Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by 3Resurrections » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:58 pm

Hi Singalphile,

Regarding the question of how God could be called a "Father" before Jesus the incarnate Son was conceived, and later "begotten" in heaven as the First-born from among the dead: Wouldn't God's creation of the "sons of God" (the angels who sang together for joy when the earth was created in Job 38:7) have also made God a Father from the time those "sons of God" were created? Of course, they weren't on a par with the "only-begotten" Son Jesus at His enthronement on resurrection day, but God generated those celestial creatures in some fashion, which would make Him a Father at least from the time the angels were created, wouldn't it?

Actually, there's not really a problem with Agur prophetically asking "...what is his son's name...?" in Proverbs 30:4, and having that refer to the Son of God who would only later on be conceived in the womb of Mary. After all, every one of the prophets who spoke or wrote - Agur included - had at least something to say about the first-century days when Christ would be born on earth, suffer at the hands of His own people, and be resurrected to establish the New Covenant in His blood. Peter said so on the day of Pentecost in Acts 3:18, 21, and 24. "But those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, , he hath so fulfilled...whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began...Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days."

So we shouldn't wonder that Agur's prophecy in Proverbs 30:4 should likewise have foretold of God having a Son with an unknown name, because this is a PROPHECY about the existence of a Son of God to come later. It needn't create a contradiction to have The Word become that Son in the flesh later on at His conception in Mary, any more than it would be a contradiction for the protoevangelium promise of the coming male Seed of the Woman in Gen. 3:15 to be made long before that Son was conceived. Agur may very well have been referring to that ancient Genesis 3:15 promise of the male Seed of the Woman, who was not yet given a name at that point in time.



For Paidion, who remains unconvinced :)

If you propose that God's first creative act at the beginning of the world was to beget the Son, then would you say this was fulfilled on Day One of creation week, when God said "Let there be light"? We know Jesus said "I am the light of the world". Perhaps you are linking these two ideas together? If you are, then what do you do with Jesus' bold statement in John 17:5? "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (the kosmos) Every word of this verse is saturated with vital truth. It doesn't say Jesus received this glory before the world came into being; it says He HAD that glory (eichon - imperfect tense showing continued possession) WITH God before the created world began (co-equal and co-eternal), just as John 1:1 said The Word was "WITH God". If Jesus said "...Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world (John 17:24), then He was not begotten on the first day of creation week before everything else was created.

I'm guessing you believe that the Son was begotten a bit before that creation week, though. In that case, we need to look for verses that prove that the second person of the Godhead had a co-equal standing identified with God the Creator from eternity past. We know that Ps. 45:6-7 prophesied about God the Father addressing God the Son, interpreted for us in Heb. 1:8. "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne O God is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." The second person of the Godhead may have begun the new phase of His existence as the enthroned high-priest Son of God / Son of Man, begotten in heaven at His ascension on resurrection day, but He actually had a co-equal reign with God as "The Word" from eternity past. This is why Jesus clamed the very same status as the "Alpha and Omega" and the "First and Last" in Rev. 2:8, 22:13, just like God the Father called Himself by this description in Isaiah 41:4 and other places.

This Heb. 1:8 throne of the Son which is "forever and ever" is also described in Psalms 93:2. "The Lord reigns, He has clothed Himself with honour: the Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength; for He has established the world which shall not be moved. Thy throne is prepared of old: thou art from everlasting." If Hebrews 1:2 tells us that the Son "made the worlds", then that tells us that the second person of the Godhead also shared this throne that was "from everlasting" in Psalms 93:2. Not saying this will change your mind, Paidion, but I'm throwing it out there just the same.



For Darin,

Appreciate your taking time to respond to my question. It appears the different translations of Heb. 1:6 are divided 2 to 1 between "And again, (comma), when He bringeth in the first-begotten into the world..." OR, "...And when again (no comma) He brings in the first-born into the habitable world..." Not sure whether or not there is any critical doctrine hanging on the difference of which word that "AGAIN" is modifying, but there are thoughtful minds that interpret this differently.

After reading through your comment and the link, and doing a bit more thinking, it seems like a better fit for "And let all the angels of God worship Him" to be occurring at Christ's resurrection and ascension (not at His birth in Bethlehem or during His second coming). That angelic worship of Heb. 1:6 would match with the events of Rev. 12, when there was war in heaven and Satan and his angels were cast out into the earth, losing their access to heaven for all time (as Jesus predicted would happen soon in John 12:31). With the Blood of the Lamb having just been offered in heaven by the newly-resurrected, ascended Christ, His triumph over the "accuser of the brethren" caused those that dwelled in heaven to rejoice (Rev. 12:12).

This was also a duplicate of the same scene in Rev. 5, where the slain Lamb came to God's throne and received that "new song" of praise from the 4 beasts and the 24 elders, joined by the worship of those many angels in Rev. 5:11-12 ("Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power..." etc.). This was when Jesus received "all power" given unto Him in heaven and in earth, as He told His disciples in Matt. 28:18 had already been given unto Him, even before He ascended that final time from the Mount of Olives. Revelation 12:10 also testified of that same power of Christ and when He had it: "NOW is come salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ...", all of which happened just before Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven at Christ's ascension on resurrection morning. So it would seem that the fulfillment of "And let all the angels of God worship Him" was staged to honor the empowered Christ at His first ascension on resurrection day.

Darin, I've read through your link's material several times, especially the part about "the world to come" (oikoumene). I agree that this "world to come" was not speaking of planet earth or the globe, per se. It's the human community inhabiting the earth and the conditions they are subject to in a particular setting. This can also encompass heavenly realities related to that same setting. The author of Hebrews 2:5 was telling the believers that there was about to be a change in the way the angelic world interacted with humankind. In the "world to come" oikoumene) that Hebrews was speaking about, when the saints by resurrection were "about to inherit salvation" in the final sense of it (Heb. 1:14), and when both the heaven and earth would be changed (Heb. 1:10-12) into the New Heaven and New Earth of the New Covenant Age that Isaiah 65:17-25 had described, then at that time humankind would no longer be in subjection to angels. This speaks of a change in the ancient powers of the angelic "divine council", which God had once set up when He divided the nations in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25 compared to Deut. 32:8 LXX).

Angels in those days were tasked with being "the Watchers", as Daniel 4:13 and 17 called them, using delegated authority to supervise world affairs. God used the angels to implement His plans for the nations that would bring about redemption for mankind by means of His Son. But in the conditions of the "world to come" that the believers were expecting soon back in Hebrews 2:5, this angelic "divine council" would finally be disbanded - no longer necessary, because God's people each had the Spirit of God put within them forever, under the New Covenant conditions found in the New Heaven and New Earth that we are in today. The angelic "divine council" would be outmoded and redundant after that "world to come" had arrived, which I believe came at the AD 70 resurrection.

Your link's material said, Darin, that in the resurrection of Christ when He was seated on the throne, crowned with glory and honor, that all the angels were put in subjection then to the newly-risen Christ. They were commanded to worship Him in the same way they worshipped God, who had seated Christ at His right hand (Rev. 2:21), which worship those angels in heaven did render to the Lamb in Rev. 5:11-13. Your website link doesn't credit Jesus with divinity and a standing co-equal with God, that I can tell, but Heb. 1:8 seems pretty clear that God ascribed divinity to His Son. "But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne O GOD is forever and ever..."

Not sure if it was accidental or deliberate, Darin, but I noticed your link's quote of Hebrews 2:8 has this part of the verse missing: "But now we see NOT YET all things put under him." This "him" part is NOT speaking of Christ. It's speaking of fallen mankind who originally at creation was given dominion over all the works of God's hands. With the Fall, that dominion was abdicated and essentially handed over to the Serpent. "His servants ye are to whom ye yield yourselves to obey", we are told in Romans 6:16.

This yielding to Satan of the original pair made the position of Adam and Eve and their posterity subservient to Satan's kingdom in this world. "For a little while lower than the angels", Christ in the flesh voluntarily shared our subservient position to Satan's temptations and the "divine council" system God had long ago set up over mankind, but Christ's victory through death soon annulled that power of death Satan had (Heb. 2:14). Then there was a transition period given to Satan when he was cast out of heaven and loosed into the earth for a "little season" and a "short time" after Christ's AD 33 resurrection. That "little season" for the Devil and his angels was destined to end with their AD 70 annihilation in Jerusalem's second death Lake of Fire. That's what the period for the saints of "NOT YET all things put under him" was waiting for with great anticipation - the time when God would soon crush Satan under the feet of the saints in that generation (Rom. 16:20).

Humanity doesn't require a "divine council" of angels to keep an eradicated demonic world in check any more as it once did in Daniel's days. This is why the "world to come" (which reality we currently occupy) is not subjected any more to the angels' supervising authority program of "the Watchers" in this New Covenant Age, as Hebrews 2:5 predicted. WE are God's "house" now (Heb. 3:6); a temple made of living stones, with God the Son as the foundation and the chief cornerstone in the New Jerusalem we currently inhabit.



For Steve,

You mentioned that we are waiting for the New Jerusalem with "no curse" in it anymore. I believe scripture shows that we are living in that curse-free reality of the New Jerusalem already. The particular "curse" spoken of in Rev. 22:3 that was absent from the New Jerusalem was a curse that was put on the Old Jerusalem and those under the Old Covenant. This "curse" was pronounced first of all during the tabernacle days, with the entire nation reciting a literal list of curses from Mount Ebal in Deuteronomy 27:13 and following, should they ever depart from obeying God's laws. Later when Judah apostatized, God pronounced a curse on the city of Jerusalem and its temple in Jeremiah 26:4-6. "If ye will not hearken to me...Then will I make this house like Shiloh, and will make this city a curse to all the nations of the earth." After the post exilic return of the nation under the revival led by Ezra, Nehemiah, and Joshua the high priest, the entire nation gathered together as one man in Jerusalem once again in Nehemiah 10:29, and "entered into a curse and into an oath, to walk in God's law..."

We also have the last Old Testament book of Malachi finish that prophecy with the prophet's very last word that warns the nation of this curse (Mal. 4:6). It would come after John the Baptist's days (as the figurative Elijah) in the "great and dreadful day of the Lord", which was the AD 70 disintegration and shattering of the "holy people". Once that AD 70 conflagration in Jerusalem burned up all the "chaff" of the Old Covenant and its "weak and beggarly elements", this swept aside everything except for the unshaken kingdom of God - the "New Jerusalem" city which came down from God out of heaven as God's gift. This is a city where "every curse is no longer" (Rev. 22:3), because a city whose walls are called "salvation", and its gates "praise" (Isaiah 60:18 and 26:1) cannot ever be destroyed or corrupted - it has Christ's imputed righteousness covering it and perfecting it. Neither can the temple of this city ever be torn down, because it is made of living stones, with the deathless high priest Christ Jesus as its foundation stone.

I'm certain that Rev. 22:3's promise of "no more curse" doesn't apply to the ground under our feet; God revoked that Genesis 3:17 curse on the ground long ago, just after Noah's sacrifice, when he had emerged from the ark. As God promised in Genesis 8:21, "...I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake..." Even Lamech knew this curse on the ground was going to be lifted in his son's days, which is why he gave his son the name of Noah, (meaning rest, or comfort) in Genesis 5:29. "And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning the work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed."

This means the context of the Romans 8:22 verse saying that "every creature (ktisis) groaneth and travaileth" is not referring to a tormented planet earth writhing in distress. This verse was describing every one of the human "creatures" who were waiting for the redemption of their fleshly bodies: namely, the dead or martyred saints of the past, those living saints who were expectantly hoping for their eventual resurrection, and the already-resurrected saints - the "First-fruits" - who were waiting for their final stage of salvation ( i.e., standing in God's presence face to face in those resurrected bodies made immortal and incorruptible), with all of these saints waiting to be manifested openly as the sons of God - Heb. 8:19).

The geographical and animal worlds don't require redemption. They already have built-in, God-given cycles of death and renewal with the changing seasons, and the natural biological food-chain. Neither can those animal or geographical worlds be considered "sons of God", nor are they waiting in hope for their "adoption". This is a hope of human expectation only. The "First-born" Christ MUST share an identifiable human resemblance with the "second-born, third-born, fourth-born etc., or He cannot act as their advocate and representative in heaven. Jesus does not consider the planet or the animal world His "brethren", and neither should we apply that meaning to this Romans 8:22 context.

Just my thoughts, which no one listed above is obligated to swallow without questioning...
Last edited by 3Resurrections on Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by Paidion » Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:36 pm

3R, you wrote:I'm guessing you believe that the Son was begotten a bit before that creation week, though. In that case, we need to look for verses that prove that the second person of the Godhead had a co-equal standing identified with God the Creator from eternity past.
My belief is that begetting "the only-begotten Son" was the first of God's acts, and this marked the beginning of time. Then God created everything else through His Son.

I disbelieve that God's Son is "the second person of the Godhead." I am not a Trinitarian. However, I do believe that the Son is fully divine—in virtue of the fact that God begat Him. Just as when a human being begets a son, that son is fully human.

The Son does NOT have a co-equal standing with God. He said, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), In Jesus' prayer to His Father, He addressed Him as "the only true God" (John 17:3). Yet the Son can be called "God" in the sense of His being divine. Other than the Father, there is no other divine being except the Son.

Nor do I believe in "eternity past." I know it is difficult for the human mind to grasp what I am about to say, but my belief is that the begetting of the Son marked the beginning of time, and thus there was no time "before" that. Indeed, there was no "before." Contrary to Arius there was not a time at which the Son did not exist. This is difficult for me to understand, too. But the concept of "eternity past" is much more difficult! Indeed, I think it is an inherent contradiction.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by Singalphile » Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:18 am

3Resurrections wrote:Hi Singalphile,

Regarding the question of how God could be called a "Father" before Jesus the incarnate Son was conceived, and later "begotten" in heaven as the First-born from among the dead: Wouldn't God's creation of the "sons of God" (the angels who sang together for joy when the earth was created in Job 38:7) have also made God a Father from the time those "sons of God" were created? Of course, they weren't on a par with the "only-begotten" Son Jesus at His enthronement on resurrection day, but God generated those celestial creatures in some fashion, which would make Him a Father at least from the time the angels were created, wouldn't it?

Actually, there's not really a problem with Agur prophetically asking "...what is his son's name...?" in Proverbs 30:4, and having that refer to the Son of God who would only later on be conceived in the womb of Mary. After all, every one of the prophets who spoke or wrote - Agur included - had at least something to say about the first-century days when Christ would be born on earth, suffer at the hands of His own people, and be resurrected to establish the New Covenant in His blood. Peter said so on the day of Pentecost in Acts 3:18, 21, and 24. "But those things which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, , he hath so fulfilled...whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began...Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days."

So we shouldn't wonder that Agur's prophecy in Proverbs 30:4 should likewise have foretold of God having a Son with an unknown name, because this is a PROPHECY about the existence of a Son of God to come later. It needn't create a contradiction to have The Word become that Son in the flesh later on at His conception in Mary, any more than it would be a contradiction for the protoevangelium promise of the coming male Seed of the Woman in Gen. 3:15 to be made long before that Son was conceived. Agur may very well have been referring to that ancient Genesis 3:15 promise of the male Seed of the Woman, who was not yet given a name at that point in time.
Hey, 3Resurrections! :) Regarding the first paragraph, yes, I think that is plausible. I tend to think of Jesus as the Word/Son who is/was co-eternal with the Father in some way. I'm not sure about those titles, really, but your thoughts there are interesting. That could explain the "Father" title, if one chose to explain it that way.

In your second two paragraphs, I'm not sure about the Agur passage. I mean, I'm not sure the "son" reference was actually pertaining to Christ. But I do appreciate all those references.

Thanks!
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by darinhouston » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:21 pm

Singlefile, was this Logos/Son senscient in your opinion? In what sense can it be seen as a person, scripturally? What form did it have pre-incarnation and post-incarnation? I know you don’t have all the answers, but I’m curious how you see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3Resurrections
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by 3Resurrections » Sun Feb 24, 2019 12:23 am

Hi again Paidion,

Part of the issue for attempting to define the obscure is that we simply lack the necessary vocabulary to accurately describe eternal things. Yet in spite of that struggle, as sons and daughters of God, we all have a compulsion to put into words our impressions of the God who loved and redeemed us.

In comparison to this desire to describe the indescribable, I remember a young man in our church who used to despair of ever finding a young Christian woman that he could ask to be his wife; a really godly young guy that the church sincerely hoped would find his heart's desire. One day he did meet this young woman in, of all places, a Blockbuster video store. Within the month, he was calling everyone in church, just to express his delight in this young woman; how he met her, what she said, what she looked like, how charming her personality was, how strong her faith, and how compatible their tastes were, etc. He would stumble all over himself trying to explain just what she meant to him. It's true, she was a really remarkable young woman from the inside out, so his exuberance was understandable.

I guess it's the same with us in trying to find words to describe Jesus, our Beloved One. I've no doubt I could unknowingly be using some incorrect words or terms to describe His origin and His character. But we've all got a different "love language", as they say, to express ourselves. I'm grateful God looks at the heart and not at our inadequacies of understanding or expression. The important thing is that those who fear the Lord "speak often one to another", and "think upon His name", as those in Malachi 3:16 did. If we differ on what composes God's make-up, and just when the title of the "Son" was conferred, it's because we are all still sitting in the "classroom" and haven't "graduated" yet.

You bring up John 17:3 quite often, I notice, in asserting that the "only true God" is in addition to Jesus Christ in that verse. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." A question: what if the word "and" (kai) in that phrase doesn't actually mean "in addition to", but uses its alternate Greek definition, meaning "namely"? It would then read this way: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, NAMELY Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

Interpreted with this possible definition of the word "kai", this John 17:3 verse would then line up exactly with I John 5:20. "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." Almost verbatim language for both verses written by John.

Moreover, the title given to "the Word of God" sitting on the white horse in Rev. 19:11 is "Faithful and True"; an echo of "the True God" designation in John 17:3 and I John 5:20 - a title shared and claimed by "The Faithful God" back in Deut. 7:9.

Concerning John 14:28..."If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I said I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." This isn't "greater" in terms of God's nature being greater than the Son's, but He was greater in the sense of the temporary condition of voluntary humiliation that the Son adopted at that time as being "for a little while lower than the angels..." At the exaltation of the Son with that shared glory restored to Him at His ascension, this statement of the Father being greater would no longer apply; a fact that would turn the disciples' sorrow into rejoicing (John 16:20,22).


For Singalphile again,

If you're in doubt that Agur's question in Proverbs 30:4 asking "...what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" is actually pertaining to Christ, I believe this verse might be linked with the same unknown name in each of the following texts:

Revelation 19:12 - This describes Jesus coming in judgment of vengeance against AD 70 Israel. It says "His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew but he himself." He is also specifically named in verse 13 as "The Word of God", (like we have in John 1:1), as well as having "King of kings and Lord of lords" written on His garments and on His thigh in Rev. 19:16 - a title connected to the Lamb of God in Rev. 17:14. So Jesus, whose name is called The Word of God, has another name unknown to mankind.

Judges 13:6, 18 - The angel of the LORD that resembled a man appeared to Samson's mother and father. When his father Manoah asked for the angel's name, he said, "Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret (or wonderful) ?" This angel of God then ascended to heaven in the flame of the altar of their burnt offering, prompting Manoah to tell his wife that they would surely die, because they had seen the LORD; the LORD with an unspoken name that He wouldn't reveal to Manoah or his wife.

Genesis 32:29 - Jacob's wrestling match with the man he met during the night, when he was given the new name of "Israel", was followed by Jacob asking, "...Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved." Another case of God deliberately not revealing His name.

All these seem to connect the "Son", the "Lamb", the "Word of God", the "King of kings and Lord of lords", and the "angel of the LORD" in a man's form (both pre-incarnate as well as post-ascension), who is also called "God"; all of these being the same individual having a certain unrevealed name in common that somehow links all of these together into one. Or maybe I'm just imagining a connection to Proverbs 30:4?

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate

Post by Singalphile » Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:12 pm

darinhouston wrote:Singlefile, was this Logos/Son senscient in your opinion? In what sense can it be seen as a person, scripturally? What form did it have pre-incarnation and post-incarnation? I know you don’t have all the answers, but I’m curious how you see it.
Yeah, I don't think I can explain my views. I wouldn't ever try to in my normal life, if that's any relief to you. ;) It's kind of like the old movie I watched this past week; I don't remember the names of the bad guy, leading lady, or side-kick, nor even the basic plot, but I remember that I thought it was a decent movie (silly and mindless though it was).

But for your sake :), I suppose the Logos/Son was an expression of God, which would equate with God in the same sort of sense that my mind or spirit or character or words are an expression of me. When did that logos become the son? I'm not sure. He did not become flesh - a man, a son of man - until the incarnation, I think. But He did have glory with the Father before the world began (John 17:5), and the writer of Hebrews 1 speaks of the universe as being made through the Son and he speaks of the Son as the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being. Is the writer using "son" proleptically (as in, "my grandfather fought in WWII")? I don't know. Could go either way, I think.

I know you're familiar with all of that.

3Resurrections,

Interesting references. Do I think you're "imagining a connection"? I wouldn't say "imagining", but I would say that you are making the connection. The scripture itself doesn't explicitly make the connection, imo, and I avoid making connections that aren't explicitly there. That's the sort of thing that can lead to sects and arguments, I think ... not that you are doing that, not at all. I'd rather say "maybe" than to be wrong about it. I hope that's not frustrating. :)

Wheh ... that's about all of the theological thinking that I can stand on a beautiful Sunday evening! :)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by Homer » Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:29 pm

Hi Darin,

Hope you do not mind my interjection since you asked Singalphile the following:
Singlefile, was this Logos/Son senscient in your opinion? In what sense can it be seen as a person, scripturally? What form did it have pre-incarnation and post-incarnation?
Anyway, consider this (I'm assuming you meant sentient?) :

Philippians 2:5-8 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6. who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7. but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.


"Have this attitude" (Grk. phroneite ) is a command to the Philippians ( and us) to think as the preincarnate did prior to His becoming man.

Phroneite is a form of phroneo which refers to an exercise of the mind, to think. And this thought was followed by action.
Difficult to see how "it" could not be a person in some sense with some degree of independent thought and action.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by darinhouston » Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:02 pm

Homer wrote:Hi Darin,

Hope you do not mind my interjection since you asked Singalphile the following:
Singlefile, was this Logos/Son senscient in your opinion? In what sense can it be seen as a person, scripturally? What form did it have pre-incarnation and post-incarnation?
Anyway, consider this (I'm assuming you meant sentient?) :

Philippians 2:5-8 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6. who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7. but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.


"Have this attitude" (Grk. phroneite ) is a command to the Philippians ( and us) to think as the preincarnate did prior to His becoming man.

Phroneite is a form of phroneo which refers to an exercise of the mind, to think. And this thought was followed by action.
Difficult to see how "it" could not be a person in some sense with some degree of independent thought and action.
Yes. Thanks. Sentient for sure.

I’m sure it comes as no surprise to you that I don’t see Philippians 2:5-8 as referring to pre- and post-incarnation.

This is a pretty good treatment (even if it does go on a bit too long on “morphe”).
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verse ... ians-2-6-8


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by Paidion » Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:07 pm

Hi 3R, you wrote:You bring up John 17:3 quite often, I notice, in asserting that the "only true God" is in addition to Jesus Christ in that verse. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." A question: what if the word "and" (kai) in that phrase doesn't actually mean "in addition to", but uses its alternate Greek definition, meaning "namely"? It would then read this way: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, NAMELY Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
I have studied Helenistic Greek for many years, and have never encountered any lexicon that gives the translation of "και" as "namely." Nor does any translation so render it. However, some lexicons give "even" as a possible translation, and so that word would have the same effect as your proposed "namely." I recall that a United Pentecostal minister friend of mine, used "even" in the translation of John 17:3. For that church is modalist (they call it "oneness"), believing that God is a single Individual who expresses Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, I disbelieve that "και" ever means "even." I believe that Jesus (as recorded in John 17:3) addressed His Father as "the only true God" and with that little word "και" indicated that He was Someone other than the only true God.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by darinhouston » Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:19 pm

Paidion wrote:
Hi 3R, you wrote:You bring up John 17:3 quite often, I notice, in asserting that the "only true God" is in addition to Jesus Christ in that verse. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." A question: what if the word "and" (kai) in that phrase doesn't actually mean "in addition to", but uses its alternate Greek definition, meaning "namely"? It would then read this way: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, NAMELY Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
I have studied Helenistic Greek for many years, and have never encountered any lexicon that gives the translation of "και" as "namely." Nor does any translation so render it. However, some lexicons give "even" as a possible translation, and so that word would have the same effect as your proposed "namely." I recall that a United Pentecostal minister friend of mine, used "even" in the translation of John 17:3. For that church is modalist (they call it "oneness"), believing that God is a single Individual who expresses Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, I disbelieve that "και" ever means "even." I believe that Jesus (as recorded in John 17:3) addressed His Father as "the only true God" and with that little word "και" indicated that He was Someone other than the only true God.
Not being a Greek scholar it appears the word order would seem strange for this also. και precedes not Jesus Christ but “whom you have sent.” It doesn’t have the same connotation to me as namely or even but instead a normal conjunction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”