sense is one of strong communion. Since it seems that the translations view the referent here as a personification—as opposed to the title of a person, and, hence, a person—apparently, the impersonal “which” is used.
In any case, this should be compared to the usage—three times—of meta (“with”) in 1:3. This preposition is used for accompaniment. It’s not as strong relationally as pros can be.
The view of a personal/impersonal tou logou tēs zōēs (word of life / the Word, the Life) is bolstered when one considers the larger context of this epistle. In addition to holding to the ‘message’ “which we have heard” (impersonal), the author is addressing a heresy (or two), which seems best understood as Docetism—that Christ only seemed to have a body (Jesus)—see 2:22-23 & 4:1-3. This is why the preface also stresses “have seen” and “touched” (personal).
Tangentially, 5:20 seems to provide an inclusio with 1:2. It translates most literally to: who is the true God and eternal life. Once again, we have “eternal life”, but there is some question as to the referent of the pronoun (“who”). The closest antecedent is “Jesus Christ”, which would be correlative to the referent for “eternal life” within the epistle as a whole. Yet there are a few times in the NT in which the closest antecedent is not the referent. Note that included in the local context, just prior to this clause, is the similar statement “him who is true”, which is attributed to the Father. So, is the wording in the final clause for repetition (“him who is true” > “the true God”) and to attribute the ultimate referent for “eternal life” as the Father (“who is…eternal life”), or is it to indicate the Deity of Jesus Christ, who is Himself “eternal life” (> 1:2’s “the Life…the Eternal Life, who was with the Father”)? On both grammatical and contextual (local and overall) bases, I’d say the latter.
Craig: thank you for all the effort spent on this. The study of the Scriptures is certainly time well spent. May the Spirit of God lead us all to truth and obedience.
HSB,
You’re welcome. I always enjoy our exchanges, as you ask well-thought out, meaningful questions.
I got a bit sidetracked throughout writing the above comment, and I forgot to include one other usage of pros in 1 John (and it’s not like the response wasn’t long enough anyway!). It’s at the end of 2:1:
paraklēton echomen pros ton patera Iēsoun Christon dikaion
Paraclete we have before the Father—Jesus Christ, righteous.
We have a paraclete before the Father—Jesus Christ, the righteous.
You’ll note that many translations use “with” here; but, in my estimation (following a handful of others) “before” provides a better sense of the intent for this context. I chose not to translate “paraclete”, as I think most here recognize it from the Upper Room discourse (John 14:15-16:16). Jesus first uses the term in John 14:16: “[the Father] will send you another paraclete”, which implies that Jesus Himself is a paraclete. That is made explicit here. Paraclete is a legal term, and “advocate” is a good translation, suggesting that Jesus is pleading our case before the Father.
I wanted to supply this verse to compare with pros in 1:2. As I noted above, standing behind its usage is “towards”, and if persons are involved, usually a sense of communion. Keeping all this in mind, look at John’s remaining usages in the first epistle:
3:21: boldness we have before God.
5:14: boldness we have before him [God].
5:16: a sin not leading to death…sins not leading to death; there is sin [leading] to death
5:17: there is sin not [leading] to death
In every case the idea of “towards” is present. I stress this so we can go back to 1:2. If “eternal life” is an action of the Father, then pros would not be appropriate, as how can an action be “towards” the one providing the action? What makes the most sense in this context is that “eternal life” is a person, specifically Christ, either as the historical Jesus who walked the earth and/or the preincarnate “Word”.
I agree with you (though one minor quibble). Please see my response to HSB @ May 4, 2018 10:28 am.
What seems clear to me is that, after the mutual dialectic split of the Jewish community and the Christian community, certain mutual correlating schisms simultaneously appeared, but what is fascinating to me is that neither side would have been able to construct those schismatic dogma WITHOUT the substrate of Hellenism. Without the influence of Hellenism the essential differences between the two sides disappear. The differences between thinking that God is essentially ONE Person or THREE Persons is not possible without Hellenistic assertions as to what God MUST BE. I see that both sides then and today rely on these Greek ways of thinking about God before they even have any differences. The argument itself is a Greek construction: no Hebrew in the Old Testament even thought or approached reality in a way that would have been able to argue about reality in the way that I see these two communities arguing this point. I contend that the argument itself is Greek, and is built entirely upon Greek assertions of what God is and is not.
I say that if we throw the entire argument out and start over, then and ONLY then will the two sides be able to get back together.
People live in the paradigm. Faith depends upon the paradigm, too. We practice confirmation bias because we are built that way. I have concluded that it must be because reality is about choice; open-ended choice. We are trained in Greek philosophy to believe that we can base faith upon knowledge, but that is not true. We practice confirmation bias BECAUSE faith is the real substrate of knowledge.
The Bible can be read any way you already believe. Skip taught me this. That includes this (what I am beginning to be convinced is a non)subject. We read our faith into the text; the text allows for that because we are free to choose.
Skip, you asked me a question once: a question that I came to believe was the bottom of the matter. You asked me why I needed Jesus to be God. I could ask you why you needed Him not to be God. At that point, the obvious would appear: both sides ‘need’ ‘proof’ (purely Greek) because both sides are merely positions of faith based on need. You need Him not to be God, and I need Him to be God. THEN, we go read the text, which, of course, can be read both ways, or NEITHER.
What if, in the Judgment Day, we are asked why we ‘needed’ to argue instead of needing to seek a real way to heal the schism? What if we threw out the entire substrate of both sides and started over in pursuit of that healing? What if we both are missing the really good stuff about God that the ancient Hebrews, pre-Hellenism, understood just because we got derailed by a (non) argument?
I appreciate your comment Laurita. After reading today’s TW, I was hopeful that you would have a response that I could resonate with. And, you did. Oh, that I was as verbally gifted as you are. Thank you.
I don’t think the ancient Hebrews had to deal with the concept of God becoming a man. It didn’t exist in their frame of reference.
Did not recieve TW today, either
We had a billing problem with the company that sends out TW. It’s fixed now, but too late for today.
I’m continually amazed how things open up once you recognize your own particular paradigm. Stepping back from that particular paradigm, or at least being willing to set it aside momentarily for discovery purposes and being willing to see the filters that it causes you to read through is astoundingly surprising. Grasping the elusive Eastern Semitic paradigm is the ongoing challenge.
The Trinitarian paradigm is particularly strong and robust in that it has had a long and powerful sway over the foundation of the things I was ‘taught.’
Applying this new look regarding paradigms to other disciplines has also opened up an amazing theater of discovery as well.
I am continually thankful to Skip and others for making me aware of this issue.
Skip: I applaud your courage to admit you have shifted ground on this important topic. I happen to believe you have shifted in the right direction! My son once told me he asks himself often “What if I am wrong?”. We all need to search out truth in humility and openness. I think your insights into 1 Cor 1:2 are correct, but I am a bit confused with what Gen 4:26 is all about. Calling on the name of the LORD is clearly something that involves rescue/salvation in Joel 2:32. But when I checked a number of Jewish sources (commentaries and Targums) for Gen 4:26, I was surprised to find almost all of them understood this verse to be about idolatry, naming idols after the Holy One (Rashi), and swearing false oaths using the name of God (Daat Zkenim), involving desecration by worship of intermediaries like celestial deities (Radak) and idolatrous worship (Targum Jerushalmi and Targum Jonathan). In other words this was not a good development. Interesting!
This finally fits all the pictures in the OT of co-regent (Joseph) and head of the congregation (Moses). And how rejecting YHVH’s representative on earth resulted in rejecting salvation. The sons of Israel needed to go through Joseph the appointed rep of Pharaoh to be saved. They also had to obey the voice of Moses and kill the Pesach to be saved. I knew I had to step way back from the Trinitarian synthesis to be able to see how they could fit. This makes so much sense. Thank you Skip
I have seen both non-trinitarians and trinitarians produce much fruit . It seems those that incessantly debate their views with totally disregard for one another produce very little fruit. I have no doubt that my friends on both sides are believers as their fruit is evident. No matter which way you think no fruit is no fruit ,it can put an end to the debate quickly. I love Laurita’s comment.
Yes, of course, we get good and bad “fruit” from both sides. The theology doesn’t make much difference when it comes to living. As Heschel says, “The central issue is not Truth in terms of a doctrine, but veracity, honesty, or sincerity in terms of personal existence.” And ““Creed and commitment are final; but how does one live one’s creed? How does one exercise one’s ultimate commitment? Neither was satisfied to accept a definite, final commitment, once and for all. The issue was: how does one renew his commitment day after day? Man lives in time, and there is no finality, no standstill in existence.”
Now, of course, we will have to sort out what it means to perform good fruit with bad theology. But, I suspect, this is a secondary issue as most of us “drifted” into our belief systems without every really knowing how they were formed whereas every choice to perform a good deed is deliberate.
“The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.” – Blaise Pascal
Thank God!
Here we go a muddling,(again) but first Skip, it was great to meet you at Tacoma, WA enjoyed what I could hear.Lousy ear’s. Enjoying your book ‘Cross Word Puzzle’ Eager to get to the next one. Now. I;ve spent 94 years believing in the Trinity, which I didn’t understand Never had trouble with G-d the Son–wondered about the Prophet like Moses. If what I gathered from above is correct and Yeshua is–only human,though unique, existed before the foundation of the universe, and made a sin offering “in the heavenly temple where the shedding of Yeshua’s blood is performed” ( Quote from A Temple Not a of Human Hands. Sept 5,2012) Most humans I know existed after Mom and Dad got together, not before the foundation of the universe. Help me put it all together .( I think I’ll run for the bomb shelter—again)
Ray…I like Sugar Ray, Your words resonate with me right now. My wife’s grandfather, of 99 years of age, lives with us. He is an amazing God fearer. He was a Baptists pastor and has studied the Word every day of his life. We have had good conversations and out of respect I have never challenged him on his long held doctrinal beliefs or paradigms. It was just this weekend that when his paradigm of the Sabbath was challenged that the light bulb came on with Shabbat and the feasts of YHWH. I’m sure, like yourself, that at first he felt like running for the bomb shelter but now he is like a kid in a candy store….or should I say like a man who has found a great treasure in a field!! I am inspired by the likes of him and yourself, as we all should be. You give us hope and encourage us to never stop allowing our paradigms to be challenged; to always be willing to say, “I don’t know”; and to never, ever stop pursuing Him!
Shalom Aleichem
Thanks David, I may have mention before about the Sugar, But to repeat, “I’m not sweet and I don’t ‘box’, my only claim to fame is that the church in down town Tacoma I have been at since 1923 serves the ‘homeless’ on Sunday morning and I pour ‘sugar’ on their “Grit’s”. We also have salt and pepper for those from the land of Dixie. We average from 150 to over 300. Our peak was 500 on one Sunday. It’s always the best day of the week. We also have a Messianic group help us on the 3rd Sunday lead by Rabbi Brent Emery, worked with Skip when he was in Tacoma. They are my Sabbatt day.
Back to subject. We need to be challenged, in fact, I’m uncomfortable to be in a group where we all agree—-I never learn anything new. If what I believe can’t be challenged it’s not worth holding, and it’s a never ending journey. The only exception is when the Lord calls us home. Shalom
Peeking through the clouds…I read this TW and wanted to make a brief comment.
The transliterated Hebrew cited here ends in YHWH. This is translated as kyriou tou theou in the LXX. The complete clause follows:
epikaleisthai to onoma kyriou tou theou
to call upon the name of [the] Lord (the) God
The near-parallel portion in 1 Cor 1:2 is:
tois epikaloumenois to onoma tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou
those who call upon the name of the Lord our Jesus Christ
those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
In both cases the subjects call upon the name of the Lord, i.e., the two are parallel. In the first instance, “Lord” is further qualified by “God”, while in the latter “Jesus Christ”. In Paul’s next sentence he refers to “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”.
In the LXX kyriou tou theou, “Lord [the] God”, is quite often the LXX translation of YHWH—but not always. In some cases it’s simply “[the] God” (tou theou), as in Gen 4:1, or “Lord” (ho kyrios), as in Gen 4:3 (in the dative as tō kyriō) and Gen 4:13 (in the accusative as ton kyrion).
Hmmm….
I have to say that learning to see Yeshua Messiah as a man, specially designed and appointed, but NOT God, actually is helping me walk in the Spirit: he didn’t have any more special help than we have, except he never sinned and didn’t have the clutter to wade through and throw out, so we can increasingly discern God’s leading and have the confidence to follow. He went where no man had gone before, and now we can follow, trusting in the help we need to run the race with endurance, fixing our eyes on Yeshua, the author and finisher or our race, who for the joy set before him endured the cross and has now sat down at the right hand of God. Because as a man he did it by totally relying on the Father’s love, so we can trust in the Father too!